Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-51 - AERIE Final Environmental Impact ReportRESOLUTION NO. 2009 - 51 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH. NO. 2007021054) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2005 -006, COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. LC2005 -002, CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2005 -009, NEWPORT TRACT NO. NT2005 -004 (TRACT 16882), MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2005 -087 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CR2005 -002 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201-205,207 CARNATION AVENUE AND 101 BAYSIDE PLACE (PA 2005 -196) ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THERETO, APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. WHEREAS, an application was filed by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. with respect to property located at 201 -205, 207 Carnation Avenue, and 101 Bayside Place to construct an 8 -unit residential condominium development on a 1.4 acre site ( "Project'). The application includes: 1. General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006 to change the land use designation of a 584 square -foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two - Unit Residential) to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). 2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002 to change the Coastal Land Use Plan designation of the same 584 square -foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from RH -D (High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre) to RM -A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). 3. Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009 to change the zoning designation of the 584 square -foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to MFR (Multifamily Residential, 2178 square feet per unit). 4. Newport Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -004 (TTM16882) to combine the 584 square -foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place with parcels identified as 201 -205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue, and to subdivide the air space for 8 residential condominium units. 5. Modification Permit No. MD2005 -087 to permit a 5 -foot subterranean building encroachment and 42 -inch high protective guardrails within the required 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue; subterranean and above grade building encroachments of 5 feet and 1 -foot, 7- inches into a required 10 -foot, 7 -inch side yard setback between the project and 215 Carnation; and three balconies and one at grade landing each with protective guard rails that exceed the maximum height of 6 feet from natural grade within the required 10 -foot, 7 -inch side yard abutting Bayside Place. 6. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2005 -002 to allow demolition of the existing dwelling units within the Coastal Zone pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2007, April 5, 2007, and May 17, 2007, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1723 recommending adoption of a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2007, the City Council held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council identified the predominant line of existing development ( PLOED) at 50.7 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) after considering the position of existing development on the bluff face in relation to Carnation Avenue and its elevation above Newport Bay. Since the proposed project was not consistent with the PLOED as required by the policies of the 2005 Coastal Land Use Plan, further consideration of the proposed project was postponed until such time that the project was revised to conform to the PLOED; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the August 14, 2007, City Council hearing, the applicant revised the proposed project in accordance with the PLOED as established by the City Council. Additionally, the applicant further revised the project to include a proposed dock structure. A revised Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, on February 21, 2008, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, the revised project and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1751 recommending adoption of a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the revised project and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on June 19, 2008, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, the revised project and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1761 recommended adoption of a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the revised project and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2008, the City Council held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, revised project and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the hearing. The City Council expressed several concerns including the project's potential visual impact on the area and the City Council took no action; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the City Council hearing on July 8, 2008, the City and the applicant mutually agreed that an Environmental Impact Report would be prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2007021054) has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § §21000, et seq. ( "CEQA "), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The DEIR was circulated for a 45 -day comment period beginning on March 20, 2009, and concluding on May 4, 2009. Comments and responses to the comments were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2009, and on June 4, 2009, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2007021054) were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1787 rescinding its prior resolutions regarding the project and recommending certification of the DEIR, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Project approval; and WHEREAS, staff of the City of Newport Beach has prepared full and complete responses to comments received on the DEIR, and on July 2, 2009, distributed the responses in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, held a duly noticed public hearing on July 14, 2009, to consider: (1) the certification of the Final EIR, (2) the adoption of certain findings and determinations and adoption of a statement of overriding considerations; and (3) the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR for the Project was presented to the City Council, as the decision making body of the lead agency, for certification as having been completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered the environmental documentation comprising the Final EIR, including the comments and the responses to comments, and has found that the Final EIR considers all potentially significant environmental effects of the Project and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and of the State and local CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, prior to action on this Project, the City Council has considered all significant environmental effects and the Project Alternatives identified in the Final EIR and has found that all potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require, where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrence of significant environmental effects which are identified in the Final EIR, but are not mitigated, the City Council must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the evidence in the administrative record; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Based on its review and consideration of the Final EIR, all written communications and oral testimony regarding the Project which have been submitted to and received by the City Council, the City Council certifies that the Final EIR, consisting of the Draft EIR (Exhibit A), Responses to Comments (Exhibit B) and Errata (Exhibit C) for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopts and certifies as complete and adequate the Final EIR, which reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council further certifies that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in it and the full administrative record prior to approving the Project. SECTION 2. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant and property owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of this Project including, but not limited to, the approval of the General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002, Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009, Newport Tract No. NT2005 -004 (TTM 16882), Modification Permit No. MD2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2005 -002 and /or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the certification of the Environmental Impact Report, the adoption of a Mitigation Program, and /or statement of overriding considerations for this Project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant or property owner, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant and property owner shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. SECTION 3. CEQA Findings of Fact. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15091, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact as shown on the attached Exhibit "D" entitled "CEQA Findings of Fact," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15097, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program" which is included as Exhibit "E ", which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 5. Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. The Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92263, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (California Government Code § §6250 et seq.). SECTION 6. Notice of Determination. The Planning Director shall cause the filing of a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of Orange and with the State Office of Planning and Research within five working days of this approval. SECTION 7. Certification, Posting and Filing. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and the Secretary to the City Council shall certify to the vote adopting this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED ATTEST: 0 CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2009 -51 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 14th day of July, 2009, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Henn, Rosansky, Curry, Webb, Gardner, Daigle, Mayor Selich Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 15th day of July, 2009. City Clerk Newport Beach, California (Seal) Exhibit "A" DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2007021054) AERIE (PA 2005 -196) Separate bound volume can be obtained in the Office of the City Clerk and the Planning Department. Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2007021054 (PA 2005 -196) City Of San Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, CA 92780 TOM March 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2007021054 AERIE (PA 2005 -196) City Of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, CA 92780 March 2009 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2007021054 AERIE (PA2005 -196) Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Contact: James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644 -3210 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, CA 92680 Contact: Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal (714) 665 -8509 ffjjT,T:7r 4v.fTj Mj- Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental AERIE PA2005 -196 NEWPORT BEACH, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table of Contents Page 1 -1 1.1 Description of the Proposed Project .......................................................... ............................1 -1 1.2 Alternatives ................................................................................................. ............................1 -3 1.3 Areas of Controversy ................................................................................. ............................1 -4 1.4 Issues to be Resolved ................................................................................ ............................1 -4 1.5 Impact Summary Table .............................................................................. ............................1 -5 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................ ............................2 -1 2.1 Purpose of the Draft EIR ........................................................... ............................................. 2 -1 2.2 Methodology ............................................................................................... ............................2 -5 2.3 Format of the Draft EIR .............................................................................. ............................2 -7 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.1 Project Location .......................................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................ ............................3 -1 3.3 History and Evolution of the Existing Development .................................. ...........................3 -11 3.4 Description of the Proposed Project ......................................................... ...........................3 -12 3.5 Project Phasing ......................................................................................... ...........................3 -27 3.6 Project Objectives ..................................................................................... ...........................3 -28 3.7 Project Processing Requirements and Requested Entitlements ............. ...........................3 -29 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................. ............................4 -1 4.1 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................. ..........................4.1 -1 4.1.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.1 -1 4.1.2 Significance Criteria ..................................................................... ..........................4.1 -6 4.1.3 Standard Conditions .................................................................... ..........................4.1 -7 4.1.4 Potential Impacts ......................................................................... ..........................4.1 -7 4.1.5 Mitigation Measures ................................................................... .........................4.1 -45 4.1.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .......................................... .........................4.1 -45 4.2 Traffic and Circulation ............................................................................... ..........................4.2 -1 4.2.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.2 -1 4.2.2 Significance Criteria ..................................................................... ..........................4.2 -1 4.2.3 Standard Conditions .................................................................... ..........................4.2 -1 4.2.4 Potential impacts ......................................................................... ..........................4.2 -2 4.2.5 Mitigation Measures .................................................................... ..........................4.2 -8 4.2.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation ........................................... ..........................4.2 -8 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Table of Contents Paqe 4.3 Air Quality ....................................................... ..................................................................... 4.3 -1 4.3.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.3 -1 4.3.2 Significance Criteria ..................................................................... ..........................4.3 -9 4.3.3 Standard Conditions ................................................................... .........................4.3 -11 4.3.4 Potential Impacts ........................................................................ .........................4.3 -11 4.3.5 Mitigation Measures .................................................. .......................................... 4.3 -18 4.3.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .......................................... .........................4.3 -18 4.4 Noise ......................................................................................................... ..........................4.4 -1 4.4.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.4 -1 4.4.2 Significance Criteria ..... .......................................................................................... 4.4 -6 4.4.3 Standard Conditions .................................................................... ..........................4.4 -6 4.4.4 Potential Impacts ......................................................................... ..........................4.4 -6 4.4.5 Mitigation Measures ................... --.. .................................................................. 4.4 -28 4.4.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .......................................... .........................4.4 -29 4.5 Aesthetics .................................................................................................. ..........................4.5 -1 4.5.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.5 -2 4.5.2 Significance Criteria ..................................................................... ..........................4.5 -2 4.5.3 Standard Conditions .................................................................... ..........................4.5 -2 4.5.4 Potential Impacts ......................................................................... ..........................4 -5 -3 4.5.5 Mitigation Measures ................................................................... .........................4.5 -30 4.5.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .......................................... .........................4.5 -30 4.6 Drainage and Hydrology ........................................................................... ..........................4.6 -1 4.6.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.6 -1 4.6.2 Significance Criteria ..................................................................... ..........................4.6 -3 4.6.3 Standard Conditions .................................................................... ..........................4.6 -4 4.6.4 Potential Impacts ......................................................................... ..........................4.6 -5 4.6.5 Mitigation Measures ................................................................... .........................4.6 -11 4.6.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .......................................... .........................4.6 -12 4.7 Biological Resources ................................................................................. ..........................4.7 -1 4.7.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.7 -1 4.7.2 Significance Criteria .................................................................... .........................4.7 -10 4.7.3 Standard Conditions ................................................................... .........................4.7 -11 4.7.4 Potential impacts ........................................................................ .........................4.7 -11 4.7.5 Mitigation Measures ................................................................... .........................4.7 -19 4.7.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .......................................... .........................4.7 -19 4.8 Public Health and Safety ........................................................................... ..........................4.8 -1 4.8.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.8 -1 4.8.2 Significance Criteria ..................................................................... ..........................4.8 -4 4.8.3 Standard Conditions .................................................................... ..........................4.8 -5 4.8.4 Potential Impacts ......................................................................... ..........................4.8 -5 4.8.5 Mitigation Measures .................................................................... ..........................4.8 -7 4.8.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation ........................................... ..........................4.8 -7 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Table of Contents Page Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 M 4.9 Soils and Geology ................................................................................ ............................... 4.9 -1 4.9.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.9 -1 4.9.2 Significance Criteria . ........ ..................................................................................... 4.9 -3 4.9.3 Standard Conditions .... .......................................................................................... 4.9 -3 4.9.4 Potential Impacts ......................................................................... ..........................4.9 -4 4.9.5 Mitigation Measures ................................................................... .........................4.9 -13 4.9.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation ......................................... .........................4.9 -13 4.10 Cultural /Scientific Resources .................................... ............................... .........................4.10 -1 4.10.1 Existing Conditions ...................................... ............................... .........................4.10 -1 4.10.2 Significance Criteria .................................... ............................... .........................4.10 -1 4.10.3 Standard Conditions .................................... ............................... .........................4.10 -2 4.10.4 Potential Impacts ......................................... ............................... .........................4.10 -2 4.10.5 Mitigation Measures ................................... ............................... ..........................4.10-4 4.10.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation ......................... ......................................... 4.10 -4 5.0 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ..................................................... ............................5 -1 5.1 Agriculture .................................................................................................. ............................5 -1 5.2 Population and Housing .......................................................................... ............................... 5 -1 5.3 Recreation .................................................................................................. ............................5 -2 5.4 Mineral Resources ..................................................................................... ............................5 -2 5.5 Public Services ....................................................................................... ............................... 5-2 5.6 Utilities ........................................................................................................ ............................5 -3 6.0 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES ..... ............................6 -1 7.0 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ......................................... ............................7 -1 8.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS ........................................................................... ............................8 -1 8.1 Definition of Growth- Inducing Impacts ...................................................... ............................8 -1 8.2 Analysis of Growth- Inducing Impacts ........................................................ ............................8 -1 8.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................. ............................... 8 -2 9.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................................ ............................9 -1 9.1 Definition of Cumulative Impacts ............................................................ ............................... 9-1 9.2 Cumulative Projects ................................................................................ ............................... 9 -1 9.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................... ............................... 9-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 M Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 10.0 ALTERNATIVES ................. Table of Contents Pa e ................................. .............................10 -1 10.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ ...........................10 -1 10.2 Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration ....................... ............... ...................... ..10 -3 10.3 Analysis of Alternatives ............................................................................. ...........................10 -4 10.4 Summary of Alternatives and Environmental Superior Alternative ........ . .......................... 10 -26 11.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ...................................... ...........................11 -1 12.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... ...........................12 -1 13.0 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS....... APPENDICES A. Notice of Preparation /NOP Comment Letters B. Construction Management Plan C. Traffic Access Assessment D. Air Quality Analysis E Dock Vibration Analysis F. NoiseNibration Impact Analysis G. Understanding Perspective H. Biological Resources Assessment I. Eelgrass Survey J. Wetlands Determination 13 -1 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 iv Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental AERIE PA2005 -196 NEWPORT BEACH, CA LIST OF EXHIBITS Table of Contents Page 3 -1 Regional Map ....................................................................................................... ............................... 3 -3 3 -2 Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................... ............................... 3-4 3 -3 Aerial Photograph ................................................................................................. ............................... 3 -5 3-4 Existing General Plan .............................................................................................. ............................3 -8 3 -5 Existing Zoning ................. ................................................................................................................... 3 -9 3-6 Site Plan .............................................................................................................. ............................... 3-13 3 -7 Sub - Basement Plan ............................................................................................... ...........................3 -14 3-8 Basement Plan ....................................................................................................... ...........................3 -15 3-9 First Floor Plan ................................................................................................... ............................... 3 -16 3 -10 Second Floor Plan ............................................................. ................................................................ 3 -17 3 -11 Third Floor Plan .................................................................................................. ............................... 3 -17 3-12 Fourth Floor Plan ................................................................................................ ............................... 3 -19 3 -13 Cross Sections A -A ............................................................................................ ............................... 3 -20 3 -14 Cross Sections B -B ............................................................................................ ............................... 3-21 3 -15 South and West Elevations .................................................................................... ...........................3 -22 3 -16 North and East Elevations .................................................................................. ............................... 3 -23 3 -17 Proposed Dock Plan ........................................................................................... ............................... 3 -25 4.4 -1 Demolition Noise Contours .................................................................................... .........................4.4 -10 4.4 -2 Caisson Drilling Noise contours ............................................................................ .........................4.4 -12 4.4 -3 Noise Contours from Excavation to an Elevation of 50 Feet NAVD 88 ............... .........................4.4 -13 4.4-4 Noise Contours from Excavation to an Elevation of 40 Feet NAVD 88 ............... .........................4.4 -14 4.4 -5 Noise Contours from Excavation to an Elevation of 28 Feet NAVD 88 ............... .........................4.4 -15 4.4-6 Concrete Pouring Noise Contours ........................................................................ .........................4.4 -17 4.4 -7 First Floor Metal Stud Framing and Second Floor Concrete Formwork .............. .........................4.4 -18 4.4 -8 Third Floor Metal Stud Framing and Fourth Floor Concrete Formwork .................. ...................... 4.4 -19 4.4 -9 Construction Noise Levels occurring Over the Construction Period .................... .........................4.4 -21 4.5 -1 Expanded View Corridor from Ocean Avenue ....................................................... ..........................4.5 -5 4.5 -2 Visual Simulation Key Map .... .................................................................................................... ....... 4.5-6 4.5 -3 Visual Simulation V01 — Bayside Drive Beach ...................................................... ..........................4.5 -7 4.5-4 Visual Simulation V02 — Channel Road Beach ..................................................... ..........................4.5 -9 4.5 -5 Visual Simulation V03 — Camation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard ............................. .........................4.5 -10 4.5-6 Visual Simulation VO4 — Ocean Boulevard View Corridor .................................... .........................4.5 -11 4.5 -7 Visual Simulation V08 — Carnation Avenue .......................................................... .........................4.5 -13 4.5 -8 Visual Simulation V09 — Ocean Boulevard ........................................................... .........................4.5 -14 4.5-9 Visual Simulation V05 — Begonia Park/Lower Bench ........................................... .........................4.5 -15 4.5 -10 Visual Simulation V06 — Begonia Park/Upper Bench ........................................... .........................4.5 -16 4.5 -11 Visual Simulation V07 — Begonia Park/Comer Begonia Avenue and First Avenue .....................4.5 -18 4.5 -12 Visual Simulation V16 — Begonia Avenue /Pacific Drive ....................................... .........................4.5 -19 4.5 -13 Visual Simulation V10 — Kayak 1 .......................................................................... .........................4.5 -20 4.5 -13 Visual Simulation V11 — Kayak 2 .......................................................................... .........................4.5 -21 4.5 -15 Visual Simulation V12 — Kayak 3 .......................................................................... .........................4.5 -23 4.5 -16 Visual Simulation V17 — Kayak 4 .......................................................................... .........................4.5 -24 4.5 -17 Visual Simulation V13— Channel 1 ....................................................................... .........................4.5 -26 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental List of Exhibits (Continued) 4.5-18 Visual Simulation V14 —Channel 2 .. ............................... 4.5-19 Visual Simulation V15 —Channel 3 .. ............................... Table of Contents Paae ........ 4.5 -27 .............. 4.5 -28 4.6 -1 Existing Hydrology .................................................................................................. ..........................4.6 -2 4.6 -2 Post - Development Hydrology... ....................................................................................................... 4.6-7 4.9 -1 Flood -Tide and Ebb -Tide Flow Patterns ............................................................... .........................4.9 -12 9 -1 Cumulative Visual Impact— Begonia Park/Upper Bench ...................................... ...........................9 -11 9 -2 Cumulative Visual Impact — BegoniaPark/Lower Bench ...................................... ...........................9 -12 9 -3 Cumulative Visual Impact — Begonia Park ................................ ........................................................ 9 -13 10 -1 Reduced Density — 3 Single - Family Residential Dwelling Units ............................ ...........................10 -7 10-2 Existing Zoning Alternative 3A — Basement Plan ................................................. ..........................10 -15 10 -3 Existing Zoning Alternative — First Floor Plan ....................................................... ..........................10 -16 10-4 Existing Zoning Alternative — Second Floor Plan .................................................. ..........................10 -17 10 -5 Existing Zoning Alternative — Third Floor Plan ...................................................... ..........................10 -18 10-6 Existing Zoning Alternative — Fourth Floor Plan ................................................... ..........................10 -19 10 -7 Existing Zoning Alternative 3B — Basement Plan ................................................. ..........................10 -21 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental AERIE PA2005 -196 NEWPORT BEACH, CA LIST OF TABLES Table of Contents Paqe 1 -1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Level of Significance After Mitigation ......................1 -6 2 -1 List of Potential Responsible Agencies ................................................................... ............................2 -3 3 -1 Project Statistical Analysis ...................................................................................... ...........................3 -12 3 -2 Proposed Construction Phasing ............................................................................. ...........................3 -27 4.1 -1 General Plan Policy Analysis .................................................................................. ..........................4.1 -8 4.1 -2 Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) Policy Analysis ................................................... .........................4.1 -19 4.1 -3 Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) Consistency Analysis .......... .........................4.1 -41 4.2 -1 Potential Construction - Related Trip Generation .................................................... ..........................4.2 -2 4.2 -2 Net Change in Traffic Generation ......................................................................... ..........................4.2 -5 4.2 -3 Proposed Off - Street Parking Requirements .......................................................... ..........................4.2 -7 4.3 -1 Summary of Health Effects of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants .......................... ..........................4.3 -4 4.3 -2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin ............... ..........................4.3 -5 4.3 -3 Ambient Air Quality at the Costa Mesa/Mission Viejo Air Monitoring Stations .. ..........................4.3 -7 4.3-4 Daily Operational Emissions ................................................................................ .........................4.3 -14 4.4 -1 Land Use Compatibility for Exterior Community Noise ....................................... ..........................4.4 -1 4.4 -2 City of Newport Beach Noise Standards .............................................................. ..........................4.4 -3 4.4 -3 Ambient Noise Levels ............................................................................................ ..........................4.4 -4 4.4-4 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria (Human Annoyance) ........... ..........................4.4 -5 4.4 -5 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria (Structural Damage) ........... ..........................4.4 -5 4.4-6 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels .................................................... ..........................4.4 -8 4.4 -7 Combined Dock and Building Construction Noise (dBA) .................................. .........................4.4 -20 4.4 -8 Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment at Nearest Residences ........... .........................4.4 -23 4.4 -9 Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment at Nearest Structure ............... .........................4.4 -24 4.4 -10 Comparison of Estimated Construction Vibration Levels to Ambient Levels ........ ..........................4.4 -5 4.6 -1 Existing Hydrology ................................................................................................. ..........................4.6 -1 4.6 -2 Water Quality Regulatory Agencies ..................................................................... ..........................4.6 -3 4.6-3 Post - Development Hydrology ............................................................................... ..........................4.6 -8 4.7 -1 Special Status Plants ............................................................................................. ..........................4.7 -2 4.7 -2 Special Status Marine Species ............................................................................. ..........................4.7 -9 4.8 -1 Standard Environmental Records Sources .......................................................... ..........................4.8 -1 4.8 -2 Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) Summary ................................................ ..........................4.8 -2 4.8-3 Lead Based Paint (LBP) Summary ....................................................................... ..........................4.8 -3 4.8-4 Results of Database Review ................................................................................. ..........................4.8 -4 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 vii Aerie PA200 5-196 Draft Environmental List of Table (Continued) Table of Contents Page 4.9 -1 Regional Active Fault Parameters ........................................................................ ..........................4.9 -5 4.9 -2 Results of the Stability Analysis ........................................................................... ..........................4.9 -7 4.9 -3 Selected Wind Conditions for Wind Wave Predictions ....................................... ..........................4.9 -9 4.9-4 Wind Wave Conditions at the Project Site Resulting From Typical and Extreme WNW -NNW and SSE -S Winds ............................................................................ ..........................4.9 -9 4.9 -5 Wave Conditions at the Project Site Resulting From Typical and Extreme SSE and SSW Swell Conditions Offshore ......................................................... .........................4.9 -10 9 -1 Related Projects List ............................................................................................... ............................9 -2 10 -1 Summary of Project .............................................................................................. ..........................10 -27 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 viii Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental CHAPTER 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Description of the Proposed Project 1.1.1 Project Location 1.0 — Executive The City of Newport Beach is an urbanized coastal community located in western Orange County. Newport Beach is bordered by the Cities of Irvine on the north and northeast and by Costa Mesa on the north and northwest. Crystal Cove State Park, in unincorporated Orange County, is located southeast of the City's corporate boundaries. On the west, the incorporated limits of the City extend to the Santa Ana River; the City of Huntington Beach is located west of the Santa Ana River. The Pacific Ocean comprises the southern boundary of the City. The properties are located at 201 — 207 Carnation Avenue (west side of Carnation Avenue at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard) and 101 Bayside Place in the City of Newport Beach. The subject property currently consists of two parcels and a small portion of a third parcel (584 square feet), encompassing a total area of 1.4 acres, which is currently occupied by an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence. 1.1.2 Project Description The project applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., is proposing to develop the 1.4 -acre site with an 8 -unit condominium development. Project implementation includes the demolition of the residential structures (i.e., 14 -unit apartment building and one single - family residence) that currently occupy the site. The total gross floor area will encompass 61,709 square feet and includes living floor area (29,426 square feet), common recreational areas (2,987 square feet), storage areas (5,943 square feet), parking (13,234 square feet), and circulation and mechanical areas (10,119 square feet). In addition, the existing docks will be replaced with an eight (8) slip dock and one (1) guest side tie dock. The new docks will consist of timber construction and 19 new concrete guide piles, and the existing 20 -foot long gangway will be replaced by a 44 -foot gangway. The new dock layout is located between the existing pierhead line and natural rock outcroppings, property line to the north and south, and an existing eelgrass bed to the south. The proposed Aerie project has been designed utilizing "green" architecture design criteria. As a result, the project will be constructed with both active and passive sustainable design elements (e.g., natural ventilation system, gray water retention for property irrigation, solar domestic hot water and pool hearing, solar photovoltaic arrays to generate electricity, etc.) that enhance the project design, reduce the amount of energy utilized, and minimize the project footprint on the environment. In addition, a Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been prepared as a component of the proposed project. The CMP addresses all aspects of the construction phase (e.g., phasing, schedule, construction equipment, and the construction process). In addition, the CMP also addresses parking management (e.g., off -site and short-term parking, staging, etc.), traffic control (e.g., haul routes and delivery requirements), safety and security (e.g., pedestrian protection, fencing, and safety and security), air quality control and noise suppression measures (e.g., dust control, noise control vibration monitoring); and environmental compliance /protection (e.g., erosion and sediment control and beach protection, water quality control and environmental protection measures). Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 1.0 — Executive The following discretionary approvals are requested or required by the City in order to implement the project: General Plan Amendment (GP2005 -006) Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2005 -002) Zone Change (CA2005 -009) Tract Map (NT2005- 004/TT16882) Modification Permit (MD2005 -067) Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002) 1.1.3 Project Phasing The applicant is proposing to construct the entire project in four construction phases over a period of 32 months. 1.1.4 Project Objectives Implementation of the proposed project will achieve the following intended specific objectives, which have been identified by the project applicant. To develop a state -of- the -art multi - family residential condominium project, with a sufficient number and size of units to justify (a) the incorporation of advanced design which reflects the architectural diversity of the community and adds distinction to the harbor and the neighborhood, (b) the use of energy- conserving technology described in Project Objective 3, and (c) the inclusion of common amenities reflected in Project Objective 4. 2. To enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood by replacing a deteriorating 60 -year old structure with a high - quality residential project utilizing unique modern design principles and featuring (a) the elimination of conventional garage doors for all units, (b) the concealing of all parking from street view, (c) significant landscape and streetscape enhancements, (d) the removal of two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, and (e) replacing these features by undergrounding the new wiring. 3. To replace an energy inefficient structure typical of mid -20th Century development with an advanced, highly efficient structure designed to incorporate energy- saving, sustainable, and environmentally sensitive technology, construction techniques, water quality treatment elements, and other features designed to conserve energy and /or improve the existing environment to a greater degree than required by current applicable regulations. 4. To provide amenities deemed important by the developer to potential purchasers of condominium units, including a dock for each residence, ample storage space, and common recreational and health facilities, such as a swimming pool and fitness center. 5. To enhance public access to the coast by increasing the number of available public street parking spaces through the use of new technology and creative design which will limit project entry and exit points, thereby minimizing curb cuts and exceeding on -site the number of resident and guest parking required for the project. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 1.0 — Executive To protect and enhance scenic views to the harbor and the ocean from designated public vantage points in the immediate neighborhood by (a) significantly expanding the existing public view corridor at the southern end of project site, (b) creating a new public view corridor at the northern end of the project site, (c) removing two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, all of which presently obstruct the view from certain perspectives, (d) replacing the existing poles and overhead wiring by undergrounding the new wiring, and (e) providing a public bench and drinking fountain at the comer of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard to enhance the public viewing experience. To enhance public views of the project site from the harbor by (a) maintaining all visible development above the predominant line of existing development (PLOED), (b) incorporating into the project the property at 207 Carnation Avenue, which presently is within the Categorical Exclusion Zone and, if not part of the project, would not be subject to the PLOED, (c) replacing the existing outdated apartment building with modern, organic architecture with articulated facades to conform to the topography of the bluff, and (d) removing the unsightly cement and pipes and the non - native vegetation on the bluff face and replacing it with an extensive planting of native vegetation. 8. To minimize encroachment into private views by maintaining a maximum building height on average four feet below the zoning district's development standards. 1.2 Alternatives 1.2.1 Summary of Alternatives CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could 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 to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Chapter 10 sets forth potential alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them as required by CEQA. Several alternative development scenarios have been identified as a means of reducing potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. These alternatives include: No Project/No Development Alternative Site Reduced Intensity /3 Single - Family Residences Reduced Intensity /5 Multiple - Family Residential Project Existing Zoning /8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project with Reduced Grading 1.2.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative Chapter 10 describes the criteria that were used to select those alternatives for detailed analysis and to screen others from further detailed consideration. CEQA also requires that the EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative among all of the alternatives considered, including the proposed project. The No Project/No Development alternative would avoid the two potentially significant project - related impacts (construction noise and paleontology) identified in Chapter 4.0. The remaining alternatives would reduce to some extent, the degree of traffic and air quality impacts, which were determined to be less than significant for the proposed project. In addition, although the duration of construction noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 1.0 — Executive would be significantly reduced as a result of reduced grading in the 3, 5, and 8 -unit alternatives, the construction noise associated with each alternative could not be mitigated and would remain significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, with the possible exception of Alternative 3A, the other alternatives would not result in the benefits derived form project implementation (e.g., underground overhead power poles creating an improved aesthetic character on Carnation Avenue and upsizing of the existing deficient catch basin). Finally, all or portions of several project objectives would not be realized, including state -of- the-art energy saving conservation features and the provision of recreation amenities. Based on the potential environmental effects and the ability to meet the project objectives, existing Zoning /8 -Unit Multiple Family Alternative A is considered the "environmentally superior" alternative of the alternatives considered as a result of improvements that ameliorate existing undesirable environmental conditions (e.g., provision of adequate capacity in the existing deficient storm drain, removal of the unsightly overhead utility poles, etc.). Although Alternative B further reduces grading and, to some degree, the duration of construction noise, the potential impact would remain significant and unavoidable as with all of the alternatives and project objectives would not be achieved to the same degree as compared to Alternative A. Furthermore, none of the improvements to drainage, aesthetics and /or energy conservation systems would be included in the single - family (i.e., 3 dwelling units), or 5 -unt and 8 -unit Alternative B design alternatives; thus, the environmental benefits would not accrue to those alternatives. 1.3 Areas of Controversy The areas of controversy identified during the scoping process and at public hearings conducted prior to the preparation of the EIR, are addressed in the EIR and include: • Predominant Line of Existing Development • Neighborhood Compatibility • Site Geology Docks Pubic Views • Access to Parking • Bluff Vegetation • Noise • Traffic 1.4 Issues to be Resolved The environmental analysis presented in Chapter 4.0 and Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIR indicate that several potential impacts were identified; however, in those instances, specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potential significant adverse effects to a less than significant level. All of the potentially significant impacts except for noise will be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of the mitigation measures prescribed in Chapter 4.0 of this document. In addition, several recommendations have also been included in this document to address other impacts resulting from project implementation, which have been determined to be less than significant, to eliminate or further reduce those adverse effects. Because construction noise impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level, the Newport Beach City Council must adopt a statement of overriding considerations prior to taking final action to approve the proposed Aerie project. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 14 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 1.5 Impact Summary Table 1.0 — Executive Table 1 -1 summarizes the significant adverse impacts of the proposed project. The table also provides a summary of the potential impacts found to be less than significant, and which do not require mitigation. Each environmental resource area covered in the main text is summarized. Also, impacts found to be significant are listed along with the proposed mitigation measures. The residual impact after application of mitigation measures is also indicated for each significant impact. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -5 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 1.0 — Executive Summary Table 1 -1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Level of Significance After Mitigation 'A Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been prepared, the components of which are considered by this EIR to be included within the Project Description. Certain CMP components, though listed under this heading for informational purposes, do not constitute mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate significant effects identified by this EIR. Rather, those CMP components represent the Applicant's response to CEOA's encouragement to incorporate changes or alterations into the project as part of the Project Description to avoid or reduce significant effects on the environment. Because the evaluation of environmental impacts is predicated upon compliance with the CMP, those CMP components that resulted in avoidance of significant environmental impacts, though discussed in the sections of this EIR evaluating potential environmental effects, are not listed below. The City may, at Its option, impose a condition of approval on the project requiring compliance with the CMP, but such a condition should not be construed as a measure to mitigate the significant impacts identified by this EIR. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -6 Level of Significance Potential Impact Mitigation Measures' After Mitigation Land Use and Planning The proposed project, which includes the construction of an eight -unit condominium development and the replacement of the existing private marina with an eight -slip dock that is consistent with the Land Use No significant long -term land use impacts are anticipated and no Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach General mitigation measures are required. Less than Significant Plan and with the long -range goals, policies and objectives adopted by the City in the General Plan Update. The proposed project is also compatible with the existing land uses in the area. Traffic and Circulation SC 4.2 -1 On -site parking shall comply with the Newport Beach Parking Code requirements. SC 4.2 -2 Sight distance at the project accesses shall comply with City of Newport Beach standards. SC 4.2 -3 Vehicular sight distance of vehicles entering and exiting the site must be found consistent at the time of building permit issuance with Standard Drawing 110 -L prescribed in the Public Works Design Manual to ensure safe vehicular access. Project implementation will result in the generation of construction- The following project features are prescribed in the CMP and will be related traffic associated with grading, site preparation and construction implemented to ensure that short-term construction traffic impacts However, the heavy truck traffic would be not exceed four trucks per are avoided. hour and not significant impacts would occur. Further, no significant Less than Significant long term traffic Impacts will occur because the proposed project will not The project's haul route shall follow the route depicted in the generate a significant number of daily and peak hour trips. CMP. Specifically, dump trucks, concrete mixers, deliveries, and shuttles for off -site parking will access the site via East 'A Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been prepared, the components of which are considered by this EIR to be included within the Project Description. Certain CMP components, though listed under this heading for informational purposes, do not constitute mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate significant effects identified by this EIR. Rather, those CMP components represent the Applicant's response to CEOA's encouragement to incorporate changes or alterations into the project as part of the Project Description to avoid or reduce significant effects on the environment. Because the evaluation of environmental impacts is predicated upon compliance with the CMP, those CMP components that resulted in avoidance of significant environmental impacts, though discussed in the sections of this EIR evaluating potential environmental effects, are not listed below. The City may, at Its option, impose a condition of approval on the project requiring compliance with the CMP, but such a condition should not be construed as a measure to mitigate the significant impacts identified by this EIR. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -6 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 1.0 — Executive Potential Impact Mitigation Measures' Level of Significance After Mitigation Coast Highway and travel south on Marguerite Avenue, west on Seaview Avenue, and south on Carnation Avenue to the site. The trucks and construction vehicles will exit by driving east on Ocean Boulevard, north on Marguerite Avenue, and back to East Coast Highway. • Dirt will be hauled to Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in the City of Brea (or a closer site /location if available at the time grading occurs) . Dump trucks leaving from East Coast Highway will travel north on MacArthur Boulevard to SR -73, and continuing northbound on SR -55 to the 1 -5 northbound and to SR -57 northbound. Grading and dirt hauling shall occur only between Labor Day and Memorial Day. • All deliveries will use the designated haul route once they enter the neighborhood starting from Marguerite Avenue. • The contractor will also request an encroachment permit for a temporary staging area during construction , as described and illustrated in the CMP. Loading and unloading of all construction materials /equipment and /or construction vehicles will take place on -site or within the staging area. Loading and unloading will be managed by the construction valet team and will be overseen by the contractor. Dump trucks, cement trucks, etc., will arrive at the site with no greater frequency than the discharge rate by the contractor so that no more than one truck is on -site at one time and that trucks will not queue on Carnation Avenue. Once the delivery is complete, the trucks will exit the project area via the haul route identified above. All trucks (except cement trucks) will be required to shut off their engines during the loading /off- loading process. • To prevent obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flag person will be retained to maintain safety adjacent to the existing roadways. • Traffic control will be coordinated with the Police Department and Public Works Department, Traffic and Development Services Division, so that street traffic is not obstructed. It is estimated that an average of 25 workers will be at the job site I In order to ensure that adequate employee parking is provided t0 each day during Phase I and 45 workers each day during Phase II. workers during each phase of construction, the CMP includes a Less than Significant During Phases III and IV, when work will mostly occur indoors, an detailed parking management plan. This plan mandates the average of 60 to 80 workers would be expected to be on -site on a following: Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -7 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 1.0 — Executive Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -8 Level of Significance Potential Impact Mitigation Measures' After Mitigation daily basis. • Construction workers are prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard (or any residential street in the neighborhood). In stead, the applicant will secure one or more binding off -site parking agreements to accommodate the varying number of workers needed for each construction phase. The off -site parking location(s) will be located within a five -mile radius of the site. The off -site parking agreement shall be presented to the City prior to the Issuance of permits required for the phase of construction that will require the off -site parking. The agreement will also ensure that one of the off -site parking locations will: (1) commit a sufficient number of parking spaces to Aerie construction workers during the relevant term, and (2) the off- site location possesses the proper permits and authority to rent the subject spaces. • Shuttles will transfer construction workers from the remote parking locations to the project site. Specifically, two 10- passenger shuttle vans will run up to eight trips each morning and evening and up to five trips at lunch, assuming that some workers will remain at the jobsite during lunch. Carpooling among construction workers will also be encouraged throughout the duration of the construction phases. • Once vehicular elevators are installed, workers will be permitted to park in the completed on -site garages. It is anticipated that approximately 31 cars will be able to park on- site once the parking garage is completed. Personnel will be provided to assist in parking the construction workers on -site. • As previously indicated, construction workers will be prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Compliance with this prohibition will be monitored daily by the construction valet and flagmen team. However, this prohibition shall not apply to short-term visitors to the site such as City inspectors, City staff, architects, and consultants. Carpooling will also be encouraged among professionals. Air Quality SC 4.3-1 Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403, which sets requirements for dust control associated with grading and Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -8 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 1.0— Executive Summary Potential Impact Mitigation Measures' Level of Significance After Mitigation construction activities. SC 4.32 Adherence to SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. SC 4.33 Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 1108, which sets limitations on ROG content in asphalt. SC 4.3-4 Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 1113, which sets limitations on ROG content in architectural coatings. SC 4.3 -5 Adherence to Title 24 energy-efficient design requirements as well as the provision of window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Implementation of the project design features prescribed In the CMP and reflected below will ensure that potentially significant air quality Impacts are avoided. These measures include: • The project shall comply with the Fugitive Dust Emission and Control Plan approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (under Rule 403). • Dust will be minimized using water as control. Site and debris watering shall be performed a minimum of three times daily during demolition activities. During grading activities, any Project implementation would not result in an exceedance in the any of exposed soil areas shall be watered at least four times per day. the SCAQMD significance thresholds during either the demolition, site Stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty Less than Significant preparation /construction, or operation phases. materials shall be covered or watered three times daily. In addition, trucks carrying soil and debris shall be wetted or covered prior to leaving the site. On windy days, or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Soil disturbance shall be terminated whenever wind conditions exceed 325 miles per hour. • All diesel - powered machinery exceeding 100 horsepower shall be equipped with soot traps, unless the contractor demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City Building Official that it is infeasible. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -9 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 1.0—Executive Potential Impact Mitigation Measures' Level of Significance After Mitigation Noise SC 4.4 -1 In accordance with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity — Noise Regulations), noise - generating construction and /or maintenance activities may be permitted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on Saturdays. No noise - generating construction activities may occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site. MM 4.4 -1a All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with property operating and maintained muffling devices, intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. MM 4.4 -1b The construction contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. MM 4.4 -1c The construction contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging Noise levels associated with construction equipment will exceed - dBA areas) as far from residential receptor locations as CNEL during the construction phase anticipated for the proposed feasible. project. These noise levels, which would occur over an extended period Significant of time, will exceed acceptable noise levels for sensitive uses (i.e., MM 4.4 -1d The construction contractor shall post a contact name single - family residential) suggested for permanent stationary sources. and telephone number of the owner's authorized representative on -site. MM4.4 -le The construction contractor shall install temporary sound blankets or plywood panels with a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of 32 or higher and a density of 1.5 pounds per square foot or greater (e.g., SoundSeal BBC -13 -2 or equivalent) along the entire outer perimeter of the construction area. The temporary sound blankets or plywood panels shall have a minimum height of six feet. If plywood panels are selected, they must have a minimum density of four pounds per square foot and have no perforations Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -10 Aerie PA2005-196 Draft Environmental Potential Potential short-term impacts from vibration- induced annoyance may occur at residences within 50 feet of the most vibration- intensive construction equipment to the northeast and south of the project site. In addition, potential vibration impacts causing cosmetic damage could occur when operating intensive construction equipment at the northeast corner of the site near 215 Carnation Avenue. or gaps MM 4.4 -1f The construction contractor shall select quieter tools or construction methods whenever feasible. Examples of this include the use of plasma cutters, which produce less noise than power saws with abrasive blades and ordering precut materials to specifications to avoid on -site cutting. MM 4.4 -1g The construction contractor shall maximize the use of enclosures as feasible. This includes four -sided or full enclosures with a top for compressors and other stationary machinery. This also includes locating activities, such as metal stud and rebar cutting, within constructed walled structures to minimize noise The CMP requires, among other things, that the Applicant agree to indemnify the property owners in the immediately contiguous lots against any cosmetic damage to their homes resulting from vibration caused by construction activities necessary to complete the project as a condition to the issuance of demolition permits for the existing structure. This indemnify obligation is subject to those contiguous owners providing Applicant, if requested, with access to their structures to allow a pre - demolition inspection of the current condition of all structures on those properties. The CMP also requires that vibration probes will be placed at 215 Carnation Avenue to monitor construction activities. A vibration monitoring program will identify any construction activity which exceeds the criteria for cosmetic damage. If excessive vibration is found to occur, other construction methods will be employed, if possible, to eliminate any occurrence of cosmetic damage. Such alternative construction methods include, but are not limited to, use of different drill bits for the caisson drilling, use of less vibration - intensive construction vehicles, use of drilling and insertion of expansive grout to fracture rock, and /or use of lubricants for the caisson drilling. Because the CMP is part of the Project Description, the evaluation of potential cosmetic damage from vibration considers activities required by the CMP to be Incorporated within the project itself. Implementation of the measures cited in the CMP will ensure that vibration- induced cosmetic damage impacts from caisson drilling, use of a ram hoe, Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -11 1.0 — Executive After Less than Significant Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 1.0 — Executive Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005- 196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -12 Level of Significance Potential Impact Mitigation Measures' After Mitigation Public Health and Safety SC 4.8 -1 The City of Newport Beach will require all plans for proposed uses within the project site to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the transport, storage, use and /or disposal of hazardous materials on the site. MM 4.8-1 Any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM shall be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Inaccessible suspect ACM shall be tested prior to Project implementation would result in the demolition of the existing demolition or renovation. Air emissions of asbestos residential structures occupying the site, which would affect materials fibers and leaded dust would be reduced to below a level Less than Significant that contain detectable amounts of ACM. of significance through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. Proper safety procedures for the handling of suspect ACM shall always be followed in order to protect the occupants of the building and the asbestos workers. Project implementation would result in the demolition of the existing MM 4.8 -2 A contractor performing paint removal work shall follow residential structures occupying the site. Several building components the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. were identified to contain LBP with a lead concentration equal to or The lead content of the paint should be considered when Less than Significant greater than 1.0 mg /cm', which is the current regulatory threshold for choosing a method to remove the pain, as proper waste the identification of LBP. disposal requirements and worker protection measures shall be implemented throw hout the removal process. Soils and Geology SC 4.9-1 All activities associated with the implementation of the proposed residential development shall comply with the Citys Excavation and Grading Ordinance. SC 4.9-2 The project shall comply with all applicable City and 2007 California Building Code requirements. SC 4.9 -3 The property owner(s) shall execute and record a waiver of future shoreline protection for the project prior to the issuance of a building permit. Said waiver shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. SC 4.9-4 Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and routine maintenance of accesso structures is ermitted. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005- 196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -12 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 1.0 — Executive Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -13 Level of Significance Potential Impact Mitigation Measures After Mitigation MM 4.9-1a Project implementation shall adhere to the engineering recommendations for site grading and foundation design and construction presented in the Conceptual Grading Although the site is suitable for the proposed development, Plan Review Report prepared by Nebeltt & Associates, construction of the proposed residential structure may be affected by Inc., and subsequent detailed geotechnical engineering the existing geologic and geotechnical engineering factors, including analyses. Less than Significant regional seismicity, bedrock, corrosive soils, erosion, etc. MM 4.9 -1b Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted. MM 4.9-2a During periods when boats would be exposed to excessive The site (i.e., proposed dock) will be exposed to storm waves wave4nduced motions, boats should be sheltered at generated associated with passage of winter pre - frontal storm winds mooring can locations that are available inside Newport and southern hemisphere swell that typically occurs in the summary Harbor to avoid damage. Less than Significant months. Extreme wind waves from the SSE -SSW are expected to exceed the recommended maximum wave heights, which may result MM 4.9-2b The dock design shall be based on the extreme wave in damage to the moored vessels and /or docking facilities. conditions identified in the coastal engineering study (Noble Consultants, Inc., 2008). Agriculture No Prime Farmland, Farmland of State or Loral Importance, or Unique Farmland occurs within or in the vicinity of the site. The site and adjacent areas are designated as "Urban and Built -up Land" and "Other Land" on the Orange County Important Farmland Map. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures No Impact Further, neither the site nor the adjacent areas are designated as are required. prime, unique or important farmlands by the State Resources Agency or by the Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore, no impact on significant farmlands would occur with the proposed project. Biological Resources SC 4.7 -1 The project shall comply with California Code Title 14 (Natural Resources), Section 29.05, which prohibits the taking of any marine organisms within 1,000 feet of the high tide line without a sportfishing license. SC 4.7 -2 Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environment. Invasive and non- native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -13 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 1.0 — Executive Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -14 Level of Significance Potential Impact Mitigation Measures After Mitigation the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be _ removed. The CMP includes several measures that will be implemented as part of the project to ensure that potential impacts to sensitive plant species and other terrestrial biological resources are avoided. The measures prescribed in the CMP include: • A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre - construction survey for active nests of covered species at least seven (7) days prior to any habitat disturbance that occurs during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). If no active nests are round, no further actions are required. However, if nesting activity is observed during the pre - construction survey, the nest site must be protected until nesting activity has ended or as otherwise directed by a qualified biologist in order to Within the current development footprint there is a potentially suitable ensure compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and habitat for the nine special status plants. It is possible that future Game Code. development of the subject property as proposed could adversely affect one or more special status plant species, should they exist on Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant Less than Significant the site and nesting avian species that may occupy introduced non- species determined to be consistent with the California native trees and other landscape species. However, the CMP coastal buff environment. Invasive and non - native species incorporates features to ensure that these impacts are avoided. shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. • A qualified botanist shall perform focused surveys to determine the presence/absence for the nine sensitive plant species. The focused surveys shall be performed during the appropriate blooming window identified for each species. Survey methods shall follow CDFG guidelines. If any State - listed threatened or endangered plant species are impacted by project development, an incident take permit pursuant to Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code shall be obtained prior to issuance of a grading permit. The following measures will be undertaken as identified in the CMP A small portion of the existing eelgrass bed (approximately 30 square (refer to Section 7.3 — Environmental Protection) to ensure that feet) would potentially be affected by shading effects from vessels potential impacts to eelgrass are avoided. docked within the slips and the concrete dock structure if not properly Less than Significant addressed. Impacts to eelgrass are avoided through the An updated pre - construction eelgrass and invasive algae implementation of measures prescribed in the CMP. survey shall be completed within 30 days of the initiation of the proposed dock/gangway construction. The results of this Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -14 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 1.0 — Executive Potential Impact Mitigation Measures' Level of Significance After Mitigation survey will be used to update the results of the March 2007 eelgrass survey and to identify, if any, potential project - related eelgrass losses and the presence or absence of the invasive algae (Caulerpa taxifolia) in accordance with NMFS requirements. • A post - construction project eelgrass survey shall be completed within 30 days of the completion of project construction in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). The report will be presented to the resources agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission within 30 days after completion of the survey. If any eelgrass has been impacted In excess of that determined in the pre - construction survey, any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.2:1 (mitigation to impact). • Eelgrass shall be mitigated based on two annual monitoring surveys that document the changes in bed (i.e., area extent and density) in the vicinity of the footprint of the boat dock, moored vessel(s), and /or related structures during the active - growth period for eelgrass (typically March through October). Mitigation shall be implemented pursuant to the requirements of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). A statement from the applicant indicating their understanding of the potential mitigation obligation that may follow the initial two -year monitoring is required. If losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach and resources agencies for review and acceptance. • The project marine biologist shall mark the positions of eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the dock and gangway construction area with buoys prior to the initiation of any construction activities. • The project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew prior to initiation of construction to orient them to specific areas where eelgrass presently exists. • Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work over eelarass beds only durino tides of +2 feet mean lower low Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -15 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 1.0— Executive Summary Potential Impact Mitigation Measures' Level of Significance After Mitigation water (MLLW) or higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass from propellers, and to limit water turbidity. • Anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upon eelgrass habitat. To ensure that project - related impacts to these and other intertidal marine resources will be avoided, the CMP specifies several project elements /measures to be implemented, including: • Construction activities associated with the elevated walkway leading to the gangway, and construction personnel shall avoid impacts to rocky intertidal habitat and to eelgrass beds and sand dollar habitat within the Carnation Cove by, among other things, (a) posting signage at key access points in front of the beach and on the elevated walkway stating that access is limited to the elevated walkway during construction; (b) using yellow tape to prevent access to rocky intertidal habitat, eelgrass beds, and sand dollar habitat: and (c) prohibiting access to the water and rocky shoreline within the cove.. • Residents shall be informed of the sensitivity of the cove as a Disturbances to the sandy cover intertidal and shallow subtidal unique marine biological habitat to assist in ensuring the long - habitat, eelgrass, and sand dollar bed within the cove would be term protection of the cove's marine biological resources. considered a significant adverse impact to on -site marine resources if Less than Significant not adequate addressed. The CMP incorporates several measures Signage shall be posted at access points in front of the beach to ensure that these potential effects are avoided. and on the elevated walkway, which state that access is limited to the elevated walkway during construction. In addition, yellow tape shall be used to prevent access. Access shall not be permitted to the water or rocky shorelines within the cove. • A silt curtain will be placed around all water -side construction activity during the construction of the dock system to limit the spread of turbidity. If prolonged turbidity is observed outside the silt curtain then the silt curtain shall be re- deployed and re- positioned in a manner to correct the problem. Removal and emplacement of the piles will be conducted using Best Available Technology (BAT) that limits the re- suspension of sediments and the creation of turbidity plumes. • Silt curtains will be emplaced and maintained in working condition throughout the period of construction by the marine Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -16 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 1.0 — Executive Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -17 Level of Significance Potential Impact Mitigation Measures' After Mitigation contractor. If turbidity plumes are observed in the vicinity of the cove in front of the development, an additional silt curtain will be immediately placed in front of the cove's entrance until the turbidity plume has dissipated. • Debris bins will be placed at the project site. Material collected will be removed on a daily basis. The amount, type, and location of any large debris (e.g., piles, dock parts, concrete, etc.) that is deposited on the seafoor will be documented and removed prior to the completion of the project. The project marine biologist shall also inspect the seafloor following the completion of construction to ensure that all debris has been removed. • The project marine biologist will perform weekly on -site inspections to ensure that BMPs and mitigation measures are being implemented during construction. • Post - construction marine biological surveys (per permit conditions) shall be performed to map eelgrass cover in the project area using the same methodology as the pre - construction survey and also to document the condition and density of the sand dollar beds within the cove. Aesthetics SC 4.5.1 Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. ' Walpak" type fixtures are not The project has been designed to avoid significant visual impacts. permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut -off Although some views from the channel would be momentarily affected fixtures and light standards shall not exceed _ feet in by the construction of the boat dock and related facilities, no important height. visual amenity would be destroyed or permanently affected. Therefore Less than Significant no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are SC 4 .5-2 Prior issuance of the certificate occupancy or final of necessary. buildinng g permits, the applicant shalll l schedule evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in Condition of Approval No. SC 4.5 -2 The applicant shall dedicate a view easement; however, it will only affect the project site. Structures and Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -17 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 1.0 — Executive Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -18 Level of Significance Potential Impact Mitigation Measures' After Mitigation landscaping within the easement area shall not be permitted to block public views. The easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction and shall be reflected on the final tract map. Cultural Resources SC4.10 -1 If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his /her authorized representative, the MLD may Inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. SC 4.10 -21A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). In the event that fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground- disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor unfil the find has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. No cultural resources were identified during the survey conducted on the Implementation of the standard conditions will ensure that potential project site. In addition, no archaeological sites have been recorded on impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources will be Less than Significant the site and no historic resources exist on the sub'ect property. Project avoided. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -18 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 1.0 — Executive Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -19 Level of Significance Potential Impact Mitigation Measures' After Mitigation implementation will result in site alteration that could encroach into the measures are required. Monterey Formation, which is known to contain abundant fossilized marine invertebrates and vertebrates. Although grading and excavation within this formation could encounter fossils that may exist within the Monterey Formation, paleontological monitoring prescribed in SC 4.10 -2 will ensure that potential impacts will not occur. No significant impacts to paleontological resources will occur. Recreation The project will result in a decrease of dwelling units and, as a result, a reduction in the number of residents that would be generated when compared to the 15 existing dwelling units and the 28 units that would be permitted by the Newport Beach General Plan. With a pool, private outdoor decks that may have spas and fire pits, as well as direct access to the beach area, most residents of the proposed No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures project are expected to utilize their private recreation amenities are required. No Significant Impact rather than public parks within the City. Although residents of the proposed project would occasionally visit local and regional parks and beaches, use of those public facilities by the future residents would not represent a substantial change in the intensity of usage and the impact would not result in substantial physical deterioration of those park areas. Mineral Resources The project site is currently developed with a 14 -unit apartment structure and one single - family residential dwelling unit. Neither the Newport Beach General Plan (Recreation and Open Space Element) No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures nor the State of California has identified the project site or environs are required. No Significant Impact as a potential mineral resource of Statewide or regional significance. No mineral resources are known to exist and, therefore, project implementation will not result in any significant impacts. Drainage and Hydrology SC 4.6-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall be required to submit a notice of intent (NOI) with the appropriate fees to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for coverage of such future projects under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit prior to initiation of construction activity. As required by the NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and will establish BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -19 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 1.0 — Executive Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -20 Level of Significance Potential Impact Mitigation Measures' After Mitigation SC 4.6-2 Pdor to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project and submit the WQMP to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for approval. The WQMP shall specifically identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used to control predictable pollutant runoff, including flow /volume -based measures to treat the "first flush" The WQMP shall identify at a minimum the routine structural and non - structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Standard Urban Stonmwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), which details implementation of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long -term maintenance responsibilities, and shall reference the locations of structural BMPs SC 4.6-3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) and submit that plan to the City of Newport Beach for approval. The SWPPP will establish BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion. SC 4.6-4 Future site grading and construction shall comply with the drainage controls imposed by the applicable Municipal Code requirements prescribed by the City of Newport Beach. Although project - related storm runoff would be decreased, the existing catch basin near the comer of Camation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard is deficient and cannot accommodate the existing or post -development 100 -year storm flows from the drainage area, including the project site. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures However, the project includes upgrading the capacity of the catch basin are required. Less than Significant to accommodate storm flows within the 11.54 -acre drainage area. Therefore, no significant hydrology impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. The measures listed below, which are also included in the CMP, are Construction of the replacement dock facility and related activities design features of the proposed project. Implementation of these associated with the use of heavy equipment, the operation of a barge, features will result in the avoidance of potential water quality etc., could result in potential water quality impacts, including turbidity, impacts. which could adversely affect the marine habit and species, including eel Less than Significant grass. However implementation of the design features prescribed in the All debris and trash shall be disposed in suitable trash CMP will ensure that these potential adverse effects are avoided. containers on land or on the work barge at the end of each construction day. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -20 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 1.0 — Executive Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -21 Level of Significance Potential Impact Mitigation Measures' After Mitigation • Discharge of any hazardous materials into Newport Bay is prohibited. • Silt curtains shall be deployed around work barges and around the pile sleeving or drilling operations where feasible to minimize the spread of turbid waters into adjacent eelgrass beds within and outside the project area. • All construction debris shall be removed from the bay floor daily. Public Services The project has been designed with several features to facilitate and enhance the provision of adequate fire protection, including an emergency communication device, which will be provided to the existing concrete pad at the beach level and a new wet standpipe, No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures which will be provided to the existing docks. In addition, an automatic are required. Less than Significant and manual fire alarm system will be installed, a fire control room is provided at ground level, which will be monitored by a central station, and a Class I wet standpipe will be provided at every level at all stairs to facilitate fire protection. Redevelopment of the subject site to replace 14 apartment units and one single - family residence with eight luxury condominium homes No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures would not require an expansion to local law enforcement resources are required. Less than Significant and therefore would not result in any environmental impacts involving construction of new law enforcement facilities. The project applicant must pay the applicable school fee to the It is estimated that fewer than 20 students, distributed between school district, pursuant to Section 65995 of the California various grade levels, would be generated by the proposed project. Government Code, in order to offset the incremental cost impact of New or expanded school facilities would not be required to provide expanding school resources to accommodate the increased student Less than Significant classroom and support space for these low numbers of school age enrollment associated with new residential development, including children. the proposed project. With the payment of the mandatory school fees, no significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. Population and Housing The project will result in a decrease in the total number of dwelling units from 15 to eight; therefore, project implementation would not No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures result in a substantial increase in population based on the population are required. Less than Significant per household recognized by the City of Newport Beach. All proposed utility services can be provided through connections to Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -21 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 1.0 — Executive Potential Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Miti ation existing main line facilities that exist on or near the project site. With the exception of the existing 10 -foot catch basin in Carnation Avenue that is inadequate to accommodate existing surface runoff, the proposed project would not require expansion of any other infrastructure facilities that could support additional growth. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -22 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0— Introduction and Background CHAPTER 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 2.1 Purpose of the Draft EIR 2.1.1 Authority This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 at seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 at seq.). This EIR assesses the potential impacts associated with the proposed Aerie project. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for the proposed project and the discretionary actions listed below. An EIR is an informational document prepared pursuant to CEQA. It provides decision- makers, public agencies, and the public in general with detailed information about the potential significant environmental effects of a proposed project. It also lists the ways in which the significant effects of a project might be minimized and identifies several alternatives to the project for consideration. CEQA requires that an EIR contain at a minimum, certain specific information, including but not limited to a clear, concise project description; environmental settings; discussion of environmental impacts; effects found not to be significant, and cumulative impacts. This information is required pursuant to Sections 15120 through 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 2.1.2 Incorporation by Reference As permitted by Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Draft EIR has referenced several technical studies, analyses, and reports. Information from the documents that has been incorporated by reference has been briefly summarized in the appropriate section(s) that follow and the relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the Draft EIR has been described. The documents and other sources, which have been used in the preparation of this Draft EIR, are identified in Chapter 12.0 (Bibliography). In accordance with Section 15150(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the location where the public may obtain and review these referenced documents and other sources used in the preparation of the Draft EIR is also identified in Chapter 12.0. Several Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan have been used extensively in the preparation of the Draft EIR. Where appropriate and necessary, one or more of those elements have been incorporated by reference as permitted by CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, environmental analysis contained in the Final EIR prepared for the General Plan Update has also been incorporated into this Draft EIR. The information and analysis incorporated by reference have been summarized in the appropriate sections of this document. 2.1.3 Intended Uses of the Draft EIR Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the Draft EIR is intended to provide information regarding the environmental consequences of, mitigation measures for, and alternatives to, the proposed Aerie project. It is also meant to facilitate discussions with other agencies regarding implementation of mitigation measures. CEQA is speck about providing disclosure where "[t]he EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action ... " [Guidelines Section 15300 (d)]. CEQA also requires consideration of the whole or entirety of an action. With these guiding principles in mind, the intended uses of this EIR are to: Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 2 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0 — Introduction and Background • Inform the decision - makers, public, and agencies about the project; • Analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Aerie project; • Provide notice to Responsible(Trustee Agencies regarding the Aerie project; • Incorporate analysis related to the requirements of CEQA to allow responsible agencies to make findings pursuant to this EIR. Although this Draft EIR will also be necessarily specific in the depth of analysis (i.e., project -level analysis), this document, along with the supporting existing setting and General Plan and related long - range planning documents, provides environmental documentation for the implementation of each of the elements proposed by the project applicant for use of the existing and proposed development. It provides project level environmental documentation for individual project elements that are consistent with the goals, concepts, and strategies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan. A discretionary approval is an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve or how to carry out a project. For this project, the government agency is the Newport Beach City Council. To approve and implement the proposed Aerie project, the following specific discretionary approvals by the Newport Beach City Council are needed: • Certification of the EIR (DEIR and FEIR together) /Approval of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Approval of a General Plan Amendment • Approval of a Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment • Approval of a Zone Change • Approval of a Tentative Tract Map • Approval of a Modification Permit • Approval of a Coastal Residential Development Permit In accordance with Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this document is intended to serve as a "project' EIR that examines the environmental impacts of the specific development project. In this case, several discretionary actions are requested to implement the proposed Aerie project. The analysis contained in this document will focus on the changes in the environment that will result from the development of the proposed improvements identified by the applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. 2.1.4 Related Approvals This EIR may be used by the following public agencies in the adoption of the proposed Aerie project, related improvements, and approval of implementation activities there under (refer to Table 2 -1); City Council of the City of Newport Beach; Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach; Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 2 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0— Introduction and Background 3. Departments of the City of Newport Beach that must approve implementation activities undertaken in accordance with the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Coastal Residential Development Permit, and related discretionary actions; 4. California Coastal Commission; 5. California Regional Water Quality Control Board; 6. All other public agencies that may approve implementation activities or permits undertaken in accordance with the discretionary approvals listed above. 2.1.5 Agencies Having Jurisdiction The principal agency having jurisdiction over the proposed project is the City of Newport Beach because the project site is located in the City. Nonetheless, the proposed project includes a series of possible actions over which a number of agencies may have authority. Table 2 -1 lists potential state, regional, and local approvals that may occur during the course of implementation of the proposed project and identifies the agencies with potential jurisdiction over these permits and /or approvals. Table 2 -1 List of Potential Responsible Agencies /Project Approvals Agency Permit /Approval Local Agencies City of Newport Beach General Plan Amendment Zone Change Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment Coastal Residential Development Permit Tentative Tract Map Modification Permit Building, Grading and Ancillary Permits Water Supply and Distribution Sewer Facilities Drainage/Flood Control Facilities Regional A encies Orange County Sanitation District Sewage Collection and Treatment Connection Permit Orange County Health Care Agency Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Remediation Soils and Vapor Remediation South Coast AQMD Asbestos Abatement State encies Coastal Commission Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment Coastal Development Permit State Water Resources Control Board National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit for Construction Activities Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 2 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0 — Introduction and Background Federal Section 10 Permit 2.1.6 Notice of Preparation /Scoping Meeting The City of Newport Beach has complied with Sections 15063 and 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines by preparing and issuing a Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR. The City of Newport Beach determined that the Aerie project required the preparation of the EIR and, as authorized by Section 15060(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an initial study was not prepared. The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed Aerie project on September 23, 2008 for a 30 -day review period. The NOP was distributed to the State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research, public agencies, utility and service providers, interested persons who requested notice, Orange County Clerk/Recorder, and homeowners' associations in the project area. Copies of the NOP and the distribution list are provided in Appendix A of this EIR. The City also conducted a community scoping meeting on October 29, 2008 pursuant to Section 15083 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City received five (5) written responses to the NOP (refer to Appendix B). The initial NOP comments were used to establish the scope of the issues addressed in this Draft EIR. Appendix B contains a copy of the NOP comment letters that were received during each NOP comment period. 2.1.7 Availability of the Draft EIR The Draft EIR has been distributed directly to numerous public agencies and to interested organizations for review and comment. The Draft EIR and all related technical studies are also available for review and copying at the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department. These documents and materials are also available for inspection at the Newport Beach Public Library located at 1000 Avocado in the City of Newport Beach. In addition, copies of the Draft EIR are also available for review at the two branch libraries listed below. Mariners Branch Balboa Branch 2005 Dover Drive 100 East Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Agencies, organizations and individuals are invited to comment on the information presented in the Draft EIR during the public review period, which will begin on and will end on . Specifically, comments are requested on the scope and adequacy of the environmental analysis. Respondents are also asked to provide or identify additional environmental information that is germane but which they feel may not have been used in the analysis. Following the public review period, a response to all substantive public review comments will be prepared and compiled into a Final EIR. The Final EIR will be considered by the Newport Beach City Council for certification. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 2-4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0— Introduction and Background In addition to the locations identified above, copies of the Draft EIR for the Aerie project are also available for review at: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Contact Person: James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644 -3210 2.1.8 Opportunities for Public Input and the EIR Process If comments on the Draft EIR are submitted, they will be addressed in the Responses to Comments Report. The Responses to Comment Report will be part of the Final EIR and will be presented to the Newport Beach City Council for their consideration of the EIR and the proposed Aerie project. The Response to Comments Appendix will be available for public review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department located at 3300 Newport Boulevard. 2.1.9 Certification of the EIR After the circulation of the Draft EIR, the City of Newport Beach will prepare responses to all written comments received on the environmental analysis presented in that document and will prepare the Final EIR. The Final EIR will consist of the Draft EIR, revised as appropriate based on comments received during the public comment period, the EIR Appendices and the Responses to Comments Appendix. The Newport Beach City Council will review the Final EIR and will consider the information and analysis contained in that document prior to its certification, should the City Council find the environmental analysis to be adequate. The City Council will be required to certify the EIR as being adequate under CEQA prior to approving the discretionary actions that constitute project approval. 2.2 Methodology 2.2.1 Existing Conditions This introductory section describes the existing environmental conditions related to each issue analyzed in the Draft EIR. In accordance with Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines, both the local and regional settings are discussed as they existed at the time the NOP was published. 2.2.2 Significance Criteria Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR "identify and focus on the significant environmental effects" of a proposed project. "Effects" and "impacts" mean the same under CEQA and are used interchangeably within this Draft EIR. A "significant effect" or "significant impact" on the environment means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project" (Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines). In determining whether an impact is "significant" within CEQA's definition, emphasis has been given to the basic policies of CEQA with respect to a particular subject matter, as well as to specific criteria for significance found in the CEQA Guidelines (refer to Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines). An effort has been made to avoid overly subjective significance criteria that are not based in specific CEQA policies and /or generally accepted thresholds upon which significance can be determined. For each subject area Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 2 -5 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0— Introduction and Background addressed within this Draft EIR, significance criteria are identified that have been applied in analyzing the potential effects of the Proposed Project. 2.2.3 Standard Conditions The Proposed Project will incorporate, where necessary or required, standard conditions and uniform codes as required by the City and /or other responsible agencies. For analytical purposes, compliance with these regulatory requirements is not considered mitigation. Where an otherwise significant impact is avoided, in whole or in part, due to the application of standard regulatory requirements or project features, the text will note that an issue of environmental concern exists and that it is addressed by a standard regulatory requirement. The requirement has been identified and the manner in which it addresses the environmental issue is also identified. This precludes the use of mitigation measures that are mere repetitions of common practice, City planning /approval procedures, or laws that are applicable to the Proposed Project. 2.2.4 Impact Analysis The impact analysis presented in the Draft EIR identifies specific project - related impacts. As described above, the significance criteria provide the basis for distinguishing between impacts that are determined to be significant (i.e., impact exceeds the threshold of significance) and those that are less than significant. The existing environmental setting (i.e., existing conditions) is the baseline for documenting the nature and extent of impacts anticipated to result from project implementation. Potential impacts presented in the Draft EIR will be based on a "worst case analysis," which assumes future development within the subject property based on a maximum buildout of the site proposed by the project applicant. In assessing the impacts of the Proposed Project and the various CEQA alternatives, the City of Newport Beach has conducted the following analysis: "Potential effects" of the project have been identified. Initially, these potential effects are identified on a cursory level. No determination is made that they truly are "significant," "adverse," or "substantial." This process merely identifies issues and impacts, which, on a cursory level, may seem possible. "Potential effects" include issues identified in the environmental analysis as well as those raised by the public, the City, and other public agencies. With respect to each potential effect, an analysis has been conducted to determine if, in fact: The project produces the identified "effect "; and The effect produces a substantial, or potentially substantial, change in the physical conditions within the area affected by the project (i.e., "significant"); and The changed conditions are "adverse" Where the investigation of a potential effect concludes the effect is too speculative for evaluation, that conclusion is noted and the discussion of that effect is ended. Where the investigation demonstrates a potential effect does or may (without undue speculation) occur, but is beneficial, that conclusion is noted. Where the investigation demonstrates a potential effect is not significant or not adverse, that conclusion is noted. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 2 -6 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0— Introduction and Background 2.2.5 Mitigation Measures Where the analysis described in Section 2.2.4 above demonstrates that a potential effect does or may (without undue speculation) occur and is found to have a substantial or potentially substantial and adverse impact on physical conditions within the area affected by the project, that conclusion is noted and: Mitigation measures are provided which will minimize or avoid the significant effects and, in most cases, reduce them to less than significant levels; and /or Where feasible mitigation measures are not identified which can reduce or avoid the significant effect(s) to less than significant levels, the significant effect will be identified as one that will result in "significant unavoidable adverse impacts ". 2.2.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation This section of the Draft EIR will identify the level of impact that would remain after implementation of the mitigation measures, including significant unavoidable adverse impacts (i.e., those effects that either cannot be mitigated or they remain significant even after mitigation) or if the mitigation measures prescribed cannot reduce the significant impacts to a less than significant level (or the mitigation measures are infeasible, or their implementation cannot be guaranteed because they are the responsibility of another public agency). 2.3 Format of the Draft EIR As noted above, this EIR focuses on the analysis of those environmental parameters that may experience significant adverse impacts as a result of the proposed Aerie project. This analysis is documented in this Draft EIR as follows: Section 1.0 — Executive Summary. This section includes the executive summary, which summarizes the proposed project and the project alternatives. In addition, a table is included in this section that summarizes the potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures and level of significance after mitigation. Section 2.0 — Introduction and Background. This section provides relevant, information, context and background on the CEQA process and the proposed project. Section 3.0 — Project Description. This section includes a brief description of the environmental setting, provides a detailed project description, enumerates the project objectives, and identifies implementation /phasing associated with the proposed project. Section 4.0 — Environmental Analysis. This section describes the existing conditions, the thresholds of significance, the analytical methodology, the impacts of the proposed project, mitigation to reduce or avoid any significant adverse impacts, and the level of significance of the impacts after mitigation. Section 5.0 — Imoacts Determined Not to be Significant. This section summarizes the environmental impacts determined not to be significant. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 2 -7 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0 — Introduction and Background Section 6.0 — Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. This section summarizes the potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project, after mitigation, based on the analysis documented in Section 4.0. Section 7.0 — Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources. This section addresses the potential for irretrievable and irreversible commitment of resources associated with the proposed project. Section 8.0 — Growth- Inducing Impacts. This section addresses the potential for growth- inducing impacts associated with the proposed project. Section 9.0 — Cumulative Impacts. This section addresses the potential for cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project. Section 10.0 — Proiect Alternatives. This section provides a qualitative analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with the Alternatives to the Project, including the No Project Alternative. Section 11.0 — Organizations and Persons Consulted. This section lists the City of Newport Beach staff and /or departments consulted during the preparation of the Draft EIR as well as consultant personnel who were consulted during or responsible for the preparation of this Draft EIR. Section 12.0 — References. This section lists the references used in the preparation of this Draft EIR. Section 13.0 — Glossary of Acronyms. This section provides a comprehensive glossary of terms and acronyms used in the EIR. Appendices. The Appendices to this EIR include the NOP, the responses to the NOP and technical reports prepared to analyze the potential impacts of the project alternatives. Technical studies prepared for the proposed project, which include: (1) circulation queuing analysis; (2) air quality analysis; (3) noise analysis; (4) terrestrial and marine biology assessment; (5) hydrology analysis; (6) geotechnical analysis; (7) coastal engineering assessment; (8) Phase I environmental site assessment and asbestos survey; (9) visual simulations; and (10) cultural and paleontological assessments. The several technical assessments prepared for the proposed project are either appended to the Draft EIR or are available at the Newport Beach Planning Department for review. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 2 -8 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description CHAPTER 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Project Location The City of Newport Beach is an urbanized coastal community located in western Orange County (refer to Exhibit 3 -1). Newport Beach is bordered by the Cities of Irvine on the north and northeast and by Costa Mesa on the north and northwest. Crystal Cove State Park, which is located in unincorporated Orange County, is located southeast of the City's corporate boundaries. On the west, the incorporated limits of the City extend to the Santa Ana River; the City of Huntington Beach is located west of the Santa Ana River. The Pacific Ocean comprises the southwestern boundary of the City. The relationship of the City of Newport Beach with the region is illustrated in Exhibit 3 -1 (Regional Location). The City of Newport Beach has developed as a grouping of small communities or "villages," primarily due to the natural geographic form of the Newport Bay. Many of the newer developments, located inland from the bay, have been based on a "Planned Community' concept, resulting in an extension of the village form, even where no major geographic division exists. The various villages provide for a wide variety of type and style of development, both residential and commercial. The City includes lower density, single - family residential areas, as well as more intensively developed residential beach areas. Commercial areas range from master planned employment centers to marine industrial, neighborhood shopping centers, a regional shopping center, and visitor commercial areas. The subject property currently consists of two parcels (APNs 052 - 013 -12 and 052 - 013013) and a small portion (584 square feet) of a third parcel (APN 052 - 013 -21), encompassing a total area of approximatelyl.4 acres. The site is currently occupied by an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence. The properties are located at 201 — 207 Carnation Avenue (west side of Carnation Avenue at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard) and 101 Bayside Place in the City of Newport Beach (refer to Exhibit 3 -2, Vicinity Map). Project implementation includes the demolition of the residential structures that currently occupy the site. The existing apartment structure has a total of four levels, including three split levels that are visible above existing grade from the street; all four levels are visible from Newport Bay. 3.2 Environmental Setting 3.2.1 Existing Land Use The site is currently occupied by a 14 -unit apartment building, one single - family residence, as well as deteriorating gangway platform, pier walkway, and dock facilities. In addition, an on -grade staircase (built prior to 1961) presently exists on the bluff face that connects the apartment building with an existing, irregularly shaped, concrete pad. The existing apartment structure has a total of four levels, including three split levels that are visible above the existing grade from the street. All four levels of the existing building are visible from Newport Bay. Parking for the existing apartments consists of open carports at grade along Carnation Avenue. The lowest extent of a portion of the foundation of the existing apartment building down the site's bluff face is 42.3 feet using the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) measurement standard.' The single - family home on the site and two of the dwelling units within existing apartment building are occupied. 'All references to an elevation In this EIR shall be to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description The site encompasses a portion of a steep coastal bluff located above the entrance to Newport Harbor. The west - facing portion of the site is subject to marine erosion with a rocky intertidal area at the base of the bluff that forms a small cove. The sand within the cove is typically submerged at high tide. There is a public view through the property at the southern end of the site. This includes limited views of Newport Bay, the Balboa Peninsula, and the Pacific Ocean. The project site is visible from public vantage points on the Balboa Peninsula and the Newport Bay. The existing buildings, including impervious surfaces with the exception of the bluff staircase, presently cover approximately 22 percent of the entire site, consisting of the highest and flattest portions of the site. Coverage is approximately 41 percent of the area of the site above mean higher high tide line. The existing apartment building was constructed in 1949 and the adjacent home on the site was built in 1955. The apartment building contains open carports and parked vehicles dominating the ground level of the building facing Carnation Avenue. The age and architectural character of the existing residential structures contrast with the character and quality of nearby homes, which have been remodeled and /or rebuilt and exhibit a variety of architectural themes that provide visual interest and variety, especially compared to the older and more mundane features of the existing buildings on subject property. The visual character of the area as viewed from Newport Bay and Balboa Peninsula is presently affected not only by the existing development on the project site, but also the existing development on surrounding properties. In addition to the residential structure identified and described above, the project involves the replacement of the existing landing /dock facility associated with the subject property. The existing docks can moor four (4) boats in the approximately 25 -foot class. Eight (8) replacement slips and one guest side tie dock are proposed. The structural elements of the existing landing and docks are in very poor condition. The City has required the landowner to take action to remediate the hazard posed by the existing pier, gangway and piles, which are in a state of disrepair. In addition, the existing 20 -foot long gangway will be replaced by a 44 -foot gangway. The project site and surrounding development are illustrated on Exhibit 3 -3 (Aerial Photograph) Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 - Project Description Tra*Ave Taa,FAVe �'�% � n o OmOOna ootl WesI Bn ENd 1Ne51011091eB C°Iaw AWaaNa W 11e, 91 Mon Orange o u i WeYj`ni, ea iom Ab Caunry War $ Si RAih�iri On Beach Balsa W 1,,s, "-W 1n5, a and EieF ,. AVe 6dsa lM1<Gabes Santa Ana TU51 4Nipuel Mitlway City _ _ x M Rado Bdsa Dana P.m, CSan CI EdlnOet AVe io EEd,nea.A ¢ Smetza m GoulevaN Gardens — San. An, Laden,— _ Ve coB WedWed <ASo via N'a We _y .burp _ � Wame�AVe W,VUnu PVe t_ EWamu Ave O..ve [tleMa -1,aez G SoMM1 Sans p,a Fdr° et imce, ^� - - Fountain Valley v, " ffin WMadEhm 8%. 11 oype my m ® n'Sucnoner AVe � A Cwno Ellis Ave • -.. Sunfl°xea A'VE G,L Aar no - " Garfield AVe _ - - ned s. e e+ If, Try FkaGa: U 6NSa y O _ 3 C P.W.M. ep n St _ O n °a East lavi 9 . • s'•. ea e Irvine Huntington Beach >4 1 atnt +a'ayDi 133 -da F 0" a' =Costa Mesa w, Newport Beach - say shwea ' F�;ea�u�• ..e— e S , 11—pe, _l °• a iA,O Gtlo We £ry' 1A,00l. eAve Babes ProJea Site a Del Mai M �6km 3m1es yah Lac. SOURCE: City OF Newport Beach Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -3 Crystal LOVe O _a 133 re aakn ene altl Bay Rq OfR T& s Exhibit 3 -1 Regional Map Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 - Project Description Project Site ��SAY A' +EE _J L--- - -BALBOABLVOE, r cAN FRET AO�Y f a- /o p0 SOURCE: City of Newport Beach �Op C . -�vP? s�ONO ` OP qLF P p O o- ay m Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196- Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -4 F/q sr 4LF QP OQ S� ,O 41% OF OR - yf 9L P qL , R 09 r` e0P PF - P J� ` 5e o � aREgkERS O4 cF IVe c4 0 864ft Exhibit 3 -2 Vicinity Map Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description SOURCE: City of Newport Beach Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -5 Exhibit 3 -3 Aerial Photograph Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description Surrounding Land Uses The area in the vicinity where the Property is located is nearly completely developed with a single- and multiple family residences (refer to Exhibit 3 -3). A variety of architectural styles characterize the area. West of the site is the main entrance to Newport Bay from the Pacific Ocean and the eastern end of Balboa Peninsula. North of the Site are single - family and multiple - family residences on Carnation Avenue and Bayside Place. The northern side of Carnation Avenue is a developed coastal bluff that is not subject to marine erosion. The homes on Carnation Avenue overlook Bayside Place and the homes located on Bayside Place. The homes below the Site along Bayside Place were primarily constructed on previously filled submerged lands; however, the lower portion of the bluff was altered for the construction of Bayside Place and several homes along Bayside Place, including 101 Bayside Place (the "Sprague Residence "). South and east of the Site are a mix of single family and multi - family residential buildings and the Kerkchoff Marine Laboratory, all developed on the coastal bluff face between Ocean Boulevard and Newport Bay. 3.2.2 Existing General Plan The subject property is located within Statistical Area F3, which encompasses single - family and multiple - family residential development in Corona del Mar generally west of Hazel Drive, east of Avocado Avenue and south of Bayside Drive. As illustrated in Exhibit 3 -4, the largest portion of the subject property is designated RM (Multiple -Unit Residential — 20 du /ac) by the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. In addition, a small portion of the site (528 square feet) located near the northwestern property boundary is designated RT (Two -Unit Residential). Based on the existing General Plan land use designations, 28 multiple - family residential dwelling units could be built on the site. 3.2.3 Coastal Land Use Plan The City's Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) was derived from the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan and is intended to identify the distribution of land uses in the coastal zone. The majority of the subject property is currently designated RM -A (Medium Density Residential — 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre). In addition, a small portion of the site is designated RH -D (High Density Residential D — 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per gross acres). As prescribed in the CLUP, development within the coastal zone shall not exceed a development limit established by the General Plan or its implementing ordinances. 3.2.4 Existing Zoning The majority of the subject property is zoned MFR (Multiple - Family Residential, 2,178), which would accommodate up to 20 du /ac based on one dwelling unit for every 2,178 square feet of land (refer to Exhibit 3 -5). However, pursuant to Section 20.60.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the maximum density within the MRF (2178) zoning district is calculated using the total lot area minus the slopes in excess of 50 percent and submerged lands. Total Site Area 61,284 square feet Slope area greater than 50% 11,926 square feet Area under mean higher high water elevation 28,413 square feet The maximum density that would be permitted on the subject property is determined by subtracting the area of the site that exceeds 50 percent slope (11,926 square feet) and the area of the site located below mean higher high water (28,413 square feet) from the total project site area (61,284 square feet). This calculation results in a total of 20,945 square feet. Based on the minimum of 2,178 square feet of land area per dwelling unit, a maximum of 9 dwelling units would be permitted on the subject property. The project applicant is Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -6 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description proposing a total of eight dwelling units, which is consistent with the density provision of the MFR zoning classification. A small portion of the site (564 square feet) is zoned R -2 (Two - Family Residential). The applicant has proposed a zone change to reclassify that small portion of the site to MFR, which would be consistent with the accompanying request to amend the Newport Beach Land Use Element to redesignate it as RM. Approval of the zone change (and General Plan Amendment) would eliminate the R -2 zoning and make the MFR zoning classification apply to the entire site. The MFR zoning classification permits higher density development than the R -2 zoning classification. 3.2.5 Physical Environment Climate and Air Quali The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), a 6,600 square mile area encompassing all of Orange County and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. A persistent high - pressure area that commonly resides over the eastern Pacific Ocean largely dominates regional meteorology. The distinctive climate of this area is determined primarily by its terrain and geographic location. Local climate is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. Ozone and pollutant concentrations tend to be lower along the coast, where the constant onshore breeze disperses pollutants toward the inland valley of the SCAB and adjacent deserts. However, as a whole, the SCAB fails to meet national standards for several criteria pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide and PM10, and is classified as a "non - attainment' area for those pollutants. Geology and Seismicity The project site is located in the seismically active southern California region. There are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. In addition, the project site is not within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as illustrated on the maps issued by the State Geologist for the area. Although there are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site, it is subject to seismic shaking resulting from earthquakes occurring on one or more of the regional faults. The closest active faults within 50 miles of the project site are the Newport- Inglewood, Norwalk, and Raymond Faults. The Newport- Inglewood fault, which is the only active fault within or immediately adjacent to the City of Newport Beach, could generate a 7.0 magnitude or greater maximum credible earthquake. The topography of the subject site slopes toward Newport Bay. The existing buildings are located on the upper portions of the bluff and bluff face. Site elevation ranges from approximately 70 feet above sea level at the top of the bluff to sea level on the west side of the site. The geologic units underlying the subject property and environs include artificial fill, marine and non - marine terrace deposits, and bedrock units assigned to the upper - middle Miocene Monterey Formation. Drainage and Hydrology As previously indicated, the entire site is developed and is occupied by 15 dwelling units, including 14 multiple family dwelling units and one single - family residential dwelling unit. Impervious surfaces cover the vast majority of the site, which is adequately served by the City's storm drain system located in the roadways that surround the site. The subject property is not located within the 100- or 500 -year flood plain as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Newport Beach. Further, neither the subject property nor the surrounding residential development is located in an area of the City that is subject to flooding resulting from the failure of a levee or dam. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -7 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Deschption SOURCE: Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Exhibit 3-4 Existing General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -8 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description SOURCE: City of Newport Beach Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -9 Exhibit 3 -5 Existing Zoning Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description Hydraulic (i.e., ground water) flow is generally in a down- gradient direction, usually toward the nearest surface water body. Surface drainage in the project environs is anticipated to flow to the west, toward Newport Bay, which is adjacent on the west. Transportation and Circulation The subject property is bounded by Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Regional access to the project area is available from West Coast Highway (California State Route 1) via the Corona del Mar Freeway (California State Route 73) MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road and also from the Costa Mesa Freeway (California State Route 55) and Newport Boulevard. The area in which the subject property is located is served by a "grid" of residential streets that extends to the north and south from West Coast Highway. The site is located on Carnation Avenue near the intersection of Ocean Boulevard. Vehicular access to the project area is available from West Coast Highway via Marguerite Avenue. Neither of these local streets is designated as an Arterial or a Commuter Roadway on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The area in which the subject property is located is primarily residential in nature. Public Services and Utilities Fire protection facilities and service to the subject property are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). The NBFD operates and maintains eight fire stations to respond to emergency calls throughout the City. Fire Station No. 5 is located at 410 Marigold in Corona del Mar, less than one mile east of the site. This fire station is supported by one fire engine and one paramedic van. Fire Station No. 3 in Fashion Island is located less than two miles from the site. In addition to the City's resources, the NBFD also maintains a formal mutual aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and all neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) is responsible for providing police and law enforcement services within the corporate limits of the City. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, less than two miles northwest of the subject property. Police and law enforcement service in the City is provided by patrols with designated "beats" The City of Newport Beach owns and maintains several sewer and water mains in the vicinity of the subject property, including those in Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. Sewer collection and wastewater treatment services are provided by the City of Newport Beach (local collection) and the Orange County Sanitation District (conveyance and treatment). In addition, all of the utilities (i.e., electricity, natural gas, and telephone) are currently available and serve the existing development. The project site receives electrical and natural gas service from Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company, respectively. 3.2.6 Social Environment The City of Newport Beach is nearly fully developed with a diverse mixture of residential, institutional, commercial, industrial, and recreational and open space uses. The predominant land use in the City is residential, which is characterized by many distinct neighborhoods. Older communities were first developed along the coastline, including the Peninsula, West Newport, Balboa Island, and Lido Isle. The early housing is characterized by a diversity of multiple - family, single- family, and mixed -use housing located within proximity of commercial and visitor - serving uses. While single - family attached and detached residential development comprise the majority of housing in the City, many multiple - family dwelling units, including condominium, apartments, duplex, triplex, and fourplex units, exist in Newport Beach and, in particular, in the older neighborhoods including West Newport. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -10 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0— Project Description Between 1980 and 2005, 11,127 housing units were added to the City's inventory of housing stock. Although the rate of increase in housing within the City has slowed since 1990, the City averaged approximately 200 to 300 dwelling units per year between 2001 and 2005 (with the exception of 2003, which included the annexation of Newport Coast). The total number of housing units as of January 1, 2005 was estimated to be 42,143, including approximately 26,000 units (62 percent) that are single - family attached and detached homes. Thirteen percent of the units (5,475 homes) were duplex, triplex, and fourplex units. Other multiple - family dwelling units in the City in 2005 totaled 9,721 (23 percent). The remainder of the dwelling units in the City were mobile homes (863 or two percent). The overall vacancy rate of housing in the City of Newport Beach ranged from 10.1 and 11.3 percent between 1980 and 2000, respectively; however, there are a significant number of homes in the City that are classified as seasonal units and second homes. The vacancy rate in all units in the City in 2005 was reported to be 10.91 percent.]] A variety of retail uses are located throughout the City and include those in neighborhood shopping centers, commercial strips and villages, and shopping centers, with the largest being Fashion Island, a regional center that is framed by a mixture of office, entertainment, and residential uses. Other neighborhood retail centers are located throughout the City. In addition to the retail uses, the City also supports a variety of professional office uses, which are located mostly within Newport Center and the Airport Area. Industrial uses are primarily located within the West Newport Mesa area, east of Banning Ranch, and include a variety of industrial, manufacturing, and supporting retail uses. Research and development uses are clustered in the Airport Area while government, educational, and institutional uses are scattered throughout the City. One of the primary locations for medical uses in the City is near Hoag Hospital, which is located at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard. 3.3 History and Evolution of the Proposed Development Prior environmental documents were prepared in 2007 and 2008 for the Aerie residential project (PA 2005 -196) and were the subject of public review and hearing. These documents evaluated the redevelopment of the subject property with a 9 -unit residential condominium development, which was subsequently revised to address, among other things, aesthetic impacts and to respond to the Predominant Line of Existing Development (PLOED) established in 2007 for the proposed project. The prior applications did not include the replacement of the existing landing and dock facilities that are located in Carnation Cove.2 Because these facilities currently exist in a deteriorated condition and pose a potential safety hazard, new docks were designed and incorporated into the proposed project. As a result, the Aerie residential project that is the subject of this environmental analysis has been expanded to include the replacement of the existing deteriorated landing and dock facilities existing within Carnation Cove, in addition to the proposed 8 -unit residential condominium development proposed by the applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. As a result of those revisions, the City conducted a subsequent environmental analysis in April 2008 that contained an assessment of the proposed 8 -unit project and boat dock facility. Public hearings were conducted following the public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. The Newport Beach Planning Commission recommended approval of the project at a public hearing on June 19, 2008. The City Council, which conducted a public hearing on July 22, 2008, received public testimony and requested additional information related to the proposed project and the environmental analysis. No action was taken on the project and the public hearing was continued 3 The cove located on the project site and studied in the technical reports prepared for this MND is sometimes referred to within this MND as "Carnation Cove." Although local usage of the term "Carnation Cove" generally refers to a larger area of shoreline extending north of the project site, for purposes of the analysis contained in this MND and the technical reports prepared in connection with this MND, the evaluation is based upon site- specific analysis of the cove located on the project site. Therefore, references to "Carnation Cove" within this MND include, and in some instances are limited to, the beach area and cove on the oroiect site. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -11 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter ao— Project Description indefinitely to allow time for City staff and the applicant to respond to the City Council's request for additional information. Subsequently, a decision was made to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report. 3.4 Description of the Proposed Project The project applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., is proposing to develop the 1.4 -acre site with an 8 -unit condominium development as illustrated in the Conceptual site Plan (refer to Exhibit 3 -6) and as described below. Residential Structure The Project will consist of a total of six levels, including: (a) four above grade floors consisting primarily of living space, but with some parking areas on the first and second floors; and (b) two subterranean levels with common recreation areas, mechanical and electrical areas, storage areas, and parking levels (the "basement" and, at the lowest level, the "sub- basement "). Exhibits 3 -7 through 3 -12 illustrate each of the six levels of the proposed residential structure; cross - sections of through the site are shown in Exhibit 3- 13 and 3 -14. Three residential levels will be visible from Carnation Avenue above the existing street grade. Four residential levels will be visible when viewed from Newport Bay. In total, the Project will encompass 61,709 square feet, which includes living areas, storage areas, parking, and circulation and mechanical areas. Exhibits 3 -15 and 3 -16 illustrate the proposed architectural character of the project. The floor area allocations for each of the eight condominium units are summarized in Table 3 -1. Table 3 -1 Project Statistical Analysis Unit No. No. of Levels Living Area S . Ft. Garage (S q. Ft. Storage (S q. Ft.) Total (S q. Ft. 1 1 3,716 416 471 4,603 2 1 3,204 410 705 4,319 3 1 2,662 397 648 3,707 4 1 2,916 418 709 4,043 5 2 4,990 483 1,143 6,616 6 2 4,130 436 889 5,455 7 1 1 3,745 399 674 1 4,818 8 1 4,063 552 704 5,319 Sub -Total 29,426 3,511 5,943 38,880 Parkin g /Circulation/ Common Area 22'829 Total 61,709 SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -12 CD C . a te s m KN w C U of m w �Nm m� 4 X30 m2c°v cj cis m eo WN �a o� m jem u n IaS OLI I, c M m ._ a Q 0 s� W LL w C N E N N R m 7 Y U o t wY Q a W $ N C � t rz C e� >o W� �a o c r M a a" u LLOI '1Y3wa n 'UM a SW,14! uo TdG VNOMCJ v NON aAtl NOLLtlNiltl7 LAL- IOL I ir�a_ altlad Wvawma'ugq� 1N3w35VB�M' a �_� 5 jem u n IaS OLI I, c M m ._ a Q 0 s� W LL w C N E N N R m 7 Y U o t wY Q a W $ N C � t rz C e� >o W� �a o c r M a a" co C M !9 .IL 0 r G W LL G N E d N c0 m U t oL m m �m U t O O Q E3o mo G�� a >o GO W �`+ �a � c m 0) c M@ . o. L L O W V r N LL U C . OL U 0 v co U � Egg 36Z l7 G L Of S O GO W¢ ra o� d o c Ma Y_ L 0 t O K LL W O C O U d N U t J- ca m m �m m t n m E3o mZN t7 Q�g a W �a o� m Ma Y_ y � o t O X LL W �p t H U C _ of m m �No mY W 2N ty >o W N o e d I 3Atl NOLL1MtlV7 LOL IoC I �_ �,MW4_— I NV7� , l,l II lI it it I� e���l a I N � f6 Ma Y_ L C O 0 X LL W t t 7 O LL U C . o c am Wm U � tog wool 7 C t 0 m�� A G ,my d eo WN �a o2 m Q � k I � �IIII ll� J Y _ �i �J!I�aJii�ai?as d, r . 15 •■ I_ I u� TLIU t� FNE _JAI al'I •I��� w LLI y 1 M", 1111M Mm M� aQ L N X = W p Y U N N N O U U C t 0 m E3o aZN IID C � t C � � ��g 5 W$ ME a o� Q N nl a inn Lot L, n Ilu iiooiuul i I ��l I— null II _ _vc a � k I � �IIII ll� J Y _ �i �J!I�aJii�ai?as d, r . 15 •■ I_ I u� TLIU t� FNE _JAI al'I •I��� w LLI y 1 M", 1111M Mm M� aQ L N X = W p Y U N N N O U U C t 0 m E3o aZN IID C � t C � � ��g 5 W$ ME a o� Q N nl a Will f I I I III II I- on�n�IbFII�Aj�A " " -n_A n n II I n II n-II I ■- "II ®1 o �BI�p�IBBBBBB��afl Slllllnl ill IllliI I II II I ll T I II I I.YI li 1_I LI III -I fir. n [IL�(=nfJ1 =1f� =1aA�Y eRenln� =R X11 =i� A� =A =A =A " "Ae� gl�ff�iv� � �I I H� �Iku- il�l�l �__ b nn "li�ln � R I11� � � � n non ii IARp rt= -I I f I I on�n�IbFII�Aj�A " " -n_A n n II I n II n-II I II II n ®1 o �BI�p�IBBBBBB��afl IIBAII ���bllnib�nenrlfLlle [ fir. n [IL�(=nfJ1 =1f� =1aA�Y eRenln� =R X11 =i� A� =A =A =A " "Ae� gl�ff�iv� � �I I I� � �__ b nn "li�ln � R I11� � � � n non IARp vp r M � c Y_ (Q :2 U = N X r W O U N N N O u U m m N I= 0 aye E3o ._�..ZN C I Q iS W N �a O I N a \m � \ I } \ \\ /« / U. k \§ k §' k� t` \ ^ .� All `Gw? f�� | r \\ \� °' $ }�46 - \m � \ I } \ \\ /« / U. k \§ k §' k� wa z � w eoe.aw'om.a xr n cr a wsmrt'.w a r n'>a..iszwm..aa.�..imw. a. s c0 N A O w � Q > L � X W W m Y N N W c C fC L 0 O Z t U of a4i w �m m � Q E3o �2N [ � t eo wQ �a o� d N M Oi a" Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description As indicated in Table 3 -1, each condominium unit will have a private storage room that will be located in the sub - basement level. Common amenities include a fitness facility, lounge, patio, locker room, exercise room, and a pool located on the basement level that will be partially open to the sky allowing light and air to circulate to the pool area. At least two parking spaces are provided and designated for each unit, with an additional eight (8) guest, one (1) service, and two (2) golf cart parking spaces spread throughout the sub - basement, the basement, and the First and Second Floors. The Second Floor is approximately four (4) feet below the grade of Carnation Avenue and will house residential units, one (1) two -car garage, and five (5) guest parking spaces, as well as bicycle and motorcycle parking accommodations. Below street grade parking is hidden from public view and is accessed from Carnation Avenue utilizing two automobile elevators. The existing upper portion of the on -grade stairs that currently provide private access from the apartment building to the water and existing docks will be removed. The existing on -grade stairs (built prior to 1961), which are seaward of the proposed residential structure, will be connected to the building by an on -grade stair at the Basement Level. The City Council has established a predominant line of existing bluff face development for the Site ( PLOED) at elevation 50.7 feet. New development on the bluff face is proposed to be more than two feet higher than the PLOED at elevation 52.83 feet, except for an emergency exit at elevation 40.5. As a point of reference, the lowest reach down the bluff face of the existing apartment building is 42.3 feet, or approximately eight feet lower than the proposed residential structures (other than the proposed emergency exit). The basement and sub - basement levels are subterranean and will not be visible from either the street or Newport Bay. Outdoor patios, decks, spas, and firepits are proposed at each above grade level. The Project will encroach into the front and side setbacks; however, the majority of the encroachments are subterranean. Approximately 25,240 cubic yards of earth will be excavated and removed from the site. The Docks In addition to the residential structure identified and described above, the project applicant is also proposing the replacement of the existing landing /dock facility associated with the subject property as illustrated in Exhibit 3 -18. The structural elements of the existing gangway platform, pier walkway, and floating docks (timber frame, concrete pontoons, and timber deck) are in very poor condition. The City has required the applicant to remove or rebuild the docks due to their deteriorated and unsafe conditions. The existing docks can accommodate four (4) boats in the approximately 25 -foot class. Eight (8) replacement slips and one (1) guest side -tie dock are proposed. The new dock layout will accommodate boats up to 100 -feet in length and the proposed layout is depicted on the Dock Replacement Plan (Exhibit 3 -18). The new docks will consist of timber docks supported by rotationally molded plastic pontoons, which require less draft (bottom clearance) than concrete floats, allowing the dock system to be located as close to an existing rock outcropping as possible. The six (6) steel dock guidepiles that support the existing docks will be removed and replaced with 19 new guide piles supporting the new dock system. Of these 19 piles, nine (9) will be large diameter piles (approximately two -foot diameter). All guidepiles will be pre- stressed concrete piles set in pre - drilled, augered holes. The existing 20 -foot long gangway will be replaced by a 60 -foot long gangway. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -24 I 1 O i O SZ �hrc 1. rj a o� �O 1 1• i- N l � � 1 � U O O 0 0 og s� oN n 8 N d 5 � a 1^ b \ Z�Y WAY � a gSZ p 1, rr, � 40 ` �^ • 5 °o z fl C r M Ma Y V t 0 xQ W U KO COD Q � 30 W Z N C � t C'p�'yyj w W N �a o� a N a Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description As illustrated in the Dock Replacement Plan (refer to Exhibit 3 -18), the pile - supported pier walkway between the existing gangway platform and the existing concrete pad will be repaired /replaced with a structure in -like -kind (timber- framing system, a 2x timber deck, and timber railings all around). The existing concrete piles supporting the walkway will be repaired in the form of concrete repairs. The gangway platform construction will include the repair or replacement of four (4) steel piles, timber framing with metal connectors, and a 2x timber deck with railings all around. The existing concrete pad, concrete steps, and safety railings will be repaired and patched as necessary. Green Architecture Design Criteria The proposed Aerie project has been designed utilizing "green" architecture criteria. As a result, the project will be constructed with both active and passive sustainable design elements that enhance the project design, reduce the amount of energy utilized, and minimize the project footprint on the environment. The active and passive "green" strategies that will be implemented include: Passive Strategies Design to maximize solar orientation to increase the use of daylighting concepts and reduce energy usage. • Use of high - thermal mass for capturing and retaining heat through solar heat gain apertures. • Optimum overhangs to minimize harsh summer sun exposures while allowing winter heat gain. Natural ventilation systems that capitalize on prevailing ocean breezes and thermal convection dynamics. Dual paned glazing systems using "Low -E" glass (both non - mechanical and hybrid systems). • Gray water retention for property irrigation. • Use of environmentally friendly and sustainable materials. • Integration of California drought tolerant landscape materials. Active Strategies • Solar domestic hot water and pool heating • Solar photovoltaic arrays to generate electricity • Multi- zoned, high velocity hydronic heating and cooling systems. • Instantaneous hot water boilers with solar domestic hot water assist. Other Design Elements Renewable wood materials and sustainable fly ash concrete construction. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Reduction of energy use through high efficacy lighting fixtures. Cross ventilation systems. Lutron Homeworks interactive lighting control systems. Construction Management Plan A Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been prepared as a component of the proposed project. The CMP addresses all aspects of the construction phase (e.g., phasing, schedule, construction equipment, and the construction process). In addition, the CMP also addresses parking management (e.g., off -site and short-term parking, staging, etc.), traffic control (e.g., haul routes and delivery requirements), safety and security (e.g., pedestrian protection, fencing, and safety and security), air Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -26 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description quality control and noise suppression measures (e.g., dust control, noise control vibration monitoring); and environmental compliance /protection (e.g., erosion and sediment control and beach protection, water quality control and environmental protection measures). The Construction Management Plan is included as Appendix B. 3.5 Project Phasing The applicant is proposing to construct the project in four discrete phases over a period of approximately 32 months based on the schedule summarized in Table 3 -2. The Construction Management Plan is presented in Appendix B. This schedule is preliminary and may change based, intervening weather conditions or other unanticipated circumstances. Table 3 -2 Proposed Construction Phasing Phase Construction Activities Duration' Asbestos and lead -based paint removal, 1 demolition, caisson placement and grading. 6 Months Grading is comprised of three segments of earth removal, and lagging Concrete placement consisting of shotcrete shoring, placement of structural slabs and 2 walls, waterproofing, and sub -slab drainage 18 Months systems. Integration of site drainage, plumbing underground and electrical underground s stems. Metal study wall framing will begin on lower levels and work up. Integration of rough plumbing, mechanical, and electrical systems will follow after steel stud walls are in place. 3Z Both vehicular elevators will be installed and 13 Months operational at this time. Installation of windows and doors will occur, as will planting of large plant materials at site's bayward side. Finally, construction of the docks will occur. Finishes will be installed. Exterior finishes such as exterior plaster, roofing systems, stone veneer, guard rails, exterior lighting and solar panels will be installed, as will the 4 balance of the landscaping and 11 Months hardscape /paving, artificial rock finishes, softscape, landscape lighting and drainage systems. Interior finishes will be installed, including drywall, painting, cabinetry, stone and tile at counters, walls and floors. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -27 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description Phase Construction Activities Duration' 'Because of overlapping phases, the total duration of construction is estimated to be 32 months. 2Phase 3 will start before Phase 2 is completed so that the majority of Phase 2 and Phase 3 will occur simultaneously. SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture (February 23, 2008 3.6 Project Objectives The Aerie Project Objectives are set forth below. Some of the Project Objectives consist of a general introductory statement, complemented by reference to specific actions proposed by the Applicant to achieve that Objective. Those specific listed actions, standing alone, are not the Project Objectives, but provide both a qualitative and quantitative context to help the reader better understand the scope and scale of the Applicant's Project's Objectives and assist in the comparative evaluation of the Project Alternatives in the Project's Environmental Impact Report. For example, the specific actions listed under Project Objective 6 are not intended to suggest, for instance, that a project alternative not providing a drinking fountain at a public vantage point would not, therefore, meet Project Objective 6. Rather, the combination of those specific listed actions is intended to allow assessment of the scope and scale of Project Objective 6 by explaining how the Project itself intends to protect and enhance scenic views to the harbor from public vantage points in the immediate neighborhood." The Project Objectives are: To develop a state -of- the -art multi - family residential condominium project, with a sufficient number and size of units to justify (a) the incorporation of advanced design which reflects the architectural diversity of the community and adds distinction to the harbor and the neighborhood, (b) the use of energy- conserving technology described in Project Objective 3, and (c) the inclusion of common amenities reflected in Project Objective 4. 2. To enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood by replacing a deteriorating 60 -year old structure with a high - quality residential project utilizing unique modern design principles and featuring (a) the elimination of conventional garage doors for all units, (b) the concealing of all parking from street view, (c) significant landscape and streetscape enhancements, (d) the removal of two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, and (e) replacing these features by undergrounding the new wiring. 3. To replace an energy inefficient structure typical of mid -20th Century development with an advanced, highly efficient structure designed to incorporate energy- saving, sustainable, and environmentally sensitive technology, construction techniques, water quality treatment elements, and other features designed to conserve energy and/or improve the existing environment to a greater degree than required by current applicable regulations. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -28 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description 4. To provide amenities commensurate with most newer residential development in comparable bayfront locations in the City. Such amenities generally include a dock for each residence, ample storage space, and common recreational and health facilities, such as a swimming pool and fitness center. 5. To enhance public access to the coast by increasing the number of available public street parking spaces through the use of new technology and creative design which will limit project entry and exit points, thereby minimizing curb cuts and exceeding on -site the number of resident and guest parking required for the project. 6. To protect and enhance scenic views to the harbor and the ocean from designated public vantage points in the immediate neighborhood by (a) significantly expanding the existing public view corridor at the southern end of project site, (b) creating a new public view corridor at the northern end of the project site, (c) removing two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, all of which presently obstruct the view from certain perspectives, (d) replacing the existing poles and overhead wiring by undergrounding the new wiring, and (e) providing a public bench and drinking fountain at the corner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard to enhance the public viewing experience. To enhance public views of the project site from the harbor by (a) maintaining all visible development above the predominant line of existing development (PLOED), (b) incorporating into the project the property at 207 Carnation Avenue, which presently is within the Categorical Exclusion Zone and, if not part of the project, would not be subject to the PLOED, (c) replacing the existing outdated apartment building with modern, organic architecture with articulated facades to conform to the topography of the bluff, and (d) removing the unsightly cement and pipes and the non - native vegetation on the bluff face and replacing it with an extensive planting of native vegetation. 8. To minimize encroachment into private views by maintaining a maximum building height on average four feet below the zoning district's development standards. 3.7 Project Processing Requirements and Requested Entitlements Project implementation will necessitate the approval of the following discretionary actions by the Newport Beach City Council: General Plan Amendment (GP2005 -006) This action would change the land use designation of the 584 square foot portion of the parcel located at 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two -Unit Residential) to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre) on the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2005 -002) The amendment to the CLUP would result in a change in the Coastal Land Use Plan designation of the same 584 square foot portion of the parcel at 101 Bayside Place from RH -D (High Density Residential — 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre) to RM -A (Medium Density Residential — 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -29 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description Zone Change (CA2005 -009) Approval of the zone change would change the zoning designation of the 584 square foot portion of the parcel located at 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to MFR (Multi- family Residential, 2,178 square feet per unit). • Tentative Tract Map (NT2005- 004/TT16882) TTM 16882 will combine the 584 square foot portion of the parcel located at 101 Bayside Place with parcels identified as 201 — 205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue, and will subdivide the air space for eight (8) residential condominium units. Modification Permit (MD2005 -087) The modification permit would allow: (1) above and below grade building encroachments within the 10 -foot front yard setback along Carnation Avenue; (2) 42 -inch high protective guard rails within the required 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue where they are restricted to 36 inches; (3) above and below grade building and balcony encroachments within the required 10' 7" side yard setback abutting 215 Carnation Avenue; (4) and balcony encroachments within the 10' 7" side yard setback abutting Bayside Place. Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002) This permit would allow demolition of the existing dwelling units within the Coastal Zone pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -30 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 4.0— Environmental Analysis CHAPTER 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION This section documents the environmental analysis for those parameters for which the proposed Aerie residential development project may or would result in potentially significant adverse impacts. These parameters were identified based on the environmental analysis conducted for the project and reflected in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR and in comments received during the 30 -day NOP comment period. The purpose of Chapter 4.0 (Environmental Analysis) is to describe the existing environmental conditions on the subject property and in the environs and to identify the potential impacts or consequences that may result from implementation of the proposed project. In order to facilitate the analysis of each issue in this EIR, a standard format was developed to analyze each issue. This format is presented below with a brief discussion of the information included within each topic. Existing Conditions This introductory section describes the existing environmental conditions related to each issue analyzed in the Draft EIR. In accordance with Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines, both the local and regional settings are discussed as they exist prior to implementation of the proposed project. The existing conditions provide the baseline against which the potential environmental impacts are evaluated. Significance Criteria Specific criteria have been identified upon which the significance of project - related potential impacts are determined. The significance criteria which are the basis of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR are derived from the significant effects presented in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, adopted local, State, and federal policies and programs which may apply, and other commonly accepted technical and non - technical standards. Standard Conditions The proposed project will incorporate, where necessary or required, standard conditions as imposed by the City and /or other responsible agencies. The standard conditions will be identified in this section of the Draft EIR. Potential Impacts This section of the Draft EIR identifies and describes the potential impacts, which will result from project implementation. All project - related impacts have been clearly and adequately analyzed in accordance with Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Impacts that have been avoided or reduced to a less than significant level are identified as "less than significant" and analyzed accordingly. In order to facilitate the impact analysis, the following outline has been utilized. Short-Term (Construction) Impacts Long -Term (Operational) Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 4.0 — Environmental Analysis Mitigation Measures Where a potential significant environmental effect has been identified in the environmental analysis, mitigation measures have been included in this section of the document which ".. . minimize significant adverse impacts ... for each significant environmental effect identified in the EIR ", as prescribed in Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Level of Significance After Mitigation The residual impacts of the proposed project (i.e., impacts resulting after the implementation of mitigation measures, if any) will be identified in this section of the EIR. Where potentially significant impacts are reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation, they will be identified. Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those effects that either cannot be mitigated or they remain significant even after mitigation. These significant effects will be identified in this section of the Draft EIR. Prior to approval of the proposed project, the Newport Beach City Council will be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations that identifies and describes the public benefit(s) associated with project implementation that offset the significant impacts. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING 4.1.1 Existing Conditions Existing Land Use Existing site conditions and a description of the surrounding property are discussed in Chapter 3.0 (Project Description). Land Use Planning Newport Beach General Plan The City of Newport Beach completed the first comprehensive revision of the City's General Plan in over 30 years in 2006. The General Plan presents a vision for the city's future and a strategy to make that vision a reality. The General Plan recognizes that the City is primarily a residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods and is nearly fully developed. As a result, the Plan focuses on conserving the existing pattern of land uses and establishes policies for their protection and long -term maintenance. The discussion presented below provides a summary of each of the elements of the Comprehensive General Plan. Land Use Element The Land Use Element provides policy guidance regarding the ultimate pattern of development anticipated for full buildout of the City. It provides the basis for zoning regulations and other municipal code standards. Because the City is nearly fully developed, this element focuses on how population and employment growth can be accommodated yet still preserve its distinguishing and valued qualities. The subject property is located within the residential area of Corona del Mar south of Bayside Drive. Specifically, the site is located within Statistical Area F3, which encompasses the east side of the Newport Harbor entrance and Corona del Mar State Beach. The land use designations within this statistical area include a range of residential densities, including Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D), Two Unit Residential (RT), and Multiple -Unit Residential (RM). Other land use designations include Private Institutions (PI) and Parks and Recreation (PR). The subject property is designated RM and RT. Exhibit 4.1 -1 illustrates the land use designations adopted for the subject property and the surrounding area. Harbor and Bay Element This element of the General Plan addresses natural resources, community identity, and economic characteristics of the City given the location of Newport Beach on the coast. Some aspects of the Harbor and Bay Element address public access, water quality, and natural environment as well as land use policies relating to the waterfront uses along Newport Harbor. Circulation Element The Circulation Element governs the long -term mobility systems of the City. The goals and policies in this element are closely correlated with the Land Use Element and are intended to provide the best possible balance between the City's future growth and land use development, roadway size, traffic service levels, and community character. Figure CE1 in the Circulation Element reflects the Citys Master Plan of Streets and Highways. With the exception of Coast Highway, no Master Plan roadways are located in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. The Circulation Element also includes the Bikeways Master Plan (refer to Figure CE4 in the Circulation Element). As indicated in that figure, a Class I Bikeway (i.e., off -road paved facility) is identified north of the site on Bayside Drive approximately 700 feet northeast of the project site. The City has also adopted an Equestrian and Hiking Trails Master Plan (refer to Figure CE5 in the Circulation Draft Environmental Impact Report Aede PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning Element). None of these existing and proposed trails, which are confined to the area north of the Upper Newport Bay and south of San Joaquin Hills Road, exist within the vicinity of the project. Safety Element The primary goal of the Safety Element is to reduce the potential risk of death, injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from natural and human - induced hazards. The Newport Beach Safety Element provides policy guidance related to coastal hazards (e.g., tsunamis, coastal erosion, etc.), geologic hazards (e.g., slope failures, adverse soils conditions, etc.), seismic hazards (e.g., liquefaction, ground shaking, etc.), flood hazards, wildland and urban fire hazards, hazardous materials (e.g., hazardous waste, leaking underground storage tanks, etc.) aviation hazards, and disaster planning. Coastal Hazards Newport Beach is susceptible to low - probability /high risk events such as tsunamis as well as isolated hazard that include storm surges and coastal erosion. The Safety Element addresses these potential hazards, which are generally limited to the portions of the City located immediately adjacent to the coast, within and adjacent to Newport Harbor and the Upper Newport Bay areas. A portion of the subject property is located within the limits of the 100 -year zone established for tsunami inundation at extreme high tide identified in Figure S1 (Coastal Hazards) in the Safety Element. Geologic Hazards The geologic diversity of Newport Beach is strongly related to tectonic movement along the San Andreas Fault and its broad zone of subsidiary faults. This along with sea level fluctuations related to changes in climate, has resulted in a landscape that is also diverse in geologic hazards that have the potential to cause loss or harm to the community and /or the environment. The major geologic constraints identified in the Safety Element include slope failure, compressible soils, and expansive soils. Based on that Figure S2 (Seismic Hazards), the site is not underlain by adverse conditions, and is subject to the potential for slope failure as indicated on that exhibit in the Safety Element. Seismic Hazards The greatest potential for seismic activity to affect the City of Newport Beach is activity occurring along the Newport- Inglewood Fault zone, the Whittier Fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills Fault zone, and the Elysian Park Fault zone, which with the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would result in ground shaking in the City and in nearby communities. Other secondary seismic effects include liquefaction and seismically- induced slope failure. However, no portion of the site is identified in the Safety Element as subject to potential liquefaction associated with seismic activity. Flood Hazards The Safety Element also addresses potential flooding associated with significant storm events. The 100- and 500 -year flood zones within the City of Newport Beach have been mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Based on the FEMA studies, no portion of the subject property is subject to inundation resulting from either a 100- or 500 -year storm event. Fire Hazard The City's Safety Element also addresses wildland fire hazards (refer to Figure S4). The City is distinguished by three classifications if fire susceptibility, including: High, Moderate, and Low /None; the City does not contain 'Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones as defined by Government Code Section 51179. The majority of the City, including the subject site is identified to have a Low /None Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning classification for fire susceptibility potential. The City of Newport Beach has adopted the 2001 California Fire Code with City amendments and some exceptions. These provisions include construction standards in new structures and remodels, road widths and configurations designed to accommodate the passage of fire trucks and engines, and requirements for minimum fire flow rates for water mains. Hazardous Materials The Hazardous Materials component of the Safety Element addresses several areas related to hazardous materials, including toxic release inventory, hazardous waste, leaking underground storage tanks, oil fields, methane gas mitigation districts, and hazards overlay. The Safety Element includes programs for ensuring that the potential for the release of hazardous materials into the environment is minimized. Aviation Hazards The City of Newport Beach borders the southeastern portion of John Wayne Airport (JWA); however, the subject property is located approximately five miles southwest of JWA, which generates nearly all of the aviation traffic affecting the City of Newport Beach. Although the accident potential zones delineated for JWA are located in the areas adjacent to and surrounding the airport, three areas within the City were found to be subject to increased vulnerability to aviation hazards due to the location and orientation of runways and flight patterns: portions of the Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Upper Newport Bay. However, no portion of the subject property has been identified as subject potential aviation hazards. Disaster Planning Any potential hazard occurring in the City of Newport Beach resulting from either man -made or natural disasters may require the evacuation of residents of the City. In order to facilitate such evacuation, the City employs the Standardized Emergency Management System for emergency response. This system provides for assistance by one or more emergency response agencies as well as the potential implementation of other policies and plans from the County of Orange, State of California and /or federal government. In addition, the City has adopted an Emergency Management Plan that is implemented in the event of any emergency. This plan is prepared and updated by the Newport Beach Fire Department. Housing Element The Housing Element is designed to facilitate attainment of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and to foster the availability of housing to all income levels to the extent possible given the constraints within the City. The Housing Element is a comprehensive statement of the Citys housing policies and services as a specific guide for implementation of these policies and is closely correlated with the Land Use Element. The Element examines current housing needs, estimates future housing needs, and establishes goals, policies, and programs pertaining to those needs. According to the updated data presented in the Housing Element, the City had a total of 42,143 housing units in 2005, including approximately 62 percent of the homes that were single - family detached and attached, 17 percent duplex to fourplex units, 23 percent multiple - family homes, and two percent mobile homes. The site is designated as RM and RT and, therefore, is intended to contribute to the supply of housing within the City of Newport Beach. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Noise Element Section 4.1— Land Use and The Noise Element serves as a tool for including noise control in the planning process, which is intended to ensure land use compatibility. This element identifies noise sensitive land uses as well as the sources of noise, defines areas of noise impacts for the purpose of developing policies intended to protect residents and sensitive receptors from the effects of excessive noise. The most common noise sources in the City of Newport Beach include the existing freeway/highway system and the major arterial roadways extending throughout the City. In addition, aircraft operations associated with John Wayne Airport (JWA) also result in noise excessive noise levels in parts of the City. Other aircraft operations related to helicopter operations at Hoag Hospital are also a source of noise that affects residential uses in the vicinity of the hospital. Newport Beach has the largest small boat harbor in Southern California. The operations of the small motorized boats generate undesirable noise in proximity to residences. Non - transportation related noise sources include restaurant/bar /entertainment establishments, mixed -use structures, mechanical equipment, and recreational facilities. Figures N1 and N5 in the Noise Element indicate that no portion of the property is subject to either existing or future vehicular noise associated with traffic on the surface roadways in the project environs. In addition, the site is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour established for aircraft operations at JWA. The Noise Element articulates policies that are intended to ensure that construction noise is minimized to avoid impacts to sensitive land uses through limitations on hours of truck deliveries and enforcement of the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits on the hours of maintenance and /or construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas. Natural Resources Element The primary objective of the Natural Resources Element is to provide policy direction regarding the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources. It identifies the City's natural resources and policies for their preservation, development and use. The element addresses water supply and water quality, air quality, biological resources, open space, cultural and scientific resources, mineral resources, visual resources, and energy. Although no portion of the site is identified as a potential resource, Figure NR1 in the Natural Resources Element identified an eelgrass bed in proximity to the subject property; however, this area is not identified as an environmental study area (ESA) on Figure NR2. Important biological resources are limited to the coastal areas, Newport Harbor, and Upper Newport Bay and the areas adjacent to it (refer to Figure NR1 in the Natural Resources Element. This element of the General Plan also addresses aesthetic resources, with emphasis on coastal views. Figure NR3 in the Natural Resources Element identifies Ocean Boulevard as a Coastal View Road and the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue is designated as a Public View Point. Begonia Park is also located approximately one quarter mile northwest of the site. Historical Resources Element This Element addresses the protection and sustainability of Newport Beach's cultural, historic and paleontological resources. Goals and policies presented within the element are intended to recognize, maintain, and protect the community's unique historical, cultural, and archaeological sites and structures. Figure HR1 (Historic Resources) in the Historical Resources Element identifies the historic resources includes on the National Register of Historic Places, California Historical Landmarks, other historic sites or potentially historic sites in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) database, and other historic sites in the City's Register. None of the sites identified in Figure HR1 are located on the project site. Recreation Element The primary purpose of the Recreation Element is to ensure that the balance between the provision of sufficient parks and recreation facilities are appropriate for the residential and business population of Newport Beach. Specific recreational issues and policies contained in the Recreation Element address parks and recreation facilities (278 acres of developed parks), recreation programs, shared facilities, coastal recreation and support facilities, marine recreation, and public access. The existing recreational facilities are identified Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and on Figure R1 in the Recreation Element. Begonia Park is located north of the subject property. The site is within the viewshed of portions of the recreational facility. Newport Beach is divided into recreation service areas for the purposes of park planning and to equitably administer parkland dedications and fees provided by residential development. The subject property is located within Service Area 10 (i.e., Corona del Mar). The land dedicated to recreational facilities in this service area is mostly within Corona del Mar State Beach. There is a deficit of 9.1 acres of combined park/beach acreage within this service area. The Service Area 10 Recreation and Open Space Plan (refer to Figure R3 in the Recreation Element) reflects the distribution of beaches and public park facilities. Arts and Cultural Element The goals and policies of the Arts and Cultural Element are intended to serve as a guide for meeting the future cultural needs of the community. The City's Arts Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council on matters including artistic aspects of the City. This commission also participates in the designation of historical landmarks and reviews design elements for public sculpture, fountains, murals, benches, and other fixtures. Newport Beach Local Coastal Program The subject property is located within the Coastal Zone and is subject to the land use regulations prescribed in the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) certified by the Coastal Commission in 2005. The City does not have a certified implementation plan and, therefore, the City does not have coastal development permit jurisdiction. The CLUP was derived from the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The land use intensity or residential density limit is prescribed in the CLUP. Although the Land Use Element may contain more precise development limits for specific properties, the land use intensity or residential density limit that is the most protective of coastal resources takes precedence should a conflict exist with the CLUP. However, in no case shall the policies of the CLUP be interpreted to allow a development to exceed a development limit established by the General Plan or its implementing ordinances. As previously identified, the subject property is designated RM -A, with a small parcel (i.e., 584 square feet) designated RM -D. In addition to identifying goals and policies for future development within the Citys coastal zone, the CLUP identified several planning study areas that encompass certain areas of the City that are characterized by unique land use and /or development characteristics that cannot be properly addressed through standard land use designations; however, the subject property is not located within one of the planning study areas. The CLUP prescribes the development review process, which requires a coastal development permit prior to commencement of any development in the coastal zone, with the exceptions of development in areas where the Coastal Commission retains permit jurisdiction, developments where an amendment to a Coastal Commission - issued permit is required, developments determined to be categorically excluded according to the categories and standards established by the Coastal Commission, and developments determined to be excluded from the coastal development permit requirements pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30610 and its implementing regulations. The proposed project is subject to the City's coastal development review process. Zoning The subject property is zoned R -2 (Two - Family Residential) and MFR (2178) (Multiple Family Residential — 2,178 square feet of land area /dwelling unit). These zoning classifications are consistent with the adopted General Plan land use designations, which would allow both single - family and higher density multiple - family residential development on the site. The R -2 zoning would permit up to _ dwelling units /acre; the MFR zoning would permit up to 20 du /ac. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -5 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 — Land Use and Planning SCAG Policies and Proarams The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a Joint Powers Agency that was established under the California Government Code. Under federal and state law, SCAG is designated as a Council of Governments (COG), a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) having the mandated roles and responsibilities described below. As the region's MPO, SCAG is required to maintain a continuing cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning process resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan and a Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Further, as the RTPA, SCAG is also responsible for both preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP). SCAG is also responsible for developing the demographic projections and the integrated land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South Coast Air quality Management Plan and is responsible for determining conformity of projects, plans and programs to the Air Quality Management Plan prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The Growth Management chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) contains several policies that are particularly applicable to the proposed project, including those related to population, housing and employment and the provision of adequate public facilities and infrastructure. The Growth Management chapter contains goals to improve the regional standard of living, quality of life, and to provide social, political, and cultural diversity. The Air Quality chapter of the RCPG contains core actions related to development to ensure that regional air quality goals and objectives are met. In addition, the Water Quality chapter also contains core recommendations and policy options to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's water and to achieve and maintain water quality objectives that are necessary to protect the beneficial uses of all waters. 4.1.2 Significance Criteria Land use impacts are considered significant if the proposed project will conflict with the adopted plans and goals of the community as expressed in the Newport Beach General Plan. In addition, the following would be considered significant adverse impacts of the proposed project related to land use as identified in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines: • Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. • Conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. • Physically dividing an established community. • Substantial or extreme use incompatibility. Incompatible land uses in an aircraft accident potential area as defined in an airport land use plan. • Inconsistency or conflict with established recreational, educational, religious our scientific uses of the area. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -6 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 — Land Use and Planning 4.1.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.1 -1 All development proposed for the Aerie project shall be reviewed for consistency with applicable provisions of the California Building Code, Noise Ordinance, Uniform Fire Code, and other applicable codes and ordinances prior to issuance of building permits. SC 4 -1 -2 The property owner(s) shall execute and record a waiver of future shoreline protection for the project prior to the issuance of a building permit. Said waiver shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. 4.1.4 Potential Impacts 4.1.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts No short-term land use impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. 4.1.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The proposed project is subject to the applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan and relevant policies. As indicated previously, the subject property is designated RT (Two Unit Residential) and RM (Multiple Unit Residential — 20 du /ac). The applicant is proposing to amend the Newport Beach General Plan to elimination the RT land use designation on a small portion of the site and replace it with the RM land use to be consistent with the RM land use designation in the project area. The relationship of the proposed project with the Land Use Element and Coastal Land Use Plan adopted by the City of Newport Beach is presented below. Newport Beach General Plan Although a small portion of the project site is currently designated RT (Two -Unit Residential), the majority of the site is zoned RM (Multiple -Unit Residential), which allows for a density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The applicant has requested a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the RT component of the site as RM on the Land Use Element Map. Implementation of the proposed project is consistent with the proposed RM designation with the approval of the proposed amendment. The Newport Beach General Plan includes several policies that guide development in the City. The consistency analysis presented in Table 4.1 -1 reflects the relationship of the proposed project with the applicable policies contained within the various elements of the Newport Beach General Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -7 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Table 4.1 -1 General Plan Policy Analysis Section 4.1 — Land Use and Policy No. General Plan Policy Consistent Analysis Land Use Element The proposed project respects the site's topographic Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique features by adhering to the PLOED defined by the City character of the different neighborhoods, business Council, which protects the majority of the bluff, the rock districts, and harbor that together identify Newport outcroppings and natural cove. The architectural style of LU 1.1 Beach. Locate and design development to reflect the project reflects an organic, modem /contemporary style Newport Beach's topography, architectural diversity, that promotes architectural diversity in the City. The and view sheds. location and design protects and enhances existing public views and the existing visual quality of the site to the benefit of the neighborhood and City. The area in which the site is located is characterized by a variety of single- and multiple - family residential homes that reflect a range of densities and a variety of architectural While recognizing the qualities that uniquely define its styles, which contribute to the unique character of Corona neighborhoods and districts, promote the identity of the del Mar. Both the density of the proposed project and the LU 1.2 entire City that differentiates it as a special place within proposed reuse of the site are consistent with the variety the Southern California region. of densities and styles within the area, which is consistent "identity' with the of the City. The distinctive architectural character of the proposed structure is consistent with the City's desire to differentiate Newport Beach from other coastal cities. As indicated above, the proposed project has been designed to complement the natural features of the area, including the bluff, cove and harbor area. The "curvilinear' features reflected in the design of the proposed residential structure will allow the building to conform to the bluff when compared to the existing rectilinear features of the existing residential structure. In addition, the proposed colors are consistent with the natural environment, and the project' mass has been broken by the physical separation between the two main structural elements. Finally, the bluff face below the proposed structure would be landscaped and enhanced with native plant materials. The project's design also preserves the area's visual, recreational, and habitat resources. First, as discussed in Section 4.5 of the EIR, the project will contribute to the Protect the natural setting that contributes to the diversity of form and scale of the development that character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense currently exists in the City and will not adversely affect LU 1.3 of place it provides for its residents and visitors. views from important vantages within the area identified by Preserve open space resources, beaches, harbor, the City. Several visual simulations presented in Section parks, bluffs, preserves, and estuaries as visual, 4.5 reveal that the project will not have a significant recreational and habitat resources. adverse aesthetic Impact on visual resources. In addition, unlike the existing multi - family apartment structure, the site design does not extend below the PLOED established by the City Council, except for the dock access /emergency exit; however, that feature is recessed into the bluff to be nearly imperceptible when viewed from the harbor. Second, the project will not adversely affect public access to the small beach area locate don the project site. Although direct public access to the beach area is not available either from the project site or another nearby public coastal access point, this area will remain accessible to the public via the harbor. Finally, habitat resources on the project site (e.g., eelgrass) would be preserved. As discussed in Section 4.7 of the EIR, the incorporate of mitigation measures will Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -8 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. General Plan Poli2z Consistency Analysis ensure that the impacts to terrestrial and marine biological resources are reduced to a less than significant level. In addition, the SOMP prepared for the project would also result in the implementation of BMPs that currently do not exist, resulting in an improvement to surface water discharges into the harbor emanating from the site. The project proposes only eight residential dwelling units in a single structure. This density of the project is below the density permitted by both the General Plan (i.e., 20 Implement a conservative growth strategy that du /ac) and the Newport Beach Municipal Code (9 units enhances the quality of life of residents and balances allowed on the project site). This is consistent with the LU 1.4 the needs of all constituencies with the preservation of conservative growth strategy discussed in Policy LU 1.4. open space and natural resources. In addition, project implementation would not result In impacts to open space and where potentially significant impacts to nature resources are identified (e.g., eelgrass), mitigation measures have been prescribed, which are consistent with adopted policies for such mitigation. As indicated in Section 4.5 (Aesthetics), although project implementation will result in the introduction of a different structure on the site, views from important public vantages (e.g., Begonia Park) would not be significantly affected. In addition, views through the site from the "public view point" at Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue adjacent to the project would be enhanced. The view angle through the site from that location to the harbor and ocean would be Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic increased by approximately 76 percent as a result of LU 1.6 and visual resources that include open space, project implementation. The proposed project also mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from includes a view "window" at the northerly property limits, public vantage points. which currently does not exist. Finally, the project will result in an enhanced view of the project site's bluff when viewed from the bay. While the lowest extent of existing development down the site's bluff face is 42.3 feet NAVD88, the project's main structure will be constructed at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD88. As a result, project implementation will result in an increase of approximately 10 additional vertical feet of bluff face when compared to the existing conditions. Project implementation will not adversely affect the use of either the harbor or waterfront and will not conflict with Preserve the uses of the Harbor and the waterfront that either recreational or commercial boaters. The boat dock contribute to the charm and character of Newport below the site will be replaced to accommodate the 8 LU 2.5 Beach and provided needed support for recreational residents of the project and one guest boat, which is and commercial boaters, visitors, and residents, with consistent with the City's madne- oriented character. The appropriate regulations necessary to protect the replacement dock has been designed to comply with interests of all users as well as adjoining residents. existing marine navigation requirements and will not encroach into the harbor in a way that would adversely affect boating lanes. Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and The project applicant is proposing to redevelop an existing corridors, allowing for reuse and infill with uses that are site that was developed in 1949 and 1955. The existing complementary in type, form, scale, and character. dwelling units are older than many in the Corona del Mar Changes in use and /or density/intensity should be neighborhood. The age and architectural character of the considered only in those areas that are economically existing residential structure contrast with the character under performing, are necessary to accommodate and quality of nearby homes, which have been remodeled Newport Beach's share of projected regional and /or rebuilt and exhibit a variety of architectural themes LU 3.2 population growth, improve the relationship and reduce that provide visual interest and variety, especially commuting distance between home and jobs, or compared to the older and more mundane features of the enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as existing buildings on the subject property. The proposed a special place to live for its residents. The scale of infll project will introduce a new multiple - family structure growth and new development shall be coordinated with that complements the existing neighborhood and is in the provision of adequate infrastructure and public keeping with the intent of Policy LU 3.2. When compared services, including standards for acceptable traffic level to the existing apartment building, the proposed project of service. introduces a modern architectural style. The overhead utility pole on Carnation Avenue will be eliminated in Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -9 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis connection with the project. In addition, the building setback at the south end of the subject property has been increased to expand the existing view corridor between the site and that the south. As a result, the project will both enhance the neighborhood itself, as well as the public views through the project site. With upsizing of the existing deficient catch basin, adequate infrastructure and public services are available to serve the project. Therefore, project implementation would result in an improvement in infrastructure service to the area. All of the remaining infrastructure facilities (e.g., sewer, water, police and fire protection, etc.) have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed project. The site has been designed to protect the existing natural resource values. With only one minor exception (i.e., dock access /emergency exit), the development will not extend below the predominant line of existing development established by the City Council for the site. In fact, project implementation will result in an increase of approximately 10 additional vertical feet of bluff face as compared to existing conditions. In addition, views from the Ocean Boulevard "public view point" adjacent to site will be enhanced by increasing the view angle by approximately Require that new development is located and designed 76 percent from that location. Important views from other to protect areas with high natural resource value and public vantages (e.g., Begonia Park) have also been LU 3.7 protect residents and visitors from threats to life or preserved. Furthermore, the site has been designed to property. avoid potentially significant water quality impacts by containing and treating water on -site before discharging it into the harbor. Impacts to other important natural resources in the cove and harbor (e.g., eelgrass, etc.) have also been avoided or, where adverse biological resource impacts had the potential to occur, they have been mitigated to a less than significant level. The project has been designed to protect residents and visitors from threats to life or property. Project security measures including both interior and exterior cameras, motion sensors, regular security patrols, safe rooms, etc. The requested amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan would affect only a very small parcel (584 square feet, or less than one percent of Accommodate land use development consistent with the 61,282 square foot project site). As a result, the LU 4.1 the Land Use Plan. proposed amendment would not directly affect land use consistency or compatibility. Furthermore, the project's density is below the density permitted by both the General Plan (20 du /ac) and the Newport Beach Municipal Code (9 units ) on the project site. The site is located in a mixed residential area that is Require that the height of development in characterized by a variety of residential densities, nonresidential and higher density residential areas including both single- and multiple- family residential LU 5.1.2 transition as it nears lower density residential areas to development. The proposed structure has a maximum minimize conflicts at the interface between the different building height of approximately 32 feet, consistent with types of development. other homes In the project area. The project's height is, on average, approximately four feet below the Municipal Code's maximum height limit. Require that multi - family dwellings be designed to The existing single- and multiple- family residential convey a high quality architectural character in structures were built prior to 1960 and are dated in their accordance with the following principles (other than architectural style and character. The proposed project LU 5.1.9 Newport Center and Airport Area) which are guided has been designed to reflect a modem character, which , by Goals 6.14 and 6.15: Building Elevations, Ground complements the variety of architectural styles that exist Floor Treatment, Roof Design, Parking, and Open within the Corona del Mar neighborhood. The Space and Amenity. condominium structure complies with the Newport Beach Municipal Code's building height requirements and is Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -10 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental HB 9.2 HB 9.3 H 1.1 HR 2.1 Permit and design bulkheads and groins to protect the character of the existing beach profiles and to restore eroded beach profiles found around the harbor and island perimeters, and the safe navigation and berthing of vessels. Limit structures bayward of the bulkhead line to piers, floats, groins, appurtenances related to marine activities, and public walkways. Section 4.1 — Land Use and materials. Adequate on -site parking is provided and the project also includes the on -site recreational amenities and a replacement boat dock to serve future residents. The proposed project reflects a distinctive architectural character that continues the tradition of architectural variety and diversity within the City and neighborhood. The project design complies with the principles for building elevations (e.g., street and ocean - facing elevations designed with high quality finishes, windows, doors, etc.). In addition, the project has been designed to avoid blank walls and unsightly utility spaces. The roof profiles provide modulation through undulation, which provides visual interest and variety when compared to other roof profiles in the area. Parking is provided In several below -grade spaces. Finally, the PLOED has been respected to maintain that element as an open space feature and common open space has also been provided to ensure recreation opportunities (e.g., swimming pool) are Annougn no oulkneaos are proposed, the applicant is proposing to replace the existing four -sllp boat dock with one that would accommodate eight boats and a guest slip. Implementation of the proposed boat dock will neither adversely affect beach profiles in the harbor nor adversely affect safe navigation within the harbor because the dock has been designed to avoid such impacts (e.g., extend The applicant is proposing to replace the existing four -slip boat dock with one that would accommodate eight boats and a guest slip. The portions of the proposed dock built bayward of the bulkhead line are limited to pre- stressed concrete piles set In pre- drilled holes and timber docks supported by rotationally molded plastic pontoons. No aspect of the dock would either impede navigation in the harbor or create a safety hazard because the facilities does not extend into the navigable channel. Element Support all reasonable efforts to preserve, maintain, and improve availability and quality of existing housing and residential neighborhoods, and ensure full utilization of existing City housing resources for as long into the future as physically and economically possible. existing dwelling units, including a single - family residence and a 14 -unit apartment building. Project implementation will result in the development of an 8 -unit condominium building In place of the 15 existing dwelling units. Although project implementation would result in fewer residential dwelling units than currently exist on the site (or is permitted by the existing land use and zoning designations), the new dwelling units represent an improvement in quality over the existing units, which were constructed 50 to 60 years ago. The age of the existing residential structures contracts with the character and quality of nearby homes, which have been remodeled and /or rebuilt over the vears. Historical Resources Element Require that, in accordance with CEOA, new development protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and mitigate impacts to such resources. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the not result in potential impacts to paleontological and archaeological resources. Nonetheless, the project must comply with State law in the event human remains are encountered. In addition, because the Monterey Formation is known to contain fossils, mitigation has been Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -11 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis paleontological resources and require that the impact identified to address potential impacts to such fossils. caused by any development be mitigated in Specifically, a qualified paleontologist must be retained by accordance with CEQA. the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. In the event that fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground - disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the rind has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discover, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collection swill be the responsibility of the project applicant. Circulation Element On -site parking will exceed the Newport Beach Packing Code requirements. At least two parking spaces are provided and designated for each unit, with an additional eight (8) guest, one (1) service, and two (2) golf cart parking spaces spread throughout the sub - basement, the basement, and the First and Second Floors. The Second Require that new development provide adequate, Floor is approximately four (4) feet below the grade of CE 7.1.1 convenient parking for residents, guest, business Carnation Avenue and will house residential units, one (1) patrons, and visitors. two -car garage, and five (5) guest parking spaces, as well as bicycle, golf cart, and motorcycle parking accommodations. The Second Floor parking is directly accessible via a ramp from Carnation Avenue. Resident parking is accessible via Carnation Avenue utilizing two automobile elevators. All project parking is hidden from public view. The proposed project has been designed to accommodate all resident and guest parking on -site. The Aerie Corona del Mar Condominium Project Traffic Access Assessment prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., determined that Site and design new development to avoid use of the proposed automobile elevator system can adequately CE 7.1.8 parking configurations or management programs that accommodate resident and guest parking in the lower are difficult to maintain and enforce. levels of the proposed structure without substantial back- up onto Carnation Avenue. In addition, guest, bicycle, golf cart, and motorcycle parking are all provided below grade on the Second Floor, and will not utilize the proposed automobile elevators stem for ingress/egress. No new curb cuts are proposed. As indicated above, adequate on -site parking for residents and guests is provided. Project implementation will not result in any loss Require new development to minimize curb cuts or of existing on -street parking. In fact, because the length of CE 7.1.11 protect on- street parking spaces. Close curb cuts to the curb cut on the project site has been substantially create on street parking spaces wherever feasible. reduced, the project will create three additional on- street parking spaces. The addition of these on- street parking spaces is considered a beneficial impact, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. Recreation Element Require developers of new residential subdivisions to The project includes private recreational amenities, provide parklands at five acres per 1,000 persons, as including a swimming pool, recreation room, and private stated in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, or boat dock. In addition, in compliance with Policy R 1.1, R 1.1 contribute in -lieu fees for the development of public the project applicant will comply with the existing City's recreation facilities meeting demands generated by the Park Dedication Fee Ordinance through the contribution of development's resident population, as required in the in -lieu fees for the development of public recreation City's park Dedication Fees Ordinance. facilities. R 8.5 Protect and, where feasible, expand and enhance: The proposed project include the replacement of the guest docks at public facilities, yacht clubs and at existing 4 -boat dock with a facility that will accommodate 9 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -12 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1—Land Use and Policy No. General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis privately owned marinas, restaurants and other boats, including one for each of the project's 8 dwelling appropriate locations I units and one guest slip. Natural Resources Element The project applicant will be required to comply with the Require all development to comply with the regulations NPDES requirements established by the City, including NR 3.4 under the City's municipal separate storm drain system the preparation of a SWPPP to address construction permit under the National Pollutant Discharge activities and a WQMP for long -term operations of the Elimination System (NPDES). project. A draft SWPPP and WQMP have been prepared and submitted to the City of Newport Beach. As indicated above, the proposed project will Implement NR 3.5 Require that development does not degrade natural BMPS to improve the quality of both construction- related water bodies. and long -term runoff emanating from the site prior to their discharge into Newport Harbor. Require new development applications to include a NR 3.9 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize Refer to Response to Policy No. NR 3.4. runoff from rainfall events during construction and post - construction. The proposed project complies with the requirement to Include site design and source control BMPS in all prepare a SWPPP and WQMP to address both developments. When the combination of site design construction and post - development water quality impacts. and source control BMPS are not sufficient to protect Both site design and structural BMPS have been W NR 3.11 water quality as required by the NPDES, structural incorporate into the project to ensure that surface flows treatment BMPS will be implemented along with site emanating from the subject property are treated prior to design and source control measures. their discharge into Newport Harbor. The SWPPP and WQMP are sufficient to protect water quality as required by the NPDES. As required by the NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been prepared and Require gradingterosion control plans with structural establishes both structural and non - structural BMPS in order NR 4.4 BMPS that prevent or minimize erosion during and after to reduce sedimentation and erosion during the construction construction for development on steep slopes, graded, phase. These measures will be incorporated in the or disturbed area. gradinglerosion control plans submitted to the City of Newport Beach. In addition, the applicant has prepared a WQMP to address post-development water quality impacts. The proposed project will comply with all South Coast AQMD rules and requisite local, state and federal requirements to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction. Section 4.3 of the EIR identifies potential Require developers to use and operate construction construction- related impacts, compliance with standard NR 8.1 equipment, use building materials and paints, and conditions, and mitigation measures that will employed to control dust created by construction activities to ensure that construction air pollutant emissions are minimize air pollutants. minimized. Based on the emissions estimated for each phase of the project's construction (as detailed in the project Construction Management Plan), the EIR concludes that none of the significance thresholds for any of the pollutants would be exceeded on a daily basis. Redevelopment of the subject property as proposed with an 8 -unit condominium structure will not result in potentially significant impacts to any sensitive terrestrial plan or animal species or habitat. Although it is possible Require that the siting and design of new development, that some direct and indirect impacts to the existing including landscaping and public access, protect eelgrass bed located in the harbor area adjacent to the NR 10.4 sensitive or rare resources against any significant site mould be impacted during construction of the proposed disruption of habitat values. replacement dock facility, pre- and post - construction surveys have been prescribed to document any loss of eelgrass, which would be offset by replacement at a 1.2 to 1 ratio as prescribed In Section 4.7.5. As a result, the EIR concludes that impacts to terrestrial and marine biological resources will be reduced to a less than significant level. Avoid impacts to eelgrass (Zostera manna) to the As indicated in Section 4.7 (Biological Resources), NR 11.3 extent feasible. Mitigate losses of eelgrass in potential direct and indirect Impacts to eelgrass may occur accordance with the Southern California Eel grass I as a result of construction activities associated with the Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -13 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 41 — Land Use and Planning Policy No. General Plan Policy ConsistenU Analysis Mitigation Policy. Encourage the restoration of proposed replacement dock facility. However, MM 4.7 -1a eelgrass in Newport Harbor at appropriate sites, where and MM 47-1b require pre- and post - construction surveys feasible. and prescribe the Implementation of eelgrass mitigation in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy as indicated in this policy. As a result, the EIR concludes that impacts to terrestrial and marine biological resources will be reduced to a less than significant level. The proposed replacement dock has been designed to ensure that it is consistent with the surrounding area within the harbor. For Instance, the new docks will consist of timber docks supported by rotationally molded plastic pontoons, which require less draft (bottom clearance) than Require that all structures permitted to encroach Into concrete floats, allowing the dock system to be located as NR 14.5 open coastal waters, wetlands, and estuaries be sited close to an existing rock outcropping as possible and and designed to be consistent with the natural minimize the dock's visual impact. In addition, the dock appearance of the surrounding area. extends only to the pierhead line, consistent with City requirements and neighboring development. It does not encroach Into the navigable waters of Newport Harbor. The dock facility will be subject to review and approval by the City to ensure that it complies with all applicant requirements. Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR evaluates potential impacts to cultural and scientific resources. As indicated In that section, no impacts to cultural (i.e., archaeological) resources are anticipated; however, the proposed project may impact paleontological resources that may exist within Require new development to protect and preserve the Monterey formation. As a result, a qualified paleontological and archaeological resources from paleontologist must be retained by the project applicant to destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation resources in accordance with the requirements of Program consistent with the guidance of the Society of NR 18.1 CEQA. Through planning policies and permit Vertebrate Paleontology. In the event that fossils are conditions, ensure the preservation of significant encountered during construction activities, ground - archaeological and paleontological resources and disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall require that the impact caused by any development be be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has mitigated in accordance with CEQA. been salvaged. Any fossils discovered dudng project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discover, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collection swill be the responsibility of the project applicant. As indicated in Section 4.10, because implementation of the proposed project requires the approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport General Plan, it is subject to the provisions of SB 18, Notify cultural organizations, including Native American which requires consultation with Native Amedcan organizations, of proposed development that have the representatives before adopting or amending a general NR 18.3 potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow plan. The City has complied with the requirements of SB qualified representative of such groups to monitor 18 by submitting a request to the Native American grading and /or excavation of development sites. Heritage Commission (NAHC). In addition, the City also sent letters to the Native American representatives, informing each of the proposed project. However, no response was received by the City from any of the Native American representations requesting consultation within the 90-day statutory period. Require new development, where on site preservation MM 4.10 -1 requires that any discovery of fossils or related and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically paleontological materials, shall be accessioned into the valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to collections of a suitable repository, along with supporting NR 18.4 a responsible public or private institution with a suitable documentation and an itemized catalogue. Curation costs repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange to accession any collections are the responsibility of the county, whenever possible. project applicant. NR 20.1 Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic 1 As indicated in section 4.5 (Aesthetes), although project Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -14 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. General Plan 13011 Consistency Analysis and visual resources that include open space, implementation will result in the introduction of a different mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from structure on the site, views from important public vantages public vantage points, as shown in Figure NR3. (e.g., Begonia Park) would not be significantly affected. In addition, views through the site to" the "public view point" at Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue adjacent to the project would be enhanced. The view angle through the site from that location to the harbor and ocean would be increased by approximately 76 percent as a result of project implementation. In addition, views of the turning basin would also be created along the northern property boundary as a result of the proposed project. Finally, the project will result in an enhanced view of the project site's bluff when viewed from the bay. While the lowest extent of existing development down the site's bluff face is 42.3 feet NAVD88, the project's main structure will be constructed at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD88, resulting in an increase of approximately 10 additional vertical feet of bluff face when compared to the existing conditions. Protect and enhance public view corridors from the A Public View Point is located on Ocean Boulevard south following roadway segments (shown in Figure NR3), of Carnation Avenue. Project implementation will enhance NR 20.3 and other locations may be identified in the future the view from the designated view location. The view (Ocean Boulevard). window at this location will be expanded by approximately 76 percent i.e., from 25 degrees to about 44 degrees). Design and site new development, including Landscaping will be incorporated into the project design to NR 20.4 landscaping, on the edges of public view corridors, complement the proposed structure and enhance the including those down public streets, to frame, accent, visual character of the residential building and complement and minimize impacts to public views. the aesthetic character in the neighborhood. The proposed project is located in an area of Corona del Mar that is developed. Sidewalks exist along the streets to accommodate pedestrians walking in the neighborhood. As previously indicated, a Public View Point is located on Provide public trails, recreation areas, and viewing Ocean Boulevard south of Carnation Avenue. Project NR 20.5 areas adjacent to public view corridors, where feasible. implementation will enhance the view from the designated view location. The view window at this location will be expanded by approximately 76 percent (i.e., from 25 degrees to about 44 degrees). In addition, the project design includes a bench and fountain, which will accommodate pedestrians. Support programs to remove and underground Project implementation will result in the undergrounding of NR 21.3 overhead utilities, in new development as well as overhead utility poles and facilities along Camation existing neighborhoods. Avenue near Ocean Boulevard, which will enhance the visual and aesthetic character of the neighborhood. The Corona del Mar community is represented by a variety of architectural styles and designs and is characterized by a range of smaller single- family detached residences to large, multiple- family structures when viewed from the harbor. Introduction of the proposed multiple - family structure will be similar in both physical mass and character, which is vaned and diverse architecturally, as the existing development in the immediate neighborhood. Although the proposed multiple family structure would be Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of larger than the existing structure(s) occupying the site, it NR 22.1 structures consistent with the unique character and would be small than the Channel Reef development visual scale of Newport Beach. located to the south as illustrated in several of the visual simulations (refer to Section 4.5). In addition, the project's structural elements will appear to be "broken," giving the impression of two structures, when viewed from the bay in order to reduce the overall scale of the structure. The massing is further reduce with the incorporation of landscape features, including trees and shrubs, which also serve to soften the structure. NR 23.1 1 Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock I The project site encompasses a south-facing bluff. A Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -15 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. General Plan Policy Consistent Mal is outcroppings, and site buildings to minimize alteration small cove exists below the bluff, which is characterized by of the site's natural topography and preserve the rock outcroppings. Although development will extend features as a visual resource. down to 52.83 feet NAVD88 (approximately two feet above the 50.7 NAVD88 PLOED identified by the City Council, the integrity of the bluff will be maintained below that elevation with the exception of the dock access /emergency exit, which is proposed at the 40.5 feet NAVD88. However, the access would be recessed and designed to minimize the alteration of the natural appearance of the bluff. The proposed project has been designed to complement the site's natural bluff features. The "curvilinear" features reflected in the design of the proposed residential structure will allow the building to conform to the bluff when compared to the existing rectilinear features of the existing residential structure. In addition, the proposed colors are consistent with the natural environment, and the project's mass has been broken by the physical separation between the two main structural elements. Finally, the man -made features (e.g., concrete remnants, pipes, etc., would be removed from the site and the bluff face below the proposed structure would be landscaped and enhanced with native plant materials. Development of the proposed dock facility will occur in the water beyond the cove; none of the rock outcroppings would be affected by the construction of the proposed dock facility (or the residential structure above). Although some views of the cove and rock features below the bluff from some vantages in the harbor would be partially or totally obscured by the proposed dock facility, the obstruction would be brief and intermittent only as one travels in and out of the harbor. As a result, visual Impacts are not permanent and are not significant. The project's principle structure and major accessory structures will extend down to 52.83 feet NAVD88 (i.e., approximately two feet above the 50.7 NAVD88 PLOED established by the City Council). The exception is the Require all new blufftop development located on a bluff location of an emergency access at elevation 40.5 feet subject to marine erosion to be setback based on the NAVD88. However, this feature has been recessed to predominant line of development. This requirement minimize its impact on the visual character of the bluff NR 23.4 shall apply to the principal structure and major when viewed from the harbor. Furthermore, the project accessory structures such as guesthouses and pools. complies with the development standards prescribed in the The setback shall be increased where necessary to MFR zoning. Project implementation will not result in ensure safety and stability of the development. potential safety impacts or adversely affect the stability of the development. As indicated In the geotechnical analysis prepared for the project, the site is suitable for development with the incorporation of the measures identified by the geotechnical consultant. Require new accessory structures, such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require structural NR 23.5 foundations to be sited at least 10 feet from the edge of Refer to Response to CLUP Policy 4.4.3.8 -9 (Table 4.1 -2). bluffs subject to marine erosion. Require accessory structures to be removed or relocated landward when threatened bv erosion, instability or other hazards. The project has been designed to avoid impacts to native vegetation. Current project design features avoid the Design and site new development to minimize the coastal bluff face and rocky outcrop located along the NR 23.7 removal of native vegetation, preserve rock north side of the project site that extends into Newport outcroppings, and protect coastal resources. Harbor. However, within the current development footprint, there is a potentially suitable habitat for the nine special status plants. Therefore, the applicant will undertake focuses surveys during the appropriate Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -16 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental S3.9 S3.10 S3.11 S3.12 General Plan negwre property owners to recora a waiver or Towre shoreline protection for new development during the economic life of the structure (75 years) as a condition of approval of a coastal development permit for new development on a beach or shoreline that is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff. Shoreline protection may be permitted to protect existing structures that were legally constructed prior to the certification of the LCP, unless a waiver of future shoreline protection was required by a previous coastal Site and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years), unless an environmentally acceptable design to stabilize the bluff and prevent bluff retreat is devised. Kegwre that applications Tor new aevelopment with me potential to be Impacted or Impact coastal erosion include slope stability analyses and erosion rate estimates provided by a licensed Certified Engineering Require new development adjacent to the edge of coastal bluffs to incorporate drainage improvements, irrigation systems, and /or native or drought - tolerant vegetation into the design to minimize coastal bluff recession. Section 4.1— Land Use and blooming season or eacn or [nose species to connrm that they do not exist on the site. If one or more of the species exist on the subject property and it is determined that project implementation would result in impacts an incident take permit under Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code will be obtained. No rock outcroppings would be damaged or destroyed as a result of project implementation. Although not identified as an on Figure NR2 ESA (Environmental Study Areas) of the City's General Plan, eelgrass beds are located adjacent to the cove below the bluff site. Nonetheless, an eelgrass survey was conducted and determined that measures would be required during the construction phase to protect the beds from damage as a result of construction of the propose replacement dock. Pre- and post - construction surveys are also proposed to document any potential adverse effects and identify the need to provide mitigation for impacted Mitigation 4.5-1 requires the recordation of a waiver of future shoreline protection for the project prior to the issuance of a building permit includes such a waiver. The project has been designed to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during its economic life. A Coastal Hazard Study for the proposed project was conducted by GeoSoils, Inc., which revealed that the no shoreline retreat was evident based on a review of aerial photographs (1970s to 2004) and, further, the site has not been subject flooding, erosion damage or wave runup attack in the past. The study concluded that flooding, erosion and wave runup will not adversely Impact the proposed improvements over their lifetime (i.e., 75 years) and the proposed project will not create or contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability or destruction of Refer to Response to Policy No. S 3.10. The proposed project has been designed to Include erosion control features to minimize the potential for erosion. For example, all common areas will be landscaped with similar plant material having similar water requirements to reduce excess irrigation runoff and promote surface filtration and the City's "Water- Efficient Landscaping" ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.17) will be implemented with common areas maintained by the residents' HOA. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -17 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental General Plan Section 4.1 — Land Use A site - specific fault investigation was conducted for the proposed project, which identified two faults on the subject property, consisting of sheared bedrock zones. Based on the findings of the 2003 fault investigation, both faults were S4.7 Conduct further seismic studies for new development classified as "inactive." According to CDMG Special in areas where potential active faults may occur. Publications 42, "active" faults are defined as those faults that have displaced during the last 11,000 years (i.e., Holocene age). Therefore, the faults identified on the site are not considered "active" because there has been no displacement in at least 11.000 vears. Noise Element Require that all proposed projects are compatible with N 1.1 the noise environment through use of Table N2, and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards shown in Table N3. CNEL noise contour (refer to Figure N4 in the Noise Element). The ambient noise levels in the project environs are less than 60 dBA CNEL. According to Table N2, the proposed multi - family residential project is "clearly compatible" with the ambient noise environment of the multi - family residential neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed project will comply with the Interior and exterior noise levels prescribed for residential uses in the Noise Require the employment of noise mitigation measures measures that reduce construction- related noise levels for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise during each phase. In addition, several mitigation impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs measures are also proposed to further reduce noise levels N 1.8 when there is an Increase in the ambient CNEL to the maximum extent feasible during construction of the produced by new development impacting noise proposed project. Although no significant long -term noise sensitive uses. impacts will occur as a result of project implementation, short-term, construction impacts will remain potentially The dock facility includes eight slips for future residents as N 2.5 Enforce compliance of all boating activities with the well as one guest slip. Boating activities will comply with noise standards defined in the Municipal Code. the noise standards prescribed in the Newport Beach Table N3, and in the City's Municipal Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to N 4.1 excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, Refer to Response to Policy No. N 1.1. such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning Enforce the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits on construction hours are limited to those prescribed in the hours of maintenance or construction activity in or City's Noise Ordinance (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. N 4.6 adjacent to residential areas, Including noise that Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on results from in -home hobby or work- related activities. Saturday). Compliance with the Noise Control Ordinance would be monitored by the City's Code Enforcement Department. Refer to Response to Policy No. 4.6. Compliance with the N 5.1 Enforce the limits on hours of construction activity. Noise Control Ordinance would be monitored by the City's Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan Because the proposed project is located within the City's Coastal Zone, it is also subject to the policies articulate din the Coastal Land Use Plan. Table 4.1 -2 provides a summary of the relevant CLUP policies and the relationship of the project with each relevant policy. Table 4.1 -2 CLUP Policy Analysis Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -18 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 2.1.2 -1 2.2.1 -1 2.2.1 -2 2.3.2 -1 2.7 -1 Land uses and new development In the coastal zone shall be consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan Map and all applicable LCP policies and regulations. Continue to allow redevelopment and infill development within and adjacent to the existing developed areas in the coastal zone subject to the density and intensity limits and resource protection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan. Require new development be located in areas with adequate public services or in areas that are capable of having public services extended or expanded without significant adverse effects on coastal resources. Continue to use public beaches for public recreational uses and prohibit uses on beaches that interfere with public access and enjoyment of coastal resources. Continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, floor area, and height limits for residential development to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources. Section 4.1— Land Use and i ne proposea conoominium oeveiopmenr on me sne is consistent with the land use designation and density allocated on the adopted Coastal Land Use Plan. In addition, the project addresses the relevant policies related to residential development and the protection of coastal resources identified in the CLUP as discussed in density prescribed in the CLUP and Land Use Element for the site. Redevelopment of the site with 8 dwelling units on the approximately 1.4 -acre site equates to approximately 7 du /ac, which is within the density allocation prescribed in the General Plan and zoning (20 du /ac). As described below in this table, the proposed project also addresses the policies related to resource The area within which the project is located is served by the existing infrastructure, including circulation, sewer, water, storm drainage, public services, and utilities. With the exception of storm drainage facilities, all of the infrastructure has adequate capacity to provide the necessary service to the project. As indicated in Section 4.6, a catch basin located in Carnation Avenue is currently deficient to accommodate existing storm flows (i.e., without the proposed project). The project applicant will be responsible for upgrading this existing deficient facility to accommodate existino and future storm flow. A small beach area is located in the small cove below the bluff. Although direct public access to the beach area is not available either from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue or other nearby public coastal access routes, this area will remain accessible to the public via the harbor and will not be adversely affected by project The proposed residential structure complies with the building and development standards prescribed in the City's zoning ordinance. As previously Indicated, the density and character of the proposed project are consistent with the intensity and character of development in the project area, which reflects a variety of styles that contributes to the uniqueness of Corona del Mar. Although the proposed multiple - family structure would be larger than the existing structure(s) occupying the site, it would be smaller than the Channel Reef development located to the south, as illustrated in several of the visual simulations (refer to Section 4.5). In addition, the proposed structure has a maximum building height of approximately 32 feet, which is consistent with other homes in the project area and is, on average, approximately four feet under the maximum building height permitted by the Municipal Code. However, the project will require a Modification Permit (MD2005 -087) to allow minor encroachment s into the front and side Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -19 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 — Land Use and Planning Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistency Analysis setbacks. The majority of the encroachments are subterranean. Policy 2.7 -2 prescribes the continued administration of provisions of State law relative to the demolition, conversion and construction of low- and moderate- Income dwelling units within the coastal zone. Government Code Continue the administration of provisions of State law Section 65590 (Mello Act) regulates the demolition or 2.7-2 relative to the demolition, conversion and construction of conversion of low- and moderate- income units within the low and moderate - income dwelling units within the coastal Coastal Zone. With the exception of the three existing zone. occupied units, the existing dwelling units have been vacant for several years. There are no low- or moderate - income households residing on this property. Therefore, Government Code Section 65590 is not applicable to this project. Hazards and Protective Devices Several technical studies have been prepared to evaluate the potential project - related impacts, including bluff erosion, wave runup, etc. Given the location, topography and development proposed, seismic ground shaking, coastal bluff retreat due to erosional forces, and tsunamis comprise the most significant potential hazards to development. As indicated in Section 4.9 of the EIR, potential seismic constraints are addressed through the implementation of MM 4.9 -1a, which ensures that project implementation will adhere to the engineering recommendations for site grading and foundation design recommended in the preliminary geologic/geotechnical report prepared for the proposed project. In addition, SC Review all applications for new development to determine 4.9-2 ensures that the project will comply with all 2'8'1 -1 potential threats from coastal and other hazards. applicable City and 2007 California Building Code requirements. With respect to potential threats from coastal hazards, a Coastal Hazard Study for the proposed project was conducted by GeoSoils, Inc., which revealed that no shoreline retreat was evident based on a view of aerial photographs and, further, that the site has not been subject to flooding, erosion damage or wave runup attack in the past. The study concluded that flooding, erosion and wave runup will not adversely impact the proposed improvements over their life time (i.e., 75 years) and the proposed project will not create or contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability or destruction of the site or adjacent area. Design and site new development to avoid hazardous 2.8.1 -2 areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal Refer to Response to CLUP Policy No. 2.8.1 -1 and other hazards. Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to 2.8.1 -3 avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and Refer to Response to CLUP Policy No. 2.8.1 -1. property from coastal and other hazards. The proposed project will replace residential development similar to that currently existing on the site and would not contribute further to the instability of the area or further Require new development to assure stability and alter the existing landform. As previously indicated, structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute although excavation proposed to accommodate the lower significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction levels of the structure will extend below elevation 50.7 feet 2'8'1 -4 of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the NAVD88 PLOED, grading will occur behind the construction of protective devices that would substantially predominant line of development and not on the exposed alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. bluff and, therefore, will be consistent with the established bluff development policy prescribed by the City Council because it would not alter the existing landform that characterizes the site. The location of the Predominant Line prescribed by the City Council for this project was Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -20 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 2.8.3 -1 2.8.6 -8 Require all coastal development permit applications for new development on a beach or on a coastal bluff property subject to wave action to assess the potential for flooding or damage from waves, storm surge, or seiches, through wave uprush and impact reported prepared by a licensed civil engineer with expertise in coastal processes. The conditions that shall be considered in a wave uprush study are: a seasonally eroded beach combined with long -term (75 years) erosion. High tide conditions, combined with long -term (75 years) projections for sea level rise; storm waves from a 100 - year event or a storm that compares to the 1982/83 El Nino event. Limit the use of protective devices to the minimum required to protect existing development and prohibit their use to enlarge or expand areas for new development or for new development. "Existing development" for purposes of this policy shall consist only of a principle structure (e.g., residential dwelling, required garage, or second residential unit) and shall not include accessory or ancillary structures such as decks, patios, pools, tennis courts, cabanas, stairs, landscaping, etc. Section 4.1 — Land Use and and development characteristics: (1) a north - facing bluff face segment which is not subject to marine erosion, (2) a west - facing portion bluff segment which is subject to marine erosion, (3) a point at the apparent juncture of the north - facing and west - facing portions of the bluff which extends into the sandy cove at the base of the project site and is subject to marine erosion, and (4) existing development on these various bluff face segments, with development as low as elevation 10 feet NAVD88. In addition, the project will not require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural Iandforms along the bluffs. In fact, the project has been designed to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during its economic life. A Coastal Hazard Study for the proposed project was conducted by GeoSoils, Inc., which revealed that no shoreline retreat was evident based on a view of aerial photographs and, further, that the site has not been subject to flooding, erosion damage or wave runup attack in the past. The study concluded that flooding, erosion and wave runup will not adversely impact the proposed improvements over their lifetime (i.e., 75 years) and the proposed project will not create or contribute significantly to erosion, geologic located above areas subject to wave and storm surge and the potential for seiches and /or tsunamis is considered remote. The tsunami, like the design extreme wave /wake, will not reach the proposed improvements. Due to the infrequent nature and the relatively low 500 -year recurrence interval tsunami wave height, combined with the elevation of the proposed improvements, the site is reasonably safe from tsunami hazards. A study was also completed for the dock replacement component of the proposed project. That study concluded that neither the construction nor the long -term use of the facility would expose the dock to adverse impacts associated with those phenomena. The study concluded that the proposed docking facility is feasible in a wide range of conditions. However, extreme wind waves from the SSE -SSW are expected to exceed the recommended maximum wave heights and, therefore, damage to the moored vessels and /or docking facilities may occur. In these less frequent conditions, vessels should be moved and sheltered in a less exposed location. The City maintains mooring cans within the Harbor that are The project will not require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural Iandforms along the bluffs. In fact, the project has been designed to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during its economic life. A Coastal Hazard Study for the proposed project was conducted by GeoSoils, Inc., which revealed that no shoreline retreat was evident based on a view of aerial photographs and, further, that the site has not been subject to flooding, erosion damage or wave runup attack in the past. The study concluded that flooding, erosion and wave runup will not adversely impact the proposed improvements over their life time (i.e., 75 years) and the proposed project will not create or contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability or Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 t FOIN Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Policy 2.8.6 -10 2.8.7 -2 2.8.7 -3 2.9.3 -1 Site and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). Require new development to provide adequate drainage and erosion control facilities that convey site drainage in a non - erosive manner in order to minimize hazards resulting from increased runoff, erosion and other hydrologic impacts to streams. Require applications for new development, where applicable (i.e., in areas of known or potential geologic or seismic hazards), to include a geologic/soils /geotechnical study that identifies any geologic hazards affecting the proposed project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and contains a statement that the project site Is suitable for the proposed development and that the development will be safe from geologic hazard. Require such reports to be signed by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and Site and design new development to avoid use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce. Section 4.1— Land Use and destruction of the site or adjacent area. Several technical studies have been prepared to assess the potential project to ensure that development of the site is consistent with this policy. These studies include: (1) Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005; (2) Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006; (3) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated June 2005 (revised January 17, 2008); and (4) Hydrology analysis prepared by Hunsaker & Associates Irvine dated March 2007 (Revised December 20, 2007). Collectively, the findings of these studies and technical review documents indicate that the project will neither be subject to nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). In addition, the proposed replacement landing and dock facility will be similar in nature to those existing in the area and, therefore, will not adversely affect or be affected by the coastal process that characterize the area. As indicated previously, the proposed project will be designed to comply with current CBC structural design parameters and other measures prescribed in the geologic/geotechnical report prepared I ne project site is not located in the vicinity or a stream. However, as required by the NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been prepared, which establishes both structural and non- structural BMPS in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion during the construction phase. These measures will be incorporated in the grading /erosion control plans submitted to the City of Newport Beach. In addition, a hydrological analysis was prepared by Hunsaker & Associates Irvine that evaluated the post - development hydrologic conditions. Based on that analysis, the proposed project will result in minor increase in surface water; however, the project has been designed to accommodate 100 -year storm flows. Although a catch basin located in Carnation Avenue is currently deficient, the facility will be upgraded to ensure that it has adequate capacity to accommodate both existing and future storm flows. As indicated above, a grading report (Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005) and a coastal hazard study (Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., dated October 2006) were prepared for the proposed project. These studies thoroughly evaluates the proposed project and prescribes appropriate measures to address soils and geotechnical constraints on the site. As indicated in that study, the site is suitable for the development proposed. accommodate all resident and guest parking on -site. The Aerie Corona Del Mar Condominium Project Traffic Access Assessment prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., determined that the proposed automobile elevator system can adequately accommodate resident parking in the lower levels of the proposed structure without substantial back -up onto Carnation Avenue. In Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -22 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistency Analysis addition, guest, bicycle, golf cart, and motorcycle parking are all provided below the grade of the Second Floor, and will not utilize the proposed automobile elevator system for in ress /e ress. On -site parking will exceed the Newport Beach Parking code requirements and is sufficient to serve the proposed use. At least two parking spaces are provided and designated for each unit, with an additional eight (8) guest spaces, one (1) service space, and two (2) golf cart parking spaces spread throughout the sub - basement, basement, and First and Second Floods. The Second Floor is approximately four (4) feet below the grade of Carnation Avenue and will house residential units, one (1) two -car garage, and five (5) guest parking spaces, as well Continue to require new development to provide off -street as bicycle, golf cart, and motorcycle parking 2.9.3-2 parking sufficient to serve the approved use in order to accommodations. The Second Floor parking is directly minimize impacts to public on- street and off - street parking accessible via a ramp from Carnation Avenue. Resident available for coastal access. parking is accessible via Carnation Avenue utilizing two automobile elevators. All of the parking is hidden from public view. In addition, the project will create three additional on- street public parking spaces because the length of the curb cut on the project site has been substantially reduced. The addition of these on- street parking spaces is considered a beneficial impact because it will accommodate visitors to the area, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. Require that all proposed development maintain and 2.9.3-3 enhance public access to the coast by providing adequate Refer to Response to CLUP Policy No. 2.9.3 -3. parking pursuant to the off -street parking regulations of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005. The off - street parking allocated to the project within the proposed structure has been designed to comply with the Continue to require off - street parking in new development q p g p City's size, clearance, and access requirements. In ad^'i! eaddition, the traffic study prepared by Austin-1 2.9.3 -5 to have adequate dimensions, clearances, and access to Foust Associates, Inc., evaluated site access and insure their use. concluded that the number of parking spaces and the use of the elevators to provide access would not adversely affect circulation on the adjacent circulation network. On -site parking will exceed the Newport Beach Parking Prohibit new development that would result in restrictions Code requirements and is sufficient to serve the proposed on public parking that would impede or restrict public use. In addition, the project will also crate three new on- access to beaches, trails, or parklands, (including, but not street public parking spaces because the length of the 2.9.3 -6 limited to, the posting of "no parking" signs, red curbing, curb cut on the project site has been substantially and physical barriers), except where such restrictions are reduced. The addition of these on- street parking spaces needed to protect public safety and where no other is considered a beneficial impact because it will feasible altemative exists to provide public safety. accommodate visitors to the area, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. No new curb cuts are proposed. As indicated above, adequate on -site parking for residents and guests Is provided. Project implementation will not result in any loss of existing on -street parking. In fact, because the length of the curb cut on the project site has been Require new development to minimize curb cuts to protect substantially reduced, the project will crate three 2.9.3 -10 on- street parking spaces. Close curb cuts to create new additional on- street public parking spaces. The addition parking wherever feasible. of these on -street parking spaces is considered to be a beneficial impact because it will accommodate visitors to the area, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. Shoreline and Bluff Top Access Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -23 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 3.1.1 -1 1911 3.1.1 -9 Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal waters, tidelands, coastal parks, and trails. Allow public access Improvements In environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) when sited, designed, and maintained in a manner to avoid or minimize impacts to the ESHA. Protect, expand, and enhance a system to public coastal access that achieves the following: maximizes public access to and along the shoreline; includes pedestrian, hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails; provides connections to beaches, parks, and recreational facilities; provides connections with trail systems of adjacent jurisdictions; provides access to coastal view corridors; facilitates alternative modes of transportation; minimizes alterations to natural landforms; protects environmentally sensitive habitat areas; and does not violate private property rights. Section 4.1— Land Use and Coastal access from the blurt to the beach below Is not currently provided through the subject property. Although an existing stairway will continue to provide access for the occupants of the proposed dwelling units, this access is not suitable to accommodate the public due to physical constraints. The site is constrained in terms of lateral and vertical access by the steeply sloping topography of the site and submerged lands. Specifically, the steeply sloping coastal bluff presents safety and maintenance and liability concerns for any potential public access structure. Therefore, the project site has neither dedicated public access easements nor physical public access to bay. However, public access to the beach areas exists in proximity to the site, including China Cove, Lookout Point and at a street end located in the 2300 block of Bayside Place. These access points are located approximately 450 feet to the east, 1,125 feet to the east and approximately 480 feet to the northwest respectively. With the availability of adequate public access in the Immediate vicinity of the site, additional access through the subject property is not necessary, particularly given the physical constraints, safety, and maintenance concerns cited above. Public access to the cove below from the harbor would still remain and would not be adversely affected by the proposed project, including the proposed dock facility. The location of the dock would not preclude the existing access that is currently available to swimmers, kayakers, or others. Project implementation does not include any public access improvements in ESHAs. Although not identified as an environmentally sensitive habitat area by the City's General Plan, eelgrass beds are located adjacent to the dove below the bluff site. Nonetheless, an eelgrass survey was conducted and determined that measures would be required during the construction phase to protect the beds from damage as a result of construction of the proposed replacement dock. Pre- and post - construction surveys are also proposed to document any potential adverse effects and identify the need to provide mitigation for impacted eelgrass. Refer to Response to CLUP Policy No. 3.1.1 -1 for a discussion regarding public access. As discussed In that section, the existing public access system will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. Further, public access is available at several locations to the north and south. Also, consistent with Policy No. 3.1.1 -9, existing coastal views from the project site would be enhanced as a result of eliminating existing overhead utility facilities on Carnation Avenue and expanding the view through the site from Ocean Boulevard. The view angle through the site from that location to the harbor and ocean would be increased by approximately 76 percent as a result of project implementation. In addition, a view of the harbor and turning basin would also be created at the northern property boundary where no view currently exists. Although project implementation would not facilitate alternative modes of transportation, it would result in fewer dwelling units than currently exist on the site (8 units proposed versus 15 that currently exist). Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -24 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistency Analysis In order to ensure compatibility with the natural landform and, therefore, avoid both damaging the scenic resource represented by the bluff and degrading the existing visual character and quality if the site, the proposed project has been designed with "curvilinear' features, which allow the building to conform to the bluff when compared to the existing rectilinear features of the existing residential structure. In addition, the dock access /emergency exit proposed at the 40.5 feet NAVD88 Incorporates design features that blend the exit into the existing natural character of the bluff through the use of landscape and hardscape materials, including rocks. Finally, potentially adverse impacts to both terrestrial and aquatic habitats have been minimized through site design. Where potential impacts have been identified, they have been mitigated to a less than significant level. Refer to response to Policy 3.1.1 -1. Direct beach access is not currently available through the site; however, several public access routes exist in the vicinity of the project site that would continue to serve residents and 3.1.1-11 Require new development to minimize impacts to public beachgoers. Public access to the cove below from the access to and along the shoreline. harbor would still remain and would not be adversely affected by the proposed project, Including the proposed dock facility. The location of the dock would not preclude the existing access that is currently available to swimmers, ka akers, or others. Refer to response to Policy 3.1.1 -1. As indicated above, Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways the steeply sloping coastal bluff presents a potentially 3.1.1 -24 where feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas significant safety hazard as well as potential liability and of limited public accessibility. maintenance problems. Adequate public access currently exists to the north and south of the subject property. Coastal access from the bluff to the beach below is not currently provided through the subject property and is not proposed as part of the project. Although an existing stairway will continue to provide access for the occupants of the proposed dwelling units, this access is not suitable to accommodate the public due to physical constraints. Specifically, the site is constrained in terms of lateral and vertical access by the steeply sloping topography of the site, and submerged lands. The steeply sloping coastal bluff presents safety, maintenance, and liability concerns for any potential public access structure. Therefore, the project site has neither dedicated public access easements nor physical public access to the bay. Consistent with the policies above provide maximum public access from the nearest public roadway to the Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue are the nearest 3.1.1 -26 shoreline and along the shoreline with new development public roadways to the shoreline; however, as previously except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, described, the site is characterized by topographic military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal constraints that pose safety concerns related to the resources or (2) adequate access exists nearby. steepness of the terrain, making the feasibility of providing public access through the site difficult. Furthermore, as suggested in this policy, adequate, convenient public access to the bay is currently available at several locations in the vicinity of the subject property, Including China Cove, Lookout Point and at a street end located in the 2300 block of Bayside Drive. These access points are located approximately 450 feet to the east, 1,125 feet to the east and approximately 480 feet to the northwest respectively. Given the proximity of these nearby public access locations, the provision of additional public access through the subject property is neither required nor appropriate based on the parameters prescribed in the CLUP policies noted above, Including but not limited to Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -25 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistency Anal sis the topographic constraints (i.e., steep slopes and narrow passage), proximity of residential uses and potential loss of privacy, managements and maintenance requirements associated with the access, public safety, and the balance of property rights. Implement public access policies in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following: topographic and geologic site characteristics; capacity of the site to sustain use and at 3.1.1 -27 what level of intensity; fragility of natural resource areas; Refer to Response to CLUBP Policy 3.1.1 -26. proximity to residential uses; public safety services, including lifeguards, fire, and police access; support facilities, Including parking and restrooms; management and maintenance of the access; the need to balance constitutional rights of individual property owners and the public's constitutional rights of access. The project site contains a coastal bluff. Although public access to the bluff and the base of the bluff will not be provided as part of the project (refer to Response to CLUP Policy 3.1.1 -1), the project will enhance the public Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public view from the top of the bluff at Ocean Boulevard and 3'1'2 -1 access to and along coastal bluffs. Carnation Avenue. The view angle through the project site from that location to the harbor and ocean would be increased by approximately 76 percent as a result of project implementation. In addition, a view "window" would also be created at the northern property limits where one does not currently exist. Site, design, and maintain public access Improvements in Public access is not proposed through the subject 3'1'2 -2 a manner to avoid or minimize impacts to coastal bluffs. property. As such, CLUP Policy No. 3.1.2 -2 does not apply to the proposed project. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing four -slip boat dock with one that would accommodate eight boats and a guest slip. The proposed boat dock will not extend Continue to regulate the construction of bay and harbor beyond the pierhead line. Consistent with City policies, 3.1.4 -1 structures within established Bulkhead Lines, Pierhead construction of the proposed dock facility will not result in Lines, and Project Lines. potentially significant impacts to the existing pierhead line within the harbor. Boats docked along the outboard slip would be restricted to a maximum beam of 24 feet to ensure that no encroachment into the harbor would occur as a result of project implementation. Implementation of the proposed project is dependent on securing approval of all applicable permits from the City of When applicable, continue to require evidence of approval Newport Beach and responsible agencies having 3.1.4 -2 from the County of Orange, Coastal Commission, U.S. jurisdiction over the project, including the California Army Corps of Engineers, and other resource Coastal Commission (Coastal Development Permit) and management agencies, prior to issuing permits. the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant will provide evidence of all applicable approvals as requested by the City.. The existing pile- supported pier walkway between the existing gangway platform and the existing concrete pad, will be repaired /replaced as part of the project with a structure in -like -kind. Neither the existing pier walkway nor the proposed replacement structure will obstruct Design and site piers, Including remodels of and additions public lateral access since neither of the adjacent 3.1.4 -3 to existing piers so as not to obstruct public lateral access waterfront properties are open to the public. and to minimize impacts to coastal views and coastal resources. The proposed dock has been designed to minimize impacts to coastal views. Although the dock would obscure some of the existing rock outcroppings and related features, Section 4.5 of the EIR concludes that the docks would not result in a significant impact to the project site's visual resources. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -26 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning 3.1.4.4 3.2.1 -3 3.3.2 -6 4.1.1 -2 4.1.2 -2 CLUP In residential areas, limit structures bayward of the bulkhead line to piers and floats. Limit appurtenances and storage areas to those related to vessel launching and berthing. Provide adequate park and recreational facilities to accommodate the needs of new residents when allowing new development. Finally, impacts to natural resources in the cove and harbor (e.g., eelgrass, etc.) as a result of the proposed dock have also been avoided or, where adverse biological resources impacts had the potential to occur, they have The applicant is proposing to replace the existing four -slip boat dock with one that would accommodate eight boats and a guest slip. Although the proposed boat dock will extend to the pierhead line, the structures built bayward of the bulkhead line will be limited to piers and floats. The proposed project includes the redevelopment of a site that currently supports 15 dwelling units in an area of the city that is developed. The proposed project includes private recreation, including a lounge, swimming pool, etc. It also includes 8 docks and one guest slide tie dock to serve the project's residents. Although the project does not propose to provide additional public recreation and /or park facilities, it will be subject to the City's park fee Recreational Su000rt Facilities Protect, and where feasible, enhance and expand guest docks at public facilities, yacht clubs and at privately owned marinas, restaurants and other appropriate locations. Ine proposed project includes the replacement or an existing 4 -slip boat dock. In addition the dock will be enlarged to accommodate up to 9 boats of various sizes, including one guest boat. The boat dock will be maintained by the homeowners' association and the slips will be for the exclusive use of the homeowners and their Resources Require a site - specific survey and analysis prepared by a qualified biologist as a fling requirement for coastal development permit applications where development would occur within or adjacent to areas identified as a potential ESHA. Identify ESHA as habitats or natural communities listed In Section 4.1.1 that possess any of the attributes fisted in Policy 4.1.1 -1. The ESAs depicted on Map 4 -1 shall represent a preliminary mapping of areas containing potential ESHA. Provide special protection to marine resource areas and species of special biological or economic significance. None or the mbNAS Illustrated on Map 4 -1 in me coastal Land Use Plan are located within the vicinity of the proposed project and, therefore, would not be adversely affected as a result of project implementation. Nonetheless, the bluff contains native vegetation and eelgrass beds are located in the cove below the bluff. As required by CLUP Policy No. 4.1.1 -2, surveys have been conducted for both terrestrial and aquatic resources. The findings and recommendation of those studies are presented in Section 4.4 (Biological Resources). Although some potential impacts to the eelgrass beds may occur as a result of the project, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that such impacts would be reduced to a less than significant The aquatic biology survey conducted for the proposed project Indicated that several sensitive species inhabit the harbor waters in the vicinity of the subject property. However, with the exception of the eelgrass, no significant impacts are anticipated any of the sensitive biological species. As previously indicated, while potential construction impacts to the eelgrass may occur; they will be avoided or reduced to an Insignificant level through the implementation of several mitigation measures identified in Section 4.6 and Section 4.7. The intertidal area below the bluff supports a colony of sand dollars. Although not a protected species, it has been described as a unique resource because it does not exist in large numbers anywhere else in the bay. In order to protect the sand dollar, construction activities associated with the project, including the proposed dock Draft Envimnmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -27 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 — Land Use and Planning Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistent Anal is 2a. Because the existing landing and docks are in a deteriorated state and pose a potential hazard to safety, the proposed project includes the replacement of the existing facilities as required by the City of Newport Beach. An eelgrass impact assessment was undertaken to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the construction of the dock facility. Based on that survey, it was determined that a small portion of the existing eelgrass bed (approximately 30 square feet) will potentially be affected by shading effects from vessels docked within the concrete dock structure. The area of eelgrass habitat that Is actually affected by long -term shading will be determined during post - construction monitoring surveys conducted pursuant to National Require that uses of the marine environment be carded Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southern California out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity Eelgrass mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991, as amended). 4.1.2 -3 of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy The location and amount of eelgrass to be transplanted populations of all species of marine organisms adequate shall be determined following the results of the two annual for long -tern commercial, recreational, scientific, and monitoring efforts. Additional mitigation measures that educational purposes. address biological and water quality impacts have also been prescribed. Also, as indicated in Section 4.7, low to moderate densities of sand dollars were found on the project site. However, as prescribed in SC 4.7 -1, the restriction prescribed by the CDFG that prohibits the taking of any marine organisms within 1,000 feet of the high tide line is intended to protect marine life, including the sand dollar. In addition, in order to further avoid potential impacts to these species, MM 4.7 -2a requires avoidance of the sand flats within the cove by construction personnel and equipment. As a result, no unavoidable significant Impacts are anticipated with respect to biological resources. In addition to the eelgrass survey conducted for the Continue to require Caulerpa protocol surveys as a proposed project, Caulerpa taxifolia surveys were also 4.1.2 -5 condition of City approval of projects in the Newport Bay undertaken as required by this policy. No invasive species and immediately notify the SCCAT when found. of algae, including Caulerpa taxifolia, were noted in the general vicinity of the project site during either the 2005 or 2007 surveys. As a result, SCCAT was not notified. This policy identifies 17 mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to natural habitats. Applicable measures require the control or limitation of encroachments into natural habitats and wetlands, regulate landscaping or revegetation of blufftop areas to control erosion and invasive plant species and provide a transition area between developed areas and natural habitats, require irrigation practices on biufftops to minimize erosion of bluffs and to prohibit invasive species Utilize the following mitigation measures to reduce the and require their removal In new development. The potential for adverse impacts to ESA natural habitats from residential component of the project does not encroach 4.1.3 -1 sources including, but not limited to those identified in within sensitive habitat areas or wetlands and the Table 4.1.1. landscaping plan indicates that the bluff will be hydroseeded with a drought- tolerant mix native to coastal California natives with temporary irrigation to be used only to establish the vegetation; all non - native plans will be removed. Because the existing landing and docks are in a deteriorated state and pose a potential hazard to safety, the proposed project includes the replacement of the existing facilities as required by the City of Newport Beach. An eelgrass impact assessment was undertaken Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005- 196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -28 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.1.4 -1 4.1.4 -3 Continue to protect eelgrass meadows for their important ecological function as a nursery and foraging habitat within the Newport Bay ecosystem. Site and design boardwalks, docks, piers, and other structures that extend over the water to avoid impacts to eelgrass meadows. Encourage the use of materials that allow sunlight penetration and the growth of eelgrass. Section 4.1 — Land Use and construction of the dock facility. Based on that survey, It was determined that a small portion of the existing eelgrass bed (approximately 30 square feet) will potentially be affected by shading effects from vessels docked within the slips and the concrete dock structure. The area of eelgrass habitat that is actually affected by long -term shading will be determined during post - construction monitoring surveys conducted pursuant to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended). The location and amount of eelgrass to be transplanted shall be determined following the results of the two annual monitoring efforts. Additional mitigation measures that address biological and water quality An eelgrass impact assessment was undertaken to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the construction of the dock facility. Based on that survey, it was determined that a small portion of the existing eelgrass bed (approximately 30 square feet) will potentially be affected by shading effects from vessels docked within the slips and the concrete dock structure. The area of eelgrass habitat that is actually affected by long -term shading will be determined during post - construction monitoring surveys conducted pursuant to National Maine Fisheries Services (NMFS) Southern California Eelgrass mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991, as amended). Several mitigation measures have been prescribed, including pre- and post - development monitoring, to ensure that should potential impacts occur, they would not be permanent. If losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach and resources agencies for review and acceptance. Specifically, the developer would be required to mitigate potential impacts pursuant to the requirements of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). If any eelgrass has been Impacted in excess of that determined in the pre - construction survey, any additional Impacted eelgrass potential impacts to the existing eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the project. For instance, project implementation will result in the placement of 19 piles into the bay floor. Although the piles will have a cumulative surface area of approximately 39.1 square feet, none will be directly embedded within the eelgrass habitat. Implementation of the turbidity and sediment control measures (e.g., silt curtains and sleeves around pilings) will mitigate potential eelgrass habitat losses due to pile emplacement activities. However, it is possible that some potential temporary impacts may occur as a result of construction activities. Dock construction would result in potential water quality and vessel - related impacts on eelgrass habitat, which may include both direct and indirect long -term effects. During the pile removal and subsequent drilling required for the emplacement process, water turbidity will increase. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. In order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, BMPs, which eliminate any disposal of trash and Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -29 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.1.4 -4 4.1.4 -5 4.2.5 -1 4.3.1 -5 mitigation of impacts to eelgrass meadows in a comprehensive harbor area management plan for Where applicable, require eelgrass and Caulerpa taxilolia surveys to be conducted as a condition of City approval for projects in Newport Bay in accordance with operative protocols of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Caulerpa taxifolia Survey protocols. Avoid impacts to eelgmss (Zostem marina) to the greatest extent possible. Mitigate losses of eelgrass at a 1.2 to 1 mitigation ratio and in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Encourage the restoration of eelgrass throughout Newport Harbor where feasible. Water Require development on steep slopes or steep slopes with erosive soils to implement structural best management practices (BMPs) to prevent or minimize erosion consistent with any load allocation of the TMDLs adopted for Newport Bay. Section 4.1— Land Use and debris at the project site as well as the removal of construction debris, will be implemented during construction. Vessel- related Impacts Include those associated with barges and work vessels working over existing eelgrass beds by deploying anchors and anchor chains within eelgrass habitat, grounding over eelgrass habitat, and propeller scarring and prop wash of either the barge or support vessels for the barge. These vessels could create furrows and scars within the eelgrass vegetation and would result In adverse losses of eelgrass habitat that would require the implementation of an eelgrass mitigation program (refer to MM 4.7 -3), which would minimize disturbances related to vessel operations and vessel anchor positioning. It is anticipated that barge operations will have only minimal shading effects on eelgrass since the position of the barge will shift each day, preventing continuous shading of any one part of the eelgrass bed. Implementation of prescribed mitigation measures will reduce the potential Impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, pre- and post - development surveys will be conducted to monitor the potential permanent impacts associated with the facility. If such potential impacts occur, they would be replaced at a ratio of 1.2:1 as Refer to Responses to CLUP Policy Nos. 4.1.4 -1 and 4.1.4 -3. Mitigation pursuant to the mitigation plan would be subject to review and approval by the City of Newport Refer to Responses to CLUP Policy Nos. 4.1.4 -1 and 4.1.4 -3. As noted in those responses, the analysis presented in Section 4.7 (Biological Resources) summarizes the results of the eelgrass and Cau/erpa taxifolia surveys conducted for the proposed project. These studies were conducted in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and The eelgrass survey and impact assessment conducted for the proposed project indicated that some potential temporary impacts would occur; however, those impacts would be mitigated through the implementation of measures Intended to reduce siltation (e.g., silt curtains, etc.) and other effects of construction activities (e.g., anchor dragging) that could impact the existing eelgrass bed. As indicated in this policy, eelgrass losses would be replaced at a ratio of 1.2:1. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a hydrological analysis were prepared by qualified professionals in connection with the project. These include best management practices (BMPs) and structural methods to ensure that erosion and stormwater discharge will not impact Newport Bay. These BMPs address both short-term (i.e., construction) and long -term (i.e., operational) effects and incorporate a variety of features to address erosion and sedimentation as well as non - sediment BMPs to address the use of fertilizers/pesticides, vehicle /equipment parking, solid Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -30 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. CLUP Polic Consisteripy Analysis to the water quality impacts associated with urban development. The project applicant is required to prepare and implement BMPs pursuant to the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SW PPP) that will be required prior to the Issuance of the grading permit for the proposed project. Require grading /erosion control plans to include loll Implementation of these construction BMPs will ensure 4.3.1 -6 stabilization on graded or disturbed areas. that grading /erosion control measures are implemented. These measures are intended to minimize erosion and stabilize the site during grading. As indicated above, the applicant will also be required to Implement BMPs to ensure that point source and non -point source pollutants are minimized see Response to Policy 4.3.1-5). See Responses to CLUP Policies 4.3.1 -5 and 4.3.1 -6 for a discussion of the project's efforts to minimize land use disturbance activities. Require measures to be taken during construction to limit Also, the project has been designed to avoid impacts to land use disturbance activities such as clearing and native vegetation. Current project design features avoid grading, limiting cut - and -fill to reduce erosion and the coastal bluff face and rocky outcrop located along the sediment loss, and avoiding steep slopes, unstable areas, north side of the project site that extends into Newport 4.3.1 -7 and erosive soils. Require construction to minimize Harbor. However, within the current development disturbance of natural vegetation, including significant footprint, there is a potentially suitable habitat for the nine trees, native vegetation, root structures, and other special status plants. Therefore, the applicant will physical or biological features important for preventing undertaken focused surveys during the appropriate erosion or sedimentation. blooming season of each of those species to confirm that they do not exist on the site. If one or more of the species exist on the subject property and it is determined that project implementation would result in impacts, an incident take permit under Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code will be obtained.. Require that development not result in the degradation of 4.3.2 -3 coastal waters (including the ocean, estuaries and lakes) See Responses to CLUP Policies 4.3.1 -5 and 4.3.1 -6. caused by changes to the hydrologic landsca e. The hydrology study prepared for the proposed project includes a detention facility that will be constructed on -site to treat and detain storm flows. Specifically, the 1.95 cis To the maximum extent practicable, runoff should be emanating from the site will be detained in a vault, treated retained on private property to prevent the transport of by a proprietary StormFilter unit, and discharged into the 4.3.2 -8 bacteria, pesticides, fertilizers, pet waste, oil, engine existing storm drain at a rate of 0.50 cfs, which is slightly coolant, gasoline, hydrocarbons, brake dust, tire residue, less than the 0.51 cfs currently being discharged. and other pollutants into recreaflonal waters. Following treatment by the project StormFilter unit, site runoff will pass through an Abtech Smart Sponge Plus drain insert for additional treatment for bacteria as a pollutant of concern. Impervious surfaces comprising the existing development encompass approximately 22 percent of the total area of the project site. When redeveloped, impermeable surfaces will cover approximately 28 percent of the project site. The remaining 72 percent will remain permeable. Although the impervious areas will increase by Require new development to minimize the creation of and approximately 6 percent, the total discharge from the site Increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly In the developed condition is estimated to be only 1.95 4.3.2 -11 connected impervious areas, to be maximum extent cfs, or a 15 percent decrease in surface runoff when practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of compared to the existing 2.31 cfs. The decrease in storm pervious surfaces, where feasible. flow is largely attributed to the addition of a swimming pool, which would capture runoff during the storm event, thereby reducing the total storm flows on the site under existing conditions because a swimming pool does not currently exist. The proposed stone drain system will capture more of the site runoff and reduce sheet flows that currently directly impact Newport Bay. The Improved efficiency of the new storm drains stem, together with the Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -31 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistency Anal is filtration element within the outlet structure, will ensure that the redeveloped site does not result in erosion or siltation on- or off -site. As suggested above, the proposed project will result in a The project will have a minimal impact on the absorption, purification, and retention functions of natural drainage systems that exist on the site. Although the project will result in an approximately 6 percent increase in the total Require development to protect the absorption, impermeable surface area of the site, the developed purification, and retention functions of natural drainage project is estimated to generate only 1.95 cfs, or a 15 systems that exist on the site, to the maximum extent percent decrease in surface runoff when compared to the practicable. Where feasible, design drainage and project existing 2.31 cis. The decrease in storm flow is largely 4.3.2 -12 plans to complement and utilize existing drainage patterns attributed to the addition of a swimming pool, which would and systems, conveying drainage from the developed capture runoff during the storm event, thereby reducing area of the site in a non - erosive manner. Disturbed or the total storm flows on the site under existing condition degraded natural drainage systems should be restored, because a swimming pool does not currently exist. The where feasible. proposed storm drain system will capture more of the site runoff and reduce sheet flows that currently directly impact Newport Bay. The improved efficiency of the new storm drain system, together with the filtration element within the outlet structure, will ensure that the redeveloped site does not result in erosion or siltation on-or off -site. The preliminary geotechnical analysis conducted for the proposed project concluded that the site is suitable for development with the Incorporation of measures outlined in the report. The proposed project has been designed to incorporate the recommendations of the report and will not expose the structure and /or the future residents to potential hazards. In addition, the site has also been designed to minimize impacts to natural and sensitive resources. For instance, the project has been design with "curvilinear' features that will allow the building to conform to the bluff when Site development on the most suitable portion of the site compared to the existing rectilinear features of the 4.3.2 -13 and design to ensure the protection and preservation of existing residential structure. In addition, the dock natural and sensitive site resources. access /emergency exit proposed at the 40.5 feet NAVD88 also incorporates design features that conform to the existing natural character of the bluff through the use of landscape and hardscape materials, including rocks. Finally, the proposed dock facility is located in an area that avoids to the maximum extent possible, the eelgrass beds located in the harbor. Although potential construction impacts may occur, measures will be required to ensure that such impacts are minimized and reduced to an insignificant level (e.g., employ silt curtains, etc.). In the event that direct impacts occur to eelgrass, the applicant will be required to replace/restore it at a ratio of 1.2:1 consistent with adopted policies. As indicated in Section V (Inspection /Maintenance Require structural BMPs to be inspected, cleaned, and Responsibility for BMPs) of the WQMP prepared for the repaired as necessary to ensure proper functioning for the project, all of the structural BMPs will be inspected, life of the development. Condition coastal development cleaned and maintained in accordance with the BMP 4.3.2 -16 permits to require ongoing application and maintenance Maintenance Responsibility /Frequency Matrix, which is as is necessary for effective operation of all BMPs consistent with this policy to ensure that their (including site design, source control, and treatment effectiveness and efficiency in water quality treatment is control). maximized. Require beachfront and waterfront development to 4.3.2 -22 incorporate BMPs designed to prevent or minimize See Responses to CLUP Policies 4.3.1 -5 and 4.3.1 -6. polluted runoff to beach and coastal waters. 4.3.2 -23 Require new development applications to include a Water See Responses to CLUP Policies 4.3.1 -5 and 4.3.1 -6. Quality Management Plan (WQMP . The WQMP's Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -32 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1 — Land Use and Policy No. CLUP Polic y Consistency Analysis purpose is to minimize to the maximum extent practicable dry weather runoff, runoff from small storms (less the %" of rain falling over a 24 -hour period) and the concentration of pollutants in such runoff during construction and post - construction from the property. Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant To further reduce runoff, direct and encourage water plant species determined to be consistent with the conservation via the use of weather- and moisture -based California coastal bluff environment. Invasive and non - irrigation controls, fiered water consumption rates, and invasive species shall removed. Irrigation of bluff 4'3'2 -24 native or drought - tolerant plantings in residential, faces to establish et areas shall temporary commercial, and municipal properties to the maximum s. establish the plants. Upon and used only to establish extent practicable. establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation h system shall be removed. As a result, the need for irrigation will be reduced /minimized. Scenic and Visual Resources As indicated in Section 4.5 of the EIR (Aesthetics), although project implementation will result in the introduction of a different structure on the site, views from important public vantages (e.g., Begonia Park) would not be significantly affected. In addition, views through the site from the "Public View Point" at Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue adjacent to the project would be enhanced. The view angle through the site from that Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and location to the harbor and ocean would be increased by 4.4.1-1 visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views approximately 76 percent as a result of project to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal implementation. In addition, a view "window" will also be bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. created at the northerly property limits where one does not currently exist. Finally, the project will result in an enhanced view of the project site's bluff when viewed from the bay. While the lowest extent of existing development down the site's bluff face is 42.3 feet NAVD88, the project's main structure will be constructed at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD88, resulting in approximately 10 additional vertical feet of bluff face as compared with existing conditions. The proposed project has been designed to minimize impacts to public coastal views. As illustrated in the visual simulations prepared for the proposed project (refer to Section 4.5), the proposed residential structure has been designed to blend into the bluff through its "curvilinear" design, character, colors and building materials when compared to the existing structure and nearby homes 4.4.1-2 Design and site new development, including landscaping, located along the bluff. The aesthetic character of the so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. residential neighborhood will be enhanced through the elimination of existing overhead utilities (i.e., undergrounding) on Carnation Avenue. Further, no significant encroachment into the ocean vista would occur when viewed from Begonia. Finally, views to the ocean from Ocean Boulevard would be enhanced as a result of the design of the project, which expands the existing vista bv aDDroximately 76 Dercant. With the exception of the emergency egress, the proposed project has been designed to limit the proposed development to the Predominant Line of Existing Development (PLOED), which was established by the Design and site new development to minimize alterations Newport Beach City Council at elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 4.4.1 -3 to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and 88. Although excavation below the 50.7 NAVD 88 elevation is required to accommodate the lower levels of canyons. the proposed structure, this excavation will occur behind the bluff face and would not be visible from the harbor or elsewhere within the viewshed. In order to ensure compatibility with the natural landform Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -33 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistency Analysis and, therefore, avoid both damaging the scenic resource represented by the bluff and degrading the existing visual character and quality of the site, the emergency exit incorporates design features that blend the exit into the existing natural character of the bluff through the use of landscape and hardscape materials, including rocks. As a result, the emergency exit is consistent with the City's established policies regarding protection of the scenic and visual qualities of the bluff. Finally, the proposed condominium structure is situated on the flattest portion of the lot and the building design conforms to the natural contours of the site; therefore, grading of the bluff is the minimal amount needed to build the project to the Predominant Line and the project is consistent with this policy. Views through the site from the "Public View Point" at Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue adjacent to the Where appropriate, require new development to provide project would be enhanced as a result of the project. The view easements or corridors designed to protect public c view angle through the site from that location to the harbor 4.4.1 -4 coastal views or t restore public coastal views in and ocean would be increased by approximately 76 developed areas. percent. Implementation of MM 4.5 -2 (refer to Section 4.5.4) requires a view easement (applicable only to the project site) to ensure that this view enhancement Is achieved and preserved In the future. The existing apartment building was constructed In 1949 and the adjacent home on the site was built In 1955. These structures lack aesthetic character, especially with open carports and parked vehicles dominating the ground level of the structure facing Carnation Avenue. A portion of the existing structures extend down to the bluff face, to elevation 42.3 feet NAVD88. Project implementation will result in the replacement of 4.4.1 -5 Where feasible, require new development to restore and the existing buildings with a high quality structure of enhance the visual quality in visually degraded areas. modern design. In addition, overhead utilities that exist within the parkway on the south side of Carnation Avenue would be undergrounded, resulting in the elimination of the utility features that extent vertically and horizontally within the vlewshed. The elimination of these features would enhance views and the aesthetic character within the neighborhood. Finally, the project would be slightly higher on the bluff then the existing structure. As a result, the bluff face below the proposed structure would be landscaped and enhanced with native plant materials. 4.4.1-6 Protect public coastal views from the following roadway Refer to Response to CLUP Policy 4.4.1 -4. segments: Ocean Boulevard At the present time, a 25 degree view currently exists between the existing apartment building on the site and Design and site new development, including landscaping, the neighbor's garage and fence to the south. Project blic coastal blic co on the edges of public view corridors, including implementation will result In an expansion /enhancement those down public to frame and accent public of that existing view, which would increase to 44 degrees coastal views. with the proposed project. Implementation of MM 4.5 -2 requires a view easement (applicable only to the project site) to ensure that the enhancement of the view is achieved and preserved in the future. With only minor exception (e.g., excavation required to accommodate the subterranean levels, side yard setback) Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of the project complies with all of the development standards 4.4.2 -2 structures consistent with the unique character and visual prescribed by the existing zoning and is, therefore, scale of Newport Beach. consistent with building height limits and other City building envelope restrictions. The below grade encroachments will not impact public views and the above grade encroachment is located within a side yard setback Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -34 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 — Land Use and Planning Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistent Anal is between the proposed project and the home abutting the site to the north (215 Carnation Ave.) where no public view currently exists. Furthermore, although the proposed multiple - family structure would be larger than the existing structure(s) occupying the site, it would be smaller than the Channel Reef development located to the south, as illustrated in several of the visual simulations (refer to Section 4.5). Refer to Response to CLUP Policy 4.4.2 -2 for a discussion of Zoning Code compliance. Also, note that Implement the regulation of the building envelope to views through the site from the "Public View Point" at preserve public views through the height, setback, floor Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue adjacent to the 4.4.2 -3 area, lot coverage, and building bulk regulation of the Project would be enhanced as a result of the project. The Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005 that limit the view angle through the site from that location to the harbor building profile and maximize public view opportunities. and ocean would be increased by approximately 76 percent. In addition, views to the harbor and turning basin would also be created at the northern property boundary where no view currently exists. On bluffs subject to marine erosion, require new No new accessory structures are proposed. All project accessory structures as decks, patios, and walkways that structures will be supported by structural foundations. do not require structural foundations to be sited in The policy requires that accessory structures be removed 4.4.3.4 accordance with the predominant line of existing or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, development in the subject area, but not less than 10 feet instability or other hazards. SC 4.9-4 mandates that the from the bluff edge. Require accessory structures to be existing accessory structures (concrete pad, staircase and removed or relocated landward when threatened by walkway) be removed if such circumstances arise in the erosion, Instability or other hazards. future. The City Council has established a predominant line of existing bluff face development for the Site ( PLOED) at elevation 50.7 feet NAVD88. New development on the Require all new bluff top development located on a bluff bluff face is proposed to be more than two feet higher not subject to marine erosion to be sited in accordance than the PLOED at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD88, except with the predominant line of existing development in the for an emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD88. As subject area. This requirement shall apply to the principal a point of reference, the lowest reach down the bluff face 4.4.3 -5 structure and major accessory structures such as of the existing apartment building is 42.3 feet NAV088, or guesthouses and pools. The setback shall be increased approximately eight feet lower than the proposed residential where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the structures (other than the proposed emergency exit). The development. basement and sub - basement levels are subterranean and will not be visible from either the street or the bay. As such, those subterranean spaces are not subject to the PLOED. Outdoor patios, decks, spas, and firepots are proposed at each above grade level. On bluffs not subject to marine erosion, require new accessory structures such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require structural foundations, to be set back Refer to Responses to CLUP Policy Nos. 4.4.3 -4 and Refers. 4.4.3 -6 from the bluff edge in accordance with the predominant line of existing accessory development. Regluire accessory structures to be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards. Protective devices are not required for the proposed project. As Indicated in the Coastal Hazard Study Require all new development located on a bluff top to be prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., flooding, erosion and wave setback from the bluff edge a sufficient distance to ensure runup will not adversely impact the proposed stability, ensure that it will not be endangered by erosion, improvements over their lifetime c years) and the and to avoid the need for protective devices during the proposed project will not create r contribute significantly economic life of the structure (75 years). Such setbacks d to erosion, geologic Instability, or destruction of the site or 4.4.3 -7 must take into consideration expected long -term bluff adjacent area. retreat over the next 75 years, as well as slope stability. The project will be set back a sufficient distance from the To assure stability, the development must maintain a bluff edge to ensure stability. As discussed above, the minimum factor of safety of 1.5 against landsliding for the City Council has established a predominant life of existing life of the structure. development for the site at elevation 50.7 feet NAVD88. This is the extent to which new structures may be built toward the bay, and down he bluff. At elevation 52.83 feet Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -35 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1 — Land Use and Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistency Analysis NAVD88, the project will be more than two feet higher than the PLOED, except for the dock access /emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD88. As a point of reference, the lowest reach down the bluff face of the existing apartment building is 42.3 feet NAVD88, or approximately eight feet lower than the proposed residential structures (other than the proposed dock access/emergency exit). Further, the site is not subject to potential landslidin . The City Council has established a predominant line of Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private existing bluff face development for the site at elevation development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean 50.7 feet NAVD88. New development on the bluff face is Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona proposed to be more than two feet higher than the del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant PLOED at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD88, except for a line of existing development or public improvements dock access/emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or NAVD88. As a point of reference, the lowest reach down 4'4'3 -8 providing for public safety. Permit such improvements the bluff face of the existing apartment building is 42.3 only when no feasible alternative exists and whe n feet NAVD88, or approximately eight feet lower than the designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the proposed residential structures (other than the proposed bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff dock access/emergency exit). The basement and sub - face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding basement levels are subterranean and will not be visible area to the maximum extent feasible. from either the street or the bay. Outdoor patios, decks, spas, and firepots are proposed at each above -grade level. As previously indicated, with only minor exception (i.e., emergency access at 40.5 feet NAVD88, the proposed project complies with the PLOED setback prescribed by the Newport Beach City Council. A series of visual simulations was create to evaluate the potential visual Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces Impacts of the proposed project. Although the simulations along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific (refer to Section 4.5 (Aesthetics) Illustrate that the new Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to development would result in some changes in the visual be sited in accordance with the predominant line of character of the site, no significant visual impacts are 4.4.3 -9 existing development in order to protect public coastal anticipated, either from the harbor or other public views. Establish a predominant line of development for vantages within the vicinity of the project. The simulations both principle structures and accessory improvements. revealed that some views from Carnation Avenue and The setback shall be increased where necessary to Ocean Boulevard will be enhanced (i.e., elimination of ensure safety and stability of the development. overhead utilities on Carnation Avenue) or expanded (i.e., a wider view angle from the sidewalk along Ocean Boulevard). From other more distant vantages (e.g., Begonia Park), the proposed structure will not significantly change the existing view. As a result, no significant visual impacts are anticipated As indicated in the GeoSoils, Inc., Coastal Hazard Study, Require applications for new development to include flooding, erosion and wave runup will not adversely 4.4.3 -11 slope stability analyses and erosion rate esflmates impact the proposed improvements over their lifetime (i.e., provided by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or 75 years) and the proposed project will not create or Geotechnical Engineer. contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability or destruction of the site or adjacent area The project site encompasses a south - facing bluff. A small cove exists below the bluff, which is characterized by rock outcroppings. Although development will extend down to 52.83 feet NAVD88 (approximately two feet above the 50.7 feet NAVD88 PLOED identified by the City Council), the integrity of the bluff will be maintained below Employ site design and construction techniques to that elevation with the exception of the dock 4.4.3 -12 minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum accesslemergency exit, which is proposed at the 40.5 feet extent feasible. NAVD88 elevation. However, the access would be recessed and designed to minimize the alteration of the natural appearance of the bluff. The proposed project has been designed to complement the site's natural bluff features. The "curvilineal' features reflected in the design of the proposed residential Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -36 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistency Analysis structure will allow the building to conform to the character of the bluff when compared to the existing rectilinear features of the existing residential structure. In addition, the proposed colors are consistent with the natural environment, and the project's mass has been broken by the physical separation between the two main structural elements. Finally, the bluff face below the proposed structure would be landscaped and enhanced with native plant materials. The project implements Policy 4.4.3 -13 through hydroseeding the bluff with a drought- tolerant mix of plants that are native to coastal California. Temporary Irrigation will be used only to establish the vegetation. Implementation of MM 4.7-4 will ensure that the planting and irrigation be accomplished within this limitation. In addition, all common areas will be landscaped with similar plant material having similar water requirements to reduce excess Irrigation runoff and promote surface filtration. Require new development adjacent to the edge of coastal The proposed storm drainage system will more efficiently 4.4.3 -13 bluffs to incorporate drainage improvements, irrigation capture site runoff, reduce the amount of sheet flow systems, and /or native or drought - tolerant vegetation into across the bluff face, and discharge to Newport Bay with the design to minimize coastal bluff recession. less intensity than under current conditions. Specifically, the 1.95 cis emanating from the site will be detained in a vault, treated by a proprietary Storm Filter unit, and discharged into the existing storm drain at a rate of 0.50 cfs, which is slightly less than the 0.51 cfs currently being discharged. Implementation of these measures will help reduce the potential for coastal bluff recession due to effects of site runoff. The project has been designed to avoid impacts to native vegetation. Current project design features avoid the coastal bluff face and rocky outcrop located along the north side of the project site that extends into Newport Harbor. However, within the current development footprint, there is a potentially suitable habitat for nine special status plants. Therefore, the applicant will undertaken focused surveys during the appOropriate blooming season of each of those species to confirm that they do not exist on the site. If one or more of the species exist on the subject property and it Is determined that project implementation would result in impacts, an incident take permit under Section 2081 of the Fish and Design and site new development to minimize the Game Code will be obtained. 