Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18 - Marinapark Responses to Comments on Draft EIRResponses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Marina p ark Resort & Community Plan State Clearinghouse # 20031 1021 July 2, 2004 Prepared for: 04- City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 Prepared by: Oman SENN Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92602 Contact: Jason M. Brandman, Project Manager Responses To Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Marinapark Resort and Community Plan State Clearinghouse Number 200311021 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 949.644.3210 Contact: James Campbell, Senior Planner Prepared By: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Jason M. Brandman, Project Manager NONE ®E,E July 2, 2004 Madnapark Resort and community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Section1: Introduction ....................................................................... ............................... 1 Purpose..................................................................................... ............................... 1 Section 2: List of Commentors ........................................................... ............................... 2 Comment Letters Received on Draft EIR ................................... ............................... 2 Section 3: Responses To Comments ................................................. ............................... 4 Appendix 1: Hazardous Materials Database Review Michael Brandman Associates H:VClleM (PN- 1N)\0064WMER20`a064ER20JtTC 7 -1 final.dm Madnapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Commema on the Draft EIR Introduction ' PURPOSE I P 1 I I 1 F1 I SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan project was circulated for public review and comment beginning on April 26, 2004 and ending June 9, 2004. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this addendum responds to comments received on the Draft EIR. As required by Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the final EIR must respond to comments regarding significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. This document provides responses to comments on significant environmental points describing the disposition of the issue, explaining the EIR analysis, supporting EIR conclusions, or providing new information or corrections, as appropriate. This document, however, need not, and should not, attempt to respond to comments about the merits of the project; nor should it attempt to resolve citywide planning issues that require full community input and City consideration on their own. This document is organized as follows: • Section 1. This section provides a discussion of the relationship of this document with the Draft EIR. It also-discusses the structure of this document. • Section 2. This section lists the agencieslindividuals that commented on the contents of the Draft EIR. • Section 3. This section includes the comments and the responses to the comments that were received on the Draft EIR. Michael Brandman Associates ' 1i:VC1i m (PN- M\0064W64ER70bo64ER20 -RTC 7 -1 fmld. ' Marinapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Connwft on the Draft EIR List of Commentors 1 ' SECTION 2: LIST OF COMMENTORS A list of public agencies and organizations that provided comments on the Draft EIR is presented below. Each comment letter has been assigned an alphabetical designation (A through 2). Comment ' letter W includes verbal comments received during the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission held on June 3, 2004. Each comment within each letter has been assigned a numerical designation so ' that each comment could be cross - referenced with an individual response. Responses follow each comment letter. 2 COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON DRAFT EIR A. State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse B. City of Newport Beach, Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC), Marinapark Sub - committee ' C. State California, Department Fish Game of of and D. California Coastal Commission E. California Department of Toxic Substances Control ' F. Southern California Association of Governments G. City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission H. Central Newport Beach Community Association I. Mr. David Groverman J. Mr. Scott Grohl K. Marinapark Homeowners Association L. Mrs. Carol Martin M. Recreational Advisors International N. Mr. Jon Stearman O. Mr. Seymour Beek P. James, Jan, Toni, and Brook Niemiec Q. Mr. Craig Morissette R. Mr. Charles A. Remley, Jr. ' S. Girl Scout Council of Orange County Michael Brandman Associates ' H:%Chc t (PN- H4)WO69X0064ER20W064ERW_RTC 7 -1 fiml.doe 2 Madnapsrk Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EOi List ofCommentors T. Mr. Don Webb U. Elliott and Elizabeth C. Bonn V. Ms. Jan D. Vandersloot W. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission, June 3, 2004 X. California State Lands Commission Y. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Z. Orange County Transportation Agency Michael Brandman Associates 3 HACUe (PN- 1N)V00")0064RR20~PR20 -ATC 7 -1 finAdoc Marinapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responsor To Comments SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 1 Following are the responses to the written comments that were received during the public review period on the Draft EIR as well as the verbal comments received during the City of Newport Beach ' Planning Commission held on June 3, 2004. Where a comment results in a change to the Draft EIR, the response provides specific page, paragraph, and sentence reference, along with the new EIR text. I I I I I I I I I I I it Michael Brandmen Associates 4 ' H.) Cfien[( PN- .IN)\0064\llW4ER2OU64ER?A_RTC 7 -I fml.d. 06/23/2004 12:02 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 05 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit N" W Arnold sdrwuzcwgga Jan Dire Governor Acting irrcYOr June 18, 2004 James Campbell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report Marmapark Resort . and Community Plan SCH #: 2003111021 Dear James Campbell The enclosed comment (s) on your Draft EIR was (were) received by the State Clearinghouse after the end Of the state review period, which closed on June 9, 2004. We are forwarding these comments to you because they provide information or raise issues that should be addressed in your final environmental document. The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments. However, we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental Al document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions concerning the environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the, above -named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number (200311102 1) when contacting this office. Sincerely, Terry Robe s Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 2 2 2004 7�SI9I10 X11 112I1I2I3I415I6 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. SOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALiFOgNIA 95812 -3044 TEL (916) 445.0613 FAX(916)323-3018 w mpr.ta:8ov I 06/23/2004 12:02 9496443229 CNB PLANNING Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2003111021" Project Title Draft Environmental Impact Report Madnapark Resort and Community Plan Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of PAGE 03 , Type EIR Draft EIR Description The proposed project Includes the development of a luxury resort hotel with ancillary facilities that Include a business administrable building. spa vile, surface and subterranean parking. and 12 new boat slips. A concrete walkway will extend from the resort hotel to the boat slips. A bulkhead will also be constructed and will separate the beach from the boat slips. Another concrete walkway fmm 18th Street will be constructed parallel to the public sand beach to provide access for the public. The project also Includes reconstruction of the existing Community Center and GM Scout House Into one structure. a tot park. four public tennis courts, and a shared parking lot for the community facilities and resort visitors. Lead Agency Contact Name James Campbell Agency City of Newport Beech Phone 949 -664 -3210 email Address 3300 Newport Boulevard City Newport Beach Project Location County Orange City Newport Beach Region Fax State CA Zip 92659 Cross Sheets North of West Balboa Boulevard between 18th Street and 15th Street Parcel No. Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways. 1 Airports Railways Waterways Newport Bay Schools Land Use Martnapark Mobile Home Park, Los Arena Park (for public tennis courts, one -half basketball court, and a children's play area), Balboa Community Center, the Neva B. Thomas Girt Scout House. and a public beach. Project Issues Aesthetion/Isual: Air Quality; Coastal Zone: Flood PlainfFloodtng; Geokiglc/Selsmic: Noise: Public Services; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion /CompectioNGrading; Solid Waste; ToxicMazardous: Wildlife; Wesand/Ripi.dan: Water Supply: Water Quality: Vegetation: Traffic/Circulation: tanduse: Growth Inducing:' Cumulative Effects; Other Issues Reviewing Resources Agency. Department of Boating and Waterways: Department of Fish and Game. Region 5: Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources: California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 12: Regional Water Quality Control Board. Region 8: Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission: State Lands Commission: California Coastal Commission Date Received 04/26 /2004 Start of Review 04/2612004 End ofRevlew 0610912004 L LJ Note: Blanks in data fields resultfrom Insufficient information provided by lead agency. v , Madnapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Drat EIR ReapmMes To Comments A State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, state Clearinghouse Al. This comment is noted and acknowledges the closing of the public review period for the Draft EIR. No specific comments on the Draft EIR were provided, therefore, no further response is necessary. Michael Brandman Associates H:` Client (PN- 1MW064Y1064ER20'0064ER20 RTC 7- 15ml.doc 7 r MEMORANDUM ' To: James Campbell, Senior Planner Planning Department, City of Newport Beach ' From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee ( "EQAC') City of Newport Beach 1 Subject: The City of Newport Beach's Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR ") for the implementation and development of the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan (the "Project") ' Date: May 28, 2004 Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the captioned DEIR for the Project. I. A Brief Summary of Our Concerns. IWe recommend that the City reconsider and revise the DEIR and/or respond to the following concerns during the public review process for the DEIR. Because of the concerns listed below, we believe that the City should revise the document and re- circulate the revised document ` for public review and comment. We make these recommendations for several reasons: (1) The DEIR fails to describe the Project fully and accurately, thereby undercutting the public's and decision maker's ability to understand the Project, determine impacts of the Project and evaluate mitigation measures. (2) The DEIR fails to recognize and analyze potentially significant impacts discussed in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for the DEIR including impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials, and recreation. l (3) The DEIR fails to discuss and analyze all Project related impacts including those associated with Transportation/Circulation, Land Use, Hydrology and Water Quality and other issues, as well as cumulative impacts for all issues analyzed. (4) The DEIR fails to analyze fully the growth inducing impacts of the Project and/or provide mitigation for such impacts. 1 (5) The DEIR fails to analyze and discuss fully the Project alternatives and assess objectively the environmentally superior alternative. � 8 EQAC , Page 2 May 28, 2004 H. Introduction: EIR Standards. An EIR constitutes the heart of CEQA: An EIR is the primary environmental document which: ".. serves as a public disclosure document explaining the effects of the proposed project on the environment, alternatives to the project, and ways to minimize adverse effects and to increase beneficial effects." CEQA Guidelines section 15149(b). See California Public Resources Code section 21003(b) (requiring that the document must disclose impacts and mitigation so that the document will be meaningful and useful to the public and decision makers.) Further, CEQA Guidelines section 15151 sets forth the adequacy standards for an EIR: "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision - makers with information which enables them to make a decision which takes account of the environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith attempt at full disclosure." Further, "the EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency's bare conclusions or opinions." Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa. Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Association 0 986142 Cal. 3d 929 (Emphasis supplied). In addition, an EIR must specifically address the environmental effects and mitigation of the Project. But "[t]he degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR." CEQA Guidelines section 15146. The analysis in an EIR must be specific enough to further informed decision making and public participation. The EIR must produce sufficient information and analysis to understand the environmental impacts of the proposed project and to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned. See Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376. Also, to the extent that an EIR proposes mitigation measures, it must provide specific measures. It cannot defer such measures until some future date or event. "By deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to that policy of CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process." Sundstrom v. Countv of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 308. See Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com.(1975) 13 CAM 263, 282 (holding that "the principle that the environmental impact should be assessed as early as possible in government planning.'; Mount Sutro Defense Committee v. Regents of University of California (1978) 77 Cal. App. 3d 20, 34 (noting that environmental problems should be considered at a point in the planning process "where genuine flexibility remains'. CEQA requires more than a promise of mitigation of significant impacts: mitigation I EQAC Page 3 May 28, 2004 measures must really minimize an identified impact. H. Section 1: Introduction and Effects Found Not to be Significant (Section 1.61. 1 The Introduction discusses general CEQA issues, formatting of the DEK the IS/NOP, the scoping process and effects found not to be significant. The latter— "Effects Found Not to be Significant'— raises substantive concerns. Section 1.6 notes that during the scoping process, various impacts were found to be potentially significant, whereas others were found not to be significant. These latter include "Hazards and Hazardous Materials," and "Recreation." For various reasons discussed below, these are potentially significant impacts: the DEIR should include a detailed discussion and analysis of such impacts, and propose necessary mitigation. A. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Appendix A of the DEIR includes the Initial Study, Environmental Checklist and the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation. The Checklist Item No. VII addresses Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Item No. VII b) indicates that it is less than significant that the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. However, Item No. VII c) B indicates that the Project may have a potentially significant impact by emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing school. Item No. VII d) indicates that the Project may have a potentially significant impact unless mitigated in that the Project is located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites and as a result would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Discussion of these Items is helpful. Under Item No. VII b), the Discussion notes that, because of the presence of motorized construction equipment, there is a small risk of gasoline or Ba diesel spillage. However, the Discussion concludes that such is less than significant. Under Item No. VII c), the Discussion notes that the Project is within one - quarter mile of Newport Elementary School. It states that an inventory of materials and quantities used in 83 construction and operation of the Project will be created. If necessary, any hazardous materials will be identified and mitigation measures proposed. As for Item No. VII d), the Discussion explains that past or present on -site and off -site uses I B t. f have the potential to result in the release of toxic substances. ' "[P]roject implementation will require the removal of onsite structures, which depending date may contain lead or materials. A on of construction asbestos regulatory database review will be conducted for the proposed project, results BS of the database review will be summarized in the EIR and the review results included in their entirety as an appendix to the document. Mitigation measures will be recommended as appropriate." 1 10 EQAC 1 Page 4 May 28, 2004 The DEIR does not address the IS/NOP analysis. Instead, the DEIR concludes that the Project's impacts on hazards and hazardous materials are insignificant. For gasoline or diesel $ 6 spillage, the DEIR includes a similar analysis as the IS/NOP: the risk is less than significant. For proximity to schools including Newport Elementary, the DEIR is silent. As discussed I B 7 below, it refers to a (Limited) Phase II Soils Assessment but concludes no significant impact. The Phase II assessment is not attached as an appendix. The DEIR notes that the analysis identified small concentrations of trace petroleum hydrocarbons, metals and organocholorine 8 pesticide in and around portions of the Project site. Submarine sediment samples indicated low concentrations of various but unidentified hydrocarbons. The DEIR fails to keep the promise of the IS/NOP: the DEIR includes no "regulatory database review and summary." Moreover, it fails to include the Phase II study or make such C1 available for public review. Incidentally, the DEIR states that such contaminants are below action P7 levels; yet it provides no indication as to what those action levels are. Given the promise of the IS/NOP, the DEIR should be revised to include items discussed above, and the revised DEIR should , include a thorough analysis of all such impacts. Moreover, the conclusions of the Phase II study seems implausible. The Project's location is near the mouth of the Rhein Channel which we understand is regarded as highly polluted. Although the IS/NOP appeared to recognize this challenge, the DEIR fails to consider and analyze BIC> the Project's impacts including destruction and removal of existing docks and structures, construction and installation of new docks and structures, and other Project related activities on submarine sediment in and around this problematic water body. In addition, we understand that Chevron or another company had a storage facility near the r Project site in the past. The DEIR should include an analysis and/or study of any emissions from g the storage site and any Project related impacts arising from disturbance and/or release of any hazardous materials from such site or contamination from such site as a result of the construction and operation of the Project. Also, as discussed below, notwithstanding the DEIR's conclusion that the Project will have no significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials, the DEIR discusses the Project's hazards Ba and hazardous materials impacts in relation to biological resources. The DEIR's analysis of hazards in relation to biological resources undercuts the DEIR's conclusions that Project's impacts on hazards and hazardous materials are insignificant. B. Recreation. The DEIR also regards the Project's impacts on recreational opportunities as insignificant. However, Proj ect features and configuration themselves require environmental analysis in order to make such conclusion. The Project "will replace all recreational facilities except the basketball half- court." DEIR, 1 -6. This raises several problems. At the outset, the demolition and replacement of existing facilities will have short-term construction impacts on all of these recreational opportunities. Without more analysis and , I i �.J I I .1 I I I I I 1 I I EQAC Page 5 May 28, 2004 discussion, such impacts appear to be significant, at least in the short term. Further, the replacement of such facilities is problematic: without further analysis and perhaps mitigation, it is unclear that g �3 the replaced facilities will provide access and have features similar to the existing facilities. Further, the elimination of the half -court basketball facility requires further analysis and I �� discussion. This resource appears to be unique: it's configuration and alignment may make it more popular than full court facilities in the area. Also, the Project's resort proposes joint use of the recreational facilities. Without more analysis, such use may significantly and adversely affect residents' use of the Project facilities. Finally, a crucial Project alternative is a recreation alternative. In order to assess, analyze and evaluate the alternatives, the DEIR should include an analysis of the Project's impacts on recreational opportunities. C. Conclusion. The DEIR should be revised to include a full environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on hazards and hazardous materials, and recreation. III. Section 2: Executive Summary . The Executive Summary attempts to summarize the Project Description (discussed below), the areas of controversy /issues to be resolved, and a summary of impacts and mitigation. Section 2.2 addresses areas of controversy /issues to be resolved. It notes: "The area of controversy associated with the proposed project is the intensification of land uses on the project site. The location of the tideland boundary is an issue that is to be resolved." Both of these are problematic. As to the area of controversy, "intensification of land use" improperly simplifies the issues: the area of controversy is the replacement of the current designated use— Recreational and Environmental Open Space — with a commercial use which requires a General Plan Amendment and other approvals. The DEIR's statement about the issue to be resolved — tideland boundary— is surprising. The DEIR should resolve this issue in its analysis of the existing site. The DEIR's failure to resolve this issue undercuts its usefulness. Moreover, Section 3.4 indicates that among other permits, the Project will require a lease of tidelands. In order for the public and decision makers to understand the Project's impacts on tideland boundaries and the impacts of this lease, the DEIR should include a detailed discussion of the tidelands location, and the nature and extent of such lease. Without resolving this issue in the DEK the document cannot fulfill its own requirements. D15 E B17 Section 2.5 includes a table which identifies Project impacts and mitigation. For a I discussion of Project impacts, see our discussion below. However, as to mitigation, Table 2 -1 raises B } $ a general problem: deferral of mitigation measures. As indicated above, CEQA requires 11 EQAC Page 6 May 28, 2004 environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process. For each mitigation measure identified in Table 2 -1, each measure is deferred to some future event or permit issuance. In order to understand the nature and extent of mitigation and to assess whether the proposed mitigation fully and adequately addresses the impact, the DEIR should fully identify and discuss all mitigation measures, discuss how such measures will lessen impacts to a level of insignficance, and if necessary, provide alternative mitigation measures for any measure which does not fully mitigate identified impacts. IV. Section 3: The Project Description. Section 3. 1.1 discusses Site Characteristics. Among other things, the DER notes that the Project site is bound by "a public beach and Newport Bay to the north." Although Section 3. 1.1 discusses many of the current site characteristics, it fails to discuss the location and character of the tidelands issue. This issue may affect the Project, the analysis of the Project impacts, the alternatives analysis and related matters. The DER should include a full discussion of the tidelands boundary issue, resolve the issue, locate the boundary, and discuss all Project related impacts. Among other features, the Project includes twelve (12) new boat slips and replacement of public tennis courts on the deck of the proposed parking structure. As to the boat slips, the DEIR states that this feature will require dredging of approximately 1,250 to 1,750 cubic yards of bay sediment to create the boat basin; this "clean sand" will be placed on shore side of a proposed Project related bulkhead. This raises several issues. Q L9 The Project includes twelve (12) new marina slips with four (4) available for public use and eight (8) available for Project guests. The current forty-six (46) American Legion slips will remain. g a However, the DER fails to discuss the relation of the American Legion slips to the Project feature slips. Also, the IS/NOP and the DER recognize that the Project may affect hazards and hazardous materials. As discussed above, these two documents are inconsistent in their assessment of the Project's impacts on hazards. However, given that the Project requires removal and relocation of g a� 1,250 to 1,750 cubic yards of bay sediment, the DER should fully address the character of this sediment, analyze any impact to hazards and hazardous materials, and, if necessary, provide mitigation. Further, it is unclear where this excavation will occur especially in relation to the tidelands i boundary. As noted above, the DEIR fails to discuss the tidelands location. The DEIR should g �3 provide a clear description of the location of this excavation in relation to the tidelands, and if necessary, provide adequate mitigation. Regarding the tennis court, the Project description notes their location but fails to address public access to this Project feature. Indeed, the Project description fails to discuss all sorts of g Z� { public access issues. How does the public gain access to the beach? Does the beach remain a public beach? What are the public access features for all Project related structures including the community center, tot lot, and parking? F t 13 r EQAC 1 Page 7 May 28, 2004 Also, the Project is entitled the "Marinapark Resort & Community Plan." The Project I $ �5 description includes no reference to the "Community Plan." The revised DEIR should fully explain the Project including the "Community Plan." Incidentally, the Project description includes some internal inconsistencies which require explanation and resolution: First, exhibit 3 -3, Site Plan, shows the Girl Scout House and the Spa Villa to be 4,166 square feet each; however Table 3.2 -1 on the next page states that the Girl Scout House /Community Center and the Spa Villa will be 6,191. Second, the Site Plan shows shared parking at the comer of I P Street and Balboa Boulevard, but further in the document, in the Aesthetics section, the computer - generated visual simulations shows hvo -story villas at this comer. Section 3.3 discusses Project Objectives. These Objectives include several economic /commercial objectives: "Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula; Pro-Me additional general fund revenue that will help the City maintain or enhance the high level of public safety and municipal services provided to Newport Beach residents. Enhance public access and community facilities on the site without any expenditure of tax revenue and without any fiscal impact on the Girl Scouts and other users." DEIR, 3 -8. The DEIR includes no detailed discussion of these and other objectives. However, it is unclear that such objectives are appropriate for the Project site and the current environmental analysis. The only Project alternative in the DEIR which meets these economic objectives is the Project. Given these economic objectives, the DEIR should include an economic analysis which shows how and why the Project meets these and other objectives, provides a detailed discussion of City revenues from the Project including lease payments, taxes and other sources of revenue, and other economic considerations appropriate. Section 3.4 addresses "Intended Uses" of the DEIR. The section identifies various discretionary approvals by the City. It notes: "Other actions necessary to implement the project are identified later in the section under `Other Discretionary and Ministerial Actions. "' DEM 3 -9. However, the DEIR contains no such section. The DEIR should be revised to include a full list of all discretionary approvals by all agencies. g�-'7 Finally, the DEIR inadequately covers permitting and approvals: the election requirement. We understand that the City proposes to submit this Project to the voters. The DEIR should discuss this requirement, and explain its relation to the CEQA process and Project approval. 14 EQAC , Page 8 May 28, 2004 ' V. Section 4: General Description of Environmental Setting. Section 4.1 addresses the environmental setting. As indicated above, nothing in the DEIR I B 30 locates the tidelands boundary. These section should be revised to include a discussion and perhaps, a map of such boundary. Further, we understand that the Marinapark mobile home park is a park on City owned land with a lease. The DEIR recognizes that the park is a 40 -year facility but fails to discuss the lease 8 3k hold, its tens, the landlord and other crucial and important terns. Section 4.2 discusses related projects. It notes that the City provided several related projects; presumably, Table 4 -1 is the list provided. However, it is incomplete. First, as indicated in the Project objectives, DEIR recognizes that in the Project vicinity, the City and others are engaged in "efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula." These efforts are related projects and should be included in the cumulative impacts list. 63D- 1 I Among other efforts, we understand that several plans to develop live /work projects in and around the Project vicinity are pending, Likewise, these plans should be included in the cumulative g 33 impacts list. VI. Section 5: Proiect Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After 1 Mitigation. A. Section 5.1: Geology and Soils. Section 5.1 address geotechnical impacts of the Project. The DEIR includes a geotechnical report for tha site. Among other things, the DEIR notes that "[ Liquefaction occurs when shallow, fine to medium - grained sediments saturated with water are subjected to strong seismic shaking. Liquefaction usually occurs when the underlying water table is 50 feet or less below the surface." DEIR, 5.1 -2. Also, the DEIR notes that expansive soils are those which can give up or take on water. Id. The DEIR notes that although the onsite soils are not expansive, "[t]he potential for liquefaction during a major seismic event is considered to be high." As noted above, liquefaction may depend on depth to groundwater. The DEIR should state depth to groundwater at the site, discuss the soils character, explain why, though the sands will hold water, they are not expansive and related issues. Moreover, Section 5.1.4 considers two mitigation measures. As before, this section fails to discuss depth to groundwater. The two mitigation measures depend upon permit issuance: the first depends upon issuance of a grading permit and concerns aspects of the grading plans. However, it fails to state the depth if any of such grading. The second depends upon issuance of a building permit and concerns slab alternatives. However, the section fails to determine which slab type will be employed. B 3�t 1 B35 EQAC Page 9 May 28, 2004 B. Section 5.2: Hydrology and Water Quali ty. Section 5.2 concerns hydrology and water quality. This section notes that the Project will have short-term construction impacts on water quality and hydrology, long term operational impacts and cumulative impacts. Construction impacts include soils erosion, trash and debris which may leave the Project site. In addition, construction activities in connection with the marina will include re- introduction of contaminants through construction activities which may "resuspend" bottom sediment as well as increase in turbidity. Long term operational impacts include increased flow concentrations at a majority of 1 Project related storm drains with a decrease in several such drains. In addition, the Project will increase peak flows during 100 -year storm events along 186i and 156' Streets while flows along Balboa Boulevard would decrease somewhat. Water quality impacts of the Project include trash, debris, oil and grease, and other pollutants including heavy metals, oxygen demanding substances, nutrients and organic compounds. Further, installation of a cement walkway from the resort to the marina will interrupt tidal flows and water circulation; and may create stagnant water conditions. Finally, the DER recognizes that the Project "will substantially contribute to a potential significant cumulative impact on existing storm drain systems." It will "also increase urban pollutants that would substantially contribute to a potential significant cumulative impact on surface water quality." The DER includes five mitigation measures. Most of these mitigation measures defer mitigation measures until issuance of grading permits. This analysis and mitigation is problematic for several reasons. The impacts analysis fails to I ' discuss current drainage and percolation, as well as the proposed drainage and percolation of the Fi 36 Project. Also, the DER fails to consider several potential mitigation measures. Increasing pervious surfaces may limit surface water run -off. Indeed, Section 7, the Alternatives Analysis, states that B 3 the Project is superior to the Marine Alternative due to its increase of pervious surfaces. Yet the 1 DER fails to discuss this issue, analyze the nature and extent of such surfaces, and, if necessary, propose mitigation. In addition, the Project together with other revitalization efforts may significantly affect the storm drain capacity. Yet, the DEIR does not consider whether the Project may require re- sizing of g 3� stone drains in the vicinity. ' Also, none of the mitigation measures address the Project's cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality. Mitigation of such impacts could include establishment of stormwater mitigation program for a comprehensive upgrade of the storm drains on the Peninsula. The Project could contribute its fair share to such a mitigation program. I 1 16 EQAC , Page 10 May 28, 2004 Further, as indicated above, such deferral of specific mitigation measures does not comply with the requirements of CEQA which requires full discussion of all impacts and mitigation. Deferral of the development of various mitigation measures until some permitting or pursuant to B� f7 various regulatory bodies including the City and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board is not informative: precise Project features and mitigation are deferred until after the public and decision ' makers have had an opportunity to review, comment and in the case of decision makers, decide on the DEIR and the Project. The DEIR should be revised to discuss fully all water quality and , hydrology impacts, and provide specific and enforceable mitigation measures to lessen any such impacts. that the entire environmental analysis of the Project's impacts including hazards and hazardous C. Section 53: Bioloacal Resources. ' Section 5.3 concerns the Project's potential impacts on biological resources. Section 5.3.1 addresses existing conditions including sediments and habitats and marine biological communities near the Project. As indicated above, the DEIR includes no detailed discussion of hazards and hazardous materials. Section 5.3.1 repeats the earlier discussion regarding low levels of pollutants. Further, in discussing sub -tidal bay floor sediments, the DEIR states that environmental site assessment indicates the presence of low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in the upper one -half foot of the bay mud. This is inadequate: as indicated above, the Project will require excavation of between 1,250 ' to 1,750 cubic yards of "bay mud." Testing on the upper one -half foot fails to test the full extent of this excavation. , The DEIR should be revised to include a Rill analysis of hazards and hazardous materials so that the entire environmental analysis of the Project's impacts including hazards and hazardous materials and biological resources. Also as indicated above, the analysis indicates that contaminates including those in sub -tidal bay sediments are below action levels for soils on land but fails to provide the action levels. The revised DEIR should provide this information, or indicate that they are the same as those for soils on land. ' In addition, in connection with the existing conditions regarding bay fishes, the DEIR relies on a otter trawl net sampling of fish species known to occur in Newport Bay that was conducted for eighteen (18) months between 1974 and 1975. This sampling would seem to be too out -of -date to be of any value in assessing the number of species in the Bay and the proposed Project's potential impact on those fish species. The DEIR should be revised to include a more recent sampling or more recent information on the fish species known to occur in Newport Bay and consider the Project's impacts on identified species. Also, if for some reason the thirty year old study remains useful, the revised DEIR should explain the utility of this thirty year old study and alternatives. , In assessing the Project's impacts on shoreline habitats and resources, the DEIR states that "(t)he proposed cement walkway from the resort hotel to the boat slips will result in the loss of By y approximately 490 square feet of sandy shoreline which is foraging habitat for shorebirds. This long -term loss is considered significant" Page 5.3 -7 Since the site currently has an existing concrete walkway, it is unclear how the new walkway will have this kind of impact. Based on the 17 1 VI EQAC Page 11 May 28, 2004 conclusion that there will be this significant impact, it appears that the Project walkway must differ gz„ l L-f from the existing walkway, e.g. project out further into the shoreline. This is not clear from the Project Description or anywhere else in the DER. Further, the DER is inconsistent in discussing this impact. As stated above, on Page 5.3 -7, the DER characterizes the loss of foraging habitat for shorebirds as significant. However, on Page "No �y S 5.3 -9, the DER states: direct mortality of shorebirds and seabirds will occur. The long -term presence of the boat slips, bulkhead and concrete walkway will however, reduce shorebird and seabird resting and foraging habitat, however, this is not considered a significant impact." An accurate assessment of the impacts to birds should be provided in the Final EIR, and this 1 inconsistency should be corrected. The DER contains another and important inconsistency. Section 5.3.3 recognizes that Project construction will have an impact on benthic communities in the Project area. However, Section 5.3.3 concludes that "Whe loss of benthic infauna and epifauna due to dredging will be a short-term less than significant impact." This conclusion is problematic: dredging will continue through the life of the Project. Thus, such impact may be more than short term. Moreover, Section 5.3.6 states that regarding biological resources, "[w]ith the implementation of the above mitigation measures, only one significant unavoidable adverse impact g4{ (b would remain." DEIF, 5.3 -13. 1 "This impact would occur during the short-term and would be on the benthic resources that would be removed from the bayfloor during project and maintenance dredging activities." Id. However, Section 6.1 concludes that there are no significant and unavoidable impacts. The DEIR should be revised to resolve this inconsistency: either the impact on benthic resources is significant or not. Moreover, such impacts will be more than long term: impacts on benthic ' resources will occur during Project construction as well as maintenance dredging. Also, as indicated above, all Biological Resources Mitigation Measures are deferred until 1 the issuance of either a grading permit or a permit from a resource agency. This deferral of mitigation is not permissible under CEQA. ' In addition, most of the Mitigation Measures list various regulatory plans, e.g. stormwater B17 pollution prevention plan ( "S WPPP ") which describes best management practices (`BMPs "). However, the analysis is incomplete and generic; all of these Mitigation Measures appear to be ' boilerplate, with no direct reference to the impacts to biological resources present at the proposed Project site or the actual mitigation proposed. The DER should include an appropriate expert analysis to discuss Project specific impacts and mitigation as well as to develop the various regulatory plans. The discussion of mitigation measures in this section seems more appropriate for a program level analysis. The Final EIR should more fully discuss the impacts and mitigation proposed. VI EQAC Page 12 May 28, 2004 A Section 5.4: Land Use and Plannine Section 5.4 addresses the proposed Project's consistency with various elements of the General Plan. Section 5.4.1 describes existing conditions including the Land Use Element of the General Plan. It provides regarding the Project sits: , "The existing mobile home park use will be allowed to continue until the end of the existing lease. At that time the City will make the decision as to whether the lease should be finther extended, or the property converted to public use." [3 L4 1 , DEIR, 5.4-4. The DEIR then states that this description "indicates that the existing mobile home park is not consistent with the existing land use designation for the site." Id. However, in Section 5.4.3 which addresses Project impacts, the DEIR fails to discuss and analyze the Project's consistency with this requirement of conversion "to public use" at the end of the existing lease. Also, this section indicates that the Project will not divide the community, because "[a]ccess to and through the project site is maintained." DEIR, 5.4 -8. However, as indicated above, public access to and through the Project is unclear. Moreover, as discussed in Section 5.7, Noise, the E f { q' Project will serve as a sound barrier which will block vehicular noise from Balboa Blvd. to the Project. If the Project serves as such a barrier, it likely will divide the community. The DEIR should be revised to show the access points and routes from Balboa Blvd. through the Project to the Bay. , In addition, Section 5.4.3 discusses the Land Use Element, Policy C which provides: "Commercial, recreation or destination visitor serving facilities in and around the harbor shall be controlled and regulated to minimize congestion and parking shortages, to ensure access to the water for residents and visitors, as well as , maintain the high quality of life and the unique and beautiful residential areas that border the harbor." DER 5.4.9. Emphasis added. However, the DEIR's discussion of parking requirements shows 13501 that, although the Project will provide a total of 209 surface and subterranean parking spaces, the Project demand is only 92 spaces under the current Code requirements; the Project will result in a , total of 117 excess parking spaces. This raises a few problems or questions. First, the code requirements appear at odds with ' Policy C's requirements. Moreover, the Code requirements seem skimpy: one space for every two rooms; one space for 300 square feet of the proposed Community Center and Girl Scout House; and four spaces for the four tennis courts. Likely, each visitor enjoying a Project/resort room will require one parking space; likely, each individual using the tennis courts will require parking. The DEIR should include a further study regarding the parking demand of the Project to ensure that Policy C of the Land Use Element is met. I 11 1 1 20 EQAC Page 13 ' May 28, 2004 In our earlier comments on the NOP for the proposed Project, we noted that the Project Description failed to discuss employee, contractor and supplier parking and access. The DEIR also fails to discuss how parking and access will be provided within the proposed Project for these �?j5 groups. The Section goes on to say that the proposed Project will provide 117 parking spaces beyond what is required by the code. Perhaps these "excess" parking spaces are intended to accommodate employees, contractors and suppliers, but this issue is not addressed in the DEIR. The DEIR should be revised to address the issue of parking for these groups, because parking on the Peninsula is such an important issue. As indicated here and below, Section 5.4 addresses the Project's parking demands and Section 5.5, Transportation /Circulation includes no parking analysis. This confusion creates another problem. Although Section 5.4 discusses the Project's parking requirements, it fails to discuss existing parking including street parking. We believe that the Project will result in a loss of parking spaces from current levels. Based upon our information and calculations, the following is a tabulation of the parking spaces which the Project will cause to be lost: Metered public parking at 18th street curbside 5 B 5 Metered public parking at 18'h street lot 23 Community Bldg. Staff 2 ' Girl Scouts dedicated and gated 10 Public Parking at Tot lot 2 Total Lost Spaces 42 Given this loss of 42 spaces as a result of the Project, there is an excess of only 75 spaces That is, the loss of parking spaces as a result of the Project must be counted against the excess parking spaces. The DEIR should be revised to include a thorough parking analysis under Section 5.6 and, if necessary, propose adequate mitigation. Further, the Project is proposed as a Five Star resort hotel with 110 rooms and fifty -eight I g 5 3 (58) employees. We understand that other Five Star hotles in the area require a much higher ratio. f As indicated above, the DEIR has eliminated Recreation from the environmental issues to be addressed, even though Recreation had been included in the NOR The DEIR states that the half court basketball court doesn't get much use, according to City's recreation staff, and therefore, will 8 JC 4 not be replaced. Page 5.4 -12 However, residents of the Peninsula do, in fact, use the court. Because the court is protected from the wind by its location on the Bay side of the Peninsula and between the tennis courts, it is preferred over the full court located on the ocean side at the I elementary school. In fact, the City has recently completed some repairs to the court, presumably because it is used. The Final EIR should address this impact and provide necessary mitigation. Further, the DEIR states that the proposed Project would replace the four tennis courts with ' the same number of courts, but the hotel would offer tennis lessons on the courts. How will this g,j 5 impact the current heavy use of the tennis courts? The Final EIR should include a Recreation section, which analyzes these proposed Project's impacts and provide necessary mitigation. Further, Section 5.4.1 and following sections include a discussion of the Recreation and I B 5 Open Space Element of the General Plan stating that it has "been determined to be applicable to the 1 20 EQAC Page 14 May 28, 2004 proposed project ..." In fact, the DEIR states that "(t)he project site is designated Recreation and Environmental Open Space." DEIR, 5.4 -3. g561 The DEIR mentions that Charter Boats and Boat Tours may pass the Project. The Project may accommodate some of these boats. The DEIR should address all impacts associated with such �5 large boats and propose necessary mitigation. In addition, any Project permit should condition such use so that any and all such impacts are mitigated, or if not should restrict such use. One of the objectives of the Recreation and Open Space Element is to "[m]aintain and enhance the scenic character of the City." The policy which supports this objective seeks to "protect and enhance existing view opportunities, especially public views of the ocean, harbor, and upper bay...." Section 5.4.3 states that the Project would provide view corridors from Balboa Boulevard to the Bay, and therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the objective of the Recreation and Open Space Element However, the views from Balboa Boulevard through the majority of the proposed Project site will be obstructed by 24 -foot, 27 -foot or 34 -foot buildings which will act as a sound barrier. The Final EIR should analyze this impact more realistically and provide necessary mitigation. Finally, the DEIR states that, because the Project is compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, the Project will not have any cumulative land use impacts. However, the Project requires discretionary actions, e.g. amendments, regarding the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan as well as a Coastal Development Permit. As discussed above, the Project together with other projects listed in Table 4 -1 as well as the efforts to revitalize the Peninsula may create significant cumulative impacts in connection with land use. The DEIR should be revised to discuss and address such cumulative impacts. J 07 11 I B59 I Incidentally, the DEIR offers inconsistent building setback requirements on 18'h Street. In the discussion relating to land use compatibility, the DEIR states that "(t)he structures proposed gW along the 18`h Street will have a setback of 14 to 17 feet. Page 5.4 -8 However, the Aesthetics Section lists a building setback for 18'h Street as 5 feet. This inconsistency should be corrected in the Final EIR. E. Section 5.5: Transportation/Circulation. Section 5.5 addresses transportation and circulation. This analysis is supported by a special traffic study, Appendix E: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan TPO: Traffic Analysis. This analysis focuses on 7 intersections during weekdays of the "shoulder season," fall and spring when schools are in session. The intersection closest to the proposed project is Newport Blvd. and 32nd St. Sections 5.5.5 concludes that the Project will have no significant transportation and circulation impacts; Section 5.5.6 concludes that therefore no mitigation measures are needed. However, Table A -1 to Appendix E recognizes what every summer visitor to the Peninsula and full-time resident knows: the summer weekend traffic in the vicinity of Balboa Blvd. and 20'h St. is already at LOS E or worse which exceeds the City's standard of acceptable service, LOS D. Although the Project traffic may not exceed the 1 % increase threshold, it likely will contribute to the existing traffic problem. Moreover, as indicated above, the Project together with other projects zI 1 l� a6 �, I EQAC Page 15 ' May 28, 2004 identified in Table 4 -1 as well as the revitalization efforts on the Peninsula likely will have cumulative impacts which require mitigation. The City may wish to consider improved traffic flow 13(71 measures in this area to include, for example, limited on- street parking, better turn-out lanes and improved traffic signal timing/synchronization. ' In our comments on the IS/NOP for the Project, we requested that the DEIR "analyze and, if Without any analysis of hazards and hazardous materials in or around the Project site, the DEIR concludes that the Project will have no impacts on air quality in that the Project will 'i�67 "not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of pollutants or generate objectionable odors." DEIR, 5.6 -12. I ' 2Z necessary, propose mitigation for Project impacts on seasonal traffic problems ". It further requests that the DEIR "discuss and analyze the Projects design and impact on the intersections at 15th 160', 6 6a t 170' and 18'h streets with Balboa Blvd." The DEIR did not take the suggestion and none of these intersections were addressed. The DEIR should be revised to address these intersections, provide an 1 environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on transportation in the vicinity, and, if necessary, propose mitigation. Further, traffic associated with Resort employee, construction and service vehicles is not 8 63 mentioned in the DEIR. Are there plans to schedule deliveries and plans for off -site employee I parking to minimize traffic impacts? 1 Correlatively, the DEIR does not address traffic access and internal circulation at the site. As indicated above, the DEIR states that the Project will not have significant impacts on vehicular B 641 ' access and, by implication, no impacts on internal circulation. Yet, the document is silent on these issues. The DEIR should be revised to address and consider vehicular access and internal circulation, identify any Project related impacts, and propose necessary mitigation. Also, the Project may have short-term impacts on transportation and circulation. Section 5.6 suggests that the Project will require a construction traffic management plan. Yet, Section 5.5 B65 contains no analysis of the short-term construction impacts of the Project on transportation and circulation. The DEIR should be revised to include an analysis of the short term construction impacts on traffic and circulation, discuss the construction traffic management plan, and, if necessary, propose adequate mitigation. Finally, as discussed briefly above, the DEIR attempts to address parking demands in connection with the Land Use analysis which discusses code requirements for the Project. However, the DEIR should include an actual study on the parking demands for the Project which B66 considers and addresses all Project features. However, Section 5.5 should include a parking study which addresses the Project's parking demands, access to parking lots, and related issues. The ' DEIR should be revised to address these potentially significant impacts and, if necessary, propose mitigation. F. Section 5_6: Air Ouality. Without any analysis of hazards and hazardous materials in or around the Project site, the DEIR concludes that the Project will have no impacts on air quality in that the Project will 'i�67 "not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of pollutants or generate objectionable odors." DEIR, 5.6 -12. I ' 2Z EQAC Page 16 May 28, 2004 However, without the hazardous materials analysis, this conclusion is difficult to support. As indicated above, the Project is near several areas subject to significant contamination. Such may have migrated to the site. The DER should be revised to include an analysis of such materials and pollutants, the air quality analysis should be revised to include and refer to the pollutant analysis, and if necessary, mitigation should be proposed. G. Section 5.7: Noise. Section 5.7 addresses potential noise impacts associated with the Project. As indicated in Section 3.1.1 and elsewhere, the Project is partially surrounded by residential neighborhoods. Such are sensitive noise receptors. Section 5.7.3 recognizes that the Project's heating, air conditioning and ventilation equipment may create minor amounts of noise but concludes that such noise is commonplace. However, the Project's operations will include other non - commonplace noise sources including delivery and trash trucks, employee transportation and other vehicular noise sources not present under the current configuration. The DER should be revised to include a noise study of the Project impact on residences including those along 19'h St. and West Bay, and 18'h St. and West Bay. If necessary, the revised document should propose adequate mitigation measures. In addition, the Project may attract other noise sources including Charter Boats and Boat Tour operators. Such new sources likely will generate noise sufficient to adversely affect the residential neighborhoods. The DER should analyze all such impacts including noise impacts to residential neighborhoods across the bay and propose adequate mitigation. Further, Section 5.7.3 indicates that a primary noise source is traffic and that the Project will not be affected by noise from traffic on Balboa Blvd., because the buildings will block noise from Balboa Blvd. However, given this sound barrier, the Project may generate noise from various events which noise may adversely affect neighbors across the bay. Section 5.7 contains no discussion or analysis of such noise generation and impacts. The DER should be revised to include such an analysis and, if necessary, propose mitigation. Section 5.7 shows that noise levels associated with the Project will not be significantly higher than they are now except during the construction phase. Since Municipal Noise Codes are formulated in terms of 24 -hour average noise levels, it is likely that short term noise impacts may be significant without mitigation. In view of this, we recommend that the DER include mitigation measures to ensure that construction companies and crews should be required to use all reasonable care to minimize noise generation by silencing loud equipment when feasible, avoiding early morning deliveries, controlling construction -site radios, and so forth. These considerations will minimize neighborhood disturbance and potential complaints. Construction companies should be encouraged to build subassemblies off -site when possible. B47'71 1 LI 61,01 F3'ty �J n 1. 1 The supporting noise impact analysis, Appendix G, notes that construction equipment noise will reach 90 dB when operating at full load. This will probably result in exceeding acceptable �a noise levels at the original or relocated Tot Lot(children's play area) during construction. Mitigation of this effect in the form of sound barriers around the Tot Lot should be required. 13 I I I I I I 7 I I F I I I EQAC Page ]7 May 28, 2004 H. Section 5.8: Aesthetics. Section 5.8 concerns the potential aesthetic impacts of the Project. Section 5.8.2 discusses Project impacts including those associated with public views, building heights, and setbacks. Among other things, the DEIR indicates that the Project will enhance public views. However, the DEIR is silent on the manner of enhancement. As indicated above, the DEIR maintains that the Project will create sound barrier so that vehicular noise will not reach Project visitors. Given this feature, it is unclear how the Project will enhance public views but diminish noise from Balboa Blvd. As indicated above, the DEIR contains some inconsistencies regarding set backs. The computer - generated visual simulations are helpful in illustrating the type of architecture and the overall look of the buildings. However, the simulations appear to have altered the lighting between the before and after condition. For instance, Exhibit 5.8 -2 clearly shows the architectural features of the Project in the after condition; the lighting in the before condition makes it impossible to assess what is there. In addition, there are some inconsistencies with what is being said in the text and what is being illustrated in the simulations; and in some cases, the computer simulations are misleading. In addition, there are inconsistencies within the text. The text on Page 3 -5 states that "(t)he maximum height proposed for the two -level villas is 27 feet while the proposed tower will be 34 feet in height." The text on Page 5.8 -2 states that "the hotel will have a maximum height of 24 feet. The main lobby will have a height of 34 feet." However, the computer simulation, Exhibit 5.8 -3 shows a tower that appears to be 10 feet taller than the surrounding buildings. Will the main lobby area be 10 feet taller than the other hotel buildings? Considering that the hotel lobby is almost 20,000 square feet, which is nearly 20 percent of the "Total Enclosed Floor Area," Table 3.2 -1, Page 3 -5, the height and overall scale- are not accurately represented in the computer - generated visual simulations. g'? 3 3741 F375 Also, all of the computer simulations show no overhead utility lines, though such lines exist today. Yet the DEIR contains no discussion of this Project feature. Please confirm that these utilities will be placed underground as a part of the Project In our comments on the IS/NOP, we stated the DEIR should analyze and address Project related aesthetic impacts to the character of Balboa Blvd., which will be substantially altered by the volume and mass of the structures that are proposed. The DEIR states that the setback for the proposed Project from Balboa Boulevard is 15 feet. Does this include the main lobby with a height of 34 feet? Again, this is not clear from the computer simulations. However, if that is the case, that volume and mass will have a considerable aesthetic impact on the character of Balboa Boulevard. Finally, Section 5.8.3 addresses cumulative impacts. It concludes that, because the projects listed in Table 4 -1 are remote from the Project, it would not contribute to any cumulative impacts. However, as indicated throughout, additional projects must be considered including the revitalization efforts in the Peninsula. The DEIR should be revised to consider and assess the cumulative impact of the Project together with the efforts to revitalize the area, and if necessary, propose mitigation. B77 .I4 ', EQAC , Page 18 May 28, 2004 I. Section 5.9: Public Services. 1. Section 5.9.1: Police Services. Section 5.9.1 concludes that based upon a discussion with and/or statement from a member of the City's Police Department, the Project will have no significant impact on F71 , police services. The DER fails to discuss the authorization and position of Lieutenant Klein and his authority regarding manpower and service levels. , Further, in our comments on the IS/NOP, we requested information regarding the number of I 5 10 service calls both for the Project as well as the other Project Alternatives. The DER contains no such information. 1 In addition, the City has experienced demands on police services during the summer I g� including on the Fourth of July. The Project may require additional staffing at this time as well as others. The DER should be revised to include the requested information, provide additional information concerning peak demands on police services including the Fourth of July, and, if g$ 02 necessary, provide mitigation, e.g. private security for the Project. 2. Section 5.9.2: Fire Services. Section 5.9.2 concerning fire services draws a similar conclusion as above for similar reasons: based upon a discussion with and/or statement from a member of the City's Fire 5$3 Department, the Project will have no significant impact on police services. The DER fails to discuss the authorization and position of Mr. Lerch and his authority regarding manpower and ' service levels. In addition, Section 5.9.2 observes that: "[W]ith two fire stations located within one mile of the project site, emergency g$ response time would be adequate." ' This may be misleading: we understand that the responding station may not be the closest station. Moreover, staffing at the stations differ: only one of the referenced stations has medical personnel , In addition, as indicated above, the DER does not discuss access and internal circulation. Although the DER promises that emergency access roads and resources will be provided, the DER g 85 contains no discussion for such access and resources. The DER should be revised to provide this discussion. Also, this section states that for fire suppression, "the municipal water supply should be , adequate." DEIR, 5.9 -3. This statement should be stronger. The DER should be revised to g$(� include a study of the availability of fire suppression resources to ensure that the water supply will , be adequate in the event of a fire. xs 1 I I I 1 I I L7 I I I I 1 I �1 EQAC Page 19 May 28, 2004 Both Section 5.9.1 and 5.9.2 indicate that the Project together with others will have no cumulative impacts on these services. However, as indicated above, the DEIR's cumulative impacts analyses for all impacts focuses upon Table 4 -1. The DF,IR's cumulative impacts analysis should also consider the revitalization efforts on the Peninsula to ensure that the Project together with the Table 4 -1 projects as well as the revitalization efforts do not have cumulative impacts on various resources including fire and police services. 3. Section 5.9.3: Solid Waste. Section 5.9.3 addresses solid waste issues. Section 5.9.3 estimates that, in the existing condition, the Project site generates 522.31 pounds per day of solid waste. This section estimates that the Project will generate 403.5 pounds per day. These totals come from Tables 5.9 -1 and 5.9 -2. However, the estimate of waste generation for the existing condition seems high. Table 5.9- 1 addresses the existing condition and projects that the mobile home park generates 481.6 pounds per day. Although this estimate is based upon State of California estimates that a household generates between 4 and 8.6 pounds per day. Table 5.9 -1 uses 8.6 pounds per day. This is problematic for several reasons. The DEIR fails to explain why the existing condition uses the maximum expected trash generation. Further, the DEIR fails to consider that many residents in the existing condition are only part time residents. Both of these would significantly lessen the estimate of the existing condition. Also, the projection for the Project seems low and fails to consider the type of solid waste generated by the Project. Much of the waste generated by the Project would include wet kitchen trash which would require more frequent collection. Also, we are unaware of any similar resort or hotel within the City that would generate such a small amount of solid waste. Section 5.9.3's cumulative impact analysis is likewise inadequate. The section contains no cumulative impact analysis: it merely concludes that the amount of waste would be an incremental contribution and would not be significant. The DEIR should be revised to study the solid waste generation both for the existing condition and the Project condition, and if necessary, propose mitigation. 4. Section 5.9.4: Water Service. Section 5.9.4 addresses water supply and service. Further, this section indicates that the Project will require relocation of the existing water main to a different alignment on the site. It concludes that this relocation will have no impacts. However, without more explanation, this is questionable. Residents, schools and other businesses in the area will suffer during the construction and relocation process. The DEIR fails to recognize this impact and provide mitigation for these short term impacts. .•. IM A6 EQAC ' Page20 May 28, 2004 5. Section 5.9.5: Wastewater Service. Section 5.9.5 addresses waste water issues. Under existing conditions, the site generates a total of 7,093 gallons per day; the Project is proposed to generate more than three times this much: 22,553 gallons per day without any increased capacity to handle the increase flows. p Moreover, the cumulative impacts analysis concludes that the Project together with future B9 development will not create significant impacts. However, given that the Project will significantly , increase demands on an aging infi'astructure and the cumulative effect of the revitalization efforts on the Peninsula, the DEIR should include a study to insure that capacity and infrastructure are adequate and that the Project will have no significant wastewater impacts. ' 6. Section 5.9.6: Gas: and Section 5.9.7: Electricity. Both sections conclude that the Project will have no impact on these services. Both sections recognize that the Project will require twice as much gas and electricity as the existing condition. Moreover, both sections indicate that, even with this doubling together with , future development including the revitalization of the Peninsula, the Project will not have cumulative impacts. The DER should be revised to include an analysis of the adequacy of resource supply as ' well as consider alternative sources, e.g. solar to replace electric consumption. If necessary, the DER should propose adequate mitigation. VII. Section 6: Other CEOA Considerations. Section 6.1 addresses significant and unavoidable impacts. It concludes that the Project will a have no such impacts. As indicated above, Section 5.3 indicates that, even after mitigation, "only one significant unavoidable impact would remain" on bentbic resources in or around the Project g C1 Z site. DEK 5.3 -13. The DEIR should be revised or explained so that this problem is resolved, and , the public and decision makers may understand the Project's impacts as well as the need for any additional findings. Section 6.2 concerns growth inducing impacts. As indicated above, the Project is part of a ' revitalization effort for the Peninsula. As such, the Project may have growth inducing impacts. As P>9 elsewhere in the DEIR, Section 6.2 fails to consider the Project in relation to these revitalization efforts. The DEIR should be revised to consider the Project's growth inducing impacts when considered with these revitalization efforts, and if necessary, propose mitigation. VIII. Section 7: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. A. Section 7.1: The No Proiect Alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, the existing state is the project alternative. Section 7.1.2 states that the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it maintains the site in its existing condition. Nonetheless, because the No Project EQAC Page 21 May 28, 2004 Alternative will not meet any Project Objectives, the DER concludes that the No Project Alternative is not feasible. However, Section 7.1 is inadequate. First, the DEIR's analysis of the existing site is inadequate. The DER fails to discuss and explain all of the environmental impacts associated with the current use and the existing condition including hazardous materials, water quality, land use, and other issues of the existing condition of the site. As to the Project Objectives, as indicated above, some of the Project Objectives are problematic: the advancement of economic goals do not seem to be appropriate environmental goals. Further, and more importantly, the DEIR fails to discuss exactly how the Project meets or advances these economic goals. 11. Section 7.2: The Marinavark Marine Recreation Alternative. Section 7.2.1 discusses the Marine Alternative which includes parkland, land for the Girl Scout Center /Community Center, tennis and basketball courts, over 248 parking spaces, boat moorings and a boat launch. Section 7.2.2 is the impacts analysis for the Marine Alternative. This section concludes that the Marine Alternative would result in: less impacts than the Project to geology and soils, aesthetics and public services; similar impacts as the Project for land use and planning; and greater impacts than the Project for hydrology and water quality, biological resources, transportation/circulation, air quality and noise. Many of these latter stem from the analysis' estimate that the Marine Alternative g� would generate more traffic. ' However, this estimate is without substantiation or analysis. Indeed, it seems unlikely that this alternative will generate significantly more traffic. The DER should be revised to provide a full and complete traffic analysis of the Marine Alternative including variants and discuss the impacts in relation to the Project. If the Marine Alternative generates less traffic, then other impacts including air quality, noise, traffic and other related issues would be lower. If so, then the Marine Alternative could be the environmentally superior Alternative. ' However, this conclusion is based upon specific features of the Marine Alternative which could be modified to eliminate such impacts. For instance, Section 7.2.2 notes that the Marine ' Alternative will have greater water quality impacts, because it would include greater parking areas g and impervious surfaces. As discussed above, the DER fails to discuss the amount of pervious surfaces for the Project. Moreover, the Marine Alternative could use alternative paving methods for the parking spaces including pervious pavers. Such would lessen any water quality impacts for the Marine Alternative. ' Or again, this section indicates that the Marine Alternative will have greater impacts on biological resources, because it would include "larger boat slips and boat launch" than the Project T39 Again, these features can be changed. Section 7.2.2 recognizes that the Marine Alternative's impacts on biological resources could be mitigated. 1 16 EQAC , Page 22 May 28, 2004 As for land use, the DER states that both the Project and the Marine Alternative are I Rqq "compatible with surrounding land uses consistent with the General Plan." DEIR, 7-4. However, , the analysis fails to discuss whether the Marine Alternative will require a General Plan Amendment. The DER should be revised to provide more detail and analysis for the Marine Alternative, and reconsider and discuss the evaluation of its environmental rank and its feasibility. , C. Section 73: The Reduced Intensity Alternative. ' Section 7.3 addresses the Reduced Intensity Alternative which would include an 88 room hotel, a 4,500 square foot restaurant and 12 boat slips. Section 7.3.3 concludes that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in greater environmental impacts than the Project. , Among other things, Section 7.3.2 concludes that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would have greater transportation and circulation impacts, because it would result in 869 average daily trips as opposed to the Project's 640 average daily trips. However, many of those trips are associated with B }� the large restaurant. A different project feature, e.g. a smaller restaurant and/or parkland, would reduce such trips, perhaps below the Project level. As before, the Reduced Intensity Alternative fixes on features that may create significant impacts whereas other possible features with fewer impacts are not analyzed. The DER should be revised to consider other features for the Reduced Intensity Alternative, and reconsider and discuss the evaluation of its environmental rank IX. Miscellaneous Considerations. We note that the Project in the IS/NOP is entitled the Newport Regent Beach Hotel. The Project for the DER is entitled the Marinapark Resort Hotel and Community Plan. The DER should explain the change 8nd the proposed Community PIan X. Conclusion. , Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned document. For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the DER be revised to address the issues raised above. , 1 I I � Marinwpark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the &VftEM Responses To comment B. City of Newport Beach, Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC), Marinapark Subcommittee Bl. Please see response to comment 135 for a reference to the project site inclusion on a hazardous waste database. For clarification, only a portion of the project site is located within one - quarter mile of Newport Elementary School. There is no contradiction between checklist items VII(b) and VII(c). For checklist item (b), the proposed project would not routinely handle hazardous materials. In addition, no manufacturing or assembly processes are proposed. Therefore, this question must be addressed from the short-term construction point of view rather than from the long -term operational point of view. The discussion identifies the potential for a release from construction equipment, but concludes that, with the required safety procedures, the potential for such an impact is well below the level of significance. Conversely, checklist question VII(c) is from a different point of view. The qualifying criteria for this question is the proximity to a school (one- quarter mile) and whether the materials proposed for handling are acutely hazardous materials. Acutely hazardous materials are typically used in a manufacturing process in large quantities rather than household cleaning agents generally referred to as household hazardous waste. The proposed project would be expected to use cleaning agents (household hazardous waste) in the cleaning and maintenance of the facility. However, the use of such agents would not pose a potentially significant impact on Newport Elementary School. Demolition and construction of structures during the short-term construction phase has a greater potential for emitting acutely hazardous materials within one - quarter mile of the school. For this reason, a mitigation measure was developed and included in Section 1.6 of the DEIR under the hazards sub- section. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. 132. It is correct that the Initial Study prepared for the project stated there is a very small risk present from gasoline or diesel tank rupture during construction activities. In light of the small quantities of fuel in construction equipment and extremely low probability of any release, the presence of construction equipment fuel would result in a less than significant impact. 133. The comment regarding the elementary school is noted. The types of hazardous materials that would be present during short-term construction activities and long- term operation of the project are discussed on pages 1-4 and 1 -5 of the Draft EIR. The quantity of these materials is qualitatively discussed, and due to the potential presence of lead and/or asbestos in the existing onsite structures which are planned to be demolished, a mitigation measure is recommended to reduce the potential of an airborne health hazard during demolition activities. With the implementation of the mitigation measure on page 1-4 in the Draft EIR, the potential for hazardous materials impact to the adjacent residences (i.e., approximately 40 feet west of the project site) as well as Newport Elementary School which is approximately 800 feet southeast of the project site would be less than significant. To further reduce this potential effect, a mitigation measure to include an inventory of all hazardous materials onsite during construction and operational activities is proposed. The following is added after the first paragraph on page 1 -5 in the Draft EIR. Add: 'To further reduce the less than significant impact related to hazardous materials, the following mitigation measure is recommended. Mfchaef Brandman Associates ' HA CUM( PN ..IN)10064kOW4ER20\0064ER?A_tTC 7.1 final.d. 30 Ma dnapartr Resort and Community Plan - - i Response to Comments on the Drat EIR Responses To Comments • During construction activities and operation of the proposed project, an inventory of material identified as inherently hazardous or hazardous that is stored or handled onsite as well as the quantity ' will be provided to the City." B4. The Initial Study identified the potential release of tonic substances due to the , potential presence of lead and/or asbestos in the onsite buildings. Page 14 in the Draft EIR further discusses this tonic substance issue and a mitigation measure is provided. , B5. The comment regarding regulatory databases is noted. Section 1.6 of the DEIR identifies and summarizes the environmental issues found not to be significant as a result of the Initial Study. This section includes a discussion of hazards and hazardous materials and identifies a mitigation measure related to lead and asbestos. A regulatory database review of hazardous materials was conducted in December 2003; however, due to negative findings in the project area, the review was not included in the Draft EIR appendices. Due to the request of the database review, it is hereby incorporated into the Draft EIR as Appendix H and attached to this Response to Comments Document in Attachment 1. The following two paragraphs are hereby added to the end of the Hazards and Hazardous Materials discussion on page 1 -5 of the Draft EIR: Add: "A regulatory database review was completed for the proposed project by ' Environmental Data Resources (EDR), Inc. in December 2003 (see Appendix H). This report included a review of various databases that conformed to the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site , Assessments. The following was included in the search parameters: Federal ASTM Standard (8 databases); State ASTM Standard (11 databases); Federal ASTM Supplemental (16 databases); State or Local ' ASTM Supplemental (10 databases); Brownfields (2 databases); and an EDR proprietary historical database for former coal gas sites. The results of the database search in the EDR study identified 56 sites within a 1 specified distance from the project site. Of these, 3 sites are located within one - quarter mile of the project site. The project site was not identified on any of the databases. The three sites are a shipyard (226 21 s` Street), a former gas station (1500 W. Balboa Boulevard.), and a former coal gas manufacturing site (northeast of 18'" Street and W. Balboa Boulevard). , i The shipyard is identified on the Resource Conservation and Recovery System database as a Small Quantity Generator; no open cases are associated with this site. The gas station is identified on the Leaking , Underground Storage Tank database regarding a prior release; remediation has since been completed and the case is closed. The coal gas site, associated with the historical Southern Counties Gas Company, apparently ceased in 1929; no additional information is available on this site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts related to these three sites, representing the closest sites to the ' project site as identified on the various databases. Moreover, implementation of the proposed project in association with these three Michas! Brandman Associates H:VCbcnt(M- M\0064`0WER20k0 WERW—RTC 7 -1 final.d« 3� � Madnapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments sites would not have an impact on Newport Elementary School. First, two of the three sites, the coal gas site and the shipyard, are located farther than one - quarter mile from the school. Second, the gas station, located within one - quarter of the school, has completed the remediation efforts." B6. The analysis in the IS/NOP was preliminary and provided a basis of which issues to further discuss and analyze in the EIR. The IS/NOP identified hazardous materials as a potentially significant impact. Therefore, the hazardous materials issue was further reviewed and analyzed, and it was determined that a mitigation measure could be provided to reduce the potential significant hazardous materials impact to less than significant. B7. The comment regarding the elementary school is noted and please see response to comment B5 for a discussion of Newport Elementary School. Refer to Response B41 for a discussion of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. No further response is required. B8. Please see response to comment B41 for a discussion of the findings in the two Limited Phase II site assessments. The findings in both assessments determined that hazardous substances were detected; however, at levels that are considered less than significant. B9. Please see response B5 regarding the regulatory database review. Furthermore, refer to Response B41 regarding the action levels for each contaminant detected in the onsite sediment samples. As described in response to comment B41, there were two separate Limited Phase II Soils Assessments. Both of these assessments were referenced in Section 10 in the Draft EIR and are available for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. B 10. The comment regarding the Limited Phase II site assessment is noted. The proposed project does not include the removal of any docks or structures within the water. The mouth of the Rhine Channel is approximately one tenth of a mile from the project site. Section 5.2.1 of the DEIR discusses bayside water quality and makes a brief reference to water quality conditions in the Rhine Channel as determined by a study prepared by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. A review of this study, prepared in May of 2003, indicated that the majority of the pollutants studied were observed in lower concentrations near the mouth of the Rhine Channel, with higher concentrations observed in the middle and upper portions of the Channel. In addition, the study found that an association between sediment contamination and toxicity cannot be established. The results of the Limited Phase II Soils Assessment are plausible. Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.3 of the DEIR analyzed potential impacts related to waterside features of the project. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. BI L Refer to Responses B5 and E9 regarding a gas station previously located at 1500 W. Balboa Boulevard which is near the project site. B12. One potential significant hazardous materials impact and a mitigation measure were discussed on page 1-5 in the Draft EIR. This potential impact (i.e., the presence of lead and/or asbestos in the onsite structures) would not relate to marine biological resources since the recommended mitigation measure would remove any lead and/or Michael Brandman Associates ' H.\Cki t(PN -H4)X0 6 WWER201W67F.A20 —RTC 7 -I fi=l.&c �� McAnapark Resort and Community Plan — Response to Comments on the Dreg EIR Responses To Comments asbestos from the existing structures on land prior to demolition. Furthermore, marine sediment excavation activities associated with the proposed boat slips would not suspend significant concentrations of hazardous materials according to the Limited Phase II Soils Assessments. Please see response to comment B41 for a discussion of the findings in these two assessments. B13. Recreational opportunities will be diminished during construction of the project. This is not a significant impact because it will be short term, and because the recreational facilities on the project site are not the only ones available to residents of and visitors to the Balboa Peninsula. There are tot lots with play equipment at West Newport Park, Channel Place Park, Newport Island Park, 38th Street Park and Peninsula Park. In addition, there are 4 tennis courts at West Newport Park, at 56th Street and Seashore Drive, but they do not have lights. CEQA guidelines (Appendix G) require assessment of impacts to recreation to the extent that project implementation would result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facilities "... such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated." Loss of access to four tennis courts during the estimated 12 -month project construction term would result in additional demand at the City's other tennis courts; however, the relatively short duration of this period of additional demand will not result in substantial deterioration or acceleration of deterioration of those facilities. Rather, users of tennis courts may experience inconvenience in traveling to other courts and longer waiting times for court access. Permanent loss of the one -half basketball court will result in additional demand for use of the City's other 7 full-court and 8 half -court facilities. Other than the City's summer day camp program, the half -court is typically used for informal "pick -up" games. No data on man -hours of usage are available, but the informal nature of the court use suggests that the demand for court time at this facility will shift to the remaining 15 City basketball facilities without a quantifiable increase in the average hours of court use per day per facility. Accordingly, loss of this facility will result in a reduction in the total hours of court availability City-wide and possibly longer wait times for court time. The additional use of the 15 remaining courts, however, will be minimal and not result in substantial deterioration of those facilities. The impacts on the physical environment resulting from construction of replacement recreation facilities on the project site are included in the analysis of construction - related impacts including those on air quality, water quality, and traffic. Details relating to physical access to courts and physical design features of the courts will be determined at the project review stage that will follow the November election if the General Plan Amendment required for this project receives voter approval. In any event, the location of physical access points and features such as court surfacing do not have the potential to result in impacts to the physical environment. B14. The only recreational facility that would be lost permanently is the basketball half - court. Its loss alone, when all other facilities will be replaced, is not considered significant. As a half court, this facility is not used for organized games or City- sponsored programs other than summer day camp. The City does not have any information that indicates this half -court is more popular than full court facilities in the area. Michael Smndmm Associates HACRem ( PN- JI)W064WD64ER2o`O064HR20_RTC 7 -1 fimldoc 33 Marinapark Reamt and Community Plan - Response to Comments on th Draft EIR Rasponaea To Comments ' B15. The park facilities are already available to and used by visitors staying in existing hotels and vacation rentals, as well as residents. Use of these facilities by guests of the proposed hotel would be no different, and hotel guests will have no priority over other users. The guests of the hotel will add new users of the park facilities; however, the removal of the mobile home park will also result in a decrease in users of the park facilities. B16. The Draft EIR includes a No Project/No Development alternative, as required by CEQA. This alternative would retain the existing recreation facilities. The Draft EIR also includes a Marine Recreation alternative. This alternative includes retention/replacement of all the existing recreational facilities; and adds a full basketball court, 1.64 acres of parkland, a boat launch area and 20 boat slips, and off- ' street parking to serve these facilities. This alternative would implement the Recreation and Open Space Element. Both of these alternatives are analyzed in Section 7 of the Draft EIR. Recreation is an area in which the project was found not ' to have significant impacts. As discussed in the Notice of Preparation and on pages 1 -5 and 1 -6 of the Draft EIR, all facilities other than the basketball half -court will be replaced, the project will not result in a resident population increase that would increase the use and deterioration of existing recreational facilities, and the project does not include the expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical impact on the environment. Please see responses to comments B 13, B 14, and B 15 regarding impacts of the project on recreational opportunities. B 17. The comment is correct that the change of land use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Recreation and Marine Commercial is an area of controversy. Please see response to comment K 4 regarding the DEIR's discussion of the need for a General Plan amendment. According to the State Lands Commission and the City of Newport Beach, the ' tideland boundary has not been fixed. The attached exhibit (Exhibit C) illustrates a general schematic of the location of the tideland boundary as suggested by Boundaries Unlimited and as contended by State Lands Commission staff. As shown in Exhibit A all of the mobile home units and small portions of the existing tennis courts and outdoor area of the Girl Scout House are included within the tideland boundary shown on Exhibit C. Areas generally within the tideland boundary are subject to use restrictions established by the statutory and decisional law as well as ' provisions of individual tidelands grants. The Project uses are consistent with the trust restrictions but residential uses such as the existing mobile homes are not. ' Tidelands boundaries are established by legislation, litigation or agreement. The location of the line of mean high tide with respect to any parcel is not something that can be resolved in an EIR and so long as the Project is consistent with the use of tidelands, the location of the tidelands boundary does not have environmental impacts. B 18. The timing identified in each mitigation measure in Table 2 -1 in the Draft EIR is ' provided to indicate when the mitigation measure needs to be implemented. According to Section 15126.4(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions. As a result, the timing identified in each mitigation measure is to provide an enforceable measure. Michael Brandman Associates ' H:VCliem (PN- M\0064XO064ER20W"ER20_RTC 7 -I rwel.d. "] Q' 4 o N Zin = o W yl W 0 O E r E � b Wool U ¢ a G c CL I < Sppp ♦♦ pp LL tl q ~ IG O W m m 2 •� G� � N CI Q m yyj 4rtl J m N s O ° E 93 E ?` Jr ° m V K N r O 6 .2 2 O O v r m e T . N W N a V y W N O r 1 1 I 1 iyyyis 1 I , I I 1 1 1 I I 1 i I 1 1 1 1 i Jop 7 d�1U y1D/ i 1 1 1�¢ 1� I'm a Word Lip I I �JI 7 y 0E:j I I o� I till, /,,I 0� 1 r oC, • 1 I 1 iyeais l �E- -j it 1 �J � °' ' b� �1 Nts/ / .yI I Q 0 m V Q m 1 i M LZ �S W V 0 Ic d Madnapark Resort and Community Men - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments ' There are various plans identified to reduce potential significant impacts. Specific measures are identified in Section 5 of the Draft EIR to accomplish the reduction of ' these impacts to less than significant. However, the specific preparation of the plans are identified as various times of the development process such as prior to issuance of grading permits. Since specific measures have been identified for these plans, the provision of the timing for the preparation of these plans is not deferral of mitigation. B19. Please see response to comment B 17 regarding the tidelands issue. The Draft EIR assesses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project in Section 5. B20. In response to comments received during the environmental review process, an additional mitigation measure has been formulated to further reduce adverse impacts ' of the initially proposed twelve new boat slips. The environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR included those associated with bulkhead and groin wall placement, dredging, fill placement on the sandy beach, and extension of the slips beyond the pierhead line. The revised design required by the mitigation measure described below (Mitigation Measure LU -1) eliminates the twelve boat slips and replaces them with a 260 -foot long "marginal" dock. (See Exhibits A and B). This will reduce the ' amount of dredge material from 1,750 cubic yards to a maximum of 500 cubic yards. The project proponent has agreed to implement this mitigation measure. Section 5.5.5 on page 5.4-20 in the Draft EIR is revised to read as follows: Delete: "No mitigation measures are required." ' Add: "As an alternative to obtaining a U.S. Army Corps of Engineering permit to allow the proposed boat dock to extend beyond the U.S. Pierhead Line, the following mitigation measure is recommended. LU -1 Prior to the approval of a planned community development plan, the project applicant will modify the proposed boat dock so that no permanent structure extends beyond the U.S. Pierhead Line. The proposed features are illustrated in Exhibits A and B. The floating dock is comprised of an 8 -foot by 260 -foot platform anchored inside the pierhead line by eight (8) fourteen -inch pre- stressed guidepiles embedded in the bay bottom. The floating dock is anticipated to accommodate up to six (6) 30 -foot boats, or a lesser number of shorter watercraft. An 80 -foot pivoting, American with Disabilities Act - compliant gangway provides pedestrian access to the floating dock from a stationary 10'by 14' platform anchored through intertidal sands on four (4) pre - stressed concrete guidepiles. The platform is connected by stationary walkway supported on four (4) pre - stressed concrete guidepiles and extending from the upland side of the sandy beach at elevation approximately 9 feet." B21. As shown on Exhibit 3 -3 in Section 3.1.2 in the Draft EIR, the American Legion boat slips are located southeast of the proposed boat slips. The boat entrance to the American Legion boat slips is approximately 260 feet east of the proposed boat dock. Please see response to comment B20 regarding a modification to the proposed boat dock. Michael Brendman Associates ' W CHenc (PN- JN)W64\OM4F.R20)OWFR?O_RTC 7 -1 finel.dx 35- 0 \ V[L======J 0 � [ � \ \\ / \ \�\ C I z < | |\ s Ile 0 Q cl Ile OZ 77 z z t2 \ \\ L'^ z z Q x Z U' W W X U O tie .