The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About23 - AERIE- Staff ReportCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No�`--77 � July 14, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644 -3210 icampbell(a)city. newport- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: AERIE (PA 2005 -196) 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue & 101 Bayside Place • General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006 • Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002 • Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009 • Tract Map No. NT2005 -004 (TTM16882) • Modification Permit No. MD2005 -087 • Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2005 -002 • Environmental Impact Report No. ER2008 -002 (SCH. No. 2007021054) APPLICANT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Richard Julian, President ISSUE Should the City Council amend the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Districting Map and approve a Tentative Tract Map, Modification Permit and a Coastal Residential Development Permit for the development of the AERIE project? RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive the applicant's presentation, staff report, open public hearing, and receive public comments; and 2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH. No. 2007021054) and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 3. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 3) adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and approving General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002, Newport Tract Map No. NT2005 -004 (TTM16882), Modification Permit No. MD2005 -087 and Coastal Residential AERIE (PA2005 -196) July 14, 2009, Page 2 Development Permit No. CR2005 -002, subject to the attached findings and conditions. 4. Introduce an ordinance (Attachment 4) amending Zoning Districting Map thereby approving Code Amendment No. 2005 -009, and pass the ordinance to a second reading for adoption on July 28, 2009. BACKGROUND On August 14, 2007, the AERIE project was considered by the City Council. The City Council determined that the project was not consistent with policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan in that the project was not designed to be within the predominant line of existing development ( PLOED). The City Council established a predominant line of existing bluff face development for the site ( PLOED) at elevation 50.7 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) and referred a revised project to the Planning Commission for further review. The applicant revised the project based upon the City Council's guidance and after consideration by the Planning Commission in June of 2008.. The City Council considered the revised project on July 22, 2008. The City Council expressed several concerns including the visual impact of the project, impacts to marine resources, short- term construction impacts and parking. Because of these concerns, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), responses to comments (Attachment 2) and related documents along with the revised project were reviewed by the Planning Commission at its May 21, 2009, and June 4, 2009, meetings. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1787 recommending certification of the DEIR, adoption of a statement of overriding circumstances and project approval (Attachment 5). APPLICATION SUMMARY The project involves the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and a single family dwelling and the construction of a new, 8 -unit residential condominium building consisting of 6 levels and approximately 61,709 gross square feet of building area. New development on the bluff face is proposed to be at elevation 52.83 NAVD 88, which is above the PLOED established by the City Council, except for a dock/emergency exit at elevation 44.48 NAVD 88 that will be screened from public view. Additionally, the applicant seeks approval to replace an existing floating dock structure with a larger dock structure to berth up to 8 boats permanently and including one guest side tie. The applicant is also proposing to enlarge an existing catch basin and underground a utility line, both located in Carnation Avenue. A more detailed description is provided in the DEIR and Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 21, 2009. AERIE (PA2005 -196) July 14, 2009, Page 3 AERIE (PA2005 -196) July 14, 2009, Page 4 The following discretionary approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as designed: General Plan Amendment (GP2005 -006) The proposed amendment of the General Plan would change the land use designation of the 584 - square -foot portion of the parcel located at 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two - Unit Residential) to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre) in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2005 -002) The proposed amendment of the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) would change the land use designation of the same 584 - square -foot portion of the parcel at 101 Bayside Place from RH -D (High Density Residential — 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre) to RM -A (Medium Density Residential — 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). Code Amendment (CA2005 -009) The proposed amendment of the Zoning District Map would change the zoning classification of the 584 - square -foot portion of the parcel located at 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two -Unit Residential) to MFR (Multi -unit Residential, 2,178 square feet per unit). Tentative Tract Map (NT2005- 004/TT16882) The proposed tentative tract map will combine the 584 - square -foot portion of the parcel located at 101 Bayside Place with parcels identified as 201 — 205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue, and to subdivide the air space for eight (8) residential condominium units in accordance with the final project plans. Modification Permit (MD2005 -087) The proposed modification permit would allow: (1) below grade building encroachments within the 10 -foot front yard setback along Carnation Avenue; (2) 42 -inch high protective guard rails within the required 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue where they are restricted to 36 inches; (3) above and below grade building encroachments within the required 10 -foot, 7 -inch side yard setback abutting 215 Carnation Avenue; and (4) balcony and guardrail encroachments within the 10 -foot, 7 -inch side yard setback abutting Bayside Place. Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002) The proposed coastal residential development permit would allow demolition of the existing dwelling units within the Coastal Zone pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. AERIE (PA2005 -196) July 14, 2009, Page 5 • Environmental Impact Report (ER2008 -002) An Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2007021054) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. DISCUSSION Based upon the discussion contained within the DEIR and staff reports, the Planning Commission concluded that the project is consistent with the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. Additionally, the Planning Commission concluded that the required findings for approval of the Tentative Tract Map, Modification Permit and Coastal Residential Development Permit are supported by the administrative record. A more detailed discussion of these applications is provided in the Planning Commission staff Report dated May 21, 2009 (Attachment 6). Harbor Commission The Harbor Commission reviewed the proposed docks on April 8, 2009. The Commission was of the opinion that the proposed docks would intrude into the main channel and that high wave energy experienced in this area presents a safety concern. The Harbor Commission acts in an advisory role and the Harbor Resources Manager is the local permitting authority. The safety concern is addressed by sound engineering AERIE (PA2005 -196) July 14, 2009, Page 6 and construction while relocating boats to a more secluded area when wave conditions could damage berthed vessels, which is a common operational solution for this part of the harbor. Subsequent to the Harbor Commission meeting on April 8�h, the Commission established a three Commissioner subcommittee to further evaluate the proposed docks. Chairman Duffield and Commissioners Lawrenz and Corrough visited the site and dropped 3 buoys representing the boats that would be berthed at the proposed docks. The Commissioners have reported back to the Harbor Commission their new opinion that the proposed docks would not present any impediment to safe navigation. The full Harbor Commission is reconsidering their recommendation on July 8, 2009. Staff will provide a supplemental report or an oral report to the City Council based upon the Harbor Commission's action. Charter Section 423 Charter Section 423 requires that major General Plan Amendments be voted upon by the electorate. A major General Plan Amendment is one that increases the General Plan by 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor area or increases traffic by more than 100 peak hour vehicle trips or increases residential dwelling units by 100 units. Additionally, a General Plan amendment that is below these Charter Section 423 thresholds would require a require a vote if the increases in floor area, peak hour trips or residential units of the project, when added to 80% of the increases of prior amendments approved within the past 10 years, exceed the Charter Section 423 thresholds cited above. Pursuant to Council Policy A -18, voter approval is not required in this case as the proposed General Plan Amendment represents an increase of 1 dwelling unit and an increase of 1 A.M. and 1 P.M. peak hour trip based upon the change in land use designation for the 584 square foot portion of the project site. Additionally, no prior amendments have been approved within Statistical Area F3 and, therefore, the project and prior amendments do not cumulatively exceed Charter Section 423 thresholds as to require a vote of the electorate. The increases associated with this General Plan Amendment will be tracked in accordance with Charter Section 423 and Council Policy A -18 for 10 years if approved by the City Council. Draft Environmental Impact Report The DEIR includes analysis of the issues raised at the July 2008 City Council meeting. Among these issues are impacts to public views and construction - related noise. The DEIR evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that are designed to lessen significant impacts. The DEIR identifies short-term, construction - related noise as the only significant and unavoidable impact due to the intensity of noise generated by construction equipment, proximity to residential uses and duration of noise. All other project impacts are considered less than significant or no impact and in some cases, mitigation measures are identified. The overall construction phase is anticipated to be 32 months, with the highest noise levels occurring during excavation and construction of the foundations. AERIE (PA2005 -196) July 14, 2009, Page 7 The DEIR includes visual simulations showing the project, including the proposed docks, from various vantage points (the abutting streets, Begonia Park, harbor beaches and from boats). The simulations show that public views from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue will be improved compared to current conditions due to increased side yard setbacks. The simulations of the view from Begonia Park show that even though the proposed residential structure is more visible than existing structures due to its larger size and its projection farther from Carnation Avenue, the overall quality of, the public views from Begonia Park will not be significantly impacted. The simulated public views from the harbor to the site show that the qualities of the view will change. This is principally due to the elimination of existing structures, considered by some people to be unattractive. The proposed building will occupy more of the upper portion of the bluff than existing development but it will "line up" with the homes along Carnation Avenue to the north. The bluff face below the proposed building will be restored by removing invasive plants, drainage devices, and concrete. The existing bluff access stair will be repaired and refurbished and lastly, the bluff face will be re- planted with native plants appropriate for that environment. The expanded docks with boats create a transitory impediment to viewing the project bluff and rocks depending upon the viewer's location. The closer to the site the viewer is, the more prominent the boats in the docks would be. However, views of the bluff, rocks and cove will remain as one "cruises" in and out of the harbor given that these features below the proposed residential building are not being physically altered or covered. Physical access to the rocks and cove from the water will not be impacted with project implementation. As noted previously, the DEIR identified a reasonable range of alternatives that would attain most of the basic project objectives while avoiding or lessening significant impacts of the project. The mandatory No Project/No Development and Alternative Site alternatives were also included. Given the goal to reduce construction noise and, the fact that the only variable in the noise impact assessment that can be readily adjusted is construction duration, staff focused on reducing the extent of excavation to reduce construction duration while keeping in mind the applicant's basic project objectives. The following alternatives were considered feasible and were evaluated in the DEIR: • Reduced Intensity - development of 3 single - family dwellings • Reduced Intensity -development of 5 -unit, multi - family residential project • Development of an 8 -unit, multi - family residential project with reduced excavation The Reduced Intensity (3 single - family) Alternative analysis assumed development of the site with three custom, residential homes consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations. It assumed that excavation on the bluff face would be no lower than the PLOED as established by the City Council. The applicant indicated that this alternative would not include the enlargement of the existing catch basin or the undergrounding of the utility line in Carnation Avenue. Although this alternative might have some environmental benefits when compared to the project (reduced construction- related impacts), the overall construction duration would likely be far longer as the three custom homes could take as long as 24 months each to construct and would not likely be constructed at the same time. This alternative does not accomplish many of the applicant's basic project objectives. AERIE (PA2005 -196) July 14, 2009, Page 8 The Reduced Intensity (5 -unit, multi - family) Alternative analysis assumes development of the site in the same fashion as the proposed project and it would appear much the same as the proposed project from outward appearances. This alternative assumed excavation of the bluff face would be no lower than the PLOED as established by the City Council. The principal difference is the elimination of both the Sub - basement and Basement levels, which avoids 25 additional caissons, reducing 12,240 cubic yards of export and approximately 1,150 heavy truck trips when compared to the proposed project. Like the previous alternative, the applicant would not enlarge the catch basin or underground the utility line in Carnation Avenue. Due to the elimination of these lowest two levels, area devoted to parking for three units and many of the amenities deemed necessary by the applicant (a project objective) could not be accommodated. As a result of the loss of parking, this alternative would reduce the number of units from 8 units to 5 units. Short- term construction noise and less than significant impacts associated with grading (air quality and construction traffic) would be reduced when compared to the proposed project. The overall construction duration for this alternative is estimated to be 23 months, a 9- month reduction compared to the proposed project. The DEIR incorrectly indicates that the view corridors would be expanded. Both view corridors would be the same as that provided by the project. The 8 -unit, multi - family residential alternative with reduced excavation was evaluated in two separate configurations identified in the DEIR as Alternatives A and B. Both of these alternative configurations eliminate the Sub - basement level (lowest level) and a portion of the Sub - basement level. Alternative A provides a larger Basement level to maintain more building area for common amenities, storage and mechanical spaces than Alternative B. Sufficient area for the parking for 8 units could be accommodated in both alternative configurations. The applicant would provide the enlarged catch basin and underground the utility line in Carnation Avenue with Alternative A, but would not provide these benefits with Alternative B. The overall construction duration for Alternative A is estimated to be 27 months (5 -month reduction from that of the proposed project) and the overall construction duration for Alternative B is estimated to be 26 months (6 month reduction from that of the proposed project). Significant short-term construction noise and other less than significant impacts associated with grading (air quality and construction traffic) would be reduced; however, the short-term noise impact would remain significant and unavoidable with either alternative. Alternative B results in a lesser noise impact than Alternative A. Alternative A and B partially meet all of the applicant's project objectives to differing degrees (Alternative A more than B). The Planning Commission focused on Alternative A, but ultimately concluded that project benefits outweighed short-term impacts. The June 4, 2009, Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 7) provides a more detailed comparison table between the proposed project and Alternative A. The upgrade of the catch basin and the undergrounding of utilities were cited. Greater amenities accommodated through inclusion of the Sub - basement and Basement levels were determined to be important to the success of the project and Commissioners agreed that this outweighed the reductions in impacts that would accompany the alternatives. This is the basis for the statement of overriding considerations contained in Attachment 3 that must be adopted to approve the proposed project. AERIE (PA2005 -196) July 14, 2009, Page 9 PUBLIC NOTICE A hearing notice indicating the subject, time, place and location of this hearing was provided in accordance with the Municipal Code. Notice was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and the site was posted a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing. Notice of the hearing is also provided with the agenda for the meeting, which was posted in accordance with applicable law and appears on the City's website. SUMMARY The Planning Commission and staff recommend project approval subject to findings and conditions of approval. The project is consistent with the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. Public views are being protected with some being enhanced. Alteration of the bluff face is minimized and visually, it will be enhanced. As noted previously, the attached draft resolutions and ordinance contain facts supporting the necessary findings for certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and various applications. Should the City Council believe that any of the findings are not supported, a change to the project may be necessary. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS The City Council can consider several alternative actions: 1. Direct that the project be modified and returned for subsequent City Council consideration. 2. Approve one of the Alternatives considered in the DEIR. 3. Deny the project based upon its impacts to the environment or finding that it is not consistent with applicable General Plan or Coastal Land Use Plan policy. Should the City Council choose one of these alternative actions, staff suggests a continuance to revise the resolutions to reflect the City Council's direction unless the change is minor and can be accomplished with a simple change to the conditions of approval. Prepared by: Ttt,i c� James Campbell, Principal Planner Submitted by: aavidlepo, Planning Director AERIE (PA2005 -196) July 14, 2009, Page 10 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report a. Draft EIR (Separate Bound Volume) 2. Responses to Comments 3. Draft resolution adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and approving the proposed project 4. Draft ordinance amending the Zoning District Map 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 recommending approval 6. Planning Commission record from May 21, 2009 a. Staff report b. Late correspondence c. Excerpt of meeting minutes 7. Planning Commission record from June 4, 2009 a. Staff report b. Late correspondence c. Excerpt of meeting minutes 8. Applicant's City Council Briefing Booklet 9. Correspondence 10. Project Plans CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 23 July 14, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644 -3210 jampbell (a�city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: AERIE (PA 2005 -196) 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue & 101 Bayside Place • General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006 • Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002 • Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009 • Tract Map No. NT2005 -004 (TTM16882) • Modification Permit No. MD2005 -087 • Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2005 -002 • Environmental Impact Report No. ER2008 -002 (SCH. No. 2007021054) APPLICANT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Richard Julian. President Harbor Commission On July 8, 2009, the Harbor Commission considered the proposed docks for a second time based upon additional information provided by a three - member subcommittee of Commissioners. The subcommittee was formed after the April 8, 2009, Harbor Commission meeting where the Commission adopted the following motion, "While not opposed to the expansion of the existing dock and its area and capacity, we believe the size and configuration of the proposed dock would create a negative impact on navigation and recreational boating in the harbor." Both the July 81" and April 8`" Harbor Commission staff reports are attached for consideration. After a lengthy discussion of the site reconnaissance and evaluation that the subcommittee performed, the Harbor Commission unanimously voted to revise its position to indicate that the proposed docks would not pose a negative impact to navigation or recreational boating. The Harbor Commission most recently determined that the proposed docks, including berthed vessels, do not encroach into the navigational channel and the docks meet City standards. There would be sufficient separation between berthed vessels and the navigational channel for safe navigation. Additionally, it was noted that the docks meet Department of Boating and Waterways standards, and therefore, access to nearby AERIE (PA2005 -196) — supplemental report July 14, 2009, Page 2 docks would be maintained. The subcommittee also indicated their belief that visibility and access to the cove would not be significantly impacted. Several Commissioners expressed a concern about potential impacts to the marine environment. The project, through the construction management plan, includes measures to avoid and /or mitigate potential impacts resulting from construction and operation of the project. There was a general consensus among Commissioners that docks can be readily engineered to safely withstand anticipated wave action; however, the Commission expressed concerns about the safety of boats side tied to the docks during storm events. Boats move independently of the docks and a side tied boat could damage the docks and boats. There is a possibility that a boat could break free and an emergency situation could result. Although a proposed mitigation measure would require the side tied boats to be relocated to a safer location during storm events, the Commission's reservations remained. Ultimately, the Commission directed Harbor Resources staff to apply more specific operational conditions to the dock permit to implement the relocation of the boats during storms. The docks are not before the City Council for permitting as the jurisdiction for permitting rests with the Harbor Resources Manager. The City Council is considering the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the docks are a component of the project. Only after certification of the EIR can the Harbor Resources Manager issue permits. Prepared by: �VV Mmes Campbell, Principal Planner ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: 4. i ro Davi Lepo, Planning Director 1. Harbor Commission Staff Report dated July 8, 2009 2. Harbor Commission Staff Report dated April 8, 2009 3. Minutes from April 8, 2009 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No 2 July 8, 2009 TO: HARBOR COMMISSION FROM: Harbor Resources Division Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager (949) 644 -3043, cmiller @city newport-beach ca.us SUBJECT: Appeal -Aerie Dock Project at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue ISSUE Should the Aerie project applicants at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue be permitted to replace the existing double U- shaped float with a dock system capable of berthing 8 vessels for residents and 1 guest side -tie? Based on the recent findings of the Harbor Commission Aerie Task Force, the applicant is appealing the Harbor Commission's April 2009 review which concluded the project does create a significant impact on navigation and recreational boating in the harbor RECOMMENDED ACTION The Harbor Commissions requested to Review the findings of the Harbor Commission Aerie Task Force and provide comments on the dock system's overall design. Harbor Resources will forward this input to the City Council who will review the entire project as a whole DISCUSSION On April 8. 2009, the Harbor Commission reviewed the dock portion of the Aerie project along with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) There was much discussion from the Commission and the public about the impact that this proposed dock system would have on navigation in the Entrance Channel Asa result. the Commission made an advisory motion which was -While not opposed to the expansion of the existing dock and its area and capacity, we believe the size and configuration of the proposed dock would create a negative impact on navigation and recreational boating in the harbor ' However, the Harbor Commission offered to assist the applicant in further refining their dock design The original staff report and minutes of the April Harbor Commission meeting are available online at: htto / /www city newoort- beach ca us/ hbr/ HarborCommissionA4endas /HarborCom asp Subsequently, at the May Harbor Commission meeting, an Aerie Task Force was formed with three members of the Commission Marshall Duffield, John Corrough and Don Lawrenz On May 30, 2009. the Task Force visited the site. along with the applicant, and completed a field survey of the existing and proposed dock layout. Their completed report is attached in Exhibit 8 The Task Force presented their findings at the June 10, 2009 Harbor Commission meeting at which time the applicant requested his project be appealed and reconsidered by the full Commission Irn; 11ued Prupa'f ,1prd N 2009 Page - Special Conditions To refresh, staff has proposed several Special Conditions which the Harbor Commission may evaluate and advise modifying as appropriate Aside from the routine conditions, these unique Special Conditions are In accordance with Municipal Code 10 08 030 A the protect applicant shall obtain the proper permits for equipment and materials storage "Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall use any public street, sidewalk, alley or parkway or other public property for the purpose of storing or displaying any equipment. materials or merchandise, or any other commercial purpose B Public streets, sidewalks, alleys, or parkways may be used for the purpose of selling, storing, or displaying any equipment, material, merchandise or for other commercial purposes in the following cases. For the temporary storage of construction equipment or material provided a permit is issued pursuant to Chapter 12.62 of this Code and the storage is consistent with provisions of the Uniform Building Code " 2 The contractor shall post and update a two week schedule of construction activities at a location(s) easily accessible to local residents In accordance with Municipal Code 10 28 040 the following noise regulations apply. "A Weekdays and Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool. equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity. on any weekday except between the hours of seven a m and six -thirty p m , nor on any Saturday except between the hours of eight a m and six p m B Sundays and Holidays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading. demolition, painting, plastering or any other related budding activity. operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any federal holiday " 4. The project shall be implemented in conformance with the Local Coastal Program - Coastal Land Use Plan. 5. Eelgrass beds have been found adjacent to the project area and shall be protected per the "Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy" prepared and managed by NOAH! National Marine Fisheries Service. 6 During construction, disturbance of the adjacent beach shall be minimized Construction materials and equipment shall not be placed on the beach. The beach's sand dollar habitat shall be protected during construction. The project applicant shall submit a Beach Protection Plan to the Harbor Resources Manager for approval prior to start of construction 7 The project applicant and its successors are notified that even though the proposed dock system replaces an existing dock system, the new docks will be constructed in the Entrance Channel to Newport Bay which is subject to surge and swell activity which may cause damage to the dock system and vessels berthed therein. It is the responsibility of the project applicant and its successors to maintain and operate the dock system to minimize damage to the dock system and vessels. The dock system shall be subject to nuisance abatement per Title 17 of the Municipal Code. if in the opinion of the Harbor Resources Manager. it presents an endangerment to other facilities or vessels in the harbor Arne Dock Project April A. 2409 Page 3 The project applicant must remove the existing dock system including the gangway and pier within 90 days of receiving all final regulatory permits allowing the construction of the replacement dock system 9 The vessels that will be side-tied to the outside, bayward -most float shall not extend into the harbor more than 24' feet from the edge of this outside, bayward -most float 10 The guest side -tie on the north end of the dock system shall only be available for vessels less than or equal to 30 feet in length. This slip shall be used for guest berthing only and will not be used for any permanent. long term vessel storage. and will not be rented or leased. 11 The number of boat slips approved in the final design must be the same as the number of dwelling units approved by the City Council in the final project approval PUBLIC NOTICE This meeting has been publicly noticed via a mailer (to the residents and occupants within a 310' radius of the project) and jobsite posting on June 23, 2009 and also posted on the City's website on July 2, 2009 See Exhibit 7. This agenda item has been noticed according to the Ralph M Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the public meetings at which the Harbor Commission considers the item) It was also posted on the City's website ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An EIR (SCH# 2007021054) has been prepared for the entire project which includes both lands de and harbor improvements The City Council will make the final determination as to the adequacy of the EIR After this point, Harbor Resources staff may issue an Approval in Concept with Special Conditions for the dock portion of the project. assuming the EIR has been approved. If the final review process suggests substantial changes to the dock design, then staff may return to the Harbor Commission for review in the future Prepared by Chris Miller Harbor Resources Manager Attachments Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5. Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Vicinity Map Existing Dock Layout Proposed Dock Layout Proposed Dock Layout with Dimensions Proposed Dock Layout with Channel Lanes Vicinity Map with Eelgrass Public Notice Aerie Task Force Field Survey Arnie /hick I'miecl April R. 1009 Page J Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map in;r /hnR I'rgrrr Ipni \ :l104 !' w, . Exhibit 2 Existing Dock Layout �.•• •` , . rnuo ullwoa sel•o°sstl B V "';J .a k wiOrwo MifiO San . _ �p t fl` wJW aI •A8Y ••VfL O i 4 p 0 wYA]MY](N)�,-}Y\ `\ 11 17 ^swoa ;s.•t:+;n: CD CL -ns a3 • �ArDUYIe -\ O r 4,1 ;STJYIa t; _ 1 � (3) i Nonib ' i� Y•g9b� it T an Cra "o•{h I�j{, � � �� x w StPY15 OvM- lr�t -.� nrNN •Y ;M• s ]NO] I➢7 C3�tiAeanY -IYM ;l? Or iaib � \ � Y x x x � x a c -, Aerre lock Project April k 2009 Page 7 Exhibit 4 Proposed Dock Layout with Dimensions F�� N • P 7 �1© / . / N • P 7 �1© Aerie Dock Prajecr April 8, 11N)9 Page 8 Exhibit 5 Proposed Dock Layout with Channel Lanes Aerie lock Project Apnl N. 2009 Page 9 Exhibit 6 Vicinity Map with Eelgrass 1 Aerie lM(4 I mye'.1 April 8. 2009 Page 10 Exhibit 7 Public Notice CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 11 %RBOR RESOURCES PUBLIC NOTICE 201 - 207 Carnation Avenue Dock Replacement Project The project applicant at 201 - 207 Carnation Avenue (Aerie) is proposing a project which includes replacement of an existing two slip dock system capable of berthing four vessels, with a system capable of berthing up to nine vessels. In addition. the upland property will be rebuilt with 8 Condominiums. The Harbor Commission has been asked to advise the City Council on the dock replacement portion of the project only. The Harbor Commission previously considered this project on April 8, 2009 and they had concerns about the dock's impact on navigation and recreational boating in the harbor. A Harbor Commission Task Force was subsequently formed to further study the proposal and possible alternatives At the June 10, 2009 Harbor Commission meeting, the Task Force concluded that the project does comply with the harbor requirements and does not create a significant impact on navigation and recreational boating in the harbor. Therefore, the project applicant is appealing the project for the entire Harbor Commission to reconsider. The Harbor Commission will hear this matter on Wednesday, July 8, 2009 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 3300 Newport Boulevard The Harbor Commission agenda and staff report will be available online by Juty 2, 2009, at. hltp ilwww.citv.newport -beach ca us/hbr/HarborCommissionnew.html Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager cmiller@dty.riewport-beach.ca.us 829 Harbor laland [hive, Newpon Hench, CA 92660 PH: 1949) 644 -3034 FX: (949) 723 -0589 a Website r. vww newport- beachra us /HBR/ Aerie Mck Prolea April 8. 20(19 Page 11 Public Outreach 310' Radius from Project r ..,,.M;S�o, e. O fry Y` R„mM, R.W.w NMw )u..l . H Siva IIV : +R+1. r3 12 R` M.LI CR nM An qNP WI`.Iqu a .., `A 11 01118 1.f$pp1,W ul. Gl ri NP'JRl tliA 1, • •'.l5 Aerie Awk Pro /ecc A1nB N, 1009 Page 11 Exhibit 8 Aerie Task Force Field Survey Harbor Commission Aerie Docks Subcommittee Field Survey Memorandum Background At the April 8, 2009 Newport Beach Harbor Commission meeting, an advisory motion was passed unanimously that stated: " While not opposed to the expansion of the existing dock and its area and capacity, we believe the size and configuration of the proposed dock project would create significant negative impact on navigation and recreational boating in the harbor." Unresolved Issues Subsequent discussion among the Commissioners during this meeting, and during a visit by three commissioners to the site (Rodheim, Chairman Duffield & Corrough) indicated that there were a number of unresolved issues and internal HC disagreements with regard to the actual potential extent to which the project might "...create significant negative impact on navigation and recreational boating in the harbor ", versus a "perceived /speculated" impact. Subcommittee Created to Perform Field Survey As a result, an Aerie Docks HC subcommittee was created, comprised of 3 Commissioners (Chairman Duffield, Lawrenz, Corrough) , who were self- tasked with creating an on -water survey and simulated layout ( with properly located and anchored buoys) of the marina, based upon the current engineering drawings for the project, to examine these HC concerns. Intent and Scope of Survey The intent of this survey was to visually and physically illustrate, with a high degree of accuracy on the project water area, the actual physical relationship of the proposed dock system to the following specific elements of navigation and water area definition: a. The existing 3 -slip dock system to be removed and replaced, new pier access; b. The existing 500' Federal navigation channel as defined in navigation charts and the engineering plans, the Federal /City Project Line (east channel edge) and the existing Federal navigation aid "R6" consisting of a vertical steel pole, red triangular daymark and light signal with the characteristics Fl R 4S 3K c. The existing adjacent docks and water areas whose position and navigational approaches were considered and incorporated in the overall proposed new dock configuration, as well as other existing docks in the Carnation Cove area for which the City/ HC have granted approvals; d. The existing City Bulkhead Line, Pierhead Line, and Federal Project Line as shown on the project engineering drawings and City documentation of the proposed docks, and the actual use of the navigation channel and adjacent waters; e. The existing Shoal Buoy and shoal to the south, roughly on the Pierhead Line; Additionally, the continuing general accessibility to the water areas between the navigation channel and the proposed docks /docked vessels as well as the water areas adjacent to and behind these proposed docks /vessels for use by various types of watercraft ranging from small vessels engaged in fishing, kayaks, sailboats and powerboats was informally assessed. Conduct of Field Survey On Saturday May 30 ", 2009, the Aerie Docks Field Survey was conducted at the project site and in surrounding waters from approximately 12:30 PM to 3:30 PM. Conditions were overcast, wind S /SW at approx. 6 -8 knots, tide slack at start (12:30), rising to a day high of +47 at approx. 2:15 PM, creating an estimated 0.8 knot flood current during survey. In attendance were: - Chairman Marshall Duffield with an 18' Duffy, digital camera - Commissioner Donald Lawrenz with a 13' Whaler, 150' tape measure, 3 buoys with anchor tackle, compass and depth sounder, digital camera - Commissioner John Corrough with project drawings, aerial photos, handheld GPS, handheld bearing compass, digital camera - Rick Julian, project developer, who assisted from on the existing docks Prior to the on -water survey activities, a discussion of process and measurements was held, using the project engineering /EIR materials (plans, aerial photos, etc. showing proposed dock locations, dimensions and the various Harbor Lines. (see attached drawings & photos) The following control dimensions (from the URS engineering layout of the proposed docks) were established and utilized in the survey: (see attached drawings & photos) - 53.5' ( +/- 0.51 distance from the channelward edge of the existing center dock float (of three) on a magnetic bearing of 270 deg. ( +/- 2 deg.) was to be used as a baseline for the location of Buoy #1 (15" dayglow red round plastic buoy) to mark the channelward NW corner of the proposed outer dock; - 24.0'(+/- 0.5') distance, on on a magnetic bearing of 270 deg. ( +/- 1 deg.), beyond the location of Buoy #1 was to be used as the location of Buoy #2 (6" dayglow red "pot" buoy) to mark the channelward edge of the 24' side -tie allowed along the channel face of the proposed outer dock; - 155' ( +/- 05) distance, on on a magnetic bearing of 180 deg. ( +/- 1 deg.), from the location of Buoy #1 was to be used as the location of Buoy #3 (6" dayglow red "pot" buoy) to mark the channelward SE corner of the proposed outer dock. The on -water placement of the buoys in the locations described above was accomplished byy Commissioners Lawrenz and Duffield using the Whaler, with Commisioner Corrough confirming bearings and distances from the baseline point on the existing center dock. Commissioner Lawrenz utilized adjustable anchor rodes on the buoys to properly position them in relation to current and anchor position, within the required locational parameters. Distances and positions were again confirmed after placement, using the tape and hand bearing compass, as well as the Whaler compass. Use of GPS for further location was considered redundant and no position recordings were taken. Buoys were in position at approximately 1:30 PM. (see attached drawings and photos) Photographs of buoy locations and surrounding waters and landmarks were taken from the Duffy by Commissioners Corrough and Duffield, and from simulated approaches along the eastern edge of the navigation channel along both Project Line and Pierhead Line courses of approximately 150 degree (inbound course) view and 330 degree reciprocal view magnetic headings. (see photos) Additional photos were taken from approximate 90 and 120 degree magnetic sailboat tack headings approaching the proposed dock locations (and reciprocals from the existing docks) to determine the potential effect on sailboats using the of water to be occupied by potential new docks and berth vessels, and the amount of water area potentially remaining available for tacking. No significant effect other than an 80' -90' shortening of the inbound 600'+ tack was noted- other tacks on either side of the dock ends could continue as deeply into the site as present, with the docks in place. Ability for small, shallow -draft vessels to continue to approach /use the beach and to view the bluff bottom rock formations was also assessed informally and determined to be retained. Observations from the existing docks by various Commissioners informally noted the courses and actions of vessels approaching and passing by /through the proposed dock area denoted by the buoys included sail and power vessels within the navigation channel , sail vessels outside the east edge of the channel (OCC Shields on an inbound tight beat course), and outbound kayaks and inbound rental fishing boats. No deviation was required. Buoys and anchor tackle were recovered from their positions at approximately 2:45 PM. Photographs from the top of the bluff overlooking the existing and future docks site and marker buoys were taken by Commissioner Duffield after the on -water survey. (see photos) The on -site survey activities were concluded at approximately 3:30 and all Commissioners and vessels departed the site. Aerie Docks Project Site Survey Findings and Conclusions 1. The proposed docks and their end -tied vessels would not present a direct navigational hazard to any vessels transiting within the established and marked 500' wide Newport Harbor federal navigation channel, and are located well outside the channel /Project Line boundary. This location /configuration complies with existing Newport Beach, federal laws. 2. The proposed docks and their end -tied vessels retain at least a 21'+ clear water buffer between the edge of the channel as defined by the Project Line and the nearest /largest permitted berthed vessel in the project. Small vessels (30' and under) typically meandering inbound or outbound through the open water area between the navigation channel and the project's docks and berthed vessels would continue to have adequate safe clearance between channel traffic and the project's largest berthed vessel for fishing, kayaking, canoeing, etc. 3. The proposed docks and their end -tied vessels would be located (and would appear) well inside (estimated 70' -80') a typical straight -line inbound course taken by a vessel to clear (by 50' apx.) the existing moored bait barge and the R6 fixed navigation mark, which is a typical day or nite inbound course and navigational waypoint (R6) during the high - traffic summer season when there is increased outbound and inbound traffic present. This continues the existing historic and necessary use of the navigation channel along; this portion of its length 4. The "narrowest point of the harbor" for safe /official navigational purposes is not at the project site nor is it created by the design construction and use proposed project, but rather occurs some 350' to the North beyond the proposed project area where the R6 mark marks the bend and narrowing of the channel to the NW. Inbound vessels navigating outside the eastern edge of the navigation channel and to the east of the R6 mark will encounter the County mooring field and private docks and shoreline extending from Carnation Cove beyond which block their route and will typically turn well before the R6 mark. This 5. The design of the proposed docks and their berthed vessels would retain continued direct public - waters access and views to the existing beach by small beachable vessels (kayaks,etc.) and retain shallow water access and views to the bluff and the distinctive rock formation through an 88' wide channel to the north of the docks and an 80' wide channel to the south, both opening up to wider water areas and views as these areas are entered on passed by vessels. These design elements avvear to comely with the Draft EIR and with City, State-and Summary Conclusion: Based upon the field survey and analysis effort and its findings stated above, it is the unanimous opinion of the Harbor Commission Aerie Docks Survey Subcommittee that Subcommittee Cautionary Note: The preliminary layout and design of the proposed dock system and its structural pilings appears to comply with accepted professional marine engineering practice and the recommendations of the various technical studies for a project of this type on this site. The project has accordingly received preliminary City Approval in Concept (with a number of conditions). The owner, throup-h accevtance of these conditions, must acknowledge and events which may exceed even the storm- resistant design parameters of the docks. The owner /developer has agreed to certain operational and management procedures for the proposed docks and berthed vessels including warnings to and required vessel relocation by the vessel owners, and other procedures, in case of an impending severe storm event. This Harbor Commission Subcommittee remains concerned that these requirements are POP 0 0 n n c� n s v� 0 g* > 3 ,R tea U 0 I . a� a4 de a9 5N IN I ✓, t e err' %'''°°1111 ✓ ✓�lr ✓' j ��"�Y.. Aerie Docks Engineering Layout, Depths, Eel Grass, Harbor Lines sc y Q v 6 EvDY #+; t 1` -W 1 -- rYWA4- COV91OF— Inbound Course View at Shoal Buoy- BuOV 21 Above Shoal Buoy,92 to left, :3 right rnic��6 g�3 t r• • - �....��•• . BAIT 9A41i1= F� View on Reciprocal of Project Line Inbound Course, Buoys :1,2,3 to Left of Stark 6 610y4? E.NLOf 5ao�ct+kNN4L�hvX) Buoys #1 & S 2 and Existing Docks, View From Pier find �oArt- Ar64C*,y 1D BF4" Aq\W V I C W To ROC-v-S Buoy #3 and Adjacent Docks, View From Pier End Intentionally Blank CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 2 April 8, 2009 TO: HARBOR COMMISSION FROM: Harbor Resources Division Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager (949) 644 -3043, cmiller @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Aerie Dock Project at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue ISSUE Should the Aerie project applicants at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue be permitted to replace the existing double U- shaped float with a dock system capable of berthing 8 vessels for residents and 1 guest side -tie? A Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2007021054) has been prepared and is available for public comment and review. The 45 -day public review period ends on May 4, 2009 and the Draft EIR and comments received will be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council who will make a final determination on the adequacy of the Draft EIR prior to taking action on the proposed dock system. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Harbor Commission is requested to Provide comments on the environmental aspects of the dock system, as well as its overall design. Harbor Resources will forward this input to the Planning Commission and the City Council who will review the entire project as a whole. DISCUSSION History On March 12, 2008, staff sought the Harbor Commission's advice on the proposed Aerie dock layout in order to help facilitate the environmental review that would follow. On June 19, 2008, the Planning Commission recommended that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (environmental review) be approved On July 22, 2008, the City Council heard nearly three hours of testimony and postponed their decision on the Mitigated Negative Declaration until their September 9, 2008 meeting. Relevant to the Harbor Commission's purview, much public discussion focused on the view from the water up to the rocky bluffs, and how the vessels might impact this scenic view. Therefore, staff was tasked with investigating this potential view issue. In addition, the project opponents asked that the Mitigated Negative Declaration be denied and that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared. Minutes from the July 22, 2008 Council meeting may be viewed on the City's website via the Council Agenda for August 12, 2008. In the end, the applicant chose to prepare a full EIR which is publicly available either online at: http / /www city newport-beach ca us /PLN /oroiects /oroiects htm or at the following locations: Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (959) 644 -3200 Proiect Location and Existing Dock System Aerie [kick P"ea I April F. 2009 Page 1 Central Library 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92625 (949) 717 -3800 The Aerie project at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue is located near the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard near the harbor entrance channel. See Exhibit 1. As indicated. the Bulkhead, Pierhead and Project Lines extend beyond the nearby adjacent docks into the channel. The reason for this unusual Harbor Line configuration is because the Army Corps of Engineers anticipated the bay to be filled to those lines when they were established in 1936. As the years progressed, this never materialized. The existing floating docks (timber frame, concrete pontoons, and timber deck) are in very poor condition and require complete replacement. These docks can accommodate four (4) small vessels at about 25' to 30' in length. See Exhibit 2. In June 2007, Harbor Resources requested the applicant to voluntarily demolish the existing dock system because of its hazardous condition. The applicant expressed concern that such an action could jeopardize his ability to construct a replacement dock system; therefore, the deteriorated docks still remain. Proposed Dock Layout Eight (8) replacement slips and one (1) guest side tie dock are requested for the eight (8) new residential units proposed. The new dock layout is located between the existing Pierhead Line and the natural rock outcroppings, with special attention to the existing eelgrass bed on the southern side of the property. The new docks will be composed of timber supported by rotationally molded plastic pontoons which require less draft (bottom clearance) than concrete floats, allowing the dock system to be located as close to the rock outcropping as possible. This layout will accommodate boats up to 100 -feet in length. See Exhibit 3 and 4. The current six (6) steel dock guide piles that support the existing docks will be replaced with 19 new guide piles supporting the new dock system. Of these 19 piles, nine (9) will be larger diameter piles (approx 2 -foot diameter) to support the long, outside, bayward -most side -tie float. All guide piles will be pre- stressed concrete piles set in pre - drilled holes. The wave attenuator, as previously discussed in earlier revisions, has been eliminated from the project design. The existing 20 -foot long gangway will be replaced by a 44 -foot gangway. The pile- supported pier walkway between the existing gangway platform and the existing concrete pad will be repaired / replaced with a structure in -like -kind (timber- framing system, a 2x timber deck, and timber railings all around) The existing concrete piles supporting the walkway will be repaired in the form of concrete repairs. The gangway platform construction will include the repair and replacement of four (4) steel piles, timber framing with metal connectors, and a 2x timber deck with railings all around The existing concrete pad, concrete steps, and safety railings will be repaired and patched as necessary. In,i Durk PMAil .tp.d n'. 2W9 P,rgr 3 As discussed at the March 2008 Harbor Commission meeting, the project engineer (URS Cash and Associates) did evaluate several alternative dock designs before finalizing the proposal as described in this report. One of the Harbor Commission's concerns at the March 12. 2008 meeting was the possibility of the new dock system encroaching upon the main harbor entrance channel. The project engineer has attempted to illustrate that there are ten "lanes" in the entrance channel (defined as 50' wide lanes) at the project location As one moves further inside the harbor, these ten lanes decrease to nine lanes as a result of the channel marker near Carnation Cove and not as a result of the proposed docks. See Exhibit 5. Eelgrass is also abundant near the project's edge, particularly near the southern end. See Exhibit 6. As is typical of all dock construction protects, the applicant will submit an eelgrass survey as part of the application process to the federal and state agencies for review Any impacts will mitigated. Harbor Commission's Previous Concerns At the March 28, 2008 Harbor Commission meeting, several concerns were discussed The applicant's responses to those concerns are: Stone Wave Conditions Under extreme conditions, up to 2.5 ft waves could be experienced at the project site (Noble Consultants, Inc. report, May 9, 2006), impacting 30 to 35 boats in Newport Harbor, including those proposed at the Aerie project This would be an uncommon event occurring under storm conditions from the South to South East. Based on historical accounts, some boat owners have elected to remain in their existing slips during these extreme events, while others have moved their vessels to City of Newport Beach- managed mooring cans within Newport Harbor. The City has between 80 to 100 mooring cans available to the public at any given time, and has traditionally made these available to boaters on a first come, first served basis. It is understood from the Harbor Resources Department that this practice will remain in place. The Aerie project will utilize a wood - framed system for strength and flexibility which will be beneficial during extreme wave conditions. The dock design shall be based on the extreme wave conditions identified in the coastal engineering study (Noble Consultants, Inc 2008). A greater concern is the interaction between a berthed boat and the dock system, since the two will move at different cycles from one another thereby causing large line forces and potential physical impacts. During these infrequent severe conditions, boat owners from the Aerie project, like other boat owners in Newport Harbor, will likely request mooring cans from the City. Toward that end, Mitigation Measure 4.9 -2a requires that "during periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave - induced motions, boats should be sheltered at mooring can locations that are available inside Newport Harbor to avoid damage." Number of Slips Provided for Project The Aerie docks will consist of eight boat slips for the eight Aerie residences, with a headwalk extension allowing for the potential side -tie of up to a 30 foot boat for guest -1rn. !)ocA l'rupvr _apnl �. '009 !i {qr J use (visiting vessels) This additional guest dock extension is feasible. since the water depth, eelgrass adjacency and navigation to the adjoining slips is not impacted by the installation of such a dock. This slip would be used strictly for visiting boats and will not be rented or leased. Eelgrass and Biological Impacts The eelgrass impact and location of the boat docks has been taken into account with the dock location being previously shifted to mitigate the eelgrass environment. The Harbor Resources Department has reviewed this issue in the past, made recommendations to the Applicant, and the dock design has been revised accordingly. The potential impacts to the eelgrass and biological habitats have been studied by Mr. Rick Ware of Coastal Resources Management (May 12, 2008). The assessment provides for mitigation measures before, during and after construction to ensure protection of habitat that exists on site. With incorporation of these mitigation measures. the project's EIR concluded that potential impacts to eelgrass and other marine species located within the Carnation Cove will be reduced to a less than significant level Small boat access to Private Beach and along the Harbor's edge Access by small and human - powered boating craft along the harbor line is currently restricted by existing docks on the Aerie project site. Although the proposed replacement docks would project further toward the Main Channel than the existing docks. the fundamental navigation conditions for small and human - powered boating craft will not undergo a meaningful change as a result of the project. Public access to the mean high tide line of the small cove adjacent to the Aerie docks will not be restricted by the project. Kayakers and human - powered watercraft have, and will be able to continue to, access this cove area. Impacts to natural environment during construction; ie, rock outcropping The project site's waterfront area is characterized by various rock outcroppings that form a small cove beach. These exposed outcroppings will be protected during the installation of the Aerie docks. To this end, the applicant will not drive pilings into the submerged bedrock, as is typical for these installations. Instead, holes will be drilled into the subgrade (mostly rock strata) and then piles will be installed into those drilled holes. This type of construction limits both noise and vibration. Potential Shoaling The Noble Consultants Inc. Report of May 6, 2008, addressed potential shoaling conditions. This report was based on recent observations as well as a review of historical sediment movements, storm conditions, channel orientation. maintenance dredging and storm drainage. Noble Consultants concluded that "with a small percent (approximately 6 percent) of the along - channel blockage areas resulting from the proposed new dock facility, the potential impact to this unique sediment movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant, although localized sand deposit resulting from the presence of the proposed guide piles within the sand - moving path may occur. In addition, the project is located in the down -drift direction of the neighboring Channel Aerie [Awk Pm)ecr April N. 2009 Page 3 Reef, the project's potential impact on sedimentation at the up -drift location such as Channel Reef is inconsequential." Future Dredging Based on the Noble Consultants Report, the impact of this project, as it relates to scour and sedimentation, is considered to be minimal and inconsequential and should not change the characteristics of these processes from historical experience. The beach within the 201 -207 Carnation Cove project has historically scoured over time, requiring sand replenishment. The China Cove property to the south has traditionally shoaled, with dredging efforts and sand replenishment of these two facilities coinciding to a balanced "cut and fill" condition. Special Conditions Staff has proposed several Special Conditions which the Harbor Commission may evaluate and advise modifying as appropriate. Aside from the routine conditions, these unique Special Conditions are: In accordance with Municipal Code 10.08.030 A. the project applicant shall obtain the proper permits for equipment and materials storage. "Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall use any public street, sidewalk, alley or parkway or other public property for the purpose of storing or displaying any equipment, materials or merchandise, or any other commercial purpose. B. Public streets, sidewalks, alleys, or parkways may be used for the purpose of selling, storing, or displaying any equipment, material, merchandise or for other commercial purposes in the following cases:.. For the temporary storage of construction equipment or material provided a permit is issued pursuant to Chapter 12.62 of this Code and the storage is consistent with provisions of the Uniform Building Code." 2 The contractor shall post and update a two week schedule of construction activities at a location(s) easily accessible to local residents. In accordance with Municipal Code 10.28.040 the following noise regulations apply: "A. Weekdays and Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of seven a.m. and six - thirty p.m., nor on any Saturday except between the hours of eight a.m. and six p m. B. Sundays and Holidays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any federal holiday." The project shall be implemented in conformance with the Local Coastal Program - Coastal Land Use Plan. Aerie Dock Pmyct April X, 2009 Paxe 6 5. Eelgrass beds have been found adjacent to the project area and shall be protected per the "Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy" prepared and managed by N0AA1 National Marine Fisheries Service. 6. During construction, disturbance of the adjacent beach shall be minimized. Construction materials and equipment shall not be placed on the beach. The beach's sand dollar habitat shall be protected during construction. The project applicant shall submit a Beach Protection Plan to the Harbor Resources Manager for approval prior to start of construction. The project applicant and its successors are notified that even though the proposed dock system replaces an existing dock system, the new docks will be constructed in the Entrance Channel to Newport Bay which is subject to surge and swell activity which may cause damage to the dock system and vessels berthed therein. It is the responsibility of the project applicant and its successors to maintain and operate the dock system to minimize damage to the dock system and vessels. The dock system shall be subject to nuisance abatement per Title 17 of the Municipal Code, if in the opinion of the Harbor Resources Manager, it presents an endangerment to other facilities or vessels in the harbor. 8. The project applicant must remove the existing dock system including the gangway and pier within 90 days of receiving all final regulatory permits allowing the construction of the replacement dock system. 9. The vessels that will be side -tied to the outside, bayward -most float shall not extend into the harbor more than 24' feet from the edge of this outside, bayward -most float. 10. The guest side -tie on the north end of the dock system shall only be available for vessels less than or equal to 30 feet in length. This slip shall be used for guest berthing only and will not be used for any permanent, long term vessel storage, and will not be rented or leased. 11. The number of boat slips approved in the final design must be the same as the number of dwelling units approved by the City Council in the final project approval. PUBLIC NOTICE This meeting has been publicly noticed via a mailer (to the residents and occupants within a 310' radius of the project) and jobsite posting on March 23, 2009 and also posted on the City's website on April 3, 2009. See Exhibit 7. Written comments received as of April 3, 2009 are attached. See Exhibit 8. This agenda item has been noticed according to the Ralph M Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the public meetings at which the Harbor Commission considers the item). It was also posted on the City's website. /.rrr 1)Or4 /'rn /rrI apn/S 2009 Pay ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An EIR (SCH# 2007021054) has been prepared for the entire project which includes both landside and harbor improvements. The Planning Commission will consider the entire project and will forward their recommendation to the City Council who will make a final determination as to the adequacy of the Draft EIR After this point, Harbor Resources staff may issue an Approval in Concept with Special Conditions for the dock portion of the project, assuming the EIR has been approved If the final review process suggests substantial changes to the dock design, then staff may return to the Harbor Commission for review in the future. Prepared by Chris Miller Harbor Resources Manager Attachments: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Vicinity Map Existing Dock Layout Proposed Dock Layout Proposed Dock Layout with Dimensions Proposed Dock Layout with Channel Lanes Vicinity Map with Eelgrass Public Notice Public Comments as of April 3, 2009 Aerie Dock Pralect April S. 2009 Page N Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map Aerie (M,-k Project Apr,! 9. 2009 Page 9 Exhibit 2 Existing Dock Layout r a� �o J-� 10- _ Exhibit 3 Proposed Dock Layout �a n Aerie Mck Project April R, 2009 Page /0 / rL it I �' s -op d� � ;a a ' z O n a^ Exhibit 4 Proposed Dock Layout with Dimensions M. 0000• ! 0• t� i� 4WLWI , �p --Ii l g PQ gX O c 11© Aerie Mck I'meel April N. 2009 I'ay e s e > 5 o a U W A Z t V) = O a J Z a < ui a w U > O sauel lauueyo yjim inolej hoop pasodoid 9 3!q!4X3 Arne !hick project Aprd h. 2009 Page 14 Exhibit 7 Public Notice CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR RESOURCES PUBLIC NOTICE 201 - 207 Carnation Avenue Dock Replacement Proiect The project applicant at 201 — 207 Carnation Avenue is proposing a project which includes replacement of an existing two slip dock system capable of berthing four vessels, with a system capable of berthing up to nine vessels In addition, the upland property will be rebuilt with 8 condominiums A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the entire project has been prepared and is available either online at htW IANww city newport, beach ca.uslPLN/oroiectstprolects film or at the following locations. Planning Department Central Library 3300 Newport Boulevard 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Newport Beach, CA 92625 (959) 644 -3200 (949) 717 -3800 During the EIR public review period, the Harbor Commission is requested to evaluate the DEIR and advise the City's Harbor Resources Division on the Approval in Concept Q the dock replacement portion of Me project only The public is invited to provide comments by attending this meeting and/or emailing to the address below The meeting will be held on Wednesday. Apni 8, 2009 6 00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 3300 Newport Boulevard The Harbor Commission agenda and staff report will be available online by April 3. 2009, at hhbitwww city newport-beach ca usfibrlHarborCommissionnew hlml The Planning Commission will be conducting a nouced public hearing on the DEIR for the entire project in May or June of 2009. Notice of said heanng vnll be separately provided in accordance with applicable law when the hearing dates are known Chris Miller. Harbor Resources Manager cmillerAcity newpon-beach re us 829 llarlwr Wand Drive, Nrw7 o" Beach, CA 92660 PH: t949) 644 -3034 F%: (949) 723 -0589 a Wrbvte www.newport- beach.ca.us /HBR/ Aerie lock Project AqJ S. 2009 Page 15 Public Outreach 310' Radius from Project .,.... ••^ems rn� ` •��n�rNr `� .'•ry' ' , ' � Iry r .• rr,�• .rf 4^ r •,``n �'n ��• of �r F.� a :.P ..nun er..n.. nos •ar.r �.ry 4r flr Exhibit 8 Public Comments as of April 3, 2009 August 4, 2008 Dear Mr. Miller. .aerie hoc4 PwIrcr April N. 2009 Page 16 I hope the members of the Harbor Commission are not seriously considering a dock configuration in its present size and design at this location of Carnation Cove- I live above the Cove to the east, and have resided here for 18 years and in this area most of my life. I am going to attempt to bring to light the many factors why I feel the existing dock should be rebuilt in its present location, with possibly one more alongside, which are presented in the following comments. A) An obsolete 78 -year old law enacted in 1930 when the Pierhead line was established for this area should not apply today with 13,000 -plus yachts in this harbor. B) This dock configuration would allow two 60' yachts to be docked on the other side of this Pierhead line projecting another 20' to 25' further into the harbor. C) The dock should stay within the bulkhead line as the McIntosh dock is to the east and the Sprague dock is to the west. D) The present plan would project approximately 61' beyond the bulkhead line, with two 60' boats in their slips. (Note, all calculations are from the Harbor Commission Public Notice Plans.) E) When exiting the harbor, the channel narrows starting at the Sprague dock to the west and continues to the mouth of Newport Harbor. F) Carnation Cove is within this narrow area, and with this project plan projecting out into the harbor it will be a hindrance to navigation for boats entering and leaving the harbor G) Another consideration should be the many sailboats, large and small, that use this point to come about - tacking within the harbor. Now let us consider the environmental impacts. 1) 1 am requesting a full Environmental Impact Report to be done on this project. 2) In a recent City Council meeting on the Aerie Project the city attorney called the rock formation running parallel to the dock project "A Natural Relic" and the MND report states that "Carnation Cove is an important Marine Relic Habitat that no longer exists in other areas of Newport Bay." 3) Eight to nine boats, two -40', two -45', two -55' and two -60' boats, with an occasional guest vessel at dock #9 would almost completely cover the natural rock formation as it would be out of view to the Public and all boaters who enjoy the beauty of the harbor. Aerie Dock Project Affil X. 2009 Page 17 4) Directly in front of the cove is a favorite spot for rental boats from the Pavilion as well as other small boats fishing in the harbor. (They do catch fish here.) 5) The rock formation and cove is a habitat for heron, cranes, pelicans, seagulls and occasionally osprey, all which abound here. 6) There are only two natural rock formations surrounded by water in Newport Harbor, Carnation Cove and Pirates Cove just to the east. 7) Another consideration is disturbing the Eel Grass and marine habitat below the water. 8) The project would close off or potentially eliminate public access to the cove which is often frequented by kayakers, paddlers and small boats. Last of all is the 155' long, 8' wide concrete wave attenuator that projects into the harbor. 1) There is a history of sand build -up along the Channel Reef Seawall and docks that continues west to the McIntosh Dock. The attenuator wall would most probably create the same problem and could also affect vessel navigation with shallowing of the harbor depth. 2) It could also create wave bounce off the attenuator wall that would affect docks across the bay and farther into the harbor, in particular when dealing with a south swell, as the rock formation as it exists acts as a natural wave diffuser. If this all sounds negative, it's because it is. This project is not in the best interest of the harbor, boaters or the public, and will negatively impact the community of Newport Beach. It will also affect our children and the future of all who enjoy the beauty and use of this harbor. I thank you for reading this and am hopeful you will take this project quite seriously. Sincerely, Joe Vallejo Intentionally Blank NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION MINUTES City Council Chambers April 8, 2009 CALL TO ORDER 6:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Chairman Duffield, Commissioners Seymour Beek, John Corrough, Tim Collins, Don Lawrenz, Karen Rhyne and Ralph Rodheim were in attendance. Staff: Louie Arcese, Chris Miller and Shannon Levin MINUTES: The minutes from the last meeting were approved. ACTION ITEM ACTION & APPEAL ITEMS ITEM #1 Subject: General Harbor Commission Orientation - POSTPONED ITEM #2 Subject: Aerie Dock Project at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue Issue: Should the Aerie project applicants at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue be permitted to replace the existing double U- shaped float with a dock system capable of berthing 8 vessels for residents and 1 guest side -tie Discussion: Chris presented the staff report on the project. Randy Mason with URS spoke on the technical concerns. He said there are 10 boat "lanes" in that channel. The boats berthed at Aerie will be moved to moorings or other places during storm events with wave action of 2 feet or more. Bryan Jeannette spoke on the parking issues, saying they will have at least 15 -23 additional parking spaces on -site, beyond what is required by the Code. • Commissioner Lawrenz presented a PowerPoint presentation on the project, showing what he feels are issues with the project. The storm wave conditions were only studied for the last five years, ignoring large storms of 1969 and 1990's. These storms happened before that time and they did a lot of damage. A 100 ft vessel may not have a safe mooring site in the case of a large storm event. Storms will affect the movement of sand and affect the sand dollar population. There are a lot of sand and shoals in this area and this needs more study. Conditions need to be listed if sand studies show a problem, such as who is responsible when dredging comes up. The 24 foot extension will go into public waters and needs to have reflectors. This could start a building boom with all the other slips in this area. The pier is to be set lower than usual attracting the sea lions to rest upon. What about fire suppression, trash and sewage? • Commissioner Beek said that the problem also is that the project will occupy space that is now open He said that there are no lanes in the harbor and the example has no meaning. This is one of the narrowest points. We need to restrict the 24 foot overhang and can restrict the side tie. All residents don't have to have a slip. 19 new pilings will affect the sand movement. • Commissioner Rhyne asked who will move the boats during storm events and wave action. Are there moorings available and what are the other options if they need to move? What happens between 1 5 to 2 feet? A 100 foot boat is too massive and who will monitor the overhang? • Commissioner Corrough said that this project is legally conforming and has not been kept under the radar. The EIR has not found any significant exceptions and Public Comments: has documented recommended mitigations. The project has changed with previous requests. Every dock that sits out there now is in the same physical situation, subject to storm events, that this dock will be in if it is built. We need to set responsible improvements to the plans rather than just saying we are troubled by this project: give specific guidance and constructive recommendations. The proposed project has gone through multiple revisions. The unit to dock ratio is representative of the rest of the harbor. The Commission does want new docks in this harbor. Commissioner Collins said that we have given case by case exceptions for extensions, but in this case there is no basis to extend beyond the Pierhead line. Commissioner Rodheim said that the Bulkhead and Pierhead lines of the 1930's were made when the area was filled with sand and the City has not done its job in redrawing the lines. To follow those lines as they are currently is not wrong. The approval of all these large condo projects should not be happening and we may end up looking like Miami Beach. He does not support the project going out further than the neighboring docks. The surge tears up the boats and docks. He would like to have larger slips but not in this location. They stick out too far. We want the Planning Commission and City Council to see that the Harbor Commission will not support this project. There is no right of residents to have the right to have a pier. Chairman Duffield reminded everyone that storms go directly into our harbor as designed by the Army Corps. Putting in a jetty would be a solution to stop that action. There has been a lot of work put into the plan and we are not against new docks, but we are boaters who use the harbor, so there is knowledge. The City Council makes the ultimate decision, but we are boaters and can make recommendations. Storm events do happen, so we need a plan that will work. Why not come to the Harbor Commission to ask for advice, we would like to work with the applicant. Perhaps restrict the time that boats may be dock there during a storm season? Kathleen McIntosh, 2495 Ocean Blvd., reminded everyone that the approval has not been granted yet. They could have up to 12 boats on the docks. Public access to the cove and marine outcropping would be restricted and maybe eliminated. Shoaling is a problem in that area. Sand comes from that area and is shoaling under the neighbors' docks. This project doesn't consider the problems the 2 adjacent properties will have when they want to dock boats larger than 17 feet. She hopes Harbor Resources denies the request and requests that marker buoys be put out for at least a month showing the lines of the project so everyone concerned can see how far out into the channel it will go and what will be taken away from them. Joe and Lisa Vallejo, who are not on the water and don't have a dock, wanted to add their explanation as to why no one is out that far in the channel. 73 years ago they thought this area would be built up with sand and even Channel Reef would not be allowed to build now. Wants to declare 1936 Harbor Lines null. She cited Municipal Code 17.50 Rules for Interpretation and Harbor Development Permits which says the application shall be denied if it may interfere with the rights of other permittees and oceanfront property owners and the application does not conform to the policies and regulations of the certified Local Coastal Program. They feel that the scenic and the visual outcropping will be covered up, but the applicant said the boats will be coming and going and won't be a problem. How often does that happen when all boats come and go all that often? Thank you for your consideration and time, we ask that you do the best for Newport Harbor. Marilyn Beck, 303 Carnation Ave. This project has not been passed by the City. There are many people with significant concerns with project size. The General Plan requests that developers of this project take a conservative approach in their projects. We worked hard to have responsible development included in the plan Action ITEM #3 Subject: Issue: Discussion: Action ITEM #4 Subject: Issue: Discussion: Public Comments: so we would have responsible development within the City. This is a super -sized project, not conservative. I wish this meeting was out at the site to show you how hard the wind blows and how destructive it can be. Boats have capsized and docks have broken up. John Connelly, owns and resides at 401 Avocado Ave. and owns 2317 Bayside Drive, said if a 100 foot boat breaks free during wave action it will create significant damage to the boats and properties in the area. The extension will be a bump in the harbor that doesn't need to be there. No one receives prior notices of high wave occurrences so boats can be moved to safety Owners could be out of town or unavailable to act. The boat parade could be impacted. This sets a precedent for everyone to build their docks out further into the harbor Bud Razner, 2500 Ocean Blvd., is a supporter of the project and he say's most people are He was in the Harbor Patrol and knows the harbor. His work experience has taught him to look at all things, weigh all the sides and don't include personal feelings. Neighboring piers build to property lines so they may be impacted by Aerie. Accidents will always occur and liability should not be passed on to a new dock owner Many people think they own the harbor. This project is a quality, responsible one and is a tax maker. The project provides a water element to clean the effluent that runs into the bay. The old structures need to be in place and need to look for reasons why it will work, not won't. The Commission provided comments on the environmental aspects of the dock system, as well as its overall design. Commissioner Beek made an advisory motion, "While not opposed to the expansion of the existing dock and its area and capacity we believe the size and configuration of the proposed dock project would create significant negative impact on, navigation and recreational boating in the harbor ". The motion carried with all ayes. Harbor Resources will forward this input to the Planning Commission and the City Council who will review the entire project as a whole. Newport Bay Marina at 2300 Newport Blvd. — Update The Harbor Commission heard an oral report on the status of the Newport Bay Marina located at 2300 Newport Boulevard. The project was approved by Coastal Commission in February with special conditions. It has a lot of public access. The little channel is there because Pickle Weed grows there and need to be preserved. They hope to attract water related business to attract tourists. They don't have any commitments but will be consistent with the regulations. The buildings are protected from shipyard noise and disclosures are required. The guest slips are tight for the smaller boats but they will comply with the Fire Code. The commissioners felt it was a good, responsible plan. Receive and file Harbor Projects and Funding Projections The City Council's Finance Subcommittee has requested an updated list of Harbor Commission approved projects and funding projections in order to plan for the future financial needs of the Harbor. The Harbor Commission reviewed the first draft at the March meeting and requested staff to return to the Commission with an updated draft for further review. Chris was complimented on the new format for the report. Commission Lawrenz added that there needs to be a column for ongoing projects, such as Eelgrass. Mark Sites reminded everyone that fees will need to be raised to fund this. Funding sources need to be identified. We don't want to create any friction with the Army Corps as they already are giving us a hard time in approving dredging permits. He asked why we need to dredge in West Newport. Action: The motion was carried to advise staff to forward the attached document to the Finance Committee with suggested changes. SUB - COMMITTEE REPORTS: Mooring Subcommittee - Commissioner Duffield said that the boundaries are finalized and they are still working on the transferability issue, but almost complete. Chris said that the proposed CAD site may affect 20 moorings in area F. Commissioner Rodheim said that we need to go over the rules for rental of moorings that the Harbor Patrol follows. Marketing — A new guide document is being produced and will be presented to the Harbor Commission for comments. • HAMP — The draft will be coming in May. HARBOR RESOURCES UPDATE — Chris gave an update on the harbor. Please refer to the following website: The update is posted at: http:// www .city.newport- beach.ca.us/hbr (under Harbor Resources Updates). Chuck South voiced a concern with the City's purchase of Lower Castaway, making it into a park. The City is losing facilities for equipment loading and unloading. Properties that have been for water related uses are being turned into condos or parks. Mark Sites said he supports what Chuck said and is also quite concerned. Commissioner Corrough advised that those concerned need to voice their concerns to the City Council, since they are the one that keep approving those projects. COMMISSIONER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT • Duffy will present the Wakeless Wonder at the next meeting. RECOMMENDED TOPICS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS: • Harbor Area Management Plan - Final • Update from Anchor Environmental concerning Confined Aquatic Disposal option for Lower Bay dredging • Harbor Resources and water quality — staff's outreach efforts • Evaluate fishing needs at the public piers • Harbor Fee Study DATE OF NEXT MEETING: May 13, 2009 City Council Chambers ADJOURNMENT Attachment #1 Draft resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Intentionally Blank RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH. NO. 2007021054) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2005 -006, COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. LC2005- 002, CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2005 -009, NEWPORT TRACT NO. NT2005 -004 (TRACT 16882), MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2005- 087 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CR2005 -002 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201 -205, 207 CARNATION AVENUE AND 101 BAYSIDE PLACE (PA 2005 -196) ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THERETO, APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. WHEREAS, an application was filed by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. with respect to property located at 201 -205, 207 Carnation Avenue, and 101 Bayside Place to construct an 8 -unit residential condominium development on a 1.4 acre site ( "Project'). The application includes: 1. General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006 to change the land use designation of a 584 square -foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two - Unit Residential) to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). 2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002 to change the Coastal Land Use Plan designation of the same 584 square -foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from RH -D (High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre) to RM -A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). 3. Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009 to change the zoning designation of the 584 square -foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to MFR (Multifamily Residential, 2178 square feet per unit). 4. Newport Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -004 (TTM16882) to combine the 584 square -foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place with parcels identified as 201 -205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue, and to subdivide the air space for 8 residential condominium units. 5. Modification Permit No. MD2005 -087 to permit a 5 -foot subterranean building encroachment and 42 -inch high protective guardrails within the required 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue; subterranean and above grade building encroachments of 5 feet and 1 -foot, 7- inches into a required 10 -foot, 7 -inch side yard setback between the project and 215 Carnation; and three balconies and one at grade landing each with protective guard rails that exceed the maximum height of 6 feet from natural grade within the required 10 -foot, 7 -inch side yard abutting Bayside Place. 13 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 2 of 78 6. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2005 -002 to allow demolition of the existing dwelling units within the Coastal Zone pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2007, April 5, 2007, and May 17, 2007, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1723 recommending adoption of a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2007, the City Council held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council identified the predominant line of existing development ( PLOED) at 50.7 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) after considering the position of existing development on the bluff face in relation to Carnation Avenue and its elevation above Newport Bay. Since the proposed project was not consistent with the PLOED as required by the policies of the 2005 Coastal Land Use Plan, further consideration of the proposed project was postponed until such time that the project was revised to conform to the PLOED; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the August 14, 2007, City Council hearing, the applicant revised the proposed project in accordance with the PLOED as established by the City Council. Additionally, the applicant further revised the project to include a proposed dock structure. A revised Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, on February 21, 2008, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, the revised project and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1751 recommending adoption of a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the revised project and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on June 19, 2008, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach Resolution No. rage s or is California, at which time the applications, the revised project and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1761 recommended adoption of a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the revised project and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2008, the City Council held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, revised project and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the hearing. The City Council expressed several concerns including the project's potential visual impact on the area and the City Council took no action; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the City Council hearing on July 8, 2008, the City and the applicant mutually agreed that an Environmental Impact Report would be prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2007021054) has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § §21000, et seq. ( "CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The DEIR was circulated for a 45-day comment period beginning on March 20, 2009, and concluding on May 4, 2009. Comments and responses to the comments were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2009, and on June 4, 2009, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2007021054) were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1787 rescinding its prior resolutions regarding the project and recommending certification of the DEIR, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Project approval; and WHEREAS, staff of the City of Newport Beach has prepared full and complete responses to comments received on the DEIR, and on July 2, 2009, distributed the responses in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, held a duly noticed public hearing on July 14, 2009, to consider: (1) the certification of the Final EIR, (2) the adoption of certain findings and determinations and adoption of a statement of I'5 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 4 of 78 overriding considerations; and (3) the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR for the Project was presented to the City Council, as the decision making body of the lead agency, for certification as having been completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered the environmental documentation comprising the Final EIR, including the comments and the responses to comments, and has found that the Final EIR considers all potentially significant environmental effects of the Project and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and of the State and local CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, prior to action on this Project, the City Council has considered all significant environmental effects and the Project Alternatives identified in the Final EIR and has found that all potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require, where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrence of significant environmental effects which are identified in the Final EIR, but are not mitigated, the City Council must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the evidence in the administrative record; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Based on its review and consideration of the Final EIR, all written communications and oral testimony regarding the Project which have been submitted to and received by the City Council, the City Council certifies that the Final EIR, consisting of r,G City of Newport Beach Resolution No. rage 5 or is the Draft EIR (Exhibit A), Responses to Comments (Exhibit B) and Errata (Exhibit C) for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopts and certifies as complete and adequate the Final EIR, which reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council further certifies that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in it and the full administrative record prior to approving the Project. SECTION 2. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant and property owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of this Project including, but not limited to, the approval of the General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002, Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009, Newport Tract No. NT2005 -004 (TTM 16882), Modification Permit No. MD2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2005 -002 and /or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the certification of the Environmental Impact Report, the adoption of a Mitigation Program, and /or statement of overriding considerations for this Project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant or property owner, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant and property owner shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. SECTION 3. CEQA Findings of Fact. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15091, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact as shown on the attached Exhibit "D" entitled "CEQA Findings.of Fact," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15097, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program" which is included as Exhibit "E ", which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 5. Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. The Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92263, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's 1.7 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 6 of 78 decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (California Government Code § §6250 et seq.). SECTION 6. Notice of Determination. The Planning Director shall cause the filing of a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of Orange and with the State Office of Planning and Research within five working days of this approval. SECTION 7. Certification, Posting and Filing. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and the Secretary to the City Council shall certify to the vote adopting this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE of the CITY ATTORNEY ATTEST: CITY CLERK M City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 7 of 78 Exhibit "A" DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2007021054) AERIE (PA 2005 -196) Separate bound volume can be obtained in the Office of the City Clerk and the Planning Department. Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2007021054 x.114 V Il (PA 2005 -196) City Of San Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, CA 92780 MAR 2 0 2009 10M cur.0LMK -RK0"A March 2009 )'9 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 8 of 78 Exhibit "B" RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2007021054) AERIE (PA 2005 -196) Separate bound volume can be obtained in the Office of the City Clerk and the Planning Department. Response to Public Comments Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2007021054 AERIE (PA 2005 -196) City Of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitcer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, CA 92780 May 2009 lo City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 9 of 78 Exhibit "C" ERRATA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2007021054) AERIE (PA 2005 -196) Several "typographical' errors and /or minor revisions to the text in the Draft EIR have been identified. The errata identified below will be incorporated into the Final EIR. 1. Page 1 -6: The first bulleted item under "Mitigation Measures' in the second row under "Traffic and Circulation" will be revised to read: • The projects haul route shall follow the route depicted in the CMP. Specifically, dump trucks, concrete mixers, deliveries, and shuttles for off -site parking will access the site via East Coast Highway and travel south on Marguerite Avenue, west on Seaview Avenue, and south on Carnation Avenue to the site. The trucks and construction vehicles shall exit by driving east on Ocean Boulevard, north on Marguerite Avenue, and back to East Coast Highway. 2. Page 1 -7: The five bulleted items under "Mitigation Measures" in the row continued from page 1 -6 will be revised to read: • Dirt shall be hauled to Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in the City of Brea (or a closer site /location if available at the time grading occurs). Dump trucks leaving from East Coast Highway shall travel north on MacArthur Boulevard to SR -73, and continuing northbound on SR -55 to the 1 -5 northbound and to SR -57 northbound. Grading and dirt hauling shall occur only after Labor Day and before Memorial Day. • All deliveries shall use the designated haul route once they enter the neighborhood starting from Marguerite Avenue. • The contractor shall request an encroachment permit for a temporary staging area during construction, as described and illustrated in the CMP. Loading and unloading of all construction materials /equipment and /or construction vehicles shall take place on -site or within the staging area. Loading and unloading shall be managed by the construction valet team and will be overseen by the contractor. Dump trucks, cement trucks, etc., shall arrive at the site with no greater frequency than the discharge rate by the contractor so that no more than one truck is on -site at one time and that trucks shall not queue on Carnation Avenue. Once the delivery is complete, the trucks shall exit the project area via the haul route identified above. All trucks (except cement trucks) shall be required to shut off their engines during the loading /off- loading process. J, f 1 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 10 of 78 To prevent obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to the existing roadways. • Traffic control shall be coordinated with the Police Department and Public Works Department, Traffic and Development Services Division, so that street traffic is not obstructed. 3. Page 1 -8: The four bulleted items under "Mitigation Measures" in the row continued from page 1 -7 will be revised to read: • Construction workers are prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard (or any residential street in the neighborhood). Instead, the applicant shall secure one or more binding off -site parking agreements to accommodate the varying number of workers needed for each construction phase. The off -site parking location(s) shall be located within a five -mile radius of the site. The off -site parking agreement shall be presented to the City prior to the issuance of permits required for the phase of construction that shall require the off -site parking. The agreement will also ensure that one of the off -site parking locations will: (1) commit a sufficient number of parking spaces to Aerie construction workers during the relevant term, and (2) the off -site location possesses the proper permits and authority to rent the subject spaces. Shuttles shall be utilized to transfer construction workers from the remote parking locations to the project site. Specifically, two 10- passenger shuttle vans shall run up to eight trips each morning and evening and up to five trips at lunch, assuming that some workers will remain at the jobsite during lunch. Carpooling among construction workers shall be encouraged throughout the duration of the construction phases. • Once vehicular elevators are installed, workers shall be permitted to park in the completed on -site garages. It is anticipated that approximately 31 cars will be able to park on -site once the parking garage is completed. Personnel shall be provided to assist in parking the construction workers on -site. As previously indicated, construction workers shall be prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, Compliance with this prohibition shall be monitored daily by the construction valet and flagmen team. However, this prohibition shall not apply to short-term visitors to the site such as City inspectors, City staff, architects, and consultants. Carpooling shall also be encouraged among professionals. 1, j2 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. rage i i or r e 4. Page 1 -9: The second bulleted item under "Mitigation Measures" in the second row will be revised to read: • Dust shall be minimized using water as control. Site and debris watering shall be performed a minimum of three times daily during demolition activities. During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered at least four times per day. Stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty materials shall be covered or watered three times daily. In addition, trucks carrying soil and debris shall be wetted or covered prior to leaving the site. On windy days, or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Soil disturbance shall be terminated whenever wind conditions exceed 25 miles per hour. 5. Page 1 -10: SC 4.4 -1 will be revised to read: "In accordance with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity — Noise Regulations), noise - generating construction and /or maintenance activities may be permitted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m, on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on Saturdays. No noise - generating construction activities shall occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site." 6. Page 1 -12 and Page 4.8 -7: MM 4.8 -2 will be revised to read: "A contractor performing paint removal work shall follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the paint, as proper waste disposal requirements and worker protection measures shall be implemented throughout the removal process." 7. Page 1 -13: MM 4.9 -1b is unnecessary be it repeats SC 4.9-4, which is a standard condition based on existing City policy. MM 4.9 -1 b will be deleted. 8. Pagel-13: MM 4,9-1a will be renumbered to read "MM 4.9 -1 ". 9. Page 1 -13: MM 4.9 -2a will be revised to read: "During periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave - induced motions, boats shall be sheltered at mooring can locations that are available inside Newport Harbor to avoid damage." 10. Page 1 -16: The fourth and fifth bulleted items under "Mitigation Measures" in the second row will be revised to read: 1,)3 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 12 of 78 A silt curtain shall be placed around all waterside construction activity during the construction of the dock system to limit the spread of turbidity. If prolonged turbidity is observed outside the silt curtain then the silt curtain shall be re- deployed and re- positioned in a manner to correct the problem. Removal and emplacement of the piles will be conducted using Best Available Technology (BAT) that limits the re- suspension of sediments and the creation of turbidity plumes. • Silt curtains shall be emplaced and maintained in working condition throughout the period of construction by the marine contractor. If turbidity plumes are observed in the vicinity of the cove in front of the development, an additional silt curtain shall be immediately placed in front of the cove's entrance until the turbidity plume has dissipated. 11. Page 1 -17: The first and second bulleted items under "Mitigation Measures" in the row continued from page 1 -16 will be revised to read: Debris bins shall be placed at the project site. Material collected shall be removed on a daily basis. The amount, type, and location of any large debris (e.g., piles, dock parts, concrete, etc.) that is deposited on the seafloor will be documented and removed prior to the completion of the project. The project marine biologist shall also inspect the seafloor following the completion of construction to ensure that all debris has been removed. • The project marine biologist shall perform weekly on -site inspections to ensure that BMPs and mitigation measures are being implemented during construction. 12. Page 1 -17: "SC 4.5.1" in the second column (Mitigation Measures) will be revised to "SC 4.5 -1 ". 13. Page 1 -17: The last sentence of SC 4.5.1 in the second column (Mitigation Measures) will be deleted. 14. Page 1 -17: SC 4.5 -2 will be revised to delete "and glare specified in Condition of Approval No. _ " 15. Page 1 -17: The second SC 4.5 -2 will be renumbered to read "SC 4.5 -3" and will be revised to read: SC 4.5 -3 The applicant shall dedicate a view easement; however, it will only affect the project site. Structures and landscaping within the easement area shall not be permitted to block public views. The easement shall be approved by the City of Newport Beach Resolution No. rage 1,3 or is City Attorney and recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction and shall be reflected on the final tract map. 16. Page 1 -18: "SC 4.10 -21" in the second column (Mitigation Measures) will be revised to "SC 4.10 -2). 17, Page 2 -4: The first sentence in the second paragraph in Section 2.1.7 will be revised to read: "Agencies, organizations and individuals are invited to comment on the information presented in the Draft EIR during the public review period, which will begin on March 20, 2009 and will end on May 4, 2009." 18. The final elevation of the emergency exit was incorrectly identified as elevation 40.5 feet NAVD88. Elevation 40.5 NAVD88 is the lowest elevation of the basement. The elevation of the emergency exit where that feature "daylights" at the bluff face is 44.48 feet NAVD88. This correction does not result in any changes to the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR. The reference to the emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD will be revised in the Final EIR on the pages listed below to reflect the correct elevation of 44.48 feet NAVD88. Page 3 -24 - Second paragraph Page 4.1 -16 - Discussion of GP Policy NR 22.1 in Table 4.1 -1 Page 4.1 -16 - Discussion of GP Policy NR 23.4 in Table 4.1 -1 Page 4.1 -25 - Discussion of CLUP Policy 3.1.1 -9 in Table 4.1 -2 Page 4.1 -32 - Discussion of CLUP Policy 4.3.2 -13 in Table 4.1 -2 Page 4.1 -35 - Discussion of CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -5 in Table 4.1 -2 Page 4.1 -36 - Discussion of CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8 in Table 4.1 -2 Page 4.1 -36 - Discussion of CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -9 in Table 4.1 -2 Page 4.1 -36 - Discussion of CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -12 in Table 4.1 -2 Page 4.1 -42 - Discussion of RCPG Policy 3.22 in Table 4.1 -3 Page 4.9 -8 - Second paragraph 19. Page 4.1 -5: The last sentence in the last paragraph under the heading of "Zoning" will be revised to read: "The R -2 zoning permits up to 2 dwelling units per legal lot; the MFR zoning would permit up to 20 du /ac." 20. Page 4.2 -3: The six bulleted items following the second paragraph will be revised to read: • The project's haul route shall follow the route depicted in the CMP. Specifically, dump trucks, concrete mixers, deliveries, and shuttles for off -site parking will access the site via East Coast Highway and travel south on Marguerite Avenue, west on Seaview Avenue, and south on Carnation Avenue to the site. The trucks a.15 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 14 of 78 and construction vehicles shall exit by driving east on Ocean Boulevard, north on Marguerite Avenue, and back to East Coast Highway. • Dirt shall be hauled to Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in the City of Brea (or a closer site /location if available at the time grading occurs). Dump trucks leaving from East Coast Highway shall travel north on MacArthur Boulevard to SR -73, and continuing northbound on SR -55 to the 1 -5 northbound and to SR -57 northbound. Grading and dirt hauling shall occur only after Labor Day and before Memorial Day. • All deliveries shall use the designated haul route once they enter the neighborhood starting from Marguerite Avenue. • The contractor shall request an encroachment permit for a temporary staging area during construction, as described and illustrated in the CMP. Loading and unloading of all construction materials /equipment and /or construction vehicles shall take place on -site or within the staging area. Loading and unloading shall be managed by the construction valet team and will be overseen by the contractor. Dump trucks, cement trucks, etc., shall arrive at the site with no greater frequency than the discharge rate by the contractor so that no more than one truck is on -site at one time and that trucks shall not queue on Carnation Avenue. Once the delivery is complete, the trucks shall exit the project area via the haul route identified above. All trucks (except cement trucks) shall be required to shut off their engines during the loading /off- loading process. • To prevent obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to the existing roadways. • Traffic control shall be coordinated with the Police Department and Public Works Department, Traffic and Development Services Division, so that street traffic is not obstructed. 21. Page 4.3 -13: The second bulleted item following the third paragraph will be revised to read: • Dust shall be minimized using water as control. Site and debris watering shall be performed a minimum of three times daily during demolition activities. During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered at least four times per day. Stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty materials shall be covered or watered three times daily. In addition, trucks carrying soil and debris shall be wetted or covered prior to leaving the site. On windy days, or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 15 of 78 by SCAQMD Rule 403. Soil disturbance shall be terminated whenever wind conditions exceed 25 miles per hour, 22. Page 4.4 -6: SC 4.4 -1 will be revised to read: "In accordance with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity — Noise Regulations), noise - generating construction and /or maintenance activities may be permitted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m, on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on Saturdays. No noise - generating construction activities shall occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site." 23. Page 4.4 -9: The two bulleted items following the first paragraph will be revised to read: • During Phases 1 and 2 of the project, the caisson drilling process will progress at the rate of 3 to 4 caissons per day, including drilling, steel placement, and filling with concrete. The grading during Segments No. 1, 2, and 3 will consist of excavators with a ramp out or an electrical conveyor belt for dirt removal and with dump trucks at the rate of approximately 28 trucks per day removing the soil. There shall be no pile driving during the entire construction process. The ram hoe may be required during the later part of the excavation process for approximately 10 percent of the grading operation at the lower elevations of the site. • For Phases 3 and 4, small hand tools and compressors shall be used within the concrete structure. Noise will also be generated by daily deliveries of materials to the site. The construction valet shall manage the time of such deliveries so that they do not occur at the same time. 24. Page 4.5 -2: SC 4.5 -3 will be revised to read: "The applicant shall dedicate a view easement; however, it will only affect the project site. Structures and landscaping within the easement area shall not be permitted to block public views. The easement shall be approved by the City Attorney and recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction and shall be reflected on the final tract map." 25. Page 4.6 -3: Table 4.6 -2 will be revised to add "404/401 Permits" as a new row under the first column (Water Quality Requirement) and "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers" and "California Regional Water Quality Control Board" will be added in the second column (Enforcement Agency) opposite the new entry in the first column. l,t 7 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 16 of 78 26. Page 4.6 -9: The third line of the first "bullet" (N1 — Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants) will be revised to read, "... informs facility users of the impacts of dripping and dumping oil, paints, solvents or other potentially 27. Page 4.7 -5: The fifth line in the last paragraph will be revised to read: "... Appendix J), only the African umbrella sedge is considered dominant. However, in this instance, the..." 28. Page 4.7 -18: The second, third, fourth, and fifth bulleted items will be revised to read: A silt curtain shall be placed around all waterside construction activity during the construction of the dock system to limit the spread of turbidity. If prolonged turbidity is observed outside the silt curtain then the silt curtain shall be re- deployed and re- positioned in a manner to correct the problem. Removal and emplacement of the piles will be conducted using Best Available Technology (BAT) that limits the re- suspension of sediments and the creation of turbidity plumes. • Silt curtains shall be emplaced and maintained in working condition throughout the period of construction by the marine contractor. If turbidity plumes are observed in the vicinity of the cove in front of the development, an additional silt curtain shall be immediately placed in front of the cove's entrance until the turbidity plume has dissipated. • Debris bins shall be placed at the project site. Material collected shall be removed on a daily basis. The amount, type, and location of any large debris (e.g., piles, dock parts, concrete, etc.) that is deposited on the seafloor will be documented and removed prior to the completion of the project. The project marine biologist shall also inspect the seafloor following the completion of construction to ensure that all debris has been removed. • The project marine biologist shall perform weekly on -site inspections to ensure that BMPs and mitigation measures are being implemented during construction. 29. Page 4.9 -13: MM 4.9 -1b is unnecessary because it repeats SC 4.9 -4, which is a standard condition based on existing City policy. MM 4.9 -1 b will be deleted. 30. Page 4.9 -13: MM 4.9 -1a will be renumbered to read "MM 4.9 -1 ". 31. Page 4.9 -13: MM 4.9 -2a will be revised to read: i City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 17 of 78 "During periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave - induced motions, boats shall be sheltered at mooring can locations that are available inside Newport Harbor to avoid damage." 32. Page 10 -12: In the bulleted list in Section 10.3.3 (Reduced Intensity /5 -Unit Multi - Family Residential Project), the 5th bullet shall be revised to read: "Reduction of 1,021 dump trucks and 294 cement trucks." 33. Page 10 -13: The first sentence in the paragraph in Section 10.3.3.2 (Traffic Circulation) will be revised to read: `Potential construction traffic impacts would be similar (i.e. addition of heavy truck trips onto the residential streets in the area) to the proposed project, although the number of heavy truck trips resulting from the reduction in grading export and concrete pours is 1,305." 34. Page 10 -16: The first sentence in the paragraph under "Alternative A" will be revised to read: "This 8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project alternative (refer to Exhibits 10 -2 through 10 -6) includes the elimination of the sub - basement included in the proposed project, and a reduction of 1,069 square feet, resulting in a reduction of 6,662 cubic yards of excavation when compared to the proposed project." 35. Page 10 -22: The second sentence in the paragraph below "Alternative B" will be revised to read: "However, implementation of this alternative would also result in a reduction of 4,502 square feet from the proposed project." 36. Page 10 -22: The first sentence in the paragraph in Section 10.3.4.2 (Traffic Circulation) will be revised to read: "Potential construction traffic impacts would be similar (i.e. addition of heavy truck trips onto the residential streets in the area) to the proposed project, although the number of heavy truck trips resulting from the reduction in grading export and concrete pours is 2,205 for Alternative A and 2,065 for Alternative B." 37. Page 10 -22: "2,055" in the third line in the paragraph in Section 10.3.4.2 (Traffic Circulation) will be revised to "2.150 ". 38. Page 10 -24: The first sentence in the paragraph in Section 10.3.4.4 (Noise) will be revised to read: `These reduced grading alternatives (i.e., Alternative A would eliminate 1,069 square feet and Alternative B would eliminate 4,502 square feet) would also eliminate several noise - generating components associated with construction, including the elimination of 25 caissons that would not be necessary for structural integrity." 1,! ,9 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 18 of 78 39. Page 10 -27: Table 10 -1 will be revised as indicated below: Table 10 -1 Summary of Project Alternatives rrzo Significant Reduced Impacts Avoided Meets Project or Substantially Environmentally Project Alternative Effects Reduced Other Effects Superior? Objectives' Traffic Land Use No Air Quality'° , Noise Water Quality' Yes None Development Development Paleontology Utilities' Aesthetics' Reduced Intensity Traffic a Air Quality's None Noise Utilities7 No 2, 3, and 7 3 Single Family Units g y Paleontolo a Aesthetics (Partial) Reduced Intensity 5 Multiple Family Units Traffic Air Qualiee Noise No 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 Reduced Grading Paleontol a Aesthetics' Aesthetics (Partial) Existing Zoning Traffi 8 Multiple Family Units Air Quarrty'e None None Yes All Reduced Grading— Noise (Partial) Alternative A Paleontol Existing Zoning Traffic 8 Multiple Family Units Air Quaf t Utilities' All Reduced Grading — Noise None Aesthetics° No (Partial) Alternative B Paleontology' 'Numbers refer to Project Objectives identified in Section 10.5. 'During the construction phase. 'Substantially reduces or eliminates a significant unavoidable adverse impact. °Does not achieve City goals and objectives and/or inconsistent with adopted land use policies. 'Does not result in improved surface water. °Project effects less than significant; reduced project effects is the result of reduced grading required for the alternatives. 'Does not upgrade existing deficient catch basin. 'Does not underground existing power poles and wiring. 'Duration of construction phase reduced; however, alternative will not significantly reduce construction noise levels. 10Duration of construction phase increased. rrzo City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 19 of 78 Exhibit "D" FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2007021054) AERIE (PA 2005 -196) INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15091 requires that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a project is approved and make specific findings. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subdivision (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. Having received, reviewed and considered the Aerie Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2007021054 (the "EIR ") for the proposed Aerie project (the "Project "), as well as all other information in 1.Z1 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 20 of 78 the record of proceedings on this matter, the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings set forth below are adopted by the City of Newport Beach (the "City ") in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency: A. Document Format These Findings have been organized into the following sections: (1) Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings. (2) Section 2 summarizes the environmental review and public participation process. (3) Section 3 provides the background information and the Project Description. (4) Section 4 provides the City's findings as to why an Environmental Impact Report is the appropriate document for the Project. (5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding those environmental impacts which were determined either (i) not to be relevant to the Project or (ii) clearly not manifested at levels deemed to be significant. Section 5 addresses both Project - specific and cumulative impacts. (6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR which, after evaluation in the EIR, the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of project design features, standard conditions, and/or mitigation measures. It also discusses the Project's single significant and unavoidable environmental impact (short term construction noise). Section 6 addresses both Project- specific and cumulative impacts. In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project. Where potentially significant impacts can be avoided or substantially lessened through adherence to project design features and standard conditions, these findings specify how those potentially significant impacts were so avoided or substantially lessened. (7) Section 7 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the Project B. Custodian and Location of Records The documents and other materials which constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the Project are located at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. The City Planning Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the Project. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The environmental review process for the AERIE is summarized as follows: In accordance with CEQA requirements, the City prepared and published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The NOP was filed with the State Clearinghouse on September 10, 2008. The State Clearinghouse assigned State Clearinghouse (SCH) Number 2007021054 for the document. The NOP was distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties on September 9, 2008 for a 30 -day public review. The review period ended on 1.2z City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 21 of 78 October 9, 2008. The Notice of Preparation was included in the Draft EIR as Appendix A. Comments received during the NOP comment period are included in Appendix A of the DEIR. In accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse on March 20, 2009. The Draft EIR consisted of a single volume, including technical appendices. • The Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested organizations, and individuals by the City of Newport Beach. A forty-five (45) day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to CEQA, which commenced on March 20, 2009 and ended on May 4, 2009. • Comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were addressed in a Response to Comments document dated June 2009, which was published by the City on May 21, 2009, during a noticed public hearing of the Newport Beach Planning Commission. The responses were augmented on June 4, 2009 during a noticed public hearing of the Newport Beach Planning Commission. • The Final EIR (Responses to Public Comments) was distributed to responsible agencies, agencies and individuals submitting comments on July 2, 2009 in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5. • The following components comprise the Final EIR on the AERIE Project (PA2005 -196): (a) Draft EIR, dated March 2009, incorporated herein by reference; (b) Comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments, included as Appendix K to the Final EIR, dated May 2009; (c) Errata to the Draft EIR included as Appendix L dated May 2009. (d) All attachments, incorporations, and references to the documents delineated in items a. through c. above, and submitted to the City as part of the EIR process. • The Newport Beach Planning Commission considered the Final EIR on the AERIE Project at its duly noticed public hearing on May 21, 2009, and June 4, 2009. • The Newport Beach City Council considered the Draft EIR and Final EIR on the AERIE Project at its duly noticed public hearing on July 14, 2009. 3. BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project Site is located at 201 — 207 Carnation Avenue (west side of Carnation Avenue at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard) and 101 Bayside Place in the City of Newport Beach. The Project consists of the proposed development of the 1.4 -acre Project Site with an 8 -unit condominium development. Project implementation includes the demolition of the residential structures (i.e., fourteen - unit apartment building and one single - family residence) that currently occupy the Project Site. The total gross floor area of the Project will encompass 61,709 square feet, which includes not only living space commonly referred to as "square footage" for a residential unit (a total of 29,426 square feet, or an average of 3,678 square feet per unit), but also common recreational areas (2,987 square feet), storage areas (5,943 square feet), parking (13,234 square feet), and circulation and mechanical areas (10,119 square feet). In addition, existing docks will be replaced with an eight (8) slip dock with a single guest side tie dock. The new docks will consist of timber construction and 19 new concrete guide piles, and the existing 20 -foot long gangway will be replaced by a 44 -foot gangway. The new dock layout is located 1.23 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 22 of 78 within the existing pierhead line and natural rock outcroppings, the property line to the north and south, and an existing eelgrass bed to the south. In addition, a Construction Management Plan ( "CMP ") has been prepared as a component of the Project. The CMP addresses all aspects of the construction phase (e.g., phasing, schedule, construction equipment, and the construction process). In addition, the CMP addresses parking management (e.g., off -site and short-term parking, staging, etc.), traffic control (e.g., haul routes and delivery requirements), safety and security (e.g., pedestrian protection, fencing, and safety and security), air quality control and noise suppression measures (e.g., dust control, noise control vibration monitoring), and environmental compliancelprotection (e.g., erosion and sediment control and beach protection, water quality control, and environmental protection measures). The following discretionary approvals are requested or required by the City in order to implement the Project: (a) General Plan Amendment (GP2005 -006); (b) Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2005- 002); (c) Zone Change (CA2005 -009); (d) Tract Map (NT2005- 0041TT16882); (e) Modification Permit (MD2005 -087); and (f) Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002). 4. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT After determining that an EIR should be prepared to evaluate the Project's potential impacts, the City distributed a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") for the EIR on September 23. 2008. The NOP provided for a 30 -day review period. The NOP was distributed to the State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research, public agencies, utility and service providers, interested persons who requested notice, the Orange County Clerk/Recorder, and homeowners' associations in the Project area. The City also conducted a community scoping meeting on October 29, 2008, pursuant to Section 15083 of the State CEQA Guidelines. As authorized by Section 15060(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an initial study was not prepared. The City received five (5) written responses to the NOP (refer to EIR Appendix B). The initial NOP comments were used to establish the scope of the issues addressed in the EIR, which are as follows: • Land Use and Planning • Traffic and Circulation • Air Quality • Noise • Aesthetics • Drainage and Hydrology • Biological Resources • Public Health and Safety • Soils and Geology • Cultural /Scientific Resources 5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT This Section 4 describes, by issue, those potential effects of the Project which were determined not to be potentially significant and which, therefore, are not discussed in the EIR. CEQA provides that an EIR shall focus on all potentially significant effects on the environment created by a project, with an emphasis upon their severity and probability of occurrence. The City has concluded that the Project would not result in significant impacts with respect to the following: Agriculture - No Prime Farmland, Farmland of State or Local Importance, or Unique Farmland occurs within or in the vicinity of the Project Site. The Project Site and adjacent areas are designated as "Urban and Built -up Land" and "Other Land" on the Orange County Important Farmland Map. Further, neither the Project Site nor the adjacent areas are designated as prime, I, 2t City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 23 of 78 unique or important farmlands by the State Resources Agency or by the Newport Beach General Plan. The Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element designates the Project Site as "Multiple -Unit Residential (RM)" and "Two Unit Residential (RT) "; the zone designation for the Project Site is "Multiple Family Residential" and "Two Family Residential." Therefore, there is no conflict with zoning for agricultural use, and the property and surrounding properties are not under a Williamson Act contract. The Project Site is not being used for agricultural purposes and, as indicated previously, is not designated as agricultural land. The Project Site and the area surrounding the Project Site are developed with residential uses. Therefore, no agricultural uses on the Project Site or within the Project Site's vicinity would be converted to non - agricultural use. No significant impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Population and Housing - The Project will result in a decrease in the total number of dwelling units from fifteen (15) to eight (8). Therefore, Project implementation will not result in a substantial increase in population based on the population per household recognized by the City. Further, the Project Site could accommodate up to nine (9) dwelling units based on the existing zoning. Therefore, Project Site development would result in a decrease in both the number of dwelling units that currently exist on the Project Site and the number that could be constructed. The Project will result in the demolition of the existing fourteen (14) -unit apartment building and the single - family residence that exist on the Project Site. Project implementation, therefore, will result in a decrease in a total of seven dwelling units based on the existing development on the Project Site. The loss of seven (existing) dwelling units is not considered a significant decrease of housing units within the City because the existing total vacancy rate in the City is estimated to be 10.91 percent. With the exception of one tenant currently residing in the single - family residence (207 Carnation) and residents of the two apartment units that are currently occupied, the remaining units are vacant. Although these residents would be displaced by the Project, it is anticipated that adequate replacement housing exists elsewhere in the City to accommodate their relocation. No replacement housing would be required as a result of Project implementation. As a result, a potentially significant reduction of housing within the City will not occur as a result of Project implementation. In addition, the net reduction in dwelling units will not contribute significantly to the cumulative loss of homes and /or displacement of occupants in the City. The existing apartment building occupying one of the Project Site's two parcels exceeds the permitted development density based on currently regulatory requirements. If built today, only nine (9) dwelling units would be permitted on the combined Project Site. Together with the approved and planned development identified in EIR Table 9 -1 (the "Cumulative Projects "). a substantial increase in residential development is anticipated in the City, including 974 dwelling units alone on the Conexant and Koll properties in the Airport area. Other smaller residential developments are also proposed in the City, including the Megonigal residence and other single - family and duplex dwelling units in the area. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on the reduction of housing in the City is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. The existing residential development is not included in the City's inventory of affordable housing. No low- and/or moderate - income households occupy the Project Site and, therefore, none would be displaced as a result of Project implementation. Further, once the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are adopted by the City of Newport Beach, the decrease in the number of dwelling units on the Project Site will not adversely affect the jobs /housing balance because the Project will be consistent with the City's long -range plans, which are the basis of the jobs /housing projections. Therefore, Project implementation will not result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to population and housing. /,205 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 24 of 78 Recreation - The Project will result in a decrease of actual dwelling units on the Project Site from the current fifteen (15) to the proposed eight (8). This would, of course, result in a similar reduction in the number of residents potentially occupying the Project Site. The Project includes private common amenities that will help offset the need for recreational facilities. With a pool and private outdoor decks that may have spas and fire pits, most residents of the Project are expected to utilize their private recreation amenities rather than public parks within the City. Although residents of the Project would occasionally visit local and regional parks and beaches, use of those public facilities by the future residents would not represent a substantial change in the intensity of usage and the impact would not result in substantial physical deterioration of those park areas. Although the Project will increase the number of occupied units on the Project Site, the increase in residents associated with the Project is minimal and would not result in the requirement to construct new or expand existing recreational amenities in the City. Furthermore, the Project's eight dwelling units represent a significant decrease from the number of dwelling units that presently exist on the Project Site. This reduction in unit count and resulting likely decrease in potential population supports the conclusion that no new facilities will be required to accommodate future residents of the Project. Further, Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Section 19.52) requires the developer to pay a fee for each unit created by the proposed condominium map. This fee will be used to augment recreational facilities in the City. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. On a cumulative basis, although the generation of additional residents associated with the Cumulative Projects could result in a demand for recreational amenities, the Project's incremental contribution to the cumulative demands created by the Cumulative Projects is not cumulatively considerable due to the relatively minimal number of residential units within the Project and the actual decrease in the number of residential units from existing conditions. Furthermore, the Project includes private recreational amenities on -site to accommodate Project residents. As with the Cumulative Projects that will construct residential dwelling units, the Project is subject to the City's park in -lieu fee requirements contained in Section 19.52 of the Municipal Code (Park Dedications and Fees) to offset any potential demands for recreational facilities in the City. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on recreational resources is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. Mineral Resources - Neither the Newport Beach General Plan (Recreation and Open Space Element) nor the State of California has identified the already - developed Project Site or environs as a potential mineral resource of Statewide or regional significance. No mineral resources are known to exist and, therefore, Project implementation will not result in any significant impacts to regional or state -wide important resources. Furthermore, the Newport Beach General Plan does not identify the project environs as having potential value as a locally important mineral resource site. The proposed demolition and construction will not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource site and, therefore, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. On a cumulative basis, the Project, the Project's incremental contribution to the impacts to mineral resources created by the Cumulative Projects is not cumulatively considerable because the Project does not result in the loss of any important mineral resources. Although the Project will require the use of mineral resources (e.g.. sand and gravel, wood, etc.), many are renewable and/or sustainable. Additionally, with the exception of the Newport Banning Ranch, which has been a producing oil field for several years, many of the sites on which development of the Cumulative Projects is proposed are either already developed (e.g., Conexant/Koll, Newport Beach Country Club, etc.) or are located in areas of the City that do not possess mineral resources. Therefore, there appears to be no significant cumulative impact to mineral resources 1, Z& City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 25 of 78 from the Cumulative Projects. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on mineral resources is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. Public Services: Fire Protection - Fire protection facilities and service to the Project Site are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). In addition to the City's resources, the NBFD also maintains a formal automatic aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and all neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. The Project will result in seven fewer, though larger, residential dwelling units requiring fire protection. As a result, there will not be any increase in residential units or persons requiring emergency services. The Project must comply with the City's current building and fire codes and is replacing a decades old structure which is not consistent with today's building codes. The Project includes all necessary fire protection devices, such as fire sprinklers. It has been designed with several features to facilitate and enhance the provision of adequate fire protection, including an emergency communication device located at the existing concrete pad at the beach level and a new wet standpipe which will be provided to the existing docks. In addition, an automatic and manual fire alarm system will be installed, a fire control room is provided at ground level which will be monitored by a central station, and a Class I wet standpipe will be provided at every level at all stairs to facilitate fire protection. Adequate water supplies and infrastructure, including fire hydrants, exist in the vicinity of the Project, and there is no requirement for other new facilities or emergency services. A preliminary code compliance analysis was conducted by City staff. Based on that analysis, the proposed building will comply with code. A final compliance determination will be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. On a cumulative basis, the less- than - significant potential impacts associated with the Project will not alter the ability of the Newport Beach Fire Department to provide an adequate level of service to the Project, even when considering the potential development of the Cumulative Projects, because the Project Site is currently provided fire service. Development of the Cumulative Projects will also be evaluated by the Newport Beach Fire Department to ensure that adequate levels of service can be provided. These projects are within the long -range projections of the City's General Plan and, therefore, would not adversely affect the City's ability to provide an adequate level of protection. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on the provision of fire services is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. Public Services: Police Protection - The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) is responsible for providing police and law enforcement services within the corporate limits of the City. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately two miles northeast of the Project Site. The NBPD currently has a ratio of 1.91 sworn officers for each 1,000 residents in the City. This ratio is adequate for the current population. Police and law enforcement service in the City is provided by patrols with designated "beats." The Project will reduce the number of residential units on the Project Site through the demolition of an existing fourteen -unit apartment building and one single - family residence and their replacement with an 8 -unit condominium structure. As a result, the Project will not require an expansion of local law enforcement resources and, therefore, will not require the construction of new law enforcement facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. On a cumulative basis, the potential (less than significant) impacts associated with the Project would not alter the ability of either the Newport Beach Police Department from providing an adequate level of service to the Project Site, even when considering the Cumulative Projects, because the Project Site is currently provided police service. The potential development of the Cumulative Projects would also be evaluated by the Newport Beach Police Departments to /. Z7 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 26 of 78 ensure that adequate levels of service can be provided. The Cumulative Projects are within the long -range projections identified in the City's General Plan and, therefore, would not adversely affect the City's ability to provide an adequate level of protection. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on the provision of police services is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. Public Services: Schools - The provision of educational facilities and services in the City of Newport Beach is the responsibility of the Newport -Mesa Unified School District. Residential and non - residential development is subject to the imposition of school fees. Payment of the State - mandated statutory school fees is the manner by which potential impacts to the District's educational facilities are mitigated. Government Code Section 65996 significantly limits the scope of evaluation of school facilities impacts under CEQA. Despite this limitation, the following information has been evaluated regarding the Project's potential generation of school age children and is provided for informational purposes, The existing dwelling units have been vacant for several years, except for caretakers living in the single - family home and two of the apartment units. At the present time, therefore, this property has little or no impact on the Newport Mesa Unified School District. It is estimated that, upon Project completion and occupancy, fewer than twenty (20) students, distributed between various grade levels, would be generated by the Project. New or expanded school facilities would not be required to provide classroom and support space for these low numbers of school age children. However, the Project is subject to the payment of any required school fee to the school district pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code in order to offset the incremental cost impact of expanding school resources to accommodate the increased student enrollment associated with new residential development. With the payment of the mandatory school fees, no significant impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation. Similarly, with the payment of the mandatory school fees, no potentially significant cumulative impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation. Public Services: Other Public Facilities - Due to the reduction in residential density, no increased demand for other public services is anticipated and there would be no need to construct any new public facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. On a cumulative basis, the potential increase in residents generated by the Cumulative Projects could result in an increased demand for other public facilities. However, because the Project represents a net decrease in the number of actual residential units, and, therefore, potential residents, and the Project applicant will be required to pay in -lieu park fees to further offset any direct or cumulative impacts to recreational facilities, the Project's incremental effect on other public facilities will not be cumulatively considerable. These fees are used by the City to provide recreational facilities and amenities that serve the residents of Newport Beach. Therefore, the Project will not have a significant cumulative effect on other public facilities. • Utilities - Wastewater generated by the Project will be disposed into the existing sewer system and will not exceed wastewater treatment standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water demand and wastewater generation will not increase significantly over existing uses due to the increase in the number of occupants who will reside on the Project Site when compared to the number of currently occupied dwelling units. The Project will connect to an existing 12 -inch water main in Carnation Avenue. Wastewater connections will be made either in a 10 -inch main in Carnation Avenue or an 8 -inch main in Bayside Place below the Project Site. No expansion of these facilities is necessary due to existing capacity and the reduction in density. Future water demand based on the General Plan projections would not be increased significantly. Even though x,28 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 27 of 78 the Project will result in a decrease in dwelling units by a total of seven, the potential exists for additional water demand on a per unit basis due to the larger size of the dwelling units and the pool and spa areas. However, if there is an increase in demand, that increase is anticipated to be minor and not significant. The Project will not result in a significant increase in solid waste production due to the decrease in dwelling units. Existing landfills are expected to have adequate capacity to service the Project. Solid waste production will be picked up by either the City or a commercial provider licensed by the City. All federal, state, and local regulations related to solid waste will be adhered to through this process. On a cumulative basis, the incremental increase in the demand for utilities as a result of replacing the older (i.e., 1949 -era) multiple - family apartment building with a "state -of- the -art" energy efficient development is intended to minimize demands for energy resources. For instance, the Project includes extensive use of "green" technology intended to reduce demands for energy resources, including gray water retention for property irrigation, natural ventilation systems that capitalize on prevailing ocean breezes and thermal convection dynamics, and the use of high - thermal mass for capturing and retaining heat through solar heat gain apertures. Although the Project decreases runoff from the Project Site to the existing catch basin located in Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard and does not require any improvements to that catch basin, Project implementation will include the replacement/upsizing of the catch basin to correct an existing deficiency and improve water quality treatment in the local community. Therefore, the incremental effect of the Project on utilities is not cumulatively considerable and, when associated with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. 6. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The following potentially significant environmental impacts were evaluated in the EIR. In each instance, that evaluation demonstrated that as a result of either project design features (including the CMP), compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, the identification of feasible mitigation measures, and /or a combination of one or more of these factors, the potentially significant impact had been avoided or reduced to a level of less than significance. Therefore, for these effects and in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (Note: For the purposes of these Findings, Section 21081(a)(1)'s words "mitigate or avoid" are deemed to have the same meaning as Section 15091(a)(1)'s words "avoid or substantially lessen" and will be used interchangeably.) Because project design features, standard conditions, or regulations are considered "incorporated into the Project," where environmental effects have been avoided or reduced to less than significance solely due to these measures, no significant impact will be found and, therefore, no "mitigation" is required. Nonetheless, the City will, within these findings, include findings explaining how such measures are proposed to be incorporated within the Project with the result that the applicable environmental effect has been avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance. Where, on the other hand, a significant impact is identified despite the inclusion of project design features and the applicability of existing laws, codes, and statutes, that significant impact will be identified and, where feasible, mitigation shall be proposed. 6.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this 1.29 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 28 of 78 potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: As demonstrated in EIR Table 4.1 -1 (City's General Plan), EIR Table 4.1 -2 (Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan), and EIR Table 4.1 -3 (Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide), the Project is consistent with the City's Land Use Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the City's General Plan, the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, and with the long -range goals, policies and objectives adopted by the City in the General Plan Update. The Project is also compatible with the existing land uses in the area. Tables 4.1 -1, 4.1 -2, and EIR Table 4.1 -3 as well as Responses to Comments 10 -1 through 10 -5, which also address Land Use Element and CLUP policy consistency related to bluff development, are incorporated into these findings by reference. Further, implementation of the standard condition identified for the Project (i.e., comply with the zoning district regulations, California Building Code, and other regulatory requirements) will ensure that no significant impacts will occur. No significant long -term unavoidable adverse land use impacts will occur as a result of Project implementation. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with the Newport Beach Planning and Zoning Code (Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code)? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The majority of the Project Site is zoned MFR (Multiple - Family Residential, 2,178), which would accommodate up to 20 du /ac based on one dwelling unit for every 2,178 square feet of land. The maximum density that could be achieved on the Project Site is based on the MFR zoning parameters identified below. Total Site Area 61,282 square feet Existing Building Pad 13,481 square feet Slope area less than 50% 7,462 square feet Slope area greater than 50% 11,926 square feet Area under mean higher high water elevation 28,413 square feet The maximum density that would be permitted on the Project Site is determined by subtracting the area of the Project Site that exceeds 50 percent slope (11,926 square feet) and the area of the Project Site located below mean higher high water (28,413 square feet) from the total Project Site area (61,284 square feet). This calculation results in a total of 20,945 square feet. Based on the minimum of 2,178 square feet of land area per dwelling unit, a maximum of nine dwelling units would be permitted on the Project Site. The Project applicant is proposing a total of eight dwelling units, which is consistent with the density provision of the MFR zoning classification. A small portion of the Project Site (584 square feet) is zoned R -2 (Two - Family Residential). The applicant has proposed a zone change to reclassify that small portion of the Project Site to MFR, which would be consistent with the accompanying request to amend the Newport Beach Land Use Element to redesignate it as RM. Approval of the zone change (and General Plan Amendment) would eliminate the R -2 zoning and the existing conflict with the MFR zoning that applies to the majority of the Project Site, which permits higher density development. Development of the Project Site as proposed complies with the zoning district regulations and development standards prescribed for the MFR zoning district. Therefore, no significant conflicts with the zoning would occur and no mitigation measures are required. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1, 30 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. rage za or to Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Project Site is located within the limits of the Central /Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of Orange. The NCCP is intended to ensure the long -term survival of the coastal California gnatcatcher and other special status coastal sage scrub (CSS) dependent plant and wildlife species in accordance with state- sanctioned NCCP program guidelines. The biological surveys conducted on the Project Site revealed that although some native species exist on the bluff property, neither CSS habitat nor the coastal California gnatcatcher exists on the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts either to CSS habitat or the coastal California gnatcatcher are anticipated as a result of Project implementation. As a result, Project implementation is consistent with the adopted NCCP for the Central /Coastal Subregion. No mitigation measures are required. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The area surrounding the Project Site is entirely developed with single- and multiple - family residential development. Although development of the Project Site as proposed would change the architectural character of the Project Site by replacing an older multi - family structure with a modern multiple - family structure, development of the Project Site would not adversely affect adjacent properties. In particular, no design component or feature of the Project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significantly change an established community. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in substantial or extreme land use incompatibility? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Redevelopment of the Project Site will not result in a significant land use conflict. The Project is consistent with the general plan and zoning densities for the Project Site. The Project's density is 5.7 du /ac, compared to the 11.4 du /ac that currently exists based on the 15 existing dwelling units, the 20 du /ac permitted by the General Plan Land Use Element and zoning, and the nine units possible on the Project Site when all development standards are taken into consideration. The Project complies with the development standards (e.g., setbacks, building height, lot coverage, etc.) prescribed for the MFR zoning district. The proposed structure is also consistent with the policies articulated in the General Plan. (6) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in incompatible land uses in an aircraft accident potential area as defined in an airport land use plan? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Project Site is not located within two miles of any existing public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip. John Wayne Airport, which is located approximately five miles northwest of the ).3/ City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 30 of 78 Project Site, is the nearest aviation facility. No portion of the Project Site is located within the accident potential area of such a plan. The Project would neither affect nor be affected by aircraft operations at any aviation facility that would generate noise in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, no significant land use impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. (7) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or IVatural Community Conservation Plan? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Newport Beach General Plan identifies the City's open space and conservation areas. However, because the area of the City in which the Project Site is located is nearly completely developed, natural open space and habitat are limited in the project environs. The Project Site encompasses approximately 1.4 acres that are currently developed with single- and multiple - family residential dwelling units. The Project Site previously has been altered in order to accommodate the existing development. Neither the Project Site nor the surrounding areas is located within a Natural Community Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, Project implementation will not adversely affect such a plan, sensitive habitat and/or resources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of Project implementation. (8) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Land Use and Planning impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant cumulative land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Project Site is currently developed. It is identified for development in the City's adopted long -range plans. The Project is consistent with the applicable goals, policies, and objectives of the Newport Beach Land Use Element and other general plan elements, as well as the City's CLOP. No design component or feature of the Project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significantly change an established community. In addition, the Project Site is located within the limits of the Central /Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of Orange. Although the biological surveys conducted on the Project Site revealed that some native species exist on the bluff property, neither CSS habitat nor the coastal California gnatcatcher exist on the Project Site and no impacts to those species would occur as a result of Project implementation. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to land use will occur as a result of Project implementation. 6.2 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project generate an increase in traffic at intersections in the City that results in an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) change of 0.01 or more and a resulting ICU of 0.91 (LOSE) or greater? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion (Potential Construction Impacts): Implementation of the Project will require the exportation of more than 25,000 cubic yards of earth material to the Brea Olinda Landfill, resulting in the )132- City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 31 of 78 generation of approximately 2,105 heavy truck trips over the 5 -month grading and excavation phase. Grading and excavation necessary to implement the Project will be scheduled to occur after the summer months to avoid truck traffic impacts during that already congested time period. Although a maximum of up to 44 haul truck trips per day (based on a minimum 15- minute interval between departures from the Project Site as set forth in the CMP) could be generated by the daily grading activities, the CMP limits the number of heavy truck trips to 27 to 29 trips per day during the three excavation "segments." Other construction - related heavy truck trips will be those related to concrete pouring, which will account for a total of 622 trips in 12 concrete pour events that would take 30 to 40 days each within the 18 -month Phase II period. Concrete truck traffic would be generated on only three to five days during each concrete pour event. In addition, truck traffic that is related to material deliveries to the Project Site would average two to four heavy trucks per week during the final nine months of the construction phase. The CMP includes several measures to ensure that the construction traffic will not result in significant impacts in the residential neighborhood, including the following: • The Project's haul route shall follow the route depicted in the CMP. Specifically, dump trucks, concrete mixers, deliveries, and shuttles for off -site parking will access the Project Site via East Coast Highway and travel south on Marguerite Avenue, west on Seaview Avenue, and south on Carnation Avenue to the Project Site. The trucks and construction vehicles shall exit by driving east on Ocean Boulevard, north on Marguerite Avenue, and back to East Coast Highway. • Dirt shall be hauled to Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in the City of Brea (or a closer site /location if available at the time grading occurs). Dump trucks leaving from East Coast Highway shall travel north on MacArthur Boulevard to SR -73, and continue northbound on SR -55 to the 1 -5 northbound and to SR -57 northbound. Grading and dirt hauling shall occur only after Labor Day and before Memorial Day. • All deliveries shall use the designated haul route once they enter the neighborhood starting from Marguerite Avenue. • The contractor shall request an encroachment permit for a temporary staging area during construction, as described and illustrated in the CMP. Loading and unloading of all construction materials /equipment and /or construction vehicles shall take place on -site or within the staging area. Loading and unloading shall be managed by the construction valet team and will be overseen by the contractor. Dump trucks, cement trucks, and other heavy trucks shall arrive at the Project Site with no greater frequency than the minimum 15- minute discharge rate so that no more than one truck is on -site at one time and that trucks shall not queue on Carnation Avenue. Once each delivery is complete, the truck shall exit the Project area via the identified haul route. All trucks (except cement trucks) shall be required to shut off their engines during the loading /off- loading process. • To prevent obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the Project Site, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to the existing roadways. • Traffic control shall be coordinated with the Police Department and Public Works Department, Traffic and Development Services Division, so that street traffic is not obstructed. Potential construction - related traffic impacts, which could include slowing of local traffic and impeding turning movements at private driveways would be avoided through the implementation of the measures prescribed in the CMP. To ensure that this Project's construction traffic does not result in adverse traffic congestion impacts and to avoid impacts along local residential streets, especially narrower streets, the CMP has addressed all aspects of the construction phase, including traffic control, haul routes, and the frequency of heavy truck trips. The heavy truck construction traffic (a maximum of four trips per hour) will not adversely affect any intersection operation during either the a.m. or p.m. peak hours. In addition, 1. �33 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 32 of 78 construction of the replacement dock will not generate additional traffic because both materials and equipment will be delivered to the Project Site on a barge to the dock location. Therefore, no significant traffic impacts will occur as a result of Project implementation. Discussion (Potential Operational Impacts): As shown in the table below, Project implementation represents an increase of 24 trips per day, including two a.m. peak hour trips and two p.m. peak hour trips. When compared to the potential occupancy of the 15 dwelling units that presently exist on the Project Site, the Project would generate 57 fewer daily trips, including four fewer a.m. peak hour trips and six fewer p.m. peak hour trips. The City requires that a traffic analysis be prepared for projects that generate 300 or more trips per day. As indicated in the above table, the Project does not reach the minimum threshold. Therefore, a traffic analysis was not required. Although the assessment of traffic impacts considered the decrease in total dwelling units, it likely does not reflect the potential increase in traffic generated by the proposed dwelling units adjusted for possible lifestyle factors associated with extremely affluent households, which could generate a small amount of additional traffic attributable to domestic employees, pool and spa maintenance workers, and so forth. However, even with such additional traffic, Project implementation will not result in an increase in either peak hour traffic volumes or total daily traffic in excess of established thresholds. Therefore, future traffic generated by the Project will not result in any significant long -term traffic impacts. No mitigation measures are required. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project will generate an increase in traffic at a Congestion Management Program intersection resulting in a Level of Service (LOS) F, or if a Congestion Management Program intersection maintains an existing LOS F, an increase in traffic results in an ICU change beyond 0.10? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: See discussion of Potential Impact No. 1 above. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project will result in inadequate access or parking capacity? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Dwelling Daily ADT AM Peak PM Peak ADT Land Use Units ADT Potential 15 104 8 10 Occu anc Baseline 2 3 23 2 2 Proposed 8 47 4 4 Net Change 5 24 2 2 from Baseline Assumes all units are occupied. Z "Baseline" conditions reflects 3 units currently occupied, including the SFD home and two apartments. SOURCE: Institute of Trans ortation Engineers The City requires that a traffic analysis be prepared for projects that generate 300 or more trips per day. As indicated in the above table, the Project does not reach the minimum threshold. Therefore, a traffic analysis was not required. Although the assessment of traffic impacts considered the decrease in total dwelling units, it likely does not reflect the potential increase in traffic generated by the proposed dwelling units adjusted for possible lifestyle factors associated with extremely affluent households, which could generate a small amount of additional traffic attributable to domestic employees, pool and spa maintenance workers, and so forth. However, even with such additional traffic, Project implementation will not result in an increase in either peak hour traffic volumes or total daily traffic in excess of established thresholds. Therefore, future traffic generated by the Project will not result in any significant long -term traffic impacts. No mitigation measures are required. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project will generate an increase in traffic at a Congestion Management Program intersection resulting in a Level of Service (LOS) F, or if a Congestion Management Program intersection maintains an existing LOS F, an increase in traffic results in an ICU change beyond 0.10? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: See discussion of Potential Impact No. 1 above. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project will result in inadequate access or parking capacity? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 33 of 78 Discussion (Potential Construction Impacts): The total construction period is estimated to extend approximately 32 months over four phases that vary in duration from five to 18 months each. The daily construction employee work force will vary from phase to phase, depending on the construction activity. Nonetheless, it is estimated that an average of 25 workers will be at the Project Site each day during Phase I and 45 workers each day during Phase II. During Phases III and IV, when work will mostly occur indoors, an average of 60 to 80 workers are expected to be on -site on a daily basis. To ensure that adequate employee parking is provided during each phase of construction, the CMP includes a detailed parking management plan. This plan mandates the following: Construction workers are prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard (or any residential street in the neighborhood). Instead, before permits may be issued for a construction phase that will require off -site parking, the applicant shall secure one or more binding off -site parking agreements to accommodate the applicable number of workers needed for that phase. The off -site parking location(s) shall be located within a five -mile radius of the Project Site. The agreement shall ensure that the off -site parking location (1) will commit a sufficient number of parking spaces to Aerie construction workers during the relevant term and (2) possesses the proper permits and authority to rent the subject spaces. The off -site parking agreement shall be present to the City which shall verify compliance with these requirements as provided in the CMP. • Shuttles shall be utilized to transfer construction workers from the remote parking locations to the Project Site. Specifically, two 10- passenger shuttle vans shall run up to eight trips each morning and evening and up to five trips at lunch, assuming that some workers will remain at the jobsite during lunch. Carpooling among construction workers shall be encouraged throughout the duration of the construction phases. • Once vehicular elevators are installed, workers shall be permitted to park in the completed on -site garages. It is anticipated that approximately 31 cars will be able to park on -site once the parking garage is completed. Personnel shall be provided to assist in parking the construction workers on -site. As previously indicated, construction workers shall be prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Compliance with this prohibition shall be monitored daily by the construction valet and flagmen team. However, this prohibition shall not apply to short-term visitors to the Project Site such as City inspectors, City staff, architects, and consultants. Carpooling shall also be encouraged among professionals. Discussion (Potential Operational Impacts): The Project proposes a unique access plan that includes a four -level parking garage with a total of 25 parking spaces for the eight condominiums, not including the six private auto lifts. These spaces include sixteen for residents, eight for visitors, and one service vehicle space. Two parking spaces also have been provided for golf carts. In addition, the garage is equipped with mechanical vehicle lifts in six of the residential parking spaces. These lifts can be used by the residents themselves to increase their own parking from two spaces per unit to three per unit and are not counted toward the code parking requirements. Access to the parking garage is proposed to be via a driveway on Carnation Avenue, which leads directly to /from vehicle elevators located at the face of the building. Two vehicular elevators will be used to accommodate residents' parking within the structure. The two on -site vehicular elevators will serve the private garages of seven of the units and overflow guest parking spaces that are located in the subterranean garage. Parking for the eighth unit and the required guest parking spaces are located four feet below street level and do not take access via the proposed elevators. The East (i.e., right side) elevator is designated for entrance and West (i.e., left side) elevator is designated for exiting. Access control panels are located adjacent to the elevator (on driver's side) on each floor. Residents will have a City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 34 of 78 remote control similar to a garage door controller that can activate the elevator through the touch of a button as they approach the entrance. Lighting signals are located on top of the elevator opening on each floor that indicate the elevator position or if it is currently in use. The entrance elevator will be programmed for "destination dispatch" so that it is automatically recalled to the street level when it is not in use. Therefore, the driver can access the elevator immediately upon entering the Project Site when it is not in use, thus minimizing the potential for creating a vehicle queue. Inside the elevator, another keypad is located on the driver's side of the wall. A lighting signal indicates the designation (i.e., floor) of the elevator. Once the elevator has reached its designated level, ample turnaround space is available for the car to maneuver into the private garages. The elevators will always be used by a car pulling into and out of it in a forward direction. The interior cab size of the elevator is approximately 10' x 20' with an 8' high ceiling. It takes the elevator approximately eight seconds to travel from floor to floor and completely cycle in less than two minutes. Furthermore, an emergency generator will be provided so that in the event of a power outage, the generator will automatically activate to operate the elevator, allowing residents to exit the building safely. This safety feature will also send the cabs to the recall position at street level. In addition, a fire service switch will be provided that allows fire department to access the elevators in case of emergency. Two spaces designed for golf cart sized vehicles are proposed. These spaces are within the three sub- basement levels of the structure with the lower levels accessed by vehicle elevators large enough and with sufficient capacity to accommodate vehicles and vans. The Newport Beach Zoning Code requires attached single family residential projects to provide one covered and one uncovered space per dwelling unit. Additionally, 0.5 space per dwelling unit is required for guests. Under this code, the Project requires a total of sixteen spaces for residents and four spaces for guests, for a total of twenty spaces. As indicated in the table below, the Project proposes 25 parking spaces for residents and guests, exceeding the minimum twenty off - street parking spaces required by the Municipal Code. As noted above, the six parking spaces provided by the lifts are not included in the calculation of spaces toward the code requirement. Finally, the length of the curb cut, which provides vehicular access to the Project Site, has been substantially reduced, which results in the creation of three (3) new on- street public parking spaces. The addition of these on- street parking spaces is considered a beneficial impact, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. I,3� Code No. of Required No. of Parking Type Requirement Parking Spaces Spaces Provided Multi - Family Residential 2 Spaces /Unit' 16 232 4 or more DUs Guests 0.5 /S ace/unit 4 8 Total 20 31 ' Includes one (1) covered parking space. 2 Includes 17 "at- grade" parking spaces and 6 "lift' parking (i.e., parking spaces located above surface parking spaces requiring the use of a lift). 3 Total parking does not include two (2) golf cart parking spaces and bicycle parking spaces also provided. All parking spaces are covered. SOURCE: Newport Beach Municipal Code (Section 20.66.030) Brion Jeannette Architecture Finally, the length of the curb cut, which provides vehicular access to the Project Site, has been substantially reduced, which results in the creation of three (3) new on- street public parking spaces. The addition of these on- street parking spaces is considered a beneficial impact, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. I,3� City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 35 of 78 The AFA analysis investigated three condominium complexes with similar characteristics located in the immediate vicinity of the Project to conduct counts and evaluate the potential for circulation conflicts. This study was conducted to evaluate the potential for ingress /egress queuing. Traffic counts taken by AFA included minute -by- minute observation of the arrivals and departures from the three condominium complexes (8, 15, and 42 units) during the a.m., noon, and p.m. peak two hour periods. Based on those observations, only during one minute did the arrival rate reach as high as three vehicles per minute and that was only one time for the 15 -unit condominium project On six occasions, two vehicles per minute arrived at the same time. However, that occurred at the 42 -unit complex. Based on the actual field- measured arrival rates, it is estimated that rarely, if ever, will the queue of waiting vehicles at the entry to the Project back out onto Carnation Avenue. Nonetheless, the question of safety was also examined by AFA and documented in the study prepared for the Project. Existing traffic counts on Carnation Avenue are modest. The traffic volumes observed were 24 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 22 trips during the p.m. peak hour. These figures equate to less than one vehicle every three to four minutes. The elevators can completely cycle in less than two minutes. The AFA analysis concluded that the garage access design, which utilizes two vehicle elevators would not create any substantial vehicle queuing onto Carnation Avenue. This is particularly true for the Project because only seven of the eight units will utilize the vehicle elevators. With one vehicle lift for each of six units combined with single car elevators, evacuation of all vehicles from the garage could be difficult in an emergency situation and both elevators may need to be operated as exit only in such a case. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Traffic and Circulation impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Cumulative traffic impacts are those occurring within the immediate vicinity of the Project Site and into the Corona del Mar area along Coast Highway and other arterials in the City based on the distribution of construction traffic associated with the Project. As indicated in EIR Table 9 -1, the Project and the Cumulative Projects would contribute traffic both during construction and as a result of their development which could affect the existing circulation system, including Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, and Newport Boulevard. As indicated in EIR Section 4.2 (Traffic and Circulation), Project implementation will result in the generation of construction traffic (i.e., short-term) as well as an increase in the number of daily and peak hour vehicle trips when compared to the existing baseline (i.e., occupancy of three units). The short-term vehicle trips are those associated with heavy trucks (i.e., dirt hauling, equipment and materials deliveries, etc.) and construction works commuting to the Project Site. However, these short-term impacts will be minimized through the implementation of the CMP which, among other things, prescribes a haul route and inhibits on -site queuing. Although other of the Cumulative Projects could also contribute construction traffic that could affect roadway and intersection operations, the contribution of these short-term trips would not represent a potentially significant cumulative impact because potential impacts would be avoided through specific provisions prescribed in the CMP, including the identification of a haul route plan, adherence to a traffic control plan, limitations on haul truck arrivalldeparture, use of flag persons during the construction phases, and so forth. Implementation of these measures will ensure that potential cumulative construction impacts will be minimized. Although post - development Project- related vehicle trips would be greater than those generated by the existing residential development on the Project Site, they would not result in any potentially significant cumulative impacts in the Corona del Mar community or outlying areas because when added to the local circulation system, they would constitute a very small fraction of the total trips generated by the Cumulative Projects. When added to the City's arterial roadway system, the small increase in both construction - related and operational vehicle trips would, therefore, not result in potentially significant cumulative traffic and circulation impacts. 1.37 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 36 of 78 6.3 AIR QUALITY (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Because the Project will reduce the number of residential units on the Project Site, the Project will not involve growth inducing impacts or cause an exceedance of established population or growth projections. Furthermore, the Project is of a size such that it will not create either short- or long- term significant quantities of criteria pollutants. Additionally, with the included mitigation, the Project will not result in significant localized air quality impacts. As such, the Project is consistent with the goals of AQMP, and in this respect does not present a significant impact. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project violate any ambient air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion (Project Construction): The Project Site includes approximately 1.4 acres of land. The URBEMIS model estimates that 25 percent of this area (0.35 acre) is disturbed on a daily basis. This acreage (i.e., 0.35 acre) is then used in the calculation of daily dust emissions, which are assumed to occur during excavation and grading activities. Based on the URBEMIS model, a value of 20 pounds per acre per day is assumed. Also, based on the URBEMIS model, a suppression of 55 percent is assumed for adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 as required for all projects constructed in the Southland. Truck trips are also included for the removal of debris and delivery of materials. The structures are then constructed over time with various phases of construction overlapping each other. Some of these phases involve work over five days a week while others would extend to six days a week. The analysis includes both, and in these cases presents those emissions for the five days a week that overlap (though the greenhouse gas analysis considers the sixth day in its total). The URBEMIS model considers dust emissions negligible during the construction of the actual structures, and this analysis follows that approach. Like excavation, the analysis includes the daily delivery of materials to the Project Site. The structure is painted in the final stages of construction. The major source of emissions associated with the application of paints and surface coatings is from the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These are also a form ROG and are assessed as such. The architect has specified that interior paint is to contain no more than 10 grams per liter and exterior paint is to contain no more than 27 grams per liter of VOC. The area to be painted is based on data included with the URBEMIS model. All interior surfaces are to receive three coats while exterior surfaces would receive one coat. While the application of asphalt also releases VOC emissions, no asphalt is proposed for the Project and these surfaces will be of concrete construction. As shown in EIR Table 4.3 -4, all daily emissions are under their respective criteria levels and the impact is less than significant. 1' 38 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 37 of 78 Discussion (Mobile Source Emissions): The occupation of the Project Site is based on the URBEMIS 2007 model. The URBEMIS default value for condominiums is 5.86 vehicle trips per unit. In accordance with the ITE Trip Generation Manual, these values can range from 1.83 to 11.79 trips per unit. Based on the size of the proposed units, as a worst -case scenario this analysis uses a trip rate of 11.79 trips per unit per day and the Project is estimated to result in 94 average daily trips (ADT). In actuality, the Project is to replace a fourteen -unit apartment complex, so the actual number of new trips would be less than this value, (and there could even be a reduction in the number of daily trips). As such, the analysis presents a worst -case scenario. The calculated emissions of the Project are compared to thresholds of significance for individual projects using the SCAQMD Handbook and Internet web site updates. The Handbook recommends assessing emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROC or ROG) as an indicator of ozone. Emissions are based on a year 2013 occupancy. Both summer and winter scenarios were modeled and the higher of the two values are included in EIR Table 4.3 -4. Note that all values are within their respective threshold values and the impact is less than significant. Model runs are included in the Appendix. Discussion (Stationary Source Emissions): In addition to vehicle trips, the proposed land uses would produce emissions from on -site sources. The combustion of natural gas for heating the structures and water would occur. Landscaping would be maintained requiring the use of gardening equipment and their attendant emissions. Additionally, the structures would be maintained and this requires repainting over time resulting in the release of VOC emissions. The resultant emissions are projected by the URBEMIS2007 computer model and included in EIR Table 4.3-4. Again, note that all emissions are below their respective threshold values and the impact is less than significant. (3) Potential Impact: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. The Project is of a size such that it does not result in daily emissions above either the construction or operational threshold values suggested by the SCAQMD and as such, the Project does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. At this time, greenhouse gases are not specifically regulated as a criteria pollutant and there are no established significance criteria for these emissions. Furthermore, the Final 2007 AQMP does not set CEQA targets that can be used to determine any potential threshold values. Nevertheless, in order to provide decision- makers with as much information as possible, this analysis quantifies, to the extent feasible, potential greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed development. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. The Project is of a size such that it does not result In daily emissions above either the construction or << 3'� City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 38 of 78 operational threshold values suggested by the SCAQMD and as such, the Project does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. The Project Site contains existing structures that would be removed during the first phase of construction. Based on the type and age of structures to be removed, asbestos containing materials (ACM), which could include floor tiles and mastics, gypsum wallboard and joint compound, base cove mastic, carpet glue, thermal system insulation, spray - applied fireproofing ceiling plaster, and roofing mastics, felts and flashing would be removed. Additionally, lead -based paint would be removed. Demolition and renovation activities that involve ACM are strictly regulated under SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition /Renovation Activities) adopted on October 8, 1989, and amended April 8, 1994. The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification. ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean -up procedures, and storage, disposal and landfilling requirements for asbestos - containing waste materials (ACWM). Any demolition work involving asbestos - containing material must be identified and potential emissions of asbestos determined. Any building to be demolished or renovation that involves asbestos - containing material would be subject to provisions related to the following tasks: • Asbestos surveying (inspection, identification, quantification) to be conducted by a qualified environmental laboratory, and SCAQMD notification to include project description, removal procedures and time schedules (options provided in Rule), material handling and clean -up, material storage and disposal methods. All handling and removal of ACM must be performed by a certified California State licensed contractor that has been certified under the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Ca( OSHA). All workers must undergo forty hours of hazardous materials handling training and receive eight hours of refresher training on a yearly basis. Similarly, lead paint is a toxic material and its removal is regulated as such. Like asbestos removal, workers are trained and certified in the handling of these materials. Where necessary, actual asbestos and lead paint removal would be accomplished under a negative pressure environment with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration, through the use of a glove bag or through adequate wetting. These materials are to be contained in certified leak -proof containers and the general public is not allowed access to the demolition -site. Mandatory compliance with notification and removal processes identified in the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations would ensure that any potential impacts remain below a level considered significant. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on -site earth movement and from equipment bringing concrete and other building materials to the Project Site. With regards to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts will be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the Project Site, they will be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. An occasional "whiff' of diesel exhaust from passing equipment and trucks accessing the Project Site from public roadways may result. Such brief exhaust odors are an adverse, but not significant, air quality impact because they will be short-term in nature and would not affect a significant number of people. i, -D City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 39 of 78 (6) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative air quality impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Cumulative air quality impacts are those associated with development occurring within the South Coast Air Basin, a five - county region in southern California. As a result, it is anticipated that a significant number of development projects throughout the City and the five - county region would contribute to the cumulative degradation of the air basin. Although the Project will result in the generation of both short-term (i.e., those occurring during the 32 -month construction phase) and long -term operational emissions (i.e., those resulting from the operation of automobiles and stationary sources), which will be emitted into the air basin, the vast majority of those emissions would be short-term and temporary in nature. Although the Project's contribution of construction emissions (primarily fugitive dust) is short-term and because the CMP will be implemented, these impacts will not be significant on a cumulative basis when considered with the other projects in the City and in the air basin. Once construction is completed, a nominal fraction of the total mobile- source emissions within the basin would be attributed to the Project. The long -term (i.e., operational) emissions associated with the Project are the result of the incremental increase in vehicular traffic generated by the project and on demands for natural gas and electricity. Because these incremental operational emissions would not exceed significance thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD and identified in EIR Section 4.3.2, the incremental addition of the Project's mobile- source emissions, when combined with other emissions resulting from the development of the other projects within the City and larger air basin, will be less than significant on a cumulative basis. 