4.4.3 -15 removal of native vegetation, preserve rock outcroppings, and protect coastal resources. No rock outcroppings would be damaged or destroyed as a result of project implementation. Although not identified as an ESA on Figure NR2 (Environmental Study Areas) of the City's General Plan, eelgrass beds are located adjacent to the cove below the bluff site. Nonetheless, an eelgmss survey was conducted and determined that measures would be required during the construction phase to protect the beds from damage as a result of construction of the proposed replacement dock. Pre- and post - construction surveys are also proposed to document any potential adverse effects and identify the need to provide mitigation for impacted eel grass. Paleontological and Cultural Resources 4.5.1 -1 Require new development to protect and preserve I As indicated in Section 4.10, project implementation will Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -37 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistency Analysis paleontological and archaeological resources from not result in potential impacts to paleontological and destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such archaeological resources. Nonetheless, the project must resources. If avoidance of the resources is not feasible, comply with State law in the event human remains are require an in situ or site - capping preservation plan or a encountered. In addition, because the Monterey recovery plan for mitigating the effect of the development. Formation Is known to contain fossils, mitigation has been identified to address potential impacts to such fossils. Specifically, a qualified paleontologist must be retained by the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. In the event that fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground- disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. Require a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist to monitor all grading and /or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural or paleontological resources. If grading operations or excavations uncover paleontological /archaeological resources, require the paleontologistlarchaeologist monitor to suspend all development activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made as to the significance 4.5.1 -2 of the paleontological /archaeological resources. If Refer to Response to CLUP Policy 4.5.1 -1. resources are detem fined to be significant, require submittal of a mitigation plan. Mitigation measures considered may range from in -situ preservation to recover and /or relocation. Mitigation plans shall include a good faith effort to avoid impacts to cultural resources through methods such as, but not limited to, project redesign, in situ preservation /capping, and placing cultural resources areas in open space. As Indicated in Section 4.10, because implementation of the proposed project requires the approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, it is subject to the provisions of SB Notify cultural organizations, including Native American 18, which requires consultation with Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the representatives before adopting or amending a general 4.5.1 -3 potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow plan. The City has complied with the requirement of SB qualified representatives of such groups to monitor 18 by submitting a request to the Native American grading and /or excavation of development sites. Heritage Commission . In addition, the City also Native sent letters to the Native American representatives, informing each of the proposed project. However, no response was received by the City from any of the native American representatives requesting consultation within the 90-day statutory period. Where in situ preservation and avoidance are not feasible, require new development to donate scientifically 4'5'1 -4 valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a Refer to Response to CLUP Policy No 4.5.1 -1. responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Orange County, whenever possible. Where there is a potential to affect cultural or paleontological resources, require the submittal of an 4.5.1 -5 archaeological /cultural resources monitoring plan that Refer to Response to CLUP Policy No. 4.5.1 -1. Identifies monitoring methods and describes the procedures for selecting archaeological and Native American monitors and procedures that will be followed if Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -38 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 — Land Use and Planning No. 4.6 -6 4.6-6 4.6-8 4.6 -9 CLUP Policy additional or unexpected archaeological /cultural resources are encountered during development of the site. Procedures may include, but are not limited to, provisions for cessation of all grading and construction activities in the area of the discovery that has any potential to uncover or otherwise disturb cultural deposits in the area of the discovery and all construction that may foreclose mitigation options to allow for significance testing. additional investigation and mitigation. Environmental Where development is proposed within or adjacent to ESHA, wetlands or other sensitive resources, require City staff member(s) and /or contracted employee(s) to consider the individual and cumulative impacts of the development, define the least environmentally damaging alternative, and recommend modifications or mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts. The City may impose a fee on applicants to recover the cost of review of a proposed project when required by this policy. Where development is proposed within or adjacent to ESHA, wetlands or other sensitive resources, require the city staff member(s) and /or contracted employee(s) to include the following in any recommendations of approval: an identification of the preferred project alternative, required modifications, or mitigation measures necessary to ensure conformance with the Coastal Land Use Plan. The decision making body (Planning Director, Planning Commission, or City Council) shall make findings relative to the project's conformance to the recommendations of the City staff member(s) and /or contracted employee(s). Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, national Marine Fisheries Service, and other resource management agencies, as applicable, in the review of development applications in order to ensure that impacts to ESHA and marine resources, including rare, threatened, or endangered species, are avoided or minimized such that ESHA is not significantly degraded, habitat values are not significantly disrupted, and the biological productivity and Require applications for new development, where applicable, to include a geologictsoils /geotechnical study that Identifies any geologic hazards affecting the project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and contains statements that the project site is suitable for the proposed project has been thoroughly evaluated in the initial study and Draft EIR. Several technical analyses have been prepared to determine the nature and extent of both individual and cumulative impacts anticipated as a result of project implementation. As concluded in the analysis presented in the Draft EIR, while potentially significant project - related impacts have been identified, no significant cumulative impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. As required by CEQA, mitigation measures have been prescribed for each potentially significant impact, which will be implemented to ensure that most of the impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. However, temporary construction noise will remain a significant an unavoidable adverse impact. Although not located within an established ESHA, the site is located within the Coastal Zone of the City and supports native vegetation and important coastal resources. As such, the site has been designed to minimize potential impacts to sensitive habitat, including coastal resources. Specifically, potential impacts to eelgrass may occur during construction of the proposed dock facility and subsequent to the construction of that feature; however, several mitigation measures have been prescribed to ensure that such impacts are reduced to an acceptable level (i.e., less than significant). If permanent Impacts occur based on monitoring, replace of that habitat would be required at a ratio of 1.2:1, consistent with adopted plans and programs. The recommendation report issued by City staff will include an identification of the preferred project alternative, required modifications, or mitigation measures necessary to ensure conformance with the Coastal Land Use Plan. In addition, the decision - making body shall make findings relative to the project's conformance to City staffs recommendations. The proposed project will be subject to review and comment by the resources agencies listed in CLUP Policy No. 4.6-8 through the environmental review (i.e., CEQA) process, including the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries, and California Coastal Commission. Both a grading report (Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005) and a coastal hazard study (Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils, Inc, dated October 2006) were prepared for the proposed project. These studies thoroughly evaluated the Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -39 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistengy Analysis safe from geologic hazard for its economic life. For address soils and geotechnical constraints on the site. As development on coastal bluffs, including bluffs facing indicated in that study, the site is suitable for the Upper Newport Bay, such reports shall Include slope development proposed and will be safe from geologic stability analyses and estimates of the long -term average hazard. bluff retreat rate over the expected life of the development. Reports are to be signed by an Excavation proposed for the project will result in the appropriately licensed professional and subject to review removal of existing fill soils as well as a majority of the and approval by qualified city staff member(s) and /or terrace deposits capping the bedrock and daylghting on contracted employee(s). the bluff face. With the removal of these materials, the bluff face will be less vulnerable to bluff erosion. In addition, the incorporation of site drainage measures will also redirect existing site surface drainage away from the bluff, thereby further reducing potential bluff erosion. The GeoSoils, Inc., Coastal Hazard Study concluded that the proposed improvements will neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or the destruction of the site or adjacent area. Newport Beach Zoning As indicated in Section 4.1.1, the majority of the subject property is zoned MFR (Multiple - Family Residential, 2,178), which would accommodate up to 20 du /ac based on one dwelling unit for every 2,178 square feet of land. The maximum density that could be achieved on the subject property is based on the MFR zoning parameters identified below. Total Site Area 61,282 square feet Existing Building Pad 13,481 square feet Slope area less than 50% 7,462 square feet Slope area greater than 50% 11,926 square feet Area under mean higher high water elevation 28,413 square feet The maximum density that would be permitted on the subject property is determined by subtracting the area of the site that exceeds 50 percent slope (11,926 square feet) and the area of the site located below mean higher high water (28,413 square feet) from the total project site area (61,284 square feet). This calculation results in a total of 20,945 square feet. Based on the minimum of 2,178 square feet of land area per dwelling unit, a maximum of 9 dwelling units would be permitted on the subject property. The project applicant is proposing a total of eight dwelling units, which is consistent with the density provision of the MFR zoning classification. A small portion of the site (584 square feet) is zoned R -2 (Two - Family Residential). The applicant has proposed a zone change to reclassify that small portion of the site to MFR, which would be consistent with the accompanying request to amend the Newport Beach Land Use Element to redesignate it as RM. Approval of the zone change (and General Plan Amendment) would eliminate the R -2 zoning and the existing conflict with the MFR zoning that applies to the majority of the property, which permits higher density development. Development of the site as proposed complies with the zoning district regulations and development standards prescribed for the MFR zoning district. Therefore, no significant conflicts with the zoning would occur and no mitigation measures are required. SCAG Policies and Proqrams Table 4.1 -3 provides a discussion of the project's consistency with the applicable goals, objectives, policies and programs reflected in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. As indicated in that Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1-40 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and analysis, the proposed project is consistent with the SCAG projections, plans and policies and no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Table 4.1 -3 Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) Consistency Analysis Policy No. RCPG Polic Consistency Analysis Regional Transport tion Plan Transportation investments shall be based on SCAG's Project implementation will not result in the generation of 4.01 adopted Regional Performance indicators (i.e., mobility, significant new traffic that would adversely affect regional accessibility, environment, reliability, safety, livable transportation facilities. communities, equity, and cost- effectiveness). 4.02 Transportation investments shall mitigate environmental As indicated above, no significant long -term traffic impacts to an acceptable level. impacts will result from project implementation A Construction Management Plan has been prepared for the proposed project, which addresses all aspects of the construction phase (e.g., phasing schedule, construction equipment, and the construction process). In addition, the CMP also addresses packing management (e.g., off- site and short-term parking, staging, etc.), traffic control 4.04 Transportation control measures shall be a priority. (e.g., haul routes and delivery requirements), safety and security (e.g., pedestrian protection, fencing, etc.), air quality control and noise suppression measures (e.g., dust control, noise control, vibration monitoring); and environmental compliance /protection (e.g., erosion and sediment control and beach protection, water quality control and environmental protection measures). Improvement of Regional Standard of Living The proposed project is located In an area of the City that is served by a full complement of public services and utilities. With the upsizing of the existing deficient Encourage patterns of urban development and land use, catch basin, adequate infrastructure and public services 3.05 which reduce costs on infrastructure construction and are available to serve the project. Therefore, project make better use of existing facilities. implementation would result in an improvement in infrastructure service to the area. All of the remaining infrastructure facilities (e.g., sewer, water, police and fire protection, etc.) have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed project . Support local jurisdictions' efforts to minimize the cost of As indicated in Response to Policy 3.05 above, infrastructure and public service delivery, and efforts to adequate infrastructure and public services exist in the 3.09 seek new sources of funding for development and the project area to serve the proposed project. The provision of services. applicant will be responsible for upgrading an existing deficient catch basin. Improvement of Regional Quality of Life The applicant is proposing to redevelop the subject property, which will result in a reduction in the number of Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' dwelling units that exist on the site and, as a result, will programs aimed at designing land uses which reduce the total number of vehicle trips (and miles 3.12 encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need traveled) associated with site development. Project for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips implementation will not result in the construction of new and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunifies for or expanded roadways. Public transit opportunities residents to walk and bike. currently exist within the Corona del Mar community and in the City of Newport Beach that would serve the proposed residential project. As previously indicated in Response to Policy 3.12, Encourage local jurisdictions' plans that maximize the project implementation includes the reuse of an existing 3.13 use of existing urbanized areas accessible to transit developed site, which will not require the expansion of through infll and redevelopment, existing transit services, which currently exist in the community. Existing transit facilities are adequate to serve the ro osed residential use. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1-41 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1-42 The project has been carefully designed to avoid and /or mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts. The project's significant and unavoidable temporary 3.18 Encourage planned development in locations least likely construction noise impact is a function of its location on a to cause adverse environmental impacts. coastal bluff in a developed residential neighborhood. As discussed In Chapter 10.0 (Alternatives) of the EIR, projects of varying designs and densities generate similar construction noise impacts. The proposed project will not result in potentially significant Impacts to wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and /or endangered plants and animals. Although not identified as an ESA on Figure NR2 (Environmental Study Areas) of the City's General Plan, eelgrass beds are located adjacent to the cove below the bluff site. Nonetheless, an eelgrass survey as conducted and determined that measures would be Support the protection of vital resources such as required during the construction phase to protect the wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, beds from damage as a result of construction of the 3.20 production lands, and land containing unique and proposed replacement dock. Pre- and post - construction endangered plants and animals, surveys are also proposed to document any potential adverse effects and identify the need to provide mitigation for impacted eelgrass. In addition, the intertidal area below the bluff supports a colony of sand dollars. Although not a protected species, it has been described as a unique resource because it does not exist in large numbers anywhere else in the bay. Construction activities associated with the project, Including the proposed dock facility must avoid the intertidal area to ensure that no significant impacts occur to the sand dollar colony. As indicated in Section 4.10, project implementation will not result in potential impacts to paleontological and archaeological resources. Nonetheless, the project must comply with State law in the event human remains are encountered. In addition, because the Monterey Formation is known to contain fossils, mitigation has been identified to address potential impacts to such fossils. Specifically, a qualified paleontologist must be retained by the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate 3.21 preservation and protection of recorded and unrecorded Paleontology. In the event that fossils are encountered cultural resources and archaeological sites. during construction activities, ground- disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. The project site encompasses a south- facing bluff. A small cove exists below the bluff, which is characterized by rock outcroppings. Although development will extend Discourage development, or encourage the use of down to 52.83 feet NAVD88 (approximately two feet 3.22 special design requirements, In areas will steep slopes, above the 50.7 feet NAVD 88 PLOED identified by the high fire, flood, and seismic hazards. City Council), the integrity of the bluff will be maintained below that elevation with the exception of the dock access /emergency exit, which is proposed at the 40.5 feet NAVD88 elevation. However, the access would be recessed and designed to minimize the alteration of the Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1-42 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning natural appearance of the bluff. The proposed project has been designed to complement the site's natural bluff features. The "curvilinear' features reflected in the design of the proposed residential structure will allow the building to conform to the character of the bluff when compared to the existing rectilinear features of the existing residential structure. In addition, the proposed colors are consistent with the natural environment, and the project's mass has been broken by the physical separation between the two main structural elements. Finally, the bluff face below the proposed structure would be landscaped and enhanced with native plant materials. In addition, development of the site has been designed to minimize potential seismic Impacts. The geotechnical report prepared for the project concluded that the project will not adversely affect the integrity of the bluff. Although not a mitigation measure, the project includes a Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in detailed Construction Management Plan, which certain locations, measures aimed at preservation of addresses project phasing and construction traffic in 3.23 biological and ecological resources, measures that order to minimize adverse noise and air quality impacts. would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize Where potential impacts are identified (e.g., biological earthquake damage, and to develop emergency resources, drainage and hydrology, etc.) mitigation response and recovery plans. measures have been prescribed that are intended to reduce or eliminate the Impact. Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the The proposed project will provide housing in the Corona 3.24 implementation of programs that Increase the supply and del Mar area of the City of Newport Beach. The project quality of housing and provide affordable housing as is not subject to the provision of affordable housing evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. based on the City's RHNA requirements. Provision of Social, Political, and Cultural Equity Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in Adequate public services exist within the City to their efforts to develop sustainable communities and accommodate the proposed residential redevelopment provide, equally to all members of society, accessible project. The site will be subject to school development 3'27 and effective services such as: public education, fees to address public education and the City's Park housing, health care, social services, recreational Dedication Fee Ordinance to address public recreation facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection. facilities. In addition, adequate law enforcement and fire protection services can be provided to the development. Air Quality Chapter Core Actions The Draft EIR includes a thorough analysis of project - related air quality, noise, traffic, and land use impacts. Through the environmental document review process, The results of these environmental analysis concludes ensure that plans at all levels of government (regional, that although some potential impacts may occur, air basin, county, subregional and local) consider air mitigation measures have been prescribed and will be 5.11 quality, land use, transportation and economic implemented in order to reduce most of the impacts to a relationships to ensure consistency and minimize less than significant level as required by CEQA. The conflicts. proposed project is consistent with the long -range land use plans and programs as well as adopted policies in the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan (refer to Section 4.1 Land Use). Open Space Ancilla ry Goals The project applicant has allocated areas within the structure and on the property that are dedicated to Provide adequate land resources to meet the outdoor recreational use by the residents of the proposed project. 9.01 recreation needs of the present and future residents in In addition, the project will be subject to the City's Park the region and to promote tourism in the region. Dedication Fee Ordinance, which is utilized by the City to provide public recreation, including that within the coastal zone that is utilized by visitors to the City. Increase the accessibility to open space lands for The project will be subject to the City's Park Dedication 9'02 outdoor recreation. Fee Ordinance, which is utilized by the City to provide public recreation, including that within the coastal zone Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1-43 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Existing Land Use Conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan The subject property is located within the limits of the Central /Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of Orange. The NCCP is intended to ensure the long -term survival of the coastal California gnatcatcher and other special status coastal sage scrub (CSS) dependent plant and wildlife species in accordance with state - sanctioned NCCP program guidelines. The biological surveys conducted on the subject property revealed that although some native species exist on the bluff property, neither CSS habitat nor the coastal California gnatcatcher exists on the site. Therefore, no impacts either to CSS habitat or the coastal California gnatcatcher is anticipated as a result of project implementation. As a result, project implementation is consistent with the adopted NCCP for the Central /Coastal Subregion. No mitigation measures are required. Physically divide an established community. The project proposes to replace an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single family residence with a 8 -unit condominium structure. The site is bounded by Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. As indicated previously, the area surrounding the subject property is entirely developed with single- and multiple - family residential development. Although development of the site as proposed would change the character of the site by introducing a modern multiple - family structure within the neighborhood, development of the subject property would not adversely affect adjacent properties. In particular, no design component or feature of the project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significant change an established community. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Substantial or extreme land use incompatibility. Redevelopment of the site, which currently supports 14 multiple - family dwelling units and a single - family residence, would not result in a significant land use conflict. As previously indicated, the proposed 8 -unit condominium project is consistent with the density of development permitted by the land use designation and zoning adopted for the site. The density of the proposed project is 5.7 du /ac, compared to the 11.4 du /ac that currently exists based on the 15 existing dwelling units and the 20 du /ac permitted by the General Plan Land Use Element and zoning. Further, the proposed structure complies with the development standards (e.g., setbacks, building height, lot coverage, etc.) prescribed for the MFR zoning district. The proposed structure is also consistent with the policies articulated in the General Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -44 that is utilized by visitors to the City. The project applicant will be required to pay the park fee 9.03 Promote self- sustaining regional recreation resources imposed by the City of Newport Beach, which will be and facilities. used to provide recreational facilities to residents and visitors within the City, including within the coastal zone. Both terrestrial and marine biological surveys were conducted to evaluate the potential adverse effects of the proposed project on important habitat and /or resources. The eelgrass survey identifies several Develop well- managed viable ecosystems or known measures, including pre- and post - development 9.08 habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species, monitoring to document the project - related impacts and, including wetlands. if determined necessary, require appropriate measures to mitigate potential Impacts to that resource. Other measures are also proposed to ensure that potential impacts to sensitive biological resources are reduced to a less than significant level (refer to Section 4.7.4). Existing Land Use Conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan The subject property is located within the limits of the Central /Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of Orange. The NCCP is intended to ensure the long -term survival of the coastal California gnatcatcher and other special status coastal sage scrub (CSS) dependent plant and wildlife species in accordance with state - sanctioned NCCP program guidelines. The biological surveys conducted on the subject property revealed that although some native species exist on the bluff property, neither CSS habitat nor the coastal California gnatcatcher exists on the site. Therefore, no impacts either to CSS habitat or the coastal California gnatcatcher is anticipated as a result of project implementation. As a result, project implementation is consistent with the adopted NCCP for the Central /Coastal Subregion. No mitigation measures are required. Physically divide an established community. The project proposes to replace an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single family residence with a 8 -unit condominium structure. The site is bounded by Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. As indicated previously, the area surrounding the subject property is entirely developed with single- and multiple - family residential development. Although development of the site as proposed would change the character of the site by introducing a modern multiple - family structure within the neighborhood, development of the subject property would not adversely affect adjacent properties. In particular, no design component or feature of the project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significant change an established community. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Substantial or extreme land use incompatibility. Redevelopment of the site, which currently supports 14 multiple - family dwelling units and a single - family residence, would not result in a significant land use conflict. As previously indicated, the proposed 8 -unit condominium project is consistent with the density of development permitted by the land use designation and zoning adopted for the site. The density of the proposed project is 5.7 du /ac, compared to the 11.4 du /ac that currently exists based on the 15 existing dwelling units and the 20 du /ac permitted by the General Plan Land Use Element and zoning. Further, the proposed structure complies with the development standards (e.g., setbacks, building height, lot coverage, etc.) prescribed for the MFR zoning district. The proposed structure is also consistent with the policies articulated in the General Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -44 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1 — Land Use and Incompatible land uses in an aircraft accident potential area as defined in an airport land use plan. The project area is not located within two miles of any existing public airport. John Wayne Airport, which is located approximately five miles northwest of the subject property, is the nearest aviation facility. No portion of the project site is located within the accident potential area of such a plan. Further, the subject property is not located within two miles of a public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip. Development of the subject property as proposed would neither affect nor be affected by aircraft operations at such a facility that would generate noise in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, no significant land use impacts would occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. Conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan The Newport Beach General Plan identifies the City's open space and conservation areas. However, because the area of the City in which the subject property is located is nearly completely developed, natural open space and habitat are limited in the project environs. The subject property encompasses approximately 1.4 acres that are currently developed with single- and multiple - family residential dwelling units. The site has been altered in order to accommodate the existing development. Neither the site nor the surrounding areas is located within a Natural Community Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, project implementation will not adversely affect such a plan, sensitive habitat and /or resources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. 4.1.5 Mitigation Measures As indicated in the preceding analysis, the proposed project, which includes the construction of an eight -unit condominium development and the replacement of the existing private marina with an eight -slip dock (and one guest side tie) that is consistent with the Land Use Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach General Plan and with the long -range goals, policies and objectives adopted by the City in the General Plan Update. The proposed project is also compatible with the existing land uses in the area. As a result, no significant long -term land use impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Short-term land use compatibility impacts associated with construction air quality will be reduced to a less than significant level through the incorporation of mitigation measures identified in Section 4.3 (Air Quality). 4.1.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation As indicated above, the project is consistent with the long -range plans and programs adopted by the City. Further, implementation of the standard condition identified for the project (i.e., comply with the zoning district regulations, California Building Code and other regulatory requirements) will ensure that no significant impacts will occur. No significant long -term unavoidable adverse land use impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1-45 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.10— Cultural Resources 4.10 CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA), conducted a records search for both cultural and paleontological resources associated with the subject property. The 2005 report, entitled, 'Results of Cultural and Paleontological Resources Records Search for the Carnation Villas Project, City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California,' was prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., is available for review at the City of Newport Beach. 4.10.1 Existing Conditions Historical Resources The project site is currently developed with a multiple family structure containing 14 dwelling units. The existing building was constructed in 1949. In addition, a single - family residence constructed in 1955 also exists on the subject property. The records search conducted by LSA included a review of the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory to determine if either of these structures has been identified in those databases and /or if other historic resources are located within one mile of the subject property. Neither structure is listed on a Federal, State or local historical resource inventory. Archaeological Resources A cultural resources records search was conducted through the South Central Coastal Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, located at California State University Fullerton. The records search included a one -mile radius from the project site. In addition to the records, LSA completed an archaeological survey of the site . Based on that survey, no archaeological sites were identified; the survey concluded that it is highly unlikely that any archaeological resources would exist given the disturbed nature of the site and soil conditions. Paleontological Resources The project site is located along the eastern margin of the entrance channel to Newport Bay. Review of the topography of the project area, a historic soils map, and current geological mapping of the area demonstrate that the project area is located on the Monterey Formation (Miocene, Marine), topped by flat terraces at about 100 feet above mean sea level, carved by the Terrace 1 stage sea (i.e., 80,000 years before present). Terrace 1 sediments are known to contain Rancholabrean terrestrial and marine vertebrates within the project vicinity. The Monterey Formation, which forms the bluff sediments, is known to contain abundant marine invertebrates and vertebrates (primarily fish). There are many recorded fossil localities in similar sediments in the immediate vicinity of the project area. As such, the project area should be considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity. 4.10.2 Significance Criteria Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact if any of the following occurs. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) §15064.5. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 W1031 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.10 — Cultural Resources Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to PRC §15064.5. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. 4.10.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.10 -1 If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. SC 4.10 -2 A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). In the event that fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground- disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. 4.10.4 Potential Impacts 4.10.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Although potential impacts to cultural and /or scientific (i.e., paleontological) resources may occur during the construction phase of the proposed project, potential impacts are evaluated as potential 'long- term" effects. Therefore, the potential impacts of project implementation are discussed and evaluated in Section 4.10.4.2. 4.10.4.2 Long - Operational Impacts Historical Resources Project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing residential structures on the site; however, because neither structure is recognized either by the City of Newport Beach or the State of California as an important historic resource, no significant impacts to historic resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.10 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmenta Archaeological Resources Section 4.10— Cultural Resources As indicated in Section 4.10.1, a cultural and paleontological resources records survey was completed by LSA Associates, Inc. in July of 2005. All recorded archaeological sites and cultural resource records on file were reviewed and no sides were identified on the subject property. Although project implementation includes extensive excavation of the property to accommodate the proposed residential structure, it is unlikely that the disturbance of the subsurface soils would result in significant impacts to cultural resources due to the site alteration associated with the past development of existing structures and the nature of the bedrock materials that underlie the site. It is unlikely that any archaeological sites have ever existed on the property or will be encountered during construction. Therefore, no significant impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures, including archeological monitoring, are recommended. Because implementation of the proposed project requires the approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport General Plan, it is subject to the provisions of SB 18, which requires consultation with Native American representatives. The City has complied with the requirements of SB 18 by submitting a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). In addition, the City also sent letters to the Native American representatives, informing each of the proposed project. However, no response was received by the City from any of the Native American representatives requesting consultation within the 90 -day statutory period. A record of the applicable correspondence is included in Appendix _. As discussed in Section 4.10.1, the project site and surrounding areas are highly disturbed due to past urban development and there is no evidence of human remains or sites of Native American burials. The NAHC and Native American representatives have been contacted in accordance with the mandate prescribed in SB 18. Therefore, based on the degree of disturbance that has already occurred on the site and, further, no request for consultation by the Native American community, project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts to human remains. Nonetheless, SC 4.10 -1, which is mandated by State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, will ensure that any human remains that may be encountered during construction will be adequate mitigated. Paleontological Resources The cultural and paleontological resources records survey conducted in 2005 for the proposed project indicates that no known paleontological resources are known to exist on the project site; however, the site contains the Monterey Formation, which is known to contain abundant fossilized marine invertebrates and vertebrates. The presence of recorded fossils in the vicinity of the project areas exists. As previously indicated, the survey concluded that the site should be considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity and fossils may be encountered during grading and excavation. It is likely that sediments containing fossils will be encountered during construction. Therefore, implementation of SC 4.10 -2 in accordance with CLUP Policy 4.5.1 -1 will ensure that potential significant impacts to fossils encountered during grading /excavation activities can be avoided through measures prescribed by the paleontological monitor. As a result, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. The project site and surrounding areas, including the bluff, have been altered to accommodate development that includes predominantly residential uses; the only potentially unique geologic feature on the site would be the rock outcropping that forms a small cove at the base of the project site. Although project implementation includes the replacement of the existing 4 -slip dock located within the cove below the site, it will not result in physical changes or alterations that would either directly or indirectly alter the physical characteristics of the cove. The project will not impact the rock outcropping as construction of the proposed condominiums will occur well above the feature and construction of the replacement dock will occur seaward of the rock outcropping. As a result, alteration of the rocks or the cove will not occur and no significant impacts are anticipated. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4,10 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.10.5 Mitigation Measures Section 4.10 — Cultural Resources No significant impacts to cultural or historic resources will occur as a result of project implementation. Although the Monterey Formation may yield fossils, paleontological monitoring as required by SC 4.10 -2 will ensure that potential impacts to fossils encountered during grading can be avoided. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 4.10.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of the standard conditions prescribed in Section 4.10 -2 will ensure that the potential impacts cultural and paleontological resources are avoided. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts will remain as a result of project implementation. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.10 -4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 — Traffic and Circulation 4.2 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., (AFA) evaluated the project's short-term construction traffic impacts and the operational traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. The analysis presented below provides a summary of the findings and recommendations of the "Aerie Corona Del Mar Condominium Project Traffic Access Assessment (March 4, 2009) prepared by AFA. This Assessment is included as Appendix C. 4.2.1 Existing Conditions The subject property is located in the residential oriented Corona del Mar neighborhood and is bounded by Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Principal access into the neighborhood is from West Coast Highway via Marguerite Avenue. Except for West Coast Highway, none of these streets are on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and they are considered local streets. Traffic counts on Carnation Avenue were conducted between 7:00 a.m. and 5:45 p.m. on September 18, 2008 and included in the Traffic Access Assessment prepared by AFA. This period represents a typical operating condition (e.g., schools are in session). At the present time, Carnation Avenue carries approximately 24 vehicles per hour (vph) and 22 vph on average during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. The midday peak hour, beginning at 12:00 p.m. averages 29 vph. The local streets serve the residential neighborhoods within Corona del Mar. The subject property is currently developed with a 14 -unit apartment complex and one single - family residential dwelling unit. Only three of the 15 dwelling units are occupied, generating an estimated 23 trips per day. If all of the dwelling units were occupied, it is estimated that they would generate up to 104 trips per day, including eight trips during the a.m. peak hour and 10 trips during the p.m. peak hour. 4.2.2 Significance Criteria Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact if any of the following occurs as a result of project implementation. The project will generate an increase in traffic at intersections in the City of Newport Beach that results in an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) change of 0.01 or more and the resulting ICU is 0.91 (LOS E) or greater. The project will generate an increase in traffic at a Congestion Management Program (intersection resulting in a Level of Service (LOS) F, or if a Congestion Management Program intersection maintains an existing LOS F and an increase in traffic results in an ICU change beyond 0.10. The project will result in inadequate access or parking capacity. 4.2.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.2 -1 On -site parking shall comply with the Newport Beach Zoning Code requirements. SC 4.2 -2 Sight distance at the project accesses shall comply with City of Newport Beach standards. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.2 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.2.4 Potential Impacts 4.2.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Construction Traffic Section 4.2 — Traffic and Circulation During the construction phases, there will be periods of time when a substantial volume of heavy truck traffic hauling export soils and materials and equipment would occur. Table 4.2 -1 reflects the potential peak volumes of truck trips at different construction phases required by the proposed project. Table 4.2 -1 Potential Construction - Related Project Trip Generation Phase Task Estimated Number of Trips Demolition activities would occur for approximately 6 days. It is anticipated an Demolition average of 10 trucks trips/ day would occur daily during the 6 days of demolition. 117 cement trucks total. Caisson 38 Caissons Installation for Row A installation would occur for approximately 13 days with an average of 9 cement trucks per day. Phase I Excavation - Sectment No. 1 1,084 truck trips total. Excavation to this depth would take approximately 41 days with an average of 27 truck trips/ day. Excavation to an Elevation of 50 feet and removal of 13,000 cubic yards of dirt. 72 cement trucks total. Caisson 23 Caissons Installation for Row B installation would occur for approximately 6 days with an average of 12 cement trucks per day. Excavation - Segment No. 2 Excavation to an Elevation of 40 feet and removal of 7,000 cubic ards of dirt. 584 truck trips total. Excavation to this depth would take approximately 21 days with an average of 28 truck trips/ day. Excavation - Segment No. 3 Excavation to an Elevation of 28 feet and removal of 5,240 cubic ards of dirt 437 truck trips total. Excavation to this depth would take approximately 15 days with an average of 29 truck trips/ day. 622 Cement trucks total. There will be approximately 12 concrete pour events during Phase II and each would take 30 to 40 days. Concrete formwork would Phase 2 Building Construction consist of 90% of the duration and 3 to 5 days for concrete pouring. There would be about 20 to 25 cement trucks trip per day during the concrete pouring and there will be an average of 1 month between each concrete pouring event. SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture; Construction Management Plan (February 23, 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.2 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 — Traffic and Circulation Implementation of the proposed project will require the exportation of more than 25,000 cubic yards of earth material to the Brea Olinda Landfill, resulting in the generation of approximately 2,105 heavy truck trips over the 5 -month grading and excavation phase. Grading and excavation necessary to implement the proposed project will be scheduled to occur after the summer months to avoid truck traffic impacts during that already congested time period. Although a maximum of up to 44 haul truck trips per day (based on a 15- minute discharge rate from the site) could be generated by the daily grading activities, the Construction Management Plan limits the number of heavy truck trips to 27 to 29 trips per day during the three excavation "segments" as indicated in Table 4.2 -1. Other construction - related heavy truck trips generated by the proposed project are those related to concrete pouring, which will account for a total of 622 trips in 12 concrete pour events that would take 30 to 40 days each within the 18 -month Phase II period. Concrete truck traffic would be generated on only three to five days during each concrete pour event. In addition, truck traffic is that related to material delivery to the site (i.e., material deliveries) would average two to four heavy trucks per week during the final nine months of the construction phase. The Construction Management Plan has incorporated several measures to ensure that the construction traffic would not result in significant impacts in the residential neighborhood. Specifically, the CMP includes the following: The project's haul route shall follow the route depicted in the CMP. Specifically, dump trucks, concrete mixers, deliveries, and shuttles for off -site parking will access the site via East Coast Highway and travel south on Marguerite Avenue, west on Seaview Avenue, and south on Carnation Avenue to the site. The trucks and construction vehicles will exit by driving east on Ocean Boulevard, north on Marguerite Avenue, and back to East Coast Highway. Dirt will be hauled to Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in the City of Brea (or a closer site /location if available at the time grading occurs) . Dump trucks leaving from East Coast Highway will travel north on MacArthur Boulevard to SR -73, and continuing northbound on SR -55 to the 1 -5 northbound and to SR -57 northbound. Grading and dirt hauling shall occur only between Labor Day and Memorial Day. All deliveries will use the designated haul route once they enter the neighborhood starting from Marguerite Avenue. The contractor will also request an encroachment permit for a temporary staging area during construction , as described and illustrated in the CMP. Loading and unloading of all construction materials /equipment and /or construction vehicles will take place on -site or within the staging area. Loading and unloading will be managed by the construction valet team and will be overseen by the contractor. Dump trucks, cement trucks, etc., will arrive at the site with no greater frequency than the discharge rate by the contractor so that no more than one truck is on -site at one time and that trucks will not queue on Carnation Avenue. Once the delivery is complete, the trucks will exit the project area via the haul route identified above. All trucks (except cement trucks) will be required to shut off their engines during the loading /off- loading process. To prevent obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flag person will be retained to maintain safety adjacent to the existing roadways. Traffic control will be coordinated with the Police Department and Public Works Department, Traffic and Development Services Division, so that street traffic is not obstructed. Draft Environmental impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.2 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Dreg Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 — Traffic and Circulation Potential construction - related traffic impacts, which could include slowing of local traffic and impeding turning movements at private driveways would be avoided through the implementation of the measures prescribed in the CMP. To ensure that this project's construction traffic does not result in adverse traffic congestion impacts, and to avoid impacts along local residential streets, especially narrower streets, the Construction Management Plan has addressed all aspects of the construction phase, including traffic control and haul routes by regulating the number of haul trucks accessing and leaving the site, for instance. The construction traffic (i.e., a maximum of four trips per hour) would not adversely affect any intersection operations during either the a.m. or p.m. peak hours; therefore, no significant traffic impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. In addition, construction of the replacement dock will not generate additional traffic because both materials and equipment will be delivered to the site on a barge to the dock location. The proposed Construction Management Plan is enforceable through monitoring, which will be the responsibility of the contractor. Additional restrictions may be imposed by the Public Works Department in the event traffic congestion problems arise. Construction Parking The total construction period is estimated to extend approximately 32 months over four phases that vary in duration from five to 18 months. During these construction phases, the daily construction employee work force will vary from phase to phase, depending on the construction activity. Nonetheless, it is estimated that an average of 25 workers will be at the job site each day during Phase I and 45 workers each day during Phase II. During Phases III and IV, when work will mostly occur indoors, an average of 60 to 80 workers would be expected to be on -site on a daily basis. In order to ensure that adequate employee parking is provided to workers during each phase of construction, the CMP includes a detailed parking management plan. This plan mandates the following: Construction workers are prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard (or any residential street in the neighborhood). In stead, the applicant will secure one or more binding off -site parking agreements to accommodate the varying number of workers needed for each construction phase. The off -site parking location(s) will be located within a five -mile radius of the site. The off -site parking agreement shall be presented to the City prior to the issuance of permits required for the phase of construction that will require the off -site parking. The agreement will also ensure that one of the off -site parking locations will: (1) commit a sufficient number of parking spaces to Aerie construction workers during the relevant term, and (2) the off -site location possesses the proper permits and authority to rent the subject spaces. Shuttles will transfer construction workers from the remote parking locations to the project site. Specifically, two 10- passenger shuttle vans will run up to eight trips each morning and evening and up to five trips at lunch, assuming that some workers will remain at the jobsite during lunch. Carpooling among construction workers will also be encouraged throughout the duration of the construction phases. Once vehicular elevators are installed, workers will be permitted to park in the completed on -site garages. It is anticipated that approximately 31 cars will be able to park on -site once the parking garage is completed. Personnel will be provided to assist in parking the construction workers on -site. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.2-4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2— Traffic and Circulation As previously indicated, construction workers will be prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Compliance with this prohibition will be monitored daily by the construction valet and flagmen team. However, this prohibition shall not apply to short-term visitors to the site such as City inspectors, City staff, architects, and consultants. Carpooling will also be encouraged among professionals. 4.2.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impact The net changes in trip generation, which are summarized in Table 4.2 -2, assume that only three of the units are occupied, consistent with the "baseline" condition. As indicated in the table, project implementation represents an increase of 24 trips per day, including 2 a.m. peak hour trips and 2 p.m. peak hour trips. When compared to the potential occupancy of the 15 dwelling units that exist on the site, the project would generate 57 fewer daily trips and 4 fewer a.m. peak hour trips and 6 fewer p.m. peak hour trips. Table 4.2 -2 Net Change in Traffic Generation The City requires that a traffic analysis be prepared for projects that generate 300 or more trips per day. As indicated in Table 4.2 -2, the proposed project does not reach the minimum threshold; therefore, a traffic analysis was not required. Although the assessment of traffic impacts considered the decrease in total dwelling units, it likely does not reflect the potential increase in traffic generated by the proposed dwelling units adjusted for possible lifestyle factors associated with extremely affluent households, which could generate a small number of additional traffic attributable to domestic employees, pool and spa maintenance workers, etc. However, even with such additional traffic, project implementation would not result in an Increase in either peak hour traffic volumes or total daily traffic in excess of established thresholds. Therefore, future traffic generated by the proposed project would not result in any significant long -term traffic impacts. No mitigation measures are required. Parking Ingress /Egress The project proposes a unique access plan that includes a four -level parking garage with a total of 25 parking spaces for the 6 condominiums, not including the six private auto lifts. These spaces include 16 for residents, eight visitor spaces, and one service vehicle space; two parking spaces have also been provided for golf carts. In addition, the garage is also equipped with mechanical vehicle lifts in six of the residential parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.2 -5 Dwelling Daily AM Peak PM Peak Land Use Units ADT ADT ADT Potential 15 104 8 10 Occupant; c Baselin e 3 23 2 2 Proposed 8 47 4 4 Net Change from Baseline 5 24 2 2 'Assumes all units are occupied. 2 "Baseline" conditions reflects 3 units currently occupied, including the SFD home and two apartments. SOURCE: Institute of Transportation Engineers The City requires that a traffic analysis be prepared for projects that generate 300 or more trips per day. As indicated in Table 4.2 -2, the proposed project does not reach the minimum threshold; therefore, a traffic analysis was not required. Although the assessment of traffic impacts considered the decrease in total dwelling units, it likely does not reflect the potential increase in traffic generated by the proposed dwelling units adjusted for possible lifestyle factors associated with extremely affluent households, which could generate a small number of additional traffic attributable to domestic employees, pool and spa maintenance workers, etc. However, even with such additional traffic, project implementation would not result in an Increase in either peak hour traffic volumes or total daily traffic in excess of established thresholds. Therefore, future traffic generated by the proposed project would not result in any significant long -term traffic impacts. No mitigation measures are required. Parking Ingress /Egress The project proposes a unique access plan that includes a four -level parking garage with a total of 25 parking spaces for the 6 condominiums, not including the six private auto lifts. These spaces include 16 for residents, eight visitor spaces, and one service vehicle space; two parking spaces have also been provided for golf carts. In addition, the garage is also equipped with mechanical vehicle lifts in six of the residential parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.2 -5 Aene PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 - Traffic and Circulation spaces, which can be used by the residents themselves to increase their own parking from two spaces per unit to three per unit. Access to the parking garage is proposed to be via a driveway on Carnation Avenue, which leads directly to /from vehicle elevators located at the face of the building. Two vehicular elevators will be used to accommodate residents' parking within the structure. The two on -site vehicular elevators will serve the private garages of seven of the units and overflow guest parking spaces that are located in the subterranean garage. Parking for the eighth unit and the required guest parking spaces are located four feet below street level and do not take access via the proposed elevators. The East (i.e., right side) elevator is designated for entrance and West (i.e., left side) elevator is designated for exiting. Access control panels are located adjacent to the elevator (on driver's side) on each floor; residents of the units will have a remote control similar to a garage door controller that can activate the elevator through the touch of a button. Lighting signals are located on top of the elevator opening on each floor that indicate the elevator position or if it is currently in use. The entrance elevator will be programmed for "destination dispatch" so that it is automatically recalled to the street level when it is not in use. Therefore, the driver can access the elevator immediately upon entering the site when it is not in use, thus minimizing the potential for creating a vehicle queue. Inside the elevator, another keypad is located on the driver's side of the wall; a lighting signal indicates the designation (i.e., floor) of the elevator. Once the elevator has reached its designated level, ample turnaround space is available for the car to maneuver into the private garages. The elevators will always be used by a car pulling into and out of it in a forward direction. The interior cab size of the elevator is approximately 10'x 20' with an 8' high ceiling. It takes the elevator approximately eight seconds to travel from floor to floor and a maximum of approximately one minute round trip back to the street. Furthermore, an emergency generator will be provided so that in the event of a power outage, the generator will automatically activate to operate the elevator, allowing residents to exit the building safely. This safety feature will also send the cabs to the recall position at street level. In addition, a fire service switch will be provided that allows fire department to access the elevators in case of emergency. Two spaces designed for golf cart sized vehicles are proposed. These spaces are within the three sub- basement levels of the structure with the lower levels accessed by vehicle elevators large enough and with sufficient capacity to accommodate vehicles and vans. The Newport Beach Zoning Code requires attached single family residential projects to provide 1 covered and 1 uncovered space per dwelling unit. Additionally, 0.5 space per dwelling unit is required for guests. The project would require a total of 16 spaces for residents and 4 spaces for guests for a total of 20 spaces for the proposed 8 -unit project. As indicated in Table 4.2 -3, the project proposes 25 parking spaces for residents and guests, exceeding the minimum 20 off - street parking spaces required by the Municipal Code. Six additional parking spaces are also provided for six of the units by employing the use of the lifts. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aene PA2005 -196- Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.2 -6 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Table 4.2 -3 Proposed Off-Street Parking Requirements Section 4.2— Traffic and Circulation Finally, the length of the curb cut, which provides vehicular access to the site, has been substantially reduced, which results in the creation of three (3) additional on- street public parking spaces. The addition of these on- street parking spaces is considered a beneficial impact, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. The approaches to /from the doors are designed such that motorists drive straight in and straight out of the elevators. Exiting vehicles proceed when the door opens and do not face another entering vehicle. A driver wishing to exit the garage utilizes the "exit" elevator, which is adjacent to, but does not conflict with the "entry" elevator. The entire elevator loading, elevator motion and unloading procedure requires between one and one and one half minutes. The AFA analysis investigated three condominium complexes with similar characteristics located in the immediate vicinity of the project to conduct counts and evaluate the potential for circulation conflicts. The study was conducted in order to evaluate the potential for ingress /egress queuing at the property. Traffic counts taken by AFA included minute -by- minute observation of the arrivals and departures from the three condominium complexes (8, 15, and 42 units) during the a.m., noon, and p.m. peak two hour periods. Based on those observations, only during one minute did the arrival rate reach as high as three vehicles per minute and that was only one time for the 15 -unit condominium project. On six occasions, two vehicles per minute arrived at the same time; however, that was associated with the 42 -uinit complex. Based on the actual field - measured arrival rates, it is estimated that rarely, if ever, will the queue of waiting vehicles at the entry of the 8 -unit project (only seven of which will utilize the elevators) back out onto Carnation Avenue. Although a vehicle back -up onto Carnation Avenue is expected to be a rare occurrence due to the proximity of the elevators to Carnation Avenue, the question of safety was also examined by AFA and documented in the study prepared for the proposed project. Existing traffic counts on Carnation Avenue are modest; the traffic volumes observed were 24 during the a.m. peak hour and 22 during the p.m. peak hour. These figures equate to less than one vehicle every three to four minutes. The elevators can completely cycle in less than two to three minutes. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.2 -7 Code No. of Required No. of Parking Type Requirement Parking Spaces Spaces Provided Multi - Family Residential 2 Spaces /Unit' 16 232 4 or more DUs Guests 0.5 /S ace /unit 4 8 Total 20 31 'Includes one (1) covered parking space. 2Includes 17 "at- grade' parking spaces and 6 "lift" parking (i.e., parking spaces located above surface parking spaces requiring the use of a lift). 3Total parking does not include two (2) golf cart parking spaces and bicycle parking spaces also provided. All parking spaces are covered. SOURCE: Newport Beach Municipal Code (Section 20.66.030) Brion Jeannette Architecture Finally, the length of the curb cut, which provides vehicular access to the site, has been substantially reduced, which results in the creation of three (3) additional on- street public parking spaces. The addition of these on- street parking spaces is considered a beneficial impact, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. The approaches to /from the doors are designed such that motorists drive straight in and straight out of the elevators. Exiting vehicles proceed when the door opens and do not face another entering vehicle. A driver wishing to exit the garage utilizes the "exit" elevator, which is adjacent to, but does not conflict with the "entry" elevator. The entire elevator loading, elevator motion and unloading procedure requires between one and one and one half minutes. The AFA analysis investigated three condominium complexes with similar characteristics located in the immediate vicinity of the project to conduct counts and evaluate the potential for circulation conflicts. The study was conducted in order to evaluate the potential for ingress /egress queuing at the property. Traffic counts taken by AFA included minute -by- minute observation of the arrivals and departures from the three condominium complexes (8, 15, and 42 units) during the a.m., noon, and p.m. peak two hour periods. Based on those observations, only during one minute did the arrival rate reach as high as three vehicles per minute and that was only one time for the 15 -unit condominium project. On six occasions, two vehicles per minute arrived at the same time; however, that was associated with the 42 -uinit complex. Based on the actual field - measured arrival rates, it is estimated that rarely, if ever, will the queue of waiting vehicles at the entry of the 8 -unit project (only seven of which will utilize the elevators) back out onto Carnation Avenue. Although a vehicle back -up onto Carnation Avenue is expected to be a rare occurrence due to the proximity of the elevators to Carnation Avenue, the question of safety was also examined by AFA and documented in the study prepared for the proposed project. Existing traffic counts on Carnation Avenue are modest; the traffic volumes observed were 24 during the a.m. peak hour and 22 during the p.m. peak hour. These figures equate to less than one vehicle every three to four minutes. The elevators can completely cycle in less than two to three minutes. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.2 -7 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 — Traffic and Circulation The parking garage design is not limited to the access via vehicle elevator rather than ramps. As previously indicated, the garage is also proposed to be equipped with mechanical vehicle lifts in six of the residential spaces. The lifts will be used by the residents to increase their own parking from two spaces per unit to three spaces per unit (for six of the eight units). The lift operation requires the lower space to be vacant before the lift is either raised or lowered. Review of the floor plans revealed that there is available space behind the lifts to back a vehicle off or pull another on, then raise the left to open up the lower space. Therefore, in order to have three spaces per unit, the vehicle in the lower space must be moved elsewhere (e.g., perhaps out of the garage itself) while the lift is being operated. The AFA analysis concluded that the garage access design, which utilizes two vehicle elevators would not create any substantial vehicle queuing onto Carnation Avenue. This is particularly true for the project because only seven of the eight units will utilize the vehicle elevators. With one vehicle lift for each of six units combined with single car elevators, evacuation of all vehicles from the garage could be difficult in an emergency situation and both elevators may need to be operated as exit only in such a case. Circulation Element Consistency Table 4.1 -1 In Section 4.1 (Land Use and Planning) summarizes the relationship of the proposed project with the applicable policies adopted with the Circulation Element. In addition, Table 4.1 -2 in Section 4.1 provides a summary of the relationship of the proposed project with the relevant policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan. As revealed in the analysis presented in those tables, the proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Circulation Element and the CLUP. In addition, the proposed project is also consistent with the applicable goals and policies articulated in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide adopted by SCAG, as reflected in Table 4.1 -3 in Section 4.1. Public Transportation There are no transit facilities or service either on or along the frontage of this site (i.e., Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue); however, public transit service is provided along West Coast Highway and other arterial streets within the City. This project will not necessitate the realignment of any existing streets or the construction of new public transportation facilities in the vicinity. Project implementation would not create a significant demand for public transit due to the reduction in the number of dwelling units on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 4.2.5 Mitigation Measures All of the potential construction traffic impacts will be avoided through the implementation of the measures identified in Section 4.2.4.1 and prescribed in the CMP for the proposed project. Furthermore, no significant long -term impacts (e.g., queuing, congestion, etc.) are anticipated; no mitigation measures are required. 4.2.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of the standard conditions identified in Section 4.2.3 and the measures prescribed in the Construction Management Plan will ensure that potentially significant traffic impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level; no mitigation measures are required. No significant unavoidable traffic impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.2 -8 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air 4.3 AIR QUALITY 4.3.1 Existing Conditions Climate Climate in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The Basin is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. The Pacific Ocean forms the southwestern border, and high mountains surround the rest of the SCAB. The SCAB lies in the semi- permanent high - pressure zone of the eastern Pacific; the resulting climate is mild and tempered by cool ocean breezes. This climatological pattern is rarely interrupted. However, periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana wind conditions do occur. The annual average temperature varies little throughout the Basin, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit. With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station closest to the site is the Newport Beach Station. The monthly average maximum temperature recorded at this station in the past 71 years ranged from 63.3 °F in January to 73.5 °F in August, with an annual average maximum of 67.8 °F. The monthly average minimum temperature recorded at this station in the past 71 years ranged from 47.0 °F in January to 63.4 °F in August, with an annual average minimum of 54.8 °F. January is typically the coldest month, and August is typically the warmest month in this area of the Basin. During spring and early summer, pollution produced during any one day is typically blown out of the SCAB through mountain passes or lifted by warm, vertical currents adjacent to mountain slopes. Air contaminants can be transported 60 miles or more from the SCAB by ocean air during the afternoons. From early fall to winter, the transport is less pronounced because of slower average wind speed and the appearance of drainage winds earlier in the day. During stagnant wind conditions, offshore drainage winds may begin by late afternoon. Pollutants remaining in the SCAB are trapped and begin to accu- mulate during the night and the following morning. A low morning wind speed in pollutant source areas is an important indicator of air stagnation and the potential for buildup of primary air contaminants. Temperature normally decreases with altitude, and a reversal of this atmospheric state, where temperature increases with altitude, is called an inversion. The height from the earth to the inversion base is known as the mixing height. Persistent low inversions and cool coastal air tend to create morning fog and low stratus clouds. Cloudy days are less likely in the eastern portions of the SCAB and are about 25 percent more likely along the coast. The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SCAB is limited by temperature inversions in the atmosphere close to the earth's surface. Inversions are generally lower in the nighttime, when the ground is cool, than during daylight hours when the sun warms the ground and, in turn, the surface air layer. As this heating process continues, the temperature of the surface air layer approaches the temperature of the inversion base, causing heating along its lower edge. If enough warming takes place, the inversion layer becomes weak and opens up to allow the surface air layers to mix upward. This can be seen in the middle to late afternoon on a hot summer day when the smog appears to clear up suddenly. Winter inversions typically break earlier in the day, preventing excessive contaminant buildup. The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversions produces the greatest pollutant concentrations. On days of no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollutant concentrations are lowest. During periods of low inversions and low wind speeds, air pollutants generated in urbanized areas are transported predominantly onshore into Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. In the winter, the greatest pollution problem is accumulation of carbon monoxide (CO) and oxides of nitrogen due to extremely low inversions and air stagnation during the night and early morning hours. In the summer, the Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality longer daylight hours and the brighter sunshine combine to cause a reaction between hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen to form photochemical smog. Air Quality Management Federal Regulations /Standards Pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, the EPA established national ambient air quality standards ( NAAQS). The NAAQS were established for six major pollutants, termed "criteria" pollutants. Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and State governments have established ambient air quality standards (AAQS), or criteria, for outdoor concentrations in order to protect public health. Data collected at permanent monitoring stations are used by the EPA to classify regions as "attainment' or "non- attainment" depending on whether the regions met the requirements stated in the primary NAAQS. Non - attainment areas are imposed with additional restrictions as required by the EPA. The EPA has designated the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of the CAA for the SCAB. The EPA established new national air quality standards for ground level ozone (03) and fine particulate matter in 1997. On May 14, 1999, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision ruling that the CAA, as applied in setting the new public health standards for ozone and particulate matter, was unconstitutional as an improper delegation of legislative authority to the EPA. On February 27, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the way the government sets air quality standards under the CAA. The court unanimously rejected industry arguments that the EPA must consider financial cost as well as health benefits in writing standards. The justices also rejected arguments that the EPA took too much lawmaking power from Congress when it set tougher standards for ozone and soot in 1997. Nevertheless, the court threw out the EPA's policy for implementing new ozone rules, saying that the agency ignored a section of the law that restricts its authority to enforce such rules. In April 2003, the EPA was cleared by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to implement the eight -hour ground -level ozone standard. The EPA issued the proposed rule implementing the eight -hour ozone standard in April 2003. The EPA completed final eight -hour non - attainment status on April 15, 2004. The EPA revoked the one -hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005. The EPA issued the final particulate matter (PM2.5) implementation rule in fall 2004. The EPA issued final designations for PM2,5 attainment status on December 14, 2004. The EPA lowered the 24 -hour PM2.5 standard from 65 to 35 ug /m3 and revoked the annual average PM10 standard in December 2006. State Regulations /Standards The State of California began to set California ambient air quality standards ( CAAQS) in 1969 under the mandate of the Mulford - Carrell Act. The CAAQS are generally more stringent than the NAAQS. In addition to the six criteria pollutants covered by the NAAQS, there are CAAQS for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. Originally, there were no attainment deadlines for CAAQS. However, the CCAA of 1988 provided a time frame and a planning structure to promote their attainment. The CCAA required non - attainment areas in the State to prepare attainment plans and proposed to classify each such area on the basis of the submitted plan, as follows: moderate, if CAAQS attainment could not occur before December 31, 1994; Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality serious, if CAAQS attainment could not occur before December 31, 1997; and severe, if CAAQS attainment could not be conclusively demonstrated at all. The attainment plans are required to achieve a minimum 5 percent annual reduction in the emissions of non - attainment pollutants unless all feasible measures have been implemented. The State has currently classified the Basin as a non - attainment area for three criteria pollutants; 03, PM10, and PM2.5• Regional Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) The 1976 Lewis Air Quality Management Act established the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and other air districts throughout the State. The federal CAA Amendments of 1977 required that each state adopt an implementation plan outlining pollution control measures to attain the federal standards in non - attainment areas of the state. The ARB coordinates and oversees both State and federal air pollution control programs in California. It oversees activities of local air quality management agencies and is responsible for incorporating air quality management plans for local air basins into a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for EPA approval. The ARB maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout the State in conjunction with local air districts. Data collected at these stations are used by the ARB to classify air basins as attainment or non - attainment with respect to each pollutant and to monitor progress in attaining air quality standards. The ARB has divided the State into 15 air basins. Significant authority for air quality control within them has been given to local air districts that regulate stationary source emissions and develop local non - attainment plans. The SCAQMD and the SCAG are responsible for formulating and implementing the AQMP for the Basin. Every three years the SCAQMD prepares a new AQMP, updating the previous plan and having a 20 -year horizon. The SCAQMD adopted the 2003 AQMP in August 2003 and forwarded it to ARB for review and approval. The ARB approved a modified version of the 2003 AQMP and forwarded it to the EPA in October 2003 for review and approval. The 2003 AQMP updates the attainment demonstration for the federal standards for 03 and PM10; replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal CO standard and provides a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future; and updates the maintenance plan for the federal nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standard that the Basin has met since 1992. This revision to the AQMP also addresses several State and federal planning requirements and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. This AQMP is consistent with and builds upon the approaches taken in the 1997 AQMP and the 1999 Amendments to the ozone SIP for the South Coast Air Basin for the attainment of the federal ozone air quality standard. However, this revision points to the urgent need for additional emission reductions (beyond those incorporated in the 1997/1999 Plan) to offset increased emission estimates from mobile sources and meet all federal criteria pollutant standards within the time frames allowed under the federal Clean Air Act. The SCAQMD has adopted the 2007 AQMP, which it describes as a regional and multi- agency effort (i.e., the SCAQMD Governing Board, ARB, SCAG, and EPA). State and federal planning requirements will include developing control strategies, attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress, and maintenance plans. The 2007 AQMP also incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emission inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. The SCAQMD has forwarded the 2007 AQMP to the ARB and EPA for their review and approval. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality Ambient Air Quality Regional Air Quality Both the State of California (State) and the federal government have established health -based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for seven air pollutants. These pollutants include ozone (03), CO, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SOA coarse particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM,o), fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and lead. In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility- reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. In addition to setting out primary and secondary AAQS, the State of California has established a set of episode criteria for ozone, CO, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. These criteria refer to episode levels representing periods of short-term exposure to air pollutants that actually threaten public health. Health effects are progressively more severe as pollutant levels increase from Stage One to Stage Three. Table 4.3 -1 lists the health effects of these criteria pollutants and their potential sources. Because the concentration standards were set at a level that protects public health with an adequate margin of safety (EPA), these health effects would not occur unless the standards are exceeded by a large margin. The State AAQS are more stringent than the federal AAQS. Table 4.3 -1 Summary of Health Effects of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants Pollutant Sources Primary Effects Ozone (03) Atmospheric reaction of organic gases Aggravation of respiratory and with nitrogen oxides in the presence of cardiovascular diseases. sunlight. Irritation of eyes. Impairment of cardiopulmonary function. Plant leaf injury. Nitrogen Motor vehicle exhaust. Aggravation of respiratory illness. Dioxide (NO2) High temperature stationary Reduced visibility. combustion. Reduced plant growth. Atmospheric reactions. Formation of acid rain. Carbon Byproducts from incomplete Reduced tolerance for exercise. Monoxide combustion of fuels and other carbon Impairment of mental function. (CO) containing substances, such as motor Impairment of fetal development. exhaust. Death at high levels of exposure. Natural events, such as decomposition Aggravation of some heart diseases of organic matter. (angina). Suspended Stationary combustion of solid fuels. Reduced lung function. Particulate Construction activities. Aggravation of the effects of gaseous Matter (PM2.5 Industrial processes. pollutants. and PM10) Atmospheric chemical reactions. Aggravation of respiratory and cardiorespiratory diseases. Increased cough and chest discomfort. Soiling. Reduced visibility. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.3 - Air Pollutant Sources Primag Effects Sulfur Dioxide Combustion of sulfur- containing fossil Aggravation of respiratory diseases (SO2) fuels. (asthma, emphysema). PMio Smelting of sulfur- bearing metal ores. Reduced lung function. PM2.5 Industrial processes. Irritation of eyes. CO Attainment (except Los Angeles Count Reduced visibility. NO2 Attainment Plant injury. S02 Attainment Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, Lead Attainment finishes, coatings, etc. Lead (Pb) Contaminated soil (e.g., from leaded Impairment of blood function and nerve SOURCE: Air Resources Board (July 2007 fuels and lead -based paints). construction. Behavioral and hearing problems in children. SOURCE: Air Resources Board 2005 The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) provides the SCAQMD and other air districts with the authority to manage transportation activities at indirect sources. Indirect sources of pollution are generated when minor sources collectively emit a substantial amount of pollution. Examples of this would be the motor vehicles at an intersection, a mall, and on highways. The SCAQMD also regulates stationary sources of pollution throughout its jurisdictional area. Direct emissions from motor vehicles are regulated by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Air Pollution Constituents and Attainment Status Table 4.3 -2 summarizes the attainment status in the SCAB for the major criteria pollutants. Table 4.3 -2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant State Federal Ozone -1 hour Non - attainment Standard Revoked June 2005 Ozone -8 hour Not Established Severe 17 Non - attainment PMio Non - attainment Serious Non - attainment PM2.5 Non - attainment Nan - attainment CO Attainment (except Los Angeles Count Attainment NO2 Attainment Attainment/Maintenance S02 Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment Ail others Attainment/Unclassifled Attainment/Unclassified SOURCE: Air Resources Board (July 2007 The criteria air pollutants and their attainment status in the SCAB based on ARB's Area Designations, Activities, and Maps are described below. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 G16dd Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.3 — Air Ozone. Ozone (smog) is formed by photochemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen and reactive organic gases rather than being directly emitted. Ozone is a pungent, colorless gas typical of Southern California smog. Elevated ozone concentrations result in reduced lung function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute in sensitive receptors such as the sick, the elderly, and young children. Ozone levels peak during summer and early fall. The entire SCAB is designated as a non - attainment area for the State one - hour ozone standard. The EPA has officially designated the status for the SCAB regarding the eight -hour ozone standard as "Severe 17;' which means the SCAB has until 2021 to attain the federal eight -hour ozone standard. Carbon Monoxide. CO is formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, almost entirely from automobiles. It is a colorless, odorless gas that can cause dizziness, fatigue, and impairments to central nervous system functions. The entire SCAB has been designated as an attainment area for the federal CO standards. In addition, Orange County has been designated by the ARB to be an attainment area for State CO standards. Nitrogen Oxides. Nitrogen dioxide (NOA a reddish brown gas, and nitric oxide (NO), a color- less, odorless gas, are formed from fuel combustion under high temperature or pressure. These compounds are referred to as nitrogen oxides, or NOx. NOx is a primary component of the photochemical smog reaction. It also contributes to other pollution problems, including a high concentration of fine particulate matter, poor visibility, and acid deposition (i.e., acid rain). NO2 decreases lung function and may reduce resistance to infection. The entire SCAB has not exceeded both federal and State standards for nitrogen dioxide in the past five years with published monitoring data. It is designated as an attainment area under both federal and State standards. Sulfur Dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless irritating gas formed primarily from incomplete combustion of fuels containing sulfur. Industrial facilities also contribute to gaseous SO2 levels. SO2 irritates the respiratory tract, can injure lung tissue when combined with fine particulate matter, and reduces visibility and the level of sunlight. The entire SCAB is in attainment with both federal and State sulfur dioxide standards. Lead. Lead is found in old paints and coatings, plumbing, and a variety of other materials. Once in the blood stream, lead can cause damage to the brain, nervous system, and other body systems. Children are highly susceptible to the effects of lead. The entire SCAB is in attainment for the federal and State standards for lead. Particulate Matter. Particulate matter is the term used for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Coarse particles (all particles less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter, or PM10) derive from a variety of sources, including windblown dust and grinding operations. Fuel combustion and resultant exhaust from power plants and diesel buses and trucks are primarily responsible for fine particle (less than 2.5 microns in diameter, or PM2.5) levels. Fine particles can also be formed in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. Coarse particles (PM1e) can accumulate in the respiratory system and aggravate health problems such as asthma. The EPA's scientific review concluded that fine particles (PM2.5), which penetrate deeply into the lungs, are more likely than coarse particles to contribute to the health effects listed in a number of recently published community epidemiological studies at concentrations that extend well below those allowed by the current PM1e standards. These health effects include premature death and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits (primarily the elderly and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease); increased respiratory symptoms and disease (children and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease such as asthma); decreased lung functions (particularly in children and individuals with asthma); and alterations in Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -6 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.3 — Air lung tissue and structure and in respiratory tract defense mechanisms. The entire SCAB is a non - attainment area for the federal and State PM1e and PM2.5standards. Local Air Quality The SCAQMD, together with the ARB, maintain ambient air quality monitoring stations in the SCAB. The air quality monitoring station closest to the site is the Costa Mesa station, and its air quality trends are representative of the ambient air quality in the project area. The pollutants monitored are CO, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. The levels of particulate matter monitored at the Mission Viejo Station (the station closest to the project site that monitors these pollutants) are included in these tables for reference. The ambient air quality data in Table 4.3 -3 shows that nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and CO levels are below the relevant State and federal standards in the project area. Ozone levels exceed the State one - hour standard and federal eight -hour ozone standard from one to two times a year in 2004 and were below the federal and State standards in 2005 and 2006. The PM10 level monitored at the Mission Viejo station exceeded the State annual arithmetic average standards in two of the past three years but has not exceeded the federal standards since 1996. PM2.5 levels monitored at the Mission Viejo Monitoring Station were below the federal standard in the past three years. Table 4.3.3 Ambient Air Quality at the Costa Mesa /Mission Viejo Air Monitoring Stations Pollutant Standard 2004 2005 2006 Carbon Monoxide Max 1 -hr concentration m 4.9 4.7 3.5 No. days exceeded: State > 20 m/1 -hr 0 0 0 Federal > 35 m/1 -hr 0 0 0 Max 8 -hr concentration m 4.1 3.2 3.0 No. days exceeded:State 9.0 m/8 -hr 0 0 0 Federal 9 m/8 -hr 0 0 0 Ozone Max 1 -hr concentration m 0.104 0.085 0.074 No. days exceeded: State > 0.09 m/1 -hr 2 0 0 Max 8 -hr concentration m 0.087 0.072 0.062 No. days exceeded: Federal > 0.08 m/8 -hr 1 0 0 Particulates PM,o Max 24 -hr concentration /m 47 41 57 No. days exceeded: State > 50 lm /24 -hr 0 0 1 Federal > 150 Im /24 -hr 0 0 0 Annual Arithmetic Average /m 24 18 21 Exceeded: State > 20 /m ann. arith. av . Yes No Yes Federal > 50 Im ann. arith. av . No No No Particulates PM2.5 Max 24 -hr concentration /m 49.4 35.3 46.9 No. days exceeded: Federal > 65 /m /24 -hr 0 0 0 Annual Arithmetic Average /m 12 11 ND Exceeded: State > 12 /m ann. arith. av . No No ND Federal > 15 /m ann. arith. av . No No ND Nitrogen Dioxide Max 1 -hr concentration m 7 0.097 0.085 0.101 No. days exceeded: State > 0.25 m /1 -hr 0 0 0 Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.016 0.014 0.015 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -7 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality Pollutant Standard 2004 2005 2006 > 0.053 ppm ann. arith. Exceeded: Federal avg. No No No Sulfur Dioxide Max 24 -hr concentration m 0.008 0.008 0.005 No. days exceeded: State > 0.04 m /24 -hr 0 0 0 Federal > 0.14 m /24 -hr 0 0 0 Annual arithmetic average concentration (Ppm) 0.002 0.001 0.001 > 0.030 ppm ann. arith. Exceeded: Federal avg. No No No PMIO and PM2s data from the Mission Viejo Station. All other data from the Costa Mesa station. ppm — parts per million pg /m3 — micrograms (of pollutant) per cubic meter (of air) ND — No sufficient data. SOURCE: EPA and ARB; 2004 to 2006 Global Warming Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. The Earth's average near - surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 °Celsius (1.1 t 0.4 °Fahrenheit) in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities ". The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (COO and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human - induced component of warming. They are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, etc. and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect. GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, released by natural sources, or formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. They include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. In the last 200 years, mankind has been releasing substantial quantities of GHGs into the atmosphere. These man -made emissions are increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global warming. While man -made greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, some like the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are completely new to the atmosphere. Natural sources of carbon dioxide include the respiration (breathing) of animals and plants, and evaporation from the oceans. Together, these natural sources release about 150 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year worldwide, far outweighing the estimated 7 billion tons of man -made emissions per year from fossil fuel burning, waste incineration, deforestation and cement manufacture. Nevertheless, natural removal processes, such as photosynthesis by land and ocean - dwelling plant species, cannot keep pace with this extra input of man -made carbon dioxide, and consequently the gas is building up in the atmosphere. Methane is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen. Natural sources include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Man -made sources include the mining and burning of fossil fuels, digestive processes in ruminant animals such as cattle, rice paddies and the burying of waste in landfills. Total annual emissions of methane are about 500 million tons, with man- made emissions accounting for the majority. As for carbon dioxide, the major removal process of atmospheric methane — (i.e., chemical breakdown in the atmosphere) cannot keep pace with source emissions, resulting in an increase in methane concentrations in the atmosphere. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -8 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air In the fall of 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the global warming bill, into law. AB 32 codifies the target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. AB 32 requires that that the State Air Resources Board adopt regulations by January 1, 2008, to require reporting and verification of statewide greenhouse gas emissions and to monitor and enforce compliance with that program. To date, there are no regulations adopted to implement AB 32 and there are no significance thresholds yet established for GHG emissions. The emission levels in California have been estimated to be 426 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 1990, 473 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 2000, 532 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 2010, and 600 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 2020. AB 32's goals for emission reductions have been estimated to be approximately 174 million tons CO2 equivalent by 2020 based on the 2007 AQMP. Achieving AB 32's target will require significant development and implementation of energy efficiency technologies and extensive shifting of energy production to renewable sources. In addition to reducing GHGs, such strategies would concurrently reduce emissions of criteria pollutants associated with fossil fuel combustion. 4.3.2 Significance Criteria The State CEQA Guidelines suggest, from an "air quality" perspective, that a project would normally be judged to produce a significant or potentially significant effect on the environment if the project were to: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. 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 standards. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. As indicated in Section 15064(i)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "cumulatively considerable" is defined to mean "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" In order to determine whether or not a proposed project would cause a significant effect on the environment, the impact of the project must be determined by examining the types and levels of emissions generated and its impacts on factors that affect air quality. To accomplish this determination of significance, the SCAQMD has established air pollution thresholds against which a proposed project can be evaluated and assist lead agencies in determining whether or not the proposed project would generate significant air emissions. If the thresholds are exceeded by a proposed project, then it should be considered significant. While, the final determination of significance thresholds is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, the SCAQMD recommends that the following air pollution thresholds be used by lead agencies in determining whether the construction or operational phase of a proposed project is significant. If the lead agency finds that the proposed project has the potential to exceed any of the air pollution thresholds, the project should be considered significant. These threshold factors are included below. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -9 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Construction Phase Section 4.3 — Air The following significance thresholds for air quality have been established by the SCAQMD on a daily basis for construction emissions: • 75 pounds per day for ROG • 100 pounds per day for NOx • 550 pounds per day for CO • 150 pounds per day of SOx • 150 pounds per day for PM10 • 55 pounds per day of PM2.5 During construction, if any of the identified daily air pollutant thresholds are exceeded by the proposed project, then the project's air quality impacts may be considered significant. Operational Phase Specific criteria air pollutants have been identified by the SCAQMD as pollutants of special regional concern. Based upon this categorization, the following emissions significance thresholds have been established by the SCAQMD for project operations: 55 pounds per day for ROG 55 pounds per day for NOx 550 pounds per day for CO 150 pounds per day of SOx 150 pounds per day for PM1e 55 pounds per day of PM2.5 Projects with daily operation - related emissions that exceed any of the above emission thresholds may be considered significant. The SCAQMD indicates in Chapter 6 of its Handbook that it considers a project to be mitigated to a level of insignificance if its primary effects are mitigated below the thresholds provided above. Localized Emission Standards In addition to the mass daily threshold values presented above, the SCAQMD has established the following threshold criteria to determine if a project has the potential to contribute to an exceedance of the State Ambient Air Quality Standards. California State 1 -hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm California State 8 -hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm California State 1 -hour NO2 standard of 0.18 ppm SCAQMD 24 -hour construction PM10 standard of 10.4 pg /m3 SCAQMD 24 -hour construction PM2.5 standard of 10.4 pg /m3 SCAQMD 24 -hour operational PM1e standard of 2.5 pg /m3 SCAQMD 24 -hour operational PM2.5 standard of 2.5 pg /m3 The significance of localized emissions impacts depends on whether ambient levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below State standards. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have significant impacts if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State or federal standard, then project emissions are considered significant if they increase ambient concentrations by a measurable amount. Again, the SCAQMD indicates in Chapter 6 of their Handbook that they consider a project to be mitigated to a level of insignificance if its effects are mitigated below the thresholds provided above. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -10 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.3.3 Standard Conditions Section 4.3 —Air SC 4.3 -1 The proposed project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which sets requirements for dust control associated with grading and construction activities. SC 4.3 -2 The proposed project shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. SC 4.3 -3 The proposed project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1108, which sets limitations on ROG content in asphalt. SC 4.3 -4 The proposed project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113, which sets limitations on ROG content in architectural coatings. SC 4.3 -5 The proposed project shall comply with Title 24 energy - efficient design requirements as well as the provide window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. As indicated above, the project will be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) during construction. SCAQMD Rule 403 does not require a permit for construction activities, per se, but rather, sets forth general and specific requirements for all construction sites (as well as other fugitive dust sources) in the SCAB. The general requirement prohibits a person from causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust from construction (or other fugitive dust source) such that the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source. SCAQMD Rule 403 also prohibits a construction site from causing an incremental PM10 concentration impact at the property line of more than 50 micrograms per cubic meter as determined through PM1e high - volume sampling, but the concentration standard and associated PM1e sampling do not apply if specific measures identified in the rule are implemented and appropriately documented. In accordance with Rule 403, the SCAQMD requires that contractors implement Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for construction activities. Rule 403 identifies two sets of specific measures, one for projects less than 50 acres, and another set of conditions for projects that exceed 50 acres. 4.3.4 Potential Impacts 4.3.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Construction Impacts Air quality impacts may occur during demolition activities, site preparation, and construction activities necessary to implement the proposed project. Major sources of emissions during construction typically include exhaust emissions generated by heavy equipment and vehicles, fugitive dust generated as a result of soil and material disturbance during demolition and grading activities, and the emissions of reactive organic compounds during site paving and painting of the structures. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -11 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air As reflected in Chapter 3.0 (Project Description), an extensive construction management plan was developed to include all phases of the proposed construction effort on a day -by -day basis. Equipment emissions are based on the OFFROAD2007 emissions model while vehicle emissions are based in the EMFAC2007 emissions model. In accordance with requirements under SCAQMD Rule 403 for dust suppression, a 55 percent control factor is applied to the demolition activities. A similar control efficiency is used by the URBEMIS2007 model for twice daily watering of graded surfaces. The project site includes approximately 1.4 acres of land. The URBEMIS model estimates that 25 percent of this area (0.35 acre) is disturbed on a daily basis. This acreage (i.e., 0.35 acre) is then used in the calculation of daily dust emissions, which are assumed to occur during excavation and grading activities. Based on the URBEMIS model, a value of 20 pounds per acre per day is assumed. Also, based on the URBEMIS model, a suppression of 55 percent is assumed for adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 as required for all projects constructed in the Southland. Truck trips are also included for the removal of debris and delivery of materials. The structures are then constructed over time with various phases of construction overlapping each other. Some of these phases involve work over five days a week while others would extend this to six days a week. The analysis includes both, and in these cases presents those emissions for the five days a week that overlap (though the greenhouse gas analysis considers the sixth day in its total). The URBEMIS model considers dust emissions negligible during the construction of the actual structures, and this analysis follows that approach. Like excavation, the analysis includes the daily delivery of materials to the site. The structure is painted in the final stages of construction. The major source of emissions associated with the application of paints and surface coatings is from the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These are also a form ROG and are assessed as such. The architect has specified that interior paint is to contain no more than 10 grams per liter and exterior paint is to contain no more than 27 grams per liter of VOC. The area to be painted is based on data included with the URBEMIS model. All interior surfaces are to receive three coats while exterior surfaces would receive one coat. While the application of asphalt also releases VOC emissions, no asphalt is proposed for the project and these surfaces will be of concrete construction. Based on the emissions estimated for each phase of the project's construction, none of the significance thresholds for any of the pollutants would be exceeded on a daily basis. Table 1 in Appendix D summarizes the daily emissions projected for site construction. As noted above, some phases of construction would occur five days a week whereas others would use six days. The table presents those five days of overlap in calculation of the worst -case days. (Greenhouse gases, discussed later in this analysis, also include these "sixth day" emissions.) As indicated in the emissions calculation presented in Appendix D, all daily emissions are under their respective criteria levels and the impact is less than significant. Equipment and vehicle calculation spreadsheets showing the daily specifics for each phase are also included in Appendix D. Short-Term Localized Impacts In addition to the mass daily threshold standards, project construction has the potential to raise localized ambient pollutant concentrations. If these concentrations were to exceed the State ambient air quality standards at receptor locations, a potentially significant impact could occur. The SCAQMD has developed screening tables for the construction of projects up to five acres in size. These tables are included in Sample Construction Scenarios for Projects Less than Five Acres in Size (February 2005) (Sample Construction Scenarios). The emissions values included in the screening tables are based on the emissions produced at the site (e.g., air compressors, back hoes, etc.) and do not include mobile source emissions (i.e., trucks and worker vehicles) that are spread over a much larger area. The Aerie residential project site is consists of about 1.4 acres so it fits within the Sample Construction Scenarios. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -12 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality Screening level allowable daily emissions are then calculated from the "mass -rate look -up tables" included in Appendix L of the Sample Construction Scenarios. The project borders on Source Receptor Areas (SRA) 18 and 20. In accordance with Appendix L of Sample Construction Scenarios, projects of 1.4 acres in size located in either SRA 18 (North Coastal Orange County) or SRA 20 (Central Orange County Coastal) would not create significant localized emissions impacts if CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 levels do not exceed 392.2, 185.2, 5.2, and 5.2 pounds per day, respectively. According to Table 1 in Appendix D, peak day CO and NOx levels are projected at 50.90 and 87.02 pounds per day, respectively, including both on -site equipment and off -site mobile sources. On -site values are well under the screening table limits and the localized impact of these two pollutants is less than significant. The highest levels of PM10 and PM2.5 are produced during the initial demolition phase with the majority of these emissions due to fugitive dust. These activities are estimated to result in 5.94 pounds of PM10 and 1.75 pounds of PM2,5 per day produced from on -site sources, including both equipment exhaust and fugitive dust. These values include a dust suppression control efficiency of 55 percent as based on requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403. While the value for PM2.5, is under the screening threshold and less than significant, the PM1e value exceeds it slightly. All other on -site construction phases and activities are projected to remain within the PM10 5.2 pounds - per -day screening threshold and would not result in localized impacts. The URBEMIS Model indicates that three - times, rather than twice -daily watering, would improve the dust control efficiency to a minimum of 65 percent (rather than 55 percent). As indicated in Section 6.2 of the Construction Management Plan, during grading activities, any exposed soil areas will be watered at least four times per day and stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty materials will be covered or watered three times daily. Implementation of these measures, which are identified below, will ensure that potential short-term dust impacts will not occur. The project shall comply with the Fugitive Dust Emission and Control Plan approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (under Rule 403). Dust will be minimized using water as control. Site and debris watering shall be performed a minimum of three times daily during demolition activities. During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered at least four times per day. Stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty materials shall be covered or watered three times daily. In addition, trucks carrying soil and debris shall be wetted or covered prior to leaving the site. On windy days, or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Soil disturbance shall be terminated whenever wind conditions exceed 325 miles per hour. All diesel - powered machinery exceeding 100 horsepower shall be equipped with soot traps, unless the contractor demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City Building Official that it is infeasible. This action would reduce PM10 associated with fugitive dust from 5.20 pounds per day to 4.04 pounds per day. When combined with PM10 from on -site equipment, daily on -site PM10 emissions are reduced to 4.78 pounds per day. This value with the implementation of the measures prescribed in the CMP is under the screening threshold of 5.2 pounds per day. Therefore, the potential PM10 impact is less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -13 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 - Air Quality 4.3.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts Mobile Source Emissions The occupation of the site is based on the URBEMIS2007 model. The URBEMIS default value for condominiums is 5.86 vehicle trips per unit. In accordance with the ITE Trip Generation Manual, these values can range from 1.83 to 11.79 trips per unit. Based on the size of the proposed units, as a worst -case scenario this analysis uses a trip rate of 11.79 trips per unit per day and the project is estimated to result in 94 average daily trips (ADT). The calculated emissions of the project are compared to thresholds of significance for individual projects using the SCAQMD Handbook and Internet web site updates. The Handbook recommends assessing emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROC or ROG) as an indicator of ozone. Emissions are based on a year 2013 occupancy. Both summer and winter scenarios were modeled and the higher of the two values are included in Table 4.3-4. Note that all values are within their respective threshold values and the impact is less than significant. Model runs are included in the Appendix D. Table 4.3 -4 Daily Operational Emissions' Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM 5 COz Mobile Sources 0.47 0.64 5.43 0.01 1.19 0.23 673.48 Natural Gas 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.13 Landscape Maintenance 0.12 0.02 1.55 0.00 0.01 0.01 2.81 Consumer Products 0.41 - - Structural Maintenance 0.01 - - -- - Operational Total 1.02 0.74 7.01 0.01 1.20 0.24 776.42 Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 NT Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No No 'All figures in pounds per day. ZAveraged from the summer and winter emissions. 3 N - No Threshold. SOURCE: Synectecology (December 2008 Stationary Source Emissions In addition to vehicle trips, the proposed land uses would produce emissions from on -site sources. The combustion of natural gas for heating the structures and water would occur. Landscaping would be maintained requiring the use of gardening equipment and their attendant emissions. Additionally, the structures would be maintained and this requires repainting over time resulting in the release of VOC emissions. The resultant emissions are projected by the URBEMIS2007 computer model and included in Table 4.3-4. Similar to mobile source emissions, all stationary source emissions are below their respective threshold values and the impact is less than significant. Long -Term Localized Impacts Long -term emissions also have the potential to exceed ambient air quality standards. Because operational emissions are mostly the product vehicle travel, these impacts are typically produced along the roadways. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -14 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air the atmosphere; adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Areas of vehicle congestion that have the potential to create "pockets" of CO are called "hot spots." These hot spots typically occur at intersections where vehicle speeds are reduced and idle time is increased. As noted above, as a worst -case scenario, this analysis uses a trip rate of 11.79 trips per unit per day and the project is estimated to result in 94 average daily trips (ADT). Based on the EMFAC2007 computer model, the peak traffic hour in Orange County includes 7.7 percent of the daily vehicle miles traveled. Assuming that the vehicles associated with the Aerie project follow a similar pattern, approximately seven vehicle trips would occur during the peak hour. This value is too small to add measurably to the CO emissions concentrations at any local intersections. Impacts to Sensitive Receptors Criteria Pollutants In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. The project is of a size such that it does not result in daily emissions above either the construction or operational threshold values suggested by the SCAQMD and as such, the project does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. '411110MOTM The project site contains existing structures that would be removed during the first phase of construction. Based on the type and age of structures to be removed, asbestos containing materials (ACM), which could include floor tiles and mastics, gypsum wallboard and joint compound, base cove mastic, carpet glue, thermal system insulation, spray - applied fireproofing ceiling plaster, and roofing mastics, felts and flashing would be removed. Additionally, lead -based paint would be removed. Demolition and renovation activities that involve ACM are strictly regulated under SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition /Renovation Activities) adopted on October 8, 1989 and amended April 8, 1994. The purpose of this rule is to specify work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of ACM. The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean -up procedures, and storage, disposal and landfilling requirements for asbestos - containing waste materials (ACWM). All operators are required to maintain records, including waste shipment records, and are required to use appropriate warning labels, signs, and markings. Any demolition work involving asbestos - containing material must be identified and potential emissions of asbestos determined. Any building to be demolished or renovation that involves asbestos - containing material would be subject to provisions related to the following tasks: Asbestos surveying (inspection, identification, quantification) to be conducted by a qualified environmental laboratory, and SCAQMD notification to include project description, removal procedures and time schedules (options provided in Rule), material handling and clean -up, material storage and disposal methods. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -15 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality All handling and removal of ACM must be performed by a certified California State licensed contractor that has been certified under the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA). All workers must undergo 40 hours of hazardous materials handling training and receive 8 hours of refresher training on a yearly basis. Similarly, lead paint is as a toxic material and its removal is regulated as such. Like asbestos removal, workers are trained and certified in the handling of these materials. Where necessary, actual asbestos and lead paint removal would be accomplished under a negative pressure environment with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration, through the use of a glove bag or through adequate wetting. These materials are to be contained in certified leak -proof containers and the general public is not allowed access to the demolition -site. Mandatory compliance with notification and removal processes identified in the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations would ensure that any potential impacts remain below a level considered significant. Objectionable Odors Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on -site earth movement and from equipment bringing concrete and other building materials to the site. With regards to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts will be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the project site, they will be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. An occasional "whiff' of diesel exhaust from passing equipment and trucks accessing the site from public roadways may result. Such brief exhaust odors are an adverse, but not significant, air quality impact because they will be short-term in nature and would not affect a significant number of people. Greenhouse Gases At the present time, greenhouse gases are not regulated as a criteria pollutant and there are no significance criteria for these emissions. Furthermore, the Final 2007 AQMP does not set CEQA targets that can be used to determine any potential threshold values. Nevertheless, in order to provide decision - makers with as much information as possible, this analysis quantifies, to the extent feasible, potential greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed development. As indicated in Table 1 in Appendix D and Table 4.3-4, greenhouse gas emissions for both construction activities and operational activities (i.e., mobile and stationary source emissions) have been calculated to provide decision - makers with information related to greenhouse gases. These impacts are summarized below. Construction Construction activities would consume fuel and result in the generation of greenhouse gases. Construction CO2 emissions are also included in Table 4.3-4, above. In accordance with the projected construction schedule, approximately 4,335,633 pounds (2,168 tons) of CO2 would be produced over the active construction period. Site Operations In the case of site operations, the majority of greenhouse gas emissions, and specifically COZ, is due to vehicle travel and energy consumption. As indicated in Table 2 in Appendix D, the URBEMIS2007 model projects that on average 776.42 pounds (0.4 ton) of CO2 would be produced daily or about 283,393 pounds (142 tons) per year. These emissions include mobile sources, the combustion of natural gas for space and water heating, and the use of landscape maintenance equipment. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -16 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality The generation of electricity also creates GHG emissions. Electricity used in the SCAB comes from within local areas, the State, and other states. There is no way to determine the point of origin for these emissions and as such, these emissions are not quantified by the URBEMIS model, nor are they typically included in CEQA analyses. However, because GHG are of concern at the global level, and the generation of this electricity could add to global CO2, the CO2 that is attributable to the generation of electrical power was also quantified. The SCAQMD Handbook includes estimates of electrical usage by land use while the Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions (November 2006) provides CO2 estimates from the generation of electricity. Based Table A9-11 1-A of the SCAQMD Handbook, each of the eight units would consume about 5,626.50 kilowatts per year. The eight units combined would then use 45,012 kilowatt -hours per year and the generation of this electricity will result in about 14 tons of CO2 per year. All told, the project then generates about 156 tons of CO2 per year. Electrical use and its emissions calculations are included in the appendix. In accordance with the 2007 AQMP, the emission levels in California are estimated to be 473 million metric tons (521.4 million short tons) CO2 equivalent for 2000 and 532 million metric tons (568.4 short tons) CO2 equivalent for 2010. At approximately 156 tons per year, the project operations represent less than 0.00003 percent of this State's annual 2010 CO2 emissions' budget (and would represent an even smaller percentage of the 2013 CO2 budget). Recognizing that there is a great amount of public concern regarding GHGs, the majority of the information given above is for disclosure purposes as required by CEQA. There is no agreement among air quality experts, or guidance at the State level, regarding the level at which an individual project's incremental GHG effect is cumulatively considerable. Given the emerging level of experience within the air quality industry with GHG analyses, coupled with the fact that the policies implementing the state goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by the timetable established in AB 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 have not been adequately defined, there is no way to state with reasonable scientific certainty that the project would conflict with these policies. Notwithstanding the lack of guidance regarding GHGs, the proposed Aerie project has been designed utilizing "green" architecture criteria. As a result, the project will be constructed with both active and passive sustainable design elements that enhance the project design, reduce the amount of energy utilized, and minimize the project footprint on the environment. The active and passive "green" strategies that will be implemented include: Passive Strategies • Design to maximize solar orientation to increase the use of daylighting concepts and reduce energy usage. • Use of high - thermal mass for capturing and retaining heat through solar heat gain apertures. • Optimum overhangs to minimize harsh summer sun exposures while allowing winter heat gain. • Natural ventilation systems that capitalize on prevailing ocean breezes and thermal convection dynamics. • Dual paned glazing systems using "Low -E" glass (both non - mechanical and hybrid systems). • Gray water retention for property irrigation. • Use of environmentally friendly and sustainable materials. • Integration of California drought tolerant landscape materials. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -17 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality Active Strategies • Solar domestic hot water and pool heating • Solar photovoltaic arrays to generate electricity • Multi- zoned, high velocity hydronic heating and cooling systems. • Instantaneous hot water boilers with solar domestic hot water assist. Other Design Elements Renewable wood materials and sustainable fly ash concrete construction. • Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. • Reduction of energy use through high efficacy lighting fixtures. • Cross ventilation systems. • Lutron Homeworks interactive lighting control systems. AQMP Consistency The proposed project represents the removal of 15 dwelling units and the replacement of those units with eight condominiums. The project would neither result in growth- inducing impacts nor cause an exceedance of established population or growth projections. Furthermore, the project is of a size such that would not create either short- or long -term significant quantities of criteria pollutants. Additionally, with the included mitigation to reduce PMIo emissions during the demolition phase, the project would not result in significant localized air quality impacts. As such, the project is consistent with the goals of AQMP, does not present a significant impact or conflict with the AQMP. 4.3.5 Mitigation Measures Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant air quality impacts; no mitigation measures are required. 4.3.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of the Standard Conditions identified in Section 4.3.3 that require compliance with SCAQMD and related regulatory requirements and implementation of the CMP measures prescribed to avoid project - related PMIO demolition /construction emissions will ensure that potential air quality impacts do not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. No mitigation measures are required and no significant unavoidable impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -18 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.4 NOISE Section 4.4 - Noise The analysis presented in this section of the Draft EIR summarizes the findings and recommendations of the "Environmental Noise Study for the construction of the Proposed Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project in the City of Newport Beach," prepared by Wieland Acoustics, Inc. (February 29,2009) as well as the "Construction and Noise Vibration Study for: Aerie Residential Development," prepared by The Planning Center (March 2009). These studies are includes in Appendix E and Appendix F, respectively. 4.4.1 Existing Conditions Noise Newport Beach Noise Element The City's Noise Element identifies four zone categories: Zone A, "Clearly Compatible;" Zone B, "Normally Compatible;" Zone C, "Normally Incompatible;" and Zone D, "Clearly Incompatible" These standards, identified in Table 4.4 -1, are for the assessment of long -term vehicular traffic noise impacts. For residential uses, the City considers exterior noise levels up to 65 dBA CNEL as Clearly Compatible and Normally Compatible; noise levels over 65 dBA CNEL are characterized as Normally Incompatible and Clearly Incompatible. Under the Normally Compatible category, new construction or 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. Interior noise levels up to 45 dBA CNEL are considered normally acceptable for residential uses. Table 4.4 -1 Land Use Compatibility for Exterior Community Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -1 Community Noise Equivalent Land Use Categories Level (CNEL) Categories Uses <55 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- >80 60 65 70 75 80 Residential Single Family, Two Family, Multiple A A B C C D D Family Residential Mixed Use A A A C C C D Residential Mobile Home A A B C C D D Commercial Regional, District Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging A A B B C C D Commercial Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant, Regional, Village Movie Theatre A A A A B B C District, Special Commercial Office Building, Research and Industrial Development, Professional Offices, City A A A B B C D Institutional Office Building Commercial Recreational Amphitheatre, Concert Hall Auditorium, B B C Institutional Meeting Hall C D D D Civic Center Commercial Children's Amusement Park, Miniature Recreation Golf Course, Go -cart Track, Equestrian A A A B B D D Center Sports Club Commercial Automobile Service Station, Auto General, Special Dealership, Manufacturing, Warehousing, A A A A B B B Industrial, I Wholesale, Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.4 - Noise The City also enforces the interior and exterior noise standards associated with stationary or non - transportation sources. Other noise impacts are regulated by the Noise Control Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, specifically in Chapter 10.26. These noise standards are summarized in Table 4.4 -2. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4-2 Community Noise Equivalent Land Use Categories Level (C EL) Categories Uses <55 55– 60– 65– 70– 75– >80 60 65 70 75 80 Institutional Institutional Hospital, Church, Library, Schools' A A B C C D D Classroom O en Space Parks A A A B C D D Open Space Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers A A A A B C C Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife Habitat Agriculture Agriculture A A A A A A A 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 construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and 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 analysis of 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: Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element); 2006. The City also enforces the interior and exterior noise standards associated with stationary or non - transportation sources. Other noise impacts are regulated by the Noise Control Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, specifically in Chapter 10.26. These noise standards are summarized in Table 4.4 -2. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4-2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Table 4.4 -2 City of Newport Beach Noise Standards Section 4.4 - Noise Land Use Categories Allowable Noise Level (d BA L Interior Exterior ' 7 AM -10 PM 10 PM -7 AM 7 AM -10 PM 10 PM -7 AM Categories Uses Single Family, Two Family, 45 40 55 50 Residential Multiple Family Zone I Residential Portions of Mixed 45 40 60 50 Use Developments Zone 111 Commercial (Zone 11) N/A N/A 65 60 Commercial Industrial or Manufacturing or Industrial Zone IV NIA NIA 70 70 Schools, Day Care Centers, Institutional Churches, Libraries, Museums, 45 40 55 50 Health Care Institutions Zone I 'If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard. Zit shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such a person which causes the noise level when measured on any other property, to exceed the following: The noise standard for the applicable zone for any 15- minute period; A maximum instantaneous noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time (measured using A- weighted slow response). In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the noise standard applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. The noise standard for the residential portions of the residential property falling within 100 feet of a commercial property, if the intruding noise originates from that commercial property. If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. SOURCE: City of Ne ort Beach Noise Element Section 10.28 of the Noise Control Ordinance regulates noise associated with both construction activities and property maintenance. The City expressly prohibits noise - generating construction activities or property maintenance between the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 7;00 a.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday; such activities are prohibited on Sunday and federal holidays (Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity — Noise Regulations). Ambient Noise Levels Noise sources in the study area include traffic on the local streets, aircraft operations at John Wayne Airport, activities on boats in the channel, and general residential activities in the area. Ambient average daytime (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) noise levels (LeQ) in the vicinity of the project site range from 50.5 dB(A) to 59.9 dB(A) L..; ambient average daytime noise levels in the residential area directly across the channel from the project site range from 48.5 dB(A) to 59.3 dB(A) Lq. The maximum noise levels (Lm,,) range from 63.1 dB(A) to 80.9 dB(A) L., in the immediate vicinity of the subject property and from 63.6 dB(A) to 85.9 dB(A) L. directly across the channel. The average and maximum ambient noise levels in the project environs are summarized in Table 4.4 -3. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Table 4.4 -3 Ambient Noise Levels Section 4.4 - Noise Location Description Range of Average Daytime Noise Levels (Leq) 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 .m. Range of Maximum Daytime Noise Levels (Leq) 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 .m. Rear Patio, 101 Ba side Place 50.5 — 57.4 dB (A) 63.1 — 80.9 dB (A) Pool Area, 2495 Ocean Boulevard 52.9 — 59.9 dB (A) 68.3 — 79.0 dB (A) Rear Patio, 2282 Channel Road 48.5 — 55.0 dB (A) 63.6 — 77.0 dB (A) Rear Patio, 2222 Channel Road 50.7 — 59.3 dB (A) 63.4 — 85.9 dB (A) SOURCE: Wieland Acoustics (February 27, 2009 Vibration Vibration is an oscillatory motion (i.e., back and forth movement) through a solid medium in which the motion's amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration and is normally associated with activities such as railroads or industrial equipment but can also be associated with construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers. Vibration displacement is the distance that a point on a surface moves away from its original static position. The instantaneous speed that a point on a surface moves is described as the velocity and the rate of change of the speed is described as acceleration. These descriptors can be used to correlate vibration to human response, building damage, and acceptable equipment vibration levels. During project construction, the operation of construction equipment can cause groundbome vibration. Similarly, during the operational phase of a project, receptors may be subject to levels of vibration that can cause annoyance due to noise generated form vibration of a structure or items within a structure. For this reason, potential groundbome vibration is best measured in terms of velocity and acceleration. Construction operations generally include a wide range of activities that can generate groundbome vibration, including blasting and demolition of structures, which generate the highest vibration values. Vibratory compactors or rollers, pile drivers, and pavement breakers can generate perceptible amounts of vibration at distances within 200 feet of the source. In addition, heavy trucks can also generate groundbome vibrations, which vary depending on vehicle type, weight, and pavement conditions. Trains generate substantial quantities of vibration due to their engineers, steel wheels, and heavy loads. The City of Newport Beach General Plan does not set specific limits or thresholds for vibration. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides groundbome vibration criteria for various types of special buildings that are sensitive to vibration for both vibration annoyance and cosmetic damage. Cosmetic damage includes, but is not limited to, damage to fences, property lines fences and walls, flatwork (e.g., paved areas.) The human reaction to various levels of vibration is highly subjective and variable. As noted in the FTA manual, "although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential of building damage, it is not suitable for evaluating human response" (FTA 2006). This is because it takes time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Table 4.4 -4 lists the FTA human annoyance criteria for groundborne vibration based on the relative perception of a vibration event for various types of vibration - sensitive land uses. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Table 4.4 -4 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria (Human Annoyance) Section 4.4 - Noise Land Use Category Max Lv VdB' Description Workshop 90 Distinctly felt vibration. Appropriate to workshops and non II. Engineered concrete and mason no plaster) 0.3 sensitive areas. Office 84 Felt vibration. Appropriate to offices and non sensitive areas. Residential — Daytime 78 Barely felt vibration. Adequate for computer equipment. Residential - Nighttime 72 Vibration not felt, but goundbome noise may be audible inside quiet rooms. 'As measured in 1/3 octave bands of frequency over the frequency ranges of 8 to 80 Hz. SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration (2006) The Planning Center March 2009 The level at which groundbome vibration is strong enough to cause cosmetic damage has not been determined conclusively. The most conservative estimates are also reflected in the FTA criteria, summarized in Table 4.4 -5. Wood -frame buildings, such as typical residential structures, are more easily excited by ground vibration than heavier buildings. Table 4.4 -5 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria (Cosmetic Damage) Building Category PPV in /sec VdB I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and mason no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 NOTE: RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of one microinch /second. SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration (2006) The Planning Center March 2009 Noise- and Vibration - Sensitive Land Receptors Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration, including residential, schools, and open space /recreation areas, where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment, public health, and safety. Off -site sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site include the existing single- and multiple - family homes surrounding the project site. These noise - sensitive uses are affected by the existing noise levels and would be potentially affected by noise from the project site during construction of the project and from on -site operations. Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -5 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the "threshold of feeling." As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear and is called the "threshold of pain." A sound level of 160 to 165 dBA will result in dizziness or loss of equilibrium. The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying less developed areas. 4.4.2 Significance Thresholds Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines a project would have a potentially significant noise and /or vibration impact if it would result in: • Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. • 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. • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. • For a project located within an airport land use or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use or private airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 4.4.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.4 -1 In accordance with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity — Noise Regulations), noise - generating construction and /or maintenance activities may be permitted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on Saturdays. No noise - generating construction activities may occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site. 4.4.4 Potential Impacts 4.4.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Construction Noise Short-term noise impacts associated with project implementation are typically associated with excavation, grading, and erecting of buildings on site during construction of the proposed project. Construction related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area; however, construction noise would end upon completion of the construction activities for each of the development and /or improvement phases. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -6 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise Noise levels from grading and other construction activities for the proposed project may range up to 84 dBA Lmaz at the closest residential uses adjacent to the project site for very limited times when construction occurs near the project's boundary. Although compliance with the construction hours mandated by the City in Section 10.28.040 of the Municipal Code, it is anticipated that construction related noise impacts from the proposed project would be potentially significant even with compliance with the ordinance. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during the construction of the proposed project. First, construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site for the proposed project would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Trucks accessing the project site would generate noise levels on the order of 72.5 dBA at a distance of 50 feet'. A truck traveling a 20 mph would cover a distance of 500 feet in 17 seconds, thereby increasing noise levels briefly as the truck passes. Project - related trucks would travel to the site and be required to shut down unnecessary idling while loading and unloading, after which it would take approximately 30 seconds to startup and then depart. Due to the size constraints of the project site, it is anticipated that generally only one truck would be delivering or hauling material to the site at any one time The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during excavation, grading, and erection of the new building on the project site. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. As noted in Table 3 -2 (Proposed Construction Phasing), certain phases of project construction would occur simultaneously. Typically, the estimated construction noise levels are governed primarily by the piece of equipment that produces the highest noise levels. The character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site will change as work progresses, depending on the noise levels of the loudest piece of construction equipment in use. A combination of construction vehicles and handheld power tools would be used depending on the construction phase. Construction noise levels are based on those reported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) using the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM version 1.1, 2008). Table 4.4-4 lists noise levels for construction equipment from the RCNM. A noise monitoring program was initiated to collect noise data from the metal stud framing and concrete formwork. This monitoring data, which primarily involves hand tools, was necessary to supplement the noise data for construction vehicles from the RCNM. As indicated in Table 4.4 -6, typical noise levels range up to 83.3 dBA L,y at 50 feet during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels, because the noisiest construction equipment is typically earthmoving equipment. 'Based on the Federal Highway Roadway Construction Noise Model for dump trucks. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -7 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise Table 4.4 -6 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Type of Equipment Average Sound Levels (dBA LQ at 50 feet) Backhoe 73.6 Concrete Mixer Truck 74.8 Concrete Pump Truck 74.4 Excavator 76.7 Front End Loader 75.1 Jackhammer 81.7 Drill Rig Truck 72.2 Hydra Break Ram 80.0 Tractor 80.0 Vibratory Concrete Mixer 73.0 Flat Bed Truck 70.3 Auger Drill Rig 77.4 Mounted Impact Hammer Hoe Ram 83.3 Dozer 77.7 SOURCE: Roadway Construction Noise Model (version 1.1) The Planning Center March 2009 Short-term (construction) noise level increases will occur from the use of construction equipment associated with demolition of existing structures, grading and excavation, and building and construction activities. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backhoes, bulldozers, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Potential noise impacts vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. The exposure of persons to the periodic increase in noise levels will be short-term and will cease after construction is completed. Short-term construction noise impacts tend to occur in discrete phases dominated initially by earthmoving sources, then by foundation construction, and, finally, for building construction. Heavy equipment noise can average about 80 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source when the equipment is operating at typical loads. A variety of noise sources and noise levels would occur on and in the immediate vicinity of the project site, over the estimated 32 -month construction program associated with the proposed project. Noise levels would vary, depending upon the type and number of construction machinery and vehicles in use and their location within the project site. The types of machinery to be active will vary with the construction phases, which would include: • Demolition of existing buildings and site improvements • Demolition and replacement of the existing landing and boat dock • Drill shoring caissons • Excavation and installation of lagging Shotcrete shoring walls • Install foundations • Build concrete structure Install plumbing, electrical, mechanical, finish exterior /interior, etc. • Hardscape and landscape Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4-8 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise It is important to note that all equipment is not generally operated continuously or used simultaneously. The number, type, distribution, and usage of construction equipment will differ from phase to phase. The noise generated is both temporary in nature and limited in hours by the City's Noise Ordinance (Section 10.28.040). In order to reduce potential construction noise, the following noise control factors were considered in the preparation of the CMP. During Phases 1 and 2 of the project, the caisson drilling process will progress at the rate of 3 to 4 caissons per day, including drilling, steel placement, and filling with concrete. The grading during Segments No. 1, 2, and 3 will consist of excavators with a ramp out or an electrical conveyor belt for dirt removal and with dump trucks at the rate of approximately 28 trucks per day removing the soil. There will be no pile driving during the entire construction process. The ram hoe may be required during the later part of the excavation process for approximately 10 percent of the grading operation at the lower elevations of the site. For Phases 3 and 4, small hand tools and compressors will be used within the concrete structure. Nose will also be generated by daily deliveries of materials to the site. The construction valet will manage the time of such deliveries so that they do not occur at the same time. In order to adequately evaluate the potential construction noise impacts for various construction activities anticipated from the proposed project, a noise monitoring program was undertaken that characterized noise levels associated with concrete formwork, metal stud framing, and installation of interior walls with cast -in -place concrete (refer to Appendix F). Noise modeling was then completed for each phase of the proposed project utilizing, where applicable, the data collected from the construction monitoring program based on the specific project equipment and phasing schedule identified in the Construction Management Program prepared for the project. Phase 1 — Demolition and Excavation Phase 1 consists of project - related demolition and excavation activities. Phase 1 would last approximately six months and would involve varying quantities of construction vehicles. The most noise intensive activities would occur when construction vehicles are working at -grade with the surface streets because no noise attenuation would be provided by the walls of excavated pits as would occur during the excavation phases. Demolition Demolition of the existing residential structures is anticipated to take six days and would utilize a backhoe, excavator, and loader during each of the six days. The potential noise impacts resulting from demolition are based on the types, numbers and hours of operation each day during the demolition activities (refer to Table 10 in Appendix F). Based on the six -day demolition schedule, noise contours were developed and are illustrated in Exhibit 4.4 -1, which illustrates that noise from demolition equipment would result in noise levels of 75-80 dBA Leq at the adjacent residence to the north of the site and 70-75 dBA L,q at the residences in the immediate vicinity of the project site, before diminishing with distance, for the six - day demolition. As shown in the Exhibit 4.4 -1, remnants of the existing buildings would provide some noise attenuation for the residences to the northwest of the project site until they were demolished. Dreg Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4-9 Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85< 80< ; ?, < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 ® < =45 - - - - Site Boundary SOURCE: The Planning Center 0 Scale (Feet) Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 4.4-10 Exhibit 4.4 -1 Demolition Noise Contours Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Caisson Installation Section 4.4 - Noise Caisson placement, which would occur for up to 21 days, would occur after the buildings are demolished and the pad is graded level. Three to four caissons would be drilled per day. This activity includes drilling, steel placement, and filling with concrete. Construction equipment utilized for caisson emplacement includes a drill rig, backhoe loader, concrete pump truck and concrete trucks. In addition, an air compressor and mobile welding machine would be used when needed to splice the steel casings together. It is anticipated that 10 concrete truck loads would be necessary on a daily basis. As prescribed in the CMP, the concrete trucks would be sequenced so that a single truck would be unloading at a time. Exhibit 4.4 -2 illustrates that noise from caisson drilling would result in noise levels of 80 to 85 dBA Leq within the immediate vicinity of the project site before diminishing with increasing distance during the 13 to 21 day duration of this activity. Noise levels during this phase would be substantial due to the multiple concurrent construction vehicles operating at grade. Excavation The noise analysis evaluated potential noise impacts anticipated during the three grading operations at three levels: 50 feet, 40 feet and 28 feet. The equipment that would be used for excavating the site includes a dozer, excavator and loader at each elevation. In addition, at the 40- and 28 -foot elevations, a ram hoe may also be employed to facilitate excavation and grading. Exhibit 4.4 -3 illustrates the potential noise impacts. As indicated in that exhibit, noise levels from excavation equipment would be partially attenuated due to being partially below grade where the ridgeline of the excavated area acts as a sound barrier. Noise levels of 80 to 85 dBA Leq are expected to occur at the nearest residence to the project site, (215 Carnation Avenue). Noise levels at the other residential uses near to the project site would experience attenuated noise levels in the 55-65 dI3 range, due to the construction vehicles operating within the excavated area. At the 40 foot elevation (refer to Exhibit 4.4 -4), noise levels are generally confined within the excavation area during this excavation phase. The nearest residential use adjacent to the project site to the north would experience noise levels in excess of 85 dBA Leq because this residence overlooks the excavated area and would not benefit from the noise attenuation from excavated walls. The other surrounding residential uses would benefit from equipment working within an excavated area and would experience noise levels of between 55 and 60 dBA Leq. Exhibit 4.4 -5 illustrates the potential noise impacts during the grading that would occur at the 28 foot elevation. As indicated in that exhibit, noise levels are generally confined within the excavation area. The nearest residential use adjacent to the project site to the north would experience noise levels in excess of 85 dBA Leq because this residence overlooks the excavated area and would not benefit from the noise attenuation from excavated walls. The other surrounding residential uses would benefit from equipment working within an excavated area and would experience noise levels of between 55 and 60 dBA Leq. Phases 2 and 3 — Concrete Pouring /Concrete Formwork, and Metal Stud Framing Phase 2 involves shotcrete shoring, concrete placement for the foundation slab, structural decks and construction of retaining walls following excavation activities. Phase 3 would consist mainly of metal stud framing and installation of mechanical electrical and plumbing equipment. Portions of Phases 2 and 3 would occur concurrently and, together, they would last approximately 18 months. During Phase 3, the vehicle elevators will be installed, allowing additional storage of construction materials. As previously discussed, data from noise monitoring of concrete formwork and metal stud framing were used as the basis for the modeling conducted for the proposed project. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4-11 Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85< , 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - -- Site Boundary SOURCE: The Planning Center 0 190 Scale (Feet) Exhibit 4.4 -2 Caisson Drilling Noise Contours Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 4.4 -12 Noise Level LD, eq o 190 in dB(A) Scale 85< 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 < =45 — — — — Site Boundary SOURCE: The Planning Center Exhibit 4.4 -3 Noise Contours from Excavation (50 Feet msQ Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 4.4 -13 Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85< 80< F<. < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - - - Site Boundary SOURCE: The Planning Center 0 190 Scale (Feet) Exhibit 4.4 -4 Noise contours from Excavation (40 Feet msl) Draft Environmental Impact Report Aene PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 4.4 -14 0 190 Noise Level LID, eq Scale (Feet) in dB(A) 85< 80< 1 < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< " < =65 55< < =60 50 < 1 < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - - - Site Boundary SOURCE: The Planning Center Exhibit 4.4 -5 Noise Contours from Excavation (28 Feet msl) Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 4.4 -15 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise Concrete Pouring Concrete pouring is required to construct the exterior walls and floors of the proposed structure and would occur for approximately three to five days during the construction process. Approximately 20 to 25 cement trucks would come to the site each day during the 12 concrete pouring events; however, no more than one truck at a time would be permitted on Carnation Avenue. In addition to the concrete trucks, this activity would also require the use of a concrete pumper and concrete vibrator (hand tool). The concrete pour work could occur concurrently with the metal stud work. Noise generated from metal stud work was included with the noise generated with equipment associated with the concrete pouring. As shown Exhibit 4.4 -6, noise would occur primarily from the concrete truck and the concrete pumper truck along Carnation Avenue. Noise levels at the closest residences to these two trucks would be exposed to noise levels of 75 to 80 dBA Ley during each day of concrete pouring. Concrete Formwork and Metal Study Framing Building construction would commence after the excavation /grading phase. The construction of the building for each floor is initiated by developing the form and then pouring the concrete floor first. After the concrete floor has cured, the exterior walls would be formed and also cast in place with concrete. At the time the forms for the exterior walls are being erected, metal stud framing for the interior walls would be constructed concurrently on the floor below where the forms are being constructed. Noise generated by the metal stud framing would be attenuated by the concrete exterior walls. The concrete formwork and metal stud framing would occur for approximately a year and a half. Integration of the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and interior walls would start from the lowest level and continue on to the upper levels. SoundPlan modeling graphics were prepared showing interior wall construction occurring concurrently with preparation of the forms prior to pouring concrete. Equipment that would be utilized during these construction activities includes compressors, hand tools, plasma cutters, roto hammers, shot pin applicators, and small stationary power tools. Exhibit 4.4 -7 shows interior wall construction and form work below grade. As indicated in that exhibit, noise levels associated with the concrete formwork and metal stud framing for the first and second floors, respectively would result in noise levels of 55 -60 dBA Ley at the nearest residences to the south of the projects site and 70 -75 dBA Ley at the nearest residence to the north of the site. The highest noise levels experienced at residential uses further away would be 60 -65 dBA Le, or less. Exhibit 4.4 -8 shows the same type of work occurring above grade so that noise levels could be depicted with and without the noise attenuation provided by the excavated walls. Concrete formwork for the fourth floor and metal stud framing for the third floor would occur for approximately 30 days. Construction activities for this stage are similar to the above for the formwork and interior metal framing for the first floor with the exception that the activities would occur roughly 10 feet above Carnation Avenue and the building footprint is smaller. It is estimated that the same number of workers and tools, and hours of operation would occur for this activity as shown in Table 16. Noise levels associated with the concrete formwork and metal stud framing for the fourth and third floors, respectively, would result in noise levels of 75 to 80 dBA Ley at the nearest residences to the north and 60 to 65 dBA Leq south of the projects site. The highest noise levels experienced at residential uses further away would be 60 -65 dBA Ley or less and would diminish with distance and intervening structures. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4-16 Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85< 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< 1 < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - - - Site Boundary SOURCE: The Planning Center 0 190 Scale (Feet) Exhibit 4.4 -6 Concrete Pouring Noise Contours Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 4.4-17 Noise Level eq o tso in dB(A) Scal 85< 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - -- Site Boundary Exhibit 4.4 -7 First Floor Metal Stud Framing /Second Floor concrete Formwork SOURCE: The Planning Center Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 4.4-16 Noise Level LD, eq 0 19e in dB(A) Scale (Feet) 85< 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 50< < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - — — Site Boundary Exhibit 4.4 -8 Third Floor Metal Stud Framing /Fourth Floor Concrete Formwork SOURCE: The Planning Center Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 4.419 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Phase 4 — Finishing Activities 4.4 - Noise The final construction phase would include the application of the interior and exterior finishes in window and door installation occurring for a period of seven months. Cabinetry built off -site, countertops, and finish materials would be delivered and installed in all units. Exterior finishes such as stone veneer, roof materials, photovoltaic array panels, and exterior plaster would begin. Landscaping and final fire suppression systems as well as passenger elevator installations would complete the structure. Noise levels for this phase were assumed to be comparable to noise generated during the metal stud framing phase. Noise generated during this phase would generally occur in the interior of the structure with interior and exterior walls providing noise attenuation from the activities. Noise would generally consist of use of electric screwdrivers, compressors and infrequent use of electric saws. Exterior work will involve tile cutting, which would occur indoors and brought to the exterior for installation as well as the use of a plaster sprayer for a period of a week. The proposed project involves the construction of the proposed Aerie residential building as well as the replacement of the existing docks. The noise and vibration generated by the construction of the docks was evaluated in a separate noise study conducted by Wieland Acoustics Incorporated. Construction of the docks is scheduled from May 2012 to July 2012 and is estimated to have a duration of 40 days. Dock construction is anticipated to occur concurrently with the construction of the 4`h floor interior walls and roof. The highest noise level associated with dock work is associated with the drilling phase, which results in 88 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The nearest noise sensitive uses to the docks are 101 Bayside Place and 2495 Ocean Boulevard. Table 4.4 -7 summarizes the noise levels associated with each activity as well as the combined noise levels from both dock and building construction activities. The combined noise levels are logarithmically summed at the nearest noise sensitive uses. As shown in this Table 4.4 -7, noise levels would increase by 1.5 dB at 101 Bayside Place and 0.5 dB at 2495 Ocean Boulevard. Table 4.4 -7 Combined Dock and Building Construction Noise (dBA) Location Dock Drilling Noise Building Construction Noise Combined Dock and Building Noise 101 Bayside Place 71 67 72.5 2495 Ocean Boulevard 68 59 68.5 SOURCE: The Planning Center March 2009 Summary of Noise Impacts As shown by the noise contours of the construction activities (refer to Exhibits 4.4 -1 through 4.4 -8, noise levels associated with the proposed project's construction would vary substantially depending on the number and types of construction vehicles, type of construction activity, and the location of occurrence. Noise levels for each of the construction phases were evaluated at a reference distance of 100 feet from the eastern edge of the project site on Carnation Avenue to produce a chart of noise levels over the entire construction period, as shown in Exhibit 4.4 -9. Noise levels are expected to increase when receptors are closer than 100 feet and diminish beyond 100 feet. This exhibit illustrates the differences in noise levels over time based on the type of construction activity being performed. Noise levels are highest during the demolition, caisson drilling, and the concrete pouring when construction vehicles are at grade with Carnation Avenue. Noise levels subside substantially when construction equipment is working within the various depths of the excavated area due to the noise attenuation provided by the excavated walls. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -20 d c U c A a iL 0 0 U) U ct: m m m m � E30 N mZ� v L6 WN �a m D Q1 N ? 0 v E CL v� � N Y L cI LO 0 x W m _N y Z LL N O r Y Exterior Finishing Work L CD N f � U 114th 0 Windows, Doors, & Utilities i o -k i4th Floor Form Work 3rd Metal Framing (Interior Walls) 'K � i cv * 3rd 2nd Floor Form Metal Framing Work (Interior Walls) 2nd Floor Form Work 1st Metal Framing (Interior Walls) 0 * 1st Floor Form Work Basement Metal Framing (Interior Walls) `r Basement Form Work SubBasement Work Metal Framing (Interior Walls) m M Sub Basement K Form Work N O Bracing j - C O L X O W T N N — d U � � o o 771 777 w I Demolition, Caisson 11 Drilling o I 0 0 M m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-- be-1 tl8P d c U c A a iL 0 0 U) U ct: m m m m � E30 N mZ� v L6 WN �a m D Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise These excavated walls have no effect when residences are overlooking the site and have direct view of the construction equipment. After excavation, construction of the formwork and interior metal framed walls would occur with hand tools. Noise levels from these hand tools are substantially lower than the levels generated by construction vehicles, based on noise monitoring and noise level data provided by the Federal Highway Administration's Road Construction Noise Model. Construction vehicles would not be used during these phases, with the exception of building material deliveries and concrete pouring when short periods of substantial noise exposure would occur. In addition, noise generated by metal framing would occur within the interior of the newly constructed floor and be attenuated by the presence of exterior concrete walls and a concrete ceiling. After all the exterior and interior walls are constructed, the finish work would commence. The finish work would also be done with hand tools and various electric saws and related equipment. As explained above, noise levels associated with the finish work were conservatively assumed to be comparable to those of metal stud framing. However, interior finish work would occur within the interior of the building and be substantially attenuated by both the interior and exterior walls of the residential structure. Exterior finish work would also be done with hand tools. The ambient average daytime (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) noise levels (dBA Le) in the vicinity of the project site range from 50.5 dBA to 59.9 dBA. Construction noise from the phases that involve construction vehicles results in noise levels of 42.6 dBA to 82.1 dBA at 100 feet. For the worst case noise generating phase, this level of noise would be approximately 22 -31 dBA Laq above ambient background noise and would last approximately three to four months during the demolition, caisson drilling, and excavation phases before the noise from construction vehicles would be attenuated by excavated walls. Second story residences adjacent to the project site with a clear line of sight to the construction vehicles would experience these noise levels for a period of seven months during the demolition, caisson drilling, and excavation phases because the excavated walls provide less attenuation or no attenuation. For approximately one and a half years, noise levels would be, on average, between 42.6 dBA to 61.9 dBA L. at 100 feet from the construction of the interior and exterior walls. Noise levels would be approximately 2 -11.5 dBA above the ambient background noise. As explained above, interior finish work was assumed to be equivalent to noise from interior metal stud work and would generate noise levels of 52.8 dBA at 100 feet. Exterior hardscape and landscape would last approximately four months. Noise levels would be approximately 0 -2 dBA above the ambient background noise. Noise levels are most intensive when construction vehicles are necessary during the demolition, caisson drilling and excavation phases. The majority of the construction duration involves building construction that involves less noise intensive activities due to the use of hand tools (electric screw drivers, compressors, electric saws, etc.). Due to the length of construction activities (approximately 32 months) and the periodic level of noise from the period of construction vehicle use, noise exposure from project - related construction activities at the nearby residential receivers would result in a short-term significant impact from project related construction activities. Construction Vibration Construction Vibration Annoyance Structure Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration - sensitive uses. The effect of vibration on buildings near a construction site varies depending on the magnitude of vibration, geology, and receptor building construction. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures, but can achieve the perceptible ranges in buildings close to a construction site. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -22 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise Project related construction activities were assessed for the potential to result in annoyance at the nearest vibration sensitive uses. Using the FTA criteria (Table 4.4-4 above), vibration which is "barely felt' is not deemed significant. Therefore, for the evaluation of human annoyance caused by vibration from construction activities, average daytime (there will be no nighttime construction) vibration measurements which are ' %If' are considered potentially significant. The analysis of potential short-term vibration impacts was evaluated at both the closest distance that would occur as well as the average distance. The average distance assumed the vibrations would emanate from the center of the project site at an average distance of 80 feet from the project site boundary. The impact on the nearest vibration sensitive use (215 Carnation Avenue) was conservatively assumed to occur at the 215 Carnation property line. As a result, this analysis provides the maximum levels of vibration occurring at the outdoor living space located on the 215 Carnation Avenue property line. However, because construction activities are typically distributed throughout the project site, construction vibration was also assessed at the center of the project site (80 feet from the 215 Carnation Avenue property boundary) to obtain the average vibration levels that would be experienced by sensitive receptors the majority of the time. Table 4.4 -8 lists the maximum and average vibration source levels for construction equipment anticipated to be used at the project site for the off -site residential receptors and at the closest residential uses. As shown in this table, vibration levels generated by the construction vehicles during the caisson drilling and excavation with a ram hoe were found to exceed the FTA's perceptibility criteria for residential uses. Potential short-term impacts from vibration induced annoyance may occur at other residences within 50 feet of the most vibration intensive construction equipment. Those phases that do not involve heavy construction equipment use were not modeled because hand tools do not generate perceptible levels of ground vibration. The residential uses being affected include only those residences immediately to the northeast and south of the project site. Project related construction activities were assessed for the potential to result in annoyance at the nearest vibration sensitive uses. The assessment of annoyance from vibration from construction activities is based on several criteria including perceptibility, frequency of occurrence, time of occurrence and duration. In terms of perceptibility, using the FTA criteria (Table 4.4 -4 above) vibration which is "barely felt" is not deemed significant because it does not constitute "exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels" as per Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines. The word "excessive' is defined by the Merriam - Webster Dictionary as "exceeding what is usual, proper, necessary, or normal:' If something is "barely felt,' it cannot reasonably be considered "excessive:" Therefore, for the evaluation of human annoyance caused by vibration from construction activities, the criteria for establishing potentially significant vibration induced annoyance impacts is average daytime (there will be no nighttime construction) vibration measurements that are "felt" The FTA has established 84 VdB as the level that is "felt' or readily perceived. In addition to the perceptibility criterion, the frequency of occurrence of vibration generating activities must be considered in determining what constitutes "exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels" pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines. Loaded trucks have the potential to generate vibration as they vehicles travel down the street. However, project related truck trips will only result in transient (1 -2 second) exposures of perceptible vibration as they pass in front of residences. Based on this Fleeting exposure, loaded trucks would not result in significant vibration impacts for annoyance. A third criterion for vibration induced annoyance is the duration of vibration intensive construction activities. Construction activities that involve perceptible vibration or high frequency in a day may nevertheless be considered to have less than significant vibration generated annoyance impacts if the duration of construction is short. The project's demolition, caisson drilling and excavation phases have the most potential for generating vibration at vibration sensitive residential uses. Based on the Construction Schedule attached to the Construction Management Plan, it is anticipated that there are approximately 109 total work days associated with these activities. However, vibration intensive Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4-23 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise construction activities would not exceed the "felt" vibration level of 84 VdB when construction equipment is operated 35 feet or more feet away from sensitive uses. The following represents the time period for during which demolition, caisson drilling and excavation would occur within 35 feet of vibration sensitive uses. Demolition — 1.5 days Caisson Drilling — 6.5 days Excavation — 17 days The total days for which vibration from project related construction activities would exceed the "felt" level is therefore approximately 25 work days. The last criterion considered in assessing vibration impacts is the time of occurrence. Residential uses are much more sensitive to vibrations occurring at night as compared to the day time. Construction activities that would generate perceptible levels of vibration are time - restricted by Municipal Code Section 10.28.040. Under Section 10.28.040, construction is permitted on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM, Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, and is prohibited on Sundays and any federal holidays. The assessment of the potential for project related construction vibration to cause annoyance includes the four criteria previously described above: perceptibility, frequency of occurrence, time of occurrence and duration. Although the maximum vibration levels associated with certain construction activities would, in some instances as indicated in Table 4.4 -8, be "felt' under FTA criteria and could occur frequently in the days they do occur, because construction activity would be limited to the least vibration - sensitive times of the day, the duration of perceptible vibration would be relatively brief and intermittent, potential vibration impacts will not result in a significant vibration annoyance impact. Table 4.4-8 Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment at Nearest Residences (Vibration Annoyance) Construction Activity Maximum Vibration Levels VdB) 2 Average Vibration Levels Vd8' 3 Exceeds Perceptibility Criteria? ( "Felt" per Table 7: 84 Vd8 s1 Demolition Excavator Small bulldozer 65 43 No Backhoe Loader Small bulldozer 65 43 No Loaded trucks 86 71 Yes Caisson Drillin Caisson Drill 96 72 Yes Back Hoe Loader Small bulldozer 67 43 No Pumper 47 43 No Loaded trucks 86 71 Yes Excavation to 50 Feet NAVD88 Large bulldozer 96 72 as Excavator Small bulldozer 67 43 No Loader Small bulldozer 67 43 No Loaded trucks 86 71 Yes Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -24 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise Cosmetic Damage from Construction Vibration The FTA criterion for vibration - induced cosmetic damage to wood - framed structures is 0.2 inch per second. The potential for cosmetic damage generally refers to the potential for cosmetic damage (superficial cracks) to fences, walls, and flatwork, not damage that compromises the integrity of the structure. Table 19 lists the maximum vibration source levels for construction equipment anticipated to be used at the project site at off -site receptors. As noted above, a Construction Management Plan has been prepared for the proposed project, the components of which are considered to be included as a part of the project. The CMP requires, among other things, that the Applicant agree to indemnify the property owners in the immediately contiguous lots against any cosmetic damage to their homes resulting from vibration caused by construction activities necessary to complete the project as a condition to the issuance of demolition permits for the existing structure. This indemnify obligation is subject to those contiguous owners providing Applicant, if requested, with access to their structures to allow a pre - demolition inspection of the current condition of all structures on those properties. The CMP also requires that vibration probes will be placed at 215 Carnation Avenue to monitor construction activities. A vibration monitoring program will identify any construction activity which exceeds the criteria for cosmetic damage. If excessive vibration is found to occur, other construction methods will be employed, if possible, to eliminate any occurrence of cosmetic damage. Such alternative construction methods include, but are not limited to, use of different drill bits for the caisson drilling, use of less vibration - intensive construction vehicles, use of drilling and insertion of expansive grout to fracture rock, and /or use of lubricants for the caisson drilling. Because the CMP is Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -25 Exceeds Maximum Perceptibility Vibration Average Criteria? Levels Vibration ( "Felt' per Table Construction Activity VdB)2 Levels (VdB)',3 7: 84(VdB)" Excavation to 40 Feet NAVD88 Large bulldozer 96 72 Yes Ram Hoe 96 72 Yes Loader Small bulldozer 67 43 No Excavator Small bulldozer)' 67 43 No Loaded trucks 86 71 Yes Excavation to 28 Feet NAVD88 Large bulldozer 93 72 Yes Excavator Small bulldozer 1 64 43 No Loader Small bulldozer 64 43 No Loaded trucks 86 71 Yes Concrete Pours Pumper 75 71 No Concrete Mixer 75 71 No 'Vibration levels from the listed off -road construction equipment are equivalent to vibration levels generated by a small bulldozer. 2 A the closest distance from where any large or small off -road construction equipment is in operation to the nearest structure. 3 A an average distance (center of site to nearest structure) from where any large or small off -road construction equipment is in operation to the nearest structure. SOURCE: Based on methodology from FTA 2006. Cosmetic Damage from Construction Vibration The FTA criterion for vibration - induced cosmetic damage to wood - framed structures is 0.2 inch per second. The potential for cosmetic damage generally refers to the potential for cosmetic damage (superficial cracks) to fences, walls, and flatwork, not damage that compromises the integrity of the structure. Table 19 lists the maximum vibration source levels for construction equipment anticipated to be used at the project site at off -site receptors. As noted above, a Construction Management Plan has been prepared for the proposed project, the components of which are considered to be included as a part of the project. The CMP requires, among other things, that the Applicant agree to indemnify the property owners in the immediately contiguous lots against any cosmetic damage to their homes resulting from vibration caused by construction activities necessary to complete the project as a condition to the issuance of demolition permits for the existing structure. This indemnify obligation is subject to those contiguous owners providing Applicant, if requested, with access to their structures to allow a pre - demolition inspection of the current condition of all structures on those properties. The CMP also requires that vibration probes will be placed at 215 Carnation Avenue to monitor construction activities. A vibration monitoring program will identify any construction activity which exceeds the criteria for cosmetic damage. If excessive vibration is found to occur, other construction methods will be employed, if possible, to eliminate any occurrence of cosmetic damage. Such alternative construction methods include, but are not limited to, use of different drill bits for the caisson drilling, use of less vibration - intensive construction vehicles, use of drilling and insertion of expansive grout to fracture rock, and /or use of lubricants for the caisson drilling. Because the CMP is Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -25 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise part of the Project Description, the evaluation of potential cosmetic damage from vibration considers activities required by the CMP to be incorporated within the project itself. Implementation of the measures cited in the CMP will ensure that vibration - induced cosmetic damage impacts from caisson drilling, use of a ram hoe, and /or use of a large tracked dozer are avoided ad reflected in Table 4.4 -9. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required and significant unavoidable vibration - induced cosmetic damage impacts will not occur as a result of project implementation. Table 4.4 -9 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment at Nearest Structure (Cosmetic Damage Assessment) Off -Site Receptors Maximum RMS velocit�l In /sec z FTA Criteria (inlsec) Exceeds FTA Criteria? Demolition Excavator Small bulldozer 0.010 0.2 No Backhoe Loader Small bulldozer 0.010 0.2 No Loaded trucks 0.076 1 0.2 No Caisson Drilling Caisson Drill 0.412 0.2 Yes Back Hoe Loader Small bulldozer 0.008 0.2 No Pumper 1 0.012 0.2 No Loaded trucks 1 0.076 0.2 No Excavation to 50 Feet NAVD88 Large bulldozer 0.412 0.2 Yes Excavator Small bulldozer 0.014 0.2 No Loader Small bulldozer 0.003 0.2 No Loaded trucks 0.076 0.2 No Excavation to 40Feet NAVD88 Large bulldozer 0.412 0.2 Yes Ram Hoe 0.412 0.2 Yes Loader Small bulldozerF 0.014 0.2 No Excavator Small bulldozer 0.014 0.2 No Loaded trucks 0.076 0.2 No Excavation to 28 Feet NAVD88 Large bulldozer 0.008 0.2 No Ram Hoe 0.008 0.2 No Loader Small bulldozer 0.008 0.2 No Excavator Small bulldozer 0.008 0.2 No Loaded trucks 0.076 0.2 No Concrete Pour Pumper 0.164 0.2 No Concrete Mixer 0.076 0.2 No NOTE: RMS velocity calculated from vibration level using the reference of one microinch /second. NA: Not Applicable ' At a distance of 10 feet from construction area to nearest residences to the east. 2 Vibration levels from the listed off -road construction equipment are equivalent to vibration levels generated by a small bulldozer. SOURCE: Based on methodology from FTA 2006. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -26 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise Dock Based on published information, typical drilling produces the peak particle vibration (PPV) of 0.089 inches /second at a distance of 25 feet. Table 4.4 -10 provides a comparison of the estimated construction vibration levels to the maximum ambient vibration levels monitored at the nearby properties. Table 4.4 -10 Comparison of Estimated Construction Vibration Levels to Ambient Levels Location Description Maximum Ambient Vibration Level Estimated Construction Vibration Level Cosmetic Damage (PPV Nuisance (VdB) Rear Patio — 101 Ba side Place 0.00128 in /sec 0.02 in /sec 70 VdB 90' Pool Area — 2495 Ocean Blvd 0.00086 in /sec 0.01 in /sec 62 VdB @ 175' Rear Patio — 2282 Channel Rd 0.00298 in /sec 0.002 in /sec 42 VdB 785' Rear Patio — 2222 Channel Rd 0.00121 in /sec 0.002 in /sec 44 VdB 675' SOURCE: Wieland Acoustics March 12, 2009 The human annoyance and cosmetic damage criteria for vibration developed by the FTA were summarized in Table 4.4 -8 and Table 4.4 -9, respectively. As indicated in Table 4.4 -10, the anticipated vibration associated with the construction of the dock facilities would not exceed any of the damage criteria recognized by the Federal Transit Administration for either annoyance or cosmetic damage. As a result, no significant vibration impacts are anticipated as a result of dock construction. 4.4.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts Based on the ambient noise levels identified in Table 4.4 -3, noise levels in the nearby harbor area are considered to be compatible with residential uses in this area. Residents of the proposed luxury condominiums, therefore, would not be exposed to significant long -term noise sources. The proposed project replaces an existing residential use and, moreover, reduces the number of dwelling units on the site by nearly 50 percent. Although on -site noise levels associated with residential activities on the redeveloped site would increase compared to current conditions because the only the single - family residential dwelling unit and three units within the apartment building are occupied, it is anticipated that any increase in long -term noise associated with the residential uses would be those occurring as a result of outdoor activities. Passive recreational activities in and around the proposed pool, on the private decks and along the walkway and beach area at the bottom of the property are not expected to result in significant noise levels. If future residents and their guests should engage in activities that result in temporary, loud noise levels that exceed the limits set forth in Chapters 10.26 and 10.28 of the City's Municipal Code, the City is empowered to take actions to abate that activity. This project would not result in exposure of neighboring residents or future residents on site to noise levels that exceed City standards. Therefore, no significant long -term noise impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Noise Element Table 4.1 -1 In Section 4.1 (Land Use and Planning) summarizes the relationship of the proposed project with the applicable policies adopted with the Noise Element. As revealed in the analysis presented in that table, the proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Noise Element. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4-27 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Aircraft Noise Section 4.4 - Noise The proposed project is not located within the limits of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan ( AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). Therefore, the residential use would not be exposed to significant noise levels associated with that commercial aviation facility. The County of Orange Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) uses the current AELUP for JWA as the basis for determining potential aircraft noise impact from JWA. The project site is located outside the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft operation noise contours, where the AELUP defines the noise exposure to be "Moderate Noise Impact' (i.e., an impact that would require some kind of mitigation to reduce the aircraft noise) within Noise Impact Zone "2:' The AELUP also recognizes that individual sensitivities to annoyance can vary from person to person. Because the project site is located outside of this noise impact zone, no significant noise impacts from aircraft activities would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 4.4.5 Mitigation Measures Impact 4.4-1 Noise levels associated with construction equipment will result in periodic substantial increases above ambient noise levels during the construction phase anticipated for the proposed project. MM 4.4 -1a All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices, intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. MM 4.4 -1 b The construction contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. MM 4.4 -1c The construction contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from residential receptor locations as feasible. MM 4.4 -1d The construction contractor shall post a contact name and telephone number of the owner's authorized representative on -site. MM 4.4 -1 e The construction contractor shall install temporary sound blankets or plywood panels with a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of 32 or higher and a density of 1.5 pounds per square foot or greater (e.g., SoundSeal BBC -13 -2 or equivalent) along the perimeter of the construction area proximate to residential uses. This does not include the side facing the harbor channel due to the noise attenuation provided by the buffer distance between the construction noise and harbor residences. The temporary sound blankets or plywood panels shall have a minimum height of six feet. If plywood panels are selected, they must have a minimum density of four pounds per square foot and have no perforations or gaps between the panels. MM 4.4 -1f The construction contractor shall select quieter tools or construction methods whenever feasible. Examples of this include the use of plasma cutters, which produce less noise than power saws with abrasive blades and ordering precut materials to specifications to avoid on -site cutting. MM 4.4 -1g The construction contractor shall maximize the use of enclosures as feasible. This includes four -sided or full enclosures with a top for compressors and other stationary machinery. This also includes locating activities, such as metal stud and rebar cutting, within constructed walled structures to minimize noise propagation. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4-28 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise 4.4.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Construction Noise Implementation of the construction noise reduction measures prescribed in the CMP and the mitigation measures Section 4.4.5 would attenuate noise to the maximum extent feasible. Temporary sound blankets would reduce noise levels by 5 dBA from construction activities whose line of sight is blocked by the blankets (FTA 2006). Enclosures have the potential to reduce noise levels by up to 8 dB. Working within a walled structure provides 5 dB of attenuation. With the implementation of the noise mitigation measures, noise from construction activities would be reduced. However, construction activities would still result in substantial increases above the ambient noise environment. The project would need to be in compliance with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.26.035, which limits construction - related noise levels to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Compliance with the Municipal Code would limit noise from construction activities to the least sensitive portions of the day. However, because of the magnitude of noise generated during the phases that involve construction vehicle use, the proximity of the noise sensitive of uses, as well as the duration of the construction period, project - related construction noise would result in an unavoidable short-term significant impact. Construction Vibration Annoyance from vibration generated by project - related construction activities were found to result in less than significant impacts. Similarly, implementation of the measures cited in the CMP will ensure that vibration - induced cosmetic damage impacts from caisson drilling, use of a ram hoe, and /or use of a large tracked dozer are avoided. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required and significant unavoidable vibration - induced cosmetic damage impacts will not occur as a result of project implementation. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4-29 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.5 AESTHETICS Section 4.5 - Aesthetics The aesthetic quality of Aerie property is determined by its visual character, consisting of elements such as natural and man -made features, elevations and topography, and prominent views of and from the site. In addition, surrounding urban and natural features comprise the visual setting within which the project site takes on a given degree of importance. Both natural and artificial landscape features contribute to perceived visual images and the aesthetic value of a view. The aesthetic value of a site or feature may be influenced by geologic, hydrologic, botanical, wildlife, recreational, and urban features associated with it. Visual images and their perceived visual quality can vary substantially by season and even hourly as weather, light, shadow, and elements that comprise the viewscape change. Judgments of visual quality must also be made based on a regional frame of reference, since the same landform or visual resource in different geographic areas could have different visual resource quality and sensitivity in each setting. For example, a small hill may be a significant visual element on a flat landscape but may have very little significance in mountainous terrain. Evaluating a project's landscape changes and its effects on visual quality is often seen as a highly subjective matter, open to many interpretations and personal preferences. However, a widely diverse body of knowledge and study of the subject of natural and urban aesthetics has led to coherent and systematic methods of visual impact analysis. In the absence of a methodology prescribed by the City of Newport Beach, this analysis utilizes a series of visual simulations constructed for the proposed project that illustrate the post - development characteristics of the proposed project. A qualitative, descriptive approach is employed to describe and evaluate the visual resources of the subject site and proposed development. The existing visual setting in and around the subject property is defined by on -site and off -site features and the various views from particular vantage points (i.e., "viewsheds ") that encompass those features. The on -site and off -site aesthetic character consists of urban and natural elements, and all occur within the context of a variety of urban land uses, including single - family attached and detached residential development located within the immediate vicinity of the subject property and adjacent roadways. A series of visual simulations has been prepared and serve as the basis for determining the potential impacts of the proposed project on the aesthetic character of the area. Visual Analysis Two -Point Perspective Methodology SoftMirage /BP Media Group, Inc., created a series of visual simulations from several vantages in the project area that are based on a Two -Point Perspective Methodology (refer to Appendix G). Perspective shows depth in an image or photograph based on the human eye and in this case, for the visual simulations, by a camera. The distance, height, and angle of the camera can change the orientation of whatever object is in focus. The two -point perspective is a common way to view photos or renderings with a great degree of accuracy because two -point perspectives rely on the use of accurate three - dimensional angles, while holding onto vertical lines to ensure design accuracy. In this method of creating the visual simulations, the camera is often placed looking on a comer of the focus object to better show at least two sides of the object. This is the preferred viewing angle for people when compared to the three -point perspective, which places the viewer seemingly substantially above the object looking down or below the object looking up. Although the simulations presented in this section are visually accurate, it is important to note that it is virtually impossible to re- create an image with absolute accuracy due to several variables that affect the accuracy. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.5 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.5.1 Existing Conditions Section 4.5 - Aesthetics Refer to Chapter 3.0 (Project Description) for a discussion of on- and off -site visual character and off -site views. Natural Resources Element As previously indicated, Figure NR3 in the Natural Resources Element identifies Ocean Boulevard in the vicinity of the subject property as a "Coastal View Road." In addition, the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue and Begonia Park are identified as a "Public View Point" The City has adopted several goals and policies intended to preserve and /or enhance the visual resources within Newport Beach. As a result, future development that may affect the Coastal View Roads and /or Public View Points must adhere to the adopted applicable policies and programs. 4.5.2 Significance Criteria Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact if any of the following occurs as a result of project implementation. The proposed project will be considered to have a significant aesthetic impact if: The project has a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. 4.5.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.5.1 Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on- site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. SC 4.5 -2 Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare. SC 4.5 -3 The applicant shall dedicate a view easement; however, it will only affect the project site. Structures and landscaping within the easement area shall not be permitted to block public views. The easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction and shall be reflected on the final tract map. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.5-2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 - Aesthetics 4.5.4 Potential Impacts 4.5.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Implementation of the proposed project will result in site preparation (e.g., grading, etc.) and construction activities that could have some short-term effects, which would temporarily change the character of the area; however, it is important to note that these potential effects are similar to those which are typical of similar development projects in the City that undergo development and redevelopment. The effects of construction will be visible during the anticipated 32 -month construction phase. Other effects during the initial phase of development include dust generation associated with site grading and construction of the new structures that are proposed for the subject property. Construction staging areas, storage of equipment and supplies, and related activities will contribute to a generally "disturbed" condition, which may be perceived as a potential visual impact. However, while these activities may be unsightly, they are not considered significant impacts because they are temporary in nature and will cease upon completion of the proposed construction program. Nonetheless, a measure has been recommended to locate staging areas away from areas most visible to the surrounding development, if feasible. 4.5.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts The proposed project is located in a developed urban area that includes single - family residential uses to the north, east and south, and multi - family uses to the immediate south and northeast. Many residential structures in the area are built into the coastal bluff. Newport Bay in the vicinity of the project site is characterized by boat docks ancillary to abutting single- and multiple - family residential uses. Development existing along Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue extends down the bluff face. The north - facing portion of the property overlooks Bayside Place and the homes on Bayside Drive. The west - facing portion of the property overlooks a small cove off of Newport Bay, as well as several residential structures that are built into the bluff above the cove. The project site is currently developed with a multi- story, 14 -unit apartment building and a single -story, single - family residence. Project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing residential structures and the development of a new 8 -unit condominium structure that will have a total of six levels, including two levels and a portion of a third level that will be visible above the existing grade adjacent to the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. A total of four levels of the structure will be visible when viewed from Newport Bay. The lowest two levels (i.e., basement and sub - basement) will be fully subterranean and will not be visible. The potential effect of the project will be a change in the type and design of the structure as viewed from the street and from Newport Bay. The overall building height of the proposed residential structure will be increased by approximately nine feet over the existing multiple - family structure and approximately 17 feet over a portion of the existing single - family structure as measured from the front street grade level. View Corridors The certified Coastal Land Use Plan ( "CLUP ") and the Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan (Figure NR3) designate the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue as a "Public View Point" Additionally, Ocean Boulevard east of the project site is designated as a "Coastal View Road." Views from Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard presently exist between the existing apartment building and a fence and garage structure located on the abutting property to the south and east. Existing development of the site blocks the view to the north from these public roads. Project implementation will result in the construction of a residential structure that is approximately nine feet higher than the existing structures located on the same site. The proposed condominium building has been designed to conform to the existing 28 -foot height limit imposed by the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The proposed structure will not obstruct existing public views of the bay and coastline from the Public View Point due to its location. The existing view to the west measures 25 degrees while standing in the optimal position within the public right -of -way closest to the structure. The view will not only be Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.5 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 - Aesthetics maintained but it will also be expanded by 76 percent, from 25 degrees to 44 degrees (refer to the Exhibit 4.5 -1). This increased viewing angle is the result of the design of the southwest wall of the proposed structure, which is located approximately 11 feet to the north of the existing building wall. The proposed design results in an increase in the distance between the proposed structure and the existing development to the south. Views to the west from Ocean Boulevard will also be enhanced as a result of the increased distance between buildings. In addition, a northern view corridor will also be created where one does not currently exist. Visual Simulations Several visual simulations were created based on the Two-Point Methodology previously described. The purpose of the visual simulations is to provide a comparison of the existing visual /aesthetic character of the area to that of the project after the site is redeveloped as proposed. The locations from which the simulations have been created are illustrated in Exhibit 4.5 -2. As indicated in that exhibit, several locations were selected from Begonia Park and the nearby area to illustrate the project's effect on the view corridor from the park to the harbor and ocean to the west. Other visual simulations were also created from locations in the immediate vicinity of the project site (e.g., Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue) to reflect the project's aesthetic character and potential effect of development on views to the west from those vantages. In addition, views from several locations from inside the harbor illustrate the change in character associated with the proposed project and the effect of the proposed changes, including the proposed dock, from the west. The following discussion summarizes each of the simulations and describes the changes resulting from project implementation. Simulation V01— Bayside Drive Beach (Exhibit 4.5 -3) As indicated in this view from Bayside Drive Beach (approximately 2,000 northwest of the subject site), views of the site are in the background of the photograph. As noted in this simulation, residential development extends along nearly the entire length of the bluff, including the subject property. However, implementation of the proposed project will not significantly change the visual character of the area within which the project is located. The most noticeable change to the vista when viewed from the vantage from Bayside Drive Beach is the "curvilinear' design of the proposed residential structure, which allows the building to conform to the bluff when compared to the existing rectilinear features of the existing residential structure. Views of the portion of the bluff located below the proposed development will retain the existing topographic character. The proposed dock facility cannot be seen from Bayside Drive Beach because the intervening pier that extends into the harbor north of the beach location. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.5-4 3Atl NOI1tlNW7 LOC-IOL \ �/ 31tl3V I� I i r J o L—JI IL 1 I I I I % z I i n4 I I kD 0�1 Z w Y U Q Q Q w W Qp�p ®� F� pm>mo X(L aF - <F<> lu ONmOWrQO 'o 'o N-i �m lu ? Flu O L IL WO O J Q J 9 ♦O75 �n i Q Z 0 0 s � z d a d >° U� IL i U NV370 \ \ I \ 1VQm / J 0 ,a) U 3 . C et d � a t a X W U t *7 0 0 0 :+ 3 d d m 0 X W m L Q z c d O m` ui U 0 0 U) CU - of ct:0 m mT ip Z N V .e o W �`+ Ca O _ m N Q. N � y �Y s c x w Y E Vi U) N_ m OI A 0 O N W U K O N U t . of pU 0 W co R �po al rn w2� N � So co W¢ �a � C 0 Q RAY i X18 r PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE { ,N� _.•. _ �� -� � � yr` ' -5.+ Exhibit 4.5 -3 Visual Simulation V01 - Bayside Drive Beach Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Simulation V02 — Channel Road Beach (Exhibit 4.5 -4) Section 4.5- Aesthetics The Channel Road Beach location vantage is located on the Balboa Peninsula, approximately 1,300 feet west of the site. As revealed in this visual simulation, the change in the character of the site is apparent when viewed from this location. The large apartment structure that currently exists on the site, which is dominated by sharp vertical and horizontal features, will be replaced by a similarly large structure; however, the proposed multiple - family residential structure has been designed to "fit' the bluff by eliminating the sharp angles and replacing them with a curvilinear facade that conforms to the existing bluff feature. In addition, the proposed building also appears more subdued as a result of the darker color proposed. Although the proposed multiple - family structure would block the view of the red roof of the existing residence located to the rear when the project is completed, the tops of the trees would remain visible. In addition, more existing development on the east side of Ocean Boulevard can be seen because of the greater building setback from the southern property boundary. As identified above in Simulation V01, views of the portion of the bluff located below the proposed development will retain the existing topographic character. The proposed expanded dock facility can be seen below the bluff from the Channel Road Beach location. Although the larger rock outcroppings will remain visible, the rock features in front of the small cove would not be seen from this vantage because the dock, when occupied by one or more boats, would obscure some or all of the rocky features. Simulation V03 — Corner Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard (Exhibit 4.5 -5) The view of the site from Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard illustrates the existing apartment building and the proposed multiple - family structure. As can be seen, views of the existing structure are dominated by the flat roof features of the and angular forms that dominate the multiple - family residential structure, which was built in 1948. In particular, the wide, open carport that fronts along Carnation Avenue reveals the automobiles that are parked in the structure at ground level. An ocean view exists between the existing apartment building on the site and the adjacent residence that fronts on Ocean Avenue. The area on Ocean Boulevard between the subject property and the property to the south is designated as a Public View Point. The post - development simulation illustrates the change in character that will occur. In particular, the features of the proposed multiple - family residential building will be curvilinear. Although the proposed structure will be higher than the existing apartment building, the character of the building will change dramatically, and will be characterized by a fagade that features a combination of exterior plaster and stone. The increased in building height would not adversely affect any public view. In addition, parking will not be visible when the building is viewed from the street; all parking will be accommodated below grade within the building. Landscaping will be integrated into the design to soften the building mass. As previously indicated, a Public View Point is located on Ocean Boulevard south of Carnation Avenue. Project implementation will enhance the view from the designated view location. The view window at this location will be expanded (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -1) by 76 percent (i.e., from approximately 25 degrees to about 44 degrees). Simulation VO4 — Ocean Boulevard View Corridor (Exhibit 4.5 -6) As previously indicated, Ocean Boulevard is designated as a "Coastal View Road" in the City's Natural Resource Element (refer to Figure NR3). Exhibit 4.5 -6 illustrates the view of the site looking north from a location south of the site on Ocean Boulevard. The open nature of the carport that dominates the lower level of the existing structure is highly visible from this vantage. The proposed building elevation reflects a modern character in contrast to the existing development. Although the proposed residential structure will be higher than the existing apartment building, it will not exceed the permitted building height. Project implementation will also result in a wider northerly view window when viewed from the south. In addition, the existing overhead utility pole and overhead lines at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue will be undergrounded, which will also improve the aesthetic character of the area. Finally, a public bench and drinking fountain will be located in the vicinity of the Carnation Avenue Public View Point to accommodate public access to the view location. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.5 -8 PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE Exhibit 4.5 -4 Visual Simulation V02 - Channel Road Beach Z495 Exhibit 4.5-5 Visual Simulation V03 - Carnation Avenue/ Ocean Boulevard 1L 11� 1 r __ �qvi AR, 14 p (J A r. J J Exhibit 4.5 -6 Visual Simulation VO4- Ocean Boulevard View Corridor Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 - Aesthetics Simulation V08 — Carnation Avenue (Exhibit 4.5-7) The view from Carnation Avenue looking west to the ocean illustrates that changes that would occur with the implementation of the proposed project. Exhibit 4.5 -7 illustrates the proposed multiple family structure and the relationship of that new structure to the existing development. Redevelopment of the site with the proposed multiple - family residential structure will result in the appearance of the larger and taller structure in the foreground than currently exists, adjacent to the existing residence east of the site on Carnation Avenue. The existing landscaping at the eastern corner of the lot would be replaced and the proposed structure would dominate the foreground from this vantage. While a larger building will be introduced, the structure would not exceed the building height limitations prescribed for the zoning district. The existing view to the ocean to the west would be preserved and enhanced. In addition, as previously indicated, the overhead utilities that exist within the parkway on the south side of Carnation Avenue would be undergrounded, thus eliminating the utility features that extend vertically and horizontally within the viewshed. The elimination of these features would enhance views and the aesthetic character within the neighborhood. Simulation V09 — Ocean Boulevard (Exhibit 4.5 -8) This visual simulation illustrates the proposed project in context with the nearby residential development existing in the Corona del Mar neighborhood. As can be seen in Exhibit 4.5 -8 and in other simulations of the project environs, a variety of architectural styles is present in the area. When compared to the existing apartment building, which was designed and constructed in 1948, the proposed project introduces a modem architectural style. The various structural and landscape elements integrated into the proposed structure are intended to break up the mass and the new building. The overhead utility pole previously identified on Carnation Avenue, which can be seen in the background, will be eliminated. In addition, the building setback at the south end of the subject property has been increased to expand the existing view corridor between the subject property and that to the south. Consequently, a wider view between those structures would result, which would allow for and expanded view to the north from this view location. Begonia Park Visual Simulations Three visual simulations were created from vantages within Begonia Park, including one from the lower bench within the park, a simulation from the park's upper bench, and one from the northern limits of the park near the comer of Begonia Avenue and First Avenue. Visual Simulation V05 (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -9) illustrates the view from the lower bench situated on Begonia Park north of the site. As can be seen, from this vantage, the harbor and ocean to the west are clearly visible from this location. The proposed multiple - family residential structure and associated landscaping will extend outward onto the bluff and encroach slightly into the viewshed beyond the limits of the existing apartment building and single - family residence that currently occupy the site. However, only a small portion of the ocean view at the horizon would be affected by the proposed project from the lower bench of Begonia Park; no portion of the harbor visible from this location would be affected by the proposed project. The view of the site from the upper bench of Begonia Park (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -10) reveals a similar view as that illustrated in Exhibit 4.5 -9. However, from this location within the park, it is apparent that site development would extend outward onto the north face of the bluff, affecting a small area of the ocean view at the horizon, similar to that in Exhibit 4.5 -9. Similar to the lower bench, no portion of the harbor view would be affected. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Cb'S{i N e i Exhibit 4.5 -7 Visual Simulation V08 - Carnation Avenue C I A .. �I fill -- - - - Ilk - Exhibit 4.5 -8 Visual Simulation V09 - Ocean Boulevard r ITI ill ! Fi 1 -1. r ww" t \ a II PROJECT SITE _ I----I►I PROJECT SITE IV 11 `3 w w Exhibit 4.5-9 Visual Simulation V05 - Begonia Park - Lower Bench w PROJECT SITE I W PROJECT SITE I '4 • � I? a ? P Exhibit 4.5-10 Visual Simulation V06 - Begonia Park - Upper Bench Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 - Aesthetics The final visual simulation of the proposed project (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -11) from Begonia Park reveals that although the northerly encroachment of the multiple- family residential structure into the viewshed will occur, similar to that in Exhibit 4.5 -10, the effect on this view will be minimal. Only a small portion of the ocean at the horizon in the background would be eliminated from view and the view of the harbor is not reduced; however, this change would not be significant because it represents a nearly indistinguishable increment of the total viewshed and, in particular, the ocean view. In addition to the three visuar simulations from Begonia Park; a fourth'simulation was generated to illustrate the potential visual impacts associated with the project. Visual Simulation V16 — Begonia and Pacific (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -12), illustrates the southerly view from this vantage. The story poles that have been erected are intended to reflect the building envelope of the proposed project at 2333 Pacific Avenue, which is currently an undeveloped property. As can be seen in this visual simulation, construction of a residential project at the Pacific Avenue location would virtually eliminate the entire harbor and more distant ocean view from this vantage. As a result, the proposed Aerie project would not significantly impact the viewshed from any of the four locations within or near Begonia Park. Harbor Near - Surface Level View Simulations Several visual simulations have been created, which look toward the proposed blufftop project and docks and cove below the bluff to provide a comparison of the existing visual character of the site from the harbor when viewed from the water surface (e.g., paddling in a kayak in the harbor). Visual Simulation V10 — Kayak 1 (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -13) illustrates the changes anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. From this vantage in the harbor just south of the proposed project site, the differences in visual character relate mostly to the bluff development. The proposed multiple - family residential structure will be stepped back from its base as it rises above the bluff. While slightly higher than the existing structure, the curvilinear features combined with the colors used for facade and roof /deck features allow the proposed structure to conform to the existing topographic features when compared to the existing apartment building (and adjacent large single - family residence to the south), which is characterized by a tall vertical mass rising from the bluff face and no significant landscape features. The man -made elements (e.g., concrete remnants, drainage pipes, etc.), which tend to degrade the aesthetic quality of the bluff, will be removed. The bluff face below the proposed structure would be landscaped and enhanced with native plant materials. No significant visual impacts would occur to the cove or the natural features below the bluff. As indicated in this exhibit, the proposed dock facilities would not affect existing views to the cove. The larger dock feature, when viewed from this location within the harbor, would add additional docks and boats in the harbor, which is characterized by similar features north and south of the property. Visual Simulation V11 — Kayak 2 (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -14) provides a view from just beyond the proposed boat dock facility looking directly at the proposed multiple - family residential development. As indicated in this visual simulation, the proposed docks, when occupied by boats, would dominate the foreground view; however, the main features of both the bluff and the rocks features below would remain within view of kayakers or others boating in the harbor. The proposed structure has been designed to conform to the bluff with both colors and landscaping and the mass has been broken by the physical separation between the two main structural elements. The proposed structure would extend farther to the north, allowing for the wider view window to the south, between the proposed structure and the existing single - family residence to the south. As illustrated in Exhibit 4.5 -13, the vertical elements of the existing structure have been eliminated to create a more topographically compatible effect. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Cb3I1 Met 1 _. ti.•.r •��D a 'O��ti_,�i- � ��•• -- i �? Aj .Yp } 1 I R rfJ K .Yp } 1 I R PROJECT SITE I.* -------�I PROJECT SITE 1.* --------- 00 1 i '/r F robES X9991 ll Exhibit 4.5-12 Visual Simulation V16 - Begonia & Pacific Ttt Fx TA'SF,A w . F,x T-t'SFA Exhibit 4.5 -13 Visual Simulation V10 - Kayak 1 v -f If'• JL MAWL- 1L °�.n, /' • 3 SST[ ' • Yom* a Y' -..� i� lYlt }- --' -kE:X A � - -�a ,tea .-.'.If ,�i'�z � ;✓t J -.. rY i _ .�.� ' ! -�. 'Y. LA t r l a. -. Exhibit 4.5 -14 Visual Simulation V11 - Kayak 2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 - Aesthetics Exhibit 4.5 -15 (Visual Simulation V12 — Kayak 3) illustrates the visual character of the proposed project from a vantage near the northern limits of the site within the harbor beyond the proposed boat dock. From this location in a kayak, the entirety of the proposed multiple - family residential development can be seen in contrast with the existing single- and multiple - family residential development to the south. The proposed boat dock can be seen in the foreground immediately south of the kayak location. As indicated, some of the existing rock outcroppings and related features characterizing the cove below the bluff would be obscured by the proposed dock and boats. In addition, other features along the water's edge south of the cove would also be obscured; however, all of those features would be seen from other vantages and their loss from view would be only from locations north of the proposed dock. It is important to note that none of the existing features would be eliminated or destroyed as a result of project implementation; rather, they would all remain as elements of the site and come into and go out of one's view depending on the location within the harbor. Their loss from the field of view would be brief when passing by the site in the harbor. The aesthetic character of the proposed multiple - family structure in this visual simulation can be compared to that of the existing residential to the south. As can be seen, the colors and curvilinear design as well as the manner in which each level of the structure has been stepped back from the bluff face allow the structure to conform to the bluff, in contrast with the existing single - family residential immediately south of the site and the multiple - family project located farther south, which are characterized by vertical elements and colors that may be less aesthetically compatible with the bluff topography. An additional visual simulation (Visual Simulation V17 — Kayak 4) was created, which depicts the proposed project from a vantage in the harbor that is between the boat dock for the existing residence south of the project and the boat dock for the proposed project. As illustrated in Exhibit 4.5 -16, the proposed project, including the dock facilities proposed, reveal that when viewed from this location, neither the rock outcroppings nor the cove features would be affected by any of the proposed development. All of the significant existing cove and bluff features (e.g., rock outcroppings, sandy beach, etc.) will remain in view from this location within the channel. Furthermore, physical access to the cove is not precluded by either the residential development or the dock facilities proposed for the project. The effect of the proposed boat docks from this vantage would not have any significant effects on the important visual amenities within the harbor. The proposed multiple - family residential structure will be prominent; however, the building has been designed to conform to the existing topography. As can be seen in this simulation, the northern portion of the structure is consistent with the predominant line of existing development on the bluff. The existing multiple - family structure is more reflective of the existing development that characterizes the area, which generally does not conform to the existing topographic features (i.e., use of vertical elements, lighter colors, etc.). Because of the scale of the structures located south of the project site, including the Channel Reef Condominium and the large single - family residence, the proposed structure does not present a significant contrast to the existing residential development to the south. Although the proposed structure is larger than individual residences to the north, when comparable land area is considered, the relative scale and mass is compatible with the existing development. The landscaping provides additional "softening" of the structural edges. As previously indicated, native landscape materials will be integrated into the design of the project to enhance the appearance of the bluff. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.5-22 Exhibit 4.5 -15 Visual Simulation V12 - Kayak 3 ion.: r- 5 lip lit f �- -. 9 IWO Exhibit 4.5-16 Visual Simulation V17 - Kayak 4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Channel Visual Simulations Section 4.5 - Aesthetics In addition to the kayak vantages, three visual simulations were also created to illustrate the anticipated visual impacts of the proposed project when viewed from the harbor from above the water surface (i.e., in a boat motoring or sailing into and out of the channel). Exhibit 4.5 -17 (Visual Simulation V13 — Channel 1) illustrates the visual context of the proposed Aerie project to the existing development to the north and south and the overall visual character along the bluffs in the vicinity of the project site. As seen in this exhibit, the proposed project contrasts sharply with the existing single - family residence occupying the bluff face to the south as well as the residence located on the east side of Ocean Boulevard. The project design features include the graduated stepping of the residential structure as it extends upward. This feature, along with the curvilinear appearance, natural -tone colors and materials, and landscaping enable the structure to be integrated into the bluff topography, in contrast to the existing development that is dominated by their vertical elements (as well as when compared to the existing apartment building on the site). The northerly portion of the proposed building terraces back from the bluff as it rises to simulate an extension of the slope of the bluff in that location. In particular, when compared to the single - family residence adjacent to the subject property, the proposed multiple - family structure is more visually subdued, even though it is larger. The proposed structure is also substantially smaller than the Channel Reef apartment development farther south. The bluff has also been extensively landscaped with native plants to enhance its appearance. The entrance to the cove below the bluff is both visually and physically accessible. Views of the other significant topographic features of the property that create aesthetic value in addition to the bluff itself (specifically the rock outcroppings and cove), would not be significantly affected by the development; none would be altered by the proposed development. As previously indicated, any potential effect on the view of these features is brief and intermittent as one "cruises" into and out of the harbor and, therefore, is less than significant. All of the important visual amenities would be retained as a result of project implementation. Exhibit 4.5 -18 provides a direct view of the proposed project from inside the channel. This visual simulation (Visual Simulation V14 — Channel 2) illustrates similar visual context within the channel. Unlike the view farther south (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -17), the sandy beach cannot be seen from this vantage. In addition, a portion of the area characterized by the rock outcroppings would be obscured from view when the proposed docks are occupied; however, the majority of the bluff would be seen even with all of the slips in the boat dock occupied. From this vantage, the northern portion of the proposed structure is apparent as the building "wraps" around the bluff. The structural elements appear to be "broken" to reduce the overall scale of the structure. In this simulation, the stepping back is also apparent, particularly along the northern portion of the property. Existing development to the south of the subject property is characterized by the horizontal and vertical structural elements. Visual Simulation V15 — Channel 3) presented in Exhibit 4.5-19 depicts the proposed development from the channel just to the north of the proposed boat dock. In this simulation, the relationship of the proposed structure to those along the north- facing bluff can be seen. As revealed in Exhibit 4.5 -19, the proposed project will extend out to the northern portion of the bluff to obscure a portion of the existing residence on Carnation Avenue adjacent to the site. The project has been designed to "break up" the multiple - family structure to reduce its mass, which is illustrated in the appearance of two structures. Landscaping has also been integrated into the project design to "soften" the development edges created by the proposed structure. Similar to other vantages within the harbor, depending on the location of the viewer, visual amenities, may be obscured by the proposed boat dock. This is true for this vantage. Portions of the rock outcroppings, the sandy beach, and related features cannot be seen from this location within the harbor; however, virtually all of the bluff up to the proposed multiple - family structure will remain within view of boaters as they travel into and out of the harbor. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.5-25 Off Exhibit 4.5 -17 Visual Simulation V13 - Channel 1 ve M « 4 a 6 ♦ 4 u P P Exhibit 4.5 -18 Visual Simulation V14 - Channel 2 cf 12 x•,. Yi 1 ' ' logo *'.7— *r 3 a J Exhibit 4.5 -19 Visual Simulation V15 - Channel 3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 - Aesthetics Based on the significance criteria identified in Section 4.5.2, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant aesthetic impacts. Specifically, as illustrated in the visual simulations, the proposed structure would not adversely affect a scenic resource. With only minor exception (i.e., emergency access), the proposed project is situated above the PLOED as prescribed by the Newport Beach City Council in order to preserve the coastal bluff as a visual resource. The project has been designed to avoid any significant impact associated with the emergency access by creating a feature that is recessed, which would be indistinguishable from the existing topographic character of the bluff. Furthermore, none of the significant features, including rock outcroppings, significant vegetation, the sandy beach, etc., existing on the site would be affected by site development. The site is devoid of historic structures. As a result, the proposed project would have no significant adverse visual impact on these features. Although visual character of the site would be transformed, the project, including the proposed docks, has been designed to avoid potentially significant impacts to the visual character of the bluff and harbor environment. As previously indicated, the proposed multiple - family residential structure has been designed to comply with the development standards prescribed in the City's zoning ordinance, including building height, lighting, landscaping, etc., to ensure that no significant visual impacts occur. A modification to the side yard setback requirement is proposed. In addition, the existing scenic vista available from the designated Public View Point along Ocean Boulevard near the southern property boundary has been expanded through the project design to create a wider view angle. As illustrated in Exhibit 4.5 -1, the scenic vista would be expanded by 76 percent and a new view corridor will be created along the northern property line, which does not exist at the present time. In order to ensure that adverse effects on a scenic vista will be avoided, MM 4.5 -2 requires the dedication of a view easement through the property. As stipulated in that measure, no structure or landscape feature located within the easement would block any public view. Therefore, no significant visual impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Natural Resources Element As described in Section 4.1 (Land Use /Relevant Planning), the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan addresses aesthetic resources, with emphasis on coastal views. The City has identified several policies that are intended to guide development and avoid potential significant visual impacts to important coastal resources, including coastal bluffs, the harbor, and associated natural features. Table 4.1 -1 In Section 4.1 (Land Use and Planning) summarizes the relationship of the proposed project with the applicable policies adopted with the Natural Resources Element that address aesthetics and visual resources. In addition, Table 4.1 -2 in Section 4.1 provides a summary of the relationship of the proposed project with the relevant aesthetics policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan. As revealed in the analysis presented in those tables, the proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Natural Resources Element and the CLUP. Light and Glare The project has been designed to minimize glare by incorporating building materials that are not conducive to the creation of glare. For example, exterior materials proposed for the residential structure would consist of non - reflective materials, including a titanium roof and photo - voltaic array with a matte finish, stucco - covered walls, and stone accents with rough, rather than polished textures. Tinted glazing is proposed on the windows and most of the windows will have overhangs that will cast shadows over the glazing. As a result, no significant glare impacts from building finish materials anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Lighting of interior rooms would be designed to provide illumination for interior activities and would not produce any significant light or glare effects outside of the structures that could adversely affect adjacent properties. Although outdoor lighting from exterior patios and possibly along the walkway and lower level landing would be visible from the bay as minor point light sources, it would not create a glaring effect. Living areas in the homes to the north, west, and south are oriented toward the bay and ocean, away from the project site, and are separated by a considerable distance from the project site and proposed residential structure. In addition to the distance between the existing proposed and existing structures, Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.55-29 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5- Aesthetics there are also substantial elevation differences between adjacent living spaces and the proposed outdoor living levels within the project site that minimize the effects of lighting at night. Outdoor lighting within the project site would be designed to illuminate only the desired activity area on site, and would not cast any illumination or incidental glare beyond the property limits, consistent with the City's adopted lighting standards (refer to SC 4.5 -2). All of these circumstances minimize and possibly eliminate any opportunity for lighting on the subject property to adversely effect at neighboring homes and /or properties. Indoor and outdoor lighting in the developed project would not result in adverse day or nighttime light or glare effects. Although the applicant is proposing to improve the existing landing and expand the boat dock to accommodate nine vessels, resulting in an increase in the area that would require lighting in that location, it would be similar to that which currently exists in this area and would be designed to cast light only on the affected area; therefore, no additional lighting and /or glare impacts associated with the waterside development would occur. Potential impacts will be less than significant. 4.5.5 Mitigation Measures As previously indicated, the project has been designed to avoid significant visual impacts. Although some view from the channel would be momentarily affected by the construction of the boat dock and related facilities, no important visual amenity would be destroyed or permanently affected. Therefore no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. 4.5.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Incorporation of the standard conditions will effectively address the visual and aesthetic character of the area. In addition, the proposed project will be designed to be consistent with the goals and objectives articulated in the Natural Resources Element (Visual Resources) of the Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore, no potentially significant impacts will occur as a result of project implement. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.5 -30 Aerie PA2005 -197 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6— Drainage and Hydrology 4.6 DRAINAGE AND HYDROLOGY Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., (Hunsaker) prepared a hydrology analysis for the proposed project to document the existing hydrologic conditions of the site and to determine the post - development 100 -year peak storm runoff discharges, which will be utilized as the basis of storm drain design for the proposed project. In addition, Hunsaker also prepared a Conceptual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The findings and recommendations presented in these documents are summarized below and are available for review at the City of Newport Beach. 4.6.1 Existing Conditions Local Drainage /Hydrology No stream or river exists on site. A portion of the existing surface runoff generated on the subject property occurs as sheet flow and drains in a northerly and westerly direction before discharging into Newport Bay, which has been identified as containing "environmentally sensitive areas" as defined by the 2003 Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the Water Quality Control Plans for the Santa Ana Basin. In addition, an existing drain pipe system also collects runoff, which is also discharged into Newport Bay. The site is currently developed. As such, the site is divided into three drainage areas as summarized in Table 4.6 -1 and illustrated on Exhibit 4.6 -1. Table 4.6 -1 Existing Hydrology Drainage Area Area (in acres) Flow Rate (cubic feet/second) A 0.125 0.76 B 0.181 1.04 C 0.081 0.51 Total 0.387 2.31 SOURCE: Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. (February 2, 2009) As indicated in Table 4.6 -1, a total of 2.31 cubic feet per second (cfs) is discharged in the existing condition during a 100 -year storm event. A portion of the runoff associated with the existing development (i.e., Area C) is discharged to Carnation Avenue where it flows into a public catch basin and then onto the bluff face and into the harbor from an existing 24 -inch diameter pipe located below the existing multiple - family residence at approximately 31 feet above mean sea level. Additional runoff is discharged into the bay near the base of the stairs at the northwestern corner of the site from a second private drain pipe. The remaining runoff occurs as surface runoff from the roof, which is discharged onto the bluff and ultimately into the cove and harbor below. The existing surface water flows are neither detained on -site nor treated prior to their discharge into the harbor. Flooding The subject property is not located within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Newport Beach. The subject property is located in an area designated by FEMA as "Area C' on the FIRM (i.e., areas outside the 500 -year flood plain). The site is not subject to the effects of flooding associated with a 100 - year storm. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6 -1 0 � o y L � x j� .t9b W Qi ui Mo lo It 4 . O.P IY U o LU ad Q c� ,or r' } ^ w° I a W n It w it ayo % o t i { - m No 8r o' , - m ItId 4 l0 W � y awe m U �m m W� anrn t„ �o2N C6 V W "+ W Q� Aerie PA2005 -197 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6— Drainage and Hydrology Water Quality The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) and within the East Costa Mesa - Newport Beach Watershed (i.e., County of Orange Watershed G). The subject property is tributary to and discharges directly into Lower Newport Bay, which is currently identified as a 303d- listed impaired water body for Chlordane, Copper, DDT, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and Sediment Toxicity. Additionally, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) have been proposed to be established for copper in 2007 and Chlordane, DDT, PCBs and Sediment Toxicity in 2019. Due to the proximity of the site to Lower Newport Bay, the site contains "environmentally sensitive areas" as defined by the 2003 Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Basin (Basin Plan). Surface water quality is subject to federal, state and local water quality requirements. General requirements are reflected in Table 4.6 -2 and described below. Table 4.6 -2 Water Quality Regulatory Agencies Water Quality Requirement Enforcement Agency Clean Water Act (CWA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USEPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (N DES) Permit Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Regional Water Quality Control Board RWQCB Drainage Area Management Plan DAMP County of Orange Local Water Quality Ordinance City of Newport Beach Coastal Programs Division (CPD) within the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management OCRM California Coastal Act California Coastal Commission CCC Local Coastal Program LCP City of Newport Beach Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, Order No. 2002 -0010, NPDES No. CAS618030, Waste Discharge Requirements for the county of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and The Incorporated Cities of Orange County Within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County. SOURCE: Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., (January 28, 2009 4.6.2 Significance Criteria Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact if any of the following occurs as a result of project implementation. Substantial and adverse increased inundation, sedimentation and /or damage from water forces to the subject project and /or other properties are caused by improvements such as grading, construction of barriers or structures. Development within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated by FEMA that would expose people and /or property to potential serious injury and /or damage. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6 -3 Aerie PA2005 -197 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6— Drainage and Hydrology Impervious surfaces increase and /or divert storm water runoff that result in the inability of the existing collection and conveyance facilities to accommodate the increased flows. Project implementation will cause a violation of water quality objectives and impede the existing beneficial uses of on -site surface waters or off -site coastal waters. • A usable groundwater aquifer for municipal, private, or agricultural purposes is substantially and adversely affected by depletion or recharge. • Storm water and /or induced runoff mixes with a tidal habitat or pond causing instability to the existing water quality (e.g., reduction of salinity, increase of dissolved solids, introduction of sediments, etc.) that, in turn, substantially and adversely affects the habitat. • Sediments are increased and /or diverted by proposed improvements and cause sediment deposition in sensitive habitat areas (e.g., riparian, etc.) to the detriment of the habitat and /or sensitive species. 4.6.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.6 -1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall be required to submit a notice of intent (NOI) with the appropriate fees to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for coverage of such future projects under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit prior to initiation of construction activity. As required by the NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and will establish BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion. SC 4.6 -2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project and submit the WQMP to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for approval. The WQMP shall specifically identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used to control predictable pollutant runoff, including flow /volume -based measures to treat the "first flush." The WQMP shall identify at a minimum the routine structural and non - structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP), which details implementation of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long -term maintenance responsibilities, and shall reference the locations of structural BMPs SC 4.6 -3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and submit that plan to the City of Newport Beach for approval. The SWPPP will establish BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion. SC 4.6-4 Future site grading and construction shall comply with the drainage controls imposed by the applicable Municipal Code requirements prescribed by the City of Newport Beach. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6-4 Aerie PA2005 -197 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 — Drainage and Hydrology 4.6.4 Potential Impacts 4.6.4.1 Short -Terre Construction Impacts Water Quality The site is under the jurisdiction of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for issues related to water quality. As previously indicated, each of the nine California RWQCBs is responsible for adopting and implementing water quality control plans for each basin's water bodies, regulating waste discharges from both point and nonpoint sources, and monitoring permit compliance within its designated basin. Development of the subject property as proposed will result in alteration of the site and a change in the existing drainage conditions on the site. Exposure of the site during grading could result in an increase in erosion that could adversely affect water quality. In addition, the construction of parking lots and other circulation features that accommodate automobiles could also contribute to an increase in hydrocarbon and other pollutant discharges into the surface and ground water features. Site grading and construction activities that occur as a result of project implementation may result in short- term increases in silt and sediment to downstream locations. However, implementation of the BMPs prescribed in the SWPPP and WQMP that must be prepared for the proposed multiple - family residential project will ensure that the construction - related impacts resulting from site grading will minimize the amount of silt and sediment that is transported to downstream locations. These potential impacts will be avoided or reduced through the implementation of appropriate BMPs as prescribed in the Orange County DAMP and in the standard conditions previously identified. These measures will be implemented during grading and construction activities. In addition, other standard conditions (e.g., compliance with applicable building code requirements) will further minimize construction - related impacts. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Aerie residential project will not have a significant effect on water quality as a result of silt and sediment transport from construction activities. Although it is anticipated that the concentration of urban pollutants in storm runoff from the grading and construction activities associated with project implementation could increase during the construction phase, the runoff would be controlled through applicable BMPs to minimize discharges of pollutants, including siltation associated with erosion resulting from grading activities. Further, once construction activities are completed, these potential impacts will cease. Potentially adverse water quality impacts during the construction phases would be avoided through compliance with existing regulatory programs administered by the City of Newport Beach and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A variety of Best Management Practices (BMPS) have been identified in a preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) to ensure that there is no contact between storm water and construction site wastes and materials and to prevent any accidental spills, leaks or wastes from draining off -site and into Newport Bay or the nearby storm drain system. The BMP program incorporated in the SWPPP is structured to maintain compliance with the Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) standards and provide multiple safeguards against potential harm to the environment. While it is impossible to anticipate all potential environmental issues that could arise on a daily basis during the course of the project, the BMPs have been tailored to provide effective options to those who are responsible for overseeing workplace safety and environmental compliance. BMPs included in the SWPPP address sediment and erosion control for both temporary (i.e., construction) and long -term (i.e., operational) activities occurring on the subject property. In addition, BMPs have also been prescribed for pollutants other than sediment, including those intended to control spills for hazardous materials, solid waste management, hazardous waste management, contaminated soil management, etc. A final SWPPP will be subject to approval, prior to issuance of a grading permit by the City or issuance of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6 -5 Aerie PA2005 -197 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 — Drainage and Hydrology General Construction Permit by the RWQCB. The permits will include requirements for ongoing monitoring and reporting to ensure that all water pollution control measures are properly implemented. As indicated in Chapter 3.0, project implementation also includes the replacement of the existing four -slip dock facility with an eight -boat dock and one guest side tie to accommodate future residents of the proposed dwelling units. Construction of the replacement dock would result in potential water quality impacts. During the pile removal and subsequent drilling required for the emplacement process, water turbidity will increase. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. In order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, Best Management Practices (BMPs), which eliminate any disposal of trash and debris at the project site as well as the removal of construction debris, will be implemented during construction. Appropriate mitigation measures will be required to ensure that turbidity impacts and related water quality impacts associated with the off -shore activities are avoided or reduced to an acceptable level (refer to Section 4.7- 5). 4.6.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts Hydrology Due to the extensive site grading and excavation requirements and expanded building coverage, the existing drainage areas that encompass the site will be modified. Impervious surfaces comprising the existing development encompass approximately 22 percent of the total area of the project site. When redeveloped as proposed, impermeable surfaces will cover approximately 26 percent of the project site. The remaining 72 percent will remain permeable. Project implementation will result in the elimination of two of the drainage areas that currently exist. However, although the subject property will encompass only one drainage area after grading and site development, implementation of the condominium project will not alter the existing off -site drainage patterns. Moreover, the total discharge from the site in the developed condition is estimated to be only 1.95 cfs or a 15 percent decrease in surface runoff when compared to the existing 2.31 cfs (refer to Table 4.6 -1). The decrease in storm flow is largely attributed to the addition of a swimming pool, which would capture runoff during the storm event, thereby reducing the total storm flows on the site under existing condition because a swimming pool does not currently exist. The proposed storm drain system will capture more of the site runoff and reduce sheet flows that currently directly impact Newport Bay. The improved efficiency of the new storm drain system, together with the filtration element within the outlet structure, will ensure that the redeveloped site does not result in erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Table 4.6 -3 summarizes the post - development hydrologic conditions (refer to Exhibit 4.6 -2). Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6 -6 Aerie PA2005 -197 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6— Drainage and Hydrology Table 4.6 -3 Post - Development Hydrology As indicated in Table 4.6 -2, virtually all of the stormwater emanating from the site in the developed condition will be generated in Drainage Area C. Although the 1.95 cfs anticipated to occur in the developed condition is less than under existing conditions, the entire building watershed has been directed to the pump vault proposed in the southern corner of the structure. The maximum pump discharge is 0.50, which approximates the flow currently entering the 24 -inch RCP prior to discharging onto the bluff face and into the harbor. The pump vault is designed to store the peak flow, thereby reducing the discharge to that approximating the existing discharge. In addition, a storm filter and bacteria treatment system will also be installed along Carnation Avenue. The outflow from this facility is proposed to connect to the existing 24 -inch RCP. It must also be noted that an off -site drainage area encompassing 11.54 acres contributes storm flows to the existing catch basin in Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard. Storm flows generated within this drainage area has a 100 -year peak storm flow rate of 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). The proposed project would result in a decrease in the 100 -year storm flow, which would be directed to an existing storm drain that has adequate capacity. However, the existing catch basin is currently deficient. Although no significant project - related impacts are anticipated as a result of the reduction in storm flow generated by the proposed project, this facility will be improved by the project applicant to accommodate the storm flows generated within the tributary area, including the project site. The developer shall be responsible for replacement/upsizing of the 10 -foot wide catch basin located in Carnation Avenue storm drain, which is currently deficient. The new catch basin will be sized to provide sufficient capacity for the runoff generated by this project, as well as existing runoff from the rest of the 11.54 -acre drainage area to this facility. It shall satisfy the appropriate storm -year design criteria established by the City Engineer. This storm drain reconstruction shall include appropriate urban runoff filtration elements, to reduce potential water pollution impacts into Newport Harbor. Reconstruction of this storm drain shall occur outside of the rainy season. Implementation of this improvement by the applicant will ensure that adequate capacity will be provided in the deficient catch basin. 100 -Year Flood Plain Project implementation will not result in the placement of any portion of the development proposed on the subject property within the limits of the 100 -year flood plain as delineated by FEMA. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6 -8 Area Flow Rate Drainage Area (in acres) (cubic feet/second) A 0.0 0.0 B 0.0 0.0 C 0.387 1.95 Total 0.387 0.50 'The 1.95 cfs emanating from the site will be detained in a vault, treated, and discharged into the existing storm drain at a rate of 0.50 cfs, which is slightly less than the 0.51 cfs currently being discharged from Area C. SOURCE: Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. (February 2, 2009 As indicated in Table 4.6 -2, virtually all of the stormwater emanating from the site in the developed condition will be generated in Drainage Area C. Although the 1.95 cfs anticipated to occur in the developed condition is less than under existing conditions, the entire building watershed has been directed to the pump vault proposed in the southern corner of the structure. The maximum pump discharge is 0.50, which approximates the flow currently entering the 24 -inch RCP prior to discharging onto the bluff face and into the harbor. The pump vault is designed to store the peak flow, thereby reducing the discharge to that approximating the existing discharge. In addition, a storm filter and bacteria treatment system will also be installed along Carnation Avenue. The outflow from this facility is proposed to connect to the existing 24 -inch RCP. It must also be noted that an off -site drainage area encompassing 11.54 acres contributes storm flows to the existing catch basin in Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard. Storm flows generated within this drainage area has a 100 -year peak storm flow rate of 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). The proposed project would result in a decrease in the 100 -year storm flow, which would be directed to an existing storm drain that has adequate capacity. However, the existing catch basin is currently deficient. Although no significant project - related impacts are anticipated as a result of the reduction in storm flow generated by the proposed project, this facility will be improved by the project applicant to accommodate the storm flows generated within the tributary area, including the project site. The developer shall be responsible for replacement/upsizing of the 10 -foot wide catch basin located in Carnation Avenue storm drain, which is currently deficient. The new catch basin will be sized to provide sufficient capacity for the runoff generated by this project, as well as existing runoff from the rest of the 11.54 -acre drainage area to this facility. It shall satisfy the appropriate storm -year design criteria established by the City Engineer. This storm drain reconstruction shall include appropriate urban runoff filtration elements, to reduce potential water pollution impacts into Newport Harbor. Reconstruction of this storm drain shall occur outside of the rainy season. Implementation of this improvement by the applicant will ensure that adequate capacity will be provided in the deficient catch basin. 100 -Year Flood Plain Project implementation will not result in the placement of any portion of the development proposed on the subject property within the limits of the 100 -year flood plain as delineated by FEMA. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6 -8 Aerie PA2005 -197 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 — Drainage and Hydrology Water Quality The potential stormwater or urban runoff pollutants reasonably expected to occur as a result of project implementation include: (1) sediment from driveways, parking areas, roads and roof tops; (2) organic compounds derived from automotive fluids, pesticides, and fertilizers; (3) nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorous, etc.) generated by organic litter, fertilizers, food waste, sewage and sediment; (4) metals (e.g., copper, lead, cadmium, chromium, nickel and zinc) from motor vehicles, re- roofing and hardscape /construction materials, and chemicals; (5) bacteria and viruses from animal excrement, sanitary sewer overflow, and trash container handling areas; (6) oil and grease from motor vehicles; (7) oxygen - demanding substances, including biodegradable organic materials and various household chemicals, which deplete dissolved oxygen levels in water courses; (8) pesticides, including household bug sprays, weed killers and other household sources; and (9) trash and debris, which include common litter, biodegradable organic matter such as leaves, grass cuttings, etc., from landscaped areas. A Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for the project and is hereby incorporated by reference into this Draft EIR. The WQMP identifies a number of structural and non- structural BMPs that will be incorporated within the final designs to comply with the applicable provisions of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), the City of Newport Beach water quality regulations, and to address anticipated requirements by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as part of a General Construction Permit (as discussed earlier). The following routine structural and non - structural BMPs will be incorporated into the project design. Routine Non - Structural BMPs N1 — Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants Facility users will be notified of the impacts of their actions on water quality. Requirements will be established for the implementation of an awareness program that informs facility users of the impacts of dumping oil, paints, solvents or other potentially harmful chemicals into the storm drain; proper use and management of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides in home landscaping; and the impacts of littering and improper watering. N2 — Activity Restrictions Language will be included in the CC &Rs of the HOA to identify source water quality protection required of all property owners and contractors. N3 — Common Area Landscape Management Ongoing maintenance will be consistent with any City requirements, the county Water Conservation Resolution, and the State of California Model Water- Efficient Landscape Ordinance. In addition, fertilizer and pesticide usage will be consistent with the County Management Guidelines for use of Fertilizers and Pesticides. N4 — BMP Maintenance The HOA will be responsible for implementing each applicable non - structural BMP and scheduling inspection and maintenance cleaning of all applicable structural BMP facilities. The HOA will also be responsible for inspection and maintenance activities in landscape areas and for controlling debris and other water pollutants. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6 -9 Aerie PA2005 -197 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 — Drainage and Hydrology • N11 —Common Area Litter Control Weekly sweeping and trash pick -up within the project area will be required, with daily inspection of trash receptacles. In addition, litter controls will be established and violations will be noted and reported. • N12 — Employee Training Annual employee training /education will be established by the HOA that applies to future employees, contractors and volunteers to inform and train those engaged in maintenance activities that include the use of pesticides, fertilizers, etc. • N15 — Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots All parking areas exposed to rain will be vacuum swept on a weekly basis. Routine Structural BMPs Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage Although the project does not propose on -site catch basins, signs will be posted throughout the site with "No Dumping — Drains to Ocean." Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction Trash enclosures will be provided in designated areas that are covered to prevent contact with wind and rain. Drainage from trash enclosure areas will be prohibited from entering the storm drain. Use efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control All common areas will be landscaped with similar plant material having similar water requirements to reduce excess irrigation runoff and promote surface filtration. The City's "Water- Efficient Landscaping" ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.17) will be implemented with common areas maintained by the HOA. In addition, site design and treatment BMPs have also been identified in the WQMP and will be implemented to ensure that water entering the harbor has been adequately treated to avoid potential impacts to that impaired water body. Specifically, the site has been designed to minimize impervious areas and maximize permeability. The site has also been designed to minimize directly connected impervious areas. Treatment BMPs incorporated into the project intended to treat surface runoff include a proprietary StormFilter unit. The Stormwater Quality Design Flows (SQDF)' for the project's cumulative drainage areas have been determined to be 0.058 cfs. The size of the units will be determined based on the final hydrology study to be prepared prior to issuance of the grading permit. Following treatment by the project StormFilter unit, site runoff will pass through an Abtech Smart Sponge Plus drain insert for additional treatment for bacteria as a pollutant of concern. 'The Orange County DAMP requires that flow -based BMPs shall be designed to mitigate (infiltrate, filter, or treat) based on the maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inch of rainfall per hour for each hour of a storm event. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6 -10 Aerie PA2005 -197 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 — Drainage and Hydrology Other BMPs that will be implemented include parking and storage area maintenance to ensure that the parking area is cleaned on a regular basis. Use of absorbent materials to clean up vehicle - related spills and leaks will be disposed of properly. The pool will also be cleaned regularly to control algae, pool filters will be cleaned and inspected regularly, and pool water will be disposed of properly, into the sanitary sewer. Implementation of these and other measures outlined in the WQMP will ensure that potential water quality impacts resulting from project implementation will be less than significant and will be minimized. The BMPs have been selected to address the main pollutants of concern for this type of project, and for the impacted water body, i.e. Newport Bay. Lower Newport Bay is listed as an "impaired" water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, with respect to metals, pesticides and priority organics. All 'first flush' and low flow runoff from the developed site would be captured by an underground storm drainage system that will be pumped up to Carnation Avenue and filtered by a storm filter and bacteria filter before being discharged into the existing municipal storm drain system. Notwithstanding the increase of impervious surfaces on the project site, the proposed drainage system is expected to reduce the pollutant level in site runoff, compared to existing conditions that consist of sheet flow runoff directly to the bay, and unfiltered runoff into a storm drain catch basin just south of the site, at Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Implementation of the approved WQMP will ensure that this project does not violate any water quality standards over the long -term operating life of the developed site. In addition, the WQMP also includes measures that are intended to avoid water quality impacts within Newport Bay during the construction of the proposed dock facility. These measures, which are also included in the CMP, are design features of the proposed project. They include: All debris and trash shall be disposed in suitable trash containers on land or on the work barge at the end of each construction day. Discharge of any hazardous materials into Newport Bay is prohibited. Silt curtains shall be deployed around work barges and around the pile sleeving or drilling operations where feasible to minimize the spread of turbid waters into adjacent eelgrass beds within and outside the project area. All construction debris shall be removed from the bay floor daily With the incorporation of these measures prescribed in the CMP, no significant water quality impacts to Newport Bay would occur as a result of project implementation. 4.6.5 Mitigation Measures Hydrology Project implementation will result in a reduction in storm flows generated on the project site. Although no significant project - related impacts will occur, the applicant will upgrade the existing deficient catch basin, which will ensure that adequate capacity exists to accommodate storm flows within the drainage area. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6 -11 Aerie PA2005 -197 Draft Environmentat Impact Report Section 4.6 — Drainage and Hydrology Flooding Based on the hydraulic analysis prepared for the proposed project, project implementation will not result in a significant impact on the water surface elevations for 100 -year storm flows. The subject property is located in FEMA Area C (i.e., outside of the 500 -year flood plain); all of the development (i.e., structures) is proposed to be located outside of the revised floodplain. Therefore, no significant flooding impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Water Quality The incorporation of BMPs prescribed in the WQMP and Construction Management Plan as well as the storm drainagelflood control facilities proposed in the vicinity of the proposed project will reduce potential pollutants that enter the surface flows as a result of project implementation to the "maximum extent practicable," as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. As a result, no significant water quality impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 4.6.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of the standard conditions, project features (upgraded catch basin), and, specifically, the BMPs prescribed in the Construction Management Plan, Draft WQMP and SWPPP, as well as implementation of the proposed storm drainage system described above, will ensure that the potential impacts associated with an increase in surface runoff resulting from development of the proposed Aerie residential project are reduced avoided. No significant unavoidable impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6 -12 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A Biological Constraints Analysis was prepared by P &D Consultants (June 10, 2005), which documented the existing biological constraints on the subject property. A Biological Impact Report to assess terrestrial resources was prepared by ICF /Jones & Stokes (December 2008). The analysis presented in these reports was based on current aerial photographs, a site visit and updated literature reviews (Appendix H). In addition, Coastal Resources Management, Inc., prepared a report entitled, "Eelgrass (Zostera Marina) Impact Assessment for a Dock Renovation Project Located in Carnation Code, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625" (May 9, 2008), which assessed the marine biological impacts associated with project implementation (Appendix 1). Finally, a "Jurisdictional Determination for Area of African Umbrella Sedge Adjacent to Aerie Project Site Location in Newport Beach, Orange County, California;' (Appendix J) was also undertaken by Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) to determine whether wetlands were present on the subject property. The findings and recommendations of these reports are summarized in the following sections. 4.7.1 Existing Conditions Terrestrial Biological Resources Veaetation and Habitat The project site is located on a bluff located east of the entrance to Newport Harbor. Topographically, the site is characterized by a sloping coastal bluff that drops sharply to a small beach and cove along the western project boundary. The upper elevation of the project site is approximately 70 feet above mean sea level. Four depleted natural communities were identified in the literature review conducted for the proposed project as potentially occurring within the project vicinity: (1) Southern coastal salt marsh; (2) Southern cottonwood willow riparian forest; (3) Southern dune scrub; and (4) Southern foredunes. None of these depleted natural communities are present within the project site. Based on the reconnaissance field visit of the project site and a review of the plans prepared by Robert Mitchell & Associates, the dominant vegetation type on the project site is ornamental species; however, a remnant southern coastal bluff scrub community exists on the rocky outcrop along the northern project boundary extending into Newport Bay. The coastal bluff face, which is located below the existing structures, is densely vegetated with ornamental species and some scattered natives. Southern coastal bluff scrub is dominated by woody and succulent species. Growth and flowering occur from late winter through spring. Species in this vegetation community and observed at the project site include California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), coastal prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis), California sagebrush (Artemesia californica), bush sunflower (Encelia californica), lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), and coastal goldenbush ( /socoma menziesit).' The majority of the non - native plant species on the subject property included but are not limited to: sea lavender (Limonium perezil), soft -chess (Brome hordeaceus), (oxtail chess (Bromus madritensis), wild oat (Avena sp.), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), century plant (Agave sp.), crystalline iceplant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum), sweet clover (MeNotus sp.), Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis sp.), and tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca). 'A Notice of Violation of the California Coastal Act (March 27, 2008) was issued to the property owner by the California Coastal Commission. The Notice Indicated that native bluff vegetation, including lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and bush sunflower (Encelia califomica) had been removed from the site. Although pruning and trimming necessary to maintain the lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia) on the site occurred, none of these species have been removed as indicated in the Existing Vegetation Map prepared by Robert Mitchell & Associates. Based on the Existing Vegetation Map, the lemonade berry is making a comeback and appear to be in good health. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources Critical Habitat and Natural Community Conservation Plan Critical habitat is a term defined in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It refers to specific geographic areas that are essential to the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and which may require special management considerations or protection. The project site is not located within any designated critical habitat, including a designated Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) area. Special- Status Plants and Wildlife Plant or wildlife species may be considered to have "special status" due to declining populations, vulnerability to habitat change, or restricted distributions. Special status species are those listed under the federal Endangered Species List as threatened or endangered, or federal candidate for listing; those species listed under the California Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered, or a state species of special concern; or California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 1A, 1B, and 2. A total of 82 special status plant and wildlife species are identified as potentially occurring in the project region. Of these 82 species, nine plant species and one wildlife species have potential to occur due to suitable habitat conditions or was observed at the project site. The remaining plant and wildlife species described in the sensitive species table were determined not to have potential to occur at the project site due to lack of suitable habitat conditions (e.g., soils or vegetation associations) or geographic range. Special Status Plant Species The nine plant species that have the potential to occur at the project site are listed and described in Table 4.7 -1. During the reconnaissance site visit conducted for the project, none of these species were observed. Table 4.7 -1 Special Status Plants Species Status Potential for Occurrence Aphanisma blooms from March through June and is found from Orange, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara Counties. Typical habitats of this annual herb are Aphanisma Federal: None Southern coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, and ( Aphanisma blitoides) State: None Coastal sage scrub from 3 to 1,000 feet. Habitat Other. CNP List 1 B conditions on site are not ideal to support this species but are nonetheless present. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presence/absence. South Coast Saltscale blooms from march through October and is found from Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties. Typical habitats of this annual herb South Coast Saltscale Federal: None are Southern coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, and (Atriplex paci(ca) State: None Coastal sage scrub from 0 to 460 feet. Habitat Other: GNP List 1B conditions on site are not ideal to support this species but are nonetheless present. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presencelabsence. San Fernando Valley Spine6ower blooms from April through July and is found from Orange, Los Angeles, Federal: Candidate and Ventura Counties. Typical habitats of this annual San Fernando Valley State: Endangered herb are open, sandy soils, valley and grassland foothills r. Fn andin (Chorizanfhe panyi var. fenandina) Other: CNP List 1B from 98 to 1,804 feet. Habitat conditions on site are not ideal to support this species but are nonetheless present. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate bloomin window would determine Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.7— Biological Resources Species Status Potential for Occurrence presence/absence. Southern Tarplant blooms from May through November and is found from Los Angeles, Orange, and Santa Barbara Counties. Typical habitats for this annual herb Federal: None are marshes, swamps (margins), valley and foothill Southern Tarplant State: None grassland (vernally mesic), and vernal pools from 0 to (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) Other: CNP List 1 B 1,394 feet. Habitat conditions on site are not ideal to support this species but are nonetheless present. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presence /absence. Salt Marsh Bird's Beak blooms from May through October and is found from Los Angeles and Orange Federal: Endangered Counties. Typical habitats of this annual herb are Salt Marsh Bird's Beak State, Endangered coastal dunes, marshes, and coastal salt swamps from 0 (Cordylanthus ma dtimus sap. maritimus) Other: CNP List 1 B to 98 feet. This species is known from coastal bluffs and Newport Back Bay. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presence/absence. Many- stemmed Dudleya blooms from April through July and is found from Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Typical habitats of this perennial Many- stemmed Dudleya Federal: None herb are chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill (Dudleya multicaulis) State: None grasslands in clay soils from 49 to 2,592 feet. Habitat Other: CNP List 1B conditions on site are not ideal to support this species; however, this species is known from the project region. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presencelabsence. Laguna Beach Dudleya blooms from May through July and is found in Orange County. Typical habitats of this stoloniferous herb are cismontane woodland, chaparral, Laguna Beach Dudleya Federal: Threatened coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and rocky (Dudleya stolonifera) State: Threatened substrates from 32 to 853 feet. Habitat conditions on Other: CNP List 1B site are not ideal to support this species; however, this species is known from the project region. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine resence/absence. Cliff Spurge blooms from December through August and is found in Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Cliff Spurge Federal: None Counties. Typical habitats for this shrub are coastal bluff (Euphorbia misers) State: None scrub from 32 to 1,640 feet. Habitat conditions on site Other. CNP List 1B are suitable to support this species. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presence/absence. Big - leaved Crownbeard blooms from April through July and is found in Orange county. Typical habitats for this Big - leaved Crownbeard Federal: Threatened perennial herb are chaparral and coastal sage scrub (Verbesina dissita) State: Threatened from 147 to 672 feet. Habitat conditions on site are Other: CNP List 1B suitable to support this species. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine resence /absence. SOURCE: ICF /Jones &Stokes December 2008 Wildlife The site has been significantly altered as a result of past development of the property. Nonetheless, wildlife species were observed on the site or are expected to occur, including amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. These species are described below. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -3 Aerie PA2005 -996 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources Amphibians require moisture for at least a portion of their life cycle and many require standing or flowing water for reproduction. Only one amphibian, the Pacific tree frog (Hyla regalia) is expected to occur at the project site. Similarly, only one species of reptile was observed at the site: the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). Birds are the most commonly observed vertebrate species at the site. Those species that are common residents of developed urban areas and observed at the site include the house sparrow (Passer domesticus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), Great blue heron (Ardea herodias), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), and double- crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). Conditions at the site do not provide adequate nesting habitat for most raptors (i.e., birds of prey). The sparse southern coastal bluff scrub and ornamental vegetation at the project site do not provide extensive foraging or suitable nesting habitat for raptor species, which typically forage and breed in larger natural open spaces areas. However, some raptor species are adapted to urban conditions. Limited opportunity to forage at the project site exists along the southern coastal bluff, within the ornamental vegetation and on the small beach. Raptor species that may occur within the vicinity of the project site include Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperil), red - tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), sharp- shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), barn owl (Tyto Alba), and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus). Small ground - dwelling mammals having potential to occur at the project site include several species of rodents. The pocket mouse (Peromyscus sp.), Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), California ground squirrel (Spermcphilus beecheyi), and Audubon cottontail (Sylvilagus audubon6) are the most abundant of these species. Bats occur throughout most of southern California, including the project environs. Those species that could potentially occur at the project site are inactive during the winter and either hibernate or migrate, depending on the species. Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis califronicus), Mexican long- tongued bat (Choeronycteris mexicana), and big free - tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis) are not expected to roost or forage at the project site due to lack of suitable habitat conditions. Larger mammals, including both herbivores and carnivores, are not expected to occur at the project site because it is not adjacent to any undeveloped open space. Only two mammal species were identified at the site based on their tracks: Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and domestic cat (Fells catus). Special- Status Wildlife State- or Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Animals Many special status wildlife species are known to occur in the project vicinity. However, the project site has been significantly altered as a result of past development, resulting in the elimination of the potential for many special status wildlife to occur. One wildlife species, currently listed as endangered by the State (SE) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FE), was observed utilizing the project site. Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalls) was observed during the reconnaissance survey conducted in 2008. Six threatened animal species were identified as potentially occurring within the region (i.e., Newport Beach U.S.G.S. quadrangle). These species include the California red - legged frog (Rana aurora draytonl), western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis cotumiculus), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica califomica), Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae), and southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis). In addition, 15 endangered animal species were also identified as potentially occurring within the region: San Diego fairy shrimp (Brachinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), southern steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), arroyo toad (Bulb, califomicus), short- tailed albatross (Phaebastria albatrus), light- footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes), California least tern (Sterna antillarum browns) Western yellow- billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), least Bell's vireo (Vireo beed pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extrimus), Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldings), Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -996— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7-4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources and Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus). None of these species were observed on the subject property with the exception of the brown pelican. None of these threatened or endangered species are expected to occur on the site because of the level of disturbance that has occurred on the property. As indicated above, the federally endangered brown pelican was observed at the project site. This species, which is the smallest of the eight species of pelican, although it is a large bird in nearly every other regard, was observed at the project site utilizing the existing dock that extends into Newport harbor. Brown pelicans forage and roost in Newport Harbor and breed on the Channel Islands and islands off the Baja California coast. The brown pelican is also designated by the State of California as "Endangered." Habitat Linkages and Corridors Habitat linkages provide a genetic link or communication between two or more typically larger or superior in quality natural areas to the linkage and they provide substantial long -term habitat resources and facilitate movement across a linkage that can span generations of individual organisms. Connected patches also typically have substantially overlapping species inventories and resources. Such linkage sites can be small or constrained in some cases; however, they may be critical to the long -term health and viability of populations within the connected natural areas. Corridors, on the other hand, provide specific opportunities for individual animals to disperse or migrate among other areas, which may be very extensive but otherwise partially or entirely separated regions. Corridors are characterized by appropriate cover, minimum physical dimensions, and low levels of disturbance and mortality risk. Corridors adequate for one species may be inadequate for others. The project site and adjacent Newport Bay restrict opportunities for terrestrial wildlife movement because of the existing, surrounding urban development. Migratory birds are visitors to Newport Harbor. The project site provides only limited opportunity (i.e., presence of limited southern coastal bluff scrub and existing dock) for migratory birds to roost and forage. Some marine fish species move into and out of the harbor for spawning or for nursery areas. Wetlands A jurisdictional determination was prepared by GtA to determine whether wetlands are present on the subject property. No blue line drainages (as depicted on the Newport Beach U.S.G.S. topography map) existing on the project site. Based on the survey conducted in December 2008, a limited area of African umbrella sedge (Cyperus involucratus, FACW), covering approximately 190 square feet (0.004 ac) occurs on the slope adjacent to the proposed building site. The African umbrella sedge begins approximately two feet below the point where a 30 -inch drainage pipe discharges onto the steeply sloping (i.e., 1:1 horizontal to vertical) bluff. The area supporting the African umbrella sedge is surrounded by ornamental vegetation, including Victorian box (Pittosporum undulatum), tobira (Pittosporum tobira), and two species of privit (Ligustrum spp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), which also dominates the irrigated slope immediately above the umbrella sedge. The determination of the presence or absence of wetlands is based on three criteria: (1) vegetation; (2) soils; and (3) hydrology. Within the area occupied by the African umbrella sedge, it was estimated to account for 80 percent of the total cover with Victorian box and privit accounting for about 10 percent each. Based on the criteria utilized to establish (vegetation) dominance (refer to the Jurisdiction Determination prepared by GLA in Appendix J, only the African umbrella sedge is considered dominant. However, in this instance, the presence of a species with an indicator status of FACW (i.e., up to one -third of occurrences of this species is in upland areas) is not sufficient to make a positive determination for the presence of wetlands. African umbrella sedge is a common landscape plant that is highly adaptable, as indicated in the Sunset Western Garden Book: Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -5 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources "Grows in or out of water. Effective near pools, in pots or planters, or in dry streambeds or rock gardens. Self sows. Can become weedy..." The second factor considered in the determination of wetlands is soils. Soils on the slope are thin, overlying bedrock. The soils that support the African umbrella sedge are upland soils. Because of the 1:1 slope and the sandy character of the soils, the soils drain quickly and do not have the ability to become saturated. No evidence of hydric soils development was detected and it is not expected due to the steepness of the slope and ability of the sandy soils to drain quickly. In addressing the presence of wetland hydrology, the determination considered two factors: (1) the hydrological indicators set forth in the Arid West Supplement; and (2) the definition in the Coastal Act, which includes area "which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water." Based on the latter criterion, the steepness of the existing slope and well- drained character of the sandy soils indicate that there is no potential for the area to be "covered" periodically or permanently with shallow water. Storm flows would drain quickly through the sandy soils precluding saturation for sufficient duration to be consistent with the presence of "wetland hydrology' (i.e., saturation for periods sufficient to promote anaerobic conditions in the upper 12 inches). Given the lack of wetland hydrology, as confirmed by the strong upland characteristics of the soils, it appears that the African umbrella sedge is supported by regular irrigation water, which was observed during the site visit by GLA and documented in the determination (refer to Appendix _). Based on the field survey conducted by GLA, the African umbrella sedge area lacks indicators for the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology and, therefore, is not considered to be a wetland under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; no U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional wetlands exist on the subject property. Similarly, the African umbrella sedge area is not associated with a stream or lake and is not subject to jurisdiction under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code (i.e., California Department of Fish and Game). Although the African umbrella sedge area exhibits a predominance of wetland indicator species (the African umbrella sedge being the sole such species), it lacks evidence for the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology and, therefore, would not be considered a wetland under the Coastal Act because the 190 square foot area is not covered permanently or periodically with shallow water. Rather, the area is supported primarily by intermittent artificial water sources, including landscape irrigation from the adjacent slope and existing storm drain. While that fact alone does not preclude the area from being a wetland, the specific area is not considered a wetland under the Coastal Act because it does not meet the Act's definition of a wetland for the following reasons. Irrespective of any "parameter" test (e.g., vegetation, soils, and hydrology), the area under consideration as a wetland must be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water. As previously indicated, the area in question comprises a steep slope, which precludes it from being covered by shallow water except during very brief periods of intense rainfall. Furthermore the lack of hydric soils (confirmed during the field investigation) indicates that water does not cover or saturate the soil for sufficient duration necessary to promote development of hydric soils and the growth of hydrophytes, which are present due to the artificial irrigation that is applied to the adjacent vegetation. In accordance with Coastal Commission Regulations (i.e., Section 13577 of Title 14, Division 5.5 of the California Code of Regulations), the Coastal Commission has interpreted the regulation consistent with what is often referred to as the "One Parameter Definition." While the Coastal Commission takes the position that the presence of a single wetland indicator establishes a presumption that a wetland is present, that presumption can be "... rebutted by strong, independent evidence of upland conditions. "2 Furthermore, Coastal Commission 'Dr. John Dixon, Staff Ecologist, California Coastal Commission (November 5, 2003). Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -6 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biolooical Resources staff also concluded in a staff report the following opinion: "In recognition of the fact that a proportion of wetland indicator plants occur in uplands, the wetland presumption may be falsified where there is strong, positive evidence of upland conditions.n3 As a result, once the Commission establishes the presumption, the burden shifts to the applicant, who must then prove that one or both of the other indicators does not exist, which is a critical distinction because it allows for an in -depth biological analysis to determine if the area is not a wetland despite the presence of a single wetland indicator. Given the clear and demonstrable lack of wetland hydrology and hydric soils based on the jurisdictional determination conducted for the proposed project, combined with the characteristics of the African umbrae sedge, a highly adaptable common landscape plant that occurs in upland areas for one -third of occurrences, the 190 square foot area occupied by that species is not a wetland as defined by the Coastal Act. Marine Biological Resources Eelgrass /Eelgrass Habitat Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a marine flowering plant that grows in soft sediments in coastal bays and estuaries and occasionally offshore to depths of 50 feet. Eelgrass canopy (consisting of shoots and leaves approximately two to three feet long) attracts many marine invertebrates and fishes and the added vegetation and the vertical relief it provides enhances the abundance and the diversity of the marine life compared to areas where the sediments are barren. The vegetation also serves a nursery function for many juvenile fishes, including species of commercial and /or sports fish values (e.g., California halibut and barred sand bass). A diverse community of bottom - dwelling invertebrates (e.g., clams, crabs and worms) lives within the soft sediments that cover the root and rhizome mass system. Eelgrass meadows are critical foraging centers for seabirds (such as the endangered California least tern) that seek out baitfish (i.e., juvenile topsmelt) attracted to the eelgrass cover. Eelgrass is also in important contributor to the detrital (decaying organic) food web of bays as the decaying plant material is consumed by many benthic (i.e., lowest levels of a water body) invertebrates such as polycheate worms and reduced to primary nutrients by bacteria. As indicated in the Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and CLUP, the City has identified eelgrass beds as an important biological resource. Eelgrass beds, which are illustrated in Figure NR1 of the Natural Resources Element, are located within the Newport Harbor entrance channel, including in the vicinity of the subject property, as well as along the Balboa Peninsula, Linda Isle, Harbor Island and Balboa Island west of the project site. Although the eelgrass beds are recognized as an important biological resource, they are not included in the environmental study areas (ESAs) illustrated in Figure NR2. Nonetheless, the Natural Resources Element includes specific policies intended to avoid impacts to eelgrass. Eelgrass habitat in the project environs was mapped in 2005 and 2007. In 2005, a total of 10,155.4 square feet (0.233 acre) of eelgrass existed in the project vicinity. The majority of the eelgrass (0.231 acre) occurred south of the existing boat dock; one small patch occurred outside the project boundary, approximately 42 feet north of the existing boat dock. The remaining eelgrass bed began 62 feet south of the existing dock and extended past the project area boundaries to the docks located at the Channel Reef condominium complex. The epifaunal (i.e., animals that live on the sea floor or attached to other animals or objects under water) snail Alia carinata, was present in low to moderate densities living on the eelgrass blades. The eelgrass distribution based on the 2007 survey was generally similar to that mapped in 2005 with some minor boundary differences. The total of 10,062 square feet (0.231 acre) was mapped in 2007. This amount represents a decline of about one percent of the eelgrass mapped in 2005. The slight decline in eelgrass cover was associated with the bay -wide eelgrass habitat area reductions observed during the same period (i.e., 2005 to 2007). Staff Ecoloaist. California Coastal Commission. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -7 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources Eelgrass turion (i.e., the part of the plant consisting of the emerging shoot and leaves) density was not determined during the 2007 survey. However, based on a comparative analysis of the densities estimated in 2004 and 2005, eelgrass turion density in the region of Newport Harbor is relatively stable and the turion density for the project area is expected to be similar to that noted during the 2004 and 2005 surveys. Invasive Species Caulerpa taxifolfa (invasive algae) has a potential to cause ecosystem -level impacts on California's bays and nearshore systems due to its extreme ability to out compete other algae and seagrasses. This species grows as a dense smothering blanket, covering and killing all native aquatic vegetation in its path when introduced in a non - native marine habitat. Fish, invertebrates, marine mammals, and sea birds that are dependent on native marine vegetation are displaced or die off from the areas where they once thrived. No invasive species of algae, including Caulerpa taxifolia, in the general vicinity of the project site were found during either the 2005 or 2007 surveys. Carnation Cove Marine Life Carnation Cove supports an extremely diverse assemblage of plant and animal life due to its location near the Harbor Entrance Channel and the combination of rocky outcrops and fine sands to silt substrates. This region of Newport Harbor share many characteristics common to nearshore subtidal reef and sand bottom marine habitats and communities located off Corona del Mar. Carnation Cove is an important marine sandy tidal flat that displays features that while once present and common, no longer exists in other areas of Newport Bay. Low to moderate densities of sand dollars (Dendraster excentricus) were found on the sand flats within the cove in numbers that varied between approximately 10 and 100 per square meter in 2005 and between 115 and 325 per square meter in 2007. However, the Department of Fish and Game prohibits the taking of marine organisms within 1,000 feet of high tide, sand dollars are not a protected or "sensitive" species. The occurrence of sand dollars is not unusual for nearshore southern California sandy habitats at depths; between 10 and 25 feet mean lower low water (MLLW); however, the occurrence of intertidal populations of the species within Newport Bay is unique and rare. The population survives in this location because wave motion /wave energy is moderate, sediments are sandy to silty sand, and tidal exchange is excellent. The population represents a condition that was once common on Newport Bay tidal sand flats. The channel nassa snail (Nassarius fossatus) and the purple olive snail (Olivella biplicata), typical of shallow sand bottom communities were also found within the cove's sandy sediments and bottom habitat directly offshore of the cove. The marine biological community living on the low intertidal rocky substrate surrounding Carnation Cove is dominated by high cover of the scaly worm snail (Serpulorbis squamigerus), and secondary, lower biological cover of barnacles (Balanus spp.), mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis), green algae (Enferomopha/Ulva complex), and brown algae (Sargassum muticum, and Codium fragile). Invertebrates observed on the shallow subtidal rock outside the cove included Kellet's whelk (Kelletia kellefll), ochre sea star (Pisasfer ochraceus), warty sea cucumber (Parastichopus parvimensis), and lobster (Panilurus interruptus). At depths seaward of the eelgrass beds, the sandy silt bay floor in the Harbor Entrance Channel was colonized by sea pens (Stylatula elongata), sheep crab (Loxorhynchus grandis), Kellet's whelk, and the tube - dwelling polycheate Diopatra omafa. Nine species of fish were observed during the 2005 and 2007 surveys, including the mullet (Mugil cepahlus), topsmelt (Atherinops afnis), senorita (Halichores semicintus), California garibaldi (Hypsypops rubicundus), black perch (Embiotoca jacksonl), kelp bass (Paralabrax clathratus), barred sand bass (P. nebulifer), unidentified turbot (Pleuronichthys sp.), and round sting ray (Urolophus hallen). Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -8 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Marine Mammals Section 4.7— Biological Resources Pinnipeds (sea lions and seals) and cetaceans (whales and dolphins) have been recorded inside and outside of Newport Harbor, including California sea lion (Salophus californica), Pacific bottle -nose dolphin (Tursiops truncates), and gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). The most common marine mammal occurring in the harbor is the California sea lion, which prefer to haul out near the Pavilion. Harbor seals are les common that sea lions but individuals can be found sporadically throughout the year. Dolphins are seen occasionally and sightings of whales are rare. No marine mammal species breed in Newport harbor. None of the pinnipeds found within the harbor are endangered and none were observed at the project site. Special Status Marine Species Because Newport Harbor and the Upper Newport Bay shorelines and waters are defined as wetland habitats under both the California Coastal Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, this water body is considered sensitive habitat and is afforded protection to conserve and protect the resource. The project occurs within the vicinity of estuarine and eelgrass habitats, which are considered habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species. In addition, other sensitive species of plants, reptiles, birds, and mammals are known to inhabit and /or utilize eelgrass habitat. These species, and their potential to occupy the project site and environs, are identified in Table 4.7 -2. Table 4.7 -2 Special Status Marine Species Scientific Name/ Potential to Common Name USFWS' /NMFS Status' CDFG Status' Occur Plants NMFS — HAPC Phyllospadix torreyi FMP Species under the Surfgrass Magnuson- Stevens Fishery — Low Potential Conservation and Manage ant Act NMFS — HAPC Zostera marina FMP Species under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery -- High Potential; Observed on- Eelgrass Conservation and site Management Act Invertebrates Extremely low to no potential Haliotis cracherodii FE __ to occur on rocky areas in Black abalone front of the cove; very rare in southern California Fishes Eucyclogobius newberryi FE __ No Potential; Extirpated from Tidewater goby Orange County Low Potential; May spawn on Leuresthes tenuls Big Corona Beach and the California Grunion` _ open coastal beaches of Newport Beach Two individuals observed associated with rocky reef habitat in front of cove in Hypsypops rubicundus Protected under commercial California State vicinity of proposed dock California garibaldi and sport fish regulations Marine Fish — AB77 structure. Most common (1995) within entrance channel north to Coast Guard facility on aayside Drive compared to other areas of the harbor Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -9 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources Scientific Name/ Potential to Common Name USFWS' /NMFS Status' CDFG Status' Occur Reptiles Chelonia mydas FE — Rare Visitor Green turtle Eretmochelys imbricate FE — Rare Visitor Hawksbill sea turtle Birds Pe/ecanus occidentalis FE' SE Forages and rests in project Brown pelican area Nesting habitat occurs in Upper Newport Bay and the Santa Ana River mouth; will Sterna antillarum browni FE CE forage on juvenile baitfish in California least tern the nearshore waters, Newport Harbor and Upper Bay channels, usually within 5 miles of nesting sites Charadrius alexanddnus No nesting habitat present on Western snowy plover FT SSC site; no potential for individuals to occur on -site Mammals Zalophus calitomianus MMA __ Not abundant, but individuals California sea lion are present in Newport Harbor Tursiops truncatus Bottlenose dolphin MMA -- Rare visitor to Newport Harbor Eschrichtius robustus MMA -- Rare visitor to Newport Harbor California gray whale 'FE — Federal Endangered; FT — Federal Threatened; MMA Protected under the Marine Mammal Act. 'HPC are subsets of Essential Fish Habitat (EEH), which are rare, particularly susceptible to human - induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; however, federally - permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process. 'CE— Califomia Endangered; SSC — Species of Special Concern °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. 5Currently (10/2008) proposed for federal delisting (FPD). SOURCE: Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (May 9, 2008) 4.7.2 Significance Criteria Appendix G of the State CECA guidelines indicate that a project may be deemed to have a significant effect on the environment if the project is likely to: 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. 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 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -195 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -10 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (including protections provided pursuant to Section 1600 et seq.). 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. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 4.7.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.7 -1 The project shall comply with California Code Title 14 (Natural Resources), Section 29.05, which prohibits the taking of any marine organisms within 1,000 feet of the high tide line without a sportfishing license. SC 4.7 -2 Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environment. Invasive and non - native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. 4.7.4 Potential Impacts 4.7.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Construction of the proposed building would occur well above any federally protected wetlands. As indicated in Section 4.6 (Drainage and Hydrology), a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) is required as standard practice (refer to SC 4.6 -1). The SWPPP will ensure that runoff from the site is appropriately managed to avoid additional pollution and erosion. The plans include best management practices to ensure that short-term construction occurring on the site will not impact Newport Bay. Terrestrial Habitat/Species Noise levels at the project site due to construction activities would increase temporarily over existing ambient levels during the development of the proposed project. During construction, temporary noise has some potential to affect foraging and roosting activities, specifically for avian species. Although this is a temporary impact to such species, it is considered to be less than significant since noise levels would return to pre - construction levels at the completion of the proposed project. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -11 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources Project - related construction activities associated with the new dock would not result in significant short- or long -term effects on the brown pelican, which does not nest in the harbor. This species feeds throughout the harbor and often rests on pilings, boat floats, floating docks, and docks. Even if pelicans were temporarily disturbed by construction activities, including dredging operations, the potential effect represents an insignificant amount of available feeding area in the harbor. Pelicans have many alternative areas for undisturbed roosting within the harbor. Temporary impacts to the brown pelican would, therefore, be considered less than significant. Furthermore, the project site is not designated as a critical habitat for any wildlife species and is not located within an NCCP area. Marine Habitat/Species Impacts to Eelgrass No direct losses of eelgrass are anticipated as a result of the dock construction project. Nonetheless, post- construction surveys will be conducted to verify that no eelgrass losses have occurred. Construction of the replacement dock would result in potential water quality and vessel - related impacts on eelgrass habitat, which may include both direct and indirect long -term effects. During the pile removal and subsequent drilling required for the emplacement process, water turbidity will increase. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. In order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, Best Management Practices (BMPs), which eliminate any disposal of trash and debris at the project site as well as the removal of construction debris, will be implemented during construction. Vessel- related impacts include those associated with barges and work vessels working over existing eelgrass beds by deploying anchors and anchor chain within eelgrass habitat, grounding over eelgrass habitat, and propeller scarring and prop wash of either the barge or support vessels for the barge. These vessels could create furrows and scars within the eelgrass vegetation and would result in adverse losses of eelgrass habitat that would require the implementation of an eelgrass mitigation program (refer to MM 4.7 -3), which would minimize disturbances related to vessel operations and vessel anchor positioning. It is anticipated that barge operations will have only minimal shading effects on eelgrass since the position of the barge will shift each day, preventing continuous shading of any one part of the eelgrass bed. 4.7.4.2 Long - Operational Impacts Terrestrial Habitat/Species Vegetation Impacts Current project design features avoid the coastal bluff face and rocky outcrop located along the north side of the project site that extends into Newport Harbor. However, within the current development footprint there is a potentially suitable habitat for the nine special status plants listed in Table 4.7 -1. It is possible that future redevelopment of the subject property as proposed could adversely affect one or more special status plant species, should they exist on the site. The CMP includes several measures that will be implemented as part of the project to ensure that potential impacts to sensitive plant species and other terrestrial biological resources are avoided. If one or more of the species exist on the subject property and it is determined that project implementation would result in impacts, an incident take permit under Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code must be obtained. The measures prescribed in the CMP include: A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey for active nests of covered species at least seven (7) days prior to any habitat disturbance that occurs during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). If no active nests are round, no further actions are required. However, if nesting activity is observed during the pre- construction survey, the nest site must be protected until nesting activity has ended or as otherwise directed Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -12 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources by a qualified biologist in order to ensure compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code. Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environment. Invasive and non - native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. A qualified botanist shall perform focused surveys to determine the presence /absence for the nine sensitive plant species. The focused surveys shall be performed during the appropriate blooming window identified for each species. Survey methods shall follow CDFG guidelines. If any State - listed threatened or endangered plant species are impacted by project development, an incident take permit pursuant to Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code shall be obtained prior to issuance of a grading permit. As indicated above, implementation of these project features will ensure that the coastal bluff habitat is enhanced with native plant species and that potentially significant impacts to sensitive plant species as well as introduced non - native species of trees that may support avian species and nests will not occur. Wildlife Impacts Potential impacts to common wildlife species were evaluated by considering the habitat loss for each species occurring or potentially occurring at the project site. Development of the project would not result in significant impacts to common wildlife species currently or potentially utilizing the project site. Temporary disturbance impacts, as previously described, would occur for roosting birds (e.g., cormorants, gulls, pelicans) on t he existing dock until the new dock is built. Birds utilizing the bay directly adjacent to the project site may also experience temporary indirect disturbance while the new dock is being built. Terns, skimmers, and rails are located in Upper Newport Bay and will not be affected by the proposed project. Night lighting could degrade adjacent natural open space areas for wildlife by increasing predation and deterring animals from using an area. Lighting of the proposed project would result in an indirect effect on the behavior patterns of nocturnal and crepuscular (i.e., active at down and dusk) avian species in the vicinity of the project site. Of greatest concern is the effect on birds that roost at the existing dock and on owls that are specialized night foragers. These impacts, while adverse, would not be expected to reduce any current wildlife population below self- sustaining levels. Therefore, the project - related impacts associated with night lighting would be considered less than significant. Increased human disturbance resulting from project implementation is not expected to significantly disrupt normal foraging behavior of wildlife (e.g., birds) utilizing Newport Bay. The project site is currently occupied and human activity currently occurs along the small beach located at the project site. Development of the project would increase the human activity by increasing the number of people residing at the site when compared to the present; however, this increase in human activity would not be expected to result in the reduction of any current wildlife population in the project environs and, in particular, to below self- sustaining levels. Therefore, the potential impacts anticipated as a result of the long -term human occupation of the site would be less than significant. Wetlands The 190 square foot area identified on the bluff below the building pad does not meet the criteria for either U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) or California Department of Fish and Game (Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code). Further, given the clear and demonstrable lack Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -13 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources of wetland hydrology and hydric soils, combined with the characteristics of the African umbrella sedge, a highly adaptable common landscape plant that occurs in upland areas for one -third of its occurrences, no portion of the site is considered a wetland under the California Coastal Act. Therefore, project implementation will not result in any potential impacts to wetlands. Shade /Shadow Study A shade /shadow study was undertaken to illustrate the potential effects of shading that may occur under the proposed deck at the first floor level of the proposed multiple - family residential structure. The study determined that the angle of the sun at the summer solstice on June 21 (i.e., the day of the year when the angle of the sun compared to the site would be the greatest) would be 78 degrees. On the December 21 winter solstice (i.e., when the sun's angle is the lowest), the sun's angle is only 33 degrees. As illustrated in Exhibit 4.7 -1, the potential shading effect caused by the extension of the deck over the bluff would be the greatest; it would be least during the winter, when the sun's angle is lower, which allows sunlight to reach farther under the proposed deck. The potential shading created by the deck could affect the plants that exist on the bluff at the present time. However, the project will result only in the removal of introduced, non- native trees, shrubs and ground covers currently existing on the upper portion of the bluff. Nonetheless, in order to ensure that no significant impacts occur to the vegetation, only species that can tolerate the sunlight/shade conditions that would be anticipated as a result of project implementation are proposed to be planted in that area. Marine Habitat/Species Impacts to Eelgrass There are no local, regional or state habitat conservation plans that would regulate or guide development of the project site. The subject property is located on a bluff within the coastal zone; therefore, the site is not included in either a Habitat Conservation Plan or a Natural Community Conservation Plan. However, the project area occurs within the vicinity of estuarine and eelgrass habitats, which are considered habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species (i.e., northern anchovy) within the Coastal Pelagics Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) and Pacific Groundfish FMP (i.e., rockfishes). HAPC are described in the regulations as subsets of essential fish habitat (EFH), which are rare, particularly susceptible to human - induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Although designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1997), federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process. Potential impacts to the eelgrass and species inhabiting that habitat are evaluated in the following analysis. Project implementation will result in the placement of 19 piles into the bay floor. Although the piles will have a cumulative surface area of approximately 39.1 square feet, none will be directly embedded within the eelgrass habitat. However, two piles on the dock and two piles at the end of the wood dock are located within several feet of where eelgrass occurs. As a result, there is a slight potential for the placement of these piles to disturb eelgrass through burial or sediment disturbances around the perimeter of the piles as they are drilled into the rock. Implementing turbidity and sediment control measures (e.g., silt curtains and sleeves around pilings) will mitigate potential eelgrass habitat losses due to pile emplacement activities. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -14 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources SUMMER SOLSTICE (JUNE 21) WINTER SOLSTICE (DEC 21) NEWBPPORT SECTION A NOTTOSCALE SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture (50.7') Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -15 RESIDENTIAL UNIT RESIDENTIAL UNIT RESIDENTIAL UNIT RESIDENTIAL UNIT T.O.SLAB= 53.50' COMMON REC. POOL Exhibit 4.7 -1 Potential Shadow Effects Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources The proposed dock structures will encompass an area of approximately 3,450 square feet. A small portion of the existing eelgrass bed (approximately 30 square feet) will potentially be affected by shading effects from vessels docked within the slips and the concrete dock structure. The area of eelgrass habitat that is actually affected by long -term shading will be determined during post- construction monitoring surveys conducted pursuant to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended). The location and amount of eelgrass to be transplanted shall be determined following the results of the two annual monitoring efforts stipulated in the CMP, which will be undertaken as part of the proposed project. Specifically, the following measures will be undertaken as identified in the CMP (refer to Section 7.3 — Environmental Protection) to ensure that potential impacts to eelgrass are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. An updated pre- construction eelgrass and invasive algae survey shall be completed within 30 days of the initiation of the proposed dock /gangway construction. The results of this survey will be used to update the results of the March 2007 eelgrass survey and to identify, if any, potential project - related eelgrass losses and the presence or absence of the invasive algae (Caulerpa taxifolia) in accordance with NMFS requirements. A post- construction project eelgrass survey shall be completed within 30 days of the completion of project construction in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). The report will be presented to the resources agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission within 30 days after completion of the survey. If any eelgrass has been impacted in excess of that determined in the pre- construction survey, any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.2:1 (mitigation to impact). Eelgrass shall be mitigated based on two annual monitoring surveys that document the changes in bed (i.e., area extent and density) in the vicinity of the footprint of the boat dock, moored vessel(s), and /or related structures during the active - growth period for eelgrass (typically March through October). Mitigation shall be implemented pursuant to the requirements of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). A statement from the applicant indicating their understanding of the potential mitigation obligation that may follow the initial two -year monitoring is required. If losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach and resources agencies for review and acceptance. The project marine biologist shall mark the positions of eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the dock and gangway construction area with buoys prior to the initiation of any construction activities. • The project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew prior to initiation of construction to orient them to specific areas where eelgrass presently exists. • Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work over eelgrass beds only during tides of +2 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) or higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass from propellers, and to limit water turbidity. • Anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upon eelgrass habitat. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -16 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources Eelgrass Impacts Related to Sand Transport The project area lies within an area of active sand transport near the harbor entrance channel that is subjected to periodic sand movement through mechanisms related to wave exposure and tidal energy transport. Sediments are transported from the entrance channel to the Orange County Sheriff Harbor patrol Beach along Bayside Drive. Piles, revetment, jetties, and other structures have a potential to interrupt and /or disrupt sand transport that could result in either an increase in sand deposition or sand erosion. Biologically, changes in sediment patterns and changes in sediment grain size can alter biological communities, including the distribution and abundance of eelgrass. However, sand transport impacts are not anticipated as a result of the placement and configuration of piles in a single row that is in the parallel and not perpendicular to the direction of sand transport. Therefore, the placement of dock piles will not result in the disruption or loss of eelgrass habitat, or other biological communities as a result of any alteration in local sand transport mechanisms. Impacts to Invertebrates There are no federally or state - listed sensitive species of marine invertebrates located in the project area. Low to moderate densities of sand dollars (Dendraster excentricus) were found on the sand flats within the protected cove in numbers that varied between approximately 10 and 100 per square meter in 2005, and between 115 to 325 per square meter in 2007. Sand dollar populations in the cove are considered to be unique intertidal populations. Although no level of protection is afforded sand dollars, the population in the cove is unique in that it represents a "throwback" to conditions that previously existed in the bay. Sand dollars do not exist in large numbers elsewhere in the bay. The sand grain size and wave action in the intertidal area below the bluff create conditions that are conducive to the persistence of this species in that location. If the sand dollar population that exists in the cove is removed, it is unlikely that it would reestablish itself at another site because similar conditions do not exist elsewhere in the bay.° The channel nassa snail (Nassarlus fossatus) and the purple olive snail (Olivella biplicata), typical of shallow sand bottom communities, were also found within the cove's sandy sediments and bottom habitat directly offshore of the cove. Disturbances to the sandy cover intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat, eelgrass, and sand dollar bed within the cove would be considered a significant adverse impact to on -site marine resources. However, as prescribed in SC 4.7 -1, the restriction prescribed by the CDFG that prohibits the taking of any marine organisms within 1,000 feet of the high tide line is intended to protect marine life, including the sand dollar. In addition, in order to further avoid potential impacts to these species, the sand flats within the cove should be avoided by construction personnel and equipment and future residents should be made aware of the sensitivity of the cove to ensure its long -term protection. As a result, potentially significant impacts to the sand dollar colony can be avoided. To ensure that project - related impacts to these and other intertidal marine resources will be avoided, the CMP specifies several project elements /measures to be implemented, including: Construction activities associated with the elevated walkway leading to the gangway, and construction personnel shall avoid impacts to rocky intertidal habitat and to eelgrass beds and sand dollar habitat within the Carnation Cove by, among other things, (a) posting signage at key access points in front of the beach and on the elevated walkway stating that access is limited to the elevated walkway during construction; (b) using yellow tape to prevent access to rocky intertidal habitat, eelgrass beds, and sand dollar habitat; and (c) prohibiting access to the water and rocky shoreline within the cove.. Residents shall be informed of the sensitivity of the cove as a unique marine biological habitat to assist in ensuring the long -term protection of the cove's marine biological resources. ° Rick Ware, President/Senior Marine Biologist; Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Telephone conversation on October 2 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -17 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biolovical Resources Signage shall be posted at access points in front of the beach and on the elevated walkway, which state that access is limited to the elevated walkway during construction. In addition, yellow tape shall be used to prevent access. Access shall not be permitted to the water or rocky shorelines within the cove. A silt curtain will be placed around all water -side construction activity during the construction of the dock system to limit the spread of turbidity. If prolonged turbidity is observed outside the silt curtain then the silt curtain shall be re- deployed and re- positioned in a manner to correct the problem. Removal and emplacement of the piles will be conducted using Best Available Technology (BAT) that limits the re- suspension of sediments and the creation of turbidity plumes. Silt curtains will be emplaced and maintained in working condition throughout the period of construction by the marine contractor. If turbidity plumes are observed in the vicinity of the cove in front of the development, an additional silt curtain will be immediately placed in front of the cove's entrance until the turbidity plume has dissipated. Debris bins will be placed at the project site. Material collected will be removed on a daily basis. The amount, type, and location of any large debris (e.g., piles, dock parts, concrete, etc.) that is deposited on the seafloor will be documented and removed prior to the completion of the project. The project marine biologist shall also inspect the seafloor following the completion of construction to ensure that all debris has been removed. The project marine biologist will perform weekly on -site inspections to ensure that BMPs and mitigation measures are being implemented during construction. Post - construction marine biological surveys (per permit conditions) shall be performed to map eelgrass cover in the project area using the same methodology as the pre - construction survey and also to document the condition and density of the sand dollar beds within the cove. Impacts to Fishes The proposed project will not have any significant impacts on marine fishes, including Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) species. California garibaldi that are present in the rock habitats inshore of the proposed dock will be subjected to short-term effects of drilling into the bedrock that is required for pile emplacement related to increased noise and turbidity impacts; however, the project will not result in any mortality. Schooling fishes such as topsmelt will avoid the construction zone during construction and will return to the area following the completion of construction activities. Therefore, no significant impacts to fishes will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts to Marine Reptiles Sea turtles are not expected to occur within the local project area. Marine reptiles do not utilize the local marine waters as a permanent breeding or foraging habitat. Therefore, no impacts to sea turtles will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -18 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources Marine Mammals The occurrence of gray whales and bottlenose dolphins in the area around the docks would be expected to be an extremely rare event. Drilling and pile emplacement activity will not adversely affect California sea lions, which have adapted to harbor conditions, including vessels, ambient noise, and other disturbance. As a result, no significant impacts to marine mammals are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts to Marine Birds Implementation of the proposed project will result in modifications to both terrestrial and marine environments. The upland construction would not result in any significant impacts to marine birds. The State and federally - listed California least tern is a spring and summer resident in southern California during the breeding and nesting season. This species 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 tern nesting sites are located approximately 2.5 miles west (upcoast) at the mouth of the Santa Ana River and 4.2 miles northeast in Upper Newport Bay near the Jamboree Road Bridge. The brown pelican is found in Newport Bay year- around but does not breed locally. This species utilizes Newport Harbor waters for foraging on baitfish, and the shoreline as resting habitat. The presence of temporary, stationary vessels and drilling required for pile emplacement will not adversely affect seabirds that forage in the open waters of Newport Harbor. These birds will forage in the presence of boating activity and will avoid activity that is potentially harmful. As a result, project implementation will not result in any potentially significant impacts to these sensitive bird species and no mitigation measures are required. Migration Corridors The project site and surrounding areas are developed and no migratory wildlife corridors occur on site or in the vicinity of the project site, and therefore, the project will not interfere with resident, migratory or wildlife species. Regional Habitat Conservation Plans and Programs There are no local, regional or state habitat conservation plans that would regulate or guide development of the project site. The subject property is located on a bluff within the coastal zone; therefore, the site is not included in either a Habitat Conservation Plan or a Natural Community Conservation Plan. However, the project area occurs within the vicinity of estuarine and eelgrass habitats, which are considered habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species (i.e., northern anchovy) within the Coastal Pelagics Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) and Pacific Groundfish FMP (i.e., rockfishes). HAPC are described in the regulations as subsets of essential fish habitat (EFH), which are rare, particularly susceptible to human - induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Although designated HAPCs are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1997), federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process. Potential impacts to the eelgrass and species inhabiting that habitat have been evaluated. Where potential impacts have been identified, mitigation measures are identified and prescribed below. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -19 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Consistency with Natural Resources Element section 4.7— Biolooical Resources As acknowledged in the Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, Newport harbor is home to valuable habitat such as eelgrass and mudflats that support a wide range of species and also provides the public with recreational boating opportunities. Therefore, the City has placed a high priority on the protection of the biological resources, including both habitat and species and to continue to serve the needs of the recreational boating community by ensuring compatibility between the uses within Newport Harbor. The City adopted several policies that apply to future development within the City. Table 4.1 -1 In Section 4.1 (Land Use and Planning) summarizes the relationship of the proposed project with the applicable policies adopted with the Natural Resources Element. In addition, Table 4.1 -2 in Section 4.1 provides a summary of the relationship of the proposed project with the relevant policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan. As revealed in the analysis presented in those tables, the proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Natural Resources Element and the CLUP. 4.7.5 Mitigation Measures Implementation of the project elements prescribed in the Construction Management Plan will ensure that potentially significant impacts to both terrestrial and marine resources are avoided. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 4.7.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation As indicated above, implementation of the measures cited in the CMP will ensure that the impacts to terrestrial and marine biological resources are avoided. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts will remain if these measures are implemented. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -20 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.8 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Section 4.8 — Public Health and A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the project site by P &D Consultants in May, 2005. In addition, a Pre - Demolition Asbestos /Lead -Based Paint Survey was conducted by AEI Consultants in December 2007 to evaluate, categorize, and quantify suspect asbestos - containing materials (ACM) and lead -based paints (LBP) at the subject property prior to demolition. The assessment presented in this section of the document summarizes the findings and recommendation of those documents. These documents are on file with the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 4.8.1 Existing Conditions On -Site Conditions Records Search The Phase I ESA included a summary of the review of records maintained by local, state and federal agencies as well as an on -site inspection. Based on information obtained for the Phase I ESA, the subject site and adjacent properties were not found on the Standard Environmental Record sources required to be reviewed under ASTM Standard E1527 -00, including but not limited to the those identified in Table 4.8 -1 Table 4.8 -1 Standard Environmental Records Sources Database Reviewed Responsible Ageney Search Radius (Miles) National Priorities List (NPL) U.S. EPA 1.0 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System CERCLIS U.S. EPA 0.5 Sate-equivalent CERCLIS Cal EPA 1.0 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRA U.S. EPA Adjacent Properties Emergency Response Notification System ERNS U.S. EPA Subject Site Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program LUST SWRCB /RWQCB 0.5 Underground Storage Tank UST Cal EPA Adjacent Properties Solid Waste Information System SWIS CIWMB 0.5 SOURCE: P &D Consultants (May 26, 2005 Based on the records review, it was determined that the property was a vacant lot until approximately 1949 when the apartment building at 201 and 205 Carnation Avenue was constructed. The building originally had 13 units; however, it was expanded to 14 units. The residence at 207 Carnation Avenue was constructed in 1955. Evidence of hazardous materials usage, or of practices or conditions of environmental concern were not discovered. Further, the Orange County Health Care Agency, which is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the project site, did not have records indicating that hazardous materials had been stored on the property nor that events of environmental concern had affected the site. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.8 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Asbestos - Containing Materials (ACM) Section 4.8 — Public Health and A total of 43 suspect asbestos bulk samples were collected during the site inspection. Based on the analytical results of that survey, the materials listed in Table 4.8 -2 contain detectable amounts of asbestos and are considered to be ACM. Table 4.8 -2 ACM Summary The ACM were observed to be in good condition and do not pose a health and safety concern to occupants of the subject property in their current state. However, any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM must be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Implementation of the requisite industry standards for ACM removal will ensure that potential health risks are reduced to an acceptable level. Lead -Based Paint (LBP) As indicated above, the survey also included the identification of lead -based paint. Several buildin�q components were identified to contain LBP with a lead concentration equal to or greater than 1.0 mg /cm , which is the current regulatory threshold for the identification of LBP. Table 4.8 -3 summarizes the lead - based paint identified in the buildings that occupy the subject property. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.8 -2 Material Location of Quantity Friable Percent Building Description Suspect Materials (YIN) Asbestos Throughout all 4 % -12% Various 9 "x9" Vinyl floors under carpet Chrysotile in Floor Tile and and flooring, 8,000 SF N tile Associated Mastic excluding ° 0% 2/° 201 -207 bathrooms Chrysotile in Carnation Avenue mastic Throughout <1% Window Putty storage window 200 LF N exteriors Chrysotile Roof Patch Throughout roof Not N 5% Penetration Mastic penetrations Quantified Chrysotile 'Quantities listed are approximate values SF — Square Feet LF — Linear Feet SOURCE: AEI Consultants December 13, 2007 The ACM were observed to be in good condition and do not pose a health and safety concern to occupants of the subject property in their current state. However, any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM must be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Implementation of the requisite industry standards for ACM removal will ensure that potential health risks are reduced to an acceptable level. Lead -Based Paint (LBP) As indicated above, the survey also included the identification of lead -based paint. Several buildin�q components were identified to contain LBP with a lead concentration equal to or greater than 1.0 mg /cm , which is the current regulatory threshold for the identification of LBP. Table 4.8 -3 summarizes the lead - based paint identified in the buildings that occupy the subject property. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.8 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Table 4.8 -3 LBP Summary Section 4.8 — Public Health and Structure Location Member Paint Condition Substrate Paint Color Lead Concentration m /cmZ Doors Exterior Jambs F-1 Wood White and Beige 1.0-2.2 Doors Interior Jambs I Wood White and Beige 1.0 -6.1 Windows Exterior Trim Casing and Sill I —P Wood White 1.0 -3.9 Walls Kitchens Tiles I Ceramic Beige 7.3 -9.9 Porch 207 Exterior Tiles I Ceramic White 4.7 Wall 207 Bath Tiles I Ceramic Green 9.9 Column Courtyard N/A I — F Metal White 5.1-6.7 Wall 207 Exterior N/A I Concrete Gray 1.8 Porch 207 Exterior Frame F Wood Gray 2.0 Roof Exterior Overhang F Wood White 3.4 I — Intact (i.e., surface does not appear to be deteriorated) F — Fair (i.e., 10% or less of total surface has deteriorated paint) P — Poor (i.e., greater than 10% of total surface has deteriorated paint) SOURCE: AEI Consultants December 13, 2007 The general overall condition of the subject interior and exterior painted /finished surfaces was observed to be intact. The LBP survey concluded that no immediate response action is necessary with respect to the noted LBP that is intact. However, a contractor performing paint removal work should follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the paint, as proper waste disposal requirements and work protection measures must be taken. Similar to ACM removal, implementation of industry standard removal practices will ensure that any potential health risk would be avoided. Off -Site Conditions Several properties located within one -half mile of the subject site appear on one or more of the lists provided by various government agencies. As indicated in Table 4.8 -4, five commercial establishments exist within one -half mile of the subject property that utilize hazardous materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.8 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Table 4.8-4 Results of Database Review Section 4.8— Public Health and Property Name Distance And Address feet Database(s) Comments North Beach Coastal 2,100 feet northeast/ Release of gasoline to soil 1901 Bayside Drive downgradient LUST only; closed 1998; low risk to property. Release of gasoline that Shell Service Station 2,100 feet northeast/ LUST affected groundwater; 2801 Coast Highway upgradient closed 1991; low risk to property. Doud Commercial Office 2,200 feet east) LUST Release of gasoline to unstated media; closed 3100 Coast Highway upgradient to crossgradient 1985; low risk to property. Chevron Service Station 2,500 feet northeast/ Haznet, LUST, Release of gasoline to soil only closed 1996; low risk 2546 Coast Highway upgradient Cortese to property. SOURCE: P &D Consultants (May 26, 2005 4.8.2 Significance Criteria Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact if any of the following occurs as a result of project implementation. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. 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. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. 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 create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area if located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6-4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.8 - Public Health and Safety 4.8.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.8 -1 The City of Newport Beach will require all plans for proposed uses within the project site to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the transport, storage, use and /or disposal of hazardous materials on the site. 4.8.4 Potential Impacts 4.8.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials Construction activities would involve the use of hazardous materials associated with the construction of a residential building such as oil, gas, tar, construction materials and adhesives, cleaning solvents and paint. Transport of these materials to the site and use on the site would only create a localized hazard in the event of an accident or spills. Hazardous materials use, transport, storage and handling would be subject to federal, state and local regulations to reduce the risk of accidents. Equipment maintenance and disposal of vehicular fluids is subject to existing regulations, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In addition, trash enclosures are required to be maintained with covered bins and other measures to prevent spillage and /or seepage of materials into the ground. Given the nature of the project in terms of scope and size, it is anticipated that normal storage, use and transport of hazardous materials will not result in undue risk to construction workers on the site or to persons on surrounding areas. The use and disposal of any hazardous materials on the site and in conjunction with the project will be in accordance with existing regulations. With the exception of small quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, cleaning solvents, paints, etc., that are typically used to maintain residential properties, on -going operation of the site for residential use will not result in the storage or use of hazardous materials. As indicated in Table 4.8 -2, a total of 43 suspect asbestos bulk samples were collected during the site inspection. These materials, which contain detectable amounts of ACM that could be potentially hazardous if not properly removed, must be properly removed by a licensed and Cal /OSHA registered asbestos abatement contractor prior to the demolition of the building in accordance with all applicable regulations. The LBP survey (refer to Table 4.8 -3) concluded that no immediate response action is necessary with respect to the noted LBP that is intact. Nonetheless, similar to ACM removal, implementation of industry standard removal practices will ensure that any potential health risk would be avoided. 4.8.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts Create a sign cant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials Project implementation includes the activities associated with site preparation and construction of a structure that contains eight condominium units and the continued long -term use of the site for residential development, which does not typically involve the use and /or transport of hazardous materials and other substances that would represent a hazard in the community. Although some fertilizers, herbicides, cleaning solvents, paints, and /or pesticides would be utilized on -site, such materials are of the household variety and do not pose a significant health hazard or risk. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.8 -5 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.8— Public Health and Safety 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 As indicated above, the existing structures were found to contain ACM and LBP. However, the ACM were observed to be in good condition and although they do not pose a significant health and safety concern to occupants of the subject property in their current state, they must be properly removed prior to demolition of the existing structures. Similarly, the general overall condition of the subject interior and exterior painted /finished surfaces was observed to be intact; no immediate response action is necessary with respect to the noted LBP that is intact. Project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing structures; however, the ACM and LBP will be handled in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the City of Newport Beach and other regulatory agencies. As a result, any potentially significant health hazard to either the public or environment would reduced to a less than significant level as a result of the proper removal of those contaminants. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school The closest school to the project site is Harbor View School, located approximately 0.7 mile from the project site to the northeast. The school is physically separated from the project site by a residential community and East Coast Highway (SR -1) and will not be directly impacted by construction activities on the site. Although the proposed condominiums would not include any activities or mechanical or chemical processes that would emit hazardous emissions, the existing structures were found to contain ACM and LBP; however, as prescribed in the mitigation measures, the existing ACM and LBP will be handled in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the SCAQMD and other Orange County Health Care Agency. Therefore, release of hazardous materials during demolition of the existing structures would be prevented through adherence to routine control measures monitored by the City Building Department and other regulatory agencies, as noted in the response to the discussion presented in Section Vll.a. 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 create a significant hazard to the public or the environment As indicated in Section 4.8.1, P &D Consultants conducted a Phase I ESA on the site, including both records and literature searches as well as a site survey conducted on the property. Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, the subject property is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites. Further, there is no evidence of either on -site or off -site environmental conditions that would adversely affect site development. No historical recognized environmental conditions were identified in connection with the property. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area if located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport The subject property is located approximately five miles southeast of John Wayne Airport. As such, the site is not located within the limits of the JWA land use plan or other public airport or private landing strip. Neither that commercial airport nor any other public airport or private aviation facility is located within two miles of the site. As a result, project implementation will not result in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazards, to people residing or working in the project area. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.8 -6 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.8 — Public Health and Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan The City of Newport Beach has prepared an Emergency Preparedness Plan that designates procedures to be followed in case of a major emergency. The plan identifies resources available for emergency response and establishes coordinated action plans for specific emergency situations and disasters, including earthquakes, fires, major rail and roadway accidents, flooding, hazardous materials incidents, civil disturbance, and nuclear disasters and attack. The project site is not designated for emergency use within the Emergency Preparedness Plan. The primary concern of the Safety Element and the City Newport Beach is in terms of risks to persons and personal property. Although the site is subject to potentially severe seismic shaking or fires, development pursuant to building and fire code requirements will ensure that the potential impacts are minimized or reduced to an acceptable level. The proposed development is not located within a flood hazard area. Development of the subject property as proposed will not adversely affect either the evacuation routes or the adopted emergency preparedness planning program(s) being implemented by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, project implementation will not physically interfere with the City's emergency planning program. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. 4.8.5 Mitigation Measures Impact 4.8 -1 Project implementation would result in the demolition of the existing residential structures occupying the site, which would affect materials that contain detectable amounts of ACM. MM 4.8 -1 Any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM shall be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Inaccessible suspect ACM shall be tested prior to demolition or renovation. Air emissions of asbestos fibers and leaded dust would be reduced to below a level of significance through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. Proper safety procedures for the handling of suspect ACM shall always be followed in order to protect the occupants of the building and the asbestos workers. Impact 4.8 -2 Project implementation would result in the demolition of the existing residential structures occupying the site. Several building components were identified to contain LBP with a lead concentration equal to or greater than 1.0 mg/cm, which is the current regulatory threshold for the identification of LBP. MM 4.8 -2 A contractor performing paint removal work shall follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the pain, as proper waste disposal requirements and worker protection measures shall be implemented throughout the removal process. 4.8.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of the standard condition and mitigation measures prescribed by the City and other regulatory agencies having jurisdiction will ensure that potential hazardous conditions would be avoided or would be reduced to a less than significant level. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.8 -7 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.9 SOILS AND GEOLOGY Section 4,9 - Soils and The information and analysis presented in this section of the Draft EIR is based on the "Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report — Condominium Project, TTM 16882," prepared by Neblett & Associates, Inc., and the "Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis for the Proposed Aerie Dock Replacement," prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc. A "third party' review of both technical studies was conducted by Goffman, McCormick & Urban, LLC (GMU). The findings and recommendations of these most recent studies as well as prior studies referenced in those reports are presented below. 4.9.1 Existing Conditions Agricultural Soils The subject property is located in a residential area of Corona del Mar. Based on the National Cooperative Soil Survey for Orange County, the soils on the site encompasses an area classified as "beaches" and Myford sandy loam (2 to 9 percent slopes). The site and adjacent areas are designated as "Urban and Built -up Land" and "Other Land" on the Orange County Important Farmland Map. No Prime Farmland, Farmland of State or Local Importance, or Unique Farmland occurs within or in the vicinity of the site. Further, neither the site nor the adjacent areas are designated as prime, unique or important farmlands by the State Resources Agency or by the Newport Beach General Plan. Geologic Setting /Conditions The geologic units underlying the subject property and environs include artificial fill (afu), marine and non - marine terrace deposits (Qt), and bedrock units assigned to the upper - middle Miocene Monterey Formation (Tm). These units are described below. Artificial Fill (afu) Local fill is primarily derived from the underlying terrace deposits and contain broken shell fragments of marine fossils. The fill soils encountered in previous borings and tests are generally comprised of reddish brown silty sands and extend to maximum depths on the order to 13 feet. Terrace Deposits (Qt) Isolated, older marine terrace deposits with frequent mollusk shells and shell fragments indicative of a near shore depositional environmental cap the wave -cut terrace. These older marine terrace deposits are approximately 80,000 to 120,000 years old and are slightly moist to moist, medium dense to dense and have occasional secondary carbonate mineralization in fractures. Non - marine terrace deposits that capped the marine terrace represent continental deposits that have accumulated since uplift of the terrace bench and contain sediments ranging in age from upper Pleistocene to Recent age. The depth of terrace deposits encountered in the prior borings ranges from approximately 26 to 29 feet below the existing grades. Monterey Formation (Tm) The bedrock consists of sandstones and shales, which are assigned to the upper - middle Miocene Monterey Formation. Most of the site is underlain by locally hard to very hard with occasional (i.e., less than five percent) fissile sandstone, siltstone interbeds and siltstone inclusions. The bedrock onsite is largely west striking, moderate to steeply northeast dipping with localized moderate southwest dip. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.9 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Faulting and Seismicity Section 4.9 — Soils and The site is located in the Corona del Mar area of the City, which is near the intersection of the Southwestern Block and the Central Block of the Los Angeles Basin. The Southwestern Block is the westerly seaward portion of the Los Angeles Basin, which includes Palos Verdes Peninsula and Long Beach, and is bounded on the east by the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone (NIFZ). The Central Block extends easterly from the NIFZ to the Whittier Fault (WFZ). The main structural features in the area are the NIFZ and the WFZ. The landward part of the NIFZ is a northwesterly- trending zone that extends from Beverly Hills on the north to Newport Bay on the south, where it continues offshore to the south; however, it eventually returns ashore again near La Jolla, where it is expressed by the Rose Canyon Fault. The main trace of the NIFZ is approximately 1.7 miles offshore to the south - southwest, and has documented surface or near - surface rupture within the past 11,000 years. It is, therefore, "active" according to the State of California. The WFZ extends from the Chino /Corona area in the south to the Whittier Narrows area in the north. Historical earthquakes have occurred on both faults with the 1933, 6.14M Long Beach Earthquake on the NIFZ' and the 1987 6.1M Whittier Narrows Earthquake on the WFZ. The NIFZ within the project environs is not included on the State - published Alquist - Priolo Special Studies zonation map. The subject property is located within a seismically active area. Based on a literature review, photo interpretation and a site - specific fault investigation conducted by Neblett & Associates, Inc., in 2003, two faults were identified on the subject property, consisting of sheared bedrock zones. One small fault, which had been previously mapped in 1994, was located southerly adjacent to the 201 -205 Carnation Avenue apartment building. The second (northerly) fault, which was very well exposed and had been mapped, was identified as a buried fault trace beneath the single - family residence at 207 Carnation Avenue. Trenching undertaken to evaluate the faults indicated that the rock within the trenches have not been displaced for at least the last 80,000 to 120,000 years. Based on the findings of the 2003 fault investigation, both faults were classified as "inactive." According to CDMG Special Publications 42, "active" faults are defined as those faults that have displaced during the last 11,000 years (i.e., Holocene age). Therefore, the faults identified on the site are not considered "active." Although a literature review conducted for the preliminary geologic/geotechnical investigation indicated that a fault was mapped on the site, site mapping, aerial photo analysis, fault trenching, and age dating conducted for the proposed project concluded that no active faults are present on the subject property. There are no known local or regional active earthquake faults on or in close proximity to the site, and the site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Zone. The Newport- Inglewood Fault is located approximately 1.7 miles to the west of and off -shore from the site, the Whittier - Elsinore Fault is located approximately 25 miles to the northeast, and the San Andreas Fault is located more than 50 miles to the northeast. Although episodes on those faults could cause ground shaking at the project site, it is highly unlikely that the site would experience surface rupture. Even though the project site and surrounding areas could be subject to strong ground movements, adherence to current building standards of the City of Newport Beach would reduce ground movement hazards to a less than significant level. Liquefaction Liquefaction is the loss of strength of cohesionless soils when the pore water pressure in the soil becomes equal to the confining pressure. Liquefaction generally occurs as a "quicksand" type of ground failure caused by strong groundshaking. The primary factors influencing liquefaction potential include groundwater, soil type, relative density of the sandy soils, confining pressure, and the intensity and duration of groundshaking. The majority of the liquefaction hazards are associated with uncompacted, saturated or nearly saturated, non - cohesive sandy and silty soils. Based on the field mapping and subsurface exploration conducted for the proposed project, the artificial fill and terrace materials occurring ' The actual epicenter of the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake was located offshore in the Huntington Beach, Newport Beach area. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.9 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.9 — Soils and on the subject property are very shallow, unsaturated, fine -to- coarse - grained, silty sand with abundant gravels, cobbles and boulders. Tsunami and Seiche The subject property is located at the coastal margin of the Pacific Ocean, at the southern end of Newport Beach, within the Newport Harbor area. While this area is protected by jetty emplacement at the harbor mouth, long water waves generated by offshore mechanisms such as tectonic displacement present a potential for tsunamis. Recent tsunamis include the 1957 tsunami, which originated from the Aleutians and the 1964 tsunami, which originated from the Gulf of Alaska. These events resulted in recorded maximum wave heights of 0.9 feet and 1.8 feet, respectively in Newport Bay. Seiche is defined as a standing wave oscillation effect generated in a closed or semi - closed body of water caused by wind, tidal current, and earthquake. Seiche potential is highest in large, deep, steep -sided reservoirs or water bodies. Newport Bay lacks significant potential for damaging Seiche because it is very shallow. Groundwater Subsurface water was not observed during the Feld investigation. 4.9.2 Significance Criteria Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact if any of the following occurs as a result of project implementation. Loss or elimination of "prime" agricultural lands as designated by the State of California and /or County of Orange and such designated soils are capable of sustained, viable agricultural production. Ground shaking and /or secondary seismic effects (i.e., liquefaction, slope failure, etc.) could cause substantial structural damage and /or an unmitigated risk to human safety, even after implementation of the recommended geotechnical measures, required local and State seismic design parameters, and common engineering practices for seismic hazard abatement. Adverse soil conditions such as compressible, expansive, or corrosive soils are not mitigated and present a damage hazard to occupied structures or infrastructure facilities. 4.9.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.9 -1 All activities associated with the implementation of the proposed residential development shall comply with the City s Excavation and Grading Ordinance. SC 4.9 -2 The project shall comply with all applicable City and 2007 California Building Code requirements. SC 4.9 -3 The property owner(s) shall execute and record a waiver of future shoreline protection for the project prior to the issuance of a building permit. Said waiver shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.9 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental SC 4.9 -4 Accessory structures Accessory structures structures is permitted. 4.9.4 Potential Impacts Section 4.9 — Soils and shall be relocated or removed if threatened by coastal erosion. shall not be expanded and routine maintenance of accessory 4.9.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Although the terraced deposits on the site extend approximately 16 to 19 feet below existing grades, they can be excavated using conventional earthmoving equipment. However, the underlying bedrock consists of sandstones and shales. The sandstone is generally dense and massive, and includes hard and more resistant sandstone dikes. Generally, rock masses displaying seismic shear wave velocities of up to approximately 5,500 feet per second (fps) are considered economically rippable using conventional mechanical grading equipment. Rock masses displaying seismic shear wave velocities ranging from 5,500 to 7,000 fps are considered marginally rippable. Rock masses with seismic shear wave velocities greater than about 7,000 fps may require special excavation techniques. The shallow seismic profile velocities for the adjacent property at 2494 Ocean Avenue ranged from 4,000 to 8,350 fps; similar velocities can be anticipated for the subject property. Although the majority of the bedrock at the site is considered rippable; however, localized areas (i.e., those with seismic profile velocities greater than 7,000 fps) may require special excavation techniques. 4.9.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts Agricultural Soils Development of the subject property with Aerie residential structures as proposed will not result in the conversion of any designated prime agricultural soils or otherwise significant farmland. The site is located within a developed and urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach. As previously indicated, the project site and surrounding area are designated as "Urban and Built Up Land." Therefore, project implementation will not result in any impacts to agricultural soils or important farmland. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Faulting and Seismicity Surface Rupture and Strong Ground Motion Based on the site - specific fault investigation conducted for the proposed project, fault activity levels have not displaced terrace deposits for at least 80,000 to 120,000 years before present. According to Special Publication 42 prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), "active faults are defined as those faults that have displaced during the last 11,000 years (i.e., Holocene age). Therefore, the faults identified on the subject property are not considered "active" and it is unlikely that the subject site will experience fault - related surface rupture. Nonetheless, the subject property may experience ground motion as a result of regional seismic activity As indicated in Section 4.9.1, the subject property is located in the seismically active southern California region; several active faults are responsible for generating moderate to strong earthquakes throughout the region. Table 4.9 -1 identifies the active regional faults that are capable of generating seismic ground shaking in the region. The maximum magnitude for each of the faults is also presented in that table. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.9 -4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Table 4.9 -1 Regional Active Fault Parameters Section 4.9- Soils and Fault Name Approx. Distance km Source Type AIB/C) Max. Magnitude (Mw) Slip Rate (mm/ r Fault Typel Newport-Inglewood Offshore 2.8 B 6.9 1.50 SS Newport-Inglewood LA Basin 4.2 B 6.9 1.00 SS Palos Verdes 22.3 B 7.1 3.00 SS Chino - Central Avenue 33.7 B 6.7 1.00 DS Elsinore - Whittier 34.8 B 6.8 2.50 SS Elsinore -Glen Ivy 36.1 B 5.8 5.00 SS Coronado Bank 37.0 B 7.4 3.00 SS San Jose 49.0 B 6.5 0.50 DS Elsinore - Temecula 49.3 B 6.8 5.00 SS Sierra Madre Central 59.6 B 7.0 3.00 DS Cucamonga 60.2 A 7.0 5.00 DS Raymond 62.9 B 6.5 0.50 DS Verdu o 64.5 B 6.7 0.50 DS Clamshell -Saw it 65.4 B 1 6.5 1.00 DS Hollywood 66.5 B 6.5 1.00 DS Rose Canyon 66.9 B 6.9 1.50 SS Santa Monica 72.8 B 6.6 1.00 DS San Jacinto -San Bernardino 74.2 B 6.7 12.00 SS San Jacinto -San Jacinto Valley 75.4 B 6.9 12.00 SS Malibu Coast 77.4 B 6.7 0.30 DS Elsinore - Julian 83.8 A 7.1 5.00 SS San Andreas Southern 84.6 A 7.4 24.00 SS Sierra Madre San Fernando 84.8 B 6.7 2.00 DS San Andreas 1857 Rupture) 85.5 A 7.8 34.0 SS Anaca a -Dume 87.0 B 7.3 3.00 DS Cle horn 88.0 B 6.5 3.00 SS San Gabriel 88.2 B 7.0 1.00 SS San Jacinto -Anza 90.4 A 7.2 12.00 SS North Frontal Fault Zone West 96.1 B 7.0 1.00 DS Santa Susana 98.9 B 6.6 5.00 DS 'SS - strike -slip; DS - dip -slip; BT - blind thrust. SOURCE: Neblett & Associates, Inc. March 28, 2003 As indicated above, the nearest Type A fault is the Cucamonga Fault, which is located approximately 60.2 miles from the site. This fault is capable of generating a 7.0 magnitude earthquake. The nearest Type B fault is the offshore Newport- Inglewood fault (2.8 km from the subject property), which is capable of generating a maximum magnitude of 6.9. In addition, peak ground acceleration values were also calculated for the proposed project. Those values should be utilized for the design and construction of the residential structures. These values represent ground motions that, at a minimum, have a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years. The estimated mean peak ground acceleration at the site is 0.345g. As indicated above, the preliminary geologic /geotechnical investigation report identifies the appropriate CBC seismic coefficients for structural design. Implementation of the recommendations Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196- Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.9 -5 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.9 — Soils and Geology prescribed in the preliminary geologic/geotechnical investigation, Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report, and compliance with CBC structure design parameters will ensure that potential impacts associated with ground shaking associated with a seismic event on one of the causative faults are reduced to an acceptable level (i.e., minimize loss of life and /or property). Secondary Seismic Effects Liquefaction According to the conceptual grading plan prepared for the proposed project, excavation necessary to implement the proposed project will extend to an ultimate elevation of approximately 30 feet NAVD88 in order to accommodate the subterranean levels of the proposed structure. The proposed excavation will effectively remove the artificial fill and terrace materials and will expose bedrock throughout the excavation. The removal of these materials, combined with the lack of subsurface water, effectively eliminates the potential for liquefaction to occur. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Compressible, Expansive and Corrosive Soils The project site and the surrounding area are not known to be located within an unstable geologic area and, therefore, are not expected to be exposed to or create on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse hazards. A representative soil sample was tested for expansion potential in accordance with Table 18 -1 -B, which concluded that existing site soils have a "very low" potential for expansion and, therefore, are not a significant issue given on -site soil conditions. A final geotechnical analysis will be completed as part of the final building permit review process, and strict adherence to the design recommendations are mandatory with building permit issuance. As required in SC 4.9 -2, the project must comply with the applicable design parameters prescribed in the 2007 CBC as well as those required by the City of Newport Beach. Soluble sulfate and corrosivity testing on representative samples of the on -site soils conducted for the project indicate a negligible sulfate concentration; however, because the project is located in a coastal environment, the potential for severe sulfate exposure to concrete exists. As a result, the type of concrete utilized should be consistent with the requirements of the 2007 CBC and City of Newport Beach. Bluff Erosion The major lithologic bedrock unit currently exposed and which will be exposed post - construction along the bluff face is generally moderately -to -well- cemented petroliferous sandstone cut by frequent sandstone dikes. The dikes are hard and more resistant to weathering than the host sandstone. This bedrock bluff is resistant to weathering and degradation, based on the aerial photo analysis conducted for the project, which establishes that the bluff has maintained its existing configuration for at least the past 80 years. No open fractures or adverse bedding planes were observed during the geologic investigation that could jeopardize the integrity and stability of the bluff (Neblett & Associates, Inc., 2008). The results of the diamond core samples (refer to Appendix A of the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report) indicate that rock quality designation (RQD) averages approximately 80 percent, which indicates low fracture index and a relatively high quality of rock. Excavations for and construction of planned subterranean levels, which will remove existing fill soils as well as a majority of the terrace deposits capping the bedrock and daylighting on the bluff face, will leave a trapezoidal (i.e., pillar) section of intact rock as part of the exposed bluff face to approximately Elevation 52.8 NAVD. With the removal of these materials, the bluff face will be less vulnerable to bluff erosion. Considering the both the lithologic bedrock unit exposed and the rock quality, the remaining trapezoidal section of intact rock will have sufficient strength to remain in place during the economic life of the structure (i.e., 75 years). Furthermore, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -996 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.9 -6 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.9 — Soils and Geology GeoSoils, Inc., concluded that the proposed improvements will neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or adjacent area. The proposed grading plan indicates that excavation will daylight on the bluff face at approximately 52.8 NAVD, resulting in the removal of existing fill soils as well as a majority of the terrace deposits capping the bedrock and daylighting on the bluff face. The removal of these materials as well as the incorporation of site drainage measures recommended by the geotechnical consultant in the conceptual Grading Plan Review Report will also further reduce the potential for future bluff erosion. Based on the analysis conducted for the proposed project, bluff erosion is not considered a factor in design over the life of the structure. Slope Stability A slope stability analysis was included in the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, Inc. The excavation slope was analyzed by calculating the factors of safety for a circular -type failure and near the toe and along the base of excavation. The results of the slope stability analyses are summarized in Table 4.9 -2. Table 4.9 -2 Results of Stability Analyses The computed factor of safety for the temporary excavation under static conditions is greater than the minimum required 1.25. Therefore, based on the results of the stability analyses, the project geotechnical consultant concluded that the temporary excavation with soldier pile shoring system is acceptable, provided the recommendations prescribed in the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report are implemented during construction, including temporary shoring during excavation and construction of the deeper excavations, tie- back anchors or internal bracing, etc. In addition, the structural design would also include provisions to accommodate basement wall water - proofing, drain installation, etc. Earthquake - Induced Landsliding/Rocksliding The slopes descending from the proposed development expose very resistant sandstone of the Monterey formation. Literature reviews, site mapping, aerial photo analysis, and subsurface exploration conducted for the project during the preparation of the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report ( Neblett & Associates, Inc., 2008) revealed that landslides do not exist on or adjacent to the subject property. The lack of landslide features indicates that the area has been relatively stable in the recent geologic past (i.e., Holocene) and has not been subject to earthquake - induced large -scale landsliding. Therefore, the potential for earthquake - induced landsliding is considered low. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.9 -7 Computed Minimum Static File Cross-Section Method of Analysis Factor of Safety Reference Circular -type failure near toe of Typical excavation 1.93 416 -1 Circular -type failure through base of excavation 3 .63 416 -2 SOURCE: Neblett & Associates, Inc. (September 2008 The computed factor of safety for the temporary excavation under static conditions is greater than the minimum required 1.25. Therefore, based on the results of the stability analyses, the project geotechnical consultant concluded that the temporary excavation with soldier pile shoring system is acceptable, provided the recommendations prescribed in the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report are implemented during construction, including temporary shoring during excavation and construction of the deeper excavations, tie- back anchors or internal bracing, etc. In addition, the structural design would also include provisions to accommodate basement wall water - proofing, drain installation, etc. Earthquake - Induced Landsliding/Rocksliding The slopes descending from the proposed development expose very resistant sandstone of the Monterey formation. Literature reviews, site mapping, aerial photo analysis, and subsurface exploration conducted for the project during the preparation of the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report ( Neblett & Associates, Inc., 2008) revealed that landslides do not exist on or adjacent to the subject property. The lack of landslide features indicates that the area has been relatively stable in the recent geologic past (i.e., Holocene) and has not been subject to earthquake - induced large -scale landsliding. Therefore, the potential for earthquake - induced landsliding is considered low. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.9 -7 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Tsunamis and Seiches Section 4.9 — Soils and A Coastal Hazard Study was prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., (October 2006), which includes an analysis of wave run -up, including that generated from a tsunami. The potential surface gravity waves that arrive at the subject property are small (i.e., less than 1.0 foot) waves and boat wakes, both of which are dampened by the moored vessels and dock systems that are located in front of and adjacent to the site. The maximum possible waves that can be generated at the site are those from ocean swells propagating down the entrance channel. As revealed in that report, the analysis was conservative and based on the open ocean wave height instead of the expected lower tsunami wave height inside Newport Bay. A 1.5 -foot high wave was used as the basis for the analysis with a water level of +8.0 feet NAVD 88, which represents an approximately 100 -year recurrence interval oceanographic conditions. Based on that analysis, the study concluded that there is no potential hazard from surface gravity waves or boat wakes to the proposed development. Tsunami are waves generated by submarine earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic action. The maximum tsunami runup in the Newport Harbor area is less than two meters in height. Any wave, including a tsunami, that approaches the site in Corona del Mar will be refracted, modified, and reduced in height by the Newport jetties. Based on the same methodology that was used to estimate the surface gravity wave and boat wakes, the 6 foot high tsunami would yield a runup to elevation +16.2 feet NAVD 88 (i.e., six feet runup + 10 feet NAVD 88 water elevation). The basement elevation of the proposed structure is proposed to be approximately 30 feet NAVD88, with the lowermost exposed face of the structure daylighting on the slope at approximately 52.8 feet NAVD88. In addition, the dock access /emergency exit is located at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD88 and would also be located above the potential tsunami /wave runup limits discussed above. The tsunami, like the design extreme wave /wake, will not reach the proposed improvements. The analysis is conservative because the open ocean tsunami wave height was used instead of the expected lower tsunami wave height inside Newport Bay. Due to the infrequent nature and the relatively low 500 -year recurrence interval tsunami wave height, combined with the elevation of the proposed improvements, the site is reasonably safe from tsunami hazards. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated during the 75 -year economic life of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. Further, considering the proposed finish pad elevation, the potential for seiche effects to the project site is considered remote due to the shallow depth of Newport Harbor; no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Coastal Erosion Because the proposed project includes the replacement of the existing dock and landing facilities, an engineering study (Coastal Engineering Assessment for the "Aerie" Dock Project) was prepared by Noble Consultants, Inc. (May 9, 2008) to evaluate the potential effects of high winds and sand transport associated with these facilities. The findings and recommendations of this study are summarized below. Wave Conditions and Potential Impacts Wind stations derived from measurements at Long Beach Airport and San Clemente Island were analyzed to define typical and extreme wind conditions for the prediction of wind waves at the project site. Based on the data from the Long Beach Airport, approximately 25 percent of the time, the wind blows from the WNW -NNW sector at an average speed of approximately six knots. In addition, the one -hour average wind speed from this sector never exceeded 40 knots. Winds from the SSE -S sector have a relatively low probability of occurrence (i.e., less than 10 percent) and would typically blow at about six knots but would not exceed 27 knots. Wind data from San Clemente Island indicated that the WNW - NNW wind section would also blow at approximately the same speeds as shown for the Long Beach Airport. Winds from the SSE -S sector typically blow at about four knots; however, extreme winds from this sector could blow above 56 knots, significantly higher than this wind probability at Long Beach Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.9 -8 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.9— Soils and Airport. Extreme wind speeds and fetches for the project site were calculated SSE -S sector (refer to Table 4.9 -3) based on the data available at both Long Beach Airport and San Clemente Island. Table 4.9 -3 Selected Wind Conditions for Wind Wave Predictions Condition Direction Seed Significant Fetch Typical WNW -NNW 6 Knots 3 m /sec Newport Bay, 4,300 Feet 1.3 km Direction SSE -S 6 Knots 3 m /sec Pacific Ocean, 60 miles 110 km Extreme 0.13 WNW -NNW 36 knots 19 m /sec Newport Bay, 4,300 Feet 1.3 km SSE -S 48 knots 24 m /sec Pacific Ocean, 60 miles 110 km SOURCE: Noble Consultants, Inc. (May 9, 2008 Extreme WNW -NNW Based on the wind conditions identified in Table 4.9 -3, wind wave conditions at the project site have been estimated and are summarized in Table 4.9 -4. Based on that information, it can be concluded that wind - induced wave conditions at the project site would be typically mild. For about 65 percent of the time, there would be no wind waves. For the remainder of the time, significant wave heights would be 0.5 foot or less. On less frequent occasions, wind - induced significant wave heights would be higher than one foot and up to 2.5 feet, as indicated in Table 4.94. Table 4.9 -4 Wind Wave Conditions at the Project Site Resulting from Typical and Extreme WNW -NNW and SSE -S Winds Typical and extreme swell conditions for offshore Newport Beach were also calculated and presented in the Noble study. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4.9 -5. Based on that information, it can be concluded that wave conditions at the project site would, in general, be mild for approximately 65 percent of the time with either no wind waves or waves of negligible relevance at the project site. For about 25 percent of the time, winds from the WNW -NNW would generate a short 0.13 -foot significant height, less than 1- second period wind wave; and for 10 percent of the time, the offshore SSE -S sea breeze would generate a 0.5 -foot significant height, 1.7 period wind wave. On less frequent occasions, WNW -NNW winds within Newport Bay could generate 1.3 foot significant height, 1.5- second period wind waves. Similarly less frequent local storms from the SSE -S could generate 2.5 -foot significant height, 9 — 10- second significant wind waves at the project site. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.9 -9 Significant Wave Height Wave Frequency of Condition Direction Feet Period (sec) Occurrence Typical WNW -NNW 0.13 <1,0 25% of the time SSE -S 0.5 1.7 10% of the time Extreme WNW -NNW 1.3 1.5 Less frequent' SSE -S 2.5 9 to 10 Less frequent 'A detailed wave hindcast, beyond the scope of the study prepared for the project, would be required to determine the frequency of occurrence (or return period) of this event. SOURCE: Noble Consultants, Inc. (May 9, 2008 Typical and extreme swell conditions for offshore Newport Beach were also calculated and presented in the Noble study. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4.9 -5. Based on that information, it can be concluded that wave conditions at the project site would, in general, be mild for approximately 65 percent of the time with either no wind waves or waves of negligible relevance at the project site. For about 25 percent of the time, winds from the WNW -NNW would generate a short 0.13 -foot significant height, less than 1- second period wind wave; and for 10 percent of the time, the offshore SSE -S sea breeze would generate a 0.5 -foot significant height, 1.7 period wind wave. On less frequent occasions, WNW -NNW winds within Newport Bay could generate 1.3 foot significant height, 1.5- second period wind waves. Similarly less frequent local storms from the SSE -S could generate 2.5 -foot significant height, 9 — 10- second significant wind waves at the project site. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.9 -9 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.9 — Soils and Geology The particular orientation of the Newport Beach jetties and the presence of the Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands prevent the predominant swell conditions, which approach the Southern California Bight from the W -NW sector for approximately 86 percent of the time, from affecting the site. With a frequency of occurrence of less than two percent, typical SSE -SW, 12 to 16- second swell would reach the project site with a significant height of 0.5 foot. On less frequent occasions, extreme SSE -SSW swell generated by distant storms could reach the project site with significant heights of approximately 1.5 feet and periods in the 12 to 14- second range. Table 4.9 -5 summarizes the wave conditions at the project site resulting from typical and extreme SSE -SSW swell conditions offshore. Based on the dock plan proposed for the project wave conditions from the WNW -NNW will approach moored vessels at the proposed facility approximately from the beam, whereas wave conditions from the SSE -SSW would be entering through the entrance channel and approach the moored vessels from the bow (head seas). Under typical WNW -NNW wave, and SSE -SSW wave and swell conditions, wave heights would be below the recommended one -foot Iimit,2 regardless of the recurrence intervals recommended for wave conditions in small craft harbors. Table 4.9 -5 Wave Conditions at the Project Site Resulting from Typical and Extreme SSE -SSW Swell Conditions Offshore The project site is exposed to impinging waves from either wind - generated period waves in the bay or ocean swells that will propagate through the entrance channel. For about 65 percent of the time, there would be no wind waves. For the remainder of the time, significant wave heights would be 0.5 foot or less. On less frequent occasions, wind - induced significant wave heights would be higher than one foot and up to 2.5 feet. Extreme SSE -SSW swell generated by distant storms could reach the project site with significant heights of approximately 1.5 feet and periods in the 12 to 14- second range. Because of the orientation of the harbor entrance channel, the study concluded that the site will be more exposed to storm waves generated associated with passage of winter pre - frontal storm winds and southern hemisphere swell that typically occurs in the summary months. As a result, the design of the proposed dock should be based on the extreme wave conditions where the structures will be most susceptible to damage from wave - induced forces and motion. 'Mercer, A.G., Isaacson, M. and Mulcahy, M. (198). 'Design Wave Climate in Small Craft Harbours," 18" Conference on Coastal Engineering, Cape Town, South Africa. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.9 -f0 Frequency of Condition Offshore Project Site Occurrence Hs = 5 Feet Hs = 0.5 Feet Typical T = 12 — 16 Seconds T = 12 — 16 Seconds Less than 2% From SSE -SSW Parallel to entrance channel H = 15 Feet H = 1.5 Feet Extreme T = 12 — 14 Seconds T = 12 — 14 Seconds Less Frequent' From SSE -SSW I Parallel to entrance channel Hs = significant wave height; T = period. 'A detailed wave hindcast, beyond the scope of the study conducted for the project, would be required to determine the frequency of occurrence (or return period) of this event. SOURCE: Noble Consultants, Inc. (May 9, 2008 The project site is exposed to impinging waves from either wind - generated period waves in the bay or ocean swells that will propagate through the entrance channel. For about 65 percent of the time, there would be no wind waves. For the remainder of the time, significant wave heights would be 0.5 foot or less. On less frequent occasions, wind - induced significant wave heights would be higher than one foot and up to 2.5 feet. Extreme SSE -SSW swell generated by distant storms could reach the project site with significant heights of approximately 1.5 feet and periods in the 12 to 14- second range. Because of the orientation of the harbor entrance channel, the study concluded that the site will be more exposed to storm waves generated associated with passage of winter pre - frontal storm winds and southern hemisphere swell that typically occurs in the summary months. As a result, the design of the proposed dock should be based on the extreme wave conditions where the structures will be most susceptible to damage from wave - induced forces and motion. 'Mercer, A.G., Isaacson, M. and Mulcahy, M. (198). 'Design Wave Climate in Small Craft Harbours," 18" Conference on Coastal Engineering, Cape Town, South Africa. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.9 -f0 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.9 — Soils and The Noble Consultants study concluded that from a wave climate perspective, the proposed docking facility is feasible in a wide range of conditions. However, extreme wind waves from the SSE -SSW are expected to exceed the recommended maximum wave heights and, therefore, damage to the moored vessels and /or docking facilities may occur. In these less frequent conditions, vessels should be moved and sheltered in a less exposed location. Sediment Processes and Flow Patterns In the coastal /harbor zone, sediment typically moves in accordance with the impinging wave direction. Thus, sediment movement in the Newport Harbor entrance area depends strongly on the two distinguished wave patterns, winter north or northwest swells and southerly swells, that are typically observed in the region. The north and northwest swells occurring in the winter months have a deep water approach direction of between 2751 and 2850 toward Southern California. Sediment movement along the Newport Beach shoreline would, therefore, be toward the southeast (i.e., toward Newport Harbor). At The Wedge, the beach adjacent to the harbor entrance area, sands are partially pushed through the riprap jetty as well as moved around the jetty. The transported sands deposit in the harbor entrance adjacent to the jetty area during the winter months. Based on information provided by the City of Newport Beach (Chris Miller, Harbor Resource Division), an annual total of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of sands are transported by waves into cove beaches in the area, resulting in a need for dredging from some dock facilities in order to maintain an adequate depth for boat berthing. The vast majority of sand depositing in the cove areas is coastal littoral sediment transported through the entrance channel. Sediment discharged either from the Upper Newport Bay or storm drains in the adjacent area would be fine silt, which is not beach - quality material. The project site's waterfront area is characterized by various rock outcrops that form a cove beach, which appears to be stable because little change has occurred over the years based on a review of aerial photographs between 2001 and 2006. The bottom gradient where the proposed replacement dock will be constructed is approximately 9:1 (horizontal to vertical). A patch of sand along the channel side of the site's rock outcrop that is parallel to the navigational channel was observed at the time the study was conducted by Noble Consultants, Inc. The patch of sand, which is located in the depth shallower than 5 feet at the MLLW line, appears to be stable. Exhibit 4.9 -1 illustrates the flow patterns that characterize the channel in the vicinity of the project during the flood /ebb tide cycle. The flood tide water flows somewhat parallel to the depth contours at the site and splits either into Carnation Cove or along the main navigational channel. These two flow fields would eventually converge and continue toward the upper bay. During the ebb tide, the reverse flow patterns were observed, except for an eddy zone located 100 feet oceanward from the existing pier. The occurrence of this eddy zone may be attributed to the abrupt deepening of water depth, which not only slows down the flow rate but also alters the flow direction. Based on the findings presented in the coastal engineering assessment prepared for the project, sediment deposited along the east side of the entrance channel at Newport Harbor is due to the uniqueness of sequential sediment transport patters that are typically observed in the harbor entrance area. Coastal alongshore drifted sands are transported either through the east jetty or via the entrance channel during the winter months and moved further into the bay by southerly swells primarily occurring in the following summer season. Sand - quality sediment movement within the project region is typically in the along - channel direction from the harbor entrance to the inner bay. A stable bayshore condition is observed at the project site. Regular sedimentation observed at China Reef located in the updrift area is primarily due to the groin -like outcrop feature that entraps the along - channel transported sediment. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.9 -11 Existing Dock Flaw Path 11 C f I � \ 1 2 7 U O Pierhesd ne Bulkhe Line >` . Guide Pile / \ Note: Contours In feet MLLW Flood -Tide Flow F \ Existing Dock Line Z j o a • Guide Pile Note: Conmrs in feel MLLW SOURCE: Noble Consultants Line — I i\ ]dw Ebb -Tide Flow Patterns Ca �C ore 9e �M Cd Op0 — e0 d� I AL Exhibit 4.9 -1 Flood -Tide and Ebb -Tide Flow Patterns Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 4.9 -12 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.9 — Soils and With a small percentage (approximately six percent) of the along - channel blockage area resulting from the proposed new dock facility, the potential impact to this unique sediment movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant, although localized sand deposit resulting from the presence of the proposed guide piles within the sand - moving path may occur. In addition, the project is located in the downdrift direction of the neighboring China Reef, the project's potential impact on sedimentation at the updrift location such as China Reef is inconsequential. No significant impacts to sand transport resulting from project implement are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 4.9.5 Mitigation Measures Impact 4.9 -1 Although the site is suitable for the proposed development, construction of the proposed residential structure may be affected by the existing geologic and geotechnical engineering factors, including regional seismicity, bedrock, corrosive soils, erosion, etc. MM 4.9 -1a Project implementation shall adhere to the engineering recommendations for site grading and foundation design and construction presented in the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Nebeltt & Associates, Inc., and subsequent detailed geotechnical engineering analyses. MM 4.9 -1b Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted. Impact 4.9 -2 The site (i.e., proposed dock) will be exposed to storm waves generated associated with passage of winter pre- frontal storm winds and southern hemisphere swell that typically occurs in the summary months. Extreme wind waves from the SSE -SSW are expected to exceed the recommended maximum wave heights, which may result in damage to the moored vessels and /or docking facilities. MM 4.9 -2a During periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave - induced motions, boats should be sheltered at mooring can locations that are available inside Newport Harbor to avoid damage. MM 4.9 -2b The dock design shall be based on the extreme wave conditions identified in the coastal engineering study (Noble Consultants, Inc., 2008). 4.9.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of the standard conditions prescribed in Section 4.9.3 and proposed mitigation measures will ensure that potential soils and geologic and related wave - induced impacts identified in Section 4.9.4 will be reduced to a less than significant level. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts will remain. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.9 -13 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 5.0— Impacts Found Not to be Significant CHAPTER 5.0 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The environmental process requires the Lead Agency for a proposed project, in this case the City of Newport Beach, to prepare a Notice of Preparation (NOP) which describes the proposed project and summarizes the potential environmental impacts which could result from the implementation of a proposed project. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to assess certain potential impacts associated with this project. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and the supporting documentation for the proposed Aerie residential project are provided in Appendix A of this EIR. This section summarizes those potential impacts of the proposed Aerie project that were determined to be below a level of significance. 5.1 Agriculture No Prime Farmland, Farmland of State or Local Importance, or Unique Farmland occurs within or in the vicinity of the site. The site and adjacent areas are designated as "Urban and Built -up Land" and "Other Land" on the Orange County Important Farmland Map. Further, neither the site nor the adjacent areas are designated as prime, unique or important farmlands by the State Resources Agency or by the Newport Beach General Plan. The Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element designates the site as "Multiple -Unit Residential (RM)" and "Two Unit Residential (RT) "; the zone designation for the site is "Multiple Family Residential" and "Two Family Residential." Therefore, there is no conflict with zoning for agricultural use, and the property and surrounding properties are not under a Williamson Act contract. The site is not being used for agricultural purposes and, as indicated previously, is not designated as agricultural land. As indicated above, the subject property and the area surrounding the site are developed with residential uses. Therefore, no agricultural uses on the site or within the site's vicinity would be converted to non - agricultural use. No significant impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 5.2 Population and Housing The project will result in a decrease in the total number of dwelling units from 15 to eight; therefore, project implementation would not result in a substantial increase in population based on the population per household recognized by the City of Newport Beach. Further, the project site could accommodate up to 9 dwelling units based on the existing zoning. Therefore, site development would result in a decrease in both the number of dwelling units that currently exist on the site and that could be constructed. The project will result in the demolition of the existing 14 -unit apartment building and the single - family residence that exist on the subject property. Project implementation, therefore, will result in a decrease in a total of seven dwelling units based on the existing site development. The loss of seven (existing) dwelling units is not considered a significant decrease of housing units within the City of Newport Beach because the existing total vacancy rate in the City is estimated to be 10.91 percent. With the exception of one tenant currently residing in the single - family residence (207 Carnation) and residents of the two apartment units that are currently occupied, the remaining units are vacant. No replacement housing is necessary. As indicated above, the subject property currently supports a 14 -unit apartment and single - family residence, which are occupied by only one tenant (and the caretaker for the property) residing in the single - family residence and occupants in two of the 14 apartment units. Although these residents would be displaced by the proposed project, it is anticipated that adequate replacement housing exists Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 5-1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 5.0— Impacts Found Not to be Significant elsewhere in the City to accommodate their relocation. No replacement housing would be required as a result of project implementation. 5.3 Recreation The project will result in a decrease of dwelling units and, as a result, a reduction in the number of residents that would be generated when compared to the 15 existing dwelling units and the 28 units that would be permitted by the Newport Beach General Plan. With a pool, private outdoor decks that may have spas and fire pits, as well as direct access to the beach area, most residents of the proposed project are expected to utilize their private recreation amenities rather than public parks within the City. Although residents of the proposed project would occasionally visit local and regional parks and beaches, use of those public facilities by the future residents would not represent a substantial change in the intensity of usage and the impact would not result in substantial physical deterioration of those park areas. The project includes private common amenities that will help offset the need for recreational facilities. Although the project will increase the number of occupied units on the site, the increase in residents associated with the project is minimal and would not result in the requirement to construct new or expand existing recreational amenities in the City. Furthermore, the project's eight dwelling units represent a nearly 50 percent decrease when compared to the number of dwelling units that exist on the property. This reduction in density and resulting potential decrease in population, supports the conclusion that no new facilities would be required to accommodate future residents of the proposed project. Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Section 19.52) requires the developer to pay a fee for each unit created by the proposed condominium map. This fee will be used to augment recreational facilities in the City. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 5.4 Mineral Resources The project site is currently developed with a 14 -unit apartment structure and one single - family residential dwelling unit. Neither the Newport Beach General Plan (Recreation and Open Space Element) nor the State of California has identified the project site or environs as a potential mineral resource of Statewide or regional significance. No mineral resources are known to exist and, therefore, project implementation will not result in any significant impacts to regional or state -wide important resources. Furthermore, the Newport Beach General Plan does not identify the project environs as having potential value as a locally important mineral resource site. Project implementation (i.e., demolition of the existing residential structures and construction of a new 8 -unit condominium structure) as proposed will not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource site and, therefore, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. 5.5 Public Services Fire Protection Fire protection facilities and service to the subject property are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). In addition to the City's resources, the NBFD also maintains a formal automatic aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and all neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. The project will result in a decrease of seven residential dwelling units. Although the new units will be larger than those currently existing on the site, there will not be a significant increase in structures and persons requiring emergency services. The Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 5-2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 5.0 — Impacts Found Not to be Significant project includes all necessary fire protection devices, including fire sprinklers. The project must comply with the current Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City. A preliminary code compliance analysis was conducted by City staff. Based on that analysis, the proposed building complies, although a final compliance determination will be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. The project has been designed with several features to facilitate and enhance the provision of adequate fire protection, including an emergency communication device, which will be provided to the existing concrete pad at the beach level and a new wet standpipe, which will be provided to the existing docks. In addition, an automatic and manual fire alarm system will be installed, a fire control room is provided at ground level, which will be monitored by a central station, and a Class I wet standpipe will be provided at every level at all stairs to facilitate fire protection. Adequate water supplies and infrastructure, including fire hydrants, exist in the vicinity of the project, and there is no requirement for other new facilities or emergency services. Police Protection The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) is responsible for providing police and law enforcement services within the corporate limits of the City. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately two miles northeast of the subject property. The NBPD currently has a ratio of 1.91 sworn officers for each 1,000 residents in the City. This ratio is adequate for the current population. Police and law enforcement service in the City is provided by patrols with designated "beats." Project implementation will result in a reduction in the development intensity of site development, which would result in the demolition of an existing apartment building and single - family residence and their replacement with an 8 -unit condominium structure. Redevelopment of the subject site to replace 14 apartment units and one single - family residence with eight luxury condominium homes would not require an expansion to local law enforcement resources and therefore would not result in any environmental impacts involving construction of new law enforcement facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Schools The provision of educational facilities and services in the City of Newport Beach is the responsibility of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. Residential and non - residential development is subject to the imposition of school fees. Payment of the State - mandated statutory school fees is the manner by which potential impacts to the District's educational facilities are mitigated. The existing dwelling units have been vacant for several years, except for caretakers living in the single - family home and two of the apartment units. At the present time, therefore, this property has little or no impact on the Newport Mesa Unified School District. When this project is completed, the development and occupancy of the eight condominiums might result in the generation of school age children. It is estimated that fewer than 20 students, distributed between various grade levels, would be generated by the proposed project. New or expanded school facilities would not be required to provide classroom and support space for these low numbers of school age children. However, as indicated below, the project applicant must pay the applicable school fee to the school district, pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, in order to offset the incremental cost impact of expanding school resources to accommodate the increased student enrollment associated with new residential development, including the proposed project. With the payment of the mandatory school fees, no significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. Other Public Facilities Due to the reduction in residential density, no increased demand for other public services is anticipated and there would be no need to construct any new public facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -195 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 5 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 5.0 — Impacts Found Not to be Significant 5.6 Utilities Wastewater generated by the proposed new 8 -unit residential structure would be disposed into the existing sewer system and would not exceed wastewater treatment standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water demand and wastewater generation will not increase significantly over existing uses due to the increase in the number of occupants who will reside on the site when compared to the existing number of occupied dwelling units. The project will connect to an existing 12 -inch water main in Carnation Avenue. Wastewater connections will be made either in a 10 -inch main in Carnation Avenue or an 8 -inch main in Bayside Place below the project site. No expansion of these facilities is necessary due to existing capacity and the reduction in density. Future water demand based on the General Plan projections would not be increased significantly. Even though the proposed project will result in a decrease in dwelling units by a total of six, implementation of the project may result in a minor if any additional water demand associated with the increased size of the dwelling units, and the pool and spa areas. The project will not result in a significant increase in solid waste production due to the decrease in dwelling units. Existing landfills are expected to have adequate capacity to service the site and use. Solid waste production will be picked up by either the City of Newport Beach or a commercial provider licensed by the City of Newport Beach. All federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste will be adhered to through this process. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 5 -4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 6.0 — Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts CHAPTER 6.0 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 6.1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b) This Section summarizes the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the approval of the Aerie residential project. Specifically, Section 15126(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR): "Describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated, but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described." 6.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Although the project will comply with the City's Noise Control Ordinance and will incorporate project features included in the Construction Management Plan, including the preparation of a construction schedule that minimizes potential construction noise impacts, which have been prescribed to further reduce construction noise during the length construction phase, the short -term noise impacts identified below will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.4 -1 Noise levels associated with construction equipment will result in periodic substantial increases above ambient noise levels during the construction phase anticipated for the proposed project. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 6 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 7.0 — Irretreivable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources CHAPTER 7.0 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Approval and implementation of the proposed Aerie project that would allow for the conversion of the existing single- and multiple - family residential development on the 1.4 -acre site to an 8 -unit condominium development will require the commitment of a relatively small amount of additional energy resources (e.g., oil, gas, diesel and related petroleum products) on a daily basis since the nature of the project does not encompass construction activities that result in the commitment of building supplies. Further, no development is proposed that would significantly affect biological, cultural /scientific, mineral, or other valuable resources. Therefore, there would only be an irretrievable commitment of energy resources such as gasoline and diesel fuel for the operation of landfill equipment. Because these types of resources are available in sufficient quantities in this region and the proposed projects encompass a very limited scope, these impacts are not considered significant. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 7 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 6.0— Growth - Inducing Impacts CHAPTER 8.0 GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACTS 8.1 Definition of Growth - Inducing Impacts Section 15126.2(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe the potential growth inducing impacts of a proposed project. Specifically, Section 15126.2(d) states: "Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic development or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.... Also discuss the characteristics of some projects that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could substantially affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental or of little significance to the environment." Normally to assess whether the proposed project may foster spatial, economic or population growth, several questions are considered: Would the proposed residential project result in the removal of an impediment to growth such as the establishment of an essential public service or the provision of new access to an area? Would the proposed residential project result in economic expansion or growth such as changes in the revenue base or employment expansion? Would the proposed residential project result in the establishment of a precedent setting action such as an innovation, a radical change in zoning or a General Plan amendment approval? Would the proposed residential project result in development or encroachment in an isolated or adjacent area of open space, as opposed to an infill type of project in an area that is already largely developed? 8.2 Analysis of Growth - Inducing Impacts Potential project - related growth- inducing impacts related to each of the questions cited above are discussed below. Would the proposed residential project result in the removal of an impediment to growth such as the establishment of an essential public service or the provision of new access to an area? As indicated previously, the proposed project is located in an area of the City where all of the essential public service and /or utilities and other features exist. Further, the existing public facilities and services, including police and fire protection services, sewer, water, and storm drainage facilities (as mitigated), and parks and recreational facilities, are adequate to serve the proposed Aerie project. Although the project includes the upsizing of the catch basin in Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard, that facility is currently deficient and the upsizing is intended only to accommodate the existing development (including the proposed Aerie project) in the drainage area. This is due largely to the fact that the proposed use of the site will remain virtually the same (i.e., multiple - family residential). As a result, there would not be any Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 - 196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 8 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 6.0 — Growth- Inducing Impacts significant new demands that would result in the necessity to expand an existing service or create a new service, which would eliminate an existing impediment to growth. Would the proposed residential project result in economic expansion or growth such as changes in the revenue base or employment expansion? Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant economic growth or expansion in either the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange or larger southern California region. Although a number of short-term, construction- related jobs would be created by the demolition of the existing structures and the demolition and construction of the proposed 8 -unit project and docks, project implementation would not result in the creation of any long -term employment opportunities. The proposed project constitutes "in fill" development or redevelopment of a site that is currently developed. The proposed residential development would replace the existing uses at a lower density. Therefore, no significant growth- inducing impacts of the proposed project are anticipated. Would the proposed residential project result in the establishment of a precedent setting action such as an innovation, a radical change in zoning or a General Plan amendment approval? The applicant proposes an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and a matching amendment to the Coastal Land Use Plan land use designation so the entire site will have consistent designations. The designation of the 584 square -foot portion of the site will be changed to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential). The City's General Plan was updated in 2006. Although a change to the land use adopted for the site is proposed, that change would affect only 584 square feet of the property. Moreover, the project applicant is proposing a reduction in the intensity of development that is permitted on the site from approximately 9 residential dwelling units to only eight dwelling units. The proposed project is, therefore, consistent with the land use and intensity of development permitted by the long - range plans adopted for the project by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, approval of the proposed amendments and other related discretionary actions that comprise project approval will not set a precedent in the use of the site. Would the proposed residential project result in development or encroachment in an isolated or adjacent area of open space, as opposed to an infill type of project in an area that is already largely developed? Generally, growth- inducing projects possess such characteristics as being located in isolated, undeveloped or under developed areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure (e.g., sewer and water facilities, roadways, etc.) or those that could encourage the "premature" or unplanned growth in an area not planned for development (i.e., "leap frog" development). The subject property is a developed site located within an urbanized area in the City of Newport Beach (Corona del Mar). As such, it is important to note that the proposed development will not remove an obstacle to population growth since the project site is located in an area that is urbanized. As indicated above, all of the essential infrastructure, including sewer and water facilities, storm drainage facilities (with mitigation), electricity and natural gas, and related utilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed expansion, which will not result in significant increases in demands on the infrastructure. Therefore, no significant growth - inducing impacts are anticipated 8.3 Conclusion The answer to each of the questions cited above as they relate to the proposed Aerie residential project is "no." The proposed project includes only the conversion of an existing higher intensity residential development to a less intensively development residential property. The proposed project is not characterized by features that attract or facilitate new, unanticipated development, which would ordinarily be considered growth inducing. Conventionally, growth inducement is measured by the potential of a project or a Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 8 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 8.0 — Growth - Inducing Impacts project's secondary effects (i.e. provision of new infrastructure which supports housing or creation of jobs) to facilitate development of housing. Since the proposed conversion of the site to a less dense residential development that facilitates the efficient use of the subject site through the incorporation of "green" technology, the standard variables associated with the development of housing, commercial or industrial land uses do not apply very well. Further, with only one exception, all of the infrastructure that exists in the project area is adequate to provide an adequate level of service, including sewer, and water. However, as previously indicated, one catch basin that is currently deficient must be upgraded to adequately accommodate the existing surface runoff. Project implementation will not result in any significant direct or indirect addition of residential development that would generate new residents or employment that would be an "attractor" of residents to the area that are not already anticipated in the General Plan. The site is not located in an isolated area that is constrained by the absence of infrastructure where the provision of infrastructure would promote further development. None of the accepted standards that distinguish growth- inducing projects characterize the proposed project; therefore, no significant growth- inducing impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 8 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0— Cumulative Impacts CHAPTER 9.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 9.1 Definition of Cumulative Impacts Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as: "...two or more individual effects which when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts" Section 15355 further describes potential cumulative impacts as: "(a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. (b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual impacts which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or from a number of projects. A cumulative impact refers to the degree of change in the environment resulting from a particular project, plus the incremental impacts created by other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts may reveal that relatively minor impacts associated with a particular project may contribute to more significant impacts when considered collectively with other projects taking place over a period of time. 9.2 Cumulative Projects Section 15130(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines provides two options for considering potentially significant cumulative adverse impacts. This analysis can be based on either: "(A) A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or (B) 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 areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency." For the cumulative analysis presented below, with the exception of air quality impacts, which are based upon development occurring within the South Coast Air Basin, the potential environmental effects of the proposed Aerie project were considered in conjunction with the potential environmental effects of the development of other closely related past, present, and probable future projects in the City, which are listed in Table 9 -1. Although there may be other projects occurring within the City, those identified in Table 9 -1 reflect the projects with similar potential impacts as the proposed project. This geographic limitation is appropriate because the proposed project is small in size and is not likely to have significant regional environmental Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0 — Cumulative Impacts consequences. Furthermore, the project site is located in the center of the Newport Beach and not near the border of a neighboring jurisdiction. Therefore, Table 9 -1 reflects a geographic limitation to projects located within the City of Newport Beach. Finally, the related projects list is not limited to multiple- family residential projects like the proposed project; it includes a variety of approved and proposed land uses, including institutional, commercial, municipal, and mixed -use projects that vary in size. Table 9 -1 Related Projects List Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -2 Potential Cumulative Name /Address Permit No. Status Description Impacts Approved Projects w /Environmental Clearance General Plan Amendment, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment, Development Agreement Hoag Hospital Master Plan PA2007 -073 ApprovedlMay 2008 Amendment to reallocate up to Air Quality 225,000 gross square feet of unbuilt, permitted floor area from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus Use permit for a full- service, high - Paninl CafB PA2007 -063 MND tumover eating and drinking Traffic 2421 Coast highway Approved June 2008 establishment, including a 160 square Air Quality foot outdoor dining area. Installation of 37 new square, concrete plies to provide 33 slips of various Lido Anchorage PA 2007 -121 Approved September sizes. The floating docks, fingers, and Biological 151 Shipyard Way 2008 gangways will result in approximately Resources 24,043 square feet of overwater coverage. MND Construction of a new 42,230 square Oasis PA2008 -109 Approved December feet Oasis Senior Center facility on the Traffic 800 Marguerite Avenue 2008 current site located on the comer of Air Quality Marguerite Avenue and Fifty Avenue. Pending Projects that R uire Review Planned Community Text Adoption for PC-47 (Newport Country Club), Development Agreement, Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the Newport Beach Country development of 5 semi-custom single - Club PA2005 -140 Applied 2005 family residential units, 27 hotel units Traffic 1600 East Coast Highway Pending with a 2,048 - square foot concierge and Air Quality guest center, a new 3,523 square foot tennis club with a 6,718 square foot spa, a 41,086 square foot golf club with accessory facilities, 8 tennis courts, and a swimming pool. Expansion of the existing Hyatt Regency Hotel by adding 88 new timeshare units, a timeshare clubhouse, a new 800 -seat ballroom, a Hyatt Regency PA2005 -212 Applied 2005 new spa facility, a new housekeeping Traffic 1107 Jamboree Road Pending EIR and engineering buildings, and a new Air Quality two-level parking garage. Project implementation requires a Use Permit, Development Agreement, parcel Map, and Modification Permit. Applied 2007 Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 Pending EIR Three -story single - family residence Aesthetics 2333 Pacific Drive Preparation with attached garage. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 9.0 — Cumulative Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -3 Potential Cumulative Name /Address Permit No. Status Description Impacts Proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Conexant Conceptual Plan Plan which would include a total of up 4311/4321 Jamboree Road Applied 2007 to 974 new residential units, 714 on Kell Conceptual Plan PA2007 -170 CC Hearing February the Conexant site and the remaining Air Quality 4343 Von Kerman Avenue 2009 260 on the Koll property. The City has not yet approved the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. Proposed 1.9 -acre subdivision to crate Big Canyon Applied 2007 a large lot for one residential dwelling 1 Big Canyon Drive PA2007 -210 CC Headng February unit. Parcel Map, General Plan None 2009 Amendment, and Big Canyon Planned Community text amendment. A public park and beach with recreation facilities, restrooms and a new Girl Scout House, a public short- Marina Park PA2008 -040 Applied 2008 term visiting vessel marina with a Biological 1700 W. Balboa Boulevard public dock and a sailing center and a Resources new community center with classrooms, boat storage space and ancillary offices ace. A 402.3 -acre planned community development plan consisting of a maximum of 1,375 dwelling units, Newport Banning Ranch PA2008 -114 Applied 2008 75,000 square feet of commercial Traffic 5200 West Coast Highway retail, 75 room boutique hoteirbed- Air Quality and - breakfast' or other overnight accommodation, parks and open space. Use Permit and Modification Permit to Silk Residence Remodel PA2008 -180 Zoning Administrator allow 50 % -70% structural alterations to None 1800 Bay Front Street Hearing January 2009 a non - conforming structure and multiple setback encroachments. Harbor Resources Division Replacement of Bay Island bridge, replacement of bulkhead walls on the Bay Island northern, western and southern sides, Biological and installation of a small submerged Resources sand retention wall on the west side for beach stabilization. Construction of new 8' x 100' floating guest dock at the terminus of Rhine Biological Rhine Wharf Guest Dock Wharf adjacent to Lido Park Drive, Resources including a 4' x 80' ramp and emplacement of several guide piles. Replacement of existing bulkhead along approximately 485 feet of waterfront, reconfiguration of the Biological Etco Properties existing 21 -boat slip marine, and Resources remediation of contaminants located in sediment near and within the boat slipways. Addition of extensions to floats at the 1 e Street Public Pier 15" Street public pier to accommodate Biological the demand for dinghy tie -ups in the Resources area. Addition of extensions to floats at the 19" Street Public Pier le Street public pier to accommodate Biological the demand for dinghy tie -ups in the Resources area. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0— Cumulative Impacts 9.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis The impact analysis that follows provides a discussion of the potential cumulative impacts that might occur as a result of project implementation. Potential cumulative impacts associated with some environmental issues are evaluated based on a particular geographic area or other appropriate level. For example, unlike the other impact areas discussed in Chapter 9.0 that are base don Table 9 -1, cumulative air quality impacts are assessed based on development within the South Coast Air Basin, a geographic area that spans several counties. Conversely, cumulative noise impacts are evaluated within the context of a smaller geographic area. Construction noise and some operational noise impacts are limited to the project site and adjacent and nearby areas; however, depending on the contribution of project - related traffic, mobile- source noise impacts may occur beyond the immediate limits of the subject site along heavily traveled arterials. Similarly, cumulative biological impacts are evaluated based on similar habitat and species within a particular geographic area. For instance, in the case of the proposed project, the discussion of potential cumulative marine biology impacts (e.g., eelgrass) is limited to Newport Harbor. It is also important to note that cumulative impact analyses are guided by standards o reasonableness and practicality. As a result, the following analysis is less extensive than that provided in Chapter 4.0 of this Draft EIR. 9.3.1 Land Use and Planning The project proposes to replace an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence with an 8- unit condominium structure. The area surrounding the subject property is entirely developed with single- and multiple - family residential development. As a result, no design component or feature of the project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significantly change an established community. In addition, the subject property is located within the limits of the Central /Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of Orange. The biological surveys conducted on the subject property revealed that although some native species exist on the bluff property, neither CSS habitat nor the coastal California gnatcatcher exists on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -4 Potential Cumulative NamefAddress Permit No. Status Description Impacts Addition of extensions to floats at the Fernando Street Public Pier Fernando Street public pier to Biological accommodate the demand for dinghy Resources be-ups in the area. Projects Submitted for Plan Check Common addition and remodel Traffic 2300 West Coast Highway 1580 -2008 (29,199 square feet existing, 10,390 Air Quality square feet new) Holiday Inn. 606 Marigold Avenue 1731 -2006 New duplex (2,946 square feet with None attached 309 square foot garage). 901 Newport Center Drive 1733 -2008 New Retail (140,745 square feet Traffic Nordstrom shell). Air Quality New single- family residence (2,941 1506 South Bay Front 1773 -2008 square feet with 407 square foot None attached garage). New single - family residence (2,679 1708 South Bay Front 1981 -2008 square feet with 400 square foot None garage and 671 square foot deck). New single - family residence (2,864 824 West Bay Avenue 2114 -2008 square feet with 499 square foot None garage). SOURCE: City of Newport Beach 9.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis The impact analysis that follows provides a discussion of the potential cumulative impacts that might occur as a result of project implementation. Potential cumulative impacts associated with some environmental issues are evaluated based on a particular geographic area or other appropriate level. For example, unlike the other impact areas discussed in Chapter 9.0 that are base don Table 9 -1, cumulative air quality impacts are assessed based on development within the South Coast Air Basin, a geographic area that spans several counties. Conversely, cumulative noise impacts are evaluated within the context of a smaller geographic area. Construction noise and some operational noise impacts are limited to the project site and adjacent and nearby areas; however, depending on the contribution of project - related traffic, mobile- source noise impacts may occur beyond the immediate limits of the subject site along heavily traveled arterials. Similarly, cumulative biological impacts are evaluated based on similar habitat and species within a particular geographic area. For instance, in the case of the proposed project, the discussion of potential cumulative marine biology impacts (e.g., eelgrass) is limited to Newport Harbor. It is also important to note that cumulative impact analyses are guided by standards o reasonableness and practicality. As a result, the following analysis is less extensive than that provided in Chapter 4.0 of this Draft EIR. 9.3.1 Land Use and Planning The project proposes to replace an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence with an 8- unit condominium structure. The area surrounding the subject property is entirely developed with single- and multiple - family residential development. As a result, no design component or feature of the project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significantly change an established community. In addition, the subject property is located within the limits of the Central /Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of Orange. The biological surveys conducted on the subject property revealed that although some native species exist on the bluff property, neither CSS habitat nor the coastal California gnatcatcher exists on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0— Cumulative Impacts site. Therefore, no impacts wither to CSS habitat or to the coastal California gnatcatcher would occur as a result of project implementation. The proposed project is currently developed and is also identified for development in the adopted long -range plans for the property. As indicated in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable goals, policies and objectives articulated in the Newport Beach Land Use Element and other elements as well as the CLUP. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to land use will occur as a result of project implementation. 9.3.2 Population and Housing Although implementation of the proposed project will result in a net reduction in the number of existing residential dwelling units currently occupying the site and would displace the tenants residing in three dwelling units, the net reduction in dwelling units would not contribute significantly to the cumulative loss of homes and /or displacement of occupants in the City of Newport Beach. The 14 -unit apartment building occupying one of the parcels exceeds the permitted development density based on currently regulatory requirements, which would permit only 9 dwelling units on the combined project site. Together with the approved and planned development identified in Table 9 -1, a substantial increase in residential development is anticipated in the City, including 974 dwelling units alone on the Conexant and Koll properties in the Airport area. Other smaller residential developments are also proposed in the City, including the Megonigal residence and other single - family and duplex dwelling units in the area. Therefore, a potentially significant cumulative reduction of housing within the City would not occur as a result of project implementation. The existing residential development is not included in the City's inventory of affordable housing; no low- and /or moderate- income households occupy the site and, therefore, none would be displaced as a result of project implementation. Further, once the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are adopted by the City of Newport Beach, the decrease in the number of dwelling units on the site will not adversely affect the jobs /housing balance because the project will be consistent with the City's long -range plans, which are the basis of the jobs /housing projections. Therefore, project implementation will not result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to population and housing. 9.3.3 Geology and Soils The site is currently developed with 15 single- and multiple - family residential dwelling units on the 1.4 -acre property. The site and existing development are currently exposed to potential groundshaking associated with seismic activities occurring on one of the active regional faults. Unlike any of the projects identified in Table 9 -1, the subject property is located on a bluff in Corona del Mar, which requires the consideration of unique geologic and seismic characteristics. Although the proposed project will consist of residential development, the potential exposure to the effects of seismic activity, slope failure, bluff erosion, and /or soil conditions will not increase and project implementation will not result in potential cumulative impacts because the new residential development will be required to meet applicable structural design requirements. Furthermore, none of the projects identified in Table 9 -1 would contribute cumulatively to bluff instability and /or erosion because they are not located on the same bluff as the subject property. In addition, these other developments must also comply with the specific building design parameters prescribed in the applicable regulations to ensure that potential loss of life and structural damage is minimized. The project site and the surrounding area are not known to be located within an unstable geologic area and, therefore, are not expected to be exposed to adverse soils conditions, including lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse hazards. Finally, no the site does not support "prime" and /or "important' agricultural soils. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative seismic, slope failure, bluff erosion, and /or soil condition impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. With a small amount (i.e., approximately six percent) of the along - channel blockage areas resulting from the proposed new dock facility, the potential impact to the sediment movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant. In addition, because the project is located in the down -drift direction of neighboring Channel Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -5 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0— Cumulative Impacts Reef, its potential impact on sedimentation at the up -drift location such as Channel Reef is inconsequential. Under extreme conditions, up to 2.5 -foot waves could be experienced at the project site, impacting 30 to 35 boats residing in Newport Harbor, including those proposed for the proposed Aerie project. However, the City maintains between 80 and 100 mooring cans in the harbor, which are available to the public at any given time on a "first come, first served" basis. Because the severe conditions that would result in the need to utilize the mooring cans are infrequent and, further, because up to the City of Newport has indicated that up to 100 mooring cans are available for temporary mooring within the harbor during these infrequent periods, no potentially significant cumulative impacts would occur. 9.3.4 Hydrology and Water Quality As described in Section 4.6, although project implementation would result in a small increase in impervious area, the post - development peak flow would be reduced when compared to the existing surface runoff conditions. Specifically, the 1.95 cfs emanating from the site will be detained in a vault, treated, and discharged into the existing storm drain at a rate of 0.50 cis, which is slightly less than the 0.51 cfs currently being discharged. Potential cumulative impacts would be those resulting from other development within the watershed sub -area; however, no other projects are proposed within the area affected by the proposed project. Nonetheless, project implementation will result in upgrading the existing deficient catch basin in Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard to ensure that adequate capacity is provided to accommodate not only the proposed project but also existing stormwater runoff. In addition, the applicant will be required to implement Best Management Practices and related measures in accordance with the NPDES requirements to ensure that both storm water runoff and quality meet the requisite criteria. All of the other projects identified in this section are located outside the immediate project area. Each of the approved or proposed projects, should they be implemented, will be required to implement similar stormwater collection and conveyance facilities and water quality structural and non - structural measures (i.e., BMPs) to reduce and avoid water quality impacts. Implementation of these measures, which would be prescribed in the WQMP prepared for the proposed project (and other projects in the City and watershed), must comply with the requirements established by the City and County of Orange in the Drainage Area Master Plan, which have been developed to address the cumulative impacts of development in the watershed. These measures are intended to ensure that water quality objectives are achieved and /or maintained. Therefore, project implementation will result in an overall improvement to hydrology and water quality by upgrading the stormwater collection facilities that serve the drainage area. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to either hydrology or water quality. 9.3.5 Air Quality As indicated above, cumulative air quality impacts are those associated with development occurring within the South Coast Air Basin, a five -county region in southern California. As a result, it is anticipated that a significant number of development projects throughout the City and the five -county region would contribute to the cumulative degradation of the air basin. Although the proposed project will result in the generation of both short-term (i.e., those occurring during the 32 -month construction phase) and long -term operational emissions (i.e., those resulting from the operation of automobiles and stationary sources), which will be emitted into the air basin, the vast majority of those emissions would be short-term and temporary in nature. Although the project's contribution of construction emissions (primarily fugitive dust) is short-term and because the Construction Management Plan will be implemented, these impacts will not be significant on a cumulative basis when considered with the other projects in the City and in the air basin. Once construction is completed, a nominal fraction of the total mobile- source emissions within the basin would be attributed to the proposed project. The long -term (i.e., operational) emissions associated with the proposed project are the result of the incremental increase in vehicular traffic generated by the project and on demands for natural gas and electricity. Because these incremental operational emissions would not exceed significance thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD and identified in Section 4.3.2, the incremental addition of the project's mobile- source emissions, when combined with other emissions resulting from the development of the other projects within the City and larger air basin, will be less than significant on a cumulative basis. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -6 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0 — Cumulative Impacts 9.3.6 Traffic and Circulation Cumulative traffic impacts are those occurring within the immediate vicinity of the project site and beyond the Corona del Mar area along Coast Highway and other arterials in the City based on the distribution of construction traffic associated with the proposed project. As indicated in Table 9 -1, the proposed project and several of the projects within the City would contribute traffic, both during construction and as a result of their development, which could affect the existing circulation system, including Coast Highway, Jamboree Road and Newport Boulevard. As indicated in Section 4.2 (Traffic and Circulation), project implementation will result in the generation of construction traffic (i.e., short-term) as well as an increase in the number of daily and peak hour vehicle trips when compared to the existing baseline (i.e., occupancy of three units). The short-term vehicle trips are those associated with heavy trucks (i.e., dirt hauling, equipment and materials deliveries, etc.) and construction works commuting to the site. However, these will be short-term in nature and would be minimized through the implementation of the Construction Management Program which, among other tings, prescribes a haul route and is designed to inhibit on -site queuing. Although other projects in the City could also contribute construction traffic that could affect roadway and intersection operations, the contribution of these short-term trips would not represent a potentially significant cumulative impact because potential impacts would be avoided through specific provisions prescribed in the Construction Management Plan, including the identification of a haul route plan, adherence to a traffic control plan, limitations on haul truck arrival /departure, use of flag persons during the construction phases, etc. Implementation of these measures will ensure that potential cumulative construction impacts would be minimized. Although post - development project - related vehicle trips would be greater than those generated by the existing residential development on the site, they would not result in any potentially significant cumulative impacts in the Corona del Mar community or outlying areas because when added to the local circulation system, they would constitute a very small fraction of the total trips generated by the cumulative projects identified in Table 9 -1. When added to the Citys arterial roadway system, the small increase in both construction- related and operational vehicle trips would, therefore, not result in potentially significant cumulative traffic and circulation impacts. 9.3.7 Biological Resources For the purposes of determining potential cumulative impacts to biological resources, the harbor area was identified as the geographic "area of potential effect' due to the potential for adversely affecting coastal biological resources, including eelgrass. Project implementation could result in potential impacts to biological resources, as indicated in Section 4.7. These impacts include the potential to create both direct impacts, particularly during construction, and indirect impacts that may include the creation of shadows that could adversely affect the existing eelgrass bed in the vicinity of the project. However, the proposed project and other projects proposed within the harbor area listed in Table 9 -1 that have the potential to affect eelgrass are required by the City to mitigate any potential loss at a ratio of 1.2:1. As indicated in Section 4.7.5, if it is determined as a result of the pre- and post - construction surveys that eelgrass is impacted, the applicant will be required to replace it at the specified mitigation ratio. The same or similar measures would be prescribed for projects located within Newport Bay that have the potential to adversely affect eelgrass as a result of dredging or other construction and development activities. Similar to the proposed project, other projects in the harbor that have the potential to impact eelgrass would be subject to the same mitigation measures prescribed for the proposed project to adequately offset the potentially significant impacts, including pre- and post - construction surveys, potential replacement of eelgrass, avoidance of the rocky intertidal habitat, use of silt curtains during construction, and limiting construction to optimal tide conditions. As a result, no potentially significant cumulative impacts to marine biology would occur. Other potential impacts to biological resources include effects on the intertidal area as a result of increased activity in the small cove and potential effects on sensitive plant species that may exist on the site. For example, important resources (e.g., sand dollars) have been identified in the intertidal area below the bluff that could be affected by construction activities associated with the construction of the dock. However, in Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -7 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0 — Cumulative Impacts each case, mitigation measures have been proposed (e.g., signage, avoidance of the intertidal area during construction, etc.) that will either eliminate the potentially significant impacts to biological resources or reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. In the same way, potential impacts to terrestrial species of plants and /or animals are also addressed through mitigation measures prescribed in Section 4.7.5, including the use of native plant species, which will effectively reduce the impacts to a less than significant level as prescribed by the Coastal Land Use Plan policies. As a result, no potentially significant cumulative impacts to terrestrial biology would occur. 9.3.8 Mineral Resources As indicated above, the site and surrounding areas have been developed. No mineral resources exist on the subject property that would be adversely impacted by developed of the site as proposed. Further, project implementation would not directly impact any existing mineral resource areas either in the City of Newport Beach, region, or State of California. Similarly, the other approved and /or proposed projects in the City of Newport Beach listed in Table 9 -1 would not adversely affect mineral resources. With the exception of the Newport Banning Ranch, which has been a producing oil field for several years, many of the sites on which development is proposed are either already developed (e.g., Conexant/Koll, Newport Beach Country Club, etc.) or are located in areas of the City that do not posses mineral resources. Because project implementation would not result in any impacts to mineral resources, it would not contribute to the cumulative loss of such resources in either the City, region, or State of California. Although the proposed project would require the use of mineral resources (e.g., sand and gravel, wood, etc.), many are renewable and/or sustainable. Therefore, when compared to other projects in the area, no potentially significant cumulative impacts to mineral resources will occur. 9.3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials As indicated in Section 4.8, the site has been altered and currently supports urban development (i.e., 15 residential dwelling units), which does not involve the use of hazardous materials in the daily operations beyond household variety fertilizers, herbicides, cleaning solvents, paints, and /or pesticides. As previously evaluated, demolition of the existing residential structures in order to construct the proposed 8 -unit condominium on the site could yield some asbestos containing materials or lead -based paint. However, demolition will not only comply with AQMD and regulatory agency requirements for abating these components, but appropriate measures have also been identified to ensure that no significant emissions of potentially hazardous materials occurs. Similarly, those projects listed in Table 9 -1 characterized by ACM and LBP would also be required to comply with AQMD and regulatory agency requirements so that no significant emissions occur. If determined necessary as a result of the environmental analysis conducted for them, each of the projects would be required to remediate an existing or potential source of contamination. Finally, like the existing residential development, the proposed project would only use household variety hazardous materials such as fertilizers, herbicides, cleaning solvents, paints, and /or pesticides. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative impacts would occur when compared to other projects that have been approved or proposed in the City of Newport Beach or surrounding areas. 9.3.10 Noise Cumulative noise impacts are those that would occur within the immediate project environs, particularly during the construction phase. The greatest increase in ambient noise would occur during the construction phases; however, no other development is proposed in the immediate vicinity of the project (refer to Table 9 -1) that would contribute to the cumulative increase in noise in the area. As indicated in Section 4.4, the construction activities resulting from project implementation will result in significant impacts in the neighborhood. Once construction ceases and the project is completed and occupied, the cumulative noise environment could also extend beyond the immediate area to outlying areas, depending on the nature and extent of project - related traffic. The proposed project - related traffic would contribute to small increases in the ambient noise levels in the nearby residential area within Corona del Mar and Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -8 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0— Cumulative Impacts along arterial roadways in the City. However, project - related long -term noise associated with vehicle trips generated by future residents would be minimal and would not contribute significantly to the cumulative increase in long -term noise levels because the project would add only 47 vehicles per day onto the circulation network. While project - related traffic, when added to existing and traffic utilizing the neighborhood streets could contribute to an increase in ambient noise levels along the streets, the increase would not result in significant cumulative long -term noise impacts because none of the local streets within the project area are characterized by noise levels that current exceed, or are forecast to exceed, 65 dBA CNEL as indicated in the City's Noise Element, which evaluated future noise levels based on buildout of the General Plan. It is anticipated that the resulting gradual incremental increase in project - related traffic onto the neighborhood circulation system would be less than 1 dBA and would, therefore, generally not be audible. Therefore, no significant long -term cumulative noise impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. 9.3.11 Public Services The project site is located in an area of the City of Newport Beach that is adequately served by public services and facilities, including police and fire protection. The replacement of the existing 15 residential dwelling units with an 8 -unit condominium will not significantly affect the existing public service levels of service. Specifically, the potential (less than significant) impacts associated with the proposed project would not alter the ability of either the Newport Beach Police Department or Fire Department from providing an adequate level of service to the site, even when considering the potential development listed in Table 9 -1, because the site is currently provided police and fire service. The potential development of the projects listed in Table 9 -1 would also be evaluated by the Newport Beach Police and Fire Departments to ensure that adequate levels of service can be provided. These projects are within the long -range projections identified in the City's General Plan and, therefore, would not adversely affect the City's ability to provide an adequate level of protection. Because the proposed project and the Megonigal property are residential in nature, project implementation would result in the potential to generate some school -age children, which would necessitate the payment of the requisite developer fees that offset potential impacts to schools. In addition, the potential increase in residents generated by these projects could also result in an increased demand for recreational facilities; however, in the case of the proposed project, on -site recreational amenities are incorporated into the design of the project to offset the direct demands on such facilities. In addition, the project applicant will be required to pay in -lieu park fees to further offset any direct or cumulative impacts to recreational facilities. These fees are used by the City to provide recreational facilities and amenities that serve the residents of Newport Beach. As a result, no potentially significant cumulative impacts will occur to public facilities and services. 9.3.12 Utilities and Service Systems The site and surrounding area are adequately served by utilities (i.e., sewer and water facilities, solid waste disposal, electricity and natural gas). At the present time, the existing catch basin located in Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard does not have adequate capacity to accommodate existing storm runoff within the drainage area; however, project implementation includes the replacementlupsizing of that facility, which would provide adequate capacity not only to accommodate storm runoff associated with the proposed project but also runoff associated with the existing development within the drainage area. Furthermore, the proposed project has been designed to reduce the post - development surface flows emanating from the site to a level that is less than under existing conditions. The incremental increase in the demand for utilities as a result of replacing the older (i.e., 1949 -era) multiple - family apartment building to a "state -of- the -art" energy efficient development is intended to minimize demands for energy resources. For instance, the project includes extensive use of "green" technology intended to reduce demands for energy resources; including gray water retention for property irrigation, natural ventilation systems that capitalize on prevailing ocean breezes and thermal convection dynamics, and Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -9 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0 — Cumulative Impacts the use of high - thermal mass for capturing and retaining heat through solar heat gain apertures. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative utilities impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. 9.3.13 Aesthetics As discussed in Section 4.5 (Aesthetics), the project site is located in an area of Corona del Mar that is characterized by important visual resources and /or amenities (e.g., coastal bluff and cove, rock outcroppings, etc.). In addition, a "Public View Point' is located at the southern property limits on Ocean Boulevard, which is designated a "Coastal View Road:' The site is also within the viewshed of a Public View Point identified in the vicinity of Begonia Park. Potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed project were evaluated based on views from both public vantages on or near the site and views to the subject property, including the proposed dock facility, from the harbor. Of the cumulative projects identified in Table 9 -1, only one project, the proposed Megonigal residence, would also potentially affect the aesthetic character of the proposed project area. The visual simulations prepared for the proposed project revealed that no significant project - related impacts would be anticipated, either from the Public View Point on Ocean Boulevard or from the Begonia Park Public View Point vantages as a result of site development as proposed. The potential visual impacts of the proposed project were also evaluated from four Newport Harbor vantages that include the proposed Megonigal residence to determine the extent of project - related cumulative visual impacts. As indicated in Exhibit 4.5 -12, construction of the Megonigal residence at the Pacific Avenue location would virtually eliminate the entire harbor and more distant ocean view, including the project site, from this vantage. As a result, the proposed Aerie project would not contribute to the cumulative visual impact from this public view location. Three other visual simulations were also prepared to illustrate the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project and the Megonigal residence on Pacific Avenue. Exhibit 5 -1 (Begonia Park Upper Bench), Exhibit 5 -2 (Begonia Park Lower Bench), and Exhibit 5 -3 (Begonia Park) illustrate views of the proposed project, including the proposed development of the Megonigal residence at 2333 Pacific Avenue. As illustrated in each of these simulations, the introduction of the Megonigal residence would affect views from each of the vantages in the three exhibits. In particular, the Megonigal residence would block a portion of the harbor area north of the subject property. Although portions of the harbor are visible, views to this area are "filtered" by intervening landscaping and development. While the views to the harbor from these vantages would be changed with the development of the Megonigal residence and the proposed project, encroachment of the proposed project into the viewshed would not be significant on a cumulative basis when viewed from those locations because the effect on the view in the vicinity of the proposed project, even with the introduction of the proposed Megonigal residence, would not change significantly. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative visual impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. None of the related projects identified in Table 9 -1, including the proposed Megonigal residence, would affect views from the harbor to the existing coastal bluff. Potential visual impacts are not significant from the harbor area because views from those vantages would be only momentarily affected; none of the visual amenities in the intertidal area would be destroyed as a result of project implementation. Furthermore, based on the visual analysis conducted for the proposed project, no potentially significant visual impacts would occur either to the character of the bluff or the intertidal area, which is characterized by rock outcroppings and a small cove are located where the dock is proposed, would adversely affect the harbor views to the site. While the coastal bluff would be altered, the proposed project has been designed to conform to the existing topographic features and character to minimize visual impacts. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative visual impacts would occur. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -10 A PROJECT SITE I 49 PROJECT SITE I a D � , PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE tr R <1 4 Exhibit 9 -2 Begonia Park - Lover Bench J � rU •` . r- Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0— Cumulative Impacts 9.3.14 Cultural /Scientific Resources The site is currently developed and no significant cultural, historic or scientific resources are known to be located on the subject property. Although it is possible that other proposed and approved development could result in impacts to cultural, historical or scientific resources, appropriate mitigation will be required to ensure that such impacts are less than significant. While grading and excavation are required to prepare portions of the site for construction, no cultural or historical resources would be affected and no impacts would occur to such resources. Although paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) may be encountered during construction of the proposed project based on the geologic formation underlying the site, monitoring will ensure that any such potential resources that may exist on the property would be identified during the grading phase by the paleontological monitor. Adequate measures would be implemented to ensure that potentially significant impacts would be avoided. This would also be true for other projects where encountering such resources is possible or likely, as prescribed in environmental analysis undertaken for such projects listed in Table 9 -1. Therefore, project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts, either individually or on a cumulative basis. 9.3.15 Recreation As indicated previously, the proposed project includes the replacement of the existing single- and multiple - family dwelling units with an 8 -unit condominium. Although the generation of additional residents associated with the projects listed in Table 9 -1 could result in a demand for recreational amenities, project implementation would not contribute significantly to the cumulative demands crated by those projects due to the small -scale nature of the project. Furthermore, the proposed project includes private recreational amenities on -site to accommodate project residents. Nonetheless, the project will be required to comply with the City's park in -lieu fee requirements as stipulated in the Section 19.52 of the Municipal Code (Park Dedications and Fees) to ensure that no project - related impacts to recreational facilities occurs. As a result, no additional significant demands for recreational facilities would be generated by the project that would be added to the cumulative impacts that may occur as a result of other projects proposed and approved in the City. Other cumulative projects identified in Table 9 -1 (e.g., Banning Ranch, Conexant/Koll, etc.) that would result in significant numbers of new residential dwelling units would also be required by the City to provide public park dedications and /or payment of park dedication fees to offset any potential demands for recreational facilities in the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, no potentially significant project - related or cumulative impacts to recreational facilities would occur. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -14 Aerie PA 2005496 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0— Aftematives SECTION 10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 10.1 Introduction 10.1.1 Purpose and Scope CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of "reasonable" alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Section 15126.6(c) directs that the alternatives analyzed by an EIR should be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant adverse environmental effects of a proposed project. The discussion of alternatives in this Draft EIR reviews a range of alternatives, including the "No Project' alternative as prescribed by the State CEQA Guidelines, which satisfies these requirements. This section analyzes several potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed project, including • No ProjecUNo Development • Alternative Site • Reduced Intensity /3 Single - Family Residences • Reduced Intensity /5 Multiple - Family Residential Project • Existing Zoning /8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project with Reduced Grading 10.1.2 Criteria for Selecting Alternatives Alternatives were selected by the City in consultation with the applicant and the City's environmental consultant. A range of reasonable alternatives was selected based upon their ability to avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts of the project and to feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives. With the exception of the No Project alternative, which is required to be included in the evaluation by the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Alternative Site alternative, each of the alternatives identified above reflects these criteria and were considered in the EIR. The project objectives are: To develop a state -of- the -art multi - family residential condominium project, with a sufficient number and size of units to justify (a) the incorporation of advanced design which reflects the architectural diversity of the community and adds distinction to the harbor and the neighborhood, (b) the use of energy- conserving technology described in Project Objective 3, and (c) the inclusion of common amenities reflected in Project Objective 4. 2. To enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood by replacing a deteriorating 60 -year old structure with a high - quality residential project utilizing unique modern design principles and featuring (a) the elimination of conventional garage doors for all units, (b) the concealing of all parking from street view, (c) significant landscape and streetscape enhancements, (d) the removal of two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, and (e) replacing these features by undergrounding the new wiring. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -1 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 10.0 — Alternatives 3. To replace an energy inefficient structure typical of mid -20th Century development with an advanced, highly efficient structure designed to incorporate energy- saving, sustainable, and environmentally sensitive technology, construction techniques, water quality treatment elements, and other features designed to conserve energy and/or improve the existing environment to a greater degree than required by current applicable regulations. 4. To provide amenities commensurate with most new residential development in comparable baytront locations in the City. Such amenities generally include a dock for each residence, ample storage space, and common recreational and health facilities, such as a swimming pool and fitness center. 5. To enhance public access to the coast by increasing the number of available public street parking spaces through the use of new technology and creative design which will limit project entry and exit points, thereby minimizing curb cuts and exceeding on -site the number of resident and guest parking required for the project. 6. To protect and enhance scenic views to the harbor and the ocean from designated public vantage points in the immediate neighborhood by (a) significantly expanding the existing public view corridor at the southern end of project site, (b) creating a new public view corridor at the northern end of the project site, (c) removing two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, all of which presently obstruct the view from certain perspectives, (d) replacing the existing poles and overhead wiring by undergrounding the new wiring, and (e) providing a public bench and drinking fountain at the corner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard to enhance the public viewing experience. To enhance public views of the project site from the harbor by (a) maintaining all visible development above the predominant line of existing development (PLOED), (b) incorporating into the project the property at 207 Carnation Avenue, which presently is within the Categorical Exclusion Zone and, if not part of the project, would not be subject to the PLOED, (c) replacing the existing outdated apartment building with modern, organic architecture with articulated facades to conform to the topography of the bluff, and (d) removing the unsightly cement and pipes and the non - native vegetation on the bluff face and replacing it with an extensive planting of native vegetation. 6. To minimize encroachment into private views by maintaining a maximum building height on average four feet below the zoning district's development standards. 10.1.3 Evaluation of Project Alternatives According to the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[a]), an EIR must "... describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The Guidelines go on to indicate that alternatives that are capable of substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project must be examined, "... even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." The Guidelines further indicate "... that the range of potential alternatives to a proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[c]). Thus the ability of an alternative to attain most of the basic oroiect objectives is central to the consideration of alternatives to the proposed project. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 - 196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -2 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0—Alternatives For each alternative, the analysis presented in this section: Describes the alternative; Discusses the impacts of the alternative and evaluates the significance of those impacts; and, Evaluates the alternative relative to proposed project, specifically addressing project objectives and the elimination or reduction of potentially significant impacts. 10.1.4 Identification of Impacts After describing the alternative, this Draft EIR evaluates the impacts of the alternative. The major resource areas included in the detailed impact analysis in Section 4.0 are included in this section. The potential environmental consequences are identified and described in the analysis for each of the alternatives identified in Section 10.1.1. 10.2 Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration 10.2.1 Alternative Site As required by the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A), only alternative locations that would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts resulting from project implementation must be included in the analysis of alternatives. Because the project proposes a multiple - family residential development with direct access to the harbor on a coastal bluff, a similarly designated site with bay frontage located on a bluff would be required to accommodate such a project. However, a review of the City's General Plan revealed that no other similarly situated site that is designated for multiple - family residential development exists in the City of Newport Beach. Thus, there is no feasible alternative location for this project that would satisfy the most fundamental of the project objectives, much less most of the project objectives. 10.3 Analysis of Alternatives 10.3.1 No Project/No Development Alternative The No Project Alternative evaluates the potential environmental effects resulting from the continuance of the development currently existing on the site at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published, .. as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). Therefore, this alternative assumes full occupancy of the existing 14 -unit apartment building and one single - family residence, which represents an increase in occupancy of 12 units over the baseline condition (i.e., three occupied units). This alternative also includes the implementation of any deferred maintenance activities (if any). Because the City has requested that the applicant repair or remove the existing dock due to its present (deteriorated) condition, the No Project Alternative also includes the replacement of the existing (3 -slip) dock with a new dock in an identical configuration. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10-3 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental 10.3.1.1 Land Use and Planning Section 10.0 — Alternatives Although this alternative would result in the continuation of the existing single- and multiple - family residential use of the subject property, the existing 14 -unit apartment exceeds the maximum density provisions of the zoning, which limits development to a maximum of 9 dwelling units. The zoning code would permit the non- conforming density to continue indefinitely unless the owner were to allow the building to become dilapidated, necessitating the City to declare it a public nuisance and ordering it demolished. The existing project would continue to conflict with the current development standards related to density and parking, as the building does not provide parking sufficient to meet current standards. In addition, several components of the foundation of the existing apartment building extend below the existing 50.7 feet NAVD88 established for the site by the Newport Beach City Council. Furthermore, the existing development would conflict with many of the policies articulated in the Newport Beach General Plan for the Corona del Mar community, which seek to enhance the character of the area through innovative design and architecture. As a result, the No Project alternative would result in a "status quo" condition and would not achieve the desired General Plan objectives. 10.3.1.2 Traffic and Circulation Implementation of the No Project alternative would virtually eliminate the construction - related impacts associated with the proposed project and other alternatives evaluated in this section. Specifically, grading and landform alteration would be eliminated as well as several thousand heavy truck trips and construction worker trips related to construction of new homes on the subject property. Only nominal construction- related trips resulting from structural and /or cosmetic improvements would be generated by this altemative. As a result, the Construction Management Plan developed for the proposed project would not be necessary to avoid potential impacts anticipated during construction. Long -term project - related trips would be increased from the existing 23 trips per day from the three occupied units to 104 trips per day when the 15 homes are occupied. This figure is more than twice the number of daily trips that would be generated by the proposed project (i.e., 47 trips per day for the 8 proposed condominium units). 10.3.1.3 Air Quality Although construction - related air emissions would be virtually eliminated when compared to the project - related construction emissions, mobile source and other operational emissions would exceed those generated by the proposed project. Although they would remains less than significant, the mobile source emissions would more than double the emissions resulting from project implementation. In addition, without the incorporation of "green" technology, including energy- efficient heating and cooling systems, etc., potential air emissions would also exceed those of the proposed project as energy consumption of the existing 15 units would exceed that of the proposed 8 -unit project because of the state -of -the art energy- conservation features that have been incorporated into the proposed project when compared to the older energy - inefficient systems that currently exist. 10.3.1.4 Noise Although some construction noise would be generated as a result of structural modifications and cosmetic upgrades that would be required to implement this alternative, the construction noise levels resulting from project implementation would be almost entirely eliminated by the No Project alternative. This potentially significant unavoidable project - related impact would be largely avoided as a result of the No Project alternative. The increase in long -term, operational noise resulting from increased vehicle trips would be greater than the proposed project as a result of the increase in daily trips from 47 to 104. However, the increase would not be significant. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10-4 Aerie PA 2005196 Draft Environmental 10.3.1.5 Aesthetics Section 10.0 — Altematives Potential aesthetics impacts associated with this alternative include those related to the age character of the existing structures. When viewed from locations within Newport Harbor, some foundation elements of the existing multiple - family structure extend below the PLOED established by the City Council; furthermore, it does not conform to the existing topographic character of the bluff. When compared to the proposed project, this alternative would not result in additional encroachment into the viewshed when viewed from either the harbor or from Begonia Park; however, the aesthetic character of the existing structure(s) and bluff, when viewed from those vantages (particularly from the harbor), does not reflect the character desired by the City as articulated in the relevant land use and community design policies articulated in the General Plan. The repaired or replaced 3 -slip dock would be smaller than that proposed by the applicant. As a result, the area(s) within the viewshed potentially affected by the dock facility, when viewed from the harbor, would be reduced when compared to the areas affected by the proposed dock. Similar to the proposed project, momentary loss of views to aesthetic elements within the cove and bluff area would also occur with the No Project alternative; however, these potential effects on the aesthetic character of the area, like those associated with the proposed project, would be less than significant. This alternative would also not result in enhanced views from the existing Public Viewpoint on Ocean Boulevard or improved views to the north by creating a view "window" along the northerly property boundary. Finally, the aesthetic benefits to the neighborhood of undergrounding the overhead utilities would not be achieved. 10.3.1.6 Drainage and Hydrology As indicated in Section 4.6, an existing catch basin in Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard does not have adequate capacity to accommodate existing pre - project storm flows emanating within the drainage area. Although implementation of this alternative would not result in an increase in surface runoff when compared to the proposed project, an integral component of the existing stormwater collection system would continue to be inadequate to accommodate future storm flows. In addition, this alternative would not include water quality treatment systems like the proposed project, resulting in no improvement to the surface water quality before discharging into the municipal collection system and, ultimately, into Newport Bay. 10.3.1.7 Biological Resources Although no potential impacts would occur to the terrestrial biological resources on the site as a result of the No Project alternative, enhancement of the existing plants and habitat would not occur. Specifically, no native plant materials would be incorporated into this alternative and, therefore, no potential benefits of enhanced habitat would be realized. The reconstruction of a 3 -slip dock, which would be smaller than that proposed, would result in similar impacts within the harbor and intertidal areas and would necessitate the implementation of similar measures during the construction phase to ensure that turbidity is minimized and impacts to the marine resources are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. Although it may be possible to avoid eelgrass with a smaller dock, due to the proximity of the dock to the existing eelgrass bed in the harbor, pre- and post- construction surveys would still be required to document avoidance of, or potential impacts to, eelgrass. 10.3.1.8 Public Health and Safety Although some remodeling and cosmetic upgrading of the structures would occur in the No Project alternative, abatement of the asbestos and lead -based paint detected in the existing buildings may not be necessary or required because those activities are contingent upon the nature and extent of specific remodeling that were to occur. In order to avoid LBP and ACM impacts, similar to the proposed project, it would be necessary to abate the LBP and ACM identified during the investigations conducted for the No Project alternative. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -5 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental 10.3.1.9 Soils and Geology Section 10.0— Altematives Because the subject property is located within the seismically active Southern California region, the existing structures would be subject to moderate to strong seismic groundshaking, similar to the proposed project; however, because the structures were built in 1949 and in the 1960s, they do not meet current building code requirements and, therefore, the buildings may not withstand moderate to strong seismic events as well as the proposed project. This, in turn, may result in significant structural damage and /or loss of life unless the existing structures are structurally retrofitted to meet current seismic standards. It is anticipated that grading and /or landform alteration would not occur. Replacement of the 3 -slip dock facility would be exposed to storm - generated wave conditions; however, like the proposed project, the dock would be constructed based on the extreme wave conditions forecast for the area. 10.3.1.10 Cultural Resources No site grading /excavation would be necessary in order to implement the No Project alternative. As a result, potential impacts to paleontological resources identified for the proposed project would be avoided, eliminating the need for mitigation. Summary of No Project/No Development Alternative Ability to Achieve Project Objectives Implementation of the No Project alternative would not achieve any of the eight objectives identified for the proposed project. Most importantly, the No Project alternative would not allow for a state -of- the -art multiple - family residential project and the existing structures will not enhance the aesthetic character of the community as articulated in several of the General Plan policies. Furthermore, no private recreational amenities would be provided and it is anticipated that the existing, energy inefficient structures would continue to consume greater quantities of energy resources when compared to the proposed project, which has been designed to incorporate state -of- the -art energy efficient energy systems. Finally, existing views from the important public vantages would not be enhanced. Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts This alternative would eliminate the potentially significant unavoidable adverse construction noise impact and potential impacts to paleontological resources identified for the proposed project. It would also substantially reduce construction traffic and related air emissions when compared to the proposed project. However, it would not substantially reduce other potential effects, including hydrology /water quality, biological resources, and operational traffic. The existing catch basin near the comer of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard would not be upgraded, resulting in the continuation of the stormwater collection deficiency. In addition, without seismic retrofitting necessary to improve the structural integrity of the existing structures, the buildings and future residents would be exposed to potential seismic hazards. Finally, abatement of the LBP and ACM would not be required so future residents could also be exposed to ACM and LBP unless remediated during the remodeling process. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -6 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Comparative Merits Section 10.0 — Alternatives Although this alternative does eliminate the significant unavoidable adverse construction noise impacts and reduce other potential project- related impacts, several benefits resulting from the proposed project would not be realized, including the state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, and undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring which are included within the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not provide improved aesthetic character within the Corona del Mar community as a result of the modem design and architectural character of the project, and the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities, enhanced public access through the creation of new on- street public parking spaces, and improved drainage and water quality as a result of the upgrading of the existing catch basin. In addition, this alternative does not include enhanced view corridors along Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue and the No Project alternative does not achieve objectives of the Newport Beach General Plan and other long -range plans adopted by the City intended improve the quality of the neighborhood and environment (e.g., improvement stormwater quality, implementation of .'green" technologies, etc.). 10.3.2 Reduced Intensity Alternative (3 Single - Family Residential Dwelling Units) This alternative would result in the subdivision of the existing property into three single - family lots, each of which would be occupied by one custom residence (refer to Exhibit 10 -1). Each of the three homes would consist of two above -grade living levels as well as a basement level and a roof deck. The two residences facing Carnation Avenue might have garages fronting on that street, while the third residence would likely have subterranean parking accessible via a driveway from Carnation Avenue. Similar to the proposed project, basement levels of the homes are assumed to "daylight' at 50.7 feet NAVD88, the City Council- approved predominant line of existing development. Each residence would encompass approximately 6,900 square feet of living space and a total structural floor area of about 7,700 square feet (including living space, garages, mechanical spaces, etc.) for a total structural floor area of approximately 23,200 square feet. Although this reduced intensity alternative would reduce the amount of grading necessary to accommodate the three homes (i.e., 10,000 cubic yards of excavation versus 25,200 cubic yards for the proposed project), up to 75 caissons would be required to provide the structural integrity of the three homes. The existing dock would be replaced with a new 3 -slip dock that would accommodate a 40- to 60 -foot boat for each of the three residences. For this alternative, there is no requirement for implementation of the state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, or undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring, which are included within the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative will not provide those benefits. 10.3.2.1 Land Use and Planning Implementation of this alternative would not require an amendment to the City's General Plan as proposed by the applicant for the proposed project. The construction of three single - family residential dwelling units on the consolidated property would be consistent with the intensity of development in the project environs, which is characterized by both single- and multiple - family residential dwelling units. The single - family residential dwelling units proposed in this alternative could be designed to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and CLUP, similar to the proposed project. As indicated above, development of the site with three homes would not extend below the PLOED established by the City Council. However, as identified below, the construction of three homes would likely require individual curb cuts for vehicular access, resulting in no additional public parking at the curb. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 WIN r d r � s d W U �( � LL cn M a LO 0 U U L.I. d U z d c c d O C m W D 0 co U r� � m m � t y 1 U C � w° �a o¢ O OI IT Ga[cio ilva i:W��IDIA�Y.YI T51dG FG'1T'YNHItlG KKfn > »s 6V�YJ V2il2otvAr NOW .on.al snow a�ari�ox� 32VLL�311H'JL'V 3113NNd3i' NOR18 G n °m WOI oar 1 m 5iw .trAt n�Oa� nl I 4 g•o -I 1 Iu 1 "n HO-AI SL_= .t__V1_SJ JJ ��/� /� /}yn 1I 1 z — - -II _iL_ —Sd dg Ljjj�y, U Q pop � 1 ( .\ 0 P 8 n�oV Q 1 W kn m 10 1 �Q.�Q' c1 I a J ` ��FF �JQx �S o` FF 0W �^ c. Ho P MR q aO�m�, J i r d r � s d W U �( � LL cn M a LO 0 U U L.I. d U z d c c d O C m W D 0 co U r� � m m � t y 1 U C � w° �a o¢ O OI IT Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Alternatives 10.3.2.2 Traffic and Circulation Development of the subject property with three single - family homes would result in potentially greater construction traffic impacts when compared to the proposed project. Although this alternative would necessitate the removal of only 10,000 cubic yards of earth materials (i.e., approximately 3,333 cubic yards for each home), the construction schedule may likely extend over a substantially longer period of time. Based on current economic conditions, it is anticipated that each residence would not be constructed until it has been sold, resulting in a total construction duration of approximately six years (i.e., two years for each residence), assuming each is built one after the other. During that overall construction schedule, heavy truck and related vehicle trips would enter and exit the neighborhood similarly to that anticipated by the proposed project. Although the amount of export materials would be less than the proposed project, resulting in fewer overall haul truck trips (i.e., approximately 825 trips associated with each home), the potential disruption in the neighborhood resulting from the construction vehicles entering and exiting the site would occur over a longer period of time. Once completed, the three dwelling units would generate fewer than 30 vehicular trips per day and only about three morning and afternoon peak hour trips, which would not significantly affect traffic either in the neighborhood or on arterial roadways in the area. 10.3.2.3 Air Quality Potential air quality impacts would be less than significant as a result of the reduction in the amount of grading that would be necessary to accommodate the three homes. The total number of days, combined with fewer heavy truck trips (i.e., 1,194 haul trucks and cement trucks) and less export material (10,000 cubic yards) would account for the reduction in daily emissions associated with the grading operation (i.e., Phase 1) of this alternative. Although overall construction of this alternative would take approximately six years (i.e., two years for each home), the potential air quality impacts associated with subsequent phases (i.e., concrete construction, framing, and finish) would utilize similar types and numbers of construction equipment as the proposed project. Therefore, daily construction emissions would be about the same as those estimated for the proposed project and would be less than significant. Operational emissions, including mobile source emissions, would also be less than significant due to the reduction in dwelling units that generate fewer trips when compared to the proposed project. However, the homes in this alternative are less likely to be designed to be as energy efficient as the proposed project because the three custom homes would not necessarily be constructed by the applicant. The off -site emissions associated with natural gas and electrical consumption could be greater than the proposed project emissions when compared on a unit -to -unit basis. Nonetheless, long -term air emissions would be less than the project - related emissions, which are less than significant. 10.3.2.4 Noise Noise resulting in the demolition of the existing structures would be similar to that described in Section 4.4. Because grading would not extend below 50 feet NAVD88, potential noise associated with grading required for each of the homes would be limited to the area identified in Exhibit 4.4 -3. Other noise levels resulting from concrete pouring, metal stud framing and concrete form work would be similar to the proposed project; however, because construction of these homes would likely occur consecutively rather than concurrently, the overall construction phase would be substantially longer when compared to the proposed project. Based on a two -year construction schedule for each home, construction noise would fluctuate based on the particular phase and would extend over a six year period compared to a 32 -month construction phase for the proposed project. Therefore, potential construction noise impacts would also be significant and unavoidable. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -9 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental 10.2.2.5 Aesthetics Section 10.0 — Alternatives Although it is anticipated that this alternative would comply with the relevant policies related to aesthetics and visual resources articulated in the General Pan and CLUP, development of the site with three single- family dwelling units (and a three -slip dock) could adversely affect public views from the Public View Point on Ocean Boulevard. Although subdivision of the property, which would result in the creation of three individual lots and the placement of a home on each lot, could provide a degree of enhancement as desired in the relevant General Plan policies, it is possible that the view enhancement may not be as significant as that resulting from project implementation (i.e., 75 percent increase) in the view angle from the Public View Point. As a result, enhancement of the public view from Ocean Boulevard that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project may not be realized. Similarly, the view corridor along the northern property boundary created by the proposed project would likely be eliminated in this alternative. This alternative will improve the aesthetic character of the site (when compared to the existing older, deteriorating residences that currently exist) and achieve architectural diversity as articulated in the relevant General Plan policies. When viewed from the harbor, three structures would be seen, including basement levels that "daylight" at the PLOED, which has been established at 50.7 feet NAVD88. Although the dock would be smaller (i.e., 3 slips versus 8 slips and a guest side tie), the effect on the aesthetic character of the bluff and rock outcroppings would be similar to the proposed project. While portions of the small cove and rock outcroppings may be obscured from view by the boats and docks associated with this alternative, the effect on those views would be temporary; none of the visual amenities would be permanently altered or destroyed as a result of implementing this alternative. 10.3.2.6 Drainage and Hydrology Although the impervious area of the site may be reduced with such an alternative, the existing catch basin in Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard is deficient and cannot adequately accommodate existing surface flows within the drainage area. Despite this alternative likely reducing flows to the existing catch basin, the catch basin would remain deficient. If storm runoff does not exceed existing volumes, this alternative could not be conditioned to upgrade the catch basin from existing conditions. In addition, the potential for water quality impacts would be similar to the proposed project and could exacerbate the existing "impaired" status of Newport Bay if surface flows are not properly treated prior to being discharged. 10.3.2.7 Biological Resources The potential effects of this alternative on terrestrial biological resources would be the same as identified in Section 4.6. Specifically, this alternative, like the proposed project, would result in the removal of introduced, non - native trees, shrubs and ground covers currently existing on the upper portion of the bluff, which could result in impacts to nesting bird species that may reside on the site. In addition, it is possible that one or more sensitive plant species, if found to occupy the site, could be affected. As a result, the same provisions for construction scheduling and pre- construction surveys for sensitive plant species and nesting birds would also be imposed on this project alternative. In addition to these potential effects, the reconstruction of a 3 -slip dock, which would be smaller than that proposed in connection with the project, would result in similar impacts within the intertidal area, and would necessitate the implementation of similar mitigation measures during the construction phase to ensure that turbidity is minimized and impacts to the marine resources are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. Although it may be possible to better avoid eelgrass with this alternative given that it is a smaller dock (e.g., a larger buffer could be implemented), due to the proximity of the facility to the existing eelgrass bed in the harbor, pre- and post - construction surveys would still be required to document avoidance of, or potential impacts to, eelgrass. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -10 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Alternatives 10.3.2.8 Public Health and Safety Implementation of this alternative would necessitate the demolition of the existing residential structures that occupy the site. As a result, the potential impacts identified for the proposed project would also occur (i.e., potential to release ACM and LBP if not properly abated). However, as prescribed for the proposed project, this alternative would include the same standard conditions to ensure that any ACM and LBP that may exist in the structures are abated in accordance with existing regulatory requirements. Implementation of this alternative does not significantly reduce or minimize issues associated with ACM and /or LBP. 10.3.2.9 Soils and Geology The soils and geologic conditions on the property are suitable to accommodate the development of the site with three single - family homes. Although similar structural reinforcement would be required, grading would not extend below the 50 -foot elevation. Potential impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to the proposed project, including those potential effects associated with the construction of the dock with three slips (i.e., exposure to storm waves). Implementation of this alternative does not significantly reduce or minimize potentially significant impacts associated with soils and geology. 10.3.2.10 Cultural Resources Although the grading anticipated to accommodate the three single - family residential dwelling units would be less than that proposed in connection with the project, impacts to paleontological resources would be the same as identified for the proposed project due to the nature of the underlying Monterey Formation, which is known to contain abundant fossilized marine invertebrates and vertebrates. Therefore, this alternative would be required to implement the same mitigation measure as prescribed for the proposed project (i.e., preparation of a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program) to ensure that fossils that may be encountered are adequately addressed. As indicated for the proposed project, no existing archaeological or historical resources are known to exist on the site; therefore, implementation of this alternative would not result in any impacts to such resources. Summary of Reduced Intensity Alternative (3 Single - Family Residential Dwelling Units) Ability to Achieve Project Objectives Implementation of this alternative would achieve only portions of Objectives 1 (i.e., enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood by replacing a deteriorating structure), 2 (i.e., incorporate a design that reflects the architectural diversity of the neighborhood), 3 (i.e., provide a dock for each residence), and 7 (enhance scenic views from the harbor). However, this alternative would not result in the construction of a multiple - family residential condominium project of sufficient size (Objective 1) to provide range of recreational and health amenities or ample storage space (Objective 4), enhance aesthetics of the neighborhood to the degree of the proposed project, and remove two existing overhead power poles (Objective 2), incorporate energy- saving, sustainable, and environmentally sensitive technology, construction techniques, and other features designed to conserve energy and /or improve the existing environment to a greater degree than required by current applicable regulations (Objective 3), enhance public access by increasing public street parking (Objective 5), or remove two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, all of which presently affect the view from certain perspectives or replace the existing poles and overhead wiring by undergrounding the new wiring, all in order to enhance scenic views to the harbor and ocean from designated vantage points (Objective 6). In addition, if the homes in this alternative were built to the maximum building height, this alternative would not minimize encroachment into private views when compared to the proposed project (Objective 8). Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -11 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts Section 10.0 — Alternatives This alternative would decrease the amount of grading required to construct the three single - family residential dwelling units, construction of the three homes would extend over a six year period (i.e., two years for each home) because they which would be constructed consecutively rather than concurrently due to market conditions. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would not avoid or substantially reduce the potential construction noise impact associated with project implementation. Depending on market conditions, the construction noise impacts could extend for a greater period of time than would be the case for the proposed project or the multi- family project alternatives. Implementation of this alternative would also result in reduced construction and mobile- source air emissions and construction traffic, which were determined to be less than significant with the proposed project as well. Comparative Merits As indicated above, this alternative does not eliminate the significant unavoidable adverse construction noise impacts associated with the proposed project. Due to the manner in which construction would occur (i.e., consecutively), the actual construction duration and, therefore, short-term impacts associated with construction (e.g., air quality, noise, and traffic), would be extended beyond any of the alternatives evaluated. In addition, several benefits resulting from the proposed project might not be realized to the extent that would occur with the proposed project, including the provision of enhanced view corridors along Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue, the state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, and undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring. 10.3.3 Reduced Intensity/5 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project This alternative includes the elimination of the proposed project's Sub - Basement Level and the entire Basement Level. The location and basic design of levels above the Basement level are assumed to be similar as the proposed project. Twenty -five (25) caissons below the building perimeter along Bayside Place and Newport Bay are eliminated due to the change in basement and foundation design. Due to the elimination of parking located on the Sub - Basement and Basement levels, required parking spaces have been reallocated among the proposed parking areas within the First and Second levels. The resulting parking plan would comply with the City's off - street parking requirements for the development of 5 units. If vehicle spaces on vehicle lifts were considered adequate to satisfy required parking, the number of units could be higher assuming no reduction in building area devoted to residential uses would occur to increase the size and capacity of the garage areas. The interior layout of the proposed residential building areas would be reallocated and /or redesigned for a reduced number of units (5). The applicant would have the ability to increase the size of units, provide area for common amenities or mechanical spaces for energy independent systems. Compared to the proposed project, this multiple - family alternative has three (3) fewer units and the extra guest parking including golf cart and motorcycle parking spaces would be eliminated. Elimination of 2 levels (Sub- basement and Basement Levels) Decrease in number of units from S to 5 Elimination of 25 caissons along the building perimeter facing Newport Bay and Bayside Place Total reduction of 12,240 cubic yards of excavation Reduction of 1,021 dump trucks and 126 cement trucks Reduction of approximately 9 months of construction time compared to the proposed project Reduction or possible elimination of mechanical spaces impacting the ability to provide energy independent systems such as photovoltaic and gray water storages Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -12 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — A/tematives • Reduction or possible elimination of common amenities for all units including fitness center, less private storage • Proposed dock design would be reduced; 5 slips for 5 units plus 1 guest side -tie For this alternative, state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, or undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring, which are included within the proposed project, would not be required. Therefore, this alternative will not provide those benefits. 10.3.3.1 Land Use and Planning Implementation of this alternative would require the same amendment to the City's General Plan as proposed by the applicant for the proposed project. The construction of five (5) multiple - family residential dwelling units on the consolidated property would be consistent with the intensity of development in the project environs, which is characterized by both single- and multiple - family residential dwelling units. This less intense alternative could be designed to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the City s General Plan and CLUP, similar to the proposed project. As indicated above, development of the site with 5 multiple - family dwelling units in a similar configuration as the proposed project would not extend below the PLOED established by the City Council. 10.3.3.2 Traffic Circulation Potential construction traffic impacts would be similar (i.e., addition of heavy truck trips onto the residential streets in the area) to the proposed project, although the number of heavy truck trips resulting from the reduction in grading and requirement to export earth materials from the site would be reduced by 1,021 truck trips. Nonetheless, the nature and extent of the construction vehicles /traffic would be the same but would occur for a shorter period of time. These potential effects would be addressed through the implementation of a Construction Management Plan with the same restrictions on parking, ingress /egress of vehicles, etc. As for long -term impacts, the 5 -unit alternative would yield approximately 30 trips per day, compared to 47 for the proposed project. Similarly, peak hour vehicle trips would also be reduced. As with the proposed project, no potential long -term traffic impacts from this alternative would occur. 10.3.3.3 Air Quality As with traffic impacts, the potential less than significant air emissions associated with the proposed project during both construction and operation would be reduced commensurate with the reduction in the amount of soil material excavated from the site and transported to the Olinda Alpha Landfill and the reduction in the number of dwelling units. As indicated in Section 4.3, potential less than significant short-term (construction) and long -term (operational) air emissions estimated for the proposed project would be further reduced by the implementation of this alternative. 10.3.3.4 Noise This alternative, which eliminates the sub - basement level, basement levels, and three dwelling units, would also eliminate several noise - generating components associated with construction, including the elimination of 25 caissons that would not be necessary for structural integrity. In addition, the quantity of earth material excavated and hauled from the site would also be reduced. As a result, this alternative would require approximately 23 months of construction, compared to 32 months for the proposed project. Potential noise impacts for demolition would be the same. Although the noise associated with caisson drilling would be the same as with the proposed project, fewer caissons are required and the duration of that noise over the construction phase of the project would be reduced. In addition, noise associated with excavation to the 28- foot elevation would be eliminated with the elimination of the sub - basement level. As indicated above, construction noise levels anticipated as a result of this 5 -unit alternative would be virtually the same as those Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 1043 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Alternatives identified for the proposed project; however, with the elimination of excavation below 50 feet in elevation and 25 caissons, the duration of the excessive construction noise would be significantly reduced by approximately 9 months. Although this alternative would reduce the duration of construction and, therefore, potential excessive noise, the potential construction- related noise impacts would remain significant even with the incorporation of the mitigation measures prescribed in Section 4.4. 10.3.3.5 Aesthetics Because the proposed exterior building design above the basement floor is aesthetically similar to the proposed project, no potential aesthetic impacts would occur as a result of implementing this alternative. The effect of this project design alternative on aesthetics would be virtually the same as identified and described in Section 4.5 for the proposed project. The view corridor on Ocean Boulevard at the Public View Point identified in the Citys General Plan would be expanded. In addition, the view window along the northern property line would also be "opened" as a result of the project design. However, with the exception of the existing overhead wires that would be extended to serve the site, the overhead utility poles in the neighborhood on Carnation Avenue would not be undergrounded. 10.3.3.6 Drainage and Hydrology Similar to the proposed project, the only physical changes to the site plan are those occurring below the finished pad elevation (i.e., elimination of two basement levels). Therefore, like the proposed project, this alternative would be expected to decrease flows to the existing deficient catch basin near the corner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, although the catch basin would remain deficient. Nonetheless, this alternative would not be required to upgrade the existing deficient catch basin. As a result, this alternative would not improve the drainage condition in the area. 10.3.3.7 Biological Resources The potential effects of this alternative on terrestrial biological resources would be the same as identified for the proposed project, including the removal of introduced, non - native trees, shrubs and ground covers currently existing on the upper portion of the bluff, which could result in impacts to nesting bird species that may reside on the site and the possible adverse effect to one or more sensitive plant species, if found to occupy the site. As a result, the same provisions for construction scheduling and pre- construction sensitive plant species would also be imposed on this project alternative. Similarly, the reconstruction of a 5 -slip dock, which would be smaller than that proposed, would also result in similar effects within the harbor and intertidal areas as the proposed project and other alternatives and would, therefore, necessitate the implementation of similar measures during the construction phase to ensure that turbidity is minimized and impacts to the marine resources are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. Although it may be possible to avoid eelgrass with the smaller dock, due to the proximity of the facility to the existing eelgrass bed in the harbor, pre- and post - construction surveys would still be required to document avoidance of, or potential impacts to, eelgrass. 10.3.3.8 Public Health and Safety Implementation of this alternative would necessitate the demolition of the existing residential structures that occupy the site. As a result, the potential impacts identified for the proposed project would also occur (i.e., potential to release ACM and LBP if not properly abated). However, as prescribed for the proposed project, this alternative would include the same standard conditions to ensure that any ACM and LBP that may exist in the structures are abated in accordance with existing regulatory requirements. Implementation of this alternative does not significantly reduce or minimize issues associated with ACM and /or LBP. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -14 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 - Altematives 10.3.3.9 Soils and Geology The soils and geologic conditions are suitable to accommodate the development of the 5 -unit multiple - family residential project. Although similar structural reinforcement would be required as with the proposed project, grading would not extend below the 50 -foot elevation. Potential impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to the proposed project, including those potential effects associated with the construction of the dock with five slips (i.e., exposure to stone waves). Implementation of this altemative does not significantly reduce or minimize potentially significant impacts associated with soils and geology. 10.3.3.10 Cultural Resources Although grading would be reduced by eliminating the two basement levels and the need to excavate as much as 20 feet lower, the potential effects of this project would be the same as those identified in Section 4.10. Although no potentially significant effects would occur to historic and cultural and archaeological resources based on the site and records surveys conducted for the site, grading necessary to accommodate the structural components identified in this alternative would result in similar potential effects on paleontological resources because grading would extend into the Monterey formation, which is capable of producing such resources. Therefore, this alternative would be required to implement the same mitigation measure as prescribed for the proposed project (i.e., preparation of a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program) to ensure that fossils that may be encountered are adequately addressed. Summary of Reduced Intensity /5 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project Ability to Achieve Project Objectives It is not clear whether this alternative could feasibly accomplish most of the project objectives. In most cases, the degree to which the objectives would be achieved would be less than that occurring with the proposed project. This alternative might not be expected to contain a sufficient number and size of units to justify the same level of advanced design and architecture which would reflect the architectural diversity of the community and add distinction to the harbor and neighborhood, use energy - conserving technology in excess of that which is legally required, or include significant common amenities (Objective 1, Objective 3, Objective 4). While this alternative would improve the aesthetic character of the site and neighborhood by replacing the existing structure with a more modern structure, it would not remove overhead power poles (Objective 2). Additionally, the significantly reduced scale of the project may also reduce the extent of landscape and streetscape enhancements (Objective 2) compared to the proposed project. Further, the provision of energy efficient systems (Objective No. 3) likely would be limited or precluded by the elimination of electrical and storage areas allocated for the proposed project. Similarly, the ability to provide storage and community amenities would be severely constrained (Objective No. 4). Objective Nos. 5, 7, and S likely could be achieved in a similar fashion as the proposed project. Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts Implementation of this alternative would result in generally similar (e.g., soils and geology, drainage and hydrology, cultural resources, aesthetics, public health and safety, etc.) or slightly reduced (e.g., traffic and circulation, air quality, etc.) effects as those identified for the proposed project. Although this alternative would reduce the overall duration of construction by approximately 9 months, the reduction in the duration of excessive noise would be significantly reduces. Therefore, of construction - related noise anticipated for this alternative would remain significant. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -15 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Alternatives Comparative Merits As indicated above, the 5 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project would reduce the duration of construction noise by 9 months and significantly reduce construction - related noise, but the construction - related noise would remain significant. Although some (less than significant) project - related effects would be reduced further with this alternative, the reductions would occur at the expense of the reduction and /or elimination of project components, including storage space, common amenities, upgrading of the existing catch basin, removal of utility poles, and undergrounding of wiring, and mechanical spaces, which affect the ability to provide energy independent systems. 10.3.4 Existing Zoning /Alternative Design Two 8 -unit alternatives that include 8 multiple - family residential dwelling units on the site reflect an alternative design have been identified for the "existing zoning" alternative. While they reflect the same number of dwelling units and less grading, each is characterized by specific parameters, including a reduction in grading, which are described below. 8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project with Reduced Grading F-111M 1. i1 -X-11 This 8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project alternative (refer to Exhibits 10 -2 through 10 -6) includes the elimination of the sub - basement included in the proposed project, and a reduction of 1,259 square feet at the basement level, resulting in a reduction of 7,804 cubic yards of excavation when compared to the proposed project. Building perimeter walls along Bayside Place and Newport Bay have been modified to accommodate the distance required for a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) cut slope in order to eliminate the need for 25 caissons along that side. As a result, the perimeter walls are pulled back from the PLOED of 50.7 feet NAVD88. In addition, common facilities and amenities have also been reduced in an effort to minimize grading and potential impacts. The resulting parking plan complies with the City's off - street parking requirements; however, due to the elimination of the sub - basement parking, parking spaces have been reallocated in this alternative to the first, second and basement levels of the structure. This alternative has 3 fewer guest parking spaces and does not include the golf cart and motorcycle parking. The proposed dock design in this alternative, which includes eight slips for the eight dwelling units as well as one guest "side tie,' would be the same as the proposed project. For Alternative A, the applicant has indicated that it would provide state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, and undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring to the same extent as provided for the proposed project. These improvements would be voluntarily provided even though there is no basis to require the implementation of these improvements. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005- 196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -16 9JbIL0 y1V0 M!'d W101d h�iLM-G 1"I'/'WMVIq Y.Y. tfPMY 499CY VJ'BN'QAIi IMOdGN QG dy 0' +••9u' 'aw�z aimvumox+ 32tfLL'A11H7L"a' 3ll3NNV3I' NOI>J9 1IpIr/I 11 6� 1 AN i �z N C O N ra y_ y C L cl) X W w R m LL LL 2 00 Cl) a) N C L d y Q R 'L^ V d V 7 W N @ U _W G yU 4 @ L' @ C C @ C O c Q] W I 9 Q U C - o c N R Wm U L.. @ O E 3 0 .^- r O W� N A d Q Cl) O - r Y x x W � U N t U Q O N C C N d C O C co U1 U K 0 O y Q U Y _ of m m �m �Y ip2N � P�� a So W N W o� d � C O � �a 0 L O X LL W C L) ci cn cn 0 LL au m M C t6 Q Cl) N w f6 C L Y Q -a d U 7 a m d 5 U _N L U Q d d C C t0 d C O cc co IlJ U K 7 Q y U C O L O O N � O N Z N d ,Ra g W N �a o� m a LO c oa 0 t O X Il w a LLL_ LL 00 Cl) a M L Q » c v d U 3 a d d U v a d 0 .0 m U K 0 O rn U �W m vY O E 3 0 �°, Z N � ��g a WN om Q a Alm MA LO c oa 0 t O X Il w a LLL_ LL 00 Cl) a M L Q » c v d U 3 a d d U v a d 0 .0 m U K 0 O rn U �W m vY O E 3 0 �°, Z N � ��g a WN om Q (D C oa R Y_ L O t O X LL W c e d c m 0 m U K O rn U m m U t.. � O E3o �ZN C I L WN C m 0¢ d a _ _.. _ . _. .. ..... . . ... .... . ® �I �\ ♦ =111 iii��� • II II (D C oa R Y_ L O t O X LL W c e d c m 0 m U K O rn U m m U t.. � O E3o �ZN C I L WN C m 0¢ d a Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Alternative B Section 10.0 — Alternatives This alternative is similar to the 8 -unit alternative described in the previous section (i.e., no sub - basement level). However, implementation of this alternative would also result in a reduction of 5,419 square feet at the basement level from the proposed project. Only the garage "core" and a small portion of circulation, mechanical, and storage space would remain at the basement level (refer to Exhibit 10 -7 and Exhibits 10- 3 through 10 -6). In addition, common facilities such as the recreation room and most of the storage areas have been eliminated. A reduction in the mechanical spaces would also result in the elimination of some energy- independent systems such as the photovoltaic and gray water storage features; however, the applicant would retain the ability to modify the plans to incorporate these facilities within other areas. A small portion of excavation beyond the basement perimeter is necessary for the pool on the first floor. This alternative would result in the elimination of 25 caissons along the building perimeter facing Newport Bay and Bayside Place and would require 9,229 cubic yards less of excavation to accommodate the proposed structure. The first and second floor plans are the same as the other 8 -unit alternative previously identified and the required parking would also be reallocated to the first, second, and basement levels of the structure. Although the extra guest parking spaces would be eliminated in this alternative, the design would comply with the City's off - street parking requirements. Also, the proposed dock design would be the same as the proposed project. For Alternative B, there is no requirement for incorporating the state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, or undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring, which are included within the proposed project. The applicant has indicated it would not be able to provide these improvements for Alternative B. 10.3.4.1 Land Use and Planning Implementation of this alternative would require the same amendment to the City's General Plan as proposed by the applicant for the proposed project. The development intensity of this altemative is the same as the proposed project; the construction of eight (8) multiple - family residential dwelling units on the consolidated property would be consistent with the intensity of development in the project environs, which is characterized by both single- and multiple - family residential dwelling units. This alternative could be designed to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and CLOP, in the same fashion as the proposed project. As indicated above, development of the site with 8 multiple - family dwelling units in a similar configuration, albeit without the storage and amenities included in the proposed project, would not extend below the PLOED established by the City Council. 10.3.4.2 Traffic Circulation Potential construction traffic impacts would be similar to the proposed project, although the number of heavy truck trips resulting from the reduction in grading and requirement to export earth materials from the site would be reduced as a result of the reduction of grading associated with these alternatives (i.e., 1,881 and 2,055 heavy truck and cement truck trips versus 2,727 total trips for the proposed project). Nonetheless, the nature and extent of the construction vehicles /traffic would be the same but would occur for a shorter period of time. These potential effects would be addressed through the implementation of a Construction Management Plan with the same restrictions on parking, ingress /egress of vehicles, etc. as the Construction Management Plan proposed in connection with the project. As for long -term impacts, the 8 -unit alternatives (with reduced grading as indicated above) would yield the same number of trips (i.e., 47 trips per day) as the proposed project. Off - street parking would comply with the City's parking code requirements and the number of on- street parking spaces would also be increased as reflected in the proposed project. Similarly, peak hour vehicle trips would also be the same with the implementation of either of these reduced grading alternatives; however, like the proposed project, no potential long -term traffic impacts from this alternative would occur. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -22 n 0 Y_ x W m r U Q N z m c c c 0 m IL U K 7 0 co U C _ oz � m m � 0 �3o N r Z N G ^� R eh >o WN O m Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Alternatives 10.3.4.3 Air Quality As with traffic impacts, the potential less than significant air emissions associated with the proposed project during both construction and operation would be reduced commensurate with the reduction in the amount of soil material excavated from the site and transported to the Olinda Alpha Landfill. As indicated in Section 4.3, potential less than significant short-term (construction) and long -term (operational) air emissions estimated for the proposed project would be further reduced by the implementation of either of these reduced grading alternatives that would also yield 8 multiple - family residential dwelling units. 10.3.4.4 Noise These reduced grading alternatives (i.e., Alternative A would eliminate the sub - basement level and 1,259 square feet in the basement level and Alternative B would eliminate the sub - basement level and 5,419 square feet in the basement level) would also eliminate several noise - generating components associated with construction, including the elimination of 23 caissons that would not be necessary for structural integrity. In addition, the quantity of earth material excavated and hauled from the site would also be reduced. As a result, these alternatives would require only 27 months to construction Alternative A and 26 months for Alternative B of construction, compared to 32 months for the proposed project. Potential noise impacts for demolition would be the same. Although the noise associated with caisson drilling would be the same for the proposed project, fewer caissons are required and the duration of that noise over the construction phase of the project would be reduced. In addition, noise associated with excavation to the 28 -foot elevation would be eliminated with the elimination of the sub - basement level. As indicated above, construction noise levels anticipated as a result of these 8 -unit alternatives would be virtually the same as those identified for the proposed project; however, with the elimination of excavation below 40 feet in elevation and 23 caissons, the duration of construction would be reduced by five months for Alternative A and six months for Alternative B, although the duration of the reduction in excessive construction noise would be less. While these alternatives would reduce the duration of construction and, therefore, potential excessive noise, the reduction in noise would constitute a significant reduction in potential construction noise impacts; however it would remain significant even with the incorporation of the mitigation measures prescribed in Section 4.4. 10.3.4.5 Aesthetics Because the proposed exterior building design above the basement floor is identical to the proposed project, no potential aesthetic impacts would occur as a result of implementing this alternative. The effect of these 8- unit, reduced grading project design alternatives on aesthetics would be the same as identified and described in Section 4.5 for the proposed project. The view corridor on Ocean Boulevard at the Public View Point identified in the City s General Plan would be expanded and enhanced to provide a wider view. In addition, the view corridor along the northern property line would also be "opened" as a result of the project design and the overhead utilities in the neighborhood on Carnation Avenue would also be undergrounded, resulting in the improvement of the aesthetic character of the neighborhood. Finally, the aesthetic character of the bluff and cove below when viewed from the harbor would not be adversely impacted by the proposed dock facility, which would be the same as the proposed project. As indicated in Section 4.5, views from the harbor would be momentarily interrupted by the proposed dock; however, no significant aesthetic impacts would occur. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -24 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Altematives 10.3.4.6 Drainage and Hydrology Similar to the proposed project, the only physical changes to the site plan as a result of these 8 -unit alternatives are those occurring below the finished pad elevation (i.e., elimination of two basement levels). Although neither reduced grading alternative would be required to upgrade the existing deficient catch basin near the corner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, the applicant would implement that improvement for Alternative A, which would eliminate the existing catch basin deficiency. These reduced grading design alternatives would also include the same or similar BMPs and features to treat stormwater before it is discharged into the bay. 10.3.4.7 Biological Resources The potential effects of these reduced grading alternatives on terrestrial biological resources would be the same as identified for the proposed project, including the removal of introduced, non - native trees, shrubs and ground covers currently existing on the upper portion of the bluff, which could result in impacts to nesting bird species that may reside on the site and the possible adverse effect to one or more sensitive plant species, if found to occupy the site. As a result, the same provisions for construction scheduling and pre - construction sensitive plant species would also be imposed on this project alternative. Similarly, the reconstruction of a 8 -slip dock would also result in the same effects within the intertidal area as the proposed project and other alternatives and would, therefore, necessitate the implementation of the measures during the construction phase to ensure that turbidity is minimized and impacts to the marine resources are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. 10.3.4.8 Public Health and Safety Implementation of this alternative would require the demolition of the two residential structures that exist on the subject property. The potential impacts associated with the 8 -unit multiple - family residential project with reduced grading would be the same as described in Section 4.8. Therefore, it will be necessary to abate the ACM and LBP in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. 10.3.4.9 Soils and Geology The soils and geologic conditions are suitable to accommodate the development of the site either of the 8- unit multiple - family residential projects that reduce the grading. Similar structural reinforcement would be required to accommodate either design alternative. Potential impacts associated with these reduced grading alternatives would be similar to the proposed project, including those potential effects associated with the construction of the dock with eight slips (i.e., exposure to storm waves). Implementation of this alternative does not significantly reduce or minimize potentially significant impacts associated with soils and geology. 10.3.4.10 Cultural Resources Although the amount of grading would be reduced by eliminating all or portions of the two basement levels and the need to excavate as much as 20 feet lower, the potential effects of this project would be the same as those identified in Section 4.10. Although no potentially significant effects would occur to historic and cultural /archaeological resources based on the site and records surveys conducted for the site, grading necessary to accommodate the structural components identified in this alternative would result in similar potential effects on paleontological resources because grading would extend into the Monterey formation, which is capable of producing such resources. Therefore, this alternative would be required to implement the same mitigation measure as prescribed for the proposed project (i.e., preparation of a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program) to ensure that fossils that may be encountered are adequately addressed. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10-25 Aerie PA 2006196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Alternatives Summary of Existing Zoning /Alternative Design Ability to Achieve Project Objectives Implementation of Alternative A will, to some extent, achieve all project objectives. Given the reduced building area with the basement level eliminated and sub - basement level reduced in size, there would be less area to accommodate the mechanical /electrical spaces for the energy - efficient features that go beyond the minimum Title 24 code compliance. The common amenities proposed would be significantly reduced, with the exception of the pool itself, and the private storage areas would be also be reduced in size. The proposed docks would remain the same as that included in the proposed project. Implementation of Alternative B also achieves, to some degree, most of the project objectives. The ability to incorporate the use of energy- conserving technology would be constrained, as would the inclusion of common amenities (Objective 1). Achievement of Objectives No. 2 and No. 4 is compromised to a degree because, as with Objective 1, the reduced scale of the project will eliminate the requirement to remove the existing power poles. Alternative B has reduced areas available for mechanical /electrical spaces, common amenities and storage areas relative to Alternative A. As with Alternative A, the proposed docks would remain the same as that included in the proposed project. Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts With the exception of reducing the duration of construction by five or six months, which would reduce the number of heavy truck trips entering the roadway system and the daily air emissions (both of which were determined to be less than significant), the reduced grading alternatives described above would result in generally similar impacts as those described for the proposed project. Potential construction - related noise impacts would be significantly be reduced but the remaining impact will remain significant. Comparative Merits As indicated above, both of the reduced grading alternatives could achieve a significant reduction in construction- related noise due to the reduced construction duration and some reduction in the degree of other environmental effects (truck traffic and air quality); however, these reductions would not be substantial and would not completely avoid the potentially significant construction - related noise impacts. Furthermore, the reductions in less than significant impacts would cause the elimination of components of the proposed project that are intended to achieve specific project objectives (e.g., provision of energy efficient systems, on -site recreational amenities, etc.). Specifically with respect to Alternative B, the project would not include the high -level of energy - saving technology, remove the existing power poles and overhead wiring, or upgrade the existing catch basin, as would both the proposed project and Alternative A. 10.4 Summary of Alternatives and Environmentally Superior Alternative An EIR is required to identify the "environmentally superior' alternative among those evaluated from the reasonable range of alternatives analyzed. Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines mandates that in the event "... the environmentally superior alternative is the 'no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives" Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2006196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 F10111.1 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Altematives As indicated in Table 10 -1, the No Project/No Development alternative would avoid the two potentially significant project - related impacts (construction noise and paleontology) identified in Chapter 4.0. The remaining alternatives would reduce to some extent, the degree of traffic and air quality impacts, which were determined to be less than significant for the proposed project. In addition, although the duration of construction noise would be significantly reduced as a result of reduced grading in the 3, 5, and 8 -unit alternatives, the construction noise associated with each alternative could not be mitigated and would remain significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, with the possible exception of Alternative 3A, the other alternatives would not result in the benefits derived form project implementation (e.g., underground overhead power poles creating an improved aesthetic character on Carnation Avenue and upsizing of the existing deficient catch basin). Finally, all or portions of several project objectives would not be realized, including state -of- the -art energy saving conservation features and the provision of recreation amenities. Based on the potential environmental effects and the ability to meet the project objectives, existing Zoning /8 -Unit Multiple Family Alternative A is considered the "environmentally superior' alternative of the alternatives considered as a result of improvements that ameliorate existing undesirable environmental conditions (e.g., provision of adequate capacity in the existing deficient storm drain, removal of the unsightly overhead utility poles, etc.). Although Alternative B further reduces grading and, to some degree, the duration of construction noise, the potential impact would remain significant and unavoidable as with all of the alternatives and project objectives would not be achieved to the same degree as compared to Alternative A. Furthermore, none of the improvements to drainage, aesthetics and /or energy conservation systems would be included in the single - family (i.e., 3 dwelling units), or 5 -unt and 8 -unit Alternative B design alternatives; thus, the environmental benefits would not accrue to those alternatives. Table 10 -1 Summary of Project Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005- 196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -27 Significant Reduced Impacts Avoided Alternative Project or Substantially Environmentally Meets Effects Reduced Other Effects Superior? Project Objectives' No Project/No Traffic Noise 4.5 Yes None Development Air Qualfiy2 5 Paleontology Reduced Intensity 3 Single Family Units Trafficz.e Air Quality5 None Noise r Drainage /Hydrology No 1 2, 3, and 7 , Aesthefics (Partial) Reduced Intensity 5 Multiple Family Units Traffic Air Quality 5 None > Drainage/Hydrology' 5 No° 5,7, and 8 Reduced Grading Noises Aesthetics s8 (Partial) Existing Zoning Troffio ze 8 Multiple Family Units Air Qualityz ,e None Drainage/Hydrology' 8 Yes All Reduced Grading g Noises Aesthetics (Partial) Alternative A Existing Zoning roffio ze TDrainage 8 Multiple Family Units Air Qualilyz ,e None /Hydrology' a No All Reduced Grading g Noises Aesthetics (Partial) Alternative B 'Numbers refer to Project Objectives Identified in Section 10.5. 2During the construction phase. 'Substantially reduces or eliminates a significant unavoidable adverse impact. °Does not achieve City goals and objectives and /or inconsistent with adopted land use policies. 5Does not result in improved surface water quality and continuation of catch basin deficiency in Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard. SProject effects less than significant; reduced project effects is the result of reduced grading required for the alternatives. 'Does not upgrade existing deficient catch basin. °Does not underground existing power poles and wiring. 9Duration of construction phase reduced; however, alternative will not significantly reduce construction noise levels. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005- 196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -27 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 11.0 — Organizations and Persons Consulted CHAPTER 11.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department David Lepo, Director James Campbell, Principal Planner Public Works Department Tony Brine, Transportation and Development Services Manager Dave Keely, Associate Traffic Engineer Building Department Faisal Jurdi, Deputy Building Officer Steve Hook, Chief Building Inspector Fire Department Steve Buntin, Fire Marshal Kim Reitman, Fire Prevention Specialist Harbor Resources Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal AUSTIN -FOUST ASSOCIATES Joe Foust, Principal Terry Austin, Principal ICF /JONES & STOKES Kim Svitenko, Senior Biologist SYNECTECOLOGY Todd Brody, Principal DraftEnvimnmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 11 -1 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 11.0 — Organizations and Persons Consulted GMU GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Lisa L. Bates - Seabold, CEG, Senior Engineering Geoloigst COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, INC. Rick Ware, President/Senior Marine Biologist SOFTMIRAGE, INC. Steve Pollack, Principal Howard Ouellette BRION JEANNETTE ARCHITECTURE Brion Jeannette, Principal Wun Sze Li Amy Creager HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES INRVINE, INC. Ted Frattone Philip D. Dowty, P.E. THE PLANNING CENTER Tin Cheung GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES Glenn Lukos NOBLE CONSULTANTS, INC. Jon T. Moore, P.E. NEBLETT & ASSOCIATES Sidney S. Neblett, R.G., C.E.G. Daniel J. Morikwa, P.E., G.E. David H. Ginter, G.G. DraftEnvironmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 11 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 12.0— References CHAPTER 12.0 REFERENCES The following documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. 1. Newport Beach General Plan, including all elements; City of Newport Beach (Adopted July 25, 2006). 2. Local Coastal Program — Coastal Land Use Plan; City of Newport Beach (Adopted December 13, 2005). 3. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan; City of Newport Beach. 4. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. Chapters 10.26 and 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The following documents have been prepared to evaluate the proposed project and are the basis of the analysis presented in specific sections of the Draft EIR. 1. AEI Consultants; Pre - Demolition Asbestos /Lead -Based Paint Survey, 201 — 207 Carnation Avenue; December 13, 2007. 2. Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.; Aerie Corona del Mar Condominium Project Traffic Assessment; March 4, 2009. 3. Coastal Resource Management, Inc.; Eelgrass (Zosfera Marina) Impact Assessment for a Dock Renovation Project Located in Carnation Cove; May 12, 2008 (Revised March 4, 2009). 4. GeoSoils, Inc; Coastal Hazard Study; October 5, 2006. 5. GeoSoils, Inc.; Bluff and Shoreline Reconnaissance in the Vicinity of 201 — 207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar; June 11, 2007. 6. GMU Geotechnical, Inc.; Summary Letter of Third Party Geotechnical Review, Proposed Condominium Project; October 29, 2008. 7. Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.; Hydrology Analysis for Tentative Tract 16882; February 2, 2009. 8. Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc; Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan; December 30, 2007, Revised January 28, 2009. 9. Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.; Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; March 17, 2007; (Revised January 20, 2009). 10. Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.; Elevation Certification; April 12, 2007. 11. ICF /Jones & Stokes; Biological Impact Report for Aerie Residential Project; December 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 12 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 12.0 — References 12. Brion Jeannette Architecture; Preliminary Construction Management Plan; October 30, 2008 (Revised December 23, 2008). 13. Brion Jeannette Architecture; Aerie Project Overview; May 8, 2006 (Revised February 15, 2007). 14. Leighton & Associates, Inc.; Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis for the Proposed Aerie Dock Replacement; August 25, 2008 (Revised September 19, 2008). 15. LSA Associates, Inc.; Results of Cultural and Paleontological Resources Records Searches for the Carnation Villas Project; July 12, 2005. 16. Neblett & Associates, Inc.; Revised Plan Review and Response to Comments Aerie — 8 Unit Condominium Project; December 19, 2008. 17. Neblett & Associates, Inc.; conceptual Grading Plan Review Report, Condominium Project, TTM 16882; September 30, 2008. 18. Neblett & Associates, Inc.; Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report; August 5, 2005. 19. Neblett & Associates, Inc.; Preliminary Geologic / Geotechnical Investigation Report — Condominium Project 201 — 205 and 207 Carnation Avenue; March 28, 2003. 20. Neblett & Associates, Inc.; 2007 CBC Seismic Design parameters (Update Letter Report); May 12, 2008. 21. Neblett & Associates, Inc.; Review of Architectural Plan; November 27 and December 17, 2007. 22. Noble Consultants; Coastal Engineering Assessment for the "Aerie" Dock Project (Letter Report); May 9, 2008. 23. P &D Consultants; Phase I Environmental Site Assessment; May 26, 2006. 24. P &D Consultants; Biological Constraints Analysis for Aerie Residential Project; June 10, 2005. 25. The Planning Center; Construction Noise and Vibration Study for: Aerie Residential Development; March 2009 26. Robert Mitchell & Associates; Existing Vegetation Map (Sheets L -1 and L -2); April 25, 2008. 27. Synectecology; Aerie Residential Development Air Quality Focused Analysis; December 22, 2008. 28. Wieland Acoustics, Inc.; Environmental Noise Study for the Construction of the Proposed Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project in the City of Newport Beach; March 12, 2009. 29. Wieland Acoustics, Inc.; Evaluation of Subsurface Profile for AcousticNibration Study, Proposed Dock Replacement at Carnation Cove; May 6, 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 12 -2 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 13.0— Glossary of Acronyms CHAPTER 13.0 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standard /Standards ADT Average Daily Traffic ANSI American National Standards Institute AQMD Air Quality Management District AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BACT Best Available Control Technology BMP Best Management Practices CAA Federal Clean Air Act CARB California Air Resources Board CCAA California Clean Air Act CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide CO2E Carbon Dioxide Equivalent CWA Federal Clean Water Act DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan dB Decibel dBA A- weighted decibel EA Environmental Assessment EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency F Fahrenheit ft Feet FTA Federal Transit Administration HCM Highway Capacity Manual ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization IS Initial Study Leq Equivalent noise level Lmax Maximum noise level Lmin Minimum noise level LOS Level of service MCLs Maximum content levels MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MPAH Master Plan of Arterial Highways MSL Mean Sea Level Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 13 -1 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 13.0— Glossary of Acronyms NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum 1988 NO2 Nitrogen dioxide NOP Notice of Preparation NOx Nitrogen oxides NPDES Nation Pollution Discharge and Elimination System 03 Ozone PA Planning Application PRC Public Resources Code PM2.5 Particulates 2.5 microns or less in diameter PM10 Particulates ten microns or less in diameter ppm parts per million PPV Peak Particle Velocity RAP Remedial Action Plan ROC Reactive Organic Compounds ROG Reactive Organic Gases RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SAMP Special Area Management Plan SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District sf Square feet S02 Sulfur Dioxide SWPPP Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Program Sox Sulfur oxides TDM Transportation Demand Management TDS Total Dissolved Solids TPD Trips per Day USGS United State Geological Survey V/C Volume /Capacity VdB Velocity decibels VOC Volatile Organic Compounds VPD Vehicles per Day WQMP Water Quality Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 13 -2 Appendix A Notice of Preparation/ NOP Comments Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal For Hand Delivery /Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 958 t4 Project Title: Aerie (PA2005 -196) 445 -0613 SCH # 2006051082 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach ❑ Water Facilities: Type MOD Contact Person: James Campbell, Senior Planner Mailing Address: 3300 Newport Boulevard Phone: (949) 644 -3210 ❑ Mining: Mineral City: Newport Beach Zip: 926585 County: Orange ❑ Educational ❑ Waste Treatment:Type MGD ❑ Recreational — — — — — — — — — — — — Project Location: County: Orange — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — City/Nearest Community: Newport Beach — — — — — — — — — Cross Streets: Ocean BoulevardlCamation Avenue Zip Code: 92658 Lat./Lung.: 33037'00"N/ 117053'51"W Total Acres: 1.4 Assessor's Parcel No.: Section: Twp.: Range: Base: Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: SR -1 Waterways: Pacific Ocean Airports: Railways: Schools: — — — — — — — — — — — — — Document Type: — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — CEQA: ® NOP ❑ Draft EIR NEPA: ❑ NOI Other: ❑ Joint Document ❑ Early Cons ❑ Supplement/Subsequent EIR ❑ EA ❑ Final Document ❑ Neg Dec (Prior SCH No.) 2006051082 ❑ Draft EIS ❑ Other ❑ Mit Neg Dec Other ❑ FONSI — — — — — — — — — — — — — Local Action Type: — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ❑ General Plan Update ❑ Specific Plan ® Rezone ❑ Annexation ® General Plan Amendment ❑ Master Plan ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment ❑ General Plan Element ❑ Planned Unit Development ❑ Use Permit ® Coastal Permit ❑ Community Plan ❑ Site Plan ® Land Division (Subdivision, etc.) ® Other Mod. Permit Development Type ® Residential: Units 8 Acres 1.4 _ ❑ Water Facilities: Type MOD ❑ Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees ❑ Transportation: Type ❑ Commercial: Sq.ft Acres Employees ❑ Mining: Mineral ❑ Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees ❑ Power. Type MW ❑ Educational ❑ Waste Treatment:Type MGD ❑ Recreational ❑ Hazardous Waste: Type ® C ter: Dock replacement/reconfiguralion — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Project Issues Discussed in Document: ® Aesthetic/Visual ❑ Fiscal ❑ Recreation/Parks ® Vegetation ❑ Agricultural Land ❑ Flood Plain /Flooding ❑ Schools /Universities ® Water Quality ® Air Quality ❑ Forest Land /Fire Hazard ❑ Septic Systems ❑ Water Supply /Groundwater ❑ Archeological/Historical ® Geologic/Seismic ❑ Sewer Capacity ❑ Wetland/Riparian ® Biological Resources ❑ Minerals to Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading ® Wildlife ® Coastal Zone ® Noise ❑ Solid Waste ® Growth Inducing ® Drainage/Absorption ❑ Population /Housing Balance ® Toxic /Hazardous ® Land Use ❑ Economic/Jobs ❑ Public Services/Facitities ® Traffic/Circulation ® Cumulative Effects ❑ Other — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Present Land UselZoning /General Plan Designation: Existing Land Use: Residential (15 dwelling units): Existing Zoning: 'R -2' (Two Family Residential) and'MFR (2178)' (Multiple family Residential, 2,178 sq. ft. land/unit): General Plan: 'RT (Two-Unit Residential)' and RM (Multiple Unit Residential — 20 du /ac)' Project Description: (please use a separate page if necessary) The project applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., is proposing to develop the 1.4 -acre site with an 8-unit condominium development. The total development area will encompass 62,709 square feet and includes living area, storage areas, parking, and circulation and mechanical areas. In addition, the project applicant is also proposing the replacement and reconfiguration of the existing gangway platform, pier walkway and dock facilities on the site. Eight (8) replacement slips and a guest side -tie dock are proposed. Project implementation will necessitate the approval of a General Plan Amendment (GP2005 -006), Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2005 -002), Zone Change (CA2005-009), Tract Map (NT2005-004/TT16882), Modification Permit (MD2005 -M7), and Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002). Note: The state Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a January 2008 protect (e.g. Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please till in. Reviewing Agencies Checklist Lead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghouse distribution by marking agencies below with and "X ". If you have already sent your document to the agency please denote that with an "S ". _ Air Resources Board _ Boating & Waterways, Department of California Highway Patrol CalFire S Caltrans District # 12 _ Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Caltrans Planning (Headquarters) Central Valley Flood Protection Board _ Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy S Coastal Commission _ Colorado River Board Conservation, Department of Corrections, Department of _ Delta Protection Commission Education, Department of Energy Commission S Fish & Game Region # Food & Agriculture, Department of General Services, Department of Health Services, Department of Housing & Community Development Integrated Waste Management Board S Native American Heritage Commission Local Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency) Office of Emergency Services S Office of Historic Preservation Office of Public School Construction Parks & Recreation Pesticide Regulation, Department of Public Utilities Commission S Regional WQCB # Resources Agency S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers and Mms Conservancy _ San Joaquin River Conservancy Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy State Lands Commission _ SWRCB: Clean Water Grants SWRCB: Water Quality SWRCB: Water Rights Tahoe Regional Planning Agency S Toxic Substances Control, Department of Water Resources, Department of Other Other Starting Date September 10, 2008 Ending Date October 9, 2008 Lead Agency (Complete if applicable): Consulting Firm: Keeton Kreiher Consulting Applicant: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Address: 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Address: 23792 Rockfield Boulevard, Suite 100 City/State /Zip: Tustin, CA 92780 City/State /Zip: Lake Forest, CA N2 30 Contact: Keeton K. Kre tzar. Principal Phone: (949) 5955900 Phone: (714) 6655509 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .r Signature of Lead Agency Representative:. Date: September 8. 2008 i Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resour Code. Reference: Section 21161, Public Resources Code. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 -= � ;:Z: Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 '1F11N��` NOTICE OF PREPARATION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Project: Aerie (PA2005 -196) Project Location: 201 - 207 Carnation Avenue (West side of Carnation Avenue at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard) 8 101 Bayside Place Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Pursuant to Section 15082(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach (City) will be the lead agency and will prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed project described below. The City needs to know your agency's views as to the scope and content of the environmental information related to your agency's statutory authority with respect to the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering any applicable permits for the project. The City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed project will require the preparation of an EIR and, as authorized by Section 15060(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an initial study has not been prepared. Potentially significant environmental effects that will be evaluated in the EIR include: Aesthetics Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use and Planning Noise Transportation/Traffic Unless specific comments are received during the NOP public comment period that indicate a potential for the project to result in significant impacts, the following issues will not be addressed in the EIR: Agricultural Resources Mineral Resources Recreation Public Services and Facilities Utilities Population and Housing Pursuant to Section 15103 of the CEQA Guidelines, your response must be sent at the earliest date but received by our agency no later than thirty (30) days after receipt of this notice. Should you have any questions regarding the project or this NOP, please call Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner, at (949) 644 -3210. Please mail your written response including any comments you may have on this project to: James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Applicant: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Description: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., is the applicant for the Aerie residential project (PA 2005 -196) (Project). The Project consists of (a) the demolition of the existing residential structures on the 1.4 -acre site (the Site); (b) the development of eight (8) residential condominium units; and (c) the replacement, reconfiguration, and expansion of the existing gangway platform, pier walkway, and dock facilities on the Site. Existing Conditions The Site is currently occupied by a 14 -unit apartment building, one single - family residence, as well as a deteriorating gangway platform, pier walkway, and dock facilities. In addition, an on -grade staircase (built prior to 1961) presently exists on the bluff face that connects the apartment building atop the bluff with an existing, irregularly shaped, concrete pad located at the base of the bluff. The existing apartment structure has a total of three levels, including two split levels that are visible above the existing grade from the street. All three levels of the existing building are visible from Newport Bay. Parking for the existing apartments consists of open carports at grade along Carnation Avenue. The single - family home on the Site and two of the dwelling units within existing apartment building are occupied. The Site is a steeply sloping coastal bluff and cliff, the west- facing portion of which is subject to marine erosion. The following aerial photograph shows the Site's setting. Aerial Photograph The westerly portion of the Site is partly submerged and rocky, and there is a small sandy cove at the base of the landform. The westerly extent of the existing foundation of the existing apartment building is located on the face of the coastal bluff. An on -grade staircase built prior to 1961 presently exists on the bluff face that connects the apartment building with an existing, inegulady shaped, concrete pad (approximately 720 square feet) and private floating dock bayward of the rocks. Vegetation and exposed rock formations comprise the bluff face below the existing buildings. West of the Site is the main entrance to Newport Bay from the Pacific Ocean and the eastern end of Balboa Peninsula. North of the Site are single family and multi - family residences on Carnation Avenue and Bayside Place. The northern side of Carnation Avenue is a developed coastal bluff which is not subject to marine erosion. The homes on Carnation Avenue overlook Bayside Place and the homes located on Bayside Place. The homes below the Site along Bayside Place were primarily constructed on previously filled submerged lands. South and east of the Site are a mix of single family and multi - family residential buildings and the Kerkchoff Marine Laboratory, all developed on the coastal bluff face between Ocean Boulevard and Newport Bay. Proposed Residential Structures The Project will consist of a total of six levels, including: (a) four above grade floors consisting primarily of living space, but with some parking areas on the first and second floors; and (b) two subterranean common recreation areas, storage and parking levels (the "basement" and, at the lowest level, the "sub- basement'). Three residential levels will be visible from Carnation Avenue above the existing street grade. Four residential levels will be visible when viewed from Newport Bay. In total, the Project will encompass 61,709 square feet and includes living areas, storage areas, parking, and circulation and mechanical areas as reflected in Table 1. Table 1 Development Area Breakdown Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Use Area (Square Feet Living 29,426 Storage Areas 5,943 Parking 13,234 Common Area, Circulation and Mechanical 13,106 Total 61,709 SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture The City Council has established a predominant line of existing bluff face development for the Site ( PLOED) at elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 88. New development on the bluff face is proposed to be more than two feet higher than the PLOED at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD 88, except for an emergency exit at elevation 40.5 NAVD 88 that will be screened from public view. The basement and sub - basement levels are subterranean and will not be visible from either the street or the bay. Outdoor patios, decks, spas, and firepits are proposed at each above grade level. The Project will encroach into the front and side setbacks; however, the majority of the encroachments are subterranean. Approximately 25,240 cubic yards of earth will be excavated and removed from the Site. The eight condominium units are further described in Table 2. Table 2 Unit Statistical Analysis Unit No. No. of Levels Living Area (S q. Ft. Garage (S q. Ft. Storage (S q. Ft. Total (S q. Ft. 1 1 3,716 416 471 4,603 2 1 3,204 410 705 4,319 3 1 2,662 397 648 3,707 4 1 2,916 418 709 4,043 5 2 4,990 483 1,143 6616 6 2 4,130 436 889 5,455 7 1 3,745 399 674 4,818 8 1 4 063 552 704 5,319 Totals 29 426 3,511 5,943 38.880 SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture Conceptual Site Plan , / CARNATION AVE. Idl da AERIE - SITE PLkR --- / ° 1 r /r EXISTING CONCRETE PAD L � DECK BAYSIDE PL � STEPS ON GRADE TO REMAI N � PATIO r � PROPOSED DOCK DESIGN - - EMERGENCY EXIT/ DOCK ACCESS -- I UNDER DECK AT ELEV. 40.5' r DECK r � POW. :I J / CARNATION AVE. Idl da AERIE - SITE PLkR --- / ° 1 Cross Section B SECTION B NOT TO SCALE -' As indicated in Table 2, each condominium unit will have a private storage room located in the subterranean levels. Common amenities include a fitness facility, lounge, patio, locker room, exercise room, and a pool located on the basement level that will be partially open to the sky allowing light and air to circulate to the pool area. At least two parking spaces are provided and designated for each unit, with an additional eight (8) guest, one (1) service, and two (2) golf cart parking spaces spread throughout the sub - basement, the basement, and the First and Second Floors. The Second Floor is approximately four (4) feet below the grade of Camation Avenue and will house residential units, one (1) two-car garage, and five (5) guest parking spaces, as well as bicycle and motorcycle parking accommodations. Below street grade parking is hidden from public view and is accessed from Carnation Avenue utilizing two automobile elevators. The existing upper portion of the on -grade stairs that currently provide private access from the apartment building to the water and existing docks will be removed. The existing on -grade stairs (built prior to 1961), which are seaward of the proposed residential structure, will be connected to the building by an on -grade stair at the Basement Level. The Docks The structural elements of the existing gangway platform, pier walkway, and floating docks (timber frame, concrete pontoons, and timber deck) are in very poor condition. The City has required the applicant to remove or rebuild the docks due to their deteriorated and unsafe conditions. The existing docks can accommodate four (4) small boats in the approximately 25 -foot class. Eight (8) replacement slips and one (1) guest side -tie dock are proposed. The new dock layout will accommodate boats in the 40 to 60- foot class and the proposed layout is depicted on the Dock Replacement Plan, below. The new docks will consist of timber docks supported by rotationally molded plastic pontoons, which require less draft (bottom clearance) than concrete floats, allowing the dock system to be located as close to an existing rock outcropping as possible. The six (6) steel dock guidepiles that support the existing docks will be removed and replaced with 19 new guide piles supporting the new dock system. Of these 19 piles, nine (9) will be large diameter piles (approximately two -foot diameter). All guidepiles will be pre- stressed concrete piles set in pre - drilled, augered holes. The existing 20 -foot long gangway will be replaced by a 60 -foot long gangway. As illustrated in the Dock Replacement Plan below, the pile- supported pier walkway between the existing gangway platform and the existing concrete pad, will be repaired /replaced with a structure in -like -kind (timber- framing system, a 2x timber deck, and timber railings all around). The existing concrete piles supporting the walkway will be repaired in the form of concrete repairs. The gangway platform replacement will include the four (4) steel piles, timber framing with metal connectors, and a 2x timber deck with railings all around. The existing concrete pad, concrete steps, and railing will be repaired and patched as necessary. a) [40 T¢ X155 ll) (N) . UM Dock Replacement Plan J• J � \I t [nmiq�[�[ITNl� \ i Z�, .. AWN f1] I 1 City of Newport Beach Discretionary Approvals The following discretionary approvals are requested or required by the City in order to implement the project: General Plan Amendment (GP2005 -006) Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2005 -002) Zone Change (CA2005 -009) Tract Map (NT2005- 004rrT16882) Modification Permit (MD2005 -087) Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002) Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required The following discretionary approvals are required by other agencies. Coastal Land Use Program Amendment — California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit — California Coastal Commission Vicinity Map Crystal Cive J 1a3 eri � —i skm uorar! an m ioD Of h D MG6 YahpetlM. r DiIL ®AJ06 wr1e0 TeleMhi ana n.nn�n,�. ame P.'- stminzter claw ryc,naa - », -r „s. oee raw u Jran9e Beach BeachD °xw -., i Tom Area ud x,4, 'w ., em: tam sj CHunflh toi\seaeh The oah4a 'a ,s �. Santa Ana Tusti Ind., / d, bona - CNleral OeIMM CM'. '- Dana Grant o F Can 01 Ennnu . s E- ouer•prt C ramnp _ W.,C m 6&mau— a,dans Sena Ana Dane ,n. Nrzo 0.V nc. bM1lmd MaRe.• Warne A' s... EPF nP \J er Ae w4Mnhurp � W \Arta, anew err - sarans:c Fountain Valley m_ 'TaMrt I,iI.Y - EIIn AV.., K ^�r1Rwv Jn D �� agsati.fl PVC O a� .. i ' 4alfielC PVe Qp a 11p14]f:.' Ia ado O. i.Vin U p e,v Eartlyin to Q ? costa Mesa _ Newport Beach E.. - _ i e1 ` lib Y} Project S aDel y O1 Ta ,. a. Crystal Cive J 1a3 eri � —i skm uorar! an m ioD Of h D MG6 YahpetlM. r DiIL ®AJ06 wr1e0 TeleMhi Location Map Project Site -' a L� EA', nVE E r .trlM«E c' �o „rpm A m otz A 0�8GAfl Existing General Plan Land Use Designations Existing Zoning Designations 0 1-- ac 0 LU Z Proposed Zoning CITY OF ArEll"PORT PP"ACH APN 052-M3-21 PF 1'1-opo5('d Lot Litic, Area subject to land use designation changes MFR Existing R-2 Proposed do 0, Off, �- Legend MFR - Multi-Family Residential R•2 - Two-Family Residential oTA "Il np l'al.itl!NJiI— lil'vt�t`,S12 \Cyr ': \r1�7 =,y�y H(Il :�I \L.ttjt.'�.57_____....._. ,j lj_\ jl 't IR,tHZF f:.i_/fR f�_os.Yjxq DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECEIVED BY District 12 N ANNING f1EPARTIVI-ENT 3337 Michelson Drive. Suite 390 Irvine. C'.4 92612 -8894 7 ^ Tel: 19.391735 -2,67 �E• Fax: (9491724-259" 1 ?rs sn�r pn..rr' He rnnyr a /frdrmi September 18, 2008 UY OF NEWPORT Bcpr�, Mr. James Cambell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Subject: Aerie (PA2005 -196) Dear Mr. Cambell, File: IGR/CEQA SCHP: 2007021054 Log A: 1833F. PCH Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation for the Aerie (PA2005 -196) draft Environmental Impact Report. The project applicant is proposing to develop the 1.4 acre site lvith an 8 -unit condominium complex. The total development area will encompass 62,709 square feet and includes reconfiguration of pier and dock facilities. The nearest State route to the project site is Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). The Cali fornia Department of Transportation (Department), District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and has no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity within the Deparnnent's' right -of -way, an encroachment pennit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Damon Davis at (949) 440 -3487. Sincerely,., 11- -rati Chamberlain, Branch Chief Local Developmentflntergoverinnental Review C: Tern Roberts. Office of Planning and Research "C a trans fmprmros rnobilln cross C'nliJarnirr'• Attached for your review and commnent is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Aeric (PA2005 -196) draft Environmental Impact 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 Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 wium a ropy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCII 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. Sit errly, ✓ �I As S Nlnrgan Project Analyst. State ('Iearinghouse Auachments cc: Lead Agency 140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044 (916) 445.0613 FAX (916) 323 -3018 wvnv.opr.ca.goV STATE OF CALIFORNIA v p 'L GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH ' STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT rFOFCAL\ AANnt.n Bt^.i WAtI'I.FNRCCiaR CYNTHIA BRYANT GOVERNOR DraxcmR Notice of Preparation RECEIVED By September 10, 2008 pIANNINC DEPARTMENT SEE• x., n To: Reviewing Agencies fp�y�y BEACH CRY OF NEWPORT Re: Aerie (PA2005 -196) SCII0 2007021054 Attached for your review and commnent is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Aeric (PA2005 -196) draft Environmental Impact 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 Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 wium a ropy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCII 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. Sit errly, ✓ �I As S Nlnrgan Project Analyst. State ('Iearinghouse Auachments cc: Lead Agency 140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044 (916) 445.0613 FAX (916) 323 -3018 wvnv.opr.ca.goV Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2007021054 Project Title Aerie (PA2005 -196) Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of Type NOP Notice of Preparation Description The project applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., is proposing to develop the 1.4 acre site with an 8 -unit condominium development. The total development area will encompass 62,709 square feet and includes living area, storage areas, parking, and circulation and mechanical areas. In addition, the project applicant is also proposing the replacement and reconfiguration of the existing gangway platform, pier walkway and dock facilities on the site. Eight (8) replacement slips and a guest side -tie dock are proposed. Project implementation wil necessitate the approval of a General Plan Amendment (GP2005 -006), Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2005 -002), Zone Change (CA2005 -009), Tract Map (NT2005- 004/7716882), Modification Permit (MD2005 -087), and Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002). Lead Agency Contact Name James Campbell Agency City of Newport Beach Phone (949) 644 -3210 Fax email Address 3300 Newport Boulevard City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92663 Project Location County Orange City Newport Beach Region Cross Streets Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue Lat /Long 33° 37' 00" N / 117° 53' 51" W Parcel No. Township Proximity to: Highways 1 Airports Railways Waterways Pacific Ocean Schools Range Section Base Land Use Existing Land Use: Residential (15 dwelling units) Existing Zoning: R -2 (Two - family Residential) and MFR (Multiple- family Residential, 2,178 sq ft land /unit) General Plan: RT (Two -unit Residential) and RM (Multiple Residential - 20 du /ac) Project issues AestheticNisual; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Coastal Zone; Drainage /Absorption; Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Soil Erosion /CompactioniGrading; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic /Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Wildlife: Growth Inducing; Landuse; Cumulative Effects Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Boating and Waterways; California Coastal Commission; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Native American Heritage Commission; California Highway Patrol; State Lands Commission; Caltrans, District 12; Air Resources Board, Transportation Projects; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8 Date Received 09/10/2008 Start of Review 09/10/2008 End of Review 1010912008 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. ulsSrioution LIST Resources Agent; Resources Agency y7� Nadell Gayou 1111 Dept. of Boating & Waterways David Johnson California Coastal Commission Elizabeth A. Fuchs ❑ Colorado River Board Gerald R. Zimmerman ❑ Dept. of Conservation Sharon Howell ❑ California Energy Commission Dale Edwards ❑ Cal Fire DAllen Robertson 'mil Office of Historic Preservation Wayne Donaldson Dept of Parks & Recreation Environmental Stewardship Section ❑ Central Valley Flood Protection Board Mark Herald ❑ S.F. Bay Conservation & Dev't. Comm. Steve McAdam pU Dept. of Water Resources Resources Agency Nadell Gayou J ___ Conservancy :ish and Game Depart. of Fish & Game Scott Flint Environmental Services Division Fish & Game Region 1 Donald Koch 7 Fish & Game Region 1E Laude Hamsberger ❑ Fish & Game Region 2 Jeff Drongesen ❑ Fish & Game Region 3 Robert Floorke ❑ Fish & Game Region 4 Juile Vance Fish & Game Region 5 Don Chadwick Habitat Conservation Program ❑ Fish & Game Region 6 Gabrina Galchel Habitat Conservation Program ❑ Fish & Game Region 61 /M Gabrina Getchel Inyo /Mono, Habitat Conservation Program ❑ Dept. of Fish & Game M George Isaac Marine Region Other Departments ❑ Food & Agriculture Steve Shaffer Dept, of Food and Agriculture ❑ Depart. of General Services Public School Construction ❑ Dept. of General Services Anna Garbeff Environmental Services Section ❑ Dept. of Public Health Veronica Malloy Dept. of Health/Drinking Water Independent Corn missions, Boards ❑ Delta Protection Commission Debby Eddy ❑ Office of Emergency Services Dennis Cashillo ❑ Governors Office of Planning & Research State Clearinghouse Native American Heritage Comm. Debbie Treadway County: yY Lk 1 Caltrans, District 1 ❑ Public Utilities Commission ❑ Caltrans, District 0 Ken Lewis Dan Kopulsky ❑ Santa Monica Bay Restoration ❑ Caltrans, District 9 Guangyu Wang Gayle Rosander ® State Lands Commission ❑ Caltrans, District 10 Marina Brand Tom Dumas ❑ Tahoe Regional Planning ❑ Caltrans, District 11 Agency (TRPA) Jacob Armstrong Cherry Jacques David Murray ❑ Caltrans, District 12 R P Ct b I ' Business. Trans & Housin ❑ Caltrans - Division of Aeronautics Sandy Hesnanl ❑ Caltrans - Planning Terri Pencovic California Highway Patrol Shirley Kelly Office of Special Projects ❑ Housing & Community Development CEQA Coordinator Housing Policy Division Dept. of Transportation ❑ Caltrans, District 1 Rex Jackman ❑ Caltrans, District Marceline Gonzalez ❑ Caltrans, District 3 Bruce de Terra ❑ Caltrans, District Lisa Carboni ❑ Caltrans, District David Murray ❑ Caltrans, District 6 Michael Navarro ❑ Caltrans, District Elmer Alvarez yen . ram e r a in Cal EPA Air Resources Board ❑ Airport Projects y7y Jim Lemer 16rJ Transportation Projects Ravi Ramalingarn ❑ Industrial Projects Mike Tollstrup SICH# 20070210,54 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ❑ California Integrated Waste Management Board Sue O'Leary ❑ State Water Resources Control Board Regional Programs Unit Division of Financial Assistance ❑ State Water Resources Control Board Student Intent, 401 Water Quality Certification Unit Division of Water Quality ❑ Stale Water Resouces Control Board Steven Herrera Division of Water Rights ❑ Dept. of Toxic Substances Control CEQA Tracking Center ❑ Department of Pesticide Regulation CEQA Coordinator ❑ RWQCB 1 Cathleen Hudson North Coast Region (1) ❑ RWQCB 2 Environmental Document Coordinator Son Francisco Bey Region (2) ❑ RWQCB 3 Central Coast Region (3) ❑ RWQCB 4 Teresa Rodgers Los Angeles Region (4) ❑ RWQCB SS Central Valley Region (5) ❑ RWQCB 5F Central Valley Region (5) Fresno Branch Office ❑ RWQCB 5R Central Valley Region (5) Redding Branch Office ❑ RWQCB 6 Lahontan Region (6) ❑ RWQCB 6V Lahontan Region (6) Viclorville Branch Office ❑ RWQCB7 Colorado River Basin Region (7) RWQCB S Santa Ana Region (8) ❑ RWQCB9 San Diego Region (9) ❑ Other Last Updated an 0811312008 SANDRA GENIS, PLANNING RESOURCES 1586 MYRTLEWOOD COSTA MESA, CA. 92626 PHONE /FAX (714) 754 -0814 October 10, 2008 James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92685 -8915 Subject: NOP, Aerie Residential Project (PA 2005 -196) Dear Mr. Campbell, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an environmental impact report (EIR) for the Aerie residential project (PA 2005 -196) located at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue in Newport Beach, Orange County, California. These comments are submitted on behalf of Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) and myself. The project will entail demolition of an existing residential uses to construct an 8 -unit condominium building with subterranean parking. The project also includes the demolition, reconstruction and expansion of dock structures on the site. The NOP No Initial Study (IS) accompanies the NOP. Inclusion of an Initial study with a NOP is optional. However, in accordance with Section 15082 (a) of the Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), at a minimum, a notice of preparation shall include: (A) Description of the project, (B) Location of the project, and (C) Probable environmental effects of the project. An IS is often utilized to fulfill the function of (C) above. While the NOP includes a lengthy project description and location map, any discussion of probable environmental effects of the project is lacking. The NOP merely indicates that the following broad subject areas are proposed to be examined in the EIR: • Aesthetics • Air quality • Biological resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and soils Page I of 5 • Hazards/hazardous materials • Hydrology /water quality • Land uselplanning • Noise • Transportation/traffic and that the following areas are not: • Agricultural resources • Mineral resources • Population and Housing • Public Services and facilities • Utilities • Recreation The description of the existing conditions in the NOP focuses on man -made development on the site, failing to mention either land or marine resources such as eelgrass habitat or sand dollar beds. Thus, agencies receiving the NOP would have no knowledge of the potential for impacts to such resources. Because project tracking and degree of scrutiny by the agencies may be established at the NOP stage, this omission is significant. The NOP must be revised to include a description of probable environmental effects of the proposed project consistent with Guidelines Section 15082(a) and re- circulated. Proiect Alternatives The applicant's representative has asserted that staff will be making a particular recommendation for approval for the proposed project. The City is reminded that the EIR is to be an integral part of the decision making process, not an after - the -fact bureaucratic exercise. It is the purpose of CEQA "not to generate paper, but to compel government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind ". (Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263). The EIR must include a meaningful, good -faith analysis of alternatives. Alternatives to be examined include: 1. An entitlement, in terms of both dwelling unit count and floor area ratio, commensurate with a land area excluding areas submerged at high tide. This must be based on real, physical conditions for the site as it currently exists. 2. An entitlement, in terms of both dwelling unit count and floor area ratio, based only on buildable acreage, excluding steep slopes in excess of 2:1 slope and excluding areas submerged at high tide. This must be based on real, physical conditions for the site as it currently exists. 3. The elimination of all penetrations below the PLOED including but not limited to any exit tunnel cut through the bluff face. 4. Provision of an adequate and reasonable setback from the PLOED. 5. Project LEED certified at the Platinum level. 6. No project. Page 2 of 5 7. Open space. Potential Impacts Concerns regarding specific impacts which must be examined in the EIR include the following: Aesthetics 1. Aesthetic analyses must include impacts from public waterways as well as from land based viewing areas. 2. The analysis must address impacts to the visual quality of the shoreline as well as the bluff. 3. Potential for light and glare must be addressed, with special attention given to the large expanses of glass proposed for the portion of the project facing the water. Air Quality 1. The analysis must address localized emissions, particularly during construction. This includes fugitive dust and diesel emissions from on -site construction equipment as well as any hot spots along haul routes or those created due to construction congestion or detours. 2. Greenhouse gases must be addressed. 3. Emissions from boats, including generators, must be addressed. To the extent feasible, vessel equipment should be powered by connection to the electric utility system when vessels are docked. 4. The analysis must address venting of below grade parking, particularly any areas where concentrations of garage exhaust may vent toward neighbors. Biological Resources 1. Impacts on eelgrass beds must be addressed, including ongoing impacts from dock utilization. Avoidance is the preferred option. 2. Impacts on sand dollar beds must be addressed. Avoidance is the preferred option. 3. Adequate buffers must be identified and provided. 4. The EIR must address reduction of sunlight to the marine habitat resulting from the expanded docks and the larger vessels to be accommodated. 5. Land resources, including vegetation, must also be examined. 6. Impacts on avifauna due to reflective surfaces must be examined. 7. Impacts due to noise and night lighting must be examined. This includes impacts on marine life. 8. Biological impacts due to impacts on water quality must be addressed. Geology and soils 1. This section must address any instability in surrounding areas due to excavation on the subject property. This must include any impacts on public infrastructure or utilities. 2. The EIR must include grading plans and cross sections. Hazards/hazardous materials 1. The EIR must address materials which may be released into the air or water during Page 3 of 5 demolition, including asbestos and lead based paints. 2. The EIR must examine the effect of construction activities on evacuation routes and emergency response. Of greatest concern is continued access to all homes on Carnation Avenue. Hydrology/Water Quality 1. The analysis must address impacts during construction and demolition of on -site facilities on water quality, including disturbance of existing sediments. 2. The analysis must address any heavy metals, pesticides or other materials in on -site sediments which may be disturbed during dock construction/demolition. 3. Long term impacts on water quality associated with the docks must be addressed. 4. Impacts due to urban runoff must be addressed. 5. Any impacts on sand transport/shoreline processes must be addressed. This includes impacts on and off the project site. Land Use/Planning 1. It is not clear what portion of the site consists of tidelands and is thus subject to the tidelands trust doctrine. Appropriate use of tidelands must be addressed. Residential uses are not normally considered appropriate uses of tidelands and thus any tidelands areas must be excluded when calculating allowable density. 2. In accordance with Guidelines Section 15125(d) the EIR must discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and existing planning programs. 3. Public access to the shoreline, both from land and water, must be addressed. Noise I. SENELs as well as CNELs must be addressed. 2. Noise must be addressed in terms disturbance or discomfort to humans, not just conformance with ordinances that may exempt certain types of noise from regulation. 3. Potential for noise to carry across the water must be addressed. 4. Temporary relocation of sensitive receptors must be considered as mitigation. Transportation/Traffic 1. Impacts on haul routes must be addressed. 2. Impacts on emergency response and evacuation routes must be addressed. 3. Public rights of way must not be used as storage areas or staging areas. 4. Mitigation strategies must provide for at least one lane of traffic to be available for access to Carnation Avenue at all times. Population and Housing 1. The project must be evaluated in light of city policies regarding inclusionary housing. 2. The project must be evaluated in light of housing requirements in the coastal zone stipulated in Section 65590 of the California Government Code. Public Services and Utilities 1. Impacts on utilities and public services, including but not limited to police protection, fire Page 4 of 5 protection, and the Harbor Patrol, must be examined. 2. Potential disruption to navigation or Harbor Patrol services must be examined. 3. Any potential for disruption of public services and utilities during construction must be examined. Of particular concern are impacts due to excavation. 4. Examination of impacts associated with energy consumption must include unique project features which will consume energy, including automobile elevators and any need for mechanical ventilation of below ground parking. Recreation The EIR must examine how the greatly expanded dock area and larger vessels may block off the shoreline and discourage access to the existing, open cove. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. We look forward to reviewing the DEIR when it becomes available. Yours truly, Sandra L. Genis Page 5 of 5 James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Project: Aerie (PA2005 -196) Project Location: 201 -207 Carnation Avenue (West side of Carnation Avenue at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard) & 101 Bayside Place Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Dear Mr. Campbell, Having received a copy of your notice on September 12, 2008 stating that the City of Newport Beach has determined the proposed project will require the preparation of an EIR (sent to us by Keeton Kreitzer); this letter represents our response and comments within the thirty day time period. In reviewing the potentially significant environmental effects that will be evaluated in the EIR, we would like to bring to your attention several issues that were overlooked and must be included in the study. One issue in particular that will obviously create significant impacts by substantially increasing the mass of the project to its current proposed size of approximately 62,282 square feet is the unreasonable calculation used in determining the buildable area of the property. The site is 61,284 square feet (1.4 acres). What has never been addressed by the City in response to the public's outcry over the massive size of the proposed structure is that approximately 66% of the property is either submerged land (28,414 square feet or 46% of the site), or unbuildable slope greater than 50% (11,926 square feet or 20% of the site). The City uses two different calculations to determine "buildable area ", the Density Calculation and the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). In the density calculation the submerged land and slope in excess of 50% "are removed" from the land area before calculating density, but in the FAR calculation the submerged lands and slope "are not" removed before calculating build -able area. While the inclusion of the slope in excess of 50% in the buildable area is arguable, the inclusion of the submerged land in the buildable area is ridiculous. If the maximum square footage calculation removed the land area within the front and side yard setbacks and the submerged land area (and it should because the submerged land area is NOT buildable) and allowed the slope in excess of 50% to be included, the buildable area would be approximately 29,300 square feet. Multiplying this buildable area by the FAR factor of 1.5, which is the norm for the area, would result in a maximum square footage of approximately 44,000 square feet, a whopping 30% smaller building than currently proposed. Further, this reasonable calculation would result in a project that provides a per unit square footage of approximately 5,500 square feet, a per unit size that still exceeds the size and scale of residential structures in the area, whether single family or multi family. Conversely, the city is recommending approval of a project that provides 8 units in 62,000 square feet or 7,750 square feet per unit. (It is important to note that the existing structures total approximately 16,498 square feet in 13 units or roughly 1,270 square feet per unit.) The fact that there are no other condominiums or single family homes in the neighborhood that even come close to 7,750 square feet has been brought to the attention of the Planning Commission multiple times, as has the massive size of the project. The inclusion of the submerged land in the buildable area calculations results in a humongous mass of a structure that is completely out of scale and character with the existing neighborhood and surrounding area to the point of dwarfing other structures and therefore in violation of the General Plan and LCP bluff protection policies. This is NOT the norm for other properties in the City or for other properties located on sensitive coastal bluffs in Corona del Mar. The McIntosh home adjacent to the subject property did not include submerged lands in their buildable area. The question remains, why has this not been addressed before, and how can it be acceptable to allow land that is unusable and unlivable to ever be considered as buildable area in the proposal of such an unreasonable building mass? 2. Another important issue per your notice that was NOT going to be addressed in the EIR is "Recreation ". This study must be included since the proposed addition of eight boat docks plus a guest dock in this new configuration will project much further into the harbor than the existing dock, and will significantly limit the recreational use of Carnation Cove and this part of the harbor by restricting access. This area is frequently used for recreation by kayakers, paddlers and small boats. Relevant to the EIR, it is important to note that at a preliminary Harbor Commission meeting on the proposed dock system the majority of Commissioners expressed concern that the docks and large vessels would project so far into the harbor that it would interfere with the flow of boat traffic and the public right -of -way. According to the most recent plans submitted to the Harbor Commission the docks would project approximately 61' beyond the bulkhead line with two 60' boats in their slips. This is much further out than the existing dock, and the docks on either side of the subject property, the McIntosh dock to the East and the Sprague dock to the west. In addition to the proposed dock system a 155' wave attenuator wall is proposed which would further limit public access to the cove and could cause "major shoaling problems ", as could the construction of such a large marina, which was also of concern to the Harbor Commission. Furthermore, any environmental evaluation should study the possibility that the wave attenuator may redirect a swell to impact other areas of the harbor, such as across the bay on the Peninsula, since for years the existing cove has acted as a natural buffer. 3. Attention must be given in the EIR to the importance of Carnation Cove and its existence as "an important marine relic habitat that no longer exists in other areas of Newport Bay" as stated in the most recent MND, which was the first MND to include any mention of the dock expansion plan. The scenic rock formations would be obscured from public view by the boats in the proposed marina, and possibly damaged during construction. The MND also states that "in addition to eelgrass, the study determined that Carnation Cove supports an extremely diverse assemblage of plant and animal life due to its locality near the Harbor Entrance Channel, and the combination of rocky outcrops and fine sands -to -silt substrates. This region of the harbor shares many characteristics common to nearshore subtidal reef and sand bottom marine habitats and communities located off Corona del mar ". It was laughable that in a discussion on mitigating impacts to the sand dollar population in the cove at the City Council meeting on July 22, 2008 it was suggested that construction workers be told to "avoid them by going around the areas where there are sand dollars ". The importance of Carnation Cove should be noted, and that it is the last existing natural cove in Newport Harbor other than Pirate's Cove. 4. The proposed excavation will reshape the bluff edge, remove substantial mass from the natural landform, and create a hazardous condition that will either result in an increased vulnerability to bluff erosion, or to rockfall and block failure of the portion of the bluff that is below the established Predominant Line of Existing Development ( PLOED). This raises public safety concerns that will require railings and/or other protection devices since the massive excavation will result in a sheer drop -off as it cuts 40 -50 feet straight down from the curb. As this is a designated Public View Corridor, the City should be aware of the potential for injury that could occur, and also that the necessary protection devices are prohibited by the CLUP. These protection devices will also have negative aesthetic impacts on the view from this area. As stated in the Staff Report of June 19, 2008, "Guardrails are necessary to protect pedestrians from falling from the public sidewalk along Carnation Avenue over the proposed retaining wall located at the back of the sidewalk ". 5. Another important issue that must be evaluated is the excavation required for the emergency exit "tunnel" cut through the bluff face at 40.5 feet, which is well below the PLOED of 50.7 feet given to the applicant by the City Council, and in clear violation of CLUP and LCP policies. The excavation for this "cut- through" or "tunnel" will have a tremendous impact on the bluff face, most likely causing failure of the thin portion of bluff that would remain as a fagade (see expert testimony and public record correspondence from Moote Group, John Martin and Associates, David H. Lee and Associates, respected architects and other well - known builders and developers, and from the environmental group SPON). That this is likely has been publicly acknowledged by Brion Jeanette, the project's architect, both in his plans and presentation, that "fake rock" will be needed to replace a part or possibly all of the bluff face damaged by this excavation. This is in violation of the City's own codes and GP, to damage or destroy the coastal bluff by attempting to go below the 50.7 foot PLOED. The PLOED average for Carnation Avenue properties is 53.7 feet. 6. Also, as stated in the Notice of Preparation of EM we can only question "a pool located on the basement level that will be partially open to the sky allowing light and air to circulate to the pool area ". It is unclear how a pool will be excavated at the subterranean level, again, well below the PLOED of 50.7 feet, without damage to the bluff face. Or perhaps it is also an access tunnel/doorway to the pool or beach? Although labeled an "emergency exit" on the plans it appears it is clearly intended to be used on a regular basis by the occupants of the building and others, and has been offered as such to the Harbor Resources Department for the use of their employees whenever they are in the area, despite having their own facilities just a few blocks from the proposed site. But regardless of how it is presented, it is obvious that the use of hoe rams and other heavy excavation equipment necessary for the proposed "tunnel" and "pool ", as well as the subterranean portion of the project will severely impact the bluff and bluff face, potentially causing bluff failure, as well as damage to surrounding properties and streets. (See above referenced expert testimony from paragraph 5). Other issues that must be included when evaluating "Aesthetics" are the proposed multiple cantilevered decks and overhangs which would project out 10 -15 feet and violate several CLUP and General Plan policies that are supposed to protect scenic and visual resources such as coastal views and scenic vistas. These include CLUP Policies 4.4 and 4.4.1 -1, among others, Policy NR 23. 1, as well as Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. There are also other bluff protection policies and bluff set -back policies that must be considered. "Outdoor patios, decks, spas and firenits are proposed at each above grade level ", with the firepits being a new addition that could affect air quality in the neighborhood, harbor and surrounding area. The visual impact of this hotel -like structure, including decks with umbrellas and awnings, must be considered as it will impact public views from the Ocean Boulevard view corridor and Begonia Park, and be visible from Balboa Island, the Balboa Peninsula and Newport Harbor. 8. In the study of "Noise ", it must be taken into account the noise impacts on the residents "across the bay ", on the Balboa Peninsula, as well as in the immediate neighborhood. In a previous correspondence to the City we cited an instance where the police were called with a noise complaint at the Vallejo home, but the noise was actually from a party at a home" across" the harbor. Due to the proposed massive excavation and the equipment involved in that excavation (hoe rams, pile drivers etc.), it should be noted that any construction work done across the bay on the Balboa Peninsula can be heard in this area of Corona del Mar, and that there has been nothing constructed across from here that is on a comparable scale to the proposed project, and with the potential for such extreme noise impact. Another example of how sound travels, and is magnified across the water, is that children can be heard playing on the public beach on the peninsula. 9. We expect that the impacts from the vibrations and the potential damage to surrounding properties and streets will be thoroughly studied for a proposed excavation of this size, and that the impacts from the use of hoe rams, pile drivers and other heavy equipment will be examined thoroughly. 10. Another issue that was not studied sufficiently but was mentioned in past staff reports due to possible code violations is the impact to the neighborhood of the highly inconvenient parking configuration. It appears there will be approximately 30 subterranean parking spaces accessed by two car elevators, with one elevator that must remain at the subterranean level at all times for emergencies. This parking configuration is a direct result of trying to put such a large building mass on such a constrained property and creates many potential problems including blocking of the public right -of -way if the elevators are in use and there is queuing into the street. This could result in a potentially hazardous situation on what is already a blind corner, as cars in the public right -of -way may attempt to go around those queuing in the street. This is especially true on weekends and during the summer, when the streets are congested with beachgoers looking for on- street parking. This is addressed in Policy 2.9.3 -1 of the CLUP, as well as two Circulation Element Policies including policy CE 71.1, which are in place to protect our neighborhoods from this kind of negative impact. It should be noted that the use of a subterranean parking garage for a multi - family residential complex is unprecedented in the City of Newport Beach, and will add a significant number of cars to the neighborhood. There is also the additional explosion risk in an enclosed parking structure of this type. 11. In the category of `Biological Resources" it should be noted that the applicant had native plant species stripped from the bluff in approximately December of 2007. Photos of the native species that had previously existed include Lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), Coast Sunflower (Encelia califomica) and California Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Apparently the California Coastal Commission issued a violation regarding this, along with direction to replant the native vegetation, which, it appears, has not been attempted. 12. In reference to the oversized and overbuilt nature of the proposed project, Land Use Policy 3.2 states: "Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale and character ". 13. Land Use Policy 5.1.1 states: "Establish property development regulations for residential projects to create compatible and high quality development that contribute to neighborhood character ". It must be pointed out that in the Notice of Preparation of EIR it states that "south and east of the Site are a mix of family and multi - family residential buildings and the Kerkchoff Marine Laboratory, all developed on the coastal bluff face between Ocean Boulevard and Newport Harbor ". It should also have been stated that Ocean Boulevard allows development on the bluff face since there is a height limit of no more than 3 feet above curb height. The subject property is on Carnation, where properties are located "on top" of the bluff and do not have this height restriction. Since this point was obviously ignored after having been brought to the attention of the Planning Commission in May of 2007 shouldn't it have been clarified in this notice? The project's architect, who also does advisory work for the City, continues to use examples of other bluff developments he has done that are not relevant to this project due to the difference in location and codes. Clearly this project has been flawed from the beginning in its attempt to make the proposed structure "as large as possible" by using their own rules, and has been allowed to progress by attempting to manipulate a City's legal process, its Planning Commission, staff, the language of the CLUP and the PLOED, (which they decided on themselves), as well as an entire neighborhood. Until recently this plan had succeeded, and all in an attempt to overbuild for profit at the expense of the existing neighborhood, public coastal views, and a protected coastal bluff. Had a group of concerned citizens not taken notice, studied the policies and codes, had meetings, hired attorneys and independent experts to testify against the untruths and misinformation that have been perpetuated throughout this process, this project would have passed at 73,000+ square feet, without the necessary due diligence, and the question "how could this happen in our City ?" would have been asked after the fact, and the City and its residents would forever live with a massive overbuilt structure that would set precedent for future condominium complexes in the City. Many citizens requested an EIR on this project for more than a year and had been repeatedly denied, when the project itself should have been denied. Why is it the job and financial responsibility of private citizens to monitor the Planning Commission and staff? No more inadequate MND's that were re- circulated multiple times. We expect a professional, unbiased and accurate EIR to finally be done on this project. Anything less would a travesty for us and other concerned citizens, as well as for the City of Newport Beach and its New General Plan. Sincerely, Joseph and Lisa Vallejo Kathleen and John McIntosh RECEIVED BY rAANNING DEPARTMENT South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 -4178 fit' T Ch NEWPORT BEACH Cdp H " ( (909) 396 -2000 • www.agmd.gov September 16, 2008 Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department P_O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mr. Campbell: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Aerie (PA2005 -196) Project The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above - mentioned document. The SCAQMD's comments are recommendations regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the proposed project that should be included in the draft environmental impact report (EIR). Please send the SCAQMD a copy of the Draft EIR upon its completion. In addition, please send with the draft EIR all appendices or technical documents related to the air quality analysis and electronic versions of all air quality modeling and health risk assessment riles. Without all tiles and supporting air quality documentation, the SCAQMD will be unable to complete its review of (lie air quality analysis in a timely manner. Any delays in providing all supporting air quality documentation will require additional time for review beyond the end of the comment period. Air Oualitv Analvsis The SCAQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. The SCAQMD recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are available from the SCAQMD's Subscription Services Department by calling (909) 396 -3720. Alternatively, the lead agency may wish to consider using the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved URBEMIS 2007 Model. This model is available on the SCAQMD Website at: www.urbemis.com. The Lead Agency should identity any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction (including demolition, if any) and operations should be calculated. Construction- related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to. emissions from the use of heavy -duty equipment from grading, earth- loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, off -road mobile sources (e.g., heavy -duty construction equipment) and on -road mobile sources (e.g.. construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips). Operation- related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off -road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips should be included in the analysis. The SCAQMD has developed a methodology for calculating PM2.5 emissions from construction and operational activities and processes. In connection with developing PM2.5 calculation methodologies, the SCAQMD has also developed both regional and localized significance thresholds. The SCAQMD requests that the lead agency quantify PM2.5 emissions and compare the results to the recommended PM2.5 significance thresholds. Guidance for calculating PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 significance thresholds can be found at the following internee address: ht�pt : / /w-%ti w.agmd. og v/cega/handbook[PM2 5 /PM2 5.html. Mr. James Campbell -2- September 16, 2008 In addition to analyzing regional air quality impacts the SCAQMD recommends calculating localized air quality impacts and comparing the results to localized significance thresholds (LSTs). LST's can be used in addition to the recommended regional significance thresholds as a second indication of air quality impacts when preparing a CEQA document. Therefore, when preparing the air quality analysis for the proposed project, it is recommended that the lead agency perform a localized significance analysis by either using the LSTs developed by the SCAQMD or performing dispersion modeling as necessary. Guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis can be found at hltp ;'www. agmd. gowcega /handbook/LST' /LST.html. It is recommended that lead agencies for projects generating or attracting vehicular trips, especially heavy -duty diesel - fueled vehicles, perform a mobile source health risk assessment. Guidance for performing a mobile source health risk assessment ("Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk Isom Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis ") can be found on the SCAQMD's CEQA web pages at the following intemet address: ht to:/hvww.agmd.gov /cega /hatdbook /mobile toxic /mobile toxic.html. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. Mitigation Measures In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts. To assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible mitigation measures for the project, please refer to Chapter I 1 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook for sample air quality mitigation measures. Additional mitigation measures can be found on the SCAQMD's CEQA web pages at the following intemet address: www agmd f ov /eeoa /handbook /mitigation /MM intro.html Additionally, SCAQMD's Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust, and the Implementation Handbook contain numerous measures for controlling construction - related emissions that should be considered for use as CEQA mitigation if not otherwise required. Other measures to reduce air quality impacts from land use projects can be found in the SCAQMD's Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. This document can be found at the following intemet address: http: / /wwnv.aclmd.ao`lprdas /aq t <lelauguide.html. In addition, guidance on sitting incompatible land uses can be found in the California Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Perspective, which can be found at the following intemet address: hltp:// www.arb.ca.eov /ch /liandbogk.pdf. Pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 (a)(1)(D), any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be discussed. Data Sources SCAQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the SCAQMD's Public Information Center at (909) 396 -2039. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available via the SCAQMD's World Wide Web Homepage littp: / /www.agrnd.gov). The SCAQMD is willing to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that project - related emissions are accurately identified, categorized, and evaluated. Please call Daniel Garcia, Air Quality Specialist, CEQA Section, at (909) 396- 3304 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Steve Smith. Ph.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources SS:DG:AK ORC08091 1 -04AK Control Number Appendix B Construction Management Plan i i Tai. �i CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN 03.17.2009 Brion Jeannette Architecture 470 old Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92663 Page 12 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ ..............................3 1.1 Project Location .............................................................................................. ..............................3 1.2 Project Description ......................................................................................... ............................... 3 1.3 Scope of Work ................................................................................................ ............................... 3 2.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................... ..............................4 2.1 Dates of Construction .................................................................................... ............................... 4 2.2 Hours of Construction .................................................................................... ............................... 4 2.3 Construction Personnel Trip Generation and Parking .................................... ..............................4 2.4 Sequence (Phasing) of Construction ............................................................... ..............................4 2.5 Construction Schedule ................................................................................... ............................... 6 2.6 Construction Process ..................................................................................... ............................... 6 2.7 Construction Equipment ................................................................................. ..............................8 3.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT ............................................................................ ..............................9 3.1 Construction Parking Details .......................................................................... ............................... 9 3.1.1 Off -Site Parking for Crew members ......................................................... ..............................9 3.1.2 Short Term Parking ................................................................................. ............................... 9 3.2 Staging Areas .................................................................................................: ............................... 9 3.3 Construction Trailer, Materials Storage, and Waste Management ............... .............................10 4.0 TRAFFIC CONTROL ..................................................................................... .............................11 4.1 Haul Routes .................................................................................................... .............................11 4.2 Delivery Requirements ................................................................................. ............................... 12 4.3 Traffic Control Plan ...................................................................................... ............................... 12 5.0 SAFETY AND SECURITY ............................................................................... .............................13 5.1 Pedestrian Protection .................................................................................... .............................13 5.2 Project Fencing ............................................................................................... .............................13 5.3 Safety and Security ........................................................................................ .............................13 6.0 AIR QUALITY CONTROL, FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL, NOISE SUPPRESSION, AND VIBRATION MONITORING....................................................................................................... .............................14 6.1 Emissions /Air Quality Control ........................................................................ .............................14 6.2 Fugitive Dust Control ................................................................................... ............................... 14 6.3 Noise Control ................................................................................................. .............................14 6.4 Noise Control Consideration ........................................................................ ............................... 15 6.5 Vibration Monitoring ................................................................................... ............................... 15 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE/ PROTECTION .......................................... .............................17 7.1 Erosion, Sediment Control and Beach Protection ......................................... .............................17 7.2 Water Quality Control .................................................................................. ............................... 17 7.3 Environmental Protection ............................................................................ ............................... 18 8.0 CONSULTANTS/ REFERENCES ................................................................... ............................... 21 Appendices Appendix A - Construction Schedule Appendix B- Construction Plan Appendix C - Construction Building Sections Rev. 03.17.2009 Page 13 1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION Owner: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. 23792 Rockfield Boulevard Lake Forest, CA 92630 Architect: Brion Jeannette Architecture 470 Old Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 1.1 Project Location The subject property (the "Site ") consists of two parcels at 201— 207 Carnation Avenue (APNs 052- 013 -12 and 052- 013 -13), West of Carnation Avenue at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and a small portion (584 square feet) of 101 Bayside Place (APN 052- 013-21). 1.2 Project Description The 1.4 -acre Site is currently occupied by a 14 -unit apartment building, one single - family residence, as well as deteriorating gangway platform, pier walkway and dock facilities. The Aerie Project (the "Project") consists of (a) the demolition of the existing residential structures; (b) the construction of eight residential condominium units; and (c) the replacement and reconfiguration of the existing gangway platform, pier walkway and dock facilities. 1.3 Scope of Work This Construction Management Plan is designed to minimize the Project's construction - related environmental effects and to foster public safety during Project construction. The Project applicant, contractor, and all sub - contractors must adhere to all provisions as stated in this Construction Management Plan. Please refer to Appendices B and C for additional information. Rev. 03.17.20091 2.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 2.1 Dates of Construction Page 14 The construction of the proposed Project is expected to occur over approximately 32 months. (See Appendix A for construction schedule.) Demolition and asbestos removal are scheduled to occur during the summer months. Grading, dirt hauling, are scheduled to occur between Labor Day and Memorial Day. 2.2 Hours of Construction The hours of construction will vary depending on the work to be completed and the season. During construction Phases I and 11 (defined below), construction activities will be restricted to non - holiday weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., per City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040. During construction Phases III and IV, when work will largely occur indoors, construction activities will be allowed Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., as allowed by City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040. 2.3 Construction Personnel Trip Generation and Parkins The total number of construction personnel at the Site will vary depending on the construction activity. It is expected that there will be an average of 25 workers daily at the job site during Phase I and 45 workers daily during Phase 11. During Phase III and IV, when work will largely occur indoors, there will be an average of 60 to 80 workers on site. 2.4 Sequence (Phasing) of Construction Project construction is divided into four phases: PHASE I - Asbestos and lead based paint removal, demolition, caisson placement and grading will occur during Phase I. Project grading will be comprised of three segments of earth removal and lagging. Approx. Time: 6 months Rev. 03.17.2009 1 Page 15 II. PHASE II - Concrete placement, which consists of shotcrete shoring, placement of structural slabs and walls, waterproofing, and sub -slab drainage systems, will occur during Phase 11. In addition, site drainage, plumbing underground and electrical underground systems will be integrated. Note that Phase 11 will be ongoing while Phase III commences so that a portion of Phase II and III will occur simultaneously. Approx. Time: 18 months (mostly overlapping Phase III) III. PHASE Ill — During Phase III, metal stud wall framing will begin on lower levels and work up. Integration of rough plumbing, mechanical, and electrical systems will follow after the metal stud walls are in place. Both vehicular elevators will be installed and operational at this time. Installation of windows and doors will occur during Phase 111, as well as planting of large plant materials at Site's bayward side. Note that Phase III will start before Phase 11 is complete so that a portion of Phase 11 and 111 will occur simultaneously. Approx. Time: 13 months (partially overlapping Phase II) IV. PHASE IV - Finishes will be installed during Phase IV. Exterior finishes such as exterior plaster, roofing systems, stone veneer, guard rails, exterior lighting and solar panels will be installed, as will the balance of the landscaping and hardscape /paving, artificial rock finishes, softscape, landscape lighting and drainage systems. Finally, interior finishes will be installed, including drywall, painting, cabinetry, stone and tile at counters, walls and floors. Approx. Time: 11 months Total Length of Construction Time': Approx. 32 months 1 Total construction time is not a sum of the days associated with all construction phases because there is overlapping of certain tasks. Rev. 03.17.20091 Page 16 2.5 Construction Schedule See Appendix A for Construction Schedule Chart. 2.6 Construction Process During Phase I, caisson placement and grading will begin. Asbestos and lead based paint removal will begin in July, approximately two months prior to grading in early September. After the existing buildings are demolished, the first set of caissons for Row A will be installed along the perimeter of the Site facing Carnation Avenue and along the easterly side yard adjacent to 215 Carnation Ave. (See Appendices B and C.) Grading will begin after Labor Day in early September and will consist of three removal segments: • Segment #1— Removal of 13,000 cubic yards with 12 yard dump trucks = 1,084 trips to occur over approx. 41 work days • Segment #2 — Removal of 7,000 cubic yards with 12 yard dump trucks = 584 trips to occur over approx. 21 work days • Segment #3 — Removal of 5,240 cubic yards with 12 yard dump trucks = 437 trips to occur over approx. 15 work days Grading work will be completed by Labor Day. At the end of each removal segment, lagging to retain the earth will be installed per the soils engineer's recommendations. During Phase I there will be approximately 25 workers at the Site operating the excavation equipment, tractors, dump trucks, ram hoe, earth conveyors, etc. Vibration probes will be placed at 215 Carnation Avenue to monitor construction activities. A vibration monitoring program will be initiated and if found to exceed the threshold for structural damage, other construction methods will be employed to eliminate any occurrence of structural damage. Such alternative construction methods include, but are not limited to, use of different drill bits for the caisson drilling, use of less vibration - intensive construction vehicles, and /or use of lubricants for the caisson drilling. The contractor shall hire and oversee the construction valet which consists of two crew members, a flagmen and pedestrian detours, who will be stationed at the entrance of the job site during construction activities to monitor security in and out of the gates and to direct pedestrians to the pedestrian walkway. The construction valet and flagmen team will also direct traffic at the Site, shuttle drop -off /pick -up, and material deliveries. During the excavation process, the flagmen will coordinate with the foreman at the dump site who will radio in the dump trucks from Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill, one Rev. 03.17.20091 Page 17 truck at a time in 15 minute intervals at the start of the workday. Once the trucks are in motion, they will be recycled throughout the day to reduce the number of required trucks used per day and to eliminate the need for a staging area along Pacific Coast Highway and Cameo Highlands Drive. Concrete delivery trucks will follow the same procedure used by the dump trucks. The construction valet and flagmen team will direct dump trucks, cement trucks, etc. to arrive to the site at no greater frequency than the discharge rate by the contractor. At no time will more than one cement or dump truck be stationed at the site. Please refer to Figure 1 for a graphic depiction of the proposed haul route. Phase 11 will consist of shotcrete shoring, concrete placement for the foundation slab, structural decks, and retaining walls once the last excavation segment is completed. Phase III will include metal stud framing and the installation of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing equipment. Work on Phases 11 and III will be scheduled so that concrete placement and internal wall framing work can occur simultaneously to shorten the duration of the construction timing. Dock construction will take place during Phases II and 111. Dock materials will be built off site then barged to the Site for installation. Dock construction at the Site will occur over approximately eight weeks. During Phase 111, vehicular elevators will be installed after the Second Floor structural deck is completed and will be available to facilitate on -site parking for workers as most of the remaining work on the project will be internal. Most of the equipment required during Phase III will be small tools and compressors. Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing sub - contractors will be the primary workers on site. Metal stud framing will continue on the upper levels while finish work occurs on the lower levels. Material deliveries and storage will occur on site in the Sub - Basement and Basement levels. Finally, large trees located on the bay side of the Site will be installed at this time. The final construction phase, Phase IV, will include the application of the interior and exterior finishes and window and door installation. Cabinetry (built off - site), counter tops and floor finish materials will be delivered and installed in all units. Exterior finishes such as stone veneer, roof materials, photovoltaic array panels, and exterior plaster will be installed. Ultimately, landscape and hardscape materials, guardrail glazing, and wrought iron systems will follow the internal and external painting. Final fire suppression systems and testing, as well as passenger elevator installations, will complete the structure. Final landscape and clean up will prepare the building for occupancy. Rev. 03.17.2009 1 Page �B 2.7 Construction Equipment Construction equipment will be utilized for the various stages of the project as follows: PHASE I: Demolition Caisson Placement Grading Lagging PHASE II: Concrete Placement Site Drainage Shotcrete PHASE III: Wall Framing Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Installation Window/ Door installation Dock System Installation Vehicular Elevator Installation Lanze Tree Installation Compressor Concrete Mixer and pumper Conveyor (electrical) Dozer Drill Rig Dump Trucks Excavator Flat bed delivery trucks Loader Ram Hoe Backhoe Concrete mixer and pumper Crane Drill Rig Flat bed delivery trucks Compressors Crane Flat bed delivery trucks Masonry saws/ Metal Stud Plasma Cutter Roto Hammers Shot pin applicators Small stationary power tools/ hand tools PHASE IV: Compressors Exterior and Interior Finishes Flat bed delivery trucks Hardscape Installation Masonry Saws Softscape Installation Roto Hammers Passenger Elevators Installation Skill Saws Small Cement Mixer Small hand held power tools Rev. 03.17.20091 Pnge19 3.