`.i a av z a i O Z c< V qW M 2 9[ e.. O U qO d K W 0. y u A 6 i 0 = W � O v tl � LL O c q 1 6� uT c tIl e � a Madnapark Resort and Community Plan - Reapomw to Comments on th Draft EIR Responses To Comments ' B22. An assessment of the sediment that will be removed for the proposed boat slips was conducted as part of the Limited Phase II Soil Assessment prepared on April 9, 2004. No significant hazardous materials impacts were identified, therefore, no mitigation measures were required. Refer to Response B-41 for the findings of this assessment. B23. The location of the tidelands boundary is a geopolitical demarcation that may be determined only by State Legislation or litigation; it is not an action the City may take unilaterally. The ultimate determination as to the location of the tidelands ' boundary is of no consequence in terms of the physical environment. The State Lands Commission has advised the City that, since it is likely that 70°% of the site is tidelands, they will accept a land use plan that shows at least 70 °% of the site in restricted land uses. B23. Please see response to comment B 17 regarding the general location of the tidelands boundary. The proposed excavation associated with the proposed dock as described ' in response to comment B20 would be within the tidelands area. Water quality and biological resources mitigation measures are provided to reduce impacts associated with excavation/dredging of the bayfloor. ' B24. Please see responses to comments B 13 and B55 regarding public access to the tennis courts. The beach will remain public with access as described in Draft EIR Section 3.1.2, page 3 -8, "Site Access ", and Draft EIR Section 5.4.3, pages 5.4-7, 5.4 -9, 5.4 -12, and 5.4 -14. Exhibit 3 -3 shows the relationship of the Girl Scout House and Community Center relative to Balboa Boulevard and the parking lot adjacent to Balboa and 18th Street. The Girl Scout House and Community Center will be separated from the Balboa Boulevard right -of -way by a wrought iron fence and plaster pilasters with the remaining three sides of the site enclosed by block wall. Actual locations of access points through the wrought iron fence and through the block walls will be determined at the project review stage that will follow the November election if the project ' receives voter approval. In any event, locations of pedestrian access points to the facilities do not have the potential to result in impacts to the physical environment. 1 B25. The term "Community Plan" is the project proponent's terminology for project facilities for the use and benefit of residents and the larger community of coastal visitors, e.g. the Girl Scout House, the tot lot, the Community Center, and the tennis courts. B26. Exhibit 3 -3 shows the building footprint for the two -story Girl Scout House and Community Center as 4,166 square feet. Exhibit 3 -3 will be revised to show the total floor area of 6,191 square feet for the two -story structure. The Spa Villa is proposed to be 6,191 square feet. ' The Site Plan, Exhibit 3 -3, and the visual simulation in Exhibit 5.8 -3 both show a parking lot on the project site near the comer of Balboa Blvd. and 18th Street. Foreshortening of the middle ground (the parking lot) in the visual simulation ' perspective representation obscures the fact that the two -story villas are located more than 160 feet from the front (Balboa Blvd.) property line. B27. The project luxury resort hotel concept for this site was first presented to the City in ' 2000 in response to a Request for Proposals sent by the City of Newport Beach to Mlclmel Brandman Associates ' HA Client (PN- M\0064V0064EPJV0064ER7A_RTC 7 -1 final.dw Marinepark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on dre Draft EIR To Comments potential developers of the Marinapark site. Marinapark Resort (formerly Regent Newport) was selected by the City Council from among the proposals submitted because the project offered potential benefits to the City that the others did not including generation of significant revenues to the City's General Fund. Accordingly, the potential benefits of the Marinapark Resort project that were the basis for its selection for the project site have merely been restated as the project objectives. The proposed project would meet the objectives noted in the DEIR as follows. The City has spent approximately $7,000,000 on public improvements in Balboa Village. These public investments have been made, in part, to stimulate private investment, especially in the commercial areas that have deteriorated over time. The City is beginning to see the results of this investment, as the Balboa Pavilion has renovated and upgraded its restaurant tenant. The proposed hotel at Marioapark would add to the quality of development on the Peninsula, upgrade community facilities, and bring additional visitors to support businesses on the Peninsula. • Residential use is not permitted on tidelands. The proposed hotel is a visitor serving use, which is permitted. Although lease negotiations are not complete, the hotel is expected to generate approximately $1,100,000 in lease income and approximately $1,000,000 in Transient Occupancy Tax revenue. The hotel would generate increased property tax based on the value of possesory interest and the improvements. Lease revenue from the current users (mobile home park, Power Squadron, and Girl Scouts) is approximately $701,935. • The proposed project includes twice as many beach access points as the existing development. The project proponent has committed to building a new Girl Scout House and Community Center, four tennis courts and tot lot. All of these improvements will be made without any expenditure of tax revenue. • Noise, glare and traffic impacts are analyzed in Sections 5.7, 5.8, and 55, respectively, of the Draft EIR. In each case, no significant environmental impacts have been identified. • The proposed dock feature of the project provides an additional marine - related facility. B28. This comment regarding discretionary approvals is noted. The last sentence in the second paragraph under Section 3.4 on page 3 -9 is revised to read as follows: Delete: "Other actions necessary to implement the project are identified later in the section under "Other Discretionary and Ministerial Actions ". Add: "Other actions necessary to implement the project are identified under Responsible Agencies and Other Agencies. The citizens of the City of Newport Beach will vote during a General Election to determine approval of the proposed General Plan amendment. Furthermore, the proposed Michael Brandman Associates H:YCh m (PN- ]N)`M0 \0064P.R20` 64ER20 -RTC 7 -1 fimUm 37 1 J� 1 1 I F 1 1 I ' Mannapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments ' factional ownership interests in up to 12 of the resort hotel units may require a future legislative action to satisfy the intent of Land Use Policy G, Land Use Conversions." All the discretionary actions required for approval of the proposed project are listed in Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR. B29. The Draft EIR was prepared to identify potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, and to identify potential mitigation measures and ' alternatives to the proposed project that would lessen or eliminate potential impacts. The list of discretionary approvals necessary to implement the project after certification of the Final EIR is included in the EIR because such discretionary ' approvals provide opportunities for implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR and identification of appropriate actions at each discretionary approval to ensure that the project complies with applicable state and local statutes, codes, and policies. Submittal by the City Council to the local electorate of the proposed General Plan Amendment necessary to accommodate the project will allow the voters of the City of Newport Beach to approve or disapprove the project. By completing the EIR prior to placing the matter on the ballot, the City Council will ensure that the voters are fully informed about the environmental aspects of the proposed project when they make their decision. The power of the voters is limited, however, to a simple approval or disapproval of the legislative actions related to the project; the voters cannot, by popular vote, revise, condition, or add mitigation measures to the project. ' After the election, however, if the voters approve the project, subsequent discretionary approval procedures by the City, including those related to granting of a t use permit and approval of grading plans, will allow for the imposition of additional conditions of approval, minor project revisions, and inclusion of additional mitigation measures if needed, consistent with the voters' approval. ' B30. Please see response to comment B 17 regarding the tidelands issue. B31. The leasehold, terms, and lessor of the Marinapark mobile home park per se are not ' project characteristics that give rise to potential adverse impacts to the physical environment. Potential physical impacts relative to removal of the mobile home park are addressed where appropriate throughout the Draft EIR. B32. "Efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the peninsula" include investment of public funds to improve the quality of the ambient ' and pedestrian environments in the area. These efforts have not and will not include any development or redevelopment of uses that could contribute to various cumulative impacts requiring analysis in the Draft EIR. B33. Plans to develop livetwork projects in and around the project vicinity are purely speculative at this time. No applications or pending applications for projects that would include development or redevelopment of uses that could contribute to various ' cumulative impacts requiring analysis in the Draft EIR have been identified. B34. The comment regarding geology and soils is noted. The second paragraph on page ' 5.1 -3 in the Draft EIR is revised as follows. Michael Brandman Associates ' Hx Item (PN- 1N)XL06410064ER20V0064ER20- -RTC 7 -1 final.dw Madnapark Resort and Community Plan - Aesoonae to Comments on the Drat( EIR To Comments Delete: "Per the geotechnical investigation, groundwater was encountered at approximately 8 feet under the project site, and the project site is located within a special study zone for liquefaction. Testing and analysis of project site soils indicated that the potential for liquefaction during a major seismic event is considered to be high." Add: "Per the geotechnical investigation, groundwater was encountered at between 6.5 feet and 8.5 feet below ground surface, depending on the boring location. The soils encountered in the sub - surface exploration are generally classified as sand, with some silt encountered in the top two feet. Grain size of the sand varies from fine to coarse grained." The geotechnical study concluded that there are no expansive soils on the project site because the onsite soils do not have expansive characteristics. Expansive soils generally have a high clay content and have the characteristics of contracting when dry and expanding when wet, thereby potentially effecting structures that may be located on them. Liquefaction is the loss of cohesiveness of the soil material during a seismic event that may cause the soil to loose its ability to fully support structures. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B35. The depth to groundwater is 6.5 feet to 8.5 feet depending on the location on the project site. The two mitigation measures were provided in the geotechnical investigation report were recommended with the understanding of the groundwater level. Utilities, detention basins and the parking structure under the tennis courts will be below ground while the remaining structures will be above ground. The proposed mitigation measures will reduce the potential for liquefaction impacts. To implement, these measures there is a potential need to conduct dewatering; however, if dewatering occurs, the applicant would need to follow Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements similar to all dewatering activities in California. The specific type of slab construction employed in the slab design is not required at this time. The geotechnical investigation report provides two options that could reduce liquefaction impacts to less than significant. The selection of the option does not need to occur at this time because either option reduces the effect to less than significant. B36. Section 5.2.1 of the Draft EIR discusses and describes the existing drainage conditions on the project site and in the immediate vicinity. A thorough description of the existing drainage and flooding conditions, regulatory setting, and water quality is presented. Section 5.2.3 of the Draft EIR presents a complete and thorough description of the proposed drainage and an analysis of the potential impacts that would result from that drainage. All of the stormwater runoff generated onsite will be conveyed off -site. Rainwater and water from irrigation systems will either be conveyed to the onsite drainage system or percolate into the impervious landscaped areas. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. Michael Brandman Associates H:`Ch.M (PNJI )\9D64 64ER20`a MER20 RTC 7 -1 Cweld �J Q J I 1 Madnapsrk Resort and Community Plan - Raeponse to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments B37. The mitigation measures proposed in Section 5.2.5 in the Draft EIR would reduce water quality and surface water drainagethydrology impacts to less than significant. ' No additional mitigation measures are required. B38. The proposed project was considered in combination with the related projects identified in Table 4-1 of the Draft EIR. The City currently has revitalization efforts on the Peninsula; however, these efforts include landscape improvements and pavement upgrades, which do not create more stormwater runoff to the drainage system. Please see response to comment B39 for a discussion of the project's effect on the existing storm drain, and the applicant's proposed mitigation measure to reduce this ' potential effect to less than significant. The proposed onsite detention facilities adequately reduce the project's effect on the existing storm system. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result ' from project implementation. B39. The proposed inclusion of detention basins on the project site reduces the project's contribution to the existing drainage system so that the future peak flow concentration is not greater than the existing peak flow concentrations exiting the project site. Since there would be no increase in peak flow concentrations, the project would not cumulatively add to existing flows. As a result, no additional mitigation measures are required for the proposed project. When a project results in an increase in stormwater flows to existing deficient stormwater systems, there are two alternatives available to successfully address drainage - related impacts. The first is to improve deficient sections of each storm drain backbone system located downstream of the proposed development to ' adequately convey the design storm for the developed project condition. The second altematiye is to provide onsite stormwater detention that would retain the stormwater runoff onsite during the peak concentrations so that stormwater exiting the site would ' be at or below the existing pre- project conditions. The project proponent has chosen the latter, to provide on -site stormwater detention through the installation of two stormwater detention basins. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B40. The comment regarding mitigation measures is noted. The project does not propose to defer mitigation measures. Rather, Section 5.2.5 of the Draft EIR identifies ' specific mitigation measures that, if implemented, would reduce potential impacts below the level of significance. Timing the implementation of these recommended mitigation measures to the issuance of a grading or other similar permit is consistent with Section 14.36.040 of the City Municipal Code. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. ' B41. As stated in Section 5.3.1 in the Draft EIR, a Limited Phase II Soils Assessment was conducted. Two separate soil boring samples were obtained and discussed in ' separate documents which are referenced in Section 10 in the Draft EIR and available for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. These documents are Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Summary Letter prepared on February 17, 2004 and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment prepared on ' April 9, 2004. Michael Brandman Associates ' HA CGem( PN- MkOO64kOO64ER20\0OO4ER?A_RTC 7- 15nal.dm 0 Mednaperk Resort and Community Plan - ' Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments The first sample was discussed in a report dated February 17, 2004 and included two , soil borings using hand tools in the northern portion of the project site and four -feet ' below ground surface from the borings. The two soil borings were located near the low tide line. Based on laboratory review of these samples, no detectable ' concentrations of semi - volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), organo- chloride pesticides (OCPs), or polychlorinated biphenyl's (PCBs) were detected. Total ' Petroleum Hydrolcarbons (TPH) were detected at 10 milligrams per kilogram ' ( mg/kg). This concentration level is not significant because typically 100 mg/kg are ' allowable by the Regional Boards on land if depth to groundwater is greater than 20 feet. There are no regulations for TPH for sea sediment. A industry working group 1 called The Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group (TPHCWG) ' proposed a risk based screening cleanup level of 29,000 mg/kg for C 12 through C35 hydrocarbons. The samples are well below this screening clean -up level. ' The second sample was discussed in a report dated April 9, 2004 and included three borings by drilling at a depth of 0.5, 2.5, and 5 feet below the mud line in the area of the proposed excavation for the boat dock. Thus, the analysis was conducted of mud ' 5 feet deep, and not limited to the first half -foot of bay mud, as asserted by the comment. Based on laboratory review of the samples, trace amounts of TPH were detected in the 0.5 foot samples in all three borings and in the 2.5 sample at Boring ' BP -2. The detected concentrations were less than 40 milligrams per kilogram which are below the action level stated above. A single sample contained a very low concentration of OCP (13 micrograms per kilogram); however, this concentration is well below (1) EPA preliminary remediation goals for residential soils which is 1,700 ' ug/kg, and (2) Regional Water Quality Control Board -Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs) for DDT 2.92 x 106 ug/kg per year for the Rhine Channel. No other evidence of TPH, OCP, SVOC and PCB were detected in the three borings. Thus, ' the Draft EIR and incorporated technical studies provide evidence and analysis supporting the conclusion that there are no significant impacts of the proposed project related to hazardous substances in the bay mud. ' In addition, a new mitigation measure (LU -1 as described in response to comment B20) has been added to mitigate the impacts of the initially proposed dock and related structures; this mitigation measure will reduce the amount of excavation for , the proposed dock. In addition, a new mitigation measure (LU -1 as described in response to comment ' B20) has been added to mitigate the impacts of the initially proposed dock and ' related structures; this mitigation measure will reduce the amount of excavation for the proposed dock. ' B42. This comment is noted. Please see response to comment B41 regarding the action levels for the constituents evaluated. SVOCs and PCBs were not detected in any of the samples. ' (approximating the sites of Allen's studies in the 1970s) to collect fish for B43 According to Robert Hoffman of the National Marine Fisheries Service, he doesn't know of any fish surveys conducted in the Lower Bay since the 1970s. With the ' exception of some on -going studies in the Upper Bay, there are no current in -depth sampling programs in the Lower Bay. However, in 2001 -2002, the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) conducted some fish sampling using otter trawls in the channel between Lido Isle and the Balboa Peninsula ' (approximating the sites of Allen's studies in the 1970s) to collect fish for bioaccumulation studies in the food web. CRM contacted Dr. Jim Allen and Dr. ' Michael Brandman Associates HA CRrn (PN- JN)=64W64RR2MOOGhER20_lTC 7- 1&ng.dm Y ' 1 1 Mednapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments Dario Diel, the principal investigators for the study. The reports are not in the public domain yet and the data are not available for public review. While the City would prefer to provide more recent data, the older information provided in the EIR is still a valid source of information since it provides near project -site specific information in the main channel near the 10th Street Beach on species composition and dominant species present at the time of sampling. This list includes identified species that are still considered to be sensitive (California halibut), and there are no additional species that are regarded as "sensitive" or federal- or state - listed that might occur in the Marinapark project area. Mitigation measures and BMPs have been provided to protect this sensitive species. The only listed species of fish is the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), and this is not recorded from Newport Bay. B44. The existing concrete walkway is located parallel to the shoreline and directly adjacent to the mobile home park. The proposed cement walkway referred to in the project description as well as on page 5.3 -7 is located perpendicular to the shoreline and extends from the meandering walkway along the hotel suites to the boat dock. Please see response to comment B20 regarding a mitigation measure to modify the design of the boat dock. B45. The proposed concrete walkway will result in a loss of foraging habitat for shorebirds. The loss of foraging habitat does not result in direct mortality of this bird species because there are other foraging habitats available in the Newport Harbor vicinity. This loss of habitat is considered significant. However, the project's potential impact on the species of shorebirds and seabirds is less than significant because the project would not directly result in mortality of these bird species. B46. This comment is noted. The analysis of benthic infauna and epifauna in Section 5.3.3 is correct. The discussion in Section 6.1 is also correct. This impact is short-term and the benthic community in the dredge areas would recover in diversity and abundance, assuming successful recruitment and recolonization. As discussed on page 5.3 -10 in the Draft EIR, maintenance dredging may be periodically required (at an assumed 10 -year interval) to remove trapped sediments during the long -term operation of the boat dock. Section 5.3.6 incorrectly summarizes the analysis in Section 5.3.3. As a result, the paragraph in Section 5.3.6 on page 5.3 -13 in the Draft EIR is revised as follows. Delete: "With the implementation of the above mitigation measures, only one significant unavoidable adverse impact would remain. This impact would occur during the short-term and would be on the benthic resources that would be removed from the bayfloor during the project and maintenance dredging activities. All other impacts to marine life would be less than significant after mitigation." Add: "The implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce impacts to marine life to less than significant." B47. The mitigation measures in Section 5.3.5 in the Draft EIR that are established to reduce potential impacts on marine life are adequate. The detailed listing of the typical best management practices (BMPs) are identified in Section 5.2.5 of the Draft Michael Brandman Associates H'Uiem (PN -.IN \OW\W"E.R20=64ER20_RTC 7 -1 fiWI.d. n Madnspark Resort and Community Plan — Response to Comments on the Draft OR Responses To Comments EIR. The BMPs that are referenced in Section 5.3.5 and listed in Section 5.2.5 would ' reduce potential water quality impacts and subsequently reduce potential impacts to marine life. The water quality plans reference in Section 5.3.2 in the Draft EIR are required to be prepared for City approval prior to the potential impact occurring (i.e., prior to issuance of a grading permit). Each of the water quality plans have a detailed listing of the types of BMPs that are needed to reduce potential water quality and subsequently marine life impacts. Section 5.3.5 in the Draft EIR is not deferring how to reduce the potential impacts, but only when the plans need to be prepared. B48. The reference to the Marinapark Mobile Home Park's inconsistency with the general plan designation is intended to disclose that this use is not among the list of allowed uses associated with the Recreational and Environmental Open Space general plan land use designation. The comment that the Marinapark Mobile Home Park may be converted to a public use is correct. Page 5.4-3 of the Draft EIR includes a list of uses allowed in the Recreational and Environmental Open Space land use ' designation, and hotel is not included in that list. The project includes an amendment to the General Plan to change the land use designation to Recreational Marine Commercial to allow development of the proposed hotel. B49. The standard for the division of a community, as identified in Section 5.4 -2 - Thresholds of Significance, is related to the actual physical division of an established community. The Land Use Element of the City General Plan references that the overall physical form of the City developed around villages based on the natural geographic features, such as Newport Harbor, and states that future development in the City should build on these villages. The project site is located in the Central Balboa Area, identified as part of the Balboa Peninsula Area in the Land Use Element of the City General Plan. The mobile home park itself would, therefore, not be considered a community. The project is proposed on a site that is bordered by a ' bay, a major arterial roadway, a collector street, and urban development. Activities that would have the potential to physically divide an established community would be large - scale, public works infrastructure projects such as freeways, dams, railroads, I canals, pipelines, high - voltage electrical transmission lines, etc., or large -scale development projects such as regional malls, airports, etc. In these instances, there is a literal physical division that would occur from variables such as realignment or closing of roadways or massive modification of development patterns. The proposed project does not require closing or realignment of any existing roadways, does not propose any new roadways, or does not contain any other features that would physically divide the Balboa Peninsula. Moreover, the project proposes to I reconstruct the recreational and community facilities that currently exist on the project site and maintain public access to the beach and public walkway adjacent to Newport Harbor. The proposed access points from Balboa Boulevard through the project site is described on page 5.4 -12 of the Draft EIR. There are open air corridors that flank the east and west sides of the resort hotel lobby that provide access from Balboa Boulevard to the public beach. B50. The "Discussion" section following Policy C of the Land Use Element clarifies the i outcomes expected through implementation of this Policy: "The City intends to insure that visitor serving facilities provide adequate off - street parking to ' Michael Brandman Associates H."mt ( pN •1N)V0064IM64ER20`0064ER20JZTC 7 -1 5val.d. q3 I 1 �J 'L7 I-7 1 r LJ Madnapark Resort and CoJnmunity Plan - Response to CommeMa on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments accommodate their customers and clients and thereby insure as many parking spaces as possible will be available to the public." It is clear from this discussion that adequate parking capacity is to be provided on -site for each new development rather than attempting to satisfy additional demand created by new development through a combination of new, on -site parking and existing, on- street parking. Nothing in the discussion suggests an intent to require new development to provide excess on -site parking capacity to make -up for existing, inadequate parking capacity. Furthermore, the project includes more than two times the code - required number of parking spaces for the hotel. Also, please see response to comment Q11. B51. Please see responses to comments B 50, B63, and Q11. B52. The parking analysis in the Draft EIR is based on Newport Beach Municipal Code parking requirements for the proposed project. The comment addressed hereunder suggests that the number of parking spaces after project development be compared with the number of existing spaces. A comparison of project parking spaces with the existing condition (42 spaces indicated in the comment plus 22 existing metered spaces at the Balboa Blvd. curb) follows. Parldng Available to General Public Metered panting at 18th St. curb 5 5 Metered parking at Balboa Blvd. curb 22 20 Public parking at 18th St. lot 23 41* Community Center Staff 2 N/A Girl Scout dedicated and gated 10 N/A Public parking at tot lot 2 N/A Total Parking Spaces 64 65 * 21 of 41 spaces will be reserved for visitors to the Girl Scout House and the Community Center during facility operating hours and will be available to the general public at all other times. The proposed project replaces all existing on -site and adjacent off -site spaces available to the general public and adds one additional public parking space. B53. As indicated in "Section 3: Project Description" of the Draft EIR, on -site ancillary uses are of sizes and designs primarily intended to serve the needs of hotel guests and include 600 square feet of retail space, a 550 square-foot caf6, a 1,124 square-foot restaurant, and a 3,603 square -foot ballroom. Other luxury hotels generally include dining space of at least 10,000 square feet, or more than nine times that of the proposed project, requiring a significantly greater number of employees. In addition, other hotel operations derive a significant portion of total revenues through catering, banquet, and convention and meeting business facilities. Such labor intensive ancillary uses that substantially increase the employee /room ratio are not included in the proposed luxury hotel facility. Because the proposed project ballroom is Michael Brandman Associates ' HX— limt (PN- JN)\00641W64ER20M64ElU0JtTC 7 -I finaldm qq Mannapark Resort and Commonly Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments , approximately one -tenth the size of a modest -sized ballroom of other facilities, such uses cannot be accommodated and are not proposed for the project luxury hotel. B54. According to the City Recreation and Senior Services Department, the half basketball , court is used more during the summer months and is used less or infrequently during the winter months. Please see response to continent B 13 for a discussion of the removal of this half basketball court as not being considered as a significant impact. ' B54. Please see responses to comments B 13 and B 14 regarding removal of the basketball half -court. B55. The project proponent does not intend to retain a tennis pro for the resort hotel and ' does not propose to offer tennis lessons in conjunction with operation of the hotel. In any event, terms of use and access to the recreational facilities proposed on the project site will be determined at such time as the City, as owner of the property, and the project proponent negotiate terms of the ground lease for the site. No physical impacts to the environment are anticipated as a result of the terms and conditions of ' operation that may be included in the ground lease. Additional hours of court availability will result from development of the project. ' Whereas only two of the four existing tennis courts are lighted and available for use until 10:00 P.M., all four reconstructed courts will be lighted, resulting in additional hours of court availability. The additional hours of availability will accommodate ' increased demand that may result from use by guests of the resort. B56. The comment regarding general plan designations is noted. The proposed project includes a general plan amendment that would change the general plan designation , from the existing Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Recreational Marine Commercial. Should the City approve the proposed general plan amendment, the proposed project would be consistent with theGeneral Plan. Therefore, findings ' presented in the ]haft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B57. The proposed project does not provide accommodations for Charter Boats and Boat , Tours. These accommodations were not discussed as part of the project in Section 3 of the Draft EIR. Please see response to comment B20 for a new mitigation measure that would modify the proposed boat dock. ' B58. The comment indicates that the existing view from the project site will be eliminated rather than enhanced. The opposite is true. As discussed in Section 5.4.3 of the ' Draft EIR regarding Objective 6, Policy 6.2 of the Open Space Element, the only existing view of Newport Harbor from Balboa Boulevard is available at the extreme, easterly end of the site; no other views are currently available. The arrangement of ' the buildings on the proposed site plan preserves the existing view corridor at the eastern end of the project site and adds two new view corridors through the project site from Balboa Boulevard to Newport Harbor. There is no policy or guideline , requiring a view corridor to be a specific size. In addition, the view of Newport Harbor from the public beach and public walkway will be preserved with the proposed project. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. Michael Brandman Associates H:VCh.W ( PN- JN)W064V0064ER20\0064ER20_RTC 7 -1 ftal.dm 1 /9 Y ' MednaMrk Resort and Commonly Plan - Respanse to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments B59. Please see responses to comments B29 and B32 regarding discretionary actions and efforts to revitalize the peninsula, respectively. B60. The comment regarding building setbacks is noted. The building setback requirements referenced in Section 5.8.2 of the Draft EIR are the minimum distance proposed in the draft Planned Community (PC) Development Plan. Since the site is zoned Planned Community District, the site does not have development standards including setback requirements. Buildings may be set back by distances greater than the minimum required. For 18th Street, the minimum distance a building is proposed to be set back in the draft PC Development Plan is 5 feet from the street. Section 5.4.2 of the Draft EIR describes the proposed setbacks for the buildings along 18th Street as ranging from 14 to 17 feet. These setbacks are for the residential villas and exceed the minimum distance requirements. There is no contradiction between these two references. The proposed administration building, as identified on Exhibit 3 -3, is proposed to be set back approximately 3 feet, 7 inches, which is less than the minimum identified in the draft PC Development Plan and Section 5.8.2 of the Draft EIR. Therefore, the site plan will be modified to require the administration building to be set back a minimum of 5 feet in conformance with the draft PC Development Plan. This modification does not alter the land use compatibility conclusions provided in Section 5.4.3 in the Draft EIR. The following is added as the fourth sentence in the first paragraph on page 5.4 -8 in the Draft EIR: Add: "Me Business Administration Building proposed along 18th Street will have a setback of 5 feet." B61. The City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) identifies seven intersections to be studied as part of the Marina Park Resort and Community Plan EIR. In accordance with the methodology of the TPO, the intersection of Balboa Boulevard and 20th Street was not identified to be studied for this project. While the project will contribute to the traffic along Balboa Boulevard at 20th Street, based upon the City's TPO, the project has not been identified to contribute such a substantial amount of traffic at this intersection so as to warrant a specific traffic analysis. In fact, the City does not have information showing that this intersection "...is already at LOS E or worse." However, Austin -Foust Associates (AFA) reviewed City traffic counts along Balboa Boulevard between 15th Street and 20th Street to compare shoulder season volumes with peak season volumes as discussed on page 5.5 -2 in the Draft EIR. Pages 5.5 -5 and 5.5-6 of the Draft EIR contain a summary of AFA's analysis of the project's contribution to summer weekend traffic volumes along Balboa Boulevard in the vicinity of 20tb Street, utilizing a worst case scenario. As identified in the Draft EIR, the total average daily project - related trips is expected to be approximately one percent of the total average daily trips (ADT) along this segment of Balboa Boulevard, which is not considered to be a perceptible from the summer ADT fluctuations along this street segment. Moreover, as identified on page 5.5 -6 of the Draft EIR, project - related traffic is expected to occur at times other than the peak hour, and in fact hotel patrons are expected to either be traveling in the direction opposite to the outbound beach traffic in the afternoons or traveling during periods other than that when there is peak traffic volumes exiting the peninsula. The projects listed in Table 4 -1 along with future revitalization projects will be required to perform traffic studies in accordance with the City's TPO, which may conclude the these projects will be required to implement traffic mitigation measures. AFA conducted the TPO analysis for cumulative (the projects listed in Table 4 -1) plus project conditions. City staff provided the project trip generation and distribution for Michael Brandman Associates HACReW (PNJW)WM%006M1ER20W064ER20_RTC 7 -1 fiWdw MaAnapark Resort and Commmily Plan - ' Resoonse to Comarente on the Dreg OR Rasoonses To Comments the cumulative projects. As with the project - related TPO analysis, in order to be ' found to generate significant traffic impacts, the project must meet or exceed one percent of the projected peak hour background traffic on one leg of a study intersection and contribute enough traffic to cause an unsatisfactory level of service ' (LOS), which the City defines as LOS E or worse. None of the intersections identified for study as part of this project met both of these criteria under cumulative conditions and therefore, the project is not considered to have a significant ' cumulative impact that would require mitigation. B62. The traffic analysis in the Draft ERR concluded, based on available peak season roadway segment traffic counts, that the impact of the projected net increase in traffic ' was less than significant. Consistent with longstanding City policy, however, "shoulder" season traffic data were used for intersection Revel of Service analyses. ' The City consistently uses shoulder season data because peak season data would ' skew the apparent need for roadway improvements and provide roadway capacity far in excess of that required on all but the busiest summer season days. t The Transportation and Development Services Division of the City of Newport Beach identified intersections to be evaluated in the Draft ERR through application of ' the Traffic Phasing Ordinance as is done for all projects to ensure that analysis is , focused on those intersections that may truly be affected. Analysis of intersections of � Balboa Blvd. with 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th Street are not included because the City does not collect data on side streets such as these, because experience shows that they ' carry very little traffic. ' B63. Please see response to comment R3 regarding the types of trips included in the hotel trip generation rate. Furthermore, off -site employee parking is not part of the ' proposed project. Also see response to comment Q 11 relative to employee parking. B64. Please see response to comment B62 regarding left turns into the project site from ' Balboa Boulevard. Please also see response to comment H30 regarding the use of ' 15th Street by employees and service vehicles. Finally, please see response to comment Q4 regarding the 18th Street entrance. , As shown on the project site, the internal vehicular circulation consists of a loop entrance and two access roads. One access road extends to the west to provide access ' to parking spaces for suites and villas. The second access road extends to the east to ' provide access to parking spaces for additional suites and villas as well as provide � access to the 100 -space parking structure. Hotel guests and visitors are planned to use the project's entrance for entering and exiting the site. ' B65. The referenced construction traffic management plan in Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR is Mitigation Measure AQ4 contained in Section 5.6.5 of the Draft EIR. This ' recommended mitigation measure is one of several measures identified to reduce air quality impacts. Construction activities are not expected to result in a substantial number of construction vehicle trips ' B66. Please see responses to comments B50, B52, B53, and Ql 1. B67. Based on a regulatory database review as discussed in response to comment B5, there ' were past hazardous waste sites in the vicinity of the project site; however, these sites have been remediated. Furthermore, please see response to comment B41 regarding ' Michael Brandman Associates H_Wlke (PN- 1MY00641 "EJk2GW64ER20—RTC 7 -1 fwal.&C 17 � Morinspark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Reaponsee To Comments ' the two soil samples and their characterization of their concentrations as less than significant. ' B68. As discussed in Appendix G, Noise Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR, the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance (Section 10.26.045 HVAC Special Provisions) ' regulates the allowable noise exposure and operation of HVAC equipment in residential areas through the issuance of permits. According to the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, "New permits for beating, venting, and air conditioning ' (HVAC) equipment in or adjacent to residential areas shall be issued only where installations can be shown by computation based on the sound rating of the proposed equipment, not exceed an A- weighted sound pressure level of 50 dBA or not to exceed an A- weighted sound pressure level of 55 dBA and be installed with a timing ' device that will deactivate the equipment during the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM." Thus, compliance with these requirements by the project proponent will assure that the operation of HVAC equipment will be well within the 65 dB CNEL exterior ' standards set for residential land uses. The Noise Analysis is based upon the traffic generation forecasts presented in the ' Traffic Analysis (Appendix E of the Draft EIR). The traffic generation forecasts are based upon land use and are inclusive of all trips generated for a particular land use, including delivery and trash trucks and employee transportation. Thus, in projecting ' the future noise environment the actual vehicle trips for such support services have been included in the overall noise forecasting. However, it is noted that delivery and trash trucks differ from passenger automobiles in that they may include warning bells, they may idle onsite, and that the vehicles are required to perform activities that ' generate noise beyond that of a typical automobile. Delivery and trash trucks will turn left onto 15th Street from Balboa Boulevard and head north towards the Bay and turn left onto the access roadway adjacent to the American Legion (roadway marked ' as delivery access on Exhibit 3 -3, Site Plan, of the Draft EIR). Deliveries and loading will occur along the eastern perimeter of the hotel structure, adjacent to the existing American Legion parking lot. As is common with such vehicles, there may ' be warning bells to alert pedestrians and other vehicles. These bells are subject to the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts the amount of time such bells may be active. Moreover, while delivery activities may result in a ' temporary increase in the noise environment, such activities are generally limited to business hours, primarily between 7 AM and 6 PM and are generally limited to weekdays, although some deliveries will occur on weekends. These activities are not a constant source of noise that will increase ambient noise levels. Such noise is ' temporary and once complete, the noise environment will return to background levels. As previously noted, employee vehicle trips is included in the overall noise forecasts; employee transportation is not considered to generate non - commonplace ' noise and since the project - related traffic generation is not anticipated to exceed the 65 dB CNEL standard, there are no significant impacts associated with employee transportation. ' The residences at 50 feet from roadway centerline along Balboa Boulevard (i.e., north and south sides of Balboa Boulevard) would experience a noise increase from ' 65.4 dBA CNEL to 65.5 dBA CNEL. As stated on page 5.7 -10, a substantial increase in noise is 3.0 dB. Since the projected noise levels along Balboa Boulevard would not be substantial, no significant noise impacts on residences along Balboa ' Boulevard, including those residences along 18th Street, 19th Street, and West Bay, would occur from project implementation. Michael Brandman Associates ' Mr—lient (PN- JN)\0064 \OO64ER20NW64ERX_RTC 7 -1 5nal.dm tKOU Madnapark Resort and Communfty Plan - ' Response to ComnreMe on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments B69. The proposed project does not include boat tie-ups for charter boats and boat tour operators; therefore, the project would not increase noise from these types of sources. B70. Please see response to comment H33 for a discussion of noise impacts from hotel activities. B71. As noted on pages 5.7 -12 and 5.7 -13 in the Draft EIR, the following are mandatory obligations contained in Section 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. • Mandatory compliance with the City of Newport Beach's noise control ordinance and implementation of the following project obligations would ensure that noise levels impacts remain less than significant. • Equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided on the original equipment and no equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust. • Construction equipment shall be maintained properly and tuned -up to minimize noise emissions. • Stationary source equipment (e.g., compressors) shall be located so as to maintain the greatest distance from proximate residential dwellings. • All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest distance from the dwellings. • The name and telephone number of a contact person shall be posted on -site. Adherence to these regulations as required by law, will reduce project - related short- term construction noise to less than significant. B72. The recreational facilities on the project site will be removed when construction activities begin on the project site and will not be available until all construction is completed on the project site. Therefore, no construction noise would impact the onsite children's play area during construction. B73. The proposed project retains the existing views from Balboa Boulevard to Newport Harbor at 18th Street and the extreme easterly end of the project site. No other visual corridor from Balboa Boulevard to Newport Harbor currently exists on the project site. The proposed project adds (i.e., enhances) the existing views by providing two open air visual corridors that flank the main lobby of the hotel. The reference regarding the project including sound barriers is correct. As discussed on page 5.7 -11 in the Draft EIR, noise levels at the proposed resort hotel would be 61 dBA CNEL due to the distance (i.e., 186 feet) of Balboa Boulevard to the nearest hotel structure. The analysis continues to state that intervening structures and parking lots will further diminish the noise level at the hotel. These intervening structures include the tennis courts, Spa Villa, and Girl Scout House/Community Center. These structures would not impede any views that currently exist from Balboa Boulevard to Newport Harbor. B74. The comment regarding aesthetics is noted. Please see response to cormnent B60 for a discussion on setbacks. Michael Brandman Associates H.Wfiew (PN-R )V)064Y1064P.RWXOWERW RTC 7 -1 fiml.doc / /q ' ' Madnapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Dreg EIR Responses To Commente ' The computer - generated simulations provided in Section 5.8.2 of the Draft EIR are intended to illustrate the proposed project superimposed on an existing photograph. ' The benefit of using an existing photograph is that certain features appear in both the original photograph and on the simulated photograph that allow for a more accurate comparison than may otherwise be possible with methods such as artist renderings. The difference between the existing and proposed views on Exhibit 5.8 -2 has to do with the lighting conditions that existed when the original photograph was taken and the alteration of the photograph to include the proposed buildings. No attempt was made to match the existing and proposed lighting conditions. The aesthetic impact conclusions provided in Section 5.8 in the Draft EIR would not be altered due to the type of day lighting. B75. Following is a discussion of height limits to clarify the proposed height limits as well as the height limits for residential properties in the project area. This discussion results in revisions to discussions in the Draft EIR. ' The residential properties across Balboa Boulevard from the project site have a height limit of 24 feet, 28 feet with a use permit. The project site currently has a height limit of 26 feet, 35 feet with a use permit. However, pursuant to Section 20.65.040 C of the Zoning Code, development regulations contained within the Planned Community Text may establish alternate standards that will not require the consideration of a Use Permit for structure height within the 35 foot limit which is ' determined at the midpoint of a sloping roof. The draft Planned Community development regulations for the proposed project include a maximum of 37 feet (at the peak of the roof) for the lobby structure and a maximum of 27 feet (at the peak of the roof) for all other structures. Based upon the conceptual elevation drawings; the midpoint of the sloping roofs will be below 35 feet and 26 feet, respectively, which is the maximum allowable by the Zoning Ordinance. ' To ensure consistency within the Draft EIR, the following pages are revised. The last sentence in the fast paragraph on page 3 -5 is revised as follows: Delete: "The maximum height proposed for the two -story villas is 27 feet while the proposed tower will be 34 feet in height." 1 Add: "The maximum height at the peak of the roof proposed for the two - story villas is 27 feet while the maximum height at the peak of the roof of the ' proposed lobby structure will be 37 feet in height." The fast sentence in the seventh paragraph on page 5.4 -7 in the Draft EIR is revised as follows: Delete: "ne proposed resort hotel includes a lobby structure that would be ' up to 34 feet in height and suites and guestrooms that will range from one- story (17 feet) to two -story (27 feet)." Add: "ne proposed resort hotel includes a lobby structure that would ' have a maximum height at the peak of the roof of 37 feet, and the suites and guestrooms will have a maximum height at the peak of the roof that range from one -story (17 feet) to two-story (27 feet)." 1 Michael Brandman Assochdm HACHM (PN- IN)M64\E064ER20W64ER20- -RTC 7 -1 Eoal.doc 5,0 M irfaspark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Lhak EIR Responses To Comments The sixth paragraph on page 5.8 -2 in the Draft EIR is revised as follows: Delete: `Building Heights. Except for the main resort hotel lobby in Planning Unit 1, the hotel will have a maximum height of 24 feet. The main lobby will have a height of 34 feet. The maximum height of the community structures in Planning Area 2 will be 24 feet and no structures will be placed within Planning Unit 3." Add: `Building Heights. Except for the main resort hotel lobby in Planning Unit 1, the hotel will have a maximum height of 27 feet at the peak of the roofs. The main lobby will have a height of 37 feet at the peak of the roof. The maximum height of the community structures in Planning Area 2 will be 27 feet at the peak of the roof, and no structures will be placed within Planning Unit 3." The above revisions to the Draft EIR clarify the maximum height of the proposed structures which is at the peak of the roofs. This clarification of the maximum height limits does not alter the conclusions and findings presented in the Draft EIR and specifically in Section 5.4, Land Use and Planning and Section 5.8, Aesthetics. The photo simulation (Exhibit 5.8 -3) is presented to portray an accurate representation of what the proposed project would look like if built. The vertical elevations for the project structures, as clarified above, were obtained from the architectural drawings submitted by the project applicant. B76. The proposed project will include the undergrounding of the existing above -ground utility lines. heights. ' B77. The proposed project would result in only approximately 33 percent of the project ' site being covered by buildings, including the subterranean parking structure. The ' remainder would be open and improved with parking and landscaping. The building setback distances identified on page 5.8 -2 of the Draft EIR are the minimum distances required by the City Zoning Code. The proposed setback distance for the hotel lobby is approximately 186 feet as described on page 5.7 -11 in the Draft EIR. Please see responses to comments B75 and U 11 for a discussion regarding building heights. ' B78. Please see response to comment B32 relative to cumulative impacts of efforts to revitalize the ' peninsula. B79. Lieutenant Klein is a sworn peace officer with the City of Newport Beach Police Department. The Chief of Police has assigued the responsibility for reviewing service needs from development projects to Lieutenant Klein.. Lieutenant Klein stated that all calls requesting police service are routed through a computerized call response system. This system tracks information related to the call such as time of the call, personnel dispatched, arrival time, and incident information. Therefore, ' findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. ' B80. The actual number of service calls for the existing project site is not readily available. The Police Department does not have a multiplier that would predict requests for ' Michael Brandman Associates a:VCliw (PN- 37)\0064\0064ER20'0064ER20 -RTC 7 -1 final. m 5 ' Marinapark Reeort and Community Plan — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments ' service by land use type. The assessment of the project's effect on the Police Department was qualitative; and therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B81. The July 4th holiday is considered the busiest time of the year for the Police Department. As a result of this, it is Police Department policy to require all swom personnel to work that day. Historically, the majority of the holiday activity on the Balboa Peninsula has been located between 32nd Street and Orange Street. The project site is not located within this identified area. In the estimation of Lieutenant Klein and the Chief of Police, existing hotels on Balboa Peninsula do not and the proposed project would not require the reallocation of existing staffing patterns or the requirement for additional swom personnel. Therefore, findings presented in the ' Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. ' B82. The Police Department considers summer months and holidays to be peak demand periods. Please see response to comment B81 regarding staffing on the Fourth of July. B83. Specialist Kim Lerch is a senior member of the Fire Prevention staff and is responsible for the review and evaluation of all commercial and residential developments throughout the City. In addition, Specialist Lerch is recognized by the ' State as a Fire Protection Plans Examiner. A routine part of these duties include the examination and evaluation of development proposals throughout the City. Furthermore, the City's Fire Marshall has reviewed and concurred with the finding ' that the project would result in a less than significant impact on the City's fine protection services. Michael Brandman Associates 67)% H:'Cliem(FN- JH)`D064�W6<ER7A� WER1A -RTC 7 -1 IIWAW B84. Based on written response from Ms. Kim Lerch, Fire Prevention Specialist with the ' City of Newport Beach Fire Department, the first responding fine station, Station 1, located at 110 E. Balboa Boulevard is within one mile of the project site. The second ' closest fie station responding to the project site is Station 2 located at 475 32nd Street. Station 2 is also within one mile of the project site. Response time from either station to the project site would be comparable and would meet the required response time. While Station 2 is equipped with 1 medic van and 2 medical ' personnel, all responding fire personnel do have appropriate training to handle medical emergencies. Fire personnel from Station 1 would be able to respond to medical emergencies at the project site. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft ' EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B85. Internal circulation per fie access roads within the project site would provide adequate access of fie department equipment and vehicles. Section 5.9.2 of the ' Draft EIR discusses onsite circulation. In addition, the project site plan (Exhibit 3 -3) depicts the location and dimension of the fie access roads and location of fine hydrants within the project site. Please see the project site plan in Section 3 of the Draft EIR for further information. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. ' B86. Per the City of Newport Beach Utilities Department, the City does not anticipate any necessary improvement projects in order to meet water supply service demands for the proposed project. The City has adequate water supply capacity to serve the ' development as provided in the City Water Master Plan (E. Davidson, 2003). In Michael Brandman Associates 67)% H:'Cliem(FN- JH)`D064�W6<ER7A� WER1A -RTC 7 -1 IIWAW Arerinepwir Reesortand Comme1711y P/arr- Response to Comments on the Oren EIR Responses To ComirmM addition, written correspondence from the City Fire Department indicated that adequate water supply is available for fire suppression services. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B87. Please see response to comment B32 relative to cumulative impacts of efforts to revitalize the peninsula. B88. The use of the high range of the estimate provided (8.6 lbs/day) allows for the potential maximum effect to be presented and analyzed for purposes of environmental evaluation. Generally, when ranges of possible values are used in environmental analysis, the end of the value range that represents the "worst case" value is used in order to afford the fullest environmental analysis possible. For example, as the comment indicates, some of the residents occupy the homes on a part -time basis. If the existing estimate of solid waste generation were based solely on current occupancy, and this occupancy were to change, then the estimate would be wrong. Solid waste generation rates generally estimate by type of land use that includes various types of solid waste. Section 6.04.140 of the City Municipal Code prohibits the accumulation of garbage for periods greater than one week and refuse greater than 15 days. Weekly collection of garbage and refuse is typical. There is no evidence that an increase in the collection frequency will be required for the proposed project. Garbage is specifically defined in the City Municipal Code (6.04.010) and could include wet kitchen trash. The proposed project would be served by the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill located in Orange County. This landfill has a remaining capacity of 92 million cubic yards as of June 30, 2003 with a projected closure date of 2022. In addition, the County of Orange is served by two additional landfills, Olinda Alpha and Prima Deshecha. The Olinda Alpha Landfill's remaining capacity as of June 30, 2003 was 44.74 million cubic yards with an estimated closure date of 2013. Preparation of an EIR is underway to extend the closure date of Olinda Alpha to 2021. The Prima Deschecha Landfill's remaining capacity as of June 30, 2003 was 85.57 million cubic yards with an estimated closure date of 2067. As of June 2003, the total Orange County landfill capacity remaining was 222.52 million cubic yards. The State of California threshold of significance for solid waste is based on a region's landfill capability of supporting solid waste disposal for the next 15 years. John Amau, Planner III with the County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Department, confirmed that the County of Orange has sufficient remaining landfill capacity to serve the entire Orange County area (including growth projections) and will continue to have capacity beyond the significance threshold of 2019. Projected capacity and scheduled close dates of existing landfill were calculated using projected population growth rates. While the proposed project would generate a higher amount of solid waste than the existing land use, current landfill facilities are able to accommodate for the increased amount of solid waste created by the proposed project now and in the future. The County of Orange can accommodate the proposed project as well as the cumulative amount of solid waste generated by pending development projects. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. Michael Brsndman Associates H')LEent (PN- 3N)\W64\0064ER20V0064ER20 -RTC 7.1 fival.dm 1 1 Madnapark Resort and Communiy Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments B89. Relocation of water lines result in the construction of the new water line prior to removal of the old water line. Water service would be disrupted for a brief period of time while connections between the existing water line and the new water line are completed. No significant disruption of water service would occur to surrounding land uses. B90. Based on discussions with Eldon Davidson, Utilities Director of the City of Newport Beach Utilities Department, there is existing capacity to adequately serve the proposed project which would generate three times as much wastewater than the ' existing land uses. The revitalization efforts on the Peninsula relate to beautification improvements which would not increase wastewater. �� WOkut (PNdN)NOD6<tW 64ER20)0064ER20 -RTC 7 -1 fioal.da B91. Based on a written response from Kris Keas, Technical Supervisor with the Gas ' Company, Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Gas service to the project site can be provided from existing ' gas mains located in various locations nearby. Based on written response from Jane S. Brown at Edison International, Edison is ' prepared to provide electrical service to the proposed project. The City currently has revitalization efforts on the Peninsula; however, these efforts include landscape improvements and pavement upgrades, which do not create a ' demand for additional gas or electricity. Therefore, the cumulative evaluation provided in the Draft EIR is adequate. B92. Please see response to comment B46 regarding benthic habitat and benthic infauna ' and epifauna ' B93. Please see response to comment B32 relative to cumulative impacts of efforts to revitalize the peninsula. B94. This comment is noted. CEQA does not require an analysis of all of the impacts ' associated with the existing condition. CEQA requires a Draft EIR to evaluate impacts if the Alternatives are environmentally superior to the Project and whether they feasibly attain project objectives. The Draft EIR contains the required analysis. B95. Project objectives can include economic goals as well as environmental goals. Please see response to comment B27 regarding the project meeting the objectives set forth ' for the proposed project in the Draft EIR. B96. The typical daily and peak hour trip generation for the Marine Recreation Alternative ' could vary. However, based on the provision of 227 additional public parking spaces (248 proposed minus 21 existing) approximately 900 to 1,360 ADT (net 780 to 1,240 ADT) would be generated based on a conservative tum- over rate of each parking lot by two to three times per day (i.e., each space is used two or three times each day). This would result in a net increase of 780 to 1,240 ADT after removal of the number of assumed ADT associated with the mobile home units (i.e., 120 ADT) Realistically, the actual turnover rate would likely be much higher, on the order of four or five. Consequently, it is quite reasonable to expect that the Marine Recreation Alternative with a conservative estimate of a net increase of 780 to 1,240 ADT would exceed the net 520 ADT and the 24 to 32 peak hour trips anticipated ' from the proposed Marina Park Resort project. �� WOkut (PNdN)NOD6<tW 64ER20)0064ER20 -RTC 7 -1 fioal.da Michael Bmndman Associates � Marinaperk Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Dm ft EIR Responses To Commerrte B97. CEQA requires the EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. (Guidelines, section 15126.6(a).) As explained on pages 7 -1 and 7 -2 of the DEIR, the discussion focused on alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen significant effects of the project. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative, nor is it required to analyze project alternatives at the same level of detail as the project under consideration. CEQA requires consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives, enough to allow the decision maker "a reasoned choice." (Guidelines, section 15126.6(f).) Only feasible alternatives should be discussed, based on factors including the "site suitability" and "economic viability" of the options. The Marinapark DEIR identified the project objectives and staff developed a range of alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the objectives while lessening adverse impacts. The No Project alternative, specifically required by CEQA, assumes the continuation of the current land uses. The Marinapark Marine Recreation Alternative focuses on the provision of public and water - oriented recreational opportunities, allowing the City decision makers to compare the environmental advantages and disadvantages of such an option. The Reduced Density Alternative looks at a smaller resort, with a freestanding restaurant. This carefully designed range of alternatives provides the public and decision makers with a framework for evaluating the impacts of the Marinapark project in the context of feasible alternatives. The commentor states that a modified design and incorporation of mitigation measures in the Marine Recreation alternative likely would result in lesser impacts on hydrology and water quality. The Marine Recreation Alternative was designed to be consistent with the existing General Plan designation and tidelands restrictions, accommodate a revenue generating use (i.e., boat slips), and optimize the public recreational opportunities. CEQA does not require the plans for this alternative to be as fully developed as for the proposed project. If additional modifications were made to this alternative, the impacts could be further modified as well. The alternative as discussed, however, serves to provide the decision makers with a point of comparison in evaluating the impacts and desirability of the proposed project. B98. Please see response to comment B97 regarding the selection of the alternatives to the proposed project. The commentor states that a modified design and incorporation of mitigation measures in the Marine Recreation alternative likely would result in lesser impacts on biological resources. The Marine Recreation Alternative was designed to be consistent with the existing General Plan designation and tidelands restrictions, accommodate a revenue generating use (i.e., boat slips), and optimize the public recreational opportunities. CEQA does not require the plans for this alternative to be as fully developed as for the proposed project. If additional modifications were made to this alternative, the impacts could be further modified as well. The alternative as discussed, however, serves to provide the decision makers with a point of comparison in evaluating the impacts and desirability of the proposed project.. B99. In the introduction to the alternatives analysis on page 7 -1 and under the discussion ' of Land Use on page 7-4, the Draft EIR states that the Marine Recreation Alternative is consistent with the existing Recreation and Environmental Open Space I Michael Brandman Associates H.Whem ( PN- AN)10064)0064HR200064FR20_RTC 7 -1 f=l d. / G ✓� 1 1 Madnepark Resort and Communiy Plan - Respor se to Comments on the Draft OR Responses To Comments 1 designation, was selected for that reason, and would not require an amendment to the General Plan. I 1 I 1 I I 11 I 1 i Michael Brandman Associates H:Uiem (PN- JN)\006410064ER20\O AER20 -RTC 7 -1 5nal.dm 506 B 100. The commentor states that a modified design in the Reduced Intensity Alternative likely would result in less traffic impacts. The Marine Recreation Attemative was designed to be consistent with the existing General Plan designation and tidelands 1 restrictions, accommodate a revenue generating use (i.e., boat slips), and optimize the public recreational opportunities. CEQA does not require the plans for this 1 alternative to be as fully developed as for the proposed project. If additional modifications were made to this alternative, the impacts could be further modified as well. The alternative as discussed, however, serves to provide the decision makers with a point of comparison in evaluating the impacts and desirability of the proposed project. B 101. After preparation of the Initial Study and before completion of the Draft EIR, the project proponent changed the name of the proposed luxury resort hotel and related on -site community facilities from the "Regent Newport Beach Hotel' to the "Marinapark Resort and Community Plan". 1 I 1 I 1 I I 11 I 1 i Michael Brandman Associates H:Uiem (PN- JN)\006410064ER20\O AER20 -RTC 7 -1 5nal.dm 506 I !� CALIFORNIA IiP ji;iis I I 1 1 1 1 II C State of California - The Resources Aoency ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME MARINE REGION 20 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 100 Monterey, California 93940 (831) 649 -2870 htto: / /www. dfo.ca.00v May 28, 2004 Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 1. 3 2004 71819110111112,112131415P16 RE: Comments on the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 200311021 Dear Mr. Campbell: The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the City of Newport Beach's (City) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Project, located on West Balboa Boulevard, between '18t" and 15"' Streets, in Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The proposed project would develop a 110 -room luxury resort hotel consisting of one and two -story villas and ancillary structures such as an administrative building, lobby, spa, subterranean parking structure, and tennis courts. The proposed project would displace an existing 56 -space mobile home park and would remove a community center, play areas, public tennis courts, and parking spaces. The community center, the play areas, and the parking lot are to be replaced. The project includes development on 8.10 acres. The proposed project also includes beach enhancements, a public walkway, a new bulkhead to separate the beach from the boat slips, and a new 12 yacht marina within Newport Bay. Approximately 1,250 to 1,750 cubic yards of bay sediment will be dredged to -10 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) to create a basin (0.23 acres) for the boat slips. As a Trustee Agency for the State's fish and wildlife resources, the Department has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of such species. In this capacity, the Department administers the California Endangered Species Act, the Native Plant Protection Act, and other provisions of the California Fish and Game Code that afford 1 Conserving Cafiifornia's Wi9fife Since 1870 57 Mr. James Campbell May 28, 2004 Page 2 protection to the State's fish and wildlife public trust resources (CEQA Guidelines Section 15386). As a Trustee Agency, the Department must be consulted by the Lead Agency during the preparation and public review for project- specific CEQA documents if there are potential impacts to biological resources. The Department has the following concerns and comments regarding the proposed project: According to the DER, the new 317 ft-long bulkhead and the nine pilings for the docks will impact approximately 9,846 square feet (sq ft) of intertidal and subtidal habitat at depths between 0 and -8 ft MLLW. Additionally, the 70 ft-long concrete walkway (to the boat slips) will result in a loss of 490 sq ft of intertidal sandy beach habitat at elevations between 0 and +7 ft MLLW. The total amount of impacted marine habitat is estimated to be 10,336 sq ft. The project applicant plans to mitigate the habitat loss by identifying a "location of a suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird foraging habitat replacement site," which would be subject to approval by the Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries. The replacement area would be approximately 31,008 square feet, based on a mitigation ratio of 3:1. A mitigation and monitoring plan would be developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. We question where this proposed mitigation will occur since past projects in the Newport Bay area have had difficulty finding appropriate mitigation sites. We request that the final EIR provide a location of where such a habitat replacement/mitigation site will be located. The project area includes one of the few sandy beaches in Newport Bay. This beach serves as important marine wildlife habitat and is currently utilized by shorebirds and seabirds, including the California brown pelican. In addition to the continual disturbance to shorebirds and seabirds from marina activities, the proposed concrete walkway will also reduce the amount of foraging and resting habitat available to these species. According to the project description (and incorporated in the calculation of the footage to be mitigated in biological mitigation measure BR -6, described above) approximately 490 square feet of intertidal habitat (O.to +7 MLLW) will be lost from installation of the cement walkway. The cement walkway would also split the shoreline which would interrupt tidal flows and water circulation. Mitigation measures HWQ -5 and BR -5 states that the applicant will design a pile supported elevated walkway to facilitate tidal circulation. This pile supported elevated walkway is also discussed in Section 4.2.2 of Appendix D as a way of reducing the amount of impacts on intertidal habitat. From the provided description, it is unclear what type of a walkway will be part of the project and what the impacts from the new walkway (e.g. intertidal habitat) will be. A full description of the proposed pile supported elevated walkway and the associated impacts will need to be made clear in the Gi G;Z_ M I IJ I 1 1 1 I J 1 Mr. James Campbell May 28, 2004 Page 3 final EIR. The Department also has concerns with the proposed new bulkhead. It is our recommendation that bulkhead projects be constructed in such a manner to be least environmentally damaging, with minimal impacts to marine habitats. We request that the final EIR should discuss the necessity of the bulkhead and its design in more detail. The majority of the Newport Harbor shoreline is lined with bulkheads and boat slips. The proposed project will add 317 feet of new bulkhead and cover additional bay habitat. The new structures associated with the marina will cover a portion of the water column and result in the loss of foraging habitat for sight foraging marine birds such as the state and federally listed California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) and California least tem (Sterna antillarum brownie). Page 5.3 -10 of the DEIR states that the effect of the project on these species' foraging habitat is considered a locally significant impact. However, no mitigation is provided. The coverage of bay surface area habitat associated with this project is of concern to the Department because of cumulative impacts from these kinds of activities. There are many private dock upgrade projects that routinely occur in Newport Bay (in 2003, at least 0.16 acres of additional bay coverage was proposed from small private dock upgrade projects [based on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers letters of permission reviewed by the Department]). We believe the final EIR should address the cumulative impacts of projects that result in additional bay surface area coverage (see section 5.3.4). The exact square foot coverage from the new marina should be detailed. Additionally; the project proponent should propose mitigation for bay coverage in terms of habitat replacement (e.g. removal of obsolete docks /structures elsewhere in Newport Bay). Although the DEIR describes dredging impacts on marine plants, infauna, epifauna, fish, and birds, it fails describe the effects of dredging on the habitat itself. The new dredging will convert intertidal habitat to shallow subtidal habitat. According to the Biological Resources Impact Assessment (Appendix D), dredging will occur in a 0.23 acre site at depths between 0 and -12 ft MLLW. Thus, we assume that dredging will replace some intertidal habitat with shallow subtidal habitat. Additionally, the DEIR does not mention that a newly dredged substrate is more susceptible for colonization by opportunistic and invasive non - endemic organisms such as the Japanese mussel (Musculista senhousia), bubble snail (Philine aunformis), yellowfin goby (Acanthogobius flavimanus), and Japanese brown algae (Sargassum muticum). The final EIR should specify the change in habitat type and address the potential for invasive non- endemic organisms. As mentioned in the DEIR, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is proposing to restore eelgrass habitat (Zostera marina) 150 feet west of the IG2 G3 (f-4 C'5 5 l Mr. James Campbell May 28, 2004 Page 4 proposed boat slips. The Corps project is anticipated to commence in the spring or summer of 2004. The proposed project involves dredging that could negatively affect the Corp's eelgrass restoration project. Although there is a mitigation measure to address maintenance dredging or other maintenance in the boat slips (BR -7), The Department recommends that the project proponent develop mitigation measures and /or "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) to protect eelgrass habitat during the initial dredging, as suggested in Section 3.6.1.7 of Appendix D. A discussion of these mitigation measures and BMPs should be included it in the final EIR. Page 5.3 -10 states that construction activities will not affect California least terns as they will move to another foraging area. The Department disagrees, and recommends that in -water activities such as pile driving and dredging, be prohibited from April 1 to September 30, during the tern's nesting season (this is a standard recommendation for marina projects in this area). This should be incorporated as a mitigation measure and included in the final EIR. Dredging may result in the suspension of contaminated sediments and the fate of dredged materials is not clearly presented in the DEIR. The last mitigation measure in HWQ -2 discusses dredged material and states that scows will be towed to the disposal site. The Department questions where the disposal site will be. If in -bay placement is being considered, sediments need to be tested in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Corps Inland Testing Guidelines. As always, Department personnel are available to discuss our comments, concerns, and recommendations in greater detail. To arrange for a discussion please contact Ms. Marilyn Fluharty, Environmental Scientist, California Department of Fish and Game, 4949 Viewridge Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123, telephone (858) 467 -4231. Sincerely, Eric J. Larson, Ecosystem Coordinator Marine Region - Belmont cc: State Clearinghouse, Sacramento (original sent to Lead Agency) PO Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95814 -3044 G5 G6 C, ,� i 1 1 r t Mr. James Campbell May 28, 2004 Page 5 Marilyn Fluharty Department of Fish and Game San Diego, CA Ken Corey U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, CA Robert Hoffman NOAA Fisheries 501 West Ocean Boulevard Suite 4200 Long Beach, CA 31 ' Madnapark Resort and Community Man - Response to Comments on the Dreg OR Responses To Comments ' C. State of California, Department of Fish and Game ' Cl. Mitigation measure BR -6 on page 5.3 -13 in the Draft EIR references a replacement site for the loss of soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird foraging habitat. There are restoration projects that are underway or in the planning phases. These projects are located in Upper Newport Bay. These include: e Sbellmaker Island habitat restoration associated with the proposed Back Bay Science Center (A City of Newport Beach and California Department of Fish ' and Game project) e Big Canyon Restoration Project (a City of Newport Beach/Califomia Coastal Conservancy project ' e The Army Corps of Engineers Ecosystem Feasibility Project (ACOE 2000) at North Star Beach, Tern Island, New Island Channel, Middle Island Channel, or ' Shellmaker Island Channel; As noted above, two of the restoration projects are co- sponsored by the City of Newport Beach. According to Dave Kiff, Newport Beach Assistant City Manager, project applicants that are required to mitigate for loss of subtidal or tidal habitat could participate in the project. The participation could include payment of a fee toward the restoration program. The details of the participation are not known at this time; however, according to the City, the restoration programs could provide an alternative site for habitat mitigation. C2. Please see response to comment B20 regarding a mitigation measure that modifies ' the design of the proposed dock. The recommended design would not include a bulkhead or groin wall and would not require placement of fill on the sandy beach. ' Mitigation measure BR -6 is revised to read as follows: Deleter "Prior to approval of the boat slip construction permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission, the ' project applicant shall identify the location of a suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat replacement site. Furthermore, the replacement site shall be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ' California Department of Fish and Game, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Based on the project's potential effect and a mitigation ratio of 3:1, 31,008.2 square feet (0.71 acre) would need to be replaced. In accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring ' plan shall be developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. A monitoring plan in accordance with the requirements identified in the ' boat slip construction permit shall be implemented." Add: "Prior to approval of the boat dock construction permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission, the project applicant shall identify the location of a suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat replacement site. Furthermore, the replacement site shall be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ' California Department of Fish and Gam, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Based on the project's potential effect and a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Coastal Commission), 41,344.24 ' square feet (0.95 acre) would need to be replaced. In accordance with Michael Brendman Associates ' K C&M (FN- JN)W64=64FR20` 64ER20_RTC 7 -1 fiwkdoc N Abdnepsrk Resmt end Commrmiry Plan - Resomw to Comments on Me Draft ER To Comments 1 Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan shall be 1 developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. A 1 monitoring plan in accordance with the requirements identified in the boat dock construction permit shall be implemented. 1 With the implementation of mitigation measure BR -5, the project's potential effect would be 9,846.06 square feet. With a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by ' the California Coastal Commission), 39,384.24 square feet (0.90 acre) of suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat would need to be replaced. ' With the implementation of the modified design as recomtended in response to 1 comment B20 and added as mitigation measure LU -1, the project's potential effect would be 13.6 square feet. With a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Coastal Commission), 54.4 square feet (0.001 acre) of suitable soft bottom ' benthic habitat and shorebird habitat would need to be replaced." C3. The loss of the foraging habitat for the California brown pelican and California least 1 tem is considered a locally significant impact. Mitigation measures BR -5 and BR -6 1 would reduce impacts on the foraging habitat to less than significant. restoration area to less than significant. ' C4. The proposed project includes dredging of intertidal and subtidal habitat. Mitigation measure BR-6 refers to the replacement of soft bottom habitat and shorebird habitat. 1 The replacement would need to be in -kind up to a 4:1 ratio. With the implementation of mitigation measures BR -5 and LU -1, the resulting dredging would only affect ' subtidal habitat. C5. Mitigation measure BR -I includes BMPs during excavation activities. These BMPs , include the use of a silt curtain to contain all effluent within the construction zone. 1 The use of a silt curtain would reduce potential impacts on the proposed eelgrass restoration area to less than significant. 1 C6. This comment regarding the timing for in -water construction activities is noted. The following is added as a bullet to mitigation measure HWQ -1. 1 • Construction Timing: Restrict in -water construction activities between October 1 through March 31. C7. According to the Limited Phase II site assessments, the bayfloor sediments proposed for dredging do not have contaminate concentrations that exceed current standards. The modified boat dock would require 400 to 500 cubic yards of bayfloor sediment. The disposal location of the dredged sediment could be either an existing shoreline if , the sediment characteristics are 80 percent or greater of sand or if the sediment is less than 80 percent sand, the sediment would be required to be disposed of at an Environmental Protection Agency - approved dump site located approximately 17 1 miles off -shore in the vicinity of Catalina Island. i 1 i Nlcha•,B,anOmn„BwchWas n:YCUe M4- SNpe064\0064BR20\0D"ERM_RTC 7.1 5nnI&C 65 1 IJun-09 -2004 03:35pm from- California Coastal Commission CALIFORNIA COASTAL OMMISSI South Coast Area Offau 1201 Or:Oangeta, Suite 1000 1-mg Beao. CA 90802-4302 (582) 5905071 ' Mr. James W. Campbell, S Nor Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Marinapark Resoq & Community Plan Draft Environmen al Impact Report (SCH# 200311021) Dear Mr. Campbell, T -784 P.002 /006 F-404 APMnl n MA June 9, 2004 Thank you for-the opporlu ity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marinapark Resort & Com unity Plan Project. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the proposed poi, ct consists of: removal of the 56 -space Marinapark mobile home park and existing onsite uses a soclated with Las Arenas Park (Balboa Community Center, Girt Scout House, children's pi y area, 4 public tennis courts, and a metered 21 -space parking lot), construction of a Commun Center /Girl Scout House structure, a tot lot, a 41 -space shared parking lot, a 110 -room lu ury resort hotel (up to 12 rooms are proposed to be available for fractional ownership) and ncillary hotel structures (including an administrative building, a hotel lobby building, and a spa ilia), 59- parking spaces adjacent to the proposed villas, 9- handicap parking spaces; a 100 -spa subterranean parking structure that will support 4- roof top public tennis courts, beach anhai icements including fill, 12 new boat slips (including 4 slips for public use) supported by 9 -14" pi ings, a gangway, a groin wall at either and of the basin to contain the fill, a bulkhead on the sout i side of the boat slips, a public beachfront walkway, and a concrete walkway from the resort hc tel to the proposed boat slips on the Marinapark property. The proposed project is located within the coastal zone In the City of Newport Beach. The proposed development will require a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission. The following comments s Chapter 3 policies of the ( preliminary and those of C representing the opinion c project raises Issues relate access and recreation. idress the issue of the proposed project's consistency with the alifomia Coastal Act of 1976. The comments contained herein are )astal Commission staff only and should not be construed as the Coastal Commission itself. As described below, the proposed d to the protection of wetland habitat, water quality, and coastal Below are the comments qy Commission staff on the Draft Environmental impact Report. W.' Wetlands. The proposed ce nt walkway, groin wails and bulkhead will result in fill of open coastal D q waters. The bulkh ad will Impact 9,847 square feet of intertidal and soft bottom benthic 1 habitat, while the alkway will result in the loss of 490 square feet of intertidal sand 0 Jun -09 -2004 03:35pm Prom-California Coastal Commission 2. beach habitat and habitat is approxim is not supplied in tt placement of earth Section 30233 of tt eight uses and it al waters. Furtherrmo where 'Fill' is allow must demonstrate If allowable the pro EIR should include allowable under the the delineation of m another agency's (i calculation of fill we analysis regarding ...definitions. Draft Environmental Impact Report Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Project Page 2 of 5 T-T94 P.003/006 P -404 ssociated organisms, The total amount of affected soft bottom Coastal Act limits the fill of wetlands and open coastal waters to itely 10,336 square feet The quantity of fill related to the groin walls 30235 of the Coastal Act states that groins, seawalls, and other a EIR. Section 30108.2 of the Coastal Act defines °Fill" as the ' )r any other substance or material placed in a submerged area. dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public a Coastal Act limits the fill of wetlands and open coastal waters to from erosion, and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse Sears that the proposed project does result in "Fill" of open coastal ' B, that fill is associated with a use that is not one of the eight uses ct includes construction of groins and a bulkhead where none :d. Projects that propose the fill of wetlands and /or coastal waters, p I tat the proposed impact would be allowable under the Coastal Act. ' act must then provide adequate mitigation, preferably on -site. The dition, there has been no demonstration that the proposed groins an analysis documenting how the proposed fill would qualify as ecessary to protect existing structures. Therefore, these components Coastal Act. Also, clarification should be made on whether or not ' :Hands and coastal waters was based on Coastal Act standards or impact on open coastal waters, an alternatives analysis is needed. a. Army Corps of Engineers) standard. If the habitat delineation and should avoid new groins, bulkheads or any devices that not determined by Coastal Act definitions, then a revised biological instead focus on sting development to avoid erosion and other ie proposed fill should be conducted using the Coastal Act , Should the proposed fill qualify as an allowable use, mitigation would be required for the loss of any wetlands and open coastal waters. The EIR should include a mitigation plan, which specifically k entifles how the mitigation will be accomplished, and the altematives evaluated in develc ping the mitigation plan. Typically, the Com fission prefers on -ske mitigation to off -site mitigation. The Commission typica ly requires that mitigation be done at a 4:1 ratio. In addition, the applicant must be filly responsible for undertaking the mitigation. In this way, the Commission is ass red that the mitigation will occur and it is clear who is responsible for undertaking and m naging the mitigation. The EIR should discuss the mitigation that would be recuired- Section 30233 of tile Coastal Act limits the fill of wetlands and open coastal waters to eight uses. Sectiom 30235 of the Coastal Act states that groins, seawalls, and other such construction t at alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve costal dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse Impacts on local s reline sand supply. The proposed proj ct includes construction of groins and a bulkhead where none currently exist. Se tion 30233 of the Coastal Act discuses uses in which fill of open coastal waters is a owed and it appears that the proposed fill is not an allowable development. in a dition, there has been no demonstration that the proposed groins and bulkhead are r ecessary to protect existing structures. Therefore, these components of the project woult be inconsistent with Section 30233 and 30235 of the Coastal Act. Therefore, due to i impact on open coastal waters, an alternatives analysis is needed. Possible project alternatives should avoid new groins, bulkheads or any devices that alter the shoreline Ond instead focus on sting development to avoid erosion and other hazards without us of such devices. The EIR should analyze an alternative 1 I Det Pi 1 1 DS , � � 5 Jun-08 -2004 03:36pm From- California Coastal Commission 7 -784 P.004 1008 Draft Environmental Impact Report arinapark Resort & Community Plan Project Page 3 of 5 development desig that avoids reliance upon shoreline protective devices and any structures, such as roins, that after natural shoreline processes. 