6.4 NOISE (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Finding: The City determines that there is no impact with respect to the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: Project related construction activities were assessed for the potential to result in annoyance at the nearest vibration sensitive uses. The assessment of annoyance from vibration from construction activities is based on several criteria including perceptibility, frequency of occurrence, time of occurrence and duration. In terms of perceptibility, using the FTA criteria vibration which is "barely felt" is not deemed significant because it does not constitute "exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels' as per Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines. The word "excessive' is defined by the Merriam - Webster Dictionary as "exceeding what is usual, proper, necessary, or normal." If something is "barely felt," it cannot reasonably be considered "excessive." Therefore, for the evaluation of human annoyance caused by vibration from construction activities, the criteria for establishing potentially significant vibration induced annoyance impacts is average daytime (there will be no nighttime construction) vibration measurements that are "felt." The FTA has established 84 VdB as the level that is "felt" or readily perceived. The assessment of the potential for Project - related construction vibration to cause annoyance includes four criteria: perceptibility, frequency of occurrence, time of occurrence and duration. Although the maximum vibration levels associated with certain construction activities would, in some instances, be "felt" under FTA criteria and could occur frequently in the days they do occur, because construction activity would be limited to the least vibration- sensitive times of the day and the duration of perceptible vibration would be relatively brief and intermittent, potential vibration impacts will not result in a significant vibration annoyance impact. I, 41 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 40 of 78 (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Finding: The City determines that noise exposure from project - related construction activities at the nearby residential receivers would result a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. This is a short-term significant and unavoidable impact. Discussion: Noise levels vary substantially depending on the number and types of construction vehicles, type of construction activity, and the location of occurrence. Noise levels for each of the construction phases were evaluated at a reference distance of 100 feet from the eastern edge of the Project Site on Carnation Avenue to produce a chart of noise levels over the entire construction period, as shown in EIR Figure 16, Construction Noise Levels Occurring Over the Construction Period. Noise levels are expected to increase when receptors are closer than 100 feet and diminish beyond 100 feet. EIR Figure 16 is provided at this distance to illustrate the differences in noise levels over time based on the type of construction activity being performed. Noise levels are highest during the demolition, caisson drilling, and the concrete pouring when construction vehicles are at grade with Carnation Avenue. Noise levels subside substantially when construction equipment is working within the various depths of the excavated area due to the noise attenuation provided by the excavated walls. These excavated walls have no effect when residences are overlooking the Project Site and have direct view of the construction equipment. After excavation, construction of the formwork and interior metal framed walls would occur with hand tools. Noise levels from these hand tools are substantially lower than the levels generated by construction vehicles, based on noise monitoring and noise level data provided by the RCNM. Construction vehicles would not be used during these phases, with the exception of concrete pouring when short periods of substantial noise exposure would occur. In addition, noise generated by metal framing would occur within the interior of the newly constructed floor and be attenuated by the presence of exterior concrete walls and a concrete ceiling. After all the exterior and interior walls are constructed, the finish work would commence. The finish work would also be done with hand tools. Noise levels associated with the finish work were conservatively assumed to be comparable to those of metal stud framing. However, interior finish work would occur within the interior of the building and be substantially attenuated by both the interior and exterior walls of the residential structure. Exterior finish work would also be done with hand tools. The ambient average daytime (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) noise levels (dBA Leq) in the vicinity of the Project Site range from 50.5 dBA to 59.9 dBA. Construction noise from the phases that involve construction vehicles results in noise levels of 42.6 dBA to 82.1 dBA at 100 feet. For the worst case noise generating phase, this level of noise would be approximately 22 -31 dBA Leq above ambient background noise and would last approximately three to four months during the demolition, caisson drilling, and excavation phases before the noise from construction vehicles would be attenuated by excavated walls. Second story residences adjacent to the Project Site with a clear line of sight to the construction vehicles would experience these noise levels for a period of seven months during the demolition, caisson drilling, and excavation phases because the excavated walls provide less attenuation. For approximately one and a half years, noise levels would be, on average, between 42.6 dBA to 61.9 dBA Leq at 100 feet from the construction of the interior and exterior walls. Noise levels would be approximately 2 -11.5 dBA above the ambient background noise. Interior finish work was assumed to be equivalent to noise from interior metal stud work and would generate noise levels of 52.8 dBA at 100 feet. Exterior hardscape and landscape would last approximately four months. Noise levels would be approximately 0 -2 dBA above the ambient background noise. Due to the length of construction activities (approximately 32 months) and level of noise from the period of construction vehicle use, noise exposure from Project - related construction activities at the nearby residential receivers would result in a short-term significant impact from Project - related construction activities, notwithstanding the incorporation of the following mitigation measures: )AI City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 41 of 78 • MM 4.4 -1a: All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices, intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. • MM 4.4 -1b: The construction contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. • MM 4.4 -1c: The construction contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from residential receptor locations as feasible. • MM 4.4 -1d: The construction contractor shall post a contact name and telephone number of the owner's authorized representative on -site. • MM 4.4 -1e: The construction contractor shall install temporary sound blankets or plywood panels with a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of 32 or higher and a density of 1.5 pounds per square foot or greater (e.g., SoundSeal BBC -13 -2 or equivalent) along the entire outer perimeter of the construction area. The temporary sound blankets or plywood panels shall have a minimum height of six feet. If plywood panels are selected, they must have a minimum density of four pounds per square foot and have no perforations or gaps between the panels. • MM 4.4 -1f: The construction contractor shall select quieter tools or construction methods whenever feasible. Examples of this include the use of plasma cutters, which produce less noise than power saws with abrasive blades and ordering precut materials to specifications to avoid on- site cutting. • MM 4.4 -1g: The construction contractor shall maximize the use of enclosures as feasible. This includes four -sided or full enclosures with a top for compressors and other stationary machinery. This also includes locating activities, such as metal stud and rebar cutting, within constructed walled structures to minimize noise propagation. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: The City determines that there is no impact with respect to the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: EIR Table 4.1 -1 in EIR Section 4.1 (Land Use and Planning) of the EIR summarizes the relationship of the Project with the applicable policies adopted with the Noise Element. As revealed in the analysis presented in that table, the Project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Noise Element. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: Based on the ambient noise levels identified in EIR Table 4.4 -3, noise levels in the nearby harbor area are considered to be compatible with residential uses in this area. Residents of the proposed luxury condominiums, therefore, would not be exposed to significant long -term noise sources. The Project replaces an existing residential use and, moreover, reduces the number of dwelling units on the Project Site by nearly 50 percent. Although on -site noise levels associated with residential activities on the l , -3 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 42 of 78 redeveloped Project Site would increase compared to current conditions because the only the single - family residential dwelling unit and three units within the apartment building are occupied, it is anticipated that any increase in long -term noise associated with the residential uses would be those occurring as a result of outdoor activities. Passive recreational activities in and around the proposed pool, on the private decks and along the walkway and beach area at the bottom of the property are not expected to result in significant noise levels. If future residents and their guests should engage in activities that result in temporary, loud noise levels that exceed the limits set forth in Chapters 10.26 and 10.28 of the City's Municipal Code, the City is empowered to take actions to abate that activity. The Project will not result in exposure of neighboring residents or future Project residents to noise levels that exceed City standards. Therefore, no significant long-term. noise impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (5) Potential Impact: For a project located within an airport land use or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use or private airport, will the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Finding: The City determines that the Project will not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels in connection with the John Wayne Airport. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: The Project is not located within the limits of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). Therefore, the residential use would not be exposed to significant noise levels associated with that commercial aviation facility. The County of Orange Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) uses the current AELUP for JWA as the basis for determining potential aircraft noise impact from JWA. The Project Site is located outside the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft operation noise contours, where the AELUP defines the noise exposure to be "Moderate Noise Impact" (i.e., an impact that would require some kind of mitigation to reduce the aircraft noise) within Noise Impact Zone "2." The AELUP also recognizes that individual sensitivities to annoyance can vary from person to person. Because the Project Site is located outside of this noise impact zone, no significant noise impacts from aircraft activities would occur and no mitigation measures are required. (6) Potential Impact: I/Vi11 the Project result in a cumulative noise impact? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in significant cumulative noise impacts. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: Cumulative noise impacts are those that would occur within the immediate Project environs, particularly during the construction phase. The greatest increase in ambient noise would occur during the construction phases. However, no other development is proposed in the immediate vicinity of the Project (refer to EIR Table 9 -1) that would contribute to the cumulative increase in noise in the area. As indicated in EIR Section 4.4, the construction activities resulting from Project implementation will result in significant impacts in the neighborhood. Once construction ceases and the Project is completed and occupied, the cumulative noise environment could also extend beyond the immediate area to outlying areas, depending on the nature and extent of project - related traffic. Project - related traffic would contribute to insignificant increases in the ambient noise levels in the nearby residential area within Corona del Mar and along arterial roadways in the City. However, project - related long -term noise associated with vehicle trips generated by future residents would be minimal and would not contribute significantly to the cumulative increase in long -term noise levels because the project would add only 47 vehicles per day onto the circulation network. While Project - related traffic, when added to existing and traffic utilizing the neighborhood streets could contribute to an increase in ambient noise levels along the streets, the increase would not result in significant cumulative long -term noise impacts because none of the local streets within the Project area are characterized by noise levels that current exceed, or are forecast to exceed, 65 dBA CNEL as indicated in the City's Noise Element, which evaluated future noise levels based on buildout of the General Plan. It is anticipated that the resulting gradual incremental increase in project - related traffic onto the neighborhood circulation system would be less than 1 dBA and would, I r44 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 43 of 78 therefore, generally not be audible. Therefore, no significant long -term cumulative noise impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation. 6.5 AESTHETICS (1) Potential Impact: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not create a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: Implementation of the Project would not result in significant aesthetic impacts. Specifically, as illustrated in the extensive visual simulations set forth in EIR Section 4.5 of the EIR, the proposed structure would not adversely affect a scenic resource. With only a minor exception (i.e., emergency access), the Project is situated above the PLOED as prescribed by the Newport Beach City Council in order to preserve the coastal bluff as a visual resource. The Project has been designed to avoid any significant impact associated .with the emergency access by creating a feature that is recessed, which would be indistinguishable from the existing topographic character of the bluff. Furthermore, none of the significant features, including rock outcroppings, significant vegetation, the sandy beach, etc., existing on the Project Site would be affected by Project Site development. The Project Site is devoid of historic structures. As a result, the Project would have no significant adverse visual impact on these features. Although the visual character of the Project Site would be transformed, the Project, including the proposed docks, has been designed to avoid potentially significant impacts to the visual character of the bluff and harbor environment. As previously indicated, the proposed multiple - family residential structure has been designed to comply with the development standards prescribed in the City's zoning ordinance, including building height, lighting, landscaping, etc., to ensure that no significant visual impacts occur. A modification to the side yard setback requirement is proposed. In addition, the existing scenic vista available from the designated Public View Point along Ocean Boulevard near the southern property boundary has been expanded through the project design to create a wider view angle. As illustrated in EIR Exhibit 4.5 -1, the scenic vista would be expanded by 76 percent and a new view corridor will be created along the northern property line, which does not exist at the present time. In order to ensure that adverse effects on a scenic vista will be avoided, SC 4.5 -3 requires the dedication of a view easement through the property. As stipulated in that condition, no structure or landscape feature located within the easement would block any public view. Therefore, no significant visual impacts are anticipated as a result of Project implementation. As described in EIR Section 4.1 (Land Use /Relevant Planning), the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan addresses aesthetic resources, with emphasis on coastal views. The City has identified several policies that are intended to guide development and avoid potential significant visual impacts to important coastal resources, including coastal bluffs, the harbor, and associated natural features. EIR Table 4.1 -1 summarizes the relationship of the Project with the applicable policies adopted with the Natural Resources Element that address aesthetics and visual resources. In addition, EIR Table 4.1 -2 in EIR Section 4.1 provides a summary of the relationship of the Project with the relevant aesthetics policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan. As revealed in the analysis presented in those tables, the Project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Natural Resources Element and the CLOP. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not substantially damage scenic resources. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: See discussion of Potential Impact No. 1, above City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 44 of 78 (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Project Site and its surroundings? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Project Site and its surroundings. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: See discussion of Potential Impact No. 1, above. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Project has been designed to minimize glare by incorporating building materials that are not conducive to the creation of glare. For example, exterior materials proposed for the residential structure would consist of non - reflective materials, including a titanium roof and photo - voltaic array with a matte finish, stucco - covered walls, and stone accents with rough, rather than polished textures. Tinted glazing is proposed on the windows and most of the windows will have overhangs that will cast shadows over the glazing. As a result, no significant glare impacts from building finish materials anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Lighting of interior rooms would be designed to provide illumination for interior activities and would not produce any significant light or glare effects outside of the structures that could adversely affect adjacent properties. Although outdoor lighting from exterior patios and possibly along the walkway and lower level landing would be visible from the bay as minor point light sources, it would not create a glaring effect. Living areas in the homes to the north, west, and south are oriented toward the bay and ocean, away from the Project Site, and are separated by a considerable distance from the Project Site and proposed residential structure. In addition to the distance between the existing proposed and existing structures, there are also substantial elevation differences between adjacent living spaces and the proposed outdoor living levels within the Project Site that minimize the effects of lighting at night. Outdoor lighting within the Project Site would be designed to illuminate only the desired activity area on the Project Site, and would not cast any illumination or incidental glare beyond the property limits, consistent with the City's adopted lighting standards (refer to SC 4.5 -2). All of these circumstances minimize and possibly eliminate any opportunity for lighting on the Project Site to adversely effect at neighboring homes and /or properties. Indoor and outdoor lighting in the developed project would not result in adverse day or nighttime light or glare effects. Although the applicant is proposing to improve the existing landing and expand the boat dock to accommodate nine vessels, resulting in an increase in the area that would require lighting in that location, it would be similar to that which currently exists in this area and would be designed to cast light only on the affected area, therefore, no additional lighting and/or glare impacts associated with the waterside development would occur. Potential impacts will be less than significant. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative aesthetics impact? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in a cumulative visual impacts. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: Of the Cumulative Projects identified in EIR Table 9 -1, only one project, the proposed Megonigal residence, would also potentially affect the aesthetic character of the Project area. The visual simulations prepared for the Project revealed that no significant Project - related impacts would be anticipated, either from the Public View Point on Ocean Boulevard or from the Begonia Park Public View Point vantages as a result of the Project. The potential visual impacts of the Project were also evaluated from four Newport Harbor vantages that include the proposed Megonigal residence to determine the t 4% City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 45 of 78 extent of project - related cumulative visual impacts. As indicated in Exhibit 4.5 -12, construction of the Megonigal residence at the Pacific Avenue location would virtually eliminate the entire harbor and more distant ocean view, including the Project Site, from this vantage. As a result, the proposed Project would not contribute to the cumulative visual impact from this public view location. Three other visual simulations were also prepared to illustrate the potential cumulative impacts of the Project and the Megonigal residence on Pacific Avenue. Exhibit 5 -1 (Begonia Park Upper Bench), Exhibit 5 -2 (Begonia Park Lower Bench), and Exhibit 5 -3 (Begonia Park) illustrate views of the Project, including the proposed development of the Megonigal residence at 2333 Pacific Avenue. As illustrated in each of these simulations, the introduction of the Megonigal residence would affect views from each of the vantages in the three exhibits. In particular, the Megonigal residence would block a portion of the harbor area north of the Project Site. Although portions of the harbor are visible, views to this area are "filtered" by intervening landscaping and development. While the views to the harbor from these vantages would be changed with the development of the Megonigal residence and the Project, encroachment of the Project into the viewshed would not be significant on a cumulative basis when viewed from those locations because the effect on the view in the vicinity of the Project, even with the introduction of the proposed Megonigal residence, would not change significantly. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative visual impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation. None of the Cumulative Projects, including the proposed Megonigal residence, would affect views from the harbor to the existing coastal bluff. Potential visual impacts are not significant from the harbor area because views from those vantages would be only momentarily affected; none of the visual amenities in the intertidal area would be destroyed as a result of Project implementation. Furthermore, based on the visual analysis conducted for the Project, no potentially significant visual impacts would occur either to the character of the bluff or the intertidal area, which is characterized by rock outcroppings and a small cove are located where the dock is proposed, would adversely affect the harbor views to the Project Site. While the coastal bluff would be altered, the Project has been designed to conform to the existing topographic features and character to minimize visual impacts. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative visual impacts would occur. 6.6 DRAINAGE AND HYDROLOGY (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause substantial and adverse increased inundation, sedimentation and /or damage from water forces to the subject project and/or other properties are caused by improvements such as grading, construction of barriers or structures? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Project Site grading and construction activities may result in short-term increases in silt and sediment to downstream locations. However, implementation of the BMPs prescribed in the SWPPP and WQMP that must be prepared for the Project will ensure that the construction - related impacts resulting from Project Site grading will minimize the amount of silt and sediment that is transported to downstream locations. These potential impacts will be avoided or reduced through the implementation of appropriate BMPs as prescribed in the Orange County DAMP and in the standard conditions previously identified. In addition, other standard conditions (e.g., compliance with applicable building code requirements) will further minimize construction - related impacts. Therefore, implementation of the Project will not have a significant effect on water quality as a result of silt and sediment transport from construction activities. The total discharge from the Project Site in the developed condition is estimated to be only 1.95 cfs or a 15 percent decrease in surface runoff when compared to the existing 2.31 cfs. The proposed storm drain system will capture more of the Project Site runoff and reduce sheet flows that currently directly impact Newport Bay. The improved efficiency of the new storm drain system, together with the filtration element 1. +7 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 46 of 78 within the outlet structure, will ensure that the redeveloped Project Site does not result in erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Construction of the replacement dock would result in potential water quality impacts. During the pile removal and subsequent drilling required for the emplacement process, water turbidity will increase. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. In order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, BMPs, which eliminate any disposal of trash and debris at the Project Site as well as the removal of construction debris, will be implemented during construction pursuant to the CMP. This will ensure that turbidity impacts and related water quality impacts associated with the off -shore activities are avoided or reduced to an acceptable level. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in development within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated by FEMA that would expose people and/or property to potential serious injury and /or damage? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Project implementation will not result in the placement of any portion of the development proposed on the Project Site within the limits of the 100 -year flood plain as delineated by FEMA. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause impervious surfaces to increase and/or divert storm water runoff resulting in the inability of the existing collection and conveyance facilities to accommodate the increased flows? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Impervious surfaces comprising the existing development encompass approximately 22 percent of the total area of the Project Site. When redeveloped as proposed, impermeable surfaces will cover approximately 28 percent of the Project Site. The remaining 72 percent will remain permeable. In addition, Project implementation will result in the elimination of two of the drainage areas that currently exist. However, although the Project Site will encompass only one drainage area after grading and Project Site development, the Project will not alter the existing off -site drainage patterns. Moreover, the total discharge from the Project Site in the developed condition is estimated to be only 1.95 cfs or a 15 percent decrease in surface runoff when compared to the existing 2.31 cfs. The proposed storm drain system will, therefore, capture more of the Project Site runoff and reduce sheet flows that currently directly impact Newport Bay. The improved efficiency of the new storm drain system, together with the filtration element within the outlet structure, will ensure that the redeveloped Project Site does not result in erosion or siltation on- or off -site. (4) Potential Impact: Will Project implementation cause a violation of water quality objectives and impede the existing beneficial uses of on -site surface waters or off -site coastal waters? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: A Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for the Project and is incorporated by reference into these Findings. The WQMP identifies a number of structural and i r City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 47 of 78 non - structural BMPs that will be incorporated within the final designs to comply with the applicable provisions. of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the City's water quality regulations and to address anticipated requirements by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as part of a General Construction Permit. In addition, Project Site design and treatment BMPs have also been identified in the WQMP and will be implemented to ensure that water entering the harbor has been adequately treated to avoid potential impacts to that impaired water body. Other BMPs that will be implemented include parking and storage area maintenance to ensure that the parking area is cleaned on a regular basis. The BMPs have been selected to address the main pollutants of concern for this type of project, and for the impacted water body, i.e. Newport Bay. Lower Newport Bay is listed as an "impaired" water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, with respect to metals, pesticides and priority organics. They also include measures that are intended to avoid water quality impacts within Newport Bay during the construction of the proposed dock facility. With the incorporation of these measures prescribed in the CMP, no significant water quality impacts to Newport Bay would occur as a result of Project implementation. Construction of the replacement dock would result in potential water quality impacts. During the pile removal and subsequent drilling required for the emplacement process, water turbidity will increase. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. In order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, Best Management Practices (BMPs), which eliminate any disposal of trash and debris at the Project Site as well as the removal of construction debris, will be implemented during construction pursuant to the CMP. This will ensure that turbidity impacts and related water quality impacts associated with the off -shore activities are avoided or reduced to an acceptable level. (5) Potential Impact: Will a usable groundwater aquifer for municipal, private, or agricultural purposes be substantially and adversely affected by depletion or recharge? Finding: The City determines that there is no impact with respect to groundwater aquifers. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: The relatively small -scale of the Project will not result in a significant increase in water demand and all of the Project's potable and non - potable water needs will be met through a connection to the City's domestic water system. Compared to the existing development, which includes only three occupied units of the 15 dwelling units on the Project Site, the Project's eight dwelling units represents an insignificant increase in the demand for domestic water. No water wells are proposed or required to meet the water demands of the Project. There are no water wells located on or near the Project Site, and since the Project would not affect any existing water wells or require any new water wells, the Project will not result in the lowering of the water table. The Project Site is not located near to, and will have no impacts on, a usable groundwater aquifer for municipal, private, or agricultural purposes. (6) Potential Impact: Will storm water and/or induced runoff mix with a tidal habitat or pond causing instability to the existing water quality (e.g., reduction of salinity, increase of dissolved solids, introduction of sediments, etc.) that, in turn, will substantially and adversely affect the habitat? Finding: The City determines that there is no impact with respect to storm water and /or induced runoff mixing with a tidal habitat or pond causing instability to the existing water quality. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: The total discharge from the Project Site in the developed condition is estimated to be only 1.95 cfs or a 15 percent decrease in surface runoff when compared to the existing 2.31 cfs. The proposed storm drain system will capture more of the Project Site runoff and reduce sheet flows that currently directly impact Newport Bay. The improved efficiency of the new storm drain system, together with the filtration element within the outlet structure, will ensure that there is no impact with respect to City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 48 of 78 storm water and /or induced runoff mixing with a tidal habitat or pond causing instability to the existing water quality. (7) Potential Impact: Will sediments be increased and /or diverted by proposed improvements and cause sediment deposition in sensitive habitat areas (e.g., riparian, etc.) to the detriment of the habitat and/or sensitive species? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Project Site grading and construction activities may result in short-term increases in silt and sediment to downstream locations. However, implementation of the BMPs prescribed in the SWPPP and WQMP that must be prepared for the proposed multiple- family residential project will ensure that the construction - related impacts resulting from Project Site grading will minimize the amount of silt and sediment that is transported to downstream locations. These potential impacts will be avoided or reduced through the implementation of appropriate BMPs as prescribed in the Orange County DAMP and in the standard conditions previously identified. In addition, other standard conditions (e.g., compliance with applicable building code requirements) will further minimize construction- related impacts. The total discharge from the Project Site in the developed condition is estimated to be only 1.95 cfs or a 15 percent decrease in surface runoff when compared to the existing 2.31 cfs. The proposed storm drain system will capture more of the Project Site runoff and reduce sheet flows that currently directly impact Newport Bay. The improved efficiency of the new storm drain system, together with the filtration element within the outlet structure, will ensure that the redeveloped Project Site does not result in erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Construction of the replacement dock will result in potential water quality impacts. During the pile removal and subsequent drilling required for the emplacement process, water turbidity will increase. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. In order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, Best Management Practices (BMPs), which eliminate any disposal of trash and debris at the Project Site as well as the removal of construction debris, will be implemented during construction pursuant to the CMP. Appropriate measures have been incorporated into the CMP to ensure that turbidity impacts and related water quality impacts associated with the off -shore activities are avoided or reduced to an acceptable level. (8) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Land Use and Planning impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Although Project implementation would result in a small increase in impervious area, the post - development peak flow would be reduced when compared to the existing surface runoff conditions. Specifically, the 1.95 cfs emanating from the Project Site will be detained in a vault, treated, and discharged into the existing storm drain at a rate of 0.50 cfs, which is slightly less than the 0.51 cfs currently being discharged. Potential cumulative impacts would be those resulting from other development within the watershed sub -area; however, no other projects are proposed within the area affected by the Project. Nonetheless, Project implementation will result in upgrading the existing deficient catch basin in Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard to ensure that adequate capacity is provided to accommodate not only the Project but also existing stormwater runoff. In addition, the applicant will be required to implement Best Management Practices and related measures in accordance with the NPDES requirements to ensure that both storm water runoff and quality meet the requisite criteria. All of the other related projects are located outside the immediate project area. Each of the approved or Projects, should they be implemented, will be required to implement similar stormwater collection and conveyance facilities 1,5o City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 49 of 78 and water quality structural and non - structural measures (i.e., BMPs) to reduce and avoid water quality impacts. Implementation of these measures, which would be prescribed in the WQMP prepared for the Project (and other projects in the City and watershed), must comply with the requirements established by the City and County of Orange in the Drainage Area Master Plan, which have been developed to address the cumulative impacts of development in the watershed. These measures are intended to ensure that water quality objectives are achieved and/or maintained. Therefore, Project implementation will result in an overall improvement to hydrology and water quality by upgrading the stormwater collection facilities that serve the drainage area. Therefore, the Project will not result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to either hydrology or water quality. 6.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: A total of 82 special status plant and wildlife species are identified as potentially occurring in the region which includes the Project. Of these 82 species, nine plant species and one wildlife species have potential to occur due to suitable habitat conditions or were observed at the Project Site. The remaining plant and wildlife species described in the sensitive species table were determined not to have potential to occur at the Project Site due to lack of suitable habitat conditions (e.g., soils or vegetation associations) or geographic range. The nine plant species that have the potential to occur at the Project Site are listed and described in EIR Table 4.7 -1. The Project Site has been significantly altered as a result of past development, resulting in the elimination of the potential for many special status wildlife to occur. Six threatened animal species were identified as potentially occurring within the region and 15 endangered animal species were also identified as potentially occurring within the region, as discussed in EIR Section 4.7. None of these threatened or endangered species are expected to occur on the Project Site because of the level of disturbance that has occurred on the property. One wildlife species, currently listed as endangered by the State (SE) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FE), was observed utilizing the Project Site. Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) was observed during the reconnaissance survey conducted in 2008. The CMP includes several measures that will be implemented as part of the Project to ensure that potential impacts to sensitive plant species and other terrestrial biological resources are avoided. If one or more of the species exist on the Project Site and it is determined that Project implementation would result in impacts, an incident take permit under Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code must be obtained. The measures prescribed in the CMP include: • A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey for active nests of covered species at least seven (7) days prior to any habitat disturbance that occurs during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). If no active nests are round, no further actions are required. However, if nesting activity is observed during the pre - construction survey, the nest site must be protected until nesting activity has ended or as otherwise directed by a qualified biologist in order to ensure compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code. • Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environment. Invasive and non- native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used 1.�! City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 50 of 78 only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. A qualified botanist shall perform focused surveys to determine the presence /absence for the nine sensitive plant species. The focused surveys shall be performed during the appropriate blooming window identified for each species. Survey methods shall follow CDFG guidelines. If any State - listed threatened or endangered plant species are impacted by project development, an incident take permit pursuant to Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code shall be obtained prior to issuance of a grading permit. As indicated above, implementation of these project design features will ensure that the coastal bluff habitat is enhanced with native plant species and that potentially significant impacts to sensitive plant species as well as introduced non - native species of trees that may support avian species and nests will not occur. In addition, in order to ensure that no significant impacts occur to the vegetation, only species that can tolerate the sunlight/shade conditions that would be anticipated as a result of Project implementation are proposed to be planted in the area under the extension of the deck over the bluff. Potential impacts to common wildlife species were evaluated by considering the habitat loss for each species occurring or potentially occurring at the Project Site. Development of the Project would not result in significant impacts to common wildlife species currently or potentially utilizing the Project Site. Temporary disturbance impacts, as previously described, would occur for roosting birds (e.g.. cormorants, gulls, pelicans) on the existing dock until the new dock is built. Birds utilizing the bay directly adjacent to the Project Site may also experience temporary indirect disturbance while the new dock is being built. Terns, skimmers, and rails are located in Upper Newport Bay and will not be affected by the Project. These impacts, while adverse, would not be expected to reduce any current wildlife population below self - sustaining levels. Therefore, the project - related impacts associated with night lighting would be considered less than significant. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (including protections provided pursuant to Section 1600 et seq.) ? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Eelgrass (Zostere marina) is a marine flowering plant that grows in soft sediments in coastal bays and estuaries and occasionally offshore to depths of 50 feet. As indicated in the Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and CLUP, the City has identified eelgrass beds as an important biological resource. Eelgrass beds, which are illustrated in EIR Figure NR1 of the Natural Resources Element, are located within the Newport Harbor entrance channel, including in the vicinity of the Project Site, as well as along the Balboa Peninsula, Linda Isle, Harbor Island and Balboa Island west of the Project Site. Although the eelgrass beds are recognized as an important biological resource, they are not included in the environmental study areas (ESAs) illustrated in EIR Figure NR2. Nonetheless, the Natural Resources Element includes specific policies intended to avoid impacts to eelgrass. The project is consistent with the relevant Natural Resources Element and CLUP policies as described in EIR Tables 4.1 -1 and 4.1 -2 as well as in Responses to Comments 10 -22 through 10 -27, which are incorporated by reference into these Findings of Fact. No direct losses of eelgrass are anticipated as a result of the dock construction component of the Project. Nonetheless, post-construction surveys will be conducted to verify that no eelgrass losses have occurred. Construction of the replacement dock would result in potential water quality and vessel - related impacts on eelgrass habitat, which may include both direct and indirect long -term effects. During the pile removal and I,52 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 51 of 76 subsequent drilling required for the emplacement process, water turbidity will increase. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. In order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, Best Management Practices (BMPs), which eliminate any disposal of trash and debris at the Project Site as well as the removal of construction debris, will be implemented during construction pursuant to the CMP. Vessel- related impacts include those associated with barges and work vessels working over existing eelgrass beds by deploying anchors and anchor chain within eelgrass habitat, grounding over eelgrass habitat, and propeller scarring and prop wash of either the barge or support vessels for the barge. These vessels could create furrows and scars within the eelgrass vegetation and would result in adverse losses of eelgrass habitat that would require the implementation of an eelgrass mitigation program (refer to MM 4.7 -3), which would minimize disturbances related to vessel operations and vessel anchor positioning. It is anticipated that barge operations will have only minimal shading effects on eelgrass since the position of the barge will shift each day, preventing continuous shading of any one part of the eelgrass bed. The proposed dock structures will encompass an area of approximately 3,450 square feet. The area of eelgrass habitat that is actually affected by long -term shading will be determined during post- construction monitoring surveys conducted pursuant to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended). The location and amount of eelgrass to be transplanted shall be determined following the results of the two annual monitoring efforts stipulated in the CMP, which will be undertaken as part of the Project. Specifically, the following measures will be undertaken as identified in the CMP to ensure that potential impacts to eelgrass are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. An updated pre- construction eelgrass and invasive algae survey shall be completed within 30 days of the initiation of the proposed dockfgangway construction. The results of this survey will be used to update the results of the March 2007 eelgrass survey and to identify, if any, potential project - related eelgrass losses and the presence or absence of the invasive algae (Caulerps taxifolia) in accordance with NMFS requirements. A post - construction project eelgrass survey shall be completed within 30 days of the completion of project construction in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). The report will be presented to the resources agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission within 30 days after completion of the survey. If any eelgrass has been impacted in excess of that determined in the pre - construction survey, any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.2:1 (mitigation to impact). Eelgrass shall be mitigated based on two annual monitoring surveys that document the changes in bed (i.e., area extent and density) in the vicinity of the footprint of the boat dock, moored vessel(s), and /or related structures during the active - growth period for eelgrass (typically March through October). Mitigation shall be implemented pursuant to the requirements of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). A statement from the applicant indicating their understanding of the potential mitigation obligation that may follow the initial two -year monitoring is required. If losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach and resources agencies for review and acceptance. • The Project marine biologist shall mark the positions of eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the dock and gangway construction area with buoys prior to the initiation of any construction activities. • The Project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew prior to initiation of construction to orient them to specific areas where eelgrass presently exists. 1 �;)-3 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 52 of 78 • Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work over eelgrass beds only during tides of +2 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) or higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass from propellers, and to limit water turbidity. • Anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upon eelgrass habitat. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: The 190 square foot area identified on the bluff below the building pad does not meet the criteria for either U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) or California Department of Fish and Game (Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code). Further, given the clear and demonstrable lack of wetland hydrology and hydric soils, combined with the characteristics of the African umbrella sedge, a highly adaptable common landscape plant that occurs in upland areas for one -third of its occurrences, no portion of the Project Site is considered a wetland under the California Coastal Act. Therefore, Project implementation will not result in any potential impacts to wetlands. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not impact the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. The City also finds that that the Project will not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: The Project Site and surrounding areas are developed and no migratory wildlife corridors occur on Project Site or in the vicinity of the Project Site, and therefore, the Project will not interfere with resident, migratory or wildlife species. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: As acknowledged in the Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, Newport harbor is home to valuable habitat such as eelgrass and mudflats that support a wide range of species and also provides the public with recreational boating opportunities. Therefore, the City has placed a high priority on the protection of the biological resources, including both habitat and species and to continue to serve the needs of the recreational boating community by ensuring compatibility between the uses within Newport Harbor. The City adopted several policies that apply to future development within the City. EIR Table 4.1 -1 (Land Use and Planning) summarizes the relationship of the Project with the applicable policies adopted with the Natural Resources Element. In addition, EIR Table 4.1 -2 provides a summary of the relationship of the Project with the relevant policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan. As revealed in the analysis presented in those tables, the Project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Natural Resources Element and the CLUP. s'f City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 53 of 78 (6) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: There are no local, regional or state habitat conservation plans that would regulate or guide development of the Project Site. The Project Site is located on a bluff within the coastal zone. Therefore, the Project Site is not included in either a Habitat Conservation Plan or a Natural Community Conservation Plan. However, the Project area occurs within the vicinity of estuarine and eelgrass habitats, which are considered habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species (i.e., northern anchovy) within the Coastal Pelagics Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) and Pacific Groundfish FMP (i.e., rockfishes). HAPC are described in the regulations as subsets of essential fish habitat (EFH), which are rare, particularly susceptible to human - induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Although designated HAPCs are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1997), federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process. Potential impacts to the eelgrass and species inhabiting that habitat have been evaluated and measures have been identified in the CMP. (7) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Biological Resources impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: For the purposes of determining potential cumulative impacts to biological resources, the harbor area was identified as the geographic "area of potential effect" due to the potential for adversely affecting coastal biological resources, including eelgrass. Project implementation could result in potential impacts to biological resources, as indicated in EIR Section 4.7. These impacts include the potential to create both direct impacts, particularly during construction, and indirect impacts that may include the creation of shadows that could adversely affect the existing eelgrass bed in the vicinity of the project. However, the Project and other projects proposed within the harbor area listed in EIR Table 9 -1 that have the potential to affect eelgrass are required by the City to mitigate any potential loss at a ratio of 1.2:1. As indicated in EIR Section 4.7.5, if it is determined as a result of the pre- and post - construction surveys that eelgrass is impacted, the applicant will be required to replace it at the specified mitigation ratio. The same or similar measures would be prescribed for projects located within Newport Bay that have the potential to adversely affect eelgrass as a result of dredging or other construction and development activities. Similar to the Project, other projects in the harbor that have the potential to impact eelgrass would be subject to the same measures prescribed for the Project to adequately offset the potentially significant impacts, including pre- and post- construction surveys, potential replacement of eelgrass, avoidance of the rocky intertidal habitat, use of silt curtains during construction, and limiting construction to optimal tide conditions. As a result, no potentially significant cumulative impacts to marine biology would occur. Other potential impacts to biological resources include effects on the intertidal area as a result of increased activity in the small cove and potential effects on sensitive plant species that may exist on the Project Site. For example, important resources (e.g., sand dollars) have been identified in the intertidal area below the bluff that could be affected by construction activities associated with the construction of the dock. However, in each case, the CMP includes measures (e.g., signage, avoidance of the intertidal area during construction, etc.) that will either eliminate the potentially significant impacts to biological resources or reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. In the same way, potential impacts to terrestrial species of plants and /or animals are also addressed through project design features prescribed /, 75 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 54 of 78 in the CMP, including the use of native plant species, which will effectively reduce the impacts to a less than significant level as prescribed by the Coastal Land Use Plan policies. As a result, no potentially significant cumulative impacts to terrestrial biology would occur. 6.8 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Construction activities would involve the use of hazardous materials associated with the construction of a residential building such as oil, gas, tar, construction materials and adhesives, cleaning solvents and paint. Transport of these materials to the Project Site and use on the Project Site would only create a localized hazard in the event of an accident or spills. Hazardous materials use, transport, storage and handling would be subject to federal, state and local regulations to reduce the risk of accidents. Equipment maintenance and disposal of vehicular fluids is subject to existing regulations, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In addition, trash enclosures are required to be maintained with covered bins and other measures to prevent spillage and/or seepage of materials into the ground. Given the nature of the project in terms of scope and size, it is anticipated that normal storage, use and transport of hazardous materials will not result in undue risk to construction workers on the Project Site or to persons on surrounding areas. The use and disposal of any hazardous materials on the Project Site and in conjunction with the project will be in accordance with existing regulations. With the exception of small quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, cleaning solvents, paints, etc., that are typically used to maintain residential properties, on -going operation of the Project Site for residential use will not result in the storage or use of hazardous materials. As indicated in EIR Table 4.8 -2, a total of 43 suspect asbestos bulk samples were collected during the Project Site inspection. These materials, which contain detectable amounts of ACM that could be potentially hazardous if not properly removed, must be properly removed by a licensed and Cal /OSHA registered asbestos abatement contractor prior to the demolition of the building in accordance with all applicable regulations. The LBP survey (refer to EIR Table 4.8 -3) concluded that no immediate response action is necessary with respect to the noted LBP that is intact. Nonetheless, similar to ACM removal, implementation of industry standard removal practices will ensure that any potential health risk would be avoided. Project implementation includes the activities associated with site preparation and construction of a structure that contains eight condominium units and the continued long -term use of the Project Site for residential development, which does not typically involve the use and/or transport of hazardous materials and other substances that would represent a hazard in the community. Although some fertilizers, herbicides, cleaning solvents, paints, and /or pesticides would be utilized on -site, such materials are of the household variety and do not pose a significant health hazard or risk. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. 1.56 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 55 of 78 Discussion: The existing structures were found to contain ACM and LBP. However, the ACM were observed to be in good condition and although they do not pose a significant health and safety concern to occupants of the Project Site in their current state, they must be properly removed prior to demolition of the existing structures. Similarly, the general overall condition of the subject interior and exterior painted /finished surfaces was observed to be intact. No immediate response action is necessary with respect to the noted LBP that is intact. Project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing structures; however, the ACM and LBP will be handled in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the City and other regulatory agencies, as discussed in Mitigation Measures 4.8 -1 and 4.8 -2: MM 4.8 -1: Any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM shall be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Inaccessible suspect ACM shall be tested prior to demolition or renovation. Air emissions of asbestos fibers and leaded dust would be reduced to below a level of significance through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. Proper safety procedures for the handling of suspect ACM shall always be followed in order to protect the occupants of the building and the asbestos workers. • MM 4.8 -2: A contractor performing paint removal work shall follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the paint, as proper waste disposal requirements and worker protection measures shall be implemented throughout the removal process. Implementation of the standard condition and mitigation measures prescribed by the City and other regulatory agencies having jurisdiction will ensure that any potentially significant health hazard to either the public or environment would reduced to a less than significant level as a result of the proper removal of those contaminants. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The closest school to the Project Site is Harbor View School, located approximately 0.7 mile from the Project Site to the northeast. The school is physically separated from the Project Site by a residential community and East Coast Highway (SR -1) and will not be directly impacted by construction activities on the Project Site. Although the proposed condominiums would not include any activities or mechanical or chemical processes that would emit hazardous emissions, the existing structures were found to contain ACM and LBP. However, as prescribed in the mitigation measures, the existing ACM and LBP will be handled in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the SCAOMD and other Orange County Health Care Agency. Therefore, release of hazardous materials during demolition of the existing structures would be prevented through adherence to routine control measures monitored by the City Building Department and other regulatory agencies. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Finding: The City determines that the Project Site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, therefore, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. 1 - 77 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 56 of 78 Discussion: P &D Consultants conducted a Phase I ESA on the Project Site, including both records and literature searches as well as a site survey conducted on the Project Site. Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, the Project Site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites. Further, there is no evidence of either on -site or off -site environmental conditions that would adversely affect Project Site development. No historical recognized environmental conditions were identified in connection with the Project Site. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area if located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport?. Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area because it is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: The Project Site is located approximately five miles southeast of John Wayne Airport. As such, the site is not located within the limits of the JWA land use plan or other public airport or private landing strip. Neither that commercial airport nor any other public airport or private aviation facility is located within two miles of the Project Site. As a result, Project implementation will not result in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazards, to people residing or working in the project area. No significant impacts will occur as a result of Project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. (6) Potential Impact: Will the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not impair implementation, of or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: The City has prepared an Emergency Preparedness Plan that designates procedures to be followed in case of a major emergency. The plan identifies resources available for emergency response and establishes coordinated action plans for specific emergency situations and disasters, including earthquakes, fires, major rail and roadway accidents, flooding, hazardous materials incidents, civil disturbance, and nuclear disasters and attack. The Project Site is not designated for emergency use within the Emergency Preparedness Plan. The primary concern of the Safety Element and the City Newport Beach is in terms of risks to persons and personal property. Although the Project Site is subject to potentially severe seismic shaking or fires, development pursuant to building and fire code requirements will ensure that the potential impacts are minimized or reduced to an acceptable level. The Project is not located within a flood hazard area. Development of the Project Site as proposed will not adversely affect either the evacuation routes or the adopted emergency preparedness planning program(s) being implemented by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, Project implementation will not physically interfere with the City's emergency planning program. No significant impacts will occur as a result of Project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. (7) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Public Health and Safety impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Project Site has been altered and currently supports urban development (i.e., 15 residential dwelling units) which do not involve the use of hazardous materials in the daily operations beyond household variety fertilizers, herbicides, cleaning solvents, paints, and /or pesticides. As previously evaluated, demolition of the existing residential structures could yield some asbestos '7 5Ge City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 57 of 78 containing materials or lead -based paint. However, demolition will not only comply with AQMD and regulatory agency requirements for abating these components, but appropriate measures have also been identified to ensure that no significant emissions of potentially hazardous materials occurs. Similarly, Cumulative Projects characterized by ACM and LBP would also be required to comply with AQMD and regulatory agency requirements so that no significant emissions occur. If determined necessary as a result of the environmental analysis conducted for them, each of the Cumulative Projects would be required to remediate an existing or potential source of contamination. Finally, like the existing residential development, the Project would only use household variety hazardous materials such as fertilizers, herbicides, cleaning solvents, paints, and /or pesticides. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative impacts would occur when compared to other projects that have been approved or proposed in the City of Newport Beach or surrounding areas. 6.9 SOILS AND GEOLOGY (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in the loss or elimination of `prime" agricultural lands as designated by the State of California andlor County of Orange and such designated soils as are capable of sustained, viable agricultural production? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in the loss or elimination of "prime" agricultural lands. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: Development of the Project will not result in the conversion of any designated prime agricultural soils or otherwise significant farmland. The Project Site is located within a developed and urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach. As previously indicated, the Project Site and surrounding area are designated as "Urban and Built Up Land." Therefore, Project implementation will not result in any impacts to agricultural soils or important farmland. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (2) Potential Impact: Could ground shaking andlor secondary seismic effects (i.e., liquefaction, slope failure, etc.) cold cause substantial structural damage andlor an unmitigated risk to human safety, even after implementation of the recommended geotechnical measures, required local and State seismic design parameters, and common engineering practices for seismic hazard abatement? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The nearest Type A fault is the Cucamonga Fault, which is located approximately 60.2 miles from the Project Site. This fault is capable of generating a 7.0 magnitude earthquake. The nearest Type B fault is the offshore Newport- Inglewood fault (2.8 km from the Project Site), which is capable of generating a maximum magnitude of 6.9. The estimated mean peak ground acceleration at the Project Site is 0.345g. The preliminary geologic /geotechnical investigation report identifies the appropriate CBC seismic coefficients for structural design. Implementation of the recommendations prescribed in the preliminary geologic /geotechnical investigation, Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report, and compliance with CBC structure design parameters will ensure that potential impacts associated with ground shaking associated with a seismic event on one of the causative faults are reduced to an acceptable level (i.e., minimize loss of life and/or property). According to the conceptual grading plan prepared for the Project, excavation necessary to implement the Project will extend to an ultimate elevation of approximately 30 feet NAVD88 in order to accommodate the subterranean levels of the proposed structure. The proposed excavation will effectively remove the artificial fill and terrace materials and will expose bedrock throughout the excavation. The removal of these materials, combined with the lack of subsurface water, effectively eliminates the potential for liquefaction to occur. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. /• 5,9 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 58 of 78 Excavations for and construction of planned subterranean levels, which will remove existing fill soils as well as a majority of the terrace deposits capping the bedrock and daylighting on the bluff face, will leave a trapezoidal (i.e., pillar) section of intact rock as part of the exposed bluff face to approximately Elevation 52.8 NAVD. With the removal of these materials, the bluff face will be less vulnerable to bluff erosion. Considering the both the lithologic bedrock unit exposed and the rock quality, the remaining trapezoidal section of intact rock will have sufficient strength to remain in place during the economic life of the structure (i.e., 75 years). Furthermore, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., concluded that the proposed improvements will neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the Project Site or adjacent area. The proposed grading plan indicates that excavation will daylight on the bluff face at approximately 52.8 NAVD, resulting in the removal of existing fill soils as well as a majority of the terrace deposits capping the bedrock and daylighting on the bluff face. The removal of these materials as well as the incorporation of Project drainage measures recommended by the geotechnical consultant in the conceptual Grading Plan Review Report will further reduce the potential for future bluff erosion. Based on the analysis conducted for the Project, and with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9 -1b, bluff erosion is not considered a factor in design over the life of the structure. • SC 4.9-4: Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted. A slope stability analysis was included in the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, Inc. The computed factor of safety for the temporary excavation under static conditions is greater than the minimum required 1.25. Therefore, based on the results of the stability analyses, the project geotechnical consultant concluded that the temporary excavation with soldier pile shoring system is acceptable, provided the recommendations prescribed in the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report are implemented during construction, including temporary shoring during excavation and construction of the deeper excavations, tie -back anchors or internal bracing, etc., as prescribed by Mitigation Measure 4.9 -1: MM 4.9 -1: Project implementation shall adhere to the engineering recommendations for site grading and foundation design and construction presented in the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Nebeltt & Associates, Inc., and subsequent detailed geotechnical engineering analyses. In addition, the structural design would also include provisions to accommodate basement wall water- proofing, drain installation, etc. The slopes descending from the proposed development expose very resistant sandstone of the Monterey formation. Literature reviews, site mapping, aerial photo analysis, and subsurface exploration conducted for the Project during the preparation of the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report (Neblett & Associates, Inc., 2008) revealed that landslides do not exist on or adjacent to the Project Site. The lack of landslide features indicates that the area has been relatively stable in the recent geologic past (i.e., Holocene) and has not been subject to earthquake- induced large -scale landsliding. Therefore, the potential for earthquake- induced landsliding is considered low. A Coastal Hazard Study was prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., (October 2006), which includes an analysis of wave run -up, including that generated from a tsunami. The maximum tsunami run -up in the Newport Harbor area is less than two meters in height. Any wave, including a tsunami, that approaches the Project Site in Corona del Mar will be refracted, modified, and reduced in height by the Newport jetties. Based on the same methodology that was used to estimate the surface gravity wave and boat wakes, the 6 foot high tsunami would yield a run -up to elevation +16.2 feet NAVD 88 (i.e., six feet run -up + 10 feet NAVD 88 water elevation). The basement elevation of the proposed structure is proposed to be approximately 30 feet NAVD88, with the lowermost exposed face of the structure daylighting on the slope Fa- � City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 59 of 78 at approximately 52.8 feet NAVD88. In addition, the dock access/emergency exit is located at elevation 44.48 feet NAVD88 and would also be located above the potential tsunami /wave run -up limits. The tsunami, like the design extreme wavetwake, will not reach the proposed improvements. Due to the infrequent nature and the relatively low 500 -year recurrence interval tsunami wave height, combined with the elevation of the proposed improvements, the Project Site is reasonably safe from tsunami hazards. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated during the 75 -year economic life of the Project and no mitigation measures are required. Further, considering the proposed finish pad elevation, the potential for seiche effects to the Project Site is considered remote due to the shallow depth of Newport Harbor. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. The Project Site is exposed to impinging waves from either wind - generated period waves in the bay or ocean swells that will propagate through the entrance channel. For about 65 percent of the time, there would be no wind waves. For the remainder of the time, significant wave heights would be 0.5 foot or less. On less frequent occasions, wind- induced significant wave heights would be higher than one foot and up to 2.5 feet. Extreme SSE -SSW swell generated by distant storms could reach the Project Site with significant heights of approximately 1.5 feet and periods in the 12 to 14- second range. The Noble Consultants study concluded that from a wave climate perspective, the proposed docking facility is feasible in a wide range of conditions. However, extreme wind waves from the SSE -SSW are expected to exceed the recommended maximum wave heights and, therefore, damage to the moored vessels and /or docking facilities may occur. In these less frequent conditions, vessels should be moved and sheltered in a less exposed location. Implementation of the standard conditions prescribed in Section 4.9.3 and Mitigation Measures MM 4.9 -2a and MM 4.9 -2b will ensure that wave- induced impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level: MM 4.9 -2a: During periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave- induced motions, boats shall be sheltered at mooring can locations that are available inside Newport Harbor to avoid damage. • MM 4.9 -2b: The dock design shall be based on the extreme wave conditions identified in the coastal engineering study (Noble Consultants, Inc., 2008). Sand - quality sediment movement within the Project region is typically in the along - channel direction from the harbor entrance to the inner bay. A stable bayshore condition is observed at the Project Site. Regular sedimentation observed at China Reef located in the updrift area is primarily due to the groin -like outcrop feature that entraps the along - channel transported sediment. With a small percentage (approximately six percent) of the along - channel blockage area resulting from the proposed new dock facility, the potential impact to this unique sediment movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant, although localized sand deposit resulting from the presence of the proposed guide piles within the sand - moving path may occur. In addition, the Project is located in the downdrift direction of the neighboring China Reef, the project's potential impact on sedimentation at the updrift location such as China Reef is inconsequential. No significant impacts to sand transport resulting from project implement are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project leave adverse soil conditions such as compressible, expansive, or corrosive soils unmitigated and presenting a damage hazard to occupied structures or infrastructure facilities? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Project Site and the surrounding area are not known to be located within an unstable geologic area and, therefore, are not expected to be exposed to or create on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse hazards. A representative soil sample was tested for /1(0/ City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 60 of 78 expansion potential in accordance with EIR Table 18 -1 -6, which concluded that existing Project Site soils have a "very low" potential for expansion and, therefore, are not a significant issue given on -site soil conditions. A final geotechnical analysis will be completed as part of the final building permit review process, and strict adherence to the design recommendations are mandatory with building permit issuance. As required in SC 4.9 -2, the Project must comply with the applicable design parameters prescribed in the 2007 CBC as well as those required by the City. Soluble sulfate and corrosivity testing on representative samples of the on -site soils conducted for the Project indicate a negligible sulfate concentration; however, because the Project is located in a coastal environment, the potential for severe sulfate exposure to concrete exists. As a result, the type of concrete utilized should be consistent with the requirements of the 2007 CBC and City of Newport Beach. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative geology and soils impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Unlike any of the Cumulative Projects, the Project is located on a bluff in Corona del Mar, which requires the consideration of unique geologic and seismic characteristics. Although the Project will consist of residential development, the potential exposure to the effects of seismic activity, slope failure, bluff erosion, and/or soil conditions will not increase and Project implementation will not result in potential cumulative impacts because the new residential development will be required to meet applicable structural design requirements. Furthermore, none of the Cumulative Projects would contribute cumulatively to bluff instability and /or erosion because they are not located on the same bluff as the Project. In addition, the Cumulative Projects must comply with the specific building design parameters prescribed in the applicable regulations to ensure that potential loss of life and structural damage is minimized. The Project Site and the surrounding area are not known to be located within an unstable geologic area and, therefore, are not expected to be exposed to adverse soils conditions, including lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse hazards. Finally, the Project Site does not support "prime" and /or "important' agricultural soils. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative seismic, slope failure, bluff erosion, and/or soil condition impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation. With a small amount (i.e., approximately six percent) of the along - channel blockage areas resulting from the proposed new dock facility, the potential impact to the sediment movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant. In addition, because the Project is located in the down -drift direction of neighboring Channel Reef, its potential impact on sedimentation at the up -drift location such as Channel Reef is inconsequential. Under extreme conditions, up to 2.5 -foot waves could be experienced at the Project Site, impacting 30 to 35 boats residing in Newport Harbor, including those proposed for the Project. However, the City maintains between 80 and 100 mooring cans in the harbor, which are available to the public at any given time on a "first come, first served" basis. Because the severe conditions that would result in the need to utilize the mooring cans are infrequent and, further, because the City has indicated that up to 100 mooring cans are available for temporary mooring within the harbor during these infrequent periods, no potentially significant cumulative impacts would occur. 6.10 CULTURAL /SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) §15064.5? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: Project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing residential structures on the Project Site. However, because neither structure is recognized either by the City or the State of 1, 6P 2 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 61 of 78 California as an important historic resource, no significant impacts to historic resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to PRC §15064.5? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: A cultural and paleontological resources records survey was completed by LSA Associates, Inc. in July of 2005. All recorded archaeological sites and cultural resource records on file were reviewed and no sites were identified on the Project Site. Although Project implementation includes extensive excavation of the Project Site to accommodate the proposed residential structure, it is unlikely that the disturbance of the subsurface soils would result in significant impacts to cultural resources due to Project Site alteration associated with the past development of the existing structures and the nature of the bedrock materials that underlie the Project Site. It is unlikely that any archaeological sites have ever existed on the Project Site or will be encountered during construction. Therefore, no significant impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures, including archeological monitoring, are recommended. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The cultural and paleontological resources records survey conducted in 2005 for the Project indicates that no known paleontological resources are known to exist on the Project Site. However, the Project Site contains the Monterey Formation, which is known to contain abundant fossilized marine invertebrates and vertebrates. The presence of recorded fossils in the vicinity of the Project areas exists. As previously indicated, the survey concluded that the Project Site should be considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity and fossils may be encountered during grading and excavation. It is likely that sediments containing fossils will be encountered during construction. Therefore, implementation of SC 4.10 -2 in accordance with CLUP Policy 4.5.1 -1 will ensure that potential significant impacts to fossils encountered during grading /excavation activities can be avoided through measures prescribed by the paleontological monitor. As a result, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. The Project Site and surrounding areas, including the bluff, have been altered to accommodate development that includes predominantly residential uses; the only potentially unique geologic feature on the Project Site would be the rock outcropping that forms a small cove at the base of the Project Site. Although Project implementation includes the replacement of the existing 4 -slip dock located within the cove below the Project Site, it will not result in physical changes or alterations that would either directly or indirectly alter the physical characteristics of the cove. The Project will not impact the rock outcropping as construction of the proposed condominiums will occur well above the feature and construction of the replacement dock will occur seaward of the rock outcropping. As a result, alteration of the rocks or the cove will not occur and no significant impacts are anticipated. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? �r &3 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 62 of 78 Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Because implementation of the Project requires the approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport General Plan, it is subject to the provisions of SB 18, which requires consultation with Native American representatives. Native American Heritage Commission representatives have been contacted in accordance with the mandate prescribed in SB 18. Based on the degree of disturbance that has already occurred on the Project Site and the fact that no request for consultation by the Native American community, Project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts to human remains. Nonetheless, SC 4.10 -1, which is mandated by State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, will ensure that any human remains that may be encountered during construction will be adequate mitigated. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Cultural /Scientific Resources impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Project Site is currently developed and no significant cultural, historic or scientific resources are known to be located on the Project Site. Although it is possible that other proposed and approved development could result in impacts to cultural, historical or scientific resources, appropriate mitigation will be required to ensure that such impacts are less than significant. While grading and excavation are required to prepare portions of the Project Site for construction, no cultural or historical resources would be affected and no impacts would occur to such resources. Although paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) may be encountered during construction of the Project based on the geologic formation underlying the Project Site, monitoring will ensure that any such potential resources that may exist on the property would be identified during the grading phase by the paleontological monitor. Adequate measures would be implemented to ensure that potentially. significant impacts would be avoided. This would also be true for other projects where encountering such resources is possible or likely, as prescribed in environmental analysis undertaken for such projects listed in EIR Table 9 -1. Therefore, Project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts, either individually or on a cumulative basis. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT CEQA requires that findings be made for each alternative considered in an EIR. The EIR considered a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project to provide informed decision - making in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The alternatives analyzed in the EIR included: (1) No Project/No Development; (2) Reduced Intensity /3 Single - Family Residences; (3) Reduced Intensity /5 Multiple - Family Residential Project, and (4) Existing Zoning /8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project with Reduced Grading. The City's findings, and facts in support of those findings, with respect to each of the alternatives considered are provided below: • NO PROJECT /NO DEVELOPMENT Description — The No Project Alternative evaluates the potential environmental effects resulting from the continuance of the development currently existing on the site at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published, "... as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services' (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). Therefore, this alternative assumes full occupancy of the existing 14 -unit apartment building and one single - family residence, /, (9 If City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 63 of 78 which represents an increase in occupancy of 12 units over the baseline condition (i.e., three occupied units). This alternative also includes the implementation of deferred maintenance activities (if any). Because the City has requested that the applicant repair or remove the existing dock due to its present (deteriorated) condition, the No Project Alternative also includes the replacement of the existing (3 -slip) dock with a new dock in an identical configuration. Attainment of Project Objectives — Implementation of the No Project alternative would not achieve any of the eight objectives identified for the proposed project. Most importantly, the No Project alternative would not allow for a state -of- the -art multiple - family residential project and the existing structures will not enhance the aesthetic character of the community as articulated in several of the General Plan policies. Furthermore, no private recreational amenities would be provided and it is anticipated that the existing energy inefficient structures would continue to consume greater quantities of energy resources when compared to the proposed project, which has been designed to incorporate state -of- the -art energy efficient energy systems. Finally, existing views from the important public vantages would not be enhanced. Avoidance of Project Impacts — This alternative would eliminate the unavoidable adverse construction noise impact and potential impacts to paleontological resources identified for the proposed project. It would also substantially reduce construction traffic and related air emissions when compared to the proposed project. However, it would not substantially reduce other potential effects, including hydrology /water quality, biological resources, and operational traffic. The existing catch basin near the corner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard would not be upgraded, resulting in the continuation of the stormwater collection deficiency. In addition, without seismic retrofitting necessary to improve the structural integrity of the existing structures, the buildings and future residents would be exposed to potential seismic hazards. Finally, abatement of the LBP and ACM would not be required so future residents could also be exposed to ACM and LBP unless remediated during the remodeling process. REDUCED INTENSITY: 3 SINGLE - FAMILY Description — This alternative would result in the subdivision of the existing property into three single - family lots, each of which would be occupied by one custom residence (refer to EIR Exhibit 10 -1). Each of the three homes would consist of two above -grade living levels as well as a basement level and a roof deck. The two residences facing Carnation Avenue might have garages fronting on that street, while the third residence would likely have subterranean parking accessible via a driveway from Carnation Avenue. Similar to the proposed project, basement levels of the homes are assumed to "daylight" at 50.7 feet NAVD88, the City Council- approved predominant line of existing development. Each residence would encompass approximately 6,900 square feet of living space and a total structural floor area of about 7,700 square feet (including living space, garages, mechanical spaces, etc.) for a total structural floor area of approximately 23,200 square feet. Although this reduced intensity alternative would reduce the amount of grading necessary to accommodate the three homes (i.e., 10,000 cubic yards of excavation versus 25,200 cubic yards for the proposed project), up to 75 caissons would be required to provide the structural integrity of the three homes. The existing dock would be replaced with a new 3 -slip dock that would accommodate a 40- to 60 -foot boat for each of the three residences. For this alternative, there is no requirement for implementation of the state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, or undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring, which are included within the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative will not provide those benefits. City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 64 of 78 o Attainment of Proiect Objectives — Implementation of this alternative would only achieve portions of Objectives 1 (i.e., enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood by replacing a deteriorating structure), 2 (i.e., incorporate a design that reflects the architectural diversity of the neighborhood), 3 (i.e., provide a dock for each residence), and 7 (enhance scenic views from the harbor). However, this alternative would not result in the construction of a multiple - family residential condominium project of sufficient size (Objective 1) to provide range of recreational and health amenities or ample storage space (Objective 4), enhance aesthetics of the neighborhood to the degree of the proposed project, and remove two existing overhead power poles (Objective 2), incorporate energy- saving, sustainable, and environmentally sensitive technology, construction techniques, and other features designed to conserve energy and/or improve the existing environment to a greater degree than required by current applicable regulations (Objective 3), enhance public access by increasing public street parking (Objective 5), or remove two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, all of which presently affect the view from certain perspectives or replace the existing poles and overhead wiring by undergrounding. the new wiring, all in order to enhance scenic views to the harbor and ocean from designated vantage points (Objective 6). In addition, if the homes in this alternative were built to the maximum building height, this alternative would not minimize encroachment into private views when compared to the proposed project (Objective 8). Avoidance of Project Impacts — This alternative would decrease the amount of grading required to construct the three single - family residential dwelling units, construction of the three homes would extend over a six year period (i.e., two years for each home) because they which would be constructed consecutively rather than concurrently due to market conditions. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would not avoid or substantially reduce the potential construction noise impact associated with project implementation. Depending on market conditions, the construction noise impacts could extend for a greater period of time than would be the case for the proposed project or the multi - family project alternatives. Implementation of this alternative would also result in reduced construction and mobile- source air emissions and construction traffic, which were determined to be less than significant with the proposed project as well. REDUCED INTENSITY: 5 MULTIPLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT o Description — This alternative includes the elimination of the proposed project's Sub - Basement Level and the entire Basement Level. The location and basic design of levels above the Basement level are assumed to be similar as the proposed project. Twenty - five (25) caissons below the building perimeter along Bayside Place and Newport Bay are eliminated due to the change in basement and foundation design. Due to the elimination of parking located on the Sub- Basement and Basement levels, required parking spaces have been reallocated among the proposed parking areas within the First and Second levels. The resulting parking plan would comply with the City's off - street parking requirements for the development of 5 units. If vehicle spaces on vehicle lifts were considered adequate to satisfy required parking, the number of units could be higher assuming no reduction in building area devoted to residential uses would occur to increase the size and capacity of the garage areas. The interior layout of the proposed residential building areas would be reallocated and /or redesigned for a reduced number of units (5). The applicant would have the ability to increase the size of units, provide area for common amenities or mechanical spaces for energy independent systems. Compared to the proposed project, this multiple - family alternative has three (3) fewer units and the extra guest parking including golf cart and motorcycle parking spaces would be eliminated. I e City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 65 of 78 • Elimination of 2 levels (Sub - basement and Basement Levels) • Decrease in number of units from 8 to 5 • Elimination of 25 caissons along the building perimeter facing Newport Bay and Bayside Place • Total reduction of 12,240 cubic yards of excavation • Reduction of 1,021 dump trucks and 294 cement trucks • Reduction of approximately 9 months of construction time compared to the proposed project • Reduction or possible elimination of mechanical spaces impacting the ability to provide energy independent systems such as photovoltaic and gray water storages • Reduction or possible elimination of common amenities for all units including fitness center, less private storage • Proposed dock design would be reduced; 5 slips for 5 units plus 1 guest side -tie For this alternative, state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, or undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring, which are included within the proposed project, would not be required. Therefore, this alternative will not provide those benefits. Attainment of Project Objectives — It is not clear whether this alternative could feasibly accomplish most of the project objectives. In most cases, the degree to which the objectives would be achieved would be less than that occurring with the proposed project. This alternative might not be expected to contain a sufficient number and size of units to justify the same level of advanced design and architecture which would reflect the architectural diversity of the community and add distinction to the harbor and neighborhood, use energy- conserving technology in excess of that which is legally required, or include significant common amenities (Objective 1, Objective 3, Objective 4). While this alternative would improve the aesthetic character of the site and neighborhood by replacing the existing structure with a more modern structure, it would not remove overhead power poles (Objective 2). Additionally, the significantly reduced scale of the project may also reduce the extent of landscape and streetscape enhancements (Objective 2) compared to the proposed project. Further, the provision of energy efficient systems (Objective No. 3) likely would be limited or precluded by the elimination of electrical and storage areas allocated for the proposed project. Similarly, the ability to provide storage and community amenities would be severely constrained (Objective No. 4). Objective Nos. 5, 7, and 8 likely could be achieved in a similar fashion as the proposed project. o Avoidance of Project Impacts - Implementation of this alternative would result in generally similar (e.g,, soils and geology, drainage and hydrology, cultural resources, aesthetics, public health and safety, etc.) or slightly reduced (e.g., traffic and circulation, air quality, etc.) effects as those identified for the proposed project. Although this alternative would reduce the overall duration of construction by approximately 9 months, the reduction in the duration of excessive noise would be significantly reduces. Therefore, of construction - related noise anticipated for this alternative would remain significant. • EXISTING ZONING / ALTERNATIVE DESIGN: 8 -UNIT MULTIPLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WITH REDUCED GRADING o Description (Existing Zoning / Altemative Design A /temative A) —The 8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project Alternative A (refer to EIR Exhibits 10 -2 through 10-6) includes the elimination of the sub - basement included in the proposed project, and a reduction of 1,069 square feet at the basement level, resulting in a reduction of 6,662 cubic yards of I 16P I City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 66 of 78 excavation when compared to the proposed project. Building perimeter walls along Bayside Place and Newport Bay have been modified to accommodate the distance required for a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) cut slope in order to eliminate the need for 25 caissons along that side. As a result, the perimeter walls are pulled back from the PLOED of 50.7 feet NAVD88. In addition, common facilities and amenities have also been reduced in an effort to minimize grading and potential impacts. The resulting parking plan complies with the City's off - street parking requirements; however, due to the elimination of the sub - basement parking, parking spaces have been reallocated in this alternative to the first, second and basement levels of the structure. This alternative has 3 fewer guest parking spaces and does not include the golf cart and motorcycle parking. The proposed dock design in this alternative, which includes eight slips for the eight dwelling units as well as one guest "side tie," would be the same as the proposed project. For Alternative A, the applicant has indicated that it would provide state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, and undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring to the same extent as provided for the proposed project. These improvements would be voluntarily provided even though there is no basis to require the implementation of these improvements. Description (Existing Zoning /Alternative Design Alternative 81 — This alternative is similar to Alternative A, described in the previous section (i.e., no sub - basement level). However, implementation of 8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project Alternative B would also result in a reduction of 4,502 square feet at the basement level from the proposed project. Only the garage "core" and a small portion of circulation, mechanical, and storage space would remain at the basement level (refer to Exhibit 10 -7 and Exhibits 10 -3 through 10 -6). In addition, common facilities such as the recreation room and most of the storage areas have been eliminated. A reduction in the mechanical spaces would also result in the elimination of some energy- independent systems such as the photovoltaic and gray water storage features; however, the applicant would retain the ability to modify the plans to incorporate these facilities within other areas. A small portion of excavation beyond the basement perimeter is necessary for the pool on the first floor. This alternative would result in the elimination of 25 caissons along the building perimeter facing Newport Bay and Bayside Place and would require 9,229 cubic yards less of excavation to accommodate the proposed structure. The first and second floor plans are the same as the 8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project Alternative A and the required parking would also be reallocated to the first, second, and basement levels of the structure. Although the extra guest parking spaces would be eliminated in this alternative, the design would comply with the City's off - street parking requirements. Also, the proposed dock design would be the same as the proposed project. For Alternative B, there is no requirement for incorporating the state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, or undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring, which are included within the proposed project. The applicant has indicated it would not be able to provide these improvements for Alternative B. o Attainment of Project Objectives (Existing Zonina/Alternative Design Alternative A) — Implementation of Alternative A will, to some extent, achieve all project objectives. Given the reduced building area with the basement level eliminated and sub - basement level reduced in size, there would be less area to accommodate the mechanicallelectrical spaces for the energy- efficient features that go beyond the minimum Title 24 code compliance. The common amenities proposed would be significantly reduced, with the exception of the pool itself, and the private storage areas would be also be reduced in size. The proposed docks would remain the same as that included in the proposed project. • City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 67 of 78 Attainment of Project Objectives (Existing Zoning /Aftematfve Desian Altemative 8) — Implementation of Alternative B also achieves, to some degree, most of the project objectives. The ability to incorporate the use of energy- conserving technology would be constrained, as would the inclusion of common amenities (Objective 1). Achievement of Objectives No. 2 and No. 4 is compromised to a degree because, as with Objective 1, the reduced scale of the project will eliminate the requirement to remove the existing power poles. Alternative B has reduced areas available for mechanical /electrical spaces, common amenities and storage areas relative to Alternative A. As with Alternative A, the proposed docks would remain the same as that included in the proposed project. B) - With the exception of reducing the duration of construction by five or six months, which would reduce the number of heavy truck trips entering the roadway system and the daily air emissions (both of which were determined to be less than significant), the reduced grading alternatives described above would result in generally similar impacts as those described for the proposed project. Potential construction - related noise impacts would be significantly be reduced but the remaining impact will remain significant. ►1 (09 Exhibit "E" Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA 2005 -196) SCIPDFIMM Timing of No. Mitigation Measure Method of Implementation Responsibility Verification Land Use /Relevant Planning All development proposed for the Aerie project shall be reviewed for SC 4.1 -1 consistency with applicable provisions of the California Building Code. Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Grading Building Department/ Newport Beach Fire Noise Ordinance Fire Code, and other applicable codes and Permit ordinances priorto issuance of building permits. Department The property owner(s) shall execute and record a waiver of future SC 4.1 -2 shoreline protection for the project prior to the issuance of a building Waiver Prior to Issuance of Building City Attorney permit. Said waiver shall be subject to the review and approval of the Permit City Attorney. Traffic and Circulation SC 4.2 -1 On -site parking shall comply with the Newport Beach Zoning Code Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Grading Public works Department/ requirements. Permit Planning Department SC 4.2 -2 Sight distance at the project accesses shall comply with City of Newport plan Check Prior to Issuance of Grading Public Works Department Beach standards. Permit The project's haul route shall follow the route depicted in the CMP. Specifically, dump trucks, concrete mixers, deliveries, and shuttles for off -site parking will access the site via East Coast Highway and travel During Grading and Building Department/ PDF 4.2 -1 south on Marguerite Avenue, west on Seaview Avenue, and south on Field Monitoring Construction Public Works Department/ Carnation Avenue to the site. The trucks and construction vehicles Contractor shall exit by driving east on Ocean Boulevard, north on Marguerite Avenue, and back to East Coast Highway. Dirt shall be hauled to Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in the City of Brea (or a closer site /location if available at the time grading occurs). PDF 4.2 -2 Dump trucks leaving from East Coast Highway shall travel north on Field Monitoring During Grading and Building Department/ public Works Department/ MacArthur Boulevard to SR -73, and continuing northbound on SR -55 Construction Contractor to the 1 -5 northbound and to SR -57 northbound. Grading and did haulin shall occur only after Labor Da and before Memorial Day, All deliveries shall use the designated haul route once they enter the Field eonoring During Grading and Building Department/ Public Works Department/ neighborhood starting from Marguerite Avenue. Construction Contractor G City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 69 of 78 SC /PDF/MM Timing of No. Mitigation Measure Method of Implementation Responsibility Verification The contractor shall request an encroachment permit for a temporary staging area during construction, as described and illustrated in the CMP. Loading and unloading of all construction materials /equipment and /or construction vehicles shall take place on -site or within the staging area. Loading and unloading shall be managed by the construction valet team and will be overseen by the contractor. Dump Prior to Issuance of Grading PDF 4.2 -4 trucks, cement trucks, etc., shall arrive at the site with no greater Plan Check permit Public Works Department frequency than the discharge rate by the contractor so that no more than one truck is on -site at one time and that trucks shall not queue on Carnation Avenue. Once the delivery is complete, the trucks shall exit the project area via the haul route identified above. All trucks (except cement trucks) shall be required to shut off their engines during the loading/off-loading rocess. To prevent obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a During Grading and Building Department/ PDF 4.2 -5 flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to the Field Monitoring Construction Contractor existin roadways. Traffic control shall be coordinated with the Police Department and plan Check! During Grading and Building Department/ PDF 4.2 -6 Public Works Department, Traffic and Development Services Division, Field Monitoring Construction Police Department so that street traffic is not obstructed. Construction workers are prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard (or any residential street in the neighborhood). Instead, the applicant shall secure one or more binding off -site parking agreements to accommodate the varying number of workers needed for each construction phase. The off -site parking location(s) shall be located within a five -mile radius of the site. Prior to Issuance of Grading PDF 4.2 -7 The off -site parking agreement shall be presented to the City prior to Parking Agreement(s) Permit Building Department the issuance of permits required for the phase of construction that shall require the off -site parking. The agreement will also ensure that one of the off -site parking locations will: (1) commit a sufficient number of parking spaces to Aerie construction workers during the relevant term, and (2) the off -site location possesses the proper permits and authority to rent the subject spaces. Shuttles shall be utilized to transfer construction workers from the remote parking locations to the project site. Specifically, two 10- passenger shuttle vans shall run up to eight trips each morning and During Grading and Building Department/ PDF 4.2 -8 evening and up to five trips at lunch, assuming that some workers will Field Monitoring Construction Contractor remain at the jobsite during lunch. Carpooling among construction workers shall be encouraged throughout the duration of the construction phases. Once vehicular elevators are installed, workers shall be permitted to park in the completed on -site garages. It is anticipated that During Grading and PDF 4.2 -9 approximately 31 cars will be able to park on -site once the parking Field Monitoring Construction Contractor garage is completed. Personnel shall be provided to assist in parking the construction workers on -site. City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 70 of 78 SC /PDFlMM Timing of No. Mitigation Measure Method of.. Implementation Responsibility Verification As previously indicated, construction workers shall be prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Compliance with this prohibition shall be monitored daily by the construction valet During Grading and PDF 4.2 -10 and flagmen team. However, this prohibition shall not apply to short- Field Monitoring Construction Contractor term visitors to the site such as City inspectors, City staff, architects, and consultants. Carpooling shall also be encouraged among professionals. Air Quality SC 4.3 -1 Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403, which sets requirements for dust Field Monitoring During Grading and Building DepartmenU control associated with radio and construction activities. Construction Contractor The proposed project shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and During Grading and Building Department/ SC 4.3 -2 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary Field Monitoring Construction Contractor construction equipment. SC 4.3 -3 The proposed project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1108, which Field Monitoring During Grading and Building Department/ sets limitations on ROG Content in asphalt. Construction Contractor SC 4.3 -4 The proposed project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113, which Field Monitoring During Grading and Building Department/ sets limitations on ROG content in architectural coatings. Construction Contractor The proposed project shall comply with Title 24 energy- efFctent SC 4.3 -5 design requirements as well as the provide window glazing, wall Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Building Building Department/ insulation, and efficient ventilation methods in accordance with the Permit Contractor requirements of the Uniform Building Code. The project shall comply with the Fugitive Dust Emission and Control During Grading and Building Department/ PDF -4.3 -1 Plan approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Field Monitoring Construction Contractor under Rule 403 . Dust shall be minimized using water as control. Site and debris watering shall be performed a minimum of three times daily during demolition activities. During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered at least four times per day. Stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty materials shall be covered or PDF 4.3 -2 watered three times daily. In addition, trucks carrying soil and debris Field Monitoring During Grading and Building DepartmenU shall be wetted or covered prior to leaving the site. On windy days, or Construction Contractor when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Soil disturbance shall be terminated whenever wind conditions exceed 25 miles per hour. All diesel - powered machinery exceeding 100 horsepower shall be During Grading and Building Department/ PDF 4.3 -3 equipped with soot traps, unless the contractor demonstrates to the Field Monitoring Construction Contractor satisfaction of the City Building Official that it is infeasible. N City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 71 of 78 SCIPDFlMM Timing of No. Mitigation Measure Method of Implementation Responsibility Verification Noise In accordance with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity — Noise Regulations), noise - generating construction and/or maintenance activities may be permitted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m, and During Grading and SC 4.4 -1 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on Saturdays. No Field Monitoring Construction Building DepartmenU noise-generating construction activities shall occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site. During Phases 1 and 2 of the project, the caisson drilling process will progress at the rate of 3 to 4 caissons per day, including drilling, steel placement, and filling with concrete. The grading during Segments No. 1, 2, and 3 will consist of excavators with a ramp out or an electrical conveyor belt for dirt removal and with dump trucks at the Field Monitoring During Grading and Building Department/ PDF 4.4 -1 rate of approximately 28 trucks per day removing the soil. There shall Construction Contractor be no pile driving during the entire construction process. The ram hoe may be required during the later part of the excavation process for approximately 10 percent of the grading operation at the lower elevations of the site. For Phases 3 and 4, small hand tools and compressors shall be used within the concrete structure. Noise will also be generated by daily During Grading and Building Department/ PDF 4.4 -2 deliveries of materials to the site. The construction valet shall Field Monitoring Construction Contractor manage the time of such deliveries so that they do not occur at the same time. All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices, intake Inspection During Grading and Building Department MM 4.4 -1a silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally Construction Contractor equipped b the manufacturer. The construction contractor shall properly maintain and tune all Inspection During Grading and Building Department MM 4.4 -1b construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. Construction Contractor The construction contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources During Grading and Building Department MM 4.4 -tc (e.g.. generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from residential Field Monitoring Construction Contractor receptor locations as feasible. The construction contractor shall post a contact name and telephone Field Monitoring During Grading and Building Department NN 4.4 -td number of the owner's authorized representative on -site. Construction Contractor W City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 72 of 78 SC/PDFIMM Timing of No. Mitigation Measure Method of Implementation Responsibility Verification The construction contractor shall install temporary sound blankets or plywood panels with a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of 32 or higher and a density of 1.5 pounds per square foot or greater (e.g., SoundSeal BBC -13 -2 or equivalent) along the perimeter of the construction area proximate to residential uses. This does not include During Grading and Building Department/ MM 4.4-le the side facing the harbor channel due to the noise attenuation Inspection Construction Contractor provided by the buffer distance between the construction noise and harbor residences. The temporary sound blankets or plywood panels shall have a minimum height of six feet. If plywood panels are selected, they must have a minimum density of four pounds per square foot and have no perforations or gaps between the panels. The construction contractor shall select quieter tools or construction methods whenever feasible. Examples of this include the use of During Grading and MM 4.4 -1f plasma cutters, which produce less noise than power saws with Field Monitoring Construction Contractor abrasive blades and ordering precut materials to specifications to avoid on -site cutting. The construction contractor shall maximize the use of enclosures as feasible. This includes four -sided or full enclosures with a top for During Grading and NN 4.4 -ig compressors and other stationary machinery. This also includes Field Monitoring Construction Contractor locating activities, such as metal stud and rebar cutting, within constructed walled structures to minimize noise propagation. Aesthetics Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site Prior to Issuance of Building SC 4.5 -1 boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public Plan Check Permit Planning Department streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. 'Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building Prior to Issuance of Certificate SC 4.5 -2 permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Inspection of Occupancy or Final and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and Building Permit are. The applicant shall dedicate a view easement; however, it will only affect the project site. Structures and landscaping within the SC 4.5 -3 easement area shall not be permitted to block public views. The plan Check Prior to Issuance of Certificate City Attorney easement shall be approved by the City Attorney and recorded prior of Building Permit to the issuance of a building permit for new construction and shall be reflected on the final tract map. City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 73 of 78 SCIPDFlMM Timing of No. Mitigation Measure Method of Implementation Responsibility Verification Drainage and Hydrology Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall be required to submit a notice of intent (NOI) with the appropriate fees to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for coverage of such future SC 4.6 -7 projects under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Notice of Intent Prior to issuance of Grading Public Works Department Permit prior to initiation of construction activity. As required by the Permit NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and will establish BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project and submit the WQMP to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for approval. _ The WQMP shall specifically identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used to control predictable pollutant runoff, including SC 4.6 -2 flow /volume -based measures to treat the "first flush." The WQMP shall Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Grading Public Works Department identify at a minimum the routine structural and non - structural measures Permit specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP), which details implementation of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long -term maintenance res onsibilifies, and shall reference the locations of structural BMPs. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare SC 4.6 -3 a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and submit that Plan Check Prior to issuance of Grading Public Works Department plan to the City of Newport Beach for approval. The SWPPP will Permit establish BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion. Future site grading and construction shall comply with the drainage Plan Check/ During Grading and Building Department/ SC 4.6-4 controls imposed by the applicable Municipal Code requirements Inspection Construction Public Works Department prescribed by the City of Newport Beach. The developer shall be responsible for replacement/upsizing of the 10 -foot wide catch basin located in Carnation Avenue storm drain, which is currently deficient. The new catch basin will be sized to provide sufficient capacity for the runoff generated by this project, as PDF 4.6 -1 well as existing runoff from the rest of the 11.54 -acre drainage area to Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Building Public Works Department this facility. It shall satisfy the appropriate storm -year design criteria Permit established by the City Engineer. This storm drain reconstruction shall include appropriate urban runoff filtration elements, to reduce potential water pollution impacts into Newport Harbor. Reconstruction of this storm drain shall occur outside of the rainy season. PDF 4.6 -2 All debds and trash shall be disposed in suitable trash containers on Field Monitoring During Grading and Contractor land or on the work bare at the end of each construction day. Construction PDF 4.6 -3 Discharge of any hazardous materials into Newport Bay is prohibited. Field Monitoring During Grading and Public Works Departmenv Construction Contractor City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 74 of 78 SC/PDF/MM Timing of No. Mitigation Measure Method of Implementation Responsibility Verification Sift curtains shall be deployed around work barges and around the PDF 4.6 -4 pile sleeving or drilling operations where feasible to minimize the Field Monitoring During Grading and Public Works Department/ spread of turbid waters into adjacent eelgrass beds within and outside Construction Contractor the project area. PDF 4.6 -5 All construction debris shall be removed from the bay floor daily. Field Monitoring ring Grng and Du Construcadition Contractor Biological Resources The project shall comply with California Code Title 14 (Natural SC 4.7 -1 Resources), Section 29.05, which prohibits the taking of any marine Field Monitoring During Project Life Harbor Resources Harbor organisms within 1,000 feet of the high tide line without a sport fishing license. Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff SC 4.7 -2 environment. Invasive and non - native species shall be removed. Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Building Planning Department Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be Permit temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pro- construction survey for active nests of covered species at least seven (7) days prior to any habitat disturbance that occurs during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). If no active nests are round, no further actions are Prior to Issuance of Grading PDF 4.7 -1 required. However, if nesting activity is observed during the pre- Surveys Permit Planning Department construction survey, the nest site must be protected until nesting activity has ended or as otherwise directed by a qualified biologist in order to ensure compliance with the META and the California Fish and Game Code. Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff PDF 4.7 -2 environment. Invasive and non - native species shall be removed. Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Building Planning Department Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be Permit temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. A qualified botanist shall perform focused surveys to determine the presenceJabsence for the nine sensitive plant species. The focused surveys shall be performed during the appropriate blooming window PDF 4.7 -3 identified for each species. Survey methods shall follow CDFG Surveys Prior to Issuance of Grading Planning Department guidelines. If any State - listed threatened or endangered plant Permit species are impacted by project development, an incident take permit pursuant to Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code shall be obtained prior to issuance of a grading permit. I City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 75 of 78 SC /PDF /MM Timing of No. Mitigation Measure Meth=of Implementation Responsibility An updated pre- construction eelgrass and invasive algae survey shall be completed within 30 days of the initiation of the proposed dock/gangway construction. The results of this survey will be used to 30 Days Prior to Project Planning Department/ PDF 4.7 -4 update the results of the March 2007 eelgrass survey and to identify, Survey Initiation Harbor Resources if any, potential project - related eelgrass losses and the presence of Department absence of the invasive algae (Caulerpa taxifofia) in accordance with NMFS requirements. A post - construction project eelgrass survey shall be completed within 30 days of the completion of project construction in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). The report will be presented to the resources Within 30 days of Dock Planning Department/ PDF 4.7 -5 agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Survey Completion Harbor Resources Commission within 30 days after completion of the survey. If any Department eelgrass has been impacted in excess of that determined in the pre - construction survey, any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.2:1 (mitigation to impact). Eelgrass shall be mitigated based on two annual monitoring surveys that document the changes in bed (i.e., area extent and density) in the vicinity of the footprint of the boat dock, moored vessel(s), and /or related structures during the active -growth period for eelgrass (typically March through October). Mitigation shall be implemented Planning Department/ PDF 4.7-6 pursuant to the requirements of the Southern California Eelgrass Plan Check Following Completion of Post- Harbor Resources Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). A Construction Survey Department statement from the applicant indicating their understanding of the potential mitigation obligation that may follow the initial two-year monitoring is required. If losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach and resources agencies for review and acceptance. The project marine biologist shall mark the positions of eelgrass beds Prior to Initiation of Dock Planning Department/ PDF 4.7 -7 in the vicinity of the dock and gangway construction area with buoys Field Monitoring Construction Harbor Resources prior to the initiation of an construction activities. Department The project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew Prior to Initiation of Dock PDF 4.7 -8 prior to initiation of construction to orient them to specific areas where Meeting Construction Planning Department eelgrass preseritly,exists. Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work over eelgrass Planning Department/ PDF 47-9 beds only during tides of +2 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) or Field Monitoring During Dock Construction Harbor Resources higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass Department from ro ellers, and to limit water turbidity. Planning Departmenll PDF 4.7 -10 Anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upon eelgrass habitat. Field Monitoring During Dock Construction Harbor Resources Department �e V 1 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 76 of 78 SC /PDFIMM Timing of No. 7 Mitigation Measure Method of Implementation Responsibility Verification Construction activities associated with the elevated walkway leading to the gangway, and construction personnel shall avoid impacts to rocky intertidal habitat and to eelgmss beds and sand dollar habitat within the Carnation Cove by, among other things, (a) posting sgnage During Grading and Planning Department/ PDF 4.7 -11 at key access points in front of the beach and on the elevated Field Monitoring Construction Harbor Resources walkway stating that access is limited to the elevated walkway during Department construction; (b) using yellow tape to prevent access to rocky intertidal habitat, eelgrass beds, and sand dollar habitat; and (c) orohibitinq access to the water and rocky shoreline within the cove. Residents shall be informed of the sensitivity of the cove as a unique Department of Real Estate PDF 4.7 -12 marine biological habitat to assist in ensuring the long -term protection Disclosure Upon Purchase of Homes City Attorney of the cove's marine biological resources. Signage shall be posted at access points in front of the beach and on the elevated walkway, which state that access is limited to the Harbor Resources PDF 4.7 -13 elevated walkway during construction. In addition, yellow tape shall Inspection Upon Completion of Project Department be used to prevent access. Access shall not be permitted to the water or rocky shorelines within the cove. A silt curtain shall be placed around all waterside construction activity during the construction of the dock system to limit the spread of turbidity. If prolonged turbidity is observed outside the silt curtain then Planning Department/ PDF 4.7 -14 the silt curtain shall be re- deployed and re- positioned in a manner to Inspection During Dock Construction Harbor Resources correct the problem. Removal and emplacement of the piles will be Department conducted using Best Available Technology (BAT) that limits the re- suspension of sediments and the creation of turbidity plumes. Silt curtains shall be emplaced and maintained in working condition throughout the period of construction by the marine contractor. If Planning Department/ PDF 4.7 -16 turbidity plumes are observed in the vicinity of the cove in front of the Inspection During Dock Construction Harbor Resources development, an additional silt curtain shall be immediately placed in Department front of the cove's entrance until the turbidity plume has dissipated. Debris bins shall be placed at the project site. Material collected shall be removed on a daily basis. The amount, type, and location of any large debris (e.g., piles, dock parts, concrete, etc.) that Is deposited Planning Department/ PDF 4.7 -16 on the seaFloor will be documented and removed prior to the Inspection During Dock Construction Harbor Resources completion of the project. The project marine biologist shall also Department inspect the seaFloor following the completion of construction to ensure that all debris has been removed. The project marine biologist shall pedorm weekly on -site inspections Planning Department/ PDF 4.7 -17 to ensure that BMPs and mitigation measures are being implemented Inspections During Dock Construction Harbor Resources during construction. Department Post - construction marine biological surveys (per permit conditions) shall be performed to map eelgrass cover in the project area using Planning Department/ PDF 4.7 -18 the same methodology as the pre - construction survey and also to Surveys Upon Completion of Dock Harbor Resources document the condition and density of the sand dollar beds within the Department cove. 1 iJ City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 77 of 78 SCIPDF /MM Timing of No. Mitigation Measure Method of Implementation Responsibility Verification Public Health and Safety The City of Newport Beach will require all plans for proposed uses SC 4.8 -1 within the project site to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and plan Check Prior to Issuance of Building Department local regulations pertaining to the transport, storage, use and /or Demolition Permit disposal of hazardous materials on the site. Any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM shall be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Inaccessible suspect ACM shall be tested prior to demolition or renovation. Air emissions of asbestos During Demolition of Existing MM 4.8 -1 fibers and leaded dust would be reduced to below a level of Inspection Structures Building Department significance through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. Proper safety procedures for the handling of suspect ACM shall always be followed in order to protect the occupants of the building and the asbestos workers. A contractor performing paint removal work shall follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the During Demolition of Existing Building Department/ MM 4.8 -2 paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the Field Monitoring Structures Demolition Contractor paint, as proper waste disposal requirements and worker protection measures shall be implemented throughout the removal process. Soils and Geology All activities associated with the implementation of the proposed Prior to Issuance of Grading SC 4.9 -1 residential development shall campy with the City's Excavation and Plan Check Permit Building Department Grading Ordinance. SC 4.9-2 The project shall comply with all applicable City and 2007 California Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Building Building Department Building Code requirements. Permit The property owner(s) shall execute and record a waiver of future SC 4.93 shoreline protection for the project prior to the issuance of a building Waiver Prior to issuance of Building City Attorney permit. Said waiver shall be subject to the review and approval of the Permit City Attorney. SC 4.9 -4 Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by Prior to issuance of Grading coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and Plan Check Permit Building Department routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted. Project implementation shall adhere to the engineering recommendations for site grading and foundation design and Prior to Issuance of Grading MM 4.9 -1a construction presented in the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Plan Check Permit Building Department Report prepared by Nebeltt 8 Associates, Inc., and subsequent detailed geotechnical engineering analyses. Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by Prior to issuance of Grading MM 4.9 -1b coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and Plan Check Permit Building Department routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted. City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 78 of 78 SC /PDF /MM Timing of No. Mitigation Measure Method of Implementation Responsibility Verification During periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave- Harbor Resources MM 4.9 -2a induced motions, boats shall be sheltered at mooring can locations Field Monitoring During Life of Project Department that are available inside Newport Harbor to avoid damage. The dock design shall be based on the extreme wave conditions Prior to Issuance of Building Building Department/ MM 4.9 -2b identified in the coastal engineering study (Noble Consultants, Inc., Plan Check permit Harbor Resources 2008. Department Cultural Resources If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Cade Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the During Grading and Planning Department/ SC 4.10 -1 Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine Field Monitoring Construction Contractor and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or hlslher authorized representative, the MILD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). In the event that fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground - disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find Field Monitoring During Grading and Planning Department/ SC 4.10 -2 has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered during project Construction Contractor construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. SC — Standard Condition PDF — Project Design Feature MM — Mitigation Measure THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Attachment #2 Response to Comments THIS PAVE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Intentionally Blank Response to Public Comments Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2007021054 AERIE (PA 2005 -196) City Of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, CA 92780 May 2009 2-:3 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Intentionally Blank RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - SCH NO. 2007021054 AERIE (PA 2005 -196) NEWPORT BEACH, CA INTRODUCTION The 45 -day public review and comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the proposed Aerie residential project extended from March 20, 2009 through May 4, 2009. The City of Newport Beach received 12 comment letters on the Draft EIR. Responses to the comments included in each of the letters received by the City have been prepared and are included with the Final EIR. The comment letters were received from, 1. Southern California Gas Company (March 25, 2009) 2. Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (April 20, 2009) 3. Marilyn L. Beck (April 29, 2009) 4. Moote Group (May 1, 2009) 5. Jan D. Vandersloot (May 3, 2009) 6. California Department of Transportation (May 4, 2009) 7, Comprehensive Planning Services (May 4, 2009) 8. Jinx L. Hansen (May 4, 2009) 9. Melinda Luthin, Esq. (May 4, 2009) 10. Coast Law Group, LLP (May 4, 2009) 11. California Regional Water Quality Control Board (May 5, 2009) 12. A. David Kovach (May 5, 2009) 13. Harbor Resources Commission (Minutes of April 8, 2009) Responses to these comments have been prepared in compliance with Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The letters received during the public review period have been reproduced in the section that follows. The letters have been reviewed and substantive comments have been identified and numbered for easy reference. Responses have been prepared for each of the identified comments, which follow the letters from the agencies in this "Response to Public Comments' Appendix to the Final EIR. Aerie (PA 2005796) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 i Page 1 Southern California Gas Company (March 26, 2009) Response to Comment No. 1 -1 This comment letter, which indicates that gas service can be provided from existing gas mains located in the project vicinity and, further, that gas service would be provided to the project based on gas supply in accordance with regulatory requirements, is acknowledged. As suggested in this comment, the project applicant will contact Southern California Gas Company for information on conservation programs that may be appropriate for implementation. This comment does not raise any environmental issues; no further response is necessary. Aene (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 t Page 2 2. Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (April 20, 2008) Response to Comment No. 2 -1 The Construction Management Plan (CMP) is included in the Draft EIR as Appendix B and is a component of the proposed project. (DEIR 1 -1.) It is binding on the project, but is not a "mitigation measure." The footnote on page 1 -6 of the Draft EIR is intended to provide clarification on the difference between mitigation measures and specific project elements or project design features. The intent of each is to ensure that potential project - related impacts do not exceed significance thresholds. However, the important distinction between the two is that the proposed project has been designed to incorporate the project design features proposed by the applicant and identified in the CMP in order to avoid an impact entirely, or to ensure that the effect of a particular impact does not exceed the significance threshold. As a result, where applicable, the discussion of potential impacts in each section of the Draft EIR reflects the incorporation of the project design features in the analysis. Without the incorporation of these project elements, potential project - related impacts would be significant, necessitating the implementation of mitigation measures, which are required or recommended to eliminate or reduce potential significant effects that would be anticipated as a direct or indirect result of project implementation. While the difference may be subtle, the important distinction is that the "project design features" are pre - emptive, serving to avoid or minimize potentially significant impacts through the design of the project. Response to Comment No. 2 -2 The proposed docks extend to the Federal Pierhead Line, thus meeting all legal requirements. They are consistent with neighboring development. Two boats will be berthed to the outside of this dock, as the City permits. The dock, including these two boats, will not affect boating lanes. Even assuming a 24' beam width for a boat tied to the channel side of the dock, there would still be approximately 520 feet of open water between the westerly side of the main channel, thereby providing 10 50 -foot wide lanes for channel navigation. There is a nearby Navigational Station that has been in -place for years and the proposed dock with boats does not encroach within the channel any farther than the existing Navigational Station. City policy currently allows boats to extent beyond the Pierhead Line no farther than the beam (maximum width) of the boat, which is typically not wider than 24 feet. The reference to the Cutter Narwhal is inapplicable. The Cutter Narwhal is a Coast Guard rescue boat, not a pleasure boat of the kind that would dock at the project. It is therefore irrelevant that the Cutter Narwhal employs a crew of ten. Response to Comment No. 2 -3 The area in which the site is located is characterized by a variety of single- and multiple - family residential homes that reflect a range of densities and architectural styles, which contribute to the unique character of Corona del Mar. (DEIR 4.1 -8.) The proposed project reflects a distinctive architectural character that continues this tradition of architectural variety and diversity. (DEIR 4.1 -11.) Specifically, the architectural style of the project reflects an organic, modern, contemporary style. (DEIR 4.1 -8.) This is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 1.1, which reads "Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods, business districts, and harbor that together identify Newport Beach. Locate and design development to reflect Newport Beach's topography, architectural diversity, and view sheds." (Emphasis added.) Response to Comment No. 2 -4 Based on the significance criteria identified in DEIR Section 4.5.2, implementation of the proposed project would not adversely affect a scenic resource and would not result in significant aesthetic impacts. The DEIR makes relies upon visual simulations to support this conclusion, as shown below: Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 3�� Visual Simulation V10 - Kayak 1 illustrates the changes anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. From this vantage in the harbor just south of the proposed project site, the differences in visual character relate. mostly to the bluff development. No significant visual impacts would occur to the cove or the natural features below the bluff. Specifically, the proposed dock facilities would not affect existing views to the cove from either this or close by vantage points. (DEIR 4.5 -17.) Visual Simulation V12 - Kayak 3 illustrates the visual character of the proposed project from a vantage near the northern limits of the site within the harbor beyond the proposed boat dock. Some of the existing rock outcroppings and related features characterizing the cove below the bluff would be obscured by the proposed dock and boats. In addition, other features along the water's edge south of the cove would also be obscured; however, all of those features would be seen from other vantages and their loss from view would be only from locations north of the proposed dock. It is important to note that none of the existing features would be eliminated or destroyed as a result of project implementation; rather, they would all remain as elements of the site and come into and go out of one's view depending on the location within the harbor. Their loss from the field of view would be brief when passing by the site in the harbor. (DEIR 4.5 -22.) Visual Simulation V17 - Kayak 4 depicts the proposed project from a vantage in the harbor that is between the boat dock for the existing residence south of the project and the boat dock for the proposed project. In this simulation, the proposed project, including the dock facilities proposed, reveal that when viewed from this location, neither the rock outcroppings nor the cove features would be affected by any of the proposed development. All of the significant existing cove and bluff features (e.g.. bluff formations, rock outcroppings, sandy beach, etc.) will remain in view from this location within the channel. (DEIR 4.5 -21) Visual Simulation V13 - Channel 1 illustrates the visual context of the proposed Aerie project to the existing development to the north and south and the overall visual character along the bluffs in the vicinity of the project site. The entrance to the cove below the bluff is both visually and physically accessible. Views of the other significant topographic features of the property that create aesthetic value in addition to the bluff itself (specifically the rock outcroppings and cove), would not be significantly affected by the development, none would be altered by the proposed development. (DEIR 4.5 -25.) Visual Simulation V14 - Channel 2 provides a direct view of the proposed project from inside the channel. The sandy beach cannot be seen from this vantage. However, as previously indicated, any potential effect on the view of these features is brief and intermittent as one "cruises" into and out of the harbor. (DEIR 4.5 -25.) Visual Simulation V15 - Channel 3 depicts the proposed development from the channel just to the north of the proposed boat dock. Portions of the rock outcroppings, the sandy beach, and related features cannot be seen from this location within the harbor; however, virtually all of the bluff up to the proposed multiple - family structure will remain within view of boaters as they travel into and out of the harbor. (DEIR 4.5 -25.) Response to Comment No. 2 -5 As noted above, the proposed docks extend to the Federal Pierhead Line, thus meeting all legal requirements. They are consistent with neighboring development. Two boats will be berthed to the outside of this dock, as the City currently allows by policy. The dock, including these two boats, will not Aerie (PA 2005-196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 4 �' affect boating lanes. Even assuming a 24' beam width for a boat tied to the channel side of the dock, there would still be approximately 520 feet of open water between the westerly side of the main channel, thereby providing 10 50 -foot wide lanes for channel navigation. There is a nearby Navigational Station that has been in -place for years and the proposed dock with boats does not encroach within the channel any farther than the existing Navigational Station. City policy currently allows boats to extend beyond the Pierhead Line no farther than the beam (maximum width) of the boat, which is typically not wider than 24 feet. Response to Comment No. 2 -6 The applicant will bear the cost for the undergrounding certain power poles and overhead wires on Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard beyond the basic City requirement to underground overhead utility lines from the nearest utility pole to the project site. The elimination of these features would enhance views and the aesthetic character within the neighborhood. (DEIR 4.1 -34.) Response to Comment No. 2 -7 The project proposes a total of 25 parking spaces for the 8 condominiums, including 16 for residents, eight visitor spaces, and one service vehicle space. Additionally, two parking spaces have been provided for golf carts. The parking supply can be increased by an additional six spaces through the use of vehicle lifts in the garages for individual units. This far exceeds the City's requirement of 20 parking spaces for an 8 -unit condominium project (Le., two spaces per unit plus 0.5 guest space per unit). As a result, project residents and guests will be adequately served by on -site parking. Response to Comment No. 2 -8 Implementation of the standard conditions, project features (upgraded catch basin), and, specifically, the BMPs prescribed in the Construction Management Plan, Draft WQMP and SWPPP, as well as implementation of the proposed storm drainage system described in the documents, will ensure that the potential impacts associated with an increase in surface runoff resulting from development of the proposed Aerie residential project are avoided. Site design and treatment BMPs have also been identified in the WQMP and will be implemented to ensure that water entering the harbor has been adequately treated to avoid potential impacts to that impaired water body. Specifically, the site has been designed to minimize impervious areas and maximize permeability. The site has also been designed to minimize directly connected impervious areas. Treatment BMPs incorporated into the project are intended to treat surface runoff include a proprietary StormFilter unit. Following treatment by the project StormFilter unit, site runoff will pass through an Abtech Smart Sponge Plus drain insert for additional treatment for bacteria as a pollutant of concern. (DEIR 4.6 -10.) Notwithstanding the increase of impervious surfaces on the project site, the proposed drainage system is expected to reduce the pollutant level in site runoff, compared to existing conditions that consist of sheet flow runoff directly to the bay, and unfiltered runoff into a storm drain catch basin just south of the site, at Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. (DEIR 4.6 -11.) Response to Comment No. 2 -9 A small portion of the existing eelgrass bed (approximately 30 square feet) could potentially be affected by shading effects from vessels docked within the slips and the dock structure. The area of eelgrass habitat that is actually affected by long -term shading will be determined during post- construction monitoring surveys conducted pursuant to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended). The location and amount of eelgrass to be transplanted shall be determined following the results of the two annual monitoring efforts stipulated in the CMP, which will Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 5 2r be undertaken as part of the proposed project. Specifically, the following measures will be undertaken as identified in the CMP to ensure that potential impacts to eelgrass are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. • An updated pre- construction eelgrass and invasive algae survey shall be completed within 30 days of the initiation of the proposed dock/gangway construction. The results of this survey will be used to update the results of the March 2007 eelgrass survey and to identify, if any, potential project - related eelgrass losses and the presence or absence of the invasive algae (Caulerpa taxifolia) in accordance with NMFS requirements. • A post- construction project eelgrass survey shall be completed within 30 days of the completion of project construction in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). The report will be presented to the resources agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission within 30 days after completion of the survey. If any eelgrass has been impacted in excess of that determined in the pre - construction survey, any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.2:1 (mitigation to impact). • Eelgrass shall be mitigated based on two annual monitoring surveys that document the changes in bed (i.e., area extent and density) in the vicinity of the footprint of the boat dock, moored vessel(s), and/or related structures during the active - growth period for eelgrass (typically March through October). Mitigation shall be implemented pursuant to the requirements of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). A statement from the applicant indicating their understanding of the potential mitigation obligation that may follow the initial two -year monitoring is required. If losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach and resources agencies for review and acceptance. • The project marine biologist shall mark the positions of eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the dock and gangway construction area with buoys prior to the initiation of any construction activities. • The project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew prior to initiation of construction to orient them to specific areas where eelgrass presently exists. • Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work over eelgrass beds only during tides of +2 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) or higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass from propellers, and to limit water turbidity. • Anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upon eelgrass habitat. (DEIR 4.7 -16.) Response to Comment No. 2 -10 A detailed catch basin diagram will be part of the construction documents and will be subject to review and approval by the City during plan check and permitting process. Response to Comment No. 2 -11 A full -size set of project plans is available for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard. (James Campbell, Principal Planner, is the Project Manager.) Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 6 Response to Comment No. 2 -12 The CDFG prohibits the taking of any marine organisms within 1,000 feet of the high tide line is intended to protect marine life, including the sand dollar. In addition, in order to further avoid potential impacts to these species, the sand flats within the cove should be avoided by construction personnel and equipment and future residents should be made aware of the sensitivity of the cove to promote its long -term protection. As a result, the DEIR concludes that potentially significant impacts to the sand dollar colony can be avoided. To ensure that project related impacts to these and other intertidal marine resources will be avoided, the CMP specifies several project elements and measures to be implemented, including: Construction activities associated with the elevated walkway leading to the gangway, and construction personnel shall avoid impacts to rocky intertidal habitat and to eelgrass beds and sand dollar habitat within the Carnation Cove by, among other things, (a) posting signage at key access points in front of the beach and on the elevated walkway stating that access is limited to the elevated walkway during construction; (b) using yellow tape to prevent access to rocky intertidal habitat, eelgrass beds, and sand dollar habitat; and (c) prohibiting access to the water and rocky shoreline within the cove. Residents shall be informed of the sensitivity of the cove as a unique marine biological habitat to assist in ensuring the long -term protection of the cove's marine biological resources. Signage shall be posted at access points in front of the beach and on the elevated walkway, which state that access is limited to the elevated walkway during construction. In addition, yellow tape shall be used to prevent access. Access shall not be permitted to the water or rocky shorelines within the cove. (DEIR 4.7 -17 — 1.7 -18.) Response to Comment No. 2 -13 EIRs are not required to "facilitate evaluation of the ability of the construction crews to comply" with mitigation measures. Rather, the role of the EIR is to provide information to the public and decision - makers of a project's potential impact upon the environment and to set forth and describe proposed mitigation measures that minimize the significant effects of potential environmental impacts. It is the lead agency (City) that will decide whether to adopt mitigation measures. In that capacity, the lead agency will determine whether such measures are feasible and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments, as discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. Response to Comment No. 2 -14 With respect to long -term operational noise, the DEIR notes that "Although on -site noise levels associated with residential activities on the redeveloped site would increase compared to current conditions because the only the single - family residential dwelling unit and three units within the apartment building are occupied, it is anticipated that any increase in long -term noise associated with the residential uses would be those occurring as a result of outdoor activities. Passive recreational activities in and around the proposed pool, on the private decks and along the walkway and beach area at the bottom of the property are not expected to result in significant noise levels. If future residents and their guests should engage in activities that result in temporary, loud noise levels that exceed the limits set forth in Chapters 10.26 and 10.28 of the City's Municipal Code, the City is empowered to take actions to abate that activity. This project would not result in exposure of neighboring residents or future residents on site to noise levels that exceed City standards. Therefore, no significant long -term noise impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required." (DEIR 4.4 -27.) Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 7 Response to Comment No. 2 -15 Project - related construction activities were assessed for the potential to result in vibration impacts at the nearest vibration sensitive uses (nearby residential uses). The assessment of annoyance from vibration from construction activities is based on several criteria including perceptibility, frequency of occurrence, time of occurrence and duration, as discussed below: Perceptibility - In terms of perceptibility, the criteria for establishing potentially significant vibration induced annoyance impacts is average daytime (there will be no nighttime construction) vibration measurements that are "felt." The FTA has established 84 VdB as the level that is "felt' or readily perceived. Freauencv of Occurrence - In terms of frequency of occurrence, loaded trucks that will only result in transient (1 -2 second) exposures of perceptible vibration as they pass in front of residences would not result in significant vibration impacts for annoyance. Duration - With respect to the duration of vibration intensive construction activities, the total number of days for which vibration from project related construction activities would exceed the "felt" level is approximately 25 work days. Time of Occurrence - Residential uses are much more sensitive to vibrations occurring at night as compared to the day time. Construction activities that would generate perceptible levels of vibration are time - restricted by Municipal Code Section 10.28.040. Under Section 10.28.040, construction is permitted on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM, Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, and is prohibited on Sundays and any federal holidays. Although the maximum vibration levels associated with certain construction activities would, in some instances, be "felt' under FTA criteria and could occur frequently in the days they do occur, because construction activity would be limited to the least vibration- sensitive times of the day, the duration of perceptible vibration would be relatively brief and intermittent and would cease when construction is concluded; therefore, potential vibration impacts will not result in a significant vibration annoyance impact. Response to Comment No. 2 -16 This comment asks how the DEIR can rely on the General Plan to set 65 dBA CNEL as an acceptable criterion for residential noise when such a level is higher than the City's Municipal Code noise standards found in Table 4.4 -2. The answer is that the General Plan and Municipal Code apply to different noise sources. The City's Noise Element standards are for the assessment of long -term vehicular traffic noise impacts. For residential uses that include single - family, two- family, and multiple - family dwelling units, the City considers exterior vehicular traffic noise levels up to 65 dBA CNEL as Clearly Compatible and Normally Compatible. By contrast, the City's Municipal Code noise standards found in Table 4.4 -2 apply to non - transportation, stationary noise sources. These noise standards do not apply to noise generated by vehicle traffic because the state, counties, and cities are preempted from controlling vehicle noise under federal law. Instead, the City's noise ordinance is designed to protect people from objectionable non - transportation noise sources such as music, machinery, pumps, and air conditioners. (DEIR Appendix F: Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration Study, pages 19 -21.) Response to Comment No. 2 -17 This comment appears to ask how the daytime noise levels in the project area were derived. Additional detail on the methodology used to obtain the current range of average daytime noise levels in the project Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 2� Page 8 area is presented in Appendix E of the Draft EIR. According to Wieland Acoustics, "[ijn order to document the existing noise environment in the study area, continuous 24 -hour measurements were obtained at four locations between April 23 and 30, 2008. (Refer to Figure 6 -1 for the measurement locations.) To obtain the measurements, the microphone was positioned at a height of 5 feet above the ground.... The instrumentation used to obtain the noise measurements consisted of integrating sound level meters (Model 712) and an acoustical calibrator (Model CAL150) manufactured by Larson Davis Laboratories. The accuracy of the calibrators is maintained through a program established by the manufacturer, and is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 51.4- 1971." (DEIR Appendix E: Environmental Noise Study for the Construction of the Proposed Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project in the City of Newport Beach, page 9.) Response to Comment No. 2 -18 The DEIR concludes that, at full occupancy, the project's eight condominium units will generate 47 average daily trips. This conclusion is based on trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and represents an increase of 24 trips /day over the baseline (23 trips /day.) (DEIR Table 4.2 -2.) The trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers are the industry standard and do not reflect an "unrealistically optimistic' scenario. Furthermore, as illustrated in Figure N4 (Future Noise Contours) of the Noise Element, all of the residential streets in the project area are forecast to remain below 60 dBA CNEL based on buildout of the City pursuant to the General Plan. The comment about the "questionable acceptance of a 65 dBA standard for appropriate residential noise levels" was addressed above in Response to Comment No. 16. In short, the City Noise Element's 65 dBA standard is the appropriate benchmark for discussing long -term traffic noise because the Noise Element specifically relates to long -term vehicular traffic noise impacts. By contrast, the City's Municipal Code noise standards found in Table 4.4 -2 apply to non - transportation, stationary noise sources. (DEIR Appendix E: Environmental Noise Study for the Construction of the Proposed Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project in the City of Newport Beach, page 9.) Response to Comment No. 2 -19 Refer to Response to Comment No. 2 -18. Response to Comment No. 2 -20 Refer to Response to Comment No. 2 -18. Response to Comment No. 2 -21 The project has been designed to minimize glare by incorporating building materials that are not conducive to the creation of glare. For example, exterior materials proposed for the residential structure would consist of non - reflective materials, including a titanium roof and photo - voltaic array with a matte finish, stucco - covered walls, and stone accents with rough, rather than polished textures. Tinted glazing is proposed on the windows and most of the windows will have overhangs that will cast shadows over the glazing. As a result, no significant glare impacts from building finish materials anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (DEIR 4.5 -29.) Response to Comment No. 2 -22 Although the proposed swimming pool is neither designed nor intended to be a water quality treatment feature, a variety of Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been identified in a preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) with respect to treating Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 2, I ` Page 9 S storm flow ingredients. Treatment BMPs include a proprietary StormFilter unit. Following treatment by the project StormFilter unit, site runoff will pass through an Abtech Smart Sponge Plus drain insert for additional treatment for bacteria as a pollutant of concern. (DEIR 4.6 -10.) Implementation of these and other measures outlined in the WQMP will ensure that potential water quality impacts will be less than significant. Response to Comment No. 2 -23 An off -site drainage area encompassing 11.54 acres contributes storm flows to the existing catch basin in Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard. Storm flows generated within this drainage area have a 100 -year peak storm flow rate of 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). The proposed project would result in a decrease in the 100 -year storm flow, which would be directed to an existing storm drain that has adequate capacity. However, the existing catch basin is currently deficient. Although no significant project - related impacts are anticipated as a result of the reduction in storm flow generated by the proposed project, this facility will be improved by the project applicant to accommodate the storm flows generated within the tributary area, including the project site. (DEIR 4.6 -7.) Response to Comment No. 2 -24 "Sanitary sewer outflow" is water from the project that flows into the sewer lines that is conveyed to the sewage treatment plant operated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Response to Comment No. 2 -25 Line 3 of the first "bullet" will be revised to read, "...informs facility users of the impacts of dripping and dumping oil, paints, solvents or other potentially Response to Comment No. 2 -26 As suggested by the commenter, the existing text under N11 includes reporting of violations. Response to Comment No. 2 -27 An Abtech Smart Sponge Plus is a filtration system for storm water. When deployed in filtration mechanisms, it removes hydrocarbons, trash, debris, sediment and other contaminants including bacteria from stormwater. Response to Comment No. 2 -28 Pool water will be disposed of properly into the sanitary sewer or treated by mobile cleaning devices prior to discharges to the street or storm drain. Response to Comment No. 2 -29 According to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, federal regulations do not define "maximum extent practicable" (MEP), but in general, to achieve the MEP standard, municipalities employ BMPs that are likely to be effective and are not cost - prohibitive. The Draft EIR has determined that the BMPs incorporated into the proposed project design will be effective in reducing pollutant loads when compared to the existing storm runoff quality. Ultimately, the Regional Water Quality Control Board will be responsible for ensuring that the BMPs achieve the MEP standard. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 ' Page 10 Response to Comment No. 2 -30 A vegetation map was prepared by Robert Mitchell & Associates, as noted on page 4.7 -1 (refer to footnote 1) in the Draft EIR. This map is attached to these Responses. The plant species occupying the subject property are identified and described on page 4.7 -1 on the Draft EIR. Although it appears that the commenter is suggesting that a mitigation measures be imposed to retain non - native species currently occupying the site, the project includes design features requiring the exclusive use of native drought - tolerant plant species determined do be consistent with the California coastal bluff environment as required by Policy No. 4.4.3 -13 of the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP). All invasive plant species will also be removed as required by CLUP Policy No. 4.1.3 -1. This is an environmentally superior approach to the suggestions presented in this comment. It is important to note that existing native plant species will not be removed. Additionally, as noted in footnote 1 on page 4.7 -1 of the Draft EIR, none of the native species on -site was removed. The lemonade berry will remain on -site. With respect to shading effects, refer to the discussion on page 4.7 -14 and Exhibit 4.7 -1 on page 4.7 -15 of the Draft EIR. Response to Comment No. 2 -31 The City's CLUP recognizes that in certain instances, habitats presumed to be ESHA may occur in settings where the ecological functions are minimal and that the ESHA presumption is rebuttable. Specifically, the CLUP recognizes four factors that should be considered, which when present allows for rebuttal of the ESHA presumption. Specifically the factors are: Patch Size and Connectivity, Dominance by Invasive, non- native species; Disturbance and proximity to development; and Fragmentation and Isolation The vegetation noted by the commenter consists of a few individuals California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) shrubs, a single patch of lemonadeberry (Rhus integnfolia) that likely consists of a single shrub or two, and a few scattered individuals of California encelia ( Encelia californica). At most, the subject vegetation covers a few hundred square feet. Based on the CLUP, an ESHA designation would not be appropriate based on 1) the small amount of vegetation, literally consisting of a handful or individual shrubs that because of their small size, exhibit minimal ecological function; 2) the subject vegetation is surrounded by areas of non- native vegetation including ornamentals associated with the residences as well as some highly invasive species (e.g., giant reed), 3) the proximity of the small patch of vegetation to existing development further limits the ecological functions of the small area of vegetation; and 4) the patch is generally isolated from larger patches of native scrub vegetation by the adjacent development. Based on all presence of each of the four CLUP- defined factors, designation of the small area consisting of common shrubs with little ecological value, an ESHA determination is not warranted based on the site specific data. Response to Comment No. 2 -32 The December 12, 2008 Jurisdictional Delineation report prepare by Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) for the project site followed the Coastal Commission's use of the "one parameter" approach for making wetland determinations (see for example the detailed discussion on pages 10 and 11 or the December 12, 2008 Report). GLA acknowledged the Commission's approach, but also noted, based on the Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 2� r 1 Page 11 Commission's own guidance that the one - parameter approach can be "falsified" when strong positive evidence for upland conditions are presented. In this case, a number of factors were presented that demonstrate that the African umbrella sedge is not growing as a wetland plant, which when considered together provide the strong evidence for upland conditions, thereby falsifying the presumption that that area is a wetland. These factors include the following: The African umbrella sedge is listed on the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands as a Facultative Wet (FACW) species, meaning that it occurs in wetlands approximately 67- percent of the time and in uplands 33- percent of the time. Therefore, there is one chance in three that any place this species occurs is upland, and further detailed investigation is needed to determine whether wetland conditions are in fact present. 2. The subject patch of African umbrella sedge occurs on a steep slope that prevents ponding or inundation by shallow water for periods sufficient to lead to anaerobic soil conditions, within the upper 12 inches, as confirmed in the field by GLA. The site clearly lacks wetland hydrology. 3. The soils in the area of the African umbrella sedge exhibit strong upland characteristics, confirming the lack of wetland hydrology, further confirming the upland characteristics of the site. The commenter speculates regarding the possible source of water that supports the African umbrella sedge stating that it "may be' the 30 -inch drain pipe or seepage from the bluff. These issues were fully addressed in the December 12, 2008 GLA Report, a portion of which is excerpted below: Given the lack of wetland hydrology, as confirmed by the strong upland characteristics of the soils, it appears that the African umbrella sedge is supported by regular irrigation water. During the December 10, 2008, site visit, we observed the neighbor washing off her deck and steps, with the water running into the adjacent honeysuckle. She was also directly watering the honeysuckle with some over spray directly reaching the umbrella sedge. Also, approximately halfway into our field visit, we observed a very small "trickle" of water discharging from the 30 -inch pipe that lasted for just a few minutes. Upon investigating the source of water, we found a different neighbor, washing an automobile with the runoff eventually reaching the area. Such runoff would not be sufficient to make a positive finding for the presence of wetland hydrology,' however, combined with the irrigation of the adjacent landscaped slope it explains the presence of the umbrella sedge, especially given the strong upland character of the soils. It is also important to note in this regard that the African umbrella sedge is designated as FACW, meaning that up to one -third of occurrences of this species is in upland areas. Confirmation that African umbrella sedge is a common landscape plant that is highly adaptable is provided in the Sunset Western Garden Book. Grows in or out of water. Effective near pools, in pots or planters, or in dry stream beds or rock gardens. Self sows. Can become weedy....' [Emphasis added.] Given this adaptability, in the absence of other wetland indicators such as the confirmed presence of wetland hydrology or hydric soils, the presence of this plant is not a reliable indicator of wetland conditions and the nearby irrigation would explain the presence of this highly adaptable species. ' Sunset Western Garden Book, by the Editors of Sunset Magazine. 1990. p 312. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 z. c.tP Page 12 Also, with regard to the irrigation, Exhibit 3, Photograph 2 of the December 12, 2008 GLA Report depicts the irrigation heads on the slope immediately above the African umbrella sedge. The commenter suggests that a 100 -foot buffer should be provided to protect the African umbrella sedge, which was also addressed in the December 12, 2008 report: Policy 4.2.2 -3 of the City's CLUP specifies that all wetland ESHA shall have "a minimum buffer width of 100 feet wherever possible'; however, it is important to consider the entire policy set forth in 4.2.2 -3: Require buffer areas around wetlands of a sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland that they are designed to protect. Wetlands shall have a minimum buff width of 100 feet wherever possible. Smaller buffer widths may be allowed only where it can be demonstrated that 1) a 100 foot buffer is not possible due to site constraints, and 2) the proposed narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity of the wetland given the site - specific characteristics of the resource, and of the type and intensity of disturbance. [Emphasis added] Should a finding be made that the area of African umbrella sedge is a wetland, it is important to note that this area is exactly the sort of resource that does not require a 100 -foot buffer for the following reasons: First, the area already lacks a 100 -foot buffer along the eastern and southern edges due to the presence of existing residential structures, including the neighboring structure, which is within approximately 17 feet of the umbrella sedge as depicted on Exhibit 3 (this distance was measured with a tape measured using GIS). Second, as depicted on Exhibit 3, the area of sedge is almost entirely surrounded by or occurs as understory to non - native species and the African umbrella sedge is a non- native species that is considered to be highly invasive and would be subject to eradication from local wetland restoration sites or managed wetlands. Third, when considered in accordance with the ESHA definition in the Coastal Act, the area does not meet any of the criteria typically associated with ESHA. Specifically, the African umbrella sedge cannot in any way be considered rare as it is a widespread invasive species. The approximately 0.004 acre area does not support or exhibit potential to support any rare or otherwise special status species and does not exhibit importance in the ecosystem given its position on the landscape and composition. Finally, the area is already highly degraded due to the presence of the invasive and /or non - native species noted above. Given these factors, including the proximity of established neighboring development no change in buffer requirements compared with the current conditions is warranted. Finally, it is important to note that the commenter references the Coastal Commission's findings during a hearing held on April 9, 2009. The conditions in that case are very different from those in this case, where GLA asserted that no wetland parameters were present and the Commission asserted that two parameters were present. The findings by the Commission in that case have no direct applicability to this project. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 13 Z 17 Response to Comment No. 2 -33 Refer to Response to Comment No. 2 -32. Response to Comment No. 2 -34 Refer to Response to Comment No. 2 -35. Response to Comment No. 2 -35 Merrill and Hobson (1970) made observations on the behavior, distribution, and abundance of the sand dollar (Dendraster excentricus) along the Pacific Coast of California and Baja. California between 1963 and 1968. Sand dollar populations occur on sandy bottoms in bays, tidal channels, and along the outer coast. They noted that sand dollar beds were reported in earlier Newport Harbor studies (MacGinitie, 1939, Limbaugh, unpubl. data), "but had not been found since these areas were dredged ". Sand dollars can occur in coastal inlets, frequently on sand patches, within and near beds of Zostera (MacGinitie and MacGinitie, 1968). Most populations in inlets occur near the openings to the sea. The bay populations of Dendraster often occurs in harbors with wide entrance channels and in areas of other coastal inlets without strong tidal currents. The substrate is generally fine, poorly sorted sand, usually with an overlying layer of detritus (Merrill and Hobson 1970). They noted that in Newport Harbor (no location provided), the highest proportion of sand dollars occurs in waters 2 to 4 ft deep. All of the Merrill and Hobson observations between 1963 and 1968 were made by diving. Coastal Resources Management (CRM) biologists surveyed the entire shallow water habitat of Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay twice, between 2003 -2004 and 2006 -2007 at depths from 0.0 to -12 ft mean lower low water (MLLW). The only location where concentrations of sand dollar beds were located was within Carnation Cove inlet. These beds were also present during surveys CRM made in the Cove during summer 2008. This bed occurs intertidally. Occasionally, individuals were also found along the west channel entrance channel, along Channel Drive. It is not unreasonable to assume that sand dollars may also occur subtidally in the main entrance channel. Noble Consultants, Inc. determined that the dock project would not affect sediment transport in the area. Consequently, sediment transport will not affect eelgrass or sand dollar bed distribution or abundance. The local environment is well flushed tidally, and the potential for short-term turbidity to adverse affect eelgrass and/or the sand dollar beds is low. In addition, the project has identified BMPs and project design features to reduce the potential for adverse effects during construction and operation of the docks. Construction - period mitigation measures within the Cove have been provided that are meant to limit the movement of construction crews, and educate the construction crew and /or residents of the importance of avoiding the cove's eelgrass and sand dollar beds. With respect to "taking specimens out of the marine environment,° SC 4.7 -1 stipulates that the project will comply with California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 29.05, which prohibits the taking of any marine organisms within 1,000 feet of the high tide line without a sport fishing permit. Response to Comment No. 2 -36 Sediment deposited along the entrance channel at Newport Harbor is due to the uniqueness of sequential sediment transport patterns that are typically observed in the harbor entrance area. Coastal alongshore drifted sands are transported either through the wedge area or via the entrance channel during the winter months and moved further into the bay by southerly swells primarily occurring in the following summer season. Sand - quality sediment movement within the project region is typically in the along - channel direction from the harbor entrance to the inner bay. Flow patterns (i.e., potential sand movement patterns) at the project site during typical flood /ebb tide cycles were presented in the Coastal Engineering Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 to Page 14 Assessment Appendix (see Figures 9 and 10). With a small percent of the along - channel blockage area resulting from the proposed new dock facility, the potential impact to this unique sediment movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant. Response to Comment No. 2 -37 The project site is not potential habitat for the tidewater goby; therefore, this species is not expected to occur at the project site. The EIR will be revised to correct the inconsistency noted in this comment. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 'Zi 19 Page 15 3. Marilyn L. Beck (April 29, 2009) Response to Comment No. 3 -1 The Predominant Line of Existing Development ( "PLOED ") is defined by reference to the bluff face. CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8 reads, in relevant part, as follows: "Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the Predominant line of existing development." Therefore, the PLOED applies to visible development on the bluff face, not subterranean excavation behind the bluff face. Response to Comment No. 3 -2 The PLOED can be viewed in either a "horizontal" or "vertical" sense. A horizontal perspective can be described as a distance from a specified location such as a street or property line. A vertical perspective can be described as a point or line above a specified location such as the ground or, in this case, the ocean. In 2007, the Newport Beach City Council established a PLOED at elevation 50.7 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 ( "NAVD88 ") for the proposed project. This is an elevation or contour on the project site's bluff face, below which the proposed residential building cannot be visible. Response to Comment No. 3 -3 In this case, the PLOED was identified by reference to the bluff face and does not limit subterranean excavation behind the bluff face as it would not be visible. Therefore, the depth of subterranean excavation is not a factor in determining compliance with the PLOED. As with the proposed project, future development along Carnation Avenue would be subject to individualized PLOED determinations. The existing development along Carnation Avenue will provide the basis for establishing the PLOED for these properties. The CLUP Glossary definition of PLOED will guide that determination. According to the CLUP Glossary, a PLOED is "[tjhe most common or representative distance from a specified group of structures to a specified point or line (e.g. topographic line or geographic feature). For example, the predominant line of existing development for a block of homes on a coastal bluff (a specified group of structures) could be determined by calculating the median distance (a representative distance) these structures are from the bluff edge (a specified line)." Given that the existing development along Carnation Avenue is at or close to the 50.7 feet NAVD88 elevation and does not extend all the way down to Bayside Place, it is unlikely that a future project proposing to descend all the way down to Bayside Place could be found consistent with CLUP policies. Response to Comment No. 3 -4 The comment indicates a belief that the project is subject to CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -5, which requires new development to be set back from the bluff edge. This policy is not applicable in this case as Policy 4.4.3 -8 allows development to be locate don the bluff face when existing structures are already present and new development must be within the PLOED. The questions indicate a belief that the project's pool should not be permitted below the 50.7 NAVD88 PLOED and it also questions the project's compliance with the intent of the PLOED policy. CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8 reads, in relevant part, as follows: "Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona de Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development." Therefore, the PLOED applies to visible development on the bluff face, not subterranean excavation behind the bluff face. In this case, the PLOED was identified by the reference to the bluff face. Aerie (PA 2005-196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 zo Page 16 The pool will be located at the basement level. Since the improvements on the basement and sub- basement level are behind the bluff face and will not be visible to the public, they are not subject to the PLOED. Response to Comment No. 3 -5 As indicated on page 4.6 -6 of the DER, the percentage of the site's impervious surface, which includes building coverage, in the redeveloped condition is approximately 28 percent of the total project area. This figure represents an increase in impervious surfaces of about six percent when compared to the existing impervious surface. Response to Comment No. 3 -6 As noted in Response to Comment No. 5, in the redeveloped condition the site's impervious surface area increases to 28 percent of the site's total area from 22 percent of the site's total area in the existing condition (refer to page 4.6 -6 in the Draft EIR). However, despite this increase in impervious surface area, the proposed redevelopment will actually result in an improvement in water quality over the existing condition due to the proposed storm drainage system and water quality treatment facilities. These facilities will be designed to capture and treat runoff from the impervious surface areas and discharge the flows at a rate consistent with the existing drainage patterns for the site. In the existing condition, the majority the site's runoff for impervious areas sheet flow to Newport Bay without treatment. Response to Comment No. 3 -7 The 1.4 -acre property is a coastal bluff visible from Newport Harbor. The Newport Beach General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan identify coastal bluffs as well as other landforms such as canyons, hillsides, and cliffs as significant natural landforms, which contribute to the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. Response to Comment No, 3 -8 General Plan Policy NR 23.1 states as follows: "Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, and site buildings to minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and preserve the features as a visual resource." The project complies with this policy in a host of ways discussed in DEIR Sections 4.1 (Land Use and Planning) and 4.5 (Aesthetics.) For instance, the project itself has been designed to complement the site's natural bluff features. The project's "curvilinear' features will allow the building to blend into the bluff when compared to the existing rectilinear features of the existing residential structure. In addition, the proposed colors are consistent with the natural environment, and the project's mass has been broken by the physical separation between the two main structural elements. Finally, the bluff face below the proposed structure would be preserved and landscaped and enhanced with native plant materials. The project is proposed to be more than two feet higher than the PLOED at elevation 52.83 feet, except for a dock access /emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet that is recessed and screened from public view. As a result, the proposed project will be consistent with existing development pattern of the area as required by CLUP policy and it will effectively preserve the bluff below the proposed residential structure as a visual resource. Response to Comment No. 3 -9 The comment relates to the encroachment of balconies within the side yard setback above Bayside Place and it describes a belief that it violates CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -6 as the project extends away from Carnation Avenue beyond the line of existing homes on Carnation Avenue. Although, CLUP Policy No. 4.4.3 -6 is not Aerie (PA 2005 -996) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 n Page 17 applicable in this case, CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8 is applicable and this policy requires development of the project site to be consistent with the PLOED. As indicated previously, the PLOED can be viewed in either in a "horizontal" or "vertical" sense. A horizontal perspective can be described as a distance from a specified location such as a street or property line. A vertical perspective can be described as a point or line above a specified location such as the ground or, in this case, the ocean. In 2007, the Newport Beach City Council established a PLOED at elevation 50.7 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 ( "NAVD88 ") for the proposed project. This is an elevation or contour on the project site's bluff face, below which the proposed residential building cannot be visible. During that consideration, City Council considered the horizontal projection of the project from Carnation Avenue and did not identify an inconsistency with Policy 4.4.3 -8. The balconies in question will not project into a public view; however, they will be within the view from private properties northerly on Carnation Avenue. The photograph provided with this comment shows a view from an unknown vantage that appears to be from private property. The extent of development depicted may or may not be accurate; however it appears to be roughly consistent with the proposed project. Response to Comment No. 3 -10 Because this project is located on a site with an existing principal structure built on the bluff face, the applicable CLUP Policy is 4.4.3 -9, and not the policy language cited in the comment. Policy 4.4.3 -9 states: "(w]here principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant line of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development." (Emphasis added.) This policy prevails over the general policy cited by the commenter by its very nature; Policy 4.4.3 -9 was intended to create an exception to the general policy. Specifically, it would not be possible for project to be both built on the bluff face and, at the same time, be set back 25 feet from the bluff edge. Because the project complies with the individualized PLOED determination made by the City Council in 2007, it complies with the applicable CLUP policy cited above. Response to Comment No. 3 -11 The comment addresses the project's consistency with a "horizontal predominant line of development." This is not a term that is used in the City's CLUP. Compliance with the CLUP's policies related to setbacks and PLOED is addressed in Table 4.1 -2 and the Responses to Comment Nos. 1, 9 and 10. It is not the role of the EIR to justify the modification permit. Response to Comment No. 3 -12 The policy to promote architectural diversity in itself suggests that different types of architecture are desirable in Newport Beach. The focus of this comment suggests that the proposed project lacks conformity with the existing development. Such conformity, being. roughly the opposite of diversity, would actually appear to be inconsistent with the intent of the City's policies articulated in Policies LU 1.1 and LU 1.2. Therefore, the proposed project seeks to achieve the intent of the long -range goals and objectives of preserving and enhancing the character of the City and the important features, including the bluff, through its unique design. The remainder of the comment appears to express the commenter's subjective opinion and further response is not required. Response to Comment No. 3 -13 The comment cites Land Use Element Policy LU1.4 and suggests that the proposed project, including the proposed building's gross floor area, is not consistent with the policy. The City's growth strategy is reflected in the Land Use Element of the General Plan by designating land for specific uses and by Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 18 6 providing densities and intensities for those land uses. Policy LU1.4 is a guiding principle against which future amendments, including the proposed project, are to be compared and judged. It is important to note that the density of the proposed project is consistent with the density permitted by the General Plan, which permits up to 27 dwelling units on the subject property, even if the General Plan Amendment were not part of the proposal. The 584- square foot increase in the project site, which is the only portion of the project site subject to the General Plan Amendment, only increases the maximum number of dwelling units on the site by one unit. The project only proposes eight units where 28 would be theoretically permitted. Section 4.1 (Land Use /Relevant Planning) and Section 4.5 (Aesthetics) provide an evaluation of the proposed project for consistency with more specific resource protection policies. The comment further indicates that the project will be effectively using 100 percent of the resource, which is not accurate. Approximately 40 percent of the site will remain as bluff, cove and water. Response to Comment No. 3 -14 Presumably, the comment is referring not to a developer response but the discussion of Policy LU 4.1 in the City's DEIR. Assuming that to be the case, the entire project has been analyzed in the context of the Land Use Plan. The discussion of Policy LU 4.1 focused on the proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan. The consistency of the remainder of the Land Use Plan is discussed throughout Table 4.1 -1. Response to Comment No. 3 -15 The automobile elevators are convenient and efficient. These elevators will allow the residents to access their personal garages in a quick and efficient manner. Elevators allow the highest efficiency of space due to the elimination of approximately 250 linear feet of concrete ramps. The two elevators will service resident parking needs for seven units. All required guest parking spaces are directly accessible from Carnation Avenue. Auto elevators are utilized in many condominium projects throughout the United States, Europe, and Asia. This is not new technology. Beyond that, the commenter is correct in acknowledging that her opinion is subjective. Response to Comment No. 3 -16 The proposed project includes the undergrounding of the existing overhead utility lines at the comer of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue with the removal of two existing utility poles. This is a voluntary off site community benefit provided by the applicant in order to improve the aesthetic character of the area. The applicant is providing this benefit with Alternative A and not with other alternatives. No City policy or ordinance, including General Plan Policy NR 21.3, requires the implementation of such off -site improvements. The only requirements for the removal and undergrounding of overhead utilities are those with respect to such improvements on a project site. In other words, the developer must underground the existing overhead utility line extending to the site from the nearest utility pole and no farther pursuant to Title 19 of the Municipal Code. Response to Comment No. 3 -17 Policy NR 22.1 states: "Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. The issues related to architectural diversity have been addressed previously. It is not the City's policy to regulate architecture that complies with all applicable development standards and General Plan policy. Similarly, any comparison of visual and physical mass must be based on what constitutes the unique character and visual scale of the community. Existing development in the area, including Channel Reef, regardless of whether it conforms to current policies or regulations, are factors that contribute to the character of the City and are considerable. As discussed in Tables 4.1 -1 and 4.1 -2, the proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies in the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 6 1 Z 3 Page 19 Response to Comment No. 3 -18 The bluff face is preserved to the PLOED. The excavation occurring behind the bluff and underneath the location of the existing and proposed structures is not deemed to be a significant alteration of the natural landform because there will be no significant visual impact or impact to bluff stability resulting from the excavation as discussed in Sections 4.5 and 4.9, respectively. Response to Comment No. 3 -19 CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -3 was not addressed in the Draft EIR because it does not apply to the project. Development relating to the site's coastal bluff is governed by General Plan Policy 4.4.3 -9, which states: "[w]here principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant line of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development." (Emphasis added.) This policy prevails over the general policy cited by the commenter because by its very nature, Policy 4.4.3 -3 was intended to create an exception to the general policy. Specifically, it would not be possible for project to be both built on the bluff face and, at the same time, be set back 25 feet from the bluff edge. Because the project complies with the individualized PLOED determination made by the City Council in 2007, it complies with the applicable CLUP policy cited above_ Response to Comment No. 3 -20 CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -5 is applicable to blufftop development. Development relating to the site's coastal bluff is governed by General Plan Policy 4.4.3 -9, which is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4 -19. Response to Comment No. 3 -21 The comment cites a portion of CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8 and suggests that new development be visually compatible to the maximum extent feasible. The provision cited applies to public improvements constructed on bluff faces based upon the City Council's interpretation and action to approve Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2007 -003 on November 13, 2007, so this standard is not applicable. However, project compatibility is a goal supported by other General Plan and CLUP policies. The comment indicates that the proposed gross floor area is not compatible when compared with development along Carnation Avenue. The comment is noted; however, floor area is not necessarily a good measure of compatibility for residential applications. From a visual perspective, the project will be viewed from the street where a strong argument can be made that not only is the proposed project generally visually compatible with the surrounding area, but it is also significantly more visually compatible than the structure it is intended to replace. Similarly, when viewed from the harbor, it would be visually compatible with other structures immediately to the south as illustrated in Exhibit 4.5 -15 in the Draft EIR. The series of visual simulations presented in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR illustrate the existing visual character of the site as well as after development of the proposed project occurs. When compared to the existing apartment structure, the simulations reveal that the high vertical elements of the existing structure are replaced with curvilinear features that conform to the bluff landscape for the purpose of minimizing the effect of the proposed development. When compared to the other existing residential development, including the significantly larger Channel Reef project, the proposed project scale of the proposed project and its effect on the bluff is reduced through the implementation of curvilinear features, natural color, and building materials. Response to Comment No. 3 -22 Refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 3 -1, 3 -9 and 3 -10. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 20 Response to Comment No. 3 -23 As indicated in Response to Comment No. 3 -18, grading of 25,240 cubic yards of earth material behind the bluff does not result in changes to the bluff face below elevation 50.7 NAVD88, with the exception of the emergency exit from the lower level to the existing access stair4case on the bluff face, which will be screened from view. Response to Comment No. 3 -24 The Construction Management Plan (CMP), to which reference was made throughout the Draft EIR, is included in the DEIR as Appendix B. Copies of the Draft EIR, including the CMP, were available at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department and the Newport Beach Public Library (1000 Avocado), Mariner's Branch Library (2005 Dover Drive), and the Balboa Branch Library (100 East Balboa Boulevard). Response to Comment No. 3 -25 The project applicant will be responsible for any repairs to the damaged roadways along the haul route that may be required as a result of construction activities associated with project implementation. Response to Comment No. 3 -26 The visual simulations illustrate the proposed residential structure with blue eaves. The colors selected for the proposed project are intended to complement the natural bluff character and setting along Newport Harbor. Response to Comment No, 3 -27 Implementation of state -of- the -art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, and undergrounding of the existing overhead utility lines by removing two utility poles at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue are voluntary off site community benefits provided by the applicant. These benefits are not required by the City. As a result, the inclusion or exclusion of these benefits in a particular alternative is a function only of the applicant's willingness to provide for such benefits. "Voluntary" means that the applicant agrees to provide the benefit. Reasonable alternatives under CEQA should not include requirements that cannot be legally imposed. The project would require a total of 61 caissons as opposed to the 75 caissons required by the 3 Single Family Home Alternative. This is due to the fact that the 3 Single Family Home Alternative would necessitate three separate structural foundations, each of which would require a sufficient number of caissons, as noted below: Number of caissons for Lot 1 = 21 Number of caissons for Lot 2 = 27 Number of caissons for Lot 3 = 27 Total number of caissons = 75 The six -year construction timeframe associated with the 3 Single Family Home Alternative was determined based on an expert opinion rendered by Lyleen Ewing, real estate agent with Coldwell Banker Previews International as indicated in the attached letter. Because a multi - family structure is built as a single project, it is irrelevant as to whether there are eight buyers. The commenter's opinion about the viability and compatibility of the 3 Single Family Home Alternative is noted. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 25 Page 21 Response to Comment No. 3 -28 Implementation of state -of- the -art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, and undergrounding of the existing overhead lines by removing two utility poles at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue are voluntary off site community benefits provided by the applicant (refer to Response to Comment No. 3 -27). These benefits cannot be required by the City. As a result, the inclusion or exclusion of these benefits in a particular alternative is a function only of the applicant's willingness to provide for such benefits. The proposed 5 -unit alternative is approximately 39,017 square feet. The commenter's opinion about the reasonableness of the 5 Unit Multiple - Family Alternative is noted. As indicated in the discussion of this alternative on page 10 -16, while there would be reductions in short-term, construction - related impacts, they are outweighed by a reduction and /or elimination of project components, including upgrading of the existing catch basin, energy conservation features, and the removal of utility poles. In addition, as set forth in Chapter 10.0, the project objectives would not be achieved to the same extent as the proposed project. Response to Comment No. 3 -29 The commenter's opinion about the reasonableness of the two 8 -Unit Multiple - Family Alternatives is noted. Refer to Response to Comment No. 3 -28. Response to Comment No. 3 -30 In order to address the possibility that the project may not be completed, the Newport Beach Planning Commission previously identified a condition to which the applicant has given concurrence. This condition would stipulate the following: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall provide the City with a performance bond or its equivalent to ensure timely completion of all improvements represented on plans and drawings submitted for permit approval in the event construction of improvements consistent with project approval is abandoned. The performance bond or its equivalent shall be in 100% of the cost of the building shell. The bond or equivalent shall be released in 25% increments upon completion of each quarter of construction of the building shell. The performance bond or its equivalent shall be issued with the City as beneficiary by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California and shall have an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Bests Key Rating Guide unless otherwise approved by the City Risk Manager. The potential liability related to bluff failure they could affect adjacent properties including public improvements within the abutting right -of -way rests with the project applicant, his design team, and contractors. In the event the applicant declares bankruptcy during construction, the City would have the ability to call in the bond that would be posted to complete the project. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 22 4. Moote Group (May 1, 2009) Response to Comment No. 4 -1 Refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 3 -10, 3 -18, and 3 -23. Response to Comment No. 4 -2 The dock access /emergency exit, which also acts as the access to the bluff face staircase leading down to the cove and docks, has been designed to blend into the existing natural character of the bluff through the use of natural landscape and hardscape material, including rocks. The door itself is recessed behind the bluff face. As a result, the exit is considered to be consistent with PLOED because the PLOED's purpose is to protect visual resources. Because it represents a life safety feature, it is consistent with the intent of Policy No. 4.4.3 -12, and is located 2.18 feet above the lowest level of the existing apartment structure on the site, the City Council has the discretion to find this feature consistent with this policy and the PLOED. This access /emergency exit meets the bluff face at elevation 44.48 feet NAVD88 and not at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD88 as suggested by the Moote Group. The basement level (finished floor) is at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD88 and not the dock access /emergency exit. Response to Comment No. 4 -3 As stated in the DEIR, the excavation of the subterranean levels at the bluff will leave a trapezoidal section of intact rock as part of the bluff face. Based on the planned basement level excavation and adjacent bluff configurations shown on cross - sections, the minimum horizontal setback distance between the basement wall and bluff face at elevation 30.0 feet NAVD88 is generally 20 feet or greater and at PLOED elevation 50.7 feet NAVD88, it is generally 5 feet or greater. Shoring will consist of drilled and cast -in -place concrete caissons and lagging will be incorporated where required. A Soilmec track - mounted drilling rig is currently being considered to excavate these caissons, and is capable of drilling through massive, hard and moderately cemented sandstone to the depths anticipated at this site with no shocks and minimal or no vibrations. Ram hoe equipment will not be required at this area of the site. In addition, provisions for special excavation are included in Neblett & Associates, Inc. Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report (dated September 30, 2008) and may be used in limited zones of the excavations adjacent to the shoring system. A pinnacle of rock to remain in place will front the access entry area. This pinnacle of rock will result from a maximum 5 feet excavation at this location and will be landward of the 50.7 feet elevation development line. In view of the limited excavation operation at this location, it is not anticipated that this pinnacle of rock will be compromised. In the event that this pinnacle of rock is compromised, it is intended to be reconstructed with artificial rock in accordance with Local Coastal Program Policy 4.4.3 -12. Vibration monitoring and surveying of surface monuments will also be performed during shoring installation, subterranean level excavation operations, and construction activities, and these operations will be modified, as necessary, to mitigate potential damage to the trapezoidal section of intact rock bluff to remain. Response to Comment No, 4 -4 Contrary to the commenter's assertion, by no means is there certainty that the rock face will sustain damage due to the construction activity. The section of rock is a trapezoidal shape with a generally 20' base and 5' wide upper section. The rock strength will resist erosion and potential of failure for the economic life of the structure. The bluff face is not at risk in the area of the dock access /emergency exit. The excavated rock will be contoured to the City's CLUP (LCP) policy 4.4.3 -12 (H) "Requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site." Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009n S12.7 Page 23 Response to Comment No. 4-5 As illustrated in the figure following this response, the sand dollar beds are located approximately 100 ft to the southeast inside the cove. They are not present at the proposed dock location, The overlap in eelgrass and proximity to placement of the piles is also shown in the figure. The edge of the eelgrass bed is within several feet of three of the proposed pile locations. As indicated in the Construction Management Plan (CMP), the project includes the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), which will be used during pile emplacement to minimize and avoid losses of eelgrass. The BMPs include but are not limited to the use of silt curtains and the least-damaging method of pile emplacement. All piles will be pre-drilled, since there is rock and shale below the surface. A steel sleeve can be placed around the drilling operation to control the sedimentation during the installation process. The contractor and coastal engineer will also work to contain and/or minimize the tailings from the hole, to reduce impacts to water quality and eelgrass bed resources. Losses of eelgrass, it any, as a result of pile emplacement will be determined during agency-mandated pre-and-post eelgrass surveys and mitigation will be implemented in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy Guidelines (NMFS 1991 as amended), As a note, the project does not propose pile driving. All piles will be pre-stressed concrete piles set in pre-drilled, augered holes- Response to Comment No. 4-6 This comment suggests that the air quality analysis should be reviewed by a third party "expert." It is important to note that the Draft EIR, including the air quality analysis, was submitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for review and comment during the public comment period; the SCAQMD did not submit comments to the City. No specific comments related to the adequacy of the air quality analysis are presented in this letter and no response is required. Aerie (PA 2005-196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 'Z % Page 24 s, �0 t�W J, W-1 .:At 11 51 W17, ,101W.- 1S 4 Response to Comment No. 4-6 This comment suggests that the air quality analysis should be reviewed by a third party "expert." It is important to note that the Draft EIR, including the air quality analysis, was submitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for review and comment during the public comment period; the SCAQMD did not submit comments to the City. No specific comments related to the adequacy of the air quality analysis are presented in this letter and no response is required. Aerie (PA 2005-196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 'Z % Page 24 Response to Comment No. 4 -7 This comment reflects the opinion of the commenter and does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of the acoustical analysis. No response is necessary. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 25 1 2-7 5. Jan D. Vandersloot (May 3, 2009) Response to Comment No. 5 -1 A vegetation map was prepared by Robert Mitchell & Associates, as noted on page 4.7 -1 (refer to footnote 1) in the Draft EIR. This map is attached to these Responses. The plant species occupying the subject property are identified and described on page 4.7 -1 on the Draft EIR. Although it appears that the commenter is suggesting that a mitigation measures be imposed to retain non - native species currently occupying the site, the project includes design features requiring the exclusive use of native drought - tolerant plant species determined do be consistent with the California coastal bluff environment. This is an environmentally superior approach to the suggestions presented in this comment. As indicated in Response to Comment No. 2 -20, all invasive plant species will also be removed. It is important to note that existing native plant species will not be removed. Additionally, as noted in footnote 1 on page 4.7 -1 of the Draft EIR, none of the native species on -site was removed. The lemonade berry will remain on -site. With respect to shading effects, refer to the discussion on page 4.7 -14 and Exhibit 4.7 -1 on page 4.7 -15 of the Draft EIR. Response to Comment No. 5-2 The City's CLUP recognizes that in certain instances, habitats presumed to be ESHA may occur in settings where the ecological functions are minimal and that the ESHA presumption is rebuttable. Specifically, the CLUP recognizes four factors that should be considered, which when present allows for rebuttal of the ESHA presumption. Specifically the factors are: Patch Size and Connectivity; Dominance by Invasive, non - native species; Disturbance and proximity to development; and Fragmentation and Isolation The vegetation noted by the commenter consists of a few individuals California buckwheat (Etiogonum fasciculatum) shrubs, a single patch of lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia) that likely consists of a single shrub or two, and a few scattered individuals of California encelia (Encefia californica). At most, the subject vegetation covers a few hundred square feet. Based on the CLUP, an ESHA designation would not be appropriate based on 1) the small amount of vegetation, literally consisting of a handful or individual shrubs that because of their small size, exhibit minimal ecological function; 2) the subject vegetation is surrounded by areas of non - native vegetation including ornamentals associated with the residences as well as some highly invasive species (e.g., giant reed), 3) the proximity of the small patch of vegetation to existing development further limits the ecological functions of the small area of vegetation; and 4) the patch is generally isolated from larger patches of native scrub vegetation by the adjacent development. Based on all presence of each of the four CLUP- defined factors, designation of the small area consisting of common shrubs with little ecological value, an ESHA determination is not warranted based on the site - specific data. Response to Comment No. 5 -3 Refer to Response to Comment No. 2 -33. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009n Page 26 G Response to Comment No. 5 -4 Refer to Response to Comment No, 2 -35. Response to Comment No. 5 -5 CRM observations of the eelgrass bed in summer 2008 within and outside the cove indicated that the areal cover is similar to that of 2003 -2004 and 2005 -2007. Eelgrass density was 273 turions per square meter in March 2004; in August 2008, the density was slight less (221 per square meter). A baywide eelgrass density decline was observed at most areas sampled; it was not limited to the Carnation Cove area. Eelgrass bed area and density information to be used for the final impact analysis will be determined during agency- mandated pre- and -post eelgrass surveys according to the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy Guidelines (NMFS 1991 as amended). Eelgrass grows outside of the current footprint of the dock's structure. As stated in the impact analysis, there is 30 square feet of eelgrass may potentially be underneath 3,448 square feet of dock structure, which is 0.9% of the total dock. Projects that implement BMPs that include using translucent dock materials, or other methods to increase light underneath docks and vessels are encouraged, but not mandated by NMFS. Effects of dock and vessel shading are evaluated over a two -year post- construction monitoring period. If at the end of the two years of monitoring, eelgrass loss is the result of shading than this loss is required to be mitigated at a ratio of 1.2 to 1 (mitigation to loss ration, NMFS 1991, as amended). There is no formal "credit" within the NMFS eelgrass mitigation policy that gives "credit" to a project that increases eelgrass cover under docks or boats. Response to Comment No. 5.6 Sediment deposited along the entrance channel at Newport Harbor is due to the uniqueness of sequential sediment transport patterns that are typically observed in the harbor entrance area. Coastal alongshore drifted sands are transported either through the wedge area or via the entrance channel during the winter months and moved further into the bay by southerly swells primarily occurring in the following summer season. Sand - quality sediment movement within the project region is typically in the along - channel direction from the harbor entrance to the inner bay. Flow patterns (i.e., potential sand movement patterns) at the project site during typical flood /ebb tide cycles were presented in the Coastal Engineering Assessment Appendix (see Figures 9 and 10). With a small percent of the along - channel blockage area resulting from the proposed new dock facility, the potential impact to this unique sediment movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant. Response to Comment No. 5-7 The project site is not potential habitat for the tidewater goby; therefore, this species is not expected to occur at the project site. The EIR will be revised to correct the inconsistency noted in this comment. Response to Comment No. 5 -8 Comment noted. The commenter's address was included on the mailing list for the project. Aerie (PA 2005-196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 n t 3 I Page 27 6. California Department of Transportation (May 4, 2009) Response to Comment No. 6 -1 This comment identifies Caltrans' responsibility as a commenting agency and indicates that it has not comments on the Draft EIR. As suggested in this comment, should any work related to project implementation occur with a Caltrans right -of -way, the applicant must first obtain an encroachment permit from that agency. This comment is acknowledged; no response is necessary. Response to Comment No. 6 -2 As suggested in this comment, the City of Newport Beach will continue to notify Caltrans of this project and future development that could potentially affect State transportation facilities. This comment is acknowledged; no response is necessary. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 r1 7 Page 28 JC.. Comprehensive Planning Services (May 4, 2009) Response to Comment No. 7 -1 As stated in Section 1.0 of the air quality technical analysis (refer to Appendix D), demolition is based on the removal of 16,493 square feet of existing structure. Grading is based on 1.4 acres of land and 25 percent of this area is disturbed daily during grading activities. These assumptions are reflected in the analysis presented in Table 1 of the Air Quality Analysis and summarized in Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR. Response to Comment No. 7 -2 Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that "[ijf, after thorough investigation, a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact." Although technical data does not yet exist that would allow the City to determine without the use of undue speculation how a project of this size would impact global climate, the Draft EIR nonetheless presents a substantive discussion of the effects of global climate and the Project's potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Section 4.3 addresses the nature of global climate change, identifies daily operation emissions, discusses the project's greenhouse gas emissions, identifies the active and passive "green strategies" that the project will employ, and, after providing this thorough analysis, concludes that there is no way to state with reasonable scientific certainty that the project will conflict with any state policies related to global warming. Because there is general scientific acceptance that global warming is occurring and that human activity is a significant contributor to the process, it is easy to conclude that the emission of even a minute amount of GHG contributes to the warming process. However, under CEQA, this would be an improper standard for at least two reasons. First, AB 32 has explicitly stated the State's policy that de minimis" emissions shall not be subject to regulation. Specifically, AB 32 (in Health and Safety Code §38561(e)) tasks CARB with "recommend(ing] a de minimis threshold of greenhouse gas emissions below which emission reduction requirements will not apply." Thus, not only does AB 32 not require that all project emissions be regulated, it explicitly states the Legislature's intent that a threshold be established to identify "minor" amounts of emissions which will not be part of a regulatory program. Second, the evaluation under CEQA of a project's direct impacts does not start and finish with the simple question of whether a project contributes to an environmental effect such as global climate change. Rather, CEQA requires a legitimate determination as to whether the project contributes to a level that makes that contribution significant. CEQA defines a "significant effect on the environment" as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment (Public Resources Code §21068.) Exactly what contribution to an impact is required for an impact to be "significant" is evaluated through the establishment of a "threshold of significance." CEQA Guideline §15064.7 defines a "threshold of significance" as "an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non - compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant." A threshold of significance cannot be an arbitrary measure. There is little, if any, support in the scientific and environmental communities for the proposition that an isolated project's relatively miniscule contribution of GHG standing alone (i.e., a direct, as opposed to cumulative, project impact) would alter the course of global climate change. Assuming only existing environmental conditions in combination only with the GHG emissions of an isolated project (i.e., without taking into consideration other past, current, and future projects throughout the world), there is no credible argument that the GHG emissions of virtually any isolated project standing alone would have a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse impact on global climate conditions. For these reasons, although information regarding the gross GHG emissions of the proposed project is provided within this section, Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 2a3 Page 29 substantial evidence does not exist to support a threshold of significance for direct project impacts absent the use of speculation. With respect to cumulative impacts, any threshold for cumulative significance must delineate a marker for determining whether the proposed project's effects would be "cumulatively considerable," meaning "that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." (CEQA Guidelines §15065(a)(3)). As previously noted, because global climate change is the product of GHG emissions throughout the world, it is not possible to identify all past, current, and probable future projects on planet Earth without gross speculation. Additionally, evaluation using speculative "per capita" or other projections of worldwide GHG emissions based upon projections of population growth over many decades may provide valuable information, but would not constitute an analysis of the "incremental effects" of the project in either of the contexts identified in Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines which are discussed above. Until either (i) the Air Resources Board completes sufficient work under AB 32 to provide a cumulative impact analytical framework which is the equivalent of an "adopted general plan or related planning document," or (ii) the Legislature establishes a different basis for evaluating cumulative impacts under CEQA, establishing a significance threshold which meets current CEQA legal requirements will be dependent upon speculation. Therefore, because the establishment of thresholds of significance would require undue speculation, this DEIR does not establish a threshold of significance for either direct or cumulative impacts to global climate change. That discussion reflects the thorough and thoughtful investigation required by CEQA and identifies certain measures to be incorporated within the Project that will lower potential GHG emissions. In the end, however, the DEIR's conclusion that the potential global climate change impacts of the project cannot be calculated without undue speculation falls squarely under the directive of Section 15145. Response to Comment No. 7 -3 The primary toxic air contaminant of concern during the construction of the proposed project involves the emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM). DPM is emitted from the exhaust from onsite construction vehicles as well as trucks accessing the project site. DPM was not analyzed in the DEIR because there is no potential for a significant impact for the following reasons: Exposure to construction vehicle emissions will be very brief. The "heaviest" period of construction vehicle trips involves excavation and will occur during construction Phase I, roughly July 16, 2010 to January 10, 2011. Such a short exposure duration to air toxics would yield a lower health risk because there would be a shorter time frame for the accumulated risk. Construction and delivery vehicles will be required to turn off their engines while on site. SCAQMD's AB2588 guidelines contemplate a 70 -year exposure for residential cancer risks and a 40 -year exposure for worker cancer risks. By contrast, the "heaviest' period of construction vehicle trips involves excavation and will occur over about 6 months, roughly July 16, 2010 to January 10, 2011. Because of the brevity of construction activities, the SCAQMD does not recommend that construction projects be evaluated for health risk impacts. There will not be a substantial quantity of DPM sources. Project related construction vehicles will operate at the site for a duration of 8 -10 hours per day and will consist of a maximum of about 30 vehicles distributed over the project site. This quantity of construction vehicle use is minimal considering that the SCAQMD's Multiple Air Toxics Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 n Page 30 Exposure Study (MATES -III) identifies the majority of health risk in the south coast air basin from roadways. In comparison, the 405 freeway in Orange County has an annual average of 9,000- 14,000 truck trips occurring 24 hours a day and operates on a permanent basis. Based on the reasons identified above, the health risk impacts from DPM emissions during construction activities do not represent a significant impact. Response to Comment No. 7 -4 Table 1 -1 in the Draft EIR provides a summary of the potential project impacts, mitigation measures (if any), and the level of significance after mitigation is implemented. Several "standard conditions" are identified not only in that table but also in Section 4.3.3 (refer to page 4.3 -11). In addition, several "project design features' are also identified in Table 1 -1 that are incorporated into the project to avoid potentially significant impacts. Neither the standard conditions nor the project design features are mitigation measures as suggested in this comment. Nonetheless, they have been included in the Executive Summary table and will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to ensure that they will be implemented as proposed by the project applicant and /or required by the SCAQMD. Response to Comment No. 7 -5 A discussion of the potential lighting impacts is presented on page 4.5 -29 of the Draft EIR. That discussion indicates that: "The project has been designed to minimize glare by incorporating building materials that are not conducive to the creation of glare. For example, exterior materials proposed for the residential structure would consist of non - reflective materials, including a titanium roof and photo - voltaic array with a matte finish, stucco - covered walls, and stone accents with rough, rather than polished textures. Tinted glazing is proposed on the windows and most of the widows will have overhangs that will cast shadows over the glazing. As a result, no significant glare impacts from building finish materials are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required." Similarly, an extensive set of visual simulations has been included in the Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR that illustrate vantages from several locations inside the harbor, including those that are available to recreational boat users in the harbor. The discussion of Visual Simulation V17 (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -17) on page 4.5 -22 does address views to the small beach below the bluff. As indicated in that discussion and suggested elsewhere in the visual analysis, although some visual access from the bay would be affected by the dock from time to time as one passes up and down the harbor, none of the significant existing cove and bluff features will be permanently damaged or destroyed. Views to those important visual features will still be available, depending on one's location relative to the cove and related features. As a result, no significant visual impacts are anticipated. Response to Comment No. 7 -6 Refer to Response to Comment No. 3 -24. Response to Comment No. 7 -7 The EIR analyzes several potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed project, including: (1) No Project/No Development, (2) Alternative Site; (3) Reduced Intensity /3 Single - Family Residences; (4) Reduced Intensity/5 Multiple - Family Residential Project; and (5) Existing Zoning /8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project with Reduced Grading. The comment states that the EIR's alternatives are narrow in Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009n 2 t Page 31 scope and biased toward the project. This is inaccurate. In fact, the DEIR's range of reasonable alternatives was selected based upon their ability to avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts of the project and to feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, as required by CEQA. The 3 Single Family Home Alternative and the 5 -unit Multi- family Alternative were not selected as the environmentally superior alternative because they would not result in the same degree of benefits as would be derived from project implementation (e.g., underground overhead power poles creating an improved aesthetic character on Carnation Avenue and upsizing of the existing deficient catch basin). Since none of the improvements to drainage, aesthetics and /or energy conservation systems would be included in the 3 Single Family Home Alternative, the environmental benefits would not accrue to that alternative. The DEIR identifies no significant impacts related to GHG emissions (refer to Response to Comment No. 7 -2). Because CEQA clearly allows only project alternatives that eliminate or substantially reduce identified project - related impacts, the commenter's focus on GHG emissions is not relevant to the alternatives analysis. GHG emissions were, in fact, effectively considered in the evaluation of the relative environmental merits of the alternatives through the consideration of the energy- efficient project design features. Nonetheless, the GHG emissions for the project and any of the alternatives are so minimal that differences the emissions between the various alternatives is not considered significant enough to warrant the selection of one alternative over another. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009E 34 t Page 32 8. Jinx L. Hansen (May 4, 2009) Response to Comment No. 8 -1 This comment expresses concern that several issues evaluated in the Draft EIR have been misrepresented or have not been adequately addressed. However, no specific comment related to the inadequate analysis is identified. Therefore, no response is possible or required. Response to Comment No. 8 -2 Refer to Response to Comment No. 3 -24. Response to Comment No.- 83 The commenter has cited information as set forth in the DEIR but has not raised any questions or comments related to the adequacy of the analysis. Therefore, no response is possible or required. Response to Comment No. 8 -4 Table 1 -1 in the Executive Summary (refer to Chapter 1.0 of the Draft EIR) enumerates the relevant project design features that are project elements that are intended to ensure that potential adverse effects of construction traffic are avoided or minimized. As indicated in the CMP (refer to Appendix B in the DEIR), construction staging will be coordinated by a team of flag persons to ensure that neighborhood impacts are minimized. The construction process is thoroughly described in the CMP, which discusses construction staging, traffic control, parking and safety related to the additional traffic. These aspects of the proposed project are also discussed in the Draft EIR in Section 4.2 (refer to pages 4.2 -2 through 4.2 -5 in the Draft EIR). Potential impacts associated with construction activities, including the hauling operations that would result in over 2,000 heavy truck trips, are evaluated in Section 4.2 (Traffic and Circulation). These potential impacts are summarized in the Executive Summary (Table 1 -1). As indicated in this comment and prescribed in the CMP and reflected in the Draft EIR, heavy truck traffic would be limited to a maximum of four trips per hour. To ensure that construction traffic does not exceed the levels identified in the Draft EIR, the traffic control plan identified in the CMP will be strictly enforced. To prevent obstruction of traffic lanes in the project vicinity, a flag person will be retained to maintain safety adjacent to the roadways. In addition, a construction valet and a team of flag persons will also direct traffic at the site, shuttle drop - off /pick -up, and material deliveries. During the excavation process, the flag person will coordinate with the foreman at the dump site who will radio in the dump trucks from the Olinda -Alpha Sanitary Landfill at the rate of one truck every 15 minutes. The CMP provides measures to assure that trucks will not be lined up along the haul route during any stage of construction. The analysis in the Draft EIR concludes that through the implementation of the project design measures prescribed in the CMP, the potential adverse construction - related traffic impacts would be reduced to an less than significant level. This comment, which expresses disagreement with the effectiveness of the "mitigation measures" is acknowledged. Response to Comment No. 8 -5 As indicated in the CMP, to prevent obstruction of through traffic lanes, which could affect residents exiting their homes via automobile, traffic control will be coordinated with the Police Department and Public Works Department (Traffic and Development Services Division) to ensure vehicular safety. In addition, a flag person will be retained to maintain vehicular safety in the vicinity of the subject property and neighborhood. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 7,3-7 Page 33 I Response to Comment No. 8 -6 Section 5.0 in the CMP addresses safety and security. At the present time a pedestrian walkway does not exist adjacent to the site. Secure fencing will be installed to foster pedestrian safety and a four -foot wide temporary walkway will be designated in front of the fencing at the street curb along Carnation Avenue during Phases I and II of construction. During Phase IV, the chain link fence will be pulled back four feet from the street curb. In addition, if required by the Public Works Department, a four -foot wide temporary crosswalk will also be created across Carnation to direct pedestrians to the existing sidewalk on the south side of the-street. Other features of the prescribed measures included in the CMP to address safety and security include the construction of a six -foot perimeter fence and appropriate signage indicating the limits of the construction area. Refer to the Appendix B in the Draft EIR for a complete discussion of the safety measures that will be implemented. Response to Comment No. 8 -7 Refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 3 -10, 3 -18, and 3 -23 Response to Comment No. 8 -8 Comment noted. The sand dollars are within the cove, and not near the docks. Based on coastal engineering studies of sand transport, the sand dollar populations within the cove will not be affected by the dock component. The dock component will not cause any changes within the sediment transport regime. The dock component has not been before the Harbor Commission for approval. In fact, the first step in the dock approval process will be taken by the Harbor Resources Manager, who must approve or disapprove the application for the dock expansion. The Harbor Resources Manager's decision may be appealed by any interested party to the Harbor Commission. Only then will the Harbor Commission vote on the application for the dock expansion. Any Harbor Commission decision may be appealed to the City Council. The Harbor Commission did not "recommend denial" of the docks at its April 8, 2009 meeting, as suggested by the comment. Instead, according to the City's draft minutes from that meeting, the Commission went on record as not opposing the expansion of the existing dock. Commissioner Beek made the following advisory motion, "While not opposed to the expansion of the existing dock and its area and capacity we believe the size and configuration of the proposed dock project would create significant negative impact on, navigation and recreational boating in the harbor". This motion, which carried with all ayes, has no legal effect. Response to Comment No. 8 -9 A construction bond is a surety bond, which is a guarantee in which the surety guarantees that the contractor, called the "principal" in the bond, will perform the "obligation" stated in the bond. For example, the "obligation" stated in a bid bond is that the principal will honor its bid; the "obligation" in a performance bond is that the principal will complete the project; and the "obligation" in a payment bond is that the principal will properly pay subcontractors and suppliers. Bonds frequently state, as a "condition," that if the principal fully performs the stated obligation, then the bond is void; otherwise the bond remains in full force and effect. If the principal fails to perform the obligation stated in the bond, both the principal and the surety are liable on the bond, and their liability is "joint and several." That is, either the principal or surety or both may be sued on the bond, and the entire liability may be collected from either the principal or the surety. The amount in which a bond is issued is the "penal sum," or the "penalty amount," of the bond. Except in a Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 �$ Page 34 very limited set of circumstances, the penal sum or penalty amount is the upward limit of liability on the bond. The person or firm to whom the principal and surety owe their obligation is called the "obligee." On bid bonds, performance bonds, and payment bonds, the obligee is usually the owner. Where a subcontractor furnishes a bond, however, the obligee may be the owner or the general contractor or both. The people or firms who are entitled to sue on a bond, sometimes called 'beneficiaries" of the bond, are usually defined in the language of the bond or in those state and federal statutes that require bonds on public projects. With respect to the possibility that the project may not be completed, refer to Response to Comment No. 3 -30. In the event that damage to local streets occurs as a result of the construction activities, including streets along the haul route, the project applicant and /or contractor will be responsible for ensuring that the damage is corrected to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach. Response to Comment No. 8 -10 The project design features included in the CMP as well as the standard conditions and other mitigation measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Project (MMRP) as required by CEQA. The MMRP identifies each measure, the method of verifying how each measure will be implemented, and who will be responsible for implementing the measure. The City of Newport Beach will be responsible for ensuring that each mitigation measure is implemented in accordance with the MMRP. Response to Comment No. 8 -11 As indicated in Table 4.1 -1 (refer to page 4.1 -12), the proposed project is consistent with Policy No. CE 7.1.1, which requires the provision of adequate, convenient parking. The proposed project provides a total of 23 off - street parking spaces (not including six additional "lift" parking spaces) within the proposed residential structure, which exceeds the City's parking code requirements. In addition, project implementation will result in an increase in the number of on- street parking available to visitors to the neighborhood because the existing curb cut will be substantially reduced; three new parking spaces will be created on Carnation Avenue. This comment, which suggests that the proposed project is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, is acknowledged. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 39 Page 35 9. Melinda Luthin, Esq. (May 4, 2009) Response to Comment No. 9 -1 The Construction Management Plan (CMP) is attached to the Draft EIR as Appendix B, as indicated on page 3 -27 of the document. The CMP was prepared by the applicant as part of the project description. The document has been reviewed extensively in the preparation of the DEIR. The CMP has been available for review and comment throughout the public review and comment period for the DEIR. Refer to Response to Comment No. 3 -24. The CMP is a component of the proposed project, meaning that the environmental evaluation conducted for the project considers all of the measures included in the CMP to be part of the project proposal. Each of the measures in the CMP was considered where applicable in the evaluation of the project's potential significant effects. As indicated in Section 2.1.7 in the DEIR, the DEIR and all related technical appendices (including the CMP) were available for review and copying at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, as well as the three of the City's public libraries. Therefore, recirculation of the EIR is not required. Response to Comment No. 9 -2 The comment alleges that the Project Objectives are "boilerplate" statements that read "like an advertisement for the project" and are not supported by facts. Under CEQA, the project objectives are intended to represent and reflect the applicant's goals for its project, not the lead agency's or those of the community. As discussed in CEQA Guideline Section 15124(b), the Project Description should contain "[a] statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project. A clearly written statement of objectives will help the Lead Agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and will aid the decision makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project." The comment that the Project Objectives are "boilerplate" statements is wrong. The term "boilerplate" typically refers to standard legal provisions that are not customized or individualized to meet a certain set of facts. The Project Objectives were created by the applicant specifically to apply to the proposed project. For instance, it is highly unlikely that another project would include the following objective: "2. To enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood by replacing a deteriorating 60 -year old structure with a high - quality residential project utilizing unique modern design principles and featuring (a) the elimination of conventional garage doors for all units, (b) the concealing of all parking from street view, (c) significant landscape and streetscape enhancements, (d) the removal of two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, and (e) replacing these features by undergrounding the new wiring." The features discussed in Objective 2 are unique to the project and the project site. The comment that the Project Objectives are not supported by facts is also not correct. The objectives themselves, as set forth in Section 1.1.4, are not required to be supported by facts. Instead, they are statements that represent and reflect the applicant's goals for the project. Response to Comment No. 9 -3 The Project's "advanced design' relates to a myriad of features. Generally speaking, the proposed project has been designed to reflect a modern character, which complements the variety of architectural styles that exist within the Corona del Mar neighborhood. One significant "advanced design' attribute is the project's "curvilinear' form, which will allow the building to blend into the bluff when compared to the existing rectilinear features of the existing residential structure. Other advanced design features are the energy efficiency systems and design beyond the minimum Title 24 requirements planned by the applicant. The number and size of dwelling units in such a design, or any design, is typically a function of the land use density limitations and the applicant's objective(s). Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Z 4 o Page 36 Attainment of a given Objective (e.g., a sufficient number of units to justify certain project features) is subjective. Chapter 10 of the DEIR (Alternatives) discusses the extent to which each alternative would achieve the Objectives under the heading "Ability to Achieve Project Objectives." The comment asks "What 'architectural diversity' of the community is this [project] trying to emulate ?" First, diversity is not conforming or emulating what currently exists. By its nature, a project contributes to a community's "diversity" by being different. The project reflects diversity by not "trying to emulate' other structures in the community. As a result, the project has been designed to reflect a modern character, which complements the variety of architectural styles that exist within the immediate neighborhood. The project will add distinction to the harbor and the neighborhood by redeveloping an existing site that was developed in 1949 and 1955. The existing dwelling units are older than many in the Corona del Mar neighborhood. The age and architectural character of the existing residential structures contrast with the character and quality of nearby homes, which have been remodeled and/or rebuilt and exhibit a variety of architectural themes that provide visual interest and variety. Response to Comment No. 9 -4 The proposed project includes the undergrounding of the existing overhead utility lines at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. This is a voluntary off -site community benefit provided by the applicant in order to improve the aesthetic character of the area. The Subdivision Code (Title 19 of the Municipal Code) requires that utility lines for the project be underground. Since there are existing overhead utility lines to the site, the applicant will be required to place these lines underground to the nearest utility pole. Undergrounding of overhead lines beyond that point would not be required by Code. Response to Comment No. 9 -5 The proposed Aerie project has been designed utilizing "green" architecture criteria and energy efficient design, including but not limited to the following features: • Design to maximize solar orientation to increase the use of daylighting concepts and reduce energy usage. • Use of high - thermal mass for capturing and retaining heat through solar heat gain apertures. • Optimum overhangs to minimize harsh summer sun exposures while allowing winter heat gain. • Natural ventilation systems that capitalize on prevailing ocean breezes and thermal convection dynamics. • Dual paned glazing systems using "Low -E" glass (both non - mechanical and hybrid systems). • Solar domestic hot water and pool heating. • Solar photovoltaic arrays to generate electricity. • Multi- zoned, high velocity hydronic heating and cooling systems. • Instantaneous hot water boilers with solar domestic hot water assist. • Reduction of energy use through high efficacy lighting fixtures. • Lutron Homeworks interactive lighting control systems. The comment asks why another project incorporating such design features is not being built instead. To the extent that these often expensive features are not required by local, state or federal regulations, their inclusion into the project is a business decision of the applicant rather than a regulatory decision imposed by the agency. Many or all of these features could be incorporated into another project. The City has the discretion to approve or deny the project as proposed. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 1 Page 37 Response to Comment No. 9 -6 This comment reflects the opinion of the commenter and raises no environmental issues. No response is necessary. Response to Comment No. 9 -7 The comment questions Project Objective No. 5 and indicates that the project will decrease parking on the street. This statement is incorrect in that the length of the curb cut that currently provides vehicular access to the site will be substantially reduced. This will result in the creation of three on- street public parking spaces. The addition of these on- street parking spaces is considered a beneficial impact, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. Second, the project proposes a total of 25 parking spaces for the 8 condominiums, including 16 for residents, eight visitor spaces, and one service vehicle space. Additionally, two parking spaces have been provided for golf carts. This far exceeds the City's requirement of 20 parking spaces for an 8 -unit condominium structure on the site. One residential unit and five guest parking spaces will not rely upon the use of the vehicle elevators. Two vehicle elevators are proposed to provide access to the remaining subterranean parking, which will minimize inconvenience and conflict. As indicated in Section 4.2 (refer to page 4.2 -7), the entire elevator loading, elevator motion, and unloading procedure requires between one and one and one half minutes. Maintenance of the elevators will be required and emergency power supply will be required to ensure use of the elevators during a power outage. As a result, project residents and guests will be well served by on -site parking. Response to Comment No. 9 -8 The commenter is directed to Section 4.5 (Aesthetics), and particularly to the 17 visual simulations contained in that section. Although project implementation will result in the introduction of a different structure on the site, views from important public vantages (e.g., Begonia Park) would not be inhibited as a result of the project. Views through the site from the "public view point" at Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue adjacent to the project would be enhanced As indicated in Response to Comment No. 2 -20, all invasive plant species will also be removed. . The view angle through the site from that location to the harbor and ocean would be increased by approximately 76 percent as a result of project implementation. In addition, the project will result in an enhanced view of the bluff below the proposed building when viewed from the Bay. Presently, the bluff face is altered to varying degrees with retaining walls supporting the apartment building and exterior walkways. This bluff face alteration due to existing development extends down the bluff faced to varying elevations from approximately 68 feet to as low as 42.3 feet. As a result of development, these altered portions of the bluff face below elevation 50.7 feet NAVD88 (PLOED) will be restored. The remainder of the bluff face below the PLOED established by the City Council will be preserved. These aspects of the proposed project will avoid a significant impact to the visual quality and views (which is a goal of the PLOED policies adopted by the City). Views from important public vantages such as Begonia Park would not be significantly affected by the proposed project. The EIR Aesthetics analysis evaluated three views from Begonia Park (refer to Exhibits 4.5 -9, 4.5 -10, and 4.5 -11): From the lower bench within the Park (Exhibit 4.5 -9), the harbor and ocean to the west are clearly visible following implementation of the project. The proposed multiple - family residential structure and associated landscaping will extend outward onto the bluff and encroach slightly into the viewshed beyond the limits of the existing apartment building and single - family residence that currently occupy the site. However, only a small portion of the ocean view at the horizon would be affected by the proposed project from the lower Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public comments May 2009n Page 38 d bench of Begonia Park; no portion of the harbor visible from this location would be affected by the proposed project. From the upper bench of Begonia Park (Exhibit 4.5 -10), it is apparent that site development would extend outward onto the north face of the bluff, affecting a small area of the ocean view at the horizon. Similar to the lower bench view, no portion of the harbor view would be affected. The final visual simulation of the proposed project from Begonia Park (Exhibit 4.5 -11) reveals that although the northerly encroachment of the multiple - family residential structure into the viewshed will occur, the effect on this view will be minimal. Only a small portion of the ocean at the horizon in the background would be eliminated from view and the view of the harbor is not reduced; however, this change would not be significant because it represents a nearly indistinguishable increment of the total viewshed and, in particular, the ocean view. Based on the significance criteria identified in Section 4.5.2, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant aesthetic impacts. Specifically, as discussed above, the proposed structure would not adversely affect views from Begonia Park. Finally, the proposed project includes the voluntary undergrounding of existing off -site overhead utility poles and overhead lines at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue to improve and enhance the aesthetic character of the area. The City cannot require the undergrounding of the off -site overhead power lines and utility pole removal other than the power lines that extend from the utility pole directly across Carnation Avenue to the project. This comment expresses the opinion that the undergrounding of the utility lines and utility pole removal is insignificant. This opinion is noted and no further response is necessary. Response to Comment No. 9 -9 Project Objective No. 8 indicates that the applicant wants to minimize the project's impact upon private views by developing a project on average four feet below the zoning district's development standards. The comment suggests that the DEIR comment on the impact of the project's "maximum exceedences (sic)" that will occur. The project does not exceed the height limit of the zoning code and private views are not protected by any City policy or regulation. The commenter is directed to Section 4.5 (Aesthetics), and particularly to the 17 visual simulations contained in that section, for a discussion regarding the project's impact upon views. Response to Comment No. 9 -10 Table 1 -1 in the Chapter 1.0 (Executive Summary) is not intended to provide an exhaustive analysis of the proposed project. Rather it provides a matrix that summarizes the potentially significant project- related impacts, mitigation measures (including standard conditions and project design features), and the residual impacts anticipated after the implementation of the project with the "mitigation." The conclusions contained in Table 1 -1 are based on the analysis presented in each of the topical sections (e.g., Land Use /Relevant Planning, Traffic and Circulation, Noise, etc.), which reflect the findings and recommendations in each of the relevant technical studies prepared for the project as well as other research and analysis conducted for the project. The analysis of relevant General Plan policies (refer to Table 4.1 -1) and Coastal Land Use Plan policies (refer to Table 4.1 -2) revealed that the proposed project does adequately address the relevant policies and is consistent with those policies, including the provision of the 8 -slip dock. Recognizing that Table 1 -1 is a summary, the commenter is referred to each of the individual sections to obtain a better understanding of the analysis presented in the DEIR. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 3 Page 39 Response to Comment No, 9 -11 Section 4.9.3 (refer to page 4.9 -3) identifies four "standard conditions ", including compliance with all applicable City codes (e.g., Excavation and Grading Ordinance) and the California Building Code requirements to ensure that potential soils and geologic characteristics that affect site development are adequately addressed in the grading and building design. In addition, extensive analysis of the site's soils and geologic conditions have been undertaken and completed, which serve to guide development of the site. Response to Comment No. 9 -12 The waiver of shoreline protection that will be executed by the property owner requires, as a condition of building the project and obtaining a coastal development permit, that the property owner waive its right under the coastal act to install future shoreline protective devices, such as a seawall, if its property is threatened by marine erosion. This requirement is a standard condition required by CLUP Policy 2.8.6 -9 that is applied for all development occurring along the City's coastal bluff areas. Response to Comment No. 9 -13 This is a standard condition that has no specific application to this project except for the concrete pad. As pointed out in this comment, no new accessory structures are proposed. There is no information known to the City related to routine maintenance, soil integrity, or coastal erosion that has not been disclosed to the public in the DEIR and supporting technical studies. Additionally, routine maintenance is not a "project' in the context of CEQA necessitating environmental analysis. Response to Comment No. 9 -14 The geotechnical study prepared by Neblett & Associates was subject to a third party review by GMU. That review resulted in some comments on the analysis conducted for the proposed project, which have been addressed by the project geologist. In addition, the soils and geologic reports prepared for the proposed project have been submitted to the City for review by the City's Building and Safety Department. The project shall be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in those reports, subsequent detailed soils engineering studies, and applicable City and State building code requirements. All final plans and final engineering report and calculations will be subject to plan check review, which will be performed by the City Building Department engineers to ensure that the grading and structural designs comply with the requirements stipulated by the geologist and the requirements of the most current California Building Code. Response to Comment No. 9 -15 The "first section" (i.e., Potential Impacts) in Table 1 -1 for biological resources is not applicable. The Standard Conditions identified in the next column (i.e., Mitigation Measures) are simply conditions that must be implemented by all projects (e.g., compliance with local, state and /or federal laws and regulations, etc.) in the event they are applicable. In this case, because a portion of the project is located Within the marine environment, the project must comply with State law related to marine organisms. In addition, because the site is located within the City's coastal zone, the City requires the use of native, drought tolerant plant species consistent with the coastal environment. The "standard conditions' are not mitigation measures; however, they will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (MMRP) to ensure that the project complies with all local, state and federal requirements. Response to Comment No. 9 -16 Refer to Response to Comment No. 9 -14. Aene (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Ad 1 Page 40 Response to Comment No. 9 -17 The "qualified" biologist will be selected by the applicant subject to approval by the City of Newport Beach. The biologist shall possess any requisite certifications that may be required by the California Department of Fish and Game and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct the pre - construction surveys. Response to Comment No. 9 -18 The commenter's statement does not reflect the facts and analysis as presented in the DER. All of the project design features incorporated to avoid potentially significant impacts are enumerated in both the executive summary (Table 1 -1), Section 4.7, and the CMP. The commenter is directed to those discussions to better understand the means by which the project applicant has agreed to implement pre- emptive measures to avoid impacts to biological resources. Response to Comment No. 9 -19 The 30 square feet of eelgrass bed that has a potential to be affected by the project represents 0.3% of the eelgrass mapped in 2005 (10,155 square feet) and 2007 (10, 082 square feet), both within Carnation Cove and in the vicinity of the proposed dock project. It represents 0.8% of the total amount of eelgrass just in the vicinity of the proposed dock. Response to Comment No. 9 -20 Refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 3 -24 and 5 -5. Response to Comment No. 9 -21 The construction impacts to eelgrass are fully addressed in the biological assessment and in Section 4.7 in the DER. Construction impacts relate to potential loss of eelgrass during pile emplacement and the spread of turbidity plumes. All piles will be pre - drilled, since there is rock and shale below the surface. A steel sleeve can be placed around the drilling operation to control the sedimentation during the installation process. The contractor and coastal engineer will also work to contain and /or minimize the tailings from the hole, to reduce impacts to water quality and eelgrass bed resources. Measures to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance any loss of eelgrass are set forth in the CMP and on page 4.7 -16 in the Draft EIR. Response to Comment No. 9 -22 Should losses of eelgrass be documented during the pre -and post-construction surveys, a detailed mitigation plan will be developed at that time to offset project losses of eelgrass and included as part of the Coastal Commission permit conditions. Losses of eelgrass will be mitigated at a mitigation -to- impact ratio of 1.2 to 1 per the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991, as amended) by conducting an eelgrass transplant program either on -site, or within Newport Bay. Contrary to the commenter's contention, when the formulation of the precise means of mitigating impacts is truly impractical at the time of project approval, the agency may devise measures that will satisfy specific performance criteria identified at the time of project approval. (See e.g., Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council, 229 Cal.App.3d 1011(1991).) The provisions of the CMP identified above constitute such a commitment by the applicant and the City to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance all potential impacts to eelgrass. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 n 4S I Page 41 Response to Comment No. 9 -23 As noted in the DEIR, the public has and will continue to have access to Carnation Cove up to the mean high tide line. Neither the applicant nor the future residents have the authority to restrict that access at the present time. The cove is currently not designated as a protected resource (e.g., ESHA) and there are no legal impediments to the enjoyment by the public of the cove below the mean high tide line. Nonetheless, the CMP provides for measures to restrict enjoyment of the cove by workers during construction in order to avoid potential impacts to the sand dollars from their use of the cove. To achieve that objective, the CMP provides for the use of signage and tape to clearly identify the area and discourage use by construction workers. A project marine biologist will perform weekly onsite inspections to assure that the required protections are in place (refer to page 4-7-18 in the Draft EIR). Response to Comment No. 9 -24 This comment simply disagrees with the conclusion presented in the Draft EIR without providing any basis for that disagreement. The conclusion in the Draft EIR that visual impacts are not significant is based on an extensive visual analysis that includes several visual simulations that illustrates the proposed project from vantages in the project environs. As suggested in that analysis, views to the site will be altered by the development; however, the proposed project has been designed to avoid significant visual impacts. The project respects the predominant line of existing development established by the City and the structure has been sited to conform to the bluff topography. Building materials, colors and landscaping have been incorporated into the project to complement the natural topographic features. Views from Begonia Park are not significantly affected. Although views from the channel would be momentarily affected by the construction of the boat dock and related facilities, no important visual amenity (e.g.. rock outcropping, cove, etc.) would be destroyed or permanently affected. Furthermore, views through the site will be enhanced as a result of the underground of some overhead utilities and an expansion of views through the site from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. As a result, potential visual impacts would not be significant. Response to Comment No. 9 -25 This comment suggests that the lighting mitigation section is incomplete. Although SC 4.5 -1 was mislabeled as SC 4.5.1 on page 4.5 -2, three standard conditions (not mitigation measures) are included in this section of the Draft EIR, which is not incomplete. Response to Comment No. 9 -26 SC 4.5 -3 (not SC 4.5 -2 as indicated in this comment) requires the applicant to dedicate a view easement on the subject property. The intent of the view easement, which will be in favor of the public, is the protection and enhancement of public views through the site from Ocean Boulevard. As indicated in SC 4.5 -3, the site must be designed to ensure that views are not blocked by structures and /or landscaping. The view easement is required to ensure that the view preservation and enhancement provided by the project remain in perpetuity for the benefit of the public. Response to Comment No. 9 -27 Encroachment into the Monterey Formation alone does not result in an actual impact, although it does create the potential for impacts to paleontological resources. However, those potential impacts are less than significant because a paleontological monitor will be present during grading activities (SC 4.10 -2). As indicated in that condition, the paleontological monitor has the authority to redirect or halt excavation until the fossils are evaluated and /or savaged. Furthermore, any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, will be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository, thereby avoiding potentially significant impacts. Aene (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 20092 Page 42 Response to Comment No. 9 -28 The commenter presumably expresses the opinion that there will be a negative impact to the public due to the project's increased street parking and a belief that the project will hade and hinder availability of beaches to the public. The commenter provides no basis or facts to support this contention. As set forth in Section 4.2 (Traffic and Circulation), project implementation will create three (3) additional on- street parking spaces (and not reduce it) with a reduction in the length of the existing driveway approach that currently provides access to the site. The proposed project provides a total of 25 off - street parking spaces (including two golf cart spaces and not including six "lift" parking spaces), which exceeds the City's off - street parking requirement of 20 spaces. By providing parking in excess of requirements, there will be reduced demand for street parking. With or without the project, the beach below the bluff is not visible from public areas adjacent to the project site. Project impacts would not result in any hindrance to public beach access. The cove below the bluff would not be blocked by the proposed dock and will remain accessible to kayakers and swimmers in the area to the same extent that it has been historically. Response to Comment No. 9 -29 The commenter provides conclusory statements without stating any basis for those conclusions. The only possible response is referring the commenter to the detailed discussion of drainage and hydrology contained in the DEIR. Section 4.6 (Drainage and Hydrology) provides a discussion of the post - development runoff and the potential impacts to water quality, including the effect on Newport Bay, which is an "impaired" water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. As required by the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the applicant has prepared a Draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to address construction- and post - construction water quality impacts, respectively. These plans include best management practices (BMPs) to filter pollutants, including bacteria, from stormwater to ensure that downstream water quality is not impacted. Several of the routine structural and non - structural BMPs are identified in the Section 4.6.4 0 the Draft EIR. In addition, several measures are also incorporated as "project design features" in the CMP, which also serve to avoid significant water quality impacts. As indicated on page 4.6 -11 in the Draft EIR, with the incorporation of the measures prescribed in the CMP. The potential impacts to marine life are discussed in Section 4.7 (Biological Resources). Impacts to eelgrass, Carnation Cove marine life, marine mammals, including special status marine species, etc., are discussed in Section 4.74. To ensure that dock construction activities do not adversely affect marine life, several project design features have been included in the CMP as indicated above. These measures are also identified on page 4.7 -16 (eelgrass) and other marine creatures (invertebrates). No significant impacts are anticipated to occur to marine fishes, mammals, reptiles, or birds. Response to Comment No. 9 -30 Based on a population per household (pph) of 2.19 persons (OCP- 2006), the proposed project would support fewer than 20 persons. The site currently supports 15 dwelling units on the site, including 14 apartment units and one single - family residence. Only three of the 15 units are currently occupied. However, if all of the units were to be occupied, the site would support about 33 residents based on the 2.19 pph in the City. As a result, the proposed project would support fewer residents that the existing apartment building and single - family residence. Relative to density, the proposed project has a density of the proposed project is less than six dwelling units per acre (du /ac), compared to over 10 dulac for the existing development. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 2147 Page 43 10. Coast Law Group (May 4, 2009) Response to Comment Nos. 10 -1 through 10 -5 The commenter offers the interpretation that Natural Resources Policy NR23.1 provides two separate and distinct development objectives that are to minimize alteration of a site's natural topography and to preserve the site's features as a visual resource. The commenter points to CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -12 and the narrative of the Coastal Land Use Plan regarding the goal to control bluff face development to minimize further alteration. These two objectives cannot be separate and distinct when considering that CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8 that allows development on the Corona del Mar bluff faces provided it is done so in accordance with the identified PLOED. If minimizing alteration of a site's topography were a separate goal, minimizing alteration would suggest no alteration beyond that associated with existing development would be allowable. If this were the case, a site well within the PLOED could not achieve development levels comparable to the predominant development pattern and an inequity would be created that is contrary to Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9. Both of the NR23.1 objectives are achieved when development does not alter the topography of the site in excess of the PLOED. The comment incorrectly states that the intent of the CLUP is to prohibit any further alteration of coastal bluffs in Corona del Mar. Development on coastal bluff faces in Corona del Mar, including Carnation Avenue, is controlled to minimize further alteration and is permitted by CLUP Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9. Development must be within the PLOED. The City Council established a PLOED for the site at elevation 50.7 feet NAVD88. The project is proposed to be more than two feet higher than the PLOED at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD88, except for a dock access /emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD88, which will be recessed and screened from public view by rocks and/or landscape elements. The basement and sub- basement levels are subterranean and will not be visible from either the street or the bay. Project implementation will result in the removal of man -made elements (except the existing access stair on the bluff face) located below the PLOED that currently affect the visual character and integrity of the bluff. Specifically, the bluff face is altered to varying degrees with retaining walls supporting the apartment building and exterior walkways. This bluff face alteration due to existing development extends down the bluff faced to varying elevations from approximately 68 feet to as low as 42.3 feet. As a result of development, these altered portions of the bluff face below elevation 50.7 feet NAVD88 ( PLOED) will be restored. The remainder of the bluff face below the PLOED established by the City Council will be preserved. These aspects of the proposed project will avoid a significant impact to the visual quality and views and will result in an enhanced view of the bluff below the proposed building when viewed from the Bay. The commenter suggests that that the project is inconsistent with a portion of CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8 that ..permits such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists..." The reference in CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8 to "such improvements' has been interpreted by the City Council to refer to the "public improvements' referenced in the first sentence of the policy and not "private development." Therefore, the commenter's interpretation of Policy 4.4.3 -8 is not accurate. The comment further states that "to the extent bluff - related development is permitted in the Corona del Mar area at all, it must be consistent with and limited to the scope of pre- existing structures such that further landform alterations are avoided. These limitations apply because bluff face development is now strictly prohibited and is only allowed per those grand- fathered uses." The commenter presumably believes that bluff face further development of bluff faces is prohibited except where pre- existing structures have altered the bluff face. Indeed this is one interpretation of PLOED policies, but it fails to recognize the fundamental principal of the policy. Properties are presently developed on the bluff face to differing degrees and those properties that are not developed consistent with the predominant development pattern are allowed to further alter the bluff face to achieve development judged to be within the identified predominant development pattern; it is a way to preserve a measure of equity in property rights by allowing similar lots in similar topographic settings to be developed in a similar manner. In this Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 44 case, the City Council considered the existing development along the Carnation /Ocean bluff and the identified the PLOED at 50.7 feet NAVD88. The project is proposed to be more than two feet higher than the PLOED at elevation 52.83 feet, except for a dock access /emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet that is recessed and screened from public view. As a result, the proposed project is consistent with existing development pattern of the area and it preserves the bluff face below the proposed residential structure as a visual resource in a manner that minimized alteration of the site's natural topography consistent with CLUP and General Plan policy. Response to Comment No. 10 -6 The comment incorrectly concludes that that CLUP's policies apply to subterranean excavation and "lateral encroachments." This conclusion is not supported by the plain wording of the CLUP policies. The referenced policies (4.4.3) never discuss subterranean excavation and /or lateral encroachments. To the contrary, they regularly make reference to "bluff faces" (4.4.3 -8, 4.4.3 -9). Therefore, the DER properly concludes that the project is consistent with the CLUP policies analyzed in Table 4.1 -2. With respect to minimizing landform alteration, refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 10 -1 through 10 -3. Response to Comment No. 10 -7 The comment incorrectly states that the project will result in the eradication of the site's underlying coastal bluff. As stated in these responses to comments, the lowest elevation of the proposed project (other than the dock accesslemergency exit) is approximately 10 feet higher on the bluff than the lowest extent of a portion of the foundation of the existing residential structure. Additionally, excavation behind the bluff face will not adversely affect either the stability of the bluff or appearance of the bluff. The issues raised by this comment are fully addressed in General Plan and CLUP consistency analyses (refer to Tables 4.1 -1 and 4.1 -2, respectively) in Section 4.1 of the DEIR. It is important to note that the reason to minimize landform alteration is to avoid visual impacts in the context of the CLUP policies and Coastal Act. Alteration of the bluff below and behind the bluff face and PLOED does not compromise either the integrity of the bluff as intended in Policy NR 23.1 or the PLOED as established by the City Council. While the intent of Policy NR 23.1 may be the "preservation" of the bluff, development must balance the goals of maintaining /enhancing the aesthetic character of a coastal bluff and, at the same time, minimize landform alteration. The project has been designed to achieve that balance by respecting the PLOED as established by the City Council, incorporation of a landscape palette that is complementary to the City's coastal bluff environment, and siting and designing the structure to conform to the existing bluff topography. As a result, the project is consistent with the intent of these policies. Response to Comment No. 10 -8 The commenter provides conclusory statement without stating any basis for those conclusions. The comment alleges that excavation associated with the proposed project would "set an incredibly poor precedent for future develop merit in the area and would lead to the complete destruction of the City's coastal bluffs over time." This is incorrect. Developments like the proposed project require extensive environmental review prior to approval. If such future projects could lead to bluff instability or erosion impacts, those issues would be examined in the course of that environmental review. Ultimately, the City will make an individualized determination as to the appropriateness of a given project for a given site. It is therefore both inaccurate and irresponsible to suggest that approval of the proposed project would somehow "lead to the complete destruction of the City's coastal bluffs over time." The comment further alleges that excavation associated with the proposed project would "would permanently alter the 100,000 year -old bluff in favor of leaving a rock 'pillar that is only expected to remain in place for the structure's 75 -year economic life." This intentionally misrepresents the DEIR's Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 2 �l9 � "f Page 45 reference to a 75 -year economic life. The reference to 75 years in the DEIR was not intended as an upper -limit on the durability of the rock pillar. Instead, it was a direct response to CLUP Policy 2.8.6 -10, which requires developers to "[s]ite and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff Protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years)." A number of technical studies have been prepared to assess the potential project to ensure that development of the site is consistent with CLUP Policy 2.8.6 -10. These studies include: (1) Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005; (2) Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006; (3) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated June 2005 (revised January 17, 2008); and (4) Hydrology analysis prepared by Hunsaker & Associates Irvine dated March 2007 (Revised December 20, 2007). Collectively, the findings of these studies and technical review documents indicate that the project will neither be subject to nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). In addition, the proposed project will be designed to comply with current CBC structural design parameters and other measures prescribed in the geologic/geotechnical report prepared for the project. Additionally, to further validate the conclusions of the studies pertaining to the stability of the bluff, the City retained an independent third party geologist to review the stability issue. That third party geologist, GMU, concurred with the conclusions of the reports regarding bluff stability. Although footnote 4 of this comment suggests that the engineering and geological studies defy common sense, the reality is those studies are based on sound scientific and engineering data and analysis. Additionally, footnote 5 of this comment states that the DEIR does not identify the square footage of the site's residential structures. The DEIR provided information related to the size of the site, number of units, percent of site coverage to provide the appropriate baseline for evaluating project impacts. As a point of information, the square footage of the site's existing residential structures is approximately 16,493 square feet. (Note: This number is referenced in the Air Quality Technical Appendix.) Response to Comment No. 10 -9 Refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 3 -8, 2 -11, 3 -18, and 10-4. The comment states that "the Project violates the protective policies of the General Plan and CLUP), as the proposed development has not been designed to 'minimize alteration' of the site's natural topography and underlying bluff "to the maximum extent feasible." (Emphasis in original.) The City disagrees. The project is proposed to be more than two feet higher than the PLOED at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD88, except for a dock access /emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD88. As a point of reference, the lowest reach down the bluff face of the existing apartment building is 42.3 feet NAVD88. Project implementation will therefore result in up to a maximum of approximately 10 additional vertical feet of bluff face along a portion of the bluff that is currently altered, as compared with existing conditions. As an added benefit, the man -made features (e.g., concrete remnants, pipes, etc.) would be removed from the bluff face below the proposed structure, which would be landscaped and enhanced with native plant materials. Response to Comment No. 10 -10 The comment incorrectly concludes that the proposed project would result in "significant visual and aesthetic impacts under CEQA" because it will be taller and larger than existing development. This comment reflects disagreement with the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR. However, it does not provide new facts or new analysis that would permit a meaningful response. Other than noting that the project is not a high rise structure and it is not the tallest structure nor the structure with the greatest number of stories in the vicinity, the commenter is referred to the analysis in Section 4.1 (Land Use /Relevant Planning) and Section 4.5 (Aesthetics) for the detailed analysis supporting the conclusions presented in the DEIR. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 1 50 Page 46 Response to Comment No. 10 -11 It should be noted that a comparative floor area analysis, as suggested in this comment, is not necessarily the only or best measure of determining potential visual impacts related to the physical mass of a particular structure within a visual context. Other factors, such as architecture, building materials, site design, and conformity with the natural topographic features, in this case, a coastal bluff, are but a few of the factors that determine a project's potential visual impacts. The Corona del Mar community is represented by a variety of architectural styles and designs and is characterized by a range of smaller single - family detached residences to large, multiple - family structures when viewed from the harbor. Although the proposed multiple - family structure be unique in character, its mass would not be unique when compared to other structures in the immediate vicinity, including the Channel Reef development. What the comment characterizes as an "abuse of discretion" is reference to a much larger project two lots from the proposed project. To the contrary, to pretend that the diversity of architecture and structures within the neighborhood does not exist would ignore the directives of CEQA to analyze the project in the context of the existing environment. Many of the 17 visual simulations contained in Section 4.5 clearly depict the diverse structures both in terms of design and mass that are present in the neighborhood. In addition, these simulations illustrate that the physical mass of the proposed structure is not out of character when viewed in context with the existing structures. Response to Comment No. 10 -12 This comment is incorrect. The height and bulk of the boats anticipated to utilize the proposed dock facilities are illustrated in each of the visual simulations from the harbor vantages (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -14 through 4.5 -19). As indicated in those visual simulations and discussed in the accompanying analysis of the view impacts, the potential effects of the proposed docks would alter views from several vantages; however, the views would only be interrupted for a short period of time as one travels up and down the channel. None of the existing aesthetic amenities (e.g., bluff formations below the PLOED, rock outcroppings, cove, etc.) would be destroyed or permanently damaged as a result of project implementation and views to the bluff and below, although temporarily affected, would not be lost. As a result, potential visual impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Response to Comment Nos. 10-13 and 10 -14 As indicated in the visual analysis and reiterated in Response to Comment No. 10 -12, none of the existing rock outcroppings would be destroyed or permanently altered. The proposed project has been designed in accordance with the established predominant line of existing development (PLOED) established by the Newport Beach City Council with the exception of the emergency access, which has been designed to be indiscernible from the harbor. Exhibit 4.5-4 (Simulation V02) does provide a visual perspective from Channel Road Beach, which is located across the channel from the subject property. As indicated in that visual simulation and discussed on page 4.5 -8 in the Draft EIR, when occupied by one or more boats, the proposed boat docks would also obscure some of the rock features located below the bluff. However, it is important to note that views of the majority of the natural features located north of the proposed docks would not be affected. The affect would be similar to that related to view blockage that would occur with boats that could be docked at the existing dock facilities. Therefore, while the proposed project would result in some long -term obstruction from public vantages along the Peninsula, the incremental effect of such obstruction when compared to the existing obstructions as well as those that could occur from the use of the existing docks would be less than significant. Aerie (PA 2006 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 C Page 47 Response to Comment No. 10 -15 Refer to Response to Comment No. 2 -21. Response to Comment No. 10 -16 Based on the data provided in Section 7 of the referenced report, and using a distance of 130 feet from the proposed dock construction to the beach at Carnation Cove, it is estimated that the average construction noise level will be 72 dB(A) and the maximum noise level will be 77 dB(A) during the drilling phase. During the concrete pile phase the estimated average construction noise level will be 69 dB(A) and the maximum noise level will be 77 dB(A). The estimated increase in noise level due to construction activities will be 14.6 to 21.5 dB(A) during the drilling phase and 11,6 to 18.5 dB(A) during the concrete pile phase. These levels do not substantially increase the severity of the identified noise impact and do not change the DEIR's finding of unavoidable significant construction noise impacts. Recreational uses in the small cove are limited to swimming and kayaking when the tide is higher in the Bay and occasionally sun bathing when the cove is exposed at low tide. Physical access from the water will be maintained during construction of the docks; however, visitors may choose to avoid the cove during the construction period. Noise would be intermittent during the day and intermittent during the overall construction. Assuming that access to the cove might be affected for up to 40 days, the resulting impact to access (for recreational use of the cove) is considered less than significant considered the intermittent, short-term nature of the potential impact. With respect to footnote 7, crane usage at the project site was estimated by the project's architect to occur for less than 15 percent of the time. The graphics in the Construction Noise and Vibration Study depict average conditions for each of the major construction phases. Inclusion of noise contour graphics for all types of equipment that would be used during the construction of the proposed project would not be practical. The noise contour graphics were included to portray typical noise level exposures at the noise sensitive uses proximate to the project site. Due to the intermittent and infrequent nature of crane usage at the project site, this noise source was not included as part of the portrayal of typical conditions. In addition, the inclusion of noise generated by intermittent crane usage would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of noise impacts or change the finding of unavoidable significant construction noise impacts nor would it substantially change the magnitude of noise generated at the project site. Response to Comment No. 10 -17 The commenter is correct that maximum noise levels were not identified in the main body of the DEIR. However, as indicated in the comment, they can be found in Appendix E of the DEIR. The location of these maximum noise levels within the DEIR does not affect the DEIR's analysis or conclusions. With regard to a "standard 65 dB threshold of significance for assessing residential noise impacts ", the 65 dB standard referred to in the comment is a community noise equivalent level (CNEL) standard and is applied only to transportation noise (e.g., traffic) since it considers 24 hours of continuous noise exposure. Construction noise is controlled by Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity — Noise Regulations) of the City's Municipal Code. This section of the Code controls construction noise by regulating the hours during which it is allowed to occur. There are no quantitative standards for construction noise levels. Response to Comment No. 10 -18 The noise impacts associated with the installation of concrete piles are discussed in Appendix E of the DEIR. Referring to the appendix, it can be seen that both the average and maximum construction noise levels during the concrete pile phase of dock construction are expected to be less than the noise levels during the drilling phase. The location of this discussion within the DEIR does not change the DEIR's finding of unavoidable significant construction noise impacts nor does it change the magnitude of construction noise generated at the project site. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Z 5 Page 48 The noise impacts at residences across the Channel are discussed in Appendix E of the DEIR. The location of this discussion within the DEIR does not change the DEIR's finding of unavoidable significant construction noise impacts. With regard to the 65 dB threshold, please refer to Response 10 -17. Response to Comment No. 10.19 The comment states that the vibration analysis only addresses construction equipment working 80 feet from vibration - sensitive uses. Both the average and maximum vibration levels were assessed as shown in Table 18 of the Construction Noise and Vibration Study. The average vibration level is based on equipment operating at the center of the project site, approximately 80 feet from the nearest residence. The maximum vibration level is based on equipment generally working between 9 and 13 feet from the nearest residence as shown in the attached tables. The attached table summarizing vibration further supports the conclusions regarding vibration impacts set forth in the DEIR. Response to Comment No. 10-20 The comment requests that cosmetic and structural damage be taken into account in the DEIR. Cosmetic and structural damage from construction activities were evaluated as shown in the analysis starting on page 4.4 -22 of the DEIR, Section 7.2 of the Environmental Noise Study for the Construction of the Proposed Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project, and Section 4.2.2 of the Construction Noise and Vibration Study. Cosmetic and structural damage are considered as the same type of impact. The DEIR specifies cosmetic damage relative to project generated vibration because structural damage may imply damage to the structural integrity of a building, which would not occur due to construction activities. The comment also requests that the analysis consider site conditions, including the geology at the project site. The methodology for the assessment of vibration impacts is consistent with the methods adopted by the Federal Transit Administration for construction activities. Prediction of vibration impacts is inherently difficult due to the multitude of variables, such as geologic strata, soil type, presence of water, etc. The most accurate method of determining levels of vibration at sensitive uses is through the use of vibration monitoring equipment included in the Construction Management Plan (CMP). The CMP requires that vibration probes be placed at 215 Carnation Avenue to monitor construction activities at the site due to its proximity and relationship to the subject property. A vibration monitoring program will identify any construction activity that exceeds the criteria for cosmetic damage. If cosmetic damage occurs, the applicant has agreed to indemnify the property owners in the immediately contiguous lots against any losses resulting from that cosmetic damage, provided that those contiguous owners provide the applicant with access to their structures to allow a pre - demolition inspection of the current condition of their structures. With the implementation of the vibration monitoring, which includes use of alternative methods if vibration levels have the potential to cause cosmetic or structural damage and the requirement to indemnify property owners of vibration - induced cosmetic /structural damage, vibration impacts were found to be less than significant. Response to Comment No. 10 -21 The comment states that the DEIR's analysis of annoyance from construction - generated vibration is deficient in that it exceeds the FTA's threshold of perceptibility. Although the vibration does exceed the threshold of perceptibility, as stated in the DEIR and the Construction Noise and Vibration Study, the assessment of human annoyance from construction vibration were based collectively on four criteria and not a single one: 1. perceptibility 2. frequency of occurrence 3. time of occurrence Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Z53 Page 49 4. duration These four criteria provide a more comprehensive approach to the assessment of what constitutes "excessive" vibration impacts (as cited by the comment) as opposed to the sole criterion of vibration perceptibility. An example of this is inherent in the assessment of construction noise. Construction noise would be perceptible for hundreds of feet and, in some instances, thousands of feet. However, the mere audibility of construction noise does not constitute an impact. As with the assessment of vibration impacts, the same factors required for vibration assessment need to be considered. For example, if a backhoe were used for utility trenching along a roadway during the day for four months, the noise from this activity would be perceptible, but, due to the occurrence during the least noise sensitive portion of the day, it would not be a significant construction noise impact. However, if this same backhoe were working in the late night for the same amount of time to avoid causing traffic congestion, it would likely be construed as a significant construction noise impact due to the increased sensitivity people have to noise during the late night. The noise generation from the backhoe would remain the same, but the other factors need to be considered in the overall assessment of vibration impacts. Because of the importance of these four criteria, the vibration impact analysis for construction activities does not rely solely on perceptibility to determine potential vibration impacts. Response to Comments No. 10-22 through 10 -27 Comments acknowledged. Refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 2 -9, 2 -36, and 4 -5. In regards to vessel transit, vessels transit throughout Newport Harbor transit over eelgrass beds in the vicinity of Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, Balboa Peninsula, Bay Island, and Harbor/Linda Isles, and within yacht club basins. Except for where depths are extremely shallow (at the inner edges of docks), we have observed no propeller scars or evidence of adverse impacts due to normal vessel movement approaching docks. Eelgrass in the vicinity of the project dock area is located at depths between -6 to -12 ft MLLW. These depths are sufficient for vessel transit to and from the docks without adverse impacts to eelgrass. The commenter further expresses the opinion that the proposed dock structures are not consistent with CLUP Policies 4.1.4 -3 and 4.2.5 -1 in that they have not been designed to avoid impacts to eelgrass to the "greatest extent possible" and that insufficient mitigation is proposed for operation of the slips. Policy 4.1.4 -3 calls for the design of structures including floating docks over the water to "avoid impacts to eelgrass meadows." Policy 4,2.5 -1 states; "Avoid impacts to eelgrass (Zostera marina) to the greatest extent possible. Mitigate the loss of eelgrass at a 1.2 to 1 mitigation ratio and in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Encourage the restoration of eelgrass throughout Newport Harbor where feasible." Both policies provide for mitigation of impacts. Refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 2 -9, 2 -36, and 4 -5 and Section 4.7 (Biological Resources) of the DEIR for a discussion of measures that have been incorporated within the project to avoid and mitigate impacts to eelgrass. The proposed docks have been designed to avoid the eelgrass beds to the maximum extent while providing one slip per unit and maintaining necessary maneuvering area between the proposed docks and nearby docks for the safety of use. The only possible way to avoid impacts and further is to provide a smaller dock structure thereby providing berthing for fewer boats or smaller boats. Given the nature of the propose project, this change is not practical; however, the City Council will need to consider if the project has avoided and mitigated impacts to eelgrass consistent with CLUP policies. In regards to potential vessel - related impacts, vessels constantly transit throughout Newport Harbor over eelgrass beds and except where depths are extremely shallow (at the inner edges of docks at low tides), no propeller scars or evidence of adverse impacts due to normal vessel movement approaching docks have been observed. Eelgrass in the vicinity of the project dock area is located at depths between -6 to -12 ft MLLW. These depths are sufficient for vessel transit to and from the docks without adverse impacts to eelgrass. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 54- r Page 50 Response to Comment Nos. 10 -28 through 10 -32 The construction work associated with the docks and gangway will not result in any significant impacts to the sand dollar habitat or eelgrass beds. Materials associated with the disassembly and demolition of the docks and the'over the water gangway' will be removed via a barge. The removal and repair on the upper fixed pier walkway will be completed from the walkway level after a protective barrier (15 mil Stegowrap) has been placed below it during construction to minimize the possibility that construction debris could impact the marine environment. As shown in the figure associated with comment 4 -5, sand dollars have not been identified in the sandy area near the pier walkway. That figure is based on a survey performed in August 2008 by Coastal Resource Management. As a result, all work associated with the upper fixed pier walkway will maintain a distance of no less than 50 feet from the sand dollar habitat. The repair to the concrete piers will be from the sandy area below and completed during low tide. Again, as shown in the figure associated with Response to Comment 4 -5, no sand dollars are located in this area. Each pier area will be protected by draping a 15 mil thick Stegowrap barrier over the sand and over the two -foot tall plywood wall that will be built around each concrete pier. All construction debris and concrete repairs will be contained within this 'clean zone' and will be removed from the site by the contractor by land. The construction barge will be outfitted with the drilling equipment, storage tanks, hoists, and materials, including the pre -cast piles. The concrete piles will be loaded onto the barge from a nearby shipyard, which will be the material loading and off - loading venue for the entire dock project. The drilling operation will incorporate a steel casing or sleeve around the hole to be drilled. During the drilling itself, a vacuum hose will extract debris from the casing and pump it into a storage tank on the barge, filtering materials from the sea water as it pumps. The concrete pre -cast pile will be hoisted from the barge into predrilled holes. Each pile will have a full depth silt curtain placed around it during the placement operation. Finally, the dock sections will be constructed and finished off site, delivered to the shipyard and floated to the Aerie site for assembly. Final utility distribution and dock accessories will be in -place on the floating dock. A marine biologist will monitor the dock demolition, pile installation and all associated rebuilding to ensure, among other things, implementation of Best Management Practices, as specified in the Construction Management Plan and DEIR (pages 4.7 -16, 18.) A silt screen will be placed across the entrance to the cove where eelgrass and sand dollar beds are located. The eelgrass silt curtains will be placed under the direction of the marine biologist for each operation. This will ensure that impacts to the intertidal marine resources will be avoided. Response to Comment No. 10 -33 Contrary to the commenter's contention, when the formulation of the precise means of mitigating impacts is truly impractical at the time of project approval, the agency may devise measures that will satisfy specific performance criteria identified at the time of project approval. (See e.g., Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council, 229 Cal.App.3d 1011(1991).) The commenter notes that surveys are proposed to be performed during the appropriate blooming window identified for each species, and argues that waiting for that blooming season is improper under CEQA. The basis for the commenter's contention appears to be that "all nine species are currently within their blooming window." However, the Notice of Preparation of the DEIR was published on September 23, 2008, and preparation of the DEIR, followed by public review, has occurred since that time. This period of preparation was not during the "blooming window" of the species, thus rendering the precise means of identifying and mitigating impacts to these species impractical. As a result, the CMP and the DEIR provide for a pre- construction nesting survey and a series of focused surveys to determine presence or absence of these species. As indicated in Section 4.7 (Biological Resources), a qualified botanist shall conduct focused surveys within the appropriate blooming windows to determine the presence or absence of these species. If during the focused surveys these Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 n 55 Page 51 species are identified as being impacted by the development, an incidental take permit pursuant to Section 2081 of California Fish and Game Code will be required before a grading permit may be issued. Additionally, the proposed bluff landscaping plan incorporates native drought tolerant plant species that must be found to be compatible and consistent with California coastal bluff environment. Thus, the legal requirements discussed above have been satisfied. The provisions of the CMP and the DEIR constitute the required commitment by the applicant and the City to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance all potential impacts to special status plant species. Response to Comment No. 10 -34 The Construction Management Plan requires one or more off -site parking location(s) to be secured in order to prevent construction workers from parking in the neighborhood surrounding the project site. The project applicant will be required to secure a binding agreement to accommodate the varying number of workers needed for each construction phase, which agreement shall be presented to the City prior to the issuance of the permits for the phase of construction that will require the off -site parking. This agreement must ensure that (1) the off -site parking location will commit a sufficient number of spaces to Aerie construction workers during the relevant term, and (2) the off -site location possesses the proper permits and authority to rent the subject spaces. Once the proper agreements are in place, two ten - passenger shuttle vans will run up to 6 -8 trips each morning and evening and up to 5 trips at lunch time to /from the project site and remote parking lot. Once again, because the actual dates of construction are not now known, it is not feasible, much less practical, for the applicant to identify specific impacts and mitigation at the time of project approval. Although the Construction Management Plan requires that the off -site parking location(s) will be within a 5 mile radius of the project site, it is not currently known when construction will commence, therefore it is not possible to execute binding agreements with off -site parking lot operators at this time. It is also not possible to evaluate any site - specific environmental impacts associated with an off -site parking location without engaging in speculation, which is prohibited by the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, the applicant has agreed to a condition requiring that, if the Planning Director determines that the operation of the off -site parking shuttle may result in one or more potentially significant environmental impacts that have not been evaluated in this DEIR, appropriate environmental review will commence pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act prior to the issuance of the permit for the applicable phase of construction. Thus, the legal requirements discussed in prior Responses have been satisfied. The provisions of the CMP and the DEIR constitute the required commitment by the City and the applicant to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance all potential impacts related to off -site parking. Response to Comment No. 10 -35 Refer to Response to Comment 8 -9. Section 2.6 (Construction Process) in the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) included in Appendix B of the Draft EIR includes a project design feature that limits only one truck at a time in 15 minute intervals at the project site. As indicated in the CMP, during the excavation process, flagmen will coordinate with the project foreman at the dump site who will radio in the dump trucks from the Olinda -Alpha Sanitary landfill. In addition, the flagmen will also coordinate ingress and egress of cement trucks and delivery trucks during the respective construction phases. As indicated in the CMP, these trucks would arrive at the site with no greater frequency than the discharge rate by the contractor so that no more than one truck is on -site at one time and that trucks will not need to queue on Carnation Avenue. Response to Comment No. 10 -36 Refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 8-4 and 8 -5 above. As indicated above, the CMP addresses all aspects of the construction activities anticipated to occur, including road and safety issues. Section 4.0 Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009n Page 52 (Traffic Control) identifies the haul routes, deliver requirements, and traffic control plan. Section 5.0 (Safety and Security) outlines the measures that will be implemented to ensure pedestrian safety, including fencing, appropriate signage and safe and clean pathways to the project site. In addition, a four - foot wide temporary crosswalk will be created across Carnation Avenue to direct pedestrians to the existing sidewalk on the southerly side of the street, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. Response to Comment No. 10-37 The project has been designed to comply with the California Fire Code. As indicated in Section 5.5 on page 5 -2 of the DEIR, a preliminary code compliance analysis was conducted by City staff. Based on that analysis, the proposed building is in compliance, although a final compliance determination will be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. If required, the project will be redesigned to address the Fir or Building Departments' comments, including the underground parking component. The project has been designed with several features to facilitate and enhance the provision of adequate fire protection, including an emergency communication device, automatic fire suppression system, automatic and manual fire alarm systems, a fire control room, a Class I wet standpipe, and other features as determined necessary by the Newport Beach Fire Department. Response to Comment No. 10-38 The commenter incorrectly states that the proposed project violates applicable floor area provisions. The calculation o f the maximum allowable gross floor area based upon applicable Zoning provisions and definitions provided with the Zoning Code (Title 20 of the Municipal Code). The maximum allowable gross floor area for a multi -unit development is 1.75 times the buildable are of the lot. The buildable area of the lot is defined as the lot area minus required setback areas. No provisions for the exclusion of submerged lands from the calculation of the maximum gross floor area exist. Response to Comment No. 10-39 To the extent that the comment is addressing the significant environmental impacts that could result from the granting of the approval of the modification to the setbacks, refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 3 -8, 3 -18, and 3 -23 for an explanation as to why there are no such significant impacts. To the extent that the comment is addressing the criteria for the approval of the proposed modification, that is not an environmental issue and no further response is necessary. Response to Comment No. 10 -40 The construction of the dock system will not significantly impact the use of the small cove by swimmers or kayaks. The docks are north of the entrance to the cove. Therefore, there is no impact to access or use of the cove. The construction time frame of the docks is estimated to be from May 16 to July 10, of which approximately three weeks will be required for the drilling operation. All construction materials and equipment will access the dock area from the bay via barges designed for this purpose. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (i.e., AB 939) requires that the County must maintain 15 years of available Countywide solid waste disposal capacity. The County's landfill system currently has a 15 -year capacity to accommodate the proposed project. As a result, project implementation will not result in any significant impacts on landfill capacity and, further, will not adversely affect the ability of the existing facilities operated and maintained by the Orange County Waste & Recycling (OCW &R) to provide adequate landfill capacity to serve the County. The Orange County landfill system has sufficient capacity to accommodate both the proposed project and future development within the County based on current plans and long -range capacity. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 2,15-7 Page 53 L _. The proposed dock facilities do not extend into the navigable waters of Newport Harbor. Therefore, project implementation will not adversely affect either navigation or recreation _In addition, the barge will stage for drilling and placement of the pre -cast piles landward of (i.e., outside) the 500' channel width and also landward of the line of the existing navigation station north of the docks. Dock construction is outside of the inbound general boating traffic lanes in the harbor channel. Response to Comment No. 10 -41 This comment reflects the commenter's conclusion that summarizes the prior comments. The comment is acknowledged; no further response is necessary. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 015S Page 54 11. California Regional Water Quality Control Board (May 5, 2009) Response to Comment No. 11 -1 The commenter seems to confuse the setting of the African Umbrella sedge on the slope, well above the bay /saltwater environment. As detailed in the December 12, 2008 GLA Delineation Report, the African umbrella sedge occurs on the slope, well above the limits of mean high water and there is no nexus between the location of the umbrella sedge and potential work associated with docks, etc. The comment that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Regional Board should be listed in Table 4.6 -2 is noted. The change will be made to the Final EIR. Response to Comment No. 11 -2 To prevent water quality impacts to Newport Bay, the proposed redevelopment has been designed with a series of BMPs (detailed in the project's conceptual WQMP and SWPPP documents incorporated by reference in the DEIR) in the proposed storm drain collection system to ensure runoff entering the harbor has been adequately treated. Refer to Section 4.7 for a discussion of the project design features related to mitigation and avoidance of eelgrass and sand dollar impacts. Response to Comment No. 11 -3 Enclosed in the Response to Comment document is a copy of WQMP Exhibit, A which illustrates the proposed water quality treatment system for the proposed redevelopment (exhibit attached). Response to Comment No. 11 -4 To provide a level of pretreatment an ADS storm water quality unit or approved equivalent will be incorporated into the project's storm drainage system to remove floatables, litter and some sediment in the site runoff before water enters the cistern vault for pumping to ground level for additional water quality treatment. Consequently, the DEIR, conceptual WQMP and conceptual SWPPP shall implement the following summary of the water quality treatment system for the proposed redevelopment when finalized: In the redeveloped condition, the majority of the project will reside below the existing grade of Carnation Avenue. The base of the structure will be approximately 45 -feet below the existing grade at Carnation Avenue. Storm discharges and roof runoff will be conveyed via a proposed drainage system consisting of pipe conduits, area drains and down spouts that will drain to a cistern located in the sub - basement level of the building. An ADS storm water quality unit or approved equivalent will pre -treat runoff to remove floatables, litter and some sediment before water enters the cistern vault. This drainage will then be pumped up to ground level and treated with a StormFilter and then, to an Abtech Smart Sponge Plus Drain Insert prior to tying into the existing public storm drain line and discharging to Lower Newport Bay to the west. Additionally, WQMP Exhibit A enclosed with the response to comment document (refer to Response for Comment 11 -2) has been updated to reflect the addition of the ADS storm water quality unit prior to water entering the cistern vault. As noted in the DEIR, a Draft SWPPP and WQMP have been submitted to the City of Newport Beach and are available for review at the City. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 55 Response to Comment No. 11 -5 BMP Compliance with SWRCB Water Quality Order No 99- 08.DWQ- General Permit for Construction Activity The potential impacts of construction activities on water quality focus primarily on sediments and turbidity and pollutants that might be associated with sediments (e.g., phosphorus and legacy pesticides). Construction - related activities that are primarily responsible for sediment releases are related to exposing soils to potential mobilization by rainfall /runoff and wind. Such activities include removal of vegetation from the site, grading of the site, and trenching for infrastructure improvements. Environmental factors that affect erosion include topographic, soil, and rainfall characteristics. Non sediment - related pollutants that are also of concern during construction include waste construction materials; chemicals, liquid products, and petroleum products used in building construction or the maintenance of heavy equipment; and concrete - related waste streams. Based on the Construction General Permit Notice of Intent (NO1) and construction phase SWPPP, construction impacts from project development shall be minimized through compliance with the Construction General Permit. This permit requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP, which must include erosion and sediment control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit, as well as BMPs that control the other potential construction - related pollutants. A SWPPP shall be developed as required by, and in compliance with, the Construction General Permit. Erosion control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. The General Permit requires the SWPPP to include a menu of BMPs to be selected and implemented based on the phase of construction and the weather conditions. BMPs on this menu include, but are not limited to: slope stabilization using rock, vegetation, mulches or other soil stabilizers; • re- vegetation; • hydro- seeding exposed areas; • sediment controls such as check dams, desilting basins, fiber rolls, and silt fencing; • installation of energy dissipaters and drop structures; • catch basin inlet protection; • construction materials management; and • cover and containment of construction materials and wastes. The SWPPP shall be designed and implemented to address site- specific conditions related to project construction. The SWPPP shall identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water discharges and describe and ensure the implementation and maintenance of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment, pollutants adhering to sediment, and other non - sediment pollutants in storm water as well as non -storm water discharges. The significant criteria for the construction phase of the project are implementation of BMPs consistent with Best Available Technology Economically Achievable and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BAT /BCT), as required by the Construction General Permit. The applicant or its successor would reduce or prevent erosion and sediment transport and transport of other potential pollutants (e.g., construction material - related pollutants) from the project sites during the construction phase through implementation of BMPs meeting BAT /BCT in order to prevent or minimize environmental impacts and to ensure that discharges during the construction phase of the project would not cause or contribute to any exceedance of water quality standards in the receiving waters. On this basis, the impact of construction - related runoff from the project sites is considered less than significant. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 t Page 56 BMP Compliance with the OC DAMP and WQMP (as reauired by RWQCB — 8's OC MS4 Permit The project WQMP shall identify post- construction related Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used onsite to control predictable pollutant runoff, and shall comply with all applicable measures specified in the Countywide Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), the assignment of long -term maintenance responsibilities, and the locations(s) of all structural BMPs. BMPs are structural devices, procedures, rules or methods which, when implemented and followed, should reduce and/or eliminate the specific source of pollution of which the BMP is targeted. The post - construction related BMPs shall be developed and will be implemented for the proposed project. All BMPs indicated in the project's WQMP will be implemented and maintained in good and effective condition. The property owner shall establish requirements for (a) ownership /maintenance of and/or maintenance easements for community common areas in the project and (b) implementation of educational pollution prevention on BMPs, including community awareness programs. Routine Source Control BMPs are required and shall be incorporated in this redevelopment project. All of the following types of BMPs listed below for specific land use /type of project in the Countywide Water Quality Management Plan tables shall be discussed and considered for utilization by the project WQMP for implementation to the extent that they are appropriate for the site and project. Source Control BMPs • Routine Structural BMPs • Routine Non - Structural BMPs • Site Design BMPs • Treatment BMPs An update to the MS4 related to the project, is anticipated to be adopted by the summer of 2009. Once adopted, Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs and Hydromodification related BMPs (the objective of which is to have the post - development hydrology mimic that of the pre - development hydrology condition) are expected to become project requirements, as is TMDL integration. LID BMPs include a priority use of infiltration BMPs, harvesting and re -use of water BMPs and vegetated or evaporation BMPs over - treating and releasing water. Response to Comment No. 11 -6 All BMPs intended for construction and post- construction conditions shall reflect targeted compliance with Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL's) and shall be in support of the Orange County Newport Bay Fecal Coliform Source Management Plan ( OCNBFCSMP). The OCNBFCSMP is meant to provide compliance with the fecal - coliform /pathogen TMDL adopted for Lower Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay. The following additional TMDL's are incorporated for reference: a. The Siltation (sediments) and Nutrient TMDLs adopted for Lower Newport Bay, Upper Newport Bay, San Diego Creek Reach 1, and San Diego Creek Reach 2. ( http: www .waterboards.ca.govlsantaana/ water — issues /programs /tmdl /index. shtm I) The future TMDLs anticipated for selenium and metals (Lower and Upper Newport Bay), selenium and fecal coliform (San Diego Creek Reach 1), and specified metals (San Diego Creek Reach 2). A TMDL for organochlodne compounds (particularly DDT, chlordane, and PCBs) is anticipated for Lower Newport Bay, Upper Newport Bay, and San Diego Creek Reaches 1 and 2. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 I Page 57 Response to Comment No. 11 -7 Groundwater dewatering is not anticipated for the construction of the proposed redevelopment due to the fact that subsurface water was not observed during field investigation (Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report for TTM 16882 by Neblett & Associates dated September 30, 2008.) Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 q G i lD Page 58 12. A. David Kovach (May 5, 2009) Response to Comment No. 12 -1 The comments presented in this letter address "conflicts" that exist in the Newport Beach General Plan and the manner in which various land use policies should more appropriately address the density and intensity of development on the subject property. As indicated in this letter, the commenter believes that the City's land use criteria are internally inconsistent. It is important to note that the policy analysis presented in Section 4.1 (Land Use /Relevant Planning) and, specifically, in Tables 4.1 -1 and 4.1 -2 in the Draft EIR discussed the relationship of the proposed project to the adopted policies and not the internal conflicts that exist as suggested in this comment. No comments related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis are identified in this letter, which will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking an action on the proposed project. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 59 13. Harbor Commission (Minutes of April 8, 2009) Although formal DEIR comments were not submitted by the Harbor Commission, these responses address the environmental issues reflected by the minutes of the Harbor Commission's April 8, 2009 meeting. Where a comment did not raise any environmental issue, no response is provided. Response to Comment No. 13 -1 Analysis of design wind waves was based on long -term wind conditions recorded at two locations as presented in Section 2.1 of the Coastal Engineering Impact Assessment Report (May 9, 2008). In addition, long swell statistics from 1970 to 2005 were applied to determine the typical and extreme swell conditions at the project site. Tables 1 and 2 in that report show the probability distribution of wind conditions while Tables 4 and 5 present the deduced typical and extreme wave conditions for wind wave and long swells, respectively. The discussion of "Wave Conditions and Potential Impacts" on pages 4.9 -8 through 4.9 -11 provides a summary of the information included in the Noble Report. Response to Comment No. 13 -2 The City's mooring fields generally have between 75 and 100 vacant mooring cans in the harbor, which are available for rental to the public at any given time on a "first come, first served" basis through the Harbor Patrol. The mooring cans can generally accommodate project boats with the exception of boats that exceed 60 feet due to a lack of availability of these larger sized moorings in the harbor. Boats larger than 60 feet would need to secure berthing at a larger dock (if available) or use the City designated anchorage area within the harbor. Boat owners or a contracted boating service company would be responsible to manage such an event. Response to Comment No. 13 -3 Noble Consultants, Inc. determined that the dock project would not significantly affect sediment transport in the area. There are no sand dollars present near the dock, they are all located in the protected cove southeast of the proposed dock. Therefore, any sand movement would not be related to pier- induced sand movement since: (1) engineering studies suggest that there would be no interruption of sand movement from pier pilings and (2) sand movement is from south to north. Generally speaking, sand dollars and other sand - associated macrofaunal species are adapted to shifting sand regimes. Unless there is an extreme storm event sand dollars are well adapted to daily and seasonal changes in sand movement and they are capable of adjusting their position in the sand to prevent burial. Even when they are temporarily buried they can upright themselves to their usual orientation to the currents. Large storm events can result in changes in the southern California sand dollar populations as well as other sand bottom epifaunal species relative to population and distribution. These events are known to occur following extreme storm and wave conditions. These conditions, however, are likely muted to a degree within then confines within Newport Harbor. Response to Comment No. 13 -4 The sediment shoaling pattern in the entrance channel was presented in the Noble report (refer to Section 2.2). The impact assessment for the proposed dock facility was also performed (refer to Section 3.2). The information presented in that document is summarized in Section 4.9 (Soils and Geology) in the Draft EIR (refer to pages 4.9 -8 through 4.9 -13). As indicated in the Draft EIR, the Noble Consultants study concluded that from a wave climate perspective, the proposed docking facility is feasible in a wide range of conditions and, with regard to sand transport, no significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Z Page 60 Response to Comment No. 13 -5 Noble Consultants, Inc., which analyzed sediment processes and flow patterns in the project area, concluded that the potential impact to the sediment movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant, although localized sand deposit resulting from the presence of the proposed guide piles within the sand - moving path may occur. In addition, the project's potential impact on sedimentation at updrift locations such as China Reef is inconsequential. As a result, no significant impacts to sand transport resulting from project implement are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Response to Comment No. 13 -6 The applicant is proposing to improve the existing landing and expand the boat dock to accommodate nine vessels (8 permanently berthed vessels and 1 guest slip). The dock and landing would include lighting similar to that which currently exists in this area. Such lighting would cast light down on the docks for safety and security purposes for both project residents and passing boaters. Response to Comment No. 13 -7 Piers will be installed as required based on the City of Newport Beach requirements. Section 4.7 (Biological Resources) revealed that sea lions inhabit the harbor and, specifically, in the vicinity of the Pavilion. The Draft EIR concluded the project implementation would not result in significant impacts to marine mammals, including sea lions. Should sea lions haul out on the proposed dock structure, the dock system will be able to support several individuals given that the dock design will be engineered to withstand the increased wave energy associated with the project location. Sea lion haul out is considered a nuisance issue and deterrent measures such as fences, netting, watering or other physical and visual obstructions are routinely employed when sea lions frequent the harbor's docks. This is not an environmental issue, but rather a harbor management issue under the constant supervision of the Harbor Resources Division and the Harbor Patrol. Response to Comment No. 13 -8 A Class II wet stand pipe that will serve the docks was incorporated into the proposed project as required by the Newport Beach Fire Department to provide enhanced protection for firefighting at the docks. Trash will be hand carried to Carnation Avenue for removal. Sewage pump -out stations are not required for residential docks and are they are only required for commercial marinas with 50 or more slips. Sewage disposal from boats is prohibited within the Harbor unless at a pump -out station. Response to Comment No. 13 -9 As indicated in this comment, the proposed dock facility will be larger (approximately 3,448 square feet compared to 490 square feet) compared to the existing dock facility. However, the dock has been designed to avoid sensitive habitat (e.g., eelgrass) and incorporates project design features to ensure that eelgrass, sand dollars and other marine resources are adequately protected. Furthermore, public access to the small cove below the bluff will be maintained and no significant visual impacts to aesthetic resources would occur based on the analysis presented in the Draft EIR (refer to Section 4.7 — Biological Resources and Section 4.5 — Aesthetics). Response to Comment No. 13 -f0 Refer to Response to Comment No. 13 -5. Response to Comment No. 13 -11 Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 61 Boat owners or a contracted boat maintenance service may be engaged to relocate the vessels as deemed necessary by the boat owners. Response to Comment No. 13 -12 The City currently has up to 100 mooring cans within the harbor that may be used during storm events. Use of these moorings is permitted on a "first come, first served" basis. As noted above, a boat maintenance service may be engaged to relocate the vessels to the mooring cans or other locations as deemed necessary by the boat owners. Response to Comment No. 13 -13 Table 6 of the report provides the guidelines for acceptable wave conditions in the harbor. For head seas it is less than 0.6 meter (approximately two feet) and it is 0.25 meter (approximately 0.8 foot) for beam seas. In practice, it is difficult to precisely measure the wave height in the middle of a storm event. Due to the orientation of the entrance channel, SSE -S waves can propagate through the entrance channel without being blocked by the jetty. Therefore, preparation of temporarily relocated vessels to the mooring area should primarily be based on the approach wave direct from SSE -S. The extreme wave conditions for wind waves presented in Table 4 and long swells as listed in Table 5 occur infrequently. Response to Comment No. 13 -14 The proposed docks are within the federal Pierhead Line and the main channel is over 500 feet wide in this area. The proposed docks with boats would not encroach any farther within the channel than a nearby navigational station, which has been in -place for years. City policy currently allows boats to extend beyond the Pierhead Line no farther than the beam (maximum width) of the boat, which is typically not wider than 24 feet. The proposed layout is consistent with the Municipal Code and Council Policy, as determined by the Harbor Resources Manager and the only condition proposed by the Harbor Resources Manager is that boats tied to the side of the proposed docks closest to the main channel must not have a beam wider than 24 feet. With this condition, the Harbor Resources Manager has determined that the proposed docks will not cause any impediment to navigating the main channel Response to Comment No. 13 -15 The DEIR has identified the potential for damage during storm surge conditions (Impact 4.9 -2.) Mitigate measures have been prescribed, which include moving boats to sheltered mooring location (Mitigation Measure 4.9 -2a) and dock design based on extreme wave conditions (Mitigation Measure 4.9 -21b.) As a result, the DEIR concludes that potentially significant impacts related to storm surge damage will be reduced to a less than significant level. Response to Comment No. 13 -16 Public access to the cove below from the harbor would not be adversely affected by the proposed project, including the proposed dock facility. The location of the dock would not preclude the existing access that is currently available to swimmers, kayakers, or others. Response to Comment No. 13 -17 Refer to Response to Comment No 13-4. Response to Comment No. 13 -18 Refer to Response to Comment No. 2-4. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 20091 �(0 Page 62 AREA 41 AREA 92 duSISMYENF.SOrnFUOx,xxEa[ mEBiuMp M4. h,i mx nggw n,Fw wF0 u1E�F.uxCN/DMM N4CSGC�.:- WWPPONSxRDE9 Gr[6M/xF..wttM1aRw AREA N .x..u�E +o rne„mr+EUeor.nu[exmE...nmama . rxsEmrvro AREA 94 E„¢rm�uEaxm. o'xu�M AREA N5 mE,.,[PExr.,w x..Exo�xo¢r..wrw,�w: �."xEx.eforvexorx.r..ro AREA H6 AREA N �� a„•••. .x[.xmroErc. AREA 96 m�mpEEP txOMaNPF mfw Kcu[[[sa®co .xwwD mEeEe V n ENTIRE SITE . g,w.w,x�wEi g e s000x. a.E[EE �eo,�.,vw .=.o. xEDDOivw m.o: xw.Ei �re.wai� ® zaux000m«xxucaov rv•+xm,ro.xvxW, ! .¢a.0pussud- {Po 4W+WEUE"ae,M muxuru[. e.ECru.0 ,pWUx+ue cq[nJSa[[[u ryrwA WPoBPONSMC[¢ SCE wwn • • D�r.,lxxr<x.�rox. rnEmxEx mo�r.�r •nE Exrv.r,....x.,.o,.Frv.[w • sFw¢r.,.,Ex¢ew„Ew..ee �x.c.xx.E.,x�ew O� ,wrw. Xo iwxEmx,e.w.v • wxm.oErm rvEw,..ro.n oxaEwxFE¢ rw..aE<w Fwo,x. ¢.Effn r¢.EE+mrou 0 xruawxuwx rnow.vw Qxcon.wouw rm¢mySq ! yEp.µm,uu.Hr.iw ryLiuMM PohFU w -,S.wi w,¢l mrLW VwnmptvpEVY4. rynuOw NR[¢IXiry • c.x oPo uwroe.+ orowu.,m..,,E :Exox...xw ae�,M,x�wx,x x• Koxw. c.rFms maxm,..v¢xw w.,x.x.o .rvx[WM¢rPo. rxE.,w.r.,,..ue • w<axE[exra.. new 0 EEwEewF..rxe Dqr PRUNING 8 CLEARING IrAWFIA¢ NMOwx[xt. iuurwnrxE gwrvwrmwxMp➢, piLeFe opnmrxEwmw .wux[DIBDEx,urmMMxx[nrx� taxcuu�¢sro oe Lam■ 2� w pU �rd< W5£ a a S< mz •o Q3 z - _ � s- F . 9$i Yva m ' 1) L -1 z -z 5 � an 's 0 DNIUV310 4 `JNINnad m.„u moymm�.aaN. � renmaaw vxvnnre Irvevfnicw��„p> � s bv5mrl wnwnwns�swem. B• (rvnXN sivesysim Aa+on,saysl s3p3fs M,TwS '+�, Ymsuywl s��svussw m- Nww,oaow ,.swre.wmx.tlx.,xr �O re�m'.,.mm,n.wwmS�Nnw.�.3oa • Man,3a�nvl �SNNOOre,.�w,nno,ren,aNCa —. GSn,maMiboDwmeesaso � Gur �rxW mo�npxdsnssu 4xw Axpa91 s3aswflw ee . M1�nWUVSmsI pevipvev311uxrvome Mnavnm„ey'rl rc3weWCSnmrvJn (�Amvmmstsv3tlml mYmase. xnxx xwwr s Mm,an5m5Nwamr � ,�,x�rwm�� w�.,r>•wr,m �c kuvnmvwws4 MpaeaYxmxn ivuanw�ndarnl mvm,u,auy,wp Nmwamom n�.sdwoaoe� Lnwv.,na, w,LL,nKUn.mxmm3 Mv+rewxxomral vYroafrvsmnsN e Y vanml pwaamnnmaxa • Nenwso rsl p.�NNa,m m'fn3,w I.N.Nwvmnl Sum srrxvaw u 311S 3NI1N3 l" H DNIHVBID 8 DNINnHd N3mNi� _ n K4 VMJv y.vm Na x3mmasNVxmma maaw,assaum_+EL #V3tiV .a »s..3n, s��,..an. �„osrss,ss oc Zl#vgilV vimf wisxuvx w unv�i Ii9 ;Ipvrvxv3Bmrcn „rtn,.aw,ina auume3 xee xaxo�ws�i,i'S wwwx.�, o,syaw�o wLL# v3avvm.w.o ,n sueweremuar -N,U# V321tl,v e'iav Hass axiso�.vsw .wmxesnownw vamo.nva vns�sxs .an Nrovw,woe'.vi.n` 8#b'3aV„o,.n, o,r3wsw siw.sw OLDWELL Mr. Jim Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell, BANKER PREVIEWS LYLEEN EWING SOCIETY OF EXCELLENCE 1 have been selling real estate in Orange County for over 35 years. In my career, I have personally handled hundreds of real estate transactions, of which the majority have been in the Newport Beach - Corona del Mar area. . I have been asked to render an opinion on the market absorption time for three speculative single family homes located on the property commonly known as 201 -207 Carnation Avenue in Corona del Mar. I understand that each of these three homes would have expansive coastal views, a roof deck and one boat slip. The average size of the three homes would be approximately 8,300 livable square feet. I also understand that, aswith much of the newer bluff top construction in the area, these homes would be highly amenitized and would involve significant excavation and grading and the placement of caissons. Given the remarkable location and view of these homes, it is my professional opinion that these homes likely would be listed forsale within an approximate price range of $14,000,000to $16,000,000 even in today's depressed real estate market. Demand for luxury homes in Newport Beach has declined significantly as a result of the economic downturn, and there is no clear indication as to how deep or how long this decline will last. Most recently, for the 22 business days ending January 15, 2009, OataQuick reports that the pace of sales In Corona Del Mar (Zip 92625) was down 38.5% from the same time last year. Further, according to the January 22, 2009, home inventory report from Steve Thomas of Altera Real Estate, in Orange County, 350 homes were listed for sale at asking prices above $4 million, but only three had pending sales In the previous thirty days. while these numbers may not be a precise predictor of performance for the sales of any Individual home or category of homes, for statistical purposes, this translates to an absorption rate of almost ten years (116.67 months) for these 350 homes. This same report discloses that even in the much stronger real estate market of two years ago, it would have taken over 31 months to absorb the current homes on the market. (Report available at 4 San Joaquin Plaza suite #260 Newport beach CA 92660 949- 6441600• Direct 949- 759 -3786• Cellular 949- 233 -8051• Fax 949 -644 -5384 Ijewing @wldwellbanker.com l 6 Cd6well aaeyer a ,l jo SMIC Zc I�Wr y owrc ^M 0,, vM by NHT. Irc. http:// www. ourogentspot .com/sthomos/MorketTrme- Jon- 22- 09.doc.) So what does all this translate to on the ground? Simply put. homes that once would have quickly attracted multiple offers are now likely to languish on the market, in some cases for a matter of years rather than months. The current economic reality has fundamentally changed the economics of speculative home development. Today, experienced builders have adopted a "wait- and -see" approach. For multiple - single family home sites such as these, builders will "wait- and -see" where the money is coming from before they assume the risk and expense of construction. Based on the ongoing economic downturn and the high cost of construction associated with this site, on one hand, and the premier location of these home sites on the other, it is my opinion that it would take a bare minimum of four years to pre-sell the three home sites, with one site sold an average of once every two years. Generally speaking, I expect one home site to be sold at the beginning of year one, the second home site to be sold at the end of year two, and the third site to be sold at the end of year four. Based on a two year per home construction schedule (per Brion Jeannette Architecture), total buildout of all three homes would therefore take approximately six years from the time of the first sale. I hope that this opinion is helpful. Should you desire any further information, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Lyleen Ewing Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage 2,70 Construction Generated Vibration Annoyance Vumlen Annapn<e CdMda Loatletl tmc" 86 25 80 w 71 Cmede 78 78 LeaderlSmaXbulldaaer) 58 9 at 67 43 Loaded tMtka 96 25 80 86 71 cmada 78 76 Ler9e build., 87 9 80 % 72 Wm H. 87 9 80 % 72 LoadO(8mall bulld..l) 58 9 81 67 43 E ... v.r ISmall bulldozeQ 58 9 81 67 43 LoaMO truth 86 25 50 86 71 cmada 78 78 Ap 25 Appmxlm!VdB ocXy - AppM VeMelly Equlpmem ,VdSy Level al 25 VtlB lal Cmaest Dl125 (fee): Avenge Dlsipnte l7eee Level, VtlB I, LM1. Larl7e bu11(5. 57 12.5 80 93 72 Ex<avms (amailbulmpaen 58 12.5 80 6a 40 Loader lSmaa bullOapr) 58 12.5 80 6a 43 Loatled tm<ka 96 25 80 86 71 55. 70 76 AppmxlmNe VClo <iry Appmximat<V<Ip <Xy AppmxlmaM Velodry Equlpmenl Level at 25n VEB Claaeat Distance lreetl: Awmgo Dlamnee (eel) Lev a Level, Vae _ ,Mail 87 9 80 72 Back HOe LaadCr(Small Wlmomn 58 9 80 67 43 N.P47 98 88 80 47 43 Loa @dtmctr 86 28 80 86 71 cmedx 78 7a Concrete Pour Appmxlmate Velaclty Approximate Vela<Ity Appmxlmam Velocity Eaulpmem Level at 26 ft, VdS CMaeat OMUnee 00): Aeem9e Distance (t j Lev!IVdB Laval, VdB Pumper 88 88 60 75 11 Concrete Mher 86 88 so 75 71 cmen. 78 78 �' OANmpt 46utlmwalprMitmmmQr :unCkM1UP,nnGLi TlyEluulb WwmMhmtlymL i nYm[e M35he Nely'PMS K'[P/tlaL4plavn Jertivnlne(✓r8)usbane Mxv',tealmtmvJMdNCLM Bource: BasetlonmeMO]o0.yV M1mn Pe IInlMSW¢a Depanmertal7meapaRa6on FeM_ml TlaneR 06mmes5MOn. Tmnsh Nnse and Y6atim.ImpaC AaaevmeM (20031 Construction Generated Vibration - Structural Damage Criteria Structural Damage Criteria Backhoe Loader(Small bulb 0.003 0.010 11.5 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.076 25 Criteria 0.200 Large bulldozer 0.003 0.008 12.5 Ram Hoe 0,003 0.008 12.5 Loader (Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.008 12.5 Excavator (Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.008 12.5 Loaded tacks 0.076 0.076 25 Criteria 0.200 vAF�0„ rGa�s�gaq "DcDDUIq ;._' Approximate RMS a Approximate RMS Velocity at 25 k, Velocity Level, Equipment inchlsecond inchisecond Closest Distance (feet): Caisson Drill Approximate RMS a Approximate RMS d Back Hoe Loader (Small bu Velocity at 25 k, Velocity Level, Approximate RMS Equipment inchisecond Inchtsecond Closest Distance(feetl: Large bulldozer 0.089 0.412 9 Excavator (Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.014 9 Loader (Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.003 25 Large bulldozer 0.003 0.008 12.5 Ram Hoe 0,003 0.008 12.5 Loader (Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.008 12.5 Excavator (Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.008 12.5 Loaded tacks 0.076 0.076 25 Criteria 0.200 vAF�0„ rGa�s�gaq "DcDDUIq ;._' Approximate RMS a Approximate RMS Velocity at 25 k, Velocity Level, Equipment inchlsecond inchisecond Closest Distance (feet): Caisson Drill 0.089 0412 d Back Hoe Loader (Small bu 0.003 Approximate RMS a Approximate RMS Pumper Velocity at 26 ft, Velocity level, 88 Equipment Inchlsecond inch /second Closest Distance (feet): Large bulldozer 0.089 0.412 9 Ram Hoe 0.089 0,412 9 Loader (Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.014 9 Excavator (Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.014 9 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.076 25 Criteria 0.200 Large bulldozer 0.003 0.008 12.5 Ram Hoe 0,003 0.008 12.5 Loader (Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.008 12.5 Excavator (Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.008 12.5 Loaded tacks 0.076 0.076 25 Criteria 0.200 vAF�0„ rGa�s�gaq "DcDDUIq ;._' Approximate RMS a Approximate RMS Velocity at 25 k, Velocity Level, Equipment inchlsecond inchisecond Closest Distance (feet): Caisson Drill 0.089 0412 9 Back Hoe Loader (Small bu 0.003 0.008 12.5 Pumper 0.076 0.012 88 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.076 25 Criteria 0200 Loaded trucks 0,078 0.076 25 Criteria 0.200 4r 72. NOTE: EXHIBIT IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND NOT TO SCALE. ALL FACILITIES TO BE LOCATED INSIDE THE "PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT'. I NAP .- � A f ,RAGE PAR)C ' NAP _ .„ r � > VICINITY MAP 11 LEGEND NAP PROJECT BOUNDARY NAP NOT A PART - 1 DIRECTION OF SURFACE FLOW GRAVITY FLOW LINES AND DIRECTION FOR ROOF AND AREA DRAINS STORMWATER FORCE MAIN EXISTING " SITE PROPOSED CONNECTION TO EXISTING SO —DISCHARGE r i � ENTRA EXISTING STORM AND AREA DRAINS POINT k ` WET WELL AND STORMWATER PUMP DISCHARGE THRU - -'. • v. CORE IN EXISTING C.B. STORMFIL7ER WATER QUALITY UNIT j' OR Si RM DRAIN PIPE ABTECH SMART SPONGE PLUS INSERTS °,. `F/, LANDSCAPE AREAS (PRIVATE) WITH BMP's: 1 N AP. " (MAINTAINED BY HDA) COMMON AREA EFFICIENT IRRIGATION COMMON AREA RUNDFF— MINIMIZING LANDSCAPE DESIGN NEWP ;/ +° NAF \ \ \\ AREA DRAINS (PRIVATE) WITH BMP: SD STENCILLING WHERE FEASIBLE gP� NAP` /` 0 EXISTING CATCH BASIN/AREA DRAINS 15p TRASH ENCLOSURE —EXACT LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED •! _ `\\ • ADS STORM WATER QUALITY UNIT OR EQUAL PREPARED BY: PREPARED FOR: DATE PREPARED: "AERIE ®HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES rRES 5/12/09 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16882 WOMP I R V I N E, I N C I'�' "�`- k:'.r;ti "I: > * =P'j'- CORONA DEL MAR EXHIBIT %.WWNC • @lGNFFPINL • SaRVfI'INL 23792 R Ki BLVD. SL91E 1W m.<x. .�uaiew .rn wm u.ww•Fx am=.N uKC FasFSr.a9zwD WO 751 -5X CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CA (sas) sss -asap ILYV 1-1 py '�k•'�': 4yt�d ~s 'vw+l -ryj r 49. c e A Sempra Energy utility- March 25, 2009 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Attention: James Campbell NAR 3 0 2Cn3 3':r. tJUd Oki 4A Subject: E'lli for 201 — 207 Carnation Ave and 101 Dayside Pt. (PA 2005 -196)- l CUe-9 tea. / 1914 5 State College aNd. Anohelm. CA 92806-511A Thank: you for providing the opportunity to respond to this E.I.R. Document. We are pleased to inform you that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the aforementioned project is proposed. Gas service to the project can be provided from an existing gas main located in various locations. The service will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules an file with the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. This letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but is only provided as an informational service. The availability ofnatural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. As a public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be nfrected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with tine revised conditions. This letter is also provided without considering tiny conditions or non - utility laws and regulations (such as environmental regulations), which could affect construction of a main aiui/or service line extension (.e., if hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing die line)_ The regulations can only be determined around die time contractual arrangements are made and construction has begun. Estimates of gas usage for residential and non - residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial - Industrial /R.esidential Market Services Staff by calling (800) 427.2000 (Commercial/Industrial Customers) (900) 427 -2200 (Residential Customers). We have developed several programs, which are available upon request to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, plan secontact this office for assistance. Sincercl / /// �� ' Ll Mike HairiuJ:� —�', Technical Services Supervisor Pacific Coast Region - Anahcim Sin � NIe..L 74. THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 2-,75 Larry 16n. 2 To: James Campbell April 20, 2009 Principal Planner, Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (L-QAC) Subject: Aerie Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) dated March 2009 EQAC is pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the Subject DEIR in the hopes that our comments will lead to the best possible project for the City of Newport Beach, the neighbors and the applicant. Our comments follow in the order of appearance in the DEIR as far as possible. 1.0 Executive Summary The Construction Management Plan (CMP) is referenced frequently and often cited 2 _ pertaining to mitigation measure. The note at the bottom of pg. 1 -6 which refers to the CMP is confusing. Is the CMP incorporated by reference in the DEIR and is it to be considered pact of the DEIR, and therefore binding on the proponent? 2 -Z 3.0 Project Description The project includes removal of existing 4 docks at channel level (25 -foot class boats) and expansion to 8 slips plus one side tie -dock which will "accommodate boats up to 100 -foot in length ". As shown in Exhibit 3 -17 (pg. 3 -25), the new docks extend considerably farther into the boating channel than the original docks and the provision for 100 -foot boat maneuvering in the busy channel seems problematic. (Note that the USCG Cutter Narwhal is 13 feet shorter at 87 feet and employs a crew of ten). The DEIR deals with this potential problem under Harbor and Bay Element 14B 9.2 (pg 4.1- 11) by stating that this new dock facility will not "adversely affect safe navigation within the harbor However, no harbor traffic analysis is included to support this assertion. Are such studies or analysis available to assure that channel boating operations and safety are not compromised? 4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Land Use pg.4,1 -8, LU1.1 The modem style of this architecture is out of character for this area, Z especially as viewed from Carnation Avenue. pg.4,1 -8, LU 13 The small beach area at the foot of this project will be hard to see with 2 -4 the construction ofa 60' gangplank, a larger dock and the possibility of the docking of large vessels. This will be a loss of a visual resource from the water. pg.4.1 -9, LU 2.5 Because ofthe configuration of the new dock, it appears that 100' L'Jr vessels will be close to encroaching on boating lanes. There may be a need to limit the size of vessels docked on channel side of the dock. Z-& I pg_4,1 -9, LU 32, Who will pay to underground existing utility lines? pg.4.1 -12, CE 7,1.8, Is there any way to ensure that the residents of Aerie will use the 2--7 provided garages rather than the street? Using an elevator to park for a short time seems unrealistic. 2 -F I pg. 4.1 -13, NR 3.11, What will be the effect of long term runoff on the harbor? pg.. 4.1 -14, NR 11.3, How will the loss of eelgrass be mitigated? Specifics? Z_�p `pg, 4.1 -19, 23.1 -2 Diagram of planned improvement to catch basin? pg. 4.1 -19, 2.7.1, It would be helpful to have a larger diagram of planned subterranean land encroachments. pg. 4.1 -42, 3.20, How will the sand dollar colony be protected during the construction of the dock? Specifics? 4.3 Air Quality The document describes (in extreme detail) the existing conditions and State regulations 2-l3 concerning the construction phase. There is no real schedule to facilitate evaluation of the ability of the construction crews to comply with these standards. 2. -W 4.4 Noise What types of noise restrictions will be placed on residents within the completed condominium complex? For example, portable balcony .lacuzzis have appeared recently that are not controlled by existing noise codes. These have minimal plumbing and electrical needs and represent noise pollution that is currently not covered by noise codes. The proponent should take steps to limit these and similar internal noise sources to eliminate future operational controversy within the project or adjacent to it. Z -(5 Pg 4.4 -24: Vibration from construction will be "felt" for a total of 25 work days during the project. This is an unavoidable negative impact and should be so noted. A comment about the DEIR's implied appropriateness of a 65 dBA criterion for residential noise: Note, Table 4.4 -1, shows noise levels of 65 -70 dBA CNEL are considered inappropriate (or, "C = normally incompatible ") for all residential categories shown. This makes `Z.,' 7 z.- ((� GoN IT Z -(S 2 -(y excellent sense and is consistent with the literature which clearly states, for example, that f, .. sound pressure levels exceeding 55 dB(A) .._ are disturbing to sleep ..." [1] and, noise from, for example, highway traffic -- typically 70 dB(A) -- is considered "intrusive Despite the data shown in Table 4.4 -1, this DEIR sets as an acceptable criterion for residential noise at 65 dBA CNEL (as stated throughout the document)_ Levels of 65 dB(A) are at the threshold for noise classified as both "normally compatible" and "normally incompatible" for residential categories, and exceed the every category of allowable residential noise level standards for the city as shown in Table 4.4 -2. Section 9.3..10 describes that none of the increases from noise impacts due to project traffic will exceed 65 dBA CNEL, and the DEIR "...anticipates no significant long -term cumulative noise impacts ..."due to the project. However, there should be abetter characterization of how the current ranges of average daytime noise levels in the area (see Table 4.4 -3). Section 9.3.10 concludes: "The greatest increase in ambient noise would occur during the construction phases..," and that these will result in significant impacts in the neighborhood." They then conclude that vehicle -trip noises associated with the completed project are projected to be minimal and not significant contributors to long -tern) traffic noise (adding only an estimated 47 vehicles per day onto the circulation network). This conclusion seems unrealistically optimistic, and is based on the report's questionable acceptance of a 65dBA standard for appropriate residential noise levels. In light of the especially liberal 65dBA criterion discussed above, and the existing ambient noise levels reported, we feel the project's long -tem) noise impacts are better characterized as unmitigated negative impacts of the project, since the net result will be to substantially raise the area's average daytime noise levels by adding the sort of traffic noise known to be especially disruptive and resulting in stronger negative reactions due to its vibration characteristics and low frequency components. For additional technical data, refer to "Guidelines for Community Noise" The World Health Organization - expert taskforce meeting held in London, United Kingdom, in April 1999. It bases on the document entitled "Community Noise" that was prepared for the World Health Organization and published in 1995 by the Stockholm University and Karolinska Institute. Available at http: / /www.wlio.int/docstore /peh /noise /guidelines2.html. This project sets a bad precedent, taking the opposite view and inflating that which is 2 -� considered an acceptable standard, even beyond what is recommend by City standards. The impacts of Aerie should be stated as unmitigated negative impacts so as to avoid a tendency to inflate allowed noise impacts of future projects. 7e '1-7-1 4.5 Aesthetics The proposed project will result in a major addition of reflective glass to the bluff compared with what is there now (see Exhibits 4.5.4 and 4.5 -16). Under Light and Glare (pg. 4,5 -29) the DEIR states that selection of appropriate building materials results in "no significant glare impact from building finish materials" and that "no mitigation measure are required ". However, it is well known that at sunset this area "lights up" with window reflections. Has the proponent considered a mitigation measure to minimize this effect? 4.6 Drainage and Hydrology 2--7-7-1 Page 4.6 -6 4.6.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts, First Paragraph Is the added swimming pool capable to treat all the ingredients from a storm flow? Page 4.6 -8 4.6.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts, Third Paragraph Z-23 I What is the storm drain design capacity? Shouldn't that number be in this section as well as having input from the City Engineer? Page 4.6 -9 4.6.4,2 Routine Non - Structural BMPs NI What is sanitary sewage outflow? 2`7-5 J Add "and dripping" to "dumping oil" in line 3. Page 4.6 -9 4.6.4.2 Routine Non - Structural BMPs N 1 I 2 -2.b include in addition to reporting., z.-7-7 I z.-7-7 Page 4.6 -10 4.6.4.2 Routine Structural BMPs Second last line of the page: What are "Abtech Smart Sponge Plus" drains? Z -Zg 1 Page 4.6 -11 4.6.4.2 Routine Structural BMPs Fourth line of the page: How will pool water be safely disposed of properly? I Page 4.6 -12 4.6.5 Mitigation Measures Water Quality Z ?� What is "maximum extent practicable "? 4.7 Biological Resources A map of the existing vegetation on the site should be provided, including the vegetation that was removed according to the Notice of Violation. See page 1, footnote. The coastal `3 t7 bluff vegetation on the site should be shown before the violation occurred and what is there now. For example, the footnote says the lemonadeberry is growing back., What Z,-1 9 2-31 2-32 about the encelia that was removed? How will the existing lemonadeberry survive under the overhang of the deck? The biology report does not address this impact. A mitigation measure should provide that the existing vegetation will not be removed or damaged and that it will survive and flourish after the project is built. Coastal bluff scrub is considered ESHA by the Coastal Commission. The EIR should show the boundaries of the coastal bluff scrub on the project site and appropriate buffers such as 50 feet which is required for ESHA under the Newport Beach CLUP. Page I of the biology report identifies a "remnant southern coastal bluff scrub community on the rocky outcrop along the northern project boundary extending into Newport Bay ", but it ignores the coastal bluff scrub on the bluff face, including lemonadeberry, buckwheat, and encelia. This is also coastal bluff scrub and is ESHA that needs to be protected by protecting the vegetation that is now in place and making sure it will survive the deck overhanging it. The wetlands discussion on page 4.7 -5 does not address the Coastal Commission upholding the one - parameter definition, such as vegetation (three parameter wetland definition is vegetation, hydric soil, and hydrology). In early April, the Coastal Commission refuted the Glenn Lukos biologists attempts to ignore the one - parameter definition in a wetland in an RV storage lot in Huntington Beach, which used the same arguments present in this report. What is the water source for the umbrella sedge, e.g. 30 inch drain pipe, seepage out of 1-33 the bluff face from an aquiclude? In any case there appears to be a 190 square foot wetland that meets the Coastal Commission one parameter definition. It should be protected in place, with a buffer, which is 100 feet in the Newport Beach CLUP. 2-,34 The sand dollar issue needs more examination. Where else in Newport Bay are sand dollars found? The EIR should locate and describe the other locations. Page 4.7 -8 states "...tire occurrence of intertidal populations of the species within Newport Bay is unique and rare. The population survives in this location because wave motion/wave energy is moderate, sediments are sandy to silty sand, and tidal exchange is excellent." Will the dock cause changes to the wave motion/wave energy, sediments and tidal exchange? The biology report only makes a condition about signage and not taking specimens out of the marine environment. The changes in the environment including the pollution and changes to wave motion/energy, sediments and tidal exchange need to be stated, analyzed, and mitigated. The eelgrass issue needs further analysis. The report refers to studies in 2005 and 2007, but now it is 2009. Has the eelgrass gotten more or Iess numerous and how much of the Z dock area is now occupied by eelgrass? What is the mitigation policy for eelgrass that grows back under the boats? Pg 4 -7 -17: The report states that putting the piles in a single row that is parallel and not Z.3� perpendicular to sand transport will mean that sand transport is not affected. However, the pattern of sand transport is not included in the report.. Sand transport varies with the 2��Oio season and direction of the swells which come from different directions according to the time of year. This might affect the sedimentation in Carnation Cove as well, There is a disconnect between page 4.7 -4 where the federally endangered tidewater goby -3 ] is "potentially occurring within the region ", but then in Table 4.7 -2, it says: "No potential: Extirpated from Orange County" c-E rrep- Am. 3 Marilyn L Beck 303 Carnation Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 949 - 723 -1773 mdb(a)becktrustee. cam April 29, 2009 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 7966- 6934 -3448 AND EMAIL James Campbell, Principal Planner Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: AERIE PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Campbell: Please find enclosed my comments and questions relating to the Draft Environmental Impact Report.. I have organized them by section in keeping with the format of the DEIR and hope you won't find it too confusing.. I have number listed my statements with specific questions and concerns relating to each numbered item. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. Very truly yours, Marilyn L Beck 2s r� General: 1. Predominant Line of Development: The CLUP states on page 4 -76, referring specifically to bluff face development along Carnation Ave, ".....development on the bluff face is controlled to minimize further alteration." (Emphasis added). The plans originally submitted by Aerie took advantage of the PLOED on the bluff side of both Ocean Blvd and Carnation Avenue. The City Council rejected that proposal and set a PLOED at 50.7 feet above mean sea level. Aerie states in the DEIR that excavation will be to 28 feet above mean sea level which is the level originally submitted and rejected by the City Council. a) How does the City define the PLOED? Is it the bluff face or does it refer to subterranean development? Are there regulations as to the depth of 3-( subterranean development? If so, what are they? Throughout the DEIR there is only discussion of the bluff face development and not the 25 ++ feet of subterranean development below the PLOED_ 3 -Z I b) Is the PLOED the vertical line of development? Is there a horizontal line of development as well? c) If subterranean development is allowed below the 50.7 feet, will that set a precedent for further bluff destruction along Carnation Avenue? Several other 3 _3 properties along Carnation are 'tear downs' and they are currently on the market.. Will the developers of these properties be allowed to descend all the way down to Bayside Place? 2. The DEIR states at page 4.1 -2 that: "A portion of the subject property is located within the limits of the 100 -year zone established for tsunami inundation at extreme high tide" and under the heading of Geologic Hazards: "._.the site .... is subiect to the potential for slope failure..." Section 4.4.3 -5 of the CLUP (and General Plan NR 23.4) states: "Require all new bluff top development located on a bluff not subject to marine erosion to be set back from the bluff edge in accordance with the predominant line of development in the subject area. This requirement shall apply to the principal structure and the major accessory structures such as guesthouses and pools." a) Aerie plans include a pool below the 50.7 PLOED. How does that comply with the requirements of the CLUP? The CLUP does not state that anything can be built into the bluff itself so long as what shows on the exterior is above 3-4 the PLOED. b) Was it the intent of the City when it established the requirements of the CLUP that they referred only to the bluff face and not to the actual structure? 3. The DEIR states that "the site is a steeply sloping coastal bluff and cliff, the west - facing portion of which is subject to marine erosion." The DEIR states that "the existing buildings, including impervious surfaces with the exception of the bluff staircase, presently cover approximately 22 percent of the entire site, consisting of the highest and flattest portions of the site.. Coverage is approximately 41 percent of the area of the site above mean higher high tide line." (3-5 la) The DEIR does not state what percentage of the entire site Aerie will cover including buildings and impervious surfaces. Please provide that information. Marilyn L Beck n Page 1 2 t e 3 I b) It appears from Exhibit 3 -7 on page 3 -14 of the DER that Aerie's buildings 3 6 and impervious surface area is far more extensive than the equivalent 22% of the existing structures. 3-7 c) Is this site a "significant natural landform "? Is it a 'bluff? d) How does allowing this level of development comply with the requirements of 3 -$ the General Plan and CLUP, specifically the requirements to minimize development of coastal bluffs? 4. Balcony encroachments are within the 107' side yard setback abutting Bayside Place This puts the outer limits of the building at the property line and way beyond the horizontal predominant line of development along Carnation Avenue(Bayside Place. 3-1 a) How can this be allowed given the requirements of the CLUP? This also is the cause of view corridor encroachment from Begonia Park. Section 4.4.3 -6 of the CLUP states: "On bluffs not subject to marine erosion, require new accessory structures such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require structural foundations, to be set back from the bluff edge in accordance with the predominant line of existing accessory development." Does this not refer to balconies and is not the predominant line for the sake of discussion that of the horizontal rather than vertical development? b) Even if this particular section does not apply because the balconies hang off of structural foundations, the CLUP Section 4 additionally addresses this point as follows: "On bluff top lots where the bluff is not subject to marine erosion, the setback from the bluff edge should be based on the predominant line of existing development along the bluff edge in each neighborhood." Below is a photo of the horizontal line of development along Carnation which clearly shows that Aerie goes far beyond that line. i Marilyn L Beck Page 2 2 8� 5. Page 2 of the Notice of Preparation under the heading Existing Conditions states: "The Site is a steeply slopinq coastal bluff and cliff, the west - facing portion of which is subject to marine erosion." The Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan Section 4 at page 75 states: 'Development restrictions, including setbacks, must be established to ensure geologic stability while addressing current patterns of development. Where least 25 feet from the bluff edge. On bluff top lots where the bluff is not subject to marine erosion, the setback from the bluff edge should be based on the predominant line of existing development along the bluff edge in each neighborhood. These bluff edge setbacks may be increased to maintain sufficient distance to ensure stability, ensure that it will not be endangered by erosion, and to avoid the need for protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years)." 3� 1p I a) This point is a continuation of the Point 3 above.. How does this project and the request for Modification Permit meet these requirements? b) Nowhere in the DER is there any discussion about the horizontal predominant line of development along Carnation Avenue, If I have missed this, please let me know. This project pushes the envelope going all the way 3' to the property line, way beyond the predominant line of Carnation development. And, in order to do so, requests a Modification Permit. I strongly disagree that there is justification for granting this permit. Please address this specific point. Land Use & Planning: 6. LU 1.1 & 1.2: These policies address the architectural character of Newport Beach. The DER states that its architectural style "promotes architectural diversity in the City" and that this "distinctive architectural character..., is consistent with the City's desire to differentiate NB from other coastal cities ". a) How does a design of mushroom shaped domes with purple rooftops comply with the General Plan requirements to "maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods..." ? b) The DER is focusing on the term 'differentiate' and applying it to a project that is totally out of keeping and character of anything in CDM or Newport Beach.. There are NO other architectural structures even remotely similar to 3 -(2 this design with the one exception of the Portobello residence designed by Aerie's architect.. c) Being so completely different from every other structure in the city does not appropriately fulfill the requirements of the General Plan- 'Differentiate' doesn't mean not even remotely like anything found in the city.. 7. Under the Section 4.1 -Land Use and Planning of the DER there is a table of the various General Plan provisions with the developer's comments. LU 1.4 states: "Implement a conservative growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies with the preservation of open space and natural resources ". The DER states that because this project has "only eight residential Marilyn L Beck �y Page 3 Z • U dwelling units in a single structure..." the development meets the requirement of LU 1.4. What isn't stated is that the total square footage of the project is 61,709 which is a ratio of 7,713.6 per unit. a) How does that show "conservative growth strategy" and how does it 'preserve' open spaces and natural resources? b) The developer will remove a structure that is built on only 22% of the lot size (as stated in the opening section of the DEIR) and replaces it with one that 3-t3 effectively uses 100% of the lot resource (going by the same method of calculation as used by the DEIR in reference to the current structure).. This does not appear to meet the objective of LU 1.4. Please respond to this point. 8. Section LU 4.1 states: "Accommodate land use development consistent with the Land Use Plan." The developer responds that this only applies to the small parcel of 584 square feet. 3-ql a) Doesn't the entire project come under the scrutiny of the Land Use Plan? 9, CE 7.1.1 states: "Require that new development provide adequate convenient parking..." The response is that car elevators meet this requirement. I realize this is subjective, but it hardly seems 'convenient' to have to wait for a car elevator, drive into it, ride down several levels, drive out and into one's space. 3-t5 I a) How is this 'convenient' parking? 10. NR 21.3 states: "Support programs to remove and underground overhead utilities..." The plan submitted achieves this and Alternative A proposes to do so also. 3 -14 I a) Why does this requirement not apply to all the Alternatives? 11. NR 22.1 states: "Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structure..." . The DEIR states that Aerie is'similar in both physical mass and character' of the neighborhood and uses Channel Reef as the model of comparison. a) There are no developments in the neighborhood of the style of Aerie, which is based on Gaudy architecture. It is unique in all of Newport Beach and Corona Del Mar (with the exception of the Portobello property designed by 3 -17 Aerie's architect). b) Channel Reef was built in the 1960's and would never be approved or allowed today and does not meet any of the requirements of the General Plan, 12. Policy 4.4.1 -3: The DEIR states that Aerie complies with this policy because "the proposed condominium structure is situated on the flattest portion of the lot and the building design conforms to the natural contours of the site; therefore, grading of the bluff is the minimal amount needed to build the project to the Predominant Line and the project is consistent with this policy" a) Aerie proposes to remove 25,240 cubic yards of dirt from the site, excavating � 45 to 28 feet. How can the DEIR state that'grading of the bluff is the 'minimal amount needed to build the project to the Predominant Line'? Marilyn L Beck Page 4 �� j 3 -f S I b) How is this enormous level of excavation and removal of bluff consistent with COM `r Il this policy? 11 The DEIR does not include or respond to CLOP Policy 4.4.3 -3. This policy states: "Require all new bluff top development located on a bluff subject to marine erosion to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in the subject area but not less than 25 feet from the bluff edge. This requirement shall apply to the principal structure and major accessory structures such as guesthouses and pools. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development ". a) Why was this not addressed? b) The DEIR states that "the site is a steeply sloping coastal bluff and cliff, the 3 -0 west - facing portion of which is subject to marine erosion." Thus, Aerie should be required to comply with CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -3. Please address this omission. 14. Policy 4.4.3 -5: The DEIR states that basement and sub - basement are below the PLOED but not visible. But the CLUP requires that major accessories, including swimming pools, to be above the PLOED. a) Aerie has its pool structure below the 50.7 PLOED. b) Aerie balconies extend beyond the horizontal predominant line of 3 development as well (see number 4 above) and this requires a modification permit. 15- Policy 4.4.3 -8: Requires new development to "....be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible" a) Aerie is larger in square footage than all the existing properties added together along Carnation Avenue bluff (including the property where Aerie is sited). How is Aerie "compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum 3_21 extent feasible "? b) Aerie design is out of context with any other property in alt of Newport Beach including Corona Del Mar. It is visually incompatible with all other properties in the surrounding area. 16. Policy 4.4.3 -9: Requires the establishment of a predominant line of development. The City Council established a vertical line at 50.7. But a horizontal line has not been 3,72 established and Aerie is inconsistent with the current line of Carnation (See Point 4 and above photo). y✓ -2 ( 17. Policy 4.4.3 -12- How does removal of 25,240 cubic yards of bluff meet this requirement? Construction Plan: b 18. is the Construction Management Plan available to the public on line? It is not attached to the DEIR on the City's web site. Marilyn L Beck ^7 Page 5 e , 6 19. Will the developer or the City be responsible for repair to City streets at the conclusion of this project if there is damage from the heavy truck traffic? This applies to the entire construction route but is particularly concerning in the neighborhoods of Corona Del Mar- Please respond. Aesthetics: 120. The simulations of the project show that the rooftops are purple. 3 - a) Is this the proposed color scheme? b) Flow is this compatible with the neighborhood? Alternatives: 21, 3 Single Family Home Alternative: The DEIR states that this alternative would not require 'green' technology or the removal of power lines. a) Is implementation of `state of the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin and undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring a requirement by the City or voluntary by the developer? b) If it is a requirement of the City, why wouldn't that requirement be the same for the 3 Single Family Home Alternative? If it is voluntary, why shouldn't the same voluntary application be applied to ALL the alternatives, not just the one that the developer wants to apply it towards? c) This Alternative states that it will require 75 caissons. How many are required 3-2-7 three the current Aerie design? Why would there be more caissons required for three homes totaling 23,200 square feet than for a multi- family structure at 61,708? d) The DEIR states that 3 homes would require 6 years of construction because the 3 could not be built at the same time unless all three had buyers. Are there 8 buyers for the Aerie condo units? Are all the units sold? If not, why does this requirement apply to the homes and not to Aerie? e) Clearly this is a very viable alternative because it requires the excavation of only 10,000 cubic yards of bluff rather than 25,240 and is keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 22. 5 -Unit Multi - Family Project: The DEIR states that this alternative would not require 'green' technology or the removal of power lines, a) My question is the same as the prior Alternative in relation to the Aerie project. Why is this something that Aerie proposes but not for this Alternative? $ 2g b) The Alternative does not state the square footage of the proposed 5 -Unit building. What is the square footage? c) Reducing construction time by 9 months, eliminating 25 caissons and reducing the amount of dirt excavated by 12,240 cubic yards seems like a very reasonable alternative. Why is this not acceptable? Marilyn L Heck p� Page 6 n �! 123. 8 Unit Alternatives A & B. Again, either of these alternatives seem more 3 ?sj reasonable than the Aerie project, with reduced square footage and reduced excavation of the bluff. My concerns are the same as above. 24. The DER does not address the issue of a Construction Bond. There is significant concern about the financial viability of this project. a) Please address the City's liability in the event the developer fails to complete the project and the bluff has been excavated. b) Please address the City's liability in the event the bluff fails and there is 3�'�n damage to the surrounding properties_ c) Further address this issue in the event that the developer declares bankruptcy. Marilyn L Beck Page 7 2 e9 4-' May 1, 2009 Selman M citmun 600 West Snata Aaa Blvd. Suite 501 Santa Ana. CA 42701 -4551 www.seinumbicilnlan cent ,RECEIVED 13Y PLANNING DEPARTMENT AY zi i Subject: IA aft Nnvircmrnental lurpact Report(FIR) SCI No 2007021054 A6RI1(PA 2(x)5.19(,) Dear NIs I riolld On beh;dl (it RFSI- DENTS I'OR RGS PONS IB1,1i DlivFLOPNt13NT, I Ile cNfoote Group fms reviewed the above stated Draft rIR and offers the follotvialo comments and questions to I'lie Cily of Newport (leach Planning Depatlmcnt. {'nxcStimLQt "rile Mikff The 414jeci DEIR refers to The City of Newport Beach General Plan and the consial Land Use Plan (CL.UP) policies. Many of these policies address promoing the bluffs, (i e. CLUP 4.4 1 -3 development ,-fail[ minimize (lie alleruinn of natural landforim including bluffs, CLOP 4.4. i -12 employ site design and conslruelion techniques to minimize atteta(iou of coastal bluffs) The Ache project rtchides live excavator and disposal of an estimaicd 25,2=40 cubic yards of filull top material. I lovv is this consistent with the Cities adopted policic! Are these policies exempt when the altering of the bluff is subterranean' The Aciie project will construct nn emer_ency access aafel Ibrough the blulf face at elevation 40.5 feet as de.rribed in ate DGII2 "file DIEM. is silent oil how this onntet hill be constructed, pnlentirlly by coring 2 through the bluff face or excavaljm) from the top down to elevation 40.5 and then filling ovet the access wallet reconstructing the bluff face. The constroction of [lie access tunnel is in direct conflict with the CI,UP policies state(] above. L�-3 The Drll2 slates in section 4 9 Soils and Geology ( =0-6) Bluff Grosion, Utah file excavation of file subtetmnetm levels and clay- lighting at the blulf Pace will leave a bapezoidal (i.e -, pillar) section of iniacf rock as pall of the exposed bfulf Pace 1•his section speaks to future erosion and rock strength to remain in place during the economic file of file built{ing s,rucnne 05 years) Oa concern is the stability of the Lrapezralal section of tie bluff lace during colisiructical activities Streit a5, caistioli (fllllitt excavation. any necessary rock breaking during excavation ailizing an excavator I breaker (hoe rani), vibrations Ilnm other ccntstruction activities In this sceath io the bhlil face is pill at risk It is likely Clint at a minimom the upper polIions of lite uapezoidal section will be dammed and /or frac.Iured aItiminely loosing part of the bluff (lice I he DGIR is silent oil Ibis Issum, . 151fi Brouftliollow Drive. Santa Ana CA92705 Oliicu, 71.1- 751 -55$7 !'ax: i LI- Tit- 4'.iiiG ivvw.nir_ +?.te_•,gni L, 9 0 The rock Walt lice is cert ain to coda to sunle damage as a result ordw. cunsu artiun aclivity described y� above, is tecousmicting the blurt' lace with graded dirl and or coucrew and steel. acceputble ul 1'he Cily of Newport 13each and complying 1 idl the applicable policies" feh' tsulisLStlitLPrlterCS.l.r ty; Relcreme 4 142. IN) support the inolection of vilal Iesoarees. I Ile DFIR stipulates the file and post cuuslruction sutvcy of the eelgrass and inlensious la avoid the sand dollar colony scent it, full shop. A ,( 'S nryt identifying Ilse eciglass and sand dollar colony overlaid by the dock column locations would provide 7 any direct conflicts and distance to cadlicts. Tile ptujected pier column. arc elesirned up to 24" is diamelec I low will the drilling and placement of these columns riot hgmL:t rbese resources'! t:Ltd'�tm�nlyLlnni yis It appears Ibc proper modeling of air pollutattls has been provided and expected to be maintained below 4-'(a applicable regulatory Ouesholds_ In order to verify and doormeni the various Ihtesholds given in doe DOR a third party should he given this responsibility Noise. levels are stipulated during specific purtions of rile project to be an unncu QWe yaji—iicmu impact 471 '1 his sets a bad precedent on future developawins. I'leose. voatncl tilee with any questions or concerns. 'Pie hdame Semi 1'nrtcrfyld Senior Project Rhulaget SWAMP e., 9 l 1 41-r'TAie- /•/0.5 Campbell, James From: Jonv3 @80l com Sent: Monday, May 04. 2009 12:02 AM To: Campbell, James Cc: dobehave @earthlink.net RECEIVED li`/ "IANNING IVER N Subject: AERIE Draft EIR Comments PA2005 -196 May 3, 2009 James Campbell Principal Planner?t. I. sli,;lnitJ ++jj� -•j ui�t 1.�5,ritil ii City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Draft EIR, AERIE Project, PA2005 -196 Dear Jim, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR for the Aerie Project I would like to make the following comments regarding the Chapter 4 0 Section 4 7 Biology: 1. 1 don't see the map of the existing vegetation in the report nor on the web site for the Aerie Project in the Planning Department. is that map available? Does the map show the vegetation that was removed according to the Notice of Violation issued by the Coastal Commission? See page 1, footnote. The coastal bluff vegetation on the site should be 5-1 shown before the violation occurred and what is there now For example, the footnote says the lemonadeberry is growing back What about the encelia that was removed? How will the existing lemonadeberry survive under the overhang of the deck? The biology report does not seem to address this impact A mitigation measure should provide that the existing vegetation will not be removed or damaged and that it will survive and flourish after the project is built. 