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT 3.1 Construction Parking Details 3.1.1 Off -Site Parking for Crew members Construction workers will be prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Instead, the project applicant will secure one or more binding off -site parking agreements to accommodate the varying number of workers needed for each construction phase. The off -site parking location(s) will be within a 5 mile radius of the Site. This off -site parking agreement shall be presented to the City prior to the issuance of the permits for the phase of construction that will require the off -site parking. The agreement must ensure that (1) the off -site parking location will commit a sufficient number of spaces to Aerie construction workers during the relevant term, and (2) the off -site location possesses the proper permits and authority to rent the subject spaces. Shuttles will transfer construction workers from their location(s) to the project site. Specifically, two, ten (10) passenger shuttle vans will run up to 6 -8 trips each morning and evening and up to 5 trips at lunch time, assuming that some workers will stay at the jobsite during lunch. Carpooling among construction workers will be encouraged throughout project construction. Once vehicular elevators are installed and workers are able to park in the completed on -site garages. It is anticipated that approximately 31 cars will be able to park on -site once the parking garage is completed. The owner shall provide personnel to assist parking in the garage. 3.1.2 Short Term Parking Construction workers will be prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Compliance with this prohibition will be monitored daily by the construction valet and flagmen team. However, this prohibition shall not apply to short-term visitors to the Site such as City inspectors, City staff, architects, and consultants. Carpooling shall also be encouraged among professionals. 3.2 Staging Areas During Phases I and II, an encroachment permit will be required to allow temporary use of 10' -5" of City right -of -way, measured from the property line at Carnation, for staging Rev. 03.17.20091 Page 110 of materials and temporary parking while materials are off - loaded, etc., as depicted on Appendix B — Construction Management Exhibit 1.0. This will achieve an average of 10'- 5" feet deep x 140 feet wide of staging area along the Carnation Avenue frontage. (Staging area does not include the 10 foot building setback from the property line as that area will be used for constructing the subterranean levels. Excavation will occur up to the property line facing Carnation Avenue). Upon the completion of the Project's concrete structure, during Phase III and IV, an encroachment permit will be required to allow temporary use of 6' -5" of City right -of -way, measured from property line at Carnation, for staging for the various trades to complete the remaining phases of construction. Approximately fourteen (14) months into the construction, it is anticipated that construction of the First Floor concrete deck and on -site subterranean garage will be far enough along to be used to store construction materials and small vehicles. 3.3 Construction Trailer, Materials Storage, and Waste Management A temporary field office will be set up on the Site within the property and will be equipped with power, phone, computers, and fax. Multiple temporary toilet facilities will be provided on the Site. Once the lower levels are constructed, dedicated storage areas and lockboxes will be provided for each trade to store their tools and materials on -site for the duration of construction. Rev. 03.17.20091 4.0 TRAFFIC CONTROL 4.1 Haul Routes Page 111 Haul operations shall be monitored by the contractor. Additional restrictions may be imposed by the Public Works Department if traffic congestion problems arise. • The project's haul route shall follow the route depicted in Figure 1, below. Specifically, dump trucks, concrete mixers, deliveries, and shuttles for off -site parking will access the Site via East Coast Highway and travel south on Marguerite Avenue, west on Seaview Avenue, and south on Carnation Avenue to the Site. They will exit by going east on Ocean Boulevard, north on Marguerite Avenue, and back to East Coast Highway. • Dirt will be hauled to Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in the City of Brea. Dump trucks leaving from East Coast Highway will go north on MacArthur Boulevard to 73N to 55 N to 5N to 57N. FIGURE 1 TO MACARTHUR BLVD., TO 73N TO 55N FWY �1 4r\ 1_ V {dp t> � A a wiz Rev. 03.17.20091 Pa g 112 4.2 Delivery Requirements All deliveries will use the Haul Route once they enter the neighborhood starting from Marguerite Avenue. As mentioned in Section 3.2, the contractor shall request an encroachment permit for a temporary staging area during construction between the property line and the street curb. Loading and unloading of all construction materials /equipment and /or construction vehicles will take place onsite or within the staging area. Loading and unloading will be managed by the construction valet team and overseen by the contractor. Dump trucks, cement trucks, etc. shall arrive at the site with no greater frequency than the discharge rate by the contractor so that no more than one truck is on site at one time and that trucks will not need to queue on Carnation Avenue. Once the delivery is complete, the trucks will exit the Project area using the haul route depicted above. All trucks will be required to shut off their engines during the loading /off - loading process. The majority of the trucks used for Phases I and II will be dump trucks, cement mixers, and cement pumpers. Phases III and IV will require mostly flat bed delivery trucks and vans. To prevent obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the Site, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways. 4.3 Traffic Control Plan Traffic control will be coordinated with the Police Department and Public Works Department, Traffic and Development Services Division, so that street traffic is not obstructed. Rev. 03.17.2009 1 pxll ,9d1:1\LL`I1I- YXdl].]k VA 5.1 Pedestrian Protection Page113 Currently, there is not a pedestrian walkway adjacent to the Site, along the north side of Carnation Avenue due to the existing driveway cut and lack of sidewalk at 207 Carnation Avenue. Secure fencing will be installed to foster pedestrian safety and a four foot wide temporary walkway will be designated in front of the fencing at the street curb along Carnation Avenue during Phases I and II of construction. During Phase IV, the chain link fence will be pulled back four feet from the street curb. Also, if required by the Public Works Department, a four foot wide temporary crosswalk will be created across Carnation Avenue to direct pedestrians to the existing sidewalk on the southerly side of the street. (See Appendix B — Construction Management Exhibit 1.0.) A safe and clean path along the driveway frontage of the Site will be provided at the end of each work day. A construction valet member shall be provided at the entrance of the Site during construction hours to coordinate workers and shuttles into and out of the Site. 5.2 Project Fencing The entire perimeter of the Site will be fenced with a 6 foot high fence. More specifically, plywood fencing will be installed on both sides of the property facing the adjacent neighbors and will wrap around the corner of Carnation Ave. Chain link fence with green fabric per City of Newport Beach requirements will be installed at the street curb, beginning where the plywood fence ends S feet away from the side property line. Two 20 foot wide rolling gates on Carnation Ave. will provide access into the Site and will be locked for security. These rolling gates shall open on site to avoid interference with construction work. During Phase III and IV, the chain link fencing along Carnation Avenue will be pulled back 4 feet from the street curb so that the pedestrian walkway is off the street. See Appendix B for location of project fencing. 5.3 Safety and Security Appropriate signage will be posted at the Site indicating "No Trespassing," "Hard Hat Required," "Authorized Personnel Only," and other visitor and delivery information. Daily safety inspections will be done by the onsite superintendent. Rev. 03.17.2009 1 Page 114 6.0 AIR QUALITY CONTROL, FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL, NOISE SUPPRESSION, AND VIBRATION MONITORING 6.1 Emissions /Air Quality Control Construction activities will follow the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District to reduce air pollution and emissions impact. To the extent feasible, pre- coated /natural colored building materials shall be used. Water -based or low VOC coatings such as Dunn Edwards Ecoshield Low -Odor/ Zero -VOC paint shall be used that comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, or manual coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, etc. shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where practical. Paint application shall use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter. 6.2 Fugitive Dust Control The project shall comply with the Fugitive Dust Emission and Control Plan approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (under District Rule 403). Dust will be minimized using water as control. Site and debris watering shall be performed a minimum of three times daily during all demolition activities. During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered at least four times per day. Stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty materials shall be covered or watered three times daily. In addition, trucks carrying soil and debris shall be wetted or covered prior to leaving the Site. On windy days, or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the Site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Soil disturbance shall be terminated whenever wind conditions exceed 25 miles per hour. All diesel - powered machinery exceeding 100 horsepower shall be equipped with soot traps, unless the Contractor demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City Building Official that it is infeasible. 6.3 Noise Control Construction activities will adhere to the hours prescribed by the City of Newport Beach's Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 10.28.040). Specifically, construction activities will be restricted to non - holiday Rev. 03.17.2009 1 Page 115 weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., per Section 10.28.040. During construction Phases III and IV, when work will largely occur indoors, construction activities will be allowed Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and Saturday from 8:00 to 6:00 p.m., as allowed by City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040. The construction contractor shall provide residents living within 100 feet of the project site with a construction schedule for the project prior to the commencement of construction, including the dock, and shall keep them informed of any material changes to the schedule. The notification shall also identify the name and phone number of a contact person with whom to register complaints. 6.4 Noise Control Consideration Noise from construction activities on this project will be a function of the noise generated by individual construction equipment items (as listed in Section 2.7 Construction Equipment), the equipment location (much of this construction will be insulated by the landform, the depth of the excavation, and the concrete used for most of the structure), and the timing and duration of noise - generated activities. It is important to note that all equipment is not generally operated continuously or used simultaneously. The number, type, distribution, and usage of construction equipment will differ from phase to phase. The noise generated is both temporary in nature and limited in hours by the City's Noise Ordinance (Section 10.28.040). During Phase I and II of the project, the caisson drilling process will progress at the rate of 3 to 4 caissons being completed per day — this includes drilling, steel placement, and filling with concrete. The grading during segments #1, #2, and #3 will consist of excavators with a ramp out or an electrical conveyor belt for dirt removal and with dump trucks at the rate of approximately 28 trucks per day, removing the soils. There will be no pile driving during the entire construction process. The ram hoe will be required during the later part of the excavation process for approximately 10% of the grading operation at the lower elevations of the site. For Phases III & IV, small hand tools and compressors will be used within the concrete structure. Noise will also be generated by daily deliveries of materials to the Site. The construction valet will manage the time of such deliveries so that they do not occur at the same time. 6.5 Vibration Monitoring Vibration monitoring will be conducted as part of the Construction Management Plan. Vibration probes will be placed at 215 Carnation Avenue to monitor construction activities. A vibration monitoring program will be initiated and if found to exceed the Rev. 03.17.20091 P age 116 threshold for structural damage, other construction methods will be employed to eliminate any occurrence of structural damage. Such alternative construction methods include, but are not limited to, use of lubricant during caisson drilling, use of different drill bits to change levels of torque for the caisson drilling, use of less vibration - intensive construction vehicles, and use of drilling, and /or insertion of expansive grout to fracture rock. Rev. 03.17.2009 1 Page 117 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE/ PROTECTION 7.1 Erosion, Sediment Control and Beach Protection Per the State's NPDES permit, the project is required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with erosion control measures to ensure soils resulting from grading and earthwork activities are prevented from leaving the Site and moving to receiving waters. As detailed in Appendix O of the project's Preliminary SWPPP, the following best management practices (BMPs) will be incorporated to prevent soils from spilling into Newport Harbor during grading operation: 1. BMP #3 (Erosion Control Plan) 2. SE -1 (Silt Fence), 3. SE -6 (Gravel Bag Berm) 4. SE -2 (Sediment Basin) 5. SE -4 (Check Dam) In addition, an erosion control plan will be provided with the project's rough grading plan per the project's conditions of approval. Please refer to Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, Inc. for more detailed information. 7.2 Water Quality Control The Project has prepared a Water Quality Management Plan which incorporates a variety of BMPs that will be used onsite to control predictable pollutant runoff. Please refer to conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, Inc., for more detailed information. The project also will incorporate the following practices: All debris and trash shall be disposed in suitable trash containers on land or on the work barge at the end of each construction day. Discharge of any hazardous materials into Newport Bay is prohibited. Silt curtains shall be deployed around work barges and around the pile sleeving or drilling operations where feasible to minimize the spread of turbid waters into adjacent eelgrass beds within and outside the project area. All construction debris shall be removed from the bay floor. Rev. 03.17.2009 1 P age Its 7.3 Environmental Protection Existing vegetation that is to be retained will be fenced for protection during grading and construction. Pursuant to this CMP and, therefore, as part of the project itself, the following measures will be taken: An updated pre- construction eelgrass and invasive algae survey shall be completed within 30 days of the initiation of the proposed dock/ gangway construction. The results of this survey will be used to update the results of the March 2007 eelgrass survey and to identify, if any, potential project - related eelgrass losses and the presence or absence of the invasive algae (Caulerpa taxifolia) in accordance with NMFS requirements. • A post - construction project eelgrass survey shall be completed within 30 days of the completion of project construction in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). The report will be presented to the resources agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission within 30 days after completion of the survey. If any eelgrass has been impacted in excess of that determined in the pre- construction survey, any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.2:1. Eelgrass shall be mitigated based on two annual monitoring surveys that document the changes in bed (i.e., area extent and density)within the footprint of the boat dock, moored vessels(s), and /or related structures during the active - growth period of eelgrass (typically March through October). Mitigation shall be implemented pursuant to the requirements of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). A statement from the applicant indicating its understanding of the potential mitigation obligation that may follow the initial two year monitoring is required. If losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach and resources agencies for review and acceptance. The project marine biologist shall mark the positions of eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the dock and gangway construction area with buoys prior to the initiation of any construction activities. The project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew prior to initiation of construction to orient them to specific areas where eelgrass presently exists. Rev. 03.17.2009 Pa Re 119 • Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work over eelgrass beds only during tides of above +2 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) or higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass from propellers, and to limit water turbidity. • Anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upon eelgrass habitat. • Construction activities associated with the elevated walkway leading to the gangway and construction personnel shall avoid impacts to rocky intertidal habitat and to eelgrass beds and sand dollar habitat within the Carnation Cove by, among other things, (a) posting signage at key at access points in front of beach and on the elevated walkway stating that access is limited to the elevated walkway during construction; (b) using yellow tape to prevent access to rocky intertidal habitat, eelgrass beds, and sand dollar habitat; and (c) prohibiting access to the water and rocky shoreline within the cove. Residents shall be informed of the sensitivity of the cove as a unique marine biological habitat to assist in ensuring the long -term protection of the cove's marine biological resources. A silt curtain will be placed around all water -side construction activity during the construction of the dock system to limit the spread of turbidity. If prolonged turbidity is observed outside the silt curtain then the silt curtain shall be re- deployed and re- positioned in a manner to correct the problem. Removal and emplacement of the piles will be conducted using Best Available Technology (BAT) that limits the re- suspension of sediments and the creation of turbidity plumes. Silt curtains will be emplaced and maintained in working condition throughout the period of construction by the marine contractor. If turbidity plumes are observed in the vicinity of the cove in front of the development, an additional silt curtain will be immediately placed in front of the cove's entrance until the turbidity plume has dissipated. Debris bins will be placed at the project site. Material collected will be removed on a daily basis. The amount, type, and location of any large debris (piles, dock parts, concrete, etc) that is deposited on the seafloor will be documented and removed prior to the completion of the project. The project marine biologist shall also inspect the seafloor following the completion of construction to ensure that all debris has been removed. The project marine biologist will perform weekly on -site inspections to ensure that BMPs and mitigation measures are being implemented during construction. Rev. 03.17.20091 Pa g 120 • Post - construction marine biological surveys (per permit conditions) shall be performed to map eelgrass cover in the project area using the same methodology as the pre- construction survey and also to document the condition and density of the sand dollar beds within the cove. • A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre - construction survey for active nests of covered species at least seven (7) days prior to any habitat disturbance that occurs during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). If no active nests are found, no further actions are required. However, if nesting activity is observed during the pre - construction survey, the nest site must be protected until nesting activity has ended or as otherwise directed by a qualified biologist in order to ensure compliance with the MBTA and California fish and Game Code. Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environment. Invasive and non - native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. A qualified botanist shall perform focused surveys to determine the presence /absence for the nine sensitive plant species. The focused surveys shall be performed during the appropriate blooming window identified for each species. Survey methods shall follow CDFG guidelines. If any State - listed threatened or endangered plant species are impacted by project development, an incident take permit pursuant to Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code shall be obtained prior to issuance of a grading permit. Rev. 03.17.2009 1 121 8.0 CONSULTANTS/ REFERENCES Biological Consultants: Coastal Resources Management, Inc. PMB 327, 3334 E. Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949 - 412 -9446 Keane Biological Consulting 2892 Bellflower Blvd., Suite 480 Long Beach, CA 90815 562- 708 -7657 Concrete and Shoring Consultant: Ekedal Masonry 537 Newport Center Dr., Suite 288 Newport Beach, CA 92660 947 - 729 -8082 Contractor Consultant: Finton Associates, Inc 3186 -E Airway Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626 949 - 673 -9587 Grading Consultant: Sukut Construction, Inc. 4010 W. Chandler Ave., Santa Ana, CA 92704 714 -540 -5351 Soils Engineer: Neblett & Associates, Inc. 4911 Warner Ave., Suite 218 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 714 - 840 -8286 Structural Engineering Consultant: KNA Engineering 30101 Agoura Court, Suite 120 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 818 - 865 -2026 Rev. 03.17.20091 Page 122 List of References: Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for "Carnation Villas" Tentative Tract No. 16882, dated December 18, 2007. Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan for "Carnation Villas" Tentative Tract 16882, dated January 17, 2008. Rev. 03.17.2009 1 Appendix A Construction Schedule Rev. 03.17.2009 1 Page X23 | , � . .., ! .<. ! . ! .<- � > , ; ; || . } || ! ! !! ! | 9mmlw�dm� | |! |HH- 1!|!|| Of if if |!!! |!!!! ! | ! ! if ! |! | E (. . . . - - -| 3 -| �• / |\ � !| /! , . Appendix 6 Construction Plan Rev. 03.17.2009 ' �s 124 LC06!'L'4't Jj NOW n a 15 UW 4WWITOL 6WLtl2'M d•Sxo'dMY CaMQIIU 'Puix MWn=e} IIMRuGFM!S 25 Appendix C Construction Building Sections Rev. 03.17.20091 {A LT d AGdW W'!1�d,M'WV S¢K'0, BO ,M'WJJ 335' �0' dW39if01 n! ql' vY3�� !d'e+N!alleweJ+�!IN1�wd�1'S 7 5N Noll l,;Nc 09 �gYgel�q�N� q� >voiia�alsvov iidd e w J a C..) cn Cl Cl z Yqi �] Appendix C Traffic Access Assessment 7:07am 7:08am 7:15am 7:24am 7:33am 7:50am 7:51 am 8:06am 8:20am 8:23am 8:39am 8:40am 8:44am 8:47am 8:51 am 8:56am 8:58am 11:34am 11:36am 12:01 pm 12:06pm 12:31 pm 12:32pm 1:00pm 1:06pm 1:14pm 1:20pm 1:30pm 4:03pm 4:22pm 4:29pm 4:33pm 4:44pm 4:46pm 4:47pm 4:58pm 4:59pm 5:07pm 5:13pm 5:17pm 5:21 pm 5:26pm Ocean Blvd 42 Condos Arivals Departures 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 i OR 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 i OR 5:41 pm 5:56pm A -7 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S ST: CARNATION AVE E/W ST: OCEAN BLVD CITY: NEWPORT BEACH FILENAME: 0981101 DATE: 9118/08 DAY: THURSDAY PERIOD NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SOUTHBOUND BEGINS NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total LANES: EL ET ER WL WT WR Total 7:00 AM 1 1 2 15 AM 2 2 3 4 30 AM 0 1 1 1 45 AM 0 2 PM 2 8:00 AM 1 6 45 7 15 AM 0 4 3 4 30 AM 11 5 3 6 45 AM 0 7 0 7 PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT: 30 PM 1 800 AM 6 46 PM VOLUMES= 2 22 6 24 FILENAME: 0981101P DATE: 9/18/08 PERIOD NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND BEGINS NIL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total 4:00 PM 5 3 8 15 PM 1 4 5 30 PM 5 1 6 45 PM 12 1 3 5:00 PM 2 3 5 15 PM 0 3 3 30 PM 1 5 6 46 PM 2 4 6 PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT: 1600 PM VOLUMES= 13 9 COMMENTS: A -8 22 N/S ST: CARNATION AVE ENV ST: OCEAN BLVD CITY: NEWPORT BEACH PERIOD NORTHBOUND BEGINS NL NT NR LANES: 11:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 12:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM 1:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT: 1200 PM VOLUMES = 12 COMMENTS: TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. (714) 541 -2228 Summary of Vehicular Turning Movements FILENAME: 0981101 M DATE: 9/18108 DAY: THURSDAY SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total 4 6 10 2 4 6 4 3 7 2 4 6 2 4 6 4 6 10 1 2 3 1 5 6 17 A -9 PHF: 0.73 29 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. ARRIVAL/DEPARTURE SURVEY LOCATION: (1239 -1241) (1247 -1301) BAYSIDE DR FILENAME: 09811002 8 CONDOS DIRECTION: DAY: WEDNESDAY CITY: NEWPORT BEACH DATE: 09/17/08 TIME PERIOD: 7:00 AM - 6:00 PM ARRIVAL DEPARTURE ARRIVAL DEPARTURE TIME TIME TIME TIME 7:35:00 7:52:00 8:03:00 8:23:00 8:47:00 8:51:00 ;! 8:55:00 Y8:55:00 8:55:00 11:52:00 11:58:00 12:27:00 12:29:00 12:34:00 12:42:00 12:43:00 12:54:00 13:06:00 13:14:00 13:22:00 16:38:00 17:24:00 17:56:00 16:18:00 16:19:00 16:34:00 16 :48:00 17:45:00 COMMENTS: X =SERVICE PERSONNEL A -10 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. ARRIVAUDEPARTURE SURVEY LOCATION: 2525 OCEAN BLVD 42 CONDOS DIRECTION: FILENAME: 09811 D05 DAY: THURSDAY CITY: CORONA DEL MAR DATE: 09/18/08 TIME PERIOD: 7:00 AM -1:30 PM ARRIVAL DEPARTURE ARRIVAL DEPARTURE TIME TIME TIME TIME 7:07:00 7:08:00 7:08:00 7:15:00 7:24:00 7:33:00 7:50:00 7:50:00 7:51:00 8:06:00 8:20:00 8:40:00 8:56:00 8:58:00 11:34:00 12:32:00 13:00:00 COMMENTS: 8:23:00 8:39:00 8:44:00 8:47:00 8:51:00 11:36:00 12:01:00 12:06:00 12:31:00 13:06:00 13:14:00 13:20:00 13:30:00 A -II TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. ARRIVAUDEPARTURE SURVEY LOCATION: 2525 OCEAN BLVD 42 CONDOS DIRECTION: FILENAME: 09811 DO6 DAY: THURSDAY CITY: CORONA DEL MAR DATE: 09/18/08 TIME PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM ARRIVAL DEPARTURE ARRIVAL DEPARTURE TIME TIME TIME TIME 16:03:00 16:22:00 16:29:00 16:33:00 16:44:00 16:46:00 16:47:00 16:58:00 16:59:00 16:59:00 17:07:00 17:07:00 17:13:00 17:17:00 17:21:00 17:21:00 17:26:00 17:41:00 17:56:00 COMMENTS: A -12 �Al1ST /N -FOUST ASSOC /ATE., INC. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 017h% f@1:L611111U l TO: Keeton Kreitzer FROM: Joe Foust, P.E. DATE: February 26, 2009 SUBJECT: 2 "d REVIEW COMMENTS — AERIE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN I have reviewed the February 18, 2009 Aerie Construction Management Plan (2 "d check) and have the following comments: 1. General Observation — From an overall standpoint, this tad edition of the Construction Management Plan (CMP) appears to address nearly all of my previous concerns raised in both a memo and face -to -face meeting. However, a couple of issues remain. These are: a. One Page 6, the CMP correctly states: "At no time will more than one cement or dump truck be stationed at the site. " It is essential the contractor be aware of and observe this fact as it could result in the City having to enforce the condition. It should also be noted that not more than one large delivery truck may be at the site at any one time. I had suggested a remote truck stagingtholding site be identified and maintained. But as long as this condition is recognized and complied with the main issue has been satisfied. b. There is a discrepancy in the CMP regarding the number of workers present in Stages III and IV. Page 4 says 60 — 80 workers, whereas page 7 says 25 and 20. Although this needs to be clarified, the fact remains the contractor must arrange for an adequate number of off -site parking spaces for each phase. I continue to question whether or 647009m .dm 2223 Wellington Avenue, Suite 300 • Santa Ana, California 92701 -3161 Tel: (714) 667 -0496 Fax: (714) 667 -7952 www.austinfoust.com Keeton Kreitzer February 26, 2009 Page 2 not the 31 on -site spaces are usable from a practical viewpoint given the only access is via the elevators. However, that question will finally be answered during actual construction. If use of some or all of these 31 on -site spaces is not practical, then additional off -site spaces will need to be provided. CONCLUSION In summary, pending clarification of the anticipated worker count in Construction Phases III and IV, the February 2009 version of the Aerie CMP is deemed complete. 047009mm.dm SOIL Sampling Point: 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Dept Matrix Redo%Features Primery Indicators lery one lncicalor is sufficient) Mches) Color % Color (moist) % Tvae; Loa Texture Remelt 111 nN €— Lem CMU)S t/&V, �h Water Marks (B1)(Wverine) _ Surface Water (Al) 1,e. V9 t3 — - -- Svi V — D" Deposits (B3) (Rlverine) _ SaturalJon(A3) _ AGuedc Invertebrates (1213) _ Dahage Patterns (BID) Water Marks (31) (Nonrivertne) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (CI) _ Dry - Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) ( Nonriverne) _ Oxld @ed Rhtaospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Thln Muck Surface (C7) _ DrM Deposits (83) (Nonrivertne) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Bunows (CB) _ Surface Soft Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction In Plowed Solis (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Vlsble on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (E)Vain In Remarks) _ '7 : C--Concentration, D= Deoledon. RM=Reduced Matrix. 'Location: PL-P= Unin . RC --Root Channel, M--Matrix. Hydnc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRS, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis': _ Hlslosol (At) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 1 cm Muck (AD) (LRR C) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) _ Black Hlstie (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Reduced Vertic (Fla) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Red Parent Materiel (i r2) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 1 c-n Muck (A3) (LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) includes cali frintall _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F6) Remarks: _ Sandy Murky Mineral (Si) _ Vernal Pods (F9) 'Indicators orhydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) watiand hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer (If present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydnc Soll Resent? Yes_ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Primery Indicators lery one lncicalor is sufficient) _ Water Marks (B1)(Wverine) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Salt Crust (1311) _ Sediment Deposits (82) (Riverins) High Water Table (A2) _ Biietic Crust (B12) _ D" Deposits (B3) (Rlverine) _ SaturalJon(A3) _ AGuedc Invertebrates (1213) _ Dahage Patterns (BID) Water Marks (31) (Nonrivertne) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (CI) _ Dry - Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) ( Nonriverne) _ Oxld @ed Rhtaospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Thln Muck Surface (C7) _ DrM Deposits (83) (Nonrivertne) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Bunows (CB) _ Surface Soft Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction In Plowed Solis (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Vlsble on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (E)Vain In Remarks) _ Shallow Aqultard (03) 1 _ Water - Stained Leaves (139) _ FAC- Neutral Test (05) Field Observations•. Surface Water Present? Yes _ No Depth (Inches): Water Table Present? Yes— NO Depth (inches): Sau)atlon Present? Yes_ No _IVL_ Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_ Nok includes cali frintall Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), N available: Remarks: US Amy Corps of Engineers Arid West –Version 11.1 -2006 Appendix D Air Quality Analysis AERIE RESIDENTAL DEVELOPMENT AIR QUALITY FOCUSED ANALYSIS Prepared for Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, CA 92780 Prepared by Synectecology 10232 Overbill Dr. Santa Ana, CA 92705 12/22/08 AERIE RESIDENTAL DEVELOPMENT AIR QUALITY FOCUSED ANALYSIS 1.0 Methodology This air quality evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to determine if significant air quality impacts are likely to occur in conjunction with the type and scale of development associated with the Aerie residential project to be located in the City of Newport Beach, California. The impact analysis contained in this report was prepared in accordance with the methodologies provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) as included in CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993) (Handbook) as well as updates included on the SCAQMD Internet web site. The analysis makes use of the data provided by the SCAQMD in their OFFROAD2007 construction emissions projections to determine the emissions associated with the construction equipment. Vehicle emissions are included for haul truck, vendors trucks, and workers and are based on emissions projections included for Orange County in the EMFAC2007 emissions model. Localized emissions generated during construction are based on screening tables included in the SCAQMD's Sample Construction Scenarios for Projects Less than Five Acres in Size, (February 2005). Finally, operational emissions are based on the URBEMIS2007 urban emissions model (Version 9.4.2). The Aerie residential project involves the demolition of approximately 16,493 square feet of an existing 14 -unit multi - family residential structure and existing dockways and construction and subsequent use of eight condominium units on 1.4 acres of land. The structures are to include approximately 32,413 square feet of living area, 5,943 square feet of storage area, 13,234 square feet of parking, and 10,119 square feet devoted to circulation and mechanical aspects The calculated emissions of the project are compared to thresholds of significance for individual projects using the SCAQMD Handbook as well as their Internet updates. The analysis finds that with the inclusion of standard dust control techniques as required under SCAQMD Rule 403, construction emissions would not exceed either their mass daily threshold values and the impact is less than significant. However, PMio emissions associated with demolition activities could exceed the allowable localized concentrations at proximate receptor locations and mitigation in the form of additional site and debris watering is prescribed to reduce this potential impact to less than significant. All operational emissions would remain below their respective threshold values. No other significant impacts have been identified and no other mitigation is warranted under CEQA. 20 Thresholds of Significance The State CEQA Guidelines suggest, from an "air quality" perspective, that a project would normally be judged to produce a significant or potentially significant effect on the environment if the project were to: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. • 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 standards. • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations. • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. As indicated in Section 15064(i)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, `cumulatively considerable" is defined to mean "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." In order to determine whether or not a proposed project would cause a significant effect on the environment, the impact of the project must be determined by examining the types and levels of emissions generated and its impacts on factors that affect air quality. To accomplish this determination of significance, the SCAQMD has established air pollution thresholds against which a proposed project can be evaluated and assist lead agencies in determining whether or not the proposed project is significant. If the thresholds are exceeded by a proposed project, then it should be considered significant. While, the final determination of whether or not a project is significant is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, the SCAQMD recommends that the following air pollution thresholds be used by lead agencies in determining whether the construction or operational phase of a proposed project is significant. If the lead agency finds that the proposed project has the potential to exceed any of these air pollution thresholds, the project should be considered significant. 1.1 Construction Phase - Thresholds of Significance The following significance thresholds for air quality have been established by the SCAQMD on a daily basis for construction emissions: • 75 pounds per day for ROG • 100 pounds per day for NOx • 550 pounds per day for CO • 150 pounds per day of SOx • 150 pounds per day for PM,o • 55 pounds per day for PM2.5 During construction, if any of the identified daily air pollutant thresholds are exceeded by the proposed project, then the project's air quality impacts may be considered significant. 1.1 Operational Phase - Thresholds of Significance Specific criteria air pollutants have been identified by the SCAQMD as pollutants of special regional concern. Based upon this categorization, the following significance thresholds have been established by the SCAQMD for project operations: • 55 pounds per day of ROG • 55 pounds per day of NOx • 550 pounds per day of CO • 150 pounds per day of SOx • 150 pounds per day of PMio • 55 pounds per day for PM2.5 Projects within the SCAB with daily operation- related emissions that exceed any of the above emission thresholds may be considered significant. The SCAQMD indicates in Chapter 6 of their Handbook that they consider a project to be mitigated to a level of insignificance if its primary effects are mitigated below the thresholds provided above. 2.3 Local Emission Standards In addition to the mass daily threshold values presented above, projects that have the ability to exceed or add measurably to an existing excess of the ambient concentrations may be considered significant. The following localized significance thresholds have been established by the SCAQMD for individual projects: • California State 1 -hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm • California State 8 -hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm • California State I -hour NOZ standard of 0.18 ppm • SCAQMD 24 -hour construction PM10 and PM,.5 standards of 10.4 ggim3 • SCAQMD 24 -hour operational PM10 and PM2.5 standards of 2.5 µg/m3 The significance of localized project impacts depends on whether ambient levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below State and federal standards. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have significant impacts if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State or federal standard, then project emissions are considered significant if they increase ambient concentrations by a measurable amount. Again, the SCAQMD indicates in Chapter 6 of their Handbook that they consider a project to be mitigated to a level of insignificance if its effects are mitigated below the thresholds provided above. 3.0 Environmental lnipacts and Mitigation Measures The Aerie project involves the demolition of approximately 16,493 square feet of existing residential structures and existing dockways and construction and subsequent use of eight condominium units with dockways on 1.4 acres of land. The structures are to include approximately 32,413 square feet of living area, 5,943 square feet of storage area, 13,234 square feet of parking, and 10,119 square feet devoted to circulation and mechanical aspects. Projected construction emissions are calculated using OFFROAD2007 model data included on the SCAQMD web site for use in projecting construction emissions. The model updates the emissions on a yearly basis, and the analysis follows this trend. A construction management plan was worked out by Brion Jeannette Architecture in conjunction with the construction contractor and this analysis uses that data. Equipment emissions were selected to best represent the contractor's projections of type and, where known, horsepower values. Where no value was known the SCAQMD composite values were substituted. Emissions for the trucks used to haul debris and deliver supplies were based on data included in the CARB EMFAC2007 model with emissions selected specific to travel in Orange County, California. Like the equipment emissions, these are updated on a yearly basis. All trucks are assumed to be heavy, heavy diesels. The distances traveled are dependant on the type load and were developed by Brion Jeannette Architecture in conjunction with the construction contractor. Similarly, worker trips were based on data included in the CARB EMFAC2007 model with emissions selected specific to travel in Orange County, California. In this case the emissions were based on a composite of automobiles and light trucks less than 5,151 pounds gross vehicle weight. While the construction management plan specifies that workers are to carpool reducing the number of daily trips, as a reasonable worst - case scenario, each worker was assumed to commute a round -trip distance of 20 miles to the carpool or project site. rd The subsequent occupation of the site is based on the URBEMIS2007 model. The majority of residential emissions are based on vehicle trips. The URBEMIS default value for condominiums is 5.86 trips per unit. hi accordance with the ITE Trip Generation Manual, these values can range from 1.83 to 11.79 trips per unit. Based on the size of the proposed units, as a worst -case scenario this analysis uses a trip rate of 11.79 trips per unit per day and the project is estimated to result in 94 average daily trips (ADT). The calculated emissions of the project are compared to thresholds of significance for individual projects using the SCAQMD Handbook and Internet web site updates. The Handbook recommends assessing emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROC or ROG) as an indicator of ozone. For ease of the reader, the included impact analysis follows the outline of the CEQA Checklist. 3.1 Project Consistency With the Applicable Air Quality Plan Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project represents the removal of 14 multi - family units and replacement with eight condominiums in the City of Newport Beach. The project would not involve growth - inducing impacts or cause an exceedance of established population or growth projections. Furthermore, the project is of a size such that it would not create either short- or long -term significant quantities of criteria pollutants. Additionally, with the included mitigation, the project would not result in significant localized air quality impacts. As such, the project is consistent with the goals of AQMP, and in this respect does not present a significant impact. 3.2 Project Potential to Violate or Add to a Violation of an Air Quality Standard 3.2.1 Site Construction Less Than Significant Impact. Air quality impacts may occur during demolition activities, site preparation, and construction activities required to implement the proposed land use. Major sources of emissions during construction typically include exhaust emissions generated by heavy equipment and vehicles, fugitive dust generated as a result of soil and material disturbance during demolition and grading activities, and the emissions of reactive organic compounds during site paving and painting of the structures. As noted, an extensive construction management plan was developed to include all phases of the proposed construction effort on a day -by -day basis. Equipment emissions are based on the OFFROAD2007 emissions model while vehicle emissions are based in the EMFAC2007 emissions model. In accordance with requirements under SCAQMD Rule 403 for dust suppression, a 55 percent control factor is applied to the demolition activities. A similar control efficiency is used by the URBEMIS2007 model for twice daily watering of graded surfaces. The project site includes approximately 1.4 acres of land. The URBEMIS model estimates that 25 percent of this area (0.35 acre) is disturbed on a daily basis. This acreage (i.e., 0.35 acre) is then used in the calculation of daily dust emissions, which are assumed to occur during excavation and grading activities. Based on the URBEMIS model, a value of 20 pounds per acre per day is assumed. Also, based on the URBEMIS model, a suppression of 55 percent is assumed for adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 as required for all projects constructed in the Southland. Truck trips are also included for the removal of debris and delivery of materials. The structures are then constructed over time with various phases of construction overlapping each other. Some of these phases involve work over five days a week while others would extend this to six days a week. The analysis includes both, and in these cases presents those emissions for the five days a week that overlap (though the greenhouse gas analysis considers the sixth day in its total). The URBEMIS model considers dust emissions negligible during the construction of the actual structures, and this analysis follows that approach. Like excavation, the analysis includes the daily delivery of materials to the site. The structure is painted in the final stages of construction. The major source of emissions associated with the application of paints and surface coatings is from the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These are also a form ROG and are assessed as such. The architect has specified that interior paint is to contain no more than 10 grams per liter and exterior paint is to contain no more than 27 grams per liter of VOC. The area to be painted is based on data included with the URBEMIS model. All interior surfaces are to receive three coats while exterior surfaces would receive one coat. While the application of asphalt also releases VOC emissions, no asphalt is proposed for the project and these surfaces will be of concrete construction. Table 1 summarizes the daily emissions projected for site construction. As noted above, some phases of construction would occur five days a week whereas others would use six days. The table presents those five days of overlap in calculation of the worst -case days. (Greenhouse gases, discussed later in this analysis, also include these "sixth day" emissions.) Note that all daily emissions are under their respective criteria levels and the impact is less than significant. Equipment and vehicle calculation spreadsheets showing the daily specifics for each phase are included in the appendix. Table 1 Comparison of Projected Construction Emissions and Daily Criteria Values Source ROG NOx I CO SO, PM10 PM10 PM10 PMzs PMZ.S I PM1.5 CO, Dust' Exhaust Total Dust Exhaust Total Phase IA,Demolition, 8 /10 /10 - 8/17/10, 6 Days Fugitive Dust' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.20 0.00 5.20' 1.09' 0.00 1.09' 0.00 Off Road Diesel 1.82 16.96 6.25 0.02 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.66 0.66 1,787.67 On Road Diesel 2.28 20.46 13.28 0.03 0.00 0.92 0.92 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,362.89 Worker Trips 0.14 0.12 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 153.18 Daily Totals 4.24 37.54 20.83 0.05 5.20 1.67 6.87 1.09 1.58 2.67 2,604.77 Phase 1B. Caisson Installation. 8/18/10 - 9/3/10. 13 Days Off Road Diesel 3.04 26.47 12.11 0.03 0.00 1.37 1.37 0.00 1.22 1.22 3,165.50 On Road Diesel 0.88 7.94 5.15 0.01 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.35 0.35 917.12 Worker Trips 0.14 0.12 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 153.18 Daily Totals 4.06 34.53 18.56 0.04 0.00 1.74 1.74 0.00 1.58 1.58 4,235.8 Phase 1C. Excavation. 9/7/10 - 11/2/10.41 Days Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 3.15 0.00 3.15 0.66 0.00 0.66 10.00 Off Road Diesel 2.64 28.64 8.83 0.03 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.95 0.95 3,152.43 On Road Diesel 6.15 55.25 35.84 0.07 0.00 2.47 2.47 0.00 2.45 2.45 6,379.81 Worker Trips 0.29 0.23 2.61 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 306.37 Dail Totals 9.08 84.12 47.28 0.10 3.15 3.57 6.72 0.66 3.43 4.09 9,838.61 Phase 1D, Caisson Installation, 11/3/10 - 11 /10 /10, 6 Days Off Road Diesel 2.26 20.36 9.57 0.03 0.00 1.06 1.06 0.00 0.94 0.94 2,592.00 On Road Diesel 1.10 9.92 6.44 0.01 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.44 0.44 1,145.40 Worker Trips 0.29 0.23 2.61 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 306.37 Dail Totals 3.65 30.51 18.62 0.04 0.00 1.53 1.53 0.00 1.41 11.41 14,043.77 Phase IE. Excavation. 11 /11 /10 - 12/9/10.21 Days Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.15 0.00 3.15 0.66 0.00 0.66 0.00 Off Road Diesel 2.74 29.32 9.22 0.04 0.00 1.12 1.12 0.00 1.00 1.00 3,219.23 On Road Diesel 6.38 57.30 37.17 0.08 0.00 2.57 2.57 0.00 2.54 2.54 6,616.09 Worker Trips 0.29 0.23 2.61 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 306.37 Daily Totals 9.41 86.85 49.00 0.12 3.15 3.72 6.87 0.66 3.57 4.23 10,141.69 Phase 1F. Bracing Installation. 12/10/10 - 12/20/10. 7 Days Dust 10.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 3.15 0.00 13.15 0.66 0.00 0.66 0.00 Off Road Diesel 12.53 121.38 17.26 10.02 10.00 10.95 10.95 10.00 0.85 10.85 12,098.80 On Road Diesel 10.52 4.65 13.02 10.01 10.00 10.21 10.21 10.00 10.21 10.21 1536.66 r Worker Trips b.29 10.23 12.61 10.00 10.00 10.03 J0.03 10.00 10.03 b.03 1306.37 Dailv Totals 13.34 126.26 112.89 10.03 13.15 11.19 14.34 10.66 11.09 11.75 12.941.83 Phase 1 G. Excavation, 12/21/10 - 12/31/10.8 Days Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.15 0.00 3.15 0.66 0.00 0.66 0.00 Off Road Diesel 2.57 27.44 8.35 0.03 0.00 1.06 1.06 0.00 .94 0.94 3,010.07 On Road Diesel 6.60 59.35 38.50 .08_0.00 .00 V.66 2.66 0.00 .63 2.63 6,852.38 Worker Trips 0.29 0.23 2.61 0.00 0.00 P.03 0.03 .00 0.03 0.03 306.37 Daily Totals 9.46 87.02 49.46 .11 3.15 0.75 6.90 .66 3.60 4.26 10,168.82 Phase iGG. Excavation. 1 /I /11 - 1 /10 /11. 7 Days Dust 0.00 .00 0.00 .00 3.15 0.00 3.15 0.66 0.00 0.66 0.00 Off Road Diesel 2.59 25.08 8.03 .03 .00 .95 0.95 0.00 .85 .85 3,010.07 On Road Diesel 6.13 3.95 35.55 .08 .00 .46 .46 0.00 .44 .44 6,900.50 Worker Trips .27 .21 .42 .00 0.00 .03 .03 .00 0.03 .03 308.31 Dail Totals 8.99 79.24 6.00 0.] 1 3.15 3.44 6.59 0.66 3.32 3.98 10,218.88 Phase 2A. Sub - basement. 1 /11 /11 - 2/28/11.35 Days Off Road Diesel 2.40 17.77 8.65 0.02 0.00 1.02 1.02 0.00 .91 0.91 1,781.10 On Road Diesel 1.93 16.93 111.16 10.03 0.00 10.77 10.77 10.00 10.76 10.76 2,165.73 Worker Trips 0.50 0.40 14 .54 10.01 0.00 10.05 10.05 10.00 10.05 10.05 578.09 Daily Totals 4.83 135.10 124.35 10.06 10.00 11.84 11.84 10.00 11.72 11.72 4,524.92 Phase 2B - Shotcrete Sub - basement, 3/1/11 - 4/25/11, 40 Days Off Road Diesel 1.83 14.15 6.47 0.02 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.60 0.60 1,479.20 On Road Diesel 2.08 18.26 12.03 0.03 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.82 0.82 2,335.12 Worker Trips 0.50 10.40 14.54 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 578.09 Daily Totals 4.41 132.81 123.04 0.06 0.00 1.55 1.55 0.00 1.47 1.47 4,392.41 Phase 2C - Basement Deck, 4/26/11 - 6/6/11, 30 Days Off Road Diesel 1.75 13.62 6.17 0.02 10.00 10.63 0.63 0.00 0.56 .56 1,429.60 On Road Diesel 1.82 16.05 10.58 .02 0.00 0.73 .73 0.00 0.72 0.77 2,052.81 Worker Tri s 0.50 0.40 .54 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 1.72 0.05 .05 578.09 Dail Totals .07 30.07 21.29 0.05 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.33 .33 060.5 Phase 2D - Shotcrete Basement. 6/7/11 - 8/1/11.40 Days Off Road Diesel 1.75 13.62 6.17 0.02 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.56 0.56 1,429.60 On Road Diesel 1.94 17.06 11.24 0.03 0.00 10.78 0.78 0.00 .77 0.77 2,181.86 Worker Trips 0.50 10.40 4.54 0.01 0.00 10.05 .OS 0.00 0.05 0.05 578.09 Daily Totals 4.19 131.08 21.95 0.06 0.00 11.46 11.46 0.00 11.38 1.38 189.55 Phase 23A - First Floor Deck 8/2/11 - 8/30/11.21 Days Off Road Diesel 35 119.63 18.55 0.03 10.00 0.89 09 .00 .79 0.79 225.80 On Road Diesel 12.96 126.01 117.14 10.04 10.00 1.19 11.19 P.00 11.18 11.18 3,327.24 Worker Trips 0.70 10.56 16.36 10.01 10.00 10.07 P.07 0.00 P.07 P,07 1809.32 Phase 23B - Install Mechanical at Sub - Basement. 8/2/11 - 8/30/11.25 Days Off Road Diesel .69 6.52 .77 0.01 0.00 0.28 .28 .00 .25 .25 861.00 On Road Diesel .48 .19 .76 0.01 0.00 0.19 0.19 .00 .19 .19 536.39 Worker Tr s 0.33 0.27 3.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 .00 0.03 .03 385.39 Dail Totals 7.51 57.18 40.61 0.10 10.00 12.65 2.65 10.00 51 2.51 8,145.14 Phase 23A - First Floor Deck, 8/31/11 - 9/12/11, 9 Days Off Road Diesel 2.35 19.63 8.55 0.03 0.00 0.89 0.89 0.00 0.79 0.79 2,225.80 On Road Diesel 2.96 26.01 17.14 0.04 10.00 11.19 1.19 0.00 1.18 1.18 3,327.24 Worker Trips 0.70 0.56 6.36 0.01 10.00 10.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 809.32 Daily Totals 6.01 46.20 32.05 0.08 10.00 12.15 2.15 0.00 2.04 2.04 6,362.36 7 Phase 2.3C - Shotcrete First Floor. 9/13/11 - 11/7/11.40 Days Off Road Diesel 2.41 19.97 8.80 0.03 0.00 0.91 0.91 0.00 0.81 0.81 395.40 On Road Diesel 2.09 18.42 12.13 0.03 10.00 10.84 0.84 0.00 0.83 0.83 ,072.97 Worker Tri s 0.70 .56 6.36 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 [2,355.28 09.32 Dail Totals 5.20 38.95 27.29 0.07 0.00 1.82 1.82 .00 1.71 1.71 ,560.00 Phase 23D - Second Floor Deck. 11/8/11 - 12/6/11.25 Days Off Road Diesel 12.46 0.32 9.06 0.03 0.00 10.93 .93 .00 10.82 0.82 4,705.60 On Road Diesel 11.84 116.21 110.68 10.02 P.00 10.74 10.74 10.00 10.73 0.73 ,072.97 Worker Trips P.50 0.40 4.54 10.01 10.00 10.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 10.05 578.09 Phase 23E - Install Electrical and Plumbine in Basement. 11/8/11 - 12/6/11. 25 Days Off Road Diesel 0.69 6.52 2.77 0.01 0.00 0.28 .28 0.00 0.25 0.25 84.00 On Road Diesel 0.48 .19 2.76 0.01 0.00 0.19 .19 .00 0.19 1119 536.39 Worker Trips 0.33 0.27 3.03 .00 0.00 0.03 .03 0.00 .03 0.03 385.39 Dail Totals 6.30 7.91 32.84 .08 .00 2.22 2.22 0.00 2.07 2.07 9,062.44 Phase 2.313 - Second Floor Deck. 12/7/11 - 12/19/11.5 Days Off Road Diesel 2.46 20.32 9.06 0.03 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.82 0.82 1705.60 On Road Diesel 1.84 16.21 10.68 1102 10.00 10.74 0.74 0.00 0.73 10.73 072.97 Worker Trips 0.50 0.40 4.54 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.05 .00 0.05 0.05 578.09 Daily Totals 4.80 36.93 24.28 0.06 10.00 11.72 1.72 10.00 1.60 11.60 7,356.66 Phase 2.3F - Shotcrete Second Floor. 12/20/11 - 12/31/11. 9 Days Off Road Diesel 2.14 17.89 7.93 0.03 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.70 0.70 2,161.00 On Road Diesel 1.58 15.42 10.16 0.02 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,972.15 Worker Trips 0.70 10.56 6.36 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 809.21 Daily Totals 4.42 133.87 24.45 0.06 0.00 1.55 1.55 0.00 1.47 1.47 4,942.36 Phase 23FF - Shotcrete Second Floor. 1/1/12 - 2/13/12.31 Days Off Road Diesel 2.14 17.89 7.93 0.03 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.70 0.70 2,161.00 On Road Diesel 1.58 13.86 9.11 0.02 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,984.99 Worker Trips 0.07 .52 5.88 0.01 0.00 0.07 .07 0.00 .07 0.07 808.30 Daily Totals 3.79 32.27 22.92 0.06 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 ].40 1.40 954.29 Phase 23G - Third Floor Deck. 2/14/12 - 3/26/12.30 Days Off Road Diesel 1.57 12.38 5.62 .02 0.00 0.55 0.55 .00 0.49 0.49 1,364.80 On Road Diesel 1.42 12.42 8.16 .02 .00 0.57 .57 .00 .56 0.56 1,777.97 Worker Trips .47 .37 .20 .01 1.05 .00 0.05 .05 .00 0.05 0.05 577.36 Dail Totals 3.46 5.17 17.98 0.00 11.17 1.17 0.00 1.10 1.10 720.13 Phase 2.311 - Third Floor Interior, 3/27/12 - 4/16/12, 15 Days Off Road Diesel 12.08 117.55 17.67 .02 .00 10.76 .76 .00 .68 0.68 117.80 On Road Diesel 11.46 112.78 18.40 P.02 P.00 10.59 P.59 P.00 P.58 .58 1,830.74 Worker Trips 0.66 0.52 15.88 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 808.30 Phase 2.3I - First Floor Mechanical. 3/27/12 - 4/16/12. 18 Days Off Road Diesel 0.65 6.02 .69 0.01 .00 0.26 .26 0.00 .23 0.23 861.00 On Road Diesel 0.43 3.77 .48 0.01 .00 10.17 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.17 539.89 Worker Trips 0.31 05 .80 0.00 P.00 10.03 0.03 10.00 0.03 0.03 384.90 Daily Totals 5.59 KO.89 129.92 0.07 10.00 11.88 1.88 0.00 1.76 11.76 6,542.63 Phase 2.3I - First Floor Mechanical. 4/17/12 - 4/24/12.7 Days Off Road Diesel 11.42 113.52 14.87 .02 .00 10.53 .53 10.00 10.47 0.47 11,645.00 On Road Diesel 10.43 13.77 12.48 10.01 10.00 10.17 10.17 10.00 10.17 10.17 1539.89 Worker Trips 10.38 10.29 13.36 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 461.89 Phase 2,3J - Fourth Floor Deck, 4/17/12 - 4/24/12, 6 Days 9 Off Road Diesel 11.45 110.90 6.14 10.02 10.00 10.54 10.54 10.00 10.48 10.48 11,441.80 On Road Diesel 12.12 118.54 12.19 10.03 10.00 10.85 10.85 10.00 10.84 10.84 12,654.78 Worker Trips 10.66 10.52 5.88 10.01 10.00 0.00 10.07 0.07 10.00 10.07 0.07 1808.30 384.90 Phase 2.3K - Second Floor Mechanical. 4/17/12 - 4/24/12.7 Days Off Road Diesel 0.65 6.02 .69 0.01 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.23 0.23 1861.00 On Road Diesel 0.43 3.77 2.48 0.01 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.17 539.89 Worker Trips 0.31 0.25 2.80 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 384.90 Daily Totals 9.69 72.89 50.59 0.13 0.00 3.29 3.29 0.00 3.07 13.07 2.39 11,435.97 Phase 2.3J - Fourth Floor Deck. 4/25/12 - 5/15/12, 15 Days Off Road Diesel 1.45 110.90 6.14 10.02 10.00 10.54 10.54 10.00 10.48 10.48 1,441.80 On Road Diesel 2.12 118.54 12.19 10.03 10.00 10.85 10.85 10.00 10.84 10.84 2,654.78 Worker Trips 10.66 10.31 10.52 5.88 10.01 10.00 10.07 10.07 0.00 10.07 10.03 10.07 808.30 Phase 23K - Second Floor Mechanical. 4/25/12 - 5/15/12. 18 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 12.69 10.01 10.00 10.26 10.26 10.00 10.23 10.23 1861.00 1,745.80 On Road Diesel 10.43 13.77 12.48 10.01 10.00 10.17 0.17 10.00 10.17 10.17 1539.89 121.78 Worker Trips 10.31 10.25 12.80 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1384.90 230.94 Phase 4B - Interior Build Out. Sub - Basement. 4/25/12 - 5/15/12. 18 Days Off Road Diesel 1.55 14.31 5.46 0.02 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,745.80 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 10.04 0.04 10.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 10.02 0.02 10.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Daily Totals 7.46 55.31 39.88 0.10 0.00 12.55 2.55 0.00 2.39 2.39 8,789.19 Phase 2,3J - Fourth Floor Deck. 5/16/12 - 5/28/12, 9 Days Off Road Diesel 1.45 110.90 16.14 10.02 0.00 0.54 0.54 10.00 10.48 10.48 1,441.80 On Road Diesel 12.12 118.54 112.19 10.03 0.01 10.00 10.85 10.85 10.00 10.84 10.84 12,654.78 Worker Trips 10.66 10.52 15.88 10.01 10.00 10.07 10.07 10.00 10.07 10.07 1808.30 Phase 2.3K - Second Floor Mechanical, 5/16/12 - 5/28/12. 11 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 1 1.55 16.02 12.69 0.01 10.00 10.26 10.26 10.57 0.00 10.23 10.51 10.23 861.00 On Road Diesel 10.43 10.10 13.77 12.48 0.01 10.00 10.17 10.17 10.00 10.17 10.04 10.17 539.89 Worker Trips 10.31 10.19 10.25 12.80 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.02 10.03 384.90 Phase 4B - Interior Build Out. Sub - Basement. 5/16/12 - 5/28/12. 11 Days Off Road Diesel 1 1.55 14.31 15.46 10.02 10.00 10.57 10.57 10.00 10.51 10.51 11,745.80 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 0.00 10.04 0.04 0.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 0.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 0.02 1230.94 Phase 4C - Interior Build Out. Basement. 5/16/12 - 5/28/12. 11 Days Off Road Diesel 1.48 13.91 5.16 0.02 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.49 0.49 1,695.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Daily Totals 9.23 70.22 47.28 0.12 0.00 3.16 3.16 0.00 2.94 2.94 10,837.31 Phase 2.3L - Fourth Floor Interior. 5/29/12 - 5/31/12. 3 Days Off Road Diesel 11.43 111.54 14.98 10.02 10.00 10.51 10.51 10.00 10.45 10.45 11,256.80 On Road Diesel 11.65 114.43 19.48 10.02 10.00 10.66 10.66 10.00 10.66 10.66 12,066.18 Worker Trips P.47 10.37 14.20 10.01 10.00 10.05 10.05 10.00 0.05 10.05 1577.36 Phase 4B - Interior Build Out. Sub - Basement. 5/29/12 - 5/31/12. 3 Days Off Road Diesel 1 1.55 114.31 15.46 10.02 10.00 10.57 10.57 10.00 0.51 10.51 11,745.80 On Road Diesel J0,10 0.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 0.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4C - interior Build Out. Basement. 5/29/12 - 5/31/12. 3 Days 11.40 0 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 0.56 10.00 0.00 10.04 10.04 0.00 10.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 1.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 0.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Daily Totals 16.39 149.06 31.59 10.08 10.00 12.19 12.19 0.00 12.04 12.04 17,262.98 Phase 2,3L - Fourth Floor Interior, 6/1/12 - 6/18/12, 12 Days Off Road Diesel 11.43 111.54 4.98 10.02 0.00 10.51 10.51 0.00 10.45 0.45 1,256.80 On Road Diesel 11.65 114.43 19.48 10.02 0.00 10.66 10.66 0.00 10.66 0.66 2,066.18 Worker Trips 10.47 10.37 14.20 10.01 10.00 10.05 10.05 0.00 10.05 10.05 577.36 Phase 4B - Interior Build Out, Sub - Basement, 6/1/12 - 6/18/12, 15 Days Off Road Diesel 10.78 6.81 3.29 0.01 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.26 0.26 961.80 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 0.00 10.04 0.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 0.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4C - Interior Build Out, Basement, 6/1/12 - 6/18/1115 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 16.41 2.99 10.01 0.00 10.28 10.28 0.00 10.25 0.25 1911.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 0.00 10.04 10.04 0.00 10.04 0.04 1121.78 Worker "Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 0.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out, First Floor. 6/1/12 - 6/18/12. 15 Day Off Road Diesel 0.07 0.39 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 50.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.25 0.20 12.24 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 307.92 Daily Totals 2.49 16.66 113.86 0.02 0.00 0.79 0.79 0.00 0.72 0.72 3,058.74 Phase 3A - Fourth Floor Framina, 6/19/12 - 7/23/12, 30 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 6.02 2.69 10.01 10.00 0.26 0.26 10.00 10.23 10.23 1861.00 On Road Diesel 10.35 13.06 12.01 10.00 10.00 10.14 10.14 10.00 10.14 10.14 1438.40 Worker Trips 10.19 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4B - Interior Build Out, Sub - Basement, 6/19/12 - 7/23/12, 30 Days Off Road Diesel 0.78 16.81 3.29 10.01 10.00 10.30 0.30 10.00 10.26 10.26 961.80 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 0.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4C - Interior Build Out, Basement, 6/19/12 - 7/23/12, 30 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 16.41 2.99 10.01 0.00 10.28 10.28 0.00 10.25 10.25 1911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 10.85 0:56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 0.03 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out. First Floor, 6/19/12 - 7/23/12. 30 Days Off Road Diesel 0.07 0.39 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 50.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 .04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.25 0.20 2.24 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 .03 !00.. 307.92 Crane'- 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 24 784.00 Daily Totals 4:45 33.39 22.41 0.04 0.00 1.48 1.48 0.00 1.35 1.35 5,373.08 Phase 3B - Fourth Floor Mechanical. 7/24/12. 1 Day Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 12.69 10.01 10.00 10.26 10.26 0.00 10.23 10.23 1861.00 On Road Diesel 10.43 13.77 12.48 10.01 10.00 10.17 10.17 10.00 10.17 10.17 1539.89 Worker Trips 10.31 10.25 12.80 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1384.90 Phase 3C - Windows and Doors. 7/24/12. 1 Dav Off Road Diesel 0.65 16.02 2.69 10.01 0.00 10.26 10.26 0.00 10.93 0.23 1861.00 On Road Diesel 0.15 11.33 0.88 10.00 10.00 10.06 10.06 0.00 10.06 10.06 1190.79 Worker Trips 10.09 10.07 10.84 10.00 10.00 10.01 10.01 0.00 10.01 10.01 1115.47 Phase 3D - Waterproofing, 7/24/12, 1 Day Off Road Diesel 10.65 6.02 12.69 10.01 10.00 10.26 10.26 10.00 10.23 10.23 1861.00 10 On Road Diesel 10.11 10.96 10.63 10.00 10.00 0.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1138.02 Worker Trips 10.06 10.05 10.56 10.00 10.00 0.00 10.01 10.01 10.00 10.01 10.01 176.98 Phase 4B - Interior Build Out, Sub - Basement, 7/24/12, 1 Day Off Road Diesel 0.78 16.81 3.29 10.01 0.00 10.30 10.30 0.00 10.26 10.26 1961.80 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 0.56 10.00 0.00 10.04 10.04 0.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 0.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4C - Interior Build Out, Basement. 7/24/12, 1 Day Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 2.99 10.01 0.00 10.28 10.28 0.00 0.25 0.25 911.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 0.00 10.04 10.04 0.00 10.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 0.27 0.00 10.02 10.02 230.94 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out, First Floor, 7/24/12, 1 Day On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.25 0.20 2.24 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 307.92 Crane 0.77 17.50 117 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 784.00 Daily Totals 6.29 148.26 32.02 0.07 0.00 1.35 1.35 0.00 1.23 1.23 7,821.39 Phase 3B - Fourth Floor Mechanical, 7/25/12 - $/2/12, 7 Days Off Road Diesel 0.65 16.02 2.69 10.01 0.00 10.26 0.26 0.00 10.23 0.23 861.00 On Road Diesel 0.43 3.77 2.48 10.01 10.00 10.17 10.17 0.00 10.17 0.17 539.89 Worker Trips 10.31 10.25 12.80 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 0.00 10.03 10.01 10.03 384.90 Phase 3C - Windows and Doors. 7/25/12 - 8/2/12. 7 Days Off Road Diesel 0.65 16.02 2.69 10.01 0.00 10.26 10.26 0.00 10.23 0.23 861.00 On Road Diesel 10.15 11.33 0.88 10.00 0.00 10.06 10.06 0.00 10.06 10.06 1190.79 Worker Trips 10.09 10.07 10.84 10.00 0.00 10.01 10.01 0.00 10.01 10.01 1115.47 Phase 3D - Wateroroofine. 7/25/12 - 8/2/12. 7 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 6.02 12.69 10.01 10.00 10.26 10.26 10.00 10.23 10.23 861.00 On Road Diesel 10.11 10.96 10.63 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 138.02 Worker Trips 10.06 10.05 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.01 10.01 10.00 10.01 10.01 176.98 Phase 4B - Interior Build Out. Sub- Basement. 7/25/12 - 8/2/12. 8 Days Off Road Diesel 10.78 16.81 13.29 10.01 10.00 10.30 10.30 10.00 10.26 10.26 961.80 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4C - Interior Build Out. Basement. 7/25/12 - 8/2/12. 8 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 025 0.25 911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 10.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Off Road Diesel 0.07 0.39 0.30 10.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 50.40 Phase 4D - hiterior Build Out. First Floor. 7/25/12 - 8/2/12. 8 Days Off Road Diesel 0.07 10.39 0.30 10.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 0.00 10.02 0:02 150.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 10.85 0.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 12.24 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1307.92 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out. Second Floor. 7/25/12 - 8/2/12. 8 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.25 0.25 911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 784.00 Daily Totals 7.43 56.45 37.82 0.09 0.00 2.78 2.78 0.00 2.30 2:30 9,186.31 Phase 3B - Fourth Floor Mechanical, 8/3/12 - 8/7/12, 3 Days Off Road Diesel 0.65 6.02 2.69 0.01 0.00 10.26 10.26 10.00 10.23 10.23 1861.00 II On Road Diesel 10.43 13.77 12.48 10.01 0.00 10.17 10.17 10.00 10.17 10.17 1539.89 Worker Trips 10.31 10.25 12.80 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1384.90 Phase 3C - Windows and Doors. 8/3/12 - 8/7/12. 3 Days Off Road Diesel 0.65 16.02 2.69 10.01 0.00 10.26 10.26 0.00 JO.23 10.23-1861.00 861.00 On Road Diesel 10.15 11.33 10.96 10.88 10.00 10.00 10.06 10.06 0.00 10.06 10.06 1190.79 Worker Trips 10.09 10.07 10.05 10.84 10.00 10.00 10.01 10.01 0.00 10.01 10.01 1115.47 Phase 3D - Waternroofine. 8/3/12 - 8/7/12. 3 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 2.69 10.01 10.00 10.26 10.26 10.00 10.23 10.23 861.00 On Road Diesel 10.11 10.96 0.63 10.00 10.01 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 138.02 Worker Trips 10.06 10.05 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.01 0.01 10.00 10.01 10.01 76.98 Phase 4A - Exterior Stucco. 8/3/12 - 8/7/12.4 Days Off Road Diesel 11.54 1 10.95 16.19 10.02 10.00 10.64 10.64 10.00 10.57 10.57 1,371.30 On Road Diesel 10.77 6.75 .43 10.01 10.00 10.31 10.31 10.00 10.31 10.31 1966.11 Worker Trips 10.19 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 P.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4B - Interior Build Out. Sub - Basement. 8 /3/12 - 8/7/114 Days Off Road Diesel 10.78 16.81 13.29 10.01 10.00 0.30 10.30 10.00 10.26 10.26 1961.80 On Road Diesel 0.10 10.85 0.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4C - Interior Build Out. Basement. 8/3/12 - 8/7/12.4 Days Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 2.99 10.01 10.00 10.28 10.28 10.00 10.25 10.25 911.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 0.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 0.02 1230.94 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out. First Floor. 8/3/12 - 8/7/12.4 Days Off Road Diesel 0.07 10.39 0.30 10.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 0.02 50.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 12.24 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 307.92 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out. Second Floor. 8/3/12 - 8/7/12.4 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.25 0.25 911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 784.00 Daily Totals 9.86 73.91 49.82 0.11 0.00 7 7 0.00 3.18 3.18 11,704.26 Phase 3B - Fourth Floor Mechanical. 8/8/12 - 8/15/12. 6 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 12.69 10.01 0.00 10.26 10.26 10.26 10.00 10.23 10.23 1861.00 On Road Diesel 10.43 13.77 12.48 10.01 10.00 10.17 10.17 10.00 10.17 JO.17 1539.89 Worker Trips 10.31 10.25 12.80 10.84 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.01 10.03 10.00 10.03 0.03 1384.90 Phase 3C - Windows and Doors. 8/8/12 - 8/15/12.6 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 10.65 16.02 12.69 10.01 10.00 10.26 10.26 10.00 10.23 10.23 1861.00 On Road Diesel 10.15 11.33 10.88 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.06 10.06 10.04 10.00 10.06 10.06 1190.79 Worker Trips 10.09 10.07 10.84 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.01 10.01 10.01 10.00 10.01 10.01 1115.47 Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 2.69 10.01 10.00 10.26 0.26 0.00 10.23 10.23 10.57 1861.00 On Road Diesel 10.11 10.96 0.63 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1138.02 Worker Trips 10.06 10.05 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.01 10.02 10.01 10.00 10.01 10.01 10.02 176.98 Phase 4A - Exterior Stucco. 8/8/12 - 8/15/117 Days Off Road Diesel 1.54 110.95 16.19 10.02 10.00 10.64 10.64 10.00 10.57 10.57 1,371.30 On Road Diesel 10.77 16.75 14.43 10.01 10.00 10.31 10.31 0.00 10.31 10.31 1966.11 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 0.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 12 Phase 4C - Interior Build Out, Basement, 8/8/12 - 8/15/12, 7 Days Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 12.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 10.28 10.00 10.25 10.25 1911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 10.85 10.56 0.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 0.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 0.00 JO.00 10.02 10.03 0.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out, First Floor, 8/8/12 - 8/15/12, 7 Days Off Road Diesel 10.07 10.39 10.30 0.00 10.00 10.02 0.02 10.00 0.02 10.02 50.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 0.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 12.24 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 0.00 10.03 10.03 307.92 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out, Second Floor, 8/8/12 - 8/15/12, 7 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.25 0.25 1911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 784.00 Daily Totals 8.79 66.10 44.29 0.10 0.00 3.11 3.11 0.00 2.86 2.86 10,389.74 Phase 313 - Fourth Floor Mechanical, 8/16/12 - 8/21/12, 4 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 12.69 10.01 10.00 10.26 10.26 10.00 10.23 10.23 1861.00 On Road Diesel 10.43 13.77 12.48 10.01 10.00 10.17 10.17 10.00 10.17 10.17 1539.89 Worker Trips JO.31 10.25 12.80 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1384.90 Phase 3C - Windows and Doors, 8/16/12 - 8/21/12, 4 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 2.69 10.01 0.00 10.26 10.26 0.00 10.23 10.23 1861.00 1861.00 On Road Diesel 10.15 11.33 10.88 10.00 0.00 10.06 10.06 0.00 10.06 10.06 1190.79 Worker Trips 10.09 10.07 10.84 10.00 10.00 10.01 JO.01 0.00 10.01 10.01 1115.47 Phase 3D - Waterproofing, 8/16/12 - 8/21/12,4 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 12.69 10.01 10.00 10.26 10.26 10.00 0.23 10.23 1861.00 On Road Diesel 0.11 10.96 10.63 10.00 10.00 0.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1138.02 Worker Trips 10.06 10.05 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.01 10.01 10.00 10.01 10.01 176.98 Phase 3E - Install Trees, 8/16/12 - 8/21/12, 4 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 2.69 0.01 0.00 10.26 10.26 0.00 10.23 0.23 861.00 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 0.04 10.00 10.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 10.38 10.19 10.29 13.36 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.02 10.02 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 61.89 Phase 4A - Exterior Stucco, 8/16/12 - 8/21/12, 5 Days Off Road Diesel 1 1.54 110.95 6.19 0.02 10.00 10.64 10.64 10.00 10.57 0.57 11,371.30 On Road Diesel 10.77 16.75 4.43 10.01 10.00 10.31 10.31 10.00 10.31 10.31 1966.11 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4C - Interior Build Out, Basement, 8/16/12 - 8/21/12, 5 Days Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 2.99 10.01 0.00 10.28 10.28 0.00 10.25 10.25 1911.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.03 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out, First Floor, 8/16/12 - 8/21/12, 5 Days Off Road Diesel 10.07 10.39 0.30 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 150.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 0.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 12.24 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1307.92 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out, Second Floor, 8/16/12 - 8/21/12, 5 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.25 0.25 911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0. 19 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Crane 0. 77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 1784.00 Daily Totals 9.92 73.26 50.90 0.11 0.00 3.45 3.45 0.00 3.17 3.17 11,834.41 13 Phase 3C - Windows and Doors, 8/22/12 - 8/27/12, 4 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 2.69 10.01 0.00 10.26 10.26 .00 .23 10.23 1861.00 On Road Diesel 10.15 11.33 10.88 10.00 10.00 10.06 10.06 10.00 P.06 10.06 1190.79 Worker Trips 10.09 0.06 0.07 10.84 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.01 10.01 10.00 0.01 0.01 1115.47 Phase 3D - Waterproofing, 8/22/12 - 8/27/12, 4 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 .69 .01 10.00 P.26 10.26 P.00 10.23 0.23 1861.00 On Road Diesel .11 10.96 .63 10.00 0.00 P.04 .04 P.00 10.04 10.04 1138.02 Worker Trips 0.06 10.05 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.00 0.01 P.01 0.00 0.01 10.01 176.98 Phase 3E - Install Trees, 8/22/12 - 8/27/12, 4 Days Off Road Diesel P.65 16.02 .69 10.01 0.00 P.26 10.26 .00 0.23 .23 861.00 On Road Diesel 10.10 P.85 0.56 10.00 10.00 P.04 .04 .00 10.04 .04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.38 P.29 13.36 10.00 10.00 0.04 P.04 .00 10.04 10.04 461.89 Phase 4A - Exterior Stucco, 8/22/12 - 8/27/12, 5 Days Off Road Diesel 11.54 110.95 16.19 10.02 P.00 01 0.64 .00 10.57 10.57 1,371.30 On Road Diesel 10.77 16.75 .43 P.01 P.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.31 .31 966.11 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 .00 0.00 0.02 0.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4C - Interior Build Out, Basement, 8/22/12 - 8/27/12,5 Days Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 12.99 10.01 10.00 .28 10.28 .00 10.25 10.25 911.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 P.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 P.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 0.03 1230.94 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out, First Floor, 8/22/12 - 8/27/12, 5 Days Off Road Diesel 10.07 10.39 10.30 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 50.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 0.56 0.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 0.15 12.24 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 0.02 0.03 1307.92 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out, Second Floor, 8/22/12 - 8/27/12, 5 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.25 0.25 911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 .00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 784.00 Daily Totals 8.53 63.22 42.93 0.09 0.00 2.99 2.99 0.00 2.74 2.74 10,048.62 Phase 3C - Windows and Doors, 8/28/12, 1 Day Off Road Diesel 10.65 .02 k.69 .01 P.00 10.26 P.26 P.00 10.23 10.23 861.00 On Road Diesel 10.15 11.33 P.88 P.00 P.00 10.06 P.06 P.00 10.06 10.06 1190.79 Worker Trips 10.09 P.07 0.84 0.00 0.00 10.01 P.01 10.00 10.01 10.01 1115.47 Phase 4A - Exterior Stucco, 8/28/12, 1 Day Off Road Diesel 11.54 110.95 16.19 .02 .00 .64 .64 .00 0.57 .57 1,371.30 On Road Diesel 0.77 .75 .43 .01 .00 .31 100.02 .31 .00 .31 .31 966.11 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 .00 0.00 P.02 P.00 10.02 10M 30.94 Phase 4C - Interior Build Out, Basement, 8/28/12, 1 Day Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 .99 10.01 .00 10.28 10.28 0.00 10.25 10.25 11.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 P.56 P.00 P.00 10.04 P.04 0.00 10.04 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 P.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 0.00 10.02 10.02 30.94 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out First Floor, 8/28/12, 1 Day Off Road Diesel 10.07 10.39 0.30 0.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 150.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 .00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 12.24 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1307.92 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out, Second Floor, 8/28/12, 1 Day Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 12.99 10.01 10.00 10.28 10.28 10.00 10.25 10.25 1911.40 14 On Road Diesel 0.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.09 0.02 230.94 Crane 0.77 7.50 19. 17 10.01 10.00 10.27 10.27 10.00 10.24 0.24 1784.00 Daily Totals 6.58 49.03 132.44 10.07 10.00 12.24 12.24 10.00 12.15 2.15 172527.95 Phase 3C - Windows and Doors, 8/29/12 - 9/7/12, 8 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 12.69 10.01 10.00 10.26 10.26 10.00 10.23 10.23 861.00 On Road Diesel 10.15 11.33 10.88 10.00 10.00 10.06 10.06 10.00 10.06 10.06 1190.79 Worker Trips 10.09 10.07 10.84 10.00 10.00 10.01 10.01 10.00 10.01 10.01 1115.47 230.94 Phase 4A - Exterior Stucco, 8/29/12 - 9/7/12, 9 Days Off Road Diesel 1.54 10.95 6.19 0.02 10.00 10.64 0.64 0.00 0.57 0.57 1,371.30 On Road Diesel 0.77 6.75 4.43 0.01 10.00 10.31 0.31 0.00 0.31 0.31 966.11 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 0.00 10.00 10.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 10.00 10.27 0.27 10.00 0.24 0.24 784.00 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out, First Floor, 8/29/12 - 9/7/12, 9 Days Off Road Diesel 10.07 10.39 0.30 10.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 0.00 10.02 0.02 50.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 0.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 12.24 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1307.92 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out. Second Floor. 8/29/12 - 9/7/12. 9 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.25 0.25 911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 10.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 0.00 10.02 0.02 230.94 Daily Totals 5.58 41.62 27.21 10.06 0.00 12.00 12.00 0.00 11.84 1.84 6,263.83 Phase 4A - Exterior Stucco. 9/8/12 - 9/30/12. 19 Days Off Road Diesel 1.54 10.95 6.19 0.02 0.00 10.64 0.64 0.00 0.57 0.57 1,371.30 On Road Diesel 0.77 6.75 4.43 0.01 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.31 0.31 966.11 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 1784.00 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out, First Floor, 9/8/12 - 9/30/12, 19 Days 011' Road Diesel 10.07 10.39 10.30 0.00 10.00 0.02 10.02 10.00 0.02 10.02 50.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 0.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 12.24 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1307.92 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out. Second Floor. 9/8/12 - 9/30/12. 19 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.25 0.25 1911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Interior Paint 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily Totals 6.14 34.20 22.80 0.05 0.00 1.67 1.67 0.00 1.54 1.54 5,096.57 Phase 4A - Exterior Stucco. 10/1/12 - 10/14/12. 12 Days Off Road Diesel 1.54 10.95 6.19 0.02 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.57 0.57 1,371.30 On Road Diesel 0.77 16.75 4.43 0.01 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.31 0.31 966.11 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.65 10.00 0.00 0.02 10.02 0.00 10.02 0.02 230.94 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 10.01 0.00 0.27 10.27 0.00 10.24 0.24 784.00 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out. First Floor, 10/1/12 - 10/14/12, 12 Days Off Road Diesel 10.07 10.39 10.30 10.00 10.00 0.02 0.02 10.00 0.02 10.02 150.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 12.24 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1307.92 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out, Second Floor, 10/1/12 - 10/14/12, 12 Days Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 12.99 10.01 10.00 10.28 10.28 10.00 10.25 10.25 1911.40 15 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Interior Paint 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Exterior Paint 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily Totals 6.64 34.20 22.80 0.05 0.00 1.67 1.67 0.00 1.54 1.54 5,096.57 Phase 4A - Exterior Stucco. 10/15/12 - 11/3/12. 18 Days Off Road Diesel 1.54 10.95 6.19 0.02 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.57 0.57 1,371.30 On Road Diesel 0.77 6.75 .43 0.01 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.31 0.31 966.11 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 784.00 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out. First Floor. 10/15/12 - 11/3/12. 18 Days Off Road Diesel 10.07 10.39 0.30 10.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 0.00 10.02 0.02 50.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 0.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 2.24 JO.00 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1307.92 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out. Second Floor. 10/15/12 - 11/3/12. 18 Days Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 2.99 10.01 0.00 10.28 10.28 0.00 10.25 10.25 1911.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 0.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4F - Interior Build Out. Third and Fourth Floor. 10/15/12 - 11/3/12. 18 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.25 .25 911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 .04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.25 0.20 2.24 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 .03 307.92 Interior Paint 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 J1.86 .00 0.00 Exterior Paint 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 Dail Totals 7.70 41.66 28.59 0.06 0.00 2.02 2.02 0.00 1.86 6,437.67 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out, First Floor, 11/4/12 - 11/5/12, 1 Day Off Road Diesel 0.07 16.41 12.99 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 40 On Road Diesel 0.10 10.85 .56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 1.78 Worker Tri s 0.25 C0.390.30 .24 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 7.92 t784.00 Crane 0.77 0.00 .17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out, Second Floor, 11/4/12 - 11/5/12, 1 Day Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 12.99 0.01 10.00 10.28 0.28 10.00 0.25 10.25 1911.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4F - interior Ruild nut_ Third and Frmrth Flnnr_ 1 1/4/17 - 11/5/17 1 l)av Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 12.99 10.01 10.00 10.28 0.28 10.00 10.25 10.25 1911.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 1.70 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 12.24 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1307.92 Phase 4G - Hardscape and Landscape. 11/4/12 - 11/5/12. 1 Day Off Road Diesel 0.07 0.45 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 157.60 On Road Diesel 10.10 1.70 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 243.56 Worker Trips 10.19 0.29 3.36 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 461.89 Interior Paint E5.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dail Totals 26.25 21.11 0.03 0.00 1.19 1.19 0.00 1.10 1.10 632.37 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out. Second Floor. 11/6/12 - 12/28/12.45 Days Off Road Diesel 10.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 10.28 10.28 0.00 10.25 10.25 1911.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 0.85 10.56 0.00 0.00 10.04 10.04 0.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 0.15 11.68 0.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 16 Phase 4F - Interior Build Out, Third and Fourth Floor, 11/6/12 - 12/28/12, 45 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.25 0.25 911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 10.56 10.00 0.00 10.04 0.04 0.00 .04 .04 121.78 Worker Trips .25 .20 2.24 .00 0.00 .03 .03 0.00 .03 .03 307.92 Interior Paint 1.45 0.00 0.00 .00 .00 .00 0.00d:10.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 Phase 4G - Hardscape and Landscape, 11/6/12 - 12/28/12,45 Days Off Road Diesel 0.07 0.45 0.34 .00 0.00 0.02 .02 .00 .02 .25 0 On Road Diesel .19 1.70 1.12 0.00 .00 0.08 .08 0.00 .08 .04 56 Worker Trips .38 .29 3.36 .00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 .04 ff0.24784.00 89 Crane .77 7.50 2.17 0.01 .00 0.27 .27 0.00 .24 10.00 Dail Totals .92 4.81 18.01 .03 .00 1.10 1.10 .00 1.01 0.70 2.27 Phase 4F - Interior Build Out, Third and Fourth Floor, 12/29/12 - 12/31/12, 2 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 5.41 2.99 0.01 .00 .28 .28 .00 .25 .25 911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 .56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 .00 0.04 .04 121.78 Worker Tri s 0.25 10.00 0.20 2.24 .00 0.00 0.03 0.03 .00 0.03 0.03 307.92 Interior Paint 1.45 7.50 10.00 0.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 10.00 Phase 4G - Hardscape and Landscape, 12/29/12 - 12/31/12, 2 Days Off Road Diesel 0.07 0.45 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.0 2 0.00 0.02 0.02 57.60 On Road Diesel 0.19 1.70 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 243.56 Worker Trips 0.38 0.29 3.36 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 461.89 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 784.00 Daily Totals 3.92 17.40 12.78 0.02 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 2,888.15 Phase 4FF - Interior Build Out, Third and Fourth Floor, 1/1/13 - 1/25/13, 21 Days Off Road Diesel 0.67 5.95 2.93 0.01 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.22 10.22 911.40 On Road Diesel 0.09 0.76 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 .00 0.03 10.03 121.98 Worker Trips 0.24 0.18 .07 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 307.62 Interior Paint 1.45 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 .00 Phase 4GG - Hardscape and Landscape, 11/1/13 - 1/25/13, 21 Days Off Road Diesel 0.07 0.44 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 57.60 On Road Diesel 0.17 1.52 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 243.96 Worker Trips 0.35 0.27 3.11 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 461,43 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 784.00 Daily Totals 3.81 16.62 12.12 0.02 100 0.71 0.71 0.00 0.65 0.65 2,887.99 Phase 4FF - Interior Build Out, Third and Fourth Floor, 1/26/13 - 3/20/13, 46 Days Off Road Diesel .67 .95 2.93 .01 .00 .25 .25 10.00 10.22 10.22 11.40 On Road Diesel .09 P.76 .50 P.00 P.00 P.03 PM 10.00 10.03 P.03 1121.98 Worker Trips 0.24 0.18 2.07 0.00 P.00 0.03 10.03 10.00 0.03 0.03 1307.62 Phase 4GG - Hardscape and Landscape, 1/26/13 - 3/20/13, 46 Days Off Road Diesel 0.07 0.44 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 57.60 On Road Diesel 0.17 1.52 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 243.96 Worker Trips 0.35 0.27 3.11 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 461.43 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 784.00 Daily Totals 2.36 16.62 12.12 0.02 0.00 0.71 0.71 0.00 0.65 0.65 2,887.99 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 4 4 150 4 4 55 NV Exceeds Threshold? o INo o o --> 14 o 14 14 o INo ' Includes a 55 percent reduction for Rule 403 water spray. '- From this Doint forward the crane is called out as a separate entity with one used on a daily basis regardless of 17 other on -site equipment. In prior phases the crane was included with the off -road equipment as appropriate. ' NT - No Threshold. 3.2.2 Site Operations Less Than Significant Impact. The major source of long -term air quality impacts is that associated with the emissions produced from project - generated vehicle trips. Stationary sources add only minimally to these values. Mobile Source Emissions The occupation of the site is based on the URBEMIS2007 model. The URBEMIS default value for condominiums is 5.86 vehicle trips per unit. In accordance with the ITE Trip Generation Manual, these values can range from 1.83 to 11.79 trips per unit. Based on the size of the proposed units, as a worst -case scenario this analysis uses a trip rate of 11.79 trips per unit per day and the project is estimated to result in 94 average daily trips (ADT). In actuality, the project is to replace a 14 -unit apartment complex, so the actual number of new trips would be less than this value, (and there could even be a reduction in the number of daily trips). As such, the analysis presents a worst -case scenario. The calculated emissions of the project are compared to thresholds of significance for individual projects using the SCAQMD Handbook and Internet web site updates. The Handbook recommends assessing emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROC or ROG) as an indicator of ozone. Emissions are based on a year 2013 occupancy. Both summer and winter scenarios were modeled and the higher of the two values are included in Table 2. Note that all values are within their respective threshold values and the impact is less than significant. Model runs are included in the Appendix. Stationary Source Emissions In addition to vehicle trips, the proposed land uses would produce emissions from on -site sources. The combustion of natural gas for heating the structures and water would occur. Landscaping would be maintained requiring the use of gardening equipment and their attendant emissions. Additionally, the structures would be maintained and this requires repainting over time resulting in the release of VOC emissions. The resultant emissions are projected by the URBEMIS2007 computer model and included in Table 2. Again, note that all emissions are below their respective threshold values and the impact is less than significant. Table 1 Dail Opera ' al Emissions Pounds/Da Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM,,s CO= Mobile Sources 0.47 0.64 5.43 0.01 1.19 0.23 673.48 Natural Gas 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.13 Landscape Maintenance 0.12 0.02 1.55 0.00 0.01 0.01 2.81 Consumer Products 0.41 - -- - -- - Structural Maintenance 0.01 - - - - - Operational Total 1.02 0.74 7.01 0.01 1.20 0.24 776.42 Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 NT Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No No Averaged from the summer and winter emissions. NT - No Threshold. ip 3.3 Project Potential to Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Increase in Criteria Pollutants 3.3.1 Criteria Pollutants Lcss Than Significant Impact. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. The project is of a size such that it does not result in daily emissions above either the construction or operational threshold values suggested by the SCAQMD and as such, the project does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. 3.3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions No L.rtablished Threshold. At this time, greenhouse gases are not regulated as a criteria pollutant and there are no significance criteria for these emissions. Furthermore, the Final 2007 AQMP does not set CEQA targets that can be used to determine any potential threshold values. Nevertheless, in order to provide decision - makers with as much information as possible, this analysis quantifies, to the extent feasible, potential greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed development. Construction Construction activities would consume fuel and result in the generation of greenhouse gases. Construction CO, emissions are included in Table 1, above. In accordance with the projected construction schedule, approximately 4,335,633 pounds (2,168 tons) of CO, would be produced over the active construction period. Site Operations In the case of site operations, the majority of greenhouse gas emissions, and specifically CO,, is due to vehicle travel and energy consumption. As indicated in Table 2, the URBEMIS2007 model projects that on average 776.42 pounds (0.4 ton) of CO, would be produced daily or about 283,393 pounds (142 tons) per year. These emissions include mobile sources, the combustion of natural gas for space and water heating, and the use of landscape maintenance equipment. The generation of electricity also creates GHG emissions. Electricity used in the SCAB comes from within local areas, the State, and other states. There is no way to determine the point of origin for these emissions and as such, these emissions are not quantified by the URBEMIS model, nor are they typically included in CEQA analyses. However, because GFIG are of concern at the global level, and the generation of this electricity could add to global CO2, the COI that is attributable to the generation of electrical power was also quantified as feasible. The Handbook includes estimates of electrical usage by land use while the Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions (November 2006) provides CO2 estimates from the generation of electricity. Based Table A9 -1 I -A of the SCAQM.D Handbook, each of the eight units would consume about 5,626.50 kilowatts per year. The eight units combined would then use 45,012 kilowatt -hours per year and the generation of this electricity will result in about 14 tons of CO, per year. All told, the project then generates about 156 tons of CO, per year. Electrical use and its emissions calculations are included in the appendix. in accordance with the 2007 AQMP, the emission levels in California are estimated to be 473 million metric tons (521.4 million short tons) CO, equivalent for 2000 and 532 million metric tons (568.4 short tons) CO2 equivalent for 2010. At approximately 156 tons per year, the project operations represent less than 0.00003 percent of this State's annual 2010 CO, emissions' budget (and would represent an even smaller percentage of the 2013 CO2 budget). Recognizing that there is a great amount of public concern regarding GHGs, the majority of the information given above is for disclosure purposes as required by CEQA. There is no agreement among air quality experts, or guidance at the State level, regarding the level at which an individual project's incremental GHG effect is 19 cumulatively considerable. Given the emerging level of experience within the air quality industry with GHG analyses, coupled with the fact that the policies implementing the state goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by the timetable established in AB 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 have not been adequately defined, there is no way to state with reasonable scientific certainty that the project would conflict with these policies. 3.4 Project Potential to Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations 3.4.1 Short -Teem Localized Impacts Less Than Significant With Mitigation. In addition to the mass daily threshold standards, project construction has the potential to raise localized ambient pollutant concentrations. This could present a significant impact if these concentrations were to exceed the State ambient air quality standards at receptor locations. The SCAQMD has developed screening tables for the construction of projects up to five acres in size. These tables are included in Sample Construction Scenarios for Projects Less than Five Acres in Size (February 2005) (Sample Construction Scenarios). The emissions values included in the screening tables are based on the emissions produced at the site and do not include mobile source emissions (i.e., trucks and worker vehicles) that are spread over a much larger area. The Aerie residential project site is consists of about 1.4 acres so fits within the Sample Construction Scenarios. Screening level allowable daily emissions are then calculated from the "mass -rate look -up tables" included in Appendix L of the Sample Construction Scenarios. The project borders on Source Receptor Areas (SRA) 18 and 20. In accordance with Appendix L of Sample Construction Scenarios, projects of 1.4 acres in size located in either SRA 18 (North Coastal Orange County) or SRA 20 (Central Orange County Coastal) would not create significant localized emissions impacts if CO, NOx, PM,(,, and PM,.5 levels do not exceed 392.2, 185.2, 5.2, and 5.2 pounds per day, respectively. According to Table 1, peak day CO and NOx levels are projected at 50.90 and 87.02 pounds per day, respectively, including both on -site equipment and off -site mobile sources. On -site values are well under the screening table limits and the localized impact of these two pollutants is less than significant. The highest levels of PM,v and PM,.5 are produced during the initial demolition phase with the majority of these emissions due to fugitive dust. These activities are estimated to result in 5.94 pounds of PM,o and 1.75 pounds of PM,.5 per day produced from on -site sources, including both equipment exhaust and fugitive dust. These values include a dust suppression control efficiency of 55 percent as based on requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403. While the value for PM,,,, is under the screening threshold and less than significant, the PM,o value exceeds it slightly. All other on -site construction phases and activities are projected to remain within the PM,o 5.2 pounds - per -day screening threshold and would not result in localized impacts. Mitigation The following measure shall be implemented as mitigation. • Site and debris watering shall be performed a minimum of three times (rather than twice) daily during all demolition activities. Residual Impact The URBEMIS Model indicates that three - times, rather than twice -daily watering, would improve the dust control efficiency to a minimum of 65 percent (rather than 55 percent). This action would reduce PM,o associated with fugitive dust from 5.20 pounds per day to 4.04 pounds per day. When combined with PM,() from on -site equipment, daily on -site PM,o emissions are reduced to 4.78 pounds per day. This value is under the screening threshold of 5.2 pounds per day and the impact is reduced to less than significant. 20 3.4.2 Long -Tern+ Localized Impacts Off -Site Localized Emissions Less Than Significant Impact. Long -term emissions also have the potential to exceed ambient air quality standards. Because operational emissions are mostly the product vehicle travel, these impacts are typically produced along the roadways. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere; adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Areas of vehicle congestion that have the potential to create "pockets" of CO called "hot spots." These hot spots typically occur at intersections where vehicle speeds are reduced and idle time is increased. As noted above, as a worst -case scenario, this analysis uses a trip rate of 11.79 trips per unit per day and the project is estimated to result in 94 average daily trips (ADT). Based on the EMFAC2007 computer model, the peak traffic hour in Orange Canty includes 7.7 percent of the daily vehicle miles traveled. Assuming that the vehicles associated with the Aerie project follow a similar pattern, approximately seven vehicle trips would occur during the peak hour. This value is too small to add measurably to the CO emissions concentrations at any local intersections. 3.4.3 Other To-vics Impacts Less Than Significant Impact. The project site contains existing structures that would be removed during the first phase of construction. Based on the type and age of structures to be removed, asbestos containing materials (ACM), which could include floor tiles and mastics, gypsum wallboard and joint compound, base cove mastic, carpet glue, thermal system insulation, spray - applied fireproofing ceiling plaster, and roofing mastics, felts and I]ashing would be removed. Additionally, lead -based paint would be removed. Demolition and renovation activities that involve ACM are strictly regulated under SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition /Renovation Activities) adopted on October 8, 1989 and amended April 8, 1994. The purpose of this rule is to specify work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of ACM. The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean -up procedures, and storage, disposal and landfilling requirements for asbestos - containing waste materials (ACWM). All operators are required to maintain records, including waste shipment records, and are required to use appropriate warning labels, signs, and markings. Any demolition work involving asbestos- containing material must be identified and potential emissions of asbestos determined. Any building to be demolished or renovation that involves asbestos - containing material would be subject to provisions related to the following tasks: • Asbestos surveying (inspection, identification, quantification) to be conducted by a qualified environmental laboratory, and SCAQMD notification to include project description, removal procedures and time schedules (options provided in Rude), material handling and clean -up, material storage and disposal methods. All handling and removal of ACM must be performed by a certified California State licensed contractor that has been certified under the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA). All workers must undergo 40 hours of hazardous materials handling training and receive 8 hours of refresher training on a yearly basis. Similarly, lead paint is as a toxic material and its removal is regulated as such. Like asbestos removal, workers are trained and certified in the handling of these materials. 21 Where necessary, actual asbestos and lead paint removal would be accomplished under a negative pressure environment with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration, through the use of a glove bag or through adequate wetting. These materials are to be contained in certified leak -proof containers and the general public is not allowed access to the demolition -site. Mandatory compliance with notification and removal processes identified in the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations would ensure that any potential impacts remain below a level considered significant. 3.5 Project Potential to Create Objectionable Odors Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on -site earth movement and from equipment bringing concrete and other building materials to the site. With regards to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts will be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the project site, they will be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. An occasional "whiff' of diesel exhaust from passing equipment and trucks accessing the site from public roadways may result. Such brief exhaust odors are an adverse, but not significant, air quality impact. Operational odors could be produced from on -site food preparation. Again, these odors are common in the environment and would not constitute a significant impact. Nuisance odors would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance. 4.0 Re /erences Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Source inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, November 2006 California Air Resources Board, L ^MFAC2007 Computer Model, Version 2.3, November 1, 2006 California Air Resources Board, LJRBEMIS2007 Computer Model, Version 9.4.2, February 2005 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2007 AOMP, June 1, 2007 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003 South Coast Air Quality Management District (Internet Web Site) Off -Road Mobile Source Emissions Factors, 2007 - 2025. No Date South Coast Air Quality Management District, Riles and Regulations, January 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Sample Construction Scenarios.for Projects Less than Five Acres in Size, February 2005 South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD CEOA Air Oualih; Handbook; April 1993 22 APPENDIX A CONSTRUCTION ENIISSIONS BY PHASE Phase IA - Demolition, 8/10/10 - 8/17/10 Backhoe (120 hp) Excavator (250 hp) Loader (189 hp) Trucks, Heavy Diesel Demo of Building Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs Demolition Dust i#/Day Distance Daily Mi 8 20 160 Lb /cu ft sq ft cu ft # days Lb /day Rule 403 % Daily PM I 0.00042 16493 164,930.0000 6 11.5451 55 5.1953 I Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour 9 /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PMIO Sox VOC 1 2 03623 0.5664 0.0515 0.0006 0.0910 1 7 0.3934 1.4935 0.0519 0.0018 0.1451 1 5 0.5537 1.0737 0.0555 0.0012 0.1254 Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi 6 10 59 590 i#/Day Distance Daily Mi 8 20 160 Lb /cu ft sq ft cu ft # days Lb /day Rule 403 % Daily PM I 0.00042 16493 164,930.0000 6 11.5451 55 5.1953 I Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 20.8262 37.5363 6.8690 0.0499 4.2447 2.6736 4,303.7415 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0458 51.7000 0.7246 1.1328 0.1030 0.0012 0.1820 0.0917 103.4000 0.0462 159.0000 2.7538 10.4545 0.3633 0.0126 1.0157 0.3233 1,113.0000 0.0494 114.2533 2.7685 5.3685 0.2775 0.0060 0.6270 0.2470 571.2665 Totals 6.2469 16.9558 0.7438 0.OI98 1.8247 0.6620 1,787.6665 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.022500 0.034684 0.001553 0.000049 0.003859 0.0015 4.0049 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 13.2750 20.4638 0.9165 0.0286 2.2769 0.9073 2,362.8910 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.008152 0.000729 0.000084 0.000009 0.000894 0.0001 0.9574 Daily PM2.5 1.0910 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 1.3043 0.1167 0.0134 0.0015 0.1430 0.0132 153.1840 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 20.8262 37.5363 6.8690 0.0499 4.2447 2.6736 4,303.7415 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase I B -Caisson Installation. 8/18/10 - 9/3/10 Compressor Backhoe (120 hp) Concrete Mixer Crane (250 hp) Drill Rig Excavator (250 hp) Loader (189 hp) Pumper Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Cement Rebar Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5.151 Ibs # /Day 8 Distance DailyMi 20 160 I Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 -Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC 1 4 03613 0.732 0.0526 0.0007 0.112 1 3 03623 0.5664 0.0515 0.0006 0.0910 6 3 0.0434 0.0599 0.0035 0.0001 0.0101 l 4 03464 1:2372 0.0470 0.0013 0.1243 2 6 0.5146 1.1331 0.0498 0.0017 0.1052 0 0 03934 1.4935 0.0519 0.0018 0.1451 0 0 0.5537 1.0737 0.0555 0.0012 0.1254 1 4 0.3096 0.5545 0.0393 0.0006 0.0936 Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi 13 9 19 171 8 2 29 58 Total 229 # /Day 8 Distance DailyMi 20 160 I Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 -Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 Emissions in Pounds per Day 1.3043 0.1167 0.0134 0.0015 PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0468 63.6 1.4452 2.9280 02104 0.0028 0.4480 0.1873 254.4000 0.0458 51.7000 1.0869 1.6992 0.1545 0.0018 0.2730 0.1375 155.1000 0.0031 7.2000 0.7812 1.0782 0.0630 0.0018 0.1818 0.0561 129.6000 0.0418 112.0000 1.3856 4.9488 0.1880 0.0052 0.4972 0.1673 448.0000 0.0443 165.0000 6.1752 13.5972 0.5976 0.0204 12624 05319 1.980.0000 0.0462 159.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0494 114.2533 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0350 49.6000 1.2384 2.2180 0.1572 0.0024 0.3744 0.1399 198.4000 Totals 12.1125 26.4694 1.3707 0.0344 3.0368 12199 3.1655000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.022500 0.034684 0.001553 0.000049 0.003859 0.0015 4.0049 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 5.1525 7.9427 03557 0.0111 0.8838 0.3522 917.1221 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.008152 0.000729 0.000084 0.000009 0.000894 0.0001 0.9574 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 1.3043 0.1167 0.0134 0.0015 0.1430 0.0132 153.1840 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 18.5693 34.5288 1.7398 0.0470 4.0636 1.5853 4,235.8061 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 1 C -Excavation and Laing Installation, 9 17/10 - 11/2/10 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Dump Trucks Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5.151 Ibs Punitive Dust Days Loads/Day 41 27 9/Day 16 Emissions in Pounds per Hour NOx # /Day Hrs/Day CO Compressor 0 0 03613 Backhoe (120 hp) 0 0 0.3623 Concrete Mixer 0 0 0.0434 Crane (250 hp) 1 1 0.3464 Dozer (305 hp) 1 7 0.5018 Drill Ri.- 0 0 0.5146 Excavator (250 hp) 1 7 03934 Loader (189 hp) 1 4 0.5537 Pumper 0 0 03096 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Dump Trucks Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5.151 Ibs Punitive Dust Days Loads/Day 41 27 9/Day 16 Emissions in Pounds per Hour NOx PM10 sox VOC 0.732 0.0526 0.0007 0.112 0.5664 0.0515 0.0006 0.0910 0.0599 0.0035 0.0001 0.0101 1.2372 0.0470 0.0013 0.1243 1.8078 0.0624 0.0023 0.1422 1.1331 0.0498 0.0017 0.1052 1.4935 0.0519 0.0018 0.1451 1.0737 0.0555 0.0012 0.1254 0.5545 0.0393 0.0006 0.0936 .Distance DailyMi 59 1593 Distance DailyMi 20 320 Lb /acre Total Acres Daily Acres Rule 403 % Daily PM I ( Daily PM2.5 20 1.4 0.3500 55 3.1500 0.6615 1 Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0468 63.6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0458 51.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0031 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0418 112.0000 0.3464 12372 0.0470 0.0013 0.1243 0.0418 112.0000 0.0555 210.0600 3.5126 12.6546 0.4368 0.0161 0.9954 0.3888 1._470.4200 0.0443 165.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0462 159.0000 2.7538 10.4545 0.3633 0.0126 1.0157 0.3233 1,113.0000 0.0494 114.2533 2.2148 4.2948 0.2220 0.0048 0.5016 0.1976 457.0132 0.0350 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 8.8276 28.6411 1.0691 0.0348 2.6370 0.9515 3,152.4332 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.022500 0.034684 0.001553 0.000049 0.003859 0.0015 4.0049 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 35.8425 55.2524 2.4746 0.0773 6.1477 2.4498 6,379.8057 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.008152 0.000729 0.000084 0.000009 0.000894 0.0001 0.9574 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.6087 0.2334 0.0267 0.0029 0.2861 0.0265 306.3680 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 47.2788 84.1269 6.7204 0.1151 9.0708 4.0893 9,838.6069 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase I D - Caison Installation, 11/3/10 -11/10/10 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5.151lbs 16 20 320 1 Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour #/Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC Compressor 1 4 0.3613 0.732 0.0526 0.0007 0.112 Backhoe(120 hp) 1 2 0.3623 0.5664 0.0515 0.0006 0.0910 Concrete Mixer 6 1 0.0434 0.0599 0.0035 0.0001 0.0101 Crane (250 hp) 1 1 03464 1.2372 0.0470 0.0013 0.1243 Dozer (305 hp) 0 0 0.5018 1.8078 0.0624 0.0023 0.1422 Drill Rig 2 6 0.5146 1.1331 0.0498 0.0017 0.1052 Excavator (250 hp) 0 0 03934 1.4935 0.0519 0.0018 0.1451 Loader (189 hp) 0 0 0.5537 1.0737 0.0555 0.0012 0.1254 Pumper 1 2 0.3096 0.5545 0:0393 0.0006 0.0936 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Cement Trucks 6 12 19 228 Rebar 2 2 29 58 Tod 286 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5.151lbs 16 20 320 1 Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0468 63.6 1.4452 2.9280 0.2104 0.0028 0.4480 0.1873 254.4000 0.0458 51.7000 0.7246 1.1328 0.1030 0.0012 0.1820 0.0917 103.4000 0.0031 7.2000 0.2604 03594 0.0210 0.0006 0.0606 0.0187 432000 0.0418 112.0000 0.3464 1.2372 0.0470 0.0013 0.1243 0.0418 112.0000 0.0555 210.0600 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0443 165.0000 6.1752 13.5972 0.5976 0.0204 1.2624 0.5319 1,980.0000 0.0462 159.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0494 114.2533 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0350 49.6000 0.6192 1.1090 0.0786 0.0012 0.1872 0.0700 99.2000 Totals 9.5710 203636 1.0576 0.0275 2.2645 0.9413 2,5922000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.022500 0.034684 0.001553 0.000049 0.003859 0.0015 4.0049 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 6.4350 9.9198 0.4443 0.0139 1.1037 0.4398 1,145.4014 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.008152 0.000729 0.000084 0.000009 0.000894 0.0001 0.9574 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.6087 0.2334 0.0267 0.0029 0.2861 0.0265 306.3680 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 18.6147 30.5168 1.5286 0.0443 3.6543 1.4076 4,043.9694 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 1 E -Excavation and Lagging Installation, 11/11/10 Compressor Backhoe (120 hp) Concrete Mixer Crane (250 lip) Dozer (305 hp) Drill Rig Excavator (250 hp) Loader (189 hp) Pumper Ram Hoe Trucks, Heavy Diesel] Dump Trucks Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs Fugitive Dust # /Day 0 0 0 0 0 1 Hrs /Day 0 0 0 7 0 7 4 0 1 Days Loads/Day 21 28 9/Day 16 - 12/9/10 Emissions in Pounds per Hour CO NOx PMIO sox 0.3613 0.732 0.0526 0.0007 03623 0.5664 0.0515 0.0006 0.0434 0.0599 0.0035 0.0001 0.3464 1.2372 0.0470 0.0013 0.5018 1.8078 0.0624 0.0023 0.5146 1.1331 0.0498 0.0017 03934 1.4935 0.0519 0.0018 0.5537 1.0737 0.0555 0.0012 0.3096 0.5545 0.0393 0.0006 0.3930 0.6747 0.0521 0.0008 Distance Daily Mi 59 1652 Distance Daily Mi 20 320 Lb /acre Total Acres Daily Acres Rule 403 % Daily PM I( Daily PN12.5 20 1.4 0.3500 55 3.1500 0.6615 I Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb VOC 0.112 0.0910 0.0101 0.1243 0.1422 0.1052 0.1451 0.1254 0.0936 0.1021 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 48.9993 86.8479 6.8641 0.1187 9.4006 4.2264 10.141.6960 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM 10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0468 63.6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0458 51.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0031 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0418 112.0000 0.3464 1.2372 0.0470 0.0013 0.1243 0.0418 112.0000 0.0555 210.0600 3.5126 12.6546 0.4368 0.0161 0.9954 0.3888 1,470.4200 0.0443 165.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0462 159.0000 2.7538 10.4545 0.3633 0.0126 1.0157 0.3233 1,113.0000 0.0494 114.2533 2.2148 4.2948 02220 0.0048 0.5016 0.1976 457.0132 0.0350 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0464 66.8000 0.3 93 0 0.6747 0.0521 0.0008 0.1021 0.0464 66.8000 Totals 9.2206 29.3158 1.1212 0.0356 2.7391 0.9979 32192332 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM.10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.022500 0.034684 0.001553 0.000049 0.003859 0.0015 4.0049 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 37.1700 572987 2.5662 0.0802 6.3754 2.5406 6,616.0948 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM 10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.008152 0.000729 0.000084 0.000009 0.000894 0.0001 0.9574 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.6087 02334 0.0267 0.0029 0.2861 0.0265 3063680 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 48.9993 86.8479 6.8641 0.1187 9.4006 4.2264 10.141.6960 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase IF -Bracing Installation, 12/10/10 - 12/20/10 Compressor Backhoe (120 hp) Concrete Mixer Crane (250 hp) Dozer (305 hp) Drill Rig Excavator (250 hp) Loader (189 hp) Pumper Ram Hoe Welder Trucks, Heavy Diesel I. Cement Trucks Waler Worker Vehictes2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs Fugitive Dust Days Loads /Day Distance DailyMi 2 4 19 76 4 2 29 58 134 #/Day 16 Distance DailyMi 20 320 Lb /acre Total Acres Daily Acres Rule 403 % Daily PM I( Daily PM2.5 20 1.4 0.3500 55 3.1500 0.6615 I Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC 0 0 0.3613 0.732 0.0526 0.0007 0.112 1 2 03623 05664 0.0515 0.0006 0.0910 1 1 0.0434 0.0599 0.0035 0.0001 0.0101 1 6 0.3464 1.2372 0.0470 0.0013 0.1243 0 0 0.5018 1.8078 0.0624 0.0023 0.1422 0 0 0.5146 1.1331 0.0498 0.0017 0.1052 1 7 0.3934 1.4935 0.0519 0.0018 0.1451 0 0 0.5537 1.0737 0.0555 0.0012 0.1254 1 1 0.3096 0.5545 0.0393 0.0006 0.0936 0 0 03930 0.6747 0.0521 0.0008 0.1021 1 6 0.2246 0.2920 0.0270 0.0003 0.0805 Days Loads /Day Distance DailyMi 2 4 19 76 4 2 29 58 134 #/Day 16 Distance DailyMi 20 320 Lb /acre Total Acres Daily Acres Rule 403 % Daily PM I( Daily PM2.5 20 1.4 0.3500 55 3.1500 0.6615 I Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb CO2 0.0000 103.4000 7.2000 672.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1,113.0000 0.0000 49.6000 0.0000 153.6000 2,098.8000 CO2 4.0049 CO2 536.6566 CO2 0.9574 CO2 306.3680 CO2 2,941.8246 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 0.0468 63.6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0458 51.7000 0.7246 1.1328 0.1030 0.0012 0.1820 0.0917 0.0031 7.2000 0.0434 0.0599 0.0035 0.0001 0.0101 0.0031 0.0418 112.0000 2.0784 7.4232 0.2820 0.0078 0.7458 0.2510 0.0555 210.0600 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0443 165.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0462 159.0000 2.7538 10.4545 0.3633 0.0126 1.0157 0.3233 0.0494 114.2533 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0350 49.6000 0.3096 0.5545 0.0393 0.0006 0.0936 0.0350 0.0464 66.8000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0240 25.6000 1.3476 1.7520 0.1620 0.0018 0.4830 0.1442 Totals 7.2574 21.3769 0.9531 0.0241 2.5302 0.8483 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 0.022500 0.034684 0.001553 0.000049 0.003859 0.0015 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM15 3.0150 4.6477 0.2082 0.0065 0.5171 0.2061 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 0.008152 0.000729 0.000084 0.000009 0.000894 0.0001 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 2.6087 0.2334 0.0267 0.0029 0.2861 0.0265 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 12.8811 26.2580 4.3380 0.0335 3.3334 1.7423 CO2 0.0000 103.4000 7.2000 672.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1,113.0000 0.0000 49.6000 0.0000 153.6000 2,098.8000 CO2 4.0049 CO2 536.6566 CO2 0.9574 CO2 306.3680 CO2 2,941.8246 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase I G -Excavation and Lagging Installation, 12121/10 - 12/31/10 Trucks, Heavy Diesel Dump Trucks Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5.151 Ibs Fugitive Dust Days Loads /Day 15 29 ft/Day 16 Distance Daily Mi 59 1711 Distance Daily Mi 20 320 Lb /acre Total Acres Daily Acres Rule 403 %Daily PM 1( Daily PM2.5 20 1.4 03500 55 11500 0.6615 I Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC Compressor 0 0 0.3613 0.732 0.0526 0.0007 0.112 Backhoe (120 hp) 0 0 0.3623 0.5664 0.0515 0.0006 0.0910 Concrete Mixer 0 0 0.0434 0.0599 0.0035 0.0001 0.0101 Crane (250 hp) 1 1 0.3464 1.2372 0.0470 0.0013 0.1243 Dozer (305 hp) 1 7 0.5018 1.8078 0.0624 0.0023 0.1422 Drill Rig 0 0 0.5146 1.1331 0.0498 0.0017 0.1052 Excavator (250 hp) 1 7 0.3934 1.4935 0.0519 0.0018 0.1451 Loader (189 hp) 1 1 0.5537 1.0737 0.0555 0.0012 0.1254 Pumper 0 0 0.3096 0.5545 0.0393 0.0006 0.0936 Ram Hoe 1 3 0.3930 0.6747 0.0521 0.0008 0.1021 Trucks, Heavy Diesel Dump Trucks Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5.151 Ibs Fugitive Dust Days Loads /Day 15 29 ft/Day 16 Distance Daily Mi 59 1711 Distance Daily Mi 20 320 Lb /acre Total Acres Daily Acres Rule 403 %Daily PM 1( Daily PM2.5 20 1.4 03500 55 11500 0.6615 I Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 Emissions in Pounds per Day 0.0029 0.2861 PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0468 63.6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0458 51.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0031 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0418 112.0000 03464 12372 0.0470 0.0013 0.1243 0.0418 112.0000 0.0555 210.0600 3.5126 12.6546 0.4368 0.0161 0.9954 0.3888 1,470.4200 0.0443 165.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0462 159.0000 2.7538 10.4545 03633 0.0126 1.0157 0.3233 1,113.0000 0.0494 114.2511 0.5537 1.0737 0.0555 0.0012 0.1254 0.0494 114.2533 0.0350 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0464 66.8000 1.1790 2.0241 0.1563 0.0024 03063 0.1391 200.4000 Totals 83455 27.4441 1.0589 0.0336 2.5671 0.9424 3,010.0733 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.022500 0.034684 0.001553 0.000049 0.003859 0.0015 4.0049 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 38.4975 593451 2.6579 0.0831 6.6031 2.6313 6,8523839 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.008152 0.000729 0.000084 0.000009 0.000894 0.0001 0.9574 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.6087 0.2334 0.0267 0.0029 0.2861 0.0265 306.3680 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 49.4517 87.0226 6.8935 0.1196 9.4563 4.2617 10,168.8252 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase I -Excavation and Lagging Installation, ]/[/I[ - 1/10/11 Emissions in Pounds per Hour #/Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC Compressor 0 0 03524 0.6923 0.0501 0.0007 0.1054 Backhoe (120 hp) 0 0 0.3589 0.5288 0.0478 0.0006 0.0833 Concrete Mixer 0 0 0.0429 0.0575 0.0032 0.0001 0.0096 Crane (250 hp) 1 1 03276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 Dozer (305 hp) 1 7 0.4800 1.6450 0.0557 0.0023 0.1592 Drill Rig 0 0 0.5102 1.0083 0.0436 0.0017 0.0943 Excavator (250 hp) 1 7 03762 13632 0.0465 0.0018 0.1371 Loader (189 hp) 1 1 0.5501 0.9914 0.0518 0.0012 0.1173 Pumper 0 0 03040 0.5285 0.0375 0.0006 0.0877 Ram Hoe I 3 03874 0.6276 0.0482 0.0008 0.0938 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Dump Trucks Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs fugitive Dust Days Loads /Day 15 29 9/Day 16 Distance Daily Mi 59 1711 Distance Daily Mi 20 320 Lb /acre Total Acres Daily Acres Rule 403% Daily PM I (Daily PM2.5 20 1.4 0.3500 55 3.1500 0.6615 I Based on Year 201 1 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 46.0088 79.2515 6.5933 0.1172 8.9915 3.9749 10,218.8821 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0446 63.6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0425 51.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0028 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0381 112.0000 0.3276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 0.0381 112.0000 0.0496 210.0600 3.3600 11.5150 0.3899 0.0161 1.1144 0.3470 1,470.4200 0.0388 165.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0414 159.0000 2.6334 9.5424 0.3255 0.0126 0.9597 0.2897 1,113.0000 0.0461 114.2533 0.5501 0.9914 0.0518 0.0012 0.1173 0.0461 114.2533 0.0334 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0429 66.8000 1.1622 1.8828 0.1446 0.0024 0.2814 0.1287 200.4000 Totals 8.0333 25.0838 0.9546 0.0336 2.5899 0.8496 3,010.0733 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 35.5517 53.9530 2.4616 0.0807 6.1338 2.4370 6,900.4953 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.4238 0.2147 0.0271 0.0029 0.2678 0.0269 308.3135 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 46.0088 79.2515 6.5933 0.1172 8.9915 3.9749 10,218.8821 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 2A- Sub - basement, 1 /1I /11 - 2/28/11 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs/Day CO NOx PMIO Sox VOC Backhoe (120 hp) 1 7 0.3589 0.5288 0.0478 0.0006 0.0833 Concrete Mixer 20 2 0.0429 0.0575 0.0032 0.0001 0.0096 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 0.3276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 Pumper 1 7 0.3040 0.5285 0.0375 0.0006 0.0877 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Cement Trucks 5 20 19 380 Formwork 1 1 19 19 Gravel 2 5 19 95 Rebar 3 1 29 29 Plumbing 3 l 29 29 Total 537 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 30 20 600 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0425 51.7000 2.5123 3.7016 0.3346 0.0042 0.5831 0.2978 361.9000 0.0028 7.2000 1.7160 2.3000 0.1280 0.0040 0.3840 0.1139 288.0000 0.0381 112.0000 2.2932 8.0654 0.2996 0.0091 0.8197 02666 784.0000 0.0334 49.6000 2.1280 3.6995 02625 0.0042 0.6139 0.2336 3472000 Totals 8.6495 17.7665 1.0247 0.0215 2.4007 0.9120 1,781.1000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 11.1579 16.9332 0.7726 0.0253 1.9251 0.7648 2,165.7311 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.5446 0.4026 0.0509 0.0054 0.5022 0.0503 578.0879 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 24.3521 35.1024 1.8481 0.0523 4.8280 1.7272 4,524.9190 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 2B - Shotcrete, 3 /I /I I - 4/25/11 Backhoe (120 hp) Concrete Mixer Crane (250 hp) Pumper Trucks, Heavy Diesel Cement Trucks WP Form work Rebar Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs WDay Hrs /Day 0 0 23 3 1 7 1 4 Days Loads /Day Distance 3 Emissions in Pounds per Hour 19 CO NOx PMIO Sox VOC 0.3589 0.5288 0.0478 0.0006 0.0833 0.0429 0.0575 0.0032 0.0001 0.0096 0.3276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 0.3040 0.5285 0.0375 0.0006 0.0877 Days Loads /Day Distance 3 23 19 1 1 17 1 2 19 I 3 29 Total # /Day Distance 30 20 Daily Mi 437 17 38 87 579 Daily Mi 600 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0425 51.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0028 7.2000 2.9601 3.9675 0.2208 0.0069 0.6624 0.1965 496.8000 0.0381 112.0000 2.2932 8.0654 0.2996 0.0091 0.8197 0.2666 784.0000 0.0334 49.6000 1.2160 2.1140 0.1500 0.0024 0.3508 0.1335 198.4000 Totals 6.4693 14.1469 0.6704 0.0184 1.8329 05967 1.479:2000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 12.0306 18.2576 0.8330 0.0273 2.0757 0.8247 2.3J5.1179 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.5446 0.4026 0.0509 0.0054 0.5022 0.0503 578.0879 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 23.0445 32.8072 1.5542 0.0512 4.4107 1.4717 4,392.4058 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 ]50 150 75 55 NT Phase 2C - Basement Deck, 4/26/11 - 616111 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs/Day CO NOx PM I O Sox VOC Backhoe (120 hp) 0 0 0.3589 0.5288 0.0478 0.0006 0.0833 Concrete Mixer 23 3 0.0429 0.0575 0.0032 0.0001 0.0096 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 0.3276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 Pumper I 3 0.3040 0.5285 0.0375 0.0006 0.0877 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Cement Trucks 2 23 19 437 Form Work 1 2 17 34 Shoring 1 2 19 38 Total 509 Worker Vehicles2 #/Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 Ibs 30 20 600 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0425 51.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0028 7.2000 2.9601 3.9675 0.2208 0.0069 0.6624 0.1965 496.8000 0.0381 112.0000 2.2932 8.0654 0.2996 0.0091 0.8197 0.2666 784.0000 0.0334 49.6000 0.9120 1.5855 0.1125 0.0018 0.2631 0.1001 148.8000 Totals 6.1653 13.6184 0.6329 0.0178 1.7452 0.5633 1,429.6000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 10.5762 16.0503 0.7323 0.0240 1.8247 0.7250 2.052.8066 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.5446 0.4026 0.0509 0.0054 0.5022 0.0503 578.0879 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 21.2861 30.0714 1.4160 0.0473 4.0721 1.3386 4,060.4945 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 2D - Shotcrete Basement. 6/7/11 - 8 /1 111 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Li .ght Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour 9 /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 Sox VOC Backhoe {120 hp) 0 0 0.3589 05288 0.0478 0.0006 0.0833 Concrete Mixer 23 3 0.0429 0.0575 0.0032 0.0001 0.0096 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 0.3276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 Pumper I 3 0.3040 0.5285 0.0375 0.0006 0.0877 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Cement Trucks 3 23 19 437 WP 1 1 17 17 Rebar 1 3 29 87 Total 541 Worker Vehicles2 4 /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 Ibs 30 20 600 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Li .ght Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0425 51.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0028 7.2000 2.9601 3.9675 0.2208 0.0069 0.6624 0.1965 496.8000 0.0381 112.0000 2.2932 8.0654 0.2996 0.0091 0.8197 0.2666 784.0000 0.0334 49.6000 0.9120 1.5855 0.1125 0.0018 02631 0.1001 148.8000 Totals 6.1653 13.6184 0.6329 0.0178 1.7452 0.5633 1,429.6000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 11.2411 17.0594 0.7783 0.0255 1.9394 0.7705 2,181.8632 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.5446 0.4026 0.0509 0.0054 0.5022 0.0503 578.0879 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 21.9510 31.0804 1.4621 0.0488 4.1868 1.3842 4,189.5511 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23A - First Floor Deck, 8/2/11 - 9/12/11 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC Concrete Mixer 20 3 0.0429 0.0575 0.0032 0.0001 0.0096 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 03276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 Other 1 7 03954 0.9321 0.0404 0.0013 0.0984 Pumper I 3 0.3040 0.5285 0.0375 0.0006 0.0877 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Cement Trucks 2 25 19 475 Shoring 1 2 19 38 Rebar 1 2 29 58 Form Work 1 2 19 38 Metal Studs 1 2 108 216 Total 825 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Dailv Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 42 20 840 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0028 72000 2.5740 3.4500 0.1920 0.0060 0.5760 0.1709 432.0000 0.0381 112.0000 2.2932 8.0654 0.2996 0.0091 0.8197 0.2666 784.0000 0.0360 123.0000 2.7678 6.5247 0.2828 0.0091 0.6888 0.2517 861.0000 0.0334 49.6000 0.9120 1.5855 0.1125 0.0018 02631 0.1001 148.8000 Totals 8.5470 19.6256 0.8869 0.0260 2.3476 0.7893 2,225.8000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 17.1421 26.0147 1.1869 0.0389 2.9575 1.1750 3,327.2406 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM 10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 6.3625 0.5637 0.0712 0.0076 0.7030 0.0705 809.3230 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 32.0516 46.2040 2.1450 0.0725 6.0082 2.0349 6,362.3636 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23B - Install Mechanical at Sub - Basement, 8/2/11 Concrete Mixer Crane (250 hp) Other Pumper Trucks, Heavy Diesel l Mechanical Electrical Plumbing Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs # /Day Hrs /Day 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 -8/30/11 Emissions in Pounds per Hour CO NOx PMIO sox VOC 0.0429 0.0575 0.0032 0.0001 0.0096 0.3276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 0.3954 0.9321 0.0404 0.0013 0.0984 0.3040 05285 0.0375 0.0006 0.0877 Days Loads /Day Distance 1 1 108 1 1 13 1 1 12 Total # /Day Distance 24 20 Daily Mi 108 13 12 133 Daily Mi 480 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0028 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0381 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0360 123.0000 2.7678 6.5247 0.2828 0.0091 0.6888 0.2517 861.0000 0.0334 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.7678 6.5247 0.2828 0.0091 0.6888 0.2517 861.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.7635 4.1939 0.1913 0.0063 0.4768 0.1894 5363915 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 3.6357 0.3221 0.0407 0.0044 0.4017 0.0403 462.4703 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 9.1670 11.0407 0.5148 0.0197 1.5673 0.4814 1,859.8618 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23C - Shotcrete First Floor, 9/13/11 - 11/7/11 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC Concrete Mixer 22 3 0.0429 0.0575 0.0032 0.0001 0.0096 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 03276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 Other 1 7 0.3954 0.9321 0.0404 0.0013 0.0984 Pumper 1 3 0.3040 0.5285 0.0375 0.0006 0.0877 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Cement Trucks 3 22 19 418 Rebar 1 2 29 58 Metal Studs 1 1 108 108 Total 584 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 42 20 840 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0028 51.7000 2.8314 3.7950 0.2112 0.0066 0.6336 0.1880 3,412.2000 0.0381 7.2000 2.2932 8.0654 0.2996 0.0091 0.8197 0.2666 50.4000 0.0360 112.0000 2.7678 6.5247 0.2828 0.0091 0.6888 0.2517 784.0000 0.0334 49.6000 0.9120 1.5855 0.1125 0.0018 0.2631 0.1001 148.8000 Totals 8.8044 19.9706 0.9061 0.0266 2.4052 0.8064 4,395.4000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 12.1345 18.4153 0.8402 0.0275 2.0936 0.8318 2,355.2830 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 6.3625 0.5637 0.0712 0.0076 0.7030 0.0705 809.3230 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 27.3014 38.9496 1.8175 0.0618 5.2018 1.7087 7,560.0060 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23D -Second Floor Deck. 11/8/11 - 12/19/11 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 201 1 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Total 514 Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Distance 4/Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM 10 Sox VOC Concrete Mixer 24 3 0.0429 0.0575 0.0032 0.0001 0.0096 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 0.3276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 Other 1 7 0.3954 0.9321 0.0404 0.0013 0.0984 Pumper 1 3 0.3040 0.5285 0.0375 0.0006 0.0877 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Cement Trucks 2 24 19 456 Rebar 1 2 29 58 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 201 1 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Total 514 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 Ibs 30 20 600 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 201 1 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0028 51.7000 3.0888 4.1400 02304 0.0072 0.6912 0.2051 3,722.4000 0.0381 7.2000 2.2932 8.0654 0.2996 0.0091 0.8197 0.2666 50.4000 0.0360 112.0000 2.7678 6.5247 02828 0.0091 0.6888 0.2517 784.0000 0.0334 49.6000 0.9120 1.5855 0.1125 0.0018 0.2631 0.1001 148.8000 Totals 9.0618 20.3156 0.9253 0.0272 2.4628 0.8235 4,705.6000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 10.6800 16.2080 0.7395 0.0242 1.8426 0.7321 2,072.9717 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.5446 0.4026 0.0509 0.0054 0.5022 0.0503 578.0879 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 24.2865 36.9262 1.7156 0.0569 4.8076 1.6059 7,356.6596 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23E -Install Electrical and Plumbing in Basement, 1118/11 - 12/6/11 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour ;/Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC Concrete Mixer 0 0 0.0429 0.0575 0.0032 0.0001 0.0096 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 0.3276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 Other 1 7 0.33954 0.9321 0.0404 0.0013 0.0984 Pumper 0 0 0.3040 0.5285 0.0375 0.0006 0.0877 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Mechanical 1 1 108 108 Electrical 1 1 13 13 Plumbing 1 1 12 12 Total i33 Worker Vehicles2 9 /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 20 20 400 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0028 51.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0381 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0360 112.0000 2.7678 6.5247 0.2828 0.0091 0.6888 0.2517 784.0000 0.0334 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.7678 6.5247 0.2828 0.0091 0.6888 0.2517 784.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.7635 4.1939 0.1913 0.0063 0.4768 0.1894 536.3915 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 3.0297 0.2684 0.0339 0.0036 0.3348 0.0336 385.3919 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 8.5611 10.9870 0.5080 0.0190 1.5004 0.4747 1,705.7834 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23F - Shotcrete Second Floor, 12/20/11 - 12/31/11 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour '/Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 Sox VOC Concrete Mixer 17 3 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 03103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 03847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Pumper 1 3 0.2983 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Trucks, Heavy Diesel l Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Cement 2 17 19 323 Rebar 1 2 29 58 Metal Studs 1 I 108 108 Total 489 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 42 20 840 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 2.1675 2.8764 0.1479 0.0051 0.4743 0.1316 367.2000 0.0345 112.0000 2.1721 7.4984 0.2716 0.0091 0.7721 0.2417 784.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.8949 1.4997 0.1053 0.0018 0.2439 0.0937 148.8000 Totals 7.9274 17.8938 0.7810 0.0251 2.1378 0.6951 2,161.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 10.1606 15.4196 0.7035 0.0231 1.7530 0.6965 1,972.1462 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 6.3625 0.5637 0.0712 0.0076 0.7030 0.0705 809.3230 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 24.4504 33.8772 1.5557 0.0558 4.5939 1.4621 4,942.4692 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23FF - Shotcrete Second Floor. I/l/12 - 2/13/12 Concrete Mixer Crane (250 hp) Other Pumper Trucks, Heavy Diesel Cement Rebar Metal Studs Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs # /Day Hrs/Day 17 3 1 7 I 7 1 3 Days Loads/Day Distance 2 17 19 1 2 29 1 1 108 Total # /Day Distance 42 20 Daily Mi 323 58 108 489 Daily Mi 840 1 Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour CO NOx PM10 sox VOC 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 03103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 03847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 0.2983 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Days Loads/Day Distance 2 17 19 1 2 29 1 1 108 Total # /Day Distance 42 20 Daily Mi 323 58 108 489 Daily Mi 840 1 Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 2.1675 2.8764 0.1479 0.0051 0.4743 0.1316 367.2000 0.0345 112.0000 2.1721 7.4984 0.2716 0.0091 0.7721 0.2417 734.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.8949 1.4997 0.1053 0.0018 0.2439 0.0937 148.8000 Totals 7.9274 17.8938 0.7810 0.0251 2.1378 0.6951 2,161.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 9.1109 13.8615 0.6356 0.0223 1.5835 0.6293 1,984.9943 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 5.8823 0.5161 0.0715 0.0076 0.6577 0.0708 803.3002 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 22.9206 32.2714 1.4882 0.0550 4.3790 1.3952 4,954.2945 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23G - Third Floor Deck, 2/14/12 - 3/26/12 Worker Vehicles2 4/Day Vehicles <S,ISllbs 30 Total 438 Distance Daily Mi 20 600 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC Concrete Mixer 20 3 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 03103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 0 0 0.3347 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Pumper 1 3 0.2983 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Trucks, Heavy Diesel Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Cement 2 20 19 380 Rebar 1 2 29 58 Worker Vehicles2 4/Day Vehicles <S,ISllbs 30 Total 438 Distance Daily Mi 20 600 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM70 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 2.5500 3.3840 0.1740 0.0060 0.5580 0.1549 432.0000 0.0345 112.0000 2.1721 7.4984 0.2716 0.0091 0.7721 0.2417 784.0000 0.0326 123.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.8949 1.4997 0.1053 0.0018 0.2439 0.0937 148.8000 Totals 5.6170 12.3821 0.5509 0.0169 1.5740 0.4903 1,364.8000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 8.1607 12.4158 0.5694 0.0200 1.4184 0.5637 1,777.9704 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.2016 0.3687 0.0511 0.0054 0.4698 0.0506 577.3573 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 17.9793 25.1666 1.1713 0.0423 3.4621 1.1045 3,720.1277 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23H - Third Floor Interior, 3/27/12 - 4/16/12 Total 451 Worker Vehicles2 #/Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 42 20 840 1 Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 3 nurse n) Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 Sox VOC Concrete Mixer 15 3 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Pumper 1 3 0.2983 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Trucks, Heavy Diesel l Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Cement 2 15 19 285 Rebar 1 2 29 58 Metal Studs 1 1 108 108 Total 451 Worker Vehicles2 #/Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 42 20 840 1 Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 3 nurse n) Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 1.9125 2.5380 0.1305 0.0045 0.4185 0.1161 324.0000 0.0345 112.0000 2.1721 7.4984 0.2716 0.0091 0.7721 0.2417 784.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0,6475 02280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.8949 1.4997 0.1053 0.0018 0.2439 0.0937 143.8000 Totals 7.6724 17.5554 0.7636 0.0245 2.0820 0.6796 2,117.8000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 8.4029 12.7843 05862 0.0206 1.4605 0.5804 1,830.7412 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 5.8823 0.5161 0,0715 0.0076 0.6577 0.0708 8033002 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PIVUO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 21.9576 30.8558 1.4214 0.0526 4.2002 1.3308 4,756.8414 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23I - First Floor Mechanical. 3/27/12 - 4/24/12 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC Concrete Mixer 0 0 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Pumper 0 0 0.2983 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Trucks, Heavy Diesell Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Mechanical 1 1 108 108 Electrical 1 1 13 13 Plumbing 1 1 12 12 Total 133 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance DailyMi Vehicles <5,151 Ibs 24 20 480 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0345 112.0000 2.1721 7.4984 0.2716 0.0091 0.7721 0.2417 784.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 4.8650 13.5177 0.5278 0.0182 IA196 0.4697 1,645.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.4780 3.7701 0.1729 0.0061 0.4307 0.1712 539.8860 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMl0 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 33613 0.2949 0.0409 0.0043 0.3758 0.0405 461.8858 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 10.7043 17.5827 0.7416 0.0286 2.2261 0.6814 2,646.7718 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23J - Fourth Floor Deck, 4/17/12 - 5/28/12 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour #/Dav Hrs[Day CO NOx PM10 Sox VOC Concrete Mixer 20 3 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Pumper 1 3 0.2983 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Cement 2 20 19 380 Rebar 1 2 29 58 Metal Studs 1 2 108 216 Total 654 Worker Vehicles2 #/Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 Ibs 42 20 840 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 2.5500 3.3840 0.1740 0.0060 0.5580 0.1549 432.0000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.8949 1.4997 0.1053 0.0018 0.2439 0.0937 148.8000 Totals 6.1378 10.9030 0.5355 0.0169 1.4494 0.4766 1,441.8000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 12.1851 18.5387 0.8501 0.0298 2.1179 0.8416 2,654.7777 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 Sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 5.8823 05161 0.0715 0.0076 0.6577 0.0708 808.3002 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 24.2052 29.9578 1.4572 0.0543 4.2249 1.3890 4,904.8779 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23K - Second Floor Mechanical, 4/17/12 - 5/15/12 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour 4/Day Hrs/Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC Concrete Mixer 0 0 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Pumper 0 0 0.2933 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Mechanical I 1 108 108 Electrical 1 I 13 13 Plumbing 1 1 12 12 Total 133 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 20 20 400 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO Sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.6929 6.0193 02562 0.0091 0.6475 02280 861.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.4780 3.7701 0.1729 0.0061 0.4307 0.1712 539.8860 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.8011 02458 0.0341 0.0036 0.3132 0.0337 384.9049 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 7.9720 10.0352 0.4631 0.0188 1.3914 0.4329 1,785.7908 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23L - Fourth Floor Interior, 5/29/12 - 6/18/12 I. Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour 9 /Day Hrs/Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC Concrete Mixer IS 3 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 0 0 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Pumper 1 3 0.2983 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Trucks, Heavy Diesel l Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Cement 2 15 19 285 Rebar 1 2 58 116 Metal Studs 1 1 108 108 Total 509 Worker Vehicles2 #/Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 Ibs 30 20 600 I. Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 1.9125 2.5380 0.1305 0.0045 0.4185 0.1161 324.0000 0.0345 112.0000 2.1721 7.4984 0.2716 0.0091 0.7721 0.2417 784.0000 0.0326 123.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.8949 1.4997 0.1053 0.0018 0.2439 0.0937 148.8000 Totals 4.9795 11.5361 0.5074 0.0154 1.4345 0.4516 1,256.8000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 9.4835 14.4284 0.6616 0.0232 1.6483 0.6550 2,066.1802 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.2016 0.3687 0.0511 0.0054 0.4698 0.0506 5773573 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 18.6647 26.3332 1.2201 0.0440 3.5526 1.1572 3,900.3375 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 ]50 75 55 NT Phase 3A - Fourth Floor Framing, 6/19/12 - 7/23/12 Concrete Mixer Crane (250 hp) Other Pumper Trucks, Heavy Diesel Metal Studs Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs Days Loads/Day I I ##Day 12 Distance Daily Mi 108 108 Total 108 Distance Daily Mi 20 240 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour #/Day Hrs/Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC 0 0 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 0 0 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 0 0 0.2983 0.4999 0:0351 0.0006 0.0813 Days Loads/Day I I ##Day 12 Distance Daily Mi 108 108 Total 108 Distance Daily Mi 20 240 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0345 1.12.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.0122 3.0614 0.1404 0.0049 03497 0.1390 438.4036 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO Sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 1.6807 0.1475 0.0204 0.0022 0.1879 0.0202 230.9429 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 6.3858 9.2282 0.4170 0.0162 1.1851 0.3872 1,530.3466 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 3B - Fourth Floor Mechanical, 7/24/12 - 8/21/12 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour a /Day Hrs/Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC Concrete Mixer 0 0 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 03103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Pumper 0 0 0.2981 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Trucks, Heavy Diesel] Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Mechanical 1 1 108 108 Electrical I I 13 13 Plumbing 1 1 12 12 Total 133 Worker Vehicles2 4/Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 Ibs 20 20 400 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.4780 3.7701 0.1729 0.0061 0.4307 0.1712 539.8860 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.8011 0.2458 0.0341 0.0036 0.3132 0.0337 384.9049 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 7.9720 10.0352 0.4631 0.0188 1.3914 0.4329 1,785.7908 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 3C - Windows and Doors, 7/24/12 - 9/7/12 Total 47 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 6 20 120 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5, 151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC Concrete Mixer 0 0 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.00li 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Pumper 0 0 0.2983 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Trucks, Heavy Diesel Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Windows /Doors 8 1 30 30 WP I 1 17 17 Total 47 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 6 20 120 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5, 151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.8757 1.3323 0.0611 0.0021 0.1522 0.0605 190.7868 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.8403 0.0737 0.0102 0.0011 0.0940 0.0101 115.4715 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.4089 7.4253 0.3275 0.0123 0.8937 0.2986 1,167.2582 T6resholdsin Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 3D - Waterproofing, 7/24/12 - 8/27/12 Total 34 WorkerVehicles2 # /Day Distance DailyMi Vehicles <S,ISllbs 4 20 80 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs/Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC Concrete Mixer 0 0 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Pumper 0 0 0.2933 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Trucks, Heavy Diesel Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Roofing 1 1 17 17 Decking 1 1 17 17 Total 34 WorkerVehicles2 # /Day Distance DailyMi Vehicles <S,ISllbs 4 20 80 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.6335 0.9638 0.0442 0.0016 0.1101 0.0438 138.0160 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM70 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.5602 0.0492 0.0068 0.0007 0.0626 0.0067 76.9810 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 3.8866 7.0322 0.3072 0.0114 0.8202 0.2785 1,075.9969 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase JE - Install Trees, 8/16/12 - 8/27/12 Concrete Mixer Crane (250 hp) Other Pumper Trucks, Heavy Diesel l Trees Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 lbs Days Loads /Day 8 1 #/Day 24 Distance Daily Mi 30 30 Total 30 Distance Daily Mi 20 480 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs/Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC 0 0 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 0 0 03103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 0 0 0.2983 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Days Loads /Day 8 1 #/Day 24 Distance Daily Mi 30 30 Total 30 Distance Daily Mi 20 480 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2230 861.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0233 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMl0 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.5590 0.8504 0.0390 0.0014 0.0971 0.0386 121.7788 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMl0 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 3.3613 0.2949 0.0409 0.0043 0.3758 0.0405 461.8858 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 6.6132 7.1646 0.3361 0.0148 1.1205 0.3071 1,444.6646 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 I50 75 55 NT Phase 4A -Exterior Stucco, 8/3/12 - 11/3/12 Concrete Mixer Crane (250 hp) Other Masonry Saws Trucks, Heavy Diesel Scaffolding Stone Stucco Lath Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs Days Loads/Day 1 4 14 1 14 1 14 1 9/Day 12 Distance 20 78 40 40 Total Distance 20 Daily Mi 80 78 40 40 238 Daily Mi 240 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 Sox VOC 2 7 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 0 0 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 1 7 03847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 1 7 0.4148 0.5910 0.0491 0.0007 0.1090 Days Loads/Day 1 4 14 1 14 1 14 1 9/Day 12 Distance 20 78 40 40 Total Distance 20 Daily Mi 80 78 40 40 238 Daily Mi 240 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.5950 0.7896 0.0406 0.0014 0.1302 0.0361 100.8000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0437 58.5000 2.9036 4.1370 03437 0.0049 0.7630 0.3059 409.5000 Totals 6.1915 10.9459 0.6405 0.0154 1.5407 0.5700 1,371.3000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.4343 6.7465 03094 0.0109 0.7707 0.3063 966.1117 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM 10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 1.6807 0.1475 0.0204 0.0022 0.1879 0.0202 230.9429 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 12.3065 17.8399 0.9703 0.0284 2.4993 0.8966 2,568.3547 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 4B - Interior Build Out, Sub - Basement, 4/25/12 - 8/7/12 Total 30 Worker Vehicles2 9/Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 12 20 240 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Li ,ght Trucks 5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC Concrete Mixer 2 7 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Masonry Saws 0 0 0.4148 0.5910 0.0491 0.0007 0.1090 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Materials 14 I 30 30 Total 30 Worker Vehicles2 9/Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 12 20 240 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Li ,ght Trucks 5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.5950 0.7896 0.0406 0.0014 0.1302 0.0361 100.8000 0.0345 112.0000 2.1721 7.4984 0.2716 0.0091 0.7721 0.2417 784.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0437 58.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 5.4600 14.3073 0.5684 0.0196 1.5498 0.5059 1,745.8000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.5590 0.8504 0.0390 0.0014 0.0971 0.0386 121.7788 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 1.6807 0.1475 0.0204 0.0022 0.1879 0.0202 230.9429 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 7.6996 15.3052 0.6278 0.0231 1.8349 0.5647 2,098.5217 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 4C - Interior Build Out, Basement, 5/16/12 - 8/28/12 Total 30 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5, 151 lbs 12 20 240 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Li .ght Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour #/Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC Concrete Mixer 1 7 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Masonry Saws 0 0 0.4148 0.5910 0.0491 0.0007 0.1090 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Materials 15 1 30 30 Total 30 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5, 151 lbs 12 20 240 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Li .ght Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.2975 03948 0.0203 0.0007 0.0651 0.0181 50.4000 0.0345 112.0000 2.1721 7.4984 0.2716 0.0091 0.7721 0.2417 784.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0437 58.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 5.1625 13.9125 0.5481 0.0189 1.4847 0.4878 1,695.4000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.5590 0.8504 0.0390 0.0014 0.0971 0.0386 121.7788 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 1.6807 0.1475 0.0204 0.0022 0.1879 0.0202 230.9429 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM70 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 7.4021 14.9104 0.6075 0.0224 1.7698 0.5466 2,048.1217 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 ]SO 150 75 55 NT Phase 4D - Interior Build Out, First Floor, 6/1/12 - 11/5/12 Total 30 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 Ibs 16 20 320 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour 4/Day Hrs/Day CO NOx PM10 Sox VOC Concrete Mixer 1 7 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 0 0 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Masonry Saws 0 0 0.4148 0.5910 0.0491 0.0007 0.1090 Trucks, Heavy Diesel l Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Materials 23 1 30 30 Total 30 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 Ibs 16 20 320 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 02975 0.3948 0.0203 0.0007 0.0651 0.0181 50.4000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0437 58.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 02975 03948 0.0203 0.0007 0.0651 0.0181 50.4000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.5590 0.8504 0.0390 0.0014 0.0971 0.0386 121.7788 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.2409 0.1966 0.0273 0.0029 0.2505 0.0270 307.9239 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 3.0973 1.4418 0.0865 0.0049 0.4128 0.0837 480.1027 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 4E - Interior Build Out, Second Floor, 7125/12 - 12/28/12 Total 30 Worker Vehicles2 ## /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 12 20 240 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour #/Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 Sox VOC Concrete Mixer 1 7 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Masonry Saws 0 0 0.4148 0.5910 0.0491 0.0007 0.1090 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Materials 23 1 30 30 Total 30 Worker Vehicles2 ## /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 12 20 240 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.2975 0.3948 0.0203 0.0007 0.0651 0.0181 50.4000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0437 58.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.9904 6.4141 0.2765 0.0098 0.7126 0.2461 911.4000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mite CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.5590 0.8504 0.0390 0.0014 0.0971 0.0386 121.7788 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 1.6807 0.1475 0.0204 0.0022 0.1879 0.0202 230.9429 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 5.2300 7.4120 0.3359 0.0133 0.9977 0.3049 1,264.1217 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 4F -Interior Build Out, Thud and Fourth Floor, 10/15/12 - 12/31/12 Total 30 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 16 20 320 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour 4/Day Hrs/Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC Concrete Mixer 1 7 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Masonry Saws 0 0 0.4148 0.5910 0.0491 0.0007 0.1090 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Materials 23 1 30 30 Total 30 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 16 20 320 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM 10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.2975 0.3948 0.0203 0.0007 0.0651 0.0181 50.4000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0437 58.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.9904 6.4141 0.2765 0.0098 0.7126 0.2461 911.4000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.00.13 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.5590 0.8504 0.0390 0.0014 0.0971 0.0386 121.7788 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.2409 0.1966 0.0273 0.0029 0.2505 0.0270 307.9239 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 5.7902 7.4611 0.3427 0.0140 1.0603 0.3117 1,341.1027 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 4FF -Interior Build Out, Third and Fourth Floor, 1/1/13 - Trucks, Heavy Diesel Days Loads/Day Materials 23 I Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Vehicles <5,151 lbs 16 3/20/13 # /Day Hrs/Day CO Concrete Mixer 1 7 0.0421 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 0.2948 Other 1 7 0.3765 Masonry Saws 0 0 0.4088 Trucks, Heavy Diesel Days Loads/Day Materials 23 I Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Vehicles <5,151 lbs 16 3/20/13 Emissions in Pounds per Hour NOx PMIO Sox VOC 0.0556 0.0026 0.0001 0.0091 0.9948 0.0351 0.0013 0.1040 0.7938 0.033 0.0013 0.0872 0.5572 0.0452 0.0007 0.1002 Distance DailyMi 30 30 Total 30 Distance Daily Mi 20 320 I Based on Year 2013 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2013 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0023 7.2000 0.2947 0.3892 0.0182 0.0007 0.0637 0.0162 50.4000 0.0312 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0294 123.0000 2.6355 5.5566 0.2310 0.0091 0.6104 0.2056 861.0000 0.0402 58.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.9302 5.9458 0.2492 0.0098 0.6741 0.2218 911.4000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0166 0.0253 0.0012 0.0000 0.0029 0.0012 4.0659 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMlO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.4991 0.7576 0.0349 0.0013 0.0870 0.0346 121.9780 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0065 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0007 0.0001 0.9613 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.0725 0.1800 0.0275 0.0030 0.2351 0.0272 307.6184 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 5.5018 6.8833 0.3117 0.0142 0.9962 0.2836 1,340.9964 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 4G - Handscape and Landscape, 11/4/12 - 12/31/12 Total 60 Worker Vehicles2 #/Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 24 20 480 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 Sox VOC Concrete Mixer 1 8 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 03 "103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 0 0 03847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Masonry Saws 0 0 0.4148 0.5910 0.0491 0.0007 0.1090 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Materials 20 1 30 30 Landscape 5 1 30 30 Total 60 Worker Vehicles2 #/Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 24 20 480 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.3400 0.4512 0.0232 0.0008 0.0744 0.0206 57.6000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0437 58.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 0.3400 0.4512 0.0232 0.0008 0.0744 0.0206 57.6000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 1.1179 1.7008 0.0780 0.0027 0.1943 0.0772 243.5576 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 3.3613 0.2949 0.0409 0.0043 0.3758 0.0405 461.8858 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.8192 2.4469 0.1421 0.0079 0.6445 0.1383 763.0434 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 4GG - Hardscape and Landscape, 11/1/13 - 3/20/13 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Materials Landscape Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs Days Loads/Day Distance 20 1 30 5 1 30 Total /Day Distance 24 20 Emissions in Pounds per Hour NOx 4 /Day Hrs/Day CO Concrete Mixer 1 8 0.0421 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 0.2948 Other 0 0 0.3765 Masonry Saws 0 0 0.4088 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Materials Landscape Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs Days Loads/Day Distance 20 1 30 5 1 30 Total /Day Distance 24 20 Emissions in Pounds per Hour NOx PM10 sox VOC 0.0556 0.0026 0.0001 0.0091 0.9948 0.0351 0.0013 0.1040 0.7938 0.033 0.0013 0.0872 0.5572 0.0452 0.0007 0.1002 Daily Mi 30 30 60 Daily Mi 480 I Based on Year 2013 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2013 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0023 7.2000 0.3368 0.4448 0.0208 0.0008 0.0728 0.0185 57.6000 0.0312 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0294 123.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0402 58.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 03368 0.4448 0.0208 0.0008 0.0728 0.0185 57.6000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0166 0.0253 0.0012 0.0000 0.0029 0.0012 4.0659 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.9982 1.5152 0.0699 0.0026 0.1741 0.0692 243.9560 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0065 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0007 0.0001 0.9613 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 11087 0.2699 0.041 j 0.0046 03527 0.0409 461.4276 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.4437 2.2299 0.1320 0.0080 0.5995 0.1286 762.9836 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 1511 150 75 55 NT Phase 4 - Interior Paint, 9/8/12 - 1/25/13 # Days Sq Ft Times Area lnt Area Total Area # Coats Gallons Sub - Basement 120 11,088 2.7 0.75 22,453.20 '74.22 Basement 120 11,604 2.7 0.75 23,498.10 3 391.64 First Floor 120 112009 2.7 0.75 22,293 23 3 371.55 Second Floor 120 10,236 2.7 0.75 20,727.90 3 345.47 Third Floor 120 9,236 2.7 0.75 18,702.90 3 311.72 Fourth Floor 120 8,536 2.7 0.75 17.285.40 3 288.09 Phase 4 Exterior Paint, 10/1/12 - 11/3/12 Days Sq Ft Times Area Ext Area Total Area # Coats Gallons Third Floor 30 9,236 2.7 0.25 6,234.30 1 34.64 Fourth Floor 30 8,536 23 0.25 5,761.80 1 32.01 Gr /L Daily VOC 10 0.26 10 0.27 10 0.26 10 0.24 10 0.22 10 0.20 1.45 Gr /LDaily VOC 27 0.26 27 0.24 0.50 APPENDIX B URBEAUS2007 MODEL RESULTS FOR OPERATIONAL MOBILE - SOURCE EMISSIONS Page: 1 12/19/2008 12:51:05 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Winter Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: C: \Documents and Settings \Todd\Application Data\ Urbemis \Version9a \Projects\Aerie Operations.urb924 Project Name: Aerie Project Location: Orange County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac20Q7 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOX CO Condo /townhouse general 0.47 0.64 5.14 TOTALS (lbs /day, unmitigated) 0.47 0.64 5.14 Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2013 Temperature (F): 60 Season: Winter Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Land Use Type Condo /townhouse general Vehicle Type Light Auto Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type 1.40 8.57 dwelling units S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 0.01 1.19 0.23 639.22 0.01 1.19 0.23 639.22 No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 8.00 68.56 692.65 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non - Catalyst 51.0 0.4 68.56 692.65 Catalyst 99.4 Diesel 0.2 Page: 2 12119/2008 12:51:05 PM Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non - Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Truck < 3750 Ibs 7.0 1.4 95.7 2.9 Light Truck 3751- 5750lbs 24.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Med Truck 5751 -8500 Ibs 10.8 0.0 100.0 0.0 Lite -Heavy Truck 8501- 10,000 Ibs 1.7 0.0 82.4 17.6 Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001- 14,000lbs 0.5 0.0 60.0 40.0 Med -Heavy Truck 14,001- 33,000 Ibs 0.9 0.0 22.2 77.8 Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001- 60,000lbs 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Motorcycle 2.9 55.2 44.8 0.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 0.8 0.0 87.5 12.5 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 %ofTrips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) N J l0 N O w d C l0 L U m c 0 `m 2 EL N O N N m O � N N `rn O) r l9 Q. Page: 1 1211912008 12:50:41 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: C: \Documents and Settings \Todd\Application Data\ Urbemis \Version9a \Projects\Aerie Operations.urb924 Project Name: Aerie Project Location: Orange County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOX CO Condo /townhouse general 0.44 0.53 5.43 TOTALS (lbs /day, unmitigated) 0.44 0.53 5.43 Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2013 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Land Use Type Condo /townhouse general Vehicle Type Light Auto Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type 1.40 8.57 dwelling units S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 0.01 1.19 0.23 707.74 0.01 1.19 0.23 707.74 No. Units Total Trips Total WIT 8.00 68.56 692.65 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non - Catalyst 51.0 0.4 68.56 692.65 Catalyst 99.4 Diesel 0.2 Page: 2 121191200812:50:41 PM Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non - Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Truck < 3750 Ibs 7.0 1.4 95.7 2.9 Light Truck 3751- 5750lbs 24.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Med Truck 5751- 8500lbs 10.8 0.0 100.0 0.0 Lite -Heavy Truck 8501- 10,000lbs 1.7 0.0 82.4 17.6 Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001- 14,000 Ibs 0.5 0.0 60.0 40.0 Med -Heavy Truck 14,001- 33,000lbs 0.9 0.0 22.2 77.8 Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001 - 60,000 Ibs 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Motorcycle 2.9 55.2 44.8 0.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 0.8 0.0 87.5 12.5 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) N @ clO N @ C L U �a c 0 m LM 7 a N O � N N O1 m r @ N a APPENDIX C URBEMIS2007 MODEL RESULTS FOR OPERATIONAL STATIONARY - SOURCE EMISSIONS Page: 1 12/1912008 12:55:46 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Area Source Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: C: \Documents and Settings \ToddlApplication Data\ Urbemis \Version9a \Projects\Aerie Operations.urb924 Project Name: Aerie Project Location: Orange County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO S02 PR 10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.13 Hearth Landscape 0.12 0.02 1.55 0.00 0.01 0.01 2.81 Consumer Products 0.41 Architectural Coatings 0.01 TOTALS (lbs /day, unmitigated) 0.55 0.10 1.58 0.00 0.01 0.01 102.94 Area Source Changes to Defaults Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 3/3/2009 Case Description: SoundPlan Calibration - -- Receptor #1 -- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Calibration Residential 35 35 35 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage( %) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Backhoe No 40 77.6 50 Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 50 Concrete Pump Truck No 20 81.4 50 Excavator No 40 80.7 50 Front End Loader No 40 79.1 50 Excavator No 40 80.7 50 Jackhammer Yes 20 88.9 50 Drill Rig Truck No 20 79.1 50 Hydra Break Ram Yes 10 90 50 Pneumatic. Tools No 50 85.2 50 C Tractor No 40 84 50 Welder /Torch No 40 74 50 Vibratory Concrete Mixer No 20 80 50 C Flat Bed Truck No 40 74.3 50 Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 50 Auger Drill Rig No 20 84.4 50 C Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) Yes 20 90.3 50 Dozer No 40 81.7 50 Vibratory Concrete Mixer No 20 80 50 C Crane No 16 80.6 50 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment "Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Backhoe 77.6 73.6 N/A NIA N/A N/A Concrete Mixer Truck 78.8 74.8 N/A N/A N/A NIA Concrete Pump Truck 81.4 74.4 N/A N/A N/A NIA Excavator 80.7 76.7 N/A N/A N/A NIA Front End Loader 79.1 75.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 80.7 76.7 N/A N/A N/A NIA Jackhammer 88.9 81.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A Drill Rig Truck 79.1 72.2 NIA N/A N/A N/A Hydra Break Ram 90 80 N/A NIA N/A N/A Pneumatic Tools 85.2 82.2 NIA N/A N/A N/A Tractor 84 80 N/A N/A N/A NIA Welder /Torch 74 70 N/A N/A N/A N/A Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80 73 N/A N/A N/A N/A Flat Bed Truck 74.3 70.3 N/A NIA NIA N/A Compressor (air) 77.7 73.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Auger Drill Rig 84.4 77.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 90.3 83.3 N/A N/A N/A NIA Dozer 81.7 77.7 NIA N/A N/A NIA Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80 73 NIA N/A NIA NIA Crane 80.6 72.6 NIA NIA NIA NIA Total 90.3 90.7 NIA N/A NIA N/A 'Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Kim Svitenko (FWS- OR- 09B0104- 09SL0151) Federally Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species that May Occur in the Vicinity of Orange County, California December 12, 2008 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status' Santa Monica Mountains dudleya Laguna Beach live - forever Santa Ana River woolly -star Gambel's watercress bia leaved crown beard Invertebrates San Diego fairy shrimp Quino checkerspot butterfly Riverside fairy sltrimp klanentals southern sea otter Pacific pocket mouse ' CH — designated Critical Habitat PCH — proposed Critical Habitat Dudleya cymosa subsp. ovatifolia threatened Dudleya stolonifera threatened Eriastrum densifolitun subsp. sanctorutrt endangered Rorippa gambellii endangered Verbesnta dissita threatened Branchinecta sandiegonensis endangered, CH Euphydryas editha quino endangered, PCH Streptocephalus wooitoni endangered, CH Enhydra lutris nereis threatened Perognathuslongimembrispacificus endangered 0 Appendix E Dock Vibration Study y.'ISLAND WIELAND Avenue, Suite INC. �(v 2691 Richter Avenue, Suite 114 Irvine, CA ACOUSTICS Tel: 949.474.1222 .1222 Fax: 949.474.9122 noise &vibration consoitanu www.wielandacoustics.com Environmental Noise Study for the Construction of the Proposed Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project in the City of Newport Beach Project File 08.032.00 March 12, 2009 Preliminary Report for Review Only Prepared for: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. 23792 Rockfield Boulevard, Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Prepared by: David L. Wieland, Principal Consultant 0 WIELAND ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. ACOUSTICS Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project Fite 08.032.00 - DRAFT Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 INTRODUCTION / PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................ ..............................1 3 NOISE AND GROUND VIBRATION DESCRIPTORS ...................................... ..............................4 3.1 DEC IBELS .................................................................................................... ..............................4 3.2 A- WEIGHTING ............................................................................................ ..............................4 3.3 PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY .............................................................................. ..............................6 3.4 VIBRATION VELOCITY LEVEL ........................................................................... ..............................6 4 NOISE AND VIBRATION CRITERIA ............................................................ ..............................7 4.1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE .................................................... ..............................7 4.2 VIBRATION SAFETY LIMITS FOR BUILDINGS ....................................................... ..............................7 4.3 VIBRATION PERCEPTIBILITY ............................................................................ ..............................8 5 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE .............................................................. ..............................8 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................... ..............................8 6.1 NOISE ........................................................................................................ ..............................9 6.2 VIBRATION .............................................................................................. ............................... 11 7 FUTURE ENVIRONMENT WITHIN THE STUDY AREA ................................ .............................11 7.1 NOISE ....................................................................................................... .............................11 7.2 VIBRATION .............................................................................................. ............................... 13 8 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT ...................................................................... .............................15 9 MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................................................... .............................15 10 ABATEMENT MEASURES ....................................................................... .............................15 11 UNMITIGATED IMPACTS ....................................................................... .............................16 12 REFERENCES ......................................................................................... .............................16 www.wielandacoustics.com i March 12, 2009 WIELAND ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. ACOUSTICS Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project „��o,. �... i; Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT List of Tables Table 4 -1. FTA Construction Vibration Damage Criteria ......................................... ..............................7 Table 4 -2. Caltrans Vibration Damage Criteria ........................................................ ..............................7 Table 6 -1. Summary of Ambient Noise Measurements .......................................... ..............................9 Table 6 -2. Summary of Ambient Vibration Measurements ................................... .............................11 Table 7 -1. Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels .................................... .............................12 Table 7 -2. Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors ................ .............................12 Table 7 -3. Estimated Increase in Average Noise Level During Drilling Phase ........ .............................13 Table 7 -4. Estimated Increase in Average Noise Level During Concrete Pile Phase ...........................13 Table 7 -5. Comparison of Estimated Construction PPVs to Ambient Levels .......... .............................14 Table 7 -6. Estimated Construction Vibration Levels .............................................. .............................14 List of Figures Figure 2 -1. Location of the Study Area .................................................................... ..............................2 Figure 2 -2. Proposed Dock Layout ........................................................................... ..............................3 Figure 3 -1. Common Noise Sources and A- Weighted Noise Levels ........................ ..............................5 Figure 6 -1. Noise and Vibration Measurement Locations ...................................... .............................10 List of Appendices Appendix I. Ambient Noise and Vibration Measurements www.wielandacoustics.com ii March 12, 2009 ��(� ACOUSTICS \\/ \j"�V /1C0�.1.�TICS 1 Executive Summary ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT This report identifies and assesses the potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the reconstruction of the Carnation Cove dock in Newport Beach. In order to identify the existing environment, noise and vibration measurements were taken at four locations throughout the study area. The construction activities associated with the project will result in a change to the acoustical environment at properties in the vicinity of the project. Using the criteria established in this study, it is concluded that the project will not generate a significant noise or vibration impact at the nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, mitigation measures are not required. Although not required as mitigation measures, the following abatement measures have been recommended as conditions of approval to minimize noise levels associated with the construction activity: 1. Equip all construction equipment with properly operating and maintained muffling devices. 2. Develop a construction schedule that minimizes potential cumulative construction noise impacts. 3. Notify the residents of the construction schedule for the marina, and keep them informed of any changes to the schedule. Identify the name and phone number of a contact person in case of complaints. The contact person shall take whatever reasonable steps are necessary to resolve the complaint. 2 Introduction / Project Description The purpose of this study is to identify and assess the potential noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Carnation Cove dock replacement project in Newport Beach. Refer to Figure 2 -1 for the location of the study area. Currently, the dock has four slips; this will be increased to eight slips plus a side -tie dock. The new dock layout is shown in Figure 2 -2. The timber docks supported by rotationally molded plastic pontoons allow the dock system to be located as close to the rock outcropping as possible. Six steel dock guide piles support the existing docks and will be replaced with 19 new guide piles supporting the new dock system. Of these 19 piles, nine will be large diameter piles (approximately 2 -foot diameter). The guide piles will be constructed of pre- stressed concrete set in pre - drilled augured holes. The existing 20 -foot long gangway will be replaced by a safer 60 -foot gangway. The pile- supported pier walkway between the existing gangway platform and the existing terrace will be repaired or replaced with a structure in -like -kind (i.e., timber framing system, a 2x timber deck, and timber railings all around). The existing piers supporting the walkway will require concrete repairs. The gangway platform construction will include the four steel piles, timber framing with www.wielandacoustics.com 1 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ACOUSTICS ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT metal connectors, and a 2x timber deck with railings all around. The existing concrete pad, concrete steps, and safety railings will be repaired and patched as necessary. z . -7 • JRn i 3 W-7 G f" ik W-7 f"$ 31L" rK'hT CLUB -.._- ----- HWOR gfSTER _ L 14ST aW0 y aVYE f 9" ML S+ Ci£ dRn 2 71RU G A SR 3 Su%1N0 AV < GiA4*A A 9i .� Av � -QA BLVD` Project Site E Lw rr.rrr -?/®Y Q J g w, fJ21 /�_f Ja S• �� auv 'r4�o �' P P LIB 1 �Sr a :rr G h drq c° P 1 � a 0 Y ti a?iP2114 OE! H4R � :n � / SRTF BFACN asotwnx ✓ 6757 JEI—Y Figure 2 -1. Location of the Study Area www.wielandacoustics.com 2 March 12, 2009 .1 I ACOUSTICS ND u Y v+D•elien tonlullsnO `L J Figure 2 -2. Proposed Dock Layout ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project Fite 08.032.00 - DRAFT K@YNOM: () lnormGG or aRAxouro mxexAnox Ruirmu © mmDem xex RMUrm oalc [�] mua GIOf AG G1xlw1 IfQ� R[RIIR dGMt R/lNR In FlIQIAfD DEQ 1W91 MA LASIK CDIC © MpOGm G6Ex FlMIM WA FPGIN- Yt11O.dOtiG © E6EIN0 OI[C MI GMIMAY 111 BE RF4NEp m AO® M!L/lLlxf CN m R0•M LE11W 91VG Lmol ❑ fFl OINO Ilx� EGIm DD91/EfK PM91 i RROOfO ILx0101RR • 11100® RRL O www.wielandacoustics.com 3 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ACOUSTICS e e •0••von aemelUnu ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT 3 Noise and Ground Vibration Descriptors The following sections briefly describe the noise and ground vibration descriptors that will be used throughout this study: 3.1 Decibels Sound pressures can be measured in units called microPascals (µPa). However, expressing sound levels in terms of µPa would be very cumbersome since it would require a wide range of very large numbers. For this reason, sound pressure levels are described in logarithmic units of ratios of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure squared. These units are called bels. In order to provide a finer resolution, a bel is subdivided into 10 decibels, abbreviated dB. Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one automobile produces a sound pressure level of 70 dB when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB. In fact, they would combine to produce 73 d6. This same principle can be applied to other traffic quantities as well. In other words, doubling the traffic volume on a street or the speed of the traffic will increase the traffic noise level by 3 dB. Conversely, halving the traffic volume or speed will reduce the traffic noise level by 3 d8. 3.2 A- Weighting Sound pressure level alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness. The frequency or pitch of a sound also has a substantial effect on how humans will respond. While the intensity of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response depends on the characteristics of the human ear. Human hearing is limited not only to the range of audible frequencies, but also in the way it perceives the sound pressure level in that range. In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hz and 5,000 Hz, and perceives both higher and lower frequency sounds of the same magnitude with less intensity. In order to approximate the frequency response of the human ear, a series of sound pressure level adjustments is usually applied to the sound measured by a sound level meter. The adjustments, or weighting network, are frequency dependent. The A -scale approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary everyday sounds. When people make relative judgments of the loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the A -scale sound levels of those sounds. A range of noise levels associated with common in- and outdoor activities is shown in Figure 3 -1. The A- weighted sound level of traffic and other long -term noise - producing activities within and around a community varies considerably with time. Measurements of this varying noise level are accomplished by recording values of the A- weighted level during representative periods within a specified portion of the day. www.wielandacoustics.com 4 March 12, 2009 WIEL4ND ACOUSTICS fe k vfyutton [onso![ann Threshold of pain T 120 dB(A) ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT Disco 110 dB(A) Textile mill Printing plant 100 dB(A) Jackhammer at 50' Power lawn mower at 5' 90 dB(A) Heavy truck at 50' Concrete mixer at 50' 80 dB(A) ..................•••.., 10 dB change generally Inside Car at 40 mph :perceived as twice or halt as loud Vacuum cleaner at 10' 70 dB(A) .......................: Car, 60 mph at 100' Conversational speech 60 dB(A) ........................ :5 dB change generally :perceived as quite noticeable Large transformer at 50' ..................••.... Urban residence 50 dB(A) • ^- ° °• °••- °... ° °.3 dB Change is generally barely ...I ...................: perceptible Small town residence 40 dB(A) 1 dB change is generally not noticeable Soft whisper at G 30 dB(A) North rim of Grand Canyon 20 dB(A) 10 dB(A) Threshold of hearing 0 dB(A) Figure 3 -1. Common Noise Sources and A- Weighted Noise Levels www.wielandacoustics.com 5 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ACOUSTICS 3.3 Peak Particle Velocity ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT Construction activities such as blasting, pile driving, and operation of heavy construction equipment induce ground and structure vibrations. Their effects can range from annoyance for the local residents to structural damage. The level of ground vibration experienced at any location depends mainly on the construction method, soil medium, distance from the vibratory source, and the structural dynamics of the building. There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration amplitude. Of these, peak particle velocity (PPV) is most appropriate for evaluating potential building damage since it is related to the stresses that are exerted upon the buildings. PPV is most commonly assessed in the vertical direction because the floors of buildings vibrate mostly in the vertical direction. Nearthe source of vibration, the horizontal ground particle velocity is commonly lower than the vertical component. Far from the source of vibration, the ground horizontal and vertical velocities are about the same order of magnitude. 3.4 Vibration Velocity Level Although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential for building damage, it is not suitable for evaluating human response to ground -borne vibration. It takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. In a sense, the human body responds to an "average" vibration amplitude. However, the actual average level is not a useful measure of vibration because the net average of a vibration signal is zero. Instead, vibration velocity level (L„) is used for evaluating human response. L„ describes the root - mean - square (rms) velocity amplitude of the vibration. This rms value may be thought of as a "smoothed" or "magnitude- averaged" amplitude. The rms of a signal is typically calculated over a 1 second period. The maximum L„ describes the maximum rms velocity amplitude that occurs during a vibration measurement. L" can be measured in inches per second (in /s). However, expressing these levels in terms of in /s would be very cumbersome since it would require a very wide range of numbers. For this reason, L„ is often stated in terms of decibels. Although it is not a universally accepted notation, the abbreviation "Vd8" is used throughout this report to denote vibration velocity level decibels in order to reduce the potential for confusion with sound level decibels. The VdB is a logarithmic unit that describes the ratio of the actual rms velocity amplitude to a reference velocity amplitude. The accepted reference velocity amplitude is 1x10'6 in /s in the USA; therefore, this is the reference amplitude that is used throughout this report (it is noted that the accepted reference level varies globally and much confusion can arise if the reference is not clearly stated). Specifically, a vibration velocity level (L„ ), in decibels (VdB), is calculated as follows: = g 2010 1 w 10 1x1O V in. /S/ where V is the actual rms velocity amplitude and 1x10 -6 in /s is the reference velocity amplitude. Since decibels are logarithmic units, vibration velocity levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. www.wielandacoustics.cam 6 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ACOUSTICS 4 Noise and Vibration Criteria ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT The following sections discuss the various criteria that have been considered in this study. 4.1 City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 of the City's Municipal Code prohibits construction work which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., or on any Saturday except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Construction work is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. The City's Municipal Code does not identify any quantitative noise level standards for construction activities, nor does it provide any standards or guidelines with respect to ground vibration. 4.2 Vibration Safety Limits for Buildings General vibration damage criteria developed by the Federal Transit Administration [2) are summarized as follows: Table 4 -1. FTA Construction Vibration Damage Criteria Caltrans [3) uses the following criteria to evaluate the severity of problems associated with continuous' vibrations: Table 4 -2. Caltrans Vibration Damage Criteria Reinforced concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5 Engineered concrete and masonry (no pta ster) 0.3 Non - engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Caltrans [3) uses the following criteria to evaluate the severity of problems associated with continuous' vibrations: Table 4 -2. Caltrans Vibration Damage Criteria It is noteworthy that the risk of structural damage still exists even at relatively low vibration velocities (in particular due to dynamic settlements caused in loose soils). ' The drilling that will be used to set the piles is considered to be a continuous vibration source. www.wielandacoustics.com 7 March 12, 2009 monuments Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancien70.3 Fragile buildings Historic and wine old buildings Older residential structures New residential structures 0.5 Modem industrial /commercial buildings 0.5 It is noteworthy that the risk of structural damage still exists even at relatively low vibration velocities (in particular due to dynamic settlements caused in loose soils). ' The drilling that will be used to set the piles is considered to be a continuous vibration source. www.wielandacoustics.com 7 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ACOU t% 4 vd�,.m+ co .mSTICS 4.3 Vibration Perceptibility ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT Criteria developed by the Federal Transit Administration [21 indicate that when groundborne vibration exceeds 72 to 80 VdB, it is usually perceived as annoying to occupants of residential buildings. 5 Thresholds of Significance Based on the noise and vibration criteria discussed above, and the CEQA guidelines, a significant impact will be assessed if the project will result in: O 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. A noise impact will occur if construction activities occur outside of the time periods permitted in the City's noise ordinance. O Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This impact will occur if any construction activity causes the vibration velocity level (L,) to exceed 72 to 80 VdB at an adjacent residential building. Because of the potential for damage, a significant impact will be assessed if the PPV exceeds 0.20 in /sec at any existing residential building. O A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. As there are no permanent noise sources associated with the construction project, this aspect of the CEQA guidelines has not been considered in this study. O A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. As the City has no noise standards for construction activity, and the construction activity will only occur within the hours permitted by the Municipal Code, no significant impact will be assessed relative to this CEQA guideline. 0 The project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels as a result of activities at an airport. As the project is located well outside the noise contours for John Wayne Airport, this aspect of the CEQA guidelines has not been considered in the study. 6 Existing Environment The sensitive land uses of concern within the study area consist of the residences north and northeast of the project site on Bayside Place, the residences generally northeast of the project site on Carnation Avenue, the residences generally east and southeast of the project site on Ocean Boulevard, and the residences to the west of the project site on Channel Road. www.wielandacoustics.com 8 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project ACOUSTICS Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT 6.1 Noise The noise sources in the study area include traffic on the local streets, takeoffs from John Wayne Airport, activities on boats in the channel, and general residential activities in the area. In order to document the existing noise environment in the study area, continuous 24 -hour measurements were obtained at four locations between April 23 and 30, 2008. (Refer to Figure 6 -1 for the measurement locations.) To obtain the measurements, the microphone was positioned at a height of 5 feet above the ground. The results of the noise measurements are provided in Appendix I, and are summarized in Table 6 -1. Table 6 -1. Summary of Ambient Noise Measurements Location Location Ave R ge r. ). Description 1 Rear patio, 101 50.5- 57.4 dB(A) 63.1 - 80.9 dB(A) Bayside PI . 2 Pool area, 2495 Ocean Blvd. 52.9 - 59.9 dB(A) 68.3 - 79.0 dB(A) 3 Rear patio, 2282 Channel Rd. 48.5 - 55.0 dB(A) 63.6 - 77.0 dB(A) 4 Rear patio, d. Channel Rd. 50.7 - 59.3 dB(A) 63.4 - 85.9 dB(A) The instrumentation used to obtain the noise measurements consisted of integrating sound level meters (Model 712) and an acoustical calibrator (Model CALiSO) manufactured by Larson Davis Laboratories. The accuracy of the calibrators is maintained through a program established by the manufacturer, and is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 51.4 -1971. www.wielandacoustics.com 9 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ACOUSTICS ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT til;. C g2 .t ti • j,c N3 e rRb SRI . ^1 fir �_ . t � ., tr�r �I{ j• i �Y Y Figure 6 -1. Noise and Vibration Measurement Locations www.wielandacoustics.com 10 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. ACOUSTICSCarnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT 6.2 Vibration Ambient ground vibration velocity levels were measured at all four locations (as shown in Figure 6- 1) in the vertical direction using a PCB seismic accelerometer (Model 3930). The results of the measurements are provided in Appendix I, and are summarized in Table 6 -2. Table 6 -2. Summary of Ambient Vibration Measurements 7 Future Environment within the Study Area 7.1 Noise In compliance with the City's Code requirements, construction of the project will occur only between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. There will be no construction activities on Sundays or legal holidays. Construction noise levels in the vicinity of the project will fluctuate depending on the particular type, number and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment. The exposure of persons to the periodic increase in noise levels will be short-term (on the order of several months). To estimate the construction noise levels that will be experienced at the nearest sensitive receptors, the following assumptions have been made: O A barge containing all the equipment necessary to drill and drop in the pre- stressed concrete pile will be located in the channel in the near vicinity of each pile that is being constructed. O The noisiest pieces of equipment on the barge will be the drill and the crane. The drill and crane will operate simultaneously during the drilling phase of construction, and the crane will operate when the piles are being dropped into place. Based on published data [41, the equipment to be used in the construction of the proposed dock will produce the following noise levels: www.wielandacoustics.com 11 March 12, 20D9 Location Description Average Vibration Maximum Vibration 1 Rear 1 0.00009 in /sec 0.00128 in /sec Ba 7area,2495 Pool 2 Oc 0.00007 in /sec 0.00086 in /sec Rear patio, 2282 3 Channel Rd. 0.00008 in /sec 0.00298 in /sec 4 Rear patio ' 2222 2222 0.00017 in/sec 0.00121 in /sec Channel 7 Future Environment within the Study Area 7.1 Noise In compliance with the City's Code requirements, construction of the project will occur only between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. There will be no construction activities on Sundays or legal holidays. Construction noise levels in the vicinity of the project will fluctuate depending on the particular type, number and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment. The exposure of persons to the periodic increase in noise levels will be short-term (on the order of several months). To estimate the construction noise levels that will be experienced at the nearest sensitive receptors, the following assumptions have been made: O A barge containing all the equipment necessary to drill and drop in the pre- stressed concrete pile will be located in the channel in the near vicinity of each pile that is being constructed. O The noisiest pieces of equipment on the barge will be the drill and the crane. The drill and crane will operate simultaneously during the drilling phase of construction, and the crane will operate when the piles are being dropped into place. Based on published data [41, the equipment to be used in the construction of the proposed dock will produce the following noise levels: www.wielandacoustics.com 11 March 12, 20D9 WIELAND ACOUSTICS ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT Table 7 -1. Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels Typical Noise Equipment Level 9 50 Ft. Drilling Phase Combined Noise Level (P 50 Ft. 88 dB(A) Crane d Auger drill rig 85 dB(A) Concrete Pile Phose 85 dB(A) Crane 85 dB(A) Using the noise levels cited in Table 7 -1, above, the maximum noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors can be estimated using the inverse square law, where noise decays at the rate of 6 dB for every doubling of distance. The average noise level at the nearest sensitive receptors can be estimated using the following standard prediction algorithm [2]: L,( equip) = E.L. +10 *log(U.F.)- 20 * log l 5 10 *G *log( 50) where, Le,(equip) is the average noise level at a receiver resulting from the operation of the equipment over a specified time period, E.L. is the noise emission level of the equipment at a distance of 50 feet (from Table 7 -1), U.F. is a usage factor that accounts for the fraction of time that the equipment is in use over the specified time period (U.F. = 0.16 for the crane and 0.20 for the auger drill rig [4]), D is the distance from the receiver to the piece of equipment, and G is a constant that accounts for ground effects (assume G = 0 for propagation over water or hard surfaces). Table 7 -2 provides the results of the analysis. Table 7 -2. Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors www.wielandacoustics.com 12 March 12, 2009 Drilling Location If Location Description Average Noise Maximum Noise Average Noise - Maximum Noise 1 Rear patio, 101 Bayside Pl. 71 dB(A) @ 155' 83 dB(A) @ 90' 67 dB(A) @ 155' 80 dB(A) @ 90' 2 Pool area, 2495 Ocean Blvd. 68 dB(A) @ 230' T7 dB(A) @ 175' 64 dB(A) @ 230' 74 dB(A) @ 175' 3 Rear patio, 2282 ChannelRd- 56 dB(A) @ 880' 64 dB(A) @ 785' 52 dB(A) @ 880' 61 dB(A) @ 785' 4 Rear patio, 2222 Channel Rd. 56 dB(AI @ 920' 65 dB(A) @675' 52 dB(A) @ 920' 62 dB(A) @675' Note: Average noise level is based on the average distance from all of the piles to each sensitive receptor. The maximum noise level is based on the distance from the closest pile to each sensitive receptor. www.wielandacoustics.com 12 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. ACOUSTICSCarnation Cove Dock Replacement Project r r_eej„pn �e „o�„ Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT The estimated increase in average noise level due to construction may be calculated by adding, on an energy basis, the construction noise levels identified in Table 7 -2 to the measured ambient noise levels identified in Table 6 -1. This analysis is provided in Table 7 -3 for the drilling phase, and in Table 7 -4 for the concrete pile phase. Table 7 -3. Estimated Increase in Average Noise Level During Drilling Phase Location Location Range of Measured Ambient Noise Estimated Average Construction Estimate Anibil Average et Estimated Increase C in Noise Level Due r- Description 1 Rear patio, 101 Bayside Pl. 50.5 - 57.4 dB(A) 71 dB(A) 71 dB(A) 13.6 - 20.5 dB(A) 2 Pool area, 2495 Ocean Blvd. 52.9 - 59.9 dB(A) 68 dB(A) 68 - 69 dB(A) 9.1 - 15.1 dB(A) 3 Rear patio, 2282 Channel Rd. 48.5 - 55.0 dB(A) 56 dB(A) 57 - 59 dB(A) 4.0 - 8.5 dB(A) 4 Rear patio, 2222 Channel Rd. 50.7 - 59.3 dB(A) 56 dB(A) 57 - 61.5 dB(A) 2.2 - 6.3 dB(A) Table 7 -4. Estimated Increase in Average Noise Level During Concrete Pile Phase 7.2 Vibration The only vibratory activities during the construction of the project will be the extraction of the existing piles, and drilling into the channel bed to provide a socket for the concrete piles, which will then be grouted into place. For the most part, the new guide piles will be circular pre- stressed concrete piles 16 to 18 inches in diameter. Based on published information, typical drilling produces a PPV of 0.089 in /sec at a distance of 25 feet. The PPV that will be experienced at the nearby sensitive properties can be estimated using the following formula [3j: 251 PPVF1�'mm<�, = PPVR<r<.<n« x l D ) www.wietandacoustics.com 13 March 12, 2009 r- 1 Rear patio, 101 8ayside Pl. 50.5 - 57.4 dB(A) 67 dB(A) 67 - 67.5 dB(A) 10.1- 16.5 dB(A) 2 Pool area, 2495 Ocean Blvd. 52.9 - 59.9 dB(A) 64 dB(A) 64.5 - 65.5 dB(A) 5.6 - 11.6 dB(A) 3 Rear patio, 2282 Channel Rd. 48.5 - 55.0 dB(A) 52 dB(A) 53.5 - 57 dB(A) 2.0 - 5.0 dB(A) 4 Rear patio, 2222 Channel S 50.7 - 59.3 dB(A) 52 dB(A) 54.5 - 60.0 dB(A) 0.7 - 3.8 dB(A) 7.2 Vibration The only vibratory activities during the construction of the project will be the extraction of the existing piles, and drilling into the channel bed to provide a socket for the concrete piles, which will then be grouted into place. For the most part, the new guide piles will be circular pre- stressed concrete piles 16 to 18 inches in diameter. Based on published information, typical drilling produces a PPV of 0.089 in /sec at a distance of 25 feet. The PPV that will be experienced at the nearby sensitive properties can be estimated using the following formula [3j: 251 PPVF1�'mm<�, = PPVR<r<.<n« x l D ) www.wietandacoustics.com 13 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. ACOUSTICS Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project .-0., � Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT where, PPVEq,,;P,e,,, is the peak particle velocity in in /sec of the equipment adjusted for distance, PPVrserereece is the reference PPV in in /sec at 25 feet, or 0.089 in /sec, and D is the distance from the equipment to the receiver Table 7 -5 compares the estimated construction PPVs to the measured ambient vibration level at each of the nearest sensitive receptors. Table 7 -5. Comparison of Estimated Construction PPVs to Ambient Levels Location Location Maximum Ambient Estimated Construction Level 90' Description Vibration Level PpV 62 Vd6 @ Rear patio, 101 3 Rear patio, 2282 1 Bayside Pl . 0.00128 in /sec 0.02 in/sec Rear patio, 2.222 Pool area 2495 2495 44 VdB @ 675' 2 Ocean B 0.00086 in /sec 0.01 in /sec 3 Rear patio, 2282 0.00298 in /sec 0.002 in /sec Channel Rd. 4 Rear patio, 2222 0.00121 in /sec 0.002 in /sec Channel Rd. Based on published information, typical drilling produces a vibration level (L„) of 87 VdB at a distance of 25 feet. The L„ that will be experienced at the nearby sensitive properties can be estimated using the following formula [2]: 4(D) = I P (Z5.ft) — 30 x log( � I where, L„ (D) is the vibration level in VdB of the equipment adjusted for distance, L,.(25 ft) is the reference vibration level in VdB at 25 feet, or 87 VdB, and D is the distance from the equipment to the receiver Table 7 -6 provides the estimated construction vibration level at each of the nearest sensitive receptors. Table 7 -6. Estimated Construction Vibration Levels Location # 1 Location Description Rear atio, 101 Bayside Pl. Estimated Construction Vibration 70 VdB @ Level 90' 2 Pool area, 2495 Ocean Blvd. 62 Vd6 @ 175' 3 Rear patio, 2282 Channel Rd. 42 VdB @ 785' 4 Rear patio, 2.222 Channel Rd. 44 VdB @ 675' www.wielandacoustics.cam 14 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ACOUSTICS ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT It should be noted that the most reliable way to evaluate vibration is in situ. The theoretical analysis in this study provides approximate results and may not be accurate. 8 Assessment of Impact Using the criteria established in this study, the following may be concluded regarding the impact of the proposed project: O The project will not result in the 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. Therefore, the impact is not significant. O The project will not generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. Therefore, the impact is not significant. Because it is outside our area of expertise, the risk (if any) of structural damage due to transmitted vibrations or dynamic settlements has not been evaluated in this study. This risk should be analyzed and assessed by qualified structural and geotechnical engineers. 9 Mitigation Measures As indicated in Section 8, there are no significant impacts associated with the construction of the dock replacement project. Therefore, mitigation measures are not required. 10 Abatement Measures Although not required in order to mitigate a significant impact, the following measures are recommended as conditions of approval to minimize the construction noise levels caused by the project: 1. All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices. 2. A construction schedule shall be developed that minimizes potential cumulative construction noise levels. 3. The construction contractor shall notify the residents of the construction schedule for the dock, and shall keep them informed on any changes to the schedule. The notification shall also identify the name and phone number of a contact person in case of complaints. The contact person shall take whatever reasonable steps are necessary to resolve the complaint. www.wielandacoustics.com 15 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ACOUSTICS 11 Unmitigated Impacts ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT There will be no unmitigated impacts associated with the project. 12 References 1. 201 -207 Carnation, "Aerie Docks ". Site plan provided by Keeton Kreitzer Consulting. 2. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Federal Transit Administration. April 1995. 3. Transportation- and Construction - Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. Jones & Stokes. Contract No. 43AO049 for California Department of Transportation; Environmental Program; Environmental Engineering; Noise, Vibration, and Hazardous Waste Management Office. June 2004. 4. Roadway Construction Noise Model Version 1.00. U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration, John A. Volpe Nation Transportation Systems Center, Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division. February 2, 2006. www.wielandacoustics.com 16 March 12, 2009 APPENDIX 1 Ambient Noise and Vibration Measurements Table 1 -1. Summary of Measured Ambient Noise Leyels Location: #1, Rear patio at 101 Bayside Place 4/29/08 12:00 PM 52.1 63.7 43.9 60.9 57.1 50.7 48.1 4/29/08 1:00 PM 53.1 65.1 43.6 61.7 58.5 52.3 47.7 4/29/08 2:00 PM 52.0 64.4 43.3 61.6 56.1 50.3 47.8 4/29/08 3:00 PM 52.0 66.4 41.9 62.3 55.5 49.8 46.9 4/29/08 4:00 PM 52.9 69.0 41.0 62.8 57.6 48.9 46.0 4/29/08 5:00 PM 50.5 64.1 41.7 60.3 54.4 48.9 45.8 4/29/08 6:00 PM 56.9 80.9 40.5 62.3 57.6 51.0 47.5 4/29/08 7:00 PM 54.0 73.0 40.0 64.2 58.3 49.4 45.2 4/29/08 8:00 PM 51.3 64.5 42.4 59.9 55.8 49.9 47.2 4/29/08 9:00 PM 51.4 65.8 42.9 60.8 54.6 49.9 48.0 4/29/08 10:00 PM 49.4 56.5 43.6 53.2 51.8 50.4 49.0 4/29/08 11:00 PM 50.1 56.1 44.6 53.7 5Z.4 51.0 49.7 4/30/08 12:00 AM 49.0 58.3 43.3 53.0 51.4 49.8 48.5 4/30/08 1:00 AM 48.2 57.2 42.7 52.6 50.9 49.0 47.5 4/30/08 2:00 AM 45.5 55.6 39.5 49.9 48.2 46.4 44.8 4130/08 3:00 AM 52.0 61.4 43.8 57.0 54.8 52.7 51.2 4/30/08 4:00 AM 52.4 61.5 45.9 57.0 55.1 53.1 51.6 4/30/08 5:00 AM 52.2 62.9 45.4 57.0 55.0 53.0 51.4 4/30/08 6:00 AM 53.2 61.3 45.9 57.5 56.0 54.1 52.6 4/30/08 7:00 AM 57.4 71.5 49.0 64.7 61.6 57.0 54.5 4/30/08 8:00 AM 57.3 76.0 46.8 65.6 61.5 55.8 53.3 4/30/08 9:00 AM 55.1 67.5 47.6 62.3 58.5 54.9 53.1 4/30/08 10:00 AM 56.3 75.4 47.1 63.8 59.8 54.8 52.5 4/30108 11:00 AM 54.0 67.7 47.0 62.2 58.0 53.4 50.7 Table 1 -2. Summary of Measured Ambient Noise Levels Location: k2, pool patio at 2495 Ocean Boulevard Date 4/23/08 2:00 PM Avg. Noise Max. Noise Min. Noise 56.4 72.7 41.6 Noise Level Exceeded for More Than... r 66.6 61.1 53.1 48.6 4/23/08 3:00 PM 54.9 70.6 42.8 65.8 58.8 51.6 48.1 4/23/08 4:00 PM 59.9 79.0 44.8 69.6 63.1 53.7 49.9 4/23/08 5:00 PM 53.9 70.1 42.9 64.4 57.2 50.7 47.3 4/23/08 6:00 PM 52.9 72.2 40.5 63.0 55.9 48.6 45.1 4/23/08 7:00 PM 55.5 73.0 39.6 65.8 60.2 50.6 45.6 4123/08 8:00 PM 53.0 67.3 39.4 63.7 58.0 49.4 44.8 4/23/08 9:00 PM 51.1 69.9 39.6 61.3 55.Z 44.2 41.9 4/23/08 10:00 PM 42.6 57.8 37.3 49.5 45.5 41.9 40.6 4/23/08 11:00 PM 45.0 69.8 35.7 48.9 42.7 39.5 38.3 4/24/08 12:00 AM 40.1 52.2 35.6 42.7 41.6 40.6 39.8 4/24/08 1:00 AM 39.9 56.7 35.2 45.9 41.0 39.1 38.0 4/24/08 2:00 AM 37.8 56.6 34.9 41.5 39.2 37.8 36.9 4/24/08 3:00 AM 38.2 47.9 35.3 41.0 39.8 38.8 37.9 4/24/08 4:00 AM 38.8 53.6 34.9 43.9 40.9 38.9 38.0 4/24/08 5:00 AM 40.9 60.2 36.6 46.4 43.0 40.7 39.6 4/24/08 6:00 AM 45.5 62.8 38.6 54.1 48.7 44.5 41.7 4/24/08 7:00 AM 59.5 73.8 39.9 69.8 65.3 56.6 47.5 4/24/08 8:00 AM 54.4 70.6 39.9 65.4 59.1 48.6 44.4 4/24/08 9:00 AM 55.4 69.4 40.5 65.9 59.9 52.9 48.7 4/24/08 10:00 AM 57.6 78.7 40.3 66.7 60.3 52.9 48.1 4/Z4/08 11:00 AM 56.8 71.4 41.9 65.9 61.4 56.1 51.2 4/24/08 12:00 PM 54.0 68.3 40.2 64.6 58.6 51.8 46.6 4/24/08 1:00 PM 55.8 74.4 40.7 64.9 60.7 54.5 49.6 Table 1 -3. Summary of Measured Ambient Noise Levels Location: N3, rear patio of 2282 Channel Road D. 4/23108 4:00 PM Avg. Noise Max. Noise 54.6 73.0 Min. Noise 42.3 Noise Level Exceeded for More Than... 63.9 57 -3 51.7 49.4 4/23/08 5:00 PM 50.5 65.4 40.8 59.4 54.1 49.6 47.0 4/23108 6:00 PM 48.5 65.8 38.6 55.5 52.1 48.0 45.7 4123108 7:00 PM 51.7 67.3 38.7 60.3 56.0 50.0 46.7 4/23/08 8:00 PM 51.3 69.9 38.8 59.6 55.1 49.4 46.3 4123/08 9:00 PM 48.8 66.1 38.5 55.7 52.0 48.2 45.6 4/23/08 10:00 PM 48.7 62.4 38.0 55.6 52.3 49.0 46.4 4/23/08 11:00 PM 51.5 72.9 38.0 j 55.8 50.6 j 47.4 45.3 4/24/08 12:00 AM 46.3 55.2 40.2 51.1 49.0 47.1 45.3 4/24/08 1:00 AM 46.9 57.9 40.3 52.2 49.2 47.5 46.0 4/24/08 2:00 AM 45.5 52.9 40.2 48.8 47.7 46.4 45.1 4124/08 3:00 AM 44.5 55.5 39.3 48.7 47.3 45.5 43.8 4/24/08 4:00 AM 45.1 56.9 39.9 50.0 47.8 45.6 43.9 4124/08 5:00 AM 45.2 59.1 39.8 49.7 47.8 46.0 44.3 4124108 6:00 AM 50.0 69.1 42.0 57.1 51.8 49.0 47.3 4/24108 7:00 AM 54.5 71.2 40.6 62.7 59.5 54.0 48.9 4/24/08 8:00 AM 49.4 66.0 40.8 57.1 54.0 49.2 46.3 4/24/08 9:00 AM 51.7 65.3 41.0 59.4 56.5 51.4 48.1 4/24/08 10:00 AM 53.8 70.3 41.1 62.8 56.2 51.7 48.8 4/24/08 11:00 AM 52.9 66.8 42.3 60.1 56.9 53.0 50.2 4/24/08 12:00 PM 51.7 63.6 42.7 60.0 56.5 50.8 48.2 4/24/08 1:00 PM 52.2 64.5 43.1 60.4 56.3 51.8 48.9 4124/08 2:00 PM 55.0 77.0 42.4 62.7 58.2 53.4 49.5 4/24108 3:00 PM 52.9 75.3 42.6 59.2 55.1 50.8 48.3 Table 1 -4. Summary of Measured Ambient Noise Levels Location: #4, rear patio of 2222 Channel Road Date 4/29/08 Time 11:00 AM Avg. Noise Max. Noise Level, 51.1 63.4 Min. Noise Noise Level, dBA 1 Min/Hr 43.0 58.5 Level Exceeded SMin/Hr 54.4 for More Than... 15Min/Hr 30Min/Hr 51.1 48.8 4/29/08 12:00 PM 52.3 64.9 45.0 59.4 56.4 52.3 50.0 4/29/08 1:00 PM 54.5 69.8 43.8 63.6 57.1 53.3 50.4 4/29/08 2:00 PM 51.1 66.3 41.8 59.6 54.7 50.6 47.9 4/29/08 3:00 PM 51.4 69.7 41.2 59.2 55.6 50.3 47.8 4/29/08 4:00 PM 50.7 66.7 41.3 59.5 54.5 50.0 47.2 4/29/08 5:00 PM 51.0 65.6 41.9 59.1 54.4 50.5 48.1 4/29/08 6:00 PM 55.2 76.0 42.5 63.1 57.6 52.5 49.3 4/29/08 7:00 PM 53.8 72.8 42.0 63.0 56.7 50.7 48.3 4/29/08 8:00 PM 51.2 63.0 44.1 58.2 54.1 51.1 49.4 4/29/08 9:00 PM 51.1 65.3 45.7 56.5 53.1 51.3 50.0 4/29/08 10:00 PM 50.3 61.8 44.6 55.2 52.5 51.0 49.4 4/29/08 11:00 PM 49.3 55.1 44.6 51.9 51.0 50.1 49.2 4/30/08 12:00 AM 51.4 59.7 43.9 54.6 53.6 52.5 51.2 4/30/08 1:00 AM 51.0 58.6 46.4 53.8 52.7 51.7 50.8 4/30/08 2:00 AM 48.7 56.1 43.2 52.3 51.0 49.7 48.2 4/30/08 3:00 AM 51.2 61.4 45.8 53.9 53.0 52.0 51.0 4/30/08 4:00 AM 50.5 57.7 46.3 53.1 52.2 51.2 50.2 4/30/08 5:00 AM 52.1 69.3 45.3 55.9 53.9 52.6 51.2 4/30/08 6:00 AM 53.3 66.2 48.3 58.5 54.9 53.5 52.5 4/30/08 7:00 AM 55.8 69.1 49.7 62.3 58.4 55.7 54.3 4/30/08 8:00 AM 59.3 85.9 49.4 62.5 57.8 54.6 53.1 4/30/08 9:00 AM 55.4 68.0 48.5 61.7 58.1 55.4 54.0 4130/08 10:00 AM 56.7 69.5 50.5 63.5 59.7 56.5 54.6 -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- --------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- [ : ------------------------------------- ------------- ----------------------- ----------- ---------- -------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ---------- :---: -------- ------------------------------ -------------------------------------- ----------------------- --------- :: - ---- ------------- ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- ------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------- ------------------------- L -------------------------------------- L -------------- ------------ ------------ -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --- ------ ------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------ -------------------------------------- L -------------------------------------- --------------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------------- -------------------------- O O O O O O DaS/Ui 'JaARI AIPOPA uoppiqiA punoig 0 N V �4 Dt A d i J T U d O q a` v 0 L 0.0025 10 100 1,000 1/3- Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz Figure 1 -2. Measured Ambient Ground Vibration Velocity Levels at Location #2 I 1 I 0020 I 1 I I I p I I I � I 0015 I I I I I I I 11 I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 0010 i I I I 1 I I I I I I I I i I 1 i i 1 0005 i I I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I I 10 100 1,000 1/3- Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz Figure 1 -2. Measured Ambient Ground Vibration Velocity Levels at Location #2 d C T O O q C O In 10 100 1,000 1/3- Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz Figure 1 -3. Measured Ambient Ground Vibration Velocity Levels at Location #3 I I I I I I I I I I I I r i I 1 I I I 0020 I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I 11 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 0015 I I r r I i I i I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I r 11 I I 1 I I 1 I I I 0010 I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I III I i i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I II I I r I i I I I I I I I I I I Ir 11 1 I 1 I 11 I 11 1 I 1 1 0005 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 11 I 1 I I I I r I I I 1 I I I II I I I I I I 1 I 11 11 II � II I i i II i � II i II nnnn I i 1 r I I I 1 1 4 1 1 r I i i i i r I I I i I I I11 L. 10 100 1,000 1/3- Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz Figure 1 -3. Measured Ambient Ground Vibration Velocity Levels at Location #3 d C N J u O v C O A 9 C O 10 100 1,000 1 /3- Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz Figure 1 -4. Measured Ambient Ground Vibration Velocity Levels at Location #4 ' - 1 I 1 I I t 1 1 I 1 1 -II Ili'1' I' I 1 J- II .0020 1— I�Tr-T -1 —i 1 i I 11 11 I 1 II 1 'I I �I I 1 1 � • Ir I , 1 -I! I, : q L_ j I': .I ' ,,- ]; I I IL'II � i II -1 1 J tl 1 _ IT11 1 .0015 - Tr 1 I II 11 1 �1 ` 1 I � - I I Ili I� I 1 I I, i' 11 4 I 'I I I Cl L- - 1 I '1 I 1 1 1 II 1! 1 it .1 r 1 1 i I �I 'M I ! 11 !I, 11 I 1 1 I' li u I I.! I I. I 1 I- I' .0010 I •I 1! I 1' Ir e I I r I � � I �' I' - I I I I I 1 I I 1, 1'. I 1 I I .0005 - 1 1 1 'j 1. 1- I I 11 _... 1 1, i 1 I 11 I I 1 I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I II1 I I 1 I I J 1 1 I 1 0000 - - I 1 10 100 1,000 1 /3- Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz Figure 1 -4. Measured Ambient Ground Vibration Velocity Levels at Location #4 Photograph 1. View of discharge pipe with African umbrella sedge mixed with other ornamentals. Photograph taken on 12 -10 -2008. Photograph 2. This photograph depicts irrigation lines visible immediately above the area vegetated with African umbrella sedge. Photograph taken on 12 -10 -2008. w _Q U O Q O J Z z w J 61 u M m X W Prdearo te. _ H t°/T1 I P .{�pGcai;KTmG. n i Livestigata(s): , Lendfonn (hlnslope, terrace. Subregion (LRR): —ft Scil Mep Unit Name: _� WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Arid West Region p r L $ t k n fftyyrC unry. pfoyl* Sampling Date: /0 d 8 f it 1( State:, GA Sam�ing Pant:rr —�— y 77 eecgm. Twnshlp. Range: 'r'�- S IhF y� , SGL L at e7ve, cane:, none): r/L Slope (%):1j LaL 3 T a : ,T(y.CJ 0 Q'mg: 1) 7. 52 45 ,6 r ✓Datum w,. 5 $y !.1 NWI classification: Ne/UE Are ellmabc t nydrdogic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes —PS— No_ (If no explain In Remarks.) Are Vegetation _, Son _, or Hydrology_ significantly disturbed? t-v A "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes No Are Vegetation soil or Hydrology_ naturally pry' lemetic7 NO (If needed, explain any answers in Remark s.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach she map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hyoroptrytic Vegetatm Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Aa re Hydric Soil Resent? Yes _ No wNhin a W¢nantl? Yes No Welland Hytlrdogy Resent? Yes_ No %Cover Soecies7 Status Remarks: VEGETATION US Amy Corps of Engineers Arid West — Version 11 -1 -2006 Absolute Domirent Incicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tre Sri .rm (Use sciermtlrrc neon J %Cover Soecies7 Status Number of Dorrsr. ant Species ' 1. t/ M_l ml fw M � _ _�_ i�111r That Are CSL. FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. LiA y Sl f �� �JiL —'-�— Tdel Number of Dom. inant f 3. Species Across An Strata: 1 (6) 4. Percent of Dominant Species /t)1 Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: � (AA3) SaDlinc/Snmo stratum 1. Prevalence Index vgrksheet: Total %Cover of MultloN W. 2 3. OBL species x 1 = FACW species x2= FAC species x3= FACU species x 4 = 4. 5. Total Cover. Herb stratum I UPL species x5- 1w 1C 'NJOIUf/Z H.iNS Column Totals: 2 Prevalence Index = 6!A= 3, 4. Hy{irophytic Vegetation Indicators f�a( Daronance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ Morphological A deptatlons '(Provkfe supporting data In Remarks or on e separate sheet) S. S. 7 9. PrdNematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Taal Cover. WoovV+ne Stratum 1. 'Indicators of hydio sal and wetland nArdogy must be present. Z Total Cover. Hydrophytic #' Vegetation % Bare Ground In Herb StrWum % Cover of Note Crust Preserd7 Yes —X, No Remarks: # Wfam -� 6c Sr ffe-i, kd by ►rri adj�tw�T t.OVA s f q a )rt + rw) S v, U w US Amy Corps of Engineers Arid West — Version 11 -1 -2006 SOIL Sampling Point Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth - Matrix Redox Features Fnr ary Indicators ferry one Indicator is sufficlent) (Inchesl C 1 % Color fmdst) % Twer Lx� Texture Remarks -19A AInN -- �+►�;Sari <IMf_JS VO�n soh Water Marks (81) (Riverine) _ Surface Water (Ai) _ Soft crust (811) _ Sediment Deposits (62) (Rlverine). High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (B12) _ Dtl8 Deposits (63) (Rlverlhe) !. _ Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (R13) _ Drainage Patterns (BID) j _ Water Marks (31) (Nonriverine) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (CI) _ Dry - Season Water Table (C2) — Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonrlverine) _ Oxidized Rhtzospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) Dot Deposits (B3) (Nonrlvatme) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ 'Type: C--Concentration, 13= 0edetion. RM=Reduced Matrix. 'LOcatlon: PL =Pee Lining. RC--Root Channel, WMatrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Appllcabla to all LRRS, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis : _ Hislosd (At) _ Santly Redox (S5) _ 1 an Muck (A9) (LRR C) _ Histle Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (LRR B) _ Back Histie (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Ft) _ Reduced Vent: (F18) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Metric (F2) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) J _ Stratified Layers (AS) (LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 1 onn Muck (A9) (LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface Tilt Saturation Present? Yes I _ Depleted Bobo Dark Surface (All) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) includes cadlla triode) _ Thick Dario Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (FS) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (St) _ Vernal Pods (F9) rincllcatcrs ofhydaphytic vegetation and _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer if present): Type: Depth (Inches). - Hydric Soil Resent? Yes_ No Remarks: i HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saramdery Indicators (2 or more reouiredi Fnr ary Indicators ferry one Indicator is sufficlent) _ Water Marks (81) (Riverine) _ Surface Water (Ai) _ Soft crust (811) _ Sediment Deposits (62) (Rlverine). High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (B12) _ Dtl8 Deposits (63) (Rlverlhe) !. _ Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (R13) _ Drainage Patterns (BID) j _ Water Marks (31) (Nonriverine) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (CI) _ Dry - Season Water Table (C2) — Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonrlverine) _ Oxidized Rhtzospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) Dot Deposits (B3) (Nonrlvatme) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayl sh Burrows (C6) _ Surface Soll Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Solis (06) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Shallow Aquitard (03) Water - Stained Leaves (B.9) _ FAC- Neutral Test (05) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes_ No Depth (Inches): Water Tede Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes Depth (Inches): Weiland Hydrology Present? Yas_ Noy_ includes cadlla triode) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), If available: Remarks: US Amy Corp s of En grass Arid West —Version 11 -1 -2006 2. Environmental Setting 2.1 NOISE SETTING Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as "noisiness" or "loudness." 2.1.1 Terminology and Noise Descriptors The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this chapter: • Sound. A vibratory disturbance that, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone. • Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable. • Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale, which indicates the squared ratio of sound pressure amplitude to a reference sound pressure amplitude. The reference pressure is 20 micropascals • A- Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency- weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear. • Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (L•,). The mean of the noise level averaged over the �� measurement period, regarded as an average level. • Day -Night Level (L„ J. The energy average of the A- weighted sound levels occurring during a 24 -hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. • Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A- weighted sound levels occurring during a 24 -hour period with 5 dB added to the levels occurring during the period from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. • Sensitive Receptor. Noise- and vibration- sensitive receptors include land uses where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety. Residences, schools, motels and hotels, libraries, religious institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes are examples. L„ and CNEL values rarely differ by more than 1 dB. As a matter of practice, L,,, and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment. 2.1.2 Characteristics of Sound When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy as acoustical pressure in the form of a sound wave. Sound can be described in terms of amplitude (loudness), frequency (pitch), or duration (time). The human hearing system is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies. Therefore, to approximate this human, frequency- dependent response, the A- weighted filter system is used to adjust measured sound levels. The normal range of human hearing extends from approximately 0 dBA to 140 dBA. Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach • Page 13 70070181.3 2 Environmental Setting Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve. Because of the physical characteristics of noise transmission and noise perception, the relative loudness of sound does not closely match the actual amounts of sound energy. Table 2, Change in Sound Pressure Level, dB, presents the subjective effect of changes in sound pressure levels. Table 2 Change in Sound Pressure Level, dB Change in Apparent Loadness ± 3 d8 Threshold of human perceptibility ± 5 dB Clearly noticeable change in noise level a 10 dB Half or twice as loud ± 20 dB Much quieter or louder Source: Bies and Hansen. Engineering Noise Control, 1988. Sound is generated from a source and dissipates exponentially with distance from that source. This phenomenon is known as "spreading loss." When sound is measured for distinct time intervals, the statistical distribution of the overall sound level during that period can be obtained. The energy - equivalent sound level (L,q) is the most common parameter associated with such measurements. The L,q metric is a single- number noise descriptor that represents the average sound level over a given period of time. For example, the L,, noise level represents the level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time. Half the time the noise exceeds this level and half the time it is less than this level. This level also represents the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L. L,e and L2, values represent the noise levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the L,,n and L.. These values represent the minimum and maximum root - mean - square noise levels obtained over the measurement period. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet -time noise levels in a 24 -hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day -Night Noise Level (LmJ. 21.3 Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire biological system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and nervous system. Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA can result in permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear, called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 160 to 165 dBA will result in dizziness or loss of equilibrium. The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying, less developed areas. Table 3 shows Typical Noise Levels from Noise Sources. Page 14 • The Planning Center March 2009 2 Environmental Setting Table 3 Typical Noise Levels from Noise Sources Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 Rock Band Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet 100 Gas Lawn Mower at three feet 90 Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet Noisy Urban Area, Daytime 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Commercial Area Normal speech at 3 feet Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60 Large Business Office Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime 30 Library Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) 20 BroadcasVRecording Studio 10 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: Caleomia Department of Transportation, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, Table 9- 2136.2, October 1998. C� Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach • Page 15 700707914 2. Environmental S 2.2 VIBRATION SETTING 2.2.1 Vibration Descriptors Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion's amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration is normally associated with activities such as railroads or industrial equipment, but can also be associated with construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers. Vibration displacement is the distance that a point on a surface moves away from its original static position. The instantaneous speed that a point on a surface moves is described as the velocity and the rate of change of the speed is described as the acceleration. Each of these descriptors can be used to correlate vibration to human response, building damage, and acceptable equipment vibration levels. During project construction, the operation of construction equipment can cause groundborne vibration. During the operational phase of a project, receptors may be subject to levels of vibration that can cause annoyance due to noise generated from vibration of a structure or items within a structure. Analysis of this type of vibration is best measured in velocity and acceleration. The three main wave types of concern in the propagation of groundborne vibrations are surface or Rayleigh waves, compression or P- waves, and shear or S- waves. • Surface or Rayleigh waves travel along the ground surface. They carry most of their energy along an expanding cylindrical wave front, similarto the ripples produced by throwing a rock into a lake. The particle motion is more or less perpendicular to the direction of propagation (known as retrograde elliptical). • Compression or P -waves are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal, in a push -pull motion. P -waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. Shear or S -waves are also body waves, carrying their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. Unlike P- waves, however, the particle motion is transverse, or perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The peak particle velocity (PPV) orthe root mean square (RMS) velocity is usually used to describe vibration amplitudes. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal and RMS is defined as the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. PPV is more appropriate for evaluating potential building damage, whereas RMS is typically more suitable for evaluating human response. The units for PPV and RMS velocity are normally inches per second (in /sec). Often, vibration is presented and discussed in d8 units in order to compress the range of numbers required to describe the vibration. In this study, all PPV and RMS velocity levels are in in /sec and all vibration levels are in dB relative to one microinch per second (abbreviated as VdB). Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Even the more persistent Rayleigh waves decrease relatively quickly as they move awayfrom the source of the vibration. Manmade vibration problems are, therefore, usually confined to short distances (500 feet or less) from the source. Construction operations generally include a wide range of activities that can generate groundborne vibration. In general, blasting and demolition of structures generate the highest vibrations. Vibratory compactors or rollers, pile drivers, and pavement breakers can generate perceptible amounts of vibration at distances within 200 feet of the vibration sources. Heavy trucks can also generate groundborne vibrations, which vary Page 16 a The Planning Center March 2009 2 Environmental Setting depending on vehicle type, weight, and pavement conditions. Potholes, pavement joints, discontinuities, differential settlement of pavement, etc., all increase the vibration levels from vehicles passing over a road surface. Trains generate substantial quantities of vibration due to their engines, steel wheels, and heavy loads. 2.3 PHYSICAL SETTING AND EXISTING LAND USES 2.3.1 Noise- and Vibration- Sensitive Receptors The project site is generally north and northwest of the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard in the community of Corona del Mar in Newport Beach. Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration, including residential, school, and open space /recreation areas, where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment, public health, and safety. Off -site sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site include the existing single- and multifamily residential communities surrounding the project site. These sensitive land uses are shown previously in Figure 3, Aerial Photograph. 2.3.2 Existing Noise Environment Noise sources in the study area include traffic on the local streets, aircraft operations at John Wayne Airport, boats in the Newport Bay, and noise generated from residential activities in the area. Ambient average daytime (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) noise levels in the vicinity of the project site range from 50.5 to 59.9 dBA L.aq; ambient average daytime noise levels in the residential area directly across the channel from the project site range from 48.5 to 59.3 dBA L., Maximum noise levels range from 63.1 to 80.9 dBA L.. in the ''�����, immediate vicinity of the subject property and from 63.6 to 85.9 dBA L,,,. directly across the Newport Bay. V The average and maximum ambient noise levels in the project environs are summarized in Table 4. Table 4 Ambient Noise Levels' Location Description Range of Average Daytime Noise Levels (dBA Lp) (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) Range of Maximum Daytime Noise Levels (dBA Le,) (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) Rear Patio, 101 Bayside Place 50.5 -57.4 dBA 63.1 --80.9 dB (A) Pool Area, 2495 Ocean Boulevard 52.9 -59.9 dBA 68.3 -79.0 dB (A) Rear Patio, 2282 Channel Road 48.5 -55.0 dB (A) 63.6 -77.0 dB (A) Rear Patio, 2222 Channel Road 50.7 -59.3 dBA 63.4 -85.9 dB (A) Source: Wieland Acoustics 2008. ' Noise monitoring conducted for a 24 -hour period at each site between April 23 and 30 with properly - calibrated Larson Davis 712 sound level meters. Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach • Page 17 700707913 2 Environmental Setting This page intentionally left blank. Page 18 • The Planning Center March 2009 1. Introduction Regional Location Lakewood 'C I Anaheim Newport Beach SITE Pacific Ocean N Lake ` Forest Mission Laguna ® Viejo Woods Laguna Beach Laguna Niguel Sa Juan Corona u San _. imenta. 0 3.5 Scale (Miles) Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 1 �� Cypress Anaheim li i�t - ® Villa . Sta��,ton Park -_ i' � © :. Garden Grove .. Bea ® Orange �, _ Seal Beach _ _ est roster M. Santa Ana . untam Tustin .. \ ey \ Huntington Costs Mesa' Q f Irvine Newport Beach SITE Pacific Ocean N Lake ` Forest Mission Laguna ® Viejo Woods Laguna Beach Laguna Niguel Sa Juan Corona u San _. imenta. 0 3.5 Scale (Miles) Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 1 �� 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 4 ® The Planning Center March 2009 L F Pacific 1. Introduction Local Vicinity 0 730 Scale (Feet) Aerie Residential Development Construction Noire and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 2 �� 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 6 ® The Planning Center March. 2009 1. Introduction Aerial Photograph Site Boundary o 100 M Source: Google Earth Pro 2008 Scale (Miles) Aerie Residential Development Constriction Noise and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 3 co 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 8 a The Planning Center March 2009 0 0 1M i `u a •N � ryO N U fi 6 LL. v 0 m � J \ •-� A � \ ry � 5 � -- s Q it ,1 Y iiI IM ' • iii `6S� x {� .. �1 i1e. f-1 CO .� � pj\ >• \ \i� :'•� � . Vim° � o I � v � d y C 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 10 • The Planning Center March 2009 1. Introduction Site Profile se PL se 215 ! I I CARNATION AVE. Source: Brion Jeannette Architecture 2008 Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise and vibration Study NOT TO BONZE r 881 The Planning Center • Figure 5 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 12 o The Planning Center March 2009 6 References Bies, David A. and Colin H. Hansen. 2003. Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice. 3rd ad. New York: Spon Press. Brion Jeannette Architecture, Aerie Construction Management Plan. 2008. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Environmental Analysis. 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibration: Caltrans Experiences. Technical Advisory, Vibration. TAV- 02- 01- R9601. Prepared by Rudy Hendricks. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1998. Technical Noise Supplement. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model, version 1.1. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide. U.S. Department of Transportation. Report No. FHWA- HEP -05 -054. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. United States Department of Transportation. FTA- VA -90- 1003 -06. Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 2003, October. State of California General Plan Guidelines. USEPA. 1973, July. Public Health and Welfare Criteria for Noise. ►( USEPA. 1974, March. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health (� and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Office of Noise Abatement and Control. vVVV Wieland Acoustics, Incorporated. Environmental Noise Study for the Construction of the Proposed Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project in the City of Newport Beach. February 27, 2009. Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach • Page 65 6 References This page intentionally left blank. Page 66 • The Planning Center March 2009 Appendices Appendix A. Noise and Vibration Data �� Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration Study City of Newport Beach 70070791.3 Appendices This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center March 2009 C: \LAROAV \SLMUTIL \30JA0 09.bia interval Baca Hear Site Location Marber Data TLre Buretioa LeM SEL _ ',,In Peak Uvpk LI 21 L1 81 L116) L1251 1, (50) L(90) 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 09:29:00 60.0 $6.0 73.8 74.0 48.6 98.6 99.4 61.7 57.5 56.6 55.9 54.3 49.9 1 Meter l Heat Back 0 20Jan 09 09:30:00 60.0 52.5 70.3 61.6 46.3 76.2 87.4 56.6 55.3 54.3 53.3 51.5 49.3 I Meta. I Wost Back 0 2aJan 09 09:31:00 60.0 54.1 71.9 64.3 46.8 63.E 90.9 60.0 57.1 55.7 54.2 52.8 50.7 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 09:32:00 60.0 51.2 69.0 64.3 46.2 79.0 64.9 56.9 54.1 52.2 51.1 49.7 47.9 1 Peter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 09:33:00 60.0 52.1 69.9 61.E 41.7 79.6 87.4 57.0 54.7 $3.5 52.6 51.1 49.1 1 Meter I West Beck 0 20Jan 09 09:34:00 60.0 52.4 70.2 60.5 4E.0 75.B 90.1 57.7 54.0 53.6 52.8 51.4 49.5 1 Hater l West Back 0 20Jan 09 09:35:00 60.0 51.8 69.5 57.7 46.1 71.6 94.4 55.7 54.4 53.6 52.9 51.2 48.0 1 Meter I Weak Back 0 as 09 09:36:00 60.0 59.5 77.3 68.2 46.5 79.0 S7.4 66.2 64.S 63.0 61.4 54.7 49.0 1 Meter ! 4]mC Back 6 2DJan 09 09:37:00 60.0 56.8 74.5 63.1 48.3 78.3 91.6 64.8 61.2 59.3 51.4 52.4 .9.4 1 Hater 1 West Back. 0 20Jan 09 09:38:00 60.0 52.7 70.5 59.3 4E.5 70.6 37.4 55.8 54.9 54.2 53.7 52.4 49.5 1 Meter 1 West Back. 0 20Jan 09 09:39:00 60.0 58.4 76.2 66.9 43.9 -4.3 37.4 65.2 63.5 61.8 59.8 54.2 50.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 09:40:00 60.0 63.6 01.6 BO.S 51.4 99.7 100.5 71.4 66.0 64.9 63.4 59.1 53.6 1 Hater I West Back 0 2DJan 09 09:41 :00 60.0 66.3 94.1 84.2 4B.6 100.8 U1.3 75.4 71.0 67_4 64.1 57.1 50.4 1 Hater 1 Hest Back 0 2DJan 09 09:42:00 60.0 54.8 72.6 67.2 48.5 19.2 90.9 64.7 57.2 54.5 53.1 51.4 49.4 1 Meter 1 West Back. 0 20Jan 09 09:43:00 60.0 55.3 73.1 63.4 40.2 15.5 94.4 60.3 5B.1 56.8 55.9 54.4 51.6 4 Hater I amt Back 0 203an 09 09:44:00 60.0 57.9 75.7 67.D 47.6 BOA 92.2 65.1 63.1 60.8 58.1 54.7 48.6 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 20Ja0 09 09:45:00 60.0 56.6 74.4 67.3 48.4 78.9 B9.3 64.6 60.4 58.0 56.6 54.3 50.6 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 D9:46:00 60.0 53.9 71.6 62.1 48.2 77.0 89.3 57.9 56.4 5S.6 55.0 53.3 50.2 I Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 09:47:00 60.0 54.4 72.2 62.6 46.2 75.0 W.4 59.5 57.5 56.3 55.4 53.7 49.7 1 Peter 1 West Back 0 2OJan 09 09:48:00 60.0 54.8 72.6 76.2 .5.9 99.2 100.5 59.9 55.4 53.9 53.0 51.5 49.0 1 Havoc I West Back 0 20Jan 09 09:49:00 60.0 54.5 72.3 64.9 48.4 17.0 69.3 62.1 57.3 55.1 54.2 53.1 50.7 1 Peter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 09:50:00 60.0 54.0 72.6 64.4 44.1 77.1 87.4 62.4 58.9 56.6 55.0 52.8 48.2 1 Hater t West Back 0 20Jan 09 09:51:00 60.0 54.6 72.6 64.6 44.9 76.7 90.9 62.5 59.4 57.7 56.7 49.3 46.6 1 Hart. l West Back 0 2OJan 09 09:52:00 60.0 $1.9 69.7 64.8 45.9 77.6 93.4 60.4 $4.3 52.6 $1.5 49.6 47.7 1 Pacer 1 Went Back 0 20Jan 09 09:53:00 60.0 57.9 75.6 68.0 49.3 91.5 93.4 63.8 62.3 60.8 59.3 55.4 53.8 I Peter 1 West Back 0. 2DJan 09 09:54:00 60.0 56.0 73.8 65.4 46.1 76.1 92.2 63.6 60.9 57.7 56.3 52.8 48.5 1 Hater I West Back. 0 20Jan 09 09:55:00 60.0 $6.1 13.8 64.5 45.0 76.9 90.9 63.3 61.5 59.1 56.8 52.2 46.6 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 09:56:00 60.0 49.8 67.6 64.1 44.3 84.6 90.0 56.4 53.1 51.0 50.2 47.6 45.6 1 Here. 1 West Back 0 20Ja. 09 09:57:00 60.0 56.6 74.4 72.6 45.8 03.6 95.3 63.6 61.4 59.5 57.6 51.7 47.0 1 Water 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 09:58:00 60.0 59.2 76.9 75.6 40.0 97.9 100.0 65.3 62.3 61.2 59.9 57.0 53.1 1 Hater I West Back 0 ?OJan 09 09:59:00 60.0 58.7 76.5 68.8 47.3 96.9 93.4 66.3 65.2 63.2 51.9 51.7 49.0 1 Meter 1 meat Back 0 20Jan 09 10:00:00 60.0 49.6 67.3 60.3 45.1 74.1 90.9 54.1 51.4 50.4 49.8 48.0 47.1 1 Haler I West Back 0 2DJan 09 10:01:00 60.0 51.3 69.1 68.9 44.1 84.3 95.3 56.2 53.9 52.5 51.6 49.1 46.1 1 Herat 1 Hear Back 0 20Jan 09 10:02:00 60.0 53.8 71.6 66.0 47.1 07.4 90.9 61.6 50.3 $5.2 53.0 50.4 48.8 I Hater 1 West Bock 0 20Jan 09 10:03:00 60.0 53.4 71.2 71.1 48.2 97.4 98.2 57.7 55.4 54.3 53.5 51.9 49.8 1 Het.. I West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:04:00 60.0 57.6 75.4 67.4 50.5 82.4 92.2 63.6 GO.5 59.4 58.5 56.5 52.0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 10:05:00 60.0 57.2 75.0 66.5 4B.1 91.0 90.9 63.7 60.7 59.1 58.1 56.4 50.1 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:06:00 60.0 50.4 68.2 55.8 47.3 74.1 87.4 54.1 52.8 S1.3 51.2 49.7 48.2 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 203an 09 10:07:00 60.0 53.6 71.3 59.6 48.3 64.5 93.4 57.6 56.0 55.0 54.3 53.0 50.9 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:08:00 60.0 53.3 71.1 59.7 40.4 80.9 84.9 57.7 56.1 54.7 53.8 52.5 50.6 1 Meter I Wear Back 0 203an 09 10:09:00 60.0 53.4 71.1 62.0 49.0 75.3 93.4 57.1 55.7 54.8 54.1 52.8 50.7 1 Mato. I Haar Back. 0 ZOJan 09 10110:00 60.0 54.3 72.1 59.9 46.6 71.9 94.4 59.0 57.8 57.0 56.2 53.0 48.6 1 Meter 1 Pleat Back. 0 20Jan 09 10:11:00 60.0 50.1 67.8 60.6 45..1 75.1 84.9 54.8 52.4 51.3 50.6 49.3 47.1 1 Meter I Wast Back. 0 ZOJan 09 10:12:00 60.0 53.0 70.0 70.8 46.0 90.6 93.4 59.2 54.3 52.8 52.0 50.8 48.4 1 Maces L Near Beek 0 2DJan 09 10:13:00 60.0 51.9 69.7 64.6 46.3 87.1 91.6 58.0 54.3 53.0 52.0 $0.5 48.5 1 Hater 1 .eat Back a 203an 09 10:14:00 60.0 51.3 69.1 58.5 46.0 75.9 90.9 56.2 53.7 52.8 52.3 50.9 47.8 1 Hater 1 WesC Bark 0 20Jan 09 10:15:00 60.0 54.1 71.8 66.0 45.8 77.5 89.3 63.6 59.7 52.7 51.3 49.5 47.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:16:00 60.0 52.3 70.0 61.8 46.5 77.3 90.9 57.2 54.8 53.3 52.7 51.7 48.6 1 Meter 1 Ileac Back 0 2DJan 09 10:17:00 60.0 51.3 69.1 65.1 46.5 77.1 84.9 56.8 53.1 52.1 51.3 50.0 46.3 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:16:00 60.0 53.2 71.0 61.5 48.3 75.1 89.3 59.5 55.5 54.0 53.4 52.3 50.2 1 Meter I Hear Back. 0 20Jan 09 10:19:00 60.0 52.6 70.4 58.3 45.8 79.1 90.9 56.1 55.2 54.4 53.6 52.1 49.5 1 Meter 1 cleat Back. 0 20". 09 10:20:00 60.0 49.6 67.3 55.9 43.5 71.5 0.0 53.9 52.5 51.4 50.6 46.8 45.3 1 Heart i West Back 0 2DJan 09 10:21:00 60.0 49.9 67.7 57.6 44.3 77.4 87.4 55.7 52.9 51.6 50.6 48.8 46.0 1 Hecer I Hesc Back 0 20Jan D9 10:22:00 60.0 51.3 69.1 62.9 44.4 75.E 92.2 55.9 53.5 52.7 52.1 50.7 47.2 1 Meter 1 Hest Back 0 20Jan 09 10:23:OD 60.0 50.2 61.9 62.4 43.0 73.1 90.9 56.9 53.7 51.8 50.3 47.8 45.0 1 Meter I Haar Back 0 2DJan 09 10:24:00 60.0 50.0 67.3 63.4 43.2 77.3 87.4 56.0 51.9 49.6 48.7 47.3 45.1 1 Het.. 1 Wt Back 0 20Jan 09 10:25:00 60.0 52.1 69.9 $9.3 44.0 74.1 89.3 55.9 54.8 53.9 53.2 51.8 47.5 1 Hater 1 Pleat Back 0 20Jan 09 10:26:00 60.0 51.9 64.7 61,0 45.9 79.0 90.9 57.4 54.7 53.5 52.6 51.0 40.4 1 Meter l West Back 0 29jan 09 10:27:00 60.0 52.1 69.8 62.8 46.3 76.5 64.9 55.9 54.9 54.0 52.9 50.9 46.5 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 10:20:00 60.0 53.5 71.3 59.0 46.5 76.E 92.2 599.2 56.6 55.4 54.6 52.9 49.1 1 Meter 1 West Back. 0 2DJan 09 10:29:00 60.0 $4.2 72.0 60.4 46.2 78.9 94.9 59.6 50.5 57.5 56.1 51.9 47.8 1 Maker 1 Hest Back 0 20Jar. 09 10:30:00 60.0 53.3 71.1 64.7 8.2 66.8 90.9 53.1 55.7 54.e 54.1 52.5 49.9 1 Hater I meat Back 0 20Jan D9 10:31:00 60.0 51.7 65.5 60.1 47.4 33.6 92.2 56.2 54.0 53.1 52.5 51.0 46.0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 209an 09 10:32:00 60.0 52.7 70.5 65.3 46.4 92.1 92.2 62.3 54.5 51.9 51.3 50.1 48.1 1 Meter 1 Hear Back 0 2DJan 09 10:33:00 60.0 53.3 71.1 60.2 47.5 55.0 87.4 57.4 55.6 54.8 54.1 52.7 50.3 1 mater 1 Naar Back. 0 20Jan 09 10:34:00 60.0 50.9 68.7 57.3 47.2 69.4 92.2 55.0 53.6 51.9 51.3 50.4 4B.7 I Hater 1 treat Back 0 20Jan 00 10:35:00 60.0 52.7 70.5 73.2 47.3 95.0 99.4 55.9 53.4 52.4 51.6 50.4 48.6 1 Hater I West Back 0 203ar. 09 10:36:00 60.0 55.7 71.5 67.0 47.0 86.6 67.4 64.3 61.0 58.1 54.1 51.3 48.6 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 2DJan. 09 10:37:00 60.0 59.6 77.4 68.3 47.3 82.4 39.3 67.8 66.5 62.9 58.0 52.3 46.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 10:36:00 60.0 51.8 69.6 59.3 47.3 84.6 92.2 55.0 53.9 53.4 52.8 51.4 46.9 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:39:00 60.0 50.0 67.8 57.9 _ 90.9 53.0 52.2 51.3 50.6 49.4 47.7 1 Marc. l Weak Back 0 2DJan 09 10:40:00 60.0 53.4 71.1 62.4 44.7 79.3 34.9 61.0 59.3 54.9 5Z.7 49.6 46.6 1 Hecer I West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:41:00 60.0 54.8 12.6 61.3 47.9 81.9 90.9 59.7 57.6 56.7 55.9 54.1 50.7 1 Hater I Host Back a 20Jan 09 10:42:00 60.0 55.5 73.3 63.2 46.3 90.8 92.2 61.4 59.8 59.4 56.8 53.1 46.7 1 meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 10:43:00 60.0 45.5 67.2 62.0 45.6 E9.1 90.9 54.4 52.0 50.7 49.9 48.3 46.4 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:44:00 60.0 49.6 67.4 62.9 44.5 =4.4 59.3 56.4 52.8 49.9 48.6 47.7 46.0 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:45:00 60.0 51.8 69.E 60.5 45.5 76.5 92.2 59.D 55.8 53.0 51.6 49.8 47.1 1 Hecer I West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:46:00 60.0 55.6 73.3 60.8 47.7 80.6 09.3 59.2 58.3 57.6 56.9 55.5 49.9 1 Meter I Host Back. 0 20Jan D9 10:47:00 60.0 52.7 70.5 59.8 47.7 78.E 92.2 57.9 55.4 54.2 53.5 51.9 49.1 1 Hecer I West Back. 0 2DJan 09 10:48:00 60.0 56.2 74.0 61.4 47.9 02.1 90.9 59.9 56.9 59.0 57.4 55.8 52.3 1 Meter 1 Hest Back 0 20Jan 09 10:49:00 60.0 55.1 72.9 62.9 47.2 32.0 37.4 60.8 58.8 57.7 56.7 52.9 49.9 1 xeast 1 Weak Back a 20Jan 09 10:50:00 60.0 52.3 70.0 64.4 46.2 81.9 92.2 61.2 54.1 51.9 51.1 49.9 48.1 1 Meter i West Back 0 20Jan 89 10:51:00 60.0 50.8 68.5 59.8 44.B 78.4 96.9 54.0 53.2 52.4 51.7 49.9 47.5 1 Meter i West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:52:00 60.0 47.0 64.8 55.0 43.3 74.6 95.3 52.1 48.9 47.7 47.1 46.4 44.7 1 Meter I West Back 0 2DJan 09 10:53:00 60.0 50.8 68.5 62.0 45.0 82.E 09.3 56.8 53.9 52.2 51.4 49.1 46.6 2 Mecor 1 West Back. 0 20Jan 09 10:54:00 60.0 $4.0 71.8 74.0 44.9 57.0 96.9 58.7 55.4 53.7 52.E 51.3 47.9 1 Meter 1 meat Back. 0 20Jan 09 10:55:00 60.0 51.0 C3.8 58.4 45.4 73.9 921 54.8 53.5 52.8 52.1 50.2 47.8 1 Meter 1 Weak Back 0 20Jan 05 10:56:00 60.0 51.6 69.4 62.5 45.3 73.7 93.4 56.7 54.0 53.2 52.2 50.4 48.3 1 Meter 1 W..r Back 0 20Jan 09 10:57:00 60.0 52.0 69.7 59.7 45.7 76.9 84.9 56.5 55.4 54.5 53.6 50.2 47.7 1 Water 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:58:00 60.0 52.4 70.2 59.0 45.2 76.5 07.4 57.9 55.6 55.2 53.8 49.9 47.1 I Meta- 2 West Be.?. 0 20Jan 09 10:59:00 60.0 49.0 66.8 63.5 43.3 78.9 87.4 55.7 52.2 50.1 48.6 46.6 44,2 1 Meter 1 Bleat Back. 0 29Jan 09 11:00:00 60.0 50.3 69.1 63.7 43.2 82.9 92.2 55.B 53.3 52.5 51_6 48.3 45.0 3 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 11:01:00 60.0 53.2 71.0 67.4 45.7 64.2 94.4 60,0 56.4 54.4 53.0 51,3 49.0 1 Meter 1 West Beck: 0 29Jan 09 11:02:00 60.0 50.1 67.9 56.9 45.4 71.0 84.9 54.6 52.7 51.6 50.8 49.5 47.! 1 Meter 1 ties, Back 0 20Jan 09 11:03:00 60.0 49.1 66.8 60.3 44.2 79.4 92.2 55.8 51.4 50.2 49.2 47.7 45.6 ! Mete: 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 11:04:00 60.0 50.0 67.8 61.9 44.9 73.5 84.9 53.6 52.0 51.4 50.7 49.0 46.1 ! Water 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 !1:05:00 60.0 SIB 69.6 S-A 45.6 74.0 87.4 56.3 54.2 53.5 52.9 51.0 48.3 t Peter 2 West Back 0 ?OJa. 09 11:06:00 60.0 51.6 69.4 60.1 47.2 71.7 87.4 57.0 53.6 52.7 52.1 50.8 44.1 1 Pew- 1 West Back 0 2OJan 09 11:07:00 60.0 53.0 70.7 62.3 45.2 79.3 99.3 60.1 58.0 54.9 53.0 50.0 47.5 1 Here- ! West Back 0 20Jan 09 11: OB:00 60.0 51.0 68,8 60.2 45.6 79.1 4 58.1 53.6 52.0 51.3 49.7 47,2 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 06 11:09:00 60.0 41.5 65.3 53.7 44.1 67.3 '64.9 50.6 49.4 48.6 46.0 47.1 45.6 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 11:10:00 60.0 64.2 82.0 83.1 45.2 99.2 101.4 75.4 63.6 59.2 57.2 52.4 46.6 1 Peter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:31:00 60.0 49.1 66.9 57.7 44.1 77.2 90.9 54.7 52.2 50.8 49.7 47.9 45.3 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 11:12:00 60.0 49.7 67.5 60.9 44.2 SO.- 87.4 56.0 53.1 51.7 50.2 47.9 45.4 1 Meter ! West Back 0 20Jan 09 11:33:00 60.0 51.5 69.3 61.3 44.7 78.9 87.4 57.0 55.3 53.3 51.6 49.7 47.5 1 Water 3 West Back 0 20Jan 09 11:14:00 60.0 51.4 69.2 62.7 419 79.7 89.3 57.8 55.3 54.2 53.0 48.0 45.6 1 Mete- 1 West Back 0 2CJan 09 11:15:00 60.0 50.5 66.3 61.8 43.1 75.3 90.9 $5.9 54.5 53.4 51.4 48.1 45.3 1 Meter ! West Back 0 29Jan 09 11:16:00 60.0 53.0 70.8 66.3 44.2 84.3 07.4 59.9 56.0 $4.7 53.4 49.8 45.7 1 Meter 3 West Back 0 20Jan 09 11:37:00 60.0 52.2 70.0 61.9 45.8 62.0 94.4 58.3 55.4 53,2 52.5 50.9 46.7 1 Meter ! meet Back 0 19Jan 09 11:10:00 60.0 49.8 67.6 55.9 . 5­ 755.0 0.0 54.5 52.6 51.5 50.7 49.3 6.6 1 Meter 1 West Back, 0 2OJan 09 11:39:00 60.0 53.0 70.8 60.4 45.3 73.2 87.4 57.7 55.7 54.6 54.0 52.3 49.2 1 Meat 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 11:20:00 60.0 53.5 71.3 64.3 45.6 84.5 95.3 60.9 56.6 54.5 53.3 51.8 49.2 1 Meter 1 meat Back. 0 20Jan 09 11:21:00 60.0 53.1 70.8 57.3 47.8 74.5 87.4 56.3 55.3 54.5 53.9 52.9 49.9 1 Peter I Wesc Back 0 20Jan 09 11:22:00 60.0 53.5 71.3 74.66 45.4 96.5 100.5 55.6 53.4 52.4 51.8 50.7 48.8 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 00 11:23:00 60.0 52.2 70.0 61.9 47.8 78.4 94.4 57.2 55.1 53.6 52.6 51.1 46.8 1 m.rer I West Back 0 20Jan 09 !1:24:00 60.0 51.0 66.8 59.1 46.4 77.2 92.2 55.6 53.1 $2.2 51.5 50.4 46.6 1 Meter L Wear Back 0 2Oia. 06 11:25:00 60.0 53.1 70.8 74.4 45.3 91.4 94.4 55.7 52.9 51.8 50.9 49.2 46.6 1 Meter 1 mast Back 0 2OJan 09 11:26:00 60.0 54.1 71.9 73.9 43.9 90.9 90.9 58.6 55.6 54.7 53.9 50.6 46.3 I Meter 1 West Back. 0 20Jan 09 11:27:00 60.0 54.2 72.0 65.6 44.8 84.2 92.2 60.9 56.7 55.3 54.4 52.8 49.4 1 Meter 1 We at Back, 0 20Jan 0B 11:28:00 60.0 52.4 70.2 63.8 46.2 77.7 B4.9 58.7 $5.7 53.9 52.7 50,7 48.6 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 12:29:00 60.0 55.1 72.9 69.6 45.4 08.2 90.9 64.5 58.6 55.8 53.0 51.4 47.4 1 Meter 1 We a. Back 0 29Jan 06 11:30:00 60.0 53.3 71.1 69.3 45.6 85.7 90.9 62.3 55.3 52.9 51.4 49.4 46.9 1 Meter 1 West Bacl: 0 20Jan 06 11:31:00 60.0 50.9 60.7 64.0 44.3 80.0 99.3 59.1 52.6 51_2 50.5 48.8 45.8 I Mater 1 West Back 0 ?OJan 09 11:32:00 60.0 53.1 70.9 68.4 45.3 93.3 96.2 62.0 55.5 52.8 51.7 49.9 46.9 1 Meter 1 nest Back 0 20Jan 09 11:13:00 60.0 56.6 74.4 75.3 42.9 90.7 94.4 65.9 58.9 55.3 52.8 48.9 45.2 1 Mater l West Back. 0 20Jan 09 11:34:00 60.0 49.8 67.6 56.1 43.7 68.4 07.4 53.9 53.0 52.5 51.8 46.1 45.0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 11:35:00 60.0 50.5 68.3 66.5 42.6 81.0 94.4 58.4 53.2 50.8 49,4 47.5 44.7 1 Meter 1 What Back 0 20Jan 09 11:36:00 60.0 48.7 66.5 59.6 42.5 77.3 87.4 55.4 51.4 49.6 48.8 47.5 44.5 1 Meter 1 Ileac Back 0 ?OJan 09 11:37:00 60.0 54,4 72.2 60.8 47.6 71.0 09.3 59.7 57.6 56.6 56.0 $3,1 49.5 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 11:38:00 60.0 50.0 67.0 62.6 45.5 79.5 87.4 57.0 52.6 50.5 49.5 46.0 46.5 1 Mater 1 West Be.;: 0 29Jan 09 11:39:00 60.0 40,6 67.3 61.1 45.6 77.4 84.9 55.5 52.9 51.0 49.3 44.7 46.2 1 Meter 1 West Be.;: 0 20Jan 09 11:40:00 60.0 $0.9 6B.7 58.3 46.3 77.3 92.8 54.9 53.7 52.9 52.1 49.9 47.8 1 Herat 1 West Baal: 0 20Jan 09 11:•41:00 60.0 52.1 69.8 57.6 48.6 75.7 87.4 55.0 54.5 53.7 53.0 51.3 49.5 1 "11.c 1 Nest Back 0 203an 09 11:42:00 60.0 51..9 69.7 59.6 48.8 75.7 90.9 55.6 53.5 52.0 52.4 51.5 50.1 1 Meter 1 Wes, Oacl; 0 203an 09 11:43:00 60.0 50.5 69.3 59.6 46.7 74.8 89.3 56.3 52.9 51.6 50.9 49,5 47,6 1 Mater 1 W..t Back 0 29Jan 09 11:44:00 60,0 422 66.9 56.9 42.8 70.2 90.9 52.9 51.7 51.0 50.1 49.3 46.2 1 Meter 1 I4asc Back 0 20Jan 09 11:45:00 60.0 46.8 64.6 58.9 42.7 74.9 84.9 52.5 48.n 47,4 46.7 45.6 44.1 1 Mater 1 Vest Bnck, 0 20Jan 09 11:•46:00 60.0 54.3 72.0 63.9 42.5 80.0 0.0 62.2 59.1 57.0 55.6 •19.0 43.9 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 11:47:00 60.0 57.0 74.7 60.2 44.5 82.4 92.2 64.9 61.3 59.0 56.7 53.6 48.3 1 Marc. 1 Was. Back.. 0 29Jan 09 11:46:00 60.0 56.1 75.9 69.5 48.6 93.2 93.4 64.0 61.5 60.0 58.8 56.9 52.0 1 Meter I elect Back 0 29Jan 09 11:49:00 60A 57.2 74.9 64.1 45.0 79.2 87.4 62.5 61.1 59.B Be.2 55.8'. 50.3 1 Mater I Wear Back. 0 203an 09 11:50:00 60.0 56.5 74.3 63.6 44.9 79.2 89.3 61.7 60.1 59.0 57.8 54.9 51.6 1 Mete. I Mesc Back 0 20Jan 09 11:51:00 60.0 60.6 78.3 75.1 46.4 96.8 9B.B 71.6 62.7 60.1 57.9 54.9 4B,9 1 Meter 3 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:52:00 60.0 48.6 66.4 57.4 44.7 74.4 94.4 52.8 51.6 50.7 49.5 47.4 45.5 1 Meter 1 Nest Back 0 ?OJan 09 11:53:00 60.0 51.0 69.8 62.3 43.8 85.0 90.9 59.0 54.0 51. 0 50.9 49.0 45.4 1 Meter I klast Back. a 29Jan 09 11:54:00 60.0 53.5 71.2 67.3 45.2 86.9 91.6 63.3 57.9 55,0 53,0 49.7 47.1 1 Meter 1 Wesc Back 0 20Jan 09 Ii: 55:00 60.0 52.9 70.7 67.6 43,2 86.5 87.4 61.0 56.9 54,4 52.5 48.8 44.4 1 Meter 1 West Beck 0 20Jan 09 11:56:00 60.0 53.7 71.5 60.2 42.9 87.9 90.9 64.2 56.0 53.6 51.5 48.2 44.5 1 Meter 1 West Back. 0 29Jan 06 11:57:00 60.0 52.9 70.6 70.4 44.2 91.2 944 59.0 55.8 54.2 52.8 49.2 45.8 1 Meter I West Back. 0 20Jan 09 11:58:00 60.0 54.7 72,5 70.4 42.8 8E.9 93.4 64.5 58.9 55.6 53.2 47.8 44.6 I Meter I Itlest Back. 0 20Jae 09 13:59:00 60.0 48.2 66.1 60.1 4 3. 9 77.0 90.9 54.6 50.9 49.5 40.3 46.6 45.1 1 Meter 1 Meat Back. 0 29Jan 09 12:00:00 60.0 51.0 69.9 63.9 43.4 80.8 92.2 57.7 55.5 53.7 51.8 47.7 44.4 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 !2:01:00 60.0 53.9 71.7 62.8 45.8 82.4 90.9 60.4 56.0 56.3 54.7 52.3 47.4 1 Peter 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 12:02:00 60.0 51.7 69.5 58.3 42.7 78.7 87.4 57,9 56.9 55.9 52.9 47.6 44.4 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:03:00 60.0 50.2 68.0 62.1 43.7 78.3 90.9 57.9 54.4 51.8 50.0 47.5 45.0 1 Peter L West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:04:00 60.0 51.7 69.5 62.9 43.8 81.5 07.4 59.3 56.2 53.6 51.9 40.2 44.7 L Meter 3 meat Back 0 2OJaa 09 12:05:00 60.0 51.6 69.4 68.1 44.8 854 91.6 59.5 53.9 51.7 50.4 48.8 46.3 1 Peter 1 Near Back 0 20Jae. 09 12:06:00 60.0 49.2 67.0 55.0 44.0 70.9 67.4 54.4 52.4 50.9 50.0 47.8 45.6 1 Meter 3 Vest Back 0 20Jan 09 12:07:00 60.0 51.1 66.9 60.2 46.1 75.2 87,4 55.5 53.0 52.5 52.0 50.9 47.5 1 Meter ! West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:08:00 60.0 51.B 69.6 62.7 -' 81.7 93.4 55.5 53.8 53.1 52.3 51.3 49.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:09:00 60.0 52.7 70.5 618 45.6 83.4 874 61.0 56.4 53.0 51.6 49.7 47.2 1 Mater I West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:10:00 60.0 56.1 73.0 73.1 44.E 85.9 97.4 64.2 57.3 54.9 52.9 50.3 47.3 1 Water I W.aC Back.. 0 20Jan 09 2 11:00 60.0 52.3 70.1 63.6 46.1 91.5 87.4 57.7 55.B 53.5 52.6 51.1 49.0 1 Meter 3 West Back 29Jan 09 !:12:00 60,0 53.9 71.6 61.2 47.4 75.4 00.9 56.5 50.0 56.6 54.B 51.7 49.2 1 Metal 3 West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:13:00 60.0 51,2 69.0 62.9 46.2 80.4 87.4 56.7 53.9 52.2 51.1 49.3 47.4 1 xe.et 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 12:14:00 60.0 54.6 72.4 72.9 46.3 86.7 89.3 61.5 56.2 54.4 53.2 50.6 47.7 1 Meter I Mast Back 6 29Jan 09 12:15:00 60,0 53.4 71.2 65.3 47.1 92.2 92.2 61.2 56.0 55.1 53.5 50.9 48.4 1 Meter I Blest Back. 0 ZOJan 06 12:16:00 60.0 53.5 71.3 67.9 46.7 E3.9 89.3 63.1 57.5 53.8 51.1 48.7 47,1 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan Ge 12:17:00 60.0 50.3 68.0 fill 43.6 81.4 89.3 58.0 53.6 50.8 49.5 48.3 45.9 I Meter 2 Meat Back 0 20Jan 09 12:18:00 60.0 54.5 72.3 69.9 43.1 91.0 90.6 63.6 59.7 56.2 52.7 48.6 45.4 1 Meter 1 Weer Back. 0 20Jan 09 12:19:00 60.0 SZ.0 69.7 64.8 42.1 82.0 B7.4 60.1 56.0 52.0 51.6 48,9 46.1 1 Meter 1 West Back, 0 20Jan 09 12:20:00 60.0 52.2 70.0 59.1 48.3 75.7 95.8 55.4 53.B 53.2 52.8 51.8 50.3 3 Hecer I Ileac Back. 0 20Jan 09 12:21:00 60.0 49.2 67.0 59.8 44.1 76.9 97,4 55.6 51.4 50,2 49.4 48.0 46.1 1 Meter 1 meat Back 0 20Jan 09 12:22:00 60.0 48.8 66.6 56.1 4 5. 4 74.0 84.0 52.3 50.3 49.7 49.3 48.5 47.1 2 Peter I west Back 0 29Jan 09 12:23:00 60.0 49.7 67.5 57.3 44.7 73.8 84.9 54.0 52.2 51.4 50.9 48.7 46.3 1 Meter 1 Was. Back 0 20Jan 09 12:24:00 60.0 48.9 66.7 57.3 45.8 72.3 93.4 53.9 50.9 50.0 49.3 48.0 46.6 1 Meter 1 Wear Be.). 0 20Jan 09 12:25:00 60.0 51,1 68.8 63.9 46.0 82.9 84.9 54.9 53.1 52.3 51.6 50.1 47.6 1 Mecac 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:26:00 60.0 40.1 65.9 58.9 42.9 74.7 89.3 53.9 50.5 49.7 49.2 47.3 44.4 1 Mater I West Back., 0 2082. 09 12:27:00 60.0 50.6 69.4 64.9 44.8 93.0 90.9 57.3 52.6 51.2 50.4 49.0 47.0 1 Merec 1 West Back 0 20Jan 00 12:28:00 60.0 52.8 70.6 60.7 47.0 76.8 96.2 57.2 55.4 54.6 53.9 51.8 49.1 1 Meter l West Back 0 20jan 09 12:29:00 60.0 53.3 71.1 61.7 48.4 79.1. 84.9 $7.1. $5.7 $5.1 54.3 52.8 49.4 1 Water 1 west Sack 0 203an 09 12:30:00 60.0 52.6 70.4 65.4 46.5 05.6 90.9 60.3 55.2 53.6 52.6 50.7 49.3 1 Water I West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:31:00 60.0 53.9 71.7 63.4 45.4 76.9 89.3 60.4 59.1 57.9 53.9 50.4 46.8 1 Meter 1 West Back. 0 20Jan 09 12:32400 60.0 50.4 68.2 56.9 44.8 70.8 90.9 54.0 52.8 52.0 51.4 50.0 47.1 1 Marc, 1 West Beck 0 20Jaa 09 12:33:00 60.0 48.9 66.7 56.9 44.9 73.0 92.2 52.9 51.4 50.3 49.6 48.2 46.2 I meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:34:00 60.0 50.6 68.3 58.7 45.3 75.3 03.4 56.0 53.5 52.7 52.1 48.7 46.4 1 Mater 1 Heat Back. 0 20Jan 09 12:35:00 60.0 51.5 69.2 60.2 46.2 70.0 87.4 56.4 55.3 54.0 52.6 49.6 47.3 1 Meter I Hest Back 0 20Jan 06 12:36:00 60.0 51.8 69.6 61.5 45.0 90.3 84.9 58.1 54.8 54.2 53.3 49.5 47.2 1. Peter 1 14aat Back 0 29Jan 09 12:37:00 60.0 51.6 69.3 64.2 45.5 87.1 95.3 58.4 54.7 53.1 S1.6 49.5 47.4 ] meter ] Hest Back 0 20Jan 09 12:33:00 60.0 52.5 70.2 60.1 45.7 70.0 92.2 58.0 56.8 55.3 54.0 49.5 47.2 1 meter 1 near Back. 0 20Jan 09 !2:39:00 60.0 53.! 70.9 62.0 46.7 80.4 -' 50.3 57.0 54.8 53.5 51.9 49.3 l Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:40:00 60.0 52.5 70.3 72.8 46.4 97.0 96.9 59.2 53.6 51.8 50.8 49.4 47.5 1 meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:41:00 60.0 53.5 71.3 76.71 425 98.3 102.2 57.0 52.9 51.3 50.0 47.2 44.1 1 Meter 1 Weac Back 0 20Jan 09 12:42:00 60.0 48.1 65.9 55.8 43.7 76.1 90.9 55.4 52.2 48.6 47.2 45.B 44.4 1 Hecer I Wear Back a 29Jar. 09 12:43:00 60.0 49.2 67.0 62.1 42.8 81.4 67.4 56.6 52.4 50.2 4B.9 46.8 44.1 1 Her.. 1 .eat Back 0 2DJan 09 12:44:00 60.0 51_3 69.1 67.2 43.0 80.5 90.9 50.6 54.0 51.2 40.9 47.0 44.6 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 89 12:45:00 60.0 53.9 71.6 66.5 44.5 76.8 87.4 63.6 55.6 54.4 53.3 51.3 45.9 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:46:00 60.0 51.2 69.0 59.4 45.9 76.3 90.9 56.6 53.7 52.7 52.0 50.2 47.6 1 Pact ! Hest Back 0 20Jan 06 12:47:00 60.0 51.4 69.2 59.9 46.9 78.4 84.9 56.6 53.9 52.7 51.8 50.6 40.5 1 Perot I Hest Back 0 2OJan 09 12:48:00 60.0 51.4 69.2 64.2 46.4 03.3 95.3 59.1 53.4 51.5 50.7 49.6 48.1 ! Meter 1 nest Back 0 29Jan 00 12:49:00 60.0 51.6 69.4 66.2 44.0 87.4 90.9 60.1 54.9 51.8 50.3 48.4 46.3 1 Meter 1 Mast Back. 0 20Jan 09 12:50:00 60.0 48.3 66.1 61.3 42.9 73.4 09.3 55.6 51.5 49.7 40.2 46.0 44.1 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:51:00 60.0 49.6 67.4 63.2 43.5 80.5 69.3 55.9 53.5 51.3 49.7 47.0 44.4 1 Peter I Hest Back 0 29Jan 09 12:52:00 60.0 44.2 61.0 57.0 44.4 69.9 83.3 54.1 52.1 50.9 50.1 48.3 45.8 1 Mar9r 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:53:00 60.0 51.1 60.9 64.3 45.5 80.4 90.9 52.1 53.9 51.9 50.9 49.0 46.6 1 Meter I Wear Back. 0 29Jan 09 12:54:00 60.0 54.8 72.6 67.0 45.3 80.4 89.3 65.6 57.3 54.6 53.2 51.0 47.8 1 Meter I West Me;. 0 3DJan 09 12:55:00 60.0 54.5 72.3 62.0 48.0 75.5 09.3 59.0 57.7 56.8 56.0 53.1 49.5 1 Meter I West Be.;. 0 29Jan 09 12:56:00 60.0 45.5 67.3 57.9 45.5 733.1 57.4 54.7 $1.7 50.4 49.8 49.8 47.3 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 20Jaa 09 12:57:00 60.0 52.4 70.1 62.7 45.4 74.5 90.9 57.8 56.6 55.5 52.9 50.1 47.2 1 Meter I Hear Back 0 20Jan 09 12:50:00 60.0 50.1 67.8 56.0 41.5 73.6 89.3 56.D 53.9 52.4 51.0 48.4 44.5 1 Peter 1 West Back a 28Jan 09 12:59:00 60.0 48.1 65.9 58.0' 41.6 72.6 84..9 53.4 51.7 50.6 49.0 46.5 43.5 1 Meter I West Back 0 2DJan 09 13:00:00 60 .0 50.9 68.7 61.1 45.0 03.5 90.9 56.7 54.0 53.0 51.6 49.5 47.0 ! Macer l meat Back. 0 20Jan D9 13:01.:00 60.0 50.9 60.7 60.4 46.4 72.9 87.4 53.8 52.0 51.9 51.4 50.5 48.7 1 Mete, I West Back 0 29Jan 09 13:02:00 60.0 50.2 67.9 53.4 46.3 66.4 87.4 52.9 52.0 51.5 51.0 50.0 47.9 1 Meter 1 Wear Back 0 20Jan D9 13:03:00 60.0 51.4 69.2 61.8 46.9 73.6 89.3 57.1 54.2 52.9 51.9 50.2 48.3 1 meter I Nest Back 0 28Jan 09 13:04:00 60.0 49.1 66.9 63.0 43.1 74.6 90.9 54.8 50.5 40,2 40.2 47.3 45.0 1 meter 1 West Back. 0 29Jan 09 13:05:00 60.0 5 9. 9 77.6 73.9 46.8 93.9 97.6 66.8 65.5 63.1 59.7 54.8 51.4 1 Hecer 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 13:06:00 60.0 53.4 71.1 64.5 47.5 77.0 09.3 58.8 55.6 54.4 53.7 52.5 50.0 I Meter 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 13:07:00 60.0 54.3 72.1 64.5 48.1 79.0 87.4 59.8 57.9 56.2 55.0 53.0 50.3 1 Mecer 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:09:00 60.0 57.0 75.66 67.7 49.0 86.6 90.9 63.7 61.0 59.6 58.5 56.7 53.0 1 Meter I West Back 0 20jan 09 13:09:00 60.0 55.9 73.7 67.0 46.2 80.8 90.9 62.7 59.3 57.3 56.0 54.4 51.4 1 Meter I Wear Back. 0 203an 06 13:10:00 60.0 56.1 73.9 65.9 47.3 80.6 85.3 62.9 60.1 50.0 57.0 54.3 49.6 1 Metal 1 Pleat Back 0 20Jan 09 13:11:00 60.0 56.5 74.2 64.9 48.6 89.3 90.9 62.3 60.1 58.5 57.0 55.1 51.4 1 Meter 1. West Back. 0 20Jan 09 13:12:00 60.0 55.1 72.9 70.0 43.1 91.5 93.4 63.7 60.8 $7.6 54.0 48.7 45.4 1 !facet 1 Wear Back 0 20Jac 09 13:13:00 60.0 50.5 69.3 59.1 44.0 76.5 90.9 57.5 54.3 51.9 50.4 49.8 46.3 1 Meter 1 West Ban): 0 20Jan 09 13:14:00 60.0 51.2 69.0 59.6 47.1 75.9 89.3 56.6 54.5 52.5 51.3 50.0 48.3 1 Mater 11:set Back. 0 20Jan 09 13:15:00 60.0 51..9 69.6 60.5 47.4 76.1 07.4 56.8 54.7 53.6 52.7 50.9 48.5 1 Mater 1 (Jest Ba.% 0 20Jav 09 13:16:00 40.0 51.7 69.4 62.6 47.9 86.0 93.4 56.8 53.7 52.7 52.1. 50.8 49.0 1 Mecer I. West Oacl: 0 20Jan 09 13:17:00 60.0 51.9 69.6 62.1 47.3 84.1 87.4 58.7 53.9 52.6 51.9 50.7 48.7 1 Mater 1 West: Be.$: 0 20Jan 06 13:10:00 60.0 54.6 72.4 62.6 47.8 80.3 92.2 60.3 50.0 57.3 55.9 52.2 49.5 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:19:00 60.0 54.9 72.6 75.0 47.4 96.5 99.4 61.7 56.9 54.5 53.1 50.2 48.3 1 Motor I West Ball: 0 20Jan 09 13:20:00 60.0 52.6 70.4 61.4 46.4 75.5 89.3 58.6 56.5 54.2 52.8 51.2 48.1 1 Meter 1 West Back a 20Jan 09 13:21:00 60.0 48.4 66.2 59.2 44.8 73.8 93.4 54.4 50.5 99.5 48.8 47.4 45.7 1 Meter I Wesc Back 0 20Jan 09 13:22:00 60.0 52.2 70.0 50.9 45.8 74.3 09.3 58.3 56.7 54.4 53.0 50.2 47.8 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:23:00 60.0 60.1 77.9 73.0 47.9 80.8 90.9 68.9 65.4 62.1 59.3 54.1 50.4 1 Meter 1 West Batt: 0 29Jan 00 13:24:00 60.0 51.8 60.5 60.0 46.1 74.1 84.9 57.3 55.2 53.8 52.7 50.4 47.6 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:25:00 60.0 51.4 69.2 56.6 47.9 72.3 87.4 55.1 54.1 53.0 52.2 50.6 49.3 ] Meter 1 West Back. 0 20Jan 09 13:26:00 60.0 51.3 69.0 61.9 46.0 75.3 89.3 55.9 52.8 52.2 51.7 50.6 49.1 1 Meter I West Back. 0 20Jan 09 13:27:00 60.0 53.0 70.8 64.5 48.0 74.5 84.9 57.9 55.3 53.9 53.3 52.1 50.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:28:00 60.0 52.4 70.2 62.9 46.1 79.2 90.9 56.9 54.1 53.3 52.6 51.8 50.1 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:29:00 60.0 53.0 70.9 72.3 47.8 92.1 96.2 57.0 54.0 $2.9 52.4 51.4 49.4 1 Macer 1 {ieec Back 0 20Jan 09 13:30:00 60.0 52.5 70.3 63.7 a6.1 85.6 89.3 58.2 55.1 53.9 53.1 51.6 49.5 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:31:00 60.0 52.3 70.0 62.8 45.9 83.2 B9.3 56.9 55.0 53.9 53.1 51.3 46.5 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2OJan 09 13:32:00 60.0 $3.1 70.B 61.0 47.9 78.1 90.9 57.7 56.1 54.7 53.6 52.3 49.5 1 meter 1 West Back 0 2OSan 09 13:33:00 60.0 52.9 70.7 62.9 48.1 75.4 93_4 58.8 55.2 53.9 53.1 51.9 49.9 1 Meter l West Back 0 20Ja. 09 13:34:00 60.0 52.2 70.0 64.9 47.9 78.4 89.3 59.0 $5.6 53.3 51.9 50.3 48.7 1 Mecer 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:35:00 60.0 49.5 67.3 59.6 46.0 80.1 07.4 53.2 50.9 50.3 49.6 49.1 47.3 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 13:36:00 60.D 48.7 66.5 54.4 46.5 69.0 B4.9 51.4 50.0 49.6 49.1 48.5 47.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:37:00 60.0 52.5 70.2 50.5 47.3 75.9 93.4 57.6 56.5 55.5 $3.5 50.3 48.3 1 Meter 1 Meat Back 0 20Jan 09 13:38:00 60.0 54.2 72.0 58.9 48.8 70.0 90.9 58.4 57.6 56.9 56.0 52.6 50.6 1 Peter 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 13:39:00 60.0 48.5 66.2 51.8 46.3 07.0 07.4 50.7 49.9 49.4 49.0 48.3 47.2 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 13:40:00 60.0 53.3 71.1 62.1 45.5 73.5 87.4 60.6 57.8 56.0 54.8 48.8 46.0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 -UJan 09 13:41:00 60.0 50.9 69.7 66.3 44.9 86.9 07.4 56.2 53.5 52.2 51.4 49.8 46.4 1 Mecer 1 West Back D an 09 13:42:00 60.0 57.5 75.2 67.9 46.5 84.6 90.9 65.1 61.9 59.9 59.2 54.7 49.0 1 Peter l 'lest Back 0 28Jan 09 13:43:00 60.0 59.6 77.4 66.8 51.6 81.9 90.9 64.4 62.6 61.5 60.4 59.8 55.2 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:44:00 60.0 58.8 76.5 66.5 51.6 81.9 90.9 64.6 62.5 60.0 59.3 57.4 55.0 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:45:00 60.0 57.6 75.4 66.9 485 82.1 94.4 93.9 60.9 59.5 59.6 56.6 50.7 1 Meter 1 ':ear Back. 0 29Jan 09 13:46:00 60.0 55.0 72.8 63.6 49.3 79.1 90.9 61.1 58J $5.5 54.0 53.9 50.3. 1 Meter 1 West Beck 0 20Jan 06 13:47:00 60.0 59.6 77.4 67.6 53.1 'a I.7 67.4 65.2 63.1 61.3 60.2 58.3 55.0 1 Peter 1 'lest Back. 0 29Jan 09 13:46:00 60.0 59.1 76.8 67.2 50.9 84.5 92.2 65.9 63.9 60.8 59.3 56.9 52.9 1 Mawr 1 Wesc Back. 0 -Oven 09 13:49:00 60.0 54.1 71.9 59.5 49.5 73.9 09.3 57.9 56.6 55.9 55.3 53.7 50.7 1 Meter I West Back 0 2OJan 00 13:50:00 60.0 52.0 69.7 63.2 - - 80.4 96.3 57.3 53.9 52.9 52.4 51.2 48.8 I Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jae 09 13:51:OD 60.0 54.3 72.0 63.0 47.6 70.0 92.2 60.0 56.7 55.6 54.7 53.1 51.1 i Hater I West Back a 20Jan 09 13:52:00 60.0 52.9 70.6 64.9 45.4 BIJ 6714 62.3 56.9 $2.4 50.6 48.9 47.1 1 Meter i Wesc Back 0 20jec D9 13:53:00 60.0 55.8 73.6 67.6 44.5 65.0 90.9 66.1 61.7 55.6 51.8 49.6 47.2 1 Water I Hesc Back 0 29dan 09 13:54:00 60.0 56.0 76.6 68.9 44.4 66.0 89.3 66.9 64.8 62.3 50.8 52.1 48.0 l Meter 3 West Back 0 29Jan 09 13:55:00 60.0 57.5 75.2 64.9 48.5 81.0 90.9 63.0 60.9 59.5 56.3 56.3 52.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:56:00 60.0 59.0 75.9 67.3 47.4 81.5 87.4 64.0 61.5 60.0 58.9 56.5 52.0 1 Meter 1 Wear Back 0 20van 09 13:57:00 60.0 60.4 78.2 70.7 51.7 88.9 87.4 67.6 64.2 61.9 60.9 58.2 55.2 ] Hater I West BacV. 0 2DJan 09 13:58:OD 60.0 59.9 77.7 71.9 49.4 86.9 87.4 65.6 63.7 62.2 60.7 58.1 54.2 1 Mater 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 1:59:00 60.0 58.3 76.1 64.9 52.4 82.1 03.4 62.5 60.9 60.0 59.3 57.6 54.2 1 Meter 1 West Back. 0 29Jan 09 14:00:00 60.0 60.3 7B.0 68.7 51.1 84.6 56.4 66.4 63.9 61.9 60.8 58.9 $4.8 1 Mater 1 West Beck. 0 20Jan 06 14:01:00 60.0 56.5 74.2 66..4 46.1 89.6 89.3 63.8 61.1 58.7 57.4 51.8 47.6 1 Make. 1 Wesc Back 0 293an 09 14:02:00 60.0 50.2 67.9 57.6 43.6 77.2 84.9 53.8 52.5 51.8 51.3 50.0 46.2 1 meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:03:00 60.0 49.9 67.7 58.2 44.9 73.7 90.9 54.7 53.1 51.9 50.9 49.5 45.9 1 Meter 1 Weac Back 0 20van 09 14: .04:00 60.0 47.0 65.6 60.7 43.9 73.9 90.9 52.4 50.6 49.0 47.7 46.5 45.1 1 Meter 1 .eat Back 0 29Jan 09 14:05:00 60.0 47.7 65.5 52.3 44.5 67.0 04.9 51.3 49.7 48.7 46.1 47.4 45.6 1 Motet 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 14:06:00 60.0 50.0 67.0 56.6 45.0 69.2 84.9 54.6 53.0 51.6 50.7 49.3 46.5 1 Mazer 1 Wesc Back 0 20Jan 09 14:07:00 60.0 52.1 69.6 60.7 45.2 75.7 90.9 57.2 55.2 54.1 52.9 50.9 47.3 1 Meter l West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:00:00 60.0 52.7 70.5 64.9 44.6 76.0 67.4 59.6 56.4 54.9 53.3 50.2 46.6 I mt.. I Meat Beck 0 203an 09 14:09:00 60.0 51.0 66.8 56.2 44.4 72.5 67.4 55.1 54.4 53.5 51.9 49.6 47.5 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:30:00 60.0 52.2 25.0 62.0 44.9 83.1 90.9 63.9 61.6 59.6 52.8 55.2 49.5 1 Meter i West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:11:00 60.0 49.9 0.3 59.5 46.0 22.1 92.4 54.8 52.3 51.2 50.5 49.1 46.7 1 Meta. I West Back 0 20Jan 99 14:12:00 60.0 53.9 69,2 52.9 46.4 29.1 90.9 57.5 $5.8 54.6 52.9 49.2 42.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:13:00 60.0 $1.9 69.7 $9.4 45.1 77.5 90.9 52.9 564 53.9 52.1 49.9 47.1 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:14:00 60.0 57.4 75.1 74.9 44.5 86.5 89.3 68.3 56.2 54.9 54.3 51.5 47.4 1 Meter l West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:15:00 60.0 51.2 69.0 67.6 43.9 02.1 87_4 57.3 54_4 52.3 49.3 47.3 45.4 1 Meter l West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:16:00 60.0 56.1 73.9 76.0 43.4 99.6 90.8 64.6 50.9 56.0 $3.8 49.2 45.0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:12:00 60.0 56.2 74.0 72.9 45.2 93.5 94.4 64.9 60.6 56.7 54.0 50.7 47.1 1 Meter t West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:18:00 60.0 56.2 73.9 68.2 43.7 08.7 90.1 64.2 61.9 58.6 56.1 51_0 45.6 1 Meter t West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:19:00 60.0 60.9 70.6 72.6 44.5 02.8 93.4 69.6 66.8 62.8 59.2 54.4 46.9 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:20:00 60.0 48.7 66.5 520 431 74.5 90.9 54.5 51.1 49.9 49.4 41.9 44.8 1 Meter 1 bleat Back 0 2DJan 09 14:21:00 60.0 54.2 72.0 64.0 43.7 03.1 87.4 61.6 59.0 56,7 54.8 51.3 44.0 I Meter 1 Meet Back 0 2DJan 09 14:22:00 60.0 47.9 65.1 56.0 43.1 76.8 67.4 54.6 51.5 49.0 49.0 46.1 44.2 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:23:00 60.0 50.5 69.3 62.6 44.6 75.0 90.9 59.4 54.2 50.0 49.9 47.6 45.7 1 Meter 1 Mask Back 0 20Jan 09 14:24:00 60.0 $3.6 11.3 61.0 46.0 75.1 09.3 59.6 58.0 55.9 54.3 51.3 40.3 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:25:00 60.0 50.0 67.9 56.0 44.6 74.7 96.2 54.4 52.9 51.6 50.6 49.1 46.7 I Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:26:00 60.0 51.5 69.3 62.5 45.0 79.1 07.4 56.7 54.8 53.5 52.6 49.8 46.8 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:27:00 60.0 52.6 70.3 63,2 47.8 74.8 9D.9 58.6 55.3 53.6 52.7 51.1 49.2 1 Mete. l West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:28:00 60.0 54.0 71,7 60.2 48.2 73.3 89.3 58.1 56.5 $5.0 55.3 53.1 50.1 I Meter I Wear Back 0 20Jan 09 14:29:00 60.0 52.9 70.6 59.6 49.6 71.7 89.3 57.1 55.0 53.9 53.2 52.1 50.4 1 Meter 1 Weak Back 0 20Jan 09 14:30:00 60.0 53.4 71.2 59.6 49.5 712 94.4 51.6 56.2 54.9 54.1 52.6 50.4 I Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:31:00 60.0 51.8 69.6 62.3 46.8 78.0 87.4 55.5 54.0 53.3 52.6 51.1 48.0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:32:00 60,0 53.9 71.6 75.0 44.3 96.5 100.5 58.7 55.2 52.1 50.0 47.7 45.2 1 Mete. I West Back 0 20Ja. 09 14:33:00 60.0 50.9 68.7 61.6 44.5 79.2 99.3 57_0 55.3 52.9 51.D 46.4 45.4 1 Meter I West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:34:00 60.0 50.5 69.3 61.5 45.2 76.5 67.4 57.4 53.9 51.0 5D.5 48.1 46,3 1 Water 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:35:00 60.0 50.3 68.1 59.1 45.7 75.5 93.4 55.2 53.1 52.0 51.0 49.0 46.9 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:36:00 60.0 55.1 72.9 62.1 46,5 77.7 94.4 60.0 58.1 57.1 56.6 54.7 48.3 1 Mete. 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:37:00 60.0 $5.1 72.9 63.6 42.3 78.3 93.4 60.1 58.9 58.1 57.3 52.6 48.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:30:00 60.0 53.4 71.1 63.1 47.5 79.6 96.9 59.1 56.7 54.6 53.8 51.0 49.6 1 Meta. 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:39:00 60.0 54.0 71.0 65.5 49.1 02.2 89.3 59.9 56.6 55.3 54.2 52.5 51.0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:40:00 60.0 50.0 75.2 65.3 47.1 77.1 89.3 64.6 63.3 61.3 59.1 54.6 48.0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:41:00 60.0 53.6 71.4 62.1 49.0 79.3 93.4 59.3 56.5 54.0 53.8 52.4 50.6 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:42:00 60.0 52.4 70.1 60.8 45.8 77.7 09.3 59.4 56.6 54.2 52.6 50.2 46.0 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:43:00 60.0 51.6 69.3 66.1 43.5 86.3 90.9 59.8 55.2 52.9 51.5 47.6 45.1 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:44:00 60.0 51.3 69.1 61.7 44.5 80.3 90.9 57.7 55.1 53.8 52.5 48.4 45.7 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:45:00 60.0 57.9 75.6 64.1 46.6 82.5 89.3 63.6 62.6 61.4 59.7 55.4 48.3 1 Meter l West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:46:00 60.0 50.9 68.7 62.6 45.8 81.1 92.2 59.0 53.4 51.2 50.0 48.2 46.6 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 03 14:47;00 60.0 50.8 68.5 61.7 45.0 78.6 94.4 52.5 53.3 51.9 50.0 49.0 47.1 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:48:00 60.0 50.1 67.9 60.6 44,8 75.6 95.3 54,9 52.7 51.4 50.5 49.1 46.6 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:49:00 600 $4.0 12.6 75.3 44.1 87.8 09.3 63.0 54.6 51.3 49.3 42.4 45.5 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:50:00 60,0 50.1 67.0 59.2 44.3 72.8 84.9 5 6. 7 53.7 $2.0 51.0 47.6 45.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:51:00 60.0 49.4 67.1 60.5 44.1 78.2 09.3 55.6 52.0 51.4 50.1 47.3 44.9 1 Mete. 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:52:00 60.0 54.3 72.0 45.3 42.8 78.2 09.3 62.7 59.0 56.1 54.5 49.9 45.1 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:53:00 60,0 54.3 72.1 67.0 46.2 80.0 07.4 62.2 59.3 50.1 52.5 49.1 47.0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:54:00 60.0 49.2 67.0 53.4 46.3 68.1 04.9 52.6 51.2 50.3 44.7 48.8 47.3 1 Mater 1 West Beck D 20Jan 09 14:55:00 60.0 52.2 70.0 68.3 46.0 85.0 92.2 56.8 54.0 54.0 53.1 50.2 48.2 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:56:00 60.0 50.6 60.4 55.7 47.7 71.3 87.4 54.4 52.6 51.6 50.9 50,0 48.7 1 Meter 1 West Back D 20Jan 09 14: 57: D0 60.0 52.1 69.9 60.9 46.5 76.2 84.9 58.1 54.8 53.6 52.0 50.9 48,0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:58:00 60 .0 $1.9 69.7 59.8 41.0 73.0 82.4 56.3 54.8 53.5 52.6 50.9 48.8 1 Meter 1 West Back D 20Jan 09 14:59:00 60.0 52.5 70.2 62.3 47.8 76.5 92.2 57.0 54.0 53.0 53.0 51.5 49.3 1 Meter I West Back 0 2DJan 09 15:00:00 60.0 52.2 20.0 59,7 40.3 75.8 87.4 56.3 54.6 53.5 52_7 51.3 50.1 1 Meter t West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:01:00 60.0 54.6 72.4 62.2 50.2 83.7 92.2 57.9 56.7 56.1 55.7 54.3 51.1 1 Meta. 1 West Back. 0 20Jan 09 15:02:00 60.0 $2.6 70.4 61.0 46.4 72.2 89.3 57.3 55.5 54.7 54.0 51.5 46.3 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 10v.. 09 15:03:00 60.0 48.5 66.3 52.1 45.0 70.0 84.9 51.1 49.9 49.6 49.2 48.3 46.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 15:04:00 60.0 49.2 67.0 59.7 45.0 72.5 94.4 55.3 51.9 50.5 49.5 47.9 45.9 1 Meter t West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:05:00 60.0 49.9 67.7 60.1 45.8 74.1 04.9 53.0 51.0 51.2 50.2 49,4 O.1 1 Mete, I West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:06:00 60.0 49.3 67.1 56.5 45.2 75.7 90.9 54.7 51.7 50.5 49,8 40.5 46.5 1 Meter I West Back 0 2DJan 09 15:02:00 60.0 49.7 67.5 61.0 45.0 00.1 90.9 54.9 52.1 50.0 50.3 40.6 45.8 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:08:00 60.0 50.0 67.8 56.7 45.6 69.2 93.4 54.9 $3.1 $1.4 50.3 48,9 47.2 I Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:09:00 60.0 51.B 69.5 65.7 47.3 81.5 09.3 59.2 53.6 52.1 51.1 50.0 48.3 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:10:00 60.0 57.5 75.3 62.7 48.8 74.7 89.3 62.4 60.9 60.1 58.9 57.1 50.3 1 Meter 1 Meat Back 0 20Jan 09 15:11 -00 60.0 53.6 71.3 75.5 45.9 97.2 100.0 58.3 $3.6 $2.2 51.5 49.9 47.1 1 Meter 1 Meat Back 0 2DJan 09 15:12:00 60.0 50.0 67.0 57.7 46.0 70.0 84.9 55.5 52.9 51.4 50.4 40.9 47.0 1 Mater 1 West Back 0 20J.. 09 15:13:00 60.0 50.8 68.6 56.5 46.3 72.6 04.9 55.4 53.9 52.6 51.7 49.6 47.5 1 Mete. 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:14:00 640 49.9 67.7 56.6 45.9 69.0 84.9 53.5 52.2 51.1 50.5 49.2 47.5 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:15:00 60.0 54.4 72.2 60.6 46.5 73.5 90.9 59.9 50.0 57.3 55.5 51.9 40.2 1 Water 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 15:16:00 60.0 50.5 60.3 60.5 45.3 69.3 09.3 56.0 53.2 51.4 50.6 49.1 47.2 1 Meter 1 Meat Back 0 20Jen 09 15:17:00 60.0 53.0 70.8 63.8 46.1 80.2 99.3 60.9 56.6 54.0 52.7 50.8 47.0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:18:00 60.0 50.6 68.3 57.7 45.8 70.1 89.3 56.2 S4.2 52.7 51.0 48.7 46.9 1 Meter 1 West Back D 20Jan 09 15:19:00 60.0 50.4 68.2 57.3 45.3 69.0 84.9 54.0 52.4 51.6 51.0 50.0 47.1 1 Meter 1 Weer Back 0 20Jan 09 15:20:00 60.0 51.4 69.2 57.4 45.7 69.1 84.9 56.5 54.8 53.3 51.9 50.3 47.7 1 Meter 1 Neat Back 0 20Jan 09 15:21:00 60.0 55.3 73.1 62.2 47.7 75.5 87.4 60.8 58.9 52.7 56,4 54.0 49.6 1 Water I West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:22:00 60.0 $2.4 70.1 52.7 48.6 69.2 84.9 56.0 54.5 53.6 53.0 52.0 50.1 1 Meter 1 Wert Back 0 2DJan 09 15:23:00 60,0 53.1 70.8 66.7 46.9 82.0 97.4 50.1 56.7 55.3 53.6 51.1 48.5 1 Mater 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:24:00 60.0 52.5 70.3 62.1 46.9 7n.2 93.4 59.7 56.2 53.0 52.5 50.5 48.3 1 Mate. 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 15:25:00 60.0 51.0 68.0 $8.6 45.2 67.0 84.9 56.9 54.5 53.0 51.8 49.8 46.3 1 Mater I Meat Back 0 20Jan 09 15:26:00 60.0 52.1 69.8 60.3 44.7 70.5 89.3 59.4 56.4 53.1 $1.6 49.9 47.3 1 Meta. 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:21:00 60.0 $0.8 68.6 58.6 46.1 73.2 92.2 54.5 52.9 52.2 51.6 50.3 47.6 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:25:00 60.0 51.3 69.0 58.1 47.0 68.1 94.9 55.7 53.0 52.7 52.0 50.6 48.0 1 Meter I West Back 0 2DJan 09 15:29:00 60.0 50.9 60.5 67.3 46.7 03.1 87.4 56.5 52.7 51.0 49.8 48.6 47.4 1 Meter I Meat Back 0 20Jan 09 15:30:00 60.0 53.2 71.0 62.2 48.3 76.7 94.9 $6.9 55.7 $5.0 54.3 52.7 49.9 1 Meter I West Back 0 2DJan 09 15:31:00 60.0 56.3 74.1 60.9 51.7 76.2 87.4 59.0 50.2 57.6 57.2 $6.3 53.3 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:32:00 60.0 57.4 75.2 62.4 53,2 78.0 07.4 61.1 59.2 59.6 58.1 57.0 55.2 1 Mater I West Back 0 2DJan 09 15:33:00 60.0 57.1 74.0 65.7 52.2 77.7 07.4 59.5 58.2 58.2 57.8 52.0 54.6 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:34:00 60.0 57.0 74.7 61.3 53.3 76.0 09.3 59.7 50.8 50.3 57.8 56.7 54.8 1 Meter I West Back 0 2DJan 09 15:35:00 60.0 50.6 76.4 64.9 53.7 03.8 00.4 62.9 61.7 60.4 59.0 57.5 $6.0 1 Meter 1 Nest Beck 0 20Jan 09 15:36:00 60,0 60.0 17.0 684 55.7 84.9 93.4 62.9 62.0 61.6 61.1 59.5 57.4 1 Water 1 Meat Beck 0 20Jan 09 15:37:00 60.0 60.1 77.9 64.6 $5.4 79.6 92.2 62.9 62.1 61.6 61.1 59.9 51.5 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:38:00 60.0 59.5 77.3 64.4 55.2 80.1 92.2 62.3 61.6 60.9 60.5 59.3 57.1 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:39:00 60.0 64.2 81.9 74.6 57.1 97.6 100.5 60.6 67.6 66.9 66.1 62.4 59.1 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:40:00 53.5 64.5 01.8 71.8 53.9 93 .B 96.2 20.0 69.3 68.5 66.5 60,8 56.4 C:\LARDAV %SL.UT.IL \20JA11 09.bia _nte_val Data Neaa Sic. Location N.nt.- Data Tire Dotation __ -; __- _________________________ West at Bitlg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 09:31:52 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 09:32:51 60.0 2 Wert at Bldg F --I 0 20Jan 09 09:33:51 60.0 2 Weak at Blda Footpti 0 26Jan 09 09:34:52 60.0 2 West at Bldg. Footpti 0 26Jan 09 09:35:51 60.0 2 West at Bitlg Foocpc5 0 26Jan 09 09:36:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 26Jan 09 09:37:51 60.0 2 West at Bitlg Foatpti 0 20Ja. 09 09:38:5! 60.0 2 Wast at Bldg Footpti 0 26Jan 09 09:39:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 09:40:51 60.0 2 west at Bldg Foatpti 0 26Jan 09 09:41:51 60.0 2 .sat at Bldg Foatpti 0 26Jan 09 09:42:51 60.0 2 West at Bitlg Fee:pti 0 26Jan 09 09:43:51 60.0 2 .eat at Bitlg Foatpti 0 20Jan 09 09:44:53 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 09:45:51 60.0 2 Wes, at Bid, Footpti 0 20Jan 09 09:46:51 60.0 2 week at Bldg Footpti 0 26Jan 09 09:47:53 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpxi 0 26Jan D9 09:48:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Featpci 0 263an Be 09:49:51 60.0 2 West a, Bid, F..tpti 0 203an 09 09:50:51 60.0 2 ;lest at Bldg Foatpti 0 20Jan 09 09:51:53 60.0 2 West at Bitlg FoOCpci 0 20Jan 09 09:52:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg. Footpti 0 26Jan 09 09:53:51 60.0 2 west at Bitlg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 09:54:51 60.0 2 W..e at Bitlg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 09:55:51 60.0 2 west at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 09:56:51 60.0 2 !Jest at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 09:57:51 60.0 2 Wes, at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 09:58:51 60.0 2 West at Bid, Foatpti 0 2UJan 09 09:59:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 Man 09 10:00:51 60.0 2 weak at Bldg Foatpti 0 26Jan 09 10:01:51 60.0 2 I40at at Bldg Foatpti 0 20Jan 09 10:02:51 60.0 2 ;last ac Bid, Footpti a 20Jan 09 10:03:51 60.0 2 Weac at Bitlg F..tpvi 0 20Jan 09 10:04:51 60.0 2 West at Bid, F..tpti 0 20Jan 09 10:05:51 60.0 2 Ilea, at Bldg Footpti D 20Jan 09 10:06:51 60.0 2 Wank at Bldg Foocpci 0 20Jan 09 10:07:51 60.0 2 U.sk at Bid, Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:00:51 60.0 2 Wsk at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:09:51 07.0 2 w"c at Bldg Footpti 0 26Jan 09 10:10:51 60..0 2 west at Bid, Foocpci 0 26Jan 09 10:11:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg F..tpci 0 20Jan D9 10:12:51 60.0 2 (vest at Bitlg Footpa5. 0 20Jan 09 10:13:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:14:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Foocpci 0 203an 09 10:15:51 60.0 2 Wast at Bid, Footpxi 0 203an 09 10:16:51 60.0 2 West at Bid, F..kpti 0 26Jan 09 10:1]:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Foocpci o 20Jan 09 10:18:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:19:51 60.0 2 ;lest at Bldg Footpti 0 26Jan 09 10:20:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:21:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Foocpci 0 26Jan 09 10:22:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Foocpci 0 20an 09 10:23:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 26Jan 09 10:24:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 26Jan 09 10:25:51 60.0 2 Fast at Bldg Faotpci 0 20Jan 09 10:26:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Foocpci 0 26Jan 09 10:2]:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Fo cpc 0 20Jan 09 10:28:51 60.0 2 %lust at Bldg Ftotpc 0 20Jan 09 10:29:51 60.0 2 %+eat at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:30:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:31:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg FOotoci 0 20Jan 09 10:32:51 60.0 2 Best at Bldg Foocpt'- 0 Man 09 10:33:53 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:34:51 60.0 2 west at Bldg Footpti 0 26Jan 09 10:35:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Fcotpci 0 20Jan 09 10:36:51 60.0 2 West at Bid, Footpc5 0 Man 09 10:37:51 60.0 2 Bast at Bldg Foocptl 0 20Jan 09 10:38:51 60.0 2 wort at Bldg Foetpci 0 ?;Jan 09 10:39:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:40:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Foocpci a 20Jan 09 10:41:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg F.tptl 0 20Jaa 09 10:42:51 60.0 2 ;last at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jaa 09 10:43:5! 60.0 2 Best at Bitlg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:44:51 60.0 2 Neat at Bldg Foatpti 0 20Jan 09 10:45:51 07.0 2 Nest at Bldg Foatpti 0 Naar. 09 10:46:51 60.0 2 Blest at Bitlg Foot,^ 0 26Jan 09 10:47:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 Man 09 10:46:51 60.0 2 Weac at Bldg Foetpt5 0 20Jan 99 10:49:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10.50:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Foocpci 0 26Jan 09 10:51:51 60.0 2 ;:cat at 01eg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:52:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:53:51 60.0 2 West at Bid. Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:54:51 60.0 2 ;lost at Bldg Footpti 0 Man 09 10:55:51 60.0 2 W.at at Bid, Footpti 0 26Jan 09 10:56:51 60.0 2 Was at Bldg Foocpt! 0 20Jan 09 10:57:51 60.0 2 Pleat at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 89 10:58:51 60.0 2 .eat at Bitlg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:59:51 60.0 2 Wat at Bitlg Footpxi 0 20Jan 09 11:00:51 60.0 L.q 6].I 59.2 59.6 66.4 62.6 6.0 644.3 33.2 67.4 60.9 63 63.9 59.6 60.7 62. 62.4 4 66. 6.4 4 622.7 63.5 61.8 61.4 61.9 60.2 61.9 61.7 76.9 77.9 66.9 63.6 60.3 68.6 68.9 69.5 ]0.2 68.6 70. 71.4 4 71.1 60.0 53.4 54. 53.6 6 55.7 54.7 63. 60.5 5 54.5 55.2 61.5 60.3 58.3 60.2 59.0 61.0 63.1 61.6 60.9 63.3 58.9 65.7 62.0 59.1 59.9 59.8 63.8 65.2 61.4 54.0 60.0 56.8 53.9 55. 53.4 4 59.9 60.0 56 56.5 5 60.0 61.5 54.5 2. 52.4 53. 55.6 6 56.9 59.9 59.5 60.9 55.9 55.9 56.9 SEL Be.P 77.0 77.4 84.1 60.4 78.8 82.1 91.0 85.2 78.] 81.7 7.4 76.5 ]B.9 80.2 03.9 82.1 80.5 81.3 79.6 79.1 ]9.] ]7.9 3P.] 79.5 93.0 95.3 84.6 81.4 78.1 86.3 66.2 91.3 88.0 86.4 08.7 09.2 88.8 86.5 71.2 72.6 71.4 73.5 72.5 81.3 78.2 72.2 73.0 79.2 78.0 76.1 ]].9 77.5 79.6 80.9 79.4 79.6 81.0 76.7 83.5 80.6 76.9 76.1 77.5 81.6 92.9 79.2 72.6 77.7 74.6 75.] 73.7 71.2 77.7 77.8 74.3 7].] 79.3 72.3 79.8 ]0.2 71.6 73.4 34.6 ]7.7 77.2 79.] 73.7 73.6 74.7 l.max Loin Peak Uvpk 01.0 4B.6 105.1 106.6 75.9 40.2 91.2 93.5 71.9 49.9 91.0 04.5 82.9 485 103.7 103.7 70.2 49.5 93.5 a4.5 74.0 49.9 63.33 93.5 76.1 51.0 92.0 05.4 94.9 50.4 -5.7 514.7 02.9 52.4 102.8 103.7 72.1 49.7 91.6 94.5 07.1 50.6 105.7 101.7 70.0 51.5 09.3 03.5 75.5 50.6 04.0 93.5 75.2 51A a4.1 03.5 71.4 50.9 86.6 89.4 73.0 51.9 89.3 91.0 78.9 50.6 99.6 93.5 79.0 51.7 94.6 97.0 75.1 52.3 1.3 92.3 73.9 51.0 08.6 02.3 76.3 50.2 93.3 98.9 77.8 51.1 2.7 95.4 68. 6 51.2 0018 2.3 77.5 40.4 91.8 92.3 76.5 47.9 94.0 93.5 B7.1 50.2 102.6 103.0 06.0 55.1 99.8 100.1 71.7 52.5 93.8 03.5 76.4 49.5 90.8 92.3 74.1 47.4 iO3.0 103.7 75.9 51.4 93.0 98.3 73.0 53.6 09.6 01.0 74.3 65.1 95.0 95.4 74.7 66.0 90.1 91.0 75.6 48.2 94.2 94.5 74.5 62.0 92.5 93.5 77.1 66.4 90.7 91.0 75.9 66.2 91.5 91.0 75.5 48.9 92.3 94.5 69.7 48.2 87.1 93.5 71.3 40.1 00.2 94.5 68.2 4B.4 05.1 93.5 66.4 48.2 85.1 87.5 70.1 47.1 91.7 n3.5 68.9 46.6 84.2 90.2 83.2 46.1 100.0 101.9 66.2 46.5 81.8 87.5 67.9 47.7 90.6 69.4 80.4 46.9 97.3 97.0 74.7 45.5 90.6 87.5 74.7 47.3 80.6 92.3 75.7 46.1 07.6 89.4 ]0.] 46.6 93.4 94.5 70.0 45.7 82.e 67.5 72.0 48.0 86.7 95.4 79.4 49.7 94.0 97.0 72.5 49.5 85.7 89.4 75.9 49.0 90.7 92.3 71.5 50.5 85.6 09.4 75.8 49.6 08.7 92.3 75.1 50.6 90.1 91.0 76.8 51.6 03.9 93.5 72.5 50.1 87.9 91.0 69.6 51.0 89.6 93.5 74.7 51.3 90.2 92.3 76.0 53.3 96.1 95.4 78.8 52.5 93.2 94.5 61.6 50.2 60.2 69.4 71.5 40 07.4 29.4 67.2 50.4 50.6 91.0 69.5 51.3 84.3 89.4 69.7 49.6 05:2 97.5 65.7 49.1 83.7 09.4 70.4 49.8 86.8 67.5 66.7 51.3 91.2 89.4 69.7 51.3 85.3 89.4 69.7 53.9 87.9 E9.4 74.2 50.3 97.7 6g.4 64.9 50.6 B6.7 91.0 76.6 49.7 04.9 97.7 61.1 90.6 00.3 93.5 63.9 40.9 77.7 B7.5 68.5 40.6 65.9 87.5 68.8 49.6 B7.E 91.0 67.0 50.2 83.0 92.3 70.3 49.6 B6.4 86.3 71.7 49.8 87.4 07.5 69.8 48.1 84.3 07.5 70.2 48.7 86.2 92.3 71.2 VA 91.4 03.5 Ll 21 72.8 66.5 6].9 75.7 6c _.3 67.2 73.1 80.8 75.6 68.4 68.6 65.2 6S.3 66.7 69.8 71.9 71.0 69.4 71.2 69.3 67.9 71.1 65.6 67.3 71.5 94.2 84.0 70.7 70.4 68.8 71.9 ]1.] ]3.0 73.6 73.4 ]3.9 74.5 74.1 73.0 59.6 62.2 60.4 62.6 60.4 67.1 66.0 fill 63.5 69.7 69.2 66.4 70.7 65.9 60.5 69.4 69.4 61.8 70.1 60.2 72.8 72.4 67.0 67.0 66.4 72.2 7!.7 68.1 59.2 69.6 63.9 65.4 64.3 59.9 66.6 65.1 61.8 67.0 71.5 59.7 33.7 57.5 60.6 63.9 65.0 66.0 67.5 69.4 64.9 62.9 62.7 LI BI 67.0 62.9 64'.1 ]0.1 66.3 64.9 68.3 73.0 71.3 65.9 63.6 62.6 63.6 64.4 66.B 70.5 68.0 66.0 67.6 65.4 64.8 64.1 64.3 66.0 66.3 82.1 81.8 69.1 68.7 66.4 70.7 70.7 71.6 72.1 12.3 12.9 13.5 13.4 12.3 55.1 57.5 55.9 59.7 58.3 66.5 58.3 57.9 50.1 63.1 64.2 60.6 64.0 60.7 67.1 68.2 65.7 65.2 67.9 61.9 71.4 69.2 59.9 60.5 63.7 69.1 6S.B 63.4 53.3 64.4 59.7 62.3 58.5 56.5 66.3 63.9 59.6 63.9 66.3 $7.0 64.9 55.6 56.7 60.0 61.7 64.5 65.5 66.0 58.5 50.9 59.7 LIi63 L1251 L(50) L190) 63.4 60.0 55.4 50.E 60.5 58.9 55.0 51.1 61.1 59.0 55.9 51.7 68.0 66.4 59.0 52.4 64.3 63.1 59.5 50.9 63.5 62.0 56.3 51.9 66.3 64.9 60.1 51.4 33.4 30.7 65.5 56.0 6B.7 67.3 64.1 56.1 63.9 61.6 56.7 52.5 61.1 59.4 55.9 52.2 61.4 60.5 59. 6 54.4 2.4 61.5 59.4 55.0 62.5 61.2 56.3 54.2 65.7 64.4 59.0 54.E 69.4 68.1 64.4 57_0 66.3 64.7 60.7 54.E 64.3 62.8 59.9 55.5 65.5 63.9 61.1 56.5 63.6 62.2 59.5 55.1 63.1 61.B 59.2 54.4 62.1 60.7 58.3 54.2 63.1 61.5 58.5 54.E 64.8 62.6 50.1 $1.9 62.5 59.3 55.9 50.4 79.9 37.2 63.3 51.E 80.4 79:3 36.9 64.5 69.0 68.4 67.1 56.2 67.7 66.3 55.1 51.4 61.1 59.1 55.7 50.9 70.0 69.5 60.5 65.E 30.0 69.7 68.5 63.2 70.7 70.1 69.2 67.1 31.4 70.9 70.0 67.5 71.6 71.0 68.4 50.5 72.4 71.9 30.0 67.E 72.8 72.3 71.1. 68.E 72.7 72.1 70.7 69.1 71..6 31.1 69.1 51.4 53.7 52.9 51.6 49.` 55.0 54.0 52.5 49.6 54.2 53.2 51.5 49.E 57.6 55.9 53.3 50.3 56.6 55.3 52.0 49.4 65.9 65.6 64.1 51.6 55.0 53.5 51.2 48.3 55.9 54.5 52.5 49.2 55.6 54.4 52.6 50.7 $9.2 57.5 53.5 49.4 60.4 59.2 56.1 50.3 57.7 55.5 53.2 49.E 59.3 56.4 52.2 48.2 59.1 57.6 53.7 49.4 66.1 63.5 56.1 49.1 66.9 64.6 59.1 51.3 62.8 60.3 55.7 51.9 63.5 61.1 $8.3 52.E 66.3 64.1 58.8 51.5 60.6 59.1 55.7 51.5 69.4 63.0 58.0 51.E 63.3 59.2 55.3 52.4 58.4 57.5 55.8 53.4 58.2 57.2 55. 6 $3.3 62.0 60.3 57.2 54.2 66.3 63.1 58.8 53.0 67.6 66.3 63.0 57.0 61.6 60.0 53.8 54.8 56.3 55.5 53.9 51.5 61.7 59.7 56.3 51.4 58.0 56.9 55.1 52.1 59.3 57.4 55.1 53.0 55.8 54.8 53.2 51.6 54.4 52.9 51.5 50.1 62.9 56.7 53.0 51.0 62.4 61.4 59.3 52.E 57.7 56.6 55.0 53.6 61.8 60.1 57.7 54.5 63.1 50.7 56.2 53.E 55.6 54.7 53.6 52.0 58.0 56.6 54.4 51.9 54.2 52.9 50.9 49.5 54.7 53.4 52.2 50.3 56.4 54.6 52.B 50.E 59.3 56.0 53.1 51.2 63.4 62.1 56.4 52.1 61.9 58.4 53.6 51.3 63.3 60.1 57.2 51.1 56.4 54.9 52.8 50.: 57.7 56.4 53.0 50.2 50.2 56.8 54.7 50.E 2 ties, at Bldg Faacpri 0 2DJan 09 11:01:51 60.0 57.4 75.1 71.1 50.66 91.3 92.3 65.4 60.3 50.3 57.0 54.9 5Z.1 2 west at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:02:51 60.0 60.6 78.3 80.4 4E.2 95.2 96.3 66.6 58.1 55.8 $4.6 52.7 50.4 2 Wes, at Bids Footpri 0 dOJan 09 11:03:51 60.0 62.9 80.7 80.7 49.4 914 95.4 74.2 63.0 57.6 55.9 53.1 51.1 2 west at Bldg Footpri 0 20uan 09 11:04:51 60.0 63.0 80.8 81.1 50.9 93.9 94.5 72.3 67.0 60.3 57.0 54.1 52.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:05:51 60.0 64.6 02.3 80.6 51.4 93.9 93.5 75.6 68.1 62.0 58.0 55.3 53.2 2 Wes, at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:06:51 60.0 55.5 73.3 66.9 50.2 82.3 65.0 62.7 50.4 57.0 55.1 53.7 51.2 2 We., ac Bldg Faacpri 0 20Jan 09 11x07:51 60.0 57.1 74.0 70.3 48.8 89.2 91.0 63.0 61.3 59.7 58.1 53.9 50.6 2 West ac Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 31:08:51 60.0 53.6 71.3 67.9 47.6 84.0 85.0 50.6 56.2 54.5 53.4 51.8 49.3 2 Weac et Bid, Footpri 0 28Jan 09 11-09:51 60.0 57.9 75.7 71.1 48.8 85.9 89.4 664.9 61.0 59.6 58.3 551 51.1 2 Wes, ac Bldg Faacpri 0 29Jan 09 11:10:51 60.0 59.2 77.0 74.7 50.3 91.7 92.3 666.0 63.1 60.1 57.8 54.3 51.5 2 West ac Bldg Footpri 0 30Jan 09 11:11:51 60.0 54.3 72.1 63.3 49.4 78.5 85.0 660.3 51.0 55.7 54.7 52.9 51.0 2 ties, at Bldg Feacpti 0 2DJan 09 11:12:51 60.0 60.0 77.8 73.7 51.2 SBA 01.0 72.0 64.2 58.0 56.7 54.0 52.5 2 ties, ac Bldg Footpri 0 2DJan 09 11:13:51 60.0 56.5 84.3 77.2 49.3 99.3 99.5 73.1 71.8 70.5 69.0 57.7 50.6 2 B:eac ac Bid, Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:14:51 60.0 64.6 82.4 74.5 49.8 86.9 89.4 72.3 70.8 69.3 65.5 53.9 51.3 2 We at ac Bldg Foa,p_i 0 20Jan 09 11:15:51 60.0 65.3 83.0 15.5 46.5 90.3 09.4 72.9 711 69.1 66.3 58.4 50.7 2 West ac Bldg Faotori 0 20Jon 09 11:16:51 60.0 60.4 76.2 775 49.3 05.2 99.5 69.7 63.9 60.7 58.6 55.4 51.4 2 Was a, Bldg Footpri 0 28Jan 09 11:17:51 60.0 55.5 73.2 67.5 48.3 81.9 92.3 62.1 59.5 57.5 55.B 52.5 49.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 2GJan 09 11:I B: 51 60.0 60.7 78.5 12.4 47.4 61.5 93.5 69.8 65.2 61.7 59.6 56.6 52.1 2 West at Bldg Foscp.i 0 28Jan 09 11:19:51 60.0 67.6 65.4 84.7 46.9 103.0 103.0 77.7 68.6 66.5 64.5 60.0 53.6 2 West ac Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:20:51 60.0 61.0 76.7 70.8 50.2 80.0 67.5 68.9 66.4 63.1 61.2 56.5 53.3 2 West ac Bldg Footpri 0 20uan 09 31:21:51 60.0 59.0 76.7 74.0 47.9 88.9 01.0 68.0 62.9 60.1 58.0 55.0 51.6 2 west ac Bid, Footpti 0 20Jaa 09 11;22:51 60.0 63.4 91.7 77.5 50.8 91.9 92.3 72.1 60.0 65.7 64.1 59.9 53.6 2 West at Old, F08cpri 0 20Jan 09 11:23:51 60.0 72.1 B9.8 79.5 67.4 93.9 94.5 75.7 74.4 73.5 72.0 71.6 69.3 2 West at Bid, Footpri 0 28Jan 09 11:24:51 60.0 10.9 88.1 74.4 52.3 92.7 93.5 73.8 72.9 72.5 72.0 71.0 68.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:25:31 60.0 10.2 89.0 76.3 494 926.9 91.0 74.2 73.1 12.3 71.B 70.4 59.0 2 West a, Bldg Footpri 0 2oJan 09 11:26:51 60.0 66.0 83.8 76.9 49.8 67.3 97.0 73.0 71.1 68.7 66.6 62.0 56.0 2 ttleac ac Bldg Footpri 0 20Jen 09 11:27:51 60.0 72.0 99.7 79.0 53.3 94.0 96.3 75.6 74.5 73.8 73.0 71.5 69.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 28Jan 09 11:28:51 60.0 71.3 89.1 87.9 52.1 101.9 101.9 80.2 74.7 72.9 71.B 63.3 56.0 2 West at Old, Footpri 0 28Jan 09 11:29:51 60.0 70.7 88.5 89.2 49.4 103.6 1D3.0 02.1 71.1 65.9 62.6 57.4 51.8 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 28Jan 09 11:30:51 60.0 66.5 84.2 85.5 47.2 100.8 100.1 74.2 67.8 63.8 61.0 57.3 51.1 2 west at Bldg FeOCpti 0 20Jan 09 11:31:51 60.0 63.6 B1.3 00.1 48.9 300.1 98.3 73.1 68.1 62.9 50.6 54.4 50.9 2 west at Old, Foocpti 0 20Jan 09 11:32:51 60.0 68.3 86.1 80.2 49.4 97.8 102.3 76.9 73.6 71.2 69.3 62.1 52.0 2 ttleac at Bldg FOCtpri 0 Mae 09 11:33:51 60.0 70.9 88.7 92.8 41.9 108.0 108.1 72.0 66.9 66.1 65.1 57.2 50.3 2 beat at Bldg Footpri 0 2031n 09 11:34:51 60.0 64.6 82.4 82.7 46.2 98.6 98.9 76.5 64.5 61.2 58.9 52.0 48.7 2 west at Old, Footpri a 20uzn 09 11:35:51 60.0 60.9 78.7 79.8 45.4 95.8 94.5 69.4 65.4 50.5 55.4 52.0 48.3 2 Wont at Bldg Footpri 0' 20Jan 09 11:36:51 60.0 63.8 81.5 77.5 50.4 90.6 91.0 71.9 60.1 66.4 63.2 58.2 52.5 2 Best at Bldg Footpri 0 20uan 09 11:37:51 60.0 59.3 76.1 69.2 47.8 87.1 87.5 67.0 62.9 60.0 57.9 53.6 49.9 2 Weat at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:38:51 60.0 59.6 77.4 69.9 47.0 81.1 99.4 66.8 67.2 59.6 56.4 50.9 48.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 2GJan 09 11:39:51 60.0 50.6 76.4 69.2 48.2 83.1 89.4 66.7 64.1 60.1 58.0 54.9 50.8 2 oleo[ at Bldg Foocpr5 0 20Jan 09 11:40:51 60.0 62.2 80.0 73.8 50..3 86.6 89.4 68.7 67.5 65.8 63.3. 57.8 51.5 2 West at Bid, Footpri 0 28Jan 09 11:41:51 60.0 59.0 76.6 74.7 51.0 91.4 95.4 66.0 63.0 60.9 58.9 55.6 52.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:42:51 60.0 60.6 78.4 74.4 47.9 89.1 94.5 70.6 65.3 60.9 57.7 54.0 49.0 2 Blest of Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:43:51 60.0 52.3 70.1 63.3 47.2 77.5 85.0 59.4 55.2 53.5 52.2 50.5 40.5 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:44:51 60.0 58.9 76.7 73.4 •15.7 92.3 93.5 69.9 63.2 56.9 53.9 50.5 47.5 2 Went at Bldg Footpri 0 28Jan 09 11:45:51 60.0 62.3 00.1 74.2 47.5 89.3 91.0 71.2 67.4 64.6 61.5 56.4 50.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 QOJan 09 11:46:51 60.0 55.6 73.4 63.5 47.5 77.5 89.4 61.2 58.9 57.6 56.4 54.5 50.9 2 West at Bldg Foocpti a 20Jan 09 11:47:51 60.0 60.5 86.3 83.8 49.5 109.3 110.1 79.3 71.9 68.7 65.3 59.4 55.2 2 Best at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:48:51 60.0 64.8 82.6 82.4 48.4 95.5 91.7 72.3 67.3 63.8 61.5 57.9 53.9 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 Man 09 11:49:51 60.0 63.0 00.6 74.0 50.4 86.4 89.4 72.2 60.7 63.5 62.0 57.9 53.3 2 Best at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:50:51 60.0 72.6 90.4 68.5 50.4 106.4 106.3 85.1 74.1 70.3 68.2 60.4 54.3 2 Beat at Bid, Faetptl 0 28Jan 09 11:51:51 60.0 54.1 71.8 64.3 47.5 93.0 92.3 59.9 57.7 56.1 54.9 52.2 49.1 2 west at Bid, Faotpci 0 28Jan 09 11:52:51 60.0 50.7 76.5 74.4 45.0 92.0 93.5 67.0 60.9 59.0 57.9 55.3 49.8 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:53:51 60.0 67.4 85.2 85.2 47.8 105.4 104.4 76.6 72.2 69.1 65.9 59.4 51.6 2 West at Bldg Faotpci 0 20Jan 09 11:54:51 60.0 67.1 85.5 83.0 47.3 105.3 105.8 77.2 72.5 69,5 66.3 59.3 51.0 2 Beat at Bldg Footpri a 20Jan 09 11:55:53 60.0 66.7 64.5 BIA 47.2 103.6 103.7 78.6 69.2 64.8 61.9 56.9 49.8 2 west at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:56:53 60.0 59.7 77.5 74.5 46.0 93.6 97.0 60.7 65.4 60.9 56.5 52.7 49.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:57:51 60.0 67.9 05.6 84.5 47.2 104.9 107.0 70.1 71.5 60.2 66.4 59.8 50.0 2 west at Bids Footpri 0 28Jan 09 11:58:51 60.0 61.6 79.3 BO.7 48.9 100.3 101.5 71.0 64.1 60.0 57.4 53.1 50.2 2 West at Bldg Foocpti 0 20Jan 09 11-59:51 60.0 60.6 78.4 74.8 47.2 92.9 94.5 60.9 66.1 63.3 GD.7 53.3 48.7 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 12:00:51 60.0 61.5 79.3 72.9 49.2 93.0 93.5 69.6 66.6 63.2 61.1 58.0 52.6 2 Vast at Bid, Footpti 0 20Jan 09 12:01:51 60.0 62.3 80.0 75.2 46.1 95.0 95.4 72.5 67.8 62.5 60.0 55.9 49.0 2 West at Bldg Footp¢ 0 28Jan 09 12:02:51 60.0 62.0 79.8 74.8 47.0 96.1 96.3 70.5 67.9 64.6 61.4 55.9 4g.7 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20uan 09 12:03:53 60.0 65.6 03.4 83.0 47.2 99.6 100.6 74.3 69.1 66.8 64.0 57.0 50.0 2 Waac at Bldg Festpri 0 20Jan 09 12:04:53 60.0 63.4 B3.1 01.2 48.0 103.4 101.5 73.0 68.1 63.7 60.2 54.7 50.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:05:51 60.0 56.9 74.7 66.3 48.7 B4.O 85.0 62.9 60.4 $8.9 $7.8 55.4 51.5 2 West at Bldg Footpti 8 20Jan 09 12:06:51 60.0 59.5 77.3 68.8 48.0 92.1 87.5 65.6 63.4 62.2 61.3 57.1 51.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:07:51 60.0 59.9 77.6 74.5 49.0 B9.1 91.0 61.0 64.0 61.6 60.1 56.3 51.4 2 B:eac at Bldg Footpri 0 20aan 09 12:00:51 60.0 61.7 79.5 71.2 50.0 90.4 92.3 69.6 65.6 63.4 62.1 59.3 53.6 2 Best at Bldg Footpri 0 2GJan 09 12:09:51 60.0 68.5 86.3 06.8 48.3 103.0 102.7 70.3 69.2 65.8 61.2 55.7 51.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 ?OJen 09 12:10:51 60.0 65.5 83.3 79.2 49.2 105.4 105.2 72.5 70.4 69.1 67.4 58.1 51.4 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 12:11:53 60.0 61.2 78.9 73.9 46.7 69.3 89.4 70.6 65.9 62.1 61.0 56.5 51.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:12:51 60.0 58.0 75.6 70.3 46.9 91.4 51.0 614 62.6 59.4 57.5 53.1 48.9 2 West at Bldg Footpri 8 30uan 09 12:13:51 60.0 65.4 03.2 70.0 49.0 98.6 300.6 73.2 70.4 69.3 66.8 60.0 52.3 2 West at Bldg Footpt_ 0 20uen 89 12:14:51 60.0 64.7 B2.5 76.9 46.5 95.E 97.1 73.5 70.2 67.3 64.8 58.3 51.5 2 Bea, at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09.12:15:51 60.0 65.0 82.6 89.0 47.7 99.9 101.5 74.6 70.4 66.5 63.1 57.6 51.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:16:53 660.0 62.0 78.8 76.9 47.5 94.9 98.9 701 65.7 61.9 59.7 55.6 50.2 2 West as Bldg Fasten 9 20Jan 09 12:17:51 60.0 66.0 83.8 81.4 46.7 102.3 102.3 75.5 71.6 67.8 64.3 56.9 50.5 2 Fast at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:38:51 60.0 6a.8 BOA 77.9 45.6 96.8 96.3 74.9 73.0 71.7 70.6 67.7 52.9 2 wear at Old, Footpri a 20Jan D9 12:19:51 60.0 69.9 07.7 76.1 50.8 52.3 945 74.0 73.0 72.2 71.4 69.7 56.6 2 West at Bid, Footpri 0 20Jan D9 12:20:SI 60.0 71.8 89.6 77.5 595 92.5 93.5 74.6 73.7 73.1 72.7 71.7 69.3 2 Blest at Bid, Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:21:53 60.0 71.3 69.1 76.4 66.5 90.8 92.3 74.7 73.4 72.7 72.2 70.9 68.7 2 West as Bldg Footpri 0 20 Jan 06 12:22:51. 60.0 70.2 67.9 80.2 52.0 93.2 93.5 75.6 73.B 72.7 71.9 69.4 59.0 2 Weac at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:23:51 60.0 72.B 90.6 78.8 67.4 91.8 93.5 16.0 75.1 74.2 73.5 72.2 70.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20uan 09 12:24:51 60.0 70.2 08.0 77.5 65.0 92.4 92.3 75.3 72.8 71.5 7D.7 69.5 66.8 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20uan 09 12:25:51 60.0 70.0 87.7 60.0 49.0 91.4 91.0 75.2 73.4 72.4 71.7 69.9 57.6 2 west at Bldg Foocpti 0 28Jan 09 12 26:53 60.0 70.6 884 77.5 53.4 90.8 93.5 75.4 74.0 73.1 72.1 70.3 60.2 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 28Jan 09 12:27:51 60.0 69.7 67.5 BOA 49.9 99.4 58.9 76.4 73.0 72.7 71.9 65.1 54.5 2 West at Bid, Faotpci 0 28Jan 09 12:20:51 60.0 73.0 91.6 70.4 66.1 92.2 93.5 76.9 76.1 75.4 74.6 73.2 71.1 2 went at Bid, Footpri a 20Jan 09 12:29:51 60.0 72.0 89.9 79.9 50.5 96.5 91.0 77.0 75.7 73.9 72.9 71.4 64.0 2 Pleat at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:30:51 60.0 65.8 63.6 76.2 49.5 96.3 97.0 72.7 71.6 70.1 66.9 60.2 52.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20uan 09 12:31:51 60.0 65.5 63.3 75.4 47.8 93.0 04.5 72.6 70.0 68.4 67.1 62.6 52.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:32:51 60.0 62.0 79.8 71.4 49.7 85.9 07.5 68.7 66.4 64.6 63.1 59.4 52.3 2 West at Bid, Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:33:51 60.0 63.8 81.6 73.0 49.2 86.4 91.0 69.7 69.5 67.3 65.7 61.5 52.4 2 West at Old, Foocpti 0 2DJan 09 12:34:51 60.0 65.4 83.2 77.4 49.2 91.2 91.0 72.8 70.5 68.9 66.7 60.0 52.9 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 Man 09 12:35:51 60.0 66.0 83.0 75.5 46.5 89.9 09.4 73.0 71.4 68.8 66.9 63.3 52.3 2 West at Bid, F.%:,si 0 20Jan 09 12:36:51 60.0 65.3 83.1 31.3 49.7 109.8 110.2 72.2 66.7 64.5 61,4 56.8 52,1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:37:51 60.0 59.5 11.3 70.5 50.0 89,4 93.5 66.2 63.3 61.3 60.0 57.3 53.2 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 2OJan 09 12:30:51 60.0 62.3 80.1 71.5 50.1 85.2 89.4 70,6 68.4 65.8 60.2 57.2 52.3 2 West at Bldg Footpri a ?OJan 09 12:39:51 60.0 59.0 76.8 72.3 48.0 93.3 92.3 99.9 62.7 58.4 56.3 52.9 49.7 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 ROJan 09 12:40:51 60.0 63.6 01.4 85.5 46.7 106.3 110.5 69.0 64.7 62.2 57.7 53.4 48.6 2 West at Bid, Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:41:51 60.0 61.2 79.0 04.4 46.0 106.3 110.2 66.2 63.0 58.4 56.3 52.6 46.4 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:42:51 60.0 56.8 74.6 68.0 46.0 80.8 91.0 65.0 61.4 58,9 57.4 5Z.7 47.6 2 West at Bid, Foetpr! 0 2OJan 09 12:43:51 60.0 68.1 05.9 81.2 46.3 106.7 110.0 70.7 65.5 62.0 59.0 54.5 49.5 2 West at Bldg Footpr! 0 Raise 09 12:44:51 60.0 66.9 04.7 06.7 46.9 111.3 112.8 76.1 65.3 64.2 61.0 56.6 50.5 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 ZOJan 09 12:45:51 60.0 61.7 79.5 74.3 48.7 27.8 87.5 71.4 65.5 63.9 62.6 54.8 51.2 2 West a Bldg Foetpr-, 0 20Jan 09 12:46:51 60.0 57.6 75.4 61.3 51.7 51.0 87.5 62.8 60.7 59.4 58.4 56.5 54.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jen 09 12:47:51 60.0 62.2 90.0 81.2 49.8 92.5 93.5 71.9 65,6 60.8 58.7 55.1 51.6 2 West ec Bid. Foetpr! 0 2OJan 09 12:46:51 60.0 67.2 85.0 87.3 48.4 109.7 112.3 79.9 65.4 59.0 56.9 53.9 50.3 'West at Bldg Footpri a 20Jan 09 12:49:51 60.0 61.3 79.1 81.7 45.4 104.9 107.5 72.0 58.8 56.7 54.5 50.7 47.6 2 Weat at Bldg Footpri 0 ?OJan 09 12:50:51 60.D 53,6 76.4 78.4 6.2 100.4 104.7 66.4 60.7 58.7 51.3 53.4 48.5 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Ja.. 09 12:51:51 60.0 60.1 77.0 7-4 47.3 86.5 69.4 69.2 64.0 60.9 59.3 55.9 50.5 2 '.lest at Bldg Footpri a ?OJan 09 12:52:51 60.0 60.4 79.2 78.8 47.9 101.4 105.1 70.5 62.1 57.9 55.0 53.0 49.6 2 West at Bldg Faocpr, 0 20Jan 09 12:53:51 60.0 66.6 04.4 81.6 46.0 99.3 102.7 79.3 70.9 60.1 55.4 52.8 49.4 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 2DJan 09 12:54:51 60.0 63.6 81.4 80.6 49_.1 95.1 99.5 74.0 62.5 59.7 58.3 56.1 51.8 2 Wes: at Bldg Foocpc 0 20Jan 09 12:55:51 60.0 61.4 79.2 75.9 47.6 90.2 102.7 70.1 66.2 63.1 59.6 55.6 50.9 2 West ac Bldg FO.tpt! 0 20Jae 09 12:56:51 60.0 60.3 79.1 71.9 49.6 03.0 87.5 66.6 63.B 62.3 61.3. 58.2 54.1 2 Nest at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jaa 09 12:57:51 60.0 60.0 77.0 69.8 45.1 86.5 69.4 67.0 64.4 62.4 60.7 57.6 51.3 2 West at Bid, Footpci 0 2eJan 09 1 ?:58:51 60.0 58.7 76.5 74,8 47.9 08.9 91.0 64.2 61.5 59.9 59.0 57.0 52.8 2 Beat at Bldg Footpc o 20Jan 09 12:59:51 60.0 59.0 76.8 66.6 48.7 82.8 39.4 66.0 63.6 61.0 59.4 56,4 52.3 2 West at Bldg Footpc! 0 ?OJan 09 13:00:51 60.0 58.3 76.1 66.3 49.6 E3.3 97.5 64.8 61.B 60.1 58.9 56.7 53.1 2 Nest at Bldg Footpti 0 ?OJan 09 13:01:51 60.0 $8.9 76.7 69.1 49.3 875 92.3 65.6 62.8 61.0 59.6 57.0 52,3 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:02:51 60.0 56.8 74.6 67.9 47.3 00.2 07.5 63.9 61.0 59.2 57.7 54.0 49.8 2 West at Bldg Foorpri 0 Ragan 09 13:03:51 60.0 58.9 76.6 10.9 46.8 92.4 95.4 63.9 60.1 56.0 54.7 52.1 48.7 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:04:51 60.0 61.9 79.7 70.2 47.9 851 09.4 67.9 66.7 65.5 63.2 59.8 51.7 2 least of Bldg Footpc! 0 20Jan 09 13:05:51 60.0 64.5 82.3 83.8 51.1 108.9 109.4 70.3 67.1 65.4 63.9 60.5 54.0 2 West at Bid, Footpti 0 20Jan 09 13:06:51 60.0 69.2 87.0 88.2 49.0 111.6 115.0 81.1 68.6 63.1. 60.6 56.7 51.9 2 West at Did, Fo9tpri o 20Jan 09 13:07:51 60.0 65.6 83.4 86.1 50.4 109.3 213.7 74.7 62.5 60.7 59.1 56.9 53.4 2 ties: at Bid, Footpti 0 285an 09 13:08:51 60.0 67.7 85.5 85.6 47.2 107.3 111.2 79.7 65.6 61.2 59.1 56.2 52.1 2 West at Bid, Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:09:51 60.0 66.6 84.4 85.5 49.0 106.7 110.7 77.4 66.9 63.5 61.1 57.0 51,2 2 West at Bldg Footpc 0 20Jan 09 13:10:51 60.0 66.5 84.3 84.8 49,3 107.9 109.6 77.6 68.5 63.5 61_2 57.7 53.8 2 tae at at Bldg FOOiprl 0 2OJan 09 13:11:51 60.0 62.6 60.4 81.7 46.2 105.2 107.0 72.2 62.9 60.4 50.9 56.1 49.6 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 13:12:51 60.0 63.2 80.9 81.8 45.3 104.3 108.9 75.1 61.3 56.5 53.9 51.4 47.5 2 Wes: at Bldg Foocpsi 0 20Jan 09 13:13:51 60.0 64.1 81.9 81.5 47.8 104.4 107.5 76.4 63.3 58.5 56.3 52.5 49.3 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 ?OJan 09 13:14:51 60.0 63.7 81.5 84.5 48.2 106.4 109.1 74.0 58.1 55.3 54.2 52.5 50.0 2 ]Best at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:15:51 60.0 59.4 77.2 61.7 49.2 104.7 106.1 63.7 56.7 55.0 53.9 52.6 50.7 2 Best at Bldg Footpri 0 2OJan 09 13:16:51 60.0 59.6 77.3 81.1 48.6 102.1 102.7 67.7 57.0 55.7 54.5 52.5 49.9 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 08 13:17:51 60.0 63.5 81.3 79.6 50.2 103.8 104.7 75.1 65.1 61.0 59.1 56.0 51.7 2 lies[ at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:18:51 60.0 60.6 78.3 79.0 47.9 102.0 104.4 71.4 61.6 58.3 56.2 53.1 49.3 2 V30 et at Bldg Footpti 0 2OJan OB 13:19:51 60.0 62.6 00.3 79.5 47.5 103.0 107.5 73.9 64.9 61.0 57.7 53.7 50.4 2 1308 nt Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:20:51 60.0 58.4 76.2 79.0 46.7 101,5 103,7 69.2 56.5 54.0 52.8 51.2 49.0 2 WeaL at Bldg F000pri 0 2OJan 09 13:21:51 60.0 61.5 79.3 79.7 49.2 100.0 104.9 70.9 64.0 61.0 50.0 54.1 51.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 2eJan 09 13:22:51 60.0 67.1. 64.9 78.7 51.1 93.2 93.5 75.2 72.6 70.3 67.8 61.0 54.3 2 West at Bid, Footpti a 2OJan 09 13:23:51 60.0 64.2 62.0 77.5 40.9 92.3 93.5 71.6 69.4 67.7 65.3 57.8 51.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20JeO 09 13:24:51 60.0 66.3 84,0 70.2 49.9 94.7 98..3 74.4 71..8 69.5 66.5 58.9 53.5 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:25:51 60.0 61.9 79.7 79.6 49.9 103.2 1D5.5 72.1 66.5 58.3 55.5 53.2 51.3 2 Neat at Bldg Footpri a 20Jan 09 13:26:51 60.0 69.6 87.4 82.9 51.6 96.4 100.1 78.2 74.6 72.3 70.4 62.4 53.8 2 Weet at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:27:51 60.0 65.5 03.3 77. 6 50.9 100.1 106.3 75.4 71.8 67.2 62.9 56.4 52.7 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 2OJan 09 13:28:51 60.0 62.9 80.6 74.4 49.4 92.2 97.7 71.7 60.6 66.1 63.0 55.4 50.8 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Ja. 09 13:29:51 60.0 62.4 60.2 77.2 49.3 101.6 102.3 70.6 67.3 64.6 62.2 57.8 53.3 2 West at Bid, Footpc 0 2eJan 09 13:30:51 60.0 63.3 61.0 78.3 49.8 97.3 101_5 73.9 66.7 62.9 61.0 57.2 52.4 2 West at Bldg Footpr) 0 2eJan 09 13:31:51 60.0 66.6 64.6 83.4 51_6 1095 110.1 76.2 71.5 68.0 65.6 61.1 54.4 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:32:51 60.0 62.0 80.6 79.0 51.4 103.0 106.9 70.2 65.9 63.8 62.6 59.0 54.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 Ragan 09 13:33:51 60.0 61.4 79.2 74.6 49.5 94.1 100.6 69.7 65.6 63.3 61.7 57.0 52.3 2 ]Best at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 i3:34:51 60.0 52.5 70.3 64.9 49.5 79.1 85.0 56.9 54.7 53.5 52.6 51.7 50.3 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:35:51 60.0 54.0 72.6 65.1 43.9 76.7 85.0 61.0 50.6 56.7 55.4 52.7 50.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Ja., 09 13:36:51 60.0 54.6 72.6 67.6 4B.8 87.3 92.3 60.2 59.7 56.7 55.6 53.3 50.6 2 Bast at Bldg F-tIt` 0 20Jsa 09 13:37:51 60.0 $5.7 73.5 69.9 49.5 80.8 98.9 61.6 57.7 56.9 56.5 54.2 51_0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:38:51 60.0 52.3 70.1 59.6 47.6 76.9 85.0 57.6 55.1 53.9 52.9 51.4 49.2 2 'lest at Bldg Footpri 0 2eJan 09 13 39:51 60.0 59.3 77.1 72.4 48.1 87.2 89.4 70.0 63.3 59.4 56.5 52,4 49.8 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jar. 09 13:40:51 60.0 50.7 76.5 69.9 49.0 87.7 87.5 65.3 63.6 62.1 59.7 54.8 50.4 2 Floss at Bldg Foetpri 0 20Jan 09 13:41:51 60.0 59.4 76.2 74.3 49.88 96.0 103.0 67.1 61.7 59.3 58.0 54.9 51.2 2 West as Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:42:51 60.0 63.1 00.0 72.6 53.0 92.7 100.1 70.5 60.6 65.6 63.0 59.0 55.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri a 20Jaa 09 13:43:51 60.0 66.1 03.9 05.5 52.6 101.9 103.7 73.4 67.2 65.3 63.9 59.2 55.1 2 Wes: at Bldg Footpri a Ragan 09 13:44:51 60.0 59.6 77.4 73.3 51.4 94.1 101.0 66.5 62.B 60.5 59,3 57.4 54.3 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:45:51 60.0 59.9 77.7 73.9 49.9 94.4 100.6 69.4 63.6 61.3 59.0 55.5 51.5 2 West at Bldg Footpc 0 20gan 09 13:46:51 60.0 60.2 76.0 76.5 53.9' 100.0 99.5 66.0 61.7 60.4 59.5 5B4O 55.7 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:47:51 60.0 59.0 75.7 65.3 52.3 79.4 91.0 63.4 61.1 59.6 58.6 56.9 54.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 ?OJan 09 13:48:51 60.0 63.5 81.2 71.5 50.3 885 89.4 70.7 69.7 69.3 63.3 56.1 52.9 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:49:51 60.0 57.7 75.5 75.3 49.6 9D.2 92.3 65.0 59.9 57.7 56.3 54.3 51.6 2 Best at Bldg Foetpri a 20Jan 09 13:5D:51 60.0 62.4 80.1 76.6 50.4 95.1 100.6 74.2 64.6 59.6 50.0 55.5 53.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 2OJan 09 13:51:51 60.0 63.5 61.2 79.4 48.8 97.4 100.1. 75.1 64,8 61,4 59.8 53.9 50.7 2 Floss at Bldg Foetpr! 0 Ragan 09 13:52:51 60.0 69.5 07.3 01.8 47.9 100.0 100.1 79.6 75.7 71.0 66.1 58.4 52.7 2 Beat at Bldg Foocpc! 0 20Jan 00 13:53:51 60.0 72.9 90.6 02.9 47,6 161.0 101.0 01.5 79.3 76.3 72.6 62.3 52.3 2 West at Bid, Footpri a 203an 09 13:54:51 60.0 65.6 63.4 75.5 49.3 91.4 94.5 72.4 70.9 69.6 67.6 60.3 54.2 2 West at Bldg Footpr! 0 20Jan 09 13:55:51 60.0 58.5 76.3 74.3 50.9 52.9 01,0 63.3 61.1 59.6 58.7 56.0 53.5 2 Beat at Bldg Foetpcl 0 20Jan 09 13:56:51 60.0 64.7 82.5 78.6 53.9 95.5 97.0 71.2 60.5 67.0 65.6 63,1 57.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Ja. 09 13:57[51 60.0 65.9 63.7 73.8 53.5 89.0 96.3 71.7 70.0 69.1 67.9 63.9 56.6 2 West at Bldg Footpr! 9 'en 09 13:58:52 60.0 61.7 79.5 71.4 53.0 38.0 93.5 60.2 65.6 64.3 63.1 59.8 55.3 2 West at Bid, Footpti 0 2OJan 09 13:59:51 60.0 69.6 87.4 81.8 52.7 IDO.2 100.6 78.9 75.7 72.3 68.4 58.5 54.2 2 West at Bldg Footpci 0 ZOJan 09 14:00:51 60.0 60.9 78.6 72.5 50.0 85.5 89.4 70.5 64.3 61.1 59.0 57.0 52.9 2 West at Bldg Footpc! 0 2eJan 09 14:01:51 60.0 62.5 80.3 69.7 50.5 85.7 67.5 67.6 65.9 65.1 64.5 61.4 52,4 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:02:51 60.0 60.7 78.4 66.3 47.0 79.2 B9.4 65.7 64.9 64.4 63.7 57.2 49.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:03:51 60.0 59.3 77.1 73.0 47.3 87.7 92.3 66.6 65.1 63.9 59.1 51.2 48.5 2 West at Bid, Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:04:51 60.0 54.2 72.0 66.8 48.4 78.1 63.4 62.2 58.8 54.3 52.0 51.3 49.4 2 West at Bldg Foetpri 0 Root. e9 14:05:51 60.0 61.2 70.9 60.8 47.5 62.6 65.0 66.5 65.3 64.4 63.6 59.2 49.9 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 ZOJan 09 14:06:51 60.0 64.3 82.1 71.0 50.3 87.6 92.3 69.1 67.6 66.4 65.7 64.3 52.7 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:07:51 60.0 60.9 78.7 71.7 49.4 99.7 91.0 69.7 66.9 63.5 59.8 54.5 51.2 2 Wast at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 05 14:08:51 60.0 50.7 76.5 72.5 48.5 90.1 91.0 69.3 62.9 56.3 54.9 53.1 50.4 2 [lest at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:09:51 60.0 69.5 87.3 90.7 49.4 99.6 98.3 79.9 76.1 71.7 67.5 59.8 54.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 2OJan 09 14:10:51 60.0 64.5 82.3 79.4 48.2 98.9 98.3 75.6 69.5 63.4 60.0 53.6 50.5 2 West at Bldg Footpzi 0 20Jan 09 14:11:51 60.0 56.3 14.1 66.4 47.7 84.0 89.4 62.6 60.1 59.2 57.8 53.4 50.6 2 Weat at Bldg Footpr5 0 20Jan 09 14:12:51 60.0 61.6 79.4 71.3 40.0 85.7 91.0 70.3 67.9 64.9 60.1 53.8 50.2 2 West ac Bldg Faotpri 0 20Jan 09 14:13:51 60.0 65.1 82.9 77.9 47.5 92.4 92.3 71.0 69.1 68.3 67.1 62.5 50.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 14:14:51 60.0 68.3 B6.1 89.4 46.1 104.4 104.9 72.9 64.6 65.8 61.9 52.2 47.8 2 West at Bitlg Foacpr5 0 ZOJan 09 14:15:51 60.0 59.5 71.3 72.3 45.8 89.5 89.4 70.1 65.9 57.9 53.4 49.9 47.1 2 Weat ac Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:16:51 60.0 63.8 91_6 77.8 46.5 93.0 01.1 75.2 68.6 62.1 $7.5 51.3 48.6 2 West at Bitlg Faptpzi 0 20Jan 09 14:17:51 60.0 69.3 86.1 61_3 4 6. 0 106.1 196.6 77.4 74.1 70.4 67.6 62.5 49.0 2 West ac Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:16:51 60.0 70.2 68.0 81.0 46.0 99.8 100.5 78.7 75.9 72.0 69.9 65.2 55.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:19:51 60.0 57.2 75.0 75.2 46.4 92.9 94.5 67.3 59.7 55.6 53.8 51.7 48.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:20:51 60.0 66.5 84.2 77.5 46.5 05.6 97.7 75.2 72.3 69.4 66.6 58.5 47.8 2 West at Bldg Footpti a 20Jan 09 14:21:51 60.0 60.1 77.9 72.9 45.7 90.8 91.0 65.8 65.7 62.3 58.8 51.7 41.7 2 Hest at Bldg Faotpri 0 20jaa 09'14:22:51 60.0 51.4 75.2 70.7 46.8 87.3 93.5 68.0 61.9 51.1 53.5 51.3 48.