3. Section 30222 of recreational facilit over general comi lower Cost visitor r feasible provided. The project site m (Las Arenas Park, home park would I hotel. In addition, onsite consisting c 4 public tennis cot all of the recreatioi project would insts The City's Genera Recreational and Recreational and aquatic facilities, American Legion. the end of the exi the lease should b maintain and imp Marinapark mobil indicates that neat with the existing la City proposes to c Open Space to accommodate the Section 30222 of t visitor serving co Coastal Act which protected, encou Report provided ai the Marinapark M of the existing mo project site and w The proposed use cost visitor and re luxury hotel use, I inventory is needs as an analysis of t EIR should contai Coastal Act places a priority on visitor - serving commercial designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation ,cial development. Section 30213 of the Coastal Act states that recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and where F -404 ently consists of a mobile home park and public recreational facilities ie public beach and the Balboa Community Center). The mobile removed in the proposed project and replaced with a luxury resort is proposed project would demolish the existing recreational facilities Las Arenas Park, the Balboa Community Center, Girl Scouts House, s, and a children's play area. The proposed project would replace rl facilities except a basketball half- court. In addition, the proposed 12 new boat slips, 4 of which will be for public use. I Plan and certified Land Use Plan (LUP) designate the area as Environmental Open Space. The LUP states: "It is designated for virvnmental Open Space, and Is proposed to be ultimately used for e ended beach, and community facilities such as the existing he existing mobile home park use will be allowed to continue until s 'ng lease. At that time the City will make the decisions as to whether further extended, or the property converted to public use. The shall ve, where practical, public access to the site bayward of the e homes." This characterization of the Madnapark area in the LUP r the existing mobile home park nor the proposed hotel is consistent d use designation for the site. In order for the project to proceed, the ange the existing designation of Recreational and Environmental designation of Recreational and Marine Commercial to roposed development. While the proposed project will conform. to e Coastal Act since the private residential would be replaced with ercial facilities, the project may be at odds with Section 30213 of the etas that lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be ged, and where feasible provided. The Draft Environmental Impact matives to the proposed project and one of those altematives was rine Recreational Alternative. This alternative consists of the removal ile homes, and the development of recreational facilities on the uld be consistent with Sections 30222 and 30213 of the Coastal Act. on site would be luxury resort hotel, which would not serve as a lower reational facility. To assist staff in determining the type of use (i.e. er cost uses such as a park, etc.) that is needed in the area, an that discusses the types of uses that are located in the area as well e present and anticipated future demand for each type of use. The this type of analysis as part of the review of alternatives for the site. ps I D6 M 9001 Jun -09 -2004 03:30m Prom- California Coastal Cam ission Draft Environmental Impact Report arinapark Resort & Community Plan Project Page 4 of 5 4. Water QlLaf T -784 P.005/006 P -404 ' The Draft Environmental Impact Report discusses water quality in terms of CEQA requirements, Regic nal board requirements and City requirements. In addition to CEQA, Regional Bo 3rd, City and other regulatory requirements, the proposed project will undergo review bas d upon water quality provisions in the Coastal Act. Sections 30230 and 30231 of the Q Ilfomia Coastal Act provide the broad basis for protecting coastal waters. habitats, an biodiversity from degradation of water quality associated with new and redevelopment. �I 1 Sound water quality management utilizes a three- pronged approach: site design, source A successful would ' control, and treatment first incorporate site control Best Management Practices. program design measures to minimize impact to the hydrologic landscape and source control est Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce dry weather flows and ' the generation and introduction of Pollutants into runoff, A few examples of site design imizing Impervious surfaces,. using porous pavements or alternative D9 practices include m pavers in parking ar Bas, preserving native vegetation and root systems, minimizing reducing roadway or parking lot length. Some examples ' erosion and sedime of source control BP itation, and Ps include planting native, drought tolerant, non - invasive 19 and fertilizer use; using efficient irrigation systems; and vegetation; minimizi implementing parkir pesticide ig lot and street.sweeping programs, among other measures. ' After site design an source control BMPs have been designed. treatment control BMPs (typically in a treat proposed) should b ant train approach for an extensive development like the one designed for the development. Treatment control BMPs should be , designed to treat th the specific pollutants generated on each portion of the site. In ad measures must be sized and designed to mitigate water quality , addition, propo impacts generated the development. As a goal, the Commission has required post - construction struct ral BMPs (or suites of BMPs) should be designed to treat, infiltrate or filter the amount of stormwater runoff produced by all storms up to and including the 85th , percentile, 24 -hour hour storm event, with storm event for volume -based BMPs, and /or the 85th percentile, 1- an appropriate safety factor (i.e., 2 or greater), for flow -based BMPs. i , Based on Section 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission must ensure that a development minimizes to the maximum extent feasible polluted runoff and its impact to coastE I waters. Even where there is existing development on a site, a ect needs to demonstrate that it is minimizing to the maximum extent ' D L redevelopment pro feasible the impact to coastal water quality. Therefore, the development should r incorporate, and th P. EIR should discuss, the site design, source control, and treatment ' control Best Mana ! lement Practices (BMPs) that will be used in association with the entire site. Parkin trash ar lots. landscaped areas, loading and unloading docks, dry weather d debris are common constituents in commercial and residential flows, and areas, and BMPs hould be designed to address these constituents. ' Finally, Commissic n staff suggests use of catch basin Inserts throughout the f filtration systems near areas with especially high risk of pollutant I D development, use generation (loadin /unloading docks, parking lots, etc.). and the use of biofiltration. Jun- 08-2004 03:3Tpm 1 From—California Coastal Commission and upper bay. private property maximize prote( proposed, are It various altematl ' Thank you for the opportt Marinapark Resort & Con ' future activity associated provided herein are prelir appropriate as the projec ' coastal development pert, questions. ' Cc: State L ' H:tfsytElR's \Commant draft Environmental Impact Report Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Project Page 5 of 5 T -784 P-006/006 P-404 )nated as a Coastal View Area in the LUP. The Draft EIR states that i Balboa Boulevard across the project site to Newport Bay are the extreme, easterly end of the site. Furthermore, the draft EIR figuration of proposed buildings incorporates two open air corridors e project entrance on Balboa Boulevard, flank the hotel lobby st and west sides, and continue to the beach and water. These :orridors will also serve as additional coastal view corridors to the Bay it-of -way at Balboa Boulevard. The EIR indicates that views from the -way will be protected since the proposed structures will be no closer than those now on the site. The LUP states that existing view Id be protected and enhanced, especially views of the ocean, harbor, here coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on thin the sight lines from the roadway shall be sited and designed to in of the coastal view. While it appears that additional vlews may be e any other opportunities for extra views? The EIR should discuss s that maximize the provision of public views across the site. nity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the munfty Plan Project. Commission staff request notification of any vith this project or related projects. Please note, the comments unary in nature. Additional and more speck comments may be develops Into final form and when an application is submitted for a tit. Please feel free to contact me at 562 - 590 -5071 with any Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Project Project (SCH# 200311021)NB Pia 1 1 60 Coastal views Marinapark is desl existing views fror currently limited tc states that the cor ' that extend from tl structure on the e additional access from the public rig 18'" Street right -o1 to this right- of-wa! and upper bay. private property maximize prote( proposed, are It various altematl ' Thank you for the opportt Marinapark Resort & Con ' future activity associated provided herein are prelir appropriate as the projec ' coastal development pert, questions. ' Cc: State L ' H:tfsytElR's \Commant draft Environmental Impact Report Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Project Page 5 of 5 T -784 P-006/006 P-404 )nated as a Coastal View Area in the LUP. The Draft EIR states that i Balboa Boulevard across the project site to Newport Bay are the extreme, easterly end of the site. Furthermore, the draft EIR figuration of proposed buildings incorporates two open air corridors e project entrance on Balboa Boulevard, flank the hotel lobby st and west sides, and continue to the beach and water. These :orridors will also serve as additional coastal view corridors to the Bay it-of -way at Balboa Boulevard. The EIR indicates that views from the -way will be protected since the proposed structures will be no closer than those now on the site. The LUP states that existing view Id be protected and enhanced, especially views of the ocean, harbor, here coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on thin the sight lines from the roadway shall be sited and designed to in of the coastal view. While it appears that additional vlews may be e any other opportunities for extra views? The EIR should discuss s that maximize the provision of public views across the site. nity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the munfty Plan Project. Commission staff request notification of any vith this project or related projects. Please note, the comments unary in nature. Additional and more speck comments may be develops Into final form and when an application is submitted for a tit. Please feel free to contact me at 562 - 590 -5071 with any Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Project Project (SCH# 200311021)NB Pia 1 1 60 Madnapark Resort and CommJmhy Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments ' D. California Coastal Commission ' IN DI. This comment regarding fill as part of the proposed project is noted. As discussed in response to comment B20, a mitigation measure is recommended to modify the proposed dock so that there would be no bulkhead, no groin wall, and no fill. With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the proposed project would ' not include fill activities and therefore, Section 30108.2 of the Coastal Act would not apply. D2. Please see response to comment D 1 regarding fill activities. D3. This comment regarding the mitigation ratio is noted and has been incorporated in the revised mitigation measure BR -6 as discussed in response to comment C2: D4. Please see response to comment D 1 regarding fill activities. ' D5. Please see response to comment Dl regarding fill activities. ' D6. Please see response to comment D7 below regarding the provision of lower cost visitor and recreational facilities. D7. As stated on Pages 1 -6 and 5.4-12 of the DEIR, the project includes the replacement t of all existing recreational facilities, including the public beach, with the exception of the basketball half - court. Therefore, the project will continue to provide lower cost visitor and recreational facilities consistent with Section 30213 of the Coastal Act. The Marine Recreation alternative would provide more of these facilities through the ' provision of a full basketball court an additional 1.64 acres of parkland and a public boat launch. As boating is not necessarily a low cost activity, the alternative's ' provision of 20 boat slips at 40 feet in length may or may not satisfy Section 30213. There is an abundance of lower cost visitor and recreational facilities on the Balboa ' Peninsula, and very few luxury facilities. West Newport and the Peninsula have over five miles of wide, sandy beaches, all of which are available to visitors at no cost. There are two public piers on the Peninsula, from which the public may fish at no cost. The commercial areas on the Peninsula, particularly Balboa Village and ' McFadden Square, are dominated by lower cost restaurants and shops. The Retail Commercial Market Analysis prepared for the City's General Plan update in 2002 found that Balboa Village has very low sales per square foot, $128.80 compared to a ' national average of $265 to $399. McFadden Square has slightly higher sales per square foot, at $189.90. While this low sales performance is attributable, in part, to the seasonable nature of the market, it also is reflective of the low cost of the goods and services offered in response to demand from visitors to the beach. Similarly, ' there are lower cost visitor accommodations in the area. Peak summer rates at hotels and motels in Newport Beach range from $69 to $750 per night. Every hotel and ' motel on the Peninsula offers rooms for under $200. For example, the Best Western Bay Shores Inn, across 18th Street from the project site, has rooms available for $180 per night during the peak season. The Newport Dunes provides a 406 -space recreational vehicle park, with tent camping permitted. In 2003, peak summer rates ranged from $42 to $139 per night. Michoei Brandman Associates WCUM (PN- JN)10064%OWER20V)064ER20 -RTC 7 -1 finaLdac IN Marinepsrk Resort end Community Pleas - ' Response to Comments an the Draft OR Responses To Comments D8. The comment regarding water quality is noted. The following will be added to the ' discussion under the Water Quality subsection immediately following the Regulatory ' Setting subheading on page 5.2-4 of the Draft EIR: "rhe ' Add: proposed project is subject to review for conformance with the ' provisions of Section 30230 of the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code) pertaining to marine resources and Section 30231 of the , California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code) pertaining to biological , productivity." D9. The proposed project incorporates site design features and source control measures in ' order to minimize potential impacts. Section 5.2.5 of the Draft EIR identifies , recommended mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate pollutants that have the potential to affect off -site water quality. Mitigation Measure HWQ-2 ' includes site design and source control Best Management Practices (BMPs). Site design BMPs includes erosion control measures, trash enclosures, and a reduction in the amount of impervious surfaces allowing for a greater amount of percolation. The t erosion control BMP controls potential erosion by establishing ground cover within landscaped areas. The trash enclosure BMP prevents stormwater from coming into , contact with any trash. Source control measures include BMPs such as litter control, t an irrigation system that prevents over - watering, water quality systems, and catch basin inserts. Mitigation Measure HWQ -3 includes source control BMPs for the boat ' slips portion of the proposed project. Therefore, the findings presented in the Draft ' EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. D 10. Section 5.2.5 of the Draft EIR contain recommended mitigation measures that include treatment controls for the Iandside portion of the development that include ' the hotel and other improvements and for the boat slips proposed to be located in Newport Bay. These treatment controls BMPs are designed to address pollutants specific to each of these areas. Mitigation Measure HWQ -6 requires that the two on_ ' site detention basins be sized to accommodate peak stormwater flows. The water quality system BMPs identified in Mitigation Measure HWQ -2 would be sized and designed to meet the constraints of the proposed development. A telephone , conversation on Tune 21 st, 2004, with Mr. Femie Sy, Coastal Program Analyst with the California Coastal Commission confirmed that the performance goal for post - construction structural BMPs referenced in this comment is not a strict, pre- defined , set of performance criteria. A telephone conversation on Tune 18th, 2004, with Metropointe Engineers, the firm that prepared the Drainage Technical Study, including the Water Quality Management Plan, confirmed that these performance criteria would be met with the implementation of the recommended mitigation ' measures. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. , D11. The proposed project includes site design, source control and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used. Implementation of recommended Mitigation Measure HWQ -4 would require a water quality monitoring program be ' put into place that would ensure that all of the BMPs recommended in Mitigation Measures HWQ -1 through HWQ -3 are effective. Please also see response to comments D -8 through D -11 regarding a discussion of the BMPs. ' D12. Please see response to continents H17 and D9 for a discussion on catch basin inserts. Michael Brandman Associates H: 1Chem (P7- JN)\0064`OWER20\OD64ER20_RTC 7 -1 finaldm 70 ' Marfnapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments D13. There are no coastal views from Balboa Boulevard in addition to those discussed in the Draft EIR. Section 7 of the Draft EIR includes an alternative (Marine Recreation Alternative) that would increase coastal views from Balboa Boulevard compared to the proposed project. 1 1 �J 1 1 Michael Brandman Associates ' H:VClieW (PN- JN)10064W64ER2OW64ERI0_RTC 7 -1 SmLdm 71 ' SMB Terry Tammirim Agem secretary Cal /EPA ' June 7, 2004 Fax :714- 484 -5438 Jun 8 2004 8 :18 P.02 E Department of Toxic Substances Control Edwin R Lowry, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, Calwomia 90630 Amold schwarieneWr Govamor ' Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport, California 92659 ' NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MARINAPARK RESORT & COMMUNITY PLAN (SCH #2003111021) Dear Mr. Campbell: ' The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your Notice of Completion (NOC) of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above - mentioned Project. ' Based on the review of the document, DTSC's comments are as follows: ' 1) Appendix A of the draft EIR shows that Hazards and Hazardous Materials are considered as environmental factors that could result in a potentially significant Impact according to the Environmental Checklist Form of the Initial Study as a ' part of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a draft EIR. However, these factors were determined not to be significantly affected by the proposed project during the preparation of the draft EIR. Please explain why these factors are no ' longer considered potentially significant. 2) Page 1 -5 of the draft EIR states that a Limited Phase II Soil Assessment was prepared. This Phase 11 report has not been provided with the draft EIR. The EIR states that "a low concentration of organochlorine pesticide was also detected at levels below significant thresholds and would not require regulatory ' involvement or remediation." Please elaborate on "levels below significant thresholds." ' 3) The draft EIR also states that it has been determined through soil sample , analysis that no further assessment or remediation is warranted in the project area. Please state whether any regulatory agency determined that no further action is warranted, and which agency made that determination. 1 ' ® Printed on Recycled Paper ;. E� E0?, E3 SMB Fax:714- 484 -5438 Jun 8 2004 8:18 P.03 �MEMO ' Mr. James Campbell , June 7, 2004 Page 2 of 4 4) The draft EIR states that concentrations of semi - volatile organic compounds ' (SVOCs), organochlorinated. pesticides (OCPs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were not present along the beach portion of the site. Is this statement meant to imply that these contaminants are present in the immediate vicinity ' along the beach portion? If so, how far away from the beach are these C c f contaminants? If any property adjacent to the project site is contaminated with hazardous substances, and if the proposed project is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated site, then the proposed development may fall within the 'Border ' Zone of a Contaminated Property." DTSC should be contacted prior to construction if the proposed project is within a `Border Zone Property." ' 5) On page 5.2 -5, the report states that based on the sediment samples taken in 2004 adjacent to the project site in the vicinity of the proposed boat slips, no detectable concentrations of SVOCs, OCPs, or PCBs were detected. However, the report states that in 1994, the State Water Resources Control Board, in conjunction with other federal and state agencies, studied sediment chemistry and toxicity and, based on the results of the sampling and their ' respective locations, sediments were found to contain elevated concentrations ES of mercury, copper, DDT, PCBs, tri -butyl tin, lead, DOE, and total Chlordane. Moreover, the report states that the Southern California Coastal Water ' Research Project investigated sediments conditions In the Rhine Channel northwest of the project site and found similar concentrations in the sediments. Therefore, the draft EIR should identify which regulatory agencies are currently ' involved with the approval of this project. All environmental Investigation and/or remediation should be conducted under a workplan which is approved by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous waste cleanup. , 6) Human health risk associated with the site should be evaluated. Potential indoor air intrusion associated with the project implementation should also be E , evaluated. 7) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain ' areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil. If the soil is contaminated, property dispose of it rather than placing a in another F7 location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils. ' Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfiill the areas. excavated, proper sampling should be conducted to make sure the imported soil is free of contamination. ' 73. 1 SMB ' Mr. James Campbell June 7, 2004 Page 3 of 4 Fax:714- 484 -5438 Jun 8 20b4 8:18 P.04 8) Any hazardous wastes /materials encountered during construction should be remedlated in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Prior to initiating any construction activities, an environmental assessment should be 1 conducted to determine if a release of hazardous wastesisubstances exists at the site. If so, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and E extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the ' environment should be evaluated. It may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to reduce existing or potential threats to public health or the environment. If no immediate threat exists, the final remedy should be implemented in compliance with state regulations and policies rather than excavation of soil prior to any assessments. 9) If during construction /demolition of the project, soli and /or groundwater contamination is suspected, constructionldemolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it is ' determined that contaminated soil and /or groundwater exist, the draft EIR should identify how any required investigation and /or remediation will be conducted, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory ' oversight. Prior to approving the draft EIR, please address all of DTSC's comments. As the lead ' agency, it is your responsibility to ensure that all of DTSC's concerns are properly addressed. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr, Johnson P. Abraham, Project Manager, at (714) 484 -5476. ' Sincerely, ' Greg Holmes Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch ' Cypress Office ' cc: See next page � �y SMB Mr. James Campbell June 7, 2004 Page 4 of 4 Fax :714- 484 -5438 Jun 8 2004 8 :19 P.05 cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044 Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief Planning and Environmental Analysis Section CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812 -0806 75 Madnopark Resort and Community Plan - Respww to Comments on the Oratt EM Responses To Comments 1 E. California Department of Toxic Substances Control ' ' E5. Please see response to comment B41 regarding hazardous materials on the project site. The Limited Phase II site assessments that were conducted for the proposed project will be required to be submitted to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board as well as the California Coastal Commission prior to obtaining the required approvals from these State agencies for project implementation. ' E6. Based on the two Limited Phase II site assessments and the regulatory database review, no significant human health risks are associated with implementation of the proposed project. Please note that page 1-4 in the Draft EIR includes a mitigation ' measure related to the potential for the existing onsite structures to contain lead and asbestos materials. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measure would reduce human health hazards to less than significant. Please also see response to comment B3 regarding airborne health hazards. E7. Please see response to comment B41 regarding the sampling of the bayfloor sediments. ' E8. Please see response to comment B5 regarding the regulatory database review completed for the proposed project and B41 regarding the sampling of the bayfloor ' sediments to determine presence of hazardous contaminants. E9. Soil and/or groundwater contamination is not suspected because the only adjacent ' contamination that occurred on land was at 15th Street, and remediation was completed. Furthermore, bayfloor sediment samples were evaluated in the Limited Phase II site assessment, and the hazardous materials that were detected were at ' levels that are considered less than significant. Please see response to comment B41. Similar to any applicant throughout the State of California, if contamination was found, the applicant would be required to follow the appropriate regulatory ' requirements in remediating contamination. 1 Michnei Brandman Associates ' H:r—he "- JN)VU6 XOO"ER20M"ER7A_RTC 7 -1 SnaLdm ■JV El. Please see response to comment B6 regarding an explanation of the preliminary evaluation that occurred in the Initial Study and a further analysis and explanation in the EIR. After the further analysis, it was determined that a mitigation measure could be implemented to reduce the potential significant hazardous materials impact. This ' discussion is provided in Section 1.6 in the Draft EIR. E2. Please see response to comment B41 regarding the concentration level of organochlorine pesticide and the regulatory action level. E3. The two Limited Phase II assessments determined that action levels were not exceeded in any of the samples. E4. The contaminants listed were evaluated in the Limited Phase II site assessment report. As described in response to comment B41, the evaluated contaminants did not exceed regulatory thresholds. Based on the EDR, Inc report prepared for the project, there are no existing contaminated sites within 2,000 feet of the project site. ' E5. Please see response to comment B41 regarding hazardous materials on the project site. The Limited Phase II site assessments that were conducted for the proposed project will be required to be submitted to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board as well as the California Coastal Commission prior to obtaining the required approvals from these State agencies for project implementation. ' E6. Based on the two Limited Phase II site assessments and the regulatory database review, no significant human health risks are associated with implementation of the proposed project. Please note that page 1-4 in the Draft EIR includes a mitigation ' measure related to the potential for the existing onsite structures to contain lead and asbestos materials. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measure would reduce human health hazards to less than significant. Please also see response to comment B3 regarding airborne health hazards. E7. Please see response to comment B41 regarding the sampling of the bayfloor sediments. ' E8. Please see response to comment B5 regarding the regulatory database review completed for the proposed project and B41 regarding the sampling of the bayfloor ' sediments to determine presence of hazardous contaminants. E9. Soil and/or groundwater contamination is not suspected because the only adjacent ' contamination that occurred on land was at 15th Street, and remediation was completed. Furthermore, bayfloor sediment samples were evaluated in the Limited Phase II site assessment, and the hazardous materials that were detected were at ' levels that are considered less than significant. Please see response to comment B41. Similar to any applicant throughout the State of California, if contamination was found, the applicant would be required to follow the appropriate regulatory ' requirements in remediating contamination. 1 Michnei Brandman Associates ' H:r—he "- JN)VU6 XOO"ER20M"ER7A_RTC 7 -1 SnaLdm ■JV 1 � 1 ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor ' Los Angeles, California 90017 -3435 t (213) 236 -i800 f (213) 236 -1825 ' www.scag.ca.gov Officers; Resident: Con ncilmember Ron Roberts, Temecula • First Wire President Supervisor Hank tiImperial County• Sewnd Vi!e Resident Tani Young, Port Hueneme • immediate sident COUnailmember Bev Perry, Brea t County. Bank Kuiper, Imperial County • To Shields, Boa•Mey Los Angeles County. Vwnne Brathwafle Burke. 1 ge!es County - ZevYamslaysky, Los Angeles Harry Baldwin, San Gabriel • Paul , Cerritos • Tony Cardenas, Los Angeles - et Clark, Rosemead • Gene Daniels. Paramount • Mike Dispenza, Palmdale • Judy Dunlep. Inglewood • Eric Qnceni, Los Angeles - Y Greuel. Jos Angeles Frank Guru1B, C y•lames Hahn, WS Mgeks• tanize Nahn. L ngeles • Isadore Hall, Compton Tom e, Ws Angeles • Bonnie Lowenthal, Lang Bead. • Martin Ludlow, Las Angeles • Keith McCarty. Downey • Llewellyn Miller, Commont - C' MisNkmvski, Ws Angeles • Peul Nawatka, T ce •Pam O'COntwc. Santa Monica • Alax . Los Angeles • Bernard Parks, Ws Angeles 1 rry. Los Angeles Beatrice Pwr. Pico RFvem s, Jos Angeles • Greig Smith, Las Angeles Did Stanford, P2usa • Tom Sykes, Walnut • Paul r9au SidneyTyler, Pasadena•TOnia Bead •Mton io Yllamigo5a, is Washburn, Calabasas •lack •Bob Yausegan, Glendale • geles Orange County: Chris Northy, Orange County Ronald Bates. Ins Alamitos • Lau Bone, Tustin A n. Rulena Park• Richard Che.ez, Anaheim D e Coak, Huntington each • Cathryn D g, Laguna Nigu<I RI¢hdrd Dixon, in F • Alta nuke, la Palma • Rev Perry, Brea Tod Ridgeway, Newport Beach JRde ' rde County; Marion A,F.ley, Riverside Thomas Buckley, Lake Elsinore • Bonnie ger, Moreno Valley • Ron LoveridA1, •Greg Pettis, Cathedral Lity •Ron s, Temecula San Bernardino County: Paul Blame. San B dins County • Bill Alexander, Rancho C onga Edward Burgnon. Town of Apple V • lawrence Dale. Barstow • Lee Mn Garcia. G Terrace• Susan Wngvllle. San Bernardino• Gary Dye. Ontario • Deborah Robertson, Rialto Ventura County: Judy Mikels, Ventura County ererra. Simi Wliry •Cart Morehouse, San entura•TOn i YOUng, Port Hueneme e County Transportation Authority: s Smith. Orange County Riverside County Transportation Commission: Lpwe, He ra County Transportation Commission: Bill . Simi Valley Rmwoonamedwift" ss"holm May 19, 2004 Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. Community Plan Dear Mr. Campbeii: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAY 2 6 2004 PM 7�819110111 ,12,11213141516 1 20040258 Marinapark Resort & Thank you for submitting the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies. We have reviewed the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan, and have determined that the proposed Project is not regionally significant per SCAG Intergovernmental Review (IGR) Criteria and Calrfornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15206). The proposed project is not a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed Project does not warrant comments at this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the proposed Project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time. A description of the proposed Project was published in SCAG's April 16 -30, 2004 Interoovernmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and comment. The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all correspondence with SCAG concerning this Project. Correspondence should be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 236 -1867. Thank you. Sincerely, JEFFREY M. SMITH, AICP Senior Regional Planner Intergovernmental Review ;�?� /Zv� FIL 77 l/ Atwinapark Resort and Commonly Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comma-ft F. Southern California Association of Governments Fl. The City concurs with the Southern California Association of Governments regarding the determination that the proposed project is not a regionally significant project. Michael Brandman Associates ' H:% Cliem (PN- JM)\DW\0064ER2alD064ER20 -RTC 7 -1 fiml.&c 78 G _ Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Review Comments Submitted By City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission June 9, 2004 Harbor Commission Contact: Lorrie Arcese Secretary to the Harbor Commission - -(94-9)-644--30-54-- 7R Section 3: Project Description Section 3.1.2 Project Characteristics (DEM p 3 -1 and Exhibit 3-4 following p 3 -1, and Boat Slips pp 3 -5,6) " The proposed project includes the development of a luxury resort hotel with ancillary facilities that include an administrative building, spa villa, surface and subterranean parking, and 12 new slips that are supported by a bulkhead. A concrete walkway will extend from the resort hotel to the boat slips. A bulkhead will also be constructed and will separate the beach from the boat slips." Comment: The project description characterizes the water- dependent boat slips as an "ancillary facility" rather than as a major component of the project. While the resort hotel, (the primary use) is a visitor- serving use, it can function as such at any "resort" location, and is not absolutely dependent on a direct waterfront location to achieve it. It is thus not inherently a water - dependent or water - related use, but rather a "water- enhanced use" -as defined by the General Plan Harbor and Bay Element (HBE Definitions pp22 -23). Similarly, it is not inherently a "coastal dependent development or use" as defined by the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LCP LUP Chapter 5.0, Glossary). If the proposed project is to be defined as water /coastal- dependent, and thus conform to the policies of the two most - recently developed and adopted City documents covering development on the Newport Harbor water's edge, it should have a more credible water - dependent primary use component, image and functionality than the currently- proposed boat slips. Tfuis expanded functionality could also enhance project, City and Tidelands revenues, supplementing those of the hotel in better achieving Project Objectives 3 &4 as well as 7. The use of a major bulkhead in the proposed design, as well as the related dredging and fill, as described in the text and shown in Exhibit 34, result in a docking facility design with disproportionately high environmental impact and related mitigation needs /costs (as well as construction costs), when compared to the design options which are available for the site and project. It is recommended that the project applicant consider less environmentally - impacting design alternatives that could better achieve functional and economic feasibility, as well as more- likely local, state and federal regulatory agency permit approvals. The project description on page 3 -6 states "The proposed slips are for boats that do not exceed 30 feet in length, and they could accommodate up to 16 boats." This facility. Examination of the proposed design indicates the actual capacity, including the two end ties (accommodating either four boats at 30' -32' or two boats of 64' -65') could actually be 20 or 18 boats, respectively. Less - impacting design alternatives using the same 20 -boat capacity as a baseline capacity and the more desirable flexible size mix and supporting environmental and services features typical of a destination resort boat berthing facility should be developed and the optimum one selected. (See other Comments on these subjects below) 611 G2 " Section 3.3 — Project Objectives (pp 3-8,9) ' Development of the proposed Marinapark Resort & Community Plan would be consistent with the City's intent to accommodate a land use and accompanying physical improvements on the project site that would meet the following objectives: ' • Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula; ' • Redevelop the site with land uses that are consistent with, and permitted by, the legal restrictions on the use of tidelands; • Reduce the current and anticipated future deficit between tideland revenue and tideland expenditures; ' • Provide additional general fund revenue that will help the City maintain or en- hance the high level of public safety and municipal services provided to Newport Beach residents; ' • Enhance public access and community facilities on the site without any expenditure of tax revenue and without any fiscal impact on the Girl Scouts and other users; • Ensure that site redevelopment does not generate noise, glare or traffic that could adversely impact the residents in the vicinity or the American Legion use on the site; •'Provide for additional marine - related facilities that can be used by coastal visitors for sailing and boating." Comment: Clearly the proposed resort hotel could help meet the first objective, and must meet the second State - mandated objective (although it does not meet the policies of several Newport Beach planning policy documents as. The resort hotel portion of the project, assuming manageable debt, good marketing, high rates, adequate occupancy, and professional management, could materially assist in meeting the third and fourth Project Objectives. The extent to which it might meet these Objectives remains to be documented in the project fiscal impact analysis , proforma and lease terms and thus is not supported or capable of being evaluated in the DEIR. The marine /water Tidelands portion of the project and potential tidelands lease, as presently described in the DEIR, though also not able to be evaluated within the DEIR as to conformance to Objectives 3 &4, would appear to generate little to no operational revenues for the project, City and community, or the Tidelands or General Funds. This is inconsistent with current City policies and practice regarding commercial permit use of Tidelands and with the Project Objectives as stated in the DEIR. The fifth and sixth objectives are represented as achieved by the proposed nature of the project design and by the applicant's intent to provide, as a project- absorbed cost and development responsibility, the renewal of the existing on -site public facilities. 2 U010 The seventh objective is not credibly achievable by the project as currently designed and operationally described in the DEIR. Review of the marine site, market and revenue potentials to achieve this Objective (as well as Objectives 3 &4) suggests that a re-designed, environmentally -self- mitigating and well- operated destination resort marina alternative to the proposed boat slips project could achieve all three of these Objectives. It is recommended that the City work with the project applicant to further refine the boat berthing facility design and operational concept to achieve better attainment of Objectives 3,4 and 7, as well as to achieve compliance with existing local planning policy documents such as the General Plan Harbor and Bay Element and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan within the intent of Objective 2. Section 5.3 Biological Resources "5.3.5 Mitigation Measures (pp. 5.3.12,13) BR -5 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall design an elevated walkway to the boat slips that is supported by piles. This would allow tidal circulation to pass underneath the proposed walkway and alleviate potential water quality stagnation." Comment: This proposed mitigation measure is supported by the accompanying DEIR analysis. It essentially replicates the successful design profile of the other thousands of Newport Harbor fixed piers leading to gangways and docks which allow birds, humans, water and sand to freely pass beneath the pier in the normal course of natural processes and human activity along the beach shoreline. It is particularly critical in enabling the beach to naturally reform in response to tidal action and seasonal storms, and it eliminates the continuing maintenance needed to remove sand from a beach -level walkway and replace sand scoured away from the walk by high tides. The environmental impacts of the additional piling to support the elevated walkway /fixed pier are likely minimal and partly beneficial (additional habitat growth surfaces), and should be addressed as a part of the now - increased total water-immersed piling count of the project. The pier design should utilize the new Citv of Newport Beach design standards for dnckp anu piers, currently in preparation. "BR -6 Prior to approval of the boat slip construction permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission, the project applicant shall identify the location of a suitable soft bottom habitat and shorebird foraging habitat replacement site. Furthermore, the replacement site shall be epproved -by- the- L- J.S7Fish and- WFildlife Ser-viee,- Gali€ornia- Departmen"f -Fish and Game, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Based on the project's potential effect and a mitigation ratio of 3 to 1, 31,008.2 square feet (0.71) acre) would need to be replaced. In accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan shall be developed to monitor the success of habitat replacement. A monitoring plan in accordance with the requirements identified in the boat slip construction permit shall be implemented," (--i - - _1 I Vz 1 Comment The proposed boat slips design creates beach, water and bottom area impacts and related mitigation measures, as well as costs, substantially greater than those offered by alternative boat slip designs which can accomplish the same-project intent. Accordingly, a less- environueentally-impactin design should be created by the applicant, a design which would require.no dredging, bTiitObLeading or fill and which would provide additional flexibility and capacity of use for the project's maritime activities and boating visitors. The design coulc be developed along the existing pierhead line/ -6' depth+ line in existing "...usable water area for docking facilities." (LCP LLiP DDF -2) Maintenance dredging, if required, would then be largely concentrated on maintaining the existing angle of repose of the beach and achieving beach replenishment, which is a continuing process on the Harbor's beaches. Two (of many possible) design functionality are: Boat Slips Mitigation Concept A- Pierhead Line "Long Dock" (see Sketch A) The berthing facility could be developed as a single 430' "long dock" configuration with a total of 850' of side -tie berthing capacity on both sides (ves- sel draft limitation of 4.5' on the inner /shore side). This solution has an equivalent numerical capacity count (20 boats) to that of the proposed project, but provides a higher average vessel size of 40' and the inherent flexibility to accommodate an entire range of visiting vessel sizes rather than limiting them to 30' length. The dock and associated vessels location would be approximately even with the outer extent of the existing American Legion Marina and its berthed vessels Isee DEIR Exhibit 7 -1 for actual ALM outer dock location). The long dock would be reached by a fixed pier connecting to the longitudinal beach sidewalk, leading to an ADA- compatible ramp to the floating dock. This location required. The 430' x 8' dock could be constructed with the same, or fewer than, nine pilings as in the proposed project and would have a surface /shadowing area of 3440 square feet , or 10 +% less than the proposed project's 3826 square feet, creating less of this environmental impact on the existing water column/bottom. The total side -tie berthing/revenue capacity of 850' is 274' more than the 576' capacity in the proposed boat slips, providing additional marine visitor access and revenue potentials. Also included should be vessel pumpout facility, water and electrical utilities, and other amenities (access to resort restrooms, showers and services)typical of a destination resort marina, as well as a watertaxi stop (none of these are included in the proposed project). These features would enable the design to better meet meet other environmental requirements and City policies and would generate additional resort, City and Tidelands revenues. This alternative would also be less costly to construct and thus create less project debt burden, (estimated "hard" construction costs= $300,000 for Alternative A vs estimated $1,375,000 for the proposed boat slips). It could be expanded (if included in the permit applications) to the north in the form of slips in a later phase if either the pierhead line were able to be moved to the north, or; if it could be conditionally exceeded so long as the adjacent navigation channel was not restricted. 4 Cab 7 Boat Slips Mitigation Concept B- Pierhead Line +Slips to North (see Sketch B) This variant is essentially a northerly extension of slips from all or a portion of the long dock design described in Concept A above (Phase 2) to the same northerly boat slips project line as shown in the proposed project (DEER Exhibits 3 -3, 3 -4). It assumes either a relocation of the Pierhead Line, or an approved waiver of the line as a limit as in the proposed project, so long as the adjacent navigation channel deepest portion is not obstructed. The slips could be , configured in either in a perpendicular- fairway layout similar to that shown in Exhibit 7 -1, or one with slip fingers extending to the north, to the perpendicular pierhead line header dock, with the navigation channel aching as their access , fairway. As with Concept A, a wide range of vessel types and sizes would be accommodated and the pumpout, utilities, resort services and watertaxi dock provided. Environmental impact would be slightly greater than Concept A, comprising additional pilings and dock surface area, but still requiring no dredging or fill. Cost would be greater than Concept A, but still well below that of the proposed boat slips project, and the visitor berthing capacity and revenue potential would increase over both Concept A and the proposed boat slips project. This alternative would offer; the best balance of environmentally - responsible design; optimum capacity and vessel size mix; enhanced access and services to visiting coastal boaters and; optimum direct and indirect revenue potentials for the resort, community, and City and Tidelands Funds. NOTE: All Comments above also apply to impacts described in Sections 3.6 Construction Impacts, 3.8 Long Term Impacts and 4.2 Marina Construction and Operation in Marine Biological Resources Impact Assessment Report in DEIR Appendix D. Section 5.4 Land Use & Planning Harbor & Bay Element of the General Plan "Policy HB -1.1.1 — Water - Dependent Uses: designate water- dependent uses /activities as the highest priority, water - related uses /activities as the second ' priority, and water - enhanced uses/ activities as the third priority. Analysis Twelve boat slips including four for public use are included in the proposed project. The remaining eight will be used as guest slips for visitors to the resort hotel. Inclusion of the boat slips in the project promotes attainment of -Policy I IB -1:H." ' Comment: The proposed primary project use and occupancy of the site is by a 110 -room resort hotel and its support structures and activities, which form the dominant functional, physical and economic components of the project. By HBE S definition, the -hotel is a water- enhanced, not a water- dependent or water - related use and should thus be of lowest priority as a use considered on this site. (See ' HBE definitions, pp 22 -23) As drawn (Exhibits 3- 3/3 -4) and described in the 5 Sy � I 1 DEIR, the "twelve -slip" boat berthing facility (actually 18 -20 berths/boats rather than 12 -see Exhibit 3 -4) is a minor functional, physical, and (arguably a loss - leader) economic component of the project, with none of the commonly- accepted 1 characteristics of a destination resort docking facility or marina. To suggest that this proposed facility qualifies the hotel a water- dependent use is an incorrect interpretation of the Policy. The analysis statement "...inclusion of the boat slips in the project...' (italics by Commentor) and the minimal capacity and sizing 1 and economics make it appear that, unlike a true resort hotel and marina complex in which the marina is a major functional element and a major profit center, these slips were "included" as a supplemental, not a primary use. Further 1 there is no narrative in the project description or other DEIR sections of the boat slips' functional, marketing, operational or-economic role withiir the overall. protect concept that supports a credible claim of water dependency for the primary hotel use. This is an unsupported interpretation and application of this HBE policy —which would also apply under any revised GP designation of RMC and CP, should be rejected by the City as inadequate and revised by the applicant to a documentably- supportable water- dependent complex as 1 recommended throughout these DEIR comments (Page 5.4 -13) "Policy HB- 1.1.2 -Land Use Changes. When reviewing proposals for 1 land use changes, the City shall consider the impact on water- dependent and water - related land uses and activities and the importance of providing_ adequate sites fot facilities and service- essential to the operation of the harbor. This shall incitide not 1 only the proposed change on the subject property, but also the potential to limit existing land uses, activities and services on adjacent properties. However in no case shall the protection of such land uses, activities facilities and services deny an ' owner viable economic use of the property. AnalXsis The project includes a luxury resort hotel with 12 boat slips. The inclusion of the boat slips provide a facility that is currently in high demand 1 on Newport Bay. The project's provision of four boat slips for public use will provide a beneficial impact on marine recreational facilities. The provision of new public boat slips is consistent with Policy HB- 1.1.2. Comment: This is a misunderstanding and misapplication of the intent of this Policy, which was specifically drafted to prevent the displacement of, or if displaced, provide replacement sites for, "...facilities and services essential to the 1 operation of the harbor ". These facilities and services included boatyards, dredging, piledriving, marine construction, debris and spill cleanup, harbor maintenance, security patrol, fireboats, and the necessary land -water transfer of 1 equipment and materials at docks and wharves (such as the Rhine Commercial Wharf, currently the only place available for this use). The analysis representation of "beneficial impact" is also not reflective of the levels and 1 market profiles of current and projected demand for permanent and visitor vessel berthing needs in Newport Bay. This aggregated demand, as cited from private marina sources' waiting lists, City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Department waiting list, visitor and permanent slip and mooring berthing requests of the Harbor Patrol, and from marina industry operators and consultants is estimated to exceed 3000 permanent berths and "several hundred" F 1 85' 1 seasonal visitors. Iii light of these order -of- magnitude demand levels, the addition of 4 publicly - available 26' -30' slips; while laudable in intent, would not ' "beneficially impact" or. measurabiv °dasegs the types or numbers of demand for additional berthing in Newport Harbor. 'Me primary demand for slips in Newport Harbor (and in the overall SoCal marina market) is in the 4W and above length range. There is general regional marina vacancy and minimal market demand for 26' -30' slips in high -rate areas such as Newport Beach due to the high rates /cost as a percentage of boat value, and the. more economical option of , storing this size of boat on a trailer or in a dry storage yard. This misapplication of the policy intent and the unsupportable analysis contention of "beneficial impact" should be rejected by the City and should be dropped by the project ' applicant and EIR author, since there is no applicability to either policy or actual market demand, as the boat slip project is now proposed. "Policy HB- 1.2.4 -Land Use Regulations Ensure that land use regulations applicable to waterfront property continue to allow a wide variety of water dependent, water related and water enhanced uses. Analysis The project includes 12 boat slips and retains the public beach. These water- dependent uses would promote the attainment of Policy H13- 1.2.4.11 Comment: This policy was drafted to be specifically directed at "...land use regulations" for waterfront property and not to specific projects and their elements. Its intent is to insure that the existing variety of uses and any future , use§ retained the unique character of Newport Harbor which is an eclectic mix of intermingled recreation, residential, commercial, "working" harbor uses, rather than an artificial segregation of uses by type as found in most large SoCal coastal ' marinas. The analysis does not speak to the regulatory aspect or variety aspects 67 of this Policy (its subject) but rather only to two water - dependent uses, one of Which is a pre - existing public facility and use (beach), the retention of which would be assured in any project design review by City, CCC and the public. The second use, the boat slips, is not applicable in this case. It is a project element, not a suggested regulatory improvement, and, in any case it is applicable only to a single use category(water- dependent) rather than the variety of uses sought by the policy. The analysis conclusion of applicability of conformance to this policy should be rejected by the City as supporting project justification and revised or eliminated from the DEIR accordingly. " Policy HB- 1.3.5 -Guest Docks Maintain existing guest docks and encourage addition oLg e&t_ clack- capacityatCity--facilities ,4acht_chibs,aad_at- pri3Eately_ owned marinas, restaurants and other appropriate locations. Analysis The proposed project includes 12 boat slips with four of these slips for public use and the remaining for guests and visitors of the resort hotel. Inclusion of these boat slips is consistent with Policy HB- 1.3.5." Comment Conformance to this policy is generally achieved by the intent of the (� r proposed boat slips design, At best, it supports the use of the four "public use" 7 66 i I 1 I CJ I I 1 I J I i u i slips of 26' -30' as short -term guest docks for in- harbor small vessel use, a desirable end. However, it does not support the use of the docks, as proposed, by "guest" vessels of greater than 30' length seeking day or evening visits to the resort from either inside or outside the harbor, as might be expected from vessels transiting to a project guest dock (as contrasted with a visitor dock -see below) from Dana Point, Huntington Harbour, Long Beach, or other "day- trip" coastal locations. Accordingly, the guest dock /short -term docking facilities as designed and described in the proposed project should be expanded to accommodate vessels larger than 30' and should include a short —term drop- off /pickup dock area for watertaxis and local bayboat/electric boat users and their guests. "Policy HB- 1.4.2- Redevelopment Encourage redevelopment of outmoded or antiquated Harbor commercial uses as a part of an overall program to revitalize the older commercial and marine- oriented areas, especially in those areas with adequate infrastructure and parcels suitable for redevelopment as an integrated project. Analysis The proposed project includes the redevelopment of the project site, and the reconstruction of existing community and recreational facilities. The proposed facilities are located in an area that includes adequate infrastructure as described in Section 5.9 of this EIR. Therefore, the proposed project is determined to be consistent with Policy HB- 1.4.2." Comment: This is a misinterpretation and misapplication of this Policy. The project site contains no outmoded or antiquated Harbor commercial uses, is not an oldei commercial and marine- oriented area (the intent of this Policy was directed toward areas such as the Rhine Channel, Mariner's Mile, etc.). In fact none of the exisiing community and recreational facilities proposed to be replaced in kind by the applicant are covered under this Policy, since they are not harbor commercial uses. They are not water- dependent or water - enhanced, and only marginally water - related. The project does not propose to renovate any existing "harbor uses ", commercial or otherwise, or to provide any significant new harbor commercial uses beyond the boat slips, which are largely focused on the hotel's own use, rather than broader public use. The only existing "marine - oriented" uses of the project area are the public beach, and its public use for general swimming, casual beach /watersports, (past) public launching of beach - dollied or hand - carried small vessels, and to store beach- launchable City -owned vessels for public boating instruction. Except for deferred maintenance of the City -owned minor infrastructure supporting these uses, none are outmoded or -- antiquated, - although - previous - small -. boat- cross.beach_ launching- capabilities. could be restored and upgraded. The proposed project appears to retain all of these public uses and activities generally in place without redevelopment. The presence of adequate infrastructure for the proposed project is noted, but is irrelevant to the project's applicability to this Policy. The City should reject this tenuous claim of "redevelopment' consistency with the cited Policy as a basis for the environmental or policy conformance of the proposed project. Should the applicant wish to strengthen their claim for this policy, redevelopment of the public facilities could address existing deficiencies such as the need for a second 12 ci1l cl1z EON public restroom serving the beach area and improved public boating instruction support infrastructure. "Policy HB- 2.1.1 -Public Access Encourage the expansion and improvement of existing public waterfront access and water -uses access which provide important links to waterfront uses such as beaches, small vessel launching facilities, public dock, and other similar public water area uses. Analysis The proposed project includes a sidewalk that parallels the beach extending east to west along the northerly portion of the site. The sidewalk will be open to the public and will maintain public access to the beach and to the water. In addition, public access to the beach will be allowed from the Balboa Boulevard sidewalks to the beach via the main resort hotel entrance at Balboa Boulevard and the open air corridors that flank the east and west sides of the resort hotel lobby. These corridors increase the number of public access points to the beach and water. Accordingly, the project is considered to be consistent with Policy HB — 2.1.1." Comment: The project - proposed east -west sidewalk essentially replaces, in kind, the existing sidewalk paralleling the beach, which is also accessible to the public, thus there is no net loss or gain of this access feature. The other beach -water access points described for the project are noted and are consistent with the intent of this policy, so long as public access is not restricted by hotel security or operational policy. The City should insure that this access is provided in perpetuity in the drafting of the lease document language. "Policy HB- 2.1.7 - Visiting Vessels. Encourage new and improved facilities and services for visiting vessels, including public mooring and docking facilities, dinghy docks, guest docks, club guest docks, pump -out stations and other features, through City, County and private means. alvsis Twelve boat slips including four for public use are included in the proposed project. The remaining eight will be used as guest slips for visitors to the resort hotel. Inclusion of the boat slips in the project promote attainment of Policy HB- 2.1.7." Comment: If the hotel and its boat slips are intended to function as a destination dark= g and services facility for visiting boaters from the California coastline (Objective 7), the proposed design is inadequate for this purpose. The small capacity and size of the berthing facilities means that only a very few of the potential visiting vessels can be accommodated, thus diminishing, in advance, groups/ group cruises /events. More specifically, the limitation of vessel sizes to the 26' -30' range eliminates the large majority (typically 90°/'0 +) of potential visiting vessels of coastal cruising- capable size (typically 35' -50' and above) whose owners seek slip accommodations with amenities and services and are willing to pay top prices for these accommodations, amenities and services. These visiting vessel owners and their guests also have a higher propensity to spend significant retail dollars in the surrounding community at restaurants, shops, and other retail locations, as well as at marine service and fuel facilities, (113 C4 ILI /I I which also translates to additional local income and tax revenues. The apparent absence (undescribed in the EIR) of any of the typical amenities of a destination resort docking facility, such as waste pumpout, water and utilities, cable TV, ' courtesy use of resort facilities (since, by definition, most stay on their vessel), courtesy transportation, and other features in the project description suggest that �( this facility is not considered an integral part of the development concept or I resort operation. Clearly the missed market potential, missed economic opportunities and missed pass - through revenues to the City and Tidelands Funds of the guest/visitor docking and services portion of this project have not been properly addressed by the proposed project. The City should require the design of a true visitor - vessel marina and support facilities at this valuable tidelands water area and a commitment by the project applicant to provide supporting resort marina services, in order to more fully address this opportunity to capture an important segment of the visiting boater market and revenues. ' Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan On pages 5.4 -17 through 5.4 -19 the Marinapark Draft EIR describes the pro jj'ect's attainment of several of the policies of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) land Use Plan. "Public Property Leaseholds PPL -1 -In the leasing or re= leasing of publicly -owned land, full consideration shall be given to the public's right of access to the ocean, beach and bay and to the provision of coastal- dependent uses adjacent to the water. ' PPL-5 - Public access shall be required when the City issues new leases of public land, or renews existing leases. Analysis The proposed project includes a sidewalk that parallels the beach extending east to west along the northerly portion of the site. The sidewalk will be open to the public and will maintain public access to the beach and to the water. In addition, public access to the beach will be allowed from the Balboa Boulevard ' sidewalks to the beach via the main resort hotel entrance at Balboa Boulevard and the open air corridors that flank the east and west sides of the resort hotel lobby. These corridors increase the number of public access points to the beach and water. As a result, the project is considered to be consistent with the above public property leaseholds- policies,..P- olic-ies- P-PL -1- and -PP-L= 5CE - - -- - ._... - -- -- .-- �.-- - - ---- Comment: The analysis focuses only on the question of access and does not address the primary potential of for the proposed public property leasehold development, a "...coastal dependent use adjacent to the water ". The proposed resort hotel is not a coastal- dependent use as defined in the LCP LUP Chapter 5.0 Glossary: "Coastal 5 Dependent Development or Use: Any development or use which requires a site on, or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function at all ". No coastal- dependent use is mentioned in the Analysis discussion and conformance justification which addresses 10 1 8� only literal pedestrian access, not the coastal "portal" or "gateway' access potential offered by a coastal- dependent resort complex. (Please also see the discussion of this 3 S issue in Response to GP HBE Policy HB -1.1.1 Water- Dependent Uses) The City should require the applicant and EIR author to indicate how the pioiect uses - provide coastal. - .dependent uses adjacent to the water and how they enhance the "portal /gateway'' access effect foi the public (in addition to the pedestrian access). " Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas and Unique Coastal Resources Dredging, Diking and Filling DDF -2 — New development on the waterfront shall take into consideration existing usable water areas for docking facilities. Analysis The proposed project includes 12 boat slips in an area of Newport Bay that has usable water for docking facilities. As a result, the project is considered consistent with Policy DDF -2." Comment: The intent of this LCP LUP policy is to encourage waterfront and marina ' developers to locate and design their dock facilities within deeper. already- navigable water areas that would not require construction dredging and might only require tuture maintenance dredging, or current minor dredging to make up for deferred maintenance ' dredging. "Usable water areas" thus is defined as navigable water, not requiring, major dredging, as means of encouraging the protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas anu unique coastal resources. The proposed marina project will require the dredging of 1,250 to 1,750 cubic yards of material, the construction of a bulkhead (diking) and approximately 2,500 to 3,000 cubic yards of clean sand fill, to make the proposed boat slips design navigable by the vessels intended to use it. Additionally, ' the dredging, bulkheading and filling aspects of the marina as currently proposed will freate significant environmental impacts to bottom areas, beach sand transport processes, tidal scouring, water quality and other benthic conditions which will require extensive initial and continuing mitigation and maintenance. The applicant should revise the design of the berthing facilities to eliminate these impacts and improve functionality by better using the existing usable water area to avoid dredging, bulkheading and filling. Several possible design options could accomplish this. New Development , Visitor - Serving Facilities -VSF =3 Consistent- with all other policies to protect and enhance the quality -residential character of the community, the City shall encourage and protect both g�d private water- oriented recreational and entertainment facilities as a means or providing puonc access to. the waterfront. al sir The Mediterranean- themed architecture of the one and two story resort hotel buildings, the construction of a new meandering pedestrian sidewalk along the beach, the preservation of the existing palm trees along the beach, and the installation of new landscaping on grounds adjoining the public beach will be qo I similar in character to the highest level of improvements existing along the harbor. The physical improvements of the proposed project, therefore are considered to be - consistent with the Policy VSF -3 directive to maintain, protect and enhance the 1 quality residential character of the community." Comment: Although the architectural and landscape aesthetic improvements (or retentions in the case of the existing sidewalk function and palm trees) described are laudable, the analyst has missed the subject of Policy VSF -3, which is: ".... o encourage and Protect both Public and private water - oriented recreational and entertainment facilities as a means of providing public access to the waterfront." No mention is made in the analysis of how water - oriented recreation and entertainment elements of the project would encourage and provide public access to the waterfront. (It is understood that the existing/proposed sidewalk provides this access in a literal G17 sense.) For instance, the applicant could have indicated how the destination resort docking facilities (if properly redesigned and relocated) would provide regional and local recreational boating access to Newport Harbor facilities and activities, and how hotel- sponsored events at the beach /marina (concerts, water recreation events, barbeques, fishing tournaments, boating events, etc.) would provide entertainment accessible to the public. With no apparent understanding of the basic intent of the ' policy and no such expressions of recreation /entertainment access intent or understanding, the analysis is incorrect and the project does not conform to this policy. "VSF -4c — Provision and maintenance of public restrooms is a top priority. A permanent restroom facility shall be constructed at Las Arenas Park. Analysis The proposed project includes a public restroom as a part of the proposed Community Center. This provision would be consistent with the intent of Policy VSF -4c." Comment: There must be multiple restrooms in the new GS /Community center as a matter of code, serving that use and the adjacent children's play parklet which are located along Balboa Boulevard. This complex and these restrooms are isolated from the �$ beach b'y the iiiain body of the resort, requiring adults and children from the beach to cross a primary resort entry /exit road to access the restrooms. Accordingly, it is recommended that there be a second directly beach- accessible public restroom provided. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code — Harbor Permit Two conclusionary statements in this portion of the Draft EIR (Page 5.4 -20) appear unsupported by the analysis, and could, to a reader unfamiliar with these issues and the potentiil grantinj of permits or approval of a project exceeding the pierhead line: "Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to obtaining a Harbor Permit " "Therefore implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the construction of a dock outside of the pierhead line" 12 V Comment: In the case of the Harbor Permit, many additional factors beyond presumptive "less than significant impacts" (desirable, but not adequately defined or supported by analysis in the EIR ) would determine the issuing of a Harbor Permit. Also it is not certain that the boat slips portion of the project, as now proposed, would ' be granted my of the permits necessary for construction by the City and the other agencies involved, irrespective of their "less than significant impacts" aspects. The implied linkage is vague and incorrect as stated and needs to be rewritten to avoid misinterpretation. C19 I The Pierhead Line issue is currently under review by City, which intends to ' subsequently approach the Federal government with a plan to permit the revision of the existing 1936 -era pierhead lines to allow more berthing space in areas of the harbor where it will not interfere with navigational channels, moorings, and other water -use areas. There is no guarantee that this revision/expansion will occur. The project's proposed boat slips design has 80% of its docking space capacity located beyond the pierhead line. Accordingly, an alternative "fail- safe" plan providing a docking facility completely or largely within the existing pierhead line (while also meeting the other criteria outlined in these EIR review comments) is recommended. As above, the implied linkage is vague and incorrect as stated and needs to be rewritten to avoid misinterpretation. - ' Section 7- Alternatives to the Proposed Project Three sentences of the introduction to this section of the DEIR, which describe the i intended/ mandated focus and evaluation process of the alternatives, and the accompanying restatement of the project development objectives are important in this discussion and comments: (DEIR pp 7 -1,2) " This section focuses on alternatives to the proposed project capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant adverse impact associated with the proposed project even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives or be more costly. Additionally alternatives are discussed in the terms of achieving the project objectives and considering the feasibility of implementing the alternative. According to Section 15364 of the CEQA Guidelines, feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social ' and technological factors." (Page 7 -1) Comment: The methodology used in the DEIR to compare the proposed project with ' the alternatives, m pancc`ular, fhi l�uii►a" p`ark—Re`creabon Alternative grid -thL educed- - - Intensity Alternative, does not utilize an objective -by- objective attainment (or non - attainment) analytical comparison of the proposed project and its alternatives with the project develMment_oblectives, and has no supporting narrative or data. It is therefore impossible for a DEIR reviewer to determine the degree or basis for the qualitative or quantitative achievement of these objectives by the prooposed_project or the alternatives in this important section of the DEIR. Similarly, a reviewer's ability to determine or understand the feasibilitX of implementing the alternatives in comparison with each 13 I I I other and with the proposed project is not possible in the DEIR as written. There is no comparative narrative or chart including the five feasibility factors, plus time and "success" nor any supporting feasibility analysis text and data for the conclusionary declarations of alternatives feasibility or infeasibility included later in this DEIR section. These omissions weaken and obscure the alternatives analysis section n f the DEIR generally considered as one of the most important and potentially legally- vulnerable sections of the EIR prrocess..This section of the DEIR should be substantially revised and strengthened with more detailed and accurate data and narrative describing the alternatives and the comparative analysis process as the basis for conclusionary statements. Iii particular, if economic feasibility (not just total revenue potential) is used as one of the criteria for weighing alternatives in comparison with the proposed project, (in addition to the "effects on the environment") of the DEIR, then fiscal impact and economic feasibility analyses (with feasibility achievement criteria) need W be I made fbr all of the alternatives and the - piopose-d project, before conclusionary statements about alternatives are made on this subject. 7.2 Marinapark Marine Recreation Alternative Section 7.2, (including Pages 7 -3 through 7 -5 and Exhibit 7 -1) of the Marinapark Draft EIR describes and analyzes the Marinapark Marine Recreation Alternative as a possible alternate use of the Marinapark site to those in the proposed project. As stated in the Draft EIR (Section 7: Alternatives to the proposed project, page 7 -1): i 2. " The Marinapark Marine Recreation Center (Alternative) was selected because this alternative is consistent with the existing General Plan designation of Recreation and Environmental Open Space and is consistent with the Recreation ' and Open Space Element which suggests expansion of park and recreational uses. This alternative was developed by the City of Newport Beach staff. The purpose of this alternative is to provide expanded recreational facilities for City residents and ' provide a project consistent with limitations of the Tidelands Trust." Comment: The Marine Recreation Alternative (MRA) is also compatible with all applicable portions of the General Plan Harbor and Bay Element and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Further, the Marine Recreation Alternative addresses the long - identified need for a location within the Harbor for many priority water - dependent ' public uses and activities identified in the GP HBE and on the Harbor Commission Priority Issues Task Lists. It does not require a General Plan Amendment or other changes in existing regulations or documents to be implemented. 2 7.2 Marine Recreation Alternative (Plan) Figure 7 -1 Comment: It is assumed that the MRA as shown in Figure 7 -1 is a purely conceptual collection of these uses and functions in one of many possible combinations and is not necessarily the recommended or "best" design configuration for the marine elements of the concept , but merely illustrative of the collection of uses intended. Several modifications to this conceptual layout appear desirable as self - mitigating measures creating less environmental impact and more functionality. 14 13 For example, the suggested launch ramp could be moved to the eastern end of the site, adjacent to the proposed commercial marine services launch area, since they are compatible functions and structures. This would retain an entire strip of uninterrupted beach to the west of the ramp. The marina/boat berthing facilities could then be moved slightly to the west of the launch ramp and developed in a different, environmentally less - impacting design as noted in the Comments on Section 5.3 Biological Resources which describes two potential alternative designs for both the proposed project and that shown in Figure 7 -1. These mitigation- inherent designs move the boat berthing facilities out to the Pierhead Line/ 6' mllw depth line eliminating the need for dredging Qr bulkhead?ng, and by using a piling - supported fixed access pier over the beach, achieve the recommended mitigation design for access across the beach. The "charter boat moorings" (actually "end -tie berths) shown in Figure 7 -1 are illustrative of only one of many potential public visitor- serving user for these large (881 end ties, a berthing category currently in limited and declining supply in Newport Harbor. Other "large vessel" uses could include large visiting yachts, visiting tallships or other historic or notable vessels, and, if necessary/desirable, a relocated Newport Harbor Nautical Museum, located on an independent dock. 7.2.3 Conclusion (p7 -5) " The implementation of this alternative and soils, aesthetics, and public services project." (Agreed -No Comment) would result in less impacts to geology and utilities compared to the proposed _ " The alternative would also result in similar impacts to land use and planning." Caal 1 I f, A Comment: The proposed project will require a General Plan Amendment, whereas the MRA will not. The proposed project is inconsistent with a number of General Plan Harbor and Bay Element and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan policies as noted elsewhere in this DEIR review. The MRA is consistent with these plans and policies. " Furthermore, this alternative would result in greater impacts to hydrology and water quality, biological resources, transportation, air quality, and noise impacts compared to the proposed project." (Disagree- See Comments Below) Comment: H_vdrology and Water Quality- No quantitative comparison of significant impact difference between the MRA and proposed protect is provided in the DEER on than the proposed project. For example, the amounts of impermeable surface area requiring (by law) collection and treatment of storm water by the same methods with the same mitigation measures (in both the alternative and the proposed project) appear approximately equivalent, when the paved and roof /building footprint areas of the proposed project are compared with those of the MRA. In fact, if a permeable hardscape paving such as "grasscrete" or similar is used as a mitigation for the parking areas of the MRA, and added to the 1.64 acres of park area, it would appear to be superior to the proposed project in permeability /runoff retention and percolation surface area. Further, 15 Ca23 It ' all modern boat ramp designs incorporate a paved capture bump or berm with a french drain and filtered catch basin at the top of the ramp to retain, treat and drain to stormdrains or public sewers any parking lot or ramp apron runoff before it can run 1 down the ramp surface into the water. An MRA ramp design would be required to have such a design. BMP -driven operation and oversight of the MRA ramp facility by City (or lessee operator) staff would reduce pollution potential on the ramp surface. NOTE: Under the Impact Analysis of this subject on page 7-4, the conclusion is stated "The implementation of the project mitigation measures would reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level ". This is inconsistent with the "greater impacts" for the MRA statement in the quoted sentence from the Impacts Conclusion section of the DEIR, quoted above. The DEIR is thus inconsistent in its conclusion of greater impact of the MRA in comparison with the proposed project on this subject and needs to be revised. Comment: Biological Resources- No quantitative comparison of significant impact -difference between the MRA and proposed project is provided on this subject as a basis for reaching the conclusion that the MRA has a greater impact than the proposed project. The estimated dredged areas and volumes are generally similar in magnitude between the two plans -MP C 0.23 ac. /1.25 -1.75k cy versus MRAC 0.25 ac, 1.3k -1.8k cy. The launch ramp is the primary difference in the creation of additional (mitigatable) impact, and is an acknowledged difference in the development and use intent of the two projects, created in order to meet a significant, demonstrated public need. (In the review Comments for section 5.3- Biological Resources, two self - mitigating boat dock designs not requiring dredging or bulkheading are described, which could reduce the uupacm or either the proposed project or the MRA.) NOTE: Under the Impact Analysis of this subject on page 74, the conclusion is stated " Marine Life impacts associated with this alternative could be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the project mitigation measures ". This is inconsistent with the "greater impacts" for the MRA statement in the sentence from the Impacts Conclusion section of the DEIR, quoted above. The DEIR is thus inconsistent in its conclusion of greater impact of the MRA in comparison with the proposed project on this subject and needs to be revised. Comment. Transportation- No quantitative comparison of significant impact difference between the MRA and proposed project is provided on this subject as a basis for reaching the conclusion that the MRA has a greater impact than the proposed project. The MRA provision of 106 Beach/Slip (and Launch Ramp) parking spaces for public use, plus 142 additional public parking spaces for the park, GS /CC, tennis courts, and - general useTesultsin-248- parking spacesfor- public -use.— The - proposed -project- provides 154 public parking spaces, or 94 less than the MRA in this demonstrably underparked public recreation beach/area. Additional public parking may create the potential for more peak trips during high- visitor period. However, providing, easily- accessible additional public parking in the MRA, the potential of reducing traffic and air quality problems associated with current visitor parking space "hunting/circling" traffic on local streets in this area is increased. In terms of assisting in the achievement of other project objectives, the minor environmental trade -off of additional public parking 16 � a.3 cad c�a5 .PA 1§� spaces in this critical area should be evaluated and weighed carefully against possible J Ga additional (but unknown) peak hour trips when these are calculated. NOTE: Under the Impact Analysis of this subject on page 7-4, the conclusion is stated "The implementation of this alternative and the proposed mitigation measures would result in less than significant traffic impacts." This would then be inconsistent with the 6;Z5 "greater impacts" for the MRA statement in from the Impacts Conclusion section of the DEIR, quoted above. The DEIR is thus inconsistent in its conclusion of greater impact of the MRA in comparison with the proposed project on this subject and needs to be revised. Comment: Air Ouality- No quantitative comparison of significant impact difference between the MRA and proposed project is provided on this subject as a basis for reaching the conclusion that the MRA has a greater impact than the proposed project. Without quantitative information of additional peak trips of sufficient number to create pq additional significant long -term air emissions, the speculative conclusion "Overall, since long -term emissions mgj be greater, this alternative would result in greater air quality impacts compared to the project' cannot be supported. (emphasis italics & underline added by HC) This assertion needs to be revised to be consistent with any quantitative analysis of additional peak trips /air quality-linked impacts. Comment: Noise -No quantitative comparison of significant impact difference between the MRA and proposed project is provided on this subject as a basis for reaching the conclusion that the MRA has a greater impact than the proposed project. The amount of noise related to greater vehicle trips (if any) which might be generated by the MRA cannot be determined until those trips are projected in number and time of day and compared with those of the proposed project. (see Transportation and Air Quality Comments above) The amount of boat engine noise generated from any marine use and is factor type (sail be involved in or �3D activity a of the of vessel power -only may either both projects) engine type and muffler system, type and amount/frequency of use of the vessels, and operator skill. Thus a profile of these factors for both the proposed project and the MRA would have to be developed to enable credible noise level projection. The two projects are approximately equivalent in numbers of berthed vessels — 20 for the proposed project and 22 for the MRA. The MRA has the potential for additional noise on the basis of the added launch ramp, but the degree of additional impact is not able to be quantitatively calculated. A mitigation factor for boat noise is that the 5mph harbor speed limit would force all vessels to operate at an idle level, with low related noise , levels. NOTE: Under the- Impact Analysis-of this subject-on-page-7-4 ;the conclusianis- stated-- -- "Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in less than significant noise impacts after mitigation ". This would then be inconsistent with the "greater impacts" for the MRA statement in from the Impacts Conclusion section of the DEIR, quoted above. The DEIR is thus inconsistent in its conclusion of greater impact of the MRA in comparison with the proposed project on this subject and needs to be revised. "Overall this alternative would result in greater impacts compared to the proposed project." 17 3J_ , J 1 ff ' Comment: This conclusion is not supported by the information provided in the DEIR, since no documented technical analysis or quantitative comparison is made to establish its validity as a greater cumulative or overall impact intensity for the MRA. Further, the G3� conclusionary sentences in each of the individual impact analysis categories (except for air quality) discussed in section 7.2.2 Impacts describe less impacts for the MRA than for the proposed project.(See Comments in preceding text, particularly those under "Notes ".) The DEIR is thus inconsistent in its conclusion of greater impact of the MRA in comparison with the proposed project on this subject and needs to be revised. " This alternative would meet many of the project objectives. However it is not ' known if this alternative is economically viable, and therefore it is unclear if it meets the objectives related to City revenues." Comment: Agreed. It would appear to meet all of the project objectives. (See Comments for Section 3.3 Project Objectives) The degree to which it meets the Tidelands and City General Fund revenue objectives is impossible to determine, since no criteria or threshold numbers for successful attainment in these categories, and no analysis of minimum or threshold attainment by the proposed project and the MRA have been described in the DEIR. A refined MRA design and operating plan, with an appropriate (under operation) or an appropriate lease rates /fees and lease rates /fees structure public terms structure (under private lessee operation) could, using currently- successful similar publicly -owned facilities as a threshold example, likely provide revenues to both Funds well in excess of current sources. This assertion of course needs to be developed and analyzed in detail to compare with existing revenues and those anticipated from the proposed project, and with the acceptable threshold levels, to determine "economic viability", which will , of course, be different for the MRA and the proposed project due to their different uses and operating structures. "It also does not serve visitors in the manner envisioned by not providing accommodations." Comment: This is not an environmental impact issue and is not a stated project ' objective for any except the 7' objective — "Provide for additional marine- related facilities that can be used by coastal visitors for sailing and boating". If the MRA is developed, as envisioned, as a much- needed destination marina with supporting services for recreational boating visitors from along the coastline, it will by definition, ' provide accommodations for visitors. Serving the 40' average size coastal cruising power and sail vessels desiring weekend (typically 2 -3 nights) and longer (one week to one month) berthing stays, the MRA as proposed could accommodate 20 -22 cruising G3�j ' - vessels- with -an- average adult -crew- size- of- 2- 4- persons,-w-ith -each vessel - typically -having . 4-6 beds/bunks. Assuming an average of 3 persons /vessel and a 2.5 night average stay, a 100% occupancy weekend would yield 22x3x2.5 or a total of 165 " boat nights" of fees accommodation, with the visitors having brought their own lodging. Rates and charged for berthing and services would be at market for high - quality destination visitor marinas. This visitor marina accommodation package would include power and ' water service, waste pumpout, trash containers, cable TV hookup, telephone, showers /restrooms, laundry and watertaxi service, all generating additional revenues. While this is only a portion (20%) of the 825 "room nights" and revenues generated by ' 1R � �7 the hotel under similar assumptions, CONCLUSION: If properly designed, mitigated and operated as described above, the Marine Recreation Alternative would appear to represent a completely feasible, �3r economically viable, environmentally - responsive alternative to the proposed project, conforming to all City Project Objectives and all City Planning and Development Policy documents. 19 1 1� 1 1 1 1 i qQ ! 1V ' DI AFT EXHIBITA ' Recommendations of the Harbor Commission to mitigate incompatibilities, inconsistencies and deficiencies of the Proposed Resort Hotel at Marinapark. 1. Redesign the boat berthing aspect of the marina/dock to minimize the number of small slips (except as provided for launches, dinghies, and small bay/electric boats). Require suitable fiscal impact analysis of each alternate design which will allow comparative study with the proposed project vs. the Marine Recreation Alternative ( "MRA'J ' 2. The redesign, which should be based upon a supporting marked demand or research study, should offer docking opportunities for larger visiting boater vessels (say 40 — 100 ft.) and provide the appropriate amenities (i.e. electrical power, water, and cable connections, plus a waste pump -out station, ground transportation services (car rental, bicycle rental, hotel shuttle, etc). 3. Add in a small boat launching ramp (See concept as set forth in the "Marine Recreation Alternative" included in the draft E.I.R). 4. Relocate /reconfigure the boat berthing structure to not extend northward past the pierhead line: 3� 5. As one alternative design concept, have the applicant consider one primary long dock r which would provide the operator maximum flexibility in accommodating yachts and boats of varying length and beam. Such a concept may prove more consistent with the ' "Yacht Resort" amenity and marketing plan of the hotel. Also, without the constraint of multiple small slips design, the property frontage would have the capacity and capability to respond to event driven demand, a yachting race, seasonal transiting boaters who annually stop in Newport enroute to or from Mexico and points north. Similarly, the open design would allow the water frontage to be accessed for public emergency use (i.e. Harbor Department, lifeguard, or fire boat response, storm debris removal, etc.) Such added facilities adaptability and the provision of potential future public services (i.e. water taxi, charter boat service, etc.) is more consistent with the intent of the policies of the Bay and Harbor Element of the General Plan. As such, the land use for the proposed project should seek to broaden the use spectrum of the waterside docklmarina facilities. 6. Require a second public restroom on the beach/marina side of the project. 7. Incorporate lease provisions to ensure that public access to, along, and from the waterfront is not impaired by the necessary security devices required on a dock or in a marina. Also, storage of resort beach front equipment (umbrellas, swim gear, paddleboards, kayaks, etc.) should be provided in such a manner so as not to impair the public access and view corridor points being designed in the property. Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT A S. Direct the applicant to better define and document the means by which guests of the resort hotel will be provided both public and private water oriented recreational and entertainment facilities. Again, appropriate market research data should be completed which, when added to the physical environmental factors and cosst aiats of the properly, could be contributory to a better design of the marina/dock facilities. For example, hotel sponsored events at the beach marina ( concerts, barbeques, sailing regattas, charity boating events, fishing tournaments, group cruises, marine habitat eco -toms, etc.) could provide unique access opportunities for the public and visiting boaters, and, by doing so, give a new and unique access not otherwise available in, or available only in limited areas of, the Harbor. 