2 Coastal bluff scrub is considered ESHA by the Coastal Commission The EIR should show the boundaries of the coastal bluff scrub on the project site and appropriate buffers such as 50 feet which is required for ESHA under the Newport Beach CLUP. Page 1 of the biology report identifies a "remnant southern coastal bluff scrub community on the s—� rocky outcrop along the northern project boundary extending into Newport Bay ", but it seems to ignore the coastal bluff scrub on the bluff face, including lemonadeberry, buckwheat, and encelia This is also coastal bluff scrub and is ESHA that needs to be protected by protecting the vegetation that is now in place and making sure it will survive the deck overhanging it 5 3. The wetlands discussion on page 4 7.5 totally ignores the Coastal Commission upholding the one - parameter definition, such as vegetation (three parameter wetland definition is vegetation, hydric soil, and hydrology) On April 9, 2009, the Coastal Commission thoroughly refuted the Glenn Lukas biologist's attempts to ignore the one - parameter definition in a wetland in an RV storage lot containing wetlands in Huntington Beach which used the same arguments present in this report See Coastal Commission staff report al: http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2009/4rFh 11 -s-4 -2009 odf The Coastal Commission vote was unanimous in refuting the Tony Bomkamp Glenn Lukos reasoning, therefore they may very well contradict the wetlands conclusions in this report The water source for the umbrella sedge may be that 30 inch drain pipe? Or may it be seepage out of the bluff face from an aquictude? What irrigation would cause it? is the property being irrigated now? It looked pretty neglected to me when I visited the site last year In any case there appears to be a 190 square foot wetland that meets the Coastal Commission one parameter definition, therefore it should be protected in place, with a buffer, which Is 100 feet in the Newport Beach CLUP 4 The sand dollar issue needs more examination Where else in Newport Bay do they find sand dollars? The EIR should locate and describe the other locations Page 4 7 -8 states " the occurrence of of intertidal populations of the species 5 f within Newport Bay is unique and rare. The population survives in this location because wave motion/wave energy is 4- moderate, sediments are sandy to silty sand, and tidal exchange is excellent," Witt the dock cause changes to the wave motion/wave energy, sediments and tidal exchange? The biology report only makes a condition about signage and not -,?,C) 2. taking specimens out of the marine environment The changes in the environment including the pollution and changes to wave moUontenergy, sediments and tidal exchange need to be stated. analyzed, and mitigated. 5 The eelgrass issue needs further analysis. The report refers to studies in 2005 and 2007, but now it is 2009 Has the eelgrass gotten more or less numerous and how much of the dock area is now occupied by eelgrass? What is the mitigation policy for eelgrass that grows back under the boats? Eelgrass is great habitat for fish, and the fact that it is returning in Newport Bay is a sign of better water quality. 6 Sand transport Page 4 -7 -17. The report slates that puffing the piles in a single row that is parallel and not perpendicular to sand transport will mean that sand transport is not affected However, the pattern of sand transport is not 5— included in the report Sand transport varies with the season and direction of the swells which come from different directions according to the time of year This might affect the sedimentation in the Carnation Cove as well 7 There is a disconnect between page 4 7 -4 where the federally endangered tidewater goby is "potentially occurring within the region ", but then in Table 4.7 -2, it says: "No potential: Extirpated from Orange County" Is this site potential habitat for this endangered fish? G Please put me on the list for notices concerning this project, including by email at JonV3(&aolcom and at my home tJ address at Jan D. Vandersloot MD 2221 E 16th street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Thanks again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Jan D Vandersloot, MID 2009 3 Free CREDIT SCORES: See Your 3 Credit Scores from All 3 Bureaus FREE[ 2,g3 UlArnsye /rb . b DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3.137 ylicliclson Drivc, Sivic 380 trvine, CA 92612.8894 Td: (9,19) 724 -2241 rux:(949) 724.2192 May 4, 2009 .James Campbell City of'Newporl Beach 3300 Newport boulevard Newport Beach, California 92659 Subject: AERIE (PA2005 -196) Dear Mr. Campbell, File: IGRlCEQA SCHH: 2008051682 Log #.: 1.833E PCH M Ylcr�mn pnrveN He awgy efflo ttt, Thank you for the oppotlunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the AERIE (PA2005 -196) project. Tire proposed project involves the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - fancily residence to construct a 6- level. 8 -unit condominium complex, grading, and maintenance improvements to an existing private dock. The project site is located on 201 -207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place in the City of Newport Beach. The nearest State mute to the project site is Pacific Coast Highway The Department of Transportation (Department) is a commenting agency on this project 6� I and has no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity in the Department's right -of -way, an encroachment permit will be required Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any .frau a developments that could 6 potentially impact State transportation facilities. if you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Marlon Regisford at (949) 724 -2241 _ Sincerely, Christopher Llerre, Branch Chief' Local Devetopmentihueigovernmental Review C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research C. ndnmr imfirmtn nraAifiO ucrac�Cofj(urrtiti RECEIVED BY MANNING DEPARTftnt?ti f ..A; r: `E ( j, � `Ut�j,�U�j I,lt,�iVl� 2,9 1. THI$ PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Z. ,)J 7-L Comprehensive Planning Scrv'iccs May 4, 2009 Jim Campbell. Principal Planner Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport beach, CA 92658.8915 Re: Comments to Notice of Availability Aerie residential project (PA 2005 -1961 SCH No 200702)054 Dear Mr Campbell: tlelr/A2- IJO ?ECEIVED BY Pr NIIING ORAIRTMElw 7 As a resident of Newport beach and professional environmental consultant, I am concerned about the narrow and out dated review of the Aerie project presented in its Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). At a minimum. the EIR should be revised and recirculated to address the following very apparent errors: Air Quality The air qualily analysis fails to identify the square footage of building material to be demolished and the cubic yards of earth disturbance due to site excavation and grading, Demolition and grading activities contribute significant levels of particulate and carbon emissions. impacting both short -term air pollutant levels and long -term green house gas (GHG) emissions, The EIR is remiss in neglecting to identify how demaiilion and grading activities contribute to construction GHG emissions Although thresholds relative to CO2 and other GHG emissions are still being formulated by the Stale, AR32 makes it very clear that it is an objective of every community to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 The EIR needs to discuss how the Aerie project. which proposes the "tear down. excavate and build large" technique and an elevator system for parking, will work toward meeting these state mandated goals. Clearly, the EIR needs to be revised to fully describe the potential GHG emissions from the Aerie project, including not only CO2, but water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide. hydrofluorocarbons, perftucrocorbons, and sulfur hexailuoride. Although the EIR Identifies the health risks associated with criteria pollutants, it provides no 7.3 assessment of the health risks associated with project development, particularly related to demolition and grading activities during project construction The Impact Summary Table of the EIR erroneously lists SCAQMD rules as mitigation. Case low is very clear that standard rules, regulations and conditions of approval do not constitute mitigation under CEQA The EIR makes the some error relative to traffic, geology, drainage and biology. 2916 r; toy Strw N,po:i A,ach (.A 4 .2661 10: bd9(iii, )2q(, ll:w "195436981 ,,.r..ciiis)woaN.1i,icpacvm 219 Visual Resources / Aesthetics The EIR fails to discuss potential impacts associated with glare from project windows, porlicularty, 7r5 during the pre - sunset hour when the glare is the greatest Similarly, the EIR fails discuss how the new dock will block views of the beach that existing bay users currently enjoy. 7 -1. Should the project be approved and demolition and excavation begin. there is reasonable probability that the project may not move forward to completion In other words, the developer may excavale, leaving a great hole in the cliff, and find the project is no longer feasible. The community is then left with a ravaged cliff. Such scenarios are not uncommon; the halted development at Dover and PCH is a recent example of the eyesore left when site clearing is halted mid - track. Mitigation measures need to be added to the project, requiring the developer to bond for such events Allema6ves The alternatives analysis sets a very narrow scope that appears biased toward the project. The 3 single family and 5 multi - family alternatives appear to be intentionally designed so as not to reduce impacts associated with construction noise and paleontological resources Further, dismissing the Single Family Home Alternative because it does not require 'green' technology Is 1'1 a red herring. Rather, the EIR should compare the GHG emissions of the project to each alternative Using drought tolerant landscaping or overhangs, as proposed by the project, would not counter the GHG emissions of 9 luxury units when compared to any development with a smaller unit count and smaller footprint. Yours truly, .Joann Lombardo, Z.97 Lit 7e;4Q_ IJO 8 RECEIVED By PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY - ti. May 4, 2009 t. tl Y i; ;r Nrr' Usti Mr. James Campbell Principal Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Mr. Campbell! After reviewing the Draft EIR for the proposed AERIE project located in Corona del Mar, I have concerns regarding some issues discussed in the document as well as issues not addressed in the Draft EIR. I feel that the following issues are either misrepresented or fail to be addressed in the Draft EIR; Construction Management Plan (CMP) j— Traffic and Circulation Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) Predominant Line of Development (PLEDD) Dock System Financial feasibility of the project Throughout the Draft EIR there is reference to a Construction Management Plan (CMP). This Plan is not a part of the Draft EIR and nowhere is there reference as to where this Plan can be accessed. Due to the size and scope of the proposed project this document should be available for review. • g —� Since it is frequently referenced, shouldn't the CMP have been included in the Draft EIR or reference made to where the document could be viewed? • Where can it be viewed? Due to size and scope of this project, an unusually large number of heavy construction vehicles and equipment are needed. Table 1 -1 indicates that truck traffic would not g _3 exceed four trucks per hour and "not significant impacts would occur." The removal of 25,240 cubic yards of earth from the site (not to mention demolition and infra structure) will necessitate over 2,000 truckloads as well as heavy equipment. ��98 Page 2 There are no less than 11 Mitigating Measures listed for this issue. I disagree that even with the Mitigating Measures the Level of Significance will be "Less than Significant." tt Our streets are narrow and are not designed to handle the size and volume of large trucks and heavy equipment required for this project. • Where will these trucks be staged? • Will the trucks be lined up along the Haul Route? Residents access and exit their homes via alleys, which go out onto Seaview Avenue, and Ocean Boulevard residents must access and exit their properties via Ocean 8 6 ' Boulevard entering and crossing the Haul Route. What measures will be taken to ensure residents' safety as they enter and cross the Haul Route? $ -U $-7 i There is also a significant Issue of pedestrian safety, especially along Ocean Boulevard and Goldenrod and Seaview Avenues where there are a limited number of pedestrian crosswalks and stop signs. What measures will be taken to ensure pedestrians' safety as they enter and cross the Haul Route? The Draft EIR indicates that the proposed project is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Pian. It is my understanding that the purpose of the CLUP is to protect the bluffs and natural landforms within the City of Newport Beach. The City Council has established a PLOED at 50.7 feet above mean sea level. However, the project will have two subterranean levels, as well as elements of the project which will violate this level. • How is the removal of 25,240 cubic yards of material and subterranean construction consistent with the protection of the bluff /natural landform? • How is the construction of a 61,709 sq.ft, structure on a 20,935 sq.ft "buildable" site consistent with the protection of the bluff /natural landform? The proposed dock system presents a myriad of problems, and in fact, at the April 8, 2009 Harbor Commission Meeting the Harbor Commission voted to recommend denial of S the docks to the City. Their comments included concern regarding storm events and potential damage during these events, potential for shifting of the sand dollar population, sand migration concern and the overall size of the dock system. This is an extremely ambitious and expensive project, It is my understanding that the developer will be required to post a construction bond. • What is a construction bond and what does it accomplish? • What will happen to the project if the developer is unable to complete it? • Who will be financially responsible for any damage to streets or slope (i.e., Fernleaf and Ocean) failure due to the excessive number of heavy trucks traveling the Haul Route? Page 3 Lastly, there are a great number of Mitigating Measures for the proposed project. Enforcement of these will be time and work intensive. S�« How is the City going to ensure that all of the guidelines and Mitigating Measures are enforced? This project is NOT consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. It is too large and has huge potential for damage to the site slope as well as residential properties near the project. As required by General Plan Policy CE 7.1.1, the project does not provide convenient parking and will potentially increase the parking problems experienced in the neighborhood. Sincerely, Jinx L. Hansen 221 Goldenrod Avenue Corona del Mar, CA ?,,'100 9 -1 10: .Tames Campbell, Principal Planner Newport Beach Planting Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach., CA 92658 icampbell(alcitv.newnor t- beach.ca.us FROM: Melinda Luthin, Esq. P.0 Box 417 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 mluthinlawfirgmail.com Rc: Aerie Multi - family Residential Project Draft EIR Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft EIR. Chapter 1, Executive Summary 14774e AJO.9 P,ECEMD 517 pf. / >.PlfflFd DEPI•.RTfalf -tilt 1 {{ ii a `I! jtst j+V14 .311i tiLf @cr "I 1.1.2: A "construction Management Plan (CMP) has been prepared as a component of the proposed project." Comment: The DEIR refers to this CMP, but it is not incorporated into this DPIR. Nor is it a part of any public document that has been properly reviewed. The DEIR states that this CMP "addtesses parking management.. traffic control... safety and security... air quality control... noise suppression measures... and environmental compliance /protection." Yet the veracity of these conclusmy statements cannot be evaluated because we have not been given this document to review. This appears to be a very important document that is being kept from public scrutiny. I question this behavior. My questions are: Who prepared this CMP? Has it been properly reviewed? Is it available for public inspection and comment? What does "component' mean, in the above? How are these measures "addressed" and are they adequately and properly addressed? Since this CMP is not attached, this entire DEIR has not been adequately presented to the public for tevicw. I recommend that the EIR, with all incorporated documents attached be resubmitted for public review. 1.4: In general, this section appears to be boilerplate statements without any facts to support 9'2 the implementation of the project objectives. It reads more like an advertisement for the project rather than a list of objectives. Although contained in the Executive Summary, this section fails to summarize any means to obtain any of the proposed objectives. My specific comments to each subsection are as follows. 1. What is the "advanced design" referred to? What is the minimum "sufficient number and size" of units that will justify such a design? What "architectural diversity" of the community is this trying to emulate'? How will this project "add distinction' to the :3,3 neighborhood? These statements are made without any facts to explain how these objectives are being implemented, or how these objectives benefit the community. Notably, this section refers the reader to subsequent sections for further explanation, yet these sections provide the reader no information specific to the project. 2. It appears that the removal of the power poles and replacement with underground 9 -� wiring is a standard requirement for all new construction. This is not a proper "objective" that is specific to this project. 3. What are the energy efficient designs? Can these be implemented in a project that complies, without variance, with the local, regional, state and federal development rules, 0-5 and in a project that does not require an EIR? if so, then why isn't this project being built instead? 4. This vague section gives the leader no indication of what will be built, other than whatever the developer "deems" to be "important" This makes no consideration of the e-6 needs or interests of the environment, of the community, of the city, state or of our nation as a whole. 5. How will a high - density project decrease parking on the sheet? It seems improbable -7 that dtis inconvenient panting proposal, which includes mechanical elevators subject to I failure, will decrease any parking in the area. 9 -5 6. This project appears to inhibit the scenic views, not enhance them. The view from Begonia park will be significantly impacted, and the view from the site will also be negatively affected. The removal of two power poles is insignificant. It also does not enhance the view from the peninsula or the water. In fact, it will be more detrimental view because the natural bluff will be replaced by a building. Also, the balconies will protrude into the view corridor. R. Although the "average" building height may be below the maximum, there is no . g comment on the effect of the maximum exceedences that will occur and their impact on the views. Table 1 -I this table is confusing, Again, it is tilled with conclusory statements without factual 0-1t) support. For instance, the "potential Impact" on "Land Use and Planning" states that, after mitigation, the deck will be "consistent with the Land use i.lenient and Costal Land a4- 1J 43 use Plan" and "compatible with the existing land uses of the area" What is the meaning of "consistent ?" Ho«- is an 8- person, single- building project with subterranean parking that has a footprint multiple times larger than any other residential building in the area '.compatible" with the existing land use? Soils and Gcology: In general, there is no discussion of compliance with any laws or regulations or other requirements other than local ordinances. 1 here should be a discussion of the project's compliance or non- compliance with the requirements of all regulations and laws from local, regional, state and federal sources- SC 4.9 -3: "The property owner shall execute and record a waiver of future shoreline protection._." I am not sure what this means. It needs to be explained. SC4.9 -4 Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by costal erosion." This comment needs explaining.. The reader cannot determine what structures are considered `accessory." This is being proposed as a single structure. What is the proposed "routine maintenance' predicted to be necessary? What will happen if this maintenance is not performed? What will be the impacts of this maintenance on the environment and the community? How often will it be performed? It appears that there may be some information regarding the soil integrity that has not been disclosed to the public, but which is known to some, if potential incidents due to coastal erosion have been identified. the public has a right to know exactly what has been studied, and what risks are being created by this project. All of this information should be disclosed, and provided for comment MM4.9.1 Allowing this massive project to be designed via the engineering specifications of one consultant (namely, Nesbit & Associates) seems to be risky. Who is reviewing these engineering specifications? Wlro is double- checking them? Have there been 19 L} studies performed at the site to verify their calculations? What are the potential risks? What are their probabilities? This is a huge health and safety concern not only for the residents of this project, but for all residents in the vicinity, including those in Bayside Cove. as well as the environment in the area. Biological Resources the first section does not identify any "Potential Impact" so the reader is left to guess at g" (s what the corresponding Mitigation measures ate attempting to mitigate. The second section refers to the CMP, which is not attached, and therefore this entire g - (& I DEIR has not been adequately presented to the public for review. "A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre - construction survey for active nests of covered species . " This does not identify what "qualifications ilre biologist shall have, of who will choose the biologist, It also. only states that they will not disturb nests. It toe does not address the issue of the recurring need of any nesting species. This will eliminate any fidure nesling. The only "mitigation" proposed is obtaining a permit. This can hardly be considered any mitigation of any impact on the protected flora acrd fauna in the area.. The natural habitat is going to be destroyed, with no consideration of the long -term impacts on these species. "A smll portion of the existing eelgrass bed (approximately 30 square feet)" will be adversely iampacted by the boats. This does not provide us with adequate information. How big is the bed, what numerical portion of the bed does this consist of? "Impacts to ecigrass are avoided through the implementation of measures prescribed in the CMP.` Again, the public has not been given the opportunity to fully review this DEIR because they have not been given the CMP. Also, the claim that some 3-20 secret "measure" described in the CMP can eliminate the effects of 100 plus foot boats seems improbable- This is all die more reason that the public deserves to have access to ail the proposed "implantation'' measures in order to test their feasibility and veracity. This also states that there will be a pre- and post- construction survey of the Zt eelgrass, It does not address any impacts on the eelgrass due to the construction itself. In general, mitigation is not monitoring and surveys only. Monitoring and surveys are tools used to determhre what mitigation is required, they are not the mitigation themselves. In this DEIR, surveys and monitoring are improperly proposed for the purpose of mitigation. Disturbances to the sandy cover intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat, ecigrass and sand dollar bed.. Again, this DEIR incorporates by reference the CMP, which is not attached and 9-23 not available for public review. Therefore the public cannot adequately review and comment on this DEIR. ']'his mitigation consists of vague statements that the construction workers will "avoid impacts" to the area. It does not state how this will be achieved, other than with signagc and yellow construction tape: Aesthetics The DEIR states that there will be no impact on the view. This is not true, as the view will be impacted front many vantage points throughout the village, the water, and the city (see above). SC: 4 5.1 -2: The lighting mitigation section is incomplete SC 4.5. 2 (second): "The applicant shalt dedicate a view easement..." This needs to be � favor is this view easement? Where is it located? Why is it 0 explained? In whose required? Cultutal Resources This section identifies that the project "will result in site alteration that could encroach into the Monterey Formation Yet, the impacts arc defined as less than 9 .Z significant. Ilow is this possible? -a,to4 Recreation No discussion is made of the negative impact on the public that this project will .9'Z$ cause by its increased street parking and by the fact that the project will hide and hinder the availability of the public beaches from the public. Drainage and Hydrology. This section discusses the effect of die project on the marine life. This discussion 9 of the impact of the construction is inadequate. So too is the mitigation proposed. The effect of the construction on the marine life and ptoper and effective mitigation of these effects should have been fully addressed under `Biological Resources" above. M Public Services and Population and Housing In general, this DEIR does not discuss die density of the project. It states that there will be "eight luxury condominiums" but does not state how many people are estimated for each. It also does not state the density of the current fifteen unit apartment complex. "Therefore, the public cannot adequately evaluate and comment on the impact of any increase in residents at this project. Sincerely, Melinda Luthin, Esq. r f•�� THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -z, (o(o CJ r_—�M (o_1 May 4, 2009 James Campbell Principal Planner Newport Beach Planning Dept 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 a.Ef��M�D Lrl° r•jtj'�di�3{frr DiepAtfTfvfrf�iT A � u,,,:. I�u l,i . . LWTE12.- it-0. !a 169 Saxony Road Sidle '204 Encinitas, CA 92024 NIL. „ , t 'FF''- �-1 1':' -i 760. 942.6505 rriti v +l NIL. r�fj �I ?i N67��11 ra;. 760- 942 -8515 Via Elecfronic Mail j campbe I I@ city.newport•beac h.ca. us Re: Aerie Multiple - Family Residential Project Residents for Responsible Development Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Campbell: Coast Law Group LLP represents the interests of Residents for Responsible Development (RFRD) with respect to the City's review of the above - referenced project (the "Aerie Project" or "Project ") - RFRD is comprised of a group of concerned neighbors living in Corona Del Mar and Newport Beach. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the review process and to subrriil comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). While RFRD is not opposed to the appropriate development of the subject property, the Project as currently proposed does not comply with the City's land use regulations and therefore fails to adequately protect the sites coastal bluff and surrounding resources. Further, the DEIR is legally deficient under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it fails to carry out the statute's Informational goals. As the City is aware, CEQA mandates full disclosure to promote informed decision - making and an opportunity for meaningful public participation. The statute's fundamental goals have not been carried out in this case. Given the scope of the Project and the numerous significant impacts associated therewith, the Project cannot be approved as currently designed. With these issues in mind, RFRD respectfully submits the following comments for the City's consideration: 1. Coastal Bluff Impacts The DEIR Is legally deficient under CEQA because the Project wilt result in significant land use impacts. As a cursory review of the DEIR discloses, construction of the proposed condominium structure will result in the complete eradication of the underlying coastal bluff. Notwithstanding this obvious fact and the City's express coastal policies prohibiting the same, the DEIR fails to discuss or otherwise acknowledge the significance of this loss. Indeed, the DEIR painstakingly avoids the issue altogether and therefore falls to satisfy its informational purpose under CEQA. Per appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a proposed project will result in a significant land use impact if it conflicts "with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect." Here, the Clty's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan (CLOP) set forth express provisions prohibiting the physical alteration of coastal bluffs and landforms Particularly relevant to the !Z, 107 (0—f (Am IT- 10 ,2 (0.3 Aerie Project, Comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2009 Page 2 consistency analysis in this case, these regulations are separate and distinct from the general restrictions that apply to aesthetics and compliance with the predominant line of existing development (PLOED) For instance, one of the discrete goals of the General Plan is to ensure that "[d]evelopment respects natural landforms such as coastal bluffs." (General Plan, Goal NR23, p. 10 -40). To effectuate this goal, the Natural Resources Element sets forth a number of specific coastal bluff policies, including the following: NR 23 1. Maintenance of Natural Topography, Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, (General Plan, p 10 -40, emphasis added).' Similarly, the CLOP contains a discrete section addressing "Natural Landform Protection" (see CLUP §4.4.3. p. 4-74 to 4 -80) and expressly states that coastal bluffs are to be protected. (ld. at p. 4 -75). In doing so, the CLOP notes that coastal bluffs have been "physically or visually obliterated by structures, landform alteration or landscaping," (ld at p. 4 -75). As with the General Plan, the CLOP sets forth a number of specific policies to ensure that new development complies with its protective mandate. For instance, the CLUP states: 4 4 3.12: Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as , .. [u)tiliztng existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent possible' (CLUP, pp 4 -78, 479) Furthermore, the CLUP specifically references the coastal platform occupied by Corona del Mar and addresses the manner In which bluff - related development may occur. Notably, the clear intent of the CLUP is to prohibit any further alteration of Corona del Mar's coastal bluffs. The CLUP states: Corona del Mar Is one of the few areas in the coastal zone where there is extensive development of the bluff face; specifically, residential development on Avocado Avenue, Pacific Drive, Carnation Avenue, and Ocean Boulevard. The initial subdivision and development of these areas occurred prior to the adoption of policies and regulations intended to protect coastal bluffs and other landforms. Development In these areas is allowed to continue on the bluff face to be consistent with the existing development pattern and to protect coastal views from the bluff top. However, development of the bluff face is controlled to minimize further alteration (CLUP, p. 4.76; emphasis added). See also Policy LUI .3 (requiring the preservation of 'open space resources, beaches, harbor, parks, bluffs, preserves, and estuaries as visua(, recreational and habitat resources) 2 See also Policy 4 4.1.3 ('Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms. including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. "), Zr1OA, lo-%j Aerie Project, Comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2009 Page 3 To ensure Corona del Mar's coastal bluffs are protected in accordance with this intent, the CLUP sets forth the following policy: 4.4.3 -8: Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development or public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing (CLUP, p 4 -78; emphasis added).' Thus, as the foregoing illustrates, coastal bluffs in the area have been physically and visually obliterated due to prior development and associated grading activities. To prevent the continued toss of these resources, development must be carried out such that alterations to the natural topography and underlying coastal bluff are minimized to the maximum extent feasible. This 10-5 mandate is separate and distinct from the obligation to preserve coastal bluffs as a visual resource. And to the extent bluff - related development is permitted in the Corona del Mar area at all, it must be consistent with and limited to the scope of pre - existing structures such that further landform alterations are avoided. These limitations apply because bluff face development is now strictly prohibited and is only allowed per those grandfathered uses. 10 -% In the General Plan and CLUP consistency analysis, the DEIR repeatedly concludes that the Project complies with the foregoing policies because the exterior development will not extend below the PLOED and the structures will have a "curvilinear' design. In doing so, the DEIR completely ignores the Project's lateral encroachments and subterranean Impacts to the bluff. The DEIR's consistency analysis is therefore deficient because it fails to address the specific bluff protection policies outlined above. And as detailed below, the DEIR's findings are not supported by substantial evidence and will be subject to challenge as an abuse of discretion. The Project is sited above the entrance to Newport Harbor on one of the City's character- defining coastal bluffs. As such, it is visible from public vantage points throughout the Balboa Peninsula and Newport Bay (DEIR, p. 3 -2)- The bluff is part of the Monterey Formation, which was formed approximately 80,000 to 520,000 years ago and has a "high paleontological sensitivity" due to an abundance of marine life fossils (DEIR, pp. 4.9 -1, 4.10 -1). The bluffs are considered "significant scenic and environmental resources and are to be protected " (CLUP, p. 4 -75). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Project will result in the eradication of the site's underlying coastal bluff, as follows: "The upper elevation of the project site is approximately 70 feet above mean sea level:' (DEIR, p 4 7 -1; emphasis added) Project construction will require excavation to an elevation of 28 feet. (DEIR, p. 4.2 -2, Table 4.2 -1) As such, the proposed project will result in the eradication of 60% of the underlying bluff (See DEIR pp. 3.19, 3 -21, See also Policy 2.0.14 (ensure that new development does not contribute to the "destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs "); t/0') 6o ^g (t1"� Aerie Project, Comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2009 Page 4 Ex. 3 -13, 3 -14, cross sections illustrating extent of bluff removal). To accomplish this result, the Project will require the excavation of 25,000 cubic yards of the underlying bluff, which will simply be disposed of In the Brea Olinda Landfill. (DEIR, p. 4.2 -3). The need to transport such a large quantity of earth material to the landfill will result "in the generation of approximately 2,105 heavy truck trips over the 5 -month grading and excavation phase." (ld. at 4 2 -3). The scope of the excavation is further illustrated by the fact that the project wilt require a setback variance, as "the majority of the encroachments are subterranean." (Id. at 4.1 -20). In that regard, the site will be completely hallowed out such that only a sliver of the bluff face will remain intact. The DEIR states: Excavations for and construction of planned subterranean levels, which will remove existing fill soils as well as _a majority of the terrace deposits capping the bedrock at part of the exposed 52.8 as the [sic) both the lithologic bedrock unit exposed and the rock quality, the remaining trapezoidal section of intact rock will have sufficient strength to remain in place during the economic life of the structure (Le. 75 years). (DEIR pp. 4.9-6,4 9-7; emphasis added). The direct purpose of these excavation activities is to accommodate a massive, six story building consisting of over 61,000 square feet by eradicating the underlying bluff and disguising a high -rise structure in its place. (See DEIR, p. 3- 12).5 To allow such a practice would set an incredibly poor precedent for future development in the area and would lead to the complete destruction of the City's coastal bluffs over time. Moreover, the Project would permanently alter the 100,000 year -old bluff in favor of leaving a rock "pillar" that is only expected to remain in place for the structure's 75 -year economic life. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the DEIR states that the Project "has been designed to'fit' the bluff" and "would not alter the existing landform that characterizes the site." (DEIR, pp. 41-20, 4.5 -8). As set forth above, these contentions are not supported by substantial evidence, in that regard, there is no question that the Project violates the protective policies of the General Plan and CLUP, as the proposed development has not been designed to "minimize alteration" of the site's natural topography and underlying bluff "to the maximum extent feasible " (General Plan Policy NR 23.1; CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8; emphasis added) Further, less intrusive alternatives (that do not require substantial excavation) clearly exist. Based on the foregoing, the Project will result in significant land use impacts and the DEIR's conclusions to the contrary are not a While the logic of this passage is not entirely clear, It seems to suggest that the excavation activilles will somehow constitute a Project benefit because evisceration of the bluff will result In less bluff erosion in the future This. of course, defies common sense and cannot be relied upon as a justification for Project approval. ' The DEIR does not Identify the square footage of the site's existing residential structures and therefore fails to provide an adequate baseline for evaluating Project impacts 01110 to .-(D t0 -/j Aerie Project, Comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2009 Page 5 supported by substantial evidence. 2. Visual & Aesthetic Impacts Given the bulk and scale of the proposed condominium structure, the Project will result in significant visual and aesthetic impacts under CEQA. The overall building height of the residential structure will be increased by approximately nine feet over the existing multiple - family structure and 17 feet over the existing single family residence. (DEIR, p. 4.5 -3) As noted above, the resulting Project consists of a 61,000 square -foot high -rise structure which is entirety inconsistent with the surrounding community in terns of both architectural style and overall mass' Relevant here, the CLUP states that the City must "(cjontinue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach" (GLUP, Policy 4.4.2 -2). Despite this dear mandate, the DEIR fails to provide a reasoned analysis of the Project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood (such as a comparative square footage analysis of other residential structures on Carnation Avenue). Instead, the DEIR repeatedly states that the Project will not result in a significant aesthetic impact because "it would be smaller than the Channel Reef Development located to the south " (DEIR, p. 4.1 -35). Given the DEIR's conclusory discussion of this issue, approval of the Project will be subject to challenge as an abuse of discretion. The foregoing deficiencies are equally at issue with respect to the scope of the proposed dock structure The dock, which will total approximately 3,500 square feet (CRM Eelgrass Survey, p. io -rZ 21), will accommodate nine vessels, including a 100 -foot yacht. While the DEIR does not provide any details regarding the height and bulk of the vessels expected to be moored on -site, there Is no question that their presence will directly impact views of Carnation Cove and the adjacent rock outcroppings that form its southwestern boundary. With respect to this issue, the General Plan states: "Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, and site buildings to minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and 10-!j preserve the features as a visual resource." (General Plan, NR 23.1; p 10 -40, emphasis added). Likewise, the CLUP identifies rock outcroppings as significant landforms that must be protected. (CLUP, p. 4 -77) In attempting to reconcile the dock structure with the foregoing policies, the DEIR states, "Although some views of the cove and rock features below the bluff from some vantages in the harbor would be partially or totally obscured by the proposed dock facility, the obstruction would be brief and intermittent only as one travels in and out of the harbor" (DEIR, p. 41-16; see also D. 4.5 -8). ln•f�. This conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence, as it fails to consider the Project's impacts on stationary views from the Peninsula. Indeed, the dock system has been sited directly adjacent to the two rock outcroppings such that they will be completely obscured from cross - channel vantage points. (See DEIR, Ex 3 -17, depicting extent to which outcroppings will be obscured), By the same token, the DEIR fails to evaluate potential impacts to views from " See a g. visual simulations at Exhibits 4 5.7 and 4 5 -8. 7, r 1 t' Aerie Project, Comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2009 Page 6 Carnation Cove to the Harbor and Channel. (See CLUP Policy 4.4.1 -1, requiring protection of public views to and along the bay and harbor). With respect to glare, the DEIR fails to adequately consider the drastic increase in reflective surface area resulting from the Projects design. (See DEIR, Ex. 4 -15, 3-16). In that regard, the DEIR should evaluate potential view impacts from Harbor and Peninsula vantage points during times of maximum sun reflection. 1 Noise impacts While the DEIR recognizes that noise impacts will be significant and unmitigable with respect to construction of the proposed residential structure, it fails to adequately consider dock - related impacts! The DEIR states, "Construction of the dock is scheduled from May 2012 to July 2012 and is estimated to have a duration of 40 days." (DEIR, p 4.4 -20). Given this time - frame, the DEER must evaluate potential noise impacts to recreational uses within Carnation Cove, as the beach area is most frequently visited during summer months. Moreover, the DEIR deliberately understates dock - related construction impacts on neighboring residences. The DEIR states that impacts from drilling noise will reach 71dB and 68 dB at 101 Bayside Place and 2495 Ocean Boulevard, respectively. (DEIR, p. 4.4 -20). However, these figures represent average noise impacts. The dock construction noise study prepared by 10-17 Wieland Acoustics states that maximum noise levels at those locations will reach 83 dB and 77 dB, respectively. (Wieland Acoustics Study, App. E, p 12). These figures clearly exceed the standard 65 dB threshold of significance for assessing residential noise impacts- (See DEIR, p. 44-1). By the same token, the DEIR completely omits any reference to noise impacts associated with installation of the concrete piles (which will reach 80 dB at the closest residence). (Id -)- The failure to include this information constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion, as the DEIR does not disclose the full extent of the Project's environmental impacts a 4. Vibrational Impacts With respect to vibrational impacts, the DEIR states that the "analysis of potential short -term vibration impacts was evaluated at both the closest distance that would occur as well as the average distance" (DEIR, p. 4.4 -23). However, this does not appear to be accurate, as the Vibrational study attached to the DEIR only states that impacts were assessed from a distance of 60 feet. (See Planning Center Study, DEIR App. F, p. 57). In any event, neither the DEIR nor the vibrational study identifies the actual distance between the anticipated impacts and the closest residence. r Regarding construction of the residential structure. the applicable noise study did not consider Impacts associated with crane operations on the grounds that use of the rig would be intermittent (Planning Noise Study, App. F, pp. 31 -32) However, as is the case with construction traffic, intermittent impacts can result in significant noise Impacts. As such, the crane's impacts must be properly evaluated in the Final EIR e The DEIR also fails to disclose noise Impacts to residential structures across the Channel. Notably. drilling - related noise levels will reach 65d8 at 2222 Channel Road (Wieland Acoustics Study, App E. p. 12) Because this borders the 65 dB threshold, file impact must be disclosed. -ZrIIZ (0-20 fo 2 Aerie Project, Comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2009 Page 7 Because the Project requires a setback variance to accommodate excavation activities, the impacts are likely to occur within several feet of adjacent residences. As such, the DEIR must address potential vibrational impacts in terms of both cosmetic and structural damage This applies with respect to construction of the condominium structure as well as the dock facility, as "the risk of structural damage still exists even at relatively low vibration levels." (Wieland Acoustics Study, App. E, p 7). Notably, the study prepared to measure dock - related vibrational impacts does not address this Issue. The report states: Because it is outside our area of expertise, the risk (if any) of structural damage due to transmitted vibrations or dynamic settlements has not been evaluated In this study. This risk should be analyzed and assessed by qualified structural and geotechnical engineers. (Wieland Acoustics Study, App- E, p. 15; emphasis added). This issue must be adequately analyzed in the Final EIR and to the extent any significant impacts will result the DEIR must be re- circulated The analysis must give due consideration to site conditions, including the hard rock material prevalent in the Monterey Formation (see DEIR, pp. 4.9 -1, 4.9 -7), as well as the age and physical condition of neighboring structures' Also relevant, the evaluation must be based on peak particulate velocity (PPV) threshold standards. PPV "is most appropriate for evaluating potential building damage since it is related to the stresses that are exerted upon the buildings." (Wieland Acoustics Study, App. E, p. 6) t0 The DEIR's analysis of vibrational impacts on human perception is likewise deficient, and fails to accurately disclose the findings of the applicant's own reports. Notably, "when groundborne vibration exceeds 72 to 80 VdB, it is usually perceived as annoying to occupants of residential buildings." (ld. at p. 8) Per the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact will be assessed if the project will result in "[e]x[psosure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This Impact will occur if ariltconstructl_on activity causes empnasis added). Here, development of the condominium structure will result impacts at the nearest structures: • loaded Trucks: 90 Vde • Caisson Drill: 97 VdB • Large Bulldozer: 97 VdB • Ram Hoe: 97 VdB (Planning Center Study, App. F. p. 59, fn. 2). Based on the foregoing, the Project's construction impacts will exceed the applicable threshold by a substantial margin As such, the Project will result in significant vibrational impacts to Sao Wieland Acoustics Study, App E, p. G ('The level of ground vibration experienced at any location depends mainly on the construction method. soil medium, distance from the vibratory source, and the structural dynamics of the building ' ). to See also Transportation- and Consirucfion- Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation (June 20D4). p. 27. The Planning Center Study does not explain why differing standards were applied with respect to evaluating potential cosmetic damage (0-2-7- 10--2,3 Aerie Project, Comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2009 Page iI neighboring residents and the Final EIR cannot be certified without a statement of overriding considerations on this issue 5. Eelgrass Impacts Eelgrass beds are considered habitat areas of particular concern because they attract "many marine invertebrates and fishes and the added vegetation and the vertical relief [they] provide enhances the abundance and diversity of the marine life compared to areas where the sediments are barren." (DEIR, pp. 4.7 -7, 4.7 -14). The beds also serve as a nursery for various juvenile fish species (Id. at 4.7 -7; CLUP, p. 4 -9) Further, eelgrass is a major food source in nearshore marine systems, and serves numerous beneficial physical roles (such as reducing wave action and erosion, stabilizing sediment and improving water clarity), (Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (revision 11), p. 1). Given the foregoing, the "loss of eelgrass as a result of coastal development is considered to be a significant environmental impact, and any potential impacts to this resource must be avoided, minimized or mitigated." (CLUP, p 4 -58; emphasis added) In that regard, the CLUP sets torah a number of eelgrass protection policies, including the following: 4.1.4 -1: Continue to protect eelgrass meadows for their important ecological function as a nursery and foraging habitat within the Newport Bay ecosystem. 4.1.4.3: Site and design boardwalks, docks, piers, and other structures that extend over the water to avoid impacts to eelgrass meadows. Encourage the use of materials that allow sunlight penetration and the growth of eelgrass. 4 2.5 -1: Avoid impacts to eelgrass (Zostera marina) to the greatest extent possible. Mitigate losses of eelgrass at a 1.2 to 1 mitigation ratio and in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Encourage the restoration of eelgrass throughout Newport Harbor where feasible, (CLUP, pp. 4-40,4-41, 4 -80; emphasis added) The Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (Mitigation Policy), in turn, "requires all eelgrass patches to be protected or replaced, regardless of its size, location, or habitat value or the extent of eelgrass coverage within the harbor." (CLUP, p 4 -59). However, as a threshold matter, the Mitigation Policy states that transplant mitigation shell only be considered after policies for avoidance and minimization "have been pursued to the fullest extent possible prior to the development of any mitigation program" (Mitigation Policy, p 1). With respect to "boat docks and related structures," the Mitigation Policy expressly reiterates the need to avoid eelgrass Impacts from the outset, as follows: Boat docks, ramps, gangways and similar structures should eelgrass or potential eelgrass areas is infeasible, impacts should be minimized by utilizing, to the maximum extent feasible, construction materials that allow for greater light penetration (e.g , grating, translucent panels, etc ). (Mitigation Policy, p. 2; emphasis added) 1x-23 t c� r• !o -A4- Aerie Project, Comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2909 Page 9 These avoidance measures are necessary due to "the time (i e., generally three years) necessary for a mitigation site to reach full fishery utilization." ( /d, at p. 3; emphasis added). The Mitigation Policy also sets forth detailed mapping requirements. It states: The project applicant shall map thoroughly the area, distribution, density and relationship to depth contours of any eelgrass beds likely to be impacted by project construction. This includes areas immediately adjacent to the project site which have the potential to be indirectly or Inadvertently impacted as well as potential eelgrass habitat areas. (fd, at p. 2; emphasis added) With respect to these last requirements, eelgrass mapping surveys shall only be valid "for a period of 60 days with the exception of surveys completed in August - October." (Id. at p. 3). In addition, potential eelgrass habitat areas must be mitigated at a ratio of 1 to 1 (Id.) In this case, construction of the proposed dock facility will violate the CLUP's protective policies and will therefore result insignificant eelgrass impacts Further, the DEIR's proposed mitigation measures are wholly inadequate, as they fail to comply with the basic requirements of the Mitigation Policy. As a preliminary matter, the prevalence and current location of eelgrass beds in the Project vicinity are not known with sufficient accuracy because the DEIR continues to rely on the March 2007 eelgrass survey (DEIR, p. 4.7 -16). While the applicant's eelgrass survey was apparently updated in March of this year, it continues to rely on the survey activities conducted in March of 2007 (CRM Eelgrass Survey, p. 6). Per the Mitigation Policy, the 2007 survey is no longer valid and the DEIR therefore relies on outdated information in purporting to assess potential eelgrass impacts.. In that regard, a current survey must be performed to evaluate the extent to which the southern eelgrass bed has extended further north into the dock area. (See CRM Eelgrass Survey, Fig. 4). Likewise, the status of the eelgrass patch adjacent to the northern property boundary line must be evaluated." With respect to the substantive policies set forth above, the Project violates the CLUP because the dock has not been sited and designed to avoid impacts to eelgrass meadows "lo the greatest extent possible." (CLUP, 4.1.4 -3; 4.2 5 -1). Indeed, the dock's design and proposed location will result in direct impacts to the eelgrass meadow located to the south of the cove. With respect to vessel - related impacts, the DEIR states that propeller scarring and prop wash associated with the construction barge and support vessels could adversely impact eelgrass (025 vegetation. To mitigate this impact, the DEIR states as follows: Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work over eelgrass beds only during tides of +2 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) or higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass from propellers and to limit water turbidity, it The survey must also satisfy the Mitigation Policy's requirements with respect to surveying density and identifyinghnitigaling impacts to potential eelgrass habitat areas (see Mitigation Policy, p 2).. Aerie Project, Comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2008 Page 10 (DEIR, p.4..7 -i6; emphasis added) However, the DEIR fails to address the significant impacts that will result from boats owned by T the residents themselves. As reflected in Figure 5 of the applicant's eelgrass survey, all boats 1 using the dock's southern slips must travel directly through the adjacent eelgrass bed to access the dock. Because no tide - related access restrictions apply, these activities will result in significant eelgrass impacts- The DEIR is legally deficient because it fails to evaluate or otherwise consider this impact. to °2-8 Further, the Project not only violates the COUP, it fails to comply with the express provisions of the Mitigation Policy The policy states that docks are to be sited and designed to "avoid eelgrass vegetated or potential eelgrass vegetated areas to the maximum extent feasible." (Mitigation Policy, p. 2; emphasis added). The surface area of the proposed dock system totals approximately 3,500 square feet (CRM Eelgrass Survey, p 21), and the DEIR provides no discussion as to why such a massive structure is required Because the dock system can be eliminated outright or limited to its current size, there is no basis to conclude that eelgrass meadows have been avoided to the maximum extent feasible. Indeed, the elimination of the dock's southern slips could potentially avoid Impacts to the cove's eelgrass bed. As such, the scope of the dock must be appropriately reduced before transplanting measures may be implemented under the Mitigation Policy. (See Mitigation Policy, P. 1) i1 6. Impacts to Carnation Cove Carnation Cove supports "an extremely diverse assemblage of plant and animal life due to its location near the Harbor Entrance Channel and the combination of rocky outcrops and fine sands -to -silt substrates." (DEIR, p. 4.7 -8) As such, the Cove is "an important marine sandy tidal flat that displays features that while once present and common, no longer exists in other areas of Newport Bay." (ld.; emphasis added). These shallow areas support a significant intertidal sand dollar population which is now unique and rare within the Bay. (ld.) "If the sand dollar population that exists in the cove is removed, it is unlikely that it would establish itself at another site because similar conditions do not exist elsewhere in the bay." (ld. at p. 41-17). The sandy sediment also provides viable bottom habitat for numerous snail species. (td.). Given the Cove's inherent biological value, disturbances of the "Intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat, eelgrass, and sand dollar bed within the cove would be considered a significant adverse impact to on -site resources." (CRM Eelgrass Survey, p, 22; DEIR, p. 4 7 -17). Although the Coves tidal habitat is expressly recognized as "unique and rare," the DEIR fails to provide any meaningful discussion as to how dock construction impacts will actually be mitigated. This deficiency is due, in large part, to the fact that the DEIR provides an entirely inadequate project description with respect to dock removal and construction activities. Because the DEIR fails to provide this critical information, the Project's impacts cannot be accurately assessed. '2 'To the extent transplanting measures will apply. the DEIR does not provide sufficient information as to how they will be implemented. Z,lI (�q 10-,q Aerie Project, Comments on Draft eIR May 4, 2009 Page 11 For instance, the DEIR's dock - related project description consists of less than one full page. With respect to dock removal, the DEIR simply states that six support piles will be removed and the existing 20 -foot gangway will be replaced by a 60 400t long gangway. Regarding dock construction, the DEIR slates that 19 piles will be required to support the new dock and that the four steel piles supporting the gangway platform will be repaired or replaced. (DEIR, p. 3 -26) As to construction activities within the Cove itself, the DEIR merely states that the timber walkway will be replaced in -like -kind and "existing concrete piles supporting the walkway will be repaired in the form of concrete repairs." (DEIR, p 3 -26; emphasis added). Notably, the pier and walkway structure will pass over one of the Cove's rock outcroppings and directly into the sensitive tidal habitat discussed above. (See DEIR, Ex 3 -17). As such, construction activilies will take place on the beach and within the sand dollar habitat. Notwithstanding this fact, the DEIR does not provide any meaningful discussion (either in the project description or biological resources section) as to the construction equipment that will be required, the manner in which pier supports and timber replacement will be delivered to the Cove, the manner in which the pier /walkway supports piles will be installed without impacting the sand dollar population, the number of vessels that will be working on -site, and so on With respect to mitigatlon measures, the DEIR states that the tidal area will be adequately Protected because construction workers will be instructed to avoid the area. (DEIR, p. 41-17). However, the DEIR does not explain how this is possible given the need for "concrete repairs" to the supporting piles themselves. Nor does the DEIR explain how silt curtains can be in 3p deployed to protect the tidal habitat from these direct impacts. Likewise, the DEIR states that tubldity plumes will be reduced because piles will be removed and replaced using "Best Available Technology" (!d, at p 4.7 -18). Yet the DEIR does not provide any explanation as to what technologies will actually be used. Moreover, there Is no basis to conclude that the remaining "protective" measures (notifying l0 -3 residents of the Cove's sensitivity, placing debris bins on -site, and removal of debris from the seaFloor) will adequately mitigate construction impacts Indeed, the fact that construction debris will need to be removed from the bottom indicates that impacts will in fact occur, Given the foregoing, the DEIR contains a legally deficient project description and falls to (0-,32. adequately evaluate the Project's impacts on Carnation Cove. Further, the findings associated with the aforementioned mitigation measures are not supported by substantial evidence" Special Status Plant Species Under CEQA, the deferral of environmental assessment to a future date runs counter to the statute's express policy which requires that environmental review be conducted at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process. Sundstrom v County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 307 (citing Pub- Resources Code, § 21003.1). Here, the DEIR Improperly defers the assessment of whether any special status plant species exist on -site. Per the DEIR, nine such species have the potential to exist at the Project site (DEIR, p. 4.7 -2), but the extent to which they are actually present remains unknown In that u The DEIR states. "sand transport impacts are not anticipated as a result of the placement and configuration of piles in a single row that is parallel and not perpendicular to the direction of sand transport.' (DEIR. p 4.7-17) Given the sensitive nature of the Cove. such speculation is improper under CEQA and sand transportation must be adequataly studied and evaluated In the Final EIR, Aerie Project, Comments on Draft FIR May 4, 2009 Page 12 regard, the DEIR states that surveys will be performed to acquire this information "during the appropriate blooming window identified for each species " (DEIR, p. 4.7 -13) To the extent any special status species do exist on -site, an incident take permit must be obtained prior to issuance of a grading permit. (!d ). 10,33 Deferral of the impact assessment in this manner is entirely improper under CEQA Notably, all t,W-rnine species are currently within their blooming window (DEIR, 4.7 -2) As such, the presence and extent of any impacts must be assessed now so appropriate mitigation measures may be assessed during the CEQA review process. To the extent any such impacts will occur, the DEIR must be re- circulated for public review." Similarly, the DEIR must assess the extent to which dock construction activities will impact the southern coastal bluff scrub community existing on the rock outcroppings (See DEIR, p. 4 7 -1), !0-3¢ B. Traffic and Parking Impacts The DEIR "s discussion of parking and traffic impacts fails to satisfy CEQA's informational purpose. For instance, the DEIR fails to adequately consider potential impacts related to off - site construction parking and shuttle transportation, and Improperly defers review with respect to the location of anticipated parking sites. The DEIR states that "the applicant will secure one or more binding off -site parking agreements to accommodate the varying number of workers needed for each construction phase." (DEIR, p 1 -9). The DEIR further states that these "off - site parking location(s) will be located within a five -mile radius of the site." (I fl. Because the DEIR defers the identification of parking sites to a later date, it inappropriately circumvents the public's opportunity to comment on any related impacts - particularly the concerned residents and businesses that will be located in close proximity thereto. Notably, the DEIR does not identify how many construction workers are anticipated to park off -site during each phase, the number of parking spaces that will be required, potential sites with sufficient capacity to meet those needs, and the traffic conditions in the site(s)' vicinity. Upon completion of this analysis, the DEIR must be re- circulated to afford an adequate opportunity for public review and comment The DEIR is similarly deficient with respect to the identification and analysis of the heavy 10 staging /queuing areas that will be necessary to ensure that only one truck is present at any given time at the Project site (See RCPT; Policy 4.04 -'Transportation control measures shall be a priority ") Further, the DEIR fails to adequately consider road and safety impacts associated with heavy truck activities. Notably, the roadways in the Project vicinity are antiquated and in poor (b 3� condition. The surface condition of adjoining streets will be adversely affected by the thousands of heavy truck trips that will occur over the 32 -month construction period. In that regard, the DEIR fails to specify the anticipated tonnage per truck or otherwise evaluate road deterioration and safety concerns Finally, the DEiR fails to adequately consider potential fire safety concerns associated with the !(? 3% underground parking facility and the extent to which fire personnel will be able to access the same in cases of emergencies i" By the some token. deferral of the analysis prohibits an accurate determination of whether the Project will result in signilicanl land use impacts See CLUP Policy 4 4.3 -15; General Plan Policy NR 23.7 (requiring that new development be designed and siled to "minimize the removal of native vogetetion "). The same deferral deficiencies apply with respect to the scope of shading impacts on eelgrass beds 2ti18 Aerie Project, Comments on Draft EIR May 4, 2009 Page 13 9. Floor Area Ratio Because floor area ratio (FAR) is a measurement used to determine development intensity and is based on developable land space, areas that cannot be developed or improved are not to be included in net lot area With respect to the proposed condominium structure, the applicant has [Q,,3(6 inappropriately included the site's submerged lands in the FAR calculation. Doing so has resulted in a project that is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of size, bulk and scale. Because FAR regulations are intended to ensure that new construction remains consistent with existing development and community character, the violation thereof will result in a significant land use impact under CEQA.. 10, Setback Variance While the City is afforded discretion in justifying variances and modifications, Its discretion is subject to significant limitations. In that regard, a variance maybe proper where the harms that the regulatory scheme is intended to prevent would not otherwise occur. In this case, the (() -3e1 requested setback variance will result in significant unmitigable impacts to the underlying coastal bluff. As such, approval of the Project as currently proposed will severely compromise the integrity of the City's land use regulations and policies. The request is therefore improper and should be denied 11. Miscellaneous The DEIR is further deficient because it fails to consider (1) the extent to which kayak/small boat access to Carnation Cove will be obstructed during summer dock construction activities, (II) the (o-40 Project's impacts on waste disposal capacity as a result of dumping 25,000 cubic yards of bluff material into the Brea Olinde landfill; and (lit) the extent to which the expanded dock facility (and associated construction activities) will impact channel navigation and recreation. 12. Conclusion As detailed above, the Project will result in a number of significant environmental impacts in addition to those relating to construction noise. By failing to adequately evaluate those additional impacts up front in the DEIR, the City improperly limited the scope of environmental review. Likewise, the massive size, bulk and scale of the Project is not compatible with the (d 1 surrounding community, as reflected by the structure's excessive square footage and the resulting need to eradicate the underlying coastal bluff . Based on the foregoing, the Project is not legally defensible and approval of the EIR in its current form will constitute an abuse of discretion. Sincerely, COAST LAW GROUP LLP i Ross Campbell Marco A. Gonzalez r CC: Client Karl Schwing, California Coastal Commission (by e-mail) 2,111 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 2 170 05/05/2009 19:85 9517816288 him Linda S, Adams Sccmiaryfor &Wk&,nw41.1 pwwflm, 1t -t California May 5, 2009 James Campbell City of Newport Beach Plann 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658- DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL NEWPORT BEACH, SCH# Dear Mr. Campbell: Staff of the Regional Water C have reviewed the Draft Envii Project, located on a marine I Bay. The Project is located i Bayside Place) and Camatiol Ocean Boulevard. A 14 -uni demolished and replaced wit] dock with four slips and piers dock area and pathway were beach (Carnation Cove), whir We believe that the EIR shop Project to best protect water uses) contained in the Water 8 Basin Plan, 1995, as amen Clean Water Act Section The Biological Resourc (including emphasis on (CWA) Section 404 Pei necessary for the Proje bulkheads, etc. in bay cc dredge - and -fill disturba regarding issuance of t 401 Water Quality Star Board. The USACE e Quality Regulatory Age process, in addition to I tewme Ajo• /( P,4•JOC13 Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana $ s .w soa R' 'd• C rf ' 92ioi 3146 PACE 02/04 Y. • n ncc4 m rVCrsi ,., a, ormo 782- :138•FAx (Y51]7Rl•6288.1'DD (45n 787.3221 sZFCYID BY www waaerhaards ca misantaana p ¢,¢fd 9chwarzeneCBcr S iii /,•j`Ji�)IlslC [1F /\fi I ( Gin mor .v Department Fit a 15 'REPORT, AERIE DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF 054 iality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (Regional Board) )nmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Aerie ;rrace overlooking the Entrance Channel of Lower Newport n a 1.4 -acre area between the ends of Bayside Place (101 Avenue (201 -207 Carnation Avenue) at its intersection with apartment building and single - family house will be a multi - level, eight -unit condominium complex. An existing gill be replaced by a pontoon dock with nine slips. The wilt on rocky exposures that surround a small cove and the DEIR states will not be disturbed by the Project. J incorporate the following canments in order for the uality standards (water quality objectives and beneficial luality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Region Certification Section (p.4.7 -5 -7) uses wetlands determination criteria rican umbrella sedge) to decide that a Clean Water Act t from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is not i dock revision, However, any construction of new docks, other saltwater settings is commonly associated with :s, and therefore requires consultation with the USACE 404 Permit and discussion of the prerequisite CWA Section rds Certification (Certification) issued by the Regional Regional Board should be listed in Table 4.6 -2 (Water es) as agencies likely to require the 4041401 permitting other stated agency requirements. 2. Projects subject to Certiflotion are evaluated for their direct, indirect, and cumulative 11-7- impacts to waters of the 4,S., specifically, that construction and operation of the 4� A141- 0111nentnt Protection Agency P4 4 u.,.,.r x,12 I 05/05/2005 19:05 11 -z C00 t Mr. James Campbell 9517916268 Project will not adversely mitigated to receive a Ce to restore and protect we receiving waters. A gen of the noted eelgrass be( enhancement and protec populations of sand dolls impacted beneficial uses would include Marine He (SPWN); Wildlife Habitat Water Recreation (REC2 Endangered Species (R) Commercial and Sportfis under review. Informatii Best Management Practice: 3. The DEIR Drainage and I Best Management Practi( improve upon the current (1 -3 into the Bay, and 2) drain catch basin (catch basin) Carnation Avenue discha Section does not provide from the small -scale map We understand that aline a vault at the southern a Avenue Drain, at an unsl retrofit the Carnation Ave flows. We understand t described, "a storm filter i t �c1 runoff filtration elements' unit" followed by "an AM (p.4.6 -10). We believe the vault itself. This Sei specific discussion with after construction. Althr has been prepared for tl prefer that the EIR inclw f 1 -5 RWO.CB PAGE 03/04 _21 May 5, 2009 Ifect state water quality standards: Such impacts must be fication. The EIR should identify likely mitigation concepts r quality objectives and applicable beneficial uses of these al example of on -site mitigation would be the enhancement o the south of the disturbed dock area, as well as the in of the rocky cove habitat for the noted remnant whelk, sea cucumber, and lobster species. The likely Legion 8 Basin Plan) supported by the seawater at this site At (MAR); Spawning, Reproduction, and Development NILD); Water Contact Recreation (RECi); Non - Contact Navigation (NAV) and potentially, Rare, Threatened, or E). Applicability of the Shellfish Harvesting (SHEL) and ig (COMM) beneficial uses to such areas are currently concerning Certification can be found at http:U and TMDLs lydrology Section (p- 4.6 -6 -11) discusses a new system of es (BMP) for stormwater capture and treatment that will 1) localized sheet -flow of stormwater and dry- weather flows ige of the neighborhood watershed through a 10- foot -wide part of a 24 -inch reinforced concrete pipe system beneath ging to the Bay (Carnation Avenue Drain). However, this ielpful, conceptual drawings of this proposed system aside view of Exhibit 4.6 -2, all stormwater from the completed site will be directed to ler of the structure (vault) and pumped to the Carnation cified connection point. The Project will enlarge and is catch basin to filter both Project and neighborhood t the retrofitted catch basin would contain, as variously rd bacteria treatment system" and "appropriate urban or more specifically, "a proprietary StormFilter h Smart Sponge Plus drain insert for treatment of bacteria" e EIR may also consider an additional treatment BMP for m should consolidate these descriptions into a more iibits, and explain who will maintain the filtration system �h a Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Project and is incorporated by reference (p.4.6 -9), we the WQMP text "up- front" to the maximum extent possible. 4. The above - referenced Bt{APs (and other structural /nonstructural BMPs described in the EIR) must be establic had to protect the water quality standards discussed in Comments 1 and 2, abo e, in conformance with: 1) the State Water Resources Control Board's Water Q Wily Order No. 99- 08 -DWQ, "General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Assoc ated with Construction Activity" (web site hit : / /www,waterboards. a. ov /water issues/ ro rams / stonmwater/ ) and 2) the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and Water Quality ®o Aptromaewal Protection Agency �/ Z � ( Z Li 05/05/2009 19:05 ( No Mr James Campbell 9517016299 Management Plan (WQl MS4" permit' Rt-QCB PAGE 04/04 -3- May5,2009 both required by the Regional Board's "Orange County Further, the BMP discuss ons should reflect targeted compliance with Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) and s upport of the recent Orange County Newport Bay Fecal Coliform Source Managef nent Plan. This plan is meant to provide compliance with the fecal coliformlpathoge i TMDL adopted for Lower Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay, The EIR should incorporate reference to these additional TMDLs: a. The Siltation (sedime ts) and Nutrient TMDLs adopted for Lower Newport Bay, Upper Newport Bay, San Diego Creek Reach 1, and San Diego Creek Reach 2 (see http: / /wvvw.waterb ards.ca gov/saritaana/water—issuesiprogramsitmdl/index shtml } b.. The future TMDLs an icipated for selenium and metals (Lower and Upper Newport Bay), selenium and fE cal colifonn (San Diego Creek Reach 1), and specified metals (San Diego CrrI�ek Reach 2), A TMDL for organochlorine compounds (particularly DOT, chizrdane, and PCBs) is anticipated for Lower Newport Bay, Upper Newport Bay, nd San Diego Creek Reaches 1 and 2. Dewatering 5. The EIR should reflect th t if any groundwater dewatering is necessary for the Project, ((--7 then please contact the R ion 8 Permitting Section staff at (951) 782 -4130. Dewatering discharges in o Upper or Lower Newport Bay require coverage under Order No R8 -2004 -0021 amended by R8- 2006 - 0065), NPDES No. CAG998002 2 - If you have any questions, Sinncerrelly,� Glenn Robertson Engineering Geologist Regional Planning Prog ar Slate Clearinghouse U.S. Arty Corps of Engineers, Lc U S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ca California Department of Fish and California Coastal Commission — Orange County RDMD, OC Wagei Orange County RDMD, Flood Cc X:Groberts on contact me at (951) 782 -3259, or ales - Stephanie Hag — Jonathan Snyder Los Alamitos — Erinn Wilson Public Works— Amanda Carr a Ana - Andy Ngo Responsesl DER City of Newport Beach- AERIE doc Waste Discharge Requirements r Orange County (NPDES Permit No, CAS618030, Order No- R6- 2002.0010, Areawide Urban Storm Water Rilinciff Permlt for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and Incorporated Cities of Orange C unty within the Santa Ana Region), also known as the Orange County municipal separate storm Sevier system, o "Orange County MS4 permit." (please see web site at z "General Waste Discharge Raqutlien(s, ements for Shon -Tent Groundwater-Related! Discharges and Do MinHnus Wastewater Discharges to Surfs Waters Within the San Diego CreeklNewport Bay Watershed.° This general permit establishes a waste disch rge management program applicable to the project area, for the purpose of reducing selenium, sediment, nu pesticides, and other pollutants This permit is available at Op AfIllonnienta! Protection agency /J ' THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 2.(Z4 !Z -1 (Z77SP AJD - /Z May 6, 2009 Mr. Jim Campbell CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: ASSESSMENT, INPUT AND OUESTIONS— PROPOSED AERIE CONDOMINIUMS DEIR — PA 2005 -196— City of Newport Beach, CA Mr. Campbelt The purpose of this correspondence is to underscore my previous on- record, written serous concern regarding the proposed Aerie condominiums, so that these concerns may become part of the current formal Draft Environmental Impact Report process, as I understand the City is presently undertaking. My previous correspondence on the subject, dated August 13, 2008, was submitted and formally acknowledged In receipt by the Newport Beach Mayor and City Council members. While the document was acknowledged for receipt, the Oily did not address its content in any format way. Please find a copy of this correspondence enclosed for your review, consideration and specifically requested response. It is my understanding the DEIR process must address such written communications at this time. In brief, the enclosed document summarises a specific review of City of Newport Beach (CNB) land use criteria that is clearly "in conflict" with itself, and as such, allows a kind of 'tortured" Interpretation by the applicant in creating what is clearly a completely out -of- state- with-the- local- neighborhood building mass. The some document Includes a more reasoned interpretation of the conflicting land use criteria, which yields a more rational, in- context- with -the- neighborhood application of the standards. The reasonable application of City of Newport Beach land use criteria would deliver a building mass approximately SD°k of the proposal. Whether the methodology offered in the letter herein is "more correcr than the interpretation by the applicant is not attempted herein. These two condusions, emanating from the same set of criteria, only serves to underscore the essential point: that the CNB land use critarfa Is In gonflict and In need of serious resolution BEFORE proper I would like to submit this cover letter and copy of my August 13 submittal for its inclusion into the formal DEIR review for this project, and request a formal response horn the City. It would seem to me the CNB should be interested in better - clarifying its land use criteria when such vast variances can be "interpreted" by its current definition My questions for this process (in addition to those outlined in the enclosed letter) are as follows: 1- Do you believe it appropriate that one set of CNB land use criteria can allow a 50% variance of building yield, based on "interpretation ?" If yes, why and how does thls best serve the citizenry of Newport Beach? 2- With such a wide variance of interpretation, does the furtherance of the Aerie proposal not only establish a dangerous precedent for future fend use interpretations, but also essentially make meaningless all CNB land use criteria. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this information for your consideration. I look forward to your specific written reply. Thank kyyou, � / /_J�/�� Since el V ' r "C A. David Kovach AOK:ae 2112. August 13, 2008 Mayor Edward D. Selich CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: PROPOSED AERIE CONDOMINIUMS — A MATTER OF POLICY Mr. Mayor: In beginning this correspondence I would like to offer my sincere appreciation to yourself and the other City Council (CC) members (copied herein) for the generous giving of your time and energies to the City of Newport Beach, We residents are indeed fortunate to have such learned and caring individuals working for all of us so thoughtfully. A year has passed since I first became aware of the Aerie proposal. I found it noteworthy at the time, as it seemed incomprehensible such a clearly over -built structural mass could have found its way so deeply into the approval system of the City of Newport Beach. That the proposal further so obviously works to destroy the natural coastal bluff it is bound by legislation to protect, and is still nearing approval today, quite frankly, is a clear indicator something is very "amiss" within the City's entitlement approval system. In my 30+ years of experience as a large scale community building and land development executive, I am not certain I have seen such an egregiously offensive interpretation of planning and zoning criteria so well navigate a governmental approval process. I attended the year -ago CC meeting really just to see how the Applicant presented its advocacy, the interaction with and response by the CC and where the situation stood then. While I found the Applicant's advocacy that evening to be a singularly stilted, if not "tortured" interpretation of applicable planning and zoning criteria, I was very surprised to see any receptivity by the CC. But there was some apparent receptivity.. Nonetheless, it appeared at the time an ultimate vote could go "ehher way' in the future. Somehow, by the July 22, 2008 meeting, It appears the proposal is strongly headed toward approval. Just how can this happen? Following this 12 -month period of study and evaluation, I believe I have a fairly strong sense of both the "why" and the "how" this clearly excessive, inappropriate and environmentally destructive proposal is so close to approval. If I might, I would be pleased to share these views with you all now, as follows: 1. Brief background to my perspective and advocacy: There are two important aspects before you now regarding Aerie that are of particular interest to me professionally: a. The long -term and tasting qualitative impact of the built environment to the larger community, and b. The proper interpretation of 1L11 guidelines and stakeholder inputs leading tooptimal new buildings. And while definition of "optimal" is also interpretive, there are certain qualities to which most professionals might concur, Beyond a positive economic return, these would include the principles of context, balance, and harmony as well as rationality, in my view. ,Z, i ZC'0 Mayor Edward D. Selfch PROPOSED AERIE CONDOMNIIUMS - A MATTER OF POLICY August 13, 2008 Page 2 of 6 The built environment is a critically important aspect of any community, for it has the literal power to directly impact people's lives on an emotional level, either inspirationally, in an ambivalent way, or unfortunately in many cases, negatively. This principle places even more importance on sites like Aerie, the latter being so visually prominent (not only to residents, but visitors and other stakeholders as well), and will make an important statement about, and have influence over, the City for years to come. "We shape our buildings. Thereafter they shape us." Winston Churchill 2. Regarding the current Aerie proposal, the CC has the opportunity to take back a leadership role In determining and asserting appropriate policy regarding this prominently - located proposed land use. From my evaluation, it would appear the Applicant has aggressively wrested policy - making leadership from the CC. Two references here: a. At the August 2007 meeting, it was my testimony to the CC to emphasise statements from the City Attorney earlier in said meeting wherein she underscored the Applicant's "lead" in determining its own P.L.O.E.D.., and how this point in the process was a moment where the City "should have" instead, made policy for the Applicant to respond. specifically remember seeing Councilmember Rosansky directly and pointedly asking the City's Planning Director earlier in the same meeting, what determination or interpretation or recommendation he (as the Director) was providing to the CC regarding the P -L.O. E.D. The Planning Director basically refused to answer the question, saying it was really subject to an "interpretation." This is important information the CC needs from staff to make proper decisions. However, would surmise, as in all organizations, the leadership (i.e., the CC) is responsible for appropriate staffing. b. The Applicant has utilised conflicting City land use policy in interpretive advocacy of its current proposal. Typically, this is policy determination that should rest agLgly with the CC- Said "conflict" is as follows: • Specifically, there is the City's "residential development density standard" of 2,178 square feet of development area per unit. W a understand this standard is to apply to the specific "development area" of a specific property. • As well, with regard to determining a property's development yield, it appears another standard is available, which is 'floor area ratio" (FAR) The City's FAR for this property is 1.5. However, when using the FAR standard, apparently it is allowed to be applied within an entire property boundary, and not just the "building area " • Because of this conflict, and Aerie's aggressive interpretations, the current over- built, over. massed proposal is before you. This conclusion is supported by the following rationale: Approximately 66% of Aerie's total land either is un- buildable by being either submerged (i.e., 28,414 square feet or 46% of the site area) or in slope area greater than 50% (i.e., 11,926 square feet or 20% of the site area). • i believe with a high degree of probability any independent professional planning assessment of this property would deem utilization of the entire site boundary (in the Z,ti27 Mayor Edward D. Selich PROPOSED AERIE CONDOMNIIUMS — A MATTER OF POLICY August 13, 2008 Page 3 of 6 spectre of so much un- buildable land) inappropriate as a methodology for determining appropriate, contextual building mass on the "buildable" portion of the property, which is 20,942 square feet, or about 340/6 of the total site area Therefore, if one were to apply, let's say in an effort to be "liberal" in interpretation, both the City's residential density criteria and the FAR to the "buildable" area of Aerie, this would be the result Residential Density of: 10 homes (20,942 sq. it12,178 sq. it.), and FAR of: 31,413 sq feet (20,942 sq_ ft x 1.5 FAR) c. The CC has an obligation to utilise all codes and General Plan policies, not just some of them. • There seemed to be a sentiment expressed by some of the CC members at the July 22 meeting indicating because of the proposal's "conformance" with "a" zoning code (despite what Is clearly an unintended consequence of using submerged and 50% slope (unbuiidable) land for purposes of maximizing allowed floor area), the CC is somehow "obliged" to approve the proposal. It seems only appropriate the authority and responsibility of the CC should be to ensure this (and any) proposed development complies with ALL codes and General Plan policies, not just some of them. If there was any consistent public input to the recent General Plan update, it was to counter the disturbing trend toward "manslonization" (i.e., overbuilding) that dwarfs existing structures, the very structures that form the essence of neighborhood and community character, There are two General Plan land use policies NOT being complied with, with regard to Aerie: • Land Use Policy 3.2 — Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are COMPLEMENTARY in type, form, scale and character." It is difficult to imagine Aerie's proposed "real world" FAR of 2,9 (60,661 sq. tL proposed floor area divided by 20,942 s% ft. of buildable area) being "complementary" to any structure(s) found within the immediate relevant neighborhood, of like buildable area, with a proteclive coastal bluff overlay egislation. Merely contrast this with the City's own recommended FAR standard of 1.5. This is DOUBLE what is appropriate. • Land Use Policy 5.1.1 — Establish property development regulations for residential projects to create compatible and high quality development that contribute to neighborhood character. Using one provision of the zoning code (FAR to entire property boundary), which has not yet been updated to address the new policies of the General Plan, to justify or approve this proposal disrespects the will of the voters that authorized the current General Plan. Finally, from the City s website, we note it is a stated "PRIORITY" of the CC for 2008 to "Align The City's Codes, Regulations and Policies with the General Plan" There is a huge opportunity to make Aerie a great example of meeting this priority! ZdZ5 Mayor Edward D. Selich PROPOSED AERIE CONDOMNIIUMS- A MATTER OF POLICY August 13, 2008 Page 4 of 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. In short, the Applicant has "worked the system" to its advocacy of placing 60,000 square feet of building on a buildable land area approximating 20,000 square feet. Further, this over -built condition brings with it total destruction of the specific natural coast bluff it Is legislated to protect and preserve. The Applicant should not be admonished for taking such action, for it is only acting in what it believes is in it's best interest. The CC has the interests of the entire City at its responsibility 2. While the current Aerie proposal closely approximates the above - calculated residential yield (i.e., the eight (8) proposed homes), the "mass" (as measured by FAR) is about doubi a of what I am confident would be considered reasonable and appropriate for such a property. Miss by a little, miss by a lot. For the allowable building mass to be a function of land that is of no livable consequence to the immediate neighborhood environment in which it sits, is clearly inappropriate. This is where proper Policy definition is the responsibility of the City, The important recommendation from the assessment herein would be to provide "more appropriate" density and FAR criteria and significantly restrict building mass to something reasonable (as suggested above, yielding approximately 31,413 square feet). And in the process, the natural bluff would be better served. 3.. From the July 22 CC meeting it seems evident the CC is tired from the grueling process that has emerged with regard to this controversial proposal. The CC seems so tired from the experience that it "just wants it over with," as underscored by your comments and questions to ensure "no more new testimony' is allowed at the September meeting. It is my perception this process has been as contentious as it has, has protracted as long as It has, because the City delegated its policy responsibility to the Applicant. The result is now painful for all — the "poor" developer, the caring, opposing residents, and the City, simply because appropriate policy was not implemented at the right time. And the opposing elements, of which I am clearly one, only want something reasoned, balanced, and appropriate for the setting. 4. All of this has gone on, for months and months, if not longer, and still, the one seemingly sacrosanct planning criteria for the proposal- -the "preservation of the coastal bluff'- -has been "wordsmithed -" and "parsed -" around to the point the criteria effectively does not exist at all, In any "on -the- ground," real - world reference to the proposal. The bluff will be destroyed to allow construction of the building, and the former natural bluff area remaining unbuill will be replaced with artificial materials Intended to "resemble" the natural conditions that were to be protected. 5. Mr. Mayor, two closing points in this section for your consideration: a. With regard to operating and implementational land development assessments, it is my experience The Moote Group has more relevant experience, by volumes, than the Applicant custom -home architect, no matter the tatter's deep and well - respected custom home- design experience "along the coast." It would be my recommendation the CC do some "homework" with regard to this conclusion prior to your final decision in September. The potential failure of the land, as expressed by as serious, experienced professionals as Moote should be considered within the "abundance of caution" 2,12) Mayor Edward D. Selich PROPOSED AERIE CONDOMNIIUMS – A MATTER OF POLICY August13,20D6 Page 6 of 6 environment this rare and precious site deserves, in this case Moote, and not the project architect should be considered as "best evidence." b.. And finally, making any comparison, with regard to the underlying land condition between the 'Portobello' house and Aerie is without much merit in my opinion, from a physical standpoint. CLOSING Mr. Mayor, thank you for whatever consideration you and the council members may give to this input.. With so much at risk —the precedent being set for future development within our precious historic neighborhoods vis -a -vis their contextual natural resources; the very real potential for slope failure; the severe traffic impacts for construction (please carefully listen to the Moote testimony regarding this element alone); the opinion of the Coastal Commission as to the City's ability to administer to issues such as these (i.e., vis -& -vis the LCP process); and simply what is "right" for all residents of the City with regard to this extremely visible property —it would seem more than prudent to carefully weigh this decision, for what appears to be, one last time. Based on the July 22 meeting, my sense is the CC will approve the Aerie proposal, as is, largely as a function of your leadership, subject to the comparatively arcane remaining issues being "studied." This is a decision that will affect not just the developer or even the local residents, but the entire residential and workplace populations of the City and Its visiting tourists. Worst case, this "experience" may be instructive as you pursue the aforementioned "Council Priority for 2008." In closing I would ask one last question for our consideration: "1 _ 1. What Is the most apgroorfate residential yield criteria that should be applied to Aerie? No reasoned professional would determine 60,000 square feet of buildable on 20,000 square feet of building area. Not in this historic and balanced neighborhood setting. Not what the developer thinks is best, what oY u all think is best, for the City of Newport Beach, long- term.. I believe the responsibility of the CC is greater than merely assessing and /or agreeing with developer- advocated City policy. It is never too late to do the right thing. Thank you again, and thank you for your service. A�utlry�� . A. David Kovach ADK:ae 21 (k) Mayor Edward D. Selicb PROPOSED AERIE CONDOMNIIUMS — A MATTER OF POLICY August 13, 2008 Page 6 of 6 Distribution Via E -mail Mr. Hann, District 1 Mr. Rosansky, District 2 Mr. Webb, District 3 Ms. Daigle, District 4 Ms. Gardner, District 6 Mr. Curry, District 7 2 W ( 5 1 Jun 03 09 0910a Keeton K. Kreitzer 714- 665 -8539 NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION MINUTES City Council Chambers April 8, 2009 CALL TO ORDER 6:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE p.2 ROLL CALL: Chairman Duffield, Commissioners Seymour Beek, John Corrough, Tim Collins, Don Lawrenz, Karen Rhyne and Ralph Rodheim were in attendance. Staff: Lome Arcese, Chris Miller and Shannon Levin MINUTES: The minutes from the last meeting were approved. ACTION ITEM ACTION & APPEAL ITEMS I %Em #1 Subject: Generaf Harbor Commission Orientation - POSTPONED ITEM #2 Subject: Aerie Dock Project at 209 -207 Carnation Avenue Issue: Should the Aerie project applicants at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue be permitted to replace the existing double U- shaped float with a dock system capable of berthing 8 vessels for residents and 1 guest side -tie Discussion: Chris presented the staff report on the project. Randy Mason with UR5 spoke on the technical concerns. He said there are 10 boat "lanes" in that channel. The boats berthed at Aerie will be moved to moorings or other places during storm events with wave action of 2 feet or more. Bryan Jeannette spoke on the parking issues, saying they will have at least 15-23 additional parking spaces on -site, beyond what is required by the Code. Commissioner Lawrenz presented a PowerPoint presentation on the project, showing what he feels are issues with the project. The storm wave conditions 1 were only studied for the last five years, ignoring large storms of 1969 and 1990's. These storms happened before that time and they did a lot of damage. A 100 ftl vessel may not have a safe mooring site in the case of a large storm event.1 Storms will affect the movement of sand and affect the sand dollar population.1 There are a lot of sand and shoals in this area and this needs more study.lL- jj Conditions need to be listed if sand studies show a problem, such as who is 5lresponsible when dredging comes up. The 24 foot extension will go into public] to waters and needs to have reflectors. This could start a building boom with all the other slips in this area. The pier is to be set lower than usual attracting the seal I lions to rest upon. What about fire suppression, trash and sewage? It • Commissioner Beek said that the problem also is that the project will occupy space g that is now open. He said that there are no lanes in the harbor and the example has no meaning. This is one of the narrowest points. We need to restrict the 24 foot overhang and can restrict the side tie. All residents don't have to have a slip. 19 new pilings will affect the sand movement. I Ioo { Commissioner Rhyne asked who will move the boats during storm events and 11 (wave action. Are there moorings available and what are the other options if they 124 need to move? What happens between 1.5 to 2 feet ? A 100 foot boat is too massive and who will monitor the overhang? 13 • Commissioner Corrough said that this project is legally conforming and has not been kept under the radar. The EIR has not found any significant exceptions and Z1l3Z Jun 03 09 09:10a Keeton K. Kreitzer 714 -665 -8539 p.3 Public Comments: has documented recommended mitigations. The project has changed with previous requests. Every dock that sits out there now is in the same physical situation, subject to storm events, that this dock will be in if it is built. We need to set responsible improvements to the plans rather than just saying we are troubled by this project; give specific guidance and constructive recommendations. The proposed project has gone through multiple revisions. The unit to dock ratio is representative of the rest of the harbor. The Commission does want new docks in this harbor. Commissioner Collins said that we have given case by case exceptions for extensions, but in this case there is no basis to extend beyond the Pierhead line. `)1{ Commissioner Rodheim said that the Bulkhead and Pierhead lines of the 1930's were made when the area was filled with sand and the City has not done its job in redrawing the lines. To follow those lines as they are currently is not wrong. The approval of all these large condo projects should not be happening and we may end up looking like Miami Beach. He does not support the project going out further than the neighboring docks. The surge tears up the boats and docks. He iJr would like to have larger slips but not in this location. They stick out too far. We want the Planning Commission and City Council to see that the Harbor Commission will not support this project. There is no right of residents to have the right to have a pier. Chairman Duffield reminded everyone that storms go directly into our harbor as designed by the Army Corps. Putting in a jetty would be a solution to stop that action. There has been a lot of work put into the plan and we are not against new docks: but we are boaters who use the harbor, so there is knowledge. The City Council makes the ultimate decision, but we are boaters and can make recommendations, Storm events do happen, so we need a plan that will work. Why not come to the Harbor Commission to ask for advice, we would like to work with the applicant. Perhaps restrict the time that boats may be dock there during a storm season? Kathleen McIntosh, 2495 Ocean Blvd., reminded everyone that the approval has not been granted yet. They could have up to 12 boats on the docks. Publicf access to the cove and marine outcropping would be restricted and maybe Ijb eliminated. Shoaling is a problem in that area. Sand comes from that area and is shoaling under the neighbors' docks. This project doesn't consider the problems I 17 the 2 adjacent properties will have when they want to dock boats larger than 17 feet, She hopes Harbor Resources denies the request and requests that marker buoys be put out for at least a month showing the lines of the project so everyone concerned can see how far out into the channel it will go and what will be taken away from them. Joe and Lisa Vallejo, who are not on the water and don't have a dock, wanted to add their explanation as to why no one is out that far in the channel. 73 years ago they thought this area would be built up with sand and even Channel Reef would not be allowed to build now. Wants to declare 1936 Harbor Lines null. She cited Municipal Code 17.50 Rules for Interpretation and Harbor Development Permits which says the application shall be denied If it may interfere with the rights of other permittees and oceanfront property owners and the application does not conform to the policies and regulations of the certified Local Coastal Program. They feel that the scenic and the visual outcropping will be covered up, but the applicant �a said the boats will be coming and going and won't be a problem. How often does that happen when all boats come and go all that often? Thank you for your consideration and time, we ask that you do the best for Newport Harbor. Marilyn Beck, 303 Carnation Ave. This project has not been passed by the City. There are many people with significant concerns with project size. The General Plan requests that developers of this project take a conservative approach in their projects. We worked hard to have responsible development included in the plan 2,133 Jun 03 09 09:10a Keeton K. Kreitzer 714 - 665 -8539 p.4 Action: ITEM #3 Subject: Issue: Discussion: Action: ITEM! #4 Subject: Issue: Discussion Public Comments: so we would have responsible development within the City. This is a super -sized project, not conservative. I wish this meeting was out at the site to show you how hard the wind blows and how destructive it can be. Boats have capsized and docks have broken up. John Connelly, owns and resides at 401 Avocado Ave. and owns 2317 Bayside Drive, said if a 100 foot boat breaks free during wave action it will create significant damage to the boats and properties in the area. The extension will be a bump in the harbor that doesn't need to be there. No one receives prior notices of high wave occurrences so boats can be moved to safety. Owners could be out of town or unavailable to act. The boat parade could be impacted. This sets a precedent for everyone to build their docks out further into the harbor. Bud Razner, 2500 Ocean Blvd., is a supporter of the project and he say's most people are. He was in the Harbor Patrol and knows the harbor. His work experience has taught him to look at all things, weigh all the sides and don't include personal feelings. Neighboring piers build to property lines so they may be impacted by Aerie. Accidents will always occur and liability should not be passed on to a new dock owner. Many people think they own the harbor. This project is a quality, responsible one and is a tax maker. The project provides a water element to clean the effluent that runs into the bay. The old structures need to be in place and need to look for reasons why it will work, not won't. The Commission provided comments on the environmental aspects of the dock system, as well as its overall design. Commissioner Beek made an advisory motion, "While not opposed to the expansion of the existing dock and its area and capacity we believe the size and configuration of the proposed dock project would create significant negative impact on, navigation and recreational boating in the harbor ". The motion carried with all ayes. Harbor Resources will forward this input to the Planning Commission and the City Council who will review the entire project as a whole. Newport Bay Marina at 2300 Newport 8ivd. — Update The Harbor Commission heard an oral report on the status of the Newport Bay Marina located at 2300 Newport Boulevard. The project was approved by Coastal Commission in February with special conditions. it has a lot of public access. The little channel is there because Pickle Weed grows there and need to be preserved. They hope to attract water related business to attract tourists. They don't have any commitments but will be consistent with the regulations. The buildings are protected from shipyard noise and disclosures are required. The guest slips are tight for the smaller boats but they will comply with the Fire Code. The commissioners felt It was a good, responsible plan. Receive and file. Harbor Projects and Funding Projections The City Council's Finance Subcommittee has requested an updated list of Harbor Commission approved projects and funding projections in order to plan for the future financial needs of the Harbor. The Harbor Commission reviewed the first draft at the March meeting and requested staff to return to the Commission with an updated draft for further review. Chris was complimented on the new format for the report. Commission t.awrenz added that there needs to be a column for ongoing projects, such as Eelgrass. Mark Sites reminded everyone that fees will need to be raised to fund this. Funding sources need to be identified. We don't want to create any friction with the Army Corps as they already are giving us a hard time in approving dredging permits. He asked why we need to dredge in West Newport. 2013` Attachment #3 Draft resolution adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and approving the proposed project 3.1 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Intentionally Blank 3.Z RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2005 -006, COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. LC2005 -002, NEWPORT TRACT NO. NT2005 -004 (TRACT 16882), MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD005 -087 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CR2005 -002 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201 -205, 207 CARNATION AVENUE AND 101 BAYSIDE PLACE (PA 2005 -196). WHEREAS, an application was filed by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. with respect to property located at 201 -205, 207 Carnation Avenue, and 101 Bayside Place to construct an 8 -unit residential condominium development on a 1.4 acre site ( "Project "). The application includes: 1. General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006 to change the land use designation of a 584 square -foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two - Unit Residential) to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). 2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002 to change the Coastal Land Use Plan designation of the same 584 square -foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from RH -D (High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre) to RM -A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). 3. Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009 to change the zoning designation of the 584 square -foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to MFR (Multifamily Residential, 2178 square feet per unit). 4. Newport Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -004 (TTM16882) to combine the 584 square -foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place with parcels identified as 201 -205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue, and to subdivide the air space for 8 residential condominium units. 5. Modification Permit No. MD2005 -087 to permit a 5 -foot subterranean building encroachment and 42 -inch high protective guardrails within the required 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue; subterranean and above grade building encroachments of 5 feet and 1 -foot, 7- inches into a required 10 -foot, 7 -inch side yard setback between the project and 215 Carnation; and three balconies and one at grade landing each with protective guard rails that exceed the maximum height of 6 feet from natural grade within the required 10 -foot, 7 -inch side yard abutting Bayside Place. 6, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2005 -002 to allow demolition of the existing dwelling units within the Coastal Zone pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Municipal Code; and 3.3 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 2 of 41 WHEREAS, on February 22, 2007, April 5, 2007, and May 17, 2007, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1723 recommending adoption of a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2007, the City Council held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council identified the predominant line of existing development ( PLOED) at 50.7 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) after considering the position of existing development on the bluff face in relation to Carnation Avenue and its elevation above Newport Bay. Since the proposed project was not consistent with the PLOED as required by the policies of the 2005 Coastal Land Use Plan, further consideration of the proposed project was postponed until such time that the project was revised to conform to the PLOED; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the August 14, 2007, City Council hearing, the applicant revised the proposed project in accordance with the PLOED as established by the City Council. Additionally, the applicant further revised the project to include a proposed dock structure. A revised Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, on February 21, 2008, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, the revised project and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1751 recommending adoption of a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the revised project and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on June 19, 2008, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, the revised project and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the 'q City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 3 of 41 public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1761 recommended adoption of a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the revised project and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2008, the City Council held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, revised project and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the hearing. The City Council expressed several concerns including the project's potential visual impact on the area and the City Council took no action; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the City Council hearing on July 8, 2008, the City and the applicant mutually agreed that an Environmental Impact Report would be prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2007021054) has been prepared pursuant to the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The DEIR was circulated for a 45 -day comment period beginning on March 20, 2009, and concluding on May 4, 2009. Comments and responses to the comments were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project;. and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2009, and on June 4, 2009, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2007021054) were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1787 rescinding its prior resolutions regarding the project and recommending certification of the DEIR, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Project approval; and WHEREAS, In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § §21000, et seq.) and its implementing State regulations (CEQA Guidelines) (14 Cal. Reg. § §15000, et seq.), the City of Newport Beach prepared Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2007021054). The purpose of the EIR is to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed Project and all of its component applications. The City Council considered and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report on July 14, 2009 by adopting certain CEQA Findings of Facts and a Statement of Overriding Considerations contained within Resolution No. , which are hereby incorporated by reference, and �.7 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 4 of 41 WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger; and WHEREAS, the project site has two separate land use designations assigned by the Land Use Element of the General Plan (584 square -feet is designated RT (Two -Unit Residential) and the remaining portion of the site, 60,700 square -feet, is designated RM (Multi -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). The proposed amendment changing the land use designation of the 584 square -foot portion of the site to match the remainder of the site will numerically allow 1 additional unit; however, the density limitation as dictated by the Zoning Ordinance is more restrictive as it excludes submerged lands and slopes in excess of 50% from the calculation. The density of the proposed project is below the resulting maximum density permitted by the General Plan (28 dwellings) and is consistent with the maximum density allowed by the existing MFR zone (9 units). The residential condominium project is consistent with the proposed Multi - Family Residential land use designation and is consistent with residential developments within the area; and WHEREAS, Charter Section 423 requires that all proposed General Plan Amendments be reviewed to determine 9 the square footage (for non - residential projects), peak hour vehicle trip, or dwelling units thresholds would be exceeded as the means to determine whether a vote by the electorate would be required to approve the General Plan Amendment. Pursuant to Council Policy A -18, voter approval is not required as the proposed General Plan Amendment represents an increase of 1 dwelling unit and an increase of 1 A.M. and 1 P.M. peak hour trip. Additionally, no prior amendments have been approved within Statistical Area F3 and, therefore, the project and prior amendments do not cumulatively exceed Charter Section 423 thresholds as to require a vote of the electorate; and WHEREAS, the proposed project subject to conditions of approval is consistent with General Plan Policy LU5.1.9 inasmuch as building elevations that face public streets need to be treated to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality. Architectural treatment of building elevations and the modulation of mass are to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume. Street elevations are to be provided with high quality materials and finishes to convey quality. Roof profiles are modulated to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. Parking areas are designed to be integral with the architecture of the development. Usable and functional private open space for each unit is incorporated as each unit has an outdoor deck or patio that may include a fire pit and spa. Common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation .3, City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 5 of 41 is also included. Private storage areas for each unit are also provided. The project design incorporates building articulation, roof modulation and a diverse architectural style. Although specific exterior finishes or building materials are not identified at this time, the applicant and architect are committed to providing the highest quality project commensurate with the expense of the project and appropriate to their target buyer; and WHEREAS, the proposed project subject to conditions of approval is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 5.1.8 that requires adequate enclosed parking considering the number of bedrooms. One unit has 2 bedrooms, five units have 3 bedrooms, one unit has 4 bedrooms and one unit has 5 bedrooms. Five of the units have other rooms that could be modified and used as bedrooms and the unit sizes range from 2,662 to 4,990 square feet. The project provides two spaces for each of 2 units without vehicle lifts, and three spaces for each of 6 units with vehicle lifts. Six guest parking spaces, one service vehicle space and 2 golf cart spaces are provided for a total of 31 covered, vehicle spaces. An area for motorcycle or bicycle parking is also included. Provided parking is in excess of the minimum required pursuant to the Zoning Code (2.5 parking spaces per unit or a total of 20 spaces for 8 units proposed); and WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy CE7.1.8 and Policy CE7.1.1 as well as Coastal Land Use Policy 2.9.3 -1 that require new development to avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce and that new development is required to provide adequate, convenient parking for residents. All parking is enclosed on site with access to lower parking levels taken from two vehicle elevators. Five of the six guest parking spaces and parking for one unit are located at street level where access to the vehicle elevators is not necessary. No gates are planned that could possibly inhibit access to the street -level parking. Only seven of the eight units and one guest parking space will require the use of the vehicle elevators. The below -grade parking configuration accessed by elevators is sufficiently convenient in that two vehicle elevators to access the garage are proposed, which will reduce vehicle wait times to avoid significant conflicts entering or exiting the elevators. Emergency power generators are required so that vehicle access is maintained if electrical power is lost. The vehicle maneuvering areas within the parking areas meet or will be modified prior to the issuance of a building permit consistent with applicable standards required by the City Traffic Engineer; and WHEREAS, the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the General Plan contain general policies regarding the protection of public views, visual resources, coastal bluffs and other natural resources and the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) reflects these same policies and includes additional policies that expand upon the topics addressed in the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the General Plan and are applicable only within the Coastal Zone such that a finding of consistency with the CLUP is an implicit finding of consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Accordingly, based upon facts in support of findings that the project is consistent with the relevant CLUP policies as indicated below, the project is determined to be 3,77 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 6 of 41 consistent with all resource protection policies within the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements; and WHEREAS, the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) designates the majority of the site RM -A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre) and a 584 square -foot portion of the site is designated RH -D High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre. The proposed amendment of the land use designation for the 584 square -foot portion of the site will result in a land use designation the same as the larger portion of the site and will numerically increase the maximum permissible project density by 1 unit, from 13 to 14, but not the maximum permissible density pursuant to the RM -A Zoning for the site; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with applicable policies within Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development) of the Coastal Land Use Plan based upon the following: Policy 2.7 -1. Continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, floor area, and height limits for residential development to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources. The project conforms to the height limit of the MFR zone and no deviation is proposed. The project proposes 61,709 gross square feet, below the maximum 75,868 square feet allowed by the existing MFR zone standard. The proposed project does not exceed the 28/32 foot height limitation of the Zoning Code. The proposed 8 -unit project is below the maximum permissible density established by the RM -A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). Setback encroachments are primarily subterranean and would not impact the character of the area. The above - ground encroachments are minor in nature. The project provides a 9 -foot setback area to the north abutting 215 Carnation Avenue creating a public view where none presently exists due to current site conditions. The setback proposed will provide adequate separation from the building to the north and the encroachments will not impact fragile resources as the encroachments are located on the opposite side of the building away from the bluff and bay. Policy 2.7 -2. Continue the administration of provisions of State law relative to the demolition, conversion and construction of low and moderate- income dwelling units within the coastal zone. Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act) regulates the demolition or conversion of low and moderate income units within the Coastal Zone. All units were vacated in December of 2001 and only a caretaker and the applicant's family reside at the project site. No low or moderate income residents currently reside within the project and, therefore, Government Code Section 65590 is not applicable. Policy 2.8.1 -1. Review all applications for new development to determine potential threats from coastal and other hazards. ?j . O City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 7 of 41 Policy 2.8.1 -2. Design and site new development to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards. Policy 2.8.1 -3. Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards. A Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated March 17, 2007, a report titled Bluff and Shoreline Reconnaissance by GeoSoils Inc., dated June 11, 2007, and a third party review of all geotechnical reports prepared by GMU Geotechnical, Inc. dated October 29, 2009, collectively support that potential hazards due to seismic ground shaking, coastal bluff retreat due to erosional forces and tsunamis are minimal. Seismic issues are mitigated with the implementation of the Building Code and coastal bluff retreat is not expected to impact the project during the 75 year economic life of the building. Inundation by wave action or tsunami is considered very remote and the proposed residential improvements are well above wave action. Policy 2.8.1 -4. Require new development to assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. Policy 2.8.3 -1. Require all coastal development permit applications for new development on a beach or on a coastal bluff property subject to wave action to assess the potential for flooding or damage from waves, storm surge, or seiches, through a wave uprush and impact reports prepared by a licensed civil engineer with expertise in coastal processes. The conditions that shall be considered in a wave uprush study are: a seasonally eroded beach combined with long -term (75 years) erosion; high tide conditions, combined with long -term (75 year) projections for sea level rise; storm waves from a 100 -year event or a storm that compares to the 1982183 El Nino event. Policy 2.8.6 -10. Site and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). Policy 2.8.7 -3. Require applications for new development, where applicable [i.e., in areas of known or potential geologic or seismic hazards], to include a geologiclsoilslgeotechnical study that identifies any geologic hazards affecting the proposed project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and contains a statement that the project site is suitable for the proposed development and that the development will be safe from geologic hazard. Require such reports to be signed by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and subject to review and approval by the City. 3.1 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 8 of 41 A Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated March 17, 2007, a report titled Bluff and Shoreline Reconnaissance by GeoSoils Inc., dated June 11, 2007, and a third party review of all geotechnical reports prepared by GMU Geotechnical, Inc. dated October 29, 2009, collectively indicate that the project will not be subject to nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). Policy 2.8.6 -9. Require property owners to record a waiver of future shoreline protection for new development during the economic life of the structure (75 years) as a condition of approval of a coastal development permit for new development on a beach, shoreline, or bluff that is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff. Shoreline protection may be permitted to protect existing structures that were legally constructed prior to the certification of the LCP, unless a waiver of future shoreline protection was required by a previous coastal development permit. A waiver of future shoreline protective devices is included as a condition of approval Policy 2.9.3 -10 Require new development to minimize curb cuts to protect on- street parking spaces and close curb cuts to create new public parking wherever feasible. The project will reduce the width of existing curb cuts creating 3 additional street spaces available to the public. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Chapter 3 (Public Access) of the Coastal Land Use Plan based upon the following: Policy 3.1.1 -1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal waters, tidelands, coastal parks, and trails. Policy 3.1.2 -1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along coastal bluffs. Policy 3.1.2 -2. Site, design, and maintain public access improvements in a manner to avoid or minimize impacts to coastal bluffs. Policy 3.1.1 -11. Require new development to minimize impacts to public access to and along the shoreline. Policy 3.1.1 -9. Protect, expand, and enhance a system of public coastal access that achieves the following: Maximizes public access to and along the shoreline; Includes pedestrian, hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails; Provides connections to beaches, parks, and recreational facilities; 3.10 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 9 of 41 • Provides connections with trail systems of adjacent jurisdictions; • Provides access to coastal view corridors; • Facilitates alternative modes of transportation; • Minimizes alterations to natural landforms; • Protects environmentally sensitive habitat areas; • Does not violate private property rights. Policy 3.1.1 -24. Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways where feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility. Policy 3.1.1 -13. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement for lateral public access for all new shorefront development causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts. Such dedication or easement shall extend from the limits of public ownership (e.g. mean high tide line) landward to a fixed point seaward of the primary extent of development (e.g. intersection of sand with toe or top of revetment, vertical face of seawall, dripline of deck, or toe of bluff). Policy 3.1.1 -14. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement for vertical access in all new development projects causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts, unless adequate access is available nearby. Vertical accessways shall be a sufficient size to accommodate two -way pedestrian passage and landscape buffer and should be sited along the border or side property line of the project site or away from existing or proposed development to the maximum feasible extent. Policy 3.1.1 -24. Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways where feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility. Policy 3.1.1 -26. Consistent with the policies above, provide maximum public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the shoreline with new development except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources or (2) adequate access exists nearby. Policy 3.1.1 -27. Implement public access policies in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following: • Topographic and geologic site characteristics; • Capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity; • Fragility of natural resource areas; • Proximity to residential uses; • Public safety services, including lifeguards, fire, and police access; • Support facilities, including parking and restrooms; • Management and maintenance of the access; City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 10 of 41 • The need to balance constitutional rights of individual property owners and the public's constitutional rights of access. The project site has no dedicated public access easements or physical access to the coastal bluff or bay. No abutting vertical or lateral public access presently exists that would connect to any access that might be considered within the development. The steep topography of the site makes vertical access a safety concern and access for the disabled problematic to achieve. Public support facilities presently do not exist nor are they planned and parking in the area is constrained. Lastly, access through the site would be in close proximity to residential uses. The lower portion of the bluff face (below 50.7 feet MSL), submerged lands and tidelands will remain in their existing condition, with the exception of the construction of a new dock system to replace the existing one. Public access to the sheltered cove from the water will not be affected due to the location of the proposed dock system. Access to the designated view point at the end of Carnation Avenue will also remain unaffected and the public view from that point and Ocean Boulevard will be enhanced with project approval with the installation of a bench and /or other public amenity at the corner to improve the experience. The project will create 3 new parking spaces along Carnation Avenue with the reduction in the width of the existing driveway approaches. These new public parking spaces will enhance access to the area. With the reduction in residential density and the fact that no access rights or prescriptive access rights exist, the project will not impact or impede public access. Public access to the bay is currently provided in the vicinity at China Cove, Lookout Point and at a street -end located in the 2300 block of Bayside Drive. These access points are located approximately 450 feet to the east, 1,125 feet to the east and approximately 480 feet to the northwest, respectively. Based upon the forgoing, requiring public access easements or outright dedication of land for public access is not necessary; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.1.3 -1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan that states "Utilize the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to ESA natural habitats from sources including, but not limited to, those identified in Table 4.1.1." Only Subsections E, F, G, and N are applicable to the proposed project as the other subsections are inapplicable as they relate to different physical and operational aspects of Newport Bay. E. Limit encroachments into wetlands to development that is consistent with Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and Policy 4.2.3 -1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan. The residential portion of the project will not encroach into wetlands or open coastal waters. The expanded boating facility (replacement docks) is a permitted encroachment within open coastal waters pursuant to Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and Policy 4.2.3 -1 that specifically allows new or expanded boating facilities, including slips, access ramps, piers, and marinas in open coastal waters provided that the impacts of -3,12- City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 11 of 41, construction are appropriately mitigated. Adequate measures are contained within the Environmental Impact Report and are required as conditions project approval. F. Regulate landscaping or revegetation of blufftop areas to control erosion and invasive plant species and provide a transition area between developed areas and natural habitats. A condition of approval requires all non - native plantings on the bluff to be removed and revegetation of the bluff face is regulated to only allow native and non - invasive plantings indigenous to the California coastal bluff environment. G. Require irrigation practices on blufftops that minimize erosion of bluffs. An irrigation plan is required pursuant to conditions of approval for the project and temporary irrigation on the bluff face may only be to be installed to establish vegetation. N. Prohibit invasive species and require removal in new development. A condition of approval requires all non - native plantings on the bluff to be removed and revegetation of the bluff face is regulated to allow only native and non - invasive plantings indigenous to the California coastal bluff environment; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following policies of Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection) based upon the following: Policy 4.3.1 -5. Require development on steep slopes or steep slopes with erosive soils to implement structural best management practices (BMPs) to prevent or minimize erosion consistent with any load allocation of the TMDLs adopted for Newport Bay. Policy 4.3.1 -6. Require grading /erosion control plans to include soil stabilization on graded or disturbed areas. Policy 4.3.1 -7. Require measures be taken during construction to limit land disturbance activities such as clearing and grading, limiting cut -and fill to reduce erosion and sediment loss, and avoiding steep slopes, unstable areas, and erosive soils. Require construction to minimize disturbance of natural vegetation, including significant trees, native vegetation, root structures, and other physical or biological features important for preventing erosion or sedimentation. Policy 4.3.2 -22. Require beachfront and waterfront development to incorporate BMPs designed to prevent or minimize polluted runoff to beach and coastal waters. Policy 4.3.2 -23. Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP's purpose is to minimize to the maximum extent practicable dry weather runoff, runoff from small storms (less than 314" of rain falling over a 24 -hour period) and the concentration of pollutants in such runoff during construction and post - construction from the property. City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 12 of 41 An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention plan and a Water Quality Management Plan are required by conditions of approval and they must include best management practices to ensure that erosion is controlled to the maximum extent feasible; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.4.3 -4. of the Coastal Land Use Plan that states "On bluffs subject to marine erosion, require new accessory structures such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require structural foundations to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in the subject area, but not less than 10 feet from the bluff edge. Require accessory structures to be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards." No new accessory structures are proposed. The policy also requires that accessory structures be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards. A condition of approval is included such that the existing accessory structures (concrete pad, staircase and walkway) will be removed if threatened by erosional processes in the future; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.4.3 -11 of the Coastal Land Use Plan that states "Require applications for new development to include slope stability analyses and erosion rate estimates provided by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer." A Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated March 17, 2007, a report titled Bluff and Shoreline Reconnaissance by GeoSoils Inc., dated June 11, 2007, and a third party review of all geotechnical reports prepared by GMU Geotechnical, Inc. dated October 29, 2009, collectively indicate that the project will not be subject to nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years); and WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following policies of Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection) that regulate the protection of public views based upon the following: Policy 4.4.1 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. Policy 4.4.1 -2 Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. `�J 4 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 13 of 41 Policy 4.4.1 -4. Where appropriate, require new development to provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public coastal views or to restore public coastal views in developed areas. Policy 4.4.1 -6. Protect public coastal views from the following roadway segments... Ocean Boulevard. (Figure 4 -3 of the CLUP identifies the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard as a "viewpoint.) Policy 4.4.1 -7. Design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of public coastal view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame and accent public coastal views. Policy 4.4.2 -2. Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. Policy 4.4.2 -3. Implement the regulation of the building envelope to preserve public views through the height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, and building bulk regulation of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005 that limit the building profile and maximize public view opportunities. A public view presently exists over the southeastern portion of the site from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue to the south and southwest between the existing 14- unit apartment building and improvements on the adjoining property to the southeast. The siting of the proposed building would provide a greater separation between these buildings than exists today. Presently, the horizontal view window measures 25 degrees and with the project, the view window will increase to 44 degrees. Based upon the visual simulations prepared for the project presented within the Environmental Impact Report, the public view from Ocean Boulevard to the west will be improved due to the position of the proposed building. Although the proposed building is taller than the existing building, there is no public view over the buildings; therefore, the taller building proposed will not impact a public view. The project is consistent with the 28132 -foot height limitation zone of the Zoning Code as demonstrated by the project plans and verified by staff, and with other building envelope restrictions with the exception of setback encroachments as proposed. Based upon the visual simulations prepared for the project presented within the Environmental Impact Report, and since the residential portion of the proposed will not extend below 50.7 feet MSL and is consistent with the predominant line of existing development as identified by the City Council on August 14, 2007, impacts to public views of the site from the south, west and from Begonia Park are not significantly impacted so as to be inconsistent with CLUP policy. The visual impact of the proposed docks as depicted in the project visual simulations presented within the Environmental Impact Report do not represent a significant impact. The expanded docks with boats create a transient impediment to viewing the project City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 14 of 41 bluff and rocks depending upon the viewer's location. The closer to the site the viewer is, the more prominent the boats in the docks would be in a particular view; however, views of the project site would be provided as one "cruises" in and out of the harbor and the bluff, rocks and cove below the proposed residential building are not being physically altered or covered. The proposed residential building provides a 9 -foot setback to the property line abutting 215 Carnation Avenue. Improvements within this setback area are low to the ground and would not be high enough to obstruct public views from Carnation Avenue to the west. This view does not presently exist given existing site improvements to be removed with project construction. Other setback encroachments are below the grade of the street and would not impact a public view. Project encroachments into the required side yard setback abutting Bayside Place do impact public views from Begonia Park or other vantage points from the northwest as the balconies and walkway do not project beyond the silhouette of the remainder of the building that conforms to setback regulations. No other public views exist from the street through the site due to the position of the current buildings. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an impact upon existing public views through the site to the south and west. The recordation of a public view easement to protect the public views over the site from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue is required as a condition of approval; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following policies of Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection) as they related to the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone and to minimizing the alteration of the coastal bluff based upon the following: Policy 4.4.9 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. Policy 4.4.1 -2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. Policy 4.4.1 -3 Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. Policy 4.4.3 -8. Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development or public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. -� i6 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 15 of 41 Policy 4.4.3 -9. Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant line of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development. Policy 4.4.3 -12. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as: A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an alternative location is more protective of coastal resources. B. Utilizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible. C. Clustering building sites. D. Shared use of driveways. E. Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the site, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and building design. F. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or cantilever designs. G. Detaching parts of the development, such as a garage from a dwelling unit. H. Requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site. The City Council has interpreted Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 to mean that development on bluff faces is prohibited, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development. Additionally, public improvements on coastal bluff faces that are allowable are those that provide public access, protect coastal resources, or provide for public safety when no feasible alternative exists and when they are designed and constructed to minimize alteration or further erosion of the bluff face and are visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. In all cases where the predominant line of existing development is used to establish a development limit, it shall not be the only criteria used for this purpose. All coastal land use policies shall be considered in determining the appropriate extent of new development and size of new structures. The City Council made these clarifications by adopting Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2007- 003, which has not yet been considered by the California Coastal Commission. Existing development of the site is located on the face of a coastal bluff. Identification of the project site as a coastal bluff is based upon the professional opinion of Sidney Neblett, a Certified Engineering Geologist. The coastal bluff transitions from northwest - facing to southwest - facing roughly southwest of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue almost bisecting the project site. This transition point extends down to the northwest to the western extent of a small pocket beach unofficially known �;'tiI City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 16 of 41 as Carnation Cove. North of the transition point of this bluff, is a series of residential structures developed on Carnation Avenue between 42 and 58 feet NAVD88. East of the transition point along Ocean Boulevard is a series of residential structures that were developed much farther down the bluff face with several at the water's edge. The City Council reviewed this existing development pattern at a noticed public hearing on August 14, 2007, and determined that the predominant line of existing development is 50.7 NAVD88, which is similar to and consistent with the development pattern established by the project site and development to the north along Carnation Avenue. The visible portion of the residential component of the project does not extend below the 50.7 NAVD88 contour except where it connects with an existing access staircase on the bluff face leading to the docks below. The exit below the 50.7 NAVD88 contour is recessed and screened from public view. The project minimizes alteration of the coastal bluff and protects public views of the coastal bluff by not altering the bluff face below the predominant line of existing development and preserving the majority of the visible bluff. The project is required to blend any altered slopes outside of the building footprint to the natural contours, native rocks or soils of the site. For these reasons, the project protects the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, minimizes alteration of the bluff and is consistent with CLUP Policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2, 4.4.1 -3, 4.4.3 -8, 4.4.3 -9, 4.4.3 -12 and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2007 -003; and WHEREAS, the granting of the Modification Permit allowing above grade and below grade encroachments into the front and side yard setbacks is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code for the following reasons: The site is irregular in shape, has steep topography and has submerged lands which make it difficult to design a project at the density proposed while providing required parking and avoiding significantly altering the bluff. Approximately 43% of the site is submerged or has slopes in excess of 50 %. The requirement to provide on -site parking requires that a significant portion of the building area be allocated for the parking, thereby reducing available area for residential units. The required side yard setback is also larger than the required front yard setback and the application of this standard represents a practical difficulty given the relatively small buildable area available on the entire site; and WHEREAS, the granting of the Modification Permit allowing above grade and below grade encroachments into the front and side yard setbacks will be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and the granting of the permit application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood for the following reasons: The requested encroachments within the front yard setback, with the exception of the 42 -inch high protective guardrails, will be entirely subterranean and will not be visible. The proposed guardrails will have an open design allowing visibility through while 3,Ia City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 17 of 41 providing adequate protection to pedestrians on the public sidewalk from falling over the proposed (and allowable) retaining wall located within the required front yard setback. Building encroachments within the required side yard setback on levels below the street will not be visible. The requested above - grade, 1 -foot, 7 inch, building encroachment in the required side yard setback adjacent to 215 Carnation Avenue will provide a 9 -foot setback that will create a public view from Carnation Avenue. This public view presently does not exist given the location and nature of existing improvements. The provided setback exceeds typical 4 -foot setbacks between buildings along Carnation Avenue. This 9 -foot setback will provide sufficient separation between the project and the abutting residence to the north. The encroachments of balconies, including protective guard railings, within the side setback abutting Bayside Place will not impact these residents given the change in topography, the separation provided by Bayside Place, a private roadway, and the fact that these residences are oriented toward Newport Bay and not project. The encroachments within the side setback abutting Bayside Place also do not encroach within a public view from Begonia Park or other vantage points from the west any more than the proposed building does which is compliant with the setback. The encroaching balconies and guard railings will encroach into private views of residents to the north on Carnation Avenue, but the majority of the view to the west and southwest will remain unchanged; and WHEREAS, Newport Tract No. 2005 -004 (TTM16882) can be approved based upon the following findings: 1. The modified project is consistent with the current land use designation including the proposed amendment. The project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU5.1.9 regarding the character and quality of multi - family residential development. The project is consistent with Land Use Element and Natural Resources Element policies related to the protection of public views, visual resources, coastal bluffs and other natural resources based upon the project's consistency with the Coastal Land Use Plan. The site is not subject to a specific plan. Minimum lot sizes established by the Zoning Ordinance are also maintained as required by the City Subdivision Code. The tentative tract map, pursuant to the conditions of approval, is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map. 2. The buildable area of the site is relatively small compared to the entire 1.4 acre site. The development of the site is not likely to be subject to coastal erosional processes or hazards during the 75 -year economic life of the project. No earthquake faults were found on -site and there is not likely to be an incidence of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse of soils on -site or near the site given site soil conditions. These factors indicate that the site is suitable for the development proposed. 3. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements, subject to the provisions of the Construction Management Plan, standard conditions, applicable Building, Grading and Fire Ordinances, conditions of approval and mitigation measures will not 3,19 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 18 of 41 cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat based upon the Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2007021054) with the exception of short-term construction - related noise. Pursuant to Public Resources Section 21081, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A) identifies that feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed do not exist and that the benefits associated with the project outweigh short-term significant noise impact. 4. The tract map would recombine two lots and a small portion of a third lot and subdivide the planned airspace of the proposed building for residential condominium purposes. The subdivision is not expected to cause serious public health problems given the use of typical construction materials and practices. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the proposed subdivision will generate any serious public health problems. All mitigation measures as outlined in the Environmental Impact Report and the Building, Grading and Fire Codes will be implemented to ensure the protection of public health. 5. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, because a utility and sewer easement that affects the site is presently not in use and can be abandoned. The design of the proposed subdivision will avoid and protect in place an existing storm drain easement and storm drain. The storm drain easement will appear on the final map. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the proposed project. 6. The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. 7. The subdivision is subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and field inspection processes. The site has a western exposure and incorporates curved roof elements that will provide some shading of windows and passive solar cooling. Significant exterior wall segments are below grade which will benefit from passive cooling. 8. The subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing needs although the proposed subdivision will have the effect of reducing the residential density on the site from 15 units to 8 units. The reduction is insignificant given the City's current housing supply and projected housing needs. Although the reduction in units does not assist the City in reaching its production goals, no affordable housing units are being eliminated based upon the fact that the project was not occupied by low or moderate income households. The reduction in density is consistent with existing density limitations of the Municipal Code. 3.Za City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 19 of 41 9. Wastewater discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with existing residential use of the property, which does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. 10.The proposed subdivision is entirely within the coastal zone and the site is not presently developed with coastal - related uses, coastal- dependent uses or water oriented recreational uses that would be displaced by a non - priority use. The project site is constrained by topography and public access exists nearby making on -site vertical and lateral access unnecessary. Public access to the area is enhanced as a result of increasing public parking opportunities on Carnation Avenue afforded by 3 on street parking spaces to be added with closure of existing driveway curb cuts. The position of the proposed building enhances public views from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue by increasing the view angle between the development on the project site and adjacent development as well as creating a view corridor between the proposed building and 215 Carnation Avenue where a public view presently does not exist. The modified project developed in accordance with the conditions of approval will minimize alteration of the coastal bluff and preserve the scenic and visual quality of the coast by preserving the bluff below 50.7 feet NAVD88. Lastly, the project will not impact sensitive marine resources with the implementation of the conditions of approval including the mitigation measures identified in the AERIE Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2007021054); and WHEREAS, the project includes the demolition of 15 dwelling units within the Coastal Zone within 2 buildings and pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code, units proposed for demolition and occupied by low or moderate income households must be replaced if such replacement is determined to be feasible. The 15 units are not occupied by low or moderate income households and, therefore, no replacement units are required. Households potentially meeting the low or moderate income limits were not evicted for the purpose of avoiding a replacement requirement within the previous 12 months. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The recitals above are hereby declared to be true, accurate, and correct. Section 2. The City Council finds that notice of this hearing was provided in conformance with California law and the Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach. Section 3. The City Council hereby finds that the Administrative Record which was considered by the City Council in adopting this Resolution consists, without limitation, of all documents, correspondence, testimony, photographs, and other information presented or provided to the Planning Director, Planning Commission, City Council and City including, without limitation, testimony received at City Council and Planning Commission meetings, staff reports, agendas, notices, meeting minutes, police reports, J,2.1 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 20 of 41 correspondence, and all other information provided to the City and retained in the files of the City, its staff and attorneys (except for attorney /client communications, work product and other privileged documents), and such is hereby incorporated by reference into the Administrative Record and is available upon request ( "Administrative Record "). Section 4. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant and property owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of this Project including, but not limited to, the approval of the General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002, Newport Tract No. 2005 -004 (TTM 16882), Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009, Modification Permit No. MD2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2005 -002 and /or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the certification of the Environmental Impact Report, the adoption of a Mitigation Program, and /or statement of overriding considerations for this Project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant or property owner, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant and property owner shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Section 5. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations to adverse environmental impacts, attached also as Exhibit "A" entitled "Statement of Overriding Considerations," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. Section 6. Based on the aforementioned findings, the City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006 per Exhibit "B ", Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002 per Exhibit "C ", Newport Tract No. NT2005 -004 (TTM 16882), Modification Permit No. MD2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2005 -002 (PA 2005 -196) subject to conditions of approval attached as Exhibit "13", Section 7. The Planning Director is hereby directed to submit Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002 to the California Coastal Commission for review and approval. The change of the Coastal Land Use Plan designation of the project site shall only become effective upon the approval of Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 by the California Coastal Commission. ?jIZZ City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 21 of 41 Section 8. Pursuant to Section 13518 of the California Code of Regulations this Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002 shall take effect automatically upon Coastal Commission action unless the Coastal Commission proposes modifications. In the event that the Coastal Commission proposes revisions, this Land Use Plan amendment shall not take effect until the City Council adopts the Commission modifications and all the requirements of Section 13544 of the California Code of Regulations are met. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the day of 2009, by the following vote to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE of the CITY ATTORNEY ATTEST: CITY CLERK i.-z3 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 22 of 41 Exhibit "A" CEQA STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE AERIE PROJECT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2007021054 A. Introduction The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review and certification of the Final EIR for Aerie project. As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures and project design features to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed Project. Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby result in significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. In making this determination the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 which provides as follows: CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." 2. When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. -2, z� City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 23 of 41 3. If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the following unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the proposed Project, none of which both meet the Project Objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project for the reasons discussed in Section 6 of these findings. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach, having reviewed the Final EIR for Aerie project, reviewed all written materials within the City's public record, and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City has balanced the benefits of the Project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the Project. B. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impact Although the vast majority of potential Project impacts have been avoided or mitigated, as described in Section 5 of these findings, there remains one Project impact for which complete mitigation is not feasible. Specifically, although the project will comply with the City's Noise Control Ordinance and will incorporate project features included in the Construction Management Plan, including the preparation of a construction schedule that minimizes potential construction noise impacts, which have been prescribed to further reduce construction noise during the length construction phase, the Project's short -term noise impacts (Impact 4.4 -1) will remain significant and unavoidable. C. Overriding Considerations The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impact identified above is considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impact of the proposed Project. 1. Promote the Neighborhood's Architectural Diversity and Enhance its Overall Aesthetic Quality. The Project's state -of- the -art design will reflect the architectural diversity of the community and add distinction to City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 24 of 41 the harbor and the neighborhood. It will also enhance the overall aesthetic quality of the neighborhood by replacing a deteriorating 60 -year old structure with a high - quality residential project utilizing unique modern design principles. Specific aesthetic improvements include (a) the elimination of conventional garage doors for all units, (b) the concealing of all parking from street view, (c) significant landscape and streetscape enhancements, and (d) the removal and undergrounding of two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as their associated overhead wires. 2. Incorporate Advanced Energy Efficiency Features: The Project will replace an energy inefficient structure typical of mid -20th Century development with an advanced, highly efficient structure. Among other things, the Project will incorporate energy- saving, sustainable, and environmentally sensitive technology, construction techniques, water quality treatment elements, and other features designed to conserve energy and /or improve the existing environment to a greater degree than required by current applicable regulations. 3. Provide New Public Parking Spaces: The Project will enhance public access to the coast by creating three new public street parking spaces adjacent to the Project site because the length of the curb cut on the Project site will be substantially reduced. 4. Enhance Public Views from the Project Site: The Project will enhance scenic views to the harbor and the ocean from designated public vantage points in the immediate neighborhood by (a) significantly expanding the existing public view corridor at the southern end of project site, (b) creating a new public view corridor at the northern end of the project site, (c) removing two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, all of which presently impact views from certain perspectives, (d) replacing the existing poles and overhead wiring by undergrounding the new wiring, and (e) providing a public bench and drinking fountain at the corner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard to enhance the public viewing experience. 5. Enhance Public Views from Newport Harbor. The Project will enhance public views of the Project site from the harbor by (a) maintaining all visible development above the predominant line of existing development, (b) incorporating 207 Carnation Avenue into the project, which presently is within the Categorical Exclusion Zone and would not be subject to the PLOED if not part of the project, (c) replacing the existing outdated apartment building with modern, organic architecture with articulated facades to conform to the topography of the bluff, and (d) replacing the unsightly cement and pipes and the non - native vegetation on the bluff face with extensive native vegetation. -� .26 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 25 of 41 6. Minimize Building Height. The Project will minimize encroachment into private views by maintaining a maximum building height on average four feet below the zoning district's development standards. 7. Improve Hydrology for Both the Project Site and the Drainage Area: Project implementation will result in a reduction in storm flows generated on the Project site. In addition, the Project includes the upgrading of the existing deficient catch basin to ensure that adequate capacity exists to accommodate storm flows within the drainage area. 8. Increase Property Values and Property Tax Revenues: Project implementation will result in the redevelopment of the site eliminating an apartment building built in 1949 and a single family home built in the 1950's. The existing development has a lower taxable value when compared to the value the proposed project will generate, thereby increasing tax revenues. ' IT City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 26 of 41 Exhibit "B" .3.2,6 Coastal Land Use Plan Change from RH -D RM -A Exhibit "C" RAM,: A RL, _R,M- A City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 27 of 41 RM '=B -z ,29 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 28 of 41 Exhibit "D" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Newport Tract No. NT2005 -004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 16882) Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 (Project - specific conditions are in italics) Planning Department The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use will be cause for revocation of this permit. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 3. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 4. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans stamped and dated May 21, 2009, except as modified by the conditions of approval. All provisions contained within the Construction Management Plan (CMP) dated March 17, 2009, shall be implemented throughout project construction unless otherwise permitted by the City and that no environmental impacts are caused by a proposed modification of the CMP. The construction management plan shall be revised to incorporate the following additional project design features: 1) the use of a steel sleeve for the drilling of holes for dock piles and procedures for the containment of tailings from the drilling process, 2) the placement of a silt curtain across the entrance to the cove; and 3) the placement of a protective barrier (15 mil Stegowrap or equivalent) under the upper fixed pier walkway prior to the repair and renovation of the walkway. 5. Project approvals shall expire unless exercised within 36 months from the effective date of approval. Reasonable extensions may be granted by the Planning Director in accordance With the Municipal Code and Subdivision Map Act. 6. The applicant shall obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building, grading or demolition permit for the project. 2,,go City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 29 of 41 7. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &Rs) for the proposed condominium association shall provide for the long term maintenance of the project and shall be reviewed and approved by the Office of the City Attorney prior to their recordation. The CC &Rs shall include a provision that residents shall park only operable vehicles within the parking garage that are in active use (i.e. no long term storage of vehicles). 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building Pennit, the applicant shall provide the City with a performance bond or its equivalent to ensure timely completion of all improvements represented on plans and drawings submitted for permit approval in the event construction of improvements consistent with project approval is abandoned. The performance bond or its equivalent shall be an amount equal to 100% of the cost of completing project improvements from the start of grading activities up to completion of the building shell and shall be issued with the City as beneficiary by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California and shall have an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class Vll (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Bests Key Rating Guide unless otherwise approved by the City Risk Manager. The bond or equivalent shall be released in 25% increments upon completion of each quarter of construction of the building shell. 9. Prior to the issuance of a -grading or building permit for new construction, the applicant shall execute a waiver of all claims against the City for future liability or damage resulting from the approval to build the project. The form and content of the waiver shall be in a form acceptable to the office of the City Attorney and the waiver shall be recorded against the property in question. 10. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance (SC 4.5.1). 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director. The site shall not be excessively illuminated as excessive illumination may be determined consistent with the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America or by the Planning Director in the event the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. 12. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated (SC 4.5 -2). 331 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 30 of 41 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director. The plans shall incorporate native drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices. All planting areas, with the exception of bluff areas, shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on -site moisture- sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. The proposed landscaping adjacent to the back of sidewalk shall be designed with provisions that will prevent irrigation and /or other runoff from spilling onto the sidewalk. 14. Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environment. Invasive and non- native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed (SC 4.7 -2). 15. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm that all landscaping materials and irrigation systems have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. 16. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, watering, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 17. A floating dock and boat slips may be developed, maintained and operated in open coastal waters adjacent to the residential condominium development provided all necessary permits are first obtained. The docks and slips shag be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved dock layout plan and must be reviewed and approved by the Harbor Resources Manager prior to construction. The maximum number of permanent boat slips shall be no greater than the total number of residential units developed. Use of the boat slips shall be limited to residents and their guests and the slips shall not be leased, subleased or allowed to come into the control of non - residents of the condominium development. 18. Water leaving the project site due to over - irrigation of landscape shall be minimized. If an incident such as this is reported, a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office shall visit the ��3Z City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 31 of 41 location, investigate, inform resident if possible, leave a note and in some cases shut -off the water. 19. Watering should be done during the early morning or evening hours to minimize evaporation (between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., the following morning). 20. All irrigation system leaks shall be investigated by a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City. Manager's Office and the applicant or future owners shall complete all required repairs. 21. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, a waiver of future shoreline protection during the economic life of the structure (75 years) shall be recorded against the property. The waiver shall be binding upon all future owners and assignees. The waiver shall be reviewed and approved by the Office of the Office of the City Attorney prior to recordation (SC 4.9 -3). 22. Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted (SC 4.9 -4). 23. Prior to issuance of a certificate occupancy for the project, the applicant shalt install a public bench within the public right -of -way as depicted on the site plan. The specific design and location of the bench shall be approved by the Public Works, Planning and General Services Departments prior to installation. 24. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this permit, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 25. Noise - generating construction and /or maintenance activities may be permitted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on Saturdays. No noise - generating construction activities shall occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site (SC 4.4 -1). 26. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all administrative costs identified by the Planning Department within 30 days of receiving a final notification of costs or prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 27. All altered slopes that are outside of the building envelope shall be contoured to resemble the existing natural terrain. Any alteration or damage of the bluff face not part of the approved grading or building plans shall be repaired and said repairs shall resemble the existing natural terrain. �, 33 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 32 of 41 28. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the AERIE Project including, but not limited to, the approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005- 002, Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009, Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -004 (Tract 16882), Modification Permit No. MD2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2005 -002 collectively referred to as PA2005 -196; and /or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the adoption of an Environmental Impact Report and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the AERIE Project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 29. The project shall incorporate and implement an emergency power backup system so the vehicle lilts will operate during a power outage. The location of the generator shall be sound attenuated and screened from public view and subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. 30. Remote control operators for the vehicle elevators, in quantities equal to the number of parking spaces assigned to each dwelling unit, shall be provided to occupants of the respective units. The project shall incorporate an external indicating system to alert drivers which vehicle elevator will be available for immediate use. The vehicle elevator system shall be maintained for efficient use throughout the life of the project. 31. Vehicle parking and maneuvering areas shall be restricted to the operation, maneuvering and parking of operable vehicles and shall not be used for storage of any kind including the long -term storage of vehicles not in regular use. 32. No idling of construction vehicles or equipment shall be allowed. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned off immediately when not in use. Construction workers, equipment operators or truck drivers shall not employ any form of audible signaling system during any phase of construction. ";),3q City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 33 of 41 33. Reclaimed water shall be used wherever available, assuming it is economically feasible. 34. All plans and proposed uses within the project site shall to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the transport, storage, use and /or disposal of hazardous materials (SC 4.8 -1). 35. Residents of the project shall comply with California Code Title 14 (Natural Resources), Section 29.05, which prohibits the taking of any marine organisms within 1,000 feet of the high tide line without a sport fishing license (SC 4.7 -1). 36. The applicant shall dedicate a view easement; however, it will only affect the project site. Structures and landscaping within the easement area shall not be permitted to block public views. The easement shall be approved by the City Attorney and recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction and shall be reflected on the final tract map (SC 4.5 -2). 37. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials (SC 4.10 -1). 38. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). In the event that fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground - disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant (SC 4.10 -21). Fire Department 39. One gumey- accommodating elevator shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 30 of the Califomia Building Code within the project that must access each level. .�, 3 S City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 34 of 41 40. A Class 111 standpipe system shall be provided at the private dock in accordance with Newport Beach Fire Department guidelines. 41. A public fire hydrant shall be provided at the comer of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. The hydrant shall be installed and tested prior to occupancy of the project, unless required earlier by the Fire Department. 42. A fire alarm system with fire control room shall be provided within the project. Monitored Automatic fire sprinklers shall be required for the entire structure to meet NFA13, 2003 Edition and in accordance with Newport Beach Fire Department requirements. Shut -off valves and a waterflow device shall be provided for each unit. A Class 1 standpipe shall be provided at every level at all stairs. Standpipe and sprinklers may be a combination system. 43. The project shall provide pressurized exit enclosures and vestibules in accordance with the Building Code. Enclosures shall be a minimum two -hour fire rated construction. 44. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position that is plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall be of made of non - combustible materials, shall contrast with their background, and shall be either internally or externally illuminated to be visible at night. Number shall be no less than six inches in height with a one -inch stroke. Public Works 45. All parking stall dimensions shall comply with City's Standard Drawings STD -805- L-A (SC 4.2 -1). 46. Driveway /drive aisle slopes shall comply with City Standard STD - 160 -L -C, which accommodate a 15 percent maximum slope and a maximum change in grade of 11 percent. The building plans shall show detailed profile of each of the proposed driveways (SC 4.2 -1). 47. Project driveways must conform to the City's sight distance standard 110-L. The project driveway to the parking area on the Second Level shall maintain a minimum 20 -foot width. The overall design of vehicle access and parking areas shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer (SC 4.2 -1, SC 4.2 -2 & SC 4.2 -3), 48. All work conducted within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 49. Construction surety in a form acceptable to the City, guaranteeing the completion of the various required public improvements and repairs, shall be submitted to the ?,,3% City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 35 of 41 Public Works Department for City Council approval prior to the issuance of Public Works Department encroachment permit. 50. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 51. A water demand, a storm drain system capacity, and a sanitary sewer system capacity study shall be submitted to the Public Works Department along with the first building plan check submittal. The recommendations of these studies shall be incorporated as a part of the submitted plans. 52. Street, drainage and utility improvements within the public right -of -way shall be submitted on City standard improvement plan formats. All of the plan sheets shall be wet sealed, dated, and signed by the California registered professionals responsible for the designs shown on said plans. 53. All new landscaping within the public right -of -way shall be approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department. 54. The applicant shall submit detailed plans for the on -site drainage system(s) to demonstrate that it will prevent the underground garage from being flooded during storm events. 55. The Developer shall file one (1) Final Tract Map (Map). 56. The roadway cross section shown on the Map with a 110 -foot fight -of -way width should be labeled as "Ocean Boulevard" 57. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to Map recordation, the surveyor /engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital- graphic file of said map in a manner described in the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 58. Prior to recordation, the Map boundary shall be tied onto the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7- 9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 59. The applicant's request to vacate the existing sewer /utilities easement shall be approved by the City Utilities Department prior to the issuance of a building permit or the recordation of the final tract map if the easement is no longer needed. The _,, 3-7 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 36 of 41 existing private ingress/egress easement with the same width, length, and alignment as the existing sewer /utilities easement shall be vacated or permission from the beneficiaries of the private easement shall be documented prior to the issuance of a building permit or the recordation of the final tract map. 60. A 5 -foot wide public sewer and utilities easement shall be recorded against the property for the existing sewer main fronting the property. The applicant shall prepare and submit the legal description for said easement for City review and approval. The easement shall be shown on the final tract map to be recorded. 61. All easements of record shall be recorded as a part of the Final Map. 62. All improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the current edition of the City Design Criteria, Standard Special Provisions, and Standard Drawings. 63. The sidewalk portion of the proposed new driveway approach shall be constructed with 2% cross -fall per City Standards. 64. Temporary construction sheet piles shall be installed to protect all existing storm drain and sanitary sewer mains within and adjacent to the development site. 65. No structures or construction tie -backs shall be constructed within the limits of any easements or public right -of -way without the approval of an Encroachment Agreement and Permit. 66. Full -width concrete sidewalk and curb and gutter shall be constructed along the length of the Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard frontages. The new sidewalk shall join the existing sidewalk in front of 2501 Ocean Boulevard. 67. New concrete curbs shall be dowelled into sound concrete roadway pavement. 68. Trees shall not be installed at locations where mature tree roots could damage the existing City sewer main or sidewalks. 69. Adequate safety provisions for pedestrians and WB Ocean Boulevard vehicle traffic along the length of the perimeter /retaining walls along the Carnation Avenue frontage shall be shown on building plans and shall be installed and maintained throughout the life of the project. 70. Each dwelling unit shall be served by its individual water service and sewer lateral connection and cleanout. 71. All utility connections shall be placed underground in accordance with the Subdivision Code. rM City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 37 of 41 72. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic Engineer and any corrections /modifications shall be made to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 73. All non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way shall require an Encroachment Agreement and Encroachment Permit. 74. Standard curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be installed within the public right of way across the frontage of the project site. Curb cuts for vehicle driveway approaches shall directly lead to the parking areas or vehicle elevators. 75. Gates shall not be designed to open out into the public right -of -way. 76. Raised planters shall not be permitted within the Public right -of -way. Planting adjacent to the curb shall accommodate a vehicle car door opening. Project landscape plans shall provide details of the planters and shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 77. The driveway approaches within the public right -of -way shall be shall be narrowed to the width of garage openings they serve. Six -inch curbs shall have a 3 foot flare. Drive approaches shall be modified to comply with ADA requirements. 78. Planters adjacent to the freight elevators shall be pulled back from the Carnation Avenue property line two feet to improve vehicle maneuvering. Planters in the front yard shall not encroach into the projection of the garage door edge. 79. No structural support column shall be located in the middle of the driveway leading to the parking area located on the Second Level. 80. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a study of the existing drainage area and catch basin in Carnation Avenue to determine the appropriate size of catch basin. The study shall be subject to the review and approval by the City. The developer shall enlarge the existing catch basin accordingly and shall bear all costs of design, permitting and construction. 81. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. 82. Prior to the issuance of occupancy the applicant shall do all of the following. The applicant shall prepare the necessary design and construction documents, plans and specifications for undergrounding the existing utility line in Camation Avenue northerly of Ocean Boulevard by eliminating the two nearest utility poles. The design and construction documents, plans and specifications shall be subject to the review and approval by the City and appropriate utility providers. The developer shall underground said utility line and remove the two nearest utility ;.3R City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 38 of 41 poles along said line and the applicant shall bear all costs of design, permitting and construction. 83. Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, any visible track -out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept within thirty (30) minutes of deposition. 84. Prior to commencement of demolition and grading, the applicant shall submit to the City calculations showing the proposed travel route for haul trucks, the distance traveled, and how many daily truck trips that can be accommodated to ensure that the daily cumulative miles traveled is below the assumed total vehicle miles traveled in the quantitative air quality assessment of the Environmental Impact Report. Building Department 85. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits for construction from the City of Newport Beach. The final construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. The facility shall be designed to meet fire protection and safety requirements and shall be subject to review and approval by the Newport Beach Building and Fire Departments (SC 4.3 -5, SC 4.6- 4, SC 4.9 -1, and SC 4.9 -2). 86. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 87. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) shall be prepared and approved by the City of Newport Beach as the local permitting agency in accordance with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The SWPPP shall include BMPs to eliminate and /or minimize stormwater pollution prior to, and during construction. The SWPPP shall require construction to occur in stages and stabilized prior to disturbing other areas and require the use of temporary diversion dikes and basins to trap sediment from run -off and allow clarification prior to discharge (SC 4.6 -3). 88. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the Best Management Practices (BMP's) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The plan shall identify the types of structural and non - structural measures to be used. The plan shall comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Particular attention should be addressed to the appendix section "Best Management Practices for New Development." The WQMP shall clearly show the locations of structural BMP's, and assignment of long term maintenance responsibilities (which shall also be included in the Maintenance Agreement). The plan shall be prepared to the format of the DAMP title "Water Quality Management Plan Outline" and be subject to the approval of the City (SC 4.6 -2). 3,4b City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 39 of 41 89. Prior to the issuance of the grading or buildingpermit, the applicant shall obtain a NPDES permit and /or coverage under the NPDES statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit. The applicant shall incorporate storm water pollutant control into erosion control plans using BMPs to the maximum extent possible. Evidence that proper clearances have been obtained through the State Water Resources Control Board shall be given to the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits (SC 4.6 -1). 90. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) in a manner meeting approval of the City Building Official, to demonstrate compliance with local and state water quality regulations for grading and construction activities. The ESCP shall identify how all construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris, and stockpiles of soil, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. shall be properly covered, stored, and secured to prevent transport into local drainages or coastal waters by wind, rain, tracking, tidal erosion, or dispersion. The ESCP shall also describe how the applicant will ensure that all Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be maintained during construction of any future public right -of -ways. A copy of the current ESCP shall be kept at the project site and be available for City of Newport Beach review on request. The ESCP shall include and require the use of soil stabilization measures for all disturbed areas. 91. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the project applicant shall document to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be designed and constructed to comply with current seismic safety standards and the current City - adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. 92. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a geotechnical report shall be submitted with construction drawings for plan check. The Building Department shall ensure that the project complies with the geotechnical recommendations included in the preliminary geologic investigation as well as additional requirements, if any, imposed by the Newport Beach Building Department. 93. Prior to issuance of the building permit, school impacts fees will be paid to the Building Department to assist in funding school facility expansion and educational services to area residents. 94. The project shall strictly adhere to SCAQMD Rule 403, which sets requirements for dust control associated with grading and construction activities (SC 4.3 -1). 95. The project shall strictly adhere to SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment (SC 4.3 -2). 96. The project shall strictly adhere to SCAQMD Rule 1108, which sets limitations on ROG content in asphalt (SC 4.3 -3). 2,,141 City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 40 of 41 97. The project shall strictly adhere to SCAQMD Rule 1113, which sets limitations on ROG content in architectural coatings (SC 4.3 -4). Mitigation Measures from Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2007021054) 98. All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices, intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer (MM 4.4 -1 a). 99. The construction contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions (MM 4.4 -1 b). 100. The construction contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from residential receptor locations as feasible (MM 4.4 -1c). 101. The construction contractor shall post a contact name and telephone number of the owner's authorized representative on -site (MM 4.4 -1d). 102. The construction contractor shall install temporary sound blankets or plywood panels with a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of 32 or higher and a density of 1.5 pounds per square foot or greater (e.g., SoundSeal BBC -13 -2 or equivalent) along the entire outer perimeter of the construction area. The temporary sound blankets or plywood panels shall have a minimum height of six feet. If plywood panels are selected, they must have a minimum density of four pounds per square foot and have no perforations or gaps between the panels (MM 4.4 -1 e). 103. The construction contractor shall select quieter tools or construction methods whenever feasible. Examples of this include the use of plasma cutters, which produce less noise than power saws with abrasive blades and ordering precut materials to specifications to avoid on -site cutting (MM 4.4 -1f). 