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 14:23:51 60.0 57.4 75.2 70.2 47.8 85.6 91.0 64.7 60.9 59.7 58.5 54.4 50.0 2 Hint at Bldg Footprl 0 20Jan 09 14:24:51 60.0 58.1 75.9 68.2 49.2 90.3 93.5 65.4 63.6 61.8 57.9 53.0 50.8 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 202an Be 14:25:51 60.0 59.1 76.9 70.7 48.7 86.3 87.5 67.0 65.4 60.6 57.6 54.1 50.8 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:26:51 60.0 61.2 79.9 91.0 49.4 96.1 91.7 68.4 63.1 60.5 58.7 54.9 51.4 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 14:27:51 60.0 62.9 80.6 90.9 50.5 92.3 02.3 72.7 65.1 60.1 57.3 54.6 52.0 2 West at Bldg Feotps5 0 20Jan 09 14:28:51 60.0 65.9 93.7 84.2 52.5 07.6 97.3 76.4 69.0 63.4 60.3 55.6 53.9 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09. 14:29:51 60.0 56.3 74.1 65.5 51.4 91.4 91.0 62.7 59.0 57.2 56.4 55.1 53.2 2 West at Bldg Fo tpc 0 20Jaa 09 14:30:51 60.0 53.5 71.3 65.1 48.5 79.6 91.0 55.2 55.0 54.3 53.7 52.4 50.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09' 14:31:51 60.0 $8.4 76.1 71.7 47.8 56.0 91.0 69.8 60.1 56.5 54.6 52.2 49.4 2 !teat at 8149 Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:32:51 60.0 63.1 80.9 75.5 47.9 92.4 94.5 71.2 68.2 65.3 63.0 58.7 51.9 2 %last at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 14:33:51 60.0 60.8 78.6 73.0 50.0 69.5 93.5 69.4 65.7 62.9 60.3 56.0 51.8 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:34:51 60.0 60.5 78.2 74.9 45.2 89.3 91.7 69.1 65.1 62.5 60.1 55.4 51.2 2 West at Bitlg Foatpri 0 20Jan 09 14:35:51 60.0 66.1 83.9 85.8 50.3 111.1 113.3 76.3 67.0 63.6 60.8 57.6 52.5 2 Hest at Bitlg Footpti 0 20Jan 00 14:36:51 60.0 65.7 e3.4 83.7 50.8 107.3 107.7 75.9 68.0 64.4 62.7 60.1 54.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:37:51 60.0 65.4 63.2 67.0 50.2 109.6 109.2 74.8 67.9 63.6 61.1 56.5 52.5 2 Blest at Bldg Footpri 0 2BJan 09 14:38:51 60.0 64.3 82.0 84.6 52.5 105.6 109.7 73.4 66.7 63.6 61.6 57.1 54.1 2 West at Bid, Footpzi 0 20Jan 09 14:39:51 60.0 63.6 81.4 83.4 51.8 IOB.6 111.1 72.3 65.5 63.7 62.1 57.4 53.9 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 2BJan 09 14:40:51 60.0 61.1 76.9 73.7 53.4 91.5 97.0 66.9 64.3 63.1 61.9 59.3 55.7 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 14:41:51 60.0 62.8 60.6 86.7 49.2 109.4 111.7 65.7 63.4 61.3 59.4 56.2 51.7 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jao 09 14:42:51 60.0 68.9 86.7 89.4 48.7 111.5 114.6 80.0 66.9 63.6 60.2 54.7 50.4 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 204an 09 14:43:51 60.0 70.2 Be.O 89.5 49.2 109.6 113.5 82.2 69.6 65.6 62.5 57.0 51.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:44:51 60.0 67.0 84.8 85.7 40.3 107.9 110.4 77.5 67.4 64.7 63.6 60.1 50.3 2 West at Bldg Footpri o 20dan 99 14:45:51 GO.0 67.0 94.8 83.9 48.7 106.0 109.9 79.2 67.8 61.8 59.0 55.3 51.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri o 20Jan 09 14:46:51 60.0 65.4 83.2 84.4 40.7 101.5 111.0 76.4 66.1 62.0 59.9 56.4 51.2 2 West at Bitlg Faocpr5 0 20Jan 09 14:47:51 60.0 63.0 60..8 81.7 49.0 103.7 108.5 72.5 64.8 62.4 60.5 56.2 51.4 2 Wost at Bid, Footpti 0 20Jan 09 14:40:51 60.0 67.0 84.8 89.1 48.5 111.6 114.9 72.2 66.9 63.5 60.8 56.2 50.6 2 Woet at Bldg Footpri o 201an 09 14:49:51 60.0 57.7 75.5 71.9 48.0 96.0 93.0 66.2 61.7 59.2 57.3 53.2 49.5 2 Hest at Bldg Footpri 0 Man 09 14:50:51 60.0 59.7 77.5 73.5 47.3 90.9 91.0 6B.7 65.5 GI.A $7.1 52.3 49.2 2 Nest at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:51:51 60.0 63.6 61.3 77.5 4B.2 91.1 93.5 74.7 67.8 62.7 60.2 55.6 50.1 2 Wast at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:52:51 60.0 66.6 04.4 80.9 49.2 93.7 94.5 77.6 72.1 66.1 62.2 55.3 50.7 2 % Ise t at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:53:51 60.0 55.3 73.0 60.3 49.7 92.5 91.0 61.3 59.4 $7.3 55.8 52.5 51.0 2 Was at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:54:51 60.0 51.0 78.7 70.2 50.4 83.9 B9.A 66.7 65.6 64.B 64.0 56.5 52.2 2 tie S at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 14:55:51 60.0 56.2 73.9 66.7 50.7 83.7 89.4 63.3 59.6 578 56.1. 54.1 51.7 2 We 5C at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:56:51 60.0 56.6 74.4 70.3 49.9 87.5 '87.5 63.2 59.9 57.9 56.7 54.6 51.9 2 west at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:57:51 60.0 65.4 83.2 78.2 51.5 92.5 93.5 74.5 70.9 68.4 63.4 56.3 53.1 2 Was at Bldg Footpri 0 293an 09 14:59:51 60.0 63.6 81.4 76.5 51.3 90.1 91.0 74.0 68.3 64.1 61.2 56.9 52.9 2 west at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:59:51 60.0 64.9 82.6 86.3 51.2 101.0 101.5 67.5 60.8 59.2 57.9 55.1 52.8 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 15:00:51 60.0 62.2 79.9 80.2 52.5 96.1 97.0 71.7 61.9 59.4 58.5 57.2 54.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 15:01:51 60.0 64.5 82.3 03.7 50.4 96.6 97.7 71.2 61.B 59.9 50.9 57.0 52.1 2 west at Bldg Footpri 0 203an 09 13:02:51 60.0 63.0 80.8 81.7 49.9 100.2 100.1 75.2 59.0 56.3 54.9 53.0 50.9 2 Was at Bid. Footpti 0 203aa 09 15:03:51 60.0 60.0 778 B1.3 49.0 93.9 94.5 66.2 59.1 56.6 54.5 52.2 501 2 W03C at Bldg Foatpri 0 29Jan 09 15:04:51 60.0 62.6 BOA 83.4 49.2 96.6 97.7 66.6 64.5 59.5 57.2 53.1 50.4 2 Hest at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:05:51 60.0 62.5 80.3 76.6 48.9 97.5 98.9 71.2 61.3 65.7 63.5 54.3 50.4 2 west at Bitlg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:06151 60.0 61.9 79.1 76.3 48.5 93.0 94.5 70.8 66.6 64.5 61.0 54.7 50.4 2 West at Bldg Footpri o 20Jan 09 15:07:51 60.0 60.5 78.3 72.0 50.2 84.0 89.4 70.2 65.6 61.5 58.7 55.0 52.2 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20J., 09 15:09:51 60.0 61.1 78.8 72.9 51.2 86.7 89.9 69.4 66.2 63.3 60.7 56.0. 53.1 2 toes[ at Bitlg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 15:09:51 60.0 62.0 79.8 70.0 51.7 81.5 87.5 68.9 66.9 64.5 62.6 60.0 53.7 2 Neat at Bldg Faotpri 0 20Jan 09 15:10:51 60.0 58.2 76.0 77.3 45.2 88.4 89.4 62.5 50.6 56.9 56.0 53.8 50.8 2 best at Bldg Footpri 0 20jan 09 15:11:51 60.0 58.1 75.9 70.0 49.5 61.1 05.0 67.9 60.6 58.4 57.1 55.3 51.5 2 West at Bid. Footpri 0 2BJan 09 15:12:51 60.0 59.3 77.1 71.0 50.2 82.5 87.5 70.0 62.5 58.7 57.5 55.1 52.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:13:51 60.0 56.8 74.6 67.1 48.5 84.4 87.5 64.8 62.1 56.5 56.0 53.2 50.1 2 W.at at Bldg Fopcpt5 0 2BJan 09 15:14:51 60.0 60.2 77.9 75.0 48.8 03.6 BOA 66.2 62.9 61.7 60.5 57.2 51.8 2 [lost at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:15:51 60.0 60.5 78.2 71.9 45.6 99.5 804 69.2 65.6 62.3 60.1 55.9 51.4 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:36:51 60.0 63.4 81.2 00.9 49.0 99.1 98.9 73.6 66.9 63.2 62.0 53.6 50.5 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 15:17:51 60.0 58.8 76.5 68.2 47.0 '6i.4 667.5 67.3 65.0 60.7 57.9 53.5 49.7 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:16:51 60.0 53.9 71.6 68.4 46.66 63.2 85.0 63.0 56.0 53.6 52.7 50.8 48.3 2 Hest at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:19:51 60.0 61.8 79.6 70.7 50.4 85.9 87.5 68.7 66.4 64.4 63.0 59.4 52.3 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20jan 09 15:20:51 60.0 41.4 79.2 69.1 49.1 82.9 875 67.8 66.2 64.5 62.7 59.0 50.9 2 'fast ac Bitlg Footpzi 0 20daa 09 15:21:51 60.0 62.2 80.0 73.1 50.6 06.0 89.4 68.6 66.6 65.1 63.6 59.6 52.4 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 15:22:51 60.0 60.4 78.2 69.3 50.6 60.0 87.5 67.7 65.4 63.9 62.5 55.4 51.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jar. 09 15:23:51 60.0 60.0 77.6 10.3 50.0 20.9 92.3 615 66.2 63.9 58.4 52.9 51.2 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:24:51 60.0 57.5 75.7 66.5 47.6 81.0 87.5 64.9 63.1 61.2 58.8 54.5 49.2 2 Ifeet at Bldg Footpti B 20Jan 09 15:25:51 60.0 58.8 76.6 69.3 48.4 79.1 87.5 67.2 64.8 61.7 57.3 53.0 50.4 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:26:51 60.0 53.9 71.7 61.9 47.5 82.2 65.0 61.4 56.6 54.5 53.4 52.0 45.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan Be 15:27:51 60.0 55.2 73.0 64.9 49.2 71.9 09.4 61.1 56.2 56.9 55.9 53.8 51.1 2 West at Bitlg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:20:51 60.0 59.9 77.7 61.6 49.5 100.0 100.6 66.2 58.3 $6.1 54.3 51.9 50.3 2 Hest at Bid, Footpti 0 20Jen 09 15:29:51 60.0 59.8 77.6 63.1 49.1 81.4 85.0 66.4 64.5 63.3 60.9 56.7 51.8 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:30:51 60.0 57.3 75.1 61.1 53.66 92.88 'a 9.4 62.7 58.8 57.9 57.6 56.0 55.2 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:31:51 60.0 63.0 BOA 74.5 53.9 92.9 92.3 70.9 60.5 65.2 62.8 59.5 56.1 2 West at Bldg Faotpri 0 20Jan 05 15:32:51 60.0 65.7 63.4 86.4 54.3 102.2 101.9 70.3 63.0 61.4 60.7 59.5 56.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:33:51 60.0 66.6 84.4 84.0 S-9 67.0 98.3 77.8 68.7 63.6 62.1 59.5 56.3 2 West at Bldg Footpri o 20Jan 09 15:34:51 60.0 65.0 82.9 85.4 55.6 99.7 99.5 71.8 65.5 63.6 62.4 60.2 57.9 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:35:51 60.0 61.0 7B.7 70.0 56.0 86.1 92.3 64.6 62.8 62.2 61.7 60.7 501 2 West at Bitlg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:36:51 60.0 62.5 80.3 76.4 55.4 90.7 91.0 68.3 66.2 62.9 62.3 61.0 50.2 2 Beat at Bldg Footpti 0 203an 09 15:31:51 60.0 60.4 78.1 67.8 56.9 85.1 92.3 63.7 62.2 61.6 61.1 60.1 58.1 2 West at Bldg Footpzi 0 29Jan 09 15:38:51 60.0 64.6 82.4 71.6 51.9 86.1 9B.3 70.7 69.5 66.4 64.8 62.6 59.0 2 West at Bldg Fo6Cpn 0 29Jan 09 15:39:51 60.0 66.1 83.9 78.8 54.5 95.2 99.5 70.7 69.7 6B.9 68.3 62.9 57.2 2 West at Bldg Footpzi 0 20Jan 09 15:40:51 60.0 61.9 79.6 72.3 55.6 90.1 81.5 66.0 64.1 62.9 62.1 60.8 50.6 2 West at Old, Faotpri 0 20Jan 09 15:41:51 60.0 62.2 79.9 73.0 57.6 89.2 94.5 68.7 65.1 62.8 61.0 60.9 59.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:42:51 60.0 59.4 77.2 65.4 51.8 81.5 81.5 63.4 61.9 60.7 60.0 59.1 56.6 2 West at Bldg Footpzi 0 20Jan 09 15:43:51 60.0 61.4 79.2 75.0 55.6 92.2 95.4 68.4 63.0 61.6 61.3 60.2 57.6 2 Heat at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:44:51 60.0 65.0 82.0 85.6 55.5 105.0 104.9 70.5 63.5 62.5 61.9 60.1 57.2 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 15:45:51 60.0 61.6 79.4 76.4 55.9 92.0 96.3 67.3 63.8 62.4 61.5 60.2 58.1 2 Nest at Bldg Footpii 0 20Jan 09 15:46:51 60.0 59.2 77.0 71.1 53.8 88.7 92:3 63.0 61.2 60.2 59.7 58.6 56.7 2 Nest at Bldg Footpii 0 20Jan 09 15:41:51 60.0 61.0 78.8 79.8 53.5 94.3 95.4 66.8 62.2 60.5 59.7 58.6 56.3 2 Nest at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jao 09 15 ;48:51 60.0 64.2 81.9 80.0 56.1 93.2 96.3 73.9 66.9 63.6 62.3 60.1 57.7 2 ties at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jaa 09 15:49:51 60.0 62.4 80.2 77.2 55.4 92.5 94.5 71.1 64.8 62.6 61.3 59.5 56.9 2 Nest at Bldg Footpii 0 20Jan 09 15:50:51 60.0 60.3 7B.1 7.3.2 52.7 91.3 92.3 65.0 63.0 62.1 61.3 59.6 55.3 2 Nest at Bldg Foocpvi o 20Jan 09 15:51:51 28.5 69.4 83.9 86.2 55.1 308.3 108.9 79.8 72.6 69.5 66.5 60.3 57.4 C: \LARDAV\SLHUTIL \ZOJA9 09.61. Interval Data "as Sire Ocailen L Borah, Date Time D.r.rion 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20jan 09 09:17:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20dan 09 09:18:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jar. 09 09:19:47 60.0 3 Perot 3 Noah Bldg F 0 ?OJan 09 09:20:47 60.0 3 Beret 3 North Bid, F 0 IOJan 09 09:21:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 29Jan 09 09:22:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 09:23:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 Noah Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 09:24:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 Noah Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 09:25:47 60.0 3 More- 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:26:47 60.0 3 Peter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:27:47 60.0 3 µetas 3 :2orCM1 Bldg 0 20Jan 09 09:28:47 60.0 3 Peter 3 North Bldg F 0 30J.. 09 09:29:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 Berth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:30:47 60.0 3 Meta. 3 North Bldg e 0 20Jan 09 09:31:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 Berth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:32:47 60.0 3 Peter 3 11.6tb Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 09:33:47 60.0 3 Note- 3 Borth Bide F 0 20Jan 09 09:39:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jag Oo. 09:35:93 60.0 3 Peter 3 Borth Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 09:36:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 2Wan 09 09:3]:4] 60.0 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 09:36:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bitlg F 0 26Jan 09 09:39:97 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 26Jan 09 09:40:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:41:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 Berth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:42:47 60.0 3 Haar 3 Borth Bldg F 0 ?Wan 09 09:43:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bitlg F 0 26Jan 09 09:44:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 Borth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:45:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bitlg F o 20jan 09 09:46:4] 60.0 3 Mete. 3 N.,rh Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 09:4]:4] 60.0 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 09:48:4] 60.0 3 Meter 3 Noah Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 09:49:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 Nettie Bldg F o 2Wan 00 09:50:47 60.0 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jaa 09 09:51:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:52:47 60.0 3 Hater 3. North Bid, F 0 26Jan 09 09:53:47 GD.O 3 Meter 3 Noah Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 09:54:47 60.0 3 Note. 3 Ilorth Bid, F 0 26Jan 09 09:55:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:56:47 60.0 3 Mater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:57:4] 60.0 3 Meter 3 I4.rrh Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:58:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Did, F o 20J.n 09 09:59:97 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:00:47 60.0 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:01:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:02:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:03:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:04:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:05:17 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 00 10:06:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:07:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 203an 09 10:06:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:09:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bid. F 0 26Jan 09 10:10:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:11:97 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 ?OJan 09 10:12:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 2DJan 09 10:13:47 60.0 3 Note. 3 North Bid, F 0 eOJan 09 10:i4:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 ZOJan 09 10:15:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 29Jan 09 20:16:97 60.0 3 Here. 3 North Bldg F 0 29Jan 09 10:17:47 60.0 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20jan 00 10:18:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 Borth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:19:9] 60.0 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:20:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:21:47 60.0 3 Hole. 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:22:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:23:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:24:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 10:25:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bid. F 0 26Jan 09 10:26:47 60.0 3 Mater 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:27:47 60.0 3 Perot 3 Ilorth Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 10:28:41 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:29:97 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:30:41 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:31:97 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:32:97 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:33:47 60.0 3 Moser 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 10:34:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bids F 0 20Jan ON 10:35:47 60.0 3 ]later 3 Borth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:36:97 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 26Jan 09 10:37:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F D 20Jae 09 10:39:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:39:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:40:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:41:47 60.0 3 I9eter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 10:42:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:43:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jae 09 10:44:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:45:47 60.0 3 Motor 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 10:46:47 60.0 Leg BoL F,vax 71.3 89.1 86.4 69.9 87.7 85.0 65.1 82.9 79.1 62.8 80.6 74.3 62.5 80.3 70.4 64.8 82.6 81.5 61.9 79.6 77.5 60.0 77.8 72.8 56.6 76.6 69.9 51.7 75.5 10.7 49.5 67.3 60.7 65.3 83.1 76.3 63.4 61.2 79.5 62.1 79.0 72.3 66.2 64.0 51.9 62.0 79.7 15.7 56.2 74.0 67.7 59.0 76.8 72.3 61.5 79.3 75.4 63.7 81.4 79.3 63.6 81.5 78.7 56.3 74.1 67.9 56.5 74.3 67.7 56.7 74.4 73.2 53.6 71.4 70.3 59.6 77.4 70.3 65.6 83.4 74.0 59.2 77.0 77.7 57.2 14.9 66.1 64..6 62.4 74.6 56.1 73.9 65.6 55.1 72.9 72.4 53.8 71.6 61.9 54.0 71.6 68.2 55.0 72.7 66.9 57.6 75..4 73.0 57.3 75.1 64.4 56.6 74.3 64.7 53.3 71.1 67.6 66.8 B4.6 79.3 72.1 89.9 84.7 60.9 78.7 70.2 56.6 74.4 71.3 59.1 76.B 69.5 58.0 75.7 62.7 58.9 76.7 62.6 59.2 77.0 65.0 56.6 76.5 66.7 56.6 74.4 61.1 58.8 76.6 63.1 58.8 76.6 63.7 58.6 76.3 63.7 65.1 82.9 74.7 55.8 73.5 77.3 56.3 74.1 74.3 56.6 74.3 76.2 59.7 76.5 73.7 60.4 76.1 77.3 61.2 79.0 74.5 57.4 75.1 76.0 56.2 74_0 68.7 53.7 71.5 67.0 62.6 50.9 75.5 57.2 74.9 71.3 61.4 79.2 81.9 $6.0 13.8 73.1 65.0 82.8 85.3 50.3 76.1 69.7 59.1 76.9 68.6 57.7 75.4 74.1 65.7 83.5 74.0 62.2 19.9 76.7 56.8 74.6 63.5 62.8 80.6 75.5 63.6 81.4 81.8 58.1 75.9 75.5 75.7 93.5 83.1 77.6 95.4 82.6 77.8 95.5 83.0 70.9 96.7 84.2 78.6 96.4 63.1 77.8 95.6 83.6 70.9 98.7 79.6 67.3 85.1 73.8 65.8 03.6 74.3 67.8 05.6 74.8 67..4 85.2 71.2 60.2 98.0 75.5 72.3 90.0 00.7 70.2 88.0 74.2 _n teak UN,k 45.4 101.0 104.6 48.5 108.2 109.2 45.3 92.5 95.7 45.5 67.3 92.6 85.4 92.6 43.0 97.8 99.7 45.3 97.3 46.5 85.4 87.7 45.7 60.3 87.7 45.5 66.2 89.7 46.0 76.6 96.5 465 89.6 93.6 45.6 96.5 97.9 47.9 86.4 43.3 97.3 98.6 42.] 3].3 41.4 80.! 59.7 44.0 84.3 89.7 43.3 99.9 91.2 47.6 52.1 93.7 47.E 05.1 97.3 46.1 79.6 67.7 46.6 82.2 91.2 47.7 E5.2 87.7 47.7 83.1 5].] 49.9 85.9 93.7 46.8 86.9 93.7 46.2 90.3 B9.7 47.6 79.9 87.7 45.9 87.8 94.8 45.B 82.7 65.2 48.1 84.6 89.7 46.9 74.6 85.2 46.1 81.7 89.7 48.1 78.6 89.7 48.7 87.3 91.2 49.4 75.6 87.7 44.6 82.6 B].] 44.8 82.6 85.2 45.8 91.3 92.6 56.3 97.6 98.3 52.0 81.5 91.2 45.3 05.5 87.7 43.7 00.0 94.8 51.1 75.3 87.7 51.8 76.7 85..2 54.0 80.3 92.6 54.6 82.1 85.2 46.2 74.5 87.7 53.0 79.7 92.6 55.0 76.3 E7.7 55.0 79.3 89.7 45.8 06.2 g7.3 44.3 95.3 97.3 43.6 93.0 94.8 46.1 92.5 95.7 4a".] P6.1 07.9 45.7 97.7 97.6 40.0 97.1 96.5 46.5 9 1.0 94.6 45.3 65.5 89.7 4.1 54.2 97.7 42.8 90.7 04.3 42.3 89.6 89.7 44.7 90.5 93.7 43.2 64.5 07.7 43.6 109.3 108.9 44.2 E6.4 89.7 45.0 53.2 87.7 5.3 -- - 51.2 8.1 S9.3 97.3 46.0 59.5 0 4].5 ]5.] 07.7 45.9 88.6 93.7 45.1 95.6 94.8 46.8 90.3 93.7 47.4 97.6 90.6 58.3 91.5 99.7 54.1 161.7 102.1 75.2 7.2 98.6 74.5 96.2 100.8 ]4.] 97.0 99.2 47.6 93.5 95.7 63.3 89.7 92.6 46.6 41.0 93.1 64.1 87.3 99.7 64.1 83.2 69.7 54.3 89.3 92.6 64.7 90.1 104.3 66.7 93.1 97.3 ( 2) L( 9) L(16) L(25) L(50) L(90) _________________ 82.4 76.0 72.2 67.8 59.3 50.9 79.1 75.4 72.0 69.1 61.9 52.4 74.3 70.6 67.4 64.2 57.6 48.6 70.9 66.6 66.3 63.6 55.4 47.0 69.2 67.5 66.1 65.1 57.6 47.4 75.6 69.9 65.3 60.1 51.5 46.4 73.6 65.9 59.4 54.B 51.3 47.4 67.0 66.1 63.0 50,0 53.5 48.7 68.1 65.7 60.5 56.0. 51.7 47.0 67.2 64.3 58.6 55.0 50.5 46.5 55.7 51.9 50.0 49.7 48.2 46.5 74.3 70.3 67.7 65.4 57.9 48.7 72.9 67.6 63.4 61.7 57.5 49.5 69.5 66.6 65.5 63.9 56.1 49.4 77.6 71.5 64.5 56.6 51.0 45.0 70.7 68.0 64.5 61.3 56.1 47.3 64.9 61.6 59.1 56.3 50.2 44.3 68.3 63.5 61.0 59.3 51.9 45.6 70.3 66.4 64.0 61.7 56.4 45.3 73.2 68.0 64.6 62.3 58.5 52.1 72.0 67.0 64.9 62.9 59.2 52.0 64.8 61.4 58.1 56.0 52.5 47.8 63.0 60.5 50.0 57.0 54.7 50.3 65.8 58.1 56.3 54.6 52.7 48.9 60.3 56.3 53.8 $2.7 50.7 48.7 68.9 64.2 $9.7 56.3 56.1 52.0 73.6 71.9 69.4 66.0 54.6 48.4 69.0 60.3 57.0 55.3 52.4 48.9 63.1 61.1 59.9 58.8 54.9 50.0 73.5 68.4 66.1 64.7 60.8 49.9 63.3 61.3 58.4 56.0 52.8 48.4 59.8 55.9 54.8 53.9 52.5 50.1 60.1 57.3 55.7 54.6 52.3 49.5 62.0 56.5 54.8 53.4 51.2 46.8 61.4 58.0 56.G 55.4 53.3 50.0 67.7 50.7 56.9 56.0 54.0 51.2 62.8 61.5 59..6 50.1 55.6 52.1 61.9 61.0 60.0 57.9 54.4 48.8 60.9 57.2 54.9 52.9 50.0 46.3 75.5 72.4 70.6 68.2 56.0 48.7 78.0 76.0 74.0 72.9 70.7 63.9 66.9 64.7 62.9 61.5 59.1 56.4 62.8 60.7 59.0 58.1 51.3 47.5 60.5 64.7 61.1 58.2 49.9 46.1 61..0 59.9 59.2 58.7 57.7 55.6 61.7 60.6 60.3 54.8 58.8 55.9 62.3 60.9 60.1 59.7 58.9 57.3 61.7 60.7 59.9 59.4 58.5 56.7 60.8 60.0 59.3 58.7 57.0 47.3 61.6 60.7 60.1 59.7 50.6 56.6 61.1 60.5 59.9 59.5 58.6 57.1 60.9 60.1 59.7 59.2 58.4 56.8 74.0 70.9 67.8 63.9 59.3 4B.7 64.8 56.7 52.7 51.1 48.4 45.4 65.4 60.0 56.9 55.0 50.3 46.0 65.4 57.7 55.5 54.5 52.0 4B.5 69.0 62.9 59.3 57.3 53.5 49.7 70.2 64.0 61.0 57.9 53.2 48.0 67.9 63.2 62.3 61.8 60.6 52.0 66.0 59.4 57.1 55.3 51.9 48.6 62.5 60.2 50.0 57.2 53.9 48.8 60.6 57.2 55.0 53.6 51.2 47.5 71.2 69.0 65.6 62.1 52.0 44.8 66.7 62.8 50.0 54.9 50.7 46.3 71.1 62.5 58.7 56.4 52.1 47.3 66.5 59.2 54.4 51.8 48.8 45.3 74.4 67.1 60.9 57.2 52.6 47.1 65.E 64.4 62.1 $8.7 50.9 45.7 65.3 64.3 62.4 61.3 53.5 46.6 64.9 60.9 59.1 57.0 53.5 48.4 73.7 72.2 67.7 65.3 60.7 51.2 70.4 65.8 63.9 62.3 57.5 48.5 61.4 59.9 59.2 58.4 $5.9 51.0 71.0 67.1 65.8 64.1 55.7 48.0 74.2 65.6 62.6 60.2 56.0 49.7 67.8 61.5 56.4 54.4 51.7 48.6 80.5 79.5 78.8 79.2 74.8 51.4 61_8 20.6 79.5 79.7 77.2 71.2 81.7 80.5 79.7 79.0 77.6 67.9 92.3 81.1 00.4 79.0 70.4 76.3 81.6 80.7 80.0 79.6 78.4 75.8 81.7 79.7 73.6 79.4 77.3 75.9 77.8 76.6 75.4 70.9 66.3 54.1 71.6 69.7 68.6 67.8 66.6 64.7 71.9 69.3 68.2 67.3 65.6 51.3 71.2 69.9 69.0 60.5 67.4 65.3 69.9 69.1 68.6 68.0 67.1 65.4 72.0 70.2 69.5 68.8 67.7 66.0 78.7 77.1. 74.1 72.8 69.7 67.1 73.0 72.2 71.5 71.0 69.0 63.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09 10:47:47 60.0 70.9 88.7 76.5 65.6 96.0 95.7 74.6 73.3 72.5 71.0 70.4 68.1 3 Meer 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09 10:40:47 60.0 70.6 88.4 76.2 65.7 91.3 95.7 73.7 72.7 71.9 71.4 70.3 66.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:49:47 60.0 70.1 87.8 74.7 65.6 29.6 89.7 73.1 71.9 71.2 70.7 69.7 68.1 3 rotor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:50:47 60.0 72.7 90.5 03.0 67.1 302.0 103.3 79.9 74.6 73.3 72.6 71.4 69.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:51:47 60.0 72.1 B9.9 78.7 67.2 96.8 99.7 75.5 74.1 73.3 72.8 71.7 69.5 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:52:47 60.0 72.9 90.6 80.7 50.6 101.5 102.1 75.9 75.0 74.5 74.1 72.8 61.9 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:53:41 60.0 72.9 90.7 76.6 69.5 _ 94.8 75.4 74.6 74.0 73.6 72.7 71.0 3 Hofer 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09 10:54:47 60.0 73.6 91.4 78.1 69.5 91.2 03.7 76.7 75.7 75.0 74.5 73.1 71.1 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 28Jan 09 !0:55:47 60.0 74.6 92.4 77.5 70.0 91.- 92.6 76.9 76.4 75.8 75.5 74.4 72.3 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:56:47 60.0 75.1 92.9 76.6 71.0 917 93.7 78.0 77.1 76.5 76.0 75.0 72.3 3 Mater 3 March Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:57:47 60.0 75.4 93.2 00.2 71.5 91.6 97.3 78.9 77.2 76.6 76.1 75.1 73.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:50:47 60.0 75.9 93.6 80.9 71.9 93.2 94.0 70.7 77.8 77.3 76.8 75.6 73.1 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 69 10:59:47 60.0 75.7 93.5 80.5 71.2 94.7 99.2 7B.9 77.7 77.0 76.5 75.5 73.4 3 Meter 3 lbrtM1 Bid, F 0 2,Jan 09 11:00:47 60.0 75.3 93.1 78.1 71.4 915 94.8 77.6 77.0 76.6 76.2 75.1 72.8 3 Y.xcer ] North Bldg F 0 2oJan 09 11:01:47 60.0 75.7 93.5 79.4 72.0 93.1 53.7 79.3 77.5 76.9 76.5 75.4 73.4 3 M.etec 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:02:47 60.0 75.1 52.9 91.3 71.7 93.1 97.3 71.3 16.6 76.1 75.7 74.0 73.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 05 11:03:47 60.0 75.5 93.3 82.9 71.9 101.3 99.7 79.5 77.1 76.6 76.1 75.1 73.4 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 11:04:47 60.0 76.5 94.3 81.1 72.9 95.0 95.7 79.9 73.7 77.9 77.3 76.2 74.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:05:47 60.0 77.6 95.4 83.2 73.7 94.6 96.5 90.5 79.4 70.8 70.3 77.3 75.2 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 !1:06:47 60.0 77.1 94.9 82.2 73.4 94.7 97.3 79.9 78.8 78.4 77.9 77.0 74.6 ] Ketec ] North Bldg F 0 20Jaa 09 11:07:47 60.0 77.1 94.9 80.8 59.9 94.3 99.7 79.7 78.8 79.3 77.8 77.1 75.0 3 Peter 3 North Bldg F 0 ?OJan 09 1!:08:47 60.0 73.6 91.3 80.5 45.6 93.1 95.7 79.5 79.4 77.5 76.5 63.8 49.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:09:47 60.0 79.1 96.9 90.1 73.9 103.3 106.3 84.2 81.6 90.0 60.1 70.0 75.6 3 Meter 3 Norch Bldg F 9 28Jan 09 11:10:47 60.0 77.8 95.6 81.4 74.4 94.0 95.7 80.4 79.7 79.2 78.7 77.5 75.3 3 Meter 3 Mazza Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:11:47 60.0 70.2 96.0 81.5 74.7 95.8 97.9 80.9 80.1 79.6 79.2 77.9 75.7 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:12:47 60.0 76.3 96.0 83.5 74.6 96.3 95.7 80.8 00.0 79.6 79.2 78.2 75.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:13:47 60.0 77.0 95.7 83.2 73.7 101.6 100.8 00.8 79.7 79.2 78.8 77.7 75.3 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 3!:14:47 60.0 77.5 95.3 83.4 74.2 90.2 100.8 80.5 19.2 70.6 78.1 77.2 75.2 3 Meter 3 Ilorch Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:15:47 60.0 67.3 05.1 82.7 41.9 301.1 100.3 76.7 71.3 68.1 66.0 61.0 52.7 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 1 :16:47 60.0 64.0 81.8 82.0 45.7 101.0 100.8 75.1 67.3 62.5 58.2 52.1 4B.1 3 (later 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:17:47 60.0 56.0 73.8 74.9 46.5 90.1 92.6 64.2 59.7 55.4 53.5 51.2 40.1 3 Motor 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 11:39:47 60.0 63.3 81.1 76.1 44.6 92.9 94.8 73.7 69.8 63.3 57.3 53.6 46.8 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:19:47 60.0 71.3 89.0 86.1 46.6 101.9 102.5 81.8 75.4 72.2 69.9 62.0 49.4 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:20:47 60.0 72.1 89.8 90.2 47.9 99.4 100.8 81.4 76.0 72.9 69.7 57.8 50.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:21:47 60.0 61.0 78.8 74.4 45.7 90.6 94.8 72.4 65.9 58.6 55.7 52.0 40.2 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09 11:22:47 60.0 71.9 89.7 83.1 47.0 97.6 98.6 81.6 78.1 75.1 70.7 55.9 49.1 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:23:47 60.0 74.1 91.9 84.4 52.4 95,9 97.3 92.4 80.5 70.0 73.G 60.8 54.2 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:24:47 60.0 64.4 82.2 79.6 47.5 101.4 99.7 74.0 69,6 66.0 62.9 56.1 53.1 3 Mazer 3 North Bldo F 0 20Jan 09 11:25:47 60.0 76.4 94.2 85.4 49.1 98.2 59.2 94.6 03.1 81.3 74.7 62.0 54.5 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:26:47 60.0 66.6 94.4 76.5 48.7 89.4 93.7 73.5 11.5 69.8 68.5 62.2 54.7 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 ?OJan 09 11:27:47 60.0 64.9 82.7 77.6 51.4 93.1 95..7 73.6 69.5 67.6 65.0 59.9 54.6 3 Moser 3 Norch Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:28:47 60.0 77.5 95.2 100.1 48.4 115.4 115.1 85.0 76.4 71.7 67.3 58.5 50.0 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 285an 09 11:29:47 60.0 70.5 08.2 89.0 46.4 102.9 103.3 81.7 11.3 65.7 61.4 53.8 4B.2 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09 11:30:47 60.0 66.8 84. "6 66.5 47.1 102.4 102.1 75.0 66.9 62.4 58.8 54.1 49.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:31:47 60.0 67.1 64.9 04.6 47.7 101.5 101.3 77.2 72.2 66.5 62.1 55.G 50.7 3 Fleter 3 NOZtiI Old, F 0 20Jan 09 11:32:47 60.0 71.9 00,7 89.0 49.0 104.4 106.1 81.2 16.6 73.5 73.1 65.6 52.9 3 Fleter 3 Nozch Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:33:47 60.0 70.9 96.7 86.9 46.9 107.0 107.1 85.6 84.8 83.8 82.0 62.2 48.7 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:34:47 60.0 71.7 89.5 93.8 46.6 112.0 112..2 79.8 75.6 65.9 63.4 54.2 49.4 3 ;later 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:35:47 60.0 .66.3 84.0 84.5 44.5 100.6 101.3 76.0 71.1 65.7 59.4 51.6 47.5 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:36:47 60.0 67.9 85J 71.2 52.6 91.0 98.6 75.1 73.5 70.9 68.8 64.5 55.2 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 00 11:37:47 60.0 67.2 84.9 80.1 46.9 94.2 95.7 77.7 74.6 65.4 59.0 52.6 49.9 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 11:38:47 60.0 67.7 85.5 80.2 48.2 92.5 93.7 71J 75.3 62.B 60.3 $1.8 49.3 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jaa 09 11:39:47 60.0 57.8 75.5 71.0 48.9 83.9 69.7 66.2 62.1 59.8 57.6 53.6 50.3 3 Mazer 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:40:47 60.0 63.4 81.3 75.1 50.3 65.1 92.6 72.0 68.6 65.3 63.7 58.9 51.8 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 11:43:47 60.0 59.9 77.5 75.6 49.0 89.2 94.8 68.0 64.7 62.1 $9.2 53.5 50.5 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 11:42:47 60.0 63.0 BO.7 00.4 47.9 93.2 95.7 74.0 67.2 61.9 56.8 52.0 49.5 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:43:47 60.0 51.2 669.0 64.1 47.5 76.4 85.2 55.5 53.0 52.1 51.5 50.4 48.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:44:47 60.0 58.2 76.0 71.6 46.3 87.2 09.7 69.5 63.5 55.8 53.0 50.7 47.9 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 28Jan 09 11:45: 47 60.0 60.3 76.1 72.0 45.9 91.0 91.2 70.4 66.6 61_8 55.9 50.9 47.8 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09 11:46: 47 60.0 51.0 68.7 58.6 46.6 73.5 89.7 55.8 53.9 52.8 51.9 49.9 47.9 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:47:47 60.0 65.0 82.8 80.7 47.0 98.1 97.9 75.5 68.0 65.5 61.5 53.6 49.2 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:46:47 60.0 63.9 81.7 82.9 47.6 96.3 57.3 69.4 65.9 63.2 $5.8 54.8 50.5 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:49:47 60.0 71.0 88.8 83.0 46.3 93.4 99.7 61.5 77.0 72.6 68.1 54.2 50.3 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:50:47 60.0 68.3 96.1 84.5 49.0 97.6 99.,7 00.0 69.6 66.6 64.6 57.1 51.5 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan. 09 11:51:47 60.0 51.5 65.3 59.8 47.5 74.5 92.6 56.7 53.9 52.9 52.2 50.B 48.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:52:47 60.0 62.7 BO.5 75.4 48.0 975 94.8 71.8 60.0 63.7 61.7 56.1 50.7 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09 11:53:47 60.0 66.3 84.1 82.5 46.6 100.6 101.3 75.4 72.1 68.9 65.8 55.4 48.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 il:54:47 60.0 65.9 93.7 00.1 45.6 99.7 100.3 75.4 71.2 68.1 65.2 57.6 43.9 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:55:47 60.0 65.7 93.5 84.1 47.0 95.9 99.2 76.5 68.E 62.7 59.4 53.6 48.6 ] Peter J North 9!tlg F 0 20Ja.-. 09 11:56:47 60.0 60.1 77.9 74.0 45.4 92.6 69.6 66.5 62.7 56.0 50.0 47.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09 11:57:47 60.0 61.3 99.0 89.3 46.7 101.6 102.9 28.1 87.2 86.3 84.9 57.5 49.5 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 13:58:47 60.0 62.6 00.3 79.5 47.4 93.0 96.5 73.4 65.0 62.3 57.9 51.9 49.2 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:50:47 60.0 59.3 77.0 73.6 46.3 90.9 91.2 67.6 64.6 62.1 59.4 51.0 47.0 3 Meter 3 Nozch Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:00:47 60.0 63.4 81.2 73.1 47.5 80.9 94.8 71.5 66.7 66.2 64.8 57.7 51.2 3 Mazer 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:01:47 60.0 67.8 85.6 78.9 45.6 69.9 96.5 77.6 74.3 69.9 65.3 54.1 45.0 3 borer 3 North Bldg F e 70'an 09 12:02:41 60.0 59.5 77.3 71.3 45.0 87.2 91.2 69.2 65.0 61.2 57.8 50.6 47.6 3 Meter 3 Vor th Bldg F 0 20j.. 09 12:03:47 60.0 64.6 E2.4 03.1 45.5 36.0 100.9 72.1 67.6 65.3 62.9 52.2 47.1 3 Motor 3 liar :h Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:04:47 60.0 64.0 81.8 80.6 45.8 96.6 100.9 73.0 69.1 65.0 62.2 54.7 47.4 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 203an 09 !2:05:47 60.0 51.5 69.2 60.3 45.6 87.8 89.7 59.0 53.4 51.2 50.0 48.8 47.2 3 Meter 3 North Old, F 0 28Jan No 12:06:47 60.0 55.8 73.6 68.0 45.3 06.3 87.7 62.7 60.2 .59.5 57.1 52.0 47.9 3 Meter 3 Nozih. Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:07:41 60.0 64.6 82.3 79.5 49.0 97.6 95.: 73.1 70.6 66.5 61.5 56.3 50.7 3 Motor 3 Borth Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 12:08:47 60.0 61.8 79.6 75.4 48.6 66.9 92.6 70.7 66.1 65.4 59.0 53.1 49.9 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:00:47 60.0 66.4 84.1 84.7 6.9 97.5 97.9 77.1 66.$ 62.5 58.2 51.6 48.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:10:47 60.0 63.8 01.6 76.1 47.5 92.5 92.6 11.2 69.5 67.4 65.4 54.2 49.4 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09 12:11:47 60.0 65.0 02.8 75.3 43.3 86.5 97.3 742 60.9 60.2 66.4 55.9 49.9 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 12:12:47 60.0 58.3 76.1 73.9 47.6 98.0 94.0 68.3 61.0 57.7 55.6 52.1 49.3 3 Mazer 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:13:47 60.0 66.3 84.0 81.5 48.8 100.1 101.3 74.3 71.2 69.7 67.6 57.6 51.? 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09' 12:14:47 60.0 67.7 85.5 82.5 47.5 301.4 105.8 76.7 72.4 69.9 68.0 50.8 50.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09 12:15:47 60.0 66.2 93.9 81.4 47.9 200.6 101.3 76.2 72.0 67.8 63.3 55.9 49.4 3 Mazer 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:16:47 60.0 64.1 81.9 80.6 46.9 100.5 101.7 74.5 69.3 63.6 60.1 52.5 49.9 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:17:41 60.0 65.0 82.0 77.3 45.9 97.4 99.2 74.5 71.5 67.6 63.6 5Z.B 48.0 3 Meter 3 March Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:18:47 60.0 64.9 82.7 81.6 45.0 302.0 102.9 75.2 70.2 64.5 60.2 56.1. 46.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:19:47 60.0 60.6 87.4 86.1 50.3 98_8 92.6 82.2 63.0 60.7 59.2 57.2 52.2 3 Motor 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 00 12:20:47 60.0 57.9 75.7 72.3 49.8 87.3 03.7 64.0 59.5 58.5 $7.8 56.5 54.0 3 Meter 3 Nozih Bitlg F 0 203an 09 12:21:47 60.0 61.8 79.5 74.0 53.0 38.1 89.7 72.0 67.3 59.6 57.9 56.6 54.9 3 Poor 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 12:22:4] 60.0 62.1 79.9 74.3 48.4 89.5 51.2 72.0 65.1 60.4 58.9 56.7 53.2 3 Meter 3 Barth Bitlg F 0 2OJan 09 12:23:4] 60.0 57.0 74.8 70.9 51.6 81.4 B9.7 62.7 59.5 58.1 57.2 55.6 53.3 3 Hater 3 Ilocth Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 12:24:47 60.0 61.1 78.9 76.6 50.5 90.6 91.2 14.2 60.1 56.7 55.6 54.3 52.2 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:25:47 60.0 50.1 75.9 76.0 45.4 90.9 91.2 63.6 57.5 56.6 55.9 54.5 49.5 3 Hater 3 Borth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:26:4] 60.0 62.5 80.3 79.6 56.9 96.7 96.5 71.2 67.0 63.3 60.8 56.9 53.0 3 Meter J North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 i2:27W7 60.0 65.3 83.1 BOA 57.6 92.0 95.5 16.2 68.7 65.7 63.3 57.4 50.4 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:28:47 60.0 75.2 B2.9 89.3 54.0 101.9 202.1 06.9 74.4 71_0 68.4 58.9 55.9 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:29:57 60.0 79.1 96.9 B].9 49.3 99.6 100.8 87.5 06.3 84.2 65.B 58.3 53.5 3 Meter 3 Borth Bitlg F 0 ?Wan 09 12:30:57 60.0 66.2 84.0 81.9 45.9 100.0 101.3 75.3 69.3 67.9 66.2 56.8 98.3 3 Perot 3 North Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 12:31:41 60.0 62.4 80.Z 72.0 56.1 6E.4 89.7 70.7 67.1 65.0 64.1 50.1 48.4 3 Meter 3 Borth Bldg F 0 Wan 09 12:32:57 60.0 57.4 75.1 65.1 45.5 80.5 97.7 65.6 63.8 60.1 56.6 50.9 47.2 3 Peter J North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:33:47 60.0 61.4 79.1 69.6 46.3 05.1 89.7 67.0 66.1 65.2 64.2 54.9 41.9 3 Meter J Borth Bitlg F o 2049. Bo 12;34:47 60.0 63.5 81.3 81.0 48.0 96.9 99.1 70.6 67,9 66.0 65.0 55.0 49.9 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:35:47 60.0 75.1 92.9 81.9 57.0 94.6 971 81.7 80.9 79.0 79.1 64.3 49.7 3 Herat 3 Borth Bldg F 0 2OJan 09 12:36:47 60.0 70.0 87.8 B3.6 58.5 N.7, 98.6 81.5 75- fill 55.3 51.7 49.5 3 Perot 3 North Bitlg F 0 23Jan 09 12:37:57 60.0 66.5 04.3 051 59.3 104.0 105.3 15.7 71.0 66.0 64.1 56.6 51.1 3 Me tat 3 North Bitlg F a ?OJan 09 12:38:47 60.0 65.4 03.2 79.5 49.6 97.9 97.9 72.7 70.5 67.0 66.1 61.9 53.3 3 No cat 3 North Bid, F 0 23Jan 09 12:39:41 60.0 57.7 75.5 69.5 48.0 63.5 87.7 66.5 63.1 59.0 56.1 52.8 49.9 3 Meter 3 Borth Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 12:40:47 60.0 68.3 86.1 73.6 55.3 90.0 92.6 78.4 76.5 63.6 58.7 53.4 48.2 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F e 20Jan 09 i2:41:47 60.0 68.6 86.4 81.2 54.9 99.2 49.7 BO.0 71.9 64.2 59.7 53.6 48.6 J Hater J North Bid, F B 20Jae 09 12:42:47 60.0 59.1 76.0 16.6 46.9 96.0 98.6 67.8 61.4 59.5 57.9 54.4 50.4 3 Meter 3 North Bldo F 0 2049. 09 12:43:47 60.0 67.9 85.7 88.7 47.6 104.6 104.7 73.5 64.9 62.4 60.0 56.2 50.8 3 Hater 3 North Bitlg F 0 ?OJan 09 12:44:47 60.0 72.8 90.6 e4.6 59.0 95.4 96.5 BZA 79.0 74.0 11.6 64.3 52.8 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 12:45:47 60.0 70.0 95.8 B5.0 48.2 103.9 104.3 84.5 83.5 82.6 911 63.4 51.9 J Hater 3 North Bitlg F 0 23Jan 09 12:46:41 60.0 64.6 82.4 78.3 49.9 86.9 91.2 74.2 69.3 66.3 63.5 59.1 52.2 3 Bator 3 North Bldg F 0 203an 09 12:47:41 60.0 63.1 80.9 77.6 45.4 87.1 91.2 72.9 60.5 64.4 61.0 54.0 4B.4 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Ban 09 12:48:47 60.0 57.0 74.8 71.8 47.0 88.1 94.8 67.1 60.5 $7.8 $6.1 52.6 48.9 3 Hater 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 12:49:97 60.0 54.8 72.5 71.7 44.9 9B.9 94.8 63.5 56.7 54.5 $3.0 50.2 47.3 3 Mater 3 Ilorth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:50:47 60.0 S ?.7 77.5 75.3 45.6 93.6 93.7 68.4 64.8 62.0 59.5 52.5 47.5 3 Meter J North Bitlg F 0 2Wao 09 12:51:47 60.0 60.5 78.3 74.1 46.6 66.6 92.6 69.8 65.3 62.6 60.1 55.2 49.5 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:52:47 60.0 63.2 81.0 76.2 47.2 91.7 95.7 73.1 69.2 65.1 60.0 54.2 50.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jaa 09 12:53:47 60.0 64.8 82.5 77.7 46.4 91.7 99.2 76.1 70.1 65.6 60.6 53.9 49.5 3 Hazer J Ilorth Bldg F 0 ?OJan 09 12:54:47 60.0 66.5 64.3 82.9 50.2 96.4 98.6 17.1 69.8 64.5 60.8 57.7 52.7 3 Hater 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 12:55:47 60.0 61.0 79.6 74.2 50.1 9 1.5 99.7 70.9 66.6 63.3 60.4 56.7 51.6 3 Mater 3 Noah Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:56:47 60.0 66.7 85.5 76.5 50.9 92.0 44.8 75.7 73.1 69.1 65.7 57.2 52.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:57:47 60.0 57.1 74.9 75.5 55.7 80.6 91.2 61.8 59.4 57.9 56.5 53.9 46.B 3 Motet 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:58:47 60.0 62.6 60.4 78.6 46.2 91.7 96.5 72.2 66.1 62.0 59.2 54.6 49.6 3 Mater 3 Borth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:59:47 60.0 54.9 72.6 69.7 46.1 88.7 89.7 62.9 57.9 56.0 54.6 52.0 48.5 3 Hater 3 North Bid, F 0. ?aJan 09 13:00:97 60.0 59.4 77.2 7BA 48.6 95.6 96.5 66.6 50.9 56.9 55.6 53.5 50.1 3 Meter 3 North Did, F 0. 203an 04 13:01:47 60.0 54.4 72.2 64.9 57.9 82.5 '85.2 61.2 57.3 555.5 55.4 52.8 50.4 3 Mete. 3 North Bid, F 0 23Jan 09 13:02:47 60.0 55.0 72.0 69.5 58.0 83.3 89.7 60.8 58.2 56.5 55.2 53.0 49.9 3 Hater 3 North Bid, F 0 2aJan 09 13:03:47 60.0 55.2 73.0 71.9 45.2 35.6 91.2 63.1 53.4 55.5 53.6 50.3 47.4 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 203an 09 13:05:47 60.0 61.8 79.6 69.1 96.9 89.5 91.2 68.5 67.2 65.2 62.6 58.5 50.6 2 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 203an 09 13:05;47 60.0 50.3 76.1 79.9 43.2 95.7 91.3 65.0 58.5 55.0 54.6 52.7 50.5 3 Mater 3 No¢h Bldg F 0 ?Wan 09 13:06:47 60.0 55.4 72.1 63.9 97.4 84.7 89.7 63.5 56.8 53.8 52.5 50.9 49.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:07:47 60.0 64.8 02.5 76.9 48.2 8B.0 94.8 75.8 70.3 63.7 56.9 54.0 50.5 3 Meter 3 Ilorth Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 13:00:47 60.0 60.8 78.6 79.0 47.7 91.5 95.2 69.7 64.6 61.8 58.4 52.3 40.6 3 Flater 3 110tih Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 13:09:47 60.0 63.4 91.2 73.5 48.0 83.1 91.2 71.1 68.1 65.9 64.4 60.1 53.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 13:10:47 60.0 59.5 77.3 71.5 47.5 37.3 96.5 68.9 66.0 50.8 56.7 53.4 49.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:11:47 60.0 52.9 70.7 70.2 42.8 86.8 92.6 62.5 52.7 51.5 50.7 48.8 54.5 3 Motor 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 13:12:47 60.0 54.9 72.7 76.8 41.7 96.0 99.6 66.0 53.5 49.4 47.9 46.2 42.9 3 Hater 3 Ilorth Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 13:13:47 60.0 55.5 73.2 71.7 45.9 69.6 92.6 66.9 57.5 52.8 50.6 47.8 45.6 3 Mater 3 North Bldg F 0 2Wan 09 13:14:47 60.0 53.6 71.4 71.1 45.3 90.1 93.7 62.5 53.•1 52.0 51.1 49.4 46.8 3 Hater 3 Iorth Bldg F a 20Jan 09 13:15:47 60.0 53.0 70.8 71.3 48.1 66.8 93.7 56.5 52.9 52.0 51_4 50.4 40.3 3 Meter 3 Narth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:16:47 60.0 56.6 74.3 77.2 46.3 96.1 Q6.5 64.5 54.9 53.5 52.6 51.1 48.4 3 Meter 3 Ilocth Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 13:17:47 60.0 64.2 32.0 74.5 47.3 91.8 9BA 72.8 70.1 67.0 63.8 56.0 50.4 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 13:10:47 60.0 60.1 77.9 74.2 47.1 86.7 93.7 69.9 64.9 51.2 57.4 51.7 49.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 70Jan 09 13:19:47 60.0 60.4 70.2 76.0 47.1 93.8 98.6 70.3 64.1 60.9 50.1 54.1 50.4 3 Motet 3 Ilorth Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 13:20:47 60.0 $5.9 73.6 74.7 45.1 93.3 96.5 65.6 56.8 52.3 49.9 47.6 45.1 3 Hater 3 North Bid, F 0 NJ.. 09 13:21:47 60.0 66.7 84.4 80.9 45.3 99.5 102.9 77.4 72.5 67.3 62.2 52.1 47.7 3 Peter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:2Z:47 60.0 52.2 70.0 62.5 45.0 69.7 89.7 59.2 56.5 54.3 52.7 49.4 46.4 3 Hater 3 Borth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:23:47 60.0 62.5 80.3 77.5 43.0 93.7 97.3 74.5 66.1 61.5 54.9 49.3 44.5 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:24:47 60.0 52.4 70.1 69.1 44.2 63.7 85.2 60.5 55.4 53.3 51.6 49.0 46.1 3 Peter 3 Ilorth Bldg F 0 2Udan 09 13:25:47 60.0 54.7 72.4 74.6 451 9 1.1 99.2 63.3 51.6 50.2 49.3 47.7 45.8 3 Peter 3 North. Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:26:47 60.0 56.0 73.8 79.0 46.8 99.3 101.7 56.7 $3.8 52.9 52.5 51.7 50.0 3 Motor 3 North Bitlg F 0 ?OJan 09 13:27:47 60.0 55.1 72.9 76.4 47.3 921 101.7 59.0 53.5 52.5 51.8 50.7 49.1 3 Herat 3 Ilorth Bitlg F 0 2UJan 69 13:28:97 60.0 60.8 78.5 81.3 48.5 101.6 105.2 71.6 50,2 55.9 53.9 52.7 50.3 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:29:47 60.0 63.5 31.3 991.1 47.5 102.3 105.2 71.6 69.6 64.3 59.9 54.2 51.2 3 Meter 3 North Blde F 0 200an 09 13:30:47 60.0 58.5 76.2 79.8 45.8 96.7 102.9 66.7 56.4 53.4 52.1 50.3 41.6 3 Perot 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 13:31:47 60.0 55.1 72.9 73.0 47.3 90.8 100.8 63.0 55.2 52.1 51.4 50.1 40.6 3 slater 3 Ilorth Bid, F 0 23Jan 03 13:32:47 60.0 58.1 75.9 77.2 47.5 04.3 101.3 67.6 50.3 56.4 55.1 52.5 49.1 3 P.ecer 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:33:47 60.0 58.5 76.3 79.4 47.8 98.5 103.3 66.7 57.5 55.1 53.3 51.2 49.3 J Herat 3 North Bitlg F 0 20495. 04 13:44:4] 60.0 53.1 60.9 Sal 55.5 EB.S 0'.0 55.6 54.0 52.9 52.0 50.4 41.4 3 Mater J North Bldg F 0 20Jan 04 13:35:47 60.0 53.4 70.2 61.9 46.1 71.8 05.2 58.2 55.2 53.0 52.8 51.2 48.9 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:36:4] 60.0 52.9 70.7 61.3 45.7 77.5 35.2 58.9 56.4 54.9 $3.8 51.4 46.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 2JJan 04 13:37:47 60.0 55.9 73.7 69.3 41.8 84.9 92.6 60.5 58.6 57.7 $7.1 5$.3 50.1 3 Mecar 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 13:38:47 60.0 57.0 74.6 77.2 45.7 95.1 95.1 63.0 57.9 55.8 54.5 52.2 48.2 3 Meter 3 Borth Bid. F 0 20Jan 99 13:39:47 60.0 66.0 83.0 77.6 47.6 90.6 97.9 74.1 73.2 64.0 63.8 55.7 51.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 13:40:47 60.0 76.2 93.9 BB.7 48.4 100.1 100.3 B5.2 83.0 BOA 70.5 59.3 51.5 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:41:47 60.0 62.6 80.6 79.1 9.9 96.4 101.3 73.9 66.4 61.9 59.0 54.5 51.4 3 Mater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:42:47 60.0 61.6 79.3 76.9 48.6 53.3 100.8 69.8 67.0 65.0 59.0 54.2 51.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 13:43:47 60.0 67.3 85.1 07.5 50.1 103.1 104.9 75.6 69.7 65.8 63.7 57.5 52.0 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 23:44:47 60.0 59.7 77.5 60.7 50.6 99.7 102.5 67.7 62.1 51.9 56.6 54.9 52.6 3 Meter 3 Oertb Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:45:47 60.0 64.6 B2.4 81.8 50.1 101.6 105.0 76.3 65.2 61.6 59.7 56.6 52.0 3 Meter 3 North Bid. F 0 20Jan 09 13:46:47 60.0 60.1 77.9 B1.3 51.6 302.3 104.6 64.7 59.3 57.1 56.9 55.3 53.1 3 Mater J North Bldg F 0 2Wan 09 13:47:47 60.0 54.9 72.7 62.4 50A 75.5 B9.7 59.1 57.1 $6.1 $5.4 54.2 52.0 3 Hater 3 Borth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:48:0 60.0 61.5 79.2 69.2 59.2 34.9 85.2 69.7 67.6 66.2 61.2 541 51.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F a 20Jan 09 13:40:47 60.0 56.2 76.0 74.7 49.7 90.6 95.6 67.5 60.1 57.8 56.4 53.9 51.3 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:50:57 60.0 65.3 63.0 77.6 50.3 93.6 96.6 75.2 71.1 67.0 63.8 55.7 52.3 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:51:57 60.0 63.7 61.5 79.2 46.5 96.7 99.2 76.0 64.2 57.3 56.0 51.8 47.9 3 Meter 3 Ilorth Bitlg F a 20Jan 09 13:52:47 60.0 70.6 SBA 82.3 46.7 93.1 100.3 00.5 76.7 72.5 69.0 60.4 49.3 3 Motor 3 Notch Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 13:53:47 60.0 74.3 92.1 89.0 47.0 103.6 104.9 82.5 80.5 77.5 73.6 65.2 51.2 3 Heuer 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:54:47 60.0 63.6 81.3 72.0 48.3 90.3 01.2 70.6 68.7 61.3 65.6 58.6 52.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 2Wnn 09 13:55:47 60.0 59.2 77.0 79.3 48.3 91.3 97.9 65.9 61.6 59.2 57.6 54.7 51.2 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 13:56:47 60.0 63.4 81.2 75.0 40.7 88.2 89.7 71.8 68.3 65.9 63.0 58.8 52.2 3 Meter J Noah Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:57:47 60.0 69.4 07.2 91.7 48.3 97.2 08.6 80.3 72.6 69.1 68.1 62.2 52.9 3 Mate. 3 Norch Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:50:47 660.0 70.7 88.5 84.3 51.2 95.9 97.3 02.6 74.1 71.3 67.9 62.9 53.1 3 Meter 3 North Blau F 0 26Jan 09 13:59:47 60.0 75.6 93.4 85.7 48.3 97.6 99.7 .94.9 32.0 7B.0 73.2 55.7 50.5 3 Meter 3 North Bide F 0 20Jan 09 34:00:47 60.0 72.3 90.1 84.1 47.5 96.4 98.6 83.5 79.2 69.6 64.1 57.7 51.2 3 Hater 3 North Bitlg F 0 ?OJan 09 14:01:47 60.0 69.9 96.1 78.3 48.8 91.2 94.8 17.4 76.3 70.3 65.4 61.1 54.2 3 Meter 3 Nosh Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:02:47 60.0 75.5 93.2 88.4 46.5 105.3 110.9 93.6 92.5 80.6 66.7 59.0 51_1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:03:47 60.0 64.5 82.3 82.2 47.4 93.9 95.7 76.2 62.2 59.7 58.3 54.6 50.1 3 Meter 3 Mouth Bitlg F 0 26Jan 09 14:04:47 60.0 69.3 87.1 83.2 43.0 96.1 97.3 80.5 74.5 65.4 63.5 59.2 50.9 3 Meter J (North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:05:47 60.0 63.7 66.5 83.1 47.0 93.7 96.5 80.9 69.1 62.0 59.9 57.5 49.9 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:06:47 60.0 75.5 43.3 89.3 51.2 110.4 114.4 84.1 82.5 79.5 70.8 65.0 58.3 3 Hater 3 North Blue F B 2OJan e9 14:07:47 60.0 69.1 06.9 82.5 49.4 945 97.3 80.6 71.1 68.3 67.5 64.7 54.2 3 Peter J NortM1 91tlg F e 26Jan 09 14:68:47 60.0 62.1 79.9 77.0 50.2 gG.7 98.6 70.2 66.4 63.5 62.0 59.8 $3.0 3 Hater 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 14:09:41 60.0 73.5 91.3 88.0 49.3 106.0 105.2 92.0 78.5 76.0 74.0 67.7 54.7 3 Peter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 05 14:10:47 60.0 71.5 89.3 84.9 46.5 99.2 104.0 30.2 76.5 74.6 63.0 58.4 51.2 3 Meter 3 Noah Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:11:47 60.0 63.6 91.3 74.4 47.2 35.4 94.8 73.6 68.0 64.6 61.8 56.5 51.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 2OJan 09 14:12:47 60.0 69.0 66.7 824 45.8 95.4 09:4 81.3 69.5 63.4 61.5 56.4 49.2 3 Pacer 3 North Bid, F 0 2O3an 09 14:13:47 60.0 74.0 91.0 32.9 44.7 95.7 99.6 82.5 81.2 78.3 69.6 64.2 50.5 3 v ' ter 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 14:14:47 60.0 73.5 91.6 88.8 44.2 102.0 3025 04.5 00.1 70.0 63.4 57.5 45.3 3 Plate: 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 14:15:47 60.0 58.1 75.9 67.6 43.9 30.2 85.2 65.2 62.9 61.2 59.6 54.8 41.9 3 Borax 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:16:41 60.0 69.5 07.3 37.1 46.3 105.8 H1.1 77.5 75.2 70.7 65.8 57.5 43.9 3 Herat 3 Mouth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:17:47 60.0 15.8 93.6 84.9 44.6 97.0 100.3 83.6 81.9 30.6 79.1 61.9 49.2 3 Ps ter J North Bldg F 0 26Jan e9 14:18:47 60.0 75.4 93.2 95.4 49.'9 97.2 99.7 03.7 82.1 79.4 74.8 66.1 56.9 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:19:47 60.0 69.5 87.3 90.0 44.6 113.0 114.7 79.6 66.1 64.4 62.3 56.6 47.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F e 20Jan 09 14:20:47 60.0 76.0 93.9 91.5 44.4 1114 113.7 84.0 02.0 79.3 14.0 64.7 47.2 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 14:21:47 60.0 73.3 91.1 88.1 44.3 107.7 111.8 83.2 79.9 75.8 68.6 63.4 48.9 3 Heuer 3 Forth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:22:47 60.0 70.9 08.5 90.1 45.3 109.7 114.3 B2.0 73.2 69.1 66.9 60.6 50.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:23:47 60.0 68.8 86.6 89.3 47.4 110.9 112.8 75.3 71.3 68.1 65.1 57.6 50.0 3 Perot 3 North Bitlg F 0 26Jan 09 14:24:47 60.0 70.5 88.3 80.5 43.0 94.0 95.7 79.9 70.5 69.5 63.5 56.6 51.0 3 Hecer 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Ja. 09 14:25:41 60.0 72.1 89.9 83.1 48.2 95.4 97.3 82.7 B1.0 65.4 61.1 57.5 52.5 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F e 20Jan 09 14:26:47 60.0 63.9 91.7 85.3 49.3 104.4 111.1 72.2 62.7 60.2 58.6 55.8 51.B 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jad 09 14:27:47 60.0 66.1 83.8 86.4 49.0 106.5 108.9 73.7 70.1 65.1 60.6 55.6 51.6 3 Mater 3 North Bid. F 0 20Jan Oo 14:28:41 60.0 70.3 B8.6 91.3 49.4 109.2 113.1 BOA 74.9 69.1 65.3 55.9 52.3 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:29:47 60.0 71.8 B9.6 92.1 50.9 113.8 115.0 83.0 63.2 58.4 56.0 54.3 52.4 3 Mater 3 Noah Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 14:30:47 60.0 65.9 03.7 91.1 49.7 108.8 112.4 64.5 60.4 50.1 56.7 54.6 51.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan Oe 14:31:47 60.0 58.5 76.3 69.3 46.9 32.9 91.2 67.8 63.7 50.9 56.9 54.3 49.6 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:32:47 60.0 70.3 88.1 92.1 49.6 113.3 115.5 77.0 74.2 70.0 68.2 62.3 53.6 3 Motor 3 Noah Bid, F 0 26Jan 09 14:33:47 60.0 67.7 85.5 88.8 50.1 101.5 101.7 75.3 70.6 67.3 64.2 59.2 53.3 3 Meter 3 Noah Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:34:47 60.0 70.2 88.0 94.4 51.0 113.9 115.5 75.7 71.3 68.1 65.4 59.3 $4.0 3 Meter 3 Noah Bldg F 0 20jad 09 14:35:47 60.0 72.9 90.6 91.6 49.9 113.9 115.8 04.8 74.0 61.9 63.6 60.2 54.9 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:36:47 60.0 72.3 90.1 09.6 51.9 111.5 113_7 01.3 75.1 73.3 70.1 65.4 58.6 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jau 09 14:37:41 60.0 70.1 67.9 96.7 50.0 107.1 109.1 91.2 73.4 68.2 65.2 59.5 53.9 3 Motor 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 14:38:47 60.0 71.0 08.8 85.0 51.8 104.9 107.3 81.2 76.6 72.5 68.7 60.9 54.7 3 Motor 3 Mouth Bldg F 0 203an 09 14:39:47 60.0 65.8 03.5 93.9 49.1 101.6 105.5 76.3 69.3 65.5 64.2 58.1 52.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:40:47 60.0 65.0 63.6 80.3 50.0 95..8 100.3 75.5 71.6 67.2 63.9 57.9 52.5 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:41:47 60.0 69.7 67.4 81.5 49.9 92.5 96.5 80.2 75.6 69.5 67.2 59.8 51.4 3 Motor 3 Mouth Bitlg F 0 ZOJan 09 1 4:42:47 60.0 62.3 80.1 74.7 48.7 93.0 93.7 71.9 66.4 64.1 60.8 54.9 50.7 3 Motet 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 14:43:47 60.0 71.6 89.3 88.9 50.7 105.0 105.9 81.7 74.9 72.7 71.1 62.4 54.6 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:44:47 60.0 64.3 02.0 78.9 47.4 92.5 97.3 72.8 69.5 65.7 64.1 59.6 50.2 3 Meter 3 Noah Bid, F 0 2e3an 09 14:45:47 60.0 64.3 82.0 79.6 47.4 94.8 99:2 73.3 69.9 66.0 62.6 57.8 51.7 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 14:46:47 60.0 61.7 79.5 76.7 48.2 97.4 98.6 71.6 66.2 G2.3 59.5 55.8 51.0 3 Mauer 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:47:47 60.0 63.7 01.4 76.1 47.0 97.3 98.9 73.5 69.7 65.1 62.2 56.8 50.9 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:48:47 60.0 64.0 01.8 75.7 46.9 92.1 94.0 73..1 69.6 66.9 63.6 57.1 51.0 3 Mater 3 North Bldg F 0 2OJan 99 14:49:47 60.0 63.0 60.7 78.4 4B.0 90.4 53.7 72.0 68.4 65.3 62.2 54.4 50.2 3 Mo.. 3 North Bitlg F 0 ZBJan 09 14:50:47 60.0 64.9 82.6 82.1 45.6 102.5 102.5 74.4 69.8 66.2 62.2 54.3 $0.2 3 Mauer 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:51:47 60.0 67.1 84.8 81.1 50.2 99.1 96.6 1B.1 11.9 67.5 63.3 55.5 52.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 14:52:47 60.0 69.8 B7.6 83.3 48.7 96.8 300.3 80.5 75.0 70.1 66.1 55.9 50.6 3 Here. 3 North Bitlg F 0 ?OJan 09 14:53:47 60.0 54.9 72.6 73.5 46.4 87.1 49.1 63.0 56.0 53.0 52.0 51.0 48.3 3 Meter 3 Notch Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:54:47 60.0 77.8 95.5 86.1 46.7 99.0 99.7 04.7 83.7 82.8 81.4 54.4 50.2 3 Mauer 3 North Bldg F 0 lour. 09 14:55:47 60.0 62.0 60.6 80.9 49.9 103.5 103.3 73.3 66.3 61.3 57.4 53.4 50.3 3 Meter 3 North Bide F 0 20Jr. 09 14:56:47 60.0 55.1 72.9 69.6 48.4 89.1 89.7 61.7 57.2 $6.1 55.4 53.1 50.6 3 Meter 3 North Bida F 0 ?Ova. 09 14:57:47 60.0 62.3 00.0 73.7 49.1 88.6 49.7 71.5 67.9 65.0 61-1 $5.1 51.0 3 Peter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 14:59:47 60.0 61.7 79.5 76.7 49.4 89.0 94.8 69.7 65.7 63.2 61.1 57.0 52.1 3 Hater 3 Mouth Bitlg F 0 26Jan 09 14:59:47 60.0 61.3 79.1 82.0 94.5 94.8 65.6 59.6 58.3 57.5 55.5 50.7 3 Pete. 3 North Bitlg F 0 ?OJan 09 15:00:47 60.0 61.3 19.6 77.2 56.4 "95.6 97.3 10.1 63.9 61_6 60.4 56.9 57.2 3 Hater 3 Noah Bldg F 0 loved 09 15:01:47 60.0 63.8 01.6 79.2 48.7 101.6 102.5 73.7 66.7 63.7 61.8 59.6 51.4 3 Meter 3 Noah Bldg F 0 ZOJan 09 15:02:47 60.0 60.1 77.9 77.1 47.6 92_8 92.6 71.6 61.6 57.6 54.9 52.9 50.2 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 00 15:03:47 60.0 58.0 75.8 77.0 47.6 49.4 93.7 65.5 57.5 54.7 52.8 50.9 49.0 3 Perez 3 Noah Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:04:47 60.0 56.9 04.7 84.7 48.5 99.0 99.2 79.0 65.6 59.9 55.9 52.1 49.6 2 Hertz 3 North Bide F 3 20Jrn 09 15:05:47 60.0 15.4 93.2 88.2 48.4 105.4 104.9 65.6 60.9 78.0 75.9 55.2 50.2 3 Peter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:06:47 60.0 74.0 92.7 89.6 4B.0 103.1 102.9 05.2 90.8 11.0 11.6 54.4 49.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 9 20j.. 09 15:07:47 60.0 73.8 91.5 96.9 49.1 100.3 101.3 04.6 19.9 73.1 67.5 $5.1 53.2 3 No ter 3 North Bldg F 0 ?OJan 09 15:08:47 60.0 71.3 89.6 83.6 48.7 99.4 99.7 B1.8 78.2 72.9 68.1 60.3 53.1 3 Mace. 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan e9 15:09:47 60.0 73.0 90.7 83.1 50.7 94.5 100.3 32.3 79.5 74.5 72.0 66.9 57.2 3 Hazer 3 Noah Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:10:47 60.0 57.5 75.3 74.6 46.1 84.0 91.2 63.2 59.8 56.2 56.7 54.1 50.5 3 Hater 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 15:11:47 60.0 62.1 19.8 74.7 48.1 86.8 92.6 72.0 67.6 63.5 58.6 55.6 50.1 3 Meter 3 Noah Bldg F B 20Jan. 09 15:12:47 60.0 62.1 70.9 74.1 46.7 87.6 95.7 13.6 66.6 59.2 56.1 52.9 49.6 3 Here. 3 North Bitlg F 0 203an 09 15:13:47 60.0 58.4 76.2 78.7 46.6 93.4 93.7 66.3 62.4 50.2 54.B 50.9 48.3 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:14:41 60.0 71.1 68.9 83.2 47.2 97.6 93.6 91.8 19.3 63.2 60.7 55.8 50.6 3 Peter 3 Borth Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 15:15:47 60.0 65.3 93.1 82.4 43.9 93.3 95.7 76.1 67.8 64.3 61.7 56.6 51.8 3 Rotor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:16:47 0.0 72.1 69.9 B3.5 48.1 94.6 97.3 82.4 00.9 67.8 60.5 53.9 49.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jaa 09 15:17:47 60.0 74.4 92.2 86.7 47.5 97.9 99.7 05.2 02.1 68.6 60.1 54.7 49.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:19:47 60.0 65.3 81.1 83.1 40.2 96.0 97.3 78.8 61.1 55.3 53.8 52.3 49.5. 3 Motor 3 North Bid, F o 20Jan 09 15:19:47 60.0 80.3 98.1 93.4 49.4 111.4 111.6 90.0 84.5 02.5 81.2 66.6 51.5 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:20:47 60.0 75.1 92.9 B5.1 47.1 103.5 102.5 04.0 81.3 78.6 73.3 65.6 50.6. 3 Moto: 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:21:47 60.0 73.7 96.5 99.9 49.9 106.6 107.3 07.0 85.0 03.2 77.9 55.7 51.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F N 2eJan 09 15:22:47 60.0 71.4 95.2 96.7 50.2 102.3 102.5 65.5 83.6 81.8 79.5 57.1 51.7 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:23:47 60.0 76.0 94.6 01.5 48.7 98.6 101.3 86.1 83.9 00.6 68.3 52.9 49.8 3 Motor 3 Mouth Bldg F 0 20Jan no 15:24:47 60.0 72.9 90.7 04.0 46.7 96.4 99.2 62.7 81.0 12.4 60.1 53.7 4B.5 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:25:47 60.0 75.2 92.9 07.0 47.6 97.9 104.0 85.7 82.7 68.9 50.8 53.4 50.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:26:47 60.0 60.1 77.9 78.4 47.5 95.5 94.8 69.2 62.7 58.7 56.2 52.1 48.8 3 Motet 3 Mouth Bitlg F B ?OJan 09 15:27:47 60.0 60.5 78.3 90.5 43.2 97.5 97.3 70.2 61.2 57.7 56.0 53.3 49.5 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 2eJan 09 15:29:47 60.0 57.0 74.9 75.2 44.0 97.5 89.7 64.0 59.5 56.7 55.0 52.2 49.1 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 2eJan 09 15:29:47 60.0 74.5 92.3 95.7 48.0 96.6 97.3 83.2 91.B 77.1 11.1 53.8 51.5 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:30:47 60.0 61.7 79.5 81.7 49.1 95.6 95.5 69.9 62.5 58.2 55.6 53.0 50.5 3 Mecor 3 North Bldg F a 2eJan 09 15:31:47 60.0 64.4 32.2 77.0 49.9 93.1 94.3 74.1 69.7 66.5 62.5 56.7 51.4 3 Merer 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 15:32:47 60.0 61.7 79.5 76.5 50.7 92.1 93.7 72.9 64.1 58.5 56..5 54.1 52.1 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jee 09 15:33:47 60.0 65.8 83.6 87.7 50.4 102.0 103.E 70.0 65.8 62.1 59.4 56.0 52.1 3 Ides 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 15:34:47 60.0 71.7 89.5 84.2 51.1 104.0 104.0 83.3 78.2 66.4 60.8 55.9 52.6 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jee 09 15:35:47 60.0 56.9 74.6 66.9 49.9 83.6 89.7 63.7 59.7 57.9 56.9 55.0 52.5 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:36:47 60.0 74.1 91.9 86.6 99.6 101.6 103.3 84.9 81.9 68.7 63.8 58.1 51.7 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:37:49 60.0 71.3 89.0 95.7 51.0 112.6 112.8 70.0 62.2 59.4 57.7 54.9 52.9 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:38:47 60.0 75.6 93.3 86.9 52.5 105.4 104.9 05.2 84.2 70.9 66.8 00.5 55.8 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jae 09 15:39:47 60.0 74.5 92.3 07.4 50.0 99.1 99.7 85.5 79.9 70.5 68.7 64.5 52.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:40:47 60.0 59.8 77.6 74.7 50.1 91.0 91.2 69.4 64.8 60.7 57.4 54.0 51.7 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:41:47 60.0 62.4 80.2 76.7 40.0 94.5 95.7 72.2 67.7 62.9 60.7 53.9 50.4 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 15:42:47 60.0 58.7 76.5 73.1 47.5 91.5 92.6 69.5 62.4 58.0 55.2 51.6 49.2 3 Meyer 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jeh 09 15:43:47 60.0 60.9 78.7 79.8 48.7 96.6 96.5 71.3 61.0 57.7 55.9 53.0 50.6 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 203ae 09 15:44:47 60.0 50.8 76.5 77.8 47.2 89.5 92.6 60.5 58.7 55.4 53.9 51.6 49.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 203ee 09 15:45:47 60.0 59.1 76.9 77.1 47.7 96.9 98.6 68.1 61.6 58.0 55.7 52.4 49.6 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jae 09 1S: 46:47 60.0 56.$ 74.3 72.6 47.6 94.0 92.6 66.2 58.2 $5.6 S4.2 51.8 49.3 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 203an 09 15:47:47 60.0 55.B 13.5 74.2 48.3 88.2 91.2 62.8 57.7 55.4 53.9 51.9 49.8 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:48:47 60.0 59.3 77.0 75.5 48.0 88.1 92.6 69.5 62.7 58. .6 56.4 52.1 49.5 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:49:47 60.0 53.9 71.7 69.2 47.6 09.0 87.7 60.5 S7.9 55.2 52.9 50.7 49.2 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 15:50:47 60.0 51.9 69.7 65.0 46.7 76.0 85.2 61.1 53.2 51.3 50.7 49.6 47.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:51:47 60.0 50.3 68.1 55.2 47.1 70.0 95.2 53.5 52.3 51.4 50.0 50.0 48.3 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 203an 09 15:52:47 60.0 52.7 70.5 61.6 47.2 75.0 89.7 57.3 55.4 54.3 53.6 52.0 49.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jnn 09 15:53:47 60.0 53.0 70.a 59.B 49.6 77.4 89.7 57.3 55.0 54.2 53.6 52.4 50.7 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jee 09 15:54:47 60.0 53.1 70.9 65.8 48.5 01.5 89.7 59.7 55.3 53.7 52.7 51.5 50.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:55:47 60.0 51.5 69.2 59.3 48.5 82.1 89.7 54.9 53.4 52.4 51.8 50.9 49.4 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:56:47 60.0 58.0 76.6 68.7 49.3 84.1 88.8 66.4 63.4 60.7 59.3 56.1 50.5 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 15:57:47 55.7 59.1 76.5 75.1 48.8 97.4 99.2 67.8 62.8 60.6 58.6 55.4 49.9 Q \L DAV\6RM7L \200AF 09.b4n "vevval D.c. Tim Dn[aaon Leq SEL Lax Loin Peak BvPP. Ll 2) Ll BI L(16) L1251 L1501 L(90) 09:24:11 42.7 61.2 77.5 74.2 47.2 02.6 95.6 70.7 62.1 64.0 59.6 51.2 40.1 09:25:01 60.0 52.71 70.5 70.2 44.9 92.9 92.5 58.9 $5.5 53.0 51.6 49.7 41.1 09:26:01 60.0 54.4 72.2 73.8 45.2 95.1 94.7 61.0 55.3 53.0 51.6 48.9 46.2 09:27:01 60.0 51.E 69.6 58.2 46.6 71.6 85.2 56.6 $5.0 53.6 52.7 50.6 48.4 09:28:01 60.0 50.2 67.9 59.4 43.8 77.9 97.4 55.6 52.9 51.5 50.E 45.0 41.2 09:29:01 6D.0 53.0 70.8 63.6 45.4 77.0 87.7 59.7 56.8 50.8 47.2 09:30:01 60.0 55.7 73.5 67 7 47.4 65.4 67.7 60.6 59.5 5_ 57.2 54.0 50.3 09:31:01 60.0 55.5 73.3 68.0 46.3 92.4 93.7 62.6 58.6 56.5 55.1 53.E 51.5 09:32:01 60.0 54.8 72.6 67.0 48.1 67.2 91.2 63..9 58.5 55.6 53.7 51.3 49.2 09:33:01 60.0 589 76.0 79.1 47.5 101.9 100.3 67.0 57.9 55.6 $3.9 50.9 49.5 00:34:01 60.0 56.7 74.5 69.2 49.0 94.7 91.2 65.4 60.9 57.4 55.8 53.2 50.6 09:35:01 60.0 55.a 73.6 67.2 46.3 83.8 93.7 62.6 59.9 58.5 57.0 52.9 41.9 09:36:01 60.0 56.6 74.4 69.5 46.7 83.0 96.0 63.0 50,6 58.5 57.5 54.7 48.8 09:37:01 60.0 58.5 76.3 67.5 46.2 02.0 84.6 65.3 63.0 61.6 59.6 55.3 48.7 09:30:01 60.0 55.9 73.7 5 47.3 84.7 91.2 62.6 58.8 57.7 56.7 54.0 49.6 09:39:01 60.0 55.6 73.4 64.6 46.0 77.0 85.2 62.5 60.4 58.7 56.8 52.0 47.8 09:40:01 60.0 54.7 72.5 63.2 41.0 76.4 93.1 60.5 58.3 56.9 55.8 53.0 49.4 09:41:01 60.0 53.9 69.6 62.0 46.2 73.4 B5.2 57.1 55.5 53.6 51.9 50.3 47.7 09:42:01 60.0 55.5 73.3 67.8 46.4 BD.2 87.7 65.9 59.5 54.0 52.6 50.3 40.2 09:43:01 60.0 62.0 79.8 7610 47.9 92.9 95.6 68.9 66.4 64.5 62.8 58.D 51.2 09:44:01 60.0 65.5 83.3 62.7 47.0 103.5 103.5 76.1 69.2 64.5 62.0 56.4 49.2 09:45:01 60.0 55.3 13.1 68.1 46.6 06.5 91.2 62.2 59.6 51.6 55.5 51.6 48.3 09:46:01 60.0 54.0 71.B 62.6 46.2 02.9 89.6 54.8 57.8 56.7 55.6 51.7 48.1 09:41:01 60.0 55.3 73.6 62.5 44.5 74.4 87.7 61.8 60.1 58.8 57.9 51.7 09:48:01 60.0 51.2 66.9 65.1 42.0 B2.7 05.2 59.5 54.6 51.7 50.4 48.4 45.6 09:49:01 60.0 51.8 69.6 68.2 45.4 03.6 92.5 $5.9 52.E 51.6 50.9 49.8 48.1 09:50:01 60.0 58.3 16.1 79.0 44.7 99.9 90.5 67.7 55.3 52.6 50.9 49.0 46.4 09:51:01 60.0 56.6 74.4 79.5 45.6 91.1 96.5 63.5 55.4 53.0 51.7 49.4 46.6 09:52:01 60.0 53.0 70.6 69.6 44.4 84.4 92.5 62.8 54.6 50.8 49.2 47.3 45.7 09:53:01 60.0 53.9 71.7 69.9 46.6 84.4 87.1 61.2 54.6 53.5 52.0 51.3 48.8 09:54:01 60.0 53.8 71.6 59.5 45.7 72.6 89.6 58.9 58.1 $1.0 55.4 51.7 48.0 09:55:01 60.0 53.6 71.4 64.0 45.9 70.2 91.2 59.5 58.4 57.2 53.9 50.7 48.1 09:56:01 60.0 51.8 69.6 67.5 44.7 90.1 100.3 57.4 55.0 53.3 51.7 49.9 47.0 09:57:01 60.0 54.5 72.3 64.8 48.5 71.2 91.2 60.1. $3.4 56.9 56.0 51.9 49.8 09:58:01 60.0 54.4 72.2 61.5 43.4 74.7 97.7 60.3 53.7 56.5 55.1 52.9 49.5 09:59:01 60.0 53.1 70.8 66.3 48.4 82.8 91.2 58.7 56.9 55.5 53.1 50.8 49.2 10:00:01 60.0 51.2 68.9 69.1 47.9 82.4 85.2 53.2 50.9 50.5 50.1 49.5 48.4 10:01:01 60.0 46.9 64.7 50.0 43.1 64.3 94J 49.8 48.9 48.0 41.6 46.7 45.0 10:02:01 60.0 50.2 68.0 58.6 45.6 68.8 87.7 55.6 53.1. 51.9 50.7 40.9 47.2 10:05:01. 60.0 50.1 60.5 56.3 46.0 71.7 91.2 56.8 54.4 52..3 50.8 49.3 46.9 10:04:01 60.0 53.1 70.9 59.5 47.6 80.8 89.6 57.5 56.3 55.0 54.0 52.4 48.9 10:05:01 60.0 52.5 70.3 60.8 46.6 74.6 87.7 57.9 55.9 $4.4 53.2 51.5 47.8 10:06:01 60.0 48.2 65.9 57.1 43.8 75.6 85.2 51.9 50.2 49.5 4B.B 47.7 45.9 10:07:01 60.0 53.1 70.9 65.9 46.6 79.0 53.7 64.3 54.0 52.1 51.3 49.8 47.7 10:08:01 60.0 46.5 66.3 53.8 45.9 69.7 85.2 52.0 50.0 49.5 48.9 48.1 47.0 10:09:01 60.0 48.2 66.0 59.6 43.5 73.8 91.2 52.5 50.2 49.4 48.8 47.7 45.2 10:10:01 60.0 47.0. 64.8 51.8 42.1 62.7 91.2 50.7 49.1 46.5 48.0 46.7 43.9 10:11:01 60.0 40.2 66.0 54.4 96,0 69.2 93.6 50.7 49.5 46.9 48.7 48.0 47.1 30:32:01 60.0 50.7 68.5 55.3 46.7 71.0 87.7 54.1 53.2 52.6 52.1 49.6 47.6 10:13:01 60.0 46.5 66.3 53.3 46.8 72.2 87.7 50.4 49.6 49.0 40.8 48.4 47.3 10:14:01 60.0 4B.2 65.9 53.0 45.7 67.8 87.7 50.9 49.8 49.2 48.7 47.9 46.8 10:15:01 60.0 46.5 64.2 52.2 40.8 61.7 85.2 49.1 48.4 47.9 47.6 46.8 42.3 10:16:01 60.0 56.2 74.0 63.3 41.9 79.3 84.6 60.7 59.1 58.6 58.1 56.7 43.7 10:17:01 60.0 54.9 73.7 75.3 41.3 90.3 94.2 65.5 53.8 50.0 .8.7 46.7 44.1 10:19:01 60.0 51.7 69.5 65.8 43.5 82.2 89.6 60.9 54.8 51.4 50.0 48.3 46.1 10:19:01 60.0 52.3 70.1 66.0 44.3 84.8 93.1 59.8 55.7 53.2 51.7 49.9 47.5 10:20:01 60.0 51.2 69.0 60.5 45.E 86.3 B7.7 57.7 52.6 51.5 50.7 49.3 47.5 10:21:01 60.0 52.3 70.1 62.3 43.9 71.6 85.2 58.8 56.1 54.3 53.1 50.5 46.6 10:22:01 60.0. 50.5 69.3 62.5 43.4 71_7 93.7 57.6 54.3 51.2 49.9 48.4 46.1 10:23:01 60.0 47.4 65.2 59.4 42.7 73.9 91.2 56.1 48.7 47.4 46.7 45.7 43.7 10:24:01 60.0 .7.E 65.6 56.6 42.9 76.5 85.2 53.8 51.5 49.8 41.9 45.9 44.1 10:25:01 60.0 54.0 72.5 60.E 43.7 73.8 89.6 59.9 58.9 58.1 57.3 51.2 45.7 10:26:01 60.0 51.2 69.0 67.5 46.5 83.7 89.7 57.1 54.1 51.2 50.7 49.9 46.4 10:27:01 60.0 53.9 71.7 72.0 47.7 85.2 91.2 59.3 56.4 54.1 52.5 50.5 49.0 10:28:01 60.0 55.3 73.0 62.3 47.4 75.5 92.5 61.8 60.0 50.4 57.2 50.0 4E.5 10:29:01 60.0 56.3 74.1 67.4 47.4 82.4 85.2 61.2 59.8 59.2 58.3 54.5 46.6 10:30:01 60.0 55.5 73.5 63.9 46.7 10.6 89.6 60.9 59.2 58.2 57.2 54.6 48.2 10:31:01 60.0 54.4 72.1 63.2 46.2 75.6 91.2 61.8 55.8 57.5 53.4 50.5 47.9 10:32:01 60.0 53.2 71.0 66.2 45.0 80.4 91.7 62.0 58.4 52.4 50.9 49.0 47.3 10:33:01 60.0 63.E S1.5 72.2 48.8 85.2 94.7 71.2 69.9 67.3 65.0 55.0 51.6 10:34:01 60.0 70.E 83.6 36.0 5312 94.7 96.4 61.7 73.3 69.1 69.2 66.7 55.5 10:35:01 50.0 65.8 83.6 72.9 62.8 04.4 94.6 70.3 68.8 67.9 67.0 64.3 63.2 10:36:01 60.0 61.9 79.6 70.2 47.8 85.7 92.5 67.3 64.6 64.0 63.7 62.2 50.7 10:37:01 60.0 62.3 80.0 72.2 45.9 90.1 93.7 70.8 69.3 65.7 60.5 52.5 47.7 10:38:01 60.0 49.5 67.3 57.6 45.8 77.6 91.2 53.0 51.6 50.2 50.2 49.0 47.0 10:39:01 60.0 50.3 67.9 56.8 45.2 80.2 09.6 54.8 53.0 51.8 51.0 49.4 46.6 10:40:01 60.0 53.4 71.2 61.1 46.3 74.4 87.1 59.6 56.9 55.5 54.2 51.1 48.3 10:41:01 60.0 52.8 70.6 66.4 40.9 89.1 92.5 58.2 55.1 53.7 52.9 51.7 49.5 10:42:01 60.0 55.9 73.7 67.4 48.6 79.5 92.5 66.0 59.3 55.4 53.9 52.0 49.4 10:43:01 60.0 50.2 68.0 57.4 47.8 72.2 93.2 54.B 51.7 50.7 50.3 49.6 48.4 10:44:01 50.0 51.3 69.1 63.3 41.1 81.5 87.7 58.2 54.6 51.7 50.5 45.4 48.2 10:45:01 60.0 57.1 74.9 77.0 48.4 100.5 100.7 64.7 5B.3 56.0 54.6 52.2 49.9 10:46:01 60.0 61.6 79.4 77.3 46.9 94.4 96.4 68.7 66.8 63.7 61.0 55.9 50.4 10:47:01 60.0 54.6 72.6 73.4 46.9 96.0 97.2 62.7 56.6 54.0 52.5 50.3 40.2 10:46:01 60.0 56.5 74.3 72.2 47.6 07.5 97.2 64.1 59.4 57.1 55.6 53.3 50.3 10:49:01 60.0 53.8 71.6 65.4 46.2 01.2 92.5 60.6 56.3 54.0 53.6 52.4 50.3 10:50:01 60.0 52.8 70.6 65.6 45.8 83.2 68.7 63.2 54.7 51_7 50.9 492 47.5 10:51:01 60.0 49.2 67.0 59.2 45.1 74.9 94.7 52.0 50.8 50.1 49.7 48.9 47.2 10:52:01 50.0 47.2 64.9 51.9 44.7 65.1 95.6 49.1 40.7 48.1 47.7 46.9 45.5 10:53:01 60.0 49.6 66.4 55.6 43.4 71.7 65.2 53.8 51.2 49.5 49.8 47.8 46.2 10:54:03 601 49.2 67.0 59.3 42.3 77.5 87.7 55.8 52.5 50.2 49.2 47.0 44.7 10:55:01 601 .50.2 68.0 56.7 45.1 71.2 89.6 55.5 54.1 52.6 50.1 46.6 46.6 10:56:01 60.0 56.5 74.3 69.1 46.3 78.7 92.5 66.9 59.8 55.6 54.2 49.6 47.6 10:57:01 60.0 51.6 69.6 601 44.6 75.1 85.2 59.5 57.5 53.2 594 48.5 46.0 10:58:01 60.0 51.3 69.1 64.1 44.6 801 87.7 57.5 54.9 53.2 50.9 40.4 46.7 10:59:01 60.0 46.4 64.2 56.7 43.1 74.2 0.0 49.9 48.0 47.3 46.8 45.0 44.3 13:00:01 60.0 47.7 65.5 60.9 43.5 76.2 92.5 54.7 49.8 47.8 46.9 56.1 44.7 11:01:03 60.0 54.0 71.8 63.6 45.3 60.6 93.7 61.2 57.8 55.4 53.2 52.0 49.3 1: 02:01 60.0 51.2 68.9 62.4 45.3 77.6 07.7 59.0 53.9 51.5 50.5 49.0 47.2 11:03:01 60.0 49.5 67.3 62.2 43.7 03.7 91.2 55.0 52.3 50.6 49.6 47.9 45.7 11:04:01 60.0 50.3 68.1 61.9 44.2 82.7 85.2 55.9 53.1 51.6 5D.5 48.8 46.6 11:05:01 60.0 53.6 71., 62.4 47.4 82.9 87.7 $9.1 56.0 55.4 54.3 52.5 49.2 11:06:01 60.0 54.5 72.2 66.1 45.4 03.4 87.7 62.0 58.5 56.4 53.3 50.8 48.3 21:07:01 60.0 49.0 66.6 57.9 43.9 74.2 65.2 53.5 51.6 50.6 49.5 48.1 46.3. 11:00:01 60.0 50.5 63.3 61.6 45.0 82.0 85.2 54.6 52.6 51.7 51.2 50.1 47.7 11:09:01 60.0 54.4 72.2 67.8 45.1 88.0 87.7 63.7 59.3 55.71 52.5. 49.3 46.8 1.1:10:03 60.0 50.3 68.1 56.7 47.5 71.1 89.6 54.4 52.6 51.6 5D.E 49.6 48.3 11:11:D1 60.8 53.6 69.4 63.4 47.6 79.9 91.2 SE.S 54.4 52.0 51.0 49.7 46.3 11:12:01 60.0 50.0 67.8 55.0 47.9 70.6 85.2 52.4 50.9 50.7 50.4 49.3 49.0 11:13:03 60.0 57.2 74.9 67.4 46.8 80.1 87.7 65.9 62.6 50.6 57.2 52.0 49.0 11:34:03 60.0 57.1 ' 9 69.1 46.9 66.0 91.2 63.8 62.4 61.1 50.9 50.4 48.1 11:15:01 60.8 55.1 72.0 01.6 44.1 79.5 E9.6 62.7 61.0 59.6 55.2 47.3 45.1 11:16:01 60.0 55.8 73.5 63.9 43.7 76.0 05.2 63.5 61.8 $9.3 55.8 50.1 46.3 11:17:01 60.0 51.6 09.4 71.6 45.7 90.6 92.5 57.6 53.5 50:2 49.5 46.5 47.2 31:10:01 60.0 49.8 66.5 55.1 44.0 66.4 87.7 53.6 51.7 50.1 49.2 47.0 46.2 11:19:03 60.0 53.0 70.0 62.1 43.9 76.9 85.2 60.5 57.3 54.9 53.9 49.9 46.7 11:20:01 60.0 52.5 70.3 631 44.7 77.1 93.7 60.7 56.9 54.1 51.3 49.3 47.4 11:21:01 W.0 53,6 71.3 62.3 45.6 63.6 90.4 59.5 57.6 55.6 53.6 53.8 49.1 11:22:01 60.0 51.1 68.9 60.1 45.3 72.5 65.3 57.4 54.9 53.0 50.9 49.2 47.2 11:23:03 60.0 51.4 69.2 62.3 45.0 76.4 52.5 58.8 55.3 52.5 50.E 48.9 46.8 11:24:03 60.0 49.5 67.2 50.0 43.0 70.8 09.6 56.6 51.9 50.0 49.4 48.0 45.7 11:25:01 60.0 47.7 65.5 $6.1 41.6 76.9 92.5 53.9 51.6 49.8 48.0 45.7 43.2 11:26:01 60.0 4B.3 66.1 55.6 43.8 74.3 87.7 52.9 51.4 50.5 49.7 47.1 44.2 11:27:01 60.0 54.5 72.3 63.1 43.3 76.3 87.7 62.5 50.6 56.7 54.8 50.3 46.3 11:20:01 60.0 51.1 68.9 6210 45.2 77.6 B5.2 57.9 53.6 52.1 51.4 49.5 47.2 11.:29:01 60.0 55.9 73.7 68.2 46.7 02.5 89.6 63.9 60.1 57.9 56.3 52.6 48.3 11:30:01 60.0 53.9 71.7 66.6 444 79.8 89.6 62.0 57.5 55.0 53.6 50.9 46.4 11:31:01 60.0 52.0 70.6 66.3 43.0 05.9 09.6 62.6 57.8 52.4 50.5. 47.5 44.9 11:32:01 60.0 52.8 70.6 66.9 44.7 01.6 95.6 62.2 56.6 52.9 51.2 48.5 45.1 11:33:01 60.0 59.9 77.7 80.2 44.0 94.9 97.2 66.3 59.7 56.5 54.3 49.5 45.5 11:34:01 60.0 50.2 68.0 61.6 42.1 77.3 09.6 56.5 53.1 51.4 50.6 49.0 44.9 11:35:01 60.0 54.3 72.1 71.0 42.0 04.6 91.2 64.0 56.3 52.6 50.9 48.0 44.0 11:36:01 60.0 48.3 66.5 62.4 41.1 78.4 05.2 56.5 52.2 49.9 48.6 45.7 43.1 11:37:01 60.0 50.4 68.1 60.9 42.4 79.3 07.7 57.7 53.0 51.3 50.2 40.6 45.6 11:38:01 60.0 48.8 66.6 59.7 42.1 76.5 87.7 56.9 53.6 49.0 47.4 45.8 43.5 11:39:01 60.0 51.1 68.9 60.1 42.6 72.6 05.2 59.3 57.8 50.8 48.4 45.5 43.7 11:40:01 60.0 52.4 70.2 60.8 43.2 76.7 89.6 60.0 58.9 54.6 51.6 47.3 44.9 11:41:01 60.0 53.0 70.8 63.8 46.4 80.5 07.7 60.3 57.6 55.8 53.1 49.0 47.2 11:42:01 60.0 52.6 70.6 68.0 46.2 84.9 91.2 591 56.0 53.9 52.5 50.2 48.1 11:43:01 60.0 53.4 '71.2 66.0 44.6 02.9 89.6 61.2 57.7 55.5 53.7 49.8 46.0 11:44:01 60.0 47.4 65.2 64.2 43.5 03.0 91.2 50.5 48.0 47.6 47.1 46.3 44.8 11:45:01 60.0 47.2 64.9 55.9 43.4 71.8 65.2 51.4 49.7 48.4 47.7 46.4 45.0 31:46:01 60.0 50.8 60.5 60.0 43.0 75.2 67.7 57.6 54.3 52.7 51.4 49.3 44.E 11:47701 60.0 54.9 72.6 ?0..1 45.1 82.4 91.2 62.0 57.3 55.3 53.E 51.0 47.2 11:48:01 60.0 55.1 72.8 67.2 47.5 04.1 07.7 61.3 58.6 $5.9 55.0 53.6 50.5 11:99:01 60.0 54.2 72.0 61.9 45.6 74.0 86.5 59.7 58.2 56.6 55.3 52.7 40.8 11:50:01 60.0 53.5 73.2 60.0 43.6 75.3 85.2 59.1 57.6 55.3 53.5 52.0 49.B 11:51:01 6D.D 59.9 77.7 76.4 45.8 09.5 89.6 71.3 61.7 58.9 57.0 53.5 47.E 11:52:01 60.0 52.1 69.0 65.5 44.8 77.0 96.0 63.2 54.E 49.6 46.5 ,7.2 45.6 11:53:01 60.0 54.0 73.8 68.5 43.0 89.7 89.6 65.4 57.5 51.5 48.7 46.2 44.2 11:54:01 60.0 59.3 77.1 73.1 45.3 90.7 92.5 60.0 64.7 62.0 59.2 52.6 47.5 11:55:01 60.D 55.3 73.1 69.6 44.6 80.4 89.6 63.9 59.6 56.7 54.4 50.5 46.2 11:56:01 60.0 57.3 75.1 72.3 43.6 091 94.7 69.2 60.9 53.7 51.6 47.5 44.6 11:57:01 60.0 53.7 7!.5 72.9 44..3 93.2 94.7 60.6 57.5 54.5 51.8 47.7 45.1 11:58:01 60.0 57.2 74.0 73.0 43.1 92.4 94.7 67.6 63.6 57.3 53.1 ' 11:59:01 60.0 48.4 66.2 60.5 42.9 77.7 07.7 55.4 53.1 40.9 47.5 46.3 44.9 12:00:01 60.0 50.6 68.4 62.4 43.0 77.3 09.6 57.2 54.8 52.9 51.2 46.0 44.9 32:01:01 60.0 51.7 69.5 61.0 45.3 77.9 91.2 59.5 56.0 53.2 50.5 48.5 46.6 12:02:01 60.0 52.7 70.5 63.0 43.5 77.4 66.5 61.2 58.1 56.8 5D.8 46.7 44.5 12:03:01 60.0 50.9 60.6 60.5 43.9 75.5 89.6 59.3 55.6 53.0 51.3 47.4 44.7 12:04:01 60.0 52.E 7D.6 68.6 43.1 67.5 99.6 60.7 57.5 55.0 52.0. 47.8 44.6 32:05:03 50.0 53.6 70.4 6E.3 45.5 85.5 E9.6 61.7 55.1 52.4 50.9 48.9 46.5 12:06:03 60.0 55.3 73.1 65.0 44.3 77.3 67.7 63.6 59.5 56.6 55.4 52.5 48.4 32:07:01 60.0 49.5 66.3 59.0 44.5 73.5 85.2 54.2 52.1 50.0 48.0 46.1 45.3 12:08:01 60.0 48.0 65.8 57.5 45.0 74.4 87.7 53.7 49.1 46.6 48.1 47.3 46.1 12:09:01 60.0 49.6 67.4 60.5 44.3 78.3 85.2 56.7 $2.3 50.3 49.5 47.9 45.7 12:10:01 60.0 57.0 74.8 75.0 46.0 87.0 67.7 64.0 $7.5 55.5 51.8 45.4 46.7 12:11:01 60.0 53.3 71.1 64.4 43.0 81.3 85.2 60.9 58.6 55.8 53.0 49.5 46.8 12:12:01 60.0 48.3 66.1 53.4 43.3 73.3 87.7 56.1 51.4 49.4 'e.3 46.6 44.6 12:13:01 60.0 51.1 69.9 64.3 43.2 79.8 67.7 61.0 55.3 $0.5 4E.9 46.7 44.5 12:14:01 60.0 54.6 72.4 63.3 42.0 82.3 85.2 62.7 58.8 57.2 55.7 49.7 44.7 12:15:01 60.0 53.2 71.0 70.6 41.9 87.2 94.7 62.1 57.0 $4.4 52.0 40.2 44..1 12:16:01 60.0 52.7 70.5 67.0 40.4 04.5 89.6 62.9 57.6 54.0 50.1 44.3 42.1 12:17:01 60.0 46.7 66.5 60.4 40.9 77.7 03.7 57.4 53.5 49.3 47.8 44.5 42.2 12:18:01 60.0 53.3 71.5 67.9 39.3 04.3 87.7 62.6 59.5 56.2 52.9 45.9 .2.1 12:19:01 60.0 51.0 60.8 64.9 40.2 91.9 87.7 0.6 56.2 53.8 48.7 45.2 42.2 12:20:01 60.0 47.1 64.E 61.8 42.1 75.2 93.7 52.2 48.7 47.6 46.9 45.8 44.1 1.2:21:01 60.0 47.1 64.9 56.4 40.3 75.3 85.2 54.6 52.2 47.2 45.7 44.4 43.0 12:22:01 60.0 45.3 63.1 55.4 42.4 80.0 05.2 49.1 46.0 46.1 45.8 45.1 43.4 12:23:01 60.0 46.2 64.0 56.9 40.5 751 0.0 53.8 49.2 46.E .5.6 4.5 42.5 12:24:01 60.0 48.4 66.2 63.3 42.6 94.8 93.7 57.4 50.0 47.7 46.7 45.5 43.7 12:25:01 60.0 49.9 67.7 60.3 43.3 76.7 0.0 54.9 53.0 51.9 50.8 48.7 45.4 12:26:01 60.0 51.6 69.4 65.6 39.9 77.7 e7.7 62.0 56.1 50.5 40.3 45.3 41.7 12:27401 60.0 47.5 65.3 55.3 42.6 75.8 07.7 53.5 50.9 49.2 47.7 45.7 44.0 12:28:01 60.0 53.3 71.1 65.1 43.9 77.0 97.2 59.0 57.6 56.2 54.6 50.5 46.5 12:29:01 60.0 60.2 78.0 83.8 45.1 99.2 100.3 60.9 58.7 57.1 54.1 50.1 46.5 12:30:01 60.0 53.7 71.5 64.1 43.1 80.8 85.2 59.8 58.0 57.0 55.1 50.9 46.5 12:31:01 60.0 55.8 73.5 63.1 44.1 76.2 87.7 62.3 61.0 50.5 57.0 52.0 46.3 12:32:01 60.0 53.8 71.6 63.0 44.7 76.8 93.7 60.G 57.8 56.7 54.B 51.3 46.7 12:33:01 60.0 50.7 68.5 61.6 43.9 76.0 91.2 50.3 55.2 $3.4 50.8 47.4 45.2 12:34:01 60.0 53.2 71.0 59.6 45.0 74.0 92.5 $9.1 57.9 56.E 55.0 49.3 46.3 12:35:0! 60.0 53.1 70.9 62.0 44.1 77.5 09.6 58.3 57.4 56.5 55.2 50.1 47.0 12:36:01 60.0 57.5 75.3 73.4 45.5 84.7 05.2 68.4 56.1 54.0 52.9 51.1 48.0 12:37:01 60.0 54.6 72.4 70.9 46.2 91.7 93.7 63.7 57.6 55.2 52.8 50.0 47.5 12:38:01 60.0 50.3 60.1 64.4 45.5 79.2 67.7 57.4 53.3 50.0 49.9 4B.2 46.2 12:39:01 60.0 50.2 67.9 61.9 44.7 82.4 89.6 56.6 53.6 51_6 50.5 47.9 46.3 12:40:01 60.0 47.3 65.0 56.6 44.7 79.5 69.6 51.3 48.7 47.9 47.5 46.8 45.6 12:41:01 60.0 52.2 70.0 74.7 44.0 88.3 69.6 56.1 51.3 49.9 40.6 47.3 45.9 1Z:42:01 60.0 50.6 60.3 63.6 45.4 81.8 92.5 57.8 54.0 51.8 50.5 47.8 45.8 12:43:01 60.0 47.6 65.4 55.5 45.0 74.4 86.5 52.5 49.8 48.7 47.9 46.7 45.4 12:44:01 60.0 40.4 66.1 65.6 40.5 79.1 85.2 54.7 50.2 48.3 46.9 44.0 41.5 12:45:01 60.0 53.5 71.2 66.9 41.4 82.3 85.2 64.8 54.0 52.0 51.1 48.1 44.3 12:46:01 60.0 52.4 70.2 67.7 46.6 60.3 87.7 59.4 53.9 $2.8 52.8 50.7 49.0 12:47:0! 60.0 53.0 70.8 62.2 47.7 75.3 95.2 59.5 55.7 54.3 53.1 51.6 50.0 12:48:01 60.8 52.0 69.8 64.0 46.1 81.1 93.7 60.4 55.3 52.5 51.1 49.7 47.9 2:49:01 60.0 53.1 00.9 63.1 44.8 93.4 95.6 74.8 61.6 55.7 52.8 49.4 46.3 12:50:01 60.0 47.3 65.1 55.8 43.0 76.1 89.6 53.4 50.9 46.9 47.4 45.7 44.1 12:51:01 60.0 49.2 665 60.5 43.5 79.0 85.2 55.7 52.8 50.8 49.4 46.9 44.7 12:52:01 60.0 49.9 67.7 57.7 44.7 71.7 B7.7 $4.B 52.9 51.4 50.5 49.2 46.1 12:53:01 60.0 52.8 70.6 72.3 42.0 88.9 95.6 59.5 53.3 51.5 50.8 49.0 43.B 12:54:01 60.0 55.3 73.1 68.4 42.0 92.1 85.2 67.3 57.5 54.2 52.6 49.3 44.1 12:55:01 60.0 53.3 71.0 60.0 48.8 74.0 B9.6 57.7 55.8 54.9 54.2 52.6 50.0 12:56:01 60.0 47.9 65.7 58.0 41.0 73.9 85.2 55.4 50.9 49.1 40.2 45.0 43.4 32:57:01 60.0 45.6 63.4 54.5 40.3 60.6 07.7 51.4 48.0 47.1 46.3 44.3 42.3 12:58:01 '00.0 45.4 63.2 57.0 39.1 73.1 85.2 52.0 48.6 47.2 45.9 43.3 40.4 12:59:01 60.0 46.7 64.5 62.8 40.6 62.9 B5.2 52.1 48.0 46.9 46.3 45.1 42.2 13:00:01 60.0 49.8 67.6 59.3 44.1 73.1 B9.6 54.7 52.3 51.5 50.6 49.2 45.9 13:01:01 60.0 49.1 66.0 57.1 44.3 70.2 87.7 53.8 51.6 50.3 49.5 46.3 46.3 13:02:01 60.0 47.2 64.9 57.2 43.6 73.5 85.2 51.0 40.9 4B.0 47.6 46.5 45.0 13:03:01 60.0 49.8 67.6 63.1 43.4 76.5 97.7 56.9 53.9 51.4 49.7 46.8 45.0 13:04:01 60.0 49.8 67.5 69.1 43.2 03.9 90.4 54.0 49.0 48.2 47.6 46.4 44.7 13:05:01 60.0 62.2 80.0 70.6 46.3 82.0 09.6 70.2 68.7 66.2 61.8 54.6 50.4 13:06:01 60.0 53.2 11.0 65.3 47.9 79.6 87.7 62.8 56.3 52.8 51.5 49.8 40.2 13107:81 60.0 54.2. 72.0 66.6 4B.1 82.2 89.6 62.2 56.9 55.1 54.0 52.0 49.1 13:06:01 60.0 56.2 74.0 65.7 49.7 18.9 97.7 63.3 60.1 58.0 56.4 53.9 50.6 13:09:01 60.0 51.1 68.8 60.2 44.1 76.0 85.2 56.2 54.1 52.7 51.7 50.1 47.1 13:10:01 60.0 52.6 70.4 64.7 43.9 77.0 87.7 59.1 56.3 54.8 53.4 50.3 46.8 13:11:01 60.0 52.3 70.1 62.4 44.7 78.1 85.2 57.6 55.4 53.8 52.7 51.2 40.1 13:12:01 60.0 52.3 70.0 61.2 43.2 73.4 85.2 58.3 56.9 55.2 53.3 49.5 45.5 13:13:01 60.0 40.2 65.9 62.7 44.0 76.1 89.6 54.1 49.5 48.2 47.7 46.6 45.2 13:14:01 60.0 48.0 65.8 56.4 44.7 73.4 85.2 52.8 49.7 48.9 48.4 47.5 46.1 13:15:01 60.0 47.7 65.4 55.9 44.4 75.6 85.2 51.4 49.4 48.6 48.0 47.1 45.7 13:.16:01 60.0 47.7 65.5 55.5 43.4 74.2 09.6 51.7 48.9 48.6 48.2 47.4 45.6 13:17:01 60.0 47.6 65.4 56.0 44.3 74.5 87.7 53.1 49.3 4B.5 47.9 46.9 45.4 13:18:01 60.0 48.1 65.9 55.3 43.9 74.5 89.6 53.3 49.8 49.0 46.7 47.7 45.4 13:19:01 60.0 97.8 65.6 56.4 43.3 74.6 05.2 52.9 49.6 48.8 40.3 47.3 44.9 13:20:03 60.0 47.2 64.9 56.9 43.7 76.3 87.7 53.3 48.9 47.8 47.1 46.2 44.7 13:21:01 60.0 47.7 65.5 56.7 44.9 76.7 92.5 52.5 48.8 48.3 47.9 47.2 46.0 13:22:01 60.0 91.9 79.7 79.3 46.3 91.6 93.7 74.8 56.6 51.8 50.6 49.5 47.5 13:23:01 60.0 82.1 99.9 97.5 47.6 103.1 102.5 93.1 87.5 62.8 78.5 58.6 50.6 13:24:01 60.0 50.9 6B.7 65.7 46.4 77.7 0.0 $6.3 $2.6 51.4 50.7 49.5 46.0 13:25:01 60.0 49.9 6].] 54.5 46.0 66.1 87.7 52.0 51.7 51.0 50.6 99.7 48.1 13:26:01 60.0 50.2 68.0 60.3 46.0 76.7 91.2 52.9 51.7 51.0 50.6 49.7 48.4 13:27:61 60.0 49.9 67.7 57.9 47.0 74.0 65.2 52.5 53.5 50.9 50.6 49.7 98.2 13:28:01 60.0 49.5 67.2 60.9 46.6 77.1 89.6 52.4 50.9 50.4 49.9 49.2 47.8 13:29:01 60.0 50.6 6B.4 54.0 45.9 70.3 85.2 53.9 53.1 52.4 51.7 50.2 97.9 13:30:01 60.0 53.8 71.6 66.0 44.9 81.3 07.7 64.8 55.0 52.0 51.0 49.5 46.7 13:31:01 60.0 49.6 67.4 55.0 43.1 72.3 67.7 53.2 52.3 51.5 50.8 49.3 45.7 13:32:01 60.0 58.1 '5.5 73.4 47.8 83.7 99.6 66.3 61.6 58.9 57.1 54.4 50.3 13:33:01 60.0 50.1 67.9 60.9 47.9 76.7 91.2 54.8 5!.5 50.5 49.9 49.4 48.3 13:34:01 60.0 49.6 67.4 55.8 47.6 73.4 87.7 52.7 51.1 50.5 50.0 49.3 48.2 13:35:01 60.0 50.1 67.8 50.4 45.4 71.8 91.2 55.3 52.6 51.3 50.4 49.4 47.2 13:36:01 60.0 47.0 64.8 56.7 44.5 73.2 0.0 51.2 48.7 47.8 l 46.5 45.3 13:37:01 60.0 52.4 70.2 59.8 46.2 72.3 92.5 57.3 56.5 55.7 54.5 50.0 47.2 13:38:01 60.0 53.0 70.8 60.1 45.7 74.9 89.6 50.4 57.3 56.3 55.0 50.2 47.9 13:39:01 60.0 46.5 64.3 56.9 42.4 70.9 87.7 50.3 48.3 47.6 47.0 46.2 43.7 13:40:01 68.0 45.3 57.1 56.7 441 79.7 07.7 53.0 51.6 50.7 50.1 48.7 46.5 13:41:01 60.0 66.0 63.9 43.5 75.B 85.2 51.6 49.6 48.8 48.4 47.3 45.3 13:42:01 60.0 51.9 699.7 59.7 45.0 74.6 87.7 57.6 55.7 54.3 52.0 50.2 47.1 13:43:01 60.0 55.6 73.5 63.2 48.4 77.8 87.7 62.2 61.0 58.1 55.3 52.9 50.7 13:44:01 60.0 56.6 74.6 67.6 49.6 79.0 89.6 65.4 60.7 57.7 56.7 53.0 51.0 13:45:01 60.0 52.7 ]0.5 55.9 47.2 76.4 87.7 57.5 55.3 54.2 53.5 52.2 49.1 13:46:01 60.0 53.4 71.1 60.4 46.4 76.2 85.2 58.0 56.1 55.3 54.5 52.5 49.0 13:47:01 60.0 54.6 72.4 61.0 501 74.2 87.7 58.6 57.1 55.9 55.1 541 51.6 13:4801. 60.0 53.9 71.5 61.7 46.1 741 91.2 59.4 57.5 55.6 53.9 52.4 49.3 13:49:01 60.0 .9 72.7 62.8 45.8 75.9 85.2 61.9 61.1 69.1 51.0 48.9 47.1 13:50:01 60.0 53.1 70.9 71.2 45.6 95.2 96.0 63.0 54.9 51.6 50.5 49.0 46.9 13:51:01 '90.0 54.7 72.5 69.0 46.5 88.7 99.6 65.5 56.4 52.3 51.3 50.0 48.2 13:52:01 60.0 58.3 76.0 72.8 46.5 92.9 52.5 69.2 61.9 55.5 54.1 52.2 49.2 13:53:01 60.0 60.9 78.7 74.6 44.5 94.7 94.7 72.0 66.9 59.4 53.1 48.9 46.5 13:54:01 60.0 65.9 83.7 76.6 44.5 98.2 96.4 74.7 72.4 69.1 64.0 53.9 47.4 13:55:01 60.0 57.7 .5 67.6 45.8 81.3 87.7 64.0 62.4 60.9 59.3 54.2 49.9 13:56:01 60.0 53.4 11.1 64.8 44.8 78.2 85.2 59.5 56.4 55.5 54.4 51.9 47.9 13:57:01. 60.0 56.2 74.0 71.4 46.8 85.5 91.2 60.7 59.1 50.2 57.2 54.5 50.5 13:58:01 60.0 56.9 74.7 70.0 47.9 92.9 94.7 62.4 60.6 59.5 50.5 54.4 51.2 13:59:01 60.0 54.8 72.6 61.4 49.1 80.4 92.5 59.6 58.0 56.8 56.1 53.4 51.2 14:00:01 60.0 61.3 79.1 73.2 48.3 92.2 93.7 70.4 67.3 63.8 59.9 53.6 51.0 14:01:01 60.0 54.3 72.1 62.8 46.6 76.3 87.7 61.2 50.6 56.3 54.5 52.1 48.5 14:02:01 60.0 54.9 72.9 61.9 45.9 76.8 85.2 60.2 50.6 57.3 56.5 53.9 48.2 14:03:01 60.0 52.7 70.5 60.8 44.9 79.7 87.7 57.4 56.5 55.6 54.3 51.1 47.3 14:04:01 60.0 50.0 68.5 66.9 45.3 84.2 69.6 56.7 55.2 51.6 49.2 49.9 46.3 14:05:01 60.0 49.4 67.2 57.3 46.4 73.3 0.0 55.5 51.6 49.9 49.4 48.4 47.1 14:06:01 60.0 55.4 73.2 61.7 45.9 60.0 65.2 59.9 58.8 57.5 56.7 55.1 48.9 14:09:01 60.0 54.9 72.6 63.6 45.9 83.3 91.2 60.5 58.3. 57.0 56.3 53.6 48.2 14:08:01 60.0 54.5 72.3 64.8 43.9 83.0 85.2 63.2 59.7 57.1 53.8 50.0 46.4 14:09:01 60.0 52.1 69.9 63.7 45.3 60.3 85.2 60.8 55.7 51.6 50.6 49.5 47.7 14:10:01 60.0 62.2 60.0 73.7 44.9 93.0 94.7 70.9 68.4 65.4 61.7 53.1 47.7 14:11:01 60.0 51.66 66.4 67.1 45.4 85.5 05.2 60.0 53.9 51.5 50.4 48.6 46.9 14:12:01 60.0 51.2 69.0 62.2 47.7 81.6 89.6 57.5 53.0 52.0 51.3 50.0 48.3 14:13:01 60.0 54.3 72.6 61.9 46.3 74.1 92.5 60.9 58.8 57.6 56.4 52.5 49.0 14:14:01 60.0 55.3 73.1 62.9 44.0 80.7 89.6 60.5 $9.3 56.6 5B.0 52.0 46.2 14:15:01 60.0 51.1 63.9 66.3 43.4 79.2 05.2 50.1 55.7 53.4 43.6 46.5 44.6 14:16:01 60.0 51.0 68.8 63.9 43.0 82.5 85.2 59.6 56.7 52.0 46.2 46.4 44.4 14:17:01 60.0 55.3 73.5 70.3 42.5 91.6 92.5 67.2 59.7 52.4 49.7 47.4 44.1 14:18:01 60.0 59.5 71.3 70.8 40.9 90.8 93.7 69.0 66.2 61.7 57.2 48.0 42.0 14:19:01 60.0 61.9 79.6 76.0 42.9 100.4 100.7 70.8 67.0 63.8 61.5 56.1 50.4 14:20:01 60.0 59.4 77.1 69.5 43.2 64.6 69.6 68.1 65.4 62.1 53.8 53.0 44.1 14:21:01 60.0 57.5 75.3 69.5 43.5 69.6 89.6 66.4 63.4 59.9 56.8 50.6 44.9 14:22:01 60.0 47.5 65.3 61.9 43.3 80.3 D.0 54.6 49.6 48.0 47.2 45. 9 44.3 14:23:03 60.0 60.9 73.7 04.8 43.9 102.0 105.4 65.0 $5.7 51.5 49.5 47.4 45.3 14:24:01 60.0 55.2 73.0 74.5 46.3 69.3 88.7 $0.0 52.9 52.3 51.8 50.9 48.2 14;25:01 60.0 63.6 61.4 75.3 43.5 98.9 99.3 74.4 60.3 62.8 59.3 52.1 47.5 14:26:01 60.0 65.6 83.4 05.7 45.5 100.5 100.3 75.5 62.0 56.4 53.3 49.9 47.1 14:27:01 60.0 48.8 66.5 60.2 44.9 75.9 85.2 55.6 50.7 49.2 434 47.6 45.9 14:28:01 60.0 50.0 67.7 58.0 46.2 71.8 05.2 54.4 52.0 50.9 50.3 49.4 47.5 14:29:01 60.0 50.2 68.0 59.2 46.3 71.7 85.2 54.7 52.3 51.3 50.7 49.6 47.7 14:30:81 60.0 52.8 70.6 62.7 47.7 7D.7 91.9 5B.8 56.4 54.6 53.1 51.1 49.2 14:31:01 60.0 47.9 65.6 56.6 44.3 69.9 05.2 51.5 50.2 49.4 43.6 47:2 45.2 14:32:01 60.0 47.6 65.4 61.0 42.0 79.0 92.5 53.2 51.0 49.6 47.5 45.9 43.6 14:33:01 60.0 50.8 68.6 61.7 43.7 76.7 67.7 57.6 54.9 52.5 50.9 48.6 45.7 14:34:01 60.0 50.4 69.1 62..3 45.0 81.1 65.2 57.2 53.7 51.7 50.4 48.6 46.4 14:35:01 60.0 50.6 63.4 61.3 44.9 83.1 91.2 58.3 54.3 51.7 58.3 48.4 46.2 14:36:01 60.0 54.6 72.4 62.5 47.9 81.6 67.7 58.6 56.9 56.3 55.8 54.5 49.1 14:37:01 60.0 53.4 71.2 61.5 49.0 80.0 87.7 $1.7 56.3 55.4 54.5 52.3 50.3 14:39;01 60.0 51.9 69.6 59.3 49.4 76.9 89.6 56.6 53.9 52.8 52.1 51.3 49.7 14:39:01 60.0 53.2 71.0 61.3 49.4 79.2 09.6 50.1 54.9 54.2 53.6 52.5 51.0 14:40:01 60.0 60.4 78.2 67.2 40.1 02.9 87.7 66.7 65.8 64.2 62.0 55.E 50.6 14:41:81 60.0 52.3 70.1 57.5 41.9 76.4 69.6 55.7 54.5 53.8 53.3 52.0 49.6 14:42:01 60.0 50.3 63.1 60.3 45.1 77.5 89.6 54.9 52.7 51.9 51.3 49.7 46.3 14:43:81 60.0 50.0 67.3 61.3 44.0 01.6 07.7 57.6 54.2 51.6 49.4 47.3 45.4 14:44:01 60.0 49.1 66.9 60.5 44..4 77.1 07.7 55.5 52.3 50.6 49.5 47.4 45.A 14:45:01 60.0 60.1 77.9 67.0 47.1 01.1 89.6 66.1 65.3 63.9 62.4 55.8 49.2 14:46:01 60.0 50.5 68.3 62.1 45.1 76.7 07.7 57.2 53.6 51.8 50.9 48.7 46.6 14:47:01 60.0 53.9 71.7 73.3 45.0 91.1 94.7 61.0 56.6 53.8 52.5 49.8 46.5 14:48:01 60.0 50.5 68.3 60.5 44.G 70.7 94.7 57.4 54.5 52.5 51.0 46.1 45.9 14:49:01 60.0 53.3 71.1 65.3 44.3 80.7 85.2 62.4 58.1 54.6 52.2 49.2 45.9 14:50:01 60.0 51.1 60.0 64.0 45.3 76.1 85.2 59.4 54.5 51.7 50.5 48.6 46.2 14:51:01 60.0 50.5 68.3 62.6 41.0 79.2 89.6 57.8 55.4 53.3 50.5 46.3 42.5 14:52:01 60.0. 50.2 75.9 70.3 44.9 83.9 B9.6 67.0 62.9 59.4 57.0 54.1 48.4 14:53:01 60.0 55.5 73.2 71.4 45.7 84.6 85.2 65.3 59.2 54.7 52.4 50.0 47.7 14:54:01 60.0 50.2 67.9 58.6 47.5 76.4 85.2 53.7 51.7 50.9 50.6 49.8 40.5 14:55:01 60.0 57.7 75.4 72.6 47.3 94.7 93.7 68.4 62.2 57.3 54.7 51.1 48.1 14:56:01 60.0 51.8 69.6 59.4 48.6 77.7 89.6 55.8 54.0 53.1 52.6 51.3 49.4 14:57.01 60.0 52.6 70.4 58.0 45.8 76.4 B5.2 56.5 54.7 53.9 53.6 52.6 48.7 14:50:01 60.0 53.2 71.0 60.5 49.9 72.0 87.7 56.0 54.9 54.0 53.7 53.0 51.4 14:59:01 60.0 52.7 10.5 62.6 49.0 76.2 89.6 56.0 54.7 53.7 53.0 52.1 50.4 15:00:01 60.0 52.5 70.2 60.5 49.0 76.5 85.2 55.6 54.0 53.5 53.0 52.4 50.1 15:01:01 60.0 54.2 71.9 63.3 49.0 60.5 91.2 58.2 56.4 55.7 55.2 53.7 50.8 15:02:01 60.0 52.6 70.4 62.0 45.3 75.5 87.7 56.9 54.8 53.9 53.4 51.9 49.1 15:03;01 60.0 50.0 60.6 59.8 46.6 75.5 85.2 56.1 53.4 52.3 51.5 49.8 40.0 15:04:01 60.0 52.3 70.1 66.0 46.6 86.0 96.0 60.1 54.4 52.4 51.2 49.6 47.7 15:05:01 60.0 53.5 71.2 65.4 46.4 83.6 87.7 61.9 58.3 54.3 524 49.9 47.4 15:06:01 60.0 48.7 66.5 56.0 45.3 71.4 85.2 54.1 51.1 49.7 48.9 17.3 46.4 15:07:01 60.0 49.4 67.2 61.4 45.3 77.9 89.6 55.7 51.9 50.6 49.7 48.1 46.3 15:00:01 60.0 49.5 67.3 62.2 43.9 76.2 91.2 56.5 51.9 50.5 49.5 .' 6 46.2 15:09:01 60.0 52.1 69.9 67.6 45.4 79.2 87.7 61.8 52.3 50.6 49.9 48.8 47.1 15:10:01 60.0 52.3 70.1 61.9 47.4 75.4 87.7 57.6 54.7 53.7 52.8 51.6 48.8 15:11:01 60.0 51.9 69.7 69.1 45.4 60.2 87.7 57.9 52.7 51.6 50.9 49.4 47.0 15:12:01 60.0 504 66.2 57.4 46.3 80.4 0.0 54..7 53.1 51.9 51.0 49.7 43.0 15:13:01 60.0 53.1 70.9 61.0 47.4 79.7 85.2 56.9 56.0 54.7 53.7 52.1 49.3 15:14:01 60.0 52.6 70.4 63.4 46.0 79.1 91.2 61.3 57.4 53.0 50.9 49.3 47.3 15:15:01 60.0 54.6 72.4 60.4 :6.4 78.9 39.6 60.1 59.1 58.1 56.0 51.7 43.3 15:16:01 60.0 52.7 70.4 68.4 46.1 89.7 87.7 62.0 56.6 51.6 50.2 48.9 47.0 15:17:D1 60.0 53.2 71.0 63.3 46.5 86.0 37.7 62.0 56.2 51.8 51.0 49.6 47.9 15:13:01 60.0 48.9 66.7 61.6 42.7 81.4 85.2 53.E 51.6 50.3 49.4 47.6 45.7 15:19:01 60.0 50.5 63.2 64.1 42.5 79.6 85.2 56.5 52.7 51.8 51.3 50.0 444 15:20:01 60.0 53.6 71.4 68.3 46.8 77.8 85.2 62.2 55.0 53.2 52.0 50.5 45.2 15:21:01 60.0 51.7 69.5 59.6 46.5 82.6 07.7 56.6 54.6 53.3 52.5 51.0 49.2 15:22:01 60.0 60.8 78.5 74.1 48.5 86.5 93.7 72.6 65.0 55.4 53.6 51.E 49.5 15:23:01 60.0 51.0 68.8 57.6 46.5 68.3 B9.6 $6.3 54.4 53.0 51.9 49.6 47.6 15:24:01 60.9 51.6 69.3 58.7 46.0 71.0 91.2 57.4 55.3 53.2 52.1 50.3 47.B 15:25:01 60.0 49.1 66.6 63.1 44.1 82.0 87.7 53.7 50.9 50.0 49.4 48.0 45.7 15:26:01 60.0 50.5 68.3 65.0 43.5 83.2 87.7 56.6 53.3 51.8 50.7 46.9 47.0 15:27:01 60.0 54.3 72.1 72.5 46.1 91.5 91_2 63.0 55.4 54.0 52.7 99.3 47.4 15:28:01 60.0 $7.4 75.2 66.1 46.5 30.0 91.2 67.4 62.7 58.4 55.4 51.0 40.4 15:29:01 60.0 52.7 70.5 72.5 46.9 09.1 09.6 57.0 51.3 51.1 50.7 49.8 46.4 15:30:01 60.0 67.2 35.0 75.6 49.1 89.8 94.7 75.2 73.4 70.8 68.0 59.4 52.4 15:31:01 60.0 58.5 76.3 75.2 49.1 90.6 93.1 65.2 62.3 59.6 57.0 54.7 51.6 15:32:01 60.0 56.7 74.5 66.6 50.9 82.8 89.6 63.0 59.7 50.3 57.2 55.3 52.3 15:33:01 60.0 60.5 78.3 70.6 52.6 87.0 92.5 69.7 65.6 61.6 58.7 56.5 54.2 15:34:01 60.0 56.0 74.6 65.4 53.1 81.6 91.2 62.5 58.9 50.0 57.3 55.3 54.2 15:35:01 60.0 56.4 74.2 68.9 52.7 02.0 09.6 61.1 58.3 57.1 56.5 55.3 53.5 15:36:01 60.0 56.8 74.5 63.5 53.1 77.7 92.5 60.0 59.3 50.0 57.3 56.0 54.4 15:37:01 60.0 61.3 79.1 74.6 53.5 92.2 93.7 71.6 63.2 59.5 58.5 57.1 55.1 15:30:01 60.0 57.9 75.7 67.5 52.9 70.3 93.7 65.4 61.0 59.0 57.7 55.9 53.9 15:39:01 60.0 63.3 81.0 69.5 54.1 83.5 99.1 61.9 66.9 66.0 65.1 62.3 55.9 15:40:01 60.0 62.8 80.6 70.2 49.6 85.2 94.7 69.7 60.8 67.6 63.0 56.0 52.0 15:41:01 60.0 55.2 73.0 59.7 51.2 74.7 91.2 58.9 57.0 56.1 55.7 54.8 53.3 15:42:01 60.0 55.1 72.9 59.6 48.2 69.7 89.6 58.8 56.9 56.2 55.7 54.8 52.7 15:43:01 60.0 55.2 72.9 59.9 50.4 70.8 93.7 58.8 57.5 56.7 56.2 54.5 52.2 15:44:01 60.0 57.3 75.1 66.9 52.4 84.3 89.6 66.7 58.1 56.8 56.2 55.3 53.8 15:45:01 60.0 58.4 76.2 72.7 51.9 69.7 93.7 63.6 61.1 60.1 59.1 56.4 53.5 15:46:01 60.0 58.2 76.0 68.0 51.4 86.1 69.6 65.5 62.3 59.6 58.2 55.8 53.2 15:47:01 60.0 53.6 71.4 63.6 4 9. 2 19.0 92.5 58.0 56.3 54.9 54.1 52.7 50.6 1S:48:01 60.0 55.2 73.0. .68.4 47.5 80.5 93.7 61.2 51.5 55.9 55.2 53.8 50.3 15:49:01 60.0 55.5 73.2 69.9 50.1 84.6 94.7 59.7 57.6 56.2 55.5 54.3 52.1 15:50:01 60.0 55.2 73.0 63.0 50.9 77.0 89.6 58.8 51.3 56.4 55.0 54.7 52.6 15:S1:01 60.0 55..2 72.9 63.0 49.2 76.1 89.6 58.6 57.3 56.5 55.9 54.7 52.2 15:52:61 60.0 55.3 73.1. 63.0 50.2 79.1 91.2 58.6 56.9 56.5 56.0 55.1 52.5 15:53:61 60.0 56.0 73.8 60.1 51.6 75.1 95.6 58.9 57.8 57.3 56.8 55.7 $3.4 15:54:01 60.0 55.0 72.7 62.4 50.0 77.1 91.2 60.3 51.5 55.9 55.3 54.1 51.6 15:55:01 60.0 62.7 00.4 76.5 51.5 88.2 94.7 75.0 64.5 58.2 57.1 SS.S 54.0 15:56:01 60.0 55.2 73.0 61.2 52.0 79.1 89.6 58.4 56.9 56.3 55.0 54.8 53.3 15:57:01 60.0 55.0 72.8 62.3 49.6 75.3 89.6 58.0 56.8 56.0 55.7 54.8 52.2 15:58:01 60.0 64.1 81.9 71.2 49.0 84.2 94.7 70.7 69.7 68.1 65.4 58.5 52.9 15:59:01 60.0 54.9 72.7 62.0 50.6 75.8 87.7 60.3 57.9 56.5 55.5 53.8 51.7 16:00:01 60.0 54.0 71.8 59.6 45.6 74.6 07.7 57.9 56.5 55.6 55.0 53.7 50.1 16:01:01 60.0 52.9 70.7 57.8 46.3 71.9 87.7 56.8 55.5 54.7 54.0 52.2 49.6 16:02:01 60.0 53.8 71.5 59.5 47.2 74.1 87.7 57.7 56.2 55.4 54.1 53.3 50.2 16:03:01 60.0 53.9 71.7 59.6 49.8 72.3 87.7 57.8 56.3 55.1 54.5 53.4 51.3 16:04:01 60.0 53.3 71.1 58.7 45.6 71.2 91.2 57.4 56.1 55.1 54.2 52.7 49.2 16:05:01 60.0 54.7 72.5 73.8 46.0 93.4 97.2 61.7 54.9 53.8 53.1 51.6 49.2 16:06:01 60.0 53.2 71.0 69.7 46.7 84.4 89.6 58.8 55..5 54.2 53.2 51.3 48.9 16:07:01 4.5 55.0 61.5 62.5 45.6 66.1 87.7 61.0 59.0 57.3 56.0 53.7 49.2 C: \LARDAV\SUIWIL \2BJAN1 -1.bia !n[ecva! Data Maas Site Location Iludtev Date 7ioe Duration Le, BEL _ in Peat Dgffi L( 2) L( 8) L116) L(25) L(SO) L1901 --------------------------------- 1 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 286a. 09 07:35:52 60.0 62.0 79.3 98.3 51.3 103.1 102.6 70.9 65.7 62.7 59.5 56.0 a 53.2 0 22Jan 09 07:36:52 60.0 54.8 72.6 68.9 52.3 85.7 90.1 53.4 55.7 55.0 54.8 54.1 53.1 1 0 28Jan 09 07:37:52 60.0 55.1 72.9 65.1 53.0 75.4 07.4 $9.3 $6.7 55.8 55.1 54.5 53.5 1 0 23Jan 09 07:38:52 60.0 54.0 01.8 80.0 53.6 93.7 96.2 74.8 67.1 63.2 61.2 58.0 55.0 1 0 28Jan O9 03:39:52 60.0 58.2 75.9 71.1 52.6 85.5 87.4 67.2 60.8 58.7 57.4 55.0 54.0 1 0 26Jan 09 03:40:52 60.0 55.3 77.1 72.3 52.5 88.4 87.4 58.8 63.4 60.0 57.4 55.5 53.5 1 0 28Jan 09 07:41:52 60.0 58.4 76.1 72.3 52.3 66.2 50.9 66.5 61.9 58.8 53.2 55.5 53.5 I 0 2BJan 09 07:42:52 60.0 58.8 76.6 70.3 52.9 221.0 90.9 66.6 63.4 60.3 57.7 55.8 54.2 i 0 28Jan 05 07:43:52 60.0 59.3 77.1 31.8 52.4 96.7 89.3 67.8 63.4 50.6 58.4 55.6 53.5 I 0 2BJan 09.03:44:52 60.0 6D.2 78.0 31.6 53.6 86.0 99.3 68.1 64.5 61.3 59.4 57.2 54.9 1 0 28Jan 09 07:45:52 60.0 58.1 75.9 71.8 52.0 86.2 09.3 63.5 60.1 57.3 56.4 55.3 53.6 1 D 28Jan 05 07:46:52 60.0 61.7 79.4 73.6 53.3 83.4 96.9 69.6 66.3 64.0 61.4 57.4 54.5 1 0 28Jan 09 03:47:52 60.0 60.9 70.7 78.0 52.2 91.1 94.9 68.9 65.4 61.5 58.7 55.9 53.6 1 0 26Jan 09 07:49:52 GD.0 61.7 79.5 70.9 54.3 64.6 92.2 69.0 66.1 64.1 62.4 59.1 55.5 1 0 28Jan 09 07:49:52 60.0 63.2 80.9 72.6 53.3 86.9 92.2 69.1 66.1 64.8 63.9 62.4 56.4 1 0 28Jan 09 07:50:52 60.0 59.1 76.9 69.9 53.1 03.7 89.3 63.2 63.4 60.2 $8.3 56.3 54.4 1 0 28Jan 09 07:51:52 60.0 59.7 77.5 75.9 52.3 90.6 90.9 68.2 63.1 60.0 57.9 55.7 53.6 1 0 2BJan 09 07:52:52 60.0 61.4 79.2 72.1 53.0 88.4 90.9 69.8 66.3 63.2 60.9 $7.4 55.1 i 0 28Jan 09 03:53:52 6D.0 59.9 73.6 73.0 51.4 86.2 69.3 69.4 63.6 60.1 58.1 $5.1 53.0 1 0 2BJan 09 07:54:52 60.0 62.5 SO.3 73.0 52.1 87.0 90.9 70.9 68.0 65.3 62.1 56.9 53.5 1 0 23Jan 09 07:55:52 60.0 62.4 80.2 36.0 52.6 08.1 92.2 71.1 68.1 64.7 61.0 55.1 53.3 1 0 2BJan 09 07:56:52 60.0 59.9 77.7 34.4 51.9 86.0 90.1 70.0 63.5 60.0 57.5 54.9 53.1 1 0 2BJan 05 07:57:52 60.0 61.0 73.3 31.0 51.6 87.0 90.1 60.7 66.3 64.3 61.8 54.9 52.8 1 0 ?BJan 09 07:58:52 60.0 64.5 82.3 81.3 52.5 96.1 96.9 33.0 69.6 66.6 62.8 57.8 53.8 t 0 ?BJan 09 03:59:52 60.0 62.0 79.8 75.1 51.6 89.4 53.4 70.9 63.2 63.7 59.8 55.9 53.8 1 0 2BJan 09 08:00:52 60.0 61.1 78.9 39.9 51.5 95.8 99.8 71.7 62.6 59.1 57.3 55.3 53.3 1 0 Man 09 08:01:52 60.0 66.3 34.1 38.4 52.1 95.9 97.66 74.1 71.6 69.8 66.4 60.4 54.1 1 0 2BJan 09 08:02:52 60.0 65.4 333 76.3 50.9 90.9 92.2 74.3 31.7 69.1 63.0 55.7 52.7 1 0 28Jan 09 03:03:52 60.0 63.5 01.2 82.5 50.0 92.1 93.4 71.7 60.3 63.8 61.0 55.9 52.7 1. 0 28Jan 09 03:04:52 60.0 64.3 92.1 82.0 51.9 91.5 93.4 72.9 68.0 54.3 62.1 57.6 54.0 1 0 20Jan 09 00:05:52 60.0 63.6 81.4 76.5 52.0 89.9 92.2 71.9 69.9 66.1 63.0 57.2 53.5 1 0 Man 09 00:06:52 60.0 63.2 51.0 75.1 51.8 91.3 93.4 72.5 69.9 65.5 62.6 56.4 53.4 1. 0 2BJan 09 08:07:52 60.0 66.0 83.8 84.6 51.0 101.3 101.6 73.4 70.3 68.3 64.7 59.1 53.7 1 0 28Jan 09 08:08:52 60.0 64.9 02.6 39.1 51.9 95.0 95..3 72.5 69.8 69.1 65.5 59.5 54.4 l 0 28Jan 09 08:09:52 60.0 61.1 73.9 72.0 52.0 05.1 90.9 69.3 66.0 62.8 59.6 55.5 53.1 1 0 28Jan 09 08:10:52 60.0 64.2 81.9 36.4 51.1 88.6 92.2 71.6 69.6 67.3 65.1 58.1 53.3 1 0 26Jan 09 06:11:52 60.0 63.5 81.3 75.0 51.8 91.8 93.4 71.6 69.4 66.1 62.0 50.3 53.4 1 0 28Jan 09 08:12:52 60.0 61.2 79.0 71.5 50.5 04.4 85.3 69.5 67.1 64.0 60.7 55.5 52.0 1 0 28Jan 09 08:13:52 60.0 64.4 82.1 79.2 51.4 89.4 95.3 72.1 69.6 67.4 64.G 58.1 52.7 1 0 28Jan 09 08:14:52 60.0 62.1 79.9 73.6 51.3 06.6 89.3 70.6 67.6 65.0 61.0 55.7 53.0 1 0 28Jan 09 08:15:52 60.0 60.5 78.3 71.8 50.7 85.3 87.4 70.2 66.4 61.1 57.9 54.6 52.2 1 0 2BJan 09 08:16:52 60.0 63.1 80.9 70.8 52.5 82.9 90.9 69.7 68.3 66.1 63.4 61.1 54.2 1 0 28Jan 09 03:17:52 60.0 61.2 79.0 71.4 51.3 64.8 87.4 69.6 66.2 63.3 61.8 56.0 52.4 1 0 28Jan 09 08:18:52 60.0 60.4 78.2 70.5 51.9 83.9 89..3 68.3 65.7 63.3 60.7 55.5 53.1 1 0 28Jan 09 08:19:52 60.0 59.5 77.3 69.4 51.8 84.0 07.4 67.3 65.1 62.5 59.0 54.4 52.9 1 0 28Jan 05 03:20:52 60.0 59.4 77.2 72.8 52.4 86.8 98.2 68.4 63.0 59.8 57.6 55.5 53.3 1 0 28Jan 09 08:21:52 60.0 69.1 86.9 85.4 53.4 100.5 102.2 80.7 71.5 68.5 65.8 60.1 55.3 1 0 28Jan 09 00:22:52 60.0 60.8 70.6 74.0 51.7 87.4 89.3 69.0 65.5 62.0 60.7 55.9 53.1 1 0 ?BJan 09 00:23:52 60.0 56.9 74.7 67.4 51.0 63.5 87.4 65.6 60.6 56.8 55.8 54.0 52.1 1 0 283an 09 08:24:52 60.0 60.0 77.8 77.8 51.6 10?.9 101.8 68.8 65.1 59.0 56.0 54.5 52.5 1 0 23Jan 09 08:25:52 60.0 65.1 82.9 37.2 52.2 91.0 107.2 73.4 70.1 67.4 64.5 60.1 54.4 1 0 28Jan 09 OB:26:52 60.0 62.1 79.9 82.1 50.9 94.9 103..3 71.0 63.7 60.4 57.9 55.2 52.5 1 0 28Jan 09 00:27:52 60.0 64.3 82.0 13.4 54.1 92.8 98.2 70.1 67.8 66.2 64.4 62.0 59.4 1 0 28Jan 06 00:28:52 60.0 66.6 84.3 04.4 51.2 98.4 100.5 77.5 66.0 63.3 61.6 58.8 52.3 1 0 23Jan 09 08:29:52 60.0 63.3 81.1 80.4 50.3 92.3 54.4 74.5 65.3 61.1 57.3 54.6 52.1 1 0 28Jan 09 08:30:52 60.0 63.5 85.2 E1.0 51.B 94.4 95.3 75.2 72.4 70.2 67.3 62.7 54.3 1 0 Man 09 08:31:52 60.0 65.4 63.1 81.5 52.2 94.4 99.4 74.0 30.3 66.3 64.3 60.6 54.3 1 0 28Jan 09 08:32:52 60.0 6B.1 85.9 85.1 52.2 102.7 102.6 36.2 72.2 69.3 66.4 60.1 54.7 1 0 28Jan 09 08:33:52 60.0 59.7 77.5 70.3 52.0 83.9 83.4 67.9 64.3 61.1 59.5 56.5 53.0 1 0 283an 09 08:34:52 60.0 63.3 81.1 61.3 51.1 96.7 100.9 71.2 67.6 64.2 60.8 56.6 53.3 1 0 29Jan 09 OB:35:52 60.0 660.6 38.4 70.4 52.0 90.7 981 66.7 63.4 62.1 61.7 60.3 53.1 1 0 28Jan 09 02:36:52 60.0 66.4 64.2 03.9 59.6 101.1 103.3 751 68.2 64.6 62.5 61.5 60.4 1 0 28Jan 09 03:37:52 60.0 61.4 39.2 73.4 58.2 99.9 96.9 66.6 64.3 62.6 61.6 59.0 58.4 1 0 28Jan 09 08:38:52 60.0 58.3 76.1 67.0 49.2 79.8 87.4 64.4 60.6 59.7 59.4 58.4 51.7 1 0 28Jan 09 08:39:52 60.0 59.5 77.3 79.1 45.1 96.9 67.3 63.0 57.1 55.5 53.5 50.3 1 0 28Jan 09 03:40:52 60.0 58.4 76.1 68.4 51.0 2.3 90.9 65.5 63.5 61.2 58.3 54.7 51.9 1 0 28Jan 09 08:41:52 60.0 57.4 75.1 69.7 51.2 - .6.1 99.4 64.9 63.5 59.7 57.4 53.3 52.2 1 0 28Jan 09 08:42:52 60.0 54.3 72.1 62.5 50.4 75.6 B4.9 61.1 57.2 55.4 54.3 52.9 51.4 1 0 29Jan 09 09:43:52 60.0 52.B 70.6 64.6 50.0 79.8 34.9 53.1 54.0 $3.3 52.9 52.1 51.0 1 6 26Jan 09 03:44:52 60.0 55.6 73.4 640 50.5 76.6 87.4 62.1 59.2 57.4 55.9 53.9 52.1 1 0 28Jan 09 OB:45:52 60.0 56.5 74.2 72.4 50.6 87.3 96.2 65.5 59.0 55.7 54.7 53.5 52.0 1 0 ?8Jan 09 08:46:52 60.0 5B.3 76.1 75.5 50.4 52.1 94.4 62.2 60.3 59.5 SB.8 57A 51.9 1 0 78Jan 09 08:47:52 60.0 55.1 75.9 30.1 55.3 85.3 9D.9 60.7 55.3 58.8 5B.4 57.7 SEA 0 28Jan 09 09:48:52 60.0 55.5 73.1 72.0 50.5 83.2 50.9 59.2 57.3 56.9 56.1 53.6 51.9 1 0 28Jan 09 00:49:52 60.0 71.4 89.1 92.6 50.1 108.3 199.6 83.2 58.0 $5.3 54.4 53.0 51.3 1 0 28Jan 09 03:50:52 60.0 55.8 73.5 66.1 50.3 80.9 04.9 64.0 59.5 55.9 54.7 52.9 51.5 i D 23Jan 09 08:51:52 60.0 62.9 30.7 77.0 50.4 91.0 94.4 74.7 65.9 61.3 58.0 54.1 52.0 1 0 26Jan 09 08:52:52 60.0 50.1 75.9 70.0 50.3 62.9 08.4 60.6 62.7 55.0 54.5 52.7 51.2 1 0 73Jan 09 88:53:52 60.0 60.6 78.3 71.0 50.4 B4.9 B7.4 68.0 63.9 60.9 60.3 59.4 52.0 1 0 ?8Jan 09 00:54:52 60.0 60.1 77.6 68.2 52.0 B4.9 65.3 60.9 60.2 59.9 59.6 59.0 1 0 28Jan 09 08:55:52 60.0 60.7 79.5 71.0 50.4 62.9 09.3 66.7 63.3 61.9 61.4 60.3 52.0 1 0 2BJan 09 09:56:52 60.0 58.5 76.3 62.3 49.7 74.7 84.9 61.5 60.9 60.6 60.3 58.8 51.2 1 0 28Jan 09 00:57:52 60.0 57.3 75.1 68.2 49.7 80.9 94.4 63.0 60.6 59.9 59.6 52.8 50.8 1 0 2BJan 09 00:58:52 60.0 53.8 71.6 66.0 46.6 79.5 84.9 63.7 53.9 52.9 52.2 51.0 49.5 1 0 28Jan 09 08:59:52 60.0 $7.5 75.3 67.5 475 79.7 84.9 64.9 61.9 59.6 58.8 52.1 45.7 1 8 2BJan 09 09:00:52 60.0 60.2 78.0 57.7 57.8 19.3 '67.4 65.4 62.3 60.8 60.1 59.5 58.3 1 0 28Jan 09 09:01:52 60.0 59.6 77.4 62.6 57.9 76.0 69.3 60.9 60.6 60.1 59.9 59.5 59.0 1 0 28Jan 09 09:02:52 60.0 59.6 77.4 66.8 57.9 80.9 84.9 62.8 60.5 59.9 59.8 59.4 58.4 1 0 28Jan 09 09:03:52 60.0 55.6 77.4 63.2 57.8 81.4 87.4 62.3 60.7 60.0 59.8 59.4 58.3 ] a 28Jan 09 09:04:52 60.0 59.4 77.2 61.6 58.2 73.8 84.9 60.6 59.9 59.9 59.8 $9.5 59.0 0 28Jan 09 09:05:52 60.0 59.3 91.1 66.2 58.3 16.6 84.9 61_1 59.9 55.6 59.7 59.3 50.3 0 28Jan 00 09:06:52 60.0 60.5 78.2 68.6 SB.6 93.4 69.3 64.5 61.8 61.3 60.6 60.0 59.0 0 28Jan 09 09:07:52 60.0 59.6 11.4 72.5 50.5 85.0 69.3 62.1 61.6 61.2 60.7 57.9 55.3 0 2BJan 09 09:08:52 60.0 $6.1 73.9 73.3 41.1 69.6 90.9 65.4 59.1 54.7 53.5 51.4 49.5 0 28Jan 09 09:09:52 60.0 57.8 75.6 76.1 47.3 94.9 96.9 65.7 61.5 59.9 58.3 51.4 46.6 0 28Jan 09 09:10:52 60.0 5B.7 76.4 67.3 43.7 19.9 84.9 65.4 62.6 61.6 60.7 54.6 49.3 0 28Jan 09 09:11:52 60.0 57.2 75.0 65.1 46.2 82.4 92.2 62.1 61.0 60.0 58.7 56.3 50.3 0 28Jan 09 09:12:52 60.0 60.3 18.0 B1.1 47.2 100.5 100.0 69.2 59.9 55.4 53.8 52.4 49.3 0 28Jan 00 09:13:52 60.0 56.7 74.5 75.0 48.4 94.2 94.4 67.4 57.0 $4.4 53.4 51.9 50.0 B 28Jan 09 09:14:52 60.0 60.3 78.0 67.9 48.5 84.0 94.9 66.0 63.9 63.2 62.4 58.6 50.3 0 28Jan 09 09:15:52 60.0 61.5 79.3 68.7 50.9 .60.2 67.4 67.5 65.9 64.8 63.1 58.2 54.2 0 2BJan 09 09:16:52 60.0 56.6 76.4 73.9 41.7 86.3 90.9 67.9 61.9 56.4 56.7 54.8 50.4 0 28Jan 09 09:17:52 60.0 55.5 73.2 69.6 47.7 30.8 67.4 65.1 57.0 55.7 54.2 52.1 49.5 0 2adan 09 09:18:52 60.0 61.1 78.9 69.7 49.7 63.0 87.4 68.5 66.3 64.1 61.9 57.5 51.7 0 28Jan 00 09:19:52 60.0 61.2 78.9 14.0 50.5 66.4 90.9 70.6 65.4 62.6 60.7 56.1 52.0 0 2BJan 09 09:20:52 60.0 58.7 76.5 70.1 46.5 82.9 69.3 66.6 63.0 60.7 59.5 52.6 49.9 0 28Jan 09 09:21:52 60.0 63.1 60.9 81.4 47.5 93.9 97.6 59.7 66.5 64.3 62.5 57.8 50.9 0 28Jan 09 09:22:52 60.0 63.0 SO.B 76.1 47.3 89.6 93.4 71.0 68.5 65.6 62.5 56.3 50.3 0 28Jan 09 09:23:52 60.0 61.8 79.6 75.6 47.9 89.0 92.2 71.5 66.7 62.3 60.5 56.7 49.9 0 2BJan 89. 09:24:52 60.0 65.5 83.3 72.6 49.7 97.6 93.4 70.3 68.9 67.7 66.9 65.1 57.0 0 28Jan 09 00:25:52 60.0 63.5 81.2 72.8 50.9 01.1 93.4 69.7 67.6 65.8 64.6 61.4 56.6 0 2BJan 09 09:26:52 60.0 62.1 79.9 73.0 47.1 87.5 93.4 70.4 67.2 63.9 62.6 50.2 40.7 0 283an 09 09:27:52 60.0 63.3 61.1 79.8 47.7 91.9 102.2 71.4 66.7 64.6 63.2 57.9 50.4 0 Man 09 09:29:52 60.0 66.7 84.5 73.9 52.5 B8.0 90.9 11.9 70.4 69.0 61.0 65.9 50.7 0 28Jan 09 09:29:52 60.0 57.0 74.8 67.4 47.8 80.0 87.4 65.4 62.1 59.1 56.1 52.9 50.2 0 Man 09 09:30:52 60.0 61.6 79.4 74.9 47.9 86.6 89.3 70.9 66.1 62.5 60.0 55.9 51.5 0 Man 09 09:31:52 60.0 66.0 83.0 74.7 49.6 91.0 92.2 72.4 70.4 68.8 67.6 64.0 54.4 0 29Jan 09 09:32:52 60.0 64.6 52.4 78.4 50.0 91.2 95.3 71.6 68.2 66.4 64.9 61.8 53.0 0 29Jan 09 09:33:52 60.0 63.5 81.3 75.6 49.1 92.7 94.4 73.1 68.0 65.5 63.5 57.1 50.3 0 2'6Jan 09 09:34:52 60.0 65.6 63.3 70.0 48.6 94.7 97.6 74.9 71.1 66.8 63.9 59.3 51.6 0 Man 09 09:35:52 60.0 62.0 79.8 77.4 4B.6 91.5 96.2 72.3 66.8 61.9 59.3 53.5 50.3 0 Man 09 09:36:52 60.0 64.3 82.1 62.4 40.9 97.0 98.8 76.0 63.5 60.7 59.1 54.6 50.4 0 2BJan 09 09:37:52 60.0 64.5 62.3 77.8 50.2 91.9 95.3 73.2 69.2 66.9 64.9 58.7 52.1 0 28Jan 09 09:38:52 60.0 62.6 80.4 78.1 49.6 94.2 93.4 73.6 64.9 61.3 58.3 53.0 50.6 0 Man 09 09:39:52 60.0 59.3 77.0 74.2 49.1 86.4 95.3 70.1 62.2 50.0 55.3 52.0 50.6 0 Man 09 09:40:52 60.0 66.7 86.5 83.8 48.0 100.1 101.8 80.5 73.2 61.4 50.0 52.7 49.7 0 28Jan 09 09:41:52 60.0 61.3 79.0 70.1 46:6 93.4 94.4 72.5 64.1 50.2 54.3 51.0 40.8 0 28Jan 09 09:42:52 60.0 66.6 86.3 87.5 47.0 102.6 103.6 70.7 71.4 65.0 60.7 52.9 46.66 0 28Jan 09 09:43:52 60.0 53.0 71.6 64.6 44.6 83.3 84.9 63.2 58.8 53.6 51.7 49.8 46.5 0 28Jan 09 09:44:52 60.0 57.6 75.4 72.6 44.5 86.8 89.3 65.B 62.0 59.7 51.2 52.2 47.0 0 Man 09 09:45:52 60.0 65.9 83..6 89.7 46.0 105.9 105.4 65.1 60.9 56.6 56.1 51.8 48.1 0 28Jan 09 09:46:52 60.0 62.1 79.9 71.7 46.4 99.5 89.3 66.9 65.7 64.7 63.6 61.3 53.3 0 29Jan 09 09:47:52 60.0 61.9 79.6 68.6 48.9 80.5 87.4 G6.5 65.4 64.5 63.7 61.4 51.6 0 28Jan 09 09:48:52 60.0 72.4 90.1 84.8 47.1 103.6 105.4 .91.5 78.3 75.4 71..6 64.1 51.0 0 28Jan 09 09:49:52 60.0 69.0 66.7 79.4 45.4 93.4 96.2 76.3 75.1 70.2 68.0 63.5 50.9 0 Man 09 09:50:52 60.0 66.9 84.7 79.3 45.3 97.4 97.6 76.3 72.9 68.6 66.1 60.2 49.9 0 28Jan 09 09:51:52 60.0 69.5 67.3 79.4 •,5.8 93.9 96.2 77.9 76.2 72.1 67.9 63.7 51.4 0 28Jan 09 09:52:52 60..0 69.5 67.3 80.8 49.1 93.5 95.3 79.1 76.9 69.5 G5.6 62.2 57.5 0 2BJan 09 09:53:52 60.0 63.0 80.7 79.8 47.6 93.7 96.2 73.8 65.6 61.4 59.B 56.7 49.8 0 285an 09 09:54:52 60.0 66.4 64.1 79.0 46.8 94.7 96.9 76.6 71.2 66.6 64.6 60.2 50.5 0 Man 09 09:55:52 60.0 65.7 83.5 80.6 42.7 95.4 99.4 76.1 69.5 65.6 63.9 57.4 46.0 0 Man 09 09:56:52 60.0 62.0 79.8 78.5 47.3 93.3 100.0 73.6 64.6 59.2 56.4 52.1 49.3 0 2BJan 06 09:57:52 60.0 54.9 72.6 67.0 46.6 81.2 87.4 62.3 59.6 56.4 54.0 51.8 49.1 0 ZBJan 09 09:58:52 60.0 61.2 16.0 77.3 45.7 93.6 94.4 69.9 64.9 62.4 60.8 56.8 50.6 0 Man 09 09:59:52 60.0 65.3 63.1 81.66 45.4 101.3 100.9 75.7 69.0 62.7 60.9 57_9 49.9 0 28Jan 09 10:00:52 60,0 59.1 16.9 73.6 46.1 89.7 90.9 68.1 62.1 59.9 58.0 55.4 49.7 0 284an 09 10:01:52 60.0 66.1 83.0 80.7 45.1 94.7 94.4 75.2 72.2 68.4 64.4 54.4 47.9 0 28Jan 09 10:02:52 60.0 67.0 84.7 02.4 43.3 96.6 97.6 79.0 70.5 61.0 58.8 51.4 45.B 0 28Jan 09 IDc03:52 60.0 68.0 96.5 84.2 44.0 102.0 102.2 00.4 72.7 65.7 62.0 53.9 46.9 0 29Jan 09 10:04:52 60.0 66.9 84.7 70.8 44.7 96.6 99.4 76.1 73.1 70.6 66.1 53.0 49.0 0 28Jan 09 10:05:52 60.0 65.9 03.6 85.1 44.6 102.6 102.6 77.9 63.5 60.2 58.5 54.2 49.1 0 ZBJan 09 10:06:52 60.0 63.9 81.6 70.1 43.7 92.7 95.3 74.3 68.9 63.1 60.7 53.9 46.B 8 28Jan 09 10:07:52 60.0 58.8 76.6 75.0 45.6 09.7 90.9 68.2 62.2 59.9 55.5 51..3 47.9 0 2BJan 09 10:08:52 60.0 56.4 7 4.2 72.7 42.6 86.0 90.9 66.2 $8.4 55.9 54.6 51.9 47.4 0 Z5Jan 09 10:09:52 60.0 54.5 72.3 67.9 44.2 99.9 90.9 63.2 58.0 56.0 54.4 51.3 48.0 0 Man 09 10:10:52 60.0 63.3 81.1 78.1 48.4 96.0 96.2 74.1 68.8 63.3 57.4 52.7 49.3 0 28Jan 09 10:11:52 60.0 60.6 10.3 76.5 44.1 102.4 102.2 69.7 66.4 61.5 57.2 51.8 47.2 0 Man 09 10:12:52 60.0 56.2 74.0 72.2 42.7 86.3 89.3 66.0 60.0 55.4 53.5 49.2 44.9 0 28Jan 09 10:13:52 60.0 69.2 06.9 83.0 45.5 95.5 99.B 80.2 73.9 69.2 64.6 57.5 492 0 28Jan 09 10:14:52 60.0 61.7 79.5 80.6 45.8 50.9 92.2 72.1 63.9 59.6 55.7 52.3 46.7 0 2BJan 09 10:15:52 60.0 58.9 76.7 71.6 44.1 69.1 09.3 69.1 64.2 59.4 56.4 52.0 47.5 0 2BJan 09 10:16:52 60.0 65.8 83.5 80.1 .5.0 91.7 94.4 76.9 70.5 64.9 62.7 56.9 48.5 0 Man 09 10:17:52 60.0 69.2 86.9 78.6 44.5 93.1 93.4 77.5 76.0 73.7 68.0 56.9 47.4 0 Man 09 10:18:52 60.0 66.2 84.0 78.8 43.4 91.4 93.4 77.4 71.8 63.4 61.7 54.6 57.6 0 28Jan 90 10:19:52 60.0 48.3 66.1 61.9 39.6 71.1 0.0 55.5 51.5 49.9 49.0 46.3 41.5 0 28Jan 09 10:20:52 60.0 50.0 75.8 71.3 42.5 63.2 87.4 70.2 59.1 54.4 51.5 49.3 45.2 0 28Jan 09 10:21:52 60.0 68.7 86.5 766.9 43.6 69.5 92.2 15.6 74.6 73.5 70.3 61.9 46.0 0 2 a. 09 10:22:52 60.0 68.1 85.8 80.6 42.3 97.1 90.8 78.8 74.6 68.4 63.3 51.2 45.3 0 Man 09 10:23:52 60.0 63.4 B1.2 60.3 39.9 94.G 95.3 14.9 66.1 61.9 58.6 4B.2 43.2 0 28Jan 09 10:24:52 60.0 66.9 84.6 80.0 42.5 92.0 94.: 77.9 73.2 65.9 60.6 51.7 45.5 0 28Jan 09 10:25:52 60.0 66.4 84.2 79.3 40.0 -1.9 95.3 17.7 73.4 63.5 59.5 49.4 43.8 0 'Sian 09 10:26:52 60.0 62.3. 60.1 77.3 46.0 59.7 92.2 74.5 64.9 60.9 58.5 50.5 49.0 0 28Jan 09 10:27:52 60.0 65.6 83.4 7B.3 43.9 90.2 92.2 76.2 71_5 65.7 63.7 55.2 46.7 0 28Jan 09 10:28:52 60.0 69.3 B7.0 85.9 46.3 99.7 101.8 77.9 74.3 68.6 64.3 57.1 48.6 0 28Jan 09 10:29:52 60.0 67.1 04.8 79.3 46.1 93.4 93.4 76.5 73.5 69.9 64.4 57.4 49.1 0 28Jan 09 10:30:52 60.0 63.2 81.0 77.1 915 92.2 75.3 66.0 59.6 58.0 48.0 45.5 0 28Jan 09 10:31:52 60.0 56.6 74.4 69.5 :2.9 82.5 07.5 67.1 64.0 52.9 50.7 47.7 45.4 0 28Jan 09 10:32:52 60.0 57.1 74.9 73.6 44.6 85.2 90.9 60.5 56.4 52.1 51.0 49.0 46.3 0 28Jan 09 10:33:52 60.0 60.9 78.7 76.0 42.7 03.2 90.9 71.6 66.0 61.9 57.5 48.4 44.8 0 Man 09 10:34:52 640 60.7 78.5 76.5 43.1 94.7 96.2 71.7 63.9 61.4 57.4 48.6 45.3 0 28Jan 09 10:35:52 60.0 60.7 76.5 74.1 42.3 07.2 B7.4 71.7 66.5 58.5 55.9 47.5 44.4 0 28Jan 09 10:36:52 60.0 64.4 B2.2 75.9 42.0 88.4 90.9 74.6 70.9 64.1 61.0 54.1 45.5 0 28Jan 09 10:37:52 60.0 54.2 72.0 63.1 42.0 73.7 84.9 60.7 59.0 $7.7 55.6 51.0 45.3 0 28Jan 09 10:38:52 60.0 49.1 66.9 65.6 39.7 79.9 09.3 56.0 50.6 49.4 40.6 462 41.7 0 28Jan 09 10:39:52 60.0 40.4 66..1 55.4 42.4 71.5 0.0 52.8 50.8 49.9 49.2 47.8 45.4 1 0 20Jan 09 10:40:52 60.0 58.9 76.6 75.6 43.7 89.6 92.2 70.5 $9.6 54.6 52.3 49.9 46.5 1 0 28Jan 09 10:41:52 60.0 50.7 68.5 66.6 43.1 80.7 87.4 59.7 52.0 50.0 49.2 41.8 45.5 I 0 28Jan 09 10:42:52 60.0 58.9 76.7 81.4 39.1 95.4 96.9 63.2 54.8 51.6 50.2 47.5 43.2 1 0 Man 09 10:43:52 60.0 50.4 60.2 62.6 45.4 77.9 0.0 56.6 53.3 51.5 50.4 48.7 46.6 1 0 28Jan 09 10:44:52 60.0 58.6 76.4 76.1 39.0 90.9 89.3 70.9 59.0 51.3 49.4 46.8 40.9 1 0 28Jan 09 10:45:52 60.0 61.0 79.6 77.2 42.2 91.0 92.2 73.5 66.3 60.2 49.6 46.0 44.9 1 0 28Jan 09 10:46:52 60.0 62.1 79.9 75.2 42.2 67.7 89.3 72.4 67.7 63.4 60.6 47.9 43.4 1 0 28Jan 09 10:47:52 60.0 60.7 78.5 75.6 43.1 09.6 92.2 70.8 65.6 62.7 58.9 MO 45.1 1 0 28Jan 09 10:48:52 60.0 53.8 71.6 71.6 38.9 85.1 87.4 64.5 55.3 49.5 47.6 45.3 41.9 1 0 28Jan 09 10:49:52 60.0 54.4 72.1 66.0 41.1 81.9 94.4 63.2 58.3 56.7 55.3 49.6 45.4 1 0 28Jan 09 10:50:52 60.0 54.7 72.5 68.7 41.9 84.7 87.4 65.7 59.2 52.1 50.2 47.0 44.0 1 0 Man 09 10:51:52 60.0 52.6 70.4 66.6 41.9 61.2 84.9 62.7 56.2 52.5 50.7 48.0 44.4 I 0 28Jan 09 10:52:52 60.0 $2.2 10.0 68.9 41.9 79.7 84.9 60.5 52.1 50.4 49.1 47.3 43.7 I 0 28Jan 09 10:53:52 60.0 48.0 65.0 59.1 40.0 72.4 0.0 55.6 50.9 49.1 47.9 46.1 43.3 I 0 28Jan 09 30:54:52 60.0 70.1 B7.9 88.6 42.5 103.6 104.6 01.2 70.7 62.0 60.1 50.7 45.5 1 0 28Jan 09 10:55:52 60.0 62.2 00.0 76.0 43.6 09.8 90.9 73.6 66.5 60.2 57.7 53.8 46.1 1 0 28Jan 09 10:56:52 60.0 68.0 66.6 06.0 44.1 99.5 100.5 78.1 74.0 69.1 63.3 54.0 48.4 I 0 28Jan 09 10:57:52 60.0 70.0 87.7 86.3 48.3 102.6 102.6 80.7 75.0 65.8 62.1 57.2 52.2 I 0 28Jan 09 10:58:52 60.0 68.1 85.9 02.2 45.1 99.1 101.4 79.0 71.7 67.0 65.3 59.3 49.5 3 0 28Jan 09 10:59:52 60.0 68.4 86.2 79.8 43.2 94.6 96.2 78.1 74.1 69.8 66.1 50.0 47.7 1 0 28Jan 09 11:00:52 60.0 66.3 84.0 78.6 43.0 97.0 97.6 76.0 72.3 67.0 63.6 57.0 46.0 t 0 203an 09 11:01:52 60.0 67.5 85.3 81.1 41.6 94.6 95.3 77.2 74.6 68.0 62.0 55.2 45.6 1 0 28Jan 09 11:02:52 60.0 67.5 B5.3 91.6 44.2 108.8 111.1 73.5 63.3 57.8 54.4 49.0 46.2 1 0 Man 09 11:03:52 60.0 62.2 79.9 73.5 40.6 07-0 09.3 71.6 67.8 65.3 60.2 54.8 46.0 I 0 Man 09 11:04:52 60.0 $7.7 75.5 71.2 43.0 05.1 90.9 66.6 61.9 59.6 57.7 51.9 46.9 1 0 Man 09 11:05:52 60.0 66.6 84.4 76.3 42.5 94.6 93.4 73.9 71.9 70.0 68.0 50.4 46.1 1 0 2BJan 09 11:06:52 60.0 63.4 81.2 75.7 41.5 91.1 92.2 73.6 69.8 65.2 60.3 49.8 44.4 I 0 2BJan 09 12:07:52 60.0 60.9 78J 77.0 39.7 95.6 97.6 71.9 64.0 60.1 58.2 53.7 43.9 1 0 28Jan 09 11:00:52 60.0 66.0 84.5 80.2 40.5 94.3 95.3 76.0 72.7 68.4 62.6 54.0 44.4 I 0 28Jan 09 11:09:52 60.0 62.9 00.7 76.6 41.6 91.0 93.4 73.4 69.0 63.2 57.6 51.3 45.1 1 0 28Jan 09 11:10:52 60.0 67.5 85.3 82.1 41.3 95.3 96.9 18.6 72.4 68.6 62.6 51.9 44.5 1 0 28Jan 09 11:11:52 60.0 62.0 79.8 75.3 42.3 89.0 89.3 72.2 68.4 60.1 58.7 52.0 46.2 1 0 28Jan 09 11:12:52 60.0 63.3 81.1 74.6 40.6 B9.0 09.3 72.5 69.7 65.8 62.9 51.9 43.9 1 0 2BJan 09 11:13:52 60.0 62.1 79.9 77.4 46.3 90.3 92.2 71.3 66.1 62.1 60.8 57.2 49.1 1 0 28Jan 09 11:14:52 60.0 62.1 79.8 79.1 44.1 91.2 94.4 72.4 64.4 62.0 60.5 56.2 47.9 l 0 28Jan 09 11:15:52 60.0 64.0 81.0 77.3 44.0 91.9 92.2 73.7 69.5 66.1 62.0 55.3 46.7 1 0 28Jan 09 11:16:52 60.0 61.6 79.4 74.0 42.0 69.7 89.3 71.5 61.4 63.1 59.3 50.0 44.8 1 0 28Jan 09 11:17:52 60.0 62.5 80.2 72.1 45.1 85.1 87.4 70.6 69.4 65.0 62.0 57.0 49.8 1 0 Man 09 11:18:52 60.0 55.1 72.9 68.2 44.3 01.1 04.9 63.7 60.3 58.2 54.4 48.9 46.2 1 0 Man 09 11:19:52 60.0 62.7 80.4 78.9 45.1 93.3 94.4 74.3 66.7 59.6 54.9 50.8 47,1 1 0 28Jan 09 11:20:52 60.0 60.4 70.2 75.7 46.0 90.4 90.9 70.9 63.9 59.5 56.5 52.6 49.4 1 0 28Jan 09 11:21:52 60.0 58.3 76.1 77.9 45.9 96.3 95.3 61.2 60.0 50.3 56.8 54.4 49.1 1 0 28Jan 09 11:22:52 60.0 60.0 77.7 76.2 43.3 91.8 93.4 69.6 65.2 59.2 57.3 52.6 47.0 1 0 28Jan 09 11:23:52 60.0 58.3 76.1 71.1 44.4 85.3 87.4 60.6 62.9 58.4 55.0 51.4 47.6 1 0 28Jan 09 11:24:52 60.0 $6.9 74.7 69.9 44.1 04.4 87.4 60.3 60.7 56.6 52.7 49.1 45.7 1 0 Man 09 11:25:52 60.0 59.6 77.4 77.7 41.9 92.6 MA 70.7 50.1 55.0 53.1 49.7 44.7 1 0 28Jan 09 11:26:52 60.0 64.4 82.2 70.1 44.2 92.9 94.4 74.6 70.5 66.1 58.0 52.3 46.9 1 0 28Jan 09 11:27:52 60.0 56.1 73.9 74.3 44.4 91.7 92.2 65.9 59.6 55.9 53.2 49.6 46.8 1 0 28Jan 09 11:28:52 60.0 59.3 77.1 71.3 43.0 87.1 09.3 60.4 65.0 61.0 50.8 52.6 46.2 1 0 28Jan 09 11:29:52 60.0 58.9 76.7 70.3 43.4 83.2 07.4 67.0 64.4 60.9 50.0 52.6 45.2 1 0 28Jan 09 11:30:52 60.0 62.3 00.1 76.7 41.4 91.1 93.4 73.8 66.8 61.1 56,0 48.5 45.1 1 0 28Jan 09 11:31:52 60.0 50.6 68.4 67.7 41.9 79.2 83.3 55.8 51.0 49.5 48.6 47.0 44.1 1 0 28Jan 09 11:32:52 60.0 61.7 79.5 74.3 39.3 90.6 90.9 72.0 60.1 62.8 58.1 49.7 44.0 3 0 28Jan 09 31:33:52 60.0 57.2 75.0 73.7 43.4 86.9 09.3 66.5 60.6 57.1 54.9 50.0 45.0 3 0 2BJan 09 11:34:52 60.0 57.7 75.5 74.2 43.5 82.3 94.4 66.3 62.1 59.3 57.1 51.3 46.5 1 0 28Jan 09 11:35:52 60.0 62.5 60.3 01.8 42.8 97.0 90.0 73.7 62.3 59.0 54.2 40.4 45.1 1 0 28Jan 09 11:36:52 60.0 62.2 79.9 00.5 44.7 96.0 102.4 72.1 65.2 61.1 58.1 53.3 48.1 3 0 28Jan 00 11:37:52 60.0 56.5 74.3 75.2 40.7 09.7 93.4 65.0 $9.2 $6.0 54.0 50.6 45.1 3 0 28Jan 09 11:38:52 60.0 $0.0 76.6 74.5 41.2 99.7 93.4 10.6 60.0 55.9 53.9 50.0 45.5 ] 0 28Jan 09 11:39:52 60.0 59.9 77.7 73.4 44.2 87.8 90.9 69.0 64.7 61.6 50.6 52.8 47.2 1 0 2BJan 09 11:40:52 60.0 65.7 03.5 00.5 43.3 93.7 93.4 76.5 69.5 64.7 61.2 56.2 46.3 1 0 28Jan 09 11:41:52 60.0 60.1 77.9 79.4 43.5 94.8 96.2 68.9 64.0 $8.4 56.1 51.2 46.2 1 0 28Jan 09 11:42:52 60.0 66.6 84.4 02.6 40.0 99.4 100.0 78.0 71.4 67.6 60.5 $1.2 45.5 1 0 28Jan 09 11:43:52 60.0 61.3 79.1 79.4 41.6 91.8 93.4 70.6 59.7 55.1 $2.0 49.0 45.1 1 0 28Jan 09 11:44:52 60.0 67.0 04.8 07.5 41.0 102.7 103.3 75.0 61.0 59.0 56.0 49.3 43.2 1 0 Man 09 11:45:$2 60.0 71.3 09.0 92.5 41.8 108.2 108.2 76.7 64.6 50.9 56.0 52.4 45.9 1 0 Man 09 11:46:S2 60.0 63.8 81.6 81.1 42.1 93.4 94.4 77.1 60.1 56.8 53.2 50.1 45.7 1 0 28Jan 09 11:0:52 60.0 57.1 74.9 73.0 41.1 97.4 89.3 60.9 58.7 55.4 52.9 49.6 44.5 1 0 28Jan 09 11:40:52 60.0 61.1 78.9 74.3 39.6 98.3 074 71.8 67.6 60.3 54.8 49.4 43.2 1 0 28Jan 09 11:49:52 60.0 60.9 78.7 75.6 41.9 91.5 92.2 72.3 65.1 56.7 55.2 51.5 44.3 1 0 28Jan 09 11:50:52 60.0 54.9 72.6 72.5 41.4 87.7 89.3 64.4 58.1 54.4 52.3 48.2 44.2 1 0 Man 09 11:51:52 60.0 56.0 73.8 72.3 41.7 07.5 87.4 63.9 60.6 57.3 55.4 51.5 45.4 1 0 Man 09 11:52:52 60.0 55.5 73.3 73.5 41.6 85.8 87.4 64.5 58.2 54.4 51.8 49.6 44.0 1 D 28Jan 09 11:53:52 60.0 53.3 71.1 64.9 42.9 79.3 04.9 61.1 57.5 55.2 53.4 50.7 46.5 1 0 28Jan 09 11:54:52 60.0 61.9 79.7 79.0 50.1 92.2 96.2 74.0 61.4 59.2 57.4 54.5 51.5 1 0 28Jan D9 11:55:52 60.0 58.5 76.3 77.5 48.1 91.5 98.2 66.8 59.8 56.3 $4.3 52.4 50.0 1 0 28Jan 09 11:56:52 60.0 51.6 69.6 59.3 45.8 74.9 84.9 57.0 54.8 53.1 52.4 50.8 40.3 1 0 2BJan 09 11:57:52 60.0 49.7 67.5 63.3 44.1 79.7 974 52.9 51.8 51.1 $0.6 48.9 4514 1 0 28Jan 09 11:58:52 60.0 51.3 69.1 55.6 47.0 60.3 84.9 54.8 52.9 52.3 51.8 51.0 49.2 1 D 28Jan 09 11:59:52 60.0 46.9 64.7 54.6 41.9 66.8 0.0 50.9 49.9 49.2 48.1 45.9 43.2 1 0 Man 09 12:00:52 60.0 0.0 64.7 55.3 39.4 65.4 0.0 54.0 50.0 48.3 47.3 45.6 41.5 1 0 28Jan 09 12:01:52 60.0 46.6 64.3 54.3 42.3 65.0 0.0 53.1 50.9 0.6 46.0 44.0 43.1 1 0 Man 09 12:02:53 60.0 44.6 62.4 50.1 40.7 62.3 0.0 48.9 47.4 46.3 45.4 43.7 41.8 1 0 283an 09 12:03:52 60.0 45.0 62.8 52.1 40.5 63.3 0.0 50.0 47.8 46.7 45.9 44.1 41.9 I 0 28Jan 09 12:04:52 60.0 46.4 64.2 53.0 39.3 67.3 0.0 51.5 50.2 48.6 47.4 45.3 40.8 1 0 29Jan 09 12:05:52 60.0 41.2 65.0 51.3 43.8 62.0 0.0 50.6 49.6 48.8 40.1 46.7 45.1 1 0 28Jan 09 12:06:52 60.0 46.8 64.6 51.4 43.8 62.4 0.0 50.3 49.1 48.3 47.6 46.3 44.6 1 0 28Jan 09 12:07:52 60.0 41.7 65.5 52.5 43.9 64.6 0.0 51.4 49.8 49.0 48.6 47.5 45.2 1 0 Man 09 12:00:52 60.0 52.6 70.4 66.4 45.3 77.6 84.9 62.6 53.0 52.6 51.7 49.5 47.3 1 0 28Jan 09 12:09:52 60.0 47.5 65.2 51.1 45.4 62.1 0.0 49.9 49.0 48.4 47.9 47.3 46.2 1 0 Man 09 12:10:52 60.0 47.3 65.1 57.1 41.6 68.9 0.0 53.8 50.7 48.9 48.0 45.5 43.2 1 0 28Jan 09 12:11:52 60.0 44.2 62.0 51.8 39.1 67.3 0.0 48.4 47.1 46.1 45.0 43.4 40.9 1 0 28Jan 09 12:12:52 60.0 42.4 60.2 46.2 30.1 59.5 0.0 47.0 45.4 43.9 42.9 41.5 39.5 1 0 28Jan 09 12:13:52 60.0 43.4 61.2 51.4 37.6 63.5 0.0 49.9 47.0 45.4 44.3 41.5 39.9 1 0 Man 09 12:14:52 60.0 44.6 62.4 51.1 40.0 69.5 0.0 49.6 47.2 46.1 45.4 43.9 41.5 1 0 28Jan 09 12:15:52 60.0 53.3 73.1 62.8 43.4 74.2 87.4 61.4 58.7 56.7 52.7 4B.2 44.8 1 0 2BJan 09 12:16:52 60.0 44.0 61.8 48.8 39.9 60.4 0.0 46.0 •16.6 45.6 44.8 43.5 41.0 1 0 2BJan 09 12:37:52 60.0 42.5 60.3 50.3 38.3 61.9 0.0 47.4 45.1 43.B 43.1 41.8 39.5 1 0 29Jan 09 12:18:52 60.0 45.9 63.6 53.3 41_0 7-9 87.4 51.0 48.8 47.6 46.8 44.E 42.6 1 0 38Jan 09 12:19:52 60.0 46.2 63.9 51.1 41.0 64.5 0.0 50.3 48.7 47.9 47.1 45.6 43.1 0 28Jan 09 12:20:52 60.0 42.9 60.7 48.6 38.6 60.2 0.0 47A 46.2 45.3 44.4 41.3 39.6 1 0 28Jan 09 12:21:52 60.0 44.0 61.7 55.8 39.0 67.3 0.0 48.5 46.0 44.8 44.1 43.2 40.8 1 0 28Jan 09 12:22:52 60.0 45.1 62.6 51.6 39.9 7 1.3 0.0 50.1 47.1 46.0 45.9 44.2 42.0 1 0 28Jan 09 12:23:52 60.0 42.2 60.0 50.5 37.4 61.2 0.0 48.2 45.5 43.9 43.0 40.7 38.4 1 0 ?elan 09 12:24:52 60.0 45.6 63.4 63.5 39.4 79.4 07.4 50.1 47.7 46.4 45.3 43.4 41.0 1 0 28Jan 09 12:25:52 60.0 43.4 61.2 51.5 40.1 76A 0.0 47.3 45.6 44.7 43.9 42.8 41.2 1 0 2 9Jan 09 12:26:52 60.0 44.9 62.7 52.1 400 63.3 0.0 5D.1 48.0 47_1 46.0 43.4 41.2 1 0 28Jan 09 12:27:52 60.0 43.4 61.1 51.5 37.9 65.0 0.0 49.0 46.5 45.2 44.1 42.4 39.1 1 0 28Jan 09 12:29:52 60.0 52.2 70.0 61.3 2.4 68.8 84.9 59.4 57.3 54.5 52.6 49.2 45.2 1 0 26Jan 09 12:29:52 60.0 44.8 62.5 51.7 38.9 63.2 64.9 49.4 47.0 46.6 46.0 43.7 40.9 1 0 19Jan 09 12:3D:52 60.0 59.3 77.1 68.2 43.5 79.7 90.1 66.0 65.0 63.1 61.6 51.3 45.9 1 0 28Jan 09 12:33:52 60.0 45.8 63.6 56.5 41.3 61.3 0.0 52.3 49.4 47.1 45.4 43.0 42.4 1 0 ?BJan 09 12:32:52 60.0 46.7 64.5 53.0 41.7 72.3 0.0 50.9 49.7 48.5 47.6 45.6 43.9 0 28Jan 09 12:33:52 60.0 47.3 65.1 56.4 43.2 6'6.3 0.0 51.6 49.9 48.9 48.2 46.5 44.3 1 0 28Jan 09 12:34:52 60.0 49.5 67.2 65.0 42.7 77.7 87.4 55.1 52.7 $0.9 49.5 47.6 44.3 l 0 28Jan 09 12:35:52 60.0 47.8 65.6 55.0 41.7 69.6 81.4 53.1 53.4 50.3 43.9 46.4 42.7 1 0 28Jan 09 12:36:52 60.0 51.0 60.8 54.5 43.6 76.2 84.9 53.9 52.7 51.8 51.4 50.7 49.6 1 0 28Jan 09 12:37:52 600 50.7 6B.5 $6.3 48.1 69.2 0.0 53.7 52.6 51.8 51.2 50.3 49.0 1 0 28Jan 09 2:38:52 60.0 50.8 68.6 58.2 47.8 68.2 0.0 55.0 52.9 52.0 51.3 49.8 48.6 1 0 25Jan 09 12:39:52 60.0 50.4 68.2 55.7 47.7 69.3 0.0 54.4 52.0 51.6 50.9 49.8 40.4 1 0 28Jan 09 12:40:52 60.0 50.4 68.2 59.7 47.4 73.9 0.0 53.4 52.0 51.3 50.9 49.9 48.6 1 0 28Jan 09 12:41:52 60.0 50.5 63.3 52.8 48.7 65.2 0.0 52.5 51.8 51.4 51.0 50.4 49.2 0 29Jan 09 12:42:52 60.0 49.3 67.0 53.2 40.66 67.5 94.9 52.1 SO.B 50.1 49.9 49.4 45.5 I 0 28Jan 09 12:43:52 60.0 43.5 61.2 49.7 39.5 62.3 0.0 47.5 45.7 45.0 44.6 43.0 40.3 1 0 28Jan 09 12:44:52 60.0 44.8 662.6 50.1 4D.1 64.7 0.0 40.9 47.3 46.4 45.7 44.2 42.1 i 0 MO. 09 12:45:52 60.0 45.2 63.0 53.6 40.7 65.1 0.0 49.9 47.9 46.6 45.7 44.2 42.1 1 0 28Jan 09 12:46:52 60.0 $0.5 69.3 54.5 43.3 65.6 0.0 53.3 52.4 51.0 51.5 50.6 45.9 1 0 28Jan 09 12:47:52 60.0 50.3 60.1 53.3 48.5 64.6 0.0 52.4 51.6 51.0 50.7 50.1 49.1 1 0 28Jan 09 12:40:52 60.0 54.1 71.9 60.1 49.5 73.0 84.9 58.9 57.4 $6.3 54.9 52.7 50.8 1 0 28Jan 09 12:49:52 60.0 49.3 67..1 57.6 40.4 69.0 0.0 54.4 52.1 50.9 49.9 49.0 43.4 1 0 28Jan 09 12:50:52 60.0 45.6 63.4 49.9 38.9 62.1 0.0 40.9 40.3 47.5 46.8 45.3 41.2 1 0 28Jan 09 12:51:52 60.0 47.2 65.0 55.0 41.6 68.0 84.9 52.2 50.1 49.0 48.2 46.2 43.3 1 0 28Jan 09 12:52452 60.0 52.3 70.0 66.5 39.9 00.2 89..3 61.7 55.7 52.5 53.1 47.6 42.5 1 0 28Jan 09 12:53:52 60.0 48.4 66.2 61.1 40.6 77.0 84.9 56.5 52.6 50.1 48.0 45.4 42.4 1 0 28Jan 09 12:54:52 60.0 47.6 65.4 57.3 40.0 00.1 0.0 53.3 $1.0 49.7 48.7 45.4 42.6 1 0 283an 09 12:55:52 60.0 53.5 71.3 71.1 40.3 94.3 87.4 61.9 56.2 52.9 50.7 46.0 43.5 1 0 28Jan 09 12:56:52 60.0 62.5 80.2 83.4 42.8 90.1 101.8 70.0 55.6 53.0 51.2 48.1 45.0 1 0 28Jan 09 12:57:52 60.0 53.3 71.1 66.8 40.8 81.5 93.4 62.5 56.7 54.2 52.3 49.5 44.6 1 0 28Jan 09 12:58:52 60.0 57.0 74.6 72.7 41.8 85.4 90.9 68.7 SB.9 55.3 53.4 500 44.5 1 0 283an 09 12:59:52 60.0 63.5 91.2 75.9 45.0 91.3 94.4 73.9 69.6 63.1 59.7 55.1 40.1 1 0 285an 09 13:00:52 GO.0 59.4 77.2 75.0 41.5 88.8 92..2 69.1 62.9 58.8 56.7 53.1 47.3 i 0 28Jan 09 13:01:52 60.0 59.9 77.7 71.0 47.3 89.4 90.9 6G.3 64.2 62.8 61.3 57.6 50.2 3 0 Man 09 13:02:52 60.0 63.0 80.6 75.9 42.2 91.2 93.4 74.0 68.7 62.5 59.4 52.9 45.2 3 0 28Jan 09 13:03:52 60.0 60.9 78.5 75.8 39.6 92.3 92.2 72.8 63.5 58.8 55.5 49.3 43.5 1 0 283an 09 13:04:52 60.0 57.7 75.5 71.1 37.7 30.2 09.3 67.0 62.9 60.3 57.2 50.9 42.0 3 0 Man 09 13:05:52 GO.0 66.8 34.66 76.6 40.6 92.3 92.2 75.6 73.4 70.8 65.6 55.5 45.6 1 0 28Jan 09 13:06:$2 60.0 66.0 33.9 77.6 47.2 90.7 92.2 74.6 72.0 66.6 64.3 59.7 53.6 1 0 28Jan 09 13:07:52 60.0 64.1 81.9 62.3 51.8 54.4 102.9 71.9 68.1 64.3 61.6 50.0 54.0 3 0 Man 09 13:08:52 60.0 60.5 7B.3 76.1 43.7 92.7 96.2 69.3 64.E 62.4 60.E 55.7 47.1 1 0 26Jan 09 13:09:52 60.0 62.2 80.0 73.2 51.6 87.7 89.3 70.9 68.5 63.9 59.6 55.5 53.1 1 0 28Jan 09 13:10:52 60.0 62.2 80.0 76.7 44.7 93.1 94.4 72.7 67.5 60.5 59.3 54.6 49.9 I 0 28Jan 09 13:11:52 60.0 58.3 76.1 74.7 40.6 99.? 99.4 66.9 614 59.9 56.6 49.0 42.7 1 0 28Jan 09 13:12:52 60.0 64.8 82.5 78.5 43.9 90.0 92.2 75.5 69.1 65.3 61.6 55.3 47.0 1 0 28Jan 09 13:13:52 60.0 67.3 85.1 79.3 41.0 92.2 93.4 77.1 73.5 68.4 61.1 55.5 44.4 1 0 28Jan OF 13:14:52 60.0 63.4 81.2 74.1 46.5 93.0 93.4 72.7 69.6 65.7 62.4 56.0 49.5 3 0 2BJan 09 13:15:52 60.0 66.9 84.6 .30.9 45.6 93.9 96.2 77.5 72.1 67.1 63.3 54.7 47.9 1 0 281an 05 13:1.6:52 60.0 65.4 03.2 79.0 45.9 91.3 93.4 76.9 69.1 62.0 59.7 56.1 47.9 1 0 26Jan 09 13:17:52 60.0 62.1 79.9 80.3 46.4 615 96.2 72.4 64.1 61.2 59.4 52.0 47.6 1 0 28Jan 09 13:iB:52 60.0 69.2 85.9 01.3 45.3 94.3 96.2 79.9 75.4 69.0 65.4 55.7 47.8 1 0 28Jan 09 13:19:52 60.0 64.4 92.2 77.8 46.5 96.1 95.3 75.1 69.0 65.B 62.0 56.9 49.0 1 0 28Jan 09 13:20:52 60.0 60.0 77.0 73.3 39.4 E3.7 89.3 67.9 65.3 62.2 60.0 54.3 45.5 1 0 ?BJan 09 13:21:52 60.0 63.8 81.6 78.0 42.3 93.1 93.4 74.7 67.9 64.3 61.9 54.2 47.1 t 0 28Jan 09 13:22:52 60.0 56.5 74.3 69.0 41.0 82.6 94.9 67.2 61.1 56.1 54.0 49.2 44.4 1 0 28Jan 09 13:23:52 60.0 55.3 73.1 71.2 41.5 87.4 90.9 65.9 58.5 54.8 52.8 49.2 43.9 1 0 29Jan 09 13:24:52 60.0 55.2 73.0 74.3 43.7 88.1 60.9 64.0 58.6 54.2 51.9 40.2 44.3 1 0 Man 09 13:25:52 60.0 60.5 76.3 79.0 39.4 95.5 66.9 67.9 64.2 61.6 59.3 51.9 44.0 1 0 28Jan 06 13:26:52 60.0 54.0 71.0 68.9 400 82.9 87.4 64.5 58.1 53.7 51.0 49.1 43.4 0 76Jan. 09 13:27:52 60.0 54.0 71.7 70.7 42.1 52.8 93.4 63.5 56.6 53.9 52.1 40.4 45.1 1 0 28Jan 09 13:28:52 60.0 60.2 70.0 83.2 42.6 99.1 99.4 67.0 58.7 55.0 52.8 49.7 45.0 1 0 20Jan 09 13:29:52 60.0 61.5 79.3 60.2 40.4 96.0 95.3 72.6 61.5 SE.3 54.9 47.6 42.8 1 0 28Jan 09 13:30:52 60.0 61.3 79.1 75.3 39.4 92.0 90.9 71.0 67.0 663.3 57.6 51.0 43.0 1 0 28Jan 09 13:31:52 60.0 59.0 76.8 72.5 40.9 86.8 69.3 68.3 64.5 60.7 57.5 52.4 45.1 1 0 28Jan 09 13:32:52 60.0 67.1 84.9 86.3 44.2 102.1 101.4 77.4 67.9 63.7 59.9 53.4 47.2 1 0 28Jan 09 13:33:52 60.0 62.4 80.2 75.2 41.6 102.0 1D2.6 12.2 66.6 63.8 62.5 55.6 45.0 1 0 28Jan 09 13:34:52 60.0 60.1 77.9 73.6 44.0 91.0 62.2 68.7 64.7 61.9 60.3 54.3 47.1 3 0 28Jan 09 13:35:52 60.0 64.6 82.4 82.6 40.4 97.6 97.6 74.5 69.3 62.7 59.0 50.2 43.1 3 0 28Jan 09 13:36:52 60.0 61.0 70.6 79.0 40.8 96.6 96.2 69.6 65.6 62.1 58.8 52.0 44.6 1 0 28Jan 09 13:37:52 60.0 59.5 77.3 72.9 33.5 86.4 87.4 70.1 63.9 60.4 56.6 51.5 43.2 1 0 28Jan 09 13:38:52 60.0 72.0 89.8 89.5 41.0 104.8 105.7 83.1 77.4 65.7 56.9 47.1 42.6 1 0 26Jan 09 13:39:52 60.0 661.9 79.5 73.6 40.9 90.7 90.9 71.2 66.7 63.7 61.6 56.9 45.9 1 0 Man 09 13:40:52 60.0 60.0 85.B 83.0 49.9 99.0 98.2 79.3 73.3 62.5 56.0 49.6 44.4 1 0 Man 09 13:43:52 60.0 62.2 00.0 77.5 41.5 31.8 03.4 73.7 66.6 $9.9 57.7 52.3 44.1 1 0 28Jan 09 13:42:52 60.0 60.2 70.0 75.5 40.5 100.5 101.4 68.0 65.6 62.2 59.9 53.9 44.5 0 28Jan 09 13:43:52 60.0 62.5 90.3 82.4 41.5 97.5 99.4 70.5 66.6 62.0 53.1 51.8 44.6 1 0 Man 09 13:44:52 60.0 60.1 77.9 72.1 39.6 35.3 97.4 69.1 66.6 60.9 59.3 53.8 44.0 1 0 28Jan 09 13:45:52 60.0 60.9 70.6 72.4 41.5 07.7 100.5 70.4 66.3 63.5 60.4 54.0 45.9 1 0 28Jan 09 13:46:52 60.0 63.9 01.6 80.0 41.1 97.2 96.2 75.4 66.6 61.3 57.4 50.2 44.1 1 0 28Jan 09 13:47:52 60.0 63.0 80.8 01.6 42.8 94.7 95.2 70.3 66.9 62.6 58.3 52.3 44.9 1 0 28Jan 09 13:48:52 60.0 60.8 78.6 72.6 41.4 69.2 09.3 69.4 66.9 63.8 59.0 54.7 47.7 1 0 28Jan 09 13:49:52 60.0 62.2 80.0 71.0 42.8 34.4 87.4 73.0 68.9 65.0 60.1 55.4 47.1 28Jan 09.13:50:52 60.0 59.0 76.8 77.0 40.9 94.6 95.3 67.7 62.6 59.1 57.7 52.1 44.9 28Jan 09 13:51:52 60.0 60.2 78.0 76.0 1.5 93.1 92.2 71.4 64.B 57.5 53.9 49.3 45.1 Man 09 13:52:52 60.0 55.2 77.0 70.9 44.4 66.1 87,4 67.9 64,2 60.7 59.3 54.5 48.1 28Jan 09 13:53:52 60.0 55.7 73.5 60.6 40.8 83.4 04.9 66.9 59.7 56.4 53.9 48.2 43.4 28Jan 09 13:54:52 60.0 59.2 77.0 74.3 40.3 92.2 94.4 69.1 64.6 58.5 57.0 52,7 43.9 28Jan 09 13:55:52 60.0 59.9 77.7 76.9 41.4 94.5 95.3 60.3 64.9 62.4 59.9 54.1 44.5 28Jan 09 13:56:52 60.0 61.3 79.0 77.9 40.6 94.2 94.4 70.3 66.2 62.6 59.6 52.9 43.7 28Jan 09 13:57:52 60.0 60.0 77.8 71.0 41.2 85.8 09.3 68.8 65.1 62.4 60.4 $4.6 15.9 Man 09 13:59:52 60.0 58.4 76.2 71.1 40.8 05.0 86.2 67.6 63.7 59.6 57.6 53.1 45.3 Man 09 13:59:52 60.0 59.1 76.9 72.5 41.8 87.5 09.3 66.5 63.7 59.7 50.0 54.8 47.0 28Jan 09 14:00:52 60.0 61.1 78.9 76.4 43.4 90.3 95.3 69.6 65.7 63.2 61.3 56.1 47.5 28Jan 09 14:01:52 60.0 53.4 71.2 66.1 43.1 B5.7 87.4 61.1 56.8 54.2 52.5 49.7 46.0 Man 09 14:02:52 60.0 55.2 73.0 73,2 42.2 08.5 96.9 64.0 $7.1 53.3 50.5 47.6 44.3 28Jan 09 14:03:52 60.0 53.0 70.8 66.4 42.1 83.6 87.4 62.7 56.2 54.3 51.5 47.6 44.4 283an 09 14:04:52 60.0 51.7 69.5 65.3 44.3 83.6 04.9 59.2 55.2 52.9 51.2 49.2 46.8 28Jan 09 14:05:52 60.0 57.7 75.5 68.3 46.9 85.4 67.4 64.8 61.9 60.2 59.0 54.6 50.0 28Jan 09 14:06:52 60.0 56.6 74.6 70.7 44.6 89.1 90.9 65.7 60.8 50.0 56.4 53.1 47.8 28Jan 09 14:07:52 60.0 54.7 72.5 69.3 3B.9 84.2 84.9 64.6 58.2 56.0 54.4 48.4 41.9 280an 09 14:09:52 60.0 56.0 73.6 71.3 36.8 84.9 67.4 66.9 59.0 56.2 53.4 47.4 43.1 28Jan 09 14:09:52 60.0 56.7 74.5 72.2 40.9 97.7 69.3 65.9 61_9 57.7 55.5 49.0 43.0 28Jan 09 14:10:52 60.0 55.5 73.3 69.6 39.8 96.6 90.9 65.4 60.4 55.6 54.0 49.1 42.3 28Jan 09 14:11:52 60.0 62.1 79.8 74.3 42.3 86.2 69.3 72.0 69.0 63.2 58.1 52.1 44.4 28Jan 09 14:12:52 60.0 60.5 70.3 72.5 38.7 B4.2 04.9 71.4 65.1 59.6 57.0 51.9 42.0 28Jan 09 14:13:52 60.0 54.0 71.8 68.0 40.0 80.5 64.9 64.2 57.9 54.4 52.9 4B.7 43.7 28Jan 09 14:14:52 60.0 50.7 60.5 66.3 37.7 78.5 0.0 59.9 54.0 51.3 49.5 45.8 41.5 Man 09 14:15:52 60.0 60.0 77.8 73.1 39.5 06.5 90.9 70.6 66.1 59.6 55.7 50.1 43.3 Man 09 14:16:52 60.0 59.3 77.1 71.6 42.1 04.3 90.9 70.5 62.2 56.6 55.3 52.5 47.5 Man 09 14:17:52 60.0 54.1 71.9 68.0 39.3 92.5 07.4 64.3 56.6 54.6 51.0 47.5 41.8 IBJaa 09 14:18:52 60.0 69.5 86.3 78.5 37.0 90.5 110.0 74.7 72.8 71.8 71.2 63.9 42.0 Man 09 14:19:52 60.0 61.5 79.3 72.0 44.0 95.5 87.4 70.6 65.8 63.5 61.7 56.3 48.0 Man 09 14:20:52 60.0 55.3 73.1 69.9 40.2 62.6 84.9 64,6 58.7 55.8 53.0 48.9 44.4 28Jan 09 14:21:52 60.0 54.2 72.0 69.0 40.6 82.4 84.9 64.5 57.9 55.5 52.0 47.9 43.4 28Jan 09 14:22:52 60.0 57,0 74.9 72.6 39.1 67.9 87.4 65.6 62.0 59.2 56.8 49.2 41.3 Man 09 14:23:52 60,0 59.9 77.6 73.4 41.$ 05.4 89.3 70.7 64.1 59.2 56.3 52.0 45.0 Man 09 14:24:52 60.0 59.3 77.1 71.9 44.1 84.0 87.4 69.6 65.0 56.8 56.0 $1.1 46.1 28Jan 09 14:25:52 60.0 57.6 75.4 69.7 41.0 83.3 87.4 67.9 63.3 57.3 53.8 49.1 43.5 Man 09 14:26:52 60,0 59.9 77.6 71.5 39.4 64.3 87.4 69.1 66.1 60.9 57.9 54.0 42.0 Man 09 14:27:52 60.0 56.7 74.5 72.6 39.9 09.0 89.3 66.5 60.9 50.3 56.3 48.3 41.1 28Jan 09 14:28:52 60.0 64.6 82.4 76.6 41.7 90.1 90.9 75.0 70.9 65.0 60.6 54.4 45.8 28Jan 09 14:29:52 60.0 61.4 79.2 74.9 39.2 89.0 90.9 73.1 64,5 59.9 57.0 50.7 44.0 28Jan 09 14:30:52 60.0 62.6 B0.4 75.4 39.1 88.9 90.9 73.8 68.9 56.6 54.6 49.4 41.8 Man 09 14:31:52 60.0 60.2 78.0 74.9 43.0 93.5 95.3 72.4 59.9 56.8 55.4 51.6 46.4 28Jan 09 14:32:52 60.0 55.8 73.5 13.2 30.6 90.5 92.2 65.2 60.6 $6.4 53.1 47.7 43.0 Man 09 M33:52 60.0 60.5 78.3 75.4 31.9 09.3 90.9 71.9 63.9 59.6 56.5 48.6 42.6 28Jan 09 14:34:52 60.0 67.5 05.3 77.6 42.2 91.0 93.4 76.5 74.9 70.6 63.9 56.9 47.2 Man 09 14:35:52 60.0 56.7 74.5 73.5 38.5 U9.4 93.4 66.4 60.2 56.6 54.4 50.3 44.1 Man 09 14:36:52 60.0 61.4 79.1 75.2 39.6 69.1 90.9 72.4 65.6 61.5 59.2 51.1 43.6 Man 09 14:37:52 60.0 69.4 07.2 80.9 38.6 93.6 96.2 79.0 77.1 70.3 61.1 52.4 43.6 28Jan 09 14:38:52 60.0 65.7 63.5 79.5 41.6 91.4 92.2 77.0 69,5 63.2 61.1 54.4 45.1 Man 09 14:39:52 60.0 62.3 90.1 76.6 41.3 90.1 90.9 72.0 68.3 63.9 60.3 54.6 46.3 Man 09 14:40:52 60.0 67.0 84.7 00.4 43.9 94.0 98.8 77.5 74.1 65.6 62.6 53,5 46.0 28Jan 09 14:41:52 60.0 69.8 B7.6 01.5 44.4 95.0 96.9 79.9 77.2 69.6 63,9 56.4 46.9 28Jan 09 14:42:52 60.0 67.7 95.4 00.8 43.B 93.4 96.2 78.5 74.5 64.2 61.0 53.4 46.7 28Jan 09 14:43:52 60.0 68.5 86.3 79.7 43.9 92.6 94.4 79.0 77.0 62.0 58.1 50.7 45.7 Man 09 14:44:52 60.0 63.7 81.5 79.6 43.3 94.3 96.9 76.9 62.1 58.3 56.1 49.5 45.5 Man 09 14:45:52 60.0 55.0 72.8 70.0 44.9 86.3 87.4 64.5 59.4 54.5 53.0 50.4 47.1 29Jan 09 14:46:52 60.0 $6.4 74.2 75.8 44.1 91.1 92.2 65.3 59.2 55.2 $3.3 50.4 46.8 38Jan 09 14:47:52 60.0 49.2 67.0 64.9 42.9 77.1 84.9 SBA 50.0 49.0 48.2 46.7 44.1 Man 09 14:40:52 60.0 47.6 65.4 56.6 43.4 69.8 0.0 54.3 51.2 48.7 47.2 45.9 44.5 28Jan 09 14:49:52 60.0 51.4 69.2 63.9 44.6 76.0 94.9 59.6 53.9 52.0 50.9 49.2 46.3 Man 09 14:50:52 60.0 58.0 75.8 78.1 44.1 92.1 94.4 65.5 5B.7 54.7 52.3 48.7 45.5 Man 09 14:51:52 60.0 63.6 61.3 81.5 44.4 99.4 98.2 74.7 64.7 60.8 57.3 $0.3 46.4 29Jan 09 14:52:52 60.0 62.0 79.0 75.3 44.0 68.9 89.3 73.1 66.1 61.6 59.7 51.5 45.4 29Jan 09 14:53:52 60.0 60.3 7B.1 74.1 44.5 90.9 92.2 71.0 64.8 60.9 57.5 50.5 45.5 Man 09 14:54:52 60.0 64.1 01.9 76.9 43.0 92.3 93.4 75.1 68.9 62.4 60.2 51.5 46.1 29Jan 09 14:55:52 60.0 64.0 02,6 83.4 42.9 99.9 100.0 77.2 62.4 55.6 53.2 47.6 44.7 Man 09 14:56:52 60.0 63.4 01.2 74.6 44.9 89.3 90.9 73.6 69.2 64.1 60.0 57.9 47.5 28Jan 09 14:57:52 60.0 52.6 70.4 64.2 45.0 77.9 87.4 61.0 56.0 54.0 52.5 49.9 46,1 28Jan 09 14:58:52 60.0 56.3 14.1 69.5 43.8 86.2 89.3 66.4 62.0 56.1 53.4 49.6 46.2 Man 09 14:59:52 60.0 57.9 15.7 69.5 43.6 87.9 09.3 67.4 64.3 58.9 55.9 51.1 47.2 28Jan 09 15:00:52 60.0 61.1 76.9 73.9 41.9 89.1 89.3 69.5 65.5 63.3 61.6 56.5 46.1 28Jan 09 15:01:52 60,0 60,8 70.6 74.9 40.4 89.9 90.9 70.0 66.2 63.5 59.9 50.9 43.3 28Jan 09 15:02:52 60.0 61.2 78.9 78.1 42.0 95.3 96.9 70.3 65.7 60.5 57.3 50.3 44.5 28Jan 09 15:03:52 60.0 64.7 82.5 75.1 42.1 89.1 89.3 73.6 71.2 67.8 63.9 55.6 46.0 Man 09 15:04:52 60.0 56.9 74.7 69.1 39.6 86.2 87.4 66.9 63.2 57.9 54.2 47,2 41.6 28Jan 09 15:05:52 60.0 63.9 01.7 74.0 41.8 8B.4 09.3 71.9 70.4 68.3 63.2 56.1 45.0 28Jan 09 15:06:52 60.0 61,2 79.0 76.9 43.7 94.8 98.2 70.1 66.9 63.2 59.2 54.7 46.5 Man 09 15:07:52 60.0 62.5 60.3 75.0 42.0 90.5 94.4 71.9 68.7 63.4 60.7 56.2 46.2 Man 09 15:08:52 60.0 63.5 81.3 84.9 42.6 102.7 103.6 70.2 65.0 60.6 59.5 54.7 47.1 2BJan 09 15:09:52 60.0 64.3 82.0 83.0 41.4 96.9 99.4 76.5 64.1 58.2 53.7 47.6 43.9 2BJan 09 15:10:52 60.0 64.5 82.3 62.8 42.0 101.0 101.8 73.1 69.4 65.6 60.3 53.1 44.1 20Jan 09 15:11:52 60.0 61.1 78.9 73.0 42.1 87.7 09.3 71.0 67.5 62.1 58.4 54.0 46,3 28Jan 09 15:12:52 60.0 58.0 76.6 75.9 41.3 92.4 92.2 69.5 63.3 56.5 54.5 50.7 44.4 Man 09 15:13:52 60.0 50.5 69.3 60.1 43.4 79.5 0.0 56.5 54.0 52.4 51.2 49.2 45.4 28Jan 09 15:14:52 60.0 63.9 81.7 78.5 42.6 90.0 92.2 73.6 69.5 65.3 61.5 54.0 44.9 28Jan 09 15:15:52 60.0 68.9 86.7 87.B 44.5 103.9 103.3 78.0 70.3 65.9 60.2 54.3 49.5 28Jan 09 15:16:52 60.0 50.9 68.6 67.1 43.1 81.0 04.9 50.1 53.3 51.6 50.4 47.9 45.2 Man 09 15:17:52 60.0 53.9 71.7 72.4 43.1 97.8 89.3 62.0 53.8 51.3 49.8 47.6 45.0 28Jan 09 15:18:52 60.0 52.5 70.2 67.3 42.0 90.9 84.9 61.9 56.0 53.5 50.5 47.1 44.2 28Jan 09 15:19:52 60.0 53.5 71.3 67.9 42.3 80.3 87.4 61.7 58.5 54.6 52.6 49.4 45.4 20Jan 09 15:20:52 53.2 52.9 70.2 67.5 44.3 90.1 96.9 60.0 55.9 53.9 $2.9 50,9 47.4 C: \URMV\SWML \28JT113 -1. bin en[ezvdl 9a Cd Haas Sian L... aion 11 bxr Da[x 11 DOra[ion Lx0 SEL Lm ax -- 12 Peak eepk L( 2) L( 61 L116) L(251 L150) L(90) ---------------------------------------------- 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 07:43:51 ------_--_-___-_____________________---------------------- 60.0 68.9 061 85.1 40.6 104.0 102.3 81.1 70.9 - - - - -_ 62.5 59.3 54.7 50.2 2 SW 2 0 29Jan 09 07:48:51 60.0 72.6 90.4 86.9 40.2 102.2 102.7 82.1 79.0 75.1 68.4 58.3 51.1 2 5W 2 D 2BJan 09 07:49:51 60.0 73.1 90.9 84.0 48.5 103.1 102.3 82.5 79.3 75.4 70.6 66.0 56.9 2 SW 1 _ D 29Jan 09 07:50:51 60.0 69.4 07.2 82.8 40.3 57.9 93.3 79.6 7$.4 69.8 65.6 61.3 50.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 07:51:51 60.0 70.4 821 06.6 48.0 100.0 102.3 62.4 12.4 65.7 60.5 $4.3 48.9 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 00 07:52:51 60.0 66.2 84.0 79.1 47.5 91.0 65.4 76.7 72.6 64.9 59.0 55.8 50.7 2 541 2 0 28Jan 09 07:53:51 60.0 669.9 07.7 90.4 46.9 102.6 108.1 80.2 65.9 58.9 55.0 51.7 49.6 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 07:54:51 69.0 65.6 03.4 77.9 46.3 90.0 95.4 75.2 72.3 67.8 62.6 55.4 46.2 2 S41 2 0 23Jan 09 07:55:51 60.0 71.7 89.5 82.9 47.1 100.0 99.5 80.5 78.1 75.6 71.9 56.9 49,6 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 07:56:51 60.0 68.2 86.0 83.0 47.0 95.3 93.3 79.2 74,5 66.4 60.2 54.5 45.0 2 SW 2 O 28Jan 09 07:57:51 60.0 68.9 06.7 82.6 47.4 64.3 9S.3 77.1 74.4 72.3 69.7 50.6 50.6 2 5W 2 0 28Jan 09 07:58:51 60.0 64.3 02.1 70,0 48.3 90.5 93.5 75.2 69.6 63.8 60.5 55.4 49.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 07:59:51 60.0 65.2 B3.0 76.3 47.0 90.1 92.3 74.9 72.0 66.2 60.8 55.2 49.3 2 5W 2 0 28Jan 09 00:00:51 60.0 65.8 83.6 84.9 46.1 97.6 93.3 77.2 65.3 61.1 56.6 52.2 48.3 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 00:01:51 60.0 75.7 93.4 80.7 46.3 101.! 101.5 86.9 82.8 72.2 64.9 57.7 49.4 2 SW 2 0 266Jan 09 08102:51 60.0 60.0 85.0 67.3 46.0 100.6 102.7 78.7 67.7 64.4 61.5 53.8 47.1 2 5W 2 0 -Sian 06 08:03:51 69.0 70.1 87.9 B7.3 46.1 90.6 100.1 82.6 71.6 61_9 57.9 52.4 47,6 2 5W 2 0 28Jan 09 03:04:51 60.0 74.6 92,4 07.1 48.5 100.3 101.5 84.7 81.2 76.6 70.5 61.1 52.2 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 08:05:51 60.0 71.7 89.5 04.5 46.5 90.7 101.0 02.5 79.5 70.4 64.0 50.3 48.8 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 08:06:51 60.0 69.1 93.5 82.9 47.6 951 97.7 80.5 76.0 69.5 64.2 58.9 50,8 2 5W 2 0 28Jan 09 08:01:51 60.0 70.1 87.0 B4.1 47.5 95.8 69.5 80.5 77.0 68.3 61.8 55.6 49.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 08:00:51 60.0 63.0 05.0 83.0 40.4 96.0 98.9 79.4 72.6 64.3 60.2 55.0 51.3 2 SW 2 0 23j.. 09 08:09:51 60.0 65.4 93.2 BO.0 46.4 93.3 98.3 77.7 60.8 63.2 60.4 55.7 48,3 2 SW 2 0 Sian 99 08:10:51 60.0 68.3 06.1 03.4 47.9 94.5 97.0 78.7 74.3 66.4 61.1 57,0 50.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 08:11:51 60.0 67.5 85.3 80.9 47.6 96.2 99.9 78.2 73.1 67.4 63.1 501 51.4 2 541 2 0 28Jan 09 08:12:51 60.0 63.6 91_4 76.9 46.0 89.5 94.5 14.3 69.0 63.3 59.5 54,6 47.4 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 08413:51 60.0 65.8 83.6 82.5 45.6 93.1 100.1 76.6 70.8 61.7 58.5 53.3 47,6 2 5W 2 0 28Jan 09 08:14:51 60.0 64.9 82.7 77.9 46.4 90.0 65.4 75.6 71.6 63.7 58.7 53.9 48.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 08:15:51 60.0 52.6 70.4 62.9 44.6 78.6 0.0 60.1 57.6 53.8 51.0 49.9 46.6 2 5W 2 0 2BJan 09 03:16:51 60.0 64.1 91.0 75.1 48.6 88.6 94.5 72.4 $01 66.4 65.5 59.1. 50.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan O9 08:17:51 60.0 60.9 78.6 67.1 47.8 79.3 65.0 66.6 65.8 65.1 64.2 $4.4 49.8 2 SW 2 0 23Jan 09 08:10:51 60.0 56.5 74.2 60.9 47.4 00.0 69.4 63.9 61.1 58.7 56.2 52.5 49.0 2 S124 2 0 28Jan 09 08:19:51 60.0 60.3 70.1 78.6 47.8 90.0 53.5 69.4 61.9 58.9 57.0 52.4 49.1 2 SLI4 2 0 2BJan 09 08:20:51 60.0 71.0 80.8 04.5 47.4 97.5 90.9 83.0 76.9 64.4 61.6 51.0 48.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 08:21:51 60..0 69.6 97.4 04.1 47.4 102.2 103.4 81.6 74.1 64.8 62.1. 54.1 491 2 SL14 2 0 28Jan 09 08:22:51 60.0 69.0 86.8 87.0 46.6 103.3 192.7 01.6 69.8 63.0 58.7 $2.4 49.1 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 08:23:51 60.0 52.9 70.7 65.4 46.9 79.6 87.5 58.8 56.6 54.7 53.7 51.1 40.4 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 08:24:51 60.0 56.7 74.5 66.6 47.7 80.8 B5.0 61.2 59.8 50.8 57.9 56.4 50.0 2 SI.M 2 0 28Jan 09 58:25:51 60.0 70.4 B8,2 82.9 50.5 95.2 98.3 81.1 77.1 G8.e 63.9 60.0 55.3 2 SLM 2 0 293an 09 68:26:51 60.0 66.3 84.1 80.2 48.4 92.7 95.4 78,4 741 61.0 5B.8 56.2 52.5 2 SLM 2 0 280an 00 08:27:51 60.0 69.7 87.4 BOA 52.9 M.7 95.4 78.6 74.7 68.8 67.9 66.8 60.1 2 541 2 0 28Jan 09 08:28:51 60.0 69.9 B7.6 00.3 53.0 92.2 95.4 79.5 75.6 69.6 67.8 65.B 54.7 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 08:29:51 60.0 50.5 76.3 78.9 47.4 94.0 100.6 62.6 59.4 57.7 56.7 54.9 49..8 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 08:30:51 60.0 63.0 80.8 82.3 47.5 95.2 103.7 73.1 63.6 60,0 59.2 55.6 51.2 2 5W 2 0 28Jan 09 08:31:51 60.0 71.2 69.0 88.3 49.5 102.5 102.7 03.7 72.4 64.1 61.0 57.2 53.5 2 SRI 2 0 Man 09 08:32:51 60.0 71.5 89.3 89.6 47.6 106.6 107.0 83.4 70.1 62.4 60.8 57.3 51.1 2 S41 2 0 Man 09 08:33:51 60.0 76.1 93..9 92.5 46.8 105.7 106.6 06.4 82.7 73.9 64.0 57.4 52.6 2 3W 2 0 28Jan 99 08:34:51 60.0 71.4 09,2 86.1 47.5 98.3 98.9 03.5 75.3 64.3 G1.e 57.2 49.6 2 SW 2 0 283an 06 08:35:51 60.0 63.7 01.5 71.9 51.3 83.3 87.5 70.6 68.6 67,6 66.3 57.5 52.3 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 99 08:36:51 60.0 70.3 88,1 83.6 65.2 95..6 07.0 75.0 72.7 71.6 70.5 68.4 66.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 08:37:51 60.0 68.4 66.2 85.2 55.1 101.0 100.6 79.5 68.5 67.3 66.0 57.3 55.6 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 08:38:51 60.0 57.1 74,8 73.3 50,3 91.1 92.3 62.9 58.6 57.5 56.9 56.3 51.8 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 00:39:51 60.0 50.0 75,8 73.6 46.8 BE.0 100.6 66.9 61.8 58.6 56.3 54.0 49.8 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 08:40:51 60.0 69.8 87.6 07.5 45.8 95.2 100.6 01.7 73.2 63.0 59.8 55.6 51.6 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 08:41:51 60.0 70.7 98.5 4.3 46.6 96.3 99.5 81.9 77.3 67.8 60.5 551 48.5 2 SW 2 0 28Jan OS 08:42:51 60.0 67.2 85.0 81.6 47.1 99.7 97.7 79.2 70.7 64.2 60.2 53.4 49.2 2 SW 2 0 23 Jan 09 08:43:51 60.0 55.4 73.2 74.4 47.7 06.6 93.5 64.0 55.1 53.7 52.8 51.3 49.5 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 08:44:51 60.0 66.5 04.3 81.5 47.6 54.5 66.3 79.6 68.7 60.9 59.8 55.5 49.4 2 SW 2 0 38Jan 09 08:45:51 60.0 53.9 71.6 67.4 46.6 61.3 85.0 60.3 57.6 55.8 54.1 51.6 49.8 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 00:46:51 60,0 64,2 81.9 73.8 47.8 85.3 93.5 70.7 68.1 67.4 66.7 57.9 50.3 2 SLY 2 0 2BJan 09 08:47:51 60.0 66.1 03.9 60.9 64.3 81.2 99.4 60.0 67.5 67.0 66.7 65.9 65.0 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 08:40:51 60.0 62.5 80.2 68.0 48.2 00.2 89.4 68.0 67.4 66.7 66.2 55.2 51.0 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 08:49:51 60.0 60.1 77,8 79,3 47.3 93.1 97.0 70.0 59.0 55.9 54.3 51.6 49.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 06:50:51 60.0 66.1 83.9 81.5 46.6 94.1 97.7 77.9 69.8 60.8 57.2 52.7 48.8 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 08:51:51 60.0 66.9 84.6 79.1 56.9 91.7 94.5 77.7 72.9 65.9 62.2 57.7 51.5 2 SW 2 0 23Jan 09 08:52:51 60.0 66.3 84.1 03,4 46.2 94.8 67.7 79.2 65.5 56.3 56.2 52.0 48.5 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 08:53:51 60.0 65.0 82.9 61.6 47.0 63.3 06.3 77.2 63.6 59.8 58.9 56.5 50.6 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 08:54:51 60.0 62.6 80.4 76.8 55.4 88.7 95.4 73.3 64.0 61.7 60.3 56.4 56.9 2 5W 2 0 28dan 09 08:55:51 60.0 68.1 05.9 79.0 54.3 90.3 95.4 75.0 71.0 69.6 68.8 67.3 59.0 2 5W 2 0 29Jan 09 08:56:51 60.0 64.9 82.6 69.4 41.9 60.7 85.0 68.6 67.8 67.3 66.8 65.8 52.8 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 03:51:51 60.0 59.4 71.2 75,0 46.9 69.5 190.6 69.0 61.3 59.5 57.9 56.1 49,7 2 5W 2 0 29Jan 09 08:58:51 60.0 61.8 79.6 79.4 45.6 91.7 93.5 74.5 56.6 53.7 52.4 50.4 47.1 2 54: 2 0 28Jan 09 00:59:51 60.0 64.7 62.5 70.3 45.8 91.9 93.5 75.2 71.2 64.0 51.4 53.1 46.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 09:00:51 60.0 65.3 03.0 60.3 52.8 92.2 93.5 76.1 79.9 61.6 59.1 57.0 54.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 09:01:51 60.0 551 73.0 59.6 53.0 75.2 885.4 57.9 56.0 56.2 55.8 54,8 53.8 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 09:02:51 60.0 55.6 73,3 64.0 53.1 Bi.l 87.5 58.8 57.0 56.3 55.8 55.1 54.1 2 SW 2 0 2E an 09 09:03:51 60.0 56.5 74.3 67.5 514 84.7 -65.0 61.7 56.4 56.9 56.5 55.6 54.3 2 SW 2 0 Z'Jan 09 09:04:51 60.0 56.B 74.6 65.6 53.8 79.S 65.0 61.4 59.3 57.9 57.0 56.0 54.6 2 SW 2 a 3'a Jan 09 09:05:51 60.0 56.2 74.0 64.4 53.0 76.1 0.0 60.1 57.8 57.0 56.7 55.6 54.3 2 SW 2 0 'an 09 09:06:51 60.0 64.0 81,7 69.6 53.6 81.7 85.0 69.5 68.6 67.9 66,7 59.1 55,0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 06 09:07:51 60.0 67.8 85.5 70.9 64.4 81.7 87.5 70.0 69.3 68.8 68.5 67.7 66.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 09:08:51 60.0 64.4 92.1 81,3 4.6 92.2 56.3 75.4 67.8 61.3 56.5 49.0 46.0 2 5W 2 O ZBJan 09 09:09:51 60.0 57.2 74.9 61.4 46.3 81.7 65.0 64.9 62.6 61.3 57.1 51.4 47.8 2 8144 2 0 28Jan 09 09:10:51 60.0 61.0 78.8 70.9 44.5 33.5 67.5 67.9 65.4 64.0 63.2 56.5 46.5 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 09:11:51 60.0 64.0 82.8 69.6 46.1 62.6 87.5 68.9 68.0 67.4 666,7 62.3 40.5 2 5W 2 0 28Jan 06 09:12:51 60.0 57.8 75.6 73.6 44.4 69.7 99.5 67.6 60.0 57.4 55.8 53.6 49.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 09:13:51 60.0 50.4 16.2 00.9 45.6 64.4 91.7 60.6 56.7 55.2 53.6 50.9 47.0 2 S41 2 D 28Jan 09 09:14:51 60,0. 60,9 76.6 69.1 47.0 81.0 89.4 67.9 65.6 64.5 63.4 $4.2 40.9 2 SSdi 2 0 283an 09 09:15:51 60.0 67.5 85.3 72.3 46.3 83.7 92.3 71.6 70.7 69.9 69.4 67.0 53.9 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 09:16:51 60.0 56.0 76.6 74.9 44,8 89.7 97.0 60.7 63.7 58.2 55.6 50.6 46.7 2 SLY 2 0 28Jan 09 09:17:51 60.0 59.3 17.0 17.3 44.3 Be.1 93.5 71.1 $7.3 54.7 52.5 40.9 45.5 2 SLY 2 0 28Jan 09 09:18:51 60.0 68.1 65.9 79.3 44.6 91.4 94.5 71.0 74.1 71.1 67.9 58.9 47.1 2 SLY 2 0 28Jan 09 09:19:51 60.0 62.E 80.4 15.0 45.1 87.1 93.5 72.7 69.3 62.3 53.6 54.9 47.9 2 521 2 0 28Jan 09 09:20:51 60.0 65.4 83.2 76.1 45.5 88.1 93.5 74.3 71.9 69.1 63.B 54.8 47.5 2 52: 2 0 2BJan 09 09:21:51 60.0 67.0 84.0 77.3 45.9 89.2 94.5 74.6 72.7 70.7 68.5 59.4 49.9 2 521 2 0 2BJan 09 09:22:51 60.0 69.8 96.6 78.7 45.5 92.9 97.0 76.5 74.6 72.6 70.5 59.9 50.4 2 S21 2 0 2BJan 09 09:23:51 60.0 69.9 07.7 B1.5 46.2 93.4 98.3 71.9 76.1 74.0 70.6 57.9 40.9 2 514 2 0 28Jan 09 09:24:51 60.0 72.8 90.5 82.5 45.6 97.2 98.3 80.2 78.2 76.3 74.0 67.5 57.2 2 SL'4 2 0 Man 09 09:25:51 60.0 73.8 91.6 83.3 50.6 97.7 100.1 91.8 79.9 77.6 74.2 66.7 50.3 Z SLM 2 0 2BJan O9 09:26:51 60.0 71.5 89.3 85.0 45.3 99.2 103.0 82.1 77.7 71.8 66.0 62.4 47.4 2 511 2 0 29Jan 09 09:27:51 60.0 71.1 88.9 B2.7 46.2 96.6 98.9 BO.1 77.2 74.3 70.3 59.9 50.4 2 SLH 2 0 2BJan 09 09:28:51 60.0 70.9 88.7 79.9 51.0 91.9 96.3 7B.5 76.2 74.0 71.6 67.2 57.5 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 09:29:51 60.0 66.5 84.3 70.2 46.3 90.4 94.5 75.5 72.9 68.8 66.1 56.2 52.1 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 09:30:51 60.0 67.2 85.0 00.0 45.7 91.1 97.0 76.4 72.9 70.2 65.5 57.7 54.3 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 09:31:51 60.0 70.8 89.6 80.5 54.3 92.3 98.3 78.8 76.2 73.5 71.9 67.1 56.6 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 09:32:51 60.0 68.9 06.6 79.0 52.3 90.2 97.0 77.0 73.9 71.6 69.4 64.4 54.9 2 SLN 2 0 2BJan 09 09:33:51 60.0 69.2 67.0 81.8 48.3 92.1 97.0 79.5 75.9 69.5 64.2 55.7 $1.6 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 09:34:51 60.0 70.4 88.1 92.7 47.4 101.2 101.9 80.1 76.8 71.5 63.6 60.0 50.6 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 09:35:51 60.0 68.6 86.4 84.9 41.4 94.7 100.1 79.6 73.6 66.8 61.2 56.2 52.9 2 521 2 0 Man 09 09:36:51 60.0 69.4 07.2 00.7 52.5 92.1 100.1 78.7 75.9 72.3 66.4 58.6 55.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 09:37:51 60.0 69.5 87.3 84.7 51.6 95.7 100.6 79.0 75.0 71.2 67.0 60.7 54.6 2 514 2 0 23Jan 09 09:30:51 60.0 71.8 89.6 04.8 45.4 90.1 100.6 82.3 77.9 73.6 65.1 56.3 49.9 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 09:39:51 60.0 69.6 87.4 87.2 45.2 99.4 103.0 82.2 63.0 55.9 53.8 51.8 41.1 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 09:40:51 60.0 65.6 83.3 79.4 4B.9 91.6 93.5 76.5 71.6 63.3 57.2 53.9 51.2 2 SLM. 2 0 Man 09 09:41:51 60.0 60.9 78.7 15.4 46.0 87.0 91.0 72.5 61.7 57.8 55.7 52.4 49.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 09:42:51 60.0 63.4 81.1 15.0 45.4 87.5 93.5 73.6 70.5 61.5 55.7 53.2 49.6 2 SL4 2 0 2BJan 09 09:43:51 60.0 63.0 80.0 76.4 44.5 88.6 92.3 74.5 68.7 55.9 54.4 52.6 45.7 2 5LH 2 0 28Jan 09 09:44:51 60.0 65.1 82.9 77.8 44.5 89.3 91.0 76.1 71.8 62.6 55.3 52.0 45.8 2 SiH 2 0 26Jan 09 09:45:51 60.0 64.5 82.3 75.4 45.4 BB.4 92.3 73.6 70.7 66.4 61.9 54.0 50.4 2 SLH 2 0 28Jan 09 09:46:51 60.0 64.3 62.1 11.3 46.0 82.8 89.4 69.5 69.0 67.0 66.0 63.7 40.7 2 SLY 2 0 29Jan 09 09:47:51 60.0 63.5 81.2 70.0 50.2 81.4 05.0 68.6 66.8 65.9 64.8 63.0 52.9 2 SLY 2 0 28Jan 09 09:48:51 60.0 63.9 61.6 72.4 46.9 84.0 09.4 69.7 68.1 67.2 66.0 61.0 $2.2 2 SLH 2 0 28Jan 09 09:49:51 60.0 56.3 74.1 69.3 44.9 83.5 97.5 66.4 60.0 56.5 54.6 51.8 47.5 2 521 2 0 Man 09 09:50:51 60.0 69.9 67.7 03.2 45.5 96.9 97.0 80.0 76.7 71.4 62.7 53.2 47.9 2 SLH 2 0 2BJan 09 09:51:51 60.0 67.8 85.5 78.7 46.3 92.9 94.5 76.4 73.8 71.3 67.5 60.7 49.2 2 Siff 2 0 2BJan 09 09:52:51 60.0 68.0 85.0 77.1 5D.4 91.1 94.5 74.0 73.2 71.2 66.9 65.3 56.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 09:53:51 60.0 62.6 80.4 73.6 49.7 87.1 92.3 71.7 68.7 64.3 60.8 56.2 52.2 2 51 2 0 28Jan 09 09:54:51 60.0 62.9 80.6 73.9 46.6 87.1 94.5 71.3 68.8 66.3 62.7 55.0 50.2 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 09:55:51 60.0 62.0 79.8 73.7 44.4 90.1 92.3 70.4 68.4 65.9 61.3 52.7 46.1 2 SLM 2 0 20Jan 09 09:56:51 60.0 60.0 77.8 73.3 45.1 86.6 94.5 68.4 63.4 60.5 59.5 57.6 54.0 2 SLI4 2 0 29Jan 09 09:57:51 60.0 61.8 79.6 75.4 46.1 88.0 93.5 71.1 67.2 61.7 59.4 56.7 52.6 2 SLI4 2 0 2BJan 09 09:50:51 60.0 66.3 84.1 19.1 47.1. 91.8 97.7 77.2 72.8 63.1 59.9 55.7 50.4 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 09:59:51 60.0 68.2 86.0 80.2 45.2 92.5 98.3 77.0 74.6 69.2 64.4 59.4 48.1 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:00:51 60.0 66.4 84.2 76.9 44.2 88.4 95.4 75.6 71.1 69.0 66.3 62.4 50.1 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:01:51 60.0 59.5 77.3 14.9 44.8 96.8 94.5 69.5 65.3 57.8 55.2 50.6 47.2 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 10:02:51 60.0 60.1 77.8 12.8 44.2 05.6 69.4 70.7 65.7 50.6 56.4 52.6 47.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:03:51 60.0 63.6 81.4 75.9 44.7 88.5 95.4 73.5 70.8 63.3 58.8 53.2 46J 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:04:51 60.0 62.3 80.1 14.3 45.1 87.5 94.5 72.5 69.5 60.2 56.6 52.2 47.5 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 10:05:51 60.0 64.6 82.4 75.8 45.3 38.5 96.3 73.7 70.8 67.6 63.6 55.6 47.5 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 ID:06:51 60.0 64.7 82.5 76.8 44.8 99.4 94.5 74.4 70.7 67.2 60.8 56.2 47.8 2 521 2 0 2BJan 09 10:07:51 60.0 64.5 82.3 77.6 45.7 90.8 93.5 75.2 70.3 62.7 6D.3 55.6 51.0 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 10:08:51 60.0 63.1 80.9 70.1 44.7 90.5 93.5 75.0 64.6 62.7 6D.4 $5.4 52.1 2 SLH 2 0 28Jan 09 10:09:51 60.0 68.7 86.5 01.2 44.2 96.9 98.9 79.3 75.2 67.1 64.5 56.6 47.6 2 5LM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:10:51 60.0 68.3 86.1 80.0 49.9 92.6 95.4 79.2 73.1 66.3 64.5 58.3 54.6 2 S14 2 0 Man 09 10:11:51 60.0 55.7 73.5 67.7 45.4 80.9 B7.5 61.3 50.9 57.2 56.3 54.B 48.0 2 SLH 2 0 2BJan 09 10:12:51 60.0 51.3 69.1 70.1 43.5 97.6 87.5 58.3 53.7 51.1 49.7 47.7 44.9 2 SLY 2 0 2BJan 09 10:13:51 60.0 67.5 85.3 83.6 45.2 95.9 97.7 79.5 70.2 62.7 59.3 53.0 47.7 2 56 2 0 28Jan 09 10:14:51 60.0 60.7 78.5 73.6 47.5 87.E 87.5 69.5 65.6 63.0 60.3 $6.9 51.0 2 Si 2 0 28Jan 09 10:15:51 60.0 63.7 01.5 81.7 44.2 105.6 104.9 72.4 68.3 64.8 62.2 57.0 48.7 2 514 2 0 28Jan 09 10:16:51 60.0 61.3 79.1 83.1 44.6 99.5 101.5 64.3 $6.9 55.8 55.1 52.0 46.2 2 518 2 0 28Jan 09 10:17:51 60.0 55.0 72.0 64.4 45.0 79.3 85.0 61.8 59.4 53.0 56.0 51.5 47.2 2 SLH 2 0 28Jan 09 10:18:51 60.0 59.0 15.8 77.3 40.8 90.6 95.4 62.7 58.6 57.2 56.3 55.0 52.9 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:19:51 60.0 56.4 74.1 76.2 43.6 88.8 92.3 59.6 57.3 56.3 55.5 51.4 45.0 2 Sul 2 0 28Jan 09 10:20:51 60.0 60.9 78.6 78.6 43.6 93.3 96.3 69.1 63.5 59.4 57.B 55.8 46.7 2 SLM 2 0 284an 09 10:21:51 60.0 53.3 71.1 59.6 43.5 76.7 85.0 57.5 56.2 55.5 54.9 52.1 41.7 2 SLH 2 0 28Jan 09 10:22:51 60.0 57.2 75.0 74.1 43.8 86.8 93.5 65.7 61.3 57.6 56.3 52.6 46.5 2 SLH 2 0 Man 09 10:23:51 60.0 61.3 79.1 83.0 43.1 98.9 102.7 70.1 63.3 57.8 54.2 49.3 45.1 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:24:51 60.0 54.7 72.5 68.8 43.7 04.0 87.5 62.3 53.8 $6.2 54.9 51.2 46.0 2 SLH 2 0 28Jan 09 10:25:51 60.0 64.0 01.8 85.3 43.7 100.8 102.3 71.9 65.6 60.9 57.5 54.2 49.8 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:26:51 60.0 65.4 83.1 01.2 50.7 03.5 96.3 77.9 63.6 57.0 55.8 54.1 52.2 2 5 L 2 0 28Jan 09 10:27:51 60.0 56.9 74.7 74.5 43.5 96.2 94.5 65.0 58.1 55.9 54.5 51..8 46.6 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:20:51 60.0 54.8 72.6 63.8 46.0 76.7 85.0 59.7 57.8 56.4 55.4 53.5 $1.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:29:51 60.0 54.3 72.1 60.0 46.1 13.4 87.5 59.1 57.3 56.0 55.3 53.5 50.4 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:30:51 60.0 51.9 69.6 57.0 45.8 68.3 O.D 55.9 54.0 53.1 52.5 51.4 49.1 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:31:51 60.0 55.7 73.5 63.6 47.3 78.3 0.0 62.1 59.4 57.6 56.4 53.9 50.5 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:32:51 60.0 55.0 72.8 62.0 47.8 73.8 87.5 59.9 59.2 56.8 55.6 53.0 51.4 2 SLM 2 0 29Jan 09 10:33:51 60.0 52.7 70.5 61.5 48.5 73.5 91.0 57.4 54.9 53.8 53.0 51.8 50.1 2 SLM 2 0 2SJan 09 10:34:51 60.0 54.0 71.0 62.5 4B.5 74.2 85.0 50.5 $6.6 55.5 54.8 53.3 50.5 2 SLM 1 0 28Jan 09 20:35:51 60.0 54.0 71.0 61.3 42.6 74.4 0.0 59.0 57.0 55.0 54.9 53.1 49.6 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:36:51 60.0 55.0 73.6 75.3 45.2 90.1 93.5 59.5 57.5 56.3 55.2 52.9 49.2 2 SLH 2 0 28Jan 09 10:27:51 60.0 54.5 72.3 71.7 42.1 91.0 92.3 59.9 57.8 56.4 55.3 51.9 45.3 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:38:51 60.0 55.3 73.1 69.7 41.0 78.9 95.0 62.0 59.3 56.9 55.7 52.9 46.7 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 10:39:51 60.0 54.3 72.1 63.7 45.2 77.2 0.0 59.8 57.3 55.8 54.9 52.9 50.7 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:40:51 60.0 55.6 73.4 65.3 48.0 76.7 0.0 61.9 59.0 57.1 56.0 $4.1 51.2 2 S 2 0 29Jan 09 10:41:51 60.0 55.3 73.1 72.1 45.9 87.3 69.4 60.1 50.1 56.4 55.1 53.1 49.7 2 514 2 0 28Jan 09 10:42:51 60.0 57.2 74.9 73.6 42.2 83.3 07.5 68.0 60.0 52.E 50.8 47.5 43.4 2 S1.. 2 0 29Jan 09 10:43:51 60.0 52.9 70.7 60.7 46.4 76.4 0.0 56.0 54.8 54.0 53.6 52.4 50.4 2 511 2 0 28Jan 09 10:44:51 60.0 59.7 77.5 80.1 42.4 92.4 96.3 69.3 56.7 54.9 53.9 52.5 45.0 2 SLY 2 0 28Jan 00 10:45:51 60.0 55.9 73.7 70.9 44.0 92.5 65.0 66.3 55.8 54.2 53.3 52.0 50.0 2 SWI 2 0 28Jan 09 10:46:51 60.0 51.9 60,7 59.2 42.7 76.6 0.0 56.5 54.5 53.4 52.6 51.2 40.5 2 S14 2 0 28Jan 09 10:47:51 60.0 52.7 70.5 66.7 43.0 04.9 85.0 58.3 54.1 53.7 53.0 51.2 47.2 2 S 2 0 Man 09 10:48:51 60.0 49.3 67.1 60.7 42.2 74.4 0.0 55.3 $3.1 51.3 50.1 47.3 43.6 2 SM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:49:51 60.0 57.8 75.6 78.5 43.7 01.9 43.5 65.0 59.0 56.3 53.9 50.3 45.9 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 10:50:51 60.0 55.3 73.1 67.7 44.1 79.5 87.5 63.1 59.5 57.0 55.2 52.3 46.2 2 SW. 2 0 28Jan 09 10:51:51 60.0 57.6 15.4 75.7 45.7 89.9 92.3 63.5 59.0 57.3 56.1 53.6 49.0 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 10:52:51 60.0 55.5 73.3 67.5 42.4 79.7 0.0 63.2 59.1 57.3 56.1 53.1 47.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:53:51 60.0 56.1 73.9 70.6 41.9 041 85.0 66.4 58.8 56.0 54.5 50.9 44.8 2 SLM 2 0 185a. 09 10:54:51 60.0 56.3 74.1 70.6 42.3 04.3 87.5 67.1 59.3 55.6 53.7 50.7 45.3 2 SW 2 0. 2BJan 09 10:55:51 60.0 56.8 74.6 67.6 44.9 81.9 68.5 64.1 59.9 58.4 51.4 55.0 50.4 2 SW 2 0 29Jan 09 10:56:51 60.0 55.9 73.6 70.9 42.7 83.7 87.5 66.7 58.9 55.2 52.8 50.1 45.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 00 10:57:51 60.0 57.6 75.3 73.7 42.7 86.4 89.4 69.1 58.5 55.9 54.4 51.5 47,1 2 SW 2 0 Mian 09 10:58:51 60.0 50.0 75.8 71.2 44.9 84.8 89.4 66.5 63.1 60.2 57.6 53.2 4S.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 10:59:51 60.0 52.2 69.9 65.7 42.5 78.6 0.0 60.0 56.0 54.3 52.2 48.4 45.2 2 SW 2 0 2 =_Jan 09 11:00:51 60.0 74.0 91.7 96.7 42.6 113.8 114.6 61.7 65.0 59.1 56.5 52.0 46.6 2 SW ? 0 28Jan 00 11:01:51 60.0 56.8 74.6 70.4 43.4 83.8 65.0 67.6 61.1 56.6 54.3 49.0 46.1 2 SIH 2 0 an 09 11:02:51 60.0 56.2 74.0 71.7 42.2 83.7 86.3 65.4 60.6 57.1 54.5 50.9 45.6 2 SW 2 0 2Gj.. 09 11:03:51 60.0 55.0 72,9 64.6 43.0 67.1 91.0 62.9 59.5 56.0 54.6 51.2 46.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:04:51 60.0 58.0 75.7 74.2 42.5 91.6 93,5 67.9 G1.S 58.0 54.6 51.4 46.4 2 SW 2 0 26 ✓'an 09 11:05:51 60.0 53.0 71.5 63.5 43.9 74.6 07.5 60,B 51.6 55.9 54.8 51.9 46.6 2 SW 2 0 7elan 09 11:06:51 60.0 52.3 70.0 69.2 41.3 °2.4 85.0 59.8 55.3 53.5 52.0 40.3 43.0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:07:51 60.0 56.3 74.1 76.0 42.3 91.3 92.3 63.6 55.1 51.9 50.5 45,0 45.2 2 SL14 2 0 28Jan 09 11: as:51 60.0 57.7 75.5 73.7 41.5 87.9 89.4 60.5 61.9 57.0 53.9 49.9 45.2 2 SL4 2 0 28Jan 09 1G: 09:51 60.0 55.3 73.1 70.1 41.0 92.2 65.0 65.1 59.4 55.7 53.3 49.9 43.6 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:10:51 60.0 58.2 76.0 70.9 43.8 85.2 03.5 68.6 62.9 57.9 56.2 53.0 47.0 2 SW 2 0 26Jan 09 11:11:51 60.0 57.9 75.7 79.6 44.4 93.7 95.4 62.7 58.5 55.0 54.5 51.7 47.4 2 SW 2 0 28j.. 09 11:12:51 60.0 56.2 74.0 76.0 42.9 07.1 92.3 62.0 57.7 55.2 53.7 50.7 45,1 2 SW 2 d "an 09 11:13:51 60.0 57.5 75.3 69.4 42.9 62.2 65.0 67.1 62.5 57,8 5$.9 52.7 46.6 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:14:51 60.0 58.5 76.3 74.3 45.9 87.8 89.4 67.1 62.4 58.9 57.0 53.9 49.0 2 SW 2. 0 28Jan 09 11:15:51 60.0 55.0 72.8 66.6 42.1 81.2 85.0 61.7 58.3 56.4 55.2 52.9 47.5 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:16:51 60.0 54.6 72.4 63.7 43.0 74.9 85.0 60.4 58.5 57.2 56.0 52.8 47.B 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 11:17:51 60.0 55.3 73.1 62.0 43.6 74.1 65.0 59.9 58.7 57.8 56.9 54.4 49.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:18:51 60.0 54.7 72.4 64.8 44.0 77.3 85.0 61.5 57.9 $6.6 55.6 53,1 47.9 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:19:51 60.0 $0.5 76,3 77.9 45.9 89.9 92.3 65.4 60.6 58.0 56.4 53.0 4B,8 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:20:51 60.0 50.6 76.3 78.8 45.3 92.7 100,6 65,4 60.5 57.8 56.3 53.6 49.2 7 SW 2 0 -SJan 09 11:21:51 60.0 56.4 74.2 60.6 43.8 03.2 87.5 64.0 60.7 58.6 56.9 53.5 48.5 2 SW 2 0 2Sj . 09 1t: 22:51 60.0 58.3 76.1 74.9 42.4 07.6 92.3 67.2 62.3 $9.7 $7.8 53.5 46.0 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 11:23:51 60.0 58.1 75.9 68.0 43.4 81.6 87.5 66.7 63.4 59.9 57.5 53.9 46.7 2 SL4 2 0 2BJan 90 11:24:51 60.0 57.1 74.8 66.6 45.4 02.3 87.5 65.1 61.7 58.6 57.0 54.3 50.1 2 SL'4 2 0 29Jan 09 11:25:51 60.0 5710 75.6 69.5 43.0" 80.6 97.5 07.2 63.0 59.2 56.8 53.1 48.0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:26:51 60.0 59.7 77.4 74.4 43.3 86.4 91.0 67.6 64.5 62.0 59.7 55.0 47.1 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 11:27:51 60.0 54.0 72.6 68.6 43.8 83.1 67.5 64.9 55.3 54.9 53.2 50.0 46.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 11:28:51 60.0 64.1 61.9 62.0 42.5 07.1 97.7 74.4 68.3 62.6 59.1 55.4 48,2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 00 11; 29:51 60.0 63.1 00.8 78.0 44.4 93.0 96.3 73.9 67.1 61.7 57.6 53.3 48.8 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 11:30:51 60.0 60.4 78.2 77.4 42.4 90.3 94.5 72.4 61.9 56.9 54.0 50.3 45.0 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 11:31:51 60.0 49.9 67.7 59.1 42.4 75.6 0.0 55.6 53.7 52.2 50.9 48.2 44.5 2 SIM 2 0 28Jan 09 11:32:51 60.0 54.6 72.3 65.8 41.9 78.7 BRA 62.5 58.9 56.9 55.2 51.2 45.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 11:33:51 60.0 57.5 75.3 70.0 91.9 82.6 07.5 67.1 63.2 58.9 55.6 51.3 44.1 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 11:34:51 60.0 61,6 79.4 76.9 42.5 92.6 93.5 73.4 64.0 60.8 58.5 54,1 47.7 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 11:35:51 60.0 63.9 01.6 05.6 43.5 99.0 102.3 70.6 63.6 528 54.7 50.7 45.6 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 11:36:51 60.0 65.6 83.4 87.9 44.6 101.7 106.3 69.5 64.2 GO.6 SB.1 53.5 47.7 2 S@1 2 0 28Jan 09 11:37:51 60.0 61,6 79,4 78.8 44.3 91.1 96.3 71.0 63.7 59.4 56.5 51.8 46.0 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 11:38:51 60.0 59.B 77.6 7B.9 43.0 92.2 93.5 66.5 62.5 59.1 556.8 52.9 46.5 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:39:51 60.0 59,6 77.3 73.4 42.0 08.0 89.4 71.5 63.3 56.1 53.0 47.7 43.5 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 11:40:51 60.0 GO.1 77.9 77.7 43.0 89.3 93.5 67.2 63.1 58.7 55.0 52,7 46.8 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 11:41:51 GO.0 58.5 76.3 74.8 42.5 86.6 89.4 70.0 62.8 56.7 53.1 49.4 45.0 2 SW 2 0 20Jan 09 11:42:51 60.0 53.7 71.5 66.1 41.8 7B.1 85.0 61..1 57.3 SS.S 54.2 51.0 46.2 2 SW 2 0 20Jan 09 11:43:51 60.0 62.8 90.5 04.2 42.3 98.6 101.9 66.0 55.B 53.3 51.8 40.7 44.3 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:44:51 60.0 60.4 76.1 74.5 40.2 86.3 89.4 70.2 66.5 62.0 57.3 48.5 42.8 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:45:51 60.0 56.5 74.3 71.8 41.2 26.1 87.5 67.7 58.9 54.7 51.7 47.7 43.5 2 SW 2 0 29Jan 09 11:46:51 60.0 56.2 73.9 76.3 44.7 50.5 95.4 63.6 57.3 53.7 52.4 49.6 46.5 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 11:47:51 60.0 54.5 7Z.3 69.8 40.8 60.5 05.0 66.3 57.3 52.6 49.6 45.2 42,3 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 11:48:51 60.0 54.1 71.9 67.8 40.0 80.5 B5.0 63.5 50,5 55.2 53.1 48.9 44.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:49:51 60.0 56.2 74.0 68.9 39.9 83.3 07.5 66.7 60.8 57.3 54J 49.2 42.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:50:51 GOA 58.6 76.4 73.9 40.0 BB.8 91.0 69.9 63.0 50.3 54.2 4B.1 42.5 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:51:51 60.0 64.0 81.8 77.4 40.4 01.0 02,3 74.3 70.0 65.2 55.5 47.6 42.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:52:51 60.0 58.2 75.9 78.7 40.2 91.1 93.5 60.5 58.2 54.1 51.3 46.7 41.6 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 11:53:51 60.0 55.3 73,1 70.7 40.5 889.3 89.4 65.8 $9.5 55.7 53.1 47.3 42.5 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 1L54:51 60.0 60.3 78.1 76.0 43.7 '88.3 89.4 69.6 65.0 61.6 59.0 53.3 47.1 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 11:55:51 60.0 55.6 73.4 71.0 43.0 64.3 St.0 66.1 56.6 55.1 52.6 48.8 45.3 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 11:56:51 60.0 51.5 69.3 69.9 42.3 63.5 97.5 5B.6 53.4 $1.5 50.2 49.1 45,0 2 SW 2 0 22Jan 09 11:57:51 60.0 51.9 69.7 62.9 43.2 79.3 89.4 58.4 55.4 53.9 52.8 50.1 46.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:58:51 60.0 51.1 68.9 60.2 42.0 76.0 91.0 57.2 55.4 54.2 52.6 49.5 44.1 2 SW 2 0 26Jan 09 11:59:51 60.0 47.2 65.0 58.4 40.8 67.7 0.0 53.9 50.9 48.7 47.5 45.3 42.9 2 SW 2 0 -SJan 09 1 ?:00:51 60.0 46.1 63.9 53.0 39.9 64.4 0.0 51.6 49.4 4B.1 47.0 44.9 41.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 12:01:51 60.0 43.2 61.0 4 9. 5 40.2 60.2 0.0 47.5 45.9 44.7 43.9 42.4 40.7 2 SW 2 0 23Jan 09 12:02:51 60.0 45.4 63.2 54.2 39.7 64.6 0.0 51.9 49.7 47.2 46.3 43.8 40.6 2 SW 2 0 ?3Jan 09 12:03:51 GOA 45.1 62.9 58.8 40.2 71.3 0.0 53.7 47.0 45.1 44.0 42.7 41.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 12:04:51 60.0 45.8 63.6 51.0 -00.8 62.7 95.0 50.4 48.8 47.9 46.7 44.0 42.5 2 SLM 2 0 ?8Jan 09 72:05:51 60.0 47.4 65.1 $5.4 41.8 66.7 0.0 52.5 50.9 49.3 47.8 46.2 43.5 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 12:06:51 60.0 46.7 64.4 57.0 40.5 76.8 0.0 53.9 50.6 40.2 46.6 44.4 41.8 2 SL4 2 0 Man 09 12:07:51 60.0 46.4 64.2 60.0 41.3 76.8 B5.0 52.9 49.7 47.5 46.3 44.5 42.3 2 SW 2 0 ?BJan 09 12:00:51 60.0 50.6 68.3 59.4 40.7 71.2 0.0 57.1. 54,8 53,3 51.8 48.2 42.9 2 SW 2 a 28Jan 09 12:09:51 60.0 48.4 66.2 54.8 41.3 66.2 85.0 53.3 51.0 50.6 49,6 47.6 43.3 2 SW 2 0 23Jan 09 12:10:51 60.0 54.4 72.2 69.0 40.4 30.5 05.0 62.8 60.1 57.5 54.0 46.1 41.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 12:11:51 60.0 44.2 62.0 56.0 39.4 67.0 0.0 50.4 41.6 46.2 45.0 41.8 48.2 2 SW 2 0 22Jan 09 12:12:51 60.0 46.1 63.9 54.8 39.9 67.1 0.0 52.8 50.1 46.3 46.5 43.9 40.7 2 SW 2 0 ZSJan 09 12:13:51 60.0 47.0 64.8 54.7 39.8 67.4 0.0 52.3 50.6 49.5 48.4 45.6 41.3 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 12:14:51 60.0 47.0 64.8 54.8 40.3 65.7 0.0 51.0 50.0 48.8 47.9 46.1 43.0 2 SW 2 0 an 09 12:15:51 60.0 52.7 70.5 61,4 42.5 74.1 05.0 59.7 50.1 55.7 52.9 48.9 44.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 12:16:51 60.0 47.3 65.1 56.0 39.8 66.7 0.0 52.3 50.5 40.4 48.6 46.5 41.3 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 12:17:51 60.0 46.4 64.2 58.5 40.4 73.5 09.4 52.3 49.6 48.0 46.9 44.5 41.8 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 12:38:51 60.0 48.1 65.9 55.3 41.5 70.5 09.4 531. 51.5 50.1 49.1 47.1 43.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 12:19:51 60.0 47.9 65.7 55.7 41.4 66.4 0.0 52.8 51.0 49.7 48.8 47.1 43.8 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 12:20:51 60.0 43.2 61.0 55.2 39.4 69.5 0.0 47.6 45.9 44,5 43.3 41.8 40.4 2 Slit 2 0 28Jan 09 12:21:51 60.0 48.4 66.2 60.4 40.4 83.1 05.0 55.7 52.2 50.0 43.6 46.0 42.1 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 12:22:51 60.0 45.4 63.2 54.9 41.7 67.9 0.0 49.8 47.6 46.6 45.9 44.8 42.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 12:23:51 60.0 47.0 64.8 56.9 40_8 70.5 87.5 53.7 50.5 48.6 47.3 45,1 42.6 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 12:24:51 60.0 44.7 62.5 54.6 40.4 65.1 0.0 49.9 47.7 46.3 45.2 43.5 41.3 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 05 12:25:51 60.0 46.3 64,1 53.9 40.6 65.1 0.0 51.0 49.3 48.2 47.2 45.3 42.3 2 SLM 2 0 ZBJan 09 12:26:51 60.0 49.7 67.5 61.3 41.5 76.0 0.0 57.$ 53.4 $1.1 49.9 47.4 43.4 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:27:51 60.0 47.5 65.2 57.9 41.3 68.5 0.0 54.5 51.2 49.0 47.7 45.2 42.4 2 5W 2 0 2BJan 09 12:28:51 60.0 50.7 68.5 59.2 43.6 68.4 0.0 56.7 54.7 52.6 51.3 49.0 46.1 2 SL 2 0 26Jan 09 12:29:51 60.0 49.3 61.0 58.1 41.2 73.6 85.0 55.4 52.5 51.1 50.3 48.0 43.9 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:30:51 60.0 60.7 78.5 12.8 44.6 03.5 91.0 70.5 66.4 63.3 58.6 52.5 48.0 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan O9 12:31:51 60.0 50.8 68.6 59.2 41.2 73.0 0.0 57.3 55.2 53.5 52.0 46.3 44.4 ? SRI 2 0 28Jan 09 12:32:51 60.0 49.6 67.4 64.1 42.3 75.6 89.4 58.2 52.5 50.6 49.4 46.7 43.5 2 SUS 2 0 26Jan 09 12:33:51 60.0 49.1. 66.9 58.6 43.6 73.9 0.0 54.6 51.7 50.4 49.6 40.0 45.4 2 Si 2 0 28Jan 09 12:34:51 60.0 51.1 66.9 66.2 41.6 79.9 05.0 58.6 54.6 52.2 50.7 47,9 43.8 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 12:35:51 60.0 51.3 60.1 61.9 41.4 75.7 0.0 59.8 55.5 53,0 51.2 47.7 43.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:36:51 60.0 60.5 78.2 64.3 56.B 79.2 65.0 62.0 61.5 01.0 60.8 60.9 59.4 2 SLM 2 0 26Jan 09 12:37:51 60.0 60.0 78.6 68.6 56.9 7B.9 05.0 63.0 62.5 61.6 61.0 60.1 $9.3 Z SLM 2 0 26Jan 09 12:38:51 60.0 61.3 79.0 66.7 59.4 77.7 05.0 64.2 62.0 62.0 61.6 60..8 60.0 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:39:51 60.0 61.3 79.0 67.7 59.3 82.7 66.3 65.6 62.9 61.7 61.1 60.7 60.0 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:40:51 60.0 60.7 78.5 68.9 58.3 82.5 05.0 64.3 61.6 60.9 60.8 60.3 59.3 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:41:51 60.0 62.5 80.2 70.1 56.4 83.0 87.5 66.8 64.9 63.6 62.7 61.7 60.3 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:42:51 60.0 61.8 79.6 69.8 45.4 79.6 89.4 65.6 64.3 63.4 62.4 61.3 59,0 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:43:51 60.0 51.3 69.1 62.4 41.6 72.5 0.0 57.3 55.0 53.5 52.3 49.4 44.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:44:51 60.0 47.9 65.7 56,7 42.2 68.5 0.0 53.9 $1.1 49.6 48.5 46.5 43.6 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:45:51 60.0 46.6 64.4 58.5 41.8 70.1 0.0 52.7 49.5 48.1 46.9 45.0 42.7 2 SLM 2 0 26Jan 09 12:46:51 60.0 60.3 78.1 65.0 43.2 77.4 85.0 64.0 63.6 63.1 62.6 61.4 45.6 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 12:47:51 60.0 62.1 79.9 66.3 60.2 76.9 0.0 64.0 63.3 62.9 62.6 62.0 60.6 2 SLY 2 0 28Jan 09 12: 4 B: 51 60.0 62.0 19.0 70,2 60.0 85.3 87.5 66.0 63.9 62.7 62.0 61.3 60.3 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:49:51 60.0 60.6 70.6 71.1 43.8 82.3 85.0 65.8 64.0 62.5 61.8 60.8 46.6 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 12:50:51 60.0 52.5 70.3 63.1 41.2 75.2 B5.0 60.1 56.7 54.7 53.4 49.6 43.5 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 12:51:51 60.0 52.4 10.2 71.3 42.2 86.3 87.5 59.4 55.2 52.9 51,6 48.6 44.2 2 BLM 2 0 20Jan 09 12:52:51 60.0 55.5 73.3 75.5 43.3 92.1 93.5 64.9 55.9 53.0 51.0 47.6 44.4 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 12:53:51 60.0 50.2 760 69.6 42.2 82.9 09.4 67.6 63.6 60.6 57.6 50.4 45.4 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 12:54:51 60.0 52.9 70.7 64.3 42.3 79A 0.0 60.5 57.0 55.0 53.5 49.7 44.7 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:55:51 60.0 57.6 75.3 76.1 42.3 90.5 91.0 65.0 60,3 58.0 55.7 51.3 45.5 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 12:56:51 60.0 60.9 70.7 78.7 41.8 90.6 94.5 72.0 62.8 58.5 56.6 53.0 45.1 2 SRS 2 0 28Jan 09 12:57:51 60.0 53.7 71.5 67,0 41.6 79.8 07.5 62.1 57.7 55.0 53.2 50.2 44.6 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:50:51 60.0 55.5 73.3 71.1 43.B 85.5 07.5 64.6 58.9 57.0 55.2 51.4 46.1 2 SUS 2 0 28Jan 09 12:59:51 60.0 64.8 02.5 81.3 44.8 97.8 98.9 75.0 68.6 64,0 50.5 54.2 47.9 2 Sil9 1 0 Man 09 13:00:51 60.0 62.3 00.1 77.5 44.7 92.5 93.5 12.4 65.0 62.7 59.5 52.9 47.3 2 BLS 2 0 2BJan 09 13:01:51 60.0 64.6 82.4 80.3 4$.3 93.5 97.0 75.5 67.7 63.8 61.2 54.6 49.3 2 5L 2 0 28Jan 09 13:02:51 60.0 66.1 03.9 01.2 42.6 95.3 98.3 76.3 71.5 67.0 63.2 54.8 46.4 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 89 13:03:51 60.0 59.5 71.3 78.0 42.3 91.4 94.5 68.0 61.2 57.3 55.0 51.4 45.3 2 BUM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:04:51 60.0 56.3 74.0 68.3 41.2 82.5 85.0 64.9 62.0 50.1 55.4 50.5 44.9 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:05:51 60.0 56.6 74.3 68.3 44.3 82.5 87.5 64.6 61.4 58.8 56.4 52.9 47.0 2 5LM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:06:51 60.0 62.2 79.9 74.6 43.2 90.6 92.3 70.9 68.0 64.3 61.2 55.4 48.6 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 13:07:51 60.0 54.1 71.9 65.3 43.7 76.1 05.0 61.7 58.2 56,7 54.9 50.5 46.4 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 13:08:51 60.0 61.9 79.6 76.2 45.1 89.9 92.3 71.3 66,6 63.0 59.7 56.7 48.8 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:09:51 60.0 64.1 81.6 70.9 62.4 83.1 07.5 65.9 65.2 64.7 64.3 63.7 63.1 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:10:51 60.0 62.7 60.5 71.5 52.2 84.3 92.3 66.2 64.7 63.9 63.4 62.4 58.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:11:51 60.0 59.9 77.7 76.3 41.7 91.3 93.5 71.4 61,2 57,3 55.6 53.2 45.1 2 SLM 2 0 28JOn 09 13:12:51 60.0 64.2 01.9 79.5 44.9 93.9 95.4 75.9 67.5 60.5 57.4 53.3 48.5 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:13:51 60.0 61.7 79.5 77.6 42.0 91.8 93.5 74.2 GO.9 57.7 55.7 50.4 44.3 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:14:51 60.0 60.9 78.6 71.2 46.5 03.6 89,4 68.0 63.9 62.3 61.0 50.9 56.5 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:15:51 60.0 58.2 76.0 69.4 53.9 83.1 05.0 64.9 GO.0 50.8 57.9 56.B 54,7 2 Si 2 0 28Jan 09 13:16:51 60.0 62.4 60.1 78.7 54.9 92.1 96.3 73.1 62.2 60.4 59.4 $8.1 55.8 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 13:11:51 60.0 60.0 17.8 70.1 55.1 82.4 91.0 67.7 64.0 60.4 59.2 57.7 56.0 2 SI 2 0 Man 09 13:18:51 60.0 60.9 78.6 68.6 $6.1 83.0 37.5 66.3 63.9 62.6 61.6 59.6 $6.8 2 BUM 2 0 2BJan 09 13:19:51 60.0 60.3 78.1 69.5 55.2 81.4 96.3 67.1 63.9 61.7 60.3 50.2 56.2 2 SUM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:20:51 60.0 62.3 80.1 82.5 42.5 94.8 101.5 68.2 62.9 61.1 59.7 57.1 45.8 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:21:51 60.0 62.4 80.1 75.7 41.9 90.1 93.5 73.0 67.4 62.1 59.4 54.6 47.5 2 SLM ? 0 29Jan 09 13:22:51 60.0 56.3 74.0 68.3 43.7 61.1 85.0 65.1 60.3 57,8 56.1 52.5 46.4 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 13:23:51 60.0 53.0 71,7 63.7 42.1 77.4 85.0 62.0 50.5 56.1 54.1 50.6 45.0 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 13:24:51 60.0 57.4 75.2 14.6 43.2 88.1 91.0 68.2 59.2 55.4 53.0 49.9 46.1 2 SLM 2 0 26Jan 09 13:25:51 60.0 66.5 64.3 80.6 44.6 93.8 98.9 71.2 71.8 61.3 63.0 56.3 48.6 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 13:26:51 60.0 64.7 82.5 19.1 43.1 92.4 97.7 76.0 71.3 50.1 54.4 50.0 45.4 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:27:51 60.0 61.3 79.1 76.7 42,1 39.5 93.5 72.1 65.3 60.1 56.6 50.1 44.5 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:28:51 60.0 64.2 61.9 01.4 41.2 93.9 98.3 72.7 66.8 63.1 58.7 52.4 44.7 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13429:51 60.0 59.0 76.7 74.0 42.1 86.5 69.4 70.2 62.3 58.2 55.6 51.6 46.5 2 5R1 2 0 26Jan 09 13:30:51 60.0 60.8 78.6 79.6 41.4 92.3 95.4 68.0 62.3 59.7 57.5 53.5 46.5 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:31:51 60.0 59.7 77.5 74.1 43.5 89.9 89.4 70.2 64.2 60.6 58.4 52.5 46.9 2 Sl 2 0 28Jan 09 13:32:51 60.0 60.3 7B.1 77.9 43.9 91.8 92.3 68.5 64.2 61.4 59.3 55.7 48.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:33:51 60.0 55.9 73.7 73.2 42.0 85.0 89.4 63.6 59.0 56.9 54.6 51.0 45.1 2 SW 2 0 29Jan 09 13:34:51 60.0 56.2 74.0 60.2 44.7 81.1 89.4 64.1 60.4 $8.4 56.6 52.6 47.4 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:35:51 60.0 $7.3 75.1 74.2 41.4 87.1 89.4 66.9 61.0 57.3 54.8 50.5 45.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:36:51 60.0 60.2 78.0 77.0 43.6 89.8 96.3 6BA 62.4 59.6 57.5 54.1 48.6 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 13:37:51 60.0 53.4 71.1 66.3 42.7 79.6 87.5 61,6 57.8 55.1 53,1 49.3 45.6 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:38:51 60.0 57.5 75.3 73.2 42.7 B8.6 89.4 66.4 62.2 58.5 55.9 51.9 45.7 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 13:39:51 60.0 56.0 73.B 72.4 42.0 06.2 89.4 62.9 50.9 57.2 55.5 52.0 46.0 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 13:40:51 60.0 60.5 78.3 74.0 •12.6 87.2 92.3 71.5 66.2 59A 55.5 50.3 45.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:41:51 60.0 53.9 71.7 66.4 41.6 79.6 85.0 61.9 58.1 55,8 54.3 51.1 45.7 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 13:42:51 60.0 57.5 75.3 72.8 92,1 B8.7 89.4 66.5 61.6 57.9 55.8 52.3 47.5 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:43:51 60.0 59.5 77.3 76.8 42.9 90.2 97.7 67.3 62.8 60.8 58.0 54.5 47.5 2 SLM 2 0 26Jan 09 13:44:51 60.0 55.5 73.3 66.8 42.5 79.7 85.0 62.9 59.7 57.9 56.6 52.7 46.$ 2 SRI 2 0 28Jan 09 13:45:51 60.0 61.9 79.7 77.0 41.6 91.0 93.5 71.6 66.9 62.9 59.9 55.9 47.2 2 SRS 2 0 28Jan 09 13:46:51 60.0 59.8 77.6 73.5 43.1 86,0 88.5 10.0 64.3 61.4 59.0 53.2 45.5 2 BLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:47:51 60.0 63.3 81.0 75.5 42.0 89.4 92.3 73,1 69.2 64.2 60.1 55.6 41.9 2 SIN 2 0 28Jan 09 13:48:51 60.0 59.6 77.4 71.1 44.6 86.2 89.4 69.2 64.7 61.4 59.0 54.5 48.2 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 13:49:51 60.0 62.6 80.4 79.3 43.1 93.4 97.7 73.7 65.9 60,9 58.9 54.3 49.0 2 St 2 0 28Jan 09 13:50:51 60.0 62.2 79.9 02.8 44.4 95.3 97.7 71.7 61,3 59.3 56.7 51.9 47.0 2 SLM 2 0 23Jan 09 13:51:51 60.0 56.4 74.2 72.3 43.0 05.8 87.5 64.8 60.5 57.6 55.6 51.4 46.6 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:52:51 60.0 54.1 71.9 64.3 44.1 78.3 65.0 60.7 50.6 56.0 54.6 52.1 48.1 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:53:51 60.0 59.1 76.9 73.6 43.0 91.3 91.0 60.9 63.3 59.9 56.6 52.2 45.6 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:54:51 60.0 50.0 75.0 72.5 42.4 87.3 89.4 60.4 62.2 57.5 55.6 52.1 46.0 2 S:N 2 0 29Jan 09 13:55:51 60.0 64.0 91.8 80.3 43.0 94.0 96.3 75.3 63.9 61.4 56.6 51.3 46.4 2 5321 2 0 Man 09 13:56:51 60.0 67.3 05.1 81.6 41.8 97.5 100,6 76.5 73.5 65.9 59.8 53.1 45.0 2 S1 2 0 2BJan 09 13:57:51 60.0 64.8 82.6 78.9 43.8 95.3 97.7 74,7 71.0 65.3 60.6 57.2 48.4 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 13:50:51 60.0 60.6 78.4 75.0 41.4 51.8 94.5 71.9 66.1 59.5 55.2 49.1 43.0 2 SIN 2 0 Man 09 13:59:51 60.0 58.3 76.0 73.4 42.4 33.3 94.5 69.5 62.0 56.3 53.5 50.0 45.1 2 Si 2 0 2BJan 09 14:00:51 60.0 57.7 75.5 74.6 44.9 94.3 99,5 68.4 59.9 55.8 54.5 51.1 46.7 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 14:01:51 60.0 55.2 73,0 70.4 44.3 86.7 09.4 65.7 58.0 54.6 52.4 49.6 46.4 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 14:02:51 60.0 54.6 72.4 69.4 43.5 09.3 09,4 62.9 50,0 56.3 53.7 49.6 45.1 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 14:03:51 60.0 56.7 74.5 72.5 43.1 86.6 91.0 67.6 61.6 54.7 51.7 47.8 44.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:04:51 60.0 57,8 75.6 72.1 44.0 86.3 09.4 68.1 63.2 56.0 54.0 49.9 46.6 2 SW 2 0 29Jan 09 14:05:51 60.0 $9.0 77,6 74.8 48.0 08.4 92.3 67.0 64.7 60.9 50.7 55.9 52.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:06:51 60.0 55.7 73.5 73.5 43.5 89.3 91.0 65.3 58.0 55.5 53.5 51.1 47.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:07:51 60.0 61.0 78.0 83.3 42.4 98.3 98.9 64.8 56.7 54.9 53.3 40,4 43.9 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 14:00:51 60.0 55,4 73.2 69.6 42.0 02.5 65.0 66.4 58.0 56.0 54.0 50.Z 46.3 7 SW 2 0 20J. 09 14:09:51 60.0 59.5 77.3 76.3 42.6 90.7 93.5 10.5 63.4 56.4 53.4 49.0 44.6 2 5W 2 0 28Jan 09 14:10:51 60.0 58.6 76.3 77.5 42.6 89.0 92.3 67.7 60.6 57.2 55.2 50.8 45.9 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 14:11:51 60.0 53.9 11.6 65.1 43.5 76.4 05.0 61.2 58.9 56.B 54.0 50.2 46.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:12:51 60.0 53.6 71.4 64.4 41.5 76.6 94.5 60.6 50.4 56.3 53.8 50.4 46.0 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 14:13:51 60.0 56.2 74.0 74.3 40.9 97.4 87.5 65.3 58.9 $5.8 53.5 49.9 45.0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:14:51 60.0 53.5 71.3 67.8 40.9 82.5 05.0 61.4 56.0 $5.2 53.0 49.9 45.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:15:51 60.0 62.1 79.9 75.8 42.5 80.9 93.5 73.2 67.0 62.3 59.1 52.2 45.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:16:51 60.0 58.1 75.8 74.4 43.8 87.9 91.0 66.3 62.1 $9.3 57.1 52.8 47.0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:17:51 60.0 54.5 72,2 67.7 41.4 05.8 87.5 62.9 59.1 56.6 54.1 $0.1 45.6 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:10:51 60.0 64,4 82.2 85.5 39.5 98.1 101.0 70.1 59.8 57.0 54.6 50.0 43.2 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 14:19:51 60.0 53.6 73.4 68.5 42.2 78.6 85.0 63.3 60.7 50.0 SS.9 51.0 46.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:20:31 60.0 $7.5 75.3 70.8 44.3 83.2 B9.4 67.2 62.1 50.7 56.1 52.0 47.1 2 SW 2 0 ZBJan 09 14:21:51 60.0 $9.2 77.0 77.0 44.2 91.1 02.3 66.7 62.3 57.6 55.0 51.0 47.3 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:22:51 60.0 59.3 77.0 74.4 40.4 99.6 91.0 70.1 63.0 58.9 55.0 50.2 43.6 2 SW 2 9 28Jan 09 14:23:52 60,0 63.7 81.5 77.4 42.4 91.6 95.4 72.9 68.0 65.9 63,3 56.7 45.5 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 14:24:51 60.0 59.6 71.4 73.7 42.7 87.4 89.4 70.8 63.0 59.5 57.8 52.8 46.0 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 14:25:51 60.0 50.4 76.2 72.4 42.8 04.3 87.5 68.1 62.0 $9.9 57.1 53.2 45.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:26:51 60.0 50.9 76.6 72.5 40.8 87.2 91.0 69.0 64.4 59.6 56.2 51.2 44.4 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 14:27:51 60.0 59.7 77.5 78.7 41.8 92.2 95.4 69.8 63.4 57.6 54.1 49.4 44.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:28:51 60.0 66.1 03.0 79.2 44.4 92.7 95.4 76.6 72.6 65.5 60.7 55.3 49.2 2 SW 3 0 2BJan 09 14:29:51 60.0 64.7 82.5 78.0 41.2 92.2 96.3 75.9 70.1 64.6 61.0 53.3 47.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:30:51 60.0 57.6 75.4 72.5 41.4 85.1 09.4 67.1 61.7 50.7 56.7 $1.3 44.0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:31:51 60.0 60.5 78.3 74.8 42.8 86.8 90.2 70.9 65.1 61.2 50.1 52.0 46.5 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:32:51 60.0 59.6 76.3 72.0 40.9 84.7 89.4 69.1 63.6 59.3 55.4 50.1 44.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:33:51 60.0 61.4 79.2 77.8 40.0 92.6 97.0 72.7 66.3 59.4 55.4 49.6 42.5 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:34:51 60.0 60.9 78.7 74.3 42.3 80.2 89.4 72.3 65.2 59.6 58.0 52.1 46.0 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 14:35:51 60.0 $8.0 75.7 72.3 41.0 85.3 89.4 60.1 63.6 57.9 54.2 49.4 44.8 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 14:36:51 60.0 61.7 79.5 77.0 41.3 90.4 93.5 72.4 65.9 60.7 59.0 52,0 44.0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:37:51 60.0 58.2 76.0 75.4 43.0 89.9 91.0 66.9 61.1 56.2 56.9 52.8 46.4 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 14:38:51 60.0 58.9 76.7 74.8 42.0 87.3 91.0 69.0 62.9 59,6 $7.3 52.4 46.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:39:51 60.0 59.5 77.3 74.0 42.2 86.1 07.5 71.7 62.9 50.1 55.0 51.7 46.0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:40:51 60.0 57.2 75.0 74.4 47.3 07.6 89.4 65.4 59.5 57.5 55.9 52.4 49.0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:41:51 60.0 60.5 79.3 75.5 40.0 89.4 89.4 71,4 64.2 59.6 56.2 54.5 49.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:42:51 60.0 $6.7 74.5 70.4 47.7 04.2 99.4 65.6 61.0 $7.7 55.7 52.3 48.9 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:43:51 60.0 59.3 77,1 74.9 47.0 88.9 93.5 11.2 60.1 56.4 54.5 51.2 40.4 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 14:44:51 60.0 62.6 90.4 75.5 48.4 88.2 92.3 72.6 69.2 63.4 50.1 53.3 49.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:45:51 60.0 58.6 76.3 75.7 47.9 86.9 92.3 70.4 59.3 56.3 54.6 52.0 49.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:46:51 60.0 60.1 77.9 76.9 49.4 90.4 92.3 68.5 62.7 58.6 56.1 52.6 50.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:47:51 60.0 60.9 78.7 80.4 47.9 92.6 90.9 72.6 60.0 55.9 54.0 51.5 49.0 2 SW 2 0 261an 09 14:48 :51 60.0 55.5 73.3 66.8 97.4 79.4 65.0 64.1 60.6 56.B 54.5 51.5 40.6 2 5W 2 0 28Jan 09 14:49:51 40.0 59.4 77.1 76.5 47.7 93.1 94.5 69.3 63.0 59.1 55.9 52.4 49.2 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 14:50:51 60.0 61.9 79.7 73.2 41.8 86.8 89.4 11.2 66.5 64.9 56.8 51.7 49.0 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 14:51:51 60.0 62.5 80.3 74.7 47.9 87.1 89.4 13.3 69.0 63.5 $9.1 51.1 48.7 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 14:52:51 60.0 65.0 82.8 76.2 41.8 88.3 89.4 73.2 70.4 69.4 67.0 54.0 49.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:53:51 60.0 61.0 76.0 73.8 47.6 87.8 89.4 12.0 65.1 59.3 56.7 52.3 49.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:54:51 60.0 $4.7 72,5 74,1 48.9 86.1 99.4 58.0 55.6 53.9 52.7 51.4 49.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:55:51 60.0 60.3 78.1 13.3 40.1 05.6 09.4 71.0 64.3 59.6 56.6 52.3 49.4 2 SW 2 0 29Jan 09 14:56:51 60,0 65.1 02.9 77.3 48.2 99.9 93.5 76.7 69.8 64.4 59.1 54.0 49.6 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:57:51 60.0 60.6 86.4 83.7 48.2 101.0 101.0 79.2 74.6 63.9 56.4 53.3 49.6 2 8W 2 0 28Jan 09 14:58:51 60.0 59.3 77.1 73.9 49.6 98.6 89.4 70.0 62.2 $7.8 55.8 52.9 49.9 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:59:51 60.0 57.6 75.4 75.7 47.2 88.4 91.0 66.7 59.5 56.5 54.6 51.3 49.0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:00:51 60.0 57.6 75.4 71.4 43.3 83.9 87.5 67.8 60.4 57.4 55.9 52.9 47.3 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:01:51 60.0 65.7 83.5 80.3 40.9 95.3 90.9 76.9 70.5 65.2 60.9 53.0 44.5 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:02:51 60.0 52.9 10.6 70.2 41.4 84.7 91.0 61.5 55.5 53.0 51.0 40.0 44.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:03:51 60.0 62.1 79.9 76.9 42.0 92.6 94.5 73.2 67.0 61.1 57.6 51.3 45.1 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 15:04:51 60.0 57.3 75.1 72.9 4Z.1 05.4 07.5 66.6 58.0 55.4 52.0 48.9 45.5 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 L5: 05:51 60.0 56.1 73.9 14.4 41.8 97.3 93.5 61.9 59.5 56.7 54.2 50.2 43.9 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:06:51 60.0 52.5 70.3 62.4 42.7 02.6 87.5 58.9 51.5 $5.4 32.0 49.8 44.6 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 15:07:51 60.0 61.4 19.2 01.3 44.2 102.1 101.9 70.8 64.0 60.0 57.4 54.2 40.7 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 15:08:51 60.0 60.7 79.5 79,6 45.1 94.1 93.5 70.2 62.7 59.3 56.9 53,5 47.9 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:09:51 60.0 56.3 74.1 14.9 41.6 87.2 92.3 67.2 $6.4 53.2 52.0 49.3 44.0 2 5W 2 0 28Jan 09 15:10:51 60.0 53.7 71.5 66.9 43.7 79.8 85.0 61.3 $8.4 $6.1 $3.8 $0.0 45.9 2 5W 2 0 29Jan 09 15:11:51 60.0 55.9 73.7 72.7 43.9 85.2 91.0 65.4 50.3 55.9 54.3 51.0 45.6 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 15:12:51 60.0 $3.7 71,5 71.2 41.6 85.2 87.5 62.0 55.7 53.0 511 48.4 44.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:13:51 60.0 56.3 14,1 71.2 44.6 85.4 99.4 66.0 60.6 56.3 53.0 50.7 47.6 2 SW 2 0 ZBJan 09 15:14:51 60.0 55.0 72.8 72.6 43.3 88.7 89.4 63.7 58.0 $4.3 52.4 49.7 46.4 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 15:15:51 60.0 61.0 70.8 73.6 45.1 66.1 89.4 70.3 67.1 63.5 56.6 $2.5 47.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:16:51 60.0 56.7 14.5 72.1 43.2 86.1 873 67.7 59.5 55.2 53.1 50.3 45.4 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 15:17:51 60.0 54.9 72.7 71.7 42.4 62.9 87.5 64_0 57.0 52.9 51.6 49.3 44.7 2 SW 2 0 29Jan 09 L5:18:51 60.0 60.6 78.4 79.L 42.6 92.7 95.4 71.7 60.3 55,7 53.5 50.0 46.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jm 09 15:19:51 60.0 61.4 19.1 82.1 42.3 95.7 97.7 10.0 61.4 56.5 54.3 49.4 45.3 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 15:20:51 60.0 49.2 67.0 62.1 42.3 76.3 85.0 55.2 51.9 50.6 49.7 47.5 44.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:21:51 60.0 56.6 76.4 80.2 42.2 91.5 99.5 64.8 56.6 $3.5 51.6 49.1 45.0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 13:22:51 60.0 50.9 60.6 64.6 42.4 78.0 05.0 59.0 53.8 $2.3 51.1 48.9 45.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:23:51 60.0 $1.0 69.6 67.3 43.3 82.8 92.3 57.5 54.1 52.7 51.0 $0.1 46.1 2 5W 2 0 20Jan 09 15:24:51 60.0 49.4 67.1 55.8 42.3 fi .2 92.3 54.4 52.1 51.4 50.5 48.4 44.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:25:51 60.0 49.5 67.3 57.8 41.3 70.5 0.0 54.5 52.5 51.5 50.6 48.7 44.5 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:26:51 60.0 53.7 71.5 71.0 43.1 93.7 96.3 60.1 $6.3 54.9 53.7 50.0 47.0 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 15:27:51 49.2 $0.0 75.6 72.7 44.1 96.8 97.7 69.2 62.8 $9.3 $6.6 52.0 47.6 t'It Z'EL 6'EL "It 8 I 1 S S'26 6'68 8'89 1 I Z'I6 1 E 0'09 TE`ZO'60 60 ueCBZ 5 HIS F 0' CL S' CL E'OL L'tL 0-SL t'9L 5-COT S'Z6 9'OL 6 I 1'16 9'EL 0'09 IE :10:60 60 uePGZ 6 HIS I I'EL t'VL O'SL 6'SL VIE, L'118 9'96 9.96 t'ZL V'IS I'E6 9'SL 0'09 iC :00 :60 60 ueP8Z I H19 V I 9 C'19 9 I C -09 L'TL E 6 9'S6 Z'96 1'1t 6'83 3'IB 0'49 0'09 TE:65 °80 60 ueP8Z 6 H98 6 L'9t E'61 L'IS 0'6S O'ER L'BE S86 8'86 9 S 1'SS C63 6'99 0'09 IE ;BS ;80 60 ueP8Z t ME t 6'OS Z' CL 8'EL O -V4 4 P I'LL 9 COT 9'96 I'LI I'19 6'69 Z'ZL 0'09 TC : IS: 80 60 uenBZ t M9 t 5'65 9 I C'SL 9-GL 8'56 0'9L VIE E'68 1'S' C'9L t'E6 L'EL 0 "09 iC:95 °90 60 ueCBZ t MS t 6'65 $'FL 1'SL 8'SL F'ed t'EB L -66 1'001 L'IS 6'$3 0'E6 2'SL 0'09 iC:55:90 60 ueP8Z V MS t CEL VIE t'SL 9 R 6'54 6 L 5'86 I'Z6 Z'CL 9'09 9'Z6 9'FL 0'09 LC : IS: 80 60 BDSE I M8 t C'60 Z'6E C' it L'1L S'SL S'08 6 t 8'56 L'9t Z'CB 8'68 I'Et 0'09 IT: CS: 80 60 ueP8Z t Me t 0'81 1'V5 t'E9 6'69 Z'SL I 6 Z'L6 5'98' E'96 6'Z9 0'90 1'69 0'09 It: ZS :90 60 ueP8Z 5 III F 0'66 C'9S 8'09 9't9 I'EL $'311 1'96 V'S6 6 S I'Z9 E'S9 5'L9 0'09 SCRS :90 60 cee92 I MS I 5'66 9'ES 6'IS 0'19 8'69 I "08 1'66 0'L6 9'Lt t'E9 9'99 6'119 0'09 it OS: 00 60 ueCBZ 1, MS I Z'61 O'CS L'SS I'IS 0'19 C'18 T'901 9'SOT Z'LE 1'06 C'LB 5'69 0'09 TE: 60:80 60 ueP8Z t MB t E'19 0'89 6'69 C'OL 6'OL 6'TL Z 1 c 1 2'86 L'BE I'SB L'L9 0'09 it: 8 V: 80 60 ueP8Z V ME V L'L9 Z'69 6'69 VOL VOL L' It 9'68 0'68 0'99 6 Z I'LB C'69 0'09 IT: 0: ED 60 ue ^8Z F MS t 5'6t t'SS t'I9 9'89 6'69 6 ZL CE6 Z'Z6 E'0 VIE C'Z8 9'69 0'09 iE :9I :eO 60 ue ^9Z V ME t L'80 S' ES 8 C 9'09 I "S9 U'1t I CC S'T6 C9I 0'811 5'09 9'Z9 0'09 IT: S1: 80 60 ueP8Z I MB I E'OS I'VS Z'65 Z'i9 S'SO 9 S Z'L6 6'16 9'L1 9'611 C'19 S'E9 0'09 it: 61 :00 60 uenBZ t MS I 0'65 L'19 5'55 S'9S Z'09 L'99 5'96 0'116 I'Lt I'BE S'9L I'6S 0'09 TE °E5°80 60 ueP8Z I MB 6 6'61, Z'SS 9'Z9 0'89 6 Z 8'9L Z'L6 5'26 0'91 L'66 C'OB 9'99 0'09 EC :21 :90 60 ueP9Z 0 ME t 9'61, S'65 L'99 Ib1 6'E[ I'LL 1'96 CE6 C'LI Z'ZB 6'58 1'89 0'09 TE:T1:00 60 ueP8Z I MS V 9'ZS 6'95 9'19 VCR Z -69 6 ZL 6'Co V'Z6 8'61 8'1111 1'LB 9'E9 0'09 it: 00: 80 60 ueP8Z I MS t 0'25 S'95 9'09 EZ9 L'89 t'SL 1'501 8'96 0'60 4'Z9 0'28 0'S9 0'09 it: 6£ :EO 60 ueP9Z 1 ME F ["59 11'99 L'19 VOL C1L S'SL Z' IS S'26 5'05 B'SL 9'98 6'69 0'09 TE: BE °BO 68 ueP8Z t MB V C -99 I'OL 5'IL e'TL S'ZL 9'SL L'16 8'E6 B'99 V'6L 1'33 C-OL 0'09 IS: IE °00 60 ueCBZ V MS t 2'BE C'II I'll, I'ZL 6 I 9'14 1 E6 6'06 9'69 VIE t'68 I'll. 0'09 IS: 9C :90 60 ueP8Z V MS F S'ZS 9'LS 0'19 6'89 VOL 2'ZL 525 0'06 E'OS 8'911 C'ZB 9'19 0'09 iE:SE:80 60 uenBZ I MB t 0'05 1 -BS 8'99 6 O L'It 0'24 1'66 L'56 8'66 L'60 9'99 0'69 0'09 It: IT: 90 60 uePaZ 0 MB I Z ZS E'85 1'19 1'69 Z'It 1 '44 9'56 0'26 L'L1 S'6L 1'S8 9'119 0'09 it: cc: BO 60 e-rez I MS t 8'SS 0'19 9'99 L' It 0'tL SOt ' 66 C'001 S'9V 8'19 L'9B 0'69 0'09 IE: ZC °30 60 ueP3Z 5 MS F 0'15 9 "65 1 'Z9 6'00 0'69 0'211 9'69 0'06 E'BE L'BE S'18 L'E9 0'09 It:I C :80 60 uePuZ I MS I S'ZS Z'89 8'C9 E -99 L'OL Z'SL 6'EOT L 10 5'115 9'68 6'EB Z'99 0'09 It: OE: 90 60 ueCBZ 0 VMS V 0'05 1'IS 0'65 L'09 0'811 6 B 9'191 O'ZOI 5'9t E'98 8'99 1'69 0'09 ZE:6Z :80 60 ueP3Z 0 MS I 6'95 2'69 O'IL 0' CL 0'9L 5'66 9'56 6'Z6 t't5 6'08 E'69 S'IL 0'09 it B2: 60 00 uenBZ 0 VMS V E'IS 0'69 6 O 6 I 5'611 6 L CE6 B'E6 0'61 1'09 1'93 COL 0'09 it LE: 80 60 ue^'aZ I MS t I'SS I'65 S'Z9 Z -99 VOL Vat SE6 E'06 0' ES 6'94 O'E8 E'59 0'09 TC :92 :90 60 uenBZ V MS V C IS Z'19 Z'OL 9 Z 6 I 1'94 L'E6 Z'E6 0'91 C'6L 8'99 0'69 0'09 it SZ: 80 60 ueP8Z 0 MS 0 8'61 1 I 1'65 0'09 6'09 L IS 6 1'98 C L0 S'CL 0'91. Z'85 0'09 IS it: go 60 ueP3Z t MB t E'9V 1'CS 6'9S V'19 6'99 6'IL Z'16 1'06 0'91 Z "It 9'6L 1'19 0'09 TE: C2: 00 60 ueCBZ 5 Ills t E'0S L'65 0'69 Z'ZL Z' It 1'LL L'E6 E'V6 Z'81 V'18 1'90 L'89 0'09 TE QZ: 80 60 ueP8Z t ME F 9'09 1'95 0'59 VOL B'VL I'BL L'E6 9 E L'LI V'IS 6'58 2'89 0'09 TEmI2 :9O 60 ueP8Z 1 ME 1 I III 1'15 1. BE 0'29 L'OL 1'94 CE6 6'06 Z'LI L' at I'Z9 6'V9 0'09 IE : OR: 80 60 uu SZ t MS V 5'61 Z'65 6'99 V'69 9' It 6'EL I'E6 6'06 L-L!, 0'91. L'ES 6'59 0'09 1E :61:Be 60 ueP8Z F MS V t'OS 1'65 9'E9 6'69 9'ZL I'St L'16 0'Z6 L'LF Z'9L 0 I Z'99 0'09 LC:BI :Bo 60 ueP8Z V MB V 0'1S 8'69 B'ZL 6'EL 6'511 O'SL 6'L6 6'E6 0'LF Z'I9 Z'68 1'IL 0'09 IC:LP90 60 ueP8Z t M18 F 1'09 2'05 2'69 Z'It V'EL t'94 9'S6 6 16 6'Lt 1'6L 9'58 9'L9 0'09 TE ^91:80 60 ueP8Z F H18 t 1'81 9'CS E'09 L'S9 Z'OL 6'9L S'86 S'S6 L'9I 8'18 9 P 8'99 0'09 ICST:80 60 ueCBZ V HIS V 9 I 9'09 Z'IL C'SL C'08 L'ES 8'201 0'101 L'LI S'88 0'Z6 E'VL 0'09 IC :11:80 60 ueC8Z t M8 I 9 I 0'09 E'89 I'ZL L'SL L'48 8'COT Z'EDT 1. 41 0'99 1'68 9 I 0'09 TC :EP90 60 ueP8Z 1 MS V Z "OO E 1 8 4 CIt 1'51 6'6L 8'ZOT 9'L6 S 9 S'ES 9 L 8'69 0'09 IE :ZPBO 60 ueP8Z I WIB V 8'ZS O'E9 9'69 9'ZL 5'6L Vie C'901 L'COT L'61 L'06 Z'Z6 6 I 0'09 ICT1:80 60 ueCBZ V WIS V V'Z5 1'19 0 I Z'O6 4'84 8'28 S'90T 5'ZOT 1'81 0'LB 9'06 9 Z 0'09 TC :OT:8O 60 ueCBZ I HIB V L'IS 1'09 1'89 9'TL 6 C L'OB 9'TOT t'T01 E'BI S'E8 L' L6 6'69 0'09 LE :60 :80 60 ueP8Z 1 ME t 0' CS 6'09 C'L9 9'04 6 E Z'08 L'66 5'86 1 a L'98 6'L6 I'OL 0'09 It! 00:80 60 ueCBZ 1 HIS V C'15 1'09 0'89 Z'[6 L' It '0'03 L'66 1'06 L'86 Z'SO 1'69 C' It 0'09 IT: to :DO 60 ue08Z V MB V 6'ES L'09 9'69 t'ZL O'9L 1'03 Z'L6 VIE 0'6t S'E8 1'98 9'OL 0'09 TE: 90 :80 60 ueP8Z V Ills 1 L'09 5'65 9'49 9 Z I'SL L'9L L'66 L'96 Z 6 O'EB C'LB 5'69 0'09 IE: so: so 60 ueCBZ t HIS V VIE 6'19 S'OL 6'CL 8'9L L 6 6 L Z'96 E'81 L'IT 6'88 T'IL 0'09 LC :I0�80 60 ueP8Z I HIS V T-OG 9-LS L -19 1 99 6'69 0-SL t'96 Z'E6 6 I 1'18 Z'EB V'99 0'09 IE :EO :9O 60 ueP9Z t MS I 9'6V 6'55 V'19 9 9 1'LL 9'EL 9'TOT S'86 1 I 1'6L 1'28 V'V9 0'09 LC :20:80 60 ueP9Z t MS 1 9'05 1 I 9 Z 9 I L'It 11'811 V'96 0'96 t'05 Z'ES S'98 VOL 0'09 TG IO w00 60 ueCBZ 1 HIS 0 Z'OS 9'C9 8'45 6'09 9'69 Z'08 6'COT 6'201 V'Lt 1'98 9'99 0'119 0'09 TE: 00: 90 60 ueC8Z V MS V CIS V'65 L'S9 0'IL 8'9L 6'08 1'96 0'96 C'61 E'Z3 Z'BB I'OL 0'09 TE :69: to 60 ueP9Z 1 1MS I S'OS Z'89 5'S9 C 09 9'ZL i'6L 6'L6 0'66 8 8 O'ES 1 99 E'89 0'09 TE SS: to 60 uenBZ V 1M9 0 Z'IS 9 R PEE S'SL 9 I 9'6L Z'to L'L6 0'6V L ZB 9'68 6'iL 0'09 It LS: to 60 uenBZ 0 VHS 0 6'6V 1'99 L'69 L'S9 0 S 0'28 L 00 L'to 8'90 1'09 8'69 VOL 0'09 TC : OR: 110 60 veC6Z V MS 5 CIS 5'19 1'V( 3'116 Z'OE 6'Ze 1'66 Z'86 Z'85 0'98 8'16 T'OL 0'09 IC ° SS: 110 60 ueCBZ t M8 1 8'65 9'SS C'S9 6'IL 6'LL 7 'T9 L'66 Z'L6 L'LO E't8 6'88 I'IL 0'09 It IS 10 60 ueC8Z t MS t S -19 9'9S 0'6S 1'E9 L'OL C'00 S 8 Z'L6 C'65 1'53 C'93 5'89 0'09 IC :CS :LO 60 ueCBZ 1 MS I VCS 1'65 L'59 E'69 Z'SL 0'08 6'to O'L6 L'6t 0'18 ["L9 S'69 0'09 IE 4S =110 60 ueP8Z 0 TITS V E'05 6'SS Pis I' t9 I'ZL Z'Z9 1'66 C'66 0'61 S -10 0'68 Z'69 0'09 TE -IS: to 60 ueP8Z V M8 5 8'ZS E-09 E'OL 9'IL 9'56 0'18 L'66 L'66 I'61 6'13 9'88 6'OL 0'09 It OS: ED 60 --PS- I ME I I'S5 0'OL L'ZL 9'IL T'LL 6 "08 Z'L6 3 S S'OS J, 'ES Z'06 1'ZL 0'09 TI:66 :10 60 ueP6Z 0 M8 V L' -IS V'LS 9'Z9 Z'99 Z'ZL 9'9L S'86 5'65 E Z8 E'96 9'L9 0'09 IC:66 :118 60 ueP8Z V ME I 9'OS 6'SS L'09 6'19 6'89 9'SL 6'16 C'Z6 C'6V Z'6L E'ZB 9'19 0'09 TE:66 :L0 60 ueCBZ V ME 1 6'19 0-LS 6'19 9'59 YT11 Z 91 6'116 C'96 t'OS 0'29 1'98 CL9 0'09 TE; 91:to 60 ueP8Z F ME I C' is 9 "IS C'LS 9'65 C'I9 1'99 L'L9 L'LB 8'80 O'IL 1"91 0'65 0'09 11E ED: ED 60 uenBZ I IMS 0 I'ZS C"LS 0'Z9 Z'S9 VOL 1'94 4'IS I '6 9 6 L'SL 0'ES Z'SO 0'09 IE :IV :LO 60 ueP3Z 5 Me t 0 E E'65 2'09 6'69 B'14 2'66 L'66 Z'TOT 0'05 CE9 9'08 6'69 0'09 IC :E1 :48 60 ueP3Z I MS 0 t'TS 6'LS 1'99 VOL 6'16 E'EL L'66 9'is Z -61 9'08 C98 S'89 0'09 IT: at: 110 60 ueC8Z 0 ME V S'05 6'S9 L'09 Z' ED O'L9 S It 1'66 8'66 0'61 C'BE 9'18 6'E9 8'09 IC: II :LO 60 REM 5 MS I 0'15 6.99 S'Z9 6'19 I'OL E'1L 9'96 £'Z6 8 a Z "LL EZ8 5'09 8'09 IE +OS :LO 60 ueP8Z I MS F L'OS C ES 6'95 5'09 11'69 Sat 4'E6 SE6 5'61 Z' at L'TO 6'E9 0'09 IT: BE °LO 60 ueP8Z 0 MS 0 2'05 S'E5 9'LS L'65 6'29 L'89 CE6 9'69 Vat t'Zt 9'91. 9'95 0'09 IE � BE: to 60 ueC8Z 0 ins I C'OS 9'TS 0'65 6'SS 6'65 9'L9 1'66 5'116 1'61 1 I 6' It 1'09 0'09 TC : It: t0 60 ue ^82 0 ME t L'61 I'ES 8'SS 9'LS E'09 6'99 Z'T6 E'68 9'81 6 I Z'SL I'LS 0'09 iE:9E :LO 60 ueP8Z t MS t Z'OS 6'ZS T'9S PBS Z'Z9 SCL Z'TO Z'96 S'81 B "TB 5'08 4'Z9 8'09 IE :SC :LO 60 ueP3Z I MB I C"BE I't5 t'ES L' IS S'45 4 'T9 2'S6 C'SO i'9t Z'OL Z' It I'tS 0'09 IE: IT: to 60 ueP8Z I M9 t 1'I9 O'SS E'BE 0'09 S' is O'ZL S'ZOT 3'101 9'6t L'9L 6'eL I'T9 0'09 IE: E£: 110 60 ueP8Z I ME V 10611 10511 _______________________________________________________________________________ 1$Z11 19T11 IB I1 11 M 4a 11 dead -T-1 xeul 135 bat cOlvee00 ___________________________ .l aoe0 ____ uopeo0l o =f8 e]CO TDe:.a.j u29'PIIMPBZ \1I10k9S \APOH`.^I V] 4 SUI 4 28Jan 09 09:03:31 60.0 73.4 91.1 79.3 70.4 103.5 104.8 770 76.6 74.7 73.7 72.4 71.1 4 SLM 4 Man 09 09:04:31 60.0 73.2 90.9 B1.1 70.3 95.1 95.6 75.6 74.0 73.8 73.7 73.2 71.3 4 SU4 4 28Jan 09 09:0$:31 60.0 73.9 91.7 79.7 71.9 92.6 94.7 77.7 75.9 14.9 73.9 73.4 72.3 4 SIN 4 2BJan 09 09:06:31 60.0 73.6 91.4 84.8 12.2 101.4 102.5 75.7 74.6 73.9 73.8 73.3 72.3 4 SUM 4 2BJan On 09:07:31 60.0 75.0 92.8 79.9 69.4 101.4 102.5 77.0 76.7 76.3 75.9 75.3 71.0 4 SUM 4 28Jan 09 09:08:31 60.0 71.4 89.1 87.4 44.6 90.8 103.9 81.5 72.9 71.5 70.1 61.2 51.6 4 SUM 4 28Jan 09 09:09:31 60.0 68.8 96.5 79.3 43.2 94.1 92.5 77.5 75.9 71.2 67.0 55.6 46.8 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 09:10:31 60.0 74,2 92.0 84.2 42.9 98.3 99.1 81.7 70.9 77.6 76.5 65.4 47.5 4 SIM 4 28Jan 09 09:11:31 60.0 73.5 91.2 80.8 44.6 96.7 47.2 78.9 77.9 77.0 76.0 71.7 47.4 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 09:32:31 40.0 64.6 82.6 79.4 43.9 96.1 103.2 74.6 71.6 62.5 58.7 55.1 51.0 4 SIN 4 Man 09 09:13:31 60.0 61.8 79.6 81.9 45.4 97.7 101.2 70.7 64.0 60.5 58.4 55.0 50.3 4 SW 4 29Jan 09 09:14:31 60.0 71.9 89.7 93.7 45.4 100.7 99.7 82.2 79.1 74.6 63.0 52.5 47.5 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 09:15:31 60.0 78.3 96.1 86.4 53.3 100,1 100.3 84.3 82.1 81.1 79.9 77.0 67.3 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 09:16:31 60.0 67.7 05.5 78.6 46.7 94.4 97.9 75.0 72.3 71.4 10.5 59.8 $2.2 4 SIN 4 29Jan 09 09:17:31 60.0 50.6 76.3 75.3 43.3 89.7 89.6 68.7 62.5 58.7 55.0 50.7 46.1 4 BUM 4 28Jan 09 09:18:31 60.0 74.2 92.0 86.7 43.7 100.8 101.2 95.1 80.5 74.9 69.0 58.8 47.9 4 SIX 4 28Jan 09 09:19:31 60.0 73.8 91.6 92.9 44.0 106.3 106.5 82.9 78.6 73.0 67.5 59.5 51.8 4 S M 4 28Jan 09 09:20:31 60.0 71.9 89.7 94.5 44.5 97.3 99.1 82.2 78.1 74.4 67.2 57.7 47.8 4 SUM 4 28Jan 09 09:21:31 60.0 72.3 90.1 92.0 48.2 96.6 97.2 00.2 11.8 16.0 14.0 64.1 53.8 4 SIN 4 Man 09 09:22:31 60.0 73.0 90.8 83.8 45.0 100.1 100.3 80.8 7S.3 76.3 74.1 67.2 53.5 4 SIN 4 Man O9 09:23:31 60.0 72.2 90.0 86.0 45.6 97.9 102.1 82.0 77.2 74.5 72.2 62.2 51.1 4 S:N 4 28Jan 09 09:24:31 60.0 77.4 95.2 86.4 46.0 101.6 102.1 83.8 62.6 91.3 79.5 72.3 56.9 4 BIN 4 28Jan 09 09:25:31 60.0 16.7 965 82.1 56.5 95.6 96.5 80.9 60.0 79.2 78.3 76.2 66.4 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 09:26:31 60.0 76.3 94.1 96.0 46.2 102.4 102.7 83.7 79.8 78.5 77.1 75.1 53.5 4 SIN 4 283an 09 09:27:31 60.0 60.7 66.5 79.1 46.2 93.5 96.4 76.6 74.0 72.0 70.1 62.5 51.1 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 09:20:31 60.0 BO.0 97.0 06.0 54.7 101.9 99.7 05.7 83.7 82.6 81.7 79.5 67.9 4 SIN 4 29Jan 09 09:29:31 60.0 75.3 93.1 63.8 47.6 95.1 99.7 82.5 80.7 79.4 77.3 68.0 54.8 4 SLR 4 Man 09 09:30:31 60.0 68.5 86.3 82.5 45.2 95.7 98.5 78.5 74.1 69.3 65.2 60.3 56.1 4 SIN 4 Man 09 09:31:31 60.0 76.9 94.6 06.6 54.6 98.7 99.7 84.7 82.1 79.9 77.8 71.9 60.6 4 SIM 4 29Jan 09 09:32:31 60.0 18.3 96.0 05.6 54.7 97.7 99.7 84.0 62.8 81.5 80.3 76.1 60.2 4 SD 4 28Jan 09 09:33:31 60.0 74.2 92.0 83.2 50.3 96.6 97.9 81.8 79.5 77.8 76.3 65.8 55.8 4 SIN 4 Man 09 09:34:31 60.0 11.1 88.6 81.0 46.7 92.9 99.1 79.4 76.9 74.8 71.1 61.7 53.6 4 SIM 4 283an 09 09:35:31 60.0 68.2 86,0 79.3 45.3 92.4 95.6 76.9 74.2 11.4 60.0 59.8 $2.8 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 09:36:31 60.0 68.2 86.0 78.3 52.1 91.1 06.4 75.9 73.9 12.3 70.0 59.3 55.4 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 09:37:31 60.0 74.4 92.2 83.4 52.6 95.9 96.4 82.1 79.2 17.4 75.8 70.5 58.1 4 SLM 4 2BJan 09 09:30:31 60.0 69.4 87.2 80.7 45.3 93.3 95.6 78.9 75.7 71.8 66.6 59.6 52.9 4 SLM 4 Man 09 09:39:31 60.0 66.0 84.6 83.0 44.7 90.7 102.8 77.1 72.4 67.4 61.4 54.4 48.4 4 SIN 4 2BJan 09 09:40:31 60.0 69.0 86.8 82.2 49.6 95.0 97,9 81.1 74.8 63.7 59.3 54.7 51,3 4 SIN 4 2BJan 09 09:41:31 60.0 64.2 02.0 77.0 46.3 90.1 a3.7 75.7 67.6 61.0 58.3 54.0 50.7 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 09:42:31 60.0 69.5 67.3 63.6 43.6 98.7 100.3 78.6 75.7 72.8 66.6 56.1 49.5 4 SIN 4 Man 09 09:43:31 60.0 64.9 82.7 79.2 42.2 91.4 93.7 77.1 67.9 60.1 57.8 54.6 50.6 4 SLM 4 Man 09 09:44:31 60.0 69.2 06.9 02.5 41.5 94.0 97.2 01.1 75.2 66.1 58.9 55.2 47.4 4 BIM 4 2BJan 09 09:45:31 60.0 71.4 09.2 05.1 42,6 105.2 106.5 80.6 77.0 74.3 70.2 57.1 50.6 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 09:46:31 60.0 75.7 93.5 04.1 43.4 99.2 99.7 82.0 01.3 79.2 77.3 70.9 48.8 4 SUM 4 2BJan 09 09:47:31 60.0 77.3 95.1 03,9 49.5 102.7 102.1 02.4 80.9 79.6 70.0 77.1 53.9 4 Si 4 28Jan 09 09:48:31 60.0 77.9 95.7 63.6 49.9 99.2 98.5 82.1 01.3 80.6 80.0 77.9 60.2 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 09:49:31 60.0 68.4 86.2 63.9 44,6 96.7 96.4 76.9 72.7 69.6 67.3 62.0 52.0 4 SIX 4 28Jan 09 09:50:31 60.0 65.6 63.4 75.2 46.6 92.1 94.7 73.1 71.0 68.7 66.9 60.5 53.1 4 SIX 4 28Jan D9 09:51:31 60.0 67.4 85.2 00.0 44.7 101.3 102.5 76.3 71.6 69.7 67.8 62.8 53.8 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 09:52:31 6D.0 77.7 95.5 83.6 54.5 97.5 96.4 82.0 00.6 79.0 79.1 77.4 69.2 4 SIN 4 2BJan 09 09:53:31 60,0 67.4 05.1 82.5 50.9 98.0 98.5 75.6 72.8 69.5 66.3 61.5 54.4 4 SIX 4 28Jan 09 09:54:31 60.0 66.1 85.9 78.0 48.5 95.8 97.2 76.4 74.1 71.3 60.6 60.0 53.4 4 SUM 4 2BJan 99 09:55:31 60.0 68.9 86.7 79.1 44.9 93.0 94.7 77.2 75,2 72.6 60.4 59.8 49.1 4 SIX 4 28Jan 09 09:56 :31 60.0 64.1 01.9 76.9 40.6 90.8 92.5 74.2 66.8 64.5 63.3 60.6 47.0 4 SIM 4 2BJan 09 09:57:31 60.0 66,2 84.0 71.4 45.4 90.5 52.5 76.5 71.2 66.7 64.2 60.0 53.2 4 BIM 4 Man 09 09:50:31 60.0 65.5 83.3 00.4 46.5 95.1 95.6 16.6 69.4 65.2 62.8 57.7 51.6 4 SUM 4 28Jan 09 09:59:31 60.0 68.3 86.0 80.1 44.5 97.2 98.5 76.2 73.8 71.2 69.3 62.3 $6.0 4 SIX 4 28Jan 09 10:00:31 60.0 69.9 67.7 18.7 41.4 91.6 96.4 76.5 74.0 73.0 72.3 65.4 47.1 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 10:01:31 60.0 66.6 04.4 77.6 45.1 92.1 93.7 74.6 72.7 70.6 66.0 57.8 48.0 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 10:02:31 60.0 63.9 81.7 17.2 41.4 91.7 91.2 74.4 69.0 65.2 61.6 55.4 46.3 4 SIN 4 Man 09 10:03:31 60.0 68.3 86.1 79.1 43.0 98.3 99.7 76.9 74.5 71.9 67.8 58.0 48.3 4 SIN 4 Man 09 10:04:31 60.0 64.5 62.3 76.6 42.1 91.1 93.7 74.7 69.0 67.0 63.2 $3.3 46.3 4 BIN 4 2BJan 09 10:05:31 60.0 67.5 05.3 79.1 42.6 95.7 97.2 16.5 73.7 71.1 66.4 56.5 47.6 4 BIM 4 28Jan 09 10:06:31 60.0 67.4 85.2 79,7 41.5 92.2 96.4 76.9 73.6 70.1 65.7 58.3 48.7 4 SUM 4 28Jan 09 10:07:31 60.0 66.9 04.7 77.6 42.2 91.5 94.7 76.3 73.3 69.3 63.0 $9.4 53.0 4 SUM 4 2BJan 09 10:08:31 60.0 59.6 77.3 74.0 43.4 OB.7 91.9 70.2 61.0 $8.5 57.0 $5.3 53.1 4 SIN 4 Man 09 10:09:31 60.0 64.1 61.0 83.4 41.6 106.0 106.0 72.9 68.9 61.0 59.6 57.0 50.5 4 SUM 4 28Jan 09 10:10:31 60.0 660 81.7 74.3 51.3 07.2 87.7 73.3 70.4 66.3 59.7 56.7 54.1 4 SIN 4 Wan 09 10:11:31 60.0 63.2 80.9 73.8 43.9 91.0 95.6 73.1 69.2 65.1 59.2 55.5 40.6 4 SIM 4 20Jan 09 10:12:31 60.0 $8.2 76.0 72.8 42.9 89.4 91.2 68,4 61.7 59.3 $7.2 51.9 45.9 4 BIM 4 Man 09 10:13:31 60.0 65.2 02.9 79.6 41.9 101.4 100.3 75.4 10.6 65.3 60.9 54.6 40.3 4 SU1 4 28Jan 09 10:14:31 60.0 62.9 80.6 78.9 46.5 91.6 93.7 73.0 67.4 63.0 60.3 55.9 50.4 4 SIM 4 28Jan 09 10:15:31 60.0 57.9 75.7 69.0 44.0 83.4 95.2 65.4 63.0 60.3 $8.2 $4.7 49.5 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 10:16:31 60.0 62.3 80.1 64.7 43.3 99.7 103.2 66.7 60.6 58.2 56.5 $3.9 47.1 4 SIM 4 Man 09 10:17:31 60.0 61.9 79.7 71.0 43.3 06.0 07.7 70.8 69.1 64.2 60.3 53.6 46.0 4 S1N 4 2BJan 09 10:18:31 60.0 64.4 02.2 78.0 50.4 92.2 95.6 11.7 70.4 68.4 63.3 57.0 54.5 4 SIX 4 Man 09 10:19:31 60.0 59,2 16.9 70.3 40.0 91.9 94.7 69.0 59.5 56.8 55.7 53,7 46.0 4 SIX 4 Man 09 10:20:31 60.0 63.0 80.8 70.4 39.3 90.7 91.2 75.1 60.7 57.0 56.6 51.1 41.6 4 SIX 4 28Jan 09 10:21:31 60.0 59.6 71.4 71.0 39.5 04.6 05.2 70.1 63.0 50.8 57.7 56.0 50.2 4 SIX 4 28Jan 09 10:22:31 60.0 66.2 83.9 79.1 44.5 92.4 99.1 75.1 70.8 69.7 61.8 59.1 50.4 4 SIM 4 28Jan 09 10:23:31 60.0 64.6 82.4 04.5 40.5 100.4 106.0 75.4 67.5 62.0 $7.8 $2.4 44.4 4 S]N 4 Man 09 10:24:31 60.0 62.3 90.0 75.0 41.2 88.8 89.6 71.6 69.0 63.9 59.2 54.3 46.2 4 SUM 4 28Jan 09 10:25:31 60.0 59.4 77.2 11.4 41.0 86.6 87.7 69.4 64.2 $9.8 $7.7 54.3 48.5 4 SIN 4 Man 09 10:26:31 60,0 66.2 84.0 81.9 49.2 94.6 95.6 78.4 68A 62.8 58.7 55.2 51.9 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 10:27:31 60.0 62.6 60.4 17.7 43.9 90.7 95.6 72.7 67.5 61.4 59.5 55.1 50.2 4 SLR 4 28Jan 09 10:28:31 60.0 62.7 80.5 74.0 41.9 06.0 89.6 72.5 69.1 63.1 59.2 $5.6 49.3 4 SIN 4 Man 09 10:29:31 60.0 65.4 03.2 79.4 40.7 92.1 92.5 73.4 70.5 68.2 64.9 $7.5 51.9 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 10:30:31 60.0 57.7 75.4 10.1 45.5 82.1 05.2 68.2 60.9 57.7 55.7 514 48.9 4 SUM 4 2BJan 09 10:31:31 60.0 58.6 76.4 73.8 47.5 87.9 89.6 66.0 61.6 59.0 56.9 53.6 49.5 4 SUM 4 29Jan 09 10:32:31 60.0 60.6 78.6 71.0 40.3 03.5 85.2 70.8 65.3 60.3 59.2 55.1 51.7 4 SIN 4 283an 09 30:33:31 60.0 58.5 76.3 72.3 48.2 85.1 07.7 68.4 61.9 58.9 57.3 53.5 50.7 4 SIM 4 28Jan 09 10:34:31 60.0 58.3 76.0 70.8 47.9 B3.9 05.2 67.5 61.6 59.4 57.0 54.4 50.4 4 SUN 4 28Jan 09 10:35:31 60.0 58,7 16.5 70.4 49.1 99.9 91.2 67,6 61.7 59.5 58,1 $5.8 $2.4 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 10:36:31 60.0 62.4 80.2 72.0 40.2 05.9 97.7 12.0 68.5 63.5 60.3 56.3 49.6 4 SIN 4 Man 09 10:37:31 60.0 58.0 76.5 71.8 41.3 03.5 85.2 69.3 62.2 59.2 57.0 52.9 46.3 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:38:31 60.0 56.5 74.3 70.2 39.6 86.3 93.7 62.7 60.5 50.9 57.6 54.2 45.9 4 SW 4 28Jan 04 10:39:31 60.0 55.1 72.9 63.3 49.8 18.0 81.1 60.4 58.0 56.1 55.1 53.9 51.9 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:40:31 60.0 57.2 75.0 70.6 43.6 83.2 81.1 64.0 60.0 50.4 57.3 55.3 51.2 4 SW 4 283an 09 10:41:31 60.0 60.4 78.2 11.7 46.6 93.5 97.5 70.6 61.6 59.6 58.0 54.6 51.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:42:31 60.0 62.6 80.5 85.5 42.0 99.2 99.7 62.3 56.9 54.9 53.8 51.3 47.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:43:31 60.0 56.3 74.1 72.0 39.5 84.2 87.7 64.6 59.6 56.7 55.1 53.0 48.3 4 SW 4 283an 09 10:44:31 60.0 59.7 77.5 80.7 45.6 94.7 94.7 63.8 57.9 56.0 54.8 53.1 51.1 4 5W 4 28Jan 09 10:45:31 60.0 61.4 79.2 75.6 39.3 87.0 89.6 71.6 66.8 61.4 57.5 52.7 44.1 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 10:46:31 60.0 56.1 73.9 70.6 41.6 84.6 85.2 66.2 59.5 56.7 54.7 51.4 47.9 4 SW 4 Man 09 10:47:31 60.0 61.0 78.7 78.6 46.9 93.9 96.4 69.6 65.3 62.0 59.5 52.4 40.8 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:49:31 60.0 55.1 72.9 68.5 41.0 84.7 05.2 64.7 59.2 56.3 53.8 49.4 43.8 4 SW 4 Man 05 10:49:31 60.0 59.9 77.7 77.2 42.5 90.3 92.5 70.5 63.6 58.3 55.4 51.2 46.9 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:50:31 60.0 58.0 75.6 71.2 44.4 80.1 93.7 68.2 61.3 50.4 56.6 53.6 49.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:51:31 60.0 60.3 78.1 74.0 42.1 89.6 91.2 71.5 63.0 60.5 58.3 53.4 47.6 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:52:31 60.0 62.3 80.1 80.4 44.1 100.9 99.7 73.7 62.3 60.1 58.0 55.2 50.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:53:31 60.0 57.7 75.4 73.6 40.6 65.8 87.7 68.2 60.0 57.6 55.5 52.0 46.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:51:31 60.0 65.9 83.6 84.3 42.4 9B.6 100.3 76.7 65.4 57.7 55.6 52.3 47.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:55:31 60.0 61.0 79.6 18.0 44.5 92.2 93.7 71.1 66.5 61.3 59.6 56.6 51.7 4 SW 4 20Jan 09 10:56:31 60.0 62.2 80.0 75.9 43.8 89.1 B7.7 72.3 616 62.9 59.4 54.9 48.7 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:57:31 60.0 69.5 07.2 95.4 45.5 100.5 100.7 80.5 73.8 60.6 63.1 56.9 49.4 4 SW 4 Man 09 10:58:31 60.0 63.3 81.1 76.2 45.D 90.2 90.4 72.4 68.5 65.6 62.9 57.1 51.5 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:59:31 60.0 63.7 81.5 15.3 43.9 87.8 91.2 72.4 60.7 66.6 64.4 57.8 $1.5 4 5W 4 28Jan 09 11:00:31 60.0 64.7 82.5 79.4 40.8 94.8 94.7 73.4 70.4 67.3 63.9 57.8 45.4 4 5W 4 28Jan 09 11:01:31 60.0 68.0 85.8 63.5 43.2 99.0 98.5 79.0 10.6 66.5 62.5 55.6 40.3 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:02:31 60.0 64.0 81.8 78.3 41.7 95.4 96.4 14.7 68.9 63.9 61.4 56.9 49.5 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 11:03:31 60.0 64.1 61.0 86.8 42.1 104.5 I07.0 70.0 65.7 58.9 56.5 52.6 45.7 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:04:31 60.0 62.8 00.6 76.3 43.7 91.7 94.7 72.9 67.5 64.3 61.6 56.4 49.0 4 SW 4 29Jan 09 11:05:31 60.0 61.3 79.0 70.7 42.6 89.4 01.7 69.7 68.3 64.0 57.3 53.6 46.9 4 SW 4 Man 09 11:06:31 60.0 63.1 80.9 74.3 40.9 90.1 99.6 71.6 68.8 66.7 63.2 54.9 46.4 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:07:31 60.0 61.0 79.8 78.4 39.0 91.4 92.5 12.7 63.0 57.7 55.6 50.0 45.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:09:31 60.0 62.0 79.8 79.6 42.8 95.4 94.7 72.4 65.3 61.2 58.1 53.4 46.5 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:09:31 60.0 69.5 86.3 84.0 39.6 100.8 99.7 90.0 73.4 68.1 62.0 54.1 45.3 4 SW 4 Man 09 11:10:31 60.0 69.2 67.0 85.0 43.0 100.8 ID0.1 81.2 71.2 68.3 65.3 57.1 40.4 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 11:11:31 60.0 63.2 80.9 75.1 42.8 90.9 91.2 73.0 68.8 65.0 60.2 55.4 47.1 4 5W 4 Man 09 11:1201 60.0 61.9 79.6 74.6 41.7 88.8 B9.6 72.2 67.1 62.9 58.4 52.2 45.1 4 SW 4 Man 09 11:13:31 60.0 64.0 81.8 75.7 43.5 92.5 94.7 73.4 68.8 66.0 63.9 50.0 40.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:14:31 60.0 65.0 82.8 79.7 45.4 96.0 94.7 75.3 69.5 64.5 62.4 59.6 51.8 4 5W 4 28Jan 09 11:15:31 60.0 63.1 80.9 80.4 43.6 99.0 97.2 71.7 66.6 63.4 60.8 57.1 50.5 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 11:16:31 60.0 62.7 80.5 75.5 41.1 90.0 07.7 71.7 67.9 64.8 62.3 57.2 49.0 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 11:17:31 60.0 $9.9 77.7 71.0 41.9 88.0 87.7 69.6 64.9 61.7 $9.2 55.5 49.5 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:18:31 60.0 60.8 19.6 71.7 43.5 89.9 B7.7 67.0 64.8 63.3 62.0 58.5 51.5 4 SLH 4 2BJan 09 11:19:31 60.0 61.0 79.6 00.5 43.0 95.9 97.2 72.5 63.6 59.4 57.6 53.6 48.3 4 SLM 4 Man 09 11:20:31 60.0 63.1 00.8 80.1 46.1 94.9 103.9 71.6 67.3 64.4 61.8 59.2 53.0 4 SW 4 Man 09 11:21:31 60.0 50.3 16.0 14.5 45.5 90.9 91.2 65.5 62.1 59.7 58.0 $5.0 $0.2 4 sW 4 29Jan 09 11:22:31 60.0 59.7 77.5 74.1 41.1 91.0 91.2 69.2 65.2 60.6 51.6 53.4 46.6 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 11:23:31 60.0 63.5 81.3 77.5 44.8 91.2 93.7 73.3 69.1 65.2 61.2 55.0 40.5 4 SW 4 283an 09 11:24:31 60.0 63.2 81.0 73.4 44.7 67.5 91.2 71.5 68.7 66.2 63.7 57.3 51.2 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 11:25:31 60.0 60.0 77.0 70.7 43.6 96.4 87.7 69.5 65.0 61.8 59.7 56.3 50.4 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:26:31 60.0 65.5 83.3 79.4 43.5 97.6 91.2 75.0 70.0 67.9 64.9 58.1 49.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:27:31 60.0 63.9 01.7 80.7 43.0 96.3 97.9 76.1 65.7 61.0 59.4 52.5 46.1 4 SW 4 Man 09 11:28:31 60.0 61.9 79.6 75.3 42.5 90.8 09.6 72.2 66.0 62.9 60.7 55.5 47.5 4 SW 4 Man D9 11:29:31 60.D 68.6 06.4 07.0 43.5 105.6 106.3 70.7 73.1 67.8 64.2 50.0 50.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:30:31 60.0 70.2 07.9 05.7 41.4 103.7 106.5 60.9 75.6 69.9 65.2 55.0 45.9 4 5W 4 28Jan 09 11:31:31 60.0 56.7 74.5 71.5 41.4 05.0 85.2 66.4 59.6 56.1 54.6 51.3 45.8 4 SW 4 28Jan D9 11:32:31 60.0 64.3 82.1 76.0 41.3 90.0 91.2 74.1 70.6 66.1 61_5 54.9 45.7 4 5W 4 28Jan 09 11:33:31 60.0 66.9 84.6 87.4 42.2 96.7 98.5 76.0 70.7 65.7 61.9 $5.6 47.1 4 SW 4 Man 09 11:34:31 60.0 65.9 83.6 78.4 41.9 95.3 107.0 75.8 71.3 67.5 64.7 58.4 47.7 4 SW 4 28Jan D9 11:35:31 60.0 67.0 84.0 87.2 43.2 103.3 104.8 16.7 10.2 62.9 58.9 52.9 45.5 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:36:31 60.0 64.0 02.6 17.4 44.0 91.1 93.7 74.6 70.2 66.5 64.2 58.2 47.9 4 SW 4 28Jan D9 11:37:31 60.0 71.7 09.4 94.1 43.2 112.1 111.3 80.2 71.8 66.9 63.9 57.0 48.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:38:31 60.0 63.9 B1.6 80.4 43.7 94.8 95.6 71.9 67.2 62.5 59.7 $4.9 47.9 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:39:31 60.0 69.6 07.4 04.7 41.9 102.7 100.7 91.9 12.0 66.0 61.3 55.4 46.6 4 SW 4 Man 09 11:40:31 60.0 64.9 82.6 76.8 43.6 95.7 95.6 74.9 704 66.3 63.1 57.0 46.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:41:31 60.0 64.3 82.1 81.2 41.2 96.1 96.4 74.8 68.0 64.6 61.9 54.8 46.1 4 5W 4 28Jan 09 11:42:31 60.0 64.1 91.9 77.3 39.9 92.3 92.5 73.0 70.7 65.9 60.2 54.3 45.3 4 5W 4 28Jan 09 11:43:31 60.0 65.3 83.1 86.8 40.0 101.6 102.5 73.0 61.6 57.6 54.6 50.7 45.5 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11-44:31 60.0 63.3 01.1 76.0 39.6 91.7 92.5 14.0 69.5 63.7 59.4 51.4 43.2 4 SW 4 26Jan 09 11:45:31 60.0 65.1 83.5 83.6 41.7 99.3 101.2 74.8 70.7 66.0 60.5 54.0 44.0 4 SW 4 20Jan 09 11:46:31 60.0 62.5 80.3 84.3 43.1 101.3 101.6 71.4 60.9 55.4 52.9 49.6 46.3 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:47:31 60.0 50.6 76.4 76.9 40.2 91.0 97.2 69.8 614 57.2 53.5 48.7 43.7 4 5W 4 283an 09 11:48:31 60.0 60.1 77.9 14.2 40.0 87.3 B7.7 69.1 66.0 62.3 58.2 51.0 44.5 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:49:31 60.0 62.9 80.7 15.6 38.4 92.2 91.2 71.7 69.3 65.5 60.4 53.7 44.4 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:50:31 60.0 61.8 79.5 75.2 39.8 92.5 93.7 72.4 66.6 63.1 60.D 52.7 43.9 4 SW 4 29Jen 09 11:51:31 60.0 67.8 95.5 92.4 38.8 102.2 101.2 79.6 13.4 fill 55.6 47.5 41.8 4 SW 4 Man 09 11:52:31 60.0 65.7 83.5 05.1 39.1 99.6 100.7 77.3 67.2 62.7 58.6 51.1 43.4 4 SW 4 Man 09 11 :53:31 60.0 58.3 76.0 74.7 30.9 92.3 93.7 69.4 63.6 56.8 52.8 49.4 42.5 4 SW 4 Man 09 11:54:31 60.0 64.6 82.4 79.2 41.0 98.0 97.2 75.8 66.2 65.1 62.5 54.8 46.5 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:55:31 60.0 63.2 81.0 80.1 43.3 93.2 97.9 73.0 67.3 61.7 56.6 52.6 47.0 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:56:31 60.0 55.8 73.5 70.5 44.8 94.0 B7.7 65.9 54.5 55.9 53.9 50.5 46.9 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:57:31 60.0 52.5 70.3 67.2 42.1 84.2 102.1 61.3 $5.4 52.8 51.4 49.2 46.3 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:58:31 60.0 49.9 67.7 62.8 42.8 78.1 91.2 55.9 $3.2 51.8 $0.6 47.8 44.0 4 SW 4 2BJan D9 11:59:31 60.0 45.0 63.6 55.7 39.3 67.8 0.0 51.2 49.3 47.1 46.6 44.4 41.0 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 12:OD:31 60.0 43.7 61.5 50.7 39.1 63.2 0.0 47.6 45.9 45.3 44.1 42.8 41.0 4 SW 4 Man D9 12;01:31 60.0 41.2 59.0 47.6 36.9 59.7 0.0 46.0 44.0 42.4 41.5 40.3 30.5 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 12:02:31 60.0 41.8 59.5 45.2 38.0 59.7 0.0 44.4 43.7 43.3 42.8 41.5 39.0 4 3W 4 28Jan 09 12:03:31 60.0 43.1 60.9 55.0 38.5 69.1 0.0 50.1 45.3 44.3 43.2 41.3 39.5 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 12:04:31 60.0 41.6 59.4 45.2 38.3 60.5 0.0 44.4 43.6 42.9 42.3 41.3 39.6 4 SW 4 29Jan 09 12:05:31 60.0 45.1 62.9 53.2 40.0 61.8 0.0 49.9 47.5 46.1 45.6 44.4 41.6 4 SLH 4 20Jan 09 12:06:31 60.0 44.1 61.9 52.0 39.5 66.0 0.0 49.9 47.4 46.0 44.7 42.3 40.7 4 SW 4 283an 09 12:07:31 60.0 43.6 61.3 50.3 39.6 62.2 0.0 40.9 46.6 44.9 43.9 42.5 40.5 4 SW 4 283an 09 12:08:31 60.0 48.5 66.3 50.0 40.7 69.5 0.0 54.1 51.9 50.9 49.6 46.8 43.1 4 $W 4 29Jan 09 12:09:31 60.0 45.1 62.9 53.1 39.6 63.2 0.0 49.2 47.8 46.7 45.9 44.4 11.5 4 SW 4 Man 09 12:10:31 60.0 50.2 60.0 62.1 40.0 74.0 0.0 57.8 54.5 52.7 50.6 46.6 42.5 4 SLH 4 Man 09 12:11:31 60.0 41.3 59.1 53.5 37.3 69.2 0.0 45.7 43.9 42.7 41.8 40.3 30.6 4 SLH 4 28Jan 09 12:12:31 60.0 43.8 61.6 51.9 37.5 63.6 0.0 49.6 47.0 45.7 44.7 42.7 39.1 4 SL4 4 28Jan 09 12:13:31 60.0 45.2 62.9 55.8 37.6 71.6 0.0 51.9 49.4 41.4 45.8 42.6 39.1 4 SLM 4 26Jan 09 12:34:31 60.0 44.6 62.4 52.2 38.7 64.5 0.0 49.7 47.8 46,3 45.3 43.7 41.0 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 12:15:31 60.0 52.8 70.6 62.0 40.3 74.1 85.2 60.6 59.2 55.B 52.8 46.5 42.1 4 SLY, 4 28Jan 05 12:16:31 60.0 46.5 64.3 54.8 31.6 68.5 0.0 53.1 50.8 49.2 47.4 44.3 39.6 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 12:17:31 60.0 44.2 62.0 $2.3 38.1 65.6 0.0 49.2 46.6 45.6 45.0 43.5 40.4 4 SLM 4 2BJan 09 12:13:31 60.0 51.8 69.6 75.7 38.2 95.6 104.2 55.2 49.7 4B.D 47.0 44.9 41.2 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 12:19:31 60.0 49.7 61.5 61.3 40.0 75.8 0.0 57.4 53.1 51.6 50.3 47.4 42.9 4 SLH 4 28Jan 09 12:20:31 60.0 45.6 63.4 56.6 38.0 73.2 0.0 52.8 49.4 47.2 45.7 43.6 40.4 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 12:21:31 60.0 46.0 63.7 57.7 37.5 78.0 0.0 53.4 49.7 47.6 46.3 43.2 39.3 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 12:22:31 60.0 44.4 62.2 54.6 39.2 80.6 0.0 50.1 47.6 46.0 44.8 42.9 40.5 4 SLY 4 28Jan 09 12:23:31 60.0 45.8 63.5 56.1 30.5 77.0 0.0 52.4 49.6 47.5 46.0 43.0 40.4 4 SLY 4 28Jan 09 12:24:31 60.0 44.2 61.9 57.7 30.2 78.1 0.0 50.1. 47.1 45.3 44.3 42.7 40.5 4 SL4 4 28Jan 09 12:25:31 60.0 45.3 63.1 60.3 39.5 75,6 67.7 50.9 46.1 46.5 45.1 43.4 41.0 4 SL4 4 28Jan 09 12:26:31 60.0 47.9 65.7 57.7 30.1 74.3 0.0 55.0 52.3 50.1. 48.1. 45,3 40.5 4 SL4 4 28Jan 09 12:27:31 6D.0 47.9 65.6 63.6 30.1 79.0 0.0 57.8 50.8 48.4 46.7 43.4 40.2 4 5LM 4 Man 09 12:28:31 60.0 48.8 66.6 57.1 40.8 67.8 0.0 55.7 53.1 $0.7 •19.6 46.6 42.7 •1 SLM 4 Man 09 12:29:31 60.0 48.1 65.9 59.5 3 9. 2 75.6 0.0 54.2 51.6 4 9. 8 48.7 46.8 41.8 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 12:30:31 60.0 50.2 68,0 59.8 42.5 72.2 65.2 56.7 53.9 51.9 50.6 48.3 •14.6 •4 SL14 4 Man 09 12:31:31 60.0 57.8 75.5 69.B 40.0 01.3 91.2 68.0 62.8 61.1 50,6 48.7 43.1 4 SLM 4 Man 09 12:32:31 60.0 45.5 63.2 54.4 40.D 67.1 87.7 51.1 48.6 47,2 46.1 44.0 41.6 4 SL4 4 Man 09 12:33:31 60.0 49.5 67.3 59.9 42.0 75.6 0.0 56.2 53.6 51.0 49.6 47.6 44.6 4 SIN 4 Man 09 12:34:31 60.0 56.5 74.3 78.4 41.1 94.7 97.2 63.2 56.2 52.0 49.3 45.6 42.4 4 SL4 4 28Jan 09 12:35:31 60.0 51.0 63.8 62.6 39.7 79.5 65.2 58.7 55.1 53.1 51.5 47.9 42.1 4 SLIT 4 28Jan DB 12:36:31 60.0 60.9 73.7 66.1 40.5 84.6 07.7 63.7 62.9 62.5 62.2 61.4 44.8 4 SLM 4 2BJan D9 12:37:31 60.0 62.1 60.5 69.4 59.8 81.3 65.2 66.0 64.6 63.7 63.1 62.3 60.9 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 12:38:31 60.0 62,3 80.0 67.2 60.2 80.1 85.2 65.9 64.5 63.4 62.7 61.6 60.3 4 SL4 4 Man 09 12:39:31 60.0 61.2 79.0 66.7 59.3 05.7 85.2 64.9 62.0 61.7 61.5 60.9 60.0 4 SL 4 Man 09 12: 4D: 31 60.0 61.2 78.9 69.3 50.9 06.5 67.7 66.5 61.9 61.5 61.1 60.6 59.5 4 51-4 4 26Jan 09 12:41:31 60.0 60.9 78.6 68.1 50.9 80.1 05.2 62.0 61.8 61.6 61.4 60.0 59.6 4 SLM 4 Man 09 12:42:31 60,0 61.1 78.5 62.3 59.9 77.6 85.2 62.0 61.9 61.7 61.5 61.1 60.2 4 SLM 4 Man 09 12:43;31 60.0 53.1 71.5 62.3 40.1 00.7 102.6 61.8 61.3 54.0 48.0 45.9 43.0 4 SL4 4 2BJan 09 12:44:31 60.0 44.9 62.7 53.7 39.0 65.1 0.0 51.2 48.0 46.4 45.4 4 3. 3 41.2 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 12:45:31 60.0 44.7 6Z.5 54.8 40.3 69.2 0.0 51.2 48.1 45.9 44.6 42.9 41.4 4 51N 4 28Jan 09 12:46:31 60.0 58.7 76.5 66.5 40.3 70.2 85.2 64.7 63.6 62.9 62.4 48.9 4 4. 1 4 SLM 4 29Jan 09 12:47:31 60.0 62.1 79.9 67.3 60.3 78.3 0.0 64.6 63.4 62.8 62.6 61.9 61.0 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 12:48:31 60.0 62.2 60.0 72.2 59.7 80,6 91.2 67.1 63.8 62.5 61.5 61.4 60.3 4 SUM 4 2BJan 09 12:49:31 60.0 61.3 79.1 70.1 42.3 05.1 89.6 65.9 63.7 62.5 61.9 61.1 40.1 4 S44 4 283an 09 12:50:31 60.0 $5.8 73.6 66,4 41.6 70.5 0.0 65.0 61.6 57.3 55.1 49.8 43.7 4 SLH 4 28Jan 09 12:51:31 60.0 54.1 71.0 70.1 39.1 85.5 65.2 62.9 59.0 55.8 52.3 40.2 42.1 4 SLM 4 20 Jan 09 12:52:31 60.0 54.0 71.8 75.6 41.4 BB.S 92.5 59.0 53.8 51,5 50.0 47.4 44.0 4 51N 4 2BJan 09 12:53:31 60.0 58.2 75.9 71.4 42.4 84.8 89.6 67.6 63.3 59,7 56.9 51.2 45.6 4 SLM 4 26JDn 09 12:54:31 60.0 58.1 75.8 78.2 42.1 103.8 102.5 66.6 61.9 58.9 56.6 51.5 44.0 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 12:55:31 60.0 58.8 76.6 16.6 41.9 98,3 97.2 68.5 62.2 58.1 55.5 51.7 45.1 4 9124 4 28Jan 09 12:56:31. 60.0 63.1 80.9 86.3 43.2 103.7 106.0 60.7 58.5 56.2 54.7 52.5 46.9 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 12:57:31 60.0 53.7 71.5 65.6 40.8 80.8 65.2 62.5 58.1 55.6 53.9 49.9 43.7 4 SL4 4 26Jan 09 12:58:31 60.0 59.1 76.9 78.3 42.1 94.7 96.4 67.3 63.0 59.4 57.6 54.0 46.4 4 SLM 4 263an 09 12:59:31 60.0 64.0 81.8 82.7 45.9 97.3 98.5 73.3 57.9 64.4 60.9 56.2 50.4 4 SLM 4 26Jan 09 13:00:31 60.0 66.5 84.3 61.3 44.6 97.0 97.5 77.2 70.7 68.2 64.7 58.0 49.2 4 5LM 4 2BJan 09 13:01:31 60.0 63.2 80.9 80.6 41.6 93.2 97.2 72.7 66.2 63.0 60.2 55.5 50.4 4 SLH 4 28Jan 09 13:02:31 60.0 68.4 86.2 81.4 43.2 94.1 97.2 77.3 73.9 70.9 68,2 60.8 52.4 4 SLM 4 2BJan 09 13:03:31 60.0 64.0 81.0 70.3 41.8 92.0 93.7 74.4 69.1 65.6 61.7 55.4 46.0 4 SLH 4 263an D9 13:04:31 60,0 62.7 80.5 76.6 39.9 90.8 91.2 72.6 67.4 63.5 61.4 56.7 46.5 4 Si.. 4 28Jan 09 13:05:31 60.0 65.0 82.7 77.3 42.9 92.8 93.7 75.3 70.4 66.0 62.5 56,5 41.1 4 SLH 4 2BJan 09 13:06:31 60.0 68.7 86.4 80.1 44.5 96.2 99.1 76.4 74.1 71.2 69.7 64.1 53.8 4 SM 4 2BJan 09 13:07:31 60.0 62.2 60.0 78.3 43.6 94.3 95.6 71.5 66.3 62.9 60.5 55.6 49.1 4 S1l 4 Man 09 13:08:31 60.0 66.3 84.1 80.0 44.6 96.3 96.4 75.1 72.3 60.6 64.9 59.7 40.5 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 13:09:31 60.0 67.6 85.4 78.6 47.7 94.2 94.7 75.6 73.4 70.1 65.1 63.0 50.4 4 SIN 4 Man 09 13:10:31 60.0 63.2 85,9 80.2 59.8 93.5 95.6 71.1 73.8 68.5 65.8 62.8 61.2 4 SEY. 4 2BJan 09 13:11:31 60.0 62.4 80.2 77.5 40.5 92.6 93.7 72.7 66.5 61.6 60.3 56.2 46.3 4 5L1 4 Man 09 13:22:31 60.0 67.6 85.4 79.5 43.3 93.7 94.7 76.6 73.4 70.2 66.5 61.1 49.5 4 51N 4 2BJan 09 13:13:31 60.0 67.3 85.1 79.0 42.7 93.1 93.7 76.7 13.2 70.3 66.0 58.4 48.5 4 5LY 4 28Jan 09 13:14:31 60.0 67.4 85.1 79.2 41.4 90.6 101.2 71.2 73.2 68.7 65.4 60.2 53.4 4 SLY 4 28Jan 09 13:15:31 60.0 67.3 85.1 78.2 55.3 93.1 92.5 76.3 73.3 6B.8 65.5 62.0 57.0 4 SS.H 4 2BJan 09 13:36:31 60.0 66.2 84.0 78.8 56,2 93.6 93.7 75.6 71.2 68.4 65.2 59.9 57.1 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 13:17:31 60.0 65.0 82.8 76.7 55.5 92.2 92.5 73.1 69.9 67.6 65.2 60.1 56.7 4 SLH 4 Man 09 13:18 :31 6D.0 67.7 85.4 79.5 $6.0 96.1 97.9 77.6 72.6 69.5 66.2 61.8 57.5 4 Sr 4 28Jan 09 13:39:31 60.0 67.9 85.7 78.7 55.2 100.3 101.2 76.4 73.7 70.1 67.4 61.5 57.8 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 13:20:31 60.0 65.0 82.8 83.1 48.7 95.2 99.1 74.7 66.2 63.5 62.0 59.7 56.5 4 SLM 4 Man 09 13:21:31 60.0 68.5 06.3 81.3 41.8 09.5 100.7 78.4 74.0 69.1 67.0 61.9 49.0 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 13:22:31 60.0 62.9 80.6 71.5 41.6 91.8 92.5 73.2 6B.0 63.3 59.5 54.3 46.1 4 SLM 4 Man 09 13:23:31 60.0 61.6 79.4 75.5 42.0 89.3 97.2 72.2 65..4 61,9 60.3 54.0 46.6 4 SLM 4 Man 09 13:24:31 60.0 58.7 76.4 77.1 42.9 91.3 94.7 68.4 61.0 58.3 56.3 52.0 46.6 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 13:25:31 60.0 68.2 86.0 82.5 42.0 90.7 104.2 78.9 74.0 68.1 64.4 56.4 47.9 4 SLM 4 28JOn 09 13:2601 60.0 69.7 07.5 84.5 41.6 102.5 105.1 80.3 75.9 70.6 62.3 54.0 46.0 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 13:27:31 60.0 62.5 80.2 78.3 42.1 104.1 104.5 72.9 66.8 63.1 58.1 53,0 45,9 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 13:28:31 60.0 65.0 82.8 02.2 42.0 95.0 99.1 74.3 66.9 62.5 59.2 52.1 45.1 4 SLH 4 28Jan 09 13:29:31 60.0 61.3 79.1 75.1 42.2 93.5 94.7 71.8 65.6 61.8 59.3 53.9 46.4 4 SLH 4 28Jan 09 13:30:31 60.0 69.5 87.3 91.0 41.1 111.2 111.1 77.9 70.9 65.4 62.1 55.9 47,2 4 541 4 28Jan 09 13:31:31 60.0 6B.4 66.2 05.6 42.2 102.8 101.6 79.2 72.4 60.1 65.1 59.3 46.5 4 SLH 4 28Jan 09 13:32:31 60.0 64.9 e2.7 80.6 43.8 95.5 95.6 74.2 70.0 66.2 62.2 57.8 47.9 4 SIN 4 2BJan 09 13:33:31 60.0 62.8 80.5 74.7 41.0 90.3 51.2 12.0 67.7 63.2 60.9 58.6 48.9 4 Si 4 28Jan 09 13:34:31 60.0 63.0 60.8 74.8 41.1 91.2 92.5 72.5 60.2 64.0 62.4 57.6 47,3 4 SLM 4 29Jan 09 13:35:31 60.0 62.2 80.0 78.1 40.7 93.8 94.2 72.9 66.5 61.7 59.0 53.2 46.1 4 SL4 4 28Jan 09 13:36:31 60.0 66.6 84,4 18.6 42.1 06.5 97.2 76.4 72,6 68.9 64.4 56.8 47.6 4 SJI 4 28Jan 09 13:37:31 60.0 64.5 62.6 77.8 40.7 92.7 96.4 73.9 70.4 66.4 62.5 58.3 46.5 4 SLM 4 26Jan 09 13:38:31 60.0 64.4 02.2 83.8 41.2 101.2 101.2 75.3 65.8 60.9 57.5 52.1 45.2 4 SL4 4 28Jan 09 13:39:31 60.0 67.9 85.6 82.2 42.0 99.3 99.1 17.7 72.4 69.1 66.6 61.5 49.0 4 SLM 4 2BJan 09 33:40:31 60.0 65.7 83.5 83.1 43.0 97.6 98.5 75.5 70.0 65.4 61.3 55.6 46.5 4 SLH 4 Man 09 33:4101 60.0 10.9 36.7 86.6 41.2 102.8 103.2 82.5 74.2 69.2 64.2 50.1 45.5 4 5111 4 28Jan 09 13:42:31 60.0 64.4 32.2 75,7 40.8 91.5 69.6 73.8 71.1 66.0 61.7 56.0 46.3 4 51st 4 26Jan 09 13:43:31 60.0 65.3 93.0 60.5 42.6 94.9 95.6 75.3 70.1 65.9 62.9 58.5 47.5 4 S1N 4 28Jan 09 13:44:31 60.0 64.6 32.3 79.2 40.7 94.5 96.4 73.9 70.5 66.3 61.7 56.8 47.1 4 SiN 4 28Jan 09 13:45:31 60.0 65.0 92.7 78.1 41.5 92.3 93.7 73.5 70.1 67.7 64.6 SB.1 48.7 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 13:46:33 60.0 66.2 84.0 19.1 40.2 95.3 97.5 76.5 72.1 67.0 62.1 55.9 47.5 4 SL4 4 2BJan 09 13:47:31 60.0 72.2 90.0 B4.2 43.7 101.7 102.3 92.5 70.5 73.2 69.1 60.5 49.0 4 SW 4 26Jan 09 13:40:31 60.0 64.6 82.4 98.3 44.1 97.5 95.6 73.7 70.6 66.4 6J.0 56.4 50.4 4 SLM 4 2BJan 09 13:49:31 60.0 66.4 66.1 83.5 43.0 99.2 103.9 77.9 73.1 70.4 66.6 60.4 50.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 13:50:31 60.0 64.9 82.6 75.2 43. 1 93.1 92.5 73.2 71.4 67.0 63.9 59.2 51.6 4 SLH 4 2BJan OR 13:51:31 60.0 66.4 84.2 82.7 44.6 101.8 101.6 76.8 70.6 64.6 61.2 54.5 47.0 4 SLH 4 28Jan 09 13:52:31 60.0 61.7 79.5 76.7 43.6 92.5 93.7 72.2 66.3 61.0 58.9 55.B 47.4 4 SW 4 28Jan 06 13:53:31 60.0 63.6 81.4 82.0 42.1 96.1 98.5 72.8 .68.6 64.6 61.0 55.7 45.8 9 SW G 28Jan Oa 13:54:31 60.0 62.6 60.4 75.6 42.0 94.2 964 72.1 60.3 63.4 60.4 55.4 46.4 4 SLH 4 28Jan 09 13:55:31 60.0 68.0 65.8 83.8 434 99.0 104.8 78.5 72.2 67.0 64.1 50.2 48.4 4 5W 4 Man 09 13:56:31 60.0 71.6 89.3 89.2 42.1 106.7 107.7 83.5 71.8 65.3 61.5 55.9 46.3 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 13:57:31 60.0 71.5 89.3 87.1 43.2 104.2 107.9 B0.4 76.8 73.3 69.3 62.7 49.8 4 SW 4 28Jan 89 13:58:31 60.0 62.B 80.6 76.1 41.1 90.6 97.9 74.0 67.1 62.7 59.5 54.6 46.3 4 SW 4 26Jan 09 13:59:31 60.0 64.6 62.3 76.6 41.5 91.3 99.1 73.8 70.5 66.2 63.5 50.9 46.9 4 SWI 4 2 9Jan 09 14:00:31 60.0 64.6 62.4 79.0 44.6 93.3 101.6 74.3 69.0 65.3 63.2 50.7 49.7 4 SW 4 Z ?Jan 09 ]4:01:31 60.0 61.4 79.2 77.3 43.5 91.8 95.6 71.5 66.3 61.3 58.3 53.8 46.9 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:02:31 60.0 58.4 76.2 75.8 43.1 92.3 93.7 66.0 61.7 53.7 56.5 52.3 46.4 4 SW 4 28Jan OR 14:03:31 60.0 59.1 76.9 73.5 2 91.0 91.2 669.9 63.8 50.2 55.5 50.2 44.4 4 SW 4 n 09 14:04:31 60.0 60.6 78.4 74.8 . 90.6 91.2 71.2 66.0 59.9 55.7 48.9 44.5 4 SL11 4 28Jan 09 14:05:31 60.0 59.3 77.1 75.8 46.7 90.2 91.2 69.5 61.4 58.4 56.6 52.9 49.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:06:31 60.0. 62.2 79.9 76.7 44.1 95.0 64.7 72.0 66.8 62.9 59.3 55.2 49.2 4 SW 4 2BJan 05 14:07:31 60.0 63.2 81.0 02.3 40.4 67.5 07.9 13.0 65.6 61.6 59.6 54.6 44.2 4 SW 4 26Jan 09 14100:31 60.0 59.2 77.0 74.6 40.5 9D.0 017 67.0 63.6 60.7 50.8 54.7 45.3 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 14:09:31 6D.0 65.2 83.0 82.3 40.7 96.2 96.4 75.5 70.7 64.4 58.9 52.6 44.3 4 SLR 4 28Jan 09 14:10:31 60.0 64.0 81.7 78.3 42.7 96.1 96.4 74.1 68.6 64.2 61.3 56.4 46.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:11:31 60.0 60.3 78.1 74.4 44.1 86.6 ?9.6 70.2 65.7 60.7 57.0 52.5 46.5 4 5W 4 Man 09 34:12:31 6D.0 66.3 84.1 75.5 41.4 89.0 92.6 75.2 73.3 68.7 64.3 57.9 46.5 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:13:31 GD.0 61.1 70.9 75.9 42.9 BB.B 07.7 71.5 65.7 60.5 58.2 52.3 46.4 4 SIN 4 28Jan 90 14:14:31 60.0 59.5 77.2 74.2 40.1 88.5 87.7 70.5 62.E 59.5 57.6 52.1 45.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:15:31 60.0 64.6 82.6 7B.3 42.0 94.0 95.2 75.4 69.6 65.8 62.6 54.8 46.5 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:16:31 60.0 65.6 83.4 77.3 41.9 92.5 95.6 75.2 72.2 67.3 62.7 58.3 47.0 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 14:17:31 60.0 60.2 77.9 74.6 40.3 69.5 91.2 70.4 64.7 61.4 58.5 51.8 44.5 4 SLH 4 28Jan 09 14:18:31 60.0 60.9 70.7 72.9 37.6 90.1 92.5 71.1 65.5 62.1 59.6 53.5 43.6 4 SLH 4 26Jan 09 14:19:31 60.0 67.2 85.0 86.6 40.8 101.7 101.6 77.2 68.3 62.3 59.3 54.1 49.0 4 5W 4 28Jan 09 14:20:31 60.0 64.1 81.8 76.6 42.3 44.6 64.7 74.a 66.5 63.4 61.0 58.0 47.9 4 SLM 4 28Jan 89 14:21:31 60.0 60.6 78.4 75.4 43.0 92.1 93.7 71.3 64.9 60.3 56.6 52.3 47.6 4 SLM 4 28Jan 06 14:22:31 60.0 61.3 79.1 74.9 39.2 86.0 ?7.7 71.9 64.9 61.6 59.6 53.0 43.4 4 SLH 4 2BJan 09 14:23:31 60.0 67.0 85.6 83.0 41.3 102.1 103.9 76.9 72.9 69.8 66.8 61.3 48.2 4 SW 4 283an 09 14:24:31 60.0 66.0 84.6 79.7 41.2 94.2 96.4 76.9 73.4 67_4 62.3 55.9 46.6 4 SLH 4 26Jan 09 14:25:31 60.0 63.1 80.9 74.7 42.4. 90.2 69.6 72.1 69.2 65.6 61.6 56.9 46.8 4 SLM 4 Man 89 54:26:31 60.0 64.2 82.0 77.3 40.4 92.0 92.5 73.9 70.1 66.5 61.1 54.1 44.0 A SLM 4 28Jan 09 14:27:31 60.0 64.4 82.2 78.9 40.6 94.2 93.7 74.4 10.3 65.1 61.7 53.8 44.5 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 14:28:31 60.0 64.1 81.9 79.9 40.8 97.0 99.7 72.5 69.7 66.2 62.3 55.2 46.6 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 14:26:31 60.0 67.1 84.9 80.7 43.7 95.8 96.4 77.5 11.7 68.5 65.7 57.9 49.0 4 SLM 4 283an 09 14:30:31 60.0 64.7 82.5 804 40.2 95.1 94.7 74.9 70.9 64..•1 593 53.3 44.2 4 SLM 4 ZBJan 09 14:31:.31 60.0 63.2 80.9 74.6 44.6 90.6 89.6 72.7 68.0 64.7 61.6 55.6 48.0 9 RIM 4 ZBJan 09 14:32:31 60.0 59.0 76.7 72.9 39.7 85.0 69.6 68.6 64.4 60.3 57.8 51.6 45.1 4 SLM 4 Man 09 14:33:31 60.0 63.7 81.5 78.2 39.2 95.1 98.5 72.5 69.1 66.3 63.6 56.4 43.9 4 .SLM 4 28Jan 09 14:34:31 60.0 65..7 83.4 79.6 38.6 96.5 96.4 74.2 71.4 68.5 65.3 57.7 43.7 ,I SL11 4 28Jan 09 14:35:31 60.0 62.9 80.7 78.6 42.1 94.7 94.7 73.0 69.2 62.7 59.3 53.3 46.1 4 SW4 4 28Jan 09 14:36:31 60.0 60.0 77.0 74.3 40.1 90.8 89.6 69.9 65.2 60.6 57.6 52.2 43.9 4 0134 4 28Jan 09 14:37:31 60.0 64..3 82.1. 77.1 40.3 91.8 91.2 72.9 70.3 67.6 63.5 55.3 46.9 •1 SW 4 26Jan 09 14:38:31 60.0 63.4 01.2 74.6 41.4 87.2 89.6 72.4 70.3 64..9 60.5 56.3 45.2 4 5414 4 28Jan 09 14:39:31 60.0 61.5 79.3 73.0 42.4 88.5 81.7 70.4 66.9 63.1 61.1 56.2 46.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:40:31 60.0 63.3 01.1 80.9 -13.6 95.5 96.4 71.1 66.0 64.2 61.8 55.6 48.7 4 SW4 4 28Jan 09 14:41:31 60.0 63.B 81.5 76.1. 47.4 89.1 91.2 73.0 68.9 66.4 63.0 56.1 49.6 4 SW 4 ZBJan 09 14:42:31 60.0 62.4 60.2 73.4 46.0 85.5 07.7 71.4 68.5 65.4 60.6 55.9 48.8 4 SL14 4 28Jan 09 14:43:31 660.0 60.3 78.1 7Z.4 47.1 68.8 55.2 69.8 67.0 61.5 57.6 52.1 48.8 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:44:31 60.0 67.3 85.1 79.4 46.6 96.7 97.2 76.7 73.3 69.5 67.1 55.9 48.9 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 34:45:31 60.0 61.1 78.9 75.2 47.2 89.2 91.2 71.5 66.6 59.6 57.2 51.9 43.1 4 SW 4 26Jan 09 14:46:31 60.0 60.3 78.1 73.6 46.6 90.8 91.2 70.0 65.8 61.5 57.1 53.0 50.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:47:31 60.0 63.1 80.9 80.6 47.1 92.7 97.9 74.0 67.1 50.9 55.9 51.1 48.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:48:31 60.0 59.5 77.3 72.7 47.2 87.7 89.6 69.9 64.5 59.7 56.9 51.0 48.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:49:31 60.0 59.2 77.0 75.4 47.1 90.1 94.7 69.9 63.5 58.8 54.B 50.6 48.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:50:31 60.0 60.6 78.4 74.1 47.4 B9.3 BRA 70.8 66.6 61.4 56.2 50.9 48.8 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 14:51:31 60.0 63.1 60.8 73.4 47.8 86.4 67.7 72.2 68.7 66.5 64.3 52.1 48.7 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:52:31 60.0 63.6 814 77.3 47.4 94.1 63.7 70.8 GB.3 66.5 65.1 57.6 48.6 4 SW 4 Man 09 14:53:31 60.0 63.5 81.2 78.3 47.6 96.0 97.9 72.3 68.9 65.4 62.4 55.6 49.2 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 14:54:31 60.0 60.5 78.3 77.6 47.4 95.0 93.7 71.2 65.2 59.5 56.0 50.9 46.4 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:55:31 60.0 61.4 79.2 75.2 46.6 89.0 90.4 72.2 66.1 61.7 57.6 51.6 47.9 4 SW 4 2BJan OR 14:566:3i 60.0 61.3 79.1 73.1 48.0 87.1 89.6 69.9 67.2 63.5 60.5 55.1 49.5 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 1:57:31 60.0 62.9 80.7 76.6 16.9 92.0 93.7 73.2 68.7 61.3 58.2 54.1 49.7 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 14:58:31 60.0 60.6 78.4 72.9 47.9 B8.6 69.6 70.8 66.0 61.5 57.3 52.0 49.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 1,59:31 60.0 61.6 79.4 74.6 47.6 91.6 92.5 71.9 67.3 62.3 59.0 52.2 49.1 4 SW 4 28Jan OR 15.00:31 60.0 64.3 82.1 75.6 43.3 92.3 63.7 73.2 70.1 67.4 64.3 57.1 47.8 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 15:01:31 60.0 69.2 87.0 83.7 40.3 98.3 104.5 79.5 73.7 70.5 67.6 60.2 45.4 4 5W 4 28Jan OR 15-D2: 31 60.0 56.6 74.6 73.1 45.1 92.1 91.2 67.7 59.4 56.1 53.8 49.7 44.3 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 15:03:31 60.0 63.6 81.4 75.1 41.6 91.3 94.7 73.2 68.6 66.2 634 56.8 46.D 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 15:04:31 60.0 63.7 81.5 75.1 40.3 94.2 94.7 72.5 69.1 67.1 63.? 56.7 43.9 4 SW 4 28Jan 06 15:05:31 60.0 65.4 83.2 77.3 40.4 96.2 95.6 75.7 71.6 66.8 61.7 53.4 43.8 4 541 4 2BJan 09 15:06:31 60.0 664.3 82.1 75.1 43.2 93.0 94.7 74.1 72.2 63.5 58.6 54.3 46.4 4 SW 4 2-Jan 09 15:07:31 60.0 63.0 SO.S 74.6 40.6 92.7 95.6 72.4 69.3 65.1 61.2 56.4 44.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 15:06:31 60.0 63.3 81.1 79.7 43.5 96.5 97.2 72.1 68.3 65.2 62.1 56.7 46.6 4 SW A 28Jan 09 15:09:31 60.0 66.0 83.8 84.2 39.7 101.7 301.2 72.6 64.9 60.0 57.1 53.1 45.4 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 15:10:31 60.0 62.8 00.6 78.G 41.2 93.1 94.7 73.4 60.7 62.6 55.9 48.2 43.2 4 SW 4 2BJan 59 15:11:31 60.0 62.4 90.2 74.3 42.2 39.1 92.5 71.5 69.3 64.9 59.6 53.0 46.0 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 15:12:31 60.0 61.1 78.9 73.8 39.4 90.1 91.2 72.2 66.6 56.1 56.3 51.7 43.2 4 SW 4 2 ?Jan 09 15:1351 60.0 55.7 73.5 71.6 41.5 87.0 85.2 65.9 59.3 55.5 52.3 48.9 45.4 4 5W 4 2Sja.n 09 15:14:31 60.0 60.2 78.0 75.6 43.6 93.0 93.7 70.7 65.1 60.5 56.3 51.0 46.7 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 15:15:31 60.0 66.9 84.5 83.6 44.1 100.5 104.2 77.4 70.1 66.9 61.7 54.4 47.0 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 15:16:31 60.0 50.3 76.1 71.9 42.4 88.3 87.7 68.7 63.5 58.9 55.2 49.5 45.1 4 SLH 4 26Jan 09 15:17:31 60.0 56.2 74.0 68.6 42.2 83.2 67.7 66.7 61.1 57.0 53.8 48.B 45.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 15:18:31 60.0 60.8 78.6 79.9 42.4 93.1 94.7 72.2 60.1 54.4 51.4 48.1 44.5 4 SLH 4 283an 09 15:19:31 60.0 593 77.1 73.2 42.9 95.0 93.7 68.3 63.8 61.2 58.8 54.5 46.5 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 15:20:31 60.0 61.0 79.6 S3.5 41.2 98.3 99.1 67.7 59.0 54.7 53.1 50.0 45.7 4 SLM 4 Man 09 15:21:31 60.0 59.4 77.2 78.6 42.1 91.0 99.7 68.7 60.3 $7.4 55.6 52.0 47.3 4 SLM 4 263an 09 15:22:31 60.0 52.5 70.2 65.8 41.7 64.4 85.2 59.8 56.3 54.2 52.6 49.6 45.5 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 15:23:31 60.0 50.4 68.2 65.8 41.2 84.8 91.2 58.7 52.8 51.0 49.6 47.7 44.8 4 SLM 4 283an 09 15:24:31 60.0 48.7 66.5 62.4 40.4 85.1 87.7 55.0 51.6 49.9 46.9 46.9 43.5 4 SLM 4 2BJan 09 15:25:31 60.0 49.8 67.6 68.4 40.8 88.7 89.6 55.8 52.0 50.3 49.1 47.4 44.1 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 15:26:31 43..0 57.2 73.5 71.9 40.5 97.8 97.2 66.5 63.1 58.4 54.9 50.2 44.9 C: \tAiIOA"SIII1TIL1 E.40! I.bin In[e[Va1 Oat. Site L ... eion Oace Time L., SOL Imax Lc Peat Uu k LI 21 L1 8) L116) L(251 L150) L(90) 1 Keterl 30Jan 09 0]:01:46 70.1 67.9 83.7 61.7 101.6 102.9 78.4 75.1 72.9 70.5 63.5 62.2 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 0]:02:48 63.6 81.4 73.8 61.5 89.0 94.4 69.4 64.9 63.7 63.2 62.7 62.1 1 Fleterl 3OJan 09 07:03 ;4B 65.9 83.7 91.5 61.7 96.5 98.8 72.4 69.0 66.8 65.3 63.3 62.2 1 Matarl 30Jan 09 07:04:40 65.3 63.1 77.7 62.4 91.9 94.4 72.0 67.4 65.9 64.9 63.9 63.0 l Keto11 3OJan 09 0]:05:40 64.9 82.6 7 9. 4 62.1 95.5 96.2 71.1 65.9 64.9 64.3 63.6 62.4 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 07:06:46 63.7 81.5 71.4 62.3 89.8 90.9 67.0 45.3 64.4 63.9 63.4 62.3 1 Mecerl 30Jan 09 07:07:48 62.9 80.7 72.8 55.1 89.9 90.9 68.5 64.8 63.8 63.4 62.6 56.6 1 F1eea[1 30Jan 09 07:08:40 62.2 80.0 75.8 54.4 93.0 94.4 70.6 65.3 63.7 62.6 58.0 55.2 1 Matarl 30Jan 09 07:09:48 62.6 80.5 69.8 60.0 88.3 93.4 66.9 64.2 63.2 62.6 62.3 61.3 1 Hecerl 30Jen 09 07:10:48 70.0 87.8 86.1 60.8 104.4 107.8 79.1 75,7 67.9 64.5 62.0 61.2 1 Meca[1 303an 09 07:11:40 69.1 06.9 8G.5 61.1 130.5 110.0 78.6 73.4 67.4 64.5 62.5 61.3 303an 09 07:32:46 69.5 67.3 84.1 61.2 105.5 105.7 90.5 73.3 67.0 64.2 62.7 61_6 1 Moce❑ 30Jan 09 07:13:48 69.6 87.3 83.1 61.6 105.8 106.7 78.3 74.2 70.6 68.5 65.1 62.5 l Hetonl 303an 09 07:14:48 71.1 68.9 67.6 63.3 105.9 107.2 81.0 7-1.9 69.8 60.5 65.2 64.1 1 Matarl 30Jan 09 07:15:40 71.4 .89.1 84.8 56.3 105.5 105.4 79.6 75.5 71.6 69.4 68.6 67.3 1 Moist 39Jan 09 07:36:48 73.7 51.5 94.7 56.3 108,6 109.0 B1.2 77.1 74.3 71.5 64.2 58.4 1 Necart 30Jan 09 0]:1]:48 67.8 05.6 84.6 56.8 105.4 307.2 78.3 72.5 67.0 63.5 59.9 57.5 1 Hoeo[1 3OJan 09 07:18:40 75.4 93.1 95.2 56.6 115.5 115.1 84.0 78.9 75.9 73.6 67.3 57.1 1 Hecerl 30Jan 09 07:19:40 71.9 89.7 84.7 56.6 106.6 109.0 01.1 78.0 74.5 70.4 61.0 57.5 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 07:20:48 68.5 86.3 81.4 56.7 95.9 96.9 78.9 74.4 66.9 63.9 61.0 57.4 1 N.cerl 30Jan 09 07:21:48 70.7 86.5 84.8 56.2 105.1 107.8 01.0 76.6 71.6 68.0 59.5 57.1 1 Hocerl 30Jan 09 07:22:46 74.8 92.6 06.2 57.1 105.0 105.7 82.5 00.3 78.1 75.7 68.7 50.1 1 Hocerl 30Jen 09 07:23:46 74.1 91.8 67.3 56.3 107.4 107.6 82.5 79.7 73.1 74.3 65.3 57.6 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 07:24:48 74.6 92.4 91.4 56.4 110.8 112.0 35.1 76.6 15.3 71.7 62.6 57.4 1 H.eOri 30Jen 09 07:25:40 75.6 93.4 69.8 56.4 110.0 112.1 06.1 00.3 76.5 73.8 66.3 59.0 1 Hecerl Man 09 07:26:46 74.8 92.6 89.7 56.4 113.1 113.0 83.6 79.8 77.4 74.5 64.9 57.8 1 Hecerl 30Jan 09 0]:2]:48 70.3 08.1 88.2 56.5 109.8 106.0 81.3 74.0 60.5 63.4 58.9 57.2 1 Meca rl 30Jan 09 07:28:48 70.5 68.2 98.2 56.4 107.4 107.6 79.8 75.1 71.7 67.3 59.0 57.2 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 07:29:48 78.9 96.6 101.4 56.8 121.4 MA 87.2 81.2 76.4 73.0 62.6 57.4 i Hecerl 30Jan 09 07:30:49 77.9 95.6 92.3 56.7 115.4 113.9 08.0 03.7 80.2 75,9 62.3 58.0 1 Mecerl 30Jan 09 07:31:49 82.0 99.7 95.3 56.7 119.8 316.1 91.0 67.7 84.4 82.0 73.9 $7.9 1 Hocerl 30Jan 09 07732:48 83.1 100.0 94.8 56.1 112,1 113.4 92.9 B9.2 85.2 81.1 72.4 58.5 1 Hatarl 3OJan 09 07:33:40 65.7 83.5 B3.7 56.6 92.1 93.4 77.4 66.4 63.4 61.4 50.9 57.2 1 14.100 30Jan 09 07:34:48 78.4 96.2 94.2 57.1 110.4 112.0 09.0 82.9 77.5 72.8 63:4 SB.I 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 07:35:48 68.9 86.6 87.9 56.6 102.1 102.2 77.9 73.5 69.2 65.6 60.7 57.5 1 H.CO11 Man 09 07:36:48 71.7 89.5 90.4 $6.4 110.3 111.0 01.1 76.4 71.5 68.4 63.0 50.4 1 Hotocl 3OJan 09 0]:3]:49 64.0 81.8 00.4 57.3 98.5 98.2 12.7 67.2 64.3 62.8 59.9 58.2 1 Mn. ne l 30Jan 09 07:30:40 70.3 89.1 83.4 57.4 104.9 105.7 78.3 75.0 72.8 70.7 66.1 59.9 1 Mate[l 30Jan 09 07:39:40 76.1 93.9 96.4 56.8 109.8 111.1 86.5 78.1 74.4 71.5 66.0 58.3 1 14ete0 39Jan 09 07:40:48 69.5 87.3 06.2 57.6 102.4 101.4 79.0 71.8 69.7 68.6 65.9 60.0 1 M.l.11 30Jan 09 07:41:46 72.4 90.2 81.7 64.3 102.9 103.6 19.4 76.5 74.8 73.2. 69.6 66.6 1 Flotocl 393an 09 07:42:48 73.9 91.7 91.8 64.4 111.1 111.3 83.3 77.0 74.1 72.0 66.6 65.3 1 Hete[1 3OJan 09 07:43:48 74.8 92.6 96.2 63.9 116.4 115.9 84.8 74.0 69.6 68.0 65.9 64.4 1 Fleterl 39Jan 09 07:44:46 77.9 95.7 95.4 65.3 115.1 115.1 89.2 81.0 75.0 70,3 68.0 66.6 1 M. erl 39Jan 09 07:45:40 74.5 92.2 91.3 64.1 107.3 109.5 04.0 77.9 71.7 68.9 67.6 66.1 1 MO. rL 30Jan 09 07146:48 76.1 93.9 93.2 63.8 109.1 110.3 98.4 77.4 69.8 67.9 66.1 64.5 1 Flete❑ 30Jan 09 07:41:48 71.8 89.6 88.6 G3.0 103.5 105.4 02.6 73.5 67.1 66.4 65.5 64.3 1 H.c.rl 30Jen 09 0]:48:48 80.7 98.5 94.1 63.9 110.3 110.3 91.3 86.9 81.0 76.1 66.5 64.5 1 HOtecl 30Jan 09 07:49:48 67.0 64.8 76.7 63.4 92.0 100.0 74.0 69.8 67.9 66.8 65.3 64.1 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 07:50:46 66.4 84.2 84.7 63.6 100.6 101.8 67.9 66.3 65.7 65.4 64.7 64.1 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 07:51:46 70.6 68.3 03.6 63.8 100.5 102.2 75.9 74.1 72.0 70.4 69.8 64.7 1 H.e.rl 3OJan 09 07:52:48 69.7 87.5 80.1 67.9 97.9 90,2 73.9 70.9 70.1 69.8 69.2 68.2 1 Heterl 39Jan 09 07:53:46 70.2 88.0 86.4 63.1 105.6 105.1 77.6 71.0 69.9 69.6 60.7 64.1 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 07:54:48 66.4 84.2 76.4 63.1 93.9 95.3 71.8 60.9 67.9 66.9 65.0 64.0 1 Hecerl 30Jan 09 07:55:40 66.2 84.0 70.6 63.3 83.9 93.4 68.9 60.2 67.7 67.2 65.7 64.1 1 Hateci Man 09 07:56:48 68.2 86.0 71.4 67.4 82.3 93.4 69.7 68.9 68.8 68.7 60.3 67.4 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 07:57:46 74.0 91.6 B1.9 67.7 95.0 102.6 61,3 79.5 76.2 74.3 70.3 68.2 1 Heterl 39Jan 09 07:58:48 67.9 85.7 76.9 58.9 37.3 93.4 72.5 71.3 69.8 68.4 67.4 62.6 1 H.te[i 30Jan 09 07:59:48 68.6 86.4 77.1 62.4 08.9 96.9 74.3 71.8 70.5 69.7 67.4 64.2 1 Hecerl 30Ja. 09 06:00:48 73.2 90.9 92.0 66.2 107.6 108.0 80.1 75.7 73.9 72.7 69.5 67.2 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 08:01:48 73.2 91.0 85.9 65.7 102.3 105.4 81.1 77.4 75.0 73.2 69.9 67.3 1 H.t.il Man 09 08:02:48 69.1 86.9 82..9 63.6 101.0 99.1 75.9 71.6 69.7 68.5 67.3 65.2 1 Meterl 3OJan 09 08:03:48 65.1 82.9 75.9 61.1 94.1 96.9 72.1 67.4 65.9 65.1 63.6 61.6 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 06:04:48 68.3 96.1 80.,3 61.1 96.3 98.2 75.9 72.5 70.9 69.9 64.8 61.6 1 M.C.[1 Man 09 00:05:48 69.6 87.4 77.7 61,7 91.4 96.9 76.6 74.7 73.2 70.9 65.1 62.5 1 M.cail 3OJan 09 08:06:48 70.8 88.6 81.7 60,7 91.3 98.2 79.2 76.0 73.4 70.8 65.7 61.8 1 M.Ca[1 3OJan 09 08:07:48 71.7 89.5 80.2 61.1 92.6 100.0 77.7 76.1 74.9 73.8 67.7 62.1 1 Meterl 30Ja. 09 06:08:48 69.2 66.9 76.4 61.9 90.3 98.8 73.7 72.1 71.1 70.4 68.5 64.1 1 Mecerl 30Jin 09 08:09:48 60.7 06.5 77.9 63.5 07.1 94.4 74.3 71.9 70.6 69.4 67.2 65.2 1 Mat.il 3OJan 09 06:10:48 66.4 84.2 73.4 61.9 06.6 96.9 70.7 69.4 66.5 67.6 65.6 62.8 1 Fle [a[1 3OJan 09 06:11:48 65.1 82.9 74.1 60.7 90.3 92.2 70.7 67.9 66.7 66.0 63.7 61.4 1 Mecerl 30Jan 09 08:12:48 65.5 83.3 60.9 63.2 85.0 93.4 67.7 66.9 66.5 66.0 65.3 64.2 1 Mecerl 30Jan 09 08:13:48 69.4 07.1 70.1 64.6 89.4 94.4 73.6 71.6 70.9 70.3 60.9 65.7 1 Hecerl 3OJan 09 06:14:46 70.6 08.4 78.1 61,3 91.5 102.6 75.9 75.3 74.3 71.8 67.7 63.4 1 Motcr3 39Jan 09 08:15:46 68.1 85.8 76.7 61,2 95.6 98.2 76.6 71.2 70.0 68.9 64.7 61.9 1 Heterl 39Jan 09 06:16:48 66.7 04.5 74.2 60.1 86.5 96.2 72.5 70.1 68.6 67.6 65.3 62.2 3 Meterl 30Jan 09 08:17:48 64.B 82.6 73.2 59.8 06.9 91.6 69.7 68.2 67.2 66.3 62.7 60.4 l ketc[! 30Jan 09 08:16:46 71.3 89.3 78.4 62.9 93.9 100.5 75.5 74.6 73.9 73.1 70.2 65.8 1 Fleterl 30Jan 09 08:19:48 66.4 84.2 75,6 62.9 89.3 98.8 70.7 69.8 68.2 66.5 65.2 63,9 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 08:20:43 65.2 82.9 74.7 62.8 91.8 93.4 71.3 66.1 65.4 64.9 64.4 63.3 1 Kecer] 30Jan 09 00:21:48 70.7 88.5 77.7 62.8 97.3 96.9 75.6 74.5 73.8 73.1 69.5 64.0 3 Heterl 30Jan 09 08:22:40 70.4 66.2 73.8 68.2 86.6 94.4 73.0 73.2 72.2 70.6 60,7 68.7 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 08:23:48 67.7 85.5 30,5 60.6 91.5 96.9 73.9 72.1 69.8 63.2 65.3 61.6 1 Heterl 30jan 09 06:24:40 67.2 05.0 75,1 63.4 88.6 96.9 71.1 69.7 60.4 67.7 66.5 64.7 1 t4eteil 30Jan 09 00:25:48 70.6 668.4 76.2 65.8 89.4 100.0 74.7 73.6 72.9 72.2 69.5 67.0 1 Meter! 30Ja. 09 06:26:46 73.1 90.9 78.4 68.7 92.0 102.6 76.1 74.9 74.2 73.8 73.0 70.6 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 08:27:46 73.3 91.3 88.7 67.3 108.1 108.4 78.9 75.8 74.0 73.1 73.6 69.0 1 Heterl 39Jan 09 08:28:48 72.0 84.8 79.1 67.2 91.9 100.5 75.8 74.4 73.6 72.9 71.4 69.0 1 Flotorl 3OJan 09 08:29:48 73.0 90.8 80.0 65.9 93.8 103,6 77.5 75.7 74.0 74.0 72.4 69.0 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 06:30:48 74.1 91.9 82.3 69.0 98.6 102.2 80.1 77.9 76.4 75.0 72.1 69.6 I Hetezl 30Jan 09 08:31:48 71.2 '98.9 78.9 67.1 91.3 97.2 75.3 13.2 72.5 71.8 70.6 69.6 1 Neterl 30Jan 09 09:32:48 74.0 91.8 86.1 65.9 100.8 105.7 82.4 19.0 75.3 73.2 69.6 67.1 1 Ha[cr] 30Jan 09 09:33:48 16.5 94.3 85.5 64.3 98.5 104.6 82.6 80.3 78.8 17.7 74.9 69.6 1 lle:ezl 30Jan 09 08:34:40 77.1 94.8 85.3 64.1 100.0 104.3 83.9 81.9 80.4 78.6 73.2 66.5 1 M.e[erl 30Jan 09 98:35:48 77.7 95.5 85.2 64.3 102.1 106.7 03.4 81.8 60.7 79.8 76.2 66.5 1 K.zerl 300an 09 83:36:48 78.2 56.0 85.6 66.4 102.3 107.2 84.0 82.6 81.2 80.1 76.3 68.2 1 Hetezl 30Jan 09 08:37:48 76.9 94.7 84.4 60.2 103.3 106.0 83.6 02.0 79.8 77.8 73.7 69.7 1 Ffetezl 303an 09 08:38:40 76.3 94.1 88.4 66.9 109.1 105.9 82.5 80.0 78.4 77.3 74.2 69.8 l Meter] 30Jan 09 08:39:48 72.4 90.1 81.8 63.9 102.1 103.6 78.9 16.6 74.5 72.7 70.2 66.6 1 Here❑ 30Jan 09 08:40:48 74.9 92.7 85.8 61.5 104.8 105.4 82.0 80.2 78.7 76.0 69.4 64.0 1 xacezl 38Jan 09 08:41:48 80.4 90.2 92.6 66.2 104.8 108.0 90.6 82.6 81.5 00.6 77.8 71.5 1 Ftpw cl 38Jan 09 08:42:48 72.3 90.1 80.9 66.0 94.4 103.6 77.0 75.6 74.3 73.1 71.0 68.7 1 Mp,.rl 30Jan 09 08:43:48 71.5 89.3 82.1 64.8 94.6 105.7 79.2 76.6 74.2 70.7 67.5 66.1 1 Netecl 30Jan 09 98:44:48 64.8 82.6 72.7 62.8 89.3 93.4 69.1 65.8 65.2 64.9 64.5 63.4 1 voce zl JOJaa 09 08:45:48 66.0 83.7 75.7 63.0 88.4 96.2 12.5 69.4 65.9 65.1 64.4 63.3 1 Metocl 30Jaa 09 08:46:48 67.2 85.0 72.4 63.6 85.0 97.6 70.9 69.7 69.0 68.4 66.5 64.2 1 14.c.n 38Jan 09 08:47:48 66.5 84.3 73.7 62.7 95.1 102.9 73.4 71.6 67.5 65.6 63.9 63.1 1 Metarl 30Jan 09 08:46:48 64.7 82.5 69.1 62.9 81.0 92..2 66.4 65.8 65.5 65.2 64.6 63.6 1 MO" 11 38Jan 09 00:49:48 65.6 83.9 81.3 62.7 93.3 94.4 68.0 65.4 64.9 64.7 64.2 63.2 1 MOt.Cl 38Jan 09 08:50:40 64.0 81.8 67.8 62.7 82.0 89.3 65.6 64.9 64.7 64.5 63.9 63.2 1 Meterl 30Ja. 09 06:51:48 64.0 81.8 70.2 62.7 85.3 89.3 66.3 64.9 64.7 64.4 63.8 63.1 1 Hecezt 30Jan 09 08:52:48 64.2 81.9 67.9 62.7 82.3 50.9 66.0 65.3 64.8 64.6 63.9 63.2 1 Hetezl 30Jan 09 08:53:48 64.7 82.4 12.2 62.9 68.0 89.3 66.5 65.9 65.0 64:8 64.2 63.2 1 Neee0 30Jan 09 08:54:49 65.9 03.6 76.4 62.9 92.9 93.4 69.9 60.7 67.8 66.5 64.5 63.3 1 xate[1 30Jan 09 08:55:48 64.4 82.2 69.6 63.1 34.0 90.9 68.5 65.3 64.8 64.6 64.1 63.2 1 Hetecl 30Jan 09 06:56:43 69.1 36.9 75.2 63.7 68.0 100.5 74.7 73.4 70.9 69.5 67.7 64.6 1 Necpzl 38Jan 09 08:57:48 68.5 66.3 72.6 65.3 85.3 100.0 70.3 69.9 69.6 69.1 68.3 66.6 1 !30 rod 30Jan 09 08:58:40 73.3 91.1 02.7 64.2 94.0 lOZ.9 81.8 79.3 76.5 70.8 68.2 66.2 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 08:59:43 76.3 54.1 63.1 66.8 93.4 104.9 02.0 00.6 79.0 78.0 74.5 68.0 1 Meterl 3UJan 09 09:00:48 74.0 91.9 80.7 64.1 93.4 101.4 79.1 71.8 76.9 75.9 72.6 66.1 1 Hecarl 30Jan 09 09:01:48 74.6 92.4 90.2 63.7 103.3 106.9 81.2 77.0 16.2 74.4 71.0 66.0 1 H0tar3 38Jan 09 09:02:48 70.6 86.4 78.2 63.7 94.3 98.8 75.6 73.0 12.1 71.8 69.7 65.8 1 Hececl 38Jan 09 09:03:40 70.9 BB.] 79.0 66.3 96.1 99.4 76.0 73.6 72.5 71.7 70.0 67.3 1 M.t.rl 38Jan 09 09:04:46 69.4 87.2 77.4 64.9 91.8 100.0 74.6 72.2 71.0 70.2 68.4 65.8 I Hececl 38Jan 09 09:05:48 69.7 87.5 77.6 64.8 93.5 100.5 75.9 73.6 71.6 70.3 67.8 65.1 1 19ete❑ 30Jan 09 09:06:49 69.7 87.5 77.7 64.0 90.0 97.6 75.5 73.1 71.8 70.6 67.9 65.6 1 Mace❑ 30Jan 09 09:07:48 71.6 89.5 79.6 65.1 94.4 99.4 76.9 75.4 74.1 72.9 70.6 66.7 1 Meterl 3Wan 09 09:08:40 76.3 94.1 84.6 65.2 94.1 103.3 82.7 79.7 77.7 76.8 75.3 60.8 1 M.t0[1 30Jan 09 09:09:46 81.1 96.9 89.7 74.1 104.6 107.2 89.3 86.5 82.9 81.4 77.6 74.8 1 R.CO0 JOJaa 09 09:10:48 79.7 96.5 84.2 74.2 96.1 102.9 82.9 81.4 00.6 79.9 781 75.1 1 Fle Cerl 30Jan 09 09:11:46 79.2 96.9 84.6 74.1 98.8 105.1 84.0 83.0 81.3 60.0 77.9 75.0 1 Mececl 30Jan 09 09:12:48 78.2 96.0 84.6 74.2 99.5 106.0 83.3 81.5 80.5 79.1 76.6 74.8 1 Npce rl 30Jan 09 09:13:48 73.0 90.8 81.7 64.3 100.6 100.5 79.1 77.5 16.5 74.2 70.5 65.5 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 99:14:48 71.7 89.5 80.6 65.2 96.1 100.9 78.7 76.7 74.2 71.7 58.5 66.3 1 Meterl JOJan 09 09:15:48 84.7 102.5 98.7 63.8 109.1 114.7 96.2 BB.4 82.6 79.0 74.B 66.4 1 NpCO[1 30Jan 09 09:16:48 74.4 92.2 85.7 64.8 104.0 103.9 82.0 79.9 77.1 74.1 69.5 66.1 1 Metpri 30Jan 09 09:17:48 71.3 B9.1 81.6 64.9 94.6 102.2 79.1 75.5 72.7 71.1 6B.5 66.4 1 Metocl 30Jan 09 09418:49 69.4 87.2 74.5 64.3 87.9 96.9 73.5 72.4 11.7 71.2 68.1 65.3 1 Metal 30Jan 09 09:19:48 65.3 83.1 71.3 63.6 85.1 90.9 68.1 66.5 65.9 65.6 64.9 64.1 1 Mecpcl 30Jan 09 09:20:48 72.4 90.2 02.3 64.5 104.1 102.9 77.4 75.7 74.7 73.7 71.1 67.1 1 McCer1 30Jan 09 09:21:46 71.9 89.7 81.0 63.2 93.4 100.5 79.1 76.3 74.9 72.5 69.9 64.4 1 M.c.zl 30Jan 09 09:22:48 66.8 84.6 60.6 62.5 95.5 102.9 74.0 67.9 67.0 66.6 65.6 63.5 1 Netecl 30Jan 09 09:23:48 69.7 87.5 17.5 64.8 90.4 98.2 76.5 74.7 72.4 69.8 66.6 65.3 1 H ... rl 38Jan 09 09:24:48 75.2 93.0 01.7 64.6 95.9 100.0 00.9 79.1 77.6 76.5 74.2 67.3 1 MOta[1 38Jan 09 09:25:48 72.7 90.5 B4.5 64.8 103.4 104.3 78.9 76.1 75.2 13.0 70.6 65.8 1 NaCezl 30Jan 09 09:26:48 70.0 67.0 01.2 64.3 97.3 100.9 76.6 13.3 11.7 70.5 68.1 65.1 1 Neterl 30Jan 09 09:27:48 72.1 09.9 00.7 66.2 99.2 104.6 77.0 75.0 73.7 12.7 71.3 67.9 1 Neterl 30Jan 09 09:20:48 71.9 09.6 B0.9 66.7 95.5 103.9 77.3 74.9 73.2 72.4 70.9 68.1 1 MOte[I 38Jan 09 09:29:49 72.1 69.9 85.2 66.0 102.5 106.9 76.5 14.1 73.2 72.4 71.0 67.8 1 Hp:9z1 30Jan 09 09:30:48 75.5 93.2 89.6 63.9 109.2 110.4 84.6 79.4 76.7 74.7 71.1 65.8 1 MeccII 38Jan 09 09:31:40 73.9 91.6 87.0 64.0 106.0 107.2 80.9 77.5 75.5 14.4 71.6 67.2 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 09:32:48 71.5 89.3 79.2 64.5 94.2 99.4 76.9 15.2 73.9 72.6 70.0 66.1 1 H.t.11 38Jan 09 09:33:48 76.9 94.6 84.4 61.2 103.3 103.3 03.0 81.3 79.7 78.5 75.1 63.8 1 Hp[pc1 38Jan 09 09:34:49 77.2 95.0 86.9 62.5 104.2 109.0 82.8 00.8 79.5 78.4 76.2 60.7 1 H.0t..l 38Jan 09 09:35:48 74.9 92.6 00.0 61.2 105.0 109.0 82.8 79.0 77.7 76.2 68.3 62.5 1 Metarl 30Jan 09 09:36:40 75.8 93.6 04.1 62.6 104.9 104.8 81.6 79.1 78.4 77.4 74.9 66.0 1 Meterl Mon 09 09:31:49 76.2 93.9 84.9 61.5 99.4 105.7 62.4 60.3 78.8 77.6 7$.1 63.4 1 Mptatl 30Jan 09 09:39:48 76.5 94.2 03.9 61.5 96.4 101.3 32.0 81.5 80.2 70.7 71.5 62.3 1 Hececl 38Jan 09 09:39:48 75.2 93.0 84.9 61.6 94.6 102.9 02.2 79.2 77.7 76.7 74.1 63.6 1 Fletezl 30Jan 09 09:40:48 75.7 93.5 83.9 62.0 92.8 101.4 62.2 60.6 78.5 77.0 73.6 63.7 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 09:43:40 64.4 82.2 70.5 61.3 95.3 94.9 60.6 67.1 66.1 65.2 63.3 62.1 1 M0tac1 30Jan 09 09:42:49 63.9 01.6 73.5 61.4 88.3 90.9 69.6 66.1 64.7 63.7 62.7 61.8 I zl.tacl 30Jan 09 09:43:48 69.7 87.5 79.6 61.9 88.0 96.9 75.7 73.5 72.1 71.5 67.1 62.4 1. t4eterl 38Jan 09 09:44:48 71.3 89.1 90.1 66.9 104.3 107.4 73.9 72.0 70.4 69.8 69.1 67.8 1 149 tecl 30Jan 09 09:45:49 67.6 85.4 71.0 66.3 85.0 92.2 69.6 66.7 68.2 67.9 67.5 66.8 1 t4eterl 30Jan 09 09:46:48 67.2 85.0 70.6 66.0 85.9 90.9 66.4 67.9 67.8 67.7 67.3 66.4 1 H.tocl 38Jan 09 09:41:48 10.0 07.7 77.5 66.4 90.6 98.8 76.2 72.3 71.0 70.4 66.8 61.3 1 Metarl 30Jan 09 09:49:48 61.6 85.4 72.6 66.3 85.6 92.2 70.9 69.1 66.0 67.8 67.4 66.3 1 Matecl 38Jan 09 09:49:48 68.3 86.1 74.5 66.2 88.6 96.9 72.0 71.1 69.4 68.3 67.5 66.4 1 IBe coca 30Jan 09 09:50:48 68.4 06.2 77.2 66.2 94.1 95.3 73.5 70.6 69.1 68.1 67.6 66.6 1 Hc[ect 30Jan 04 09:51:46 61.6 85.3 18.0 66.0 91.2 93.4 72.3 66.0 61.6 67.7 67.2 66.2 1 M0:0a1 38Jan 09 09:52:48 67.9 85.7 74.7 66.2 BB.5 92.9 72.4 70.0 68.1 67.8 67.4 66.4 1 Netecl 30Jan 09 09:53:48 67.8 65.6 74.4 65.9 86.5 93.4 72.0 69.4 66.2 67.8 67.4 66.3 1 Hetezl 38Jan 09 09:54:49 67.2 85.0 68.8 66.2 81.6 90.9 63.0 67.9 67.8 67.7 67.3 66.4 1 Xetazl 38Jan 09 09:55:49 67.1 04.9 69.1 66.3 B3.1 50.5 63.0 67.9 67.7 67.6 67.1 66.2 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 09:56:48 67.8 65.6 70.7 66.3 84.1 90.9 69.9 69.2 68.7 68.4 67.6 66.4 1 Netecl 30Jan 09 09:57:48 72.4 90.2 77.1 67.3 89.5 96.9 75.9 75.0 74.5 74.1 72.4 68.0 1 Hececl 30Jan 09 09:50:49 73.5 91.2 81.3 70.9 95.4 99.2 79.5 74.9 74.5 74.0 72.6 71.4 2 Haterl 30Jan 09 09:59:48 72.6 90.4 75.4 60.1 67.6 95.3 74.9 74.6 74.1 73.6 72.0 70.5 1 Hececl 30Jan 09 10:00:45 73.2 90.9 81.6 65.6 89.6 160.5 79.1 76.0 75.0 74.2 71.6 68.1 1 Hetezl 30Jan 09 10:01:49 72.8 90.6 02.2 64.2 91.0 101.4 79.0 76.5 75.4 74.5 10.9 65.9 1 Meterl JUJan 09 10:02:48 65.5 83.3 72.9 63.2 67.1 92.2 69.9 66.9 66.1 65.9 65.1 64.0 1 Hetezl 38Jan 09 10:03:49 72.6 90.4 7B.9 63.9 09.9 101.8 76.7 75.5 74.8 74.2 71.9 66.7 1 M.t.cl 30Jan 09 30:04:48 71.9 89.6 77.0 67.2 90.1 98.8 75.6 74.1 73.3 72.7 71.5 68.6 1 Hecarl 30Jan 09 10:05:48 70.6 98.3 76.6 64.8 91.2 99.8 75.6 74.0 72.7 71.7 69.2 65.6 1 fleceYl 30Jan 09 10:06:48 69.4 87.2 94.2 64.7 87.6 55.3 72.8 71.8 71.0 7D.4 69.1 66.0 3 lle ce[1 3DJan 09 10:07:48 70.6 88.4 75.2 65.2 93.8 9B.8 74.1 73.3 72.6 71.9 69.9 67.0 i Heterl 30Jan 09 10:08:48 70.0 87.8 75.5 64.2 93,6 95.3 74.5 72.9 72.0 13.3 69.3 64.9 t Neterl 3DJan 09 30:09:48 74.7 92.4 84.0 60.7 103.0 304,1 81.8 79.7 77.9 75.4 70.9 65.9 1 Hete[3 3DJan 09 10:10:4B 79.6 96.4 90.1 66.6 100.9 106.6 86.6 82.7 80.7 78.1 75.6 68.6 3 xeterl 3DJan 09 30:31:40 77.4 05.2 81.4 65.0 304.4 104.6 83.0 90.0 79.5 78.4 76.1 68.9 1 Hetarl 3DJan 09 10:32:48 76.8 94.6 87.1 63.4 106.9 107.4 82.2 79.6 78.6 77.9 75.9 67.7 1 Pleterl 30Jan 09 10:13:48 65.6 83.4 78.6 59.6 93.3 100.0 70.9 69.4 67.6 65.7 63.1 60.6 1 Metorl 3DJan 09 20:14:43 73.7 91.5 79.0 64.5 90.6 101.4 77.4 76.2 75.5 74.8 73.2 69.6 1 Motorl 3DJan 09 10:15:48 66.0 83.8 76.4 62.0 93.8 94.4 71.3 67.6 66.8 66.3 65.1 63.5 1 lle[acl 3DJan 09 10:16:48 69.5 86.3 76.9 62.5 99.1 98.8 75.7 74.0 70.4 67.7 65.0 63.2 1 xeterl 3DJan 09 10:37:48 74.6 92.4 87.3 12.0 106.6 107.4 81.3 76.2 74.2 73.8 73.4 72.3 1 Meter] 305an 09 10:18:48 74.1 91.9 B9.9 12.4 103.1 106.0 75.0 74.6 74.2 73.9 73.6 73.0 3 Heterl 3DJan 09 10:19:48 72.0 89.8 83.8 62.2 105.1 106.2 78.9 74.9 74.3 73.6 70.1 64.3 1 Metorl 3DJan 09 30:20:48 70.6 86.4 84.0 62.9 101.A 103.6 79.4 75.5 73.5 67.5 65.7 64.2 1 Fla tell 3DJan 09 10:21:48 75.7 93.5 03.9 62.9 302.6 103.9 80.8 79.A 70.4 77.5 75.1 66.8 1 Macecl 3DJan 09 10:22:48 77.1 94.0 08.3 64.4 99.3 302.9 81.9 00.5 79.5 78.5 75.5 67.6 1 Materl 30Jan 09 10:23:48 75.5 93.2 84.9 63.9 93.4 103,9 81.4 79.0 77.9 76.9 74.2 65.9 1 Meve[1 30Jan 09 10:24:48 70.7 88.5 78.0 63.0 81.5 96.2 75.6 73.9 72.9 71.9 70.0 64.6 1 Matocl 3DJan 09 10[25:48 70.7 88.4 17,8 63.8 93.8 98.2 75.6 74.3 73.1 71.5 69.5 66.3 t Materl 3DJan 09 10[26:40 67.8 85.5 76.1 61.8 97.9 98.8 72.6 73.2 70.4 69.4 66.3 62.9 3 Meeart 30Jan 09 10:27:46 67.2 85,0 74.8 61.6 09.5 95.3 73.7 71.0 70.2 67.9 64.0 62.8 ! Metecl 3DJan 09 10:28:48 63.4 81.2 67.3 61.6 79.8 89.3 65.0 64.4 63.9 63.0 63.4 62.4 1 Hocorl 30Jan 09 10:29:46 63.5 81.3 67.1 61.9 84.7 89.3 65.0 64.6 64.1 63.9 63,5 62.4 1 Motorl 30Jan 09 10:30:46 68.5 86.3 07.3 61.8 107.3 109.0 78.7 69.6 65.0 64.2 63.5 62.4 1 Heta[1 3DJan 09 10:33:48 63.3 80.9 66.0 61.3 00.9 90.9 64.8 64.0 63.8 63.6 63.1 62.1 3 No[orl 30Jan 09 10:32:48 68.9 86.7 76.5 62.0 87.8 104.3 75.2 72.7 71.4 70.0 67.0 63.3 1 H.[erl 30Jan 09 10:33:48 64.9 82.7 71.9 61.5 65.5 96.9 69.1 67.6 66.6 65.7 63.9 62.3 1 Heterl 3DJan 09 10:34:48 64.5 62.3 70.8 61.7 94.9 90.9 68.8 67.4 66.2 65.3 63.5 62.2 1 Hororl 3DJan 09 10:35:48 73.2 91.0 88.2 66.5 110.3 109.0 81.5 74.9 73.6 72.6 70.9 67.6 3 Hete❑ 3DJan 09 10:36:48 67.5 85.3 73.4 62.6 87.3 100.9 72.3 73.2 70.0 68.7 65.7 63.3 3 Hacecl 30Jan 09 10:37:48 65.5 83.3 71.6 62.4 61.9 94.4 70,5 69.2 67.2 65.6 63.9 63.1 S MecoII 30Jan 09 10:38:48 64.4 82.2 68.3 62.6 94.3 90.9 66.7 65.7 65.1 64.8 64.3 63.3 1 Notart 3DJan 09 10:39:48 71.8 89.6 72.9 63.3 05.8 93.4 72.9 72.9 72,7 72.5 72.0 71.1 1 !9e[o[1 30Jan 09 10:40:48 68.8 86.6 73.7 62.6 85.2 93.4 72.9 72.7 72.3 71.8 64.8 63.3 l Fle[ec] 3DJan 09 10:43:48 65.8 83.6 71.2 62.9 05.6 93.4 70.6 69.3 67.5 66.2 64.4 63.2 1 Flotorl 3DJan 09 10:42:48 64.9 82.6 69.1 62.9 00.4 94.9 68.6 67.7 65.5 64.8 64.2 63.2 1 14otorl 30Jon 09 10:43:46 68.2 86.0 73.4 62.6 85.2 93.4 73.0 72.4 69.1 68.6 67.6 63.3 1 IAatArl 30Jan 09 10:44:48 71,0 89.0 73.1 62.6 85.5 93.4 72.9 72.8 72.6 72.4 73.7 63.5 1 Mc[ecl 30Jan 09 10:45:48 66.6 84.4 74.4 61.6 06.6 96.9 73.6 70.7 60.9 66.1 64.0 62.7 1 Mec9[1 3DJan 09 10:46:48 65.7 93.5 69.6 61.6 83.5 96.8 68.9 68.2 67.5 66.8 65.1 63.2 I Motcrl 3DJan 09 10:47:48 64.9 32.6 67.6 61.6 79.2 90.9 66.9 66.2 65.8 65.5 64.3 63.3 1 Flecacl 30Jan 09 10:48:48 69.0 85.0 75.8 62.5 84.5 96.9 73.9 71.5 70.3 69.5 65.4 63.3 3 Nbtecl 30Jan 09 ]0:49:48 71.9 89.1 78.3 62.5 66.7 96.9 76.9 74.7 73.0 73.0 71.1 67.3 1 Meter] 39Jan 09 10:50:48 69.1 86.9 76.5 61.2 86,5 97.6 74.7 72.9 71.7 70.6 66.8 62.5 1 Metorl 3DJan 09 10:51:48 67.0 84.8 78.3 60.6 93.2 97.6 73.5 71.5 70.0 68.1 63.1 61.2 1 Me[acl 3DJan 09 10:52:48 62.2 79.9 75.1 60.7 91.2 97.6 G3.9 62.8 624 62.0 61.7 61.1 1 Flc[ecl 3DJan 09 10:53:48 63.3 80.9 73.5 60.0 87.0 93.4 69.3 64.0 62.9 62.7 62.1 61.2 1 McCO[1 3DJan 09 10:54:48 68.1 85.9 75.6 61.1 92.1 95.3 72.2 73.6 71.1 70.5 67.1 61.5 1 H.tecl 3DJan 09 10:55:48 72.0 89.6 83.6 61.2 104.2 105.1 75.0 74.4 73.9 73.7 73.0 62.2 1 Lletecl 3DJan 09 10:56 :48 63.7 33.5 69.2 60.6 85.9 92.2 67.9 66,7 64.9 63,8 62.6 61.4 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 10:57:48 65.5 83.3 79.0 61.1 103.5 102.9 70.7 69.2 67.1 65.8 63.0 61.3 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 10:58:48 63.9 81.6 78.4 61.1 98.4 97.6 69.8 64.4 63.3 62.6 62.1 61.2 1 Hececl 3DJan 09 10:59:48 61.4 79.1 69.0 59.0 86.5 69.3 64.8 62.9 624 61.9 61.1 59.4 1 Hetarl 30Jan 09 11:00:48 63.2 01.0 72.5 60.0 90.6 93.4 66.6 64.9 64.5 64.3 62.6 60.5 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 11:01:48 71.2 99.0 77,9 64.0 101.0 100.5 74.1 72.9 72.0 72.6 72.0 65.3 1 He[e[1 3DJan 09 11:02:48 68.2 86.6 73.1 64.8 86.4 101.4 72.7 71.3 7D.1 69.6 68.5 65.9 1 KOCac! 3DJan 09 31:03:48 69.6 87.3 83.1 63.6 92.1 102.2 78.7 74.4 69.1 66.6 65.5 64.2 1 Heterl 3DJan 09 11:04:40 74.8 92.6 81.1 65.5 92.7 100.0 79.0 79.4 77.0 75.6 73.4 72.0 L Hecec3 3DJan 09 11:05:40 77.6 95.4 85.1 63.5 99,0 102.9 84.0 80.6 79.4 78.6 76.8 70.1 1 Hate[3 3DJan 09 11:06:48 75.3 93.0 83.3 63.4 96.8 102.6 90.4 79.2 76.3 77.3 74.0 64.3 1 Hetarl 3DJan 09 33:07:48 68.7 86.5 78.0 61.3 94.3 98.8 75.0 73.6 71.3 GB.8 65.6 62.9 1 Hatetl 303an 09 31:08:48 70.9 68.7 79.6 63.5 91.5 98.2 77.7 74.2 72.7 71.8 69.7 64.9 1 H.e[etl 3DJan 09 11:09:48 67.6 85.4 75.0 61.6 90.9 94.4 72.6 71.4 70.4 69.5 65.0 62.4 1 Hetarl 30Jan 09 11:10:40 62.9 80.7 72.9 61.4 90.3 92.2 65.0 63.0 63.5 63.0 62.6 62.0 1 Metorl 30Jan 09 11:11:48 64.0 81.8 70.6 61.4 85.1 91.6 60.3 66.2 65.3 64.6 63.3 62.2 1. Macon 30Jan 09 11:32:49 63.3 81.1 71.5 63.3 91.5 94.4 68.1 64.9 53.8 63.2 62,6 61.7 1 Materl 303an 09 11:33:48 68.2 86.0 84.2 61.6 105.9 106.4 79.1 70,9 64.0 63.6 62.0 GZ.1 1 Maco[1 303an 09 11:34:40 66.9 84.7 05.9 61.4 107.1 100.4 76.4 64.5 63.7 63.2 62.6 61.8 1 146 tcrl Man 09 11:35:48 62.6 80.4 65.9 61.2 84.5 90.9 65.0 63.9 63.4 63.0 62,5 61.4 1 hla [e[1 30J.n 09 11:16:48 63.1 80.9 76.2 63.2 93.6 96.9 65.0 63.6 63.1 62.9 62.5 61.0 ] Mete[] 30Jan 09 11:17:40 66.3 84.0 74.2 61.7 88.3 96.2 13.3 70.5 68.4 65.9 63.5 62.3 1 M0ter1 3DJan 09 11:39:48 65.3 63.1 71.7 61.4 84.9 98.2 69.8 67.6 66.5 65.8 64.7 62.5 1 Materl 3DJan 09 11:19:48 62.2 79.9 66.0 61.2 78.9 87.4 63.9 62.9 62.8 62.6 52.0 61.2 1 Metorl Man 09 11:2D:40 62.0 79.8 64.2 60.9 76.1 91.4 63.1 62.9 62.7 62.4 61.0 61.2 1 M.t..1 3DJan 09 11:21:40 62.2 80.0 65.7 60.6 79.0 90.9 64.6 63.0 62.8 62.5 61.9 61.2 1 Me[erl 30Jan 09 11:22:48 62.8 60.6 77.5 61.0 94.5 95.3 64.6 63.2 62.9 62.7 62.2 61.3 1 hte 5651 Man 09 11:23:46 63.2 80.9 64.3 62.1 76.8 09.3 64.0 63.9 63.8 63.6 63.2 62.3 1 Mececl Man 09 11:24:48 63.3 91.0 66.7 62.2 79.8 99.3 64.7 63.9 63.6 63.7 63.3 62.3 1 Motorl 3DJan 09 11:25:48 63.0 80.8 66.3 61,9 81.4 09.3 64.5 63.9 63.7 63.5 62.9 62.2 3 Metorl 3DJan 09 11:26:48 63.0 80.7 65.5 61,7 90.5 89.3 64.6 63.9 63.7 63.4 62.8 62.1 1 Metetl 30Jan 09 11:27:46 64.0 81.6 68.7 60.7 83.7 92.2 67.5 66.5 65.5 64.6 63.4 61.6 1 Meter! 3DJan 09 11:20:48 67.6 85.4 74.2 60.9 85.0 93.4 72.3 71.2 69.8 68.8 66.3 62.4 1 Motorl 30Jan 09 11:29:46 67.6 65.4 74.4 61.7 84.3 96.5 72.0 7D.9 70.0 69.1 66.5 62.8 1 L :ocerl 3DJan 09 11:30:46 60.4 86.2 75.1 63.1 87.2 95.3 73.5 72.3 70.9 69.6 66.7 64.1 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 13:31:48 75.2 93.0 80.0 64.6 93.5 99.4 79.0 78.2 77.4 76.6 75.0 68.0 3 .: .l 30Jan 09 33:32:48 73.6 91.4 82.7 61.1 93.4 102.2 80.2 78.4 76.2 74.8 71.1 62.3 1 He[e[S 30Jan 09 11:33:48 64.9 82.7 72.6 60.5 85.0 101.4 71.7 69.9 66.4 64.3 662.4 61.1 S Heterl 30Jan 09 13:34:43 71.3 89.1 94.2 61.3 100.8 104.6 80.3 76.1 73.1 69.2 69.2 62.7 1 l:atec3 30Jan 09 11:35:48 68.4 86.1 75.2 67.0 95.1 97.6 70.6 69.6 69.0 66.B 65.1 67.2 3 Hate[1 30Jan 09 11:36:49 67.1 84.9 70.7 66.3 861 92.2 68.0 67.9 61.7 67.5 67.0 66.3 1 Ptetorl 30Jan 09 11:37:48 67.4 85.2 73.1 66.6 90.1 93.4 68.6 67.9 67.8 67.7 67.4 66.7 1 Meverl 300an 09 11:38:43 68.1 85.9 76.8 66.3 100.3 100.0 73.6 69.5 67.9 67.9 67.4 66.5 1 !]aced 3DJan 09 11:39:48 67.7 85.5 71.3 66.0 83.7 90.2 70.1 68.8 68.1 67.9 67.5 66.6 1 Heterl 3DJan 09 11:40:49 67.5 95.3 78.0 57.2 101,3 1D1.8 70.9 68.7 67.9 67.8 67.4 60.6 I Net.❑ 39Jan 09 11:41:46 59.3 17.0 66.0 58.0 78.4 69.3 60.9 60.0 59.8 59.6 59.1 58.2 1 Mecerl 30Jan 00 11:42:48 61.4 e5.2 72.5 56.0 94.1 96.2 72.1 11.7 71.4 70.9 60.1 58.3 1 Meted 30Jan 09 11:43:48 60.2 78.0 66.2 56.0 81.7 89.3 64.0 62.3 61.1 60.5 59.6 53.4 1 Mecerl 39Jan 09 11:44:48 63.5 81.3 71.4 58,0 63.2 93.4 70.7 69.5 65.4 61.5 59.7 53.4 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 11:45:48 61.5 79.3 11.2 58.9 90.7 92.2 65.9 63.9 63.0 61.8 60.6 59.3 1 N.eter! 39Jan 09 11:46:48 66.3 04.0 15.0 59.4 86.6 96.2 73.9 10.7 69.1 66.2 62.9 59.9 1 Hecerl 30Jan 09 11:47:40 64.3 '62.0 70.2 58.1 03.1 96.2 60.0 67.5 66.6 65.6 63.3 59.1 1 Hecerl 30Jan 04 11;48:48 59.1 76.9 65.2 57.4 80.1 67.4 61.1 60.0 59.7 59.3 59,7 50.1 1 Neterl 30Jan 09 11:49:48 60.4 78.2 67.0 58.0 03.2 89.3 63.5 62.1 61.5 60.9 59.9 50.5 1 Nets] 30Jan 09 11:50:48 63.5 81.3 72.7 59.4 86.2 90.9 70.6 66.4 64.6 63.4 62.0 60.3 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 11:51:48 64.9 82.6 73.7 58.7 95.0 100.0 70.9 69.6 67.8 66.4 51.7 59.5 1 Mec.rl 30J.n 09 11:52:40 62.2 00.0 67.0 58.2 01.7 89.3 66.0 64.7 63.8 63.2 61.6 59.4 1 Macerl 39Jan 09 11:53:40 63.6 81.3 72.7 61.4 95.8 100.0 69.3 65.7 64.0 63.4 62.7 61.8 1 Neeorl 39Jan 09 11:54:48 62.1 79.0 67.2 60.7 82J 89.3 64.0 62.9 62.7 62.5 61.9 61.1 1 Mecorl 30Jan 09 11:55:48 62.1 79.9 72.3 59.3 90.8 90.9 67.1 63.6 62.7 62.1 61.5 60.2 1. Mecerl 30J.n 09 11:56:48 64.4 82.1 69.8 59.3 63.6 93.4 69.4 68.1 66.4 64.0 63.3 60.4 1 Mecorl 30J.n 09 11:57:46 51.4 79.1 73.5 58.6 93.6 93.4 65.7 63.8 63.1 63.1 60.0 59.1 1 Meterl 39Jan 09 11:50:48 62.1 79.9 72.9 50.7 85.0 89.3 69.8 65.1 62.1 61.1 60.3 59.2 1 Mecorl 30Jan 09 11:59;48 61.7 79.5 70.6 59.0 05.6 89.3 66.4 63.9 62.9 62.2 60.8 59.4 1 M.c.r1 39Jan 09 12:00:48 61.6 79.4 69.4 59.3 90.7 92.2 65.9 64.1 62.5 61.7 60,8 59.3 1 Hecerl 39Jan 09 12:01:48 61.5 79.2 60.3 59.5 Be.5 93.4 64.3 63.1 62.3 61.9 61.2 60.2 1 M.t.rl 30Jan 09 12:02:48 64.4 82.2 69.1 60,3 85.3 90.9 61.0 66.0 65.6 65.3 44,5 61.7 1 Mecerl 3UJan 09 12:03:48 64.5 82.3 73.7 59.4 92.7 94.4 67.0 66.0 65.8 65.5 64.8 60.3 1 Need 39Jan 09 12:04:48 63.7 B1.5 81.3 59.3 103.0 103.3 73.0 63.3 61.4 60.9 60.5 59.4 1 H.C.rl 39Jan 09 12:05:48 61.5 79.3 72.0 $9.4 92.3 95.3 64.5 62.9 62.3 61.9 61.0 60.1 1 Neterl 39Jan 09 12:06:48 665.9 03,6 71.0 60.1 83.0 98.8 71.0 69.7 60.1 66.7 64.0 61.5 1 M.c.rl 39Jan 09 12:07;48 64.1 82.4 73.9 59.9 92.5 96.2 71.3 68.1 66.4 65.4 62.6 60.7 1 Hecerl 39Jan 09 12:00:48 64.9 82.7 04.0 59.9 102.2 101.4 72.6 64.0 62.7 62.0 61.4 60.3 1 Met.rt 39Jan 09 12:09:48 63.5 61.2 83.5 59.8 101.4 100.9 66.6 62.9 62.1 61.3 61.1 60.2 1 M.c.rl 39Jan 09 12:10:40 61.7 79.5 65.5 59.8 85.6 90.9 64.2 63.2 62.7 624 61.5 60.3 1 M.Cerl 39Jan 09 12:11:48 66.1 63.9 74.0 60.1 91.5 103.3 72.7 70.6 68.3 67.2 63.3 60.9 1 Mecerl 39Jan 09 12:12:48 64.0 81.9 74.3 59.5 93.1 96.2 70.1 67.9 65.1 63.6 62.1 60.5 1 Motod 30Jan 09 12:13:48 70.0 08.5 75.2 67.4 89.2 100.9 74.8 13.9 72,9 71.6 69.6 68.1 I Meter! 30Jan 09 12:14:46 67,8 05.5 70.3 66.9 83.2 93.4 69.1 63,6 60.0 67.9 67.6 67.1 1 M.Cerl 30Jan 09 12:15:48 67.5 85.3 68.9 66.1 83.7 92.2 68.0 68.3 67.9 67.0 61.5 66.9 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 12:16:48 68.9 86.6 05.8 66.0 102.6 102.9 71.1 60.9 68.6 68.3 67.7 67.1 1 Me. 1 30Jan 09 12:17:48 67.9 85.7 71.8 66.9 91.9 97.6 69.5 68.5 68.0 67.9 67.6 67.1 1 M.terl 30J.n 09 12:18:48 67.8 85.5 70.8 66.8 B6.6 93.4 68.9 68.7 68.3 68.0 67.6 67.1 1 N.ted 30J.n 09 12:19:48 69.3 97.0 06.0 67.5 101.7 102.6 70.0 60.9 69.8 68.7 6B.4 67.5 1 M.c.d 30Jan 09 12:20:48 68.7 86.5 76.5 67.3 90,7 97.6 70.0 69.6 69.1 68.9 68.6 68.0 I Noterl 30Jan 09 12:21:48 68.0 85.8 79.2 56.0 94.0 97.6 74.5 72.0 69.3 68.7 67.1 59.7 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 12:22:48 63.6 01.4 71.4 58.2 91.5 97.6 69.1 67.5 66.1 64.7 61.0 59.3 1 M.t.d 39Jan 09 12:23:48 59.7 77.5 69.7 57.4 06,7 09.3 64.1 60.9 60.0 59.7 59.0 50.1 1 M.c.d 30J.n 09 12:24:46 62.1 80.9 73.2 55.3 83.7 09.3 69.5 66.9 69.5 64.1 61.2 57.2 1 Mot.rl 30J.n 09 12:25:46 64.4 82.1 76.4 57.7 99..2 97.6 69.6 67.5 64.1 65.1 62.9 59.7 1 Mef.cl 30Jan 09 12:26:48 62.3 80.1 75.6 52.9 93.9 95.3 69.0 66.4 64.6 62.5 59.9 55.8 1 Motorl 30J.n 09 12:27:46 63.8 81.6 80.3 57.3 103.5 103.9 74.9 63.7 62.2 61.3 50,0 58.3 1 M.t.rl 39Jan 09 12:20:40 62.8 60.5 71.4 57.7 91.0 100.0 68.5 67.1 65.3 63.4 60.4 50.7 1 Mecerl 30Jan 09 12:29:40 60.5 78.3 73.3 56.9 90.6 92.2 64.5 62.5 61.5 60.8 59.6 58.2 1 N.terl 30Jan 09 12:30:46 61.1 78.9 71.9 57.0 91.3 92.2 65.9 62.9 61.9 61.4 60.4 59.0 1 Hetorl 39Jan 09 12:31:48 61.2 79.0 72.2 56.4 89.5 92.2 66.7 63.2 61.8 61.2 60.1 59.1 t H.t.rl 30Jan 09 12:32:48 60.6 78.4 66.8 57.9 62.6 89.3 64.0 62.6 61.7 61.1 60.2 59.0 1 Mororl 30Jan 09 12:33:48 60.6 78.4 70.7 51.9 86.9 90.9 63.2 61.9 61.5 61.1 60.3 58.6 I Hetorl 30Jan 09 12:34:46 61.3 79.1 76,2 50.2 88.9 92.2 65.5 63.3 61.5 60.6 59.8 50.6 I Meterl 30Jan 09 12:35:40 60.2 70.0 71.8 57.6 89.0 90.0 66.2 61.3 60.3 59.8 59.2 58.2 1 N.t.rl 30Jan 09 12:36:46 56.9 74.7 68.2 52.1 88.6 90.9 62.6 $9.6 58.5 57.3 55.2 53.2 I Hecerl 30Jan 09 12:31:48 59.0 75.0 68.0 52.4 84.1 87.4 64.3 61.2 59.1 58.0 56.6 54.6 1 Hec.rl 39Jan 09 12:38:48 59.5 77.3 73.1 53.3 90,1 90.9 64.5 62.3 61.1 60.2 58.4 54.9 1 Motorl 30Jan 09 12:39:46 59.4 77.2 11.0 52.4 90.4 92.2 67.0 63.8 59.9 58.9 56.6 54.2 1 Mec.rl 30Jan 09 12:40:48 62.3 80.1 70.3 55.8 91.3 92.2 68.0 66.7 64.3 63.2 60.0 58.2 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 12:41:46 61.3 79.0 75.9 57.8 99.9 99.4 67.0 62.9 61.3 60.6 59.6 58.4 1 M.cerl 30Jan 09 12:42:48 66.8 84.5 77.2 46.4 90.0 96.8 74.9 72.8 70.6 66.6 59.1 4.,5 16leterl 30Jan 09 12:43:48 52,8 70.6 67.1 44.8 90.8 90.9 60.2 57.2 54.2 51.9 49.2 46.6 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 12:44:48 51.8 69.6 65.6 44.1 68.5 89.3 $0.0 55,3 53.1 51.8 49.1 46.3 1 Hoterl 30Jan 09 12:45:48 51.3 69.1 62.2 45.1 76.4 B4.9 56.4 54.4 53.0 52.1 50.0 47.5 3 Meterl 30Jan 09 12:46:48 54.0 71.0 66.8 46.7 84.4 89.3 60.1 56.4 55.5 54.8 52.3 46.8 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 12:47:48 62.0 79.9 10.9 49.2 87.5 90.9 70.3 69.0 64.8 59.4 53.7 50.6 1 Moterl 30Jan 06 12:48:48 54.2 72.0 67.3 45.5 84.6 89.3 62.0 57.0 54.8 53.5 51.7 49.1 1 M.terl 30Jan 09 12:49:48 51.2 68.9 69.2 43.5 87.6 89.3 61.1 53.9 50.2 48.5 46.5 44.0 1 M.t.d 30Jan 09 12:50:48 74..7 92.5 99.4 43.4 116.5 117.0 75.7 55.7 51.4 49.6 47.5 45.4 1 M.t.rl 39Jan 09 12:51:48 51..4 69.1 65.3 44,9 83.5 84.9 59.8 54.1 51.9 50.7 48.9 46.2 1 Met.rl 30Jan 09 12:52:48 55.0 72.8 71.9 45.1 91.4 94.4 62.5 57.0 55.4 53.6 50.0 47.2 1 Mecerl 39Jan 09 12:53:4B 52.1 69.8 67.2 43.2 86.3 87.4 61.1 55.0 52.9 50.9 47.9 44.5 1 M.terl 39Jan 09 12:54:48 57.1 74.9 79.4 42.5 95.4 97.6 64.3 55.1 52.5 50.5 47.3 44.6 1 M.c.r1 39Jan 09 12:55:48 49.5 67.2 67.1 43.4 81.9 84.9 54.5 50.9 49.7 49.8 47.3 44.0 1 Meterl 305an 09 12:56:48 57.2 75.0 71.0 44.1 87.3 B9.3 65.6 61.0 59.0 56.8 50.8 45.6 1 Mece[1 39Jan 09 12:57:48 54.5 72.3 65.7 45.6 83.3 84.9 63.4 50,2 55,6 54.1 51.6 48.0 1 M.cerl 30Jan 09 12:50:49 62.7 80.5 86.2 42.4 101.3 102.6 65.4 55.8 53.2 51.9 49.0 44.8 1 Macerl 39Jan 09 12:59:40 51.4 69.1 65.6 42.8 87.5 87.4 59.2 54.7 52.6 51.2 48.6 44.5 1 Neeorl 30Jan 09 13:00:48 53.6 71.4 $6.7 42.6 90.1 89.3 63.6 56.9 54.5 52.5 49.4 45.5 1 Hecerl 39Jan 09 13:01:40 53.3 71.3 64.6 42.8 83.9 87.4 60,2 57.7 55.0 54.2 50.7 44.9 1 Meter! 30Jan 09 13:02:49 51.6 65.4 62.0 43.2 03.5 94.9 58.7 55.8 53.B 51.1 43.7 45.9 1 Meter! 39Jan 09 13:03:40 52.4 70.2 67.7 44.1 92.6 90.9 60.3 55.1 53.1 51.6 49.6 46.3 1 Mecerl 30Jan 09 13:04:46 58.0 16.6 76.1 45.8 96.5 97.6 69.3 63.3 55.0 53.2 50.0 47.4 1 Hetorl 39Jan 09 13:05:48 53.4 71.2 65.3 44.7 06.6 87.4 60.3 58.3 55.7 53.3 50.4 46.8 1 Neterl 30Jan 09 13:06:48 52.5 70.3 64.3 46.7 88.4 89.3 57.7 54.7 53.7 53.1 51.5 46.9 1 Meter! 39Jan 09 13:07:48 52.1 69.9 64.8 45.7 04.5 84.9 59.9 54.7 53.1 52.0 50.2 47.4 1 M.C.rl 30Jan 09 13:08:46 50.7 63.4 59.8 43.7 81.5 84.9 56.1 53.8 52.7 51.8 49.3 45.8 1 Het.rl 39Jan 09 13:09:48 50.4 66.2 61.8 42.6 73.3 84.9 59.2 53.9 51.5 50.2 47.9 44.5 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 13:10:48 54.0 71.7 68.1 42.B 86.8 87.4 62.9 58.4 54.9 52.5 49.5 45.6 1 Mec.r! 30Jan 09 13:11:46 50.9 63.6 60.3 41.3 74.4 0.0 57.2 53.7 52.6 51,7 49.9 44.6 1 Hats1 30jan 09 13:12:48 49.66 61.6 61.1 43.3 78.6 84.9 57.2 53.4 50.8 49.6 47.6 45.0 1 Mecerl 30Jan 09 13:13:48 51.4 69.7 71.3 41.6 93.5 94.4 59.6 53.6 51.6 50.2 43.1 44.2 1 Neterl 39Jan 09 13:14:40 53.9 71.6 71.0 40.4 90.4 90.9 66.0 55.4 49.9 46.2 45.6 42.0 1 Mecerl 39Jan 09 13:15:48 62.6 18.1 82.2 42.6 97.6 99.4 72.0 65.4 61.0 57.7 52.7 44.4 C: \LRftDhv \SLHUTl6 \hERBI 2.5;n Interval Data Site Location Date Time Leq SEL Lraax Lmin Peat War W 2) L( 8) LI161 L(25) 41501 L190) _______________________________________________________________________ 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 03:15:19 69.5 77.9 70.0 60.9 _______________________________ 81.3 91.0 70.0 69.9 69.8 69.7 69.5 69.1 2 M.eter2 30Jan 09 03:15:46 73.5 91.3 81.7 72.6 90.1 301.9 76.9 74.0 73.6 73.7 73.4 12.6 2 Marra 30Jan 09 07:16:47 69.2 07.0 80.7 61.0 97.4 97.0 33.6 35.1 72.4 66.9. 62.8 61.5 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:17:47 62.9 80.6 67.1 61.4 63.5 91.D 64.3 63.8 63.5 63.1 62.3 62.1 2 Y.etet2 30Jan 09 03:16:47 63.6 51.3 31.9 61.6 90.5 91.0 65.9 64.6 64.0 63.8 63.3 62.3 2 Hete:2 30Jan 09 07:19:47 66.0 83.8 34.3 61.8 89.8 98.3 72.3 69.8 68.2 66.5 63.7 62.2 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:20:47 64.1 01.9 75.3 61.5 97.1 97.0 69.7 66.0 64.8 63.4 63.0 62.1 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:21:47 63.0 BO.8 68.2 61.7 91.1 94.5 64.3 63.9 63.7 63.4 62.8 62.1 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:22:47 64.3 82.0 70.5 61.8 91.3 93.5 67.5 66.4 65.6 64.8 63.6 62.3 2 Hetea2 30Jan 09 07:23:47 64.3 02.1 71.6 52.0 86.4 06.3 70.3 66.9 64.5 63.9 63.3 62.3 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:24:47 63.3 81.1 69.8 61.3 See.7 92.3 66.6 64.8 63.9 63.5 62.8 62.1 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:25:47 65.2 83.0 74.2 62.0 89- 95.4 69.4 57.8 67.3 66.6 63.6 62.3 2 Metev2 30Jan 09 07:26:43 64.5 82.3 72.1 61.2 89.4 94.5 69.0 66.9 66.3 65.3 63.3 62.2 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:27:47 63.4 81.1 70.3 61.8 92.2 92.3 66.3 64.5 63.0 63.7 63.1 62.2 2 M.etei2 30Jan 09 07:28:47 63.1 60.8 65.2 61.8 80.0 89.4 64.0 63.9 63.7 63.5 63.0 62.2 2 Y.etet2 30Jan 09 07:29:47 63.5 81_2 72.7 61.8 97.0 91.0 65.6 64.0 63.8 63.7 63.2 62.2 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:30:47 63.4 81.1 67.7 62.0 79.4 09.4 65.9 64.6 63.9 63.7 63.2 62.2 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:31:47 64.6 82.4 32.3 62.0 86.4 91.0 68.3 61.1 65.9 65.1 63.3 62.3 2 Hetet2 38Jan 09 07:32:43 64.3 82.5 75.5 62.1 93.3 55.4 69.6 67.3 65.8 64.7 63.6 62.3 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 07:33:47 63.1 80.9 70.2 61.6 91.5 91.0 66.2 63.9 63.7 63.5 62.9 62.1 2 Metev2 30Jan 09 07:34:43 63.3 81.5 69.6 62.1 82.4 01.0 67.6 64.8 63.9 63.8 63.3 62.3 2 HDtet2 30Jan 09 07:35:47 63.2 81.0 69.6 61.88 04.5 91.0 65.3 64.0 63.7 63.5 62.9 62.2 2 Metev2 30Jan 09 07:36:47 63.1 80.8 67.6 61.8 00.0 91.33 64.0 63.9 63.6 63.4 62.8 62.2 2 Hetet2 38Jan 09 07:37:47 63.1 80.9 63.8 62.1 80.5 91.0 64.3 63.9 63.8 63.6 63.1 62.2 2 Hete12 30Jaa 09 07:30:47 64.6 82.4 76.3 61.8 100.2 100.1 70.8 66.8 64.7 63.9 63.2 62.2 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:39:47 67.5 85.3 83.8 62.2 107.2 106.3 76.6 69.0 66.4 65.1 63.8 62.6 2 Hetet2 385an 09 07:40:47 63.9 61.7 71.7 62.3 79.8 91.0 67.0 65.1 64.4 63.9 63.5 62.5 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 07:41:47 70.5 88.2 61.7 64.1 102.2 103.0 77.9 73.3 72.2 71_0 68.3 65.1 2 Hete12 30Jan 09 07:42:47 76.3 92.0 07.6 71.5 103.2 104.4 79.3 75.5 74.7 74.1 73.3 72.2 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:43:47 73.0 90.7 00.1 71.1 91.5 97.0 76.9 73.8 73.2 72..9 72.6 71.9 2 Metet2 3DJan 09 03:44:47 73.6 91.4 75.4 72.4 88.5 95.4 74.9 74.5 74.0 73.9 73.5 72.6 2 Hetet2 3DJan 09 07:45:47 73.4 91.2 74.7 72.4 99.8 94.5 74.7 74.0 73.9 73.7 73.4 72.5 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:46:47 72.5 90.2 74.0 71.2 86.0 94.5 73.8 73.2 72.9 72.8 72.4 71.4 2 11etet2 38Jan 09 07:47:47 72.4 90.2 74.0 70.9 87.9 94.5 73.6 73.0 72.9 72.7 72.4 71.4 2 Metet2 Man 09 07:48:47 72.4 90.1 73.7 71.1 86.4 94.5 73.7 73.0 72.8 72.7 72.3 71.4 2 Metev2 38Jan 09 07:49:47 72.2 90.0 73.3 71.2 91.4 96.3 73.5 72.9 72.0 12.6 72.2 71.3 2 M.. z2 38Jan 09 03:50:47 72.4 90.1 74.0 71.1 06.0 94.5 73.6 73.0 72.0 72.7 32.4 71.4 2 Metet2 Man 09 07:51:47 78.8 96.6 86.2 71.4 97.0 103.4 85.8 85.3 70.6 77.4 76.2 72.1 2 Metet2 38Jan 09 07;52:47 76.2 94.0 78.4 75.2 90.8 100.1 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.6 76.1 75.2 2 Metet2 30Jaa 09 07:53:47 76.0 93.8 78.4 69.5 91.0 99.8 78.4 77.8 77.5 77.1 76.2 71.1 2 Metet2 38Jan 09 07:54:47 72.7 90.4 88.2 69.7 99.0 100.1 75.9 72.5 71.9 71.7 71.1 70.2 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 07:55:47 71.3 89.0 74.7 69.1 86.4 97.7 73.9 73.5 72.8 71.5 70.6 69.7 2 Metet2 30Jan o9 07:56;47 74.3 92.0 75.9 73.6 88.2 99.5 75.6 75.0 74.0 74.7 74.3 73.6 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 07;57:47 75.8 93.6 82.3 73.2 94.1 101.5 81.2 79.4 77.2 75.0 74.4 73.3 2 Motev2 30Jan 09 07:58:47 72.2 90.0 74.9 66.7 89.0 97.7 74.6 73.9 73.8 73.6 73.1 68.2 2 McCet2 3DJan 09 07:59:47 69.7 87.5 73.1 67.2 87.7 97.0 72.8 72.0 71.4 70.7 69.1 67.3 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 08:00:47 70.2 88.0 72.5 60.5 84.9 95.4 71.8 71.0 70.8 70.6 70.1 69.2 2 Metet2 303an 09 08:01:47 70.1 87.9 72.7 68.9 63.0 97.0 71.8 71.0 70.8 70.6 70.1 69.2 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 OB:02:47 70.4 99.2 87.0 67.9 96.3 100.6 71.6 70.8 70.5 70.2 69.7 66.9 2 Metet2 303an 09 OB:03:47 68.6 86.3 71.5 67.6 82.7 94.5 70.5 69.5 69.0 60.9 6B.6 66.1 2 Hetet2 383an 09 09:04:47 68.9. 86.7 71.4 63.7 83.7 95..4 70.9 70.2 69.7 69.4 68.0 68.1 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 08:05:43 69.9 87.7 85.6 67.7 35.8 100.1 72.3 70.0 70.0 69.3 69.2 60.2 2 Metet2 3DJan 09 00:06:47 68.8 86.6 71.5 67.7 83.6 94.5 70.7 69.9 69.6 69.3 68.7 66.1 2 Mete12 30Jan 09 80307:47 70.4 60.2 87.1 i7.7 96.1 101.3 72.3 70.9 70.3 69.8 6B.9 66.2 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 09:00:47 69.9 87.7 73.4 67.5 89.6 96.3 71.9 71.4 70.9 70.6 69.9 68.9 2 Y.e CeG 38Jan D9 08:09:47 70.2 90.0 72.9 69.0 93.2 98.0 71:0 71.3 70.9 70.7 30.2 69.3 2 Hetet2 38Jan 09 88:10:47 70.0 87.7 85.4 67.7 95.4 100.6 72.1 73.0 70.4 69.9 69.0 66.2 2 HCCet2 30Jan 09 00:11:47 69.7 07.5 73.1 67.7 85.4 9E.3 72.6 11.5 70.8 70.2 69.5 68.3 2 Ma tet2 30Jan 09 08:12:43 69.9 87.7 71.7 69.7 98.6 97.0 71.3 70.9 70.7 10.4 69.9 69.1 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 08:13:47 73.3 91_0 77.4 60.4 39.3 101.0 77.0 76.7 76.4 76.0 70.7 69.3 2 Het=_t2 38Jan 09 00:14:47 77.8 95.6 65.7 68.4 97.6 103.9 65.E 84.4 82.3 76.8 30.1 69.0 2 Hetet2 38Jan 09 00:15:47 69.5 87.3 75.3 60.4 86.6 94.5 72.0 70.6 70.0 69.8 69.4 66.4 2 Hetet2 3DJan 09 08:16:47 73.0 90.7 60.0 66.1 93.7 100.1 78.9 77.6 35.5 33.7 30.2 68.5 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 09:17:43 71.2 85.9 80.4 66.9 69.3 95.4 74.3 12.7 71.9 11.7 70.9 69.4 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 09:10:47 72.1 09.9 79.0 69.0 90.4 93.3 78.4 75.9 73.6 71.7 30.4 69.3 Metet2 30Jan 09 00:19:47 74.7 92.5 83.5 30.5 98.2 103.4 79.3 76.2 36.0 74.9 73.8 71.8 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 08:20:43 73.6 91.4 80.9 32.2 92.9 97.7 74.9 74.5 74.0 73.9 73.5 72.6. 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 88:21:47 76.6 96.4 85.0 72.3 97.2 101.9 93.4 92.7 82.3 81.5 74.0 73.0 2 Mrtrr2 303an 09 00:22:47 76.9 96.7 82.4 77.5 94.9 100.1 81.9 90.0 79.3 79.9 79.6 70.1 2 Hetet2 3DJan 09 08:23:47 76.5 94.2 81.9 Me 9 4 100.1 01.9 31.5 91.1 78.4 72.4 71.2 2 Me[a:2 38Jan 09 06:24:47 13.7 91.5 76.6 71.3 e9.1 97.0 76.6 75.1 74.9 74.5 73.4 72.1 2 Metet2 38Jan 09 00:25:47 77.9 95.6 91.3 71.5 98., 104.0 85.0 8D.5 79.6 77.9 36.2 32.3 2 Hetet2 3DJan 09 09:26:47 73.2 69.0 78.5 69.6 94.6 95.3 75.0 72.3 71.6 71.5 30.9 30.1 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 09:27:47 77.4 95.1 100.1 30.1 115.1 119.2 77.9 74.$ 73.4 32.9 72.2 71.0 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 09:26:47 76.1 93.9 89.6 72.0 103.3 105.8 79.1 77.6 76.9 16.3 75.3 74.0 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 09:29:47 80.0 98.6 84.4 73.3 96.1 102.3 84.0 83.5 82.9 92.7 8Z.0 74.0 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 08:30:47 01.4 99,2 83.1 79.5 94.7 101.0 92.9 82.6 82.3 81.9 81.3 80.2 2 Hetet2 3DJan D9 08:31:47 63.0 98.7 85.6 80.0 96.6 100.6 B2.0 91.8 81.6 91.5 80.9 SD.2 2 Metat2 38Jan 89 06:32:47 80.8 98.5 B4.3 79.0 94.9 101.0 32.0 81.8 81.6 01.4 90.8 79.8 2 MDtat2 3DJan 09 06:33:47 76.4 96.2 81.4 11.7 92.8 100.1 80.7 80.0 79.8 79.7 19.3 72.4 2 Mrrrr2 30Jan 09 08:34:47 78.2 96.0 86.3 72.1 96.2 300.1 79.9 79.6 79.1 78.9 78.4 73.6 2 Hetet2 30jan 09 06:35:47 75.7 93.5 79.3 71.8 P1.2 98.3 70.9 78.6 78.1 77.1 73.7 72.4 2 Metot2 30Jan 09 08:36:47 13.5 91.3 76.0 72.1 92.7 98.9 75.8 75.2 74.0 73.8 73.3 72.3 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 08:37:47 74.6 92.4 76.6 73.5 99.1 97.7 75.9 75.5 75.0 74.9 74.6 74.2 2 Metet2 3DJan 09 08:38:47 75.0 92.7 78.8 71.9 90.7 100.1 79.7 78.0 77.4 14.9 73.9 72.8 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 88:39:47' 70.7 96.5 06.1 71.9 101.1 iO3.4 85.4 63.8 02.4 79.0 74.8 72.6 2 Matot2 30Jan 09 00:40:47 75.2 92.9 77.8 73.3 90.2 98.9 77.1 16.8 76.4 76.1 74.7 74.1 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 08;41:47 75.1 92.9 60.5 73.6 09.7 98.9 78.2 15.9 75.7 75.4 74.8 74.1 2 Motet2 30Jan 09 08:42:47 75.5 93.3 77.9 74.1 89.1 99.5 77.4 76.6 76.1 75.9 75.5 74.8 2 14etet2 38Jan 09 08:43:47 76.4 94.2 B0.3 74.4 92.1 101.0 78.6 77.8 17.5 77.1 15.9 75.2 2 Hate[? 30Jan 09 08:44:47 15.7 93.5 70,6 24.5 91.2 101.0 76.9 76.6 76.2 75.9 25.6 75.1 2 Hete[Z 30Jan 09 08:45:47 75.4 93.2 77.8 73.3 91.3 101.0 27.8 77.4 76.0 75.6 75.4 13.7 2 Hecec2 38Jan 09 08:46:47 77.5 95.3 08.3 72.0 101.9 105.5 86.9 81.9 77.0 75.5 73,B 72.4 Z Metac2 30Jan 09 08:47:47 73.0 90.8 76.3 22.0 82.7 100.6 74.5 73.9 73.6 73.3 72.8 72.1 2 M,etaQ 30Jan 09 08:48:47 71.5 91.2 76.3 22.1 88.2 97.0 74.2 74.0 73.9 73.6 73.4 12.6 2 Y.ecec2 39Jan 00 08:49:47 74.0 91.8 77.0 22.1 90.1 97.7 75.9 75.0 74.7 74.4 73.0 73.1 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 08:50:47 73.4 91.2 75.3 72.5 08.0 96.3 74.5 73.9 73.9 73.8 73.5 73.0 2 M6[a[2 30Jan 09 08:51:47 73.6 91.4 76.9 72.6 89.0 97.0 75.6 74.6 24.0 73.9 73.6 73d 2 Mate[2 30Jan 09 08:52:47 73.3 91.1 74.9 72.4 87.2 97.0 74.4 73.9 73.8 73.7 73.4 72.6 2 Hete12 30Jan 09 08:53:47 73.4 91.2 7$.6 72.5 89.1 07.0 74.8 74.0 73.9 73.8 73.5 13.0 2 14e[ec2 38Jan 09 08:54:47 73.7 91.5 76.4 72.6 89.0 97.0 75.4 74.0 74.4 74.0 73.6 73.1 2 IMct .2 38Jan 09 09:55:47 73.3 91.1 75.0 72.5 87.1 96.3 74.3 73.9 73.8 73.7 73.4 72.9 2 Moto12 303an 09 03:56:47 73.4 91.2 75.0 22.7 87.6 93.3 74.8 74.1 73,9 73.0 73.5 73.0 2 Mota[2 30Jan 09 08:57:47 74.1 91.9 76.6 72.3 88.6 98.9 76.3 75.5 7.1.9 74.5 73.8 73.1 2 Metec2 38Jan 09 08:59:47 73.6 91.4 83.6 71.7 93.1 98.3 75.5 74.6 74.0 73.8 73.3 72.3 2 M49 2 38Jan 09 06:59:47 73.1 90.9 01.3 71.7 90,0 99.5 74.8 73.9 13.7 73.4 72.8 72.1 2 Meto[2 38Jan 09 09:00:47 '82,9 100.7 92.4 72.1 105.8 109.9 89.3 88.5 96.3 84,1 76.9 72.4 2 Mate[2 38Jan 09 09:01:47 00.8 90.6 06.8 78.7 101.1 104.0 64.0 82.0 01.6 81.1 80.5 79.4 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 09:02:47 79.9 97.7 32.3 70.4 97.7 104.0 61.6 80.9 80.7 80.5 79.8 79.1 2 Metec2 38Jan 09 09:03:47 80.4 90.2 83.3 78.7 93.6 104.4 82.6 81.6 91.0 80.8 80.3 79.3 2 Motoc2 30Jan 09 09:04:47 BO.0 97.B 93.3 77.8 99.2 103.7 61.5 80.9 80,8 80.6 80.1 78.6 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 09:05:47 80.5 98.2 87.0 20.8 101,8 105.2 81.3 80.9 80.0 00,7 60.5 80.0 2 Merot2 30Jan 09 09:06:42 79.0 96.9 B1.0 77.9 98.3 104.9 80.0 29.8 79.7 79.5 79.0 78.2 2 Hatec2 30Jan 09 09:02:47 00.0 97.7 01.3 70.5 93.9 102.7 81.0 80.0 60.6 BOA 79.9 79.1 2 Me[et2 38Jan 09 09:00:47 00.6 90.4 05.7 78.9 101.7 104.4 82.9 82.4 81.7 01.0 80.2 79.2 2 Metec2 38Jan 09 09:09:47 01_4 99.2 92.0 79.7 106.4 108.7 85.3 82.1 81.7 61.4 80.0 60.1 2 Mote[2 38Jan 09 09:10:47 82.8 100.6 06.6 76.0 99.7 105.8 66.0 85.4 84.6 03.7 82.1 80.5 2 Hatec2 30Jan 09 09:11:47 01.9 99.7 86.0 77.4 99.4 103.4 86.6 85.2 84.2 83.0 81.3 7B.2 2 Hotac2 38Jan 09 09:12:47 79.6 97.4 07.7 77.4 102.0 105.2 82.4 el.7 81.3 00.2 78.0 70.1 2 Hete[2 30Jan 09 09:13:47 17.9 95.1 96.1 23.6 101.4 102.7 82.0 81.6 81.0 19.2 75.4 74.2 2 Hetec2 38Jan 09 09:14:47 78.9 96.7 63.3 74.1 93.4 102.3 82.3 81_6 81.0 80.6 78.5 74.5 2 Meta[Z 30Jan 09 09:15:42 76.7 94.5 86.6 73.3 94.8 101.0 01.4 80.5 29.7 76.9 74.7 73.8 2 Ha[ac2 30Jan 09 09:16:47 74.6 92.4 76.6 73.6 88.7 100.1 75.6 75.3 74.9 74,6 74,5 74.1 2 Metec2 38Jan 09 09:17:47 77.6 95.3 88.2 74.1 101.2 104.0 86.2 78.0 26.0 76.0 75.4 74.3 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 09:18:47 77.8 95.6 00.3 22.9 101.2 104.0 67.6 80.5 25.8 74.9 74.2 73.2 2 Meta[2 30Jan 09 09:19:47 74.0 91_9 78.0 23.2 99.0 100.8 75.0 74.8 24.6 74.4 73.3 23.2 2 Motac2 38Jan 09 09:20:42 74.0 91.0 78.9 72.2 91.4 98.9 75.0 24.9 74.7 74.5 74.0 73.1 2 Idete[2 30Jan 09 09:21:47 73.5 91_3 04.1 71.6 93.9 100.6 75.0 74.0 73.0 73.6 73.0 72.2 2 Hece12 JOJan 09 09:22:47 73.8 91.6 01.8 72.2 91.5 98.3 75.7 24.7 74.3 74.0 73.5 72.6 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 09:23:47 73.8 91..6 75.0 72.7 07.6 97.0 74.9 74.7 74.4 74.0 73.7 73.1 2 Metac2 30Jan 09 09:24:47 73.9 51.7 75.5 72.8 88.3 97.7 75.0 74.0 74.6 74.4 73,8 73.1 2 Mecc[2 30Jan 09 09:25:47 73.9 91.7 75.5 72.3 91.4 97.0 75.0 74.8 74.6 74.3 73.8 73.1 2 Motet2 JOJan 09 09:26:47 72.7 90.5 79.3 71.5 93.3 97.0 74.0 73.6 73.0 72.9 72.5 72.0 2 Mete[2 30Jan 09 09:27:47 74.8 92.5 78.8 71.5 90.9 99.5 78.8 78.0 77.2 74.7 73.7 72.4 2 Mete12 30JZn O9 09:28:47 74.5 92.2 76.6 73.1 89.6 98.9 25.9 75.5 75.0 74.8 74.4 73.3 2 MOtec'2 39Jan 09 09:29:47 80.1 97.9 66.6 72.7 100.1 102.3 86.5 8.1.6 83.3 91_8 75.8 73.4 2 Metac2 38Jan 09 09:30:47 81.0 96.8 96.5 22.6 99.1 104.9 65.8 04.4 83.7 83.2 79.4 73.5 2 Matec2 38Jan 09 09:31:47 7.1.0 91.7 75.2 72.0 88.5 97.0 75.0 74.8 7.1.7 74.4 73.9 73.1 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 09:32:47 74.0 91.8 01.9 72.4 93..8 97.0 75.0 74.0 74.6 74.4 73.8 13.1 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 09:33:47 73.7 91.5 76.9 72.1 91.6 97.0 75.4 74.9 74.6 74.4 73.5 72.3 2 Motoc2 30Jon 09 09:34:47 73.2 91_0 74.4 724 87.3 96.3 74.0 73.9 71.7 23.6 73.2 22.4 2 Metac2 30Jan 09 09:35:47 73.2 91.0 77.1 72.1 83.9 97.0 75.3 73.9 73.7 73.5 73.0 72.2 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 09:36:47 14.3 92.0 76.9 22.2 88.9 56.3 76.0 75.0 25.5 25.2 73.6 72.6 2 Hetec2 30Jan 09 09:32:42 76.6 94.5 05.9 72.1 97.4 103.4 85.3 81.4 76.2 74.9 74.2 72.8 2 Metoc2 38Jan 09 09:38:47 72.5 90.3 78.7 70.8 93.5 96.3 74.7 73.7 73.2 22.5 22.4 71.3 2 Hatec2 38Jan 09 09:39:47 72.9 90.6 784 71.1 92.3 96.3 74,5 73.0 73.6 73.2 72.7 72.1 2 14ete[2 38Jan 09 89:40:47 71.9 89.6 74.5 70.0 87.0 96.3 23.7 22.9 72.7 72.5 71.8 70.8 2 M9[OC2 30Jan 09 09:41:47 75.B 93.5 99.2 20.4 122.0 128.9 74.9 73.0 72.8 72.7 72.2 71.1 2 Hete[Z 30Jan 09 09:42:47 11.8 89.6 78.7 70.1 92.4 94.5 23.1 72.0 72.6 72.4 71.8 70.6 2 Y,ocac2 30Jan 09 09:43:47 71.6 09.4 73.5 70.1 07.3 95.4 73.5 12.6 72.5 72.1 71,6 70.6 2 Matac2 38Jan 09 09:44:47 74.7 92.4 82,6 71.1 91.3 90.3 79.8 77.0 76.4 75.7 73.4 73.0 2 Hatec2 JOJan 09 09:45:47 75.2 93.0 90.3 72.3 104.9 107.7 78.0 75.0 75.5 75.1 14.4 73.0 2 Motoc2 30Jan 09 09:46:47 73.3 91.3 76.9 72.0 09.7 97.0 75.1 74.4 73.9 73.8 73.3 72.3 2 Ho[oc2 38Jan 09 09:47:47 74.2 92.0 79.0 72.1 89.8 98.9 76.9 16.4 75.7 74.0 73.7 72.5 2 Metac2 38Jan 09 09:40:47 73.2 91.0 74.9 21.8 87.3 96.3 74.6 73.9 73.8 73.7 73.3 72.3 2 Metac2 JOJan 09 09:49:47 74.0 91.8 76.3 73.0 90.9 98.3 25.1 14.9 74.1 74.5 74.0 73.2 2 Mete[2 JOJan 09 09:50:47 74.4 92.2 79.6 73.1 92.9 97.7 75.9 75.4 74.9 74.8 74.4 73.4 2 Motoc2 38Jan 09 09:51:47 73.6 91.4 75.6 72.1 90.3 98.3 75.2 74.6 74.5 74.1 73.5 72.4 2 Mate[2 30Jan 09 09:52:47 73.5 91.2 76.9 23.1 81.4 97.7 74.9 74.5 74.0 73.8 23.4 72.5 2 Me[e[2 30Jan 09 09:53:47 73.0 90.8 74.3 72.2 87.2 97.0 74.0 73.9 73.7 73.5 73.0 72.2 2 Mete C2 30Jan 09 09:54:47 73.6 91.3 75.3 72.2 60.1 98.3 74.9 74.5 74.0 73.9 23.5 72.6 2 Metoc2 30Jan 09 09:55:47 24.2 91.9 77.7 73.3 92.2 97.7 75.6 74.9 74.0 74.6 74.1 73.3 2 Metec2 3Wan 09 09:56:47 73.4 91.1 80.0 71.9 93.2 97.7 75.0 14.6 74.1 73.8 73,2 72.2 2 MOt9c2 38Jan 09 09:57:47 76.6 94.4 00,5 72.2 92.4 102.3 60.2 79.7 79.4 78.9 73.9 72.5 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 09:58:47 77.4 95.1 84.8 75.0 94.1 101.5 79.9 19.6 79.1 78.0 76.7 75.4 2 Mete[2 30Jan 09 09:59:47 76.5 94.2 79.5 72.B 91.4 101.5 79.5 78.9 18.5 78.0 75.6 73.5 2 Mete[2 38Jan 09 10:00:47 24.6 92.3 76.2 72.9 89.5 100.1 76.0 75.8 75.5 75.2 7.4.5 73.3 2 Mete[2 38Jan 09 10:01:47 26.3 94.0 81.6 71.4 94.1 90.9 79.9 19.1 78.7 78.3 74.5 72.8 2 Motoc2 38Jan 09 10:02:47 73.7 91.5 75.4 7Z.2 88.2 96.3 75.0 7.4.7 74.4 74.0 23.6 73.0 2 Mete[2 30Jan 09 10:03:47 74,2 92.0 02.2 71.6 97.8 99.5 76,0 75.3 74.9 74.7 74.2 72.5 2 Metec2 38Jan 09 10:04:47 7$.5 43.3 78.6 71.2 93.2 100.1 18.3 77.5 76.8 76.5 75.4 72.6 2 Metec2 38Jan 09 10:05:47 91.0 98.8 90.4 70.2 106.0 106.3 67.9 86.5 04.0 82.3 75.9 71.1 2 Matoc2 30Jan 09 10:06:47 72.7 90.4 75.4 71.3 87.5 97.0 75.4 74.0 73.4 72.9 22.5 71.4 2 Mete[2 30Jan 09 10:07:47 72.6 90.4 77.1 70.8 90.2 99.5 76.4 73.9 73.2 72.9 72.3 71.3 2 Hete[2 30Jan 09 10:08:47 72.2 90.0 74.2 70.9 87.2 96.3 73.7 73.0 72.8 72.6 72.2 71.2 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 10:09:47 72.5 90.3 75,2 71.3 88.6 97.0 73.9 73.3 72.9 72,8 72.5 71.6 2 Metoc2 30Jan 09 10:10:47 73.4 91.2 86,1 71.7 103.0 102.3 77.7 74,1 73.6 73.2 72.7 72.1 2 Matec2 30Jan 09 10:11:47 76.9 94.7 89.2 71.3 105.5 107.0 84.7 79.7 71.0 77.3 24.1 71.5 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 10:12:47 93.6 101.4 95.1 70.4 108.5 120.5 94.4 09.5 81.9 76.2 72.8 71.0 2 Metac2 38Jan 09 10:13:47 73.5 91.2 60.0 65.6 92.6 98.3 79.4 77.6 75.8 73.1 71.8 67.4 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 10:14:47 72.6 90.4 74.1 71.6 87.1 97,0 73.9 13.3 72.9 72.0 72.5 72.1 2 Mete[2 38Jan 09 10:15:47 75.5 93.3 84.0 73.0 97.9 101.0 29.4 76.5 75.5 75.7 75.1 74.1 2 Hatec2 30Jan 09 10:16:47 74.0 91.8 75.3 72.6 83.2 97.7 7$.0 74.9 74.7 74.5 74.0 73.0 2 Hatec2 38Jan 09 10:17:47 82.1 99.9 95.0 73.6 98.5 102,3 B3.4 62.9 02.7 82.5 82.0 01.2 2 Matec2 38Jan 09 10:10:47 92.6 110.4 97.5 00.8 110.6 11.4 97.4 96.6 96.0 95.2 91.4 81.4 2 Heter2 3DJan 09 10:19:47 84.0 101.0 93.1 68.6 305.6 107.9 92.2 91.4 65.5 82.4 71.4 69.7 2 xecer2 3DJan 09 .10:20:47 20.6 68.3 73.4 69.4 86.4 98.9 21.9 71.5 71.0 70.8 70.5 69.8 2 Hecer2 30Jan 09 10:21:47 21.3 09.1 76.1 69.4 82.5 100.1 24.7 73.0 72.0 71.6 70.8 70.0 2 Hetec2 3DJan O9 10:22:47 70.7 68.5 75.3 69.2 86.5 96.3 72.5 71.0 21.4 21.0 70.6 69.6 2 Hetec2 3DJan 09 10:23:47 70.9 68.6 23.0 69.6 06.1 97.0 72.5 21.8 71.5 71.1 70.7 70.1 2 Meter2 305an 09 10:24:47 71.1 08.9 81.1 6B.0 56.8 100.1 72.6 21.5 70.9 70.7 70.1 68.6 2 llaw[2 30Jan 09 10:25:47 75.6 93.4 82.7 69.7 93.9 101.0 82.0 01.4 76.7 74.9 71.7 70.5 2 llecec2 30Jan 09 10:26:47 71.1 88.0 72.5 70.2 85.2 95.4 72.0 21.9 71.7 71.5 71.1 70.2 2 M2cer2 3DJan 09 10:22:42 21.0 88.8 72.6 70.2 84.0 95.4 22.0 21.9 71.7 71.6. 73.1 70.2 2 Mece[? 3DJan 09 10:28:47 71.0 00.2 21_7 70.1 85.2 95.4 71.7 21.2 71.7 71.5 71.0 70.2 2 Hetec2 30Jan 09 10:29:47 71.0 88.8 72.1 20.1 84.2 94.5 72.0 71.9 71.7 71.5 71.1 70.2 2 1.1ac9t2 3DJan 09 10:30:42 71.1 88.8 22.5 20.1 B4.4 96.3 72.0 21.9 21.7 21.6 71.1 70.2 2 Meter2 3DJan 09 10:31:47 20.9 88.7 71.9 69.9 84.9 97.0 71.9 71.0 71.6 71.4 70.9 70.2 2 Metac2 30Jan 09 10:32:47 71J 69.5 75.6 69.9 88.3 92.0 75.3 73.1 72.4 71.9 71.5 70.4 2 Mac9c2 30Jan 09 10:33:47 72.2 90.0 76.9 70.6 90.0 98.9 74.8 74.0 73.2 22.7 71.8 71.1 2 Mece12 30Jan 09 10:34:47 21.3 89.1 72.9 70.3 86.8 97.0 22.4 71.9 21.8 71.7 71.4 70.8 2 Mocar2 3DJan 09 10:35:47 71.8 89.6 73.9 70.8 07.4 97.2 73.1 72.8 22.5 72.2 71.7 71.1 2 Mecar2 3DJan 09 10:36:47 76.7 94.5 80.8 71.4 106.5 108.0 02.4 79.5 78.3 77.2 75.5 73.1 2 Meter2 3DJan 09 10:37:47 15.7 93.5 83.6 72.3 94.6 101.0 62.2 8O.D 77.6 25.0 73.8 72.5 2 Hetec2 3DJan 09 10:38:47 75.0 92.8 85.1 72.1 98.1 101.0 81.8 78.7 75.1 74.2 73.4 72.3 2 Hetec2 3DJan 09 10:39:47 83.7 101.5 85.5 72.4 97.6 104.0 85.5 85.0 84.9 84.7 84.4 73.6 2 llocor2 30Jan 09 10:40:47 81.9 99.7 85.4 22.4 92.3 104.4 65.4 85.0 64.8 84.5 80.3 22.7 2 H9c6r2 30Jan 09 30:41:47 23.4 91.2 79.6 72.3 94.4 98.3 75.1 74.6 24.0 23.8 73.4 22.4 2 Hetor2 3DJan 09 10:42:42 73.6 91.6 85.5 72.3 99.9 101.9 70.0 74.6 73.9 73.7 73.1 72.2 2 Hetec2 30Jan 09 10:43:47 75.3 93.1 85.4 71.9 92.3 102.8 84.4 25.3 74.9 74.7 74.1 72.4 2 Meter2 30Jan 09 10:44:47 83.9 101.7 85.3 21.9 97.3 104.4 85.1 84.9 84.8 84.7 94.4 25.5 2 Hecec$ 30Jan 09 10:45:47 22.0 89.8 80.0 70.0 94.4 97.7 28.9 72.9 22.3 71.9 71.1 20.2 2 Howr2 3DJan 09 10:46:42 72.? 89.9 74.3 70.0 86.6 100.1 73.9 23.4 22.9 72.7 72.2 70.7 2 Heter2 3DJan 09 10:47:47 72.1 09.9 73.7 70.5 06.5 98.9 23.7 73.2 72.8 72.6 72.0 71.2 2 Hvter2 3DJan 09 10:48:47 71.7 89.5 73.7 20.8 95.3 92.2 22.9 72.6 72.2 71.9 71.6 71.1 2 llete12 3DJan 09 10:49:47 71.6 69.4 84.5 69.2 93.6 98.9 73.0 72.4 71.5 71.7 71.0 70.2 2 Heter2 30Jan 09 30:50:47 71.6 89.4 73.2 69.2 88.3 100.6 73.7 73.2 72.e 72.4 71.4 70.2 2 lloter2 3DJan 09 10:51:42 70.8 88.6 71.6 70.0 86.2 95.4 71.8 21.2 71.3 71.0 70.6 701 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 10:52:47 71.0 88.8 71.8 70.2 85.3 94.5 71.B 71.8 71.6 71.5 70.9 70.2 2 Hecer? 3DJan 09 10:53:47 70.8 88.6 22.2 69.8 04.2 96.3 71.9 71.8 71.6 71.3 20.0 70.1 2 Hecer? 3DJan 09 30:54:42 20.2 88.5 73.3 69.7 04.9 96.3 71.9 71.7 21.3 71.0 20.6 70.1 2 Hecec2 3DJan 09 10:55:42 71.2 99.0 72.5 69.8 84.3 96.3 72.0 21.9 71.8 71.7 71.4 70.5 2 Motoc2 30Jan 09 10:56:42 71.5 89.3 73.3 70.4 84.5 96.3 73.0 22.5 22.0 71.9 71.5 70.9 2 Hetor2 30Jan 09 10:57:47 71.3 89.0 73.7 694 86.5 96.3 73.6 72.6 72.4 71.9 71.1 69.7 2 14etvc2 30Jan 09 10:58:47 70.4 88.2 73..2 69.4 91.5 94.5 71.8 71.0 70.9 70.8 70.5 69.8 2 Heter2 30Jan 09 10:5D:47 70.2 08.0 71.8 68.9 84.4 95.4 71.7 71.0 70.8 70.6 20.0 69.2 2 Haw [2 30Jan 09 11:00:47 21.1 89.9 94.2 68.7 94.9 98.3 74.8 23.2 20.9 10.6 G9.9 69.1 2 Hetor2 30Jan 09 11:01:47 82.9 100.6 85.2 72.9 98.1 103.7 85.0 84.9 84.8 84.6 04.2 73.3 2 Mecor2 30Jan 09 11:02:47 75.6 93.4 79.8 72.3 92.2 100.6 79.6 28.8 28.3 17.4 73.8 12.7 2 Matoc2 30Jan 09 11:03:47 71.9 89.G 75.6 70.2 8.1.5 98.9 75.2 73.2 72.5 71.9 71.9 70.6 2 Mecor2 30Jon 09 11:04:47 75.6 93.4 79.9 70.2 91.3 99..5 78.7 77.9 77.7 97.5 74.0 71.3 2 Metot2 3DJan 09 11:05:42 26.5 94.3 78.4 22.2 90.9 100.1 78.0 77.9 72.0 17.6 77.2 73.1 2 llecec2 3DJan 09 11:06:47 78.2 96.5 86.4 69.9 98.1 102.3 85.7 84.7 82.5 79.1 73.1 21.1 2 Matoc2 30Jan 09 11:07:42 25.2 93.5 80.3 71.3 92.2 9B.3 7B.9 78.6 70.2 77.5 74.0 73.0 2 Hecec2 30Jan 09 11:08:47 73.9 91.7 76.5 72.8 89.1 98.3 76.9 75.3 74.5 73.9 73.6 73.1 2 Metac2 3DJan 09 11:09:47 74.1 93.9 76.5 72.2 88.6 97.0 76.5 75.4 74.7 74.1 73.7 73.1 2 llatec2 3DJan 09 11:10:47 74.2 91.9 76.5 72.3 88.3 97.0 76.5 75.4 74.B 74.4 73.8 73.1 2 Hecer2 3DJan 09 11:11:47 23.9 91.2 76.5 22.7 92.1 97.0 76.0 75.3 74.4 73.9 23.6 73.1 2 Heter2 3DJan 09 11:12:47 24.1 91.9 76.5 73.1 89.3 92.0 26.2 75.3 74.8 74.4 73.8 73.1 2 14eter2 30Jan 09 11:13:47 74.4 92.1 76.7 73.3 88.3 92.0 264 75.8 74.9 74.7 74.2 73.3 2 Hecet2 30Jan 09 11:14:41 73.8 91.6 77.0 71.5 89.2 97.0 76.7 15.8 74.8 74.6 73.8 72.0 2 Heco[I 30Jan 09 11:15:42 72.4 90.2 24.1 21.1 91.3 94.5 73.8 73.3 22.9 22.8 22.4 71.4 2 Hetec2 3DJan 09 11:16:47 75.6 93.4 9L2 10.8 104.8 105.8 28.8 72.1 76.7 76.3 72.4 71.2 2 Hecec2 3DJan 09 11:17:47 76.1 93.9 77.2 74.7 09.8 99.5 27.0 76.9 76.7 76.6 76.2 75.2 2 Hecer2 3DJan 09 11:18:47 75.6 93.4 79.8 70.1 93.4 101.5 78.9 77.7 76.9 76.6 75.7 70.9 2 Hvtoc2 3DJan 09 11:19:47 70.6 88.4 21.9 69.7 84.9 95.4 71.8 71.4 21_0 70.9 20.6 20.1 2 Heter2 3DJan 09 11:20:47 70.2 87.9 71.2 69.1 03.2 93.5 71.0 70.9 70.7 70.6 70.1 69.2 2 M.otor2 3DJan 09 11:21:42 69.9 B7.7 71.1 69.0 03.0 93.5 70.9 70.7 70.5 20.2 69.2 69.1 2 Hetor2 3DJan 09 11:22:47 70.1 82.8 21.2 69.1 B3.3 94.5 71.0 70.8 70.7 20.5 70.1 69.2 2 Hvter2 3DJan 09 11:23:47 72.4 90.2 73.6 70.0 86.1 56.3 73.5 72.9 72.9 72.7 72.4 71.6 2 Me[er2 30Jan 09 11:24:47 22.4 90.2 73.4 21.6 85.9 96.3 73.0 72.9 72.8 22.7 72.5 72.0 2 Hecec2 3DJan 09 11:25:47 72.4 90.1 74.0 71.2 69.6 97.0 73.3 72.9 72.8 72.7 72.4 71.5 2 Mocvr2 30Jan 09 11:26:47 22.3 90.1 23.4 21.5 86.5 96.3 73.0 72.9 72.8 22.7 22.4 71.5 2 Metac2 3DJan 09 11:27:47 72.3 90.0 00.5 69.7 94.8 98.9 24.0 23.2 22.9 72.7 72.1 70.9 2 Mecor2 30Jan 09 11:20:47 20.8 80.6 03.9 69.0 93.8 97.7 72.6 71.7 21.1 70.8 70.1 69.2 2 Hvcor2 30Jan 09 11:29:47 21.5 89.3 04.0 69.5 94.0 99.5 73.2 72.2 71.0 21.6 71.1 70.1 2 MOtor2 3DJan 09 11:30:47 70.9 88.2 22.6 69.4 85.6 96.3 72.5 71.9 71.7 71.5 20.9 20.1 2 Meter2 3DJan 09 11:31:47 71.8 89.6 74.6 69.6 09.0 96.3 74.1 73.2 72.8 72.4 71.7 70.5 2 Meter2 30Jan 09 11:32:47 71.3 09.1 01.6 69.5 92.6 98.3 73.0 72.6 72.1 71.8 71.1 70.0 2 Matoc2 3DJan 09 11:33:47 71.5 09.3 78.1 69.2 90.6 100.6 77.4 73.8 72.5 71.5 70.6 69.5 2 Meter2 30Jan 09 11:34:47 73.2 91.0 75.4 69.4 88.8 98.3 75.0 74.9 74.6 74.4 73.4 70.6 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 11:35:47 76.3 94.0 62.4 72.9 95.3 101.0 80.6 79.6 78.7 77.5 74.7 73.3 2 Hvter2 30Jan 09 11:36:47 74.4 92.2 29.0 73.1 9D.2 99.5 77.2 75.7 75.0 74.8 24.2 73.2 2 Hetet2 3DJan 09 11:32:42 74.0 91.0 74.9 73.3 89.1 98.3 24.9 74.9 74.7 74.5 74.1 73.3 2 Meter2 3DJan 09 11:30:47 74.0 91.7 74.9 73.1 89.1 98.9 74.9 24.9 74.7 74.5 74.0 73.2 2 Motot2 30Jan 09 11:39:47 73.9 91.7 78.4 73.0 93.0 99.5 75.0 74.8 74.5 74.3 73.8 73.1 2 Hetec2 3DJan 09 11:40:42 74..4 92.1 75.3 70.5 88.6 99.9 75.3 74.9 74.8 24.2 74.4 23.9 2 Meter2 30Jan 09 !!:41:47 69.9 67.7 71.6 68.6 BB.2 96.3 21.0 20.8 20.6 70.4 69.9 69.2 2 Hecvr2 3DJan 09 11:42:47 69.9 87.7 72.0 68.1 99.1 96.3 71.3 70.9 70.7 70.5 69.9 69.0 2 Hetet2 30Jan 99 1!:43:47 68.7 87.5 72.8 60.3 93.5 97.0 71.7 70.9 70.6 70.2 69.6 68.7 2 Meter2 30Jan 09 11:44:47 70.7 65.5 26.6 69.1 90.5 97.3 73.7 21.0 71.3 20.9 20.5 64.6 2 Meter2 30Jan 09 11:45:47 73.2 69.0 76.9 69.5 94.2 98.3 74.7 23.4 71.9 71.4 70.2 70.1 2 Hecvr2 30Jan 09 11:46:47 71.2 80.9 78.6 60.0 91.9 97.7 74.0 72.8 72.2 71.7 70.8 69.4 2 Heter2 30Jan 09 11:47:47 21.1 BB.9 75.4 68.3 90.6 93.3 74.7 73.6 72.9 72.3 70.4 69.0 2 Heter2 3DJan 09 11:48:47 70.2 80.0 21.5 69.3 84.0 95.4 71.1 70.9 70.6 70.7 70.3 69.3 2 Y.etet2 39Jan 09 11:49:47 20.3 699.0 22.8 60.9 88.2 96.3 71.7 21.0 70.0 70.7 20.3 69.3 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 11:50:47 71.9 B9.7 77.7 69.9 90.2 97.0 75.9 74.4 22.8 71.9 71.3 70.2 2 Hvter2 30Jan 09 11:51:47 70.6 86.4 77.5 60.6 89.6 98.3 76.4 71_6 70.8 70.5 69.9 69.2 2 Hvter2 30Jan 09 11:52:47 70.5 89.3 75.5 68.3 90.6 92.0 22.9 72.4 71.9 71.5 69.9 60.7 2 Meter2 3DJan 09 11:53:47 71.6 89.4 23.3 70.4 86.4 97.0 12.8 72.1 71.9 71.8 71.5 21.1 2 Heta12 30Jan 09 11:54:47 71.5 89.3 72.1 10.5 86.5 96.6 12.1 12.2 71.9 11.8 71.5 70.9 2 Meter2 36Jan 09 11:55:47 7; .0 68.8 72.3 69.3 84.9 96.3 72.0 71.9 71.1 71.6 71.1 70.0 2 H.o car2 36Jan 09 11:56:47 71.1 86.9 76.4 69.4 92.1 97.0 13.6 72.5 71.9 71.5 70.0 70.0 2 Meter2 30Jaa 09 11:57:47 70.1 87.9 71.5 68.3 87.6 95.4 71.5 70.9 70.0 70.6 70.0 69.1 2 Mecer2 30Jan 00 11:53:47 70.8 88.6 73.9 69.7 36.1 95.4 72.6 71.8 71.5 71.1 10.7 70.1 2 Meter2 36Jan 09 11:59:47 70.9 88.7 80.2 69.9 101.3 100.6 72.0 71_7 71.4 71.1 70.7 70.1 2 14oter2 3UJan 09 12:00:47 70.9 88.6 72.5 69.3 90.3 95.4 72.0 71.8 71.6 71.3 70.6 70.1 2 14ecor2 30Jan 09 12:01:47 70.3 80.1 73.4 69.0 86.1 96.3 71.5 70.9 70.8 70.7 70.4 69.4 2 Mecer2 30Jan 09 12:02:47 71.1 88.8 76.2 69.4 93.8 96.3 72.9 72.0 71.8 71.6 71.1 70.1 2 Mecer2 36Jan 09 12:03:47 72.1 89.9 73.2 70.2 86.0 95.4 73.0 72.9 72.0 72.6 72.2 71.1 2 Motex2 36Jan 09 12:04:41 70.9 88.7 72.1 69.9 85.5 95.4 71.9 71_0 71.6 71.3 70.8 70.1 2 Motor2 36Jan 09 12:05:47 71.0 08.0 72.3 69.6 84.5 96.3 72.0 71_9 71.7 71.5 71.1 70.2 2 Mecex2 36Jan 09 12:06:47 70.1 67.9 71.4 69.1 04.6 96.3 71.0 70.9 70.7 70.6 70.2 69.2 2 Mecex2 303an 09 12:07:47 71.0 68.8 74.2 68.9 87.5 97.7 73.9 73.2 72.4 71.5 70.5 69.3 2 Motex2 303an 09 12:08:47 70.9 88.6 72.4 69.1 05.5 96.3 71.9 11.8 71.6 71.3 70.0 70.1 2 Meter2 36Jan 09 12:09:47 71.0 08.7 73.4 70.0 67.4 55.4 72.0 71.8 71.6 71.4 70.6 70.2 2 Motex2 30Jan 09 12:10:47 71.1 08.9 73.1 69.9 85.4 96.3 72.4 71.9 71.8 71.6 71.1 70.2 2 Mocor2 30Jan 09 12:11:47 71.0 88.8 76.1 69.1 87.9 97.7 75.3 72.5 71.7 71.1 70.5 69.5 2 Mecer2 30Jan 09 12:12:47 71.2 89.0 1B.9 69.4 91.5 99.5 73.9 72.3 71.8 71.5 70.9 70.1 2 M0c0r2 36Jan 09 12:13:47 86.1 103.9 97.0 73.6 108.9 111.1 96.0 92.7 06.0 82.4 77.5 74.7 2 Hoter2 30Jan 09 12:14:47 73.3 91.0 77.1 72.5 91.8 97.0 74.9 74.2 73.9 73.7 73.2 72.5 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 12:15:47 72.9 90.6 73.6 72.3 66.0 96.3 73.6 73.6 73.2 72.9 72.6 72.3 2 Meter2 300an 09 12:16:47 73.2 91.0 74.3 72.6 36.4 96.3 74.0 13.9 73.8 73.7 73.4 72.9 2 Hocer2 36Jan 09 12:17:41 73.5 91.3 81.3 72.9 97.7 102.3 74.9 73.9 73.9 73.8 73.5 73.1 2 Meter2 30Jan 09 12:10:47 73.6 91.4 74.5 72.8 66.5 98.3 14.5 74.5 74.3 74.0 73.6 73.1 2 Hocer2 36Jan 09 12:19:47 14.2 92.0 75.3 73.3 87.4 97.7 15.1 74.9 74.8 74.7 74.3 73.3 2 lWte6 36Jan 09 12:20:47 74.8 02.5 84.3 73.6 97.8 103.7 15.7 75.0 74.9 74.0 74.5 74.1 2 Ho1e12 36Jan 69 12:21:41 71.e 89.6 03.7 63.2 96.9 104.4 75.0 74.8 74.6 74.4 69.0 64.0 2 Mocor2 30Jan 09 12:22:41 67.3 65.0 72.4 64.2 83.2 95.4 71.2 69.9 69.0 66.3 66.0 64.6 2 Hoter2 36Jan 09 12:23:47 64.7 02.5 66.2 63.2 79.5 93.5 65.0 65.4 65.0 64.3 64.5 64.1 2 Meter2 36Jan 09 12:24:47 64.6 102.6 95.5 59.8 99.5 102.7 03.8 90.9 81.3 84.5 76.1 62.9 2 Mocor2 36Jan 09 12:25:47 66.1 103.9 99.2 61.5 103.5 305.5 94.8 91.5 Be.6 85.8 79.9 67.7 2 Meter2 30Jan 09 12:26:47 69.7 67.4 77.2 65.2 89.2 99.5 75.1 73.3 11.9 70.2 67.8 66.1 2 Mecer2 30Jan 09 12:27:47 73.9 91.7 70.9 68.6 92.7 97.7 78.6 77.3 74.4 73.6 72.8 72.1 2 Ho mx2 30Jan 09 12:20:47 73.0 90.7 76.9 71.9 00.9 100.6 75.7 73.7 73.2 72.9 72.6 72.1 2 Mocor2 30Jan 09 12:29:47 72.0 90.5 78.1 11.7 94.8 96.3 74.0 73.6 73.0 72.9 72.6 72.1 2 HOtor2 36Jan 00 12:30:47 72.4 90.1 74.9 71.0 86.8 95.4 73.7 73.0 72.8 72.7 12.3 71.3 2 Hem 2 30Jan 09 12:31.47 72.1 89.8 74.2 70.9 86.4 94.5 73.5 72.9 72.7 72.5 71.9 71.2 2 Mecer2 30Jan 09 12:32:47 72.1 89.9 74.0 71.1 86.6 95.4 73.6 72.9 72.7 72.5 71..9 71.2 2 HeceR 30Jan 09 12:33:47 72.0 09.7 74.3 70.6 85.6 95.4 73.3 72.9 72.7 72.5 72.0 71.2 2 Meeoi2 30Jan 09 12:34:47 72.0 89.8 74.0 71.0 89.6 94.5 73.0 72.9 72.7 72.5 72.0 71.2 2 Meeoi2 30Jan 09 12:35:47 71.5 89.3 72.9 69.7 85.1 93.5 72.9 72.6 72.3 71.9 71.5 70.5 2 Motex2 36Jan 09 12:36:47 70.1 87.8 81.1 63.2 94.3 100.1 72.5 71.7 71.3 70.9 69.9 65.9 2 Motex2 30J.n 09 12:37:47 71.9 89.7 79.5 69.7 98.1 100.1 77.3 73.7 72.2 71.8 71.3 70.3 2 Mete x2 36Jan 09 12:30:47 72.0 89.8 73.5 70.5 05.8 95.4 73.0 72.9 72.7 72.6 72.1 71.2 2 Mecer2 30Jan 09 12:39:47 72.3 90.1 80.1 70.B 94.6 104.9 73.7 72.9 72.0 72.7 72.3 71.3 2 MOtoc2 36Jan 09 12:40:47 13.7 91.5 63.1 63.0 94.9 103.7 82.1 70.7 73.9 73.1 72.3 63.8 2 Meter2 39Jan 09 12:41:47 65.1 82.9 72.9 0.1 94.6 96.3 68.0 66.4 65.8 65.6 64.9 63.7 2 M0tor2 30Jan 09 12:42:47 66.9 84.7 79.4 47.4 90.8 101.0 76.4 71.3 69.6 67.1 61.3 52.3 2 Mecer2 30Jan 09 12:43:41 49.7 67.4 61.0 43.6 80.4 05.0 $6.5 52.9 51_2 49.8 47.7 45.3 2 MOta0 36Jan 09 12:44:47 52.4 70.2 69.6 43.4 90.6 92.3 60.8 54.8 51.9 50.4 40.1 45.3 2 Mocor2 30Jan 00 12:45:47 54.6 72.3 62.4 42.4 72.3 09.4 59.7 50.0 56.0 55.9 53.6 46.2 2 Motex2 30Jan 09 12:46:47 58.3 76.1 74.5 49.0 86.6 95.4 61.3 60.0 59.$ 59.0 57.2 52.6 2 Metec2 36Jan 09 12:41:47 62.0 79.7 71.6 51.2 85.6 91.0 69.8 66.1 66.3 59.7 55.7 52.6 2 Mocor2 36Jan 09 12:40:47 55.6 73.4 63.6 46.3 76.6 09.4 60.7 50.4 57.4 56.6 55.2 50.6 2 Hetoc2 30Jan 09 12:49:47 48.2 66.0 56.5 44.3 69.1 85.0 54.7 51.5 49.0 40.1 46.8 45.2 2 Metoz2 30Jan 09 12:50:47 50.4 68.1 70.3 43.4 64.2 67.5 55.2 50.0 48.9 48.3 47.0 44.9 2 Hocer2 30Jan 09 12:51:47 48.0 66.5 51.1 42.8 75.9 B5.0 53.6 52.1 51.1 49.9 47.5 44.1 2 Hetoc2 36Jan 09 12:52:47 52.3 70.0 66.5 43.1 85.3 07.5 60.3 56.7 54.1 51.9 48.3 45.2 2 Mecer2 36Jan 09 12:53:41 45.9 63.7 55.9 41.5 71.0 0.0 51.2 49.0 47.0 46.5 44.5 42.6 2 Hoter2 36Jan 09 12:54:47 45.0 62.0 52.6 40.B 69.1 0.0 49.9 47.3 46.1 45.4 44.1 42.0 2 MOto[2 30Jan 09 12:55:47 45.6 63.3 50.9 42.5 71.8 0.0 4B.6 47.6 46.9 46.5 45.1 43.4 2 Meter2 36Jan 09 12:56:41 46.1 64.5 61.5 42.0 80.5 85.0 52.9 49.0 47.1 45.9 44.0 42.8 2 Motor2 30Jan 09 12:57:41 48.7 66.5 55.3 43.4 69.0 85.0 53.6 51.7 50.5 49.5 47.7 45.7 2 Meter2 30Jan 09 12:50:47 47.9 65.7 61.0 42.4 76.2 05.0 53.0 50.5 49.1 48.4 46.7 44.0 2 Metoz2 30Jan 09 12:59:47 46.1 63.9 54.9 41.5 73.7 0.0 52.8 49.1 47.0 46.0 44.6 43.1 2 Motex2 30Jon 09 13:00:47 49.0 66.8 50.6 43.0 74.2 05.0 55.8 53.1 50.6 49.3 46.8 44.5 2 Meter2 39Jan 09 13:01:47 57.2 74.9 80.6 42.0 100.5 101.9 63.4 55.5 $2.9 50.6 47.1 44.0 2 Hecor2 30Jan 09 13:02:47 46.5 64.3 62.2 41.4 80.2 85.0 49.5 48.2 47.4 46.7 45.5 43.6 2 Metoz2 30Jan 09 13:03:47 50.1 67.8 65.4 42.9 B4.1 94.5 57.9 52.6 50.4 49.3 47.7 44.6 2 Motex2 30Jan 09 13:04:41 52.0 69.6 61.5 46.8 76.1 85.0 57.6 54.9 53.0 52.9 50.7 48..1 2 14ecec2 30Jan 09 13:05:47 52.8 70.6 65.4 44.5 88.1 87.5 50.7 55.6 54.6 53.8 51.1 47.3 2 Motex2 30Jon 09 13:06:47 51.9 69.7 59.2 47.0 80.0 0.0 56.8 54.9 53.4 52.7 50.9 40.5 2 Mocor2 30Jan 09 13:07:47 48.9 66.7 58.4 44.3 75.3 09.4 54.6 51.5 50.6 49.6 47.6 45.6 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 13:08:47 49.9 67.6 64.7 42.7 81.7 92.3 56.5 52.7 51.0 50.3 47.6 45.2 2 Motex2 30Jan 09 13:09:47 47.3 65.1 66.0 42.2 80.5 37.5 50.7 49.0 47.6 46.8 45.6 43.5 2 Hetoc2 36Jan 09 13:10:47 46.4 64.2 51.2 42.5 66.6 0.0 49.9 48.8 48.0 47.4 45.8 43.7 2 Meter2 30Jan 09 13:11:47 49.5 67.3 56.4 41.7 70.8 65.0 55.4 52.7 51.7 50.7 48.7 43.1 2 Hetox2 36Jan 09 13:12:47 52.0 69.8 67.5 44.0 85.5 91.0 59.6 55.6 53.1 51.5 49.1 45.9 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 13:13:47 65.9 70.6 04.2 43.3 102.5 103.0 77.0 63.9 59.4 55.3 48.8 44.3 C : N L RDTV \SUMW-L \d RO1-3. bin Interval Data Site Location Date Ti. Leo SEL Lran Dnin Peak Dept L1 2) L4 81 L(16) L(251 L(50) L190) 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 07:31:35 65.3 103.1 95.7 58.4 112.2 112.3 93.7 91.2 68.5 85.6 79.1 60.2 3 Mater 3 30Jan 09 07:32:35 76.6 96.3 93.4 58.7 113.5 112.9 66.1 63.5 50.2 78.0 72.3 60.1 3 Meter 3 30Jaa 09 07:33:35 72.2 90.0 91.7 58.6 114.7 i15.1 82.2 76.1 71.0 66.9 61.4 59.4 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 07:34:35 72.5 90.3 86.4 59.2 101.9 105.8 61.1 77.6 74.7 72.1 67.5 61.1 J Meter 3 30oan 09 07:35:35 66.9 64.7 79.7 51.9 96.0 97.9 75.1 71.7 69.2 67.4 62.0 58.6 3 Meter 3 3GJan 09 07:36:35 68.3 86.1 50.9 59.1 94.5 95.7 75.3 72.5 70.5 69.2 65.6 60.6 3 Meter 3 30Ja. 09 01.37:35 66.1 83.9 80.4 59.6 92.3 98.6 74.9 70.2 67.4 65.2 62.3 60.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 67:36:35 70.6 89.3 83.7 59.9 100.0 104.9 79.5 75.0 72.4 70.2 66.2 60.4 3 Meter 3 Sion. 09 07:39:35 76.7 94.4 91.6 59.2 110.3 110.0 06.3 81.4 77.6 74.8 68.6. 60.6 3 Here. 3 30Jan 09 07:40:35 69.1 86.9 85.0 59.7 101.8 102.5 76.5 72.7 69.9 67.0 64.3 60.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 07:41:35 73.5 91.3 66.8 62.1 104.9 107.3 829 70.2 75.4 72.8 67.2 63.7 3 Mater 3 30Jan 09 01:42:35 74.1 91.9 BG.3 63.3 103.6 107.7 81.0 77.0 75.3 73.9 72.1 66.5 3 Peter 3 30Jan 09 07:43:35 70.0 87.8 80.9 62.9 97.9 102.1 77.8 74.8 72.1 69.9 66.4 63.6 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 07.44:35 74.7 92.4 90.2 65.2 100.5 103.6 84.0 79.0 75.4 72.8 SPA 66.6 3 Peter 3. 3GJan 09 07:45:35 72.7 90.4 B9.6 66.3 9B.0 99.7 ED.6 76.4 73.9 71.5 67.9 67.0 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 07:46:35 70.4 08.1 79.2 62.6 62.6 56.5 77.2 75.1 13.9 71.9 65.8 63.4 3 Peter 3 3DJan 09 07:47:35 70.4 86.2 04.0 63.1 97.5 98.6 70.3 75.5 72.3 68.3 65.1 63.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 07:48:35 71.6 09.4 85.0 63.0 98.9 99.2 00.0 76.8 73.6 71.2 66.4 63.6 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 07:49:35 67.2 B4.9 81.2 63.0 100.5 100.E 75.6 69.6 66.8 65.6 64.5 63.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 07:50:35 66.5 04.3 80.0 63.0 97.5 99.2 73.9 69.1 66.8 66.0 64.9 63.5 3 Peter 3 3DJan 09 07:51:35 60.1 85.9 79.9 63.1 94.8 95.7 72.9 70.7 69.7 68.B 668.1 63.6 3 Meter 3 30oan 09 07 :52:35 66.7 BG.5 74.2 67.6 91.3 92.6 70.6 69.6 69.0 6B.9 68.5 68.1 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 07:53:35 6B.6 86.3 77.0 64.6 89.3 93.7 71.8 69.9 69.2 68.9 68.3 66.9 3 Here. 3 30Jan 09 07:54:35 69.2 B6.6 83.5 64.3 99.8 102.9 76.2 72.2 70.1 68.7 66.6 65.1 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 07:55:35 66.7 84.5 75.0 64.0 01.6 92.6 70.7 68.8 68.1 67.0 65.8 64.5 3 Here. 3 3DJan 09 07:56:35 69.2 87.0 70.2 67.7 86.8 92.6 73.7 69.9 69.5 69.1 68.7 68.1 3 Peter 3 3DJan 09 07:57:35 70.1 B7.8 75.6 67.6 87.3 94.8 74.7 72.5 71.1 70.4 69.1 68.1 3 Meier 3 3DJan 09 07:58:35 69.1 B5.9 79.7 59.0 93.4 95.7 73.3 70.2 68.9 68.6 67.9 63.0 3 Meter 3 363an 09 07:59:35 68.1 85.9 74.6 63.0 65.2 92.6 72.7 71.4 69.9 69.1 67.0 64.3 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 08:00:35 71..9 B9.6 82.6 65.5 95.9 99.2 80.5 75.5 72.5 71.0 69.1 67.2 3 Hater 3 3DJan 09 08:01:35 71.0 86.8 80.4 65.3 94.1 97.9 77.3 14.6 72.9 71.5 69.1 66.7 3 Motor 3 3DJan 09 08:02:35 69.3 97.0 80.3 64.0 95.4 98.6 76.4 71.7 69.8 60.8 67.6 66.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 Ofl:03:35 66.7 84.4 75.5 61.3 09.1 94.8 71_7 69.6 60.5 67.5 65.7 62.4 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 08:04:35 71.2 09.0 86.7 61.8 103.1 104.3 79.9 75.8 73.0 70.4 64.9 62.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:05:35 69.3 87.0 81.5 62.7 95.7 97.3 75.2 72.8 71.0 69.8 67.0 64.2 3 Meter 3 303an 09 08:06:35 71.6 89.4 83.3 61.6 93.4 99.2 78.8 75.6 74.0 72.6 66.4 62.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:07:35 75.5 93.2 85.2 62.8 98.1 102.9 81.9 79.5 70.0 77.1 73.1 65.9 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 08:08:35 74.6 92.4 87.0 62.6 96.7 102.5 81.7 78.3 76.8 75.6 71.0 65.7 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 08:09:35 76.2 94.0 68.8 65.8 95.4 102.5 83.0 79.9 76.7 77.G 73.3 67.8 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 00:10:35 69.7 67.5 80.6 64.0 93.2 97.3 75.7 72.8 71.3 70.2 68.4 65.2 3 Meter 3 3GJan 09 00:11:35 68.0 85.8 78.8 61.2 92.4 95.7 14.4 71.0 70.5 69.2 65.1 62.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:12:35 71.1 88.9 82.1 65.6 90.1 98.9 74.9 73.6 72.6 71.8 70.4 67.7 3 Meter 3 3GJan 09 08:13:35 74.4 92.2 64.1 67.6 93.2 100.3 79.4 77.7 76.3 75.0 73.1 70.4 3 Meter 3 303an 09 08:14:35 74.7 92.4 85.2 62.1 101.3 101.7 80.0 78..3 77.0 16.1 73.3 67.4 3 Me.r 3 3DJan 09 08:15:35 73.9 91.7 01.0 61.7 92.1 99.2 79.6 78.3 76.9 75.4 72.0 63.7 3 Meter 3 3OJan 09 08:16:35 74.4 92.2 89.5 61.8 101.1 101.7 83.0 77.7 75.8 74.8 70.3 63.6 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 00:17:35 75.8 93.6 87.2 60.8 105.2 lOB.5 85.3 82.5 77.9 12.2 66.0 61.5 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 00:18:35 69.5 67.3 83.3 63.2 95.6 101.3 77.8 73.5 69.6 67.9 66.4 64.6 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 08:19:35 66.1 65.9 84.2 61.7 101.6 101.7 16.0 70.3 67,9 66.8 64.7 63.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:20:35 61.4 05.1 66.8 62.6 102.9 303.6 72.8 69.1 67.0 65.7 64.5 63.3 3 Meter 3 3GJan 09 OB:21:35 76.6 94.4 93.5 63.0 113.7 114.0 87.2 80.5 74.8 71.7 69.5 64.0 3 Meter 3 30Ja. 09 OB:22:35 68.8 86.6 79.2 65.2 93.1 93.7 75.0 71.9 69.7 68.6 67.3 66.1 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 08:23:35 70.7 06.5 64.5 61.7 95.6 102.1 79.7 14.6 71.0 69.8 67.7 62.9 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 08:24:35 73.1 90.9 85.6 67.6 100.2 103.6 30.5 75.5 74.1 73.0 71.4 69.D 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 00:25:35 74.9 93.7 85.7 70.0 97.9 103.3 61.8 70.2 76.1 74.8 72.9 71.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:26:35 78.0 95.9 B7.6 71.2 203.5 109.5 04.7 82.4 80.3 70.4 75.5 72.5 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 03:27:35 81.7 99.5 90.8 69.3 104.1 110.0 89.0 87.3 84.5 81A 77.0 72.6 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 D8:28:35 81.3 99.2 93.1 67.1 104.6 1' 6 874 64.7 83.4 82.4 794 70.9 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 06:29:35 80.7 98.5 88.8 66.7 203.9 112.1 _ 86.0 84.6 63.6 82.7 79.6 70.1 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 08:30:35 77.6 95.4 08.2 67.4 102.1 1D5.8 85.2 91.7 79.7 78.2 75.2 69.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 06 08:31:35 70.0 87.8 76.4 66.7 91.4 96.5 73.0 71.7 70.9 70.6 69.6 68.1 3 He ter 3 30Jan 09 09:32:35 69.7 07.4 90.2 65.0 90.3 93.7 76.0 72.2 70.7 69.9 68.2 66.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:33:35 75.1 92.9 84.3 65.0 97.1 101.7 81.6 79.7 77.9 75.9 72.7 67.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 00:34:35 75.6 93.3 03.1 61.9 96.9 102.9 61.5 79.7 79.1 77.0 74.0 65.3 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 06:35:35 74.6 92.4 92.0 63.0 93.6 99.7 80.7 79.2 77.7 76.3 72.1 64.6 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 00:36:35 76.8 94.6 84.3 65.6 94.9 103.6 93.2 81.2 80.0 78.6 73.9 667.6 3 Peter 3 30Jan 09 98:37:35 73.1 90.9 61.6 66.7 95.2 99.7 79.0 7B.2 75.5 73.3 69.9 67.9 3 Peter 2 30Jan 09 08:39:35 75.4 93.2 64.1 65.0 96.2 101.7 81.7 79.7 78.3 71.1 71.9 67.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:39:35 69.1 06.9 90.2 63.0 93.9 96.5 76.4 72.2 70.6 69.4 67.2 64.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 98:40:35 75.4 93.2 85.6 61.5 100.4 103.3 83.7 80.9 79.5 74.9 67.4 61.2 3 Hater 3 3DJan 09 08:41:35 75.4 93.2 69.5 63.3 101.1 102.5 96.2 76.6 75.4 74.2 72.0 67.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 OB:92:35 69.8 61.5 81.7 63.6 95.2 109.9 76.8 73.0 71.5 69.8 67.1 64.8 3 Peter 3 30Jan 09 03:93:25 74.5 92.3 89.1 62.5 97.7 203.3 B3.1 78.9 77.2 75.8 69.0 64.1 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 99:44:35 63.8 B1.6 71.5 62.3 84.3 93.1 66.1 64.9 64.3 63.9 63.5 62.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:45:35 70.5 96.2 83:7 62.6 94.4 100.3 79.9 75.5 69.7 67.3 64.7 63.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 06 08:46:35 71.8 89.5 85.2 62.6 96.6 99.2 80.5 77.2 74.3 70.3 64.6 63.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:47:35 64.5 B2.3 70.1 62.3 82.4 95.7 67.9 66.6 65.6 64.9 63.8 63.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:48:35 64.2 62.0 76.7 62.5 86.7 93.7 66.0 64.9 64.6 64.3 63.7 63.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:49:35 64.2 01.9 75.2 62.3 85.6 69.7 67.2 64.8 64.3 63.9 63.6 63.1 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 03:50:35 64.4 02.2 73.1 62.1 65.7 89.7 69.2 65.6 64.8 64.4 63.7 63.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:51:35 64.2 01.9 70.2 62.6 64.9 89.7 66.7 65.2 64.7 64.4 63.7 62.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:52:35 64.2 82.0 67.6 62.6 80.4 89.7 66.4 65.5 64.9 64.6 63.9 63.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 OB:53:35 64.7 62.5 78.2 62.6 92.3 94.8 68.2 65.7 64.9 64.7 64.0 63.2 3 Meter 3 3GJan 09 08:54:35 65.3 83.0 70.2 62.5 61.8 91.2 66.9 67.9 66.7 65.7 64.4 63.2 3 Peter 3 30Jan 09 08:55:35 64.4 82.1 69..6 62.8 80.8 92.6 67.6 65.5 64.6 64.6 64.0 63.2 3 Meta[ 3 30jan 09 08:56:25 65.7 83.5 70.3 62.6 82.8 93.7 69.0 68.0 67.5 66.6 64.9 63.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 00:57:35 66.9 84.7 71.7 63.1 83.9 95.7 69.9 69.2 68.6 68.0 66.2 64.6 3 Meter 3 30Jan 39 08:58:35 704 88.1 84.7 64.0 95.6 96,7 77.4 72.7 70.7 69.3 67.8 66.1 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 OB:59:35 79.6 97.3 87.7 65.3 103.9 103.6 85.5 B3.7 92.3 81.0 78.0 68.2 3 Rater 3 3DJan 09 09:00:35 74.0 91.9 05.7 64.6 100.6 104.7 80.1 77.9 76.5 75.3 71.1 66.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:01:35 15.6 93.4 88.0 63.1 105.7 107.4 03.0 70.9 71.0 75.7 72.7 66.7 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 09:02:35 77.6 95.3 09,5 64.8 106.2 107.3 84.0 B1.9 79.9 70.4 75.2 68.9 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 09:03:35 77.2 95.0 05.0 70.0 101.3 102.5 8!.7 80.4 79.4 70.5 76.1 71.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:04:35 77.1 94.8 05.7 68.3 98.9 106.8 02.9 00.4 79.1 70.2 76.1 70.6 3 Meter 3 30Jaa 09 04:05:35 75.5 93.3 87.0 68.0 103.7 107.1 53.3 79.9 77.6 76.0 71.8 69.0 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 09:06:35 79.0 46.8 09.2 66.7 102.6 111.9 07.9 84.4 81.5 78.2 73.2 60.6 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:07:35 84.2 102.0 93.5 65.2 101.7 111.2 90.8 09.1 81.6 86.0 80.7 67.8 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 09:08:35 02.6 100.3 93.1 65.1 103.2 111.1 53.7 86.8 84.3 83.0 79.0 68.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:09:35 70.1 95.9 67.2 73.5 99.4 104.3 04.1 82.0 00.5 79.3 75.0 72.5 3 Meter 3 30Jon 09 09:10:35 76.4 94.2 03.0 7!.8 92.6 100.3 50.3 70.9 17.9 )).3 75.9 73.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:11:35 77.4 95.2 B4.1 71.0 99.2 104.0 82.3 81.1 79.8 70.7 75.9 12.3 3 Perot 3 30Jan 09 09:12:35 75.3 93A 56.0 71.0 101.8 102.- 80.9 70.8 77.6 76.4 72.9 71.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:13:35 69.7 87.4 77.7 62.3 92.3 95.7 73.5 12.8 72.5 72.1 66.9 63.6 3 Perot 3 30Jan 09 09:14:15 60.0 85.8 79.5 63.5 93.8 98.6 75.8 71.5 67.0 66.9 65.7 64.3 3 Meter 3 30Ja. 09 09:15:35 79.0 96.8 92.0 65.0 102.6 108.5 80.6 B2.6 )7.8 75.6 72.2 67.6 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:16:35 74.7 92.4 85.6 66.2 102.9 104.6 01.8 79.4 76.9 75.6 721 60.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:17:35 74.3 92.0 87.0 66.2 100.1 102.1 00.1 73.2 76.5 74.9 71.8 68.7 3 Hater 3 39Jan 09 09:10:35 72.0 89.7 90.2 66.0 92.3 90.6 77.7 76.1 74.1 72.0 70.1 67.9 3 Perot 3 30Jan 09 09:19:35 65.8 83.5 72.3 62.8 67.4 93.7 70.2 669.2 667.0 66.3 64.9 63.4 3 Meta:. 3 30Jan 09 09:20:35 74.3 92.1 83.5 62.5 96.9 102.1 81.1 78.8 77.2 76.1 70.5 64.2 3 Mew. 3 30i.n 09 09:21:35 74.3 9Z.! 84.8 62.9 99.9 103.3 60.1 78.3 77.1 76.1 71.7 65.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:22:35 69.1 06.9 89.0 61.0 105.6 106.8 77.9 68.7 61.2 66.5 64.7 62.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:23:35 71.6 89.4 83.1 64.6 101.7 106.3 80.5 71.0 71.3 69.5 67.8 65.6 3 Meter 3 30Ja... 09 00:24:35 79.3 97.0 06.7 66.3 97.9 104.0 85.6 03.5 81.6 80.3 77.9 68.8 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:25:35 76.2 93.9 86.5 66.4 102.4 104.9 92.6 90.1 78.4 76.9 74.5 68.5 3 Motor 3 39Jan 09 09:26:35 77.1 94.8 90.4 66.8 109.4 110.0 64.5 B3.7 79.4 76.0 73.4 68.6 3 Motor 3 30Je. 09 09:27:35 77.1 94.9 87.3 69.7 106.'6 100.9 82.2 60.4 79.1 78.1 75.8 71.7 3 Meter 3 30Je. 09 09:20:35 76.9 94.7 09.0 .66.1 104.2 106.7 83.2 60.6 79.0 78.1 75.3 67.9 3 Meter 3 39Jan 04 09:29:35 76.5 94.3 64.0 66.2 98.8 104.9 81.4 79.4 70.4 17.6 75.8 70.9 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 09:30:35 79.2 97.0 91.1 63.3 101.9 108.3 B7.7 04.0 82.1 79.7 73.9 65.2 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 09:31:35 02.0 99.7 93.0 63.0 105.2 109.5 89.0 07.3 85.8 83.4 75.6 66.2 3 Peter 3 30Jan 09 09:32:35 63.7 101.4 95.1 65.1 105.0 112.0 85.6 07.0 06.6 65.4 02.1 67.2 3 Perot 3 30Jan 09 09:33:35 00.6 98.4 93.5 61.9 110.9 112.1 88.5 05.1 83.1 01.2 76.9 66.7 3 Perot 3 39Jan 09 09:34:35 00.1 97.9 94.1 63.1 110.9 112.2 00.9 84.3 82.1 80.0 ]5.0 70.2 3 Motor 3 30Jan 99 09:35:35 78.0 95.0 92.3 61.0 100.8 111.1 89.7 82.6 79.8 77.6 70.8 62.9 3 Motor 3 39Jan 99 09:36:35 75.5 93.3 87.2 62.6 107.6 112.1 83.4 79.7 77.5 76.2 73.5 64.8 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:37:35 78.4 96.2 90.6 62.2 111.4 133.4 86.1 83.0 80.0 79.1 75.2 64.2 3 Motor 3 39Jan 09 09:38:35 74.4 92.2 84.3 62.0 97.7 300.5 B1.4 79.3 76.9 75.2 72.1 63.3 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 09:39:35 76.5 94.2 86.6 62.1 97.6 101.7 83.0 01.1 79.6 78.1 73.7 62.0 3 Meter 3 39Jan 00 09:40:35 79.6 97.4 90.6 62.3 105.2 106.1 84.9 03.4 82.2 81.2 78.4 67.7 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 09:41:35 72.3 90.1 84.9 62.0 100.3 101.7 80.8 ]6.9 74.6 72.4 66.8 62.4 3 Meter 3 303an 09 09:42:35 72.1 09.6 08.3 62.1 105.7 104.6 81.3 75.0 73.0 69.7 63.9 62.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:43:35 68.3 86.1 07.1 62.0 102.6 102.3 76.2 68.6 67.7 66.4 63.6 GZ.3 2 Meter 3 39Jan 09 09:44:35 76.4 94.2 89.7 64.5 105.2 104.9 86.8 82.3 75.6 71..1 66.9 65.1. 3 146Cer 3 30Jeo 09 09:45:35 70.6 eBA 89.8 65.1 103.3 104.0 76.B 72.5 70.4 68.6 66.6 65.3 J Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:46:35 66.0 03.0 70.0 64.7 81.9 89.7 67.5 66.9 66.7 66.4 65.0 65.2 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 09:47435 60.5 86.3 83.8 65.1 101.9 102.1 76.7 68.8 67.7 6].1 66.5 65.4 3 Mete. 3 30Jan 09 09:48:35 72.8 90.5 88.0 64.8 102_9 102.5 83.0 7].3 ]2.4 68.2 G5.9 65.2 3 Meter 3 393an 09 09:49:35 70.3 88.1 06.0 64.7 105.4 i07.5 79.7 73.8 69.0 G6.7 65.6 65.1 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 09:50:35 74.5 92.3 90.E 65.1 108.6 108.9 84.0 79.5 74.5 70.1 66.8 65.3 3 Mete. 3 39Jan 09 09:51:35 66.2 84.0 69.7 64.9 82.1 93.7 67:9 66.9 66.8 66.6 66.0 65.2 3 Mete. 3 30Jan 09 09:52:35 73.7 91.5 90.1 64.5 105.7 107.9 84.1 78.2 71.7 67.3 G6.0 65.2 3 Meter 3 303eo 09 09:53:35 74.3 92.1 99.5 64.6 103.9 104.9 84.6 79.4 74.0 70.1 66.3 65.2 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 09:54:35 66.9 84.7 75.6 65.0 94.1 91.9 72.3 68.6 67.0 66.7 66.1 65.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 00:55:35 66.1 83.9 70.4 64.7 04.9 51.2 6B.0 66.9 66.7 66.5 65.9 65.2 3 Meter 3 3GJan 09 09:56:35 67.0 84.8 73.2 64.6 84.3 91.2 71.1 69.4 68.0 67.0 66.1 65.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:57:35 70.8 $8.6 74.3 61.0 06.4 93.7 73.9 73.4 72.9 72.4 69.6 68.1 3 Meter 3 30Jeo 09 09:50:35 74.0 91.8 82.2 70.5 93.1 96.5 79.5 77.1 75.5 74.4 72.5 71.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:59:35 74.7 92.4 82.4 69.0 93.3 99.2 80.0 70.2 76.7 75.3 73.2 70.4 3 Morer 3 30Jen 09 10:00:35 75.0 92.8 63.5 66.9 92.6 303.3 80.7 78.9 77.6 76.3 73.2 68.7 3 Mete. 3 39Jan 09 10:01:35 75.3 93.0 84.6 65.1 95.6 102.5 80.6 79.7 77.7 766.9 74.1 66.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:02:35 67.4 85.1 70.5 64.5 92.8 95.7 70.7 69.1 60.3 67.7 66.7 65.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:03:35 72.4 90.2 79.4 65.2 92.8 98.6 77.4 75.8 74.6 73.4 71.5 66.7 3 motor 3 30Jan 09 10:04:35 76.3 94.1 86.9 60.9 97.9 100.8 81.8 79.8 70.1 77.1 74.9 71.3 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 10:05:35 75.1 92.9 80.6 66.5 92.3 100.3 79.5 78.4 77.4 76.5 74.6 69.0 3 Mete: 3 30Jan 09 10:06:35 76.2 94.0 61.4 60.1 92.4 100.3 80.6 79,0 77.9 77.2 75.6 70.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:07:35 79.6 97.4 68.4 69.7 100.7 105.8 96.6 64.2 8!.4 79.9 77.2 73.7 3 Meter 3 30jan 09 10:08:35 80.9 98.7 07.9 63.7 98.3 105.5 96.9 85.4 93.7 82.5 79.5 65.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:09:35 80.0 97.8 07.4 63.9 97.3 192.3 85.9 04.4 03.0 81.5 77.9 69.0 3 Meter 3 3GJan 09 30:10:35 76.9 94.7 87.B 64.4 08.8 102.9 54.2 91.5 79.4 17.7 73.0 66.3 3 !!ecet 3 39Jan 09 10:11:35 77.1 94.9 85.9 64.E 99.E 302.5 82.5 80.8 79.4 76.2 75.9 70.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:12:35 76.7 94.4 89.7 63.4 !01.7 106.1 64.2 79.4 78.2 17.0 74.6 65.9 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:13:35 69.1 66.6 82.7 59.4 92.8 101.7 76.6 75.2 68.9 65.3 62.0 60.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:14:35 66.4 84.7 73.4 62.3 89.4 95.1 69.7 68.7 68.1 67.6 66.6 64.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:15:35 64.8 62.6 75.9 61.0 09.6 94,8 71.5 66.7 65.7 64.6 63.5 62.2 3 Meter 3 30Jae 09 10:16:35 69.1 E7.5 85.6 61.9 104.4 105.2 79.9 72.8 69.4 65.7 64.1 62.7 3 Peter 3 30Jaa 09 10:1]:35 74.3 92.3 89.0 64.5 105.1 101.3 03.5 73.4 74.0 71.B 70.0 69.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:18:35 69.6 87.4 77.0 60.1 89.2 96.5 73.2 70.3 69.9 69.8 69.5 68.6 3 Mete. 3 30Jan 09 10-19:35 68.3 8G.1 73.6 62.2 85.8 93.7 71.9 71.0 70.4 69.8 67.5 63.9 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 10:20:35 66.1 6J.B 76.4 62.5 06.7 95.7 73.9 66.9 66.0 65.6 64.7 663.4 3 Mete. 3 30Jan 09 20:21:35 73.0 90.8 79.9 65.0 93.9 90.6 78.0 76.3 75.1 74.2 72.1 67.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan. 09 10:22:35 79.7 97.5 96.4 63.1 106.3 110.6 85.6 82.7 80.8 79.6 77.0 67.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:23:35 76.7 94.5 83.9 66.5 93.4 101.3 82.0 80.8 79.2 77.8 75.3 69.8 3 Meter 3 30Jee 09 10:24:35 74.9 92.7 82.6 65.1 90.7 101.3 80.1 70.3 17.0 76.2 73.8 68.6 3 Perot 3 3GJan 09 10:25:35 75.3 93.1 811 64.5 91.8 104.3 79.9 78.5 77.5 76.5 74.4 70.0 3 Metec 3 39Jan 09 10:26:35 73.7 91.5 02.1 62.1 90.7 99.7 79.3 77.6 76.3 75.3 72.7 63.1 3 Mete. 3 30Jan 09 20:27:35 75.1 92.8 83.5 62.2 96.7 200.8 81.0 79.7 70.6 77.3 71.4 63.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:20:35 64.0 81.8 75.2 63.3 93.1 96.5 66.3 64.9 64.6 64.2 63.6 62.8 3 Her.. 3 30Jan 09 10:29:35 64.2 62.0 71.6 62.2 92.2 93.7 67.3 665.5 64.6 64.5 63.0 63.0 3 Mete. 3 30Jan 09 10:30:35 64.7 52.5 766.8 62.4 93.7 55.6 70.1 65.7 64.8 64.4 63.7 63.1 3 Mater 3 3GJan 00 10:31:35 63.2 81.0 68.7 61.2 81.6 89.7 66.0 64.6 63.9 63.6 62.9 61.9 3 Meter 3 30Jeo 09 10:32:35 64.0 81.8 60.7 62.2 79.4 97.9 67.7 66.2 65.3 64.6 63.3 62.0 3 Mate. 3 30Jan 09 10:33:25 64.0 81.0 74.3 60.9 88.7 93.1 70.2 65.0 64.3 63.8 62.9 61.6 3 Mete. 3 30Jan 09 10:34:35 64.8 82.6 74.6 61.0 92.2 92.6 71.7 6B.4 65.8 64.2 62.7 61.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:35:35 66.8 84.6 78.2 61.9 57.6 59.2 72.8 70.1 57.7 66.7 65.5 63.2 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 10:36:35 65.3 83.0 75.1 61.4 89.6 97.3 69.6 69.1 66.3 65.7 64.5 62.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:37:35 63.4 91.2 72.4 61.4 80.6 92.6 65.6 64.8 64.2 63.8 63.1 62.1 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 10:38:35 64.6 82.3 76.0 61.1 90.3 93.7 67.9 66.5 65.6 64.9 63.8 62.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:39:35 61.2 34.9 11.1 61.9 85.5 90.5 69.6 68.7 60.3 67.5 67.4 62.9 3 Heuer 3 30Jan 09 10:40:35 66.2 84.0 73.2 61.4 87.6 94.8 60.9 60.0 67.8 67.6 66.6 62.4 3 meter 3 30Jan 09 10:41:35 65.6 83.4 71.6 62.0 86.7 93.7 71.0 69.4 67.2 65.7 63.9 62.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:42:35 63.9 91.6 73.1 61.9 88.8 91.2 66.6 65.0 64.5 64.0 63.5 62.4 3 Moto, 3 30Jan 09 10:43:35 60.0 85.8 74.9 62.0 90.6 94.3 73.6 72.6 71.5 68.3 65.3 63.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:44:35 68.2 86.0 73.9 62.1 86.5 91.2 72.0 69.9 60.9 60.7 69.1 66.0 3 Meter 3 303an 09 10:45:35 63.9 81.7 71.2 61,0 85.5 91.2 6B.2 66.0 65.0 64.4 63.3 62.0 3 Mater 3 30Jan 09 10:46:35 64.1 81.8 70.5 60.9 82.5 92.6 66.0 65.7 65.0 64.6 63.7 62.4 3 Meter 3 303an 09 10:47:35 66.4 84.1 69.5 62.4 82.2 91.2 69.1 68.5 67.8 67.1 66.1 64.0 3 Meter 3 303an 09 10:48:35 71.1 89.9 79.2 62.7 91.8 97.9 77.6 76.1 75.3 73.8 65.7 64.1 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 10:49:35 75.7 93.4 85.9 64.5 103.1 104.3 81.5 79.1 77.2 76.2 74.6 71.1 3 Meter 3 303an 09 10:50:35 77.3 95.1 94.0 62.1 116.3 116.0 85.9 00.4 78.4 77.1 71.7 64.0 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 10:51:35 70.6 88..4 79.7 61.2 94.3 96.5 77.6 76.0 74.6 72.9 63.5 61.9 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:52:35 64.3 82.1 82.9 61.4 101.8 103.6 67.9 64.9 63.9 63.5 62.0 62.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:53:35 63.1 80.9 68.6 61.5 84.2 89.7 65.7 64.4 63.8 63.6 62.9 62.1 3 Motor 3 3DJan 09 10:54:35 63.2 81.0 72.2 61.2 88.3 91.2 65.7 64.5 63.9 63.7 63.1 62.2 3 Mater 3 3DJan 09 10:55:35 64.2 82.0 70.7 61.6 84,1 69.7 66.8 65.7 65.0 64.7 64.1 62.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:56:35 64.2 82.0 72.7 60.9 87.6 92.6 60.4 67.3 66.0 64.4 63.1 62.2 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 10:57:35 64.7 82.5 69.7 6I 6 86.2 92.6 68.8 67.9 66.7 65.0 63.6 62.3 3 Heuer 3 30Jan 09 10:50:35 65.8 83.5 81.9 61.2 104.3 104.9 75.4 65,4 63.4 62.9 62.5 61.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:59:35 62.2 79.9 70.6 57.9 63.7 09.7 66.0 64.2 63.2 62.8 62.2 58.8 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:00:35 62.1 79.8 71.4 59.0 63.3 91.2 65.8 64.0 63.6 63.2 60.9 59.7 3 Hauer 3 39Jan 09 11:01:35 67.9 85.7 74.0 63.2 89.2 92.6 71.1 69.9 69.6 69.3 60.4 64.1 3 Y.e ter 3 30Jan 09 11:02:35 66.3 84.1 72.1 64.0 81.8 94.8 68.9 67.8 67.0 66.8 66.2 65.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:03:35 66.1 93.9 79.2 62.6 67.5 97.9 73.4 66.9 66.0 65.E 64.7 63.5 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 11:04:35 74.2 92.0 81.5 64.6 91.2 101.3 80.3 78.4 77.1 75.9 71.3 69.0 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 11:05:35 74.8 92.5 83.2 65.2 95.2 100.8 80.0 70.5 77.3 76.2 73,1 69.1 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 11:06:35 78.1 95,8 90.3 62.9 100.5 102.9 85.7 01.7 00.6 79.7 75.3 65.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:01:35 70.4 83.2 00.8 62.3 91.1 101.3 79.2 73.9 71.7 70.4 67.7 64.0 3 Heuer 3 30Jan 09 11:00:35 74.9 92.7 84.5 64.5 97.6 100.3 90.6 70.6 77.4 76.2 73.9 67.3 3 More, 3 30Jan 09 11:09:35 75.1 92.9 84.5 61.0 95.2 101.3 80.9 19.1 77.8 76.5 73.3 64.0 3 Motor 3 3DJan 09 11:10:35 62.9 80.7 74.5 61.3 90.7 93.7 65.1 63.7 63.0 62.0 62.5 62.0 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 11:11:35 62.6 30.4 61.3 61,4 63.3 89.7 64.2 63.6 63.0 62.9 6 ?.5 62.0 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 11:12:35 62.5 80.3 73.7 61.1 89.2 91.2 65.0 63.4 62.9 62.8 62.3 61.3 3 14ate, 3 30Jan 09 11:13:35 68.3 86.1 83.3 61.4 90.2 100.8 78.4 72.9 68.2 63.5 62.6 61.8 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:14:15 66.2 34.0 94.9 61.3 99.9 101.3 76.0 64.1 63.0 62.9 62.5 61.7 3 Mote, 3 30Jan 09 11:15:35 63.9 81.7 72.9 61.4 90.7 93.7 69.3 66.4 64.9 63.9 62.8 62.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:16:35 63.2 B1.0 77.0 61.6 92.2 94.8 65.6 63.9 63.5 63.1 62.7 62.1 3 Motor 3 30Jnn 09 11:17:35 63.7 81.4 71.1 61.6 86.0 93.7 66.1 65.4 64.6 64.0 63.2 62.2 3 Mater 3 390an 09 11:10:35 63.9 81.7 68.6 61.0 83.0 94.8 66.7 USA 64.9 64.4 63.7 62.6 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 11:19:35 63.5 81.3 77.0 61.3 88.0 91.2 69.6 63.9 63.2 62.9 62.5 61.8 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 11:20:35 62.7 80.4 71.1 61.1 87.3 69.7 65.3 63.8 63,2 62,9 62.5 61.4 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 11 :21:35 62.7 30.4 66.6 61.6 86.8 87.7 64.0 63.7 63.2 62.9 62.6 62.1 3 Mo., J 39Jan 09 11:22:35 62.9 80.7 60.9 60.9 84.3 87.7 64.7 63.9 63.6 63.3 62.7 62.1. 3 Mo. r 3 30Jan 09 11:23:35 63.2 81.0 70.2 61.5 83.2 89.7 65.2 64.0 63.8 63.6 63.2 62.2 3 Motor 3 300an 09 11:24:35 63.2 81.0 67,3 62.1 79.8 87.7 64.6 63.9 63,8 63.1 63.3 62.3 3 Motor 3 39Jan 09 11:25:35 63.1 00.9 65.8 62.0 76.7 87.7 64.4 63.9 63.8 63.6 63.1 62.2 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 11:26:35 63.2 81.0 64.5 62.0 78.1 07.7 64.5 64.0 63.8 63.7 633 62.3 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 11:27:35 64.7 82.4 76.6 61.0 93.5 94.3 69.6 67.2 65.7 64.7 63.4 62.2 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 11:28:35 77.3 95.1 89.0 61.4 90.0 104.3 86.2 02.3 79.6 77.7 72.4 64.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:29:35 72.0 89.8 80.6 60.9 89.1 98.9 79.4 76.4 75.4 73.6 66.6 62.6 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 11:30:35 70.9 88.7 80.4 62.0 95.2 97.9 79,2 753 73.6 72.3 67.5 63.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:31:35 75.7 93.5 83.5 62.9 93.2 102.9 01.7 79.8 78.5 77.4 74.0 67.