9. As a condition to the various approvals, consider imposition of appropriate mitigation or impact fees to offset the City's cost of improvements to or over the tidelands, and for the ongoing environmental protection and maintenance of the Harbor. By eliminating the dredging and bulkhead construction elements of the proposed project thru use of an alternative design, such impacts can be reduced or mitigated, presumably to a level of insignificance. In any event, the Lease should address and specify a means of assigning and recovering the real costs associated with the area wide clean up of pollutants and dredging burden being carried by the City. Also, appropriate best management practices ( "BNTs'� should be required as a condition of the Lease. (i 3& I I 1 I I I 1 I I Page 2 of 2 , /00 1 Madnapark Resort and Community plan - Response to Comments on the Dreg OR Reaponass To Comments rG. City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission ' ' G6. Please see response to comment G2 regarding the Harbor Commission's suggestion that the project slip plan be revised to mitigate potential impacts. ' G7. Please see response to comment G2 regarding the Harbor Commission's suggestion that the project slip plan be revised to mitigate potential impacts. G8. Policy HB -1.1.1 - "Water-dependent Uses" of the Harbor and Bay Element indicates ' that water - dependent uses are the highest priority, water - related the second priority, and water - enhanced uses the third priority. As indicated in the response to comment GI, the project is not described in the Draft EIR as water-dependent or water - related. Michael Brendman Associates ' RVC lent (PN- JM70064\0064ER20\0064ER20 -RTC 7 -1 aoal.doc / O GI. The project is not characterized in the Draft EIR as a "water- dependent use" or as a "coastal dependent development use ". The terms water - dependent, water - related, and water - enhanced appear in the Draft EIR only through inclusion of policies from the Harbor and Bay Element. G2. In response to concerns raised by the Harbor Commission, a mitigation measure has ' been included that replaces the slips with a floating, longitudinal dock parallel to the beach and wholly within the existing pierhead line. This measure is discussed in response to comment B20. The modified dock eliminates the bulkhead and groin walls and the need for placement of sand behind it. The modified dock reduces the ' amount of dredge material from up to 1,750 cubic yards to as little as 500 cubic yards. Inclusion of the mitigation measure would place the dock facility within the existing pierhead line, reduce the amount of dredge, and eliminate the need for fill, the bulkhead, and groin walls. 03. Please see response to comment B20 regarding a mitigation measure that modifies the proposed boat dock. This modification includes the provision for six boat dock tie -ups. These tie -ups are proposed to accommodate boats that are 30 feet long and shorter. 1 G4. Please see response to comment B27 regarding the project objectives and revenue generated by the proposed project. Projected revenue from the proposed project is not identified as being generated by marine /water Tidelands as opposed to upland Tidelands inasmuch as no such distinction is made in the City of Newport Beach General Plan Harbor and Bay Element for purposes of determining project consistency with same. In response to concerns raised by the Harbor Commission, a mitigation measure has ' been recommended to modify the proposed dock (please see response to comment B20). The proposed dock will allocate two of the six public tie -ups for use by the general public, consistent with the project objective of providing additional marine- related facilities that can be used by coastal visitors. ' G5. This comment regarding proposed mitigation measure BR -5 (proposed elevated walkway supported by piles) is noted. Please see response to comment C2 regarding the habitat replacement required with the implementation of mitigation measure BR- 5. ' G6. Please see response to comment G2 regarding the Harbor Commission's suggestion that the project slip plan be revised to mitigate potential impacts. ' G7. Please see response to comment G2 regarding the Harbor Commission's suggestion that the project slip plan be revised to mitigate potential impacts. G8. Policy HB -1.1.1 - "Water-dependent Uses" of the Harbor and Bay Element indicates ' that water - dependent uses are the highest priority, water - related the second priority, and water - enhanced uses the third priority. As indicated in the response to comment GI, the project is not described in the Draft EIR as water-dependent or water - related. Michael Brendman Associates ' RVC lent (PN- JM70064\0064ER20\0064ER20 -RTC 7 -1 aoal.doc / O Alerinspark Resort std Community Plan - The project includes General Plan, LCP Land Use Plan and zoning changes, all of Response to Comments on the Dreg EIR Responses To Comments As a water -enhanced use, the project is consistent with the third priority indicated in , Policy HB- 1.1.1. Marine Commercial will allow a water enhanced use, the hotel, along with water - "Functional, marketing, operational or economic role" of the slips does not give rise The project includes General Plan, LCP Land Use Plan and zoning changes, all of to potential impacts on the physical environment and, as such, is not required in nor appropriate to the analysis in the Draft EIR. G18. This comment is noted. Should the voters approve the General Plan Amendment Marine Commercial will allow a water enhanced use, the hotel, along with water - G9. Policy HB -1.1.2 — Land Use Changes of the Harbor and Bay Element advises that the Impact of new development on water-dependent and water - related uses should be considered. The proposed project does not interfere with, encroach upon, or remove The provision of guest docks at the proposed private marina would be consistent with any water-dependent or water - related use. Neither does it limit activities on adjacent ' property, as the American Legion and its marina will not be impacted. This is consistent with Policy HB- 1.1.2. Moreover, Policy HB -1.1.2 advises that protection docks based upon the size of craft to be accommodated. of existing water-dependent and water - related uses should not come at the expense of ' denying an owner viable economic use of the property. G 10. The project includes General Plan, LCP Land Use Plan and zoning changes, all of the existing and proposed water - oriented facilities, the public beach and the dock. which are land use regulations. The proposed land use designation of Recreational G18. This comment is noted. Should the voters approve the General Plan Amendment Marine Commercial will allow a water enhanced use, the hotel, along with water - necessary to accommodate the project, the potential for improving access to Las dependent new boat slips. G I L The provision of guest docks at the proposed private marina would be consistent with Policy HB -1.3.5 — Guest Docks. The policy does not suggest a priority for guest docks based upon the size of craft to be accommodated. G12. As noted in the comment, since existing improvements on the project site are not Harbor commercial uses, Policy HB -1.4.2 does not apply. G 13. This comment regarding access paralleling the beach is noted. `visitor- G 14. The hotel and its slips are not proposed as a vessel marina;" rather, the guest docks proposed as part of the hotel are intended to accommodate day visitors to the property. Policy HB -2.1.7 — Visiting Vessels does not indicate that guest docks need to be a "destination," and the project does promote attainment of the policy, as stated in the Draft EIR. G15. Policy PPL -1 advises full consideration of beach access and coastal dependency of , proposed uses but does not require that uses that do not satisfy both considerations be precluded. As stated in the Draft EIR, the project does provide public access to the beach and bay, and it includes new boat slips, which are water-dependent. , G 16. Response to comment B20 indicates modification of the dock design, eliminating groin walls and the bulkhead so as to further reduce dredging and subsequent fill on , the sandy beach. G17. As indicated in the Draft EIR, the proposed project maintains and expands access to the existing and proposed water - oriented facilities, the public beach and the dock. This is consistent with Policy VSF -3. G18. This comment is noted. Should the voters approve the General Plan Amendment , necessary to accommodate the project, the potential for improving access to Las Arena park and/or restroom facilities from the beach may be considered during Michael Brandman associates H:VCbe "- JN)NO064\O064CR20`O064HRW -RTC 7.1 fmAdoc IOZ ' Madnepark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on do Dreg EIR Responses To Commsme subsequent use permit and design review processes. I'm checking with Bob to see if we can say that a public restroom will be a lease requirement. ' G19. Please see response to comment B20 regarding a mitigation measure that modifies the proposed boat dock. With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the proposed boat dock would not extend beyond the U.S. Pierhead Line. G20. CEQA does not require that alternatives to the proposed project be defined or evaluated at the same level of detail as the project. The Marine Recreation Alternative was developed by the City staff in response to input from the Planning Department and the Harbor Resources Division. This Division received input on the marine recreational needs from the Harbor Commission and others. These needs included additional parking for marine charter activities. As to satisfaction of project objectives, the Marine Recreation Alternative includes ' community facility components similar to those identified in a Parks Department submittal to the City Council in response to the original Request for Proposals circulated by the City. Given that the Marinapark proposal was selected by City ' Council, one may conclude that the project achieves objectives that were not achieved by competing proposals similar to the Marine Recreation Alternative. This is illustrated in the table on the following page. 1 LJ 1 1 I Michael Brandman Associates HACBmt ( PN .IN)\006410004ER20\0064ER20JtTC 7 -1 fiml.dw 103 loq a r U a Q� m�cc C mz 0. � o �z b b •o a •o a b c b 3 U 0 8 EE > > >s >s a.1 Q N a ^3330 � C d c p 4 .00 b N W y Y >Y d W •b � y � a N yqG Y O 7 � Fi � � � N •n zN z z °a z :� xa o o B o o 3 0 zw z 2 z z >° a > > > p N b w s N ° p o^ C U a: �o C7 �' r� � z � loq a r U a Q� m�cc C mz 0. � o �z Madnspork Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Oran EIR Responaas To Comments G21. The Harbor Commission is correct that the Marine Recreation Alternative does not require a General Plan amendment. As the Commission has assumed, this alternative is conceptual as to design and illustrative of how the intended uses could be arranged on the site. CEQA does not require the plans for this alternative to be as fully developed as for the proposed project. If additional modifications were made to this ' alternative, the impacts could be further modified as well. The alternative as discussed, however, serves to provide the decision makers with a point of comparison in evaluating the impacts and desirability of the proposed project. ' G22. Please see response to comment G21 regarding the Marine Recreation Alternative. Even though this alternative does not require a General Plan amendment, this alternative was determined to have similar impacts to land use and planning ' compared to the proposed project. The consistency of the proposed project to the City's policies was evaluated in Section 5.4 in the Draft EIR. The implementation of mitigation measure LU -1 (see response to comment B20) would further reduce I potential significant environmental issues, and the proposed project would be consistent with the City's policies of the General Plan ' G23. The analysis comparing impacts of the alternatives is qualitative rather than quantitative, as permitted by CEQA. For purposes of CEQA compliance, the range of alternatives provided in the EIR is adequate and provides decision makers the basis for a reasoned decision. Variations are possible on all alternatives, and if decision makers wish to consider the possibility of additional modifications to the Marine Recreation Alternative as they evaluate the impacts and the desirability of the Marinapark proposal, they may do so based on the information provided. ' G24. Both the Marine Recreation Alternative and the proposed project could result in less than significant water quality impacts after the implementation of the proposed project mitigation measures. Even though the alternative and the project would result in less than significant impacts, the Marine Recreation Alternative was determined to result in greater (less than significant) impacts compared to the project because of the ' activities associated with the boat launch and larger marina. G25. Please see response to comment G23 regarding level of alternative analysis. The proposed project with the implementation of mitigation measure LU -1 (see response to comment B20) would result in the dredging of approximately 400 to 500 cubic yards. This volume is required with the modified dock design. The marina in the Marine Recreation Alternative would be substantially larger than the proposed dock and would require a greater volume of dredge material. This alternative could implement the project mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to biological resources to less than significant. Even though the alternative and the project would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources, the Marine Recreation Alternative was determined to result in greater (less than significant) impacts compared to the project. ' G26. Please see response to comment G25 regarding the comparison of impacts to biological resources. I G27. Please see response to comment B96 regarding the comparison of traffic volume impacts. Michael Brandman Assoclatm H "Cliev (PN- JH)W64\W64ER2OW64ER20- RTC 7 -1 finaUm ' O Narinapark Resort and Community Plan - Reaponae to Commoft on hie Draft EIR Responses To Comments G28. Implementation of the Marine Recreation Alternative or the proposed project would not result in significant traffic impacts. However, since the Marine Recreation Alternative would result in a greater amount of traffic (see response to comment B96) compared to the proposed project, the alternative would result in greater traffic impacts. G29. Please see response to comment B96 regarding the Marine Recreation Alternative resulting in greater trips than the proposed project. Since a greater amount of trips would be generated by the Marine Recreation Alternative, a greater amount of air emissions and impacts would be generated compared to the proposed project. G30. Please see response to continent G29 regarding the comparison of trips. Since a greater amount of trips would be generated by the Marine Recreation Alternative, a greater amount of noise would be generated compared to the proposed project. G31. Implementation of the Marine Recreation Alternative or the proposed project would not result in significant noise impacts. However, since the Marine Recreation Alternative would result in a greater amount of traffic and therefore noise (see responses to comments G29 and G30) compared to the proposed project, the alternative would result in greater noise impacts. G32. Please see responses to comments G24 regarding water quality, G25 regarding biological resources, G28 regarding traffic, G29 regarding air quality, and G30 regarding noise. These responses confirm the conclusions provided in Section 7.2.3 in the Draft EIR. G33. The Marine Recreation Alternative could generate revenue to both the City's General Fund and Tidelands Fund. It is unlikely that revenue from this alternative would be at the same level as the proposed hotel. Please see response to comment B27 regarding expected revenue from the proposed project. In comparison, the Marine Recreation alternative would not generate property tax as a public facility and would generate less property tax than the hotel if it were a private, commercial facility. G34. The Harbor Commission is correct that the project's provision of visitor accommodations is not an environmental issue. G35. Please see response to comment B97. For purposes of CEQA compliance, the range of alternatives provided in the EIR is adequate and provides decision makers the basis for a reasoned decision. Variations are possible on all alternatives, and if decision matters wish to consider the possibility of additional modifications to the Marine Recreation Alternative as they evaluate the impacts and the desirability of the Marinapark proposal, they may do so based on the information provided. G36. The Harbor Commission's recommendations for an alternative design are noted and could be considered by the City at time of permit issuance. Micheal Brandman kwwletea R.Chem WN- M\006410064ER2010064ER30 RTC 7 -1 fmal.dx O Y/ 1 Central Newport Beach Communi -, iar P.O. Box 884 • Newport Beach, Califomia 92661 .association Thank you for the opportunity to comment on referenced document. The Central Newport Beach Community Association ( CNBCA) is a voluntary membership organization representing residents and owners of property between Newport and Balboa piers. CNBCA has been in existence for over 50 years. We recommend that, due to the substantive nature of following comments made by the CNBCA as well as by other participants in the DEIR review, the City revise the document and re- circulate the revised DEIR for agency and public review and comment. Following are CNBCA comments: Section 1: Introduction 1.6 EIR Focus and Effects Found Not To Be Significant Hazardous Materials: It appears that only the beach portions of the project site were subjected to a Phase II level assessment. The historic uses on and adjacent to the site were along Balboa Boulevard (Central Avenue). A Standard Oil Company oil depot was located at the northwest corner of 18th Street and Central Avenue. There was potential for contamination across 18th Street to the project site. The northeast corner of 18th and Central housed a Southern Counties Gas Company installation that also may have caused contamination. The western side of the project site should be subject to a Phase II examination. Hi '07 BY RECEIVED PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 8, 2004 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 0 9 2004 AM FM ' Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner 19110111112111213141516 Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report— Marinapark Resort & Community Plan (DEIR) Dear Mr. Campbell: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on referenced document. The Central Newport Beach Community Association ( CNBCA) is a voluntary membership organization representing residents and owners of property between Newport and Balboa piers. CNBCA has been in existence for over 50 years. We recommend that, due to the substantive nature of following comments made by the CNBCA as well as by other participants in the DEIR review, the City revise the document and re- circulate the revised DEIR for agency and public review and comment. Following are CNBCA comments: Section 1: Introduction 1.6 EIR Focus and Effects Found Not To Be Significant Hazardous Materials: It appears that only the beach portions of the project site were subjected to a Phase II level assessment. The historic uses on and adjacent to the site were along Balboa Boulevard (Central Avenue). A Standard Oil Company oil depot was located at the northwest corner of 18th Street and Central Avenue. There was potential for contamination across 18th Street to the project site. The northeast corner of 18th and Central housed a Southern Counties Gas Company installation that also may have caused contamination. The western side of the project site should be subject to a Phase II examination. Hi '07 There was a gas station at the northwest comer of 15"' Street and W. Balboa Blvd. that underwent remediation upon closing. Confirmation should be made that none of the contaminants traveled to the project site. Population and Housing: Concern XII of the CNBCA NOP comments is not adequately addressed. The creation of over 50 mostly low- income jobs is of significance to Balboa Peninsula and surrounding areas in a community and its surrounds that contain some of the highest priced housing in the nation. Recently a South Orange County five star resort entered into an agreement with a non -profit organization to provide housing for its low- income employees who could not afford to live in its area. This issue should be addressed in the EIR. The DEIR indicates that a future Relocation Impact Study will be prepared to address impacts related to relocation of the existing mobile home park residents. This Relocation Impact Study should be included in the DEIR, which should be recirculated for public comment. Recreation: CNBCA NOP comments were ignored (see XIV in letter dated November 19, 2003). The site and beach in particular are of state not local importance. As State Tidelands, the site is to be for the use of all the peoples of the State while the EIR comments address only local use. The current zoning is for Recreational and Environmental Open Space and has historically been planned by the City for aquatic uses. There will be a loss of 261 feet of recreational beach due to the creation of a marina. It is difficult to determine from the small scale of the project plan in the DEIR but it appears that intrusion of the lateral sidewalk onto the beach will result in the loss of useable beach as will as the vertical sidewalk. These are significant impacts that must be addressed in the EIR and are of cumulative importance due to the very small proportion of bay beach available to the public citywide. Project sponsor: Marinapark LLC is listed as the project applicant. The Secretary of State website does not show an LLC with this name nor does the City of Newport Beach website show a business license for this entity. Proper identification of the Project Sponsor must be made. Section 2: Executive Summary 2.1 Project Description: The description is misleading to anyone who reads only the Executive Summary. It does not include a description of the following uses: 600 sq. ft. of retail use; 550 sq. ft. of caf6; 1,124 sq. ft. of restaurant, 1,154 sq. ft. bar, 3,603 sq. ft. ballroom and a swimming pool. Each of these uses should be acknowledged to alert the reader of this section that there are additional impacts from the project to be addressed. Access from 1 e Street is described as being for fire and delivery. There also is access to the 100 -car underground parking structure from 15"' Street along a 20 -foot alley. There are significant traffic impacts that result from this access. 2 R;Z. H3 F4 `f H5 K& hr /j I �II 1 2.2 Concern with the statements made in the section will be addressed below. 1 F I I 1 I 1 1 2.5 Sufficiency of Mitigation Measure and Environmental Effects will be discussed below. However, throughout the table there is a term used "approval by the City of Newport Beach." This term does not describe if there are staff approvals required, and if so by what level of position, or if the approvals will be available to public scrutiny and input such as at a public hearing level and by what entity. This information is critical to ensuring the sufficiency of mitigation monitoring'and to determination of the sufficiency of the EIR. Section 3: Project Description 3.2 Project Characteristics: Table 3.2 -1 does not include square footage for the enclosed space of the subterranean garage. The paragraph for boat slips does not recognize the end ties that are created. These end -ties provide space for the potential use by charter vessels that have impacts on noise, light, traffic and waterside vessel circulation patterns. The potential use of berthed boats for overnight hotel clients is not addressed although this potential use has been discussed in public. Mitigation measures should ensure that rental of berthed boats as overnight accommodations and use of the end ties for any purpose are prohibited. The parking paragraph describes access to the subterranean garage as being from the east boundary. It fails to recognize that this access is from a 20 -foot alley that abuts residential and commercial uses as well as a public park. 49 I H Io H11 3.3 Project Objectives: Reduction of any perceived deficit in the City's tidelands account is not legally necessary and is not an environmental issue subject to be addressed by CEQA. Likewise impact on general fund 1(�Z revenue and impact on the Girl Scouts and other users are not issues to be addressed in an EIR. 3.4 Intended Uses of DEIR, Responsible Agencies and Approvals: Installation of the proposed marina would require adjustment of the U.S. Pierhead line at this location. This is a major precedent setting action requiring approval by the "Secretary of the Army" (successor assumed). This approval is completely ignored in the DEIR. This approval may trigger the need to address NEPA and the preparation of an EIS. Section 4: General Description of Environmental Setting Exhibit 4 -1: There are inaccuracies in this exhibit. The public, 21 space metered parking lot at the northeast corner of 18"' Street and W. Balboa Blvd. is not depicted (it is shown as part of the mobile home park). This is a major issue for B13 H I'l 107 public coastal access. The public park on Fifteenth Street, Veteran's Memorial Park, between the American Legion and the 20 -foot alley access to the proposed hotel, is shown as part of the American Legion. It is a wholly accessible public N 15 park and should be shown as such. This is critical to assessing the impacts on the public park from the increased traffic proposed for the adjacent 20 -foot alley. Metered parking, #9, should be depicted as a rectangle; there is metered parking adjacent to the public park. Section 5: Existing Condition. Thresholds of Significance. Project Impacts, Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measure. and Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.2 Hydrology and Water Quality: 5.2.1 Existing Conditions: This section discusses storm water but does not address tidal action. The west end of the site, during high tides, currently experiences water up to the existing retaining wall of the mobile home park while the east end experiences water topping over the groin wall of H b the American Legion basin. The EIR neglects to discuss the level of grade for the proposed project and how it interacts with the public beach and tidal action. This discussion is needed for protection of the property and protection of the bay water that might reach into the site and pick up pollutants such as fertilizers. This section fails to recognize that Balboa Boulevard floods over the curbs during periods of heavy rainfall and especially during concurrent rain and high tides. Newly installed grates over inlets will trap debris, clog the inlets and reduce the capacity of the inlets. This reduced capacity has not been tested in a storm. Table 5.2 -1 demonstrates increase in flows to the 15th Street storm drain from 16 -19% and to the 18th Street storm drain from 15 -22% where there is no capacity to absorb the flow. 5.2.3 Project Impacts: This section does not discuss the potential for degraded water conditions in the boat basin. The basin will be created by a bulkhead 261 feet long and two groin walls 79 feet long. The EIR acknowledges the residency of ocean water in the area is 7 days. There are no studies of the water exchange within the proposed basin. It can be anticipated that circulation will be poor and water residency will be longer than outside the basin thus leading to water pollution potential. This problem must be discussed and mitigation measures proposed. 5.4 Land Use and Planning: 5.4.3 Project Impact: Land Use Compatibility fails to recognize that the plan includes two restaurants, a bar and a spa, all open to thepublic. The H �� proposed project divides the residential uses bctwccsi 18 a d 19th Streets from what is now a residential continuum and sandwiches it Policy D discussion implies that, because visual access from Balboa Boulevard is poor now, providing only a minimal improvement is justified. The site plan does not demonstrate visual corridors, just offset walkways around the lobby structure. Substantial visual access must be provided by this project. This is in keeping with policies of the Coastal Commission, is only fair to local residents and visitors for their pleasure inasmuch as this is public land and would enhance Peninsula esthetics. Currently, a person driving down Balboa Boulevard would barely know of water on either side of the street. Recreation and Open Space — There will be a loss of grass area that now creates a pleasant walking experience along Balboa Boulevard. The half basketball court will not be replaced. It is heavily used, just not programmed by PB &R. The tennis courts will be replaced in the same and incorrect orientation as they are now (east -west facing the sun) but will be programmed by the hotel thus diminishing the availability to current users. This is contrary to Policy. Coastal Views Policy 6.2, please see above. Harbor and Bay Element — the proposed slips are small. It is doubtful that eight will be used by visitors to the hotel. Boats in transit are usually larger. There must be a mitigation measure to ensure that these slips are not used for hotel rental as overnight accommodations. If this is the intent of the slips, appropriate definition must be made and mitigation measures imposed. The hotel is a water- enhanced use. Preference must be given to using the site for water dependent uses. Hoai Haa Hai Noise Element - This section discusses protection of the hotel from noise but not the adjacent residents and those across the water from noise ti apt generated by the hotel. Appropriate mitigation measure must be included N7 between two commercial areas, the hotel and McFadden Wharf. Traffic flow will be impeded at peak times by vehicles attempting left turns to ' access the hotel. We differ strongly from the opinion that vehicular trips generated by the proposed project will not result in significant traffic impacts (Policy C). Table 5.4 -1 is misleading. The proposed project would be a Planned ' Community which has its own regulations. The idea that there be only one parking space per two rooms might suffice in Manhattan but not in Orange County. Guests generally arrive in their own cars. Fractional { { p2p ' ownership facilities definitely generate at least one car per unit. Staff of a luxury hotel can approximate a least 80 members plus delivery and service vehicles. There are no parking spaces allocated to the boat slips, ' ballroom, restaurants, bar or spa. No mention is made of the loss of 21 spaces in the public parking lot. Policy D discussion implies that, because visual access from Balboa Boulevard is poor now, providing only a minimal improvement is justified. The site plan does not demonstrate visual corridors, just offset walkways around the lobby structure. Substantial visual access must be provided by this project. This is in keeping with policies of the Coastal Commission, is only fair to local residents and visitors for their pleasure inasmuch as this is public land and would enhance Peninsula esthetics. Currently, a person driving down Balboa Boulevard would barely know of water on either side of the street. Recreation and Open Space — There will be a loss of grass area that now creates a pleasant walking experience along Balboa Boulevard. The half basketball court will not be replaced. It is heavily used, just not programmed by PB &R. The tennis courts will be replaced in the same and incorrect orientation as they are now (east -west facing the sun) but will be programmed by the hotel thus diminishing the availability to current users. This is contrary to Policy. Coastal Views Policy 6.2, please see above. Harbor and Bay Element — the proposed slips are small. It is doubtful that eight will be used by visitors to the hotel. Boats in transit are usually larger. There must be a mitigation measure to ensure that these slips are not used for hotel rental as overnight accommodations. If this is the intent of the slips, appropriate definition must be made and mitigation measures imposed. The hotel is a water- enhanced use. Preference must be given to using the site for water dependent uses. Hoai Haa Hai Noise Element - This section discusses protection of the hotel from noise but not the adjacent residents and those across the water from noise ti apt generated by the hotel. Appropriate mitigation measure must be included N7 to address this problem. The hotel walls have the potential to deflect the already substantial noise from Balboa Boulevard across to residences where it now is absorbed, to some extent, by vegetation and can travel over one story structures. The Housing Element - This section does not address the creation of low income jobs thus generating a need for affordable housing. Local Coastal Program — This section neglects to address policies that would adversely affect the proposed project. For example, the project is proposed to be a five star luxury hotel. This is completely contrary to LCP policies to protect, encourage and provide iower -cost visitor serving and recreation facilities and lower -cost hotels and motels; encourage new overnight visitor accommodation developments to provide a range of rooms and room prices in order to serve all income ranges. The project is on public land and the City's policies, including other LCP policies for visual access, hand launching, and recreational beach use should be enhanced, not diminished by a project on its own property. The project or an alternative use should be designed to more appropriately meet the City's own policies. As a City leasehold, the project only replaces an existing sidewalk parallel to the water; a sidewalk that may actually encroach into what is now existing beach (scale of plan is too small to discem). A mitigation measure should be included that would prohibit the hotel from placing its equipment, such as umbrellas or chairs on the beach or providing food and beverage service to guests on the beach inasmuch as these activities would be intimidating to daily visitors to the beach who could be made to feel inferior. Visual access and parking have been discussed above. 5.4.4 Cumulative Impacts —All the above add to loss of coastal access, increased traffic, isolation of a residential neighborhood and have cumulative impacts on Balboa Peninsula and the City as a whole. 5.4.5 Mitigation Measures — Copious mitigation measures, some of which have been proposed above, must be imposed if this project is to be approved. The DER must be substantially revised and recirculated for comment. 5.4.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation - CNBCA vigorously disagrees that project implementation will result in less than significant impacts. 5.5 Transportation/Circulation — This section is wholly inadequate. It does not address existing traffic conditions, which although are outside of the City, are important to City residents, beach visitors, potential hotel guests and neighboring city residents. Newport Boulevard intersections at 17"' Street, Harbor Boulevard and 19th Street in Costa Mesa are vital to local circulation and now are likely a level of service D, E or F. They should be U H2-4f I IA;Ls Nab H;z 7 Ha's H ;1q H3O lt2 included in the traffic analysis. On Balboa Boulevard, the intersection at 15"' Street is heavily used by residents, beach visitors, local residents using West Bay Avenue, American Legion visitors and church attendees. This intersection must be included in the analysis in order to assess the impact of all the left turns generated by the project due to 100 car garage access and delivery access from 15"' Street down the 20' alley. The traffic section does not address the peak traffic hours of 11 A.M. to 6 P.M. Memorial Day to Labor Day for beach visitors. These are the same as arrival and departure hours for hotel guests. Traffic impacts from events at the proposed hotel are not addressed. It can be anticipated that the ballroom will be used for daytime and evening weddings and parties, all of which will generate extraordinary traffic. If the marina end tie is used for charter vessels, traffic will be greatly exacerbated and conditions of approval and mitigation measures must prohibit such a use. The employee turnover at shift changes impacts traffic. Consideration of the increased traffic flow at the time of employees' work shift changes (50 or more incoming, 50 or more outgoing) affects the flow of traffic on Balboa Boulevard and is not addressed. Because there is overlap of employees on -site during shift changes, an additional parking demand is created. This is an issue which must be addressed in the DER and mitigated. There are two curb cuts for driveways proposed for hotel ingress and egress. This is contrary to City policy of no curb -cuts on Balboa Boulevard. The two hotel driveways will be at the intersections of 1 e and 17th Streets. -While there are breaks in the center divider at both intersections, they are seldom used and used only for occasional u -turns and west -bound left turns. These two intersections will be heavily impacted by entry and exit from the hotel and no analysis is provided. This analysis is essential. These impacted intersections will also require mitigation of noise and air quality impacts due to the concentration of vehicles. 5.7 Noise — It is difficult to take this section as a serious analysis when the noise studies at the site (Page 5 Giroux Noise Study) were conducted on February 5 -6 2004. If one were to try to determine the most quiet time of year on Balboa Boulevard, these dates would probably qualify. The noise study should be re- examined and studies undertaken for 24 hours on a summer weekend. This is the time when hotel users would be at a peak and most impacted by noise. It is also the time when adjacent residents would be most impacted by incremental noise from the hotel. Back up bells on delivery vehicles should be mitigated, noise impacts from uses facing the water must be studied and mitigated. Noise emanating from the ballroom, restaurants and balconies of hotel rooms will travel across the 7 �i 30 H31 H3Z H33 Ili water and impact moored boat users, Lido residents, wildlife and diminish the beach experience for visitors. 5.8 Aesthetics — The "wall" created by the two story hotel that reaches 34' at points is substantially different than the park setting that currently is viewed from Balboa Boulevard. View corridors must be opened and Fi 3`t copious vegetation planted and affixed to the structures to mitigate there impact from the street. This impact negates statements made in 5.8.3, 5.8.4 and 5.8.5. There will be significant impact, even after appropriate mitigation measures are imposed. 5.9 Public Services and Utilities: 5.9.2 Fire Services — This department also includes life guard service. The public swim area is between 181' and 1e streets and is seasonally guarded. The impact of additional hotel guests in the water, most H35 probably outside of the roped swim area, should be addressed and a determination made if additional life guards will be needed and if the City or hotel should provide the service. 5.9.3 Solid Waste — The concept that a mobile home park that is occupied only part time along with two part-time community uses, generate more waste that a 110 room hotel, 12 units of which are fractional ownership, plus a 12 36 slip marina, two restaurants, a bar, a ballroom and a spa is ludicrous. Even if the increased waste can be accommodated and no mitigation is necessary, at least a forthright study should be conducted to validate any determination. This study should be part of the recirculated DEIR. Section 6 — Other CEQA Considerations 6.1 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts — The unavoidable adverse impact of this proposed project precluding the use of this City owned property from being used for recreation -open space purposes must be addressed. The property has long been planned and zoned for such a �3,� use. Its initial use was as a public campground, an affordable, public serving use. The substantial investment required to construct improvements will essentially terminate the use of the site for water dependent, public recreational uses. There is very little bay beach available to the public and this is the last chance for the City to create such an opportunity. Section 7 — Alternatives to the Proposed Protect The preamble to this section reiterates development objectives which are H 3$ I economic and not a subject of CEQA, 8 IN 4. Two case studies from hotels outside of Orange County do not provide an adequate statistical basis for the conclusion that traffic impacts will be�� much lower that projections based on ITE data. A Trip Generation Study should be prepared to establish local Trip Generation rates. This Study should be included in the DEIR when it is recirculated. The ICU method does not adequately address impacts to intersections H�J� and is not recognized by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The DEIR should include a full HCM -based LOS analysis of each intersection. 9 1 li 7.2 Marinapark Marine Recreation Altemative — In the CNBCA comments on ' the Notice of Preparation, dated November 19, 2003 we stated that this alternative should follow the plan of the PB &R Commission 1983 report "Marinapark Study - Alternative Uses." Instead the alternative presented in H39 ' the DEIR included improvements that are more intense and which result in allegedly higher impact than the hotel. The hotel analysis, by the way, does not include public beach visitors in its analysis although public beach ' visitors are included in this Alternative analysis. A fair Alternative Recreational Project should be included for analysis and the 1983 study at least has some public standing as a Commission recommendation. ' 7.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative — this smaller hotel was supplemented by a large restaurant which could only be to the detriment of the analyzed 14 Ll D ' alternative. This gives the appearance of contrivance and manipulation to make the proposed project look superior. The alternative should be changed to something more fair. ' Appendix E: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan TPO: Traffic Analysis: ' 1. The weekend traffic analysis is inadequate and should be revised prior to recirculation of the DEIR. The traffic study needs to include actual peak f {y ' summer day weekend traffic counts. The traffic study should also include an appropriate LOS analysis of this peak traffic. ' 2. The traffic study projects a relatively small increase ADT for the project. This projection is based on case studies for hotels in Del Mar and Beverly Hills. The DEIR asserts that "the resort weekday trip rate appears to represent the Saturday rate as well." However, the data for these case ' studies is not included in the DEIR. Please include the underlying data for these case studies in the DEIR when it is recirculated. This data is tessential for full and complete public review. 3. Based on ITE trip data for Resort Hotel, traffic impacts would be much �43 greater than indicated in the DEIR. Please include a comparison between t ITE trip generation projections and the projections based on the two case studies. 4. Two case studies from hotels outside of Orange County do not provide an adequate statistical basis for the conclusion that traffic impacts will be�� much lower that projections based on ITE data. A Trip Generation Study should be prepared to establish local Trip Generation rates. This Study should be included in the DEIR when it is recirculated. The ICU method does not adequately address impacts to intersections H�J� and is not recognized by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The DEIR should include a full HCM -based LOS analysis of each intersection. 9 1 li 6. The traffic study indicates that 25% of project traffic is distributed to the east along Balboa Boulevard; however, none of the intersections east of the project site were analyzed. Prior to recirculation of the DEIR, impacts on the following must be addressed: ffq6 • Balboa Blvd. and le Street intersection • Balboa Blvd. and Main Street Intersection • Queuing and wait time at Balboa Island Ferry crossing • Analysis of increased traffic along Balboa Island streets to Pacific Coast Highway Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft Environmental Impact Report. CNBCA is of the opinion that the comments made above are substantial and warrant revision of the DEIR and its subsequent recirculation. We look forward to reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report further when it is recirculated. Very truly yours, Louise Fundenberg, President Central Newport Beach Community Association 10 116 Madnspark Resort and Communhy Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EM Responses To Comments ' H. Central Newport Beach Community Association Hl. Please see response to comment B41 regarding the sampling of the bayfloor sediments. Please see response to B5 regarding the regulatory database review conducted for the proposed project. H2. Please see response to comment B5 regarding the regulatory database review conducted for the proposed project. According to the EDR, Inc. report, 1500 West ' Balboa Boulevard included a gas station and is on the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) dat abase. The database also indicates that the LUST was remediated and the case was closed in the year 2000. Therefore, no furtber action was warranted. 1 H3. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of approximately 50 full-time jobs based on data provided by the project applicant. Information regarding industry- standard ratios was not provided. It is acknowledged that the majority of the jobs would below income jobs. According to information presented in the Orange County Snapshot published by the California Employment ' Development Department, the County unemployment rate was 4.1 percent in 2002. Given this rate, the low income jobs generated by the proposed project would likely come from the Orange County labor pool. Only a few of the jobs are expected to be high income jobs (i.e., senior management), and these jobs could be filled from outside of the Orange County labor pool. Because of the relatively small amount of jobs being created from the proposed project and the expectation that the low income jobs would be filled by current unemployed people in the local economy, there would ' not be a need to supply additional affordable housing or to make special housing arrangements for the employees. Therefore, the findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. ' H4. The Relocation Impact Report (RIR) is a requirement of Civil Code Section 798.56 and Government Code Section 65863.7, not CEQA. The RIR is required to evaluate ' the availability of adequate replacement housing in mobilehome parks and relocation costs as elements of a decision to change the use of the property. The Report is not required to address physical environmental impacts. ' H5. The City of Newport Beach is the current owner of the project site. Certain use restrictions apply to any property that is considered to be tidelands. A hotel is a permitted tideland use. The proposed hotel is not permitted under the City's current ' General Plan designation of Recreational and Environmental Open Space and that designation was applied to the property prior to the time that State Lands Commission staff took the position that a majority of the site was tidelands. As a result, a General Plan amendment will be required with the proposed project. The continent regarding the location of the hotel facilities in relation to the existing lateral sidewalk is noted. To ensure consistency with the project that was evaluated in the Draft EIR as well as by the City, Exhibit 3 -3 is hereby corrected to illustrate that the hotel facilities will not extend beyond the existing lateral sidewalk. No ' environmental effects in addition to those already addressed in the Draft EIR would occur with this correction. H6. This continent regarding the project sponsor is noted and is not a specific comment ' on the contents of the environmental analysis. Michael Brandman Asaoclarea ' H;W1 rem( PN- .MN0D6410W4ER20`a061ER20_tTC 7 -1 f=Ldm 11I Madnapark Resort and Community Plan - , Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments H7. The purpose of the Executive Summary is to provide a brief summary of the ' proposed action and its consequences. The detailed uses within the hotel lobby ' building are discussed in Section 3.1.2 in the Draft EIR. by the proposed project". The objectives are required to help define a range of ' The entrance into the luxury resort hotel is at the Balboa Boulevard/ 17th Street ' intersection. Hotel guests and visitors would use this entrance while the entrance from 15th Street to an alley would be only used by employees and service vehicles. ' Therefore, no significant traffic impacts on 15th Street would result from the 50 t employees and the service vehicles. H8. The sufficiency of the mitigation measures and EIR is based on the analysis and ' determination of the mitigation measures' ability to reduce the potential significant ' impacts associated with the project. The determination of the approval authority at the City of Newport Beach that will provide oversight and approval for specific ' monitoring of the various mitigation measures is not required as part of the EIR. However, prior to approval of the project, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program is required to be prepared for the proposed project and approved by the City , Council. H9. The square footage for the enclosed space of the subterranean garage is ' approximately 29,643 square feet (241 feet by 123 feet), as indicated on page 2 -1 of the Draft EIR. The project does not include the provision for the proposed dock to be used by charter vessels ' H10. The maximum length of a boat proposed for the dock is 30 feet (see response to comment B20 regarding modification to the boat dock). The hotel boats and ' watercraft are not proposed to be used for overnight accommodations. HI 1. Please see response to comment H7 regarding the use of the alley and 15th Street. "... ' H 12. CEQA requires that the Draft EIR include a statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project". The objectives are required to help define a range of reasonable alternatives to the project and to help decisionmakers prepare findings, or ' a statement of overriding considerations if needed. Information about projected revenues from the project is included for use in determining consistency with project objectives. t H13. In response to concerns raised by the Harbor Commission, the project proponent has replaced the slips with a floating, longitudinal dock parallel to the beach and wholly within the existing pierhead line. No pierhead line relocation, therefore, will be ' needed and no request for relocation will need to be submitted for approval. H 14. This comment regarding revisions to exhibit 4 -1 is noted. Exhibit 4 -1 is hereby revised (see revised Exhibit 4-1) to illustrate the 21 space metered parking lot at the northeast corner of West Balboa Boulevard and 18th Street, and Veterans Memorial Park located immediately west of 15th Street. The metered parking is identified on ' the exhibit adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park. H15. Please see response to comment H14 regarding modifications to Exhibit 4 -1. , H16. According to Coastal Resources Management, elevation 9 feet would be located outside of the tidal range. As shown in Exhibit 3-4, elevation 9 feet is located north ' Michael Brandman Associates N:` hea(M -R4) 06 W64ER2DW"ER20 -RTC 7 -1 fiml.d. / Fit U 71" \ \�� � I /[I Madnapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To comments ' of the existing lateral sidewalk adjacent to the existing groin wall (eastern end of the project site). Please see response to comment H5 regarding the correction to the location of the proposed resort facilities so that the proposed facilities do not extend ' north of the existing lateral sidewalk. Since the proposed facilities would not extend north of the sidewalk, the existing tidal influence would not affect the proposed resort facilities. HIT The comment on hydrology and water quality is noted. Section 52 -1 of the Draft EIR under the Flooding sub- section references the potential for flooding along ' Balboa Boulevard. Mitigation Measure HWQ -2 in Section 5.2.5 of the Draft EIR states that the catch basin inserts are subject to a regular cleaning and maintenance program by the City. Neither of these is the result of the proposed project. Although Table 5.2 -1 demonstrates an increase in flows that would result from the proposed project, recommended Mitigation Measure HWQ -6 would require proposed onsite detention basins, as part of the proposed project, be sized in order to detain peak flows so no contribution to an off -site, pre- existing flooding condition would result from project implementation. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the drainage impacts that would result from project ' implementation. H18. A mitigation measure has been recommended to modify the proposed dock as discussed in response to comment B20. The recommended modification would remove the bulkhead and groin wall and include a boat dock that would allow bay water to flow under the dock to the bay shore, and therefore, would eliminate the potential for bay water to become stagnant. 1 H19. The ancillary facilities of the proposed hotel (i.e., restaurant, caM, bar, ballroom) are of sizes and designs that are primarily intended to serve the needs of the hotel guests. Since these facilities support the proposed hotel and are not a primary facility, ' Section 5.4.3 in the Draft EIR adequately describes the compatibility of the proposed hotel which includes ancillary facilities. Please see response to comment B62 ' regarding the total vehicle peak hour trips entering and exiting the project site. H2O. Please see response to comment B50 regarding the provision of adequate parking and B53 and Q11 regarding parking requirements for the proposed project. ' H21. Please see response to comment B58 for a discussion on visual access. There are no California Coastal Commission policies requiring substantial visual access from ' Balboa Boulevard to Newport Harbor through the project site. H22. The proposed project will result in the loss of the existing grass area adjacent to Balboa Boulevard. Please see response to comment B -13 for a discussion of the half ' basketball court and B55 for a discussion of tennis lessons. ' H23. Please see response to comment G 14 regarding visiting vessels. The project description does not include use of the slips or vessels owned by the hotel to be used for overnight accommodations. Also see response to comments G as to the project being a water - enhanced use and G9 as to the appropriateness of a water - enhanced use ' on the project property. H24. Please see response to comment H33 for a discussion of noise impacts from hotel activities. The proposed hotel will be set back from Balboa Boulevard by Michael Brandman Assochd" ' IVESm( Pfd ".NVW4TO64Ba2D\WMER20 -RTC 7 -1 fimtdm /[I Madnapork Resort and Community Plan - , Response to Comments on dw Draft EIR Responses To Comments approximately 186 feet. This setback along with the various landscape features , between the hotel structures and Balboa Boulevard would minimise noise deflection. As discussed on page 5.7 -11 in the Draft EK the nearest hotel facade would be exposed to noise levels of approximately 61 dBA CNEL. If these facades deflect ' noise, the sound level would continue to decrease to lower than 61 dBA. The , cumulative noise levels from the addition of deflected noise levels from the proposed hotel facades and existing noise levels along Balboa Boulevard would not be ' noticeably different than the existing noise levels along Balboa Boulevard. ' H25. Please see response to comment H3 regarding the discussion on low income jobs. , H26. Please see response to comment D7 regarding lower cost visitor serving and recreation facilities in the Coastal Zone. There is nothing in the City's LCP policies, or in the Coastal Act, that prohibits the development of luxury hotels. , Please see response to comment H5 regarding a correction to the location of the proposed hotel facilities in relation to the existing lateral sidewalk. , H27. The proposed project will increase coastal access from the project site as discussed ' on page 5.4-12 of the Draft EIR. The project will contribute to cumulative traffic ' volumes; however, as described in Section 5.5.4 in the Draft EIR, the project's traffic contribution would not result in significant cumulative traffic impacts in accordance ' with the City's TPO because at the locations where the project - related traffic would result in peak hour trip contributions of a greater than one percent increase, the ' intersections operate at LOS B. The issue raised in the comment regarding isolation ' of a residential neighborhood is not understood; however, the existing residential uses adjacent to the project site would not be isolated because residential uses are ' located along the south side of Balboa Boulevard. H28. This comment regarding the inclusion of mitigation measures and recirculation is ' noted. H29. As stated in Section 6 of the Draft EIR, all impacts associated with the project could , be reduced to less than significant after the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. H30. The Traffic Analysis evaluates study area intersections consistent with the guidelines , of the City of Newport Beach Transportation Phasing Ordinance (TPO). As identified in the response to comment B61, Austin -Foust Associates (AFA) reviewed City traffic counts along Balboa Boulevard between 15th Street and 20th Street to ' compare non -peak season volumes with peak season volumes. Pages 5.5 -5 and 5.5-6 of the Draft EIR contain a summary of AFA's analysis of the project's contribution to summer weekend traffic volumes along Balboa Boulevard in the vicinity of 20th ' Street, utilizing a worst case scenario. As identified in the DEIR, the total average daily project - related trips is expected to be approximately one percent of the total average daily trips (ADT) along this segment of Balboa Boulevard, which will not be ' distinguishable from the summer ADT fluctuations along this street segment. Moreover, as identified on page 5.5 -6 of the Draft EIR, project - related traffic is expected to occur at times other than the peak hour, and in fact hotel patrons are expected to either be traveling in the direction opposite to the outbound beach traffic ' in the afternoons or traveling during periods other than that when there is peak traffic volumes exiting the peninsula. ' MiCAael Brandmon Associates HXUG ( PN- 1M\0O64W064ER20`0004ER20_tTC 7.1 finaLdm ' MadnVark Recut and Communhy PJW - Respwm to Comments on the Dreg EIR Responses To Comments ' As to 17th Street, Harbor Boulevard and 19th Street intersections with Newport Boulevard in Costa Mesa, the added trips to Newport Boulevard would diminish to less than 12 vph in the AM and 16 vph in the PM peak hours, and these volumes are well below a one percent threshold at these locations. It is estimated these intersections currently handle over 6,000 vph, and this project contribution (i.e., 16 ' vph) is less than the one percent threshold (i.e., greater than 60 vph), and therefore, is less than significant. ' Access to the parking garage and alley from 15th Street is for employee and service vehicles only. The total peak hour entry-exit volute to the hotel is less than 50 vph, of which an estimated maximum of 20 percent of the vehicles per hour may be employees/service trips. This volume (10 vph) is not a significant addition at 15th ' Street. The proposed project does not include tie -ups for charter vessels; therefore, traffic associated with charter vessels would not be generated from project implementation. The proposed project includes 3,603 square feet of ballroom space which is intended ' to serve the needs of the hotel guests. Due to the nominal size of the ballroom, large special events are not proposed to be accommodated at the proposed luxury resort hotel. The traffic generated by the use of the ballroom by hotel guests is part of the trip generation rate for the hotel. Please see response to comment B53 regarding the onsite ancillary uses. H31. As identified in Section 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project ' is anticipated to result in 50 new employment opportunities. The types of employment will range from business and administration staff to a variety of hospitality and support services staff. Given the varying demands of these positions, ' it is unlikely that all 50 employees would be on site at one time or that there will be major shift changes that will result in the ingress and egress of large numbers of staff. For example, cleaning and janitorial staff generally will be onsite in the mornings and ' afternoons while bar staff will be onsite during the afternoons and evenings. As noted in the comment, there will be an overlap of employees onsite; however, there is adequate parking onsite to serve a fully occupied hotel, hotel visitors and patrons of ' the other onsite land uses (tot park, Community Center /Girl Scouts House) and a fully staffed hotel. As noted on pages 3 -6 and 3 -8 of the Draft EIR, the project will include 59 surface parking spaces that are proposed adjacent to the proposed villas as well as a 100 -space subterranean parking structure for hotel guests and visitors. 1 H32. The Transportation and Development Services Division of the Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed driveways. Please see response to comment B62 regarding project traffic at the proposed entrance. H33. Baseline noise measurements were taken over a 24 -hour period to determine the ' existing noise environment. While it is noted that typical of a beachfront community, there will be noise increase in the summertime as traffic and visitor populations increase, such increases are not characteristic of the overall noise setting for the nine ' months out of the year that are not summer months. The Draft EIR also accounted for the fact that the noise environment differs during the summer seasons. As indicated on pages 5.7 -8 and 5.7 -9 of the Draft EIR, utilizing the traffic generation numbers forecasted by Austin -Foust and Associates (AFA) and approved by the City, ' Giroux and Associates calculated off -site noise levels along seven area roadway Michael Srandmen Aswelaws ' H:` Bent (PN- N\W64\0064ER20'D064ER20_tTC 7 -1 5nsUm 121 Mannapark Resort and Ctmtmpety Plan - ' Response to Comments on the Diet EAR Responses To Comments segments for two different scenarios: summer traffic conditions (existing and existing , with project) and winter traffic conditions (existing and existing with project). Table 5.7 -5 of the Draft EIR includes the projected noise conditions under both scenarios. Since the traffic analysis assumed a worst case scenario of all 110 rooms being ' occupied at once, the noise analysis is also based upon a worst case scenario. The impacts of noise upon hotel users are discussed on page 5.7 -10 of the Draft EIR. , The City's Municipal Code cites that land uses such as hotels are not to be located in areas that have noise measurements that exceed 65 dB CNEL. The existing noise environment within the area proposed for the hotel is below the 65 dB CNEL. Since , normal noise attenuation from exterior to interior is 20 dB, the project would meet the interior standard of 45 dB. Moreover, as discussed in Section 5.7, Noise, of the Draft EIR, the Uniform Building Code (UBC) imposes structural standards that ' govern noise transmission from one unit to another unit within the same multi- tenant structure. As required by law, the project will be in conformance with the UBC. Please see response to comment B68 regarding noise levels from delivery trucks. , The noise from some hotel activities may be heard on or across Newport Bay. However, hotel - generated noise would not be sufficient to substantially increase ' ambient noise levels. As stated on page 5.7 -6 in the Draft EIR, the City's noise ordinance standards apply to onsite noise generation from mechanical equipment, site maintenance, and social functions. Given that hotel activities are required to comply , with the City's noise ordinance, hotel activities would not result in siguificant noise levels. H34. The proposed hotel lobby structure which is the nearest hotel structure to Balboa ' Boulevard is set back approximately 186 feet. The project includes landscaping as illustrated in Exhibits 5.8 -3 through 5.8 -5 in the Draft EIR. Based a variety of factors as discussed in Section 5.8 in the Draft EIR, the implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the visual quality of the project site from areas in the vicinity of the project site. , H35. The proposed project could result in an increase of people using the existing public beach, and there could be an increase in the number of people swimming adjacent to the shoreline. This increase is expected to fluctuate depending on the season. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department regularly evaluates their life guard service , and monitors fluctuations to determine the need for additional lifeguards in various areas of the City including the vicinity of the proposed project. ' H36. Please see response to comment B88 regarding the generation of solid waste by the mobile home park and the proposed project. ' H37. The proposed project's consistency with the City's general plan policies is provided in Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR. The proposed project would remove a portion of the project site from future open space uses. This removal would be an unavoidable impact. ' However, given that this portion of the site has not been used as recreation/open space use for the past 40 plus years, the loss of this future potential recreation/open space area is not considered area is not considered significant. Furthermore, the proposed project includes the reconstruction of the majority of the existing recreational facilities located , on the project site and, in comparison with the existing onsite land uses, provides greater public beach access. ' Michael Brandman Associates 1 H:1CGem ( PN- 1MV0004XD0(4ER20\ 0064ER20JtrC 7 -1 fiveLdoc 1 I I u 1 1 Marinapark Resort and Community Plan - Reaponae to Comments on the Dreg EIR Responses To Comments H38. Please see response to comment B95 regarding the inclusion of economic goals in the project objectives. H39. The proposal presented by the City's Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission in February 2000, which was not selected by the City Council, did not include any aquatic facilities. The Marine Recreation alternative in the Draft EIR was developed to respond to the needs noted by the City's Harbor Commission, as well as to respond to the Recreation and Open Space Element, which includes aquatic facilities among the things that could be developed on the site in the future. H40. Please see responses to comments B97 and B 100 regarding the selection of the Reduced Intensity Alternative. H41. Please see responses to comments B61 and B62 regarding summer traffic. H42. As indicated on page 5.5 -3 of the Draft EIR, during weekdays the proposed project will generate 640 daily vehicle trips within the project area. However, since the Institute of Traffic Engineers (TTE) Handbook does not have a compatible weekend trip generation rate for a luxury resort hotel (the TTE Handbook has only a single reference to a resort hotel rate for weekends and cautions its use), Austin -Foust Associates (AFA) conducted weekend traffic counts at two comparable luxury resort hotels, the L'Auberge Del Mar Resort in Del Mar and the Hotel Bel Air in Bel Air. As stated on page 5.5 -5 of the Draft EIR, "The traffic counts indicated that the weekday and weekend trip rates did not vary siguifrcantly, and in fact, remained quite consistent." Presented below are the traffic count summaries for both hotels: Resort Hotel Trip Generation Case Study Summary As shown in the tables above, the weekend traffic counts varied from 6 to 11 percent from the weekday counts which is not considered substantial. Therefore, the hotel weekday trip rates was considered as the weekend trip rate. H43. Traffic generation rates are established by utilizing the generation factor identified in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (TTE), Trip Generation, 7tb Edition, which is the industry standard. The TTE generation rates forecast vehicle trips by land use, which was determined to be resort hotel for the proposed land uses and mobile home park for the existing onsite land uses that will be displaced. These generation rates established the trip generation factor for weekday trips. Furthermore, AFA conducted traffic studies to examine the weekend traffic characteristics of luxury resort hotels, since the TTE Generation, 7h Edition does not include a reliable weekend trip generation factor for luxury resort hotels (the TTE handbook has only a single reference to a resort hotel rate for weekends and cautions its use), such as the proposed project. The TTE weekend rate for a resort hotel is 13.42 trips per room per day while the trip rate found during the special studies varied from 5.4 to 8.0 trips per Michael Brandman Associstas ' ' NXIiem(FN-1I NO%4\006M1ER2UOWiERM_RTC7 -1 fiml&c McAnapark Resort end Community Plan — , Response to Comments on the Dreg EIR Responses To Comments room per day. The weekend trip generation rate derived from the special study was ' essentially the same as rrE's weekday rate of 5.4 to 7.4 trips per room per day. As ' stated in Appendix E of the Draft EIR, "Luxury hotels differ from typical businessivacation hotels in that they are very expensive, offer upscale rooms and , suites, and provide luxury personal services such as individual spa and treatments and ' exclusive dining. Luxury hotels are marketed to high -end travelers who are not tied to conventional commuter schedules rather than the conventional business travelers ' and family vacationers whose travel patterns correspond to normal peak hour weekday periods." Therefore, it is reasonable that AFA did not utilize rrE's weekend trip generation rate for conventional hotels, since it would be inaccurate to ' utilize a trip generation factor that would not reflect the project's impacts. This is in ' accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and specifically, Section 15144, which identifies that, "Drafting an EIR naturally involves some degree of forecasting. While , foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to ' find out and disclose all that it reasonably can." ' H44. The traffic analysis does not conclude that based upon the two case studies conducted ' at the L'Auberge Del Mar Resort in Del Mar and the Hotel Bel Air in Bel Air that the proposed project will have a lower trip generation rate. It concludes that the weekend trip generation rate is similar to that of the weekday trip generation rate See response ' to comment H43 for the basis for this conclusion. It is reasonable in forecasting traffic conditions that the City and AFA had to make certain assumptions based upon professional expertise and knowledge of the project ' design and objectives. Among those assumptions are that a luxury resort hotel will attract a certain clientele that differs from that of a conventional or business hotel. Furthermore, since the rM generation factors are based upon general land use rather ' than a local land use, it is appropriate to conduct case studies outside of Orange County as long as the land uses studied maintain similar characteristics to that of the proposed project. In fact, rM trip generation rates are established by examining studies of various land uses throughout the United States. The conclusions of the two case studies were that the trip generation rates for weekends are similar to those during the weekday. Such a finding is considered reasonable since hotels such as the ' L'Auherge Del Mar Resort in Del Mar, the Hotel Bel Air in Bel Air, and the proposed project cater to high -end vacationers whose activities are not confined by the day of the week, as would occur with a business traveler. , Please also see response to comment U17 for a further discussion on the intent of the two case studies. ' H45. The traffic analysis was conducted in accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) that was prepared by the City of Newport Beach and approved by the City Council. The TPO was designed to assure a uniform method of analyzing and , evaluating the traffic impacts of projects. The ICU methodology was the forerunner of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). In an earlier version of the HCM, the ICU methodology, called "The Critical Movement Methodology," was the HCM method. ' More importantly, the ICU methodology has been adopted locally by both the City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange for its Congestion Management Program (CMP) as the prescribed methodology for traffic impact assessments. Experience ' shows that the two methodologies produce comparable outcomes, but CMP and City requirements dictate use of the ICU. The results of the ICU, expressed in percentage of capacity, are much easier to understand than the HCM delay -based results. ' Michael Brendmen Asaocie6es H ;W i.W (PN- JK)\0064\M64ER2010WER20LRTC 7 -1 fimLdm ' Mannapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Oren ER Responses To Comments ' H46. The traffic analysis was conducted in compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) guidelines that were prepared by the City of Newport Beach and approved by t the City Council. In accordance with the TPO, project trip distribution is consistent with assumptions in the Newport Beach Traffic Area Model (NBTAM) relative to the trip production and attraction characteristics of the land uses as well as previous trip distribution determinations for projects of similar size and location. As identified on page 5.5 -3 of the Draft EIR, trip distribution of project - generated traffic onto the surrounding circulation system was determined from observed travel patterns in the ' vicinity of the project site as well as from locations and levels of development in relation to the subject property. Due to the low volume of traffic that represents 25 percent of the project traffic (i.e., 8 vph in the AM peak hour and 12 vph in the PM peak hour) a detailed analysis was not conducted. Such volumes are too low to even ' suspect a significant traffic impact will result. They are well below the one percent threshold at intersections along Balboa Boulevard east of the project site. 1 1 I I Michael Brandman Associates ' H:` bem ( PN-N\0D(4\0064ER20`OO"ER20 -t7'C 7 -1 fiml.dw rz5' I ' 6/2/04 ' Dear City Councilmen and Planning Commissioners: ' I would like to propose an alternate use for the Marinapark property. There is currently a very high demand for residential properties in Newport Beach, The City Council might consider authorizing the redevelopment of Marinapark as a tract of single family lots. The lots could be sold to individuals and developers and single - family homes constructed. A local real estate agent estimated that the bayfront lots would each be worth ' about $2,000,000 and the interior lots about $1,000,000. It appears that approximately 25 bayfront lots and 25 interior lots would fit into the parcel without taking away the Girl ' Scout building, the tennis courts, the basketball court, or the income - generating parking lot. The immediate potential income would be: ' 25 lots x $2,000,000 = $50,000,000 25 lots x $1,000,000 = $25,000 000 Total: = $75,000,000 Subtracting out an estimated development cost of $15,000,000 (which seems high), and the net gain is $60,000,000. That amount of money put into long -term bonds @ 5% would yield the city $3,000,000 per year. Also, the built -out property values would be somewhere in the range of $125,000,000 which would generate additional income for the city of close to $200,000. In conclusion and summary, the site could be utilized for relatively non - controversial single family residential housing and a secure income stream generated of about $3,200,000 /year for the city. Respectfully, vra G-A, 3419 Via Lido 9440 Newport Beach, CA 92663 r1 /z6 Marinapark Resort and Community Plan — Reaponse to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments 1 1. Mr. David Groverman Il. This comment regarding an alternative use that includes residential units is noted. According to the State Lands Commission staff, approximately 70 percent of the project site is located within the tideland boundary. The California State Lands Commission has determined that residential uses such as the existing mobile homes or other types of residential uses are not permitted within tideland areas. Therefore, one of the project's primary objectives is to redevelop the site with land uses that are consistent with, and permitted by, the legal restrictions on the use of tidelands. Michael Brandman Associates ' ' H: Client (PN- N\006M1ta064ER20W"ER20_RTC 7 -1 fiml.dac ' Page 1 of 2 ' Campbell, James ' Mr. Campbell, I am writing in support of the proposed Marina Park Resort. The project appears to well ' conceived, with the developer offering unbelievable incentives to our community. My concern is this, if "The City has determined that the project probably would not require a vote by the citizens should the General Plan Amendment be approved. ", why then is it being put to a ballot vote? I am requesting a truthful (non - political) answer from you in response. ' For seven years as a homeowner in Newport Beach I have watched the emergence of the greenlight naysayers in this city and the economic harm that it has caused. I have watched as potential development (that would increase the appeal of our beautiful coastline and city) avoid Newport Beach, to the benefit other communities (e.g. have you seen Main St/PCH in Huntington Beach ?). Further, I have watched while virtually ' no regentrification has occured along PCH or the harbor and pier areas of the pennisula. J� ' All the while, in my opinion, the elected officials in this city have bent, broken and pandered to the seeming - blackmail and agendas of this loud, illogical group of ' residents. Now I read "...the City Council has decided to have the project voted upon by the citizens of Newport Beach due to the importance of the project." and I can only believe that once again my elected officials are acquiescing to the demands of this ' segment of " greenlight" residents. I hope I am wrong. But, if the "Greenlight Initiative" set the framework for what needs to be put to resident vote, why then is the city willfully setting precedent to lower the bar even further? ' I implore you and other city planners to support this project and return my (and other like- minded residents of this city) confidence in the respected people who are entrusted ' to develop the vision of this city. Thank you in advance for your doing what is best for the residents of Newport Beach, ' and I look forward to hearing from you. Cordially, ' Scott Gohl Do you Yahoo!? ' 06/04/2004 From: scoff gohl [sagohl @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 10:20 PM To: jcampbell @city.newport - beach.ca.us ' subject: Marina Park Resort ' Mr. Campbell, I am writing in support of the proposed Marina Park Resort. The project appears to well ' conceived, with the developer offering unbelievable incentives to our community. My concern is this, if "The City has determined that the project probably would not require a vote by the citizens should the General Plan Amendment be approved. ", why then is it being put to a ballot vote? I am requesting a truthful (non - political) answer from you in response. ' For seven years as a homeowner in Newport Beach I have watched the emergence of the greenlight naysayers in this city and the economic harm that it has caused. I have watched as potential development (that would increase the appeal of our beautiful coastline and city) avoid Newport Beach, to the benefit other communities (e.g. have you seen Main St/PCH in Huntington Beach ?). Further, I have watched while virtually ' no regentrification has occured along PCH or the harbor and pier areas of the pennisula. J� ' All the while, in my opinion, the elected officials in this city have bent, broken and pandered to the seeming - blackmail and agendas of this loud, illogical group of ' residents. Now I read "...the City Council has decided to have the project voted upon by the citizens of Newport Beach due to the importance of the project." and I can only believe that once again my elected officials are acquiescing to the demands of this ' segment of " greenlight" residents. I hope I am wrong. But, if the "Greenlight Initiative" set the framework for what needs to be put to resident vote, why then is the city willfully setting precedent to lower the bar even further? ' I implore you and other city planners to support this project and return my (and other like- minded residents of this city) confidence in the respected people who are entrusted ' to develop the vision of this city. Thank you in advance for your doing what is best for the residents of Newport Beach, ' and I look forward to hearing from you. Cordially, ' Scott Gohl Do you Yahoo!? ' 06/04/2004 Merinaperk Resort snd Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft ElR Responses To Comments J. Mr. Scott Grohl Jl. This comment regarding support of the Marinapark Resort is noted. No further response is required. Michael Brandmen Associates H:` fient ( PN- .M)10064\0061ER20V0064ER70_RTC 7 -1 finel.dm I�q ' Cary D. Lowe Attorney at Law 228 SAINT ALBANS AVENUE SOUTH PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91030 (323) 255 -7600 FACSIMILE (323) 255 -6330 ' ciowe @socaLrr.com June 4, 2004 ' VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS & FACSIMILE Planning Department Attn: James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Re: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Gentlemen: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 0.7 2004 PM 718,9110111112 11 1213141516 On behalf of the Marinapark Homeowners Association ( "MHA "), I would like to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "the DEIR ") for the proposed Marinapark Resort and Community Plan project ( "the project ") currently under consideration by the City of Newport Beach ( "the City "). The comments in this letter are based upon the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; -'CEQA ") and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). MHA is comprised of the residents of the Marinapark mobile home park ( "Marinapark ") which currently occupies most of the site of the proposed project. The MHA members occupy individual mobile home sites pursuant to separate lease agreements with the City. Contrary to assertions in the DEIR, most of the residents reside there on a full -time basis. Many have resided there for decades, and constitute a close -knit, longstanding community. The project would literally eliminate Marinapark, displacing all of the residents, most of whom are retirees and many of whom are of lower- income levels. Marinapark would be replaced by an expensive private enclave, essentially an exclusive playground on public property. The project is in conflict with both the land use regulations of the City and conditions in the surrounding community. Despite a valiant attempt by the City's environmental consultants to portray the project as having no significant environmental impacts, that is far from the reality of the situation. We previously submitted comments in response to the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation which preceded the DEIR, noting several environmental impacts which had not been identified, but those comments appear to have been ignored in the preparation of the DEIR. For that reason, and for the other reasons set forth below, the DEIR is legally insufficient to support approval of the project as proposed. Marinapark.Cart.CityNB.060404(DEIR) 130 F Planning Department Attn: James Campbell, Senior Planner ' City of Newport Beach June 4, 2004 Page 2 1 1. The Summary Section Does Not Adequately Identify Areas of Controversy. ' The summary section of the DEIR is required to identify "areas of controversy known to the lead agency including issues raised by agencies and the public" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(2)). The Executive Summary of the DEIR contains only a cursory, two- sentence description of this, referring merely to "intensification of land uses" and "location of the tideland boundary" (page 2 -1). Comments previously submitted, both in writing and in public testimony, by MHA and representatives of the surrounding community have identified numerous areas of controversy which are not identified here and, in some cases, are not addressed at all in the body of the DEIR, e.g., the eradication of the long -time, stable , Marinapark community. 2. Certain Proiect Obiectives Are Misleading and Will Undermine Agency Findings. The project description in the DEIR is required to include a statement of objectives, to aid the City in making appropriate findings or adopting a statement of overriding considerations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b). The DEIR does include a list of project objectives (page 3 -8), but certain of these objectives listed are highly questionable on their face. The second objective is to "redevelop the site with land uses that are consistent with, pia and permitted by, the legal restrictions on the use of tidelands," but it is a completely ' unsettled issue, as a matter of law, as to whether this project will be permitted under those restrictions. Similarly, the fourth objective is to "provide additional general fund revenues" for the City, but there is no credible evidence that the project will generate a level of revenue ' comparable to, let alorie in excess of, the amount currently generated by the Marinapark leases. The unrealistic nature of these objectives will undermine the validity of future determinations made by the City based upon this DEIR. , 3. The DEIR Fails to Address the Proiect's Impacts upon the Existing Community. The DEIR is required to discuss, as part of the analysis of significant environmental ' impacts of the project, "changes induced in population distribution ... [and] human use of the land" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a)). Yet, the document virtually ignores this issue. ' Marinapark is an integral part of the larger community of the Balboa Peninsula, with approximately one hundred residents. For the vast majority of them, Marinapark is their K primary residence, and many of them have resided there for decades. The mobile homes in which they reside, while legal structures, in most cases are no longer moveable as a practical matter and generally do not conform to the requirements applied to new residents in other ' mobile home parks. What the DEIR euphemistically refers to as the "displacement" of Marinapark would actually consist of the demolition of 56 homes and the uprooting of an entire community. ' The DEIR erroneously attempts to circumvent this issue by asserting that Marinapark is a non - conforming use at this site, and that it is not assumed to be a continuing source of housing in the Housing Element of the City's General Plan (page 1 -5). This misses a key point in the regulations governing the analysis contained in the DEIR. That analysis must J 2 Marinapark .Com.CiryNB.060404(DE)R) J 31 1 Planning Department Attn: James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach June 4, 2004 Page 3 use as a baseline "the existing physical conditions in the affected area" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a) and Section 15125(e)), without regard to what the conditions may be at some time in the future. While the residences in Marinapark may indeed be non - conforming uses, they still are legally permitted uses as long as they remain there. The DEIR makes assertions to the contrary in the Introduction, but does not discuss the issue further in the body of the document. In addition to these direct physical impacts, there are economic and social effects upon the Marinapark community, most notably dumping of the residents into a housing . market in which few of them would be able to find affordable replacement housing. Marinapark represents the last housing in the area which is affordable to low to moderate income households. The population of Marinapark includes a significant number for whom there are no alternative housing opportunities in the community, in the City as a whole or even in the surrounding region. While these effects may not be treated as significant environmental impacts in and of themselves, they may be used to determine the significance of physical changes caused by the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a) and (b)). The CEQA Guidelines specifically use as an example a situation in which a development project physically divides a community, with the result that the social effects are the basis for determining that the physical effects of the construction are environmentally significant. Certainly, that rule must apply even more readily to the complete elimination of a community, as proposed by the project here. Furthermore, in reviewing the DEIR, the City is required to consider "economic, social and particularly housing factors ... in deciding whether changes in a project are feasible to reduce or avoid the significant effect on the environmental identified in the EIR" and "in reaching a decision on the project" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(c)). The DEIR fails to acknowledge this issue at all, and consequently fails to take it into account in formulating mitigation measures or project alternatives. We contend that the project as proposed cannot mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance and, therefore, cannot be approved by the City without a statement of overriding considerations, supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b)). 4. The DEIR Understates Inconsistencies Between the Project and Local Plans. The DEIR is required to discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the City's General Plan (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d)). The DEIR notes that the General Plan designates the site as Recreational and Environmental Open Space, and lists a variety of uses permitted under that designation (page 5.4 -3). The text emphasizes that Marinapark is not consistent with the existing land use designation (page 5.4 -4), and implies that the project falls within the permitted uses, which it does not. It is not until 16 pages later that a passing reference finally is made to the need for a General Plan amendment to accommodate the project (page 5.4 -19). The General Plan expressly states that, if and when the Marinapark leases are terminated, the site is intended to be converted to "public use" (page 5.4- 4),but this inconsistency with the project also goes without further comment in the DEIR. Marinapuk .Cou.CiryNB.060404(DEIR) 3 KIf 13,� Planning Department Attn: James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach June 4, 2004 Page 4 In discussing land use compatibility, the DEIR notes that "the project site is surrounded by a mix of residential, commercial, recreational and institutional land uses" (Page 5.4 -7). This apparently is intended to justify the introduction of the project into the midst of an eclectic mix of land uses. What the DEIR fails to acknowledge is that the current mix of uses constitutes a diverse community, providing housing, retail, employment and recreation opportunities. Marinapark is a vital component of that current mix. The project, by contrast, would have no relationship to anything in the existing community. It is conceived as an isolated enclave, providing short-term recreational opportunities for wealthy individuals from outside the community. It may as well have a moat around it and a "Keep Out" sign at the entrance, in light of its non - connection to the community around it. The DEIR quotes the General Plan Housing Element as requiring replacement of housing demolished in the Coastal Zone, where it has been occupied by low and moderate K4 income households in the preceding year, and also requiring a permit for such demolition. It notes the need for the permit (page 5.4 -16), but entirely ignores the requirement for replacement of the housing which will be lost in Marinapark, much of which currently is occupied by low and moderate income households. The DEIR notes that a Mobile Home Park Conversion Permit will be required prior to demolition of Marinapark (page 5.4 -16), but that provides no assurance that replacement housing will be available for the residents. The DEIR cites provisions of the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan which call for maximizing public access, to be secured by means of dedicated easements (pages 5.4 -16 and 5.4 -17). Rather than promoting public access, the private, exclusive nature of the project will deter such access. Furthermore, there is no mention of dedication of easements to secure public access. Even if there were, the sad history of such easements in other wealthy areas of the Southern California coastline indicates that private landowners commonly close them off and then aggressively contest attempts by regulatory agencies to reopen them. 5. Traffic Impacts Are Understated. The DEIR acknowledges that the project will result in an increase in vehicle trips to and from the site (page 5.5 -2), but attempts to minimize the significance of that. Even accepting the methodology employed in the DEIR, the conclusion is questionable. Traffic generated by the largely retired population of Marinapark is negligible. The substantial increase generated by the project, on the other hand, would add a significant additional volume to Peninsula streets which already are overwhelmed during much of the year. At the very least, mitigation measures need to be identified to reduce that impact to a true level of K5 insignificance. This increase in traffic, as well as the increase in the level of activity on the site in general, has another potentially significant impact, given the location midway along the narrow, densely populated Balboa Peninsula. It would impair implementation of and physically interfere with the City's plans for responding to emergencies on the Peninsula or carrying out an emergency evacuation of the community. Marinapark .Corr.CiryNB.060404(DEIR) 133 1 Planning Department Attn: James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach June 4, 2004 Page 5 6. The DEIR Fails to Address Project-Impacts on Cultural Resources. The Initial Study did not identify any impact on cultural resources, and the DEIR similarly fails to address this issue. Marinapark is a historical resource within the meaning of state regulations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3)). Historically, the site was an early location of beachfront recreation/camping facilities predating the urbanization of the area, and the existing mobile home park has occupied the site for approximately a half century. It represents one of the last remaining examples of the coastal mobile home communities which once were a Southern California institution, and therefore possesses the distinctive characteristics that establish its historical significance. Development of the project would result in the complete demolition of this community and obliteration of its historical value, thereby causing a significant environmental impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)). 7. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Address Geological Conditions. The DEIR is required to analyze "significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people into the area affected" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a)). The CEQA Guidelines use as a specific example a project which places people in proximity to a seismic fault. The DEIR acknowledges that the site is within two kilometers of the active Newport- Inglewood Fault (page 5.1 -1). Inasmuch as the project proposes to more than double the number of people occupying the site, and to introduce substantially taller buildings than currently are located there, there is a significantly increased likelihood of exposing people and structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death. Furthermore, as discussed above, in the event of a catastrophe such as a major earthquake, the increased number of people and vehicles introduced by the project would make emergency responses or evacuations significantly more difficult. 8. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Address Aesthetic Impacts. The DEIR includes an extensive discussion of the potential aesthetic impacts of the project, but fails to acknowledge one significant impact. It notes that the surrounding community is dominated by one- and two -story structures (page 5.8 -1), but ignores the fact that Marinapark currently is comprised entirely of single -story structures with flat roofs, thereby providing a significant view window both from the landward side and from the bay. By contrast, the project includes a number of two -story structures, up to 24 feet in height, as well as a central building 34 feet in height. Those buildings cannot help but result in a significant diminution of views across the site, in either direction. KU eC 7 I 9. The DEIR Fails to Provide an Adequate Discussion of Project Alternatives. ' The DEIR is required to discuss "a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or q to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the 1 project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project," ' Marinapark .Com.CityNB.060404MEIR) 1 3 Y Planning Department Attn: James Campbell, Senior Planner , City of Newport Beach June 4, 2004 Page 6 ' and evaluate the relative merits of the alternatives presented (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). The DEIR does discuss three alternatives: a scaled -down version of the project, a slightly redesigned version of the project, and no development of the site. What is missing from this analysis is consideration of locating the project on an entirely difference site. Since , the greatest impact of the project would be the destruction of the Marinapark community, the �( only reasonable alternative capable of avoiding or lessening that impact, while still allowing project objectives to be met, is development of the project at a different location. The nature , of the project does not require this particular location. Rather, it could be developed at numerous other locations along the Southern California coast, just as other projects of this kind have been developed in recent years. The failure to even consider this possibility renders this portion of the DEIR incomplete and inadequate. Conclusions. ' For all of the foregoing reasons, MHA believes the DEIR not to be in compliance with the requirements of CEQA pertaining to preparation of such documents, and therefore incapable of supporting a decision to approve the project. The most critical deficiency is the failure to address in any meaningful way the impacts of the project upon the existing Marinapark community. Given the massive conflict between the current use and the , proposed use of the site, it appears that the only feasible solution is to relocate the project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Cary D. Lowe ' CDL/sh cc: Marinapark Homeowners Association ' I 1 1 Muinapark .Cou.CiryNB.060404(DEIR) 135" 1 Madnaparlr Resort MW Community Plan — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments ' K. Marinapark Homeowners Association The mobilehomes do not constitute "affordable housing" for purposes of the City's Housing Element requirements because there are no covenants requiring the spaces to be affordable and no restriction on the incomes of households occupying them. We have no evidence to support the contention that permanent residents will be unable to ' find replacement housing in Newport Beach or the region and no evidence to support the contention that the project will physically divide a residential community. The commentor's quote from the CEQA Guidelines is taken out of context. Section 15131 of the CEQA Guidelines refers to circumstances when "economic or social information may be included in an EIR." In this case the factors referenced by the commentor would not be relevant because they would not "reduce or avoid the significant effects on the environment. K4. The DEIR states that a General Plan amendment is required for project implementation in a number of locations, including Section 1.3 — Purpose of the EIR on page 1 -2; Section 3.4 — Intended Uses of the Draft EIR, Responsible Agencies, and Approvals, page 3 -9; as well as page 5.4 -19, as noted by the commenter. The Land Use Element's narrative regarding the project site is quoted on page 5.4-4. There is no statement or implication here, or elsewhere in the Draft EIR, that suggests that the proposed hotel is consistent with the existing Land Use designation. The need for a General Plan amendment has been known for years and discussed in many other City documents, including reports to the City Council on responses to the Request for Proposals in 2000, the agreement with Sutherland Talla Hospitality in 2000, and the Planning Commission's and City Council's initiation of a General Plan amendment in 2002, the amended agreement with Sutherland Talla Hospitality in 2003, and the Notice of Preparation of this Draft EIR in 2003. Because the project site is City property easements are not necessary to provide and ensure protection of public access. The site will not be privately owned, but leased to the hotel developer. One of the City's objectives for the project is to "enhance public Michael Brandman Associates HICliem ( PN- iN)`0%4\00MER20`0064ER7A_RTC 7 -I 6naUm K1. The commentor has identified - in terms that are more graphic but generally similar — the only "area of controversy" that was revealed in the comments on the NOP and meetings conducted prior to the close of that comment period during — the change in ' land use from a mobilehome park to resort. The Draft EIR agrees with the commentor that the change in land use is the only real area of controversy and chose the term "intensification" to describe this issue in terms that relate more closely to environmental impacts and to focus the decision maker on environmental issues. ' K2. Please see response to comment B 23 regarding the tidelands boundary and permitted uses. Please see response to comments B 27 and G 4 regarding revenue generation ' from the existing and proposed uses. K3. The City's property manager reports that full-time residents occupy 23 or 24 of the mobile home spaces. We have no evidence to support the commentor's statement that full time residents are a "vast majority" or a residential community of approximately 100 residents. Implementation of the project will require removal of 1 all mobile homes.. The Land Use Element confirms the City's intent to close the mobilehome park. The mobilehomes do not constitute "affordable housing" for purposes of the City's Housing Element requirements because there are no covenants requiring the spaces to be affordable and no restriction on the incomes of households occupying them. We have no evidence to support the contention that permanent residents will be unable to ' find replacement housing in Newport Beach or the region and no evidence to support the contention that the project will physically divide a residential community. The commentor's quote from the CEQA Guidelines is taken out of context. Section 15131 of the CEQA Guidelines refers to circumstances when "economic or social information may be included in an EIR." In this case the factors referenced by the commentor would not be relevant because they would not "reduce or avoid the significant effects on the environment. K4. The DEIR states that a General Plan amendment is required for project implementation in a number of locations, including Section 1.3 — Purpose of the EIR on page 1 -2; Section 3.4 — Intended Uses of the Draft EIR, Responsible Agencies, and Approvals, page 3 -9; as well as page 5.4 -19, as noted by the commenter. The Land Use Element's narrative regarding the project site is quoted on page 5.4-4. There is no statement or implication here, or elsewhere in the Draft EIR, that suggests that the proposed hotel is consistent with the existing Land Use designation. The need for a General Plan amendment has been known for years and discussed in many other City documents, including reports to the City Council on responses to the Request for Proposals in 2000, the agreement with Sutherland Talla Hospitality in 2000, and the Planning Commission's and City Council's initiation of a General Plan amendment in 2002, the amended agreement with Sutherland Talla Hospitality in 2003, and the Notice of Preparation of this Draft EIR in 2003. Because the project site is City property easements are not necessary to provide and ensure protection of public access. The site will not be privately owned, but leased to the hotel developer. One of the City's objectives for the project is to "enhance public Michael Brandman Associates HICliem ( PN- iN)`0%4\00MER20`0064ER7A_RTC 7 -I 6naUm Marinaperk Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments an the Dreg EIR Responses To Comments access and community facilities on the site..." and the lease will require maintenance of at least the four locations for public access to the beach shown on the site plan. K5. Trip Generation rates were derived from the ITE Trip Generation, 14 Edition, which forecasts trip generation rates base upon land use. The generation rates reported in the TIE, "frip Generation, 7th Edition," are based upon trip generation rates for resort hotels for the proposed land uses and for mobile horse parks for the existing onsite land uses which will be displaced. ITE trip generation rates, which are the industry standard, are established in part, from the findings of multiple studies conducted throughout the United States. As identified in the City of Newport Beach's approved TPO, "Credit shall be given for existing uses on the Project site." The traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project assumed a worst case scenario (full hotel occupancy and partial mobile home park occupancy) in applying credit for the existing onsite land uses and establishing the number of net new trips. According to the approved TPO, significance is based upon two conditions: 1)project- related peak hour traffic must meet or exceed one percent of background peak hour traffic on any one leg of a study intersection; and.2),project- related traffic must contribute enough traffic to cause or make an unsatisfactory level of service (LOS E or worse). As identified in Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR, with the addition of project - related traffic, none of the study area intersections meet both conditions; therefore, the proposed project is considered to have less than significant transportation /circulation impacts. MBA solicited information from the various public service providers who are responsible for providing emergency response to the project site. As identified on page 5.9 -3 of the DEIR, "Access roads are required per the California Fire Code when any portion of the facility or any portion of the exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access. Continuous access roadways and public hydrants will be provided throughout the project site in order to allow adequate emergency access." Moreover, as identified on pages 5.9 -1 and 5.9 -3 of the DEIR, the Newport Beach Police Department and the Newport Beach Fire Department have indicated that they can adequately service the project site. Please also see response to comment K7 regarding emergency evacuations K6. According to Fifty Golden Years, written for the 50th birthday of Newport Beach, the site of the mobile home park began as a city campground in 1919. It was later converted to a trailer camp and renovated in 1956. The site has not been maintained in its original configuration or development, as it formerly accommodated 120 trailers and today has only 58 coach sites. Moreover, the site has changed from a campground to a trailer camp to a mobile home park where nearly half the spaces are occupied by full -time residents, rather than vacationers. The site is not associated with events significant to California's history, as it was one of many beach campgrounds /trailer camps that existed and still exist throughout the State. Neither is the site associated with the lives of persons important in our past. It clearly does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type or period, as it has changed over the years. The Historic Resource Inventory prepared by the Ad Hoc Preservation Advisory Committee in 1991 -92 does not include the Marinapark Mobile Horne Park in its listing of 61 buildings and sites of potential historical Michael Brendman Associates H: ' cUcnt "- 1Mb064tW64ER2W064ER20JtT fi C 7.1 ml.dm MaAnapar* Resort and Community Wan - Resoonse to Comments on the Draft EIR To Comments significance. For these reasons, the City has not found that the mobile home park is an historical resource. Its removal will not cause an impact on cultural resources. K7. The seismic effect associated with the proposed project are discussed in Section 5.1.2 of the Draft EIR. It is noted that the proposed project will increase the number of people on the project site; however, as described, the seismic risk at the site is similar to many sites within Southern California and standard compliance with seismic design requirements outlined in the California Building Code would result in less than significant seismic effects. K8. The Draft EIR did not ignore the fact that the mobile home park is comprised of single -story structures. Section 5.8.2 of the Draft EIR, under the Photograph Location 1 sub - heading on page 5.8 -3, clearly references the fact that the structures are single -story. In addition, Exhibits 5.8 -2, 5.8 -3, and 5.8 -5 show the existing mobile homes are single -story. Moreover, some of the mobile homes have pitched roofs as may be seen from the previously referenced exhibits. Section 5.8.2 of the Draft EIR thoroughly evaluated the potential impact of the proposed project from four key view locations and concluded that impacts were less than significant. The City does not have any established public or private view easements over the project site. Also, the heights of the proposed buildings are consistent with Section 20.65.040 of the City Zoning Code. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. K9. CEQA requires an EIR to "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessens any of the significant effects of the project..." In this case, many of the project objectives are site specific and, as the commentor knows, there are no feasible undeveloped sites in this area for the development of a luxury resort. The City has used the "rule of reason' in selecting project alternatives and omitting any consideration of alternative sites. Michael Brandman Associates �� H.-Uimt "- 3H)W64\0064E UOW64E=_RTC 7 -1 fmUm 1• 1 L MRS. CAROL MARTIN 1824 West Ocean Front Newport Beach, California 92663 1 June 7, 2004 RECEIVED BY 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT W. James Campbell CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Senior Planner City of Newport Beach JUN 0 7 2004 PM 1 P.O. Box 1768 71$�g11 0 11 1 11 2A�2�3�4�5�6 Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 Dear W. Campbell: I wish to express the following concerns regarding the draft EIR which is being submitted 1 for MarinaPark. It is inadequate in addressing certain areas. Drainage The increase in local impacts to drainage is not adequately mitigated Table 5.2 -1 indicates significant increase in peak flow concentrations. Although the proposal" discusses a drainage plan it does not address the impact on traffic that will occur on 1 Balboa Blvd., 18th street, and possibly 19th street as a result of excessive water. In addition, HWQ -6 states .... "the project applicant shall demonstrate through a drainage plan that onsite detention basis will be constructed so that peak storm water flow concentrations to the existing 18th Street and 15th Street storm drains will not be increased from flow concentration..." with the following statement that the cumulative impacts to ' hydrology and water quality would thus be less than significant. Since this document does not currently provide description of the mentioned plan, it is not possible to verify the validity of the assertion that cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Thus 1 the public is being denied their due opportunity to comment on this matter. 18th Street Traffic Flow The analysis of local traffic impact is inadequate. Vehicle 1 access on 18 Street is limited by the need for on street parking, the width of the street which results in slowing traffic flow for two way traffic, the succession of one -way streets existing in this area, and availability of left turn access from Balboa Blvd. for ' vehicles traveling eastbound. Thus the provision for hotel egress from 18th St. is unrealistic and an issue that is not adequately addressed in this document Further, whereas this document states "primary access to the project will be via Balboa Boulevard and secondary access will be via a controlled exit/entrance off of 18th Street" the applicant testified before the Newport Beach Planning Commission on June 3, 2004 1 that the access onto 18th Street would be limited to emergency vehicles. This inconsistency should be corrected and adequate provision should be shown for access routes that do not slow local traffic unassociated with the development. LI L2-- 1 137 Traffic for Events Review of the floorplan of this hotel makes it apparent that its ' profitability is dependant upon events other than room rentals. It could be concluded that events such as weddings, graduation parties, school dances, Christmas Boat Parade Parties, etc. will require additional traffic and possibly valet parking. This is not provided for. There is no analysis of where they will park cars with valet parking, which would be expected at an event at a Five Star Hotel. The traffic study offered does not include analysis of event traffic or parking. This is inadequate and no mitigation provisions are included. Traffic Study The "shoulder season" traffic analysis utilized here does not reflect the seasons of Christmas Boat Parades, Proms, or Wedding seasons. The exclusion of these differing periods of utilization of the facility leads to the traffic study being inadequate in respect to the neighborhood/local traffic impact. Accoustics/Noise This report's discussion of acoustical design is inadequate. It lacks consideration of how noise travels across water echoing as it progresses and does not include mitigation measures to prevent intrusion on Lido Isle and the Lido Peninsula. This project's potential for creating periodic increase in ambient noise levels across the water (above levels existing now) does not comply with CEQA guidelines. Timeshare Ownership/Fractional Ownership indicates residential use on Public Tidelands. Approval for partial timeshare ownership sets a precedent should future requests be made for additional timeshare conversions. This results in residential use of public tidelands which is not adequately addressed in this EIR nor is it in compliance with State guidelines for the appropriate use of Public Tidelands. Thus it is inconsistent with the stated City goals for the project:" to redevelop the site with land uses that are consistent with, and permitted by, the legal restrictions on the use of tidelands." It is inconsistent with the goals for utilization of open space/recreational public facilities and this aspect is also inadequately addressed Metered Parking Lot on Balboa Blvd. at 18"' St.which is highly utilized is being eliminated resulting in the reduction of parking for the beach -going public and the neighborhood The elimination of this 21 space lot and its replacement with a 41 space shared lot for the use of hotel guests, Girl Scouts, and the Community Center does not continue to service the neighborhood and beach going public in the same manner. This is inconsistent with General Plan section 5.4.1 Policy C. This reduction of neighborhood and beach packing is not addressed and has a collective impact on the need to provide such facilities. Height of the Lobby Building At 34 feet the lobby area would be out of scale with the neighboring residences which are built to the 24/28 foot maximum height restriction of the General Plan. The views from these residences (which conform with the General Plan) overlooking the former low rising Las Arenas Park, would be impacted. This is not adequately addressed. Nor is the visual impact from the Bay where this height is inconsistent with neighboring facilities adequately addressed. L5 L67 L'7 L$ i Iwo i 11 1 1 11 1 Open Space The loss of 8.1 acres of Newport Beach's Open Space Element in a Recreational Area requires mitigation. How will the loss of the Las Arenas Park and Beach be mitigated by equal open space elsewhere? This document fails to address this issue. Eel Grass This proposed development, adjoining a new eelgrass transplant area, offers no protective measures to prevent disturbance of this nursery even during construction or any proposal to relocate the eel grass transplant area to a safer area. This is inadequate. Fish and Recreation Area This proposed development is in an area where many young children learn the joy and techniques of fishing at the 19'h Steet dock. It is easily accessible, tranquil, and the success of catching a fish is encouragement to pursue such outdoor sports. This project threatens the proliferation of fish in this area of the bay where children have explored this form of recreation for more than 70 years. Though the EIR recognizes the damage that the fish population will incur, it does not address the cumulative impact incurred with the reduction of yet another source of recreation. This is a major inadequacy. Crabs The crab population is not even mentioned. It should be addressed. Halibut Though recognizing the damage that will occur to the halibut population of the area, this report provides no mitigation for the disruption of their habitat or provision for encouragement of their return to the area. Without such a plan a significant loss will occur and needs to be addressed adequately. Sincerely, &Cot6 *6i:,� Carol Martin L`1 L3.o Lit I LIZ L }3 iql Mannapant Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments L. Mrs. Carol Martin L7. As indicated in response to comment B52, 20 of the 41 spaces in the parking lot proposed near the comer of Balboa Blvd. and 18th Street will be available to the general public during hours of operation of the Girl Scout House and Community Center. L8. The proposed lobby building would have a maximum height of 37 feet as described in response to comment U 11. In addition to the hotel lobby, the proposed project includes various structures with maximum heights of 17 feet and 27 feet. The proposed lobby structure includes a footprint that represents 3.7 percent of the total project site area and 11 percent of all proposed building footprints on the site. Due to its footprint being a small percentage of the total site as well as all proposed onsite buildings, the height of the proposed lobby building would not substantially affect existing public views. Views from residences south of Balboa Boulevard are private Michael Brandman Associates �� HXHM (PN- M=64XOD64ER2OW64ER2A_RTC 7 -1 final.dm L 1. The potential impact on existing traffic conditions that could result from flooding ' events is a pre- existing condition that is not [Wade worse as a result of the proposed project. For a discussion on recommended Mitigation Measure HWQ-6, please see ' response to comment H 17. No further analysis is required. L2. The entrance into the luxury resort hotel is at the Balboa Boulevard/17th Street intersection. Please see response to comment Q4 regarding the gated entrance at 18th Street. U. The onsite ancillary facilities (i.e., ballroom, restaurant, caf6 and retail space) are of sizes and designs primarily intended to serve the needs of the hotel guests. The ' proposed ancillary uses are not intended to accommodate large special events because the proposed facilities are too small. Also see to comment B53 relative to ' capacities and proposed uses of ancillary facilities. L4. As identified on Page 5.5 -1 of the DEIR, the City of Newport Beach utilizes the ' shoulder season for traffic planning rather than the summer season because planning for the summer season would result in excessive roadway capacity during non -peak and shoulder seasons. In relation to analyzing the traffic impacts during the Christmas boat parades, while it is noted that traffic within the project area is ' increased during this period, this occurs only a few weeks out of the year and it is the intent of the EIR to examine the project's impacts upon daily activities that constitute the overall environmental setting. It is also noted that traffic within the project area ' increases during the summer months, and such increases are not limited to a couple of weeks (like Christmas boat parades) but rather extend throughout the summer season. Section 5.5 in the Draft EIR evaluated traffic volumes during the shoulder and summer seasons. Please see response to comment B61 regarding the traffic ' analysis prepared for the proposed project. L5. Please see response to comment H33 for a discussion of noise impacts from hotel activities. L6. Fractional ownership of up to twelve luxury resort hotel rooms does not constitute residential use of the property. The duration and usage restrictions on fractional units will ensure that occupancy is for intermittent periods and consistent with provisions of the tidelands trust. L7. As indicated in response to comment B52, 20 of the 41 spaces in the parking lot proposed near the comer of Balboa Blvd. and 18th Street will be available to the general public during hours of operation of the Girl Scout House and Community Center. L8. The proposed lobby building would have a maximum height of 37 feet as described in response to comment U 11. In addition to the hotel lobby, the proposed project includes various structures with maximum heights of 17 feet and 27 feet. The proposed lobby structure includes a footprint that represents 3.7 percent of the total project site area and 11 percent of all proposed building footprints on the site. Due to its footprint being a small percentage of the total site as well as all proposed onsite buildings, the height of the proposed lobby building would not substantially affect existing public views. Views from residences south of Balboa Boulevard are private Michael Brandman Associates �� HXHM (PN- M=64XOD64ER2OW64ER2A_RTC 7 -1 final.dm Madnepark Resort and Community Plan - Responm to Comments on the Dreg EIR Responses To Comments and are not considered public views. The City of Newport Beach has not established private view easements over the project site. L9. Neither Las Arenas Park nor the public beach will be lost due to the project. As noted on pages 1 -6 and 5.412 of the DEIR, all park facilities other than the basketball half -court will be replaced, and the beach will remain open and accessible to the public. The portion of the site on which the hotel is proposed is currently occupied by the mobile home park, and does not provide open space or recreational opportunities. Therefore, the project does not result in the loss of any existing open space. The Recreation and Open Space Element calls for the retention of the existing park facilities and beach, and notes that the site "...affords future opportunities for park, recreation, and aquatic facilities which are not yet fully planned." The Element does not indicate specific facilities that should be provided on the site. The project includes an amendment to the Recreation and Open Space Element, which would remove the reference to future opportunities at the project site. L10. Please see response to comment C5 regarding a best management practice (BMP) measure that would reduce potential impacts on the eelgrass restoration area during project construction activities. Ll 1. The boat dock associated with the proposed project is located adjacent to the existing American Legion Marina at 15 Street. The proposed boat dock will be 260 feet long as discussed in response to comment B20. The proposed boat dock is approximately 1,100 feet east of the 19th Street dock. The existing boat docks located west of the existing 19th Street dock have a greater potential for fish disturbance than the boats associated with the proposed dock due to proximity. The implementation of the proposed boat dock would not significantly affect young children learning to fish at the 19th Street dock or the existing fish population in the vicinity of the 19th Street dock. The implementation of the proposed boat dock would not significantly affect young children learning to fish at the 19th Street dock. L12. The existing crab population in Newport Bay is not considered a sensitive resource by the California Department of Fish and Game or National Marine Fisheries Service; therefore, the proposed project would not significantly affect the existing crab population. L13. Page 5.3 -5 in the Draft EIR states that halibut has a low to moderate potential to occur in the shallow waters of the project area because of the nature of the sand shoreline, and the relatively wide shelf of sandy silt sediments. Page 5.3 -10 in the Draft EIR states that the long -term loss of the soft bottom habitat in the project area will result in a reduction of halibut nursery habitat. This loss of habitat (i.e., soft bottom habitat) is considered a locally significant impact as discussed page 5.3 -10 in the Draft EIR. To reduce the potential long -term impact on the loss of this habitat, mitigation measure BR -6 was recommended in section 5.3.5 of the Draft EIR. This measure has been modified (please see response to comment C2) to reflect the modified dock design recommended as a mitigation measure (see response to comment B20). Similar to the finding in the Draft EIR, after the implementation of the modified BR -6, no significant long -term impact on the soft bottom habitat would remain. Michas! Brendman Ameomates ' H:`CU=I TN- JH)\0064\0064ER20\OWER20JtTC 7 -1 f n.I.&c ' 06/072004 11:12 RAI ' Recreational Advisors International June 7, 2004 Planning Department Via Fax: 949 -644 -3229 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. cc: City Council Newport Beach, CA 92659 Harbor Commission John Corrough ' Re: EIR — Marinapark Project ' While 1 can point out a wide range of technical deficiencies in the draft EIR, they will obviously be addressed by many who know and care about our ' harbor and have more direct knowledge of the specific issues. What I wanted to address and underscore is the obvious failure of the report to properly outline and describe alternatives to the proposed project. Many of us who have enjoyed this great harbor for many decades have ' great concern, ye, fear of the further loss of the dwindling assets that we , the public, own or control that are desperately needed to maintain the very environment that made Newport Beach great. Before losing another jewel why doesn't the Council deem that the EIR is insufficient and direct the author to conduct surveys of the marine industry locally to ascertain the variety of alternative uses for this property for the purpose of ensuring the continued vitality of our harbor. By that I mean not only shipyards and repair operations but visitor serving docks, showers, waterfront restaurant ' etc. Let us not be guilty of trading away one of our few remaining public assets ' for other than the highest purpose. I'm not just talking about revenue, as it may be that proper use of this land will not directly generate city income but may be insurance that our overall harbor economic health will continue. ' Sincerely, ichard S. Stevens ' Chairman 3344 E. Coast Flighway, Suite 314, Corona del Mar, CA 92825 (949) 721 -9825 (949) 721- 1047FAX www.recaavdsors.com N0.258 P02 lqq M1 Madnapark Resort and Commonity Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Reaponeea To Comments M. Recreational Advisors international 1 u E Michael arandman Associates H:VCliem "- 3H)b064W"ERJAMkER20 -RTC 7 -I 6ml.d. / Ml. Section 7 includes three alternatives to the proposed project. Two of them address ' aspects raised by this comment. The Marine Recreation Alternative addresses the option of public, water - oriented and community facilities and boat slips. The Reduced Intensity Alternative includes a freestanding restaurant component. The purpose of selecting these alternatives is described on page 7 -1 in the Draft EIR. Please see response to comment B97 regarding selection of alternatives. ' Additional alternatives to the proposed project could be designed. However, given that the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, additional alternatives would not mitigate or avoid significant effects of the project. The Draft EIR provides a reasonable range of alternatives, as required by CEQA, to assist in evaluating the proposed project. 1 1 u E Michael arandman Associates H:VCliem "- 3H)b064W"ERJAMkER20 -RTC 7 -I 6ml.d. / ' Campbell, James From: Jon Stearman [procs@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 12:00 AM To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND JAMMING THE PENNISULA FROM IT APPEARS ALL THE TRUE DATA THAT THE MARINA PROJECT WILL REALLY �} CREATE A ONE OF THE WORST BOTTLE NECKS AND TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND FLOW IN I AND OUT OF THE PENNISULA. FURTHER, THE PROJECT WOULD FINANCIALLY HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ALL THE BUSINESSES AROUND THE MAIN STREET AREA. GO INS AHEAD, KILL OFF THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS THAT IS LOCATED BETWEEN 18TH . 'STREET AND THE MAIN STREET AREA. ALSO, THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS IN BOTH THE (N 3 PEAK AND NON -PEAK SEASON WILL HURT RESIDENCIAL ACCESS. FURTHER, YOU WILL SEE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN ACCIDENTS INVOLVING VEHICLES, N4 'PEDISTRIANS AND BIKES. AND, I HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE WATER TRAFFIC CONGESTION, ACCIDENTS AND OTHER SAFETY ISSUES. IN5 GO AHEAD. PUT THE MARINA IN AND SEE ALL THE NIGHTMARES IT WILL REALLY CREATE. IT WILL TAKE THE CITY YEARS TO BAIL OUT OF THIS ONE. ' RESPECTFULLY, JON STEARMAN 1 I I F' 1 1 1 qI Madnapark Resat and Community Plan - Response to Commenta on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments N. Mr. Jon Stearman ' NI. As identified in Section 5.5, Transportation/Circulati on of the DEIR, the proposed project is not considered to meet or exceed the established City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance significance thresholds. The project creates a net increase ' of 24 AM and 32 PM peak hour trips. Compared to existing traffic, that is almost imperceptible and, as the traffic study reveals, less than significant. N2. This comment regarding the economic effect of the proposed project on the existing commercial businesses that are located between 18th Street and Main Street is noted. The proposed project includes a luxury resort hotel. Balboa Peninsula does not have a luxury resort hotel; therefore, the proposed project provides a different type of hotel on the peninsula. There is no supporting evidence that the proposed luxury resort hotel would result in substantial fiscal effects on commercial businesses that are located between 18th Street and Main Street. Development of a hotel, especially one that could attract guests with significant disposable income, would likely have a positive rather than negative financial impact on existing businesses in the area. N3. Please see response to comment N 1 regarding project traffic. N4. Please see response to comment N 1 regarding traffic increase during the peak hour. As described, these increases would be imperceptible, and therefore, no substantial increases in accidents involving vehicles would occur from project implementation. N5• The proposed project with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures (including mitigation measure LU -1 in response to comment B20 — modified dock design) would include a dock that provide tie -ups for six boats. The addition of six tie -ups for boats would not have the potential to significantly increase boat traffic in the Harbor. Micheal Brandman Associates . ' H^ CUM (PN- i1i)100 *D64ER2D)0064EM_RTC 7 -1 ftal dx ' (� I 7 June 8, 2004 O City of Newport Beach Planning Department James Campbell, Senior Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport beach, CA 92658 -8915 Subject Comments on Draft EIR, Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Dear W. Campbell: The following are my comments: Alternatives to the Proposed Protect (Section s Comments: Significant and logical alternatives were not considered, for example - (1) A plan for the subject property generated by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission of Newport Beach and submitted to the City Council circa 2000. (2) Removing some portion of existing improvements and allowing the property to become mainly open space. (2) A marine recreation alternative which includes a nautical museum and related facilities. Project Objectives (Section 3.3) Comments: The list of project objectives is slanted and incomplete. Four of the seven objectives relate directly or indirectly to city revenue or capital costs, one deals with a legal issue and one relates to marine facilities. Only one objective deals with environmental issues: noise, glare, traffic. Other considerations which should be included are: (1) Impacts to residents in the vicinity other than noise, glare or traffic. (2) Impacts on those who pass the property, either on land or by water. (3) Optimizing beneficial use of the property by Newport Beach residents and the public in general. (4) Providing a sufficient amount of land to water access, and vice versa. (5) Impact to marine life. Very truly yours, l Seymour Beek 528 S. Bay Front Balboa Island, CA 92662 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 0 8 2004 PM 7 8191 10 X11 X12 ,1 12,3141516 01 02 Ili8 Madnepark Resort and Community Plan - . Response to Comments on tre Dm ft EIR Responses To Comments ' O. Mr. Seymour Beek ' Please see response to comment B22 regarding land to water access. Section 5.3, "Biological Resources ", of the Draft EIR includes analysis of potential ' impacts to marine life. 01. Section 7.2 in the Draft EIR provides for a marine recreation alternative that includes Mlchael Brandman Associates HACliM (M- II,)10064100MER20OOMER20 -RTC 7 -1 fimldm a marina component. This alternative includes 1.64 of parkland area, in addition to a Girl Scout/community center, tennis and basketball courts, and parking for the beach and boat slips. This Marine Recreation Alternative was developed by Planning Department staff in cooperation with Harbor Resources Department staff. The components of the Marine Recreation Alternative address needs such as public boat slips, boat launch, a dock/marina available for Charter Boats, tennistbasketball ' courts, and parking for charters, vehicles with boat trailers, and the public. All of these uses have been identified by the Harbor Commission and City staff. Please see response to comment B97 regarding the selection of alternatives. The PB &R Commission plan referred to in the comment was proposed in response to the City's RFP in 2000, and not selected by the City Council when they decided to work with the applicant. This alternative was not included in the list of alternative ' analyzed in the Draft EIR because it does not provide the aquatic facilities for which there is demand and which are noted as future facilities for this site in the Recreation ' and Open Space Element. 02. CEQA requires that the Draft EIR includes a "... statement of the objectives sought ' by the proposed project ". The objectives are required to help define a range of reasonable alternatives to the project and to help decisionmakers prepare findings, or a statement of overriding' considerations if needed. Project objectives need not, nor do they often refer to, environmental issues. Marinapark Resort (formerly Regent Newport) was selected by the City from among the proposals submitted for the project site because the project offered potential benefits to the City that the others did not. Accordingly, the potential benefits of the Marinapark Resort project that were the determining factors in its selection by the City for ibe project site have been restated as the project objectives. ' Potential impacts to residents "... other than noise, glare or traffic" and on "... those who pass the property, either on land or by water" are indicated in: Secti on 5.1.2, "Project Impacts"; Section 5.2.3, "Project Impacts"; Section 5.4.3, "Project Impacts"; "Project "Project ". ' Section 5.6.3, Impacts' ; and Section 5.8.2, Impacts Secti on 7.2 of the Draft EIR identities the Marine Recreation Alternative which may ' be accepted, in response to your comment, as "optimizing beneficial use of the property by Newport Beach residents and the public in general." ' Please see response to comment B22 regarding land to water access. Section 5.3, "Biological Resources ", of the Draft EIR includes analysis of potential ' impacts to marine life. Mlchael Brandman Associates HACliM (M- II,)10064100MER20OOMER20 -RTC 7 -1 fimldm 1q? ' Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: JTNiemiec @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 4:21 PM ' To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Draft ER urgent comment ' Mr. Campbell, I am the owner of property at 1611 W. Balboa Blvd., directly across the street from the planned Sutherland - Talla resort My entire family is strongly against the massive development of this property. Noise pollution, ' increased traffic, parking, crime and excessive population numbers are not in anyway in keeping with the tradition of home ownership in Newport Beach. The EIR draft does not address property owners loss of bay views, loss of privacy, year round congestion (as if we didn't have enough already ) and how these negative impacts will affect year round residents and property p 1 values ( our home is directly across the street from the proposed parking structure) in the immediate future. f i The Niemiec family has enjoyed our home since 1940 and allowing this resort to replace existing MarinaPark and other recreational amenities is not in the best interest of this small neighborhood. ' Please pass these very realistic negative comments on to the Newport Beach City Council and Planning Commission. Respectfully submitted this 6th day of June, 2004. James, Jan, Toni and Brook Niemiec 1 PL4MN NG D A TMEW �Ii;Ay OP NEWPORT BEACH JUN 0 8 2004 FM 'B 1%110111112111213141516 06/OR/2004 50 Msifnapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Drat EIR Responses To Comments P. James, Jan, Toni, and Brook Niemiec P 1. Except for the ground level bay views along Balboa Boulevard at 18'b Street and 16th Street, there are no other views of the bay from Balboa Boulevard. There are views from 2nd and Yd story residences south of Balboa Boulevard. However, the City has not established public view easements or policies for residences along Balboa Boulevard. The proposed suites and villas are set back from Balboa Boulevard approximately 260 feet from the residences south of Balboa Boulevard. Views from of? these suites and villas are impeded by the tennis courts, the 2 -story spa villa, and the 2 -story Girl Scout House /Community Center. The distance between the suitestvillas and the residences south of Balboa Boulevard would limit privacy impacts and would be less than significant. Please see response to comment N regarding traffic increase during the peak hour. Michael Brandman Associates ' HACGent" -H4)%O 6 %OWER29WMERW-RTC 7- 16uelAm I ' Jun 09 04 10:17a ' June 8, 2004 I 1 Newport Beach Major & Council Members Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Honorable Major and Council Members: USPS & FAXED gifg G;Iq 3ZZ7 (ce P.1 As a long -time homeowner in the area adjacent to the proposed Regent Hotel Project, I am providing my comments on the Draft FIR. Of particular concern is the mis- characterization of the existing site throughout the document Environmental "Impact" implies a comparison between the existing and proposed use of the site. If the existing use is not characterized correctly, then the comparison is of little value. Thank you for careful consideration of my comments. ' Sincerely, ' � w ' Craig Morissette PO Box 888 ' Newport Beach, CA 92661 -0888 949 - 675 -2237 1 11 II Draft EIR Comments 1.3 Site History CEIVED BY P DEPARTMENT Cf WPORTBEACH pp�MM x;40 4.9 2004 71E1!I( o.I10111 112111213141516 Page I of 3 This section does not correctly characterize the existing site by excluding key elements now available to the public. • Existing basketball court is excluded from the site description. I Q 1 1 15z Jun 09 04 10:18a Morissette Draft EIR Comments June 8, 2004 p.2 Page 2 of 3 • Existing tennis courts were not characterized as 'lighted." This is a unique 101 feature for public tennis courts available to Newport Beach residents. • Existing small -boat sailing basin is excluded from the site description. "Public beach located in front of the mobile home park" does not correctly characterize Q 3 current use of the site. There is a widening of the channel which forms a unique sailing basin apart from the main channel frequently used by residents for sailboards and small sailing craft. 1.5 Project Description Wording in this section is vague with respect to the sentence that states "secondary access will be via a controlled exit/entrance off 18°i street." The motorized gate that 04 can potentially be used at the discretion of the resort posses the single greatest impact to residents with bedrooms on Vilelle Place. 1.8.1 Effects Not Found To Be Significant "Recreation" should not be listed in this section if existing recreational use of site is ' properly characterized to include a basketball court, lighted tennis courts, and a small- Q 5 craft sailing basin. 1.8.2 Effect Found To Be Potentially Significant t "Recreation" should be listed in this section if existing recreational use of site is ' properly characterized to include a basketball court, lighted tennis courts, and a small- Q� craft sailing basin. SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST RESPONSES, XIV. RECREATION, Existing Conditions This section mis- characterizes existing recreational use of site by excluding a basketball court, 'lighted" tennis courts, and a small -craft sailing basin. Subsection "b)" states "However, project implementation will replace all of these recreational facilities" is not a correct statement if existing site is properly characterized. The section makes no mention of the impact the proposed 12 -boat dock will have on the size of the small boat sailing basin. During the summer when the beach that adjoins the site to the West is roped off for swimming, small boats, many of which are piloted by individuals learning to sail, will be forced into the main boat channel. All of these factors result in a significant impact on recreational use of the site. Q` ' Q$ , 1 oat 15"3 1 Jun 09 04 10:10a ' Morissette Draft EIR Comments June 8, 2004 XV. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Existing Conditions 1 I p.3 Page 3 of 3 This section correctly states "Access to the site is currently provided from West Balboa Boulevard ", however, the description should also make clear that with the exception 010 of emergency services only, Vilelle Place is continuously blocked to vehicular traffic Subsection "f) Result in inadequate parking capacity ?" addresses the parking space count, but makes no mention of how parking management at the proposed site can substantially impact adjacent existing parking -- especially permit parking on bay to the West of the site continuously used by neighborhood residents. If, for example, fees for parking at the proposed site exceed the rate of nearby metered parking, existing parking surrounding the site could be significantly impacted. Also, if inadequate employee parking is provided on -site or employees are charged by management to use on -site parking, employees will migrate to the adjoining permit lot on the bay or to median parking on Balboa Blvd. This potentially has significant impact on parking in the surrounding area. XI. NOISE, Existing Conditions oil This section correctly characterizes Balboa Blvd. as an existing source of noise, but does not address the fact that the existing blocking of Vilelle Place to all vehicular 0 1 Z traffic but emergency vehicles at 18`b Street significantly reduces noise and vibration for homes to the West of the existing site. Subsection "c" does not specifically address the potential non - emergency use of the ' proposed "Motorized Wrought Iron Gate" on Vilelle Place at 180' Street. Resort management policy regarding use of this "motorized" gate could significantly impact the adjacent residential neighborhood. 1 1 1 1 Q13 1 1 1s1 ' Atarinspark Resort and Community PMn - Response to Comments on dre Draft EIR Responses To Commwes ' Q Mr. Craig Morissette ' Q 1. This comment references the Initial Study that was prepared for the proposed project. However, the Environmental Setting discussion on page 4 -1 of the Draft EIR include the basketball half-court in the list of existing community facilities on the site. This ' discussion does not note that the tennis courts are lighted. However, the discussion of Aesthetics and existing conditions on page 5.8 -1 include reference to the tennis court lights. ' Q2. Please see response to comment Ql regarding the tennis courts. Q3. The City's Harbor Resources Division is unaware of a "sailing basin" in this part of Newport Bay. The channel in front of the project site is consistent in size from one ' end to the other, and there is no evidence of a basin. Q4. The summary of the Project Description is found at Section 2.1 in the Draft EIR, not ' 1.5 as noted by the commenter. To clarify the sentence regarding the gate at 18th Street, it is not for use by hotel gnests, employees or deliveries; rather, it is intended for use by persons using the Girl Scout House and Community Center to ensure that ' parking is available for these uses without taking away from existing public parking. This limited use will not result in a significant impact to nearby residents. Q5. As stated on Pages 1-6 and 5.4 -12 of the DEIR, the basketball half -court is the only recreational facility that w- ill not be replaced. All four tennis courts will be replaced, and four will be lighted. The sailing basin is in Newport Bay and is not part of the ' project, and will not be changed. Q6. Please see response to comment Q5 regarding the recreational use of the site. ' Q7. Please see response to comment Q 1 regarding the tennis courts and response to comment Q3 regarding the sailing basin, ' Q8. The commentor is referencing the Initial Study that was prepared for the proposed project and is located in Appendix A in the Draft EIR. Please see response to comment Q5 regarding the recreational use of the site. Q9. Please see response to comment Q3 regarding a sailing basin. The use of the portion of the bay between the 19th Street dock and the proposed dock by small boats would not be altered due to the implementation of the proposed project. The area adjacent to shore is currently and will remain available for public swimming. Q10. The proposed project does not propose alterations to vehicular access to Vilelle Place west of the project site. Please see response to comment Q4 regarding the onsite gate entrance at 18th Street. Q11. The project does not include metered or parking- for -fee spaces at the 41 -space lot proposed near the corner of Balboa Blvd. and 18th Street. Twenty -one of the 41 spaces will be indicated as reserved for visitors to the Girl Scout House and Community Center. The remaining 20 spaces will be available to the general public. Parking standards for a luxury resort hotel in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code were used to determine the required number of parking spaces for the proposed project, based on the number of guest rooms, which number includes allocations for Michael Brandmen Associates ' l ' HACRi ( PN- H4)XOW4\0064ER20\0064ER20_RTC 7.1 f=Ldw 5 Marinapark Resort and Community Plan — Responaa to Comments on the Dram EIR Responses To Comments employees, ancillary uses, and service vehicles. Details related to a parking management plan including accommodations for employee parking, if deemed necessary, will be determined at the project review stage that will follow the November election if the project receives voter approval. Q12. The existing mobile home park as well as the proposed project includes a gate at 18th Street across from Vilelle Place. The existing gate does not provide for vehicular through traffic; however, could be used for emergency vehicles. The proposed gate is intended to be used by persons using the Girl Scout House and Community Center as well as for emergency vehicles. Q13. Please see response to comment Q4 regarding the onsite gate entrance at 18th Street. Michael Brandman Associates ' HAChem(P - "\WM\0064ER20MMER20_RTC 7- 15ml.doc I �(^ ' June 9, 2004 R To Whom It May Concern: The following are my perceptions of deficiencies in the scope of the draft EIR concerning the proposed development of what is known as the Marina Park Area: 1. What is the noise impact if the ballroom doors are opened during parties, I meetings or other gatherings? 2. What is the impact of the elimination of approximately 56 mobile homes I (moderate income units) on the housing element? f p2- 3. The average daily trips for the development appear to be low. Each room could generate one ADT. Hotel workers for a five star resort would seem to add another 200 (maids, gardeners, management, bell hops, kitchen related staff, bar related staff, activities related staff, window washers, etc.), in 3 addition to delivery vehicles. The public (who will continue to use the public areas — tennis courts, beach, marine activities) are currently a part of the baseline for the area. At the present, impacted intersections in the area are at LOS level "D" and this is peak during the "shoulder" months. Increasingly Newport Beach residents are concerned about impacts during summer months as related to development. 4. Ingress to the proposed development does not seem to have been adequately addressed. How many delivery vehicles can be accommodated at one time and during.what hours? Is a left turn pocket east bound on Balboa Blvd. R 4 1 proposed, and are Costal Commission mandated parking spaces to be eliminated to accommodate vehicles entering the resort's front area? Is a traffic signal or stop sign contemplated to allow vehicles to enter the resort? 5. The current fence height for the existing tennis courts is approximately 20 feet. The project envisions a 5 foot rise of parking structure topped by 10 feet R 5 of tennis fence. Perhaps another 10 feet of fence will be needed, resulting in a 25 foot wall, three feet from Balboa Boulevard. Charles A. Remley, Jr. 101 East Balboa Boulevard Balboa, CA 92661 949 - 673 -8770 RECEIVED BY P_"NNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 0 9 2004 7 8,91101111 2 X112131415 6 Is7 ' Marinapwk Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Dreg EIR Responses To Comments ' R Mr. Charles A. Remley, Jr. Rl. Please see response to comment H33 regarding noise from hotel activities such as social functions. R2. The elimination of the 56 mobile home units on the project site do not affect low or moderate income homes identified in the housing element because these homes are not identified as low or moderate income by the State of California and are not referenced as such in the City's housing element. R3. As identified in Section 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the luxury resort hotel will have 110 rooms and is anticipated to generate 50 employment opportunities. Traffic generation rates are established by utilizing the generation factor identified in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (TIE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition, which is the industry standard. Since the TIE generation rates forecast vehicle trips by land use, the calculations automatically account for trips generated by staff and deliveries, by calculating the overall usage of the project. The proposed project is anticipated to generate 640 trips, 520 of which will be new trips since, the existing mobile home park, which will be displaced as part of the project, currently generates 120 vehicle trips. As identified in Appendix E, Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO Traffic Analysis, of the Draft EIR, two of the intersections examined, Newport Boulevard/Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road operate at LOS D during the AM or PM peak hours respectively. The City of Newport Beach considers LOS D to be an acceptable LOS. The proposed project will contribute 3 vehicle trips to the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway in the AM peak hour and 16 trips to the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road in the PM peak hour. According to the TPO analysis, the project must met or exceed one percent of the projected peak hour background traffic on one leg of a study intersection and contribute enough traffic to cause an unsatisfactory level of service (LOS), which the City defines as LOS E or worse. While the project - related traffic contributes more than one percent to two intersections (Newport Boulevard/Via Lido and Newport Boulevard/32nd Street) both of these intersections operated at LOS B. Moreover, for the two intersections that currently operate at LOS D, the project will not contribute more than one percent to the existing traffic volumes. The project's contribution to summer weekend traffic is discussed on pages 5.5 -5 and 5.5 -6 of the (haft EIR. As noted in the response to comment B61, project - related traffic is expected to occur at times other than the peak hour, and in fact hotel patrons are expected to either be traveling in the direction opposite to the outbound beach traffic in the afternoons or traveling during periods other than that when there is peak traffic volumes exiting the peninsula. R4. The entrance into the luxury resort hotel is at the Balboa Boulevard/17th Street intersection. A portion of the median at 17th Street will be removed to accommodate left turn into the project site from Balboa Boulevard. No existing public parking spaces will be removed to accommodate left turns into the project site at this intersection. No traffic signal or stop sign are proposed or recommended at this intersection. Please see response to comment H7 regarding employee and delivery vehicle entrance to the project site. Michael Brandman Associates ' -5 H1C6eu (PN-JH)\W64\W"ER20\006M1ER2o —RTC 7 -1 final.doc 5 Madnopark Resort and Community Plan — 1 Response to Comments on the Waft ER Res nms To Con nlenfe R5. If the project receive voter approval, subsequent project review will include 1 consideration of the fence proposed along Balboa Boulevard. 1 1 !I LJ 1 1I 11 r' 1 1' 1� Michael Brandman Asaoclates H:\Cfi MTN -JH)\ 0064006M1F.R20\a064FRW -RTC 7- 15nal.dw ' I June 9, 2004 Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 s Girl Scouts® Subject: Comments on Marina Park and Community Plan DEIR Dear Mr. Campbell Girl Scout Council of Orange County 1620 Adams Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 T 714 979 7900 F 714 850 1299 giriscouts@gscoc.org RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 0 9 2004 AM PM 7"1819110111112111213141516 The DEIR for the proposed Marina Park and Community Plan appears to address most of the concerns of the Girl Scout Council of Orange County. The proposed plan for the 110 room luxury hotel includes plans for a new Girl Scout building and Community Center in close proximity to the existing Neva B Thomas Girl Scout House. The Girl Scout Council understands that all costs associated with the demolition of the existing facility, development of the site and construction of the new Girl Scout facility would be borne by the developer. The proposed Girl Scout facility is slightly larger than the existing facility and includes all of the amenities of the existing site such as a commercial kitchen, stage, fireplace, fire ring, bathrooms, storage, office space and grounds for outdoor activities and up to 21 parking spaces. There was no mention of a long term, no cost lease agreement between the City and the Girl Scout Council regarding the new facility. The Girl Scout Council of Orange County seeks to negotiate a long -term 50 year lease, so that we can continue to develop long range plans and make a'fmancial commitment to upgrade the Newport Beach Scout House in order to provide quality affordable beach oriented recreational opportunities for our 39000 girl and adult members well into the future. While the Marina Park Recreation Alternative does provide for 1.92 acres for a new Girl Scout facility and Community Center in close proximity to the existing Neva B Thomas Girl Scout House. There is no mention of how the project would be funded, or what costs if any the Girl Scout Council would be required to bear to replace the existing facility if this or a similar alternative were selected. At this juncture it appears that the proposed Marina Park and Community Plan may be the preferred alternative to replace the Neva B Thomas Girl Scout House with a modern, Girl Scout Center. �'Wlex� Thomas Olivas Assistant Executive Director Property & Technology Girl Scout Council of Orange County cc: Jeannie Burns CEO GSCOC A United Way Agency S 160 Msrinapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft E/R Responses To Comments ' S Girl Scout Council of Orange County S 1. Terms and conditions of a potential lease between the City of Newport Beach and the Girl Scout Council of Orange County for the proposed Girl Scout House and the funding of proposed improvements for this use are not project characteristics that give rise to potential adverse impacts to the physical environment. It is anticipated, however, that should the project be approved by the voters in November, the City and Girl Scout Council will enter into lease negotiations that will address the issues raised in your comment letter. Michael Brandman Associates j� ' H:1 Chmt(PN- JM\0064koo64ER20WO64ER20 -RTC 7- 15valdoc 161 1 � 1 fog RECEIVED BY ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT T June 9, 2004 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH To: James W. Campbell, Senior Planner JUN 0 9 2004 ' AM PM From: Don Webb 7 8191101111121112131415 6 ' Subject: Marinapark Resort EIR Comments LaVonne mentioned that the minutes for the council meeting would not be ready by your ' June 9"' deadline so here are some of the items that I feel have not been covered in the EIR document and the site plan. The following two project objectives preclude Alternatives being considered equal to or superior to the proposed project unless they produce significant tidelands and/or general ' fund revenues: Reduce the current and anticipated future deficit between tideland revenue and tideland expenditures. Provide additional general fund revenue that will help the City minimize or enhance the high level of public safety and municipal services provided ' to the Newport Beach residents. If this standard were applied to the remainder of the City's undeveloped or under- T developed open space /recreational parcels the City would have little chance to ever construct a new baseball diamond or soccer field. ' The conclusion for the No Project/No Development Alternative is a perfect example of this: Since this alternative would have no additional environmental impacts, this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. However, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the ' proposed project set forth in Section 3.3, and therefore, is considered not feasible. ' Why were the project objectives for this General Planned park site structured, to preclude considering non - revenue producing recreational uses on the Marinapark/Las Arenas Park ' site? Why is the City's only bay front parcel suitable for public active recreational and aquatic ' uses being considered for hotel use? I The General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element under Service Area Needs states ' in part: 1 � 1 fog Service Area 2 Balboa Peninsula:.... This area has little vacant land for development...... Unmet park needs can be satisfied via the renovation and upgrading of facilities such as those at Las Arenas Park.... Additional active park facilities are desirable, along with support facilities such as restrooms, showers and drinking fountains. If Las Arenas Park is lost to a revenue producing hotel, where else on the Peninsula will this bay front property be replaced to help meet the "unmet needs" described in the Te- f Recreation and Open Space Element? How can the Recreation and Open Space Element be amended to reduce active park area when the City is deficient in active park sites in almost every service area in the City? It is understood that an EIR must consider a No Project/No Development Alternative which does not change the current use. It is also my understanding that the continuation of the mobile home park use on public tidelands will not be allowed by the State Lands Commission. Since the EIR's No Project Alternative would not be allowed by the State Lands Commission, why wasn't an additional No Project Alternative considered without the mobile home park and with active park uses as described in the Recreation and Open 75 Space Element? In the past, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission suggested an alternative that provided more active park uses. What are the reasons, besides not producing revenue, that this alternative was not considered even though it met the goals of the General Plan? In at least two public hearings a No Project Alternative was requested that met the park, recreational and aquatic needs without the continued mobile home use. Why wasn't this Alternative considered? Site Plan Concerns: The project provides a four foot wide sidewalk along the Balboa Boulevard frontage. Balboa Boulevard in this area is designated a Primary Roadway in the General Plan's Circulation Element. The typical section for this classification provides a 10' wide T& parkway. Depending on the volume of pedestrian traffic, sidewalks ranging in width from a minimum width of 4' to 10' are provided. Usually the minimum width for a sidewalk next to a curb in a light pedestrian area is 5'. With the pedestrian uses in this area the sidewalk should be at least 6 to 8 feet. The remainder of the parkway is usually landscaped to enhance the adjoining landscaping in the setback areas. The proposed tennis court/underground parking will create a 15 foot high fence /wall with in 7 feet of the curb. Today the tennis court fences are buffered with mature trees and landscaping in a 14 to 20 foot wide strip. The proposed 3' landscape strip will not allow for significant trees or landscaping to be planted to soften the massiveness to the fence. T7 At the very least the front yard setback for the area should be maintained between the back of sidewalk and fence. I don't know if this is 5 or 10 feet. This is public property and the City should hold the developer to the same standards of providing landscaped 143 buffers along main roadways that we would any where else in the City. Particularly when the landscaped buffer exists today. We should get more landscaping not less along the roadway. On 18`h Street the Admin/Storage building appears to have a 0 setback. Because of the building mass the set back should be at least 5 feet and preferably 10'. The plan for the entrance shows that the median parking and median will not be modified. If this is the case, the only way for eastbound traffic to get into the main entrance will be to make a U -tum at 15`" Street. This is quite an inconvenience for the hotel patrons plus it may create a hazard at 15`" Street. If it is the intent to modify the median in front of the hotel, the loss of on street parking and impacts of creating a left turn lane need to be considered. I will look forward to the response to these and other comments you will receive. Don Webb 1 1821 mariners Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 1 (949) 646 -3133 1 LJ r� �J 1 1 1 1 1 T'7 T-S T9 1 16Y Marinapar* Resort and Community Plan - Raaponse to Comments on the Draft ER Responses To Cornnwas T Mr. Don Webb TI. Please see response to comment B97 regarding the selection of the alternatives to the proposed project. T2. Marinapark Resort (formerly Regent Newport) was selected by the City from among the proposals submitted for development of the project site because the Marinapark proposal offered potential benefits to the City that the others did not, including generation of significant revenues to the City's General Fund. Accordingly, the potential benefits of the Marinapark Resort project that were the basis for its selection for the project site have been restated as the project objectives. T3. The project luxury resort hotel concept for this site was first presented to the City in 1999 in response to a Request for Proposals sent by the City of Newport Beach to potential developers of the Marinapark site. Marinapark Resort (formerly Regent Newport) was selected by the City from among the proposals submitted because the project offered potential benefits to the City that the others did not including generation of significant revenues to the City's General Fund and rebuilding of community facilities (Girl Scout House and Community Center) that did not require expenditure of public funds. Please see response to comment B27 regarding other potential benefits associated with the proposed project. T4. Please see response to comment L 9 regarding loss of park and open space. The decision to amend the Recreation and Open Space Element is a policy decision, to be made by the voters of Newport Beach in this case. T5. CEQA requires that the No Project alternative be one that does not include any changes to the existing use of the site. Section 7.2 in the Draft EIR includes an alternative without the mobile home park and with a park use as described in the Recreation and Open Space Element. T6. The proposed project includes a 4 -foot wide sidewalk. This width of sidewalk is a site plan issue and not an environmental issue. T7. If the General Plan Amendment necessary to accommodate this project receive voter approval, subsequent project review will include consideration of street -side setback at the tennis courts and the landscaping in this setback. T8. Please see response to comment B60 regarding the Administration building setback. T9. Please see response to comment R4 regarding the provision of left turns from Balboa Boulevard onto the project site. Michael Brandman Associates 1 H:\Chi "- M\0064`0064ER2WO64ER ��7+• 20_RTC 7 -1 fiml.d. 1 / ✓ I a 'X DECEIVED BYnn (�yE1 jdEV1fPORT BEANCr� MMENT ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT by ' JUN 0 9 2004 PM Elizabeth C. Bonn Elliott A. Bonn ' 71819110i11 X12 1l 1213{�0 1607 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 I 1 SECTION 2. 1, Project Description: The proposed project includes 12 timeshare units. COMMENT: How does the tideland "boundaries" impact the timeshares? Will there be a resolution of the tideland boundary as recommended by EQAC. Further, the June 3, 2004 discussion with the Planning Commission, we are confused whether the timeshares are for a full year or only for a portion of a year. The statement made by Mr. Sutherland regarding the use seems to indicate that the timeshares are only for a portion of the year. The DEIR should clarify resolve the tideland boundary issue and the plan for time share use. SECTION 2.1, Project Description: The DEIR identifies the access to the project by the general public, including Balboa Boulevard. 160 The following contains comments and questions concerning the Draft Environment ' Impact Report for the Marina Resort & Community Plan. SECTION 1.6, Recreation: The DEIR states that the project will not create a demand for ' recreational services or facilities. COMMENT: The project has been described by its developer as a yachting destination ' and includes 12 boat slips with four designated for public use. Further, the project consists of 110 rooms, potentially 110+ visitors. How are these facts consistent with the above claim? There appears to be the potential for a significant increase in visitors and use from the present conditions. The project appears intended to increase the demand for recreational use and facilities. The DEIR needs to reconcile these facts with the claim. ' SECTION 1.6, Recreation: The proposed project will replace all of the recreational facilities except the basketball half -court because it is not widely used (See 5.4, page 5.4 -12). ' COMMENT: There is nothing in the report that I could find to support the statement that half is My 14 -old disputes this. There are many times when he and his 1 the -court not used. year U friends have gone to use it but have found it in use. The DEIR needs to provide the support via a ••lam survey, including the time period in which any survey was done, or provide the City's information for this claim. We agree with the assessment by EQAC on this point. I 1 SECTION 2. 1, Project Description: The proposed project includes 12 timeshare units. COMMENT: How does the tideland "boundaries" impact the timeshares? Will there be a resolution of the tideland boundary as recommended by EQAC. Further, the June 3, 2004 discussion with the Planning Commission, we are confused whether the timeshares are for a full year or only for a portion of a year. The statement made by Mr. Sutherland regarding the use seems to indicate that the timeshares are only for a portion of the year. The DEIR should clarify resolve the tideland boundary issue and the plan for time share use. SECTION 2.1, Project Description: The DEIR identifies the access to the project by the general public, including Balboa Boulevard. 160 I i COMMENT: In prior discussions of the project, there has been mention of a traffic signal off of Balboa Boulevard. Has this been eliminated? Will there need to be a left turn lane into the project from the boulevard? These issues impact the traffic, circulation, and noise analyses. The DEIR needs to clarify this and how that will impact traffic, circulation and noise in addition to any other impacts. 1 SECTION 3.2, Project Characteristics, 3.1.2: The project will include four lighted tennis courts that will be five -feet higher than Balboa Boulevard. The courts will be enclosed by a chain- linked fence. The courts are atop the parking structure. , COMMENT: There is no mention if the walls of the parking structure that is above the ground and below the court are open or solid. Walls that are open to the exterior potentially add noise in the area and should be included in the analysis. The DEIR should describe the structure u� in more detail and include in its analysis any noise impact a parking structure with open sides would have. In addition, what is the noise impact of car alarms going off in either a fully closed ' or partially open parking structure? That impact could be substantial upon the residents in the immediate area. 1 SECTION 3.3 Project Objectives: The DEIR lists seven objectives. COMMENT: The DEIR needs to identify the source of the objective and if those objectives are listed in the order of their importance. It is our understanding following the discussions at the Planning Commission meeting of June 3 that the city provided the list. This U S should be stated in the DEIR and in the order of what the city believes is important. The report 1 should also include the financial information that is anticipated to be received including lease payments and taxes. We agree with EQAC that there should be an economic analysis. SECTION 5. 1, Geology and Soils: The DEIR identifies the potentially significant hazard , of liquefaction but states that the impact is local and does not contribute to cumulative impacts. The DIER states that a geotextile fabric material will be used to mitigate the effects. COMMENT: The description of the "local' impact is not clear nor why liquefaction on 1 this site would not have any cumulative effect. There is no description of how the mitigation works to prevent collapse of any of the buildings in a seismic event strong enough to result in U& 1 liquefaction of the peninsula. There should be some mention of how it works and if the inclusion of the material at the project negatively impacts the nearby residences in a significant seismic event. 167 1 i I 1 SECTION 5.2, Hydrology and Water Quality COMMENT: We agree with the concerns stated in the EQAC response. While the DEIR provides mitigation measures, there is nothing mentioned about enforcement of any plan 1 for any failure to comply with post - construction mitigation measures. The DEIR only mentions the potential use of plans or policies but not how to ensure compliance. Who will be cleaning up the docks from the anticipated trash and debris? 1 SECTION 5.3, Biological Resources 1 COMMENT: We agree with the concerns stated in the EQAC response particularly in I U g the use of out -dated studies. . SECTION 5.4, Land Use and Planning: The DEIR notes that the Land Use Element 1 intends to build on the existing "groupings of villages" and to ensure harmonious groupings of land use. 1 COMMENT: The proposed plan is described as "Mediterranean Villa" This is not consistent with the construction of the surrounding area which is primarily beach cottage. The U DEIR fails to accurately describe the surrounding area and should describe it. This issue impacts 1 the aesthetics section of the DEIR. ' SECTION 5.4, Land Use and Planning: The DEIR notes that the project is presently "Recreation and Open Space" and that as adopted, is "intended to maintain a recreation and open 1 space system which meets the recreational needs of the citizens of the City and which enhances the unique recreation and environmental resources of the City." 1 COMMENT: The DEIR does not state how this element is met with the proposed project. There is no analysis of how the project meets the recreational needs of the citizens of V 1 O the City or how it meets the open space needs of the City. Wouldn't the site meet this intent if it was a grassy area from Balboa Boulevard to the beach rather than a resort for non citizens or if it was alternative 7.2 or some form of 7.2? SECTION 5.4, Land Use and Planning: The DEIR reports that a project will have a significant impact on land use if it creates substantial land use incompatibilities. i 16S 1 COMMENT: The DEIR does not adequately assess how the project is a compatible use. , As stated above, the project is described as "Mediterranean Villa" but the surrounding area is not. The DEIR focuses upon the access to the beach at the bay, the boat slips, and the Oil replacement of the tennis courts, Girl Scout House, Community Center and tot lot. The report 1 describes the areas adjacent to it, the hotel, and the parking lot but does not address the residences across the street on Balboa Boulevard. The DEIR should address this area and how a ' Mediterranean Villa Resort with heights of 27 and 34 feet is compatible with two story beach cottages. SECTION 5.4, Land Use and Planning: Under "Impacts Related to the Physical Division , of an Established Community" the DEIR states there is no potential for the project to divide the. community. COMMENT: There is no analysis of how a project which adds to the density of the structures on the property, as well as substantially adding to the height of what presently exists on the property, does not act to divide the community. The effect of the project is to eliminate U a the feeling of openness of what presently exits. The project will have the effect of closing up the open space, both across its surface as well as the air above. The project will increase the density of what is on the land which acts to divide the community. ' SECTION 5.4, Land Use and Planning: The DEIR reports that the two -story project is , consistent with "unique residential areas that border the harbor. COMMENT: As stated above, the DEIR fails to provide any support why the project is U �, consistent with the beach cottages across the street. I SECTION 5.4, Land Use and Planning: The project will include 12 boat slips of which , four will be for public use. COMMENT: The DEIR does not address how this inclusion is consistent with the policy ' to meet the recreational needs of the citizens of the City under the Recreational and Open Space Element. Two - thirds of the slips are for the resort, not for the citizens of the City. The DEIR should address this inconsistency. SECTION 5.4, Land Use and Planning: Policy C , COMMENT: We concur with EQAC's request for further study on the parking demand I U f of the project. q I SECTION 5.5, Transportation/Circulation: The DEIR addresses seven intersections for study. COMMENT: The DEIR report does not address or survey Balboa Boulevard at 18a', ' 17a , 16a' or 15a' Streets. The surveys were done during the "shoulder season" but there is no adequate survey of the traffic during the summer months, particularly between noon and 3 p.m. on the southbound/eastbound side of the boulevard and between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. on the ' northbound/westbound side on Saturdays and Sundays. We agree with EQAC that further study V is necessary. The DEIR does not address the impact of the recent reconfiguration and signaling of Balboa Boulevard at 21 " Street (McFadden Square). During earlier discussions of the project, ' mention was made of a traffic signal at the main entrance at 17a' Street. If the signal is still being considered, the DEIR should address its potential impact. Is there any plan or consideration of constructing a taming lane from Balboa Boulevard into the project? If this is a consideration, its ' impact needs to be considered. ' SECTION 5.5, Transportation/Circulation: The DEIR considers two resort hotels as the basis for the traffic counts, one in Del Mar and the other in Bel Air. COMMENT: The DEIR has not included in its consideration the new resort in Laguna Beach. That resort is better suited for this analysis since it is more similar to the proposed U 17 ' project than the resort in Bel Air. The DEIR should include a study of trips generated from that resort and the traffic impact it has on the PCH and surrounding area. SECTION 5.7, Noise: The DEIR considers the noise generated on the project site. COMMENT: We agree with the EQAC response that a noise study should evaluate the noise impacts on the nearby residents. The DEIR should also include a study of the noise generated by the guests of the resort as pedestrians traveling through the residential U neighborhood on their way to and from the beach at the ocean. This area of study was requested be included in the DEIR at the October 2003 meeting. ' SECTION 5.7, Noise: The field survey was conducted in February, 2004. COMMENT: There was no survey undertaken during the summer months. The report should contain a through analysis of the noise levels in the summer which may be more with Oil increased vehicular traffic and music emanating from vehicles with open windows. Vehicle 1 70 windows are generally closed during winter. There may be a significant increase in noise during I U �c 1 the summer, an impact that is not captured in the DEIR. 1 SECTION 5.7, Noise: The DEIR includes off -site noise levels at several areas. COMMENT: The report should include the project area, not remote areas. SECTION 5.7, Noise: The DEIR concludes that any outdoor hotel uses will be well outside the noise constraint zone of 65 dBA CNEL. COMMENT: The DEIR should include a study of the noise generated by the guests of the resort as pedestrians traveling through the residential neighborhood on their way to and from the beach at the ocean. This analysis was requested be included at the October meeting. SECTION 5.7, Noise: The DEIR reports that most hotel recreational uses are oriented toward the bay. COMMENT: The DEIR should include the basis for this statement and why there is no consideration of any uses toward the ocean. SECTION 5.8, Aesthetics: The DEIR reports that the project will enhance public views. COMMENT: The DEIR does not set forth how the project will enhance public views. SECTION 5.8, Aesthetics COMMENT: The DEIR does not address the impact of the project on the surrounding community. At present, the structures and facilities on -site are one story and there is generally a feeling of openness. Many residents across the street from the project have some view of the bay from their homes. The two story structures are higher in elevation than what presently exist and the lobby area even higher. The project will not only eliminate the open feeling but will restrict what views residents do have. The project is described as "Mediterranean Villa" but the surrounding area is not and is probably best described at beach cottages. There is no discussion in the DEIR on this aspect of the project's impacts. The massive nature of the project has an impact on the surrounding area that should be included in the report. 1 �UU3 1 i 7l � 1 SECTION 7.1, No Project Alternative COMMENT: We agree with EQAC concerning the advancement of economic goals as not an appropriate environmental goal. SECTION 7.2, Recreation Alternative COMMENT: We agree with EQAC that the DEIR lacks any analysis of the alternative. The DEIR does not address any variation of this alternative, such as a recreation alternative without a boat launch which could change traffic, hydrology, parking and noise impacts, possibly others. We also agree with EQAC that alternatives to an impervious parking surface were not addressed. SECTION 7.3, Reduced Intensity Alternative COMMENT: The proposed project includes a restaurant. Given that the alternative has fewer units and both the alternative and the propose project have restaurants, how does the alternative generate more trips? The DEIR needs to address how the alternative increases the daily trips, noise and demand for public services from the proposed project. Aren't both restaurants open to the public? The DEIR needs to more clearly state the differences and the bases for the conclusion. CONCLUSION It is our hope that the DEIR will be revised and re- circulated for review and comment as suggested by EQAC. Many issues have been addressed here, by EQAC, at the Planning Commission meeting of June 3, 2004 and by others such that a period for review of a revised document is necessary. 0as v 02.6 0OZ7 U Mannapar* Resort and Community Plan - Responss to Comments on the Dreg EIR Responses To Comments ' U Elliott and Elizabeth C. Bonn ' U 1. Please see response to comment B54 for a discussion on the half basketball court. U2. The proposed project may include 12 fractional ownership units. The fractional units ' would not be occupied by residents and could be placed in the resort rental pool when not occupied by the owner. The nature of the occupancy of the fractional units would not be significantly different than the resort units in terms of a possible environmental impact. Also see response to comment B 17 regarding the State Lands Commission staff on the proposed resort hotel. U3. A traffic signal at the project entrance (Balboa Boulevard and 17th Street) is not part of the project and is not required as a mitigation measure. Please see response to comment B62 regarding left turns into the project site from Balboa Boulevard. ' The inclusion of a geotextile fabric material within the soil reduces liquefaction impacts for structures that are built above the material. The material provides stability. The inclusion of this material would not affect surrounding properties. ' U7. The hotel operator, as all owners of docks within Newport Harbor, will be required to clean up the proposed dock by removing trash and debris. The City's Harbor Resources Division currently enforces the implementation of Best Management Practices within the Harbor. U8. Please see response to comment B43 regarding the use of 30 -year old fish data. Mlohael Brandman Aasociales tHACGem(PN -IN)\ 0064 \AW4ER20\0064ERW -RTC 7 -1 fiW.d. U4. As noted in Section 3, Project Description of the Draft EIR, the parking structure is subterranean and will be below 5 feet below grade and 5 feet above grade with the tennis courts at grade. The noise analysis evaluates the noise impacts based upon the traffic projections. Once project - related traffic has entered the project site, the noise ' impacts have essentially been captured onsite, since cars will be traveling at reduced speeds and for limited periods of time within a confined area. Noise impacts such as ' car alarms are considered a nuisance but they are not representative of the general noise environment. Noise emanating from car alarms is temporary and random. It would be speculative to determine how often or how long car alarms are activated to include in the noise analysis. U5. The objectives are not listed in order of importance. Evaluation of the importance of each objective relative to another is subjective. Project objectives are required by CEQA to help define a range of reasonable alternatives to the project. The objectives ' were used by the City to develop the Marine Recreation Alternative and were included in the Draft EIR that was circulated for public comment on April 26, 2004. ' U6. Liquefaction impacts are site specific and newly built structures are required to reduce liquefaction impacts on these new structures to less than significant. Liquefaction impacts associated with the project site would not cumulatively add to ' liquefaction impacts associated with the related projects identified in Section 4.2 in the Draft EIR because liquefaction impacts are site specific as stated above. These impacts need to be mitigated on a project -by- project basis. Furthermore, liquefaction impacts associated with the related projects would not increase liquefaction impacts on the project site. ' The inclusion of a geotextile fabric material within the soil reduces liquefaction impacts for structures that are built above the material. The material provides stability. The inclusion of this material would not affect surrounding properties. ' U7. The hotel operator, as all owners of docks within Newport Harbor, will be required to clean up the proposed dock by removing trash and debris. The City's Harbor Resources Division currently enforces the implementation of Best Management Practices within the Harbor. U8. Please see response to comment B43 regarding the use of 30 -year old fish data. Mlohael Brandman Aasociales tHACGem(PN -IN)\ 0064 \AW4ER20\0064ERW -RTC 7 -1 fiW.d. Mxln*m* Resort and Community Plan - Response to Commenfs on th Droll OR Responses To CommeMa U9. Please see response to comment U24 regarding architectural styles of structures on Balboa Peninsula. U10. Please response to comment L9 regarding recreation opportunities. The Marine Recreation alternative likely would meet more recreation needs, but it should not be assumed that these would be exclusively the needs of citizens. The State Lands Commission staff has taken the position that a majority of the property is State tidelands, and it is appropriate for it to be used by a broader group than just the residents of Newport Beach. Ul 1. Please see response to comment B75 regarding revisions to the Draft EIR to clarify the proposed structural heights. The majority of hotel buildings are proposed to be one and two stories, and therefore compatible with the surrounding area. The hotel lobby building alone is proposed to be 37 feet high (i.e., to the peak of the roof), and is proposed with a setback from Balboa Boulevard of approximately 186 feet, which will diminish its impact to less than significant. U 12. Please see response to comment B49 for a discussion on the division of a community. The proposed project would result in approximately 33 percent of the project site being covered by buildings, including the subterranean parking structure. Excluding the subterranean parking structure, this coverage ratio drops to 25 percent of the project site being covered by buildings. The remainder would be open and improved with parking and landscaping. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. U13. Please see response to comment U 11 regarding building height and compatibility with the surrounding area. U14. Please see response to comment B20 regarding a modified boat dock design. This modification includes the provision of six boat tie -ups; two for the public, two for visitors to the hotel, and two for hotel use. The provision of boat tie -ups for the public as well as the rehabilitation of the existing public recreational activities on the project site would provide facilities for recreational activity, and therefore, would be consistent with the City's policy regarding recreational needs within the City. U15. Please see responses to comments B50, B52, and Q11. U 16. Please see response to comment B62 regarding project traffic along Balboa Boulevard at 15th Street, 16th Street, 17th Street, and 18th Street. The traffic analysis did not address the reconfiguration and signaling at Balboa Boulevard and 21 st Street because this intersection is not one of the intersections to be evaluated according to the City's TPO. Furthermore, the project is expected to contribute a maximum of 14 vehicles per hour (vph) to the southbound lanes during the AM peak period and a maximum of 13 vph to the northbound lanes during the PM peak period. These volumes are not expected to result in significant impacts to the Balboa Boulevard and 21 st Street intersection during the shoulder season. Please see response to comment U3 regarding the provision of no traffic signal at 17th Street and Balboa Boulevard and response to comment B62 regarding left turns into the project site from Balboa Boulevard. Michael Bmndman Amodetes HACliem " -JN)=" "IRR20 O"ER20_RTC 7 -1 R al&. ' Aferinapark Resort and Community Ran - Response to Comment on the Disk EIR Responses To Comment ' Michael Brandman Associates "ACHem (PN- M\0064NOD64ER20\0064EIUO -RTC 7 -1 5nald. U17. The Montage Resort and Spa in Laguna ina Beach would not provide a comparable alternative since this hotel is designed to cater to both business and vacation travelers as well as providing a forum for large special events. Additionally, the Montage Resort and Spa provides 13,860 square feet of indoor and 18,650 square feet of outdoor meeting and banquet space, in comparison the proposed project offers 3,603 square feet of ballroom space, which is not intended to be utilized as meeting space. Therefore, since the Montage Resort hosts business functions that would generate weekday traffic trips, the traffic characteristics of this hotel would likely differ ' between the weekdays and weekends. U18. Guests of the proposed hotel will have direct access to the beach from the hotel; however, some guests may choose to visit other beach locations and in doing so ' travel through nearby residential neighborhoods. Presently, beach goers do travel to and from the beach via the adjacent neighborhoods, and the addition of hotel guests would not result in a perceptible increase in pedestrian traffic. Furthermore, generally pedestrian traffic is not considered to be a source of significant noise ' generation, however, if pedestrians create loud and unreasonable noise, this type of noise is regulated by the City's Municipal Code. Since vehicle trips are the primary source of noise within the project area and will be the primary source of project - ' related noise generation, Giroux and Associates prepared a noise analysis based upon the traffic distribution patterns. As indicated in Section 5.7, Noise, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project will not result in noise levels that exceed the 65 dB CNEL residential and hotel exterior standard. Please refer to response to comment B -68, for additional information pertaining to noise impacts upon the residential neighborhoods on the north and south sides of Balboa Boulevard. U19. Please refer to the response to comment H33 for a discussion of summer noise impacts. ' U20. The noise analysis prepared for the project includes an evaluation of Balboa Boulevard adjacent to the project site. Other roadway segments that are not adjacent to the site, but in the project vicinity, were evaluated to assess the noise impacts from project vehicles entering and exiting Balboa Peninsula. As shown in Table 5.7 -5 in the Draft EIR, project - related traffic noise would increase a maximum of 0.1 dB on ' the analyzed roadway segments during the summer and winter. This increase is well below the 3 dB increase needed to represent a substantial noise increase. U21. Please refer to the response to comment U18 for a discussion of pedestrian - related ' noise. U22. The hotel recreational uses referenced in the last paragraph on page 5.7 -11 in the ' Draft EIR refer to the boating available for hotel guests and the use of the hotel pool. Both of these recreational amenities offered to hotel guests are located on the Bay side of the hotel. ' U23. Please see response to comment B73 for a discussion regarding enhancement of existing public views from Balboa Boulevard. ' U24. The City addresses the impacts of development on public views, but not private views. Many of the proposed buildings would be higher than existing structures on the site, but they would be similar to other buildings in the vicinity. Even though ' lower than the proposed buildings, the existing buildings extend across the length of ' Michael Brandman Associates "ACHem (PN- M\0064NOD64ER20\0064EIUO -RTC 7 -1 5nald. Madlnaperit Resat and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments the site and do not afford many public views of the Bay. Exhibits 5.8-4 and 5.8 -5 show that public views will be increased if the project is implemented. Beach cottages may be the prevalent structure type directly across Balboa Boulevard from the project site, but development on the Balboa Peninsula includes a wide range of architectural styles, including Mediterranean, beach cottages, California ranches and contemporary styles. The City does not have design guidelines for its residential districts, and this architectural diversity is likely to continue. U25. Please see response to comment B95 regarding the inclusion of economic goals in the project objectives. U26. Please see responses to continents B97 through B98 regarding the Marine Recreation Alternative. U27. The Reduced Intensity Alternative includes a 4,500 square-foot restaurant and the proposed project includes a 1,124- square -foot restaurant. The restaurant proposed as part of the alternative would generate more traffic trips because it is larger and would serve more visitors. Michael Bmndman Associates HA CUM( PN- IN)`0064`aW4ERM\a064ER2(LRTC 7 -1 fimld. 