104. The construction contractor shall maximize the use of enclosures as feasible. This includes four -sided or full enclosures with a top for compressors and other stationary machinery. This also includes locating activities, such as metal stud and rebar cutting, within constructed walled structures to minimize noise propagation (MM 4.4 -1 g). 105. Any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM shall be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Inaccessible suspect ACM shall be tested prior to demolition or renovation. Air emissions of asbestos fibers and leaded dust would be reduced to below a level of significance through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. Proper safety procedures for the handling of suspect ACM shall Zj,NZ City of Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 41 of 41 always be followed in order to protect the occupants of the building and the asbestos workers (MM 4.8 -1). 106. A contractor performing paint removal work shall follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the paint, as proper waste disposal requirements and worker protection measures shall be implemented throughout the removal process (MM 4.8 -2). 107. Project implementation shall adhere to the engineering recommendations for site grading and foundation design and construction presented in the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Nebeltt & Associates, Inc., and subsequent detailed geotechnical engineering analyses (MM 4.9 -1). 108. During periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave- induced motions, boats shall be sheltered at mooring can locations that are available inside Newport Harbor to avoid damage (MM 4.9 -2a). 109. The dock design shall be based on the extreme wave conditions identified in the coastal engineering study (Noble Consultants, Inc., 2008) (MM 4.9 -2b). I, Richard Julian, President of Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., on behalf of the applicant and owners or the property that is the subject of the AERIE application (PA2005 -196) hereby acknowledge receipt of this resolution and conditions of approval and agree to be bound thereby. The owners and applicant and any future owner, successor in interest or assignee agree to implement the proposed project as described in the EIR and abide by the conditions of approval contained in this resolution. Richard Julian .;.y 3 Attachment #4 Draft ordinance amending the Zoning District Map y.l THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Intentionally Blank H,2 ORDINANCE NO. 2009- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2005 -009 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201 -205, 207 CARNATION AVENUE 101 BAYSIDE PLACE (PA 2005 -196) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. with respect to property located at 201 -205, 207 Carnation Avenue, and 101 Bayside Place to construct an 8 -unit residential condominium development on a 1.4 acre site. The applications filed are: General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002, Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009, Newport Tract No. NT2005 -004 (TTM16882), Modification Permit No. MD2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2005 -002; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2007, April 5, 2007, and May 17, 2007, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1723 recommending adoption of a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2007, the City Council held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council identified the predominant line of existing development ( PLOED) at 50.7 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) after considering the position of existing development on the bluff face in relation to Carnation Avenue and its elevation above Newport Bay. Since the proposed project was not consistent with the PLOED as required by the policies of the 2005 Coastal Land Use Plan, further consideration of the proposed project was postponed until such time that the project was revised to conform to the PLOED; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the August 14, 2007, City Council hearing, the applicant revised the proposed project in accordance with the PLOED as established by the City Council. Additionally, the applicant further revised the project to include a proposed dock structure. A revised Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, on February 21, 2008, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, L4.3 Ordinance No. _ Page 2 of 5 California, at which time the applications, the revised project and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1751 recommending adoption of a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the revised project and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on June 19, 2008, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, the revised project and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1761 recommended adoption of a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the revised project and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2008, the City Council held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, revised project and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the hearing. The City Council expressed several concerns including the project's potential visual impact on the area and the City Council took no action; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the City Council hearing on July 8, 2008, the City and the applicant mutually agreed that an Environmental Impact Report would be prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2007021054) has been prepared pursuant to the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The DEIR was circulated for a 45 -day comment period beginning on March 20, 2009, and concluding on May 4, 2009. Comments and responses to the comments were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2009, and June 4, 2009, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2007021054) were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing; and Ordinance No. _ Page 3 of 5 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.94 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on July 14, 2009, to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2007021054) and all comments related to it, and based on the administrative record, the City Council made findings to certify Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable laws prior to approving the project, including Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009. The findings to certify the Environmental Impact Report are contained within City Council Resolution No. are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the proposed project including General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006 and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002 by adopting Resolution No. and the findings to support this approval are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009 is necessary to provide a zoning designation for a portion of the property in question that is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan as modified by General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006 and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: A revision to Zoning Map depicted in Exhibit "A" is hereby approved; however, the change shall not become effective until Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002 is approved by the California Coastal Commission. SECTION 2. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant and property owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of this Project including, but not limited to, the approval of the General Plan Amendment L1,S Ordinance No. Page 4 of 5 No. GP2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002, Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009, Newport Tract No. NT2005 -004 (TTM 16882), Modification Permit No. MD2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2005 -002 and /or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the certification of the Environmental Impact Report, the adoption of a Mitigation Program, and /or statement of overriding considerations for this Project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant or property owner, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant and property owner shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on , and adopted on the day Of 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE of the CITY ATTORNEY ATTEST: CITY CLERK 4.6 Ordinance No. Page 5 of 5 Exhibit "A" AERIE Condominiums (PA 2005 -196) 201 -205, 207 Carnation Ave. & 101 Bayside PI Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009 r_l , 7 Agenda Item # 23 July 14, 2009 ORDINANCE NO. 2009- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2005 -009 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201 -205, 207 CARNATION AVENUE 101 BAYSIDE PLACE (PA 2005 -196) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. with respect to property located at 201 -205, 207 Carnation Avenue, and 101 Bayside Place to construct an 8 -unit residential condominium development on a 1.4 acre site. The applications filed are: General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002, Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009, Newport Tract No. NT2005 -004 (TTM16882), Modification Permit No. MD2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2005 -002; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2007, April 5, 2007, and May 17, 2007, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1723 recommending adoption of a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2007, the City Council held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council identified the predominant line of existing development ( PLOED) at 50.7 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) after considering the position of existing development on the bluff face in relation to Carnation Avenue and its elevation above Newport Bay. Since the proposed project was not consistent with the PLOED as required by the policies of the 2005 Coastal Land Use Plan, further consideration of the proposed project was postponed until such time that the project was revised to conform to the PLOED; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the August 14, 2007, City Council hearing, the applicant revised the proposed project in accordance with the PLOED as established by the City Council. Additionally, the applicant further revised the project to include a proposed dock structure. A revised Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, on February 21, 2008, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, the revised project and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1751 recommending adoption of a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the revised project and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on June 19, 2008, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, the revised project and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1761 recommended adoption of a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the revised project and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2008, the City Council held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, revised project and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the hearing. The City Council expressed several concerns including the project's potential visual impact on the area and the City Council took no action; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the City Council hearing on July 8, 2008, the City and the applicant mutually agreed that an Environmental Impact Report would be prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2007021054) has been prepared pursuant to the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The DEIR was circulated for a 45-day comment period beginning on March 20, 2009, and concluding on May 4, 2009. Comments and responses to the comments were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2009, and June 4, 2009, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2007021054) were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.94 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on July 14, 2009, to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2007021054) and all comments related to it, and based on the administrative record, the City Council made findings to certify Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable laws prior to approving the project, including Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009. The findings to certify the Environmental Impact Report are contained within City Council Resolution No. are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the proposed project including General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006 and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002 by adopting Resolution No. and the findings to support this approval are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009 is necessary to provide a zoning designation for a portion of the property in question that is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan as modified by General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006 and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: A revision to Zoning Map depicted in Exhibit "A" is hereby approved; however, the change shall not become effective until Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002 is approved by the California Coastal Commission. SECTION 2. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant and property owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of this Project including, but not limited to, the approval of the General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002, Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009, Newport Tract No. NT2005 -004 (TTM 16882), Modification Permit No. MD2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2005 -002 and /or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the certification of the Environmental Impact Report, the adoption of a Mitigation Program, and /or statement of overriding considerations for this Project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant or property owner, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant and property owner shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 14'" day of July, 2009, and adopted on the 28"" day of July, 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR 7 APP OVED AS TO FORM: 7 C. �--_ OFFICE OF THE CIT TTORNEY ATTEST: CITY CLERK Exhibit "A" AERIE Condominiums (PA 2005 -196) 201 -205, 207 Carnation Ave. & 101 Bayside PI Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009 Attachment #5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 recommending approval I C I --------------- - - - - -- THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Intentionally Blank S, Z RESOLUTION NO. 1787 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RESCINDING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 1723, 1751 and 1761 AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2007021054) AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -006, COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -002, CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -009, NEWPORT TRACT MAP NO. 2005 -004 (TTM 16882), MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2005 -087 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2005 -002 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201 -205, 207 CARNATION AVENUE 101 BAYSIDE PLACE (PA 2005 -196). WHEREAS, an application was filed by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. with respect to property located at 201 -205, 207 Carnation Avenue, and 101 Bayside Place to construct an 8 -unit residential condominium development on a 1.4 acre site. The application includes: 1. General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006 to change the land use designation of a 584 square -foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two - Unit Residential) to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 to change the Coastal Land Use Plan designation of the same 584 square -foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from RH -D (High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre) to RM -A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). 3. Zone Change No. 2005 -009 to change the zoning designation of the 584 square -foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to MFR (Multifamily Residential, 2178 square feet per unit). 4. Newport Tentative Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TTM16882) to combine the 584 square - foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place with parcels identified as 201- 205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue, and to subdivide the air space for 8 residential condominium units. 5. Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 to permit a 5 -foot subterranean building encroachment and 42 -inch high protective guardrails within the required 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue; subterranean and above grade building encroachments of 5 feet and 1 -foot, 7- inches into a required 10 -foot, 7 -inch side yard setback between the project and 215 Carnation; and three balconies and one at grade landing each with protective guard rails that exceed the maximum height of 6 feet from natural grade within the required 10 -foot, 7 -inch side yard abutting Bayside Place. 5.5 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 2 of 37 6. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 to allow demolition of the existing dwelling units within the Coastal Zone pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Municipal Code. WHEREAS, on February 22, 2007, April 5, 2007, and May 17, 2007, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1723 recommending adoption of a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2007, the City Council held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council identified the predominant line of existing development ( PLOED) at 50.7 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). Since the proposed project was not consistent with the PLOED as required by the policies of the 2005 Coastal Land Use Plan, further consideration of the proposed project was postponed until such time that the project was revised to conform to the PLOED; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the August 14, 2007, City Council hearing, the applicant revised the proposed project in accordance with the PLOED as established by the City Council. Additionally, the applicant further revised the project to include a proposed dock structure. A revised Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. WHEREAS, on February 21, 2008, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, the revised project and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1751 recommending adoption of a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the revised project and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on June .19, 2008, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, the revised project and a revised draft �1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 3 of 37 Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1761 recommended adoption of a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the revised project and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2008, the City Council held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, revised project and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the hearing. The City Council expressed several concerns including the project's potential visual impact on the area and the City Council took no action; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the City Council hearing on July 8, 2008, the City and the applicant mutually agreed that an Environmental Impact Report would be prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2009, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2007021054) were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. WHEREAS, the project site has two separate land use designations assigned by the Land Use Element of the General Plan (584 square -feet is designated RT (Two -Unit Residential) and the remaining portion of the site, 60,700 square -feet, is designated RM ( Multi -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). The proposed amendment changing the land use designation of the 584 square -foot portion of the site to match the remainder of the site will numerically allow 1 additional unit; however, the density limitation as dictated by the Zoning Ordinance is more restrictive as it excludes submerged lands and slopes in excess of 50% from the calculation. The density of the proposed project is below the resulting maximum density permitted by the General Plan (28 dwellings) and is consistent with the maximum density allowed by the existing MFR zone (9 units). The residential condominium project is consistent with the proposed Multi - Family Residential land use designation and is consistent with residential developments within the area. WHEREAS, Charter Section 423 requires that all proposed General Plan Amendments be reviewed to determine if the square footage (for non - residential projects), peak hour vehicle trip, or dwelling units thresholds would be exceeded as the means to determine whether a vote by the electorate would be required to approve the General Plan Amendment. Pursuant to Council Policy A -18, voter approval is not S'S City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 4 of 37 required as the proposed General Plan Amendment represents an increase of 1 dwelling unit and an increase of 1 A.M. and 1 P.M. peak hour trip. Additionally, no prior amendments have been approved within Statistical Area F3 and, therefore, the project and prior amendments do not cumulatively exceed Charter Section 423 thresholds as to require a vote of the electorate. WHEREAS, the proposed project subject to conditions of approval is consistent with General Plan Policy LU5.1,9 inasmuch as building elevations that face public streets need to be treated to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality. Architectural treatment of building elevations and the modulation of mass are to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume. Street elevations are to be provided with high quality materials and finishes to convey quality. Roof profiles are modulated to reduce the apparent sole of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. Parking areas are designed to be integral with the architecture of the development. Usable and functional private open space for each unit is incorporated as each unit has an outdoor deck or patio that may include a fire pit and spa. Common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation is also included. Private storage areas for each unit are also provided. The project design incorporates building articulation, roof modulation and a diverse architectural style. Although specific exterior finishes or building materials are not identified at this time, the applicant and architect are committed to providing the highest quality project commensurate with the expense of the project and appropriate to their target buyer. WHEREAS, the proposed project subject to conditions of approval is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 5.1.8 that requires adequate enclosed parking considering the number of bedrooms. One unit has 2 bedrooms, five units have 3 bedrooms, one unit has 4 bedrooms and one unit has 5 bedrooms. Five of the units have other rooms that could be modified and used as bedrooms and the unit sizes range from 2,662 to 4,990 square feet. The project provides two spaces for each of 2 units without vehicle lifts, and three spaces for each of 6 units with vehicle lifts. Six guest parking spaces, one service vehicle space and 2 golf cart spaces are provided for a total of 31 covered, vehicle spaces. An area for motorcycle or bicycle parking is also included. Provided parking is in excess of the minimum required pursuant to the Zoning Code (2.5 parking spaces per unit or a total of 20 spaces for 8 units proposed). WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy CE7.1.8 and Policy CE7.1.1 as well as Coastal Land Use Policy 2.9.3 -1 that require new development to avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce and that new development is required to provide adequate, convenient parking for residents. All parking is enclosed on site with access to lower parking levels taken from two vehicle elevators. Five of the six guest parking spaces and parking for one unit are located at street level where access to the vehicle elevators is not necessary. No gates are planned that could possibly inhibit access to the street -level parking. Only seven of the eight units and one guest 3-,& City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 5 of 37 parking space will require the use of the vehicle elevators. The below -grade parking configuration accessed by elevators is sufficiently convenient in that two vehicle elevators to access the garage are proposed, which will reduce vehicle wait times to avoid significant conflicts entering or exiting the elevators. Emergency power generators are required so that vehicle access is maintained if electrical power is lost. The vehicle maneuvering areas within the parking areas meet or will be modified prior to the issuance of a building permit consistent with applicable standards required by the City Traffic Engineer. WHEREAS, the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the General Plan contain general policies regarding the protection of public views, visual resources, coastal bluffs and other natural resources and the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) reflects these same policies and includes additional policies that expand upon the topics addressed in the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the General Plan and are applicable only within the Coastal Zone such that a finding of consistency with the CLUP is an implicit finding of consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Accordingly, based upon facts in support of findings that the project is consistent with the relevant CLUP policies as indicated below, the project is determined to be consistent with all resource protection policies within the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements. WHEREAS, the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) designates the majority of the site RM -A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre) and a 584 square-foot portion of the site is designated RH -D High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre. The proposed amendment of the land use designation for the 584 square-foot portion of the site will result in a land use designation the same as the larger portion of the site and will numerically increase the maximum permissible project density by 1 unit, from 13 to 14, but not the maximum permissible density pursuant to the RM -A Zoning for the site. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with applicable policies within Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development) of the Coastal Land Use Plan based upon the following: 1. Policy 2.7.1. Continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, floor area, and height limits for residential development to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources. The project conforms to the height limit of the MFR zone and no deviation is proposed. The project proposes 61,709 gross square feet, below the maximum 75,868 square feet allowed by the existing MFR zone standard. The proposed project does not exceed the 28/32 foot height limitation of the Zoning Code. The proposed 8 -unit project is below the maximum permissible density established by the RM -A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). Setback encroachments are primarily subterranean and would not impact the character of the area. The above - ground encroachments are minor in nature. The project provides a 9 -foot setback area to the north abutting 215 Carnation Avenue creating a public view where none presently exists due to current site 8,67 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 6 of 37 conditions. The setback proposed will provide adequate separation from the building to the north and the encroachments will not impact fragile resources as the encroachments are located on the opposite side of the building away from the bluff and bay. 2. Policy 2.7 -2. Continue the administration of provisions of State law relative to the demolition, conversion and construction of low and moderate - income dwelling units within the coastal zone_ Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act) regulates the demolition or conversion of low and moderate income units within the Coastal Zone. All units were vacated in December of 2001 and only a caretaker and the applicants family reside at the project site. No low or moderate income residents currently reside within the project and, therefore, Government Code Section 65590 is not applicable. 3. Policy 2.8.1 -1. Review all applications for new development to determine potential threats from coastal and other hazards. Policy 2.8.1 -2. Design and site new development to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to ft and property from coastal and otter hazards. Policy 2.8.1 -3. Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards. A Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated March 17, 2007, a report titled Bluff and Shoreline Reconnaissance by GeoSoils Inc., dated June 11, 2007, and a third party review of all geotechnical reports prepared by GMU Geotechnical, Inc. dated October 29, 2009, collectively support that potential hazards due to seismic ground shaking, coastal bluff retreat due to erosional forces and tsunamis are minimal. Seismic issues are mitigated with the implementation of the Building Code and coastal bluff retreat is not expected to impact the project during the 75 year economic life of the building. Inundation by wave action or tsunami is considered very remote and the proposed residential improvements are well above wave action. 4. Policy 2.8.1 -4. Require new development to assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. 58 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 7 of 37 Policy 2.8.3 -1. Require all coastal development permit applications for new development on a beach or on a coastal bluff property subject to wave action to assess the potential for flooding or damage from waves, storm surge, or seiches, through a wave uprush and impact reports prepared by a licensed civil engineer with expertise in coastal processes. The conditions that shall be considered in a wave uprush study are. a seasonally eroded beach combined with long -term (75 years) erosion; high tide conditions, combined with long -term (75 year) projections for sea level rise; storm waves from a 100 -year event or a storm that compares to the 1982W Ei Nifio event. Policy 2.8.8 -10. Site and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). Policy 2.8.7 -3. Require applications for new development, where applicable [i.e., in areas of known or potential geologic or seismic hazards], to include a geologic/soils/geotechnical study that identifies any geologic hazards affecting the proposed project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and contains a statement that the project site is suitable for the proposed development and that the development will be safe from geologic hazard. Require such reports to be signed by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and subject to review and approval by the City. A Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006, a Storrnwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated March 17, 2007, a report titled Bluff and Shoreline Reconnaissance by GeoSoils Inc., dated June 11, 2007, and a third party review of all geotechnical reports prepared by GMU Geotechnical, Inc. dated October 29, 2009, collectively indicate that the project will not be subject to nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). 5. Policy 28.8 -9. Require property owners to record a waiver of future shoreline Protection for new development during the economic life of the structure (75 years) as a condition of approval of a coastal development permit for new development on a beach, shoreline, or bluff that is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff. Shoreline protection may be permitted to protect existing structures that were legally constructed prior to the certification of the LCP, unless a waiver of future shoreline Protection was required by a previous coastal development permit. A waiver of future shoreline protective devices is included as a condition of approval. 6. Policy 2.9.3 -10 Require new development to minimize curb cuts to protect on- street parking spaces and close curb cuts to create new public partdng wherever feasible. S, 9 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 8 of 37 The project will reduce the width of existing curb cuts creating 3 additional street spaces available to the public. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Chapter 3 (Public Access) of the Coastal Land Use Plan based upon the following: Policy 3.1.1 -1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal waters, tidelands, coastal parks, and trails. Policy 3.1.2 -1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along coastal bluffs. Policy 3.1.2 -2 Site, design, and maintain public access improvements in a manner to avoid or minimize impacts to coastal bluffs. Policy 3.1.1 -11. Require new development to minimize impacts to public access to and along the shoreline. Policy 3.1.1 -9. Protect, expand, and enhance a system of public coastal access that achieves the following: • Maximizes public access to and along the shoreline; • Includes pedestrian, hiking, bicycle, and equestrian traits; • Provides connections to beaches, parks, and recreational facilities; • Provides connections with trail systems of adjacent jurisdictions; • Provides access to coastal view corridors, • Facilitates alternative modes of transportation; • Minimizes alterations to natural landlorms; • Protects environmentally sensitive habitat areas; • Does not violate private property rights. Policy 3.1.1 -24. Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways where feasible, including Corona -del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility. Policy 3.1.1 -13. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (0 TO an easement for lateral public access for all new shorefront development causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts. Such dedication or easement shall extend from the limits of public ownership (e.g. mean high tide line) landward to a fixed point seaward of the primary extent of development (e.g. intersection of sand with toe or top of revetment, vertical face of seawall, dripline of deck, or toe of bluff). Policy 3.1.1 -14. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (0 TO) an easement for vertical access in all new development projects causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts, unless adequate access is available nearby. Vertical accessways shall be a sufficient size to accommodate two -way pedestrian passage and landscape buffer and should be sited along the border or side property fine of the S'j& City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 9 of 37 project site or away from existing or proposed development to the maximum feasible extent. Policy 3.1.1 -24. Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways where feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility. Policy 3.1.1 -26. Consistent with the policies above, provide maximum public access born the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the shoreline with new development except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources or (2) adequate access exists nearby. Policy 3.1.1 -27. Implement public access policies in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following: • Topographic and geologic site characteristics; • Capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity; • Fraglllty of natural resource areas; • Proximity to residential uses; • Public safety services, including lifeguards, fire, and police access; • Support facilities, including parking and restrooms; • Management and maintenance of the access; • The need to balance constitutional rights of individual property owners and the publics constitutional rights of access. The project site has no dedicated public access easements or physical access to the coastal bluff or bay. No abutting vertical or lateral public access presently exists that would connect to any access that might be considered within the development. The steep topography of the site makes vertical access a safety concern and access for the disabled could not be accommodated. Public support facilities presently do not exist nor are they planned and parking in the area is constrained. Lastly, access through the site would be in close proximity to residential uses. The lower portion of the bluff face (below 50.7 feet MSQ, submerged lands and tidelands will remain in their existing condition, with the exception of the construction of a new dock system to replace the existing one. Public access to the sheltered cove from the water will not be affected due to the location of the proposed dock system. Access to the designated view point at the end of Carnation Avenue will also remain unaffected and the public view from that point and Ocean Boulevard will be enhanced with project approval with the installation of a bench and /or other public amenity at the comer to improve the experience. The project will create 3 new parking spaces along Carnation Avenue with the reduction in the width of the existing driveway approaches. These new public parking spaces will enhance access to the area. With the reduction in residential density and the fact that no access rights or prescriptive access rights exist, the project will not impact or impede public access. 5.11 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 10 of 37 Public access to the bay is currently provided in the vicinity at China Cove, Lookout Point and at a street -end located in the 2300 block of Bayside Drive. These access points are located approximately 450 feet to the east, 1,125 feet to the east and approximately 480 feet to the northwest, respectively. Based upon the forgoing, requiring public access easements or outright dedication of land for public access is not necessary. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.1.3 -1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan that states "Utilize the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to ESA natural habitats from sources including, but not limited to, those identified in Table 4.1.1." Only Subsections E, F, G, and N are applicable to the proposed project as the other subsections are clearly inapplicable as they relate to different physical and operational aspects of Newport Bay. E. Limit encroachments into wetlands to development that is consistent with Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and Policy 4.2.3 -1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan. The residential portion of the project will not encroach into wetlands or open coastal waters. The expanded boating facility (replacement docks) is a permitted encroachment within open coastal waters pursuant to Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and Policy 42.3 -1 that specifically allows new or expanded boating facilities, including slips, access ramps, piers, and marinas in open coastal waters provided that the impacts of construction are appropriately mitigated. Adequate measures are contained within the Environmental Impact Report and are required as conditions project approval. F. Regulate landscaping or revegetation of blufftop areas to control erosion and invasive plant species and provide a transition area between developed areas and natural habitats. A condition of approval requires all non - native plantings on the bluff to be removed.and revegetation of the bluff face is regulated to only allow native and non - invasive plantings indigenous to the California coastal bluff environment. G. Require irrigation practices on bluHtops that minimize erosion of bluffs. An irrigation plan is required pursuant to conditions of approval for the project and temporary irrigation on the bluff face may only be to be used to establish vegetation. N. Prohibit invasive species and require removal in new development. A condition of approval requires all non - native plantings on the bluff to be removed and revegetation of the bluff face is regulated to allow only native and non - invasive plantings indigenous to the California coastal bluff environment. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following policies of Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection) based upon the following: S12 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 11 of 37 Policy 4.3.1 -5. Require development on steep slopes or steep slopes with erosive soils to implement structural best management practices (BMPs) to prevent or minimize erosion consistent with any load allocation of the TMDLs adopted for Newport Bay. Policy 4.3.1 -6. Require grading/erosion control plans to include soil stabilization on graded or disturbed areas. Policy 4.3.1 -7. Require measures be taken during construction to limit land disturbance activities such as clearing and grading, limiting cut -and fill to reduce erasion and sediment loss, and avoiding steep slopes, unstable areas, and erosive soils. Require construction to minimize disturbance of natural vegetation, including significant trees, native vegetation, root structures, and other physical or biological features important for preventing erosion or sedimentation. Policy 4.3.2 -22. Require beachfront and waterfront development to incorporate BMPs designed to prevent or minimize polluted runoff to beach and coastal waters. Policy 4.3.2 -23. Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP's purpose is to minimize to the maximum extent practicable dry weather runoff, runoff from small storms (less than 314" of rain falling over a 24 -hour period) and the concentration of pollutants in such runoff during construction and post - construction from the property. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention plan and a Water Quality Management Plan are required by conditions of approval and they must include best management practices to ensure that erosion is controlled to the maximum extent feasible. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.4.3 -4. of the Coastal Land Use Plan that states "On bluffs subject to marine erosion, require new accessory structures such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require structural foundations to be sited in accordance with the predominant fine of existing development in the subject area, but not less than 10 feet from the bluff edge. Require accessory structures to be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards." No new accessory structures are proposed. The policy also requires that accessory structures be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards. A condition of approval is included such that the existing accessory structures (concrete pad, staircase and walkway) will be removed if threatened by erosional processes in the future. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.4.3 -11 of the Coastal Land Use Plan that states "Require applications for new development to include slope stability analyses and erosion rate estimates provided by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer." j;13 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 12 of 37 A Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated March 17, 2007, a report titled Bluff and Shoreline Reconnaissance by GeoSoils Inc., dated June 11, 2007, and a third party review of all geotechnical reports prepared by GMU Geotechnical, Inc. dated October 29, 2009, collectively indicate that the project will not be subject to nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following policies of Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection) that regulate the protection of public views based upon the following: Policy 4.4.1 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. Policy 4.4.1 -1 Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. Policy 4.4.1 -4. More appropriate, require new development to provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public coastal views or to restore public coastal views in developed areas. Policy 4.4.1 -6. Protect public coastal views from the following roadway segments... Ocean Boulevard. (Figure 4 -3 of the CtUP identifies the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard as a °view point. °) Policy 4.4.1 -7. Design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of public coastal view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame and accent public coastal views. Policy 4.4.2 -2. Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. Policy 4.4.2 -3. implement the regulation of the building envelope to preserve public views through the height setback, floor area, lot coverage, and building bulk regulation of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005 that limit the building profile and maximize public view opportunities. A public view presently exists over the southeastern portion of the site from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue to the south and southwest between the existing 14- unit apartment building and improvements on the adjoining property to the southeast. The siting of the proposed building would provide a greater separation between these buildings than exists today. Presently, the horizontal view window measures 25 degrees and with the project, the view window will increase to 44 degrees. Based upon the 5,1q City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 13 of 37 visual simulations prepared for the project presented within the Environmental Impact Report, the public view from Ocean Boulevard to the west will be improved due to the position of the proposed building. Although the proposed building is taller than the existing building, there is no public view over the buildings; therefore, the taller building proposed will not impact a public view. The project is consistent with the 28/32 -foot height limitation zone of the Zoning Code as demonstrated by the project plans and verified by staff, and with other building envelope restrictions with the exception of setback encroachments as proposed. Based upon the visual simulations prepared for the project presented within the Environmental Impact Report, and since the residential portion of the proposed will not extend below 50.7 feet MSL and is consistent with the predominant line of existing development as identified by the City Council on August 14, 2007, impacts to public views of the site from the south, west and from Begonia Park are not significantly impacted so as to be inconsistent with CLUP policy. The visual impact of the proposed docks as depicted in the project visual simulations presented within the Environmental Impact Report do not represent a significant impact. The expanded docks with boats create a transient impediment to viewing the project bluff and rocks depending upon the viewer's location. The closer to the site the viewer is, the more prominent the boats in the docks would be in a particular view; however, views of the project site would be provided as one "cruises" in and out of the harbor and the bluff, rocks and cove below the proposed residential building are not being physically altered or covered. The proposed residential building provides a 9 -foot setback to the property line abutting 215 Carnation Avenue. Improvements within this setback area are low to the ground and would not be high enough to obstruct public views from Carnation Avenue to the west. This view does not presently exist given existing site improvements to be removed with project construction. Other setback encroachments are below the grade of the street and would not impact a public view. Project encroachments into the required side yard setback abutting Bayside Place do impact public views from Begonia Park or other vantage points from the northwest as the balconies and walkway do not project beyond the silhouette of the remainder of the building that conforms to setback regulations. No other public views exist from the street through the site due to the position of the current buildings. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an impact upon existing public views through the site to the south and west. The recordation of a public view easement to protect the public views over the site from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue is required as a condition of approval. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following polices of Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection) as they related to the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone and to minimizing the alteration of the coastal bluff based upon the following: S, j S City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No, 1787 Page 14 of 37 Policy 4.4.1 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. Policy 4.4.1 -2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. Policy 4.4.1 -3 Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. Policy 4.43 -8. Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development or public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of Me bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. Policy 4.4.3 -9. Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant line of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development. Policy 4.4.3 -12. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as. A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an alternative location is more protective of coastal resources. B. Utifizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible. C. Clustering building sites. D. Shared use of driveways. E. Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the site, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and building design. F. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or cantilever designs. G. Detaching parts of the development, such as a garage from a dwelling unit. H. Requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site. The City Council has interpreted Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 to mean that development on bluff faces is prohibited, except private development on coastal bluff faces along S•�� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No, 1787 Page 15 of 37 Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development. Additionally, public improvements on coastal bluff faces that are allowable are those that provide public access, protect coastal resources, or provide for public safety when no feasible alternative exists and when they are designed and constructed to minimize alteration or further erosion of the bluff face and are visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. In all rases where the predominant line of existing development is used to establish a development limit, it shall not be the only criteria used for this purpose. All coastal land use policies shall be considered in determining the appropriate extent of new development and size of new structures. The City Council made these clarifications by adopting Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2007- 003, which has not yet been considered by the California Coastal Commission. Existing development of the site is located on the face of a coastal bluff. Identification of the project site as a coastal bluff is based upon the professional opinion of Sidney Neblett, a Certified Engineering Geologist. The coastal bluff transitions from northwest- facing to southwest - facing roughly southwest of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue almost bisecting the project site. This transition point extends down to the northwest to the western extent of a small pocket beach unofficially known as Carnation Cove. North of the transition point of this bluff, is a series of residential structures developed on Carnation Avenue between 42 and 58 feet NAVD88. East of the transition point along Ocean Boulevard is a series of residential structures that were developed much farther down the bluff face with several at the water's edge. The City Council reviewed this existing development pattern at a noticed public hearing on August 14, 2007, and determined that the predominant line of existing development is 50.7 NAVD88, which is similar to and consistent with the development pattern established by the project site and development to the north along Carnation Avenue. The visible portion of the residential component of the project does not extend below the 50.7 NAVD88 contour except where it connects with an existing access staircase on the bluff face leading to the docks below. The exit below the 50.7 NAVD88 contour is recessed and screened from public view. The project minimizes alteration of the coastal bluff and protects public views of the coastal bluff by not altering the bluff face below the predominant line of existing development and preserving the majority of the visible bluff. The project is required to blend any altered slopes outside of the building footprint to the natural contours, native rocks or soils of the site. For these reasons, the project protects the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, minimizes alteration of the bluff and is consistent with CLUP Policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2, 4.4.1 -3, 4.4.3 -8, 4.4.3 -9, 4.4.3 -12 and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2007 -003. WHEREAS, the granting of the Modification Permit allowing above grade and below grade encroachments into the front and side yard setbacks is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code for the following reasons: S1 I"1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 16 of 37 The site is irregular in shape, has steep topography and has submerged lands which make it difficult to design a project at the density proposed while providing required parking and avoiding significantly altering the bluff. Approximately 43% of the site is submerged or has slopes in excess of 50%. The requirement to provide on -site parking requires that a significant portion of the building area be allocated for the parking, thereby reducing available area for residential units. The required side yard setback is also larger than the required front yard setback and the application of this standard represents a practical difficulty given the relatively small buildable area available on the entire site. WHEREAS, the granting of the Modification Permit allowing above grade and below grade encroachments into the front and side yard setbacks will be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and the granting of the permit application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working In the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood for the following reasons: The requested encroachments within the front yard setback, with the exception of the 42 -inch high protective guardrails, will be entirely subterranean and will not be visible. The proposed guardrails will have an open design allowing visibility through while providing adequate protection to pedestrians on the public sidewalk from falling over the proposed (and allowable) retaining wall located within the required front yard setback. Building encroachments within the required side yard setback on levels below the street will not be visible. The requested above - grade, 1 -foot, 7 inch, building encroachment in the required side yard setback adjacent to 215 Camation Avenue will provide a 9-foot setback that will create a public view from Carnation Avenue. This public view presently does not exist given the location and nature of existing improvements. The provided setback exceeds typical 4 -foot setbacks between buildings along Carnation Avenue. This 9 -foot setback will provide sufficient separation between the project and the abutting residence to the north. The encroachments of balconies, including protective guard railings, within the side setback abutting Bayside Place should not impact these residents given the change in topography, the separation provided by Bayside Place, a private roadway, and the fact that these residences are oriented toward Newport Bay and not project. The encroachments within the side setback abutting Bayside Place also do not encroach within a public view from Begonia Park or other vantage points from the west any more than the proposed building does which is compliant with the setback. The encroaching balconies and guard railings will encroach into private views of residents to the north on Carnation Avenue, but the majority of the view to the west and southwest will remain unchanged. WHEREAS, Newport Tract No. 2005 -004 (TTM16882) can be approved based upon the following findings: 1. The modified project is consistent with the current land use designation including the proposed amendment. The project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU5.1.9 regarding the character and quality of multi- family residential development. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 17 of 37 The project is consistent with Land Use Element and Natural Resources Element policies related to the protection of public views, visual resources, coastal bluffs and other natural resources based upon the projects consistency with the Coastal Land Use Plan. The site is not subject to a specific plan. Minimum lot sizes established by the Zoning Ordinance are also maintained as required by the City Subdivision Code. The tentative tract map, pursuant to the conditions of approval, is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map. The buildable area of the site is relatively small compared to the entire 1.4 acre site. The development of the site is not likely to be subject to coastal erosional processes or hazards during the 75 -year economic life of the project. No earthquake faults were found on -site and there is not likely to be an incidence of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse of soils on -site or near the site given site soil conditions. These factors indicate that the site is suitable for the development proposed. 3. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements, subject to conditions of approval, will not cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat based upon the Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2007021054) and the adoption of mitigation measures as conditions of project approval. 4. The tract map would recombine two lots and a small portion of a third lot and subdivide the planned airspace of the proposed building for residential condominium purposes. The subdivision is not expected to cause serious public health problems given the use of typical construction materials and practices. No evidence is known tD exist that would indicate that the proposed subdivision will generate any serious public health problems. All mitigation measures as outlined in the Environmental Impact Report and the Building, Grading and Fire codes will be implemented to ensure the protection of public health. 5. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, because a utility and sewer easement that affects the site is presently not in use and can be abandoned. The design of the proposed subdivision will avoid and protect in place an existing storm drain easement and storm drain. The storm drain easement will appear on the final map. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the proposed project. 6. The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. 7. The subdivision is subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and field inspection processes. The site has a t,11 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 18 of 37 western exposure and incorporates curved roof elements that will provide some shading of windows and passive solar cooling. Significant exterior wall segments are below grade which will benefit from passive cooling. 8. The subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing needs although the proposed subdivision will have the effect of reducing the residential density on the site from 15 units to 8 units. The reduction is insignificant given the City's current housing supply and projected housing needs. Although the reduction in units does not assist the City in reaching its production goals, no affordable housing units are being eliminated based upon the fact that the project was not occupied by low or moderate income households. The reduction in density is consistent with existing density limitations of the Municipal Code. 9. Wastewater discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with existing residential use of the property, which does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. 10.The proposed subdivision is entirely within the coastal zone and the site is not presently developed with coastal- related uses, coastal- dependent uses or water oriented recreational uses that would be displaced by a non - priority use. The project site is constrained by topography and public access exists nearby making on -site vertical and lateral access unnecessary. Public access to the area is enhanced as a result of increasing public parking opportunities on Carnation Avenue afforded by 3 on street parking spaces to be added with closure of existing driveway curb cuts. The position of the proposed building enhances public views from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue by increasing the view angle between the development on the project site and adjacent development as well as creating a view corridor between the proposed building and 215 Carnation Avenue where a public view presently does not exist. The modified project developed in accordance with the conditions of approval will minimize alteration of the coastal bluff and preserve the scenic and visual quality of the .coast by preserving the bluff below 50.7 feet NAVD88. Lastly, the project will not impact sensitive marine resources with the implementation of the conditions of approval including the mitigation measures identified in the AERIE Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2007021054). WHEREAS, the project includes the demolition of 15 dwelling units within the Coastal Zone within 2 buildings and pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code, units proposed for demolition and occupied by low or moderate income households must be replaced if such replacement is determined to be feasible. The 15 units are not occupied by low or moderate income households and, therefore, no replacement units are required. Households potentially meeting the low or moderate income limits were not evicted for the purpose of avoiding a replacement requirement within the previous 12 months. S,2b City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 19 of 37 WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2007021054) has been prepared pursuant to the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The DEIR was circulated for a 45-day comment period beginning on March 20, 2009, and concluding on May 4, 2009. Comments and responses to the comments were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project. WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures, with the exception of short-term construction noise. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of short-term construction noise. The mitigation measures are applied to the project and are incorporated as conditions of approval. WHEREAS, the record further supports a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act in that the project includes benefits that outweighs the short -term construction- related impacts of the proposed project. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify the AERIE Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2007021054). Section 2. Based on the aforementioned findings and information contained in the administrative record, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations specifically identifying project benefits that outweigh the short -term construction- related impacts of the proposed project. Section 3. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2005- 006 per Exhibit "A ", Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 per Exhibit "B ", Code Amendment No. 2005 -009 per Exhibit "C'; and approve Newport Tentative Tract 5.Z1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 20 of 37 Map No. 2005 -004 (TTM 16882), Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 (PA 2005 -196) subject to conditions of approval attached as Exhibit "D ". Section 3. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 1723, 1751 and 1761 are hereby rescinded. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 4th DAY June, 2009. M AYES: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter. McDaniel and Hillnren Toerge 5,612. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 21 of 37 Exhibit "A" City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 22 of 37 Exhibit "B" 7r.Z.y City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 23 of 37 Exhibit "C" S 1 S. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 24 of 37 Exhibit "D" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Newport Tract No. 2005 -004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 16882) Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 (Project - specific conditions are in italics) Planning Department 1. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use will be cause for revocation of this permit. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 3. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 4. The development shag be in substantial conformance with the approved plans stamped and dated May 21, 2009, except as modified by the conditions of approval. All provisions contained within the Construction Management Plan dated March 17, 2009, shah be implemented throughout implementation of the. project to the maximum extent possible. The construction management plan shall be revised to incorporate the following additional project design features. 1) the use of a steel sleeve for the drilling of holes for dock piles and procedures for the containment of tailings from the drilling process; 2) the placement of a silt curtain across the entrance to the cove; and 3) the placement of a protective barrier (15 mil Stegowrap or equivalent) under the upper fixed pier walkway prior to the repair and renovation of the walkway. 5. Project approvals shall expire unless exercised within 36 months from the effective date of approval. Reasonable extensions may be granted by the Planning Director in accordance with the Municipal Code and Subdivision Map Act. 6. The applicant shall obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building, grading or demolition permit for the project. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &Rs) for the proposed condominium association shall provide for the long tern maintenance of the project 5'.26 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 25 of 37 and shall be reviewed and approved by the Office of the City Attorney prior to their recordation. The CC &Rs shall include a provision that residents shall park only operable vehicles within the parking garage that are in active use (i.e. no long term storage of vehicles). 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall provide the City with a performance bond or its equivalent to ensure timely completion of at improvements represented on plans and drawings submitted for permit approval in the event construction of improvements consistent with project approval is abandoned. The performance bond or its equivalent shall be an amount equal to 100% of the cost of completing project improvements from the start of grading activities up to completion of the building shell and shall be issued with the City as beneficiary by an insurance company currently authorized by the insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of Ceftmia and shall have an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Bests Key Rating Guide unless otherwise approved by the City Risk Manager. The bond or equivalent sha# be released in 25% increments upon completion of each quarter of construction of the budding shell. 9. Prior to the issuance of a aradina or building permit for new construction, the applicant shall execute a waiver of all claims against the City for future liability or damage resulting from the approval to build the project. The form and content of the waiver shall be in a form acceptable to the office of the City Attorney and the waiver shall be recorded against the property in question. 10. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance (SC 4.5.1). 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director. The site shall not be excessively illuminated as excessive illumination may be determined consistent with the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America or by the Planning Director in the event the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. 12. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated (SC 4.5 -2). 527 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 178 Page 26 of 37 13. Prior to the issuance of a building Permit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director. The plans shall incorporate native drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices. All planting areas, with the exception of bluff areas, shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on -site molstume sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. The proposed landscaping adjacent to the back of sidewalk shall be designed with provisions that will prevent irrigation and/or other runoff from spilling onto the sidewalk. 14. Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environment. Invasive and non- native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed (SC 4.7 -2). 15. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm that all landscaping materials and irrigation systems have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. 16. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, watering, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 17. A floating dock and boat slips may be developed, maintained and operated in open coastal waters adjacent to the residential condominium development provided all necessary permits are first obtained. The docks and slips shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved dock layout plan and must be reviewed and approved bf the Harbor Resources Manager prior to construction. The maximum number of permanent boat slips shall be no greater than the total number of residential units developed. Use of the boat slips shall be limited to residents and their guests and the slips shall not be leased, subleased or allowed to come into the control of non - residents of the condominium development. 18. Water leaving the project site due to over- irrigation of landscape . shall be minimized. If an incident such as this is reported, a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office shall visit the S0` 5 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 27 of 37 location, investigate, inform resident if possible, leave a note and in some cases shut -off the water. 19. Watering should be done during the early morning or evening hours to minimize evaporation (between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., the following morning). 20. All irrigation system leaks shall be investigated by a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office and the applicant or future owners shall complete all required repairs. 21. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, a waiver of future shoreline protection during the economic life of the structure (75 years) shall be recorded against the property. The waiver shall be binding upon all future owners and assignees. The waiver shall be reviewed and approved by the Office of the Office of the City Attorney prior to recordation (SC 4.9 -3). 22. Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted (SC 4.9 -4). 23. Prior to issuance of a certkate occunancv for the project, the applicant shall install a public bench within the public right -of -way as depicted on the site plan. The specific design and location of the bench shall be approved by the Public Works, Planning and General Services Departments prior to installation. 24. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this permit, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 25. Noise - generating construction and/or maintenance activities may be permitted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on Saturdays. No noise - generating construction activities may occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site (SC 4.4 -1). 26. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all administrative costs identified by the Planning Department within 30 days of receiving a final notification of costs or prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 27. All altered slopes that are outside of the building envelope shall be contoured to resemble the existing natural terrain. Any alteration or damage of the bluff face not part of the approved grading or building plans shall be repaired and said repairs shag resemble the existing natural terrain. s. Zq City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 28 of 37 28. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the AERIE Project including, but not limited to, the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002, Code Amendment No. 2005 -009, Tentative Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (Tract 16882), Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 collectively referred to as PA 2005 -196; and/or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the adoption of a Environmental Impact Report and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the AERIE Project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 29. The project shaft incorporate and implement an emergency power backup system so the vehicle lifts will operate during a power outage. The location of the generator shall be sound attenuated and screened from public view and subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. 30. Remote control operators for the vehicle elevators, in quantities equal to the number of parking spaces assigned to each dwelling unit, shall be provided to occupants of the respective units. The project shall incorporate an external indicating system to alert drivers which vehicle elevator will be available for immediate use. The vehicle elevator system shall be maintained for efficient use throughout the life of the project 31. Vehicle parking and maneuvering areas shall be restricted to the operation, maneuvering and parking of operable vehicles and shall not be used for storage of any kind including the long -term storage of vehicles not in regular use. 32. No idling of construction vehicles or equipment shall be allowed. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned off immediately when not in use. Construction workers, equipment operators or truck drivers shall not employ any form of audible signaling system during any phase of construction. T, 30 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 29 of 37 33. Reclaimed water shall be used wherever available, assuming it is economically feasible. 34. All plans and proposed uses within the project site shall to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the transport, storage, use and /or disposal of hazardous materials (SC 4.8 -1). 35. Residents of the project shall comply with California Code Title 14 (Natural Resources), Section 29.05, which prohibits the taking of any marine organisms within 1,000 feet of the high tide line without a sport fishing license (SC 4.7 -1). 36. The applicant shall dedicate a view easement; however, it will only affect the project site. Structures and landscaping within the easement area shall not be permitted to block public views. The easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction and shall be reflected on the final tract map (SC 4.5 -2). 37. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will detennine'and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MILD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MILD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MILD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MILD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials (SC 4.10 -1). 38. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). In the event that fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground- disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant (SC 4.10 -21). Fire Department 39. One gurney - accommodating elevator shalt be provided in accordance with Chapter 30 of the California Building Code within the project that must access each level. 531 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 30 of 37 40. A Class M standpipe system shall be provided at the private dock in accordance with Newport Beach Fire Department guidelines. 41. A public fire hydrant shag be provided at the comer of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. The hydrant shag be installed and tested prior to occupancy of the project, unless required earlier by the Fire Department. 42. A fire alarm system with fire control room shall be provided within the project. Monitored Automatic fire sprinklers shag be required for the entire structure to meet NFA13, 2003 Edition and in accordance with Newport Beach Fire Department requirements. Shut -off valves and a waterflow device shall be provided for each unit A Class I standpipe shag be provided at every level at all stairs. Standpipe and sprinklers maybe a combination system. 43. The project shall provide pressurized exit enclosures and vestibules in accordance with the Building Code. Enclosures shall be a minimum two -hour fire rated construction. 44. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position that is plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall be of made of non -combustible materials, shall contrast with their background, and shall be either internally or externally illuminated to be visible at night. Number shall be no less than six inches in height with a one -inch stroke. Public Works 45. All parking stall dimensions shall comply with City's Standard Drawings STD -805- L-A (SC 4.2 -1). 46. Driveway /drive aisle slopes shall comply with City Standard STD- 160 -L -C, which accommodate a 15 percent maximum slope and a maximum change in grade of 11 percent. The building plans shall show detailed profile of each of the proposed driveways (SC 4.2 -1). 47. Project driveways must conform to the City's sight distance standard 11 0-L. The project driveway to the parking area on the Second Level shall maintain a minimum 20 -foot width. The overall design of vehicle access and parking areas shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer (SC 4.2 -1, SC 4.2 -2 & SC 4.2 -3). 48_ All work conducted within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 49. Construction surety in a form acceptable to the City, guaranteeing the completion of the various required public improvements and repairs, shall be submitted to the 57,37, City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 31 of 37 Public Works Department for City Council approval prior to the issuance of Public Works Department encroachment permit 50. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 51. A water demand, a storm drain system capacity, and a sanitary sewer system capacity study shall be submitted to the Public Works Department along with the first building plan check submittal. The recommendations of these studies shall be incorporated as a part of the submitted plans. 52. Street, drainage and utility improvements within the public right -of -way shall be submitted on City standard improvement plan formats. All of the plan sheets shall be wet sealed, dated, and signed by the Caldomia registered professionals responsible for the designs shown on said plans. 53. All new landscaping within the public right -of -way shall be approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department. 54. The applicant shall submit detailed plans for the on -site drainage systems) to demonstrate that it will prevent the underground garage from being flooded during storm events. 55. The Developer shall file one (1) Final Tract Map (Map). 56. The roadway cross section shown on the Map with a 990 -foot right -of -way width should be labeled as °Ocean Boulevard". 57. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to Map recordation, the surveyor /engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital- graphic file of said map in a manner described in the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 58. Prior to recordation, the Map boundary shall be tied onto the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7- 9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project_ 59. The applicant's request to vacate the existing sewer/utrlities easement shag be approved by the City utilities Department prior to the issuance of a building permit or the recordation of the final tract map if the easement is no longer needed. The 5-.33 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 32 of 37 existing private ingresslegress easement with the same width, length, and alignment as the existing sewerlutilities easement shall be vacated or permission from the beneficiaries of the private easement shall be documented prior to the issuance of a bur7ding permit or the recordation of the final tract map. 60. A 5 -foot wide public sewer and utilities easement as measured from the centerline of the existing sewer main fronting the development site shall be recorded against the property. The applicant shall prepare and submit the legal description for said easement for City review and approval. 61. All easements of record shall be recorded as a part of the Final Map. 62. All improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the current edition of the City Design Criteria, Standard Special Provisions, and Standard Drawings. 63. The sidewalk portion of the proposed new driveway approach shall be constructed with 246 cross -fall per City Standards. 64. Temporary construction sheet piles shall be installed to protect all existing storm drain and sanitary sewer mains within and adjacent to the development site. 65. No structures or construction tie -backs shall be constructed within the limits of any easements or public right -of -way without the approval of an Encroachment Agreement and Permit. 66. Full-width concrete sidewalk and curb and gutter shall be constructed along the length of the Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard frontages. The new sidewalk shall join the existing sidewalk in front of 2501 Ocean Boulevard. 67. New concrete curbs shall be dowelled into sound concrete roadway pavement. 68. Trees shall not be installed at locations where mature tree roots could damage the existing City sewer main. 69. Adequate safety provisions for pedestrians and W/8 Ocean Boulevard vehicle traffic along the length of the perimeterlretaining walls along the Carnation Avenue frontage shall be shown on building plans and shall be installed and maintained throughout the life of the project. 70. Each dwelling unit shall be served by its individual water service and sewer lateral connection and cleanout. 71. All utility connections shall be placed ,underground in accordance with the Subdivision Code. Ls, 3 I City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 33 of 37 72. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic Engineer and any corrections/modifications shall be made to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 73. All non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way shall require an Encroachment Agreement and Encroachment Permit. 74. Standard curb, gutter and sidewalk shag be installed within the public right of way across the frontage of the project site. Curb cuts for vehicle driveway approaches shall directly lead to the parking areas or vehicle elevators. 75. Gates shall not be designed to open out into the public right -of -way. 76. Raised planters shall not be permitted within the Public right -of -way. Planting adjacent to the curb shall accommodate a vehicle car door opening. Project landscape plans shall provide details of the planters and shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 77. The driveway approaches within the public right -of -way shall be shall be narrowed to the width of garage openings they serve. Six -inch curbs shall have a 3 foot flan;. Drive approaches shall be modified to comply with ADA requirements. 78. Planters adjacent to the freight elevators shall be pulled back from the Carnation Avenue property line two feet to improve vehicle maneuvering. Planters in the front yard shall not encroach into the projection of the garage door edge. 79. No structural support column shall be located in the middle of the driveway leading to the parking area located on the Second Level. 80. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a study of the existing drainage area and catch basin in Carnation Avenue to determine the appropriate size of catch basin. The study shall be subject to the review and approval by the City. The developer shall enlarge the existing catch basin accordingly and shall bear all costs of design, permitting and construction. 81. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. 82. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall prepare a final Construction Management Plan that includes routing of large vehicles. The plan shall include a haul route plan for review and approval of the Public Works Department. Said plan shall specify the routes to be traveled, times of travel, total number of trucks, number of trucks per hour, time of operation, and safety /congestion precautions (e.g., signage, flagmen). Large construction vehicles shall not be permitted to travel narrow streets and alleys as determined by the 5.35 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 34 of 37 Public Works Department. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. The plans shall include a provision that maintains the public right -of -way open to vehicular and pedestrian traffic after working hours daily. 83. Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, any visible track -out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept within thirty (30) minutes of deposition. 84. Prior to commencement of demolition and grading, the applicant shall submit to the City calculations showing the proposed travel route for haul trucks, the distance traveled, and how many daily truck trips that can be accommodated to ensure that the dally cumulative miles traveled is below the assumed total vehicle miles traveled in the quantitative air quality assessment of the Environmental Impact Report. Building Department 85. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits for construction from the City of Newport Beach. The final construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. The facility shall be designed to meet fire protection and safety requirements and shall be subject to review and approval by the Newport Beach Building and Fire Departments (SC 4.3-5, SC 4.6- 4, SC 4.9 -1, and SC 4.9 -2). 86. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 87. Prior to the issuance of the aradina permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) shall be prepared and approved by the City of Newport Beach as the local permitting agency in accordance with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The SWPPP shall include BMPs to eliminate and /or minimize stormwater pollution prior to, and during construction. The SWPPP shall require construction to occur in stages and stabilized prior to disturbing other areas and require the use of temporary diversion dikes and basins to trap sediment from runoff and allow clarification prior to discharge (SC 4.6 -3). 88. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the Best Management Practices (BMP's) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The plan shall identify the types of structural and non - structural measures to be used. The plan shall comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Particular attention should be addressed to the appendix section "Best Management Practices for New Development." The WQMP shall clearly show the locations of structural BMP's, and assignment of long term maintenance responsibilities (which shall also be included in the Maintenance Agreement). The C City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 35 of 37 plan shall be prepared to the format of the DAMP title "Water Quality. Management Plan Outline" and be subject to the approval of the City (SC 4.6 -2). 89. Prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain a NPDES permit and/or coverage under the NPDES statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit. The applicant shall incorporate storm water pollutant control into erosion control plans using BMPs to the maximum extent possible. Evidence that proper clearances have been obtained through the State Water Resources Control Board shall be given to the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits (SC 4.6 -1). 90. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) in a manner meeting approval of the City Building Official, to demonstrate compliance with local and state water quality regulations for grading and construction activities. The ESCP shall identify how all construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris, and stockpiles of soil, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. shall be properly covered, stored, and secured to prevent transport into local drainages or coastal waters by wind, rain, tracking, tidal erosion, or dispersion. The ESCP shall also describe how the applicant will ensure that all Best Management Practices (BMlPs) will be maintained during construction of any future public right-of-ways. A copy of the current ESCP shall be kept at the project site and be available for City of Newport Beach review on request. The ESCP shall include and require the use of soil stabilization measures for all disturbed areas. 91. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the project applicant shall document to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be designed and constructed to comply with current seismic safety standards and the current City- adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. 92. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a geotechnical report shall be submitted with construction drawings for plan check. The Building Department shall ensure that the project complies with the geotechnical recommendations included in the preliminary geologic investigation as well as additional requirements, if any, imposed by the Newport Beach Building Department. 93. Prior to issuance of the building permit, school impacts fees will be paid to the Building Department to assist in funding school facility expansion and educational services to area residents. 94. The project shall strictly adhere to SCAQMD Rule 403, which sets requirements for dust control associated with grading and construction activities (SC 4.3 -1). 95. The project shall strictly adhere to SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment (SC 4.3 -2). 5.3% City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 36 of 37 96. The project shall strictly adhere to SCAQMD Rule 1108, which sets limitations on ROG content in asphalt (SC 4.3 -3). 97. The project shall strictly adhere to SCAQMD Rule 1113, which sets limitations on ROG content in architectural coatings (SC 4.3 -4). Mitigation Measures from Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2007021054) 98. All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices, intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer (MM 4.4 -1a). 99. The construction contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions (MM 4.4 -1b). 100. The construction contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from residential receptor locations as feasible (MM 4.4 -1 c). 101. The construction contractor shall post a contact name and telephone number of the owner's authorized representative on -site (MM 4.4 -1d). 102. The construction contractor shall install temporary sound blankets or plywood panels with a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of 32 or higher and a density of 1.5 pounds per square foot or greater (e.g., SoundSeal BBC -13 -2 or equivalent) along the entire outer perimeter of the construction area. The temporary sound blankets or plywood panels shall have a minimum height of six feet. If plywood panels are selected, they must have a minimum density of four pounds per square foot and have no perforations or gaps between the panels (MM 4.4 -1 e). 103. The construction contractor shall select quieter tools or construction methods whenever feasible. Examples of this include the use of plasma cutters, which produce less noise than power saws with abrasive blades and ordering precut materials to specifications to avoid on-slte cutting (MM 4.4 -1f). 104. The construction contractor shall maximize the use of enclosures as feasible. This includes four -sided or full enclosures with a top for compressors and other stationary machinery. This also includes locating activities, such as metal stud and rebar cutting, within constructed walled structures to minimize noise propagation (MM 4.4 -1 g). 105. Any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM shall be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Inaccessible suspect ACM shall be tested prior to demolition or renovation. Air emissions of asbestos fibers and leaded dust would be reduced to below a level of 5-.3? City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787 Page 37 of 37 significance through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. Proper safety procedures for the handling of suspect ACM shall always be followed in order to protect the occupants of the building and the asbestos workers (MM 4.8 -1). 106. A contractor performing paint removal work shall follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the pain, as proper waste disposal requirements and worker protection measures shall be implemented throughout the removal process (MM 4.8 -2). 107. Project implementation shall adhere to the engineering recommendations for site grading and foundation design and construction presented in the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Nebeltt & Associates, Inc., and subsequent detailed geotechnical engineering analyses (MM 4.9 -1a). 108. Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted (MM 4.9 -1 b). 109. During periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave - induced motions, boats should be sheltered at mooring can locations that are available inside Newport Harbor to avoid damage (MM 4.9 -2a). 110. The dock design shall be based on the extreme wave conditions identified in the coastal engineering study (Noble Consultants, Inc., 2008) (MM 4.9 -2b). s,3a Attachment #6 Planning Commission record from May 21, 2009 Staff report Late correspondence Excerpt of meeting minutes 6f) THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Intentionally Blank (p 4 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 21, 2009 Agenda Item No. 3 SUBJECT: AERIE (PA 2005 -196) 201 -205 & 207 Camation Avenue & 101 Bayside Place ■ General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006 ■ Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005-002 ■ Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009 ■ Tract Map No. NT2005 -004 (TT16882) ■ Modification Permit No. MD2005 -087 ■ Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2005-002 ■ Environmental Impact Report No. ER200 -002 APPLICANT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Richard Julian, President PLANNER: James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644 -3210 icamobelll (&citv.newaort-beach.ca.us PROJECT SUMMARY The project involves the demolition of an existing..14 -unit, mufti-unit dwelling and single - unit dwelling and the construction of a new 8 -unit residential condominium building consisting of 6 levels and approximately 61,709 gross square feet of building area. Additionally, the applicant seeks approval to replace an existing floating dock structure with a larger dock structure to berth up to 8 boats permanently and one guest side tie. The following discretionary approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as designed: General Plan Amendment (GP2005 -006) The proposed amendment of the General Plan would change the land use designation of the 584 - square -foot portion of the parcel located at 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two - Unit Residential) to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre) in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2005 -002) The proposed amendment of the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) would change the land use designation of the same 584 - square -foot portion of the parcel at 101 Bayside Place from RH -D (High Density Residential — 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre) to RM A (Medium Density Residential — 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). r '3 AERIE (PA 2005 -196) May 21, 2009 Page 2 of 20 Code Amendment (CA200"09) The proposed amendment of the Zoning District Map would change the zoning classification of the 584-square-foot portion of the parcel located at 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two -Unit Residential) to MFR (Multiunit Residential, 2,178 square feet per unit). Tentative Tract Map (NT2005- 004frT16882) The proposed tentative tract map will combine the 5114-square-foot portion of the parcel located at 101 Bayside Place with parcels identified as 201 — 205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue, and to subdivide the air space for eight (8) residential condominium units in accordance with the final project plans. Modification Permit (MD2005-087) The proposed modification permit would allow: (1) below grade building encroachments within the 10 -foot front yard setback along Camation Avenue; (2) 42 -inch high protective guard rails within the required 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue where they are restricted to 36 inches; (3) above and below grade building encroachments within the required 10 -foot, 7-inch side yard setback abutting 215 Carnation Avenue; (4) and balcony and guardrail encroachments within the 10 -foot, 7 -inch side yard setback abutting Bayside Place. Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002) The proposed coastal residential development permit would allow demolition of the existing dwelling units within the Coastal Zone pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Environmental Impact Report (ER200 -002) An Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2007021054) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Consider the draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), comments and responses to comments; and 3) Adopt the attached draft resolution recommending City Council certification of the DEIR and approval of the project (Exhibit #1). 6,4, • • 17J AERIE (PA 2005 -196) May 21, 2009 Page 3 of 20 6v 5 VICINITY MAP = N y,. r.� e. Protect L[e e.. ..e. • � '4 yr ••d�� r F x `•w.r., n. o' 4 �1q 4t 1 �M e P a8 4 Y Cy W4 ff x4�'o a M�1 GENERAL PLAN ZONING t. o •i � rYlrlbl A i IIT X] �. Fro;ea sae J RM }OW • P(O�CCt Slte Mf P]1h1 `I MSD ` \` Y1 •' �j c FY Mf111MG.u.1 /// ]5z LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE Multi -Unit & Two -Unit MFR(2178) & R -2 Residential Residential NORTH Multi -Unit & Two -Unit MFR(2178) & R -2 Residential Residential SOUTH Single -Unit Detached & R -1 & MFR(2178) Residential Multi -Unit Residential EAST o -Unit Residential R -2 Residential WEST Tidelands and fis: N/A Newport Bay ub mer ed Lands 6v 5 AERIE (PA 2005 -196) May 21, 2009 Page 4 of 20 INTRODUCTION Background The AERIE project was reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council in 2007 and 2008. The City Council has established a predominant line of existing bluff face development for the site ( PLOED) at elevation 50.7 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). The previous design would have altered the bluff face below that elevation. A redesigned project meeting the PLOED was reviewed by the Planning Commission in June of 2008. A draft Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. The Commission recommended project approval. In July of 2008, the City Council considered the redesigned project and concerns were expressed about the biological and view impacts of the proposed dock among other general concerns about parking, construction management and neighborhood compatibility. Because of these concerns, the applicant agreed that preparing an Environmental Impact Report was warranted. A draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared for the project, which is discussed in more depth below. The current project has not significantly changed from the prior project; however, a larger setback has been provided on the upper levels as It abuts the neighboring property located at 215 Carnation Avenue. The setback was increased from approximately 5.5 and 7.5 feet to 9 feet to provide a public view corridor between the project and the neighbor to the north. Ad ditionally, the applicant has incorporated a detailed Construction Management Plan (CMP) as part of the project. Lastly, the applicant has agreed to upgrade an existing deficient catch basin located in front of the proposed project on Carnation Avenue and to underground two existing utility poles on the east side of Carnation Avenue, even though they are not required due to any impact associated with the proposed project. Project Setting The site is currently occupied by a 14 -unit apartment building, one single -unit dwelling, as well as a deteriorating gangway platform, pier walkway, and dock facilities. In addition, an on-grade staircase (built prior to 1981) presently exists on the bluff face that connects the apartment building atop the bluff with an existing, irregularly shaped, concrete pad located at the base of the bluff. The existing apartment structure has a total of three levels, two of which are visible above the existing grade from the street and all three levels are visible from Newport Bay. The single -unit dwelling is single story and visible from both Carnation Avenue and Newport Bay. Parking for the existing apartments consists of open carports at grade along Carnation Avenue. The single -unit dwelling on the site and two of the dwelling units within the multEUnit building are occupied. The 1.4 acre site is a steeply sloping coastal bluff, the west- facing portion of which is subject to marine erosion. The westerly portion of the site is partly submerged and rocky, (P a(Q • AERIE (PA 2005 -196) May 21, 2009 Page 5 of 20 and there is a small sandy cove at the base of the landform. The westerly extent of the existing foundation of the existing apartment building is located on the face of the coastal bluff. Vegetation and exposed rock formations comprise the bluff face below the existing buildings. The following aerial photograph below shows the project's setting. West of the site is the main entrance to Newport Bay from the Pacific Ocean and the eastern end of Balboa Peninsula. North of the site are single -unit and multi -unit dwellings on Carnation Avenue and Bayside Place. The northern side of Carnation Avenue is a developed coastal bluff, which is not subject to marine erosion. The dwellings on Carnation Avenue overlook the dwellings located on Bayside Place. The dwellings below the site along Bayside Place were primarily constructed on previously - filled submerged lands. South and east of the site are a mix of single -unit and multi -unit residential buildings and the Kerkchoff Marine Laboratory, all developed on the coastal bluff face between Ocean Boulevard and Newport Bay. Project Description Proposed Residential Structure The project will consist of a total of six levels, including: (a) four above grade floors consisting primarily of living space, but with some parking areas on the first and second • floors; and (b) two subterranean common recreation areas, storage and parking levels (the "basement" and, at the lowest level, the "sub- basement "). AERIE (PA 2005 -196) May 21, 2009 Page 6 of 20 Three residential levels will be visible from Carnation Avenue above the existing street grade. Four residential levels will be visible when viewed from Newport Bay. In total, the project will encompass 61,709 square feet and includes living areas, storage areas, parking and circulation, and mechanical equipment areas as reflected in Table 1: Table 1: Building Area Breakdown Use Area (Square Feet Living 29,426 Storage 5,943 Parking & vehicle circulation 13,234 Common areas (Recreational, circulation and mechanical 13,106 Total 61,709 SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture The City Council has established a predominant line of existing bluff face development ( PLOED) for the site at elevation 50.7 feet NAVD88. New development on the bluff face is proposed to be more than two feet higher than the PLOED at elevation 52.83 NAVD 88, except for an emergency exit at elevation 40.5 NAVD 88 that will be screened from public view. The basement and sub - basement levels are subterranean and will not be visible from either the street or the bay. Outdoor patios, decks, spas, and fire pits are proposed at each above grade level. The project will encroach into the front and side setbacks; however, the majority of the encroachments are subterranean. Approximately 25,240 cubic yards of earth will be excavated and removed from the site. The eight condominium units are described in Table 2: Table 2: Residential Unit Statistical Analysis Unit No. No. of Levels Living Area (S q. Ft. Garage Ft. Storage S . Ft: Total . Ft. 1 1 3,716 416 471 4,603 2 1 3,204 410 705 4,319 3 1 2,662 397 648 3,707 4 1 2,916 418 709 4,043 5 2 4,990 483 1,143 6,616 6 2 4,130 436 889 5,455 7 1 3,745 399 674 4,818 8 1 4,063 552 704 5,319 Totals 29,426 3,511 5,943 3%880 SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture � 4f AERIE (PA 2005 -196) May 21, 2009 Page 7 of 20 Conceptual Site Plan � I .. `'`• � sArsDE Pi. / EXISTING CONCLE7E PAD L STEPS ON GRADE TO REMAIN ..... �., PAID, \; i - PROPOSED DOCK DEIGN - - I I EMERGENCY EXIT/ DOCK ACCESS UNDER DECK AT ELEV. AIDS' - , /I DECK- I / / ---ter f / CARNATION AVE. AE IE - SITE P61IW / As indicated in Table 2, each condominium unit will have a private storage room located in the Sub - basement Level. Common amenities include a fitness facility, lounge, patio, locker room, exercise room, and a pool located on the Basement Level that will be partially open to the sky allowing light and air to circulate to the pool area. At least two parking spaces are provided and designated for each unit, with an additional six (6) guest, one (1) service, and two (2) golf cart parking spaces spread throughout the Sub- basement, the Basement, and the First and Second Floors. The Second Floor is approximately four (4) feet below the grade of Carnation Avenue and will house residential units, one (1) two -car garage, and five (5) guest parking spaces, as well as bicycle and motorcycle parking accommodations. Below street grade parking is hidden from public view and is accessed from Carnation Avenue utilizing two automobile elevators. The existing upper portion of the on -grade stairs that currently provide private access from the apartment building to the water and existing docks will be removed. The existing on -grade stairs (built prior to 1961), which are seaward of the proposed residential structure, will be connected to the building by an on -grade stair at the Basement Level. AERIE (PA 2005 -196) May 21, 2009 Page 8 of 20 Cross Section B Proposed Docks The structural elements of the existing gangway platform, pier walkway, and floating docks (timber frame, concrete pontoons, and timber deck) are in very poor condition. The City has required the applicant to remove or rebuild the docks due to their deteriorated and unsafe conditions, The existing docks can accommodate four (4) small boats in the 25 -foot class. Eight (8) replacement slips and one (1) guest side -tie dock are proposed. The new dock layout will accommodate boats in the 40 to 60 -foot class, although a larger boat could be accommodated as a side -tie, and the proposed layout is depicted on the Dock Replacement Plan, below. The proposed docks would be located within the federal Pierhead Line. The new docks will consist of timber decking supported by rotationally - molded plastic pontoons, which require less draft (bottom clearance) than concrete floats, allowing the dock system to be located as close to an existing rock outcropping as possible. The six (6) steel dock piles that hold the existing floating docks in place will be removed and replaced with 19 new piles to accommodate the new dock system. Of these 19 piles, RESICENML UN1 FOURTH FLOOR Pi$rD °_N RESIDENIIh1 UN-1 �i THRiD FLOOR Rf. LUF:T SECOND FLOOR RFSD'eN71AL �JNR PARVJ j FIRST FLOOR ` RESIDElTi UNIT 4 P f80A t�`a y} E NEYBAORT \f CCM.MOH RECREnJO� BASEMENT FOOL g0 J \ %� \ ! .✓' r "`/jfi � r � �, \.v \tc `C✓ 'Y a'7Y'.�' � '/•i' lS.< Y i � SECTION B Nor TOSCnLE `-- - -J Proposed Docks The structural elements of the existing gangway platform, pier walkway, and floating docks (timber frame, concrete pontoons, and timber deck) are in very poor condition. The City has required the applicant to remove or rebuild the docks due to their deteriorated and unsafe conditions, The existing docks can accommodate four (4) small boats in the 25 -foot class. Eight (8) replacement slips and one (1) guest side -tie dock are proposed. The new dock layout will accommodate boats in the 40 to 60 -foot class, although a larger boat could be accommodated as a side -tie, and the proposed layout is depicted on the Dock Replacement Plan, below. The proposed docks would be located within the federal Pierhead Line. The new docks will consist of timber decking supported by rotationally - molded plastic pontoons, which require less draft (bottom clearance) than concrete floats, allowing the dock system to be located as close to an existing rock outcropping as possible. The six (6) steel dock piles that hold the existing floating docks in place will be removed and replaced with 19 new piles to accommodate the new dock system. Of these 19 piles, AERIE (PA 2005 -196) May 21, 2009 Page 9 of 20 nine (9) will be large diameter piles (approximately two -foot diameter). All piles will be constructed off -site and consist of pre- stressed concrete; set in pre - drilled holes. The existing 20 -foot long gangway will be replaced by a 60 -foot long gangway. Dock Replacement Plan y 1 i M sau'�t• r - i' . I H6 Y -IlM4 6, ((1 �rj os f N1 Av � 1 1 1 ( eta rs 1a. `. 3 �\ Lal�l uUwq q l !iH i,i ab5 CO�IITOItNI � -f S \` �� As illustrated in the dock replacement plan above, the pile- supported pier walkway between the existing gangway platform and the existing concrete pad will be repaired or replaced with a structure in -like -kind (timber framing, deck, and railings all around). The existing concrete piles supporting the pier walkway will be repaired by repairing the existing concrete only. The gangway platform replacement will include the four (4) steel piles, timber framing with metal connectors, and a timber deck with railings all around. The existing concrete pad, concrete steps, and railing will be repaired and patched as necessary. Construction Management The project includes a detailed Construction Management Plan (CMP), which is provided in the Appendix B to the DEIR. The CMP addresses all aspects of the construction including: phasing, scheduling, construction equipment, and the construction process. In addition, the CMP also addresses parking management; off - site and short-term parking; construction staging; traffic control; haul routes; delivery requirements; safety and security; pedestrian protection; fencing, air quality controls; AERIE (PA 2005 -196) May 21, 2009 Page 10 of 20 noise suppression measures; vibration monitoring; and dust control. Lastly, the CMP addresses environmental complianoe/protection with erosion and sediment control measures, beach protection, water quality control and other general environmental protection measures. The overall construction duration is anticipated to be 32 months. A complete set of scaled drawings has been prepared showing the site plan, grading plans, dock plan, floor plans for each level, section drawings and elevation drawings (Exhibit # 2) DISCUSSION Analysis General Plan Section 4.1 of the DEIR provides an analysis of relevant policies of the General Plan. The 8 units proposed is well below the maximum number of units (28) allowed by the Land Use Element, which designates the majority of the site for RM (MuHiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). The additional site area (584 square feet), which is the subject of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Coastal Land Use Plan and Code Amendment, would not impact this finding given the small amount of area. Land Use Element Policy LU5.1.9 requires building elevations that face public streets be treated to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality. Architectural treatment of building elevations and the modulation of mass are to convey the character of separate living units or dusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume. Street elevations are to be provided with high quality materials and finishes to convey quality. Based upon the submitted plans including the proposed landscape plans, project provides modulated building masses to break up the mass of the structure and provide visual interest and variety. Parking areas are designed to be integral with the architecture of the development and parting is not visible from the street. Usable and functional private open space for each unit is incorporated as each unit has an outdoor deck or patio that may include a fire pit or spa. Common open space and docks helps create a pleasant Irving environment with opportunities for recreation. Private storage areas for each unit are also provided. The project design incorporates building articulation, roof modulation and a diverse architectural style. Although specific exterior finishes or building materials are not identified at this time, the applicant and architect are committed to providing the highest quality project. Staff believes the project can be found consistent with LU5.1.9. Charter Section 423 Charter Section 423 requires that major General Plan Amendments be voted upon by the electorate. A major General Plan Amendment is one that increases the General Plan by 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor area or increases traffic by more than 100 peak hour vehicle trips or increases residential dwelling units by 100 units. 10 Z. AERIE (PA 20055-196) May 21, 2009 Page 11 of 20 Additionally, a General Plan amendment that is below these Charter Section 423 thresholds would require a require a vote if the increases in floor area, peak hour trips or residential units of the project, when added to 80% of the increases of prior amendments approved within the past 10 years, exceed the Charter Section 423 thresholds cited above. Pursuant to Council Policy A -18, voter approval is not required in this case as the proposed General Plan Amendment represents an increase of 1 dwelling unit and an increase of 1 A.M. and 1 P.M. peak hour trip based upon the change in land use designation for the 584 square foot portion of the project suite. Additionally, no prior amendments have been approved within Statistical Area F3 and, therefore, the project and prior amendments do not cumulatively exceed Charier Section 423 thresholds as to require a vote of the electorate. The increases associated with this General Plan Amendment will be tracked in accordance with Charter Section 423 and Council Policy A -18 for 10 years if approved by the City Council. Coastal Land Use Plan Section 4.1 of the DER provides an analysis of relevant policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan. As noted, City Council established a predominant line of development for the site at elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 88. The residential portion of the project is not visible below this elevation, with the exception of an exit from the basement level to and including the existing access stair on the bluff face. This exit has been recessed and screened from public view. The bluff below the project, including the rock outcropping, will be preserved. The project includes the use of native and drought tolerant landscaping and invasive species will be removed in accordance with CLOP Policies 4.1.3 -1 and 4.4.3 -13. The proposed docks are allowable uses of open coastal waters provided the impact to marine resources has been mitigated (CLOP Policy 4.3.2 -1 and Coastal Act Section 30233). The DER provides an analysis of the possible impacts proposed docks on the marine environment and measures are incorporated within the projects Construction Management Plan that mitigate potential impacts. The expanded docks will increase the number and mass of boats in the harbor, but views of the site will remain and the impact to views is considered less than significant The DEIR provides a series of computer- generated visual simulations in Section 4.5. The architectural plans were rendered in 3 dimensions and were placed into a variety of photographs to show what the project would look like in the context of its surroundings as well as to show any potential impacts to public views. Images included views from the abutting streets to the west and south and views from the Balboa Peninsula and Newport Harbor to the project site. Views of the project site from a mid - channel location were created to simulate what a boater might see. Views of the project site in closer proximity to the site to simulate what a kayaker might see were also created. Lastly, Views from public vantage points in Begonia Park and Pacific Drive were created. In summary, these views show no significant impact to public views. Views from Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard to the west and southwest will be expanded. The expanded docks with boats create a transient impediment to viewing the project bluff and rocks depending upon the viewer's location. The closer to the site the viewer is, the w3 AERIE (PA 2005 -196) May 21, 2009 Page 12 of 20 more prominent the boats in the docks would be in a particular view; however, views of the project site would be provided as one "cruises" in and out of the harbor and the bluff, rocks and cove below the proposed residential building are not being physically altered or covered. The Coastal Act requires public access to be provided to coastal resources including Newport Bay; however, it is not required in all cases. If a resource is so sensitive or if safety contrail nts limit or if adequate public access exists nearby, access can be waived. The Coastal Land Use Plan contains policies to be used to guide the analysis and requiring public access through or across the site is not considered warranted in this case given the steep topography, lack of lateral access to connect to, proximity of residential uses and the provision of public access nearby. Zoning Code The maximum number of units allowed by the Zoning Code is established by the area of the site that is above mean higher water and has a slope less than 2 to 1. This excludes approximately 43 percent of the site from the 20 dwelling unit per acre calculation resulting in a maximum of 9 units. The project proposes 8 units and complies with density limits. Again, the additional "site area (584 square feet), which is the subject of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Coastal Land Use Plan and Code Amendment, would not impact this finding given the small amount of area. The Zoning Code requires a minimum of 2 parking spaces per unit and 0.5 spaces for guests. The project exceeds this minimum by providing 2, and in some cases, 3 spaces within individual garages using vehicle lifts. Five guest parking spaces are provided within the garage directly accessed from Carnation Avenue on the Second Floor. One additional guest parking space is on the First Floor below, accessed by the two vehicle elevators. Bicycle, motorcycle, service vehicle and golf cart parking is also provided in the various parking areas. The project conforms to the 28/32 foot height limitation zone with the peaks and mid- points of the sloping roofs being below the maximum allowable height measured from natural grade. The building heights are shown on the architectural plans and compliance has been verified by staff. The proposed residential building does not strictly conform to setback standards and the applicant has requested relief through a Modification Permit. The exhibit below depicts the minimum setback standards per the Zoning Code and as determined by the Planning Director given the unique and irregular shape of the lot. The encroachments requested are as follows: Subterranean building encroachments within the required 10 -foot front yard setback along Carnation Avenue and the 10 -foot, 7 -inch side yard setback abutting 215 Carnation Avenue: the 5 -foot encroachments are shown on Sheets A -2, A4, A-5 611+ AERIE (PA 2005 -196) May 21, 2009 Page 13 of 20 and A-6 of the project plans. Given that the encroachments are below grade and will not be visible, no negative impacts are expected. Above grade building encroachments within the required side yard setback abutting 215 Carnation Avenue: the requested encroachment is 1-foot, 7- inches, as shown on Sheet A -2, A -7, A -8 and A -9 of the project plans. Nine feet will be provided from the proposed building to the property line. The prior project had several balconies and building encroachments proposed within this setback area and the applicant has eliminated the balconies and decreased the building encroachment to create a public view from Carnation Avenue to Newport Harbor. Structures within the setback would be limited in height such that views would be afforded. 42 -inch high guardrails within the required front yard setback along Carnation Avenue: the guardrails are necessary to protect pedestrians from falling from the public sidewalk along Carnation Avenue over the proposed retaining wall located at the back of the sidewalk. The Zoning Code limits the height of structures within the required front yard to 36 inches and a recent change to the Building Code now requires 42 -inch high guardrails. Strict application of the Zoning Code would (P . I AERIE (PA 2005 -196) May 21, 2009 Page 14 of 20 eliminate the guardrail and, therefore, necessitate the elimination of the below grade retaining walls within the required front yard, which provide light and ventilation to the lower levels. Guardrails such as these are uncommon within required front yards as excavation and retaining walls leaving a potential fall hazard are not typical practices. The proposed railing will have an "open" design allowing visibility through it and thereby maintaining a more open character. Three balconies and one at -grade walkway encroach into the 10 -foot, 7 -inch side yard between the project and Bayside Place. Again, unroofed decks or platforms including necessary guardrails are permitted in side yard areas provided they are less than 6 feet above natural grade. The walkway is on the first level, two balconies are on the second level and one balcony is on the third level and each are roughly no closer than 7 feet to the property line abutting Bayside Place. These features do not encroach within a public view from Begonia Park or other vantage points to the west. They will encroach within private views from dwellings on Carnation to the north. The majority of the view to the west and southwest from these dwellings will not be affected. The abutting dwellings along Bayside Place should not be impacted due to the change in grade (the encroachments are well above the dwellings on Bayside Place), separation (the encroachments are separated from the dwellings on Bayside Place by the private roadway), and the fact that the houses on Bayside Place are oriented away from the project toward Newport Bay. Staff believes that the required findings for approval of the Modification Permit can be made and they are provided in the attached draft resolution. Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code requires a Coastal Residential Development Permit prior to the demolition of multi -unit structures containing 3 or more units or 11 or more units within 2 or more buildings. The purpose of the application is to determine whether or not low or moderate income units are being eliminated, and If eliminated, to be replaced, if feasible. Two of the units within the 14 -unit multi -unit building are occupied, one by an employee of the applicant as a property caretaker and the second unit by a family member of the applicant. The remaining units have been vacant for several years and neither of the occupants qualifies as a low or moderate income household, and therefore, no replacement units are required. Subdivision Code Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, 11 findings must be made to approve the proposed tentative tract map. The proposed map and improvement design must be consistent with the General Plan, any applicable specific plan, Subdivision Map Act, and the Subdivision Code. The site must be deemed physically suitable for the type and density of development. The design of the subdivision must not likely cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements must not be likely to cause serious public health problems. The subdivision or improvements must not conflict with public easements. The subdivision must not conflict with Williamson Act (Pc1to AERIE (PA 2005 -196) May 21, 2009 Page 15 of 20 (agricultural preserves) contracts and that solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been. The subdivision must be consistent with policies regarding the City's share of the regional housing need while balancing the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Sewer discharges must not violate applicable requirements and lastly, the subdivision must be consistent with a certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Staff believes these findings can be made and facts that support them are provided in the attached draft resolution. Bluff Vegetation In late January or early February of 2008, the vegetation on the bluff face was trimmed and/or removed. In response, the applicant had a survey prepared by Robert Mitchell, a licensed landscape architect, which is included in the project plans. Based upon this survey, most of what was altered was non -native plantings and native species that were trimmed appear to be recovering well. Pursuant to CLUP policy, removal of non - native and invasive species is required. Replanting with drought tolerant, non - invasive and native species appropriate for the coastal bluff environment is required by CLUP policy and conditions have been applied to ensure this. Harbor Commission The Harbor Commission reviewed the proposed docks on April 8, 2009. The Commission was of the opinion that the proposed docks would intrude into the main channel and that high wave energy experienced in this area presents a safety concern. The Harbor Commission acts in an advisory role and the Harbor Resources Manager is the local permitting authority. The proposed docks are within the federal Pierhead Line and the main channel is over 500 feet wide in this area. The proposed docks with boats would not encroach any farther within the channel than a nearby navigational station, which has been in -place for years. City policy currently allows boats to extend beyond the Pierhead Line no farther than the beam (maximum width) of the boat, which is typically not wider than 24 feet. The proposed layout is consistent with the Municipal Code and Council Policy, as determined by the Harbor Resources Manager and the only condition proposed by the Harbor Resources Manager is that boats tied to the side of the proposed docks closest to the main channel must not have a beam wider than 24 feet. With this condition, the Harbor Resources Manager has determined that the proposed docks will not cause any impediment to navigating the main channel. The proposed docks must be designed to withstand the increased seasonal wave action and project engineers believe that an "over-engineered" timber dock system can adequately withstand anticipated wave energy. The Building Department will review the plans to ensure the docks can withstand the expected waive energy. Boats tied to these docks may have to be temporarily relocated during certain stone conditions to avoid AERIE (PA 2005196) May 21, 2009 Page 16 of 20 damage to the boats and the Harbor Resources Manager does not believe there to be any significant hazard to the public with the dock installation and use. Environmental Review The City contracted with Keeton Kreitzer consulting to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project. The DEIR was completed and circulated for a mandatory 45-day review period that began on March 20, 2009, and concluded on May 4, 2009, and was previously transmitted separately to the Planning Commission (Exhibit # 3). All environmental topics identified in the Appendix G of the Implementing Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act were addressed in the DEIR. The following topics were considered and the projects impact was viewed as not to be significant: Agriculture, Population and Housing, Recreation, Mineral Resources, Public Resources, and Utilities. No mitigation measures are recommended to address these issues. The following topics were evaluated in depth within the DEIR: Land Use and Planning, Traffic and Circulation, Air Quality Noise, Aesthetics, Drainage and Hydrology, Biological Resources, Public Health and Safety, Soils and Geology, Cultural/Scientific Resources. Specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level, with the exception of one short-term impact related to construction noise, which is discussed below. Comments were received from several interested parties, including the Citys Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, the Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board, Callfomia Department of Transportation, Southern Califomia Gas Company, Jan Vandersloot, Coastal Law Group, Marilyn Beck, Comprehensive Planning Services, Jinx Hansen, Melinda Luthin, and The Moote. The consultant and staff have prepared written responses to each of the comments received on the adequacy of the DEIR (Exhibit # 4). Short -tern Construction Noise Despite the application of seven mitigation measures (MM 4.4-1a through 4.4 -1g) to reduce noise levels from construction activities, nearby residential uses would be temporarily exposed to elevated noise levels during construction activities and the resulting short-term impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Key factors are the elevated noise levels over the anticipated 32 -month construction period and the proximity of residential uses. The highest noise levels are expected to occur in the first phase with excavation, caisson drilling, and concrete pours. If the City Council chooses to approve the project and believes the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impact related to construction noise, the preparation of a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required. W.'F AERIE (PA 2005 -196) May 21, 2009 Page 17 of 20 Akema6ves CEQA requires that an EIR describe a "reasonable' range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which are capable of: (1) eliminating or reducing significant adverse environmental effects of a proposed project and (2) feasibly accomplishing most of the basic project objectives. The project objectives are provided in Section 3.6 of the DEIR beginning on page 3 -28. The alternatives considered within Section 10 of the DEIR are: • No Project/No Development Alternative • Alternative Site • Reduced Intensity -development of 3 single -unit dwellings • Reduced Intensity -development of 5 -unit, multiunit residential project • Development of an 8 -unit, multi -unit residential project with reduced grading The No Project/No Development Alternative represents the continuance of the existing condition; however, it assumes that the existing residential buildings are occupied and repairs to the existing docks are made. This alternative accomplishes none of the applicants basic project objectives. This altemative avoids the significant and unavoidable construction- related noise impact and it avoids all the other less than significant impacts associated with the project. The Alternative Site analysis was rejected from further consideration as no feasible altemative locations exist that are similarly designated for multi -unit development that provide access to Newport Bay. The Reduced Intensity (3 single - family) Alternative analysis assumed development of the site with three custom residential homes. Such a project would be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations and it was assumed that excavation on the bluff face would be no lower than the PLOED as established by the City Council. The applicant has indicated that he would not upsize the existing catch basin in Carnation Avenue nor underground the utility line on Carnation Avenue by removing two utility poles due to financial reasons. This alternative might have some environmental benefits when compared to the project (reduced construction- related impacts), but the overall construction duration would likely be far longer as the three custom homes, which could take as long as 24 months each to construct, would not likely be constructed at the same time. This alternative does not accomplish many of the applicant's basic project objectives. The Reduced Intensity (5 -unit, multifamily) Alternative analysis assumes development of the site largely in the same fashion as the proposed project (from outward appearances). The principal difference is the elimination of both the Sub - basement and Basement levels. This alternative assumed excavation of the bluff face would be no lower than the PLOED as established by the City Council. Like the previous altemative, the applicant would not upgrade the catch basin in Carnation Avenue or underground the utility line on Carnation Avenue. Due to the elimination of these lowest two levels, area devoted to parking for 6,19. AERIE (PA 2W5 -196) May 21, 2009 Page 18 of 20 three units and many of the amenities deemed necessary by the applicant (a project objective) could not be accommodated. As a result of the loss of parking, this alternative would reduce the number of units from 8 units to 5 units. Short -term construction noise and less than significant impacts associated with grading (air quality and construction traffic) would be reduced. The overall construction duration for this alternative is estimated to be 23 months, a 9-month reduction compared to the proposed project. The DEIR incorrectly indicates that the view corridors would be expanded. Both view corridors would be the same as that provided by the project. The 8-unit, multifamily residential altemative with reduced grading was further evaluated and designated as Alternatives A and B. Alternative A eliminates the Sub - basement level (lowest level) and Alternative B eliminates the Sub - basement level and much of the Basement level while maintaining differing amounts of building area for amenities, storage and mechanical spaces. Sufficient area for the parking for 8 units could be accommodated in both alternatives. The applicant indicates that he would provide the larger catch basin and underground the utility line on Carnation Avenue with Alternative A, but he would not provide these benefits with Alternative B. The overall construction duration for Alternative A is estimated to be 27 months (5 -month reduction) and the overall construction duration for Alternative B is estimated to be 26 months (6 month reduction). Significant short -term construction noise and other less than significant impacts associated with grading (air quality and construction. traffic) would be reduced; however, the short-term noise impact would remain significant and unavoidable with either alternative. Alternative B represents a Lesser impact than Alternative A. Altemative A and B partially meets all of the applicants project objectives to differing degrees (Alternative A more than B). CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative to the project (among the other alternatives evaluated) if the environmentally superior atemative is the No Project/No Development Alternative (Table 3 below). Table 3 is an update to Table 10. 1, which is on page 10-27 of the EIR. The principal change is the indication that the significant short-term noise impact with the Reduced Intensity (5 -unit, multi-farnlly) Alternative is a "substantial lessening" of the impact rather than a "Reduced Project Effect" as indicated in Table 10-1. This is based upon the reduction in noise attributable to the 9- month reduction in the construction period even though the noise levels would not diminish. The residual impact would still remain significant and unavoidable. lastly, the indication of whether the Reduced Intensity (5 -unit, multi family) Alternative partially meets project objectives has been expanded to indicate that this alternative meets additional project objectives. Since the DEIR concluded that the No Pmject/No Development Alternative, the alternative analysis within the DEIR identified the Alternative A as an environmentally superior alternative. The Reduced Intensity (3 single - family) Alternative was not selected due to the longer construction period and inability to achieve most of the basic project objectives. Atemative A was selected over Attemative B and the Reduced Intensity (5 -unit, multi- family) alternative based upon the benefits accrued to the public from the enlarged catch basin and the undergrounding the overhead utility line on Carnation Avenue the applicant has voluntarily agreed to implement. These project benefits would be permanent whereas x,20 AERIE (PA 2005 -196) May 21, 2009 Page 19 of 20 the significant and unavoidable noise impact and lessening of other less than significant construction- related impacts (air quality and traffic), are short -tern. The other alternatives, including Reduced Intensity (3 single - family) Alternative, would not have the benefits associated with the enlarged catch basin and the undergrounding of the two utility poles and wires, and therefore, were not considered environmentally superior to Alternative A. Table 3: Summary of Project Alternatives . - RetRreetl, .lrnpaola Avoided - ... Other MINAS FsNrflpmerhfSgY 111191 ?tl _.: nrSubstanHalty 0 D1ec>r!vesi - _: . No Prop"O s Air Quaw Noise ° Lend Use ° u lily Yes None Development Paleontology° Lftlity Aestnat& Reduced InIensity Air Quality's None ' No 2, 3. and 7 S Single Famgy Umts U Paleonto Aestheb se FBTW Muhl -Fern Air Qualfte Nolsee Utllfly' ° NO 2, 3, 6, 7, and B Reduced G Paleade Aesthetics Fafto Alternative A Tr !W Air QualihP None None Yes Al 0 WW*Farrily Units Reduced Noise (Pardo Alternative B T Ehdstirg Zoning Air Qua None lrt�k'ty' No AN . e MuWarnliy Units Noise Ate° (Pa" Reduced Grading Pelson 'Numbers refer to Project Ogadhes &WRed In Section 10.5. During tine construction phase. °Substan t reduoes or of nina[es a significant unavoidable adverse impact. 'Does not achlaM City goab and oblochas andfor bnconsistam vhtih adopted land use pdiciss. 'Dom not result in Ynproved sudew waw quality e Project etreds less Ooh signiftant vedoaed project effects Is the result of reduced grading required for the allarnadvaa 'Does not Wgrede arasting defldetn catch basin. ° Does not underground e>osting power poles and wiring. °Duration of construction phase reduced; however, aroametive wig not significantly reduce construction raise levels. 10 Duration of construction Phase Increased Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, all notices required pursuant to CEQA related to the preparation of the DEIR have been provided. Lastly, this item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. CONCLUSION The proposed project can be found consistent with the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. Public views are protected from significant impact and they are expanded from Carnation Avenue given the proposed position of the building. The scenic quality of the bluff is protected from significant impact with the visible portion of the proposed (0,211 AERIE (PA 2005 -196) May 21, 2009 Page 20 of 20 residential building being located above the predominant line of existing development. Adequate parking is provided and additional on -street parking will be created on Carnation Avenue. The construction management plan will avoid significant construction- related disruption in the area. Construction of the proposed docks can be accomplished in accordance with the Coastal Act while mitigating significant impacts to the marine environment. The partially - mitigated, construction - related noise impact is significant and unavoidable but it is also short-tern and will cease when construction is completed. Long -term project benefits can be viewed as outweighing the short-term impacts: elimination of existing residential buildings considered unattractive, elimination of unsightly carport parking, creation of an attractive, energy efficient development, preservation of the visual quality of the bluff below the proposed building, enhancement of public views from Camation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, improved water quality, increased street parting, elimination of a deficient catch basin, undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines, preservation of a substantial property right established by the Land Use Designation of the General Plan, and increased property taxes. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS The Planning Commission may choose to: 1. Deny the project based upon its impacts to the environment or finding that it is not consistent with applicable General Plan or Coastal Land Use Plan policy. 2. Continue the hearing for additional time to consider the project. 3. One of the several project alternatives may be recommended to the City Council if the Commission believes the reduction in short-term, project - related impacts is warranted. Prepared by: James Campbell Principal Planner Submitted by: David Repo Planning Director F. \Users \PLN\Shared \PA's \PAs - 2005 \PA2005 - 196 \06 -PC 5- 21- 09\AERIE_PC_rpt 05- 21.09.doc Material(s) received after the Planning Commission packets were distributed, or received at the meeting. These material(s) were distributed to staff, Commissioners and made available to the public. � ,23 Marilyn L Beck 303 Carnation Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 949 - 723 -1773 mdb anbecktrustee.com RECEIVED BY May 20, 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY 2 2 2009 VIA EMAIL AND US MAIL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Dear Commissioners: It is very difficult to understand why the Planning Department finds this project so acceptable when almost every aspect of the project fails to meet either the letter or the intent of the General Plan. If I didn't know the protocol, I might have concluded that the Staff Report had been written by the Applicant himself to promote his project, rather than by the City's Senior Planner who has a duty to the City and the residents of Newport Beach to uphold the provisions of the General Plan. This Staff Report and Draft Resolution seem to compromise the basic tenets and provisions of the General Plan for the benefit of an outside developer. This is difficult to understand for the following reasons: 1. How could this project have been set for hearing at the Planning Commission prior to the completion of the DEIR? My understanding is that the Draft EIR requires 'Lille City to respond to public comments prior to submitting it for certification by the City. As of noon on the day before the Public Hearing, the City's responses have not yet been incorporated into the EIR. Indeed, the Draft Resolution for Approval of the project recommends certification of the DEIR prior to the inclusion of these responses to comments into the EIR. Is that proper City protocol? 2. This project requires numerous variances and modification permits, not the least of which require encroachments into setbacks on a protected coastal bluff. How is it that the City Planning Dept which was instrumental in drafting the General Plan would simply ignore all that the General Plan was trying to do, and on the first major project coming'before the City after the General Plan was implemented, simply issue variances to allow this project? Does the City intend ( ,Tk Planning Commission May 20, 2009 Page 2 to protect its natural resources as provided in the General Plan or not? What is the threshold of responsibility that the City is prepared to stand on in upholding City provisions? 3. How can the Planning Department find that this project conforms to CLUP Chapter 4 Policies, in particular 4.4.1 -3 which requires new development to minimize alterations when the developer is proposing 62,000 sq feet of building on a site that is described as "steeply sloping coastal bluff, the west - facing portion of which is subject to marine erosion ... the westerly portion of the site is partly submerged and rocky "? The plans show excavation to 28 feet above mean sea level, completely obliterating the natural bluff when the City Council set the PLOED at 50.7 feet above mean sea level. The response is that all this destruction is subterranean and cannot be seen. In other words, it is okay to destroy the bluff as long as the developer puts fake rock back in its place and no one can see the damage. How is that consistent with the intent of the General Plan and specifically the CLUP Policy 4.4.1 -3? 4. One glaring example of the City Planning Department's irresponsibility in recommending approval of this project is the proposed swimming pool. The pool deck is at 40.5 feet above mean sea level and the structure of the pool descends to 30.0 feet above mean sea level. CLUP Policies 4.4.3 -3 and 4.4.3 -5 both apply to this parcel (see the. DEIR description of the property), and state: "Require all new bluff top development .... be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development .... but not less than 25 feet from the bluff edge. This requirement shall apply to the principal structure and major accessory structures such as .... pools." How can the City Planning Dept allow a swimming pool to be built below the predominant line of existing development? 5. The Harbor Commission met and unanimously voted to DENY the marina in its present form. The Harbor Commissioners each stated very concise reasons why the marina as proposed is dangerous to the harbor, to other boaters, to the environment of the harbor, and opens the City to significant liability. The Staff Report ignores completely all of the comments and recommendations of the Harbor Commission and makes the statement that the Harbor Commission is only an advisory board . and has no authority. This seems like a slap in the face to the Harbor Commission. It is indeed an advisory board, a citizen's advisory board. Doesn't the City want to listen to its informed citizens? 6. The Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) also met and reviewed this project and issued a six -page list of concerns about the project, none of these items have yet been addressed. 7. The Notice of Public Hearing states: "The DEIR concludes that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment on Air Quality, Land ..................... .................... Planning Commission May 20, 2009 Page 3 Use, Noise, Traffic /Circulation, Aesthetics, Drainage and Hydrology, Public Health and Safety, Cultural Resources, Soils and Geology, and Biological Resources ". The Staff Report states "specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level, with the exception of one short-term impact related to construction noise ". (Emphasis added) How can 3000 heavy trucks moving through the village and streets of Corona del Mar in order to carry away 25,000 cubic yards of coastal bluff constitute a "short-term impact "? Who will be responsible for damage to City streets and potential liability to residents during this "short- term "? For all of the above reasons, I ask you, the Planning Commissioners, to take a very careful approach to this project in reviewing the requests for modification permits and variances. You are also an advisory board, please give informed and conscientious consideration to this massive project. Please do not allow for unwarranted exceptions to the General Plan which will set dangerous precedents for future development along the Carnation Avenue coastal bluff and have significant repercussions to the residents of Corona del Mar. Sincerely, Mar�e�� Cc: City Council Coastal Commission Harbor Commission City Attorney `#L I am unable to attend the meeting tonight and have asked J o read this brief speech on my behalf. As you know, I am opposed to this project and have submitted a written statement to you with all my comments. want to add only this. The City Council set a predominant line of development at 50.7 feet above mean sea level. The project as it stands today excavates to 28 feet above mean sea level, with a swimming pool at between 30.0 feet and 40.5 feet, completely subterranean. This accessory is specifically barred under provisions 4.4.3 -3 and 4.4.3 -5 of the CLUP. This is only one aspect of the many conditions which are inconsistent with the General Plan. The Staff Report states that: "the project will encroach into the front and side setbacks; however, the majority of the encroachments are subterranean ". It then states: "given that the encroachments are below grade and will not be visible, no negative impacts are expected ". I find this statement mind - boggling. So long as no one can see all the damage that has been done, it is okay. Is that correct? It is like saying you can drive over the speed limit, as fast as you like, so long as no one is on the roadway. If no one sees me speeding, it is okay. Is that how the City of Newport Beach interprets its laws? I direct this question to the City Attorney, is this a correct interpretation of the General Plan? Thank you. Marilyn Beck WILLIAM J. McCAFFREY JR. 2525 OCEAN BOULEVARD, APT. G4 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNLA 92625 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Planning Commission MAY 2 S 2009 City of Ne wport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Dear Commissioners: May 26, 2009 At the Planning Commission public hearing on Thursday, May 21" Commissioner Toerge referred to Channel Reef as "egregious overbuilding ". I take exception to this remark for the following reasons: a) Channel Reef was developed and built by Mr. Cedric Roberts, a very honorable gentleman who built thousands of homes in southern California and who, near the end of his life, was recognized by the state as being the longest - licensed builder (license number 19) in the state. As part of that recognition it was noted that he never had a single complaint filed against him. He would not have overbuilt and he would not have done anything egregious. He was exceptionally proud of Channel Reef, where he had a home. The time to voice criticism was 50 years ago, not 20 years after his death when he is not able to defend his cherished project. b) Although Mr. Toerge referred to the height restriction on Ocean Boulevard as being curb level, he did not recognize that the structure which Channel Reef replaced was two stories above curb level and even today our next door neighbor has a structure which is one story above curb level. With this perspective it is hard to say that Charnel Reef is overbuilt. c) A typical criteria relative to overbuilding is the extent to which a project uses municipal services. During my 23 years living at Channel Reef I can remember only a single instance of a school -aged child, and the situation would have been similar or less than that prior to my residency. Also, Channel Reef does not use municipal trash collection, but instead pays for private trash collection. And because many of our units are second homes, the demand for water and sewage is less than half what it would otherwise be. Based on these criteria Channel Reef can not be considered overbuilt. d) Another criteria which seems to be an exceptionally important concept for the Commission is that of "existing development", so much so that the existing development seems to define what is proper and acceptable. Since Channel Reef has been in existence for nearly 50 years it would seem that on this basis as well it can not be considered overbuilt. e) With respect to parking, the Commission seems to not only require the minimum per code but also to prefer that there be an excess of parking. In the case of Mr. Toerge, I have seen him vote against a project only because, although it had more than the required parking, he did not consider it to be convenient parking. Channel Reef has convenient parking for nearly 100 vehicles. Again, relative to municipal services Channel Reef uses little or no street parking for either residents or guests, which very few properties can match. But it is somewhat disingenuous to then say that, in part as a result of providing abundant and convenient parking, Channel Reef is overbuilt. f) In terms of public reaction, the limited press coverage at the time of construction which I have seen was positive. Moreover, in the 23 years I have lived at Channel Reef, including over 20 years on the Board of Directors and since 2001 its president, I am not aware of a single complaint or negative remark concerning being overbuilt, until Mr. Toerge's comment. I might also add that it was inappropriate in a public forum for Mr. Toerge to make such a statement as if it were a fact rather than merely his personal opinion which, as shown in this letter, is unsupported and unsupportable by the facts. Mr. Commissioners, my dictionary defines egregious as "outstanding for undesirable qualities; remarkably bad; flagrant" Obviously, I do not believe that Channel Reef is overbuilt on any of the several criteria noted above. To say that it is egregious overbuilding is itself an egregious statement. Sincerely, r William J. McCaffrey Jr. 949- 675 -6468 (,:0 May 25, 2009 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPART MAY 2 9 2009 To: Planning Commissioners CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH From: Kathleen McIntosh Re: Request for copy of speech given at Planning Commission Hearing for Aerie ki o-I 2 I . 9- C)041 ��D It has always been my impression that when a person works in a public position for a City that they are there to hopefully leave the City a better place than when they took office. I like most residents expect City representatives to represent the highest level of honesty, dedication and adherence to policy and the law as demanded by your office for the good of all residents of this great City. I am encouraged to hear this evening that you are concerned with the Coastal Bluff. In the past it has seemed as though the City was willing to compromise its own General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan and Coastal Bluff Protection Policies to mention a few in favor of one applicant and the potential of significant tax revenues for the City as mentioned by Mr. Rasner, an investor in the project, at the Harbor Resources meeting last month. The project was first recommended for denial by Staff April 17, 2007, when staff listed at least 6 CLUP policies that this project is inconsistent with. Following excerpt: Staff recommends that the project should be redesigned such that the proposed building does not extend on the bluff face below 52 feet above mean sea level. This provides a balance between preserving the scenic quality of a significant portion of the bluff through minimizing its alteration while siting the building with the predominant line of existing development. Although allowing portions of the project to be developed further down the bluff to 44, 34, or 29 feet above mean sea level might be within an alternate predominate line of existing development, staff does not believe that development at these levels minimizes alteration of the bluff and preserves the scenic and visual quality of the landform as a visual resource consistent with policy. 2 years later and the proposed project is still inconsistent with policy. Mr. Campbell has admitted that there is a high risk for damage to the surrounding properties — which include public streets due to massive excavation. �1 What has changed since that time — the excavation is still considerably more that the stated 26,000 cubic yards of Protected Coastal Bluff. The intent is to cut straight down from the sidewalk area to a depth of approximately 24 feet above mean sea level and to gut the entire bluff. There are legal policies in place against this type of thing for a reason. This bluff provides buttressing of the surrounding properties both private and public. Are you the City going to be financially responsible for that collapse if it happens — as it has in so many other Cities. The applicant certainly won't. How, in a time of such massive economic downturn — investigations into corruption in City and State agencies, their policies, management and fiscal irresponsibility, Ponzi schemes and massive fraud can the City turn a blind eye to such an economically and ecologically unsound project. Why not tear up the rules for all other applicants — past, present and future. This proposed project does not fit into the General Plan in any way shape or form so why should any other applicants be held to the rules. If you vote to approve this project once again you are approving the same project that was presented more than 2 years ago with a reduction of less than 14% in scale and the addition of a massive marina which the Harbor Commissioners unanimously recommended denial of at their meeting last month and which staff has decided to either downplay or ignore. The EIR is still not complete, does not properly address the issues that existed 2 years ago, does not meet the criteria of the CLUP, the General Plan or the Coastal Bluff Protection Policies and the report minimizes the negative aspects of this project and its ramifications in favor of the applicant — which is understandable as the applicant paid for the report. As I have stated every time I have spoken in front of the Planning Commission and the City Council, my late husband and I have always been in favor of redevelopment of this predominant Coastal Bluff — it should have been done years ago, but feel that it should be done with respect and scale to the existing neighborhood, the governing policies of the City of Newport Beach and without complete destruction of a Protected Coastal Bluff and the disruption and possible destruction of their portion of the Historical Cove below. Mr. Julian already pumped in sand in from the Channel Reef Condominiums 2 years ago — prior to finalizing the purchase of the property — filled in one of the caves, raised the level of the beach by approximately 4 feet high and about 30' deep towards the water which has created a shoaling problem that did not exist during the 17 years prior to this new beach addition and completely covered the sand dollar population — which is why they are now so concerned with maintaining the sand dollars from further damage ... had this not been reported and stopped who knows how large that beach would now be. Thank you for your time and attention. I addressed the dock situation as an addition at the Planning meeting last week and covered other issues in the attached speech made at the Harbor Resources meeting last month. It would be worth your time to hear the reasons that Mr. Laurenz stated for denial of the marina. 3$ Approval of the condominium project has not been granted and will not go to the City until May or June of this year. As no decision has been made on the number of units to be built — no decisions should be made regarding the number of boat slips until that time. Nothing in the City rules legislates that slips must match the number of units. The existing dock replacement plan is actually capable of berthing at least 3 (three) additional boats for a total of 12 — versus the 9 as stated by the applicant. The space is clearly visible on the plans. The proposed dock would be built to the pierhead line (yellow) encroaching the two outside 60' yachts or one 1 00' yacht into Public right of way traffic lanes by at least 25 ' to 30 `. This is unacceptable. How can private use be allowed to take public right of way. The proposed dock would be built deeper into public traffic lanes than any other dock of the east side of Newport Harbor at this location which would upset the flow of boat traffic, would inhibit the passage of all small boats, kayaks and paddleboards inside of the existing marker bouy and would set a precedent for the future development of the Harbor. Access to the cove and historically significant marine outcroppings would be severely restricted, if not completely eliminated from public enjoyment. This cove has been accessible to the public from the water dating back to the existence of Newport Beach. The applicant originally asked us to allow our docks to be joined to privatize the cove — we are totally against this idea. Historically this side of Newport Harbor and the existing docks near the entrance of the Harbor sustain massive damage due to the the storm surge each winter and spring. Additionally the architect and applicant have engineered their proposed dock without consideration of the two existing docks on either side and the possibility that those owners might want to dock something larger than 17'. Also, the photos of the 100' yacht have (9" k i been minimized in terms appearance and scale in relationship to the dock and the view of the outcroppings. A 1 00' yacht will eliminate any view from the water and the opposite side of the bay. True scale should be required at each presentation. I would ask that the applicant be required to float marker bouys in the exact location of his proposed marina for a minimum of 1 month during the summer so that the public would be made aware of the enormous size of the structure and the potential taking of public waters for private use (sounds illegal). 6%357 IVI NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 roval and the ingress /egress access easement. Mr. Le , lanning Director, noted the applicant has asked for a 90 day continuance a at staff is in agreement. Commissioner Hawkins ad how many times this item had been continued and was answered this is th th day of the first continuance. He then noted his concern that the applicant nee know this item will be heard on August 13, 2009 as recommended by staff is matter if nothing else, no other continuance. Motion was made by Commissioner McDanl nd seconded by Commissioner Eaton to continue this item to August 13, 2 Note: Actual hearing date is August 20, 2009. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Peotter, McDaniel and Toerge Noes: None Absent: Hawkins Excused: Hill ren *a* SUBJECT: AERIE Condominiums (PA2005 -198) ITEM NO. 3 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place in Corona del PA2006 -196 Mar at the corner of the intersection of Ocean Blvd. & Carnation Ave. The demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and a single-family Continue to home and the construction of a 6- level, 8 -unit multiple - family residential 06/04/2009 condominium complex with subterranean parking on a 1.4 acre site located bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Designations of small portion of the site (584 square feet) would be changed to be consistent with the larger portion of the site (from two- family residential to multi-family residential). The application includes a tentative tract map for the creation o eight (8) condominium units for individual sale. The Modification Permit application requests the encroachment of subterranean portions of the building within the front and side yard setbacks and above grade encroachments o portions of the proposed building, including protective guardrails into the front and side yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Permit application relates to replacement of demolished apartments occupied by low OF moderate income households. No units meeting these criteria are known to exist, and therefore, no replacement of affordable housing units is required. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) (SCH #2007021054) has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application. The DEIR concludes that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment on Air Quality, Land Use, Noise, Traffic/Circulation, Aesthetics, Drainage and Hydrology, Public Health and Safety, Cultural Resources, Soil and Geology, and Biological Resources. fllr Page 2 of 14 7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 Principal Planner, James Campbell, gave an overview of the staff report. Chairman Peotter asked about the floating dock structure. Mr. Campbell answered the proposed dock replacement has not changed since the last time the Planning Commission looked at this application. This item was reviewed and considered in the environmental analysis for the prior recommendation of the Commission. Commissioner Hawkins asked about the amendments and changes to the Local Coastal Plan regulations during appendices of this application. Mr. Campbell detailed the policies related to allowable development on bluff faces in Corona del Mar and the amendments. Brion Jeannette, architect representing the applicant, gave a history of the issues noted by the City Council and a presentation of view simulations of the following project aspects: ➢Reduction in the project; ➢Added /expanded view corridors, upgrade catch basin, removal of existing power poles, protection of sand dollars habitat; ➢Views from the bay, on the water, from the Peninsula and from Ocean Boulevard.; ➢Biological resources; ➢Construction Management Plan; ➢Construction Schedule; ➢Excavation Program; ➢Stages of construction traffic, off -site parking, haul route; ➢Green building qualities; ➢Soils/Geology; ➢Air quality issues; ➢Noise eliminations tools and levels; ➢Stability of the bluff face; ➢Project floor and elevations; ➢Dock access and emergency exit at basement; ➢Landscape enhancement; Mr. Jeannette then added that there are no prohibitions of grading once you come to the established line of development. Behind that is the building zone. New buildings are multi -story in the community and this architecture represents part of this diversity. He recapped the benefits and highlights of the proposed project. At Commission inquiry, he added: ➢ The project does not exceed the height limit at any point. ➢ Undergrounding the utilities may average $11,000 to $20,000 each, depending on what upgrades need to take place. Eaton noted his interest in Alternative A Page 3 of 14 tD`0 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 Mr. Jeannette answered the applicant is willing to discuss this and then presented and discussed a slide presentation on the alternative as requested by the Commission. Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern of the bluff integrity and the use of caissons versus retaining walls. Mr. Jeannette, referencing an exhibit, noted that the caissons are better further up than retaining walls further back and represent a similar strength: The further away from the bluff is better. Commissioner Toerge noted his concern of the dock limited by the pierhead line as opposed to the bulkhead line. Mr. Jeannette answered people have the ability to build to the pierhead line as seen in many areas in the bay and these particular pier head lines and bulkhead lines have been there since the 1930's. Public comment was opened. The following people spoke in support of the project for similarly stated reasons: Michelle Brown, local real estate agent and neighbor to the project, - stated this will be a positive influence to the entrance to Newport Harbor; current project is an eyesore; this is the perfect product for residents that want to move up and obtain a beautiful home with dock space; and this will also be a positive impact on the tax base for the City. Robert Artura — has viewed the plans of the project; meets all design qualities he would look for in a house today; if these were individual lots in that community, you would have 5 -7 years of construction and in this case you have one project that will be over a period of 3 years. Brian Hoyle — architectural diversity represents the uniqueness of the City; this project is an improvement to what is there now. Bud Razner — love the architecture; improve the view corridor; remove power poles; improve street drainage; this is a smaller project then when first proposed and less dense than properties around it. Kent Moore, as noted above. Bill McCaffrey, as noted above. Scott Birini stated this needs to be determined and the project needs to move along. The following people spoke in opposition of the project for similarly stated Page 4 of 14 (0`7)v NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 reasons: Jinx Hansen — spoke on behalf of Marilyn Beck and read her letter into the record that challenged project encroachments and predominant line of development. Ellen Counts — questioned the reference on the agenda that this project may have a "significant effect" on the environment. Tony Delap — asked about a detailed picture of the project and asked why there wasn't a scale model of the area to detail the impact on the corner of Ocean and Carnation. Lisa Valejo — concerned with flooding; EIR is inadequate; EQAC does not agree about the loss of scenic and visual qualities of the rock formation of the bluffs; Harbor Commission said they would not give a permit for a yacht to be on a 100 -foot dock outside interfering with navigation; goes against the Coastal Act that talks about preserving the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone; this is a beach community and if this is approved, it will set up a precedent for bluff development; downsize this project to be in scale with what is allowed in the General Plan Policy. Kathleen McIntosh — project is inconsistent with the CLUP; the marina was denied by the Harbor Commission; the City will be financially responsible for any bluff failures; the docks do not go beyond the bulkhead line because there is tremendous damage done to them every year in that area due to the winter and spring storm surfs. Jennifer Friend, attorney of the Coast Law Group, represents the residents for responsible development. EQAC has submitted a detailed report in opposition to the draft EIR for this project and referenced previous correspondence. The coastal bluff itself is a national and natural resource that requires and demands protection. The argument of the manufactured fagade should not be below the 50.7 PLOD. The alternative being considered regarding underground utilities and enlarging the catch basin etc. is not sufficient to support an overriding consideration to pass or certify this EIR. Robert Ganiere — concerned with truck traffic and safety of pedestrians; this project is enormous and is on a small piece of land. Public comment was closed. Commissioner McDaniel asked about the significant effect issue brought up by one of the speakers. Mr. Campbell answered that on the agenda, the description for this item discusses an EIR had been prepared and has potential impacts on a variety of issues. There is one significant and unavoidable impact and that is construction noise, all other impacts based on analysis are less than Page 5 of 14 p� NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 Commissioner Hawkins asked about the Harbor Commission action as it seems to be omitted from the staff report, although the resolution and conditions have a reference to the docks. Who is acting on the docks and how does that work? Mr. Campbell referenced Page 18 in the staff report where it provides the Harbor Commission discussion on the project on April 8t'. The decision - maker for the docks is the Harbor Resources Manager, Chris Miller. His opinion is that the docks do not pose a threat or safety issue nor impinge on the safe navigation of the channel. He proposed a condition on the width of the boat tied up channel side be limited to 24 feet. The design of the docks will be reviewed by Coastal Commission, Harbor Commission, and ultimately the Building Department. Commissioner Hawkins, referencing Condition 17, does not have a length or width restriction. Condition 109 refers to the wave action only. He asked if the Commission could strike the docks for whatever reason? Mr. Campbell answered, the docks as a discreet action for the Commission this evening for approval or denial, is not before you. It is the evaluation of the docks and environmental review record in the EIR. You could take that condition out and would lead you to finding the EIR is deficient in some way. It is staffs belief that it is consistent with applicable regulations and policies, and the mitigation to the marine environment is adequate. Tim Paone, attorney representing the applicant, noted: ➢ EQAC did not vote on this project, they provided comments and questions presented as comments on the EIR and were answered in the response to comments. The 61,000 square feet is the total building area including the parking structure and is not the same as a 56,000- square -foot residence. The 8 units are approximately 3,800 square feet each in terms of the living space. ➢ There is no development to the coastal bluff face below the 50.7 line, and that is how it is interpreted and uniformly applied. Mr. Brion Jeannette commented on questions or concerns raised during public comment: ➢ Approximate cost of power poles and repair of streets as well as carrying the power to the residences would have to be brought in and meter set and could end up being a $60,000 item to reduce the power poles to an underground system. ➢ The catch basin cost is estimated at approximately $35,000 range. ➢ Concerning the pool behind the predominant line of existing development, you are able to do them as well as garages or structures at any elevation. It is when you qo beyond that there are restrictions. Page 6 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 Emergency exit is a requirement for that level and also serves as access for the residents to get to the beach. Both functions have to happen together. Commissioner Unsworth, referring to Page 15 of the Construction Management Plan (CMP) reference to noise control considerations, and draft resolution Conditions 98 through 104 for the project, seem to be ending up as the responsibility of the people at the job site. He asked that the proposed conditions be inserted into the actual Construction Management Plan. Mr. Jeannette answered the CMP is part of the project as well as conditions of approval. We can marry these together. Mr. Campbell noted at the plan check phase, all the conditions are bluelined into the plan set so the contractors all have that. It would include conditions from Coastal Commission. Commissioner Hawkins asked about other project benefits if this was built. Mr. Jeannette answered the whole project encompasses an energy source that will feed the grid; protection and cleaning the quality of water coming within the area of the neighborhood through the filtering system. The bluff face is being protected forever and we can protect the eel grass situation; the sand dollar habitat will be protected; the building is lower than the required height limits; and, the project has greater setbacks than others in the area. It meets the quality of the diversity of the home designs in the area. There are two view enhancements, one of which does not exist today. Commissioner Eaton suggested continuing this item for two weeks in order to look at the response to comments that were delivered last night. The public is entitled to have the Construction Management Plan put on the EIR but none of the appendices are on the web. He asked for copies of the Harbor Commission minutes as well as any documentation from the Harbor Resource Manager. The Alternative A multiple family units is identified as the superior alternative. The ultimate decision will be made by the Council. However, the Commission should have the ability to recommend to the Council that Alternative A should be considered. Documentation should be given on the protocol and if Alternative A is within the confines of the EIR. He asked that there be a side by side comparison of the proposed project and that Alternative A. It appears there would be less excavation and less concrete, and would result in a shorter duration of noise as well as less truck trips. Commissioner McDaniel noted he is trying to protect that bluff face and less construction could be very valuable. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Eaton to continue this matter to June 4, 2009, Commissioner Toerge noted his rationale of his past votes on this item. Page 7 of 14 I_ VI ' t NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, McDaniel and Toerge Noes: Peotter Excused: Hill ren SUBJECT: Newport Healthcare Center, LLC (PA2009 -017) ITEM NO.4 500 -540 Superior Avenue PA2009 -017 An eal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny Modification Permit No. Appeal was 2009- 4, which would have allowed multi-tenant directory, directional, and kiosk upheld signs to xceed the maximum sign area and height limitations of an existing comprehe ive sign program (CS2008 -010). Project Manag , Patrick Alford, gave an overview of the staff report. Public comment w opened. Bill Englund, project d 'gner representing Hoag, noted they are asking for: ➢ Approval of dire " nal signs the show where the various buildings are on site and where a parking structures; ➢ There are three buil gs on site and two parking structures that have no frontage on Superio so access is through an internal drive; ➢ We are not advertising sinesses or services on these directional signs; ➢ Identification signs are in fro of four entrances on the three buildings and contain the address and li ing of the service that is through that entrance; ➢ Two information kiosks at the exiti areas of both parking structures and will contain a campus map and a o an area map to assist; ➢ He referred to the summary sheet th showed the particular signs involved in the appeal and passed colored rendition to the Commission for their review; There are four tenant signs located at the ront entrance of each building; At Commission inquiry, he stated part of the request is fo higher signs that are located behind parked cars. The signs need to be ible to people coming on site and in order to get temporary signs when the ility opened, the temporary signs were included in the Comprehensive Si Program. When we got the approval for the Comprehensive Sign Progra we then filed a request for a modification. Commissioner Hawkins stated this was a two -step process because you ad to get the temporary signs first. Mr. England noted at Commission inquiry: ➢ Want to raise the height of the four directional signs throughout the sites; These signs are all inboard to the campus and are not out on the public street; they are seen when you come inside the campus; ➢ These signs will be tied to the operating hours and so the internal Page 8 of 14 Attachment #7 Planning Commission record from June 4, 2009 Staff report Late correspondence Excerpt of meeting minutes -7,I THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Intentionally Blank �.z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILE Opy PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 4, 2009 Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: AERIE (PA 2005 -196) 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue & 101 Bayside Place • General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006 • Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002 • Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009 • Tract Map No. NT2005 -004 (TT16882) • Modification Permit No. MD2005 -087 • Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2005 -002 • Environmental Impact Report No. ER200 -002 APPLICANT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Richard Julian, President PLANNER: James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644 -3210 i cam pbelll a)-city. newport- beach.ca.us DISCUSSION This item was continued from the May 21, 2009, Planning Commission meeting. After taking public testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and the project in general, the Commission discussed the project and requested the following: 1. Harbor Commission report and recommendation related to the proposed docks. 2. Posting of the Construction Management Plan on the internet. 3. Proposed project and Alternative A side -by -side comparison. 4. Draft resolution for recommendation of Alternative A. 5. List of necessary changes to the DEIR noted in the Responses to Comments or staff report. As noted in the prior staff report, the Harbor Commission considered the proposed AERIE dock structure on April 8, 2009. The Harbor Resources Division staff report and minutes of the April 8, 2009, meeting are attached (Exhibits #1 & #2). The appendix including the Construction Management Plan was posted to the internet on May 26, 2009, and can be found at the following page: http://www.city.newport- beach.ca.us /PLN /Aerie Project/Aerie EIR.asp. Commissioner Eaton requested an item -by -item comparison of the proposed project and Alternative A. Staff has prepared a table comparing various aspects of the project and Alternative A (Exhibit #3). The applicant has prepared a table (Exhibit #4) which �.41 AERIE (PA 2005 -196) June 4, 2009 Page 2 of 3 provides additional details. Both tables contain updated information on Alternative A. The applicant's estimates of the floor area, grading quantity, number of dump trucks and days of excavation used by staff and the City's consultant to prepare the analysis of Alternative A in the DEIR contained several inadvertent errors. The correct information is contained in Table 1. Table 1 Item Alternative A Information in DEIR Alternative A Corrected information Difference Gross floor area 49,362 s . ft. 50,431 s . ft. +1,069 s . ft. Excavation Quantity 17,436 cu. yds. 18,578 cu. yds. +1,142 cu. yds. Number of dump trucks 1,454 trucks 1,549 trucks +95 trucks Excavation Duration 55 days 58 days +3 days The corrected increased values in Table 1 remain below the levels associated with the proposed project, which were evaluated in the DEIR. The corrected information provided in Table 1 does not represent any new impact or increase in the severity of an impact that was not identified or evaluated in the DEIR. Therefore, the inclusion of the corrected information in the DEIR will not require recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA (CCR §15088.5). In response to the Commission's request, staff has prepared a draft resolution recommending approval of Alternative A (Exhibit #5). It should be noted that the DEIR adequately evaluates the identified alternatives to the proposed project sh ould the Commission choose to recommend one of them. If the Commission identifies a different alternative than one evaluated in the DEIR, additional environmental analysis may be necessary. Staff has revised the previous draft resolution that recommends approval of the proposed project (Exhibit #6). The changes include a new recital to reference prior public hearings regarding the project and several refinements to conditions of approval. The changes are highlighted. Staff and the City's environmental consultant have prepared an "errata" or list of necessary changes to the DEIR as identified in the Responses to Comments and staff reports (Exhibit# 7). Lastly, staff and the consultant have prepared a draft of the findings for certification of the DEIR and a draft Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit #8). Staff has received additional correspondence, which is attached (Exhibit #9). T q AERIE (PA 2005 -196) June 4, 2009 Page 3 of 3 RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Consider the draft DEIR, comments and responses to comments, draft findings for certification of the DEIR, and draft Statement of Overriding Considerations; and 3) Adopt one of the attached draft resolutions recommending City Council certification of the DEIR, adoption of Statement of Overriding Considerations and approval of the project (Exhibit #5 or #6). ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS The Planning Commission may choose to: Deny the project based upon its impacts to the environment or finding that it is not consistent with applicable General Plan or Coastal Land Use Plan policy. 2. Recommended one of the other alternatives evaluated in the DEIR to the City Council if the Commission believes a further reduction in short-term, project - related impacts is warranted. Prepared by: James Ciffipbeff Principal Planner Submitted by: // _ ME .. E.D EXHIBITS (in the order they are referenced within the report) 1. Harbor Commission report dated April 8, 2009 2. Harbor Commission minutes from April 8, 2009 3. Project/ "Alternative A" comparison table prepared by staff 4. Project/ "Alternative A" comparison table prepared by the applicant . �erruid+era4ierrs 9. Additional correspondence received F:\ Users \PLN\ Shared \PA's \PAS- 2005 \PA2005 - 196 \07 -PC 6 -04- 09 \AERIE_PC_rpt_06 -04- 09.docx I.r THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Intentionally blank -706 0 Exhibit No. 1 Harbor Commission report Dated April 8, 2009 17.1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 2 April 8, 2009 TO: HARBOR COMMISSION FROM: Harbor Resources Division Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager (949) 644 -3043, cmiller @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Aerie Dock Project at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue ISSUE Should the Aerie project applicants at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue be permitted to replace the existing double U- shaped float with a dock system capable of berthing 8 vessels for residents and 1 guest side -tie? A Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2007021054) has been prepared and is available for public comment and review. The 45-day public review period ends on May 4, 2009 and the Draft EIR and comments received will be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council who will make a final determination on the adequacy of the Draft EIR prior to taking action on the proposed dock system. ACTION The Harbor Commission is requested to: Provide comments on the environmental aspects of the dock system, as well as its overall design. Harbor Resources will forward this input to the Planning Commission and the City Council who will review the entire project as a whole. DISCUSSION History On March 12, 2008, staff sought the Harbor Commission's advice on the proposed Aerie dock layout in order to help facilitate the environmental review that would follow. On June 19, 2008, the Planning Commission recommended that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (environmental review) be approved. On July 22, 2008, the City Council heard nearly three hours of testimony and postponed their decision on the Mitigated Negative Declaration until their September 9, 2008 meeting. Relevant to the Harbor Commission's purview, much public discussion focused on the view from the water up to the rocky bluffs, and how the vessels might impact this scenic view. Therefore, staff was tasked with investigating this potential view issue. In addition, the project opponents asked that the Mitigated Negative Declaration be denied and that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared. Minutes from the July 22, 2008 Council meeting may be viewed on the City's website via the Council Agenda for August 12, 2008. In the end, the applicant chose to prepare a full EIR which is publicly available either online at: hftp:/Awm.citV.newport-beach.ca.us/PLN/proiects/pro'ects.htm or at the following locations: 0?.S Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (959) 644 -3200 Project Location and Existing Dock System Aerie Dock Project April 8, 1009 Page 2 Central Library 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92625 (949) 717 -3800 The Aerie project at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue is located near the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard near the harbor entrance channel. See Exhibit 1. As indicated, the Bulkhead, Pierhead and Project Lines extend beyond the nearby adjacent docks into the channel. The reason for this unusual Harbor Line configuration is because the Army Corps of Engineers anticipated the bay to be filled to those lines when they were established in 1936. As the years progressed, this never materialized. The existing floating docks (timber frame, concrete pontoons, and timber deck) are in very poor condition and require complete replacement. These docks can accommodate four (4) small vessels at about 25' to 30' in length. See E xhibit 2. In June 2007, Harbor Resources requested the applicant to voluntarily demolish the existing dock system because of its hazardous condition. The applicant expressed concern that such an action could jeopardize his ability to construct a replacement dock system; therefore, the deteriorated docks still remain. Proposed Dock Layout Eight (8) replacement slips and one (1) guest side tie dock are requested for the eight (8) new residential units proposed. The new dock layout is located between the existing Pierhead Line and the natural rock outcroppings, with special attention to the existing eelgrass bed on the southern side of the property. The new docks will be composed of timber supported by rotationally molded plastic pontoons which require less draft (bottom clearance) than concrete floats, allowing the dock system to be located as close to the rock outcropping as possible. This layout will accommodate boats up to 100 -feet in length. See Exhibit 3 and 4. The current six (6) steel dock guide piles that support the existing docks will be replaced with 19 new guide piles supporting the new dock system. Of these 19 piles, nine (9) will be larger diameter piles (approx. 