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:32:35 71.5 89.2 78.0 61.4 80.1 97.3 77.3 75.7 74.3 13.1 70.3 62.6 3 Here, 3 30Jan 09 11:33:35 65.6 83.4 75.7 60.6 86.2 94.3 73.6 67.8 66.3 65.2 63.4 61.6 3 Motor 3 39Jan 09 11:34:35 69.4 37.2 79.3 60.9 90.3 90.6 77.1 74.6 70.9 68.9 67.2 61.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:35:35 68.6 86.4 79.6 61.2 92.7 97.3 70.9 69.5 69.0 68.8 68.3 67.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:36:35 61.6 05.3 11.6 66.6 38.0 89.7 63.,9 60,4 68.0 67.8 67,5 61.1 3 Motor 3 3DJan 90 11:37:35 67.2 35.0 71.3 66.0 96,6 89.7 68.3 67.9 67.8 67.6 67.3 66.3 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 11:38:35 61.5 85.2 72.9 65.8 90.6 94.8 69.5 66.4 67.9 67.8 67.4 66.5 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 11:39:35 67.5 B5.3 71.4 66.4 93.8 92.6 68.9 66.3 67.9 67.8 67.5 67.0 3 Heuer 3 39Jan 09 11:40:35 68.2 06.0 75.9 66.6 56.2 97.9 71.6 69,0 68.7 60.4 67,0 67.1 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 11:41:35 60.4 78.2 67.6 $8.3 92.5 87.7 65.4 62.6 60.9 60.4 59.7 59.0 3 Motor 3 3DJan 09 11:42:35 64.7 82.5 77.0 59.9 96.1 97.9 73.4 60.9 65.6 63.4 61.2 59.3 3 Mauer 3 30Jan 09 11:43:35 61.2 79.0 15.1 58.8 91.5 93.1 66.6 62.5 61.5 60.9 60.1 59.2 3 Heuer 3 30Jan 09 11:44:35 61.0 79,6 74.9 59.0 84.7 91.2 67.8 63.0 62.4 61,6 60.6 59.4 3 Motor 3 39Jan 09 11:45:35 65.1 02.9 73.0 59.3 06.1 95.7 72.8 70.0 67.5 63.9 61.3 60.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:46:35 62.4 00.1 70.2 59.4 09.5 94.8 66.9 65.2 63.8 63.1 61.0 60.0 3 Motor 3 39Jan 09 11:47:35 61.9 79.7 68.1 59.3 81.5 91.2 65.1 63,7 63.2 62.7 61.6 60.0 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 11:48:35 59.7 77.5 65.0 57.8 02.1 87.7 62.0 60.9 60.5 60.0 59.6 58.5 3 Meter 3 39Jan 99 11:49:35 61.2 79.0 71.9 58.9 84.2 09.7 65.7 62.7 61.8 61.3 60.6 59.4 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 11:50:35 61.3 79.1 65.7 59.2 83.1 89.7 64.3 62.9 62.0 61.7 60.9 60.1 3 Mete, 3 30Jan 09 11:51:35 61.3 79.1 65.0 $9.0 02.9 93.7 64.7 63.5 62.7 62.2 60.7 $9.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:52:35 62.4 80.1 67.7 58.7 83.9 97.3 65.7 64.0 64.3 63.6 61.0 59.4 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 11:53:35 65.1 82.9 18.9 61.0 99.1 99.2 73.2 68.7 64.8 63.0 62.5 61,4 3 Mater 3 30Jan 09 11:54:35 65.0 82.7 00.2 60.8 99.5 101.3 73.0 66.9 62.9 62.7 62.2 61.2 3 Motor 3 39Jan 09 11:55:35 62.1 79.9 71.9 60.3 90.1 89.7 64.9 62.9 62.5 62.0 61.7 61.1 3 Motor 3 30Jan O9 11:56:35 64.3 82.1 71.4 60.7 82.1 93.7 70.1 68.4 66.3 64.0 62.4 61.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:57:35 61.5 79.3 64.3 60.2 64.5 87.7 62.9 62.6 62.1 61.9 61.5 60.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:58:35 61.5 70,3 65.0 60.2 76.4 97.7 63.7 62.5 62.0 61.8 61.4 60.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:59:35 61.6 79.4 69.9 60.0 84.1 57.7 63.0 62.4 61.9 61.8 61.5 60.6 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:00:35 62.4 80.2 74.4 60.7 91.1 92.6 66.1 614 $2.8 62.4 61.8 61.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:01:35 62.4 80.2 71.8 61.0 91.1 92.6 65.5 63.3 62.8 62.6 62.1 61.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:02:35 62.9 30.7 69.2 61.0 93.5 99.7 65.8 63.9 63.6 63.2 62.6 61.8 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 12:03:35 62.7 80.5 70.0 61.0 96.4 92.6 64.8 63.6 63.0 62.9 62.5 62.0 3 Neter 3 30Jae 09 12:04:35 63.1 60.9 75.9 60.4 93.7 94.9 669.7 64.4 62.0 62.4 61.7 61.1 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 12:05:35 62.5 00.3 68.4 60.5 79.5 99.7 64.6 63.8 63.3 62.9 62.3 61.2 3 Mete, 3 39Jan 09 12:06:35 64.8 82.6 72.5 61.2 B9.2 94.8 71.3 69.3 65.3 64.1 63.0 62.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:07:35 6B.0 35.8 79.0 60.2 93.0 95.7 73.6 72.2 11.5 70.6 63.6 61.4 3 Motor 3 39Jan 09 12:08:35 61.9 70.7 70.3 60.4 01.4 90.5 64.9 62.9 62.6 62.2 61.6 60.7 3 Meter 3 3DJan De 12:09:35 63.7 81.4 81.6 60.3 96.7 90,6. 66.9 63.8 62.9 62.7 62.1 61.1 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 12:10:35 63.7 01.4 73.0 61.0 05.0 89.7 70.6 65.0 63.8 63.4 62.6 61.4 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 12:11:35 66.4 84.2 14.8 60.9 86.2 96.5 73.2 31_6 61.7 65.7 63.0 62.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:12:35 66.8 84.6 81.7 60.9 99.6 100.3 77.9 66.6 64.B 64.3 63.1 61.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:13:35 69.3 87.1 76.8 63.9 95.4 95.7 71.9 71.1 70.6 70.2 69.B 61.4 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 12:14:35 60.5 86.2 72.5 66.9 81.1 93.7 71.1 70.4 69.2 69.6 68.0 67.2 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 12:15:35 68.1 85.9 73.6 66.9 89.4 91.2 69.6 68.9 68.B 68.6 68.1 67.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:16:35 60.4 86.1 77.1 66.6 97.2 100.8 73.1 69.9 68.B 68.3 67.7 67.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:11:35 69.2 86.9 79.8 66.8 99.9 102.1 76.0 71.5 68.9 68.5 67.8 67.1 3 xet9r 3 30Jan 09 12:18:35 60.3 86.0 74.1 66.6 86.6 92.6 70.9 69.2 68.8 68.6 68.0 67.2 3 Meter 3 38Jan 09 12:19:35 69.2 87.0 84.1 67.6 97.1 100.8 71.6 69.B 69.$ 69.098.6 69.0 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 12:20:35 69.1 86.9 79.3 67.0 94.0 96.5 10.8 69.9 69.7 65.5 6B.9 68.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 32:21:35 67.5 85.3 83.4 59.5 97.2 98.6 71.1 69.7 69.0 68.7 61.2 60.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:22:35 63.5 81.3 81.1 59.2 94.7 °.7.5 67.5 65.2 64.2 63.4 62.0 60.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:23:35 62.0 79.1 76.6 58.0 94.5 95.7 67.0 63.2 62.0 61.4 "00.6 59.4 3 meter 3 30Jan 09 12:24:35 64.4 82.2 18.3 55.7 90.1 93.7 10.6 68.0 66.6 65.1 62.0 58.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:25:35 64.3 82.1 16.7 55.7 94.9 99.7 11.3 63.9 66.1 64.9 62.2 57.6 3 Mater 3 30Jan 09 12:26:35 60.6 78.4 00.1 53.1 96.0 94.7 66.1 61.9 60.8 59.9 58.2 54.9 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:27:35 63.9 81.7 78.8 53.6 96.7 96.5 73.9 61.9 62.1 60.6 58.8 56.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:28:35 61.4 79.1 10.1 56.1 86.7 92.6 66.6 64.3 63.1 62.2 60.0 50.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:29:35 60.1 71.9 67.1 55.6 81.3 B5.2 64.5 62.5 61.4 60.8 59.6 57.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:30:35 64.3 82.1 85.6 55.4 103.0 103.6 66.7 63.9 63.0 62.3 61.2 57.9 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:31:35 61.5 79.3 70.6 56.9 89.0 87.7 67.1 63.5 62.6 62.0 60.6 58.5 3 Meter 3 3UJan 09 12:32:35 61.E 79.4 73.6 56.7 89.1 89.7 64.9 63.6 62.8 62.3 61.1 59.2 3 Mater 3 30Jan 09 12:33:35 61.3 70.1 68.7 57.2 82.0 89.7 64.5 63.4 62.7 62.1 60.8 59.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:34:35 61.0 18.0 73.6 57.1 86.9 91.2 63.8 62.3 61.7 61.2 60.4 5B.6 3 Peter 3 30Jan 09 12:35:35 59.7 77.4 67.3 56.3 84.9 85.2 63.1 61.6 60.8 60.2 59.2 51.6 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:36:35 59.2 77.0 78.2 51.4 99.6 101.7 67.4 61.3 $9.0 58.5 54.7 52.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:37:35 56.1 75.9 69.4 51.8 84.8 07.7 65.8 61.9 59.2 57.8 55.6 53.4 3 Heuer 3 30Jan 09 12:30:35 61.3 79.3 81.6 53.6 100.0 100.3 69.6 62.8 59.8 58.6 56.8 54.6 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 12:39:35 57.4 15.1 66.2 51.9 63.8 87.7 61.9 60.4 59.4 58.3 56.2 54.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:40:35 64.2 91.9 73.9 54.4 00.1 92.6 70.9 69.1 66.8 64.0 61.5 56.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:41:35 57.9 75.7 69.3 54.6 B3.o 86.5 61.3 59.6 50.8 56.4 57.4 55.6 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:42:35 61.7 81.5 75.1 49.0 88.0 94.8 72.5 68.5 67.1 64.2 56.5 51.3 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 12:43:35 52.8 70.6 66.5 47.1 83.9 85.2 58.8 56.1 54.3 53.0 51.0 48.0 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 12:44:35 52.3 70.1 66.1 44.7 84.5 87.7 58.5 54.B 53.2 52.4 50.8 48.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:45:35 52.9 70.7 66.3 44.1 79.5 87.7 58.5 55.7 54.0 53.3 51.0 47.9 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:46:35 58.1 75.9 75.6 48.8 93.0 94.8 65.5 59.0 58.2 57.2 54.4 51.5 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 12:47:35 63.5 01.3 80.1 51.0 94.1 97.3 71.4 69.2 66.7 61.9 56.2 $2.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:48:35 57.B 15.6 74.2 48.6 91.5 92.6 66.7 59.7 50.0 56.5 54.1 50.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:49:35 55.1 72.9 69.6 45.7 92.1 94.8 63.9 59.1 55.5 53.9 51.5 40.3 3 Me"r 3 30Jan 09 12:50:35 61.3 79.1 83.7 47.3 96.1 97.3 65.0 56.8 54.3 53.2 51.6 49.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:51:35 53.9 71.6 65.1 47.3 B6.3 89.7 60.5 56.9 55.1 53.9 52.2 49.8 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:52:35 53.8 11.6 70.8 47.6 06.1 87.7 62.3 54.6 52.6 51.6 50.2 48.6 3 Motor 3 303an 09 12:53:35 $1.9 69.7 64.4 47.0 83.8 85.2 50.0 55.0 53.3 52.1 49.9 48.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:54:35 56.7 14.4 79.3 46.6 98.6 98.6 63.6 55.9 53.0 51.6 49.6 47.6 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:55:35 59.1 76.9 73.0 47.1 82.7 87.7 68.6 64.0 61.1 56.0 50.3 48.2 3 Motar 3 30Jan 09 12:56:35 56.3 74.1 71.3 47.2 04.2 87.7 65.4 60.5 57.0 54.8 51.8 49.1. 3 Meter 3 30Jae 09 12:57:35 55.6 73.5 66.7 48.8 02.4 85.2 63.9 60.1 56.5 54.6 52.6 50.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:58:35 55.8 73.5 73.5 47.9 06.0 91.2 62.5 5B.7 56.2 54.5 51.9 49.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:59:35 53.7 71.5 72.4 45.0 90.5 92.6 61.1 55.4 53.3 51.9 49.6 46.6 3 Mater 3 30Jan 09 13:00:35 59.5 77.3 77.7 44.7 97.7 98.6 60.8 64.3 60.4 57.2 51.9 47.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 .13:01:35 61.0 70.0 72.7 44.0 92.3 93.7 68.9 65.9 63.7 61.7 57_1 49.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 13:02:35 61.6 79.4 75.9 43.7 97.2 91.6 71.3 67.1 63.6 60.0 53.2 47.6 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 13:03:35 60.4 78.1 80.4 45.2 96.9 96.5 69.2 60.0 56.9 55.1 52.2 46.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 13:04:35 55.6 73.4 70.0 47.2 92.3 51.2 63.9 59.0 56.8 55.2 52.5 49.5 3 Hater 3 3oJan 09 13:05:35 58.2 76.0 75.0 45.5 93.6 96.5 69.1 59.1 56.5 55.1 52.4 48.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 13:06:35 53.5 11.3 65.0 40.4 00.9 87.7 50.7 55.7 54.5 53.8 52.7 50.7 3 M.etor 3 30Jan 09 13:07:35 53.1 70.9 68.6 47.4 83.4 05.2 59.1 55.3 53.9 53.2 51.3 48.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 13:08:35 51.0 69.7 61.9 45.4 78.4 05.2 56.2 53.6 52.4 51.7 50.2 41.2 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 13:09:35 54.8 72.5 15.3 45.3 89.9 92.6 59.0 54.9 53.6 52.6 50.0 47.2 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 13:10:35 55.7 73.4 70.4 44.0 67.8 B5.7 65.9 59.0 56.0 53.2 49.5 45.9 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 13:11:35 52.5 70.3 64.5 43.3 76.4 0.0 60.3 56.4 $4.3 52.9 50.1 46.2 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 13:12:35 50.6 69.6 63.4 45.1 37.9 0.0 $6.7 53.7 52.1 51.2 49.5 47.0 3 Hetar 3 3UJan 09 13:13:35 50.1 67.9 67.4 43.9 80.6 05.2 57.2 52.6 50.2 40.9 47.3 45.4 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 13:14:35 51.9 69.7 67.0 42.2 86.6 97.7 63.6 52.9 48.6 47.4 45.5 43.5 3 Mater 3 30Jan 09 13:15:35 49.7 67.5 63.8 42.1 04.4 0.0 58.0 52.6 51.0 49.4 46.8 43.5 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 13:16:35 52.5 70.3 68.5 42.0 84.2 85.2 62.6 55.6 51.6 49.1 47.1 44.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 13:17:35 52.2 70.0 72.0 43.9 84.6 94.8 60.0 54.1 51.6 49.8 47.6 45.2 3 Mater 3 30Jan 09 13:10:35 49.9 67.7 64.3 44.0 76.6 0.0 55.4 52.0 51.3 50.2 48.5 46.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 13:19:35 53.7 71.5 67.3 43.0 70.8 85.2 59.7 56.0 55.5 54.5 52.5 47.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 13:20:35 57.4 75.2 66.9 45.2 86.3 B7.7 65.2 62.5 59.8 58.1 53.9 46.9 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 13:21:35 56.1 73.9 65.5 46.7 84.2 87.7 62.9 60.6 58.0 57.2 53.2 40.9 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 13:22:35 56.9 74.7 70.5 47.4 86.1 87.7 64.3 60.9 59.3 57.7 53.4 49.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 13:23:35 62.5 77.9 82.5 51.7 106.0 106.8 70.6 64.4 61.7 59.7 57.3 54.4 C: \LAROAv \SLHUTIL \AERO! 4.bin Interval Data Site Wcacion Dec. Time Leq SEL Lman Lmin Peat uwk L( 21 Lt 81 L p61 L125) L150) 1,1901 4 30dan 09 0]:06:23 83.5 101.3 92.9 78.2 108.8 107.4 90.4 88.2 86.2 84.2 99.0 78.5 4 30Jan 09 07:07:23 79.2 97.0 89.8 77.6 104.0 107.4 85.2 79.5 79.0 78.9 78.6 78.1 4 30Jan 09 07:09:23 72.3 90.0 73.9 69.3 91.0 97:2 70.8 7B.2 70.9 70.0 70.4 64,5 4 30Jan 09 07:09:23 77.9 95.7 82.2 70.0 92.2 98.5 79.0 70.9 78.9 18.7 78.3 75.2 4 30Jan 00 07:10:23 70.0 95.8 70.7 77.4 92.1 97.2 78.7 78.7 78.] 78.5 78.0 77.4 4 30Jan 09 07:11:23 78.1 95.8 78.7 77.4 01.5 97.9 78.7 78.7 78.7 78.6 78.2 77.4 4 3OJan 09 07:12:23 78.0 95.8 76.8 77.4 02.2 47.9 76.6 78.8 78.7 78.5 79.0 77.4 4 38Jan 09 07:13:23 78.0 95.7 79.4 77.3 93.7 103.5 79.0 76.8 78.6 78.4 77.9 77.3 4 30Jan 09 07:14:23 60.3 96.1 81.5 77.5 95.0 100.7 31.5 80.9 80.9 80.6 60.5 80.0 4 30Jan 09 07:15:23 82.4 100.2 63.7 80.0 95.8 102.1 93.7 83.6 03.3 93.0 02.5 33.4 4 30Jan 04 07:16:23 78.1 95.9 B3.2 70.9 95.3 101.6 93.0 92.7 02.4 02.0 72.5 71.3 4 30Jan 04 07:17:23 72.7 90.5 73.7 71.8 87.3 94.7 73.7 73.5 73.1 72.4 72.6 72.1 4 30Jan 09 07:18:23 73.1 90.0 73.9 72.3 87.2 94.7 73.9 73.9 73.7 73.5 73.1 72.3 4 30Jan 09 07:19:23 73.2 91.0 74.0 72.4 E7.6 9-7 74.0 73.9 73.0 73.7 73.4 72.6 4 38Jan 09 07:20:23 73.4 91.1 76.9 72.5 92.0 57.9 74.1 73.9 73.8 73.7 73.4 72.7 4 30Jan 09 07:21:23 73.5 91.3 74.5 72.8 80.2 55.6 74.5 74.0 73.9 73.8 73.5 73.1 4 38Jan 09 07:22:23 73.9 91.7 75.3 72.9 60.8 94.7 75.0 74.6 74.5 74.3 73.7 73.1 4 30Jan 09 07:23:23 73.7 91.5 78.2 72.3 04.4 37.9 74.9 74.3 73.9 73.8 73.6 73.3 4 30Jan 04 07:24:23 73.6 91.4 74.7 72.7 87.6 96.4 74.7 74.1 73.9 73.8 73.5 73.1 4 38Jan 09 07:25:23 74.0 91.7 70.5 72.9 90.2 96.6 77.3 74.6 74.2 73.9 73.6 73.1 4 38Jan 09 07:26:23 76.2 94.0 79.4 72.3 91.1 99.7 78.0 79.3 77.9 77.7 77.0 73.2 4 38Jan 09 07:27:23 73.7 91_5 74.7 72.0 87.7 95.6 74.7 74.3 73.9 73.8 73.5 73.1 4 30Jan 09 07:28:23 73.7 91.5 74.4 72.7 87.2 95.2 74.4 74.3 73.9 73.0 73.6 73.1 4 38Jan 09 07:29:23 73.8 91.6 75.3 72.9 08.5 95.6 74.9 74.7 74.4 74.1 73.7 73.1 4 30Jaa 04 07:30:23 73.3 91.5 75.1 72.9 88.9 55.6 74.9 74.6 74.1 73.9 73.6 73.1 4 303an 09 07:31:23 74.0 01.0 77.4 73.0 92.0 95.6 75.0 74.8 74.7 74.5 73.9 73.2 4 38Jan 09 07:32:23 73.0 91_6 15.2 72.9 87.5 95.6 74.9 74.7 74.4 74.0 73.7 73.1 3UJan 04 07:33:23 73.0 91.5 75.2 72.8 B7.9 56.4 74.9 74.6 74.2 73.9 73.6 73.1 4 38Jan 09 07:34:23 73.9 91.7 75.2 73.0 67.9 95.6 74.9 74.8 74.5 74.3 73.8 73.1 4 30Jan 09 07:35:23 74.0 91.8 78.2 72.8 93.0 97.9 75.0 74.0 74.7 74.5 73.9 73.2 4 38Jan 09 07:36;23 73.8 91.6 74.7 73.1 80.4 94.7 14.7 74.6 74.3 74.0 73.6 73.1 4 30Jan 09 07:37:23 73.8 91.6 74.7 72.8 07.5 94.7 74.7 74.7 74.5 74.2 73.7 73.1 4 38Jan 09 07:38:23 73.7 91.5 74.7 72.9 08.0 94.7 14.7 74.5 74.0 73.9 73.6 73.1 4 303an 09 07:39:23 74.0 91.8 79.4 72.9 98.9 98.5 75.6 74.9 74.6 74.4 73.0 73.2 4 30Jan 09 07:40:23 73.9 91.6 75.0 73.0 08.6 94.7 74.4 74.7 74.5 74.2 73.7 73.1 4 30Jan 09 07:41:23 73.9 91.6 75.8 73.1 92.6 95.6 74.9 74.7 74.4 74.1 73.7 73.1 A 38Jan 09 07:42:23 74.0 91.8 78.6 73.3 92.2 97.9 75.0 74.9 74.7 74.5 14.0 73.3 4 380an 09 07:43;23 74.0 91.0 75.2 73.2 87.7 95.6 75.0 74.8 74.7 74.5 74.0 73.2 4 38Jan 09 07:44:23 78.9 96.7 01.2 73.3 93.1 101.? 80.9 80.7 80.3 79.9 79.0 7.4.5 4 30Jan 09 07:45:23 00.4 98.2 81.2 79.6 93.9 101.2 81.0 80.9 80.0 60..0 00.5 80.1 4 380an 09 07:46:23 76.6 94.6 81.1 71.8 93.2 100.3 80.9 60.7 80.3 70.7 13.6 72.3 4 303an. 09 07 .17:23 73.5 91.3 74.5 72.6 87.1 96.4 74..5 74.1 73.9 73.8 73.5 73.0 303an 09 07:46:23 73.8 91.5 74.9 72.9 80.1 96.4 74.9 74.6 74.1 73.9 73.6 73.1 4 301aa 09 07:49:23 73.8 91..5 74.6 72.9 87.4 95.6 74.B 74.5 74.1 73.9 73.6 73.1 4 30Jan 09 07:50:23 73.9 91.7 766.1 73.1 68.4 95.6 75.0 74.8 74.5 74.2 73.7 73.1 4 38Jan. 04 07:51:23 76.1 93.9 00.6 72.0 93.1 100.7 80.0 79.5 79.0 78.1 74.0 73.2 4 38Jan 09 07:52;23 78.6 96.3 80.4 77.6 92.7 100.7 75:8 79..0 78.9 78.0 78.5 78.1 4 38Jan 09 07:53:23 78.5 96.3 79.2 77.9 92.4 99.7 79.0 78.9 76.B 76.7 70.5 78.1 4 38Jan 89 07:54:23 79.4 97.2 67.3 77.8 102.9 105.1 81.1 80.5 79.9 79.8 79.2 78.3 4 30Jan 09 07:55:23 79.2 97.0 '81.1 78.1 93.4 99.3 60.5 79.9 79.9 79.7 79.3 78.3 4 30Jan 09 07:56:23 82.6 100.2 83.6 76.4 97.7 102.1 03.6 63.6 03.5 83.2 82.6 79.6 4 30Jan 09 07:57:23 02.6 100.4 83.3 82.1 96.0 102.5 83.0 02.9 82.8 82.6 82.5 82.1 4 30Jan 09 07:58:23 92.0 99.0 03.4 70.1 95.9 302.5 63.4 33 -.3 32.9 92.8 82.5 74.6 4 30Jan 09 07:59:23 74.2 91_9 76.2 71.7 68.6 97.2 75.9 75.6 75.1 74.0 74.1 72.4 30jan 09 08:00:23 75.0 92.9 76.9 73.3 09.7 98.5 76.3 75.9 75.7 75.5 74.9 74.1 4 30Jan 09 08:01:23 75.3 93.1 76.8 73.3 90.1 98.5 76.6 75.9 75.8 75.7 75.3 74.3 4 30Jan 09 08:02:23 75.4 93.2 77.2 73.9 91.3 90.7 76.9 76.2 75.0 75.8 75.4 74.4 4 38Jan 09 08:03:23 75.3 93.1 79.0 73.7 93.1 59.1 76.9 76.0 75.8 75.7 75.4 74.4 4 38Jan 09 08:04:23 75.3 93.1 76.3 74.2 50.0 97.2 76.0 75.9 75.8 75.7 75.4 75.0 4 30Jan 09 06:05:23 75.6 93.4 77.2 74.0 89.8 98.5 76.4 76.5 76.0 75.9 75.5 75.0 4 38Jan 09 03:06:23 76.1 93.9 86.0 75.1 107.1 107.9 78.2 76.9 76.5 76.1 75.7 75.1 4 30jan 04 08;07:23 75.9 93.6 78.3 74.7 91.9 98.5 77.0 76.7 76.4 76.0 75.7 75.1 4 30jan 09 08:08:23 76.0 93.0 78.5 74.8 91.9 99.7 77.0 76.0 76.6 76.3 75.0 75.2 4 30Jan 09 08:09:23 76.0 93.0 77.7 74.7 90.3 9S.5 77- 76.9 76.7 76.4 75.8 75.2 4 38Jan 09 08:10:23 75.8 53.6 70.0 74.5 65.3 90.0 77.2 76.7 76.3 76.0 75.6 75.1 4 !Dian 09 08:11:23 75.9 93.7 80.1 74.9 94.9 100.7 77.6 76.7 76.2 75.9 75.6 75.1 4 30Jan 09 08:12:23 75.9 93.7 81.0 74.7 98.4 100.3 77.8 76.8 76.5 76.2 75.7 75.1 4 30Jan 09 06:13:23 76.1 93.9 83.0 74.3 102.0 103.5 78.2 76.9 96.7 76.4 75.8 75.1 4 30jan 09 08:14:23 76.1 93.9 77.5 75.2 40.3 90.9 77.0 76.0 76.7 76.5 76.1 75.2 4 30Jan 09 08:15:23 75.0 93.6 76.6 75.1 90.0 97.2 76.6 76.4 76.0 75.9 75.6 75.1 4 38Jan 09 OB:16:23 75.9 93.7 76.7 75.2 39.5 97.2 76.7 76.7 76.3 76.0 75.7 75.2 4 38Jan 09 08:17:23 76.0 93.0 77.3 75.2 90.1 97.2 77.0 76.6 766.6 76.3 75.8 75.2 4 38Jan 09 08:18:23 76.1 93.9 77.9 75.4 90.3 97.2 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.6 76.2 75.4 4 38Jan 09 08:19:23 76.3 94.1 76.6 75.6 P1.6 100.3 77.3 76.9 76.8 76.7 76.4 75.6 4 38Jan. OB 08:20:23 76.1 93.9 77.6 75.4 90.5 97.9 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.5 76.0 75.4 4 38Jan. 09 06:21:23 76.1 93.9 79.1 75.2 92.6 98.5 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.5 76.0 75.2 4 38Jan 09 00:22:23 76.3 94.1 78.2 75.6 93.0 97.9 77.2 76.9 76.0 76.7 76.4 75.6 4 30Jan 09 OB:23:23 76.4 94.2 79.9 75.4 93.9 59.1 77.9 76.9 76.3 76.7 76.4 75.6 4 38Jan 09 08:24:23 77.1 94.9 93.0 74.7 300.3 101.2 79.2 78.5 77.9 77.6 76.9 75.6 4 38Jan 09 09:25:23 76.4 94.2 70.1 75.0 90.5 100.0 77.8 77.3 76.9 76.8 76.3 75.3 4 38Jan 09 08:26:23 76.1 93.9 70.0 74.9 90.2 96.5 77.5 76.9 76.7 76.5 76.0 75.2 4 30Jan 09 00:27:23 76.0 93.0 78.0 74.6 90.2 100.3 77.4 76.9 76.7 76.4 75.8 75.1 4 30Jan 09 08:28:23 76.3 94.1 69.0 74.5 108.7 109.0 77.9 76.9 76.7 76.5 75.9 75.1 4 38Jan 09 08:29:23 76.3 94.0 78.4 74.8 90.0 99.3 77.9 77.2 76.9 76.7 76.3 75.3 4 30Jan 09 08:30:23 76.5 94.3 79.6 75.1 90.3 100.7 70.0 77.6 77.0 76.9 76.5 75.8 4 30Jan 09 08:31:23 76.3 94.1 78.9 75.1 91.5 99.7 70.0 71.2 76.9 76.0 76.4 75.4 4 38Jan 09 08:32:23 76.3 94.0 81.7 74.6 93.4 99.7 77.9 77.0 76.0 76.7 76.4 75.3 4 38Jan 09 08:33:23 76.3 94.1 80.9 75.0 91.5 99.1 77.3 76.9 76.0 76.7 76.4 75.7 4 30Jan 09 08:34:23 76.3 94.1 77.5 75.3 91.2 100.3 77.4 76.9 76.0 76.7 76.4 75.6 4 30Jan 09 00:35:23 76.1 93.9 82.1 74.8 9B.3 99.7 77.8 76.9 76.0 76.6 76.1 75.2 4 3DJan 09 08:36:23 76.4 94.2 79.8 74.6 95.8 100.3 70.2 77.4 76.9 76.9 76.4 75.4 4 3DJan 09 08:37:23 76.2 94.0 78.0 14.9 92.0 300.7 11.7 77.0 76.0 76.7 76.3 75.3 JOJan 09 06:38:23 76.2 93.9 78.8 74.6 92.7 99.7 77.6 76.9 76.8 76.6 76.2 75.2 4 39Jan 99 08:39:23 76.0 93.8 81.2 74..4 91.5 99.1 77.2 76.9 76.7 16.5 75.9 75.1 4 30Jan 09 08:40:23 76.2 94.0 80.4 74.3 95.2 99.1 77.4 76.9 76.9 76.6 76.1 75.2 4 39Jan 09 08:4 1:23 76.2 93.9 79.6 75.1 91.9 100.1 76.8 77.0 76.8 76.6 76.0 75.2 4 30Jan 09 08:42:23 76.0 93.8 76.8 75.0 69.9 100.3 76.8 76.8 76.7 76.5 76.1 75.2 4 30Jan 09 08:43:23 76.1 93.9 79.5 75.0 94.5 99.1 77.2 76.9 76.0 76.6 76.2 75.3 4 30Jan 09 08:44:23 76.1 93.9 77.5 75.4 03.0 99.1 77.0 76.9 76.0 76.6 76.2 75.4 4 39Jan 09 08:45:23 76.1 93.9 77.0 75.4 90.0 100.7 77.0 76.9 76.0 76.6 76.3 75.4 4 3DJan 09 08:46:23 76.1 93.9 77.0 75.4 00.5 99.7 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.6 76.2 75.4 4 30Jan 09 08:47:23 76.1 93.9 77.0 75.5 89.9 99.1 ii.0 76.9 76.8 76.6 76.2 75.5 4 3Wan 09 08:48:23 76.2 93.9 77.2 75.3 B9.9 99.1 77.0 76.9 76.8 76,7 76.3 75.4 4 30Jan 09 08:49:23 76.1 93.9 77.0 75.4 90.4 99.1 77.0 76.0 76.8 76.6 76.3 75.4 4 3Wan 09 08:50:23 76.1 93.9 77.3 75.2 91.5 97.9 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.6 76.2 75.2 4 30Jan 09 08:51:23 76.1 93.9 78.5 75.3 9 98.5 77.0 76.9 76.8 76.6 76.2 75.3 4 3DJan 09 06:52:23 76.2 93.9 79.0 75.2 91.9 98.5 77.0 76.9 76.8 76.6 76.3 75.3 4 30Jan 09 08:53:23 76.1 93.9 10.0 75.9 92.1 98.5 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.6 76.1 75.4 4 30Jan 09 08:54:23 76.0 93.8 77_3 75.2 91.4 97.0 77.0 76.8 76.7 76.5 76.0 75.2 4 30Jan 09 08:55:23 76.1 93.9 77.4 75.4 89.8 08.5 77.0 76.9 76.8 76.6 76.2 75., 4 30Jan 09 08:56:23 76.0 93.6 76.6 75.3 89.9 97.9 76.8 76.8 76.6 76.4 75.9 75.3 4 30Jan OR 08:57:23 76.2 93.9 77.3 74.8 91.7 99.7 71.0 76.9 76.9 76.6 76.3 75.3 4 30Jan 09 00:58:23 76.3 94.0 79.9 74.8 91.2 99.1 77.8 77.0 76.8 76.7 76.3 75.3 4 30Jan 09 08:59:23 76.1 93.9 78.7 74.7 90.7 100.3 77.0 76.9 76.8 76.6 76.2 751. 4 Man 09 05:00:23 76.1 93.9 70.1 74.5 90.4 100.3 77.5 76.9 76.8 76.6 76.1 75.2 4 30Jan 09 09:01:23 76.2 94.0 79.2 74.4 91.4 100'.7 77.5 76.9 76.8 76.6 76.2 75.2 4 30dan 09 09:02:23 76.3 94.1 B1.3 74.7 93.9 100.7 77.7 76,9 76.8 76.7 76.4 75.4 4 38Jan 09 09:03:23 76.3 94.1 77.5 75.0 41.1 100.3 77.3 76.9 76.9 76.7 76.4 75.6 4 30Jan 09 89:04:23 76.3 94.1 79.2 75.0 90.66 102.1 77.5 76.9 76.B 76.7 76.4 75.5 4 30Jan 09 09:05:23 76.1 93.8 79.2 74.7 95.4 101.2 77.5 76.9 76.7 76.5 75.9 75.2 4 --Wan 09 09:06:23 76.1 93.9 70.4 74.8 94.3 100.3 77.2 76.9 76.7 76.5 76.0 75.2 4 39Jan 09 09:07:23 76.1 93.9 77.9 74.9 91.1 100.5 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.5 76.0 75.2 4 30Jan 09 09:08:23 76.0 93.6 77.6 74.6 91.0 99.7 77.4 16.9 76.7 76.5 75.9 75.2 4 30Jaa 09 09:09:23 761 94.1 77.4 74.9 90.2 99.1 77.0 76.9 76.9 76.7 76.4 75.5 4 30Jan 09 09:10:23 76.8 94.5 70.3 75.6 93.1 101.2 1719 77.7 77.4 77.1 76.7 76.1 4 30Jan 09 09:11:23 76.9 94.7 70.4 75.4 90.7 100.3 78.0 77.8 77.6 77.4 76.9 76.1 4 30Jan 09 09:12:23 76.5 94.3 79.5 75.0 94.6 99.7 77.3 76.9 76.0 76.7 76.5 76.0 4 30Jan 09 09:13:23 76.2 94.0 79.3 75.4 96.1 99.7 77.0 76.9 76.0 76.7 76.3 75.4 4 30Jan 09 09:14:23 76.1 93.9 70.8 74.9 91.0 100.7 77.0 76.9 76.9 76.6 76.2 75.3 4 30JOO 09 09:15:23 76.3 94.0 80.1 75..0 91.1 100.7 78.7 76.9 76.0 76.6 76.2 75.3 4 30Jan OR 09:16:23 76.3 94.1 80.0 75.0 94.5 99.7 78.7 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.3 75.3 4 30Jan 09 09:17:23 76.3 94.1 77.7 75.0 91.2 99.7 77.7 77.0 76.9 16.7 76.3 75.3 4 3DJan 09 09:18:23 7G.2 93.9 80.0 75.1 91.2 99.1 77.1 76.9 76.8 16.6 76.2 75.3 4 30Jan 09 09:19:23 75.8 93.6 76.6 75.1 90.5 98.5 76.6 76.3 75.9 75.8 75.6 75.1 4 30Jan 09 09:20:23 76.0 93.8 77.5 74.B 90.5 99.1 77.0 76.8 76.7 76.4 75.9 75.2 4 3Wan 09 09:21:23 76.3 94.1 77.6 75.0 90.2 99.1 77.3 76.9 76.8 76.7 76.3 75.4 4 303an 09 09:22:23 74.7 92.5 79.5 70.1 93.6 99.1 78.5 77.6 76.9 75.9 73.7 70.0 4 30Jan 09 09:23:23 78.0 95.B 79.3 76.5 92.2 100.3 79.3 78.9 79.7 70.4 77.6 77.1 4 30Jan 09 09:24:23 77.9 95.7 79.2 76.B 91.4 99.7 79.0 76.6 70.6 78.3 77.8 77.1. 4 5OJan 09 09:25:23 78.2 95.9 79.5 76.7 91.9 100.7 79.5 78.9 78.7 78.5 76.0 77.2 4 39Jan 09 09:26:23 78.0 95.8 79.4 76.7 91.6 100.3 79.1 78.8 70.6 78.4 77.B 77.1 4 30Jan 09 09:27:23 77.9 95.7 79.5 76.1 92.1 100.1 79.5 78.9 78.6 78.3 77.7 77.0 4 3Wan 09 09:28:23 77,8 95.6 79.5 75.9 91.1 100,3 79.4 78.6 78.6 76.3 71.7 76.7 4 3Wan 09 09:29:23 77.9 95.6 79.9 76.5 92.0 102.1 79.6 78.9 78.6 78,3 77.7 76.9 4 30Jan 09 09:30:23 77.8 95.6 79.6 76.5 52.6 99.7 79.3 78.0 78.5 78.1 77.6 77.0 4 30Jan 09 09:31:23 78.0 95.8 79.5 76.5 91.2 100.3 79.3 7819 78.7 78.5 70.0 77.2 4 3DJan 09 09:32:23 76.0 95.7 BO.7 76.5 96.0 100.7 79.6 78.0 78.7 78.5 77.9 77.1 4 39Jan 09 09:33:23 76.7 94.4 79.1 75.6 91.0 99.1 78.6 78.0 77.4 76.9 76.6 76.0 4 39Jan 09 09:34:23 77.2 95.0 79.2 75.7 91.3 99.7 78.9 78.6 70.3 77.9 77.1 76.2 4 39Jan 09 09:35:23 76.7 94.5 79.0 75.8 90.4 99.7 78.5 78.3 77.0 76.9 76.6 76.1 4 39Jan 09 09:36:23 76.7 94.4 82.0 75.9 98.1 98.5 17.9 77.5 77.0 76.9 76.6 76.1 4 3DJan 09 09:37:23 76.9 94.7 77.9 76.0 91.0 99.4 77.9 77.0 77.6 77.4 76.8 76,2 4 30Jan 09 09:38:23 76.6 94.3 77.4 75.9 90.0 9B.5 77.4 77.0 76.9 76.6 76.5 76.1 4 30Jan 09 09:39:23 76.6 94.4 77.9 75.9 91.1 97.9 77.8 77.2 76.9 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 39Jan 09 09:40:23 76.8 94.6 77.6 76.1 91.5 97.9 77.6 77.6 77.4 77.0 76.7 76.1 4 30ian 09 09:41:23 76.8 94.6 79.4 76.1 93.9 97.9 77.9 77.6 77.1 76.9 76.6 76.1 4 3OJan 09 09:42:23 76.8 94.5 77.6 76.1 91,1 97.2 17.6 77.5 77.0 76.9 76,6 76.1 4 30Jan 09 09:43:23 76.7 94.5 77.4 76.2 91- 97.9 77.4 77.4 77.0 76.5 76.6 76.2 4 39Jan 09 09:44:23 76.9 94.6 77.5 76.2 92.8 97.9 77.5 77.5 77.5 77.2 76.7 76.2 4 30Jan 09 09:45:23 76.9 94.7 85.9 76.2 99.5 102:8 77.9 77.6 77.2 76.9 76.6 76.2 4 30Jan 09 09:46:23 76.0 94.6 71.5 76.0 914 98.5 77.5 77.5 77.2 76.9 76.6 76.1 4 30jan 09 09:47:23 76.8 94.5 77.4 76.0 90.8 98.5 77.4 77.4 77.2 76.9 76.6 761 4 39Jan 09 09:46:23 76.9 94.6 79.4 76.3 95.0 98.5 77.9 77.7 77.4 77.0 76.7 76.3 4 30Jan 09 09:49:23 76.7 94.5 77.5 75.9 91.7 90.5 77.5 77.3 76.9 16.6 76.6 76.1 4 30Jan 09 09:50:23 76.9 94.7 77.0 76.2 91.5 98.5 77.2 77.7 77.5 77.2 76.7 76.2 4 3Wan 09 09:51:23 77.1 94.8 7 8.2 76.3 93.7 100.3 78.0 77.9 77.7 77,6 77.1 76.3 4 39Jan 09 09:52:23 76.9 94.7 77.5 76.3 91.0 99.7 77.5 77.5 77.5 77.2 76.7 76.3 4 30Jan 89 09:53:23 76.9 94.7 70.4 76.2 91.9 99.7 77.9 77.8 77.5 77.2 16.7 76.2 4 39Jan 09 09:54:23 76.9 94.6 78.9 75.9 93.5 99.7 77.9 77.7 77.3 77.0 76.7 76.1 4 39Jan 09 09:55:23 76.8 94.6 78.6 75.9 93.0 99.1 77.9 77.6 77.3 76.9 76.6 76.1 4 39Jan 09 09:56:23 76.9 94.7 79,6 76,3 93.: 99.1 78_0 77.8 77.5 77.2 76.7 76.3 4 30Jan 09 09:57:23 78.3 96.1 79.8 77.1 94.2 103.0 79.9 79.2 78.9 78.7 78.3 77.3 4 30Jan 09 09:59:23 7B.3 96.1 81.6 76.6 92.6 191.6 79.8 79.0 70.8 78.7 78.3 77.2 4 39Jan 09 09:59:23 77.1 94.9 78.9 76.2 93.4 100.3 78.0 77.9 77.7 77.6 77.1 76.2 4 30Jan 09 10:00:23 78.1 95.9 79.8 76.3 02.6 1D3.2 79.8 79.1 78.6 78.6 78.0 77.1 4 30Jan 09 10:01:23 70.2 96.0 79.7 76.2 94.7 100.7 79,1 79.0 78,8 78.6 78.1 77.2 4 30Jaa 09 10:02:23 7B.1 95.9 79.5 76.6 94.3 99.7 79.5 70.9 78.0 79.5 78.0 77.2 4 30Jan 09 10:03:23 78.1 95.9 80.2 76.7 94.0 100.3 79.4 19.9 78.7 78.5 78.0 77.1 4 39Jan 09 10:04:23 79.1 95.9 75.4 76.0 91.7 101.6 79.0 78.9 78.7 78.5 78.0 77.2 4 3Wan 09 10:05:23 78.1 95.9 79.7 76.8 91.3 100.3 79.7 79.0 78.8 78.6 79.0 77.2 4 39Jan 09 10:06:23 77.9 95.7 80.6 76.7 92.9 99.7 19.0 70.0 78.6 78.3 77.8 77.1 4 30Jan 09 10:07:23 77.0 95.6 701 76.5 91.9 100.3 18.9 70.0 78.5 70.2 77.7 77.1 4 303an 09 10:08:23 77.0 95.6 79.0 76.5 91.5 99.7 78.9 7B.7 70.4 70.1 77.7 77.1 4 303an 09 10:09:23 77.8 95.5 79.2 76.5 91.2 99.1 78.9 78.7 79.3 70.0 77.6 71,1 4 39Jan 09 10:10:23 77.8 95.5 82.0 76.4 96.2 101.2 79.0 70.7 70.3 71.9 77.6 77.0 4 30Jan 09 10:11:23 77.9 95.7 84.9 76.0 101.5 102.0 79.9 70.9 76.6 78.2 77.6 76.5 4 30jan 09 10:12:23 77.2 94.9 83.0 76.1 96.3 100.3 79.5 77.9 77.7 77.4 76.8 76.2 4 38Jan 06 10:13:23 75.2 93.0 79.2 72.4 94.0 95.7 78.3 71.2 76.8 76.5 73.9 73.0 4 30Jan 09 10:14:23 73.7 91.4 70.0 72.6 95.8 901 74.9 74.4 74.0 73.8 73.6 73.! 4 30Jan 09 10:15:23 73.9 91.7 76.0 73.0 68.7 96.5 75.0 74.8 74.6 74.4 73.9 73.2 4 39Jan 09 10:16:23 73.9 91.7 78.8 73.0 9L5 99.1 75.D 74.3 74.5 74.2 73.7 73.1 4 30Jan 09 10:17:23 74.9 92.7 86.8 73.1 104.4 103.2 76.8 75.66 75.1 74.9 74.5 73.8 4 39Jan 09 10:18:23 76.6 94.3 81.1 74.1 96.0 100.3 00.8 80.1 78.3 76.3 75.1 74.2 4 30Jan 09 10:19:23 75.1 92.9 79.9 73.3 98.2 99.1 76.0 76.4 75.9 75.7 75.0 74.1 4 39Jan 09 10:20:23 76.3 94.1 77.6 75.0 90.5 100:3 77.6 77.0 76.9 76.0 76.4 75.7 4 39Jan 09 10:21:23 76.1 93.9 77.6 74.8 90.1 99.7 77.4 76.9 76.8 76.7 76.3 75.3 4 30Jan 09 10:22:23 76.1 93,9 79.4 74.5 90.1 99.7 77.0 76.9 76.8 76.6 76.2 75.3. 30Jan 09 10:23:23 76.0 93.7 77.5 74.4 90.4 99.1 77.0 76.9 76.7 765 76,0 75.1 30Jan 09 10:24:23 76.0 93.8 79.3 74.7 90.4 99.7 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.6 76.1 75.2 4 30Jan 09 10:25:23 76.0 93.7 77.3 74.3 91.2 99.7 77.0 76.8 76.7 76.5 75.9 75.2 4 30jan 04 10:26:23 75.0 93.6 79.9 74.9 96.1 99.1 77.0 76.7 76.4 76.0 75.7 75.1 4 30Jan 09 10:27:23 75.9 93.6 76.7 75.0 90.1 985 76.7 76.5 76.1 75.9 75.6 75.1 4 30Jan 05 10:28:23 75.8 93.6 82.0 75.0 100.0 102.5 76.9 76.6 76.2 75.9 75.5 75,1 4 30Jan 09 10:29:23 75.9 93.7 78.5 74.9 92.6 63.3 77.0 76.8 76.5 76.3 75.8 75.2 4 30Jan 09 10:30:23 75.0 93.6 76.5 75.0 90.8 93.1 76.5 76.5 76.4 76.1 75.7 75.1 4 30Jan 09 10:31:23 75.5 93.3 76,8 73.1 90.5 98.5 76.6 76.8 76.6 76.4 75.7 73.5 4 30Jan 09 10:32:23 73.8 91.5 74.9 72.9 90.8 99.5 74.9 74.6 74.2 73.9 73.6 73.1 4 30Jan 09 1D:33:23 73.8 91.6 74.9 73.1 Bi.8 97.9 74.9 74.7 74.4 74.0 73.7 73.1 4 30Jan 09 10:34:23 73.9 91.6 70.4 72.7 92.3 97.2 74.9 74.7 74.4 74.0 73.7 73.1 4 303an 09 10:35:23 73.9 91.5 74.0 72.8 86.0 97.9 74.9 74.6 74.1 73.9 73.6 73.1 4 30Jan. 09 10:36:23 74.1 91.9 B1.2 73.1 97.4 101.6 75.0 74.9 74.7 74.5 74.0 73.2 4 30Jan 09 10:37:23 74.0 91.6 75.7 73.0 86.3 97.6 75.0 74.9 74.7 74.5 74.0 73.2 4 30Jan 09 10:38:23 74.2 91_9 75.4 73.2 08.0 99.1 75.0 74.9 74.8 74.6 74.2 73.3 4 30Jan 09 10:39:23 74.7 92.4 76.8 73.1 90.3 90.4 76.0 75.8 75.6 75.3 74.6 73.3 4 30Jan 09 10:40:23 74.9 92.7 78.6 72.8 95.2 99.1 76.0 75.8 75.6 75.4 74.0 74.0 4 30Jan 09 10:41:23 74.3 52.0 77,3 73.1 93.9 09.1 75.9 75.4 74.9 74.7 74.1 73.2 4 30Jan 09 10:42:23 74.0 91.7 76.5 72.2 95.0 57.9 75.7 74.9 74.7 74.5 73.9 72.7 4 3DJan 09 10:43:23 74.1 91.9 77.0 72.6 92.5 100.3 75.0 74.9 74.7 74.6 74.1 73.2 4 30Jan 09 10:44:23 75.1 92.9 77.8 73.3 93.6 100.3 76.0 75.9 75.8 75.6 75.3 73.9 4 30Jan 09 10:45:23 74.3 92.0 76.3 73.2 89.0 98.5 75.9 75.5 75.0 74.7 73.9 73.2 4 39Jan 09 10:46:23 74.0 91.8 76.8 72.5 93.2 98.5 76.1 74.9 74.6 74.2 73.7 73.1 4 30Jan. 09 10:47:23 76.1 93.9 78..5 74.8 92.4 100.3 77.7 16.9 76.8 76,6 76.1 75.2 4 3DJan 00 10:48:23 76.1 93.9 78.3 74.7 92.6 100.7 77.8 77.0 76.8 76.5 75.9 75.2 4 30Jan 09 10:49:23 76.0 93.7 79.5 14.7 94.0 100.3 77.4 76.8 76.6 76.4 75.6 75.1 4 394an 09 10:50:23 75.9 93.6 77.4 74.3 93.4 100.3 76.9 76.8 76.6 766.4 75.0 75.1 30Jan 09 10:51:23 75.9 93.7 76.9 74.7 92.9 99.1 76.9 76.8 76.5 76.2 75.7 75.1 4 30Jan 09 10:52:23 75.7 93.5 76.6 74.7 90.3 97.9 76.6 76.3 75.9 75.8 75.6 75.1 •I 39Jan 09 10:53:23 75.9 93.7 78.5 75.1 95.6 99.7 77.0 76.8 76.5 76.2 75.9 75.1. 4 39Jan 09 10:54:23 76,0 93.7 77.2 75.1 99.2 98.5 77.0 7G.8 76.6 76.4 75.9 75.2 4 30Jan 09 10:55:23 75.9 93.6 77.8 75.1 92.9 97.9 76.9 76..8 76.6 74.3 75.6 75.2 4 30Jan 09 10:56:23 75.9 93.7 78.4 73.4 94.8 90,1 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.6 76.1 75.2 4 30Jan 09 10:57:23 76.1 93.9 79.3 7.5.2 93.4 99.1 77.1 76.9 76.0 76.6 76.3 75.3 4 3DJan 09 10:58:23 75.9 93.6 79.1 75.2 96.3 99.7 77.0 76.0 76.5 76.2 75.7 75.2 4 39Jan 09 10:59:23 75.1 92.9 70.3 69.8 93.4 99.1 76.0 76.6 76.1 75.0 75.5 70.5 4 30Jan 09 11:00:23 71.7 89.5 77.5 69..6 90.2 96.5 77.3 75.0 71.6 71.0 70.6 70.1 4 30Jan 69 11:01:23 77.7 95.5 79.5 76.1 91.8 101.2 79.5 78.9 7B.6 76.2 77.6 76.6 4 30Jan 09 11:02:23 77.8 95.5 79.3 76.4 91.8 100.7 79.9 78.8 78.6 79.3 77.7 77.0 4 39Jan 09 11:03:23 77.9 95.7 79.6 76.1 91.3 59.7 79.6 78.9 78.0 79.3 77.7 77.0 4 39Jan 99 11:0•1:23 70.1 95.9 79.7 16.4 94.1 99.1 79.7 79.2 78.8 76.6 77.9 77.1 4 30Jan 09 11:05:23 77.9 95.7 80.0 76.3 92.5 99.7 79:6 79.1 78.7 70.4 77.7 77.0 39Jan 09 11:06:23 77.7 95.4 79.3 76.2 92.1 100.7 79.0 78.8 78.5 70.2 77.6 76.5 4 39Jan 09 11:07:23 77.5 95.3 20.5 75.8 92.7 99.7 79.0 78.7 76.4 70.0 77.5 76.4 4 3DJan 09 11:06:23 76.5 94.3 79.7 75.3 94.6 101.2 75,1 77.6 77.0 76.9 76.5 76.0 4 39Jan 09 11:09:23 76.3 94.0 78.4 75.5 94.0 97.9 77.0 76.9 76.9 76.7 76.5 76.0 4 39Jan 09 11:10:23 76.3 94.3 76.9 75.4 89.6 99.1 76.9 76.9 76.6 76.7 76.5 76.0 4 30Jan 09 11:11:23 76.4 94.2 79.5 75.0 94.7 97.9 77.0 76..9 76,9 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 39Jan 09 11:12:23 76.4 94.2 81.0 75.8 97.6 100.7 77.3 76.4 76.9 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 30Jan 09 11:13:23 76.4 94.2 78.4 75.7 93.5 97.9 77.0 76.9 16.0 76.7 76.5 76.1 4 30jan 09 11:14:23 76.5 94.2 77.2 75.9 90.7 97.9 77.0 76.9 76.6 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 30Jan 09 11:15:23 76.5 94.3 80.7 75.B 96.7 97.9 77.7 77.0 76.9 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 30Jan 09 11:16:23 76.5 94.3 78.7 75.9 93.5 90.5 7i.i 77.0 76.9 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 30Jan 09 11:17:23 76.5 94.2 77,6 75.6 90.1 97.2 77.0 76.9 76.8 76.8 76,5 76.1 4 30Jan 09 11:19:23 76.5 94.3 79.6 75.0 93.1 99.1 77.3 76.9 76.9 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 30Jan 09 11:19:23 76.5 94.3 77.3 75.9 90.7 97.9 77.0 76.9 76.8 76.6 76.5 76.1. 4 30Jan 09 11:20:23 76.5 94.3 77.2 75.8 90.2 96.4 77.0 76.9 76,0 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 30Jan 09 11:21:23 76.5 94.3 77.2 75.9 90.4 97,2 77.0 76.9 76.8 76,7 76.5 76.1 4 30jan 00 11:22:23 76.5 94.3 77.3 75.0 90.7 97.2 77,2 76.9 76.9 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 30Jan 09 11:23:23 76.6 94.4 77.4 75.9 9D.5 925 77.4 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.5 76.1 4 30Jan 09 11:24:23 76.7 94.4 79.6 76.1 94.1 97.0 77.7 77.0 76.9 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 3DJan 09 11:2$:23 76.6 94.4 77.3 76.0 91.4 97.9 77.0 76.9 76.9 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 30jan 09 11:26:23 76.4 94.2 77.3 75.3 90.1 97,2 77,0 76.9 76.6 76.7 16.4 75.9 4 39Jan 09 11:27:23 76.6 94.4 76.1 75.0 90.6 97.0 77.9 77.5 77.0 76.4 76.6 76.1 4 3Wan 09 11:28:23 77.1 94.8 80.2 75.7 91.1 99.7 78.8 73.0 77.8 77.5 76.9 76,1 30Jan 09 11:29:23 76.8 94.6 80.0 75.7 92.0 99.7 75.9 78.0 77.6 77.3 76.7 76.1 4 30Jan 09 11:30:23 77.6 95.4 79.6 76.1 91.1 100.3 79.1 78.8 78.5 70.1 77.5 76.4 4 30Jan 09 11:31:23 77.9 95.7 80.5 76.2 94.3 100.3 79.7 78.9 73.6 70.4 77.7 76,9 4 30Jan 00 11:32:23 77.3 95.1 79.6 75.5 51.4 100.3 '9.3 7B.7 79.1 77.8 77.1 76.0 4 3DJan 09 11:33:23 76.7 94.5 79.7 75.4 90.9 99.7 76.6 77.9 77.5 77.1 76.6 75.9 4 303an 09 11:34:23 79.7 97.5 63.7 72.1 96.5 102.8 33.7 83.7 33.3 82.5 76.9 73.9 4 39Jan 09 11:35:23 02.7 100.5 03.3 81.8 96.9 102.8 33.3 83.1 32,9 93.8 62.5 32.1 4 30Jan 09 11:36:23 92.4 100.2 03.3 81.7 96.9 102.5 83.0 02.9 82.8 82.7 62.5 82.1 4 30Jan 06 11:37:23 82.1 99.9 83.1 81.5 97.3 10? 5 a3.0 62.9 B2.7 82.5 62.1 81.5 4 39Jan 09 11:36:23 92.2 300.0 03.0 81.6 97.0 101.6 93.0 82.9 62.8 02.7 82.4 B1,6 4 3Wan 09 11:39:23 82.5 300.2 90.0 01,7 107.5 107.0 B3.0 92.9 02.8 02.7 82.5 82.0 4 30Jan 09 11:40:23 83.1 100.9 34.5 82.2 96.3 102.5 84.0 33.0 93.7 93.6 93.2 82.3 4 30Jan 09 11:41:23 79.9 96.6 83.7 73.7 95.6 101.6 83.7 82.9 62.5 61.0 75.6 74.3 4 30Jan 09 11:42:23 75.5 93.3 79.1 74.2 95.4 98.5 76.3 76.0 75.9 755 75.5 75.0 4 30Jan 09 11:43:23 75.7 93.4 82.1 74.7 102.9 102.1 76.8 76.0 75.9 75.0 75.5 75.1 4 30Jan 09 11:44:23 75.0 93.6 79.3 75.0 98.3 99.1 76.9 76.5 76.0 75.9 75.6 75.1 4 30Jan 09 11:45:23 76.0 93.0 77.3 75.0 89.8 99.1 77.0 76.8 76.6 76.3 75.8 75.2 3DJan 09 11:46:23 76.4 94.2 19.6 3DJan 09 11:47:23 74.0 91.8 75.7 3DJan 09 11:48:23 73.8 51.6 74.7 3DJan 09 13:49:23 74.1 91.8 78.8 3DJan 09 11:50:23 74.0 51,8 76.0 30Jan 09 11:51:23 74.0 91,8 74.7 3DJan 09 11:52:23 74.7 92.4 78.5 30Jan 09 13:53:23 76,6 94.4 00.3 3DJan 09 11:54:23 76.2 94.0 76.8 30Jan 09 11:55:23 76.2 93.9 76.7 30Jan 09 11:56:23 76.3 94.1 83.6 3DJan 09 11:57:23 76.1 93.9 17.2 3DJan 09 11:58:23 76.0 93.8 76.6 30Jan 09 11:59:23 76.1 93.8 76.7 30Jan D9 12:00:23 76.1 93.9 79.7 303an 09 12:01:23 76.4 94.2 80.0 30J9n 09 12:02:23 76.5 94.3 00.7 3DJan 09 12:03:23 76.4 94.2 79.5 30Jan 09 12:04:23 76.1 93.9 77.5 30Jan 09 12:05:23 76.2 94.0 78.0 3DJan 09 12:06:23 76.1 93.9 76.7 3DJan 09 12:07:23 76.1 93.9 76.8 30J9n 09 12:08:23 76.1 93.9 76.7 3DJan 09 12:09:23 76.2 93.9 77.0 30Jan 09 12:10:23 76.3 94.1 79.5 3DJan 09 12:11:23 77.2 95.0 78.2 30Jan 09 12:12:23 71.2 94.9 79.6 30Jan 09 12:13:23 82.7 100.5 87.0 30Jan 09 12:14:23 82.6 100.3 83.6 30Jan 09 12:15:23 82.3 100.1 84.2 3DJan 09 12:16:23 62.3 100.1 03.4 30J9n 09 12:17:23 82.1 99.9 83.4 3DJan 09 12:18:23 81.3 99.6 B3.2 Man 09 12:19:23 03.1 100.9 83.9 30Jan 09 12:20:23 83.4 101.1 92.4 30Jan 09 12:21:23 82.0 99.6 88.9 30Jan 09 12:22:23 73.9 91.6 74.6 30Jan 09 12:23:23 73.9 91.7 74.6 30Jan 09 12:24:23 73.1 90.9 79.8 30Jan 09 12:25:23 69.3 07.0 70.7 3DJan 09 12:26:23 71.0 94.8 08.1 30Jan 09 12:27:23 60.8 06.5 09.8 303an 09 12:28:23 64.2 82.0 70.0 3DJan 09 12:29:23 65.7 83.5 77.4 30Jan 09 12:30:23 67. 9 85.6 03.1 30Jan 09 12:31:23 66.9 94.6 74.9 303an 09 12:32:23 68.2 85.9 81.7 3DJan 09 12:33:23 68.8 86.5 74.4 3DJan 09 12:34:23 65.2 B3.0 71.2 Man 09 12:35:23 64.7 82.5 66.9 30Jan 09 12:36:23 62.3 80.0 67.3 Man 09 12:37!23 63.4 81.2 77.2 30Jan 09 12:36:23 $0.4 76.2 74.2 30Jan 09 12:39:23 58.6 ]6,3 68.3 Man 09 12:40:23 63.5 81.2 73.7 30Jan 09 12:41:23 60.5 78.2 67.1 30Jan 09 12:42:23 62.2 80.0 71.0 30Jan 09 12:43:23 51.2 69.0 64.5 30Jan 09 12:44:23 50.7 68.4 60.0 Man 09 12:45:23 51.5 69.3 60.9 Man 09 12:46:23 57.0 74.8 70.6 3DJan 09 12:47:23 50.3 76.1 66.9 30Jan 09 12:48:23 62.5 80.3 70.6 30Jan 09 12:49:23 52.4 70.2 64.5 Man 09 12:50:23 51.6 69.4 71.3 30Jan 09 12:51:23 51.5 69.2 59.4 3DJan 09 12:52:23 49.9 67.7 59.6 3DJan 09 12:53:23 53.8 71.6 74.9 303an 09 12:54:23 53.3 71.1 77.4 Man 09 12:55:23 52.1 69.9 67.3 303an 09 12:56:23 49.2 67.0 66.9 303an 09 12:57:23 52.4 70.1 68.1 30Jan 09 12:58:23 51.6 69.4 64.2 3DJan 09 12:59:23 47.B 65.5 52.8 30Jan 09 13:00:23 50.9 68.7 59.5 30Jan 09 13:01:23 49.7 67.4 58.2 Man 09 13:02:23 47.9 65.7 55.7 3DJan 09 13:03:23 4617 66.5 57.5 3DJan 09 13:04:23 49.8 67.6 55.1 30Jan 09 13:05423 50.7 68.5 59.2 30Jan 09 13:06:23 52.1 69.9 55.0 30Jan 09 13:07:23 51.0 68.6 56.4 30Jan D9 13:08:23 50.3 68.1 58.5 30Jan 09 13:09:23 48.1 65.9 56.9 30Jan 09 13:10:23 47.6 65.3 56.9 3DJan 09 13:11:23 47.9 65.6 55.5 3DJan 09 13:12:23 52.3 70.1 63.0 3DJan 09 13:13:23 48.6 65.4 61.6 30Jan 09 13:14:23 45.6 63,3 54.6 30Jan 09 13:15:23 48.9 66.7 61.0 3DJan 09 13:16:23 47.2 64.9 57.5 3DJan 09 13:17:23 52.2 70.0 67.5 30Jan 09 13:18:23 57.8 15.6 77.7 30].n 09 13:19:23 62.0 77.4 02.7 74.7 92.4 100.3 70.9 13.1 8B.0 97.2 75.5 73.1 87.5 97,2 74.7 73.0 93.8 98.5 75.0 73.2 93.9 97.9 74.0 73.2 87.6 97.2 74.7 73.1 90.3 98.5 77.6 75.5 96.9 101.6 78.5 75.5 90.5 98.5 76.8 75.5 90.9 97.9 76.7 75.1 102.4 102.8 77.9 75.3 90.6 97.2 77.0 75.2 90.9 97.2 76.6 75.5 89.9 97.9 76A 75.5 97.5 100.3 77.0 75.7 97.4 99.7 71.1 75.6 96.4 98.5 77.9 75.6 94.1 98.5 77.3 75.3 90.6 97.9 77.0 75.4 90.4 97.9 77.4 75.4 90.3 97.9 76.7 75.3 90.8 97.2 76.8 75.3 89.9 97.2 76.7 75.3 91.1 97,9 77.0 75.4 94.5 99.1 77.0 75.6 91.4 99.1 78.0 75.0 94.0 97.9 70.7 77.5 99.9 107.2 84.8 81.8 96.0 103.2 83.6 61.7 100.1 103.9 83.0 81.0 96.9 103.2 83.0 81.6 96.2 102.5 83.0 00.2 95.6 104.8 B3.0 02.2 96.9 102.8 83.9 02.6 109.1 110.4 B4.0 72.3 104.5 106.5 84.0 72.9 87.1 98.5 74.6 73.1 87.1 97.9 74.6 64.8 91.7 101.2 70.4 57.9 87.6 97.9 75.4 54.7 92.9 97.9 86.5 54.0 98.9 100.3 66.7 62.9 85.7 94.7 67.5 63.2 96.6 96.4 72.4 62.9 102.9 103.2 74.1 63.0 91.1 100.3 68.0 63.0 97.0 98.5 73.7 64.5 90.5 95.6 72.9 63.9 87.5 92.5 66.8 63.3 80.8 92.5 65.9 $4.4 81.6 97.2 65.2 $3.1 97.2 96.4 74.0 53.0 80.2 89.6 62.3 53.9 76.8 93.7 62.9 57.2 B9.3 94.7 69.8 57.4 92.1 94.7 64.0 53.2 83.2 97.2 69.5 45.4 84.5 85.2 56.0 45.3 ]B.l 85.2 56.0 44.0 79.2 93.7 56.1 $1.3 05.5 91.2 60.2 52.6 82.1 91.2 65.2 46.6 85.6 91.2 69.9 45.0 76.1 65.2 58.5 44.6 84.6 85.2 57.7 47,0 80.3 0.0 55.9 43.9 B4.B 85.2 54.7 44.8 93.8 95.6 62.7 45.8 98.1 97.2 55.9 45.4 93.4 93.7 60.7 44.9 86.4 87.7 52.9 44.8 86.7 07.7 59.7 45.8 86.4 87.7 56.5 45.3 79.3 85.2 50.6 44.9 73.9 0.0 57.0 44.7 83.2 0.0 56.1 44.4 73.6 89.6 51.3 45.0 72.7 85.2 $3.1 46.4 70.8 87.7 53.4 44.1 00.6 85.2 54.6 46.6 69.1 0.0 54.8 47.4 71.2 55.2 54.5 44.4 76.4 85.2 55.2 44.2 70.5 85.2 53.0 44.1 72.4 85.2 52.0 43.0 72.2 0.0 53.2 45.0 80.3 05.2 59,5 44.6 73.2 0.0 53.8 42.6 70.4 53.6 49.7 43.7 77.9 0.0 54.6 44.0 78.2 O.D 50.9 44.5 83.3 91.2 63.5 45.6 100.9 100.7 67.0 45.1 103.3 102.8 60.5 ]0.3 74.9 74.6 74.8 74.9 74.] 76.B 77.7 76.8 76.7 ]7.0 76.9 76.6 76.7 76.9 76.9 77.4 76.9 76.9 76.9 ]6.7 76.8 76.7 76.9 76.9 71.9 78.0 89.0 83.2 82.9 62.9 82.9 82.9 03.9 83.9 83.0 74.6 74.6 74.9 73.2 83.4 64.8 65.0 67.4 60.0 68.0 70.8 71.2 65.9 65.6 64.9 67.6 60.1 60.5 66.9 61.9 66.4 54.0 53.8 54.6 59.0 60.9 69.0 56.4 52.6 54.4 52.5 55.6 52.0 55.7 50.5 54.4 54.7 49.7 55.3 53.8 49.9 50.2 51.7 $3.7 54.4 $3.3 53.6 51.7 50.0 51.9 56.1 50.5 47.5 52.8 40.0 52.8 $0.0 59.8 77.3 76.6 75.9 75.1 74.6 74.4 73.8 73.2 74.3 74.0 73.6 73.1 74.7 74.4 73.9 73.2 74.5 74.3 73.8 73.2 74.6 74,4 73.6 73.2 76.0 74.8 74.0 73.2 77.0 76.9 76.5 75.7 76.8 76.7 76.4 75.6 76.7 76.6 76.3 75.5 76.9 76.7 76.2 75.3 76.8 76.6 76.2 75.3 76.6 76.4 75.8 75.2 76.7 76.5 76.1 75.5 76.8 76.6 76.2 75.5 76.6 76.8 76.5 76.1 76.9 76.8 76.5 75.9 76.8 76.7 76.5 76.0 76.7 76.6 76.2 75.3 16.6 76.7 76.3 75.4 76.7 76.6 76.2 75.4 ]6.6 76.6 76.2 75.3 76.7 76.6 76.3 75.3 76.8 76.7 76.3 75.4 76.8 76.7 76.4 76.0 77.8 77.6 77,3 76.3 77.8 77.6 77,0 76.2 83.8 83.7 83.3 79.0 82.9 82.8 82.5 82.1 82.8 82.7 62.5 82.1 82.6 82.7 82.5 82.0 62.8 82.6 62.3 81.6 02.7 82.5 81.9 80.5 83.6 B3.6 83.2 82.3 83.8 83.7 83.4 82.6 83.5 83.3 82.6 73.5 74.4 74.1 73.7 73.1 74.6 74.3 73.0 73.2 74.4 73.9 73.2 67.9 71.6 70.4 67.4 63.3 80.0 75.2 66.0 57.0 64.4 64.0 63.3 56.2 64.7 64.4 63.6 63.2 65.9 65.3 64.3 63.3 68.0 61.6 66.2 64.3 67.8 67.5 66.9 64.5 69.5 66.0 66.7 64.6 70.2 69.6 68.3 66.2 65.0 65.6 65.2 54.3 65.1 64.9 64.6 64.1 64.7 64.4 61.9 55.6 62.7 59.9 57.4 54.6 59.5 59.0 57.7 54.9 59.7 59.1 57.9 55.7 65.8 64.3 61.0 58.7 61.2 60.0 60.1 59.0 63.8 62.0 60.1 56.3 52.5 51.6 49.9 47.0 52.3 51.1 49.5 47.1 53.6 52.0 50.7 46.1 58.4 51.7 56.4 53.1 60.1 59.6 57.4 53.3 65.6 61.4 57.4 50.6 55.3 53.3 49.4 46.7 50.8 49.7 40.3 46.2 53.3 52.3 50.5 48.3 51.4 50.6 49.1 46.6 52.5 50.9 49.0 46.9 50.7 49.9 48,4 46.4 52.2 50.9 49.1 47.1 49.4 48.7 47.5 46.1 52.7 51.9 50.3 47.5 53.6 52.7 50.1 47.2 49.0 48.5 47.5 46.1 53.4 51.7 48.5 46.3 51.0 49.6 47.9 96.1 49.2 48.7 47.6 45.E 49.5 49.0 48.3 46.E 50.9 50.4 49.5 47,6 52.5 51.4 49.6 47.7 53.9 53.5 51.9 48.4 52.6 52.1 50.4 48.4 52.8 52.1 48.2 46.1 50.1 48.2 46.5 45.2 48.7 47.6 46.6 4$.1 50.3 48.0 45.9 44.0 54.6 53.0 49,4 46.8 49.1 48.3 46.9 45.5 46.6 45.9 44.7 43.3 50.4 49.4 £7.2 44.1 48.1 47.5 46.5 45.1 49.6 48.5 47.3 45.5 54.4 52.0 49.0 46.8 56.7 54.1 50.6 46.4 Construction Noise -Aerie Residential Development - 3rd and 4th Floor Stud Framing and Form Work Pro[ect description Project title: Construction Noise - Aerie Residential Development Engineer: Tin Cheung Customer: City of Newport Beach Description: Run description Calculation type: Single Point Sound Title: 3rd and 4th Floor Stud Framing and Form Work Run file: Construction. runx Result number: 3007 Calculation start: 2/11/2009 11:59:25 AM Calculation end: 2/11/2009 11:59:28 AM Calculation time: 00:00:647 [m:s:ms] No. of points: 1 No. of calculated points: 1 Kernel version: 1/15/2009 Run parameters Angle increment: 1.00 deg Reflection depth: 1 Number of reflections: 1 Maximal search radius 5000 Weighting: dB(A) Calculation with side screening Source side reflection precalculation enabled Standards: Industry: ISO 9613-2: 1996 Air absorption: ISO 9613 Limitation of screening loss: single /multiple 20 dB /25 dB Environment: Air pressure 1013.25 mbar rel. Humidity 70% Temperature 10 9C Mateo. Corr. C0(7- 19h)[dB] =0.0; CO(19- 23h)[dB] =0.0; CO(23- 7h)[dB] =0.0; VDI- Parameters for diffraction C1 =3 C2 =20 Dissection parameters: Distance to diameter factor 2 Minimal Distance [m] 1 m Max. Difference GND +Diffraction 1 dB The Planning Center 1580 Metro Dr Costa Mesa, CA 92626 USA Page 1 SoundPLAN 6.5 Construction Noise - Aerie Residential Development - 3rd and 4th Floor Stud Framing and Form Work Assessment: Leq 06- 22122 - 06100 -24 Reflection of "own" facade is suppressed Geometry data RDGM1003.dgm 217/2009 11:45:16 PM Metal & formwork 3rd and 4th floors.sit 2/11 /2009 11:51:16 AM - contains: 3rd floor metal stud work.geo 2/11/2009 9:35:30 AM 4th Floor Formwork.geo 2/11/2009 9:36:48 AM 50 feet discrete receptor.geo 2/11/2009 11:47:24 AM Additional Elevation Lines.geo 2/10/2009 8:10:32 PM Bldgs without existing.geo 2/9/2009 3:05:46 PM Combined Topo Modified for excavation.geo 2/7/2009 12:56:36 PM DXF_A- STRUC- FOOTPRINT(1).geo 2/10/2009 8:57:56 PM Excavation to 40 ft.geo 2/7/2009 11:42:32 PM Ground Reflection.geo 2/7/2009 12:54:30 PM The Planning Center 1580 Metro Dr Costa Mesa, CA 92626 USA Page 2 SoundPLAN 6.5 Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).Version 1.1 Report date: 3/3/2009 Case Description: SoundPlan Calibration - -- Receptor #1 -- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Calibration Residential 35 35 35 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage( %) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Backhoe No 40 77.6 50 Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 50 Concrete Pump Truck No 20 81.4 50 Excavator No 40 80.7 50 Front End Loader No 40 79.1 50 Excavator No 40 80.7 50 C Jackhammer Yes 20 88.9 50 Drill Rig Truck No 20 79.1 50 Hydra Break Ram Yes 10 90 50 Pneumatic. Tools No 50 85.2 50 [ Tractor No 40 84 50 Welder /Torch No 40 74 50 Vibratory Concrete Mixer No 20 80 50 C Flat Bed Truck No 40 74.3 50 Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 50 Auger Drill Rig No 20 84.4 50 C Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) Yes 20 90.3 50 C Dozer No 40 81.7 50 Vibratory Concrete Mixer No 20 80 50 C Crane No 16 80.6 50 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment "Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Backhoe 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A NIA Concrete Mixer Truck 78.8 74.8 N/A N/A NIA NIA Concrete Pump Truck 81.4 74.4 N/A N/A N/A NIA Excavator 80.7 76.7 N/A N/A N/A NIA Front End Loader 79.1 75.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 80.7 76.7 N/A N/A NIA NIA Jackhammer 88.9 81.9 N/A N/A N/A NIA Drill Rig Truck 79.1 72.2 NIA N/A N/A N/A Hydra Break Ram 90 80 N/A NIA N/A NIA Pneumatic Tools 85.2 82.2 NIA N/A N/A N/A Tractor 84 80 N/A N/A N/A NIA Welder /Torch 74 70 N/A N/A N/A N/A Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80 73 N/A N/A N/A N/A Flat Bed Truck 74.3 70.3 N/A NIA NIA N/A Compressor (air) 77.7 73.7 NIA N/A N/A N/A Auger Drill Rig 84.4 77.4 N/A N/A NIA N/A Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 90.3 83.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 81.7 77.7 NIA N/A N/A NIA Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80 73 NIA N/A NIA NIA Crane 80.6 72.6 NIA NIA NIA NIA Total 90.3 90.7 NIA N/A NIA N/A 'Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Appendices Appendix B. Construction Management Plan �� Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration Study City of Newport Beach 10010194] Refer to Draft EIR Appendix B for Construction Management Plan WETLIAND DATA FORM —Arid West Region 'DETERMINATION n P-oiect/SCe. FnIP $IiL�1 GtpCamt). QfaAAy- Sampling Dare: IO a8 yy1(o'IPC,I .AppficanJOwne^. n 14 ?f r o h1s Sate: (—A_ Sampling Point: Livestigatc(s): y 7zBe�on, Township. Range: T-1" S i��/ y Lantllam (hillsiope. tenece. elcJ: c � _ � � � � � �le "� Local nsON(concase, a nanek _.2(@�LLI� Sc9e (96): S0 �iiivllQ 1 Subregion (lRR): �Q/A tmlvex, Let �? :�'�rSy•0�ong: !!7:'Si�45,6V ✓Datum Wf-5`54 Scil Map Unit Name: NWI dassHlcatlon: lvp"E Are cl mahc I nydrdogic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _;L No_ (ff no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ Soll _, or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? 0 Are'Nonnal Circumstances' present? Yes -7— No_ Are Vegetation _ Soil __, or Hydrology_ naturally problematic? NO (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hyd-cphytic VcvetatIM Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Shc Present? Yes— No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes NO Percent of Dominant Spades Remarks: I VEGETATION Torel Cover US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11- 1.2066 Absdu!e Dim irant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tre Sratum (Use sclwtlric nam ) a1s ° iSDedeeS' Ste" Number of OoninaM Spades 1. SAr1- nJM �l ,tlw M __kl_ TAj4 That Am OBL, FACW. or FAC (A) 2 tAi'v( -; JM SP, �Q,].f._"'Ii- Total Numberof Dominsnt 3. Spades Across M Strata: (B) 4' Percent of Dominant Spades Torel Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (MB) Saollno/St:rub SLatum 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: Td at %Cover of MuaicNbv 2 3. OBL species x1- FACW species x2= FAC species X3= FACU species x 4 = 4. S Total Corer Herb St =m I Q� T1 UPL species x5= JS �wJolU!l1 A.�YVS 7�V 'n Colunn Totals: Prevalencelndex =8)A= 3, 4. Hy�rophyttc Vegetation Indicators: 1�Q[ Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ Morphological Adeptatims'(PrwWe supporting data In Remarks oron a separate sheet) 5 6 ? S. Prmlematic Hydrophyfic Vegetation' (Explain) Corer. — Woo M Vine Stratum l 1. 'Indicators of hydic soli and wetland hydrology must be present. 2. Tdtel Ower. Hydrophytic ' Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Sttmtum %LCorer of 81otic Crust Present? Yes X- No Remarks: � f ii -kjwc �O 6c � P , Iy ` 7'yC Gri,A(Av� J iii ItV WT F 1 lan„dsta�lw + nvlSAA& L w� US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11- 1.2066 SOIL Sampling Point: 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Dept Matrix Redo%Features Primery Indicators lery one lncicalor is sufficient) Mches) Color % Color (moist) % Tvae; Loa Texture Remelt 111 nN €— Lem CMU)S t/&V, �h Water Marks (B1)(Wverine) _ Surface Water (Al) 1,e. V9 t3 — - -- Svi V — D" Deposits (B3) (Rlverine) _ SaturalJon(A3) _ AGuedc Invertebrates (1213) _ Dahage Patterns (BID) Water Marks (31) (Nonrivertne) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (CI) _ Dry - Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) ( Nonriverne) _ Oxld @ed Rhtaospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Thln Muck Surface (C7) _ DrM Deposits (83) (Nonrivertne) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Bunows (CB) _ Surface Soft Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction In Plowed Solis (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Vlsble on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (E)Vain In Remarks) _ '7 : C--Concentration, D= Deoledon. RM=Reduced Matrix. 'Location: PL-P= Unin . RC --Root Channel, M--Matrix. Hydnc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRS, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis': _ Hlslosol (At) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 1 cm Muck (AD) (LRR C) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) _ Black Hlstie (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Reduced Vertic (Fla) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Red Parent Materiel (i r2) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 1 c-n Muck (A3) (LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) includes cali frintall _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F6) Remarks: _ Sandy Murky Mineral (Si) _ Vernal Pods (F9) 'Indicators orhydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) watiand hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer (If present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydnc Soll Resent? Yes_ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Primery Indicators lery one lncicalor is sufficient) _ Water Marks (B1)(Wverine) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Salt Crust (1311) _ Sediment Deposits (82) (Riverins) High Water Table (A2) _ Biietic Crust (B12) _ D" Deposits (B3) (Rlverine) _ SaturalJon(A3) _ AGuedc Invertebrates (1213) _ Dahage Patterns (BID) Water Marks (31) (Nonrivertne) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (CI) _ Dry - Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) ( Nonriverne) _ Oxld @ed Rhtaospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Thln Muck Surface (C7) _ DrM Deposits (83) (Nonrivertne) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Bunows (CB) _ Surface Soft Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction In Plowed Solis (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Vlsble on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (E)Vain In Remarks) _ Shallow Aqultard (03) 1 _ Water - Stained Leaves (139) _ FAC- Neutral Test (05) Field Observations•. Surface Water Present? Yes _ No Depth (Inches): Water Table Present? Yes— NO Depth (inches): Sau)atlon Present? Yes_ No _IVL_ Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_ Nok includes cali frintall Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), N available: Remarks: US Amy Corps of Engineers Arid West –Version 11.1 -2006 3. Regulatory Setting for Noise and Vibration To limit population exposure to physically and /or psychologically damaging and intrusive noise levels, the State of California, various county governments and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. The following describes the relevant noise standards applicable to the proposed project. 3.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Interior Noise Standards The State of California's noise insulation standards are codified in Title 24 California Code of Regulations, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are for new construction in California for the purposes of interior compatibility with exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise - sensitive structures, such as residential, schools, or hospitals, are near major transportation noises, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL. 3.2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Land Use Compatibility +++�''' 1 The City's Noise Element identifies four zone categories: Zone A, "Clearly Compatible;" Zone B, "Normally M. Compatible;" Zone C, "Normally Incompatible;" and Zone D, "Clearly Incompatible." These standards, 10 identified in Table 5, are for the assessment of long -term vehicular traffic noise impacts. For residential uses that include single - family, two- family, and multiple - family dwelling units, the City considers exterior noise levels up to 65 dBA CNEL as Clearly Compatible and Normally Compatible; noise levels over 65 dBA CNEL are characterized as Normally Incompatible and Clearly Incompatible. Under the Normally Compatible category, new construction or 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. Interior noise levels up to 50 dBA CNEL are considered normally acceptable for office uses. Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach • Page 19 7007078/9 3. Regulatory Setting for Noise and Vibration Table 5 Land Use Com atibilit for Exterior Community Noise Source: Newport Beach General Plan 2006. 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 construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional constructor, 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 analysis of 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. Page 20 • The Planning Center March 2009 Community Noise Equivalent Land Use Categories Level (CNEL) Categories Uses <55 55-60 60 -65 65 -70 70 -75 75-80 >80 Residential Single Family, Two Family, Multiple A A B C C D D Family Residential Mixed Use A A A C C C D Residential Mobile Home A A B C C D D Commercial Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging Regional, A A B B C C D District Commercial Commercial Retail, Bank, Regional, Restaurant, Movie Theatre A A A A B B C Village District, Special Commercial Office Building, Research and Industrial Development, Professional Offices, A A A B B C D Institutional City Office Building Commercial Amphitheatre, Concert Hall Recreational Auditorium, Meeting Hall B B C C D D D Institutional Civic Center Commercial Children's Amusement Park, Recreation Miniature Golf Course, Go -cart A A A B 8 D D Track, Equestrian Center, Sports Club Commercial Automobile Service Station, Auto General, Dealership, Manufacturing, Special Warehousing, Wholesale, Utilities A A A A B B B Industrial, Institutional Institutional Hospital, Church, Library, Schools' A A B C C D D Classroom Open Space Parks A A A B C D D Open Space Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife A A A A B C C Habitat Agriculture Agriculture A A A A A A A Source: Newport Beach General Plan 2006. 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 construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional constructor, 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 analysis of 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. Page 20 • The Planning Center March 2009 3. Regulatory Setting for Noise and Vibration Stationary ( Nontransportation) Noise The City applies the Noise Control Ordinance standards (Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.26.025), summarized in Table 6, to nontransportation, stationary noise sources. These standards do not gauge the compatibility of developments in the noise environment, but provide restrictions on the amount and duration of noise generated at a property, as measured at the property line of the noise receptor. These noise standards do not apply to noise generated by vehicle traffic, because the state, counties, and cities are preempted from controlling vehicle noise under federal law. The City's noise ordinance is designed to protect people from objectionable nontransportation noise sources such as music, machinery, pumps, and air conditioners. Table 6 City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Standards (LJ Noise Zone Time Interval Maximum Daytime Noise Levels dBA L25 LMOX Zone I - Single -, two -, or multiple- family residential 7 AM to 10 PM 55 75 10 PM to 7 AM 50 70 Zone II - Commercial 7 AM to 10 PM 65 85 10 PM to 7 AM 60 80 Zane III - Residential portions of mixed use properties 7 AM to 10 PM 60 80 10 PM to 7 AM 50 70 Zone IV- Industrial or manufacturing 7 AM to 10 PM 70 90 10 PM to 7 AM 70 90 Source: City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Section 10.26.025, Exterior Noise Standards. Notes: • These noise standards do not apply to heating ventilation and air conditioning systems or construction pursuantto Section 10.26.035 of the Municipal Code. • In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. • The Noise Zone III standard shall apply to that portion of residential property falling within 100 feet of a commercial property, if the intruding noise originates from that commercial property. • If the measurement location is on boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. Equipment sound ratings of new heating ventilation and air condition (HVAC) equipment installed within the City of Newport Beach are reviewed during plan check and tested in the field after installation. According to Section 10.26.045 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, new permits for HVAC equipment in or adjacent to residential areas shall be issued only where the sound rating of the proposed equipment does not exceed 55 dBA and is installed with a timing device that will deactivate the equipment during the hours of 10 PM to 7 AM. Construction Noise Hours and Limits The City realizes that the control of construction noise is difficult and therefore provides an exemption forthis type of noise. According to the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.26.035, Exemptions, noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, or grading of any real property are exempt from the noise level limits shown in the Table 6 above. Such activities shall instead be subject to the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity - Noise Regulations. According to this chapter, construction is permitted on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach a Page 21 raororsr.s 3. Regulatory Setting for Noise and Vibration and 6:30 PM and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Construction is not permitted on Sundays or any federal holiday. Exceptions to these construction hours can be made when the maintenance, repair or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours, as outlined in Section 10.28.040 of the City's Municipal Code. 3.3 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION Vibration The City of Newport Beach General Plan does not set specific limits or thresholds for vibration. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides groundborne vibration criteria for various types of special buildings that are sensitive to vibration for both vibration annoyance and cosmetic damage. Cosmetic damage includes, but is not limited to, damage to fences, property lines fences and walls, flatwork (e.g., paved areas.) The human reaction to various levels of vibration is highly subjective and variable. As noted in the FTA manual, "although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential of building damage, it is not suitable for evaluating human response" (FTA 2006). This is because it takes time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Table 7 lists the FTA human annoyance criteria for groundborne vibration based on the relative perception of a vibration event for various types of vibration- sensitive land uses. Table 7 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria - Human Annovance Land Use Category Max L, (VdB)' I Description Workshop 90 Distinctly felt vibration. Appropriate to workshops and non sensitive areas Office 84 Fe it vibration. Appropriate to offices and non sensitive areas. Residential - Daytime 78 Barely felt vibration. Adequate for computer equipment. Residential - Nighttime 72 vibration not felt, but groundborne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms. Source: FTA 2006. ' As measured in 1 /3- octave bands of frequency over the frequency ranges of 8 to 80 Hz. The level at which groundborne vibration is strong enough to cause cosmetic damage has not been determined conclusively. The most conservative estimates are reflected in the FTA criteria, shown in Table 8. Wood -frame buildings, such as typical residential structures, are more easily excited by ground vibration than heavier buildings. Table 8 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria - Cosmetic Damage Building Category PPV in /sec) VdB I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Nonengineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 N. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 Source: FrA, 2006. Notes: RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of one microinch /second. Page 22 a The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts 4.1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS 4.1.1 Methodology The degree to which noise - sensitive receptors are affected by construction activities depends heavily on their proximity. Construction activities are carried out in steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. As noted in Table 1, certain phases of project construction would occur simultaneously. Typically, the estimated construction noise levels are governed primarily by the piece of equipment that produces the highest noise levels. The character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site will change as work progresses, depending on the noise levels of the loudest piece of construction equipment in use. A combination of construction vehicles and handheld power tools would be used depending on the construction phase. Construction noise levels are based on those reported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) using the FHWA's Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM version 1.1, 2008). Table 9lists noise levels for construction equipment from the RCNM. A noise monitoring program was initiated to collect noise data from the metal stud framing and concrete formwork. This monitoring data, which primarily involves hand tools, was necessary to supplement the noise data for construction vehicles from the RCNM. Table 9 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Type of Equipment Average Sound Levels (dBA LQ at 50 feet) Backhoe 73.6 Concrete Mixer Truck 74.8 Concrete Pump Truck 74.4 Excavator 76.7 Front End Loader 75.1 Excavator 76.7 Jackhammer 81.9 Drill Rig Truck 72.2 Hydra Break Ram 80 Tractor 80 Vibratory Concrete Mixer 73 Flat Bed Truck 70.3 Auger Drill Rig 77.4 Mounted Impact Hammer hoe ram 83.3 Dozer 77.7 FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (version 1.1) Monitored Construction Noise Levels In general, noise levels from hand tools are not available using the FHWA's RCNM. Construction phases that consist primarily of noise from hand -held equipment were monitored to estimate noise levels from activities, including formwork construction and metal stud framing activities. To characterize noise from concrete formwork, a noise monitoring program was conducted January 20, 2009 at Seven Atelier Lane, in the City of Laguna Beach during development of the concrete forms for the 2nd floor of a four story single family residential structure. Noise measurements were also taken at 3341 Rowena Avenue on January 28, 2009 during the construction of the metal stud work, in the City of Los Angeles, to characterize noise from metal Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach •Page 23 7MM7913 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts stud framing. These two types of activities characterize the majority of the proposed construction duration (1.5 years). The metal stud framing and concrete formwork that was monitored for noise are the same type of activities that would occurfor the construction of the proposed Aerie project. Because the number of workers that were present at the monitored sites are different than those that would occur with the Aerie project, the monitored noise levels were logarithmically scaled to be consistent with the projected number of workers for the Aerie project Noise measurements were taken using Larson Davis 820 Type 1 sound level meters (SLM). The SLMs were calibrated before and after monitoring at each site. Both the calibrator and the SLM were sent to a certified acoustic laboratory for annual calibration. The SLMs were set on tripods at a microphone height of five feet. Voice recorders were also placed with each SLM to provide an audio record of the noise being monitored. Pictures and videos were also taken to document the monitoring program. Monitoring of Formwork Construction Noise monitoring at Seven Altelier Avenue in Laguna Beach consisted of construction activities associated with installation of interior walls with cast in place concrete. Because the top of the formwork had reached an elevation that was at the same grade as the northern portion of the sloped site, there was a direct line -of- sight between two of the SLMs and formwork activities. During noise monitoring, construction workers were erecting the formwork of the structure prior to the pouring of concrete. Formwork activities involved installation of the form panels and rebar for the interior walls. Tools used during the formwork included hammers and power tools, including electric drills and a rebar cutter. There were 15 men working on the site during the noise monitoring. Other sources of noise that contributed to the noise levels recorded by the SLMs included bird song, material delivery trucks going to other sites, an integrated tool carrier, skid steer loader, and power tools used at a construction site two lots down. Because of the contributions from these other noise sources, noise levels recorded at the site are considered conservative. No construction vehicles would be involved during the formwork phase for the proposed project. Sound level meters were placed at the following locations: • SLM 1 was 43 feet west of the building footprint (ridge of excavated area). Noise propagation from work occurring within the below -grade excavated area was attenuated by an intervening ridgeline created by the excavation. Hourly noise levels ranged from 52 to 58 dBA L,,. • SLM 2 was to the west edge of the building footprint (ridge of excavated area) overlooking the work site. Hourly noise levels ranged from 62 to 68 dBA L,,. • SLM 3 was to the north edge of the building footprint (ridge of excavated area) overlooking the work site. Hourly noise levels ranged from 64 to 73 dBA L,,. • SLM 4 was 52 feet south of the building footprint. This location is substantially below the elevation found at the northern portion of the project site. The site was also partially shielded from noise occurring in the interior of the residence. Hourly noise levels generally ranged from 53 to 57 dBA, with one hourly reading of 65 dBA L,,. Average noise levels at these monitoring sites are also shown in Figure 6, Noise Monitoring of Formwork Construction. Charts showing the minimum, average, and maximum noise levels and a graphic depicting the location of the noise meters Seven Atelier Avenue in Laguna Beach are included in Appendix B. Page 24 a The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Noise Monitoring of Formwork Construction 60.0 75.0 70.0 67.9 65.0 83.8 Cr m Q 60.0 m v 55.0 50.0 - 45.0 t 71.1 62.2 + West SLM @43 feel —a— SLM West at Excavation A SLM at North Excavation —*-- Southern SLM 40.0 .:. ° —_ _..._.., .._u...._. __._._. 9.29 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12.00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM Aerie Residential Development Contraction Noise and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 6 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left b lank. Page 26 a The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Monitoring of Metal Stud Framing Noise monitoring at 3341 Rowena Avenue in the City of Los Angeles consisted of metal study framing associated with two adjacent single - family residences. Work consisted of constructing the metal framing on the second and third stories and the installation of plywood ceilings. At the time of monitoring, eight workers were involved in metal stud framing. Noise from metal stud framing was generated by circular saws for cutting plywood, electric drills for screwing in the metal studs, a nibbler, hammers, dropping of tools and materials, and talking. Noise generated by testing of a compressor for a plasma torch was also measured. Secondary sources of noise at the project site included distant traffic, birds, and a neighbor using power tools (sander and paint gun). • SLM 1 was 25 feet to the north of the northernmost structure being worked on. Hourly noise levels ranged from 61 to 64 dBA Leq • SLM 2 to 18 feet to the south of the southernmost structure being worked on. Hourly noise levels ranged from 61 to 68 dBA Leq • SLM 3 was approximately 12 feet south of the two structures. Hourly noise levels ranged from 63 to 73 dBA Leq Average noise levels at these monitoring sites are also shown in Figure 7, Noise Monitoring of Metal Stud Framing. A graphic depicting the locations of the noise meters at 3341 Rowena Avenue in the City of Los Angeles is included in Appendix B. SoundPlan Modeling �� Noise modeling forthe construction of the proposed projectwas completed using the SoundPlan computer model developed by Braunstein and Berndt, GmbH, using noise levels from construction equipment in the RCNM and noise levels from formwork construction, concrete, and metal stud framing. The SoundPlan model represents the latest science in the assessment of environmental noise. This model allows noise assessments be done in a three - dimensional environment that takes into account noise attenuation from ground absorption, intervening building structures, terrain, and frequency of noise sources. SoundPlan was selected for use for this project due to its ability to model the complex hilly terrain and noise attenuation from construction activity occurring within the excavated area and numerous residential structures that would act as barriers to the propagation of noise. The model is able to generate noise contours, graphically, of the different construction phases associated with the project. The noise contours show the decibel levels from project- related construction activities at noise - sensitive land uses. The graphics created using the SoundPlan model depict the noise gradient generated from construction activities at noise - sensitive uses at six feet above ground level. The colors chosen for the noise gradient are based on the City's Land Use Compatibility for Exterior and Community Noise (see Table 5). While these noise levels are not applicable for construction noise, they provide some guidance on what is acceptable in terms of exterior noise levels. The yellow, orange, and red gradients signifies noise levels that the City of Newport Beach considers incompatible with noise - sensitive uses. The green noise gradient signifies land uses within the clearly compatible or normally compatible criteria for noise sensitive residential uses. These noise level contours represent an average for each construction phase and would change in location as the equipment moves. Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach *Page 27 700707914 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts 4.1.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would result in N -1 Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. N -2 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. These thresholds were selected because of their applicability to project related construction noise and vibration. Other Appendix G significance thresholds pertaining to noise are addressed in the DEIR. 4.1.3 Construction Noise Impacts Based on the Construction Management Plan, construction activities will be restricted to non - holiday weekdays from 7 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., per City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040. During construction Phases III and IV, when work will largely occur indoors, construction activities will be allowed Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and Saturday from 8:00 to 6:00 p.m., as allowed by City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040. Short-term noise impacts are impacts associated with demolition, grading /excavation, and building construction of the proposed land use. Two types of short-term noise impacts would occur during construction. First, the transport of workers and movement of materials to and from the site with truck could result in transient increases noise levels along local access roads. Trucks accessing the project site would generate noise levels on the order of 72.5 dBA at a distance of 50 feet'. A truck traveling at 20 mph would cover a distance of 500 feet in 17 seconds. Thereby increasing noise levels briefly as the truck passes. Project related trucks would travel to the site and be required to shut down unnecessary idling while it is being unloaded. After the truck is unloaded, it would take approximately 30 seconds to startup and then depart. Due to the size constraints of the project site, it is anticipated that generally only one truck would be delivering or hauling material to the site at any one time. This first type of transient noise sources would be clearly audible and would affect noise sensitive uses along the routes of travel but would be brief in duration. The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated at the project site during demolition, site preparation, grading, and /or physical construction. This type of noise impact would occur during the hours of construction activity and lead to noise exposure proximate to the project site. Noise generated from average conditions occurring during each of these construction phases are discussed below. Phase 1 — Demolition and Excavation Phase 1 consists of project- related demolition and excavation activities. Phase 1 would last approximately six months and would involve varying quantities of construction vehicles. The most noise intensive activities would occur when construction vehicles are working at -grade with the surface streets because no noise attenuation would be provided by the walls of excavated pits as would occur during the excavation phases. ' Based on the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model for dump trucks. Page 28 • The Planning Center March 2009 75.0 - 70.0 M-1XII Cr N 4 60.0 M v 55.0 .r r Emil 4. Construction Noire and Vibration Impacts Noise Monitoring of Metal Stud Framing OP 58.2 40.0 — --- - --- - - -- — — , . _ 7:35 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM t Northern SLM @ 25 ft f Southern SLM @ 18 ft —A Western SLM @ 22 ft Ov Aerie Residential Development Construction Noire and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 7 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 30 a The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Demolition Demolition activities would occur for approximately six days. This initial construction phase includes asbestos and lead based paint removal followed by demolition of the apartments and single - family residence. The existing buildings are primarily wood -framed structures with some brick and concrete block materials. Most of the demolition would be done by a backhoe loader and some hand tools (wrecking bars, sledgehammers, axes, shovels, etc.). Demolition of the existing building would begin on the interior with the finishes being stripped and removed. Next, the roof finish material, plywood sheathing, and roof rafters would be removed. From there, demolition will be done in a top down method with the supporting structural elements being removed after they have been relieved of all of the structural load above. These columns, beams, floor joists, stud walls, etc. will be dismantled by a combination of the hand tools listed above and the backhoe when necessary. In addition, a backhoe, excavator, and loader would be used occasionally to break apart the concrete foundation and to pick up debris and dump it into trucks to be hauled away to a dump site. The backhoe and excavator would not run simultaneously. It is anticipated that 10 truck trips would occur daily for a total of six days of demolition time. The trucks would drive up to the loading area, turn off the engine, and wait until the truck is loaded with debris before departing the site. It is anticipated that eight workman would be present on the site during demolition. Noise generated by trucks hauling demolition debris was not modeled because trucks would be turned off once they arrived at the site. See Table 10. Table 10 Demolition Equipment Used Concurrently Equipment Number of equipment per day Hours of operation per day Backhoe 1 4 Excavator 1 7 Loader 1 5 Source: Mon Jeannette Arch@ecture, February 10, 2009 Figure 8, Demolition Noise Contours, illustrates that noise from demolition equipment would result in noise levels of 75-80 dBA L q at the adjacent residence to the north of the site and 70-75 dBA L,q at the residences in the immediate vicinity of the project site, before diminishing with distance, for the six -day demolition. As shown in the Figure 8, remnants of the existing buildings would provide some noise attenuation for the residences to the northwest of the projects in until they were demolished. Caisson Installation Use of a Caisson Drill would occur for approximately 13 to 21 days Caisson placement would occur after the buildings are demolished and the pad is graded level. The caissons are necessary to provide sufficient foundation strength necessary for the proposed structure based on the local geology. Three to four caissons would be drilled per day. This includes drilling, steel placement, and filling with concrete. Two drill rigs would be at the site and would start drilling at opposite corners of the site. For structural integrity and avoidance of cave -ins, the drill rig would bore every other hole and work its way around the perimeter of the project site. A backhoe would be operated sporadically during the day to remove the dirt as it comes up from the drilling. Prefabricated steel casings for the caissons are delivered to the site and would be dropped in the hole by a crane. Crane usage was not included in the modeling because it is anticipated to be used 15% of the time and do not represent average conditions. An air compressor and mobile welding machine would be used when needed to splice the steel casings together. It is anticipated that 10 concrete truck loads would be necessary on a daily basis and that an average of 12 workmen would be present on the site. �� Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach • Page 31 700707914 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts The concrete trucks would be sequenced so that a single truck would be unloading at a time. See Table 11. Table 11 Equipment Used Concurrently for Caisson Drilling Equipment Number of equipment per day Hours of operation per day Drill Rig 2 7 Backhoe Loader 1 3 Concrete Pump Truck 1 4 Concrete Trucks 10 .5 Source: Brion Jeannette Architecture, February 10, 2009 Figure 9, Caisson Drilling Noise Contours, illustrates that noise from caisson drilling would result in noise levels of 80 to 85 dBA L,q within the immediate vicinity of the project site before diminishing with increasing distance during the 13 to 21 day duration of this activity. Noise levels during this phase would be substantial due to the multiple concurrent construction vehicles operating at grade. Excavation Excavation to an Elevation of 50 Feet Approximately 13,000 cubic yards of soil would need to be removed in order to excavate to an elevation of 50 feet NAVD 88 (see Site Profile, Figure 5) .2 Excavation to this depth would take approximately 41 days and require installation of a wood lagging system to retain the sides of the excavated area. To maintain structural integrity, excavation activities would be conducted in three phases so that the installation of lagging could occur to maintain slope stability. The first phase of excavation would occur after 38 caissons are installed. Typically, excavation equipment includes a dozer, an excavator, and a loader; however, the dozer and loader would not be operated simultaneously. Dump trucks will arrive at the site with no greater frequency than the discharge rate by the contractor so that no more than one truck is on site at one time and that trucks will not need to queue on Carnation Avenue. There would be about 27 truck trips to the site per day during this excavation phase and no more than one truck will be on site at one time. A crane would be used occasionally to drop in wood planks for lagging as the excavation proceeds. The single truck present on the site at any one time will not be permitted to idle as it is being loaded. Neither the truck nor the crane were modeled using SounclPlan because of their brief time of use. Crane usage is anticipated to be 15% of the time and do not represent average conditions. Approximately 16 workmen would be present on -site, installing the lagging. Construction vehicle quantities are shown in Table 12. Table 12 Excavation Equipment Equipment Number of operating equipment per day Hours of operation per day Dozer 1 7 Excavator 1 7 Loader 1 4 Source: Brion Jeannette Architecture, February 10, 2009 Y North American Vertical Datum of 1988 ( "NAVD 88 ") is the protocol used by the City of Newport Beach in order to establish a fixed reference point for purposes of measuring elevation. This protocol is more accurate than average mean sea level (amsl), which has been superseded as the City's recognized elevation protocol. All references to elevation in this report shall refer to NAVD 88. Page 32 • The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Demolition Noise Contours Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85< 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - - - Site Boundary Source: Google Earth 2008 Aerie Residential Development Construction Noire and Vibration Study o so Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 8 N 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 34 • The Planning Center- March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Caisson Drilling Noise Contours Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85< w 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< y < =50 < =45 - - -- Site Boundary Source: Google Earth 2008 10 Scale (Feet) Aerie Residential Development Construction Noire and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 9 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 36 • The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts As illustrated in Figure 10, Noise Contours From Excavation to an Elevation of 50 Feet NAVD 88, noise levels from excavation equipment would be attenuated due to being partially below grade where the ridgeline of the excavated area acts as a sound barrier. Noise levels of 80 to 85 dBA L,q are expected to occur at the nearest residence to the project site, (215 Carnation Avenue). Noise levels at the other residential uses near to the project site would experience attenuated noise levels in the 55-65 dB range, due to the construction vehicles operating within the excavated area. Excavation to an Elevation of 40 Feet To reach an elevation of 40 feet NAVD 88, an additional 7,000 cubic yards would need to be excavated. Excavation to an elevation of 40 feet NAVD 88 would take approximately 21 days. Additional wood lagging would need to be installed to support the walls of the excavated area. Activities associated with excavation to an elevation of 40 feet NAVD 88 are similar to the excavation to an elevation of 50 feet, with the exception of the use of a ram hoe. The ram hoe would be required for approximately 10 percent of the grading operation at the northeast corner of the site near to 215 Carnation Avenue. The ram hoe is necessary to fracture and remove rock occurring at this depth. At this time, construction activities are occurring in an excavated pit roughly 30 feet below Carnation Avenue and the perimeter of the building pad is enclosed on all sides. It is anticipated that there would be 28 truck trips to remove excavated material on a daily basis. An average of 16 workmen would be on -site. Construction vehicle quantities are shown in Table 13. Table 13 Equipment Used Concurrently for Excavation to an Elevation of 40 Feet Equipment Number of equipment per day Hours of operation per day Dozer 1 7 Excavator 1 7 Loader 4 Ram Hoe 1 Source: Brion Jeannette Architecture, February 10, 2009 As shown in Figure 11, Noise Contour From Excavation to an Elevation of 40 Feet NAVD 88, noise levels are generally confined within the excavation area during this excavation phase. The nearest residential use adjacent to the project site to the north would experience noise levels in excess of 85 dBA L,q because this residence overlooks the excavated area and would not benefit from the noise attenuation from excavated walls. The other surrounding residential uses would benefit from equipment working within an excavated area and would experience noise levels of between 55 and 60 dBA L,q. Excavation to an Elevation of 28 Feet Excavation to an elevation of 28 feet NAVD 88 would require and additional 5,240 cubic yards of soil haul, bringing the total soil haul to approximately 25,240 cubic yards. Excavation to an elevation of 28 feet would take approximately 15 days. Additional wood lagging would need to be installed to retain the walls of the excavated area. The final portion of the excavation work would conclude with the subbasement level at an elevation of 28 feet. This phase is also similar to the previous excavation phases. At this point, construction activities would occur in an excavated pit roughly 40 feet below Carnation Avenue and below the natural grade on four sides. The ram hoe would be required for approximately 10 percent of the grading operation and at the northeast corner of the site adjacent to 215 Carnation Ave. It is anticipated that there would be 29 truck trips to remove excavated material on a daily basis. An average of 16 workmen would be on -site. Construction vehicle quantfties are shown in Table 14. Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach • Page 37 70070781.] 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Table 14 Equipment Used Concurrently for Excavation to an Elevation of 28 Feet Equipment Number of equipment per day Hours of operation per day Dozer 1 7 Excavator 1 7 Loader 1 4 Ram Hoe 1 1 Source: Brion Jeannette Architecture, February 10, 2009 As shown in Figure 12, Noise Contours From Excavation to an Elevation of 28 Feet NAVD 88, noise levels are generally confined within the excavation area. The nearest residential use adjacent to the project site to the north would experience noise levels in excess of 85 dBA Leq because this residence overlooks the excavated area and would not benefit from the noise attenuation from excavated walls. The other surrounding residential uses would benefit from equipment working within an excavated area and would experience noise levels of between 55 and 60 dBA Lqq. Phase 2 and 3 - Concrete Pouring, Concrete Formwork, and Metal Stud Framing Construction Phase 2 involves shotcrete shoring, concrete placement for the foundation slab, structural decks and construction of retaining walls following excavation activities. Phase 3 would consist mainly of metal stud framing and installation of mechanical electrical and plumbing equipment. Portions of Phases 2 and 3 would occur concurrently and, together, they would last approximately one and half years. Data from noise monitoring of concrete formwork and metal stud framing, as discussed in Section 4.1.1, were used as the basis for the SounclPlan modeling. Concrete Pouring Concrete pouring during the construction phases would occur for approximately three to five days for each occurrence. Once the formwork for the foundation has been inspected by City of Newport Beach Inspector, the contractor would arrange for concrete pouring to take place on approximately eight different days [There would be about 20 -25 cement trucks coming to the site per day, with no more than one truck at a time on Carnation Avenue. A concrete pumper truck would be used to pump the concrete into the forms. Handheld mechanical vibrators would be used to consolidate the wet concrete while it is being poured. Both the cement truck and pumper truck would be stationed on the street at the center of the site on Carnation Avenue. This activity would occur to construct the exterior walls and floors. An average of 20 cement truck trips would occur on a daily basis. An average of 16 workmen would be on -site. Construction vehicle quantities are shown in Table 15. Table 15 Equipment Used Concurrently for Concrete Pouring Equipment Number of equipment per day Hours of operation per day Pum erTruck 1 7 Concrete Vibrator 1 6 Concrete Mixer 20 5 Source: Brion Jeannette Architecture, February 10, 2009 Page 38 . The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Noise Contours from Excavation to an Elevation of 50 Feet amsl Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85<. 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - -- Site Boundary Source: Google Earth 2008 Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise and Vibration Study 0 190 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 10 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 40 a The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Noise Contours from Excavation to an Elevation of 40 Feet amsl Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85< 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - — — Site Boundary Source: Google Earth 2008 0 190 Scale (Feet) Aerie Residential Development Construction Noire and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 11 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 42 ® The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noire and Vibration Impacts Noise Contours from Excavation to an Elevation of 28 Feet amsl Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) - - - - Site Boundary Source: Google Earth 2008 Aerie Residential Development Construction Noire and Vibration Study 0 190 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 12 MON 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 ® < =45 - - - - Site Boundary Source: Google Earth 2008 Aerie Residential Development Construction Noire and Vibration Study 0 190 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 12 MON 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 44 a The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts The concrete pour work could occur concurrently with the metal stud work. Noise generated from metal stud work was included with the noise generated with equipment associated with the concrete pouring. As shown within Figure 13, From Concrete Pouring Noise Contours, Noise would occur primarily from the concrete truck and the concrete pumpertruck along Carnation Avenue. Noise levels at the closest residences to these two trucks would be exposed to noise levels of 75 to 80 dBA L,q during each day of concrete pouring. Concrete Formwork and Metal Stud Framing Building construction would commence after the excavation /grading phase. The construction of the building for each floor is initiated by developing the form and then pouring the concrete floor first. After the concrete floor has cured, the exterior walls would be formed and also cast in place with concrete. At the time the forms for the exterior walls are being erected, metal stud framing for the interior walls would be constructed concurrently on the floor below where the forms are being constructed. Noise generated by the metal stud framing would be attenuated by the concrete exterior walls. The concrete formwork and metal stud framing would occur for approximately a year and a half. Integration of the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and interior walls would start from the lowest level and continue on to the upper levels. SoundPlan modeling graphics were prepared showing interior wall construction occurring concurrently with preparation of the forms prior to pouring concrete. Figure 14, First Floor Metal Stud Framing and Second Floor Concrete Formwork, shows interior wall construction and form work below grade while Figure 15, Second Floor Metal Stud Framing and Third Floor Concrete Formwork, shows the same type of work occurring above grade so that noise levels could be depicted with and without the noise attenuation provided by the excavated walls. Concrete Formwork (Second Floor) and Metal Stud Framing (First Floor) f%n� Noise from the construction of the building would consist of development of the formwork in preparation a,�y of the concrete pouring as well as metal stud framing for the construction of the interior walls. Noise VV modeling was conducted for two scenarios - one below grade and one above grade - to depict noise with and without the noise attenuation provided by excavated earthen walls. The modeling of construction activity occurring at the first and second floor represents noise occurring below grade whereas construction activities occurring at the third and fourth floors represents noise occurring above grade. Concrete formwork for the second floor and metal stud framing for the first floor would occur for approximately 40 days. In this stage, when the second floor perimeter concrete walls and first floor deck (at street level) reach the required strength, the formwork would be stripped and metal stud framing for interior walls would occur followed by the integration of the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. Noise generated by construction activities on the first floor would be attenuated by the exterior concrete perimeter walls and the second floor. Light -gauge steel studs are precut to length off -site precluding the need for most of the cutting to occur on -site. Attaching metal runner channels to a concrete floor would require the use of powder- driven fasteners and the steel members arejoined with self - drilling /self- tapping screws. Assembling the light -gauge steel members would require hand -held electric or pneumatic screwdrivers. Structural steel framing would be cut off -site then craned to the site and assembled by welders. The crane was not modeled using SoundPlan because of the brief time of use. Crane usage is anticipated to be 10% of the time and do not represent average conditions. At the same time, formwork for the second floor concrete walls would be erected by hand. Approximately 90 percent of the time for this is spent on constructing the formwork by hand before the concrete pouring. The area would be restricted from construction vehicles at this time. Most of the work would require a rebar layout. Small hand tools such as hand saws and a portable electrical /hydraulic rebar bender and cutter would be used to cut, form, and fit the rebar and ties. Formwork materials would be delivered to the site Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach *Page 45 7MM791.3 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts approximately once per week. An average of 42 workmen (25 crew members on concrete work and 17 crew members on metal stud framing) would be on -site. Hand held tool quantities shown in Table 16. Table 16 Equipment Used Concurrently for Formwork and Interior Metal Framing First Floor Equipment Number of a uipment er day Hours of operation per day Compressors 2 5 Hand Tools 15 6 Plasma Cutter 3 3 Roto Hammers 3 .4 Shot Pin applicators 2 1.25 Small stationary power tools 5 4 Source: Brion Jeannette Architecture, February 10, 2009 As shown in Figure 14, First Floor Metal Stud Framing and Second Floor Concrete Formwork, noise levels associated with the concrete formwork and metal stud framing for the first and second floors, respectively would result in noise levels of 55 -60 dBA L,q at the nearest residences to the south of the projects site and 70 -75 dBA L,q at the nearest residence to the north of the site. The highest noise levels experienced at residential uses further away would be 60 -65 dBA L,q or less. Concrete Formwork (Fourth Floor) and Metal Stud Framing (Third Floor) Concrete formwork for the fourth floor and metal stud framing for the third floor would occur for approximately 30 days. Construction activities for this stage are similar to the above for the formwork and interior metal framing for the first floor with the exception that the activities would occur roughly 10 feet above Carnation Avenue and the building footprint is smaller. It is estimated that the same number of workers and tools, and hours of operation would occur for this activity as shown in Table 16. See Figure 15. Noise levels associated with the concrete formwork and metal stud framing for the fourth and third floors would result in noise levels of 75 to 80 dBA L,q at the nearest residences to the north and 60 to 65 dBA L,q south of the projects site. The highest noise levels experienced at residential uses further away would be 60- 65 dBA L,q or less. Phase 4— Finishing Activities Phase 4 would include the application of the interior and exterior finishes in window and door installation occurring for a period of seven months. Cabinetry built off -site, countertops, and finish materials would be delivered and installed in all units. Exterior finishes such as stone veneer, roof materials, photovoltaic array panels, and exterior plaster would begin. Landscaping and final fire suppression systems as well as passenger elevator installations would complete the structure. Noise levels for this phase were assumed to be comparable to noise generated during the metal stud framing phase. Noise generated during this phase would generally occur in the interior of the structure with interior and exterior walls providing noise attenuation from the activities. Noise would generally consist of use of electric screwdrivers, compressors and infrequent use of circular saws. Exterior work will involve tile cutting which would occur indoors and brought to the exterior for installation as well as the use of a plaster sprayer for a period of a week. Page 46 . The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Concrete Pouring Noise Contours Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85< 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - - - Site Boundary Source. Google Earth 2008 0 190 Scale (Feet) Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 13 Ov 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 48 a The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts First Floor Metal Stud Framing and Second Floor Concrete Formwork Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85< -i 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50 <'. < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - - - Site Boundary Source: Google Earth 2008 0 190 Scale (Feet) r Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 14 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 50 e The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Third Floor Metal Stud Framing and Fourth Floor Concrete Formwork Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85< 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - — — Site Boundary 0 190 Source: Google Earth 2008 Scale (Feet) Aerie Residential Daelopment Construction Noire and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 15 �� 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 52 . The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Concurrent Dock and Building Construction Noise The proposed project involves the construction of the proposed Aerie residential building as well as the replacement of the existing docks. The noise and vibration generated by the construction of the docks was evaluated in a separate noise study conducted by Wieland Acoustics Incorporated. Construction of the docks is scheduled from May 2012 to July 2021 and is estimated to have a duration of 40 days. Dock construction is anticipated to occur concurrently with the construction of the 4'" floor interior walls and roof. The highest noise level associated with dock work is associated with the drilling phase which results in 88 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The nearest noise sensitive uses to the docks are 101 Bayside Place and 2495 Ocean Boulevard. Table 17 shows the noise levels associated with each activity as well as the combined noise levels from both activities. The combined noise levels are logarithmically summed. As shown in this Table, noise levels would increase by 1.5 dB at 101 Bayside Place and 0.5 dB at 2495 Ocean Boulevard, Table 17 Combined Dock and Bull din Construction Noise (dBA) Location Dock Drilling Noise Building I Construction Noise Combined Dock and Building Noise 101 Bayside Place 71 67 72.5 2495 Ocean Boulevard 68 1 59 68.5 Qn .7. The ol—;— 7.7— KA-7 9 9nn0 rin 4.1.4 Summary of Construction Noise Impacts />• As shown by the noise contours of the construction activities, noise levels vary substantially depending on the number and types of construction vehicles, type of construction activity, and the location of occurrence. Noise levels for each of the construction phases were evaluated at a reference distance of 100 feet from the eastern edge of the project site on Carnation Avenue to produce a chart of noise levels over the entire construction period, as shown in Figure 16, Construction Noise Levels Occurring Over the Construction Period. Noise levels are expected to increase when receptors are closer than 100 feet and diminish beyond 100 feet. Figure 16 is provided at this distance to illustrate the differences in noise levels over time based on the type of construction activity being performed. Noise levels are highest during the demolition, caisson drilling, and the concrete pouring when construction vehicles are at grade with Carnation Avenue. Noise levels subside substantially when construction equipment is working within the various depths of the excavated area due to the noise attenuation provided by the excavated walls. These excavated walls have no effect when residences are overlooking the site and have direct view of the construction equipment. After excavation, construction of the formwork and interior metal framed walls would occur with hand tools. Noise levels from these hand tools are substantially lower than the levels generated by construction vehicles, based on noise monitoring and noise level data provided by the RCNM. Construction vehicles would not be used during these phases, with the exception of concrete pouring when short periods of substantial noise exposure would occur.. In addition, noise generated by metal framing would occur within the interior of the newly constructed floor and be attenuated by the presence of exterior concrete walls and a concrete ceiling. After all the exterior and interior walls are constructed, the finish work would commence. The finish work would also be done with hand tools. As explained above, noise levels associated with the finish work were conservatively assumed to be comparable to those of metal stud framing. However, interior finish work would occur within the interior of the building and be substantially attenuated by both the interior and exterior walls of the residential structure. Exterior finish work would also be done with hand tools. Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach *Page 53 700707914 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts The ambient average daytime (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) noise levels (dBA L,Q) in the vicinity of the project site range from 50.5 dBA to 59.9 dBA. Construction noise from the phases that involve construction vehicles results in noise levels of 42.6 dBA to 82.1 dBA at 100 feet. For the worst case noise generating phase, this level of noise would be approximately 22 -31 dBA Leq above ambient background noise and would last approximately three to four months during the demolition, caisson drilling, and excavation phases before the noise from construction vehicles would be attenuated by excavated walls. Second story residences adjacent to the project site with a clear line of sight to the construction vehicles would experience these noise levels for a period of seven months during the demolition, caisson drilling, and excavation phases because the excavated walls provide less attenuation. For approximately one and a half years, noise levels would be, on average, between 42.6 dBA to 61.9 dBA Leq at 100 feet from the construction of the interior and exterior walls. Noise levels would be approximately 2 -11.5 dBA above the ambient background noise. As explained above, interior finish work was assumed to be equivalent to noise from interior metal stud work and would generate noise levels of 52.8 dBA at 100 feet. Exterior hardscape and landscape would last approximately four months. Noise levels would be approximately 0 -2 dBA above the ambient background noise. Due to the length of construction activities (approximately 32 months) and level of noise from the period of construction vehicle use, noise exposure from project- related construction activities at the nearby residential receivers would result in a short-term significant impact from project related construction activities. 4.2 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS 4.2.1 Construction Vibration Annoyance Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration - sensitive uses. The effect of vibration on buildings near a construction site varies depending on the magnitude of vibration, geology, and receptor building construction. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures, but can achieve perceptible ranges in buildings close to a construction site. Page 54 • The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts 90 , Construction Noise over Time Cr 50 J m V 40 30 20 WIN F—i O m 3 O 0 E w N O O xcavate to 28' cavate o 40' * Concrete Pour Caisson Drilling 80 70 dr=xcavate a� 60 UU to 50' Cr 50 J m V 40 30 20 WIN F—i O m 3 O 0 E w N O O xcavate to 28' cavate o 40' * Concrete Pour 0 1 1 11 1i 1 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 12 Work Week �� Aerie Residential Development Construction Noire and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 16 a� UU UU U CA �a m ° O.rl Finishing D c a O n n O O � 0 6; Z� K ° 3 3 0 O G UDD a Tl 0 w O 21 O' N . . N i7 ° 2. m O S_- o'<n °mom n� 33 ° Q CD, T w o p C to 0 3� wm� �� �'3 0s 0 �w BOO m 3 lo. rt 0 3 CD m 'cm 3 ..-. O CD V o� ^0 '� o 3 0 0 0 m w -- -n y 1p 3 O w N 0 1 1 11 1i 1 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 12 Work Week �� Aerie Residential Development Construction Noire and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 16 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 56 e The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts The analysis of potential short-term vibration impacts assumed the vibrations would emanate from the center of the project site at an average distance of 80 feet from the project site boundary. The impact on the nearest vibration sensitive use (215 Carnation Avenue) was conservatively assumed to occur at the 215 Carnation property line. As a result, this analysis provides the maximum levels of vibration occurring at the outdoor living space located on the 215 Carnation Avenue property line. However, because construction activities are typically distributed throughout the project site, construction vibration was also assessed at the center of the project site (80 feet from the 215 Carnation Avenue property boundary) to obtain the average vibration levels that would be experienced by sensitive receptors the majority of the time. Table 18 lists the maximum and average vibration source levels for construction equipment anticipated to be used at the project site for the off -site residential receptors and at the closest residential uses. As shown in this table, vibration levels generated by the construction vehicles during the demolition, caisson drilling and excavation phases were found to exceed the FTA's perceptibility criteria for residential uses. Those phases that do not involve heavy construction equipment use were not modeled because hand tools do not generate perceptible levels of ground vibration. The residential uses being affected include only those residences immediately to the northeast and south of the project site. Project related construction activities were assessed for the potential to result in annoyance at the nearest vibration sensitive uses. The assessment of annoyance from vibration from construction activities is based on several criteria including perceptibility, frequency of occurrence, time of occurrence and duration. In terms of perceptibility, using the FTA criteria (Table 7 above) vibration which is "barely felt" is not deemed significant because it does not constitute "exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels" as per Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines. The word "excessive" is defined by the Merriam - Webster Dictionary as "exceeding what is usual, proper, necessary, or normal." If something is �����`'�,,,,' "barely felt," it cannot reasonably be considered "excessive." Therefore, for the evaluation of human V� annoyance caused by vibration from construction activities, the criteria for establishing potentially significant vibration induced annoyance impacts is average daytime (there will be no nighttime construction) vibration measurements that are "felt." The FTA has established 84 VdB as the level that is "felt" or readily perceived. In addition to the perceptibility criterion, the frequency of occurrence of vibration generating activities must be considered in determining what constitutes "exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels" pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines. Loaded trucks have the potential to generate vibration as they vehicles travel down the street. However, project related truck trips will only result in transient (1 -2 second) exposures of perceptible vibration as they pass in front of residences. Based on this fleeting exposure, loaded trucks would not result in significant vibration impacts for annoyance. Athird criterion for vibration induced annoyance is the duration of vibration intensive construction activities. Construction activities that involve perceptible vibration or high frequency in a day may nevertheless be considered to have less than significant vibration generated annoyance impacts if the duration of construction is short. The project's demolition, caisson drilling and excavation phases have the most potential for generating vibration at vibration sensitive residential uses. Based on the Construction Schedule attached to the Construction Management Plan, it is anticipated that there are approximately 109 total work days associated with these activities. However, vibration intensive construction activities would not exceed the "felt" vibration level of 84 VdB when construction equipment is operated 35 feet or more feet away from sensitive uses. The following represents the time period for during which demolition, caisson drilling and excavation would occur within 35 feet of vibration sensitive uses. Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach *Page 57 70OM791-3 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Demolition -1.3 days Caisson Drilling - 6.5 days Excavation -16.8 days The total days for which vibration from project related construction activities would exceed the "felt" level is therefore approximately 25 work days. The last criterion considered in assessing vibration impacts is the time of occurrence. Residential uses are much more sensitive to vibrations occurring at night as compared to the day time. Construction activities that would generate perceptible levels of vibration are time- restricted by Municipal Code Section 10.28.040. Under Section 10.28.040, construction is permitted on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM, Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, and is prohibited on Sundays and any federal holidays. The assessment of the potential for project related construction vibration to cause annoyance includes the four criteria previously described above: perceptibility, frequency of occurrence, time of occurrence and duration. Although the maximum vibration levels associated with certain construction activities would, in some instances, be "felt" under FTA criteria and could occur frequently in the days they do occur, because construction activity would be limited to the least vibration- sensitive times of the day, the duration of perceptible vibration would be relatively brief and intermittent, potential vibration impacts will not result in a significant vibration annoyance impact. Page 58 • The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Table 18 97 Average Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment at Nearest Residences — 68 Vibration Annoyance No Pumper 47 1 Exceeds FTA's No Loaded trucks Perceptibility Maximum Average Criteria? Vibration Vibration Levels ("Felt" per Table Construction Activity Levels (VdB)Z (VdB) 13 7: 84(VdB)2' Caisson Drill 97 72 Yes Back Hoe Loader (Small bulldozer) 68 43 No Pumper 47 1 43 1 No Loaded trucks 90 1 71 1 Yes Excavation to 50 ft past Large bulldozer 97 72 Yes Excavator (Small bulldozer)' 68 43 No Loader (Small bulldozer)' 68 1 43 No Loaded trucks 901 1 71 Yes Excavation to 40 ft mill Large bulldozer 97 72 Yes Ram Hoe 97 72 Yes Loader Small bulldozer ' 68 43 No Excavator Small bulldozer)' 68 43 No Loaded trucks 90 71 Yes ' Vibration levels from the listed off -road construction equipment are equivalent to vibration levels generated by a small bulldozer. ' At the closest distance from where any large or small off -road construction equipment is in operation to the nearest structure. ' At an average distance (center of site to nearest structure) from where any large or small off -mad construction equipment is in operation to the nearest structure. �� Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCily of Newport Beach • Page 59 7OM7913 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts 4.2.2 Cosmetic Damage from Construction Vibration The FTA criteria for vibration - induced cosmetic damage to wood -framed structures is 0.2 inch per second. The potential for cosmetic damage generally refers to the potential for cosmetic damage (superficial cracks) to fences, walls, and flatwork, not damage that compromises the integrity of the structure. Table 19 lists the maximum vibration source levels for construction equipment anticipated to be used at the project site at off -site receptors. As noted above, a Construction Management Plan has been prepared for the proposed project, the components of which are considered to be included as a part of the project. The CMP requires, among other things, that the Applicant agree to indemnify the property owners in the immediately contiguous lots against any cosmetic damage to their homes resulting from vibration caused by construction activities necessary to complete the project as a condition to the issuance of demolition permits for the existing structure. This indemnify obligation is subject to those contiguous owners providing Applicant, if requested, with access to their structures to allow a pre - demolition inspection of the current condition of all structures on those properties. The CMP also requires that vibration probes will be placed at 215 Carnation Avenue to monitor construction activities. A vibration monitoring program will identify any construction activity which exceeds the criteria for cosmetic damage. If excessive vibration is found to occur, other construction methods will be employed, if possible, to eliminate any occurrence of cosmetic damage. Such alternative construction methods include, but are not limited to, use of different drill bits for the caisson drilling, use of less vibration - intensive construction vehicles, use of drilling and insertion of expansive grout to fracture rock, and /or use of lubricants for the caisson drilling. Because the CMP is part of the Project Description, the evaluation of potential cosmetic damage from vibration considers activities required by the CMP to be incorporated within the project itself. Implementation of the measures cited in the CMP will ensure that vibration - induced cosmetic damage impacts from caisson drilling, use of a ram hoe, and /or use of a large tracked dozer are avoided. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required and significant unavoidable vibration - induced cosmetic damage impacts will not occur as a result of project implementation. Page 60 • The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Table 19 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment at Nearest Structure — Maximum RMS Off -Site FTA Criteria (in /sec) I Exceeds FTA Criteria? No Caisson Drill 0.542 0.2 Yes Back Hoe Loader Small bulldozer) 0.008 0.2 No Pumper 0.012 1 0.2 1 No Loaded trucks 0.076 1 0.2 1 No Excavation to 50 It msl Large bulldozer 0.285 0.2 Yes Excavator (Small bulldozer)' 0.010 0.2 No Loader (Small bulldozer)' 0.003 1 0.2 No Loaded trucks 0.076 1 0.2 1 No Excavation to 40 ft msl Large bulldozer 0.542 0.2 Yes Ram Hoe 0.542 0.2 Yes Loader Small bulldozer ' 0.018 0.2 No Excavator Small bulldozer) 0.018 0.2 No Loaded trucks 0.076 0.2 No Excavation to 28 it msl Large bulldozer 0.008 0.2 No Ram Hoe 0.008 0.2 No Loader Small bulldozer ' 0.008 0.2 No Excavator Small bulldozer) 0.008 0.2 No Loaded trucks 0.076 0.2 No source: easea on memoaaiogy nom r i A zuua. Notes: RMS velocity calculated from vibration level using the reference of one microincWsecond. NA: Not Applicable ' At a distance of 10 feet from construction area to nearest residences to the east. 3 Vibration levels from the listed off -road construction equipment are equivalent to vibration levels generated by a small bulldozer. 0� Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach • Page 61 700MM -3 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 62 • The Planning Center March 2009 5. Construction Noise and Vibration Mitigation Measures 5.1 MITIGATION MEASURES Construction Noise CN -1 The construction contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. CN -2 The construction contractor shall fit all equipment with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. CN -3 The construction contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from residential receptor locations as is feasible. CN -4 The construction contractor shall post a contact name and telephone number of the owner's authorized representative on -site. CN -5 The construction contractor shall install temporary sound blankets or plywood panels with a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of 32 or higher and a density of 1.5 pounds per square foot or greater (e.g., SoundSeal BBC -13 -2 or equivalent) along the entire outer perimeter of the construction area. The temporary sound blankets or plywood panels shall have a minimum height of six feet. If plywood panels are selected, they must have a minimum density four square foot have between the l�r� of pounds per and no perforations or gaps panels. C CN -6 The construction contractor shall select quieter tools or construction methods whenever feasible. Examples of this include the use of plasma cutters, which produce less noise than power saws with abrasive blades and ordering precut materials to specifications to avoid on -site cutting. CN -7 The construction contractor shall maximize the use of enclosures as feasible. This includes four - sided or full enclosures with a top for compressors and other stationary machinery. This also includes locating activities, such as metal stud and rebar cutting, within constructed walled structures to minimize noise propagation. Construction Vibration Vibration impacts were found to be less than significant for both vibration induced annoyance as well as cosmetic damage. Consequently, no mitigation measures are warranted. 5.2 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Construction Noise Implementation of the construction noise reduction measures would attenuate noise to the extent feasible. Temporary sound blankets would reduce noise levels noise levels by 5 dBA from construction activities whose line of sight is blocked by these sound blankets. (FTA 2006). Enclosures have the potential to reduce noise levels by a point of 8 dB. Working within a walled structure provides 5 dB of attenuation. With the implementation of the noise mitigation measures, noise from construction activities would be reduced. Construction activities would still result in substantial increases above the ambient noise environment. The Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach •Page 63 700]0191.3 5. Construction Noise and Vibration Mitigation Measures project would need to be in compliance with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.26.035, which limits noise levels to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM and Saturdays between the hours of 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Compliance with the Municipal Code would limit noise from construction activities to the least sensitive portions of the day. However, because of the magnitude of noise generated during the phases which involve construction vehicle use, the proximity of the noise sensitive of uses, as well as the duration of the construction period, project - related construction noise would result in an unavoidable short-term significant impact. Construction Vibration Annoyance from vibration generated by project - related construction activities were found to result in less than significant impacts. In terms of the potential for vibration induced cosmetic damage, with the implementation of the CMP, activities that would approach the potential for cosmetic damage would be avoided or minimized and any incidental cosmetic damage that might occur would be remediated at the Applicant's expense. Consequently, no significant impacts related to vibration would be significant after mitigation. Page 64 • The Planning Center March 2009 Appendix F Construction Noise and Vibration Study CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION STUDY FOR: AERIE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT prepared for.• THE CITY OF NEWPORTBEACH Contact: James Campbell Senior Planner prepared b THE PLANNING CENTER Contact: Tin Cheung Senior Environmental Scientist MARCH 2009 CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION STUDY FOR: AERIE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT �� prepared far: THE CITY OF NEWPORTBEACH City of Newport Beach Contact. 3300 Newport Blvd. James Campbell Newport Beach, CA 92663 Senior Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER 1580 Metro Drive Contact: Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tin Cheung Tel. 714.966.9220 • Fax: 714.966.9221 Senior Environmental E -mail., costamesa @planningcenter.com Scientist Website: www.planningcenter.com MANA -03.0E MARCH 2009 Table of Contents Section Page INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... ..............................1 1.1 Project Description ............................................................................... ............................... t 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................ .............................13 2.1 Noise Setting ........................................................................................ .............................13 2.2 Vibration Setting ................................................................................... .............................16 2.3 Physical Setting and Existing Land Uses ............................................ .............................17 3. REGULATORY SETTING FOR NOISE AND VIBRATION ............................. .............................19 3.1 State of California ................................................................................. .............................19 3.2 City of Newport Beach ......................................................................... .............................19 3.3 Federal Transit Administration ............................................................. .............................22 4. CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACTS ................................ .............................23 4.1 Construction Noise Levels ................................................................... .............................23 4.2 Construction Vibration Levels .............................................................. .............................54 5. CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION MITIGATION MEASURES ...... .............................63 5.1 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. .............................63 5.2 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................... .............................63 6. REFERENCES ............................................................................................... .............................65 COO F-11 »=1ZI911434: A Noise and Vibration Data B Construction Management Plan Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach • Page i 7OM79ra Table of Contents List of Figures Figure Page Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................. ..............................3 Figure2 Local Vicinity ......................................................................................... ..............................5 Figure 3 Aerial Photograph with Building Footprint ............................................ ..............................7 Figure4 Project Footprint .................................................................................. ............................... 9 Figure5 Project Profile ....................................................................................... .............................11 Figure 6 Noise Monitoring of Formwork Construction ........................................ .............................25 21 Figure 7 Noise Monitoring of Metal Stud Framing ............................................. .............................29 ........................22 Figure 8 Demolition Noise Contours .................................................................. .............................33 22 Figure 9 Caisson Drilling Noise Contours .......................................................... .............................35 Figure 10 Noise Contours From Excavation to an Elevation of 50 Feet NAVD 88 ............................ 39 Figure 11 Noise Contours From Excavation to an Elevation of 40 Feet NAVD 88 ............................ 41 Figure 12 Noise Contours From Excavation to an Elevation of 28 Feet NAVD 88 ...........................43 Figure 13 Concrete Pouring Noise Contours ....................................................... .............................47 .......................37 Figure 14 First Floor Metal Stud Framing and Second Floor Concrete Formwork ..........................49 .......................38 Figure 15 Third Floor Metal Stud Framing and Fourth Floor Concrete Formwork ...........................51 Figure 16 Construction Noise Levels Occurring Over the Construction Period .. .............................55 List of Tables Table Paae Table 1 Proposed Construction Phasing ........................................................... ..............................2 Table 2 Change in Sound Pressure Level, dB .................................................. .............................14 Table 3 Typical Noise Levels from Noise Sources ........................................... .............................15 Table 4 Ambient Noise Levels' ......................................................................... .............................17 Table 5 Land Use Compatibility for Exterior Community Noise ....................... .............................20 Table 6 City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Standards .............................. ............................... 21 Table 7 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria - Human Annoyance ........................22 Table 8 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria - Cosmetic Damage ......................... 22 Table 9 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels .................................... .............................23 Table 10 Demolition Equipment Used Concurrently .......................................... .............................31 Table 11 Equipment Used Concurrently for Caisson Drilling ............................. .............................32 Table 12 Excavation Equipment ......................................................................... .............................32 Table 13 Equipment Used Concurrently for Excavation to an Elevation of 40 Feet .......................37 Table 14 Equipment Used Concurrently for Excavation to an Elevation of 28 Feet .......................38 Table 15 Equipment Used Concurrently for Concrete Pouring .......................... .............................38 Table 16 Equipment Used Concurrently for Formwork and Interior Metal Framing FirstFloor ............................................................................................. .............................46 Table 17 Combined Dock and Building Construction Noise (dBA) ................... .............................53 Table 18 Average Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment at Nearest Residences- Vibration Annoyance .................................................... .............................59 Page ii • The Planning Center March 2009 1. Introduction 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., is proposing to develop a 1.4 -acre site in the Corona del Mar neighborhood of the City of Newport Beach with an eight -unit condominium development. The Aerie Residential Development (proposed project) site consists of Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 052- 013 -12, APN 052 - 013013, and a small portion of APN 052 - 013 -21 (584 square feet). The regional location of the project is shown in Figure 1, Regional Location, and the local vicinity of the project site is shown in Figure 2, Local Vicinity. Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, depicts the project site and surrounding land uses. The project site is currently occupied by a 14 -unit, four -story apartment building and a single - family residence. These properties are at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place. The project involves demolition of these structures. The property is surrounded by single- and multiple - family residences on Carnation Avenue, Bayside Place, and Ocean Boulevard. Figure 4, Site Plan, depicts the proposed condominium uses at the project site. A profile of the project is shown in Figure 5, Site Profile. The project would consist of a total of six floors: four of which would be partially or completely above grade and would house the condominium units and some parking spaces. The basement floor and a sub basement floors would house of the common recreation areas, mechanical and electrical areas, storage areas, and the majority of the parking spaces. In addition to the residential structure, the project applicant is proposing replacement of the existing landing /dock facility. Three residential levels would be visible from Carnation Avenue above the existing street grade. Four residential levels would be visible when viewed from Newport Bay. In total, the project would encompass C 61,709 square feet and include living areas, storage areas, parking, and circulation and mechanical areas. Construction Management Plan A Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been prepared forthe proposed project. The CMP addresses all aspects of construction (phasing, schedule, construction equipment, and the construction process). In addition, the CMP addresses parking management (off -site and short-term parking, staging, etc.), traffic control (haul routes and delivery requirements), safety and security (pedestrian protection, fencing, and safety and security), air quality control and noise suppression measures (dust control, noise control, and vibration monitoring); and environmental compliance /protection (erosion and sediment control and beach protection, water quality control, and environmental protection measures). The CMP is included as Appendix A. Project Phasing The applicant is proposing to construct the project in four phases over a period of approximately 32 months based on the schedule summarized in Table 1. This schedule is preliminary and may change based on weather conditions or other unanticipated circumstances. Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach • Page 1 700707914 1. Introduction Table 1 Proposed Construction asin Phase Construction Activities Duration' This phase would consist of asbestos and lead -based paint removal, demolition, caisson placement and grading. 1 Grading is comprised of three segments of earth removal, 6 Months and lagging. Approximately 25,240 cubic yards of earth would be excavated and removed from the site. This phase would consist of concrete placement consisting of shotcrete shoring, placement of structural slabs and 2 walls, waterproofing, and sub -slab drainage systems. 18 Months Integration of the site drainage, plumbing underground and electrical underground s stems. Metal stud wall framing would begin on lower levels and work up. This phase would involve integration of rough plumbing, mechanical, and electrical systems following steel stud wall placement. Both vehicular elevators would 32 be installed and operational at this time. Installation of 13 Months windows and doors would occur. In addition, planting of large plant materials at the site's bayward side would occur during this phase. This phase would also consist of construction of the docks, which would occur last This phase consists of site finishing activities. Exterior finishes such as exterior plaster, roofing systems, stone veneer, guard rails, exterior lighting and solar panels would 4 be installed, as would the balance of the landscaping and 7 Months hardscape /paving, artificial rock finishes, softscape, landscape lighting and drainage systems. Interior finishes would also be installed, including drywall, painting, cabinetry, stone, and file at counters, walls, and floors. Source: Bdon Jeannette Architecture (December 23. 2008) ' Total duration of construction is estimated to be 32 months. ' Phase 3 would start before Phase 2 is completed so that the majority of Phase 2 and Phase 3 would occur simultaneously. Page 2 • The Planning Center March 2009 Appendix G Understanding Perspective Compositing: Understanding Perspective There are various ways of understanding perspective in compositional imagery. Below is a statement about the basics of drawing or rendering in depth and matching a panoramic scene. Although, there are plenty of variables which make the following examples difficult to see in a real photo, I will spend some time instructing these factors in a flawless perspective, and later explain the variables. The first thing which must be understood about a true perspective is its horizon line, or simply put, the horizon. In a typical photo, this line would be drawn at the center if the cameraman was facing straight forward. Also called eve_ level, this is the most basic type of shot. Some examples of seeing this horizon in photos include the line where far away mountains seem to rest on, or where the sky meets the ocean. In a city scene, we would best see this line in a situation where there was a long stretch of road that seemingly meets in the center of where the sky starts. The next two images (below) show a high -angle and low -angle shot. High- angle would be any time the camera man is below the object of focus pointing up, or pointing high. Low -angle is any time the camera man is above the object of focus pointing down, or pointing low. Another way of imagining this is comparing a high -angle as if a child took the photo, whereas a low -angle as if someone took it from a ladder or an airplane. High - angle. Lowered cameraman pointing high. This is an important factor, and should begin the explanation to a client about a project. Are we looking into the scene in the eyes of a child, or looking up at the focus to make it seem larger than us (high - angle)? Are we focusing straight on for simplicity and scale (eye - level)? Or are we comparing it to its surroundings in such a way as to make it seem smaller, or establishing it with surrounding reference (low- angle)? Eye -level and High -angle are often shot on foot or in a boat. Low -angle shots are often done from high places, with a crane or helicopter, or taken by satellite, and can be considerably more costly. Once this has been decided we can move forward. A majority of the examples below are shot as if the cameraman was average height, or between 5'6" and 6'. The next thing to consider in a photo real composite is where to place the vanishing point. The vanishing point - using the city example from above - is the point where the road, and buildings, and trees, and anything else seem to meet together seemingly microscopically. Put simply, it is where everything "vanishes" into the horizon. In the tutorials I am showing, these points will always be placed on the horizon line. There are circumstances in dramatic photos where a third point would be used away from the horizon line, but this type of imagery is not recommended for architectural visualization purpose due to the feeling of discomfort or superiority it naturally portrays. As seen below, I have placed a man in the scene at eye level looking straight on. I have marked the vanishing point as a red dot, and drawn blue lines referencing the man's highest and lowest points on the green landscape. The example below represents a one -point perspective. The blue lines above now give us a good idea as to the location he is on the landscape, and more importantly, how tall he would be from farther away. Below, we can see the same 6' foot man, as well as his height when he is closer or farther away from the camera. Note his entire scale is changing the closer he is to the vanishing point. To further explain this idea, I have placed some palm trees, which are naturally taller than the man. In a perfect perspective, everything no matter the height scales smaller and smaller until it becomes close to the same height then disappears. Note the red lines drawn across to mark the distance of the trees and men. Also note the palm tree and man closest to the vanishing point are close to the same height. I have drawn a couple of figures to represent an object in its simplest state, a box. Everything taken objectively can be represented as a series of spheres, cylinders, or boxes, whether it be a basketball, a person's arm or leg, or a building. Looking objectively in this manner makes the perspective process much easier to see in a photo -real perspective. Figure 1.1 shows the horizon line in blue, vanishing point in red, and lines drawn from the vanishing point in c; . The black lines represent the walls or edges of the boxes. In a one -point perspective, any lines representing the height of something at its boundaries, or the bottom and top of the edges facing the camera directly are drawn at 00 or 901. In other words, any line going up and down, or left and right remain the same. Any lines representing the sides of the object in reference to the camera are drawn toward the vanishing point. These particular boxes are see - through, so we can visualize how the top, bottom, and back faces of the boxes would be represented. The lines are the bridges from the vanishing (perspective) lines which show how the edges of the object are connected to complete the 3- Dimensional shape. Note the difference between the higher box placed in the middle of the horizon, essentially eye level to the camera, and the box below the camera is looking down on. As viewers, we can see more of the top side of the lower box. Imagine if the boxes were not see - through. We would only see the front and the right side of the higher box, whereas we would see the front, right, and top side of the lower box. figure 1.1 Here are a few more examples of one -point perspective. IP:.r Left: Low -angle shot of a dock. Note the high horizon line where the bottom of the land meets the sea and the smaller size occurring on the railing. Middle: Sketch of homes in perspective at eye level. Note the horizon at center, and the vanishing point far off to the right. This is an ideal shot for a street view of homes. Our focus is toward the front doors of each home and suggest depth without showing too much street. Bottom: Sketch of farm road meeting at one central vanishing point. Note that the buildings to the far left are flat above the horizon. Because these elements are directly facing the camera and blocking the perspective elements behind them, they appear flat and act to breakup the sky. The closer the camera gets to them, the more we would see the one -point perspective effect. This represents one of the variables I will explain later. And finally some examples from the Aerie Project with horizon in WO-Se and reference "perspective" lines in . Note the horizons and vanishing point meet roughly in the center of each image. Vol s _. VIY)lK1AK NVII V09 Let's move onto a concept a little tougher, two -point perspective. Of the two types of perspective I'm showing in this tutorial, this is the more commonly used. It is used more often because of its photo accuracy while holding on to a linear designed feel. One -point perspective tends to look too Science Fiction. Vertical lines are still related as 900 and all other lines meet at one of the two vanishing lines placed on the horizon line at either side of the object focus. The easiest way to think of this type of perspective is imagining the camera is placed facing the corner of an object. In the case with a building, the camera would typically face the front and left side wall's edge. The distance between the two vanishing points depends highly on the size of the camera's lens and the aspect ratio of the final photo image. Knowing the distance from the object assists, but in the end, the decision of these points requires educated assessment. Below is an example of a two -point perspective box. It has been made solid with basic shading in this case because two -point perspective lines can create confusion even among experts in the field. Establishing lines at the highest and lowest points is ideal in the beginning of this type of design. The blue lines are perspective lines, the black are the vertical or 900 lines, and the red are the two vanishing points. Though it seems like the lighter gray side is smaller, this is not necessarily true. Depending on the angle of the camera, this side can get wider if we turn more toward it, but not at the expense of making the darker grey side thinner. This factor is called fore- shortening. As an example, if one was to place their palm directly facing them, the palm would look wide, while they couldn't see the side of their hand at all. But, upon turning the hand towards the side, they will witness two things happening. One, the palm will get thinner - looking to the point of not seeing it at all; and Two, the side of the hand will get wider. Below I have added more architectural detail to the building. I've added a fagade and doors to further illustrate two -point perspective. What we are looking at is actually pretty close to the camera. Because the two points are so close together compared to the height of the building, there is a lot of "skewing" or "fore- shortening ". Professional cinematographers call this a "pushed perspective ", in the way of saying we are "pushing" the believability of the scene. Figures 1.2 and 1.3 further represent two -point perspective. Again, blue lines represent horizon, red dots are vanishing points, lines represent perspective lines, black lines represent 900, and lines represent the connections between verticals f,, to create the 3- Dimensional objects. Note in figure 1.2 the lower box's top side can be seen, while the higher box on the horizon can only seethe sides. Note in figure 1.3, the skewing mentioned above and its relation to the height of the building and the distance between the two points. The building on the right is more believable because of these factors. Below are some examples of two -point perspective. figure 1.3 Left: sketch of commercial buildings with curb as the foreground. Note the horizon is on center at eye level. Note also the ways the buildings on either side seem to get small and eventually vanish. e: simplified geometry senting a group of ngs on a street. : 3D rendering of a Note the vanishing > are at such a distance, an't be seen, unless beyond the boundaries of cage based on the angle of in-vertical lines. V02 V14 Now that we are more familiar with the rules of one- and two -point perspective, I would like to take a bit of time explaining variables which make true perspective invalid in a compositing scene. Not to say the images would never be visually accurate, but more on a point of explaining the impossibility of absolute accuracy. 1. Camera distance versus camera lens. A majority of the time, images are taken from a frame of reference not controlled by the compositor. Factors such as height of cameraman, distance from the focus point, zoom percentage, and lens size can vary widely from camera to camera, and from cameraman to cameraman. In this case reference heights, distance, zoom factor, camera, and lens have been included for each shot on shot spec sheet document provided. 2. Angle of the shot, and relation in elevation to the focus. In particular settings, this variable can be drastic to the accuracy of a shot. If the cameraman is on an elevation even 2' higher or lower than he /she is shooting, that person would likely angle the camera up or down for a better framed shot. The question becomes what angle did they take the shot at? This changes the horizon line; and in turn changes the angle, position, and orientation of the object in focus. Reference angles have also been included on shot spec sheet document provided. 3. Far -away vanishing points. Because the farther away the vanishing points in a two -point perspective image are, the more accurate; it becomes a typical variable to have limiting reference for vanishing points. A professional compositor is aware of this limitation, and is experienced in accurately working with it. 4. Creating non - existent terrain and /or street elements or details. As is common for a type of composite where existing elements are erased or "matted" out, often new elements are added in a way dependant on existing angles at separate reference points. For example, adding a driveway or landscaping the existing image did not have. Or, in some cases, cutting out of hill, cliff, or mountain terrain to place focus object. 5. Panoramic image sets. As seen in figure 1.4, when a camera is set on a tri -pod (best) or a person stands with advanced motion reduction lens alone (not recommended), and shot at a slightly different angle to encompass the focus and /or a large area around it, there can be image skewing. 1.4a shows what is necessary for the camera in blue to achieve a panoramic shot. A 3600 would require a complete clockwise turn to meet back at the original point. lines reference the angle at which 5 images were taken. 1.4b shows the object in focus. 1.4c shows how the images are collected absolutely. 1.4d shows what t `Wzi, Figure 1.4 L. occurs with the image once combined into a single shot. Though normally subtle, professional compositors have the tools, accuracy, and experience to resolve the natural stretching which takes place at this point. In summary, perspective shows depth in an image or photo based on the human eye and in this case taken by a camera. The distance, height, and angle of the camera can change the orientation of whatever object is in focus. One -point perspective is often seen in long corridors or streets and is usually taken with one side of the object to focus on at eye level. It can establish great distances, and in many ways it can allow the viewer to see the world in an open and free way. All objects in a one -point perspective seem to converge in the center, unless a building or object blocks the way such as a turn in a street or a large cliff or mountain. Two -point perspective is a much more realistic and common way to view photos or renderings due to the accurate 3- Dimensional angles, while holding onto vertical lines for design accuracy. The camera is often placed looking on a corner of the focus object to better show at least two sides of the object. This is the preferred viewing angle for people without the intimidating factor of Three -point perspective. Three -point perspective, while not explained in this tutorial, places the viewer seemingly either extremely high looking down, or extremely short looking up, and is naturally intimidating and /or superior - feeling in nature. It has caused vertigo among people sensitive to such things, and therefore is not recommended for architectural visualizations. This being true, none of the renderings have used this type of perspective. A natural thing which occurs in any perspective is the concept of fore - shortening. Refer back to the tutorial about holding a person's palm in front of their face, noting the width of the palm and the lack of sight of the side of the hand. Then turn the hand and witness the palm getting thinner while the side of the hand widens, until the palm can't be seen. Note objects turned at certain angles won't necessarily show their proper scale unless viewed directly. This packet contains helpful compositing solutions, and includes a basic lesson in perspective, including variables and solutions such as placement, scale, and orientation. Each shot was designed specifically to exclude as many of the above variables as possible, and has ensured the most optimal conditions for the highest level of accuracy in each view simulation. ffm Profile Description: (Describe to the depth treaded to document the Indicator ar confirm the absence Deplh Matrix Redox Factures (lnchrs7 S `si to Colo (moist) Yp_ Two, I=, Texture _ Hisiosol {All ) Histic Epipedon (A2) Back Histic (A3) _ Hydrogen, Sultda (A4) Suatl;mdLayers (AS) (LRR C) I cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depialed BetO.v Dark Surface (At 1) Thick Dark Surrace (Al2) _ Sandy Ma^_ley Min era] "St) Sandy Gieyed Matrix (S4) Type; Dep(a (inches): MR z ,* Wetland HYdra)i Sandy Red= (SS) Stripped MarJ1x (SS) T Loamy Mucky MineriulPl) Loamy Greyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Redox Dark Surface (Fs) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redcx Depressions (F8) Vernal Pods (`r9) Samp4ng point: 4VI 1— -- yo, c. 1 cm Muck (A8) (1-RR C) 2 cm Muck (AIM (LRR 8) Reduced Ve tIC (Fla) _! Red Parent Material (TF2) _.. Men (aolavn En Remarks) 111dcatcrs of S ydr crlhytic vegetation and wetland hYdrolocymust be nresent. Hydric Sall Present? Yes_ No-2"- f rrrns ndcat (AY Oe lnRcaor s sfient _ Water Mark a tB1)(Rtvarme) _ Surfi cs9 -Weyer (Ai) Salt Cru c (all) _ Sediment Deposits 122);Rlvsrma) _ High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (812) _ DdR Deposits (B3) (Rlvedne) _ Saturation r,A3) _. Arnuirtic triverteerates (B13) _ Drehtage pat3ems (a' 01 Water Marks (31) (Nondverina) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (CI) _ Dry - Season Water Table (C2) _— Sediment Deposits t02) (NOndwrine) ry, Oxidized RhIzospheres along L€ ng Roots (C3) _Thin Muck Surrace (Cr) { _ DrM Deposits (B3) (Nonrtvarine) Presence of Firduced Iron (C4) _,,_ Crayfish Bunows (C2) _ ar!acc So' Cr=acks {38) Recent trap Reduction in Plowed Soils (CB) _ SaLrBdon Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cq _ Inuadalton Visible on Aerial Imagery 07) _ Mar (Explain in Remarks) _ Shsltav ARuitard (D3) WaterStidned Laaves(Ba) FAC- Neubaf Test (08) Field Observations: ) Surace Water Resent? Yes _NO Depth (inches), Water Table Prasant? Yes _ No� Depth (Imidies): Saturation Present? yes e No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes, , No US..", Oo:ps of Eng€neers Arid West – Version 11.1 °2008 Appendix H Biological Resources Assessment Biological Impact Report for Aerie Residential Project Prepared for: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, CA. 92780 Attn: Keeton Kreitzer Prepared by: Jones & Stokes 42145 Lyndie Lane Temecula, CA 9591 Contact: Kimberly Svitenko, Senior Biologist (951) 506 -4038 ksvitenko@isanet.com December 2008 ICF Jones & Stokes. 2008. Biological Impact Report for Aerie Residential Project. December. (J &S 00823.08) Tustin, CA. Table of Contents Page 1.0 Introduction ................................................................ ..............................1 1.1 Project Location and Description ..................... ..............................1 2.0 Survey Methods ......................................................... ..............................3 2.1 Literature Review ............................................. ..............................3 2.2 General Site Assessment ................................ ..............................3 3.0 Existing Biological Resources ................................. ..............................4 3.1 Existing Site Conditions ................................... ..............................4 3.2 Soils ................................................................. ..............................4 3.3 Hydrology and Drainage .................................. ..............................4 3.4 Geology ............................................................ ..............................5 3.5 Vegetation ........................................................ ..............................5 3.5.1 Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub ........................... ..............................6 3.5.2 Ornamental Vegetation .................................... ..............................6 3.6 Wildlife Inventory .............................................. ..............................6 3.6.1 Amphibians ...................................................... ..............................6 3.6.2 Reptiles ............................................................ ..............................6 3.6.3 Birds ................................................................. ..............................7 3.6.4 Mammals ......................................................... ..............................7 4.0 Habitat Linkages and Corridors ............................... ..............................8 5.0 Raptor Nesting and Foraging .................................. ............................... 9 6.0 Special Status Resources ........................................ .............................10 6.1 Special Status Habitats ................................... .............................10 6.2 Special Status Plants and Wildlife .................. .............................10 6.2.1 Special Status Plants ...................................... .............................10 6.2.2 Special Status Wildlife .................................... .............................13 7.0 Regulatory Framework ............................................. .............................15 7.1 Federal Regulatory Framework ...................... .............................15 7.1.1 Endangered Species Act ................................ .............................15 7.1.2 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ................ .............................15 7.1.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ................................ .............................15 Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project i 7.1.4 Critical Habitat ................................................. .............................16 Appendix B 7.1.5 Marine Mammal Protection Act ....................... .............................16 Wildlife Compendium 7.2 State Regulatory Framework .......................... .............................16 7.2.1 California Endangered Species Act ................ .............................16 7.2.2 Section 2081 of the State Fish and Game Code .........................16 7.2.3 Lake and Streambed Alteration Program ........ .............................16 7.2.4 California Environmental Quality Act .............. .............................17 7.3 Regional Regulatory Framework .................... .............................17 7.3.1 California Coastal Commission ....................... .............................17 7.3.2 Natural Communities Conservation Program . .............................17 8.0 Analysis and Determination of Potential Impacts . .............................18 8.1 Jurisdictional Waters ....................................... .............................18 8.2 Vegetation Impacts ......................................... .............................18 8.3 Wildlife Impacts, Habitat Loss, and Wildlife Displacement.................................................. .............................19 8.4 Noise Impacts ................................................. .............................19 8.5 Urban Pollutants ............................................. .............................19 8.6 Night Lighting .................................................. .............................20 8.7 Human Activity ................................................ .............................20 9.0 Recommendations .................................................... .............................21 9.1 Jurisdictional Determination ............................ .............................21 9.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act Compliance ............ .............................21 9.3 Focused Surveys for Special Status Plants .... .............................21 10.0 References ................................................................ .............................23 Appendix A Figures (Regional, Vicinity, Site Photos) Appendix B Plant Compendium Appendix C Wildlife Compendium Appendix D Sensitive Species Table Appendix E USFWS Species List Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project ii 1.0 Introduction Provided in this biological impact report is a discussion of existing biological conditions and methods used to evaluate biological resources at the proposed Aerie Residential project site (hereafter referred to as the project site). This report summarizes the terrestrial biological resources and potential impacts associated with development of the project. The following information has been reported in accordance with accepted scientific and technical standards that are consistent with the requirements of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Potential impacts to plant and wildlife species and regional guidelines governing project actions will be discussed. 1.1 Project Location and Description The project site is located at 201 — 207 Carnation Avenue (west side of Carnation Avenue at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard) and 101 Bayside Place in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California (Appendix A Figure 1). The project site consists of two parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 052- 013 -12 and 052- 013013) and a small portion (584 square feet) of a third parcel (APN 052- 013 -21). These parcels encompass a total area of 1.4 acres. The site is currently occupied by an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single- family residence. Project development includes the demolition of the apartment building and single - family residence and construction of an upscale condominium complex. The project site is surrounded by single and multi - family residences. West of the project site is the main entrance to Newport Harbor from the Pacific Ocean and the eastern end of the Balboa Peninsula. North of the project site are single - family and multiple- family residences on Carnation Avenue and Bayside Place. The northern side of Carnation Avenue is a developed coastal bluff that is not subject to marine erosion. The project applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., is proposing to develop the 1.4 -acre site with an 8 -unit condominium development. The Project will consist of a total of six levels including: (a) four above grade floors consisting primarily of living space, but with some parking areas on the first and second floors; and (b) two subterranean common recreation areas, storage and parking levels (the "basement" and, at the lowest level, the "sub- basement"). Three residential levels will be visible from Carnation Avenue above the existing street grade. Four residential levels will be visible when viewed from Newport Bay. In total, the Project will encompass 61,709 square feet and includes living areas, storage areas, parking, and circulation and mechanical areas. In addition to the residential structure identified and described above, the project applicant is also proposing the replacement of the existing landing /dock facility associated with the subject property. Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project The structural elements of the existing gangway platform, pier walkway, and floating docks (timber frame, concrete pontoons, and timber deck) are in very poor condition. The City has required the applicant to remove or rebuild the docks due to their deteriorated and unsafe conditions. The new docks will consist of timber docks supported by rotationally molded plastic pontoons, which require less draft (bottom clearance) than concrete floats, allowing the dock system to be located as close to an existing rock outcropping as possible. The six (6) steel dock guidepiles that support the existing docks will be removed and replaced with 19 new guide piles supporting the new dock system. Of these 19 piles, nine (9) will be large diameter piles (approximately two -foot diameter). All guidepiles will be pre - stressed concrete piles set in pre - drilled, angered holes. The existing 20 -foot long gangway will be replaced by a 60 -foot long gangway. The pile- supported pier walkway between the existing gangway platform and the existing concrete pad, will be repaired /replaced with a structure in -like -kind (timber - framing system, a 2x timber deck, and timber railings all around). The existing concrete piles supporting the walkway will be repaired in the form of concrete repairs. The gangway platform replacement will include the four (4) steel piles, timber framing with metal connectors, and a 2x timber deck with railings all around. The existing concrete pad, concrete steps, and railing will be repaired and patched as necessary. Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 2 2.0 Survey Methodologies 2.1 Literature Review Prior to the site visit, biologists from ICF Jones& Stokes conducted a literature review to identify special - status plants, wildlife, and natural communities known to occur in the vicinity of the project site. The California Native Plant Society's (CLAPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CLAPS 2008), the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (CDFG 2008a), and a current List of Special Status Animals (CDFG 2008b) were reviewed prior to the site visit. A list of species considered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was requested (FWS- OR- 09B0104- 09SL0151, December 17, 2008) and reviewed. These Special status species are those known to occur, or have the potential to occur, on or within the vicinity of the project site that have been afforded special recognition by the federal government, the State of California, or the CNPS. Specifically for this report "special status" species are those listed under the federal Endangered Species List as threatened or endangered, or federal candidate for listing; those species listed under the California Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered, or a state species of special concern; or CNPS List IA, 1B, and 2. A list of special status plants and animals potentially occurring within the project region has been requested from the USFWS. A preliminary review of site conditions used color aerial photography at an approximate scale of 1 inch = 550 feet. 2.2 General Site Assessment A general assessment of the project site was conducted on October 1, 2008. The purpose of the visit was to assess current site conditions, identify plant and wildlife species present on the project site, map vegetation communities, and evaluate potential of the project site to support sensitive and special - status species. Focused plant and wildlife surveys were not performed for this report. Plant species were identified in the field or collected for later identification. Taxonomy and nomenclature for plants generally follows Hickman (1993). Taxonomy and nomenclature for wildlife follows Behler (1998) for amphibians and reptiles, American Ornithologist Union (1998) and Sibley (2000) for birds, and Jones et. al (1992) for mammals. All wildlife species observed or detected (by sound, tracks and scat) were recorded in field notes. A compendium of species observed at the project site during the site visits is included in Appendix B, Plant Compendium, and Appendix C, Wildlife Compendium. Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 3 3.0 Existing Biological Resources 3.1 Existing Site Conditions The entire project site encompasses 1.4 acres and is currently occupied by a 14 -unit apartment building and one single - family residence, as well as deteriorating gangway platform, pier walkway, and dock facilities. In addition, an on -grade staircase (built prior to 1961) presently exists on the coastal bluff face that connects the apartment building with an existing, irregularly shaped, concrete pad. The existing apartment structure has a total of three levels, including two split levels that are visible above the existing grade from the street. All three levels of the existing building are visible from Newport Bay. Parking for the existing apartments consists of open carports at grade along Carnation Avenue. The lowest extent of existing development from the site's coastal bluff face is 42.3 feet North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) 88. The single- family residence on the project site and two of the units in the existing apartment building are occupied. The site is a steeply sloping coastal bluff and cliff, the west - facing portion of which is subject to marine erosion. A small sandy beach is located at the bottom of the coastal bluff. Representative site photographs are on Appendix A Figures 2 and 3. Carnation Cove is a small ocean cove directly to the west of the sandy beach. Carnation Cove is part of the project site. Biological marine resources and potential impacts to the cove associated with project development have been addressed in the Marine Biological Impact Assessment for a Dock Renovation Project Located in Carnation Cove 2008 prepared by Coastal Resource Management, Inc. 3.2 Soils A review of the Natural Resources Conservation Services Web Soil Survey (Natural Cooperative Soil Survey) for Orange County, California determined the soils at the project site to be beaches and Myford sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes (National Cooperative Soil Survey, Orange County, California 2008). 3.3 Hydrology and Drainage Impervious surfaces cover the top of the coastal bluff where the apartment building and single - family residence are located. This area is served by the City of Newport Beach storm drain system located in the roadways that surround the site. The project site is not located within the 100 -year flood plain. In addition to the City facilities, there is a series of exposed polyvinyl chloride (PVC) Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 4 pipes located along the northwest side of the project site extending down the coastal bluff face and terminating at the small sandy beach. These PVC pipes direct minimal surface flows from the patio of the existing apartment building and will be removed during project construction. The surface flows will be rerouted into the new drainage feature included in the project design. This series of PVC pipes can be seen in Appendix A, Figure 2 Photo A and Figure 3 Photo A. A 24 -inch, reinforced corrugated pipe is located at the southeastern comer of the project site and extends partially onto the coastal bluff face. This pipe currently discharges water from Carnation Avenue, including a minimal amount of water generated at the project site. This pipe will remain in place per current project design, and will not be removed, rerouted, or altered in any way. Vegetation at the outfall of this pipe is dominated by nonnative umbrella sedge (Cyperus iuvolucratus). The umbrella sedge covers an area approximately 3 feet by 4 feet at the outfall. Ornamental vegetation was observed growing from the coastal bluff face just below the umbrella sedge. A jurisdictional delineation of potential water features was not conducted for this report 3.4 Geology The project site is located in the seismically active southern California region. There are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. In addition, the project site is not within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as illustrated on the maps issued by the State Geologist for the area (Neblett & Associates, Inc., August 5, 2005). Although there are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity, the project site is subject to seismic shaking resulting from earthquakes occurring on one or more of the regional faults. The closest active faults within 50 miles of the project site are the Newport- Inglewood, Norwalk, and Raymond Faults. The Newport- Inglewood fault is the only active fault within or immediately adjacent to the City of Newport Beach. 3.5 Vegetation he dominant vegetation type at the project site is ornamental species. However, a remnant southern coastal bluff scrub community exists on the rocky outcrop along the northern project boundary which extends into Newport Bay. The coastal bluff face (located below the existing structures) is densely vegetated with ornamental species and some scattered natives. Vegetation classification for the southern coastal bluff scrub was based on classifications from Holland (1986). Representative site photos are shown in Appendix A, Figures 2 and 3. Plant species observed at the project site were recorded and are listed in Appendix B, Plant Compendium. Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 5 3.5.1 Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub Southern coastal bluff scrub is dominated by woody and succulent species. Growth and flowering occur from late winter through spring. Species in this vegetation community and observed at the project site include California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), lemonade bent' (Rhus integrifolia), coastal goldenbush (Isocoma nrenziesh) California encelia (Encelia californica), coastal prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis), and sagebrush (Artemisia californica). 3.5.2 Ornamental The dominant ornamental vegetation species at the project site include English ivy (Hedera helix), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), umbrella sedge (Cyperus involucratus), and fan palm (Washingtonia ftlifera). This is not a complete inventory of the ornamental species at the project site. 3.6 Wildlife Inventory The following sections describe the wildlife species observed or expected to occur at the project site. Appendix C is a compendium of wildlife species observed during the field survey. 3.6.1 Amphibians Amphibians require moisture for at least a portion of their life cycle and many require standing or flowing water for reproduction. Some amphibian species can occur in xeric habitats such as ephemeral drainages. These species are able to survive in dry areas by remaining beneath the soil in burrows or under logs or leaf litter, emerging only when temperatures are low and humidity is high. Many of these species' habitats are associated with water and they emerge to breed once the rainy season begins. Soil moisture conditions can remain high throughout the year within some habitat types depending on factors such as amount of vegetation cover, elevation, and slope aspect (Dixon 1970). Amphibian species expected to occur at the project site include Pacific tree frog (Hyla regilla). 3.6.2 Reptiles Reptilian diversity and abundance typically varies with vegetation type and character. Many species prefer only one or two vegetation types; however, most will forage in a variety of habitats. Most species occurring in open areas use rodent burrows for cover and protection from predators during extreme weather conditions. Western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) was observed at the project site during the site visit. Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project B 3.6.3 Birds Birds are the most commonly observed vertebrate taxon at the project site. Bird species that are conmion residents of developed urban areas and observed at the project site include: House sparrow (Passer domesticers), House finch (Cmpodacus mexicanus), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), Great blue heron (Ardea herodias), Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), and Double - crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). Conditions at the project site do not provide adequate nesting habitat for most raptors (birds of prey). However, some raptor species are adapted to urban conditions. Limited opportunity to forage at the project site exists along the southern coastal bluff, within the ornamental vegetation and on the small beach. Raptor species potentially occurring within the project vicinity include: Cooper's hawk (Acciljiter cooperii), Red - tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Sharp- shiimed hawk (Accipiter st iatus), American kestrel (Falco sl2arverius), Bam owl (Tyto alba), and Great horned owl (Bubo virginianus). 3.6.4 Mammals Small ground - dwelling manunals having potential to occur at the project site include the pocket mouse (Peromyscus sp.), Bella's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beechcp), and Audubon cottontail (Sylvilagus mrdubonii). Bats occur throughout most of Southern California. Bat species that could potentially occur at the project site are inactive during the winter and either hibernate or migrate, depending on the species. Western mastiff bat (Eumops perolis caltfornicus), Mexican long- tongued bat (Choeronycteris mexicana), and Big free- tailed bat (Nyctinonops macrotis) are not expected to roost or forage at the project site due to lack of suitable habitat conditions. Larger mammals, including both herbivores and carnivores, are not expected to occur at the project site since the site is not adjacent to any undeveloped open space. Two mammal species, Virginia opossum (Didelphis virguriana) and domestic cat (Felis talus), were identified at the project site by their tracks. Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 7 4.0 Habitat Linkages and Corridors Habitat linkages are areas that provide a genetic link or communication between two or more natural areas, typically larger or superior in quality to the linkage. Habitat linkages, as opposed to wildlife corridors, typically provide substantial long -term habitat resources and movement across a linkage that can span generations of individual organisms. Connected patches also typically have substantially overlapping species inventories and resources. Such linkage sites can be quite small or constrained in some cases, but may be critical to the long -term health and viability of populations within the connected natural areas. Corridors provide specific opportunities for individual animals to disperse or migrate among other areas. These other areas may be very extensive but otherwise partially or wholly separated regions. Appropriate cover, minimum physical dimensions, and tolerably low levels of disturbance and mortality risk (e.g., limited night lighting and noise, low vehicular traffic levels) are common requirements for corridors. Resources and conditions in corridors may be quite different than in the connected areas, but if used by the wildlife species of interest, the corridor would still function as desired. Corridors adequate for one species may be quite inadequate for others. In evaluating corridors, it is important to consider the biology of those species to be addressed (Beier and Loe 1992). The project site and adjacent Newport Bay restrict opportunities for terrestrial wildlife movement because of the existing, surrounding development. Migratory birds are visitors to Newport Harbor. The project site provides limited opportunity (i.e., presence of limited southern coastal bluff scrub and existing dock) for migratory birds to roost and forage. Some marine fish species move into and out of the harbor for spawning or for nursery areas (Coastal Resource Management, Inc. 2008). Carnation Cove is directly adjacent to the project site. The cove and potential impacts associated with project development have been addressed in the Marine Biological Impact Assessment for a Dock Renovation Project Located in Carnation Cove 2008 prepared by Coastal Resource Management, Inc. Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project g 5.0 Raptor Nesting and Foraging Southern California supports a relatively high diversity of birds of prey (or "raptors "; orders Falconiformes [hawks, falcons, and eagles] and Strigiformes [owls]) compared to most temperate areas, and many of these species are in regional and/or rangewide decline. For most of the declining species, foraging requirements include extensive open grassland and scrub that is undisturbed or only moderately disturbed and provide an adequate prey base. Nesting site requirements include not only a suitable site for a nest, but limited disturbance, protection from nest predators, and productive foraging habitat that is sufficiently nearby. Both suitable foraging and suitable nest sites have declined severely in the region, especially for specialists such as falcons, eagles, and ground nesting species such as Northern harrier and Burrowing owl. In contrast, ecological generalist raptor species such as Sharp - shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, Red - tailed hawk, American kestrel, Great homed owl, and Barn owl have frequently benefited from man's alteration of the landscape. The project site encompasses approximately 1.4 acres surrounded by urban development to the north, south, and east and by Newport Harbor on the west. The sparse southern coastal bluff scrub and ornamental vegetation at the project site do not provide extensive foraging or suitable nesting habitat for raptor species. Raptors would likely forage and breed in larger natural open space areas within the vicinity of the project site (e.g., Newport Coast Open Space, Bommer Canyon, Shady Canyon). No raptor species were detected at the project site during the site visits. However, the generalist raptor species mentioned above are known to inhabit urban areas in the region. These species could potentially utilize the ornamental vegetation at the project site for foraging but are not expected to nest or spend an extensive amount of time there because of human disturbance. Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project g 6.0 Special Status Resources 6.1 Special- Status Habitats Special - status natural cotmmunities are those considered to be "depleted" by the California Department Fish and Game (CNDDB 2003). Special status habitats are typically protected by ordinance, code, or regulation under which conformance typically requires a permit or other discretionary action prior to impacting the habitat. Four depleted natural communities were identified in the literature review as potentially occurring within the project vicinity: Southern coastal salt marsh, Southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, Southern dune scrub, and Southern foredunes. None of these depleted natural communities are present at the project site. 6.2 Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species Plant or wildlife species may be considered to have "special status" due to declining populations, vulnerability to habitat change, or restricted distributions. Special status species are those listed under the federal Endangered Species List as threatened or endangered, or federal candidate for listing; those species listed under the California Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered, or a state species of special concern; or CNPS List 1A, 1 B, and 2. A total of 82 special status plant and wildlife species are described as potentially occurring in the project region. Of these 82 species, nine plant and one wildlife species have potential to occur due to suitable habitat conditions or was observed at the project site. The remaining plant and wildlife species described in the sensitive species table were determined not to have potential to occur at the project site due to lack of suitable habitat conditions (e.g., soils or vegetation associations) or geographic range. A list of all sensitive plant and wildlife species potentially occurring within the project vicinity, their status, and likelihood of occurrence is found in Appendix D Sensitive Species Table for the Aerie Residential Project Site and Appendix E USFWS Species List. 6.2.1 Special Status Plants Many special status plant species are known to occur in the project vicinity, nine of which have potential to occur at project site. Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 10 Aphanisma (Aphanisma blitoides) Federal Status: None State Status: None Other Status: CNPS List 1 B Aphanisma blooms from March through June and is found from Orange, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara Counties. Typical habitats of this annual herb are Southern coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, and Coastal sage scrub from (1- 305meters) 3 -1000 feet. Habitat conditions on site are not ideal to support this species but are nonetheless present. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presence /absence. South Coast Saltscale (Atriplex pacifica) Federal Status: None State Status: None Other Status: CNPS List 1B South Coast Saltscale blooms from March through October and is found from Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties. Typical habitats of this annual herb are Southern coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, and Coastal sage scrub from (0 -140 meters) 0 -460 feet. Habitat conditions on site are not ideal to support this species but are nonetheless present. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presence/absence. San Fernando Valley Spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina) Federal Status: Candidate State Status: Endangered Other Status: CNPS List 1B San Fernando Valley Spineflower blooms from April through July and is found from Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties. Typical habitats of this annual herb are open, sandy soils, valley and grassland foothills from (30 -550 meters) 98 -1804 feet. Habitat conditions on site are not ideal to support this species but are nonetheless present. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presence /absence. Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project Southern Tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) Federal Status: None State Status: None Other Status: CNPS List 113 Southern Tarplant blooms from May through November and is found from Los Angeles, Orange, and Santa Barbara Counties. Typical habitats for this annual herb are marshes, swamps (margins), valley and foothill grassland (vernally mesic), and vernal pools from (0-425 meters) 0 -1394 feet. Habitat conditions on site are not ideal to support this species but are nonetheless present. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presence/absence. Salt Marsh Bird's -Beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus) Federal Status: Endangered State Status: Endangered Other Status: CLAPS List 113 Salt Marsh Bird's -Beak blooms from May through October and is found from Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Typical habitats of this annual herb are coastal dunes, marshes, and coastal salt swamps from (0 -30 meters) 0 -98 feet. This species is known from coastal bluffs and Newport Back Bay. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presence /absence. Many- stemmed Dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis) Federal Status: None State Status: None Other Status: CNPS List 1B Many - stemmed Dudleya blooms from April through July and is found from Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Typical habitats of this perennial herb are chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands in clay soils from (15 -790 meters) 49 -2592 feet Habitat conditions on site are not ideal to support this species, however this species is known from the project region. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presence/absence. Laguna Beach Dudleya (Dudleya stolonifera) Federal Status: Threatened State Status: Threatened Other Status: CNPS List 1B Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 12 Laguna Beach Dudleya blooms from May through July and is found in Orange County. Typical habitats of this stoloniferous herb are cismontane woodland, chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and rocky substrates from (10 -260 meters) 32 -853 feet. Habitat conditions on site are not ideal to support this species, however this species is known from the project region. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presence /absence. Cliff Spurge(Euphorbia misera) Federal Status: None State Status: None Other Status: CNPS List 2 Cliff Spurge blooms from December through August and is found in Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties. Typical habitats for this shrub are coastal bluff scrub from (10 -500 meters) 32 -1640 feet. Habitat conditions on site suitable to support this species. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presence /absence. Big - leaved Crownbeard (Verbesina dissita) Federal Status: Threatened State Status: Threatened Other Status: CNPS List 1B Big- leaved Crownbeard blooms from April through July and is found in Orange County. Typical habitats for this perennial herb are chaparral and coastal sage scrub from (45 -205 meters) 147 -672 feet. Habitat conditions on site are suitable to support this species. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presence /absence. 6.2.2 Special Status Wildlife Many special status wildlife species are known to occur in the project vicinity, one of which was observed at the project site. Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) Federal Status: Endangered State Status: Endangered The brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) is the smallest of the eight species of pelican, although it is a large bird in nearly every other regard. It is 106 -137 cm (42 -54 in) in length, weighs from 2.75 to 5.5 kg Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 13 (6 -12 lb) and has a wingspan from 1.83 to 2.5 m (6 to 8.2 ft). This bird is distinguished from the American White Pelican by its brown body and its habit of diving for fish from the air, as opposed to co- operative fishing from the surface. It eats mainly herring -like fish. Groups of Brown Pelicans often travel in single file, flying low over the water's surface. The nest location varies from a simple scrape on the ground on an island to a bulky stick nest in a low tree. These birds nest in colonies, usually on islands. This species was observed at the project site utilizing the existing dock which extends into Newport Harbor. Brown pelican forages and roosts in Newport Harbor and breeds on the Channel Islands and islands off the coast of Baja California. Marine Mammals Pinnipeds (sea lions and seals) and cetaceans (whales and dolphins) have been recorded inside and outside of Newport Harbor, including California sea lion (Zalophus califoruica), Pacific bottle -nose dolphin (Tursiops truncates), and gray whale (Eschrichlius robustus) (Coastal Resources Management 2008). The most common marine mammal occurring in the harbor is the California sea lion. California sea lions prefer to haul out near the Pavilion, therefore it is not likely that sea lions world be significantly impacted from project development. Harbor seals are less common than sea lions but individuals can be found sporadically throughout the year. Dolphins are seen occasionally, and sightings of whales are rare. No marine mammal species breed in Newport Harbor. None of the pinnipeds found within the harbor are endangered and none have been observed at the project site. Marine manunals have been addressed in the Marine Biological Impact 4ssessmenl for a Dock Renovation Project Located in Carnation Core 2008 prepared by Coastal Resource Management, Inc. Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 14 7.0 Regulatory Framework This section identifies and describes the federal, state, and local statutes, ordinances, and/or policies that may govem the protection and conservation of biological resources that may be affected with the construction of the proposed project. These regulations must be considered during the decision - making processes for projects that have the potential to affect biological resources managed as sensitive by the regulatory agencies. These laws and regulations are described separately below. 7.1 Federal Regulatory Framework 7.1.1 Endangered Species Act The USFWS is the designated federal agency accountable for administering the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in most habitats. The ESA defines species as endangered or threatened and provides regulatory protection at the federal level. 7.1.2 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act This section of the Clean Water Act, administered by USACE, regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States. USACE has established a series of nationwide permits that authorize specific activities within waters of the United States, provided that the proposed activity demonstrates compliance with standard conditions. USACE consults with USFWS regarding permit applications that have the potential to affect threatened or endangered species. 7.1.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act Most bird species found within the vicinity of the proposed project area are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 United States Code [USC] 703 -711). The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Fish and Game Code similarly prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of native birds, their nests, or eggs. MBTA effectively requires that project - related disturbance at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (February I through August 31, annually). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment or loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) is considered "take" and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 15 7.1.4 Critical Habitat Critical habitat is a term defined in the ESA. It refers to specific geographic areas that are essential to the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and which may require special management considerations or protection. The project site is not within any designated critical habitat. 7.1.5 Marine Mammal Protection Act All marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA enacted October 21, 1972). The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals in the US "waters" and by US citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the US. Some marine mammals are also protected by the federal ESA of 1973. Marine mammals are discussed in the Marine Biological Impact Assessment for a Dock Renovation Project Located in Carnation Cove 2008 prepared by Coastal Resource Management, Inc. Marine mammals will not be discussed further in this report. 7.2 State Regulatory Framework 7.2.1 California Endangered Species Act This law is similar to the federal ESA and is administered by CDFG. CDFG is authorized to enter into a "memorandum of understanding" with individuals, public agencies, and other institutions to import, export, take, or possess state -listed species for scientific, educational, or management purposes. California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prohibits the take of state- listed species except as otherwise provided in state law. Under related state law, designated Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time, and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation. 7.2.2 Section 2081 of the State Fish and Game Code Under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFG may authorize by permit the incidental take of a state - listed threatened or endangered species. 7.2.3 Lake and Streambed Alteration Program Jurisdictional limits under this state program are similar to those of USACE but include riparian habitat supported by a river, stream, or lake regardless of the presence or absence of hydric soils or saturated soil conditions. The limits of CDFG jurisdiction are defined by riparian vegetation and/or the tops of streambanks. CDFG does not take jurisdiction over vemal pools and seeps where defined bed and banks are absent. Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 16 7.2.4 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) This central environmental statute applies to all discretionary projects under state jurisdiction that may have an effect upon the physical environment, with certain statutory and categorical exemptions. CEQA requires evaluation and disclosure of potential environmental impacts, much as does the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), on which CEQA was modeled. However, unlike NEPA, CEQA contains a substantive mandate that public agencies refrain from approving projects with significant environmental effects if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that can be implemented to lessen such effects. 7.3 Regional Regulatory Framework 7.3.1 Coastal Commission The Coastal Act includes specific policies (see Division 20 of the Public Resources Code) that address issues such as shoreline public access and recreation, lower cost visitor accommodations, terrestrial and marine habitat protection, visual resources, landform alteration, agricultural lands, commercial fisheries, industrial uses, water quality, offshore oil and gas development, transportation, development design, power plants, ports, and public works. The policies of the Coastal Act constitute the statutory standards applied to planning and regulatory decisions made by the Commission and by local governments, pursuant to the Coastal Act. 7.3.2 Natural Community Conservation Plans Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCP) resulted from California state legislation in 1991 adopted to protect habitats and species in large -scale ecosystem landscapes, while allowing for planned economic development outside of the protected reserve areas. The NCCP program promotes the development of partnerships to achieve this goal. Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) came out of an amendment to the federal Endangered Species Act allowing "incidental take" by using a planning process that protects listed species while allowing for lawful activities of landowners in the presence of listed species. The project site is not within a designated NCCP. Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 17 8.0 Analysis and Determination of Potential Impacts 8.1 Jurisdictional Waters At this time, project design features do not include relocation or rerouting of the 24 -inch reinforced RCP located on the southwestern coastal bluff at the project site. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated at this time. If this RCP is to be moved, relocated, or rerouted, it is recommended that a wetland delineation and jurisdictional determination be completed. The delineation and determination should take into account CDFG streambed alteration, Clean Water Act of USACE, and wetland determination of the California Coastal Commission. If the delineation determines that there are jurisdictional waters on the project site, then consultation with these agencies will be required. 8.2 Vegetation Impacts Current project design features avoid the coastal bluff face and rocky outcrop located along the north side of the project site that extends into Newport Harbor. However, within the current development footprint there is potentially suitable habitat for the nine special status plants listed in Section 6.2.1. Focused special status plant surveys were not performed for this report. It is recommended that a botanist with expertise with the nine special status plant species perform a focused survey to determine presence /absence. If any special status plant species are to be impacted by project development this could be considered potentially significant under CEQA. Additionally, project design features change and the southern coastal bluff scrub is impacted, this could be also potentially significant under CEQA. Ornamental vegetation located directly adjacent to the existing apartment building and along the southern project side will be removed and landscaped for redevelopment of the property. Impacts to ornamental vegetation and redevelopment of the apartment building would not be considered an adverse biological impact to vegetation in the immediate project vicinity. The project site is not within designated critical habitat for any plant species and is not located within an NCCP area. Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 18 8.3 Wildlife Impacts, Habitat Loss and Wildlife Displacement Potential impacts for common wildlife species were evaluated by considering the habitat loss for each species occurring or potentially occurring at the project site. Development of the project would not result in significant impacts to common wildlife species currently or potentially utilizing the project site. Temporary disturbance impacts would occur for roosting birds (cormorants, gulls, pelicans) on the existing dock until the new dock is built. Birds utilizing the bay directly adjacent to the project site may experience temporary indirect disturbance while the new dock is being built. Tems, skimmers, and rails are located in Upper Newport Bay and will not be affected by project development. The proposed project construction activities for the new dock would not result in significant short- or long -term effects on the California brown pelican. The California brown pelican, which does not nest in the harbor, feeds throughout the harbor and often rests on pilings, boat floats, floating docks, and docks. Even if pelicans were temporarily disturbed by proposed project construction/dredging, the proposed project represents an insignificant amount of available feeding area in the harbor. Pelicans have many alternative areas for undisturbed roosting within the harbor. Temporary impacts to California brown pelican would be considered less than significant. Additionally, the project site is not within designated critical habitat for any wildlife species and is not located within an NCCP area. 8.4 Noise Impacts Temporary noise levels at the project site due to project construction would increase over present levels during development of the proposed project. During construction, temporary noise has some potential to affect foraging and roosting activities specifically for birds. This would be considered a temporary and less than significant impact since noise levels would return to preconstruction levels at the completion of the proposed project. 8.5 Urban Pollutants Potential impacts on biological marine resources in the area could occur as a result of changes in water quality. Urban runoff from project development containing petroleum residues and the improper disposal of petroleum and chemical products from construction equipment (temporary) or residential areas (i.e., cars, improper disposal of chemical) could have an adversely affect on water quality and, in turn, affect off -site populations of aquatic species. Urban runoff from the project site could have the potential to adversely affect water quality and, in turn, affect populations of marine plant and animal species within Carnation Cove. Potential impacts to biological resources directly adjacent to the project site could be minimized to a less than significant impact by implementing Best Management Practices required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 19 8.6 Night Lighting Night lighting can degrade adjacent natural open space areas for wildlife by increasing predation and deterring animals from using an area. Lighting of the proposed project would result in an indirect effect on the behavior patterns of nocturnal and crepuscular (active at dawn and dusk) birds in the vicinity of the project site. Of greatest concern is the effect on birds that roost at the existing dock and on owls that are specialized night foragers. These impacts, while adverse, would not be expected to reduce any current wildlife population below self - sustaining levels. Therefore the impact caused by night lighting would be considered less than significant. 8.7 Human Activity Increased human disturbance from project development is not expected to significantly disrupt normal foraging behavior of wildlife (e.g. birds) utilizing Newport Bay. The project site is currently is currently occupied and human activity currently occurs along the small beach located at the project site. Development of the project would increase the human activity at the project site by increasing the number of people residing at the project site. This increase in human activity would not be expected to reduce any current wildlife population below self - sustaining levels. Therefore the impact caused by human disturbance would be considered less than significant. Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 20 9.0 Recommendations 9.1 Jurisdictional Determination Per currently project plans, the 24 -inch RCP located at the southeastern comer of the project site is to remain in place and all vegetation surrounding the outfall of the pipe will be left undisturbed. If the RCP is to be relocated or rerouted or the vegetation near the outfall is to be impacted for landscaping, it is recommended that a delineation of potentially jurisdictional water features be performed. Any impacts will require coordination with the California Coastal Commission, USACE, CDFG, and the RWQCB. Project impacts to jurisdictional waters could potentially require a Nationwide 404 permit from the USACE, 1603 Agreement from the CDFG, and a 401 Water quality Certification from the RWQCB. 9.2 MBTA Compliance It is recommended that a qualified biologist conduct a survey for active nests of covered species at least 7 days prior to any habitat disturbance that occurs during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). If no active nests are found, then no further actions would be required. If nesting activity is observed, the nest site must be protected until nesting activity has ended or as otherwise directed by a qualified biologist in order to ensure compliance with MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code. 9.3 Focused Surveys for Special Status Plants In order to avoid potential significant impacts to special status plants under CEQA and CDFG, it is recommended that a qualified botanist perform focused surveys to determine presence /absence for the nine species determined to have potential to occur at the project site (Section 6.2.1 above). These plant species include: Aphanisma, South Coast saltscale, Southern tarplant, San Fernando Valley spineflower, Salt marsh bird's -beak, Many - stemmed Dudleya, Laguna Beach dudleya, Cliff spurge, and Big - leaved crownbeard. Focused surveys for these plant species should be performed during the appropriate blooming window of each species. Many of the blooming periods for these species overlap. Additionally, it is recommended that the survey methods follow CDFG guidelines. Appendix D Sensitive Species Table gives further habitat requirements and blooming periods for these species. If any State listed threatened or endangered plant species are to be impacted by project development, an incident take permit under Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code will need to be obtained. Biological Impad Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 21 Certification: l hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this biological and natural resources report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. i_ Date: December 19; 2008 Signature: n') >vtC¢ AJ Kim Svitenko Senior Biologist/Project Manager ICP JONES & STOKES Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 22 10.0 References American Ornithologists' Union. 1998. Check -list of North American Birds. 7 °i edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. Atwood, J.L. 1990. Status Review of the California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila califoruica). Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, Massachusetts. Behler, J.L. and E.W. King. 1998. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 743 p. Beier, P., and S. Lee. 1992. A checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:434 -440. Bennett, A.F. 1990. Habitat corridors and the conservation of small mammals in the fragmented forest environment. Landscape Ecology. 4:109 -122. California Coastal Commission. http:// www .coastal.ca.gov/Nvhoweare.html California Department of Fish and Game. 2008x. California Natural Diversity (RareFind) Database. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Game. 2008b. List of Special Animals. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch California Natural Diversity Database. California Native Plant Society (CLAPS). 2008. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento; California. California Partners in Flight (CalPIF). 2002. Version 2.0. The oak woodland bird conservation plan: a strategy for protecting and managing oak woodland habitats and associated birds in California (S. Zack, lead author). Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. help: / /w%t,%v.prbo.ora-/ calpif/plans.html. accessed on 12/29/03. Coastal Resources Management. Inc. 2008. Marine Biological Impact Assessment for a Dock Renovation Project Located in Carnation Cove, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625. Crooks, K.R. 2002. Relative sensitivities of mammnalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conservation Biology 16: 490 -502. Dixon, J. R. 1970. In Catalogue ofAmerican Amphibians and Reptiles. Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 23 Dunn, J. L., and K. L. Garrett. 1997. A Field Guide to Warblers of North America. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. 656 pp. Evens, J. G., G. W. Page, S. A. Layman and R. W. Stallcup. 1991. Distribution, relative abundance and status of the California Black Rail in western North America.Farhig, L., and G. Merriam. 1985. Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66(1): 768 -792. Franzreb, K. E. 1989. Ecology and conservation of the endangered Least Bell's Vireo. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Service Biological Report 89(1). Garrett, K., and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of Southern California: Status and Distribution. Audubon Press. Los Angeles. Goldwasser, S. 1981. Habitat requirements of the Least Bell's Vireo. California Dept. Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife Investigations Report 81.09, Project E -W -4, Job IV -38.1. Nongame Bird and Mammal Section Report 81.09. 16 pp. Gray, M. V., and J. Greaves. 1984. Riparian forest as habitat for the Least Bell's Vireo. Pp. 605 -611 in R. Warner and K. Hendrix, editors. California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation and Productive Management. University of California Press, Davis. Grinnell, J., and A. H. Miller. 1944. The Distribution of the Birds of California. Pacific Coast Avifauna 27, Hamilton, R. A., and D. R. Willick. 1996. The Birds of Orange County: Status and Distribution. Irvine, CA: Sea and Sage Press. 150 +pp. Hanski, 1. A., and M. E. Gilpin, editors 1997. Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 512+ pp. Harris, L. D., and P.B. Gallagher. 1989. New initiatives for Wildlife Conservation; "file Need for Movement Corridors. In Preserving Communities and Corridors (G. Mackintosh, ed.) Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 96pp. Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Speotvia cunicularia). In The Birds of North America, No. 61 (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C: The American Ornithologists' Union. Hickman, J.C., (ed.) 1993. The Jepson Manual; Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. State of California Department of Fish and Game, Non.ame- Heritage Program, Sacramento, California. Howell, S. N. G., and S. Webb. 1995. A Guide to the Birds of Mexico and Northern Central America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 851 pp. Hudson, W. E. 1991. Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity. Washington, DC: Island Press. Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 24 Jones, J. K., R. Hoffmann, D. Rice, C. Jones, R. Baker, and M. Engstrom. 1992. Revised checklist of North American Mammals north of Mexico, 1991. Occasional Papers: The Museum of Texas Tech University. 23 pp. Laudenslayer et. al. (1991. A checklist of the amphibians, reptiles; birds, and manunals of California. California Fish and Game 77:109- 141.), MacArthur, R.H., and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Marine Manurial Protection Act of 1972. littp:Hwww.nmfs.noaa.gov /pr /laws /mmpa/ Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Neblett & Associates, Inc. (August 5, 2005). Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report for the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update. Noss, R. F. 1983. A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. BioScience 33:700 -706. National Cooperative Soil Survey. 2008. Soil Map — Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Page, G. W., and L. E. Stenzel, editors. 1981. The breeding status of the Snowy Plover in California. West. Birds 12:1 -40. Roberts, Jr., F. M. 2008. The Vasculor Plants of Orange County, California, an Annotated Checklist. San Luis Rey, CA: F. M. Roberts Publications. Shuford, W.D., and Gardah, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concerns in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo. California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. v Sibley, D.A. 2000. National Audubon Society, The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 544 p. Simberloff, D., and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. Conservation Biology 1:63 -71. Skinner and Pavlik 1994. California Native Plant Society Rare Plant brventmy, 5th Edition Addition. Small, A. 1994. California Birds: Their Status and Distribution. Ibis Publishing Company. Vista, California. Soule, M. E. 1987. Viable Populationsfor Consewolion. New York: Cambridge University Press. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Special rule concerning take of the Threatened Coastal California Gnatcatcher. Federal Register 58:65088- 65096, 10 Dec 1993. [4(d) rule] Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 25 Verner, J. 1980. Buds of California Oak Habitats — Management Implications. pp. 246 -264 in Proceedings of the Symposium on the Ecology, Management, and Utilization of Unitt, P. 1984. The Birds of San Diego County. Memoir 13, San Diego, CA: San Diego Society of Natural History. 276 pp. Wikipedia. 2008. http:// en. wikipedia .org /wiki /Brown_Pelican Willett, G. 1912. Birds of the Pacific Slope of Southern California. Pacific Coast Avifauna 7:1 -122. Zeiner, D.C., W. F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer, M. White, eds. 1990. California's Wilrllife Vol. 3: Manunals. California Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. Biological Impact Report for December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 26 Appendix A Figures yso• aae °a PcA aiv vrh L� a S a - _ °/r Newport Bay °^ �¢� ° ^Zg4er F¢�\aa`� p0- -o er,^ Coast" - s SS rh N1b15� � n a ode e d m i San Miguel \ae �OyF Srh Balboa Balboa ca`0o P F0 m ^oa '%a o� a Mir Oel Sur J = dear 00 �akPk a Oe k m Seville Qar 00 12& _ Farallon �a Qa Ocea, Ooi S abra'P ,CpJ`"e 5a�\yam Qob 4ear q Se ca U0 t2, o� ,� d e �a L lSa •sQ = m A 75 a aseo ElP Se adri /I `a a r4 °�Ch`6 �� h0 3r C° ko Balboal c �o C7 Q m Ala,,oara as °a �664v 7 F park peb � -, Bay Front rad 2r4d a�eo >�aao a�s�t 4 a ha `fibre bor og Sa Say Caiasa�r a ea a��a v S4e yso• aae °a PcA aiv vrh Oe i �a oaP °ca ware Yr ko Newport Bay °^ �¢� F¢�\aa`� p0- -o er,^ Gapa`oc r`�3 �a d s SS rh N1b15� rsr ode e Bay - -, r P F`0a \ae �OyF Srh Balboa Balboa ca`0o P F0 m ^oa '%a o� a Mir Oel Sur J = dear 00 �akPk a Oe k m Seville Qar �a� J Miramar COC S ah Qa Ocea, ek \off iy �c ��n Ocean /mnr °- U N A 0 250 500 1.000 Feet Snore r SOURCE: ESRI Streetmap USA (2007) Figure 1 Jones& Regional and Vicinity Map for ICF Stokes Aerie Residential Project I C F 'Sot' lo('] r ARW ,go Ia 1 1 1� 1 r q fly` YN w. n C I Photo A- Looking east toward existing apartment building. Remnant coastal sage scrub and ornamental vegetation was observed on the slope below the building. N r ^'O ✓ Jp Ywy\ �.t I A Ay t F.. ra Photo B — Looking south east. Remnant coastal sage scrub and ornamental vegetation on the slope below the building. Figure 2 Representative Site Photos Aerie Residential Project ICFS°'ock'c � rnt ►'}gor9 i�' .'; iY .. r .Ya $�Z k Photo A - Looking west at existing dock and rock outcrop extending into Newport Bay. 1, ♦tit �• Photo B — Looking west. Close up of rock outcrop showing remnant coastal sage scrub. Figure 3 Representative Site Photos Aerie Residential Project Appendix B Plant Compendium The following vascular plant species were observed at Aerie Residential Project Site during spring of 2005 and summer of 2008 by ICF Jones & Stokes. * Indicates introduced nonnative species. Species /Scientific Name Family /Common Name ANGIOSPERMAE FLOWERING PLANTS DICOTYLEDONES AIZOACEAE FIG - MARIGOLD FAMILY Mesembryanthemumerystallinum Crystalline iceplant ANACARDIACEAE Rhus integrifolia APIACEAE (UMBELLIFERAE) Hedera helix * Foeniculum vulgare ARECACEAE Washingtonia filifera * ASTERACEAE (COMPOSITAE) Artemisia californica Baccharis salicifolia Centaurea melitensis Conyza canadensis Encelia californica Isocoma menziesii SUMAC FAMILY Lemonadeberry CARROT FAMILY English ivy Sweet fennel PALM FAMILY Pan palm SUNFLOWER FAMILY California sagebrush Mule fat Tocalote Common horseweed Bush sunflower Coastal goldenbush Species /Scientific Name Family /Common Name BRASSICACEAE (CRUCIFERAE) MUSTARD FAMILY Hirschfeldia incana '" Sho tpod mustard CACTACEAE Oplmtia liltoralis Opuntia prolifera CHENOPOD/ACEAE A triplex canescens Atriples walsonii Chenopodium albums Salsola tragus * CRASSULACEAE Dudleya lanceolala CYPERACEAE Cyperus involucralus * EUPHORBIACEAE Chamaesyce maculate Eremocmpnis seligerus Euphorbia glyplosperma FA13ACEAE (LEGUMINOSAE) Acacia redolens * Caesalpinia gilliesii Melilolus indiea * CERIANIACEAE Erodium cieutarium * CACTUS FAMILY Coastal prickly pear Prolifcrous prickly pear / coastal cholla GOOSEFOOT FAMILY Four- winged saltbush Watson's saltbush Lamb's quarters Russian thistle STONECROP FAMILY Lance - leaved dudleya SEDGE FAMILY Umbrella sedge SPURGE FAMILY Spotted rattlesnake spurge Doveweed Ridgeseed spurge LEGUME /PEA FAMILY Prostrate acacia Yellow Bird -of- paradise Yellow sweet - clover GERANIUM FAMILY Red - stemmed filaree IRIDACEAE IRIS FAMILY Species /Scientific Name Family /Common Name Iris missouriensis* MYOPORACEAE Myoporum laetum* POACEA Arundo donax PLUMBAGINACEAE Limonium perezii POLYGONACEAE Eriogonum fasciculatum ROSACEAE Heteromeles arbutifolia SOLANACEAE Nicotiana glauca * MONOCOTYLEDONES AGAVACEAE Rocky mountain iris MYOPORUM FAMILY Myoporum GRASS FAMILY Giant reed LEADWORT FAMILY Perez's sea - lavender BUCKWHEAT FAMILY California buckwheat Toyon Treetobacco ROSE FAMILY NIGHTSHADE FAMILY MONOCOTS AGAVE FAMILY Agave sp. Century Plant POACEAE GRASS FAMILY Avena sp. * Wild oat Bromus hordeaceus * Soft chess Bromus madritensis * Foxtail chess Floral components identified during surveys were recorded in terms of relative abundance and host habitat type. Floral taxonomy used in this report follows the Jepson Manual (Hickman 1993) and, for sensitive species, the California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Inventory, 5th Edition (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Additional common plant names are taken from Munz (1974) and Roberts (2008). Note: This compendium does not include a complete inventory of all ornamental species at the project site. Appendix C Wildlife Compendium The following is a list of wildlife species recorded at Aerie Residential project site during spring of 2005 and summer of 2008 by ICF Jones & Stokes. Presence may be noted if a species is seen or heard, or identified by the presence of tracks, scat, or other signs. * Introduced species Scientific Name Common Name INSECTA INSECTS LEPIDOPTERA BUTTERFLIES AND MOTHS Subfamily Pyrginae Etynnis funeralis Pytgussp. Duskywings, Checkered Skippers, etc. Funereal duskywing Checkered skipper REPTILIA REPTILES Iguanidae Sceloporus occidentalis Iguanid Lizards western Fence lizard AVES BIRDS Phalacrocoracidae Cormorants Phalacrocorax auritus Double- crested cormorant Scientific Name Common Name Ardeidae Herons Ardea herodias Great blue heron Pelecanidae Pelicans Pelecanus occidentalis Brown pelican Trochilidae Hummingbirds Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird Corvidae Crows and Ravens Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Aegithalidae Bushtits Psaltriparus minimus Bushtit Troglodytidae Wrens Troglodytes aedon House wren Emberizidae Warblers, Sparrows, etc. Passer domesticus House sparrow /cterus cucullatus Hooded oriole Fringillidae Finches Carpodacus mexicanus House finch MAMMALIA MAMMALS Didelphidoe Didelphis virginiana Opossum Virginia opossum Felidae Cats Felis catus Domestic cat Taxonomy and nomenclature follows Laudenslayer et. al. (1991. A checklist of the amphibians, reptiles, birds. and mammals of California. California Fish and Game 77:109 - 141.), and the American Ornithologists' Union (1998. The A.O.U. Checklist of North American Birds, 7a Ed. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington D.C.). Appendix D Sensitive Species Table for Aerie Residential Project Status Code Explanations Status code Explanation FE Federally Endangered FT Federally Threatened FC Federal Candidate species SE State Endangered ST State Threatened SSC State Species of Special Concern CNDDB Tracked by the California Department of Fish and Game "Natural Diversity Data Base ", but with no other special regulatory or management status 1 A California Native Plant Society (CPS) List I A plant ( "Plants presumed extinct in Califomia ") I B CNPS List 1B plant ( "Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere") 2 CNPS List 2 plant ( "Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere ") No designated state, federal, or locally significant listing. Special Status Species Table for Aerie Residential Project SPECIES /NATURAL SPECIAL COMMUNITIES STATUS REQUIREMENTS STATUS ON SITE PLANTS Life Form: Annual herb Counties: Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego Not expected to occur. Project site lacks sandy dunes Chaparral Sand - Verbena Veg Comm.: desert dunes; sandy substrates typically associated with this species. Habitat conditions on Blooming window: Jan. —Sept. site are not conducive to support this species. No further (Abronia villosa var. auriia) I B Elevation: 80 -1600m 262 -5250 ft) project action needed. Life Form: annual herb Counties: Orange, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara Counties Surveys Recommended. Habitat conditions on site are not A hanisma p Veg. Comm.: coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub ideal to support this species but are nonetheless present. Blooming window: Mar.-Jun. Surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window (Aphanisma blitoides) I Elevation: 1 -305m (3 -1000 ft ) would determine presence /absence. Life Form: Perrenial herb Counties: Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, Ventura Counties Veg. Comm.: Closed -cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and valley foothill grassland. Recent bunts or disturbed areas in stiff gravelly clay soils overlying granite or Braunton's milk -vetch limestone. Blooming window: Jan -Aug. Not expected to occur. Site lacks habitat conditions known (Astragalus braunionil) FE Elevation: 4 -640 In 13 -2099 ft to be suitable for this species. Life Form: Perennial herb Ventura marsh milk -vetch Counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara, Ventura (As agalus pycnostachyus var. Veg. Comm.: coastal dune ponds, moist coastal scrub, marshes Not expected to occur. Site lacks marshy -/- standing water lant issimus) and swamps (edges, coastal salt or brackish) Blooming window: Jun.-Oct. required, sites and not known from Orange Co. (see Roberts FE, SE, IB Elevation Window: 1 -35m (3 -114ft) 2008uire Life Form: Perennial herb Counties: Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino Not expected to occur. Project site lacks alkaline soils and Coulter's Saltbush Veg. Comm.: bogs and fens, marshes and swamps (freshwater) hydrology typically associated with this species. Habitat Blooming Window: May- Aug. conditions on site are not conducive to support this species. (Atriplex coulreri) IB Elevation Window: 3 -170m 10 -558 ft No further project action needed. Sensitive Species Table December 2008 Aerie Residential Project SPECIES /NATURAL SPECIAL COMMUNITIES STATUS REQUIRENIENTs STATUS ON SITE Life Form: Annual herb Counties: Orange, Riverside, Los Angeles Surveys Recommended. Habitat conditions on site are South Coast saltscale Vcg. Conti.: coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub suitable to support this species. Surveys performed during the Blooming window: Mar.-Oct. appropriate blooming window would determine (Atriples percifica) I B Elevation Window: 0 -140m (0 -460 ft) presence /absence. Life Form: Annual herb Counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino Not expected to occur. Project site lacks chenopod scrub, Parish's brittlescale I B Veg. Comm.: cheno pod scrub, has, vernal pools 6 I playas, y P playas and vernal pools typically associated with this species. Blooming Window: Jun.-Oct. Flabitat conditions on site are not conducive to support this (Ampler parishii) Elevation W indow:25- 1900111 82 -6234 ft) species. No further project action needed. Life Form: Annual herb Counties: Orange, Riverside, Santa Barbara, Santa Catalina Veg. Conlin.: coastal bluffscrub in seasonally moist alkaline Not expected to occur. Project site lacks alkaline soils and Davidson's saltscale soils hydrology typically associated with this species. Habitat Blooming window: Apr.-Oct. conditions on site are not conducive to support this species. (Alriplec serenana var. clnvidsonii) I B Elevation window: 10 -200111 (32 -656 ft ) No further project action needed. Life Form: Bulblfel'nnS herb Counties: Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside Counties Veg. Conlin.: Cisnlontane woodland, coastal sage scrub, playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Usually associated with annual grassland and vernal pools, often surrounded by shrubland habitts. Not expected to occur. Project site vernal pools and Thread- leaved brodiaea Blooming window: Mar -Jun. hydrology typically associated with (his species. Flabitat Elevation: 25- 860111(82 -2821 ft) conditions on site are not conducive to support this species. (Brodiaea filfifolia) No further project action needed. Life Form: perennial bulbiferous herb Counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside Intermediate mariposa lily Veg. Comm.: Chaparral; Coastal scrub,. Valley and foothill Not expected to occur. Project site lacks grassland typically grassland /rocky associated with this species. Habitat conditions on site are not (Calochornrs• weedii var. Blooming Window: May -Jul. conducive to Support this species. No bother project action inlet inedius) I Elevation Window: 105 -855 in (344 -2805 ft) needed. Sensitive Species Table December 2008 Aerie Residential Project SPECIES /NATURAL SPECIAL COMMUNITIES STATUS REQUIREMENTS STATUS ON SITE Life Form: Perennial rhizomatous herb Santa Barbara morning -glory Counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara, Ventura Not expected to occur. Project site lacks marshes and Veg. Comm.: Marshes and swamps (coastal) swamps typically associated with this species. Habitat (Calyslegia sepimn ssp. Blooming window: Apr.-May conditions an site are not conducive to support this species. binghmnioe) I B Elevation window: 0 -20m (0 -65ft) No further project action needed. Life Farm: Annual herb Counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara Veg. Conun.: marshes and swamps (margins), valley and Surveys Recommended. Habitat conditions on site are not Southern tarplant foothill grassland (vernally ntesic), vernal pools ideal to support this species but are nonetheless present. Blooming window: May-Nov. Surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window (Cewroumclia par yi ssp. anstralis) I B Elevation window:0 -425m 0 -1394 ft) would determine presence / absence. Life Form: Annual herb Orcutt's pincushion Counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego Not expected to occur. Project site lacks sandy coastal bluff Veg. Conlin.: sandy coastal bluff scrub acid dunes scrub and dunes typically associated with this species. (Chaenaclis glabrinsclda var. Blooming window: Jan. -Aug. Habitat conditions on site are not conducive to support this orcernimm) I B Elevation window: 3 -I00nl (9 -328 ft) species. No further project action needed. Life Form: Annual herb Counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura Surveys Recommended. Habitat conditions on site are not San Fernando Valle s tinel'lower Valley I FC. SE, I B Veg. Conlin.: open, sandy soils, valley and grassland foothills ideal to support this species but are nonetheless present. (Chori_nndve pnnyi var. Blooming window: Apr.-Jul. Surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window jernanclina) Elevation window: 150 -1220m (492- 4002ft ) would determine presence /absence. Summer holly Lire Form: evergreen shrub Counties: Orange, San Diego Not expected to occur. Project site lacks chaparral and Veg. Conn.: chaparral,.cisniontane woodland cisniontane woodland habitat typically associated with this (Contarostnphylis diversifolia ssp. Blooming window: Apr. -Jun. species. Habitat conditions on site are not conducive to diversifolio) I B Elevation window: 30 -550dt 98- I804ft) support this species. No further project action needed. Life Form: Annual herb hentiparasitic Counties: Los Angeles . Orange Sutwey Recommended. This species is known front coastal Salt marsh bird's -beat: PE, SB, 113 Ve • Count.: coastal dunes, marshes and swam s coastal salt 6 P ( ) bluffs and Newport Back Bay. Surveys performed during the (Cnrclnlnndurs marilinmr ssp. Blooming Window: appropriate blooming window would determine maritlmns) 0-30m (L Elevation Windom,: 0 -30u (0 -98 ft) presence /absence. Life Forst: Perennial herb Counties: Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino Surveys Reconunended. Habitat conditions on site are not Veg. Comm.: chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill ideal to support this species, however this species is known Many - stemmed Dudleya grassland, often clay soils from the project region. Surveys performed during the Blooming Window: Apr.-Jul. appropriate blooming winclow would determine (Dudleya mullicaielis) I B Elevation Window: I5 -790nt (49 -2592 ft) presence /absence. Sensitive Species Table December 2008 Aerie Residential Project SPECIES I NATURA L SPECIAL COMMUNITIES STATUS RE'QUIREME'NTS STATUS ON SITE Life Form: Stoloniferous herb Counties: Orange Surveys Recommended. Flabital conditions on site are not Laguna Beach (live - forever) Veg. Comm.: cismontane woodland, chaparral, coastal scrub, ideal to support this species, however this species is known dudleya valley and foothill grassland /rocky front the project region. Surveys perfornleci during the -, Blooming Window: May -Jul. appropriate blooming window would delernline (Duclleyu slolonifero) F'f, S'I I B Elevation Window: 10 -260 at (32 -853 ft) presence /absence. Life Form: Perennial herb Counties: Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino Santa Ana woollystar Veg. Comm.: chaparral, coastal scrub alluvial fan /sand of b� I. ( fan) /sandy Not expected to occur. Project site lacks chaparral and gravelly alluvial fm soils typically associated With this species. (Eriasbvm cicnsifolitnn ssp. Blooming window: May -Sep. Habitat conditions on site are not conducive to support this snnclorum) FE, SE, IB Elevation Window: 91 -610 in (299 -2001 ft) species. No further project action needed. Life Form: Shrub Counties: Orange, Riverside, Los Angeles Surveys Recommended. Habitat conditions on site suitable Cliff spurge Vcg. Conti.: coastal bluff scrub to support this species. Surveys performed during the Blooming window: Dec: Aug. appropriate blooming window would determine (Euphorbia miser°) 2 Elevation Window: 10 -500 nl (32 -1640 ft) presence /absence. Life Form: Perennial rhizontatous herb Counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino Veg. Contra.: marshes and swamps (coastal salt and Not expected to occur. Projecl site lacks marshes and Los Angeles sunflower freshwaler) swamps typically associates) with this species. Habitat Blooming window: Allg: OCt. conditions oil site are not conducive to support this species. (fleliandms nullollii ssp. porishii) IA Elevation Winslow: 10-1675m (32 -5495 ft) No further project action needed. Life Fono: Perennial herb Counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego Veg. Comm.: Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal Not expected to occur. Project site lacks chaparral, 1 Mesa horkelia scrub /sand or ravel) gravelly y cismontane woodland, and sandy soils typically associated % Blooming window: Feb.-JUL with this species. Habitat conditions an site are not conducive (Horkelia cunecuo ssp. puherula) I B Elevation Window: 70 -810m (230 -2658 ft) to Support this species. No further project action needed. Life Form: Annual /perennial herb Counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside Veg. Comm.: marshes and swamps (coastal salt), playas, vernal Not expected to occur. Project site lacks marshes, swamps, Coulter's goldfields pools and vernal pools typically associated with this species. Blooming window: Feb.-Jun. Habitat conditions on site are not conducive to support this (Laslhenia glnhraln ssp. conheri) I B Elevation Window: 1 -1220m (3 -4003 ft ) species. No further project action needed. Sensitive Species Table December 2008 Aerie Residential Project SPECIES /NATURAL SPECIAL COMMUNITIES STATUS REQUIREMENTS STATUS ON SITE Life Form: Annual herb Counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, Santa Barbara Not expected to occur. Project site lacks marshes and Mud nama \'e Comm.: marshes and swam a coastal salt g' l (coastal swamps typically associated with this species. Habitat Blooming window: .lan : ,lul. conditions oil site are not conducive to support this species. (Hama s'tenocarplim) 2 Elevation Window: 5 -500nt (16 -1640 ft) No further project action needed. Life Form: Perennial rhizontatous herb Counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara Not expected to occur. Project site lacks marshes and GambePs water cress Veg. Carnal.: marshes and swam s freshwater or brackish g• P (freshwater swamps typically associated with this species. Habitat Blooming window: Apr.-Sep. conditions on site are not conducive to support this species. (Arnstartinm gun6elli) FE, I Elevation Window: 5 -330m 16 -1083 ft) No further project action needed. Life Form: Annual herb Counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside Veg. Comm.: meadows and seeps, valley and foothill Not expected to occur. Project site lacks seeps, grassland, Prostrate vernal pool navarrelia mssland alkaline vernal ools /mesic (° ): p and vernal pools typically associated with this species. Blooming 131ooming window: Apr.-Jul. Habitat conditions on site are not conducive to support this (Aravorrelia prosiram) I B Elevation window: 15 -700m (49- 229611) species. No father project action needed. Life Form: Annual herb Coast wooly -heads Counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego Not expected to occur. Project site lacks coastal dunes Veg. Conan.: coastal dunes typically associated with this species. Habitat conditions on (1Vemocmdis dermdole vat. Blooming window: Apr.-Sep. site are not conducive to support this species. No f rthei denadala) 113 Elevation window: 0 -1 OOnt (0 -954 ft) project action needed. Life Form: Annual herb Counties: Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego Not expected to occur. Project. site lacks vernal pools California orcuff grass Veg. Comm.: vernal tools 6 I typically associated with this species. Habitat conditions on Blooming window: r \pr: Aug. site are not conducive to support this species. No Further (Orcutlia calijornictr) 17L", Sc, I B Elevation window: 15 -660nt (49 -2165 ft) project action needed. Life Form: Annual herb Counties: Orange, Riverside, San Diego Not expected to occur. Project site lacks valley and foothill Pen[achaeta • Veg. Comm.: valley and foothill grassland S grassland typically associated with this species. Habitat : Blooming window: Mar.-Jun. conditions on site are not conducive to. support this species. (Penlachaela ourea ssp. edlenii) I B Elevation window: 75 -520nt (246 - 170611) No further project action needed. Life Form: Evergreen shrub Counties: Orange, San Diego Not expected to occur. Project site lacks chaparral and Nuttall's scrub oak Veg. Comm.: closed -cone coniferous forest chaparral closed -cone coniferous forest typically associated with this Blooming window: Feb.-Apr. species. Habitat conditions on site are not conducive to (Quercus dumosa) I B Elevation window: 15 -400 49- 1312ft) support this species. No further project action needed. Sensitive Species Table December 2008 Aerie Residential Project SPECIES /NATURAL SPECIAL COMMUNITIES STATUS REQUIREMENTS STATUS ON SITE Life Form: rhizotontatous herb emergent Counties: Orange, Ventura Not expected to occur. Project. site lacks marshes and Sanford's arrowhead Veg. Convn.: marshes and swam a g' P swamps typically associated with this species. Habitat Blooming window: May -Oct. conditions on site are not conducive to support this species. (S'agillaria snn/brclii) I B Elevation window: 0 -650nt (0 -2132 ft) No further project action needed, Life Form: Annual herb Counties: Los Angeles, , Orange, Riverside, Santa Barbara Veg. Veg. Comet.: chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal Not expected to occur. Project site lacks chaparral, Chaparral ragwort alkabne cismontane woodland, and alkaline soils typically associated Blooming window: tan.-Apr. with this species. Habitat conditions on site are not conducive (S'enecio nphmmclis) 2 Elevation Window: 15 -800nt 49 -2625 ft) to support this species. No further project action needed. Life Form: Perennial herb Counties: Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego Veg. Comm.: chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest. Not expected to occur. Project site lacks chaparral, Salt spring checkerbloorn Mcijavean desert scrub, Playas / allaline, mesic coniferous forest, and soils typically associated with this Blooming window: Mar. -Jun. species. Habitat conditions on site are not conducive to (Siclnlcea neomevica °O) 2 Elevation Window: 15-1530m 49 -5020 ft) support this species. No further project action needed. Life Form: Perennial herb Counties: Orange, Los Angeles, San Diego Not expected to occur. Project site lacks marshes and Estuary seablite Veg. Comm.: marshes and swans rs b I swamps typically associated with this species. Habitat Blooming window: May-Oct. conditions on site are not conducive to support this species. (Sunecla esveroa) I B Elevation window: 0 -5nt (0 -I6 ft) No further project action needed. Life Form: Perennial rhizornatous herb Counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego Veg. Comm.: cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, marshes and Not expected to occur. Project site lacks meadows, seeps, San Bernardino aster sworn s valley and foothill grassland vernal) mesic p y ` g ` (vernally ) marshes, swamps and hydrology typically associated with this Blooming window: Jul. -Nov. species. Habitat conditions on site are not conducive to (Symphvou ichum clejolioium) 113 Elevation Window: 2- 2040nt (7 -6693 ft) support this species. No further project action needed. Life Form: Perennial herb Counties: Orange Surveys Recommended. Habitat conditions on site are Big- leaved crown heard Veg. Comm.: chaparral and coastal sage scrub suitable to support this species. Surveys performed during the Blooming window: Apr.-Jul. appropriate blooming window would determine (Verhesinacliss•im) F'I', S'1', I Elevation Window: 45 -205m (147 - 67211) presence /absence. WILDLIFE Sensitive Species Table December 2008 Aerie Residential Project SPECIES /NATURAL SPECIAL COMMUNITIES STATUS REQUIREMENTS STATUS ON SITE . Roosts located in wind protected tree groves (Eucalyptus, Not expected to occur. Project site lacks large stands of trees Monterey Pine, Cypress) with nectar and water sources nearby. typically associated with this species. Habitat conditions on Monarch Winter roost sites extend along the coast from northern site are not. conthicive to support this species. No father (Dmrcros p/esippua) - -- Mendocino to Northern Baja, California. project action needed. Requires interstitial spaces within chaparral and coastal sage Quinn checkerspotbuttei�fly scrub. Prefers hills and mesas with high densities of food plants Not expected to occur. Project site lacks food sources. such as ! lanmgo erecln, ! lcuuago insuldris,Oivhocarpus Habitat conditions on site are not conducive to support this (Euphyclryos edilha quino) FE purpurescens. species. No further project action needed. Limited to a small number of vernal pools, all in Riverside, San Diego, or coastal Orange counties. This small (less than an inch long) shrimp spends late spring and summer as an encysted embryo, lying in the soil left behind when the pools dry up. After the rains of winter arrive, filling the pools again, the larvae emerge and mature into adults, filter feeding on detritus Not expected to occur. Project site lacks vernal pools and and zooplankton. Tends to be found only in deeper, more appropriate hydrology typically associated with this species. San Diego Fairy shrimp dependable pools. Survival of this species is further challenged Habitat conditions on site are not conducive to support this (Branchinecla sandiegonensis) FE by its inability to tolerate muddy, salty, or alkaline conditions. species. No further project action needed. Restricted to sleep seasonal vernal pools, ephemeral ponds, and steel< ponds and other human modified depressions within annual grasslands (may be interspersed w/ chaparral or sage scrub); prefers warm -water pools that have low to moderate dissolved solids, are less predictable, and remain filled for Not expected to occur. Project site lacks vernal pools and Riverside Fairy Shrimp extended periods of tine. In Riverside County, found in pools appropriate hydrology typically associated with this species. formed over the following soils: Murrieta stony clay loans, Las Habitat conditions on site are not conducive to support this (SYeplocephnhrs uvoouoni) PE Posas series, Wyman clay loam, and Willows soils. species. No further project action needed. Native populations are Found only in the Los Angeles (extirpated ?), San Gabriel, and Santa Ana river systems of southern California; most streams in which Santa Ana Suckers live are fairly small and shallow, with currents ranging from swift to sluggish; all are subject to periodic severe flooding; most abundant where the water is cool and unpolluted, though Not expected to occur. Project site lacks appropriate they can survive in fairly turbid water; boulders, rubble, and hydrology typically associated with this species. Habitat Santa Ana sucker sand are the main bottom materials with which they are conditions on site are not conducive to support this species. (Camsrolnus sanloanoe) FT, SSC associated, together with growths of filamentous algae and Chara No further project action needed. Sensitive Species Table December 2006 Aerie Residential Project SPECIES /NATURAL SPECIAL COMMUNITIES STATUS REQUIREMENTS STATUS ON SITE Not expected to occur. Project site lacks appropriate Southern steelhead Inhabits Santa Maria River south to southern extent of range hydrology typically associated with this species. Flabitat which is San Mateo Creck in San Diego County. Needs conditions on site arc not conducive to support this species. (Oncorhynchus mykis irideuss) PE ternument water source. No further project action needed. Historically, the Los Angeles basin provided shallow, brackish lagoon habitat suitable for the tidewater goby. Currently, Not expected to occur. Project site lacks appropriate Tidewater. goby however, this area is a a between Santa Monica in western gap ( hydrology typically associated with this species. Habitat Los Angeles County) and Aliso Creeks (in Orange County) conditions on site are not conducive to support this species. (Eucyclagobius net +berg +i) PE, SSC populations. No further project action needed. Not expected to occur. Project site lacks appropriate California red - legged frog Inhabits slit-Libby or emergent riparian vegetation with dense y g p g hydrology typically associated with this species. Habitat sources of deep water. Needs permanent water source. Occurs conditions on site are not conducive to support this species. (Rana aurora drayroni) I'T in lowlands and foothills in or near permanent water sources. No further project action needed. Pound in foothill canyons and inter - mountain valleys where the Not expected to occur. Project site lacks appropriate Arroyo toad river is bordered by low hills and the stream gradient is low. hydrology typically associated with this species. Habitat -E, Extreme habitat specialist restricted to riparian environments in conditions on site are not conducive to support this species. (Bufo califoniicus) I SSC the middle reaches of third order streams. No further project action needed. Range front near Redding, Shasta County, in north central California south into NW Baja California, and entirely west of the Sierra Nevada and deserts; known elevational range is from sea level to about 1363 in (4472 ft); require temporary rain Not expected to occur. Project site lacks appropriate Westernspadefoot pools with water temperatures between 48° and 86° f. (90 and I p hydrology typically associated with this species. Habitat 30° C) lasting upwards of 3 week; disturbance tolerance can be conditions on site at not conducive to support this species. (Spea harurnondii) SSC high. No further project action needed. Distributed from just north and west of Ventura County, along the coastal slope southeastward into northern Baja California; variety of vegetation communities, from grasslands and shrublands to woodlands; including coniferous forests. Critical Coast San Diego horned lizard factors are the presence of loose soils with a hish sand fraction: Not expected to occur. Project site lacks abundance of food an abundance of native ants or other insects, especially source and vegetation community typically associated with (Phrynosoma harvester ants and the availability of this species. Habitat conditions on site are not conducive to coronaium)(bloinvillii population) SSC basking and dense both sunny Baskin � s tots and dense cover for refuge. support this species. No further project action needed. Sensitive Species Table December 2008 Aerie Residential Project SPECIES /NATURAL SPECIAL COMMUNITIES STATUS REQUIREMENTS STATUS ON SITE It occurs in Orange County, western Riverside (inland to northeast oFAguanga) and San Diego counties, and north to sites in Colton and the west end of the Crofton Mills, both in San Bernardino County. Most California populations occur on or adjacent to floodplaius or the terraces of streams, in or by Open sage scrub and chaparral communities. The presence of perennial shrubs appears to be important, with the most strongly Not expected to occur. I?rojecl site lacks preferred habitat u Oran,,e- throated associated species being California buckwheat brio onmrr I g ( g conditions to support this species (i.e. washes and sandy areas Whipsit Whiptail fnccic•ulnnmi), chamise (Adeuos•rornnfnsciculn ( unr), white sage , (Salvia apiana), and black sage (Salvia nielhfera), all regionally with patches of brush and rocks). No Further project action (Aspidoscelis hyperydhrus beldingi) SSC abundant species. needed. Silvery legless lizard Not expected to occur. Project site lacks preferred habitat This species prefers soils with a high moisture content, sandy or conditions to support this species (i.e. moist soils with sparse (Anuiello pulchro pulchro) loose loamy soils under sparse vegetation. vegetation). No further project action needed. Coronado skink Species prefers early successional stages or open areas found in rocky areas close to streams and on dry hillsides, grassland, Not expected to occur. Project site lacks preferred habitat (Eunreces skihonianus• chaparral, pinion - juniper and juniper sage woodland, pine -oak, conditions to support this species. No further project action inlerpariemlis) and pine forests in coast ranges of southern California. needed. As tar north . as Puente Hills in Yorba Linda and sw San Bernardino County, and occurs south to Loreto, Baja California, Mexico; known eleva[ional range is sea level to just under1520 in (5000 R), but apparently rare above about 1200 in (3940 I4); Red diamond rattlesnake greatest frequency in areas of heavy brush, such as Chamisal Not expected to occur. Project site lacks preferred habitat chaparral, but also in open areas at lower densities; boulders and conditions to support this species. No further project action (Crornlus ruber rubcr) rocky outcrops. needed. Inhabits open, dry, nearly or quite level, grassland; prairie; desert floor. [it coastal So. Ca., a substantial fraction birds are found in microhabitats highly altered by man, including flood control and irrigation basins, dikes, and banks, abandoned fields Burrowing Owl surrounded by agriculture, and road cuts and margins. Will also Not expected to occur. Project site lacks appropriate habitat occupy man -made niches such as banks and ditches, piles of conditions to support this species including grassland, open (.41hene amiculnrio) SSC broken concrete, and even abandoned structures. dry ateas for foraging. No Further project action needed. Sensitive Species Table December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 10 SPECIES /NATURAL SPECIAL COMMUNITIES STATUS REQUIREMENTS STATUS ON SITE This small species of plover is widespread in the northern hemisphere. Habitat requirements include open, relatively flat areas with little or no vegetation. This includes undisturbed beaches, salt flats, playas, dredge spoils, levees, and even river bars. 13eac11es utilized are usually not backed by Bluffs (Page and Stenzel 1981). Winter distribution is more coastal, and may include sewage treatment ponds and agricultural wastewater Not expected to occur. Project site lacks preferred habitat Western Snowy plover sites. Food is virtually all aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, conditions to support this species as the relatively small and which is typically captured through active observation, . running, isolated beach is backed by bluffs. No further project action (Charadrius alexandrines ninosus) FT, SSC and then gleaning front the ground surface. needed. Not expected to occur. Project site lacks grassland and Occurs in California primarily as a summer resident from march fallow areas preferred by this species. Habitat conditions on Grasshopper sparrow to September. Nests on the ground and is found in fallow fields, site are not conducive to support this species. No further ( 6muodrmnus sanannarum) SSC grasslands, and pastures. project action needed. Nests in low thickets in riparian habitats; eats a variety of insects, and has the unusual habit of singing both day and night. Not expected to occur. Project site lacks dense thickets of R is a local and uncommon breeder and rare migrant across So. riparian vegetation preferred by this species. Habitat Yellow- breasted chat Ca. Known elevational range extends from I80 feet (55 in) conditions on site are not conducive to support this species. (kieria virens) SSC below sea level to at least 4700 feet (1433 m). No fmther project action needed. Non - migratory, obligate resident within a subset of coastal sage Not expected to occur. Project site lacks substantial coastal Coastal cactus wren scrub habitats; require the presence of, but are not entirely sage scrub with a cactus component preferred by this species. (Campylorhunchus bi unneicapillus restricted within, relatively arborescent (over I meter tall) Habitat conditions on site are not conducive to support this sandiegensis) SSC stands of several species of cactus (Oprortia spp.) species. No further project action needed. Year -around resident of sage scrub of several subtypes; within California it is found from the Mexican border north to extreme eastern and southern Los Angeles County with several small, Not expected to occur. Project site lacks substantial coastal disjunct populations known north to the Moorpark area of sage scrub required by this species. Habitat conditions on site Coastal California Gnatcatcher Ventura County. It extends east into western San Bernardino are not conducive to support this species. No further project (Polioprila cerlifornica cdlijornica) I PT, SSC County and well across cisntontane Riverside County. action needed. Sensitive Species Table December 2008 Aede Residential Project 11 SPECIES /NATURAL SPECIAL COMMUNITIES STATUS REQUIREMENTS STATUS ON SITE This tiny rail is a year round resident in a variety of marshy habitats, and is primarily restricted to the San Francisco Bay, with smaller numbers in wetlands from the Salton Sea area, Imperial and Riverside counties, through Arizona (Evens et al. I99I). "['his secretive subspecies is believed to have declined California black rail because of loss and degradation of wetland habitats, and it is g` Not expected to occur. Project site lacks appropriate wetland vulnerable to continued declines. This species also inhabits habitat conditions typically associated with this species. (Laterallus jnnmicensis areas of bulrush (S'cirpvs cali(ornicas). During [he non- breeding Habitat conditions on site are not conducive to support this coturniculus) ST season, they preficr areas close to upland habitat types. species. No further project action needed. This species is expected to forage within the Newport Harbor. This bird skims along surface coastal waters for fish and can be seen feeding along quiet, protected waters as well as in open "Phis Black skimmer nearshore waters. Most commonly seen in the project region Not expected to occur. species can potentially Forage in during July and August when post - breeding dispersal from the bay but will not be directly affected by the project. No (Rynchops niger) SSC larger breeding colonies occurs alon the coast. further project action needed. This species was common until the endof the l9' century and is now extremely rare off the coast from the west coast of the Attention Islands and California. Breeds on islands off southern Short - tailed albatross .Japan. Uncommon visitor from nesting grounds in Central Not expected to occur. Project site lacks preferred habitat Pacific to cold open ocean waters far offshore; most numerous conditions to support this species. No further project action (Phoebasrino1botrus) PE ol'fAlaska. needed. Inhabitant of extensive riparian forests; it has declined front a fairly common, local breeder in much of California. Relatively Western yellow - billed cuckoo broad, well- shaded ripen ion forests are utilized, although it Not expected to occur. Project site lacks appropriate dense tolerates some disturbance. A specialist to some degree on tent riparian habitat required by this species for nesting and Cocc +-us americ•anu.r ( �- caterpillars, with a remarkably fast development of young foraging Habitat conditions on site are not conducive to g °' occidentalis) FC, SE covering only 18 - 21 days from incubation to fledging. support this species. No further project action needed. Sensitive Species Table December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 12 SPECIES /NATURAL SPECIAL COMMUNITIES STATUS REQUIREMENTS STA'T'US ON SITE Breeding distribution extends northwest to Santa Barbara County (rarely to Monterey County and formerly to the northern Sacramento Valley), northeast to Inyo County, south into northern Baja California, Mexico, and east into the edges of the deserts at a few points such as at the Mohave River (USFWS 1998). Nesting elevation ranges From below sea level to at least 4100 feet. Species selects dense vegetation low in riparian zones for nesting; most frequently located in riparian stands Not expected to occur. Project site lacks appropriate riparian between 5 and 10 years old; when mature riparian woodland is habitat required by this species for nesting and foraging. Least Bell's vireo selected, vireos nest in areas with a substantial robust hlabitat conditions on site are not conducive to support this (Vireo hellii pusilhls) FE, SE understory of willows as well as other plant species (Goldwasser 1981. species. No further project action heeded. Occurs in riparian habitats along rivers, streams, or other wetlands, where dense growths of willows (Salix spp.), Baccharis spp., Arrowweed (Pluchea spp.), buttonbush Not expected to occur. Project site lacks appropriate riparian Southwestern willow flycatcher (Cephalam urs spp.), tamarisk (Tanwrix sop.) Russian olive habitat required by this species for nesting and foraging. (Eleognus spp.) or other plants are present, often with a Habitat conditions on site are not conducive to support this (Empidonox i raillii erlriruus) FE scattered overstory of cottonwood (Po ulus sop.). species. No further project action needed. Forages in open country of many types (including non- intensive agriculhnal areas) and nests in small trees and large shrubs, often at the edges of such open areas. Like most birds of prey. Not expected to occur. Project site lacks preferred habitat Loggerhead shrike Loggerhead Shrikes generally occur at low densities. The conditions to support this species. No further project action (Lanius ludoviciamis) species is widely distributed in Southern California, with some needed. — seasonal movements evident. With agricultural and urban development, this species has been restricted to only a few sites in Los Angeles and Orange Clark's marsh wren counties, but has spread southward to San Diego County. Tbis species is known from Upper er Newport Bay. Species restricted I I I I Y I Not expected to occur. Project site lacks preferred habitat to freshwater and brackish marshes dominated by bulrushes or conditions to support this species. No further project action (Cisiolhotispaluslrisclarkae) _ cattails, needed. Nests uncommonly in the upper story of riparian habitats in Western Yellow warbler Southern California, especially alder woodland and forest. It is also a common, widespread migrant in spring and fall. Not expected to occur. Project site lacks preferred habitat occupying a wide variety of habitats at that tinge. It is extremely conditions to support this species. No further project action (Dendroica pelechia breimleri) _ rare in winter. I needed. Sensitive Species Table December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 13 SPECIES /NATURAL SPECIAL COMMUNITIES STATUS REQUIREMENTS STATUS ON SITE This [lark subspecies of Savannah Sparrow is a locally common non - migratory resident of coastal saltnlarsh. It is distributed Ii-on1 northwestern Baja California north to Santa Barbara County. This subspecies was formerly numerous and widespread within this restricted range, as noted by Willett (1912). Although the majority of its subsistence stems from the saltnlarsh and closely adjacent nludflat, individuals, particularly Belding's savannah sparrow post- breeding birds, can be found foraging in a wide variety of Not expected to occur. Project site lacks appropriate habitats including upper marsh, adjacent ruderal and ornamental salhnarsh or nludflat habitat required by this species. Habitat (Passercuhrs.stnuhrichensic vegetation, open beach and mudflat, and even dirt and gravel conditions on site are not conducive to support this species. beldingi) SE Larkin, lots. No further project action needed. This subspecies of the large and widespread Clapper Rail is restricted to the lower elevations of coastal marshes with active tidal flow from Hueneme, Ventura County (formerly to Santa Barbara County), Newport Beach, south to Bahia de San Not expected to occur. This species is known from Newport Quintin, Baja California, Mexico. This species is partial to Back Bay. Project site lacks coastal marshes required to Light- footed clapper rail cordgrass with full tidal flushing. No substantial seasonal support this species. Habitat conditions on site are not V movements occur, although rare individuals wander away from conducive to support this species. No further project action (Rallus longirosn'is leripes) FE, SE known breeding locales. needed. This subspecies, the only Least Terns on the west coast of North America, historically bred in scattered, mostly small colonies along . the coast from Monterey Bay south into Baja California. Today they breed in far fewer colonies, heavily managed to control predators and human disturbance, from San Francisco Bay (Ahuneda County) south to a few sites along the Pacific Coast of Baja California, Mexico. Nesting habitat occurs in Upper Newport Bay and the Santa Ana River Mouth. This species will forage in nearshore waters of Newport Flarbor and Upper Bay channels. The species feeds by diving for small surface fish. Colonies are located near the ocean shoreline (within 0.5 mile [about 800 meters]), typically on nearly Flat, loose sandy substrates with lightly scattered short vegetation and debris, although sonic colonies have been located on hard - Califonlia least tern packed surfaces, even unused asphalt. Colony sites must Not expected to occur. Project site lacks appropriate habitat provide access to the shoreline forjuveniles and must be conditions to support this species. No further project action (Slernula anlillarmn brmrni) PE, SE relatively Gee of predators. needed. Sensitive Species Table December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 14 SPECIES /NATURAL SPECIAL COMMUNITIES STATUS REQUIREMENTS STATUS ON SITE Present. This species was observed resting on the existing Brown pelican Species uses the Harbor for foraging and roosting only; breeds dock within the project site. Forages and rests in project area. (Pelecnnus occielcnudis on the Channel Islands and islands off the coast of Baja Abundant: resting locations are adjacent to the project. No cn/ifornicus) FE, SE California. Species lalown from Newport Harbor. further project action needed. Formerly a fairly common breeder in much of coastal Southern California but now nearly extirpated in this role due to loss of native open habitats, especially marshes. It remains fairly Not expected to occur. Project site lacks preferred habitat Northern harrier common in open country with low human disturbance during conditions to support this species. No further project action (Circus cyaneus) migration and in winter. needed. Southern California salt riat'sh Not expected to occur. Project site lacks coastal marshes and Found in coastal marshes in Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura dense vegetation and leaf litter preferred by this species. shrew Counties. Requires dense vegetation and woody debris for Habitat conditions on site are not conducive to support this (Sorer ornnrus snlicornicus) SSC cover. species. No further project action needed. South coast marsh vole Not expected to occur. Project site lacks tidal marsh habitat. Inhibits tidal marshes in Los Angeles, Orange, and southern Habitat conditions on site are not conducive to support this (rldicronrs cnlifmvricus svephensi) SSC Ventura counties. species. No further project action needed. Pacific pocket mouse h m Inhabits (lie narrow coastal plains fro the Mexican border Not expected to occur. Project site lacks appropriate habitat (Perognntlws longimembri,s north to El Segundo in distinct locations. Prefer soils of file conditions to support this species. No further project action Pncificus) I .-E, SSC alluvial sands near the ocean. needed. Uncommon resident in southeastern San Joaquin Valley & coastal ranges of Monterey County southward through So. Cal. from the coast eastward to the Colorado desert; open at to Western mastiff bat semi -arid habitats Incl. conifer, deciduous woodlands, Not expected to occur. Project site lacks appropriate habitat grasslands, coastal scrub, chaparral, palm oases, desert scrub, conditions to support (his species. No further project action (Eumops Perolis cnlifornicus) SSC and urban. needed. Mexican loner tongued bat Not expected to occur. Project site lacks appropriate habitat Feeds on nectar and pollen of night- blooming succulents. conditions to support this species. No further project action (Choeronpcleris mexicnnn) SSC Roosts in relative) well -lit caves, in and around buildings. needed. Sensitive Species Table December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 15 SPECIES /NATURAL SPECIAL COMMUNITIES STATUS REQUIREMENTS STATUS ON SITE Species is nearly restricted to Mexico, with small numbers of incursions recorded into the developed portions of western San Diego County and a few additional records elsewhere in the Big free - tailed bat state. This species roosts in high rock crevices and cliffs, and Not expected to occur. Project site lacks appropriate habitat forages primarily on large moths, especially over water. conditions to support this species. No further project action (Nyctinomops macrolis) SSC Habitats are arid, in rough, rocky country. needed. Sighting reports indicate that the greatest badger abundance occurs in the northeastern region of the state and along the south American badger coastal area, and a moderate number occurs in the southeastern Not expected to occur. Project site lacks appropriate habitat desert areas, on the east side of the southern Sierra Nevada, and conditions to support this species. No further project action (Taxidea rarus) SSC in the southernmost portion of the San Joaquin Valley. needed. Common throughout state except at high elevations in San Diego black - tailed jackrabbit herbaceous and desert shrub areas, sage scrub, grasslands, open Not expected to occur. Project site lacks preferred habitat chaparral and woodland /forest areas; relatively disturbance conditions to support this species. No further project action (Lepus californicus benneiiii) _ tolerant. needed. Distributed from central California southward well into Baja California, Mexico; locally common in a variety of sunny shrub San Diego desert woodrat habitats, frequently in rocky and /or steep terrain and upper Not expected to occur. Project site lacks preferred habitat drainages; often builds its dens low in cactus or rock crevices, conditions to support this species. No further project action (Neoloma lepida iniermedia) _ but will use other sites as needed. needed. Known from nearshore marine environments from Ano Nuevo Southern sea otter San Mateo County to Point Sal, Santa Barbara County. Species Not expected to occur. Project site lacks preferred habitat required canopies of giant kelp and bull kelp for rafting and conditions to support this species. No further project action (Enhy&,a haris nereis) FT feeding. Prefers rocky substrates with abundant invertebrates. needed. Not expected to occur. Not abundant in Newport Harbor but species is present around the Pavilion. This species is California sea lion addressed in the Marine Biological Impact Assessment May (Zalophus californiamrs) MMA Nearshore and open ocean waters 2008. NATURAL COMMUNITIES Southern Coastal Salt Marsh CNDDB Absent. Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest CNDDB Absent. Southern Dune Scrub CNDDB Absent. Sensitive Species Table December 2008 Aerie Residential Project 16 SPECIES /NATURAL COMMUNITIES SPECIAL STATUS REQUIREMENTS STATUS ON SITE Southern foredunes CNDDB Absent. Sensitive Species Table December 2008 Aerie Residential Project Appendix E USFWS Species List SM£NT OFT uR. P �'(+ ns Hsvisocws P !yo United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 4Rery 3 �0 Ecological Services Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101 Carlsbad, California 92011 In Reply Refer To: FWS- OR- 09BO104- 09SLO151 DEC 17 2008 Kimberly Svitenko Senior Biologist ICG Jones & Stokes 42145 Lyndie Lane, Suite 200 Temecula, California 92591 Subject: Request for Species List for the Proposed Aerie Residential Project, City of Corona del Mar, Orange County, California Dear Ms. Svitenko: This letter is in response to your electronic mail request, received December 2, 2008, for a list of federally endangered, threatened, and proposed species potentially present in the vicinity of the above referenced project. To assist you in evaluating the potential occurrence of federally listed endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species and their critical habitat that may occur in the vicinity of the area identified, we are providing the enclosed list. The primary mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is to "work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people." Specifically, the Service administers the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, and provides support to other Federal agencies in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the "take" (e.g., harm, harassment, pursuit, injury, kill) of federally listed wildlife. Take incidental to otherwise lawful activities can be permitted under the provisions of section 7 (Federal consultations) and section 10 (private permits) of the Act. If a proposed project is authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency and may affect a listed species, then the Federal agency will consult with us on behalf of the applicant, pursuant to section 7 of the Act. In other words, any activity on private land that requires Federal involvement (such as the issuance of a section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and may affect listed species must be reviewed by us to ensure that the continued existence of the species would not be jeopardized. During the section 7 process, measures to avoid and minimize project effects to listed species and their habitat will be identified and incorporated into a biological opinion that includes an incidental take statement that authorizes incidental take by the Federal agency and applicant. TAKE PR1DE0&E - 1NAMC"RI4...f1 --- r Kim Svitenko (FWS- OR- 09B0104- 09SL0151) If a proposed project does not involve a Federal agency, but is likely to result in the take of a listed animal species, then the landowner or project proponent should apply for an incidental take permit, pursuant to section 10 of the Act. When an application is made for an incidental take permit, measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for effects to listed species and their habitat will be identified and incorporated into a habitat conservation plan. If the habitat conservation plan and the application for the permit meet the issuance criteria, a permit authorizing incidental take is issued. We do not have on -the ground site- specific information for this area. Therefore, we recommend that an assessment of the actual potential for direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts likely to result from the proposed study be conducted by a biologist directly familiar with the habitat conditions and associated species in and around the study area. Please contact the California Department of Fish and Game for State - listed and other sensitive species that may occur in the area of the project. State - listed species are protected under the provisions of the California Endangered Species Act. Rare plant species that may occur in the project area are included in the California Native Plant Society's (CLAPS) inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants in California. State - listed and CNPS species require full consideration under the California Environmental Quality Act. Should you have any questions regarding the species list provided, or your responsibilities under the Act, please contact Fish and Wildlife Biologist Jemtifer Wise of my staff at (760) 431 -9440, extension 276. Sincerely, -lkf��� Karen A. Goebel jf Assistant Field Supervisor Enclosure Kim Svitenko (FWS- OR- 09B0104- 09SLO151) Federally Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species that May Occur in the 3 Plants Biaunton's milk -vetch Astragalus brainitonii endangered, CH Ventura marsh milk -vetch Astragalus pyenostachyus var. lanosissinutr endangered, CH thread- leaved brodiaea Brodiaeafilifolia threatened, CH San Fernando Valley spineflower Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina candidate salt marsh bird's beak Cordylanthus maritime subsp. niarithnus endangered Vicinity of Orange County, California December 12, 2008 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status' Birds western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus threatened, CH yellow- billed cuckoo Coccynis aniericanus candidate southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillh extimus endangered, CH brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis endangered Short- tailed albatross Phoebastria albarrss endangered coastal California gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica threatened, CH light- footed clapper rail Rallus longirostris levipes endangered California least tern Sternula antillarinn browni endangered least Bell's vireo Vireo bellii pusillus endangered, CI4 Fish Santa Ana sucker Catostoinussantaanae threatened, CH Tidewater goby Eucyclogobiris newberryi endangered, CH southern steelhead Oncorhynchus nrykiss endangered Amphibians arroyo toad Bufo californicus endangered, CH California red - legged frog Rana aurora draytoni threatened, CH Plants Biaunton's milk -vetch Astragalus brainitonii endangered, CH Ventura marsh milk -vetch Astragalus pyenostachyus var. lanosissinutr endangered, CH thread- leaved brodiaea Brodiaeafilifolia threatened, CH San Fernando Valley spineflower Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina candidate salt marsh bird's beak Cordylanthus maritime subsp. niarithnus endangered Kim Svitenko (FWS- OR- 09B0104- 09SL0151) Federally Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species that May Occur in the Vicinity of Orange County, California December 12, 2008 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status' Santa Monica Mountains dudleya Laguna Beach live- forever Santa Ana River woolly -star Gambel's watercress bia leaved crown beard Invertebrates San Diego fairy shrimp Quino checkerspot butterfly Riverside fairy shrimp Plantntals southern sea otter Pacific pocket mouse ' CH - designated Critical Habitat PCH - proposed Critical Habitat Dudleya cyntosa subsp. ovatifolia threatened Dudleya stolonifera threatened Eriastrum densifolium subsp. sanctorum endangered Rorippa gambellii endangered Verbesina dissita threatened Branchinpcta sandiegonensis endangered, CH Euphydryas editha quino endangered, PCH Streptocephalus woottoni endangered, CH Enhydra haris nereis threatened Perognathus longimembris pacificus endangered 0 SOIL Sampling Point: 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Dept Matrix Redo%Features Primery Indicators lery one lncicalor is sufficient) Mches) Color % Color (moist) % Tvae; Loa Texture Remelt 111 nN €— Lem CMU)S t/&V, �h Water Marks (B1)(Wverine) _ Surface Water (Al) 1,e. V9 t3 — - -- Svi V — D" Deposits (B3) (Rlverine) _ SaturalJon(A3) _ AGuedc Invertebrates (1213) _ Dahage Patterns (BID) Water Marks (31) (Nonrivertne) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (CI) _ Dry - Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) ( Nonriverne) _ Oxld @ed Rhtaospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Thln Muck Surface (C7) _ DrM Deposits (83) (Nonrivertne) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Bunows (CB) _ Surface Soft Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction In Plowed Solis (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Vlsble on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (E)Vain In Remarks) _ '7 : C--Concentration, D= Deoledon. RM=Reduced Matrix. 'Location: PL-P= Unin . RC --Root Channel, M--Matrix. Hydnc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRS, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis': _ Hlslosol (At) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 1 cm Muck (AD) (LRR C) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) _ Black Hlstie (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Reduced Vertic (Fla) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Red Parent Materiel (i r2) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 1 c-n Muck (A3) (LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) includes cali frintall _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F6) Remarks: _ Sandy Murky Mineral (Si) _ Vernal Pods (F9) 'Indicators orhydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) watiand hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer (If present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydnc Soll Resent? Yes_ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Primery Indicators lery one lncicalor is sufficient) _ Water Marks (B1)(Wverine) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Salt Crust (1311) _ Sediment Deposits (82) (Riverins) High Water Table (A2) _ Biietic Crust (B12) _ D" Deposits (B3) (Rlverine) _ SaturalJon(A3) _ AGuedc Invertebrates (1213) _ Dahage Patterns (BID) Water Marks (31) (Nonrivertne) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (CI) _ Dry - Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) ( Nonriverne) _ Oxld @ed Rhtaospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Thln Muck Surface (C7) _ DrM Deposits (83) (Nonrivertne) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Bunows (CB) _ Surface Soft Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction In Plowed Solis (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Vlsble on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (E)Vain In Remarks) _ Shallow Aqultard (03) 1 _ Water - Stained Leaves (139) _ FAC- Neutral Test (05) Field Observations•. Surface Water Present? Yes _ No Depth (Inches): Water Table Present? Yes— NO Depth (inches): Sau)atlon Present? Yes_ No _IVL_ Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_ Nok includes cali frintall Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), N available: Remarks: US Amy Corps of Engineers Arid West –Version 11.1 -2006 Appendix I Eelgrass Survey MARINE BIOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR A DOCK RENOVATIONPROJECT LOCATED INCARNATION COVE, CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 Prepared for: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. 23792 Rockfield Blvd. Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Contact: Robb Cerrud (949) 595 -5900 Prepared by: Coastal Resources Management, Inc. PMB 327, 3334 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Contact: Rick Ware, Principal (949) 412 -9446 T p1 RES P O F" May 12', 2008 Revised March 4 "', 2009 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mai, CA Marinerlioiogical Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway project TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................... ......... ....... ............................... I 1.1 Project. Background and Purpose ....... ............................... ......... 1 1.2 Importance of Eelgrass ....................................... ............................... ......... 5 2.0 SURVEY METHODS ... ............................... .........._ ..,..............:..... ............................... 6 3.0 RESULTS...... .......... ...::................ ............................... 6 3.1 Eelgrass Areal Cover and Turion Density ......... ............................... ......... ........ 6 3.2 Other Marine Life Observed in the Project Area .....,,.. 9 3.3 Protected Species and Habitats ......... ......... ............. 10 4.0 FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN SPECIES_ .....::........................................... ............................... 16 5.0 INVASIVE SPECI ES ...................................................................................... ............................... 17 6.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT . ......................... ............................... ......... .................... 19 6,1 Proposed Construction Methods ........................... ......... - 19 6.2 Impacts on Water Quality and Marine Resources ................ ............................... ......... 19 6.3 Impacts to Sensitive Species ...................................................... ......... 22 6.4 Impacts to Fisheries Management Plan Species.:, ......... ..................... 23 7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES S....... ........ ......... - 23 7.1 WaterQuality............................................................................................................... 23 7.2 Marine Resources Protection Plan ................................................ ............................... 24 7.3 Mitigation for Potential Habitat Losses ......... 24 8.0 MONITORING SURVEYS ..................................................................... ............................... 25 8.,1 Pre - Construction Survey ......... ......... .......... ............................... 25 8`.2 Post- Construction Survey ................... ......... 25 8.3 Post - Construction Shading Effects Surveys..,::.: ......................... ......... ............ 25 9.0 REPO RTING ............................................................................................. ............................... 26 10.0 LITERATURE CITED ......::.........:...........................................::............ ............................... 27 LIST OF TABLES 1 Special Status Species ...... ........ .....::... ............................... ......... .., :...... .......... 11 i Carnation Cove, Corona, del Mal, CA.: Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment; Proposed Dock and Gangway Project LIST OF FIGURES 1 Carnation Cove Project Location ......................................................................... ............................... 2 2 Carnation Cove Dock Layout .......... ......... .......... ............................... ............ 4 3 Location of Eelgrass in the Project Area, March, 2005 .. ......... ..............................7 4 Location of Eelgrass in the Project Area, March, 2007.. ........ .,..........,. 8 5 Location of Eelgrass Relative to Proposed Dock Layout ......... .... ........ ............................... 20 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS 1 Carnation Cove Project Area ............. ......................... , ........... ............................... 2 2 Carnation Cove Sand Flats ......... ......... ........ ............................ ............................... 3 3 Rocky Habitat, Dock and Pier Located Seaward of Cove ............................... .............. 3 4 Eelgrass, Zostera marina... ......................... ............ ............................... 5 5 Invasive Algae, Caulerpa taxifolia ................... ......... .......... ............................... 18 ii Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 1.1.1 Project History Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (CRM) conducted a marine biological survey in Carnation Cove, Newport Bay, CA on 29 March, 2005 for P &D Technologies, Inc. The purpose of the investigation was to determine the distribution and abundance of eelgrass and other marine life within areas where a dock renovation project is being proposed. The project location is shown in Figures 1 and Photographs 1 through 3. At the time of the submittal, there were no design plans for proposed docks. In March, 2007, CRM conducted additional surveys at the project site as part of the City's bay wide eelgrass mapping project (CRM., in progress). This survey provides the latest -to- date eelgrass habitat survey for the project site. Studies conducted since March 2007 in the vicinity of Bayside Drive in Corona del Mar indicate that no substantial changes to eelgrass habitat have occurred since the March 2005 survey and that the March 2007 eelgrass survey represents an up -to -date representation of eelgrass bed resources at the Carnation Cove project site. Dock design plans for the project were provided to CRM from URS Cash & Associates. These were revised at the suggestion of CRM that initial dock designs be revised to avoid as much impact to eelgrass bed resources as possible (R. Ware pers. coup with Randy Mason, URS Corporation, 1/9/2007). 1.1.2 Project Location The project site is located along the southeast shoreline of Lower Newport Bay (Newport Harbor) in Corona del Mar, California. The site coordinates at the project site boat dock located are 33° 35.905' N, 1170 52.802' W (Figure 1). A small cove located in front of the residence consists of an intertidal sand flat and rocky intertidal shoreline (Photograph 2). Seaward of the cove, a two -slip boat dock is located at the north end of tine property (Photograph 3). Carnation Cove, Carona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project. SAN PEDR9 CHANNEL Chad 18746 1 (&58 El9ohonle L9teas) Depth Unds FATHCM9 ✓f � f -f1h_ �11i1"1 I 1 T r * ' 5 r g v f vt�tntim (me 1 Intca hire k Ta rz Nduf¢al M.- Figure 1. Carnation Cove Project Area aoo c.as csc 0 7 �f Y>" �t t �4 Photograph 1. Carnation Cove Project Area. 2 .. ` t Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project P] Is Photograph 3. Rocky habitat, dock and pier located seaward of cove. A en Source: URS7CASH NEYM0119: RQr Moam art awFb MY�uv vsvY1 v' MRYID MI M:V{ro C�K M P`P.,16 swn n PcNr W PP./C 0aru wNm W MMBLm Ma air as mx oric ig M ?OIIV GM1A nnlr OM MTQ F"4MM}tl M mrn exn wo rArmAr ro r eaYAn [y ".a6SO w�N.Nam m m mN� man nn LEGEND: i rNNme .em rams r.r APTJ rA. RAM RERACLLFIlTTE101AGE AREA wanNOTLVUVCEAREA REPLACE ELEVATED WALKWAY AREA EIMrING ELEVATED.ALNWAY AREA 7100F. 1MIR, 570 BF, 6M6.F. (R)G4NGIYAYPLATFORMPREC .4PILES0100 (E) GANGWAY PLAVMM PILE COUNT: 4 RUO01" REPLACEMENT OANSWAY: 6 N M' EXISTINGGNNGWAY: CF70 mPDem DDMAREA - 314NSF. FASTMDDDIXM 4M S.F. NET INCREASE 1.P66B.F, PROPOSED OOL1t ME GWNT: WPILES 411610 0 PUS 41 94V ERIErNAD PCGCGUNT 6VILES 014M DDC560VrR EH GRA4±• 06F. Figure 2. 201 -207 Camation "AERIE DOCKS" � w J p m =. Q: 0 o 0 0 0 06 < n =9 3 � �a D = 3 n � D 0 O F p w oR F p v n d w_ A n 0 C 2 n n Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project 1.2 IMPORTANCE OF EELGRASS Eelgrass (Photograph 4) is a marine flowering plant that grows in soft sediments in coastal bays and estuaries, and occasionally offshore to depths of 50 ft. Eelgrass canopy (consisting of shoots and leaves approximately two to three feet long) attracts many marine invertebrates and fishes and the added vegetation and the vertical relief it provides enhances the abundance and the diversity of the marine life compared to areas where the sediments are barren. The vegetation also serves a nursery function for many juvenile fishes, including species of commercial and/or sports fish value (California halibut and barred sand bass). A diverse community of bottom - dwelling invertebrates (i.e., clams, crabs, and worms) live within the soft sediments that cover the root and rhizome mass system. Eelgrass meadows are critical foraging centers for seabirds (such as the endangered California least tem) that seek out baitfish (i.e., juvenile topsmelt) attracted to the eelgrass cover. Lastly, eelgrass is an important contributor to the detrital (decaying organic) food web of bays as the decaying plant material is consumed by many benthic invertebrates (such as polychaete worms) and reduced to primary nutrients by bacteria. Photograph 4. Eelgrass, Zostera marina (Source; CRM, Inc) Because of the high ecological value of eelgrass meadows, it is important to document the location and amount of eelgrass in areas of proposed waterside developments in Newport Bay and to mitigate any losses by avoiding, reducing, or compensating for adverse effects on eelgrass habitats and communities. 9 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources. Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, . Proposed Dock and Gangway Project 2.0 SURVEY METHODS An eelgrass habitat survey was conducted by CRM biologists Rick Ware and Stephen Whitaker on 30 March, 2007. The survey was conducted using Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) GPS (Global Positioning System) technology and a Thales Mobile Mapper GPS /GIS Unit to map eelgrass areas. A biologist in a kayak equipped with the GPS followed a SCUBA- diving biologist who towed a surface buoy to mark the perimeter of the eelgrass vegetation. To assist in the mapping process, Ocean Technology Systems (OTS) a surface -to -diver communications system was used by the team. The estimated GPS error of the Thales Mobile Mapper unit with post- processing correction was less than 1 meter. GPS data were initially entered into the Mobile Mapper Software . and then transferred into GPS TRACKER and ARCVIEW GIS software. The amount of eelgrass habitat in the project area was calculated using ARCVIEW and Mobile Mapper Software. Turions are functional eelgrass units consisting of the above - ground live, green "shoot" and associated eelgrass leaves [blades] that sprout from the shoots. Replicate 0.07 square meter eelgrass turion density counts were taken throughout the shallow, mid, and deep portions of the eelgrass bed during the March 2005 survey. The counts were then converted to per - square -meter units. These data are considered to be representative of conditions that occurred during the 2007 survey. Field survey depth data were standardized to Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) based upon data for the Newport Bay NOAA tide station. 3.0 RESULTS During the March 301h, 2007 survey, the study area consisted of a rocky intertidal shoreline surrounding a small beach cove with an intertidal sand flat habitat at depths between +3 ft Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) and 0.0 ft MLLW; a rocky intertidal and rocky subtidal reef seaward of the cove that extends to a depth of -2 ft MLLW; and subtidal sand to sandy silt bay bottom habitat at depths between -2 and -14 ft MLLW. Water depths outside the pierhead line extend to 20 ft MLLW. Water temperature was 56 degrees Fahrenheit. Water visibility (horizontal) was moderate and ranged from 3 to 10 feet. 3.1 EELGRASS AREAL COVER AND TURION DENSITY 3.1.1 Eelgrass Distribution and Aerial Cover Eelgrass habitat maps for the 2005 and 2007 are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. In 2005, a total of 10,155.4 square feet (0.233 acre) of eelgrass was mapped in the project vicinity. Of this total, 0.231 acre (99 %) was mapped south of the existing boat dock. One small patch occurred outside the project boundary, 42 ft north of the project area dock. The remaining eelgrass bed began 62 ft south of the dock, and extended past the project area boundaries to the docks located at the Channel Reef apartment complex. The epifaunal snail ro Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project Figure 3. Location of Eelgrass in the Project Area, March, 2005 � w O o o n 0 0 as < � ry G n 3 � b 3 w w a D `= 3 n a D 0 v 0 m a d 0 x w a a C] w v 0 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project Alia carinata, was present in low -to- moderate densities living on the eelgrass blades. Eelgrass distribution in 2007 generally mimicked the distribution in 2005 with some slight boundary differences. The total amount of eelgrass in 2007 (10,062 sq ft; 0.231 acre) slightly declined compared to 2005 (Figure 3 and 4). A total of 9,888.12 square feet (0.227 acre) was mapped south of the project area dock, and another 0.04 acre was present north of the project area dock during the 2007 survey. The decline in eelgrass cover (0.02 acre), while small, was associated with bay -wide eelgrass habitat area reductions observed between 2005 and 2007 (CRM, in preparation). 3.1.2 Eelgrass Turion Density Eelgrass turion density was not determined during the 2007 survey. In 2005, eelgrass turion density in Carnation Cove density averaged 115 +/32 shoots per square meter (n =22 replicates) at depths between 0.0 and -14.9 ft MLLW. By comparison, eelgrass shoot density in China Cove (located just south of Carnation Cove) during March 2004 averaged 115 +/ 69 turions per square meter (n =30 replicates). By July 2004, average turion shoot density in China Cove increased to 173 +/17 turions per square meter (n =60) at depths between -2 and -14 ft MLLW (Coastal Resources Management, 2005). North of the project site along Bayside Drive in Corona del Mar turion density was 143 turions per square meter in 2004 and 132 turions per square meter in 2007 (Coastal Resources Management, 2007, 2005). Based on this comparative analysis, eelgrass turion density in this region of Newport Harbor is relatively stable. Consequently, turion density estimates for July 2004 and March 2005 are likely representative of conditions at the Carnation Cove project site in March 2007. 3.2 OTHER MARINE LIFE OBSERVED IN THE PROJECT AREA Carnation Cove supports an extremely diverse assemblage of plant and animal life due to its location near the Harbor Entrance Channel, and the combination of rocky outcrops and fine sands -to -silt substrates. This region of Newport Harbor shares many characteristics common to nearshore subtidal reef and sand bottom marine habitats and communities located off Corona del Mar. Carnation Cove is an important marine habitat that no longer exists in other areas of Newport Bay (R. Ware, pers. observations; MacGinitie and MacGinitie, 1968). Carnation Cove Marine Life. Low -to- moderate densities of sand dollars (Dendraster excentricus) were found on the sand flats within the protected cove in numbers that varied between approximately 10 and 100 per square meter in 2005, and between 115 to 325 per square meter in 2007. The channel nassa snail Nassarius fossatus and the purple olive snail Olivella biplicata, typical of shallow sand bottom communities, were also found within the cove's sandy sediments and bottom habitat directly offshore of the cove. Sand Dollar Populations. While the occurrence of sand dollars is not unusual for nearshore southern California sandy habitats at depths between -10 and -25 ft MLLW, the occurrence 0 Cannationi Cove,.Conona del Mar. CA Coastal'Resoinces Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment,Froposed Dock and Gangway Project of intertidal populations of sand dollar beds within Newport Bay is unique and rare; the population survives because wave motion/wave energy is moderate, sediments are sandy to silty sand, and tidal exchange is excellent. The population represents a condition that was once common on Newport Bay tidal sand flats. MacGimtre and MaCGinit e (1968) who studied Newport Bay marine life in the early -to -mid 1900s at the Kerckhoff Marine Laboratory in China Cove, noted that up to 438 specimens per square yard (557 per square meter) of Dendraster could be found in Corona del Mar represented a maximum population (Page 239). Rock Substrate. The marine biological community living on the low - intertidal rocky substrate, surrounding Carnation Cove was dominated by high cover of the scaly worm snail (Serpulorbis sguamigerus), and secondary, lower biological coven of barnacles (Balanzts spp.), mussels (Mytilusgalloprovincialis), green algae (EnterornorphalUlva complex), and brown algae (Sargassum niuticum, and Codiuni fragile). Invertebrates observed on the shallow subtidal rock outside the cove included Kellet's whelk (Kelletia kelletii), ochre sea star (Pisaster ochraceus), warty sea cucumber (Parastichopus parvcmenrsis), and lobster (Pandurus interruptus). Sand Bottom Marine Life (deeper than -10 It MLLW). At depths seaward of the eelgrass beds, the sandy -silt bayfloox in the Harbor Entrance Channel was colonized by sea pens (SoVatula elongata), sheep crab (Loxorhynchus graruhs), Kellet's whelk, and the tube- dwelling polychaete Diopatra ornata. Fishes. Nine species of fish were observed during 2005 and 2007 dive surveys. These included mullet (Mugil cephalus), topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), senorita (Ralichores senucintus), California garibaldi (Hypsypops rubicundus), black perch (Ernbiotoca jacksont), Delp bass (Paralabrax clathratus), barred sand bass (P. nebulifer), unidentified turbot (Pleuronichthys sp.), and round sting ray (Urolophus halleri). 3.3 PROTECTED SPECIES AND HABITATS Table 1 lists potential federal and/or state endangered, rare, or non -listed sensitive species and that could be present within or nearby the project area during construction. Species of particular concern and relevance to this project are discussed in detail below. 3.3.1 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 Enviromnental Policy Act. Consequently this water body is considered sensitive habitat and is afforded protection to conserve and protect the resource. 3.3.2 Plants - Eelgrass Habitat The project area occurs within the vicinity of estuarine and eelgrass habitats, which are considered habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish 10 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project TABLE 1 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES Scientific Name Common Name USFWS Status CDFG Status Habitat Potential to Occur or WITS Status Plants Phyllospadix torreyi surfgrass Habitat Area of Particular — Nearshore rocky intertidal /rocky Low potential Concern (HAPC) ) for subtidal Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) Species under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Zostera marina eelgrass Habitat Area of Particular — Bays, harbors, shallow nearshore High potential; observed on site Concern (HAPC) for water sediments Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) Species under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Invertebrates Haliotis cracherodii black abalone FE - Nearshore rocky intertidal /rocky Extremely low potential to occur on subtidal rocky areas in front of the cove; very rare in southern CA. Fishes Eucycloga ins newberryi. Tidewater goby FE — Shallow marine waters, lower reaches No potential, extirpated from of streams Orange County Leuresthes tennis California grunion — — Spawns on local open coastal beaches Very low potential on site; may spawn on Big Corona Beach and the open coastal beaches of Newport Beach between March and August 11 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar. CA Coastal Resoorccs. Management, Inc. Marine biological Impact Assessnsnl, Proposal Dock and Gangway Project Scientific Name Common Name USFN'S Status CDFG Status Habitat Potential to Occur or NM. FS Status klypsypops iubicuudus California gal ibaldi Protected under California, State Subtidal rocky reef habitat; resident Two individuals observed commercial and Marine Fish , and territorial species in shallow associated With rocky rcef habitat in sport fish Assembly Bill subtidal rocky Habitats front of cove in vicinity of proposed regolations. AB77, 1995 doCli slruct IN. Most common within entrance channel north to Coast Guard facility on Baysidc. Drive compared other areas of hafbol' Pat alichthys californicus California halibut — — Shallow coastal waters, open ocean High potential Reptiles Chelonia mydas Green turtle FB. — Nearshore and open ocean waters Rare visitor Greunochelyr imbricala Flawksbill sca turtle FB. — Nearshore and open ocean waters Rare visitor Birds Pelecamis occidenmlis Brown pelican F6; proposed for CE; proposed foi Bays, estuaries, nea shore waters .Forages and rests in project area Misting delisting; fully protected species Nests on sparsely vegetated Flat Nesting habitat occurs in Upper Sterna mdillarwo broitud California least fern FB GB substrates, foiages in nearby waters .Newport Bay and the Santa Ana River mooch; least terns will forragc Oil juvenile baitfsh in the nearshore waters, Ncwport Harbor and Upper .Bay channels, usually within 5 mi of nesting sites . 12 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project 13 Scientific Name Common Name USFWS Status CDFG Status Habitat Potential to Occur or NMFS Status Charadrius alexandrinus No nesting habitat present onsite, nivostts Western snowy plover FT SSC Nests on sandy beaches and shores or for individuals to occur on site Mammals Zolophus calijornianus California sea lion MMA Nearshore and open ocean waters Not abundant, but individuals are present in Newport Harbor Turstops truncatus Bottlenose dolphin MMA Nearshore and open ocean waters Rare visitor to Newport Harbor Eschrichtius robustus California gray whale MMA Nearshore and open ocean waters Rare visitor to Newport Harbor FE — Federal Endangered; FT— Federal Threatened; MMA — Protected under Marine Mammal Act California Department of Fish and Game CE— Califomia Endangered SSC — Species of Special Concern HAPC are subsets of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) which are rare, particularly susceptible to human induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA); however, federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process (NMFS 2008a) 13 Carnation Cove,: Corona del. Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Martine Biological Impact.Assessment, Proposed Dock and DangWay Project species within the Pacific Groundfrsh FMP, (i.e., rockfishes). HAPC- are described in the regulations as subsets of EFH which are rare, particularly susceptible to human induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1997). However, federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized, during the consultation process (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007). 3.3.3 Invertebrates. In 1998, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) added black abalone (Hahotis cracherodti) to the candidate species; list for possible listing raider the federal ESA, and on January 14t1i, 2009, NMFS listed black abalone as an endangered species (Federal Register / Vol. 74; No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14 "i, 2009 /Rules and Regulations). Black abalones usually inhabit surf - battered rocks and crevices from the intertidal zone to shallow subtidal zone down to 20 ft (6 in). It is a long -lived species, attaining an age of 25 years or more. Now a rare species, the black abalone was abundant in California until the mid- 1980's. It once occurred in such high concentrations that individuals were observed stacked on top of one another. This species was not observed during the CRM surveys, and is unlikely to be in the project area rocky habitat at the mouth of Newport Harbor. While other species of abalone are also federally endangered, this species would be the only one that would have any potential to occur within the project area (very 'low potenti'al). Sand dollar populations in the cove are unique intertidal populations as described in Section 3.2. However, sand dollars do not have any special species status locally;_ within the State of California, or on a federal level. 3.3.4 Fishes California Grunion (Lcuresthes tenuis)._The California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) is a fish that uses the high intertidal sandy beach habitat of many southern California beaches as spawning habitat (Walker, 1952), including Newport Beach (CRM and Chambers Group, 2002). The grunion is a member of the silversides family, Atherinidae, ;along with the jacksmelt and topsmelt. They normally occur from Point Conception, California, to Point Abrecjos, Baja California. Occasionally, they are found farther north to Monterey Bay, California and "south to San Juanico .Bay, Baja California. They inhabit the nearshore waters from the -surf to a depth of 60 feet;_ Grunion are not expected to be located in the local project area within Carnation Cove. California halibut (Paralichthys californicus). 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 14 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Consul ReSopl'ee$ Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway ['reject 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. Garibaldi (H)psypops rubicundus). The garibaldi is the largest of the damselfish family (Pornacentridae); adults, orange in color,, typically reach, 14 inches in length. It is found in shallow waters off the Southern California coast and Mexico (California, Department, of Fish and Game, 2001. Males build the nests, the female enters several of them and then makes her decision. The garibaldi is one of the few fish to use the same nesting site every year. In 1995 the California Legislature .designated the Garibaldi as the Official State Marine Fish and banned any further commercial take. Garibaldi populations have rebounded from the local effects of commercial take and are in good condition throughout their range in southern California. Sports fishing take of this species is also prohibited. (http: / /www.dfg.ca.gov/ marine /pdfs /oceanfish2008.pdf). 3.3.5 Marine Birds California least tern (Sterna antillartan brown/). The .State and Federally - listed Californa least tern 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 through 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 northeast in Upper Newport Bay near the Jamboree Bridge. California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis). The California brown pelican is a federally endangered species, but is proposed for delisting by both the federal government and the State of California due to its population resurgence along the California coastline. On 5 February, 2009, the California Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously to remove the Califonua brown pelican from the state endangered species list. The Commission's decision to delist the brown pelican will now be reviewed by the Office of Administrative Law before the large seabird can be officially removed from the Endangered Species list. This species is found in Newport Bay year-around but does not breed locally. The brown ,pelican utilizes Newport Harbor waters for foraging on baitfrsh, and the shoreline as resting habitat. The California brown pelican is designated as a Fully Protected Species under the Fish, and Game Code, and that will not change as a result of the delisting. It is still illegal to kill or hann a brown pelican in California. 15 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mm; CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project. 3.3.6 Marine Reptiles Marine reptiles do rot utilize the local marine waters as a permanent breeding or foraging babitat. However; the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys unbricata),; will occasionally occur in the nearshore environment offshore Orange County. Green sea turtles have been reported in the San Gabriel River where they encounter the warmer, discharged waters of the power generating facilities located farther up the River and Alamitos Bay. (Vivian Cook, Marine Bureau; Allen Powder, Long Beach Lifeguards pers. comm. with R. Ware, CRM, 27 July 2007). Their occurrence within Newport Bay, located. 20 miles east of Long Beach is expected to he rare although because Newport Bay has a, productive eelgrass system, green sea turtles may utilize the seagrass beds within the bay as one source of their nutritional requirements.\ 3.3.7 Marine Mammals Three species of marine mammals have a potential to occur within the project site; the California sea lion (Zalophus ealifornica), the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates) and the California gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). The California sea lion (Zalophus californicus) and bottlenose dolphin are occasional visitors in Newport Harbor. Individuals are found primarily between the Pavilion and the harbor entrance channel,, but may occasionally wander farther into Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay. In June 1994, the California gray whale eastern pacific population was removed from the Federal Endangered Species List due to recovery of population numbers to near the estimated sustainable population size. The gray whale migrates tbrough the SCB twice each year, traveling between its feeding grounds in Alaska and its breeding grounds in Baja California. The southern migration through the SCB occurs from December through February, with pregnant females moving through the area first. The northward migration begins in February and lasts through May, pealing in March (Dailey et. al. 1993). Solitary animals generally lead the northbound migration with cow -calf pairs following 1 to 2 months later (Foster and Schiel 1985). Gray whales migrate within 125 miles (20,0 lum) of the shoreline and many are sighted within 9 miles (15 krn) of shore (Dailey et al. 1993). On the northbound migration, cow -calf pairs are believed to more closely follow the shoreline rather than the offshore route (Dailey et al. 1993). On rare occasions, they have been known to enter Newport Bay. 4.0 FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN SPECIES This assessment of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for the Carnation Cove Project is being provided in conformance with the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Management. and Conservation Act. (FR 62, 244, December 19, 1997). The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson Stevens Act set forth a number of new mandates for the National Marine Fisheries Service, eight regional fishery management councils, and other 16 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project federal agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat. The councils, with the assistance from NMFS are required to delineate EFH for all managed species. Federal action agencies which fund, permit, or carry out activities that may adversely impact EFH are required to consult with NMFS regarding the potential effects of their actions on EFH, and respond in writing to the NMFS recommendations. EFH is defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity ". An adverse effect is "any impact which reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH ". Adverse effects may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to benthic organisms, prey species, and their habitat, and other ecosystem components. Adverse effects may be sites specific or habitat -wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions [50 CFR 600.910(a)]. hnpacts to Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) are described in the regulations as subsets of EFH which are rare, particularly susceptible to human induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area, including eelgrass. Eelgrass habitat is discussed in Section 2.2. The proposed project is located within an area designated as EFH for the Coastal Pelagics Management and the Groundfish Management Plan designated species.. Four coastal pelagic species, the northern anchovy, pacific sardine, jack mackerel, and Pacific mackerel potentially occur in the waters offshore of Newport Beach. Six groundfish species also potentially occur within the local project area, including California scorpion fish, vermillion rockfish, calico rockfish, California skate, spiny dogfish shark, and leopard shark. Of these species, only the northern anchovy comprises a significant portion of fish that occur, and contribute moderate -to -heavy abundances to the nearshore fish, but much less so within Newport Bay. Northern anchovy comprise a portion of the commercial bait fishery in San Pedro Bay and a commercial bait fishing operation operates in the Newport Harbor entrance channel that provides northern anchovy to sports fishermen. This species is a planktivore, and is preyed upon by larger fish and seabirds. Larvae of northern anchovy are also part of the Newport Bay ichthyofauna and icthyoplankton community. Although several other coastal pelagic and groundfish FMP species are known from the project area, temporal data indicate that their presence in the project area is likely sporadic and their numbers in the project region would be extremely low (Coastal Resources Management, 2008). 5.0 INVASIVE SPECIES Caulerpa taxifolia Caulerpa (Figure 7) has a potential to cause ecosystem -level impacts on California's bays and nearshore systems due to its extreme ability to out - compete other algae and seagrasses. Caulerpa taxifolia grows as a dense smothering blanket, covering and killing all native aquatic vegetation in its path when introduced in a non- native marine habitat. Fish, invertebrates, marine mammals, and sea birds that are dependent on native marine 17 Carnation Cove; Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project vegetation are displaced or die off from the areas where they once thrived. It is a tropical - subtropical species that is used in aquariums. It was introduced into southern California in 2000 (Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Huntington Harbour) by way of individuals likely dumping their aquaria waters into storm drains; or directly into the lagoons. While outbreaks have been contained, the Water Resources Board, through the National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game require that projects that have potential to spread this species through dredging, and bottom- disturbing activities conduct pre - construction surveys to determine if this species Figure 7. The invasive algae, Caulerpa taxifolia. Source: NOAH /NMFS is present using standard agency- approved protocols and by National Marine Fisheries Service /California Department of Fish and Game Certified Field Surveyors. Biologists did not observe any invasive algae, Caulerpa taxifolia in the general vicinity of the project site during either 2005 or 2007 surveys. The total APE was 47,418 sq ft (1.08 acres), of which 15,525 sq ft (42.9 %) in the main channel was covered, and 11,193 sq ft (0.26 acre), 100 %, was covered in Carnation Cove. 18 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal ReSOUreeS Management, Inc.. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project 6.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 6.1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION METHODS The existing two -slip dock will be removed and replaced with a six -slip wooden dock with and outside 155 ft -long wave attenuating concrete dock (Figure 2). A new elevated walkway and 44 ft -long gangway will connect to the new dock. Old components will be detached and floated away, then loaded onto a truck or trailer and trucked offsite for demolition. The new dock components will be built offsite, floated into place, and attached on site. The new gangway platform at the end of the pier- supported elevated walkway will have (4) 14 -inch diameter piles. The wood dock will have (10) 16 -inch diameter piles, and the concrete wave attenuator will have (9) 24 -inch diameter piles. All will be steel piles drilled into the near - surface rock layer. Embedment is anticipated at 15 feet (per City guidelines) for the 16 -inch diameter piles and 20 feet for the 24 -inch diameter piles. 6.2 IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY AND MARINE RESOURCES The location of eelgrass habitat relative to the proposed dock layout is shown in Figure 5. 6.2.1 Construction Activities Potential Water Quality Impacts on Eelgrass Habitat. During the pile removal and emplacement process, water turbidity will increase when the new piles are driven into the sediments. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. To prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be implemented such as the installation of a silt curtain around the dock and pile sleeves. Implemented BMPs that will eliminate any disposal of trash and debris at the project site will assist in preventing water quality and eelgrass habitat degradation. Construction debris on the bay floor should be removed completely and transported offsite. See Section 5 for mitigation measures and BMPs. Potential Vessel - Related Impacts on Eelgrass Habitat. The sand flats and shallow bay floor in the immediate vicinity and adjacent properties are vegetated with eelgrass (CRM 2005a, CRM 2005b, 2007; Figures 3 and 4, this document). Consequently barges and work vessels working in the project area nearby or over existing eelgrass beds have a potential to adversely affect eelgrass through (1) deployment of anchors and anchor chain within eelgrass habitat (2) grounding over eelgrass habitat and (3) propeller scarring and prop wash of either the barge or support vessels for the barge. These activities would create furrows 19 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment. Proposed Dock and Gangway Project 20 mN a l q F ®s e = r f.: � as g y=I. W o ±� CD N W p Q h y r 21 g gg i €€ aQ€ c EEE7BE ESE -' ® ®1• 0 20 mN l q ®s e� o r f.: 'in CCOO �U g y=I. W o ±� CD N W p Q N s g gg i c gs 20 mN l q ®s e� o r f.: 'in CCOO �U g y=I. W o ±� CD N W p Q 20 mN q ®s m U o r 'in CCOO �U g y=I. W o ±� CD N W p Q N s g gg i c �. .lw, .rc C am-, d ti r C am-, d Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project and scars within the eelgrass vegetation and would result in adverse losses of eelgrass habitat that would require an eelgrass mitigation program. Implementing mitigation measures identified in Section 5 are intended to minimize disturbances related to vessel operations and vessel anchor positioning. Barge operations will have minimal shading effects on eelgrass since the position of the barge will shift each day, preventing continuous shading of any one part of the eelgrass bed. 6.2.2 Direct, Eelgrass Habitat Losses Related to Construction Pile Emplacement. Pre - stressed concrete piles will be set into boreholes pre - drilled to the required embedment depth with the annular space backfilled with grout to develop proper contact with sides of the borehole, thereby eliminating the need for pile driving (Leighton Associates, Inc. 2008). The bedrock material is expected to be drillable using equipment similar in horsepower and energy rating as a typical EZ -Bore bucket auger drilling rig that is used for hillside geologic explorations in similar bedrock formations. Nineteen (19) piles will be embedded in the bay floor. These piles will have a cumulative surface area of 39.1 sq ft. None of the piles will be directly embedded within eelgrass habitat. However, two piles on the wave- attenuating dock and two piles at the end of the wood dock are within several feet of where eelgrass occurs. There is potential that placement of these four piles could disturb eelgrass through burial or sediment disturbances around the perimeter of the area to be affected during the drilling process for pile emplacement. Implementing turbidity and sediment control measures during pile emplacement such as installing silt curtains and sleeves around pilings will mitigate potential eelgrass habitat losses due to pile emplacement activities. 6.2.3 Indirect, Long -term Impacts Related to Shading Impacts The total surface area of the dock structures will be 3,448 square feet. A small portion of the existing eelgrass bed (approximately 30 sq ft) will potentially be affected by shading effects from vessels docked within the slips and the wave - attenuating concrete dock structure (Figure 5). The area of eelgrass habitat that is actually affected by long -term shading will be determined during post - construction monitoring surveys per National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended). Mitigation for the reduction in eelgrass habitat as a consequence of shading is discussed in Section 5. 6.2.4 Impacts Related to Sand Transport. The project area lies within an area of active sand transport near the harbor entrance channel that is subjected to periodic sand movement through mechanisms related to wave exposure and tidal energy transport. Sediments are transported from the entrance channel to the Grange County Sheriff Harbor Patrol Beach along Bayside Drive (Chia Chi Lu, Noble Consultants, Inc. pers. com. with R. Ware, Coastal Resources Management, 8 May 2008). Piles, revetment, jetties, and other structures have a potential to interrupt and/or disrupt sand transport that could result in either an increase in sand deposition or sand erosion. Biologically, changes in sediment patterns and 21 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project changes in sediment grain size can alter biological communities including the distribution and abundance of eelgrass. Based upon a review of sand transport at the project site, Noble Consultants, Inc. (2008) concluded that sand transport would not be substantially altered due the to placement and configuration of piles in a single row that is in the parallel, and not perpendicular to the direction of sand transport. Therefore, the placement of dock piles will not result in the disruption or loss of eelgrass habitat, or other biological communities as a result of any alternation in local sand transport mechanisms. 6.3 IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RESOURCES 6.3.1 Invertebrates -Sand Dollar Beds and Sand Flat Habitat in Carnation Cove The sand flats within the Carnation Cove should be avoided by construction personnel and equipment. Disturbances to the sandy cove intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat, eelgrass, and sand dollar bed within the cove would be considered a significant adverse impact to on- site marine resources. In addition, residents should be made aware of the sensitivity of the cove as a unique marine biological habitat within Newport Bay. Mitigation to prevent a significant impact to this resource is presented in Section 5. 