76 1 ' Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: JonV3 @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 12:32 PM To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us ' Subject: Marinapark EIR Hi Jim, Jan Vandersloot here. I would like to ask that the EIR for Marinapark consider the following alternatives: 1. The PBR Commission Alternative. This alternative is referenced by Sharon Wood in her March 14, 2000, and V ' May 9, 2000, "Report To The Mayor and City Council." You might contact her for the details of these reports and include them in the EIR. Unfortunately, my scanner is on the blink right now and I can't send them to you by email attachment. ' 2. An alternative that provides for the entire property to be public open space as envisioned by the current General Plan, to be used as a greenbelt park and window to the bay from Balboa Blvd. As stated in Sharon Wood's Report to The Mayor and City Council on March 14, 2000, last paragraph: 'The General Plan designates VIP- the Madnapark site for Recreational and Environmental Open Space, and indicates that its ultimate use is to be ' for aquatic facilities, expanded beach and community facilities." This site is the last opportunity for our present and future generations to have a substantial bay water view from a public road such as Balboa Blvd. 3. A plan that includes a ramp for trailered boats such as mine, a 20 foot Bayliner Trophy boat, so that I have a boats in I V 3 boat launching area on the bay, and so other boat owners in Newport Beach have a place to launch their Newport Beach on the bay (the Dunes launching area is in the County and is far away). ' Thank you. Sincerely, Jan D. Vandersloot, MD 2221 East 16th Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 548 -6326 III 06/09/2004 ' Madhapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on him Draft EIR Responses To Comments V Ms. Jan D. Vandersloot VI. The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission alternative was one of eight that was submitted in response to the City's request for proposals for the subject property in February 2000. The City Council did not select that proposal. The DEIR includes three alternatives that comply with the requirements of CEQA, including the Marine Recreation Alternative.. V2. The Marine Recreation Alterative is an alternative that proposes the entire project site as open space and recreational facilities, consistent with the current General Plan Land Use designation of Recreation and Environment Open Space designation, and consistent with the Recreation and Open Space Element plan for the site. Please see response to comment B97 regarding the selection of the alternatives. V3. The Marine Recreation Alternative includes a boat lunch ramp that could accommodate 20 -foot long boats. Michael Brandman Associates HXH (PN- 1M`0064\0064ER2A064ER20 RTC 7 -1 BMW. 178 I JUN- 1T -200d WOW fROM-HOGLE- 1RELAN9 _ - Bd95530935 T -D10 P.DD2 /013 F -4 Page ofZ3 w CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes ' June 3, 20.04 Regular Meeting - 6;30 p.m. I INDEX ' ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, ' McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and All Present xuder, STAFF PRESENT: ' Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager F:obert Burnham, City Attorney Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director ' Robin Clauson, Assistant. City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS, PUBLIC ' COMMENTS _ None ' POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA ' The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on May. 28, 2004. ' I CONSENT CALENDAR ' SUBJECT: MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meeting of ITEM NO.1 May 20, 2004. ' Approved as written and ordered flied. Approved ' Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the minutes. Ayes: Eaton, Cola, Toarge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and ' Tucker Noes: None Abs-ant: None `gyp JUN -17 -2004 O9:59AM FROM- NOGLE- IRELAND Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None 9495530935 T -010 P.00013 F -494 r etgs .1 w. Z.7 SUBJECT; Marinapark Resort and Community Plan and Draft ITEM NO.4 Environmental Impact Report (PA2003 -218) PA2003 -218 Continued to Review of the draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed 0710812004 Marinapark Resort Hotel and Community Plan (formerly known as the Regent Newport Beach), The - project appiloant, Marinspark LLC, proposes to remove and/or demolish existing structures on the properly and build a 110 -room luxury resort hotel that would inolude a 'lobby and registration area, a caM, a restaurant, it bar, a ballroom, a swimming pool, separate spa and administration buildings, 12 boat slips and a subterranean parking garage. The following public faolhes would be included in the project surface parking lot, four iannis courts, a new two -story Community Center and Old Scout ftaility; and a tot lot. Chairperson McDaniel noted that tonight, the Commission would be providing direction to staff and the applicant Senior Planner, Jim Campbell noted the following: . Both the Draft • Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the project itself will be reviewed to provide direction to both staff and the consultants for the upcoming hearings. . Schedule - July 8th the Planning Commission will be hearing this item; City Council will be holding hearings on July 13th and 27th. . The City Council has decided to put this project on the November 2004 ballot. • At tonight's meeting and the one on July 8th, staff hopes to be able to formulate a recommendation to the City Council on the adequacy of the EIR as well as any proposed changes to the project. • staff wants to provide an open forum for public input that will be provided. at these two meetings, • At the conclusion of the meeting, staff would like to have any requests for additlonal data or questions that the public or Commission might have, for response at the next meeting. a JUN -17 -2004 1O43ALI FROIA-HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -010 P- 003/021 F -495 ■ At Commission inquiry, he noted that the last We for response to comments on the EIR is June ft. Any comments to be made should be submitted by the 8th In order for staff to respond. The following City consultants were in attendance: David Lepo from Hogle Ireland, the project manager, Mike Houlihan and Jason Brandman from Michael Brandman, Associates, the preparers of the Environmental Impact Report, Joe Foust, the traffic engineer. Stephen Sutherland, Marinapark Resort project manager, noted that this August marks the Sth year since the first site plan was drawn. He then made a Power Point presentation highlighting the project noting: . The project is the'Marinapark Resort and Community Plan% and will encompass an area on Balboa Peninsula from 16th Street to 18th Street and Balboa Boulevard to the public beach. . The architecture will be a Mediterranean villa style with a yachting resorttheme, . Accommodations will be made for sail boats from Lido Ws up to vintage Americas Cup and sailing will be an activ ty for guests to enjoy. . He then pointed out the proposed site plan in relation to the American Legion facility that is not involved in the project, the boat slips that VIII not be beyond the American Legion line of slips; and the tennis courts that will be re -built over a subterranean parking facility for 100 cars. . He then displayed where additional surface parking will be noting the existing public lot on 18th Street (to be refurbished by the applicant) with 21 metered stalls. . There will be a shared access for the Girl Scout/Community facility when it is not in use. . The existing tot lot will be moved next to the Girl Scout facility and will be separated by a wall. . The new Girl Scout facility will be larger and the grounds will be doubled with landscaping /gazeboAre pit areas provided. The interior will be fully ADA accessible and have a modem commercial style kitchen; will have a stage and air conditioning, and will be outfitted with a security system. All of these arrangements are being made at the request/direction of the Girl Scout Council. ' fi1P�f/R'•11Plnnn..�.«. \�1M n,nin•, ,., 101 JUN -17 -2004 10:03AM FROMHNOGLE- IRELAND rm m xg k.o =saiun mwumb uulu»,cuu+ 9495530935 T -010 P.004/021 F -495 . There will be a spa building built next to the Scout facility and the buildings will be similar in We and two stories high. • The spa will be for hotel guests but will also be available for residents and the public. . The dock area will have a concrete walkway and will not impede public access. There will be twelve slips, some wider than others, and will be operated for the yachting and rowing club. Four of the slips will be available as visitors' docking. . The number of guest rooms is five star level hotel. He noted with fifteen years experience in America. 110. It is being designed as a his background in resort design Europe and Mexico as well as in • The 410 guest rooms will be located in sixteen, one and two story villa style buildings. The buildings for the most part are lower than the surrounding homes. The density Is less than the existing residential neighborhood. Many of the private homes in this area are about two square feet of structure for every square foot of land. We are at one third of square foot of structure for every square That of land. . The traffic studies have shown that the added cars on the road from this project compared to the existing mobile home park Is below what triggers the 'Measure S' threshold. . There are 60 spaces in the mobile homes have been removed. Out management offices. There are park. home park, two of the mobile of the remaining 58, two are currently 56 residents in the . He then presented before and attar visual impact simulations on 18th Street; Old Scout lot; 17th Stmt and Balboa Blvd.; and, views from the water. . The villas on the waterfront are one story except the one by the American Legion property, which is two story. « The Girl Scout facility will have a second story for community use and will be just over 2,000 square feet enclosed plus an outdoor terrace area of about 200 square feet. This building will be built and paid by the applicant, but will be turned over to the city. . The main resort lobby two story structure will have water fountain elements. 192 p1_. 1.. I- . -.... JUN -17 -2004 IMAM FRO*- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -010 P- 005/O21 F -495 ' - The environmental advantages unll reduce traft on Balboa Blvd., the eadsting zoning allows public open space and marine recreational facifrtles. . The Improvement of water quality is based on a number of ' Issues such as underground vaults on the property that will capture new rainfall and skim the oil and debris from the parking lots, landscaping areas, eta before it enters the bay, There will ' be an underground tank storage area and when there Is flooding during the winter storms, the skimmed water will stay in the tanks urrtfl the tide is down and/or the storm drain recovers and then it will be put Into the system. - The other issue Is the State tldelwWs low, a hotel is considered ' a public use and visitor serving and Is permissible in State tidelands. ' - Community improvements include the beautification of the Balboa Peninsula, and an agreement to fund a minimum of $500,000 to remodel the American Legion facility on approval. ' The tennis courts are being rebuilt and will remain open to the public. The City Recreation and Senior Services Department will run adult/child programs in these new courts and the new ' community center. - There are two restaurants proposed on the property, one is the ' 'All Day Cafe' and is 515 net square feet and the specialty restaurant will be 1,100 square feet and will be open and available to residents, they both will have waterfront views. ' - Residents will have full access to the grounds and resort. - There will be improved access to the beach. - There will be two public view corridors on each side of the lobby. ' • This is publicly owned property and should benefit the residents. With this proposed use, we feel it does, These benefits Include upwards of three million dollars in total revenue ' annually to the City of Newport Beach, and property values for The surrounding area will increase. The plan has been referred to as a gem and a shot in the arm that this area of the peninsula ' needs and fs 'a landmark in waiting'. The following questions were asked by the Commissioners and 'answered by the applicant Commissioner Toerge asked: 1 File ..- //iY•1P1- n�........19MA�iwn� � ' JUN -17 -2004 10:04AM FROM- NOGLE- IRELAND r.muu.As ♦.Vuuu+oaAVAA A•auu. O U..1 vim'. Wu 9495530935 T-010 P.006/021 F -495 ' - —a- . -- —_ .What are the proposed sMe access control measures on 18th Street? . Please review the availability of parking for the public. WiII the parking structure be available for the public. Commissioner Sellch asked: . What is the size of the lounge and ballroom and how do they compare to other hotels? . What percentage of the property is tidelands? Commissioner Eaton asked: . Will there be a cap as to how many of the units will be time share? Commissioner Cole asked: . The height of the villas, does the lobby extend higher? . In the photos that were shown, what is the height of the residential buildings? Mr. Sutherland answered: There will be no controls to get into the driveway to access either the public parking lot or the Girl Scout parking area. Beyond that there is a fire access gate that is permanently closed. There will be no access at all from the hotel to that driveway on 18th Street. Employees and deliveries will access the property from the 15th Street alley behind the American Legion under the tennis courts to the parking stnrcture; the loading dock Is right next to the tennis courts. There is no access at all for the hotel from 18th Street, that is only for emergency purposes or the public lot or Girl Scout lot. . The parking structure is not available for the public who use the beach, It will be available for a fee to the public that goes onto the resort grounds . . The lobby lounge is 1,100 square feet, the ballroom is on the second floor of the lobby and is 3,605 square feet Comparing that to the Marriott, ft is less than 10% of their public meeting Space area. Comparing it to the St. Regis in Monarch Beach, this proposed project has just over 3% of the meetinglconvention space as the St. Regis has just over I IW3 W4 161 1 ' JUN -17 -2004 10:04AM FROLFROGLE- IRELAND 8485530035 T -010 P.007 /021 F -405 1o0,000 square feet, which is almost the same size as this entire project. . It is proposed that twelve suites will be dedicated as interval shares, a minimum of 1/8 but most likely 114. For example, if we have a three month interval, then that suite would be sold for that three month time period. Mr. Burnham added: This is the applicw fs proposal for the time shams, but the City Council will have to approve this interval shares issue through the lease negotie ions. The tidelands have not been determined. The State Lands Commission staff believes that approximately 65% to 70% of the parcel is tidelands. There has been no adjudication of the mean high tide line and the opinion of the State Lands Commission staff is based on meander surveys and some old aerial photographs. it is still undecided. Continuing, Mr. Sutherland answered: The building height of the lobby is 34 feet. It is still two stories, but it has a higher ceiling area. When you first walk Into the lobby, you have a 34 foot high ceiling; then a grand stairwell that goes upstairs along with an elevator to the lobby upstairs. . There are many three story buildings in this neighborhood. Public comment was opened. Chairperson McDaniel addressed the audience noting that the Commission is looking only at environmental issues tonight. Louise Fundenberg, President of the Central Newport Beach Association, noted they would like to go on record that this area has always been General Plan Open Space Recreational. This is the last open space on the peninsula, She noted the concerns of the members who live across the street from this proposed project that their view would be wiped out, At the annual meeting this project was discussed and the residents want this to stay open space. They looked at the EIR and saw an alternate plan for a marine, but that marina was in there to make the hotel look good. A different plan for a marina might be a better one than the one alternate put in the EIR. Commissioner Kiser noted that the association members are Concamed about the loss of open space at the project site. what open space that is on the project site would be lost? ' 4- 195- JUN -17 -2004 10:04AM FROIMHOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -010 P.009 /021 F -496 Ms. Fundenberg answered that the strip of beach, even though the applicant states it will be open to the public, the members feel that once a hotel is put in there, the public will not come In to use that bretch. It will not be available to the general public, it will be blocked. It is a matter of access to the public beach and the need for more open space than Is currently proposed. Tim Collins, resident of Baboa Peninsula, noted: . The project is characterized as a resort hotel with docks. . He would like to see the water side of the tidelands and the bay and harbor impacts studied in mote detail in the EIR. This analysis is relevant to the environmental impacts of the project overall. . The akemative contained in the EIR as exhibit 7 -1 is a better alternative, but by no means the best alternative for the bay. . Thera could be better design and more visitor serving boating. . It could have more revenue potential and have lees environmental impacts as the docks designed and presented in the EIR. . A better desig n would be more suited to the teal demand for the public from the water side. It would accommodate larger and more boats, and with ample guest docks could be overall better serving. . The applicant commented he sees this as a yachting resort, 1 don't think that 28, 30 foot boats as configured in these docks Cj will allow it to meet the objective as a yachting destination. • There is a potential to improve the financial viability. . The protection of the environment is going to be a function of how successful this property is. In his opinion, this dock area would be a loser when you consider the cost to build it and the feas that should be paid for the tidelands use. . He suggested that the applicant should be asked to challenge its consultants and study altematives, submit market research and analysis to support those alternatives. . Exploring said options could reduce the environmental Impact for example, dredging. And a re- designed dock would be more w� responsive to the Harbor Element of the General Plan as to which the original scoping of the EIR was lacking. 81s:lIF4:'Planrnw++r +�nnn+ncn� i,.... 186 ' 1UN -17 -2004 10:05AM FROM- NOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 •.o J-%VUMA" "6° 1TAIAAUWJ UWUJ7LVVT T -010 P.009/021 F -495 raw Auoi'Zs ' . This property Is the gem of the peninsula and we need to get it right ' At staff inquiry, the speaker clarified that he is speaking to both types of dock, those as part of the resort hotel and what is described in the ' marine recreation alternative in the EIR. The alternate is preferable'i and the docks as designed as part of the hotel resort are not the best public use of the waterfront. John Corrough, resident of Balboa Island, noted he agrees with the comments made by the previous speaker adding the foilowing: . An analysis of the EIR shows that the presumed attainment of the various Harbor and Bay Element sections is not supported ' by the facts or analysis or conclusionary statements that are in the EIR. ' • One of the most basic aspects of this project that Is linked to the Harbor and Bay Element that needs to be discussed is this is not in fact a water dependent use. This is a water enhanced use under the definition of the Harbor and Bay Element and under ' the definition of the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCI), it is not a coastal dependent use, . The hotel Is the primary use on the site and by Itself does not meet the criteria of those two important documents (Harbor and ' Bay Element and the LCP). it is dependent on a very small marina for Its water dependency. ' . You do not get Americas cup boats in 30 foot or 26 foot slips. • You do not get a lot of revenue out of this project when the cost to create is somewhere between 8 to 10 times the cast per slip ' of the typical high value marina such as the one recently constructed in front of the Balboa Bay Club, ' • Somewhere there is going to have to be a lot of costs to make up in the way in which that facility is either subsidized or in some ' other way justified. • With all of the money expended for the public good on site, the ' project is burdened by those costs as well as the marina costs. • This situation can be solved by further analysis of a marina ' opportunity and potential so that it is less environmentally damaging and producing revenue to the City, tidelands fund and the resort. ' Commissioner Selich asked if the speaker is suggesting that the ' la_.mT 1.1 .___... LA) 7 M 197 JUN -17 -2004 10:05AL1 FR01t- NOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T-DID P- 0101021 F -495 marina component be larger and 0 you are, air~ you saying it should extend more into the bay or along the beach? Mr. Corrough answered that any or all of those options should be explored. However, norm of those were examined as alternatives. There is not enough analysis shown or documented in the ER to justify that Commissioner Selich noting than the pier head tine does not go to out W to the and where the slips are proposed, asked as part of this project is the pier head line going to have to be moved and adjusted? Ms. Wood answered that staff will have to find that out. Mr. Bumham noted that on the issue of deep water slips or a substantially larger marina, the City Is required to develop alternatives that could mitigate any potential impacts and also achieve project objectives. Some of - the things that went into developing the alternatives in the EIR is to minimize the Impact of the marine facilities on the public use of the beach and public access. Also minimizing the extent to which dredging or any alteration of the marine environment is necessary. The types of facilities the previous speaker referred to would have a substantially greater Impact on the subtidal zone than the alternatives, that was a consideration. Meade O'Hara, resident of the peninsula, noted her concern of the bay that Is already compromised. The 10th Street beach was closed one owt of every two days in July and August of last year. It does not have anything to do with stor n runoff. 1 don't know what is polluting the bay, but the addition of a 100 plus guestrooms plus the additional traffic of people using the bay makes it more dense. I don't I W �O understand how a sbucture of this sort will reduce tr-AcL Parking on the peninsula is very troublesome. Concluding, she added that by having the election to approve this plan with the national election diserifranchiew all the summer home owners who are taxpayers in Newport Bench and not able to vote for or against this project because they are voting In their own communities. Commissioner Kiser asked if her doncems of density and parking considered the fact that there would be 80 mobile home occupancies removed from the site. Ms. O'Hara answered that 100 guests are being added. This is being used as a destination resort, people will drive to it. She added that she has a sailboat that draws 6.2 feet and there are sections over by Lido where we barely skim the bottom. So whatever dredging that you are going to have to do in this area will be considerable. Commissioner Tucker asked how many bedrooms there are In the I I (A) 3 I ' ION -17 -2004 10:05Aii FROIMNOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -010 P.011/021 F -495 existing trailer park facility. Is there any way to find out how many? Ms. Clauson stated that staff is in the proccelS of preparing a relocation impact report and are gathering information about the mobile homes for purpose of finding alternatives for relocation of them N the park is closed. We may have more information with regards to the bedrooms and also information on how many of them are second homes or summer vacation type residences versus permanent She added that the rental agreemerd prohibits the subletting of the mobile homes. Commissioner Tucker stated that it would then be people showing up for the summer to use their facilities and guests while they were thisre. How many parking spaces are presently In the trailer park? He asked that this information be supplied at the next meeting. Ms. Clauson answered that parking is limited to the roadway access to each of the units. She will get the information for the next meeting. Mr. Burnham added that any resident who is registered to vote can vote in any election. The rational the City Council had in wanting to schedule this issue for voter consideration was to maximize the turnout. k is fair to say this is going to be a fairly congested presidential election, there are a lot of other issues on the ballot that will draw people to the polls in November. Historically the presidential election gets about 75% of voter participation as opposed to 10-15% for a standard/special election. Commissioner Tucker then asked who is going to own the Girt Scout House after it is completed? Ms. Clauson answered that the City owns and maintains the facility and currently has an annual lease with the Girl Scours for that property. This lease will be negotiated for the use of the new facility once it is completed. Mir. Burnham added that the lease would require the lessee to maintain the property to a very high standard. Commissioner Tucker then asked about the views. People across the street that have views over the public land, are those public views that are protected? IVIr. Burnham answered that the view from a third story of a residence would not be considered a public view, even as it looks across public property. Commissioner Tucker then asked about water dependency. If the Project is approved by the voters, we still have to go through the I LA) 1. 4 wIa JUN -17 -1004 I0:06AM FROM- NOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -010 P.012/021 zoning on the project. Would this be zoning that is water dependent or like a planned community text where the basic zoning would be tailored? Is the water dependency elemerrt relevant or not? Ms. Wood answered that the zoning for this project will be a Planned community text and staff already has a draft. It Is a General Plan issue, more so than a zoning issue because the zoning implements the General Plan. She then introduced the consultant team In attendance; David Lapo from Hogle Ireland, the project manager, Mike Houlihan and Jason Brandman from Michael Brandman, Associates, the preparers of the Environmental Impact Report; and Joe Foust, the traffic engineer. Seymour Beek, resident of Balboa Island, noted the following; . A yachting resort in the sense that people will come In their moats and use the marina, they don't really need a hotel. . The use of waterfront and slip area is not well thought out . Where did the project objectives came from, where are they listed, and who thought them up? Mike Houlihan, Michael Brandman Associates, answered that the project objectives are listed In Section 3, page 3 -8. These objectives were set out by both the City and the project applicant Through C ;EQA, project objectives can be set out by an applicant as well as the laud agency. Mr. Burnham added that this August the project will be 5 to 6 years In process. The City issued requests for proposals in 1999 for the redevelopment of the Marinapark and received 8 responses, went back to public hearing and received input and narrowed those to 4 proposals that Council wanted more information about. There were more public meetings and comments, meetings with community groups and these project objectives are a distillation of what staff heard over a 5-6 year period as the interest and objectives of the community, City Council and others that participated in that process. fl: is typical for staff and the EIR preparer to develop project objectives based upon the history of the particular project taking into account what the project proponent wants. Ms. Wood added that this is an unusual project as the City Is the property owner and so has a special interest that it wouldn't have on private property, Jan Vandersloot, resident of Newport Heights, noted the following: Asked that the project objectives be considered leaving the area I I LA) 43 file:A'Fi' 1A17mrmm�tllMAS ncA9 1..� F -495 ' 170 JUN -17 -2004 10:06AN FROIIFHOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -010 P.013/021 F -495 Planning C:OTMMOWn MInuies uoiwrAw'► - open space. . The property is zoned Recreational and Environmental Open Space and that zoning should remain intact. He does not see an alternative that uses that zoning as a project objective. . We should look at the benefit of public views from the streets. The citizens own that property and should be able to view the water. . The Parks Commission submitted an alternative to the City Council but that Is not listed in the EIR and it should be. . We are a wealthy City and should be able to keep the that we own as open space for future generations. . Some of the other impacts would be the Icss of foraging habitat, and some of the specifics of where the mitigation areas would go have not been defined. Mr. Burnham noted the property Is zoned PC and is designated as recreational and environmental open space In the General Plan and that designation in the Land Use Element authorizes a wide range of uses. Exhibit 7 -1 attempts to take the Land Use Element designation for the site and parcel out portions of the parcel for parkland, portions for beach and slip parking, it retains the Girl Scout and community center. It Is the implementation of the General Plan designation for the site. Ms. Wood noted that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission aB>rmative was one of the 8 proposals submitted to the City Council in response to the RFP. When the City Council made the decision to work exclusively with Sutherland Tails now Marinapark, LLC, at that time they simply rejected that proposal. Since the General Plan Amendment is something that Is going to the voters, then the people have the opportunity to decide whether it should be changed to allow the hovel development or whether it should remain open space. If the dercision is to remain open space then more detailed plans of what that means in terms of future development will need to be discussed. Public comment was closed. commissioner Eaton noted his concern with how the marine recreation alternative was treated, specifically that it is not the environmentally superior ahemative based in large part on a conclusion that It would generate more traffic without any data at all to back that conclusion up. Because of that you assume it has more negative Impacts in terms of traffic, air quality and noise than the proposed projecL Is there some basis upon which that conclusion W13 W Ilf W15 JUN -17 -2004 10:06AM FROIMNOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 r- 1...... us WAYµµ � AVA A+ N VUIVJI i.VVT was drawn? T -010 P.014/021 F-405 ' - -0- -r ww Mr. Houlihan answered information will be provided in the response to comments. Gxnmissioner Eaton then commented about the alternative section. F.QAC has made a comprehensive report on the EIR and the responders should respond and make additions where necessary and appropriate to the EIR where that can be done without requiring a recirculation. CEQA guidelines state that if the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other altematives. As an environmental professional that has been writing and reviewing EIRs for over thirty years he has never seen an EIR that declared the project as the environmentally superior aftemative. In his opinion, the project Is not an alternative, it Is the project. The marine recreation alternative can easily be the environmentally superior project if the basis of the traffic is because they have created such a huge parking lot to serve such a huge water and entry point, Then the marine alternative could be reduced slightly so that it does not have those extra impacts which might also reduce the hydrology and water quality impact as well. You don't need to go through the manipulations to make that alternative less than an environmentally superior alternative. The project Is strong enough, it is a handsome project and maintains virtually all the existing open space was which are on the property now, you don't have to say it is the environmentally superior project as well. It Is dearly an economically superior project. To create an open space project on this property, the City would lose all Its revenue it gets now from the mobile horse park, it would cost a lot of money to build it and to maintain it where this project will provide stronger revenues to the City without any of to costs Incurred. The project itself can stand on its own as the economically superior project and not manipulate the marine recreation altemadve into something other than the environmentally superior project or alternative but which would cost the City a lot of money. The EIR would have stronger viablifty and the City would have stronger credibility if It admits that the open apace marine recreation alternative is the environmentally stgerfor afternauve. Mr. Bumham noted that he attended some if not all the meetings during which the marine recreational alternative was discussed, Its not accurate to say there was a manipulation of that alternative. Rather what staff and the EIR consultant attempted to do was identify the needs within the general area, and the needs the harbor has for additional parking for charter boat activities; a slip component that was greater than the project slip component to address some of the marine rexreation issues directly; there is a park land component because that is consistent with the Recreation and Environmental Open Space; and, then we expanded the Girl Scout and Community Center parking I'"'-V5 W 14P ?z 1 ' JUN -1T -2004 10:OTAM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -010 P.015/021 F -495 , •� 15 vV MIOljWVAL I-AM LWA VV! ♦ -Zr ........-1 area and provided adequate parking far an expanded public park use, which Is what we have heard some people in the community favor. It iAras an attempt to take the site and assign certain uses to that site that would meet needs that currently exists within and around the harbor. One of those is a need for additional parking for beach visitors, for bay visitors and for people who are using the harbor for nacreational activities. That was the rational for developing this particular alternative, we did not attempt to come to an alternative that increased the environmental impacts, it was designed to meet the needs that currently exists. Commissioner Tucker asked: . How marry more ADTs would have to be generated to trip the 1% analysis requirement at Newport Boulevard and Pacific, Coast Highway in the P. M. peak and Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road in the A. M. peak Those are the two locations closest to Level of Service (LOS) E. People are making claims about traffic generation numbers that have been used in the study. I would like to know how much latitude still is there to be able to say it really wouldn't make a difference if there was 50% more traffic. There is some number that gets to that point where the two closest nearby intersections would require further analysis. It would be helpful to have by the next meeting the responses to the EQAC letter. Their conclusion is that the document needs to be revised and recirculated and they have raised some Interesting issues. There are a few things In the letter that need to be brought out. At the next meeting we have on this, we will spend time setting the record. I would like to have more lead time on responses to comment on the EQAC letter. . The parking issue and how delivery and service vehicles and where the employees park were big items at the public scoping meetings. The trip generation rates assume all the additional stab functions. The response to comments should be handled in detail. Commissioner Toerge asked: In the Draft EIR on page 2.1 - the last sentence of one of the paragraphs reads, '.....in all the proposed project will include 952,982 square feet of development on 8.1 acres.' That is 8.1 acres, so what is the number supposed to be? Mr. David Lepc of Hogle Ireland noted that number should be 110,000 aquare feet total. w17 ) 1 ✓ JUN -17 -2004 10:07AN FRO- ROGLE- IRELAND 8465530835 T -010 P.016/021 F -405 , PlartrulAg t;orna Wov miums uwu�,r.., _ Continuing, Commissioner Toerge asked: On Page 2.1 - Wa do not know the location of the tidelands, yet in a number of meetings I have listened to and participated In, the location of ftre tidelands has been used as the reason achy we can't maintain the mobile home park. The proposed project includes twelve units available for fractional ownership. How is this allowed if the mobile homes are not? It is a matter of ratio, not location? How would the City participate in the sale of these fractional ownership share units? How will the buyers be determined? . On Page 2.11 - 520 daily trips is not considered significant, how is that determined and what amount would be significant? . On Page 3.8 - In my view the project does not serve to maintain a recreation and open space system that meets the needs of the recreation needs of the citizens as it Is stated in the report, It may serve the paying public, but not the citizens. . On Page 5.4-6 - The proposed project conflicts with the General Plan, specifically the Land Use Element, the Harbor and Bay Element and the Recreation and Open Space Element. . On Page 5.4-12 - under the Recreation and Open Space Element analysis, the project reduces recreational opportunities fbr the public It states it in the EIR. At this opportune time, the City should be attempting to increase parks and related recirealional farAtles rather then reducing them. . Under the City's Municipal Code 5.4. 19 - the project proposes to change the existing General Plan designation from Recreation Environmental Open Space to General Plan designation Recreation Marine and Commercial. Other than to accommodate the proposed project, why would the City do this? . Under 7.5 project alternatives - the conclusions in 7.2.3 claims that it is not known if marine recreational alternative Is economically viable. I feel we should know whether the only alternative proposed in this EIR Is economically viable. No studies have been presented to this Commission that support the economic viability of the proposed project Where is the analysis? . Land Use Element, page 26 - recreational and open space is defined, nowhere in this recreation and open space land use designation Is there reference to the suitability of this zoned for a hotel. I don't see that When 1 hear r+ecrxeaticn, I don't think hotel. I hope that is explained. wV5 L"019 LJa 1 11 q ' ' JUN -1T -2004 10:08AM FROM- HOGLE-IRELAND 9495530935 T -010 P.01T/021 F -495 Page 42, the major land use proposals for each area in our existing land use element, under Statistical Area D7 under Marinapark it is Indicated that the existing mobile home park will be allowed to continue. The land is proposed to be used for aquatic facilities and expanded beach and community facilities, again no mention of a hotel or similar land use. The Harbor and Bay Element, page 3 - proposed project is not consistent with goal H &1, specifically poky H8- 1,1.2. to wraby the goal is to preserve the diverse uses of the harbor and water front that contribute to the charm and character of Newport Say and provide needed support for recreational boaters and visitors and residences with regulations limited to those necessary to protect the interest of all users. Further, the policy states that when reviewing proposals for land use changes the City shall consider the Impact on water dependent and water related land uses and activities and the importance of providing adequate sites for facilities and services essential to the operation of the harbor. This shall include not only the proposed change on the subject property but also the poterrtiat to limit existing land uses, activities, fatalities and services an adjacent properties. I feel the proposed project is not consistent with the Harbor and Say Element. The Recreation and Open Space Element, page 2-4 and 2-5, the citywide needs are expressed as community pool facilities and boating facilities, no mention of a hotel. In the service area needs for Service Area 3, which is the Balboa Peninsula, it suggests that there is very little vacant land for recreational opportunities. The Recreation and Open Space Element states that unmet park needs can be satisfied via renovation of facilities such as Los Arenas Park, the very property that is the subject of this application. Objeclive 4 an page 3-10, policy 4.2 discusses the need for boat launching facilities, marine sanitation facilities. guest slips, showers, restrooms, drinking fountains, junior lifeguard facilities, no mention of a hotel. Page 3 -11 of the Recreation and Open Space Element mentii maximizing the opportunities for launching and beaching small boats. I don't see that opportunity in this plan. In the Description of Planned Facilities on Page 4.5 of the Recreation and Open Space Element, under Marinapark - the Marinapark area encompasses the existing Los Arenas and Veterans' Memorial Park, the American Legion Hall, Balboa Community Center and the Girl Scout Base, the Marinapark, the mobile home park and the public beach from 15th Street to 19th file • //Gr•1P1e..••..+.++.,Nnnn�nena � wa.a w a3 wati L,-)as Iq5� JUN -1T -2004 10:08AN FROLFHOGLE- IRELAND 9495530835 T -010 P.010/021 F -495 , Street. In addition to retention of such ewsting facilities as the public beach and the four tennis courts, the area for its future opportunities for park, recreation and aquatic facilities are not yet fully planned. Seems to me the project is not consistent with this. He concluded asking that these issues be addressed as well as the suitability of this project as it relates to the existing General Plan at our next meeting. Mr. Burnham answered: State Lands Commission staff has taken the position that approximately 70% of the existing parcel is tidelands. A substantial portion of the site that is currently devoted to the mobile home use is, according to State Lands Commission staff, tidelands. There has been no final determination as to where the actual tidelands boundary is. Throughout the bay, the majority of the tidelands boundaries were established by Court decree in the late 1920's and early 30's and do root actually reflect the precise location of the Me of mean tide when California was admitted to the Union. The only way to determine a boundary line is through legislation, litigation or boundary line agreement. In preliminary discussions with the State Lands Commission staff, they will support the use of 3D% of the site for non - tideland uses. The Community center is not a tideland use, the Girl Soout facility is not a tideland use, the tennis courts are not a tideland use. The State Lands Commission staff have indicated that they will have no specific problem with the twelve time share units, but they would have a huge problem with any greater number. The revenue derived from this site he suspects will be designated entirely for tidelands purposes. The sale of the units would be determined through le negotiations regarding receiving the TOT equivalent from e of those units and making sure that if other units are used marketing purposes that the City receive full TOT when th rooms are occupied as well. Ms. Wood added that a hotel is not part of the existing land designation, that is why there is a request to change the land designation with this proposed project. Commissioner Selich noted that the Commission's job is to review the Environmental Impact Report and the alternatives, and make sure that we have an adequate SIR, A lot of things that Commissioner ToeMe refers to are policy issues and that is exactly what Is going to the voters to decide, the policy issues. l,J�aS I� oZ.6 {{ tp• %JI ;• \pj�,.,n„„�.,.1�1MA \l1Cn'l L� , I lO ' ' JUN -1T -2004 10 :03AM FROM- HOOLE- IRELAND 8405530035 T -010 P.010/021 F -405 ,.,.......r - -- - -- - - ' Ms,. Wood now staff and the consultants can take another look at the areas Commissioner Toerge mentioned and see iF we need to add anything to the environmental analysis with regard to those comments. It is correct that in so far as they are policy issues, that Is what the City Council has decided to put to the voters. Commissioner Selich asked about the no project development alternative 7.1 on page 7 -2. The description of the alternative states ' the existing mobile homes and recreation facilities would remain. If 70% of the property is tidelands, is that a correct description of that alternative? Did the State Lands staff ever develop a sketch, or ' working map? Mr. Burnham noted a is a correct description of the assumption that ■ you need to make under the no project, no development alternative. ■ There is always the possibility that there is no redevelopment of the site. There is some legislation processed sometime in the future that ' relieves the land from the restrictions on use that are associated with tidelands such as was done with Beacon Bay. That is not the desire of the City Council nor the State Lands Commission staff. For ' purposes of this alternative we assumed no project, no development, no change in the existing land use on site. ' Continuing, Mr. Burnham answered that what they have done was to review the old meander surveys that were conducted in the 1880's and 1890's and those have been overlaid onto the site to try and determine roughly what the tideland boundary was as of that time, and then assume it had not changed much since California was adMitted to the Union, which is the perfect definition of the tideland boundaries. Looking at those surveys, aerial photos and the site today, 70% is roughly that percentage of the site that fails between the bayward extent of the property from the meander survey line. That One ' meanders from the We comer of the site and comes about a third of the way down the easterly boundary and then proceeds on a diagonal to a point much closer to Balboa Blvd on the west side of the site. ' Connmissioner Tucker noted: ' . The decisions will end up being made at the Council level. Commissioner Toerge's comments on the land use and planning section of the FIR need to be included in the response to ' comments. . The Issue of parks is interesting. I think we have miles of park in ' that area, it is called the beach. . CI;QA looks at the physical impacts of a project to the ' environment. The economics objective in the EIR does not fit in W;L7 with the concept of physical impacts to the environment 1 +aw.ircr'4Plownmw..1 IMAIl1CM i.— 117 JUN -17 -2004 10:09AM FR01J- HOGLE - IRELAND 9495530935 T -010 P- 020/021 F -495 ' . qa- - . ... .._. . At the net meeting, we will go through the process or examining the EIR; and assuming there are four of us who believe it Covers everything, then we will certify that document. . That means we have come to a conclusion that the EIR fairly discloses what the consequences are of the project It is entirely possible we may reach that conclusion even If all of us think it is a rotten projeeL . Whether you like it or not, what we are being asked to do is review the EIR for adequacy and what we will be looking for at the next meeting is substantial evidence. . It becomes a technical exercise when it comes to the certification process. He noted that any commends to be received at the next meeting should reference the page number in the EIR document Itself as It would be helpful for ctar'dicsMon. Ms. Wood noted that the Planning CommMon would be recommending to the City Council whether or not to certify the EIR. At Commission inquiry, she noted that for the voter approval, the General Plan Amendment will include some amendments to the Recreation and Open Space Element and staff will loop at others previously mentioned. The Amendment will be one that would maintain consistency. Commissioner Eaton asked if there was going to be a fiscal analysis and if the terms of the lease would be provided. Mr. Burnham noted that there will be a fiscal impact analysis; however, the lease itself will certainly have a bearing on the ultimate amount of revenue received by the City, The contemplation will be an option to lease pendf V issuance of all permits and satisfaction of other conditions as was done for the Balboa Bay Club, or the lease Itself would be subject to satisfaction of certain conditions. That probably would be done some ten days prior to City Council action on this item and would not come to the Planning Commission. It will be available to the public when they vote. Commissioner Selich asked if the City Council had to certify the EIR before they can decide to put the General Plan Amendment on the general ballot and what is the last date they can do that? Mr. Burnham answered yes. The only exception would be If the measure came to the City Council pursuant to an initiative petition and in that case the City Council has the mandatory duty, if the signatures are adequate, to place the measure on the ballot. Otherwise, after the Sierra Madre case, the Clty Council has to certify an appropriate environmental document prior to placing the measure on the ballvk 1 ?9 1 ' JUN -17 -2004 10:09AN FROtA-HOOLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -010 P.021/021 F -495 ' The W regular meeting of the City Council to take that action would I by July 27th. Commissioner Cole noted: . The Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council at the July 8th meeting. . in the area of recreation there is need for more facts and analysis. There seemed to be a lot of conclusions drawn without support and seem more like an opinion. . in the land use section, the parking analysis needs to have more facts and analysis particularly as it relates to comments related to the project parking demand. . The marine recreational alternative needs to have more clear) analysis on how you came up to the candusions. . The reduced intensity alternative should also be addressed more in detail. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to continue this item to July 8, 2004. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Tucker Wws: None Absent; None Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS. Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, IGser and a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that Council initiated an amendment to Districting Map and Specific Plan for Lido Marina Village; hearings on the Code Amendment to change the Districting Map for that lot on the comer of Clay and orange' Streets, an update of the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan that was voted to approve and forward to the Coastal Commission; and, the Planning Commission action on The Newport Technology Center action was sustained. b, Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - No meetings. ADD"WNAL BUSINESS I wr.. II qq Marinaperk Resort and Community Plan — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments W. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission, June 3, 2004 IN W 1. The parking structure will not be available to the public. Please see responses to comments B52, L7, and Q I relative to the availability of parking for the public. W2. As indicated on page 5.4-11 of the Draft EIR under "Analysis ", up to twelve (12) resort hotel units will be available for fractional ownership. W3. The villas are one and two story. The maximum heights of the one -story and two- story villas are 17 feet and 27 feet, respectively. The maximum height of the lobby is 37 feet as described in response to comment Ul 1. W4. The residential buildings located on the south side of Balboa Boulevard have a maximum height of 27 feet as described in response to comment U 11. W5. Please see response to comment G2 regarding the Harbor Commission's suggestion that the project slip plan be revised to mitigate potential impacts. W6. Please see response to comment B20 regarding the inclusion of a mitigation measure to modify the size and location of the proposed boat dock and reduce the amount of bayfloor excavation. W7. Please see responses to comments GI and G8 relative to the fact that the proposed project is not a water - dependent use and to G15 as to coastal dependent use. W8. Please see response to comment G2 regarding the Harbor Commission's suggestion that the project slip plan be revised to mitigate potential impacts. W9. The project slip plan has been modified and the pierhead line will not be moved. Please see response to comment H13. W 10. The 110 -room hotel will generate a net increase of 520 average daily trips (ADT) and 24 and 32 trips in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. While this is an increase in trips, the magnitude is so modest as to be imperceptible relative to existing traffic conditions. This project will not reduce traffic; nothing in the Draft EIR indicates a reduction. The Draft EIR and the traffic study conclude that the increase is small enough to be less than significant although there is an actual increase in traffic. W 11. Most of the coaches in Marinapark are double -wides and presumed to have three bedrooms each, or a total of 168 bedrooms (56 X 3) total. W12. Approximately 56 "striped" parking spaces are located on the Marinapark Mobile Home Park site. An additional 16 "unstriped" spaces interspersed among the coaches were identified. W13. The Marine Recreation Alternative included in Section 7 of the Draft EIR assumes the General Plan designation for the project site remains Recreation and Environmental Open Space. A majority vote by the Newport Beach electorate in favor of the proposed General Plan Amendment that would change the designation for this site from "Recreation and Environmental Open Space" to "Recreational and Michael Brandman Associates WcHew (PN- 11)\006410064ER20W"ER20 RTC 7.1 fiwl.dw D O Madnapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on fire Dreg EIR Responses To Comments Marine Commercial ". Please see response to comment H12 regarding identification of project objectives. W14. Please see response to comment D13 regarding the Marine Recreation Alternative further increasing coastal views. W15. Please see response to comment B96 regarding the trip generation associated with the Marine Recreation Alternative. As discussed, this alternative would generate more trips compared to the proposed project. Since more trips would be generated, more air emissions and noise would be generated compared to the proposed project. W16. Please see response to comment B97 regarding the selection of alternatives, the potential alterations to the Marine Recreation Alternative, and further modifications of the potential impacts. WIT The Newport Boulevard/Coast Highway intersection would require an additional 131 AM peak hour trips at the southbound left-turn prior to the intersection reaching LOS E. The Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road intersection would require an additional 931 PM peak hour trips at the southbound through prior to the intersection reaching LOS E. W 18. Please see response to comment B 17 regarding the tidelands issue. Please see response to comment U2 regarding the fractional ownership units. Comments relative to the City's anticipation in the sale of the fractional ownership units and the determination of the buyers do not raise environmental issues. W19. Based upon the City's own criteria, a project would have to fast generate sufficient traffic to exceed one percent of the volume on any leg of an intersection and add enough traffic to cause the volurne -to- capacity (v /c) ratio (expressed as an Intersection Capacity Utilization value) to exceed 0.900 (upper limit of Level of Service "D ") before the increase in volume would be considered significant. W20. As stated on page 7 -5 in the Draft EIR, it is not known if the Marine Recreation Alternative is economically viable because a economic analysis was not conducted for this alternative. However, this alternative was included because it was expected to be able to be economically viable and a feasible alternative to be analyzed in the EIR. As stated in Section 7.2.3 in the Draft EIR, the Marine Recreation Alternative meets many of the objectives of the proposed project. W21. Please see responses to comments H 5 and T 4 regarding amendments to the Land Use and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan to allow the proposed hotel. W22. Please see response to comment G9 regarding Policy HB -1.1.2 —Land Use Changes of the Harbor and Bay Element. W23. Please see responses to comments H 5, L 9 and T 4, which indicate that the project includes an amendment to the Recreation and Open Space Element. W24. Please see response to comment W21 regarding amendments to the Land Use and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan to allow the proposed hotel. The Marine Recreation alternative was designed to show the impacts of Michael Brandman Associates A:\ cue =(pN -JN)\W"\00&4FR20\W"es20_RTC 7 -1 emLd. 201 Mannapark Rown end Coanmonfly Plan - Response to Comments on the Dreg EIR Responses To Comments ' providing the facilities listed in Objective 4 of the Recreation and Open Space Element, so that the electorate can compare it to the proposed project. I� I 1 J I I 1 F MkahaW Brandman Assmarss O HXIiem (PN -MV0 "U64ER20)00MER20jtTC 7 -1 fMIAW W25. The project is not consistent with the Recreation and Open Space Element, and an amendment is part of the project. ' W26. Please see responses to comments W18 through W25 regarding various tidelands, traffic, visual, alternative, and policy issues. The suitability of the proposed project is determined by decision makers while the EIR provides information regarding the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed project. W27. It is correct that the environmental analysis conducted for the EIR is based on the physical conditions in the project area. The project objectives are goals that have ' been set for the proposed project. These goals can be set by a project applicant or a lead agency. I� I 1 J I I 1 F MkahaW Brandman Assmarss O HXIiem (PN -MV0 "U64ER20)00MER20jtTC 7 -1 fMIAW 06/23/2004 12:02 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 09 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Govemor CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 -South Sacramento. CA 95625 -62021 PAUL D. THAYER, Executive Ofter (918) 574 -1800 FAX (916) 574 -1810 CoNW799 Raley Swvft From 7DD Pftm 1 -900- 735.2922 from Voice Phone 1 -800- 735-2929 Conted Phone: 916 - 574-1227 COMWd FAX: 916. 574-1324 June 14, 2004 RECEIVED By Ref: G09 -02 PLANNING DEPARTMfIIIR James Campbell, Senior Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Newport Beach Planning Department JUN 2 1 2004 3300 Newport Boulevard AM PM Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 71819110111112111213141516 Dear Mr. Campbell: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report for the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan. Please accept my apology for the lateness of this comment letter. As currently written the EIR does not adequately address the.special conditions placed on portions of the project area. Staff of the State Lands Commission (SLC) would like to emphasize the necessity, as stated in 2.2 Areas of Controversy/Issues to be Resolved, for resolution of the boundary and title status as well as land use restrictions involving filled and unfilled tide and submerged lands subject to the public trust doctrine. California became a state on September 9, 1850, and thereby acquired nearly 4 million acres of land underlying the State's navigable and tidal waterways. Known as "Sovereign Lands ", these lands include tidal and submerged lands adjacent to the entire coast and offshore islands of the State from the ordinary high water mark to three nautical miles offshore. The SLC has jurisdiction and management authority over all ungranted tidelands, submerged lands, and the beds of navigable rivers, sloughs, lakes, etc. The SLC has certain residual and review authority for tide and submerged land legislatively granted in trust to local jurisdictions (Public Resources Code §6301 and §6306). All tide and submerged lands, granted or ungranted, as well as navigable rivers, sloughs, etc., are impressed with the Common Law Public Trust. Restrictions on the use of tide and submerged lands apply in order for the State to maintain commerce, navigation, fisheries, water - oriented recreation, and preservation in their natural condition, or other recognized public trust uses. The California Legislature, by statute, has granted in trust to the City of Newport Beach the State's interest in filled and unfilled tide and submerged lands involving portions of the project area, pursuant to Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978, as amended with minerals reserved to the State. Any proposed uses involving granted tidelands must be consistent with the public trust and the granting statute(s). Acceptable trust uses include, but are not limited to, uses that promote water- oriented or water - dependent XL 2 03 06/23/2004 12:02 J. Campbell June 14, 2004 Page 2. 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 10 ' recreation and commerce, navigation, fisheries, public access and the preservation of the land in its natural condition. Xi The boundary separating the City owned uplands from City public trust lands within the project area has not been fixed and requires a formal agreement or litigation between the City and State. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at the number referenced above. Sincerely, Grace Kato Public Land Management Specialist cc: Steve Jenkins 20q Madnapadr Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Dmh EN Responses To Comments X. California State Lands Commission XI. This comment regarding the need to resolve the tideland boundary is noted. Please see response to comment B20 regarding an addition of a mitigation measure that would modify the proposed dock so that no bulkhead, groin wall, or fill would be required. Michae/9rsndman Associates 2 O x:lCtirni ( PN- 1T)VD06d\0064ER20�OD64ER1AJtTC 7 -1 fiml.doc 06/23/2004 12:02 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 06 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region Tery Tam dne! 3937 Main Sant, Sultc SOD, RiverAde, Csftmit 9 25 01 -33 48 M'ndd Sdmmmmener Seercrory for (909) 782.4130 • PAX (909) 7314ME Co�rrnor En roniunrar 6ttp: / /www.swrcb-=8m/rwgc68 Proleclian LJ�UN iEEIVEDJune 15, 2004 1 7 1004 10sk James Campbell, Senlot Planner EI�MMHOUSE City of Newport Beach 300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR MARINAPARK RESORT AND COMMUNITY PLAN, BALBOA PENINSULA; CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, SCH #2003111021 Dear Mr. Campbell: Staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB), have reviewed the April 23, 2004 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) regarding this project. The project consists of construction of a luxury resort hotel and related buildings, a parking structure, 12 boat slips, and other community recreational facilities on 8.1 acres. We have the following comments. 1. The proposed project location Is on the north slde.of West Balboa Boulevard between 18'a and 15'" Streets on the Balboa Peninsula, immediately adjacent to both Lower Newport Bay and the Rhine Channel.. Both these water bodies have been identified as Impaired, water quality under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d). Consequently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency established several toxics maximum daily toads (TMDLs) for the lower Newport Bay and the Rhine Channel on June 14, 2002. The DEIR Indicates that the project will likely discharge storm water and dry weather runoff into Lower-Newport Bay, thereby possibly affecting the water quality of these already-Impaired waterbodies. The project will need to demonstrate that it will not contribute to the existing impairment and will comply with the toxics TMDLs. Prior to the discharge of any runoff from the project into Newport Bay, the discharge must be monitored to characterize thesunoff water quality. If monitoring indicates that water quality exceeds the TMDLs, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) may issue an individual permit-for the discharge. Further: information can be obtained by contacting the RWQCB's Regulations Section staff at (909) 782 -4130. 2. The construction of the subterranean parking structure (and perhaps other project components) may require long -term dewatering. Dewatering activities, including groundwater extraction and discharge into Lower Newport Bay, are regulated through Y this office. If the project will have dewatering discharges to surface waters of the state, Waste Discharge Requirements are necessary (General de minimus Permit, Order No. R8- 2003.0061, NPDES Permit No. CAG998001). For information, please review Order No. R8- 2003 -0061 under the Adopted Orders link for 2003 permits at the Region 8 website (www.swrcb.ca.c1ov /rwycb8) and contact our Regulations Section at (909) 782- 4130. 3. The project will require coverage under the General Permit For Storm Water Discharges Associated With Construction Activity (NPDES Permit No. CAS000002). This permit is �/ 3 required for individual projects occurring on an area of one or more acres. A Notice of / California EnviranmenWl Protection Agency 0 RecycW Paper �O& 06/23/2004 12:02 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 07 James Campbell - 2 - June 15, 2004 Intent (NOI)• "with the appropriate fees for coverage of the project under.thls Permit must be subriitted to the SWRCB at Isast 30days prior to the initiation of construction activity at this site. Additiona y, In cooperation with the City of Newport Beach, the project must 73 comply with the Arsawide Urban Store Water Runoff. Permit for-the County of Orange, Orange Countypjood CoMmi District, and Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Sarfa "Ane Region (Order No. RS -2002 -0010, NPDES No. CAS616030). Information about this permit program can be found at httpJhaww.swrob.oa .now /stormwtr /construcdon.html. 4. The turbidity and dissolved oxygen water quality objectives listed In the Santa Ana Region Water Quality Control Plan (1995) must not be exceeded as a result-6f any activity of the proposed-operatiom. Including docicdmstallation. Board staff believes that Y9 the EIR should focus on protecting and supporting the beneficial uses identified for Lower Newport Bay by the Santa Ana Region Water Quality Control Plan (1995) (Basin Plan). 5. The project"DEIR specifies that a marine water, quality management plan will be prepared, Identifying mitigation measures to. alleviate the several environmental impacts listed under Hydrology and Water Quality (Section 5.2). The mitigation measures would Y 5 Include the Implementation of best management practices for the control of pollutants (see. Items 61d. and.e.). 6. Because it appears that the boat slip dredging portion of this construotion may fall within the )urisdiction of the United States Amry Corps of Engineers (Corps), the project may need to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the Corps. Before the Corps can issue the Section. 404 permit, the Regional Board has to certify and.conciidon pursuant to Section 401 that the proposed project and operation will: not adversely affect Y6 water quality standards, I.e., will provide safeguards for water quality objectives and beneficial uses. Information concerning a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (401 Certification) can be found at www. swrcb .ca.coy /rwacb8A*nV401.html. on the Regional Board's website. Please contact Adam Fischer of our office at (909) 320 -6363 for information regarding this issue, and early consultation Is strongly suggested. Additionally, a. When you submit the EIR, you may concurrentlysubmit an application for a 401 Certification for this project, provided you have first contacted the Corps I Y T concerning the need for a Section 404 permit. b. Appropriate BMPs must be developed and implemented to control the discharge of pollutants both during construction and for the [He of the project. Post - construction BMPs must address all pollutant loads carried by dry weather runoff and first -flush stormwater runoff from an entire project. The EPA websfte. www. epa .Oov /nodest.menuofbmps/post.htm contains information on oonstructlon BMPs. (if a Section 404 permit is not required, then the criteria for permitting will be reflected in coverage under the general storm water permits discussed above and a variety of source - control, structural and non - structural BMPs and non -point source (NPS) pollutant management measures must also be applied.) Caly*nia Environmental Protection Agency " �ckd Payer 07 , Bra/23/2004 12:02 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 08 1 1. 1 James Campbell - 3 - June 15, 2004 c. Mitigation of unavoidable impacts must, at a minimum, replace the full function and value of water quality standards that. apply to the impacted water body. The 1 issuance of. a 40.1 Certification represented determination by the Executive :Officer thatdlacharges.of waste to waters of the U.S. that are associated "with the /C� referenced project will comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 301 l 1 (Effluent Limitations), 302 (Water Quality Related. Effluent Limitations), 303 (Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans), 306 (National Standards of Performance), 307 (To)do and Pretreatment Effluent Standards) of the Clean 1 Water Act, and with other applicable requirements of State law. d. The DER states that the project will not conduct construction activities resulting In the.spread" of CauWpa taxitolfa•1q,•an invasive rriadne glga... Rattier, prior to 1 initiation of any construction activities associated with the dredging of Newport y� the 401 Certification will require that the project survey for pre existing stands of Ct If Ct is found, the California Department of Fish and Game or the 1 National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration must be notified so that the Ct is removed prior to proceeding with. construction dredge activities. 1 e. The California Department of Fish and Game will likely require that you obtain a Strearnbed Alteration Permit. qq 71J� If you have any questions, please contact Glenn Robertson at (909) 782 -3259 or me at 1 (909) 782 -3234. Sincerely, Mark Adelson, Chief 1, Regional Planning Programs Section 1 cc: Scott Morgan — State Clearinghouse 0: Planoip4/Grobeits/Letters/CE41WEIR- City of f4eWcrt Beech- Merinal ark 11 1 1 1 1 Cal(fornia Environmental Protection Agency 1 Orled Paper O ' Manneparlr Resort and community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft OR Responses To Comments Y. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Y 1. This comment regarding characterizing the runoff water quality is noted. Section 5.2.5 in the Draft EIR includes mitigation measures to reduce water quality impacts on the Bay. Mitigation measure 14WQ-4 on page 5.2 -14 in the Draft EIR includes the ' development and implementation of a water quality monitoring program for the Storm Water Pollution Control Plan and the Water Quality Management Plans. ' Y2. Mitigation measure I3WQ -1 on page 5.2 -10 in the Draft EIR includes a discussion of construction dewatering and the requirement to obtain an approval from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. ' Y3. Page 3 -10 in the Draft EIR acknowledges that the proposed project will require an Michael Bnmdman Associates ' H:1CGrnt ( PN- M\0064\0064E,R20NO064ER20_RTC 7 -1 final.doc approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. ' Y4. The mitigation measures in Section 5.2.5 in the Draft FIR are expected to achieve the objectives fisted in the Santa Ana Region Water Quality Control Plan. ' Y5. This comment acknowledges the best management practices that are listed for the Marine Water Quality Management Plan in Mitigation Measure HWQ -3 on page 5.2- ' 13 in the Draft EIR. ' Y6. This comment acknowledges the potential need to obtain a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit and a Regional Water Quality Control Board Section ' 401 Certification. These approvals are listed on page 3 -10 in the Draft EIR. Y7. This comment regarding the 401 certification process is noted ' YS. A listing of best management practices (BMPs) for various water quality plans is Michael Bnmdman Associates ' H:1CGrnt ( PN- M\0064\0064E,R20NO064ER20_RTC 7 -1 final.doc provided in Section 5.2.5 in the Draft EIR. It is acknowledged that a final list of BMPs would accompany each plan. Y9. The implementation of the proposed mitigation measures listed in Section 5.2.5 in the Draft EIR is intended to meet the water quality standards set forth by the Regional ' Water Quality Control Board. Y 10. This comment regarding a 401 Certification requirement of pre -construction survey for Caulerpa taxifolia, an invasive marine alga is noted. As discussed on page 5.3 -12 ' in the Draft EIR, this species is not currently present at the proposed boat slips. ' Y l 1. This comment regarding a Streambed Alteration Agreement is noted. At this time, the California Department of Fish and Game has not indicated a need to obtain this permit. I Michael Bnmdman Associates ' H:1CGrnt ( PN- M\0064\0064E,R20NO064ER20_RTC 7 -1 final.doc O 06/15/2004 11:28 9496443229 CNB PLANNING ' JUN -10 -2004 1436 OPS EAST END 1 June 10, 2004 ' CLeOery T. 445uw0efWm Ol+irmen PAGE 02/02 1 ran Keane aimmr Dear Mr. Campbell: James Campbell awca m Senior Planner 1 v h' ArftrG, Ohm City of Newport Beach Planning Dept, and has the following comments: Dkm*W 3300 Newport Boulevard 1 raneerxsnar OCTA perlo lically reviews and updates transit services to ensure effective and Newport Beach, CA 939584915 1h` cera" Dkwhv Subject: Marinapark 1 U'MGUr f40N)"Day -no Resort end Community Plan Draft Environmental may include the addition of bus turnouts. bus stops, or the relocation of existing Wvftr Impact Report 1 ran Keane aimmr Dear Mr. Campbell: SrAecwvme 1 °fn r Q)Aq The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has reviewed the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Draft Environmental impact Report and has the following comments: AfiAUdA P+rFae DOW& 1 raneerxsnar OCTA perlo lically reviews and updates transit services to ensure effective and el'Went services are provided to Orange County residents. OCTA's bus stop r -wift V. locations and turnouts are continually adjusted to take advantage of new and 1 U'MGUr developing areas that would benefit from enhanced public transit. Adjustments Deft R. abft, may include the addition of bus turnouts. bus stops, or the relocation of existing Mlanalva8WW amentitle$. Bev Pony 1 MarroeOhvlar The proposed project could generate additional demand for improved transit Thfflw W. Wwwn 1 4ermalaDL7,eW service in vicinity of the project. OCTA may request for fufure transit Improvements to be incorporated into the nn scope of the proposed Project in order to provide adequate service in this area. OCTA would like (i.e. turnouts, bus e►anear pad, etc.) to discuss the need for additional transit amenities with the City of Newport Beach 1 as the Project moves forward. Please send OCTA a copy of the CNEF UCCUTOW oFFicc preliminary project plans when they become available. 1 ca, OCTA appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on' this envirorunental document, If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter. Please contact me at (714) 500 -5715 or at grobineon@octa.net. 1 Sincerely, Gorton Robinson 1 Senior Transportation Analyst z1 1 a Bill Batory, OCTA 'Christopher Wright. OCTA _ O S6D SOUtl1 MiN19En1N /P. t2 flpr 14 /Omngo /Ce11 92W3- f584/f714) W&0OCTa W01 1 TOTRL P.02 Marinapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments Z. Orange County Transportation Agency Zl. The proposed luxury resort hotel is not expected to result in any significant increase in demand for bus services. The proposed reconstruction of the existing recreational facilities on the project will not increase in bus services. The City will forward a copy of the preliminary plans to the Orange County Transportation Agency if the project receives voter approval of the proposed General Plan amendment in the November general election. Michael Brandman Associates W CUem "-MW640MER2DWMER70_RTC 7 -1 fimlAOe / I I Abdnmprk Romf rW Cammwft PYn - RKpa to Comm.na on do Draft EAR II I I 1 II It Appendix 1: Hazardous Materials Database Review II II II II II II II i 1 'I ' is arandm m A"OvAnm KWhM (PN-M"ft%QVM6OUMW-RTC 7 -1 f uLdoc The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck' Newport Beach Regent Hotel West Balboa Boulevard/15th St. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Inquiry Number: 1097960.3s December 12, 2003 Effl ®; Environmental Data Resources, Inc. The Source For Environmental Risk Management Data 3530 Post Road Southport, Connecticut 06890 Nationwide Customer Service Telephone: 1- 800 - 352 -0050 Fax: 1- 800 - 231 -6802 Internet: www.edrnet.com TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Executive Summary ---------------------------------------- - - - - -- ES1 OverviewMap----------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 2 DetailMap ------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 3 Map Findings Summary ---- - - - - -- ---------------------------- - - - - -- 4 MapFindings------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- 6 OrphanSummary --------------------------------------------------------- 67 Government Records Searched /Data Currency Tracking__ ________________ ________ GR -1 GEOCHECK ADDENDUM Physical Setting Source Addendum -_ - - -_ ----- - - - - -. A -1 Physical Setting Source Summary -------------------------------------------- A -2 Physical Setting Source Map___ ___________ ______________ _ __ ------------------------------------------------ ___ A -7 Physical Setting Source Map Findings ---------------------------------------- A-8 Physical Setting Source Records Searched------------------------------- - - - - -. A -12 Thank you for your business. Please contact EDR at 1 -800- 352 -0050 with any questions or comments. Disclaimer Copyright and Trademark Notice This report contains information obtained from a variety of public and other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL EDR BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. Entire contents copyright 2003 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and the edr logos are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. TC1097960.3s Page 1 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. ' (EDR). The report meets the government records search requirements of ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments, E 1527 -00. Search distances are per ASTM standard or custom distances requested by the user. ' TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS ' WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD /15TH ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 COORDINATES Latitude (North): 33.608400 - 33° 36'30.2'3 Longitude (West): 117.923200 - 117° 55' 23.5" Universal Tranverse Mercator: Zone 11 UTM X (Meters): 414351.9 ' UTM Y (Meters): 3718926.2 Elevation: 6 ft. above sea level USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY Target Property: 33117 -E8 NEWPORT BEACH OE S, CA Source: USGS 7.5 min quad index ' TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR. 1 DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES ' No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ( "reasonably ascertainable ") government records either on the target property or within the ASTM E 1527 -00 search radius around the target property for the following databases: FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD ' NPL------------------- - - - - -- National Priority List Proposed NPL-------- - - - - -- Proposed National Priority List Sites CERCLIS--------------- - - - - -. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information . System CERC-NFRAP---------- - - - - -. CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned CORRACTS------------ - - - - -- Corrective Action Report RCRIS- TSD------------ - - - - -- Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System RCRIS -LOG - -- Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System ERNS------------------ - - - - -- Emergency Response Notification System STATE ASTM STANDARD ' AWP------------------- - - - - -- Annual Workplan Sites ' TC1097960.3s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Cal-Sites ----- _ --------------- Calsites Database Notify 65 --------------------- Proposition 65 Records Toxic Pits_ _ _ __ --------------- Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Sites SWF/LF______________________ Solid Waste information System WMUDS /SWAT-------- - - - - -- Waste Management Unit Database CA BOND DCP. PLAN_______ Bond Expenditure Plan UST__________________________ List of Underground Storage Tank Facilities VCP ---------- _--------------- Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties INDIAN LIST ------------------ Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land CA FID UST__________________ Facility Inventory Database FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT_ _______ Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees ROD_________________________ Records Of Decision Delisted NPL National Priority List Deletions FINDS________________________ Facility Index System /Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary Report HMIRS_______________________ Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System MILTS________________________ Material Licensing Tracking System MINES_______________________ Mines Master Index File NPL Liens Federal Superfund Liens PADS________________________ PCB Activity Database System DOD -------------------------- Department of Defense Sites US BROWNFIELDS__________ A Listing of Brownfields Sites RAATS ------- .--------------- RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System TRIS Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System TSCA_ ----------------------- Toxic Substances Control Act SSTS ------------------------- Section 7Tracking Systems FTTS INSP_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FI FRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FI FRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL AST-------------------------- Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Facilities CLEANERS------------------ Cleaner Facilities CA WDS __________ Waste Discharge System DEED___________ List of Deed Restrictions NFE___________ _______________ Properties Needing Further Evaluation NFA_------------------------- No Further Action Determination EML_________________________ Emissions Inventory Data REF-------------------------- Unconfirmed Properties Referred to Another Agency SCIi --------- _--------------- School Property Evaluation Program Orange Co. Industrial Site___ List of Industrial Site Cleanups BROWNFIELDS DATABASES US BROWNFIELDS A Listing of Brownfields Sites VCP___________ _______________ Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS Surrounding sites were identified. TC1097960.3s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Elevations have been determined from the USGS Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity should be field verified. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property. Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed data on individual sites can be reviewed. Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases. Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis. FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System. RCRIS includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and /or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESOGs): generate ' less than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Small quantity generators (SOGs): generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. Large quantity generators (LOGs): generate over 1,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste from the generator off -site to a facility that can recycle, treat, store, or dispose of the waste. TSDFs treat, store, or dispose of the waste. I Fl 1 A review of the RCRIS -SOG list, as provided by EDR, and dated 09/10/2003 has revealed that there is 1 RCRIS -SOG site within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. Equal /Higher Elevation Address SEA SPRAY BOAT YARD 226 21ST ST Dist / Dir Map ID Page 1/8- 114 WNW 86 10 STATE ASTM STANDARD CHMIRS: The California Hazardous Material Incident Report System contains information on reported hazardous material incidents, i.e., accidental releases or spills. The source is the California Office of Emergency Services. A review of the CHMIRS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 12/31/2002 has revealed that there are 31 CHMIRS sites within approximately 1 mile of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Dist / Dir Map ID Page Not reported 634 LIDO PARK DR. 1/4 -1 /2NNW C9 13 Not reported 151 SHIPYARD WAY, LIDO 1/4 - 1 /2NNW 10 14 Not reported 2270 NEWPORT BLVD 1/4- 1/2 WNW 11 15 Not reported 711 LIDO PARK DRIVE 1/4 -1 /2NNW 12 16 Not reported 2806 LAFAYETTE AVENUE 1/4 -1 /2NW D13 17 Not reported 3010 LAFAYETTE AVENUE 1/2 - 1 NNW 17 19 Not reported 2902 NEWPORT BLVD 1/2 - 1 NW 18 20 Not reported 3206 MARCUS STREET 1/2 - 1 NW 21 26 Not reported 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. 1/2 - 1 NW F24 30 Not reported 2101 WEST COAST HWY 1/2 - 1 NNE G25 31 Not reported 2101 W. COAST HWY 1/2 - 1 NNE G26 32 TC1097950.3s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Equal/Higher Elevation Address Dist / Dir Map ID Page Not reported 925 VIA LIDO SOLID 1/2 - 1 E 27 33 Not reported 3300 MARCUS AVENUE 1/2-1 NW 28 34 Not reported 3412 VIA OPORTO 1/2-1 NNW H30 37 Not reported 313 33RD STREET 1/2 - 1 NW 31 38 Not reported 3366 VIA LIDO 1/2-1 NNW H33 40 Not reported 3432 VIA OPORTO 1/2-1 NNW H34 41 Not reported 3450 VIA OPORTO 1/2-1 NNW H35 42 Not reported 3500 NEWPORT BLVD, LIDO 1/2 - 1 NNW 136 43 Not reported 3531 NEWPORT BLVD. /SHOR 1/2-1 NW 39 49 Not reported 2751 WEST COAST HWY 1/2-1 N J42 51 Not reported 7TH STREET / WEST BALED 1/2-1 ESE 43 52 Not reported 3199 PARK CENTER 1/2-1 N 44 53 Not reported 3101 WEST COAST HWY. 1/2-1 N K45 54 Not reported 3300 W. COAST HWY 1/2-1 NNW L49 58 Not reported 2702 BAYSHORE DRIVE 1/2-1 ENE 50 59 Not reported 503 EAST EDGEWATER 1/2-1 E M51 60 Not reported 503 EDGEWATER 112-1 E M52 62 Not reported 406 SNUG HARBOR ROAD 1/2-1 NE 53 63 Not reported 230 NEWPORT BLVD 1/2-1 NNW 54 64 Not reported 3912 RIVER AVENUE 1/2-1 NW 55 65 CORTESE: This database identifies public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, sites with known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program, sites with LISTS having a reportable release and all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is known migration. The source is the California Environmental Protection Agency /Office of Emergency Information. A review of the Cortese list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 17 Cortese sites within approximately 1 mile of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Dist / Dir Map ID DELANEY'S - MC CULLOUGH FAMILY TRUST PROPE N/R MARINA PARTNERS GERMANAUTOS UNOCAL 915310 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA SEA NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL NEWPORTIMPORTS WORLD OIL SERVICE STATION CHEVRON 919 -7100 PORTCALYPSO CALTRANS CHEVRON #9 -9706 DOUD COMMERCIAL OFFICE BL JERRY'S MARINE FUEL (FORM NEWPORTARCHES MARINA Not reported 634 LIDO PARK DR 2810 VILLA 2809 NEWPORT BLVD 3000 NEWPORT BLVD 3001 NEWPORT BLVD 1931 COAST 3300 NEWPORT BLVD 1200 COAST 3401 3531 NEWPORT BLVD W 2633 COAST 3600 NEWPORT BLVD 2801 3100 COAST 3333 COAST 12 BALBOA COVES 503 EDGEWATER 1/4- 1 /2NNW C7 114 - 112NW D15 1/4 -112 NW 16 112-1 NW E19 112-1 NW E20 112 -1 NNE 22 112-1 NW F23 112-1 NE 29 112-1 NW 32 1/2-1 NNW 137 1/2 -1 N 38 1/2 -1 NNW 40 1/2 -1 N J41 112-1 N K46 1/2 -1 NNW L47 112-1 NNW 48 112-1 E M52 Page 10 19 19 21 24 27 26 35 39 44 46 50 50 55 55 55 62 TC1097960.3s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 F 1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LUST: The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. The data come from the State Water Resources Control Board Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System. A review of the LUST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/0212003 has revealed that there are 2 LUST sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation MOBIL #18 -HG7 DELANEYS HIST UST: Historical UST Registered Database. Address 1500 BALBOA BLVD W 634 LIDO PARK Dist / Dir Map ID Page 1/8 -1/4 ESE A4 7 1/4- 1 /2NNW C8 11 A review of the HIST UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 10/15/1990 has revealed that there is 1 HIST UST site within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Dist / Dir Map ID Page 2117026 EDWARD M. KIM 1500 W BALBOA BLVD 1/8 - 1/4 ESE A3 7 ' STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL CA SLIC: SLIC Region comes from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. ' A review of the CA SLIC list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there is 1 CA SLIC site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. Equal /Higher Elevation Address Dist / Dir Map ID Page NEWPORT PLATING 2810 VILLA WAY 114 - 112NW D14 18 HAZNET: The data is extracted from the copies of hazardous waste manifests received each year by the DTSC. The annual volume of manifests is typically 700,000 - 1,000,000 annually, representing approximately 350,000- 500,000 shipments. Data from non - California manifests & continuation sheets are not included at the present time. Data are from the manifests submitted without correction, and therefore many contain some invalid values for data elements such as generator ID, TSD ID, waste category, & disposal method. The source is the Department of Toxic Substance Control is the agency A review of the HAZNET list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 2 HAZNET sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation MOBIL STATION #18 -HG7 PENINSULA SHIPYARD INC PROPRIETARY nATABASES Address 1500 WEST BALBOA BLVD 226 21 ST ST Dist / Dir Map ID Page 1/8-1/4ESE A2 6 1/8- 1 /4WNWB5 9 Former Manufactured Gas (Coal Gas) Sites: The existence and location of Coal Gas sites is provided exclusively to EDR by Real Property Scan, Inc. Copyright 1993 Real Property Scan, Inc. For a technical description of the types of hazards which may be found at such sites, contact your EDR customer service representative A review of the Coal Gas list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there is 1 Coal Gas site within TC1097960.3s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE.SUMMARY approximately 1 mile of the target property. Equal /Higher Elevation Address SOUTHERN COUNTIES GAS CO. BALBOA STREET AND 18TH Dist / Dir Map ID Page 1 /8- 1 /4WSW 1 6 TCI097960.3s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IJ I IfI L� 1 1 1 [1 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped: Site Name Database(s) LORAL AEROSPACE AERONUTRONIC PADS, RCRIS -LQG, RCRIS-TSD, FINDS, CORRACTS, CERC -NFRAP RITZ CLEANERS CLEANERS 3333 PACIFIC COAST HWY CHMIRS, HAZNET OFFSHORE SEAL BEACH CHMIRS, EMI HILL'S BOAT SERVICE LUST, Cortese SOUTH BASIN OIL CO WELL #1 CERC -NFRAP NEWPORT TERRACE LF SWF /LF COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL SWF/LF NEWPORT LANDING SITE 1995 LUST HUGHES NEWPORT BEACH LUST NEWPORT LANDING FUEL DOCK UST NEWPORT LANDING MARINE FUELS UST BISBEES MARINE FUELS INC UST NEWPORT MARINE FUEL SERVICES CA FID UST DON FWETT HAZNET NEWPORT MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRI HAZNET NEWPORT AUTO CARE CENTER HAZNET NEWPORT IMPORTS, INC HAZNET GRAY TRUST/WELLS FARGO BANK HAZNET HORN BLOWER CRUISES & EVENTS HAZNET BLACK DIAMOND MARINE HAZNET LEADING EDGE YACHT SERVICES HAZNET HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL HAZNET OLYMPIC BOAT CENTERS HAZNET NEWPORT BANNING RANCH Orange Co. Industrial Site DEWATERING,NEWPORT BEACH CA WDS NEWPORT HARBOR SHIPYARD, INC. EMI TC1097960.3s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 �I 0 DETAIL MAP - 1097960.3s - Michael Brandman Associates IA- rt S e� ry S 2 i W�� Errr��. 4tfY_4 eYaoA � NFYr wDCEAFAUNr A J .. __._ W - NEEv _ - 0Mr � waAteo.ai - � cydert+wcnry,.iH M4llOM1� IN 4ut . _l wocEp�� ,.,.,. -- - - . va t K�4?�YY;li.y.��+Y"4'.7,t,• .- f= .F;JJSl..i;. `�p9- iF�' . -aa'1. 