2 -foot diameter) to support the long, outside, bayward -most side -tie float. All guide piles will be pre- stressed concrete piles set in pre - drilled holes. The wave attenuator, as previously discussed in earlier revisions, has been eliminated from the project design. The existing 20 -foot long gangway will be replaced by a 44 -foot gangway. The pile- supported pier walkway between the existing gangway platform and the existing concrete pad will be repaired / replaced with a structure in -like -kind (timber- framing system, a 2x timber deck, and timber railings all around). The existing concrete piles supporting the walkway will be repaired in the form of concrete repairs. The gangway platform construction will include the repair and replacement of four (4) steel piles, timber framing with metal connectors, and a 2x timber deck with railings all around. The existing concrete pad, concrete steps, and safety railings will be repaired and patched as necessary. ?e-) M. Aerie Dock Project April 8, 2009 Page 3 As discussed at the March 2008 Harbor Commission meeting, the project engineer (URS Cash and Associates) did evaluate several alternative dock designs before finalizing the proposal as described in this report. One of the Harbor Commission's concerns at the March 12, 2008 meeting was the possibility of the new dock system encroaching upon the main harbor entrance channel. The project engineer has attempted to illustrate that there are ten "lanes" in the entrance channel (defined as 50' wide lanes) at the project location. As one moves further inside the harbor, these ten lanes decrease to nine lanes as a result of the channel marker near Carnation Cove and not as a result of the proposed docks. See Exhibit 5. Eelgrass is also abundant near the project's edge, particularly near the southern end. See Exhibit 6. As is typical of all dock construction projects, the applicant will submit an eelgrass survey as part of the application process to the federal and state agencies for review. Any impacts will mitigated. Harbor Commission's Previous Concerns At the March 28, 2008 Harbor Commission meeting, several concerns were discussed. The applicant's responses to those concerns are: Storm Wave Conditions Under extreme conditions, up to 2.5 ft. waves could be experienced at the project site (Noble Consultants, Inc. report, May 9, 2006), impacting 30 to 35 boats in Newport Harbor, including those proposed at the Aerie project. This would be an uncommon event occurring under storm conditions from the South to South East. Based on historical accounts, some boat owners have elected to remain in their existing slips during these extreme events, while others have moved their vessels to City of Newport Beach - managed mooring cans within Newport Harbor. The City has between 80 to 100 mooring cans available to the public at any given time, and has traditionally made these available to boaters on a first come, first served basis. It is understood from the Harbor Resources Department that this practice will remain in place. The Aerie project will utilize a wood - framed system for strength and flexibility which will be beneficial during extreme wave conditions. The dock design shall be based on the extreme wave conditions identified in the coastal engineering study (Noble Consultants, Inc. 2008). A greater concern is the interaction between a berthed boat and the dock system, since the two will move at different cycles from one another thereby causing large line forces and potential physical impacts. During these infrequent severe conditions, boat owners from the Aerie project, like other boat owners in Newport Harbor, will likely request mooring cans from the City. Toward that end, Mitigation Measure 4.9-2a requires that "during periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave - induced motions, boats should be sheltered at mooring can locations that are available inside Newport Harbor to avoid dam age." Number of Slips Provided for Project The Aerie docks will consist of eight boat slips for the eight Aerie residences, with a headwalk extension allowing for the potential side -tie of up to a 30 foot boat for guest 1.11) ra Aerie Dock Project April 8, 2009 Page 4 use (visiting vessels). This additional guest dock extension is feasible, since the water depth, eelgrass adjacency and navigation to the adjoining slips is not impacted by the installation of such a dock. This slip would be used strictly for visiting boats and will not be rented or leased. Eelgrass and Biological Impacts The eelgrass impact and location of the boat docks has been taken into account with the dock location being previously shifted to mitigate the eelgrass environment. The Harbor Resources Department has reviewed this issue in the past, made recommendations to the Applicant, and the dock design has been revised accordingly. The potential impacts to the eelgrass and biological habitats have been studied by Mr. Rick Ware of Coastal Resources Management (May 12, 2008). The assessment provides for mitigation measures before, during and after construction to ensure protection of habitat that exists on site_ With incorporation of these mitigation measures, the project's EIR concluded that potential impacts to eelgrass and other marine species located within the Carnation Cove will be reduced to a less than signif icant level. Small boat access to Private Beach and along the Harbor's edge Access by small and human - powered boating craft along the harbor line is currently restricted by existing docks on the Aerie project site. Although the proposed replacement docks would project further toward the Main Channel than the existing docks, the fundamental navigation conditions for small and human - powered boating craft will not undergo a meaningful change as a result of the project. Public access to the mean high tide line of the small cove adjacent to the Aerie docks will not be restricted by the project. Kayakers and human - powered watercraft have, and will be able to continue to, access this cove area. Impacts to natural environment d uring construction; le, rock outcropping The project site's waterfront area is characterized by various rock outcroppings that form a small cove beach. These exposed outcroppings will be protected during the installation of the Aerie docks. To this end, the applicant will not drive pilings into the submerged bedrock, as i s typical for these installations. Instead, holes will be drilled into the subgrade (mostly rock strata) and then piles will be installed into those drilled holes. This type of construction limits both noise and vibration. Potential Shoaling The Noble Consultants Inc. Report of May 6, 2008, addressed potential shoaling conditions. This report was based on recent observations as well as a review of historical sediment movements, storm conditions, channel orientation, maintenance dredging and storm drainage. Noble Consultants concluded that "with a small percent (approximately 6 percent) of the along - channel blockage areas resulting from the proposed new dock facility, the potential impact to this unique sediment movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant, although localized sand deposit resulting from the presence of the proposed guide piles within the sand - moving path may occur. In addition, the project is located in the down -drift direction of the neighboring Channel -1011 IN Aerie Dock Project April 8, 1009 Page S Reef, the project's potential impact on sedimentation at the up -drift location such as Channel Reef is inconsequential." , Future Dredging Based on the Noble Consultants Report, and sedimentation, is considered to be change the characteristics of these pros within the 201 -207 Carnation Cove projf sand replenishment. The China Cove I with dredging efforts and sand repleni; balanced "cut and fill" condition. Special Conditions the impact of this project, as it relates to scour minimal and inconsequential and should not esses from historical experience. The beach ct has historically scoured over time, requiring iroperty to the south has traditionally shoaled, hment of these two facilities coinciding to a Staff has proposed several Special Conditions which the Harbor Commission may evaluate and advise modifying as appropriate. Aside from the routine conditions, these unique Special Conditions are: In accordance with Municipal Code 10.08.030 A. the project applicant shall obtain the proper permits for equipment and materials storage. "Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall use any public street, sidewalk, alley or parkway or other public property for the purpose of storing or displaying any equipment, materials or merchandise, or any other commercial purpose. B. Public streets, sidewalks, alleys, or parkways may be used for the purpose of selling, storing, or displaying any equipment, material, merchandise or for other commercial purposes in the following cases:.. For the temporary storage of construction equipment or material provided a permit is issued pursuant to Chapter 12.62 of this Code and the storage is consistent with provisions of the Uniform Building Code." 2. The contractor shall post and update a two week schedule of construction activities at a location(s) easily accessible to local residents. 3. In accordance with Municipal Code 10.28.040 the following noise regulations apply: "A. Weekdays and Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of seven a.m. and six -thirty p.m., nor on any Saturday except between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. B. Sundays and Holidays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any federal holiday." 4. The project shall be implemented in conformance with the Local Coastal Program - Coastal Land Use Plan. 4?ra Aerie Dock Projec7 April 8, 2009 Page 6 5. Eelgrass beds have been found adjacent to the project area and shall be protected per the "Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy" prepared and managed by NOAH/ National Marine Fisheries Service. 6. During construction, disturbance of the adjacent beach shall be minimized. Construction materials and equipment shall not be placed on the beach. The beach's sand dollar habitat shall be protected during construction. The project applicant shall submit a Beach Protection Plan to the Harbor Resources Manager for approval prior to start of construction. 7. The project applicant and its successors are notified that even though the proposed dock system replaces an existing dock system, the new docks will be constructed in the Entrance Channel to Newport Bay which is subject to surge and swell activity which may cause damage to the dock system and vessels berthed therein. It is the responsibility of the project applicant and its successors to maintain and operate the dock system to minimize damage to the dock system and vessels. The dock system shall be subject to nuisance abatement per Title 17 of the Municipal Code, if in the opinion of the Harbor Resources Manager, it presents an endangerment to other facilities or vessels in the harbor. 8. The project applicant must remove the existing dock system including the gangway and pier within 90 days of receiving all final regulatory permits allowing the construction of the replacement dock system. 9. The vessels that will be side -tied to the outside, bayward -most float shall not extend into the harbor more than 24' feet from the edge of this outside, bayward -most float. 10. The guest side -tie on the north end of the dock system shall only be available for vessels less than or equal to 30 feet in length. This slip shall be used for guest berthing only and will not be used for any permanent, long term vessel storage, and will not be rented or leased. 11. The number of boat slips approved in the final design must be the same as the number of dwelling units approved by the City Council in the final project approval. PUBLIC NOTICE This meeting has been publicly noticed via a mailer (to the residents and occupants within a 310' radius of the project) and jobsite posting on March 23, 2009 and also posted on the City's website on April 3, 2009. See Exhibit 7. Written comments received as of April 3, 2009 are attached. See Exhibit 8. This agenda item has been noticed according to the Ralph M Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the public meetings at which the Harbor Commission considers the item). It was also posted on the City's website. 17.112i Aerie Dock Project April 8, 2009 Page 7 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An EIR (SCH# 2007021054) has been prepared for the entire project which includes both landside and harbor improvements. The Planning Commission will consider the entire project and will forward their recommendation to the City Council who will make a final determination as to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. After this point, Harbor Resources staff may issue an Approval in Concept with Special Conditions for the dock portion of the project, assuming the EIR has been approved. If the final review process suggests substantial changes to the dock design, then staff may return to the Harbor Commission for review in the future. Prepared by: Chris Miller Harbor Resources M anager Attachments: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Vicinity Map Existing Dock Layout Proposed Dock Layout Proposed Dock Layout with Dimensions Proposed Dock Layout with Channel Lanes Vicinity Map with Eelgrass Public Notice Public Comments as of April 3, 2009 7,14 Aerie Dock Project April 8, 1009 Page 8 Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map -H Aerie Dock Project April 8, 2009 Page 9 Exhibit 2 Existing Dock Layout 1, 6b 1--Op) Exhibit 3 Proposed Dock Layout a Aerie Dock Project April 8, 2009 Page 10 -7,1-7 14 0 -7,1-7 14 Exhibit 4 Proposed Dock Layout with Dimensions 0 N A D W 0 b � 3 S C) 3 o a� 0 3 Q O r+ W` Aerie Dock Project April 8, 2009 Page II R 1.►V V-1 Aerie Dock Project April 8, 2009 Page 12 Exhibit 5 Proposed Dock Layout with Channel Lanes -?,I9 E1 Aerie Dock Project April 8, 2009 Page 13 Exhibit 6 Vicinity Map with Eelgrass k! Aerie Dock Project April 8, 1009 Page 14 Exhibit 7 Public Notice CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR RESOURCES PUBLIC NOTICE 201 - 207 Carnation Avenue Dock Replacement Project The project applicant at 201 — 207 Carnation Avenue is proposing a project which includes replacement of an existing two slip dock system capable of berthing four vessels, with a system capable of berthing up to nine vessels. In addition, the upland property will be rebuilt with 8 condominiums. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the entire project has been prepared and is available either online at: htto:/twww.citv.newoort- beach .ca.us /PLN /oroiects/oroiects. him or at the following locations: Planning Department Central Library 3300 Newport Boulevard 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, CA 926584915 Newport Beach, CA 92625 (959) 6443200 (949) 717.3800 During the EIR public review period, the Harbor Commission is requested to evaluate the DEIR and advise the Cilys Harbor Resources Division on the Approval in Concept for the dock replacement portion of the project only. The public is invited to provide comments by attending this meeting and /or emailing to the address below. The meeting will be held on: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 3300 Newport Boulevard The Harbor Commission agenda and staff report will be available online by April 3, 2009, at: http: /Avww.citv.newport-beach ca us/hbr /HarborCommissionnew.html The Planning Commission will be conducting a noticed public hearing on the DEIR for the entire project in May or June of 2009. Notice of said hearing will be separately provided in accordance with applicable law when the hearing dates are known. Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager cmille clN.newport-beach ca us 829 Harbor Island Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 PH: (949) 644 -3034 FX: (949) 723 -0589 • Website: w v¢ ewport- beach.ca.us /HBR/ 7 -Z1 0 Aerie Dock Project April 8, 2009 Page 15 Public Outreach 310' Radius from Project v? Exhibit 8 Public Comments as of April 3, 2009 August 4, 2008 Dear Mr. Miller; Aerie Dock Project April 8, 2009 Page 16 I hope the members of the Harbor Commission are not seriously considering a dock configuration in its present size and design at this location of Carnation Cove. I live above the Cove to the east, and have resided here for 18 years and in this area most of my,life. I am going to attempt to bring to light the many factors why I feel the existing dock should be rebuilt in its present location, with possibly one more alongside, which are presented in the following comments. A) An obsolete 78 -year old law enacted in 1930 when the Pierhead line was established for this area should not apply today with 13,000 -plus yachts in this harbor. B) This dock configuration would allow two 60' yachts to be docked on the other side of this Pierhead line projecting another 20' to 25' further into the harbor. C) The dock should stay within the bulkhead line as the McIntosh dock is to the east and the Sprague dock is to the west. D) The present plan would project approximately 61' beyond the bulkhead line, with two 60' boats in their slips. (Note, all calculations are from the Harbor Commission Public Notice Plans.) E) When exiting the harbor, the channel narrows starting at the Sprague dock to the west and continues to the mouth of Newport Harbor. F) Carnation Cove is within this narrow area, and with this project plan projecting out into the harbor it will be a hindrance to navigation for boats entering a nd leaving the harbor. G) Another consideration should be the many sailboats, large and small, that use this point to come about - tacking within the harbor. Now let us consider the environmental impacts. 1) 1 am requesting a full Environmental Impact Report to be done on this project. 2) In a recent City Council meeting on the Aerie Project the city attorney called the rock formation running parallel to the dock project "A Natural Relic" and the MND report states that "Carnation Cove is an important Marine Relic Habitat that no longer exists in other areas of Newport Bay:" 3) Eight to nine boats, two -40', two -45', two -55' and two -60' boats, with an occasional guest vessel at dock #9 would almost completely cover the natural rock formation as it would be out of view to the Public and all boaters who enjoy the beauty of the harbor. -1.2> Aerie Dock Project April 8, 1009 Page 17 4) Directly in front of the cove is a favorite spot for rental boats from the Pavilion as well as other small boats fishing in the harbor. (They do catch fish here.) 5) The rock formation and cove is a habitat for heron, cranes, pelicans, seagulls and occasionally osprey, all which abound here. 6) There are only two natural rock formations surrounded by water in Newport Harbor, Carnation Cove and Pirates Cove just to the east. 7) Another consideration is disturbing the Eel Grass and marine habitat below the water. 8) The project would close off or potentially eliminate public access to the cove which is often frequented by kayakers, paddlers and small boats. Last of all is the 155' long, 8' wide concrete wave attenuator that projects into the harbor. 1) There is a history of sand build -up along the Channel Reef Seawall and docks that continues west to the McIntosh Dock. The attenuator wall would most probably create the same problem and could also affect vessel navigation with shallowing of the harbor depth. 2) It could also create wave bounce off the attenuator wall that would affect docks across the bay and farther into the harbor, in particular when dealing with a south swell, as the rock formation as it exists acts as a natural wave diffuser. If this all sounds negative, its because it is. This project is not in the best interest of the harbor, boaters or the public, and will negatively impact the community of Newport Beach. It will also affect our children and the future of all who enjoy the beauty and use of this harbor. I thank you for reading th is and am hopeful you will take this project quite seriously. Sincerely, Joe Vallejo 1,74 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Intentionally blank 1.25 M Exhibit No, 2 Harbor Commission minutes From April 8, 2009 -76X h06 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Intentionally blank 3G NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION MINUTES City Council Chambers April 8, 2009 CALL TO ORDER 6:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Chairman Duffield, Commissioners Seymour Beek, John Corrough, Tim Collins, Don Lawrenz, Karen Rhyne and Ralph Rodheim were in attendance. Staff: Lorrie Arcese, Chris Miller and Shannon Levin MINUTES: The minutes from the last meeting were approved. ACTION ITEM ACTION & APPEAL ITEMS ITEM #1 Subject: Genera! Harbor Commission Orientation - POSTPONED ITEM #2 Subject: Aerie Dock Project at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue Issue: Should the Aerie project applicants at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue be permitted to replace the existing double U- shaped float with a dock system capable of berthing 8 vessels for residents and 1 guest side -tie Discussion: Chris presented the staff report on the project. Randy Mason with URS spoke on the technical concerns. He said there are 10 boat "lanes" in that channel. The boats berthed at Aerie will be moved to moorings or other places during storm events with wave action of 2 feet or more. Bryan Jeannette spoke on the parking issues, saying they will have at least 15-23 additional parking spaces on -site, beyond what is required by the Code. Commissioner Lawrenz presented a PowerPoint presentation on the project, showing what he feels are issues with the project. The stone wave conditions were only studied for the last five years, ignoring large storms of 1969 and 1990's. These storms happened before that time and they did a lot of damage. A 100 ft vessel may not have a safe mooring site in the case of a large storm event. Storms will affect the movement of sand and affect the sand dollar population. There are a lot of sand and shoals in this area and this needs more study. Conditions need to be listed if sand studies show a problem, such as who is responsible when dredging comes up. The 24 foot extension will go into public waters and needs to have reflectors. This could start a building boom with all the other slips in this area. The pier is to be set lower than usual attracting the sea lions to rest upon. What about fire suppression, trash and sewage? ff Commissioner Beek said that the problem also is that the project will occupy space that is now open. He said that there are no lanes in the harbor and the example has no meaning. This is one of the narrowest points. We need to restrict the 24 foot overhang and can restrict the side tie. All residents don't have to have a slip. 19 new pilings will affect the sand movement. Commissioner Rhyne asked who will move the boats during storm events and wave action. Are there moorings available and what are the other options if they need to move? What happens between 1.5 to 2 feet? A 100 foot boat is too massive and who will monitor the overhang? • Commissioner Corrough said that this project is legally conforming and has not been kept under the radar. The EIR has not found any significant exceptions and 7 %0, 2m Public Comments: has documented recommended mitigations. The project has changed with previous requests. Every dock that sits out there now is in the same physical situation, subject to storm events, that this dock will be in if it is built. We need to set responsible improvements to the plans rather than just saying we are troubled by this project; give specific guidance and constructive recommendations. The proposed project has gone through multiple revisions. The unit to dock ratio is representative of the rest of the harbor. The Commission does want new docks in this harbor. Commissioner Collins said that we have given case by case exceptions for extensions, but in this case there is no basis to extend beyond the Pierhead line. Commissioner Rodheim said that the Bulkhead and Pierhead lines of the 1930's were made when the area was filled with sand and the City has not done its job in redrawing the lines. To follow those lines as they are currently is not wrong. The approval of all these large condo projects should not be happening and we may end up looking like Miami Beach. He does not support the project going out further than the neighboring docks. The surge tears up the boats and docks. He would like to have larger slips but not in this location. They stick out too far. We want the Planning Commission and City Council to see that the Harbor Commission will not support this project. There is no right of residents to have the right to have a pier. Chairman Duffield reminded everyone that storms go directly into our harbor as designed by the Army Corps. Putting in a jetty would be a solution to stop that action. There has been a lot of work put into the plan and we are not against new docks, but we are boaters who use the harbor, so there is knowledge. The City Council makes the ultimate decision, but we are boaters and can make recommendations. Storm events do happen, so we need a plan that will work Why not come to the Harbor Commission to ask for advice, we would like to work with the applicant. Perhaps restrict the time that boats may be dock there during a storm season? Kathleen McIntosh, 2495 Ocean Blvd., reminded everyone that the approval has not been granted yet. They could have up to 12 boats on the docks. Public access to the cove and marine outcropping would be restricted and maybe eliminated. Shoaling is a problem in that area. Sand comes from that area and is shoaling under the neighbors' dodos. This project doesn't consider the problem the 2 adjacent properties will have when they want to dock boats larger than 17 feet. She hopes Harbor Resources denies the request and requests that marker buoys be put out for at least a month showing the lines of the project so everyone concerned can see how far out into the channel it will go and what will be taken away from them. Joe and Lisa Vallejo, who are not on the water and don't have a dock, wanted to add their explanation as to why no one is out that far in the channel. 73 years ago they thought this area would be built up with sand and even Channel Reef would not be allowed to build now. Wants to declare 1936 Harbor Lines null. She cited Municipal Code 17.50 Rules for Interpretation and Harbor Development Permits which says the application shall be denied if it may interfere with the rights of other permittees and oceanfront property owners and the application does not conform to the policies and regulations of the certified Local Coastal Program. They feel that the scenic and the visual outcropping will be covered up, but the applicant said the boats will be coming and going and won't be a problem. How often does that happen when all boats come and go all that often? Thank you for your consideration and time, we ask that you do the best for Newport Harbor. Marilyn Beck, 303 Carnation Ave. This project has not been passed by the City. There are many people with significant concerns with project size. The General Plan requests that developers of this project take a conservative approach in their projects. We worked hard to have responsible development included in the plan .070Zg so we would have responsible development within the City. This is a super -sized project, not conservative. I wish this meeting was out at the site to show you how hard the wind blows and how destructive it can be. Boats have capsized and docks have broken up. • John Connelly, owns and resides at 401 Avocado Ave. and owns 2317 Bayside Drive, said if a 100 foot boat breaks free during wave action it will create significant damage to the boats and properties in the area. The extension will be a bump in the harbor that doesn't need to be there. No one receives prior notices of high wave occurrences so boats can be moved to safety. Owners could be out of town or unavailable to act. The boat parade could be impacted. This sets a precedent for everyone to build their docks out further into the harbor. • Bud Razner, 2500 Ocean Blvd., is a supporter of the project and he say's most people are. He was in the Harbor Patrol and knows the harbor. His work experience has taught him to look at all things, weigh all the sides and don't include personal feelings. Neighboring piers build to property lines so they may be impacted by Aerie. Accidents will always occur and liability should not be passed on to a new dock owner. Many people think they own the harbor. This project is a quality, responsible one and is a tax maker. The project provides a water element to clean the effluent that runs into the bay. The old structures need to be in place and need to look for reasons why it will work, not won't. Action: The Commission provided comments on the environmental aspects of the dock system, as well as its overall design. Commissioner Beek made an advisory motion, "While not opposed to the expansion of the existing dock and its area and capacity we believe the size and configuration of the proposed dock project would create significant negative impact on, navigation and recreational boating in the harbor". The motion carried with all ayes. Harbor Resources will forward this input to the Planning Commission and the City Council who will review the entire project as a whole. ITEM #3 Subject: Newport Bay Marina at 2300 Newport Blvd. — update Issue: The Harbor Commission heard an oral report on the status of the Newport Bay Marina located at 2300 Newport Boulevard. Discussion: The project was approved by Coastal Commission in February with special conditions. It has a lot of public access. The little channel is there because Pickle Weed grows there and need to be preserved. They hope to attract water related business to attract tourists. They don't have any commitments but will be consistent with the regulations. The buildings are protected from shipyard noise and disclosures are required. The guest slips are tight for the smaller boats but they will comply with the Fire Code. The commissioners felt it was a good, responsible plan. Action: Receive and file. ITEM #4 Subject: Harbor Projects and Funding Projections Issue: The City Council's Finance Subcommittee has requested an updated list of Harbor Commission approved projects and funding projections in order to plan for the future financial needs of the Harbor. The Harbor Commission reviewed the first draft at the March meeting and requested staff to return to the Commission with an updated draft for further review. Discussion: Chris was complimented on the new format for the report. Commission Lawrenz added that there needs to be a column for ongoing projects, such as Eelgrass. Public Comments: Mark Sites reminded everyone that fees will need to be raised to fund this. Funding sources need to be identified. We don't want to create any friction with the Army Corps as they already are giving us a hard time in approving dredging permits. He asked why we need to dredge in West Newport. x,30 Action: The motion was carried to advise staff to forward the attached document to the Finance Committee with suggested changes. SUB - COMMITTEE REPORTS: Mooring Subcommittee - Commissioner Duffield said that the boundaries are finalized and they are still working on the transferability issue, but almost complete. Chris said that the proposed CAD site may affect 20 moorings in area F. Commissioner Rodheim said that we need to go over the rules for rental of moorings that the Harbor Patrol follows. Marketing — A new guide document is being produced and will be presented to the Harbor Commission for comments. HAMP — The draft will be coming in May. HARBOR RESOURCES UPDATE — Chris gave an update on the harbor. Please refer to the following website: The update is posted at. httn:// www.city.newl3on- beach.ca.uslhbr (under Harbor Resources updates). PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUB - COMMITTEE REPORTS OR HARBOR RESOURCES UPDATE: Chuck South voiced a concern with the City's purchase of Lower Castaway, making it into a park. The City is losing facilities for equipment loading and unloading. Properties that have been for water related uses are being turned into condos or parks. Mark Sites said he supports what Chuck said and is also quite concerned. Commissioner Corrough advised that those concerned need to voice their concerns to the City Council, since they are the one that keep approving those projects. • Duffy will present the Wakeless Wonder at the next meeting. RECOMMENDED TOPICS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS: • Harbor Area Management Plan - Final • Update from Anchor Environmental conceming Confined Aquatic Disposal option for Lower Bay dredging • Harbor Resources and water quality — staffs outreach efforts • Evaluate fishing needs at the public piers • Harbor Fee Study DATE OF NEXT MEETING: May 13, 2009 City Council Chambers ADJOURNMENT 1.31 k9 Exhibit No. 3 Project/Alternative A Comparison table prepared by staff 1,'?Z 6 THIS PACE LEFT BLANK INTEWI NALLY Intentionally blank ?''�3 0 Proposed Aerie ProjectlAfternative A Comparison Table ' Total construction is not a sum of the days associated with all construction phases as there are overlapping tasks. Prepared hy�1Campbell 0512812009 1131 1101) IN Units 8 Same Building levels 5 1 less level Finished Elevation of lowest level behind bluff face 30 feet 37.5 feet 7.5 feet less excavation depth Lowest Elevation of Development on bluff face 52.83 feet 52.93 feet Same Number of Boat Slips 8 8 Same Parking spaces (all possible) 31 28 3 fewer spaces Living area 32,413 sq. ft. 31,362 sq. ft. 1,051 less sq. ft. Garage/storage/mechanical 29,296 sq. ft. 19,069 sq. ft. 10,227 less sq. ft. Total floor area 61,709 sq. ft. 50,431 sq. ft. 11,278 less sq. ft. Grading quantity 25,240 cu. yards 18,578 cu. yards 6,662 fewer cu. yards Dump trucks 2,105 1,549 556 fewer trucks Excavation duration 77 days 58 days 19 fewer days Caissons 61 36 25 fewer caissons Caisson duration 19 days 12 days 7 day reduction Cement trucks 622 601 21 fewer trucks Minimum Distance from basement to bluff face Varies from T-11" to 15'-1" Varies from 4'-8" to 20'-0" Increase distance provided Phase I duration 126 days 97 days 29 day reduction Phase 11 duration 375 days 292 days 83 day reduction Phase III duration 235 days 208 days 27 day reduction Phase IV duration 903 days 783 days 120 day reduction Total Construction durationi 32 months 27 months 5 month reduction Air quality Less than significant Less than significant Reduced emissions Waterquality Less than significant – improved water quality Less than significant – improved water quality Same Noise Significant & unavoidable Significant & unavoidable Reduced duration only Aesthetics Less than significant Less than significant Same tic views Enhanced views f rom Ocean & Carnation Enhanced views from Ocean & Carnation Same Marine environment —Less than significant Less than significant Same Upsize catch basin Yes Yes Same Underground existing utility Yes Yes Same Bench &drinking fountain Yes Yes Same Project objectives Meets all project objectives Partially meets all project objectives Basic project objectives achieved to a lesser degree than with the project ' Total construction is not a sum of the days associated with all construction phases as there are overlapping tasks. Prepared hy�1Campbell 0512812009 1131 1101) THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Intentionally blank 1.,�T a* Exhibit No. 4 Project/Alternative A Comparison table prepared by the applicant 07 .3E i" THIS PAGE LEFT SLAT( INTENT1014hfIlLY Intentionally blank -16-o �fb AERIE - ALTERNATIVE A - 8 UNIT COMPARISON CHART 5/28/2009 Alternative A 8 Units with Proposed Project Reduced Program Net Changes Livable (Square Footage) Foota a ) 29,426 29,426„ 0;. Recreation , 2,987 1,936 1051, -35% (Garage / Storage/ Circulation/ Elev Equipment (SF) ;. 27,8761, 18,420; - .._.. - 10,227 -37% !Mechanical/ Green Equipment Room 1420 649 771" 54% ;Total Structure (Square Footage) 61,709. 50,431; 11,278; -18% Parking Guest / Service Parking (4 required) 91 5. 4; nt Reside Parking (16 required) 16 16f 0 Resident Parking (additional on lift) 6 7 1, Wisc. Parking (golf cart) 2 0 2. Misc. Parking (motorcycle/ bicycle) I 1 0 1 i Street Parking 31 3( 0 Benefits !Catch Basin Upgrade X X ,Underground 2 Power Poles X X Public View Expansion X X jProvide Public Amenties fo ;(drmkinguntain and bench) X X Mechanical/ Green Equipment Room X (18% reduction) ;Below Maximum Height Limit X X j Construction No. of Dump Trucks for Demo (Approx.) 601 60 0 Cubic Yard of Excavation (Approx.) 25,240; 18,578! ,,__...,___ -.._ - 6,662! -26% _...... _ _.._._._._ No. of Dump Trucks (Approx) 2,105 1,549( 556 26% 1No. Caissons 61 36! 25 41% No. of Cement Trucks (Approx.) _... _. ._ f # 622; .- 601; 21 3% Construction Phases 3Asbestos Removal (days) 171 17f 0 iDemolition (days) 6j 6 0t ) ?}tase l Excavation Duration (days) 77 58 -19 25% Caisson Installation Duration (days) 19{ _ 121 ... 7 -37% X' Bracing System Installation (days) 7 7 ,`. Total Phase l(days) 126; 26 21% Forming 345; Forming 269i - 76! 22% Pouring 30 Pouring 23 Pouring -7 23% > Concrete Construction Duration (days) Total 375' 2921 Total 83 22% ..... _ .. Framing/ MEP/ Windows and Doors Phase l]I Installation Duration (days) 235 208 27 -11% ,Exterior and Interior Finish Duration °(days) 903 783; 120+ -13% Approx ;Total days for all tasks t 1,6394 -259 -16% Approx. `;Total Construction Duration (mths) 32 2T 5 15% ttasks. ,Total construction time Is not a sum of the days associated with all construction phases because there is overlapping of certer to Construction Schedule associated with Alternatives A- 8 Unit. Exhibit No. 9 Additional correspondence received i Ao ,, THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK IJNTENTION �., Intentionally blank 01 ,NI tl7v From: Don Krotee [mailto:dkrotee @krotee.com) Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:53 AM To: Richard Julian; Jene Watt Cc: Paul Julian; Brlon jeannette; Campbell, James Subject: SPON and Aerie Hi Rick: Per our discussion, I'm certainly willing to continue trying to engage our Steering Committee and we all remain optimistic about that outcome. Having reviewed the latest plans we have enough to forward our current criticisms but, as we discussed on the phone, they are somewhat unchanged form the last proposal. In great hope to meet to continue and try to mitigate the areas of concern, this is a busy time in that the SPON Annual meeting (attached and all that are copied and blind copied shall consider themselves cordially invited) is coming up and the Banning Ranch folks, some of which hold Steering Committee seats, are cross conflicted. Regardless, we are still willing to meet as a Council and Coastal actions, SPON's focus, would seem to allow all of us some breathing room. In the broadest and most simple sense our resistence to the project and our message to PC, is to condition the project (or have PC urge the Council to consider) to take care of the following concerns, some of which I briefly explained on the phone. They are: 1. The stability and sustainability of Natural Bluff at the PLOED- The bluff at the PLOED, as established, shall be able to be self supporting and sustainable and not be affected by the activities (very aggressive retaining on this project) of construction reasonably employed to construct the projects structural systems. Simply put, no one wants the preserved portion of the bluff at the PLOED to be wrecked by retaining work and then re -built as if a Disney project and the project as proposed brings this into an awful reality. Where such PLOED intersects the bluff and that point is not structurally sustainable and unable to remain intact through construction, a setback from that intersection measured to the buildings nearest point of construction shall be provided )as a buffer) to ensure the wellbeing and protection of the portion of natural bluff being preserved. Since the policy and the development of the PLOED are to provide a point to be preserved, such PLOED shall remain natural and not be subject to reconstruction. A reasonable setback to the PLOED shall be provided to allow for construction of the project without jeopardizing the bluff in the area of the PLOED. Z. PLOED as covered by a deck- None of the existing buildings that established the PLOED cover or obscure the natural bluff with a balcony like or to the extent as the proposed project. The result is the very bluff that the policies attempt to protect for the purpose of view, are forever covered by architecture. Regardless of anyone's taste in the architecture, some of the coverage depicted by the latest drawings cross sections obscures forever the vision of the natural part of the bluff 1,42— and this is a poor handling and development of the PLOED. A reasonable setback above and (the amount of coverage) of the PLOED shall be provided. 3. Project is too massive- We don't believe that the project fits well within or preserves the Community regardless of the admittedly diverse mix of housing types. Simply put, There are no SFD's this large (when presenting the area per unit figure) and there are no Duplex's or triplexes that compare (in this area calculation) in bulk and there are no building bulks, on either street, that are of this bulk. We can not agree that the policies set forth to protect Community fabric are satisfied. There may be likelihood that fulfilling the first 2 conditions above might reduce the bulk and we are very hopeful that that is the case. 4. Project EIR should not be certified- We don't believe that the project EIR addresses air quality (short or long term) nor mitigates the admittedly impactful findings. With all due respect to our City, we have seen worse certifications but, as other project opponents have approached SPON for their use of our consultants and some of those consultants have reported glaring vulnerabilities, the City s certification should be guarded if there is no further mitigation. The hope of anyone urging the City to employ a CEQA justification using a Statement of over riding considerations', as if this was a type of public facility with any public benefit, will be a circumstance for which we see the project opponents fully prepared. It may be that the project will be approved by PC and SPON hopes that these mitigation measures will be forwarded to Council for thier fair consideration. Let's continue to work together. Don Krotee SPON /tii s toe Marilyn L Beck 303 Carnation Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 949 - 723 -1773 mdb (a)becktrustee. com RECEIVED BY May 20, 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY 2 2 2009 VIA EMAIL AND US MAIL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Dear Commissioners: It is very difficult to understand why the Planning Department finds this project so acceptable when almost every aspect of the project fails to meet either the letter or the intent of the General Plan, If I didn't know the protocol, 1 might have concluded that the Staff Report had been written by the Applicant himself to promote his project, rather than by the City's Senior Planner who has a duty to the City and the residents of Newport Beach to uphold the provisions of the General Plan. This Staff Report and Draft Resolution seem to compromise the basic tenets and provisions of the General Plan for the benefit of an outside developer. This is difficult to understand for the following reasons: 1. How could this project have been set for hearing at the Planning Commission prior to the completion of the DEIR? My understanding is that the Draft EIR requires the City to respond to public comments prior to submitting it for certification by the City. As of noon on the day before the Public Hearing, the City's responses have not yet been incorporated into the EIR. Indeed, the Draft Resolution for Approval of the project recommends certification of the DEIR prior to the inclusion of these responses to comments into the EIR. Is that proper City protocol? 2. This project requires numerous variances and modification permits, not the least of which require encroachments into setbacks on a protected coastal bluff. How is it that the City Planning Dept which was instrumental in drafting the General Plan would simply ignore all that the General Plan was trying to do, anc on the first major project coming 'before the City after the General Plan was implemented, simply issue variances to allow this project? Does the City intend -J,4q 4ow- Planning Commission May 20, 2009 Page 2 to protect its natural resources as provided in the General Plan or not? What is the threshold of responsibility that the City is prepared to stand on in upholding City provisions? 3. How can the Planning Department find that this project conforms to CLUP Chapter 4 Policies, in particular 4.4.1 -3 which requires new development to minimize alterations when the developer is proposing 62,000 sq feet of building on a site that is described as "steeply sloping coastal bluff, the west - facing portion of which is subject to marine erosion... the westerly portion of the site is partly submerged and rocky "? The plans show excavation to 28 feet above mean sea level, completely obliterating the natural bluff when the City Council set the PLOED at 50.7 feet above mean sea level. The response is that all this destruction is subterranean and cannot be seen. In other words, it is okay to destroy the bluff as long as the developer puts fake rock back in its place and no one can see the damage. How is that consistent with the intent of the General Plan and specifically the CLUP Policy 4.4.1 -3? 4. One glaring example of the City Planning Department's irresponsibility in recommending approval of this project is the proposed swimming pool. The pool deck is at 40.5 feet above mean sea level and the structure of the pool descends to 30.0 feet above mean sea level. CLUP Policies 4.4.3 -3 and 4.4.3 -5 both apply to this parcel (see the DEIR description of the property), and state: "Require all new bluff top development .... be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development .... but not less than 25 feet from the bluff edge. This requirement shall apply to the principal structure and major accessory structures such as .... pools." How can the City Planning Dept allow a swimming pool to be built below the predominant line of existing development? 5. The Harbor Commission met and unanimously voted to DENY the marina in its present form. The Harbor Commissioners each stated very concise reasons why the marina as proposed is dangerous to the harbor, to other boaters, to the environment of the harbor, and opens the City to significant liability. The Staff Report ignores completely all of the comments and recommendations of the Harbor Commission and makes the statement that the Harbor Commission is only an advisory board_ and has no authority. This seems like a slap in the face to the Harbor Commission. It is indeed an advisory board, a citizen's advisory board. Doesn't the City want to listen to its informed citizens? 6. The Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) also met and reviewed this project and issued a six -page list of concerns about the project, none of these items have yet been addressed. 7. The Notice of Public Hearing states: "The DEIR concludes that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment on Air Quality, Land Planning Commission May 20, 2009 Page 3 Use, Noise, Traffic/Circulation, Aesthetics, Drainage and Hydrology, Public Health and Safety, Cultural Resources, Soils and Geology, and Biological Resources". The Staff Report states "specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level, with the exception of one short -term impact related to construction noise ". (Emphasis added) How can 3000 heavy trucks moving through the village and streets of Corona del Mar in order to carry away 25,000 cubic yards of coastal bluff constitute a "short -term impact'? Who will be responsible for damage to City streets and potential liability to residents during this "short- term "? For all of the above reasons, I ask you, the Planning Commissioners, to take a very careful approach to this project in reviewing the requests for modification permits and variances. You are also an advisory board, please give informed and conscientious consideration to this massive project. Please do not allow for unwarranted exceptions to the General Plan which will set dangerous precedents for future development along the Carnation Avenue coastal bluff and have significant repercussions to the residents of Corona del Mar. Sincerely, Marilyn L Beck v Cc: City Council Coastal Commission Harbor Commission City Attorney -1 �k-4 is.0iX01 WILLIAM J. McCAFFREY JR. 2525 OCEAN BOULEVARD, APT, GA CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Planning Commission MAY 2 S 2009 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Dear Commissioners: May 26, 2009 At the Planning Commission public hearing on Thursday, May 21" Commissioner Toerge referred to Channel Reef as "egregious overbuilding ". I take exception to this remark for the following reasons: a) Channel Reef was developed and built by Mr. Cedric Roberts, a very honorable gentleman who built thousands of homes in southern California and who, near the end of his life, was recognized by the state as being the longest - licensed budder (license number 19) in the state. As part of that recognition it was noted that he never had a single complaint filed against him. He would not have overbuilt and he would not have done anything egregious. He was exceptionally proud of Channel Reef, where he had 'a home. The time to voice criticism was 50 years ago, not 20 years after his death when he is not able to defend his cherished project. b) Although Mr. Toerge referred to the height restriction on Ocean Boulevard as being curb level, he did not recognize that the structure which Channel Reef replaced was two stories above curb level and even today our next door neighbor has a structure which is one story above curb level. With this perspective it is hard to say that Channel Reef is overbuilt. c) A typical criteria relative to overbuilding is the extent to which a project uses municipal services. During my 23 years living at Channel Reef I can remember only a single instance of a school -aged child, and the situation would have been similar or less than that prior to my residency. Also, Channel Reef does not use municipal trash collection, but instead pays for private trash collection. And because many of our units are second homes, the demand for water and sewage is less than half what it would otherwise be. Based on these criteria Channel Reef can not be considered overbuilt. d) Another criteria which seems to be an exceptionally impottant'concept for the Commission is that of "existing development", so much so that the existing development seems to define what is proper and acceptable. Since Channel Reef has been in existence for nearly 50 years it would seem that on this basis as well it can not be considered overbuilt. e) With respect to parking, the Commission seems to not only require the minimum per code but also to prefer that there be an excess of parking. In the case of Mr. Toerge, I have seen him vote against a project only because, although it had more than the required parking, he did not consider it to be convenient parking. Channel Reef has convenient parking for nearly 100 vehicles. Again, relative to municipal services Channel Reef uses little or no street parking for either residents or guests, which very few properties can match. But it is somewhat disingenuous to then say that, in part as a result of providing abundant and convenient parking, Channel Reef is overbuilt f) In terms of public reaction, the limited press coverage at the time of construction which I have seen was positive. Moreover, in the 23 years I have lived at Channel Reef, including over 20 years on the Board of Directors and since 2001 its president, I am not aware of a single complaint or negative remark concerning being overbuilt, until Mr. Toerge's comment. I might also add that it was inappropriate in a public forum for Mr. Toerge to make such a statement as if it were a fact rather than merely his personal opinion which, as shown in this letter, is unsupported and unsupportable by the facts. Mr. Commissioners, my dictionary defines egregious as "outstanding for undesirable qualities; remarkably bad; flagrant" Obviously, I do not believe that Channel Reef is overbuilt on any of the several criteria noted above. To say that it is egregious overbuilding is itself an egregious statement. Sincerely, t i ?l !, William J. �� !' ' t 949- 675 -6468 1,Nr I am unable to attend the meeting tonight and have asked J, z A o read this brief speech on my behalf. As you know, I am opposed to this project and have submitted a written statement to you with all my comments. I want to add only this. The City Council set a predominant line of development at 50.7 feet above mean sea level. The project as it stands today excavates to 28 feet above mean sea level, with a swimming pool at between 30.0 feet and 40.5 feet, completely subterranean. This accessory is specifically barred under provisions 4.4.3 -3 and 4.4.3 -5 of the CLUP. This is only one aspect of the many conditions which are inconsistent with the General Plan. The Staff Report states that: "the project will encroach into the front and side setbacks; however, the majority of the encroachments are subterranean ". It then states: "given that the encroachments are below grade and will not be visible, no negative impacts are expected ". find this statement mind - boggling. So long as no one can see all the damage that has been done, it is okay. Is that correct? It is like saying you can drive over the speed limit, as fast as you like, so long as no one is on the roadway. if no one sees me speeding, it is okay. Is that how the City of Newport Beach interprets its laws? I direct this question to the City Attorney, is this a correct interpretation of the General Plan? Thank you. Marilyn Beck May 25, 2009 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY 2 9 2009 To: Planning Commissioners CITY OF NEWPORT 9EACH From: Kathleen McIntosh Re: Request for copy of speech given at Planning Commission Hearing for Aerie H pq 2I . 2aoI ?0 5b wi� It has always been my impression that when a person works in a public position for a City that they are there to hopefully leave the City a better place than when they took office. I like most residents expect City representatives to represent the highest level of honesty, dedication and adherence to policy and the law as demanded by your office for the good of all residents of this great City. I am encouraged to hear this evening that you are concerned with the Coastal Bluff. In the past it has seemed as though the City was willing to compromise its own General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan and Coastal Bluff Protection Policies to mention a few in favor of one applicant and the potential of significant tax revenues for the City as mentioned by Mr. Rasner, an investor in the project, at the Harbor Resources meeting last month. The project was first recommended for denial by Staff April 17, 2007, when staff listed at least 6 CLUP policies that this project is inconsistent with. Following excerpt: Staff recommends that the project should be redesigned such that the proposed building does not extend on the bluff face below 52 feet above mean sea level. This provides a balance between preserving the scenic quality of a significant portion of the bluff through minimizing its alteration while siting the building with the predominant line of existing development. Although allowing portions of the project to be developed further down the bluff to 44, 34, or 29 feet above mean sea level might be within an alternate predominate line of existing development, staff does not believe that development at these levels minimizes alteration of the bluff and preserves the scenic and visual quality of the landform as a visual resource consistent with policy. 2 years later and the proposed project is still inconsistent with policy. Mr. Campbell has admitted that there is a high risk for damage to the surrounding properties — which include public streets due to massive excavation. 7451 What has changed since that time — the excavation is still considerably more that the stated 26,000 cubic yards of Protected Coastal Bluff. The intent is to cut straight down from the sidewalk area to a depth of approximately 24 feet above mean sea level and to gut the entire bluff. There are legal policies in place against this type of thing for a reason. This bluff provides buttressing of the surrounding properties both private and public. Are you the City going to be financially responsible for that collapse if it happens — as it has in so many other Cities. The applicant certainly won't. How, in a time of such massive economic downturn — investigations into corruption in City and State agencies, their policies, management and fiscal irresponsibility, Ponzi schemes and massive fraud can the City turn a blind eye to such an economically and ecologically unsound project. Why not tear up the rules for all other applicants — past, present and future. This proposed project does not fit into the General Plan in any way shape or form so why should any other applicants be held to the rules. If you vote to approve this project once again you are approving the same project that was presented more than 2 years ago with a reduction of less than 14% in scale and the addition of a massive marina which the Harbor Commissioners unanimously recommended denial of at their meeting last month and which staff has decided to either downplay or ignore. The EIR is still not complete, does not properly address the issues that existed 2 years ago, does not meet the criteria of the CLUP, the General Plan or the Coastal Bluff Protection Policies and the report minimizes the negative aspects of this project and its ramifications in favor of the applicant — which is understandable as the applicant paid for the report. As I have stated every time I have spoken in front of the Planning Commission and the City Council, my late husband and I have always been in favor of redevelopment of this predominant Coastal Bluff — it should have been done years ago, but feel that it should be done with respect and scale to the existing neighborhood, the governing policies of the City of Newport Beach and without complete O?,sa- 4A destruction of a Protected Coastal Bluff and the disruption and possible destruction of their portion of the Historical Cove below. Mr. Julian already pumped in sand in from the Channel Reef Condominiums 2 years ago — prior to finalizing the purchase of the property — filled in one of the caves, raised the level of the beach by approximately 4 feet high and about 30' deep towards the water which has created a shoaling problem that did not exist during the 17 years prior to this new beach addition and completely covered the sand dollar population — which is why they are now so concerned with maintaining the sand dollars from further damage... had this not been reported and stopped who knows how large that beach would now be. Thank you for your time and attention. bt.�. k I addressed the dock situation as an addition at the Planning meeting last week and covered other issues in the attached speech made at the Harbor Resources meeting last month. It would be worth your time to hear the reasons that Mr. Laurenz stated for denial of the marina. -74,53 G Approval of the condominium project has not been granted and will not go to the City until May or June of this year. As no decision has been made on the number of units to be built — no decisions should be made regarding the number of boat slips until that time. Nothing in the City rules legislates that slips must match the number of units. The existing dock replacement plan is actually capable of berthing at least 3 (three) additional boats for a total of 12 — versus the 9 as stated by the applicant. The space is clearly visible on the plans. The proposed dock would be built to the pierhead line (yellow) encroaching the two outside 60' yachts or one 100' yacht into Public right of way traffic lanes by at least 25 ` to 30'. This is unacceptable. How can private use be allowed to take public right of way. The proposed dock would be built deeper into public traffic lanes than any other dock of the east side of Newport Harbor at this location which would upset the flow of boat traffic, would inhibit the passage of all small boats, kayaks and paddleboards inside of the existing marker bouy and would set a precedent for the future development of the Harbor. Access to the cove and historically significant marine outcroppings would be severely restricted, if not completely eliminated from public enjoyment. This cove has been accessible to the public from the water dating back to the existence of Newport Beach. The applicant originally asked us to allow our docks to be joined to privatize the cove — we are totally against this idea. Historically this side of Newport Harbor and the existing docks near the entrance of the Harbor sustain massive damage due to the the storm surge each winter and spring. Additionally the architect and applicant have engineered their proposed dock without consideration of the two existing docks on either side and the possibility that those owners might want to dock something larger than 17'. Also, the photos of the 100' yacht have ?,454 elly been minimized in terms appearance and scale in relationship to the dock and the view of the outcroppings. A 100' yacht will eliminate any view from the water and the opposite side of the bay. True scale should be required at each presentation. I would ask that the applicant be required to float marker bouys in the exact location of his proposed marina for a minimum of 1 month during the summer so that the public would be made aware of the enormous size of the structure and the potential taking of public waters for private use (sounds illegal). IST Materials) received after the Planning Commission packets were distributed, or received at the meeting. These material(s) were distributed to staff, Commissioners and made available to the public, 16 5t Marilyn L Beck 303 Carnation Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 mdb0becMrus1aa.=n June 1, 2009 Planning Commission Via Email to All Commissioners CC: Planning Department CC: City Council Re: Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Dear Commissioners: It Is encouraging to see that the Applicant and the City are willing to consider other alternatives, but Alternative 8A is a very minimal improvement to the project as it still descends an entire level below the PLOED, the swimming pool is still below the PLOED, and marina still goes out to the pierhead line and beyond into the harbor, and the project will still require setback variances and modification permits to allow it to exceed both the vertical and the horizontal PLOED on Carnation. The primary issue seems to be the definition of the Predominant Line of Existing Development along Carnation Bluff. The City Council set the line at 50.7. The General Plan has specific requirements for development along coastal bluffs and requires a conservative approach with detailed policies stating what can and cannot be built below the PLOED. This project excavates to 28 feet with a finished elevation at 30 feet. This corresponds to the PLOED on Ocean Blvd, not on Carnation Avenue as required by the City Council determination. The Alternative 8A is only marginally better, with a finished elevation at 37.5 feet, still well below the 50.7 set by the City Council. Neither of these elevations are acceptable and more Importantly, both set a precedent on Carnation Avenue. There are no other existing properties built along the Carnation bluff which go below the PLOED either on the face or behind the bluff. And all these properties were built prior to the implementation of the General Plan. The General Plan sets an even higher standard than what existed at the time the older properties were built, therefore it just doesn't make sense that now, under the policies of the General Plan, a project like Aerie can be approved by re- defining the bluff as bluff face oniv. Not only is this key to the Aerie project but there are 4 other properties along the Carnation bluff which are in original condition, two of which are presently on the 1451 Planning Commission June t, 2009 Page 2 market as 'tear down' properties and will be redeveloped in the near future. Aerie will set the precedent. If you define the bluff as'bluff face' only, all new development will be allowed to build subterranean as well. Once you allow this precedent with Aerie, you might as well give up the remainder• of the Carnation Stuff to concrete.... with fake bluff rebuilt in front of the concrete.... because that is what will happen. The Aerie plan calls for a swimming pool to be built entirety below the 50.7 line, how can this be acceptable under the.policies of the CLUP? Will other swimming pools be allowed to be built below the PLOED on the Carnation bluff? There is an exit tunnel to the marina at 44.4 feet. It is called an emergency exit, but it is in reality the passageway to the marina. How can this be acceptable? I own a property on the Carnation bluff, built above the PLOED. Will I be permitted to build a swimming pool below the PLOED on my property as well? Planning Commission June 1, 2000 Page 3 The negatives of the 5-unit Alternative as presently submitted are that the swimming pool may yet require variances below the PLOED. This option does not, as proposed, eliminate the utility poles or improve the catch basin. I believe that if the Applicant were to consider this Alternative, he may wish to provide these improvements in any case as it will improve the value of his own property. But even if not I believe that saving a natural coastal bluff from significant destruction, preserving marine life and protecting the environmental integrity of the harbor, maintaining the PLOED on Carnation, and staying within the guidelines of the General Plan are all significantly more important to the City than 2 utilities poles and an upgraded catch basin. I would suggest that the Applicant be asked to provide details about the 5-unit Alternative and allow this plan to be circulated to all concerned. Thank you. Sincerely, Marilyn Beck CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH o @ PLANNING DEPARTMENT (949) 644 -3200 �g4coa�r DATE: June 2, 2009 TO: Planning Commission FROM: James Campbell, Principal Planner. SUBJECT: AERIE (PA2005-196) — Attachments to Response to Comments Four attachments to the Responses to Comments were inadvertently omitted. They are: 1. Existing Vegetation Map — referenced from responses 2 -30 and 5 -1 on page 11 and 26 respectively. This map is also within the project plan set. 2. Letter from Lyleen Ewing - referenced from response 3 -27 on page 21. 3. Vibration summary tables - referenced from response 10 -19 on page 49. 4. Water Quality Management Plan Exhibit A - referenced from response 11 -3 on page 55. The items are attached to this memorandum and I apologize for any inconvenience and they have been added to the Response to Comment document. If you have any question regarding this memorandum, please contact me at 949 - 644 -3210 or jampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us. -146 AREA k1 r;(MSrR ix[9RB OrFlxat.rR �E6r M.w6 MElafs 'm w� AREA R2 AREA Q ..... w..w.. „• x�REA IfO AREA N5 AREA #6 AREA V ......r..r.. um.: vra� AREA NS TIT wi.�rn.�cv�rw.. -� nr.swnrer.r!rt l I i. 4. • 4 WIN l SEE SHEET L4 FOR AREAS 9 ENTIRE SITE .��...w....,...»...� w..l • w,., w,.m n..,,.w; uo • r.mmw�ww.,..,�. �uuw�n •�.,,.....��wf...r� w...m.r....a . ;wrsw.rax... vm.»....0 • wr.....,r�....s ;,or.w.,w.n w r�c.m+z.Emn TO • xvwicEi.nW�iwr�';+vr w;E�IVww;wa'� o.. r..rrm .o;s.i;tui uuoOWw. VP56aM NURV. rrtouwwi • nuwue Tau�4 ........,rmu�. a+...w.wsn • wo-....� aro�+e ® m;ww,.wva.r,m ;mwwuu., • +corvw a..w. mr:....r.,a • wA �o.w.....mmr. ;w.wo.AOw.w Art nrS AR [ A fi4 � I AREA 05 natnuT e, ARP n •,F m TROUGH 14 0 __;,a.w .,.ate ....• Iwaaxr.xrww ® [T5.- ..rmr PRUNING & CLEARING ..wn. wasuewu �� DO 31 a g 8s s f L -1 AREA #9 ..rern.msa.r.. u�u� n ••« F..x. AREA #10 AREA #11 AREA #12 AREA #13 AREA #14 PRUNING 8 CLEARING V ENTIRE SITE e.v.,.wa..vwu mu..n • ewn,uv.rwe. rcara+n. vnuw • .o,.. xa+ uw.. ®• +o.wn+u.x p.ue Mnm.w..uew • mn.i.l.,. vw,.wn.o • w.wo....:..wna. n..,.o i, SEE SHEET L -1 FOR AREAS 1 THROUGH 8 .c.c PRUNING 8 CLEARING ■ s • �i g d s 1 L -2 3 �LDWELL Mr. Jim Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell, BANKER PREVIEWS LYLEEN EWING SOCIETY OF EXCELLENCE 1 have been selling real estate in Orange County forover 35 years. In my career, I have personally handled hundreds of real estate transactions, of which the majority have been in the Newport Beach- Corona del Mar area. I have been asked to render an opinion on the market absorption time for three speculative single family homes located on the property commonly known as 201 -207 Carnation Avenue in Corona del Mar. I understand that each of these three homes would have expansive coastal views, a roof deck and one boat slip. The average size of the three homes would be approximately 8,300 livable square feet. I also understand that, aswlth much of the newer bluff top construction In the area, these homes would be highly amenitized and would involve significant excavation and grading and the placement of caissons. Given the remarkable location and view of these homes, It is my professional opinion that these homes likely would be listed for sale within an approximate price range of $14,000,000 to $16,000,000 even in today s depressed real estate market. Demand for luxury homes in Newport Beach has declined significantly as a result of the economic downturn, and there is no clear indication as to how deep or how long this decline will last Most recently, for the 22 business days ending January 15, 2009, DataQuick reports that the pace of sales in Corona Del Mar (Zip 92625) was down 38.5% from the same time last year. Further, according to the January 22, 2009, home inventory report from Steve Thomas of Altera Real Estate, in Orange County, 350 homes were listed for sale at asking prices above $4 million, but only three had pending sales in the previous thirty days. While these numbers may not be a precise predictor of performance for the sales of any Individual home or category of homes, for statistical purposes, this translates to an absorption rate of almost ten years (116.67 months) for these 350 homes. This same report discloses that even in the much stronger real estate market of two years ago, it would have taken over 31 months to absorb the current homes on the market. (Report available at 4 San Joaquin Plaza suite NO Newport Beach CA 92660 949- 6441600 • MW 949- 759 -3786• Cellular 949- 233 -8051 • Fax 949-644 -5384 Ijewing @wtdwelibanker.com Cbjd_, Be R[udectial a.eYwgn 1r pe flyuuTM aM opttair4 by N", 1I 7443 http:// www. ouragentspot .com/sthomos/MarketTime Jan- 22- 09.doc.) So what does all this translate to on the ground? Simply put: homes that once would have quickly attracted multiple offers are now likely to languish on the market, in some cases for a matter of years rather than months. The current economic,reality has fundamentally changed the economics of speculative home development. Today, experienced builders have adopted a "wait- and -see" approach. For multiple - single family home sites such as these, builders will "wait- and -see" where the money is coming from before they assume the risk and expense of construction. Based on the ongoing economic downturn and the high cost of construction associated with this site, on one hand, and the premier location of these home sites on the other, it is my opinion that it would take a bare minimum of four years to pre-sell the three home sites, with one site sold an average of once every two years. Generally speaking, I expect one home site to be sold at the beginning of year one, the second home site to be sold at the end of year two, and the third site to be sold at the end of year four. Based on a two year per home construction schedule (per Brion Jeannette Architecture), total buildout of all three homes would therefore take approximately six years from the time of the first sale. I hope that this opinion is helpful. Should you desire any further information, please feel free to call. Sincerely, G:. Lyleen Ewing Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage 'WO Construction Generated Vibration Annoyance Vlbmlmn Annayance cM*da Lo,dedirvcNS 00 25 80 8.1 71 cdba". 79 In Loader (emad Eulidomr) 58 0 01 87 48 Loaded trucks 88 25 so 66 71 cMerlo 20 To Rem H. 87 0 80 86 n Loads 10m0 bu11d.11 58 0 81 82 48 E cavatar Munall bulldw.0 58 8 61 62 el Loadctltrucke 06 25 00 55 71 cored. 28 20 Eamvattlr)Smell bulldceee 58 ME 00 0e Q Wad., 43.4 bellddaerl 50 12.5 00 64 0 Loaded buck, 85 25 00 01 it .made Ta Ta Back H. WEd,r)firma 6.118..1) 58 B 0o 07 48 Pumptt 58 80 60 aT 40 Leaded bucks 80 25 60 88 71 APPmxlmala Valachy APProshmla Wlocay APposknata Vatecky E�UlE= Lew1 a126H VdB .keeat D'Clance Inne)' Au.,,. Ol..ne 4U.tj Level vas ". Vde Pumper 80 ea 80 75 71 Ed..%deer ab 88 an 75 71 � aMNNImOm ry MWArovawpNlnbR WfavrOYnphruWN {mvnrr Lnmlmtl,Po4Yetl}$ktl xmz atB weebetlaaahan m+mxrarve4wbura.me . d ne emmwuma Sewce: Baeetlm Irexwd,IgjF kom Ne Unied 8M¢e Ogmlmen efTnvpotpim FMVN TIVaM1 Mm'risnvWm, TrsrW Ab'.fe wd VdegwnlmpN Mepv+vN (2008). IAIr Construction Generated Vibration - Structural Damage Criteria Structural Damage Criteria r, Approximate RMS a Approximate RMS� Velocity at 25 fL Velocity Level, Equipment Inchfsecond Inchlsecand Closest Distance (feet): Excavator (Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.010 11.5 Backhoe Loader(Small bull, 0.003 0.010 11.5 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.076 25 Criteria 0100 - Excavator (Small bulldozer) 0.603 0.014 9 Leader (Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.003 25 Loaded bucks 0.076 0.076 25 Criteria 0.200 at 25 it Velocity Level, icond Inchlsecand Ram Hoe 0.089 0.412 9 Leader (Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.014 9 Excavator (Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.014 9 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.076 25 Loaded trucks Criteria 0.200 25 Velocity at 26 R, Velocity Level, Equipment Inchfsecond Inchsecond Closest Distance (feet): Large bulldozer 0.003 0.008 12.5 Ram Hoe 0.003 0.008 12.5 Leader (Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.008 12.5 Excavator (Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.008 12.5 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.076 25 Criteria 0.200 Velocity at 25 R, Velocity Level, Equipment inchlsecond Inchfsecond Closest Distance (feet): Calsson Drill 0.089 0412 9 Back Hoe Loader (Small bu 0.003 0.008 12.5 Pumper 0.076 0.012 88 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.076 25 Criteria 0.200 1NOTE: EXHIBIT IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND NOT TO* SCALE. ALL FACILITIES TO BE LOCATED INSIDE THE i "PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT'. /- NAP R •. At. T,GRADE Pl�R VICAVlTY MAP m : �1' LEGEND NAP ' � :..rte � /, 3 A ♦ L. .. z PROJECT BOUNDARY /I• 'OS NOT A PART NA +-- DIRECTION OF SURFACE FLOW � P D E L GRAVITY FLOW LINES AND DIRECTION FOR ROOF AND AREA DRAINS --1- STORMWATER FORCE MAIN EXISTING - SITE - - ®- PROPOSED CONNECTION TO EXISTING SO DISCHARGE r ENTRA - III, EXISTING STORM AND AREA DRAINS POINT © WET WELL AND STORMWATER PUMP CHARGETHRLI IN EXISTING CB. :;;w STORMFILTER WATER QUALITY UNIT OR 5 RM DRAIN PIPE ABTECH SMART SPONGE PLUS INSERTS NAP /.• LANDSCAPE AREAS (PRIVATE) WITH BMP's: � (MAINTAINED BY HOA) COMMON AREA EFFICIENT IRRIGATION a COMMON AREA RUNOFF - MINIMIZING `A1P0�\8f� g LANDSCAPE DESIGN Aj p , AREA DRAINS (PRIVATE) WITH BMP: SO STENCILLING WHERE FEASIBLE eP NAP o EXISTING CATCH BASIN /AREA DRAINS TRASH ENCLOSURE -EXACT LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED ADS STORM WATER QUALITY UNIT OR EQUAL PREPARED BY: PREPARED FORD DATE PREPARED: "AERIE" ®HUNSARER. s. ASSOCIATES [ ARES 5/12/09 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16882 WOMP ' ° " ' N ` N < ' CORONA DEL MAR EXHIBIT n/.ra+nG . wamm�uc . swvEruic sans AVC:fKID RM, aistE �W .,�., ..,.,, un. c.x �,.N•� aasnasa uxEaszcm wo T57 -5x CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CA (ara sassaro J �dEWPoR� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH o e PLANNING DEPARTMENT �ciFOa'''P DATE: June 3, 2009 TO: Planning Commission FROM: James Campbell, Principal Plann6wlr SUBJECT: AERIE (PA2005 -196) �� Commissioner Eaton raised a question with staff regarding the 2007 amendment of the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) regarding coastal bluff development. In November of 2007, the City Council adopted an amendment of the Coastal Land Use Plan (LC2007 -003). CLUP Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 were amended and Policy 4.4.3- 19 was added (see below). The amendment was an outgrowth of the City's experience in applying the various CLUP policies applicable to bluff development in Corona del Mar. The policies were unclear and needed to be clarified. The adopted amendment has not been submitted to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for approval. The City Council's adopting resolution specifically indicates that the amendment does not become effective until the CCC approves it with subsequent acceptance by the City Council. Only then will the amended be considered "certified" by the CCC and be an official operative component of the CLUP. Although the amendment is not certified, it is a more clear statement of policy by the City Council, and therefore, it is relevant to these proceedings. The amendment is: °4.4.3 -8. Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development. Establish 4.4.3 -9. -?,,t d area to the maximum extent feasible. along GGOan 80649Verd, Gamation A��nue and Pa--.4; 0,44in in Gerona dei Mar, requiFa 49 Roll prinG#Ve atructures and efy impFevengents. The thaok sha# be inomased Where neee&sefy to ensure sah9ty and stab*, of the development. 4.4.3 -19. In atl cases where the predominant line of existing development is used to establish a development limit, it shall not be the only criteria used for this purpose All coastal land use policies shall be considered in determining the appropriate extent of new development and size of new structures." The proposed project would be subject to Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -19 and not subject to Policy 4.4.3 -9 as the project does not provide public improvements on the bluff face. In August of 2007, the City Council reviewed the existing development pattern of the Carnation/Ocean bluff and determined that the project would be within the predominant line of existing development ( PLOED) if it was modified to be above the 50.7 foot elevation. In making this determination, the City Council relied upon speck survey information, topographic maps, project plans and photographs indicating the vertical position of existing and proposed development. Furthermore, the City Council considered the horizontal projection of the proposed building in relation to the street and surrounding development and did not find the project inconsistent with the predominant line of existing development. The City Council again relied upon specific map exhibits and project plans indicating the horizontal position of existing and proposed development in relation to the Carnation Avenue and other improvements. The alteration of the project pulling it closer to the street as recommended by the Planning Commission in early 2007, and incorporated by the applicant, was acknowledged. Subsequent to the 2007 identification of the PLOED by the City Council, the proposed project was altered by eliminating a subterranean level and by reducing bluff face alteration such that the bluff face will remain intact below the 50.7 -foot contour, with the exception of a dock/emergency exit that will be screened from public view. The siting of the proposed project, or horizontal position of the project in relation to its surroundings, has not been modified from the position considered by the City Council in 2007. In conclusion, the proposed project is consistent with amended Policy 4.4.3 -8. Although Policy 4.4.3 -19 was adopted by the City Council after the AERIE predominant line of existing development determination, the City Council considered the existing development patterns of the bluff face; the presence of sensitive biological resources; the overall level of bluff alteration; the preservation and enhancement of scenic and visual qualities; and the protection and enhancement of public views, which are the other applicable policy considerations identified by Policy 4.4.3 -19 to be considered in determining the appropriate extent of the AFIRE project. -IilliA 13. Harbor Commission (Minutes of April 8, 2009) Although formal DEIR comments were not submitted by the Harbor Commission, these responses address the environmental issues reflected by the minutes of the Harbor Commission's April 8, 2009 meeting. Where a comment did not raise any environmental issue, no response is provided. Response to Comment No. 13 -1 Analysis of design wind waves was based on long -term wind conditions recorded at two locations as presented in Section 2.1 of the Coastal Engineering Impact Assessment Report (May 9, 2008). In addition, long swell statistics from 1970 to 2005 were applied to determine the typical and extreme swell conditions at the project site. Tables 1 and 2 in that report show the probability distribution of wind conditions while Tables 4 and 5 present the deduced typical and extreme wave conditions for wind wave and long swells, respectively. The discussion of "Wave Conditions and Potential Impacts" on pages 4.9 -8 through 4.9 -11 provides a summary of the information included in the Noble Report. Response to Comment No. 13 -2 The City's mooring fields generally have between 75 and 100 vacant mooring cans in the harbor, which are available for rental to the public at any given time on a "first come, first served" basis through the Harbor Patrol. The mooring cans can generally accommodate project boats with the exception of boats that exceed 60 feet due to a lack of availability of these larger sized moorings in the harbor. Boats larger than 60 feet would need to secure berthing at a larger dock (if available) or use the City designated anchorage area within the harbor. Boat owners or a contracted boating service company would be responsible to manage such an event. Response to Comment No. 13 -3 Noble Consultants, Inc. determined that the dock project would not significantly affect sediment transport in the area. There are no sand dollars present near the dock; they are all located in the protected cove southeast of the proposed dock. Therefore, any sand movement would not be related to pier - induced sand movement since: (1) engineering studies suggest that there would be no interruption of sand movement from pier pilings and (2) sand movement is from south to north. Generally speaking, sand dollars and other sand - associated macrofaunal species are adapted to shifting sand regimes. Unless there is an extreme storm event sand dollars are well adapted to daily and seasonal changes in sand movement and they are capable of adjusting their position in the sand to prevent burial. Even when they are temporarily buried they can upright themselves to their usual orientation to the currents. Large storm events can result in changes in the southern California sand dollar populations as well as other sand bottom epifaunal species relative to population and distribution. These events are known to occur following extreme storm and wave conditions. These conditions, however, are likely muted to a degree within then confines within Newport Harbor. Response to Comment No. 13 -4 The sediment shoaling pattern in the entrance channel was presented in the Noble report (refer to Section 2.2). The impact assessment for the proposed dock facility was also performed (refer to Section 3.2). The information presented in that document is summarized in Section 4.9 (Soils and Geology) in the Draft EIR (refer to pages 4.9 -8 through 4.9 -13). As indicated in the Draft EIR, the Noble Consultants study concluded that from a wave climate perspective, the proposed docking Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 60 ` facility is feasible in a wide range of conditions and, with regard to sand transport, no significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. Response to Comment No. 13 -5 Noble Consultants, Inc., which analyzed sediment processes and flow patterns in the project area, concluded that the potential impact to the sediment movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant, although localized sand deposit resulting from the presence of the proposed guide piles within the sand - moving path may occur. In addition, the project's potential impact on sedimentation at updrift locations such as China Reef is inconsequential. As a result, no significant impacts to sand transport resulting from project implement are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Response to Comment No. 13 -6 The applicant is proposing to improve the existing landing and expand the boat dock to accommodate nine vessels (8 permanently berthed vessels and 1 guest slip). The dock and landing would include lighting similar to that which currently exists in this area. Such lighting would cast light down on the docks for safety and security purposes for both project residents and passing boaters. Response to Comment No. 13 -7 Piers will be installed as required based on the City of Newport Beach requirements. Section 4.7 (Biological Resources) revealed that sea lions inhabit the harbor and, specifically, in the vicinity of the Pavilion. The Draft EIR concluded the project implementation would not result in significant impacts to marine mammals, including sea lions. Should sea lions haul out on the proposed dock structure, the dock system will be able to support several individuals given that the dock design will be engineered to withstand the increased wave energy associated with the project location. Sea lion haul out is considered a nuisance issue and deterrent measures such as fences, netting, watering or other physical and visual obstructions are routinely employed when sea lions frequent the harbor's docks. This is not an environmental issue, but rather a harbor management issue under the constant supervision of the Harbor Resources Division and the Harbor Patrol. Response to Comment No. 13 -8 A Class II wet stand pipe that will serve the docks was incorporated into the proposed project as required by the Newport Beach Fire Department to provide enhanced protection for firefighting at the docks. Trash will be hand carried to Carnation Avenue for removal. Sewage pump -out stations are not required for residential docks and are they are only required for commercial marinas with 50 or more slips. Sewage disposal from boats is prohibited within the Harbor unless at a pump -out station. Response to Comment No. 13-9 As indicated in this comment, the proposed dock facility will be larger (approximately 3,448 square feet compared to 490 square feet) compared to the existing dock facility. However, the dock has been designed to avoid sensitive habitat (e.g., eelgrass) and incorporates project design features to ensure that eelgrass, sand dollars and other marine resources are adequately protected. Furthermore, public access to the small cove below the bluff will be maintained and no significant visual impacts to aesthetic resources would occur based on the analysis presented in the Draft EIR (refer to Section 4.7 — Biological Resources and Section 4.5 — Aesthetics). Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 61 Response to Comment No. 13 -10 Refer to Response to Comment No. 13 -5. Response to Comment No. 13 -11 Boat owners or a contracted boat maintenance service may be engaged to relocate the vessels as deemed necessary by the boat owners. Response to Comment No. 13 -12 The City currently has up to 100 mooring cans within the harbor that may be used during storm events. Use of these moorings is permitted on a "first come, first served" basis. As noted above, a boat maintenance service may be engaged to relocate the vessels to the mooring cans or other locations as deemed necessary by the boat owners. Response to Comment No. 13 -13 Table 6 of the report provides the guidelines for acceptable wave conditions in the harbor. For head seas it is less than 0.6 meter (approximately two feet) and it is 0.25 meter (approximately 0.8 foot) for beam seas. In practice, it is difficult to precisely measure the wave height in the middle of a storm event. Due to the orientation of the entrance channel, SSE -S waves can propagate through the entrance channel without being blocked by the jetty. Therefore, preparation of temporarily relocated vessels to the mooring area should primarily be based on the approach wave direct from SSE -S. The extreme wave conditions for wind waves presented in Table 4 and long swells as listed in Table 5 occur infrequently. Response to Comment No, 13 -14 The proposed docks are within the federal Pierhead Line and the main channel is over 500 feet wide in this area. The proposed docks with boats would not encroach any farther within the channel than a nearby navigational station, which has been in -place for years. City policy currently allows boats to extend beyond the Pierhead Line no farther than the beam (maximum width) of the boat, which is typically not wider than 24 feet. The proposed layout is consistent with the Municipal Code and Council Policy, as determined by the Harbor Resources Manager and the only condition proposed by the Harbor Resources Manager is that boats tied to the side of the proposed docks closest to the main channel must not have a beam wider than 24 feet. With this condition, the Harbor Resources Manager has determined that the proposed docks will not cause any impediment to navigating the main channel Response to Comment No. 13 -15 The DEIR has identified the potential for damage during storm surge conditions (Impact 4.9 -2.) Mitigate measures have been prescribed, which include moving boats to sheltered mooring location (Mitigation Measure 4.9 -2a) and dock design based on extreme wave conditions (Mitigation Measure 4.9 -2b.) As a result, the DEIR concludes that potentially significant impacts related to storm surge damage will be reduced to a less than significant level. Response to Comment No. 13 -16 Public access to the cove below from the harbor would not be adversely affected by the proposed project, including the proposed dock facility. The location of the dock would not preclude the existing access that is currently available to swimmers, kayakers, or others. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments ^ May 2009 I Z Page 62 Response to Comment No. 13 -17 Refer to Response to Comment No 13-4. Response to Comment No. 13 -18 Refer to Response to Comment No. 2-4. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments May 2009 Page 63 7 Jun 03 09 09:10a Keeton K. Kreitzer 714 -665 -8539 p.2 NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION MINUTES City Council Chambers April 8, 2009 CALL TO ORDER 6:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Chairman Duffield, Commissioners Seymour Beek, John Corrough, Tim Collins, Don Lawrenz, Karen Rhyne and Ralph Rodheim were in attendance. Staff: Lorrie Arcese, Chris Miller and Shannon Levin MINUTES: The minutes from the last meeting were approved. ACTION ITEM ACTION & APPEAL ITEMS ITEM #1 Subject: Genera! Harbor Commission Orientation - POSTPONED ITEM #2 Subject: Aerie Dock Project at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue Issue: Should the Aerie project applicants at 201-207 Carnation Avenue be permitted to replace the existing double U- shaped Float with a dock system capable of berthing 8 vessels for residents and 1 guest side -tie Discussion: Chris presented the staff report on the project. Randy Mason with URS spoke on the technical concerns. He said there are 10 boat "lanes" in that channel. The boats berthed at Aerie will be moved to moorings or other places during storm events with wave action of 2 feet or more. Bryan Jeannette spoke on the parking issues, saying they will have at least 15-23 additional parking spaces on -site, beyond what is required by the Code. Commissioner Lawrenz presented a PowerPoint presentation on the project, showing what he feels are issues with the project. The storm wave conditions] were only studied for the last five years, ignoring large storms of 1969 and 1990's.)' These storms happened before that time and they did a lot of damage. A 100 ftlZ vessel may not have a safe mooring site in the case of a large storm event. 1 Storms will affect the movement of sand and affect the sand dollar population.13 There are a lot of sand and shoals in this area and this needs more study.(}.]• Conditions need to be listed if sand studies show a problem, such as who is rJ responsible when dredging comes up. The 24 foot extension will go into public) d waters and needs to have reflectors. This could start a building boom with all the other slips in this area, The pier is to be set lower than usual attracting the seal 7 lions to rest upon. What about fire suppression, trash and sewage? Ib • Commissioner Beek said that the problem also is that the project will occupy space that is now open. He said that there are no lanes in the harbor and the example has no meaning. This is one of the narrowest points. We need to restrict the 24 foot overhang and can restrict the side tie. All residents don't have to have a slip. 19 new pilings will affect the sand movement. 1140 • { Commissioner Rhyne asked who will move the boats during storm events and tl ,wave action, Are there moorings available and what are the other optlons if they 124 need to move? What happens between 1.5 to 2 feet?}�A 100 foot boat is too massive and who will monitor the overhang? � l.l5 • Commissioner Corrough said that this project is legally conforming and has not been kept under the radar. The EIR has not found any significant exceptions and .1•,4 Jun 03 09 09:10a Keeton K. Kreitzer Public Comments: 714665 -8539 p.3 has documented recommended mitigations. The project has changed with previous requests. Every dock that sits out there now is in the same physical situation, subject to storm events, that this dock will be in if it is built. We need to set responsible improvements to the plans rather than just saying we are troubled by this project; give specific guidance and constructive recommendations. The proposed project has gone through multiple revisions. The unit to dock ratio is representative of the rest of the harbor. The Commission does want new docks in this harbor_ Commissioner Collins said that we have given case by case exceptions for extensions, but in this case there is no basis to extend beyond the Pierhead fine. Commissioner Rodhelm said that the Bulkhead and Pierhead lines of the 1930's were made when the area was filled with sand and the City has not done its job in redrawing the lines. To follow those lines as they are currently is not wrong. The approval of all these large condo projects should not be happening and we may end up looking like Miami Beach. He does not support the project going out further than the neighboring docks. The surge tears up the boats and docks. He j5 would like to have larger slips but not in this location. They stick out too far. We want the Planning Commission and City Council to see that the Harbor Commission will not support this project. There is no right of residents to have the right to have a pier. Chairman Duffield reminded everyone that stones go directly into our harbor as designed by the Army Corps. Putting in a jetty would be a solution to stop that action. There has been a lot of work put into the plan and we are not against new docks, but we are boaters who use the harbor, so there is knowledge. The City Council makes the ultimate decision, but we are boaters and can make recommendations. Storm events do happen, so we need a plan that will work. Why not come to the Harbor Commission to ask for advice, we would like to work with the applicant. Perhaps restrict the time that boats may be dock there during a storm season? Kathleen McIntosh, 2495 Ocean Blvd., reminded everyone that the approval has not been granted yet. They could have up to 12 boats on the docks. Public access to the cove and marine outcropping would be restricted and maybe jb eliminated. Shoaling Is a problem in that area. Sand comes from that area and is shoaling under the neighbors' docks. This project doesn't consider the problemsl the 2 adjacent properties will have when they want to dock boats larger than 17 feet. She hopes Harbor Resources denies the request and requests that marker buoys be put out for at least a month showing the lines of the project so everyone concerned can see how far out into the channel it will go and what will be taken away from them. Joe and Lisa Vallejo, who are not on the water and don't have a dock, wanted to add their explanation as to why no one is out that far in the channel. 73 years ago they thought this area would be built up with sand and even Channel Reef would not be allowed to build now. Wants to declare 1936 Harbor Lines null. She cited Municipal Code 17.50 Rules for interpretation and Harbor Development Permits which says the application shall be denied if it may interfere with the rights of other permittees and oceanfront property owners and the application does not conform to the policies and regulations of the certified Local Coastal Program. They feel' that the scenic and the visual outcropping will be covered up, but the applicant ($ said the boats will be coming and going and won't be a problem. How often does that happen when all boats come and go all that often? Thank you for your consideration and time, we ask that you do the best for Newport Harbor. Marilyn Beck, 303 Carnation Ave. This project has not been passed by the City. There are many people with significant concerns with project size. The General Plan requests that developers of this project take a conservative approach in their projects. We worked hard to have responsible development included in the plan 1� Jun 03 Op 09;10a Keeton K. Kreitzer 714 - 665 -8539 p.4 Action: ITEM #3 Subject: Issue: Discussion: Action. ITEM #4 Subject: Issue: Discussion: Public Comments: so we would have responsible development within the City. This is a super -sized project, not conservative. I wish this meeting was out at the site to show you how hard the wind blows and how destructive It can be. Boats have capsized and docks have broken up. John Connelly, owns and resides at 401 Avocado Ave. and owns 2317 Bayside Drive, sold if a 100 foot boat breaks free during wave action it will create significant damage to the boats and properties in the area. The extension will be a bump in the harbor that doesn't need to be there. No one receives prior notices of high wave occurrences so boats can be moved to safety. Owners could be out of town or unavailable to act. The boat parade could be impacted. This sets a precedent for everyone to build their docks out further into the harbor. Bud Razner, 2500 Ocean Blvd., is a supporter of the project and he say's most people are. He was in the Harbor Patrol and knows the harbor. His work experience has taught him to look at all things, weigh all the sides and don't include personal feelings. Neighboring piers build to property lines so they may be impacted by Aerie. Accidents will always occur and liability should not be passed on to a new dock owner. Many people think they own the harbor. This project is a quality, responsible one and is a tax maker. The project provides a water element to clean the effluent that runs into the bay. The old structures need to be in place and need to look for reasons why it will work, not won't. The Commission provided comments on the environmental aspects of the dock system, as well as its overall design. Commissioner Beek made an advisory motion, "While not opposed to the expansion of the existing dock and its area and capacity we believe the size and configuration of the proposed dock project would create significant negative impact on, navigation and recreational boating in the harbor'. The motion carried with all ayes. Harbor Resources will forward this input to the Planning Commission and the City Council who will review the entire project as a whole. Newport Bay Marina at 2300 Newport Sivd, — Update The Harbor Commission heard an oral report on the status of the Newport Bay Marina located at 2300 Newport Boulevard. The project was approved by Coastal Commission in February with special conditions. It has a lot of public access. The little channel is there because Pickle Weed grows there and need to be preserved. They hope to attract water related business to attract tourists. They don't have any commitments but will be consistent with the regulations. The buildings are protected from shipyard noise and disclosures are required. The guest slips are tight for the smaller boats but they will comply with the Fire Code. The commissioners felt it was a good, responsible plan. Receive and file. Harbor Projects and Funding Projections. The City Council's Finance Subcommittee has requested an updated list of Harbor Commission approved projects and funding projections in order to plan for the future financial needs of the Harbor. The Harbor Commission reviewed the first draft at the March meeting and requested staff to return to the Commission with an updated draft for further review. Chris was complimented on the new format for the report. Commission lawrenz added that there needs to be a column for ongoing projects, such as Eelgrass. Mark Sites reminded everyone that fees will need to be raised to fund this. Funding sources need to be identified. We don't want to create any friction with the Army Corps as they already are giving us a hard time in approving dredging permits. He asked why we need to dredge in West Newport. 40f.-1 L Aerie Project April - 2009 a Storm Wave Conditions k1 r, lovic The Noble and Associates review did not consider documented storm events that resulted in waves from the southwest breaking across the mouth of the Jetty and rolling into the Harbor. These events in 1969 and in the early 1990's have caused head waves and storm surges that destroyed docks and piers on both sides of the harbor entrance. The residential piers at 2137 Bayside Drive and 2209 sustained damage or loss during these events. These locations are inbound from the subject location. None the less the Noble and Associates do admit that "damage to moored vessels and or docking facilities may occur" (draft EIR 4.9 -11) If a 1 00' foot vessel is tied to the outside dock with a 24 beam during one of these events: There is no mooring big enough in Newport Bay to accommodate the vessel. Chris Miller stated that there are only four double point moorings of 80 -95 feet in the Harbor. They may not be available during a storm event The OCSD would be unable to secure or move such a large vessel in a large storm event with the equipment they have. A Captain is not permitted to remain or live on board such a large vessel and therefore no one would be onboard during storm events to move or secure a vessel of this size. C4 Sediment Process and Flow patterns The EIR does not address how a Marina this size may effect sand deposition in the area. The "eddy zone" as described in 4.9 -11 of the EIR does not address how a more vigorous tidal exchange may scour the bottom of the bay more robustly, resulting in more sand movement. These increased flows through the relatively narrow entrance channel are to be expected as a result of dredging activities in the upper bay. The piles and mass of the vessels and over 3,400 square feet of new surface area may further slow water and sand movement and lead to future sand deposition. Shoals that built up by the Channel Reef Apartments and Kerchoff have lead to the abandonment of vessels slips. Dredging removed over 7,000 yards from this site in 2007. The shoal condition and loss of slips still remain. If the same pattern of shoal deposition occurs at the South side of the property line, the neighbors usage and pier permit would be altered. Additionally this adjacent cove are has been identified as the last remaining habit for sand dollars in Newport Bay. Future dredging permits might be very hard to obtain if a shoal formed here. We need to be accurate on where the normal flow of sand will go and how this development impacts its movement over its 75 year projected life. Page 4.7 -17 of the draft EIR describes the site: "The project lies within an area of active sand transport near the Harbor entrance that subject to periodic sand movement through mechanisms related to wave exposure and tidal energy transport ". While biological communities may not be affected by sand transport, neighboring properties maybe. -J 03 More study needs to be performed on how sand will move if a new pier and surface area is allowed to project over 75 feet into the bay. The photo record from 1928 certainly shows a history of sand accumulating in this area. r If permitted, there needs to be a plan for dredging sand that does not impact the Public budget and other dock permit holders whose use would be diminished. The pier permit should establish who is responsible for maintenance dredging in the future. _, � t i` �' �� Y N 4 xN Y F M �| $� � • s�miw It ;t ,s .; It s A, � � 1 DOCK LAYOUT j Cash 8 Associates , (24 Ft Beam CondMon) �® .. wa. 'V J Navigation The project would be the second pier in this area to extend to the pier head line. The other project was constructed in an area where its impact to the Harbor is not as pronounced. The Project further shows a vessel with a 24 foot beam that will extend further into the bay. This vessel alone adds another 2400 square feet of restricted water space to sailing, boating and fishing activities in addition to the 3450 of dock surface plus vessel shading. The project docks could be constructed to accommodate 8 vessels and stay behind the bulkhead line. K� E1 Irk. t 71 , If the full project is built to the pier head line, outboard piles should be marked with radar reflectors to make the location clear in severe fog conditions. K C 4 Vim• ' °A -�� 4 Y 1 1, , \�� !- �1s'K ♦ 1. Will this project in this area, set a precedent by encouraging property owners to build their docks out to the pier head line throughout Carnation Cove? Some existing docks are only constructed to the property line. If allowed to go to the pier head line, the County single point moorings would be impacted. They would either have to be removed or placed further out in the Bay. Something to consider. Proposed Dock Layout WIf . I - -- Can the project meet ADA design requirement s for a multi unit development at this location? The use of rotationally molded floats will allow the pier to sit a lower than normal. What is the plan to control and repel pinepeds (Sea Lions) if they take advantage of these easier to access floats? Waste Management Plan, Fire Suppression The location is a long distance from trash and sewage disposal. Will there be standpipes to handle a vessel fire? These should be addressed in the planning process. Revisions to the 12th and 13th WHEREAS for the draft resolution for Alternative A - (handwritten page 44). WHEREAS, the proposed project subject to conditions of approval is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 5.1.8 that requires adequate enclosed parking considering the number of bedrooms. One unit has 2 bedrooms, five units have 3 bedrooms, one unit has 4 bedrooms and one unit has 5 bedrooms. Five of the units have other rooms that could be modified and used as bedrooms and the unit sizes range from 2,662 to 4,990 square feet. The project provides two spaces for each of 2 uniisunit without vehicle lifts, and thFee seven additional spaces using vehicle lifts. Five guest parking spaces Ge are provided for a total of 34-28 covered, vehicle spaces. Provided parking is in excess of the minimum required pursuant to the Zoning Code (2.5 parking spaces per unit or a total of 20 spaces for 8 units proposed). WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy CE7.1.8 and Policy CE7.1.1 as well as Coastal Land Use Policy 2.9.3 -1 that require new development to avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce and that new development is required to provide adequate, convenient parking for residents. All parking is enclosed on site with access to lower parking levels taken from two vehicle elevators. Five Four of the six -five guest parking spaces and parking for one unit are located at street level where access to the vehicle elevators is not necessary. No gates are planned that could possibly inhibit access to the street -level parking. Only seven of the eight units and one guest parking space will require the use of the vehicle elevators. The below -grade parking configuration accessed by elevators is sufficiently convenient in that two vehicle elevators to access the garage are proposed, which will reduce vehicle wait times to avoid significant conflicts entering or exiting the elevators. Emergency power generators are required so that vehicle access is maintained if electrical power is lost. The vehicle maneuvering areas within the parking areas meet or will be modified prior to the issuance of a building permit consistent with applicable standards required by the City Traffic Engineer. Planning Commission, June 4, 2009 - AERIE (PA2005 -196) I A15 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/04/2009 AERIE Condominiums (PA2005 -196) ITEM NO. 2 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place in Corona del PA2006 -196 Mar at the corner of the intersection of Ocean Blvd. & Carnation Ave. Recommende for Approval The demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and a single -fam home and the construction of a 6- level, 8 -unit multiple - family residenti condominium complex with subterranean parking on a 1.4 acre site locato bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. TI existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Designations of small portion of the site (584 square feet) would be changed to be consiste with the larger portion of the site (from two- family residential to multi-faro residential). The application includes a tentative tract map for the creation eight (8) condominium units for individual sale. The Modification Pern application requests the encroachment of subterranean portions of the buildii within the front and side yard setbacks and above grade encroachments portions of the proposed building, including protective guardrails into the fro and side yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Pern application relates to replacement of demolished apartments occupied by low moderate income households. No units meeting these criteria are known exist, and therefore, no replacement of affordable housing units is required. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) (SCH #2007021054) has b prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application. DER concludes that the proposed project may have a significant effect on environment on Air Quality, Land Use, Noise, Traffic /Circulation, Aesthe Drainage and Hydrology, Public Health and Safety, Cultural Resources, and Geology, and Biological Resources. Principal Planner, James Campbell, gave an overview of the staff report. He then added: ➢ There are four additional attachments that were to have been attached to the Responses to Comments that have since been transmitted and made available to the public. ➢ There is an additional memorandum regarding the Predominant Line of Development as it relates to the amendment processed by the City to the Coastal Land Use Plan in 2007. An analysis has been provided and it concludes that the project complies with the amended policies. The amendment has not been submitted to the Coastal Commission, so it is not effective at this time, but is relevant in these proceedings. ➢ The Harbor Commission meeting minutes include comments that staff felt needed to be addressed for the record as they relate to environmental review. Eighteen comments have been identified and staff has provided written response to those comments and distributed them to the Commission and the public. No new significant environmental issues or analysis is needed. ➢ The Power Point presentation made at the Harbor Commission by Commissioner Lawrenz has been made available for the public and Page 2 of 10 -7,9� NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/04/2009 ➢ He then clarified the role of the Harbor Commission and the Harbor Resources Manager. Commissioner Hawkins asked if the Harbor Resources Manager can make a conditional order if the Council certifies the environmental document, then issue the harbor permit. Then they would have to go up the administrative chain? It would be better to have this whole thing unified rather than go to the Council twice. Mr. Harp answered it would not be possible under CEQA; it would be substantial act to approve the project and could not be done conditionally. Mr. Campbell continued. ➢ There is an inaccuracy in the comparison table as it relates to the concrete trucks. He clarified that Alternative A reduces the number of concrete trucks by 150 trucks; Alternative B is a reduction of 184 concrete trucks, and the five -unit multi - family is a reduction of 234 concrete trucks; the EIR will have an Errata to reflect these changes. ➢ A response to Commission inquiry relating to the elimination of the caissons as depicted in Alternative A; the project engineer has provided a letter that notes the bluff stability is similar and neither concept (project of Alternative A) would adversely affect the stability of the bluff face. ➢ Response to Comment Number 234 on page 14, makes an incorrect reference to response to 232, it should be to 235. This correction has been made in the document. ➢ It was indicated that there were inaccuracies in 12' and 13`" of the `Whereas" in the Alternative A resolution. Those changes are noted and distributed to the Commission and public. ➢ There are other alternatives that can be selected by the Commission for action that are identified in the EIR, or the Commission could develop a different option. Commissioner Eaton inquired about his the question about the stability of the bluff face and whether there was a difference in the caissons close to the bluff face with the construction and vibration involved, and whether that would indicate the project, as proposed, would have the possibility of de- stabilizing the bluff face, whereas Alternative A would have the project further back from the bluff face. Commissioner Hawkins noted the recommended action is to rescind. three Planning Commission Resolutions, numbers 1723, 1751 and 1761. Since those are distinct Planning Commission actions, he would suggest inserting those along with the appropriate hearing dates in this new resolution. He questioned the dates. Commissioner Hillgren noted he had not attended the last hearing on this matter; however, he has listened to the recording of the meeting provided to him by staff. He asked that the applicant give him a sense of Alternative A Page 3 of 10 7, 4 S NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/04/2009 as it relates to the Rick Julian, applicant, noted Alternative A is not what he is requesting. He is asking that the 'down- sized' proposed project be approved. He noted that Alternative A does not have as much parking and storage as the proposed plan and the common area is not as desirable as the proposed plan. The proposed plan benefits outweigh the short-term construction inconvenience that will take place. Brion Jeannette, architect of the project, made a Power Point presentation. ➢ He noted the differences between the proposed project and the Alternative A is five months longer construction, one month is noisier and the rest involve interior activities and are less noisy. The cost of the upsized catch basin and undergrounding of utilities proposed cost around $120,000. ➢ He showed an aerial photograph depicting the 500 -foot channel width with the site location and the proposed dock location relative to the pierhead line and bulkhead line; eel grass location; encroachments of current dock locations and vessel locations. Commissioner Unsworth asked for the drawing of the sub - basement and storage and parking areas that would be lost with Alternative A. He noted his concern of the lack of storage space and the possible tendency to use the garage with the potential for the cars to be parked on the street. Commissioner McDaniel asked if there were docks closer to the ocean jetty. He noted that people have discussed the potential wind damage that could and does occur. Mr. Jeannette answered there are docks and vessels closer to the Peninsula near the Wedge on the jetty side. These people move their boats during the winter time. There is a service that will be working with the project owners of the vessels to handle the boats and move them for safety reasons. Mr. Jeannette noted there is roughly 1,800 square-feet of storage and some of the mechanical space that would be eliminated with Alternative A, which is substantial in some cases. Sid Neblett of Neblett and Associates, owner and geologist, referenced his letter on the stability of the bluff that was included in the packet. He went on to explain the type of equipment to be used that has little or no vibration as well as the placement of the drilling to take place. He added that the basic material of the bluff is sandstone from the Monterey Formation that is very tough and very stiff. He stated they will not have a problem with the stability of the bluff face as the sandstone dips in the optional direction (down away from the bluff face). He then described how the drilling would take place, his many years of job experience and use of similar practices and his experience with the same formations and materials on the coast as well as the engineering that will take place. Page 4 of 10 �,q NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/04/2009 Mr. Jeannette further explained a current project that involved this type of sandstone and the excavation process with monitoring of neighbors on either side. He noted there was no damage done to either neighboring structures. He then noted a few other projects he had done with the similar excavation and drilling processes. Commissioner Hawkins asked Mr. Neblett about his credentials. Mr. Neblett answered he was a Certified Engineering Geologist of the State of California with many years of experience and that his Geology Number was CEG252. He added that a soils engineer had looked at this project. Commissioner McDaniel asked why a bigger setback would not be better for bluff face stability. The original plan would leave a smaller amount with a lot of piling and activity. Mr. Neblett then explained the different techniques he would use for the drilling so there would not be lateral pressure against the bluff face. He went on to explain the bedding plains for the rock formations. Commissioner Unsworth asked Mr. Neblett whether, in Mr. Neblett's professional opinion, there would be any difference in the structural integrity of the bluff between the proposed project and Alternative A. Mr. Neblett responded that the structural integrity of the bluff will be the same in both instances. Mr. Jeannette added that if the bluff is stable in both scenarios, there is no negative affect on the bluff face. We have chosen two different ways of doing this project so there is no impact to the bluff with either scenario. The stability is not changed. Public comment was opened. Jinx Hansen read another letter from Marilyn Beck and provided it for incorporation into the record. The letter highlighted the Carnation bluff, PLOED and precedent setting if this project is approved. Lisa Vallejo noted her opposition to the project stating bluff face failure; repair and /or replacing bluff with fake rock; extension of the balconies; and her believe that the project extended below the PLOED of 50.7 set by City Council. Keith Dawson noted eliminating parking in the project with Alternative A is not feasible; this needs to be a workable project and supported by the City. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Hawkins asked staff to respond to comments made in the Power Point presentation presented to the Harbor Commission, in particular the ADA design requirements of a multi -unit development; the plan to control and repel pinnipeds; waste water management plan, and fire suppression on Page 5 of 10 1091 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/04/2009 Mr. Campbell answered the pinniped issue is answered in Response to Comments 13 -7; the waste water management and fire suppression are answered in Comment 13 -8. The building itself will meet ADA requirements, the docks is a different question and does not have an answer. Commissioner Hawkins indicated that the stairwell is not being modified. There are existing stairs that gain access to the docks. Mr. Campbell answered those stairs will be repaired but will remain basically the same. Commissioner Hillgren noted he is persuaded by the argument it is better to have more space inside the building, which leans him towards the primary application. The trade -off between Alternative A is one parking space, two miscellaneous parking such as golf carts, and one motorcycle/bicycle. Mr. Campbell noted, from the Code standpoint, there are two spaces per unit, lifts in a variety of garages and an increase of one parking space in a lift configuration but the loss of one guest space. Alternative A provides five fewer guest spaces. Commissioner Hillgren asked how Alternative A came about. Mr. Campbell answered it was an alternative design to help reduce the significant impacts of the project, such as construction noise, while keeping in mind the project objectives. Shortening the duration of construction, which is the only significant unavoidable impact, was the goal and so several alternatives were devised. This is the analysis that is required by CEQA. These alternatives were a combined thinking and effort of staff, consultant and project proponent. Commissioner Hillgren noted his concern of the bluff face excavation. He then referenced Condition 27 and asked who is watching while this gets built, and if something should happen to the bluff face during excavation. Who is responsible to assure that this condition is met? Mr. Campbell answered the project will constantly be supervised by the Building Department. If there is anything that does not come out according to plan, a plan will have to be developed to fix it. This Condition 27 states what the end result should be. Hopefully, this will not be needed. Mr. Jeannette noted there are many companies that are capable of re- creating the bluff should that happen. He noted this is not expected to be needed. He went on to explain excavation /reinforcement process. Mr. Campbell noted the sub - basement of the project, about 11,000 square feet, would also be eliminated in Alternative A. Page 6 of 10 -7101$ NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/04/2009 Commissioner Hawkins, referencing Section 4.9 in the Environmental Impact Report that references soils and geologies, noted he does not see the concerns in connection with potential bluff failure as a result of construction activity. Does the EIR recognize that as a potentially significant impact? If so, does it propose any mitigation measures? Mr. Campbell answered there are two potential impacts associated with four mitigation measures on Page 4.9-13 of the EIR. One of the impacts is related to the storm waves associated with the docks, and the other related to the proposed building construction. With the mitigation measures, there will not be a significant impact. Commissioner Hawkins asked does the DEIR recognize a potentially significant impact as a result of the construction activities and potential bluff failure and proposed mitigation. Mr. Campbell answered the mitigation measure related to this follows the recommendation of the geologist and so the answer is it is not a significant impact and would be mitigated by following through with those recommendations and application of standards for building and grading codes. Commissioner Eaton noted, while recognizing some negatives with Alternative A, primarily the loss of parking, it seemed there were some significant environmental impact reductions in terms of truck trips, in addition to the duration as well as the pulling away from the slope would give more protection to the bluff face, and reducing the 11,000 feet meant that the floor area ratio was reduced. The applicant had indicated it could be potentially feasible. However, there has been no support from the opposition so apparently they don't care if there are less trips or not and the applicant has indicated that Alternative A is not what he wants. Given that, Commissioner Eaton expressed his support for the proposed project. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins, and seconded by Commissioner McDaniel, to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed project, to insert in the actions in the "Whereas" clauses the rescinded resolutions (Nos. 1723, 1751 and 1761 with concurring Planning Commission dates) and adopt the attached draft resolution recommending City Council certification of the DEIR State Clearinghouse Number 2007021054, approve the General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005 -002, Code Amendment No. CA2005 -009, Tract Map No. NT2005 -004 (TT16882), Modification Permit No. MD2005 -087, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2005 -002 for the property located at 201 — 205 and 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place. (PA2005 -196) Commissioner McDaniel noted he has looked at the bluff face. If this project was six blocks inland, it would be a basement and nobody would care. He is comfortable about the preservation of the bluff face. The Commission has done as much as possible to protect the views of the citizens of Newport Page 7 of 10 -1Jq~ it NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/04/2009 Beach. He noted his support of the project. Commissioner Eaton noted the continuance from the prior meeting was valuable and we have the additional responses on the docks, and additional findings in the packet that make for a better record. In terms of the original project there was a lot of opposition, but this is a unique parcel and is multiple - family. He noted his support of the project. Mr. Campbell asked if the motion included the clarilication of the Errata discussed during the presentation. He also asked to change Condition 59 on handwritten page 111, to include additional language that states, ...if the easement would be vacated prior to the issuance of a building permit and recordation of the final tract map if the easement is no longer needed. The maker and second of the motion both agreed to these changes to be included in the motion. Commissioner Toerge noted he could not make the necessary findings to approve the project in Chapter 4 of the Coastal Resource Protection Policy 4.4.1 -3 which deals with the minimizing of alterations to significant land forms, the project does not meet this Policy; 4.4.2 -2, which requires to regulate the physical mass of structures, the project does not meet that Policy; 4.4.2 -3, which has to do with regulating building envelopes through a number of things including floor area, lot coverage and building bulk, the project does not meet this Policy; 4.4.3 -8, 4.4.3 -9 have to do with the adherence to the Predominant Line of Existing Development and the project does not do that either; 4.4.3- 12, minimizing alterations to bluffs, certainly the project does not meet this Policy. With regard to the Land Use Element, there is Policy LU3.2, which requires us to enhance neighborhood development through a number of things such as elementary form and scale and character and the project does not do that. Land Use Element Policy 5.1.1 requires us to regulate development that contributes to neighborhood character and this project does not do it not because of the architecture, but because of its size and physical mass. He opined that the record does not support the statement of overriding considerations that the project benefits outweigh the impacts of the proposed project; therefore, he will not be supporting the project. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: Toerge NON - HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Prelims I Year 2009 -2010 Capital Improvement Program ITEM NO.3 (PA2007 -131) PA2007 -131 The annual review of the Preliminary Fiscal 9 -2010 Capital Approved Improvement Program to determine consistency with the Gene and Coastal Land Use Plan, and to make recommendations to the City Coun concerning the proposed public works projects. Page 8 of 10 FJ -.07,joa ill r� i COUNCIL CITY BRIEFING BOOK JULY i 2009 • • Introduction Initial Design - 9 units (Submitted 8.16.2005) • 7 levels (EL. 30.08' NAVD88) • 76,333 SF • 32,400 yd3 excavation Current Design - 8 units • 6 levels (EL. 52.83' NAVD88) • 61,709 SF ( -200) • 25,240 yd3 excavation ( -220) • 9' wide northerly view corridor • Upgrade existing catch basin & underground 2 power poles • Environmental Protection and Restoration Measures created • Applicant has proposed EIR instead of MND Public Hearing Process . Plans Submitted to City (8.16.2005) . Planning Commission Hearing (2.22.2007) . Planning Commission Hearing (4.05.2007) . Planning Commission Hearing (5.17.2007) • City Council Hearing (8.14.2007) . Planning Commission Hearing (2.21.2008) Planning Commission Hearing (6.19.2008) . City Council Hearing (7.22.2008) . Planning Commission Hearing (5.21.2009) . Planning Commission Hearing (6.04.2009) • City Council .14. MND - original MND - 1 It revision MND-2nd revision MND-3rd revision with docks (q) Recommended approval to City Council MND-4th revision Concluded PLOED at 50.7' NAVD 88 Remanded project to PC for review MND-51h revision Project revised 9 units to 8 units Recommended approval of revised Project to City Council MND - original/ requested for more studies Present 8 units project with EIR Approved 6 to 1 vote Present 8 units oroiect with EIR Before After M M M M M M M M M M M r M M M r M M M Citv Council Reauested Additional Information Applicant's Decision to prepare EIR • Aesthetic o View Impact from the Bay • Biological Resources • Noise and Traffic Analysis o Construction Management Plan • Air Quality • Soils and Geology o Bluff Protection J Aesthetics • 20 view simulations were generated by city's consultant to analyze scenic public views: o Bay views from Newport Harbor o Kayak views o View from Begonia Park and Pacific Drive o Bay views from Bayside Drive Beach o Bay views from Balboa Peninsula o Street view from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue EIR states: Impacts to views of natural resources were less than significant View Simulation - Channel View (Refer to EIR Section 4.5 for more view simulations Before After J View imulation - Kavak View (Refer to EIR Section 4.5 for more view simulations) Before After M M M M M M r M M I• M M M M M M M M M Vi w Simulation - Kayak View (Refer to EIR Section 4.5 for more view simulations) Before After (Refer to page 27 -28 for dock access/ emergency exit) J Biological Resource • Develop program to restore bluff face • Remove exposed concrete foundations • Remove exposed storm drain pipe and debris • Remove non - native plant materials • Relandscape with drought resistant native plant materials • Develop program to protect sand dollar habitat (currently not listed) • Develop dock construction techniques to protect eelgrass EIR states: Impacts to biological resources are less than significant M M = M = M M M M M M .. M M M M I Eelgrass and Sand Dollar Exhibit Survey performed in August 2008 by Coastal Resource Management J Noise and Traffic Analysis Air Quality onstruction Management Plan m m = = m � = m m m m = m m m ! r m CMP Haul Route �_tiMyenbP" i '. p.in....r ,Ifonnnn..e COM r �P ar P2� a.raw•Pent i �Lf J� rroo JR b:` dL rte` e Pr'p i P j S J� S( y9f Sh E, N lookout Pohl rW° c O 4ry BFgt'4RAZ J) 'key QGo mCorona Esl 11ar State Beach` Inwinimlon point u G..ull MawAJ P.114 TO MACARTHUR BLVD., TO 73N TO 55N FWY S, �G P q. Fire Station 5 pt 9' 0 r Vl v o° �i �P ia�� iigP i° r�qS) iii H� i0 E Op jP O� Pn. r Construction Noise • Short term construction noise is the only unavoidable impact • Construction noise exempted under Municipal Code § 10.28.040 • Code limits hours of construction on weekdays and Saturday • Phase I and II - construction limited to weekdays only • Mitigation conditions to minimize noise • Construction equipment equipped with muffling devices • Sound blanket and plywood panels installed • Quiet "state of the art" tools • Building envelop will contain construction noise • Utilize temporary electrical power, no combustion engine generators See EIR Section 4.4 - The only unavoidable impact Construction Noise I 90 80 70 no]0 Q 50 J V 40 RE 20 A 10 1 Short Term and Intermittent "14" events lasting 2 -3 days Caisson Drilling Construction Noise over Time * * * Concrete Pour UU11 -- U U N w L N c. a a -n O L i to 3 3cnw C', —a C M Fg 50 00 �° —¢tea 3 0 — g =0 °dim mo nor 3 : fi 13T �- 3.3 'no ° C 0 Y x 0 0 a m 3 'o' w N m t'o 0 s 0 z FVHshirg O I 1 1 I I I I III I m l l rlT� "1 �1TTIT'n i r 1 8 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 12 Work Week Study by The Planning Center OQvi to 28' va Excavate tc Excavate to 50' rn c c� Construction Noise over Time * * * Concrete Pour UU11 -- U U N w L N c. a a -n O L i to 3 3cnw C', —a C M Fg 50 00 �° —¢tea 3 0 — g =0 °dim mo nor 3 : fi 13T �- 3.3 'no ° C 0 Y x 0 0 a m 3 'o' w N m t'o 0 s 0 z FVHshirg O I 1 1 I I I I III I m l l rlT� "1 �1TTIT'n i r 1 8 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 12 Work Week Study by The Planning Center OQvi M M M M M M M� M M M M M M M M M M M CMP Construction Traffic • Shuttle workers to the site from 3 off -site parking venues • Construction valet and flagmen will oversee traffic around the site • One truck at a time, no less than 15 minute intervals • No truck staging area required • No idling allowed • Vehicular elevator to be utilized for workmen during construction EIR states: Less than significant impact with implementation of CMP Air Quality • Thru the CMP, emission level is substantially below the threshold • Limitation on number of trucks per day 0 29 trucks maximum per day - 15 minutes interval o No idling trucks o Meets SCAQMD regulations • Construction equipment meets SCAQMD regulations • Fugitive dust control complies with SCAQMD regulations • Green building strategies • Low VOC finishes • Construction equipment with low emission • Formaldehyde free products EIR states: Less than significant impact with implementation of CMP m m m m m m m m m m m m m r m m m m m Construction Phase Air Quality Established by the SCAQMD on a daily basis Threshold Aerie % Below (lbs /day) Avg.(Ibs /day) Threshold ROG 75 5.50 (-93%) Reactive Organic Gases N Ox 100 41.0 ( -60 %) Nitrogen Oxides S02 550 27.0 ( -95%) Sulfur Dioxide PM 10 150 2.30 ( -98 %) Particulate Matter less than 10 microns PM2.5 55 1.84 ( -97 %) Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns �9 Construction Manaaement Plan (CMP • Construction schedule to determine traffic, air quality, and noise impacts - Approx. 32 months • Excavation will not occur between Memorial Day & Labor Day Phase I 6 months Phase II - 18 months Phase IV 1 1 months Phase III - 13 months Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV • Asbestos and lead based paint removal • Demolition • Caisson Placement ( ±19 days) • Excavation (± 17 weeks) o Grading will not occur between Memorial Day and Labor Day • Concrete placement • Wall framing • Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing installation • Interior and Exterior Finishes Construction CMP AERIE CON RJCTON 9CMWLE chedule I.Sk IA4I XnM[ _ INa NU./.1 I.nuY M.+1.AA11YnuYM.. l.a61 Or <OMMIIIF Iu110 AL910 AM -10 Da.10 ul0 y[.I0 •rvll E.9ll Mw-13 Awl, Marta lumll Iu'll Il S.9'll Mill «.ull Dwll ..." i.6li Mn13 A113 .,1' 1-11 IuL1S Ay 11 Lplt bx li .w. 13 D..lx .rvl) 9N.)) YNr pN M.mmul Day Aw«tmxY Lw04.. vun.xrpY 3)). "I. LMN'. I Owul.wnW 0.YOry AUWI.W VII.W wLmlTwl IO".. I fD• _; lmutllt 4.ggb.eu. I]VW3010 9 /Y]010 )C.mmJpy 9TP /Gry • L.axn.l).ap Cu YM InaYI L.Mnfrol['A.P' .IM /mW IlMalo lN•Ipe.lmy S)xp/.w .Dl� {a( f P[Y13)Unwmlw Ran• 6=2.2 IU10M10 .CrnmJ pY i3uW WY �• b Fuxtl.)WJCV Ya /IgrYllyL•VaoFL100' x)IVIlR0f0 ll/Vmm 3N LM1]N a.. e.. a ) Im]w l "o-.[irywNSMnn )WI0 /1010 1]M/1010 I.qm aq. nw.ylwry _ b 1.[mi. s.xwc. rw /ImrYIMN.,Imu. :eo is unvlalo vmrsoli a]LmmTaY mxP raw Cwn.M4l.B.rrM.nlw r9..en 56W lmyx. r4MUn.a On.ny.)nynr )) 3/IV3011 Srw. dry r�PY �y)M ]0 Ln1a.YW.A n1Wbr.rmq/fpnarutt CaraM.IM.wr wYk wm1l .]15/1011 lrwr pP vv lI V Conr[rM M.n.r. Lru[1uml Dx. YIV ll WWII irwr pn wnaa .I 3E sMa M. w.)anlsq.« /CmY,xLCO[rx.Invw W.N wM/:011 VU}011 )rwrbn 69irwlcml ! /1 Il Connr�e[I.nrb«Sxmluwl p[VM «YNuOlr.gn.EY SW Lr.mw[.MS )06/Lmil VI1 lrwr yr. 50YP1«.1 I mrYI N.[IrwuY Flwr[n 6nuNnIx SWLrrm.rbu }5N /T111 VY1I1 .Igrn. m,e. �rnY 4l,ury la m ll D� iSMarY.W.Nnrn[flmr /Cmfrux RnaRq War.[.rmxw WYk/ Mn.I L1W h,.mr9x M..rgm rkq w)IWMIV lw/mll )rwrOM 66LrP IWI v 3 36 (OnA.un sxoM rlw SlrunA )p 1UVm11 IL)9)1011 xrwr0.n bnwlax w EY Wxwn roar 351VUmm lLHmll Nprw ert..nM. axnm' ! Z 3 15 SMx«. w.xux- SnaN rbm (gpr�u[lfourx. �f MnYLUa r..mrynamrbo- wll]30/mu UlUmll 1rau.yy. yvP ia.l ^ i 19 fpnrnun AUOlbp ilruarwM 0n1 3p VlAfW Utb /tYlt tlwr yy. wrrwim.l :0 Ccnura1 TV01YV CCrcM.uMwWY \/ � 6 E' M «J Slm ux.yxsnwrarm v)nnxau uWmu )Im, yn .'.w' .a .� ;' :1 wl.n «nnwNY. Lnxrwl an«M„Rn rkn rl,a vWn/mu 4/la/I913 .1 vn.. nw. a.lwn a' n ynx«a rrnrmlm Mrumml DNu �• _ M«JAw A.rr.r� «)wrorm n.N /mu 5aumu lw. yn wL.Pm.I }. Im1YIM «Mn4Y.LY«rk.liRwrbgYL[axrlmr $5. /1] /mll ✓35/3013 .Inryp pxe.ns. a angry + (mnrun fwnn fkw Ckr[r «. MIVa W.4 IS Mf/fOl3 NVatlil Ilnrr yn Sp IrP 1 Y D 33 M«a11tW lrwrynlwllr5lw ma.al. yVl9 /}01i )y/A13 ib In WrMnnwKY.LYNULL MUM.�n D as A�NWlounA iCn M)M/m13 l]lUmll a DP ]] IgLYrW�Mw..M Ln.riV OSn w]Ra/mll )/ W/tW` .vao tCYMrxas.c.x :l w.Mn•ad O.eA.M.mn 5p b1m13 D; 1, » M1Ynr..r Y Mrrrva m. 10 wuxon ax)/mu WIM. � N s w Lnlxv x.go/mwL.arrr aa. M.M wMVmss Iwmlx u riwrw rn.M xsunbx.nw.k; .,n,n.n r.. wwM.wr wn.M wwalon W/ml3 p y} M.ra _ I..I, —mm t "'0a, r.. s,.wm.rm s.x.rq saWlov ammo I �; s n n.Mxf,m rbnl -- mNn.n rn.arm...wsn[.nn mb/amu luamv ±� fnnMNSxeM lyy/ .umu »Oxwr.n Pr u.e. .ayn :MrSUlprnm SnwM W / /t51mll WU /mV 1 nnMnrn.re.m wrnn ]Im.! - .w.l,n M.wwrnam snmM ns lons/mu YW,.0 In wnLx ]una wnnrlwr Im VVmll I/1Vmu YM.p.awmI'—.n f. rmMlnngay..M igew. Mnn.nr..l [LU1r[.1 r..5mnY1n.W I 5w «on Il.lw/mu ammo .arwlq.nl.el« m.aw IM....n L.W yr w Menafw as-. )ml qp M N L•.• ]639 InEgM III r.aM wal b nnrawd.rd u«09n w.. TNNyII«rYl.lpn yw..M r undrMMr.n in.p xln Yl<ugleu[Ip pnam. p.(.m.LMr..oNkiwry4anwnlnb m m m mm. _m m _..m___ I CMP Excavation Program (See E!R Appendix B - CMP) zJ CMP Excavation Proaram GRADING CUT EDGE OF DEVELOPMENT AT ELEV. 507 VEGETATION PROTECTION FENCING LINE BAYSIDE PL. II II II I' 0 II IF – I' II II II I' II �— II I II I c SUB- BASEMENT II II C - l T.O.SLAB = 30.0' I I I I I' II II I max- BRACING I' II II it "WALERSYSTEW' II I dI_ - --- �1 - -4- `" _ _ z Lu >l U__j O `D i -1 ST FLR. PATIO T.5-.SLAB = 53.42' CARNATION AVE. w w m m= m m� m m! m m m m= mm m m m I SEGMENT #1 SEGMENT #2 SEGMENT #3 CMP Excavation Stages IL mm -: VANN -- - Ali -- - Ali J SEGMENT #1 -- SEGMENT #2 SEGMENT #3 a., 9` J Soils/ Geology • Aerie maintains the visual and structural integrity of coastal bluff • "It is our opinion that the proposed development will enhance the stability of the existing bluff, and will reduce the vulnerability of bluff erosion." Neblett and Assoc. Inc. • Stability of bluff face is not compromised. (The trapezoidal section) • The basement exit does not compromise the bluff face and is above the existing development of El. 42.30' • Basement exit landing will be lowered to 44.48' to connect the existing on grade steps EIR states: Less than significant impact M M ELEV.50.7' EXCAVATION DOES NOT IMPACT BLUFF FACE ELEV. 30.0' r = = _ _ _ m mm I Trapezoidal Section _111 SECOND FLOOR POOL FIRST FLOOR BASEMENT SUB - BASEMENT (Tm) NTEREY FORMATION BEDROCK �6 Dock Access/ Emeraenc EXIST'G STAIRS _ TO REMAIN - DN 44.48` FS y EXIST'G STEPS TOE BE MODIFIED TO RAMP IN CURRENT LOCATION Exit at Basement - 50.7' PLOED UP 40.50' FS BSMT = 40.50' FF mm = _ m I Dock Access/ Emergency Exit '' 44.4.8 FS a l � J Project Upgrades EIR and CMP led to positive adjustment of plans. • Increased public views of bay and ocean • Created 9' wide northerly view corridor • Underground 2 existing power poles on the east side of Carnation Avenue • Upgrade storm water catch basin and add filtering system • Sand dollar habitat protection Public View Corridors OUTLINE OF EXISTING BULIDING PROPOSED UNIT 3 DECK AT - ELEV. 64.92' (NAVD 88) \ PROPOSED UNIT 3 Q ELEV. 65.0' (NAVG 88)� oQ0 �� - ;Z � L z UJ O 00 -1 CARNATION AVE. PUBLIC VIEWPOINT AT ELEV. 69.0': NEW PARK BENCH AND DRINKING FOUNTAIN I �o 9' -0" VIEW CORRIDOR ao 30 Westerly View Corridor Before After m m= m m= m m m m m m m m m m m m m Created 9' Wide Northerly View Corridor 32 m m= m w m r m= m == i r m= m m m Created 9' Wide Northerly View Corridor Upgrade Storm Water Catch Basin Add Filterinq Svstem tbffie I N D U S 1 R I E S Smart Sponge® _I A Handful of Critics Are Saving.. . 1) Architectural design is not compatible 2) The architecture conflicts with neighborhood character 3) Aerie is too big, does not fit in the neighborhood 4) Excessive grading landward of PLOED Well, I disagree because ... • Current development is no longer the beach houses from the 20's, 30's, 409s • Some are cute and others are edgy. All are 2 or 3 -story houses or condominiums built in the last 25 years some have full basements m m == m m m = = == w m r mm = m w I "Unique Character of Different Neighborhoods" Architecture of Corona del Mar 36 m m m == m= m == m m m m mm == m I w i t F. Architectural Diversity Architectural Diversity m ...: Architectural Diversity 40 Architectural Diversity Carnation Avenue Seaview Avenue Carnation Avenue Ocean Boulevard (150' represents AERIE Carnation Ave. Frontage) Character of Neighborhood O:: s 600 Ocean Boulevard Ocean Boulevard Ocean Boulevard Poinsettia Avenue Character of Neighborhood m m m = m m = m m m m m m m mm m m m I Docks and Associated Walkway • Materials barged in from nearby shipyard • Applicant has voluntarily chosen to Drill holes versus pile drive for precast piles to protect eelgrass and minimize noise • Silt curtains used to protect eelgrass and sand dollar habitat • Docks located landward of the navigational channel • Docks located landward of the navigation station • Maintain distance from eelgrass, sand dollars, and rock formations • Marine biologist on site to oversee the overall construction Aerie Dock Plan ♦ , REPL ♦ MUD ♦ 1� REMOVE (E) GANGWAY It REMOVE , (E) W000 DOCKS ♦ Buoy1 #T It END T DOCK E (135 N) r_3-1.� Buoy #2 �1 O ,O (EL EVER- SUPPORTED (E) CONC. AIKWAY IN- LIKE -KIND STAIRS TO REMNN r E) N CMAI PAD N _ t �7 A- -REPAIR �yX y� 7 CK (E) PIERS (a PLACES) (N) STEEL PILE REPLACE (E) GANGWAY !. PLATFORM 4 (E) STEEL PILES IN -UKE -KIND �'� (N) W000 DOCKS IRS (N) GANGWAY / SASHPCOOMPLETETE U By ) * Represents the location of buoys placed by the Harbor Commission Subcommittee indicating the edge of dock and theoretical 100' boat with a maximum 24' beam (Plan prepared by URS Cash & Associates) Proposed Dock Harbor Commission Subcommittee's request to locate dock extension and 24' wide beam vessel Proposed Dock rwd Harbor Commission Subcommittee's request to locate dock extension and 24' wide beam vessel Harbor Commission Subcommittee Findings After the April 8, 2009 Harbor Commission meeting, a subcommittee was created, comprised of 3 Commissioners (Chairman Duffield, Lawrence, Corrough) to further study the actual potential extent to which the project might create. A Field survey was conducted on May 30, 2009 and concluded: 1. Would not present hazard to any vessels transiting within the established 500' wide Newport Harbor federal navigational channel 2. Retain at least a 21'+ clear water buffer between the edge of channel and the nearest permitted vessel 3. Would be located well inside a typical straight -line inbound course. 4. The "narrowest point of the harbor" for safe/ official navigational purposes in not at the project site nor created by the propose project. 5. The design would retain continued direct public - waters access and views to the existing beach by small teachable vessel and retain shallow water access and views to the bluff and the distinctive rock. The proposed Aerie Docks project ... would NOT "... create any significant negative impact on navigation and recreational boating in the harbor" as stated in the previous Harbor commission advisory motion. Navigation Channel/ Examples of docks and vessels bevond U Pierhead Line So •4 an 7� of ,i•� 'f'1 9(1F:'la�Cw� Ir�l. �"!� - z M 9�l •;� �� G4, hj,' A 1 Mlk Sr dm in ' 00" T //••�� r b I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 NAVIGATI 4 CHANNNI 41S.I. Up ri�� r I A BAY AVE E rn ITS HALBOA BLVD E L � w� ,. l `�v 4'RR J r .aG �'f'rr4r P ti n S nrrOUu �.� City Boundary i Bulk & Pierhead Stationing Bulkhead Pierhead • Eelgass Patch 07 Survey �' ■ Eelgass Bed 07 Survey • Eel grass Patch 04 Survey Eelgass Bed 04 Survey ■ Mapped Eelgrass NOAA 04 1 Mooring Sites Categorical Exclusion Zone ■ Charmer of Commerce ® City Office ■ Fire Station Library 1 ■ ParklCommundy, Center yx. 3 Q Post Office Scthool 1 17 Dl�.elelmer t r •�, Every reasonable etlon has been made to assure the accuracy of the data provided, however, The A CRY of Newport Beach and Its employees and .. _ agents disclaim any and all respon51bRity from or relating to any re6uNS obtained In Is use. The 'IS database and data In the product is slbieci j to constant change andtMe accuracy and w e completeness canna be and Is not guaranteed. * Docks and vessels beyond US Pierhead Line 54 Z .�. 1\ KS 1 1 1�1 hh�� PARK AVE Y -w' 1 VA /� • y y.r — ; Dlsdaimer Y S Every reasonable effort has been made to assure Nil me accuracy of the data Its provided, however, The � City of Newport Beach and d Its employees and agents disdalm any and all responsibility from or -� relating to any results obtained In its use. The AY FRONT 5 -w GIS database and data In the product Is sWject .� to constant change and the aaclracy and completeness cannot be and is not guaranteed. * Docks and vessels beyond US Pierhead Line City Boundary •I: it ati,a t ` �Gb: Pierhead al Eetgrass Patch I Eelgress Bed 07 Survey •�� Eelgrass Patch 04 Survey Ai- Eelg-833 Bed 04 Survey . kke Mapped reigrass NOAA 04 Mooring Sites 1 �G city office • ► old- Fire Station Library Park/Conymnity Center 4 1 } Post office Schod — ; Dlsdaimer Y S Every reasonable effort has been made to assure Nil me accuracy of the data Its provided, however, The � City of Newport Beach and d Its employees and agents disdalm any and all responsibility from or -� relating to any results obtained In its use. The AY FRONT 5 -w GIS database and data In the product Is sWject .� to constant change and the aaclracy and completeness cannot be and is not guaranteed. * Docks and vessels beyond US Pierhead Line a z Fi !4 1 1 BAY. FRONT IN �.' Ito i ;; "M 11 i ! O 11II�T' R L t � 4i H tIM Vq4, v a jr.," City Boundary • Bulk & Pierhead Stationirkj /-4 Bulkhead Pierhead • Eelgrass Patch 07 Survey ■ Eelgass Bed 07 Survey • Eelgrass Patch 04 Survey Eel grass Bed 04 Survey ■ Mapped Eelgrass NOAA 04 Mooring Sites Categorical Exclusion Zone Chamber of Cor"rce ® City Office ■ Fire Station Library ■ Park(Conrrxmity Center ® Post office ■ School Olselaimer Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of Ina data provided, however, The City of Newport Beach and Its employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or rearing to any results obtained in as use The GI S database and data in the product is subject to constant change and the acpray and completeness cannot be and Is not guaranteed * Docks and vessels beyond US Pierhead Line L". .6N1rr<} f•1k _ o�<huv.,^ /,/ City Boundary • Bulk & Pierhead Stationing Bulkhead Pierhead • Eelgass Patch 07 Survey ■ Eelgass Bed 07 Survey • Eelgass Patch 04 Survey Eelgass Bed 04 Survey Mapped Eelgrass NOAA 04 1 Mooring Sites Categorical Exclusion Zone Chamber of Conymrce rw city office Fire Station Library Park(Conymnity Center Post Office Scl1ool Disclaimer Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the data provided, however. The City of Newport Beach and Its employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or rel aling to any resuit5 obtained In its use The a w i s GIS database and data In the produd Is styled ^ r < to constant Mange and the aatracy and M - , a ' o m: ; completeness cannot be and is not guaranteed. R,Y FRONT ' FROM(. AL u 1 -- < * Docks and vessels beyond US Pierhead Line T U •g v MMj x w LL W a OR r�r 5/�a/�'A�Y.FRONTN � f' BAY, FRONT ALLEY N ..� r. PJ S r ti 1 � n y� S •'4nry +� City Boundary • Bulk & Pierhead Stationing Bulkhead Pierhead • Eelgrass Patch 07 Survey - Eelgrass Bed 07 Survey • Eelgrass Patch 04 Survey Eelgrass Bed 04 Survey ■ Mapped Eelgrass NOAA 04 Mooring Sites Categorical Exclusion Zone Chamber of Comrrlerce Q City Office ■ Fire Station ■ Library Park/Coninifunity, Center © Post Office ■ Schad Disclaimer Every reasonable effort has been made to azure he accuracy of tt>a data provided, however, The City of Newport Beach and Its employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to any resuffs obtained In its use The GIS database and data In the product Is subiect to constant Mange and the accuracy and rompleteness cannot be and Is not guaranteed. * Docks and vessels beyond US Pierhead Line _I 58 Green Architecture Design Criteria Passive Strateaies: • Design to maximize solar orientation to increase the use of daylighting concept and reduce energy usage • Use of high - thermal mass for capturing and retaining heat through solar heat gain apertures • Optimum overhangs to minimize harsh summer sun exposures while allowing winter heat gain • Natural ventilation systems that capitalizing on prevailing ocean breezes and thermal convection dynamics • Dual paned glazing systems using 'Low -E' glass (both non - mechanical and hybrid systems) • Grey water retention for property irrigation • Use of environmentally friendly and sustainable materials • California drought tolerant landscape materials • Active Strateaies: • Solar domestic hot water and pool heating • Solar Photovoltaic arrays to generate electricity • Multi -zoned radiant hydronic heating and cooling systems o Instantaneous hot water boilers w/ solar Domestic Hot Water assist M= M M III M M= r = = M= M w M r i Other Desicin Elements to be Incorporated: o Potential for LEED silver certification • Use of environmentally friendly, sustainable, and renewable materials • Reduction of greenhouse gas emission through the use of low VOC finishes and formaldehyde free products • Reduction of energy use through high efficacy lighting fixtures and occupancy sensor • Reduction of energy use through Lutron Homeworks interactive lighting control systems • Compatibility with day lighting • Cross ventilation systems • Implements the most state of the art water quality plan available, endorsed by COASTKEEPERS • Reduction of emission level substantially through the implementation of Construction Management Plan Marine & Plant -Life Protection: o Cove will be constantly maintained to be free of all artificial debris including plastic and Styrofoam which could be harmful to the marine life o Vegetation on the bluff will be replaced with California drought tolerant (natural indigenous) plantings that require less irrigation 60 PROJECT BENEFITS The AERIE Project includes a host of community benefits that are being provided voluntarily by the applicant. These benefits are not required by the City. Underground Utilities - The proposed project includes the removal of two existing utility poles and the undergrounding of the existing overhead utility lines at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. This voluntary off -site community benefit is intended to improve the aesthetic character of the area. No City policy or ordinance requires the implementation of such off -site improvements. The only requirements for the removal and undergrounding of overhead utilities relate to improvements on the Project site itself. Specifically, Title 19 of the Municipal Code requires the developer to underground the existing overhead utility line extending to the site from the nearest utility pole. 2. Catch Basin -An off -site drainage area encompassing 11.54 acres contributes storm flows to the existing catch basin in Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard. Storm flows generated within this drainage area have a 100 -year peak storm flow rate of 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). The Project would result in a decrease in the 100 -year storm flow, which would be directed to an existing storm drain that has adequate capacity. However, the existing catch basin is currently deficient. Although no significant Project - related impacts are anticipated as a result of the reduction in storm flow generated by the proposed project, this facility will be improved by the project applicant to accommodate the storm flows generated within the tributary area, including the Project site. 3. View Corridors - Views from the "public view point" at Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard would be enhanced by approximately 76 percent as a result of the Project. A public bench and drinking fountain will be added at this "public view point" to enhance the public viewing experience. The Project also includes a view "window" at the northerly property limits, which currently does not exist. 4. New Public Parking - The Project will create three additional on- street public parking spaces because the length of the curb cut on the Project site has been substantially reduced. These on- street parking spaces will accommodate visitors to the area, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. 5. State -of -the Art Energy Features - The Project has been designed utilizing "green" architecture criteria and energy efficient design. See page 57 - 58. 6. Visual Improvements: • The timeless architectural style is reminiscent of the famous turn -of- the - century works of world renowned architect Antonio Gaudi. • AERIE'S organic design will seamlessly meld into the bluff -top, harmonizing with the natural landscape, a vast improvement to the existing development. • Parking which is now in driveways and carports will be relocated underground and out of sight • Existing concrete, pipes, and building materials that litter the bluff face will be removed. PROJECT BENEFITS CONTINUE. . 7. Other Improvements: • Increases City's property tax roll. The property is currently assessed at approximately $12,000,000. Aerie is estimated to be assessed at approximately $80,000,000. • Implementation of a technologically superior parking method which avoids the standard, "back into the street every time a resident departs ", also: i. Increases public on- street parking by 3 spaces ii. Increases off - street parking by 31 parking spaces plus 2 golf cart and motorcycle area, code requires only 20 parking places • Enhances neighboring property values • Reduces number of dwelling units permitted by zoning, there are only 8 units at Aerie versus the 15 that exist today • Reduces traffic with reduced number of units • Is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning • Does not descend as low as surrounding properties to the waterline preserving the bluff below 52.83 feet (WHICH IS ABOVE THE EXISTING BUILDING at elevation 42.3') as well as stabilizing the northerly sloughing slope. • Utilizes only 21.6% of the site, preserving the remaining 78.4% as open space, twice the amount of open space required by code • Maintains a predominate building height lower than the maximum 33 feet height limit allowed by code. • Creates jobs in this maligned economy M M M M M M M M M M i M M M M M M M M In Summation • Project upgrades per City Council's request have led to a better project • With the assistance of the city council, planning commission, city staff, surrounding neighbors, and with the acceptance of the applicant, I bring you 8 attached custom homes that respect the goals of the General Plan, LCP, and protects the coastal resources i2ml There are a number of issues that are "firsts" in Newport Beach because of the prominence of this site: • Green Building Techniques, sustainability, energy conservation, have been an important design criteria from the beginning • Protection of biological and natural resources including the sand dollar habitat • Views from bay and kayakers of the coastal bluffs have been protected • Short term construction noise which is unavoidable and cannot be eliminated has been minimized thru the detailed CMP • Air quality and emission standards not only conform to the 1971 standards, but actually thru the CMP the emission level is substantially below the threshold M M M M M M M M M M M M M i M M M M M AERIE believe that Aerie is defining the parameters of building on coastal bluffs in Newport Beach. I take this project seriously, Newport Beach is not a provincial community. This project is protecting Newport's natural resources more than any project in our history, while at the same time honoring individual property rights and creating unique, distinctive architecture. know of "NO" project proponent that has ever committed this effort to voluntarily support and help define the environmental, aesthetic direction of a community. Brion Jeannette Architecture \ 66 Attachment #9 Correspondence Intentionally Blank Gj, t J�t'1 C/t-"Y 0 EL L KENT S. MOORE 210 CARNATION AVENUE CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92626 TELEPHONE: (949) 6787692 FACSIMILE: (949) 6787699 �centmoore� July 1, 2009 f o R^" ✓� �i`- cam— Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: July 14, 2009 Public Hearing —AERIE Condominiums — PA2005 -196 Dear Members of the City Council: I am writing to, again, urge your approval of Mr. Rick Julian's pending Aerie Project. Please let me share with you some new information for your consideration. Much has been said about this project inconveniencing the surrounding neighborhood during the tear down and new construction phase. To those in opposition I simply say, "Please review the history of new construction at Ocean and Carnation before passing judgment on Aerie." Some area residents must have very short memories as major new construction has already occurred on the bluff on both sides of the proposed Aerie Project. (2495 Ocean Blvd., 215 Carnation Ave., 221 Carnation Ave. and 223 Carnation Ave.) Therefore, this neighborhood is certainly no stranger to new construction. These projects naturally involved heightened noise levels, earth displacement, messy conditions, temporary traffic detours, large crane operations and so on. In each case, the proposed Seaview Ave. and Ocean Blvd. dump truck routes were used We all endured these hardships over long periods of time but everyone seemed to survive. So, what's so controversial about the Aerie Project? Could it possibly be "nimbyism" and political agendas on the part of the majority of Aerie's detractors? I have personally viewed all the above construction during my almost 40 years of residence at the comer of Ocean Blvd. and Carnation Ave. While not a civil engineer, I would speculate that the Aerie Project wouldn't take much more time to complete than the thrice scaled down, city- approved Quandt Project at 2495 Ocean Blvd. which was, as you know, later purchased by the McIntosh family. Not only did this huge undertaking involve destruction of part of the bluff, the developers even had to destroy part of the adjoining property at 2501 Ocean Blvd. in order to move heavy equipment down the hill to the bay. It didn't seem to bother them when they destroyed certain native flora and fauna, chopped away at the coastal bluff and partially blocked public views. In fact, these developers asked for and were granted a variance to construct a garage 3 feet above the protected Ocean Blvd. public right -of- way. Later, when they attempted to illegally modify the garage, the city quickly stepped in and put a temporary halt to the work. Yet, this same family, the most vocal opponents of Aerie, now criticize their neighbor, Mr. Julian, for simply wanting to develop his bluff face property in a like fashion. I could go on with other tales of new construction in our neighborhood but in my mind, "enough is enough." Please allow Mr. Julian to move forward with this magnificent, world class project. It will benefit the community in many ways and I definitely feel it deserves the Council's overwhelming support now that your Planning Commission has addressed all of the earlier concerns. Very truly yours, 13.3 To: FILE Subject: FW: Support of AERIE From: Bill Varon [mailto:billvaron @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:37 AM To: Bill Varon Subject: Support of AERIE Hello City Council, I am writing to you as a show of support for the AERIE project. To net it out, I believe it would improve the aesthetics of my neighborhood with better ocean and harbor views. AERIE also represents a nicer and more interesting structure than what exists today or what would likely be built in its place (a big, bland "box" structure like we see up and down Carnation and all over CdM). After talking to the designers, I also believe it will improve much of the bluff infrastructure that may not be apparent to the naked eye. Furthermore, the added parking is a plus. 3 more spots may not sound like a lot, but to those of us on Carnation Ave. who can't always park in front of our own homes, it would be a welcome improvement. Too often we are forced to block the street as we double park to unload groceries, etc., before circling the neighborhood and finally parking 3 or 4 blocks away. Finally, I really appreciate the thoughtful and "green" architectural approach to be employed by Brion Jennette. I've spoken to him at length about his plans and it's actually very exciting, especially given the attention around energy policy here in California, in the US and around the world. I think this project will bring positive notoriety to CdM in appreciation for being a leader in environmentally sound design and building techniques. Feel free to call me at 949 - 290 -8383 if you have any questions. Bill Varon 212 Carnation Ave. 1 qJ q July 5, 2009 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council City of Newport Beach Re; Opposition to Aerie Condominiums Dear Mayor and Council Members; My name is Kent Harvey; my wife and I own the residence at 316 Poppy, Corona del Mar. The Aerie Condominium project in Corona del Mar is simply too large for the site as evidenced by the need to excavate and export 75,000,000 pounds of bluff material. I urge your Honorable Council to consider an alternative to the project which would be more compatible with the site and the community. I am fortunate to have spent the better part of my life in Corona del Mar, growing up here during the 1940's and 1950's, and returning to our home at 316 Poppy in 1987 after my military service and employment commitments elsewhere. We are now temporarily living away from Corona del Mar to be with family, but will be back to our home soon. Upon returning to CdM in 1987, I spent the next 20 years driving to my office every day via Seaview Avenue from Poppy to Fernleaf. I know this street well; there is no doubt that the more than 2,000 heavy truck trips required by the project's massive excavation will damage the street and will be a threat to the health and safety of the residents and visitors. The following facts about the proposed project are not disputed: 1. The developer does not have an enforceable property right to build the project as proposed. 2. 2/3 of the site is comprised of steep bluff face and water. 3. The project is controversial, and will become more so when excavation begins. 4. It provides for no onsite parking, except by an inconvenient elevator scheme. cr, ), 5. It requires excavating 75,000,000 pounds of bluff material (based on 25,000 cubic yards at 1 -112 tons per cubic yard). 6. The excavated bluff material will be exported in more than 2,000 trips by 10 wheel diesel trucks weighing more than 50,000 pounds each when loaded. 7. The trucks will travel on Seaview Avenue which is an aging, narrow, two lane residential street, with 9 street intersections and 7 alley intersections most of which have poor sight distance. 8. These trucks will damage the streets and will pose health and safety risks to residents and visitors and destroy the pedestrian friendly atmosphere which is a major benefit of life in CdM. 9. There are alternative designs for the site which could be built under existing law, would be attractive, would provide convenient on site parking, would require significantly less bluff excavation, and would be less damaging to the health, safety and welfare of the community. I understand that at least two factors make consideration of alternative developments difficult for your Council. First, before your Council conducts its first public hearing, an unwarranted sense of entitlement for the proposed project is created by the time and effort already spent by the developer and staff. Second, the applicant is not motivated to present an alternative which may be vastly superior from your perspective, but less profitable for the developer. However, exercising your discretion to approve this incompatible project confers an extraordinary benefit on the developer at the expense of the community. Instead of making such an unjustified gift to the developer, please consider less invasive development alternatives, which conform to existing land use regulations and are more compatible with the site and the community. Let's keep Corona del Mar in Corona del Mar and not export 75,000,000 pounds of it to a dump in Brea for no better reason than to satisfy a single property owner. Sincerely yours, Kent Harvey �t, b RECEIVED Marilyn L Beck 303 Carnation Avenue2U19 JUL -6 PM 9, 58 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949 - 723 -1773 OFFICE OF mdbAbecktrustee.com THE GTY CLERK C(N OF IdE1kPGRT EACH July 1, 2009 VIA EMAIL AND US MAIL Leilani Brown, City Clerk �4 All Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach Ay 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Aerie Project — PA 2005 -196 Dear Councilmembers, I have been very vocal in my opposition to the Aerie project, my concerns are specific and I appreciate the opportunity to share them with you. I live on Carnation Avenue, I own a property on the bluff and have a vested interest in what happens with this project. I will divide my comments into three areas of concern. I) the role of the City; II) the responsibility of the developer and III) my reasons for concern on Carnation Avenue: I. The Role of the City: 1. it has been difficult to understand why there has been an acceptance of this project at the City level when it seems so out of step with the policies of the General Plan and CLUP. Many of us who are concerned about the project felt that the City would protect the interests of the community and want to uphold the policies of the CLUP. We didn't feel it was for us to tell the City what should or shouldn't be acceptable when the CLUP and GP already provide these safeguards. This is important not only for the credibility of the General Plan but also for the precedent it sets for future development, specifically on the Carnation bluff. At 62,000 sq ft, the project is out of scale for the site and for the neighborhood. it will require variances and modification permits to be built, and the City Council will need to ignore some of the fundamental elements of the CLUP if this is passed. 2. Aerie is the largest single development to be aroposed in CDM since the Channel Reef building. It is larger than any other residential or commercial development, including the Oasis Senior Center. The construction alone will put an enormous burden on the entire village of Corona del Mar with estimates of over 3000 heavy truck trips daily through the village on PCH and through the beach Cf ,-7 streets of CDM. The 3000 estimate is only for the excavation and foundation phases and does not address the years of continuing construction traffic. Obviously, any construction causes disruption to the neighbors, but a project of this scale at 62,000 sq ft places an unreasonable burden on the neighborhood. I believe in property rights, but not to the point of allowing a developer to propose a project which is so out of scale that it unduly burdens so many others. 3. Who will be responsible for damage to the local streets? Carnation Avenue is already in very poor condition, the same is true of Seaview and Ocean Blvd. These streets will not survive this level of heavy truck traffic. Marguerite is a narrow and congested street, especially at the intersection of Bayside Dr. These heavy trucks will pass in both directions on the section of Marguerite between PCH and Seaview. They will also pass in both directions through the village, which is overly congested already. Does the City Council believe it is reasonable to place this burden on the CDM residents and retailers, many of whom don't even approve of size of the project? II. Responsibility of the Developer: 1. I have met with Rick Julian and his wife on numerous occasions, had them to my home, shown them my concerns relating to my property, and listened to their stated desire to live in the neighborhood. I have no reason to doubt their intent; nonetheless, I still contend that Mr. Julian is a sophisticated developer with a well connected and seasoned team of advisors and architects, and presumably, investors. He is not simply building a place for himself; he is proposing a major development in our neighborhood. (Mr. Julian objected to my referring to him as a developer. He preferred to characterize himself as just a guy wanting to build his dream home. But Mr. Julian is indeed a professional developer of multi - residential properties in OC. You may want to refer to the issues the San Juan Capistrano City Council has had to deal with relating to his projects in that community.) I have no malice towards Mr. Julian, but I do not believe that he is on Carnation just to build his 'dream home', not when he is proposing 62,000 sq ft for 8 condos. 2. If Mr. Julian were seriously concerned about the neighborhood and making this his home, he would take into consideration the concerns of the neighboring property owners and listen to the many offers he has received for acceptable alternatives. Those opposing the project have all offered to sit down with Mr. Julian and discuss alternatives. He does not wish to hear these thoughts. 3. There are a handful of neighbors who state their acceptance of the project. Amongst these are neighbors whose views have been guaranteed by Mr. Julian and at least one who is an investor in the project. This does not constitute general acceptance of this project in the neighborhood. Two years ago more than 80 neighbors signed a petition opposing it and there are at least 100 new signatures on a petition currently in circulation which will be submitted to the City Council prior to the Public Hearing. 2 q.$ 4. Regarding alternatives, I have suggested to Mr. Julian that he consider building a 5 unit project rather than 8 units. I have asked this of him every time we have discussed the project. I suggested, as have others, that he build 5 units because he states that he has 5 investors (including himself). If he were to build 5 units with the amenities he is proposing for the 8 unit project, it would mean a much smaller over -all project, and thus significantly less destruction to the bluff and disruption to the neighborhood. Five boat slips rather than 8 might even be acceptable to the Harbor Commission. My requests have always been met with the response that this would not be financially viable. I do not understand this. Five units would require less infrastructure and thus seem less costly to build. Others have also reached out to him to discuss alternatives. Mr. Julian refuses to consider anything less than his 62,000 sq ft project. III. Concerns for Carnation Bluff Development: 1. The City Council gave Mr. Julian a build -to PLOED at 50.7 feet above mean sea level. The original project was proposed to excavate to 28 feet above mean sea level. Mr. Julian went back to the drawing board, eliminated one condo unit and has come back with a project that still excavates to 28 feet. Mr. Julian and his team adopted the attitude that the City Council recommendation of 50.7 was on the bluff FACE only. This is very dangerous thinking. The 50.7 is the PLOED on Carnation Avenue. There are no other properties on Carnation Avenue built below that line, either on the face or behind /below it. Why should Aerie be allowed an exception? 2. The policies of the General Plan very specifically state that accessories such as swimming pools cannot be built below the PLOED. The Aerie swimming pool, including the deck, is entirely below the 50.7 foot line. How can this be acceptable? No other accessory of any property, including swimming pools. on Carnation Avenue is built below the PLOED, either on the face or subterranean. Why would you allow Aerie this exception? See attached photo A. 3. The Aerie balconies have accessories such as spas and fire pits and require variances and modification permits to build to the property line, thus going further out horizontally than all other properties on the Carnation bluff. The General Plan does not allow for this. There are no other properties extending beyond the horizontal predominant line on Carnation Avenue. Aerie pushes the envelope on this and sets a dangerous horizontal precedent. The City Council should be concerned about not only the vertical PLOED but also the horizontal PLOED. See attached photo B. 4. The PLOED and the definition of bluff vs bluff face are significant issues on the Carnation bluff. I cannot emphasize that enough. Aerie is not a unique site. What you agree to for Aerie must be agreed to for all other Carnation bluff properties. 5. There are four additional 'original state' properties along Carnation bluff. Two are currently on the market and being marketed as 'tear downs' for re- 3 9 development. If you approve Aerie, you must be prepared to approve subterranean development for these as well. If Aerie is approved, there is the real possibility of having 5 properties in the future on Carnation Avenue with subterranean . below the bluff face development. There could be swimming pools and 'emergency exits' at levels well below 50.7 all along the bluff. Is that what the City Council is intending? At what point do you draw the line and say too much? Is excavation to 28 feet above sea level acceptable for the rest of the Carnation Avenue bluff? As I stated in my opening paragraph, I own a property on the Carnation bluff. I am deeply concerned about the future of development on Carnation Avenue. I am deeply concerned not only about how it will impact my property, but about how it will impact the residential quality of the beach neighborhood of CDM. Those of us opposing this project are appealing to you to act responsibly and to consider the needs of this community, not just those of the developer. I have nothing personally against Mr. Julian. I hope he develops this property and lives here. I just ask that it be reasonable in size and that it not set precedents for future development that will be damaging to the neighborhood and specifically to the Carnation bluff. There is a reason why the City adapted a lengthy and very specific General Plan and CLUP. Please consider these issues very carefully. There are alternatives. Mr. Julian does not need to build such an enormous project. He can build something far more reasonable, and still live there, and still make his money, and cause far less disruption to the community. Please consider a smaller alternative. If you would like to visit my property and see this project from a different perspective, you are welcome to come at any time. Thank you. Sincerely, M n Be c 4 q, 16 4S Q�I prb��1j 1114 (._OKt jG b /u (.� cZv� a. Nr �orre �LOoe � IDI d Ch�r� loolo J , 1 � V,' 0 E 9- r k Marilyn L Beck 303 Carnation Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 and babecktrustee.com July 7, 2009 Keeton K Kreitzer, Principal Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Blvd, Suite 305 Tustin, CA 92780 Re: Aerie (PA2005 -196) Dear Mr. Kretizer: I am in receipt of your July 2, 2009 response to my comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Aerie project. First, there were no enclosures included in your letter to me although they were noted. Please forward whatever enclosures are missing. I would like to make a couple of comments to your response, if I may. Bluff vs Bluff Face You state that the question of 'bluff vs bluff face' is defined in the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) by virtue of Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9, both of which make reference to the bluff 'face'. You are correct, but Section 4.4 of the CLUP contains 18 policy points, only three make reference to the 'face'. All the rest refer to the bluff, the bluff top, and coastal bluffs. Specifically, 4.4.3 -12 states: 'Employ site design and construction techniques to MINIMIZE ALTERATION OF COASTAL BLUFFS TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE'. This does not just refer to just the bluff 'face', it does not imply that complete destruction of the bluff below the PLOED is fine so long as no one can see it. The intent is to protect the natural coastal bluff from unreasonable development! And Policy 4.4.3 -15: 'Design and site new development to MINIMIZE THE REMOVAL OF NATIVE VEGETATION, PRESERVE ROCK OUTCROPPINGS, AND PROTECT COASTAL RESOURCES'. This does not imply that it is okay to build subterranean into the bluff and cover it back up with new vegetation. I suggest you read the entire discussion section under the heading of 4.4.3 — Natural Landform Protection. It states over and over again how important coastal q, 13 Keeton K Kreitzer July 7, 2009 Page 2 bluffs are and must be protected. It does NOT state that excavating out the entire bluff below the surface is okay so long as no one can see the destruction. It DOES state that the bluff is a NATURAL land form and must be protected. This is the intent of the Coastal Land Use Plan. Public Views vs Private Views: One of my points of concern has to do with the horizontal predominant line of development on Carnation Avenue and the fact that Aerie balconies will extend farther out than all other Carnation properties. I included a photo attempting to show this point. I may have inartfully described the point, but you responded to me that 'the balconies.... will not project into a public view; however, they will be within the view from private properties..." This is incorrect. The balconies WILL encroach on public views from Begonia Park. This is a public view corridor and the Aerie balconies will encroach not only on private views but also public views. And, for the record, my personal concern is not that my view will be lost, but that allowing Aerie to build out horizontally beyond the predominant line of development on Carnation will set a precedent for other properties on Carnation to do the same. Sincerely, Marilyn L Beck Cc: James Campbell Members of the City Council 4•I&/ Attachment #10 Project Plans Intentionally Blank �Y <J A,o W- _u I-VIIII, u �}� 1�L�y; Y r�(�zya• yy�� i ,AAIP°•ry d 1 �• a s _.. MODIFICATION REQUE5T5: � p ✓ � - � =1.aA.�. w � ' .aerie SriowJ¢uw^ eRrchitectu Fi .tee LEGAL OWNER SYMBOLS LEGEND CONSULTANTS DE516N DATA FIRE NOBS: .nw, :..•...a ww.+a � no �.+.e� a.�is _ w•r. a...w � m.v..�.r we.a.. a� «w �u,m.a r.0 a•m.a .wem.:... �e.ems..o-•+.... F LEGAL DESCRIPTION ! - -j,® ,vn.. emrnw �. ...ten, nne.w•i.cecam.e...a..n rucweea.w.m. SQUARE FOOTAGE OALW- ATIONS SHEET INDEX VICINITY MAP w.. .a... n •. ....n,.erw pe _ o, w�.�a..�n. .. �•:: ,e,.., ....,.•��... w..• +.�ua, a_a� ma's m... .vc •. NOT TO SCALE PROJECT LOCATION u�� T -I �ww m.,..mn...,...a.. rc.+.c.mar �Y SlAYSIDE PLACE E'l mom 0.VMEMr { t M VA11 � I 1: P=28.0 STREET SECTIONS SITE EARTHWORK GLMNTFTWS LEGAL DESCFUPTRW STATEMENT OF OVRASTSW PROPgRrY OWNER PREMED FOR PREPARED BY., ...... TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16882 FOR CONDOMMM PURPOSES ,0/ R 4§ & Y ! SITE " "°^° "°^ ^' ^e ^' ° ^ " ° °�'° 101_2 ERIE CARNATION pp AERIE D £ �„ 3 3 9 "N "� �� CORONA DEL MAR, OA �. G' 1 Q J i 119MMACK EXHIBIT PROJECT ID: TRACT ___. LOT ------ _ .SITE = 6128351 5F DIM A 15700 - -- LINE OF SETBACK' A. P. NUMBERS: 052-013 -12 052 - 015 -13, SETBACK AREA = 50.518]5 SF DIM B = 120.00 DEPTH OF YARD TO CALL. SIDE YARD SETBACK AND A PORTION OF BUILDING AREA (X 1.5) = 15,868.13 SF DIM G = 12000 052 -013 -21 AV6. OF DIM A, B� d G = 13200 - -- OUTLINE OF BLDG FOOTPRINT i CITY: NEWPORT BEACH 0% OP AVG- DIM. = 10.59' (10' -1) ' 'Y% /i. ADDPTIONAL SETBACK L COUNTY: ORANGE COUNTY THAT ®AREA REOUi ES MOOIFICATION A -S rv, r LEGEND C- tom^ � �� ttlt4 41F YK1 � 61.9Y Sf /1 R DOES I YT II{{�� .� _ i� [ASRIO NLLWIG FIO II ;W 9F.NJ /qE) i I RR's 9tl+C AEI. IES MNI !Oi 31.b3 Sf./G! NJC) I ll I ARG WA1D1 M VI !OR (11lµ U/63 ACRQ ARV UTA[R u[Ax l0R ro[ -�) ncvnnon'IUam zr.�o.a AOR) r' t - rRRwwoR+W/uiRRI RRWRO! -iPr w PREPAFIEO FOR \ ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES a 4 Cl. tt RO ROAD. LAI(E FORM. CA 12l PREPARED By ' HUN SAKER 6 ASSOCIATES ®R R M ! IM3WRIG 1(eNW�v inw �yn..nr�N 9%e . nlum ulw. rtwx u� ®x SLOPE EXHIBIT \ f ;' A� OVA 01101 0 N yp. \n 1 R 4N. RH ELEVnnON ISECTION n II5EGTION B -j� ecue,w •r -o 1 Q NO 0 501 �n ,�nnlll nKl� IIII 11 11 II If irll 11 II II II II IICI II 11 II IIkIFII II 11 II II 11 II II Ir T. II II 11 II I I1I -IF fill I IIII IIII,ILlltl iiL - II1i 11= 11111�a� °n =nnli f�i1Cli�1llillllllll[illll Il II II n 11 n 11 11 11 -1 n Inn 11111T 1 II 11111111111111 11 1 11 1. 1 1 n -n -.n IrklTnlf–II –Ill Ir�nlln 1 1T 7 11 11 11 Inn iluunIlnnln'�n lrn lull l'll'rllll ll l'll irll n n n n 11 n 11 =11 =n n n 11 11 11 n =n— - ---_ n -il- 11l lrl �Il –SF 11 –n– 1r 11 1111u 1n111illn lfl n 11 – 111111 i111- 11 -14= 1!lli.l ll �II1 =i(11I II — �nr-nn II��If nfrnfrn� roll n – – – – –11F 1 1 ii�ni mill le ii, if' I 0 .Iree ..i = ■ I 11111' IIIIO ",innl'if'�I,n� 11 II it II II 11 11 II - ��. •- , �� I�IIII IIII 111111 II II II II 11111 II II II II II II n 11 II Il 11 II 11 II _ � —i�l 111111 n II II RII if if In 111 II II11f�1111nF11 11 1 R. ®� n n n 11 11 In18`i I 0� Ilni�n n�n1r rnKgcn n n .�:. 11 n n II 11 n ukn nkn In�,l� 11, nnnnn) n1111 111�R "n'11111r ' !''I ,n —III I�nGn1111 .. .:. Ir - -L nkn n 1 1 r 1 °nn n =lr lliFn rn .. IIk11 11 11 11 11 11 11 n _ i I it If � if�'riclf � n, � t , .. .- -.. n'�nnn�rn II II. II I II II 11 =11 l � �� =l lrllnnnn,riln ,r "nnnnn ,ii =n n 11 —_I 11 n n =n n'u __li� —i1 I�=1r .-1 —■ =nkll 11 n n n i1= � 111 =�� .�_rnrnnrne'gl . , .. ' 11n 1111- 111d1111111�1I l�If r1f r11 ��11n 1111L11111, 1111 �1_I �1. 11�111�111 '11111,1111= �111111�1111I11_, � _ 111111 {I1111f1111 - 1111111I111111111111,1111111n tll'SII""n. :�111'll =,l =– 11 11 II li– J1�� ®II II IIFIi it 11 -�11 II II it II 11 -11 -11 II it 1 II 11 II II I II II II If II –II 11`- I lldl =ll -1 – -11 -11 – –IIkIL.IL- �11�1'I�JIj��II�l R1�R'It111N'n 11 it it IL�G.Ifpll'1 i1111L'Il ��. l�ll�jE -.li1 IIII II II II II II ILII� I 1111 1111if �ll lln "11=11111�iI n1111n1- �RII��II111'�I ,�JL �f{jlnllLL �ll`''Ilnl(111 "Illrll�l10 ,11 =111 =1 ® 1 NO Q SECTION E �l I mimil lw� N (1110 ,silo biY W.r.0 ml m wg3i_ es�•• ml OUTLINE OF EXISTING BULIDING PREVIOUS PROPOSED DEVELO PREVIOU5 PROP05ED DECK - PROP05ED UNIT 3 DECK AT — ELEV. 64.92' (NAVD 55) PROP05ED UNIT 5 ELEV. 65.0' (NAVG 65) Q0 201 -20 GARNATI PIQ 4q ` klo i i 2495 OCEAN BLVD. / BELOW LIC PUB VIEWPOINT AT VIEW GORF PROJEGTOO PROVIDE CARNATION AVE. / NEW PARK BENCH AND VRINKIN& FOUNTAIN FOR PUBLG U5E / I OCEANN BLVD. / z Q W J VIEW SLOT EXHIBIT T : Sa a� of d o pap ry 0 h9 hU a o� �u A -ID AREA #1 wprw - -AREA V r .w.wuREA RI muo�uw ro+wro m , is AREA 04 •e ��..r.��.+rmu.rn • �....w.rvwm�.- ...�,.wrw.r.•., , r� AREA O5 �� wx.m..,.xr x.rr..r ...mr.xe..i....ro.... N...e.r. -.r AREA p6.rv.r.n.rw AREA 1!7 wrrw.w �.....r... AREA NO 0 N v� I r gym.. /i AREA OO - -. - rte I, - a _ . -- —AREA AREA02 ENTIRE SITE muo�uw ro+wro �nme.wri sii.w:�:.'e �mww...n •.wuama n.r-wrr.n •e ��..r.��.+rmu.rn • �....w.rvwm�.- n .-mm..nr..wa . oww. w.xmu wuuerwanr.o •rrrwm.rr.an.r erwwr .nwmunannuu uuuwY.i O x�nrw.a.m�. n.¢ru.® • rwwinaw rrrxw rua..x......,.,.. u.mx... „w.ry PRUNING O CLEARING AREA /O II �i �ggB �2 �B F e r` "r m i� z syi tto 1g AREA R10 AREA #11 AREA M2 AREA9I3 ,w...r..r.., eemne�"�... r...w.a. +a•+mxasm AREA %10 mneem nM'••••,••LL ••• o��xemt�um••`r.«w.o. PRUNING S CLEARING O LA ENTIRE SITE •. vwnuewsoxwi.nuawarew ..i,w � .,....a....n.a,..ar wa.w�n..0 �• '�r,�.wwa.o,. i.....nwe. w,o � eeau aw..v • Wx.. www rv�w.n oa it trt l /.Yf ._ I l SEE SHEET L4 FOR AREAS 1 THROUGH! PRUNING 8 CLEARING AREA #10 M' ■ J' C I L -2 I a t PL LEGMD meu. eewroxrrocexax. wvcouwwem•ua�Ree .awa.a.a..uu.mur • vmr ...�_.wr.r�....n.m ..m carurcx wuaw �(�°• � W owuarrtttusw•rtµwwnw wwe�u a <�# � Q a p `1\11111111 "" 0ll m Ro CARNATION PUWLE"ND 4g3. 1 0 FL-.2 Nt i. jig 4g3. 1 0 FL-.2 a e c RNA710N .wu. uewxtiauuPUNT `cwOiwx wn.rxueerata zo ....xu»... m.......w e vw. j L'c6 W _ o 0 LI Lrl..l I 1 FL-3 CORONA YELMAACALVOMIi - � A�� i ,� ROB MF.T IdlfCHk1. ASiOCL1TEi 'M mOCM� ®RfN. �1TE 5�0.1'IC� AEW I - CONCEPTUALI WSCAPE FOR WD FLOOR LEVEL PLANT LEGEND — w.....oe�..... --w �.... El 5 ••,• S8I11N,nF�.uwuv �.0 ry {.3 owWxrr sr"ur'�""ixr`�m Ni'rMm�a�'im NUewmn¢en*�i 6y� nwaze �9 vnao�.....•runrw.�nv..nnnumm nru IE5 s E Y R h r 2 u o« 0 L -5 0. , w Y! tl I� 7 E- a f" ty �1r,V s L-6 59,.V19Ei3fA9L.u�u..wxxu��u„ Y! tl I� 7 E- a f" ty �1r,V s L-6 v N s Co D N N D C. N N 2E2 Sv no Om A A mn r�Z �A r N yiA f 4 O 0 Z N � m A OO.. o g N + r T t 6R KEVNOTM. 5 Q PRCPOSEn QE ST MDA O ADMNATM P 70ft 98 QI PRCPOSEO NEW RI USE➢ CURVE j 1 / /, // �'� YYM , 1� � � • .T' � � Q] REFACE SI AS SNOW ❑j REFACE Lu51ML RMU.. PRCPOSO UFCx iMN 0£ EJSn bt d _�� f � 4 O � , 1 ; ♦ n PPCOSYO OEfx iM5 OFR Fu51W� O D u 1Y15NNC OOCN MIO LMICNAY R! RE REIYOYL ( J E3J PRMOSEU REPACE4ENi WCN IR' REPMR "mD.0 SR LEGEND: - In fl En �MASs n Pnmoss4 Naao RCLN/REOt nxrsN 1 7 �Q , i PROPOYR PONCfl CCNLEA 1� �\ rl (! ' ` • PROPOSE➢ TlE C1 t"I RF J 1 \ \\ 0 N YrsYww•.bi lm RN4 NAEREc DOCKS. tmmm ml uv. G 9tBYS ' F DESNMER IEF PRO {Ci NV4RER _AI i4weyn PJFI•Y Cash &Associates F�mnm.�+m F. fiFRAiIR RLR RESIDENTIAL DOCK LAYOUT RISS.W R -ER �D�NQP1 WW aecaR OAIE Rv rm oR.MVr. mmelx fit. Ma2c1 uPYA¢R W4 SP -A EMSMS RENSIONS V_ W O ♦N ( i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I w.u•ry uno SHEET 2 I I SITE ADDRESS 201. z05 R 207 CMWVM AVENUE AND A PORTION OF 101 "TRUE PLACE. - I CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 ...._ - ....�..�rr --- -tea -• I _ I EARTHWORK OOANTRES CUT 25.2.0 nu a EXPORT 2S.240 \ I SHEET SANK E 9 I SHEET 1 SITE PLVI/WOEX YAP R „wren•+ "° I SHEET 2 CONCEPTUM MAMNG PLAN I SHFCf ! SECTORS / I d e V PROPERTY OWNER -x - - - -�� ADVANCED GROUP 99 -D u792 ft.WJ RwI.wN, sun. iC0 m4. F-1. CA 92630 PERT (949))59555905° PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY: / I 4� KVELOPER: 1 = -- - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- —' ES A 'bA R ..W IY.44® Iyy Yew f I Mm NMa -w� 210• CONCEPTUAL I GRADING PLAN - TTM NO. 16882 1 I a I I I _..L . -- w.u•ry uno SHEET 2 I I SITE ADDRESS 201. z05 R 207 CMWVM AVENUE AND A PORTION OF 101 "TRUE PLACE. - I CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 ...._ - ....�..�rr --- -tea -• I _ I EARTHWORK OOANTRES CUT 25.2.0 nu a EXPORT 2S.240 \ I SHEET SANK E 9 I SHEET 1 SITE PLVI/WOEX YAP R „wren•+ "° I SHEET 2 CONCEPTUM MAMNG PLAN I SHFCf ! SECTORS / I d e V PROPERTY OWNER -x - - - -�� ADVANCED GROUP 99 -D u792 ft.WJ RwI.wN, sun. iC0 m4. F-1. CA 92630 PERT (949))59555905° PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY: / I 4� KVELOPER: 1 = -- - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- —' ES A 'bA R ..W IY.44® Iyy Yew f I Mm NMa -w� 210• CONCEPTUAL I GRADING PLAN - TTM NO. 16882 �L r r.^.:pi sac xr ` ,y. 4 P"' PAD JVO—'uF+ " E =28 /,y/ ��11ry4 c2� iY��p Fln� LEVEL 2 fT =65.0 ;c. ^°`wti w G W 8 A ,,.,ar�.ru waew 89.50 I LEVEL 2 FF =65.0 p I r F1 F.F. ,,. DC rs i. 101, 7741 . -- -A}ON AAYENIff 9 A UAYSwE PLACE i15 CARNATION AVL LEGEND �D /M PROPERTY OWNER ADVANCED CROUP 99 -D 13193 Reekll^IJ BauNwN. Sul!^ IDD L.R. lend, CA 92850 PRONE: 989) 595 -5900 FOI: ( " 595 -5901 PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY: D[vCLOPER: 1 f ARES dN:�41, NMYfbY^C W YI u.wraL�r rrwsi CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN TTM NO. 16882 l2 of 9 SOWN SECTION Q ------- I_- r EEL =I I -7-If LH-1 I I SECTION ------- I_- I -7-If *—=SECTIWOH-�D ji - SECTION SECTION F SE CTION G ?EcToh? L L-F--F --I� SECTION PROMPTY OYRAM ADVANCED GROUP 99-D 23n2 Rackfiold ftulowM, SuIN IM W. FAX. (a0) 595-5901 PREPARED FOR- PREPARED BY: OrMoprp: k rARES '4 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN TTM NO. 16882 3.f 31 M C 3K-28AARK 3K- 28A —fiBD� TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY W.O. NO. 761 -6 DATE OF EXHIBIT. MAY, 2007 I PREPARED FOR 1HRES U792 ll X oMN4n,A 9tlu IN m Hcf9s.9w9 Pu NAM9b1 PREPARED BY: ®HUNSAKER 6 ASSOCIATES 1 l V F M C 4�'M q�M„fMl w.Irt M,ow E ill r� i COUNCIL CITY BRIEFING BOOK JULY i 2009 • • Introduction Initial Design - 9 units (Submitted 8.16.2005) • 7 levels (EL. 30.08' NAVD88) • 76,333 SF • 32,400 yd3 excavation Current Design - 8 units • 6 levels (EL. 52.83' NAVD88) • 61,709 SF ( -200) • 25,240 yd3 excavation ( -220) • 9' wide northerly view corridor • Upgrade existing catch basin & underground 2 power poles • Environmental Protection and Restoration Measures created • Applicant has proposed EIR instead of MND Public Hearing Process . Plans Submitted to City (8.16.2005) . Planning Commission Hearing (2.22.2007) . Planning Commission Hearing (4.05.2007) . Planning Commission Hearing (5.17.2007) • City Council Hearing (8.14.2007) . Planning Commission Hearing (2.21.2008) Planning Commission Hearing (6.19.2008) . City Council Hearing (7.22.2008) . Planning Commission Hearing (5.21.2009) . Planning Commission Hearing (6.04.2009) • City Council .14. MND - original MND - 1 It revision MND-2nd revision MND-3rd revision with docks (q) Recommended approval to City Council MND-4th revision Concluded PLOED at 50.7' NAVD 88 Remanded project to PC for review MND-51h revision Project revised 9 units to 8 units Recommended approval of revised Project to City Council MND - original/ requested for more studies Present 8 units project with EIR Approved 6 to 1 vote Present 8 units oroiect with EIR Before After M M M M M M M M M M M r M M M r M M M Citv Council Reauested Additional Information Applicant's Decision to prepare EIR • Aesthetic o View Impact from the Bay • Biological Resources • Noise and Traffic Analysis o Construction Management Plan • Air Quality • Soils and Geology o Bluff Protection J Aesthetics • 20 view simulations were generated by city's consultant to analyze scenic public views: o Bay views from Newport Harbor o Kayak views o View from Begonia Park and Pacific Drive o Bay views from Bayside Drive Beach o Bay views from Balboa Peninsula o Street view from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue EIR states: Impacts to views of natural resources were less than significant View Simulation - Channel View (Refer to EIR Section 4.5 for more view simulations Before After J View imulation - Kavak View (Refer to EIR Section 4.5 for more view simulations) Before After M M M M M M r M M I• M M M M M M M M M Vi w Simulation - Kayak View (Refer to EIR Section 4.5 for more view simulations) Before After (Refer to page 27 -28 for dock access/ emergency exit) J Biological Resource • Develop program to restore bluff face • Remove exposed concrete foundations • Remove exposed storm drain pipe and debris • Remove non - native plant materials • Relandscape with drought resistant native plant materials • Develop program to protect sand dollar habitat (currently not listed) • Develop dock construction techniques to protect eelgrass EIR states: Impacts to biological resources are less than significant M M = M = M M M M M M .. M M M M I Eelgrass and Sand Dollar Exhibit Survey performed in August 2008 by Coastal Resource Management J Noise and Traffic Analysis Air Quality onstruction Management Plan m m = = m � = m m m m = m m m ! r m CMP Haul Route �_tiMyenbP" i '. p.in....r ,Ifonnnn..e COM r �P ar P2� a.raw•Pent i �Lf J� rroo JR b:` dL rte` e Pr'p i P j S J� S( y9f Sh E, N lookout Pohl rW° c O 4ry BFgt'4RAZ J) 'key QGo mCorona Esl 11ar State Beach` Inwinimlon point u G..ull MawAJ P.114 TO MACARTHUR BLVD., TO 73N TO 55N FWY S, �G P q. Fire Station 5 pt 9' 0 r Vl v o° �i �P ia�� iigP i° r�qS) iii H� i0 E Op jP O� Pn. r Construction Noise • Short term construction noise is the only unavoidable impact • Construction noise exempted under Municipal Code § 10.28.040 • Code limits hours of construction on weekdays and Saturday • Phase I and II - construction limited to weekdays only • Mitigation conditions to minimize noise • Construction equipment equipped with muffling devices • Sound blanket and plywood panels installed • Quiet "state of the art" tools • Building envelop will contain construction noise • Utilize temporary electrical power, no combustion engine generators See EIR Section 4.4 - The only unavoidable impact Construction Noise I 90 80 70 no]0 Q 50 J V 40 RE 20 A 10 1 Short Term and Intermittent "14" events lasting 2 -3 days Caisson Drilling Construction Noise over Time * * * Concrete Pour UU11 -- U U N w L N c. a a -n O L i to 3 3cnw C', —a C M Fg 50 00 �° —¢tea 3 0 — g =0 °dim mo nor 3 : fi 13T �- 3.3 'no ° C 0 Y x 0 0 a m 3 'o' w N m t'o 0 s 0 z FVHshirg O I 1 1 I I I I III I m l l rlT� "1 �1TTIT'n i r 1 8 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 12 Work Week Study by The Planning Center OQvi to 28' va Excavate tc Excavate to 50' rn c c� Construction Noise over Time * * * Concrete Pour UU11 -- U U N w L N c. a a -n O L i to 3 3cnw C', —a C M Fg 50 00 �° —¢tea 3 0 — g =0 °dim mo nor 3 : fi 13T �- 3.3 'no ° C 0 Y x 0 0 a m 3 'o' w N m t'o 0 s 0 z FVHshirg O I 1 1 I I I I III I m l l rlT� "1 �1TTIT'n i r 1 8 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 12 Work Week Study by The Planning Center OQvi M M M M M M M� M M M M M M M M M M M CMP Construction Traffic • Shuttle workers to the site from 3 off -site parking venues • Construction valet and flagmen will oversee traffic around the site • One truck at a time, no less than 15 minute intervals • No truck staging area required • No idling allowed • Vehicular elevator to be utilized for workmen during construction EIR states: Less than significant impact with implementation of CMP Air Quality • Thru the CMP, emission level is substantially below the threshold • Limitation on number of trucks per day 0 29 trucks maximum per day - 15 minutes interval o No idling trucks o Meets SCAQMD regulations • Construction equipment meets SCAQMD regulations • Fugitive dust control complies with SCAQMD regulations • Green building strategies • Low VOC finishes • Construction equipment with low emission • Formaldehyde free products EIR states: Less than significant impact with implementation of CMP m m m m m m m m m m m m m r m m m m m Construction Phase Air Quality Established by the SCAQMD on a daily basis Threshold Aerie % Below (lbs /day) Avg.(Ibs /day) Threshold ROG 75 5.50 (-93%) Reactive Organic Gases N Ox 100 41.0 ( -60 %) Nitrogen Oxides S02 550 27.0 ( -95%) Sulfur Dioxide PM 10 150 2.30 ( -98 %) Particulate Matter less than 10 microns PM2.5 55 1.84 ( -97 %) Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns �9 Construction Manaaement Plan (CMP • Construction schedule to determine traffic, air quality, and noise impacts - Approx. 32 months • Excavation will not occur between Memorial Day & Labor Day Phase I 6 months Phase II - 18 months Phase IV 1 1 months Phase III - 13 months Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV • Asbestos and lead based paint removal • Demolition • Caisson Placement ( ±19 days) • Excavation (± 17 weeks) o Grading will not occur between Memorial Day and Labor Day • Concrete placement • Wall framing • Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing installation • Interior and Exterior Finishes Construction CMP AERIE CON RJCTON 9CMWLE chedule I.Sk IA4I XnM[ _ INa NU./.1 I.nuY M.+1.AA11YnuYM.. l.a61 Or <OMMIIIF Iu110 AL910 AM -10 Da.10 ul0 y[.I0 •rvll E.9ll Mw-13 Awl, Marta lumll Iu'll Il S.9'll Mill «.ull Dwll ..." i.6li Mn13 A113 .,1' 1-11 IuL1S Ay 11 Lplt bx li .w. 13 D..lx .rvl) 9N.)) YNr pN M.mmul Day Aw«tmxY Lw04.. vun.xrpY 3)). "I. LMN'. I Owul.wnW 0.YOry AUWI.W VII.W wLmlTwl IO".. I fD• _; lmutllt 4.ggb.eu. I]VW3010 9 /Y]010 )C.mmJpy 9TP /Gry • L.axn.l).ap Cu YM InaYI L.Mnfrol['A.P' .IM /mW IlMalo lN•Ipe.lmy S)xp/.w .Dl� {a( f P[Y13)Unwmlw Ran• 6=2.2 IU10M10 .CrnmJ pY i3uW WY �• b Fuxtl.)WJCV Ya /IgrYllyL•VaoFL100' x)IVIlR0f0 ll/Vmm 3N LM1]N a.. e.. a ) Im]w l "o-.[irywNSMnn )WI0 /1010 1]M/1010 I.qm aq. nw.ylwry _ b 1.[mi. s.xwc. rw /ImrYIMN.,Imu. :eo is unvlalo vmrsoli a]LmmTaY mxP raw Cwn.M4l.B.rrM.nlw r9..en 56W lmyx. r4MUn.a On.ny.)nynr )) 3/IV3011 Srw. dry r�PY �y)M ]0 Ln1a.YW.A n1Wbr.rmq/fpnarutt CaraM.IM.wr wYk wm1l .]15/1011 lrwr pP vv lI V Conr[rM M.n.r. Lru[1uml Dx. YIV ll WWII irwr pn wnaa .I 3E sMa M. w.)anlsq.« /CmY,xLCO[rx.Invw W.N wM/:011 VU}011 )rwrbn 69irwlcml ! /1 Il Connr�e[I.nrb«Sxmluwl p[VM «YNuOlr.gn.EY SW Lr.mw[.MS )06/Lmil VI1 lrwr yr. 50YP1«.1 I mrYI N.[IrwuY Flwr[n 6nuNnIx SWLrrm.rbu }5N /T111 VY1I1 .Igrn. m,e. �rnY 4l,ury la m ll D� iSMarY.W.Nnrn[flmr /Cmfrux RnaRq War.[.rmxw WYk/ Mn.I L1W h,.mr9x M..rgm rkq w)IWMIV lw/mll )rwrOM 66LrP IWI v 3 36 (OnA.un sxoM rlw SlrunA )p 1UVm11 IL)9)1011 xrwr0.n bnwlax w EY Wxwn roar 351VUmm lLHmll Nprw ert..nM. axnm' ! Z 3 15 SMx«. w.xux- SnaN rbm (gpr�u[lfourx. �f MnYLUa r..mrynamrbo- wll]30/mu UlUmll 1rau.yy. yvP ia.l ^ i 19 fpnrnun AUOlbp ilruarwM 0n1 3p VlAfW Utb /tYlt tlwr yy. wrrwim.l :0 Ccnura1 TV01YV CCrcM.uMwWY \/ � 6 E' M «J Slm ux.yxsnwrarm v)nnxau uWmu )Im, yn .'.w' .a .� ;' :1 wl.n «nnwNY. Lnxrwl an«M„Rn rkn rl,a vWn/mu 4/la/I913 .1 vn.. nw. a.lwn a' n ynx«a rrnrmlm Mrumml DNu �• _ M«JAw A.rr.r� «)wrorm n.N /mu 5aumu lw. yn wL.Pm.I }. Im1YIM «Mn4Y.LY«rk.liRwrbgYL[axrlmr $5. /1] /mll ✓35/3013 .Inryp pxe.ns. a angry + (mnrun fwnn fkw Ckr[r «. MIVa W.4 IS Mf/fOl3 NVatlil Ilnrr yn Sp IrP 1 Y D 33 M«a11tW lrwrynlwllr5lw ma.al. yVl9 /}01i )y/A13 ib In WrMnnwKY.LYNULL MUM.�n D as A�NWlounA iCn M)M/m13 l]lUmll a DP ]] IgLYrW�Mw..M Ln.riV OSn w]Ra/mll )/ W/tW` .vao tCYMrxas.c.x :l w.Mn•ad O.eA.M.mn 5p b1m13 D; 1, » M1Ynr..r Y Mrrrva m. 10 wuxon ax)/mu WIM. � N s w Lnlxv x.go/mwL.arrr aa. M.M wMVmss Iwmlx u riwrw rn.M xsunbx.nw.k; .,n,n.n r.. wwM.wr wn.M wwalon W/ml3 p y} M.ra _ I..I, —mm t "'0a, r.. s,.wm.rm s.x.rq saWlov ammo I �; s n n.Mxf,m rbnl -- mNn.n rn.arm...wsn[.nn mb/amu luamv ±� fnnMNSxeM lyy/ .umu »Oxwr.n Pr u.e. .ayn :MrSUlprnm SnwM W / /t51mll WU /mV 1 nnMnrn.re.m wrnn ]Im.! - .w.l,n M.wwrnam snmM ns lons/mu YW,.0 In wnLx ]una wnnrlwr Im VVmll I/1Vmu YM.p.awmI'—.n f. rmMlnngay..M igew. Mnn.nr..l [LU1r[.1 r..5mnY1n.W I 5w «on Il.lw/mu ammo .arwlq.nl.el« m.aw IM....n L.W yr w Menafw as-. )ml qp M N L•.