6.3.2 Fishes The proposed project will not have any significant impacts on marine fishes, including Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) species. California garibaldi that are present in the rocky habitats inshore of the proposed dock will be subjected to short-term effects of drilling related to pile emplacement, including increased noise turbidity impacts, but the project will not result in any mortality. Schooling fishes such as topsmelt will avoid the construction zone during construction and will return to the area following the completion of construction activities. 6.3.3 Marine Reptiles No impacts to sea turtles will occur. Sea turtles are not expected to be within the local project area. 6.3.4 Marine Mammals The proposed project will not result in adverse impacts to marine mammals. The occurrence of gray whales and bottlenose dolphins in the area around the docks would be expected to be an extremely rare event. Drilling activity and pile emplacement construction activity will not adversely affect California sea lions. These animals have adapted to harbor conditions including vessels, ambient noises, and other disturbances. 6.3.5 Marine Birds Between early spring to late summer and California least tems will forage in the waters of Newport Bay, including the waters of the Corona del Mar Reach and Entrance Channel near 22 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project the project area. California brown pelicans will forage in the harbor. year - around. The presence of temporary, stationary vessels and drilling activity required for pile emplacement will not adversely affect seabirds that forage in the open waters of Newport Harbor. These birds will forage in the presence of boating activity and will avoid activity that is potentially harmful. The proposed project is not expected to adversely affect rare, endangered, or sensitive species of birds that are in the general project area. 6.4 IMPACTS TO FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN SPECIES The proposed project will not have any significant impacts on FMP species, A discussion of impacts to Habitat Areas of Special Concern (eelgrass) is discussed in Section 6.2.1 through 6.2.4. 7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 7.1 WATER QUALITY During construction, the following mit>gation measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) are recommended to prevent water quality degradation in Newport Bay and to reduce potential adverse impacts on marine resources. All debris and trash shall be disposed in suitable trash containers on land or on the work barge at the end of each construction day; discharge of any hazardous materials into Newport Bay will be prohibited; a silt curtain will be placed around all water -side construction activity during the construction of the dock system to limit the spread of turbidity. I£ prolonged turbidity is observed outside the silt curtain then the silt curtain shall be re- deployed and re- positioned in a manner to correct the problem. Removal and emplacement of the piles will be conducted using Best Available Technology (BAT) that limits the re- suspension of sediments and the creation of turbidity plumes; and debris bins will be placed at the project site. Material collected will be removed on a daily basis. The amount, type, and location of any -large debris (piles; dock parts, concrete, etc) that is deposited on the seafloor will be documented and removed prior to the completion of the project. The project marine biologist shall also inspect the seafloor following the completion of construction to ensure that all debris has been removed. 23 Camation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal. Resources Management, Inc. Maine Biolog +cat. Impact Assessment; Proposed Dock' and Gangway ['reject 7.2 MARINE RESOURCES PROTECTION PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS The following mitigation measures will be implemented during construction to avoid adverse impacts to eelgrass and other marine resources. The project marine biologist shall mark the positions of eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the dock and gangway construction area with buoys prior to the initiation of any construction activities; the project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew prior to construction to orient them to specific areas where eelgrass occurs; • support vessels and barges should maneuver and work over eelgrass beds only during tides of +2 feet MLLW or higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass from propellers, and to limit water turbidity; anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upon eelgrass habitat, • construction activities associated with the elevated walkway leading to the gangway; and construction personnel should avoid impacts to rocky intertidal habitat; eelgrass beds, and to sand dollar habitat within the Carnation Cove; • post signage at key at access points in front of beach and on the elevated walkway that state that access is limited to the elevated walkway during construction. Mark area off from access with yellow tape to prevent access. Construction crews will not access the water or rocky shorelines within the cove, the project marine biologist will perfonii weekly on-site inspections to ensure that BMPs and mitigation measures are being implemented during construction; and post- construction marine biological surveys (per pen-nit conditions) will be performed to map eelgrass cover in the project area using the same methodology as the pre - construction survey and also to document the condition and density of the sand dollar beds within the cove. 7.3 MITIGATION FOR POTENTIAL HABITAT LOSSES 7.3.1 Direct, Construction- Related Eelgrass Habitat Losses No direct losses of eelgrass are anticipated as a result of the Carnation Cove dock construction project. Post - construction surveys will be conducted to verify that no eelgrass losses have occurred. In the event that losses are identified during the post - construction survey, then an eelgrass mitigation program will be implemented to offset any losses. 24 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project 7.3.2 Indirect, Long -term Eelgrass Habitat Losses and Potential Measures to Reduce Eelgrass Habitat Losses Approximately 30 sq ft of eelgrass vegetation could be affected by long -term dock shading effects (Figure 5). The reduction of eelgrass habitat as a consequence of shading will be mitigated by conducting an eelgrass transplant program, should impacts occur, in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended) following loss determination at the end of a two -year monitoring program (see Section 5.4.3). The location and the amount to be transplanted shall be determined following the results of the two annual monitoring efforts (NMFS 1991 as amended). 7.3.3 Direct, Long -term Use of Carnation Cove and Reduction of Habitat Quality Residents of the Carnation Cove residential development should be made aware of the special biological significance of the Cove, avoid trampling intertidal eelgrass, and taking biological resources (i.e., sand dollars) out of the sand flat habitat. 8.0 8.1 PRE - CONSTRUCTION SURVEY An updated, pre - construction eelgrass and invasive algae survey will be completed within 30 days of the initiation of proposed dock and gangway construction. The results of this survey will be used to update the results of the March 2007 eelgrass survey and to identify, if any, potential project- related eelgrass losses and the presence or absence of the invasive algae, Caulerpa taxifolia per NMFS requirements. 8.2 POST - CONSTRUCTION SURVEY A post- construction project eelgrass survey will be completed within 30 days of the completion of project construction in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). The report will be presented to the resource agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission within 30 days after the completion of the survey. If any eelgrass has been impacted in excess of that determined in the pre - construction survey, then any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at ratio of 1.2:1 (mitigation to impact). 8.3 POST- CONSTRUCTION SHADING EFFECT SURVEYS A determination regarding the amount of eelgrass to be mitigated will be made based upon two annual monitoring surveys which document the changes in the bed (areal extent and density) in the vicinity of the footprint of the boat dock, moored vessel(s), and/or related structures during the active- growth period for eelgrass, typically March through October. Any impacts determined by these monitoring surveys shall be mitigated per requirements 25 Carnation Covc, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources: Management, Inc. Marine. Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Picject of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). A statement from the applicant indicating their understanding of the potential losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan will be submitted to the a 1pp icant and resources agencies for review and acceptance. 9.0 Pre - construction and post - construction eelgrass survey results will be submitted to the resource agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission in report f ninatwithin30 days following each survey. The "reports will present eelgrass area and density data, an assessment of the potential amount of eelgrass habitat affected (pre con survey), the actual amount of eelgrass habitat affected (post -con survey), the functional biological quality of the area a qualitative assessment of invertebrate and fish use of the area,, and an eelgrass mitigation plan, (post- con) if it is deemed necessary. Each of the two -year shading effects surveys will present eelgrass area and density data, an assessment of the eelgrass habitat affected, the functional biological quality of the area, a qualitative assessment of invertebrate and fish use of the area, and an eelgrass mitigation plan (2nd year shading study) if habitat impacts are identified. 26 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project 10.0 LITERATURE CITED Chia Chi Lu, Noble Consultants, Inc. pers. com. with R. Ware, Coastal Resources Management, 8 May 2008 regarding the results of sand transport analysis for the Carnation Cove dock project. Coastal Resources Management. 2005a. Final Report. Distribution and abundance of eelgrass (Zostera marina) in Newport Bay. 2003 -2004 eelgrass habitat mapping project. Bulkhead to pierhead line surveys. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division. April 2005. 30 pp. Coastal Resources Management. 2005b. Marine biological survey results for 201/205/207 Carnation Ave, Corona del Mar, Ca. Prepared for P &D Technologies, April 12t1i, 2005. 14 pp. Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2007. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) field survey results, impact assessment, and conceptual mitigation plan for a dock renovation project located at 105/107 Bayside Place, Corona del Mar, CA. February 2007 survey. Prepared for Swift Slips Dock and Pier Builders. March 2007. 18 pp. Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2008. Marine biological impact assessment for the East Beach Sand Nourishment Project, Seal Beach, California. Prepared for Bon Terra Consulting and the City of Seal Beach, Ca. February 26`I', 2008. 48 pp. Coastal Resources Management and Chambers Group, Inc. 2002. Biological Appendix. City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Plamung Department. August, 2003. Leighton & Associates, Inc. 2008. Evaluation of subsurface profile for acoustic /vibration study, proposed dock replacement at Carnation Cove, 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach, California. Prepared for Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., May 6, 2008. 3 pp. MacGinitie, G. E. and N. MacGinitie. 1968. Natural History of Marine Animals. Second Edition. McGraw -Hill Book Company, New York. Noble Consultant, Inc. 2008. Letter report. Coastal engineering assessment for the "Aerie" Dock Project, 201 to 207 Carnation Avenue, Newport Beach for Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc, 17 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1991. Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, Long Beach, CA. l ltl' Revision. 27 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar; CA Coastal Resources Management .Inc, Mai ne Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangtvay Project National Marine Fisheries Service '(NMFS). 2008. Essential Fish .Habitat (EFH) evaluation for the Balboa Marina Project,, Newport Beach, Ca. February, 2008. Prepared by Robert Hoffman, NMFS, Long Beach, CA. 4 pp. Walker, Boyd W. 1952. A guide to the grunion. Calif Fish Game 38 (3):410-420. 28 Photograph 1. View of discharge pipe with African umbrella sedge mixed with other ornamentals. Photograph taken on 12 -10 -2008. Photograph 2. This photograph depicts irrigation lines visible immediately above the area vegetated with African umbrella sedge. Photograph taken on 12 -10 -2008. U) w Q U O CIO Q cn O J z z W J r1 u M H m x w WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Arid West Region ProjecSe: A en I e /LP l F LA s t k aryicourl Sampling Date: /0 n A .Appi1LS'riyQwner n r~ it / 1' .Stara: C-A_ Sarnp}Ing Pont: Investgato(s): an, ToamshlP• Range: T < In(� Yy , SGL L Landferm (hillsiope, terrace, etc.); �Un�/}Q Local relief (concave, con ex, none): i✓L Slope ( %):t�s�7 Subregion (LRR): Let, % 9 -' 1 l ry •V �oreg: i 1 7. �'i , U (- 4✓ Datum: L5:( -1 `54 Sol] Map Unit Name: ,� j A,%A NWI classification: NDIVE Are cilmab, I hydrologic conditions ar the site typical for this time of year? Yes 4L No_ (N no, explain in Remarks.) , /' Are Vegetatiod _, Sol or Hydrology_ significamy disturbed? t4 AM'Nomal Circumstances' present? Yes !3- No_ Are Vegetation Soil_ pr Hydrology_ naturally prob! emetic? No (3f needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. HydrephAe Vegetation Present? Yes— No Is the Sampled Area f Hydric Shc Present? Yes w No ryhin a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: I VEGETATION L'S Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11- 1.2006 Absolute Dominant Indicator 1 Dominance Test worksheet: Tr Statum (Use scientific main } — — q� %Cover Soedes? Status Nuriber of Dominant Sped es 1 IT11"`t—t�S pdIJM �) LL�(„�}yM _�_j��_ UrtY. T!�at Are 09!, FACW, or FAC (A) 2. LA II � J M S Q t; �.�'i_ S%AI< ._ _ Taal Number of Dominant j 3. I Species Across All Strata: 7 (B7 4. Percent of Dominant Species /t/t Taal Cover. - That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: � (AB) SaolincBnnrb Stratum t. Prevalence Index worksheet: Tot ad %Cover of hrua'eLV by 2 3. OSL species x1= FACW species x2= FAC species x3= FACU species x4= 4, S Total Cover. Herb & -ranum �Q---- UPL species x 5 = 1. �`- �.y1�j'11111 A.`I'VS Cal emn Tetais: (A) (B) 7iA1n..fi ,Lfgc1LJ. 2 Prevalence Index =B.A= 3, q Hy¢rophytic Vegetation Indicators: ' Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is 53.01 „_ Morphological Adaplatlons' (Provide supporling data in Remarks Cron a separate sheet) 3 6. 7. 8 i Pacbiernatic Hydropiyfic Vegetation' (Explain) Woody V1ne Stratum Taal Cover. — 1, 'Incticators of hydric sell and w[tiand hydrology nest 1 be present. 2 Taal Cover Hydrophytic ' Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Note Crust presets? Yes x— No _ Reme.ss Pry nc 6u + ry If P -k d by vv tt-,� �Fvc GJj�+co�T Lan, -A s f i CJ + rm S av U- L'S Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11- 1.2006 ffm Profile Desarlpticn: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator ar confirm the absence Depi`r Matrix Redox Fastures (lnchrs7 S `si 56 Cola tmoistl Yp_ titre' Loc, Texture _ Hisfosul {Ai ) Hishc 6pipedon (A2) Back Histic (A3) _ Hydrogen Su tda (A4) Suah,mc Layers (A5) (LRR C) 7 c:m Muck (48) (LRR D) Depleted Selav Dark Surface (At 1) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Sandy Macky Min era] (Si) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Type; Dep(a (inches)- • -e s Sandy Red= (SS) Stripped MarJ1x (SS) T Loamy Mucky Minera)(F1) Loamy Greyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Redox Dark Surface (Fa) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redcx Depressions (F8) Varnal Pods (Fa) Samp4ng Point: 4VI w -- yo, c- 1 cm Muck (A8) (I-RR C) 2 cm Muck (AIM (t.RR 8) Reduced Vertk (P18) _! Red Parent Matarfal (TF2) _.. Outer (aplairt at remarks) °indcatcrs ofd ydr cphytic vegetation and wetland hvdrolocvmust be oresent. Hydric Sall Present? Yes__--__, No PT,maLi Ind7cators (any one indicator is guufffctent) _ Water Marks (S1) (Rfvmmo) Surface Lb'ates(Ai) — Salt Crust (all) _ Sediment Deposits (B2)(Rivsrme). _ High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (812) _ Drift Deposits (S5) (Riverine) Saturation (tit) V. Aquatic invertebrates (613) _ Drainage parent a (Bi p) Water Marks (31) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (C7) Dry- Season Water Table ('•~2) — Sediment Deposit& (62) (Nonriverine) � Oxidized Rlizospheras along IMn¢ Rods (C3) — Thin Muck Surface (C7' _ cliff. Rap o Ts (.^^13) (Ncnriyarine) Presence of Reducexi Iran (C4) — Crayfish Burrows (C0) Surface Soil Cracks {8e) Reran¢ kdn Redaction in Ptowed Soils (06) _ Satcration Visible on Aerial IM66ery (CS) _ Inundattco Ulsibte on „ oriel fmgerytS7) _ Other (Explain in Rema*5) ShalloxActuitard (W) 'Nater- Stained Leaves (B9 ) FAC- Neutrat Test (D5) Field Observations:. -face Water Prager, a Yes _No Depth (Inches): �. Jwatar Tab €e Present? Yes No, h €inches): sa.umacri Present? Yes _ No Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydral ogy Present? Yas No USA- yCarps o € Engineers Arid West – Version 11 -1 -2006 Appendix J Wetlands Determination GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES Regulatory Services December 12, 2008 Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP 695 Town Center Drive Floor 14 Costa Mesa, California 92626 SUBJECT: Jurisdictional Determination for Area of African Umbrella Sedge adjacent to Aerie Project Site Located in Newport Beach, Orange County, California. Dear Mr. Paone: This letter report summarizes our preliminary findings regarding whether wetlands are present on the above - referenced property. The subject site contains no blue -line drainages (as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USES) topographic map Newport Beach, California [dated 1965 and (photorevised in 1981)] [Exhibit 1]. On December 10, 2008, regulatory specialists of Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. (GLA) examined the project site to determine the presence of areas potentially subject to the jurisdiction of 1) the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 2) the California Department of Fish and Game pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, and 3) as well as wetlands defined in accordance with the California Coastal Act. Enclosed is a 40 -scale aerial photograph [Exhibit 2] that depicts the area evaluated for wetlands with data point location. Photographs to document the characteristics of the site are provided as Exhibit 3. Wetland data sheets are attached as Appendix A. SUMMARY OF RESULTS A limited area of African Umbrella sedge (Cyperus involucratus, FACW), covering approximately 10 feet by 19 feet (0.004 acre), occurs on the slope adjacent to the proposed building site. The African umbrella sedge begins approximately two feel below the point where a 30 -inch drainage pipe discharges on the slope. Summaries of the findings relative to the jurisdictional status of the subject area relative to the requirements of the Corps, CDFG and CCC are as follows with more detailed information provided below in the body of this report. 29 Orchard 0 Lake Forest California 92630 -8300 Telephone: (949) 837 -0404 Facsimile: (949) 837 -5834 Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12, 2008 Page 2 Corps Jurisdiction While the area of African umbrella sedge exhibits a predominance of wetland indicator species, the area does not exhibit hydric soils nor does it exhibit wetland hydrology. Therefore, the area occupied by the African umbrella sedge is not a wetland pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the area is not subject to Corps jurisdiction. CDFG Jurisdiction The area of African umbrella sedge is not associated with a stream of lake and is therefore not subject to jurisdiction under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. CCC Jurisdiction While the area of African umbrella sedge exhibits a predominance of wetland indicator plants (consisting only of the African umbrella sedge), the area is not covered periodically or permanently with shallow water. Therefore, the area is not a wetland under the Coastal Act, as the plants are not growing as hydrophytes. As detailed below in Sections III and IV, the subject plants are supported by artificial irrigation on the slope immediately above the African umbrella sedge as well as local runoff (i.e., nuisance water) that is discharged from the 30 -inch pipe. This conclusion is further confirmed by the strong upland characteristics of the well - drained soils that support the subject sedge. I. METHODOLOGY Prior to beginning the field delineation, a site reconnaissance visit was conducted to determine whether portions of the site support plant species that are potentially indicators of wetland conditions. Based on the initial reconnaissance, a 10 foot by 19 foot area supporting African umbrella sedge was detected and was field checked for the presence of a predominance of vegetation with a wetland indicator status of facultative (FAC) or wetter, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. The potential wetland area was evaluated using the methodology set forth in the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual' (Wetland Manual) and the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West ' Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y -87 -1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Tim Paone Manatt; Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12, 2008 Page 3 Region (Version 2.0) (Arid West Supplement):. While in the field the location where data was collected was recorded using a Trimble GeoXT GPS Unit, with sub -meter accuracy. Field data were recorded onto wetland data sheets. As noted, the area evaluated for wetlands extends approximately 19 feet, begimung about two feet below the pipe. The area averages about ten feet in width as depicted on Exhibit 2. A. Vegetation During the December 10, 2008, site visit, GLA biologists documented vegetation, soils and hydrology within the area occupied by the African "Umbrella Sedge. Vegetation predominance data was analyzed using the,methodology described in the Corps' Arid West Regional Supplement (see attached wetland data sheet included as Appendix A). Because the area is small, (i.e., 10 by 19 feet); the entire area was characterized relative to the vegetation. The presence of hydrophytic wetland indicator plant species was determined based on The National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands3 and as needed The National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. 1996 National Summary (1996 National List).° B. Soils The Soil Conservation Service (SCS)5 has mapped the following soil types as occurring in the general vicinity of the project site: Beaches and Myford Sandy Loam, 2 to 9 percent slope Neither of these, soil types is entirely consistent with the soils observed on the site, which consisted of a dark brown 10YR 2/1 loamy sand. While in the field, the soils were checked for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. September 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps.: of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Supplement Version 2.0. Ed. J.S. Wakcley, R.W. Lichevar, and C.V. Noble.. ERDC /EL TR- 08 -28.. Vicksburg, . MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Reedy F.B., Jr. 1988. National List ofPlant Species that Occur in Wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(26.10). a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. The National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Svnninny (1996National. List). Published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands inventory', St. Peteisberg; Floiida. This list was used where particular species, (e.g., Penisetion clandestinuin) was not included in the 1 988 list but was updated with an indicator status of FACU the 1997 list. 5 SCS is now known as the National Resource Conservation Service or NRCS. Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12, 2008 Page 4 color using a Munsell Color Chart. The soils were also checked for reducing conditions using alpha alpha dipyridyl. C. Hydrology During the December 10, 2008 site visits observations of hydrology were recorded and are included on the data sheet attached as Appendix A. II. JURISDICTION A. Army Corps of Engineers Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The term "waters of the United States" is defined in Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 328.3(a) as: (1) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; (3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudfats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect foreign commerce including any such waters: (i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or (ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or (iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce... (4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; (5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) (1) -(4) of this section; (6) The territorial seas; (7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) (1) -(6) of this section. Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12,'2008 Page 5 The term "wetlands" (a subset of "waters of the United States") is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(b) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support ... a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." In 1987 the Corps published a manual to guide its field personnel in determining jurisdictional wetland boundaries. The methodology set forth in the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the Arid West Supplement Version 2.0 generally require that, in order to be considered a wetland, the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of an area exhibit at least minimal hydric characteristics. While the manual and Supplement provide great detail in methodology and allow for varying special conditions, awetland should normally meet each of the following 'three criteria: O more than 50 percent of the dominant plant species at the site must be typical of wetlands (i.e., rated as facultative or wetter in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands); 0 soils must:exhibit physical and /or chemical characteristics. indicative of permanent or periodic saturation (e.g,, agleyed color, or mottles with a matrix of low cluonia indicating a relatively consistent fluctuation between aerobic and anaerobic conditions); and 0 Whereas the 1987 Manual requires that hydrologic characteristics indicate . that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for at least five percent of the growing season during a normal rainfall year, the Arid West Supplement does not include a quantitative criteria with the exception for areas with "problematic hydrophytic vegetation ", which require a ininimum of 14 days of ponding to be considered a wetland. B. California Department of Fish and Game Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600 -1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFG regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river; stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife. CDFG defines a "stream" (including creeks and rivers) as "a body of water that ,flows at least periodically or intermittently through abed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface of subsurface flow that supports or has G Reed, P,B, Jr. 1988, National List of Plant: Species that Occur in' Wetlands. .U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 8:8(26.10). Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps &.Phillips LLP December 12, 2008 Page 6 supported riparian vegetation." CDFG's definition of "lake" includes "natural lakes or man-made reservoirs." CDFG jurisdiction within altered or artificial waterways is based upon the value of those waterways to fish and wildlife. CDFG Legal Advisor has prepared the following opinions Natural waterways that have been subsequently modified and which have the potential to contain fish, aquatic insects and riparian vegetation will be treated like natural waterways.... O Artificial waterways that have acquired the physical attributes of natural stream courses . and which have been viewed by the community as natural stream courses, should be treated by [CDFG) as natural waterways.... Artificial waterways without the attributes of natural waterways should generally notbe subject to Fish and Game Code provisions.... Thus, CDFG jurisdictional limits closely mirror those of the Corps. Exceptions. are CDFG's exclusion of isolated wetlands (those not associated with a.river, stream, or lake), the addition of artificial stock ponds and irrigation ditches constructed on uplands',_ and the addition of riparian habitat supported by a river, stream, or lake regardless of the riparian area's federal wetland status. C. CCC Jurisdiction Pursuant to the California Coastal Act (California Public Resources Code Section 30233), the CCC regulates the diking; filling; or dredging of wetlands within the coastal zone. The Coastal Act Section 30121 defines "wetlands" as land "which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water.." The 1981 CCC Statewide Interpretive Guidelines state that hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation; " -are useful indicators of wetland conditions, but the presence or absence of hydric soils andlor hydrophytes alone are not necessarily determinative when the Commission identifies wetlands under the Coastal Act, In thepast, the Commission has considered all relevant information in making such determinations and relied upon the advice and judgment of experts before reaching its 'own independent conclusion as to whether a particular area will be considered wetland under the Coastal Act. " See Section IV below for a detailed discussion regarding application of these definitions to wetland delineation within the Coastal Zone. Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12,,2008 Page 7 111. RESULTS A. Description of Feature The area that supports the subject African umbrella sedge [see Exhibit 3, Photograph 1] occurs on a steep (approximately 1 :1) slope directly above a small cove. As noted, a 30 -inch drain pipe that collects water from a stortn drain inlet at the coiner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard discharges storm water and nuisance flow onto the slope. B. Vegetation The area that supports African umbrella sedge (Cyperus involucratus, FACW) covers 10 by 19 feet and is completely surrounded by ornamental vegetation including Victorian box (Pittosporum undulatum), tobira (Pittospormn tobira), two species ofprivit (Ligirsh,um spp ), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicero japonica), which also dominates the irrigated slope immediately above the umbrella sedge. Within the area occupied by the umbrella sedge; it was estimated to account for 80 percent of the total cover: with Victorian box and Privit; accounting ,for about 10-percent each. Using the 50720: rifle, only the African umbrella sedge is considered dominant.7 However-, as discussed below, in this instance; the presence of a species with an indicator status of FACW is not sufficient to make a positive determination for the presence of wetlands and discussed in more detail in the soils and hydrology discussion immediately below. The 50/-20. Rule, is a method set forth in Arid West Supplement for determining which plant speices'should be considered dominant and is implemented as follows: 1. Estimate the absolute percent cover of each species in the first stratum.. Since the same data may be used liter to calculate the prevalence index, the data should be recorded as absolute cover and not converted to relative cover. 2 Rank all species in the stratum from most to least abundant, 3. Calculate the total coverage of all "species in the stratum (i.e., sum their individual percent cover values). Absolute cover estimates do not necessarily sum to 100 percent. 4. Select plant species from the ranked list, in decreasing order of coverage; until the cumulative coverage of selected species exceeds 50 percent of the total coverage for the stratum. If two or more species are equal in coverage (i.e., they are tied in rank), they should all be selected. The selected plant species are all considered to be dominants. All dominants must be identified to species. 5. In addition, select any other species that, by itself, is at least 20 percent of the total . percent cover in the stratum. Any such species is also considered to be a dominant and must be accurately identified. 6. Repeat steps 1 -5 for any other stratum present. Combine the lists of dominant species across all strata. Note that a: species may be dominant in more than one snahnn (e.g., a woody species may be dominant in both the tree and sapling/shrub strata). Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12, 2008 Page 8 C. Soils Soils on the slope are thin, overlaying bedrock. Soil in the area that supports the African umbrella sedge are upland soils, dark brown loamy sand, l OYR 2/1 and very uniform to 15 inches (in some areas the bedrock is very close to the surface). Because of the 1:1 slope and the sandy character of the soils, the soils drain quickly and do not have the ability to become saturated. No evidence of hydric soil development was detected and it is not expected due to the steepness of the slope and ability of the sandy soils to drain quickly. D. Hydrology In addressing the presence of wetland hydrology, two factors were considered. First, the hydrological indicators set forth in the Arid West Supplement and second, the definition in the Coastal Act which includes areas "which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water." It is important to note that the steep slope and well- drained character of the sandy soils indicate that there is no potential for this area to be "covered" periodically or permanently with shallow water. Storm flows would drain quickly through the sandy soils precluding saturation for sufficient duration to be consistent with the presence of "wetland hydrology" (i.e., saturation for periods sufficient to promote anaerobic conditions in the upper 12 inches). 1. Precipitation Annual precipitation for this area averages approximately I 1 inches per year. Because of the steep slope and porous character of the soils, precipitation would not be sufficient to promote saturation for periods sufficient to promote anaerobic conditions in the upper 12 inches. 2. Runoff Storm water discharge from the 30 -inch pipe would be substantial during storm events; however, because of the steep slope and porous soils, the area would not be covered with shallow water for sufficient duration to promote anaerobic conditions in the upper 12 inches. 3. Irrigation Given the lack of wetland hydrology, as confirmed by the strong upland characteristics of the soils, it appears that the African umbrella sedge is supported by regular irrigation water. During the December 10, 2008, site visit, we observed the neighbor washing off her deck and steps, with the water running into the adjacent honeysuckle. She was also directly watering the honeysuckle Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12, 2008 Page 9 with some over spray directly reaching the umbrella sedge Also,, approximately halfway into our field visit, we observed a very small "trickle" of water discharging from the 30 -inch pipe that lasted forjust a few minutes. Upon investigating the source of water, we found a different neighbor, washing an automobile with the runoff eventually reaching the area. Such runoff would not be sufficient to make a positive finding for the presence of wetland hydrology; however, combined with the irrigation of the adjacent landscaped slope it explains the presence of the umbrella sedge, especially given the strong upland character of the soils. It is also important to note in this regard that the African umbrella sedge is designated as PACW; meaning that up to one -third of occurrences of this species is in upland areas. Confirmation that African umbrella sedge is a corrurion landscape plant that is highly adaptable is provided in the Sunset Western Garden Book: Grows in or out of water. Effective near pools; in pots or planters, or in dry stream beds or rock gardens. Self sows. Can become weedy....'s [Emphasis added.] Given this adaptability, in the absence of other wetland indicators such as the confirmed presence of wetland hydrology or hydric soils, the presence of this plant is not a reliable indicator= of wetland conditions and the nearby` irrigation would explain the presence of this highly adaptable species. IV. DISCUSSI ®N As noted, the 10 by 19-foot area that supports African umbrella sedge is able to support the umbrella sedge due to a combination of landscape irrigation and nuisance water that reaches the site through the 30 -inch pipe. None of the hydrological inputs are sufficient to snake a positive finding for the presence of wetland Hydrology. A. Corns Jurisdiction The African umbrella sedge area lacks indicators for the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology and as such would not be considered a wetland under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. s Sunset Western Garden Book, by the Editors of Sunset Magazine. 1990.: p 3 12. Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12, 2008 Page 10 B. CDFG Jurisdiction The African umbrella sedge area is not associated with a stream of lake and is therefore not subject to jurisdiction under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. C. CCC Jurisdiction Although the African umbrella sedge area exhibits a predominance of wetland indicator species (the African umbrella sedge being the sole such species), it lacks evidence for the presence of hydric soils or wetland hydrology and would not be considered a wetland under the Coastal Act because the 10 by 19 -foot patch of African umbrella sedge is not covered permanently or periodically with shallow water. The area is supported primarily by intermittent artificial water sources, including landscape irrigation from the adjacent slope. While that fact alone does not preclude the area from being a wetland, this specific area is not a wetland under the Coastal Act because it does not meet the Coastal Act definition of a wetland for the following reasons: First, the Coastal Act Definition of Wetlands as set forth in the Public Resources Code Section 30121 is as follows: Wetlands' means lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens. Thus, irrespective of any "parameter" test, the area under consideration as a wetland must be "covered periodically or permanently with shallow water." As noted, the subject area occurs on a steep slope that precludes the area from being covered by shallow water except during very brief periods of intense rainfall. The clear lack of hydric soils as confirmed in the field, indicates that water does not cover or saturate the soil for sufficient duration necessary to promote development of hydric soils nor the growth of hydrophytes, which are present due to the artificial irrigation that is applied to the adjacent vegetation. Second, in accordance with the Commission Regulations, specifically Section 13577 (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 5.5), the Commission has interpreted the regulation consistent with what is often referred to as the "One- Parameter Definition" based on the following definition: (b) Wetlands. Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12, 2008 Page 11 (1) .... Wetland shall be defined as land where the water table is at, near, or above land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes.... [T]he upland limit of a wetland shall be defined as: (A) the boundary between land with predominantly hydrophytic cover and land with predominantly mesophytic or xerophytic cover.... Although Commission staff and even Commissioners themselves often refer to the Commission's standard for identifying wetlands as a "One- Parameter Test," this is a misleading description of how the Commission's delineation process described in Reg. § 13577 actually works. In reality, the Commission's "one parameter" test only establishes a rebuttable presumption that the other indicator(s) also are present. While the Commission takes the position that the presence of a single wetland indicator establishes a presumption that a wetland is present, that presumption can be "rebutted by strong, independent evidence of upland condition." (This is a quote from Staff Ecologist Dr. John Dixon at a Coastal Commission hearing on November 5, 2003.) Dr. Dixon also wrote in an opinion referenced in a staff report prior to that 2003 hearing that In recognition of the fact that a proportion of wetland indicator plants occur in uplands, the wetland presumption maybe falsified where there is strong, positive evidence of upland conditions." Therefore, once the Commission establishes the presumption, the burden shifts to the applicant who must then prove that one or both of the other indicators does not exist. This is a critical distinction because it allows, as in this case, for an in -depth biological analysis to determine if the area, in fact, is NOT a wetland, despite the presence of a single wetland indicator. Given clear and demonstrable lack of wetland hydrology and hydric soils, combined with the characteristics of the African umbrella sedge, a highly adaptable common landscape plant that occurs in upland areas for one -third of occurrences, the subject 10 by 19 foot area is not a wetland under the Coastal Act. D. Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan Policies While the area of African umbrella sedge is not a wetland as defined under the Coastal Act, it is appropriate to address the area under the Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan Policies (CLUP) for purposes of completeness. Policy 4.2.2 -3 of the City's CLUP specifies that all wetland ESHA shall have "a minimum buffer width of 100 feet wherever possible'; however, it is important to consider the entire policy set forth in 4.2.2 -3: Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12, 2008 Page 12 Require buffer areas around wetlands of a sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland that they are designed to protect. Wetlands shall have a minimum buff width of 100 feet wherever possible. Smaller buffer widths may be allowed only where it can be demonstrated that I) a 100 foot buffer is not passible due to site constraints, and 2) the proposed narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity of the wetland given the site - specific characteristics of the resource, and of the type and intensity of disturbance. [Emphasis not in Original] Should a finding be made that the area of African umbrella sedge is a wetland, it is important to note that this area is exactly the sort of resource that does not require a 100 -foot buffer for the following reasons: • First, the area already lacks a 100 -foot buffer along the eastern and southern edges due to the presence of existing residential structures, including the neighboring structure, which is within approximately 17 feet of the umbrella sedge as depicted on Exhibit 3 (this distance was measured with a tape measured using GIS). • Second, as depicted on Exhibit 3, the area of sedge is almost entirely surrounded by or occurs as understory to non - native species and the African umbrella sedge is a non- native species that is considered to be highly invasive and would be subject to eradication from local wetland restoration sites or managed wetlands. • Third, when considered in accordance with the ESHA definition in the Coastal Act, the area does not meet any of the criteria typically associated with ESHA. Specifically, the African umbrella sedge cannot in any way be considered rare as it is a widespread invasive species. The approximately 0.004 acre area does not support or exhibit potential to support any rare or otherwise special status species and does not exhibit importance in the ecosystem given its position on the landscape and composition. Finally, the area is already highly degraded due to the presence of the invasive and/or non- native species noted above. Given these factors, including the proximity of established neighboring development no change in buffer requirements compared with the current conditions are warranted. If you have any questions regarding this letter report, please contact Tony Bomkainp at (949) 837 -0404, extension 41. Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12, 2008 Page 13 Sincerely, GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES, INC. Tony Bomkamp Regulatory Specialist 0731 -7 JD Aerie.doe y, � • -rya r -. S! hl 1 4. it }T C F i � a v al• 4 V o � O �1 11 1ti 1. [r• - J z 0 a O O J r . W W O C a Adapted from USGS Newport Beach OES, CA quadrangle NORTH s c� V) r w Z Q4 x ,i W ra: O Cn 0 J z ,Wn V 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 FEET i Legend Two ti O Data Point for African Umbrella Sedge+ Approximate location of African Umbrella Sedge V k ! _ N A 0 20 40 Feet s� 0 1-,- f y' F r' • ` +� A GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES Exhibit 2 53 2- ].GIS \WetlendGISZ32- ]8edge.mX Photograph 1. View of discharge pipe with African umbrella sedge mixed with other ornamentals. Photograph taken on 12 -10 -2008. Photograph 2. This photograph depicts irrigation lines visible immediately above the area vegetated with African umbrella sedge. Photograph taken on 12 -10 -2008. U) w Q U O CIO Q cn O J z z W J r1 u M H m x w WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Arid West Region ProjecSe: A en I e /LP l F LA s t k aryicourl Sampling Date: /0 n A .Appi1LS'riyQwner n r~ it / 1' .Stara: C-A_ Sarnp}Ing Pont: Investgato(s): an, ToamshlP• Range: T < In(� Yy , SGL L Landferm (hillsiope, terrace, etc.); �Un�/}Q Local relief (concave, con ex, none): i✓L Slope ( %):t�s�7 Subregion (LRR): Let, % 9 -' 1 l ry •V �oreg: i 1 7. �'i , U (- 4✓ Datum: L5:( -1 `54 Sol] Map Unit Name: ,� j A,%A NWI classification: NDIVE Are cilmab, I hydrologic conditions ar the site typical for this time of year? Yes 4L No_ (N no, explain in Remarks.) , /' Are Vegetatiod _, Sol or Hydrology_ significamy disturbed? t4 AM'Nomal Circumstances' present? Yes !3- No_ Are Vegetation Soil_ pr Hydrology_ naturally prob! emetic? No (3f needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. HydrephAe Vegetation Present? Yes— No Is the Sampled Area f Hydric Shc Present? Yes w No ryhin a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: I VEGETATION L'S Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11- 1.2006 Absolute Dominant Indicator 1 Dominance Test worksheet: Tr Statum (Use scientific main } — — q� %Cover Soedes? Status Nuriber of Dominant Sped es 1 IT11"`t—t�S pdIJM �) LL�(„�}yM _�_j��_ UrtY. T!�at Are 09!, FACW, or FAC (A) 2. LA II � J M S Q t; �.�'i_ S%AI< ._ _ Taal Number of Dominant j 3. I Species Across All Strata: 7 (B7 4. Percent of Dominant Species /t/t Taal Cover. - That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: � (AB) SaolincBnnrb Stratum t. Prevalence Index worksheet: Tot ad %Cover of hrua'eLV by 2 3. OSL species x1= FACW species x2= FAC species x3= FACU species x4= 4, S Total Cover. Herb & -ranum �Q---- UPL species x 5 = 1. �`- �.y1�j'11111 A.`I'VS Cal emn Tetais: (A) (B) 7iA1n..fi ,Lfgc1LJ. 2 Prevalence Index =B.A= 3, q Hy¢rophytic Vegetation Indicators: ' Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is 53.01 „_ Morphological Adaplatlons' (Provide supporling data in Remarks Cron a separate sheet) 3 6. 7. 8 i Pacbiernatic Hydropiyfic Vegetation' (Explain) Woody V1ne Stratum Taal Cover. — 1, 'Incticators of hydric sell and w[tiand hydrology nest 1 be present. 2 Taal Cover Hydrophytic ' Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Note Crust presets? Yes x— No _ Reme.ss Pry nc 6u + ry If P -k d by vv tt-,� �Fvc GJj�+co�T Lan, -A s f i CJ + rm S av U- L'S Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11- 1.2006 ffm Profile Desarlpticn: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator ar confirm the absence Depi`r Matrix Redox Fastures (lnchrs7 S `si 56 Cola tmoistl Yp_ titre' Loc, Texture _ Hisfosul {Ai ) Hishc 6pipedon (A2) Back Histic (A3) _ Hydrogen Su tda (A4) Suah,mc Layers (A5) (LRR C) 7 c:m Muck (48) (LRR D) Depleted Selav Dark Surface (At 1) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Sandy Macky Min era] (Si) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Type; Dep(a (inches)- • -e s Sandy Red= (SS) Stripped MarJ1x (SS) T Loamy Mucky Minera)(F1) Loamy Greyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Redox Dark Surface (Fa) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redcx Depressions (F8) Varnal Pods (Fa) Samp4ng Point: 4VI w -- yo, c- 1 cm Muck (A8) (I-RR C) 2 cm Muck (AIM (t.RR 8) Reduced Vertk (P18) _! Red Parent Matarfal (TF2) _.. Outer (aplairt at remarks) °indcatcrs ofd ydr cphytic vegetation and wetland hvdrolocvmust be oresent. Hydric Sall Present? Yes__--__, No PT,maLi Ind7cators (any one indicator is guufffctent) _ Water Marks (S1) (Rfvmmo) Surface Lb'ates(Ai) — Salt Crust (all) _ Sediment Deposits (B2)(Rivsrme). _ High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (812) _ Drift Deposits (S5) (Riverine) Saturation (tit) V. Aquatic invertebrates (613) _ Drainage parent a (Bi p) Water Marks (31) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (C7) Dry- Season Water Table ('•~2) — Sediment Deposit& (62) (Nonriverine) � Oxidized Rlizospheras along IMn¢ Rods (C3) — Thin Muck Surface (C7' _ cliff. Rap o Ts (.^^13) (Ncnriyarine) Presence of Reducexi Iran (C4) — Crayfish Burrows (C0) Surface Soil Cracks {8e) Reran¢ kdn Redaction in Ptowed Soils (06) _ Satcration Visible on Aerial IM66ery (CS) _ Inundattco Ulsibte on „ oriel fmgerytS7) _ Other (Explain in Rema*5) ShalloxActuitard (W) 'Nater- Stained Leaves (B9 ) FAC- Neutrat Test (D5) Field Observations:. -face Water Prager, a Yes _No Depth (Inches): �. Jwatar Tab €e Present? Yes No, h €inches): sa.umacri Present? Yes _ No Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydral ogy Present? Yas No USA- yCarps o € Engineers Arid West – Version 11 -1 -2006 Exhibit "B" RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2007021054) AERIE (PA 2005 -196) Separate bound volume can be obtained in the Office of the City Clerk and the Planning Department. Response to Public Comments Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No, 2007021054 AERIE (PA 2005 -196) City Of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitcer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, CA 92780 May 2009 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Attachment #2 Response to Comments THIS PAVE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Intentionally Blank Response to Public Comments Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2007021054 AERIE (PA 2005 -196) City Of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, CA 92780 May 2009 2-,3 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Intentionally Blank (2,4 RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - SCH NO. 2007021054 AERIE (PA 2005 -196) NEWPORT BEACH, CA INTRODUCTION The 45 -day public review and comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the proposed Aerie residential project extended from March 20, 2009 through May 4, 2009. The City of Newport Beach received 12 comment letters on the Draft EIR. Responses to the comments included in each of the letters received by the City have been prepared and are included with the Final EIR. The comment letters were received from, 1. Southern California Gas Company (March 25, 2009) 2. Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (April 20, 2009) 3. Marilyn L. Beck (April 29, 2009) 4. Moote Group (May 1, 2009) 5. Jan D. Vandersloot (May 3, 2009) 6. California Department of Transportation (May 4, 2009) 7. Comprehensive Planning Services (May 4, 2009) 8. Jinx L. Hansen (May 4, 2009) 9. Melinda Luthin, Esq. (May 4, 2009) 10. Coast Law Group, LLP (May 4, 2009) 11. California Regional Water Quality Control Board (May 5, 2009) 12. A. David Kovach (May 5, 2009) 13. Harbor Resources Commission (Minutes of April 8, 2009) Responses to these comments have been prepared in compliance with Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The letters received during the public review period have been reproduced in the section that follows. The letters have been reviewed and substantive comments have been identified and numbered for easy reference. Responses have been prepared for each of the identified comments, which follow the letters from the agencies in this "Response to Public Comments' Appendix to the Final EIR. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 1 1Z 1. Southern California Gas Company (March 25, 2009) Response to Comment No. 1 -1 This comment letter, which indicates that gas service can be provided from existing gas mains located in the project vicinity and, further, that gas service would he provided to the project based on gas supply in accordance with regulatory requirements, is acknowledged_ As suggested in this comment, the project applicant will contact Southern California Gas Company for information on conservation programs that may be appropriate for implementation. This comment does not raise any environmental issues; no further response is necessary. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 2 2. Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (April 20, 2008) Response to Comment No. 2 -1 The Construction Management Plan (CMP) is included in the Draft EIR as Appendix B and is a component of the proposed project. (DEIR 1 -1.) It is binding on the project, but is not a "mitigation measure." The footnote on page 1 -6 of the Draft EIR is intended to provide clarification on the difference between mitigation measures and specific project elements or project design features. The intent of each is to ensure that potential project - related impacts do not exceed significance thresholds. However, the important distinction between the two is that the proposed project has been designed to incorporate the project design features proposed by the applicant and identified in the CMP in order to avoid an impact entirely, or to ensure that the effect of a particular impact does not exceed the significance threshold. As a result, where applicable, the discussion of potential impacts in each section of the Draft EIR reflects the incorporation of the project design features in the analysis. Without the incorporation of these project elements, potential project - related impacts would be significant, necessitating the implementation of mitigation measures, which are required or recommended to eliminate or reduce potential significant effects that would be anticipated as a direct or indirect result of project implementation. While the difference may be subtle, the important distinction is that the "project design features" are pre - emptive, serving to avoid or minimize potentially significant impacts through the design of the project. Response to Comment No. 2 -2 The proposed docks extend to the Federal Pierhead Line, thus meeting all legal requirements. They are consistent with neighboring development. Two boats will be berthed to the outside of this dock, as the City permits. The dock, including these two boats, will not affect boating lanes. Even assuming a 24' beam width for a boat tied to the channel side of the dock, there would still be approximately 520 feet of open water between the westerly side of the main channel, thereby providing 10 50 -foot wide lanes for channel navigation. There is a nearby Navigational Station that has been in -place for years and the proposed dock with boats does not encroach within the channel any farther than the existing Navigational Station. City policy currently allows boats to extent beyond the Pierhead Line no farther than the beam (maximum width) of the boat, which is typically not wider than 24 feet. The reference to the Cutter Narwhal is inapplicable. not a pleasure boat of the kind that would dock at Narwhal employs a crew of ten. Response to Comment No. 2 -3 The Cutter Narwhal is a Coast Guard rescue boat, the project. It is therefore irrelevant that the Cutter The area in which the site is located is characterized by a variety of single- and multiple - family residential homes that reflect a range of densities and architectural styles, which contribute to the unique character of Corona del Mar. (DEIR 4.1 -8.) The proposed project reflects a distinctive architectural character that continues this tradition of architectural variety and diversity. (DEIR 4.1 -11.) Specifically, the architectural style of the project reflects an organic, modern, contemporary style. (DEIR 4.1 -8.) This is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 1.1, which reads "Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods, business districts, and harbor that together identify Newport Beach. Locate and design development to reflect Newport Beach's topography, architectural diversity, and view sheds." (Emphasis added.) Response to Comment No. 2 -4 Based on the significance criteria identified in DEIR Section 4.5.2, implementation of the proposed project would not adversely affect a scenic resource and would not result in significant aesthetic impacts. The DEIR makes relies upon visual simulations to support this conclusion, as shown below: Aerie (PA 2006 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page32t� Visual Simulation V10 -Kayak 1 illustrates the changes anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. From this vantage in the harbor just south of the proposed project site, the differences in visual character relate mostly to the bluff development. No significant visual impacts would occur to the cove or the natural features below the bluff. Specifically, the proposed dock facilities would not affect existing views to the cove from either this or close by vantage points. (DEIR 4.5 -17.) Visual Simulation V12 - Kayak 3 illustrates the visual character of the proposed project from a vantage near the northern limits of the site within the harbor beyond the proposed boat dock. Some of the existing rock outcroppings and related features characterizing the cove below the bluff would be obscured by the proposed dock and boats. In addition, other features along the water's edge south of the cove would also be obscured; however, all of those features would be seen from other vantages and their loss from view would be only from locations north of the proposed dock. It is important to note that none of the existing features would be eliminated or destroyed as a result of project implementation; rather, they would all remain as elements of the site and come into and go out of one's view depending on the location within the harbor. Their loss from the field of view would be brief when passing by the site in the harbor. (DEIR 4.5 -22.) Visual Simulation V17 - Kayak 4 depicts the proposed project from a vantage in the harbor that is between the boat dock for the existing residence south of the project and the boat dock for the proposed project. In this simulation, the proposed project, including the dock facilities proposed, reveal that when viewed from this location, neither the rock outcroppings nor the cove features would be affected by any of the proposed development. All of the significant existing cove and bluff features (e.g.. bluff formations, rock outcroppings, sandy beach, etc.) will remain in view from this location within the channel. (DEIR 4.5 -21) Visual Simulation V13 - Channel 1 illustrates the visual context of the proposed Aerie project to the existing development to the north and south and the overall visual character along the bluffs in the vicinity of the project site. The entrance to the cove below the bluff is both visually and physically accessible. Views of the other significant topographic features of the property that create aesthetic value in addition to the bluff itself (specifically the rock outcroppings and cove), would not be significantly affected by the development, none would be altered by the proposed development. (DEIR 4.5 -25.) Visual Simulation V14 - Channel 2 provides a direct view of the proposed project from inside the channel. The sandy beach cannot be seen from this vantage. However, as previously indicated, any potential effect on the view of these features is brief and intermittent as one "cruises" into and out of the harbor. (DEIR 4.5 -25.) Visual Simulation V15 - Channel 3 depicts the proposed development from the channel just to the north of the proposed boat dock. Portions of the rock outcroppings, the sandy beach, and related features cannot be seen from this location within the harbor; however, virtually all of the bluff up to the proposed multiple - family structure will remain within view of boaters as they travel into and out of the harbor. (DEIR 4.5 -25.) Response to Comment No. 2 -5 As noted above, the proposed docks extend to the Federal Pierhead Line, thus meeting all legal requirements. They are consistent with neighboring development. Two boats will be berthed to the outside of this dock, as the City currently allows by policy. The dock, including these two boats, will not Aene (PA 2005-196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 4 2' t3 affect boating lanes. Even assuming a 24' beam width for a boat tied to the channel side of the dock, there would still be approximately 520 feet of open water between the westerly side of the main channel, thereby providing 10 50 -foot wide lanes for channel navigation. There is a nearby Navigational Station that has been in -place for years and the proposed dock with boats does not encroach within the channel any farther than the existing Navigational Station. City policy currently allows boats to extend beyond the Pierhead Line no farther than the beam (maximum width) of the boat, which is typically not wider than 24 feet. Response to Comment No. 2 -6 The applicant will bear the cost for the undergrounding certain power poles and overhead wires on Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard beyond the basic City requirement to underground overhead utility lines from the nearest utility pole to the project site. The elimination of these features would enhance views and the aesthetic character within the neighborhood. (DEIR 4.1 -34.) Response to Comment No. 2 -7 The project proposes a total of 25 parking spaces for the 8 condominiums, including 16 for residents, eight visitor spaces, and one service vehicle space. Additionally, two parking spaces have been provided for golf carts. The parking supply can be increased by an additional six spaces through the use of vehicle lifts in the garages for individual units. This far exceeds the City's requirement of 20 parking spaces for an 8 -unit condominium project (Le., two spaces per unit plus 0.5 guest space per unit). As a result, project residents and guests will be adequately served by on -site parking. Response to Comment No. 2 -8 Implementation of the standard conditions, project features (upgraded catch basin), and, specifically, the BMPs prescribed in the Construction Management Plan, Draft WQMP and SWPPP, as well as implementation of the proposed storm drainage system described in the documents, will ensure that the potential impacts associated with an increase in surface runoff resulting from development of the proposed Aerie residential project are avoided. Site design and treatment BMPs have also been identified in the WQMP and will be implemented to ensure that water entering the harbor has been adequately treated to avoid potential impacts to that impaired water body. Specifically, the site has been designed to minimize impervious areas and maximize permeability. The site has also been designed to minimize directly connected impervious areas. Treatment BMPs incorporated into the project are intended to treat surface runoff include a proprietary StormFilter unit. Following treatment by the project StormFilter unit, site runoff will pass through an Abtech Smart Sponge Plus drain insert for additional treatment for bacteria as a pollutant of concern. (DEIR 4.6 -10.) Notwithstanding the increase of impervious surfaces on the project site, the proposed drainage system is expected to reduce the pollutant level in site runoff, compared to existing conditions that consist of sheet flow runoff directly to the bay, and unfiltered runoff into a storm drain catch basin just south of the site, at Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. (DEIR 4.6 -11.) Response to Comment No. 2 -9 A small portion of the existing eelgrass bed (approximately 30 square feet) could potentially be affected by shading effects from vessels docked within the slips and the dock structure. The area of eelgrass habitat that is actually affected by long -term shading will be determined during post- construction monitoring surveys conducted pursuant to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended). The location and amount of eelgrass to be transplanted shall be determined following the results of the two annual monitoring efforts stipulated in the CMP, which will Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 5 Z 9 be undertaken as part of the proposed project. Specifically, the following measures will be undertaken as identified in the CMP to ensure that potential impacts to eelgrass are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. . An updated pre - construction eelgrass and invasive algae survey shall be completed within 30 days of the initiation of the proposed dock/gangway construction. The results of this survey will be used to update the results of the March 2007 eelgrass survey and to identify, if any, potential project- related eelgrass losses and the presence or absence of the invasive algae (Caulerpa taxifolia) in accordance with NMFS requirements. A post- construction project eelgrass survey shall be completed within 30 days of the completion of project construction in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). The report will be presented to the resources agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission within 30 days after completion of the survey. If any eelgrass has been impacted in excess of that determined in the pre - construction survey, any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.21 (mitigation to impact). Eelgrass shall be mitigated based on two annual monitoring surveys that document the changes in bed (i.e., area extent and density) in the vicinity of the footprint of the boat dock, moored vessel(s), and/or related structures during the active - growth period for eelgrass (typically March through October). Mitigation shall be implemented pursuant to the requirements of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). A statement from the applicant indicating their understanding of the potential mitigation obligation that may follow the initial two -year monitoring is required. If losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach and resources agencies for review and acceptance. The project marine biologist shall mark the positions of eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the dock and gangway construction area with buoys prior to the initiation of any construction activities. The project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew prior to initiation of construction to orient them to specific areas where eelgrass presently exists. Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work over eelgrass beds only during fides of +2 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) or higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass from propellers, and to limit water turbidity. • Anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upon eelgrass habitat. (DEIR 4.7 -16.) Response to Comment No. 2 -10 A detailed catch basin diagram will be part of the construction documents and will be subject to review and approval by the City during plan check and permitting process. Response to Comment No. 2 -11 A full -size set of project plans is available for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard. (James Campbell, Principal Planner, is the Project Manager.) Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 6 2 1 1 0 Response to Comment No. 2 -12 The CDFG prohibits the taking of any marine organisms within 1,000 feet of the high tide line is intended to protect marine life, including the sand dollar. In addition, in order to further avoid potential impacts to these species, the sand flats within the cove should be avoided by construction personnel and equipment and future residents should be made aware of the sensitivity of the cove to promote its long -term protection. As a result, the DEIR concludes that potentially significant impacts to the sand dollar colony can be avoided. To ensure that project related impacts to these and other intertidal marine resources will be avoided, the CMP specifies several project elements and measures to be implemented, including: Construction activities associated with the elevated walkway leading to the gangway, and construction personnel shall avoid impacts to rocky intertidal habitat and to eelgrass beds and sand dollar habitat within the Carnation Cove by, among other things, (a) posting signage at key access points in front of the beach and on the elevated walkway stating that access is limited to the elevated walkway during construction; (b) using yellow tape to prevent access to rocky intertidal habitat, eelgrass beds, and sand dollar habitat; and (c) prohibiting access to the water and rocky shoreline within the cove. Residents shall be informed of the sensitivity of the cove as a unique marine biological habitat to assist in ensuring the long -term protection of the cove's marine biological resources. Signage shall be posted at access points in front of the beach and on the elevated walkway, which state that access is limited to the elevated walkway during construction. In addition, yellow tape shall be used to prevent access. Access shall not be permitted to the water or rocky shorelines within the cove. (DEIR 4.7 -17 — 1.7 -18.) Response to Comment No. 2 -13 EIRs are not required to "facilitate evaluation of the ability of the construction crews to comply" with mitigation measures. Rather, the role of the EIR is to provide information to the public and decision - makers of a project's potential impact upon the environment and to set forth and describe proposed mitigation measures that minimize the significant effects of potential environmental impacts. It is the lead agency (City) that will decide whether to adopt mitigation measures. In that capacity, the lead agency will determine whether such measures are feasible and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments, as discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. Response to Comment No. 2 -14 With respect to long -term operational noise, the DEIR notes that "Although on -site noise levels associated with residential activities on the redeveloped site would increase compared to current conditions because the only the single - family residential dwelling unit and three units within the apartment building are occupied, it is anticipated that any increase in long -term noise associated with the residential uses would be those occurring as a result of outdoor activities. Passive recreational activities in and around the proposed pool, on the private decks and along the walkway and beach area at the bottom of the property are not expected to result in significant noise levels. If future residents and their guests should engage in activities that result in temporary, loud noise levels that exceed the limits set forth in Chapters 10.26 and 10.28 of the City's Municipal Code, the City is empowered to take actions to abate that activity. This project would not result in exposure of neighboring residents or future residents on site to noise levels that exceed City standards. Therefore, no significant long -term noise impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required." (DEIR 4.4 -27.) Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 7 Response to Comment No. 2 -15 Project - related construction activities were assessed for the potential to result in vibration impacts at the nearest vibration sensitive uses (nearby residential uses). The assessment of annoyance from vibration from construction activities is based on several criteria including perceptibility, frequency of occurrence, time of occurrence and duration, as discussed below: • Perceptibility - In terms of perceptibility, the criteria for establishing potentially significant vibration induced annoyance impacts is average daytime (there will be no nighttime construction) vibration measurements that are "felt." The FTA has established 84 VdB as the level that is "felt' or readily perceived. • Frequency of Occurrence - In terms of frequency of occurrence, loaded trucks that will only result in transient (1 -2 second) exposures of perceptible vibration as they pass in front of residences would not result in significant vibration impacts for annoyance. • Duration - With respect to the duration of vibration intensive construction activities, the total number of days for which vibration from project related construction activities would exceed the "felt' level is approximately 25 work days. • Time of Occurrence - Residential uses are much more sensitive to vibrations occurring at night as compared to the day time. Construction activities that would generate perceptible levels of vibration are time - restricted by Municipal Code Section 10.28.040. Under Section 10.28.040, construction is permitted on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM, Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, and is prohibited on Sundays and any federal holidays. Although the maximum vibration levels associated with certain construction activities would, in some instances, be "felt" under FTA criteria and could occur frequently in the days they do occur, because construction activity would be limited to the least vibration- sensitive times of the day, the duration of perceptible vibration would be relatively brief and intermittent and would cease when construction is concluded; therefore, potential vibration impacts will not result in a significant vibration annoyance impact. Response to Comment No. 2 -16 This comment asks how the DEIR can rely on the General Plan to set 65 dBA CNEL as an acceptable criterion for residential noise when such a level is higher than the City's Municipal Code noise standards found in Table 4.4 -2. The answer is that the General Plan and Municipal Code apply to different noise sources. The City's Noise Element standards are for the assessment of long -term vehicular traffic noise impacts. For residential uses that include single - family, two- family, and multiple - family dwelling units, the City considers exterior vehicular traffic noise levels up to 65 dBA CNEL as Clearly Compatible and Normally Compatible. By contrast, the City's Municipal Code noise standards found in Table 4.4 -2 apply to non - transportation, stationary noise sources. These noise standards do not apply to noise generated by vehicle traffic because the state, counties, and cities are preempted from controlling vehicle noise under federal law. Instead, the City's noise ordinance is designed to protect people from objectionable non - transportation noise sources such as music, machinery, pumps, and air conditioners. (DEIR Appendix F: Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration Study, pages 19 -21.) Response to Comment No. 2 -17 This comment appears to ask how the daytime noise levels in the project area were derived. Additional detail on the methodology used to obtain the current range of average daytime noise levels in the project Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Z t Page 8 area is presented in Appendix E of the Draft EIR. According to Wieland Acoustics, "[i]n order to document the existing noise environment in the study area, continuous 24 -hour measurements were obtained at four locations between April 23 and 30, 2008. (Refer to Figure 6 -1 for the measurement locations.) To obtain the measurements, the microphone was positioned at a height of 5 feet above the ground.... The instrumentation used to obtain the noise measurements consisted of integrating sound level meters (Model 712) and an acoustical calibrator (Model CAL150) manufactured by Larson Davis Laboratories. The accuracy of the calibrators is maintained through a program established by the manufacturer, and is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 51.4- 1971." (DEIR Appendix E: Environmental Noise Study for the Construction of the Proposed Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project in the City of Newport Beach, page 9.) Response to Comment No. 2 -18 The DEIR concludes that, at full occupancy, the project's eight condominium units will generate 47 average daily trips. This conclusion is based on trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and represents an increase of 24 trips /day over the baseline (23 trips /day.) (DEIR Table 4.2 -2.) The trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers are the industry standard and do not reflect an "unrealistically optimistic' scenario. Furthermore, as illustrated in Figure N4 (Future Noise Contours) of the Noise Element, all of the residential streets in the project area are forecast to remain below 60 dBA CNEL based on buildout of the City pursuant to the General Plan. The comment about the "questionable acceptance of a 65 dBA standard for appropriate residential noise levels" was addressed above in Response to Comment No. 16. In short, the City Noise Element's 65 dBA standard is the appropriate benchmark for discussing long -term traffic noise because the Noise Element specifically relates to long -term vehicular traffic noise impacts. By contrast, the City's Municipal Code noise standards found in Table 4.4 -2 apply to non - transportation, stationary noise sources. (DEIR Appendix E: Environmental Noise Study for the Construction of the Proposed Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project in the City of Newport Beach, page 9.) Response to Comment No. 2 -19 Refer to Response to Comment No. 2 -18. Response to Comment No. 2 -20 Refer to Response to Comment No. 2 -18. Response to Comment No. 2 -21 The project has been designed to minimize glare by incorporating building materials that are not conducive to the creation of glare. For example, exterior materials proposed for the residential structure would consist of non - reflective materials, including a titanium roof and photo - voltaic array with a matte finish, stucco - covered walls, and stone accents with rough, rather than polished textures. Tinted glazing is proposed on the windows and most of the windows will have overhangs that will cast shadows over the glazing. As a result, no significant glare impacts from building finish materials anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (DEIR 4.5 -29.) Response to Comment No. 2 -22 Although the proposed swimming pool is neither designed nor intended to be a water quality treatment feature, a variety of Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been identified in a preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) with respect to treating Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 9 storm flow ingredients. Treatment BMPs include a proprietary StormFilter unit. Following treatment by the project StormFilter unit, site runoff will pass through an Abtech Smart Sponge Plus drain insert for additional treatment for bacteria as a pollutant of concern. (DEIR 4.6 -10.) Implementation of these and other measures outlined in the WQMP will ensure that potential water quality impacts will be less than significant. Response to Comment No. 2 -23 An off -site drainage area encompassing 11.54 acres contributes storm flows to the existing catch basin in Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard. Storm flows generated within this drainage area have a 100 -year peak storm flow rate of 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). The proposed project would result in a decrease in the 100 -year storm flow, which would be directed to an existing storm drain that has adequate capacity. However, the existing catch basin is currently deficient. Although no significant project - related impacts are anticipated as a result of the reduction in storm flow generated by the proposed project, this facility will be improved by the project applicant to accommodate the storm flows generated within the tributary area, including the project site. (DEIR 4.6 -7.) Response to Comment No. 2 -24 "Sanitary sewer outflow" is water from the project that flows into the sewer lines that is conveyed to the sewage treatment plant operated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Response to Comment No. 2 -25 Line 3 of the first "bullet" will be revised to read, "...informs facility users of the impacts of dripping and dumping oil, paints, solvents or other potentially Response to Comment No. 2 -26 As suggested by the commenter, the existing text under N11 includes reporting of violations. Response to Comment No. 2 -27 An Abtech Smart Sponge Plus is a filtration system for storm water. When deployed in filtration mechanisms, it removes hydrocarbons, trash, debris, sediment and other contaminants including bacteria from stormwater. Response to Comment No. 2 -28 Pool water will be disposed of properly into the sanitary sewer or treated by mobile cleaning devices prior to discharges to the street or storm drain. Response to Comment No. 2 -29 According to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, federal regulations do not define "maximum extent practicable" (MEP), but in general, to achieve the MEP standard, municipalities employ BMPs that are likely to be effective and are not cost - prohibitive. The Draft EIR has determined that the BMPs incorporated into the proposed project design will be effective in reducing pollutant loads when compared to the existing storm runoff quality. Ultimately, the Regional Water Quality Control Board will be responsible for ensuring that the BMPs achieve the MEP standard. Aerie (PA 2006196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 n Page 10 Response to Comment No. 2 -30 A vegetation map was prepared by Robert Mitchell & Associates, as noted on page 4.7 -1 (refer to footnote 1) in the Draft EIR. This map is attached to these Responses. The plant species occupying the subject property are identified and described on page 4.7 -1 on the Draft EIR. Although it appears that the commenter is suggesting that a mitigation measures be imposed to retain non - native species currently occupying the site, the project includes design features requiring the exclusive use of native drought - tolerant plant species determined do be consistent with the California coastal bluff environment as required by Policy No. 4.4.3 -13 of the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP). All invasive plant species will also be removed as required by CLUP Policy No. 4.1.3 -1. This is an environmentally superior approach to the suggestions presented in this comment. It is important to note that existing native plant species will not be removed. Additionally, as noted in footnote 1 on page 4.7 -1 of the Draft EIR, none of the native species on -site was removed. The lemonade berry will remain on -site. With respect to shading effects, refer to the discussion on page 4.7 -14 and Exhibit 4.7 -1 on page 4.7 -15 of the Draft EIR. Response to Comment No. 2 -31 The City's CLUP recognizes that in certain instances, habitats presumed to be ESHA may occur in settings where the ecological functions are minimal and that the ESHA presumption is rebuttable. Specifically, the CLUP recognizes four factors that should be considered, which when present allows for rebuttal of the ESHA presumption. Specifically the factors are: • Patch Size and Connectivity; • Dominance by Invasive, non- native species; • Disturbance and proximity to development; and • Fragmentation and Isolation The vegetation noted by the commenter consists of a few individuals California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) shrubs, a single patch of lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia) that likely consists of a single shrub or two, and a few scattered individuals of California encelia ( Encelia californica). At most, the subject vegetation covers a few hundred square feet. Based on the CLUP, an ESHA designation would not be appropriate based on 1) the small amount of vegetation, literally consisting of a handful or individual shrubs that because of their small size, exhibit minimal ecological function; 2) the subject vegetation is surrounded by areas of non- native vegetation including ornamentals associated with the residences as well as some highly invasive species (e.g., giant reed), 3) the proximity of the small patch of vegetation to existing development further limits the ecological functions of the small area of vegetation; and 4) the patch is generally isolated from larger patches of native scrub vegetation by the adjacent development. Based on all presence of each of the four CLUP- defined factors, designation of the small area consisting of common shrubs with little ecological value, an ESHA determination is not warranted based on the site specific data. Response to Comment No. 2 -32 The December 12, 2008 Jurisdictional Delineation report prepare by Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) for the project site followed the Coastal Commission's use of the "one parameter" approach for making wetland determinations (see for example the detailed discussion on pages 10 and 11 or the December 12, 2008 Report). GLA acknowledged the Commission's approach, but also noted, based on the Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 r-t r� Page 11 Commission's own guidance that the one - parameter approach can be "falsified" when strong positive evidence for upland conditions are presented. In this case, a number of factors were presented that demonstrate that the African umbrella sedge is not growing as a wetland plant, which when considered together provide the strong evidence for upland conditions, thereby falsifying the presumption that that area is a wetland. These factors include the following: The African umbrella sedge is listed on the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands as a Facultative Wet (FACW) species, meaning that it occurs in wetlands approximately 67- percent of the time and in uplands 33- percent of the time. Therefore, there is one chance in three that any place this species occurs is upland, and further detailed investigation is needed to determine whether wetland conditions are in fact present. 2. The subject patch of African umbrella sedge occurs on a steep slope that prevents ponding or inundation by shallow water for periods sufficient to lead to anaerobic soil conditions, within the upper 12 inches, as confirmed in the field by GLA. The site clearly lacks wetland hydrology. 3. The soils in the area of the African umbrella sedge exhibit strong upland characteristics, confirming the lack of wetland hydrology, further confirming the upland characteristics of the site. The commenter speculates regarding the possible source of water that supports the African umbrella sedge stating that it "may be" the 30 -inch drain pipe or seepage from the bluff. These issues were fully addressed in the December 12, 2008 GLA Report, a portion of which is excerpted below: Given the lack of wetland hydrology, as confirmed by the strong upland characteristics of the soils, it appears that the African umbrella sedge is supported by regular irrigation water. During the December 10, 2008, site visit, we observed the neighbor washing off her deck and steps, with the water running into the adjacent honeysuckle. She was also directly watering the honeysuckle with some over spray directly reaching the umbrella sedge. Also, approximately halfway into our field visit, we observed a very small "trickle" of water discharging from the 30 -inch pipe that lasted for just a few minutes. Upon investigating the source of water, we found a different neighbor, washing an automobile with the runoff eventually reaching the area. Such runoff would not be sufficient to make a positive finding for the presence of wetland hydrology,' however, combined with the irrigation of the adjacent landscaped slope it explains the presence of the umbrella sedge, especially given the strong upland character of the soils. It is also important to note in this regard that the African umbrella sedge is designated as FACW, meaning that up to one -third of occurrences of this species is in upland areas. Confirmation that African umbrella sedge is a common landscape plant that is highly adaptable is provided in the Sunset Western Garden Book. Grows in or out of water. Effective near pools, in pots or planters, or in dry stream beds or rock gardens. Self sows. Can become weedy....' (Emphasis added.) Given this adaptability, in the absence of other wetland indicators such as the confirmed presence of wetland hydrology or hydric soils, the presence of this plant is not a reliable indicator of wetland conditions and the nearby irrigation would explain the presence of this highly adaptable species. ' Sunset Western Garden Book, by the Editors of Sunset Magazine. 1990. p 312. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 12 Also, with regard to the irrigation, Exhibit 3, Photograph 2 of the December 12, 2008 GLA Report depicts the irrigation heads on the slope immediately above the African umbrella sedge. The commenter suggests that a 100 -foot buffer should be provided to protect the African umbrella sedge, which was also addressed in the December 12, 2008 report: Policy 4.2.2 -3 of the City's CLUP specifies that all wetland ESHA shall have "a minimum buffer width of 100 feet wherever possible'; however, it is important to consider the entire policy set forth in 4.2.2 -3: Require buffer areas around wetlands of a sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland that they are designed to protect. Wetlands shall have a minimum buff width of 100 feet wherever possible. Smaller buffer widths may be allowed only where it can be demonstrated that 1) a 100 foot buffer is not possible due to site constraints, and 2) the proposed narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity of the wetland given the site - specific characteristics of the resource, and of the type and intensity of disturbance. [Emphasis added] Should a finding be made that the area of African umbrella sedge is a wetland, it is important to note that this area is exactly the sort of resource that does not require a 100 -foot buffer for the following reasons: First, the area already lacks a 100 -foot buffer along the eastern and southern edges due to the presence of existing residential structures, including the neighboring structure, which is within approximately 17 feet of the umbrella sedge as depicted on Exhibit 3 (this distance was measured with a tape measured using GIS). Second, as depicted on Exhibit 3, the area of sedge is almost entirely surrounded by or occurs as understory to non - native species and the African umbrella sedge is a non- native species that is considered to be highly invasive and would be subject to eradication from local wetland restoration sites or managed wetlands. Third, when considered in accordance with the ESHA definition in the Coastal Act, the area does not meet any of the criteria typically associated with ESHA. Specifically, the African umbrella sedge cannot in any way be considered rare as it is a widespread invasive species. The approximately 0.004 acre area does not support or exhibit potential to support any rare or otherwise special status species and does not exhibit importance in the ecosystem given its position on the landscape and composition. Finally, the area is already highly degraded due to the presence of the invasive and /or non - native species noted above. Given these factors, including the proximity of established neighboring development no change in buffer requirements compared with the current conditions is warranted. Finally, it is important to note that the commenter references the Coastal Commission's findings during a hearing held on April 9, 2009. The conditions in that case are very different from those in this case, where GLA asserted that no wetland parameters were present and the Commission asserted that two parameters were present. The findings by the Commission in that case have no direct applicability to this project. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 13 21I7 Response to Comment No, 2 -33 Refer to Response to Comment No. 2 -32. Response to Comment No. 2 -34 Refer to Response to Comment No. 2 -35. Response to Comment No. 2 -35 Merrill and Hobson (1970) made observations on the behavior, distribution, and abundance of the sand dollar (Dendraster excentricus) along the Pacific Coast of California and Baja. California between 1963 and 1968. Sand dollar populations occur on sandy bottoms in bays, tidal channels, and along the outer coast. They noted that sand dollar beds were reported in earlier Newport Harbor studies (MacGinitie, 1939, Limbaugh, unpubl. data), "but had not been found since these areas were dredged ". Sand dollars can occur in coastal inlets, frequently on sand patches, within and near beds of Zostera (MacGinitie and MacGinitie, 1968). Most populations in inlets occur near the openings to the sea. The bay populations of Dendraster often occurs in harbors with wide entrance channels and in areas of other coastal inlets without strong tidal currents. The substrate is generally fine, poorly sorted sand, usually with an overlying layer of detritus (Merrill and Hobson 1970). They noted that in Newport Harbor (no location provided), the highest proportion of sand dollars occurs in waters 2 to 4 ft deep. All of the Merrill and Hobson observations between 1963 and 1968 were made by diving. Coastal Resources Management (CRM) biologists surveyed the entire shallow water habitat of Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay twice, between 2003 -2004 and 2006 -2007 at depths from 0.0 to -12 ft mean lower low water (MLLW). The only location where concentrations of sand dollar beds were located was within Carnation Cove inlet. These beds were also present during surveys CRM made in the Cove during summer 2008. This bed occurs intertidally. Occasionally, individuals were also found along the west channel entrance channel, along Channel Drive. It is not unreasonable to assume that sand dollars may also occur subtidally in the main entrance channel. Noble Consultants, Inc. determined that the dock project would not affect sediment transport in the area. Consequently, sediment transport will not affect eelgrass or sand dollar bed distribution or abundance. The local environment is well flushed tidally, and the potential for short-term turbidity to adverse affect eelgrass and/or the sand dollar beds is low. In addition, the project has identified BMPs and project design features to reduce the potential for adverse effects during construction and operation of the docks. Construction - period mitigation measures within the Cove have been provided that are meant to limit the movement of construction crews, and educate the construction crew and /or residents of the importance of avoiding the cove's eelgrass and sand dollar beds. With respect to "taking specimens out of the marine environment,° SC 4.7 -1 stipulates that the project will comply with California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 29.05, which prohibits the taking of any marine organisms within 1,000 feet of the high tide line without a sport fishing permit. Response to Comment No. 2 -36 Sediment deposited along the entrance channel at Newport Harbor is due to the uniqueness of sequential sediment transport patterns that are typically observed in the harbor entrance area. Coastal alongshore drifted sands are transported either through the wedge area or via the entrance channel during the winter months and moved further into the bay by southerly swells primarily occurring in the following summer season. Sand - quality sediment movement within the project region is typically in the along - channel direction from the harbor entrance to the inner bay. Flow patterns (i.e., potential sand movement patterns) at the project site during typical flood /ebb tide cycles were presented in the Coastal Engineering Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 n '� r Page 14 Assessment Appendix (see Figures 9 and 10). With a small percent of the along - channel blockage area resulting from the proposed new dock facility, the potential impact to this unique sediment movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant. Response to Comment No. 2 -37 The project site is not potential habitat for the tidewater goby; therefore, this species is not expected to occur at the project site. The EIR will be revised to correct the inconsistency noted in this comment. Aene (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 L i 19 Page 15 3. Marilyn L. Beck (April 29, 2009) Response to Comment No. 3 -1 The Predominant Line of Existing Development ( "PLOED ") is defined by reference to the bluff face. CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8 reads, in relevant part, as follows: "Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development." Therefore, the PLOED applies to visible development on the bluff face, not subterranean excavation behind the bluff face. Response to Comment No. 3 -2 The PLOED can be viewed in either a "horizontal" or "vertical" sense. A horizontal perspective can be described as a distance from a specified location such as a street or property line. A vertical perspective can be described as a point or line above a specified location such as the ground or, in this case, the ocean. In 2007, the Newport Beach City Council established a PLOED at elevation 50.7 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 ( "NAVD88 ") for the proposed project. This is an elevation or contour on the project site's bluff face, below which the proposed residential building cannot be visible. Response to Comment No. 3 -3 In this case, the PLOED was identified by reference to the bluff face and does not limit subterranean excavation behind the bluff face as it would not be visible. Therefore, the depth of subterranean excavation is not a factor in determining compliance with the PLOED. As with the proposed project, future development along Carnation Avenue would be subject to individualized PLOED determinations. The existing development along Carnation Avenue will provide the basis for establishing the PLOED for these properties. The CLUP Glossary definition of PLOED will guide that determination. According to the CLUP Glossary, a PLOED is "[t]he most common or representative distance from a specified group of structures to a specified point or line (e.g. topographic line or geographic feature). For example, the predominant line of existing development for a block of homes on a coastal bluff (a specified group of structures) could be determined by calculating the median distance (a representative distance) these structures are from the bluff edge (a specified line)." Given that the existing development along Carnation Avenue is at or close to the 50.7 feet NAVD88 elevation and does not extend all the way down to Bayside Place, it is unlikely that a future project proposing to descend all the way down to Bayside Place could be found consistent with CLUP policies. Response to Comment No. 3 -4 The comment indicates a belief that the project is subject to CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -5, which requires new development to be set back from the bluff edge. This policy is not applicable in this case as Policy 4.4.3 -8 allows development to be locate don the bluff face when existing structures are already present and new development must be within the PLOED. The questions indicate a belief that the project's pool should not be permitted below the 50.7 NAVD88 PLOED and it also questions the project's compliance with the intent of the PLOED policy. CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8 reads, in relevant part, as follows: "Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona de Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development." Therefore, the PLOED applies to visible development on the bluff face, not subterranean excavation behind the bluff face. In this case, the PLOED was identified by the reference to the bluff face. Aerie (PA 2005 196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 2® Page 16 The pool will be located at the basement level. Since the improvements on the basement and sub- basement level are behind the bluff face and will not be visible to the public, they are not subject to the PLOED. Response to Comment No. 3-5 As indicated on page 4.6-6 of the DEIR, the percentage of the site's impervious surface, which includes building coverage, in the redeveloped condition is approximately 28 percent of the total project area. This figure represents an increase in impervious surfaces of about six percent when compared to the existing impervious surface. Response to Comment No. 3 -6 As noted in Response to Comment No. 5, in the redeveloped condition the site's impervious surface area increases to 28 percent of the site's total area from 22 percent of the site's total area in the existing condition (refer to page 4.6-6 in the Draft EIR). However, despite this increase in impervious surface area, the proposed redevelopment will actually result in an improvement in water quality over the existing condition due to the proposed storm drainage system and water quality treatment facilities. These facilities will be designed to capture and treat runoff from the impervious surface areas and discharge the flows at a rate consistent with the existing drainage patterns for the site. In the existing condition, the majority the site's runoff for impervious areas sheet flow to Newport Bay without treatment. Response to Comment No, 3 -7 The 1.4 -acre property is a coastal bluff visible from Newport Harbor. The Newport Beach General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan identify coastal bluffs as well as other landforms such as canyons, hillsides, and cliffs as significant natural landforms, which contribute to the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. Response to Comment No. 3-8 General Plan Policy NR 23.1 states as follows: "Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, and site buildings to minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and preserve the features as a visual resource." The project complies with this policy in a host of ways discussed in DEIR Sections 4.1 (Land Use and Planning) and 4.5 (Aesthetics_) For instance, the project itself has been designed to complement the site's natural bluff features. The project's "curvilinear' features will allow the building to blend into the bluff when compared to the existing rectilinear features of the existing residential structure. In addition, the proposed colors are consistent with the natural environment, and the project's mass has been broken by the physical separation between the two main structural elements. Finally, the bluff face below the proposed structure would be preserved and landscaped and enhanced with native plant materials. The project is proposed to be more than two feet higher than the PLOED at elevation 52.83 feet, except for a dock access /emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet that is recessed and screened from public view. As a result, the proposed project will be consistent with existing development pattern of the area as required by CLUP policy and it will effectively preserve the bluff below the proposed residential structure as a visual resource. Response to Comment No. 3 -9 The comment relates to the encroachment of balconies within the side yard setback above Bayside Place and it describes a belief that it violates CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -6 as the project extends away from Carnation Avenue beyond the line of existing homes on Carnation Avenue. Although, CLUP Policy No. 4.4.3 -6 is not Aerie (PA 2005-196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 n Page 17 applicable in this case, CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8 is applicable and this policy requires development of the project site to be consistent with the PLOED. As indicated previously, the PLOED can be viewed in either in a "horizontal" or "vertical" sense. A horizontal perspective can be described as a distance from a specified location such as a street or property line. A vertical perspective can be described as a point or line above a specified location such as the ground or, in this case, the ocean. In 2007, the Newport Beach City Council established a PLOED at elevation 50.7 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 ( "NAVD88 ") for the proposed project. This is an elevation or contour on the project site's bluff face, below which the proposed residential building cannot be visible. During that consideration, City Council considered the horizontal projection of the project from Carnation Avenue and did not identify an inconsistency with Policy 4.4.3 -8. The balconies in question will not project into a public view; however, they will be within the view from private properties northerly on Carnation Avenue. The photograph provided with this comment shows a view from an unknown vantage that appears to be from private property. The extent of development depicted may or may not be accurate; however it appears to be roughly consistent with the proposed project. Response to Comment No. 3 -10 Because this project is located on a site with an existing principal structure built on the bluff face, the applicable CLUP Policy is 4.4.3 -9, and not the policy language cited in the comment. Policy 4.4.3 -9 states: "[w]here principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant line of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development." (Emphasis added.) This policy prevails over the general policy cited by the commenter by its very nature; Policy 4.4.3 -9 was intended to create an exception to the general policy. Specifically, it would not be possible for project to be both built on the bluff face and, at the same time, be set back 25 feet from the bluff edge. Because the project complies with the individualized PLOED determination made by the City Council in 2007, it complies with the applicable CLUP policy cited above. Response to Comment No. 3 -11 The comment addresses the project's consistency with a "horizontal predominant line of development" This is not a term that is used in the City's CLUP. Compliance with the CLUP's policies related to setbacks and PLOED is addressed in Table 4.1 -2 and the Responses to Comment Nos. 1, 9 and 10. It is not the role of the EIR to justify the modification permit. Response to Comment No. 3 -12 The policy to promote architectural diversity in itself suggests that different types of architecture are desirable in Newport Beach. The focus of this comment suggests that the proposed project lacks conformity with the existing development. Such conformity, being roughly the opposite of diversity, would actually appear to be inconsistent with the intent of the City's policies articulated in Policies LU 1.1 and LU 1.2. Therefore, the proposed project seeks to achieve the intent of the long -range goals and objectives of preserving and enhancing the character of the City and the important features, including the bluff, through its unique design. The remainder of the comment appears to express the commenter's subjective opinion and further response is not required. Response to Comment No. 3 -13 The comment cites Land Use Element Policy LU1.4 and suggests that the proposed project, including the proposed building's gross floor area, is not consistent with the policy. The City's growth strategy is reflected in the Land Use Element of the General Plan by designating land for specific uses and by Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 i Page 18 providing densities and intensities for those land uses. Policy LU1.4 is a guiding principle against which future amendments, including the proposed project, are to be compared and judged. It is important to note that the density of the proposed project is consistent with the density permitted by the General Plan, which permits up to 27 dwelling units on the subject property, even if the General Plan Amendment were not part of the proposal. The 584 - square foot increase in the project site, which is the only portion of the project site subject to the General Plan Amendment, only increases the maximum number of dwelling units on the site by one unit. The project only proposes eight units where 28 would be theoretically permitted. Section 4.1 (Land Use /Relevant Planning) and Section 4.5 (Aesthetics) provide an evaluation of the proposed project for consistency with more specific resource protection policies. The comment further indicates that the project will be effectively using 100 percent of the resource, which is not accurate. Approximately 40 percent of the site will remain as bluff, cove and water. Response to Comment No. 3 -14 Presumably, the comment is referring not to a developer response but the discussion of Policy LU 4.1 in the City's DEIR. Assuming that to be the case, the entire project has been analyzed in the context of the Land Use Plan. The discussion of Policy LU 4.1 focused on the proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan. The consistency of the remainder of the Land Use Plan is discussed throughout Table 4.1 -1. Response to Comment No. 3 -15 The automobile elevators are convenient and efficient. These elevators will allow the residents to access their personal garages in a quick and efficient manner. Elevators allow the highest efficiency of space due to the elimination of approximately 250 linear feet of concrete ramps. The two elevators will service resident parking needs for seven units. All required guest parking spaces are directly accessible from Carnation Avenue. Auto elevators are utilized in many condominium projects throughout the United States, Europe, and Asia. This is not new technology. Beyond that, the commenter is correct in acknowledging that her opinion is subjective. Response to Comment No. 3 -16 The proposed project includes the undergrounding of the existing overhead utility lines at the comer of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue with the removal of two existing utility poles. This is a voluntary off site community benefit provided by the applicant in order to improve the aesthetic character of the area. The applicant is providing this benefit with Alternative A and not with other alternatives. No City policy or ordinance, including General Plan Policy NR 21.3, requires the implementation of such off -site improvements. The only requirements for the removal and undergrounding of overhead utilities are those with respect to such improvements on a project site. In other words, the developer must underground the existing overhead utility line extending to the site from the nearest utility pole and no farther pursuant to Title 19 of the Municipal Code. Response to Comment No. 3 -17 Policy NR 22.1 states: "Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. The issues related to architectural diversity have been addressed previously. It is not the City's policy to regulate architecture that complies with all applicable development standards and General Plan policy. Similarly, any comparison of visual and physical mass must be based on what constitutes the unique character and visual scale of the community. Existing development in the area, including Channel Reef, regardless of whether it conforms to current policies or regulations, are factors that contribute to the character of the City and are considerable. As discussed in Tables 4.1 -1 and 4.1 -2, the proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies in the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 1 n Page 19 [ Response to Comment No. 3 -18 The bluff face is preserved to the PLOED. The excavation occurring behind the bluff and underneath the location of the existing and proposed structures is not deemed to be a significant alteration of the natural landform because there will be no significant visual impact or impact to bluff stability resulting from the excavation as discussed in Sections 4.5 and 4.9, respectively. Response to Comment No. 3 -19 CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -3 was not addressed in the Draft EIR because it does not apply to the project. Development relating to the site's coastal bluff is governed by General Plan Policy 4.4.3 -9, which states: "[w]here principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant line of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development" (Emphasis added.) This policy prevails over the general policy cited by the commenter because by its very nature, Policy 4.4.3 -3 was intended to create an exception to the general policy. Specifically, it would not be possible for project to be both built on the bluff face and, at the same time, be set back 25 feet from the bluff edge. Because the project complies with the individualized PLOED determination made by the City Council in 2007, it complies with the applicable CLUP policy cited above_ Response to Comment No. 3 -20 CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -5 is applicable to blufftop development. Development relating to the site's coastal bluff is governed by General Plan Policy 4.4.3 -9, which is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4 -19. Response to Comment No. 3-21 The comment cites a portion of CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8 and suggests that new development be visually compatible to the maximum extent feasible. The provision cited applies to public improvements constructed on bluff faces based upon the City Council's interpretation and action to approve Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2007 -003 on November 13, 2007, so this standard is not applicable. However, project compatibility is a goal supported by other General Plan and CLUP policies. The comment indicates that the proposed gross floor area is not compatible when compared with development along Carnation Avenue. The comment is noted; however, floor area is not necessarily a good measure of compatibility for residential applications. From a visual perspective, the project will be viewed from the street where a strong argument can be made that not only is the proposed project generally visually compatible with the surrounding area, but it is also significantly more visually compatible than the structure it is intended to replace. Similarly, when viewed from the harbor, it would be visually compatible with other structures immediately to the south as illustrated in Exhibit 4.5 -15 in the Draft EIR. The series of visual simulations presented in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR illustrate the existing visual character of the site as well as after development of the proposed project occurs. When compared to the existing apartment structure, the simulations reveal that the high vertical elements of the existing structure are replaced with curvilinear features that conform to the bluff landscape for the purpose of minimizing the effect of the proposed development_ When compared to the other existing residential development, including the significantly larger Channel Reef project, the proposed project scale of the proposed project and its effect on the bluff is reduced through the implementation of curvilinear features, natural color, and building materials. Response to Comment No. 3 -22 Refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 3 -1, 3 -9 and 3 -10. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Z 24 Page 20 Response to Comment No. 3 -23 As indicated in Response to Comment No. 3 -18, grading of 25,240 cubic yards of earth material behind the bluff does not result in changes to the bluff face below elevation 50.7 NAVD88, with the exception of the emergency exit from the lower level to the existing access stair4case on the bluff face, which will be screened from view. Response to Comment No. 3 -24 The Construction Management Plan (CMP), to which reference was made throughout the Draft EIR, is included in the DEIR as Appendix B. Copies of the Draft EIR, including the CMP, were available at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department and the Newport Beach Public Library (1000 Avocado), Mariner's Branch Library (2005 Dover Drive), and the Balboa Branch Library (100 East Balboa Boulevard). Response to Comment No. 3 -25 The project applicant will be responsible for any repairs to the damaged roadways along the haul route that may be required as a result of construction activities associated with project implementation. Response to Comment No. 3 -26 The visual simulations illustrate the proposed residential structure with blue eaves. The colors selected for the proposed project are intended to complement the natural bluff character and setting along Newport Harbor. Response to Comment No, 3 -27 Implementation of state -of- the -art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, and undergrounding of the existing overhead utility lines by removing two utility poles at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue are voluntary off site community benefits provided by the applicant. These benefits are not required by the City. As a result, the inclusion or exclusion of these benefits in a particular alternative is a function only of the applicant's willingness to provide for such benefits. "Voluntary" means that the applicant agrees to provide the benefit. Reasonable alternatives under CEQA should not include requirements that cannot be legally imposed. The project would require a total of 61 caissons as opposed to the 75 caissons required by the 3 Single Family Home Alternative. This is due to the fact that the 3 Single Family Home Alternative would necessitate three separate structural foundations, each of which would require a sufficient number of caissons, as noted below: Number of caissons for Lot 1 = 21 Number of caissons for Lot 2 = 27 Number of caissons for Lot 3 = 27 Total number of caissons = 75 The six -year construction timeframe associated with the 3 Single Family Home Alternative was determined based on an expert opinion rendered by Lyleen Ewing, real estate agent with Coldwell Banker Previews International as indicated in the attached letter. Because a multi - family structure is built as a single project, it is irrelevant as to whether there are eight buyers. The commenter's opinion about the viability and compatibility of the 3 Single Family Home Alternative is noted. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 21 Response to Comment No. 3 -28 Implementation of state -of- the -art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, and undergrounding of the existing overhead lines by removing two utility poles at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue are voluntary off site community benefits provided by the applicant (refer to Response to Comment No. 3 -27). These benefits cannot be required by the City. As a result, the inclusion or exclusion of these benefits in a particular alternative is a function only of the applicant's willingness to provide for such benefits. The proposed 5 -unit alternative is approximately 39,017 square feet. The commenter's opinion about the reasonableness of the 5 Unit Multiple - Family Alternative is noted. As indicated in the discussion of this alternative on page 10 -16, while there would be reductions in short-term, construction - related impacts, they are outweighed by a reduction and /or elimination of project components, including upgrading of the existing catch basin, energy conservation features, and the removal of utility poles. In addition, as set forth in Chapter 10.0, the project objectives would not be achieved to the same extent as the proposed project. Response to Comment No. 3 -29 The commenters opinion about the reasonableness of the two 8 -Unit Multiple - Family Alternatives is noted. Refer to Response to Comment No. 3 -28. Response to Comment No. 3-30 In order to address the possibility that the project may not be completed, the Newport Beach Planning Commission previously identified a condition to which the applicant has given concurrence. This condition would stipulate the following: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall provide the City with a performance bond or its equivalent to ensure timely completion of all improvements represented on plans and drawings submitted for permit approval in the event construction of improvements consistent with project approval is abandoned. The performance bond or its equivalent shall be in 100% of the cost of the building shell. The bond or equivalent shall be released in 25% increments upon completion of each quarter of construction of the building shell. The performance bond or its equivalent shall be issued with the City as beneficiary by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California and shall have an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Bests Key Rating Guide unless otherwise approved by the City Risk Manager. The potential liability related to bluff failure they could affect adjacent properties including public improvements within the abutting right -of -way rests with the project applicant, his design team, and contractors. In the event the applicant declares bankruptcy during construction, the City would have the ability to call in the bond that would be posted to complete the project. Ae`ie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 ?( Page 22 4. Moote Group (May 1, 2009) Response to Comment No. 4 -1 Refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 3 -10, 3 -18, and 3 -23. Response to Comment No. 4 -2 The dock access/emergency exit, which also acts as the access to the bluff face staircase leading down to the cove and docks, has been designed to blend into the existing natural character of the bluff through the use of natural landscape and hardscape material, including rocks. The door itself is recessed behind the bluff face. As a result, the exit is considered to be consistent with PLOED because the PLOED's purpose is to protect visual resources. Because it represents a life safety feature, it is consistent with the intent of Policy No. 4.4.3 -12, and is located 2.18 feet above the lowest level of the existing apartment structure on the site, the City Council has the discretion to find this feature consistent with this policy and the PLOED. This accesslemergency exit meets the bluff face at elevation 44.48 feet NAVD88 and not at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD88 as suggested by the Moote Group. The basement level (finished floor) is at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD88 and not the dock accesslemergency exit. Response to Comment No. 4-3 As stated in the DEIR, the excavation of the subterranean levels at the bluff will leave a trapezoidal section of intact rock as part of the bluff face. Based on the planned basement level excavation and adjacent bluff configurations shown on cross - sections, the minimum horizontal setback distance between the basement wall and bluff face at elevation 30.0 feet NAVD88 is generally 20 feet or greater and at PLOED elevation 50.7 feet NAVD88, it is generally 5 feet or greater. Shoring will consist of drilled and cast -in -place concrete caissons and lagging will be incorporated where required. A Soilmec track- mounted drilling rig is currently being considered to excavate these caissons, and is capable of drilling through massive, hard and moderately cemented sandstone to the depths anticipated at this site with no shocks and minimal or no vibrations. Ram hoe equipment will not be required at this area of the site. In addition, provisions for special excavation are included in Neblett & Associates, Inc. Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report (dated September 30, 2008) and may be used in limited zones of the excavations adjacent to the shoring system. A pinnacle of rock to remain in place will front the access entry area. This pinnacle of rock will result from a maximum 5 feet excavation at this location and will be landward of the 50.7 feet elevation development line. In view of the limited excavation operation at this location, it is not anticipated that this pinnacle of rock will be compromised. In the event that this pinnacle of rock is compromised, it is intended to be reconstructed with artificial rock in accordance with Local Coastal Program Policy 4.4.3 -12. Vibration monitoring and surveying of surface monuments will also be performed during shoring installation, subterranean level excavation operations, and construction activities, and these operations will be modified, as necessary, to mitigate potential damage to the trapezoidal section of intact rock bluff to remain. Response to Comment No. 4-4 Contrary to the commenter's assertion, by no means is there certainty that the rock face will sustain damage due to the construction activity. The section of rock is a trapezoidal shape with a generally 20' base and 5' wide upper section. The rock strength will resist erosion and potential of failure for the economic life of the structure. The bluff face is not at risk in the area of the dock access/emergency exit. The excavated rock will be contoured to the City's CLUP (LCP) policy 4.4.3 -12 (H) "Requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site." Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009n � '7 Page 23 (� Response to Comment No. 4 -5 As illustrated in the figure following this response, the sand dollar beds are located approximately 100 ft to the southeast inside the cove. They are not present at the proposed dock location. The overlap in eelgrass and proximity to placement of the piles is also shown in the figure. The edge of the eelgrass bed is within several feet of three of the proposed pile locations. As indicated in the Construction Management Plan (CMP), the project includes the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), which will be used during pile emplacement to minimize and avoid losses of eelgrass. The BMPs include but are not limited to the use of silt curtains and the least- damaging method of pile emplacement. All piles will be pre - drilled, since there is rock and shale below the surface. A steel sleeve can be placed around the drilling operation to control the sedimentation during the installation process. The contractor and coastal engineer will also work to contain and/or minimize the tailings from the hole, to reduce impacts to water quality and eelgrass bed resources. Losses of eelgrass, if any, as a result of pile emplacement will be determined during agency- mandated pre- and -post eelgrass surveys and mitigation will be implemented in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy Guidelines (NMFS 1991 as amended). As a note, the project does not propose pile driving. All piles will be pre- stressed concrete piles set in pre - drilled, augered holes- Response to Comment No. 4 -6 This comment suggests that the air quality analysis should be reviewed by a third party "expert.' It is important to note that the Draft EIR, including the air quality analysis, was submitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for review and comment during the public comment period; the SCAQMD did not submit comments to the City. No specific comments related to the adequacy of the air quality analysis are presented in this letter and no response is required. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009n 415 Page 24 I'M Unl y. m� r' „t �W'i•• d 4 v r 0s Response to Comment No. 4 -6 This comment suggests that the air quality analysis should be reviewed by a third party "expert.' It is important to note that the Draft EIR, including the air quality analysis, was submitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for review and comment during the public comment period; the SCAQMD did not submit comments to the City. No specific comments related to the adequacy of the air quality analysis are presented in this letter and no response is required. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009n 415 Page 24 Response to Comment No. 4 -7 This comment reflects the opinion of the commenter and does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of the acoustical analysis. No response is necessary. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 9 Page 25 !r 5. Jan D. Vandersloot (May 3, 2009) Response to Comment No. 5-1 A vegetation map was prepared by Robert Mitchell & Associates, as noted on page 4.7 -1 (refer to footnote 1) in the Draft EIR. This map is attached to these Responses. The plant species occupying the subject property are identified and described on page 4.7 -1 on the Draft EIR. Although it appears that the commenter is suggesting that a mitigation measures be imposed to retain non - native species currently occupying the site, the project includes design features requiring the exclusive use of native drought - tolerant plant species determined do be consistent with the California coastal bluff environment. This is an environmentally superior approach to the suggestions presented in this comment. As indicated in Response to Comment No. 2 -20, all invasive plant species will also be removed. It is important to note that existing native plant species will not be removed. Additionally, as noted in footnote 1 on page 4.7 -1 of the Draft EIR, none of the native species on -site was removed. The lemonade berry will remain on -site. With respect to shading effects, refer to the discussion on page 4.7 -14 and Exhibit 4.7 -1 on page 4.7 -15 of the Draft EIR. Response to Comment No. 5-2 The City's CLUP recognizes that in certain instances, habitats presumed to be ESHA may occur in settings where the ecological functions are minimal and that the ESHA presumption is rebuttable. Specifically, the CLUP recognizes four factors that should be considered, which when present allows for rebuttal of the ESHA presumption. Specifically the factors are: Patch Size and Connectivity; • Dominance by Invasive, non -native species; • Disturbance and proximity to development; and • Fragmentation and Isolation The vegetation noted by the commenter consists of a few individuals California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) shrubs, a single patch of lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia) that likely consists of a single shrub or two, and a few scattered individuals of California encelia ( Encelia califomica). At most, the subject vegetation covers a few hundred square feet. Based on the CLUP, an ESHA designation would not be appropriate based on 1) the small amount of vegetation, literally consisting of a handful or individual shrubs that because of their small size, exhibit minimal ecological function; 2) the subject vegetation is surrounded by areas of non - native vegetation including ornamentals associated with the residences as well as some highly invasive species (e.g_, giant reed), 3) the proximity of the small patch of vegetation to existing development further limits the ecological functions of the small area of vegetation; and 4) the patch is generally isolated from larger patches of native scrub vegetation by the adjacent development. Based on all presence of each of the four CLUP- defined factors, designation of the small area consisting of common shrubs with little ecological value, an ESHA determination is not warranted based on the site - specific data. Response to Comment No. 5-3 Refer to Response to Comment No. 2 -33. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 ' 30 Page 26 Response to Comment No. 5-4 Refer to Response to Comment No. 2 -35. Response to Comment No. 5 -5 CRM observations of the eelgrass bed in summer 2008 within and outside the cove indicated that the areal cover is similar to that of 2003 -2004 and 2005 -2007. Eelgrass density was 273 turions per square meter in March 2004; in August 2008, the density was slight less (221 per square meter). A baywide eelgrass density decline was observed at most areas sampled; it was not limited to the Carnation Cove area. Eelgrass bed area and density information to be used for the final impact analysis will be determined during agency- mandated pre- and -post eelgrass surveys according to the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy Guidelines (NMFS 1991 as amended). Eelgrass grows outside of the current footprint of the dock's structure. As stated in the impact analysis, there is 30 square feet of eelgrass may potentially be underneath 3,448 square feet of dock structure, which is 0.9% of the total dock. Projects that implement BMPs that include using translucent dock materials, or other methods to increase light underneath docks and vessels are encouraged, but not mandated by NMFS. Effects of dock and vessel shading are evaluated over a two -year post- construction monitoring period. If at the end of the two years of monitoring, eelgrass loss is the result of shading than this loss is required to be mitigated at a ratio of 1.2 to 1 (mitigation to loss ration, NMFS 1991, as amended). There is no formal "credit" within the NMFS eelgrass mitigation policy that gives "credit" to a project that increases eelgrass cover under docks or boats. Response to Comment No. 5.6 Sediment deposited along the entrance channel at Newport Harbor is due to the uniqueness of sequential sediment transport patterns that are typically observed in the harbor entrance area. Coastal alongshore drifted sands are transported either through the wedge area or via the entrance channel during the winter months and moved further into the bay by southerly swells primarily occurring in the following summer season. Sand - quality sediment movement within the project region is typically in the along - channel direction from the harbor entrance to the inner bay. Flow patterns (i.e., potential sand movement patterns) at the project site during typical flood /ebb tide cycles were presented in the Coastal Engineering Assessment Appendix (see Figures 9 and 10). With a small percent of the along - channel blockage area resulting from the proposed new dock facility, the potential impact to this unique sediment movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant. Response to Comment No. 5-7 The project site is not potential habitat for the tidewater goby; therefore, this species is not expected to occur at the project site. The EIR will be revised to correct the inconsistency noted in this comment. Response to Comment No. 5 -8 Comment noted. The commenter's address was included on the mailing list for the project. Aerie (PA 200 5-196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 a I t7 Page 27 6. California Department of Transportation (May 4, 2009) Response to Comment No. 6 -1 This comment identifies Caltrans' responsibility a comments on the Draft EIR. As suggested it implementation occur with a Caltrans right -of -way, from that agency. This comment is acknowledged; Response to Comment No. 6 -2 s a commenting agency and indicates that it has not this comment, should any work related to project the applicant must first obtain an encroachment permit no response is necessary. As suggested in this comment, the City of Newport Beach will continue to notify Caltrans of this project and future development that could potentially affect State transportation facilities. This comment is acknowledged; no response is necessary. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 3 .y Page 28 7. Comprehensive Planning Services (May 4, 2009) Response to Comment No. 7 -1 As stated in Section 1.0 of the air quality technical analysis (refer to Appendix D), demolition is based on the removal of 16,493 square feet of existing structure. Grading is based on 1.4 acres of land and 25 percent of this area is disturbed daily during grading activities. These assumptions are reflected in the analysis presented in Table 1 of the Air Quality Analysis and summarized in Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR. Response to Comment No. 7 -2 Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that "[ijf, after thorough investigation, a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact.' Although technical data does not yet exist that would allow the City to determine without the use of undue speculation how a project of this size would impact global climate, the Draft EIR nonetheless presents a substantive discussion of the effects of global climate and the Project's potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Section 4.3 addresses the nature of global climate change, identifies daily operation emissions, discusses the project's greenhouse gas emissions, identifies the active and passive "green strategies" that the project will employ, and, after providing this thorough analysis, concludes that there is no way to state with reasonable scientific certainty that the project will conflict with any state policies related to global warming. Because there is general scientific acceptance that global warming is occurring and that human activity is a significant contributor to the process, it is easy to conclude that the emission of even a minute amount of GHG contributes to the warming process. However, under CEQA, this would be an improper standard for at least two reasons. First, AB 32 has explicitly stated the State's policy that de minimis" emissions shall not be subject to regulation. Specifically, AB 32 (in Health and Safety Code §38561(e)) tasks CARB with "recommend(ing] a de minimis threshold of greenhouse gas emissions below which emission reduction requirements will not apply." Thus, not only does AB 32 not require that all project emissions be regulated, it explicitly states the Legislature's intent that a threshold be established to identify "minor" amounts of emissions which will not be part of a regulatory program. Second, the evaluation under CEQA of a project's direct impacts does not start and finish with the simple question of whether a project contributes to an environmental effect such as global climate change. Rather, CEQA requires a legitimate determination as to whether the project contributes to a level that makes that contribution significant. CEQA defines a "significant effect on the environment" as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment (Public Resources Code §21068.) Exactly what contribution to an impact is required for an impact to be "significant' is evaluated through the establishment of a "threshold of significance." CEQA Guideline §15064.7 defines a "threshold of significance" as "an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non - compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant." A threshold of significance cannot be an arbitrary measure. There is little, if any, support in the scientific and environmental communities for the proposition that an isolated projects relatively miniscule contribution of GHG standing alone (i_e., a direct, as opposed to cumulative, project impact) would alter the course of global climate change. Assuming only existing environmental conditions in combination only with the GHG emissions of an isolated project (i.e., without taking into consideration other past, current, and future projects throughout the world), there is no credible argument that the GHG emissions of virtually any isolated project standing alone would have a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse impact on global climate conditions. For these reasons, although information regarding the gross GHG emissions of the proposed project is provided within this section, Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 2 V 33 Page 29 substantial evidence does not exist to support a threshold of significance for direct project impacts absent the use of speculation. With respect to cumulative impacts, any threshold for cumulative significance must delineate a marker for determining whether the proposed project's effects would be "cumulatively considerable," meaning "that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." (CEQA Guidelines §15065(a)(3)). As previously noted, because global climate change is the product of GHG emissions throughout the world, it is not possible to identify all past, current, and probable future projects on planet Earth without gross speculation. Additionally, evaluation using speculative "per capita" or other projections of worldwide GHG emissions based upon projections of population growth over many decades may provide valuable information, but would not constitute an analysis of the "incremental effects" of the project in either of the contexts identified in Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines which are discussed above. Until either (i) the Air Resources Board completes sufficient work under AB 32 to provide a cumulative impact analytical framework which is the equivalent of an "adopted general plan or related planning document," or (ii) the Legislature establishes a different basis for evaluating cumulative impacts under CEQA, establishing a significance threshold which meets current CEQA legal requirements will be dependent upon speculation. Therefore, because the establishment of thresholds of significance would require undue speculation, this DEIR does not establish a threshold of significance for either direct or cumulative impacts to global climate change. That discussion reflects the thorough and thoughtful investigation required by CEQA and identifies certain measures to be incorporated within the Project that will lower potential GHG emissions. In the end, however, the DEIR's conclusion that the potential global climate change impacts of the project cannot be calculated without undue speculation falls squarely under the directive of Section 15145. Response to Comment No. 7 -3 The primary toxic air contaminant of concern during the construction of the proposed project involves the emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM). DPM is emitted from the exhaust from onsite construction vehicles as well as trucks accessing the project site. DPM was not analyzed in the DEIR because there is no potential for a significant impact for the following reasons: Exposure to construction vehicle emissions will be very brief. The "heaviest" period of construction vehicle trips involves excavation and will occur during construction Phase I, roughly July 16, 2010 to January 10, 2011. Such a short exposure duration to air toxics would yield a lower health risk because there would be a shorter time frame for the accumulated risk. Construction and delivery vehicles will be required to turn off their engines while on site. SCAQMD's AB2588 guidelines contemplate a 70 -year exposure for residential cancer risks and a 40 -year exposure for worker cancer risks. By contrast, the "heaviest' period of construction vehicle trips involves excavation and will occur over about 6 months, roughly July 16, 2010 to January 10, 2011. Because of the brevity of construction activities, the SCAQMD does not recommend that construction projects be evaluated for health risk impacts. There will not be a substantial quantity of DPM sources. Project related construction vehicles will operate at the site for a duration of 8 -10 hours per day and will consist of a maximum of about 30 vehicles distributed over the project site. This quantity of construction vehicle use is minimal considering that the SCAQMD's Multiple Air Toxics Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 n Page 30 Exposure Study (MATES -III) identifies the majority of health risk in the south coast air basin from roadways. In comparison, the 405 freeway in Orange County has an annual average of 9,000 - 14,000 truck trips occurring 24 hours a day and operates on a permanent basis. Based on the reasons identified above, the health risk impacts from DPM emissions during construction activities do not represent a significant impact. Response to Comment No. 7 -4 Table 1 -1 in the Draft EIR provides a summary of the potential project impacts, mitigation measures (if any), and the level of significance after mitigation is implemented. Several "standard conditions" are identified not only in that table but also in Section 4.3.3 (refer to page 4.3 -11). In addition, several "project design features" are also identified in Table 1 -1 that are incorporated into the project to avoid potentially significant impacts. Neither the standard conditions nor the project design features are mitigation measures as suggested in this comment. Nonetheless, they have been included in the Executive Summary table and will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to ensure that they will be implemented as proposed by the project applicant and/or required by the SCAQMD. Response to Comment No. 7 -5 A discussion of the potential lighting impacts is presented on page 4.5 -29 of the Draft EIR. That discussion indicates that: "The project has been designed to minimize glare by incorporating building materials that are not conducive to the creation of glare. For example, exterior materials proposed for the residential structure would consist of non - reflective materials, including a titanium roof and photo - voltaic array with a matte finish, stucco - covered walls, and stone accents with rough, rather than polished textures. Tinted glazing is proposed on the windows and most of the widows will have overhangs that will cast shadows over the glazing. As a result, no significant glare impacts from building finish materials are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required." Similarly, an extensive set of visual simulations has been included in the Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR that illustrate vantages from several locations inside the harbor, including those that are available to recreational boat users in the harbor. The discussion of Visual Simulation V17 (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -17) on page 4.5 -22 does address views to the small beach below the bluff. As indicated in that discussion and suggested elsewhere in the visual analysis, although some visual access from the bay would be affected by the dock from time to time as one passes up and down the harbor, none of the significant existing cove and bluff features will be permanently damaged or destroyed. Views to those important visual features will still be available, depending on one's locafion relative to the cove and related features. As a result, no significant visual impacts are anticipated. Response to Comment No. 7 -6 Refer to Response to Comment No. 3 -24. Response to Comment No. 7 -7 The EIR analyzes several potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed project, including: (1) No Project/No Development; (2) Alternative Site; (3) Reduced Intensity/3 Single - Family Residences; (4) Reduced Intensity /5 Multiple - Family Residential Project; and (5) Existing Zoning /8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project with Reduced Grading. The comment states that the EIR's alternatives are narrow in Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 20092 3 �; r Page 31 scope and biased toward the project. This is inaccurate. In fact, the DEIR's range of reasonable alternatives was selected based upon their ability to avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts of the project and to feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, as required by CEQA. The 3 Single Family Home Alternative and the 5 -unit Multi- family Alternative were not selected as the environmentally superior alternative because they would not result in the same degree of benefits as would be derived from project implementation (e.g., underground overhead power poles creating an improved aesthetic character on Carnation Avenue and upsizing of the existing deficient catch basin). Since none of the improvements to drainage, aesthetics and/or energy conservation systems would be included in the 3 Single Family Home Alternative, the environmental benefits would not accrue to that afternative. The DEIR identifies no significant impacts related to GHG emissions (refer to Response to Comment No- 7-2). Because CEQA clearly allows only project alternatives that eliminate or substantially reduce identified project - related impacts, the commenters focus on GHG emissions is not relevant to the atematives analysis. GHG emissions were, in fact, effectively considered in the evaluation of the relative environmental merits of the alternatives through the consideration of the energy - efficient project design features. Nonetheless, the GHG emissions for the project and any of the alternatives are so minimal that differences the emissions between the various alternatives is not considered significant enough to warrant the selection of one alternative over another. Aerie (PA 2005496) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 y 1 7 Page 32 8. Jinx L. Hansen (May 4, 2009) Response to Comment No. 8 -1 This comment expresses concern that several issues evaluated in the Draft EIR have been misrepresented or have not been adequately addressed- However, no specific comment related to the inadequate analysis is identified. Therefore, no response is possible or required. Response to Comment No. 8 -2 Refer to Response to Comment No. 3 -24. Response to Comment No.- 83 The commenter has cited information as set forth in the DEIR but has not raised any questions or comments related to the adequacy of the analysis. Therefore, no response is possible or required. Response to Comment No 8-4 Table 1 -1 in the Executive Summary (refer to Chapter 1.0 of the Draft EIR) enumerates the relevant Project design features that are project elements that are intended to ensure that potential adverse effects of construction traffic are avoided or minimized. As indicated in the CMP (refer to Appendix B in the DEIR), construction staging will be coordinated by a team of flag persons to ensure that neighborhood impacts are minimized. The construction process is thoroughly described in the CMP, which discusses construction staging, traffic control, parking and safety related to the additional traffic. These aspects of the proposed project are also discussed in the Draft EIR in Section 4.2 (refer to pages 4.2 -2 through 4.2 -5 in the Draft EIR). Potential impacts associated with construction activities, including the hauling operations that would result in over 2,000 heavy truck trips, are evaluated in Section 4.2 (Traffic and Circulation). These potential impacts are summarized in the Executive Summary (Table 1 -1). As indicated in this comment and prescribed in the CMP and reflected in the Draft EIR, heavy truck traffic would be limited to a maximum of four trips per hour. To ensure that construction traffic does not exceed the levels identified in the Draft EIR, the traffic control plan identified in the CMP will be strictly enforced. To prevent obstruction of traffic lanes in the project vicinity, a flag person will be retained to maintain safety adjacent to the roadways. In addition, a construction valet and a team of flag persons will also direct traffic at the site, shuttle drop - off /pick -up, and material deliveries. During the excavation process, the flag person will coordinate with the foreman at the dump site who will radio in the dump trucks from the Olinda -Alpha Sanitary Landfill at the rate of one truck every 15 minutes. The CMP provides measures to assure that trucks will not be lined up along the haul route during any stage of construction. The analysis in the Draft EIR concludes that through the implementation of the project design measures prescribed in the CMP, the potential adverse construction - related traffic impacts would be reduced to an less than significant level. This comment, which expresses disagreement with the effectiveness of the "mitigation measures" is acknowledged. Response to Comment No. 8-5 As indicated in the CMP, to prevent obstruction of through traffic lanes, which could affect residents exiting their homes via automobile, traffic control will be coordinated with the Police Department and Public Works Department (Traffic and Development Services Division) to ensure vehicular safety. In addition, a flag person will be retained to maintain vehicular safety in the vicinity of the subject property and neighborhood. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 21 37 Page 33 Response to Comment No. 8 -6 Section 5.0 in the CMP addresses safety and security. At the present time a pedestrian walkway does not exist adjacent to the site. Secure fencing will be installed to foster pedestrian safety and a four -foot wide temporary walkway will be designated in front of the fencing at the street curb along Carnation Avenue during Phases I and II of construction. During Phase IV, the chain link fence will be pulled back four feet from the street curb. In addition, if required by the Public Works Department, a four -foot wide temporary crosswalk will also be created across Carnation to direct pedestrians to the existing sidewalk on the south side of the-street. Other features of the prescribed measures included in the CMP to address safety and security include the construction of a six -foot perimeter fence and appropriate signage indicating the limits of the construction area. Refer to the Appendix B in the Draft EIR for a complete discussion of the safety measures that will be implemented. Response to Comment No. 8 -7 Refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 3 -10, 3 -18, and 3 -23. Response to Comment No. 8 -8 Comment noted. The sand dollars are within the cove, and not near the docks. Based on coastal engineering studies of sand transport, the sand dollar populations within the cove will not be affected by the dock component. The dock component will not cause any changes within the sediment transport regime. The dock component has not been before the Harbor Commission for approval. In fact, the first step in the dock approval process will be taken by the Harbor Resources Manager, who must approve or disapprove the application for the dock expansion. The Harbor Resources Manager's decision may be appealed by any interested party to the Harbor Commission. Only then will the Harbor Commission vote on the application for the dock expansion. Any Harbor Commission decision may be appealed to the City Council, The Harbor Commission did not "recommend denial" of the docks at its April 8, 2009 meeting, as suggested by the comment. Instead, according to the City's draft minutes from that meeting, the Commission went on record as not opposing the expansion of the existing dock. Commissioner Beek made the following advisory motion, "While not opposed to the expansion of the existing dock and its area and capacity we believe the size and configuration of the proposed dock project would create significant negative impact on, navigation and recreational boating in the harbor". This motion, which carried with all ayes, has no legal effect. Response to Comment No. 8 -9 A construction bond is a surety bond, which is a guarantee in which the surety guarantees that the contractor, called the "principal" in the bond, will perform the "obligation" stated in the bond. For example, the "obligation" stated in a bid bond is that the principal will honor its bid; the "obligation" in a performance bond is that the principal will complete the project; and the "obligation" in a payment bond is that the principal will properly pay subcontractors and suppliers. Bonds frequently state, as a "condition," that if the principal fully performs the stated obligation, then the bond is void; otherwise the bond remains in full force and effect. If the principal fails to perform the obligation stated in the bond, both the principal and the surety are liable on the bond, and their liability is "joint and several." That is, either the principal or surety or both may be sued on the bond, and the entire liability may be collected from either the principal or the surety. The amount in which a bond is issued is the "penal sum," or the "penalty amount," of the bond. Except in a Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 t Page 34 very limited set of circumstances, the penal sum or penalty amount is the upward limit of liability on the bond. The person or firm to whom the principal and surety owe their obligation is called the "obligee." On bid bonds, performance bonds, and payment bonds, the obligee is usually the owner. Where a subcontractor furnishes a bond, however, the obligee may be the owner or the general contractor or both. The people or firms who are entitled to sue on a bond, sometimes called "beneficiaries' of the bond, are usually defined in the language of the bond or in those state and federal statutes that require bonds on public projects. With respect to the possibility that the project may not be completed, refer to Response to Comment No. 3 -30. In the event that damage to local streets occurs as a result of the construction activities, including streets along the haul route, the project applicant and /or contractor will be responsible for ensuring that the damage is corrected to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach. Response to Comment No. 8 -10 The project design features included in the CMP as well as the standard conditions and other mitigation measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Project (MMRP) as required by CEQA. The MMRP identifies each measure, the method of verifying how each measure will be implemented, and who will be responsible for implementing the measure. The City of Newport Beach will be responsible for ensuring that each mitigation measure is implemented in accordance with the MMRP. Response to Comment No. 8 -11 As indicated in Table 4.1 -1 (refer to page 4.1 -12), the proposed project is consistent with Policy No. CE 7.1.1, which requires the provision of adequate, convenient parking. The proposed project provides a total of 23 off- street parking spaces (not including six additional "lift" parking spaces) within the proposed residential structure, which exceeds the City's parking code requirements. In addition, project implementation will result in an increase in the number of on- street parking available to visitors to the neighborhood because the existing curb cut will be substantially reduced; three new parking spaces will be created on Carnation Avenue. This comment, which suggests that the proposed project is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, is acknowledged. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 39 Page 35 9. Melinda Luthin, Esq. (May 4, 2009) Response to Comment No. 9 -1 The Construction Management Plan (CMP) is attached to the Draft EIR as Appendix B, as indicated on page 3-27 of the document- The CMP was prepared by the applicant as part of the project description - The document has been reviewed extensively in the preparation of the DEIR. The CMP has been available for review and comment throughout the public review and comment period for the DEIR. Refer to Response to Comment No. 3 -24. The CMP is a component of the proposed project, meaning that the environmental evaluation conducted for the project considers all of the measures included in the CMP to be part of the project proposal. Each of the measures in the CMP was considered where applicable in the evaluation of the project's potential significant effects. As indicated in Section 2.1.7 in the DEIR, the DEIR and all related technical appendices (including the CMP) were available for review and copying at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, as well as the three of the City's public libraries. Therefore, recirculation of the EIR is not required. Response to Comment No. 9 -2 The comment alleges that the Project Objectives are "boilerplate" statements that read "like an advertisement for the project" and are not supported by facts. Under CEQA, the project objectives are intended to represent and reflect the applicant's goals for its project, not the lead agency's or those of the community. As discussed in CEQA Guideline Section 15124(b), the Project Description should contain "[a] statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project. A clearly written statement of objectives will help the Lead Agency develop a reasonable range of altematives to evaluate in the EIR and will aid the decision makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project." The comment that the Project Objectives are "boilerplate" statements is wrong. The term "boilerplate" typically refers to standard legal provisions that are not customized or individualized to meet a certain set of facts. The Project Objectives were created by the applicant specifically to apply to the proposed project. For instance, it is highly unlikely that another project would include the following objective: 02. To enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood by replacing a deteriorating 60 -year old structure with a high - quality residential project utilizing unique modern design principles and featuring (a) the elimination of conventional garage doors for all units, (b) the concealing of all parking from street view, (c) significant landscape and streetscape enhancements, (d) the removal of two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, and (e) replacing these features by undergrounding the new wiring." The features discussed in Objective 2 are unique to the project and the project site. The comment that the Project Objectives are not supported by facts is also not correct. The objectives themselves, as set forth in Section 1.1.4, are not required to be supported by facts. Instead, they are statements that represent and reflect the applicant's goals for the project. Response to Comment No. 9 -3 The Project's "advanced design" relates to a myriad of features. Generally speaking, the proposed project has been designed to reflect a modem character, which complements the variety of architectural styles that exist within the Corona del Mar neighborhood. One significant "advanced design" attribute is the project's "curvilinear" form, which will allow the building to blend into the bluff when compared to the existing rectilinear features of the existing residential structure. Other advanced design features are the energy efficiency systems and design beyond the minimum Title 24 requirements planned by the applicant. The number and size of dwelling units in such a design, or any design, is typically a function of the land use density limitations and the applicant's objective(s). Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 2. 40 Page 36 Attainment of a given Objective (e.g., a sufficient number of units to justify certain project features) is subjective. Chapter 10 of the DEIR (Alternatives) discusses the extent to which each alternative would achieve the Objectives under the heading "Ability to Achieve Project Objectives." The comment asks "What 'architectural diversity' of the community is this [project] trying to emulate ?" First, diversity is not conforming or emulating what currently exists. By its nature, a project contributes to a community's "diversity" by being different. The project reflects diversity by not "trying to emulate" other structures in the community. As a result, the project has been designed to reflect a modern character, which complements the variety of architectural styles that exist within the immediate neighborhood. The project will add distinction to the harbor and the neighborhood by redeveloping an existing site that was developed in 1949 and 1955. The existing dwelling units are older than many in the Corona del Mar neighborhood. The age and architectural character of the existing residential structures contrast with the character and quality of nearby homes, which have been remodeled and/or rebuilt and exhibit a variety of architectural themes that provide visual interest and variety. Response to Comment No. 9 -4 The proposed project includes the undergrounding of the existing overhead utility lines at the comer of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. This is a voluntary off -site community benefit provided by the applicant in order to improve the aesthetic character of the area- The Subdivision Code (Title 19 of the Municipal Code) requires that utility lines for the project be underground. Since there are existing overhead utility lines to the site, the applicant will be required to place these lines underground to the nearest utility pole. Undergrounding of overhead lines beyond that point would not be required by Code. Response to Comment No. 9 -5 The proposed Aerie project has been designed utilizing "green" architecture criteria and energy efficient design, including but not limited to the following features: • Design to maximize solar orientation to increase the use of daylighting concepts and reduce energy usage. • Use of high - thermal mass for capturing and retaining heat through solar heat gain apertures. • Optimum overhangs to minimize harsh summer sun exposures while allowing winter heat gain. • Natural ventilation systems that capitalize on prevailing ocean breezes and thermal convection dynamics. • Dual paned glazing systems using "Low -E" glass (both non - mechanical and hybrid systems). • Solar domestic hot water and pool heating. • Solar photovoltaic arrays to generate electricity. • Multi- zoned, high velocity hydronic heating and cooling systems. Instantaneous hot water boilers with solar domestic hot water assist. • Reduction of energy use through high efficacy lighting fixtures. • Lutron Homeworks interactive lighting control systems. The comment asks why another project incorporating such design features is not being built instead. To the extent that these often expensive features are not required by local, state or federal regulations, their inclusion into the project is a business decision of the applicant rather than a regulatory decision imposed by the agency. Many or all of these features could be incorporated into another project. The City has the discretion to approve or deny the project as proposed. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 1 Page 37 Response to Comment No, 9 -6 This comment reflects the opinion of the commenter and raises no environmental issues. No response is necessary. Response to Comment No. 9 -7 The comment questions Project Objective No. 5 and indicates that the project will decrease parking on the street. This statement is incorrect in that the length of the curb cut that currently provides vehicular access to the site will be substantially reduced. This will result in the creation of three on- street public parking spaces. The addition of these on- street parking spaces is considered a beneficial impact, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. Second, the project proposes a total of 25 parking spaces for the 8 condominiums, including 16 for residents, eight visitor spaces, and one service vehicle space. Additionally, two parking spaces have been provided for golf carts. This far exceeds the City's requirement of 20 parking spaces for an 8 -unit condominium structure on the site. One residential unit and five guest parking spaces will not rely upon the use of the vehicle elevators. Two vehicle elevators are proposed to provide access to the remaining subterranean parking, which will minimize inconvenience and conflict. As indicated in Section 4.2 (refer to page 4.2 -7), the entire elevator loading, elevator motion, and unloading procedure requires between one and one and one half minutes. Maintenance of the elevators will be required and emergency power supply will be required to ensure use of the elevators during a power outage. As a result, project residents and guests will be well served by on -site parking. Response to Comment No. 9 -8 The commenter is directed to Section 4.5 (Aesthetics), and particularly to the 17 visual simulations contained in that section. Although project implementation will result in the introduction of a different structure on the site, views from important public vantages (e.g., Begonia Park) would not be inhibited as a result of the project. Views through the site from the "public view point" at Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue adjacent to the project would be enhanced As indicated in Response to Comment No. 2 -20, all invasive plant species will also be removed. . The view angle through the site from that location to the harbor and ocean would be increased by approximately 76 percent as a result of project implementation. In addition, the project will result in an enhanced view of the bluff below the proposed building when viewed from the Bay. Presently, the bluff face is altered to varying degrees with retaining walls supporting the apartment building and exterior walkways. This bluff face alteration due to existing development extends down the bluff faced to varying elevations from approximately 68 feet to as low as 42.3 feet. As a result of development, these altered portions of the bluff face below elevation 50.7 feet NAVD88 (PLOED) will be restored. The remainder of the bluff face below the PLOED established by the City Council will be preserved. These aspects of the proposed project will avoid a significant impact to the visual quality and views (which is a goal of the PLOED policies adopted by the City). Views from important public vantages such as Begonia Park would not be significantly affected by the proposed project. The EIR Aesthetics analysis evaluated three views from Begonia Park (refer to Exhibits 4.5 -9, 4.5 -10, and 4.5 -11): From the lower bench within the Park (Exhibit 4.5 -9), the harbor and ocean to the west are clearly visible following implementation of the project. The proposed multiple - family residential structure and associated landscaping will extend outward onto the bluff and encroach slightly into the viewshed beyond the limits of the existing apartment building and single - family residence that currently occupy the site. However, only a small portion of the ocean view at the horizon would be affected by the proposed project from the lower Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 1 Page 38 bench of Begonia Park; no portion of the harbor visible from this location would be affected by the proposed project. From the upper bench of Begonia Park (Exhibit 4.5 -10), it is apparent that site development would extend outward onto the north face of the bluff, affecting a small area of the ocean view at the horizon- Similar to the lower bench view, no portion of the harbor view would be affected. The final visual simulation of the proposed project from Begonia Park (Exhibit 4.5 -11) reveals that although the northerly encroachment of the multiple - family residential structure into the viewshed will occur, the effect on this view will be minimal. Only a small portion of the ocean at the horizon in the background would be eliminated from view and the view of the harbor is not reduced; however, this change would not be significant because it represents a nearly indistinguishable increment of the total viewshed and, in particular, the ocean view. Based on the significance criteria identified in Section 4.5.2, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant aesthetic impacts. Specifically, as discussed above, the proposed structure would not adversely affect views from Begonia Park. Finally, the proposed project includes the voluntary undergrounding of existing off -site overhead utility poles and overhead lines at the comer of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue to improve and enhance the aesthetic character of the area. The City cannot require the undergrounding of the off -site overhead power lines and utility pole removal other than the power lines that extend from the utility pole directly across Carnation Avenue to the project. This comment expresses the opinion that the undergrounding of the utility lines and utility pole removal is insignificant. This opinion is noted and no further response is necessary. Response to Comment No. 9 -9 Project Objective No. 8 indicates that the applicant wants to minimize the projects impact upon private views by developing a project on average four feet below the zoning districts development standards. The comment suggests that the DEIR comment on the impact of the projects "maximum exceedences (sic)" that will occur. The project does not exceed the height limit of the zoning code and private views are not protected by any City policy or regulation. The commenter is directed to Section 4.5 (Aesthetics), and particularly to the 17 visual simulations contained in that section, for a discussion regarding the projects impact upon views. Response to Comment No. 9 -10 Table 1 -1 in the Chapter 1.0 (Executive Summary) is not intended to provide an exhaustive analysis of the proposed project. Rather it provides a matrix that summarizes the potentially significant project- related impacts, mitigation measures (including standard conditions and project design features), and the residual impacts anticipated after the implementation of the project with the "mifigation." The conclusions contained in Table 1 -1 are based on the analysis presented in each of the topical sections (e.g., Land Use /Relevant Planning, Traffic and Circulation, Noise, etc.), which reflect the findings and recommendations in each of the relevant technical studies prepared for the project as well as other research and analysis conducted for the project. The analysis of relevant General Plan policies (refer to Table 4.1 -1) and Coastal Land Use Plan policies (refer to Table 4.1 -2) revealed that the proposed project does adequately address the relevant policies and is consistent with those policies, including the provision of the 8 -slip dock. Recognizing that Table 1 -1 is a summary, the commenter is referred to each of the individual sections to obtain a better understanding of the analysis presented in the DEIR. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 3 1 Page 39 Response to Comment No. 9 -11 Section 4.9.3 (refer to page 4.9 -3) identifies four "standard conditions ", including compliance with all applicable City codes (e.g., Excavation and Grading Ordinance) and the California Building Code requirements to ensure that potential soils and geologic characteristics that affect site development are adequately addressed in the grading and building design. In addition, extensive analysis of the site's soils and geologic conditions have been undertaken and completed, which serve to guide development of the site. Response to Comment No. 9 -12 The waiver of shoreline protection that will be executed by the property owner requires, as a condition of building the project and obtaining a coastal development permit, that the property owner waive its right under the coastal act to install future shoreline protective devices, such as a seawall, if its property is threatened by marine erosion. This requirement is a standard condition required by CLUP Policy 2.8.6 -9 that is applied for all development occurring along the City's coastal bluff areas. Response to Comment No. 9 -13 This is a standard condition that has no specific application to this project except for the concrete pad. As pointed out in this comment, no new accessory structures are proposed. There is no information known to the City related to routine maintenance, soil integrity, or coastal erosion that has not been disclosed to the public in the DEIR and supporting technical studies. Additionally, routine maintenance is not a "project" in the context of CEQA necessitating environmental analysis. Response to Comment No. 9 -14 The geotechnical study prepared by Neblett & Associates was subject to a third party review by GMU. That review resulted in some comments on the analysis conducted for the proposed project, which have been addressed by the project geologist. In addition, the soils and geologic reports prepared for the proposed project have been submitted to the City for review by the City's Building and Safety Department. The project shall be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in those reports, subsequent detailed soils engineering studies, and applicable City and State building code requirements. All final plans and final engineering report and calculations will be subject to plan check review, which will be performed by the City Building Department engineers to ensure that the grading and structural designs comply with the requirements stipulated by the geologist and the requirements of the most current California Building Code. Response to Comment No. 9 -15 The "first section" (i.e., Potential Impacts) in Table 1 -1 for biological resources is not applicable. The Standard Conditions identified in the next column (i.e., Mitigation Measures) are simply conditions that must be implemented by all projects (e.g,, compliance with local, state and /or federal laws and regulations, etc.) in the event they are applicable. In this case, because a portion of the project is located Within the marine environment, the project must comply with State law related to marine organisms. In addition, because the site is located within the City's coastal zone, the City requires the use of native, drought tolerant plant species consistent with the coastal environment. The "standard conditions' are not mitigation measures; however, they will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (MMRP) to ensure that the project complies with all local, state and federal requirements. Response to Comment No. 9 -16 Refer to Response to Comment No. 9 -14. Aerie (PA 2005-196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 iV Page 40 Response to Comment No. 9 -17 The "qualified" biologist will be selected by the applicant subject to approval by the City of Newport Beach. The biologist shall possess any requisite certifications that may be required by the California Department of Fish and Game and /or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct the pre - construction surveys. Response to Comment No. 9 -18 The commenter's statement does not reflect the facts and analysis as presented in the DEIR. All of the project design features incorporated to avoid potentially significant impacts are enumerated in both the executive summary (Table 1 -1), Section 43, and the CMP. The commenter is directed to those discussions to better understand the means by which the project applicant has agreed to implement pre- emptive measures to avoid impacts to biological resources. Response to Comment No. 9 -19 The 30 square feet of eelgrass bed that has a potential to be affected by the project represents 0.3% of the eelgrass mapped in 2005 (10,155 square feet) and 2007 (10, 082 square feet), both within Carnation Cove and in the vicinity of the proposed dock project. It represents 0.8% of the total amount of eelgrass just in the vicinity of the proposed dock. Response to Comment No. 9 -20 Refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 3 -24 and 5 -5. Response to Comment No. 9 -21 The construction impacts to eelgrass are fully addressed in the biological assessment and in Section 4.7 in the DEIR. Construction impacts relate to potential loss of eelgrass during pile emplacement and the spread of turbidity plumes. All piles will be pre - drilled, since there is rock and shale below the surface. A steel sleeve can be placed around the drilling operation to control the sedimentation during the installation process. The contractor and coastal engineer will also work to contain and /or minimize the tailings from the hole, to reduce impacts to water quality and eelgrass bed resources. Measures to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance any loss of eelgrass are set forth in the CMP and on page 4.7 -16 in the Draft EIR. Response to Comment No. 9 -22 Should losses of eelgrass be documented during the pre -and post-construction surveys, a detailed mitigation plan will be developed at that time to offset project losses of eelgrass and included as part of the Coastal Commission permit conditions. Losses of eelgrass will be mitigated at a mitigation -to- impact ratio of 1.2 to 1 per the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991, as amended) by conducting an eelgrass transplant program either on -site, or within Newport Bay. Contrary to the commenter's contention, when the formulation of the precise means of mitigating impacts is truly impractical at the time of project approval, the agency may devise measures that will satisfy specific performance criteria identified at the time of project approval. (See e.g., Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council, 229 Cal.App.3d 1011(1991).) The provisions of the CMP identified above constitute such a commitment by the applicant and the City to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance all potential impacts to eelgrass. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 45 t Page 41 Response to Comment No. 9 -23 As noted in the DEIR, the public has and will continue to have access to Carnation Cove up to the mean high tide line. Neither the applicant nor the future residents have the authority to restrict that access at the present time. The cove is currently not designated as a protected resource (e.g., ESHA) and there are no legal impediments to the enjoyment by the public of the cove below the mean high tide line. Nonetheless, the CMP provides for measures to restrict enjoyment of the cove by workers during construction in order to avoid potential impacts to the sand dollars from their use of the cove. To achieve that objective, the CMP provides for the use of signage and tape to clearly identify the area and discourage use by construction workers. A project marine biologist will perform weekly onsile inspections to assure that the required protections are in place (refer to page 4.7 -18 in the Draft EIR). Response to Comment No. 9 -24 This comment simply disagrees with the conclusion presented in the Draft EIR without providing any basis for that disagreement. The conclusion in the Draft EIR that visual impacts are not significant is based on an extensive visual analysis that includes several visual simulations that illustrates the proposed project from vantages in the project environs. As suggested in that analysis, views to the site will be altered by the development; however, the proposed project has been designed to avoid significant visual impacts. The project respects the predominant line of existing development established by the City and the structure has been sited to conform to the bluff topography. Building materials, colors and landscaping have been incorporated into the project to complement the natural topographic features. Views from Begonia Park are not significantly affected. Although views from the channel would be momentarily affected by the construction of the boat dock and related facilities, no important visual amenity (e.g., rock outcropping, cove, etc.) would be destroyed or permanently affected. Furthermore, views through the site will be enhanced as a result of the underground of some overhead utilities and an expansion of views through the site from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. As a result, potential visual impacts would not be significant. Response to Comment No. 9 -25 This comment suggests that the lighting mitigation section is incomplete. Although SC 4.5 -1 was mislabeled as SC 4.5.1 on page 4.5 -2, three standard conditions (not mitigation measures) are included in this section of the Draft EIR, which is not incomplete. Response to Comment No. 9 -26 SC 4.5 -3 (not SC 4.5 -2 as indicated in this comment) requires the applicant to dedicate a view easement on the subject property. The intent of the view easement, which will be in favor of the public, is the protection and enhancement of public views through the site from Ocean Boulevard. As indicated in SC 4.5 -3, the site must be designed to ensure that views are not blocked by structures and/or landscaping. The view easement is required to ensure that the view preservation and enhancement provided by the project remain in perpetuity for the benefit of the public. Response to Comment No. 9 -27 Encroachment into the Monterey Formation alone does not result in an actual impact, although it does create the potential for impacts to paleontological resources. However, those potential impacts are less than significant because a paleontological monitor will be present during grading activities (SC 4.10 -2). As indicated in that condition, the paleontological monitor has the authority to redirect or halt excavation until the fossils are evaluated and /or savaged. Furthermore, any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, will be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository, thereby avoiding potentially significant impacts. Aerie (PA 2006 -196) Responses to Pobft Comments May 2009 4 4(0 Page 42 Response to Comment No. 9 -28 The commenter presumably expresses the opinion that there will be a negative impact to the public due to the project's increased street parking and a belief that the project will hade and hinder availability of beaches to the public. The commenter provides no basis or facts to support this contention. As set forth in Section 4.2 (Traffic and Circulation), project implementation will create three (3) additional on- street parking spaces (and not reduce it) with a reduction in the length of the existing driveway approach that currently provides access to the site. The proposed project provides a total of 25 off - street parking spaces (including two golf cart spaces and not including six "lift" parking spaces), which exceeds the City's off - street parking requirement of 20 spaces. By providing parking in excess of requirements, there will be reduced demand for street parking. With or without the project, the beach below the bluff is not visible from public areas adjacent to the project site. Project impacts would not result in any hindrance to public beach access. The cove below the bluff would not be blocked by the proposed dock and will remain accessible to kayakers and swimmers in the area to the same extent that it has been historically. Response to Comment No. 9 -29 The commenter provides conclusory statements without stating any basis for those conclusions. The only possible response is referring the commenter to the detailed discussion of drainage and hydrology contained in the DEIR. Section 4.6 (Drainage and Hydrology) provides a discussion of the post - development runoff and the potential impacts to water quality, including the effect on Newport Bay, which is an "impaired" water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. As required by the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the applicant has prepared a Draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to address construction- and post - construction water quality impacts, respectively. These plans include best management practices (BMPs) to filter pollutants, including bacteria, from stormwater to ensure that downstream water quality is not impacted. Several of the routine structural and non - structural BMPs are identified in the Section 4.6.4 0 the Draft EIR. In addition, several measures are also incorporated as "project design features" in the CMP, which also serve to avoid significant water quality impacts. As indicated on page 4.6 -11 in the Draft EIR, with the incorporation of the measures prescribed in the CMP. The potential impacts to marine life are discussed in Section 4.7 (Biological Resources). Impacts to eelgrass, Carnation Cove marine life, marine mammals, including special status marine species, etc., are discussed in Section 4.74. To ensure that dock construction activities do not adversely affect marine life, several project design features have been included in the CMP as indicated above. These measures are also identified on page 4.7 -16 (eelgrass) and other marine creatures (invertebrates). No significant impacts are anticipated to occur to marine fishes, mammals, reptiles, or birds. Response to Comment No. 9 -30 Based on a population per household (pph) of 2.19 persons (OCP- 2006), the proposed project would support fewer than 20 persons. The site currently supports 15 dwelling units on the site, including 14 apartment units and one single - family residence. Only three of the 15 units are currently occupied. However, if all of the units were to be occupied, the site would support about 33 residents based on the 2.19 pph in the City. As a result, the proposed project would support fewer residents that the existing apartment building and single - family residence. Relative to density, the proposed project has a density of the proposed project is less than six dwelling units per acre (du /ac), compared to over 10 dulac for the existing development. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 7147 Page 43 10. Coast Law Group (May 4, 2009) Response to Comment Nos. 10 -1 through 10 -5 The commenter offers the interpretation that Natural Resources Policy NR23.1 provides two separate and distinct development objectives that are to minimize alteration of a site's natural topography and to preserve the site's features as a visual resource. The commenter points to CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -12 and the narrative of the Coastal Land Use Plan regarding the goal to control bluff face development to minimize further alteration. These two objectives cannot be separate and distinct when considering that CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8 that allows development on the Corona del Mar bluff faces provided it is done so in accordance with the identified PLOED. If minimizing alteration of a site's topography were a separate goal, minimizing alteration would suggest no alteration beyond that associated with existing development would be allowable. If this were the case, a site well within the PLOED could not achieve development levels comparable to the predominant development pattern and an inequity would be created that is contrary to Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9. Both of the NR23.1 objectives are achieved when development does not alter the topography of the site in excess of the PLOED. The comment incorrectly states that the intent of the CLUP is to prohibit any further alteration of coastal bluffs in Corona del Mar. Development on coastal bluff faces in Corona del Mar, including Carnation Avenue, is controlled to minimize further alteration and is permitted by CLUP Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9. Development must be within the PLOED. The City Council established a PLOED for the site at elevation 50.7 feet NAVD88. The project is proposed to be more than two feet higher than the PLOED at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD88, except for a dock access /emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD88, which will be recessed and screened from public view by rocks and/or landscape elements. The basement and sub- basement levels are subterranean and will not be visible from either the street or the bay. Project implementation will result in the removal of man -made elements (except the existing access stair on the bluff face) located below the PLOED that currently affect the visual character and integrity of the bluff. Specifically, the bluff face is altered to varying degrees with retaining walls supporting the apartment building and exterior walkways. This bluff face alteration due to existing development extends down the bluff faced to varying elevations from approximately 68 feet to as low as 42.3 feet. As a result of development, these altered portions of the bluff face below elevation 50.7 feet NAVD88 ( PLOED) will be restored. The remainder of the bluff face below the PLOED established by the City Council will be preserved. These aspects of the proposed project will avoid a significant impact to the visual quality and views and will result in an enhanced view of the bluff below the proposed building when viewed from the Bay. The commenter suggests that that the project is inconsistent with a portion of CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8 that ..permits such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists..." The reference in CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8 to "such improvements' has been interpreted by the City Council to refer to the "public improvements' referenced in the first sentence of the policy and not "private development." Therefore, the commenter's interpretation of Policy 4.4.3 -8 is not accurate. The comment further states that "to the extent bluff - related development is permitted in the Corona del Mar area at all, it must be consistent with and limited to the scope of pre- existing structures such that further landform alterations are avoided. These limitations apply because bluff face development is now strictly prohibited and is only allowed per those grand- fathered uses." The commenter presumably believes that bluff face further development of bluff faces is prohibited except where pre- existing structures have altered the bluff face. Indeed this is one interpretation of PLOED policies, but it fails to recognize the fundamental principal of the policy. Properties are presently developed on the bluff face to differing degrees and those properties that are not developed consistent with the predominant development pattern are allowed to further alter the bluff face to achieve development judged to be within the identified predominant development pattern. it is a way to preserve a measure of equity in property rights by allowing similar lots in similar topographic settings to be developed in a similar manner. In this Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Z 4 6 Page 44 case, the City Council considered the existing development along the Carnation /Ocean bluff and the identified the PLOED at 50.7 feet NAVD88. The project is proposed to be more than two feet higher than the PLOED at elevation 52.83 feet, except for a dock access /emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet that is recessed and screened from public view. As a result, the proposed project is consistent with existing development pattern of the area and it preserves the bluff face below the proposed residential structure as a visual resource in a manner that minimized alteration of the site's natural topography consistent with CLUP and General Plan policy. Response to Comment No. 10 -6 The comment incorrectly concludes that that CLUP's policies apply to subterranean excavation and "lateral encroachments." This conclusion is not supported by the plain wording of the CLUP policies. The referenced policies (4.4.3) never discuss subterranean excavation and/or lateral encroachments. To the contrary, they regularly make reference to "bluff faces" (4.4.3 -8, 4.4.3 -9). Therefore, the DEIR properly concludes that the project is consistent with the CLUP policies analyzed in Table 4.1 -2. With respect to minimizing landform alteration, refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 10 -1 through 10 -3. Response to Comment No. 10-7 The comment incorrectly states that the project will result in the eradication of the site's underlying coastal bluff. As stated in these responses to comments, the lowest elevation of the proposed project (other than the dock access /emergency exit) is approximately 10 feet higher on the bluff than the lowest extent of a portion of the foundation of the existing residential structure. Additionally, excavation behind the bluff face will not adversely affect either the stability of the bluff or appearance of the bluff. The issues raised by this comment are fully addressed in General Plan and CLUP consistency analyses (refer to Tables 4.1 -1 and 4.1 -2, respectively) in Section 4.1 of the DEIR. It is important to note that the reason to minimize landform alteration is to avoid visual impacts in the context of the CLUP policies and Coastal Act. Alteration of the bluff below and behind the bluff face and PLOED does not compromise either the integrity of the bluff as intended in Policy NR 23.1 or the PLOED as established by the City Council. While the intent of Policy NR 23.1 may be the "preservation" of the bluff, development must balance the goals of maintaining /enhancing the aesthetic character of a coastal bluff and, at the same time, minimize landform alteration. The project has been designed to achieve that balance by respecting the PLOED as established by the City Council, incorporation of a landscape palette that is complementary to the City's coastal bluff environment, and siting and designing the structure to conform to the existing bluff topography. As a result, the project is consistent with the intent of these policies. Response to Comment No. 10 -8 The commenter provides conclusory statement without stating any basis for those conclusions. The comment alleges that excavation associated with the proposed project would "set an incredibly poor precedent for future develop merit in the area and would lead to the complete destruction of the City's coastal bluffs over time." This is incorrect. Developments like the proposed project require extensive environmental review prior to approval. If such future projects could lead to bluff instability or erosion impacts, those issues would be examined in the course of that environmental review. Ultimately, the City will make an individualized determination as to the appropriateness of a given project for a given site. It is therefore both inaccurate and irresponsible to suggest that approval of the proposed project would somehow "lead to the complete destruction of the City's coastal bluffs over time." The comment further alleges that excavation associated with the proposed project would "would permanently alter the 100,000 year -old bluff in favor of leaving a rock 'pillar that is only expected to remain in place for the structure's 75 -year economic life." This intentionally misrepresents the DEIR's Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 49 Page 45 reference to a 75 -year economic life. The reference to 75 years in the DEIR was not intended as an upper -limit on the durability of the rock pillar. Instead, it was a direct response to CLUP Policy 2.8.6 -10, which requires developers to "[s]ite and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years)." A number of technical studies have been prepared to assess the potential project to ensure that development of the site is consistent with CLUP Policy 2.8.6 -10. These studies include: (1) Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005; (2) Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006; (3) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated June 2005 (revised January 17, 2008); and (4) Hydrology analysis prepared by Hunsaker & Associates Irvine dated March 2007 (Revised December 20, 2007). Collectively, the findings of these studies and technical review documents indicate that the project will neither be subject to nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). In addition, the proposed project will be designed to comply with current CBC structural design parameters and other measures prescribed in the geologicfgeotechnical report prepared for the project. Additionally, to further validate the conclusions of the studies pertaining to the stability of the bluff, the City retained an independent third party geologist to review the stability issue. That third party geologist, GMU, concurred with the conclusions of the reports regarding bluff stability. Although footnote 4 of this comment suggests that the engineering and geological studies defy common sense, the reality is those studies are based on sound scientific and engineering data and analysis. Additionally, footnote 5 of this comment states that the DEIR does not identify the square footage of the site's residential structures. The DEIR provided information related to the size of the site, number of units, percent of site coverage to provide the appropriate baseline for evaluating project impacts. As a point of information, the square footage of the site's existing residential structures is approximately 16,493 square feet. (Note: This number is referenced in the Air Quality Technical Appendix.) Response to Comment No. 10 -9 Refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 3 -8, 2 -11, 3 -18, and 10-4. The comment states that "the Project violates the protective policies of the General Plan and CLUP), as the proposed development has not been designed to 'minimize alteration' of the site's natural topography and underlying bluff "to the maximum extent feasible." (Emphasis in original.) The City disagrees. The project is proposed to be more than two feet higher than the PLOED at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD88, except for a dock access /emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD88. As a point of reference, the lowest reach down the bluff face of the existing apartment building is 42.3 feet NAVD88. Project implementation will therefore result in up to a maximum of approximately 10 additional vertical feet of bluff face along a portion of the bluff that is currently altered, as compared with existing conditions. As an added benefit, the man -made features (e.g., concrete remnants, pipes, etc.) would be removed from the bluff face below the proposed structure, which would be landscaped and enhanced with native plant materials. Response to Comment No. 10 -10 The comment incorrectly concludes that the proposed project would result in "significant visual and aesthetic impacts under CEQA" because it will be taller and larger than existing development. This comment reflects disagreement with the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR. However, it does not provide new facts or new analysis that would permit a meaningful response. Other than noting that the project is not a high rise structure and it is not the tallest structure nor the structure with the greatest number of stories in the vicinity, the commenter is referred to the analysis in Section 4.1 (Land Use /Relevant Planning) and Section 4.5 (Aesthetics) for the detailed analysis supporting the conclusions presented in the DEIR. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 1 50 Page 46 Response to Comment No. 10 -11 It should be noted that a comparative floor area analysis, as suggested in this comment, is not necessarily the only or best measure of determining potential visual impacts related to the physical mass of a particular structure within a visual context. Other factors, such as architecture, building materials, site design, and conformity with the natural topographic features, in this case, a coastal bluff, are but a few of the factors that determine a project's potential visual impacts. The Corona del Mar community is represented by a variety of architectural styles and designs and is characterized by a range of smaller single - family detached residences to large, multiple - family structures when viewed from the harbor. Although the proposed multiple - family structure be unique in character, its mass would not be unique when compared to other structures in the immediate vicinity, including the Channel Reef development. What the comment characterizes as an "abuse of discretion" is reference to a much larger project two lots from the proposed project. To the contrary, to pretend that the diversity of architecture and structures within the neighborhood does not exist would ignore the directives of CEQA to analyze the project in the context of the existing environment. Many of the 17 visual simulations contained in Section 4.5 clearly depict the diverse structures both in terms of design and mass that are present in the neighborhood. In addition, these simulations illustrate that the physical mass of the proposed structure is not out of character when viewed in context with the existing structures. Response to Comment No. 10 -12 This comment is incorrect. The height and bulk of the boats anticipated to utilize the proposed dock facilities are illustrated in each of the visual simulations from the harbor vantages (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -14 through 4.5 -19). As indicated in those visual simulations and discussed in the accompanying analysis of the view impacts, the potential effects of the proposed docks would alter views from several vantages; however, the views would only be interrupted for a short period of time as one travels up and down the channel. None of the existing aesthetic amenities (e.g., bluff formations below the PLOED, rock outcroppings, cove, etc.) would be destroyed or permanently damaged as a result of project implementation and views to the bluff and below, although temporarily affected, would not be lost. As a result, potential visual impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Response to Comment Nos. 10-13 and 10 -14 As indicated in the visual analysis and reiterated in Response to Comment No. 10 -12, none of the existing rock outcroppings would be destroyed or permanently altered. The proposed project has been designed in accordance with the established predominant line of existing development (PLOED) established by the Newport Beach City Council with the exception of the emergency access, which has been designed to be indiscernible from the harbor. Exhibit 4.5-4 (Simulation V02) does provide a visual perspective from Channel Road Beach, which is located across the channel from the subject property. As indicated in that visual simulation and discussed on page 4.5 -8 in the Draft EIR, when occupied by one or more boats, the proposed boat docks would also obscure some of the rock features located below the bluff. However, it is important to note that views of the majority of the natural features located north of the proposed docks would not be affected. The affect would be similar to that related to view blockage that would occur with boats that could be docked at the existing dock facilities. Therefore, while the proposed project would result in some long -term obstruction from public vantages along the Peninsula, the incremental effect of such obstruction when compared to the existing obstructions as well as those that could occur from the use of the existing docks would be less than significant. Aerie (PA 2005-196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 v7 Page 47 (r Response to Comment No. 10 -15 Refer to Response to Comment No. 2 -21. Response to Comment No. 10 -16 Based on the data provided in Section 7 of the referenced report, and using a distance of 130 feet from the proposed dock construction to the beach at Carnation Cove, it is estimated that the average construction noise level will be 72 dB(A) and the maximum noise level will be 77 dB(A) during the drilling phase. During the concrete pile phase the estimated average construction noise level will be 69 dB(A) and the maximum noise level will be 77 dB(A). The estimated increase in noise level due to construction activities will be 14.6 to 21.5 dB(A) during the drilling phase and 11,6 to 18.5 dB(A) during the concrete pile phase. These levels do not substantially increase the severity of the identified noise impact and do not change the DEIR's finding of unavoidable significant construction noise impacts. Recreational uses in the small cove are limited to swimming and kayaking when the tide is higher in the Bay and occasionally sun bathing when the cove is exposed at low tide. Physical access from the water wiVi be maintained during construction of the docks; however, visitors may choose to avoid the cove during the construction period. Noise would be intermittent during the day and intermittent during the overall construction. Assuming that access to the cove might be affected for up to 40 days, the resulting impact to access (for recreational use of the cove) is considered less than significant considered the intermittent, short-term nature of the potential impact. With respect to footnote 7, crane usage at the project site was estimated by the project's architect to occur for less than 15 percent of the time. The graphics in the Construction Noise and Vibration Study depict average conditions for each of the major construction phases. Inclusion of noise contour graphics for all types of equipment that would be used during the construction of the proposed project would not be practical. The noise contour graphics were included to portray typical noise level exposures at the noise sensitive uses proximate to the project site. Due to the intermittent and infrequent nature of crane usage at the project site, this noise source was not included as part of the portrayal of typical conditions. In addition, the inclusion of noise generated by intermittent crane usage would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of noise impacts or change the finding of unavoidable significant construction noise impacts nor would it substantially change the magnitude of noise generated at the project site. Response to Comment No. 10 -17 The commenter is correct that maximum noise levels were not identified in the main body of the DEIR. However, as indicated in the comment, they can be found in Appendix E of the DEIR. The location of these maximum noise levels within the DEIR does not affect the DEIR's analysis or conclusions. With regard to a "standard 65 dB threshold of significance for assessing residential noise impacts ", the 65 dB standard referred to in the comment is a community noise equivalent level (CNEL) standard and is applied only to transportation noise (e.g., traffic) since it considers 24 hours of continuous noise exposure. Construction noise is controlled by Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity — Noise Regulations) of the City's Municipal Code. This section of the Code controls construction noise by regulating the hours during which it is allowed to occur. There are no quantitative standards for construction noise levels. Response to Comment No. 10 -18 The noise impacts associated with the installation of concrete piles are discussed in Appendix E of the DEIR. Referring to the appendix, it can be seen that both the average and maximum construction noise levels during the concrete pile phase of dock construction are expected to be less than the noise levels during the drilling phase. The location of this discussion within the DEIR does not change the DEIR's finding of unavoidable significant construction noise impacts nor does it change the magnitude of construction noise generated at the project site. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 48 6 The noise impacts at residences across the Channel are discussed in Appendix E of the DEIR. The location of this discussion within the DEIR does not change the DEIR's finding of unavoidable significant construction noise impacts. With regard to the 65 dB threshold, please refer to Response 10 -17. Response to Comment No. 10-19 The comment states that the vibration analysis only addresses construction equipment working 80 feet from vibration - sensitive uses. Both the average and maximum vibration levels were assessed as shown in Table 18 of the Construction Noise and Vibration Study. The average vibration level is based on equipment operating at the center of the project site, approximately 80 feet from the nearest residence. The maximum vibration level is based on equipment generally working between 9 and 13 feet from the nearest residence as shown in the attached tables. The attached table summarizing vibration further supports the conclusions regarding vibration impacts set forth in the DEIR. Response to Comment No. 10-20 The comment requests that cosmetic and structural damage be taken into account in the DEIR. Cosmetic and structural damage from construction activities were evaluated as shown in the analysis starting on page 4.4 -22 of the DEIR, Section 7.2 of the Environmental Noise Study for the Construction of the Proposed Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project, and Section 4.2.2 of the Construction Noise and Vibration Study. Cosmetic and structural damage are considered as the same type of impact. The DEIR specifies cosmetic damage relative to project generated vibration because structural damage may imply damage to the structural integrity of a building, which would not occur due to construction activities. The comment also requests that the analysis consider site conditions, including the geology at the project site. The methodology for the assessment of vibration impacts is consistent with the methods adopted by the Federal Transit Administration for construction activities. Prediction of vibration impacts is inherently difficult due to the multitude of variables, such as geologic strata, soil type, presence of water, etc. The most accurate method of determining levels of vibration at sensitive uses is through the use of vibration monitoring equipment included in the Construction Management Plan (CMP). The CMP requires that vibration probes be placed at 215 Carnation Avenue to monitor construction activities at the site due to its proximity and relationship to the subject property. A vibration monitoring program will identify any construction activity that exceeds the criteria for cosmetic damage. If cosmetic damage occurs, the applicant has agreed to indemnify the property owners in the immediately contiguous lots against any losses resulting from that cosmetic damage, provided that those contiguous owners provide the applicant with access to their structures to allow a pre - demolition inspection of the current condition of their structures. With the implementation of the vibration monitoring, which includes use of alternative methods if vibration levels have the potential to cause cosmetic or structural damage and the requirement to indemnify property owners of vibration - induced cosmetic /structural damage, vibration impacts were found to be less than significant. Response to Comment No. 10 -21 The comment states that the DEIR's analysis of annoyance from construction - generated vibration is deficient in that it exceeds the FTA's threshold of perceptibility. Although the vibration does exceed the threshold of perceptibility, as stated in the DEIR and the Construction Noise and Vibration Study, the assessment of human annoyance from construction vibration were based collectively on four criteria and not a single one: 1. perceptibility 2. frequency of occurrence 3. time of occurrence Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 V53 3 Page 49 4. duration These four criteria provide a more comprehensive approach to the assessment of what constitutes "excessive" vibration impacts (as cited by the comment) as opposed to the sole criterion of vibration perceptibility. An example of this is inherent in the assessment of construction noise. Construction noise would be perceptible for hundreds of feet and, in some instances, thousands of feet. However, the mere audibility of construction noise does not constitute an impact. As with the assessment of vibration impacts, the same factors required for vibration assessment need to be considered. For example, if a backhoe were used for utility trenching along a roadway during the day for four months, the noise from this activity would be perceptible, but, due to the occurrence during the least noise sensitive portion of the day, it would not be a significant construction noise impact. However, if this same backhoe were working in the late night for the same amount of time to avoid causing traffic congestion, it would likely be construed as a significant construction noise impact due to the increased sensitivity people have to noise during the late night. The noise generation from the backhoe would remain the same, but the other factors need to be considered in the overall assessment of vibration impacts. Because of the importance of these four criteria, the vibration impact analysis for construction activities does not rely solely on perceptibility to determine potential vibration impacts. Response to Comments No. 10-22 through 10 -27 Comments acknowledged. Refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 2 -9, 2 -36, and 4 -5. In regards to vessel transit, vessels transit throughout Newport Harbor transit over eelgrass beds in the vicinity of Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, Balboa Peninsula, Bay Island, and Harbor /Linda Isles, and within yacht club basins. Except for where depths are extremely shallow (at the inner edges of docks), we have observed no propeller scars or evidence of adverse impacts due to normal vessel movement approaching docks. Eelgrass in the vicinity of the project dock area is located at depths between -6 to -12 ft MLLW, These depths are sufficient for vessel transit to and from the docks without adverse impacts to eelgrass. The commenter further expresses the opinion that the proposed dock structures are not consistent with CLUP Policies 4.1.4 -3 and 4.2.5 -1 in that they have not been designed to avoid impacts to eelgrass to the `greatest extent possible" and that insufficient mitigation is proposed for operation of the slips. Policy 4.1.4 -3 calls for the design of structures including floating docks over the water to "avoid impacts to eelgrass meadows." Policy 4.2.5 -1 states; "Avoid impacts to eelgrass (Zostera marina) to the greatest extent possible. Mitigate the loss of eelgrass at a 1.2 to 1 mitigation ratio and in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Encourage the restoration of eelgrass throughout Newport Harbor where feasible." Both policies provide for mitigation of impacts. Refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 2 -9, 2 -36, and 4 -5 and Section 4.7 (Biological Resources) of the DEIR for a discussion of measures that have been incorporated within the project to avoid and mitigate impacts to eelgrass. The proposed docks have been designed to avoid the eelgrass beds to the maximum extent while providing one slip per unit and maintaining necessary maneuvering area between the proposed docks and nearby docks for the safety of use. The only possible way to avoid impacts and further is to provide a smaller dock structure thereby providing berthing for fewer boats or smaller boats. Given the nature of the propose project, this change is not practical; however, the City Council will need to consider if the project has avoided and mitigated impacts to eelgrass consistent with CLUP policies. In regards to potential vessel - related impacts, vessels constantly transit throughout Newport Harbor over eelgrass beds and except where depths are extremely shallow (at the inner edges of docks at low tides), no propeller scars or evidence of adverse impacts due to normal vessel movement approaching docks have been observed. Eelgrass in the vicinity of the project dock area is located at depths between -6 to -12 ft MLLW. These depths are sufficient for vessel transit to and from the docks without adverse impacts to eelgrass. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 O r Page 50 Response to Comment Nos. 10 -28 through 10 -32 The construction work associated with the docks and gangway will not result in any significant impacts to the sand dollar habitat or eelgrass beds. Materials associated with the disassembly and demolition of the docks and the'over the water gangway' will be removed via a barge. The removal and repair on the upper fixed pier walkway will be completed from the walkway level after a protective barrier (15 mil Stegowrap) has been placed below it during construction to minimize the possibility that construction debris could impact the marine environment. As shown in the figure associated with comment 4 -5, sand dollars have not been identified in the sandy area near the pier walkway. That figure is based on a survey performed in August 2008 by Coastal Resource Management. As a result, all work associated with the upper fixed pier walkway will maintain a distance of no less than 50 feet from the sand dollar habitat. The repair to the concrete piers will be from the sandy area below and completed during low tide. Again, as shown in the figure associated with Response to Comment 4 -5, no sand dollars are located in this area. Each pier area will be protected by draping a 15 mil thick Stegowrap barrier over the sand and over the two -foot tail plywood wall that will be built around each concrete pier. All construction debris and concrete repairs will be contained within this 'clean zone' and will be removed from the site by the contractor by land. The construction barge will be outfitted with the drilling equipment, storage tanks, hoists, and materials, including the pre -cast piles. The concrete piles will be loaded onto the barge from a nearby shipyard, which will be the material loading and off - loading venue for the entire dock project. The drilling operation will incorporate a steel casing or sleeve around the hole to be drilled. During the drilling itself, a vacuum hose will extract debris from the casing and pump it into a storage tank on the barge, filtering materials from the sea water as it pumps. The concrete pre -cast pile will be hoisted from the barge into predrilled holes. Each pile will have a full depth silt curtain placed around it during the placement operation. Finally, the dock sections will be constructed and finished off site, delivered to the shipyard and floated to the Aerie site for assembly. Final utility distribution and dock accessories will be in -place on the floating dock. A marine biologist will monitor the dock demolition, pile installation and all associated rebuilding to ensure, among other things, implementation of Best Management Practices, as specified in the Construction Management Plan and DEIR (pages 4.7 -16, 18.) A silt screen will be placed across the entrance to the cove where eelgrass and sand dollar beds are located. The eelgrass silt curtains will be placed under the direction of the marine biologist for each operation. This will ensure that impacts to the intertidal marine resources will be avoided. Response to Comment No. 10 -33 Contrary to the commenter's contention, when the formulation of the precise means of mitigating impacts is truly impractical at the time of project approval, the agency may devise measures that will satisfy specific performance criteria identified at the time of project approval. (See e.g., Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council, 229 Cal.App.3d 1011(1991).) The commenter notes that surveys are proposed to be performed during the appropriate blooming window identified for each species, and argues that waiting for that blooming season is improper under CEQA. The basis for the commenter's contention appears to be that "all nine species are currently within their blooming window." However, the Notice of Preparation of the DEIR was published on September 23, 2008, and preparation of the DEIR, followed by public review, has occurred since that time. This period of preparation was not during the "blooming window" of the species, thus rendering the precise means of identifying and mitigating impacts to these species impractical. As a result, the CMP and the DEIR provide for a pre- construction nesting survey and a series of focused surveys to determine presence or absence of these species. As indicated in Section 4.7 (Biological Resources), a qualified botanist shall conduct focused surveys within the appropriate blooming windows to determine the presence or absence of these species. If during the focused surveys these Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 51 species are identified as being impacted by the development, an incidental take permit pursuant to Section 2081 of California Fish and Game Code will be required before a grading permit may be issued. Additionally, the proposed bluff landscaping plan incorporates native drought tolerant plant species that must be found to be compatible and consistent with California coastal bluff environment. Thus, the legal requirements discussed above have been satisfied. The provisions of the CMP and the DEIR constitute the required commitment by the applicant and the City to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance all potential impacts to special status plant species. Response to Comment No. 10 -34 The Construction Management Plan requires one or more off -site parking location(s) to be secured in order to prevent construction workers from parking in the neighborhood surrounding the project site. The project applicant will be required to secure a binding agreement to accommodate the varying number of workers needed for each construction phase, which agreement shall be presented to the City prior to the issuance of the permits for the phase of construction that will require the off -site parking. This agreement must ensure that (1) the off -site parking location will commit a sufficient number of spaces to Aerie construction workers during the relevant term, and (2) the off -site location possesses the proper permits and authority to rent the subject spaces. Once the proper agreements are in place, two ten - passenger shuttle vans will run up to 6 -8 trips each morning and evening and up to 5 trips at lunch time to /from the project site and remote parking lot. Once again, because the actual dates of construction are not now known, it is not feasible, much less practical, for the applicant to identify specific impacts and mitigation at the time of project approval. Although the Construction Management Plan requires that the off -site parking location(s) will be within a 5 mile radius of the project site, it is not currently known when construction will commence, therefore it is not possible to execute binding agreements with off -site parking lot operators at this time. It is also not possible to evaluate any site - specific environmental impacts associated with an off -site parking location without engaging in speculation, which is prohibited by the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, the applicant has agreed to a condition requiring that, if the Planning Director determines that the operation of the off -site parking shuttle may result in one or more potentially significant environmental impacts that have not been evaluated in this DEIR, appropriate environmental review will commence pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act prior to the issuance of the permit for the applicable phase of construction. Thus, the legal requirements discussed in prior Responses have been satisfied. The provisions of the CMP and the DEIR constitute the required commitment by the City and the applicant to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance all potential impacts related to off -site parking. Response to Comment No. 10 -35 Refer to Response to Comment 8 -9. Section 2.6 (Construction Process) in the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) included in Appendix B of the Draft EIR includes a project design feature that limits only one truck at a time in 15 minute intervals at the project site. As indicated in the CMP, during the excavation process, flagmen will coordinate with the project foreman at the dump site who will radio in the dump trucks from the Olinda -Alpha Sanitary landfill. In addition, the flagmen will also coordinate ingress and egress of cement trucks and delivery trucks during the respective construction phases. As indicated in the CMP, these trucks would arrive at the site with no greater frequency than the discharge rate by the contractor so that no more than one truck is on -site at one time and that trucks will not need to queue on Carnation Avenue. Response to Comment No. 10 -36 Refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 8-4 and 8 -5 above. As indicated above, the CMP addresses all aspects of the construction activities anticipated to occur, including road and safety issues. Section 4.0 Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public comments May 2009n Page 52 (Traffic Control) identifies the haul routes, deliver requirements, and traffic control plan. Section 5.0 (Safety and Security) outlines the measures that will be implemented to ensure pedestrian safety, including fencing, appropriate signage and safe and clean pathways to the project site. In addition, a four - foot wide temporary crosswalk will be created across Carnation Avenue to direct pedestrians to the existing sidewalk on the southerly side of the street, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. Response to Comment No. 10-37 The project has been designed to comply with the California Fire Code. As indicated in Section 5.5 on page 5 -2 of the DEIR, a preliminary code compliance analysis was conducted by City staff. Based on that analysis, the proposed building is in compliance, although a final compliance determination will be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. If required, the project will be redesigned to address the Fir or Building Departments' comments, including the underground parking component. The project has been designed with several features to facilitate and enhance the provision of adequate fire protection, including an emergency communication device, automatic fire suppression system, automatic and manual fire alarm systems, a fire control room, a Class I wet standpipe, and other features as determined necessary by the Newport Beach Fire Department. Response to Comment No. 10-38 The commenter incorrectly states that the proposed project violates applicable floor area provisions. The calculation o f the maximum allowable gross floor area based upon applicable Zoning provisions and definitions provided with the Zoning Code (Title 20 of the Municipal Code). The maximum allowable gross floor area for a multi -unit development is 1.75 times the buildable are of the lot. The buildable area of the lot is defined as the lot area minus required setback areas. No provisions for the exclusion of submerged lands from the calculation of the maximum gross floor area exist. Response to Comment No. 10-39 To the extent that the comment is addressing the significant environmental impacts that could result from the granting of the approval of the modification to the setbacks, refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 3 -8, 3 -18, and 3 -23 for an explanation as to why there are no such significant impacts. To the extent that the comment is addressing the criteria for the approval of the proposed modification, that is not an environmental issue and no further response is necessary. Response to Comment No. 10 -40 The construction of the dock system will not significantly impact the use of the small cove by swimmers or kayaks. The docks are north of the entrance to the cove. Therefore, there is no impact to access or use of the cove. The construction time frame of the docks is estimated to be from May 16 to July 10, of which approximately three weeks will be required for the drilling operation. All construction materials and equipment will access the dock area from the bay via barges designed for this purpose. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (i.e., AB 939) requires that the County must maintain 15 years of available Countywide solid waste disposal capacity. The County's landfill system currently has a 15 -year capacity to accommodate the proposed project. As a result, project implementation will not result in any significant impacts on landfill capacity and, further, will not adversely affect the ability of the existing facilities operated and maintained by the Orange County Waste & Recycling (OCW &R) to provide adequate landfill capacity to serve the County. The Orange County landfill system has sufficient capacity to accommodate both the proposed project and future development within the County based on current plans and long -range capacity. Aerie (PA 2005-196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Z c y Page 53 J / The proposed dock facilities do not extend into the navigable waters of Newport Harbor. Therefore, project implementation will not adversely affect either navigation or recreation _In addition, the barge will stage for drilling and placement of the pre -cast piles landward of (i.e., outside) the 500' channel width and also landward of the line of the existing navigation station north of the docks. Dock construction is outside of the inbound general boating traffic lanes in the harbor channel. Response to Comment No. 10 -41 This comment reflects the commenter's conclusion that summarizes the prior comments. The comment is acknowledged; no further response is necessary. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 54 y/ 11. California Regional Water Quality Control Board (May 5, 2009) Response to Comment No. 11 -1 The commenter seems to confuse the setting of the African Umbrella sedge on the slope, well above the bay /saltwater environment. As detailed in the December 12, 2008 GLA Delineation Report, the African umbrella sedge occurs on the slope, well above the limits of mean high water and there is no nexus between the location of the umbrella sedge and potential work associated with docks, etc. The comment that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Regional Board should be listed in Table 4.6 -2 is noted. The change will be made to the Final EIR. Response to Comment No. 11 -2 To prevent water quality impacts to Newport Bay, the proposed redevelopment has been designed with a series of BMPs (detailed in the project's conceptual WQMP and SWPPP documents incorporated by reference in the DEIR) in the proposed storm drain collection system to ensure runoff entering the harbor has been adequately treated. Refer to Section 4.7 for a discussion of the project design features related to mitigation and avoidance of eelgrass and sand dollar impacts. Response to Comment No, 11 -3 Enclosed in the Response to Comment document is a copy of WQMP Exhibit, A which illustrates the proposed water quality treatment system for the proposed redevelopment (exhibit attached). Response to Comment No. 11 -4 To provide a level of pretreatment an ADS storm water quality unit or approved equivalent will be incorporated into the project's storm drainage system to remove floatables, litter and some sediment in the site runoff before water enters the cistern vault for pumping to ground level for additional water quality treatment. Consequently, the DEIR, conceptual WQMP and conceptual SWPPP shall implement the following summary of the water quality treatment system for the proposed redevelopment when finalized: In the redeveloped condition, the majority of the project will reside below the existing grade of Carnation Avenue. The base of the structure will be approximately 45 -feet below the existing grade at Carnation Avenue. Storm discharges and roof runoff will be conveyed via a proposed drainage system consisting of pipe conduits, area drains and down spouts that will drain to a cistern located in the sub - basement level of the building. An ADS storm water quality unit or approved equivalent will pre -treat runoff to remove floatables, litter and some sediment before water enters the cistern vault. This drainage will then be pumped up to ground level and treated with a StormFilter and then, to an Abtech Smart Sponge Plus Drain Insert prior to tying into the existing public storm drain line and discharging to Lower Newport Bay to the west. Additionally, WQMP Exhibit A enclosed with the response to comment document (refer to Response for Comment 11 -2) has been updated to reflect the addition of the ADS storm water quality unit prior to water entering the cistern vault. As noted in the DEIR, a Draft SWPPP and WQMP have been submitted to the City of Newport Beach and are available for review at the City. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Z 15t) t Page 55 Response to Comment No. 11 -5 BMP Compliance with SWRCB Water Quality Order No 99 -08 DWQ- General Permit for Construction Activity The potential impacts of construction activities on water quality focus primarily on sediments and turbidity and pollutants that might be associated with sediments (e.g., phosphorus and legacy pesticides). Construction - related activities that are primarily responsible for sediment releases are related to exposing soils to potential mobilization by rainfall /runoff and wind. Such activities include removal of vegetation from the site, grading of the site, and trenching for infrastructure improvements. Environmental factors that affect erosion include topographic, soil, and rainfall characteristics. Non sediment - related pollutants that are also of concern during construction include waste construction materials; chemicals, liquid products, and petroleum products used in building construction or the maintenance of heavy equipment; and concrete - related waste streams. Based on the Construction General Permit Notice of Intent (NOI) and construction phase SWPPP, construction impacts from project development shall be minimized through compliance with the Construction General Permit. This permit requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP, which must include erosion and sediment control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit, as well as BMPs that control the other potential construction - related pollutants. A SWPPP shall be developed as required by, and in compliance with, the Construction General Permit. Erosion control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. The General Permit requires the SWPPP to include a menu of BMPs to be selected and implemented based on the phase of construction and the weather conditions. BMPs on this menu include, but are not limited to: slope stabilization using rock, vegetation, mulches or other soil stabilizers; • re- vegetation; • hydro- seeding exposed areas; • sediment controls such as check dams, desilting basins, fiber rolls, and silt fencing; • installation of energy dissipaters and drop structures; • catch basin inlet protection; • construction materials management; and • cover and containment of construction materials and wastes. The SWPPP shall be designed and implemented to address site- specific conditions related to project construction. The SWPPP shall identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water discharges and describe and ensure the implementation and maintenance of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment, pollutants adhering to sediment, and other non - sediment pollutants in storm water as well as non -storm water discharges. The significant criteria for the construction phase of the project are implementation of BMPs consistent with Best Available Technology Economically Achievable and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BAT /BCT), as required by the Construction General Permit. The applicant or its successor would reduce or prevent erosion and sediment transport and transport of other potential pollutants (e.g., construction material - related pollutants) from the project sites during the construction phase through implementation of BMPs meeting BAT /BCT in order to prevent or minimize environmental impacts and to ensure that discharges during the construction phase of the project would not cause or contribute to any exceedance of water quality standards in the receiving waters. On this basis, the impact of construction - related runoff from the project sites is considered less than significant. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 56 BMP Compliance with the OC DAMP and WQMP (as required by RWQCB — 8's OC MS4 Permit The project WQMP shall identify post- construction related Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used onsite to control predictable pollutant runoff, and shall comply with all applicable measures specified in the Countywide Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), the assignment of long -term maintenance responsibilities, and the locations(s) of all structural BMPs. BMPs are structural devices, procedures, rules or methods which, when implemented and followed, should reduce and/or eliminate the specific source of pollution of which the BMP is targeted. The post - construction related BMPs shall be developed and will be implemented for the proposed project. All BMPs indicated in the project's WQMP will be implemented and maintained in good and effective condition. The property owner shall establish requirements for (a) ownership /maintenance of and/or maintenance easements for community common areas in the project and (b) implementation of educational pollution prevention on BMPs, including community awareness programs. Routine Source Control BMPs are required and shall be incorporated in this redevelopment project. All of the following types of BMPs listed below for specific land use /type of project in the Countywide Water Quality Management Plan tables shall be discussed and considered for utilization by the project WQMP for implementation to the extent that they are appropriate for the site and project. Source Control BMPs Routine Structural BMPs Routine Non - Structural BMPs Site Design BMPs Treatment BMPs An update to the MS4 related to the project, is anticipated to be adopted by the summer of 2009. Once adopted, Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs and Hydromodification related BMPs (the objective of which is to have the post - development hydrology mimic that of the pre - development hydrology condition) are expected to become project requirements, as is TMDL integration. LID BMPs include a priority use of infiltration BMPs, harvesting and re -use of water BMPs and vegetated or evaporation BMPs over - treating and releasing water. Response to Comment No. 11 -6 All BMPs intended for construction and post- construction conditions shall reflect targeted compliance with Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL's) and shall be in support of the Orange County Newport Bay Fecal Coliform Source Management Plan ( OCNBFCSMP). The OCNBFCSMP is meant to provide compliance with the fecal - coliform /pathogen TMDL adopted for Lower Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay. The following additional TMDL's are incorporated for reference: a. The Siltation (sediments) and Nutrient TMDLs adopted for Lower Newport Bay, Upper Newport Bay, San Diego Creek Reach 1, and San Diego Creek Reach 2. (http:www.waterboards. ca.govlsantaana/ water _issues /programs /tmdl /index. shtm I) The future TMDLs anticipated for selenium and metals (Lower and Upper Newport Bay), selenium and fecal coliform (San Diego Creek Reach 1), and specified metals (San Diego Creek Reach 2). A TMDL for organochlorine compounds (particularly DDT, chlordane, and PCBs) is anticipated for Lower Newport Bay, Upper Newport Bay, and San Diego Creek Reaches 1 and 2. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 6,W 2 / _ 1 Page 57 Response to Comment No. 11 -7 Groundwater dewatering is not anticipated for the construction of the proposed redevelopment due to the fact that subsurface water was not observed during field investigation (Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report for TTM 16882 by Neblett & Associates dated September 30, 2008.) Aene (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 58 G G'r7 12. A. David Kovach (May 5, 2009) Response to Comment No. 12 -1 The comments presented in this letter address "conflicts' that exist in the Newport Beach General Plan and the manner in which various land use policies should more appropriately address the density and intensity of development on the subject property. As indicated in this letter, the commenter believes that the City's land use criteria are internally inconsistent. It is important to note that the policy analysis presented in Section 4.1 (Land Use /Relevant Planning) and, specifically, in Tables 4.1 -1 and 4.1 -2 in the Draft EIR discussed the relationship of the proposed project to the adopted policies and not the internal conflicts that exist as suggested in this comment. No comments related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis are identified in this letter, which will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking an action on the proposed project. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 59 13. Harbor Commission (Minutes of April 8, 2009) Although formal DEIR comments were not submitted by the Harbor Commission, these responses address the environmental issues reflected by the minutes of the Harbor Commission's April 8, 2009 meeting. Where a comment did not raise any environmental issue, no response is provided. Response to Comment No. 13 -1 Analysis of design wind waves was based on long -term wind conditions recorded at two locations as presented in Section 2.1 of the Coastal Engineering Impact Assessment Report (May 9, 2008). In addition, long swell statistics from 1970 to 2005 were applied to determine the typical and extreme swell conditions at the project site. Tables 1 and 2 in that report show the probability distribution of wind conditions while Tables 4 and 5 present the deduced typical and extreme wave conditions for wind wave and long swells, respectively. The discussion of "Wave Conditions and Potential Impacts" on pages 4.9 -8 through 4.9 -11 provides a summary of the information included in the Noble Report. Response to Comment No. 13 -2 The City's mooring fields generally have between 75 and 100 vacant mooring cans in the harbor, which are available for rental to the public at any given time on a "first come, first served" basis through the Harbor Patrol. The mooring cans can generally accommodate project boats with the exception of boats that exceed 60 feet due to a lack of availability of these larger sized moorings in the harbor. Boats larger than 60 feet would need to secure berthing at a larger dock (if available) or use the City designated anchorage area within the harbor. Boat owners or a contracted boating service company would be responsible to manage such an event. Response to Comment No. 13 -3 Noble Consultants, Inc. determined that the dock project would not significantly affect sediment transport in the area. There are no sand dollars present near the dock, they are all located in the protected cove southeast of the proposed dock. Therefore, any sand movement would not be related to pier- induced sand movement since: (1) engineering studies suggest that there would be no interruption of sand movement from pier pilings and (2) sand movement is from south to north. Generally speaking, sand dollars and other sand - associated macrofaunal species are adapted to shifting sand regimes. Unless there is an extreme storm event sand dollars are well adapted to daily and seasonal changes in sand movement and they are capable of adjusting their position in the sand to prevent burial. Even when they are temporarily buried they can upright themselves to their usual orientation to the currents. Large storm events can result in changes in the southern California sand dollar populations as well as other sand bottom epifaunal species relative to population and distribution. These events are known to occur following extreme storm and wave conditions. These conditions, however, are likely muted to a degree within then confines within Newport Harbor. Response to Comment No. 13 -4 The sediment shoaling pattern in the entrance channel was presented in the Noble report (refer to Section 2.2). The impact assessment for the proposed dock facility was also performed (refer to Section 3.2). The information presented in that document is summarized in Section 4.9 (Soils and Geology) in the Draft EIR (refer to pages 4.9 -8 through 4.9 -13). As indicated in the Draft EIR, the Noble Consultants study concluded that from a wave climate perspective, the proposed docking facility is feasible in a wide range of conditions and, with regard to sand transport, no significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 60 Response to Comment No. 13 -5 Noble Consultants, Inc., which analyzed sediment processes and flow patterns in the project area, concluded that the potential impact to the sediment movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant, although localized sand deposit resulting from the presence of the proposed guide piles within the sand - moving path may occur. In addition, the project's potential impact on sedimentation at updrift locations such as China Reef is inconsequential. As a result, no significant impacts to sand transport resulting from project implement are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Response to Comment No. 13 -6 The applicant is proposing to improve the existing landing and expand the boat dock to accommodate nine vessels (8 permanently berthed vessels and 1 guest slip). The dock and landing would include lighting similar to that which currently exists in this area. Such lighting would cast light down on the docks for safety and security purposes for both project residents and passing boaters. Response to Comment No. 13 -7 Piers will be installed as required based on the City of Newport Beach requirements. Section 4.7 (Biological Resources) revealed that sea lions inhabit the harbor and, specifically, in the vicinity of the Pavilion. The Draft EIR concluded the project implementation would not result in significant impacts to marine mammals, including sea lions. Should sea lions haul out on the proposed dock structure, the dock system will be able to support several individuals given that the dock design will be engineered to withstand the increased wave energy associated with the project location. Sea lion haul out is considered a nuisance issue and deterrent measures such as fences, netting, watering or other physical and visual obstructions are routinely employed when sea lions frequent the harbor's docks. This is not an environmental Issue, but rather a harbor management issue under the constant supervision of the Harbor Resources Division and the Harbor Patrol. Response to Comment No. 13 -8 A Class II wet stand pipe that will serve the docks was incorporated into the proposed project as required by the Newport Beach Fire Department to provide enhanced protection for firefighting at the docks. Trash will be hand carried to Carnation Avenue for removal. Sewage pump -out stations are not required for residential docks and are they are only required for commercial marinas with 50 or more slips. Sewage disposal from boats is prohibited within the Harbor unless at a pump -out station. Response to Comment No. 13 -9 As indicated in this comment, the proposed dock facility will be larger (approximately 3,448 square feet compared to 490 square feet) compared to the existing dock facility. However, the dock has been designed to avoid sensitive habitat (e.g., eelgrass) and incorporates project design features to ensure that eelgrass, sand dollars and other marine resources are adequately protected. Furthermore, public access to the small cove below the bluff will be maintained and no significant visual impacts to aesthetic resources would occur based on the analysis presented in the Draft EIR (refer to Section 4.7 — Biological Resources and Section 4.5 — Aesthetics). Response to Comment No. 13 -f0 Refer to Response to Comment No. 13 -5. Response to Comment No. 13 -11 Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 2t1o7 Page 61 Boat owners or a contracted boat maintenance service may be engaged to relocate the vessels as deemed necessary by the boat owners. Response to Comment No. 13 -12 The City currently has up to 100 mooring cans within the harbor that may be used during storm events. Use of these moorings is permitted on a "first come, first served" basis. As noted above, a boat maintenance service may be engaged to relocate the vessels to the mooring cans or other locations as deemed necessary by the boat owners. Response to Comment No. 13 -13 Table 6 of the report provides the guidelines for acceptable wave conditions in the harbor. For head seas it is less than 0.6 meter (approximately two feet) and it is 0.25 meter (approximately 0.8 foot) for beam seas. In practice, it is difficult to precisely measure the wave height in the middle of a storm event. Due to the orientation of the entrance channel, SSE -S waves can propagate through the entrance channel without being blocked by the jetty. Therefore, preparation of temporarily relocated vessels to the mooring area should primarily be based on the approach wave direct from SSE -S. The extreme wave conditions for wind waves presented in Table 4 and long swells as listed in Table 5 occur infrequently. Response to Comment No. 13 -14 The proposed docks are within the federal Pierhead Line and the main channel is over 500 feet wide in this area. The proposed docks with boats would not encroach any farther within the channel than a nearby navigational station, which has been in -place for years. City policy currently allows boats to extend beyond the Pierhead Line no farther than the beam (maximum width) of the boat, which is typically not wider than 24 feet. The proposed layout is consistent with the Municipal Code and Council Policy, as determined by the Harbor Resources Manager and the only condition proposed by the Harbor Resources Manager is that boats tied to the side of the proposed docks closest to the main channel must not have a beam wider than 24 feet. With this condition, the Harbor Resources Manager has determined that the proposed docks will not cause any impediment to navigating the main channel Response to Comment No. 13 -15 The DEIR has identified the potential for damage during storm surge conditions (Impact 4.9 -2.) Mitigate measures have been prescribed, which include moving boats to sheltered mooring location (Mitigation Measure 4.9 -2a) and dock design based on extreme wave conditions (Mitigation Measure 4.9 -2b.) As a result, the DEIR concludes that potentially significant impacts related to storm surge damage will be reduced to a less than significant level. Response to Comment No. 13 -16 Public access to the cove below from the harbor would not be adversely affected by the proposed project, including the proposed dock facility. The location of the dock would not preclude the existing access that is currently available to swimmers, kayakers, or others. Response to Comment No. 13 -17 Refer to Response to Comment No 13-4. Response to Comment No. 13 -18 Refer to Response to Comment No. 2-4. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 i Page 62 AREA #1 ME aZ, lI °1� ,,..E AREA #4 AREA #5 �v[xox.,rvE.w+ � oxe AREA .a vxrExExEwx �•scwnx "w o0 AREA W AREA#6 unw.vo°r m�.`cwE�r:.ss xn,N«aa�Mav,w.h °. ell V i / ✓j AREA #2 }v ENTIRE SITE w g�w,w�x�i a.uw.w °,..ervx.E�r.o Q Er¢cE+. ruxwNUC, IUlugwu %/rxOW la ¢nxwcrvu'...wcwurvu leYSxuswuw a s°cvw, ¢..cE, lvom�vw . T.o.x¢o°�m+x ,axre,mcw e aa,.r. a.ecee a°+w 9 za°x°°vox...NUr w � BeuuwuE. e.Eeru„e ww�+�, � PoBPONSSrtc[¢ Ic[wwsl I���g� °v�r °wxw,vw rnro°PoO m�°n<.r,wr y..�.,V cpnxEattvw•a ryuxxSrM •u[ [aov¢aca.weu,apu lgrtwl MABSCxw[uSaewExw�e lmc¢vwv,¢niw[N • u,Nxmxmoa r,E,,.,*.,xn • Mv.�.r�wN 0 v.awwwuw. rv+�N+w Q.wv.wx.xs. mxrmExw ! rtwrcuwuuas¢ „u�rya,vUM w.E�u utSw W¢5 mrgWwuwNVpSIXS rynuv."nnmmy l ft AREA #6 v!/ #7 ¢uia:rs 9<cwu,9 ••,¢c°uuu C.aFrde' F,^F1wn»ucwE) wcrrvwoouwrpeuMe,Mi (vawiufwaWh 0 rvE.wE °¢wS..rPCm, w °�mrt' ramvo °x °xr.xw.«.mEwwr,,,mnwmaxwwExv uawo�`mE U,rt�xw.mu'x DR�°f.w.,OO°L'MwMxu,uE ¢ru¢uoaE�sro i 1c4¢1�e i. I,k,B �' x3 C C L-1 #2 AREA ...x.w m`m`..5xwx..wau,W. AREA #4 AREA #5 �v[xox.,rvE.w+ � oxe AREA .a vxrExExEwx �•scwnx "w o0 AREA W AREA#6 unw.vo°r m�.`cwE�r:.ss xn,N«aa�Mav,w.h °. ell V i / ✓j AREA #2 }v ENTIRE SITE w g�w,w�x�i a.uw.w °,..ervx.E�r.o Q Er¢cE+. ruxwNUC, IUlugwu %/rxOW la ¢nxwcrvu'...wcwurvu leYSxuswuw a s°cvw, ¢..cE, lvom�vw . T.o.x¢o°�m+x ,axre,mcw e aa,.r. a.ecee a°+w 9 za°x°°vox...NUr w � BeuuwuE. e.Eeru„e ww�+�, � PoBPONSSrtc[¢ Ic[wwsl I���g� °v�r °wxw,vw rnro°PoO m�°n<.r,wr y..�.,V cpnxEattvw•a ryuxxSrM •u[ [aov¢aca.weu,apu lgrtwl MABSCxw[uSaewExw�e lmc¢vwv,¢niw[N • u,Nxmxmoa r,E,,.,*.,xn • Mv.�.r�wN 0 v.awwwuw. rv+�N+w Q.wv.wx.xs. mxrmExw ! rtwrcuwuuas¢ „u�rya,vUM w.E�u utSw W¢5 mrgWwuwNVpSIXS rynuv."nnmmy l ft AREA #6 v!/ #7 ¢uia:rs 9<cwu,9 ••,¢c°uuu C.aFrde' F,^F1wn»ucwE) wcrrvwoouwrpeuMe,Mi (vawiufwaWh 0 rvE.wE °¢wS..rPCm, w °�mrt' ramvo °x °xr.xw.«.mEwwr,,,mnwmaxwwExv uawo�`mE U,rt�xw.mu'x DR�°f.w.,OO°L'MwMxu,uE ¢ru¢uoaE�sro i 1c4¢1�e i. I,k,B �' x3 C C L-1 z -z 5 � an 's 0 DNIUV310 4 `JNINnad m.„u moymm�.aaN. � renmaaw vxvnnre Irvevfnicw��„p> � s bv5mrl wnwnwns�swem. B• (rvnXN sivesysim Aa+on,saysl s3p3fs M,TwS '+�, Ymsuywl s��svussw m- Nww,oaow ,.swre.wmx.tlx.,xr �O re�m'.,.mm,n.wwmS�Nnw.�.3oa • Man,3a�nvl �SNNOOre,.�w,nno,ren,aNCa —. GSn,maMiboDwmeesaso � Gur �rxW mo�npxdsnssu 4xw Axpa91 s3aswflw ee . M1�nWUVSmsI pevipvev311uxrvome Mnavnm„ey'rl rc3weWCSnmrvJn (�Amvmmstsv3tlml mYmase. xnxx xwwr s Mm,an5m5Nwamr � ,�,x�rwm�� �w�.,r>•wr,m �c kuvnmvwws4 MpaeaYxmxn ivuanw�ndarnl mvm,u,auy,wp Nmwamom n�.sdwoaoe� Lnwv.,na, w,LL,nKUn.mxmm3 Mv+rewxxomral vYroafrvsmnsN e Y vanml pwaamnnmaxa • Nenwso rsl p.�NNa,m m'fn3,w I.N.Nwvmnl Sum srrxvaw u 311S 3NI1N3 l" H DNIHVBID 8 DNINnHd N3mNi� _ n K4 VMJv y.vm Na x3mmasNVxmma maaw,assaum_+EL #V3tiV .a »s..3n, s��,..an. �„osrss,ss oc Zl#vgilV vimf wisxuvx w unv�i Ii9 ;Ipvrvxv3Bmrcn „rtn,.aw,ina auume3 xee xaxo�ws�i,i'S wwwx.�, o,syaw�o wLL# v3avvm.w.o ,n sueweremuar -N,U# V321tl,v e'iav Hass axiso�.vsw .wmxesnownw vamo.nva vns�sxs .an Nrovw,woe'.vi.n` 8#b'3aV„o,.n, o,r3wsw siw.sw 6LDWELL BANKER PREVIEWS LYLEEN EWING SOCIETY OF EXCELLENCE Mr. Jim Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell, 1 have been selling real estate in Orange County for over 35 years. In my career, I have personally handled hundreds of real estate transactions, of which the majority have been in the Newport Beach- Corona del Mar area. I have been asked to render an opinion on the market absorption time for three speculative single family homes located an the property commonly known as 201 -207 Carnation Avenue in Corona del Mar. I understand that each of these three homes would have expansive coastal views, a roof deck and one boat slip. The average size of the three homes would be approximately 8,300 livable square feet. I also understand that, aswith much of the newer bluff top construction in the area, these homes would be highly amenitized and would involve significant excavation and grading and the placement of caissons. Given the remarkable location and view of these homes, it is my professional opinion that these homes likely would be listed forsale within an approximate price range of $14,000,000to $16,000,000 even in today's depressed real estate market. Demand for luxury homes in Newport Beach has declined significantly as a result of the economic downturn, and there is no clear indication as to how deep or how long this decline will last. Most recently, for the 22 business days ending January 15, 2009, OataQujck reports that the pace of sales In Corona Del Mar (Zip 92625) was down 38.5% from the same time last year. Further, according to the January 22, 2009, home inventory report from Steve Thomas of Altera Real Estate, in Orange County, 350 homes were listed for sale at asking prices above $4 million, but only three had pending sales in the previous thirty days. While these numbers may not be a precise predictor of performance for the sales of any individual home or category of homes, for statistical purposes, this translates to an absorption rate of almost ten years (116.67 months) for these 350 homes. This same report discloses that even in the much stronger real estate market of two years ago, it would have taken over 31 months to absorb the current homes on the market. (Report available at 4 San Joaquin Plan suite #260 Newport Beach CA 92660 949 - 6441600• Direct 949 -759 -3786• Cellular 949- 233 -8051• Fax 949-644 -5384 Ijewing @coldwellbanker.com CwSwell nauker 0.cslGUiN arvRmae IcLefe y 0^ ub Opal by NHT. 1. C' http:// www. ourogentspotcom lsthomosIMarketrime- Jon- 22- 09.doc.) So what does all this translate to on the ground? Simply put: homes that once would have quickly attracted multiple offers are now likely to languish on the market, in some cases for a matter of years rather than months. The current economic reality has fundamentally changed the economics of speculative home development. Today, experienced builders have adopted a "wait- and -see" approach. For multiple - single family home sites such as these, builders will "wait- and -see" where the money is coming from before they assume the risk and expense of construction. Based on the ongoing economic downturn and the high cost of construction associated with this site, on one hand, and the premier location of these home sites on the other, it is my opinion that it would take a bare minimum of four years to pre-sell the three home sites, with one site sold an average of once every two years. Generally speaking, I expect one home site to be sold at the beginning of year one, the second home site to be sold at the end of year two, and the third site to be sold at the end of year four. Based on a two year per home construction schedule (per Brion Jeannette Architecture), total buildout of all three homes would therefore take approximately six years from the time of the first sale. I hope that this opinion is helpful. Should you desire any further information, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Lyleen Ewing Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage 2.70 Construction Generated Vibration Annoyance Vibmlan Anncpa cm4Ha LoaEetll7ucka 86 25 80 86 71 Criteria 78 78 Excevefor(Small b.114.4 56 9 80 67 43 LoaEar(9meB ballEOaar) 59 9 81 67 43 L .d.d 1RCkY so 25 80 86 71 1 F4 T11, �T APpmximme VelJCHy AppmxlmaM Velocity tleatc Avenm Blsunea fHeb Level. VEB Level VEB Wm Hoe 87 9 80 96 72 LoaEaf(brnall bullEaa4n 58 9 81 67 43 EKByamr(SMIIH b.11d.2e1) 58 9 81 67 43 Loa6M butlo 66 25 86 86 71 CIXeEa 78 78 12.5 12.5 Back H. Laa4b(Small bull4o9a0 SO 9 80 67 43 PamPar S8 98 80 47 43 LoaEeE bucks 80 25 80 86 71 Crllena 78 78 APPmxIM2W VMaclty AppRxlmaMVa1.14 APproxlmale Velocby E4Ylamam Lavel at 26R VEB CMaeal BMUnce Heed: M.ram Bislance(h l Lom VEB LavPL VEB Pumper 88 88 BO 75 71 GancRle MSxer 86 98 90 75 71 �- NpmXOLnMmwMlxgRmtlSO�geunLkbmmen YYl rt�Iy MUUIb WremMlemh'tlbiL i nAm[a M$ShJ vely: aLalMt4(�atli9W Rm YMJanlwtlry ®}YYAOne MumeeelemmrlMMlYen1 9aulce:6sy]anmego ] olo8y hmnge UnJM SGItt CepanmenlalTmrspaRaUOnFNeml Tla1p206mveahMOn. TrenaR Nnse anE Y6ratinn impel ASaevmeM (2068 }. Gi P Construction Generated Vibration - Structural Damage Criteria Structural Damage Criteria Backhoe Loader(Small bulk 0.003 0.010 11.5 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.076 25 Criteria 0.200 p a Approximate RMS a Approximate RMS Velocity at 25 f, Velocity Level, Equipment inchisecond Inchtsecond Closest Distance(feetit Large bulldozer 0.089 0.412 9 Excavator (Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.014 9 Loader (Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.003 25 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.076 25 Criteria 0.200 Ram Hue 0.089 0.412 9 Loader (Small bulldozer( 0.003 0.014 9 Excavator (Small bulldozerl 0.003 0.014 9 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.076 25 Criteria 0.200 Large bulldozer 0.003 0.008 12.5 Ram Hoe 0.003 0.006 125 Loader (Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.008 12.5 Excavator (Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.008 12.5 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.076 25 Criteria 0.200 Caisson Drill 0.089 0.412 9 Back Hoe Loader (Small bu 0.003 0.008 12.5 Pumper 0.076 0.012 88 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.076 25 Criteria 0200 pproximate RMS a Approximate Rln Velocity at 26 ft, Velocity Level, -0, 72."� �{ NOTE: EXHIBIT IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND NOT TO _ USCALE. ALL FACILITIES TO BE LOCATED INSIDE THE § "PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENY'- / NAP r NAP t 1 NAP .... /r 1 - ; • y I- _ - _ "` —'� • - -1- ® -- - - -- PROJECT BOUNDARY - o ,' ' NAP NOT A PART DIRECTION OF SURFACE FLOW fom�xr GRAVITY FLOW LINES AND DIRECTION FOR ROOF AND AREA DRAINS X •. % ---1- STORMWATER FORCE MAIN _ EXISTING .y SITE y ----�- PROPOSED CONNECTION TO EXISTING SD DISCHARGE - ENTRA EXISTING STORM AND AREA DRAINS POINT&,—, 1 WET WELL AND STORMWATER PUMP r r`s3 DISCHARGE THRU CARE IN EXISTING C.B. ` STORMFILTER WATER QUALITY UNIT OR STORM DRAIN PIPE ABTECH SMART SPONGE PLUS INSERTS LANDSCAPE AREAS (PRIVATE) WITH BMP's: NAI mm (MAINTAINED BY HOC) 7- 1 Gie_Y COMMON AREA EFFICIENT IRRIGATION COMMON AREA RUNOFF-MINIMIZING; NEAP : / LANDSCAPE DESIGN �d a AREA DRAINS (PRIVATE) WITH BMP: 1. NAP SO STENCILLING WHERE FEASIBLE BP` 0 EXISTING CATCH BASIN AREA DRAINS NAP \, / TRASH ENCLOSURE -E %ACT LOCATIONS \001 a `\\ TO BE DETERMINED on ADS STORM WATER OUAUTY UNIT OR EQUAL PREPARED BY: PREPARED FOR: ORES DAT5/12/09 PREPARED: "AERIE° ® HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16882 WOMP •n�3;lck.'z''t%w.anjc`:_ CORONA DEL MAR EXHIBIT NANNNG • BlGNFFWNL • SORVmNG 23)92 ROLKi1E1D BM SIME 100 m,<�Ng•, .ins ueun •mbM wfmo•rN d9 Namsa UItE TORESL GB2RS0 WO 751 -5x CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CA (wal sss -ssaB VICINITY MAP „1n 4�. S LEGEND kiv -! Southern California Gas Company e A 5empra Energy nrhty March 25, 2009 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Attention: James Campbell NAR 3 o 2E4y Subject: EIII for 201— 207 Carnation Ave and 101 Bayside Pl. (PA 2005 -196)- C€7'75P- Ak). / 1919 5 State College aNd. Anahem CA 92806 611d Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to this E.I.R. Document- We are pleased to inform you that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the aforementioned project is proposed. Gas service to the project can be provided from an existing gas main located in various locations. The service will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission wben the contractual arrangements are made. This letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but is only provided as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. Asa public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with die revised conditions. This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non - utility laws and regulations (such as environmental regulations), which could affect construction of a main and/or service line extension (.e., if hazardous wastes were cricountened in the process of installing the line)_ The regulations can only be determined around die time contractual arrangements are made and construction has begun. Estimates of gas usage for residential and non - residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial- Industrial /Reesidential Market Services Staff by calling (800) 427 -2000 (CommcreiaUlndustrial Customers) (800) 427 -2200 (Residential Customers). We have developed several programs, which are available upon request to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances ar systems for a particular project. If you desire further infomhalion on any of our energy conservation programs, pleas coutacl this office for assistance. Sincere) Mike HarrieJ.� Technical Services Supervisor Pacific Coast Region - Anaheim .n1am era dx 74.. THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY r °"7 i t'..ETTete- /444. 2 To: James Campbell April 20, 2009 Principal Planner, Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (L-QAC) Subject: Aerie Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) dated March 2009 EQAC is pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the Subject DEIR in the hopes that our comments will lead to the best possible project for the City of Newport Beach, the neighbors and the applicant. Our comments follow in the order of appearance in the DEIR as far as possible. 1.0 Executive Summary The Construction Management Plan (CMP) is referenced frequently and often cited _ pertaining to mitigation measure. The note at the bottom of pg. 1 -6 which refers to the CMP is confusing. Is the CMP incorporated by reference in the DEIR and is it to be considered pail of the DEIR, and therefore binding on the proponent? 2 -2 3.0 Project Description The project includes removal of existing 4 docks at channel level (25 -foot class boats) and expansion to 8 slips plus one side tie -dock which will "accommodate boats up to 100 -foot in length ". As shown in Exhibit 3 -17 (pg. 3 -25), the new docks extend considerably farther into the boating channel than the original docks and the provision for 100 -foot boat maneuvering in the busy channel seems problematic. (Note that the USCG Cutter Narwhal is 13 feet shorter at 87 feet and employs a crew of ten). The DEIR deals with this potential problem under Harbor and Bay Element HB 9.2 (pg 4.1- 11) by stating that this new dock facility will not "adversely affect safe navigation within the harbor ". However, no harbor traffic analysis is included to support this assertion. Are such studies or analysis available to assure that channel boating operations and safety are not compromised? 4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Land Use pg.4.1 -8, LU1.1 The modem style of this architecture is out of character for this area, 2 especially as viewed from Carnation Avenue. pgAA -8, LU 13 The small beach area at the foot of this project will be hard to see with 2 -4 the construction of a 60' gangplank, a larger dock and the possibility of the docking of large vessels. This will be a loss of a visual resource from the water. pg.4.1 -9, LU 2.5 Because of the configuration of the new dock, it appears that 100' Z S vessels will be close to encroaching on boating lanes. There may be a need to limit the size of vessels docked on channel side of the dock. Z-& I pg_41-9, LU 3.2, Who will pay to underground existing utility lines? pg.4.1 -12, CE 7.1.8, Is there any way to ensure that the residents of Aerie will use the 2--7 provided garages rather than the street? Using an elevator to park for a short time seems unrealistic. 2 -$ I pg. 4.1 -13, NR 3.11, What will be the effect of long term runoff on the harbor? 2--J 1 pg- 4.1 -14, NR 11.3, How will the loss of eelgrass be mitigated? Specifics? 7--to f pg. 4.1 -19, 23.1 -2 Diagram of planned improvement to catch basin? pg. 4.1 -19, 2.7.1, It would be helpful to have a larger diagram of planned subterranean land encroachments. Z_ /1 I pg. 4.142, 3.20, How will the sand dollar colony be protected during the construction of the dock? Specifics? 4.3 Air Quality The document describes (in extreme detail) the existing conditions and State regulations 2-13 concerning the construction phase. There is no real schedule to facilitate evaluation of the ability of the construction crews to comply with these standards. 2. -f4 4.4 Noise What types of noise restrictions will be placed on residents within the completed condominium complex? For example, portable balcony .lacuzzis have appeared recently that are not controlled by existing noise codes. These have minimal plumbing and electrical needs and represent noise pollution that is currently not covered by noise codes. The proponent should take steps to limit these and similar internal noise sources to eliminate future operational controversy within the project or adjacent to it. 2 -(5 Pg 4,4 -24: Vibration from construction will be "felt" for a total of 25 work days during the project. This is an unavoidable negative impact and should be so noted. A comment about the DEIR's implied appropriateness of a 65 dBA criterion for residential noise: Z -1.6 Note, Table 4.4 -1, shows noise levels of 65 -70 dBA CNEL are considered inappropriate (or, "C = normally incompatible ") for all residential categories shown. This makes ,1:7 7 excellent sense and is consistent with the literature which clearly states, for example, that "... sound pressure levels exceeding 55 dB(A) ... are disturbing to sleep .. " [1j and, noise from, for example, highway traffic -- typically 70 dB(A) — is considered "intrusive ". Go�c/ rP Despite the data shown in Table 4.4 -1, this DEIR sets as an acceptable criterion for / residential noise at 65 dBA CNEL (as stated throughout the document). Levels of 65 dB(A) are at the threshold for noise classified as both "normally compatible" and "normally incompatible" for residential categories, and exceed the every category of allowable residential noise level standards for the city as shown in Table 4.4 -2. Section 93. 10 describes that none of the increases from noise impacts due to project traffic will exceed 65 dBA CNEL, and the DEIR "...anticipates no significant long -term cumulative noise impacts..." due to the project. However, there should be abetter characterization of how the current ranges of average daytime noise levels in the area (see Table 4.4 -3). Section 9.3. 10 concludes: 'The greatest increase in ambient noise would occur during the construction phases ..." and that these will "... result in significant impacts in the neighborhood." They then conclude that vehicle -trip noises associated with the completed project are projected to be minimal and not significant contributors to long -term traffic Z`(S noise (adding only an estimated 47 vehicles per day onto the circulation network). This conclusion seems unrealistically optimistic, and is based on the report's questionable acceptance of a 65dBA standard for appropriate residential noise levels. In light of the especially liberal 65dBA criterion discussed above, and the existing ambient noise levels reported, we feel the project's long -term noise impacts are better characterized as unmitigated negative impacts of the project, since the net result will be to substantially raise the area's average daytime noise levels by adding the sort of 2-(9 traffic noise known to be especially disruptive and resulting in stronger negative reactions due to its vibration characteristics and low frequency components. For additional technical data, refer to "Guidelines for Community Noise" The World Health Organization - expert taskforce meeting held in London, United Kingdom, in April 1999. It bases on the document entitled "Community Noise" that was prepared for the World Health Organization and published in 1995 by the Stockholm University and Karolinska Institute. Available at http: / /www. who- int/ docstore /peWnoise/guidelines2,html. This project sets a bad precedent, taking the opposite view and inflating that which is Z'ZO considered an acceptable standard, even beyond what is recommend by City standards. The impacts of Aerie should be stated as unmitigated negative impacts so as to avoid a tendency to inflate allowed noise impacts of future projects. .1 8 421� �1 :2"Z.( 4.5 Aesthetics The proposed project will result in a major addition of reflective glass to the bluff compared with what is there now (see Exhibits 4.54 and 4.5 -16). Under Light and Glare (pg, 4,5 -29) the DEIR states that selection of appropriate building materials results in "no significant glare impact from building finish materials" and that "no mitigation measure are required ". However, it is well known that at sunset this area "lights up" with window reflections. Has the proponent considered a mitigation measure to minimize this effect? 4.6 Drainage and Hydrology 2--7-7-1 Page 4,6 -6 4.6.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts, First Paragraph Is the added swimming pool capable to treat all the ingredients from a storm flow? Page 4.6 -8 4,6.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts, Third Paragraph Z-23 What is the storm drain design capacity? Shouldn't that number be in this section as well as having input from the City Engineer? Z- Page 4.6 -9 4.6.4.2 Routine Non - Structural BMPs NI What is sanitary sewage outflow? 2`Z5 J Add "and dripping" to "dumping oil" in line 3. Page 4.6 -9 4.6.4.2 Routine Non - Structural BMPs N 11 2 -2.b include in addition to reporting.. I 7--2-7 Page 4.6 -10 4.6.4.2 Routine Structural BMPs Second last line of the page: What are "Abtech Smart Sponge Plus" drains? Z -Zg I Page 4.6 -11 4.6.4.2 Routine Structural BMPs Fourth line of the page: How will pool water be safely disposed of properly? ?� 1 Page 4.6 -12 4.6.5 Mitigation Measures Water Quality 2 What is "maximum extent practicable "? 4.7 Biological Resources A map of the existing vegetation on the site should be provided, including the vegetation that was removed according to the Notice of Violation. See page 1, footnote. The coastal x`3 b bluff vegetation on the site should be shown before the violation occurred and what is there now. For example, the footnote says the Iemonadeberry is growing back.. What 217 2-31 2-32 about the encelia that was removed? How will the existing lemonadeberry survive under the overhang of the deck? The biology report does not address this impact. A mitigation measure should provide that the existing vegetation will not be removed or damaged and that it will survive and flourish after the project is built. Coastal bluff scrub is considered ESHA by the Coastal Commission. The EIR should show the boundaries of the coastal bluff scrub on the project site and appropriate buffers such as 50 feet which is required for ESHA under the Newport Beach CLUP. Page I of the biology report identifies a "remnant southern coastal bluff scrub community on the rocky outcrop along the northern project boundary extending into Newport Bay ", but it ignores the coastal bluff scrub on the bluff face, including lemonadeberry, buckwheat, and encelia. This is also coastal bluff scrub and is ESHA that needs to be protected by protecting the vegetation that is now in place and making sure it will survive the deck overhanging it. The wetlands discussion on page 4.7 -5 does not address the Coastal Commission upholding the one - parameter definition, such as vegetation (three parameter wetland definition is vegetation, hydric soil, and hydrology). In early April, the Coastal Commission refuted the Glenn Lukos biologist's attempts to ignore the one - parameter definition in a wetland in an RV storage lot in Huntington Beach, which used the same arguments present in this report. What is the water source for the umbrella sedge, e:.g. 30 inch drain pipe, seepage out of x'33 the bluff face from an aquiclude? In any case there appears to be a 190 square foot wetland that meets the Coastal Commission one parameter definition. It should be protected in place, with a buffer, which is 100 feet in the Newport Beach CLUP. 2-34 The sand dollar issue needs more examination. Where else in Newport Bay are sand dollars found? The EIR should locate and describe the other locations. Page 4.7 -8 states "...the occurrence of intertidal populations of the species within Newport Bay is unique and rare. The population survives in this location because wave motion/wave energy is moderate, sediments are sandy to silty sand, and tidal exchange is excellent." Will the dock cause changes to the wave motion/wave energy, sediments and tidal exchange? The biology report only makes a condition about signage and not taking specimens out of the marine environment. The changes in the environment including the pollution and changes to wave motion/energy, sediments and tidal exchange need to be stated, analyzed, and mitigated. The eelgrass issue needs further analysis. The report refers to studies in 2005 and 2007, but now it is 2009. Has the eelgrass gotten more or Iess numerous and how much of the Z dock area is now occupied by eelgrass? What is the mitigation policy for eelgrass that grows back under the boats? Pg 4 -7 -17: The report states that putting the piles in a single row that is parallel and not 2 .3� perpendicular to sand transport will mean that sand transport is not affected. However, the pattern of sand transport is not included in the report.. Sand transport varies with the i♦ season and direction of the swells which come from different directions according to the time of year. This might affect the sedimentation in Carnation Cove as well. There is a disconnect between page 4.7 -4 where the federally endangered tidewater goby S-37 is "potentially occurring within the region ", but then in Table 4.7 -2, it says: "No potential: Extirpated from Orange County" zi Marilyn L Beck 303 Carnation Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 949 - 723 -1773 mdb(a)becktrustee. cam April 29, 2009 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 7966- 6934 -3448 AND EMAIL James Campbell, Principal Planner Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: AERIE PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Campbell: Please find enclosed my comments and questions relating to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. I have organized them by section in keeping with the format of the DEIR and hope you won't find it too confusing. I have number listed my statements with specific questions and concerns relating to each numbered item. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.. Very truly yours, Marilyn L Beck .Z General: 1. Predominant Line of Development: The CLUP states on page 4 -76, referring specifically to bluff face development along Carnation Ave, ".....development on the bluff face is controlled to minimize further alteration." (Emphasis added). The plans originally submitted by Aerie took advantage of the PLOED on the bluff side of both Ocean Blvd and Carnation Avenue. The City Council rejected that proposal and set a PLOED at 50.7 feet above mean sea level. Aerie states in the DEIR that excavation will be to 28 feet above mean sea level which is the level originally submitted and rejected by the City Council. a) How does the City define the PLOED? Is it the bluff face or does it refer to subterranean development? Are there regulations as to the depth of 3� ( subterranean development? If so, what are they? Throughout the DEIR there is only discussion of the bluff face development and not the 25 ++ feet of subterranean development below the PLOED_ 3 „Z b) Is the PLOED the vertical line of development? Is there a horizontal line of development as well? c) If subterranean development is allowed below the 50.7 feet, will that set a precedent for further bluff destruction along Carnation Avenue? Several other 3 _3 properties along Carnation are 'tear downs' and they are currently on the market.. Will the developers of these properties be allowed to descend all the way down to Bayside Place? 2. The DEIR states at page 4.1 -2 that: "A portion of the subject property is located within the limits of the 100 -year zone established for tsunami inundation at extreme high tide" and under the heading of Geologic Hazards: ".,..the site .... is subject to the potential for slope failure..." Section 4.4.3 -5 of the CLUP (and General Plan NR 23.4) states: "Require all new bluff top development located on a bluff not subject to marine erosion to be set back from the bluff edge in accordance with the predominant line of development in the subject area. This requirement shall apply to the principal structure and the major accessory structures such as guesthouses and pools." a) Aerie plans include a pool below the 50.7 PLOED. How does that comply with the requirements of the CLUP? The CLUP does not state that anything can be built into the bluff itself so long as what shows on the exterior is above 3_4 the PLOED. b) Was it the intent of the City when it established the requirements of the CLUP that they referred only to the bluff face and not to the actual structure? 3. The DEIR states that "the site is a steeply sloping coastal bluff and cliff, the west - facing portion of which is subject to marine erosion." The DEIR states that "the existing buildings, including impervious surfaces with the exception of the bluff staircase, presently cover approximately 22 percent of the entire site, consisting of the highest and flattest portions of the site.. Coverage is approximately 41 percent of the area of the site above mean higher high tide line." Ia) The DER, does not state what percentage of the entire site Aerie will cover including buildings and impervious surfaces. Please provide that information- Marilyn L Beck pp Page 1 21 G 3 I b) It appears from Exhibit 3 -7 on page 3 -14 of the DER that Aerie's buildings 3 6 and impervious surface area is far more extensive than the equivalent 22% of the existing structures. 3-7 c) Is this site a "significant natural landform "? Is it a 'bluff? I d) How does allowing this level of development comply with the requirements of 3 -$ the General Plan and CLUP, specifically the requirements to minimize development of coastal bluffs? 4. Balcony encroachments are within the 107" side yard setback abutting Bayside Place This puts the outer limits of the building at the property line and way beyond the horizontal predominant line of development along Carnation Avenue / Bayside Place. a) How can this be allowed given the requirements of the CLUP? This also is the cause of view corridor encroachment from Begonia Park. Section 4.4.3 -6 of the CLUP states: "On bluffs not subject to marine erosion, require new accessory structures such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require structural foundations, to be set back from the bluff edge in accordance with the predominant line of existing accessory development." Does this not refer to balconies and is not the predominant line for the sake of discussion that of 3-1 the horizontal rather than vertical development? b) Even if this particular section does not apply because the balconies hang off of structural foundations, the CLUP Section 4 additionally addresses this point as follows: "On bluff top lots where the bluff is not subject to marine erosion, the setback from the bluff edge should be based on the predominant line of existing development along the bluff edge in each neighborhood." Below is a photo of the horizontal line of development along Carnation which clearly shows that Aerie goes far beyond that line. Marilyn L Beck Page 2 2,6-1 5. Page 2 of the Notice of Preparation under the heading Existing Conditions states: "The Site is a steeply sloping coastal bluff and cliff, the west - facing portion of which is subject to marine erosion." The Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan Section 4 at page 75 states: 'Development restrictions, including setbacks, must be established to ensure geologic stability while addressing current patterns of development. Where least 25 feet from the bluff edge. On bluff top lots where the bluff is not subject to marine erosion, the setback from the bluff edge should be based on the predominant line of existing development along the bluff edge in each neighborhood. These bluff edge setbacks may be increased to maintain sufficient distance to ensure stability, ensure that it will not be endangered by erosion, and to avoid the need for protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years)." 3� tp I a) This point is a continuation of the Point 3 above.. How does this project and the request for Modification Permit meet these requirements? b) Nowhere in the DER is there any discussion about the horizontal predominant line of development along Carnation Avenue, If I have missed this, please let me know. This project pushes the envelope going all the way 3' 11 to the property line, way beyond the predominant line of Carnation development. And, in order to do so, requests a Modification Permit. I strongly disagree that there is justification for granting this permit. Please address this specific point. Land Use & Planning: 6. LU 1.1 & 1.2: These policies address the architectural character of Newport Beach, The DER states that its architectural style "promotes architectural diversity in the City" and that this "distinctive architectural character.... is consistent with the City's desire to differentiate NB from other coastal cities ". a) How does a design of mushroom shaped domes with purple rooftops comply with the General Plan requirements to "maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods..." ? b) The DER is focusing on the term 'differentiate' and applying it to a project that is totally out of keeping and character of anything in CDM or Newport Beach.. There are NO other architectural structures even remotely similar to 3 -i2 this design with the one exception of the Portobello residence designed by Aerie's architect.. c) Being so completely different from every other structure in the city does not appropriately fulfill the requirements of the General Plan- 'Differentiate' doesn't mean not even remotely like anything found in the city.. 7. Under the Section 4.1 -Land Use and Planning of the DER there is a table of the various General Plan provisions with the developer's comments_ LU 1.4 states: "Implement a conservative growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies with the preservation of open space and natural resources ". The DER states that because this project has "only eight residential Marilyn L Beck Page Z.aS dwelling units in a single structure.. -" the development meets the requirement of LU 1.4. What isn't stated is that the total square footage of the project is 61,709 which is a ratio of 7,713,6 per unit. a) How does that show "conservative growth strategy" and how does it 'preserve' open spaces and natural resources? b) The developer will remove a structure that is built on only 22% of the lot size 3. (as stated in the opening section of the DEIR) and replaces it with one that �3 effectively uses 100% of the lot resource (going by the same method of calculation as used by the DEIR in reference to the current structure). This does not appear to meet the objective of LU 1.4. Please respond to this point. 8- Section LU 4.1 states. "Accommodate land use development consistent with the Land Use Plan." The developer responds that this only applies to the small parcel of 584 square feet. 3-1fj a) Doesn't the entire project come under the scrutiny of the Land Use Plan? 9. CE 7.1.1 states: "Require that new development provide adequate convenient parking..." The response is that car elevators meet this requirement. I realize this is subjective, but it hardly seems 'convenient' to have to wait for a car elevator, drive into it, ride down several levels, drive out and into one's space. 3451 a) How is this 'convenient' parking? 10. NR 21.3 states: "Support programs to remove and underground overhead utilities..." The plan submitted achieves this and Alternative A proposes to do so also. 3_ 11, I a) Why does this requirement not apply to all the Alternatives? 11. NR 22.1 states. "Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structure... ." . The DEIR states that Aerie is'similar in both physical mass and character' of the neighborhood and uses Channel Reef as the model of comparison. a) There are no developments in the neighborhood of the style of Aerie, which is based on Gaudy architecture. It is unique in all of Newport Beach and Corona Del Mar (with the exception of the Portobello property designed by 3 -17 Aerie's architect). b) Channel Reef was built in the 1960's and would never be approved or allowed today and does not meet any of the requirements of the General Plan, 12, Policy 4.4.1 -3: The DEIR states that Aerie complies with this policy because "the proposed condominium structure is situated on the flattest portion of the lot and the building design conforms to the natural contours of the site; therefore, grading of the bluff is the minimal amount needed to build the project to the Predominant Line and the project is consistent with this policy" a) Aerie proposes to remove 25,240 cubic yards of dirt from the site, excavating a'r$ to 28 feet. How can the DEIR state that'grading of the bluff is the 'minimal amount needed to build the project to the Predominant Line'? Marilyn L Beck Page 4 Z� 3'($ I b) How is this enormous level of excavation and removal of bluff consistent with COM rT l this policy? 11 The DEIR does not include or respond to CLOP Policy 4.4.3 -3. This policy states: "Require all new bluff top development located on a bluff subject to marine erosion to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in the subject area but not less than 25 feet from the bluff edge. This requirement shall apply to the principal structure and major accessory structures such as guesthouses and pools. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development ". a) Why was this not addressed? b) The DEIR states that "the site is a steeply sloping coastal bluff and cliff, the 3 -0 west - facing portion of which is subject to marine erosion." Thus, Aerie should be required to comply with CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -3. Please address this omission. 14. Policy 4.4.3 -5: The DEIR states that basement and sub - basement are below the PLOED but not visible. But the CLUP requires that major accessories, including swimming pools, to be above the PLOED. a) Aerie has its pool structure below the 50.7 PLOED. b) Aerie balconies extend beyond the horizontal predominant line of 3'?D development as well (see number 4 above) and this requires a modification permit, 15.. f surrol 3-21 'olicy 4.4.3 -8: Requires new development to "....be visually compatible with the ending area to the maximum extent feasible" a) Aerie is larger in square footage than all the existing properties added together along Carnation Avenue bluff (including the property where Aerie is sited). How is Aerie "compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible "? b) Aerie design is out of context with any other property in all of Newport Beach including Corona Del Mar. It is visually incompatible with all other properties in the surrounding area.. 16. Policy 4.4.3 -9: Requires the establishment of a predominant line of development. The City Council established a vertical line at 50.7. But a horizontal line has not been " established and Aerie is inconsistent with the current line of Carnation (See Point 4 and above photo). yJ -2 3 17. Policy 4.4.3 -12: How does removal of 25,240 cubic yards of bluff meet this requirement? Construction Plan: 118. Is the Construction Management Plan available to the public on line? It is not 3 �} attached to the DEIR on the City's web site. Marilyn L Beck Page 5 L 119, Will the developer or the City be responsible for repair to City streets at the .� conclusion of this project if there is damage from the heavy truck traffic? This applies to the entire construction route but is particularly concerning in the neighborhoods of Corona Del Mar. Please respond. Aesthetics: 120. The simulations of the project show that the rooftops are purple. 3- a) Is this the proposed color scheme? b) How is this compatible with the neighborhood? Alternatives: 21, 3 Single Family Home Alternative: The DEIR states that this alternative would not require 'green' technology or the removal of power lines. a) Is implementation of 'state of the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin and undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring a requirement by the City or voluntary by the developer? b) If it is a requirement of the City, why wouldn't that requirement be the same for the 3 Single Family Home Alternative? If it is voluntary, why shouldn't the same voluntary application be applied to ALL the alternatives, not just the one that the developer wants to apply it towards? c) This Alternative states that it will require 75 caissons. How many are required 3-27 for the current Aerie design? Why would there be more caissons required for three homes totaling 23,200 square feet than for a multi- family structure at 61,708? d) The DEIR states that 3 homes would require 6 years of construction because the 3 could not be built at the same time unless all three had buyers. Are there 8 buyers for the Aerie condo units? Are all the units sold? If not, why does this requirement apply to the homes and not to Aerie? e) Clearly this is a very viable alternative because it requires the excavation of only 10,000 cubic yards of bluff rather than 25,240 and is keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 22. 5 -Unit Multi - Family Project: The DEIR states that this alternative would not require green' technology or the removal of power lines. a) My question is the same as the prior Alternative in relation to the Aerie project. Why is this something that Aerie proposes but not for this Alternative? $ ?$ b) The Alternative does not state the square footage of the proposed 5 -Unit building. What is the square footage? c) Reducing construction time by 9 months, eliminating 25 caissons and reducing the amount of dirt excavated by 12,240 cubic yards seems like a very reasonable alternative. Why is this not acceptable? Marilyn L Beck Page 6 n 123. 8 Unit Alternatives A & B. Again, either of these alternatives seem more �J reasonable than the Aerie project, with reduced square footage and reduced excavation of the bluff. My concerns are the same as above. 24. The DER does not address the issue of a Construction Bond. There is significant concern about the financial viability of this project.. a) Please address the City's liability in the event the developer fails to complete the project and the bluff has been excavated. b) Please address the City's liability in the event the bluff fails and there is 3-3D damage to the surrounding properties. c) Further address this issue in the event that the developer declares bankruptcy. Marilyn L Beck Page 7 21 �� Nov 1, 2009 Selrntul III cihnun 400 West Sanin Ann Blvd. Snite 501 Scrota Ana. CA 92701 -4551 w w w.4el llul nbl'el I ma n. cola Subject: IAaft Gtvironment l Impact Report (f;112) SCI I No 100701-1054 AERIIi(PA 2(105 -196) Dear Nis 1 -fiend tzar ae tao . 4 :f RECEIVED W1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT it AY 4 raid U. On behalf of RFSII EXI S I'OR RESPONSIffLfi DEVFLOPNIFIN f, T he tNlnolc (irnul) has reviewed tike {above staled Draft EIR all(] Offers the i4dlowing coniancots and clucstions to I Ike Cily of Newport (leach Planning Depm'tutcnl. {?nHCgtiiit)_Ot-f llc 131�ff The snhjecl DP.IR refers to Tite City of Newport Balch General Plan and the Consfal Land Ilse Plan (CLUP) policies, Many of these policies address protecting the bluffs, (i c. CLUP 4.4 1 -3 development shall minimize the afterot on of witural landl'omi1 including bluff's, CLOP 44 ) -12 employ site design and �— construction techniques to minimize altetmiou of coastal bluffs) The Actie project inchules the excavation :Intl disposal of tut estimated 25,2=40 cubic yards of bluft top material. I low is Ibis consistent with tike Cities adopted policies! Are these policies exempt when the altering of the bluff is subterranean' The Aci ie project will construct nn cutergency access wmtel Ihrougb the bluff face at elevation 40.5 feet as described in ate DEIR -file DEIR. is silent oil how this wnuei hill he constructed, potentially by coring 2 through the bluff face or excavating from Ibe lop down to elevation 40.5 and then filling over the access Tunnel rcconstrocting the bluff face The cunstructiou of the access talonel is in direct conflict with the C;L:U11 policies stale(( above I -3 The DEIR slates in section 4 9 Soils and Geology ( =0-6) Mull Grosion, drat Cite excavation of the subterranean levels and day- lightine at the blull'race will leave a bapextidal (i.e -, pillar) section of intact rock as part of the exposed bhrlf Face I his section speaks to future ciosion and rock slreoglli to remain in place during the ectn amic file of [lie built{ing strucnne 05 years). Out concern is the stability of the ullpezonlnl see l it Ill of ale Noll lit cc during coos l ruction activi Iics stitch tm caisson (b it l i 11 Wig. excavation. any necessary ruck breaking during excavation utilizing nn excavator I breaker (hoc rani), vibiations Plain other caastruction activities to this scenal io the bhlil face is pul at risk It is likely that at it mininuun the upper putiions of lite uapezoidal section will be damnged and /or fractured uitimalely loosing part of the badl' line I be DEIR is silent oat ibis Issue. 1515 Broolthuaow Drive. Santa irna CA92705 CtNcu '214- 751 -55$7 Fw: 7 L1- Tit -4! ;52 wept- nll_�)te_•,gnt L,. 6 0 The rock bluff lice is cenainto endure some damage as a result of the construction activity described y� above. is tecousum:15p the hlaff lace with pa&d dirt and or conerete and steel. meemams to The Lily of N1wporl Beach and complying with the applicable policies'.' re�'s1 htSLS qlj P tllpr C )bmiy: Reference 4 14Z 310 support the I»olcctiun of vital resource,. I Ise D IR stipulates the pre and post cuuslruction nutvcy ul the ecigrass and Mnsious to avoid the sand dollar colony scent to fall shun. A neap identifying the celtass and sand dollar colony overlaid by the dock eolunnt locations would provide 7 any direct conflicts and distance to cadlicts The ptojccted pier columns arc designed tip to 24" in diameter I low will the driilhT and pbtcemem of these colunms not'rutpact These resources'! L,rt�ttiync_nttd!lnnl tiffs It appcan the proper modeling of air pollutants lilts been provided and expected to be maintained below nppHnNc regulatory EMAIL In order to verify and document the various Ihtcsholds given in the DEIR ;t third early should he given this responsibility Noise levels are stipulated during specific portions of the project to be an unavoidable MgWn mt impact i'['his sets a bad precedent un future developments. 1 Pleat e contael me+vith any questions or concerns. 1 The Nloote Grottj' .. ...L e il. ._ -/. Scott PortcrfylA Senior Project Nhurtgel R , I Ate, r 5-( 5-z 5-3 Campbell, James From: Jonv3 @80l com Sent: Monday, May 04. 2009 12:02 AM To: Campbell, James RECEIVED 0`/ Cc: dobehave @earthiink.net "IANNING DEPARTVIEN'f Subject: AERIE Draft EIR Comments PA2005 -196 May 3, 2009 "IWf, = Ctl r: James Campbell ��j Principal Planner �k -ltj {{1�k �'1` j City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Draft EIR, AERIE Project, PA2005 -196 Dear Jim, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR for the Aerie Project I would like to make the following comments regarding the Chapter 4 0 Section 4 7 Biology: 1. 1 don't see the map of the existing vegetation in the report nor on the web site for the Aerie Project in the Planning Department. Is that map available? Does the map show the vegetation that was removed according to the Notice of Violation issued by the Coastal Commission? See page 1, footnote. The coastal bluff vegetation on the site should be shown before the violation occurred and what is there now For example, the footnote says the lemonadeberry is growing back What about the encelia that was removed? How will the existing lemonadeberry survive under the overhang of the deck? The biology report does not seem to address this impact A mitigation measure should provide that the existing vegetation will not be removed or damaged and that it will survive and flourish after the project is built. 2 Coastal bluff scrub is considered ESHA by the Coastal Commission The EIR should show the boundaries of the coastal bluff scrub on the project site and appropriate buffers such as 50 feet which is required for ESHA under the Newport Beach CLUP. Page 1 of the biology report identifies a "remnant southern coastal bluff scrub community on the rocky outcrop along the northern project boundary extending into Newport Bay ", but it seems to ignore the coastal bluff scrub on the bluff face, including lemonadeberry, buckwheat, and encelia This is also coastal bluff scrub and is ESHA that needs to be protected by protecting the vegetation that is now in place and making sure it will survive the deck overhanging it 3. The wetlands discussion on page 4 7.5 totally ignores the Coastal Commission upholding the one - parameter definition, such as vegetation (three parameter wetland definition is vegetation, hydric soil, and hydrology). On April 9, 2009, the Coastal Commission thoroughly refuted the Glenn Lukas biologist's attempts to ignore the one - parameter definition in a wetland in an RV storage lot containing wetlands in Huntington Beach which used the same arguments present in this report See Coastal Commission staff report al: hOpi /documents coastal ca aovlreportsl2009 /4rfh 11 -s-4 -2009 odf The Coastal Commission vote was unanimous in refuting the Tony Bomkamp Glenn Lukos reasoning, therefore they may very well contradict the wetlands conclusions in this report The water source for the umbrella sedge may be that 30 inch drain pipe? Or may it be seepage out of the bluff face from an aquictude? What irrigation would cause it? is the property being irrigated now? It looked pretty neglected to me when I visited the site last year In any case there appears to be a 190 square foot wetland that meets the Coastal Commission one parameter definition, therefore it should be protected in place, with a buffer, which is 100 feet in the Newport Beach CLUP 4 The sand dollar issue needs more examination Where else in Newport Bay do they find sand dollars? The EIR should locale and describe the other locations Page 4 7 -8 states " the occurrence of of intertidal populations of the species 5_, f within Newport Bay is unique and rare. The population survives in this location because wave motion/wave energy is �f moderate, sediments are sandy to silty sand, and tidal exchange is excellent" Will the dock cause changes to the wave motion/wave energy, sediments and tidal exchange? The biology report only makes a condition about signage and not -'?'9z taking specimens out of the marine environment The changes in the environment including the pollution and changes to wave motionlenergy, sediments and tidal exchange need to be stated. analyzed, and mitigated. 5 The eelgrass issue needs further analysis. The report refers to studies in 2005 and 2007, but now it is 2009 Has the eelgrass gotten more or less numerous and how much of the dock area is now occupied by eelgrass? What is the �. mitigation policy for eelgrass that grows back under the boats? Eelgrass is great habitat for fish, and the fact that it is returning In Newport Bay is a sign of better water quality. 5 Sand transport Page 4 -7 -17. The report states that puffing the piles in a single row that is parallel and not perpendicular to sand transport will mean that sand transport is not affected However, the pattern of sand transport is not 5_ included in the report Sand transport varies with the season and direction of the swells which come from different directions according to the time of year This might affect the sedimentation in the Carnation Cove as well 17 There is a disconnect between page 4 7 -4 where the federally endangered tidewater goby is "potentially occurring within the region ", but then in Table 4.7 -2, it says: "No potential: Extirpated from Orange County" Is this site potential habitat for this endangered fish? Please put me on the list for notices concerning this project, including by email at JOnV3(&aOl.com and at my home 5 address at Jan D. Vanderslool, MD 2221 E 16th street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Thanks again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Jan D Vandersloot, MD 2009 3 Free CREDIT SCORES: See Your 3 Credit Scores from All 3 Bureaus FREE[ t,1/3 rr'n'rF OF r•nr,a pflghl rfiSlMiY t' tirc A8111HMtl:n :f'V ................... ....._ ... ._.__------- IiZW1:UriliA.,{; n9! DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION r)isvicr 12 m 3,137 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine. CA 92612.8894 TcL (9,19) 724 -2241 rhfr)O , power. rax: (949) 724.2592 lie nrcrl y�jRcinrRr May 4, 2009 .James Campbell City of Newport Beach ,3 300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 Subject: AERIE (PA2005 -196) Dear Mr. Campbell, File: 1GR/CEQA SCHH:2009051082 Log H: 1.833E PCH Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the AERIE (PA2005 -196) project. The proposed project involves the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence to construct a 6- level. 8 -unit condominium complex, grading, and maintenance improvements to an existing private dock. The project site is located on 201 -207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place in the City of Newport Beach. The nearest State mute to the project site is Pacific Coast Highway (P(-H). The Department of Transportation (Department) is a commenting agency on this project and has no comment at this time. Ftowevcr, in the event of any activity in the Department's right -of -way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any .fume developments that could 6 r� potentially impact Slade; transportation facilities. if you have any questions or need to contact us. please do not hesitate to call Marlon Regisford at (949) 724 - 2241. Sincerely, r Christopher Ilerre, Branch Chief' Local Devclopment/Intergovernmental Review C: 'leray Roberts, Ofliec of Planning and Research Cndnw imp vs nmbiliry ac rave Qry(o, nia' RECEIVED BY ?L'4VING 'NPAPDAIN I :jl}lr i,ir 10j°' /hi i,l!'t"i"H 2,94 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 2.95 1_z COmpreh.cnsicC PLIDning Services May 4, 2009 Jim Campbell, Principal Planner Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport beach, CA 92658.8915 Re: Comments to Notice of Availability Aerie residential project (PA 2005 -1961 SCHNo 20D702)054 Dear Mr Campbell: C-e- Vie- r O. 7 RECEIVED BY Pf iNNINGO PARTMEW .o,; ( - r As a resident of Newport Beach and professional environmental consultant, I am concerned about the narrow and out dated review of the Aerie project presented in its Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). At a minimum. the EIR should be revised and recirculated to address the following very apparent errors: Air Quality The air quality analysis fails to identify the square footage of building material to be demolished and the cubic yards of earth disturbance due to site excavation and grading. Demolition and grading activities contribute significant levels of particulate and carbon emissions. impacting both short -term air pollutant levels and long -term green house gas (GHG) emissions. The EIR is remiss in neglecting to identify how demolition and grading activities contribute to construction GHG emissions Although thresholds relative to CO2 and other GHG emissions are still being formulated by the Slate, AR32 makes it very clear that if is an objective of every community to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 The EIR needs to discuss how the Aerie project. which proposes the "tear down. excavate and build large" technique and an elevator system for parking, will work toward meeting these state mandated goals. Clearly, the EIR needs to be revised to fully describe the potential GHG emissions from the Aerie project, including not only CO2, but water vapor, melhone, nitrous oxide. hydrotluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulftx hexaituoride. Although the EIR Identities the health risks associated with criteria pollutants, it provides no assessment of the health risks associated with project development, particularly related to demolition and grading activities during project construction The Impact Summary Table of the EIR erroneously lists SCAQMD rules as mifigollon. Case low is very clear that standard rules, regulations and conditions of approval do not constitute [�. mitigaiion under CEQA. The EIR makes the some error relative to traffic, geology, drainage and biology. '416( "1", S",' Xcopn. -i ll.xch(,:110361 10: 9496107,206 lav "1'9518(i9ti1 t.r..nit. jr,i;mn /li:ialCf+c.cuin 219 7 -(, Visual Resources J Aesthetics The EIR fails to discuss potential impacts associated with glare from project windows, particularly during the pre - sunset hour when the glare is the greatest Similarly, the EIR fails discuss how the new dock, will block views of the beach that existing bay users currently enjoy. Should the project be approved and demolition and excavation begin. there is reasonable probability that the project may not move forward to completion In other words, the developer may excavate, leaving a great hole in the cliff, and find the project is no longer feasible. The communily is then left with a ravaged cliff. Such scenarios are not uncommon; file halted development at Dover and PCH is a recent example of the eyesore left when site clearing is halted mid- Irock. Mitigation measures need to be added to the project, requiring the developer to bond for such events Alternatives The allernalives analysis sets a very narrow scope that appears biased toward the project. The 3 single family and 5 multi - family alternatives appear to be intentionally designed so as not to reduce impacts associated with construction noise and paleontological resources Further, dismissing the Single Family Home Alternative because it does not require 'green' technology Is 7-7 a red herring. Rather, the EIR should compare the GHG emissions of the project to each alternative Using drought tolerant landscaping or overhangs, as proposed by the project, would not counter the GHG emissions of 9 luxury units when compared to any development with a smaller unit count and smaller footprint. Yours truly. Joann Lombardo, Z.97 0-f May 4, 2009 Mr. James Campbell Principal Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Mr. Campbell! U,4j7E.4/Z I'O g RECEIVED By PtANNfNG DEPARTMENT MAY —9 nii` .; _ After reviewing the Draft EIR for the proposed AERIE project located in Corona del Mar, I have concerns regarding some issues discussed in the document as well as issues not addressed in the Draft EIR. I feel that the following issues are either misrepresented or fail to be addressed in the Draft EIR; Construction Management Plan (CMP) Traffic and Circulation Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) Predominant Line of Development (PLEDD) Dock System Financial feasibility of the project Throughout the Draft EIR there is reference to a Construction Management Plan (CMP). This Plan is not a part of the Draft EIR and nowhere is there reference as to where this Plan can be accessed. Due to the size and scope of the proposed project this document should be available for review. • Since it is frequently referenced, shouldn't the CMP have been included in the Draft EIR or reference made to where the document could be viewed? • Where can it be viewed? Due to size and scope of this project, an unusually large number of heavy construction vehicles and equipment are needed. Table 1 -1 indicates that truck traffic would not g _3 exceed four trucks per hour and "not significant impacts would occur." The removal of 25,240 cubic yards of earth from the site (not to mention demolition and infra structure) will necessitate over 2,000 truckloads as well as heavy equipment. r Page 2 There are no less than 11 Mitigating Measures listed for this issue. I disagree that even with the Mitigating Measures the Level of Significance will be "Less than Significant." Our streets are narrow and are not designed to handle the size and volume of large gJ' trucks and heavy equipment required for this project. m; $ -% —Ji • Where will these trucks be staged? • Will the trucks be lined up along the Haul Route? Residents access and exit their homes via alleys, which go out onto Seaview Avenue, and Ocean Boulevard residents must access and exit their properties via Ocean Boulevard entering and crossing the Haul Route. What measures will be taken to ensure residents' safety as they enter and cross the Haul Route? There is also a significant Issue of pedestrian safety, especially along Ocean Boulevard and Goldenrod and Seaview Avenues where there are a limited number of pedestrian crosswalks and stop signs. What measures will be taken to ensure pedestrians' safety as they enter and cross the Haul Route? The Draft EIR indicates that the proposed project is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. It is my understanding that the purpose of the CLUP is to protect the bluffs and natural landforms within the City of Newport Beach. The City Council has established a PLOED at 50.7 feet above mean sea level. However, the project will have two subterranean levels, as well as elements of the project which will violate this level. • How is the removal of 25,240 cubic yards of material and subterranean construction consistent with the protection of the bluff /natural landform? • How is the construction of a 61,709 sq.ft, structure on a 20,935 sq.ft "buildable" site consistent with the protection of the bluff /natural landform? The proposed dock system presents a myriad of problems, and in fact, at the April 8, 2009 Harbor Commission Meeting the Harbor Commission voted to recommend denial of S the docks to the City. Their comments included concern regarding storm events and potential damage during these events, potential for shifting of the sand dollar population, sand migration concern and the overall size of the dock system. This is an extremely ambitious and expensive project, It is my understanding that the developer will be required to post a construction bond. • What is a construction bond and what does it accomplish? —g a What will happen to the project if the developer is unable to complete it? • Who will be financially responsible for any damage to streets or slope (i.e., Fernleaf and Ocean) failure due to the excessive number of heavy trucks traveling the Haul Route? x,99 Page 3 Lastly, there are a great number of Mitigating Measures for the proposed project. Enforcement of these will be time and work intensive. 8� c� How is the City going to ensure that all of the guidelines and Mitigating Measures are enforced? This project is NOT consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. It is too large and has huge potential for damage to the site slope as well as residential properties near the project. As required by General Plan Policy CE 7.1.1, the project does not provide convenient parking and will potentially increase the parking problems experienced in the neighborhood. Sincerely, Jinx L. Hansen 221 Goldenrod Avenue Corona del Mar, CA ?,,'100 9 -1 TO: .lames Campbell, Principal Planner Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Bcach., CA 92658 icarn pbel l (a)city.newpo r bbeach.ca.us FRONI: Melinda Luthin, Esq. 11.0 Box 417 Corona del Mar. CA 92625 mluthinlaw a gmail.com Re: Aerie Multi - family Residential Project Draft EIR Thank you for the opportunity to comment on die draft EIR. Chapter 1, Executive Surmnary L.4774e At4O.9 P,ECEWD BY pll >.mwit,d3 rEPr.RTTalf -tif k 'r -li a `�!. j °$t,4litl''t311i 13Lf''ttcel "I 1.1.2: A "construction Management Plan (CMP) has been prepared as a component of the proposed project." Comment: The DEIR refers to this CMP, but it is not incorporated into this DrIR. Nor is it a part of any public document that has been properly reviewed. The DEIR states that this CMP "addresses parking management... traffic control... safety and security... air quality control... noise suppression measures... and environmental compliance/protection " Yet the veracity of these conclusory statements cannot be evaluated because we have not been given this document to review. This appears to be a very important document that is being kept from public scnniny. I question this behavior. My questions are: Who prepared this CMP? Has it been properly reviewed? Is it available for public inspection and comment? What does "component" mean, in the above? How are these measures "addressed" and are they adequately and properly addressed? Since this CMP is not attached, this entire DEIR has not been adequately presented to the public for review. I recommend that the EIR, with all incorporated documents attached be resubmitted for public review I.1.4: In general, this section appears to be boilerplate statements without any facts to support 9'2 the implementation of the project objectives. It reads snore like an advertisement for the project rather than a list of objectives. Although contained in the Executive Summary, this section fails to summarize any means to obtain any of the proposed objectives. My specific comments to each subsection are as follows. 