4 �v:: - F ;'�5. - ' r a Ing Tarpet Property rr. 114"1" Sites at elevations higher than or equal to the target property @"1 f Oil & Gas pipelines Areas of Concern Sites at elevations lower than 10a -year flood zone the target property 500-year flood zone • Coal Gasification Sites . — t Sensitive Receptors Federal Wetlands National Priority List Sites Landfill Sites j Dept. Defense Sites TARGET PROPERTY: Newport Beach Regent Hotel CUSTOMER: Michael Brandman Associates ADDRESS: West Balboa Boulevard/15th St. CONTACT: Kara Palm CITY /STATE/ZIP: Newport Beach CA 92663 INQUIRY #: 1097960.3s LAT /LONG: 33.6084 /117.9232 DATE: December 12, 2003 12:10 pm 00PITIYht o 2008 EVK Inc o MI QVT.Inc Rd 07/AI02. M NGAb Rmmd. MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY STATE ASTM STANDARD AWP Search 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Target Distance 0 0 0 0 NR Total Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2-1 > 1 Plotted FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD 1.000 0 0 3 14 NR 17 NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Proposed NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CERCLIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 CERC -NFRAP 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 RCRIS -TSD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 RCRIS Lg. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 RCRIS Sm. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 1 NR NR NR 1 ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 STATE ASTM STANDARD AWP 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Cal -Sites 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CHMIRS 1.000 0 0 5 26 NR 31 Cortese 1.000 0 0 3 14 NR 17 Notify 65 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Toxic Pits 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 State Landfill 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 WMUDS /SWAT 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 LUST 0.500 0 1 1 NR NR 2 CA Bond Exp. Plan 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 VCP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 INDIAN UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 CA FID UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 HIST UST 0.250 0 1 NR NR NR 1 FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 ROD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Delisted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 MLTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 MINES 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 NPL Liens TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 DOD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 US BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 RAATS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 SSTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 FTTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL AST TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TC1097960.3s Page 4 MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY US BROWNFIELDS VCP <1/8 Search Target Distance Database Property (Miles) CLEANERS 0.250 CA WDS TP DEED TP NFE 0.250 N FA 0.250 EMI TP REF 0.250 SCH 0.250 CA SLIC 0.500 HAZNET 0.250 Orange Co. Industrial Site TP EDR PROPRIETARY HISTORICAL DATABASES Coal Gas 1.000 BROWNFIELDS DATABASES NR US BROWNFIELDS VCP <1/8 1/8 -1/4 1/4 -1/2 1/2 -1 >1 0 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 NR NR NR 0 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 NR NR NR 0 0 NR NR NR 0 0 1 NR NR 0 2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Total Plotted 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 NR 1 �E NOTES: AQUIFLOW - see EDR Physical Setting Source Addendum TP = Target Property NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance Sites may be listed in more than one database 0 0 NR NR 0 0 0 NR NR 0 TC1097960.3s Page 5 TC1D97960.3s Page6 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number 1 SOUTHERN COUNTIES GAS CO. Coal Gas G0000009TT WSW 1/8 -1/4 BALBOA STREET AND 18TH STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 N/A 746 ft. Relative: COAL GAS SITE DESCRIPTION: Higher 1929 Site is on the east side of 18th Street and the north side of Balboa St. B e north by Marina Park St., approximately 1/3 block to the east. 1945, no chang Actual: ®Copyright 1993 Real Property Scan, Inc. 10 tL A2 MOBIL STATION M18 -HG7 HAZNET S103631829 ESE 1500 WEST BALBOA BLVD N/A 1/8 -1/4 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 921 ft. ' Site 1 of 3 in cluster A Higher lgher HAZNET: HAZNET: Actual; Gepaid: CAL000055696 TSD E TSD EPA ID: AZD982441263 9 ft. Gen County: Orange Tsd County: 99 Tons: ' Waste Category: Other Other organic solids Disposal Method: Not reported Contact: MOBIL Telephone: (703) 846 -5734 Mailing Address: PO BOX 142657 ' AUSTIN, TX 78714.2667 County Orange Gepaid: CAL000055896 TSD EPA ID: CAD099452708 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles Tons: 1.2510 Waste Category: Aqueous solution with less than 10% total organic residues Disposal Method: Not reported Contact: MOBIL Telephone: (703) 846 -5734 Mailing Address: PO BOX 142667 AUSTIN, TX 78714 - 2667 County Orange Gepaid: CAL000055896 TSD EPA ID: CAT080011059 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles Tons: 1.2510 Waste Category: Aqueous solution with less than 1 D% total organic residues Disposal Method: Recycler Contact: MOBIL Telephone: (703) 846 -5734 Mailing Address: PO BOX 142667 ' AUSTIN, TX 78714 -2667 County Orange TC1D97960.3s Page6 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS A3 2117026 EDWARD M. KIM Cross Street: ESE 1500 W BALBOA BLVD Not reported 1/6 -1/4 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 Reg Board: 921 ft. Chemical: Gasoline Lead Agency: Site 2 of 3 in cluster A Local Agency: Relative: Other ground water affected Higher UST MIST: Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved Facility ID: 39364 Facility Status: Actual: Total Tanks: 4 Region: 9 tt. Owner Name: MOBIL OIL CORPORATION Box Number: Pollution Char: Owner Address: 612 S. FLOWER STREET Remed Action: 5/21/90 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 Not reported A4 ESE 1/8.1/4 921 t Relative: Higher Actual: 9 tt. MOBIL N18 -HG7 1500 BALBOA BLVD W NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 Site 3 of 3 in cluster A EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number MIST UST 0001577425 N/A Not reported STATE Not reported 1 LUST S105774115 , WA State LUST: Cross Street: 15TH STREET Qty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 083000618T Reg Board: 8 Chemical: Gasoline Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 0 Case Type: Other ground water affected Status: Case Closed Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site, Pump and Treat Ground Water - generally employed to remove dissolved contaminants, Vapor Extraction Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 6/18/87 Prelim Assess: 6/18187 Pollution Char: 6/1/90 Remed Plan: 6/1/90 Remed Action: 5/21/90 Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 10/17/2000 Release Date: 01/21/1997 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: 06/1 B/1 9B7 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Warning/notioe of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes CDO and CAD) Enter Date: 08128/1987 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported MTBE Date: 01/01/1965 Max MTBE GW : 218 Parts per Billion MTBE Tested: MTBE Detected. Site tested for MTBE 8 MTBE detected Priority: 213 Local Case p : 87UT166 Beneficial: Not reported Staff : RS GW Qualifier: _ Max MTBE Soil: 0.5 Parts per Million Soil Qualifier: < TC1097960.3s Page 7 i Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft -) EDR ID Number ' Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number MOBIL #18 -HG7 (Continued) S105774115 Hydr Basin #: Not reported Operator : Not reported Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm : LOP Review Date: 01/21/1997 Stop Date: Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyJOHNNY MEDRANO RP Address: 3700 W 190TH ST TPT2 Global Id: 70605900496 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported ' MTBE Conc: 2 MPoe Fuel: 1 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 6006619 Cross Street: 15TH STREET Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 67UT166 Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: ROSE SCOTT Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 300o0L Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site. Vapor Extraction, Pump and Treat Ground Water - generally employed to remove dissolved contaminants Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported ' Workplan: 6/18/87 Prelim Assess: 6/18/87 Pollution Char: 6/1/90 Remed Plan: 6/1/90 Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 10/17/2000 ' Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: 06/18/1987 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Warning/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes COO and CAD) Enter Date : 08/28/1987 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported ' How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Lat/Lon : 33.6071486 / - 117.9206492 ' Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: 1/1/65 MTBE Tested: YES Max MTBE GW : 218 G W Qualifies Max MTBE Soil: .5 ' TC7097960.3s PageS Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS I EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number MOBIL #18 -HG7 (Continued) Soil Qualifies: < Hydr Basin #: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORA Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm : LOP Priority: Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyJOHNNY MEDRANO Well name: LPA REPORTED PRIMARY SOURCE Distance From Lust: 17128.841331229398751809238869 Waste Disch Global Id: W0608900228 MTBE Class: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: 4500228- DOIGEN Case Type: Other Ground Water not used for drinking or no beneficial use Global ID: T0605900496 How Stopped Date: Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported RP Address: 3700 W 190TH ST TPT2 MTBE Concentration: 2 MTBE Fuel: 1 Case Number: 083D00618T Water System Name: OUTPOST, THE Code Name: ORANGE Agency Name: Not reported Priority: 2B State Expalnation: CASE CLOSED Substance: GASOLINE Staff: ROSE SCOTT Case Type: O Summary: Not reported 5105774115 B5 PENINSULA SHIPYARD INC HAZNET 5103981392 WNW 22621 ST ST N/A 118.114 NEWPORT BCL, CA 92663 1311 ft. Site 1 of 2 In cluster B Relative: HAZNET: Higher Gepaid: CAD982470718 Actual: TSD EPA ID: CAD0000BS252 91t. Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles Tons: .2085 Waste Category: Unspecified solvent mixture Waste Disposal Method: Transfer Station Contact: Not reported Telephone: (000) 000 -0000 Mailing Address: 226 21ST ST NEWPORT BCL, CA 92663 County Orange TC1097960.3s Page 9 F E SEA SPRAY BOAT YARD 226 21 ST ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Site 2 012 in cluster B RCRIS: Owner: PAULETTE PAPPAS (714) 675 -1155 EPA ID: CAD982470718 Contact: PAULETTE PAPPAS (714) 675 -1155 Classification: Small Quantity Generator TSDF Activities: Not reported Violation Status: No violations found FINDS: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information system (RCRAINFO) ' Map ID DELANEY'S 634 LIDO PARK DR u MAP FINDINGS. ' Direction 11/4 Distance Relative: Relative: Distance 9 ft. Elevation Site Actual: Fac Address 2: PENINSULA SHIPYARD INC (Continued) 1 Gepaid: CAD982470718 TSD EPA ID: NVT330010000 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: 99 Tons: .4000 ' Waste Category: Off- specification, aged, or surplus organics Disposal Method: Not reported Contact: Not reported Telephone: (000) 000 -0000 Mailing Address: 226 21 ST ST NEWPORT BCL, CA 92663 County Orange Gepaid: CA0982470718 TSD EPA ID: CAD0000BS252 Gen County: Orange Tact County: Los Angeles Tons: .2293 Waste Category: Oxygenated solvents (acetone, butanol, ethyl acetate, etc.) Disposal Method: Transfer Station Contact: Not reported Telephone: (000) 000 -0000 ' Mailing Address: 226 21 ST ST NEWPORT BCL, CA 92663 County Orange E SEA SPRAY BOAT YARD 226 21 ST ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Site 2 012 in cluster B RCRIS: Owner: PAULETTE PAPPAS (714) 675 -1155 EPA ID: CAD982470718 Contact: PAULETTE PAPPAS (714) 675 -1155 Classification: Small Quantity Generator TSDF Activities: Not reported Violation Status: No violations found FINDS: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information system (RCRAINFO) ' C7 NNW DELANEY'S 634 LIDO PARK DR B6 1/4-1/2 WNW 11/4 131311 ft. Relative: Relative: Higher Actual: 9 ft. Region: E SEA SPRAY BOAT YARD 226 21 ST ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Site 2 012 in cluster B RCRIS: Owner: PAULETTE PAPPAS (714) 675 -1155 EPA ID: CAD982470718 Contact: PAULETTE PAPPAS (714) 675 -1155 Classification: Small Quantity Generator TSDF Activities: Not reported Violation Status: No violations found FINDS: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information system (RCRAINFO) ' C7 NNW DELANEY'S 634 LIDO PARK DR 1/4-1/2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 1456 ft. Relative: Site 1 of 3 In cluster C CORTESE: Higher Region: Actual: Fac Address 2: 13 ft. CORTESE 634 LIDO PARK DR EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number S103SB1392 RCRIS -SGG 1000258586 FINDS CAD982470718 Cortese S102428705 N/A ' TC1097960.3s Page 10 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site Ce NNW 1/4.1/2 1456 ft. Relative: Nigher Actual: 13 ft. DELANEY'S (Continued) DELANEYS 634 LIDO PARK NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Site 2 of 3 in cluster C State LUST: Cross Street: EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number ' 5102428705 Case Number 0830018227 ' LUST 5102428707 8 N/A Chemical: Diesel State LUST: Cross Street: Not reported Oty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 0830018227 Reg Board: 8 Chemical: Diesel Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 0 Case Type: Other ground water affected Status: Case Closed Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 9/8/90 Prelim Assess: 9/6/90 Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 02/18/1993 Release Date: 03/23/1993 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: / / Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Warning/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes CDO and CAD) Enter Date: 03/30/1991 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported MTBE Date: / / Max MTBE GW : 0 Parts per Billion MTBE Tested: Not Required to be Tested. Priority: Not reported Local Case # : 90UT225 Beneficial: Not reported Staff : NOM GW Qualifier: Not reported Max MTBE Soil : Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported Hydr Basin #: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm : LOP Review Date: 03/23/1993 Stop Date : Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyLEVON GUGASIAN RP Address: 17 RIDGELINE DRIVE Global Id: TM5901362 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 0 TC1097960.3s Pagel l Ll I L I 1 17 L I 1 I [1 11 1 L j I 1 I I Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Databases) EPA ID Number DELANEYS (Continued) 5102428707 Mtbe Fuel: 0 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 12034 Cross Street: Not reported Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 90UT225 Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: NANCY OLSON MARTIN Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 30000L Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 9/6/90 Prelim Assess: 9/6/90 Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 02/18/1993 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: Not reported Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Warning/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes CDO and GAO) Enter Date : 03/30/1991 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim: Not reported Lat/Lon : 33.61 53253 / - 117.9272593 Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NRO Max MTBE GW : Not reported GW Qualifies: Not reported Max MTBE Soil : Not reported Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin k: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORA Operator : Not reported Oversight Prgm : LOP Priority: Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible Partyl-EVON GUGASIAN Well name: Not reported Distance From Lust: 17252.523408178507042604829191 Waste Disch Global Id: Not reported MTBE Class: Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported Case Type: Other Ground Water not used for drinking or no beneficial use Global ID: T0605901362 How Stopped Date: Organization Name: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 12 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site DELANEYS (Continued) Contact Person: RP Address: MTBE Concentration: MTBE Fuel: Case Number: Water System Name: Code Name: MAP FINDINGS Not reported 17 RIDGELINE DRIVE 0 0 083001822T Not reported ORANGE Agency Name: Not reported Priority: Not reported State Expalnation: CASE CLOSED Substance: DIESEL Staff: NANCY OLSON MARTIN Case Type: O Summary: Not reported LUST Region OR: Facility Id: 9OUT225 Site Number: R00002362 Region: ORANGE Case Type: Ground water Chemical: Diesel Date Closed: 02/18/1993 Current Status: 9 Facility Status: 02 EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5102428707 C9 CHMIRS 5105651022 NNW 634 LIDO PARK DR. N/A 1/4.1/2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 0 1456 ft. Site 3 of 3 In cluster C Relative: Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 97 -1899 Actual: Chemical Name: Diesel 13 ft. Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: Not reported Date Completed: Not reported Time Completed: Not reported Agency Id Number: Not reported Agency Incident Number: Not reported DES Incident Number: 97 -1699 Time Notified : Not reported Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : Not reported Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5 : Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries: 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities : 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated : Not reported Others Number Of Decontaminated : Not reported Others Number Of Injuries : Not reported Others Number Of Fatalities : Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 13 MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number (Continued) Map Direction Vehicle Makelyear : Distance Distance (ft.) Vehicle License Number: Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number ' TC1097960.3s Page 14 (Continued) 5105651022 Vehicle Makelyear : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUCACC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID : Not reported Report Date: Not reported ' Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Not reported Not reported Waterway Involved : Yes Waterway: Newport Harbor Spill Site: Cleanup By: Ship /Harbor /Port Let evaporate Containment: Yes What Happened: Found by deputies patroling area, a sheen about 50 yds by 50 yds. Will not be boomed, will let evaporate. Type: PETROLEUM Other : Not reported Chemical t : Not Reported Chemical 2 : Not Reported Chemical 3 : Not Reported Date/Time : 5/12/97 Evacuations : 0 10 CHMIRS 5105659654 NNW 151 SHIPYARD WAY, LIDO SHIPYARD N/A 1/4 -1/2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1494 k. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: 99 -4211 Chemical Name: oil substance Actual: Extent of Release: Not reported ' 12 ft. Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: Not reported Date Completed: Not reported Time Completed: Not reported ' Agency Id Number: Not reported Agency Incident Number: Not reported DES Incident Number: 99-0211 Time Notified: Not reported Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : Not reported ' Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : 0 ' Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated: 0 Not reported Others Number Of Decontaminated: Not reported Others Number Of Injuries : Not reported Others Number Of Fatalities: Not reported Vehicle Make /year : Not reported ' TC1097960.3s Page 14 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS I EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number , (Continued) 5105859659 Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported ' Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name, Not reported Reporting Officer Name /ID : Not reported ' Report Date: Not reported Comments: Not reported Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved: Not reported Yes Waterway: Newport Harbor Spill Site: Ship/Harbor /Port Cleanup By: Unknown Containment: No , What Happened : Sheen is 75 yards X 50 yards. Source and cause unknown. Rainbow sheen Ref DR #99 -46877 Type: PETROLEUM Other : Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported ' Chemical 2 : Not Reported Chemical 3 : Not Reported DataMme : 1014/99816 Evacuations : 0 ' 11 CHMIRS 5105644562 WNW 7270 NEWPORT BLVD N/A ' 1/4 -1/2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 0 1856 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: 15185 Chemical Name: Sanding dust Actual: Extent of Release: Not reported 10 ft. Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: Not reported Date Completed: Not reported Time Completed: Not reported Agency Id Number: Not reported Agency Incident Number: Not reported ' DES Incident Number: 15185 Time Notified : Not reported Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported ' Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : Not reported Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported , Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Special Studies 6: Not reported Not reported ' Responding Agency Personal N Of Injuries : NO Responding Agency Personel N Of Fatalities: NO Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated: Not reported Others Number Of Decontaminated : Not reported ' Others Number Of Injuries : Not reported Others Number Of Fatalities : Not reported Vehicle Makelyew : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported ' TC7097960.3s Page 15 1 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number (Continued) 5105644562 Vehicle State : Not reported ' Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC/ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID: Not reported Report Date: Not reported Comments: Not reported Facility Telephone Number : Not reported Waterway Involved : Not reported Waterway : newport harbor Spill Site: OTHER Cleanup By: dissipating ' Containment: What Happened: YES boat was sanded without protection of a plastic tarp at the southcoast boat yard. Type: OTHER Other: Not reported ' Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3: Not Reported Date/iime : 1224 17Aug96 Evacuations : NO 12 CHMIRS 5100276955 NNW 711 ILIDO PARK DRIVE N/A 1/4 -1/2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 2144 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Equal OES Control Number: 9100656 Chemical Name: Not reported Actual: Extent of Release: Not reported 6 ft. Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 02- SEP -91 ' Date Completed: 02- SEP -91 Time Completed: 2304 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 115362 ' OES Incident Number : 9100656 Time Notified : 1253 Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3 : Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5 : Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personel # Of Fatalities : 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated : Others Number Of Injuries : 0 0 Others Number Of Fatalities : 0 Vehicle Make /year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Vehicle State : Not reported Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 16 L Map ID II MAP FINDINGS Direction 4 Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number (Continued) 5100275955 Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CHMIRS S100221547 CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported , Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name /ID : B/C A.J. WAGNER Report Date: 07- OCT -91 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 6443103 Waterway Involved : Not reported 9099533 Waterway: Not reported Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported Not reported Containment: Not reported 15- SEP -90 What Happened : Type: Not reported Not reported ' Other: Not reported 910 Chemical 1 : Not Reported 300.55 Chemical 2 : Not Reported 017630 Chemical 3 : Not Reported ' Date/Time: Not reported 903 Evacuations: Not reported Not reported D13 CHMIRS S100221547 NW 2806 LAFAYETTE AVENUE WA 1/4 -1/2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 2334 ft. Site 1 of 3 I cluster D Relative: Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 9099533 Actual: Chemical Name: Not reported 7 ft. Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 15- SEP -90 Date Completed: 15- SEP -90 Time Completed : 910 Agency Id Number : 300.55 Agency Incident Number: 017630 DES Incident Number: 9099533 Time Notified: 903 Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: U More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2 : Not reported Special Studies 3 : Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5 : Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Injuries : 0 Others Number Of Fatalities: 0 Vehicle Make/year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State : Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 17 I I I I Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site (Continued) CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name /ID : A.J. WAGNER, BIC Report Date: 08- OCT -90 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 644 -3103 Waterway Involved : Not reported Waterway: Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported Containment: Not reported What Happened : Not reported Type: Not reported Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3 : Not Reported Date/Time : Not reported Evacuations: Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number S100221547 D14 NEWPORT PLATING FINDS CAD982360356 NW 2810 VILLA WAY 1/4 -1/2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NPL Status: 2360 R. Completed: 11/01/1987 Completed: Site 2 of 3 in cluster D Completed: Relative: Higher CERCLIS - NFRAP Classification Data: Location Code: Site Incident Categorylot reported Actual: Non NPL Code: NFRAP 7 ft. Ownership Status: Private ' CERCLIS - NFRAP Assessment History: Assessment: DISCOVERY Assessment: ARCHIVE SITE Assessment: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ' RCRIS: Owner: NOT REQUIRED (415) 555 -1212 EPA ID: CAD982360356 Contact: Not reported Classification: Small Quantity Generator TSDF Activities: Not reported Violation Status: No violations found EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number S100221547 ' FINDS: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information system (RCRAINFO) RCRIS -SOG 1000348895 76 FINDS CAD982360356 Type: CERGNFRAP CA SLIC Federal Facility: Not a Federal Facility NPL Status: Not on the NPL Completed: 11/01/1987 Completed: 04/27/1989 Completed: 04/27/1989 ' FINDS: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information system (RCRAINFO) TC1097960.3s Page 18 SLIC Region 8: Facility ID: 76 Type: Soil and Groundwater Region: 8 ' Facility Status: Lead Agency: Additional Characterization Underway Regional Board Cross Street: Not reported Sub Release: METALS Staff: Ann Sturdivant, Tel 909 - 782 -4904, LAND DISPOSAL Location Code: NB -11 TC1097960.3s Page 18 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS L! EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number , NEWPORT PLATING (Continued) 1000348895 Thomas Bros map( ?) ' Program: SLIC CAD Number: 87 -111 ACI- Number: Not reported Permit Number: Not reported Complexity: C Comments: CONTAMINANTS PRESENT: CYANIDE, CADMINUM, CHROMIUM, NICKEL, COPPER, AND ZINC. ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT WORK NEEDED D76 MC CULLOUGH FAMILY TRUST PROPERTY Orange Co. Industrial Site S101126353 NW 2810 VILLA Cortese WA 1/4.1/2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 2360 ft. CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: Site 3 of 3 In cluster D Chemical Name: Relative: Extent of Release: Not reported Higher CORTESE: Not reported Incident Date: Region: CORTESE Date Completed: Actual: Fac Address 2: Not reported Time Completed : 1247 7ft Industrial Site: 30055 Agency Incident Number: Case ID: 871C16 DES Incident Number: 9101124 Open Date: 04/11/88 Time Notified: 1149 Closed Date: 04121/94 Not reported Estimated Temperature: Haz Mat: Plating Waste-other metals/or combination of metals Property Management: Not reported Region: ORANGE 16 N/R MARINA PARTNERS Cortese 5101307823 NW 2809 NEWPORT BLVD N/A 1/4.1/2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 2601 ft. Relative: CORTESE: - Higher Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: 2809 NEWPORT BLVD Actual: 8 ft. Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: 2809 NEWPORT BLVD 17 CHMIRS S100277054 NNW 3010 LAFAYETTE AVENUE N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92883 26W ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: 9101124 Chemical Name: Not reported Actual: Extent of Release: Not reported 7 tL Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 16- DEC -91 Date Completed: 16- DEC -91 Time Completed : 1247 Agency M Number : 30055 Agency Incident Number: 121876 DES Incident Number: 9101124 Time Notified: 1149 Surrounding Area : Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported TC1097960.39 Page 19 Map ID MAP FINDINGS 1 Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number 1 Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number (Continued) 5100277054 More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported ' Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal R Or Injuries: 0 Responding Agency Personal R Or Fatalities: Resp Agncy Personal N Or Decontaminated : 0 0 Others Number Or Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Or Injuries: 0 Others Number Or Fatalities: Vehicle Make /year : 0 Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID: BIC A.J. WAGNER Report Date: 08- JAN -92 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 644 -3103 Waterway Involved : Not reported Waterway: Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By : Not reported Contammem : Not reported What Happened : Not reported Type : Not reported Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2 : Not Reported ' Chemical 3 : Daterrime : Not Reported Not reported Evacuations: Not reported 18 CHMIRS 5105660505 NW 2902 NEWPORT BLVD N/A 112 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 2962 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: 99 -3288 Chemical Name: glycol Actual: Extern of Release: Not reported ' 8 ft. Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: Not reported Date Completed: Not reported Time Completed: Not reported ' Agency Id Number: Not reported Agency Incident Number: Not reported DES Incident Number: 99 -3288 Time Notified : Surrounding Area: Not reported Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management : Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : Not reported Special Studies 1 : Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 20 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number I (Continued) 5195660595 Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3 : Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities : 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated : Not reported Others Number Of Decontaminated : Others Number Of Injuries: Not reported Not reported Others Number Of Fatalities: Not reported Vehicle Make/year: Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/[D: Not reported Report Date: Not reported Comments: Not reported Facility Telephone Number: Not reported Waterway Involved : Yes Waterway: Pacific Ocean ' Spill Site: Industrial Plant Cleanup By: Unknown Containment: Yes What Happened : Pump broke at Newport Brewing Co. Company employees attempted to flush substance down storm drains. Investigation ongoing Type: CHEMICAL Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical2 : Not Reported Chemical 3 : Not Reported Date(T-ime : 8/5199 936 , Evacuations: 0 E19 GERMAN AUTOS UST 0003784517 , NW 3000 NEWPORT BLVD LUST N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Cortese 3144 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster E Relative: Higher State LUST: Cross Street: 30TH STREET Actual: Qty Leaked: Not reported 91L Case Number 083001016T , Reg Board: B Chemical: Waste Oil Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 0 ' Case Type: Soil only Status: Case Closed Review Date: Not reported Workplan: 6/30/88 Confirm Leak: Not reported Prelim Assess: 6/30/88 Pollution Char: Not reported Famed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 08/05/1988 ' TC1097960.3s Page 21 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number GERMAN AUTOS (Continuetn 0003784517 Release Date: 08/31/1988 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: 06/30/1988 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Warning/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes CDO and CAO) Enter Date: 08/31/1988 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported MTBE Date: / / Max MTBE GW : 0 Parts per Billion MTBE Tested: Not Required to be Tested. Priority: Not reported Local Case N : 88UT124 Beneficial: Not reported Staff : PAH GW Qualifier: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported Hydr Basin N: Not reported Operator: VAN LINGEN, THEO Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm : LOP Review Date: 08/31/1988 Stop Date : Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyTHEO VAN LINGEN RP Address: 3000 NEWPORT BLVD Global Id: T0605900804 Ong Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 0 Mtbe Fuel: 0 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 12035 Cross Street: 30TH STREET Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: BBUT124 Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: PATRICIA HANNON Lead Agency: Local Agency Loral Agency: 300001 Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 6130/88 Prelim Assess: 6/30/88 Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported TC1097960.35 Page22 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site GERMAN AUTOS (Continued) Close Date: 08/05/1988 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date : 06/30/1988 Enforcement Dt : Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 0003784517 Enf Type: Waming/no8ce of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes COD and CAD) Enter Date: 08/31/1988 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Lat/Lon : 33.6150953 / - 117.9301324 Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NRO Max MTBE GW : Not reported GW Qualifies: Not reported Max MTBE Soil : Not reported Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin k: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORA Operator: VAN LINGEN, THEO Oversight Prgm : LOP Priority: Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyTHEO VAN LINGEN Well name: Not reported Distance From Lust: 18075.693990597731882785702694 Waste Disch Global Id: Not reported MTBE Class: Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported Case Type: Soil only Global ID: T0605900804 How Stopped Date: Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported RP Address: 3000 NEWPORT BLVD MTBE Concentration: 0 MTBE Fuel: 0 Case Number: 083001016T Water System Name: Not reported Code Name: ORANGE Agency Name: Not reported Priority: Not reported State Expalnation: CASE CLOSED Substance: WASTE OIL Staff: PATRICIA HANNON Case Type: S Summary: Not reported CORTESE: Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: 3000 NEWPORT BLVD State UST: Facility ID: 8183 Region: STATE f -j ` II I 1_a I `1 1 1 1 F I 1 I 1-1, TC1097960.3s Page 23 1 r 1 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site E20 NW 1/2 -1 3183 ft. Relative: Higher Actual: 9 ft. GERMAN AUTOS (Continued) Local Agency: 30000 UNOCAL #5310 3001 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Site 2 of 2 in cluster E EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 0003784517 LUST 5101589955 Cortese N/A CA FID UST State LUST: Cross Street: 30TH STREET Cry Leaked: Not reported Case Number OB3000431T Reg Board: 8 Chemical: Gasoline Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency : 0 Case Type: Other ground water affected Status: Remedial action (cleanup) Underway Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site, Remove Free Product - remove floating product from water table Review Date: 03/16/1989 Confirm Leak: 03/16/1989 Workplan: 3/2/89 Prelim Assess: 3/2/89 Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: 5/16196 Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: Not reported Release Date: 04/16/1999 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: 03/16/1989 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Warning/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes CDO and CAO) Enter Date : 06110/1989 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported MTBE Date: 02/27/1996 Max MTBE GW : 2600 Parts per Billion MTBE Tested: MTBE Detected. Site tested for MTBE & MTBE detected Priority: 18 Loral Case # : 89UT089 Beneficial: Not reported Staff : NOM GW Qualifier: _ Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported Hydr Basin #: Not reported Operator: EDWANISS Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm : LOP Review Date: 04/16/1999 Stop Date: Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyDAN CARRIER RP Address: 376 S VALENCIA AVENUE Global Id: T0605900346 TC1097960.3s Page 24 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site UNOCAL#5310 (Continued) Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 2 Mtbe Fuel: 1 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number , 5101588955 LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 8006619 Cross Street: 30TH STREET Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 89UT089 Facility Status: Remedial action (cleanup) Underway Staff: NANCY OLSON MARTIN Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 30000L Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site, Remove Free Product - remove floating product from water table Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: 3/16/89 Confirm Leak: 3/16/89 Workplan: 3089 Prelim Assess: 3/2189 Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: Not reported Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: 03/16/1989 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Warning/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes CDO and CAD) Enter Date: 06110 /1989 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Lat/Lon : 33.6150293 / - 117.9304954 Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Dale: 2/27196 MTBE Tested: YES Max MTBE GW : 2600 GW Qualifies: _ Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifies : Not reported Hydr Basin #: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORA Operator: ED WANISS Oversight Prgm : LOP Priority : Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PanyDAN CARRIER Well name: Not reported Distance From Lust: 18185.72299820426165046100394 Waste Disch Global Id: Not reported MTBE Class: C TC1097960.3s Page 25 I I I j I I I I I I I I J I I I Map ID II MAP FINDINGS Direction 4 Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 1 S101588955 CHMIRS S105654972 N/A 7C1097960.3s Page 26 UNOCALN5310 (Continued) Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported NW 3206 MARCUS STREET Case Type: Other Ground Water not used for drinking or no beneficial use Global ID: T0605900346 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 270 How Stopped Date: I I 3600 ft. Organization Name: Not reported Relative: Contact Person: Not reported ' RP Address: 376 S VALENCIA AVENUE DES Control Number: 98 -3591 MTBE Concentration: 2 Chemical Name: MTBE Fuel: 1 Case Number: 083000431T Actual: Water System Name: Not reported Not reported Code Name: ORANGE Property use: Incident Date: Not reported Not reported Agency Name: Not reported ' Priority: 1B State Expalnation: REMEDIAL ACTION UNDERWAY Not reported ' Substance: GASOLINE Agency Id Number: Agency Incident Number: Not reported Not reported Staff: NANCY OLSON MARTIN DES Incident Number: Case Type: O Summary: Not reported Not reported CORTESE: Surrounding Area : Not reported Region: CORTESE Estimated Temperature: Fac Address 2: Not reported Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: 3001 NEWPORT BLVD FID: Facility ID: 30000591 Regulate ID: Not reported Reg By: Active Underground Storage Tank Location Cortese Code: Not reported SIC Code: Not reported Status: Active Facility Tel: (714) 836 -8550 Mail To: Not reported 911 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 10 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 Contact: Not reported Contact Tel: Not reported DUNS No: Not reported NPDES No: Not reported Creation: 10/22/93 Modified: 00100100 EPA ID: Not reported Comments: Not reported 1 S101588955 CHMIRS S105654972 N/A 7C1097960.3s Page 26 21 NW 3206 MARCUS STREET 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 270 3600 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: ' Higher DES Control Number: 98 -3591 Chemical Name: Engine Oil MlXtore Actual: E)dent of Release: Not reported 5 ft. Property use: Incident Date: Not reported Not reported Date Completed: Not reported Time Completed: Not reported ' Agency Id Number: Agency Incident Number: Not reported Not reported DES Incident Number: 98 -3591 Time Notified : Not reported Surrounding Area : Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported 1 S101588955 CHMIRS S105654972 N/A 7C1097960.3s Page 26 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site ( Contlnued) Property Management: More Than Two Substances Involved? Special Studies 1 Special Studies 2 Special Studies 3: Special Studies 4: Special Studies 5 Special Studies 6 Responding Agency Personel # Of Injuries Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated Others Number Of Decontaminated: Others Number Of Injuries: Others Number Of Falsities Vehicle Make/year : Vehicle License Number: Vehicle State: Vehicle Id Number: CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Company Name: Reporting Officer Name /ID : Report Date: Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved: Waterway: Spill Site: Cleanup By: Containment: What Happened Type: Other: Chemical 1 Chemical 2 Chemical 3: Date/Time: Evacuations: 22 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA SEA NNE 1931 COAST 12-1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 3606 ft. Relative: CORTESE: Higher Region: CORTESE Fee Address 2: Not reported Actual: 22 n n MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number , 5105654972 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Yes Newport Harbor Ship/Harbor /Port Reporting Party Yes Vessel was sinking, allowed oil mixture to rise out of engine area. Contained with booms. PETROLEUM Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 6/7/96 0 Cortese 5102425585 WA i I I I LI H i I C] 1 TC1097960.3s Page 27 I Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number F23 NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL LUST 0001577422 NW 1/2 -1 3300 NEWPORT BLVD Cortese N/A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 HIST UST 3690 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster F Relative: Higher State LUST: Cross Street: Not reported Actual: Qty Leaked: Not reported 8 ft. Case Number 083000199T Reg Board: 8 Chemical: Gasoline Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 0 Case Type: Other ground water affected Status: Case Closed Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 8/9188 Prelim Assess: B/9/BB Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported ' Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported -- Close Date: 06/19/1991 Release Date: 07/05/1991 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: / / Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Warning/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes CDO and CAD) Enter Date : 12/31/1986 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported MTBE Date: / / Max MTBE GW : 0 Parts per Billion MTBE Tested: Site NOT Tested for MTBE.Includes Unknown and Not Analyzed. Priority: Not reported Local Case # : 88UT142 Beneficial: Not reported Staff : PAH GW Oualifier: Not reported Max MTBE Soil : Not reported Soil Oualifier: Not reported Hydr Basin #: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm : LOP ' Review Date: 07/05/1991 Stop Date: Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyDONALD SIMPSON RP Address: 3300 NEWPORT BLVD Global Id: T0605900150 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported ' MTBE Conc: 0 Mtbe Fuel: 1 r TC1097960.3s Page 28 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL (Cotlttnued) 0001577422 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 8006619 Cross Street: Not reported Regional Board: 08 Loral Case Num: BBUT142 Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: PATRICIA HANNON Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 30000L City Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 8/9/88 Prelim Assess: 8/9/88 Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 06 /19/1991 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: Not reported Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Waming/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes CDO and CAD) Enter Date: 12131/1986 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Lat/Lon : 33,6167772 / - 117.9301394 Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NT Max MTBE GW : Not reported GW Qualifies: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin #: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORA Operator : Not reported Oversight Prgm : LOP Priority: Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyDONALD SIMPSON Well name: Not reported Distance From Lust: 17826.997248729468713647525515 Waste Disch Global Id: Not reported MTBE Class: Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported Case Type: Other Ground Water not used for drinking or no beneficial use Global ID: T0605900150 How Stopped Date: / ! Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported TC1097960.35 Page 29 i NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL (Continued) Map Direction RP Address: 3300 NEWPORT BLVD MTBE Concentration: 0 Distance Distance (ft.) MTBE Fuel: 1 Elevation Site i MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number TC1097960.36 Page30 1 NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL (Continued) 0001577422 RP Address: 3300 NEWPORT BLVD MTBE Concentration: 0 MTBE Fuel: 1 Case Number: 083000199T ' Water System Name: Not reported Code Name: ORANGE Agency Name: Not reported Priority: Not reported State Expatriation: CASE CLOSED Substance: GASOLINE Staff: PATRICIA HANNON Case Type: O Summary: Not reported 1 CORTESE: Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: 3300 NEWPORT BLVD UST HIST: Facility ID: 57040 Facility Status: Not reported Total Tanks: 1 Region: STATE Owner Name: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Box Number: Not reported Owner Address: 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 - 8915 F24 CHMIRS S100276595 NW 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 3690 ft. Site 2 of 2 in cluster F Relative: Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Numbec 9100116 Actual: Chemical Name: Not reported 8 ft. Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 06- FEB -91 Date Completed: 06- FEB -91 Time Completed : 830 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number : 102238 DES Incident Number: 9100116 Time Notified : 801 Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personel# Of Injuries: 0 Responding Agency Personel # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personel # Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Injuries : 0 Others Number Of Fatalities: 0 ■ Vehicle Make/year : Not reported TC1097960.36 Page30 1 IJ Map ID Direction II MAP FINDINGS 4 Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number (Continued) S100276595 Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID: AJ WAGONER Report Date: 06- FEB -91 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved : 714 6443103 Not reported Waterway: Not reported Spill Site : Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported Containment: Not reported What Happened : Not reported Type: Not reported Other: Not reported Chemical l: Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3: Not Reported Date/Time : Not reported Evacuations: Not reported G25 CHMIRS S705661284 NNE 2101 WEST COAST HWY N/A 1/2.1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 3737 ft. She 1 of 2 in cluster G Relative: Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 99 -2472 Actual: Chemical Name: - Brown Liquid Substance 15 ft. Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: Not reported Date Completed: Not reported Time Completed: Not reported Agency Id Number: Not reported Agency Incident Number: Not reported , DES Incident Number: 99 -2472 Time Notified : Not reported Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management : Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : Not reported Special Studies 1 : Special Studies 2: Not reported Not reported ' Special Studies 3 : Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal N Of Injuries: 0 Responding Agency Personal R Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal p Of Decontaminated : Not reported Others Number Of Decontaminated : Not reported ' Others Number Of Injuries : Not reported Others Number Of Fatalifies : Not reported Vehicle Makelyear : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported ' TC11097960.3s Page 31 LI Map ID II MAP FINDINGS Direction 4 Distance Distance (ft.) EDR 1D Number ' Elevation She Database(s) EPA ID Number (Continued) 5105661284 Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CAIDOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name /ID : Not reported Report Date: Not reported Comments: Not reported Facility Telephone Number: Not reported Waterway Involved : Yes Waterway: storm drain Spill Site: Road Cleanup By: Newport Hazmat Containment: What Happened : Unknown Unknown type of brown liquid substance flowing at 100 gallons a minute. Unknown when flow began. Flowing into Lido Channel storm drain which flows to the ocean. Attempting to trace source of flow. Type : UNSPECIFIED Other : Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3 : Not Reported Dale/rime: 6/10/99851 Evacuations: 0 G26 CMMIRS S100221373 NNE 2101 W. COAST HWY N/A 112 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 3737 ft. I Site 2 of 2 In cluster G Relative: Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 9099353 Actual: Chemical Name: Not reported 15 tL Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 16- JUL -90 Date Completed: 16- JUL -90 Time Completed: 2117 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 013314 DES Incident Number: 9099353 Time Notified : 2020 Surrounding Arm: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported ' More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2 : Not reported ' Special Studies 3: Special Studies 4: Not reported Not reported Special Studies 5 : Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 0 Resp Agncy Personel # Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Injuries: 0 Others Number Of Fatalities : 0 ' TC1097960.3s Page 32 L1 Map ID u MAP FINDINGS I , Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number (Continued) 5100221373 Vehicle Make/year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported , Vehicle State: Not reported 1/2 -1 Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUGICC Number: Company Name: Not reported Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID : A.J. WAGNER B/C CHMIRS: Report Date : 10- OCT -90 Higher Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Yes 714 644 -3103 ' Waterway Involved: Not reported Gas /Oil Mix Waterway: Not reported Extent of Release: Spill Site: Not reported 14 ft. Cleanup By: Not reported Containment: Not reported Not reported What Happened : Not reported Date Completed: Type: Not reported Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Not reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Agency Incident Number: Chemical 3 : Not Reported Date/Time: Not reported Evacuations: Not reported Not reported 27 CHMIRS 5105653940 East 925 VIA I LIDO SOUD N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 270 3773 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: 98 -4703 Chemical Name: Gas /Oil Mix Actual: Extent of Release: Not reported 14 ft. Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: Not reported Date Completed: Not reported Time Completed: Not reported Agency Id Number: Not reported Agency Incident Number: Not reported DES Incident Number: 98 -4703 Time Notified: Not reported Surrounding Area : Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : Not reported Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2 : Not reported Special Studies 3 : Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5 : Special Studies 6: Not reported Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities : 0 Rasp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated : Others Number Of Decontaminated : Not reported Not reported Others Number Of Injuries: Not reported Others Number Of Fatalities: Not reported Vehicle Make/year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 33 I I I I I 1 I I 1 MAP FINDINGS 28 (Continued) NW Map 1/2 -1 Direction 3841 ft. Distance Relative: Distance (ft.) ' Elevation Site I I I I 1 I I 1 MAP FINDINGS 28 (Continued) NW Vehicle State: 1/2 -1 Vehicle Id Number: 3841 ft. CA/DOT/PUC /ICC Number Relative: Company Name: Higher Reporting Officer Name /ID Report Date Actual: Comments : 7 ft. Facility Telephone Number Waterway Involved Waterway: Spill Site: Cleanup By: Containment: What Happened: Type Other: Chemical 1 Chemical 2: Chemical 3: Date/ Time: Evacuations: I I I I 1 I I 1 MAP FINDINGS 28 NW 3300 MARCUS AVENUE 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 3841 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: Chemical Name: Actual: Extent of Release: 7 ft. Property Use: .. Incident Date: Date Completed: Time Completed: Agency Id Number Agency Incident Number: DES Incident Number: Time Notified: Surrounding Area: Estimated Temperature: Property Management: More Than Two Substances Involved? Special Studies 1 : Special Studies 2: Special Studies 3: Special Studies 4: Special Studies 5: Special Studies 6: Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries: Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities Resp Agncy Personel # Of Decontaminated: Others Number Of Decontaminated Others Number Of Injuries : Others Number Of Fatalities: Vehicle Make /year : Vehicle License Number: Vehicle State : Vehicle Id Number: Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Yes Newport Harbor Ship/Harbor /Port Reporting Party Yes Sunken boat. Area now boomed off PETROLEUM Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 10/16/96 9099260 Not reported Not reported Residential 10- JUN -90 10- JUN -90 921 30055 010529 9099260 826 400 Not reported Not reported N Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5105653940 CHMIRS 5100221280 WA ' TC1097960.3s Page34 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site (Continued) CA/DOT /PUCdCC Number Company Name: Reporting Officer Name /ID Report Date: Comments: Facility Telephone Number Waterway Involved Waterway: Spill Site: Cleanup By: Containment: What Happened Type : Other: Chemical 1 Chemical 2 Chemical 3: Date/Time : Evacuations: MAP FINDINGS Not reported Not reported A.J. WAGNER B/C 08- OCT -90 Yes 714 6443103 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not reported Not reported r-, EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number , S100221280 I 29 NEWPORT IMPORTS LUST S1012NSB1 NE 1200 COAST Cortese N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 3849 ft. Relative: State LUST: Cross Street: Not Higher reported City Leaked: Not reported Actual: Case Number 0830014327 17 R. Reg Board: B Chemical: Waste Oil Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 0 Case Type: Other ground water affected Status: Case Closed Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 2/7/90 Prelim Assess: 2/7/90 Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: 7/8/92 Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 06/09/1994 Release Date: 06/09/1994 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: 02/07/1990 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Warning/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes CDO and CAD) Enter Date : 02/11/1990 ' Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: How Stopped: Not reported Not reported Interim : Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: MTBE Date: Not reported / / Max MTBE GW : 0 Parts per Billion MTBE Tested: Not Required to be Tested. Priority: Local Case N : Not reported 90UT038 TC1097960.3s Page35 1 I Map ID II MAP FINDINGS Direction 4 Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number NEWPORT IMPORTS (Continued) S101299881 1 TC1097960.3s Page 36 Beneficial: Not reported Staff : CAB GW Qualifier: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported ' Hydr Basin #: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm : LOP ' Review Date: 06/09/1994 Stop Date: Work Suspended Not reported Responsible Partyl-EE WEST RP Address: 45 GOLETA POINT DR Global ld: T0605901085 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Cone: 0 Mtbe Fuel: 0 ' Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 12035 Cross Street: Not reported Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 9OUT038 Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: CARL BERHHARDT Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 30000L Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confine Leak: Not reported Workplan: 2/7/90 Prelim Assess: 2/7/90 Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported I Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 06/09/1994 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: 02/07/1990 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Warning/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes COO and CAD) Enter Date : 02/11 /1990 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Lat/Lon : 33.6163744 / -117.91416 Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NRQ Max MTBE GW : Not reported 1 1 TC1097960.3s Page 36 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site NEWPORT IMPORTS (Continued) MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Databass(s) EPA ID Number , 5101299881 GW Qualifies: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin N: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORA Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm : LOP ' Priority: Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible Partyl-EE WEST Well name: LPA REPORTED PRIMARY SOURCE ' Distance From Lust: 13583.381453047112716735319872 Waste Disch Global Id: W0608900228 MTBE Class: • Waste Disch Assigned Name: 4500228 -001 GEN ' Case Type: Other Ground Water not used for drinking or no beneficial use Global ID: T0605901085 How Stopped Date: Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported RP Address: 45 GOLETA POINT DR MTBE Concentration: 0 MTBE Fuel: 0 Case Number: 083001432T Water System Name: OUTPOST, THE Code Name: ORANGE Agency Name: Not reported Priority: Not reported State Expalnation: CASE CLOSED Substance: WASTE OIL Staff: CARL BERHHARDT Case Type: O Summary: Not reported LUST Region OR: Facility Id: 9OUT038 Site Number: RO0001781 ' Region: ORANGE Case Type: Ground water Chemical: Waste Oil Date Closed: 06 /09/1994 ' Current Status: 9 Facility Status: 02 CORTESE: Region: CORTESE , Fee Address 2: 1200 COAST HWY H30 CHMIRS 5700276777 ' NNW 3412 VIA OPORTO N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 3848 ft. Site 1 of 4 in Cluster H Relative: Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 9100463 Actual: Chemical Name: Not reported 7 fL Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 31- MAY -91 Date Completed: 01- JUN -91 ' TC1097960.3s Page 37 MAP FINDINGS (Continued) Map Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site ' Surrounding Area: MAP FINDINGS I i 31 NW 31333RD STREET 1/2.1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 3959 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: Chemical Name: Actual: Extent of Release: 9 ft. Property Use: Incident Date: Date Completed: Time Completed: Agency Id Number: 580 30055 9350 9100463 1841 Not reported Not reported Not reported N Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 8/C A.J. WAGNER 16- AUG -91 Yes 714 6443103 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not reported Not reported 9099261 Not reported Not reported Residential 11- JUN -90 11- JUN -90 850 30055 EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5100276777 CHMIRS 5100276340 N/A ' TC1097960.3s Page38 (Continued) Time Completed: Agency id Number: Agency Incident Number: DES Incident Number: Time Notified : ' Surrounding Area: Estimated Temperature: Property Management: ' More Than Two Substances Involved? Special Studies 1 : Special Studies 2: Special Studies 3: Special Studies 4: ' Special Studies 5 : Special Studies 6: Responding Agency Personel N Of Injuries Responding Agency Personal p Of Fatalities Resp Agncy Personal H Of Decontaminated Others Number Of Decontaminated: Others Number Of Injuries : Others Number Of Fatalities: Vehicle Make /year : ' Vehicle License Number: Vehicle State: Vehicle Id Number: CA/DOT /PUC/ICC Number: Company Name: Reporting Officer Name /ID : Report Date: Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved Waterway: Spill Site Cleanup By Containment: What Happened ' Type Other: Chemical 1 Chemical 2 Chemist 3 Date/Time Evacuations: I i 31 NW 31333RD STREET 1/2.1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 3959 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: Chemical Name: Actual: Extent of Release: 9 ft. Property Use: Incident Date: Date Completed: Time Completed: Agency Id Number: 580 30055 9350 9100463 1841 Not reported Not reported Not reported N Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 8/C A.J. WAGNER 16- AUG -91 Yes 714 6443103 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not reported Not reported 9099261 Not reported Not reported Residential 11- JUN -90 11- JUN -90 850 30055 EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5100276777 CHMIRS 5100276340 N/A ' TC1097960.3s Page38 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site (Continued) MAP FINDINGS Agency Incident Number: DES Incident Number: Time Notified : Surrounding Area: Estimated Temperature: Property Management: More Than Two Substances Involved? Special Studies 1 : Special Studies 2: Special Studies 3: Special Studies 4: Special Studies 5: Special Studies 6: Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated: Others Number Of Decontaminated Others Number Of Injuries : Others Number Of Fatalities Vehicle Make/year : Vehicle License Number: Vehicle State: Vehicle Id Number: CA/DOT /PUC/ICC Number: Company Name: Reporting Officer Name/ID : Report Date: Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved Waterway: Spill Site: Cleanup By: Containment: What Happened Type: Other: Chemical 1 Chemical 2: Chemical 3: Datefrime : Evacuations: 32 WORLD OIL SERVICE STATION NW 3401 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 3662 ft. Relative: CORTESE: Higher Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: Not reported Actual: 10 tt. 90- 010529 9099261 0 400 Not reported Not reported N Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported B/C A. WAGNER 11 JUL -90 Yes 714 644 -3103 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not reported Not reported i 1 EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number ' S100276340 Cortese S101609672 CA FID UST N/A TC1097960.3s Page 39 I J CI L I [_1 I I, u I I I I Map ID MAP FINDINGS ' Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number WORLD OIL SERVICE STATION (Continued) 5101609672 FID: Facility ID: 30001002 Regulate ID: Not reported Reg By: Active Underground Storage Tank Location Cortese Code: Not reported SIC Code: Not reported Status: Active Facility Tel: (714) 6753962 ' Mail To: Not reported ATTN: GIL JUAREZ 930 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Contact: Not reported Contact Tel: Not reported ' DUNS No: Not reported NPDES No: Not reported Creation: 10/22/93 Modified: 00 /00 /00 EPA ID: Not reported ' Comments: Not reported H33 CHMIRS 5105670012 NNW 3366 VIA LIDO N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 0 3872 ft. Site 2 of 4 In cluster H ' Relative: Higher CHMIRS: OES Control Number: 01 -7204 Actual: Chemical Name: Unk. Oil 8 ft. Extant of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: Not reported Date Completed: Not reported Time Completed: Not reported Agency Id Number: Not reported ' Agency Incident Number: Not reported OES Incident Number: 01 -7204 Time Notified : Not reported Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : Not reported Special Studies 1 : Special Studies 2: Not reported Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5 : Not reported Special Studies 6 : Not reported Responding Agency Personel # Of Injuries: 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personel # Of Decontaminated : Not reported Others Number Of Decontaminated: Not reported Others Number Of Injuries : Not reported Others Number Of Fatalities: Not reported Vehicle Make/year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State : Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID: Not reported Report Date: Not reported Comments: Not reported Facility Telephone Number: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 40 ' I Map ID Direction II 4 MAP FINDINGS I ' Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number (Continued) 5105670012 Waterway Involved : Yes Waterway : Newport Bay Spill Site: Ship/Harbor /Port Cleanup By: Unknown Containment: What Happened : Unknown The caller is reporting an unknown sheen on the water. , Cause is unknown. The sheen is located around a vessel that had been in the process of having ft's bilges steam cleaned. The company states there was no oil in the machine. Absorbents applied , Type: UNSPECIFIED Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3: Not Reported ' Date/Time: 12/13/01 1300 Evacuations: 0 H34 CHMIRS S100276469 NNW 3432 VIA OPORTO N/A 112 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 3902 ft. , She 3 014 in cluster H Relative' Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 9099628 Actual: Chemical Name: Not reported 7 ft. Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: 099 Incident Date: 16- OCT -90 Date Completed: 16- OCT -90 ' Time Completed: 1420 Agency Id Number : 30055 Agency Incident Number: UNKNOWN DES Incident Number: 909962B Time Notified : 1245 Surrounding Area: 942 Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported ' More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : Not reported 0 Responding Agency Personal H Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Injuries: 0 ' Others Number Of Fatalities: 0 Vehicle Make /year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported ' Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name /ID : B/C AJ WAGNER TC1097960.3s Page41 1 (Continued) Map ID ' Direction 3450 VIA OPORTO Distance Yes Distance (ft.) ' Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number S100276469 (Continued) CHMIRS S100221530 Report Date: 16- OCT -90 3450 VIA OPORTO Comments: Yes 112 -1 Facility Telephone Number: 714 6443103 Waterway Involved : Not reported Waterway: Not reported t Spill Site: Not reported Relative: Cleanup By: Not reported Containment: Not reported What Happened: Not reported DES Control Number: Chemical Name: Type: Not reported 7 ft. Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported ' Chemical 2: Chemical 3 : Not Reported Not Reported Incident Date: Date/Time: Not reported Evacuations: Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number S100276469 ' TC1097960.3s Page 42 H35 CHMIRS S100221530 NNW 3450 VIA OPORTO N/A 112 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 3964 ft. She 4 of 4 I cluster H Relative: Higher CHMIRS: Actual: DES Control Number: Chemical Name: 9099516 Not reported 7 ft. Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 08- SEP -90 Date Completed: 09- SEP -90 ' Time Completed: 1225 Agency Id Number: - 30055 Agency Incident Number: 017188 DES Incident Number : 9099516 Time Notified : 825 Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature : Not reported Property Management: S ' More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5 : Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : 0 ' Responding Agency Personel # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Injuries: Others Number Of Fatalities: 0 0 Vehicle Make /year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Vehicle Id Number : Not reported Not reported CWDOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name /ID : Report Date: A.J. WAGNER B/C 08- OCT -90 ' ' TC1097960.3s Page 42 I Map ID II MAP FINDINGS I ' Direction 4 Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number ' (Continued) S100221530 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 6443103 , Waterway involved: Not reported Waterway: Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported ' Containment: Not reported What Happened: Not reported Type: Not reported Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3: Date/Time : Not Reported Not reported Evacuations: Not reported 136 CHMIRS S105660331 NNW 3500 NEWPORT BLVD, LIDO PUMP STATION N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 4057 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster I Relative: Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 933464 Actual: Chemical Name: sewage 10 ft. Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: Not reported Date Completed: Not reported Time Completed : Not reported , Agency Id Number: Not reported Agency Incident Number: Not reported DES Incident Number: 99 -3464 Time Notified : Not reported Surrounding Arm: Not reported ' Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : Not reported Special Studies 1 : Not reported ' Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported ' Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated: Not reported , Others Number Of Decontaminated: Not reported Others Number Of Injuries: Not reported Others Number Of Fatalities: Not reported Vehicle Maketyear : Not reported ' Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State : Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID : Not reported Report Date : Comments: Not reported Not reported TC7097960.3s Page43 , 1 (Continued) Cross Street: Map Oty Leaked: Direction Case Number Distance Reg Board: Distance (ft.) Chemical: Elevation Site CHEVRON #9.7100 3531 NEWPORT BLVD W NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Site 2 of 2 In cluster I MAP FINDINGS ., EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5105660331 Not reported No Not reported Treatment/Sewage Facility Reporting Party Yes Contained in a construction pit, spill was caused by a power outage at a pumping station. Spill has been cleaned up. SEWAGE Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 8/18/99 530 0 LUST 5104760689 Cortese WA State LUST: (Continued) Cross Street: Facility Telephone Number Oty Leaked: Waterway Involved Case Number Waterway: Reg Board: Spill Site: Chemical: Cleanup By: Lead Agency: Containment: Local Agency: What Happened Case Type: Type: 1 Other: 1 Chemical 1 Chemical 2: ' Chemical 3 Date/Time Workplan: Evacuations CHEVRON #9.7100 3531 NEWPORT BLVD W NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Site 2 of 2 In cluster I MAP FINDINGS ., EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5105660331 Not reported No Not reported Treatment/Sewage Facility Reporting Party Yes Contained in a construction pit, spill was caused by a power outage at a pumping station. Spill has been cleaned up. SEWAGE Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 8/18/99 530 0 LUST 5104760689 Cortese WA State LUST: Cross Street: NNW Oty Leaked: 1/2 -1 Case Number 4082 n. Reg Board: Relative: Chemical: Higher Lead Agency: Actual: 11 n. Local Agency: 0 Case Type: Other ground water affected 1 Case Closed 1 Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 2/5/85 Prelim Assess: 2/5/85 Pollution Char: Not reported Rented Plan: Not reported Rented Action: 11/1/91 Monitoring: Not reported CHEVRON #9.7100 3531 NEWPORT BLVD W NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Site 2 of 2 In cluster I MAP FINDINGS ., EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5105660331 Not reported No Not reported Treatment/Sewage Facility Reporting Party Yes Contained in a construction pit, spill was caused by a power outage at a pumping station. Spill has been cleaned up. SEWAGE Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 8/18/99 530 0 LUST 5104760689 Cortese WA State LUST: Cross Street: SHORT Oty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 083000104T Reg Board: 8 Chemical: 80066191203 Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 0 Case Type: Other ground water affected Status: Case Closed Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 2/5/85 Prelim Assess: 2/5/85 Pollution Char: Not reported Rented Plan: Not reported Rented Action: 11/1/91 Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 08/13/2001 Release Date: Not reported Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: / / Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Consent order /enforceable agreement to cooperative responsible parties (includes CAD) Enter Date : 05/12/1987 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported MTBE Date: 09/22/1999 Max MTBE GW : 50 Parts per Billion MTBE Tested: MTBE Detected. Site tested for MTBE & MTBE detected Priority: 2B Local Case #: 85UT010 Beneficial: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 44 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number CHEVRON #9 -7100 (Continued) 5104760699 Staff: THE GW Qualifier: _ Max MTBE Soil: 0.26 Parts per Million Soil Qualifier: _ Hydr Basin #: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm : LOP Review Date: Not reported Stop Date: TOM MBEKE - EKANEM Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyLlSA THOMPSON RP Address: PO BOX 1768 Global Id: T0605900081 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Cone: 3 M1be Fuel: 0 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 8006619,1203 Cross Street: SHORT Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 85UT010 Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: TOM MBEKE - EKANEM Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 3O00OL Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 215/85 Prelim Assess: 2/5/85 Pollution Char: Not reported Rented Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 08/13/2001 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: Not reported Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Consent order /enforceable agreement to cooperative responsible parties (includes CAD) Enter Date: 05/1211987 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Lat/Lon : 33.6184712 / - 117.9303944 Leak Cause: Notreported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: 3/9/98 MTBE Tested: YES TC1097960.3s Page45 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 11 I 1 I I I Map ID II MAP FINDINGS Direction 4 Distance Distance (ft.) ' Elevation Site EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 1 1 38 CHEVRON #9 -7100 (Continued) North Max MTBE GW : 1400 ' GW Qualifies: 4160 ft. Max MTBE Soil : .26 12 ft. Soil Qualifies: _ Hydr Basin #: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORA ' Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm : LOP Priority: Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible Partyl-ISA THOMPSON Well name: Not reported Distance From Lust: 17664.651807979460182551826167 Waste Disch Global Id: Not reported ' MTBE Class: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported Case Type: Other Ground Water not used for drinking or no beneficial use Global ID: T0605900081 How Stopped Date: Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported ' RP Address: PO BOX 1768 MTBE Concentration: 3 MTBE Fuel: 0 Case Number: 083000104T Water System Name: Not reported Code Name: ORANGE Agency Name: Not reported Priority: 213 State Expalnation: CASE CLOSED Substance: Not reported ' Staff: TOM MBEKE - EKANEM Case Type: O Summary: Not reported CORTESE: Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: 3531 NEWPORT BLVD 1 1 38 PORTCALYPSO North 2633 COAST 14-1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 4160 ft. Case Number Relative: State LUST: Higher Cross Street: Qty Leaked: Actual: Case Number 12 ft. Reg Board: Chemical: Lead Agency: Local Agency: Case Type: Status: Review Date: Workplan: Pollution Char: Remed Action: Monitoring: Close Date: TUSTIN Not reported 093002745T 8 80066191203 Local Agency 0 Other ground water affected Case Closed Not reported 5/30/95 Not reported Not reported Not reported 06/11/1996 Confirm Leak: Not reported Prelim Assess: 5/30/95 Remed Plan: Not reported 5104760689 LUST 5102435380 Cortese N/A ' TC1097960.3s Page 46 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS I 1 EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number ' PORT CALYPSO (Continued) 5102435380 Release Date: 08/09/1996 Cleanup Fund Id: Not reported , Discover Date: 05/30/1995 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Ent Type: Warning/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes CDO and CAD) Enter Date : 12115/1995 , Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported , Interim : Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: ' Not reported MTBE Date: / / ' Max MTBE GW : 0 Parts per Billion MTBE Tested: Not Required to be Tested. Priority: 2A Local Case # : 95UT037 ' Beneficial: Not reported Staff : CAB GW Oualifier: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported ' Hydr Basin #: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm : LOP ' Review Date: 08/09/1996 Stop Date : Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyJUDY MILLS,ASSET MANAGER ' RP Address: 2429 W COAST HWY 207 Global Id: T0605901894 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported ' MTBE Conc: 0 Mtbe Fuel: 0 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported ' Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported LUST Region 8: ' Region: 8 Substance: 8006619.1203 Cross Street: TUSTIN Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 95UT037 , Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: CARL BERHHARDT Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 30000L , Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 5/30/95 Prelim Assess: 5/30/95 , Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 47 ' I PORT CALYPSO (Continued) MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5102435360 Map ID ' Direction Distance Distance (ft.) ' Elevation Site PORT CALYPSO (Continued) MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5102435360 I 1 TC1097960.3s Page 48 Close Date: 06/11/1996 ' Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: 05/30/1995 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Ent Type: Warning/notioe of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes CDO and CAD) Enter Date : 12/15/1995 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Lat/Lon : 33.6195442 / - 117.9230942 Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported ' MTBE Tested: NRQ Max MTBE GW : Not reported GW Qualities: Not reported Max MTBE Soil : Not reported Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin #: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORA Operator : Not reported Oversight Prgm : LOP Priority : Not reported Work Suspended Not reported t Responsible PartyJUDY MILLSAASSET MANAGER Well name: LPA REPORTED PRIMARY SOURCE Distance From Lust: 15464.479607458622353594534689 Waste Disch Global Id: W0608900228 ' MTBE Class: Waste Disch Assigned Name: 4500228 -001 GEN Case Type: Other Ground Water not used for drinking or no beneficial use Global ID: T0605901894 ' How Stopped Date: Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported RP Address: 2429 W COAST HWY 207 ' MTBE Concentration: 0 MTBE Fuel: 0 Case Number: 083002745T Water System Name: OUTPOST. THE ' Code Name: ORANGE Agency Name: Not reported Priority: 2A State Expalnation: CASE CLOSED Substance: Not reported Staff: CARL BERHHARDT Case Type: O Summary: Not reported 1 I 1 TC1097960.3s Page 48 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation She PORT CALYPSO (Continued) LUST Region OR: CHMIRS S100276654 Facility Id: 95UT037 She Number: R00001888 Regan: ORANGE Case Type: Ground water Chemical: Diesel Date Closed: 06/11 /1996 Current Status: 9 Facility Status: 02 Facility Id: She Number: Region: Case Type: Chemical: Date Closed: Current Status Facility Status: CORTESE: Region: Fac Address 2 95UT037 R00001888 ORANGE Ground water Gasoline 06/11/1996 9 02 CORTESE 2633 COAST HWY 1 1 EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number ' S102435380 1 1 39 CHMIRS S100276654 NW 3531 NEWPORT BLVOJSHORT STREET N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 4232 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: 9100225 Chemical Name: Not reported Actual: Extent of Release: - Not reported 9 ft. Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 18- MAR -91 Date Completed: 18- MAR -91 Time Completed: 1600 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 104774 DES Incident Number: 9100225 Time Notified: 1535 Surrounding Area : Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries: 0 Responding Agency Personel # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Injuries: 0 Others Number Of Fatalities: 0 Vehicle Make/year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 49 1 1 1 1 LJ Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation She Database(s) EPA ID Number (Continued) 5100276654 Vehicle Id Number : Not reported CA(DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID : A.J. WAGNER Report Date : 18- JUN -92 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 6443103 Waterway Involved : Not reported Waterway: Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported Containment: Not reported What Happened : Not reported Type: Not reported Other : Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3: Not Reported Date(fime : Not reported Evacuations: Not reported 40 CALTRANS Cortese 5103696023 NNW 3600 NEWPORT BLVD N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 4263 ft. Relative: CORTESE: Higher Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: 3600 NEWPORT BLVD Actual: 12 ft. J41 CHEVRON M9 -9706 Cortese 5104791741 North 2801 N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 4359 ft. Site 1 of 2 In cluster J Relative: Higher CORTESE, Region: CORTESE Actual: Fac Address 2: Not reported 12 IL Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: Not reported Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: Not reported Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: Not reported TC1097960.35 Page 50 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site CHEVRON !19.9706 (Continued) 1 EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number , 5104791741 J42 CHMIRS 5100221082 North 2751 WEST COAST HWY N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 4413 ft. Site 2 of 2 in cluster J Relative. Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 9096032 Actual: Chemical Name: Not reported 12 fL Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Mercantile, Business Incident Date: 02 -MAR -90 Date Completed: 02 -MAR -90 Time Completed: 1618 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 903905 DES Incident Number: 9098032 Time Notified : 1207 Surrounding Area: 500 Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management : Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2' Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personel k Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personel k Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal H Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Injuries: 0 Others Number Of Fatalities: 0 Vehicle Make/yew: Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State : Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID : B/C A. WAGNER Report Date: 11 -MAY -90 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 6443103 Waterway Involved: Not reported Waterway : Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported Containment: Not reported What Happened: Not reported Type: Not reported Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3: Not Reported Date/rime: Not reported Evacuations: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 51 I 1 1 1 7 iJ 1 [J 1 u I I I �1 I I I C C 1] I Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site (Continued) MAP FINDINGS 43 ESE 7TH STREET/ WEST BALBOA 1/2.1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 4449 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: Chemical Name: Actual: 6dent of Release: 9 ft. Property Use: Incident Date: Date Completed: Time Completed: Agency Id Number: Agency Incident Number: DES Incident Number: Time Notified : Surrounding Area: Estimated Temperature Property Management: More Than Two Substances Involved? Special Studies 1 : Special Studies 2: Special Studies 3: Special Studies 4: Special Studies 5: Special Studies 6: Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries: Responding Agency Personal # Or Fatalities Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated Others Number Or Decontaminated Others Number Of Injuries: Others Number Of Fatalities: Vehicle Makelyear : Vehicle License Number: Vehicle State: Vehicle Id Number: CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Company Name: Reporting Officer Name /ID : Report Date: Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved: Waterway: Spill Site: Cleanup By: Containment: What Happened Type: Other: Chemical 1 Chemical 2: Chemical 3: Date rime : Evacuations: 9100509 Not reported Not reported Not reported 06-JUN-91 O6- JUN -91 1330 30055 109665 9100509 1451 Not reported Not reported Not reported N Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported B/C A.J. WAGNER 07- OCT -91 Yes 714 6443103 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not reported Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5100221082 CHMIRS 5100276786 WA ' TC1097960.3s Page 52 Map ID II MAP FINDINGS I ' Direction 4 Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number ' 3199 PARK CENTER (Continued) 1/2 -1 S100276786 44 CHMIRS S100276859 North 3199 PARK CENTER N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92863 4521 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: 9100640 Chemical Name: Not reported Actual: Extent of Release: Not reported 69 ft. Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 24- JUL -91 Date Completed: 24-JUL-91 Time Completed: 1546 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 112865 DES Incident Number: 9100640 Time Notified: 1530 Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2 : Not reported Special Studies 3 : Not reported Special Studies 4 : Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal N Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personal N Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personel p Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Recontarninated : 0 Others Number Of Injuries: 0 Others Number Of Fatalities: 0 Vehicle Makelyear : Not reported Vehicle license Number: Not reported Vehicle State : Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT/PUC/ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID : B/C A.J. WAGNER Report Date: 07- OCT -91 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 6443103 Waterway Involved : Not reported Waterway: Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported Containment: Not reported What Happened : Not reported Type: Not reported Other : Not reported Chemical i : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3 : Not Reported Date/Time : Not reported Evacuations: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 53 I J 1 F 1 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number TC1097960.3s Page 54 (Continued) 5100276859 K45 CHMIRS S105646828 North 3101 WEST COAST HWY. N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 0 4650 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster K Relative: Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 12743 Actual: Chemical Name: gasoline and oil 12 ft. Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: Not reported Date Completed: Not reported Time Completed : Not reported Agency Id Number: Not reported Agency Incident Number: Not reported DES Incident Number: 12743 Time Notified : Not reported Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature : Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : Not reported Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2 : Not reported Special Studies 3 : Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6 : Not reported Responding Agency Personal N Of Injuries : NO Responding Agency Personal N Of Fatalities: NO Resp Agncy Personal N Of Decontaminated: Not reported Others Number Of Decontaminated : Not reported Others Number Of Injuries : Not reported Others Number Of Fatalities: Not reported Vehicle Make /year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State : Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUCACC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name /ID : Not reported Report Date: Not reported Comments: Not reported Facility Telephone Number: Not reported Waterway Involved : YES Waterway: newport harbor Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By: commercial company contracted. Containment: YES What Happened : source of leak was a sunken 26 ft. power boat. boomed all by 100 ft. boom to contain. will be a clean up tomorrow a.m. Type: PETROLEUM Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical2 : Not Reported Chemical 3 : Not Reported Date/rims: 1436/12 Mar 96 TC1097960.3s Page 54 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation She (Continued) Evacuations: MAP FINDINGS NO K46 DOUD COMMERCIAL OFFICE BL NNW North 3100 COAST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 4788 ft. 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Reg Board: 4718 ft. Chemical: Lead Agency: Site 2 Of 2 in cluster K Case Type: Relative' Status: Abate Method: Higher CORTESE: Workplan: Region: CORTESE Remed Action: Actual: Fee Address 2: Not reported Close Date: 12 ♦. FID: Facility ID: 30008696 Regulate ID: Reg By: Active Underground Storage Tank Location Cortese Code: Not reported SIC Code: Status: Active Facility Tel: Mail To: Not reported 3100 W COAST HWY NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92663 Contact: Not reported Contact Tel: DUNS No: Not reported NPDES No: Creation: 10/22/93 Modified: EPA ID: Not reported Comments: Not reported L47 JERRY'S MARINE FUEL (FORM NNW 3333 COAST 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 4786 ft. Relative: Higher Actual: 16 ft. She 1 of 2 in cluster L CORTESE: Region: Fac Address 2: 48 NEWPORT ARCHES MARINA NNW 12 BALBOA COVES 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 4788 ft. Case Number Relative: State LUST: Higher Cross Street: Oty Leaked: Actual: Case Number 15 ft. Reg Board: Chemical: Lead Agency: Local Agency : Case Type: Status: Abate Method: Review Date: Workplan: Pollution Char: Remed Action: Monitoring: Close Date: CORTESE Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number S105646828 Cortese S101631434 CA RD UST N/A Not reported Not reported (714) 722 -4100 Not reported Not reported 00ro0/00 FINLEY Not reported 083000034T 8 Gasoline Regional Board 0 Other ground water affected Case Closed No Action Required - incident is minor, requiring no remedial action Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Notreported Not reported 04/09/1985 Cortese 5103943579 WA LUST 5102434351 ' Cortese WA TC1097960.3s Page 55 11 I] Ll 1 I [1 [1 NEWPORT ARCHES MARINA (Continued) MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number Release Date: Map Cleanup Fund Id Direction Discover Date: Distance Enforcement Dt : Distance (ft.) ' Elevation Site 1 I [1 [1 NEWPORT ARCHES MARINA (Continued) MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number Release Date: 03/03/1982 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: / / Enforcement Dt : Not reported Ent Type: Not reported Enter Date : 05/19/1987 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: Not reported How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported MTBE Date: / / Max MTBE GW : 0 Parts per Billion MTBE Tested: Site NOT Tested for MTBE.Includes Unknown and Not Analyzed. Priority: Not reported Local Case k : Not reported Beneficial: Not reported Staff : PAH GW Qualifier : Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported Hydr Basin #: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm: RB Lead Underground Storage Tank Oversight Prgm : UST Review Date: 07/05/1988 Stop Date: Work Suspended Not reported Responsible Par yCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RP Address: 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Global ld: T0605900028 Ong Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 0 Mtbe Fuel: 1 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 6006619 Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: Not reported Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: PATRICIA HANNON Lead Agency: Regional Board Local Agency: Not reported Abate Method: No Action Required Oty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Workplan: Not reported Pollution Char: Not reported Cross Street: FINLEY incident is minor, requiring no remedial action Confirm Leak: Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported 5102434351 ' TC1097960.3s Page 56 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site NEWPORT ARCHES MARINA (Continued) MAP FINDINGS Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Close Date: 04/09/1985 Cleanup Fund Id :Not reported Discover Date: Not reported Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Not reported Enter Date: 05/19/1987 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: Not reported How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Lat/Lon: 33.621032/- 117.9355165 Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NT Max MTBE GW : Not reported GW Qualifies: Not reported Max MTBE Soil : Not reported Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin #: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORA Operator : Not reported Oversight Prgm : UST Priority: Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Well name: Not reported Distance From Lust: 18828.77566174339513154052381 Waste Disch Global Id: Not reported MTBE Class: Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported 1 1 EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number ' S102434351 Not reported Case Type: Other Ground Water not used for drinking or no beneficial use Global ID: T0605900028 How Stopped Date: Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported RP Address: 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MTBE Concentration: 0 MTBE Fuel: 1 Case Number: 0830DO034T Water System Name: Not reported Code Name: ORANGE Agency Name: Not reported Priority: Not reported State Expalnation: CASE CLOSED Substance: GASOLINE Staff: PATRICIA HANNON Case Type: O Summary: NO SOIL OR GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION. CONTAMINANT WAS ENTERING THE BAY FROM MARINA. CORTESE: Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: 12 BALBOA COVES TC1097960.3s Page 57 L. I 1 1 1 1 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation She Database(s) EPA ID Number NEWPORT ARCHES MARINA (Continued) S102434351 L49 CHMIRS S100221130 NNW 3300 W. COAST HWY N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA ' 48591E Site 2 of 2 in cluster L Relative: Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 9099110 Actual: Chemical Name: Not reported 17 ft. Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Mercantile, Business Incident Date: 06- APR -90 ' Date Completed: 06 -APR -90 Time Completed: 2052 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 90- 006319 ' DES Incident Number : 9099110 Time Notified : 1748 Surrounding Area: 500 Estimated Temperature: Not reported ' Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported ' Special Studies 2 : Special Studies 3, Not reported Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries: 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Injuries: 0 Others Number Of Fatalities: 0 Vehicle Make/year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC/ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name /ID : B/C A. WAGNER Report Date: 11- MAY -90 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 6443103 Waterway Involved : Not reported ' Waterway : Not reported Spill Site : Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported ' Containment : What Happened : Not reported Not reported Type: Not reported Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Chemical 2: Not Reported Not Reported Chemical 3 : Not Reported Datelrime : Not reported ' Evacuations : Not reported ' TC1097960.3s Page 58 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft) Elevation Site (Continued) 50 ENE 2702 BAYSHORE DRIVE 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 4669 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher OES Control Number: Chemical Name: Actual: Extent of Release: 7 ft. Property Use: incident Date: Date Completed: Time Completed: Agency Id Number: Agency Incident Number: OES Incident Number: Time Notified: Surrounding Area; Estimated Temperature: Property Management : More Than Two Substances Involved? Special Studies 1 : Special Studies 2: Special Studies 3, Special Studies 4: Special Studies 5: Special Studies 6: Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated: Others Number Of Dewntaminated Others Number Of Injuries: Others Number Of Fatalities: Vehicle Maketyear : Vehicle license Number: Vehicle State: Vehicle Id Number: CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Company Name: Reporting Officer Name/ID : Report Date: Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved Waterway: Spill Site: Cleanup By: Containment: What Happened Type: Other: Chemical 1 Chemical 2: Chemical 3: Datelfime : Evacuations: EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number ' S100221130 CHMIRS S105631ON NIA 27060 DIESEL Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 27060 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported THE BOAT WILL BE RAISED TOMMORROW Not reported BOAT SANK AT SLIP BEHIND RESIDENCE. HARBOR PATROL RESPONDED AND PUT A BOOMED AROUND PETROLEUM Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 1630 UNKNOWN TC1097960.35 Page59 L� ' Map ID II MAP FINDINGS Direction 4 Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number ' Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number (Continued) S105631685 ' TC1097960.3s Page 60 M51 CHMIRS S100276694 East 503 EAST EDGEWATER WA 1/2.1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ' 5137 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster M Relative: Equal CHMIRS: OES Control Number: 97 -2541 ' Actual: Chemical Name: motor oil 6 ft. E)dent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: Not reported ' Dale Completed: Not reported Time Completed: Not reported Agency Id Number: Not reported Agency Incident Number: Not reported OES Incident Number: 97 -2541 Time Notified : Not reported Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature : Not reported t Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : Not reported Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2 : Not reported Special Studies 3 : Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5 : Not reported Special Studies 6 : Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : Not reported 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated : Not reported Others Number Of Decontaminated : Not reported ' Others Number Of Injuries : Not reported Others Number Of Fatalities : Not reported Vehicle Makelyear : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported ' Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC/ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID: Not reported Report Dale: Not reported Comments: Not reported Facility Telephone Number: Not reported Waterway Involved : Yes ' Waterway: Newport Harbor Spill Site: Ship/Harbor /Port Cleanup By: Unknown Containment: No What Happened: undetermined Type: PETROLEUM Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported ' Chemical 2 : Not Reported Chemical 3 : Not Reported Date/rime: 6/26/97 Evacuations : 0 ' TC1097960.3s Page 60 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site (Continued) DES Control Number: Chemical Name: Extent of Release: Property Use: Incident Date: Date Completed: Time Completed: Agency Id Number: Agency Incident Number: DES Incident Number: Time Notified : Surrounding Area: Estimated Temperature: Property Management: More Than Two Substances Involved? Special Studies 1 Special Studies 2 Special Studies 3 Special Studies 4 Special Studies 5: Special Studies 6: Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated Others Number Of Decontaminated Others Number Of Injuries : Others Number Of Fatalities: Vehicle Make/year : Vehicle License Number: Vehicle Stale: Vehicle Id Number: CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Company Name: Reporting Officer Name/ID : Report Date: Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved: Waterway: Spill Site: Cleanup By: Containment: What Happened Type Other: Chemical 1 Chemical 2: Chemical 3 DateTme : Evacuations: MAP FINDINGS 9100320 Not reported Not reported Not reported 09- APR -91 09- APR -91 0 30055 106148 9100320 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported N Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported A.J. WAGONER 21-JUN-91 Yes 714 644.3103 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not reported Not reported t EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number ' 5700276694 1 TC1097960.3s Page 6[ ' I EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number CHMIRS 5700278968 Cortese N/A TC1097960.3s Page62 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) ' Elevation Site M52 East 1/2 -1 503 EDGEWATER NEWPDRT BEACH, CA 92627 5137 ft. Site 2 of 2 In cluster M Relative: Equal CORTESE: Region: CORTESE Actual: Fac Address 2: Not reported 6ft. CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 9098043 ' Chemical Name: Not reported Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Mercantile, Business Incident Date: 17- MAR -90 Date Completed: 17- MAR -90 Time Completed: 1035 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 005035 DES Incident Number: 9098043 Time Notified : 818 Surrounding Area: 400 Estimated Temperature: Not reported ' Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2 : Not reported ' Special Studies 3 : Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported ' Special Studies 6: Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : Not reported 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Injuries: 0 Others Number Of Fatalities: 0 Vehicle Make/year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State : Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC/ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID: B/C A. WAGNER Report Date : 11- MAY -90 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 644 -3103 Waterway Involved: Not reported ' Waterway: Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported Containment: Not reported ' What Happened : Not reported Type: Not reported Other : Not reported Chemical 1: Not Reported ' Chemical 2 : Not Reported Chemical 3 : Not Reported Date/Time: Not reported I EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number CHMIRS 5700278968 Cortese N/A TC1097960.3s Page62 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation She MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number ' (Continued) St00279950 Evacuations: Not reported ' 53 CHMIRS St00276988 NE 406 SNUG HARBOR ROAD WA t/2 -t NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 , 5t98 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: 9t00947 Chemical Name: Not reported ' Actual: Extent of Release: Not reported 87 ft. Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 29- OCT -9t Date Completed: 29- OCT -9t ' Time Completed: 2315 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: tt8858 DES Incident Number: 9100947 , Time Notified : 2019 Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported , More Than Two Substances Involved?: N Special Studies t : Not reported Special Studies 2: Special Studies 3 : Not reported Not reported ' Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6 : Not reported Responding Agency Personel # OF Injuries: 0 Responding Agency Personal # OF Fatalities: 0 ' Resp Agncy Personal # OF Decontaminated : 0 Others Number OF Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Injuries : 0 Others Number Of Fatalities : 0 ' Vehicle Make /year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported t CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name /ID: B/C WAGNER Report Date: 08- JAN -92 ' Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 7t4 644-3t 03 Waterway Involved: Not reported Waterway: Not reported ' Spill She: Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported Containment: Not reported What Happened : Not reported , Type: Not reported Other: Not reported Chemical t : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported ' Chemical 3: Not Reported Date/rime: Not reported Evacuations: Not reported , TC1097960.3s Page 63 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site 54 NNW 1/2 -1 5267 ft. Relative: Higher Actual: 21 ft. 1 1 1 (Continued) 230 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA MAP FINDINGS CHMIRS: DES Control Number: Chemical Name: Extent of Release: Property Use: Incident Date: Date Completed: Time Completed: Agency Id Number: Agency Incident Number: DES Incident Number: Time Notified : Surrounding Area: Estimated Temperature: Property Management: More Than Two Substances Involved? Special Studies 1 Special Studies 2 Special Studies 3 Special Studies 4: Special Studies 5: Special Studies 6: Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated: Others Number Of Decontaminated Others Number Of Injuries: Others Number Of Fatalities: Vehicle Make/year : Vehicle License Number: Vehicle State: Vehicle Id Number: CA/DOT/PUC /ICC Number: Company Name: Reporting Officer Name /ID : Report Date: Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved Waterway Spill Site: Cleanup By Containment: What Happened Type: Other: Chemical 1 Chemical 2: Chemical 3 Date/Time : Evacuations: EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5100276988 CHMIRS 5105630175 N/A 60387 water based paint Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 60387 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported NO NO Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported NO stomr drain RD undetermined at time of report YES Illegally dumped on street adjacent to above address CHEMICAL Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 9/15/93 1800 NO TC1097960.3s Page 64 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number TC1097960.3s Page 65 (Continuer) S105630175 55 CHMIRS S100276649 NW 3912 RIVER AVENUE N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92883 5275 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: 9100218 Chemical Name: Not reported Actual: Extent of Release: Not reported 7 ft. Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 14- MAR -91 Date Completed: 14- MAR-91 Time Completed: 1205 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 104520 DES Incident Number: 9100218 Time Notified : 1055 Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personel N Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personel R Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personel p Of Decontaminated : 0 others Number Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Injuries : 0 Others Number Of Fatalities: 0 Vehicle Make/year: Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name /ID : AJ WAGNER Report Date: 18- JUN -92 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 644 -3103 Waterway Involved : Not reported Waterway: Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported Containment: Not reported What Happened : Not reported Type : Not reported Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3: Not Reported Date/Time: Not reported Evacuations, Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 65 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site (Continued) EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number S100276649 TC1097960.3s Page 66 #� §§ §2§§§§§§ § 2222 §2222 §§§ k ! \ ( z !{ aE k§ /k § §k f ! -0 ]]GOlw§§]§, § §■A9U §§§2 §� $( \'S )i!% )00wzW \\ ( k §\ )§ e» » =E!®�eL§ gym:,,, kkk\ §|k((%§ !|f § (§k§§ §22£2§ � ! I@ �¥ \ £§(§ © 0 2( | §K|2 k § = =l= = =° w� : ) °0 § : §e § § q:�OUQUOU 7MH \ :\ /2m, �$m ka§ § [f70z § 2■f > k }z §2 q § §§ m WO ; §;� toommw Z " :I,m \ /�§\(m 0000 :m/ 42z,mZ «# § ®2kk)2 )§00/;, ;|RO»,§ E\kkk }§ \(0zz= §jkkwj�k� !2)°OO|O;e| |eLLL�e»e»»L2eL° )222222E E222222® m«||||§|||| kkkkkkk(|||||| |k $| )) _ § — 7 | § �0 2 6 ! ƒ J E\Rz$EEEEElEEE§ k §;§ § §K §? §k§§§ §)j\ § § § § §Kk § § \! § \k #� §§ §2§§§§§§ § 2222 §2222 §§§ k ! \ ( z !{ aE k§ /k § §k f ! -0 ]]GOlw§§]§, § §■A9U §§§2 §� $( \'S )i!% )00wzW \\ ( k §\ )§ e» » =E!®�eL§ gym:,,, kkk\ §|k((%§ !|f § (§k§§ §22£2§ � ! I@ �¥ \ £§(§ © 0 2( | §K|2 k § = =l= = =° w� : ) °0 § : §e § § q:�OUQUOU 7MH \ :\ /2m, �$m ka§ § [f70z § 2■f > k }z §2 q § §§ m WO ; §;� toommw Z " :I,m \ /�§\(m 0000 :m/ 42z,mZ «# § ®2kk)2 )§00/;, ;|RO»,§ E\kkk }§ \(0zz= §jkkwj�k� !2)°OO|O;e| |eLLL�e»e»»L2eL° )222222E E222222® m«||||§|||| kkkkkkk(|||||| |k I IJ I 1 i I I I� I I GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required. Elapsed ASTM days: Provides confirmation that this EDR report meets or exceeds the 90 -day updating requirement of the ASTM standard. FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD RECORDS NPL: National Priority Ust Source: EPA Telephone: N/A National Priorities Ust ( Superfund). The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, EDR provides polygon coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) and regional EPA offices. Date of Government Version: 10/21/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 12/08/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually NPL Site Boundaries Sources: EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) Telephone: 202 -564 -7333 EPA Region 1 Telephone 617 - 918 -1143 EPA Region 3 Telephone 215 -814 -5418 EPA Region 4 Telephone 404 -562 -8033 Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority Ust Sites Source: EPA Telephone: N/A Date of Government Version: 10/14/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 12108/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 11/03/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 35 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/03/03 EPA Region 6 Telephone: 214 -655 -6659 EPA Region 8 Telephone: 303- 312 -6774 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 12/01/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 7 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/03/03 CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Uability Information System Source: EPA Telephone: 703- 413 -0223 CERCLIS contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities, private companies and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Uabil'ny Act ( CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities Ust (NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. Date of Government Version: 09 /11/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 10/29/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/24/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 35 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/24103 CERCLIS - NFRAP: CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned Source: EPA Telephone: 703 - 413 -0223 As of February 1995, CERCLIS sites designated 'No Further Remedial Action Planned" (NFRAP) have been removed from CERCLIS. NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly without the need for the site to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination was not serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration. EPA has removed approximately 25,000 NFRAP sites to lift the unintended barriers to the redevelopment of these properties and has archived them as historical records so EPA does not needlessly repeat the investigations in the future. This policy change is part of the EPA's Brownfields Redevelopment Program to help cities, states, private investors and affected citizens to promote economic redevelopment of unproductive urban sites. TC1097960.3s Page GR -1 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 09 /11/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 10/29/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/24/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 35 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/24/03 CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report Source: EPA Telephone: 800 -424 -9346 CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity. Date of Govemment Version: 09 /17/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 11/11/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 10/01/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 41 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/08/03 RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System Source: EPA Telephone: 800 -424 -9346 Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System. RCRIS includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESOGs): generate less than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Small quantity generators (SQGs): generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. Large quantity generators (LOGS): generate over 1,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Transporters are individuals or entities that move hazardous waste from the generator off -site to a facility that can recycle, treat, store, or dispose of the waste. TSDFs treat, store, or dispose of the waste. Date of Government Version: 09 /10/03 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/11/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 10/01/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 20 Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/18103 ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System Source: National Response Center, United States Coast Guard Telephone: 202 - 260 -2342 Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous substances. Date of Government Version: 12/31/02 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 01/27/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 02/03/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 7 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03 FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL RECORDS BRS: Biennial Reporting System Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 800 -424 -9346 The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation and management of hazardous waste. BRS captures detailed data from two groups: Large Quantity Generators (LOG) and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities. Date of Govemment Version: 12/01/01 Database Release Frequency: Biennially 1 I I J I I Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/01/03 ' Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12115/03 CONSENT: Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees Source: EPA Regional Offices Telephone: Varies Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup at NPL (Superfund) sites. Released periodically by United States District Courts after settlement by parties to litigation matters. Date of Government Version: N/A Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Last EDR Contact: N/A Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A TC1097960.3s Page GR -2 I I 11 u GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING I ROD: Records Or Decision ' Source: EPA Telephone: 703 -416 -0223 Record of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL (Superfund) site contalning technical and health information to aid in the cleanup. 1 I I I I I I 1 Date of Government Version: 07/09/03 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/08/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 DELISTED NPL: National Priority List Deletions Source: EPA Telephone: N/A The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. Date of Government Version: 10/21/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/03/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/02/04 FINDS: Facility Index System /Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary Report Source: EPA Telephone: N/A Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and 'pointers' to other sources that contain more detail. EDR includes the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometric Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and back information on civil judicial enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection Control), C- DOCKET (Criminal Docket System used to back criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities Information System), STATE (State Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System). Date of Government Version: 10/23/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/07/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Telephone: 202 - 366-4555 Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT. Date of Govemment Version: 08/11/03 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/23/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04 MILTS: Material Licensing Tracking System Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Telephone: 301 -415 -7169 MILTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 6,100 sites which possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements. To maintain currency, EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. Date of Government Version: 10116/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/07/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 ' MINES: Mines Master Index File Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration Telephone: 303 - 231 -5959 Date of Government Version: 08/27/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/01103 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12129/03 NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens Source: EPA Telephone: 202 -564 -4267 Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, the USEPA has the authority to file liens against real property in order ' to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner receives notification of potential liability. USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens. TC1097960.3s Page GR -3 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 10/15/91 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/21/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/23/04 PADS: PCB Activity Database System Source: EPA Telephone: 202 -564 -3887 PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers and/or brokers and disposers of PCB's who are required to notify the EPA of such activities. I I Date of Government Version: 06/30/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/12/03 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/09/04 , DOD: Department of Defense Sites Source: USGS Telephone: 703648 -5920 This data set consists of federally owned or administered lands, administered by the Department of Defense, that have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Data of Government Version: 04/01/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/12/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/09/04 , STORMWATER: Storm Water General Permits Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202 564 -0746 , A listing of all facilities with Storm Water General Permits. Date of Government Version: N/A Date of Last EDR Contact: WA Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A US BROWNFIELD& A Listing of Brownfields Sites Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202 - 566 -2777 Included in the listing are brownfields properties addresses by Cooperative Agreement Recipients and brownfields properties addressed by Targeted Brownfields Assessments. Targeted Brownfields Assessments-EPA's Targeted Brownfields Assessments (TBA) program is designed to help states, tribes, and municipalities -- especially those without EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots-- minimize the uncertainties of contamination often associated with brownfields. Under the TBA program, EPA provides funding and/or technical assistance for environmental assessments ' at brownfields sites throughout the country. Targeted Brownfields Assessments supplement and work with other efforts under EPA's Brownfields Initiative to promote cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. Cooperative Agreement Recipients - States, political subdivisions, territories, and Indian tribes become BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients when they enter into BCRLF cooperative agreements with the U.S. EPA. EPA selects BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients based on a proposal and application process. BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients must use EPA funds provided through BCRLF cooperative agreement for specified brownfields- related cleanup activities. Date of Government Version: 07/15/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/15/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/15/03 ' RMP: Risk Management Plans Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202 - 5648600 When Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, it required EPA to publish regulations and guidance for chemical accident prevention at facilities using extremely hazardous substances. The Risk Management Program Rule (PIMP Rule) was written to implement Section 112(r) of these amendments. The rule, which built upon existing industry codes and standards, requires companies of all sizes that use certain fiammable and toxic substances to develop a Risk Management Program, which includes a(n): Hazard assessment that details the potential effects of an accidental release, an accident history of the last five years, and an evaluation of worst -case and alternative accidental releases; Prevention program that includes safely precautions and maintenance, monitoring, and employee training measures; and Emergency response program that spells out emergency health care, employee training measures and procedures for informing the public and response agencies (e.g the fire department) should an accident occur. TC1097960.3S Page GR -4 , L7 I I LJ I i i I I LJ 1 I I GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: N/A Database Release Frequency: N/A Date of Last EDR Contact: N/A Date of Ned Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System Source: EPA Telephone: 202 -564 -4104 RCRA Administration Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. For administration actions after September 30, 1995, data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued. EPA will retain a copy of the database for historical records. It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database. Date of Govemment Version: 04(17/95 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact: 09(06(03 Daze of Ned Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/08/03 TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System Source: EPA Telephone: 202- 260 -1531 Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313. Date of Government Version: 12/31/01 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of last EDR Contact: 09/23/03 Date of Ned Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/22/03 TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act Source: EPA Telephone: 202 - 260 -5521 Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant she. Date of Government Version: 12!31/98 Database Release Frequency: Every 4 Years Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/02!03 Date of Ned Scheduled EDR Contact: t2/08/03 FTTS INSR: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide ACQ(TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) Source: EPA Telephone: 202 -564 -2501 Date of Government Version: 10/16/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/23103 Date of Ned Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/22/03 SSTS: Section 7 Tracking Systems Source: EPA Telephone: 202 - 5645008 Section 7 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended (92 Stat. 829) requires all registered pesticide - producing establishments to submit a report to the Environmental Protection Agency by March 1st each year. Each establishment must report the types and amounts of pesticides. active ingredients and devices being produced, and those having been produced and sold or distributed in the past year. Date of Government Version: IPJ3 t /01 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03 Date of Ned Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/D4 FITS: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) Source: EPA/Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Telephone: 202 - 5642501 FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA, TSCA and EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to -Know Act). To maintain currency, EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. TC1097960.3s Page GR -5 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED/ DATA CURRENCY TRACKING I Date of Govemment Version: 10/16/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/23/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/22/03 , STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASTM STANDARD RECORDS AWP: Annual Workplan Sites Source: California Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 916- 323 -3400 Known Hazardous Waste Sites. California DTSC's Annual Workplan (AWP), formerly BEP, identifies known hazardous substance sites targeted for cleanup. Date of Government Version: 08/31/03 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09 /02/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 09/17/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 15 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of last EDR Contact: 09/02/03 , CAL-SITES: Calsites Database Source: Department of Toxic Substance Control Telephone: 916323 -3400 The Calsttes database contains potential or confirmed hazardous substance release properties. In 1995, California EPA reevaluated and significantly reduced the number of sites in the Calsites database. Date of Government Version: 08/31/03 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/02/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 09/17/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 15 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/02/03 CHMIRS: California Hazardous Material Incident Report System Source: Office of Emergency Services Telephone: 916- 845 -8400 California Hazardous Material Incident Reporting System. CHMIRS contains information on reported hazardous material incidents (accidental releases or spills). Date of Government Version: 12/31/02 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 07/11/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 08/07/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 27 Database Release Frequency: Vanes Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/24/03 CORTESE: "Cortese' Hazardous Waste & Substances Sites List Source: CAL EPA10ffice of Emergency Information Telephone: 916- 323 -9100 The sites for the list are designated by the State Water Resource Control Board (LUST), the Integrated Waste Board (SWF /LS), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (Cal - Sites). Date of Government Version: 04/01/01 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 05/29/01 Date Made Active at EDR: 07/26/01 Elapsed ASTM days: 58 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03 NOTIFY 65: Proposition 65 Records Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916 - 4453846 Proposition 65 Notification Records. NOTIFY 65 contains facility notifications about any release which could impact drinking water and thereby expose the public to a potential health risk. Date of Government Version: 10/21/93 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 11/01/93 Date Made Active at EDR: 11/19/93 Elapsed ASTM days: 18 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03 , TOXIC PITS: Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Sites Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916- 227 -4364 Toxic PITS Cleanup Act Sites. TOXIC PITS identifies sites suspected of containing hazardous substances where cleanup has not yet been completed. I TC1097960.3s Page GPI-6 I I I J I I I I I I I GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 07101/95 Date Made Active at EDR: 09126195 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Daze of Data Arrival at EDR: 08/30/95 Elapsed ASTM days: 27 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/03/03 SWF/LF (SWLS): Solid Waste Information System Source: Integrated Waste Management Board Telephone: 916- 341 -6320 Active. Closed and Inactive Landfills. SWF /LF records typically contain an inve ntory of solid waste disposal facilities or landfills. These may be active or i nactive facilities or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal sites. Date of Government Version: 09/12/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 10/16/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/15/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 31 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/15/03 WMUDS/SWAT: Waste Management Unit Database Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916- 227 -4448 Waste Management Unit Database System. WMUDS is used by the State Water Resources Control Board staff and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards for program tracking and inventory of waste management units. WMUDS is composed of the following databases: Facility Information, Scheduled Inspections Information, Waste Management Unit Information, SWAT Program Information, SWAT Report Summary Information, SWAT Report Summary Data, Chapter 15 (formerly Subchapter 15) Information, Chapter 15 Monitoring Parameters, TPCA Program Information, RCRA Program Information, Closure Information, and Interested Parties Information. Date of Government Version: 04/01 /00 Date Made Active at EDR: 05 /10/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 04/10/00 Elapsed ASTM days: 30 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/12/03 LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 91641 -5740 Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports. LUST records contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. Not all states maintain these records, and the information stored varies by state. Date of Government Version: 04/02/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 04/25/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 04/16/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 9 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/14/03 CA BOND EXP. PLAN: Bond Expenditure Plan Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 916- 255 -2118 Department of Health Services developed a site - specific expenditure plan as the basis for an appropriation of Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act funds. It is not updated. Date of Government Version: 01/01/89 Date Made Active at EDR: 08/02194 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned CA UST: UST: Active UST Facilities Source: SWRCB Telephone: 916 -341 -5700 Active UST facilities gathered from the local regulatory agencies Date of Government Version: 04 /02103 Date Made Active at EDR: 04 /30/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 07/27/94 Elapsed ASTM days: 6 Date of Last EDR Contact: 05/31/94 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 04/16/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 14 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/14/03 TC1097960.3s Page GR -7 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING VCP: Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties Source: Department or Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916 -323 -3400 Contains low threat level properties with either confirmed or unconfirmed releases and the project proponents have request that DTSC oversee investigation and/or cleanup activities and have agreed to provide coverage for DTSC's costs. Date of Government Version: 08/31/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 09 /17/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly INDIAN UST: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian land Source: EPA Region 9 Telephone: 415- 972 -3368 Date of Government Version: 03/01/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 04/11/03 Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09 /02/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 15 Date of last EDR Contact: 09/02/03 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 03/31/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 11 Date of last EDR Contact: 11/24/03 CA FID UST: Facility Inventory Database Source: California Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 916- 445 -6532 The Facility Inventory Database (FID) contains a historical listing of active and inactive underground storage tank locations from the State Water Resource Control Board. Refer to local/county source for current data. Date or Government Version: 10/31/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 09/29/95 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/05/95 Elapsed ASTM days: 24 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/28/98 MIST LIST: Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916 - 341 -5700 The Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database is a historical listing of UST sites. Refer to local/county source for current data. Date of Government Version: 10/15/90 Date Made Active at EDR: 02/12/91 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL RECORDS AST: Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Facilities Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916-341 -5712 Registered Aboveground Storage Tanks. Date of Government Version: 07/01/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 01/25/91 Elapsed ASTM days: 18 Date of Last EDR Contact: 07/26/01 Date of last EDR Contact 11/03/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/02/04 CLEANERS: Cleaner Facilities Source: Department of Toxic Substance Control Telephone: 916- 225 -0873 A list of drycleaner related facilities that have EPA ID numbers. These are facilities with certain SIC codes: power laundries, family and commercial; garment pressing and cleaner's agents; linen supply; coin- operated laundries and cleaning; drycleaning plants, except rugs; carpet and upholster cleaning; industrial launderers; laundry and garment services. Date or Government Version: 03/11/03 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 TC1097960.3s Page GR -8 I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 11 1 a GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING I Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/24/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/22/03 DEED: List of Deed Restrictions ' Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916- 323 -3400 The use of recorded land use restrictions is one of the methods the DTSC uses to protect the public from unsafe exposures to hazardous substances and wastes. I I I I I Date of Government Version: 10/07/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/08/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 NFA: No Further lotion Determination Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916- 323 -3400 This category contains properties at which DTSC has made a clear determination that the property does not pose a problem to the environment or to public health. Date of Government Version: 08/31/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/02/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12101/03 EMI: Emissions Inventory Data Source: California Air Resources Board Telephone: 916- 322 -2990 Toxics and criteria pollutant emissions data collected by the ARB and local air pollution agencies. Date of Government Version: 12131/01 Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04 REF: Unconfirmed Properties Referred to Another Agency Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916- 323 -3400 This category contains properties where contamination has not been confirmed and which were determined as not requiring direct DTSC Site Mitigation Program action or oversight. Accordingly, these sites have been referred to another state or local regulatory agency. Date of Government Version: 08131/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/02103 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/01/03 SCH: School Property Evaluation Program Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916- 323 -3400 This category contains proposed and existing school sites that are being evaluated by DTSC for possible hazardous materials contamination. In some cases, these properties may be listed in the CalSites category depending on the level of threat to public health and safety or the environment they pose. Date of Government Version: 08/31/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/02/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12!01/03 NFE: Properties Needing Further Evaluation Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916- 323 -3400 This category contains properties that are suspected of being contaminated. These are unconfirmed contaminated properties that need to be assessed using the PEA process. PEA in Progress indicates properties where DTSC is currently conducting a PEA. PEA Required indicates properties where DTSC has determined a PEA is required, but not currently underway. ITC1097960.3s Page GR -9 CA WDS: Waste Discharge System Source: State Water Resources Control Board ' Telephone: 916 -657 -1571 Shea which have been issued waste discharge requirements. Date of Government Version: 09 /22/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/24/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/22/03 DEED: List of Deed Restrictions ' Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916- 323 -3400 The use of recorded land use restrictions is one of the methods the DTSC uses to protect the public from unsafe exposures to hazardous substances and wastes. I I I I I Date of Government Version: 10/07/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/08/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 NFA: No Further lotion Determination Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916- 323 -3400 This category contains properties at which DTSC has made a clear determination that the property does not pose a problem to the environment or to public health. Date of Government Version: 08/31/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/02/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12101/03 EMI: Emissions Inventory Data Source: California Air Resources Board Telephone: 916- 322 -2990 Toxics and criteria pollutant emissions data collected by the ARB and local air pollution agencies. Date of Government Version: 12131/01 Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04 REF: Unconfirmed Properties Referred to Another Agency Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916- 323 -3400 This category contains properties where contamination has not been confirmed and which were determined as not requiring direct DTSC Site Mitigation Program action or oversight. Accordingly, these sites have been referred to another state or local regulatory agency. Date of Government Version: 08131/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/02103 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/01/03 SCH: School Property Evaluation Program Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916- 323 -3400 This category contains proposed and existing school sites that are being evaluated by DTSC for possible hazardous materials contamination. In some cases, these properties may be listed in the CalSites category depending on the level of threat to public health and safety or the environment they pose. Date of Government Version: 08/31/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/02/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12!01/03 NFE: Properties Needing Further Evaluation Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916- 323 -3400 This category contains properties that are suspected of being contaminated. These are unconfirmed contaminated properties that need to be assessed using the PEA process. PEA in Progress indicates properties where DTSC is currently conducting a PEA. PEA Required indicates properties where DTSC has determined a PEA is required, but not currently underway. ITC1097960.3s Page GR -9 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 08131/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of last EDR Contact: 09/02/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/01/03 HAZNET: Hazardous Waste Information System Source: California Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 916- 255 -1136 Facility and Manifest Data. The data is extracted from the copies of hazardous waste manifests received each year by the DISC. The annual volume of manifests is typically 700,000 - 1,000,000 annually, representing approximately 350,000 - 500,000 shipments. Data are from the manifests submitted without correction, and therefore many contain some invalid values for data elements such as generator ID, TSD ID, waste category, and disposal method. Date of Government Version: 12131/01 Database Release Frequency: Annually ALAMEDA COUNTY: Local Oversight Program Listing of UGT Cleanup Sites Source: Alameda County Environmental Health Services Telephone: 510567 -6700 Date of Government Version: 07/03103 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Underground Tanks Source: Alameda County Environmental Health Services Telephone: 510567 -6700 Date of Government Version: 07103/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually CONTRA COSTA COUNTY: Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/11/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/09/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/26/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/26/04 She list Source: Contra Costa Health Services Department Telephone: 925 -646 -2286 List includes sites from the underground tank, hazardous waste generator and business plan /2185 programs. Date of Government Version: 09104103 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually FRESNO COUNTY: Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/02103 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/01/03 CUPA Resources List Source: Dept. of Community Health Telephone: 559 -445 -3271 Certified Unified Program Agency. CUPA's are responsible for implementing a unified hazardous materials and hazardous waste management regulatory program. The agency provides oversight of businesses that deal with hazardous materials, operate underground storage tanks or aboveground storage tanks. Daze of Government Version: 10/07/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/08103 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02109/04 TC1097960.3s Page GR -10 1 I I I I I I F i GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED/ DATA CURRENCY TRACKING KERN COUNTY: Underground Storage Tank Sites & Tank Listing Source: Kem County Environment Health Services Department Telephone: 661- 862 -8700 Kem County Sites and Tanks Listing. Date of Government Version: 07/25/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly LOS ANGELES COUNTY: List of Solid Waste Facilities Source: La County Department of Public Works Telephone: 818- 458 -5185 Date of Government Version: 06 /03/03 Database Release Frequency: Varies City of El Segundo Underground Storage Tank Source: City of El Segundo Fire Department Telephone: 310,524 -2236 Date of Government Version: 09 /11/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually City of Long Beach Underground Storage Tank Source: City of Long Beach Fire Department Telephone: 562 - 570 -2543 Date of Government Version: 03 /28103 Database Release Frequency: Annually City of Torrance Underground Storage Tank Source: City of Torrance Fire Department Telephone: 310 ,518 -2973 Date of Government Version: 09 /03/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually City of Los Angeles Landfills Source: Engineering & Construction Division Telephone: 213 - 473 -7869 Date of Government Version: 03 /01/02 Database Release Frequency: Varies I I Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/08/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/08/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/21/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/16/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/17/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/16/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/24/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/23/04 Date of fast EDR Contact: 11/17/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/16104 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/15/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/15/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/17/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02116/04 TC1097960.3s Page GR -11 HMS: Street Number List Source: Department of Public Works Telephone: 626- 458 -3517 Industrial Waste and Underground Storage Tank Sites. Date of Government Version: 09 /30/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi- Annually Site Mitigation List Source: Community Health Services Telephone: 323 -890 -7806 Industrial sites that have had some sort of spill or complaint. I I Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/08/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/08/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/21/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/16/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/17/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/16/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/24/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/23/04 Date of fast EDR Contact: 11/17/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/16104 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/15/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/15/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/17/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02116/04 TC1097960.3s Page GR -11 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 01/07/03 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/17/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/16/04 San Gabriel Valley Areas of Concern Source: EPA Region 9 Telephone: 415- 972 -3178 San Gabriel Valley areas where VOC contamination is at or above the MCL as designated by region 9 EPA office. Date of Government Version: 12/31/98 Date of Last EDR Contact: 07/06/99 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A MARIN COUNTY: Underground Storage Tank Sites Source: Public Works Department Waste Management Telephone: 415- 499 -6647 Currently permitted USTs in Merin County. Date of Government Version: 08/19/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/03103 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/02/04 NAPA COUNTY: Sites With Reported Contamination Source: Napa County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707- 253 -4269 Date of Government Version: 10/02/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09 /30103 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/29/03 Closed and Operating Underground Storage Tank Sites Source: Napa County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707 - 253 -4269 Date of Government Version: 10102/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/30/03 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/29/03 ORANGE COUNTY: List of Underground Storage Tank Cleanups Source: Health Care Agency Telephone: 714- 834 -3446 Orange County Underground Storage Tank Cleanups (LUST). Date of Government Version: 07/01/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09 /11/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/08/03 List of Underground Storage Tank Facilities Source: Health Care Agency Telephone: 714 -834 -3446 Orange County Underground Storage Tank Facilities (UST). Date of Government Version: 09/02/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/11/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/08/03 Ust of Industrial Site Cleanups Source: Health Care Agency Telephone: 714- 834 -3446 Petroleum and non - petroleum spills. TC1097960.3s Page GR -12 I I I I� I I GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 10/24/00 Database Release Frequency: Annually PLACER COUNTY: Master List of Facilities Source: Placer County Health and Human Services Telephone: 530 - 889 -7312 Ust includes aboveground tanks, underground tanks and cleanup sites. Date of Government Version: 10/16/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually IRIVERSIDE COUNTY I I I I I I Date of Government Version: -07/17/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of last EDR Contact: 09/11/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/08/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/23103 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12122/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/03/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/02/04 ML - Regulatory Compliance Master List Source: Sacramento County Environmental Management Telephone: 916 -875 -8406 Any business that has hazardous materials on site - hazardous material storage sites, underground storage tanks, waste generators. Date of Government Version: 07/17/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY: Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/03/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/02/04 Hazardous Material Permits Source: San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division Telephone: 909 ,387 -3041 This listing includes underground storage tanks, medical waste handlers/generators, hazardous materials handlers, hazardous waste generators, and waste oil generators/handlers. ITC1097960.3s Page GR -13 Listing of Underground Tank Cleanup Sites Source: Department of Public Health Telephone: 909- 358 -5055 Riverside County Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Sites (LUST). Date of Government Version: 06 /03/03 IDatabase Release Frequency: Quarterly Underground Storage Tank Tank List Source: Health Services Agency I Telephone: 909- 358 -5055 Date of Government Version: 05/30/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly COUNTY: SACRAMENTO CS - Contaminated Sites Source, Sacramento County Environmental Management I Telephone: 916- 875 -8406 I I I I I I Date of Government Version: -07/17/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of last EDR Contact: 09/11/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/08/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/23103 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12122/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/03/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/02/04 ML - Regulatory Compliance Master List Source: Sacramento County Environmental Management Telephone: 916 -875 -8406 Any business that has hazardous materials on site - hazardous material storage sites, underground storage tanks, waste generators. Date of Government Version: 07/17/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY: Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/03/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/02/04 Hazardous Material Permits Source: San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division Telephone: 909 ,387 -3041 This listing includes underground storage tanks, medical waste handlers/generators, hazardous materials handlers, hazardous waste generators, and waste oil generators/handlers. ITC1097960.3s Page GR -13 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 09 /30/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SAN DIEGO COUNTY: Solid Waste Facilities Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 619 - 338 -2209 San Diego County Solid Waste Facilities. Date of Government Version: 08/01/00 Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/09/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/08/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/21/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/23/04 Hazardous Materials Management Division Database Source: Hazardous Materials Management Division Telephone: 619- 338 -2268 The database includes: HE58 - This report contains the business name, site address, business phone number, establishment 'H' permit number, type of permit, and the business status. HE77 - In addition to providing the same information provided in the HE58 listing, HE17 provides inspection dates, violations received by the establishment, hazardous waste generated, the quantity, method of storage, treatment/disposal of waste and the hauler, and information on underground storage tanks. Unauthorized Release List - Includes a summary of environmental contamination cases in San Diego County (underground tank cases, non -tank rases, groundwater contamination, and soil contamination are included.) Date of Government Version: 03/31/02 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY: Local Oversite Facilities Source: Department Of Public Health San Francisco County Telephone: 415 - 252 -3920 Date of Government Version: 09/11/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Underground Storage Tank Information Source: Department of Public Health Telephone: 415- 252 -3920 Date of Government Version: 09/11/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SAN MATEO COUNTY: Fuel Leak List Source: San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division Telephone: 650 -363 -1921 Date of Government Version: 07/21/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/07/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/08/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact 12/08/03 Date of last EDR Contact: 09/08/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/08/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/26/04 Business Inventory Source: San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division Telephone: 650- 363 -1921 List includes Hazardous Materials Business Plan, hazardous waste generators, and underground storage tanks. I I F CJ I I I I I I I I I 1 TC1097960.3s Page GRA4 1 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 11113103 Database Release Frequency: Annually SANTA CLARA COUNTY: Fuel Leak Site Activity Report Source: Santa Clara Valley Water District Telephone: 408 -265 -2600 Date of Government Version: 07/02/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Hazardous Material Facilities Source: City of San Jose Fire Department Telephone: 406- 277 -4659 Date of Government Version: 10/01/03 Database Release Frequency: Annually SOLANO COUNTY: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Source: Solano County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707- 421 -6770 Date of Government Version: 08/21/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Underground Storage Tanks Source: Solano County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707-421 -6770 Date of Government Version: 08/21/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SONOMA COUNTY: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 707 -565 -6565 Date of Government Version: 10/01 /03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SUTTER COUNTY: Underground Storage Tanks Source: Sutter County Department of Agriculture Telephone: 530- 822 -7500 Date of Government Version: 07/01/01 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/13(03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/12/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/30/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/29/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/08/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/08/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/15/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/15/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/15/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/15/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/26/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 TC1097960.3s Page GR -15 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA. CURRENCY TRACKING VENTURA COUNTY: Inventory of Illegal Abandoned and Inactive Sites Source: Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805-654 -2813 Ventura County Inventory of Closed, Illegal Abandoned, and Inactive Sites. Date of Government Version: 09 /01/02 Database Release Frequency: Annually Listing of Underground Tank Cleanup Sites Source: Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805 -654 -2813 Ventura County Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Sites (LUST). Date of Government Version: 09 /26/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/26/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02123/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/15/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/15/03 Underground Tank Closed Sites List Source: Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805 -654 -2813 Ventura County Operating Underground Storage Tank Sites (UST)/Underground Tank Closed Sites Ust. Date of Government Version: 07/30/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/16/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/12/04 Business Plan, Hazardous Waste Producers, and Operating Underground Tanks Source: Ventura County Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805 -654-2813 The BWT list indicates by site address whether the Environmental Health Division has Business Plan (B), Waste Producer (W), and /or Underground Tank (T) information. Date of Government Version: 09/02/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly YOLO COUNTY: Underground Storage Tank Comprehensive Facility Report Source: Yclo County Department of Health Telephone: 530- 6668646 Date of Government Version: 10/29/03 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/15/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/15/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04 California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWUCB) LUST Records LUST REG 1: Active Toxic Site Investigation Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast (1) Telephone: 707 - 576 -2220 Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Modoc, Siskiyou, Sonoma, Trinity counties. For more current information, please refer to the State Water Resources Control Board's LUST database. Date of Government Version: 02101101 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/21/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/23/04 LUST REG 2: Fuel Leak List Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region (2) Telephone: 510- 286 -0457 LI u I I I I I t✓ L L I I I LI I I I I TC1097960.3s Page GR -16 I GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 03/28/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly LUST REG T. Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region (3) Telephone: 805 -549 -3147 Date of Government Version: 05 /19/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/14/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/12/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/17/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/16/04 LUST REG 4: Underground Storage Tank Leak List Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region (4) Telephone: 213 -576 -6600 Los Angeles, Ventura counties. For more current information, please refer to the State Water Resources Control Board's LUST database. Date of Government Version: 08/09/01 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned LUST REG 5: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region (5) Telephone: 916 - 255 -3125 Date of Government Version: 07/01/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/30/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/29/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/16/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 LUST REG 9L: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing ' Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahoman Region (6) Telephone: 916 -542 -5424 For more current information, please refer to the State Water Resources Control Board's LUST database. I I Date of Government Version: 09 /09/03 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned LUST REG 8V: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Victorville Branch Office (6) Telephone: 760346 -7491 Date of Government Version: 11/13103 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 09108/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/08/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/07/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 LUST REG 7: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Colorado River Basin Region (7) Telephone: 760 - 346 -7491 Date of Government Version: 07/02/02 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/30103 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/29/03 LUST REG 8: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region (8) Telephone: 909- 782 -4498 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region (8). For more current information, please refer to the State Water Resources Control Board's LUST database. Date of Government Version: 09116/03 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/12/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/09/04 LUST REG 9: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Report Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region (9) Telephone: 858 -467 -2980 Orange, Riverside, San Diego counties. For more current information, please refer to the State Water Resources Control Board's LUST database. TC1097960.3s Page GR -17 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 11 Date of Government Version: 03/01/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04 California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) SLIC Records SLIC REG 1: Active Toxic Site Investigations Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region (1) Telephone: 707 - 576 -2220 Date of Government Version: 04/03103 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/21/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/23/04 SLIC REG 2: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region (2) Telephone: 510 - 286 -0457 Any contaminated site that impacts groundwater or has the potential to impact groundwater. Date of Government Version: 03 /28/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/14/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/12/04 SLIC REG 3: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: Cafdornia Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region (3) Telephone: 805- 549-3147 Any contaminated site that impacts groundwater or has the potential to impact groundwater. Date of Government Version: 09/16/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/17/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/16/04 SLIC REG 4: Spills, Leaks. Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: Region Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region (4) Telephone: 213- 576 -6600 Any contaminated site that impacts groundwater or has the potential to impact groundwater. Date of Government Version: 10/01/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/26/04 SLIC REG 5: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region (5) Telephone: 916- 855 -3075 - Unregulated sites that impact groundwater or have the potential to impact groundwater. Date of Government Version: 10/20/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/07/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact, 01/05/04 SLIC REG 6L: SLIC Sites Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region Telephone: 530 -542 -5574 Date of Government Version: 09 /09/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/08/03 Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/08/03 SLIC REG 6V: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: Regional Water Quality Control Board, Victorville Branch Telephone: 619 -241 -6583 Date of Government Version: 05/08/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/07/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 SLIC REG 7: SLIC Ust Source: California Regional Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region Telephone: 760 - 346 -7491 TC1097960.3s Page GR -18 I 11 I I I I I I I I I I i 11 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 05/29/03 Database Release Frequency: Varies SLIC REG 8: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: California Region Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region (8) Telephone: 909- 782 -3298 Date of Government Version: 04/01/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually SLIC REG 9: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region (9) Telephone: 858 -467 -2980 Date of Government Version: 09/08/03 Database Release Frequency: Annually EDR PROPRIETARY HISTORICAL DATABASES Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/01/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/23104 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/02/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/01/03 Former Manufactured Gas (Coal Gas) Sites: The existence and locafion of Coal Gas sites is provided exclusively to EDR by Real Property Scan, Inc. ®Copyright 1993 Real Property Scan, Inc. For a technical description of the types of hazards which may be found at such sites, contact your EDR customer service representative. Disclaimer Provided by Real Property Scan, Inc. The information contained in this report has predominantly been obtained from publicly available sources produced by entities other than Real Property Scan. While reasonable steps have been taken to insure the accuracy of this report, Real Property Scan does not guarantee the accuracy of this report. Any liability on the part of Real Property Scan is strictly limited to a refund of the amount paid. No claim is made for the actual existence of toxins at any site. This report does not constitute a legal opinion. VCP: Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916 - 323 -3400 Contains low threat level properties with either confirmed or unconfirmed releases and the project proponents have request that DTSC oversee investigation and /or cleanup activities and have agreed to provide coverage for DTSC's costs. Date of Government Version: 08/31/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/02/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/01/03 US BROWNFIELDS: A Listing of Brownfields Sites Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202 -566 -2777 Included in the listing are brownfields properties addresses by Cooperative Agreement Recipients and brownfields properties addressed by Targeted Brownfields Assessments. Targeted Brownfields Assessments -EPA's Targeted Brownfields Assessments (TBA) program is designed to help states, tribes, and municipalities -- especially those without EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots -- minimize the uncertainties of contamination often associated with brownfields. Under the TBA program, EPA provides funding and /or technical assistance for environmental assessments at brownfields sites throughout the country. Targeted Brownfields Assessments supplement and work with other efforts under EPA's Brownfields Initiative to promote cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. Cooperative Agreement Recipients - States, political subdivisions, territories, and Indian tribes become BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients when they enter into BCRLF cooperative agreements with the U.S. EPA. EPA selects BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients based on a proposal and application process. BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients must use EPA funds provided through BCRLF cooperative agreement for specified brownfields- related cleanup activities. TC1097960.3s Page GR -19 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED/ DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: N/A Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: N/A Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A i Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report. Oil /Gas Pipelines: This data was obtained by EDR from the USGS in 1994. It is referred to by USGS as GeoData Digital Line Graphs from 1:100,000 -Scale Maps. It was extracted from the transportation category including some oil, but primarily gas pipelines. Electric Power Transmission Line Data , Source: PennWell Corporation Telephone: (800) 823 -6277 This map includes information copyrighted by PennWell Corporation. This information is provided on a best effort basis and PennWell Corporation does not guarantee its accuracy nor warrant its fitness for any particular purpose. Such information has been reprinted with the permission of PennWell. Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the location of all sensitive receptors cannot be determined, EDR indicates those buildings and facilities - schools, daycares, hospitals, medical centers, and nursing homes - where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located. AMA Hospitals: , Source: American Hospital Association, Inc. Telephone: 312 -280 -5991 The database includes a listing of hospitals based on the American Hospital Association's annual survey of hospitals. Medical Centers: Provider of Services Listing ' Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Telephone: 410- 786 -3D00 A listing of hospitals with Medicare provider number, produced by Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services, a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Nursing Homes Source: National Institutes of- Health Telephone: 301594.6248 Information on Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes in the United States. Public Schools Source: National Center for Education Statistics Telephone: 202 -502 -7300 The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on elementary and secondary public education in the United Slates. It is a comprehensive, annual, national statistical database of all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts, which contains data that are comparable across all states. Private Schools Source: National Center for Education Statistics Telephone: 202 - 502 -73DD The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on private school locations in the United States. Daycare Centers: Licensed Facilities Source: Department of Social Services Telephone: 916- 657 -4041 Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 1999 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100 -year and 50D -year flood zones as defined by FEMA. NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2002 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. n LJ TC1097960.3s Page GR -20 , GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION ® 2003 Geographic Data Technology, Inc., Rel. 07/2002. This product contains proprietary and confidential property of Geographic Data Technology, Inc. Unauthorized use, including copying for other than testing and standard backup procedures, of this product is expressly prohibited. TC1097960.3s Page GR -21 I I I P I I I I d I I I I I LI id I GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE ADDENbUM TARGET PRDPERTY ADDRESS NEWPORT BEACH REGENT HOTEL WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD /15TH ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 TARGET PRDPERTY COORDINATES Latitude (North): Longitude (West): Universal Tranverse Mercator: UTM X (Meters): UTM Y (Meters): Elevation: 33.608398 - 33° 36'30.2" 117.923203 - 117° 55'23.5" Zone 11 414351.9 3718926.2 6 ft. above sea level EDR's GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum has been developed to assist the environmental professional with the collection of physical setting source information in accordance with ASTM 1527 -00, Section 7.2.3. Section 7.2.3 requires that a current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (or equivalent, such as the USGS Digital Elevation Model) be reviewed. It also requires that one or more additional physical setting sources be sought when (1) conditions have been identified in which hazardous substances or petroleum products are likely to migrate to or from the property, and (2) more information than is provided in the current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (or equivalent) is generally obtained, pursuant to local good commercial or customary practice, to assess the impact of migration of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. Such additional physical setting sources generally include information about the topographic, hydrologic, hydrogeologic, and geologic characteristics of a site, and wells in the area. Assessment of the impact of contaminant migration generally has two principle investigative components: 1. Groundwater flow direction, and 2. Groundwater flow velocity. Groundwater flow direction may be impacted by surface topography, hydrology, hydrogeology, characteristics of the soil, and nearby wells. Groundwater flow velocity is generally impacted by the nature of the geologic strata. EDR's GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum is provided to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of potential contaminant migration. TC1097960.3s Page A -1 19 I I 1 I ri J a GEOCHECW - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION INFORMATION Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional using site-specific well data. If such data is not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other sources of information, such as surface topographic information, hydrologic information, hydrogeologic data collected on nearby properties, and regional groundwater flow information (from deep aquifers). TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Surface topography may be indicative of the direction of surficial groundwater flow. This information can be used to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted. TARGET PROPERTY TOPOGRAPHY USGS Topographic Map: 33117 -E8 NEWPORT BEACH OE S, CA General Topographic Gradient: General East Source: USGS 7.5 min quad index SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY: ELEVATION PROFILES 0 i [a. N W O O 0 Y O O O r 0 rw 1 North TIP TP 0 112 1 Miles Target Property Elevation: 6 ft. Source: Topography has been determined from the USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity should be field verified. ITC1097960.3s Page A -2 GEOCHECW - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION Surface water can act as a hydrologic barrier to groundwater flow. Such hydrologic information can be used to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted. Refer to the Physical Setting Source Map following this summary for hydrologic information (major waterways and bodies of water). FEMA FLOOD ZONE Target Properly County ;RANGE, CA Flood Plain Panel at Target Property: Additional Panels in search area: NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY NWI Quad at Target Property NEWPORT BEACH HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION FEMA Flood Electronic Data YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map 06059CO054E Not Reported NWI Electronic Data Coverage YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map Hydrogeologic information obtained by installation of wells on a specific site can often be an indicator of groundwater flow direction in the immediate area. Such hydrogeologic information can be used to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted. Site - Specific Hydrogeological Data`: Search Radius: 1.25 miles Status: Not found AQUIFLOW® Search Radius: 1.000 Mile. EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System to provide data on the general direction of groundwater flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted by environmental professionals to regulatory authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, groundwater flow direction as determined hydrogeologically, and the depth to water table. For additional site information, refer to Physical Setting Source Map Findings Cl9 SIM -Vpo hyyieq> kMg N p McFObyG KUSN .N .MnbmDel>la,tl.WA. NIrgMeromrvptl, NlMpq bb L'nn aN>Plnw q>senrM erOPwdNO a1M EPA rgpb( >�. wncn were cmpbbE U+tler e CPrryreMn>rve Enwmmm.al Re>p . Langrn <eon end LieFNy Inpxmmbn Syslan ICERCLISI r..ft.Wn, TC7097960.3s Page A -3 11 I I I LJ I I I i i I I 11 1 LOCATION GENERAL DIRECTION MAP ID FROM TP GROUNDWATER FLOW 1 1/9 - 1/4 Mlle ESE Vanes A2 1/2 -1 Mlle NW Not Reported 3 112 -1 Mile NNW Not Reported A4 1/2 -1 Mile NW S AS 1/2 -1 Mile NW S 7 1/2- 1 Mile NNW NE 9 1/2 -1 Mile North SW For additional site information, refer to Physical Setting Source Map Findings Cl9 SIM -Vpo hyyieq> kMg N p McFObyG KUSN .N .MnbmDel>la,tl.WA. NIrgMeromrvptl, NlMpq bb L'nn aN>Plnw q>senrM erOPwdNO a1M EPA rgpb( >�. wncn were cmpbbE U+tler e CPrryreMn>rve Enwmmm.al Re>p . Langrn <eon end LieFNy Inpxmmbn Syslan ICERCLISI r..ft.Wn, TC7097960.3s Page A -3 11 I I I LJ I I I i i I I 11 1 I I I I I I GEOCHECW - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY Groundwater flow velocity information for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional using site specific geologic and soil strata data. If such data are not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other sources of information, including geologic age identification, rock stratigraphic unit and soil characteristics data collected on nearby properties and regional soil information. In general, contaminant plumes move more quickly through sandy - gravelly types of soils than silty - clayey types of soils. GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY Geologic information can be used by the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the relative speed at which contaminant migration maybe occurring. ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATION 1 Era: Cenozoic Category: Stratifed Sequence System: Quaternary Series: Quaternary Code: Q (decoded above as Era, System 6 Series) I A II u I W I I I I rIl L�J Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - a digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994). DOMINANT SOIL COMPOSITION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) leads the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO) soil survey maps. The following information is based on Soil Conservation Service STATSGO data. Soil Component Name: URBAN LAND Soil Surface Texture: variable Hydrologic Group: Not reported Soil Drainage Class: Not reported Hydric Status: Soil does not meet the requirements for a hydric soil. Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Not Reported Depth to Bedrock Min: > 10 inches Depth to Bedrock Max: > 10 inches Soil Layer Information Boundary Classification Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Permeability Rate (m/hr) Soil Reaction (pH) 1 0 inches 6 inches variable Not reported Not reported Max: 0.00 Min: 0.00 Max: 0.00 Min: 0.00 ' TC1097960.3s Page A -4 GEOCHECKP - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY OTHER SOIL TYPES IN AREA Based on Soil Conservation Service STATSGO data, the following additional subordinant soil types may appear within the general area of target property. Soil Surface Textures: sandy loam gravelly - sandy loam silt loam clay sand gravelly - sand fine sandy loam fine sand Surficial Soil Types: sandy loam gravelly - sandy loam sift loam clay sand gravelly - sand fine sandy loam fine sand Shallow Soil Types: fine sandy loam gravelly - loam sandy clay sandy clay loam clay sand silty clay Deeper Soil Types: gravelly - sandy loam sandy loam stratified very gravelly - sandy loam weathered bedrock silty clay loam gravelly - fine sandy loam clay loam sand very fine sandy loam According to ASTM E 1527 -00, Section 7.2.2, 'one or more additional state or local sources of environmental records may be checked, in the discretion of the environmental professional, to enhance and supplement federal and state sources... Factors to consider in determining which local or additional state records, if any, should be checked include (1) whether they are reasonably ascertainable, (2) whether they are sufficiently useful, accurate, and complete in light of the objective of the records review (see 7.1.1), and (3) whether they are obtained, pursuant to local, good commercial or customary practice." One of the record sources listed in Section 7.2.2 is water well information. Water well information can be used to assist the environmental professional in assessing sources that may impact groundwater flow direction, and in forming an opinion about the impact of contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells. TC1097960.3s Page A -5 GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY WELL SEARCH DISTANCE INFORMATION DATABASE SEARCH DISTANCE (miles) Federal USGS 1.000 Federal FRDS PWS Nearest PWS within 1 mile State Database 1.000 FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION LOCATION MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP No Wells Found FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION LOCATION MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP 8 CA3900831 1/2 -1 Mile NNW Note: PWS System location is not always the same as well location. STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION LOCATION MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP No Wells Found TC1097960.3s Page A -6 6/ GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Site ID: Database EDR ID Number Groundwater Flow: 1/2 -11 Mile Higher Shallow Water Depth: i Site ID: 083000618T ESE Groundwater Flow: Varies AGUIFLOW 548W 1/8- 1/4 Mile Higher Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: 5.01 Date: 04106/1999 A2 Site ID: NW Groundwater Flow: 1/2 -11 Mile Higher Shallow Water Depth: 1/2 -i Mile Higher Deep Water Depth: 4.23 Average Water Depth: Deep Water Depth: Date: 3 Site ID: NNW Groundwater Flow: 1/2 -11 Mile Higher Shallow Water Depth: 1/2 -i Mile Higher Deep Water Depth: 4.23 Average Water Depth: Deep Water Depth: Date: A4 Site ID: NW Groundwater Flow: 1/2 -11 Mile Higher Shallow Water Depth: 1/2 -i Mile Higher Deep Water Depth: 4.23 Average Water Depth: Deep Water Depth: Date: A5 Site ID: NW Groundwater Flow: 1/2 -11 Mile Higher Shallow Water Depth: 1/2 -i Mile Higher Deep Water Depth: 4.23 Average Water Depth: Deep Water Depth: Date: 083001570T Not Reported 5 6.5 Not Reported 06/1990 083001822T Not Reported 3.5 7.5 Not Reported 02/18/1993 083000431T S 5 8 Not Reported 07/31/1991 083000431T S 5 8 Not Reported 07/31/1991 6 SitelD: 083000449T NW Groundwater Flow: Not Reported 1/2 -i Mile Higher Shallow Water Depth: 4.23 4 Deep Water Depth: 6.06 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 03/1991 L1 Site ID: 7 NNW Groundwater Flow: 1/2 -11 Mile Shallow Water Depth: Higher Deep Water Depth: Not Reported L1 Site ID: 0830001047 Groundwater Flow: NE Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: 4 Date: 04/16/1996 AOUIFLOW 52085 AGUIFLOW 38621 AOUIFLOW 68195 AGUIFLOW 68196 AGUIFLOW 50954 AOUIFLOW 37880 ' TC1097960.3s Page A -8 GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Database EDR ID Number e NNW FRDS PWS CA3900831 1/2 -1 Mile Higher PWS ID: CA3900831 PWS Status: Not Reported Date Initiated: Not Reported Date DeactivatedNot Reported PWS Name: ARBOR MOBILE HOME PARK System Name: IRVINE, CA92714 Addressee / Facility: System Owner /Responsible Party Violation Type: Initial Tap Sampling for Pb and Cu NEWPORT PACIFIC CAPITAL 369 SAN MIGUEL LEAD 8 COPPER RULE NEWPORTBEACH, CA92660 Facility Latitude: 33 37 08 Facility Longitude] 17 55 41 City Served: Not Reported Violation ID: Enforcement Date: Treatment Class: Untreated Population: 340 PWS currently has or had major violation(s) or enforcement: Yes �1 I t I I Violations information not reported. ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION: System Name: ARBOR MOBILE HOME PARK Violation Type: Initial Tap Sampling for Pb and Cu Contaminant: LEAD 8 COPPER RULE Compliance Period: 1993 -07 -01 - 2000 -04 -04 Analytical Value: 0000000.000000000 Violation ID: Enforcement Date: 95V0001 2000 -04 -04 Enforcement ID: Enf. Action: 0089899 State Compliance Achieved System Name: ARBOR MOBILE HOME PARK Violation Type: Initial Tap Sampling for Pb and Cu Contaminant: LEAD 8 COPPER RULE Compliance Period: 1993 -07 -01 - 2015 -12 -31 Analytical Value: 0000000.000000000 , Violation ID: 95V0001 Enforcement ID: Not Reported Enforcement Date: Not Reported Enf. Action: Not Reported System Name: ARBOR MOBILE HOME PARK ' Violation Type: 71 Contaminant: 7000 Compliance Period: 1999 -10 -19 - 2015 -12 -31 Analytical Value: 0 Violation ID: 99V0001 Enforcement ID: Not Reported Enforcement Date: Not Reported Enf. Action: Not Reported System Name: ARBOR MOBILE HOME PARK violation Type: Contaminant: 71 7000 Compliance Period: 1999 -10 -19 - 2015 -12 -31 Analytical Value: 0000000.000000000 Violation ID: 99V0001 Enforcement ID: 0089899 Enforcement Date: 2000 -04 -04 Enf. Action: State Compliance Achieved System Name: ARBOR MOBILE HOME PARK i Violation Type: 71 Contaminant: 7000 Compliance Period: 1999 -10 -19 - 2015 -12 -31 Analytical Value: 0000000.000000000 Violation ID: 99V0001 Enforcement ID: Not Reported Enforcement Date: Not Reported Enf. Action: Not Reported I TC1097960.3s Page A -9 I GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Database EDR ID Number 9 Site ID: 083000359T North Groundwater Flow: SW AOUIFLOW 65144 ighe r Mile H lghe Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: 10 Date: 04/14/1995 TC1097960.3s Page A -10 GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE.MAP FINDINGS RADON AREA RADON INFORMATION State Database: CA Radon Radon Test Results Zip Total Sites > 4 Pci /L Pct. > 4 PcVL 92663 14 2 14.29 Federal EPA Radon Zone for ORANGE County: 3 Note: Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 pCi /L. Zone 2 indoor average level >= 2 pCi /L and <= 4 pCi /L. Zone 3 indoor average level < 2 pCVL. Federal Area Radon Information for ORANGE COUNTY, CA Number of sites tested: 30 Area Average Activity % <4 pCi /L % 4-20 pCi/L %>20 pCVL Living Area - 1 st Floor 0.763 pCVL 100% 0% 0% Living Area - 2nd Floor Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Basement Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TC1097960.3s Page A -11 I I PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION USGS 7.5' Digttal Elevation Model (DELI) Source: United States Geologic Survey EDR acquired the USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model in 2002.7.5- Minute DEMs correspond to the USGS 1:24,000- and 1:25,000 -scale topographic quadrangle maps. uvnom nr_�r �u�nounrnu Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 1999 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100 -year and 500 -year flood zones as defined by FEMA. NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2002 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. AQUIFLOWR Information System Source: EDR proprietary database of groundwater flow information EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System (AIS) to provide data on the general direction of groundwater flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted to regulatory authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, hydrogeologirally determined groundwater flow direction and depth to water table information. GEOLOGIC INFORMATION Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - A digital ' representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994). STATSGO: State Soil Geographic Database Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services ' The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) leads the national Conservation Soil Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO) soil survey maps. ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES FEDERAL WATER WELLS PWS: Public Water Systems ' Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water Telephone: 202 - 564-3750 Public Water System data from the Federal Reporting Data System. A PWS is any water system which provides water to at least 25 people for at least 60 days annually. PWSs provide water from wells, rivers and other sources. PWS ENF: Public Water Systems Violation and Enforcement Data Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water Telephone: 202 - 564 -3750 Violation and Enforcement data for Public Water Systems from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) after August 1995. Prior to August 1995, the data came from the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS). USGS Water Wells: USGS National Water Inventory System (NWIS) This database contains descriptive information on sites where the USGS collects or has collected data on surface water and/or groundwater. The groundwater data includes information on wells, springs, and other sources of groundwater. I 1 TC1097960.3s Page A -12 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED STATE RECORDS California Drinking Water Ouality Database Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 916- 324 -2319 The database includes all drinking water compliance and special studies monitoring for the state of California since 1964. It consists of over 3,200,000 individual analyses along with well and water system information. California Oil and Gas Well Locations for District 2, 3, 5 and 6 Source: Department of Conservation Telephone: 916323 -1779 T.@I State Database: CA Radon Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 916- 324 -2208 Radon Database for California Area Radon Information Source: USGS Telephone: 703356 -4020 The National Radon Database has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and is a compilation of the EPA/State Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Survey. The study covers the years 1986 - 1992. Where necessary data has been supplemented by information collected at private sources such as universities and research institutions. EPA Radon Zones Source: EPA Telephone: 703356-0020 Sections 307 & 309 of IRAA directed EPA to list and identify areas of U.S. with the potential for elevated indoor radon levels. OTHER Airport Landing Facilities: Private and public use lending facilities Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 800 - 457 -6656 Epicenters: World earthquake epicenters, Richter 5 or greater Source: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration California Earthquake Fault Lines: The fault lines displayed on EDR's Topographic map are digitized quaternary fault lines, prepared in 1975 by the United State Geological Survey. Additional information (also from 1975) regarding activity at specific fault lines comes from California's Preliminary Fault Activity Map prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology. 1 11 I I I I LI I I P IJ 1 TC1097960.3s Page A -13 1