• ]639 InEgM III r.aM wal b nnrawd.rd u«09n w.. TNNyII«rYl.lpn yw..M r undrMMr.n in.p xln Yl<ugleu[Ip pnam. p.(.m.LMr..oNkiwry4anwnlnb m m m mm. _m m _..m___ I CMP Excavation Program (See E!R Appendix B - CMP) zJ CMP Excavation Proaram GRADING CUT EDGE OF DEVELOPMENT AT ELEV. 507 VEGETATION PROTECTION FENCING LINE BAYSIDE PL. II II II I' 0 II IF – I' II II II I' II �— II I II I c SUB- BASEMENT II II C - l T.O.SLAB = 30.0' I I I I I' II II I max- BRACING I' II II it "WALERSYSTEW' II I dI_ - --- �1 - -4- `" _ _ z Lu >l U__j O `D i -1 ST FLR. PATIO T.5-.SLAB = 53.42' CARNATION AVE. w w m m= m m� m m! m m m m= mm m m m I SEGMENT #1 SEGMENT #2 SEGMENT #3 CMP Excavation Stages IL mm -: VANN -- - Ali -- - Ali J SEGMENT #1 -- SEGMENT #2 SEGMENT #3 a., 9` J Soils/ Geology • Aerie maintains the visual and structural integrity of coastal bluff • "It is our opinion that the proposed development will enhance the stability of the existing bluff, and will reduce the vulnerability of bluff erosion." Neblett and Assoc. Inc. • Stability of bluff face is not compromised. (The trapezoidal section) • The basement exit does not compromise the bluff face and is above the existing development of El. 42.30' • Basement exit landing will be lowered to 44.48' to connect the existing on grade steps EIR states: Less than significant impact M M ELEV.50.7' EXCAVATION DOES NOT IMPACT BLUFF FACE ELEV. 30.0' r = = _ _ _ m mm I Trapezoidal Section _111 SECOND FLOOR POOL FIRST FLOOR BASEMENT SUB - BASEMENT (Tm) NTEREY FORMATION BEDROCK �6 Dock Access/ Emeraenc EXIST'G STAIRS _ TO REMAIN - DN 44.48` FS y EXIST'G STEPS TOE BE MODIFIED TO RAMP IN CURRENT LOCATION Exit at Basement - 50.7' PLOED UP 40.50' FS BSMT = 40.50' FF mm = _ m I Dock Access/ Emergency Exit '' 44.4.8 FS a l � J Project Upgrades EIR and CMP led to positive adjustment of plans. • Increased public views of bay and ocean • Created 9' wide northerly view corridor • Underground 2 existing power poles on the east side of Carnation Avenue • Upgrade storm water catch basin and add filtering system • Sand dollar habitat protection Public View Corridors OUTLINE OF EXISTING BULIDING PROPOSED UNIT 3 DECK AT - ELEV. 64.92' (NAVD 88) \ PROPOSED UNIT 3 Q ELEV. 65.0' (NAVG 88)� oQ0 �� - ;Z � L z UJ O 00 -1 CARNATION AVE. PUBLIC VIEWPOINT AT ELEV. 69.0': NEW PARK BENCH AND DRINKING FOUNTAIN I �o 9' -0" VIEW CORRIDOR ao 30 Westerly View Corridor Before After m m= m m= m m m m m m m m m m m m m Created 9' Wide Northerly View Corridor 32 m m= m w m r m= m == i r m= m m m Created 9' Wide Northerly View Corridor Upgrade Storm Water Catch Basin Add Filterinq Svstem tbffie I N D U S 1 R I E S Smart Sponge® _I A Handful of Critics Are Saving.. . 1) Architectural design is not compatible 2) The architecture conflicts with neighborhood character 3) Aerie is too big, does not fit in the neighborhood 4) Excessive grading landward of PLOED Well, I disagree because ... • Current development is no longer the beach houses from the 20's, 30's, 409s • Some are cute and others are edgy. All are 2 or 3 -story houses or condominiums built in the last 25 years some have full basements m m == m m m = = == w m r mm = m w I "Unique Character of Different Neighborhoods" Architecture of Corona del Mar 36 m m m == m= m == m m m m mm == m I w i t F. Architectural Diversity Architectural Diversity m ...: Architectural Diversity 40 Architectural Diversity Carnation Avenue Seaview Avenue Carnation Avenue Ocean Boulevard (150' represents AERIE Carnation Ave. Frontage) Character of Neighborhood O:: s 600 Ocean Boulevard Ocean Boulevard Ocean Boulevard Poinsettia Avenue Character of Neighborhood m m m = m m = m m m m m m m mm m m m I Docks and Associated Walkway • Materials barged in from nearby shipyard • Applicant has voluntarily chosen to Drill holes versus pile drive for precast piles to protect eelgrass and minimize noise • Silt curtains used to protect eelgrass and sand dollar habitat • Docks located landward of the navigational channel • Docks located landward of the navigation station • Maintain distance from eelgrass, sand dollars, and rock formations • Marine biologist on site to oversee the overall construction Aerie Dock Plan ♦ , REPL ♦ MUD ♦ 1� REMOVE (E) GANGWAY It REMOVE , (E) W000 DOCKS ♦ Buoy1 #T It END T DOCK E (135 N) r_3-1.� Buoy #2 �1 O ,O (EL EVER- SUPPORTED (E) CONC. AIKWAY IN- LIKE -KIND STAIRS TO REMNN r E) N CMAI PAD N _ t �7 A- -REPAIR �yX y� 7 CK (E) PIERS (a PLACES) (N) STEEL PILE REPLACE (E) GANGWAY !. PLATFORM 4 (E) STEEL PILES IN -UKE -KIND �'� (N) W000 DOCKS IRS (N) GANGWAY / SASHPCOOMPLETETE U By ) * Represents the location of buoys placed by the Harbor Commission Subcommittee indicating the edge of dock and theoretical 100' boat with a maximum 24' beam (Plan prepared by URS Cash & Associates) Proposed Dock Harbor Commission Subcommittee's request to locate dock extension and 24' wide beam vessel Proposed Dock rwd Harbor Commission Subcommittee's request to locate dock extension and 24' wide beam vessel Harbor Commission Subcommittee Findings After the April 8, 2009 Harbor Commission meeting, a subcommittee was created, comprised of 3 Commissioners (Chairman Duffield, Lawrence, Corrough) to further study the actual potential extent to which the project might create. A Field survey was conducted on May 30, 2009 and concluded: 1. Would not present hazard to any vessels transiting within the established 500' wide Newport Harbor federal navigational channel 2. Retain at least a 21'+ clear water buffer between the edge of channel and the nearest permitted vessel 3. Would be located well inside a typical straight -line inbound course. 4. The "narrowest point of the harbor" for safe/ official navigational purposes in not at the project site nor created by the propose project. 5. The design would retain continued direct public - waters access and views to the existing beach by small teachable vessel and retain shallow water access and views to the bluff and the distinctive rock. The proposed Aerie Docks project ... would NOT "... create any significant negative impact on navigation and recreational boating in the harbor" as stated in the previous Harbor commission advisory motion. Navigation Channel/ Examples of docks and vessels bevond U Pierhead Line So •4 an 7� of ,i•� 'f'1 9(1F:'la�Cw� Ir�l. �"!� - z M 9�l •;� �� G4, hj,' A 1 Mlk Sr dm in ' 00" T //••�� r b I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 NAVIGATI 4 CHANNNI 41S.I. Up ri�� r I A BAY AVE E rn ITS HALBOA BLVD E L � w� ,. l `�v 4'RR J r .aG �'f'rr4r P ti n S nrrOUu �.� City Boundary i Bulk & Pierhead Stationing Bulkhead Pierhead • Eelgass Patch 07 Survey �' ■ Eelgass Bed 07 Survey • Eel grass Patch 04 Survey Eelgass Bed 04 Survey ■ Mapped Eelgrass NOAA 04 1 Mooring Sites Categorical Exclusion Zone ■ Charmer of Commerce ® City Office ■ Fire Station Library 1 ■ ParklCommundy, Center yx. 3 Q Post Office Scthool 1 17 Dl�.elelmer t r •�, Every reasonable etlon has been made to assure the accuracy of the data provided, however, The A CRY of Newport Beach and Its employees and .. _ agents disclaim any and all respon51bRity from or relating to any re6uNS obtained In Is use. The 'IS database and data In the product is slbieci j to constant change andtMe accuracy and w e completeness canna be and Is not guaranteed. * Docks and vessels beyond US Pierhead Line 54 Z .�. 1\ KS 1 1 1�1 hh�� PARK AVE Y -w' 1 VA /� • y y.r — ; Dlsdaimer Y S Every reasonable effort has been made to assure Nil me accuracy of the data Its provided, however, The � City of Newport Beach and d Its employees and agents disdalm any and all responsibility from or -� relating to any results obtained In its use. The AY FRONT 5 -w GIS database and data In the product Is sWject .� to constant change and the aaclracy and completeness cannot be and is not guaranteed. * Docks and vessels beyond US Pierhead Line City Boundary •I: it ati,a t ` �Gb: Pierhead al Eetgrass Patch I Eelgress Bed 07 Survey •�� Eelgrass Patch 04 Survey Ai- Eelg-833 Bed 04 Survey . kke Mapped reigrass NOAA 04 Mooring Sites 1 �G city office • ► old- Fire Station Library Park/Conymnity Center 4 1 } Post office Schod — ; Dlsdaimer Y S Every reasonable effort has been made to assure Nil me accuracy of the data Its provided, however, The � City of Newport Beach and d Its employees and agents disdalm any and all responsibility from or -� relating to any results obtained In its use. The AY FRONT 5 -w GIS database and data In the product Is sWject .� to constant change and the aaclracy and completeness cannot be and is not guaranteed. * Docks and vessels beyond US Pierhead Line a z Fi !4 1 1 BAY. FRONT IN �.' Ito i ;; "M 11 i ! O 11II�T' R L t � 4i H tIM Vq4, v a jr.," City Boundary • Bulk & Pierhead Stationirkj /-4 Bulkhead Pierhead • Eelgrass Patch 07 Survey ■ Eelgass Bed 07 Survey • Eelgrass Patch 04 Survey Eel grass Bed 04 Survey ■ Mapped Eelgrass NOAA 04 Mooring Sites Categorical Exclusion Zone Chamber of Cor"rce ® City Office ■ Fire Station Library ■ Park(Conrrxmity Center ® Post office ■ School Olselaimer Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of Ina data provided, however, The City of Newport Beach and Its employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or rearing to any results obtained in as use The GI S database and data in the product is subject to constant change and the acpray and completeness cannot be and Is not guaranteed * Docks and vessels beyond US Pierhead Line L". .6N1rr<} f•1k _ o�<huv.,^ /,/ City Boundary • Bulk & Pierhead Stationing Bulkhead Pierhead • Eelgass Patch 07 Survey ■ Eelgass Bed 07 Survey • Eelgass Patch 04 Survey Eelgass Bed 04 Survey Mapped Eelgrass NOAA 04 1 Mooring Sites Categorical Exclusion Zone Chamber of Conymrce rw city office Fire Station Library Park(Conymnity Center Post Office Scl1ool Disclaimer Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the data provided, however. The City of Newport Beach and Its employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or rel aling to any resuit5 obtained In its use The a w i s GIS database and data In the produd Is styled ^ r < to constant Mange and the aatracy and M - , a ' o m: ; completeness cannot be and is not guaranteed. R,Y FRONT ' FROM(. AL u 1 -- < * Docks and vessels beyond US Pierhead Line T U •g v MMj x w LL W a OR r�r 5/�a/�'A�Y.FRONTN � f' BAY, FRONT ALLEY N ..� r. PJ S r ti 1 � n y� S •'4nry +� City Boundary • Bulk & Pierhead Stationing Bulkhead Pierhead • Eelgrass Patch 07 Survey - Eelgrass Bed 07 Survey • Eelgrass Patch 04 Survey Eelgrass Bed 04 Survey ■ Mapped Eelgrass NOAA 04 Mooring Sites Categorical Exclusion Zone Chamber of Comrrlerce Q City Office ■ Fire Station ■ Library Park/Coninifunity, Center © Post Office ■ Schad Disclaimer Every reasonable effort has been made to azure he accuracy of tt>a data provided, however, The City of Newport Beach and Its employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to any resuffs obtained In its use The GIS database and data In the product Is subiect to constant Mange and the accuracy and rompleteness cannot be and Is not guaranteed. * Docks and vessels beyond US Pierhead Line _I 58 Green Architecture Design Criteria Passive Strateaies: • Design to maximize solar orientation to increase the use of daylighting concept and reduce energy usage • Use of high - thermal mass for capturing and retaining heat through solar heat gain apertures • Optimum overhangs to minimize harsh summer sun exposures while allowing winter heat gain • Natural ventilation systems that capitalizing on prevailing ocean breezes and thermal convection dynamics • Dual paned glazing systems using 'Low -E' glass (both non - mechanical and hybrid systems) • Grey water retention for property irrigation • Use of environmentally friendly and sustainable materials • California drought tolerant landscape materials • Active Strateaies: • Solar domestic hot water and pool heating • Solar Photovoltaic arrays to generate electricity • Multi -zoned radiant hydronic heating and cooling systems o Instantaneous hot water boilers w/ solar Domestic Hot Water assist M= M M III M M= r = = M= M w M r i Other Desicin Elements to be Incorporated: o Potential for LEED silver certification • Use of environmentally friendly, sustainable, and renewable materials • Reduction of greenhouse gas emission through the use of low VOC finishes and formaldehyde free products • Reduction of energy use through high efficacy lighting fixtures and occupancy sensor • Reduction of energy use through Lutron Homeworks interactive lighting control systems • Compatibility with day lighting • Cross ventilation systems • Implements the most state of the art water quality plan available, endorsed by COASTKEEPERS • Reduction of emission level substantially through the implementation of Construction Management Plan Marine & Plant -Life Protection: o Cove will be constantly maintained to be free of all artificial debris including plastic and Styrofoam which could be harmful to the marine life o Vegetation on the bluff will be replaced with California drought tolerant (natural indigenous) plantings that require less irrigation 60 PROJECT BENEFITS The AERIE Project includes a host of community benefits that are being provided voluntarily by the applicant. These benefits are not required by the City. Underground Utilities - The proposed project includes the removal of two existing utility poles and the undergrounding of the existing overhead utility lines at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. This voluntary off -site community benefit is intended to improve the aesthetic character of the area. No City policy or ordinance requires the implementation of such off -site improvements. The only requirements for the removal and undergrounding of overhead utilities relate to improvements on the Project site itself. Specifically, Title 19 of the Municipal Code requires the developer to underground the existing overhead utility line extending to the site from the nearest utility pole. 2. Catch Basin -An off -site drainage area encompassing 11.54 acres contributes storm flows to the existing catch basin in Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard. Storm flows generated within this drainage area have a 100 -year peak storm flow rate of 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). The Project would result in a decrease in the 100 -year storm flow, which would be directed to an existing storm drain that has adequate capacity. However, the existing catch basin is currently deficient. Although no significant Project - related impacts are anticipated as a result of the reduction in storm flow generated by the proposed project, this facility will be improved by the project applicant to accommodate the storm flows generated within the tributary area, including the Project site. 3. View Corridors - Views from the "public view point" at Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard would be enhanced by approximately 76 percent as a result of the Project. A public bench and drinking fountain will be added at this "public view point" to enhance the public viewing experience. The Project also includes a view "window" at the northerly property limits, which currently does not exist. 4. New Public Parking - The Project will create three additional on- street public parking spaces because the length of the curb cut on the Project site has been substantially reduced. These on- street parking spaces will accommodate visitors to the area, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. 5. State -of -the Art Energy Features - The Project has been designed utilizing "green" architecture criteria and energy efficient design. See page 57 - 58. 6. Visual Improvements: • The timeless architectural style is reminiscent of the famous turn -of- the - century works of world renowned architect Antonio Gaudi. • AERIE'S organic design will seamlessly meld into the bluff -top, harmonizing with the natural landscape, a vast improvement to the existing development. • Parking which is now in driveways and carports will be relocated underground and out of sight • Existing concrete, pipes, and building materials that litter the bluff face will be removed. PROJECT BENEFITS CONTINUE. . 7. Other Improvements: • Increases City's property tax roll. The property is currently assessed at approximately $12,000,000. Aerie is estimated to be assessed at approximately $80,000,000. • Implementation of a technologically superior parking method which avoids the standard, "back into the street every time a resident departs ", also: i. Increases public on- street parking by 3 spaces ii. Increases off - street parking by 31 parking spaces plus 2 golf cart and motorcycle area, code requires only 20 parking places • Enhances neighboring property values • Reduces number of dwelling units permitted by zoning, there are only 8 units at Aerie versus the 15 that exist today • Reduces traffic with reduced number of units • Is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning • Does not descend as low as surrounding properties to the waterline preserving the bluff below 52.83 feet (WHICH IS ABOVE THE EXISTING BUILDING at elevation 42.3') as well as stabilizing the northerly sloughing slope. • Utilizes only 21.6% of the site, preserving the remaining 78.4% as open space, twice the amount of open space required by code • Maintains a predominate building height lower than the maximum 33 feet height limit allowed by code. • Creates jobs in this maligned economy M M M M M M M M M M i M M M M M M M M In Summation • Project upgrades per City Council's request have led to a better project • With the assistance of the city council, planning commission, city staff, surrounding neighbors, and with the acceptance of the applicant, I bring you 8 attached custom homes that respect the goals of the General Plan, LCP, and protects the coastal resources i2ml There are a number of issues that are "firsts" in Newport Beach because of the prominence of this site: • Green Building Techniques, sustainability, energy conservation, have been an important design criteria from the beginning • Protection of biological and natural resources including the sand dollar habitat • Views from bay and kayakers of the coastal bluffs have been protected • Short term construction noise which is unavoidable and cannot be eliminated has been minimized thru the detailed CMP • Air quality and emission standards not only conform to the 1971 standards, but actually thru the CMP the emission level is substantially below the threshold M M M M M M M M M M M M M i M M M M M AERIE believe that Aerie is defining the parameters of building on coastal bluffs in Newport Beach. I take this project seriously, Newport Beach is not a provincial community. This project is protecting Newport's natural resources more than any project in our history, while at the same time honoring individual property rights and creating unique, distinctive architecture. know of "NO" project proponent that has ever committed this effort to voluntarily support and help define the environmental, aesthetic direction of a community. Brion Jeannette Architecture \ 66 Appendix B Construction Management Plan i i Tai. �i CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN 03.17.2009 Brion Jeannette Architecture 470 old Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92663 Page 12 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ ..............................3 1.1 Project Location .............................................................................................. ..............................3 1.2 Project Description ......................................................................................... ............................... 3 1.3 Scope of Work ................................................................................................ ............................... 3 2.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................... ..............................4 2.1 Dates of Construction .................................................................................... ............................... 4 2.2 Hours of Construction .................................................................................... ............................... 4 2.3 Construction Personnel Trip Generation and Parking .................................... ..............................4 2.4 Sequence (Phasing) of Construction ............................................................... ..............................4 2.5 Construction Schedule ................................................................................... ............................... 6 2.6 Construction Process ..................................................................................... ............................... 6 2.7 Construction Equipment ................................................................................. ..............................8 3.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT ............................................................................ ..............................9 3.1 Construction Parking Details .......................................................................... ............................... 9 3.1.1 Off -Site Parking for Crew members ......................................................... ..............................9 3.1.2 Short Term Parking ................................................................................. ............................... 9 3.2 Staging Areas .................................................................................................: ............................... 9 3.3 Construction Trailer, Materials Storage, and Waste Management ............... .............................10 4.0 TRAFFIC CONTROL ..................................................................................... .............................11 4.1 Haul Routes .................................................................................................... .............................11 4.2 Delivery Requirements ................................................................................. ............................... 12 4.3 Traffic Control Plan ...................................................................................... ............................... 12 5.0 SAFETY AND SECURITY ............................................................................... .............................13 5.1 Pedestrian Protection .................................................................................... .............................13 5.2 Project Fencing ............................................................................................... .............................13 5.3 Safety and Security ........................................................................................ .............................13 6.0 AIR QUALITY CONTROL, FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL, NOISE SUPPRESSION, AND VIBRATION MONITORING....................................................................................................... .............................14 6.1 Emissions /Air Quality Control ........................................................................ .............................14 6.2 Fugitive Dust Control ................................................................................... ............................... 14 6.3 Noise Control ................................................................................................. .............................14 6.4 Noise Control Consideration ........................................................................ ............................... 15 6.5 Vibration Monitoring ................................................................................... ............................... 15 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE/ PROTECTION .......................................... .............................17 7.1 Erosion, Sediment Control and Beach Protection ......................................... .............................17 7.2 Water Quality Control .................................................................................. ............................... 17 7.3 Environmental Protection ............................................................................ ............................... 18 8.0 CONSULTANTS/ REFERENCES ................................................................... ............................... 21 Appendices Appendix A - Construction Schedule Appendix B- Construction Plan Appendix C - Construction Building Sections Rev. 03.17.2009 Page 13 1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION Owner: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. 23792 Rockfield Boulevard Lake Forest, CA 92630 Architect: Brion Jeannette Architecture 470 Old Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 1.1 Project Location The subject property (the "Site ") consists of two parcels at 201— 207 Carnation Avenue (APNs 052- 013 -12 and 052- 013 -13), West of Carnation Avenue at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and a small portion (584 square feet) of 101 Bayside Place (APN 052- 013-21). 1.2 Project Description The 1.4 -acre Site is currently occupied by a 14 -unit apartment building, one single - family residence, as well as deteriorating gangway platform, pier walkway and dock facilities. The Aerie Project (the "Project") consists of (a) the demolition of the existing residential structures; (b) the construction of eight residential condominium units; and (c) the replacement and reconfiguration of the existing gangway platform, pier walkway and dock facilities. 1.3 Scope of Work This Construction Management Plan is designed to minimize the Project's construction - related environmental effects and to foster public safety during Project construction. The Project applicant, contractor, and all sub - contractors must adhere to all provisions as stated in this Construction Management Plan. Please refer to Appendices B and C for additional information. Rev. 03.17.20091 2.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 2.1 Dates of Construction Page 14 The construction of the proposed Project is expected to occur over approximately 32 months. (See Appendix A for construction schedule.) Demolition and asbestos removal are scheduled to occur during the summer months. Grading, dirt hauling, are scheduled to occur between Labor Day and Memorial Day. 2.2 Hours of Construction The hours of construction will vary depending on the work to be completed and the season. During construction Phases I and 11 (defined below), construction activities will be restricted to non - holiday weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., per City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040. During construction Phases III and IV, when work will largely occur indoors, construction activities will be allowed Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., as allowed by City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040. 2.3 Construction Personnel Trip Generation and Parkins The total number of construction personnel at the Site will vary depending on the construction activity. It is expected that there will be an average of 25 workers daily at the job site during Phase I and 45 workers daily during Phase 11. During Phase III and IV, when work will largely occur indoors, there will be an average of 60 to 80 workers on site. 2.4 Sequence (Phasing) of Construction Project construction is divided into four phases: PHASE I - Asbestos and lead based paint removal, demolition, caisson placement and grading will occur during Phase I. Project grading will be comprised of three segments of earth removal and lagging. Approx. Time: 6 months Rev. 03.17.2009 1 Page 15 II. PHASE II - Concrete placement, which consists of shotcrete shoring, placement of structural slabs and walls, waterproofing, and sub -slab drainage systems, will occur during Phase 11. In addition, site drainage, plumbing underground and electrical underground systems will be integrated. Note that Phase 11 will be ongoing while Phase III commences so that a portion of Phase II and III will occur simultaneously. Approx. Time: 18 months (mostly overlapping Phase III) III. PHASE Ill — During Phase III, metal stud wall framing will begin on lower levels and work up. Integration of rough plumbing, mechanical, and electrical systems will follow after the metal stud walls are in place. Both vehicular elevators will be installed and operational at this time. Installation of windows and doors will occur during Phase 111, as well as planting of large plant materials at Site's bayward side. Note that Phase III will start before Phase 11 is complete so that a portion of Phase 11 and 111 will occur simultaneously. Approx. Time: 13 months (partially overlapping Phase II) IV. PHASE IV - Finishes will be installed during Phase IV. Exterior finishes such as exterior plaster, roofing systems, stone veneer, guard rails, exterior lighting and solar panels will be installed, as will the balance of the landscaping and hardscape /paving, artificial rock finishes, softscape, landscape lighting and drainage systems. Finally, interior finishes will be installed, including drywall, painting, cabinetry, stone and tile at counters, walls and floors. Approx. Time: 11 months Total Length of Construction Time': Approx. 32 months 1 Total construction time is not a sum of the days associated with all construction phases because there is overlapping of certain tasks. Rev. 03.17.20091 Page 16 2.5 Construction Schedule See Appendix A for Construction Schedule Chart. 2.6 Construction Process During Phase I, caisson placement and grading will begin. Asbestos and lead based paint removal will begin in July, approximately two months prior to grading in early September. After the existing buildings are demolished, the first set of caissons for Row A will be installed along the perimeter of the Site facing Carnation Avenue and along the easterly side yard adjacent to 215 Carnation Ave. (See Appendices B and C.) Grading will begin after Labor Day in early September and will consist of three removal segments: • Segment #1— Removal of 13,000 cubic yards with 12 yard dump trucks = 1,084 trips to occur over approx. 41 work days • Segment #2 — Removal of 7,000 cubic yards with 12 yard dump trucks = 584 trips to occur over approx. 21 work days • Segment #3 — Removal of 5,240 cubic yards with 12 yard dump trucks = 437 trips to occur over approx. 15 work days Grading work will be completed by Labor Day. At the end of each removal segment, lagging to retain the earth will be installed per the soils engineer's recommendations. During Phase I there will be approximately 25 workers at the Site operating the excavation equipment, tractors, dump trucks, ram hoe, earth conveyors, etc. Vibration probes will be placed at 215 Carnation Avenue to monitor construction activities. A vibration monitoring program will be initiated and if found to exceed the threshold for structural damage, other construction methods will be employed to eliminate any occurrence of structural damage. Such alternative construction methods include, but are not limited to, use of different drill bits for the caisson drilling, use of less vibration - intensive construction vehicles, and /or use of lubricants for the caisson drilling. The contractor shall hire and oversee the construction valet which consists of two crew members, a flagmen and pedestrian detours, who will be stationed at the entrance of the job site during construction activities to monitor security in and out of the gates and to direct pedestrians to the pedestrian walkway. The construction valet and flagmen team will also direct traffic at the Site, shuttle drop -off /pick -up, and material deliveries. During the excavation process, the flagmen will coordinate with the foreman at the dump site who will radio in the dump trucks from Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill, one Rev. 03.17.20091 Page 17 truck at a time in 15 minute intervals at the start of the workday. Once the trucks are in motion, they will be recycled throughout the day to reduce the number of required trucks used per day and to eliminate the need for a staging area along Pacific Coast Highway and Cameo Highlands Drive. Concrete delivery trucks will follow the same procedure used by the dump trucks. The construction valet and flagmen team will direct dump trucks, cement trucks, etc. to arrive to the site at no greater frequency than the discharge rate by the contractor. At no time will more than one cement or dump truck be stationed at the site. Please refer to Figure 1 for a graphic depiction of the proposed haul route. Phase 11 will consist of shotcrete shoring, concrete placement for the foundation slab, structural decks, and retaining walls once the last excavation segment is completed. Phase III will include metal stud framing and the installation of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing equipment. Work on Phases 11 and III will be scheduled so that concrete placement and internal wall framing work can occur simultaneously to shorten the duration of the construction timing. Dock construction will take place during Phases II and 111. Dock materials will be built off site then barged to the Site for installation. Dock construction at the Site will occur over approximately eight weeks. During Phase 111, vehicular elevators will be installed after the Second Floor structural deck is completed and will be available to facilitate on -site parking for workers as most of the remaining work on the project will be internal. Most of the equipment required during Phase III will be small tools and compressors. Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing sub - contractors will be the primary workers on site. Metal stud framing will continue on the upper levels while finish work occurs on the lower levels. Material deliveries and storage will occur on site in the Sub - Basement and Basement levels. Finally, large trees located on the bay side of the Site will be installed at this time. The final construction phase, Phase IV, will include the application of the interior and exterior finishes and window and door installation. Cabinetry (built off - site), counter tops and floor finish materials will be delivered and installed in all units. Exterior finishes such as stone veneer, roof materials, photovoltaic array panels, and exterior plaster will be installed. Ultimately, landscape and hardscape materials, guardrail glazing, and wrought iron systems will follow the internal and external painting. Final fire suppression systems and testing, as well as passenger elevator installations, will complete the structure. Final landscape and clean up will prepare the building for occupancy. Rev. 03.17.2009 1 Page �B 2.7 Construction Equipment Construction equipment will be utilized for the various stages of the project as follows: PHASE I: Demolition Caisson Placement Grading Lagging PHASE II: Concrete Placement Site Drainage Shotcrete PHASE III: Wall Framing Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Installation Window/ Door installation Dock System Installation Vehicular Elevator Installation Lanze Tree Installation Compressor Concrete Mixer and pumper Conveyor (electrical) Dozer Drill Rig Dump Trucks Excavator Flat bed delivery trucks Loader Ram Hoe Backhoe Concrete mixer and pumper Crane Drill Rig Flat bed delivery trucks Compressors Crane Flat bed delivery trucks Masonry saws/ Metal Stud Plasma Cutter Roto Hammers Shot pin applicators Small stationary power tools/ hand tools PHASE IV: Compressors Exterior and Interior Finishes Flat bed delivery trucks Hardscape Installation Masonry Saws Softscape Installation Roto Hammers Passenger Elevators Installation Skill Saws Small Cement Mixer Small hand held power tools Rev. 03.17.20091 Pnge19 3.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT 3.1 Construction Parking Details 3.1.1 Off -Site Parking for Crew members Construction workers will be prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Instead, the project applicant will secure one or more binding off -site parking agreements to accommodate the varying number of workers needed for each construction phase. The off -site parking location(s) will be within a 5 mile radius of the Site. This off -site parking agreement shall be presented to the City prior to the issuance of the permits for the phase of construction that will require the off -site parking. The agreement must ensure that (1) the off -site parking location will commit a sufficient number of spaces to Aerie construction workers during the relevant term, and (2) the off -site location possesses the proper permits and authority to rent the subject spaces. Shuttles will transfer construction workers from their location(s) to the project site. Specifically, two, ten (10) passenger shuttle vans will run up to 6 -8 trips each morning and evening and up to 5 trips at lunch time, assuming that some workers will stay at the jobsite during lunch. Carpooling among construction workers will be encouraged throughout project construction. Once vehicular elevators are installed and workers are able to park in the completed on -site garages. It is anticipated that approximately 31 cars will be able to park on -site once the parking garage is completed. The owner shall provide personnel to assist parking in the garage. 3.1.2 Short Term Parking Construction workers will be prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Compliance with this prohibition will be monitored daily by the construction valet and flagmen team. However, this prohibition shall not apply to short-term visitors to the Site such as City inspectors, City staff, architects, and consultants. Carpooling shall also be encouraged among professionals. 3.2 Staging Areas During Phases I and II, an encroachment permit will be required to allow temporary use of 10' -5" of City right -of -way, measured from the property line at Carnation, for staging Rev. 03.17.20091 Page 110 of materials and temporary parking while materials are off - loaded, etc., as depicted on Appendix B — Construction Management Exhibit 1.0. This will achieve an average of 10'- 5" feet deep x 140 feet wide of staging area along the Carnation Avenue frontage. (Staging area does not include the 10 foot building setback from the property line as that area will be used for constructing the subterranean levels. Excavation will occur up to the property line facing Carnation Avenue). Upon the completion of the Project's concrete structure, during Phase III and IV, an encroachment permit will be required to allow temporary use of 6' -5" of City right -of -way, measured from property line at Carnation, for staging for the various trades to complete the remaining phases of construction. Approximately fourteen (14) months into the construction, it is anticipated that construction of the First Floor concrete deck and on -site subterranean garage will be far enough along to be used to store construction materials and small vehicles. 3.3 Construction Trailer, Materials Storage, and Waste Management A temporary field office will be set up on the Site within the property and will be equipped with power, phone, computers, and fax. Multiple temporary toilet facilities will be provided on the Site. Once the lower levels are constructed, dedicated storage areas and lockboxes will be provided for each trade to store their tools and materials on -site for the duration of construction. Rev. 03.17.20091 4.0 TRAFFIC CONTROL 4.1 Haul Routes Page 111 Haul operations shall be monitored by the contractor. Additional restrictions may be imposed by the Public Works Department if traffic congestion problems arise. • The project's haul route shall follow the route depicted in Figure 1, below. Specifically, dump trucks, concrete mixers, deliveries, and shuttles for off -site parking will access the Site via East Coast Highway and travel south on Marguerite Avenue, west on Seaview Avenue, and south on Carnation Avenue to the Site. They will exit by going east on Ocean Boulevard, north on Marguerite Avenue, and back to East Coast Highway. • Dirt will be hauled to Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in the City of Brea. Dump trucks leaving from East Coast Highway will go north on MacArthur Boulevard to 73N to 55 N to 5N to 57N. FIGURE 1 TO MACARTHUR BLVD., TO 73N TO 55N FWY �1 4r\ 1_ V {dp t> � A a wiz Rev. 03.17.20091 Pa g 112 4.2 Delivery Requirements All deliveries will use the Haul Route once they enter the neighborhood starting from Marguerite Avenue. As mentioned in Section 3.2, the contractor shall request an encroachment permit for a temporary staging area during construction between the property line and the street curb. Loading and unloading of all construction materials /equipment and /or construction vehicles will take place onsite or within the staging area. Loading and unloading will be managed by the construction valet team and overseen by the contractor. Dump trucks, cement trucks, etc. shall arrive at the site with no greater frequency than the discharge rate by the contractor so that no more than one truck is on site at one time and that trucks will not need to queue on Carnation Avenue. Once the delivery is complete, the trucks will exit the Project area using the haul route depicted above. All trucks will be required to shut off their engines during the loading /off - loading process. The majority of the trucks used for Phases I and II will be dump trucks, cement mixers, and cement pumpers. Phases III and IV will require mostly flat bed delivery trucks and vans. To prevent obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the Site, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways. 4.3 Traffic Control Plan Traffic control will be coordinated with the Police Department and Public Works Department, Traffic and Development Services Division, so that street traffic is not obstructed. Rev. 03.17.2009 1 pxll ,9d1:1\LL`I1I- YXdl].]k VA 5.1 Pedestrian Protection Page113 Currently, there is not a pedestrian walkway adjacent to the Site, along the north side of Carnation Avenue due to the existing driveway cut and lack of sidewalk at 207 Carnation Avenue. Secure fencing will be installed to foster pedestrian safety and a four foot wide temporary walkway will be designated in front of the fencing at the street curb along Carnation Avenue during Phases I and II of construction. During Phase IV, the chain link fence will be pulled back four feet from the street curb. Also, if required by the Public Works Department, a four foot wide temporary crosswalk will be created across Carnation Avenue to direct pedestrians to the existing sidewalk on the southerly side of the street. (See Appendix B — Construction Management Exhibit 1.0.) A safe and clean path along the driveway frontage of the Site will be provided at the end of each work day. A construction valet member shall be provided at the entrance of the Site during construction hours to coordinate workers and shuttles into and out of the Site. 5.2 Project Fencing The entire perimeter of the Site will be fenced with a 6 foot high fence. More specifically, plywood fencing will be installed on both sides of the property facing the adjacent neighbors and will wrap around the corner of Carnation Ave. Chain link fence with green fabric per City of Newport Beach requirements will be installed at the street curb, beginning where the plywood fence ends S feet away from the side property line. Two 20 foot wide rolling gates on Carnation Ave. will provide access into the Site and will be locked for security. These rolling gates shall open on site to avoid interference with construction work. During Phase III and IV, the chain link fencing along Carnation Avenue will be pulled back 4 feet from the street curb so that the pedestrian walkway is off the street. See Appendix B for location of project fencing. 5.3 Safety and Security Appropriate signage will be posted at the Site indicating "No Trespassing," "Hard Hat Required," "Authorized Personnel Only," and other visitor and delivery information. Daily safety inspections will be done by the onsite superintendent. Rev. 03.17.2009 1 Page 114 6.0 AIR QUALITY CONTROL, FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL, NOISE SUPPRESSION, AND VIBRATION MONITORING 6.1 Emissions /Air Quality Control Construction activities will follow the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District to reduce air pollution and emissions impact. To the extent feasible, pre- coated /natural colored building materials shall be used. Water -based or low VOC coatings such as Dunn Edwards Ecoshield Low -Odor/ Zero -VOC paint shall be used that comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, or manual coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, etc. shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where practical. Paint application shall use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter. 6.2 Fugitive Dust Control The project shall comply with the Fugitive Dust Emission and Control Plan approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (under District Rule 403). Dust will be minimized using water as control. Site and debris watering shall be performed a minimum of three times daily during all demolition activities. During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered at least four times per day. Stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty materials shall be covered or watered three times daily. In addition, trucks carrying soil and debris shall be wetted or covered prior to leaving the Site. On windy days, or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the Site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Soil disturbance shall be terminated whenever wind conditions exceed 25 miles per hour. All diesel - powered machinery exceeding 100 horsepower shall be equipped with soot traps, unless the Contractor demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City Building Official that it is infeasible. 6.3 Noise Control Construction activities will adhere to the hours prescribed by the City of Newport Beach's Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 10.28.040). Specifically, construction activities will be restricted to non - holiday Rev. 03.17.2009 1 Page 115 weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., per Section 10.28.040. During construction Phases III and IV, when work will largely occur indoors, construction activities will be allowed Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and Saturday from 8:00 to 6:00 p.m., as allowed by City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040. The construction contractor shall provide residents living within 100 feet of the project site with a construction schedule for the project prior to the commencement of construction, including the dock, and shall keep them informed of any material changes to the schedule. The notification shall also identify the name and phone number of a contact person with whom to register complaints. 6.4 Noise Control Consideration Noise from construction activities on this project will be a function of the noise generated by individual construction equipment items (as listed in Section 2.7 Construction Equipment), the equipment location (much of this construction will be insulated by the landform, the depth of the excavation, and the concrete used for most of the structure), and the timing and duration of noise - generated activities. It is important to note that all equipment is not generally operated continuously or used simultaneously. The number, type, distribution, and usage of construction equipment will differ from phase to phase. The noise generated is both temporary in nature and limited in hours by the City's Noise Ordinance (Section 10.28.040). During Phase I and II of the project, the caisson drilling process will progress at the rate of 3 to 4 caissons being completed per day — this includes drilling, steel placement, and filling with concrete. The grading during segments #1, #2, and #3 will consist of excavators with a ramp out or an electrical conveyor belt for dirt removal and with dump trucks at the rate of approximately 28 trucks per day, removing the soils. There will be no pile driving during the entire construction process. The ram hoe will be required during the later part of the excavation process for approximately 10% of the grading operation at the lower elevations of the site. For Phases III & IV, small hand tools and compressors will be used within the concrete structure. Noise will also be generated by daily deliveries of materials to the Site. The construction valet will manage the time of such deliveries so that they do not occur at the same time. 6.5 Vibration Monitoring Vibration monitoring will be conducted as part of the Construction Management Plan. Vibration probes will be placed at 215 Carnation Avenue to monitor construction activities. A vibration monitoring program will be initiated and if found to exceed the Rev. 03.17.20091 P age 116 threshold for structural damage, other construction methods will be employed to eliminate any occurrence of structural damage. Such alternative construction methods include, but are not limited to, use of lubricant during caisson drilling, use of different drill bits to change levels of torque for the caisson drilling, use of less vibration - intensive construction vehicles, and use of drilling, and /or insertion of expansive grout to fracture rock. Rev. 03.17.2009 1 Page 117 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE/ PROTECTION 7.1 Erosion, Sediment Control and Beach Protection Per the State's NPDES permit, the project is required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with erosion control measures to ensure soils resulting from grading and earthwork activities are prevented from leaving the Site and moving to receiving waters. As detailed in Appendix O of the project's Preliminary SWPPP, the following best management practices (BMPs) will be incorporated to prevent soils from spilling into Newport Harbor during grading operation: 1. BMP #3 (Erosion Control Plan) 2. SE -1 (Silt Fence), 3. SE -6 (Gravel Bag Berm) 4. SE -2 (Sediment Basin) 5. SE -4 (Check Dam) In addition, an erosion control plan will be provided with the project's rough grading plan per the project's conditions of approval. Please refer to Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, Inc. for more detailed information. 7.2 Water Quality Control The Project has prepared a Water Quality Management Plan which incorporates a variety of BMPs that will be used onsite to control predictable pollutant runoff. Please refer to conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, Inc., for more detailed information. The project also will incorporate the following practices: All debris and trash shall be disposed in suitable trash containers on land or on the work barge at the end of each construction day. Discharge of any hazardous materials into Newport Bay is prohibited. Silt curtains shall be deployed around work barges and around the pile sleeving or drilling operations where feasible to minimize the spread of turbid waters into adjacent eelgrass beds within and outside the project area. All construction debris shall be removed from the bay floor. Rev. 03.17.2009 1 P age Its 7.3 Environmental Protection Existing vegetation that is to be retained will be fenced for protection during grading and construction. Pursuant to this CMP and, therefore, as part of the project itself, the following measures will be taken: An updated pre- construction eelgrass and invasive algae survey shall be completed within 30 days of the initiation of the proposed dock/ gangway construction. The results of this survey will be used to update the results of the March 2007 eelgrass survey and to identify, if any, potential project - related eelgrass losses and the presence or absence of the invasive algae (Caulerpa taxifolia) in accordance with NMFS requirements. • A post - construction project eelgrass survey shall be completed within 30 days of the completion of project construction in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). The report will be presented to the resources agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission within 30 days after completion of the survey. If any eelgrass has been impacted in excess of that determined in the pre- construction survey, any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.2:1. Eelgrass shall be mitigated based on two annual monitoring surveys that document the changes in bed (i.e., area extent and density)within the footprint of the boat dock, moored vessels(s), and /or related structures during the active - growth period of eelgrass (typically March through October). Mitigation shall be implemented pursuant to the requirements of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). A statement from the applicant indicating its understanding of the potential mitigation obligation that may follow the initial two year monitoring is required. If losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach and resources agencies for review and acceptance. The project marine biologist shall mark the positions of eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the dock and gangway construction area with buoys prior to the initiation of any construction activities. The project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew prior to initiation of construction to orient them to specific areas where eelgrass presently exists. Rev. 03.17.2009 Pa Re 119 • Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work over eelgrass beds only during tides of above +2 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) or higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass from propellers, and to limit water turbidity. • Anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upon eelgrass habitat. • Construction activities associated with the elevated walkway leading to the gangway and construction personnel shall avoid impacts to rocky intertidal habitat and to eelgrass beds and sand dollar habitat within the Carnation Cove by, among other things, (a) posting signage at key at access points in front of beach and on the elevated walkway stating that access is limited to the elevated walkway during construction; (b) using yellow tape to prevent access to rocky intertidal habitat, eelgrass beds, and sand dollar habitat; and (c) prohibiting access to the water and rocky shoreline within the cove. Residents shall be informed of the sensitivity of the cove as a unique marine biological habitat to assist in ensuring the long -term protection of the cove's marine biological resources. A silt curtain will be placed around all water -side construction activity during the construction of the dock system to limit the spread of turbidity. If prolonged turbidity is observed outside the silt curtain then the silt curtain shall be re- deployed and re- positioned in a manner to correct the problem. Removal and emplacement of the piles will be conducted using Best Available Technology (BAT) that limits the re- suspension of sediments and the creation of turbidity plumes. Silt curtains will be emplaced and maintained in working condition throughout the period of construction by the marine contractor. If turbidity plumes are observed in the vicinity of the cove in front of the development, an additional silt curtain will be immediately placed in front of the cove's entrance until the turbidity plume has dissipated. Debris bins will be placed at the project site. Material collected will be removed on a daily basis. The amount, type, and location of any large debris (piles, dock parts, concrete, etc) that is deposited on the seafloor will be documented and removed prior to the completion of the project. The project marine biologist shall also inspect the seafloor following the completion of construction to ensure that all debris has been removed. The project marine biologist will perform weekly on -site inspections to ensure that BMPs and mitigation measures are being implemented during construction. Rev. 03.17.20091 Pa g 120 • Post - construction marine biological surveys (per permit conditions) shall be performed to map eelgrass cover in the project area using the same methodology as the pre- construction survey and also to document the condition and density of the sand dollar beds within the cove. • A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre - construction survey for active nests of covered species at least seven (7) days prior to any habitat disturbance that occurs during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). If no active nests are found, no further actions are required. However, if nesting activity is observed during the pre - construction survey, the nest site must be protected until nesting activity has ended or as otherwise directed by a qualified biologist in order to ensure compliance with the MBTA and California fish and Game Code. Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environment. Invasive and non - native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. A qualified botanist shall perform focused surveys to determine the presence /absence for the nine sensitive plant species. The focused surveys shall be performed during the appropriate blooming window identified for each species. Survey methods shall follow CDFG guidelines. If any State - listed threatened or endangered plant species are impacted by project development, an incident take permit pursuant to Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code shall be obtained prior to issuance of a grading permit. Rev. 03.17.2009 1 121 8.0 CONSULTANTS/ REFERENCES Biological Consultants: Coastal Resources Management, Inc. PMB 327, 3334 E. Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949 - 412 -9446 Keane Biological Consulting 2892 Bellflower Blvd., Suite 480 Long Beach, CA 90815 562- 708 -7657 Concrete and Shoring Consultant: Ekedal Masonry 537 Newport Center Dr., Suite 288 Newport Beach, CA 92660 947 - 729 -8082 Contractor Consultant: Finton Associates, Inc 3186 -E Airway Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626 949 - 673 -9587 Grading Consultant: Sukut Construction, Inc. 4010 W. Chandler Ave., Santa Ana, CA 92704 714 -540 -5351 Soils Engineer: Neblett & Associates, Inc. 4911 Warner Ave., Suite 218 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 714 - 840 -8286 Structural Engineering Consultant: KNA Engineering 30101 Agoura Court, Suite 120 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 818 - 865 -2026 Rev. 03.17.20091 Page 122 List of References: Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for "Carnation Villas" Tentative Tract No. 16882, dated December 18, 2007. Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan for "Carnation Villas" Tentative Tract 16882, dated January 17, 2008. Rev. 03.17.2009 1 Appendix A Construction Schedule Rev. 03.17.2009 1 Page X23 | , � . .., ! .<. ! . ! .<- � > , ; ; || . } || ! ! !! ! | 9mmlw�dm� | |! |HH- 1!|!|| Of if if |!!! |!!!! ! | ! ! if ! |! | E (. . . . - - -| 3 -| �• / |\ � !| /! , . Appendix 6 Construction Plan Rev. 03.17.2009 ' �s 124 LC06!'L'4't Jj NOW n a 15 UW 4WWITOL 6WLtl2'M d•Sxo'dMY CaMQIIU 'Puix MWn=e} IIMRuGFM!S 25 Appendix C Construction Building Sections Rev. 03.17.20091 {A LT d AGdW W'!1�d,M'WV S¢K'0, BO ,M'WJJ 335' �0' dW39if01 n! ql' vY3�� !d'e+N!alleweJ+�!IN1�wd�1'S 7 5N Noll l,;Nc 09 �gYgel�q�N� q� >voiia�alsvov iidd e w J a C..) cn Cl Cl z Yqi �] Appendix C Traffic Access Assessment 7:07am 7:08am 7:15am 7:24am 7:33am 7:50am 7:51 am 8:06am 8:20am 8:23am 8:39am 8:40am 8:44am 8:47am 8:51 am 8:56am 8:58am 11:34am 11:36am 12:01 pm 12:06pm 12:31 pm 12:32pm 1:00pm 1:06pm 1:14pm 1:20pm 1:30pm 4:03pm 4:22pm 4:29pm 4:33pm 4:44pm 4:46pm 4:47pm 4:58pm 4:59pm 5:07pm 5:13pm 5:17pm 5:21 pm 5:26pm Ocean Blvd 42 Condos Arivals Departures 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 i OR 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 i OR 5:41 pm 5:56pm A -7 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S ST: CARNATION AVE E/W ST: OCEAN BLVD CITY: NEWPORT BEACH FILENAME: 0981101 DATE: 9118/08 DAY: THURSDAY PERIOD NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SOUTHBOUND BEGINS NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total LANES: EL ET ER WL WT WR Total 7:00 AM 1 1 2 15 AM 2 2 3 4 30 AM 0 1 1 1 45 AM 0 2 PM 2 8:00 AM 1 6 45 7 15 AM 0 4 3 4 30 AM 11 5 3 6 45 AM 0 7 0 7 PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT: 30 PM 1 800 AM 6 46 PM VOLUMES= 2 22 6 24 FILENAME: 0981101P DATE: 9/18/08 PERIOD NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND BEGINS NIL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total 4:00 PM 5 3 8 15 PM 1 4 5 30 PM 5 1 6 45 PM 12 1 3 5:00 PM 2 3 5 15 PM 0 3 3 30 PM 1 5 6 46 PM 2 4 6 PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT: 1600 PM VOLUMES= 13 9 COMMENTS: A -8 22 N/S ST: CARNATION AVE ENV ST: OCEAN BLVD CITY: NEWPORT BEACH PERIOD NORTHBOUND BEGINS NL NT NR LANES: 11:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 12:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM 1:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT: 1200 PM VOLUMES = 12 COMMENTS: TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. (714) 541 -2228 Summary of Vehicular Turning Movements FILENAME: 0981101 M DATE: 9/18108 DAY: THURSDAY SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total 4 6 10 2 4 6 4 3 7 2 4 6 2 4 6 4 6 10 1 2 3 1 5 6 17 A -9 PHF: 0.73 29 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. ARRIVAL/DEPARTURE SURVEY LOCATION: (1239 -1241) (1247 -1301) BAYSIDE DR FILENAME: 09811002 8 CONDOS DIRECTION: DAY: WEDNESDAY CITY: NEWPORT BEACH DATE: 09/17/08 TIME PERIOD: 7:00 AM - 6:00 PM ARRIVAL DEPARTURE ARRIVAL DEPARTURE TIME TIME TIME TIME 7:35:00 7:52:00 8:03:00 8:23:00 8:47:00 8:51:00 ;! 8:55:00 Y8:55:00 8:55:00 11:52:00 11:58:00 12:27:00 12:29:00 12:34:00 12:42:00 12:43:00 12:54:00 13:06:00 13:14:00 13:22:00 16:38:00 17:24:00 17:56:00 16:18:00 16:19:00 16:34:00 16 :48:00 17:45:00 COMMENTS: X =SERVICE PERSONNEL A -10 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. ARRIVAUDEPARTURE SURVEY LOCATION: 2525 OCEAN BLVD 42 CONDOS DIRECTION: FILENAME: 09811 D05 DAY: THURSDAY CITY: CORONA DEL MAR DATE: 09/18/08 TIME PERIOD: 7:00 AM -1:30 PM ARRIVAL DEPARTURE ARRIVAL DEPARTURE TIME TIME TIME TIME 7:07:00 7:08:00 7:08:00 7:15:00 7:24:00 7:33:00 7:50:00 7:50:00 7:51:00 8:06:00 8:20:00 8:40:00 8:56:00 8:58:00 11:34:00 12:32:00 13:00:00 COMMENTS: 8:23:00 8:39:00 8:44:00 8:47:00 8:51:00 11:36:00 12:01:00 12:06:00 12:31:00 13:06:00 13:14:00 13:20:00 13:30:00 A -II TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. ARRIVAUDEPARTURE SURVEY LOCATION: 2525 OCEAN BLVD 42 CONDOS DIRECTION: FILENAME: 09811 DO6 DAY: THURSDAY CITY: CORONA DEL MAR DATE: 09/18/08 TIME PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM ARRIVAL DEPARTURE ARRIVAL DEPARTURE TIME TIME TIME TIME 16:03:00 16:22:00 16:29:00 16:33:00 16:44:00 16:46:00 16:47:00 16:58:00 16:59:00 16:59:00 17:07:00 17:07:00 17:13:00 17:17:00 17:21:00 17:21:00 17:26:00 17:41:00 17:56:00 COMMENTS: A -12 �Al1ST /N -FOUST ASSOC /ATE., INC. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 017h% f@1:L611111U l TO: Keeton Kreitzer FROM: Joe Foust, P.E. DATE: February 26, 2009 SUBJECT: 2 "d REVIEW COMMENTS — AERIE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN I have reviewed the February 18, 2009 Aerie Construction Management Plan (2 "d check) and have the following comments: 1. General Observation — From an overall standpoint, this tad edition of the Construction Management Plan (CMP) appears to address nearly all of my previous concerns raised in both a memo and face -to -face meeting. However, a couple of issues remain. These are: a. One Page 6, the CMP correctly states: "At no time will more than one cement or dump truck be stationed at the site. " It is essential the contractor be aware of and observe this fact as it could result in the City having to enforce the condition. It should also be noted that not more than one large delivery truck may be at the site at any one time. I had suggested a remote truck stagingtholding site be identified and maintained. But as long as this condition is recognized and complied with the main issue has been satisfied. b. There is a discrepancy in the CMP regarding the number of workers present in Stages III and IV. Page 4 says 60 — 80 workers, whereas page 7 says 25 and 20. Although this needs to be clarified, the fact remains the contractor must arrange for an adequate number of off -site parking spaces for each phase. I continue to question whether or 647009m .dm 2223 Wellington Avenue, Suite 300 • Santa Ana, California 92701 -3161 Tel: (714) 667 -0496 Fax: (714) 667 -7952 www.austinfoust.com Keeton Kreitzer February 26, 2009 Page 2 not the 31 on -site spaces are usable from a practical viewpoint given the only access is via the elevators. However, that question will finally be answered during actual construction. If use of some or all of these 31 on -site spaces is not practical, then additional off -site spaces will need to be provided. CONCLUSION In summary, pending clarification of the anticipated worker count in Construction Phases III and IV, the February 2009 version of the Aerie CMP is deemed complete. 047009mm.dm SOIL Sampling Point: 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Dept Matrix Redo%Features Primery Indicators lery one lncicalor is sufficient) Mches) Color % Color (moist) % Tvae; Loa Texture Remelt 111 nN €— Lem CMU)S t/&V, �h Water Marks (B1)(Wverine) _ Surface Water (Al) 1,e. V9 t3 — - -- Svi V — D" Deposits (B3) (Rlverine) _ SaturalJon(A3) _ AGuedc Invertebrates (1213) _ Dahage Patterns (BID) Water Marks (31) (Nonrivertne) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (CI) _ Dry - Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) ( Nonriverne) _ Oxld @ed Rhtaospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Thln Muck Surface (C7) _ DrM Deposits (83) (Nonrivertne) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Bunows (CB) _ Surface Soft Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction In Plowed Solis (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Vlsble on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (E)Vain In Remarks) _ '7 : C--Concentration, D= Deoledon. RM=Reduced Matrix. 'Location: PL-P= Unin . RC --Root Channel, M--Matrix. Hydnc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRS, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis': _ Hlslosol (At) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 1 cm Muck (AD) (LRR C) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) _ Black Hlstie (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Reduced Vertic (Fla) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Red Parent Materiel (i r2) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 1 c-n Muck (A3) (LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) includes cali frintall _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F6) Remarks: _ Sandy Murky Mineral (Si) _ Vernal Pods (F9) 'Indicators orhydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) watiand hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer (If present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydnc Soll Resent? Yes_ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Primery Indicators lery one lncicalor is sufficient) _ Water Marks (B1)(Wverine) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Salt Crust (1311) _ Sediment Deposits (82) (Riverins) High Water Table (A2) _ Biietic Crust (B12) _ D" Deposits (B3) (Rlverine) _ SaturalJon(A3) _ AGuedc Invertebrates (1213) _ Dahage Patterns (BID) Water Marks (31) (Nonrivertne) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (CI) _ Dry - Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) ( Nonriverne) _ Oxld @ed Rhtaospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Thln Muck Surface (C7) _ DrM Deposits (83) (Nonrivertne) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Bunows (CB) _ Surface Soft Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction In Plowed Solis (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Vlsble on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (E)Vain In Remarks) _ Shallow Aqultard (03) 1 _ Water - Stained Leaves (139) _ FAC- Neutral Test (05) Field Observations•. Surface Water Present? Yes _ No Depth (Inches): Water Table Present? Yes— NO Depth (inches): Sau)atlon Present? Yes_ No _IVL_ Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_ Nok includes cali frintall Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), N available: Remarks: US Amy Corps of Engineers Arid West –Version 11.1 -2006 Appendix D Air Quality Analysis AERIE RESIDENTAL DEVELOPMENT AIR QUALITY FOCUSED ANALYSIS Prepared for Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, CA 92780 Prepared by Synectecology 10232 Overbill Dr. Santa Ana, CA 92705 12/22/08 AERIE RESIDENTAL DEVELOPMENT AIR QUALITY FOCUSED ANALYSIS 1.0 Methodology This air quality evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to determine if significant air quality impacts are likely to occur in conjunction with the type and scale of development associated with the Aerie residential project to be located in the City of Newport Beach, California. The impact analysis contained in this report was prepared in accordance with the methodologies provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) as included in CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993) (Handbook) as well as updates included on the SCAQMD Internet web site. The analysis makes use of the data provided by the SCAQMD in their OFFROAD2007 construction emissions projections to determine the emissions associated with the construction equipment. Vehicle emissions are included for haul truck, vendors trucks, and workers and are based on emissions projections included for Orange County in the EMFAC2007 emissions model. Localized emissions generated during construction are based on screening tables included in the SCAQMD's Sample Construction Scenarios for Projects Less than Five Acres in Size, (February 2005). Finally, operational emissions are based on the URBEMIS2007 urban emissions model (Version 9.4.2). The Aerie residential project involves the demolition of approximately 16,493 square feet of an existing 14 -unit multi - family residential structure and existing dockways and construction and subsequent use of eight condominium units on 1.4 acres of land. The structures are to include approximately 32,413 square feet of living area, 5,943 square feet of storage area, 13,234 square feet of parking, and 10,119 square feet devoted to circulation and mechanical aspects The calculated emissions of the project are compared to thresholds of significance for individual projects using the SCAQMD Handbook as well as their Internet updates. The analysis finds that with the inclusion of standard dust control techniques as required under SCAQMD Rule 403, construction emissions would not exceed either their mass daily threshold values and the impact is less than significant. However, PMio emissions associated with demolition activities could exceed the allowable localized concentrations at proximate receptor locations and mitigation in the form of additional site and debris watering is prescribed to reduce this potential impact to less than significant. All operational emissions would remain below their respective threshold values. No other significant impacts have been identified and no other mitigation is warranted under CEQA. 20 Thresholds of Significance The State CEQA Guidelines suggest, from an "air quality" perspective, that a project would normally be judged to produce a significant or potentially significant effect on the environment if the project were to: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards. • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations. • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. As indicated in Section 15064(i)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, `cumulatively considerable" is defined to mean "that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." In order to determine whether or not a proposed project would cause a significant effect on the environment, the impact of the project must be determined by examining the types and levels of emissions generated and its impacts on factors that affect air quality. To accomplish this determination of significance, the SCAQMD has established air pollution thresholds against which a proposed project can be evaluated and assist lead agencies in determining whether or not the proposed project is significant. If the thresholds are exceeded by a proposed project, then it should be considered significant. While, the final determination of whether or not a project is significant is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, the SCAQMD recommends that the following air pollution thresholds be used by lead agencies in determining whether the construction or operational phase of a proposed project is significant. If the lead agency finds that the proposed project has the potential to exceed any of these air pollution thresholds, the project should be considered significant. 1.1 Construction Phase - Thresholds of Significance The following significance thresholds for air quality have been established by the SCAQMD on a daily basis for construction emissions: • 75 pounds per day for ROG • 100 pounds per day for NOx • 550 pounds per day for CO • 150 pounds per day of SOx • 150 pounds per day for PM,o • 55 pounds per day for PM2.5 During construction, if any of the identified daily air pollutant thresholds are exceeded by the proposed project, then the project's air quality impacts may be considered significant. 1.1 Operational Phase - Thresholds of Significance Specific criteria air pollutants have been identified by the SCAQMD as pollutants of special regional concern. Based upon this categorization, the following significance thresholds have been established by the SCAQMD for project operations: • 55 pounds per day of ROG • 55 pounds per day of NOx • 550 pounds per day of CO • 150 pounds per day of SOx • 150 pounds per day of PMio • 55 pounds per day for PM2.5 Projects within the SCAB with daily operation- related emissions that exceed any of the above emission thresholds may be considered significant. The SCAQMD indicates in Chapter 6 of their Handbook that they consider a project to be mitigated to a level of insignificance if its primary effects are mitigated below the thresholds provided above. 2.3 Local Emission Standards In addition to the mass daily threshold values presented above, projects that have the ability to exceed or add measurably to an existing excess of the ambient concentrations may be considered significant. The following localized significance thresholds have been established by the SCAQMD for individual projects: • California State 1 -hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm • California State 8 -hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm • California State I -hour NOZ standard of 0.18 ppm • SCAQMD 24 -hour construction PM10 and PM,.5 standards of 10.4 ggim3 • SCAQMD 24 -hour operational PM10 and PM2.5 standards of 2.5 µg/m3 The significance of localized project impacts depends on whether ambient levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below State and federal standards. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have significant impacts if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State or federal standard, then project emissions are considered significant if they increase ambient concentrations by a measurable amount. Again, the SCAQMD indicates in Chapter 6 of their Handbook that they consider a project to be mitigated to a level of insignificance if its effects are mitigated below the thresholds provided above. 3.0 Environmental lnipacts and Mitigation Measures The Aerie project involves the demolition of approximately 16,493 square feet of existing residential structures and existing dockways and construction and subsequent use of eight condominium units with dockways on 1.4 acres of land. The structures are to include approximately 32,413 square feet of living area, 5,943 square feet of storage area, 13,234 square feet of parking, and 10,119 square feet devoted to circulation and mechanical aspects. Projected construction emissions are calculated using OFFROAD2007 model data included on the SCAQMD web site for use in projecting construction emissions. The model updates the emissions on a yearly basis, and the analysis follows this trend. A construction management plan was worked out by Brion Jeannette Architecture in conjunction with the construction contractor and this analysis uses that data. Equipment emissions were selected to best represent the contractor's projections of type and, where known, horsepower values. Where no value was known the SCAQMD composite values were substituted. Emissions for the trucks used to haul debris and deliver supplies were based on data included in the CARB EMFAC2007 model with emissions selected specific to travel in Orange County, California. Like the equipment emissions, these are updated on a yearly basis. All trucks are assumed to be heavy, heavy diesels. The distances traveled are dependant on the type load and were developed by Brion Jeannette Architecture in conjunction with the construction contractor. Similarly, worker trips were based on data included in the CARB EMFAC2007 model with emissions selected specific to travel in Orange County, California. In this case the emissions were based on a composite of automobiles and light trucks less than 5,151 pounds gross vehicle weight. While the construction management plan specifies that workers are to carpool reducing the number of daily trips, as a reasonable worst - case scenario, each worker was assumed to commute a round -trip distance of 20 miles to the carpool or project site. rd The subsequent occupation of the site is based on the URBEMIS2007 model. The majority of residential emissions are based on vehicle trips. The URBEMIS default value for condominiums is 5.86 trips per unit. hi accordance with the ITE Trip Generation Manual, these values can range from 1.83 to 11.79 trips per unit. Based on the size of the proposed units, as a worst -case scenario this analysis uses a trip rate of 11.79 trips per unit per day and the project is estimated to result in 94 average daily trips (ADT). The calculated emissions of the project are compared to thresholds of significance for individual projects using the SCAQMD Handbook and Internet web site updates. The Handbook recommends assessing emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROC or ROG) as an indicator of ozone. For ease of the reader, the included impact analysis follows the outline of the CEQA Checklist. 3.1 Project Consistency With the Applicable Air Quality Plan Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project represents the removal of 14 multi - family units and replacement with eight condominiums in the City of Newport Beach. The project would not involve growth - inducing impacts or cause an exceedance of established population or growth projections. Furthermore, the project is of a size such that it would not create either short- or long -term significant quantities of criteria pollutants. Additionally, with the included mitigation, the project would not result in significant localized air quality impacts. As such, the project is consistent with the goals of AQMP, and in this respect does not present a significant impact. 3.2 Project Potential to Violate or Add to a Violation of an Air Quality Standard 3.2.1 Site Construction Less Than Significant Impact. Air quality impacts may occur during demolition activities, site preparation, and construction activities required to implement the proposed land use. Major sources of emissions during construction typically include exhaust emissions generated by heavy equipment and vehicles, fugitive dust generated as a result of soil and material disturbance during demolition and grading activities, and the emissions of reactive organic compounds during site paving and painting of the structures. As noted, an extensive construction management plan was developed to include all phases of the proposed construction effort on a day -by -day basis. Equipment emissions are based on the OFFROAD2007 emissions model while vehicle emissions are based in the EMFAC2007 emissions model. In accordance with requirements under SCAQMD Rule 403 for dust suppression, a 55 percent control factor is applied to the demolition activities. A similar control efficiency is used by the URBEMIS2007 model for twice daily watering of graded surfaces. The project site includes approximately 1.4 acres of land. The URBEMIS model estimates that 25 percent of this area (0.35 acre) is disturbed on a daily basis. This acreage (i.e., 0.35 acre) is then used in the calculation of daily dust emissions, which are assumed to occur during excavation and grading activities. Based on the URBEMIS model, a value of 20 pounds per acre per day is assumed. Also, based on the URBEMIS model, a suppression of 55 percent is assumed for adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 as required for all projects constructed in the Southland. Truck trips are also included for the removal of debris and delivery of materials. The structures are then constructed over time with various phases of construction overlapping each other. Some of these phases involve work over five days a week while others would extend this to six days a week. The analysis includes both, and in these cases presents those emissions for the five days a week that overlap (though the greenhouse gas analysis considers the sixth day in its total). The URBEMIS model considers dust emissions negligible during the construction of the actual structures, and this analysis follows that approach. Like excavation, the analysis includes the daily delivery of materials to the site. The structure is painted in the final stages of construction. The major source of emissions associated with the application of paints and surface coatings is from the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These are also a form ROG and are assessed as such. The architect has specified that interior paint is to contain no more than 10 grams per liter and exterior paint is to contain no more than 27 grams per liter of VOC. The area to be painted is based on data included with the URBEMIS model. All interior surfaces are to receive three coats while exterior surfaces would receive one coat. While the application of asphalt also releases VOC emissions, no asphalt is proposed for the project and these surfaces will be of concrete construction. Table 1 summarizes the daily emissions projected for site construction. As noted above, some phases of construction would occur five days a week whereas others would use six days. The table presents those five days of overlap in calculation of the worst -case days. (Greenhouse gases, discussed later in this analysis, also include these "sixth day" emissions.) Note that all daily emissions are under their respective criteria levels and the impact is less than significant. Equipment and vehicle calculation spreadsheets showing the daily specifics for each phase are included in the appendix. Table 1 Comparison of Projected Construction Emissions and Daily Criteria Values Source ROG NOx I CO SO, PM10 PM10 PM10 PMzs PMZ.S I PM1.5 CO, Dust' Exhaust Total Dust Exhaust Total Phase IA,Demolition, 8 /10 /10 - 8/17/10, 6 Days Fugitive Dust' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.20 0.00 5.20' 1.09' 0.00 1.09' 0.00 Off Road Diesel 1.82 16.96 6.25 0.02 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.66 0.66 1,787.67 On Road Diesel 2.28 20.46 13.28 0.03 0.00 0.92 0.92 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,362.89 Worker Trips 0.14 0.12 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 153.18 Daily Totals 4.24 37.54 20.83 0.05 5.20 1.67 6.87 1.09 1.58 2.67 2,604.77 Phase 1B. Caisson Installation. 8/18/10 - 9/3/10. 13 Days Off Road Diesel 3.04 26.47 12.11 0.03 0.00 1.37 1.37 0.00 1.22 1.22 3,165.50 On Road Diesel 0.88 7.94 5.15 0.01 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.35 0.35 917.12 Worker Trips 0.14 0.12 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 153.18 Daily Totals 4.06 34.53 18.56 0.04 0.00 1.74 1.74 0.00 1.58 1.58 4,235.8 Phase 1C. Excavation. 9/7/10 - 11/2/10.41 Days Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 3.15 0.00 3.15 0.66 0.00 0.66 10.00 Off Road Diesel 2.64 28.64 8.83 0.03 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.95 0.95 3,152.43 On Road Diesel 6.15 55.25 35.84 0.07 0.00 2.47 2.47 0.00 2.45 2.45 6,379.81 Worker Trips 0.29 0.23 2.61 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 306.37 Dail Totals 9.08 84.12 47.28 0.10 3.15 3.57 6.72 0.66 3.43 4.09 9,838.61 Phase 1D, Caisson Installation, 11/3/10 - 11 /10 /10, 6 Days Off Road Diesel 2.26 20.36 9.57 0.03 0.00 1.06 1.06 0.00 0.94 0.94 2,592.00 On Road Diesel 1.10 9.92 6.44 0.01 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.44 0.44 1,145.40 Worker Trips 0.29 0.23 2.61 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 306.37 Dail Totals 3.65 30.51 18.62 0.04 0.00 1.53 1.53 0.00 1.41 11.41 14,043.77 Phase IE. Excavation. 11 /11 /10 - 12/9/10.21 Days Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.15 0.00 3.15 0.66 0.00 0.66 0.00 Off Road Diesel 2.74 29.32 9.22 0.04 0.00 1.12 1.12 0.00 1.00 1.00 3,219.23 On Road Diesel 6.38 57.30 37.17 0.08 0.00 2.57 2.57 0.00 2.54 2.54 6,616.09 Worker Trips 0.29 0.23 2.61 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 306.37 Daily Totals 9.41 86.85 49.00 0.12 3.15 3.72 6.87 0.66 3.57 4.23 10,141.69 Phase 1F. Bracing Installation. 12/10/10 - 12/20/10. 7 Days Dust 10.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 3.15 0.00 13.15 0.66 0.00 0.66 0.00 Off Road Diesel 12.53 121.38 17.26 10.02 10.00 10.95 10.95 10.00 0.85 10.85 12,098.80 On Road Diesel 10.52 4.65 13.02 10.01 10.00 10.21 10.21 10.00 10.21 10.21 1536.66 r Worker Trips b.29 10.23 12.61 10.00 10.00 10.03 J0.03 10.00 10.03 b.03 1306.37 Dailv Totals 13.34 126.26 112.89 10.03 13.15 11.19 14.34 10.66 11.09 11.75 12.941.83 Phase 1 G. Excavation, 12/21/10 - 12/31/10.8 Days Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.15 0.00 3.15 0.66 0.00 0.66 0.00 Off Road Diesel 2.57 27.44 8.35 0.03 0.00 1.06 1.06 0.00 .94 0.94 3,010.07 On Road Diesel 6.60 59.35 38.50 .08_0.00 .00 V.66 2.66 0.00 .63 2.63 6,852.38 Worker Trips 0.29 0.23 2.61 0.00 0.00 P.03 0.03 .00 0.03 0.03 306.37 Daily Totals 9.46 87.02 49.46 .11 3.15 0.75 6.90 .66 3.60 4.26 10,168.82 Phase iGG. Excavation. 1 /I /11 - 1 /10 /11. 7 Days Dust 0.00 .00 0.00 .00 3.15 0.00 3.15 0.66 0.00 0.66 0.00 Off Road Diesel 2.59 25.08 8.03 .03 .00 .95 0.95 0.00 .85 .85 3,010.07 On Road Diesel 6.13 3.95 35.55 .08 .00 .46 .46 0.00 .44 .44 6,900.50 Worker Trips .27 .21 .42 .00 0.00 .03 .03 .00 0.03 .03 308.31 Dail Totals 8.99 79.24 6.00 0.] 1 3.15 3.44 6.59 0.66 3.32 3.98 10,218.88 Phase 2A. Sub - basement. 1 /11 /11 - 2/28/11.35 Days Off Road Diesel 2.40 17.77 8.65 0.02 0.00 1.02 1.02 0.00 .91 0.91 1,781.10 On Road Diesel 1.93 16.93 111.16 10.03 0.00 10.77 10.77 10.00 10.76 10.76 2,165.73 Worker Trips 0.50 0.40 14 .54 10.01 0.00 10.05 10.05 10.00 10.05 10.05 578.09 Daily Totals 4.83 135.10 124.35 10.06 10.00 11.84 11.84 10.00 11.72 11.72 4,524.92 Phase 2B - Shotcrete Sub - basement, 3/1/11 - 4/25/11, 40 Days Off Road Diesel 1.83 14.15 6.47 0.02 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.60 0.60 1,479.20 On Road Diesel 2.08 18.26 12.03 0.03 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.82 0.82 2,335.12 Worker Trips 0.50 10.40 14.54 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 578.09 Daily Totals 4.41 132.81 123.04 0.06 0.00 1.55 1.55 0.00 1.47 1.47 4,392.41 Phase 2C - Basement Deck, 4/26/11 - 6/6/11, 30 Days Off Road Diesel 1.75 13.62 6.17 0.02 10.00 10.63 0.63 0.00 0.56 .56 1,429.60 On Road Diesel 1.82 16.05 10.58 .02 0.00 0.73 .73 0.00 0.72 0.77 2,052.81 Worker Tri s 0.50 0.40 .54 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 1.72 0.05 .05 578.09 Dail Totals .07 30.07 21.29 0.05 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.33 .33 060.5 Phase 2D - Shotcrete Basement. 6/7/11 - 8/1/11.40 Days Off Road Diesel 1.75 13.62 6.17 0.02 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.56 0.56 1,429.60 On Road Diesel 1.94 17.06 11.24 0.03 0.00 10.78 0.78 0.00 .77 0.77 2,181.86 Worker Trips 0.50 10.40 4.54 0.01 0.00 10.05 .OS 0.00 0.05 0.05 578.09 Daily Totals 4.19 131.08 21.95 0.06 0.00 11.46 11.46 0.00 11.38 1.38 189.55 Phase 23A - First Floor Deck 8/2/11 - 8/30/11.21 Days Off Road Diesel 35 119.63 18.55 0.03 10.00 0.89 09 .00 .79 0.79 225.80 On Road Diesel 12.96 126.01 117.14 10.04 10.00 1.19 11.19 P.00 11.18 11.18 3,327.24 Worker Trips 0.70 10.56 16.36 10.01 10.00 10.07 P.07 0.00 P.07 P,07 1809.32 Phase 23B - Install Mechanical at Sub - Basement. 8/2/11 - 8/30/11.25 Days Off Road Diesel .69 6.52 .77 0.01 0.00 0.28 .28 .00 .25 .25 861.00 On Road Diesel .48 .19 .76 0.01 0.00 0.19 0.19 .00 .19 .19 536.39 Worker Tr s 0.33 0.27 3.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 .00 0.03 .03 385.39 Dail Totals 7.51 57.18 40.61 0.10 10.00 12.65 2.65 10.00 51 2.51 8,145.14 Phase 23A - First Floor Deck, 8/31/11 - 9/12/11, 9 Days Off Road Diesel 2.35 19.63 8.55 0.03 0.00 0.89 0.89 0.00 0.79 0.79 2,225.80 On Road Diesel 2.96 26.01 17.14 0.04 10.00 11.19 1.19 0.00 1.18 1.18 3,327.24 Worker Trips 0.70 0.56 6.36 0.01 10.00 10.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 809.32 Daily Totals 6.01 46.20 32.05 0.08 10.00 12.15 2.15 0.00 2.04 2.04 6,362.36 7 Phase 2.3C - Shotcrete First Floor. 9/13/11 - 11/7/11.40 Days Off Road Diesel 2.41 19.97 8.80 0.03 0.00 0.91 0.91 0.00 0.81 0.81 395.40 On Road Diesel 2.09 18.42 12.13 0.03 10.00 10.84 0.84 0.00 0.83 0.83 ,072.97 Worker Tri s 0.70 .56 6.36 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 [2,355.28 09.32 Dail Totals 5.20 38.95 27.29 0.07 0.00 1.82 1.82 .00 1.71 1.71 ,560.00 Phase 23D - Second Floor Deck. 11/8/11 - 12/6/11.25 Days Off Road Diesel 12.46 0.32 9.06 0.03 0.00 10.93 .93 .00 10.82 0.82 4,705.60 On Road Diesel 11.84 116.21 110.68 10.02 P.00 10.74 10.74 10.00 10.73 0.73 ,072.97 Worker Trips P.50 0.40 4.54 10.01 10.00 10.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 10.05 578.09 Phase 23E - Install Electrical and Plumbine in Basement. 11/8/11 - 12/6/11. 25 Days Off Road Diesel 0.69 6.52 2.77 0.01 0.00 0.28 .28 0.00 0.25 0.25 84.00 On Road Diesel 0.48 .19 2.76 0.01 0.00 0.19 .19 .00 0.19 1119 536.39 Worker Trips 0.33 0.27 3.03 .00 0.00 0.03 .03 0.00 .03 0.03 385.39 Dail Totals 6.30 7.91 32.84 .08 .00 2.22 2.22 0.00 2.07 2.07 9,062.44 Phase 2.313 - Second Floor Deck. 12/7/11 - 12/19/11.5 Days Off Road Diesel 2.46 20.32 9.06 0.03 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.82 0.82 1705.60 On Road Diesel 1.84 16.21 10.68 1102 10.00 10.74 0.74 0.00 0.73 10.73 072.97 Worker Trips 0.50 0.40 4.54 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.05 .00 0.05 0.05 578.09 Daily Totals 4.80 36.93 24.28 0.06 10.00 11.72 1.72 10.00 1.60 11.60 7,356.66 Phase 2.3F - Shotcrete Second Floor. 12/20/11 - 12/31/11. 9 Days Off Road Diesel 2.14 17.89 7.93 0.03 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.70 0.70 2,161.00 On Road Diesel 1.58 15.42 10.16 0.02 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,972.15 Worker Trips 0.70 10.56 6.36 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 809.21 Daily Totals 4.42 133.87 24.45 0.06 0.00 1.55 1.55 0.00 1.47 1.47 4,942.36 Phase 23FF - Shotcrete Second Floor. 1/1/12 - 2/13/12.31 Days Off Road Diesel 2.14 17.89 7.93 0.03 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.70 0.70 2,161.00 On Road Diesel 1.58 13.86 9.11 0.02 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,984.99 Worker Trips 0.07 .52 5.88 0.01 0.00 0.07 .07 0.00 .07 0.07 808.30 Daily Totals 3.79 32.27 22.92 0.06 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 ].40 1.40 954.29 Phase 23G - Third Floor Deck. 2/14/12 - 3/26/12.30 Days Off Road Diesel 1.57 12.38 5.62 .02 0.00 0.55 0.55 .00 0.49 0.49 1,364.80 On Road Diesel 1.42 12.42 8.16 .02 .00 0.57 .57 .00 .56 0.56 1,777.97 Worker Trips .47 .37 .20 .01 1.05 .00 0.05 .05 .00 0.05 0.05 577.36 Dail Totals 3.46 5.17 17.98 0.00 11.17 1.17 0.00 1.10 1.10 720.13 Phase 2.311 - Third Floor Interior, 3/27/12 - 4/16/12, 15 Days Off Road Diesel 12.08 117.55 17.67 .02 .00 10.76 .76 .00 .68 0.68 117.80 On Road Diesel 11.46 112.78 18.40 P.02 P.00 10.59 P.59 P.00 P.58 .58 1,830.74 Worker Trips 0.66 0.52 15.88 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 808.30 Phase 2.3I - First Floor Mechanical. 3/27/12 - 4/16/12. 18 Days Off Road Diesel 0.65 6.02 .69 0.01 .00 0.26 .26 0.00 .23 0.23 861.00 On Road Diesel 0.43 3.77 .48 0.01 .00 10.17 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.17 539.89 Worker Trips 0.31 05 .80 0.00 P.00 10.03 0.03 10.00 0.03 0.03 384.90 Daily Totals 5.59 KO.89 129.92 0.07 10.00 11.88 1.88 0.00 1.76 11.76 6,542.63 Phase 2.3I - First Floor Mechanical. 4/17/12 - 4/24/12.7 Days Off Road Diesel 11.42 113.52 14.87 .02 .00 10.53 .53 10.00 10.47 0.47 11,645.00 On Road Diesel 10.43 13.77 12.48 10.01 10.00 10.17 10.17 10.00 10.17 10.17 1539.89 Worker Trips 10.38 10.29 13.36 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 461.89 Phase 2,3J - Fourth Floor Deck, 4/17/12 - 4/24/12, 6 Days 9 Off Road Diesel 11.45 110.90 6.14 10.02 10.00 10.54 10.54 10.00 10.48 10.48 11,441.80 On Road Diesel 12.12 118.54 12.19 10.03 10.00 10.85 10.85 10.00 10.84 10.84 12,654.78 Worker Trips 10.66 10.52 5.88 10.01 10.00 0.00 10.07 0.07 10.00 10.07 0.07 1808.30 384.90 Phase 2.3K - Second Floor Mechanical. 4/17/12 - 4/24/12.7 Days Off Road Diesel 0.65 6.02 .69 0.01 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.23 0.23 1861.00 On Road Diesel 0.43 3.77 2.48 0.01 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.17 539.89 Worker Trips 0.31 0.25 2.80 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 384.90 Daily Totals 9.69 72.89 50.59 0.13 0.00 3.29 3.29 0.00 3.07 13.07 2.39 11,435.97 Phase 2.3J - Fourth Floor Deck. 4/25/12 - 5/15/12, 15 Days Off Road Diesel 1.45 110.90 6.14 10.02 10.00 10.54 10.54 10.00 10.48 10.48 1,441.80 On Road Diesel 2.12 118.54 12.19 10.03 10.00 10.85 10.85 10.00 10.84 10.84 2,654.78 Worker Trips 10.66 10.31 10.52 5.88 10.01 10.00 10.07 10.07 0.00 10.07 10.03 10.07 808.30 Phase 23K - Second Floor Mechanical. 4/25/12 - 5/15/12. 18 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 12.69 10.01 10.00 10.26 10.26 10.00 10.23 10.23 1861.00 1,745.80 On Road Diesel 10.43 13.77 12.48 10.01 10.00 10.17 0.17 10.00 10.17 10.17 1539.89 121.78 Worker Trips 10.31 10.25 12.80 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1384.90 230.94 Phase 4B - Interior Build Out. Sub - Basement. 4/25/12 - 5/15/12. 18 Days Off Road Diesel 1.55 14.31 5.46 0.02 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,745.80 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 10.04 0.04 10.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 10.02 0.02 10.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Daily Totals 7.46 55.31 39.88 0.10 0.00 12.55 2.55 0.00 2.39 2.39 8,789.19 Phase 2,3J - Fourth Floor Deck. 5/16/12 - 5/28/12, 9 Days Off Road Diesel 1.45 110.90 16.14 10.02 0.00 0.54 0.54 10.00 10.48 10.48 1,441.80 On Road Diesel 12.12 118.54 112.19 10.03 0.01 10.00 10.85 10.85 10.00 10.84 10.84 12,654.78 Worker Trips 10.66 10.52 15.88 10.01 10.00 10.07 10.07 10.00 10.07 10.07 1808.30 Phase 2.3K - Second Floor Mechanical, 5/16/12 - 5/28/12. 11 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 1 1.55 16.02 12.69 0.01 10.00 10.26 10.26 10.57 0.00 10.23 10.51 10.23 861.00 On Road Diesel 10.43 10.10 13.77 12.48 0.01 10.00 10.17 10.17 10.00 10.17 10.04 10.17 539.89 Worker Trips 10.31 10.19 10.25 12.80 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.02 10.03 384.90 Phase 4B - Interior Build Out. Sub - Basement. 5/16/12 - 5/28/12. 11 Days Off Road Diesel 1 1.55 14.31 15.46 10.02 10.00 10.57 10.57 10.00 10.51 10.51 11,745.80 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 0.00 10.04 0.04 0.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 0.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 0.02 1230.94 Phase 4C - Interior Build Out. Basement. 5/16/12 - 5/28/12. 11 Days Off Road Diesel 1.48 13.91 5.16 0.02 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.49 0.49 1,695.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Daily Totals 9.23 70.22 47.28 0.12 0.00 3.16 3.16 0.00 2.94 2.94 10,837.31 Phase 2.3L - Fourth Floor Interior. 5/29/12 - 5/31/12. 3 Days Off Road Diesel 11.43 111.54 14.98 10.02 10.00 10.51 10.51 10.00 10.45 10.45 11,256.80 On Road Diesel 11.65 114.43 19.48 10.02 10.00 10.66 10.66 10.00 10.66 10.66 12,066.18 Worker Trips P.47 10.37 14.20 10.01 10.00 10.05 10.05 10.00 0.05 10.05 1577.36 Phase 4B - Interior Build Out. Sub - Basement. 5/29/12 - 5/31/12. 3 Days Off Road Diesel 1 1.55 114.31 15.46 10.02 10.00 10.57 10.57 10.00 0.51 10.51 11,745.80 On Road Diesel J0,10 0.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 0.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4C - interior Build Out. Basement. 5/29/12 - 5/31/12. 3 Days 11.40 0 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 0.56 10.00 0.00 10.04 10.04 0.00 10.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 1.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 0.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Daily Totals 16.39 149.06 31.59 10.08 10.00 12.19 12.19 0.00 12.04 12.04 17,262.98 Phase 2,3L - Fourth Floor Interior, 6/1/12 - 6/18/12, 12 Days Off Road Diesel 11.43 111.54 4.98 10.02 0.00 10.51 10.51 0.00 10.45 0.45 1,256.80 On Road Diesel 11.65 114.43 19.48 10.02 0.00 10.66 10.66 0.00 10.66 0.66 2,066.18 Worker Trips 10.47 10.37 14.20 10.01 10.00 10.05 10.05 0.00 10.05 10.05 577.36 Phase 4B - Interior Build Out, Sub - Basement, 6/1/12 - 6/18/12, 15 Days Off Road Diesel 10.78 6.81 3.29 0.01 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.26 0.26 961.80 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 0.00 10.04 0.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 0.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4C - Interior Build Out, Basement, 6/1/12 - 6/18/1115 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 16.41 2.99 10.01 0.00 10.28 10.28 0.00 10.25 0.25 1911.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 0.00 10.04 10.04 0.00 10.04 0.04 1121.78 Worker "Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 0.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out, First Floor. 6/1/12 - 6/18/12. 15 Day Off Road Diesel 0.07 0.39 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 50.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.25 0.20 12.24 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 307.92 Daily Totals 2.49 16.66 113.86 0.02 0.00 0.79 0.79 0.00 0.72 0.72 3,058.74 Phase 3A - Fourth Floor Framina, 6/19/12 - 7/23/12, 30 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 6.02 2.69 10.01 10.00 0.26 0.26 10.00 10.23 10.23 1861.00 On Road Diesel 10.35 13.06 12.01 10.00 10.00 10.14 10.14 10.00 10.14 10.14 1438.40 Worker Trips 10.19 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4B - Interior Build Out, Sub - Basement, 6/19/12 - 7/23/12, 30 Days Off Road Diesel 0.78 16.81 3.29 10.01 10.00 10.30 0.30 10.00 10.26 10.26 961.80 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 0.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4C - Interior Build Out, Basement, 6/19/12 - 7/23/12, 30 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 16.41 2.99 10.01 0.00 10.28 10.28 0.00 10.25 10.25 1911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 10.85 0:56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 0.03 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out. First Floor, 6/19/12 - 7/23/12. 30 Days Off Road Diesel 0.07 0.39 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 50.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 .04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.25 0.20 2.24 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 .03 !00.. 307.92 Crane'- 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 24 784.00 Daily Totals 4:45 33.39 22.41 0.04 0.00 1.48 1.48 0.00 1.35 1.35 5,373.08 Phase 3B - Fourth Floor Mechanical. 7/24/12. 1 Day Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 12.69 10.01 10.00 10.26 10.26 0.00 10.23 10.23 1861.00 On Road Diesel 10.43 13.77 12.48 10.01 10.00 10.17 10.17 10.00 10.17 10.17 1539.89 Worker Trips 10.31 10.25 12.80 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1384.90 Phase 3C - Windows and Doors. 7/24/12. 1 Dav Off Road Diesel 0.65 16.02 2.69 10.01 0.00 10.26 10.26 0.00 10.93 0.23 1861.00 On Road Diesel 0.15 11.33 0.88 10.00 10.00 10.06 10.06 0.00 10.06 10.06 1190.79 Worker Trips 10.09 10.07 10.84 10.00 10.00 10.01 10.01 0.00 10.01 10.01 1115.47 Phase 3D - Waterproofing, 7/24/12, 1 Day Off Road Diesel 10.65 6.02 12.69 10.01 10.00 10.26 10.26 10.00 10.23 10.23 1861.00 10 On Road Diesel 10.11 10.96 10.63 10.00 10.00 0.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1138.02 Worker Trips 10.06 10.05 10.56 10.00 10.00 0.00 10.01 10.01 10.00 10.01 10.01 176.98 Phase 4B - Interior Build Out, Sub - Basement, 7/24/12, 1 Day Off Road Diesel 0.78 16.81 3.29 10.01 0.00 10.30 10.30 0.00 10.26 10.26 1961.80 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 0.56 10.00 0.00 10.04 10.04 0.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 0.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4C - Interior Build Out, Basement. 7/24/12, 1 Day Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 2.99 10.01 0.00 10.28 10.28 0.00 0.25 0.25 911.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 0.00 10.04 10.04 0.00 10.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 0.27 0.00 10.02 10.02 230.94 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out, First Floor, 7/24/12, 1 Day On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.25 0.20 2.24 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 307.92 Crane 0.77 17.50 117 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 784.00 Daily Totals 6.29 148.26 32.02 0.07 0.00 1.35 1.35 0.00 1.23 1.23 7,821.39 Phase 3B - Fourth Floor Mechanical, 7/25/12 - $/2/12, 7 Days Off Road Diesel 0.65 16.02 2.69 10.01 0.00 10.26 0.26 0.00 10.23 0.23 861.00 On Road Diesel 0.43 3.77 2.48 10.01 10.00 10.17 10.17 0.00 10.17 0.17 539.89 Worker Trips 10.31 10.25 12.80 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 0.00 10.03 10.01 10.03 384.90 Phase 3C - Windows and Doors. 7/25/12 - 8/2/12. 7 Days Off Road Diesel 0.65 16.02 2.69 10.01 0.00 10.26 10.26 0.00 10.23 0.23 861.00 On Road Diesel 10.15 11.33 0.88 10.00 0.00 10.06 10.06 0.00 10.06 10.06 1190.79 Worker Trips 10.09 10.07 10.84 10.00 0.00 10.01 10.01 0.00 10.01 10.01 1115.47 Phase 3D - Wateroroofine. 7/25/12 - 8/2/12. 7 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 6.02 12.69 10.01 10.00 10.26 10.26 10.00 10.23 10.23 861.00 On Road Diesel 10.11 10.96 10.63 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 138.02 Worker Trips 10.06 10.05 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.01 10.01 10.00 10.01 10.01 176.98 Phase 4B - Interior Build Out. Sub- Basement. 7/25/12 - 8/2/12. 8 Days Off Road Diesel 10.78 16.81 13.29 10.01 10.00 10.30 10.30 10.00 10.26 10.26 961.80 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4C - Interior Build Out. Basement. 7/25/12 - 8/2/12. 8 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 025 0.25 911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 10.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Off Road Diesel 0.07 0.39 0.30 10.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 50.40 Phase 4D - hiterior Build Out. First Floor. 7/25/12 - 8/2/12. 8 Days Off Road Diesel 0.07 10.39 0.30 10.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 0.00 10.02 0:02 150.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 10.85 0.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 12.24 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1307.92 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out. Second Floor. 7/25/12 - 8/2/12. 8 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.25 0.25 911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 784.00 Daily Totals 7.43 56.45 37.82 0.09 0.00 2.78 2.78 0.00 2.30 2:30 9,186.31 Phase 3B - Fourth Floor Mechanical, 8/3/12 - 8/7/12, 3 Days Off Road Diesel 0.65 6.02 2.69 0.01 0.00 10.26 10.26 10.00 10.23 10.23 1861.00 II On Road Diesel 10.43 13.77 12.48 10.01 0.00 10.17 10.17 10.00 10.17 10.17 1539.89 Worker Trips 10.31 10.25 12.80 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1384.90 Phase 3C - Windows and Doors. 8/3/12 - 8/7/12. 3 Days Off Road Diesel 0.65 16.02 2.69 10.01 0.00 10.26 10.26 0.00 JO.23 10.23-1861.00 861.00 On Road Diesel 10.15 11.33 10.96 10.88 10.00 10.00 10.06 10.06 0.00 10.06 10.06 1190.79 Worker Trips 10.09 10.07 10.05 10.84 10.00 10.00 10.01 10.01 0.00 10.01 10.01 1115.47 Phase 3D - Waternroofine. 8/3/12 - 8/7/12. 3 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 2.69 10.01 10.00 10.26 10.26 10.00 10.23 10.23 861.00 On Road Diesel 10.11 10.96 0.63 10.00 10.01 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 138.02 Worker Trips 10.06 10.05 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.01 0.01 10.00 10.01 10.01 76.98 Phase 4A - Exterior Stucco. 8/3/12 - 8/7/12.4 Days Off Road Diesel 11.54 1 10.95 16.19 10.02 10.00 10.64 10.64 10.00 10.57 10.57 1,371.30 On Road Diesel 10.77 6.75 .43 10.01 10.00 10.31 10.31 10.00 10.31 10.31 1966.11 Worker Trips 10.19 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 P.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4B - Interior Build Out. Sub - Basement. 8 /3/12 - 8/7/114 Days Off Road Diesel 10.78 16.81 13.29 10.01 10.00 0.30 10.30 10.00 10.26 10.26 1961.80 On Road Diesel 0.10 10.85 0.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4C - Interior Build Out. Basement. 8/3/12 - 8/7/12.4 Days Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 2.99 10.01 10.00 10.28 10.28 10.00 10.25 10.25 911.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 0.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 0.02 1230.94 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out. First Floor. 8/3/12 - 8/7/12.4 Days Off Road Diesel 0.07 10.39 0.30 10.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 0.02 50.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 12.24 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 307.92 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out. Second Floor. 8/3/12 - 8/7/12.4 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.25 0.25 911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 784.00 Daily Totals 9.86 73.91 49.82 0.11 0.00 7 7 0.00 3.18 3.18 11,704.26 Phase 3B - Fourth Floor Mechanical. 8/8/12 - 8/15/12. 6 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 12.69 10.01 0.00 10.26 10.26 10.26 10.00 10.23 10.23 1861.00 On Road Diesel 10.43 13.77 12.48 10.01 10.00 10.17 10.17 10.00 10.17 JO.17 1539.89 Worker Trips 10.31 10.25 12.80 10.84 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.01 10.03 10.00 10.03 0.03 1384.90 Phase 3C - Windows and Doors. 8/8/12 - 8/15/12.6 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 10.65 16.02 12.69 10.01 10.00 10.26 10.26 10.00 10.23 10.23 1861.00 On Road Diesel 10.15 11.33 10.88 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.06 10.06 10.04 10.00 10.06 10.06 1190.79 Worker Trips 10.09 10.07 10.84 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.01 10.01 10.01 10.00 10.01 10.01 1115.47 Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 2.69 10.01 10.00 10.26 0.26 0.00 10.23 10.23 10.57 1861.00 On Road Diesel 10.11 10.96 0.63 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1138.02 Worker Trips 10.06 10.05 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.01 10.02 10.01 10.00 10.01 10.01 10.02 176.98 Phase 4A - Exterior Stucco. 8/8/12 - 8/15/117 Days Off Road Diesel 1.54 110.95 16.19 10.02 10.00 10.64 10.64 10.00 10.57 10.57 1,371.30 On Road Diesel 10.77 16.75 14.43 10.01 10.00 10.31 10.31 0.00 10.31 10.31 1966.11 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 0.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 12 Phase 4C - Interior Build Out, Basement, 8/8/12 - 8/15/12, 7 Days Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 12.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 10.28 10.00 10.25 10.25 1911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 10.85 10.56 0.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 0.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 0.00 JO.00 10.02 10.03 0.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out, First Floor, 8/8/12 - 8/15/12, 7 Days Off Road Diesel 10.07 10.39 10.30 0.00 10.00 10.02 0.02 10.00 0.02 10.02 50.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 0.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 12.24 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 0.00 10.03 10.03 307.92 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out, Second Floor, 8/8/12 - 8/15/12, 7 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.25 0.25 1911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 784.00 Daily Totals 8.79 66.10 44.29 0.10 0.00 3.11 3.11 0.00 2.86 2.86 10,389.74 Phase 313 - Fourth Floor Mechanical, 8/16/12 - 8/21/12, 4 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 12.69 10.01 10.00 10.26 10.26 10.00 10.23 10.23 1861.00 On Road Diesel 10.43 13.77 12.48 10.01 10.00 10.17 10.17 10.00 10.17 10.17 1539.89 Worker Trips JO.31 10.25 12.80 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1384.90 Phase 3C - Windows and Doors, 8/16/12 - 8/21/12, 4 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 2.69 10.01 0.00 10.26 10.26 0.00 10.23 10.23 1861.00 1861.00 On Road Diesel 10.15 11.33 10.88 10.00 0.00 10.06 10.06 0.00 10.06 10.06 1190.79 Worker Trips 10.09 10.07 10.84 10.00 10.00 10.01 JO.01 0.00 10.01 10.01 1115.47 Phase 3D - Waterproofing, 8/16/12 - 8/21/12,4 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 12.69 10.01 10.00 10.26 10.26 10.00 0.23 10.23 1861.00 On Road Diesel 0.11 10.96 10.63 10.00 10.00 0.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1138.02 Worker Trips 10.06 10.05 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.01 10.01 10.00 10.01 10.01 176.98 Phase 3E - Install Trees, 8/16/12 - 8/21/12, 4 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 2.69 0.01 0.00 10.26 10.26 0.00 10.23 0.23 861.00 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 0.04 10.00 10.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 10.38 10.19 10.29 13.36 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.02 10.02 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 61.89 Phase 4A - Exterior Stucco, 8/16/12 - 8/21/12, 5 Days Off Road Diesel 1 1.54 110.95 6.19 0.02 10.00 10.64 10.64 10.00 10.57 0.57 11,371.30 On Road Diesel 10.77 16.75 4.43 10.01 10.00 10.31 10.31 10.00 10.31 10.31 1966.11 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4C - Interior Build Out, Basement, 8/16/12 - 8/21/12, 5 Days Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 2.99 10.01 0.00 10.28 10.28 0.00 10.25 10.25 1911.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.03 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out, First Floor, 8/16/12 - 8/21/12, 5 Days Off Road Diesel 10.07 10.39 0.30 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 150.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 0.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 12.24 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1307.92 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out, Second Floor, 8/16/12 - 8/21/12, 5 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.25 0.25 911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0. 19 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Crane 0. 77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 1784.00 Daily Totals 9.92 73.26 50.90 0.11 0.00 3.45 3.45 0.00 3.17 3.17 11,834.41 13 Phase 3C - Windows and Doors, 8/22/12 - 8/27/12, 4 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 2.69 10.01 0.00 10.26 10.26 .00 .23 10.23 1861.00 On Road Diesel 10.15 11.33 10.88 10.00 10.00 10.06 10.06 10.00 P.06 10.06 1190.79 Worker Trips 10.09 0.06 0.07 10.84 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.01 10.01 10.00 0.01 0.01 1115.47 Phase 3D - Waterproofing, 8/22/12 - 8/27/12, 4 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 .69 .01 10.00 P.26 10.26 P.00 10.23 0.23 1861.00 On Road Diesel .11 10.96 .63 10.00 0.00 P.04 .04 P.00 10.04 10.04 1138.02 Worker Trips 0.06 10.05 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.00 0.01 P.01 0.00 0.01 10.01 176.98 Phase 3E - Install Trees, 8/22/12 - 8/27/12, 4 Days Off Road Diesel P.65 16.02 .69 10.01 0.00 P.26 10.26 .00 0.23 .23 861.00 On Road Diesel 10.10 P.85 0.56 10.00 10.00 P.04 .04 .00 10.04 .04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.38 P.29 13.36 10.00 10.00 0.04 P.04 .00 10.04 10.04 461.89 Phase 4A - Exterior Stucco, 8/22/12 - 8/27/12, 5 Days Off Road Diesel 11.54 110.95 16.19 10.02 P.00 01 0.64 .00 10.57 10.57 1,371.30 On Road Diesel 10.77 16.75 .43 P.01 P.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.31 .31 966.11 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 .00 0.00 0.02 0.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4C - Interior Build Out, Basement, 8/22/12 - 8/27/12,5 Days Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 12.99 10.01 10.00 .28 10.28 .00 10.25 10.25 911.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 P.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 P.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 0.03 1230.94 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out, First Floor, 8/22/12 - 8/27/12, 5 Days Off Road Diesel 10.07 10.39 10.30 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 50.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 0.56 0.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 0.15 12.24 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 0.02 0.03 1307.92 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out, Second Floor, 8/22/12 - 8/27/12, 5 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.25 0.25 911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 .00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 784.00 Daily Totals 8.53 63.22 42.93 0.09 0.00 2.99 2.99 0.00 2.74 2.74 10,048.62 Phase 3C - Windows and Doors, 8/28/12, 1 Day Off Road Diesel 10.65 .02 k.69 .01 P.00 10.26 P.26 P.00 10.23 10.23 861.00 On Road Diesel 10.15 11.33 P.88 P.00 P.00 10.06 P.06 P.00 10.06 10.06 1190.79 Worker Trips 10.09 P.07 0.84 0.00 0.00 10.01 P.01 10.00 10.01 10.01 1115.47 Phase 4A - Exterior Stucco, 8/28/12, 1 Day Off Road Diesel 11.54 110.95 16.19 .02 .00 .64 .64 .00 0.57 .57 1,371.30 On Road Diesel 0.77 .75 .43 .01 .00 .31 100.02 .31 .00 .31 .31 966.11 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 .00 0.00 P.02 P.00 10.02 10M 30.94 Phase 4C - Interior Build Out, Basement, 8/28/12, 1 Day Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 .99 10.01 .00 10.28 10.28 0.00 10.25 10.25 11.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 P.56 P.00 P.00 10.04 P.04 0.00 10.04 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 P.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 0.00 10.02 10.02 30.94 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out First Floor, 8/28/12, 1 Day Off Road Diesel 10.07 10.39 0.30 0.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 150.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 .00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 12.24 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1307.92 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out, Second Floor, 8/28/12, 1 Day Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 12.99 10.01 10.00 10.28 10.28 10.00 10.25 10.25 1911.40 14 On Road Diesel 0.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.09 0.02 230.94 Crane 0.77 7.50 19. 17 10.01 10.00 10.27 10.27 10.00 10.24 0.24 1784.00 Daily Totals 6.58 49.03 132.44 10.07 10.00 12.24 12.24 10.00 12.15 2.15 172527.95 Phase 3C - Windows and Doors, 8/29/12 - 9/7/12, 8 Days Off Road Diesel 10.65 16.02 12.69 10.01 10.00 10.26 10.26 10.00 10.23 10.23 861.00 On Road Diesel 10.15 11.33 10.88 10.00 10.00 10.06 10.06 10.00 10.06 10.06 1190.79 Worker Trips 10.09 10.07 10.84 10.00 10.00 10.01 10.01 10.00 10.01 10.01 1115.47 230.94 Phase 4A - Exterior Stucco, 8/29/12 - 9/7/12, 9 Days Off Road Diesel 1.54 10.95 6.19 0.02 10.00 10.64 0.64 0.00 0.57 0.57 1,371.30 On Road Diesel 0.77 6.75 4.43 0.01 10.00 10.31 0.31 0.00 0.31 0.31 966.11 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 0.00 10.00 10.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 10.00 10.27 0.27 10.00 0.24 0.24 784.00 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out, First Floor, 8/29/12 - 9/7/12, 9 Days Off Road Diesel 10.07 10.39 0.30 10.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 0.00 10.02 0.02 50.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 0.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 12.24 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1307.92 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out. Second Floor. 8/29/12 - 9/7/12. 9 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.25 0.25 911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 10.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 0.00 10.02 0.02 230.94 Daily Totals 5.58 41.62 27.21 10.06 0.00 12.00 12.00 0.00 11.84 1.84 6,263.83 Phase 4A - Exterior Stucco. 9/8/12 - 9/30/12. 19 Days Off Road Diesel 1.54 10.95 6.19 0.02 0.00 10.64 0.64 0.00 0.57 0.57 1,371.30 On Road Diesel 0.77 6.75 4.43 0.01 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.31 0.31 966.11 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 1784.00 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out, First Floor, 9/8/12 - 9/30/12, 19 Days 011' Road Diesel 10.07 10.39 10.30 0.00 10.00 0.02 10.02 10.00 0.02 10.02 50.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 0.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 12.24 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1307.92 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out. Second Floor. 9/8/12 - 9/30/12. 19 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.25 0.25 1911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Interior Paint 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily Totals 6.14 34.20 22.80 0.05 0.00 1.67 1.67 0.00 1.54 1.54 5,096.57 Phase 4A - Exterior Stucco. 10/1/12 - 10/14/12. 12 Days Off Road Diesel 1.54 10.95 6.19 0.02 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.57 0.57 1,371.30 On Road Diesel 0.77 16.75 4.43 0.01 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.31 0.31 966.11 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.65 10.00 0.00 0.02 10.02 0.00 10.02 0.02 230.94 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 10.01 0.00 0.27 10.27 0.00 10.24 0.24 784.00 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out. First Floor, 10/1/12 - 10/14/12, 12 Days Off Road Diesel 10.07 10.39 10.30 10.00 10.00 0.02 0.02 10.00 0.02 10.02 150.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 12.24 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1307.92 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out, Second Floor, 10/1/12 - 10/14/12, 12 Days Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 12.99 10.01 10.00 10.28 10.28 10.00 10.25 10.25 1911.40 15 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Interior Paint 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Exterior Paint 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily Totals 6.64 34.20 22.80 0.05 0.00 1.67 1.67 0.00 1.54 1.54 5,096.57 Phase 4A - Exterior Stucco. 10/15/12 - 11/3/12. 18 Days Off Road Diesel 1.54 10.95 6.19 0.02 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.57 0.57 1,371.30 On Road Diesel 0.77 6.75 .43 0.01 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.31 0.31 966.11 Worker Trips 0.19 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 230.94 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 784.00 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out. First Floor. 10/15/12 - 11/3/12. 18 Days Off Road Diesel 10.07 10.39 0.30 10.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 0.00 10.02 0.02 50.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 0.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 0.04 121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 2.24 JO.00 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1307.92 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out. Second Floor. 10/15/12 - 11/3/12. 18 Days Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 2.99 10.01 0.00 10.28 10.28 0.00 10.25 10.25 1911.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 0.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4F - Interior Build Out. Third and Fourth Floor. 10/15/12 - 11/3/12. 18 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.25 .25 911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 .04 121.78 Worker Trips 0.25 0.20 2.24 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 .03 307.92 Interior Paint 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 J1.86 .00 0.00 Exterior Paint 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 Dail Totals 7.70 41.66 28.59 0.06 0.00 2.02 2.02 0.00 1.86 6,437.67 Phase 4D - Interior Build Out, First Floor, 11/4/12 - 11/5/12, 1 Day Off Road Diesel 0.07 16.41 12.99 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 40 On Road Diesel 0.10 10.85 .56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 1.78 Worker Tri s 0.25 C0.390.30 .24 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 7.92 t784.00 Crane 0.77 0.00 .17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out, Second Floor, 11/4/12 - 11/5/12, 1 Day Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 12.99 0.01 10.00 10.28 0.28 10.00 0.25 10.25 1911.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 10.15 11.68 10.00 10.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 Phase 4F - interior Ruild nut_ Third and Frmrth Flnnr_ 1 1/4/17 - 11/5/17 1 l)av Off Road Diesel 10.71 16.41 12.99 10.01 10.00 10.28 0.28 10.00 10.25 10.25 1911.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 10.85 1.70 10.56 10.00 10.00 10.04 10.04 10.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.25 10.20 12.24 10.00 10.00 10.03 10.03 10.00 10.03 10.03 1307.92 Phase 4G - Hardscape and Landscape. 11/4/12 - 11/5/12. 1 Day Off Road Diesel 0.07 0.45 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 157.60 On Road Diesel 10.10 1.70 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 243.56 Worker Trips 10.19 0.29 3.36 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 461.89 Interior Paint E5.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dail Totals 26.25 21.11 0.03 0.00 1.19 1.19 0.00 1.10 1.10 632.37 Phase 4E - Interior Build Out. Second Floor. 11/6/12 - 12/28/12.45 Days Off Road Diesel 10.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 10.28 10.28 0.00 10.25 10.25 1911.40 On Road Diesel 10.10 0.85 10.56 0.00 0.00 10.04 10.04 0.00 10.04 10.04 1121.78 Worker Trips 10.19 0.15 11.68 0.00 0.00 10.02 10.02 10.00 10.02 10.02 1230.94 16 Phase 4F - Interior Build Out, Third and Fourth Floor, 11/6/12 - 12/28/12, 45 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 6.41 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.25 0.25 911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 10.56 10.00 0.00 10.04 0.04 0.00 .04 .04 121.78 Worker Trips .25 .20 2.24 .00 0.00 .03 .03 0.00 .03 .03 307.92 Interior Paint 1.45 0.00 0.00 .00 .00 .00 0.00d:10.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 Phase 4G - Hardscape and Landscape, 11/6/12 - 12/28/12,45 Days Off Road Diesel 0.07 0.45 0.34 .00 0.00 0.02 .02 .00 .02 .25 0 On Road Diesel .19 1.70 1.12 0.00 .00 0.08 .08 0.00 .08 .04 56 Worker Trips .38 .29 3.36 .00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 .04 ff0.24784.00 89 Crane .77 7.50 2.17 0.01 .00 0.27 .27 0.00 .24 10.00 Dail Totals .92 4.81 18.01 .03 .00 1.10 1.10 .00 1.01 0.70 2.27 Phase 4F - Interior Build Out, Third and Fourth Floor, 12/29/12 - 12/31/12, 2 Days Off Road Diesel 0.71 5.41 2.99 0.01 .00 .28 .28 .00 .25 .25 911.40 On Road Diesel 0.10 0.85 .56 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 .00 0.04 .04 121.78 Worker Tri s 0.25 10.00 0.20 2.24 .00 0.00 0.03 0.03 .00 0.03 0.03 307.92 Interior Paint 1.45 7.50 10.00 0.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 10.00 Phase 4G - Hardscape and Landscape, 12/29/12 - 12/31/12, 2 Days Off Road Diesel 0.07 0.45 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.0 2 0.00 0.02 0.02 57.60 On Road Diesel 0.19 1.70 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 243.56 Worker Trips 0.38 0.29 3.36 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 461.89 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 784.00 Daily Totals 3.92 17.40 12.78 0.02 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 2,888.15 Phase 4FF - Interior Build Out, Third and Fourth Floor, 1/1/13 - 1/25/13, 21 Days Off Road Diesel 0.67 5.95 2.93 0.01 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.22 10.22 911.40 On Road Diesel 0.09 0.76 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 .00 0.03 10.03 121.98 Worker Trips 0.24 0.18 .07 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 307.62 Interior Paint 1.45 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 .00 Phase 4GG - Hardscape and Landscape, 11/1/13 - 1/25/13, 21 Days Off Road Diesel 0.07 0.44 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 57.60 On Road Diesel 0.17 1.52 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 243.96 Worker Trips 0.35 0.27 3.11 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 461,43 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 784.00 Daily Totals 3.81 16.62 12.12 0.02 100 0.71 0.71 0.00 0.65 0.65 2,887.99 Phase 4FF - Interior Build Out, Third and Fourth Floor, 1/26/13 - 3/20/13, 46 Days Off Road Diesel .67 .95 2.93 .01 .00 .25 .25 10.00 10.22 10.22 11.40 On Road Diesel .09 P.76 .50 P.00 P.00 P.03 PM 10.00 10.03 P.03 1121.98 Worker Trips 0.24 0.18 2.07 0.00 P.00 0.03 10.03 10.00 0.03 0.03 1307.62 Phase 4GG - Hardscape and Landscape, 1/26/13 - 3/20/13, 46 Days Off Road Diesel 0.07 0.44 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 57.60 On Road Diesel 0.17 1.52 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 243.96 Worker Trips 0.35 0.27 3.11 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 461.43 Crane 0.77 7.50 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 784.00 Daily Totals 2.36 16.62 12.12 0.02 0.00 0.71 0.71 0.00 0.65 0.65 2,887.99 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 4 4 150 4 4 55 NV Exceeds Threshold? o INo o o --> 14 o 14 14 o INo ' Includes a 55 percent reduction for Rule 403 water spray. '- From this Doint forward the crane is called out as a separate entity with one used on a daily basis regardless of 17 other on -site equipment. In prior phases the crane was included with the off -road equipment as appropriate. ' NT - No Threshold. 3.2.2 Site Operations Less Than Significant Impact. The major source of long -term air quality impacts is that associated with the emissions produced from project - generated vehicle trips. Stationary sources add only minimally to these values. Mobile Source Emissions The occupation of the site is based on the URBEMIS2007 model. The URBEMIS default value for condominiums is 5.86 vehicle trips per unit. In accordance with the ITE Trip Generation Manual, these values can range from 1.83 to 11.79 trips per unit. Based on the size of the proposed units, as a worst -case scenario this analysis uses a trip rate of 11.79 trips per unit per day and the project is estimated to result in 94 average daily trips (ADT). In actuality, the project is to replace a 14 -unit apartment complex, so the actual number of new trips would be less than this value, (and there could even be a reduction in the number of daily trips). As such, the analysis presents a worst -case scenario. The calculated emissions of the project are compared to thresholds of significance for individual projects using the SCAQMD Handbook and Internet web site updates. The Handbook recommends assessing emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROC or ROG) as an indicator of ozone. Emissions are based on a year 2013 occupancy. Both summer and winter scenarios were modeled and the higher of the two values are included in Table 2. Note that all values are within their respective threshold values and the impact is less than significant. Model runs are included in the Appendix. Stationary Source Emissions In addition to vehicle trips, the proposed land uses would produce emissions from on -site sources. The combustion of natural gas for heating the structures and water would occur. Landscaping would be maintained requiring the use of gardening equipment and their attendant emissions. Additionally, the structures would be maintained and this requires repainting over time resulting in the release of VOC emissions. The resultant emissions are projected by the URBEMIS2007 computer model and included in Table 2. Again, note that all emissions are below their respective threshold values and the impact is less than significant. Table 1 Dail Opera ' al Emissions Pounds/Da Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM,,s CO= Mobile Sources 0.47 0.64 5.43 0.01 1.19 0.23 673.48 Natural Gas 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.13 Landscape Maintenance 0.12 0.02 1.55 0.00 0.01 0.01 2.81 Consumer Products 0.41 - -- - -- - Structural Maintenance 0.01 - - - - - Operational Total 1.02 0.74 7.01 0.01 1.20 0.24 776.42 Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 NT Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No No Averaged from the summer and winter emissions. NT - No Threshold. ip 3.3 Project Potential to Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Increase in Criteria Pollutants 3.3.1 Criteria Pollutants Lcss Than Significant Impact. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. The project is of a size such that it does not result in daily emissions above either the construction or operational threshold values suggested by the SCAQMD and as such, the project does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. 3.3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions No L.rtablished Threshold. At this time, greenhouse gases are not regulated as a criteria pollutant and there are no significance criteria for these emissions. Furthermore, the Final 2007 AQMP does not set CEQA targets that can be used to determine any potential threshold values. Nevertheless, in order to provide decision - makers with as much information as possible, this analysis quantifies, to the extent feasible, potential greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed development. Construction Construction activities would consume fuel and result in the generation of greenhouse gases. Construction CO, emissions are included in Table 1, above. In accordance with the projected construction schedule, approximately 4,335,633 pounds (2,168 tons) of CO, would be produced over the active construction period. Site Operations In the case of site operations, the majority of greenhouse gas emissions, and specifically CO,, is due to vehicle travel and energy consumption. As indicated in Table 2, the URBEMIS2007 model projects that on average 776.42 pounds (0.4 ton) of CO, would be produced daily or about 283,393 pounds (142 tons) per year. These emissions include mobile sources, the combustion of natural gas for space and water heating, and the use of landscape maintenance equipment. The generation of electricity also creates GHG emissions. Electricity used in the SCAB comes from within local areas, the State, and other states. There is no way to determine the point of origin for these emissions and as such, these emissions are not quantified by the URBEMIS model, nor are they typically included in CEQA analyses. However, because GFIG are of concern at the global level, and the generation of this electricity could add to global CO2, the COI that is attributable to the generation of electrical power was also quantified as feasible. The Handbook includes estimates of electrical usage by land use while the Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions (November 2006) provides CO2 estimates from the generation of electricity. Based Table A9 -1 I -A of the SCAQM.D Handbook, each of the eight units would consume about 5,626.50 kilowatts per year. The eight units combined would then use 45,012 kilowatt -hours per year and the generation of this electricity will result in about 14 tons of CO, per year. All told, the project then generates about 156 tons of CO, per year. Electrical use and its emissions calculations are included in the appendix. in accordance with the 2007 AQMP, the emission levels in California are estimated to be 473 million metric tons (521.4 million short tons) CO, equivalent for 2000 and 532 million metric tons (568.4 short tons) CO2 equivalent for 2010. At approximately 156 tons per year, the project operations represent less than 0.00003 percent of this State's annual 2010 CO, emissions' budget (and would represent an even smaller percentage of the 2013 CO2 budget). Recognizing that there is a great amount of public concern regarding GHGs, the majority of the information given above is for disclosure purposes as required by CEQA. There is no agreement among air quality experts, or guidance at the State level, regarding the level at which an individual project's incremental GHG effect is 19 cumulatively considerable. Given the emerging level of experience within the air quality industry with GHG analyses, coupled with the fact that the policies implementing the state goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by the timetable established in AB 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 have not been adequately defined, there is no way to state with reasonable scientific certainty that the project would conflict with these policies. 3.4 Project Potential to Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations 3.4.1 Short -Teem Localized Impacts Less Than Significant With Mitigation. In addition to the mass daily threshold standards, project construction has the potential to raise localized ambient pollutant concentrations. This could present a significant impact if these concentrations were to exceed the State ambient air quality standards at receptor locations. The SCAQMD has developed screening tables for the construction of projects up to five acres in size. These tables are included in Sample Construction Scenarios for Projects Less than Five Acres in Size (February 2005) (Sample Construction Scenarios). The emissions values included in the screening tables are based on the emissions produced at the site and do not include mobile source emissions (i.e., trucks and worker vehicles) that are spread over a much larger area. The Aerie residential project site is consists of about 1.4 acres so fits within the Sample Construction Scenarios. Screening level allowable daily emissions are then calculated from the "mass -rate look -up tables" included in Appendix L of the Sample Construction Scenarios. The project borders on Source Receptor Areas (SRA) 18 and 20. In accordance with Appendix L of Sample Construction Scenarios, projects of 1.4 acres in size located in either SRA 18 (North Coastal Orange County) or SRA 20 (Central Orange County Coastal) would not create significant localized emissions impacts if CO, NOx, PM,(,, and PM,.5 levels do not exceed 392.2, 185.2, 5.2, and 5.2 pounds per day, respectively. According to Table 1, peak day CO and NOx levels are projected at 50.90 and 87.02 pounds per day, respectively, including both on -site equipment and off -site mobile sources. On -site values are well under the screening table limits and the localized impact of these two pollutants is less than significant. The highest levels of PM,v and PM,.5 are produced during the initial demolition phase with the majority of these emissions due to fugitive dust. These activities are estimated to result in 5.94 pounds of PM,o and 1.75 pounds of PM,.5 per day produced from on -site sources, including both equipment exhaust and fugitive dust. These values include a dust suppression control efficiency of 55 percent as based on requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403. While the value for PM,,,, is under the screening threshold and less than significant, the PM,o value exceeds it slightly. All other on -site construction phases and activities are projected to remain within the PM,o 5.2 pounds - per -day screening threshold and would not result in localized impacts. Mitigation The following measure shall be implemented as mitigation. • Site and debris watering shall be performed a minimum of three times (rather than twice) daily during all demolition activities. Residual Impact The URBEMIS Model indicates that three - times, rather than twice -daily watering, would improve the dust control efficiency to a minimum of 65 percent (rather than 55 percent). This action would reduce PM,o associated with fugitive dust from 5.20 pounds per day to 4.04 pounds per day. When combined with PM,() from on -site equipment, daily on -site PM,o emissions are reduced to 4.78 pounds per day. This value is under the screening threshold of 5.2 pounds per day and the impact is reduced to less than significant. 20 3.4.2 Long -Tern+ Localized Impacts Off -Site Localized Emissions Less Than Significant Impact. Long -term emissions also have the potential to exceed ambient air quality standards. Because operational emissions are mostly the product vehicle travel, these impacts are typically produced along the roadways. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere; adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Areas of vehicle congestion that have the potential to create "pockets" of CO called "hot spots." These hot spots typically occur at intersections where vehicle speeds are reduced and idle time is increased. As noted above, as a worst -case scenario, this analysis uses a trip rate of 11.79 trips per unit per day and the project is estimated to result in 94 average daily trips (ADT). Based on the EMFAC2007 computer model, the peak traffic hour in Orange Canty includes 7.7 percent of the daily vehicle miles traveled. Assuming that the vehicles associated with the Aerie project follow a similar pattern, approximately seven vehicle trips would occur during the peak hour. This value is too small to add measurably to the CO emissions concentrations at any local intersections. 3.4.3 Other To-vics Impacts Less Than Significant Impact. The project site contains existing structures that would be removed during the first phase of construction. Based on the type and age of structures to be removed, asbestos containing materials (ACM), which could include floor tiles and mastics, gypsum wallboard and joint compound, base cove mastic, carpet glue, thermal system insulation, spray - applied fireproofing ceiling plaster, and roofing mastics, felts and I]ashing would be removed. Additionally, lead -based paint would be removed. Demolition and renovation activities that involve ACM are strictly regulated under SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition /Renovation Activities) adopted on October 8, 1989 and amended April 8, 1994. The purpose of this rule is to specify work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of ACM. The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean -up procedures, and storage, disposal and landfilling requirements for asbestos - containing waste materials (ACWM). All operators are required to maintain records, including waste shipment records, and are required to use appropriate warning labels, signs, and markings. Any demolition work involving asbestos- containing material must be identified and potential emissions of asbestos determined. Any building to be demolished or renovation that involves asbestos - containing material would be subject to provisions related to the following tasks: • Asbestos surveying (inspection, identification, quantification) to be conducted by a qualified environmental laboratory, and SCAQMD notification to include project description, removal procedures and time schedules (options provided in Rude), material handling and clean -up, material storage and disposal methods. All handling and removal of ACM must be performed by a certified California State licensed contractor that has been certified under the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA). All workers must undergo 40 hours of hazardous materials handling training and receive 8 hours of refresher training on a yearly basis. Similarly, lead paint is as a toxic material and its removal is regulated as such. Like asbestos removal, workers are trained and certified in the handling of these materials. 21 Where necessary, actual asbestos and lead paint removal would be accomplished under a negative pressure environment with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration, through the use of a glove bag or through adequate wetting. These materials are to be contained in certified leak -proof containers and the general public is not allowed access to the demolition -site. Mandatory compliance with notification and removal processes identified in the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations would ensure that any potential impacts remain below a level considered significant. 3.5 Project Potential to Create Objectionable Odors Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on -site earth movement and from equipment bringing concrete and other building materials to the site. With regards to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts will be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the project site, they will be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. An occasional "whiff' of diesel exhaust from passing equipment and trucks accessing the site from public roadways may result. Such brief exhaust odors are an adverse, but not significant, air quality impact. Operational odors could be produced from on -site food preparation. Again, these odors are common in the environment and would not constitute a significant impact. Nuisance odors would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance. 4.0 Re /erences Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Source inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, November 2006 California Air Resources Board, L ^MFAC2007 Computer Model, Version 2.3, November 1, 2006 California Air Resources Board, LJRBEMIS2007 Computer Model, Version 9.4.2, February 2005 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2007 AOMP, June 1, 2007 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003 South Coast Air Quality Management District (Internet Web Site) Off -Road Mobile Source Emissions Factors, 2007 - 2025. No Date South Coast Air Quality Management District, Riles and Regulations, January 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Sample Construction Scenarios.for Projects Less than Five Acres in Size, February 2005 South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD CEOA Air Oualih; Handbook; April 1993 22 APPENDIX A CONSTRUCTION ENIISSIONS BY PHASE Phase IA - Demolition, 8/10/10 - 8/17/10 Backhoe (120 hp) Excavator (250 hp) Loader (189 hp) Trucks, Heavy Diesel Demo of Building Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs Demolition Dust i#/Day Distance Daily Mi 8 20 160 Lb /cu ft sq ft cu ft # days Lb /day Rule 403 % Daily PM I 0.00042 16493 164,930.0000 6 11.5451 55 5.1953 I Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour 9 /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PMIO Sox VOC 1 2 03623 0.5664 0.0515 0.0006 0.0910 1 7 0.3934 1.4935 0.0519 0.0018 0.1451 1 5 0.5537 1.0737 0.0555 0.0012 0.1254 Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi 6 10 59 590 i#/Day Distance Daily Mi 8 20 160 Lb /cu ft sq ft cu ft # days Lb /day Rule 403 % Daily PM I 0.00042 16493 164,930.0000 6 11.5451 55 5.1953 I Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 20.8262 37.5363 6.8690 0.0499 4.2447 2.6736 4,303.7415 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0458 51.7000 0.7246 1.1328 0.1030 0.0012 0.1820 0.0917 103.4000 0.0462 159.0000 2.7538 10.4545 0.3633 0.0126 1.0157 0.3233 1,113.0000 0.0494 114.2533 2.7685 5.3685 0.2775 0.0060 0.6270 0.2470 571.2665 Totals 6.2469 16.9558 0.7438 0.OI98 1.8247 0.6620 1,787.6665 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.022500 0.034684 0.001553 0.000049 0.003859 0.0015 4.0049 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 13.2750 20.4638 0.9165 0.0286 2.2769 0.9073 2,362.8910 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.008152 0.000729 0.000084 0.000009 0.000894 0.0001 0.9574 Daily PM2.5 1.0910 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 1.3043 0.1167 0.0134 0.0015 0.1430 0.0132 153.1840 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 20.8262 37.5363 6.8690 0.0499 4.2447 2.6736 4,303.7415 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase I B -Caisson Installation. 8/18/10 - 9/3/10 Compressor Backhoe (120 hp) Concrete Mixer Crane (250 hp) Drill Rig Excavator (250 hp) Loader (189 hp) Pumper Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Cement Rebar Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5.151 Ibs # /Day 8 Distance DailyMi 20 160 I Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 -Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC 1 4 03613 0.732 0.0526 0.0007 0.112 1 3 03623 0.5664 0.0515 0.0006 0.0910 6 3 0.0434 0.0599 0.0035 0.0001 0.0101 l 4 03464 1:2372 0.0470 0.0013 0.1243 2 6 0.5146 1.1331 0.0498 0.0017 0.1052 0 0 03934 1.4935 0.0519 0.0018 0.1451 0 0 0.5537 1.0737 0.0555 0.0012 0.1254 1 4 0.3096 0.5545 0.0393 0.0006 0.0936 Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi 13 9 19 171 8 2 29 58 Total 229 # /Day 8 Distance DailyMi 20 160 I Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 -Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 Emissions in Pounds per Day 1.3043 0.1167 0.0134 0.0015 PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0468 63.6 1.4452 2.9280 02104 0.0028 0.4480 0.1873 254.4000 0.0458 51.7000 1.0869 1.6992 0.1545 0.0018 0.2730 0.1375 155.1000 0.0031 7.2000 0.7812 1.0782 0.0630 0.0018 0.1818 0.0561 129.6000 0.0418 112.0000 1.3856 4.9488 0.1880 0.0052 0.4972 0.1673 448.0000 0.0443 165.0000 6.1752 13.5972 0.5976 0.0204 12624 05319 1.980.0000 0.0462 159.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0494 114.2533 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0350 49.6000 1.2384 2.2180 0.1572 0.0024 0.3744 0.1399 198.4000 Totals 12.1125 26.4694 1.3707 0.0344 3.0368 12199 3.1655000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.022500 0.034684 0.001553 0.000049 0.003859 0.0015 4.0049 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 5.1525 7.9427 03557 0.0111 0.8838 0.3522 917.1221 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.008152 0.000729 0.000084 0.000009 0.000894 0.0001 0.9574 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 1.3043 0.1167 0.0134 0.0015 0.1430 0.0132 153.1840 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 18.5693 34.5288 1.7398 0.0470 4.0636 1.5853 4,235.8061 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 1 C -Excavation and Laing Installation, 9 17/10 - 11/2/10 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Dump Trucks Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5.151 Ibs Punitive Dust Days Loads/Day 41 27 9/Day 16 Emissions in Pounds per Hour NOx # /Day Hrs/Day CO Compressor 0 0 03613 Backhoe (120 hp) 0 0 0.3623 Concrete Mixer 0 0 0.0434 Crane (250 hp) 1 1 0.3464 Dozer (305 hp) 1 7 0.5018 Drill Ri.- 0 0 0.5146 Excavator (250 hp) 1 7 03934 Loader (189 hp) 1 4 0.5537 Pumper 0 0 03096 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Dump Trucks Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5.151 Ibs Punitive Dust Days Loads/Day 41 27 9/Day 16 Emissions in Pounds per Hour NOx PM10 sox VOC 0.732 0.0526 0.0007 0.112 0.5664 0.0515 0.0006 0.0910 0.0599 0.0035 0.0001 0.0101 1.2372 0.0470 0.0013 0.1243 1.8078 0.0624 0.0023 0.1422 1.1331 0.0498 0.0017 0.1052 1.4935 0.0519 0.0018 0.1451 1.0737 0.0555 0.0012 0.1254 0.5545 0.0393 0.0006 0.0936 .Distance DailyMi 59 1593 Distance DailyMi 20 320 Lb /acre Total Acres Daily Acres Rule 403 % Daily PM I ( Daily PM2.5 20 1.4 0.3500 55 3.1500 0.6615 1 Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0468 63.6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0458 51.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0031 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0418 112.0000 0.3464 12372 0.0470 0.0013 0.1243 0.0418 112.0000 0.0555 210.0600 3.5126 12.6546 0.4368 0.0161 0.9954 0.3888 1._470.4200 0.0443 165.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0462 159.0000 2.7538 10.4545 0.3633 0.0126 1.0157 0.3233 1,113.0000 0.0494 114.2533 2.2148 4.2948 0.2220 0.0048 0.5016 0.1976 457.0132 0.0350 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 8.8276 28.6411 1.0691 0.0348 2.6370 0.9515 3,152.4332 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.022500 0.034684 0.001553 0.000049 0.003859 0.0015 4.0049 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 35.8425 55.2524 2.4746 0.0773 6.1477 2.4498 6,379.8057 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.008152 0.000729 0.000084 0.000009 0.000894 0.0001 0.9574 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.6087 0.2334 0.0267 0.0029 0.2861 0.0265 306.3680 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 47.2788 84.1269 6.7204 0.1151 9.0708 4.0893 9,838.6069 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase I D - Caison Installation, 11/3/10 -11/10/10 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5.151lbs 16 20 320 1 Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour #/Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC Compressor 1 4 0.3613 0.732 0.0526 0.0007 0.112 Backhoe(120 hp) 1 2 0.3623 0.5664 0.0515 0.0006 0.0910 Concrete Mixer 6 1 0.0434 0.0599 0.0035 0.0001 0.0101 Crane (250 hp) 1 1 03464 1.2372 0.0470 0.0013 0.1243 Dozer (305 hp) 0 0 0.5018 1.8078 0.0624 0.0023 0.1422 Drill Rig 2 6 0.5146 1.1331 0.0498 0.0017 0.1052 Excavator (250 hp) 0 0 03934 1.4935 0.0519 0.0018 0.1451 Loader (189 hp) 0 0 0.5537 1.0737 0.0555 0.0012 0.1254 Pumper 1 2 0.3096 0.5545 0:0393 0.0006 0.0936 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Cement Trucks 6 12 19 228 Rebar 2 2 29 58 Tod 286 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5.151lbs 16 20 320 1 Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0468 63.6 1.4452 2.9280 0.2104 0.0028 0.4480 0.1873 254.4000 0.0458 51.7000 0.7246 1.1328 0.1030 0.0012 0.1820 0.0917 103.4000 0.0031 7.2000 0.2604 03594 0.0210 0.0006 0.0606 0.0187 432000 0.0418 112.0000 0.3464 1.2372 0.0470 0.0013 0.1243 0.0418 112.0000 0.0555 210.0600 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0443 165.0000 6.1752 13.5972 0.5976 0.0204 1.2624 0.5319 1,980.0000 0.0462 159.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0494 114.2533 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0350 49.6000 0.6192 1.1090 0.0786 0.0012 0.1872 0.0700 99.2000 Totals 9.5710 203636 1.0576 0.0275 2.2645 0.9413 2,5922000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.022500 0.034684 0.001553 0.000049 0.003859 0.0015 4.0049 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 6.4350 9.9198 0.4443 0.0139 1.1037 0.4398 1,145.4014 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.008152 0.000729 0.000084 0.000009 0.000894 0.0001 0.9574 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.6087 0.2334 0.0267 0.0029 0.2861 0.0265 306.3680 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 18.6147 30.5168 1.5286 0.0443 3.6543 1.4076 4,043.9694 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 1 E -Excavation and Lagging Installation, 11/11/10 Compressor Backhoe (120 hp) Concrete Mixer Crane (250 lip) Dozer (305 hp) Drill Rig Excavator (250 hp) Loader (189 hp) Pumper Ram Hoe Trucks, Heavy Diesel] Dump Trucks Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs Fugitive Dust # /Day 0 0 0 0 0 1 Hrs /Day 0 0 0 7 0 7 4 0 1 Days Loads/Day 21 28 9/Day 16 - 12/9/10 Emissions in Pounds per Hour CO NOx PMIO sox 0.3613 0.732 0.0526 0.0007 03623 0.5664 0.0515 0.0006 0.0434 0.0599 0.0035 0.0001 0.3464 1.2372 0.0470 0.0013 0.5018 1.8078 0.0624 0.0023 0.5146 1.1331 0.0498 0.0017 03934 1.4935 0.0519 0.0018 0.5537 1.0737 0.0555 0.0012 0.3096 0.5545 0.0393 0.0006 0.3930 0.6747 0.0521 0.0008 Distance Daily Mi 59 1652 Distance Daily Mi 20 320 Lb /acre Total Acres Daily Acres Rule 403 % Daily PM I( Daily PN12.5 20 1.4 0.3500 55 3.1500 0.6615 I Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb VOC 0.112 0.0910 0.0101 0.1243 0.1422 0.1052 0.1451 0.1254 0.0936 0.1021 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 48.9993 86.8479 6.8641 0.1187 9.4006 4.2264 10.141.6960 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM 10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0468 63.6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0458 51.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0031 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0418 112.0000 0.3464 1.2372 0.0470 0.0013 0.1243 0.0418 112.0000 0.0555 210.0600 3.5126 12.6546 0.4368 0.0161 0.9954 0.3888 1,470.4200 0.0443 165.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0462 159.0000 2.7538 10.4545 0.3633 0.0126 1.0157 0.3233 1,113.0000 0.0494 114.2533 2.2148 4.2948 02220 0.0048 0.5016 0.1976 457.0132 0.0350 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0464 66.8000 0.3 93 0 0.6747 0.0521 0.0008 0.1021 0.0464 66.8000 Totals 9.2206 29.3158 1.1212 0.0356 2.7391 0.9979 32192332 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM.10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.022500 0.034684 0.001553 0.000049 0.003859 0.0015 4.0049 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 37.1700 572987 2.5662 0.0802 6.3754 2.5406 6,616.0948 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM 10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.008152 0.000729 0.000084 0.000009 0.000894 0.0001 0.9574 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.6087 02334 0.0267 0.0029 0.2861 0.0265 3063680 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 48.9993 86.8479 6.8641 0.1187 9.4006 4.2264 10.141.6960 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase IF -Bracing Installation, 12/10/10 - 12/20/10 Compressor Backhoe (120 hp) Concrete Mixer Crane (250 hp) Dozer (305 hp) Drill Rig Excavator (250 hp) Loader (189 hp) Pumper Ram Hoe Welder Trucks, Heavy Diesel I. Cement Trucks Waler Worker Vehictes2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs Fugitive Dust Days Loads /Day Distance DailyMi 2 4 19 76 4 2 29 58 134 #/Day 16 Distance DailyMi 20 320 Lb /acre Total Acres Daily Acres Rule 403 % Daily PM I( Daily PM2.5 20 1.4 0.3500 55 3.1500 0.6615 I Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC 0 0 0.3613 0.732 0.0526 0.0007 0.112 1 2 03623 05664 0.0515 0.0006 0.0910 1 1 0.0434 0.0599 0.0035 0.0001 0.0101 1 6 0.3464 1.2372 0.0470 0.0013 0.1243 0 0 0.5018 1.8078 0.0624 0.0023 0.1422 0 0 0.5146 1.1331 0.0498 0.0017 0.1052 1 7 0.3934 1.4935 0.0519 0.0018 0.1451 0 0 0.5537 1.0737 0.0555 0.0012 0.1254 1 1 0.3096 0.5545 0.0393 0.0006 0.0936 0 0 03930 0.6747 0.0521 0.0008 0.1021 1 6 0.2246 0.2920 0.0270 0.0003 0.0805 Days Loads /Day Distance DailyMi 2 4 19 76 4 2 29 58 134 #/Day 16 Distance DailyMi 20 320 Lb /acre Total Acres Daily Acres Rule 403 % Daily PM I( Daily PM2.5 20 1.4 0.3500 55 3.1500 0.6615 I Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb CO2 0.0000 103.4000 7.2000 672.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1,113.0000 0.0000 49.6000 0.0000 153.6000 2,098.8000 CO2 4.0049 CO2 536.6566 CO2 0.9574 CO2 306.3680 CO2 2,941.8246 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 0.0468 63.6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0458 51.7000 0.7246 1.1328 0.1030 0.0012 0.1820 0.0917 0.0031 7.2000 0.0434 0.0599 0.0035 0.0001 0.0101 0.0031 0.0418 112.0000 2.0784 7.4232 0.2820 0.0078 0.7458 0.2510 0.0555 210.0600 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0443 165.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0462 159.0000 2.7538 10.4545 0.3633 0.0126 1.0157 0.3233 0.0494 114.2533 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0350 49.6000 0.3096 0.5545 0.0393 0.0006 0.0936 0.0350 0.0464 66.8000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0240 25.6000 1.3476 1.7520 0.1620 0.0018 0.4830 0.1442 Totals 7.2574 21.3769 0.9531 0.0241 2.5302 0.8483 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 0.022500 0.034684 0.001553 0.000049 0.003859 0.0015 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM15 3.0150 4.6477 0.2082 0.0065 0.5171 0.2061 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 0.008152 0.000729 0.000084 0.000009 0.000894 0.0001 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 2.6087 0.2334 0.0267 0.0029 0.2861 0.0265 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 12.8811 26.2580 4.3380 0.0335 3.3334 1.7423 CO2 0.0000 103.4000 7.2000 672.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1,113.0000 0.0000 49.6000 0.0000 153.6000 2,098.8000 CO2 4.0049 CO2 536.6566 CO2 0.9574 CO2 306.3680 CO2 2,941.8246 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase I G -Excavation and Lagging Installation, 12121/10 - 12/31/10 Trucks, Heavy Diesel Dump Trucks Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5.151 Ibs Fugitive Dust Days Loads /Day 15 29 ft/Day 16 Distance Daily Mi 59 1711 Distance Daily Mi 20 320 Lb /acre Total Acres Daily Acres Rule 403 %Daily PM 1( Daily PM2.5 20 1.4 03500 55 11500 0.6615 I Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC Compressor 0 0 0.3613 0.732 0.0526 0.0007 0.112 Backhoe (120 hp) 0 0 0.3623 0.5664 0.0515 0.0006 0.0910 Concrete Mixer 0 0 0.0434 0.0599 0.0035 0.0001 0.0101 Crane (250 hp) 1 1 0.3464 1.2372 0.0470 0.0013 0.1243 Dozer (305 hp) 1 7 0.5018 1.8078 0.0624 0.0023 0.1422 Drill Rig 0 0 0.5146 1.1331 0.0498 0.0017 0.1052 Excavator (250 hp) 1 7 0.3934 1.4935 0.0519 0.0018 0.1451 Loader (189 hp) 1 1 0.5537 1.0737 0.0555 0.0012 0.1254 Pumper 0 0 0.3096 0.5545 0.0393 0.0006 0.0936 Ram Hoe 1 3 0.3930 0.6747 0.0521 0.0008 0.1021 Trucks, Heavy Diesel Dump Trucks Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5.151 Ibs Fugitive Dust Days Loads /Day 15 29 ft/Day 16 Distance Daily Mi 59 1711 Distance Daily Mi 20 320 Lb /acre Total Acres Daily Acres Rule 403 %Daily PM 1( Daily PM2.5 20 1.4 03500 55 11500 0.6615 I Based on Year 2010 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2010 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 Emissions in Pounds per Day 0.0029 0.2861 PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0468 63.6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0458 51.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0031 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0418 112.0000 03464 12372 0.0470 0.0013 0.1243 0.0418 112.0000 0.0555 210.0600 3.5126 12.6546 0.4368 0.0161 0.9954 0.3888 1,470.4200 0.0443 165.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0462 159.0000 2.7538 10.4545 03633 0.0126 1.0157 0.3233 1,113.0000 0.0494 114.2511 0.5537 1.0737 0.0555 0.0012 0.1254 0.0494 114.2533 0.0350 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0464 66.8000 1.1790 2.0241 0.1563 0.0024 03063 0.1391 200.4000 Totals 83455 27.4441 1.0589 0.0336 2.5671 0.9424 3,010.0733 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.022500 0.034684 0.001553 0.000049 0.003859 0.0015 4.0049 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 38.4975 593451 2.6579 0.0831 6.6031 2.6313 6,8523839 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.008152 0.000729 0.000084 0.000009 0.000894 0.0001 0.9574 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.6087 0.2334 0.0267 0.0029 0.2861 0.0265 306.3680 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 49.4517 87.0226 6.8935 0.1196 9.4563 4.2617 10,168.8252 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase I -Excavation and Lagging Installation, ]/[/I[ - 1/10/11 Emissions in Pounds per Hour #/Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC Compressor 0 0 03524 0.6923 0.0501 0.0007 0.1054 Backhoe (120 hp) 0 0 0.3589 0.5288 0.0478 0.0006 0.0833 Concrete Mixer 0 0 0.0429 0.0575 0.0032 0.0001 0.0096 Crane (250 hp) 1 1 03276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 Dozer (305 hp) 1 7 0.4800 1.6450 0.0557 0.0023 0.1592 Drill Rig 0 0 0.5102 1.0083 0.0436 0.0017 0.0943 Excavator (250 hp) 1 7 03762 13632 0.0465 0.0018 0.1371 Loader (189 hp) 1 1 0.5501 0.9914 0.0518 0.0012 0.1173 Pumper 0 0 03040 0.5285 0.0375 0.0006 0.0877 Ram Hoe I 3 03874 0.6276 0.0482 0.0008 0.0938 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Dump Trucks Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs fugitive Dust Days Loads /Day 15 29 9/Day 16 Distance Daily Mi 59 1711 Distance Daily Mi 20 320 Lb /acre Total Acres Daily Acres Rule 403% Daily PM I (Daily PM2.5 20 1.4 0.3500 55 3.1500 0.6615 I Based on Year 201 1 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 autos and light trucks <5,151 lb Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 46.0088 79.2515 6.5933 0.1172 8.9915 3.9749 10,218.8821 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0446 63.6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0425 51.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0028 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0381 112.0000 0.3276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 0.0381 112.0000 0.0496 210.0600 3.3600 11.5150 0.3899 0.0161 1.1144 0.3470 1,470.4200 0.0388 165.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0414 159.0000 2.6334 9.5424 0.3255 0.0126 0.9597 0.2897 1,113.0000 0.0461 114.2533 0.5501 0.9914 0.0518 0.0012 0.1173 0.0461 114.2533 0.0334 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0429 66.8000 1.1622 1.8828 0.1446 0.0024 0.2814 0.1287 200.4000 Totals 8.0333 25.0838 0.9546 0.0336 2.5899 0.8496 3,010.0733 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 35.5517 53.9530 2.4616 0.0807 6.1338 2.4370 6,900.4953 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.4238 0.2147 0.0271 0.0029 0.2678 0.0269 308.3135 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 46.0088 79.2515 6.5933 0.1172 8.9915 3.9749 10,218.8821 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 2A- Sub - basement, 1 /1I /11 - 2/28/11 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs/Day CO NOx PMIO Sox VOC Backhoe (120 hp) 1 7 0.3589 0.5288 0.0478 0.0006 0.0833 Concrete Mixer 20 2 0.0429 0.0575 0.0032 0.0001 0.0096 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 0.3276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 Pumper 1 7 0.3040 0.5285 0.0375 0.0006 0.0877 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Cement Trucks 5 20 19 380 Formwork 1 1 19 19 Gravel 2 5 19 95 Rebar 3 1 29 29 Plumbing 3 l 29 29 Total 537 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 30 20 600 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0425 51.7000 2.5123 3.7016 0.3346 0.0042 0.5831 0.2978 361.9000 0.0028 7.2000 1.7160 2.3000 0.1280 0.0040 0.3840 0.1139 288.0000 0.0381 112.0000 2.2932 8.0654 0.2996 0.0091 0.8197 02666 784.0000 0.0334 49.6000 2.1280 3.6995 02625 0.0042 0.6139 0.2336 3472000 Totals 8.6495 17.7665 1.0247 0.0215 2.4007 0.9120 1,781.1000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 11.1579 16.9332 0.7726 0.0253 1.9251 0.7648 2,165.7311 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.5446 0.4026 0.0509 0.0054 0.5022 0.0503 578.0879 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 24.3521 35.1024 1.8481 0.0523 4.8280 1.7272 4,524.9190 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 2B - Shotcrete, 3 /I /I I - 4/25/11 Backhoe (120 hp) Concrete Mixer Crane (250 hp) Pumper Trucks, Heavy Diesel Cement Trucks WP Form work Rebar Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs WDay Hrs /Day 0 0 23 3 1 7 1 4 Days Loads /Day Distance 3 Emissions in Pounds per Hour 19 CO NOx PMIO Sox VOC 0.3589 0.5288 0.0478 0.0006 0.0833 0.0429 0.0575 0.0032 0.0001 0.0096 0.3276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 0.3040 0.5285 0.0375 0.0006 0.0877 Days Loads /Day Distance 3 23 19 1 1 17 1 2 19 I 3 29 Total # /Day Distance 30 20 Daily Mi 437 17 38 87 579 Daily Mi 600 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0425 51.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0028 7.2000 2.9601 3.9675 0.2208 0.0069 0.6624 0.1965 496.8000 0.0381 112.0000 2.2932 8.0654 0.2996 0.0091 0.8197 0.2666 784.0000 0.0334 49.6000 1.2160 2.1140 0.1500 0.0024 0.3508 0.1335 198.4000 Totals 6.4693 14.1469 0.6704 0.0184 1.8329 05967 1.479:2000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 12.0306 18.2576 0.8330 0.0273 2.0757 0.8247 2.3J5.1179 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.5446 0.4026 0.0509 0.0054 0.5022 0.0503 578.0879 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 23.0445 32.8072 1.5542 0.0512 4.4107 1.4717 4,392.4058 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 ]50 150 75 55 NT Phase 2C - Basement Deck, 4/26/11 - 616111 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs/Day CO NOx PM I O Sox VOC Backhoe (120 hp) 0 0 0.3589 0.5288 0.0478 0.0006 0.0833 Concrete Mixer 23 3 0.0429 0.0575 0.0032 0.0001 0.0096 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 0.3276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 Pumper I 3 0.3040 0.5285 0.0375 0.0006 0.0877 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Cement Trucks 2 23 19 437 Form Work 1 2 17 34 Shoring 1 2 19 38 Total 509 Worker Vehicles2 #/Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 Ibs 30 20 600 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0425 51.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0028 7.2000 2.9601 3.9675 0.2208 0.0069 0.6624 0.1965 496.8000 0.0381 112.0000 2.2932 8.0654 0.2996 0.0091 0.8197 0.2666 784.0000 0.0334 49.6000 0.9120 1.5855 0.1125 0.0018 0.2631 0.1001 148.8000 Totals 6.1653 13.6184 0.6329 0.0178 1.7452 0.5633 1,429.6000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 10.5762 16.0503 0.7323 0.0240 1.8247 0.7250 2.052.8066 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.5446 0.4026 0.0509 0.0054 0.5022 0.0503 578.0879 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 21.2861 30.0714 1.4160 0.0473 4.0721 1.3386 4,060.4945 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 2D - Shotcrete Basement. 6/7/11 - 8 /1 111 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Li .ght Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour 9 /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 Sox VOC Backhoe {120 hp) 0 0 0.3589 05288 0.0478 0.0006 0.0833 Concrete Mixer 23 3 0.0429 0.0575 0.0032 0.0001 0.0096 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 0.3276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 Pumper I 3 0.3040 0.5285 0.0375 0.0006 0.0877 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Cement Trucks 3 23 19 437 WP 1 1 17 17 Rebar 1 3 29 87 Total 541 Worker Vehicles2 4 /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 Ibs 30 20 600 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Li .ght Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0425 51.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0028 7.2000 2.9601 3.9675 0.2208 0.0069 0.6624 0.1965 496.8000 0.0381 112.0000 2.2932 8.0654 0.2996 0.0091 0.8197 0.2666 784.0000 0.0334 49.6000 0.9120 1.5855 0.1125 0.0018 02631 0.1001 148.8000 Totals 6.1653 13.6184 0.6329 0.0178 1.7452 0.5633 1,429.6000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 11.2411 17.0594 0.7783 0.0255 1.9394 0.7705 2,181.8632 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.5446 0.4026 0.0509 0.0054 0.5022 0.0503 578.0879 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 21.9510 31.0804 1.4621 0.0488 4.1868 1.3842 4,189.5511 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23A - First Floor Deck, 8/2/11 - 9/12/11 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC Concrete Mixer 20 3 0.0429 0.0575 0.0032 0.0001 0.0096 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 03276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 Other 1 7 03954 0.9321 0.0404 0.0013 0.0984 Pumper I 3 0.3040 0.5285 0.0375 0.0006 0.0877 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Cement Trucks 2 25 19 475 Shoring 1 2 19 38 Rebar 1 2 29 58 Form Work 1 2 19 38 Metal Studs 1 2 108 216 Total 825 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Dailv Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 42 20 840 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0028 72000 2.5740 3.4500 0.1920 0.0060 0.5760 0.1709 432.0000 0.0381 112.0000 2.2932 8.0654 0.2996 0.0091 0.8197 0.2666 784.0000 0.0360 123.0000 2.7678 6.5247 0.2828 0.0091 0.6888 0.2517 861.0000 0.0334 49.6000 0.9120 1.5855 0.1125 0.0018 02631 0.1001 148.8000 Totals 8.5470 19.6256 0.8869 0.0260 2.3476 0.7893 2,225.8000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 17.1421 26.0147 1.1869 0.0389 2.9575 1.1750 3,327.2406 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM 10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 6.3625 0.5637 0.0712 0.0076 0.7030 0.0705 809.3230 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 32.0516 46.2040 2.1450 0.0725 6.0082 2.0349 6,362.3636 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23B - Install Mechanical at Sub - Basement, 8/2/11 Concrete Mixer Crane (250 hp) Other Pumper Trucks, Heavy Diesel l Mechanical Electrical Plumbing Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs # /Day Hrs /Day 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 -8/30/11 Emissions in Pounds per Hour CO NOx PMIO sox VOC 0.0429 0.0575 0.0032 0.0001 0.0096 0.3276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 0.3954 0.9321 0.0404 0.0013 0.0984 0.3040 05285 0.0375 0.0006 0.0877 Days Loads /Day Distance 1 1 108 1 1 13 1 1 12 Total # /Day Distance 24 20 Daily Mi 108 13 12 133 Daily Mi 480 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0028 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0381 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0360 123.0000 2.7678 6.5247 0.2828 0.0091 0.6888 0.2517 861.0000 0.0334 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.7678 6.5247 0.2828 0.0091 0.6888 0.2517 861.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.7635 4.1939 0.1913 0.0063 0.4768 0.1894 5363915 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 3.6357 0.3221 0.0407 0.0044 0.4017 0.0403 462.4703 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 9.1670 11.0407 0.5148 0.0197 1.5673 0.4814 1,859.8618 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23C - Shotcrete First Floor, 9/13/11 - 11/7/11 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC Concrete Mixer 22 3 0.0429 0.0575 0.0032 0.0001 0.0096 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 03276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 Other 1 7 0.3954 0.9321 0.0404 0.0013 0.0984 Pumper 1 3 0.3040 0.5285 0.0375 0.0006 0.0877 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Cement Trucks 3 22 19 418 Rebar 1 2 29 58 Metal Studs 1 1 108 108 Total 584 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 42 20 840 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0028 51.7000 2.8314 3.7950 0.2112 0.0066 0.6336 0.1880 3,412.2000 0.0381 7.2000 2.2932 8.0654 0.2996 0.0091 0.8197 0.2666 50.4000 0.0360 112.0000 2.7678 6.5247 0.2828 0.0091 0.6888 0.2517 784.0000 0.0334 49.6000 0.9120 1.5855 0.1125 0.0018 0.2631 0.1001 148.8000 Totals 8.8044 19.9706 0.9061 0.0266 2.4052 0.8064 4,395.4000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 12.1345 18.4153 0.8402 0.0275 2.0936 0.8318 2,355.2830 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 6.3625 0.5637 0.0712 0.0076 0.7030 0.0705 809.3230 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 27.3014 38.9496 1.8175 0.0618 5.2018 1.7087 7,560.0060 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23D -Second Floor Deck. 11/8/11 - 12/19/11 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 201 1 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Total 514 Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Distance 4/Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM 10 Sox VOC Concrete Mixer 24 3 0.0429 0.0575 0.0032 0.0001 0.0096 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 0.3276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 Other 1 7 0.3954 0.9321 0.0404 0.0013 0.0984 Pumper 1 3 0.3040 0.5285 0.0375 0.0006 0.0877 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Cement Trucks 2 24 19 456 Rebar 1 2 29 58 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 201 1 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Total 514 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 Ibs 30 20 600 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 201 1 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0028 51.7000 3.0888 4.1400 02304 0.0072 0.6912 0.2051 3,722.4000 0.0381 7.2000 2.2932 8.0654 0.2996 0.0091 0.8197 0.2666 50.4000 0.0360 112.0000 2.7678 6.5247 02828 0.0091 0.6888 0.2517 784.0000 0.0334 49.6000 0.9120 1.5855 0.1125 0.0018 0.2631 0.1001 148.8000 Totals 9.0618 20.3156 0.9253 0.0272 2.4628 0.8235 4,705.6000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 10.6800 16.2080 0.7395 0.0242 1.8426 0.7321 2,072.9717 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.5446 0.4026 0.0509 0.0054 0.5022 0.0503 578.0879 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 24.2865 36.9262 1.7156 0.0569 4.8076 1.6059 7,356.6596 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23E -Install Electrical and Plumbing in Basement, 1118/11 - 12/6/11 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour ;/Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC Concrete Mixer 0 0 0.0429 0.0575 0.0032 0.0001 0.0096 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 0.3276 1.1522 0.0428 0.0013 0.1171 Other 1 7 0.33954 0.9321 0.0404 0.0013 0.0984 Pumper 0 0 0.3040 0.5285 0.0375 0.0006 0.0877 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Mechanical 1 1 108 108 Electrical 1 1 13 13 Plumbing 1 1 12 12 Total i33 Worker Vehicles2 9 /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 20 20 400 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0028 51.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0381 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0360 112.0000 2.7678 6.5247 0.2828 0.0091 0.6888 0.2517 784.0000 0.0334 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.7678 6.5247 0.2828 0.0091 0.6888 0.2517 784.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.7635 4.1939 0.1913 0.0063 0.4768 0.1894 536.3915 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 3.0297 0.2684 0.0339 0.0036 0.3348 0.0336 385.3919 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 8.5611 10.9870 0.5080 0.0190 1.5004 0.4747 1,705.7834 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23F - Shotcrete Second Floor, 12/20/11 - 12/31/11 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour '/Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 Sox VOC Concrete Mixer 17 3 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 03103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 03847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Pumper 1 3 0.2983 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Trucks, Heavy Diesel l Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Cement 2 17 19 323 Rebar 1 2 29 58 Metal Studs 1 I 108 108 Total 489 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 42 20 840 I Based on Year 2011 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2011 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 2.1675 2.8764 0.1479 0.0051 0.4743 0.1316 367.2000 0.0345 112.0000 2.1721 7.4984 0.2716 0.0091 0.7721 0.2417 784.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.8949 1.4997 0.1053 0.0018 0.2439 0.0937 148.8000 Totals 7.9274 17.8938 0.7810 0.0251 2.1378 0.6951 2,161.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0208 0.0315 0.0014 0.0000 0.0036 0.0014 4.0330 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 10.1606 15.4196 0.7035 0.0231 1.7530 0.6965 1,972.1462 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0076 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9635 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 6.3625 0.5637 0.0712 0.0076 0.7030 0.0705 809.3230 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 24.4504 33.8772 1.5557 0.0558 4.5939 1.4621 4,942.4692 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23FF - Shotcrete Second Floor. I/l/12 - 2/13/12 Concrete Mixer Crane (250 hp) Other Pumper Trucks, Heavy Diesel Cement Rebar Metal Studs Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs # /Day Hrs/Day 17 3 1 7 I 7 1 3 Days Loads/Day Distance 2 17 19 1 2 29 1 1 108 Total # /Day Distance 42 20 Daily Mi 323 58 108 489 Daily Mi 840 1 Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour CO NOx PM10 sox VOC 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 03103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 03847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 0.2983 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Days Loads/Day Distance 2 17 19 1 2 29 1 1 108 Total # /Day Distance 42 20 Daily Mi 323 58 108 489 Daily Mi 840 1 Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 2.1675 2.8764 0.1479 0.0051 0.4743 0.1316 367.2000 0.0345 112.0000 2.1721 7.4984 0.2716 0.0091 0.7721 0.2417 734.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.8949 1.4997 0.1053 0.0018 0.2439 0.0937 148.8000 Totals 7.9274 17.8938 0.7810 0.0251 2.1378 0.6951 2,161.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 9.1109 13.8615 0.6356 0.0223 1.5835 0.6293 1,984.9943 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 5.8823 0.5161 0.0715 0.0076 0.6577 0.0708 803.3002 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 22.9206 32.2714 1.4882 0.0550 4.3790 1.3952 4,954.2945 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23G - Third Floor Deck, 2/14/12 - 3/26/12 Worker Vehicles2 4/Day Vehicles <S,ISllbs 30 Total 438 Distance Daily Mi 20 600 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC Concrete Mixer 20 3 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 03103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 0 0 0.3347 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Pumper 1 3 0.2983 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Trucks, Heavy Diesel Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Cement 2 20 19 380 Rebar 1 2 29 58 Worker Vehicles2 4/Day Vehicles <S,ISllbs 30 Total 438 Distance Daily Mi 20 600 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM70 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 2.5500 3.3840 0.1740 0.0060 0.5580 0.1549 432.0000 0.0345 112.0000 2.1721 7.4984 0.2716 0.0091 0.7721 0.2417 784.0000 0.0326 123.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.8949 1.4997 0.1053 0.0018 0.2439 0.0937 148.8000 Totals 5.6170 12.3821 0.5509 0.0169 1.5740 0.4903 1,364.8000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 8.1607 12.4158 0.5694 0.0200 1.4184 0.5637 1,777.9704 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.2016 0.3687 0.0511 0.0054 0.4698 0.0506 577.3573 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 17.9793 25.1666 1.1713 0.0423 3.4621 1.1045 3,720.1277 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23H - Third Floor Interior, 3/27/12 - 4/16/12 Total 451 Worker Vehicles2 #/Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 42 20 840 1 Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 3 nurse n) Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 Sox VOC Concrete Mixer 15 3 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Pumper 1 3 0.2983 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Trucks, Heavy Diesel l Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Cement 2 15 19 285 Rebar 1 2 29 58 Metal Studs 1 1 108 108 Total 451 Worker Vehicles2 #/Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 42 20 840 1 Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 3 nurse n) Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 1.9125 2.5380 0.1305 0.0045 0.4185 0.1161 324.0000 0.0345 112.0000 2.1721 7.4984 0.2716 0.0091 0.7721 0.2417 784.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0,6475 02280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.8949 1.4997 0.1053 0.0018 0.2439 0.0937 143.8000 Totals 7.6724 17.5554 0.7636 0.0245 2.0820 0.6796 2,117.8000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 8.4029 12.7843 05862 0.0206 1.4605 0.5804 1,830.7412 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 5.8823 0.5161 0,0715 0.0076 0.6577 0.0708 8033002 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PIVUO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 21.9576 30.8558 1.4214 0.0526 4.2002 1.3308 4,756.8414 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23I - First Floor Mechanical. 3/27/12 - 4/24/12 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC Concrete Mixer 0 0 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Pumper 0 0 0.2983 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Trucks, Heavy Diesell Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Mechanical 1 1 108 108 Electrical 1 1 13 13 Plumbing 1 1 12 12 Total 133 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance DailyMi Vehicles <5,151 Ibs 24 20 480 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0345 112.0000 2.1721 7.4984 0.2716 0.0091 0.7721 0.2417 784.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 4.8650 13.5177 0.5278 0.0182 IA196 0.4697 1,645.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.4780 3.7701 0.1729 0.0061 0.4307 0.1712 539.8860 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMl0 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 33613 0.2949 0.0409 0.0043 0.3758 0.0405 461.8858 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 10.7043 17.5827 0.7416 0.0286 2.2261 0.6814 2,646.7718 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23J - Fourth Floor Deck, 4/17/12 - 5/28/12 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour #/Dav Hrs[Day CO NOx PM10 Sox VOC Concrete Mixer 20 3 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Pumper 1 3 0.2983 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Cement 2 20 19 380 Rebar 1 2 29 58 Metal Studs 1 2 108 216 Total 654 Worker Vehicles2 #/Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 Ibs 42 20 840 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 2.5500 3.3840 0.1740 0.0060 0.5580 0.1549 432.0000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.8949 1.4997 0.1053 0.0018 0.2439 0.0937 148.8000 Totals 6.1378 10.9030 0.5355 0.0169 1.4494 0.4766 1,441.8000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 12.1851 18.5387 0.8501 0.0298 2.1179 0.8416 2,654.7777 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 Sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 5.8823 05161 0.0715 0.0076 0.6577 0.0708 808.3002 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 24.2052 29.9578 1.4572 0.0543 4.2249 1.3890 4,904.8779 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23K - Second Floor Mechanical, 4/17/12 - 5/15/12 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour 4/Day Hrs/Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC Concrete Mixer 0 0 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Pumper 0 0 0.2933 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Mechanical I 1 108 108 Electrical 1 I 13 13 Plumbing 1 1 12 12 Total 133 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 20 20 400 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO Sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.6929 6.0193 02562 0.0091 0.6475 02280 861.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.4780 3.7701 0.1729 0.0061 0.4307 0.1712 539.8860 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.8011 02458 0.0341 0.0036 0.3132 0.0337 384.9049 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 7.9720 10.0352 0.4631 0.0188 1.3914 0.4329 1,785.7908 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 23L - Fourth Floor Interior, 5/29/12 - 6/18/12 I. Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour 9 /Day Hrs/Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC Concrete Mixer IS 3 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 0 0 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Pumper 1 3 0.2983 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Trucks, Heavy Diesel l Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Cement 2 15 19 285 Rebar 1 2 58 116 Metal Studs 1 1 108 108 Total 509 Worker Vehicles2 #/Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 Ibs 30 20 600 I. Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 1.9125 2.5380 0.1305 0.0045 0.4185 0.1161 324.0000 0.0345 112.0000 2.1721 7.4984 0.2716 0.0091 0.7721 0.2417 784.0000 0.0326 123.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.8949 1.4997 0.1053 0.0018 0.2439 0.0937 148.8000 Totals 4.9795 11.5361 0.5074 0.0154 1.4345 0.4516 1,256.8000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 9.4835 14.4284 0.6616 0.0232 1.6483 0.6550 2,066.1802 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.2016 0.3687 0.0511 0.0054 0.4698 0.0506 5773573 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 18.6647 26.3332 1.2201 0.0440 3.5526 1.1572 3,900.3375 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 ]50 75 55 NT Phase 3A - Fourth Floor Framing, 6/19/12 - 7/23/12 Concrete Mixer Crane (250 hp) Other Pumper Trucks, Heavy Diesel Metal Studs Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs Days Loads/Day I I ##Day 12 Distance Daily Mi 108 108 Total 108 Distance Daily Mi 20 240 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour #/Day Hrs/Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC 0 0 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 0 0 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 0 0 0.2983 0.4999 0:0351 0.0006 0.0813 Days Loads/Day I I ##Day 12 Distance Daily Mi 108 108 Total 108 Distance Daily Mi 20 240 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0345 1.12.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.0122 3.0614 0.1404 0.0049 03497 0.1390 438.4036 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO Sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 1.6807 0.1475 0.0204 0.0022 0.1879 0.0202 230.9429 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 6.3858 9.2282 0.4170 0.0162 1.1851 0.3872 1,530.3466 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 3B - Fourth Floor Mechanical, 7/24/12 - 8/21/12 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour a /Day Hrs/Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC Concrete Mixer 0 0 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 03103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Pumper 0 0 0.2981 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Trucks, Heavy Diesel] Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Mechanical 1 1 108 108 Electrical I I 13 13 Plumbing 1 1 12 12 Total 133 Worker Vehicles2 4/Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 Ibs 20 20 400 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.4780 3.7701 0.1729 0.0061 0.4307 0.1712 539.8860 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.8011 0.2458 0.0341 0.0036 0.3132 0.0337 384.9049 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 7.9720 10.0352 0.4631 0.0188 1.3914 0.4329 1,785.7908 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 3C - Windows and Doors, 7/24/12 - 9/7/12 Total 47 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 6 20 120 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5, 151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC Concrete Mixer 0 0 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.00li 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Pumper 0 0 0.2983 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Trucks, Heavy Diesel Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Windows /Doors 8 1 30 30 WP I 1 17 17 Total 47 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 6 20 120 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5, 151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.8757 1.3323 0.0611 0.0021 0.1522 0.0605 190.7868 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.8403 0.0737 0.0102 0.0011 0.0940 0.0101 115.4715 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.4089 7.4253 0.3275 0.0123 0.8937 0.2986 1,167.2582 T6resholdsin Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 3D - Waterproofing, 7/24/12 - 8/27/12 Total 34 WorkerVehicles2 # /Day Distance DailyMi Vehicles <S,ISllbs 4 20 80 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs/Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC Concrete Mixer 0 0 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Pumper 0 0 0.2933 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Trucks, Heavy Diesel Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Roofing 1 1 17 17 Decking 1 1 17 17 Total 34 WorkerVehicles2 # /Day Distance DailyMi Vehicles <S,ISllbs 4 20 80 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.6335 0.9638 0.0442 0.0016 0.1101 0.0438 138.0160 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM70 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.5602 0.0492 0.0068 0.0007 0.0626 0.0067 76.9810 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 3.8866 7.0322 0.3072 0.0114 0.8202 0.2785 1,075.9969 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase JE - Install Trees, 8/16/12 - 8/27/12 Concrete Mixer Crane (250 hp) Other Pumper Trucks, Heavy Diesel l Trees Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 lbs Days Loads /Day 8 1 #/Day 24 Distance Daily Mi 30 30 Total 30 Distance Daily Mi 20 480 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs/Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC 0 0 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 0 0 03103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 0 0 0.2983 0.4999 0.0351 0.0006 0.0813 Days Loads /Day 8 1 #/Day 24 Distance Daily Mi 30 30 Total 30 Distance Daily Mi 20 480 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0312 49.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2230 861.0000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0233 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMl0 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.5590 0.8504 0.0390 0.0014 0.0971 0.0386 121.7788 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMl0 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 3.3613 0.2949 0.0409 0.0043 0.3758 0.0405 461.8858 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 6.6132 7.1646 0.3361 0.0148 1.1205 0.3071 1,444.6646 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 I50 75 55 NT Phase 4A -Exterior Stucco, 8/3/12 - 11/3/12 Concrete Mixer Crane (250 hp) Other Masonry Saws Trucks, Heavy Diesel Scaffolding Stone Stucco Lath Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs Days Loads/Day 1 4 14 1 14 1 14 1 9/Day 12 Distance 20 78 40 40 Total Distance 20 Daily Mi 80 78 40 40 238 Daily Mi 240 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 Sox VOC 2 7 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 0 0 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 1 7 03847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 1 7 0.4148 0.5910 0.0491 0.0007 0.1090 Days Loads/Day 1 4 14 1 14 1 14 1 9/Day 12 Distance 20 78 40 40 Total Distance 20 Daily Mi 80 78 40 40 238 Daily Mi 240 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.5950 0.7896 0.0406 0.0014 0.1302 0.0361 100.8000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0437 58.5000 2.9036 4.1370 03437 0.0049 0.7630 0.3059 409.5000 Totals 6.1915 10.9459 0.6405 0.0154 1.5407 0.5700 1,371.3000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.4343 6.7465 03094 0.0109 0.7707 0.3063 966.1117 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM 10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 1.6807 0.1475 0.0204 0.0022 0.1879 0.0202 230.9429 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 12.3065 17.8399 0.9703 0.0284 2.4993 0.8966 2,568.3547 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 4B - Interior Build Out, Sub - Basement, 4/25/12 - 8/7/12 Total 30 Worker Vehicles2 9/Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 12 20 240 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Li ,ght Trucks 5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC Concrete Mixer 2 7 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Masonry Saws 0 0 0.4148 0.5910 0.0491 0.0007 0.1090 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Materials 14 I 30 30 Total 30 Worker Vehicles2 9/Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 12 20 240 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Li ,ght Trucks 5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.5950 0.7896 0.0406 0.0014 0.1302 0.0361 100.8000 0.0345 112.0000 2.1721 7.4984 0.2716 0.0091 0.7721 0.2417 784.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0437 58.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 5.4600 14.3073 0.5684 0.0196 1.5498 0.5059 1,745.8000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.5590 0.8504 0.0390 0.0014 0.0971 0.0386 121.7788 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 1.6807 0.1475 0.0204 0.0022 0.1879 0.0202 230.9429 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 7.6996 15.3052 0.6278 0.0231 1.8349 0.5647 2,098.5217 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 4C - Interior Build Out, Basement, 5/16/12 - 8/28/12 Total 30 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5, 151 lbs 12 20 240 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Li .ght Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour #/Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC Concrete Mixer 1 7 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 1 7 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Masonry Saws 0 0 0.4148 0.5910 0.0491 0.0007 0.1090 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Materials 15 1 30 30 Total 30 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5, 151 lbs 12 20 240 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Li .ght Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.2975 03948 0.0203 0.0007 0.0651 0.0181 50.4000 0.0345 112.0000 2.1721 7.4984 0.2716 0.0091 0.7721 0.2417 784.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0437 58.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 5.1625 13.9125 0.5481 0.0189 1.4847 0.4878 1,695.4000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.5590 0.8504 0.0390 0.0014 0.0971 0.0386 121.7788 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 1.6807 0.1475 0.0204 0.0022 0.1879 0.0202 230.9429 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM70 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 7.4021 14.9104 0.6075 0.0224 1.7698 0.5466 2,048.1217 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 ]SO 150 75 55 NT Phase 4D - Interior Build Out, First Floor, 6/1/12 - 11/5/12 Total 30 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 Ibs 16 20 320 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour 4/Day Hrs/Day CO NOx PM10 Sox VOC Concrete Mixer 1 7 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 0 0 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Masonry Saws 0 0 0.4148 0.5910 0.0491 0.0007 0.1090 Trucks, Heavy Diesel l Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Materials 23 1 30 30 Total 30 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 Ibs 16 20 320 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 02975 0.3948 0.0203 0.0007 0.0651 0.0181 50.4000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0437 58.