1. What is the "advanced design" refetred to? Wliat is the mininhuni "sufficient nunhber and size" of units that will justify such a design? What "architectural diversity" of the community is this trying to emulate'? How will this project "add distinction' to the 6! -3 neighborhood? These statements are made without any facts to explain how these objectives are being implemented, or how these objectives benefit the community. Notably, this section refers the reader to subsequent sections for further explanation, yet these sections provide the reader no information specific to the project. Z. it appears that the removal of the power poles and replacement with underground 9 -� wiring is a standard requirement for all new construction. This is not a proper "objective" that is specific to this project. 13. What are the energy efficient designs? Can these be implemented in a project that complies, without variance. with the local, regional, state and federal development rules, O' j and in a project that does not require an EIR? If so, then why isn't this project being built instead? 4. This vague section gives the tender no indication of what will be built, other than whatever the developer `deems" to be "important." This makes no consideration of the rJ' -6 needs or interests of the environment, of the community, of the city, state or of our nation as a whole. 5. How will a high - density project decrease parking on the sheet? It seems improbable 5-7 that this inconvenient panting proposal, which includes mechanical elevators subject to I failure, will decrease any parking in the area. J -b G. This project appears to inhibit the scenic views, not enhance them, The view from Begonia park will be significantly impacted, and the view from the site will also be negatively affected. The removal of two power poles is insignificant. It also does not enhance the view from the peninsula or the water. In fact, it will be more detrimental view because the natural bluff will be replaced by a building. Also, the balconies will protrude into the view corridor. R. Although the "average" building height may be below the maximum, there is no . g comment on the effect of the maximum exceedences that will occur and their impact on the views Table I -I This table is couiiasing. Again, it is tilled with conclusory statements without factual 0-1t) support. For instance, the "potential Impact" on "Land Use and Planning" states that, after mitigation, the dock will be "consistent with the Land use %lenient and Costal Land use Plan" and "compatible with the existing land uses of the area" What is the meaning of "consistent ?" How is an 8- pers011, single- building project with subterranean parking that has a footprint multiple tithes larger than any other residential building in the area `'compatible" with the existing land use? Soils and Gcology. In general, there is no discussion of compliance with any laws or regulations or other requirements other than local ordinances. I here should be a discussion of the project's compliance or non- compliance with the requirements of all regulations and laws from local, regional, state and federal sources- y_i� SC 4.9 -3: "The property owner shall execute and record a waiver of future shoreline protection...." 1 am not sure what this means. It needs to be explained. SC4.9 -4 Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by costal erosion." This comtrrent needs explaining.. The reader cannot determine what structures are considered `accessory." This is being proposed as a single structure. What is the proposed "routine maintenance' predicted to be necessary? What will happen if this maintenance is not performed? What will be the impacts of this maintenance on the X13 environment and the community? How often will it be performed? It appears that there may be some information regarding the soil integrity that has not been disclosed to the public, but which is known to some, if potential incidents due to coastal erosion have been identified, the public has a right to know exactly what has been studied, and what risks are being created by this project. All of this information should be disclosed, and provided for comment 9-It� MM4.9.1 Allowing this massive project to be designed via the engineering specifications of one consultant (namely, Nesbit & Associates) seems to be risky. Who is reviewing these engineering specifications? Who is double- checking them? I-lave there been studies performed at the site to verify their calculations? What are the potential risks? What are their probabilities? This is a huge health and safety concern not only for the residents of this project, but for all residents in the vicinity, including those in Bayside Cove. as well as the environment in the area. Biological Resources the first section does not identify any "Potential Impact" so the reader is left to guess at g" IS what the corresponding Mitigation measures ate attempting to mitigate. The second section refers to the CMP, which is not attached, and therefore this entire g - Ib I DEIR has not been adequately presented to the public for review. "A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre - construction survey for active nests of covered species . " This does not identify what "qualifications' the biologist shall have, or who will choose the biologist, It also. only states that they will not disturb nests. It 103 does not address the issue of the lecturing need of any nesting species. This will eliminate any future nesting. The only "mitigation" proposed is obtaining a permit. 'this can hardly be 9, considered any mitigation of any impact on the protected flora acrd fauna in the area.. The natural habitat is going to be destroyed, with no consideration of the long -terns impacts on these species. "A small portion of the existing eelgrass bed (approximately 30 square feet)" will L) f ( be adversely impacted by the boats. This does not provide us with adequate information. How big is (lie bed, what numerical portion of the bed does this consist ot? "Impacts to eelgrass are avoided through the implementation of measures prescribed in the CMP.` Again, the public has not been given the opportunity to fully review this DEIR because they have not been given the CMP. Also, the claim that some 5-20 secret "measure" described in the CMP can eliminate the effects of 100 plus foot boats seems improbable. This is all die more reason that the: public deserves to have access to ail the proposed "implantatiori' measures in order to test their feasibility and veracity. iThis also states that there will be a pre- and post- construction survey of the Zt I eelgrass. It does not address any impacts on the eelgrass due to the construction itself. In general, mitigation is not monitoring and surveys only Monitoring and surveys are tools used to cictermbte what mitigation is required, they are not the g' 7 mitigation themselves. In this DEIR, surveys and monitoring are improperly proposed for the purpose of mitigation. Disturbances to the sandy cover intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat, eelgrass and sand dollar bed. Again, this DEIR incorporates by reference the CMP, which is not attached and 9' not available for public review. Therefore the public cannot adequately review and continent on this DEIR. ']'his mitigation consists of vague statements that the construction worlcets will "avoid impacts" to the area. It does not state how this will be achieved, other than with signagc and yellow construction tape. Aesthetics The DEIR states that there will be no impact on the view. This is not true, as the view 5_� will be impacted from many vantage points throughout the village, the water, and the city (see above). 9 -2.5 SC: 4 5.1 -2: The lighting mitigation section is incomplete. SC 4.5. 2 (second): "The applicant shalt dedicate a view easement._" This needs to be _2 explained? In whose favor is this view easement? Where is it located? Why is it required? Cultural Resources This section identifies that the project "will result in site alteration that could encroach into the Monterey formation ...." Yet, the impacts arc defined as less than 9 .z significant. llow is this possible? -a,to4 Recreation No discussion is made of the negative impact on the public that this project will cause by its increased street parking and by the fact that the project will hide and hinder the availability of the public beaches from the public. Drainage and Hydrology. This section discusses the effect of die project on the marine life. This discussion 9 21 of the impact of the construction is inadequate. So too is the mitigation proposed. The effect of the construction on the marine life and proper and effective mitigation of these effects should have been fully addressed under `Biological Resources" above. Public Services and Population and Housing In general, this DFIR does not discuss die density of the project. It states that there wi Il be "eight luxury condominiums" but does not state how many people are estimated for each. It also does not state the density of the current fifteen unit apartment complex. Therefore, the public cannot adequately evaluate and comment on the impact of any increase in residents at this project. Sincerely, Melinda Luthin, Esq. 2r(07 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Z, t oG - j x rCOYS�'„IA.N "Gji[�Ur�r;� �v lo-1 May 4, 2009 James Campbell Principal Planner Newport Beach Planning Dept 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 ;ECEMED BY r'il t.!G OVARTNIO- T Lp'7 TE2- ,u0. <a 169 Saxony Road Suite 204 Encinitas, CA 92024 o '11 j' t " 1' :ti 760. 942.6505 YVj' i ' 6f s !3'k"Ll Far. 760 - 942 -8515 Via Electronic Mail j campbe I I@ city.newport-beat h.ca. us Re: Aerie Multiple - Family Residential Project Residents for Responsible Development Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Campbell: Coast Law Group LLP represents the interests of Residents for Responsible Development (RFRD) with respect to the City's review of the above - referenced project (the "Aerie Project" or "Project ") - RFRD is comprised of a group of concerned neighbors living in Corona Del Mar and Newport Beach. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the review process and to submit comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). While RFRD is not opposed to the appropriate development of the subject property, the Project as currently proposed does not comply with the City's land use regulations and therefore fails to adequately protect the site's coastal bluff and surrounding resources. Further, the DEIR is legally deficient under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it fails to carry out the statute's Informational goals. As the City is aware, CEQA mandates full disclosure to promote informed decision - making and an opportunity for meaningful public participation. The statute's fundamental goals have not been carried out in this case. Given the scope of the Project and the numerous significant impacts associated therewith, the Project cannot be approved as currently designed With these issues in mind, RFRD respectfully submits the following comments for the City's consideration: 1. Coastal Bluff Impacts The DEIR is legally deficient under CEQA because the Project wilt result in significant land use impacts. As a cursory review of the DEIR discloses, construction of the proposed condominium structure will result in the complete eradication of the underlying coastal bluff. Notwithstanding this obvious fact and the City's express coastal policies prohibiting the same, the DEIR fails to discuss or otherwise acknowledge the significance of this loss Indeed, the DEIR painstakingly avoids the issue altogether and therefore falls to satisfy its informational purpose under CEQA. Per appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a proposed project will result in a significant land use impact if it 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." Here, the Clty's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan (CLOP) set forth express provisions prohibiting the physical alteration of coastal bluffs and landforms Particularly relevant to the !Z, 107 (O— COO 1T. r'0'Z (o -3 Aerie Project, Comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2009 Page 2 consistency analysis in this case, these regulations are separate and distinct from the general restrictions that apply to aesthetics and compliance with the predominant line of existing development (PLOED) For instance, one of the discrete goals of the General Plan is to ensure that "[ deevelopment respects natural landforms such as coastal bluffs." (General Plan, Goal NR23, p 10-40) To effectuate this goal, the Natural Resources Element sets forth a number of specific coastal bluff policies, including the following: NR 23 1, Maintenance of Natural Topography, Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, and site buildings to minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and preserve the features as a visual resource. (General Plan, p 10 -40, emphasis added).' Similarly, the CLUP contains a discrete section addressing "Natural Landform Protection" (see CLUP §4.4.3. p. 4-74 to 4 -80) and expressly states that coastal bluffs are to be protected. (ld, at p. 4 -75). In doing so, the CLUP notes that coastal bluffs have been "physically or visually obliterated by structures, landform alteration or landscaping." (Id at p. 4 -75). As with the General Plan, the CLUP sets forth a number of specific policies to ensure that new development complies with its protective mandate. For instance, the CLUP states: 4 4 3.12: Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as , (u]tiliztng existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent possible 2 (CLUP, pp 4 -78, 4-79) Furthermore, the CLUP specifically references the coastal platform occupied by Corona del Mar and addresses the manner In which bluff- related development may occur. Notably, the clear intent of the CLUP is to prohibit any further alteration of Corona del Mar's coastal bluffs. The CLUP states: Corona del Mar is one of the few areas in the coastal zone where there is extensive development of the bluff face; specifically, residential development on Avocado Avenue, Pacific Drive, Carnation Avenue, and Ocean Boulevard. The inllial subdivision and development of these areas occurred prior to the adoption of policies and regulations intended to protect coastal bluffs and other landforms. Development in these areas is allowed to continue on the bluff face to be consistent with the existing development pattern and to protect coastal views from the bluff top. However, development of the bluff face is controlled to minimize further alteration (CLUP, p. 4 -76; emphasis added). Soo also Policy LU7 3 (requiring the preservation of "open space resources, beaches, harbor, parks, bluffs, preserves, and estuaries as visual, recreational and habllat resources) 2 See also Policy 4 4.1.3 ( "Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms. including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. "). 2 , 100 lo--4- Aerie Project, Comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2009 Page 3 To ensure Corona del Mars coastal bluffs are protected in accordance with this intent, the CLUP sets forth the following policy: 4.4.3 -8: Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Camation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development or public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible.. (CLUP, p 4 -78; emphasis added).' Thus, as the foregoing illustrates, coastal bluffs in the area have been physically and visually obliterated due to prior development and associated grading activities. To prevent the continued loss of these resources, development must be carried out such that alterations to the natural topography and underlying coastal bluff are minimized to the maximum extent feasible. This 10.5 mandate is separate and distinct from the obligation to preserve coastal bluffs as a visual resource. And to the extent bluff - related development is permitted in the Corona del Mar area at all, it must be consistent with and limited to the scope of pre - existing structures such that further landform alterations are avoided. These limitations apply because bluff face development is now strictly prohibited and is only allowed per those grandfathered uses. In the General Plan and CLUP consistency analysis, the DEIR repeatedly concludes that the Project complies with the foregoing policies because the exterior development will not extend below the PLOED and the structures will have a "curvilinear' design. In doing so, the DEIR (0 - (D completely ignores the Project's lateral encroachments and subterranean Impacts to the bluff. The DEIR's consistency analysis is therefore deficient because it fails to address the specific bluff protection policies outlined above. And as detailed below, the DEIR's findings are not supported by substantial evidence and will be subject to challenge as an abuse of discretion The Project is sited above the entrance to Newport Harbor on one of the City's character- defining coastal bluffs. As such, it is visible from public vantage points throughout the Balboa Peninsula and Newport Bay (DEIR, p. 3 -2)- The bluff is part of the Monterey Formation, which was formed approximately 80,000 to 520,000 years ago and has a "high paleontological sensitivity" due to an abundance of marine life fossils (DEIR, pp. 4 9 -1, 4.10 -1). The bluffs are considered "significant scenic and environmental resources and are to be protected " (CLUP, (0-7 p. 4 -75). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Project will result in the eradication of the site's underlying coastal bluff, as follows: "The upper elevation of the project site is approximately 70 feet above mean sea level" (DEIR, p 4 7 -1; emphasis added) Project construction will require excavation to an elevation of 28 feet. (DEIR, p. 4.2 -2, Table 4.2 -1) As such, the proposed project will result in the eradication of 60% of the underlying bluff (See DEIR pp, 3.19, 3 -21, t See also Policy 2.8 14 (ensure that new development does not contribute to the "destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs "); r,09 to—'s Aerie Project, Comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2DO9 Page 4 Ex. 3 -13, 3 -14, cross sections illustrating extent of bluff removal). To accomplish [his result, the Project will require the excavation of 25,000 cubic yards of the underlying bluff, which will simply be disposed of In the Brea Olinda Landfill. (DEIR, p. 4.2 -3). The need to transport such a large quantity of earth material to the landfill will result "in the generation of approximately 2,105 heavy truck trips over the 5 -month grading and excavation phase." (Id. at 4 2 -3). The scope of the excavation is further illustrated by the fact that the project will require a setback variance, as "the majority of the encroachments are subterranean." (Id. at 4.1 -20). In that regard, the site will be completely hallowed out such that only a sliver of the bluff face will remain intact. The DEIR states: Excavations for and construction of planned subterranean levels, which will remove existing fill suits as well as _a majority of the terrace deposits capping the bedrock at as part of the exposed bluff face to approximately Elevation the [sic) both the lithologic bedrock unit exposed and the rock quality, the remaining trapezoidal section of intact rock will have sufficient strength to remain in place during the economic life of the structure (Le. 75 years). (DEIR pp. 4.9-6,4 9-7; emphasis added). The direct purpose of these excavation activities is to accommodate a massive, six story building consisting of over 61,000 square feet by eradicating the underlying bluff and disguising a high -rise structure in its place. (See DEIR, p. 3- 12).`' To allow such a practice would set an incredibly poor precedent for future development in the area and would lead to the complete destruction of the City's coastal bluffs over time. Moreover, the Project would permanently alter the 100,000 year -old bluff in favor of leaving a rock "pillar" that is only expected to remain in place for the structure's 75 -year economic life. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the DEIR states that the Project "has been designed to'fit' the bluff" and "would not alter the existing landform that characterizes the site " (DEIR, pp. 4 1 -20, 4 -5 -8)- As set forth above, these contentions are not supported by substantial evidence. in that regard, there is no question that the Project violates the protective policies of the General Plan and CLUP, as the proposed development has not been designed to "minimize alteration" of the site's natural topography and underlying bluff "fo fhe maximum extent feasible " (General Plan Policy NR 23.1; CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8; emphasis added). Further, less intrusive alternatives (that do not require substantial excavation) clearly exist. Based on the foregoing, the Project will result in significant land use impacts and the DEIR's conclusions to the contrary are not a While the logic of this passage is not entirely clear, It seems to suggest that the excavation activities will somehow constitute a Project benefit because evisceration of the bluff will result In less bluff erasion in the future This. of course, defies common sense and cannot be relied upon as a justification for Project approval. ' The DEIR does not Identify the square footage of the site's existing residential structures and therefore fails to provide an adequate baseline for evaluating Project impacts 01110 Aerie Project, Comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2009 Page 5 supported by substantial evidence 2. Visual R Aesthetic Impacts Given the bulk and scale of the proposed condominium structure, the Project will result in significant visual and aesthetic impacts under CEQA. The overall building height of the residential structure will be increased by approximately nine feet over the existing multiple- family structure and 17 feet over the existing single family residence. (DEIR, p. 4.5 -3) As noted above, the resulting Project consists of a 61,000 square -foot high -rise structure which is entirely inconsistent with the surrounding community in terns of both architectural style and overall mass' Relevant here, the CLUP states that the City must "[cjominue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach" (GLUP, Policy 4.4.2 -2). Despite this dear mandate, the DEIR fails to provide a reasoned analysis of the Project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood (such as a to-III comparative square footage analysis of other residential structures on Carnation Avenue). Instead, the DEIR repeatedly states that the Project will not result in a significant aesthetic impact because "it would be smaller than the Channel Reef Development located to the south " (DEIR, p. 4.1 -35). Given the DEIR's conclusory discussion of this issue, approval of the Project will be subject to challenge as an abuse of discretion. The foregoing deficiencies are equally at issue with respect to the scope of the proposed dock structure The dock, which will total approximately 3,500 square feet (CRM Eelgrass Survey, p. io -tZ 21), will accommodate nine vessels, including a 100 -foot yacht. While the DEIR does not provide any details regarding the height and bulk of the vessels expected to be moored on -site, there Is no question that their presence will directly impact views of Carnation Cove and the adjacent rock outcroppings that form its southwestern boundary. With respect to this issue, the General Plan states: "Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, and site buildings to minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and 6o-!j preserve the features as a visual resource." (General Plan, NR 23 t; p 10 -40, emphasis added). Likewise, the CLUP identifies rock outcroppings as significant landfotms that must be protected. (CLUP, p. 4 -77) (0.14 In attempting to reconcile the dock structure with the foregoing policies, the DEIR states, "Although some views of the cove and rock features below the bluff from some vantages in the harbor would be partially or totally obscured by the proposed dock facility, the obstruction would be brief and intermittent only as one travels in and out of the harbor " (DEIR, p. 41-16; see also p. 4.5 -8). This conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence, as it fails to consider the Project's impacts on stationary views from the Peninsu)a. Indeed, the dock system has been sited directly adjacent to the two rock outcroppings such that they will be completely obscured from cross - channel vantage points. (See DEIR, Ex 3 -17, depicting extent to which outcroppings will be obscured) By the same token, the DEIR fails to evaluate potential impacts to views from " See a g. visual simulations at Exhibits 4 5.7 and 4 5 -8. 7"(11 Aerie Project, Comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2009 Page 6 Carnation Cove to the Harbor and Channel. (See CLUP Policy 4.4.1 -1, requiring protection of public views to and along the bay and harbor). With respect to glare, the DEIR fails to adequately consider the drastic increase in reflective 1b, r5 surface area resulting from the Project's design. (See DEIR, Ex, 4 -15, 3-16). In that regard, the DEIR should evaluate potential view impacts from Harbor and Peninsula vantage points during limes of maximum sun reflection. 1 Noise impacts While the DEIR recognizes that noise impacts will be significant and unmitigable with respect to construction of the proposed residential structure, it fails to adequately consider dock - related 10-16 impacts! The DEIR states, "Construction of the dock is scheduled from May 2012 to July 2012 and is estimated to have a duration of 40 days." (DEIR, p 4.4 -20). Given this time - frame, the DEIR must evaluate potential noise impacts to recreational uses within Carnation Cove, as the beach area is most frequently visited during summer months. 1n -17 Moreover, the DEIR deliberately understates dock - related construction impacts on neighboring residences. The DEIR states that impacts from drilling noise will reach 71dB and 68 dB at 101 Bayside Place and 2495 Ocean Boulevard, respectively. (DEIR, p. 4.4 -20) However, these Figures represent average noise impacts. The dock construction noise study prepared by Wieland Acoustics states that maximum noise levels at those locations will reach 83 dB and 77 dB, respectively. (Wieland Acoustics Study, App. E, p 12). These figures clearly exceed the slandard 65 dB threshold of significance for assessing residential noise impacts- (See DEIR, p. 44-1). By the same token, the DEIR completely omits any reference to noise impacts associated with installation of the concrete piles (which will reach 80 d13 at the closest residence) (Id.)- The ro 1 failure to include this information constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion, as the DEIR does not disclose the full extent of the Project's environmental impacts a (0 -(9 4. Vibrational impacts With respect to vibrational impacts, the DEIR states that the "analysis of potential short -term vibration impacts was evaluated at both the closest distance that would occur as well as the average distance" (DEIR, p. 4.4 -23). However, this does not appear to be accurate, as the Vibrational study attached to the DEIR only states that impacts were assessed from a distance of 60 feet. (See Planning Center Study, DEIR App. F, p. 57). In any event, neither the DEIR nor the vibrational study identities the actual distance between the anticipated impacts and the closest residence. r Regarding construction of the residential structure. the applicable noise study did not consider impacts associated with crane operations on the grounds that use of the rig would be intermittent (Planning Noise Study, App. F, pp. 31 -32) However, as is the case with construction traffic, intermittent impacts can result in significant noise Impacts. As such, the crane's impacts must be properly evaluated in the Final EIR s The DEIR also fails to disclose noise Impacts to residential structures across the Channel. Notably. drilling - related noise levels will reach 65d8 at 2222 Channel Road (Wieland Acoustics Study, App E. p- 12) Because this borders the 65 dB threshold, file impact must be disclosed. 2,112 to-20 fo -zf Aerie Project, Comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2009 Page 7 Because the Project requires a setback variance to accommodate excavation activities, the impacts are likely to occur within several feet of adjacent residences. As such, the DEIR must address potential vibrational impacts in terms of both cosmetic and structural damage. This applies with respect to construction of the condominium structure as well as the dock facility, as "the risk of structural damage still exists even at relatively low vibration levels." (Wieland Acoustics Study, App. E, p 7). Notably, the study prepared to measure dock - related vibrational impacts does not address this Issue. The report states: Because it is outside our area of expertise, the risk (if any) of structural damage due to transmitted vibrations or dynamic settlements has not been evaluated In this study. This risk should be analyzed and assessed by qualified structural and geotechnical engineers. (Wieland Acoustics Study, App. E, p. 15; emphasis added). This issue must be adequately analyzed in the Final EIR and to the extent any significant impacts will result the DEIR must be re- circulated. The analysis must give due consideration to site conditions, including the hard rock material prevalent in the Monterey Formation (see DEIR, pp. 4.9 -1, 4.9 -7), as well as the age and physical condition of neighboring structures' Also relevant, the evaluation must be based on peak particulate velocity (PPV) threshold standards. PPV "is most appropriate for evaluating potential building damage since it is related to the stresses that are exerted upon the buildings." (Wieland Acoustics Study, App. E, p. 6) t1 The DEIR's analysis of vibrational impacts on human perception is likewise deficient, and fails to accurately disclose the findings of the applicant's own reports. Notably, "when groundborne vibration exceeds 72 to 80 VdB, it is usually perceived as annoying to occupants of residential buildings." (ld, at p. 8) Per the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact will be assessed if the project will result in "[e]xfpsosure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This Impact will occur if any construction activity causes emphasis added). Here, development of the condominium structure will result in the impacts at the nearest structures: • loaded Trucks: 90 VdB • Caisson Drill: 97 VdB • large Bulldozer: 97 VdB • Ram Hoe: 97 VdB (Planning Center Study, App. F. p. 59, fn. 2). Based on the foregoing, the Project's construction impacts will exceed the applicable threshold by a substantial margin As such, the Project will result in significant vibrational impacts to Soo Wieland Acoustics Study, App E, p. G ('The level of ground vibration experienced at any location depends mainly on the construction method. soil medium, distance from the vibratory source, and the structural dynamics or the building ' ). to See also Transportation- and Conslrucfion- Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation (June 20D4). p. 27. The Planning Center Study does not explain why differing standards were applied with respect to evaluating potential cosmetic damage (ro - 2.Z. (D -23 Aerie Project, Comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2009 Page 0 neighboring residents and the Final EIR cannot be certified without a statement of overriding considerations on this issue 5. Eelgrass Impacts Eelgrass beds are considered habitat areas of particular concern because they attract "many marine invertebrates and fishes and the added vegetation and the vertical relief [they] provide enhances the abundance and diversity of the marine life compared to areas where the sediments are barren" (DEIR, pp. 4.7 -7, 4.7 -14). The beds also serve as a nursery for various juvenile fish species (Id. at 4.7 -7; CLUP, p. 4 -9) Further, eelgrass is a major food source in nearshore marine systems, and serves numerous beneficial physical roles (such as reducing wave action and erosion, stabilizing sediment and improving water clarity), (Southern Califomia Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (revision 11), p. 1). Given the foregoing, the "loss of eelgrass as a result of coastal development is considered to be a significant environmental impact, and any potential impacts to this resource must be avoided, minimized or mitigated." (CLUP, p 4 -58; emphasis added) In that regard, the CLUP sets forth a number of eelgrass protection policies, including the following: 4.1.4 -1: Continue to protect eelgrass meadows for their important ecological function as a nursery and foraging habitat within the Newport Bay ecosystem. 4.1.4.3: Site and design boardwalks, docks, piers, and other structures that extend over the water to avoid impacts to eelgrass meadows. Encourage the use of materials that allow sunlight penetration and the growth of eelgrass 4 2..5 -1: Avoid impacts to eelgrass (Zostera marina) to the greatest extent possible. Mitigate losses of eelgrass at a 1.2 to 1 mitigation ratio and in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Encourage the restoration of eelgrass throughout Newport Harbor where feasible, (CLUP, pp. 4-40,4-41, 4 -80; emphasis added) The Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (Mitigation Policy), in turn, "requires all eelgrass patches to be protected or replaced, regardless of its size, location, or habitat value or the extent of eelgrass coverage within the harbor." (CLUP, p 4 -59). However, as a threshold matter, the Mitigation Policy states that transplant mitigation shell only be considered after policies for avoidance and minimization "have been pursued to the fullest extent possible prior to the development of any mitigation program" (Mitigation Policy, p 1). Willi respect to "boat docks and related structures," the Mitigation Policy expressly reiterates the need to avoid eelgrass Impacts from the outset, as follows: Boat docks, ramps, gangways and similar structures should eelgrass or potential eelgrass areas is infeasible, impacts should be minimized by utilizing, to the maximum extent feasible, construction materials that allow for greater light penetration (e.g , grating, translucent panels, etc ). (Mitigation Policy, p 2; emphasis added) 10- 23 W1 c� r• to -z4 to-25 Aerie Project, Comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2009 Page 9 These avoidance measures are necessary due to "the time (i.e., generally three years) necessary for a mitigation site to reach full fishery utilization " (id, at p. 3; emphasis added). The Mitigation Policy also sets forth detailed mapping requirements. It states: The project applicant shall map thoroughly the area, distribution, density and relationship to depth contours of any eelgrass beds likely to be impacted by project construction. This includes areas immediately adjacent to the project site which have the potential to be indirectly or Inadvertently impacted as well as potential eelgrass habitat areas. (ld, at p. 2; emphasis added) With respect to these last requirements, eelgrass mapping surveys shall only be valid "for a period of 60 days with the exception of surveys completed in August - October." (Id. at p. 3). In addition, potential eelgrass habitat areas must be mitigated at a ratio of 1 to 1 (Id_) In this case, construction of the proposed dock facility will violate the CLUP's protective policies and will therefore result insignificant eelgrass impacts Further, the DEIR's proposed mitigation measures are wholly inadequate, as they fail to comply with the basic requirements of the Mitigation Policy. As a preliminary matter, the prevalence and current location of eelgrass beds in the Project vicinity are not known with sufficient accuracy because the DEIR continues to rely on the March 2007 eelgrass survey (DEIR, p. 4.7 -16) While the applicant's eelgrass survey was apparently updated in March of this year, it continues to rely on the survey activities conducted in March of 2007 (CRM Eelgrass Survey, p. 6). Per the Mitigation Policy, the 2007 survey is no longer valid and the DEIR therefore relies on outdated information in purporting to assess potential eelgrass impacts.. In that regard, a current survey must be performed to evaluate the extent to which the southern eelgrass bed has extended further north into the dock area. (See CRM Ealgrass Survey, Fig, 4) Likewise, the status of the eelgrass patch adjacent to the northern property boundary line must be evaluated." With respect to the substantive policies set forth above, the Project violates the CLUP because the dock has not been sited and designed to avoid impacts to eelgrass meadows "lo the greatest extent possible." (CLUP, 4.1.4 -3; 4.2 5 -1). Indeed, the dock's design and proposed location will result in direct impacts to the eelgrass meadow located to the south of the cove. With respect to vessel - related impacts, the DEIR states that propeller scarring and prop wash associated with the construction barge and support vessels could adversely impact eelgrass vegetation- To mitigate this impact, the DEIR slates as follows: Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work over eelgrass beds only during tides of +2 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) or higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass from propellers and to limit water turbidity. 11 The survey must also satisfy the Mitigation Policy's requirements with respect to surveying density and identifyinglindigaling impacts to potential eelgrass habitat areas (see Mitigation Policy, p 2), Aerie Project, Comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2000 Page 10 (DEIR, p.4..7 -16; emphasis added) 10-2- However, the DEIR fails to address the significant impacts that will result from boats owned by the residents themselves. As reflected in Figure 5 of the applicant's eelgrass survey, all boats 1 using the dock's southern slips must travel directly through the adjacent eelgrass bed to access the dock. Because no tide - related access restrictions apply, these activities will result in significant eelgrass impacts_ The DEIR is legally deficient because it fails to evaluate or otherwise consider this impact. Further, the Project not only violates the CIUP, it fails to comply with the express provisions of the Mitigation Policy The policy states that docks are to be sited and designed to "avoid (Mitigation Policy, p. 2; emphasis added). The surface area of the proposed dock system totals approximately 3,500 square feet (CRM Eelgrass Survey, p 21), and the DEIR provides no discussion as to why such a massive structure Is required Because the dock system can be eliminated outright or limited to its current size, there is no basis to conclude that eelgrass meadows have been avoided to the maximum extent feasible. Indeed, the elimination of the dock's southern slips could potentially avoid impacts to the cove's 10 -Z7 eelgrass bed. As such, the scope of the dock must be appropriately reduced before transplanting measures may be implemented under the Mitigation Policy. (See Mitigation Policy, P. 1) " to °2-8 6. Impacts to Carnation Cove Carnation Cove supports "an extremely diverse assemblage of plant and animal life due to its location near the Harbor Entrance Channel and the combination of rocky outcrops and fine sands -to -silt substrates." (DEIR, p. 4.7 -8) As such, the Cove is "an important marine sandy tidal flat that displays features that while once present and common, no longer exists in other areas of Newport Bay." (ld.; emphasis added) These shallow areas support a significant intertidal sand dollar population which is now unique and rare within the Bay. (Id.) "If the sand dollar population that exists in the cove is removed, it is unlikely that it would establish itself at another site because similar conditions do not exist elsewhere in the bay." (Id. at p 4 7 -17). The sandy sediment also provides viable bottom habitat for numerous snail species. (td.) Given the Cove's inherent biological value, disturbances of the "Intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat, eefgrass, and sand dollar bed within the cove would be considered a significant adverse impact to on -site resources." (CRM Eelgrass Survey, p. 22; DEIR, p. 4 7 -17). Although the Cove's tidal habitat is expressly recognized as "unique and rare," the DEIR fails to provide any meaningful discussion as to how dock construction impacts will actually be mitigated. This deficiency is due, in large part, to the fact that the DEIR provides an entirely inadequate project description with respect to dock removal and construction activities. Because the DEIR fails to provide this critical information, the Project's impacts cannot be accurately assessed '' To the extent transplanting measures will apply. the DEIR does not provide sufficient information as to how they will be implemented. Z,lt(�q 6o -;�q Aerie Project, Comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2009 Page 71 For instance, the DEIR's dock - related project description consists of less than one full page. With respect to dock removal, the DEIR simply states that six support piles will be removed and the existing 20 -foot gangway will be replaced by a 60 400t long gangway. Regarding dock construction, the DEIR states that 19 piles will be required to support the new dock and that the four steel piles supporting the gangway platform will be repaired or replaced. (DEIR, p. 3 -26) As to construction activities within the Cove itself, the DEIR merely states that the timber walkway will be replaced in -like -kind and "existing concrete piles supporting the walkway will be repaired in the form of concrete repairs." (DEIR, p 3 -26; emphasis added). Notably, the pier and walkway structure will pass over one of the Cove's rock outcroppings and directly into the sensitive tidal habitat discussed above. (See DEIR, Ex 3 -17). As such, construction activities will take place on the beach and within the sand dollar habitat. Notwithstanding this fact, the DEIR does not provide any meaningful discussion (either in the project description of biological resources section) as to the construction equipment that will be required, the manner in which pier supports and timber replacement will be delivered to the Cove, the manner in which The pier /walkway supports piles will be installed without impacting the sand dollar population, the number of vessels that will be working on -site, and so on With respect to mitigation measures, the DEIR states that the tidal area will be adequately Protected because construction workers will be instructed to avoid the area. (DEIR, p. 41-17). However, the DEIR does not explain how this is possible given the need for "concrete repairs" to the supporting piles themselves. Nor does the DEIR explain how silt curtains can be in 30 deployed to protect the tidal habitat from these direct impacts. Likewise, the DEIR states that lubidity plumes will be reduced because piles will be removed and replaced using "Best Available Technology" (td. at p, 4.7 -18). Yet the DEIR does not provide any explanation as to what technologies will actually be used. Moreover, there Is no basis to conclude that the remaining "protective" measures (notifying GO'3 f residents of the Cove's sensitivity, placing debris bins on -site, and removal of debris from the seafloor) will adequately mitigate construction impacts Indeed, the fact that construction debris will need to be removed from the bottom indicates that impacts will in fact occur, Given the foregoing, the DEIR contalns a legally deficient project description and falls to (U -37- adequately evaluate the Project's impacts on Carnation Cove Further, the findings associated with the aforementioned mitigation measures are not supported by substantial evidence" CO-33 Special Status Plant Species Under CEQA, the deferral of environmental assessment to a future date runs counter to the statute's express policy which requires that environmental review be conducted at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process. Sundstrom v County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 307 (citing Pub. Resources Code, § 21003.1). Here, the DEIR Improperly defers the assessment of whether any special status plant species exist on -site. Per the DEIR, nine such species have the potential to exist at the Project site (DEIR, p 4.7 -2), but the extent to which they are actually present remains unknown In that L) The DEIR slates. "sand transport impacts are not anticipated as a result of the placement and configuration of piles in a single row that is parallel and not perpendicular to the direction of sand transport:' (DEIR. p 41-17) Given the sensitive nature of the Cove. such speculation is improper under CEQA and sand transporlalion must be adequataly studied and evaluated In the Final EIR. ID �3J �-r to -3¢ Aerie Project, Comments on Draft FIR May 4, 2009 Page 12 regard, the DEIR states that surveys will be performed to acquire this information "during the appropriate blooming window identified for each species' (DEIR, p. 4.7 -13) To the extent any special status species do exist on -site, an incident take permit must be obtained prior to issuance of a grading permit. (ld ). Deferral of the impact assessment in this manner is entirely improper under CEQA Notably, all nine species are currently within their blooming window (DEIR, p. 4.7 -2) As such, the presence and extent of any Impacts must be assessed now so appropriate mitigation measures may be assessed during the CEQA review process. To the extent any such impacts will occur, the DEIR must be re- circulated for public review." Similarly, the DEIR must assess the extent to which dock construction activities will impact the southern coastal bluff scrub community existing on the rock outcroppings (See DEIR, p. 4 7 -1), 8. Traffic and Parking Impacts The DEIR "s discussion of parking and traffic impacts fails to satisfy CEQA's informational purpose. For instance, the DEIR falls to adequately consider potential impacts related to off- site construction parking and shuttle transportation, and Improperly defers review with respect to the location of anticipated parking sites. The DEIR states that "the applicant will secure one or more binding off -site parking agreements to accommodate the varying number of workers needed for each construction phase.' (DEIR, p 1 -9). The DEIR further slates that these "off - site parking location(s) will be located within a five-ruffle radius of the site." (id.). Because the DEIR defers the identification of parking sites to a later date, it inappropriately circumvents the public's opportunity to comment on any related Impacts - particularly the concetned residents and businesses that will be located in close proximity thereto. Notably, the DEIR does not identify how many construction workers are anticipated to perk off -site during each phase, the number of parking spaces that will be required, potential sites with sufficient capacity to meet those needs, and the traffic conditions in the site(s)' vicinity Upon completion of this analysis, the DE1R must be re- circulated to afford an adequate opportunity for public review and comment The DEIR is similarly deficient with respect to the identification and analysis of the heavy (O -3S vehicle staginglqueuing areas that will be necessary to ensure that only one truck is present at any given time at the Project site (See RCPG Po11cy 4.04 - °Transportafion control measures shall be a priority") Further, the DEIR fails to adequately consider road and safety impacts associated with heavy truck activities. Notably, the roadways in the Project vicinity are antiquated and in poor (b 3� condition. The surface condition of adjoining streets will be adversely affected by the thousands of heavy truck trips that will occur over the 32 -month construction period. In that regard, the DEIR fails to specify the anticipated tonnage per truck or otherwise evaluate road deterioration and safety concerns Finally, the DEIR fails to adequately consider potential fire safety concerns associated with the tb„37 underground parking facility and the extent to which fire personnel will be able to access the same in cases of emergencies "' By the some token, deferral of the analysis prohibits an accurate determination of whether the Project will result in significanl land use impacts See CLUP Policy 4 4.3 -15; General Plan Policy NR 233 (requiring that new development be designed and siled to "minimize the removal of native vegetation ")_ The same deferral deficiencies apply with respect to the scope of shading impacts on eelgrass beds .0108 to-35 Aerie Project, comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2009 Page 13 9. Floor Area Ratio Because floor area ratio (FAR) is a measurement used to determine development intensity and is based on developable land space, areas that cannot be developed or improved are not to be included in net lot area With respect to the proposed condominium structure, the applicant has inappropriately included the site's submerged lands in the FAR calculation. Doing so has resulted in a project that is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of size, bulk and scale. Because FAR regulations are intended to ensure that new construction remains consistent with existing development and community character, the violation thereof will result in a significant land use impact under CEQA.. 10. Setback Variance While the City is afforded discretion in justifying variances and modifications, Its discretion is subject to significant limitations. In that regard, a variance maybe proper where the harms that the regulatory scheme is intended to prevent would not otherwise occur. In this case, the 10--39 requested setback variance will result in significant unmitigable impacts to the underlying coastal bluff. As such, approval of the Project as currently proposed will severely compromise the integrity of the City's land use regulations and policies. The request is therefore improper and should be denied 11. Miscellaneous The DEIR is further deficient because it fails to consider (1) the extent to which kayak/small boat access to Carnation Cove will be obstructed during summer dock construction activities, (It) the to-40 Project's impacts on waste disposal capacity as a result of dumping 25,000 cubic yards of bluff material into the Brea Olinda Landfill; and (tit) the extent to which the expanded dock facility (and associated construction activities) will impact channel navigation and recreation. 12. Conclusion As detailed above, the Project will result in a number of significant environmental impacts in addition to those relating to construction noise. By failing to adequately evaluate those additional impacts up front in the DEIR, the City improperly limited the scope of environmental review. Likewise, the massive size, bulk and scale of the Project is not compatible with the (d . surrounding community, as reflected by the structure's excessive square footage and the resulting need to eradicate the underlying coastal bluff . Based on the foregoing, the Project is not legally defensible and approval of the EIR in its current form will constitute an abuse of discretion. Sincerely, COAST LAW GROUP LLP /Z, >5�_ i r � " Ross Campbell Marco A. Gonzalez CC: Client Karl Schwing, California Coastal Commission (by a -mail) 2.11 i THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Z,12o 85105/2009 19:85 9517816280 California Re 373) Linda S. Mims Phan (S $ccrelap'Jor E+rvlronmaala/ Promanmr May 5, 2009 James Campbell City of Newport Beach Plannl 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I NEWPORT BEACH, SCH# 2 Dear Mr. Campbell: It -f Staff of the Regional Water Q have reviewed the Draft Envii Project, located on a marine I Bay. The Project is located ( Bayside Place) and Camatioi Ocean Boulevard. A 14 -uni demolished and replaced witl dock with four slips and piers dock area and pathway were beach (Carnation Cove), whir We believe that the EIR show Project to best protect water uses) contained in the Water 8 Basin Plan, 1995, as amen Clean Water Act Section The Biological Resourc (including emphasis on (CWA) Section 404 Per necessary for the Proje bulkheads, etc. in bay < dredge - and -fill disturber regarding issuance of tl 401 Water Quality Stan Board. The USACE e Quality Regulatory Age process, in addition to I t4wme A'0. 1( M-40CS al Water Qualm Control Board Santa Ana Region nSirccl Suim500 Rive id' Cn1ifanin92i01A346 PAGE 02104 OF 7R2- 4130 • F.Ui (Y51] 781 fi288 •1UD (45 q 78Y3221 %:CBYC0 BY N e CIF AP11�; m, 9eLwananeCgcr wN'N' iwlarhnnrds an ovM,ungwna Pi. h,jQ1'11N n Gmrmar I Department J" 15 T REPORT, AERIE DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF 1054 ality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (Regional Board) mmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Aerie rrace overlooking the Entrance Channel of Lower Newport i a 1.4 -acre area between the ends of Bayside Place (101 Avenue (201 -207 Carnation Avenue) at its intersection with apartment building and single - family house will be a multi - level, elght -unit condominium complex. An existing vill be replaced by a pontoon dock with nine slips. The guilt on rocky exposures that surround a small cove and ) the DER states will hot be disturbed by the Project. incorporate the following comments in order for the ality standards (water quality objectives and beneficial uality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Region Certification Section (p.4.7 -5 -7) uses wetlands determination criteria 'ican umbrella sedge) to decide that a Clean Water Act from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is not dock revision. However, any construction of new docks, other saltwater settings is commonly associated with :s, and therefore requires consultation with the USACE 404 Permit and discussion of the prerequisite CWA Section rds Certification (Certification) issued by the Regional Regional Board should be listed in Table 4.6 -2 (Water es) as agencies likely to require the 4041401 permitting other stated agency requirements. 1 2. Projects subject to Certiflotion are evaluated for their direct, indirect, and cumulative f 1- 2. impacts to waters of the S., specifically, that construction and operation of the A441-0111nentn! Protection Agency R•. o.l...l u..a x,12 I 05/05/2009 19:05 11-7- Cod r Mr. James Campbell 951751620E Project will not adversely mitigated to receive a Ce to restore and protect we receiving waters. A gen of the noted eelgrass bar enhancement and protec populations of sand dolla impacted beneficial uses would include Marine He (SPWN); Wildlife Habitat Water Recreation (REC2 Endangered Species (R/ Commercial and Sportfis under review. Informatii Best Management Practice; 3. The DEIR Drainage and I Best Management Practic improve upon the current fl- 3 into the Bay, and 2) drain catch basin (catch basin) Carnation Avenue discha Section does not provide from the small -scale map We understand that ahnc a vault at the southern cc Avenue Drain, at an unsl retrofit the Carnation Ave flows. We understand ti described, "a storm filter runoff filtration elements' t !r� unit" followed by "an AM (p.4.6 -10). We believe the vault itself. This Sec specific discussion with i after construction. Althc has been prepared for tl prefer that the EIR incluc POGICB PAGE 03/04 - 2 - May 5, 2009 fact state water quality standards. Such impacts must be fication, The EIR should identify likely mitigation concepts r quality objectives and applicable beneficial uses of these A example of on -site mitigation would be the enhancement D the south of the disturbed dock area, as well as the m of the rocky cove habitat for the noted remnant whelk, sea cucumber, and lobster species. The likely Legion 8 Basin Plan) supported by the seawater at this site at (MAR); Spawning, Reproduction, and Development VILD); Water Contact Recreation (RECD; Non - Contact Navigation (NAV) and potentially, Rare, Threatened, or E). Applicability of the Shellfish Harvesting (SHEL) and ig (COMM) beneficial uses to such areas are currently concerning Certification can be found at http:U and TMDLs lydrology Section (p- 4.6 -6 -11) discusses a new system of as (BMP) for stormwater capture and treatment that will 1) localized sheet -flow of stormwater and dry- weather flows lge of the neighborhood watershed through a 10- foot -wide part of a 24 -inch reinforced concrete pipe system beneath ging to the Bay (Carnation Avenue Drain). However, this lelpful, conceptual drawings of this proposed system aside view of Exhibit 4.6 -2, all stormwater from the completed site will be directed to ier of the structure (vault) and pumped to the Carnation cified connection point. The Project will enlarge and le catch basin to filter both Project and neighborhood t the retrofitted catch basin would contain, as variously ld bacteria treatment system" and "appropriate urban r.4.6 -8), or more specifically, "a proprietary StormFilter h Smart Sponge Plus drain insert for treatment of bacteria" e EIR may also consider an additional treatment BMP for m should consolidate these descriptions into a more iibits, and explain who will maintain the filtration system 3h a Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Project and is incorporated by reference (p.4.6 -9), we the WQMP text "up- front" to the maximum extent possible. 4. The above - referenced BtiAPs (and other structural /nonstructural BMPs described in the EIR) must be establic had to protect the water quality standards discussed in Comments 1 and 2, abo e, in conformance with: 1) the State Water Resources ! �_5 Control Board's Water Q lality, Order No. 99- 08 -DWQ, "General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Assoc ated with Construction Activity" (web site hit : / /www,waterboards. a. ov /water issues/ ro rams / stonmwater/ ) and 2) the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and Water Quality Crdi niria F- pit- omeeenlal Protection Ager:cy �j �J n.,...I.,a n...,,... �� ( 7 L/ 05/05/2009 19:05 (1—& Mr James Campbell 9517816280 Management Plan (WQP MS4" pert-nit' RIdDCB PAGE 04/04 3- May 5, 2009 both required by the Regional Board's "Orange County Further, the BMP discuss ons should reflect targeted compliance with Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) and E upport of the recent Orange County Newport Bay Fecal Coliform Source Management Plan. This plan is meant to provide compliance with the fecal coliformfpathage i TMDL adopted for Lower Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay, The EIR should inc rporate reference to these additional TMDLs: a. The Siltation (sedirne its) and Nutrient TMDLs adopted for Lower Newport Bay, Upper Newport Bay, an Diego Creek Reach 1, and San Diego Creek Reach 2 (see http:/Iwww waterbc ards.ca gov/saritaana/water—issuesiprogramsitmdl/index shtml } b_ The future TMDLs ani icipated for selenium and metals (Lower and Upper Newport Bay), selenium and fecal colifonn (San Diego Creek Reach 1), and specified metals (San Diego Cr ek Reach 2), A TMDL for organochlorine compounds (particularly DDT, chlordane, and PCBs) is anticipated for Lower Newport Bay, Upper Newport Bay, nd San Diego Creek Reaches 1 and 2. Dewatering 5. The EIR should reflect th t if any groundwater dewatering is necessary for the Project, 17 then please contact the R ion 8 Permitting Section staff at (951) 782 -4130. Dewatering discharges in o Upper or Lower Newport Bay require coverage under Order No R8 -2004 -0021 amended by R8- 2006 - 0065), NPDES No. CAG998002 2 - If you have any questions, Sinncerrelly,� Glenn Robertson Engineering Geoic Regional Planning w: State Clearinghouse U.S. Arty Corps of Engineers, Lc U S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ca California Department of Fish and California Coastal Commission — I Orange County RDMD, OC Wasei Orange County RDMD, Flood Cc X:Groberts on contact me at (951) 782 -3259, or as - Stephanie Hag Jonathan Snyder Los Alamitos — Erinn Wilson Public Works— Amanda Carr a Ana - Andy Ngo DEIR� City of Newport Beach- AERIE d6c ' Waste Discharge Requirements r Orange County (NPDE8 Permit No. CAS618030, Order No- Ra- 2002.0010, Areawids Urban Storm Water Ri noff Permit for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and Incorporated Cities of Orange C unty within the Santa Ana Region), also known as the Orange County municipal separate storm sewer system, o "Orange County MS4 permit." (please see web site at http: / /www.wa(erboards.ca. ov/ antaanaAilmI1oc permli.liftni) . 2 "General Waste Discharge Requi ements for Shon -Term Groundwater-Relatad Discharges and Do Minh= Wastewater Discharges to Surfac a Waters Within the San Diego CreekiNewpod Bay Watershed.' This general permit establishes a waste dischr rge management program applicable to the project area, for the purpose of reducing selenium, sediment, nut ients, pesticides, and other pollutants This permit is available at: 00 AfIronnienta! Protection Agency n—va",n., Zt'Z3 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY .iZA a—i May S. 2009 Mr. Jim Campbell CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: ASSESSMENT, INPUT AND QUESTIONS— PROPOSED AERIE CONDOMINIUMS DEiR — PA 2006.196— Cby of Newport Beach, CA Mr.Campba% The purpose of this correspondence is to underscore my previous on- record, written serious concern regarding the proposed Aerie condominiums, so that these concerns may become part of the current format Draft Environmental impact Report process, as I understand the City is presently undertaking_ My previous correspondence on the subject dated August 13, 2008, was submitted and formally acknowledged In receipt by the Newport Beach Mayor and City Council members. While the document was acknowledged for receipt, the City did not address its content in any formal way. Please rind a copy of this correspondence enclosed for your review, consideration and spadikahy, requested response. It is my understanding the DEIR Process must address such written communications at this time. In brief, the enclosed document summarises a specific review of City of Newport Beach (CNB) lard use criteria that is clearly "in confrict" with itself, and as such, allows a kind of 'tortured' Interpretation by the applicant in creating what is clearly a completely out -of- scale- wiirthe- local - neighborhood building mass. The some document Includes a more reasoned interpretation of the conflicting land use crfteda, which Voids a more rational, in- contera- withdhe- neighborhood application of the standards. The reasonable application of City of Newport Beach land use criteria would deliver a building mass approximately W% of the proposal. Whether the methodology offered in the letter herein is °more correoP than the interpretation by the applicant to not attempted herein. These two conclusions, emanating from the same set of criteria, only serves to underscore the essential point: 1bA the CNB faad use criteria N In conflict. and In need of sedoua resolution BEFORE arooer I would like to submit this cover lobar and copy of my August 13 submittal for its inclusion into the format DEIR review for this project, and request a formal response Irom the City. It would seem to me the CNB should be interested In better- clan -tying its land use criteria when such vast variances can be'Interpreted" by hs current definition My questions for this process (in addition to those outlined in the enolosed letter) are as toilows: 1. Do you belleve it appropriate that one set of CNB land use criteria can allow a 50% variance of building yield, based on `interpretation?" It yes, why and how does this best serve the citizenry of Newport Beach? 2_ With such a wide variance of Interpretation, does the furtherance of the Aerie proposal not only establish a dangerous precedent for future land use interpretations, but also essentially make meaningless all CNB land use criteria. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this Information for your consideration. I look forward to your specific written reply. Thank you. Sincerely, // /� A. David Kovach ACKas �, 125 August 13, 2008 Mayor Edward D. Selich CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: PROPOSED AERIE CONDOMINIUMS — A MATTER OF POLICY Mr. Mayor In beginning this correspondence I would like to offer my sincere appreciation to yourself and the other City Council (CC) members (copied herein) for the generous giving of your time and energies to the City of Newport Beach, We residents are indeed fortunate to have such learned and caring individuals working for all of us so thoughtfully. A year has passed since I first became aware of the Aerie proposal. I found it noteworthy at the time, as it seemed incomprehensible such a clearly over -built structural mass could have found its way so deeply into the approval system of the City of Newport Beach. That the proposal further so obviously works to destroy the natural coastal bluff it is bound by legislation to protect, and is still nearing approval today, quite frankly, is a clear indicator something is very "amiss" within the City's entitlement approval system. In my 30+ years of experience as a large scale community building and land development executive, I am not certain I have seen such an egregiously offensive interpretation of planning and zoning criteria so well navigate a governmental approval process. I attended the year -ago CC meeting really just to see how the Applicant presented its advocacy, the interaction with and response by the CC and where the situation stood then. While I found the Applicant's advocacy that evening to be a singularly stilted, if not "tortured" interpretation of applicable planning and zoning criteria, I was very surprised to see any receptivity by the CC. But there was some apparent receptivity.. Nonetheless, it appeared at the time an ultimate vote could go "ehher way' in the future. Somehow, by the July 22, 2008 meeting, It appears the proposal is strongly headed toward approval. Just how can this happen? Following this 12 -month period of study and evaluation, I believe I have a fairly strong sense of both the "why" and the "how" this clearly excessive, inappropriate and environmentally destructive proposal is so close to approval. If I might, I would be pleased to share these views with you all now, as follows: 1. Brief background to my perspective and advocacy: There are two important aspects before you now regarding Aerie that are of particular interest to me professionally: a. The long -term and lasting qualitative impact of the built environment to the larger community, and b- The proper interpretation of At guidelines and stakeholder inputs leading tooptimal new buildings. And while definition of "optimal" is also interpretive, there are certain qualities to which most professionals might concur. Beyond a positive economic return, these would include the principles of context, balance, and harmony as well as rationality, in my view. ,Z, i ZC'0 Mayor Edward D. Selich PROPOSED AERIE CONDOMNIIUMS - A MATTER OF POLICY August 13, 2008 Page 2 of 6 The built environment is a critically important aspect of any community, for it has the literal power to directly impact people's lives on an emotional level, either inspirationally, in an ambivalent way, or unfortunately in many cases, negatively, This principle places even more importance on sites like Aerie, the latter being so visually prominent (not only to residents, but visitors and other stakeholders as well), and will make an important statement about, and have influence over, the City for years to come. `We shape ourbufldings. Thereafter they shape us .P Winston Churchill 2. Reoardlna the current Aerie proposal. the CC has the opportunity to take back a leadership role In determining and asserting appropriate policy regarding this prominently- located proposed land use. From my evaluation, it would appear the Applicant has aggressively wrested policy - making leadership from the CC. Two references here: a. At the August 2007 meeting, it was my testimony to the CC to emphasise statements from the City Attorney earlier in said meeting wherein she underscored the Applicant's °lead" in determining its own P.L.O.E.D.., and how this point in the process was a moment where the City "should have" instead, made policy for the Applicant to respond. specifically remember seeing Councilmember Rosansky directly and pointedly asking the City's Planning Director earlier in the same meeting, what determination or interpretation or recommendation he (as the Director) was providing to the CC regarding the P -L.O. E.D. The Planning Director basically refused to answer the question, saying it was really subject to an "interpretation." This is important information the CC needs from staff to make proper decisions. However, would surmise, as in all organizations, the leadership (i.e., the CC) is responsible for appropriate staffing. b. The Applicant has utilised conflicting City land use policy in interpretive advocacy of its current proposal. Typically, this is policy determination that should rest agLely with the CC- Said "conflict" is as follows: • Specifically, there is the City's "residential development density standard" of 2,178 square feet of development area per unit. W a understand this standard is to apply to the specific "development area" of a specific property. • As well, with regard to determining a property's development yield, it appears another standard is available, which is 'floor area ratio" (FAR) The City's FAR for this property is 1.5. However, when using the FAR standard, apparently it is allowed to be applied within an entire property boundary, and not just the "building area " • Because of this conflict, and Aerie's aggressive interpretations, the current over- built, over. massed proposal is before you. This conclusion is supported by the following rationale: Approximately 66% of Aerie's total land either is un- buildable by being either submerged (Le., 28,414 square feet or 46% of the site area) or in slope area greater than 50% (i.e., 11,926 square feet or 20% of the site area). • I believe with a high degree of probability any independent professional planning assessment of this property would deem utilization of the entire site boundary (in the Z, 4 (r7 Mayor Edward D. Selich PROPOSED AERIE CONDOMNIIUMS — A MATTER OF POLICY August 13, 2008 Page 3 of 6 spectre of so much un- buildable (and) inappropriate as a methodology for determining appropriate, contextual building mass on the "buildable" portion of the property, which is 20,942 square feet, or about 34% of the total site area Therefore, if one were to apply, let's say in an effort to be "liberal" in interpretation, both the City's residential density criteria and the FAR to the "buildable" area of Aerie, this would be the result: Residential Density of: 10 homes (20,942 sq. it12,178 sq. ft.), and FAR of: 31,413 sq. feet (20,942 sq., ft x 1.5 FAR) c. The CC has an obligation to utilise all codes and General Plan policies, not just some of them. • There seemed to be a sentiment expressed by some of the CC members at the July 22 meeting indicating because of the proposal's "conformance" with "a" zoning code (despite what Is clearly an unintended consequence of using submerged and 50% slope (unbuiidable) land for purposes of maximizing allowed floor area), the CC is somehow "obliged" to approve the proposal. It seems only appropriate the authority and responsibility of the CC should be to ensure this (and any) proposed development complies with ALL codes and General Plan policies, not just some of them. If there was any consistent public input to the recent General Plan update, it was to counter the disturbing trend toward "manslonization" (i.e., overbuilding) that dwarfs existing structures, the very structures that form the essence of neighborhood and community character, There are Iwo General Plan land use policies NOT being complied with, with regard to Aerie: • Land Use Policy 3.2 — Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are COMPLEMENTARY in type, form, scale and character." It is difficult to imagine Aerie's proposed "real world" FAR of 2,9 (60,661 sq. tL proposed floor area divided by 20,942 sq, ft. of buildable area) being "complementary" to any structure(s) found within the immediate relevant neighborhood, of like buildable area, with a protective coastal bluff overlay egislation. Merely contrast this with the City's own recommended FAR standard of 1.5. This is DOUBLE what is appropriate. • Land Use Policy 5.1.1 — Establish property development regulations for residential projects to create compatible and high quality development that contribute to neighborhood character. Using one provision of the zoning code (FAR to entire property boundary), which has not yet been updated to address the new policies of the General Plan, to justify or approve this proposal disrespects the will of the voters that authorized the current General Plan. Finally, from the City s website, we note it is a stated "PRIORITY" of the CC for 2008 to "Align The City's Codes, Regulations and Policies with the General Plan" There is a huge opportunity to make Aerie a great example of meeting this priority! ZdZt5 Mayor Edward D. Selich PROPOSED AERIE CONDOMNIIUMS- A MATTER OF POLICY August 13, 2008 Page 4 of 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS t. In short, the Applicant has "worked the system" to its advocacy of placing 60,000 square feet of building on a buildable land area approximating 20,000 square feet. Further, this over -built condition brings with it total destruction of the specific natural coast bluff it Is legislated to protect and preserve. The Applicant should not be admonished for taking such action, for it is only acting in what it believes is in fl's best interest. The CC has the interests of the entire City at its responsibility 2. While the current Aerie proposal closely approximates the above - calculated residential yield (i.e., the eight (8) proposed homes), the "mass" (as measured by FAR) is about doubi a of what I am confident would be considered reasonable and appropriate for such a property. Miss by a little, miss by a lot. For the allowable building mass to be a function of land that is of no livable consequence to the immediate neighborhood environment in which it sits, is clearly inappropriate. This is where proper Policy definition is the responsibility of the City, The important recommendation from the assessment herein would be to provide "more appropriate" density and FAR criteria and significantly restrict building mass to something reasonable (as suggested above, yielding approximately 31,413 square feet). And in the process, the natural bluff would be better served. 3.. From the July 22 CC meeting it seems evident the CC is tired from the grueling process that has emerged with regard to this controversial proposal. The CC seems so tired from the experience that it "just wants it over with," as underscored by your comments and questions to ensure "no more new testimony" is allowed at the September meeting. It is my perception this process has been as contentious as it has, has protracted as long as It has, because the City delegated its policy responsibility to the Applicant. The result is now painful for all — the "poor" developer, the caring, opposing residents, and the City, simply because appropriate policy was not implemented at the right time And the opposing elements, of which I am clearly one, only want something reasoned, balanced, and appropriate for the setting. 4. All of this has gone on, for months and months, if not longer, and still, the one seemingly sacrosanct planning criteria for the proposal- -the "preservation of the coastal bluff'- -has been "wordsmithed -" and "parsed -" around to the point the criteria effectively does not exist at all, In any "on -the- ground," real - world reference to the proposal. The bluff will be destroyed to allow construction of the building, and the former natural bluff area remaining unbuill will be replaced with artificial materials Intended to "resemble" the natural conditions that were to be protected. 5. Mr. Mayor, two closing points in this section for your consideration: a. With regard to operating and implementational land development assessments, it is my experience The Moote Group has more relevant experience, by volumes, than the Applicant custom -home architect, no matter the latter's deep and well - respected custom home- design experience "along the coast." It would be my recommendation the CC do some "homework" with regard to this conclusion prior to your final decision in September. The potential failure of the land, as expressed by as serious, experienced professionals as Moote should be considered within the "abundance of caution" 2, (?- J Mayor Edward D. Selich PROPOSED AERIE CONDOMNIIUMS – A MATTER OF POLICY August 13, 2013 Page 5 of 6 environment this rare and precious site deserves. In this case Moote, and not the project architect should be considered as "best evidence." b. And finally, making any comparison, with regard to the underlying land condition between the 'Portobello' house and Aerie is without much merit in my opinion, from a physical standpoint. CLOSING Mr. Mayor, thank you for whatever consideration you and the council members may give to this input. With so much at risk —the precedent being set for future development within our precious historic neighborhoods vis -a -vis their contextual natural resources; the very real potential for slope failure; the severe traffic impacts for construction (please carefully listen to the Moote testimony regarding this element alone); the opinion of the Coastal Commission as to the City's ability to administer to issues such as these (I.e., vis -h -vis the LCP process); and simply what is "right' for all residents of the City with regard to this extremely visible properly —it would seem more than prudent to carefully weigh this decision, for what appears to be, one last time. Based on the July 22 meeting, my sense is the CC will approve the Aerie proposal, as is, largely as a function of your leadership, subject to the comparatively arcane remaining issues being "studied." This is a decision that will affect not just the developer or even the local residents, but the entire residential and workplace populations of the City and its visiting tourists, Worst case, this "experience" may be instructive as you pursue the aforementioned "Council Priority for 2008." In closing I would ask one last question for your consideration: "L 1. What Is the most appropriate residential yield criteria that should be applied to Aerie? No reasoned professional would determine 60,000 square feet of buildable on 20,000 square feet of building area Not in this historic and balanced neighborhood setting. Not what the developer thinks is best, what oY u all think is best, for the City of Newport Beach, long- term.. I believe the responsibility of the CC is greater than merely assessing and /or agreeing with developer- advocated City policy. It is never too late to do the right thing. Thank you again, and thank you for your service. Respectfully . A. David Kovach ADK:ae 21 (k) Mayor Edward D. Selich PROPOSED AERIE CONDOMNIIUMS— A MATTER OF POLICY August 93, 2008 Page 6 of 6 Distribution Via E -mail Mr. Henn, District t Mr. Rosansky, District 2 Mr. Webb, District 3 Ms. Daigle, District 4 Ms. Gardner, District 6 Mr. Curry, District 7 2 W ( 5 1 Jun 03 09 09:10a Keeton K. Kreitzar 714 - 665 -8539 NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION MINUTES City Council Chambers April 8, 2009 CALL TO ORDER 6:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Chairman Duffield, Commissioners Seymour Beek, John Corrough, Tim Collins, Don Lawrenz, Karen Rhyne and Ralph Rodheim were in attendance. Staff: Lome Arcese, Chris Miller and Shannon Levin MINUTES: The minutes from the last meeting were approved. ACTION ITEM ACTION & APPEAL ITEMS ITEM #9 Subject: Generaf Harbor Commission Orientation - POSTPONED ITEM #2 Subject: Aerie Dock Project at 209 -207 Carnation Avenue Issue: Should the Aerie project applicants at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue be permitted to replace the existing double U- shaped float with a dock system capable of berthing 8 vessels for residents and 1 guest side -tie Discussion: Chris presented the staff report on the project. Randy Mason with UR5 spoke on the technical concerns. He said there are 10 boat "lanes" in that channel. The boats berthed at Aerie will be moved to moorings or other places during storm events with wave action of 2 feet or more. Bryan Jeannette spoke on the parking issues, saying they will have at least 15-23 additional parking spaces on -site, beyond what is required by the Code. Commissioner Lawrenz presented a PowerPoint presentation on the project, showing what he feels are issues with the project. The storm wave conditions were only studied for the last five years, ignoring large storms of 1969 and 1990`s. I These storms happened before that time and they did a lot of damage. A 100 ftjZ vessel may not have a safe mooring site in the case of a large storm event.11 Storms will affect the movement of sand and affect the sand dollar populabon.1 There are a lot of sand and shoals in this area and this needs more study.JL.(- j Conditions need to be listed if sand studies show a problem, such as who is J (responsible when dredging comes up. The 24 foot extension will go into public( to waters and needs to have reflectors. This could start a building boom with all the other slips in this area. The pier is to be set lower than usual attracting the sea( 1 lions to rest upon. What about fire suppression, trash and sewage? It • Commissioner Beek said that the problem also is that the project will occupy space g ( that is now open. He said that there are no lanes in the harbor and the example has no meaning. This is one of the narrowest points. We need to restrict the 24 foot overhang and can restrict the side tie. All residents don't have to have a slip. 19 new pilings will affect the sand movement. I f oo Commissioner Rhyne asked who will move the boats during storm events and j wave action. Are there moorings available and what are the other options if they (2( need to move? What happens between 1.5 to 2 feet ?jLA 100 foot boat is too massive and who will monitor the overhang? 13 • Commissioner Corrough said that this project is legally conforming and has not been kept under the radar. The EIR has not found any significant exceptions and Z1l3Z 03 09 09:10a Keeton K. Kreitzer Public Comments: 714 - 665 -8539 p.3 has documented recommended mitigations. The project has changed with previous requests. Every dock that sits out there now is in the same physical situation, subject to storm events, that this dock will be in if it is built. We need to set responsible improvements to the plans rather than just saying we are troubled by this project; give specific guidance and constructive recommendations. The proposed project has gone through multiple revisions. The unit to dock ratio is representative of the rest of the harbor. The Commission does want new docks in this harbor. Commissioner Collins said that we have given case by case exceptions for extensions, but in this case there is no basis to extend beyond the Pierhead line. J i{ Commissioner Rodheim said that the Bulkhead and Pierhead fines of the 1930', were made when the area was filled with sand and the City has not done its job in redrawing the lines. To follow those lines as they are currently is not wrong. The approval of all these large condo projects should not be happening and we may end up looking like Miami Beach. He does not support the project going out further than the neighboring docks. The surge tears up the boats and docks. He f would like to have larger slips but not in this location. They stick out too far. We want the Planning Commission and City Council to see that the Harbor Commission will not support this project. There is no right of residents to have the right to have a pier. Chairman Duffield reminded everyone that storms go directly into our harbor as designed by the Army Corps. Putting in a jetty would be a solution to stop that action. There has been a lot of work put into the plan and we are not against new docks. but we are boaters who use the harbor, so there is knowledge. The City Council makes the ultimate decision, but we are boaters and can make recommendations, Storm events do happen, so we need a plan that will work. Why not come to the Harbor Commission to ask for advice, we would like to work with the applicant. Perhaps restrict the time that boats may be dock there during a storm season? Kathleen McIntosh, 2495 Ocean Blvd., reminded everyone that the approval has not been granted yet. They could have up to 12 boats on the docks. Publicf access to the cove and marine outcropping would be restricted and maybe jib eliminated. Shoaling is a problem in that area. Sand comes from that area and is(( shoaling under the neighbors' docks. This project doesn't consider the problems J� the 2 adjacent properties will have when they want to dock boats larger than 17 feet, She hopes Harbor Resources denies the request and requests that marker buoys be put out for at least a month showing the lines of the project so everyone concerned can see how far out into the channel it will go and what will be taken away from them. Joe and Lisa Vallejo, who are not on the water and don't have a dock, wanted to add their explanation as to why no one is out that far in the channel. 73 years ago they thought this area would be built up with sand and even Channel Reef would not be allowed to build now. Wants to declare 1936 Harbor Lines null. She cited Municipal Code 17.50 Rules for Interpretation and Harbor Development Permits which says the application shall be denied if it may interfere with the rights of other, permittees and oceanfront property owners and the application does not conform to the policies and regulations of the certified Local Coastal Program. They feel that the scenic and the visual outcropping will be covered up, but the applicant (� said the boats will be coming and going and won't be a problem. How often does that happen when all boats come and go all that often? Thank you for your consideration and time, we ask that you do the best for Newport Harbor. Marilyn Beck, 303 Carnation Ave. This project has not been passed by the City. There are many people with significant concerns with project size. The General Plan requests that developers of this project take a conservative approach in their projects. We worked hard to have responsible development included in the plan 2,133 un 03 09 09:10a Keeton K. Kreitzer 714 - 665 -8539 p.4 Action: ITEM #3 Subject: Issue: Discussion: Action: ITEM #4 Subject: Issue: Discussion Public Comments: so we would have responsible development within the City. This is a super -sized project, not conservative. I wish this meeting was out at the site to show you how hard the wind blows and how destructive it can be. Boats have capsized and docks have broken up. John Connelly, owns and resides at 401 Avocado Ave. and owns 2317 Bayside Drive, said if a 100 foot boat breaks free during wave action it will create significant damage to the boats and properties in the area. The extension will be a bump in the harbor that doesn't need to be there. No one receives prior notices of high wave occurrences so boats can be moved to safety. Owners could be out of town or unavailable to act. The boat parade could be impacted. This sets a precedent for everyone to build their docks out further into the harbor. Bud Razner, 2500 Ocean Blvd., is a supporter of the project and he say's most people are. He was in the Harbor Patrol and knows the harbor. His work experience has taught him to look at all things, weigh all the sides and don't include personal feelings. Neighboring piers build to property lines so they may be impacted by Aerie. Accidents will always occur and liability should not be passed on to a new dock owner. Many people think they own the harbor. This project is a quality, responsible one and is a tax maker. The project provides a water element to clean the effluent that runs into the bay. The old structures need to be in place and need to look for reasons why it will work, not won't. The Commission provided comments on the environmental aspects of the dock system, as well as its overall design. Commissioner Beek made an advisory motion, "While not opposed to the expansion of the existing dock and its area and capacity we believe the size and configuration of the proposed dock project would create significant negative impact on, navigation and recreational boating in the harbor ". The motion carried with all ayes. Harbor Resources will forward this input to the Planning Commission and the City Council who will review the entire project as a whole. Newport Bay Marina at 2300 Newport 8ivd. — Update The Harbor Commission heard an oral report on the status of the Newport Bay Marina located at 2300 Newport Boulevard. The project was approved by Coastal Commission in February with special conditions. it has a lot of public access. The little channel is there because Pickle Weed grows there and need to be preserved. They hope to attract water related business to attract tourists. They don't have any commitments but will be consistent with the regulations. The buildings are protected from shipyard noise and disclosures are required. The guest slips are tight for the smaller boats but they will comply with the Fire Code. The commissioners felt ft was a good, responsible plan. Receive and file. Harbor Projects and Funding Projections The City Council's Finance Subcommittee has requested an updated list of Harbor Commission approved projects and funding projections in order to plan for the future financial needs of the Harbor. The Harbor Commission reviewed the first draft at the March meeting and requested staff to return to the Commission with an updated draft for further review. Chris was complimented on the new format for the report. Commission t.awrenz added that there needs to be a column for ongoing projects, such as Eelgrass. Mark Sites reminded everyone that fees will need to be raised to fund this. Funding sources need to be identified. We don't want to create any friction with the Army Corps as they already are giving us a hard time in approving dredging permits. He asked why we need to dredge in West Newport. 2013` Exhibit "C" ERRATA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2007021054) AERIE (PA 2005 -196) Several "typographical" errors and /or minor revisions to the text in the Draft EIR have been identified. The errata identified below will be incorporated into the Final EIR. Page 1 -6: The first bulleted item under "Mitigation Measures" in the second row under "Traffic and Circulation" will be revised to read: The project's haul route shall follow the route depicted in the CMP. Specifically, dump trucks, concrete mixers, deliveries, and shuttles for off -site parking will access the site via East Coast Highway and travel south on Marguerite Avenue, west on Seaview Avenue, and south on Carnation Avenue to the site. The trucks and construction vehicles shall exit by driving east on Ocean Boulevard, north on Marguerite Avenue, and back to East Coast Highway. 2. Page 1 -7: The five bulleted items under "Mitigation Measures" in the row continued from page 1 -6 will be revised to read: Dirt shall be hauled to Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in the City of Brea (or a closer site /location if available at the time grading occurs). Dump trucks leaving from East Coast Highway shall travel north on MacArthur Boulevard to SR -73, and continuing northbound on SR -55 to the 1 -5 northbound and to SR -57 northbound. Grading and dirt hauling shall occur only after Labor Day and before Memorial Day. All deliveries shall use the designated haul route once they enter the neighborhood starting from Marguerite Avenue. The contractor shall request an encroachment permit for a temporary staging area during construction, as described and illustrated in the CMP. Loading and unloading of all construction materials /equipment and /or construction vehicles shall take place on -site or within the staging area. Loading and unloading shall be managed by the construction valet team and will be overseen by the contractor. Dump trucks, cement trucks, etc., shall arrive at the site with no greater frequency than the discharge rate by the contractor so that no more than one truck is on -site at one time and that trucks shall not queue on Carnation Avenue. Once the delivery is complete, the trucks shall exit the project area via the haul route identified above. All trucks (except cement trucks) shall be required to shut off their engines during the loading /off- loading process. • To prevent obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to the existing roadways. • Traffic control shall be coordinated with the Police Department and Public Works Department, Traffic and Development Services Division, so that street traffic is not obstructed. 3. Page 1 -8: The four bulleted items under "Mitigation Measures" in the row continued from page 1 -7 will be revised to read: • Construction workers are prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard (or any residential street in the neighborhood). Instead, the applicant shall secure one or more binding off -site parking agreements to accommodate the varying number of workers needed for each construction phase. The off -site parking location(s) shall be located within a five -mile radius of the site. The off -site parking agreement shall be presented to the City prior to the issuance of permits required for the phase of construction that shall require the off -site parking. The agreement will also ensure that one of the off -site parking locations will: (1) commit a sufficient number of parking spaces to Aerie construction workers during the relevant term, and (2) the off -site location possesses the proper permits and authority to rent the subject spaces. • Shuttles shall be utilized to transfer construction workers from the remote parking locations to the project site. Specifically, two 10- passenger shuttle vans shall run up to eight trips each morning and evening and up to five trips at lunch, assuming that some workers will remain at the jobsite during lunch. Carpooling among construction workers shall be encouraged throughout the duration of the construction phases. • Once vehicular elevators are installed, workers shall be permitted to park in the completed on -site garages. It is anticipated that approximately 31 cars will be able to park on -site once the parking garage is completed. Personnel shall be provided to assist in parking the construction workers on -site. • As previously indicated, construction workers shall be prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Compliance with this prohibition shall be monitored daily by the construction valet and flagmen team. However, this prohibition shall not apply to short-term visitors to the site such as City inspectors, City staff, architects, and consultants. Carpooling shall also be encouraged among professionals. 4. Page 1 -9: The second bulleted item under "Mitigation Measures' in the second row will be revised to read: Dust shall be minimized using water as control. Site and debris watering shall be performed a minimum of three times daily during demolition activities. During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered at least four times per day. Stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty materials shall be covered or watered three times daily. In addition, trucks carrying soil and debris shall be wetted or covered prior to leaving the site. On windy days, or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Soil disturbance shall be terminated whenever wind conditions exceed 25 miles per hour. 5. Page 1 -10: SC 4.4 -1 will be revised to read: "In accordance with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity — Noise Regulations), noise - generating construction and /or maintenance activities may be permitted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on Saturdays. No noise - generating construction activities shall occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site." 6. Page 1 -12 and Page 4.8 -7: MM 4.8 -2 will be revised to read: "A contractor performing paint removal work shall follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the paint, as proper waste disposal requirements and worker protection measures shall be implemented throughout the removal process." 7. Page 1 -13: MM 4.9 -1b is unnecessary be it repeats SC 4.9-4, which is a standard condition based on existing City policy. MM 4.9-1b will be deleted. 8. Page 1 -13: MM 4.9 -1a will be renumbered to read "MM 4.9-1". 9. Page 1 -13: MM 4.9 -2a will be revised to read: "During periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave - induced motions, boats shall be sheltered at mooring can locations that are available inside Newport Harbor to avoid damage." 10. Page 1 -16: The fourth and fifth bulleted items under "Mitigation Measures" in the second row will be revised to read: • A silt curtain shall be placed around all waterside construction activity during the construction of the dock system to limit the spread of turbidity. If prolonged turbidity is observed outside the silt curtain then the silt curtain shall be re- deployed and re- positioned in a manner to correct the problem. Removal and emplacement of the piles will be conducted using Best Available Technology (BAT) that limits the re- suspension of sediments and the creation of turbidity plumes. • Silt curtains shall be emplaced and maintained in working condition throughout the period of construction by the marine contractor. If turbidity plumes are observed in the vicinity of the cove in front of the development, an additional silt curtain shall be immediately placed in front of the cove's entrance until the turbidity plume has dissipated. 11. Page 1 -17: The first and second bulleted items under "Mitigation Measures" in the row continued from page 1 -16 will be revised to read: • Debris bins shall be placed at the project site. Material collected shall be removed on a daily basis. The amount, type, and location of any large debris (e.g., piles, dock parts, concrete, etc.) that is deposited on the seafloor will be documented and removed prior to the completion of the project. The project marine biologist shall also inspect the seafloor following the completion of construction to ensure that all debris has been removed. • The project marine biologist shall perform weekly on -site inspections to ensure that BMPs and mitigation measures are being implemented during construction. 12. Page 1 -17: "SC 4.5.1" in the second column (Mitigation Measures) will be revised to "SC 4.5 -1 ". 13. Page 1 -17: The last sentence of SC 4.5.1 in the second column (Mitigation Measures) will be deleted. 14. Page 1 -17: SC 4.5 -2 will be revised to delete "and glare specified in Condition of Approval No. _ " 15. Page 1 -17: The second SC 4.5 -2 will be renumbered to read "SC 4.5 -3" and will be revised to read: SC 4.5 -3 The applicant shall dedicate a view easement; however, it will only affect the project site. Structures and landscaping within the easement area shall not be permitted to block public views. The easement shall be approved by the City Attorney and recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction and shall be reflected on the final tract map. 16. Page 1 -18: "SC 4.10 -21" in the second column (Mitigation Measures) will be revised to "SC 4.10 -2). 17. Page 2 -4: The first sentence in the second paragraph in Section 2.1.7 will be revised to read: "Agencies, organizations and individuals are invited to comment on the information presented in the Draft EIR during the public review period, which will begin on March 20, 2009 and will end on May 4, 2009." 18. The final elevation of the emergency exit was incorrectly identified as elevation 40.5 feet NAVD88. Elevation 40.5 NAVD88 is the lowest elevation of the basement. The elevation of the emergency exit where that feature "daylights" at the bluff face is 44.48 feet NAVD88. This correction does not result in any changes to the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR. The reference to the emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD will be revised in the Final EIR on the pages listed below to reflect the correct elevation of 44.48 feet NAVD88. Page 3 -24 - Second paragraph Page 4.1 -16 - Discussion of GP Policy NR 22.1 in Table 4.1 -1 Page 4.1 -16 - Discussion of GP Policy NR 23.4 in Table 4.1 -1 Page 4.1 -25 - Discussion of CLUP Policy 3.1.1 -9 in Table 4.1 -2 Page 4.1 -32 - Discussion of CLUP Policy 4.3.2 -13 in Table 4.1 -2 Page 4.1 -35 - Discussion of CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -5 in Table 4.1 -2 Page 4.1 -36 - Discussion of CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8 in Table 4.1 -2 Page 4.1 -36 - Discussion of CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -9 in Table 4.1 -2 Page 4.1 -36 - Discussion of CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -12 in Table 4.1 -2 Page 4.1 -42 - Discussion of RCPG Policy 3.22 in Table 4.1 -3 Page 4.9 -8 - Second paragraph 19. Page 4.1 -5: The last sentence in the last paragraph under the heading of "Zoning" will be revised to read: "The R -2 zoning permits up to 2 dwelling units per legal lot; the MFR zoning would permit up to 20 du /ac." 20. Page 4.2 -3: The six bulleted items following the second paragraph will be revised to read: The project's haul route shall follow the route depicted in the CMP. Specifically, dump trucks, concrete mixers, deliveries, and shuttles for off -site parking will access the site via East Coast Highway and travel south on Marguerite Avenue, west on Seaview Avenue, and south on Carnation Avenue to the site. The trucks and construction vehicles shall exit by driving east on Ocean Boulevard, north on Marguerite Avenue, and back to East Coast Highway. • Dirt shall be hauled to Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in the City of Brea (or a closer site /location if available at the time grading occurs). Dump trucks leaving from East Coast Highway shall travel north on MacArthur Boulevard to SR -73, and continuing northbound on SR -55 to the 1 -5 northbound and to SR -57 northbound. Grading and dirt hauling shall occur only after Labor Day and before Memorial Day. • All deliveries shall use the designated haul route once they enter the neighborhood starting from Marguerite Avenue. • The contractor shall request an encroachment permit for a temporary staging area during construction, as described and illustrated in the CMP. Loading and unloading of all construction materials /equipment and /or construction vehicles shall take place on -site or within the staging area. Loading and unloading shall be managed by the construction valet team and will be overseen by the contractor. Dump trucks, cement trucks, etc., shall arrive at the site with no greater frequency than the discharge rate by the contractor so that no more than one truck is on -site at one time and that trucks shall not queue on Carnation Avenue. Once the delivery is complete, the trucks shall exit the project area via the haul route identified above. All trucks (except cement trucks) shall be required to shut off their engines during the loading /off - loading process. • To prevent obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to the existing roadways. • Traffic control shall be coordinated with the Police Department and Public Works Department, Traffic and Development Services Division, so that street traffic is not obstructed. 21. Page 4.3 -13: The second bulleted item following the third paragraph will be revised to read: • Dust shall be minimized using water as control. Site and debris watering shall be performed a minimum of three times daily during demolition activities. During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered at least four times per day. Stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty materials shall be covered or watered three times daily. In addition, trucks carrying soil and debris shall be wetted or covered prior to leaving the site. On windy days, or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Soil disturbance shall be terminated whenever wind conditions exceed 25 miles per hour. 22. Page 4.4 -6: SC 4.4 -1 will be revised to read: "In accordance with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity — Noise Regulations), noise - generating construction and /or maintenance activities may be permitted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on Saturdays. No noise - generating construction activities shall occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site." 23. Page 4.4 -9: The two bulleted items following the first paragraph will be revised to read: • During Phases 1 and 2 of the project, the caisson drilling process will progress at the rate of 3 to 4 caissons per day, including drilling, steel, placement, and filling with concrete. The grading during Segments No. 1, 2, and 3 will consist of excavators with a ramp out or an electrical conveyor belt for dirt removal and with dump trucks at the rate of approximately 28 trucks per day removing the soil. There shall be no pile driving during the entire construction process. The ram hoe may be required during the later part of the excavation process for approximately 10 percent of the grading operation at the lower elevations of the site. • For Phases 3 and 4, small hand tools and compressors shall be used within the concrete structure. Noise will also be generated by daily deliveries of materials to the site. The construction valet shall manage the time of such deliveries so that they do not occur at the same time. 24. Page 4.5 -2: SC 4.5 -3 will be revised to read: "The applicant shall dedicate a view easement; however, it will only affect the project site. Structures and landscaping within the easement area shall not be permitted to block public views. The easement shall be approved by the City Attorney and recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction and shall be reflected on the final tract map." 25. Page 4.6 -3: Table 4.6 -2 will be revised to add "404/401 Permits" as a new row under the first column (Water Quality Requirement) and "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers" and "California Regional Water Quality Control Board" will be added in the second column (Enforcement Agency) opposite the new entry in the first column. 26. Page 4.6 -9: The third line of the first "bullet" (N1 — Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants) will be revised to read, "... informs facility users of the impacts of dripping and dumping oil, paints, solvents or other potentially 27. Page 4.7 -5: The fifth line in the last paragraph will be revised to read: "... Appendix J), only the African umbrella sedge is considered dominant. However, in this instance, the..." 28. Page 4.7 -18: The second, third, fourth, and fifth bulleted items will be revised to read: A silt curtain shall be placed around all waterside construction activity during the construction of the dock system to limit the spread of turbidity. If prolonged turbidity is observed outside the silt curtain then the silt curtain shall be re- deployed and re- positioned in a manner to correct the problem. Removal and emplacement of the piles will be conducted using Best Available Technology (BAT) that limits the re- suspension of sediments and the creation of turbidity plumes. • Silt curtains shall be emplaced and maintained in working condition throughout the period of construction by the marine contractor. If turbidity plumes are observed in the vicinity of the cove in front of the development, an additional silt curtain shall be immediately placed in front of the cove's entrance until the turbidity plume has dissipated. • Debris bins shall be placed at the project site. Material collected shall be removed on a daily basis. The amount, type, and location of any large debris (e.g., piles, dock parts, concrete, etc.) that is deposited on the seafloor will be documented and removed prior to the completion of the project. The project marine biologist shall also inspect the seafloor following the completion of construction to ensure that all debris has been removed. • The project marine biologist shall perform weekly on -site inspections to ensure that BMPs and mitigation measures are being implemented during construction. 29. Page 4.9 -13: MM 4.9 -1b is unnecessary because it repeats SC 4.9 -4, which is a standard condition based on existing City policy. MM 4.9-1b will be deleted. 30. Page 4.9 -13: MM 4.9 -1a will be renumbered to read "MM 4.9 -1 ". 31. Page 4.9 -13: MM 4.9 -2a will be revised to read: "During periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave - induced motions, boats shall be sheltered at mooring can locations that are available inside Newport Harbor to avoid damage." 32. Page 10 -12: In the bulleted list in Section 10.3.3 (Reduced Intensity/5 -Unit Multi - Family Residential Project), the 5t' bullet shall be revised to read: "Reduction of 1,021 dump trucks and 294 cement trucks." 33. Page 10 -13: The first sentence in the paragraph in Section 10.3.3.2 (Traffic Circulation) will be revised to read: "Potential construction traffic impacts would be similar (i.e. addition of heavy truck trips onto the residential streets in the area) to the proposed project, although the number of heavy truck trips resulting from the reduction in grading export and concrete pours is 1,305." 34. Page 10 -16: The first sentence in the paragraph under "Alternative A" will be revised to read: "This 8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project alternative (refer to Exhibits 10 -2 through 10 -6) includes the elimination of the sub - basement included in the proposed project, and a reduction of 1,069 square feet, resulting in a reduction of 6,662 cubic yards of excavation when compared to the proposed project." 35. Page 10 -22: The second sentence in the paragraph below "Alternative B" will be revised to read: "However, implementation of this alternative would also result in a reduction of 4,502 square feet from the proposed project." 36. Page 10 -22: The first sentence in the paragraph in Section 10.3.4.2 (Traffic Circulation) will be revised to read: "Potential construction traffic impacts would be similar (i.e. addition of heavy truck trips onto the residential streets in the area) to the proposed project, although the number of heavy truck trips resulting from the reduction in grading export and concrete pours is 2,205 for Alternative A and 2,065 for Alternative B." 37. Page 10 -22: "2,055" in the third line in the paragraph in Section 10.3.4.2 (Traffic Circulation) will be revised to "2.150 ", 38. Page 10 -24: The first sentence in the paragraph in Section 10.3.4.4 (Noise) will be revised to read: 'These reduced grading alternatives (i.e., Alternative A would eliminate 1,069 square feet and Alternative B would eliminate 4,502 square feet) would also eliminate several noise - generating components associated with construction, including the elimination of 25 caissons that would not be necessary for structural integrity." Exhibit "D" FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2007021064) AERIE (PA 2005 -196) 1. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15091 requires that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a project is approved and make specific findings. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Speck economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subdivision (a)(3) shall describe the speck reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. Having received, reviewed and considered the Aerie Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2007021054 (the "EIR ") for the proposed Aerie project (the "Project "), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings set forth below are adopted by the City of Newport Beach (the "City') in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency: A. Document Format These Findings have been organized into the following sections: (1) Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings. (2) Section 2 summarizes the environmental review and public participation process. (3) Section 3 provides the background information and the Project Description. (4) Section 4 provides the City's findings as to why an Environmental Impact Report is the appropriate document for the Project. (5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding those environmental impacts which were determined either (i) not to be relevant to the Project or (ii) clearly not manifested at levels deemed to be significant. Section 5 addresses both Project - speck and cumulative impacts. (6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR which, after evaluation in the EIR, the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of project design features, standard conditions, and/or mitigation measures. It also discusses the Project's single significant and unavoidable environmental impact (short term construction noise). Section 6 addresses both Project - specific and cumulative impacts. In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project. Where potentially significant impacts can be avoided or substantially lessened through adherence to project design features and standard conditions, these findings specify how those potentially significant impacts were so avoided or substantially lessened. (7) Section 7 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the Project. B. Custodian and Location of Records The documents and other materials which constitute the administrative record for the Citys actions related to the Project are located at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. The City Planning Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the Project. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The environmental review process for the AERIE is summarized as follows: In accordance with CEQA requirements, the City prepared and published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The NOP was filed with the State Clearinghouse on September 10, 2008. The State Clearinghouse assigned State Clearinghouse (SCH) Number 2007021054 for the document. The NOP was distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties on September 9, 2008 for a 30 -day public review. The review period ended on October 9, 2008. The Notice of Preparation was included in the Draft EIR as Appendix A. Comments received during the NOP comment period are included in Appendix A of the DEIR. • In accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse on March 20, 2009. The Draft EIR consisted of a single volume, including technical appendices. • The Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested organizations, and individuals by the City of Newport Beach. A forty -five (45) day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to CEQA, which commenced on March 20, 2009 and ended on May 4, 2009. • Comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were addressed in a Response to Comments document dated June 2009, which was published by the City on May 21, 2009, during a noticed public hearing of the Newport Beach Planning Commission. The responses were augmented on June 4, 2009 during a noticed public hearing of the Newport Beach Planning Commission. • The Final EIR (Responses to Public Comments) was distributed to responsible agencies, agencies and individuals submitting comments on July 2, 2009 in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5. • The following components comprise the Final EIR on the AERIE Project (PA2005 -196): (a) Draft EIR, dated March 2009, incorporated herein by reference; (b) Comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments, included as Appendix K to the Final EIR, dated May 2009; (c) Errata to the Draft EIR included as Appendix L dated May 2009. (d) All attachments, incorporations, and references to the documents delineated in items a. through c. above, and submitted to the City as part of the EIR process. • The Newport Beach Planning Commission considered the Final EIR on the AERIE Project at its duly noticed public hearing on May 21, 2009, and June 4, 2009. • The Newport Beach City Council considered the Draft EIR and Final EIR on the AERIE Project at its duly noticed public hearing on July 14, 2009. 3. BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project Site is located at 201 — 207 Carnation Avenue (west side of Carnation Avenue at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard) and 101 Bayside Place in the City of Newport Beach. The Project consists of the proposed development of the 1.4 -acre Project Site with an 8 -unit condominium development. Project implementation includes the demolition of the residential structures (i.e., fourteen - unit apartment building and one single - family residence) that currently occupy the Project Site. The total gross floor area of the Project will encompass 61,709 square feet, which includes not only living space commonly referred to as "square footage" for a residential unit (a total of 29,426 square feet, or an average of 3,678 square feet per unit), but also common recreational areas (2,987 square feet), storage areas (5,943 square feet), parking (13,234 square feet), and circulation and mechanical areas (10,119 square feet). In addition, existing docks will be replaced with an eight (8) slip dock with a single guest side tie dock. The new docks will consist of timber construction and 19 new concrete guide piles, and the existing 20 -foot long gangway will be replaced by a 44 -foot gangway. The new dock layout is located within the existing pierhead line and natural rock outcroppings, the property line to the north and south, and an existing eelgrass bed to the south. In addition, a Construction Management Plan ( "CMP ") has been prepared as a component of the Project. The CMP addresses all aspects of the construction phase (e.g., phasing, schedule, construction equipment, and the construction process). In addition, the CMP addresses parking management (e.g., off -site and short-term parking, staging, etc.), traffic control (e.g., haul routes and delivery requirements), safety and security (e.g., pedestrian protection, fencing, and safety and security), air quality control and noise suppression measures (e.g., dust control, noise control vibration monitoring), and environmental compliance/protection (e.g., erosion and sediment control and beach protection, water quality control, and environmental protection measures). The following discretionary approvals are requested or required by the City in order to implement the Project: (a) General Plan Amendment (GP2005 -006); (b) Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2005- 002); (c) Zone Change (CA2005 -009); (d) Tract Map (NT2005- 004/TT16882); (e) Modification Permit (MD2005 -087); and (f) Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002). 4. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT After determining that an EIR should be prepared to evaluate the Project's potential impacts, the City distributed a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") for the EIR on September 23. 2008. The NOP provided for a 30-day review period. The NOP was distributed to the State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research, public agencies, utility and service providers, interested persons who requested notice, the Orange County Clerk/Recorder, and homeowners' associations in the Project area. The City also conducted a community scoping meeting on October 29, 2008, pursuant to Section 15083 of the State CEQA Guidelines. As authorized by Section 15060(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an initial study was not prepared. The City received five (5) written responses to the NOP (refer to EIR Appendix B). The initial NOP comments were used to establish the scope of the issues addressed in the EIR, which are as follows: • Land Use and Planning • Traffic and Circulation • Air Quality • Noise • Aesthetics • Drainage and Hydrology • Biological Resources • Public Health and Safety • Soils and Geology • Cultural /Scientific Resources 5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY This Section 4 describes, by issue, those potential effects of the Project which were determined not to be potentially significant and which, therefore, are not discussed in the EIR. CEQA provides that an EIR shall focus on all potentially significant effects on the environment created by a project, with an emphasis upon their severity and probability of occurrence. The City has concluded that the Project would not result in significant impacts with respect to the following: Agriculture - No Prime Farmland, Farmland of State or Local Importance, or Unique Farmland occurs within or in the vicinity of the Project Site. The Project Site and adjacent areas are designated as "Urban and Built -up Land" and "Other Land" on the Orange County Important Farmland Map. Further, neither the Project Site nor the adjacent areas are designated as prime, unique or important farmlands by the State Resources Agency or by the Newport Beach General Plan. The Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element designates the Project Site as "Multiple -Unit Residential (RM)" and "Two Unit Residential (RT) "; the zone designation for the Project Site is "Multiple Family Residential" and "Two Family Residential." Therefore, there is no conflict with zoning for agricultural use, and the property and surrounding properties are not under a Williamson Act contract. The Project Site is not being used for agricultural purposes and, as indicated previously, is not designated as agricultural land. The Project Site and the area surrounding the Project Site are developed with residential uses. Therefore, no agricultural uses on the Project Site or within the Project Site's vicinity would be converted to non - agricultural use. No significant impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Population and Housing - The Project will result in a decrease in the total number of dwelling units from fifteen (15) to eight (8). Therefore, Project implementation will not result in a substantial increase in population based on the population per household recognized by the City. Further, the Project Site could accommodate up to nine (9) dwelling units based on the existing zoning. Therefore, Project Site development would result in a decrease in both the number of dwelling units that currently exist on the Project Site and the number that could be constructed. The Project will result in the demolition of the existing fourteen (14) -unit apartment building and the single - family residence that exist on the Project Site. Project implementation, therefore, will result in a decrease in a total of seven dwelling units based on the existing development on the Project Site. The loss of seven (existing) dwelling units is not considered a significant decrease of housing units within the City because the existing total vacancy rate in the City is estimated to be 10.91 percent. With the exception of one tenant currently residing in the single - family residence (207 Carnation) and residents of the two apartment units that are currently occupied, the remaining units are vacant. Although these residents would be displaced by the Project, it is anticipated that adequate replacement housing exists elsewhere in the City to accommodate their relocation. No replacement housing would be required as a result of Project implementation. As a result, a potentially significant reduction of housing within the City will not occur as a result of Project implementation. In addition, the net reduction in dwelling units will not contribute significantly to the cumulative loss of homes and /or displacement of occupants in the City. The existing apartment building occupying one of the Project Site's two parcels exceeds the permitted development density based on currently regulatory requirements. If built today, only nine (9) dwelling units would be permitted on the combined Project Site. Together with the approved and planned development identified in EIR Table 9 -1 (the "Cumulative Projects "), a substantial increase in residential development is anticipated in the City, including 974 dwelling units alone on the Conexant and Koll properties in the Airport area. Other smaller residential developments are also proposed in the City, including the Megonigal residence and other single - family and duplex dwelling units in the area. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on the reduction of housing in the City is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. The existing residential development is not included in the City's inventory of affordable housing. No low- and /or moderate - income households occupy the Project Site and, therefore, none would be displaced as a result of Project implementation. Further, once the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are adopted by the City of Newport Beach, the decrease in the number of dwelling units on the Project Site will not adversely affect the jobs /housing balance because the Project will be consistent with the City's long -range plans, which are the basis of the jobs /housing projections. Therefore, Project implementation will not result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to population and housing. Recreation - The Project will result in a decrease of actual dwelling units on the Project Site from the current fifteen (15) to the proposed eight (8). This would, of course, result in a similar reduction in the number of residents potentially occupying the Project Site. The Project includes private common amenities that will help offset the need for recreational facilities. With a pool and private outdoor decks that may have spas and fire pits, most residents of the Project are expected to utilize their private recreation amenities rather than public parks within the City. Although residents of the Project would occasionally visit local and regional parks and beaches, use of those public facilities by the future residents would not represent a substantial change in the intensity of usage and the impact would not result in substantial physical deterioration of those park areas. Although the Project will increase the number of occupied units on the Project Site, the increase in residents associated with the Project is minimal and would not result in the requirement to construct new or expand existing recreational amenities in the City. Furthermore, the Project's eight dwelling units represent a significant decrease from the number of dwelling units that presently exist on the Project Site. This reduction in unit count and resulting likely decrease in potential population supports the conclusion that no new facilities will be required to accommodate future residents of the Project. Further, Tide 19 (Subdivisions) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Section 19.52) requires the developer to pay a fee for each unit created by the proposed condominium map. This fee will be used to augment recreational facilities in the City. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. On a cumulative basis, although the generation of additional residents associated with the Cumulative Projects could result in a demand for recreational amenities, the Project's incremental contribution to the cumulative demands created by the Cumulative Projects is not cumulatively considerable due to the relatively minimal number of residential units within the Project and the actual decrease in the number of residential units from existing conditions. Furthermore, the Project includes private recreational amenities on -site to accommodate Project residents. As with the Cumulative Projects that will construct residential dwelling units, the Project is subject to the City's park in -lieu fee requirements contained in Section 19.52 of the Municipal Code (Park Dedications and Fees) to offset any potential demands for recreational facilities in the City. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on recreational resources is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. Mineral Resources - Neither the Newport Beach General Plan (Recreation and Open Space Element) nor the State of California has identified the already - developed Project Site or environs as a potential mineral resource of Statewide or regional significance. No mineral resources are known to exist and, therefore, Project implementation will not result in any significant impacts to regional or state -wide important resources. Furthermore, the Newport Beach General Plan does not identify the project environs as having potential value as a locally important mineral resource site. The proposed demolition and construction will not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource site and, therefore, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. On a cumulative basis, the Project, the Project's incremental contribution to the impacts to mineral resources created by the Cumulative Projects is not cumulatively considerable because the Project does not result in the loss of any important mineral resources. Although the Project will require the use of mineral resources (e.g., sand and gravel, wood, etc.), many are renewable and/or sustainable. Additionally, with the exception of the Newport Banning Ranch, which has been a producing oil field for several years, many of the sites on which development of the Cumulative Projects is proposed are either already developed (e.g., Conexant/Koll, Newport Beach Country Club, etc.) or are located in areas of the City that do not possess mineral resources. Therefore, there appears to be no significant cumulative impact to mineral resources from the Cumulative Projects. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on mineral resources is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. • Public Services: Fire Protection - Fire protection facilities and service to the Project Site are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). In addition to the City's resources, the NBFD also maintains a formal automatic aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and all neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. The Project will result in seven fewer, though larger, residential dwelling units requiring fire protection. As a result, there will not be any increase in residential units or persons requiring emergency services. The Project must comply with the City's current building and fire codes and is replacing a decades old structure which is not consistent with today's building codes. The Project includes all necessary fire protection devices, such as fire sprinklers. It has been designed with several features to facilitate and enhance the provision of adequate fire protection, including an emergency communication device located at the existing concrete pad at the beach level and a new wet standpipe which will be provided to the existing docks. In addition, an automatic and manual fire alarm system will be installed, a fire control room is provided at ground level which will be monitored by a central station, and a Class I wet standpipe will be provided at every level at all stairs to facilitate fire protection. Adequate water supplies and infrastructure, including fire hydrants, exist in the vicinity of the Project, and there is no requirement for other new facilities or emergency services. A preliminary code compliance analysis was conducted by City staff. Based on that analysis, the proposed building will comply with code. A final compliance determination will be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. On a cumulative basis, the less- than - significant potential impacts associated with the Project will not alter the ability of the Newport Beach Fire Department to provide an adequate level of service to the Project, even when considering the potential development of the Cumulative Projects, because the Project Site is currently provided fire service. Development of the Cumulative Projects will also be evaluated by the Newport Beach Fire Department to ensure that adequate levels of service can be provided. These projects are within the long -range projections of the City's General Plan and, therefore, would not adversely affect the City's ability to provide an adequate level of protection. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on the provision of fire services is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. Public Services: Police Protection - The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) is responsible for providing police and law enforcement services within the corporate limits of the City. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately two miles northeast of the Project Site. The NBPD currently has a ratio of 1.91 sworn officers for each 1,000 residents in the City. This ratio is adequate for the current population. Police and law enforcement service in the City is provided by patrols with designated "beats." The Project will reduce the number of residential units on the Project Site through the demolition of an existing fourteen -unit apartment building and one single - family residence and their replacement with an 8 -unit condominium structure. As a result, the Project will not require an expansion of local law enforcement resources and, therefore, will not require the construction of new law enforcement facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. On a cumulative basis, the potential (less than significant) impacts associated with the Project would not alter the ability of either the Newport Beach Police Department from providing an adequate level of service to the Project Site, even when considering the Cumulative Projects, because the Project Site is currently provided police service. The potential development of the Cumulative Projects would also be evaluated by the Newport Beach Police Departments to ensure that adequate levels of service can be provided. The Cumulative Projects are within the long -range projections identified in the City's General Plan and, therefore, would not adversely affect the City's ability to provide an adequate level of protection. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on the provision of police services is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. • Public Services: Schools - The provision of educational facilities and services in the City of Newport Beach is the responsibility of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. Residential and non - residential development is subject to the imposition of school fees. Payment of the State - mandated statutory school fees is the manner by which potential impacts to the District's educational facilities are mitigated. Government Code Section 65996 significantly limits the scope of evaluation of school facilities impacts under CEQA. Despite this limitation, the following information has been evaluated regarding the Project's potential generation of school age children and is provided for informational purposes. The existing dwelling units have been vacant for several years, except for caretakers living in the single - family home and two of the apartment units. At the present time, therefore, this property has little or no impact on the Newport Mesa Unified School District. It is estimated that, upon Project completion and occupancy, fewer than twenty (20) students, distributed between various grade levels, would be generated by the Project. New or expanded school facilities would not be required to provide classroom and support space for these low numbers of school age children. However, the Project is subject to the payment of any required school fee to the school district pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code in order to offset the incremental cost impact of expanding school resources to accommodate the increased student enrollment associated with new residential development. With the payment of the mandatory school fees, no significant impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation. Similarly, with the payment of the mandatory school fees, no potentially significant cumulative impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation. Public Services: Other Public Facilities - Due to the reduction in residential density, no increased demand for other public services is anticipated and there would be no need to construct any new public facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. On a cumulative basis, the potential increase in residents generated by the Cumulative Projects could result in an increased demand for other public facilities. However, because the Project represents a net decrease in the number of actual residential units, and, therefore, potential residents, and the Project applicant will be required to pay in -lieu park fees to further offset any direct or cumulative impacts to recreational facilities, the Project's incremental effect on other public facilities will not be cumulatively considerable. These fees are used by the City to provide recreational facilities and amenities that serve the residents of Newport Beach. Therefore, the Project will not have a significant cumulative effect on other public facilities. • Utilities - Wastewater generated by the Project will be disposed into the existing sewer system and will not exceed wastewater treatment standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water demand and wastewater generation will not increase significantly over existing uses due to the increase in the number of occupants who will reside on the Project Site when compared to the number of currently occupied dwelling units. The Project will connect to an existing 12 -inch water main in Carnation Avenue. Wastewater connections will be made either in a 10 -inch main in Carnation Avenue or an 8 -inch main in Bayside Place below the Project Site. No expansion of these facilities is necessary due to existing capacity and the reduction in density. Future water demand based on the General Plan projections would not be increased significantly. Even though the Project will result in a decrease in dwelling units by a total of seven, the potential exists for additional water demand on a per unit basis due to the larger size of the dwelling units and the pool and spa areas. However, if there is an increase in demand, that increase is anticipated to be minor and not significant. The Project will not result in a significant increase in solid waste production due to the decrease in dwelling units. Existing landfills are expected to have adequate capacity to service the Project. Solid waste production will be picked up by either the City or a commercial provider licensed by the City. All federal, state, and local regulations related to solid waste will be adhered to through this process. On a cumulative basis, the incremental increase in the demand for utilities as a result of replacing the older (i.e., 1949 -era) multiple - family apartment building with a "state -of- the -art" energy efficient development is intended to minimize demands for energy resources. For instance, the Project includes extensive use of "green" technology intended to reduce demands for energy resources, including gray water retention for property irrigation, natural ventilation systems that capitalize on prevailing ocean breezes and thermal convection dynamics, and the use of high- thermal mass for capturing and retaining heat through solar heat gain apertures. Although the Project decreases runoff from the Project Site to the existing catch basin located in Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard and does not require any improvements to that catch basin, Project implementation will include the replacement/upsizing of the catch basin to correct an existing deficiency and improve water quality treatment in the local community. Therefore, the incremental effect of the Project on utilities is not cumulatively considerable and, when associated with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. 6. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The following potentially significant environmental impacts were evaluated in the EIR. In each instance, that evaluation demonstrated that as a result of either project design features (including the CMP), compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, the identification of feasible mitigation measures, and/or a combination of one or more of these factors, the potentially significant impact had been avoided or reduced to a level of less than significance. Therefore, for these effects and in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (Note: For the purposes of these Findings, Section 21081(a)(1)'s words "mitigate or avoid" are deemed to have the same meaning as Section 15091(a)(1)'s words "avoid or substantially lessen" and will be used interchangeably.) Because project design features, standard conditions, or regulations are considered "incorporated into the Project," where environmental effects have been avoided or reduced to less than significance solely due to these measures, no significant impact will be found and, therefore, no "mitigation" is required. Nonetheless, the City will, within these findings, include findings explaining how such measures are proposed to be incorporated within the Project with the result that the applicable environmental effect has been avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance. Where, on the other hand, a significant impact is identified despite the inclusion of project design features and the applicability of existing laws, codes, and statutes, that significant impact will be identified and, where feasible, mitigation shall be proposed. 6.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: As demonstrated in EIR Table 4.1 -1 (City's General Plan), EIR Table 4.1 -2 (Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan), and EIR Table 4.1 -3 (Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide), the Project is consistent with the City's Land Use Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the City's General Plan, the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, and with the long -range goals, policies and objectives adopted by the City in the General Plan Update. The Project is also compatible with the existing land uses in the area. Tables 4.1 -1, 4.1 -2, and EIR Table 4.1 -3 as well as Responses to Comments 10 -1 through 10 -5, which also address Land Use Element and CLUP policy consistency related to bluff development, are incorporated into these findings by reference. Further, implementation of the standard condition identified for the Project (i.e., comply with the zoning district regulations, California Building Code, and other regulatory requirements) will ensure that no significant impacts will occur. No significant long -term unavoidable adverse land use impacts will occur as a result of Project implementation. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with the Newport Beach Planning and Zoning Code (Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code)? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The majority of the Project Site is zoned MFR (Multiple - Family Residential, 2,178), which would accommodate up to 20 du /ac based on one dwelling unit for every 2,178 square feet of land. The maximum density that could be achieved on the Project Site is based on the MFR zoning parameters identified below. Total Site Area 61,282 square feet Existing Building Pad 13,481 square feet Slope area less than 50% 7,462 square feet Slope area greater than 50% 11,926 square feet Area under mean higher high water elevation 28,413 square feet The maximum density that would be permitted on the Project Site is determined by subtracting the area of the Project Site that exceeds 50 percent slope (11,926 square feet) and the area of the Project Site located below mean higher high water (28,413 square feet) from the total Project Site area (61,284 square feet). This calculation results in a total of 20,945 square feet. Based on the minimum of 2,178 square feet of land area per dwelling unit, a maximum of nine dwelling units would be permitted on the Project Site. The Project applicant is proposing a total of eight dwelling units, which is consistent with the density provision of the MFR zoning classification. A small portion of the Project Site (584 square feet) is zoned R -2 (Two-Family Residential). The applicant has proposed a zone change to reclassify that small portion of the Project Site to MFR, which would be consistent with the accompanying request to amend the Newport Beach Land Use Element to redesignate it as RM. Approval of the zone change (and General Plan Amendment) would eliminate the R -2 zoning and the existing conflict with the MFR zoning that applies to the majority of the Project Site, which permits higher density development. Development of the Project Site as proposed complies with the zoning district regulations and development standards prescribed for the MFR zoning district. Therefore, no significant conflicts with the zoning would occur and no mitigation measures are required. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Project Site is located within the limits of the Central/Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of Orange. The NCCP is intended to ensure the long -term survival of the coastal California gnatcatcher and other special status coastal sage scrub (CSS) dependent plant and wildlife species in accordance with state - sanctioned NCCP program guidelines. The biological surveys conducted on the Project Site revealed that although some native species exist on the bluff property, neither CSS habitat nor the coastal California gnatcatcher exists on the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts either to CSS habitat or the coastal California gnatcatcher are anticipated as a result of Project implementation. As a result, Project implementation is consistent with the adopted NCCP for the Central /Coastal Subregion. No mitigation measures are required. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The area surrounding the Project Site is entirely developed with single- and multiple- family residential development. Although development of the Project Site as proposed would change the architectural character of the Project Site by replacing an older multi - family structure with a modern multiple - family structure, development of the Project Site would not adversely affect adjacent properties. In particular, no design component or feature of the Project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significantly change an established community. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in substantial or extreme land use incompatibility? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Redevelopment of the Project Site will not result in a significant land use conflict. The Project is consistent with the general plan and zoning densities for the Project Site. The Project's density is 5.7 du /ac, compared to the 11.4 du /ac that currently exists based on the 15 existing dwelling units, the 20 du /ac permitted by the General Plan Land Use Element and zoning, and the nine units possible on the Project Site when all development standards are taken into consideration. The Project complies with the development standards (e.g., setbacks, building height, lot coverage, etc.) prescribed for the MFR zoning district. The proposed structure is also consistent with the policies articulated in the General Plan. (6) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in incompatible land uses in an aircraft accident potential area as defined in an airport land use plan? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Project Site is not located within two miles of any existing public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip. John Wayne Airport, which is located approximately five miles northwest of the Project Site, is the nearest aviation facility. No portion of the Project Site is located within the accident potential area of such a plan. The Project would neither affect nor be affected by aircraft operations at any aviation facility that would generate noise in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, no significant land use impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. (7) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Newport Beach General Plan identifies the City's open space and conservation areas. However, because the area of the City in which the Project Site is located is nearly completely developed, natural open space and habitat are limited in the project environs. The Project Site encompasses approximately 1.4 acres that are currently developed with single- and multiple - family residential dwelling units. The Project Site previously has been altered in order to accommodate the existing development. Neither the Project Site nor the surrounding areas is located within a Natural Community Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, Project implementation will not adversely affect such a plan, sensitive habitat and/or resources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of Project implementation. (8) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Land Use and Planning impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant cumulative land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Project Site is currently developed. It is identified for development in the City's adopted long -range plans. The Project is consistent with the applicable goals, policies, and objectives of the Newport Beach Land Use Element and other general plan elements, as well as the City's CLUP. No design component or feature of the Project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significantly change an established community. In addition, the Project Site is located within the limits of the Central /Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of Orange. Although the biological surveys conducted on the Project Site revealed that some native species exist on the bluff property, neither CSS habitat nor the coastal California gnatcatcher exist on the Project Site and no impacts to those species would occur as a result of Project implementation. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to land use will occur as a result of Project implementation. 6.2 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project generate an increase in traffic at intersections in the City that results in an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) change of 0.01 or more and a resulting ICU of 0.91 (LOS E) or greater? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion (Potential Construction Impacts): Implementation of the Project will require the exportation of more than 25,000 cubic yards of earth material to the Brea Olinda Landfill, resulting in the generation of approximately 2,105 heavy truck trips over the 5 -month grading and excavation phase. Grading and excavation necessary to implement the Project will be scheduled to occur after the summer months to avoid truck traffic impacts during that already congested time period. Although a maximum of up to 44 haul truck trips per day (based on a minimum 15- minute interval between departures from the Project Site as set forth in the CMP) could be generated by the daily grading activities, the CMP limits the number of heavy truck trips to 27 to 29 trips per day during the three excavation "segments." Other construction- related heavy truck trips will be those related to concrete pouring, which will account for a total of 622 trips in 12 concrete pour events that would take 30 to 40 days each within the 18 -month Phase II period. Concrete truck traffic would be generated on only three to five days during each concrete pour event. In addition, truck traffic that is related to material deliveries to the Project Site would average two to four heavy trucks per week during the final nine months of the construction phase. The CMP includes several measures to ensure that the construction traffic will not result in significant impacts in the residential neighborhood, including the following: • The Project's haul route shall follow the route depicted in the CMP. Specifically, dump trucks, concrete mixers, deliveries, and shuttles for off -site parking will access the Project Site via East Coast Highway and travel south on Marguerite Avenue, west on Seaview Avenue, and south on Carnation Avenue to the Project Site. The trucks and construction vehicles shall exit by driving east on Ocean Boulevard, north on Marguerite Avenue, and back to East Coast Highway. • Dirt shall be hauled to Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in the City of Brea (or a closer site/location if available at the time grading occurs). Dump trucks leaving from East Coast Highway shall travel north on MacArthur Boulevard to SR -73, and continue northbound on SR -55 to the 1 -5 northbound and to SR -57 northbound. Grading and dirt hauling shall occur only after Labor Day and before Memorial Day. • All deliveries shall use the designated haul route once they enter the neighborhood starting from Marguerite Avenue. The contractor shall request an encroachment permit for a temporary staging area during construction, as described and illustrated in the CMP. Loading and unloading of all construction materials /equipment and /or construction vehicles shall take place on -site or within the staging area. Loading and unloading shall be managed by the construction valet team and will be overseen by the contractor. Dump trucks, cement trucks, and other heavy trucks shall arrive at the Project Site with no greater frequency than the minimum 15- minute discharge rate so that no more than one truck is on -site at one time and that trucks shall not queue on Carnation Avenue. Once each delivery is complete, the truck shall exit the Project area via the identified haul route. All trucks (except cement trucks) shall be required to shut off their engines during the loading/off- loading process. • To prevent obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the Project Site, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to the existing roadways. • Traffic control shall be coordinated with the Police Department and Public Works Department, Traffic and Development Services Division, so that street traffic is not obstructed. Potential construction - related traffic impacts, which could include slowing of local traffic and impeding turning movements at private driveways would be avoided through the implementation of the measures prescribed in the CMP. To ensure that this Project's construction traffic does not result in adverse traffic congestion impacts and to avoid impacts along local residential streets, especially narrower streets, the CMP has addressed all aspects of the construction phase, including traffic control, haul routes, and the frequency of heavy truck trips. The heavy truck construction traffic (a maximum of four trips per hour) will not adversely affect any intersection operation during either the a.m. or p.m. peak hours. In addition, construction of the replacement dock will not generate additional traffic because both materials and equipment will be delivered to the Project Site on a barge to the dock location. Therefore, no significant traffic impacts will occur as a result of Project implementation. Discussion (Potential Operational Impacts): As shown in the table below, Project implementation represents an increase of 24 trips per day, including two a.m. peak hour trips and two p.m. peak hour trips. When compared to the potential occupancy of the 15 dwelling units that presently exist on the Project Site, the Project would generate 57 fewer daily trips, including four fewer a.m. peak hour trips and six fewer p.m. peak hour trips. �nd Owefllt}y ;; Dapp ACCT k PM F"eajt )WT 1J Units Potential 15 104 8 10 Occu anc Baseline 3 23 2 2 Proposed 8 47 4 4 Net Change 5 24 2 2 from Baseline Assumes all units are occupied. 2. Baseline" conditions reflects 3 units currently occupied, including the SFD home and two apartments. SOURCE: Institute of Trans ortation Engineers The City requires that a traffic analysis be prepared for projects that generate 300 or more trips per day. As indicated in the above table, the Project does not reach the minimum threshold. Therefore, a traffic analysis was not required. Although the assessment of traffic impacts considered the decrease in total dwelling units, it likely does not reflect the potential increase in traffic generated by the proposed dwelling units adjusted for possible lifestyle factors associated with extremely affluent households, which could generate a small amount of additional traffic attributable to domestic employees, pool and spa maintenance workers, and so forth. However, even with such additional traffic, Project implementation will not result in an increase in either peak hour traffic volumes or total daily traffic in excess of established thresholds. Therefore, future traffic generated by the Project will not result in any significant long -term traffic impacts. No mitigation measures are required. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project will generate an increase in traffic at a Congestion Management Program intersection resulting in a Level of Service (LOS) F, or if a Congestion Management Program intersection maintains an existing LOS F, an increase in traffic results in an ICU change beyond 0.10? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: See discussion of Potential Impact No. 1 above. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project will result in inadequate access or parking capacity? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion (Potential Construction Impacts): The total construction period is estimated to extend approximately 32 months over four phases that vary in duration from five to 18 months each. The daily construction employee work force will vary from phase to phase, depending on the construction activity. Nonetheless, it is estimated that an average of 25 workers will be at the Project Site each day during Phase I and 45 workers each day during Phase II. During Phases III and IV, when work will mostly occur indoors, an average of 60 to 80 workers are expected to be on -site on a daily basis. To ensure that adequate employee parking is provided during each phase of construction, the CMP includes a detailed parking management plan. This plan mandates the following: Construction workers are prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard (or any residential street in the neighborhood). Instead, before permits may be issued for a construction phase that will require off -site parking, the applicant shall secure one or more binding off -site parking agreements to accommodate the applicable number of workers needed for that phase. The off -site parking location(s) shall be located within a five -mile radius of the Project Site. The agreement shall ensure that the off -site parking location (1) will commit a sufficient number of parking spaces to Aerie construction workers during the relevant term and (2) possesses the proper permits and authority to rent the subject spaces. The off -site parking agreement shall be present to the City which shall verify compliance with these requirements as provided in the CMP. • Shuttles shall be utilized to transfer construction workers from the remote parking locations to the Project Site. Specifically, two 10- passenger shuttle vans shall run up to eight trips each morning and evening and up to five trips at lunch, assuming that some workers will remain at the jobsite during lunch. Carpooling among construction workers shall be encouraged throughout the duration of the construction phases. • Once vehicular elevators are installed, workers shall be permitted to park in the completed on -site garages. It is anticipated that approximately 31 cars will be able to park on -site once the parking garage is completed. Personnel shall be provided to assist in parking the construction workers on -site. • As previously indicated, construction workers shall be prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Compliance with this prohibition shall be monitored daily by the construction valet and flagmen team. However, this prohibition shall not apply to short-term visitors to the Project Site such as City inspectors, City staff, architects, and consultants. Carpooling shall also be encouraged among professionals. Discussion (Potential Operational Impacts): The Project proposes a unique access plan that includes a four -level parking garage with a total of 25 parking spaces for the eight condominiums, not including the six private auto lifts. These spaces include sixteen for residents, eight for visitors, and one service vehicle space. Two parking spaces also have been provided for golf carts. In addition, the garage is equipped with mechanical vehicle lifts in six of the residential parking spaces. These lifts can be used by the residents themselves to increase their own parking from two spaces per unit to three per unit and are not counted toward the code parking requirements. Access to the parking garage is proposed to be via a driveway on Carnation Avenue, which leads directly to /from vehicle elevators located at the face of the building. Two vehicular elevators will be used to accommodate residents' parking within the structure. The two on -site vehicular elevators will serve the private garages of seven of the units and overflow guest parking spaces that are located in the subterranean garage. Parking for the eighth unit and the required guest parking spaces are located four feet below street level and do not take access via the proposed elevators. The East (i.e., right side) elevator is designated for entrance and West (i.e., left side) elevator is designated for exiting. Access control panels are located adjacent to the elevator (on driver's side) on each floor. Residents will have a remote control similar to a garage door controller that can activate the elevator through the touch of a button as they approach the entrance. Lighting signals are located on top of the elevator opening on each floor that indicate the elevator position or if it is currently in use. The entrance elevator will be programmed for "destination dispatch" so that it is automatically recalled to the street level when it is not in use. Therefore, the driver can access the elevator immediately upon entering the Project Site when it is not in use, thus minimizing the potential for creating a vehicle queue. Inside the elevator, another keypad is located on the driver's side of the wall. A lighting signal indicates the designation (i.e., floor) of the elevator. Once the elevator has reached its designated level, ample turnaround space is available for the car to maneuver into the private garages. The elevators will always be used by a car pulling into and out of it in a forward direction. The interior cab size of the elevator is approximately 10' x 20' with an 8' high ceiling. It takes the elevator approximately eight seconds to travel from floor to floor and completely cycle in less than two minutes. Furthermore, an emergency generator will be provided so that in the event of a power outage, the generator will automatically activate to operate the elevator, allowing residents to exit the building safely. This safety feature will also send the cabs to the recall position at street level. In addition, a fire service switch will be provided that allows fire department to access the elevators in case of emergency. Two spaces designed for golf cart sized vehicles are proposed. These spaces are within the three sub- basement levels of the structure with the lower levels accessed by vehicle elevators large enough and with sufficient capacity to accommodate vehicles and vans. The Newport Beach Zoning Code requires attached single family residential projects to provide one covered and one uncovered space per dwelling unit. Additionally, 0.5 space per dwelling unit is required for guests. Under this code, the Project requires a total of sixteen spaces for residents and four spaces for guests, for a total of twenty spaces. As indicated in the table below, the Project proposes 25 parking spaces for residents and guests, exceeding the minimum twenty off - street parking spaces required by the Municipal Code. As noted above, the six parking spaces provided by the lifts are not included in the calculation of spaces toward the code requirement. Finally, the length of the curb cut, which provides vehicular access to the Project Site, has been substantially reduced, which results in the creation of three (3) new on- street public parking spaces. The addition of these on- street parking spaces is considered a beneficial impact, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. The AFA analysis investigated three condominium complexes with similar characteristics located in the immediate vicinity of the Project to conduct counts and evaluate the potential for circulation conflicts. This study was conducted to evaluate the potential for ingresslegress queuing. Traffic counts taken by AFA included minute -by- minute observation of the arrivals and departures from the three condominium complexes (8, 15, and 42 units) during the a.m., noon, and p.m. peak two hour periods. Based on those observations, only during one minute did the arrival rate reach as high as three vehicles per minute and that was only one time for the 15 -unit condominium project. On six occasions, two vehicles per minute arrived at the same time. However, that occurred at the 42 -unit complex. Based on the actual field- measured arrival rates, it is estimated that rarely, if ever, will the queue of waiting vehicles at the entry to the Project back out onto Carnation Avenue. Nonetheless, the question of safety was also examined by AFA and documented in the study prepared for the Project. Existing traffic counts on Carnation Avenue are modest. The traffic volumes observed were 24 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 22 trips during the p.m. peak hour. These figures equate to less than one vehicle every three to four minutes. The elevators can completely cycle in less than two minutes. The AFA analysis concluded that the garage access design, which utilizes two vehicle elevators would not create any substantial vehicle queuing onto Carnation Avenue. This is particularly true for the Project because only seven of the eight units will utilize the vehicle elevators. With one vehicle lift for each of six units combined with single car elevators, evacuation of all vehicles from the garage could be difficult in an emergency situation and both elevators may need to be operated as exit only in such a case. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Traffic and Circulation impact? Code No. of Required No. of Parking T Requirement Parking S Spaces Provided Multi - Family Residential 2 Spaces /Unit' 16 232 4 or more DUs Guests 0.5 /S ace/unit 4 8 Total 20 31 ' Includes one (1) covered parking space. 2 Includes 17 "at- grade" parking spaces and 6 "lift" parking (i.e., parking spaces located above surface parking spaces requiring the use of a lift). 3 Total parking does not include two (2) golf cart parking spaces and bicycle parking spaces also provided. All parking spaces are covered. SOURCE: Newport Beach Municipal Code (Section 20.66.030) Brion Jeannette Architecture Finally, the length of the curb cut, which provides vehicular access to the Project Site, has been substantially reduced, which results in the creation of three (3) new on- street public parking spaces. The addition of these on- street parking spaces is considered a beneficial impact, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. The AFA analysis investigated three condominium complexes with similar characteristics located in the immediate vicinity of the Project to conduct counts and evaluate the potential for circulation conflicts. This study was conducted to evaluate the potential for ingresslegress queuing. Traffic counts taken by AFA included minute -by- minute observation of the arrivals and departures from the three condominium complexes (8, 15, and 42 units) during the a.m., noon, and p.m. peak two hour periods. Based on those observations, only during one minute did the arrival rate reach as high as three vehicles per minute and that was only one time for the 15 -unit condominium project. On six occasions, two vehicles per minute arrived at the same time. However, that occurred at the 42 -unit complex. Based on the actual field- measured arrival rates, it is estimated that rarely, if ever, will the queue of waiting vehicles at the entry to the Project back out onto Carnation Avenue. Nonetheless, the question of safety was also examined by AFA and documented in the study prepared for the Project. Existing traffic counts on Carnation Avenue are modest. The traffic volumes observed were 24 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 22 trips during the p.m. peak hour. These figures equate to less than one vehicle every three to four minutes. The elevators can completely cycle in less than two minutes. The AFA analysis concluded that the garage access design, which utilizes two vehicle elevators would not create any substantial vehicle queuing onto Carnation Avenue. This is particularly true for the Project because only seven of the eight units will utilize the vehicle elevators. With one vehicle lift for each of six units combined with single car elevators, evacuation of all vehicles from the garage could be difficult in an emergency situation and both elevators may need to be operated as exit only in such a case. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Traffic and Circulation impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Cumulative traffic impacts are those occurring within the immediate vicinity of the Project Site and into the Corona del Mar area along Coast Highway and other arterials in the City based on the distribution of construction traffic associated with the Project. As indicated in EIR Table 9 -1, the Project and the Cumulative Projects would contribute traffic both during construction and as a result of their development which could affect the existing circulation system, including Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, and Newport Boulevard. As indicated in EIR Section 4.2 (Traffic and Circulation), Project implementation will result in the generation of construction traffic (i.e., short-term) as well as an increase in the number of daily and peak hour vehicle trips when compared to the existing baseline (i.e., occupancy of three units). The short-term vehicle trips are those associated with heavy trucks (i.e., dirt hauling, equipment and materials deliveries, etc.) and construction works commuting to the Project Site. However, these short-term impacts will be minimized through the implementation of the CMP which, among other things, prescribes a haul route and inhibits on -site queuing. Although other of the Cumulative Projects could also contribute construction traffic that could affect roadway and intersection operations, the contribution of these short-term trips would not represent a potentially significant cumulative impact because potential impacts would be avoided through speck provisions prescribed in the CMP, including the identification of a haul route plan, adherence to a traffic control plan, limitations on haul truck arrival /departure, use of flag persons during the construction phases, and so forth. Implementation of these measures will ensure that potential cumulative construction impacts will be minimized. Although post - development Project - related vehicle trips would be greater than those generated by the existing residential development on the Project Site, they would not result in any potentially significant cumulative impacts in the Corona del Mar community or outlying areas because when added to the local circulation system, they would constitute a very small fraction of the total trips generated by the Cumulative Projects. When added to the City's arterial roadway system, the small increase in both construction - related and operational vehicle trips would, therefore, not result in potentially significant cumulative traffic and circulation impacts. 6.3 AIR QUALITY (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Because the Project will reduce the number of residential units on the Project Site, the Project will not involve growth inducing impacts or cause an exceedance of established population or growth projections. Furthermore, the Project is of a size such that it will not create either short- or long- term significant quantities of criteria pollutants. Additionally, with the included mitigation, the Project will not result in significant localized air quality impacts. As such, the Project is consistent with the goals of AQMP, and in this respect does not present a significant impact. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project violate any ambient air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion (Project Construction): The Project Site includes approximately 1.4 acres of land. The URBEMIS model estimates that 25 percent of this area (0.35 acre) is disturbed on a daily basis. This acreage (i.e., 0.35 acre) is then used in the calculation of daily dust emissions, which are assumed to occur during excavation and grading activities. Based on the URBEMIS model, a value of 20 pounds per acre per day is assumed. Also, based on the URBEMIS model, a suppression of 55 percent is assumed for adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 as required for all projects constructed in the Southland. Truck trips are also included for the removal of debris and delivery of materials. The structures are then constructed over time with various phases of construction overlapping each other. Some of these phases involve work over five days a week while others would extend to six days a week. The analysis includes both, and in these cases presents those emissions for the five days a week that overlap (though the greenhouse gas analysis considers the sixth day in its total). The URBEMIS model considers dust emissions negligible during the construction of the actual structures, and this analysis follows that approach. Like excavation, the analysis includes the daily delivery of materials to the Project Site. The structure is painted in the final stages of construction. The major source of emissions associated with the application of paints and surface coatings is from the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These are also a form ROG and are assessed as such. The architect has specified that interior paint is to contain no more than 10 grams per liter and exterior paint is to contain no more than 27 grams per liter of VOC. The area to be painted is based on data included with the URBEMIS model. All interior surfaces are to receive three coats while exterior surfaces would receive one coat. While the application of asphalt also releases VOC emissions, no asphalt is proposed for the Project and these surfaces will be of concrete construction. As shown in EIR Table 4.3 -4, all daily emissions are under their respective criteria levels and the impact is less than significant. Discussion (Mobile Source Emissions): The occupation of the Project Site is based on the URBEMIS 2007 model. The URBEMIS default value for condominiums is 5.86 vehicle trips per unit. In accordance with the ITE Trip Generation Manual, these values can range from 1.83 to 11.79 trips per unit. Based on the size of the proposed units, as a worst -case scenario this analysis uses a trip rate of 11.79 trips per unit per day and the Project is estimated to result in 94 average daily trips (ADT). In actuality, the Project is to replace a fourteen -unit apartment complex, so the actual number of new trips would be less than this value, (and there could even be a reduction in the number of daily trips). As such, the analysis presents a worst -case scenario. The calculated emissions of the Project are compared to thresholds of significance for individual projects using the SCAQMD Handbook and Internet web site updates. The Handbook recommends assessing emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROC or ROG) as an indicator of ozone. Emissions are based on a year 2013 occupancy. Both summer and winter scenarios were modeled and the higher of the two values are included in EIR Table 4.3-4. Note that all values are within their respective threshold values and the impact is less than significant. Model runs are included in the Appendix. Discussion (Stationary Source Emissions): In addition to vehicle trips, the proposed land uses would produce emissions from on -site sources. The combustion of natural gas for heating the structures and water would occur. Landscaping would be maintained requiring the use of gardening equipment and their attendant emissions. Additionally, the structures would be maintained and this requires repainting over time resulting in the release of VOC emissions. The resultant emissions are projected by the URBEMIS2007 computer model and included in EIR Table 4.3-4. Again, note that all emissions are below their respective threshold values and the impact is less than significant. (3) Potential Impact: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. The Project is of a size such that it does not result in daily emissions above either the construction or operational threshold values suggested by the SCAQMD and as such, the Project does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. At this time, greenhouse gases are not specifically regulated as a criteria pollutant and there are no established significance criteria for these emissions. Furthermore, the Final 2007 AQMP does not set CEQA targets that can be used to determine any potential threshold values. Nevertheless, in order to provide decision - makers with as much information as possible, this analysis quantifies, to the extent feasible, potential greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed development. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. The Project is of a size such that it does not result in daily emissions above either the construction or operational threshold values suggested by the SCAQMD and as such, the Project does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. The Project Site contains existing structures that would be removed during the first phase of construction. Based on the type and age of structures to be removed, asbestos containing materials (ACM), which could include floor tiles and mastics, gypsum wallboard and joint compound, base cove mastic, carpet glue, thermal system insulation, spray - applied fireproofing ceiling plaster, and roofing mastics, felts and flashing would be removed. Additionally, lead -based paint would be removed. Demolition and renovation activities that involve ACM are strictly regulated under SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition /Renovation Activities) adopted on October 8, 1989, and amended April 8, 1994. The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean -up procedures, and storage, disposal and landfilling requirements for asbestos - containing waste materials (ACWM). Any demolition work involving asbestos - containing material must be identified and potential emissions of asbestos determined. Any building to be demolished or renovation that involves asbestos - containing material would be subject to provisions related to the following tasks: • Asbestos surveying (inspection, identification, quantification) to be conducted by a qualified environmental laboratory, and SCAQMD notification to include project description, removal procedures and time schedules (options provided in Rule), material handling and clean -up, material storage and disposal methods. All handling and removal of ACM must be performed by a certified California State licensed contractor that has been certified under the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA). All workers must undergo forty hours of hazardous materials handling training and receive eight hours of refresher training on a yearly basis. Similarly, lead paint is a toxic material and its removal is regulated as such. Like asbestos removal, workers are trained and certified in the handling of these materials. Where necessary, actual asbestos and lead paint removal would be accomplished under a negative pressure environment with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration, through the use of a glove bag or through adequate wetting. These materials are to be contained in certified leak -proof containers and the general public is not allowed access to the demolition -site. Mandatory compliance with notification and removal processes identified in the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations would ensure that any potential impacts remain below a level considered significant. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on -site earth movement and from equipment bringing concrete and other building materials to the Project Site. With regards to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts will be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the Project Site, they will be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. An occasional "whiff' of diesel exhaust from passing equipment and trucks accessing the Project Site from public roadways may result. Such brief exhaust odors are an adverse, but not significant, air quality impact because they will be short-term in nature and would not affect a significant number of people. (6) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative air quality impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Cumulative air quality impacts are those associated with development occurring within the South Coast Air Basin, a five-county region in southern California. As a result, it is anticipated that a significant number of development projects throughout the City and the five - county region would contribute to the cumulative degradation of the air basin. Although the Project will result in the generation of both short-term (i.e., those occurring during the 32 -month construction phase) and long -term operational emissions (i.e., those resulting from the operation of automobiles and stationary sources), which will be emitted into the air basin, the vast majority of those emissions would be short-term and temporary in nature. Although the Project's contribution of construction emissions (primarily fugitive dust) is short-term and because the CMP will be implemented, these impacts will not be significant on a cumulative basis when considered with the other projects in the City and in the air basin. Once construction is completed, a nominal fraction of the total mobile- source emissions within the basin would be attributed to the Project. The long -term (i.e., operational) emissions associated with the Project are the result of the incremental increase in vehicular traffic generated by the project and on demands for natural gas and electricity. Because these incremental operational emissions would not exceed significance thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD and identified in EIR Section 4.3.2, the incremental addition of the Project's mobile- source emissions, when combined with other emissions resulting from the development of the other projects within the City and larger air basin, will be less than significant on a cumulative basis. (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Finding: The City determines that there is no impact with respect to the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: Project related construction activities were assessed for the potential to result in annoyance at the nearest vibration sensitive uses. The assessment of annoyance from vibration from construction activities is based on several criteria including perceptibility, frequency of occurrence, time of occurrence and duration. In terms of perceptibility, using the FTA criteria vibration which is "barely felt" is not deemed significant because it does not constitute "exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels" as per Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines. The word "excessive" is defined by the Merriam - Webster Dictionary as "exceeding what is usual, proper, necessary, or normal." If something is "barely felt," it cannot reasonably be considered "excessive." Therefore, for the evaluation of human annoyance caused by vibration from construction activities, the criteria for establishing potentially significant vibration induced annoyance impacts is average daytime (there will be no nighttime construction) vibration measurements that are "felt." The FTA has established 84 VdB as the level that is "felt" or readily perceived. The assessment of the potential for Project - related construction vibration to cause annoyance includes four criteria: perceptibility, frequency of occurrence, time of occurrence and duration. Although the maximum vibration levels associated with certain construction activities would, in some instances, be "felt" under FTA criteria and could occur frequently in the days they do occur, because construction activity would be limited to the least vibration- sensitive times of the day and the duration of perceptible vibration would be relatively brief and intermittent, potential vibration impacts will not result in a significant vibration annoyance impact. (2) Potential impact: Will the Project cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Finding: The City determines that noise exposure from project - related construction activities at the nearby residential receivers would result a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. This is a short-term significant and unavoidable impact. Discussion: Noise levels vary substantially depending on the number and types of construction vehicles, type of construction activity, and the location of occurrence. Noise levels for each of the construction phases were evaluated at a reference distance of 100 feet from the eastern edge of the Project Site on Carnation Avenue to produce a chart of noise levels over the entire construction period, as shown in EIR Figure 16, Construction Noise Levels Occurring Over the Construction Period. Noise levels are expected to increase when receptors are closer than 100 feet and diminish beyond 100 feet. EIR Figure 16 is provided at this distance to illustrate the differences in noise levels over time based on the type of construction activity being performed. Noise levels are highest during the demolition, caisson drilling, and the concrete pouring when construction vehicles are at grade with Carnation Avenue. Noise levels subside substantially when construction equipment is working within the various depths of the excavated area due to the noise attenuation provided by the excavated walls. These excavated walls have no effect when residences are overlooking the Project Site and have direct view of the construction equipment. After excavation, construction of the formwork and interior metal framed walls would occur with hand tools. Noise levels from these hand tools are substantially lower than the levels generated by construction vehicles, based on noise monitoring and noise level data provided by the RCNM. Construction vehicles would not be used during these phases, with the exception of concrete pouring when short periods of substantial noise exposure would occur. In addition, noise generated by metal framing would occur within the interior of the newly constructed floor and be attenuated by the presence of exterior concrete walls and a concrete ceiling. After all the exterior and interior walls are constructed, the finish work would commence. The finish work would also be done with hand tools. Noise levels associated with the finish work were conservatively assumed to be comparable to those of metal stud framing. However, interior finish work would occur within the interior of the building and be substantially attenuated by both the interior and exterior walls of the residential structure. Exterior finish work would also be done with hand tools. The ambient average daytime (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) noise levels (dBA Leq) in the vicinity of the Project Site range from 50.5 dBA to 59.9 dBA. Construction noise from the phases that involve construction vehicles results in noise levels of 42.6 dBA to 82.1 dBA at 100 feet. For the worst case noise generating phase, this level of noise would be approximately 22 -31 dBA Leq above ambient background noise and would last approximately three to four months during the demolition, caisson drilling, and excavation phases before the noise from construction vehicles would be attenuated by excavated walls. Second story residences adjacent to the Project Site with a Gear line of sight to the construction vehicles would experience these noise levels for a period of seven months during the demolition, caisson drilling, and excavation phases because the excavated walls provide less attenuation. For approximately one and a half years, noise levels would be, on average, between 42.6 dBA to 61.9 dBA Leq at 100 feet from the construction of the interior and exterior walls. Noise levels would be approximately 2 -11.5 dBA above the ambient background noise. Interior finish work was assumed to be equivalent to noise from interior metal stud work and would generate noise levels of 52.8 dBA at 100 feet. Exterior hardscape and landscape would last approximately four months. Noise levels would be approximately 0 -2 dBA above the ambient background noise. Due to the length of construction activities (approximately 32 months) and level of noise from the period of construction vehicle use, noise exposure from Project - related construction activities at the nearby residential receivers would result in a short-term significant impact from Project - related construction activities, notwithstanding the incorporation of the following mitigation measures: MM 4.4 -1 a: All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices, intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. • MM 4.4 -1b: The construction contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. • MM 4.4 -1c: The construction contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from residential receptor locations as feasible. MM 4.4 -1d: The construction contractor shall post a contact name and telephone number of the owner's authorized representative on -site. MM 4.4 -1e: The construction contractor shall install temporary sound blankets or plywood panels with a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of 32 or higher and a density of 1.5 pounds per square foot or greater (e.g., SoundSeal BBC -13-2 or equivalent) along the entire outer perimeter of the construction area. The temporary sound blankets or plywood panels shall have a minimum height of six feet. If plywood panels are selected, they must have a minimum density of four pounds per square foot and have no perforations or gaps between the panels. • MM 4.4 -1f: The construction contractor shall select quieter tools or construction methods whenever feasible. Examples of this include the use of plasma cutters, which produce less noise than power saws with abrasive blades and ordering precut materials to specifications to avoid on- site cutting. • MM 4.4 -1g: The construction contractor shall maximize the use of enclosures as feasible. This includes four -sided or full enclosures with a top for compressors and other stationary machinery. This also includes locating activities, such as metal stud and rebar cutting, within constructed walled structures to minimize noise propagation. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause 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? Finding: The City determines that there is no impact with respect to the 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. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: EIR Table 4.1 -1 in EIR Section 4.1 (Land Use and Planning) of the EIR summarizes the relationship of the Project with the applicable policies adopted with the Noise Element. As revealed in the analysis presented in that table, the Project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Noise Element. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: Based on the ambient noise levels identified in EIR Table 4.4 -3, noise levels in the nearby harbor area are considered to be compatible with residential uses in this area. Residents of the proposed luxury condominiums, therefore, would not be exposed to significant long -term noise sources. The Project replaces an existing residential use and, moreover, reduces the number of dwelling units on the Project Site by nearly 50 percent. Although on -site noise levels associated with residential activities on the redeveloped Project Site would increase compared to current conditions because the only the single - family residential dwelling unit and three units within the apartment building are occupied, it is anticipated that any increase in long -term noise associated with the residential uses would be those occurring as a result of outdoor activities. Passive recreational activities in and around the proposed pool, on the private decks and along the walkway and beach area at the bottom of the property are not expected to result in significant noise levels. If future residents and their guests should engage in activities that result in temporary, loud noise levels that exceed the limits set forth in Chapters 10.26 and 10.28 of the City's Municipal Code, the City is empowered to take actions to abate that activity. The Project will not result in exposure of neighboring residents or future Project residents to noise levels that exceed City standards. Therefore, no significant long -term noise impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (5) Potential Impact: For a project located within an airport land use or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use or private airport, will the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Finding: The City determines that the Project will not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels in connection with the John Wayne Airport. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: The Project is not located within the limits of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). Therefore, the residential use would not be exposed to significant noise levels associated with that commercial aviation facility. The County of Orange Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) uses the current AELUP for JWA as the basis for determining potential aircraft noise impact from JWA. The Project Site is located outside the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft operation noise contours, where the AELUP defines the noise exposure to be "Moderate Noise Impact" (i.e., an impact that would require some kind of mitigation to reduce the aircraft noise) within Noise Impact Zone "2." The AELUP also recognizes that individual sensitivities to annoyance can vary from person to person. Because the Project Site is located outside of this noise impact zone, no significant noise impacts from aircraft activities would occur and no mitigation measures are required. (6) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative noise impact? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in significant cumulative noise impacts. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: Cumulative noise impacts are those that would occur within the immediate Project environs, particularly during the construction phase. The greatest increase in ambient noise would occur during the construction phases. However, no other development is proposed in the immediate vicinity of the Project (refer to EIR Table 9 -1) that would contribute to the cumulative increase in noise in the area. As indicated in EIR Section 4.4, the construction activities resulting from Project implementation will result in significant impacts in the neighborhood. Once construction ceases and the Project is completed and occupied, the cumulative noise environment could also extend beyond the immediate area to outlying areas, depending on the nature and extent of project - related traffic. Project - related traffic would contribute to insignificant increases in the ambient noise levels in the nearby residential area within Corona del Mar and along arterial roadways in the City. However, project - related long -term noise associated with vehicle trips generated by future residents would be minimal and would not contribute significantly to the cumulative increase in long -term noise levels because the project would add only 47 vehicles per day onto the circulation network. While Project - related traffic, when added to existing and traffic utilizing the neighborhood streets could contribute to an increase in ambient noise levels along the streets, the increase would not result in significant cumulative long -term noise impacts because none of the local streets within the Project area are characterized by noise levels that current exceed, or are forecast to exceed, 65 dBA CNEL as indicated in the City's Noise Element, which evaluated future noise levels based on buildout of the General Plan. It is anticipated that the resulting gradual incremental increase in project - related traffic onto the neighborhood circulation system would be less than 1 dBA and would, therefore, generally not be audible. Therefore, no significant long -term cumulative noise impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation. 6.5 AESTHETICS (1) Potential Impact: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not create a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: Implementation of the Project would not result in significant aesthetic impacts. Specifically, as illustrated in the extensive visual simulations set forth in EIR Section 4.5 of the EIR, the proposed structure would not adversely affect a scenic resource. With only a minor exception (i.e., emergency access), the Project is situated above the PLOED as prescribed by the Newport Beach City Council in order to preserve the coastal bluff as a visual resource. The Project has been designed to avoid any significant impact associated with the emergency access by creating a feature that is recessed, which would be indistinguishable from the existing topographic character of the bluff. Furthermore, none of the significant features, including rock outcroppings, significant vegetation, the sandy beach, etc., existing on the Project Site would be affected by Project Site development. The Project Site is devoid of historic structures. As a result, the Project would have no significant adverse visual impact on these features. Although the visual character of the Project Site would be transformed, khe Project, including the proposed docks, has been designed to avoid potentially significant impacts to the visual character of the bluff and harbor environment. As previously indicated, the proposed multiple- family residential structure has been designed to comply with the development standards prescribed in the City's zoning ordinance, including building height, lighting, landscaping, etc., to ensure that no significant visual impacts occur. A modification to the side yard setback requirement is proposed. In addition, the existing scenic vista available from the designated Public View Point along Ocean Boulevard near the southern property boundary has been expanded through the project design to create a wider view angle. As illustrated in EIR Exhibit 4.5 -1, the scenic vista would be expanded by 76 percent and a new view corridor will be created along the northern property line, which does not exist at the present time. In order to ensure that adverse effects on a scenic vista will be avoided, SC 4.5 -3 requires the dedication of a view easement through the property. As stipulated in that condition, no structure or landscape feature located within the easement would block any public view. Therefore, no significant visual impacts are anticipated as a result of Project implementation. As described in EIR Section 4.1 (Land Use /Relevant Planning), the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan addresses aesthetic resources, with emphasis on coastal views. The City has identified several policies that are intended to guide development and avoid potential significant visual impacts to important coastal resources, including coastal bluffs, the harbor, and associated natural features. EIR Table 4.1 -1 summarizes the relationship of the Project with the applicable policies adopted with the Natural Resources Element that address aesthetics and visual resources. In addition, EIR Table 4.1 -2 in EIR Section 4.1 provides a summary of the relationship of the Project with the relevant aesthetics policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan. As revealed in the analysis presented in those tables, the Project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Natural Resources Element and the CLUP. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not substantially damage scenic resources. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: See discussion of Potential Impact No. 1, above. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Project Site and its surroundings? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Project Site and its surroundings. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: See discussion of Potential Impact No. 1, above. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Project has been designed to minimize glare by incorporating building materials that are not conducive to the creation of glare. For example, exterior materials proposed for the residential structure would consist of non - reflective materials, including a titanium roof and photo - voltaic array with a matte finish, stucco- covered walls, and stone accents with rough, rather than polished textures. Tinted glazing is proposed on the windows and most of the windows will have overhangs that will cast shadows over the glazing. As a result, no significant glare impacts from building finish materials anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Lighting of interior rooms would be designed to provide illumination for interior activities and would not produce any significant light or glare effects outside of the structures that could adversely affect adjacent properties. Although outdoor lighting from exterior patios and possibly along the walkway and lower level landing would be visible from the bay as minor point light sources, it would not create a glaring effect. Living areas in the homes to the north, west, and south are oriented toward the bay and ocean, away from the Project Site, and are separated by a considerable distance from the Project Site and proposed residential structure. In addition to the distance between the existing proposed and existing structures, there are also substantial elevation differences between adjacent living spaces and the proposed outdoor living levels within the Project Site that minimize the effects of lighting at night. Outdoor lighting within the Project Site would be designed to illuminate only the desired activity area on the Project Site, and would not cast any illumination or incidental glare beyond the property limits, consistent with the City's adopted lighting standards (refer to SC 4.5 -2). All of these circumstances minimize and possibly eliminate any opportunity for lighting on the Project Site to adversely effect at neighboring homes and /or properties. Indoor and outdoor lighting in the developed project would not result in adverse day or nighttime light or glare effects. Although the applicant is proposing to improve the existing landing and.expand the boat dock to accommodate nine vessels, resulting in an increase in the area that would require lighting in that location, it would be similar to that which currently exists in this area and would be designed to cast light only on the affected area; therefore, no additional lighting and /or glare impacts associated with the waterside development would occur. Potential impacts will be less than significant. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative aesthetics impact? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in a cumulative visual impacts. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: Of the Cumulative Projects identified in EIR Table 9 -1, only one project, the proposed Megonigal residence, would also potentially affect the aesthetic character of the Project area. The visual simulations prepared for the Project revealed that no significant Project - related impacts would be anticipated, either from the Public View Point on Ocean Boulevard or from the Begonia Park Public View Point vantages as a result of the Project. The potential visual impacts of the Project were also evaluated from four Newport Harbor vantages that include the proposed Megonigal residence to determine the extent of project- related cumulative visual impacts. As indicated in Exhibit 4.5 -12, construction of the Megonigal residence at the Pacific Avenue location would virtually eliminate the entire harbor and more distant ocean view, including the Project Site, from this vantage. As a result, the proposed Project would not contribute to the cumulative visual impact from this public view location. Three other visual simulations were also prepared to illustrate the potential cumulative impacts of the Project and the Megonigal residence on Pacific Avenue. Exhibit 5-1 (Begonia Park Upper Bench), Exhibit 5-2 (Begonia Park Lower Bench), and Exhibit 5 -3 (Begonia Park) illustrate views of the Project, including the proposed development of the Megonigal residence at 2333 Pacific Avenue. As illustrated in each of these simulations, the introduction of the Megonigal residence would affect views from each of the vantages in the three exhibits. In particular, the Megonigal residence would block a portion of the harbor area north of the Project Site. Although portions of the harbor are visible, views to this area are "filtered" by intervening landscaping and development. While the views to the harbor from these vantages would be changed with the development of the Megonigal residence and the Project, encroachment of the Project into the viewshed would not be significant on a cumulative basis when viewed from those locations because the effect on the view in the vicinity of the Project, even with the introduction of the proposed Megonigal residence, would not change significantly. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative visual impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation. None of the Cumulative Projects, including the proposed Megonigal residence, would affect views from the harbor to the existing coastal bluff. Potential visual impacts are not significant from the harbor area because views from those vantages would be only momentarily affected; none of the visual amenities in the intertidal area would be destroyed as a result of Project implementation. Furthermore, based on the visual analysis conducted for the Project, no potentially significant visual impacts would occur either to the character of the bluff or the intertidal area, which is characterized by rock outcroppings and a small cove are located where the dock is proposed, would adversely affect the harbor views to the Project Site. While the coastal bluff would be altered, the Project has been designed to conform to the existing topographic features and character to minimize visual impacts. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative visual impacts would occur. 6.6 DRAINAGE AND HYDROLOGY (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause substantial and adverse increased inundation, sedimentation and /or damage from water forces to the subject project and /or other properties are caused by improvements such as grading, construction of barriers or structures? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Project Site grading and construction activities may result in short-term increases in silt and sediment to downstream locations. However, implementation of the BMPs prescribed in the SWPPP and WQMP that must be prepared for the Project will ensure that the construction- related impacts resulting from Project Site grading will minimize the amount of silt and sediment that is transported to downstream locations. These potential impacts will be avoided or reduced through the implementation of appropriate BMPs as prescribed in the Orange County DAMP and in the standard conditions previously identified. In addition, other standard conditions (e.g., compliance with applicable building code requirements) will further minimize construction- related impacts. Therefore, implementation of the Project will not have a significant effect on water quality as a result of silt and sediment transport from construction activities. The total discharge from the Project Site in the developed condition is estimated to be only 1.95 cis or a 15 percent decrease in surface runoff when compared to the existing 2.31 cfs. The proposed storm drain system will capture more of the Project Site runoff and reduce sheet flows that currently directly impact Newport Bay. The improved efficiency of the new storm drain system, together with the filtration element within the outlet structure, will ensure that the redeveloped Project Site does not result in erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Construction of the replacement dock would result in potential water quality impacts. During the pile removal and subsequent drilling required for the emplacement process, water turbidity will increase. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. In order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, BMPs, which eliminate any disposal of trash and debris at the Project Site as well as the removal of construction debris, will be implemented during construction pursuant to the CMP. This will ensure that turbidity impacts and related water quality impacts associated with the off -shore activities are avoided or reduced to an acceptable level. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in development within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated by FEMA that would expose people and /or property to potential serious injury and /or damage? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Project implementation will not result in the placement of any portion of the development proposed on the Project Site within the limits of the 100 -year flood plain as delineated by FEMA. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause impervious surfaces to increase and /or divert storm water runoff resulting in the inability of the existing collection and conveyance facilities to accommodate the increased flows? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Impervious surfaces comprising the existing development encompass approximately 22 percent of the total area of the Project Site. When redeveloped as proposed, impermeable surfaces will cover approximately 28 percent of the Project Site. The remaining 72 percent will remain permeable. In addition, Project implementation will result in the elimination of two of the drainage areas that currently exist. However, although the Project Site will encompass only one drainage area after grading and Project Site development, the Project will not alter the existing off -site drainage patterns. Moreover, the total discharge from the Project Site in the developed condition is estimated to be only 1.95 cfs or a 15 percent decrease in surface runoff when compared to the existing 2.31 cfs. The proposed storm drain system will, therefore, capture more of the Project Site runoff and reduce sheet flows that currently directly impact Newport Bay. The improved efficiency of the new storm drain system, together with the filtration element within the outlet structure, will ensure that the redeveloped Project Site does not result in erosion or siltation on- or off -site. (4) Potential Impact: Will Project implementation cause a violation of water quality objectives and impede the existing beneficial uses of on -site surface waters or off -site coastal waters? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: A Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for the Project and is incorporated by reference into these Findings. The WQMP identifies a number of structural and non - structural BMPs that will be incorporated within the final designs to comply with the applicable provisions of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the City's water quality regulations and to address anticipated requirements by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as part of a General Construction Permit. In addition, Project Site design and treatment BMPs have also been identified in the WQMP and will be implemented to ensure that water entering the harbor has been adequately treated to avoid potential impacts to that impaired water body. Other BMPs that will be implemented include parking and storage area maintenance to ensure that the parking area is cleaned on a regular basis. The BMPs have been selected to address the main pollutants of concern for this type of project, and for the impacted water body, i.e. Newport Bay. Lower Newport Bay is listed as an "impaired" water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, with respect to metals, pesticides and priority organics. They also include measures that are intended to avoid water quality impacts within Newport Bay during the construction of the proposed dock facility. With the incorporation of these measures prescribed in the CMP, no significant water quality impacts to Newport Bay would occur as a result of Project implementation. Construction of the replacement dock would result in potential water quality impacts. During the pile removal and subsequent drilling required for the emplacement process, water turbidity will increase. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. In order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, Best Management Practices (BMPs), which eliminate any disposal of trash and debris at the Project Site as well as the removal of construction debris, will be implemented during construction pursuant to the CMP. This will ensure that turbidity impacts and related water quality impacts associated with the off -shore activities are avoided or reduced to an acceptable level. (5) Potential Impact: Will a usable groundwater aquifer for municipal, private, or agricultural purposes be substantially and adversely affected by depletion or recharge? Finding: The City determines that there is no impact with respect to groundwater aquifers. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: The relatively small -scale of the Project will not result in a significant increase in water demand and all of the Project's potable and non - potable water needs will be met through a connection to the Citys domestic water system. Compared to the existing development, which includes only three occupied units of the 15 dwelling units on the Project Site, the Project's eight dwelling units represents an insignificant increase in the demand for domestic water. No water wells are proposed or required to meet the water demands of the Project. There are no water wells located on or near the Project Site, and since the Project would not affect any existing water wells or require any new water wells, the Project will not result in the lowering of the water table. The Project Site is not located near to, and will have no impacts on, a usable groundwater aquifer for municipal, private, or agricultural purposes. (6) Potential Impact: Will storm water and /or induced runoff mix with a tidal habitat or pond causing instability to the existing water quality (e.g., reduction of salinity, increase of dissolved solids, introduction of sediments, etc.) that, in turn, will substantially and adversely affect the habitat? Finding: The City determines that there is no impact with respect to storm water and /or induced runoff mixing with a tidal habitat or pond causing instability to the existing water quality. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: The total discharge from the Project Site in the developed condition is estimated to be only 1.95 cfs or a 15 percent decrease in surface runoff when compared to the existing 2.31 cfs. The proposed storm drain system will capture more of the Project Site runoff and reduce sheet flows that currently directly impact Newport Bay. The improved efficiency of the new storm drain system, together with the filtration element within the outlet structure, will ensure that there is no impact with respect to storm water and /or induced runoff mixing with a tidal habitat or pond causing instability to the existing water quality. (7) Potential Impact: Will sediments be increased and /or diverted by proposed improvements and cause sediment deposition in sensitive habitat areas (e.g., riparian, etc.) to the detriment of the habitat and/or sensitive species? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Project Site grading and construction activities may result in short-term increases in silt and sediment to downstream locations. However, implementation of the BMPs prescribed in the SWPPP and WOMP that must be prepared for the proposed multiple - family residential project will ensure that the construction- related impacts resulting from Project Site grading will minimize the amount of silt and sediment that is transported to downstream locations. These potential impacts will be avoided or reduced through the implementation of appropriate BMPs as prescribed in the Orange County DAMP and in the standard conditions previously identified. In addition, other standard conditions (e.g., compliance with applicable building code requirements) will further minimize construction- related impacts. The total discharge from the Project Site in the developed condition is estimated to be only 1.95 cfs or a 15 percent decrease in surface runoff when compared to the existing 2.31 cfs. The proposed storm drain system will capture more of the Project Site runoff and reduce sheet flows that currently directly impact Newport Bay. The improved efficiency of the new storm drain system, together with the filtration element within the outlet structure, will ensure that the redeveloped Project Site does not result in erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Construction of the replacement dock will result in potential water quality impacts. During the pile removal and subsequent drilling required for the emplacement process, water turbidity will increase. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. In order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, Best Management Practices (BMPs), which eliminate any disposal of trash and debris at the Project Site as well as the removal of construction debris, will be implemented during construction pursuant to the CMP. Appropriate measures have been incorporated into the CMP to ensure that turbidity impacts and related water quality impacts associated with the off -shore activities are avoided or reduced to an acceptable level. (8) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Land Use and Planning impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Although Project implementation would result in a small increase in impervious area, the post - development peak flow would be reduced when compared to the existing surface runoff conditions. Specifically, the 1.95 cfs emanating from the Project Site will be detained in a vault, treated, and discharged into the existing storm drain at a rate of 0.50 cfs, which is slightly less than the 0.51 cfs currently being discharged. Potential cumulative impacts would be those resulting from other development within the watershed sub -area; however, no other projects are proposed within the area affected by the Project. Nonetheless, Project implementation will result in upgrading the existing deficient catch basin in Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard to ensure that adequate capacity is provided to accommodate not only the Project but also existing stormwater runoff. In addition, the applicant will be required to implement Best Management Practices and related measures in accordance with the NPDES requirements to ensure that both storm water runoff and quality meet the requisite criteria. All of the other related projects are located outside the immediate project area. Each of the approved or Projects, should they be implemented, will be required to implement similar stormwater collection and conveyance facilities and water quality structural and non - structural measures (i.e., BMPs) to reduce and avoid water quality impacts. Implementation of these measures, which would be prescribed in the WQMP prepared for the Project (and other projects in the City and watershed), must comply with the requirements established by the City and County of Orange in the Drainage Area Master Plan, which have been developed to address the cumulative impacts of development in the watershed. These measures are intended to ensure that water quality objectives are achieved and /or maintained. Therefore, Project implementation will result in an overall improvement to hydrology and water quality by upgrading the stormwater collection facilities that serve the drainage area. Therefore, the Project will not result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to either hydrology or water quality. 6.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project 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? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: A total of 82 special status plant and wildlife species are identified as potentially occurring in the region which includes the Project. Of these 82 species, nine plant species and one wildlife species have potential to occur due to suitable habitat conditions or were observed at the Project Site. The remaining plant and wildlife species described in the sensitive species table were determined not to have potential to occur at the Project Site due to lack of suitable habitat conditions (e.g., soils or vegetation associations) or geographic range. The nine plant species that have the potential to occur at the Project Site are listed and described in EIR Table 4.7 -1. The Project Site has been significantly altered as a result of past development, resulting in the elimination of the potential for many special status wildlife to occur. Six threatened animal species were identified as potentially occurring within the region and 15 endangered animal species were also identified as potentially occurring within the region, as discussed in EIR Section 4.7. None of these threatened or endangered species are expected to occur on the Project Site because of the level of disturbance that has occurred on the property. One wildlife species, currently listed as endangered by the State (SE) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FE), was observed utilizing the Project Site. Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) was observed during the reconnaissance survey conducted in 2008. The CMP includes several measures that will be implemented as part of the Project to ensure that potential impacts to sensitive plant species and other terrestrial biological resources are avoided. If one or more of the species exist on the Project Site and it is determined that Project implementation would result in impacts, an incident take permit under Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code must be obtained. The measures prescribed in the CMP include: • A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre - construction survey for active nests of covered species at least seven (7) days prior to any habitat disturbance that occurs during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). If no active nests are round, no further actions are required. However, if nesting activity is observed during the pre- construction survey, the nest site must be protected until nesting activity has ended or as otherwise directed by a qualified biologist in order to ensure compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code. Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environment. Invasive and non - native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. • A qualified botanist shall perform focused surveys to determine the presence /absence for the nine sensitive plant species. The focused surveys shall be performed during the appropriate blooming window identified for each species. Survey methods shall follow CDFG guidelines. If any State - listed threatened or endangered plant species are impacted by project development, an incident take permit pursuant to Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code shall be obtained prior to issuance of a grading permit. As indicated above, implementation of these project design features will ensure that the coastal bluff habitat is enhanced with native plant species and that potentially significant impacts to sensitive plant species as well as introduced non - native species of trees that may support avian species and nests will not occur. In addition, in order to ensure that no significant impacts occur to the vegetation, only species that can tolerate the sunlight/shade conditions that would be anticipated as a result of Project implementation are proposed to be planted in the area under the extension of the deck over the bluff. Potential impacts to common wildlife species were evaluated by considering the habitat loss for each species occurring or potentially occurring at the Project Site. Development of the Project would not result in significant impacts to common wildlife species currently or potentially utilizing the Project Site. Temporary disturbance impacts, as previously described, would occur for roosting birds (e.g., cormorants, gulls, pelicans) on the existing dock until the new dock is built. Birds utilizing the bay directly adjacent to the Project Site may also experience temporary indirect disturbance while the new dock is being built. Terns, skimmers, and rails are located in Upper Newport Bay and will not be affected by the Project. These impacts, while adverse, would not be expected to reduce any current wildlife population below self - sustaining levels. Therefore, the project - related impacts associated with night lighting would be considered less than significant. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project 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 (including protections provided pursuant to Section 1600 at seq.)? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a marine flowering plant that grows in soft sediments in coastal bays and estuaries and occasionally offshore to depths of 50 feet. As indicated in the Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and CLUP, the City has identified eelgrass beds as an important biological resource. Eelgrass beds, which are illustrated in EIR Figure NR1 of the Natural Resources Element, are located within the Newport Harbor entrance channel, including in the vicinity of the Project Site, as well as along the Balboa Peninsula, Linda Isle, Harbor Island and Balboa Island west of the Project Site. Although the eelgrass beds are recognized as an important biological resource, they are not included in the environmental study areas (ESAs) illustrated in EIR Figure NR2. Nonetheless, the Natural Resources Element includes specific policies intended to avoid impacts to eelgrass. The project is consistent with the relevant Natural Resources Element and CLUP policies as described in EIR Tables 4.1 -1 and 4.1 -2 as well as in Responses to Comments 10 -22 through 10 -27, which are incorporated by reference into these Findings of Fact. No direct losses of eelgrass are anticipated as a result of the dock construction component of the Project. Nonetheless, post - construction surveys will be conducted to verify that no eelgrass losses have occurred. Construction of the replacement dock would result in potential water quality and vessel- related impacts on eelgrass habitat, which may include both direct and indirect long -term effects. During the pile removal and subsequent drilling required for the emplacement process, water turbidity will increase. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. In order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, Best Management Practices (BMPs), which eliminate any disposal of trash and debris at the Project Site as well as the removal of construction debris, will be implemented during construction pursuant to the CMP. Vessel- related impacts include those associated with barges and work vessels working over existing eelgrass beds by deploying anchors and anchor chain within eelgrass habitat, grounding over eelgrass habitat, and propeller scarring and prop wash of either the barge or support vessels for the barge. These vessels could create furrows and scars within the eelgrass vegetation and would result in adverse losses of eelgrass habitat that would require the implementation of an eelgrass mitigation program (refer to MM 4.7 -3), which would minimize disturbances related to vessel operations and vessel anchor positioning. It is anticipated that barge operations will have only minimal shading effects on eelgrass since the position of the barge will shift each day, preventing continuous shading of any one part of the eelgrass bed. The proposed dock structures will encompass an area of approximately 3,450 square feet. The area of eelgrass habitat that is actually affected by long -term shading will be determined during post- construction monitoring surveys conducted pursuant to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended). The location and amount of eelgrass to be transplanted shall be determined following the results of the two annual monitoring efforts stipulated in the CMP, which will be undertaken as part of the Project. Specifically, the following measures will be undertaken as identified in the CMP to ensure that potential impacts to eelgrass are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. • An updated pre - construction eelgrass and invasive algae survey shall be completed within 30 days of the initiation of the proposed dock/gangway construction. The results of this survey will be used to update the results of the March 2007 eelgrass survey and to identify, if any, potential project - related eelgrass losses and the presence or absence of the invasive algae (Caulerpa taxifolia) in accordance with NMFS requirements. A post - construction project eelgrass survey shall be completed within 30 days of the completion of project construction in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). The report will be presented to the resources agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission within 30 days after completion of the survey. If any eelgrass has been impacted in excess of that determined in the pre - construction survey, any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.2:1 (mitigation to impact). Eelgrass shall be mitigated based on two annual monitoring surveys that document the changes in bed (i.e., area extent and density) in the vicinity of the footprint of the boat dock, moored vessel(s), and /or related structures during the active - growth period for eelgrass (typically March through October). Mitigation shall be implemented pursuant to the requirements of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). A statement from the applicant indicating their understanding of the potential mitigation obligation that may follow the initial two-year monitoring is required. If losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach and resources agencies for review and acceptance. • The Project marine biologist shall mark the positions of eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the dock and gangway construction area with buoys prior to the initiation of any construction activities. • The Project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew prior to initiation of construction to orient them to speck areas where eelgrass presently exists. • Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work over eelgrass beds only during fides of +2 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) or higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass from propellers, and to limit water turbidity. • Anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upon eelgrass habitat. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project 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? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: The 190 square foot area identified on the bluff below the building pad does not meet the criteria for either U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) or California Department of Fish and Game (Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code). Further, given the clear and demonstrable lack of wetland hydrology and hydric soils, combined with the characteristics of the African umbrella sedge, a highly adaptable common landscape plant that occurs in upland areas for one -third of its occurrences, no portion of the Project Site is considered a wetland under the California Coastal Act. Therefore, Project implementation will not result in any potential impacts to wetlands. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not impact the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. The City also finds that that the Project will not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: The Project Site and surrounding areas are developed and no migratory wildlife corridors occur on Project Site or in the vicinity of the Project Site, and therefore, the Project will not interfere with resident, migratory or wildlife species. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: As acknowledged in the Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, Newport harbor is home to valuable habitat such as eelgrass and mudflats that support a wide range of species and also provides the public with recreational boating opportunities. Therefore, the City has placed a high priority on the protection of the biological resources, including both habitat and species and to continue to serve the needs of the recreational boating community by ensuring compatibility between the uses within Newport Harbor. The City adopted several policies that apply to future development within the City. EIR Table 4.1 -1 (Land Use and Planning) summarizes the relationship of the Project with the applicable policies adopted with the Natural Resources Element. In addition, EIR Table 4.1 -2 provides a summary of the relationship of the Project with the relevant policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan. As revealed in the analysis presented in those tables, the Project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Natural Resources Element and the CLUP. (6) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: There are no local, regional or state habitat conservation plans that would regulate or guide development of the Project Site. The Project Site is located on a bluff within the coastal zone. Therefore, the Project Site is not included in either a Habitat Conservation Plan or a Natural Community Conservation Plan. However, the Project area occurs within the vicinity of estuarine and eelgrass habitats, which are considered habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species (i.e., northern anchovy) within the Coastal Pelagics Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) and Pacific Groundfish FMP (i.e., rockfishes). HAPC are described in the regulations as subsets of essential fish habitat (EFH), which are rare, particularly susceptible to human - induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Although designated HAPCs are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1997), federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process. Potential impacts to the eelgrass and species inhabiting that habitat have been evaluated and measures have been identified in the CMP. (7) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Biological Resources impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: For the purposes of determining potential cumulative impacts to biological resources, the harbor area was identified as the geographic "area of potential effect' due to the potential for adversely affecting coastal biological resources, including eelgrass. Project implementation could result in potential impacts to biological resources, as indicated in EIR Section 4.7. These impacts include the potential to create both direct impacts, particularly during construction, and indirect impacts that may include the creation of shadows that could adversely affect the existing eelgrass bed in the vicinity of the project. However, the Project and other projects proposed within the harbor area listed in EIR Table 9 -1 that have the potential to affect eelgrass are required by the City to mitigate any potential loss at a ratio of 1.2:1. As indicated in EIR Section 4.7.5, if it is determined as a result of the pre- and post - construction surveys that eelgrass is impacted, the applicant will be required to replace it at the specked mitigation ratio. The same or similar measures would be prescribed for projects located within Newport Bay that have the potential to adversely affect eelgrass as a result of dredging or other construction and development activities. Similar to the Project, other projects in the harbor that have the potential to impact eelgrass would be subject to the same measures prescribed for the Project to adequately offset the potentially significant impacts, including pre- and post - construction surveys, potential replacement of eelgrass, avoidance of the rocky intertidal habitat, use of silt curtains during construction, and limiting construction to optimal tide conditions. As a result, no potentially significant cumulative impacts to marine biology would occur. Other potential impacts to biological resources include effects on the intertidal area as a result of increased activity in the small cove and potential effects on sensitive plant species that may exist on the Project Site. For example, important resources (e.g., sand dollars) have been identified in the intertidal area below the bluff that could be affected by construction activities associated with the construction of the dock. However, in each case, the CMP includes measures (e.g., signage, avoidance of the intertidal area during construction, etc.) that will either eliminate the potentially significant impacts to biological resources or reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. In the same way, potential impacts to terrestrial species of plants and /or animals are also addressed through project design features prescribed in the CMP, including the use of native plant species, which will effectively reduce the impacts to a less than significant level as prescribed by the Coastal Land Use Plan policies. As a result, no potentially significant cumulative impacts to terrestrial biology would occur. 6.8 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Construction activities would involve the use of hazardous materials associated with the construction of a residential building such as oil, gas, tar, construction materials and adhesives, cleaning solvents and paint. Transport of these materials to the Project Site and use on the Project Site would only create a localized hazard in the event of an accident or spills. Hazardous materials use, transport, storage and handling would be subject to federal, state and local regulations to reduce the risk of accidents. Equipment maintenance and disposal of vehicular fluids is subject to existing regulations, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In addition, trash enclosures are required to be maintained with covered bins and other measures to prevent spillage and /or seepage of materials into the ground. Given the nature of the project in terms of scope and size, it is anticipated that normal storage, use and transport of hazardous materials will not result in undue risk to construction workers on the Project Site or to persons on surrounding areas. The use and disposal of any hazardous materials on the Project Site and in conjunction with the project will be in accordance with existing regulations. With the exception of small quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, cleaning solvents, paints, etc., that are typically used to maintain residential properties, on -going operation of the Project Site for residential use will not result in the storage or use of hazardous materials. As indicated in EIR Table 4.8 -2, a total of 43 suspect asbestos bulk samples were collected during the Project Site inspection. These materials, which contain detectable amounts of ACM that could be potentially hazardous if not properly removed, must be properly removed by a licensed and Cal /OSHA registered asbestos abatement contractor prior to the demolition of the building in accordance with all applicable regulations. The LBP survey (refer to EIR Table 4.8 -3) concluded that no immediate response action is necessary with respect to the noted LBP that is intact. Nonetheless, similar to ACM removal, implementation of industry standard removal practices will ensure that any potential health risk would be avoided. Project implementation includes the activities associated with site preparation and construction of a structure that contains eight condominium units and the continued long -term use of the Project Site for residential development, which does not typically involve the use and /or transport of hazardous materials and other substances that would represent a hazard in the community. Although some fertilizers, herbicides, cleaning solvents, paints, and /or pesticides would be utilized on -site, such materials are of the household variety and do not pose a significant health hazard or risk. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The existing structures were found to contain ACM and LBP. However, the ACM were observed to be in good condition and although they do not pose a significant health and safety concern to occupants of the Project Site in their current state, they must be properly removed prior to demolition of the existing structures. Similarly, the general overall condition of the subject interior and exterior painted /finished surfaces was observed to be intact. No immediate response action is necessary with respect to the noted LBP that is intact. Project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing structures; however, the ACM and LBP will be handled in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the City and other regulatory agencies, as discussed in Mitigation Measures 4.8 -1 and 4.8 -2: • MM 4.8 -1: Any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM shall be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Inaccessible suspect ACM shall be tested prior to demolition or renovation. Air emissions of asbestos fibers and leaded dust would be reduced to below a level of significance through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. Proper safety procedures for the handling of suspect ACM shall always be followed in order to protect the occupants of the building and the asbestos workers. MM 4.8 -2: A contractor performing paint removal work shall follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the paint, as proper waste disposal requirements and worker protection measures shall be implemented throughout the removal process. Implementation of the standard condition and mitigation measures prescribed by the City and other regulatory agencies having jurisdiction will ensure that any potentially significant health hazard to either the public or environment would reduced to a less than significant level as a result of the proper removal of those contaminants. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The closest school to the Project Site is Harbor View School, located approximately 0.7 mile from the Project Site to the northeast. The school is physically separated from the Project Site by a residential community and East Coast Highway (SR -1) and will not be directly impacted by construction activities on the Project Site. Although the proposed condominiums would not include any activities or mechanical or chemical processes that would emit hazardous emissions, the existing structures were found to contain ACM and LBP. However, as prescribed in the mitigation measures, the existing ACM and LBP will be handled in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the SCAQMD and other Orange County Health Care Agency. Therefore, release of hazardous materials during demolition of the existing structures would be prevented through adherence to routine control measures monitored by the City Building Department and other regulatory agencies. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Finding: The City determines that the Project Site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, therefore, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: P &D Consultants conducted a Phase I ESA on the Project Site, including both records and literature searches as well as a site survey conducted on the Project Site. Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, the Project Site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites. Further, there is no evidence of either on -site or off -site environmental conditions that would adversely affect Project Site development. No historical recognized environmental conditions were identified in connection with the Project Site. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area if located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport ?. Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area because it is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: The Project Site is located approximately five miles southeast of John Wayne Airport. As such, the site is not located within the limits of the JWA land use plan or other public airport or private landing strip. Neither that commercial airport nor any other public airport or private aviation facility is located within two miles of the Project Site. As a result, Project implementation will not result in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazards, to people residing or working in the project area. No significant impacts will occur as a result of Project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. (6) Potential Impact: Will the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not impair implementation, of or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: The City has prepared an Emergency Preparedness Plan that designates procedures to be followed in case of a major emergency. The plan identifies resources available for emergency response and establishes coordinated action plans for specific emergency situations and disasters, including earthquakes, fires, major rail and roadway accidents, flooding, hazardous materials incidents, civil disturbance, and nuclear disasters and attack. The Project Site is not designated for emergency use within the Emergency Preparedness Plan. The primary concern of the Safety Element and the City Newport Beach is in terms of risks to persons and personal property. Although the Project Site is subject to potentially severe seismic shaking or fires, development pursuant to building and fire code requirements will ensure that the potential impacts are minimized or reduced to an acceptable level. The Project is not located within a flood hazard area. Development of the Project Site as proposed will not adversely affect either the evacuation routes or the adopted emergency preparedness planning program(s) being implemented by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, Project implementation will not physically interfere with the City's emergency planning program. No significant impacts will occur as a result of Project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. (7) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Public Health and Safety impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Project Site has been altered and currently supports urban development (i.e., 15 residential dwelling units) which do not involve the use of hazardous materials in the daily operations beyond household variety fertilizers, herbicides, cleaning solvents, paints, and /or pesticides. As previously evaluated, demolition of the existing residential structures could yield some asbestos containing materials or lead -based paint. However, demolition will not only comply with AQMD and regulatory agency requirements for abating these components, but appropriate measures have also been identified to ensure that no significant emissions of potentially hazardous materials occurs. Similarly, Cumulative Projects characterized by ACM and LBP would also be required to comply with AQMD and regulatory agency requirements so that no significant emissions occur. If determined necessary as a result of the environmental analysis conducted for them, each of the Cumulative Projects would be required to remediate an existing or potential source of contamination. Finally, like the existing residential development, the Project would only use household variety hazardous materials such as fertilizers, herbicides, cleaning solvents, paints, and /or pesticides. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative impacts would occur when compared to other projects that have been approved or proposed in the City of Newport Beach or surrounding areas. 6.9 SOILS AND GEOLOGY (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in the loss or elimination of prime" agricultural lands as designated by the State of California and /or County of Orange and such designated soils as are capable of sustained, viable agricultural production? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in the loss or elimination of "prime" agricultural lands. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: Development of the Project will not result in the conversion of any designated prime agricultural soils or otherwise significant farmland. The Project Site is located within a developed and urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach. As previously indicated, the Project Site and surrounding area are designated as "Urban and Built Up Land." Therefore, Project implementation will not result in any impacts to agricultural soils or important farmland. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (2) Potential Impact: Could ground shaking and /or secondary seismic effects (i.e., liquefaction, slope failure, etc.) cold cause substantial structural damage and /or an unmitigated risk to human safety, even after implementation of the recommended geotechnical measures, required local and State seismic design parameters, and common engineering practices for seismic hazard abatement? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(ax1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The nearest Type A fault is the Cucamonga Fault, which is located approximately 60.2 miles from the Project Site. This fault is capable of generating a 7.0 magnitude earthquake. The nearest Type B fault is the offshore Newport- Inglewood fault (2.8 km from the Project Site), which is capable of generating a maximum magnitude of 6.9. The estimated mean peak ground acceleration at the Project Site is 0.345g. The preliminary geologic /geotechnical investigation report identifies the appropriate CBC seismic coefficients for structural design. Implementation of the recommendations prescribed in the preliminary geologic/geotechnical investigation, Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report, and compliance with CBC structure design parameters will ensure that potential impacts associated with ground shaking associated with a seismic event on one of the causative faults are reduced to an acceptable level (i.e., minimize loss of life and/or property). According to the conceptual grading plan prepared for the Project, excavation necessary to implement the Project will extend to an ultimate elevation of approximately 30 feet NAVD88 in order to accommodate the subterranean levels of the proposed structure. The proposed excavation will effectively remove the artificial fill and terrace materials and will expose bedrock throughout the excavation. The removal of these materials, combined with the lack of subsurface water, effectively eliminates the potential for liquefaction to occur. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Excavations for and construction of planned subterranean levels, which will remove existing fill soils as well as a majority of the terrace deposits capping the bedrock and daylighting on the bluff face, will leave a trapezoidal (i.e., pillar) section of intact rock as part of the exposed bluff face to approximately Elevation 52.8 NAVD. With the removal of these materials, the bluff face will be less vulnerable to bluff erosion. Considering the both the lithologic bedrock unit exposed and the rock quality, the remaining trapezoidal section of intact rock will have sufficient strength to remain in place during the economic life of the structure (i.e., 75 years). Furthermore, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., concluded that the proposed improvements will neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the Project Site or adjacent area. The proposed grading plan indicates that excavation will daylight on the bluff face at approximately 52.8 NAVD, resulting in the removal of existing fill soils as well as a majority of the terrace deposits capping the bedrock and daylighting on the bluff face. The removal of these materials as well as the incorporation of Project drainage measures recommended by the geotechnical consultant in the conceptual Grading Plan Review Report will further reduce the potential for future bluff erosion. Based on the analysis conducted for the Project, and with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9 -1b, bluff erosion is not considered a factor in design over the life of the structure. SC 4.9 -4: Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted. A slope stability analysis was included in the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, Inc. The computed factor of safety for the temporary excavation under static conditions is greater than the minimum required 1.25. Therefore, based on the results of the stability analyses, the project geotechnical consultant concluded that the temporary excavation with soldier pile shoring system is acceptable, provided the recommendations prescribed in the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report are implemented during construction, including temporary shoring during excavation and construction of the deeper excavations, tie -back anchors or internal bracing, etc., as prescribed by Mitigation Measure 4.9 -1: MM 4.9 -1: Project implementation shall adhere to the engineering recommendations for site grading and foundation design and construction presented in the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Nebeltt & Associates, Inc., and subsequent detailed geotechnical engineering analyses. In addition, the structural design would also include provisions to accommodate basement wall water- proofing, drain installation, etc. The slopes descending from the proposed development expose very resistant sandstone of the Monterey formation. Literature reviews, site mapping, aerial photo analysis, and subsurface exploration conducted for the Project during the preparation of the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report (Neblett & Associates, Inc., 2008) revealed that landslides do not exist on or adjacent to the Project Site. The lack of landslide features indicates that the area has been relatively stable in the recent geologic past (i.e., Holocene) and has not been subject to earthquake - induced large -scale landsliding. Therefore, the potential for earthquake- induced landsliding is considered low. A Coastal Hazard Study was prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., (October 2006), which includes an analysis of wave run -up, including that generated from a tsunami. The maximum tsunami run -up in the Newport Harbor area is less than two meters in height. Any wave, including a tsunami, that approaches the Project Site in Corona del Mar will be refracted, modified, and reduced in height by the Newport jetties. Based on the same methodology that was used to estimate the surface gravity wave and boat wakes, the 6 foot high tsunami would yield a run -up to elevation +16.2 feet NAVD 88 (i.e., six feet run -up + 10 feet NAVD 88 water elevation). The basement elevation of the proposed structure is proposed to be approximately 30 feet NAVD88, with the lowermost exposed face of the structure daylighting on the slope at approximately 52.8 feet NAVD88. In addition, the dock access /emergency exit is located at elevation 44.48 feet NAVD88 and would also be located above the potential tsunami /wave run -up limits. The tsunami, like the design extreme wavelwake, will not reach the proposed improvements. Due to the infrequent nature and the relatively low 500 -year recurrence interval tsunami wave height, combined with the elevation of the proposed improvements, the Project Site is reasonably safe from tsunami hazards. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated during the 75 -year economic fife of the Project and no mitigation measures are required. Further, considering the proposed finish pad elevation, the potential for seiche effects to the Project Site is considered remote due to the shallow depth of Newport Harbor. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. The Project Site is exposed to impinging waves from either wind - generated period waves in the bay or ocean swells that will propagate through the entrance channel. For about 65 percent of the time, there would be no wind waves. For the remainder of the time, significant wave heights would be 0.5 foot or less. On less frequent occasions, wind - induced significant wave heights would be higher than one foot and up to 2.5 feet. Extreme SSE -SSW swell generated by distant storms could reach the Project Site with significant heights of approximately 1.5 feet and periods in the 12 to 14- second range. The Noble Consultants study concluded that from a wave climate perspective, the proposed docking facility is feasible in a wide range of conditions. However, extreme wind waves from the SSE -SSW are expected to exceed the recommended maximum wave heights and, therefore, damage to the moored vessels and /or docking facilities may occur. In these less frequent conditions, vessels should be moved and sheltered in a less exposed location. Implementation of the standard conditions prescribed in Section 4.9.3 and Mitigation Measures MM 4.9 -2a and MM 4.9 -2b will ensure that wave•induoed impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level: MM 4.9 -2a: During periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave - induced motions, boats shall be sheltered at mooring can locations that are available inside Newport Harbor to avoid damage. MM 4.9 -2b: The dock design shall be based on the extreme wave conditions identified in the coastal engineering study (Noble Consultants, Inc., 2008). Sand - quality sediment movement within the Project region is typically in the along - channel direction from the harbor entrance to the inner bay. A stable bayshore condition is observed at the Project Site. Regular sedimentation observed at China Reef located in the updrift area is primarily due to the groin -like outcrop feature that entraps the along - channel transported sediment. With a small percentage (approximately six percent) of the along - channel blockage area resulting from the proposed new dock facility, the potential impact to this unique sediment movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant, although localized sand deposit resulting from the presence of the proposed guide piles within the sand - moving path may occur. In addition, the Project is located in the downdrift direction of the neighboring China Reef, the project's potential impact on sedimentation at the updrift location such as China Reef is inconsequential. No significant impacts to sand transport resulting from project implement are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project leave adverse soil conditions such as compressible, expansive, or corrosive soils unmitigated and presenting a damage hazard to occupied structures or infrastructure facilities? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Project Site and the surrounding area are not known to be located within an unstable geologic area and, therefore, are not expected to be exposed to or create on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse hazards. A representative soil sample was tested for expansion potential in accordance with EIR Table 18 -1 -B, which concluded that existing Project Site soils have a "very low" potential for expansion and, therefore, are not a significant issue given on -site soil conditions. A final geotechnical analysis will be completed as part of the final building permit review process, and strict adherence to the design recommendations are mandatory with building permit issuance. As required in SC 4.9 -2, the Project must comply with the applicable design parameters prescribed in the 2007 CBC as well as those required by the City. Soluble sulfate and corrosivity testing on representative samples of the on -site soils conducted for the Project indicate a negligible sulfate concentration; however, because the Project is located in a coastal environment, the potential for severe sulfate exposure to concrete exists. As a result, the type of concrete utilized should be consistent with the requirements of the 2007 CBC and City of Newport Beach. (4) Potential impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative geology and soils impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Unlike any of the Cumulative Projects, the Project is located on a bluff in Corona del Mar, which requires the consideration of unique geologic and seismic characteristics. Although the Project will consist of residential development, the potential exposure to the effects of seismic activity, slope failure, bluff erosion, and /or soil conditions will not increase and Project implementation will not result in potential cumulative impacts because the new residential development will be required to meet applicable structural design requirements. Furthermore, none of the Cumulative Projects would contribute cumulatively to bluff instability and /or erosion because they are not located on the same bluff as the Project. In addition, the Cumulative Projects must comply with the specific building design parameters prescribed in the applicable regulations to ensure that potential loss of life and structural damage is minimized. The Project Site and the surrounding area are not known to be located within an unstable geologic area and, therefore, are not expected to be exposed to adverse soils conditions, including lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse hazards. Finally, the Project Site does not support "prime" and /or "important" agricultural soils. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative seismic, slope failure, bluff erosion, and /or soil condition impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation. With a small amount (i.e., approximately six percent) of the along - channel blockage areas resulting from the proposed new dock facility, the potential impact to the sediment movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant. In addition, because the Project is located in the down -drift direction of neighboring Channel Reef, its potential impact on sedimentation at the up -drift location such as Channel Reef is inconsequential. Under extreme conditions, up to 2.5 -foot waves could be experienced at the Project Site, impacting 30 to 35 boats residing in Newport Harbor, including those proposed for the Project. However, the City maintains between 80 and 100 mooring cans in the harbor, which are available to the public at any given time on a "first come, first served" basis. Because the severe conditions that would result in the need to utilize the mooring cans are infrequent and, further, because the City has indicated that up to 100 mooring cans are available for temporary mooring within the harbor during these infrequent periods, no potentially significant cumulative impacts would occur. 6.10 CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) §15064.5? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: Project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing residential structures on the Project Site. However, because neither structure is recognized either by the City or the State of California as an important historic resource, no significant impacts to historic resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to PRC §15064.5? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: A cultural and paleontological resources records survey was completed by LSA Associates, Inc. in July of 2005. All recorded archaeological sites and cultural resource records on file were reviewed and no sites were identified on the Project Site. Although Project implementation includes extensive excavation of the Project Site to accommodate the proposed residential structure, it is unlikely that the disturbance of the subsurface soils would result in significant impacts to cultural resources due to Project Site alteration associated with the past development of the existing structures and the nature of the bedrock materials that underlie the Project Site. It is unlikely that any archaeological sites have ever existed on the Project Site or will be encountered during construction. Therefore, no significant impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures, including archeological monitoring, are recommended. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The cultural and paleontological resources records survey conducted in 2005 for the Project indicates that no known paleontological resources are known to exist on the Project Site. However, the Project Site contains the Monterey Formation, which is known to contain abundant fossilized marine invertebrates and vertebrates. The presence of recorded fossils in the vicinity of the Project areas exists. As previously indicated, the survey concluded that the Project Site should be considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity and fossils may be encountered during grading and excavation. It is likely that sediments containing fossils will be encountered during construction. Therefore, implementation of SC 4.10 -2 in accordance with CLUP Policy 4.5.1 -1 will ensure that potential significant impacts to fossils encountered during grading/excavation activities can be avoided through measures prescribed by the paleontological monitor. As a result, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. The Project Site and surrounding areas, including the bluff, have been altered to accommodate development that includes predominantly residential uses; the only potentially unique geologic feature on the Project Site would be the rock outcropping that forms a small cove at the base of the Project Site. Although Project implementation includes the replacement of the existing 4 -slip dock located within the cove below the Project Site, it will not result in physical changes or alterations that would either directly or indirectly alter the physical characteristics of the cove. The Project will not impact the rock outcropping as construction of the proposed condominiums will occur well above the feature and construction of the replacement dock will occur seaward of the rock outcropping. As a result, alteration of the rocks or the cove will not occur and no significant impacts are anticipated. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Because implementation of the Project requires the approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport General Plan, it is subject to the provisions of SB 18, which requires consultation with Native American representatives. Native American Heritage Commission representatives have been contacted in accordance with the mandate prescribed in SS 18. Based on the degree of disturbance that has already occurred on the Project Site and the fact that no request for consultation by the Native American community, Project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts to human remains. Nonetheless, SC 4.10 -1, which is mandated by State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, will ensure that any human remains that may be encountered during construction will be adequate mitigated. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Cultural /Scientific Resources impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Project Site is currently developed and no significant cultural, historic or scientific resources are known to be located on the Project Site. Although it is possible that other proposed and approved development could result in impacts to cultural, historical or scientific resources, appropriate mitigation will be required to ensure that such impacts are less than significant. While grading and excavation are required to prepare portions of the Project Site for construction, no cultural or historical resources would be affected and no impacts would occur to such resources. Although paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) may be encountered during construction of the Project based on the geologic formation underlying the Project Site, monitoring will ensure that any such potential resources that may exist on the property would be identified during the grading phase by the paleontological monitor. Adequate measures would be implemented to ensure that potentially significant impacts would be avoided. This would also be true for other projects where encountering such resources is possible or likely, as prescribed in environmental analysis undertaken for such projects listed in EIR Table 9 -1. Therefore, Project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts, either individually or on a cumulative basis. 7. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT CEQA requires that findings be made for each alternative considered in an EIR. The EIR considered a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project to provide informed decision - making in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The alternatives analyzed in the EIR included: (1) No Project/No Development; (2) Reduced Intensity /3 Single - Family Residences; (3) Reduced Intensity /5 Multiple - Family Residential Project; and (4) Existing Zoning/8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project with Reduced Grading. The City's findings, and facts in support of those findings, with respect to each of the alternatives considered are provided below: • NO PROJECT /NO DEVELOPMENT o Description — The No Project Alternative evaluates the potential environmental effects resulting from the continuance of the development currently existing on the site at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published, "... as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services' (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). Therefore, this alternative assumes full occupancy of the existing 14 -unit apartment building and one single - family residence, which represents an increase in occupancy of 12 units over the baseline condition (i.e., three occupied units). This alternative also includes the implementation of deferred maintenance activities (if any). Because the City has requested that the applicant repair or remove the existing dock due to its present (deteriorated) condition, the No Project Alternative also includes the replacement of the existing (3 -slip) dock with a new dock in an identical configuration. Attainment of Project Objectives — Implementation of the No Project alternative would not achieve any of the eight objectives identified for the proposed project. Most importantly, the No Project alternative would not allow for a state -of- the -art multiple- family residential project and the existing structures will not enhance the aesthetic character of the community as articulated in several of the General Plan policies. Furthermore, no private recreational amenities would be provided and it is anticipated that the existing energy inefficient structures would continue to consume greater quantities of energy resources when compared to the proposed project, which has been designed to incorporate state -of- the -art energy efficient energy systems. Finally, existing views from the important public vantages would not be enhanced. Avoidance of Project Impacts — This alternative would eliminate the unavoidable adverse construction noise impact and potential impacts to paleontological resources identified for the proposed project. It would also substantially reduce construction traffic and related air emissions when compared to the proposed project. However, it would not substantially reduce other potential effects, including hydrology /water quality, biological resources, and operational traffic. The existing catch basin near the corner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard would not be upgraded, resulting in the continuation of the stormwater collection deficiency. In addition, without seismic retrofitting necessary to improve the structural integrity of the existing structures, the buildings and future residents would be exposed to potential seismic hazards. Finally, abatement of the LBP and ACM would not be required so future residents could also be exposed to ACM and LBP unless remediated during the remodeling process. • REDUCED INTENSITY: 3 SINGLE - FAMILY o Description — This alternative would result in the subdivision of the existing property into three single - family lots, each of which would be occupied by one custom residence (refer to EIR Exhibit 10 -1). Each of the three homes would consist of two above -grade living levels as well as a basement level and a roof deck. The two residences facing Carnation Avenue might have garages fronting on that street, while the third residence would likely have subterranean parking accessible via a driveway from Carnation Avenue. Similar to the proposed project, basement levels of the homes are assumed to "daylight' at 50.7 feet NAVD88, the City Council- approved predominant line of existing development. Each residence would encompass approximately 6,900 square feet of living space and a total structural floor area of about 7,700 square feet (including living space, garages, mechanical spaces, etc.) for a total structural floor area of approximately 23,200 square feet. Although this reduced intensity alternative would reduce the amount of grading necessary to accommodate the three homes (i.e., 10,000 cubic yards of excavation versus 25,200 cubic yards for the proposed project), up to 75 caissons would be required to provide the structural integrity of the three homes. The existing dock would be replaced with a new 3 -slip dock that would accommodate a 40- to 60 -foot boat for each of the three residences. For this alternative, there is no requirement for implementation of the state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, or undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring, which are included within the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative will not provide those benefits. Attainment of Project Objectives — Implementation of this alternative would only achieve portions of Objectives 1 (i.e., enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood by replacing a deteriorating structure), 2 (i.e., incorporate a design that reflects the architectural diversity of the neighborhood), 3 (i.e., provide a dock for each residence), and 7 (enhance scenic views from the harbor). However, this alternative would not result in the construction of a multiple - family residential condominium project of sufficient size (Objective 1) to provide range of recreational and health amenities or ample storage space (Objective 4), enhance aesthetics of the neighborhood to the degree of the proposed project, and remove two existing overhead power poles (Objective 2), incorporate energy- saving, sustainable, and environmentally sensitive technology, construction techniques, and other features designed to conserve energy and/or improve the existing environment to a greater degree than required by current applicable regulations (Objective 3), enhance public access by increasing public street parking (Objective 5), or remove two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, all of which presently affect the view from certain perspectives or replace the existing poles and overhead wiring by undergrounding the new wiring, all in order to enhance scenic views to the harbor and ocean from designated vantage points (Objective 6). In addition, if the homes in this alternative were built to the maximum building height, this alternative would not minimize encroachment into private views when compared to the proposed project (Objective 8). Avoidance of Project Impacts — This alternative would decrease the amount of grading required to construct the three single - family residential dwelling units, construction of the three homes would extend over a six year period (i.e., two years for each home) because they which would be constructed consecutively rather than concurrently due to market conditions. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would not avoid or substantially reduce the potential construction noise impact associated with project implementation. Depending on market conditions, the construction noise impacts could extend for a greater period of time than would be the case for the proposed project or the multi - family project alternatives. Implementation of this alternative would also result in reduced construction and mobile- source air emissions and construction traffic, which were determined to be less than significant with the proposed project as well. • REDUCED INTENSITY: 5 MULTIPLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Description — This alternative includes the elimination of the proposed projects Sub - Basement Level and the entire Basement Level. The location and basic design of levels above the Basement level are assumed to be similar as the proposed project. Twenty - five (25) caissons below the building perimeter along Bayside Place and Newport Bay are eliminated due to the change in basement and foundation design. Due to the elimination of parking located on the Sub - Basement and Basement levels, required parking spaces have been reallocated among the proposed parking areas within the First and Second levels. The resulting parking plan would comply with the City's off- street parking requirements for the development of 5 units. If vehicle spaces on vehicle lifts were considered adequate to satisfy required parking, the number of units could be higher assuming no reduction in building area devoted to residential uses would occur to increase the size and capacity of the garage areas. The interior layout of the proposed residential building areas would be reallocated and /or redesigned for a reduced number of units (5). The applicant would have the ability to increase the size of units, provide area for common amenities or mechanical spaces for energy independent systems. Compared to the proposed project, this multiple - family alternative has three (3) fewer units and the extra guest parking including golf cart and motorcycle parking spaces would be eliminated. • Elimination of 2 levels (Sub- basement and Basement Levels) • Decrease in number of units from 8 to 5 • Elimination of 25 caissons along the building perimeter facing Newport Bay and Bayside Place • Total reduction of 12,240 cubic yards of excavation • Reduction of 1,021 dump trucks and 294 cement trucks • Reduction of approximately 9 months of construction time compared to the proposed project • Reduction or possible elimination of mechanical spaces impacting the ability to provide energy independent systems such as photovoltaic and gray water storages • Reduction or possible elimination of common amenities for all units including fitness center, less private storage • Proposed dock design would be reduced; 5 slips for 5 units plus 1 guest side -tie For this alternative, state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, or undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring, which are included within the proposed project, would not be required. Therefore, this alternative will not provide those benefits. Attainment of Project Objectives — It is not clear whether this alternative could feasibly accomplish most of the project objectives. In most cases, the degree to which the objectives would be achieved would be less than that occurring with the proposed project. This alternative might not be expected to contain a sufficient number and size of units to justify the same level of advanced design and architecture which would reflect the architectural diversity of the community and add distinction to the harbor and neighborhood, use energy - conserving technology in excess of that which is legally required, or include significant common amenities (Objective 1, Objective 3, Objective 4). While this alternative would improve the aesthetic character of the site and neighborhood by replacing the existing structure with a more modem structure, it would not remove overhead power poles (Objective 2). Additionally, the significantly reduced scale of the project may also reduce the extent of landscape and streetscape enhancements (Objective 2) compared to the proposed project. Further, the provision of energy efficient systems (Objective No. 3) likely would be limited or precluded by the elimination of electrical and storage areas allocated for the proposed project. Similarly, the ability to provide storage and community amenities would be severely constrained (Objective No. 4). Objective Nos. 5, 7, and 8 likely could be achieved in a similar fashion as the proposed project. o Avoidance of Project Impacts - Implementation of this alternative would result in generally similar (e.g., soils and geology, drainage and hydrology, cultural resources, aesthetics, public health and safety, etc.) or slightly reduced (e.g., traffic and circulation, air quality, etc.) effects as those identified for the proposed project. Although this alternative would reduce the overall duration of construction by approximately 9 months, the reduction in the duration of excessive noise would be significantly reduces. Therefore, of construction- related noise anticipated for this alternative would remain significant. • EXISTING ZONING l ALTERNATIVE DESIGN: 8 -UNIT MULTIPLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WITH REDUCED GRADING o Description (Existing Zoning/Alternative Design Altemative A) — The 8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project Alternative A (refer to EIR Exhibits 10 -2 through 10-6) includes the elimination of the sub - basement included in the proposed project, and a reduction of 1,069 square feet at the basement level, resulting in a reduction of 6,662 cubic yards of excavation when compared to the proposed project. Building perimeter walls along Bayside Place and Newport Bay have been modified to accommodate the distance required for a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) cut slope in order to eliminate the need for 25 caissons along that side. As a result, the perimeter walls are pulled back from the PLOED of 50.7 feet NAVD88. In addition, common facilities and amenities have also been reduced in an effort to minimize grading and potential impacts. The resulting parking plan complies with the City's off - street parking requirements; however, due to the elimination of the sub - basement parking, parking spaces have been reallocated in this alternative to the first, second and basement levels of the structure. This alternative has 3 fewer guest parking spaces and does not include the golf cart and motorcycle parking. The proposed dock design in this alternative, which includes eight slips for the eight dwelling units as well as one guest "side tie," would be the same as the proposed project. For Alternative A, the applicant has indicated that it would provide state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, and undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring to the same extent as provided for the proposed project. These improvements would be voluntarily provided even though there is no basis to require the implementation of these improvements. Description (Existing ZoninalAltennative Design Alternative B) — This alternative is similar to Alternative A, described in the previous section (i.e., no sub - basement level). However, implementation of 8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project Alternative B would also result in a reduction of 4,502 square feet at the basement level from the proposed project. Only the garage "core" and a small portion of circulation, mechanical, and storage space would remain at the basement level (refer to Exhibit 10 -7 and Exhibits 10 -3 through 10 -6). In addition, common facilities such as the recreation room and most of the storage areas have been eliminated. A reduction in the mechanical spaces would also result in the elimination of some energy- independent systems such as the photovoltaic and gray water storage features; however, the applicant would retain the ability to modify the plans to incorporate these facilities within other areas. A small portion of excavation beyond the basement perimeter is necessary for the pool on the first floor. This alternative would result in the elimination of 25 caissons along the building perimeter facing Newport Bay and Bayside Place and would require 9,229 cubic yards less of excavation to accommodate the proposed structure. The first and second floor plans are the same as the 8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project Alternative A and the required parking would also be reallocated to the first, second, and basement levels of the structure. Although the extra guest parking spaces would be eliminated in this alternative, the design would comply with the City's off - street parking requirements. Also, the proposed dock design would be the same as the proposed project. For Alternative B, there is no requirement for incorporating the state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, or undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring, which are included within the proposed project. The applicant has indicated it would not be able to provide these improvements for Alternative B. Attainment of Project Objectives (Existing Zoning /Alternative Design Alternative A) — Implementation of Alternative A will, to some extent, achieve all project objectives. Given the reduced building area with the basement level eliminated and sub - basement level reduced in size, there would be less area to accommodate the mechanical /electrical spaces for the energy - efficient features that go beyond the minimum Title 24 code compliance. The common amenities proposed would be significantly reduced, with the exception of the pool itself, and the private storage areas would be also be reduced in size. The proposed docks would remain the same as that included in the proposed project. — Implementation of Alternative B also achieves, to some degree, most of the project objectives. The ability to incorporate the use of energy- conserving technology would be constrained, as would the inclusion of common amenities (Objective 1). Achievement of Objectives No. 2 and No. 4 is compromised to a degree because, as with Objective 1, the reduced scale of the project will eliminate the requirement to remove the existing power poles. Alternative B has reduced areas available for mechanical /electrical spaces, common amenities and storage areas relative to Alternative A. As with Alternative A, the proposed docks would remain the same as that included in the proposed project. Avoidance of Project Impacts (Existing Zoning /Alternative Desion Alternatives A & B) - With the exception of reducing the duration of construction by five or six months, which would reduce the number of heavy truck trips entering the roadway system and the daily air emissions (both of which were determined to be less than significant), the reduced grading alternatives described above would result in generally similar impacts as those described for the proposed project. Potential construction - related noise impacts would be significantly be reduced but the remaining impact will remain significant. Exhibit "E" Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA 2005 -196) 3C1PDFIMM:�. ,?: .,r ..:.,.. ..., .. .. ... ....... Timing of No. "j,;MitigatlonMeasure MethodoP- Implementation Responsibility Verification Land Use /Relevant Planning All development proposed for the Aerie project shall be reviewed for Building Department/ SC 4.1 -1 consistency with applicable provisions of the California Building Code, plan Check Prior to Issuance of Grading Newport Beach Fire Noise Ordinance, Uniform Fire Code, and other applicable codes and Permit Department ordinances prior to Issuance of building rnits. The property owner(s) shall execute and record a waiver of future SC 4.1 -2 shoreline protection for the project prior to the issuance of a building Waiver Prior to Issuance of Building City Attorney permit. Said waiver shall be subject to the review and approval of the Permit City Attorney. Traffic and Circulation SC 4.2 -1 On-sfte parking shall comply with the Newport Beach Zoning Code Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Grading Public Works Department/ requirements. Permit Planning Department SC 4.2 -2 Sight distance at the project accesses shall comply with City of Newport Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Grading public Works Department Beach standards. Permit The project's haul route shall follow the route depicted in the CMP. Specifically, dump trucks, concrete mixers, deliveries, and shuttles for off -site parking will access the site via East Coast Highway and travel During Grading and Building Department/ PDF 4.2 -1 south on Marguerite Avenue, west on Seaview Avenue, and south on Field Monitoring Construction Public Works Department/ Carnation Avenue to the site. The trucks and construction vehicles Contractor shall exit by driving east on Ocean Boulevard, north on Marguerite Avenue, and back to East Coast Highway. Dirt shall be hauled to Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in the City of Brea (or a closer site/location If available at the time grading occurs). Building Department/ PDF 4.2 -2 Dump trucks leaving from East Coast Highway shall travel north on Field Monitoring During Grading and Public Works Department( MacArthur Boulevard to SR -73, and continuing northbound on SR -55 Construction Contractor to the 1 -5 northbound and to SR -57 northbound. Grading and dirt hauling shall occur only after Labor Day and before Memorial Day. PDF 4.2 -3 All deliveries shall use the designated haul route once they enter the Field Monitoring During Grading and Building Department/ Public Works DeparmenV neighborhood starting from Marguerite Avenue. Construction Contractor SCIPDF/MM _ Timing of Mitigation Measure _ Method of Implementation Responsibility Verification The contractor shall request an encroachment permit for a temporary staging area during construction, as described and illustrated in the CMP. Loading and unloading of all construction matedaWequipment and /or construction vehicles shall take place on -site or within the staging area. Loading and unloading shall be managed by the construction valet team and will be overseen by the contractor. Dump Prior to Issuance of Grading PDF 4.2-4 trucks, cement trucks, etc., shall arrive at the site with no greater Plan Check Permit Public Works Department frequency than the discharge rate by the contractor so that no more than one truck is on -site at one time and that trucks shall not queue on Carnation Avenue. Once the delivery Is complete, the trucks shall exit the project area via the haul route identified above. All trucks (except cement trucks) shall be required to shut off their engines during the loading/off-loading rocess. To prevent obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a During Grading and Building Department/ PDF 4.2 -5 nag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to the Field Monitoring Construction Contractor existing roadways. Traffic control shall be coordinated with the Police Department and plan Check/ During Grading and Building Department/ PDF 4.2-6 Public Works Department, Traffic and Development Services Division, Field Monitoring Construction Police Department so that street traffic is not obstructed. Construction workers are prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard (or any residential street in the neighborhood). Instead, the applicant shall secure one or more binding off -site parking agreements to accommodate the varying number of workers needed for each construction phase. The off -site parking location(s) shall be located within a five -mile radius of the site. Prior to Issuance of Grading PDF 4.2 -7 The off -site parking agreement shall be presented to the City prior to Parking Agreement(s) permit Building Department the Issuance of permits required for the phase of construction that shall require the off -site parking. The agreement will also ensure that one of the off -site parking locations will: (1) commit a sufficient number of parking spaces to Aerie construction workers during the relevant term, and (2) the off -site location possesses the proper emits and authority to rent the subject spaces. Shuttles shall be utilized to transfer construction workers from the remote parking locations to the project site. Specifically, two 10- passenger shuttle vans shall run up to eight trips each morning and During Grading and Building Department/ PDF 4.2 -8 evening and up to five trips at lunch, assuming that some workers will Field Monitoring Construction Contractor remain at the jobsite during lunch. Carpooling among construction , workers shall be encouraged throughout the duration of the construction phases. Once vehicular elevators are installed, workers shall be permitted to park in the completed on -site garages. It is anticipated that During Grading and PDF 4.2 -9 approximately 31 cars will be able to park on -site once the parking Field Monitoring Construction Contractor garage is completed. Personnel shall be provided to assist in parking the construction workers on -site. Timing of Mitigation Measure Method of Implementation Responsibility Verification As previously indicated, construction workers shall be prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Compliance With this prohibition shall be monitored daily by the construction valet During Grading and PDF 4.2 -10 and flagmen team. However, this prohibition shall not apply to short- Field Monitoring Construction Contractor term visitors to the site such as City inspectors, City staff, architects, and consultants. Carpooling shall also be encouraged among professionals. Air Quality SC 4.3.1 Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403, which sets requirements for dust Field Monitoring During Grading and Building Department/ control associated with radio and construction activities. Construction Contractor The proposed project shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and During Grading During Grading and Building DeparhnenU SC 4.3 -2 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary Field Monitoring Construction Contractor construction ui ment. SC 4.3 -3 The proposed project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1108, which eld Monitoring Field uring Grading and Building Department' sets limitations on ROG content in asphalt. Construction Contractor SC 4.3-4 The proposed project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113, which Field Monitoring During Grading and Building Department/ sets limitations on ROG content in architectural coatings. Construction Contractor The proposed project shall comply with Title 24 energy - efficient SC 4.3 -5 design requirements as well as the provide window glazing, wall Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Building Building Department/ insulation, and efficient ventilation methods in accordance with the Permit Contractor requirements of the Uniform Building Code. The project shall comply with the Fugitive Dust Emission and Control During Grading and Building Department' PDF -4.3.1 Plan approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Field Monitoring Construction Contractor under Rule 403). Dust shall be minimized using water as control. Site and debris watering shall be performed a minimum of three times daily during demolition activities. During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered at least four times per day. Stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty materials shall be covered or PDF 4.3 -2 watered three times daily. In addition, trucks carrying soil and debris Field Monitoring During Grading and Building Deparbmentl shall be wetted or covered prior to leaving the site. On windy days, or Construction Contractor when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Soil disturbance shall be terminated whenever wind conditions exceed 25 miles per hour. All diesel- powered machinery exceeding 100 horsepower shall be During Grading and Building Department/ PDF 4.3-3 equipped with soot traps, unless the contractor demonstrates to the Field Monitoring Construction Contractor satisfaction of the City Building Official that it is infeasible. SC"F_-. Timing Of No Mltlgation Measure Method of Implementation Responsibility Verification Noise In accordance with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity — Noise Regulations), noise-generafing construction and /or maintenance activities may be permitted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and During Grading and SC 4.4-1 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on Saturdays. No Field Monitoring Construction Building Department/ noise - generating construction activities shall occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site. During Phases 1 and 2 of the project, the caisson drilling process will progress at the rate of 3 to 4 caissons per day, Including drilling, steel placement, and filling with concrete. The grading during Segments No. 1, 2, and 3 will consist of excavators with a ramp out or an PDF 4.4-1 electrical conveyor belt for dirt removal and with dump trucks at the Field Monitoring During Grading and Building DepartmenU rate of approximately 28 trucks per day removing the soil. There shall Construction Contractor be no pile driving during the entire construction process. The ram hoe may be required during the later part of the excavation process for approximately 10 percent of the grading operation at the lower elevations of the site. For Phases 3 and 4, small hand tools and compressors shall be used within the concrete structure. Noise will also be generated by daily During Grading and Building Department/ Departmen g PDF 4.4-2 deliveries of materials to the site. The construction valet shall Field Monitoring Dg manage the time of such deliveries so that they do not occur at the same time. All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped MM 4.4-1a with properly operating and maintained muffling devices, Intake Inspection During Grading and Building Department silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally Construction Contractor equipped by the manufacturer. MM 4.41b The construction contractor shall properly maintain and tune all Inspection During Grading and Building Department construction ui ment to minimize noise emissions. Construction Contractor The construction contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources During Grading and Building Department MM 4.4-1c (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from residential Field Monitoring Construction Contractor receptor locations as feasible. NN 4.4-td The construction contractor shall post a contact name and telephone Field Monitoring During Grading and Building Department number of the owner's authorized representative on -site. Construction Contractor [ Mitfgalloheure f _:Methodof Tfmlngo,,. li;�pleme�tion Responsibility rh. Ved cation The construction contractor shall install temporary sound blankets or plywood panels with a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of 32 or higher and a density of 1.5 pounds per square foot or greater (e.g., SoundSeal BBC -13 -2 or equivalent) along the perimeter of the construction area proximate to residential uses. This does not include During Grading and Building Department/ MM4.4 -1e the side facing the harbor channel due to the noise attenuation Inspection Construction Contractor provided by the buffer distance between the construction noise and harbor residences. The temporary sound blankets or plywood panels shall have a minimum height of six feet. If plywood panels are selected, they must have a minimum density of four pounds per square foot and have no perforations or gaps between the panels. The construction contractor shall select quieter tools or construction methods whenever feasible. Examples of this include the use of During Grading and MM 4.4-1f plasma cutters, which produce less noise than power saws with Field Monitoring Construction Contractor abrasive blades and ordering precut materials to specifications to avoid on -site cutting. The construction contractor shall maximize the use of enclosures as '., feasible. This includes four -sided or full enclosures with a top for During Grading and NN 4.4 -19 compressors and other stationary machinery. This also includes Field Monitoring Construction Contractor locating activities, such as metal stud and rebar cutting, within _ constructed wailed structures to minimize noise propagation. Aesthetics Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site Prior to Issuance of Building SC 4.5 -1 boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public Plan Check Permit Plannin g Department streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. Valpak' type fixtures are not permitted. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building Prior to Issuance of Certificate SC 4.5 -2 permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Inspection of Occupancy or Final and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and Building Permit tare. The applicant shall dedicate a view easement; however, it will only affect the project site. Structures and landscaping within the SC 4.5 -3 easement area shall not be permitted to block public views. The Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Certificate City Attorney easement shall be approved by the City Attorney and recorded prior of Building Permit to the issuance of a building permit for new construction and shall be reflected on the final tract map. Drainage and Hydrology . - Timing of 'r Mitigation Measure .: Metbofl of Implementation Responsibility Verification Prior to-issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall be required to submit a notice of intent (NOI) with the appropriate fees to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for coverage of such future SC 4.6.1 projects under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Notice of Intent Prior to issuance of Grading Public Works Department Permit pdor to initiation of construction activity. As required by the Permit NPDES permit a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) will be prepared and will establish BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion. Prior to Issuance of a grading permit the project applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project and submit the WQMP to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for approval. The WQMP shall specifically Identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used to control predictable pollutant runoff, including "first prior to Issuance of Grading SC 4.6.2 flow/volume-based measures to treat the flush." The WQMP shall Plan Check permit Public Works Department Identify at a minimum the routine structural and non - structural measures specified in the Counlywlde NPDES Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP), which details implementation of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long -term maintenance responsibilities, and shall reference the locations of structural BMPs. Prior to Issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare SC 4.6.3 a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) and submit that Plan Check Prior to issuance of Grading Public Works Department plan to the City of Newport Beach for approval. The SWPPP will Permit establish BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion. Future site grading and construction shall comply with the drainage Plan Check/ During Grading and Building Department/ SC 4.6.4 controls imposed by the applicable Municipal Code requirements Inspection Construction Public Works Department rescribed b the of Ne ort Beach. The developer shall be responsible for repiacement/upsizing of the 10 -foot wide catch basin located in Carnation Avenue storm drain, which Is currently deficient The new catch basin will be sized to provide sufficient capacity for the runoff generated by this project, as PDF 4.6-1 well as existing runoff from the rest of the 11.54 -acre drainage area to Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Building Public Works Department this facility. It shall satisfy the appropriate storm -year design criteria Permit established by the City Engineer. This storm drain reconstruction shall Include appropriate urban runoff filtration elements, to reduce potential water pollution Impacts into Newport Harbor. Reconstruction of this storm drain shall occur outside of the rainy season. PDF 4.6-2 All debris and trash shall be disposed in suitable trash containers on Field Monitoring During Grading and Contractor land or on the work barge at the end of each construction day. Construction PDF 4.6-3 Discharge of any hazardous materials into Newport Bay is prohibited. Field Monitoring During Grading and Public Works Department/ Construction Contractor Slit curtains shall be deployed around work barges and around the PDF 4.64 pile sleeving or drilling operations where feasible to minimize the Field Monitoring During Grading and Public Works Department/ spread of turbid waters Into adjacent eelgrass beds within and outside Construction Contractor the project area. PDF 4.6.5 All construction debris shall be removed from the bay floor daily. Field Monitoring During Grading and Contractor Construction 'SClPDFIMM Timing of No. Mtggetlon Measure Method of Implementation Responsibility - Veriflcatlon Biological Resources The project shall comply with California Code Title 14 (Natural SC 4.7 -1 Resources), Section 29.05, which prohibits the taking of any marine Field Monitoring During Project Life Harbor Resources organisms within 1,000 feet of the high tide line without a sport fishing Department license. Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff SC 4.7 -2 environment. Invasive and non -native species shall be removed. Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Building Planning Department Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be Permit temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the planUnqs, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for active nests of covered species at least seven (7) days prior to any habitat disturbance that occurs during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). If no active nests are round, no further actions are Prior to Issuance of Grading PDF 4.7 -1 required. However, if nesting activity is observed during the pre- Surveys Permit Planning Department construction survey, the nest site must be protected until nesting activity has ended or as otherwise directed by a qualified biologist in order to ensure compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code. Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the Califomia coastal buff PDF 4.7 -2 environment. Invasive and non - native species shall be removed. Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Building Planning Department Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be Permit temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the planflnqs, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. A qualified botanist shall perform focused surveys to determine the presence/absence for the nine sensitive plant species. The focused surveys shall be performed during the appropriate blooming window PDF 4.7 -3 identified for each species. Survey methods shall follow CDFG Surveys Pdor to Issuance of Grading Planning Department guidelines. If any State - listed threatened or endangered plant Permit species are impacted by project development, an incident take permit pursuant to Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code shall be obtained prior to issuance of a grading permit An updated pre - construction eelgrass and invasive algae survey shall be completed within 30 days of the initiation of the proposed dock/gangway construction. The results of this survey will be used to 30 Days Prior to Project Planning Department/ PDF 4.7.4 update the results of the March 2007 eelgrass survey and to Identify, Survey Initiation Harbor Resources If any, potential project - related eelgrass losses and the presence or Department absence of the invasive algae (Caulerpa taxifolia) in accordance with NMFS requirements. F/MM Timing of Mitigatlo Measure .. Method of Implementation Responsibility Verification A post - construction project eelgrass survey shall be completed within 30 days of the completion of project construction in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). The report will be presented to the resources Within 30 days of Dock Planning Department' PDF 4.7 -5 agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Survey Completion Harbor Resources Commission within 30 days after completion of the survey. If any Department eelgrass has been impacted in excess of that determined in the pre - construction survey, any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.2:1 (mitigation to impact). Eelgrass shall be mitigated based on two annual monitoring surveys that document the changes in bed (i.e., area extent and density) in the vicinity of the footprint of the boat dock, moored vessel(s), and /or related structures during the active -growth period for eelgrass (typically March through October). Mitigation shall be implemented Planning Department' PDF 4.7.6 pursuant to the requirements of the Southern California Eelgrass Plan Check Following Completion of Post - Harbor Resources Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). q Construction Survey Department statement from the applicant indicating their understanding of the potential mitigation obligation that may follow the initial two -year monitoring is required. If losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach and resources agencies for review and acceptance. The project marine biologist shall mark the positions of eelgrass beds Prior to Initiation of Dock Planning Department/ PDF 4.7 -7 in the vicinity of the dock and gangway construction area with buoys Field Monitoring Construction Harbor Resources prior to the initiation of an construction activities. Department The project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew Prior to Initiation of Dock PDF 4.7-6 prior to initiation of construction to orient them to specific areas where Meeting Construction Planning Department eel rase resentl exists. Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work over eelgrass PDF 4.7 -9 beds only during tides of +2 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) or Field Monitoring During Dock Construction Planning Department/ Harbor Resources higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass Department from propellers, and to limit water turbidity. Planning Department' PDF 4.7 -10 Anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upon eelgrass habitat Field Monitoring During Dock Construction Harbor Resources Department Construction activities associated with the elevated walkway leading to the gangway, and construction personnel shall avoid impacts to rocky intertidal habitat and to eelgrass beds and sand dollar habitat within the Carnation Cove by, among other things, (a) posting signage During Grading and Planning Department] PDF 4.7 -11 at key access points in front of the beach and on the elevated Field Monitoring Construction Harbor Resources walkway stating that access Is limited to the elevated walkway during Department construction; (b) using yellow tape to prevent access to rocky intertidal habitat, eelgrass beds, and sand dollar habitat; and (c) prohibiflno access to the water and rocky shoreline within the cove. Residents shall be Informed of the sensitivity of the cove as a unique Department of Real Estate PDF 4.7 -12 marine biological habitat to assist in ensuring the long -term protection Disclosure Upon Purchase of Homes City Attorney of the cove's marine biological resources. -fiAltigaHbit Leasure ... ImplemeMStion .:- , • , v :.:� Method pt : Responsibility Ve'dheation - Signage shall be posted at access points in front of the beach and on the elevated walkway, which state that access is limited to the PDF 4.7 -13 elevated walkway during construction. In addition, yellow tape shall Inspection Upon Completion of Project Harbor Resources be used to prevent access. Access shall not be permitted to the Department water or rocky shorelines within the cove. A sift curtain shall be placed around all waterside construction activity during the construction of the dock system to limit the spread of turbidity. If prolonged turbidity is observed outside the silt curtain then Planning Department/ PDF 4.7 -14 the silt curtain shall be re- deployed and re- positioned in a manner to Inspection During Dock Construction Harbor Resources correct the problem. Removal and emplacement of the piles will be Department conducted using Best Available Technology (BAT) that limits the re- suspension of sediments and the creation of turbidity plumes. Silt curtains shall be emplaced and maintained in working condition throughout the period of construction by the marine contractor. If Planning Department/ PDF 4.7 -15 turbidity plumes are observed In the vicinity of the cove in front of the Inspection During Dock Construction Harbor Resources development, an additional silt curtain shall be immediately placed in Department front of the cove's entrance until the turbidity plume has dissipated. Debris bins shall be placed at the project site. Material collected shall be removed on a daily basis. The amount, type, and location of any large debris (e.g., piles, dock parts, concrete, etc.) that is deposited Planning Department/ PDF 4.7 -16 on the sealloor will be documented and removed prior to the Inspection During Dock Construction Harbor Resources completion of the project. The project marine biologist shall also Department inspect the sealloor following the completion of construction to ensure that all debris has been removed. The project marine biologist shall perform weekly on -site inspections Planning Department/ PDF 4.7 -17 to ensure that BMPs and mitigation measures are being implemented Inspections During Dock Construction Harbor Resources during construction. Department Post - construction marine biological surveys (per permit conditions) shall be performed to map eelgrass cover in the project area using Planning Department/ PDF 4.7 -18 the same methodology as the pre - construction survey and also to Surveys Upon Completion of Dock Harbor Resources document the condition and density of the sand dollar beds within the Department cove. Public Health and Safety The City of Newport Beach will require all plans for proposed uses SC 4.8-1 within the project site to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and Plan Check Prior to Issuance of 7 Building Department local regulations pertaining to the transport, storage, use and /or Demolition Permit disposal of hazardous materials on the site. Timing of " „l o :: MPttgatloa;Measuro ' ::. Method of - Implementation Responsibility - '�. Verification - Any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM shall be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Inaccessible suspect ACM shall be tested prior to demolition or renovation. Air emissions of asbestos During Demolition of Existing MM 4. &1 fibers and leaded dust would be reduced to below a level of Inspection Structures Building Department significance through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. Proper safety procedures for the handling of suspect ACM shall always be followed in order to protect the occupants of the building and the asbestos workers. A contractor performing paint removal work shall follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the During Demolition of Existing Building Department/ MM 4. &2 paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the Field Monitoring paint, as proper waste disposal requirements and worker protection Structures Demolition Contractor measures shall be implemented throughout the removal process, Soils and Geology All activities associated with the implementation of the proposed Prior to Issuance of Grading SC 4.9-1 residential development shall comply with the City's Excavation and Plan Check Building Department Grading Ordinance. Permit SC 4.9-2 The project shall comply with all applicable City and 2007 California Plan Check Pdor to Issuance of Building Building Department Building Coderequirements. Permit The property owner(s) shall execute and record a waiver of future SC 4.93 shoreline protection for the project prior to the issuance of a building waiver Prior to issuance of Building City Attorney permit. Said waiver shall be subject to the review and approval of the Permit City Attorney. SC 4.9-4 Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by Prior to issuance of Grading coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and Plan Check Permit Building Department routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted. Project implementation shall adhere to the engineering recommendations for site grading and foundation design and Prior to Issuance of Grading MM 4.9-1a construction presented in the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Plan Check permit Building Department Report prepared by Nebeltt & Associates, Inc., and subsequent detailed aeotechnical engineering analyses. Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed If threatened by Prior to issuance of Grading MM 4.9 -1 b coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and Plan Check Building Department routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted. Permit During periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave- Harbor Resources MM 4.9 -2a induced motions, boats shall be sheltered at mooring can locations Field Monitoring During Life of Project that are available inside Newport Harbor to avoid damage. Department The dock design shall be based on the extreme wave conditions Prior to Issuance of Building Building Department/ MM 4.9 -2b identified in the coastal engineering study (Noble Consultants, Inc., Plan Check Permit Harbor Resources 2008. Department SCIPOFIAhM'.. - Timing of No Mitigation Me"Ore Method of Implementation Responsibility Verification Cultural Resources If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the During Grading and Planning Department/ SC 4.10 -1 Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine Field Monitoring Construction Contractor and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). In the event that fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground - disturbing excavations in the vicinity of SC 4.10.2 the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find Field Monitoring During Grading and Planning Department/ has been salvaged. An fossils discovered during g y g project Construction Contractor construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. SC — Standard Condition PDF — Project Design Feature MM — Mitigation Measure