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 02975 03948 0.0203 0.0007 0.0651 0.0181 50.4000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.5590 0.8504 0.0390 0.0014 0.0971 0.0386 121.7788 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.2409 0.1966 0.0273 0.0029 0.2505 0.0270 307.9239 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 3.0973 1.4418 0.0865 0.0049 0.4128 0.0837 480.1027 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 4E - Interior Build Out, Second Floor, 7125/12 - 12/28/12 Total 30 Worker Vehicles2 ## /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 12 20 240 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour #/Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 Sox VOC Concrete Mixer 1 7 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Masonry Saws 0 0 0.4148 0.5910 0.0491 0.0007 0.1090 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Materials 23 1 30 30 Total 30 Worker Vehicles2 ## /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 12 20 240 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.2975 0.3948 0.0203 0.0007 0.0651 0.0181 50.4000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0437 58.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.9904 6.4141 0.2765 0.0098 0.7126 0.2461 911.4000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mite CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.5590 0.8504 0.0390 0.0014 0.0971 0.0386 121.7788 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 1.6807 0.1475 0.0204 0.0022 0.1879 0.0202 230.9429 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 5.2300 7.4120 0.3359 0.0133 0.9977 0.3049 1,264.1217 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 4F -Interior Build Out, Thud and Fourth Floor, 10/15/12 - 12/31/12 Total 30 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 16 20 320 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour 4/Day Hrs/Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC Concrete Mixer 1 7 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 0.3103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 1 7 0.3847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Masonry Saws 0 0 0.4148 0.5910 0.0491 0.0007 0.1090 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads /Day Distance Daily Mi Materials 23 1 30 30 Total 30 Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 16 20 320 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM 10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.2975 0.3948 0.0203 0.0007 0.0651 0.0181 50.4000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 2.6929 6.0193 0.2562 0.0091 0.6475 0.2280 861.0000 0.0437 58.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.9904 6.4141 0.2765 0.0098 0.7126 0.2461 911.4000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.00.13 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.5590 0.8504 0.0390 0.0014 0.0971 0.0386 121.7788 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.2409 0.1966 0.0273 0.0029 0.2505 0.0270 307.9239 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 5.7902 7.4611 0.3427 0.0140 1.0603 0.3117 1,341.1027 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 4FF -Interior Build Out, Third and Fourth Floor, 1/1/13 - Trucks, Heavy Diesel Days Loads/Day Materials 23 I Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Vehicles <5,151 lbs 16 3/20/13 # /Day Hrs/Day CO Concrete Mixer 1 7 0.0421 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 0.2948 Other 1 7 0.3765 Masonry Saws 0 0 0.4088 Trucks, Heavy Diesel Days Loads/Day Materials 23 I Worker Vehicles2 # /Day Vehicles <5,151 lbs 16 3/20/13 Emissions in Pounds per Hour NOx PMIO Sox VOC 0.0556 0.0026 0.0001 0.0091 0.9948 0.0351 0.0013 0.1040 0.7938 0.033 0.0013 0.0872 0.5572 0.0452 0.0007 0.1002 Distance DailyMi 30 30 Total 30 Distance Daily Mi 20 320 I Based on Year 2013 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2013 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0023 7.2000 0.2947 0.3892 0.0182 0.0007 0.0637 0.0162 50.4000 0.0312 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0294 123.0000 2.6355 5.5566 0.2310 0.0091 0.6104 0.2056 861.0000 0.0402 58.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 2.9302 5.9458 0.2492 0.0098 0.6741 0.2218 911.4000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0166 0.0253 0.0012 0.0000 0.0029 0.0012 4.0659 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMlO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.4991 0.7576 0.0349 0.0013 0.0870 0.0346 121.9780 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0065 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0007 0.0001 0.9613 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 2.0725 0.1800 0.0275 0.0030 0.2351 0.0272 307.6184 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 5.5018 6.8833 0.3117 0.0142 0.9962 0.2836 1,340.9964 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 4G - Handscape and Landscape, 11/4/12 - 12/31/12 Total 60 Worker Vehicles2 #/Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 24 20 480 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Hour # /Day Hrs /Day CO NOx PM10 Sox VOC Concrete Mixer 1 8 0.0425 0.0564 0.0029 0.0001 0.0093 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 03 "103 1.0712 0.0388 0.0013 0.1103 Other 0 0 03847 0.8599 0.0366 0.0013 0.0925 Masonry Saws 0 0 0.4148 0.5910 0.0491 0.0007 0.1090 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Days Loads/Day Distance Daily Mi Materials 20 1 30 30 Landscape 5 1 30 30 Total 60 Worker Vehicles2 #/Day Distance Daily Mi Vehicles <5,151 lbs 24 20 480 I Based on Year 2012 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2012 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0026 7.2000 0.3400 0.4512 0.0232 0.0008 0.0744 0.0206 57.6000 0.0345 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0326 123.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0437 58.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 0.3400 0.4512 0.0232 0.0008 0.0744 0.0206 57.6000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0186 0.0283 0.0013 0.0000 0.0032 0.0013 4.0593 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 1.1179 1.7008 0.0780 0.0027 0.1943 0.0772 243.5576 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0070 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.9623 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 3.3613 0.2949 0.0409 0.0043 0.3758 0.0405 461.8858 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.8192 2.4469 0.1421 0.0079 0.6445 0.1383 763.0434 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 150 150 75 55 NT Phase 4GG - Hardscape and Landscape, 11/1/13 - 3/20/13 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Materials Landscape Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs Days Loads/Day Distance 20 1 30 5 1 30 Total /Day Distance 24 20 Emissions in Pounds per Hour NOx 4 /Day Hrs/Day CO Concrete Mixer 1 8 0.0421 Crane (250 hp) 0 0 0.2948 Other 0 0 0.3765 Masonry Saws 0 0 0.4088 Trucks, Heavy Diesel I Materials Landscape Worker Vehicles2 Vehicles <5,151 Ibs Days Loads/Day Distance 20 1 30 5 1 30 Total /Day Distance 24 20 Emissions in Pounds per Hour NOx PM10 sox VOC 0.0556 0.0026 0.0001 0.0091 0.9948 0.0351 0.0013 0.1040 0.7938 0.033 0.0013 0.0872 0.5572 0.0452 0.0007 0.1002 Daily Mi 30 30 60 Daily Mi 480 I Based on Year 2013 Heavy Heavy Diesels >30,000 lb 2 Based on a composite of Year 2013 Autos and Light Trucks <5,151 lb Emissions in Pounds per Day PM2.5 CO2 CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0023 7.2000 0.3368 0.4448 0.0208 0.0008 0.0728 0.0185 57.6000 0.0312 112.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0294 123.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0402 58.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Totals 03368 0.4448 0.0208 0.0008 0.0728 0.0185 57.6000 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0166 0.0253 0.0012 0.0000 0.0029 0.0012 4.0659 Truck Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.9982 1.5152 0.0699 0.0026 0.1741 0.0692 243.9560 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Mile CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 0.0065 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0007 0.0001 0.9613 Worker Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PM10 sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 11087 0.2699 0.041 j 0.0046 03527 0.0409 461.4276 Total Emissions in Pounds per Day CO NOx PMIO sox VOC PM2.5 CO2 4.4437 2.2299 0.1320 0.0080 0.5995 0.1286 762.9836 Thresholds in Pounds per Day 550 100 1511 150 75 55 NT Phase 4 - Interior Paint, 9/8/12 - 1/25/13 # Days Sq Ft Times Area lnt Area Total Area # Coats Gallons Sub - Basement 120 11,088 2.7 0.75 22,453.20 '74.22 Basement 120 11,604 2.7 0.75 23,498.10 3 391.64 First Floor 120 112009 2.7 0.75 22,293 23 3 371.55 Second Floor 120 10,236 2.7 0.75 20,727.90 3 345.47 Third Floor 120 9,236 2.7 0.75 18,702.90 3 311.72 Fourth Floor 120 8,536 2.7 0.75 17.285.40 3 288.09 Phase 4 Exterior Paint, 10/1/12 - 11/3/12 Days Sq Ft Times Area Ext Area Total Area # Coats Gallons Third Floor 30 9,236 2.7 0.25 6,234.30 1 34.64 Fourth Floor 30 8,536 23 0.25 5,761.80 1 32.01 Gr /L Daily VOC 10 0.26 10 0.27 10 0.26 10 0.24 10 0.22 10 0.20 1.45 Gr /LDaily VOC 27 0.26 27 0.24 0.50 APPENDIX B URBEAUS2007 MODEL RESULTS FOR OPERATIONAL MOBILE - SOURCE EMISSIONS Page: 1 12/19/2008 12:51:05 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Winter Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: C: \Documents and Settings \Todd\Application Data\ Urbemis \Version9a \Projects\Aerie Operations.urb924 Project Name: Aerie Project Location: Orange County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac20Q7 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOX CO Condo /townhouse general 0.47 0.64 5.14 TOTALS (lbs /day, unmitigated) 0.47 0.64 5.14 Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2013 Temperature (F): 60 Season: Winter Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Land Use Type Condo /townhouse general Vehicle Type Light Auto Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type 1.40 8.57 dwelling units S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 0.01 1.19 0.23 639.22 0.01 1.19 0.23 639.22 No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 8.00 68.56 692.65 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non - Catalyst 51.0 0.4 68.56 692.65 Catalyst 99.4 Diesel 0.2 Page: 2 12119/2008 12:51:05 PM Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non - Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Truck < 3750 Ibs 7.0 1.4 95.7 2.9 Light Truck 3751- 5750lbs 24.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Med Truck 5751 -8500 Ibs 10.8 0.0 100.0 0.0 Lite -Heavy Truck 8501- 10,000 Ibs 1.7 0.0 82.4 17.6 Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001- 14,000lbs 0.5 0.0 60.0 40.0 Med -Heavy Truck 14,001- 33,000 Ibs 0.9 0.0 22.2 77.8 Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001- 60,000lbs 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Motorcycle 2.9 55.2 44.8 0.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 0.8 0.0 87.5 12.5 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 %ofTrips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) N J l0 N O w d C l0 L U m c 0 `m 2 EL N O N N m O � N N `rn O) r l9 Q. Page: 1 1211912008 12:50:41 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: C: \Documents and Settings \Todd\Application Data\ Urbemis \Version9a \Projects\Aerie Operations.urb924 Project Name: Aerie Project Location: Orange County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOX CO Condo /townhouse general 0.44 0.53 5.43 TOTALS (lbs /day, unmitigated) 0.44 0.53 5.43 Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2013 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Land Use Type Condo /townhouse general Vehicle Type Light Auto Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type 1.40 8.57 dwelling units S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 0.01 1.19 0.23 707.74 0.01 1.19 0.23 707.74 No. Units Total Trips Total WIT 8.00 68.56 692.65 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non - Catalyst 51.0 0.4 68.56 692.65 Catalyst 99.4 Diesel 0.2 Page: 2 121191200812:50:41 PM Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non - Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Truck < 3750 Ibs 7.0 1.4 95.7 2.9 Light Truck 3751- 5750lbs 24.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Med Truck 5751- 8500lbs 10.8 0.0 100.0 0.0 Lite -Heavy Truck 8501- 10,000lbs 1.7 0.0 82.4 17.6 Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001- 14,000 Ibs 0.5 0.0 60.0 40.0 Med -Heavy Truck 14,001- 33,000lbs 0.9 0.0 22.2 77.8 Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001 - 60,000 Ibs 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Motorcycle 2.9 55.2 44.8 0.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 0.8 0.0 87.5 12.5 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) N @ clO N @ C L U �a c 0 m LM 7 a N O � N N O1 m r @ N a APPENDIX C URBEMIS2007 MODEL RESULTS FOR OPERATIONAL STATIONARY - SOURCE EMISSIONS Page: 1 12/1912008 12:55:46 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Area Source Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: C: \Documents and Settings \ToddlApplication Data\ Urbemis \Version9a \Projects\Aerie Operations.urb924 Project Name: Aerie Project Location: Orange County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO S02 PR 10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.13 Hearth Landscape 0.12 0.02 1.55 0.00 0.01 0.01 2.81 Consumer Products 0.41 Architectural Coatings 0.01 TOTALS (lbs /day, unmitigated) 0.55 0.10 1.58 0.00 0.01 0.01 102.94 Area Source Changes to Defaults Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 3/3/2009 Case Description: SoundPlan Calibration - -- Receptor #1 -- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Calibration Residential 35 35 35 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage( %) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Backhoe No 40 77.6 50 Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 50 Concrete Pump Truck No 20 81.4 50 Excavator No 40 80.7 50 Front End Loader No 40 79.1 50 Excavator No 40 80.7 50 Jackhammer Yes 20 88.9 50 Drill Rig Truck No 20 79.1 50 Hydra Break Ram Yes 10 90 50 Pneumatic. Tools No 50 85.2 50 C Tractor No 40 84 50 Welder /Torch No 40 74 50 Vibratory Concrete Mixer No 20 80 50 C Flat Bed Truck No 40 74.3 50 Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 50 Auger Drill Rig No 20 84.4 50 C Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) Yes 20 90.3 50 Dozer No 40 81.7 50 Vibratory Concrete Mixer No 20 80 50 C Crane No 16 80.6 50 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment "Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Backhoe 77.6 73.6 N/A NIA N/A N/A Concrete Mixer Truck 78.8 74.8 N/A N/A N/A NIA Concrete Pump Truck 81.4 74.4 N/A N/A N/A NIA Excavator 80.7 76.7 N/A N/A N/A NIA Front End Loader 79.1 75.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 80.7 76.7 N/A N/A N/A NIA Jackhammer 88.9 81.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A Drill Rig Truck 79.1 72.2 NIA N/A N/A N/A Hydra Break Ram 90 80 N/A NIA N/A N/A Pneumatic Tools 85.2 82.2 NIA N/A N/A N/A Tractor 84 80 N/A N/A N/A NIA Welder /Torch 74 70 N/A N/A N/A N/A Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80 73 N/A N/A N/A N/A Flat Bed Truck 74.3 70.3 N/A NIA NIA N/A Compressor (air) 77.7 73.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Auger Drill Rig 84.4 77.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 90.3 83.3 N/A N/A N/A NIA Dozer 81.7 77.7 NIA N/A N/A NIA Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80 73 NIA N/A NIA NIA Crane 80.6 72.6 NIA NIA NIA NIA Total 90.3 90.7 NIA N/A NIA N/A 'Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Kim Svitenko (FWS- OR- 09B0104- 09SL0151) Federally Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species that May Occur in the Vicinity of Orange County, California December 12, 2008 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status' Santa Monica Mountains dudleya Laguna Beach live - forever Santa Ana River woolly -star Gambel's watercress bia leaved crown beard Invertebrates San Diego fairy shrimp Quino checkerspot butterfly Riverside fairy sltrimp klanentals southern sea otter Pacific pocket mouse ' CH — designated Critical Habitat PCH — proposed Critical Habitat Dudleya cymosa subsp. ovatifolia threatened Dudleya stolonifera threatened Eriastrum densifolitun subsp. sanctorutrt endangered Rorippa gambellii endangered Verbesnta dissita threatened Branchinecta sandiegonensis endangered, CH Euphydryas editha quino endangered, PCH Streptocephalus wooitoni endangered, CH Enhydra lutris nereis threatened Perognathuslongimembrispacificus endangered 0 Appendix E Dock Vibration Study y.'ISLAND WIELAND Avenue, Suite INC. �(v 2691 Richter Avenue, Suite 114 Irvine, CA ACOUSTICS Tel: 949.474.1222 .1222 Fax: 949.474.9122 noise &vibration consoitanu www.wielandacoustics.com Environmental Noise Study for the Construction of the Proposed Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project in the City of Newport Beach Project File 08.032.00 March 12, 2009 Preliminary Report for Review Only Prepared for: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. 23792 Rockfield Boulevard, Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Prepared by: David L. Wieland, Principal Consultant 0 WIELAND ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. ACOUSTICS Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project Fite 08.032.00 - DRAFT Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 INTRODUCTION / PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................ ..............................1 3 NOISE AND GROUND VIBRATION DESCRIPTORS ...................................... ..............................4 3.1 DEC IBELS .................................................................................................... ..............................4 3.2 A- WEIGHTING ............................................................................................ ..............................4 3.3 PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY .............................................................................. ..............................6 3.4 VIBRATION VELOCITY LEVEL ........................................................................... ..............................6 4 NOISE AND VIBRATION CRITERIA ............................................................ ..............................7 4.1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE .................................................... ..............................7 4.2 VIBRATION SAFETY LIMITS FOR BUILDINGS ....................................................... ..............................7 4.3 VIBRATION PERCEPTIBILITY ............................................................................ ..............................8 5 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE .............................................................. ..............................8 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................... ..............................8 6.1 NOISE ........................................................................................................ ..............................9 6.2 VIBRATION .............................................................................................. ............................... 11 7 FUTURE ENVIRONMENT WITHIN THE STUDY AREA ................................ .............................11 7.1 NOISE ....................................................................................................... .............................11 7.2 VIBRATION .............................................................................................. ............................... 13 8 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT ...................................................................... .............................15 9 MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................................................... .............................15 10 ABATEMENT MEASURES ....................................................................... .............................15 11 UNMITIGATED IMPACTS ....................................................................... .............................16 12 REFERENCES ......................................................................................... .............................16 www.wielandacoustics.com i March 12, 2009 WIELAND ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. ACOUSTICS Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project „��o,. �... i; Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT List of Tables Table 4 -1. FTA Construction Vibration Damage Criteria ......................................... ..............................7 Table 4 -2. Caltrans Vibration Damage Criteria ........................................................ ..............................7 Table 6 -1. Summary of Ambient Noise Measurements .......................................... ..............................9 Table 6 -2. Summary of Ambient Vibration Measurements ................................... .............................11 Table 7 -1. Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels .................................... .............................12 Table 7 -2. Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors ................ .............................12 Table 7 -3. Estimated Increase in Average Noise Level During Drilling Phase ........ .............................13 Table 7 -4. Estimated Increase in Average Noise Level During Concrete Pile Phase ...........................13 Table 7 -5. Comparison of Estimated Construction PPVs to Ambient Levels .......... .............................14 Table 7 -6. Estimated Construction Vibration Levels .............................................. .............................14 List of Figures Figure 2 -1. Location of the Study Area .................................................................... ..............................2 Figure 2 -2. Proposed Dock Layout ........................................................................... ..............................3 Figure 3 -1. Common Noise Sources and A- Weighted Noise Levels ........................ ..............................5 Figure 6 -1. Noise and Vibration Measurement Locations ...................................... .............................10 List of Appendices Appendix I. Ambient Noise and Vibration Measurements www.wielandacoustics.com ii March 12, 2009 ��(� ACOUSTICS \\/ \j"�V /1C0�.1.�TICS 1 Executive Summary ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT This report identifies and assesses the potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the reconstruction of the Carnation Cove dock in Newport Beach. In order to identify the existing environment, noise and vibration measurements were taken at four locations throughout the study area. The construction activities associated with the project will result in a change to the acoustical environment at properties in the vicinity of the project. Using the criteria established in this study, it is concluded that the project will not generate a significant noise or vibration impact at the nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, mitigation measures are not required. Although not required as mitigation measures, the following abatement measures have been recommended as conditions of approval to minimize noise levels associated with the construction activity: 1. Equip all construction equipment with properly operating and maintained muffling devices. 2. Develop a construction schedule that minimizes potential cumulative construction noise impacts. 3. Notify the residents of the construction schedule for the marina, and keep them informed of any changes to the schedule. Identify the name and phone number of a contact person in case of complaints. The contact person shall take whatever reasonable steps are necessary to resolve the complaint. 2 Introduction / Project Description The purpose of this study is to identify and assess the potential noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Carnation Cove dock replacement project in Newport Beach. Refer to Figure 2 -1 for the location of the study area. Currently, the dock has four slips; this will be increased to eight slips plus a side -tie dock. The new dock layout is shown in Figure 2 -2. The timber docks supported by rotationally molded plastic pontoons allow the dock system to be located as close to the rock outcropping as possible. Six steel dock guide piles support the existing docks and will be replaced with 19 new guide piles supporting the new dock system. Of these 19 piles, nine will be large diameter piles (approximately 2 -foot diameter). The guide piles will be constructed of pre- stressed concrete set in pre - drilled augured holes. The existing 20 -foot long gangway will be replaced by a safer 60 -foot gangway. The pile- supported pier walkway between the existing gangway platform and the existing terrace will be repaired or replaced with a structure in -like -kind (i.e., timber framing system, a 2x timber deck, and timber railings all around). The existing piers supporting the walkway will require concrete repairs. The gangway platform construction will include the four steel piles, timber framing with www.wielandacoustics.com 1 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ACOUSTICS ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT metal connectors, and a 2x timber deck with railings all around. The existing concrete pad, concrete steps, and safety railings will be repaired and patched as necessary. z . -7 • JRn i 3 W-7 G f" ik W-7 f"$ 31L" rK'hT CLUB -.._- ----- HWOR gfSTER _ L 14ST aW0 y aVYE f 9" ML S+ Ci£ dRn 2 71RU G A SR 3 Su%1N0 AV < GiA4*A A 9i .� Av � -QA BLVD` Project Site E Lw rr.rrr -?/®Y Q J g w, fJ21 /�_f Ja S• �� auv 'r4�o �' P P LIB 1 �Sr a :rr G h drq c° P 1 � a 0 Y ti a?iP2114 OE! H4R � :n � / SRTF BFACN asotwnx ✓ 6757 JEI—Y Figure 2 -1. Location of the Study Area www.wielandacoustics.com 2 March 12, 2009 .1 I ACOUSTICS ND u Y v+D•elien tonlullsnO `L J Figure 2 -2. Proposed Dock Layout ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project Fite 08.032.00 - DRAFT K@YNOM: () lnormGG or aRAxouro mxexAnox Ruirmu © mmDem xex RMUrm oalc [�] mua GIOf AG G1xlw1 IfQ� R[RIIR dGMt R/lNR In FlIQIAfD DEQ 1W91 MA LASIK CDIC © MpOGm G6Ex FlMIM WA FPGIN- Yt11O.dOtiG © E6EIN0 OI[C MI GMIMAY 111 BE RF4NEp m AO® M!L/lLlxf CN m R0•M LE11W 91VG Lmol ❑ fFl OINO Ilx� EGIm DD91/EfK PM91 i RROOfO ILx0101RR • 11100® RRL O www.wielandacoustics.com 3 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ACOUSTICS e e •0••von aemelUnu ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT 3 Noise and Ground Vibration Descriptors The following sections briefly describe the noise and ground vibration descriptors that will be used throughout this study: 3.1 Decibels Sound pressures can be measured in units called microPascals (µPa). However, expressing sound levels in terms of µPa would be very cumbersome since it would require a wide range of very large numbers. For this reason, sound pressure levels are described in logarithmic units of ratios of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure squared. These units are called bels. In order to provide a finer resolution, a bel is subdivided into 10 decibels, abbreviated dB. Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one automobile produces a sound pressure level of 70 dB when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB. In fact, they would combine to produce 73 d6. This same principle can be applied to other traffic quantities as well. In other words, doubling the traffic volume on a street or the speed of the traffic will increase the traffic noise level by 3 dB. Conversely, halving the traffic volume or speed will reduce the traffic noise level by 3 d8. 3.2 A- Weighting Sound pressure level alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness. The frequency or pitch of a sound also has a substantial effect on how humans will respond. While the intensity of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response depends on the characteristics of the human ear. Human hearing is limited not only to the range of audible frequencies, but also in the way it perceives the sound pressure level in that range. In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hz and 5,000 Hz, and perceives both higher and lower frequency sounds of the same magnitude with less intensity. In order to approximate the frequency response of the human ear, a series of sound pressure level adjustments is usually applied to the sound measured by a sound level meter. The adjustments, or weighting network, are frequency dependent. The A -scale approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary everyday sounds. When people make relative judgments of the loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the A -scale sound levels of those sounds. A range of noise levels associated with common in- and outdoor activities is shown in Figure 3 -1. The A- weighted sound level of traffic and other long -term noise - producing activities within and around a community varies considerably with time. Measurements of this varying noise level are accomplished by recording values of the A- weighted level during representative periods within a specified portion of the day. www.wielandacoustics.com 4 March 12, 2009 WIEL4ND ACOUSTICS fe k vfyutton [onso![ann Threshold of pain T 120 dB(A) ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT Disco 110 dB(A) Textile mill Printing plant 100 dB(A) Jackhammer at 50' Power lawn mower at 5' 90 dB(A) Heavy truck at 50' Concrete mixer at 50' 80 dB(A) ..................•••.., 10 dB change generally Inside Car at 40 mph :perceived as twice or halt as loud Vacuum cleaner at 10' 70 dB(A) .......................: Car, 60 mph at 100' Conversational speech 60 dB(A) ........................ :5 dB change generally :perceived as quite noticeable Large transformer at 50' ..................••.... Urban residence 50 dB(A) • ^- ° °• °••- °... ° °.3 dB Change is generally barely ...I ...................: perceptible Small town residence 40 dB(A) 1 dB change is generally not noticeable Soft whisper at G 30 dB(A) North rim of Grand Canyon 20 dB(A) 10 dB(A) Threshold of hearing 0 dB(A) Figure 3 -1. Common Noise Sources and A- Weighted Noise Levels www.wielandacoustics.com 5 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ACOUSTICS 3.3 Peak Particle Velocity ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT Construction activities such as blasting, pile driving, and operation of heavy construction equipment induce ground and structure vibrations. Their effects can range from annoyance for the local residents to structural damage. The level of ground vibration experienced at any location depends mainly on the construction method, soil medium, distance from the vibratory source, and the structural dynamics of the building. There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration amplitude. Of these, peak particle velocity (PPV) is most appropriate for evaluating potential building damage since it is related to the stresses that are exerted upon the buildings. PPV is most commonly assessed in the vertical direction because the floors of buildings vibrate mostly in the vertical direction. Nearthe source of vibration, the horizontal ground particle velocity is commonly lower than the vertical component. Far from the source of vibration, the ground horizontal and vertical velocities are about the same order of magnitude. 3.4 Vibration Velocity Level Although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential for building damage, it is not suitable for evaluating human response to ground -borne vibration. It takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. In a sense, the human body responds to an "average" vibration amplitude. However, the actual average level is not a useful measure of vibration because the net average of a vibration signal is zero. Instead, vibration velocity level (L„) is used for evaluating human response. L„ describes the root - mean - square (rms) velocity amplitude of the vibration. This rms value may be thought of as a "smoothed" or "magnitude- averaged" amplitude. The rms of a signal is typically calculated over a 1 second period. The maximum L„ describes the maximum rms velocity amplitude that occurs during a vibration measurement. L" can be measured in inches per second (in /s). However, expressing these levels in terms of in /s would be very cumbersome since it would require a very wide range of numbers. For this reason, L„ is often stated in terms of decibels. Although it is not a universally accepted notation, the abbreviation "Vd8" is used throughout this report to denote vibration velocity level decibels in order to reduce the potential for confusion with sound level decibels. The VdB is a logarithmic unit that describes the ratio of the actual rms velocity amplitude to a reference velocity amplitude. The accepted reference velocity amplitude is 1x10'6 in /s in the USA; therefore, this is the reference amplitude that is used throughout this report (it is noted that the accepted reference level varies globally and much confusion can arise if the reference is not clearly stated). Specifically, a vibration velocity level (L„ ), in decibels (VdB), is calculated as follows: = g 2010 1 w 10 1x1O V in. /S/ where V is the actual rms velocity amplitude and 1x10 -6 in /s is the reference velocity amplitude. Since decibels are logarithmic units, vibration velocity levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. www.wielandacoustics.cam 6 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ACOUSTICS 4 Noise and Vibration Criteria ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT The following sections discuss the various criteria that have been considered in this study. 4.1 City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 of the City's Municipal Code prohibits construction work which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., or on any Saturday except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Construction work is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. The City's Municipal Code does not identify any quantitative noise level standards for construction activities, nor does it provide any standards or guidelines with respect to ground vibration. 4.2 Vibration Safety Limits for Buildings General vibration damage criteria developed by the Federal Transit Administration [2) are summarized as follows: Table 4 -1. FTA Construction Vibration Damage Criteria Caltrans [3) uses the following criteria to evaluate the severity of problems associated with continuous' vibrations: Table 4 -2. Caltrans Vibration Damage Criteria Reinforced concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5 Engineered concrete and masonry (no pta ster) 0.3 Non - engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Caltrans [3) uses the following criteria to evaluate the severity of problems associated with continuous' vibrations: Table 4 -2. Caltrans Vibration Damage Criteria It is noteworthy that the risk of structural damage still exists even at relatively low vibration velocities (in particular due to dynamic settlements caused in loose soils). ' The drilling that will be used to set the piles is considered to be a continuous vibration source. www.wielandacoustics.com 7 March 12, 2009 monuments Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancien70.3 Fragile buildings Historic and wine old buildings Older residential structures New residential structures 0.5 Modem industrial /commercial buildings 0.5 It is noteworthy that the risk of structural damage still exists even at relatively low vibration velocities (in particular due to dynamic settlements caused in loose soils). ' The drilling that will be used to set the piles is considered to be a continuous vibration source. www.wielandacoustics.com 7 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ACOU t% 4 vd�,.m+ co .mSTICS 4.3 Vibration Perceptibility ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT Criteria developed by the Federal Transit Administration [21 indicate that when groundborne vibration exceeds 72 to 80 VdB, it is usually perceived as annoying to occupants of residential buildings. 5 Thresholds of Significance Based on the noise and vibration criteria discussed above, and the CEQA guidelines, a significant impact will be assessed if the project will result in: O Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. A noise impact will occur if construction activities occur outside of the time periods permitted in the City's noise ordinance. O Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This impact will occur if any construction activity causes the vibration velocity level (L,) to exceed 72 to 80 VdB at an adjacent residential building. Because of the potential for damage, a significant impact will be assessed if the PPV exceeds 0.20 in /sec at any existing residential building. O A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. As there are no permanent noise sources associated with the construction project, this aspect of the CEQA guidelines has not been considered in this study. O A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. As the City has no noise standards for construction activity, and the construction activity will only occur within the hours permitted by the Municipal Code, no significant impact will be assessed relative to this CEQA guideline. 0 The project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels as a result of activities at an airport. As the project is located well outside the noise contours for John Wayne Airport, this aspect of the CEQA guidelines has not been considered in the study. 6 Existing Environment The sensitive land uses of concern within the study area consist of the residences north and northeast of the project site on Bayside Place, the residences generally northeast of the project site on Carnation Avenue, the residences generally east and southeast of the project site on Ocean Boulevard, and the residences to the west of the project site on Channel Road. www.wielandacoustics.com 8 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project ACOUSTICS Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT 6.1 Noise The noise sources in the study area include traffic on the local streets, takeoffs from John Wayne Airport, activities on boats in the channel, and general residential activities in the area. In order to document the existing noise environment in the study area, continuous 24 -hour measurements were obtained at four locations between April 23 and 30, 2008. (Refer to Figure 6 -1 for the measurement locations.) To obtain the measurements, the microphone was positioned at a height of 5 feet above the ground. The results of the noise measurements are provided in Appendix I, and are summarized in Table 6 -1. Table 6 -1. Summary of Ambient Noise Measurements Location Location Ave R ge r. ). Description 1 Rear patio, 101 50.5- 57.4 dB(A) 63.1 - 80.9 dB(A) Bayside PI . 2 Pool area, 2495 Ocean Blvd. 52.9 - 59.9 dB(A) 68.3 - 79.0 dB(A) 3 Rear patio, 2282 Channel Rd. 48.5 - 55.0 dB(A) 63.6 - 77.0 dB(A) 4 Rear patio, d. Channel Rd. 50.7 - 59.3 dB(A) 63.4 - 85.9 dB(A) The instrumentation used to obtain the noise measurements consisted of integrating sound level meters (Model 712) and an acoustical calibrator (Model CALiSO) manufactured by Larson Davis Laboratories. The accuracy of the calibrators is maintained through a program established by the manufacturer, and is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 51.4 -1971. www.wielandacoustics.com 9 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ACOUSTICS ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT til;. C g2 .t ti • j,c N3 e rRb SRI . ^1 fir �_ . t � ., tr�r �I{ j• i �Y Y Figure 6 -1. Noise and Vibration Measurement Locations www.wielandacoustics.com 10 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. ACOUSTICSCarnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT 6.2 Vibration Ambient ground vibration velocity levels were measured at all four locations (as shown in Figure 6- 1) in the vertical direction using a PCB seismic accelerometer (Model 3930). The results of the measurements are provided in Appendix I, and are summarized in Table 6 -2. Table 6 -2. Summary of Ambient Vibration Measurements 7 Future Environment within the Study Area 7.1 Noise In compliance with the City's Code requirements, construction of the project will occur only between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. There will be no construction activities on Sundays or legal holidays. Construction noise levels in the vicinity of the project will fluctuate depending on the particular type, number and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment. The exposure of persons to the periodic increase in noise levels will be short-term (on the order of several months). To estimate the construction noise levels that will be experienced at the nearest sensitive receptors, the following assumptions have been made: O A barge containing all the equipment necessary to drill and drop in the pre- stressed concrete pile will be located in the channel in the near vicinity of each pile that is being constructed. O The noisiest pieces of equipment on the barge will be the drill and the crane. The drill and crane will operate simultaneously during the drilling phase of construction, and the crane will operate when the piles are being dropped into place. Based on published data [41, the equipment to be used in the construction of the proposed dock will produce the following noise levels: www.wielandacoustics.com 11 March 12, 20D9 Location Description Average Vibration Maximum Vibration 1 Rear 1 0.00009 in /sec 0.00128 in /sec Ba 7area,2495 Pool 2 Oc 0.00007 in /sec 0.00086 in /sec Rear patio, 2282 3 Channel Rd. 0.00008 in /sec 0.00298 in /sec 4 Rear patio ' 2222 2222 0.00017 in/sec 0.00121 in /sec Channel 7 Future Environment within the Study Area 7.1 Noise In compliance with the City's Code requirements, construction of the project will occur only between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. There will be no construction activities on Sundays or legal holidays. Construction noise levels in the vicinity of the project will fluctuate depending on the particular type, number and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment. The exposure of persons to the periodic increase in noise levels will be short-term (on the order of several months). To estimate the construction noise levels that will be experienced at the nearest sensitive receptors, the following assumptions have been made: O A barge containing all the equipment necessary to drill and drop in the pre- stressed concrete pile will be located in the channel in the near vicinity of each pile that is being constructed. O The noisiest pieces of equipment on the barge will be the drill and the crane. The drill and crane will operate simultaneously during the drilling phase of construction, and the crane will operate when the piles are being dropped into place. Based on published data [41, the equipment to be used in the construction of the proposed dock will produce the following noise levels: www.wielandacoustics.com 11 March 12, 20D9 WIELAND ACOUSTICS ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT Table 7 -1. Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels Typical Noise Equipment Level 9 50 Ft. Drilling Phase Combined Noise Level (P 50 Ft. 88 dB(A) Crane d Auger drill rig 85 dB(A) Concrete Pile Phose 85 dB(A) Crane 85 dB(A) Using the noise levels cited in Table 7 -1, above, the maximum noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors can be estimated using the inverse square law, where noise decays at the rate of 6 dB for every doubling of distance. The average noise level at the nearest sensitive receptors can be estimated using the following standard prediction algorithm [2]: L,( equip) = E.L. +10 *log(U.F.)- 20 * log l 5 10 *G *log( 50) where, Le,(equip) is the average noise level at a receiver resulting from the operation of the equipment over a specified time period, E.L. is the noise emission level of the equipment at a distance of 50 feet (from Table 7 -1), U.F. is a usage factor that accounts for the fraction of time that the equipment is in use over the specified time period (U.F. = 0.16 for the crane and 0.20 for the auger drill rig [4]), D is the distance from the receiver to the piece of equipment, and G is a constant that accounts for ground effects (assume G = 0 for propagation over water or hard surfaces). Table 7 -2 provides the results of the analysis. Table 7 -2. Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors www.wielandacoustics.com 12 March 12, 2009 Drilling Location If Location Description Average Noise Maximum Noise Average Noise - Maximum Noise 1 Rear patio, 101 Bayside Pl. 71 dB(A) @ 155' 83 dB(A) @ 90' 67 dB(A) @ 155' 80 dB(A) @ 90' 2 Pool area, 2495 Ocean Blvd. 68 dB(A) @ 230' T7 dB(A) @ 175' 64 dB(A) @ 230' 74 dB(A) @ 175' 3 Rear patio, 2282 ChannelRd- 56 dB(A) @ 880' 64 dB(A) @ 785' 52 dB(A) @ 880' 61 dB(A) @ 785' 4 Rear patio, 2222 Channel Rd. 56 dB(AI @ 920' 65 dB(A) @675' 52 dB(A) @ 920' 62 dB(A) @675' Note: Average noise level is based on the average distance from all of the piles to each sensitive receptor. The maximum noise level is based on the distance from the closest pile to each sensitive receptor. www.wielandacoustics.com 12 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. ACOUSTICSCarnation Cove Dock Replacement Project r r_eej„pn �e „o�„ Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT The estimated increase in average noise level due to construction may be calculated by adding, on an energy basis, the construction noise levels identified in Table 7 -2 to the measured ambient noise levels identified in Table 6 -1. This analysis is provided in Table 7 -3 for the drilling phase, and in Table 7 -4 for the concrete pile phase. Table 7 -3. Estimated Increase in Average Noise Level During Drilling Phase Location Location Range of Measured Ambient Noise Estimated Average Construction Estimate Anibil Average et Estimated Increase C in Noise Level Due r- Description 1 Rear patio, 101 Bayside Pl. 50.5 - 57.4 dB(A) 71 dB(A) 71 dB(A) 13.6 - 20.5 dB(A) 2 Pool area, 2495 Ocean Blvd. 52.9 - 59.9 dB(A) 68 dB(A) 68 - 69 dB(A) 9.1 - 15.1 dB(A) 3 Rear patio, 2282 Channel Rd. 48.5 - 55.0 dB(A) 56 dB(A) 57 - 59 dB(A) 4.0 - 8.5 dB(A) 4 Rear patio, 2222 Channel Rd. 50.7 - 59.3 dB(A) 56 dB(A) 57 - 61.5 dB(A) 2.2 - 6.3 dB(A) Table 7 -4. Estimated Increase in Average Noise Level During Concrete Pile Phase 7.2 Vibration The only vibratory activities during the construction of the project will be the extraction of the existing piles, and drilling into the channel bed to provide a socket for the concrete piles, which will then be grouted into place. For the most part, the new guide piles will be circular pre- stressed concrete piles 16 to 18 inches in diameter. Based on published information, typical drilling produces a PPV of 0.089 in /sec at a distance of 25 feet. The PPV that will be experienced at the nearby sensitive properties can be estimated using the following formula [3j: 251 PPVF1�'mm<�, = PPVR<r<.<n« x l D ) www.wietandacoustics.com 13 March 12, 2009 r- 1 Rear patio, 101 8ayside Pl. 50.5 - 57.4 dB(A) 67 dB(A) 67 - 67.5 dB(A) 10.1- 16.5 dB(A) 2 Pool area, 2495 Ocean Blvd. 52.9 - 59.9 dB(A) 64 dB(A) 64.5 - 65.5 dB(A) 5.6 - 11.6 dB(A) 3 Rear patio, 2282 Channel Rd. 48.5 - 55.0 dB(A) 52 dB(A) 53.5 - 57 dB(A) 2.0 - 5.0 dB(A) 4 Rear patio, 2222 Channel S 50.7 - 59.3 dB(A) 52 dB(A) 54.5 - 60.0 dB(A) 0.7 - 3.8 dB(A) 7.2 Vibration The only vibratory activities during the construction of the project will be the extraction of the existing piles, and drilling into the channel bed to provide a socket for the concrete piles, which will then be grouted into place. For the most part, the new guide piles will be circular pre- stressed concrete piles 16 to 18 inches in diameter. Based on published information, typical drilling produces a PPV of 0.089 in /sec at a distance of 25 feet. The PPV that will be experienced at the nearby sensitive properties can be estimated using the following formula [3j: 251 PPVF1�'mm<�, = PPVR<r<.<n« x l D ) www.wietandacoustics.com 13 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. ACOUSTICS Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project .-0., � Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT where, PPVEq,,;P,e,,, is the peak particle velocity in in /sec of the equipment adjusted for distance, PPVrserereece is the reference PPV in in /sec at 25 feet, or 0.089 in /sec, and D is the distance from the equipment to the receiver Table 7 -5 compares the estimated construction PPVs to the measured ambient vibration level at each of the nearest sensitive receptors. Table 7 -5. Comparison of Estimated Construction PPVs to Ambient Levels Location Location Maximum Ambient Estimated Construction Level 90' Description Vibration Level PpV 62 Vd6 @ Rear patio, 101 3 Rear patio, 2282 1 Bayside Pl . 0.00128 in /sec 0.02 in/sec Rear patio, 2.222 Pool area 2495 2495 44 VdB @ 675' 2 Ocean B 0.00086 in /sec 0.01 in /sec 3 Rear patio, 2282 0.00298 in /sec 0.002 in /sec Channel Rd. 4 Rear patio, 2222 0.00121 in /sec 0.002 in /sec Channel Rd. Based on published information, typical drilling produces a vibration level (L„) of 87 VdB at a distance of 25 feet. The L„ that will be experienced at the nearby sensitive properties can be estimated using the following formula [2]: 4(D) = I P (Z5.ft) — 30 x log( � I where, L„ (D) is the vibration level in VdB of the equipment adjusted for distance, L,.(25 ft) is the reference vibration level in VdB at 25 feet, or 87 VdB, and D is the distance from the equipment to the receiver Table 7 -6 provides the estimated construction vibration level at each of the nearest sensitive receptors. Table 7 -6. Estimated Construction Vibration Levels Location # 1 Location Description Rear atio, 101 Bayside Pl. Estimated Construction Vibration 70 VdB @ Level 90' 2 Pool area, 2495 Ocean Blvd. 62 Vd6 @ 175' 3 Rear patio, 2282 Channel Rd. 42 VdB @ 785' 4 Rear patio, 2.222 Channel Rd. 44 VdB @ 675' www.wielandacoustics.cam 14 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ACOUSTICS ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT It should be noted that the most reliable way to evaluate vibration is in situ. The theoretical analysis in this study provides approximate results and may not be accurate. 8 Assessment of Impact Using the criteria established in this study, the following may be concluded regarding the impact of the proposed project: O The project will not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Therefore, the impact is not significant. O The project will not generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. Therefore, the impact is not significant. Because it is outside our area of expertise, the risk (if any) of structural damage due to transmitted vibrations or dynamic settlements has not been evaluated in this study. This risk should be analyzed and assessed by qualified structural and geotechnical engineers. 9 Mitigation Measures As indicated in Section 8, there are no significant impacts associated with the construction of the dock replacement project. Therefore, mitigation measures are not required. 10 Abatement Measures Although not required in order to mitigate a significant impact, the following measures are recommended as conditions of approval to minimize the construction noise levels caused by the project: 1. All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices. 2. A construction schedule shall be developed that minimizes potential cumulative construction noise levels. 3. The construction contractor shall notify the residents of the construction schedule for the dock, and shall keep them informed on any changes to the schedule. The notification shall also identify the name and phone number of a contact person in case of complaints. The contact person shall take whatever reasonable steps are necessary to resolve the complaint. www.wielandacoustics.com 15 March 12, 2009 WIELAND ACOUSTICS 11 Unmitigated Impacts ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project Project File 08.032.00 - DRAFT There will be no unmitigated impacts associated with the project. 12 References 1. 201 -207 Carnation, "Aerie Docks ". Site plan provided by Keeton Kreitzer Consulting. 2. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Federal Transit Administration. April 1995. 3. Transportation- and Construction - Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. Jones & Stokes. Contract No. 43AO049 for California Department of Transportation; Environmental Program; Environmental Engineering; Noise, Vibration, and Hazardous Waste Management Office. June 2004. 4. Roadway Construction Noise Model Version 1.00. U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration, John A. Volpe Nation Transportation Systems Center, Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division. February 2, 2006. www.wielandacoustics.com 16 March 12, 2009 APPENDIX 1 Ambient Noise and Vibration Measurements Table 1 -1. Summary of Measured Ambient Noise Leyels Location: #1, Rear patio at 101 Bayside Place 4/29/08 12:00 PM 52.1 63.7 43.9 60.9 57.1 50.7 48.1 4/29/08 1:00 PM 53.1 65.1 43.6 61.7 58.5 52.3 47.7 4/29/08 2:00 PM 52.0 64.4 43.3 61.6 56.1 50.3 47.8 4/29/08 3:00 PM 52.0 66.4 41.9 62.3 55.5 49.8 46.9 4/29/08 4:00 PM 52.9 69.0 41.0 62.8 57.6 48.9 46.0 4/29/08 5:00 PM 50.5 64.1 41.7 60.3 54.4 48.9 45.8 4/29/08 6:00 PM 56.9 80.9 40.5 62.3 57.6 51.0 47.5 4/29/08 7:00 PM 54.0 73.0 40.0 64.2 58.3 49.4 45.2 4/29/08 8:00 PM 51.3 64.5 42.4 59.9 55.8 49.9 47.2 4/29/08 9:00 PM 51.4 65.8 42.9 60.8 54.6 49.9 48.0 4/29/08 10:00 PM 49.4 56.5 43.6 53.2 51.8 50.4 49.0 4/29/08 11:00 PM 50.1 56.1 44.6 53.7 5Z.4 51.0 49.7 4/30/08 12:00 AM 49.0 58.3 43.3 53.0 51.4 49.8 48.5 4/30/08 1:00 AM 48.2 57.2 42.7 52.6 50.9 49.0 47.5 4/30/08 2:00 AM 45.5 55.6 39.5 49.9 48.2 46.4 44.8 4130/08 3:00 AM 52.0 61.4 43.8 57.0 54.8 52.7 51.2 4/30/08 4:00 AM 52.4 61.5 45.9 57.0 55.1 53.1 51.6 4/30/08 5:00 AM 52.2 62.9 45.4 57.0 55.0 53.0 51.4 4/30/08 6:00 AM 53.2 61.3 45.9 57.5 56.0 54.1 52.6 4/30/08 7:00 AM 57.4 71.5 49.0 64.7 61.6 57.0 54.5 4/30/08 8:00 AM 57.3 76.0 46.8 65.6 61.5 55.8 53.3 4/30/08 9:00 AM 55.1 67.5 47.6 62.3 58.5 54.9 53.1 4/30/08 10:00 AM 56.3 75.4 47.1 63.8 59.8 54.8 52.5 4/30108 11:00 AM 54.0 67.7 47.0 62.2 58.0 53.4 50.7 Table 1 -2. Summary of Measured Ambient Noise Levels Location: k2, pool patio at 2495 Ocean Boulevard Date 4/23/08 2:00 PM Avg. Noise Max. Noise Min. Noise 56.4 72.7 41.6 Noise Level Exceeded for More Than... r 66.6 61.1 53.1 48.6 4/23/08 3:00 PM 54.9 70.6 42.8 65.8 58.8 51.6 48.1 4/23/08 4:00 PM 59.9 79.0 44.8 69.6 63.1 53.7 49.9 4/23/08 5:00 PM 53.9 70.1 42.9 64.4 57.2 50.7 47.3 4/23/08 6:00 PM 52.9 72.2 40.5 63.0 55.9 48.6 45.1 4/23/08 7:00 PM 55.5 73.0 39.6 65.8 60.2 50.6 45.6 4123/08 8:00 PM 53.0 67.3 39.4 63.7 58.0 49.4 44.8 4/23/08 9:00 PM 51.1 69.9 39.6 61.3 55.Z 44.2 41.9 4/23/08 10:00 PM 42.6 57.8 37.3 49.5 45.5 41.9 40.6 4/23/08 11:00 PM 45.0 69.8 35.7 48.9 42.7 39.5 38.3 4/24/08 12:00 AM 40.1 52.2 35.6 42.7 41.6 40.6 39.8 4/24/08 1:00 AM 39.9 56.7 35.2 45.9 41.0 39.1 38.0 4/24/08 2:00 AM 37.8 56.6 34.9 41.5 39.2 37.8 36.9 4/24/08 3:00 AM 38.2 47.9 35.3 41.0 39.8 38.8 37.9 4/24/08 4:00 AM 38.8 53.6 34.9 43.9 40.9 38.9 38.0 4/24/08 5:00 AM 40.9 60.2 36.6 46.4 43.0 40.7 39.6 4/24/08 6:00 AM 45.5 62.8 38.6 54.1 48.7 44.5 41.7 4/24/08 7:00 AM 59.5 73.8 39.9 69.8 65.3 56.6 47.5 4/24/08 8:00 AM 54.4 70.6 39.9 65.4 59.1 48.6 44.4 4/24/08 9:00 AM 55.4 69.4 40.5 65.9 59.9 52.9 48.7 4/24/08 10:00 AM 57.6 78.7 40.3 66.7 60.3 52.9 48.1 4/Z4/08 11:00 AM 56.8 71.4 41.9 65.9 61.4 56.1 51.2 4/24/08 12:00 PM 54.0 68.3 40.2 64.6 58.6 51.8 46.6 4/24/08 1:00 PM 55.8 74.4 40.7 64.9 60.7 54.5 49.6 Table 1 -3. Summary of Measured Ambient Noise Levels Location: N3, rear patio of 2282 Channel Road D. 4/23108 4:00 PM Avg. Noise Max. Noise 54.6 73.0 Min. Noise 42.3 Noise Level Exceeded for More Than... 63.9 57 -3 51.7 49.4 4/23/08 5:00 PM 50.5 65.4 40.8 59.4 54.1 49.6 47.0 4/23108 6:00 PM 48.5 65.8 38.6 55.5 52.1 48.0 45.7 4123108 7:00 PM 51.7 67.3 38.7 60.3 56.0 50.0 46.7 4/23/08 8:00 PM 51.3 69.9 38.8 59.6 55.1 49.4 46.3 4123/08 9:00 PM 48.8 66.1 38.5 55.7 52.0 48.2 45.6 4/23/08 10:00 PM 48.7 62.4 38.0 55.6 52.3 49.0 46.4 4/23/08 11:00 PM 51.5 72.9 38.0 j 55.8 50.6 j 47.4 45.3 4/24/08 12:00 AM 46.3 55.2 40.2 51.1 49.0 47.1 45.3 4/24/08 1:00 AM 46.9 57.9 40.3 52.2 49.2 47.5 46.0 4/24/08 2:00 AM 45.5 52.9 40.2 48.8 47.7 46.4 45.1 4124/08 3:00 AM 44.5 55.5 39.3 48.7 47.3 45.5 43.8 4/24/08 4:00 AM 45.1 56.9 39.9 50.0 47.8 45.6 43.9 4124/08 5:00 AM 45.2 59.1 39.8 49.7 47.8 46.0 44.3 4124108 6:00 AM 50.0 69.1 42.0 57.1 51.8 49.0 47.3 4/24108 7:00 AM 54.5 71.2 40.6 62.7 59.5 54.0 48.9 4/24/08 8:00 AM 49.4 66.0 40.8 57.1 54.0 49.2 46.3 4/24/08 9:00 AM 51.7 65.3 41.0 59.4 56.5 51.4 48.1 4/24/08 10:00 AM 53.8 70.3 41.1 62.8 56.2 51.7 48.8 4/24/08 11:00 AM 52.9 66.8 42.3 60.1 56.9 53.0 50.2 4/24/08 12:00 PM 51.7 63.6 42.7 60.0 56.5 50.8 48.2 4/24/08 1:00 PM 52.2 64.5 43.1 60.4 56.3 51.8 48.9 4124/08 2:00 PM 55.0 77.0 42.4 62.7 58.2 53.4 49.5 4/24108 3:00 PM 52.9 75.3 42.6 59.2 55.1 50.8 48.3 Table 1 -4. Summary of Measured Ambient Noise Levels Location: #4, rear patio of 2222 Channel Road Date 4/29/08 Time 11:00 AM Avg. Noise Max. Noise Level, 51.1 63.4 Min. Noise Noise Level, dBA 1 Min/Hr 43.0 58.5 Level Exceeded SMin/Hr 54.4 for More Than... 15Min/Hr 30Min/Hr 51.1 48.8 4/29/08 12:00 PM 52.3 64.9 45.0 59.4 56.4 52.3 50.0 4/29/08 1:00 PM 54.5 69.8 43.8 63.6 57.1 53.3 50.4 4/29/08 2:00 PM 51.1 66.3 41.8 59.6 54.7 50.6 47.9 4/29/08 3:00 PM 51.4 69.7 41.2 59.2 55.6 50.3 47.8 4/29/08 4:00 PM 50.7 66.7 41.3 59.5 54.5 50.0 47.2 4/29/08 5:00 PM 51.0 65.6 41.9 59.1 54.4 50.5 48.1 4/29/08 6:00 PM 55.2 76.0 42.5 63.1 57.6 52.5 49.3 4/29/08 7:00 PM 53.8 72.8 42.0 63.0 56.7 50.7 48.3 4/29/08 8:00 PM 51.2 63.0 44.1 58.2 54.1 51.1 49.4 4/29/08 9:00 PM 51.1 65.3 45.7 56.5 53.1 51.3 50.0 4/29/08 10:00 PM 50.3 61.8 44.6 55.2 52.5 51.0 49.4 4/29/08 11:00 PM 49.3 55.1 44.6 51.9 51.0 50.1 49.2 4/30/08 12:00 AM 51.4 59.7 43.9 54.6 53.6 52.5 51.2 4/30/08 1:00 AM 51.0 58.6 46.4 53.8 52.7 51.7 50.8 4/30/08 2:00 AM 48.7 56.1 43.2 52.3 51.0 49.7 48.2 4/30/08 3:00 AM 51.2 61.4 45.8 53.9 53.0 52.0 51.0 4/30/08 4:00 AM 50.5 57.7 46.3 53.1 52.2 51.2 50.2 4/30/08 5:00 AM 52.1 69.3 45.3 55.9 53.9 52.6 51.2 4/30/08 6:00 AM 53.3 66.2 48.3 58.5 54.9 53.5 52.5 4/30/08 7:00 AM 55.8 69.1 49.7 62.3 58.4 55.7 54.3 4/30/08 8:00 AM 59.3 85.9 49.4 62.5 57.8 54.6 53.1 4/30/08 9:00 AM 55.4 68.0 48.5 61.7 58.1 55.4 54.0 4130/08 10:00 AM 56.7 69.5 50.5 63.5 59.7 56.5 54.6 -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- --------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- [ : ------------------------------------- ------------- ----------------------- ----------- ---------- -------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ---------- :---: -------- ------------------------------ -------------------------------------- ----------------------- --------- :: - ---- ------------- ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- ------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------- ------------------------- L -------------------------------------- L -------------- ------------ ------------ -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --- ------ ------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------ -------------------------------------- L -------------------------------------- --------------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------------- -------------------------- O O O O O O DaS/Ui 'JaARI AIPOPA uoppiqiA punoig 0 N V �4 Dt A d i J T U d O q a` v 0 L 0.0025 10 100 1,000 1/3- Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz Figure 1 -2. Measured Ambient Ground Vibration Velocity Levels at Location #2 I 1 I 0020 I 1 I I I p I I I � I 0015 I I I I I I I 11 I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 0010 i I I I 1 I I I I I I I I i I 1 i i 1 0005 i I I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I I 10 100 1,000 1/3- Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz Figure 1 -2. Measured Ambient Ground Vibration Velocity Levels at Location #2 d C T O O q C O In 10 100 1,000 1/3- Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz Figure 1 -3. Measured Ambient Ground Vibration Velocity Levels at Location #3 I I I I I I I I I I I I r i I 1 I I I 0020 I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I 11 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 0015 I I r r I i I i I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I r 11 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 0010 I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I III I i i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I II I I r I i I I I I I I I I I I Ir 11 1 I 1 I 11 I 11 1 I 1 1 0005 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 11 I 1 I I I I r I I I 1 I II I I I I I I I I 1 I 11 11 II � II I i i II i � II i II nnnn I i 1 r I I I 1 1 4 1 1 r I i i i i r I I I i I I I11 L. 10 100 1,000 1/3- Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz Figure 1 -3. Measured Ambient Ground Vibration Velocity Levels at Location #3 d C N J u O v C O A 9 C O 10 100 1,000 1 /3- Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz Figure 1 -4. Measured Ambient Ground Vibration Velocity Levels at Location #4 ' - 1 I 1 I I t 1 1 I 1 1 -II Ili'1' I' I 1 J- II .0020 1— I�Tr-T -1 —i 1 i I 11 11 I 1 II 1 'I I �I I 1 1 � • Ir I , 1 -I! I, : q L_ j I': .I ' ,,- ]; I I IL'II � i II -1 1 J tl 1 _ IT11 1 .0015 - Tr 1 I II 11 1 �1 ` 1 I � - I I Ili I� I 1 I I, i' 11 4 I 'I I I Cl L- - 1 I '1 I 1 1 1 II 1! 1 it .1 r 1 1 i I �I 'M I ! 11 !I, 11 I 1 1 I' li u I I.! I I. I 1 I- I' .0010 I •I 1! I 1' Ir e I I r I � � I �' I' - I I I I I 1 I I 1, 1'. I 1 I I .0005 - 1 1 1 'j 1. 1- I I 11 _... 1 1, i 1 I 11 I I 1 I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I II1 I I 1 I I J 1 1 I 1 0000 - - I 1 10 100 1,000 1 /3- Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz Figure 1 -4. Measured Ambient Ground Vibration Velocity Levels at Location #4 Photograph 1. View of discharge pipe with African umbrella sedge mixed with other ornamentals. Photograph taken on 12 -10 -2008. Photograph 2. This photograph depicts irrigation lines visible immediately above the area vegetated with African umbrella sedge. Photograph taken on 12 -10 -2008. w _Q U O Q O J Z z w J 61 u M m X W Prdearo te. _ H t°/T1 I P .{�pGcai;KTmG. n i Livestigata(s): , Lendfonn (hlnslope, terrace. Subregion (LRR): —ft Scil Mep Unit Name: _� WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Arid West Region p r L $ t k n fftyyrC unry. pfoyl* Sampling Date: /0 d 8 f it 1( State:, GA Sam�ing Pant:rr —�— y 77 eecgm. Twnshlp. Range: 'r'�- S IhF y� , SGL L at e7ve, cane:, none): r/L Slope (%):1j LaL 3 T a : ,T(y.CJ 0 Q'mg: 1) 7. 52 45 ,6 r ✓Datum w,. 5 $y !.1 NWI classification: Ne/UE Are ellmabc t nydrdogic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes —PS— No_ (If no explain In Remarks.) Are Vegetation _, Son _, or Hydrology_ significantly disturbed? t-v A "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes No Are Vegetation soil or Hydrology_ naturally pry' lemetic7 NO (If needed, explain any answers in Remark s.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach she map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hyoroptrytic Vegetatm Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Aa re Hydric Soil Resent? Yes _ No wNhin a W¢nantl? Yes No Welland Hytlrdogy Resent? Yes_ No %Cover Soecies7 Status Remarks: VEGETATION US Amy Corps of Engineers Arid West — Version 11 -1 -2006 Absolute Domirent Incicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tre Sri .rm (Use sciermtlrrc neon J %Cover Soecies7 Status Number of Dorrsr. ant Species ' 1. t/ M_l ml fw M � _ _�_ i�111r That Are CSL. FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. LiA y Sl f �� JiL —'-�— Tdel Number of Dom. inant f 3. Species Across An Strata: 1 (6) 4. Percent of Dominant Species /t)1 Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: � (AA3) SaDlinc/Snmo stratum 1. Prevalence Index vgrksheet: Total %Cover of MultloN W. 2 3. OBL species x 1 = FACW species x2= FAC species x3= FACU species x 4 = 4. 5. Total Cover. Herb stratum I UPL species x5- 1w 1C 'NJOIUf/Z H.iNS Column Totals: 2 Prevalence Index = 6!A= 3, 4. Hy{irophytic Vegetation Indicators f�a( Daronance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ Morphological A deptatlons '(Provkfe supporting data In Remarks or on e separate sheet) S. S. 7 9. PrdNematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Taal Cover. WoovV+ne Stratum 1. 'Indicators of hydio sal and wetland nArdogy must be present. Z Total Cover. Hydrophytic #' Vegetation % Bare Ground In Herb StrWum % Cover of Note Crust Preserd7 Yes —X, No Remarks: # Wfam -� 6c Sr ffe-i, kd by ►rri adj�tw�T t.OVA s f q a )rt + rw) S v, U w US Amy Corps of Engineers Arid West — Version 11 -1 -2006 SOIL Sampling Point Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth - Matrix Redox Features Fnr ary Indicators ferry one Indicator is sufficlent) (Inchesl C 1 % Color fmdst) % Twer Lx� Texture Remarks -19A AInN -- �+►�;Sari <IMf_JS VO�n soh Water Marks (81) (Riverine) _ Surface Water (Ai) _ Soft crust (811) _ Sediment Deposits (62) (Rlverine). High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (B12) _ Dtl8 Deposits (63) (Rlverlhe) !. _ Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (R13) _ Drainage Patterns (BID) j _ Water Marks (31) (Nonriverine) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (CI) _ Dry - Season Water Table (C2) — Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonrlverine) _ Oxidized Rhtzospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) Dot Deposits (B3) (Nonrlvatme) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ 'Type: C--Concentration, 13= 0edetion. RM=Reduced Matrix. 'LOcatlon: PL =Pee Lining. RC--Root Channel, WMatrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Appllcabla to all LRRS, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis : _ Hislosd (At) _ Santly Redox (S5) _ 1 an Muck (A9) (LRR C) _ Histle Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (LRR B) _ Back Histie (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Ft) _ Reduced Vent: (F18) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Metric (F2) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) J _ Stratified Layers (AS) (LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 1 onn Muck (A9) (LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface Tilt Saturation Present? Yes I _ Depleted Bobo Dark Surface (All) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) includes cadlla triode) _ Thick Dario Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (FS) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (St) _ Vernal Pods (F9) rincllcatcrs ofhydaphytic vegetation and _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer if present): Type: Depth (Inches). - Hydric Soil Resent? Yes_ No Remarks: i HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saramdery Indicators (2 or more reouiredi Fnr ary Indicators ferry one Indicator is sufficlent) _ Water Marks (81) (Riverine) _ Surface Water (Ai) _ Soft crust (811) _ Sediment Deposits (62) (Rlverine). High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (B12) _ Dtl8 Deposits (63) (Rlverlhe) !. _ Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (R13) _ Drainage Patterns (BID) j _ Water Marks (31) (Nonriverine) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (CI) _ Dry - Season Water Table (C2) — Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonrlverine) _ Oxidized Rhtzospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) Dot Deposits (B3) (Nonrlvatme) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayl sh Burrows (C6) _ Surface Soll Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Solis (06) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Shallow Aquitard (03) Water - Stained Leaves (B.9) _ FAC- Neutral Test (05) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes_ No Depth (Inches): Water Tede Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes Depth (Inches): Weiland Hydrology Present? Yas_ Noy_ includes cadlla triode) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), If available: Remarks: US Amy Corp s of En grass Arid West —Version 11 -1 -2006 2. Environmental Setting 2.1 NOISE SETTING Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as "noisiness" or "loudness." 2.1.1 Terminology and Noise Descriptors The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this chapter: • Sound. A vibratory disturbance that, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone. • Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable. • Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale, which indicates the squared ratio of sound pressure amplitude to a reference sound pressure amplitude. The reference pressure is 20 micropascals • A- Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency- weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear. • Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (L•,). The mean of the noise level averaged over the �� measurement period, regarded as an average level. • Day -Night Level (L„ J. The energy average of the A- weighted sound levels occurring during a 24 -hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. • Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A- weighted sound levels occurring during a 24 -hour period with 5 dB added to the levels occurring during the period from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. • Sensitive Receptor. Noise- and vibration- sensitive receptors include land uses where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety. Residences, schools, motels and hotels, libraries, religious institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes are examples. L„ and CNEL values rarely differ by more than 1 dB. As a matter of practice, L,,, and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment. 2.1.2 Characteristics of Sound When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy as acoustical pressure in the form of a sound wave. Sound can be described in terms of amplitude (loudness), frequency (pitch), or duration (time). The human hearing system is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies. Therefore, to approximate this human, frequency- dependent response, the A- weighted filter system is used to adjust measured sound levels. The normal range of human hearing extends from approximately 0 dBA to 140 dBA. Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach • Page 13 70070181.3 2 Environmental Setting Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve. Because of the physical characteristics of noise transmission and noise perception, the relative loudness of sound does not closely match the actual amounts of sound energy. Table 2, Change in Sound Pressure Level, dB, presents the subjective effect of changes in sound pressure levels. Table 2 Change in Sound Pressure Level, dB Change in Apparent Loadness ± 3 d8 Threshold of human perceptibility ± 5 dB Clearly noticeable change in noise level a 10 dB Half or twice as loud ± 20 dB Much quieter or louder Source: Bies and Hansen. Engineering Noise Control, 1988. Sound is generated from a source and dissipates exponentially with distance from that source. This phenomenon is known as "spreading loss." When sound is measured for distinct time intervals, the statistical distribution of the overall sound level during that period can be obtained. The energy - equivalent sound level (L,q) is the most common parameter associated with such measurements. The L,q metric is a single- number noise descriptor that represents the average sound level over a given period of time. For example, the L,, noise level represents the level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time. Half the time the noise exceeds this level and half the time it is less than this level. This level also represents the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L. L,e and L2, values represent the noise levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the L,,n and L.. These values represent the minimum and maximum root - mean - square noise levels obtained over the measurement period. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet -time noise levels in a 24 -hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day -Night Noise Level (LmJ. 21.3 Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire biological system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and nervous system. Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA can result in permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear, called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 160 to 165 dBA will result in dizziness or loss of equilibrium. The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying, less developed areas. Table 3 shows Typical Noise Levels from Noise Sources. Page 14 • The Planning Center March 2009 2 Environmental Setting Table 3 Typical Noise Levels from Noise Sources Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 Rock Band Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet 100 Gas Lawn Mower at three feet 90 Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet Noisy Urban Area, Daytime 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Commercial Area Normal speech at 3 feet Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60 Large Business Office Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime 30 Library Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) 20 BroadcasVRecording Studio 10 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: Caleomia Department of Transportation, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, Table 9- 2136.2, October 1998. C� Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach • Page 15 700707914 2. Environmental S 2.2 VIBRATION SETTING 2.2.1 Vibration Descriptors Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion's amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration is normally associated with activities such as railroads or industrial equipment, but can also be associated with construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers. Vibration displacement is the distance that a point on a surface moves away from its original static position. The instantaneous speed that a point on a surface moves is described as the velocity and the rate of change of the speed is described as the acceleration. Each of these descriptors can be used to correlate vibration to human response, building damage, and acceptable equipment vibration levels. During project construction, the operation of construction equipment can cause groundborne vibration. During the operational phase of a project, receptors may be subject to levels of vibration that can cause annoyance due to noise generated from vibration of a structure or items within a structure. Analysis of this type of vibration is best measured in velocity and acceleration. The three main wave types of concern in the propagation of groundborne vibrations are surface or Rayleigh waves, compression or P- waves, and shear or S- waves. • Surface or Rayleigh waves travel along the ground surface. They carry most of their energy along an expanding cylindrical wave front, similarto the ripples produced by throwing a rock into a lake. The particle motion is more or less perpendicular to the direction of propagation (known as retrograde elliptical). • Compression or P -waves are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal, in a push -pull motion. P -waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. Shear or S -waves are also body waves, carrying their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. Unlike P- waves, however, the particle motion is transverse, or perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The peak particle velocity (PPV) orthe root mean square (RMS) velocity is usually used to describe vibration amplitudes. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal and RMS is defined as the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. PPV is more appropriate for evaluating potential building damage, whereas RMS is typically more suitable for evaluating human response. The units for PPV and RMS velocity are normally inches per second (in /sec). Often, vibration is presented and discussed in d8 units in order to compress the range of numbers required to describe the vibration. In this study, all PPV and RMS velocity levels are in in /sec and all vibration levels are in dB relative to one microinch per second (abbreviated as VdB). Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Even the more persistent Rayleigh waves decrease relatively quickly as they move awayfrom the source of the vibration. Manmade vibration problems are, therefore, usually confined to short distances (500 feet or less) from the source. Construction operations generally include a wide range of activities that can generate groundborne vibration. In general, blasting and demolition of structures generate the highest vibrations. Vibratory compactors or rollers, pile drivers, and pavement breakers can generate perceptible amounts of vibration at distances within 200 feet of the vibration sources. Heavy trucks can also generate groundborne vibrations, which vary Page 16 a The Planning Center March 2009 2 Environmental Setting depending on vehicle type, weight, and pavement conditions. Potholes, pavement joints, discontinuities, differential settlement of pavement, etc., all increase the vibration levels from vehicles passing over a road surface. Trains generate substantial quantities of vibration due to their engines, steel wheels, and heavy loads. 2.3 PHYSICAL SETTING AND EXISTING LAND USES 2.3.1 Noise- and Vibration- Sensitive Receptors The project site is generally north and northwest of the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard in the community of Corona del Mar in Newport Beach. Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration, including residential, school, and open space /recreation areas, where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment, public health, and safety. Off -site sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site include the existing single- and multifamily residential communities surrounding the project site. These sensitive land uses are shown previously in Figure 3, Aerial Photograph. 2.3.2 Existing Noise Environment Noise sources in the study area include traffic on the local streets, aircraft operations at John Wayne Airport, boats in the Newport Bay, and noise generated from residential activities in the area. Ambient average daytime (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) noise levels in the vicinity of the project site range from 50.5 to 59.9 dBA L.aq; ambient average daytime noise levels in the residential area directly across the channel from the project site range from 48.5 to 59.3 dBA L., Maximum noise levels range from 63.1 to 80.9 dBA L.. in the ''��, immediate vicinity of the subject property and from 63.6 to 85.9 dBA L,,,. directly across the Newport Bay. V The average and maximum ambient noise levels in the project environs are summarized in Table 4. Table 4 Ambient Noise Levels' Location Description Range of Average Daytime Noise Levels (dBA Lp) (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) Range of Maximum Daytime Noise Levels (dBA Le,) (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) Rear Patio, 101 Bayside Place 50.5 -57.4 dBA 63.1 --80.9 dB (A) Pool Area, 2495 Ocean Boulevard 52.9 -59.9 dBA 68.3 -79.0 dB (A) Rear Patio, 2282 Channel Road 48.5 -55.0 dB (A) 63.6 -77.0 dB (A) Rear Patio, 2222 Channel Road 50.7 -59.3 dBA 63.4 -85.9 dB (A) Source: Wieland Acoustics 2008. ' Noise monitoring conducted for a 24 -hour period at each site between April 23 and 30 with properly - calibrated Larson Davis 712 sound level meters. Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach • Page 17 700707913 2 Environmental Setting This page intentionally left blank. Page 18 • The Planning Center March 2009 1. Introduction Regional Location Lakewood 'C I Anaheim Newport Beach SITE Pacific Ocean N Lake ` Forest Mission Laguna ® Viejo Woods Laguna Beach Laguna Niguel Sa Juan Corona u San _. imenta. 0 3.5 Scale (Miles) Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 1 �� Cypress Anaheim li i�t - ® Villa . Sta��,ton Park -_ i' � © :. Garden Grove .. Bea ® Orange �, _ Seal Beach _ _ est roster M. Santa Ana . untam Tustin .. \ ey \ Huntington Costs Mesa' Q f Irvine Newport Beach SITE Pacific Ocean N Lake ` Forest Mission Laguna ® Viejo Woods Laguna Beach Laguna Niguel Sa Juan Corona u San _. imenta. 0 3.5 Scale (Miles) Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 1 �� 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 4 ® The Planning Center March 2009 L F Pacific 1. Introduction Local Vicinity 0 730 Scale (Feet) Aerie Residential Development Construction Noire and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 2 �� 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 6 ® The Planning Center March. 2009 1. Introduction Aerial Photograph Site Boundary o 100 M Source: Google Earth Pro 2008 Scale (Miles) Aerie Residential Development Constriction Noise and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 3 co 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 8 a The Planning Center March 2009 0 0 1M i `u a •N � ryO N U fi 6 LL. v 0 m � J \ •-� A � \ ry � 5 � -- s Q it ,1 Y iiI IM ' • iii `6S� x {� .. �1 i1e. f-1 CO .� � pj\ >• \ \i� :'•� � . Vim° � o I � v � d y C 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 10 • The Planning Center March 2009 1. Introduction Site Profile se PL se 215 ! I I CARNATION AVE. Source: Brion Jeannette Architecture 2008 Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise and vibration Study NOT TO BONZE r 881 The Planning Center • Figure 5 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 12 o The Planning Center March 2009 6 References Bies, David A. and Colin H. Hansen. 2003. Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice. 3rd ad. New York: Spon Press. Brion Jeannette Architecture, Aerie Construction Management Plan. 2008. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Environmental Analysis. 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibration: Caltrans Experiences. Technical Advisory, Vibration. TAV- 02- 01- R9601. Prepared by Rudy Hendricks. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1998. Technical Noise Supplement. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model, version 1.1. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide. U.S. Department of Transportation. Report No. FHWA- HEP -05 -054. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. United States Department of Transportation. FTA- VA -90- 1003 -06. Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 2003, October. State of California General Plan Guidelines. USEPA. 1973, July. Public Health and Welfare Criteria for Noise. ►( USEPA. 1974, March. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health (� and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Office of Noise Abatement and Control. vVVV Wieland Acoustics, Incorporated. Environmental Noise Study for the Construction of the Proposed Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project in the City of Newport Beach. February 27, 2009. Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach • Page 65 6 References This page intentionally left blank. Page 66 • The Planning Center March 2009 Appendices Appendix A. Noise and Vibration Data �� Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration Study City of Newport Beach 70070791.3 Appendices This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center March 2009 C: \LAROAV \SLMUTIL \30JA0 09.bia interval Baca Hear Site Location Marber Data TLre Buretioa LeM SEL _ ',,In Peak Uvpk LI 21 L1 81 L116) L1251 1, (50) L(90) 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 09:29:00 60.0 $6.0 73.8 74.0 48.6 98.6 99.4 61.7 57.5 56.6 55.9 54.3 49.9 1 Meter l Heat Back 0 20Jan 09 09:30:00 60.0 52.5 70.3 61.6 46.3 76.2 87.4 56.6 55.3 54.3 53.3 51.5 49.3 I Meta. I Wost Back 0 2aJan 09 09:31:00 60.0 54.1 71.9 64.3 46.8 63.E 90.9 60.0 57.1 55.7 54.2 52.8 50.7 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 09:32:00 60.0 51.2 69.0 64.3 46.2 79.0 64.9 56.9 54.1 52.2 51.1 49.7 47.9 1 Peter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 09:33:00 60.0 52.1 69.9 61.E 41.7 79.6 87.4 57.0 54.7 $3.5 52.6 51.1 49.1 1 Meter I West Beck 0 20Jan 09 09:34:00 60.0 52.4 70.2 60.5 4E.0 75.B 90.1 57.7 54.0 53.6 52.8 51.4 49.5 1 Hater l West Back 0 20Jan 09 09:35:00 60.0 51.8 69.5 57.7 46.1 71.6 94.4 55.7 54.4 53.6 52.9 51.2 48.0 1 Meter I Weak Back 0 as 09 09:36:00 60.0 59.5 77.3 68.2 46.5 79.0 S7.4 66.2 64.S 63.0 61.4 54.7 49.0 1 Meter ! 4]mC Back 6 2DJan 09 09:37:00 60.0 56.8 74.5 63.1 48.3 78.3 91.6 64.8 61.2 59.3 51.4 52.4 .9.4 1 Hater 1 West Back. 0 20Jan 09 09:38:00 60.0 52.7 70.5 59.3 4E.5 70.6 37.4 55.8 54.9 54.2 53.7 52.4 49.5 1 Meter 1 West Back. 0 20Jan 09 09:39:00 60.0 58.4 76.2 66.9 43.9 -4.3 37.4 65.2 63.5 61.8 59.8 54.2 50.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 09:40:00 60.0 63.6 01.6 BO.S 51.4 99.7 100.5 71.4 66.0 64.9 63.4 59.1 53.6 1 Hater I West Back 0 2DJan 09 09:41 :00 60.0 66.3 94.1 84.2 4B.6 100.8 U1.3 75.4 71.0 67_4 64.1 57.1 50.4 1 Hater 1 Hest Back 0 2DJan 09 09:42:00 60.0 54.8 72.6 67.2 48.5 19.2 90.9 64.7 57.2 54.5 53.1 51.4 49.4 1 Meter 1 West Back. 0 20Jan 09 09:43:00 60.0 55.3 73.1 63.4 40.2 15.5 94.4 60.3 5B.1 56.8 55.9 54.4 51.6 4 Hater I amt Back 0 203an 09 09:44:00 60.0 57.9 75.7 67.D 47.6 BOA 92.2 65.1 63.1 60.8 58.1 54.7 48.6 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 20Ja0 09 09:45:00 60.0 56.6 74.4 67.3 48.4 78.9 B9.3 64.6 60.4 58.0 56.6 54.3 50.6 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 D9:46:00 60.0 53.9 71.6 62.1 48.2 77.0 89.3 57.9 56.4 5S.6 55.0 53.3 50.2 I Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 09:47:00 60.0 54.4 72.2 62.6 46.2 75.0 W.4 59.5 57.5 56.3 55.4 53.7 49.7 1 Peter 1 West Back 0 2OJan 09 09:48:00 60.0 54.8 72.6 76.2 .5.9 99.2 100.5 59.9 55.4 53.9 53.0 51.5 49.0 1 Havoc I West Back 0 20Jan 09 09:49:00 60.0 54.5 72.3 64.9 48.4 17.0 69.3 62.1 57.3 55.1 54.2 53.1 50.7 1 Peter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 09:50:00 60.0 54.0 72.6 64.4 44.1 77.1 87.4 62.4 58.9 56.6 55.0 52.8 48.2 1 Hater t West Back 0 20Jan 09 09:51:00 60.0 54.6 72.6 64.6 44.9 76.7 90.9 62.5 59.4 57.7 56.7 49.3 46.6 1 Hart. l West Back 0 2OJan 09 09:52:00 60.0 $1.9 69.7 64.8 45.9 77.6 93.4 60.4 $4.3 52.6 $1.5 49.6 47.7 1 Pacer 1 Went Back 0 20Jan 09 09:53:00 60.0 57.9 75.6 68.0 49.3 91.5 93.4 63.8 62.3 60.8 59.3 55.4 53.8 I Peter 1 West Back 0. 2DJan 09 09:54:00 60.0 56.0 73.8 65.4 46.1 76.1 92.2 63.6 60.9 57.7 56.3 52.8 48.5 1 Hater I West Back. 0 20Jan 09 09:55:00 60.0 $6.1 13.8 64.5 45.0 76.9 90.9 63.3 61.5 59.1 56.8 52.2 46.6 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 09:56:00 60.0 49.8 67.6 64.1 44.3 84.6 90.0 56.4 53.1 51.0 50.2 47.6 45.6 1 Here. 1 West Back 0 20Ja. 09 09:57:00 60.0 56.6 74.4 72.6 45.8 03.6 95.3 63.6 61.4 59.5 57.6 51.7 47.0 1 Water 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 09:58:00 60.0 59.2 76.9 75.6 40.0 97.9 100.0 65.3 62.3 61.2 59.9 57.0 53.1 1 Hater I West Back 0 ?OJan 09 09:59:00 60.0 58.7 76.5 68.8 47.3 96.9 93.4 66.3 65.2 63.2 51.9 51.7 49.0 1 Meter 1 meat Back 0 20Jan 09 10:00:00 60.0 49.6 67.3 60.3 45.1 74.1 90.9 54.1 51.4 50.4 49.8 48.0 47.1 1 Haler I West Back 0 2DJan 09 10:01:00 60.0 51.3 69.1 68.9 44.1 84.3 95.3 56.2 53.9 52.5 51.6 49.1 46.1 1 Herat 1 Hear Back 0 20Jan 09 10:02:00 60.0 53.8 71.6 66.0 47.1 07.4 90.9 61.6 50.3 $5.2 53.0 50.4 48.8 I Hater 1 West Bock 0 20Jan 09 10:03:00 60.0 53.4 71.2 71.1 48.2 97.4 98.2 57.7 55.4 54.3 53.5 51.9 49.8 1 Het.. I West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:04:00 60.0 57.6 75.4 67.4 50.5 82.4 92.2 63.6 GO.5 59.4 58.5 56.5 52.0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 10:05:00 60.0 57.2 75.0 66.5 4B.1 91.0 90.9 63.7 60.7 59.1 58.1 56.4 50.1 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:06:00 60.0 50.4 68.2 55.8 47.3 74.1 87.4 54.1 52.8 S1.3 51.2 49.7 48.2 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 203an 09 10:07:00 60.0 53.6 71.3 59.6 48.3 64.5 93.4 57.6 56.0 55.0 54.3 53.0 50.9 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:08:00 60.0 53.3 71.1 59.7 40.4 80.9 84.9 57.7 56.1 54.7 53.8 52.5 50.6 1 Meter I Wear Back 0 203an 09 10:09:00 60.0 53.4 71.1 62.0 49.0 75.3 93.4 57.1 55.7 54.8 54.1 52.8 50.7 1 Mato. I Haar Back. 0 ZOJan 09 10110:00 60.0 54.3 72.1 59.9 46.6 71.9 94.4 59.0 57.8 57.0 56.2 53.0 48.6 1 Meter 1 Pleat Back. 0 20Jan 09 10:11:00 60.0 50.1 67.8 60.6 45..1 75.1 84.9 54.8 52.4 51.3 50.6 49.3 47.1 1 Meter I Wast Back. 0 ZOJan 09 10:12:00 60.0 53.0 70.0 70.8 46.0 90.6 93.4 59.2 54.3 52.8 52.0 50.8 48.4 1 Maces L Near Beek 0 2DJan 09 10:13:00 60.0 51.9 69.7 64.6 46.3 87.1 91.6 58.0 54.3 53.0 52.0 $0.5 48.5 1 Hater 1 .eat Back a 203an 09 10:14:00 60.0 51.3 69.1 58.5 46.0 75.9 90.9 56.2 53.7 52.8 52.3 50.9 47.8 1 Hater 1 WesC Bark 0 20Jan 09 10:15:00 60.0 54.1 71.8 66.0 45.8 77.5 89.3 63.6 59.7 52.7 51.3 49.5 47.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:16:00 60.0 52.3 70.0 61.8 46.5 77.3 90.9 57.2 54.8 53.3 52.7 51.7 48.6 1 Meter 1 Ileac Back 0 2DJan 09 10:17:00 60.0 51.3 69.1 65.1 46.5 77.1 84.9 56.8 53.1 52.1 51.3 50.0 46.3 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:16:00 60.0 53.2 71.0 61.5 48.3 75.1 89.3 59.5 55.5 54.0 53.4 52.3 50.2 1 Meter I Hear Back. 0 20Jan 09 10:19:00 60.0 52.6 70.4 58.3 45.8 79.1 90.9 56.1 55.2 54.4 53.6 52.1 49.5 1 Meter 1 cleat Back. 0 20". 09 10:20:00 60.0 49.6 67.3 55.9 43.5 71.5 0.0 53.9 52.5 51.4 50.6 46.8 45.3 1 Heart i West Back 0 2DJan 09 10:21:00 60.0 49.9 67.7 57.6 44.3 77.4 87.4 55.7 52.9 51.6 50.6 48.8 46.0 1 Hecer I Hesc Back 0 20Jan D9 10:22:00 60.0 51.3 69.1 62.9 44.4 75.E 92.2 55.9 53.5 52.7 52.1 50.7 47.2 1 Meter 1 Hest Back 0 20Jan 09 10:23:OD 60.0 50.2 61.9 62.4 43.0 73.1 90.9 56.9 53.7 51.8 50.3 47.8 45.0 1 Meter I Haar Back 0 2DJan 09 10:24:00 60.0 50.0 67.3 63.4 43.2 77.3 87.4 56.0 51.9 49.6 48.7 47.3 45.1 1 Het.. 1 Wt Back 0 20Jan 09 10:25:00 60.0 52.1 69.9 $9.3 44.0 74.1 89.3 55.9 54.8 53.9 53.2 51.8 47.5 1 Hater 1 Pleat Back 0 20Jan 09 10:26:00 60.0 51.9 64.7 61,0 45.9 79.0 90.9 57.4 54.7 53.5 52.6 51.0 40.4 1 Meter l West Back 0 29jan 09 10:27:00 60.0 52.1 69.8 62.8 46.3 76.5 64.9 55.9 54.9 54.0 52.9 50.9 46.5 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 10:20:00 60.0 53.5 71.3 59.0 46.5 76.E 92.2 599.2 56.6 55.4 54.6 52.9 49.1 1 Meter 1 West Back. 0 2DJan 09 10:29:00 60.0 $4.2 72.0 60.4 46.2 78.9 94.9 59.6 50.5 57.5 56.1 51.9 47.8 1 Maker 1 Hest Back 0 20Jar. 09 10:30:00 60.0 53.3 71.1 64.7 8.2 66.8 90.9 53.1 55.7 54.e 54.1 52.5 49.9 1 Hater I meat Back 0 20Jan D9 10:31:00 60.0 51.7 65.5 60.1 47.4 33.6 92.2 56.2 54.0 53.1 52.5 51.0 46.0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 209an 09 10:32:00 60.0 52.7 70.5 65.3 46.4 92.1 92.2 62.3 54.5 51.9 51.3 50.1 48.1 1 Meter 1 Hear Back 0 2DJan 09 10:33:00 60.0 53.3 71.1 60.2 47.5 55.0 87.4 57.4 55.6 54.8 54.1 52.7 50.3 1 mater 1 Naar Back. 0 20Jan 09 10:34:00 60.0 50.9 68.7 57.3 47.2 69.4 92.2 55.0 53.6 51.9 51.3 50.4 4B.7 I Hater 1 treat Back 0 20Jan 00 10:35:00 60.0 52.7 70.5 73.2 47.3 95.0 99.4 55.9 53.4 52.4 51.6 50.4 48.6 1 Hater I West Back 0 203ar. 09 10:36:00 60.0 55.7 71.5 67.0 47.0 86.6 67.4 64.3 61.0 58.1 54.1 51.3 48.6 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 2DJan. 09 10:37:00 60.0 59.6 77.4 68.3 47.3 82.4 39.3 67.8 66.5 62.9 58.0 52.3 46.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 10:36:00 60.0 51.8 69.6 59.3 47.3 84.6 92.2 55.0 53.9 53.4 52.8 51.4 46.9 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:39:00 60.0 50.0 67.8 57.9 _ 90.9 53.0 52.2 51.3 50.6 49.4 47.7 1 Marc. l Weak Back 0 2DJan 09 10:40:00 60.0 53.4 71.1 62.4 44.7 79.3 34.9 61.0 59.3 54.9 5Z.7 49.6 46.6 1 Hecer I West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:41:00 60.0 54.8 12.6 61.3 47.9 81.9 90.9 59.7 57.6 56.7 55.9 54.1 50.7 1 Hater I Host Back a 20Jan 09 10:42:00 60.0 55.5 73.3 63.2 46.3 90.8 92.2 61.4 59.8 59.4 56.8 53.1 46.7 1 meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 10:43:00 60.0 45.5 67.2 62.0 45.6 E9.1 90.9 54.4 52.0 50.7 49.9 48.3 46.4 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:44:00 60.0 49.6 67.4 62.9 44.5 =4.4 59.3 56.4 52.8 49.9 48.6 47.7 46.0 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:45:00 60.0 51.8 69.E 60.5 45.5 76.5 92.2 59.D 55.8 53.0 51.6 49.8 47.1 1 Hecer I West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:46:00 60.0 55.6 73.3 60.8 47.7 80.6 09.3 59.2 58.3 57.6 56.9 55.5 49.9 1 Meter I Host Back. 0 20Jan D9 10:47:00 60.0 52.7 70.5 59.8 47.7 78.E 92.2 57.9 55.4 54.2 53.5 51.9 49.1 1 Hecer I West Back. 0 2DJan 09 10:48:00 60.0 56.2 74.0 61.4 47.9 02.1 90.9 59.9 56.9 59.0 57.4 55.8 52.3 1 Meter 1 Hest Back 0 20Jan 09 10:49:00 60.0 55.1 72.9 62.9 47.2 32.0 37.4 60.8 58.8 57.7 56.7 52.9 49.9 1 xeast 1 Weak Back a 20Jan 09 10:50:00 60.0 52.3 70.0 64.4 46.2 81.9 92.2 61.2 54.1 51.9 51.1 49.9 48.1 1 Meter i West Back 0 20Jan 89 10:51:00 60.0 50.8 68.5 59.8 44.B 78.4 96.9 54.0 53.2 52.4 51.7 49.9 47.5 1 Meter i West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:52:00 60.0 47.0 64.8 55.0 43.3 74.6 95.3 52.1 48.9 47.7 47.1 46.4 44.7 1 Meter I West Back 0 2DJan 09 10:53:00 60.0 50.8 68.5 62.0 45.0 82.E 09.3 56.8 53.9 52.2 51.4 49.1 46.6 2 Mecor 1 West Back. 0 20Jan 09 10:54:00 60.0 $4.0 71.8 74.0 44.9 57.0 96.9 58.7 55.4 53.7 52.E 51.3 47.9 1 Meter 1 meat Back. 0 20Jan 09 10:55:00 60.0 51.0 C3.8 58.4 45.4 73.9 921 54.8 53.5 52.8 52.1 50.2 47.8 1 Meter 1 Weak Back 0 20Jan 05 10:56:00 60.0 51.6 69.4 62.5 45.3 73.7 93.4 56.7 54.0 53.2 52.2 50.4 48.3 1 Meter 1 W..r Back 0 20Jan 09 10:57:00 60.0 52.0 69.7 59.7 45.7 76.9 84.9 56.5 55.4 54.5 53.6 50.2 47.7 1 Water 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 10:58:00 60.0 52.4 70.2 59.0 45.2 76.5 07.4 57.9 55.6 55.2 53.8 49.9 47.1 I Meta- 2 West Be.?. 0 20Jan 09 10:59:00 60.0 49.0 66.8 63.5 43.3 78.9 87.4 55.7 52.2 50.1 48.6 46.6 44,2 1 Meter 1 Bleat Back. 0 29Jan 09 11:00:00 60.0 50.3 69.1 63.7 43.2 82.9 92.2 55.B 53.3 52.5 51_6 48.3 45.0 3 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 11:01:00 60.0 53.2 71.0 67.4 45.7 64.2 94.4 60,0 56.4 54.4 53.0 51,3 49.0 1 Meter 1 West Beck: 0 29Jan 09 11:02:00 60.0 50.1 67.9 56.9 45.4 71.0 84.9 54.6 52.7 51.6 50.8 49.5 47.! 1 Meter 1 ties, Back 0 20Jan 09 11:03:00 60.0 49.1 66.8 60.3 44.2 79.4 92.2 55.8 51.4 50.2 49.2 47.7 45.6 ! Mete: 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 11:04:00 60.0 50.0 67.8 61.9 44.9 73.5 84.9 53.6 52.0 51.4 50.7 49.0 46.1 ! Water 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 !1:05:00 60.0 SIB 69.6 S-A 45.6 74.0 87.4 56.3 54.2 53.5 52.9 51.0 48.3 t Peter 2 West Back 0 ?OJa. 09 11:06:00 60.0 51.6 69.4 60.1 47.2 71.7 87.4 57.0 53.6 52.7 52.1 50.8 44.1 1 Pew- 1 West Back 0 2OJan 09 11:07:00 60.0 53.0 70.7 62.3 45.2 79.3 99.3 60.1 58.0 54.9 53.0 50.0 47.5 1 Here- ! West Back 0 20Jan 09 11: OB:00 60.0 51.0 68,8 60.2 45.6 79.1 4 58.1 53.6 52.0 51.3 49.7 47,2 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 06 11:09:00 60.0 41.5 65.3 53.7 44.1 67.3 '64.9 50.6 49.4 48.6 46.0 47.1 45.6 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 11:10:00 60.0 64.2 82.0 83.1 45.2 99.2 101.4 75.4 63.6 59.2 57.2 52.4 46.6 1 Peter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:31:00 60.0 49.1 66.9 57.7 44.1 77.2 90.9 54.7 52.2 50.8 49.7 47.9 45.3 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 11:12:00 60.0 49.7 67.5 60.9 44.2 SO.- 87.4 56.0 53.1 51.7 50.2 47.9 45.4 1 Meter ! West Back 0 20Jan 09 11:33:00 60.0 51.5 69.3 61.3 44.7 78.9 87.4 57.0 55.3 53.3 51.6 49.7 47.5 1 Water 3 West Back 0 20Jan 09 11:14:00 60.0 51.4 69.2 62.7 419 79.7 89.3 57.8 55.3 54.2 53.0 48.0 45.6 1 Mete- 1 West Back 0 2CJan 09 11:15:00 60.0 50.5 66.3 61.8 43.1 75.3 90.9 $5.9 54.5 53.4 51.4 48.1 45.3 1 Meter ! West Back 0 29Jan 09 11:16:00 60.0 53.0 70.8 66.3 44.2 84.3 07.4 59.9 56.0 $4.7 53.4 49.8 45.7 1 Meter 3 West Back 0 20Jan 09 11:37:00 60.0 52.2 70.0 61.9 45.8 62.0 94.4 58.3 55.4 53,2 52.5 50.9 46.7 1 Meter ! meet Back 0 19Jan 09 11:10:00 60.0 49.8 67.6 55.9 . 5 755.0 0.0 54.5 52.6 51.5 50.7 49.3 6.6 1 Meter 1 West Back, 0 2OJan 09 11:39:00 60.0 53.0 70.8 60.4 45.3 73.2 87.4 57.7 55.7 54.6 54.0 52.3 49.2 1 Meat 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 11:20:00 60.0 53.5 71.3 64.3 45.6 84.5 95.3 60.9 56.6 54.5 53.3 51.8 49.2 1 Meter 1 meat Back. 0 20Jan 09 11:21:00 60.0 53.1 70.8 57.3 47.8 74.5 87.4 56.3 55.3 54.5 53.9 52.9 49.9 1 Peter I Wesc Back 0 20Jan 09 11:22:00 60.0 53.5 71.3 74.66 45.4 96.5 100.5 55.6 53.4 52.4 51.8 50.7 48.8 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 00 11:23:00 60.0 52.2 70.0 61.9 47.8 78.4 94.4 57.2 55.1 53.6 52.6 51.1 46.8 1 m.rer I West Back 0 20Jan 09 !1:24:00 60.0 51.0 66.8 59.1 46.4 77.2 92.2 55.6 53.1 $2.2 51.5 50.4 46.6 1 Meter L Wear Back 0 2Oia. 06 11:25:00 60.0 53.1 70.8 74.4 45.3 91.4 94.4 55.7 52.9 51.8 50.9 49.2 46.6 1 Meter 1 mast Back 0 2OJan 09 11:26:00 60.0 54.1 71.9 73.9 43.9 90.9 90.9 58.6 55.6 54.7 53.9 50.6 46.3 I Meter 1 West Back. 0 20Jan 09 11:27:00 60.0 54.2 72.0 65.6 44.8 84.2 92.2 60.9 56.7 55.3 54.4 52.8 49.4 1 Meter 1 We at Back, 0 20Jan 0B 11:28:00 60.0 52.4 70.2 63.8 46.2 77.7 B4.9 58.7 $5.7 53.9 52.7 50,7 48.6 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 12:29:00 60.0 55.1 72.9 69.6 45.4 08.2 90.9 64.5 58.6 55.8 53.0 51.4 47.4 1 Meter 1 We a. Back 0 29Jan 06 11:30:00 60.0 53.3 71.1 69.3 45.6 85.7 90.9 62.3 55.3 52.9 51.4 49.4 46.9 1 Meter 1 West Bacl: 0 20Jan 06 11:31:00 60.0 50.9 60.7 64.0 44.3 80.0 99.3 59.1 52.6 51_2 50.5 48.8 45.8 I Mater 1 West Back 0 ?OJan 09 11:32:00 60.0 53.1 70.9 68.4 45.3 93.3 96.2 62.0 55.5 52.8 51.7 49.9 46.9 1 Meter 1 nest Back 0 20Jan 09 11:13:00 60.0 56.6 74.4 75.3 42.9 90.7 94.4 65.9 58.9 55.3 52.8 48.9 45.2 1 Mater l West Back. 0 20Jan 09 11:34:00 60.0 49.8 67.6 56.1 43.7 68.4 07.4 53.9 53.0 52.5 51.8 46.1 45.0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 11:35:00 60.0 50.5 68.3 66.5 42.6 81.0 94.4 58.4 53.2 50.8 49,4 47.5 44.7 1 Meter 1 What Back 0 20Jan 09 11:36:00 60.0 48.7 66.5 59.6 42.5 77.3 87.4 55.4 51.4 49.6 48.8 47.5 44.5 1 Meter 1 Ileac Back 0 ?OJan 09 11:37:00 60.0 54,4 72.2 60.8 47.6 71.0 09.3 59.7 57.6 56.6 56.0 $3,1 49.5 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 11:38:00 60.0 50.0 67.0 62.6 45.5 79.5 87.4 57.0 52.6 50.5 49.5 46.0 46.5 1 Mater 1 West Be.;: 0 29Jan 09 11:39:00 60.0 40,6 67.3 61.1 45.6 77.4 84.9 55.5 52.9 51.0 49.3 44.7 46.2 1 Meter 1 West Be.;: 0 20Jan 09 11:40:00 60.0 $0.9 6B.7 58.3 46.3 77.3 92.8 54.9 53.7 52.9 52.1 49.9 47.8 1 Herat 1 West Baal: 0 20Jan 09 11:•41:00 60.0 52.1 69.8 57.6 48.6 75.7 87.4 55.0 54.5 53.7 53.0 51.3 49.5 1 "11.c 1 Nest Back 0 203an 09 11:42:00 60.0 51..9 69.7 59.6 48.8 75.7 90.9 55.6 53.5 52.0 52.4 51.5 50.1 1 Meter 1 Wes, Oacl; 0 203an 09 11:43:00 60.0 50.5 69.3 59.6 46.7 74.8 89.3 56.3 52.9 51.6 50.9 49,5 47,6 1 Mater 1 W..t Back 0 29Jan 09 11:44:00 60,0 422 66.9 56.9 42.8 70.2 90.9 52.9 51.7 51.0 50.1 49.3 46.2 1 Meter 1 I4asc Back 0 20Jan 09 11:45:00 60.0 46.8 64.6 58.9 42.7 74.9 84.9 52.5 48.n 47,4 46.7 45.6 44.1 1 Mater 1 Vest Bnck, 0 20Jan 09 11:•46:00 60.0 54.3 72.0 63.9 42.5 80.0 0.0 62.2 59.1 57.0 55.6 •19.0 43.9 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 11:47:00 60.0 57.0 74.7 60.2 44.5 82.4 92.2 64.9 61.3 59.0 56.7 53.6 48.3 1 Marc. 1 Was. Back.. 0 29Jan 09 11:46:00 60.0 56.1 75.9 69.5 48.6 93.2 93.4 64.0 61.5 60.0 58.8 56.9 52.0 1 Meter I elect Back 0 29Jan 09 11:49:00 60A 57.2 74.9 64.1 45.0 79.2 87.4 62.5 61.1 59.B Be.2 55.8'. 50.3 1 Mater I Wear Back. 0 203an 09 11:50:00 60.0 56.5 74.3 63.6 44.9 79.2 89.3 61.7 60.1 59.0 57.8 54.9 51.6 1 Mete. I Mesc Back 0 20Jan 09 11:51:00 60.0 60.6 78.3 75.1 46.4 96.8 9B.B 71.6 62.7 60.1 57.9 54.9 4B,9 1 Meter 3 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:52:00 60.0 48.6 66.4 57.4 44.7 74.4 94.4 52.8 51.6 50.7 49.5 47.4 45.5 1 Meter 1 Nest Back 0 ?OJan 09 11:53:00 60.0 51.0 69.8 62.3 43.8 85.0 90.9 59.0 54.0 51. 0 50.9 49.0 45.4 1 Meter I klast Back. a 29Jan 09 11:54:00 60.0 53.5 71.2 67.3 45.2 86.9 91.6 63.3 57.9 55,0 53,0 49.7 47.1 1 Meter 1 Wesc Back 0 20Jan 09 Ii: 55:00 60.0 52.9 70.7 67.6 43,2 86.5 87.4 61.0 56.9 54,4 52.5 48.8 44.4 1 Meter 1 West Beck 0 20Jan 09 11:56:00 60.0 53.7 71.5 60.2 42.9 87.9 90.9 64.2 56.0 53.6 51.5 48.2 44.5 1 Meter 1 West Back. 0 29Jan 06 11:57:00 60.0 52.9 70.6 70.4 44.2 91.2 944 59.0 55.8 54.2 52.8 49.2 45.8 1 Meter I West Back. 0 20Jan 09 11:58:00 60.0 54.7 72,5 70.4 42.8 8E.9 93.4 64.5 58.9 55.6 53.2 47.8 44.6 I Meter I Itlest Back. 0 20Jae 09 13:59:00 60.0 48.2 66.1 60.1 4 3. 9 77.0 90.9 54.6 50.9 49.5 40.3 46.6 45.1 1 Meter 1 Meat Back. 0 29Jan 09 12:00:00 60.0 51.0 69.9 63.9 43.4 80.8 92.2 57.7 55.5 53.7 51.8 47.7 44.4 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 !2:01:00 60.0 53.9 71.7 62.8 45.8 82.4 90.9 60.4 56.0 56.3 54.7 52.3 47.4 1 Peter 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 12:02:00 60.0 51.7 69.5 58.3 42.7 78.7 87.4 57,9 56.9 55.9 52.9 47.6 44.4 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:03:00 60.0 50.2 68.0 62.1 43.7 78.3 90.9 57.9 54.4 51.8 50.0 47.5 45.0 1 Peter L West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:04:00 60.0 51.7 69.5 62.9 43.8 81.5 07.4 59.3 56.2 53.6 51.9 40.2 44.7 L Meter 3 meat Back 0 2OJaa 09 12:05:00 60.0 51.6 69.4 68.1 44.8 854 91.6 59.5 53.9 51.7 50.4 48.8 46.3 1 Peter 1 Near Back 0 20Jae. 09 12:06:00 60.0 49.2 67.0 55.0 44.0 70.9 67.4 54.4 52.4 50.9 50.0 47.8 45.6 1 Meter 3 Vest Back 0 20Jan 09 12:07:00 60.0 51.1 66.9 60.2 46.1 75.2 87,4 55.5 53.0 52.5 52.0 50.9 47.5 1 Meter ! West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:08:00 60.0 51.B 69.6 62.7 -' 81.7 93.4 55.5 53.8 53.1 52.3 51.3 49.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:09:00 60.0 52.7 70.5 618 45.6 83.4 874 61.0 56.4 53.0 51.6 49.7 47.2 1 Mater I West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:10:00 60.0 56.1 73.0 73.1 44.E 85.9 97.4 64.2 57.3 54.9 52.9 50.3 47.3 1 Water I W.aC Back.. 0 20Jan 09 2 11:00 60.0 52.3 70.1 63.6 46.1 91.5 87.4 57.7 55.B 53.5 52.6 51.1 49.0 1 Meter 3 West Back 29Jan 09 !:12:00 60,0 53.9 71.6 61.2 47.4 75.4 00.9 56.5 50.0 56.6 54.B 51.7 49.2 1 Metal 3 West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:13:00 60.0 51,2 69.0 62.9 46.2 80.4 87.4 56.7 53.9 52.2 51.1 49.3 47.4 1 xe.et 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 12:14:00 60.0 54.6 72.4 72.9 46.3 86.7 89.3 61.5 56.2 54.4 53.2 50.6 47.7 1 Meter I Mast Back 6 29Jan 09 12:15:00 60,0 53.4 71.2 65.3 47.1 92.2 92.2 61.2 56.0 55.1 53.5 50.9 48.4 1 Meter I Blest Back. 0 ZOJan 06 12:16:00 60.0 53.5 71.3 67.9 46.7 E3.9 89.3 63.1 57.5 53.8 51.1 48.7 47,1 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan Ge 12:17:00 60.0 50.3 68.0 fill 43.6 81.4 89.3 58.0 53.6 50.8 49.5 48.3 45.9 I Meter 2 Meat Back 0 20Jan 09 12:18:00 60.0 54.5 72.3 69.9 43.1 91.0 90.6 63.6 59.7 56.2 52.7 48.6 45.4 1 Meter 1 Weer Back. 0 20Jan 09 12:19:00 60.0 SZ.0 69.7 64.8 42.1 82.0 B7.4 60.1 56.0 52.0 51.6 48,9 46.1 1 Meter 1 West Back, 0 20Jan 09 12:20:00 60.0 52.2 70.0 59.1 48.3 75.7 95.8 55.4 53.B 53.2 52.8 51.8 50.3 3 Hecer I Ileac Back. 0 20Jan 09 12:21:00 60.0 49.2 67.0 59.8 44.1 76.9 97,4 55.6 51.4 50,2 49.4 48.0 46.1 1 Meter 1 meat Back 0 20Jan 09 12:22:00 60.0 48.8 66.6 56.1 4 5. 4 74.0 84.0 52.3 50.3 49.7 49.3 48.5 47.1 2 Peter I west Back 0 29Jan 09 12:23:00 60.0 49.7 67.5 57.3 44.7 73.8 84.9 54.0 52.2 51.4 50.9 48.7 46.3 1 Meter 1 Was. Back 0 20Jan 09 12:24:00 60.0 48.9 66.7 57.3 45.8 72.3 93.4 53.9 50.9 50.0 49.3 48.0 46.6 1 Meter 1 Wear Be.). 0 20Jan 09 12:25:00 60.0 51,1 68.8 63.9 46.0 82.9 84.9 54.9 53.1 52.3 51.6 50.1 47.6 1 Mecac 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:26:00 60.0 40.1 65.9 58.9 42.9 74.7 89.3 53.9 50.5 49.7 49.2 47.3 44.4 1 Mater I West Back., 0 2082. 09 12:27:00 60.0 50.6 69.4 64.9 44.8 93.0 90.9 57.3 52.6 51.2 50.4 49.0 47.0 1 Merec 1 West Back 0 20Jan 00 12:28:00 60.0 52.8 70.6 60.7 47.0 76.8 96.2 57.2 55.4 54.6 53.9 51.8 49.1 1 Meter l West Back 0 20jan 09 12:29:00 60.0 53.3 71.1 61.7 48.4 79.1. 84.9 $7.1. $5.7 $5.1 54.3 52.8 49.4 1 Water 1 west Sack 0 203an 09 12:30:00 60.0 52.6 70.4 65.4 46.5 05.6 90.9 60.3 55.2 53.6 52.6 50.7 49.3 1 Water I West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:31:00 60.0 53.9 71.7 63.4 45.4 76.9 89.3 60.4 59.1 57.9 53.9 50.4 46.8 1 Meter 1 West Back. 0 20Jan 09 12:32400 60.0 50.4 68.2 56.9 44.8 70.8 90.9 54.0 52.8 52.0 51.4 50.0 47.1 1 Marc, 1 West Beck 0 20Jaa 09 12:33:00 60.0 48.9 66.7 56.9 44.9 73.0 92.2 52.9 51.4 50.3 49.6 48.2 46.2 I meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:34:00 60.0 50.6 68.3 58.7 45.3 75.3 03.4 56.0 53.5 52.7 52.1 48.7 46.4 1 Mater 1 Heat Back. 0 20Jan 09 12:35:00 60.0 51.5 69.2 60.2 46.2 70.0 87.4 56.4 55.3 54.0 52.6 49.6 47.3 1 Meter I Hest Back 0 20Jan 06 12:36:00 60.0 51.8 69.6 61.5 45.0 90.3 84.9 58.1 54.8 54.2 53.3 49.5 47.2 1. Peter 1 14aat Back 0 29Jan 09 12:37:00 60.0 51.6 69.3 64.2 45.5 87.1 95.3 58.4 54.7 53.1 S1.6 49.5 47.4 ] meter ] Hest Back 0 20Jan 09 12:33:00 60.0 52.5 70.2 60.1 45.7 70.0 92.2 58.0 56.8 55.3 54.0 49.5 47.2 1 meter 1 near Back. 0 20Jan 09 !2:39:00 60.0 53.! 70.9 62.0 46.7 80.4 -' 50.3 57.0 54.8 53.5 51.9 49.3 l Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:40:00 60.0 52.5 70.3 72.8 46.4 97.0 96.9 59.2 53.6 51.8 50.8 49.4 47.5 1 meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:41:00 60.0 53.5 71.3 76.71 425 98.3 102.2 57.0 52.9 51.3 50.0 47.2 44.1 1 Meter 1 Weac Back 0 20Jan 09 12:42:00 60.0 48.1 65.9 55.8 43.7 76.1 90.9 55.4 52.2 48.6 47.2 45.B 44.4 1 Hecer I Wear Back a 29Jar. 09 12:43:00 60.0 49.2 67.0 62.1 42.8 81.4 67.4 56.6 52.4 50.2 4B.9 46.8 44.1 1 Her.. 1 .eat Back 0 2DJan 09 12:44:00 60.0 51_3 69.1 67.2 43.0 80.5 90.9 50.6 54.0 51.2 40.9 47.0 44.6 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 89 12:45:00 60.0 53.9 71.6 66.5 44.5 76.8 87.4 63.6 55.6 54.4 53.3 51.3 45.9 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:46:00 60.0 51.2 69.0 59.4 45.9 76.3 90.9 56.6 53.7 52.7 52.0 50.2 47.6 1 Pact ! Hest Back 0 20Jan 06 12:47:00 60.0 51.4 69.2 59.9 46.9 78.4 84.9 56.6 53.9 52.7 51.8 50.6 40.5 1 Perot I Hest Back 0 2OJan 09 12:48:00 60.0 51.4 69.2 64.2 46.4 03.3 95.3 59.1 53.4 51.5 50.7 49.6 48.1 ! Meter 1 nest Back 0 29Jan 00 12:49:00 60.0 51.6 69.4 66.2 44.0 87.4 90.9 60.1 54.9 51.8 50.3 48.4 46.3 1 Meter 1 Mast Back. 0 20Jan 09 12:50:00 60.0 48.3 66.1 61.3 42.9 73.4 09.3 55.6 51.5 49.7 40.2 46.0 44.1 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:51:00 60.0 49.6 67.4 63.2 43.5 80.5 69.3 55.9 53.5 51.3 49.7 47.0 44.4 1 Peter I Hest Back 0 29Jan 09 12:52:00 60.0 44.2 61.0 57.0 44.4 69.9 83.3 54.1 52.1 50.9 50.1 48.3 45.8 1 Mar9r 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 12:53:00 60.0 51.1 60.9 64.3 45.5 80.4 90.9 52.1 53.9 51.9 50.9 49.0 46.6 1 Meter I Wear Back. 0 29Jan 09 12:54:00 60.0 54.8 72.6 67.0 45.3 80.4 89.3 65.6 57.3 54.6 53.2 51.0 47.8 1 Meter I West Me;. 0 3DJan 09 12:55:00 60.0 54.5 72.3 62.0 48.0 75.5 09.3 59.0 57.7 56.8 56.0 53.1 49.5 1 Meter I West Be.;. 0 29Jan 09 12:56:00 60.0 45.5 67.3 57.9 45.5 733.1 57.4 54.7 $1.7 50.4 49.8 49.8 47.3 1 Hater 1 West Back 0 20Jaa 09 12:57:00 60.0 52.4 70.1 62.7 45.4 74.5 90.9 57.8 56.6 55.5 52.9 50.1 47.2 1 Meter I Hear Back 0 20Jan 09 12:50:00 60.0 50.1 67.8 56.0 41.5 73.6 89.3 56.D 53.9 52.4 51.0 48.4 44.5 1 Peter 1 West Back a 28Jan 09 12:59:00 60.0 48.1 65.9 58.0' 41.6 72.6 84..9 53.4 51.7 50.6 49.0 46.5 43.5 1 Meter I West Back 0 2DJan 09 13:00:00 60 .0 50.9 68.7 61.1 45.0 03.5 90.9 56.7 54.0 53.0 51.6 49.5 47.0 ! Macer l meat Back. 0 20Jan D9 13:01.:00 60.0 50.9 60.7 60.4 46.4 72.9 87.4 53.8 52.0 51.9 51.4 50.5 48.7 1 Mete, I West Back 0 29Jan 09 13:02:00 60.0 50.2 67.9 53.4 46.3 66.4 87.4 52.9 52.0 51.5 51.0 50.0 47.9 1 Meter 1 Wear Back 0 20Jan D9 13:03:00 60.0 51.4 69.2 61.8 46.9 73.6 89.3 57.1 54.2 52.9 51.9 50.2 48.3 1 meter I Nest Back 0 28Jan 09 13:04:00 60.0 49.1 66.9 63.0 43.1 74.6 90.9 54.8 50.5 40,2 40.2 47.3 45.0 1 meter 1 West Back. 0 29Jan 09 13:05:00 60.0 5 9. 9 77.6 73.9 46.8 93.9 97.6 66.8 65.5 63.1 59.7 54.8 51.4 1 Hecer 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 13:06:00 60.0 53.4 71.1 64.5 47.5 77.0 09.3 58.8 55.6 54.4 53.7 52.5 50.0 I Meter 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 13:07:00 60.0 54.3 72.1 64.5 48.1 79.0 87.4 59.8 57.9 56.2 55.0 53.0 50.3 1 Mecer 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:09:00 60.0 57.0 75.66 67.7 49.0 86.6 90.9 63.7 61.0 59.6 58.5 56.7 53.0 1 Meter I West Back 0 20jan 09 13:09:00 60.0 55.9 73.7 67.0 46.2 80.8 90.9 62.7 59.3 57.3 56.0 54.4 51.4 1 Meter I Wear Back. 0 203an 06 13:10:00 60.0 56.1 73.9 65.9 47.3 80.6 85.3 62.9 60.1 50.0 57.0 54.3 49.6 1 Metal 1 Pleat Back 0 20Jan 09 13:11:00 60.0 56.5 74.2 64.9 48.6 89.3 90.9 62.3 60.1 58.5 57.0 55.1 51.4 1 Meter 1. West Back. 0 20Jan 09 13:12:00 60.0 55.1 72.9 70.0 43.1 91.5 93.4 63.7 60.8 $7.6 54.0 48.7 45.4 1 !facet 1 Wear Back 0 20Jac 09 13:13:00 60.0 50.5 69.3 59.1 44.0 76.5 90.9 57.5 54.3 51.9 50.4 49.8 46.3 1 Meter 1 West Ban): 0 20Jan 09 13:14:00 60.0 51.2 69.0 59.6 47.1 75.9 89.3 56.6 54.5 52.5 51.3 50.0 48.3 1 Mater 11:set Back. 0 20Jan 09 13:15:00 60.0 51..9 69.6 60.5 47.4 76.1 07.4 56.8 54.7 53.6 52.7 50.9 48.5 1 Mater 1 (Jest Ba.% 0 20Jav 09 13:16:00 40.0 51.7 69.4 62.6 47.9 86.0 93.4 56.8 53.7 52.7 52.1. 50.8 49.0 1 Mecer I. West Oacl: 0 20Jan 09 13:17:00 60.0 51.9 69.6 62.1 47.3 84.1 87.4 58.7 53.9 52.6 51.9 50.7 48.7 1 Mater 1 West: Be.$: 0 20Jan 06 13:10:00 60.0 54.6 72.4 62.6 47.8 80.3 92.2 60.3 50.0 57.3 55.9 52.2 49.5 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:19:00 60.0 54.9 72.6 75.0 47.4 96.5 99.4 61.7 56.9 54.5 53.1 50.2 48.3 1 Motor I West Ball: 0 20Jan 09 13:20:00 60.0 52.6 70.4 61.4 46.4 75.5 89.3 58.6 56.5 54.2 52.8 51.2 48.1 1 Meter 1 West Back a 20Jan 09 13:21:00 60.0 48.4 66.2 59.2 44.8 73.8 93.4 54.4 50.5 99.5 48.8 47.4 45.7 1 Meter I Wesc Back 0 20Jan 09 13:22:00 60.0 52.2 70.0 50.9 45.8 74.3 09.3 58.3 56.7 54.4 53.0 50.2 47.8 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:23:00 60.0 60.1 77.9 73.0 47.9 80.8 90.9 68.9 65.4 62.1 59.3 54.1 50.4 1 Meter 1 West Batt: 0 29Jan 00 13:24:00 60.0 51.8 60.5 60.0 46.1 74.1 84.9 57.3 55.2 53.8 52.7 50.4 47.6 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:25:00 60.0 51.4 69.2 56.6 47.9 72.3 87.4 55.1 54.1 53.0 52.2 50.6 49.3 ] Meter 1 West Back. 0 20Jan 09 13:26:00 60.0 51.3 69.0 61.9 46.0 75.3 89.3 55.9 52.8 52.2 51.7 50.6 49.1 1 Meter I West Back. 0 20Jan 09 13:27:00 60.0 53.0 70.8 64.5 48.0 74.5 84.9 57.9 55.3 53.9 53.3 52.1 50.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:28:00 60.0 52.4 70.2 62.9 46.1 79.2 90.9 56.9 54.1 53.3 52.6 51.8 50.1 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:29:00 60.0 53.0 70.9 72.3 47.8 92.1 96.2 57.0 54.0 $2.9 52.4 51.4 49.4 1 Macer 1 {ieec Back 0 20Jan 09 13:30:00 60.0 52.5 70.3 63.7 a6.1 85.6 89.3 58.2 55.1 53.9 53.1 51.6 49.5 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:31:00 60.0 52.3 70.0 62.8 45.9 83.2 B9.3 56.9 55.0 53.9 53.1 51.3 46.5 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2OJan 09 13:32:00 60.0 $3.1 70.B 61.0 47.9 78.1 90.9 57.7 56.1 54.7 53.6 52.3 49.5 1 meter 1 West Back 0 2OSan 09 13:33:00 60.0 52.9 70.7 62.9 48.1 75.4 93_4 58.8 55.2 53.9 53.1 51.9 49.9 1 Meter l West Back 0 20Ja. 09 13:34:00 60.0 52.2 70.0 64.9 47.9 78.4 89.3 59.0 $5.6 53.3 51.9 50.3 48.7 1 Mecer 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:35:00 60.0 49.5 67.3 59.6 46.0 80.1 07.4 53.2 50.9 50.3 49.6 49.1 47.3 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 13:36:00 60.D 48.7 66.5 54.4 46.5 69.0 B4.9 51.4 50.0 49.6 49.1 48.5 47.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:37:00 60.0 52.5 70.2 50.5 47.3 75.9 93.4 57.6 56.5 55.5 $3.5 50.3 48.3 1 Meter 1 Meat Back 0 20Jan 09 13:38:00 60.0 54.2 72.0 58.9 48.8 70.0 90.9 58.4 57.6 56.9 56.0 52.6 50.6 1 Peter 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 13:39:00 60.0 48.5 66.2 51.8 46.3 07.0 07.4 50.7 49.9 49.4 49.0 48.3 47.2 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 13:40:00 60.0 53.3 71.1 62.1 45.5 73.5 87.4 60.6 57.8 56.0 54.8 48.8 46.0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 -UJan 09 13:41:00 60.0 50.9 69.7 66.3 44.9 86.9 07.4 56.2 53.5 52.2 51.4 49.8 46.4 1 Mecer 1 West Back D an 09 13:42:00 60.0 57.5 75.2 67.9 46.5 84.6 90.9 65.1 61.9 59.9 59.2 54.7 49.0 1 Peter l 'lest Back 0 28Jan 09 13:43:00 60.0 59.6 77.4 66.8 51.6 81.9 90.9 64.4 62.6 61.5 60.4 59.8 55.2 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:44:00 60.0 58.8 76.5 66.5 51.6 81.9 90.9 64.6 62.5 60.0 59.3 57.4 55.0 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:45:00 60.0 57.6 75.4 66.9 485 82.1 94.4 93.9 60.9 59.5 59.6 56.6 50.7 1 Meter 1 ':ear Back. 0 29Jan 09 13:46:00 60.0 55.0 72.8 63.6 49.3 79.1 90.9 61.1 58J $5.5 54.0 53.9 50.3. 1 Meter 1 West Beck 0 20Jan 06 13:47:00 60.0 59.6 77.4 67.6 53.1 'a I.7 67.4 65.2 63.1 61.3 60.2 58.3 55.0 1 Peter 1 'lest Back. 0 29Jan 09 13:46:00 60.0 59.1 76.8 67.2 50.9 84.5 92.2 65.9 63.9 60.8 59.3 56.9 52.9 1 Mawr 1 Wesc Back. 0 -Oven 09 13:49:00 60.0 54.1 71.9 59.5 49.5 73.9 09.3 57.9 56.6 55.9 55.3 53.7 50.7 1 Meter I West Back 0 2OJan 00 13:50:00 60.0 52.0 69.7 63.2 - - 80.4 96.3 57.3 53.9 52.9 52.4 51.2 48.8 I Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jae 09 13:51:OD 60.0 54.3 72.0 63.0 47.6 70.0 92.2 60.0 56.7 55.6 54.7 53.1 51.1 i Hater I West Back a 20Jan 09 13:52:00 60.0 52.9 70.6 64.9 45.4 BIJ 6714 62.3 56.9 $2.4 50.6 48.9 47.1 1 Meter i Wesc Back 0 20jec D9 13:53:00 60.0 55.8 73.6 67.6 44.5 65.0 90.9 66.1 61.7 55.6 51.8 49.6 47.2 1 Water I Hesc Back 0 29dan 09 13:54:00 60.0 56.0 76.6 68.9 44.4 66.0 89.3 66.9 64.8 62.3 50.8 52.1 48.0 l Meter 3 West Back 0 29Jan 09 13:55:00 60.0 57.5 75.2 64.9 48.5 81.0 90.9 63.0 60.9 59.5 56.3 56.3 52.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 13:56:00 60.0 59.0 75.9 67.3 47.4 81.5 87.4 64.0 61.5 60.0 58.9 56.5 52.0 1 Meter 1 Wear Back 0 20van 09 13:57:00 60.0 60.4 78.2 70.7 51.7 88.9 87.4 67.6 64.2 61.9 60.9 58.2 55.2 ] Hater I West BacV. 0 2DJan 09 13:58:OD 60.0 59.9 77.7 71.9 49.4 86.9 87.4 65.6 63.7 62.2 60.7 58.1 54.2 1 Mater 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 1:59:00 60.0 58.3 76.1 64.9 52.4 82.1 03.4 62.5 60.9 60.0 59.3 57.6 54.2 1 Meter 1 West Back. 0 29Jan 09 14:00:00 60.0 60.3 7B.0 68.7 51.1 84.6 56.4 66.4 63.9 61.9 60.8 58.9 $4.8 1 Mater 1 West Beck. 0 20Jan 06 14:01:00 60.0 56.5 74.2 66..4 46.1 89.6 89.3 63.8 61.1 58.7 57.4 51.8 47.6 1 Make. 1 Wesc Back 0 293an 09 14:02:00 60.0 50.2 67.9 57.6 43.6 77.2 84.9 53.8 52.5 51.8 51.3 50.0 46.2 1 meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:03:00 60.0 49.9 67.7 58.2 44.9 73.7 90.9 54.7 53.1 51.9 50.9 49.5 45.9 1 Meter 1 Weac Back 0 20van 09 14: .04:00 60.0 47.0 65.6 60.7 43.9 73.9 90.9 52.4 50.6 49.0 47.7 46.5 45.1 1 Meter 1 .eat Back 0 29Jan 09 14:05:00 60.0 47.7 65.5 52.3 44.5 67.0 04.9 51.3 49.7 48.7 46.1 47.4 45.6 1 Motet 1 West Back 0 29Jan 09 14:06:00 60.0 50.0 67.0 56.6 45.0 69.2 84.9 54.6 53.0 51.6 50.7 49.3 46.5 1 Mazer 1 Wesc Back 0 20Jan 09 14:07:00 60.0 52.1 69.6 60.7 45.2 75.7 90.9 57.2 55.2 54.1 52.9 50.9 47.3 1 Meter l West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:00:00 60.0 52.7 70.5 64.9 44.6 76.0 67.4 59.6 56.4 54.9 53.3 50.2 46.6 I mt.. I Meat Beck 0 203an 09 14:09:00 60.0 51.0 66.8 56.2 44.4 72.5 67.4 55.1 54.4 53.5 51.9 49.6 47.5 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:30:00 60.0 52.2 25.0 62.0 44.9 83.1 90.9 63.9 61.6 59.6 52.8 55.2 49.5 1 Meter i West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:11:00 60.0 49.9 0.3 59.5 46.0 22.1 92.4 54.8 52.3 51.2 50.5 49.1 46.7 1 Meta. I West Back 0 20Jan 99 14:12:00 60.0 53.9 69,2 52.9 46.4 29.1 90.9 57.5 $5.8 54.6 52.9 49.2 42.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:13:00 60.0 $1.9 69.7 $9.4 45.1 77.5 90.9 52.9 564 53.9 52.1 49.9 47.1 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:14:00 60.0 57.4 75.1 74.9 44.5 86.5 89.3 68.3 56.2 54.9 54.3 51.5 47.4 1 Meter l West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:15:00 60.0 51.2 69.0 67.6 43.9 02.1 87_4 57.3 54_4 52.3 49.3 47.3 45.4 1 Meter l West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:16:00 60.0 56.1 73.9 76.0 43.4 99.6 90.8 64.6 50.9 56.0 $3.8 49.2 45.0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:12:00 60.0 56.2 74.0 72.9 45.2 93.5 94.4 64.9 60.6 56.7 54.0 50.7 47.1 1 Meter t West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:18:00 60.0 56.2 73.9 68.2 43.7 08.7 90.1 64.2 61.9 58.6 56.1 51_0 45.6 1 Meter t West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:19:00 60.0 60.9 70.6 72.6 44.5 02.8 93.4 69.6 66.8 62.8 59.2 54.4 46.9 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:20:00 60.0 48.7 66.5 520 431 74.5 90.9 54.5 51.1 49.9 49.4 41.9 44.8 1 Meter 1 bleat Back 0 2DJan 09 14:21:00 60.0 54.2 72.0 64.0 43.7 03.1 87.4 61.6 59.0 56,7 54.8 51.3 44.0 I Meter 1 Meet Back 0 2DJan 09 14:22:00 60.0 47.9 65.1 56.0 43.1 76.8 67.4 54.6 51.5 49.0 49.0 46.1 44.2 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:23:00 60.0 50.5 69.3 62.6 44.6 75.0 90.9 59.4 54.2 50.0 49.9 47.6 45.7 1 Meter 1 Mask Back 0 20Jan 09 14:24:00 60.0 $3.6 11.3 61.0 46.0 75.1 09.3 59.6 58.0 55.9 54.3 51.3 40.3 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:25:00 60.0 50.0 67.9 56.0 44.6 74.7 96.2 54.4 52.9 51.6 50.6 49.1 46.7 I Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:26:00 60.0 51.5 69.3 62.5 45.0 79.1 07.4 56.7 54.8 53.5 52.6 49.8 46.8 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:27:00 60.0 52.6 70.3 63,2 47.8 74.8 9D.9 58.6 55.3 53.6 52.7 51.1 49.2 1 Mete. l West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:28:00 60.0 54.0 71,7 60.2 48.2 73.3 89.3 58.1 56.5 $5.0 55.3 53.1 50.1 I Meter I Wear Back 0 20Jan 09 14:29:00 60.0 52.9 70.6 59.6 49.6 71.7 89.3 57.1 55.0 53.9 53.2 52.1 50.4 1 Meter 1 Weak Back 0 20Jan 09 14:30:00 60.0 53.4 71.2 59.6 49.5 712 94.4 51.6 56.2 54.9 54.1 52.6 50.4 I Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:31:00 60.0 51.8 69.6 62.3 46.8 78.0 87.4 55.5 54.0 53.3 52.6 51.1 48.0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:32:00 60,0 53.9 71.6 75.0 44.3 96.5 100.5 58.7 55.2 52.1 50.0 47.7 45.2 1 Mete. I West Back 0 20Ja. 09 14:33:00 60.0 50.9 68.7 61.6 44.5 79.2 99.3 57_0 55.3 52.9 51.D 46.4 45.4 1 Meter I West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:34:00 60.0 50.5 69.3 61.5 45.2 76.5 67.4 57.4 53.9 51.0 5D.5 48.1 46,3 1 Water 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:35:00 60.0 50.3 68.1 59.1 45.7 75.5 93.4 55.2 53.1 52.0 51.0 49.0 46.9 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:36:00 60.0 55.1 72.9 62.1 46,5 77.7 94.4 60.0 58.1 57.1 56.6 54.7 48.3 1 Mete. 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:37:00 60.0 $5.1 72.9 63.6 42.3 78.3 93.4 60.1 58.9 58.1 57.3 52.6 48.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:30:00 60.0 53.4 71.1 63.1 47.5 79.6 96.9 59.1 56.7 54.6 53.8 51.0 49.6 1 Meta. 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:39:00 60.0 54.0 71.0 65.5 49.1 02.2 89.3 59.9 56.6 55.3 54.2 52.5 51.0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:40:00 60.0 50.0 75.2 65.3 47.1 77.1 89.3 64.6 63.3 61.3 59.1 54.6 48.0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:41:00 60.0 53.6 71.4 62.1 49.0 79.3 93.4 59.3 56.5 54.0 53.8 52.4 50.6 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:42:00 60.0 52.4 70.1 60.8 45.8 77.7 09.3 59.4 56.6 54.2 52.6 50.2 46.0 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:43:00 60.0 51.6 69.3 66.1 43.5 86.3 90.9 59.8 55.2 52.9 51.5 47.6 45.1 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:44:00 60.0 51.3 69.1 61.7 44.5 80.3 90.9 57.7 55.1 53.8 52.5 48.4 45.7 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:45:00 60.0 57.9 75.6 64.1 46.6 82.5 89.3 63.6 62.6 61.4 59.7 55.4 48.3 1 Meter l West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:46:00 60.0 50.9 68.7 62.6 45.8 81.1 92.2 59.0 53.4 51.2 50.0 48.2 46.6 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 03 14:47;00 60.0 50.8 68.5 61.7 45.0 78.6 94.4 52.5 53.3 51.9 50.0 49.0 47.1 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:48:00 60.0 50.1 67.9 60.6 44,8 75.6 95.3 54,9 52.7 51.4 50.5 49.1 46.6 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:49:00 600 $4.0 12.6 75.3 44.1 87.8 09.3 63.0 54.6 51.3 49.3 42.4 45.5 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:50:00 60,0 50.1 67.0 59.2 44.3 72.8 84.9 5 6. 7 53.7 $2.0 51.0 47.6 45.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:51:00 60.0 49.4 67.1 60.5 44.1 78.2 09.3 55.6 52.0 51.4 50.1 47.3 44.9 1 Mete. 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:52:00 60.0 54.3 72.0 45.3 42.8 78.2 09.3 62.7 59.0 56.1 54.5 49.9 45.1 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:53:00 60,0 54.3 72.1 67.0 46.2 80.0 07.4 62.2 59.3 50.1 52.5 49.1 47.0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 14:54:00 60.0 49.2 67.0 53.4 46.3 68.1 04.9 52.6 51.2 50.3 44.7 48.8 47.3 1 Mater 1 West Beck D 20Jan 09 14:55:00 60.0 52.2 70.0 68.3 46.0 85.0 92.2 56.8 54.0 54.0 53.1 50.2 48.2 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:56:00 60.0 50.6 60.4 55.7 47.7 71.3 87.4 54.4 52.6 51.6 50.9 50,0 48.7 1 Meter 1 West Back D 20Jan 09 14: 57: D0 60.0 52.1 69.9 60.9 46.5 76.2 84.9 58.1 54.8 53.6 52.0 50.9 48,0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 14:58:00 60 .0 $1.9 69.7 59.8 41.0 73.0 82.4 56.3 54.8 53.5 52.6 50.9 48.8 1 Meter 1 West Back D 20Jan 09 14:59:00 60.0 52.5 70.2 62.3 47.8 76.5 92.2 57.0 54.0 53.0 53.0 51.5 49.3 1 Meter I West Back 0 2DJan 09 15:00:00 60.0 52.2 20.0 59,7 40.3 75.8 87.4 56.3 54.6 53.5 52_7 51.3 50.1 1 Meter t West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:01:00 60.0 54.6 72.4 62.2 50.2 83.7 92.2 57.9 56.7 56.1 55.7 54.3 51.1 1 Meta. 1 West Back. 0 20Jan 09 15:02:00 60.0 $2.6 70.4 61.0 46.4 72.2 89.3 57.3 55.5 54.7 54.0 51.5 46.3 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 10v.. 09 15:03:00 60.0 48.5 66.3 52.1 45.0 70.0 84.9 51.1 49.9 49.6 49.2 48.3 46.4 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 15:04:00 60.0 49.2 67.0 59.7 45.0 72.5 94.4 55.3 51.9 50.5 49.5 47.9 45.9 1 Meter t West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:05:00 60.0 49.9 67.7 60.1 45.8 74.1 04.9 53.0 51.0 51.2 50.2 49,4 O.1 1 Mete, I West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:06:00 60.0 49.3 67.1 56.5 45.2 75.7 90.9 54.7 51.7 50.5 49,8 40.5 46.5 1 Meter I West Back 0 2DJan 09 15:02:00 60.0 49.7 67.5 61.0 45.0 00.1 90.9 54.9 52.1 50.0 50.3 40.6 45.8 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:08:00 60.0 50.0 67.8 56.7 45.6 69.2 93.4 54.9 $3.1 $1.4 50.3 48,9 47.2 I Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:09:00 60.0 51.B 69.5 65.7 47.3 81.5 09.3 59.2 53.6 52.1 51.1 50.0 48.3 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:10:00 60.0 57.5 75.3 62.7 48.8 74.7 89.3 62.4 60.9 60.1 58.9 57.1 50.3 1 Meter 1 Meat Back 0 20Jan 09 15:11 -00 60.0 53.6 71.3 75.5 45.9 97.2 100.0 58.3 $3.6 $2.2 51.5 49.9 47.1 1 Meter 1 Meat Back 0 2DJan 09 15:12:00 60.0 50.0 67.0 57.7 46.0 70.0 84.9 55.5 52.9 51.4 50.4 40.9 47.0 1 Mater 1 West Back 0 20J.. 09 15:13:00 60.0 50.8 68.6 56.5 46.3 72.6 04.9 55.4 53.9 52.6 51.7 49.6 47.5 1 Mete. 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:14:00 640 49.9 67.7 56.6 45.9 69.0 84.9 53.5 52.2 51.1 50.5 49.2 47.5 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:15:00 60.0 54.4 72.2 60.6 46.5 73.5 90.9 59.9 50.0 57.3 55.5 51.9 40.2 1 Water 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 15:16:00 60.0 50.5 60.3 60.5 45.3 69.3 09.3 56.0 53.2 51.4 50.6 49.1 47.2 1 Meter 1 Meat Back 0 20Jen 09 15:17:00 60.0 53.0 70.8 63.8 46.1 80.2 99.3 60.9 56.6 54.0 52.7 50.8 47.0 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:18:00 60.0 50.6 68.3 57.7 45.8 70.1 89.3 56.2 S4.2 52.7 51.0 48.7 46.9 1 Meter 1 West Back D 20Jan 09 15:19:00 60.0 50.4 68.2 57.3 45.3 69.0 84.9 54.0 52.4 51.6 51.0 50.0 47.1 1 Meter 1 Weer Back 0 20Jan 09 15:20:00 60.0 51.4 69.2 57.4 45.7 69.1 84.9 56.5 54.8 53.3 51.9 50.3 47.7 1 Meter 1 Neat Back 0 20Jan 09 15:21:00 60.0 55.3 73.1 62.2 47.7 75.5 87.4 60.8 58.9 52.7 56,4 54.0 49.6 1 Water I West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:22:00 60.0 $2.4 70.1 52.7 48.6 69.2 84.9 56.0 54.5 53.6 53.0 52.0 50.1 1 Meter 1 Wert Back 0 2DJan 09 15:23:00 60,0 53.1 70.8 66.7 46.9 82.0 97.4 50.1 56.7 55.3 53.6 51.1 48.5 1 Mater 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:24:00 60.0 52.5 70.3 62.1 46.9 7n.2 93.4 59.7 56.2 53.0 52.5 50.5 48.3 1 Mate. 1 West Back 0 2DJan 09 15:25:00 60.0 51.0 68.0 $8.6 45.2 67.0 84.9 56.9 54.5 53.0 51.8 49.8 46.3 1 Mater I Meat Back 0 20Jan 09 15:26:00 60.0 52.1 69.8 60.3 44.7 70.5 89.3 59.4 56.4 53.1 $1.6 49.9 47.3 1 Meta. 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:21:00 60.0 $0.8 68.6 58.6 46.1 73.2 92.2 54.5 52.9 52.2 51.6 50.3 47.6 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:25:00 60.0 51.3 69.0 58.1 47.0 68.1 94.9 55.7 53.0 52.7 52.0 50.6 48.0 1 Meter I West Back 0 2DJan 09 15:29:00 60.0 50.9 60.5 67.3 46.7 03.1 87.4 56.5 52.7 51.0 49.8 48.6 47.4 1 Meter I Meat Back 0 20Jan 09 15:30:00 60.0 53.2 71.0 62.2 48.3 76.7 94.9 $6.9 55.7 $5.0 54.3 52.7 49.9 1 Meter I West Back 0 2DJan 09 15:31:00 60.0 56.3 74.1 60.9 51.7 76.2 87.4 59.0 50.2 57.6 57.2 $6.3 53.3 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:32:00 60.0 57.4 75.2 62.4 53,2 78.0 07.4 61.1 59.2 59.6 58.1 57.0 55.2 1 Mater I West Back 0 2DJan 09 15:33:00 60.0 57.1 74.0 65.7 52.2 77.7 07.4 59.5 58.2 58.2 57.8 52.0 54.6 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:34:00 60.0 57.0 74.7 61.3 53.3 76.0 09.3 59.7 50.8 50.3 57.8 56.7 54.8 1 Meter I West Back 0 2DJan 09 15:35:00 60.0 50.6 76.4 64.9 53.7 03.8 00.4 62.9 61.7 60.4 59.0 57.5 $6.0 1 Meter 1 Nest Beck 0 20Jan 09 15:36:00 60,0 60.0 17.0 684 55.7 84.9 93.4 62.9 62.0 61.6 61.1 59.5 57.4 1 Water 1 Meat Beck 0 20Jan 09 15:37:00 60.0 60.1 77.9 64.6 $5.4 79.6 92.2 62.9 62.1 61.6 61.1 59.9 51.5 1 Meter I West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:38:00 60.0 59.5 77.3 64.4 55.2 80.1 92.2 62.3 61.6 60.9 60.5 59.3 57.1 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:39:00 60.0 64.2 81.9 74.6 57.1 97.6 100.5 60.6 67.6 66.9 66.1 62.4 59.1 1 Meter 1 West Back 0 20Jan 09 15:40:00 53.5 64.5 01.8 71.8 53.9 93 .B 96.2 20.0 69.3 68.5 66.5 60,8 56.4 C:\LARDAV %SL.UT.IL \20JA11 09.bia _nte_val Data Neaa Sic. Location N.nt.- Data Tire Dotation __ -; __- _________________________ West at Bitlg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 09:31:52 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 09:32:51 60.0 2 Wert at Bldg F --I 0 20Jan 09 09:33:51 60.0 2 Weak at Blda Footpti 0 26Jan 09 09:34:52 60.0 2 West at Bldg. Footpti 0 26Jan 09 09:35:51 60.0 2 West at Bitlg Foocpc5 0 26Jan 09 09:36:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 26Jan 09 09:37:51 60.0 2 West at Bitlg Foatpti 0 20Ja. 09 09:38:5! 60.0 2 Wast at Bldg Footpti 0 26Jan 09 09:39:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 09:40:51 60.0 2 west at Bldg Foatpti 0 26Jan 09 09:41:51 60.0 2 .sat at Bldg Foatpti 0 26Jan 09 09:42:51 60.0 2 West at Bitlg Fee:pti 0 26Jan 09 09:43:51 60.0 2 .eat at Bitlg Foatpti 0 20Jan 09 09:44:53 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 09:45:51 60.0 2 Wes, at Bid, Footpti 0 20Jan 09 09:46:51 60.0 2 week at Bldg Footpti 0 26Jan 09 09:47:53 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpxi 0 26Jan D9 09:48:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Featpci 0 263an Be 09:49:51 60.0 2 West a, Bid, F..tpti 0 203an 09 09:50:51 60.0 2 ;lest at Bldg Foatpti 0 20Jan 09 09:51:53 60.0 2 West at Bitlg FoOCpci 0 20Jan 09 09:52:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg. Footpti 0 26Jan 09 09:53:51 60.0 2 west at Bitlg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 09:54:51 60.0 2 W..e at Bitlg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 09:55:51 60.0 2 west at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 09:56:51 60.0 2 !Jest at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 09:57:51 60.0 2 Wes, at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 09:58:51 60.0 2 West at Bid, Foatpti 0 2UJan 09 09:59:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 Man 09 10:00:51 60.0 2 weak at Bldg Foatpti 0 26Jan 09 10:01:51 60.0 2 I40at at Bldg Foatpti 0 20Jan 09 10:02:51 60.0 2 ;last ac Bid, Footpti a 20Jan 09 10:03:51 60.0 2 Weac at Bitlg F..tpvi 0 20Jan 09 10:04:51 60.0 2 West at Bid, F..tpti 0 20Jan 09 10:05:51 60.0 2 Ilea, at Bldg Footpti D 20Jan 09 10:06:51 60.0 2 Wank at Bldg Foocpci 0 20Jan 09 10:07:51 60.0 2 U.sk at Bid, Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:00:51 60.0 2 Wsk at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:09:51 07.0 2 w"c at Bldg Footpti 0 26Jan 09 10:10:51 60..0 2 west at Bid, Foocpci 0 26Jan 09 10:11:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg F..tpci 0 20Jan D9 10:12:51 60.0 2 (vest at Bitlg Footpa5. 0 20Jan 09 10:13:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:14:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Foocpci 0 203an 09 10:15:51 60.0 2 Wast at Bid, Footpxi 0 203an 09 10:16:51 60.0 2 West at Bid, F..kpti 0 26Jan 09 10:1]:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Foocpci o 20Jan 09 10:18:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:19:51 60.0 2 ;lest at Bldg Footpti 0 26Jan 09 10:20:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:21:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Foocpci 0 26Jan 09 10:22:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Foocpci 0 20an 09 10:23:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 26Jan 09 10:24:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 26Jan 09 10:25:51 60.0 2 Fast at Bldg Faotpci 0 20Jan 09 10:26:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Foocpci 0 26Jan 09 10:2]:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Fo cpc 0 20Jan 09 10:28:51 60.0 2 %lust at Bldg Ftotpc 0 20Jan 09 10:29:51 60.0 2 %+eat at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:30:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:31:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg FOotoci 0 20Jan 09 10:32:51 60.0 2 Best at Bldg Foocpt'- 0 Man 09 10:33:53 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:34:51 60.0 2 west at Bldg Footpti 0 26Jan 09 10:35:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Fcotpci 0 20Jan 09 10:36:51 60.0 2 West at Bid, Footpc5 0 Man 09 10:37:51 60.0 2 Bast at Bldg Foocptl 0 20Jan 09 10:38:51 60.0 2 wort at Bldg Foetpci 0 ?;Jan 09 10:39:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:40:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Foocpci a 20Jan 09 10:41:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg F.tptl 0 20Jaa 09 10:42:51 60.0 2 ;last at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jaa 09 10:43:5! 60.0 2 Best at Bitlg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:44:51 60.0 2 Neat at Bldg Foatpti 0 20Jan 09 10:45:51 07.0 2 Nest at Bldg Foatpti 0 Naar. 09 10:46:51 60.0 2 Blest at Bitlg Foot,^ 0 26Jan 09 10:47:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 Man 09 10:46:51 60.0 2 Weac at Bldg Foetpt5 0 20Jan 99 10:49:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10.50:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Foocpci 0 26Jan 09 10:51:51 60.0 2 ;:cat at 01eg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:52:51 60.0 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:53:51 60.0 2 West at Bid. Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:54:51 60.0 2 ;lost at Bldg Footpti 0 Man 09 10:55:51 60.0 2 W.at at Bid, Footpti 0 26Jan 09 10:56:51 60.0 2 Was at Bldg Foocpt! 0 20Jan 09 10:57:51 60.0 2 Pleat at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 89 10:58:51 60.0 2 .eat at Bitlg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 10:59:51 60.0 2 Wat at Bitlg Footpxi 0 20Jan 09 11:00:51 60.0 L.q 6].I 59.2 59.6 66.4 62.6 6.0 644.3 33.2 67.4 60.9 63 63.9 59.6 60.7 62. 62.4 4 66. 6.4 4 622.7 63.5 61.8 61.4 61.9 60.2 61.9 61.7 76.9 77.9 66.9 63.6 60.3 68.6 68.9 69.5 ]0.2 68.6 70. 71.4 4 71.1 60.0 53.4 54. 53.6 6 55.7 54.7 63. 60.5 5 54.5 55.2 61.5 60.3 58.3 60.2 59.0 61.0 63.1 61.6 60.9 63.3 58.9 65.7 62.0 59.1 59.9 59.8 63.8 65.2 61.4 54.0 60.0 56.8 53.9 55. 53.4 4 59.9 60.0 56 56.5 5 60.0 61.5 54.5 2. 52.4 53. 55.6 6 56.9 59.9 59.5 60.9 55.9 55.9 56.9 SEL Be.P 77.0 77.4 84.1 60.4 78.8 82.1 91.0 85.2 78.] 81.7 7.4 76.5 ]B.9 80.2 03.9 82.1 80.5 81.3 79.6 79.1 ]9.] ]7.9 3P.] 79.5 93.0 95.3 84.6 81.4 78.1 86.3 66.2 91.3 88.0 86.4 08.7 09.2 88.8 86.5 71.2 72.6 71.4 73.5 72.5 81.3 78.2 72.2 73.0 79.2 78.0 76.1 ]].9 77.5 79.6 80.9 79.4 79.6 81.0 76.7 83.5 80.6 76.9 76.1 77.5 81.6 92.9 79.2 72.6 77.7 74.6 75.] 73.7 71.2 77.7 77.8 74.3 7].] 79.3 72.3 79.8 ]0.2 71.6 73.4 34.6 ]7.7 77.2 79.] 73.7 73.6 74.7 l.max Loin Peak Uvpk 01.0 4B.6 105.1 106.6 75.9 40.2 91.2 93.5 71.9 49.9 91.0 04.5 82.9 485 103.7 103.7 70.2 49.5 93.5 a4.5 74.0 49.9 63.33 93.5 76.1 51.0 92.0 05.4 94.9 50.4 -5.7 514.7 02.9 52.4 102.8 103.7 72.1 49.7 91.6 94.5 07.1 50.6 105.7 101.7 70.0 51.5 09.3 03.5 75.5 50.6 04.0 93.5 75.2 51A a4.1 03.5 71.4 50.9 86.6 89.4 73.0 51.9 89.3 91.0 78.9 50.6 99.6 93.5 79.0 51.7 94.6 97.0 75.1 52.3 1.3 92.3 73.9 51.0 08.6 02.3 76.3 50.2 93.3 98.9 77.8 51.1 2.7 95.4 68. 6 51.2 0018 2.3 77.5 40.4 91.8 92.3 76.5 47.9 94.0 93.5 B7.1 50.2 102.6 103.0 06.0 55.1 99.8 100.1 71.7 52.5 93.8 03.5 76.4 49.5 90.8 92.3 74.1 47.4 iO3.0 103.7 75.9 51.4 93.0 98.3 73.0 53.6 09.6 01.0 74.3 65.1 95.0 95.4 74.7 66.0 90.1 91.0 75.6 48.2 94.2 94.5 74.5 62.0 92.5 93.5 77.1 66.4 90.7 91.0 75.9 66.2 91.5 91.0 75.5 48.9 92.3 94.5 69.7 48.2 87.1 93.5 71.3 40.1 00.2 94.5 68.2 4B.4 05.1 93.5 66.4 48.2 85.1 87.5 70.1 47.1 91.7 n3.5 68.9 46.6 84.2 90.2 83.2 46.1 100.0 101.9 66.2 46.5 81.8 87.5 67.9 47.7 90.6 69.4 80.4 46.9 97.3 97.0 74.7 45.5 90.6 87.5 74.7 47.3 80.6 92.3 75.7 46.1 07.6 89.4 ]0.] 46.6 93.4 94.5 70.0 45.7 82.e 67.5 72.0 48.0 86.7 95.4 79.4 49.7 94.0 97.0 72.5 49.5 85.7 89.4 75.9 49.0 90.7 92.3 71.5 50.5 85.6 09.4 75.8 49.6 08.7 92.3 75.1 50.6 90.1 91.0 76.8 51.6 03.9 93.5 72.5 50.1 87.9 91.0 69.6 51.0 89.6 93.5 74.7 51.3 90.2 92.3 76.0 53.3 96.1 95.4 78.8 52.5 93.2 94.5 61.6 50.2 60.2 69.4 71.5 40 07.4 29.4 67.2 50.4 50.6 91.0 69.5 51.3 84.3 89.4 69.7 49.6 05:2 97.5 65.7 49.1 83.7 09.4 70.4 49.8 86.8 67.5 66.7 51.3 91.2 89.4 69.7 51.3 85.3 89.4 69.7 53.9 87.9 E9.4 74.2 50.3 97.7 6g.4 64.9 50.6 B6.7 91.0 76.6 49.7 04.9 97.7 61.1 90.6 00.3 93.5 63.9 40.9 77.7 B7.5 68.5 40.6 65.9 87.5 68.8 49.6 B7.E 91.0 67.0 50.2 83.0 92.3 70.3 49.6 B6.4 86.3 71.7 49.8 87.4 07.5 69.8 48.1 84.3 07.5 70.2 48.7 86.2 92.3 71.2 VA 91.4 03.5 Ll 21 72.8 66.5 6].9 75.7 6c _.3 67.2 73.1 80.8 75.6 68.4 68.6 65.2 6S.3 66.7 69.8 71.9 71.0 69.4 71.2 69.3 67.9 71.1 65.6 67.3 71.5 94.2 84.0 70.7 70.4 68.8 71.9 ]1.] ]3.0 73.6 73.4 ]3.9 74.5 74.1 73.0 59.6 62.2 60.4 62.6 60.4 67.1 66.0 fill 63.5 69.7 69.2 66.4 70.7 65.9 60.5 69.4 69.4 61.8 70.1 60.2 72.8 72.4 67.0 67.0 66.4 72.2 7!.7 68.1 59.2 69.6 63.9 65.4 64.3 59.9 66.6 65.1 61.8 67.0 71.5 59.7 33.7 57.5 60.6 63.9 65.0 66.0 67.5 69.4 64.9 62.9 62.7 LI BI 67.0 62.9 64'.1 ]0.1 66.3 64.9 68.3 73.0 71.3 65.9 63.6 62.6 63.6 64.4 66.B 70.5 68.0 66.0 67.6 65.4 64.8 64.1 64.3 66.0 66.3 82.1 81.8 69.1 68.7 66.4 70.7 70.7 71.6 72.1 12.3 12.9 13.5 13.4 12.3 55.1 57.5 55.9 59.7 58.3 66.5 58.3 57.9 50.1 63.1 64.2 60.6 64.0 60.7 67.1 68.2 65.7 65.2 67.9 61.9 71.4 69.2 59.9 60.5 63.7 69.1 6S.B 63.4 53.3 64.4 59.7 62.3 58.5 56.5 66.3 63.9 59.6 63.9 66.3 $7.0 64.9 55.6 56.7 60.0 61.7 64.5 65.5 66.0 58.5 50.9 59.7 LIi63 L1251 L(50) L190) 63.4 60.0 55.4 50.E 60.5 58.9 55.0 51.1 61.1 59.0 55.9 51.7 68.0 66.4 59.0 52.4 64.3 63.1 59.5 50.9 63.5 62.0 56.3 51.9 66.3 64.9 60.1 51.4 33.4 30.7 65.5 56.0 6B.7 67.3 64.1 56.1 63.9 61.6 56.7 52.5 61.1 59.4 55.9 52.2 61.4 60.5 59. 6 54.4 2.4 61.5 59.4 55.0 62.5 61.2 56.3 54.2 65.7 64.4 59.0 54.E 69.4 68.1 64.4 57_0 66.3 64.7 60.7 54.E 64.3 62.8 59.9 55.5 65.5 63.9 61.1 56.5 63.6 62.2 59.5 55.1 63.1 61.B 59.2 54.4 62.1 60.7 58.3 54.2 63.1 61.5 58.5 54.E 64.8 62.6 50.1 $1.9 62.5 59.3 55.9 50.4 79.9 37.2 63.3 51.E 80.4 79:3 36.9 64.5 69.0 68.4 67.1 56.2 67.7 66.3 55.1 51.4 61.1 59.1 55.7 50.9 70.0 69.5 60.5 65.E 30.0 69.7 68.5 63.2 70.7 70.1 69.2 67.1 31.4 70.9 70.0 67.5 71.6 71.0 68.4 50.5 72.4 71.9 30.0 67.E 72.8 72.3 71.1. 68.E 72.7 72.1 70.7 69.1 71..6 31.1 69.1 51.4 53.7 52.9 51.6 49.` 55.0 54.0 52.5 49.6 54.2 53.2 51.5 49.E 57.6 55.9 53.3 50.3 56.6 55.3 52.0 49.4 65.9 65.6 64.1 51.6 55.0 53.5 51.2 48.3 55.9 54.5 52.5 49.2 55.6 54.4 52.6 50.7 $9.2 57.5 53.5 49.4 60.4 59.2 56.1 50.3 57.7 55.5 53.2 49.E 59.3 56.4 52.2 48.2 59.1 57.6 53.7 49.4 66.1 63.5 56.1 49.1 66.9 64.6 59.1 51.3 62.8 60.3 55.7 51.9 63.5 61.1 $8.3 52.E 66.3 64.1 58.8 51.5 60.6 59.1 55.7 51.5 69.4 63.0 58.0 51.E 63.3 59.2 55.3 52.4 58.4 57.5 55.8 53.4 58.2 57.2 55. 6 $3.3 62.0 60.3 57.2 54.2 66.3 63.1 58.8 53.0 67.6 66.3 63.0 57.0 61.6 60.0 53.8 54.8 56.3 55.5 53.9 51.5 61.7 59.7 56.3 51.4 58.0 56.9 55.1 52.1 59.3 57.4 55.1 53.0 55.8 54.8 53.2 51.6 54.4 52.9 51.5 50.1 62.9 56.7 53.0 51.0 62.4 61.4 59.3 52.E 57.7 56.6 55.0 53.6 61.8 60.1 57.7 54.5 63.1 50.7 56.2 53.E 55.6 54.7 53.6 52.0 58.0 56.6 54.4 51.9 54.2 52.9 50.9 49.5 54.7 53.4 52.2 50.3 56.4 54.6 52.B 50.E 59.3 56.0 53.1 51.2 63.4 62.1 56.4 52.1 61.9 58.4 53.6 51.3 63.3 60.1 57.2 51.1 56.4 54.9 52.8 50.: 57.7 56.4 53.0 50.2 50.2 56.8 54.7 50.E 2 ties, at Bldg Faacpri 0 2DJan 09 11:01:51 60.0 57.4 75.1 71.1 50.66 91.3 92.3 65.4 60.3 50.3 57.0 54.9 5Z.1 2 west at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:02:51 60.0 60.6 78.3 80.4 4E.2 95.2 96.3 66.6 58.1 55.8 $4.6 52.7 50.4 2 Wes, at Bids Footpri 0 dOJan 09 11:03:51 60.0 62.9 80.7 80.7 49.4 914 95.4 74.2 63.0 57.6 55.9 53.1 51.1 2 west at Bldg Footpri 0 20uan 09 11:04:51 60.0 63.0 80.8 81.1 50.9 93.9 94.5 72.3 67.0 60.3 57.0 54.1 52.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:05:51 60.0 64.6 02.3 80.6 51.4 93.9 93.5 75.6 68.1 62.0 58.0 55.3 53.2 2 Wes, at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:06:51 60.0 55.5 73.3 66.9 50.2 82.3 65.0 62.7 50.4 57.0 55.1 53.7 51.2 2 We., ac Bldg Faacpri 0 20Jan 09 11x07:51 60.0 57.1 74.0 70.3 48.8 89.2 91.0 63.0 61.3 59.7 58.1 53.9 50.6 2 West ac Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 31:08:51 60.0 53.6 71.3 67.9 47.6 84.0 85.0 50.6 56.2 54.5 53.4 51.8 49.3 2 Weac et Bid, Footpri 0 28Jan 09 11-09:51 60.0 57.9 75.7 71.1 48.8 85.9 89.4 664.9 61.0 59.6 58.3 551 51.1 2 Wes, ac Bldg Faacpri 0 29Jan 09 11:10:51 60.0 59.2 77.0 74.7 50.3 91.7 92.3 666.0 63.1 60.1 57.8 54.3 51.5 2 West ac Bldg Footpri 0 30Jan 09 11:11:51 60.0 54.3 72.1 63.3 49.4 78.5 85.0 660.3 51.0 55.7 54.7 52.9 51.0 2 ties, at Bldg Feacpti 0 2DJan 09 11:12:51 60.0 60.0 77.8 73.7 51.2 SBA 01.0 72.0 64.2 58.0 56.7 54.0 52.5 2 ties, ac Bldg Footpri 0 2DJan 09 11:13:51 60.0 56.5 84.3 77.2 49.3 99.3 99.5 73.1 71.8 70.5 69.0 57.7 50.6 2 B:eac ac Bid, Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:14:51 60.0 64.6 82.4 74.5 49.8 86.9 89.4 72.3 70.8 69.3 65.5 53.9 51.3 2 We at ac Bldg Foa,p_i 0 20Jan 09 11:15:51 60.0 65.3 83.0 15.5 46.5 90.3 09.4 72.9 711 69.1 66.3 58.4 50.7 2 West ac Bldg Faotori 0 20Jon 09 11:16:51 60.0 60.4 76.2 775 49.3 05.2 99.5 69.7 63.9 60.7 58.6 55.4 51.4 2 Was a, Bldg Footpri 0 28Jan 09 11:17:51 60.0 55.5 73.2 67.5 48.3 81.9 92.3 62.1 59.5 57.5 55.B 52.5 49.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 2GJan 09 11:I B: 51 60.0 60.7 78.5 12.4 47.4 61.5 93.5 69.8 65.2 61.7 59.6 56.6 52.1 2 West at Bldg Foscp.i 0 28Jan 09 11:19:51 60.0 67.6 65.4 84.7 46.9 103.0 103.0 77.7 68.6 66.5 64.5 60.0 53.6 2 West ac Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:20:51 60.0 61.0 76.7 70.8 50.2 80.0 67.5 68.9 66.4 63.1 61.2 56.5 53.3 2 West ac Bldg Footpri 0 20uan 09 31:21:51 60.0 59.0 76.7 74.0 47.9 88.9 01.0 68.0 62.9 60.1 58.0 55.0 51.6 2 west ac Bid, Footpti 0 20Jaa 09 11;22:51 60.0 63.4 91.7 77.5 50.8 91.9 92.3 72.1 60.0 65.7 64.1 59.9 53.6 2 West at Old, F08cpri 0 20Jan 09 11:23:51 60.0 72.1 B9.8 79.5 67.4 93.9 94.5 75.7 74.4 73.5 72.0 71.6 69.3 2 West at Bid, Footpri 0 28Jan 09 11:24:51 60.0 10.9 88.1 74.4 52.3 92.7 93.5 73.8 72.9 72.5 72.0 71.0 68.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:25:31 60.0 10.2 89.0 76.3 494 926.9 91.0 74.2 73.1 12.3 71.B 70.4 59.0 2 West a, Bldg Footpri 0 2oJan 09 11:26:51 60.0 66.0 83.8 76.9 49.8 67.3 97.0 73.0 71.1 68.7 66.6 62.0 56.0 2 ttleac ac Bldg Footpri 0 20Jen 09 11:27:51 60.0 72.0 99.7 79.0 53.3 94.0 96.3 75.6 74.5 73.8 73.0 71.5 69.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 28Jan 09 11:28:51 60.0 71.3 89.1 87.9 52.1 101.9 101.9 80.2 74.7 72.9 71.B 63.3 56.0 2 West at Old, Footpri 0 28Jan 09 11:29:51 60.0 70.7 88.5 89.2 49.4 103.6 1D3.0 02.1 71.1 65.9 62.6 57.4 51.8 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 28Jan 09 11:30:51 60.0 66.5 84.2 85.5 47.2 100.8 100.1 74.2 67.8 63.8 61.0 57.3 51.1 2 west at Bldg FeOCpti 0 20Jan 09 11:31:51 60.0 63.6 B1.3 00.1 48.9 300.1 98.3 73.1 68.1 62.9 50.6 54.4 50.9 2 west at Old, Foocpti 0 20Jan 09 11:32:51 60.0 68.3 86.1 80.2 49.4 97.8 102.3 76.9 73.6 71.2 69.3 62.1 52.0 2 ttleac at Bldg FOCtpri 0 Mae 09 11:33:51 60.0 70.9 88.7 92.8 41.9 108.0 108.1 72.0 66.9 66.1 65.1 57.2 50.3 2 beat at Bldg Footpri 0 2031n 09 11:34:51 60.0 64.6 82.4 82.7 46.2 98.6 98.9 76.5 64.5 61.2 58.9 52.0 48.7 2 west at Old, Footpri a 20uzn 09 11:35:51 60.0 60.9 78.7 79.8 45.4 95.8 94.5 69.4 65.4 50.5 55.4 52.0 48.3 2 Wont at Bldg Footpri 0' 20Jan 09 11:36:51 60.0 63.8 81.5 77.5 50.4 90.6 91.0 71.9 60.1 66.4 63.2 58.2 52.5 2 Best at Bldg Footpri 0 20uan 09 11:37:51 60.0 59.3 76.1 69.2 47.8 87.1 87.5 67.0 62.9 60.0 57.9 53.6 49.9 2 Weat at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:38:51 60.0 59.6 77.4 69.9 47.0 81.1 99.4 66.8 67.2 59.6 56.4 50.9 48.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 2GJan 09 11:39:51 60.0 50.6 76.4 69.2 48.2 83.1 89.4 66.7 64.1 60.1 58.0 54.9 50.8 2 oleo[ at Bldg Foocpr5 0 20Jan 09 11:40:51 60.0 62.2 80.0 73.8 50..3 86.6 89.4 68.7 67.5 65.8 63.3. 57.8 51.5 2 West at Bid, Footpri 0 28Jan 09 11:41:51 60.0 59.0 76.6 74.7 51.0 91.4 95.4 66.0 63.0 60.9 58.9 55.6 52.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:42:51 60.0 60.6 78.4 74.4 47.9 89.1 94.5 70.6 65.3 60.9 57.7 54.0 49.0 2 Blest of Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:43:51 60.0 52.3 70.1 63.3 47.2 77.5 85.0 59.4 55.2 53.5 52.2 50.5 40.5 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:44:51 60.0 58.9 76.7 73.4 •15.7 92.3 93.5 69.9 63.2 56.9 53.9 50.5 47.5 2 Went at Bldg Footpri 0 28Jan 09 11:45:51 60.0 62.3 00.1 74.2 47.5 89.3 91.0 71.2 67.4 64.6 61.5 56.4 50.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 QOJan 09 11:46:51 60.0 55.6 73.4 63.5 47.5 77.5 89.4 61.2 58.9 57.6 56.4 54.5 50.9 2 West at Bldg Foocpti a 20Jan 09 11:47:51 60.0 60.5 86.3 83.8 49.5 109.3 110.1 79.3 71.9 68.7 65.3 59.4 55.2 2 Best at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:48:51 60.0 64.8 82.6 82.4 48.4 95.5 91.7 72.3 67.3 63.8 61.5 57.9 53.9 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 Man 09 11:49:51 60.0 63.0 00.6 74.0 50.4 86.4 89.4 72.2 60.7 63.5 62.0 57.9 53.3 2 Best at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:50:51 60.0 72.6 90.4 68.5 50.4 106.4 106.3 85.1 74.1 70.3 68.2 60.4 54.3 2 Beat at Bid, Faetptl 0 28Jan 09 11:51:51 60.0 54.1 71.8 64.3 47.5 93.0 92.3 59.9 57.7 56.1 54.9 52.2 49.1 2 west at Bid, Faotpci 0 28Jan 09 11:52:51 60.0 50.7 76.5 74.4 45.0 92.0 93.5 67.0 60.9 59.0 57.9 55.3 49.8 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:53:51 60.0 67.4 85.2 85.2 47.8 105.4 104.4 76.6 72.2 69.1 65.9 59.4 51.6 2 West at Bldg Faotpci 0 20Jan 09 11:54:51 60.0 67.1 85.5 83.0 47.3 105.3 105.8 77.2 72.5 69,5 66.3 59.3 51.0 2 Beat at Bldg Footpri a 20Jan 09 11:55:53 60.0 66.7 64.5 BIA 47.2 103.6 103.7 78.6 69.2 64.8 61.9 56.9 49.8 2 west at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:56:53 60.0 59.7 77.5 74.5 46.0 93.6 97.0 60.7 65.4 60.9 56.5 52.7 49.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 11:57:51 60.0 67.9 05.6 84.5 47.2 104.9 107.0 70.1 71.5 60.2 66.4 59.8 50.0 2 west at Bids Footpri 0 28Jan 09 11:58:51 60.0 61.6 79.3 BO.7 48.9 100.3 101.5 71.0 64.1 60.0 57.4 53.1 50.2 2 West at Bldg Foocpti 0 20Jan 09 11-59:51 60.0 60.6 78.4 74.8 47.2 92.9 94.5 60.9 66.1 63.3 GD.7 53.3 48.7 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 12:00:51 60.0 61.5 79.3 72.9 49.2 93.0 93.5 69.6 66.6 63.2 61.1 58.0 52.6 2 Vast at Bid, Footpti 0 20Jan 09 12:01:51 60.0 62.3 80.0 75.2 46.1 95.0 95.4 72.5 67.8 62.5 60.0 55.9 49.0 2 West at Bldg Footp¢ 0 28Jan 09 12:02:51 60.0 62.0 79.8 74.8 47.0 96.1 96.3 70.5 67.9 64.6 61.4 55.9 4g.7 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20uan 09 12:03:53 60.0 65.6 03.4 83.0 47.2 99.6 100.6 74.3 69.1 66.8 64.0 57.0 50.0 2 Waac at Bldg Festpri 0 20Jan 09 12:04:53 60.0 63.4 B3.1 01.2 48.0 103.4 101.5 73.0 68.1 63.7 60.2 54.7 50.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:05:51 60.0 56.9 74.7 66.3 48.7 B4.O 85.0 62.9 60.4 $8.9 $7.8 55.4 51.5 2 West at Bldg Footpti 8 20Jan 09 12:06:51 60.0 59.5 77.3 68.8 48.0 92.1 87.5 65.6 63.4 62.2 61.3 57.1 51.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:07:51 60.0 59.9 77.6 74.5 49.0 B9.1 91.0 61.0 64.0 61.6 60.1 56.3 51.4 2 B:eac at Bldg Footpri 0 20aan 09 12:00:51 60.0 61.7 79.5 71.2 50.0 90.4 92.3 69.6 65.6 63.4 62.1 59.3 53.6 2 Best at Bldg Footpri 0 2GJan 09 12:09:51 60.0 68.5 86.3 06.8 48.3 103.0 102.7 70.3 69.2 65.8 61.2 55.7 51.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 ?OJen 09 12:10:51 60.0 65.5 83.3 79.2 49.2 105.4 105.2 72.5 70.4 69.1 67.4 58.1 51.4 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 12:11:53 60.0 61.2 78.9 73.9 46.7 69.3 89.4 70.6 65.9 62.1 61.0 56.5 51.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:12:51 60.0 58.0 75.6 70.3 46.9 91.4 51.0 614 62.6 59.4 57.5 53.1 48.9 2 West at Bldg Footpri 8 30uan 09 12:13:51 60.0 65.4 03.2 70.0 49.0 98.6 300.6 73.2 70.4 69.3 66.8 60.0 52.3 2 West at Bldg Footpt_ 0 20uen 89 12:14:51 60.0 64.7 B2.5 76.9 46.5 95.E 97.1 73.5 70.2 67.3 64.8 58.3 51.5 2 Bea, at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09.12:15:51 60.0 65.0 82.6 89.0 47.7 99.9 101.5 74.6 70.4 66.5 63.1 57.6 51.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:16:53 660.0 62.0 78.8 76.9 47.5 94.9 98.9 701 65.7 61.9 59.7 55.6 50.2 2 West as Bldg Fasten 9 20Jan 09 12:17:51 60.0 66.0 83.8 81.4 46.7 102.3 102.3 75.5 71.6 67.8 64.3 56.9 50.5 2 Fast at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:38:51 60.0 6a.8 BOA 77.9 45.6 96.8 96.3 74.9 73.0 71.7 70.6 67.7 52.9 2 wear at Old, Footpri a 20Jan D9 12:19:51 60.0 69.9 07.7 76.1 50.8 52.3 945 74.0 73.0 72.2 71.4 69.7 56.6 2 West at Bid, Footpri 0 20Jan D9 12:20:SI 60.0 71.8 89.6 77.5 595 92.5 93.5 74.6 73.7 73.1 72.7 71.7 69.3 2 Blest at Bid, Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:21:53 60.0 71.3 69.1 76.4 66.5 90.8 92.3 74.7 73.4 72.7 72.2 70.9 68.7 2 West as Bldg Footpri 0 20 Jan 06 12:22:51. 60.0 70.2 67.9 80.2 52.0 93.2 93.5 75.6 73.B 72.7 71.9 69.4 59.0 2 Weac at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:23:51 60.0 72.B 90.6 78.8 67.4 91.8 93.5 16.0 75.1 74.2 73.5 72.2 70.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20uan 09 12:24:51 60.0 70.2 08.0 77.5 65.0 92.4 92.3 75.3 72.8 71.5 7D.7 69.5 66.8 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20uan 09 12:25:51 60.0 70.0 87.7 60.0 49.0 91.4 91.0 75.2 73.4 72.4 71.7 69.9 57.6 2 west at Bldg Foocpti 0 28Jan 09 12 26:53 60.0 70.6 884 77.5 53.4 90.8 93.5 75.4 74.0 73.1 72.1 70.3 60.2 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 28Jan 09 12:27:51 60.0 69.7 67.5 BOA 49.9 99.4 58.9 76.4 73.0 72.7 71.9 65.1 54.5 2 West at Bid, Faotpci 0 28Jan 09 12:20:51 60.0 73.0 91.6 70.4 66.1 92.2 93.5 76.9 76.1 75.4 74.6 73.2 71.1 2 went at Bid, Footpri a 20Jan 09 12:29:51 60.0 72.0 89.9 79.9 50.5 96.5 91.0 77.0 75.7 73.9 72.9 71.4 64.0 2 Pleat at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:30:51 60.0 65.8 63.6 76.2 49.5 96.3 97.0 72.7 71.6 70.1 66.9 60.2 52.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20uan 09 12:31:51 60.0 65.5 63.3 75.4 47.8 93.0 04.5 72.6 70.0 68.4 67.1 62.6 52.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:32:51 60.0 62.0 79.8 71.4 49.7 85.9 07.5 68.7 66.4 64.6 63.1 59.4 52.3 2 West at Bid, Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:33:51 60.0 63.8 81.6 73.0 49.2 86.4 91.0 69.7 69.5 67.3 65.7 61.5 52.4 2 West at Old, Foocpti 0 2DJan 09 12:34:51 60.0 65.4 83.2 77.4 49.2 91.2 91.0 72.8 70.5 68.9 66.7 60.0 52.9 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 Man 09 12:35:51 60.0 66.0 83.0 75.5 46.5 89.9 09.4 73.0 71.4 68.8 66.9 63.3 52.3 2 West at Bid, F.%:,si 0 20Jan 09 12:36:51 60.0 65.3 83.1 31.3 49.7 109.8 110.2 72.2 66.7 64.5 61,4 56.8 52,1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:37:51 60.0 59.5 11.3 70.5 50.0 89,4 93.5 66.2 63.3 61.3 60.0 57.3 53.2 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 2OJan 09 12:30:51 60.0 62.3 80.1 71.5 50.1 85.2 89.4 70,6 68.4 65.8 60.2 57.2 52.3 2 West at Bldg Footpri a ?OJan 09 12:39:51 60.0 59.0 76.8 72.3 48.0 93.3 92.3 99.9 62.7 58.4 56.3 52.9 49.7 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 ROJan 09 12:40:51 60.0 63.6 01.4 85.5 46.7 106.3 110.5 69.0 64.7 62.2 57.7 53.4 48.6 2 West at Bid, Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:41:51 60.0 61.2 79.0 04.4 46.0 106.3 110.2 66.2 63.0 58.4 56.3 52.6 46.4 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:42:51 60.0 56.8 74.6 68.0 46.0 80.8 91.0 65.0 61.4 58,9 57.4 5Z.7 47.6 2 West at Bid, Foetpr! 0 2OJan 09 12:43:51 60.0 68.1 05.9 81.2 46.3 106.7 110.0 70.7 65.5 62.0 59.0 54.5 49.5 2 West at Bldg Footpr! 0 Raise 09 12:44:51 60.0 66.9 04.7 06.7 46.9 111.3 112.8 76.1 65.3 64.2 61.0 56.6 50.5 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 ZOJan 09 12:45:51 60.0 61.7 79.5 74.3 48.7 27.8 87.5 71.4 65.5 63.9 62.6 54.8 51.2 2 West a Bldg Foetpr-, 0 20Jan 09 12:46:51 60.0 57.6 75.4 61.3 51.7 51.0 87.5 62.8 60.7 59.4 58.4 56.5 54.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jen 09 12:47:51 60.0 62.2 90.0 81.2 49.8 92.5 93.5 71.9 65,6 60.8 58.7 55.1 51.6 2 West ec Bid. Foetpr! 0 2OJan 09 12:46:51 60.0 67.2 85.0 87.3 48.4 109.7 112.3 79.9 65.4 59.0 56.9 53.9 50.3 'West at Bldg Footpri a 20Jan 09 12:49:51 60.0 61.3 79.1 81.7 45.4 104.9 107.5 72.0 58.8 56.7 54.5 50.7 47.6 2 Weat at Bldg Footpri 0 ?OJan 09 12:50:51 60.D 53,6 76.4 78.4 6.2 100.4 104.7 66.4 60.7 58.7 51.3 53.4 48.5 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Ja.. 09 12:51:51 60.0 60.1 77.0 7-4 47.3 86.5 69.4 69.2 64.0 60.9 59.3 55.9 50.5 2 '.lest at Bldg Footpri a ?OJan 09 12:52:51 60.0 60.4 79.2 78.8 47.9 101.4 105.1 70.5 62.1 57.9 55.0 53.0 49.6 2 West at Bldg Faocpr, 0 20Jan 09 12:53:51 60.0 66.6 04.4 81.6 46.0 99.3 102.7 79.3 70.9 60.1 55.4 52.8 49.4 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 2DJan 09 12:54:51 60.0 63.6 81.4 80.6 49_.1 95.1 99.5 74.0 62.5 59.7 58.3 56.1 51.8 2 Wes: at Bldg Foocpc 0 20Jan 09 12:55:51 60.0 61.4 79.2 75.9 47.6 90.2 102.7 70.1 66.2 63.1 59.6 55.6 50.9 2 West ac Bldg FO.tpt! 0 20Jae 09 12:56:51 60.0 60.3 79.1 71.9 49.6 03.0 87.5 66.6 63.B 62.3 61.3. 58.2 54.1 2 Nest at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jaa 09 12:57:51 60.0 60.0 77.0 69.8 45.1 86.5 69.4 67.0 64.4 62.4 60.7 57.6 51.3 2 West at Bid, Footpci 0 2eJan 09 1 ?:58:51 60.0 58.7 76.5 74,8 47.9 08.9 91.0 64.2 61.5 59.9 59.0 57.0 52.8 2 Beat at Bldg Footpc o 20Jan 09 12:59:51 60.0 59.0 76.8 66.6 48.7 82.8 39.4 66.0 63.6 61.0 59.4 56,4 52.3 2 West at Bldg Footpc! 0 ?OJan 09 13:00:51 60.0 58.3 76.1 66.3 49.6 E3.3 97.5 64.8 61.B 60.1 58.9 56.7 53.1 2 Nest at Bldg Footpti 0 ?OJan 09 13:01:51 60.0 $8.9 76.7 69.1 49.3 875 92.3 65.6 62.8 61.0 59.6 57.0 52,3 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:02:51 60.0 56.8 74.6 67.9 47.3 00.2 07.5 63.9 61.0 59.2 57.7 54.0 49.8 2 West at Bldg Foorpri 0 Ragan 09 13:03:51 60.0 58.9 76.6 10.9 46.8 92.4 95.4 63.9 60.1 56.0 54.7 52.1 48.7 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:04:51 60.0 61.9 79.7 70.2 47.9 851 09.4 67.9 66.7 65.5 63.2 59.8 51.7 2 least of Bldg Footpc! 0 20Jan 09 13:05:51 60.0 64.5 82.3 83.8 51.1 108.9 109.4 70.3 67.1 65.4 63.9 60.5 54.0 2 West at Bid, Footpti 0 20Jan 09 13:06:51 60.0 69.2 87.0 88.2 49.0 111.6 115.0 81.1 68.6 63.1. 60.6 56.7 51.9 2 West at Did, Fo9tpri o 20Jan 09 13:07:51 60.0 65.6 83.4 86.1 50.4 109.3 213.7 74.7 62.5 60.7 59.1 56.9 53.4 2 ties: at Bid, Footpti 0 285an 09 13:08:51 60.0 67.7 85.5 85.6 47.2 107.3 111.2 79.7 65.6 61.2 59.1 56.2 52.1 2 West at Bid, Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:09:51 60.0 66.6 84.4 85.5 49.0 106.7 110.7 77.4 66.9 63.5 61.1 57.0 51,2 2 West at Bldg Footpc 0 20Jan 09 13:10:51 60.0 66.5 84.3 84.8 49,3 107.9 109.6 77.6 68.5 63.5 61_2 57.7 53.8 2 tae at at Bldg FOOiprl 0 2OJan 09 13:11:51 60.0 62.6 60.4 81.7 46.2 105.2 107.0 72.2 62.9 60.4 50.9 56.1 49.6 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 13:12:51 60.0 63.2 80.9 81.8 45.3 104.3 108.9 75.1 61.3 56.5 53.9 51.4 47.5 2 Wes: at Bldg Foocpsi 0 20Jan 09 13:13:51 60.0 64.1 81.9 81.5 47.8 104.4 107.5 76.4 63.3 58.5 56.3 52.5 49.3 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 ?OJan 09 13:14:51 60.0 63.7 81.5 84.5 48.2 106.4 109.1 74.0 58.1 55.3 54.2 52.5 50.0 2 ]Best at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:15:51 60.0 59.4 77.2 61.7 49.2 104.7 106.1 63.7 56.7 55.0 53.9 52.6 50.7 2 Best at Bldg Footpri 0 2OJan 09 13:16:51 60.0 59.6 77.3 81.1 48.6 102.1 102.7 67.7 57.0 55.7 54.5 52.5 49.9 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 08 13:17:51 60.0 63.5 81.3 79.6 50.2 103.8 104.7 75.1 65.1 61.0 59.1 56.0 51.7 2 lies[ at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:18:51 60.0 60.6 78.3 79.0 47.9 102.0 104.4 71.4 61.6 58.3 56.2 53.1 49.3 2 V30 et at Bldg Footpti 0 2OJan OB 13:19:51 60.0 62.6 00.3 79.5 47.5 103.0 107.5 73.9 64.9 61.0 57.7 53.7 50.4 2 1308 nt Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:20:51 60.0 58.4 76.2 79.0 46.7 101,5 103,7 69.2 56.5 54.0 52.8 51.2 49.0 2 WeaL at Bldg F000pri 0 2OJan 09 13:21:51 60.0 61.5 79.3 79.7 49.2 100.0 104.9 70.9 64.0 61.0 50.0 54.1 51.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 2eJan 09 13:22:51 60.0 67.1. 64.9 78.7 51.1 93.2 93.5 75.2 72.6 70.3 67.8 61.0 54.3 2 West at Bid, Footpti a 2OJan 09 13:23:51 60.0 64.2 62.0 77.5 40.9 92.3 93.5 71.6 69.4 67.7 65.3 57.8 51.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20JeO 09 13:24:51 60.0 66.3 84,0 70.2 49.9 94.7 98..3 74.4 71..8 69.5 66.5 58.9 53.5 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 12:25:51 60.0 61.9 79.7 79.6 49.9 103.2 1D5.5 72.1 66.5 58.3 55.5 53.2 51.3 2 Neat at Bldg Footpri a 20Jan 09 13:26:51 60.0 69.6 87.4 82.9 51.6 96.4 100.1 78.2 74.6 72.3 70.4 62.4 53.8 2 Weet at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:27:51 60.0 65.5 03.3 77. 6 50.9 100.1 106.3 75.4 71.8 67.2 62.9 56.4 52.7 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 2OJan 09 13:28:51 60.0 62.9 80.6 74.4 49.4 92.2 97.7 71.7 60.6 66.1 63.0 55.4 50.8 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Ja. 09 13:29:51 60.0 62.4 60.2 77.2 49.3 101.6 102.3 70.6 67.3 64.6 62.2 57.8 53.3 2 West at Bid, Footpc 0 2eJan 09 13:30:51 60.0 63.3 61.0 78.3 49.8 97.3 101_5 73.9 66.7 62.9 61.0 57.2 52.4 2 West at Bldg Footpr) 0 2eJan 09 13:31:51 60.0 66.6 64.6 83.4 51_6 1095 110.1 76.2 71.5 68.0 65.6 61.1 54.4 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:32:51 60.0 62.0 80.6 79.0 51.4 103.0 106.9 70.2 65.9 63.8 62.6 59.0 54.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 Ragan 09 13:33:51 60.0 61.4 79.2 74.6 49.5 94.1 100.6 69.7 65.6 63.3 61.7 57.0 52.3 2 ]Best at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 i3:34:51 60.0 52.5 70.3 64.9 49.5 79.1 85.0 56.9 54.7 53.5 52.6 51.7 50.3 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:35:51 60.0 54.0 72.6 65.1 43.9 76.7 85.0 61.0 50.6 56.7 55.4 52.7 50.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Ja., 09 13:36:51 60.0 54.6 72.6 67.6 4B.8 87.3 92.3 60.2 59.7 56.7 55.6 53.3 50.6 2 Bast at Bldg F-tIt` 0 20Jsa 09 13:37:51 60.0 $5.7 73.5 69.9 49.5 80.8 98.9 61.6 57.7 56.9 56.5 54.2 51_0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:38:51 60.0 52.3 70.1 59.6 47.6 76.9 85.0 57.6 55.1 53.9 52.9 51.4 49.2 2 'lest at Bldg Footpri 0 2eJan 09 13 39:51 60.0 59.3 77.1 72.4 48.1 87.2 89.4 70.0 63.3 59.4 56.5 52,4 49.8 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jar. 09 13:40:51 60.0 50.7 76.5 69.9 49.0 87.7 87.5 65.3 63.6 62.1 59.7 54.8 50.4 2 Floss at Bldg Foetpri 0 20Jan 09 13:41:51 60.0 59.4 76.2 74.3 49.88 96.0 103.0 67.1 61.7 59.3 58.0 54.9 51.2 2 West as Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:42:51 60.0 63.1 00.0 72.6 53.0 92.7 100.1 70.5 60.6 65.6 63.0 59.0 55.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri a 20Jaa 09 13:43:51 60.0 66.1 03.9 05.5 52.6 101.9 103.7 73.4 67.2 65.3 63.9 59.2 55.1 2 Wes: at Bldg Footpri a Ragan 09 13:44:51 60.0 59.6 77.4 73.3 51.4 94.1 101.0 66.5 62.B 60.5 59,3 57.4 54.3 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:45:51 60.0 59.9 77.7 73.9 49.9 94.4 100.6 69.4 63.6 61.3 59.0 55.5 51.5 2 West at Bldg Footpc 0 20gan 09 13:46:51 60.0 60.2 76.0 76.5 53.9' 100.0 99.5 66.0 61.7 60.4 59.5 5B4O 55.7 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:47:51 60.0 59.0 75.7 65.3 52.3 79.4 91.0 63.4 61.1 59.6 58.6 56.9 54.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 ?OJan 09 13:48:51 60.0 63.5 81.2 71.5 50.3 885 89.4 70.7 69.7 69.3 63.3 56.1 52.9 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 13:49:51 60.0 57.7 75.5 75.3 49.6 9D.2 92.3 65.0 59.9 57.7 56.3 54.3 51.6 2 Best at Bldg Foetpri a 20Jan 09 13:5D:51 60.0 62.4 80.1 76.6 50.4 95.1 100.6 74.2 64.6 59.6 50.0 55.5 53.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 2OJan 09 13:51:51 60.0 63.5 61.2 79.4 48.8 97.4 100.1. 75.1 64,8 61,4 59.8 53.9 50.7 2 Floss at Bldg Foetpr! 0 Ragan 09 13:52:51 60.0 69.5 07.3 01.8 47.9 100.0 100.1 79.6 75.7 71.0 66.1 58.4 52.7 2 Beat at Bldg Foocpc! 0 20Jan 00 13:53:51 60.0 72.9 90.6 02.9 47,6 161.0 101.0 01.5 79.3 76.3 72.6 62.3 52.3 2 West at Bid, Footpri a 203an 09 13:54:51 60.0 65.6 63.4 75.5 49.3 91.4 94.5 72.4 70.9 69.6 67.6 60.3 54.2 2 West at Bldg Footpr! 0 20Jan 09 13:55:51 60.0 58.5 76.3 74.3 50.9 52.9 01,0 63.3 61.1 59.6 58.7 56.0 53.5 2 Beat at Bldg Foetpcl 0 20Jan 09 13:56:51 60.0 64.7 82.5 78.6 53.9 95.5 97.0 71.2 60.5 67.0 65.6 63,1 57.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Ja. 09 13:57[51 60.0 65.9 63.7 73.8 53.5 89.0 96.3 71.7 70.0 69.1 67.9 63.9 56.6 2 West at Bldg Footpr! 9 'en 09 13:58:52 60.0 61.7 79.5 71.4 53.0 38.0 93.5 60.2 65.6 64.3 63.1 59.8 55.3 2 West at Bid, Footpti 0 2OJan 09 13:59:51 60.0 69.6 87.4 81.8 52.7 IDO.2 100.6 78.9 75.7 72.3 68.4 58.5 54.2 2 West at Bldg Footpci 0 ZOJan 09 14:00:51 60.0 60.9 78.6 72.5 50.0 85.5 89.4 70.5 64.3 61.1 59.0 57.0 52.9 2 West at Bldg Footpc! 0 2eJan 09 14:01:51 60.0 62.5 80.3 69.7 50.5 85.7 67.5 67.6 65.9 65.1 64.5 61.4 52,4 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:02:51 60.0 60.7 78.4 66.3 47.0 79.2 B9.4 65.7 64.9 64.4 63.7 57.2 49.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:03:51 60.0 59.3 77.1 73.0 47.3 87.7 92.3 66.6 65.1 63.9 59.1 51.2 48.5 2 West at Bid, Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:04:51 60.0 54.2 72.0 66.8 48.4 78.1 63.4 62.2 58.8 54.3 52.0 51.3 49.4 2 West at Bldg Foetpri 0 Root. e9 14:05:51 60.0 61.2 70.9 60.8 47.5 62.6 65.0 66.5 65.3 64.4 63.6 59.2 49.9 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 ZOJan 09 14:06:51 60.0 64.3 82.1 71.0 50.3 87.6 92.3 69.1 67.6 66.4 65.7 64.3 52.7 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:07:51 60.0 60.9 78.7 71.7 49.4 99.7 91.0 69.7 66.9 63.5 59.8 54.5 51.2 2 Wast at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 05 14:08:51 60.0 50.7 76.5 72.5 48.5 90.1 91.0 69.3 62.9 56.3 54.9 53.1 50.4 2 [lest at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:09:51 60.0 69.5 87.3 90.7 49.4 99.6 98.3 79.9 76.1 71.7 67.5 59.8 54.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 2OJan 09 14:10:51 60.0 64.5 82.3 79.4 48.2 98.9 98.3 75.6 69.5 63.4 60.0 53.6 50.5 2 West at Bldg Footpzi 0 20Jan 09 14:11:51 60.0 56.3 14.1 66.4 47.7 84.0 89.4 62.6 60.1 59.2 57.8 53.4 50.6 2 Weat at Bldg Footpr5 0 20Jan 09 14:12:51 60.0 61.6 79.4 71.3 40.0 85.7 91.0 70.3 67.9 64.9 60.1 53.8 50.2 2 West ac Bldg Faotpri 0 20Jan 09 14:13:51 60.0 65.1 82.9 77.9 47.5 92.4 92.3 71.0 69.1 68.3 67.1 62.5 50.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 14:14:51 60.0 68.3 B6.1 89.4 46.1 104.4 104.9 72.9 64.6 65.8 61.9 52.2 47.8 2 West at Bitlg Foacpr5 0 ZOJan 09 14:15:51 60.0 59.5 71.3 72.3 45.8 89.5 89.4 70.1 65.9 57.9 53.4 49.9 47.1 2 Weat ac Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:16:51 60.0 63.8 91_6 77.8 46.5 93.0 01.1 75.2 68.6 62.1 $7.5 51.3 48.6 2 West at Bitlg Faptpzi 0 20Jan 09 14:17:51 60.0 69.3 86.1 61_3 4 6. 0 106.1 196.6 77.4 74.1 70.4 67.6 62.5 49.0 2 West ac Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:16:51 60.0 70.2 68.0 81.0 46.0 99.8 100.5 78.7 75.9 72.0 69.9 65.2 55.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:19:51 60.0 57.2 75.0 75.2 46.4 92.9 94.5 67.3 59.7 55.6 53.8 51.7 48.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:20:51 60.0 66.5 84.2 77.5 46.5 05.6 97.7 75.2 72.3 69.4 66.6 58.5 47.8 2 West at Bldg Footpti a 20Jan 09 14:21:51 60.0 60.1 77.9 72.9 45.7 90.8 91.0 65.8 65.7 62.3 58.8 51.7 41.7 2 Hest at Bldg Faotpri 0 20jaa 09'14:22:51 60.0 51.4 75.2 70.7 46.8 87.3 93.5 68.0 61.9 51.1 53.5 51.3 48.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 14:23:51 60.0 57.4 75.2 70.2 47.8 85.6 91.0 64.7 60.9 59.7 58.5 54.4 50.0 2 Hint at Bldg Footprl 0 20Jan 09 14:24:51 60.0 58.1 75.9 68.2 49.2 90.3 93.5 65.4 63.6 61.8 57.9 53.0 50.8 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 202an Be 14:25:51 60.0 59.1 76.9 70.7 48.7 86.3 87.5 67.0 65.4 60.6 57.6 54.1 50.8 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:26:51 60.0 61.2 79.9 91.0 49.4 96.1 91.7 68.4 63.1 60.5 58.7 54.9 51.4 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 14:27:51 60.0 62.9 80.6 90.9 50.5 92.3 02.3 72.7 65.1 60.1 57.3 54.6 52.0 2 West at Bldg Feotps5 0 20Jan 09 14:28:51 60.0 65.9 93.7 84.2 52.5 07.6 97.3 76.4 69.0 63.4 60.3 55.6 53.9 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09. 14:29:51 60.0 56.3 74.1 65.5 51.4 91.4 91.0 62.7 59.0 57.2 56.4 55.1 53.2 2 West at Bldg Fo tpc 0 20Jaa 09 14:30:51 60.0 53.5 71.3 65.1 48.5 79.6 91.0 55.2 55.0 54.3 53.7 52.4 50.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09' 14:31:51 60.0 $8.4 76.1 71.7 47.8 56.0 91.0 69.8 60.1 56.5 54.6 52.2 49.4 2 !teat at 8149 Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:32:51 60.0 63.1 80.9 75.5 47.9 92.4 94.5 71.2 68.2 65.3 63.0 58.7 51.9 2 %last at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 14:33:51 60.0 60.8 78.6 73.0 50.0 69.5 93.5 69.4 65.7 62.9 60.3 56.0 51.8 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:34:51 60.0 60.5 78.2 74.9 45.2 89.3 91.7 69.1 65.1 62.5 60.1 55.4 51.2 2 West at Bitlg Foatpri 0 20Jan 09 14:35:51 60.0 66.1 83.9 85.8 50.3 111.1 113.3 76.3 67.0 63.6 60.8 57.6 52.5 2 Hest at Bitlg Footpti 0 20Jan 00 14:36:51 60.0 65.7 e3.4 83.7 50.8 107.3 107.7 75.9 68.0 64.4 62.7 60.1 54.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:37:51 60.0 65.4 63.2 67.0 50.2 109.6 109.2 74.8 67.9 63.6 61.1 56.5 52.5 2 Blest at Bldg Footpri 0 2BJan 09 14:38:51 60.0 64.3 82.0 84.6 52.5 105.6 109.7 73.4 66.7 63.6 61.6 57.1 54.1 2 West at Bid, Footpzi 0 20Jan 09 14:39:51 60.0 63.6 81.4 83.4 51.8 IOB.6 111.1 72.3 65.5 63.7 62.1 57.4 53.9 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 2BJan 09 14:40:51 60.0 61.1 76.9 73.7 53.4 91.5 97.0 66.9 64.3 63.1 61.9 59.3 55.7 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 14:41:51 60.0 62.8 60.6 86.7 49.2 109.4 111.7 65.7 63.4 61.3 59.4 56.2 51.7 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jao 09 14:42:51 60.0 68.9 86.7 89.4 48.7 111.5 114.6 80.0 66.9 63.6 60.2 54.7 50.4 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 204an 09 14:43:51 60.0 70.2 Be.O 89.5 49.2 109.6 113.5 82.2 69.6 65.6 62.5 57.0 51.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:44:51 60.0 67.0 84.8 85.7 40.3 107.9 110.4 77.5 67.4 64.7 63.6 60.1 50.3 2 West at Bldg Footpri o 20dan 99 14:45:51 GO.0 67.0 94.8 83.9 48.7 106.0 109.9 79.2 67.8 61.8 59.0 55.3 51.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri o 20Jan 09 14:46:51 60.0 65.4 83.2 84.4 40.7 101.5 111.0 76.4 66.1 62.0 59.9 56.4 51.2 2 West at Bitlg Faocpr5 0 20Jan 09 14:47:51 60.0 63.0 60..8 81.7 49.0 103.7 108.5 72.5 64.8 62.4 60.5 56.2 51.4 2 Wost at Bid, Footpti 0 20Jan 09 14:40:51 60.0 67.0 84.8 89.1 48.5 111.6 114.9 72.2 66.9 63.5 60.8 56.2 50.6 2 Woet at Bldg Footpri o 201an 09 14:49:51 60.0 57.7 75.5 71.9 48.0 96.0 93.0 66.2 61.7 59.2 57.3 53.2 49.5 2 Hest at Bldg Footpri 0 Man 09 14:50:51 60.0 59.7 77.5 73.5 47.3 90.9 91.0 6B.7 65.5 GI.A $7.1 52.3 49.2 2 Nest at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:51:51 60.0 63.6 61.3 77.5 4B.2 91.1 93.5 74.7 67.8 62.7 60.2 55.6 50.1 2 Wast at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:52:51 60.0 66.6 04.4 80.9 49.2 93.7 94.5 77.6 72.1 66.1 62.2 55.3 50.7 2 % Ise t at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:53:51 60.0 55.3 73.0 60.3 49.7 92.5 91.0 61.3 59.4 $7.3 55.8 52.5 51.0 2 Was at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:54:51 60.0 51.0 78.7 70.2 50.4 83.9 B9.A 66.7 65.6 64.B 64.0 56.5 52.2 2 tie S at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 14:55:51 60.0 56.2 73.9 66.7 50.7 83.7 89.4 63.3 59.6 578 56.1. 54.1 51.7 2 We 5C at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:56:51 60.0 56.6 74.4 70.3 49.9 87.5 '87.5 63.2 59.9 57.9 56.7 54.6 51.9 2 west at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:57:51 60.0 65.4 83.2 78.2 51.5 92.5 93.5 74.5 70.9 68.4 63.4 56.3 53.1 2 Was at Bldg Footpri 0 293an 09 14:59:51 60.0 63.6 81.4 76.5 51.3 90.1 91.0 74.0 68.3 64.1 61.2 56.9 52.9 2 west at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 14:59:51 60.0 64.9 82.6 86.3 51.2 101.0 101.5 67.5 60.8 59.2 57.9 55.1 52.8 2 West at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 15:00:51 60.0 62.2 79.9 80.2 52.5 96.1 97.0 71.7 61.9 59.4 58.5 57.2 54.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 15:01:51 60.0 64.5 82.3 03.7 50.4 96.6 97.7 71.2 61.B 59.9 50.9 57.0 52.1 2 west at Bldg Footpri 0 203an 09 13:02:51 60.0 63.0 80.8 81.7 49.9 100.2 100.1 75.2 59.0 56.3 54.9 53.0 50.9 2 Was at Bid. Footpti 0 203aa 09 15:03:51 60.0 60.0 778 B1.3 49.0 93.9 94.5 66.2 59.1 56.6 54.5 52.2 501 2 W03C at Bldg Foatpri 0 29Jan 09 15:04:51 60.0 62.6 BOA 83.4 49.2 96.6 97.7 66.6 64.5 59.5 57.2 53.1 50.4 2 Hest at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:05:51 60.0 62.5 80.3 76.6 48.9 97.5 98.9 71.2 61.3 65.7 63.5 54.3 50.4 2 west at Bitlg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:06151 60.0 61.9 79.1 76.3 48.5 93.0 94.5 70.8 66.6 64.5 61.0 54.7 50.4 2 West at Bldg Footpri o 20Jan 09 15:07:51 60.0 60.5 78.3 72.0 50.2 84.0 89.4 70.2 65.6 61.5 58.7 55.0 52.2 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20J., 09 15:09:51 60.0 61.1 78.8 72.9 51.2 86.7 89.9 69.4 66.2 63.3 60.7 56.0. 53.1 2 toes[ at Bitlg Footpti 0 20Jan 09 15:09:51 60.0 62.0 79.8 70.0 51.7 81.5 87.5 68.9 66.9 64.5 62.6 60.0 53.7 2 Neat at Bldg Faotpri 0 20Jan 09 15:10:51 60.0 58.2 76.0 77.3 45.2 88.4 89.4 62.5 50.6 56.9 56.0 53.8 50.8 2 best at Bldg Footpri 0 20jan 09 15:11:51 60.0 58.1 75.9 70.0 49.5 61.1 05.0 67.9 60.6 58.4 57.1 55.3 51.5 2 West at Bid. Footpri 0 2BJan 09 15:12:51 60.0 59.3 77.1 71.0 50.2 82.5 87.5 70.0 62.5 58.7 57.5 55.1 52.1 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:13:51 60.0 56.8 74.6 67.1 48.5 84.4 87.5 64.8 62.1 56.5 56.0 53.2 50.1 2 W.at at Bldg Fopcpt5 0 2BJan 09 15:14:51 60.0 60.2 77.9 75.0 48.8 03.6 BOA 66.2 62.9 61.7 60.5 57.2 51.8 2 [lost at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:15:51 60.0 60.5 78.2 71.9 45.6 99.5 804 69.2 65.6 62.3 60.1 55.9 51.4 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:36:51 60.0 63.4 81.2 00.9 49.0 99.1 98.9 73.6 66.9 63.2 62.0 53.6 50.5 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 15:17:51 60.0 58.8 76.5 68.2 47.0 '6i.4 667.5 67.3 65.0 60.7 57.9 53.5 49.7 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:16:51 60.0 53.9 71.6 68.4 46.66 63.2 85.0 63.0 56.0 53.6 52.7 50.8 48.3 2 Hest at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:19:51 60.0 61.8 79.6 70.7 50.4 85.9 87.5 68.7 66.4 64.4 63.0 59.4 52.3 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20jan 09 15:20:51 60.0 41.4 79.2 69.1 49.1 82.9 875 67.8 66.2 64.5 62.7 59.0 50.9 2 'fast ac Bitlg Footpzi 0 20daa 09 15:21:51 60.0 62.2 80.0 73.1 50.6 06.0 89.4 68.6 66.6 65.1 63.6 59.6 52.4 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 15:22:51 60.0 60.4 78.2 69.3 50.6 60.0 87.5 67.7 65.4 63.9 62.5 55.4 51.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jar. 09 15:23:51 60.0 60.0 77.6 10.3 50.0 20.9 92.3 615 66.2 63.9 58.4 52.9 51.2 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:24:51 60.0 57.5 75.7 66.5 47.6 81.0 87.5 64.9 63.1 61.2 58.8 54.5 49.2 2 Ifeet at Bldg Footpti B 20Jan 09 15:25:51 60.0 58.8 76.6 69.3 48.4 79.1 87.5 67.2 64.8 61.7 57.3 53.0 50.4 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:26:51 60.0 53.9 71.7 61.9 47.5 82.2 65.0 61.4 56.6 54.5 53.4 52.0 45.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan Be 15:27:51 60.0 55.2 73.0 64.9 49.2 71.9 09.4 61.1 56.2 56.9 55.9 53.8 51.1 2 West at Bitlg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:20:51 60.0 59.9 77.7 61.6 49.5 100.0 100.6 66.2 58.3 $6.1 54.3 51.9 50.3 2 Hest at Bid, Footpti 0 20Jen 09 15:29:51 60.0 59.8 77.6 63.1 49.1 81.4 85.0 66.4 64.5 63.3 60.9 56.7 51.8 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:30:51 60.0 57.3 75.1 61.1 53.66 92.88 'a 9.4 62.7 58.8 57.9 57.6 56.0 55.2 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:31:51 60.0 63.0 BOA 74.5 53.9 92.9 92.3 70.9 60.5 65.2 62.8 59.5 56.1 2 West at Bldg Faotpri 0 20Jan 05 15:32:51 60.0 65.7 63.4 86.4 54.3 102.2 101.9 70.3 63.0 61.4 60.7 59.5 56.6 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:33:51 60.0 66.6 84.4 84.0 S-9 67.0 98.3 77.8 68.7 63.6 62.1 59.5 56.3 2 West at Bldg Footpri o 20Jan 09 15:34:51 60.0 65.0 82.9 85.4 55.6 99.7 99.5 71.8 65.5 63.6 62.4 60.2 57.9 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:35:51 60.0 61.0 7B.7 70.0 56.0 86.1 92.3 64.6 62.8 62.2 61.7 60.7 501 2 West at Bitlg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:36:51 60.0 62.5 80.3 76.4 55.4 90.7 91.0 68.3 66.2 62.9 62.3 61.0 50.2 2 Beat at Bldg Footpti 0 203an 09 15:31:51 60.0 60.4 78.1 67.8 56.9 85.1 92.3 63.7 62.2 61.6 61.1 60.1 58.1 2 West at Bldg Footpzi 0 29Jan 09 15:38:51 60.0 64.6 82.4 71.6 51.9 86.1 9B.3 70.7 69.5 66.4 64.8 62.6 59.0 2 West at Bldg Fo6Cpn 0 29Jan 09 15:39:51 60.0 66.1 83.9 78.8 54.5 95.2 99.5 70.7 69.7 6B.9 68.3 62.9 57.2 2 West at Bldg Footpzi 0 20Jan 09 15:40:51 60.0 61.9 79.6 72.3 55.6 90.1 81.5 66.0 64.1 62.9 62.1 60.8 50.6 2 West at Old, Faotpri 0 20Jan 09 15:41:51 60.0 62.2 79.9 73.0 57.6 89.2 94.5 68.7 65.1 62.8 61.0 60.9 59.0 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:42:51 60.0 59.4 77.2 65.4 51.8 81.5 81.5 63.4 61.9 60.7 60.0 59.1 56.6 2 West at Bldg Footpzi 0 20Jan 09 15:43:51 60.0 61.4 79.2 75.0 55.6 92.2 95.4 68.4 63.0 61.6 61.3 60.2 57.6 2 Heat at Bldg Footpri 0 20Jan 09 15:44:51 60.0 65.0 82.0 85.6 55.5 105.0 104.9 70.5 63.5 62.5 61.9 60.1 57.2 2 West at Bldg Footpri 0 29Jan 09 15:45:51 60.0 61.6 79.4 76.4 55.9 92.0 96.3 67.3 63.8 62.4 61.5 60.2 58.1 2 Nest at Bldg Footpii 0 20Jan 09 15:46:51 60.0 59.2 77.0 71.1 53.8 88.7 92:3 63.0 61.2 60.2 59.7 58.6 56.7 2 Nest at Bldg Footpii 0 20Jan 09 15:41:51 60.0 61.0 78.8 79.8 53.5 94.3 95.4 66.8 62.2 60.5 59.7 58.6 56.3 2 Nest at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jao 09 15 ;48:51 60.0 64.2 81.9 80.0 56.1 93.2 96.3 73.9 66.9 63.6 62.3 60.1 57.7 2 ties at Bldg Footpti 0 20Jaa 09 15:49:51 60.0 62.4 80.2 77.2 55.4 92.5 94.5 71.1 64.8 62.6 61.3 59.5 56.9 2 Nest at Bldg Footpii 0 20Jan 09 15:50:51 60.0 60.3 7B.1 7.3.2 52.7 91.3 92.3 65.0 63.0 62.1 61.3 59.6 55.3 2 Nest at Bldg Foocpvi o 20Jan 09 15:51:51 28.5 69.4 83.9 86.2 55.1 308.3 108.9 79.8 72.6 69.5 66.5 60.3 57.4 C: \LARDAV\SLHUTIL \ZOJA9 09.61. Interval Data "as Sire Ocailen L Borah, Date Time D.r.rion 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20jan 09 09:17:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20dan 09 09:18:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jar. 09 09:19:47 60.0 3 Perot 3 Noah Bldg F 0 ?OJan 09 09:20:47 60.0 3 Beret 3 North Bid, F 0 IOJan 09 09:21:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 29Jan 09 09:22:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 09:23:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 Noah Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 09:24:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 Noah Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 09:25:47 60.0 3 More- 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:26:47 60.0 3 Peter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:27:47 60.0 3 µetas 3 :2orCM1 Bldg 0 20Jan 09 09:28:47 60.0 3 Peter 3 North Bldg F 0 30J.. 09 09:29:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 Berth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:30:47 60.0 3 Meta. 3 North Bldg e 0 20Jan 09 09:31:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 Berth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:32:47 60.0 3 Peter 3 11.6tb Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 09:33:47 60.0 3 Note- 3 Borth Bide F 0 20Jan 09 09:39:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jag Oo. 09:35:93 60.0 3 Peter 3 Borth Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 09:36:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 2Wan 09 09:3]:4] 60.0 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 09:36:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bitlg F 0 26Jan 09 09:39:97 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 26Jan 09 09:40:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:41:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 Berth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:42:47 60.0 3 Haar 3 Borth Bldg F 0 ?Wan 09 09:43:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bitlg F 0 26Jan 09 09:44:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 Borth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:45:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bitlg F o 20jan 09 09:46:4] 60.0 3 Mete. 3 N.,rh Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 09:4]:4] 60.0 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 09:48:4] 60.0 3 Meter 3 Noah Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 09:49:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 Nettie Bldg F o 2Wan 00 09:50:47 60.0 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jaa 09 09:51:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:52:47 60.0 3 Hater 3. North Bid, F 0 26Jan 09 09:53:47 GD.O 3 Meter 3 Noah Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 09:54:47 60.0 3 Note. 3 Ilorth Bid, F 0 26Jan 09 09:55:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:56:47 60.0 3 Mater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:57:4] 60.0 3 Meter 3 I4.rrh Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 09:58:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Did, F o 20J.n 09 09:59:97 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:00:47 60.0 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:01:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:02:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:03:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:04:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:05:17 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 00 10:06:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:07:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 203an 09 10:06:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:09:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bid. F 0 26Jan 09 10:10:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:11:97 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 ?OJan 09 10:12:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 2DJan 09 10:13:47 60.0 3 Note. 3 North Bid, F 0 eOJan 09 10:i4:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 ZOJan 09 10:15:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 29Jan 09 20:16:97 60.0 3 Here. 3 North Bldg F 0 29Jan 09 10:17:47 60.0 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20jan 00 10:18:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 Borth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:19:9] 60.0 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:20:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:21:47 60.0 3 Hole. 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:22:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:23:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:24:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 10:25:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bid. F 0 26Jan 09 10:26:47 60.0 3 Mater 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:27:47 60.0 3 Perot 3 Ilorth Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 10:28:41 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:29:97 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:30:41 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:31:97 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:32:97 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:33:47 60.0 3 Moser 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 10:34:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bids F 0 20Jan ON 10:35:47 60.0 3 ]later 3 Borth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:36:97 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 26Jan 09 10:37:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F D 20Jae 09 10:39:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:39:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:40:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:41:47 60.0 3 I9eter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 10:42:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:43:47 60.0 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jae 09 10:44:47 60.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 10:45:47 60.0 3 Motor 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 10:46:47 60.0 Leg BoL F,vax 71.3 89.1 86.4 69.9 87.7 85.0 65.1 82.9 79.1 62.8 80.6 74.3 62.5 80.3 70.4 64.8 82.6 81.5 61.9 79.6 77.5 60.0 77.8 72.8 56.6 76.6 69.9 51.7 75.5 10.7 49.5 67.3 60.7 65.3 83.1 76.3 63.4 61.2 79.5 62.1 79.0 72.3 66.2 64.0 51.9 62.0 79.7 15.7 56.2 74.0 67.7 59.0 76.8 72.3 61.5 79.3 75.4 63.7 81.4 79.3 63.6 81.5 78.7 56.3 74.1 67.9 56.5 74.3 67.7 56.7 74.4 73.2 53.6 71.4 70.3 59.6 77.4 70.3 65.6 83.4 74.0 59.2 77.0 77.7 57.2 14.9 66.1 64..6 62.4 74.6 56.1 73.9 65.6 55.1 72.9 72.4 53.8 71.6 61.9 54.0 71.6 68.2 55.0 72.7 66.9 57.6 75..4 73.0 57.3 75.1 64.4 56.6 74.3 64.7 53.3 71.1 67.6 66.8 B4.6 79.3 72.1 89.9 84.7 60.9 78.7 70.2 56.6 74.4 71.3 59.1 76.B 69.5 58.0 75.7 62.7 58.9 76.7 62.6 59.2 77.0 65.0 56.6 76.5 66.7 56.6 74.4 61.1 58.8 76.6 63.1 58.8 76.6 63.7 58.6 76.3 63.7 65.1 82.9 74.7 55.8 73.5 77.3 56.3 74.1 74.3 56.6 74.3 76.2 59.7 76.5 73.7 60.4 76.1 77.3 61.2 79.0 74.5 57.4 75.1 76.0 56.2 74_0 68.7 53.7 71.5 67.0 62.6 50.9 75.5 57.2 74.9 71.3 61.4 79.2 81.9 $6.0 13.8 73.1 65.0 82.8 85.3 50.3 76.1 69.7 59.1 76.9 68.6 57.7 75.4 74.1 65.7 83.5 74.0 62.2 19.9 76.7 56.8 74.6 63.5 62.8 80.6 75.5 63.6 81.4 81.8 58.1 75.9 75.5 75.7 93.5 83.1 77.6 95.4 82.6 77.8 95.5 83.0 70.9 96.7 84.2 78.6 96.4 63.1 77.8 95.6 83.6 70.9 98.7 79.6 67.3 85.1 73.8 65.8 03.6 74.3 67.8 05.6 74.8 67..4 85.2 71.2 60.2 98.0 75.5 72.3 90.0 00.7 70.2 88.0 74.2 _n teak UN,k 45.4 101.0 104.6 48.5 108.2 109.2 45.3 92.5 95.7 45.5 67.3 92.6 85.4 92.6 43.0 97.8 99.7 45.3 97.3 46.5 85.4 87.7 45.7 60.3 87.7 45.5 66.2 89.7 46.0 76.6 96.5 465 89.6 93.6 45.6 96.5 97.9 47.9 86.4 43.3 97.3 98.6 42.] 3].3 41.4 80.! 59.7 44.0 84.3 89.7 43.3 99.9 91.2 47.6 52.1 93.7 47.E 05.1 97.3 46.1 79.6 67.7 46.6 82.2 91.2 47.7 E5.2 87.7 47.7 83.1 5].] 49.9 85.9 93.7 46.8 86.9 93.7 46.2 90.3 B9.7 47.6 79.9 87.7 45.9 87.8 94.8 45.B 82.7 65.2 48.1 84.6 89.7 46.9 74.6 85.2 46.1 81.7 89.7 48.1 78.6 89.7 48.7 87.3 91.2 49.4 75.6 87.7 44.6 82.6 B].] 44.8 82.6 85.2 45.8 91.3 92.6 56.3 97.6 98.3 52.0 81.5 91.2 45.3 05.5 87.7 43.7 00.0 94.8 51.1 75.3 87.7 51.8 76.7 85..2 54.0 80.3 92.6 54.6 82.1 85.2 46.2 74.5 87.7 53.0 79.7 92.6 55.0 76.3 E7.7 55.0 79.3 89.7 45.8 06.2 g7.3 44.3 95.3 97.3 43.6 93.0 94.8 46.1 92.5 95.7 4a".] P6.1 07.9 45.7 97.7 97.6 40.0 97.1 96.5 46.5 9 1.0 94.6 45.3 65.5 89.7 4.1 54.2 97.7 42.8 90.7 04.3 42.3 89.6 89.7 44.7 90.5 93.7 43.2 64.5 07.7 43.6 109.3 108.9 44.2 E6.4 89.7 45.0 53.2 87.7 5.3 -- - 51.2 8.1 S9.3 97.3 46.0 59.5 0 4].5 ]5.] 07.7 45.9 88.6 93.7 45.1 95.6 94.8 46.8 90.3 93.7 47.4 97.6 90.6 58.3 91.5 99.7 54.1 161.7 102.1 75.2 7.2 98.6 74.5 96.2 100.8 ]4.] 97.0 99.2 47.6 93.5 95.7 63.3 89.7 92.6 46.6 41.0 93.1 64.1 87.3 99.7 64.1 83.2 69.7 54.3 89.3 92.6 64.7 90.1 104.3 66.7 93.1 97.3 ( 2) L( 9) L(16) L(25) L(50) L(90) _________________ 82.4 76.0 72.2 67.8 59.3 50.9 79.1 75.4 72.0 69.1 61.9 52.4 74.3 70.6 67.4 64.2 57.6 48.6 70.9 66.6 66.3 63.6 55.4 47.0 69.2 67.5 66.1 65.1 57.6 47.4 75.6 69.9 65.3 60.1 51.5 46.4 73.6 65.9 59.4 54.B 51.3 47.4 67.0 66.1 63.0 50,0 53.5 48.7 68.1 65.7 60.5 56.0. 51.7 47.0 67.2 64.3 58.6 55.0 50.5 46.5 55.7 51.9 50.0 49.7 48.2 46.5 74.3 70.3 67.7 65.4 57.9 48.7 72.9 67.6 63.4 61.7 57.5 49.5 69.5 66.6 65.5 63.9 56.1 49.4 77.6 71.5 64.5 56.6 51.0 45.0 70.7 68.0 64.5 61.3 56.1 47.3 64.9 61.6 59.1 56.3 50.2 44.3 68.3 63.5 61.0 59.3 51.9 45.6 70.3 66.4 64.0 61.7 56.4 45.3 73.2 68.0 64.6 62.3 58.5 52.1 72.0 67.0 64.9 62.9 59.2 52.0 64.8 61.4 58.1 56.0 52.5 47.8 63.0 60.5 50.0 57.0 54.7 50.3 65.8 58.1 56.3 54.6 52.7 48.9 60.3 56.3 53.8 $2.7 50.7 48.7 68.9 64.2 $9.7 56.3 56.1 52.0 73.6 71.9 69.4 66.0 54.6 48.4 69.0 60.3 57.0 55.3 52.4 48.9 63.1 61.1 59.9 58.8 54.9 50.0 73.5 68.4 66.1 64.7 60.8 49.9 63.3 61.3 58.4 56.0 52.8 48.4 59.8 55.9 54.8 53.9 52.5 50.1 60.1 57.3 55.7 54.6 52.3 49.5 62.0 56.5 54.8 53.4 51.2 46.8 61.4 58.0 56.G 55.4 53.3 50.0 67.7 50.7 56.9 56.0 54.0 51.2 62.8 61.5 59..6 50.1 55.6 52.1 61.9 61.0 60.0 57.9 54.4 48.8 60.9 57.2 54.9 52.9 50.0 46.3 75.5 72.4 70.6 68.2 56.0 48.7 78.0 76.0 74.0 72.9 70.7 63.9 66.9 64.7 62.9 61.5 59.1 56.4 62.8 60.7 59.0 58.1 51.3 47.5 60.5 64.7 61.1 58.2 49.9 46.1 61..0 59.9 59.2 58.7 57.7 55.6 61.7 60.6 60.3 54.8 58.8 55.9 62.3 60.9 60.1 59.7 58.9 57.3 61.7 60.7 59.9 59.4 58.5 56.7 60.8 60.0 59.3 58.7 57.0 47.3 61.6 60.7 60.1 59.7 50.6 56.6 61.1 60.5 59.9 59.5 58.6 57.1 60.9 60.1 59.7 59.2 58.4 56.8 74.0 70.9 67.8 63.9 59.3 4B.7 64.8 56.7 52.7 51.1 48.4 45.4 65.4 60.0 56.9 55.0 50.3 46.0 65.4 57.7 55.5 54.5 52.0 4B.5 69.0 62.9 59.3 57.3 53.5 49.7 70.2 64.0 61.0 57.9 53.2 48.0 67.9 63.2 62.3 61.8 60.6 52.0 66.0 59.4 57.1 55.3 51.9 48.6 62.5 60.2 50.0 57.2 53.9 48.8 60.6 57.2 55.0 53.6 51.2 47.5 71.2 69.0 65.6 62.1 52.0 44.8 66.7 62.8 50.0 54.9 50.7 46.3 71.1 62.5 58.7 56.4 52.1 47.3 66.5 59.2 54.4 51.8 48.8 45.3 74.4 67.1 60.9 57.2 52.6 47.1 65.E 64.4 62.1 $8.7 50.9 45.7 65.3 64.3 62.4 61.3 53.5 46.6 64.9 60.9 59.1 57.0 53.5 48.4 73.7 72.2 67.7 65.3 60.7 51.2 70.4 65.8 63.9 62.3 57.5 48.5 61.4 59.9 59.2 58.4 $5.9 51.0 71.0 67.1 65.8 64.1 55.7 48.0 74.2 65.6 62.6 60.2 56.0 49.7 67.8 61.5 56.4 54.4 51.7 48.6 80.5 79.5 78.8 79.2 74.8 51.4 61_8 20.6 79.5 79.7 77.2 71.2 81.7 80.5 79.7 79.0 77.6 67.9 92.3 81.1 00.4 79.0 70.4 76.3 81.6 80.7 80.0 79.6 78.4 75.8 81.7 79.7 73.6 79.4 77.3 75.9 77.8 76.6 75.4 70.9 66.3 54.1 71.6 69.7 68.6 67.8 66.6 64.7 71.9 69.3 68.2 67.3 65.6 51.3 71.2 69.9 69.0 60.5 67.4 65.3 69.9 69.1 68.6 68.0 67.1 65.4 72.0 70.2 69.5 68.8 67.7 66.0 78.7 77.1. 74.1 72.8 69.7 67.1 73.0 72.2 71.5 71.0 69.0 63.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09 10:47:47 60.0 70.9 88.7 76.5 65.6 96.0 95.7 74.6 73.3 72.5 71.0 70.4 68.1 3 Meer 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09 10:40:47 60.0 70.6 88.4 76.2 65.7 91.3 95.7 73.7 72.7 71.9 71.4 70.3 66.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:49:47 60.0 70.1 87.8 74.7 65.6 29.6 89.7 73.1 71.9 71.2 70.7 69.7 68.1 3 rotor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:50:47 60.0 72.7 90.5 03.0 67.1 302.0 103.3 79.9 74.6 73.3 72.6 71.4 69.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:51:47 60.0 72.1 B9.9 78.7 67.2 96.8 99.7 75.5 74.1 73.3 72.8 71.7 69.5 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:52:47 60.0 72.9 90.6 80.7 50.6 101.5 102.1 75.9 75.0 74.5 74.1 72.8 61.9 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:53:41 60.0 72.9 90.7 76.6 69.5 _ 94.8 75.4 74.6 74.0 73.6 72.7 71.0 3 Hofer 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09 10:54:47 60.0 73.6 91.4 78.1 69.5 91.2 03.7 76.7 75.7 75.0 74.5 73.1 71.1 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 28Jan 09 !0:55:47 60.0 74.6 92.4 77.5 70.0 91.- 92.6 76.9 76.4 75.8 75.5 74.4 72.3 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:56:47 60.0 75.1 92.9 76.6 71.0 917 93.7 78.0 77.1 76.5 76.0 75.0 72.3 3 Mater 3 March Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:57:47 60.0 75.4 93.2 00.2 71.5 91.6 97.3 78.9 77.2 76.6 76.1 75.1 73.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 10:50:47 60.0 75.9 93.6 80.9 71.9 93.2 94.0 70.7 77.8 77.3 76.8 75.6 73.1 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 69 10:59:47 60.0 75.7 93.5 80.5 71.2 94.7 99.2 7B.9 77.7 77.0 76.5 75.5 73.4 3 Meter 3 lbrtM1 Bid, F 0 2,Jan 09 11:00:47 60.0 75.3 93.1 78.1 71.4 915 94.8 77.6 77.0 76.6 76.2 75.1 72.8 3 Y.xcer ] North Bldg F 0 2oJan 09 11:01:47 60.0 75.7 93.5 79.4 72.0 93.1 53.7 79.3 77.5 76.9 76.5 75.4 73.4 3 M.etec 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:02:47 60.0 75.1 52.9 91.3 71.7 93.1 97.3 71.3 16.6 76.1 75.7 74.0 73.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 05 11:03:47 60.0 75.5 93.3 82.9 71.9 101.3 99.7 79.5 77.1 76.6 76.1 75.1 73.4 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 11:04:47 60.0 76.5 94.3 81.1 72.9 95.0 95.7 79.9 73.7 77.9 77.3 76.2 74.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:05:47 60.0 77.6 95.4 83.2 73.7 94.6 96.5 90.5 79.4 70.8 70.3 77.3 75.2 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 !1:06:47 60.0 77.1 94.9 82.2 73.4 94.7 97.3 79.9 78.8 78.4 77.9 77.0 74.6 ] Ketec ] North Bldg F 0 20Jaa 09 11:07:47 60.0 77.1 94.9 80.8 59.9 94.3 99.7 79.7 78.8 79.3 77.8 77.1 75.0 3 Peter 3 North Bldg F 0 ?OJan 09 1!:08:47 60.0 73.6 91.3 80.5 45.6 93.1 95.7 79.5 79.4 77.5 76.5 63.8 49.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:09:47 60.0 79.1 96.9 90.1 73.9 103.3 106.3 84.2 81.6 90.0 60.1 70.0 75.6 3 Meter 3 Norch Bldg F 9 28Jan 09 11:10:47 60.0 77.8 95.6 81.4 74.4 94.0 95.7 80.4 79.7 79.2 78.7 77.5 75.3 3 Meter 3 Mazza Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:11:47 60.0 70.2 96.0 81.5 74.7 95.8 97.9 80.9 80.1 79.6 79.2 77.9 75.7 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:12:47 60.0 76.3 96.0 83.5 74.6 96.3 95.7 80.8 00.0 79.6 79.2 78.2 75.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:13:47 60.0 77.0 95.7 83.2 73.7 101.6 100.8 00.8 79.7 79.2 78.8 77.7 75.3 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 3!:14:47 60.0 77.5 95.3 83.4 74.2 90.2 100.8 80.5 19.2 70.6 78.1 77.2 75.2 3 Meter 3 Ilorch Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:15:47 60.0 67.3 05.1 82.7 41.9 301.1 100.3 76.7 71.3 68.1 66.0 61.0 52.7 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 1 :16:47 60.0 64.0 81.8 82.0 45.7 101.0 100.8 75.1 67.3 62.5 58.2 52.1 4B.1 3 (later 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:17:47 60.0 56.0 73.8 74.9 46.5 90.1 92.6 64.2 59.7 55.4 53.5 51.2 40.1 3 Motor 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 11:39:47 60.0 63.3 81.1 76.1 44.6 92.9 94.8 73.7 69.8 63.3 57.3 53.6 46.8 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:19:47 60.0 71.3 89.0 86.1 46.6 101.9 102.5 81.8 75.4 72.2 69.9 62.0 49.4 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:20:47 60.0 72.1 89.8 90.2 47.9 99.4 100.8 81.4 76.0 72.9 69.7 57.8 50.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:21:47 60.0 61.0 78.8 74.4 45.7 90.6 94.8 72.4 65.9 58.6 55.7 52.0 40.2 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09 11:22:47 60.0 71.9 89.7 83.1 47.0 97.6 98.6 81.6 78.1 75.1 70.7 55.9 49.1 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:23:47 60.0 74.1 91.9 84.4 52.4 95,9 97.3 92.4 80.5 70.0 73.G 60.8 54.2 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:24:47 60.0 64.4 82.2 79.6 47.5 101.4 99.7 74.0 69,6 66.0 62.9 56.1 53.1 3 Mazer 3 North Bldo F 0 20Jan 09 11:25:47 60.0 76.4 94.2 85.4 49.1 98.2 59.2 94.6 03.1 81.3 74.7 62.0 54.5 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:26:47 60.0 66.6 94.4 76.5 48.7 89.4 93.7 73.5 11.5 69.8 68.5 62.2 54.7 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 ?OJan 09 11:27:47 60.0 64.9 82.7 77.6 51.4 93.1 95..7 73.6 69.5 67.6 65.0 59.9 54.6 3 Moser 3 Norch Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:28:47 60.0 77.5 95.2 100.1 48.4 115.4 115.1 85.0 76.4 71.7 67.3 58.5 50.0 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 285an 09 11:29:47 60.0 70.5 08.2 89.0 46.4 102.9 103.3 81.7 11.3 65.7 61.4 53.8 4B.2 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09 11:30:47 60.0 66.8 84. "6 66.5 47.1 102.4 102.1 75.0 66.9 62.4 58.8 54.1 49.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:31:47 60.0 67.1 64.9 04.6 47.7 101.5 101.3 77.2 72.2 66.5 62.1 55.G 50.7 3 Fleter 3 NOZtiI Old, F 0 20Jan 09 11:32:47 60.0 71.9 00,7 89.0 49.0 104.4 106.1 81.2 16.6 73.5 73.1 65.6 52.9 3 Fleter 3 Nozch Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:33:47 60.0 70.9 96.7 86.9 46.9 107.0 107.1 85.6 84.8 83.8 82.0 62.2 48.7 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:34:47 60.0 71.7 89.5 93.8 46.6 112.0 112..2 79.8 75.6 65.9 63.4 54.2 49.4 3 ;later 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:35:47 60.0 .66.3 84.0 84.5 44.5 100.6 101.3 76.0 71.1 65.7 59.4 51.6 47.5 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:36:47 60.0 67.9 85J 71.2 52.6 91.0 98.6 75.1 73.5 70.9 68.8 64.5 55.2 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 00 11:37:47 60.0 67.2 84.9 80.1 46.9 94.2 95.7 77.7 74.6 65.4 59.0 52.6 49.9 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 11:38:47 60.0 67.7 85.5 80.2 48.2 92.5 93.7 71J 75.3 62.B 60.3 $1.8 49.3 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jaa 09 11:39:47 60.0 57.8 75.5 71.0 48.9 83.9 69.7 66.2 62.1 59.8 57.6 53.6 50.3 3 Mazer 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:40:47 60.0 63.4 81.3 75.1 50.3 65.1 92.6 72.0 68.6 65.3 63.7 58.9 51.8 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 11:43:47 60.0 59.9 77.5 75.6 49.0 89.2 94.8 68.0 64.7 62.1 $9.2 53.5 50.5 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 11:42:47 60.0 63.0 BO.7 00.4 47.9 93.2 95.7 74.0 67.2 61.9 56.8 52.0 49.5 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:43:47 60.0 51.2 669.0 64.1 47.5 76.4 85.2 55.5 53.0 52.1 51.5 50.4 48.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:44:47 60.0 58.2 76.0 71.6 46.3 87.2 09.7 69.5 63.5 55.8 53.0 50.7 47.9 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 28Jan 09 11:45: 47 60.0 60.3 76.1 72.0 45.9 91.0 91.2 70.4 66.6 61_8 55.9 50.9 47.8 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09 11:46: 47 60.0 51.0 68.7 58.6 46.6 73.5 89.7 55.8 53.9 52.8 51.9 49.9 47.9 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:47:47 60.0 65.0 82.8 80.7 47.0 98.1 97.9 75.5 68.0 65.5 61.5 53.6 49.2 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:46:47 60.0 63.9 81.7 82.9 47.6 96.3 57.3 69.4 65.9 63.2 $5.8 54.8 50.5 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:49:47 60.0 71.0 88.8 83.0 46.3 93.4 99.7 61.5 77.0 72.6 68.1 54.2 50.3 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:50:47 60.0 68.3 96.1 84.5 49.0 97.6 99.,7 00.0 69.6 66.6 64.6 57.1 51.5 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan. 09 11:51:47 60.0 51.5 65.3 59.8 47.5 74.5 92.6 56.7 53.9 52.9 52.2 50.B 48.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:52:47 60.0 62.7 BO.5 75.4 48.0 975 94.8 71.8 60.0 63.7 61.7 56.1 50.7 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09 11:53:47 60.0 66.3 84.1 82.5 46.6 100.6 101.3 75.4 72.1 68.9 65.8 55.4 48.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 il:54:47 60.0 65.9 93.7 00.1 45.6 99.7 100.3 75.4 71.2 68.1 65.2 57.6 43.9 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:55:47 60.0 65.7 93.5 84.1 47.0 95.9 99.2 76.5 68.E 62.7 59.4 53.6 48.6 ] Peter J North 9!tlg F 0 20Ja.-. 09 11:56:47 60.0 60.1 77.9 74.0 45.4 92.6 69.6 66.5 62.7 56.0 50.0 47.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09 11:57:47 60.0 61.3 99.0 89.3 46.7 101.6 102.9 28.1 87.2 86.3 84.9 57.5 49.5 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 13:58:47 60.0 62.6 00.3 79.5 47.4 93.0 96.5 73.4 65.0 62.3 57.9 51.9 49.2 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 11:50:47 60.0 59.3 77.0 73.6 46.3 90.9 91.2 67.6 64.6 62.1 59.4 51.0 47.0 3 Meter 3 Nozch Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:00:47 60.0 63.4 81.2 73.1 47.5 80.9 94.8 71.5 66.7 66.2 64.8 57.7 51.2 3 Mazer 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:01:47 60.0 67.8 85.6 78.9 45.6 69.9 96.5 77.6 74.3 69.9 65.3 54.1 45.0 3 borer 3 North Bldg F e 70'an 09 12:02:41 60.0 59.5 77.3 71.3 45.0 87.2 91.2 69.2 65.0 61.2 57.8 50.6 47.6 3 Meter 3 Vor th Bldg F 0 20j.. 09 12:03:47 60.0 64.6 E2.4 03.1 45.5 36.0 100.9 72.1 67.6 65.3 62.9 52.2 47.1 3 Motor 3 liar :h Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:04:47 60.0 64.0 81.8 80.6 45.8 96.6 100.9 73.0 69.1 65.0 62.2 54.7 47.4 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 203an 09 !2:05:47 60.0 51.5 69.2 60.3 45.6 87.8 89.7 59.0 53.4 51.2 50.0 48.8 47.2 3 Meter 3 North Old, F 0 28Jan No 12:06:47 60.0 55.8 73.6 68.0 45.3 06.3 87.7 62.7 60.2 .59.5 57.1 52.0 47.9 3 Meter 3 Nozih. Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:07:41 60.0 64.6 82.3 79.5 49.0 97.6 95.: 73.1 70.6 66.5 61.5 56.3 50.7 3 Motor 3 Borth Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 12:08:47 60.0 61.8 79.6 75.4 48.6 66.9 92.6 70.7 66.1 65.4 59.0 53.1 49.9 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:00:47 60.0 66.4 84.1 84.7 6.9 97.5 97.9 77.1 66.$ 62.5 58.2 51.6 48.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:10:47 60.0 63.8 01.6 76.1 47.5 92.5 92.6 11.2 69.5 67.4 65.4 54.2 49.4 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09 12:11:47 60.0 65.0 02.8 75.3 43.3 86.5 97.3 742 60.9 60.2 66.4 55.9 49.9 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 12:12:47 60.0 58.3 76.1 73.9 47.6 98.0 94.0 68.3 61.0 57.7 55.6 52.1 49.3 3 Mazer 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:13:47 60.0 66.3 84.0 81.5 48.8 100.1 101.3 74.3 71.2 69.7 67.6 57.6 51.? 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09' 12:14:47 60.0 67.7 85.5 82.5 47.5 301.4 105.8 76.7 72.4 69.9 68.0 50.8 50.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 28Jan 09 12:15:47 60.0 66.2 93.9 81.4 47.9 200.6 101.3 76.2 72.0 67.8 63.3 55.9 49.4 3 Mazer 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:16:47 60.0 64.1 81.9 80.6 46.9 100.5 101.7 74.5 69.3 63.6 60.1 52.5 49.9 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:17:41 60.0 65.0 82.0 77.3 45.9 97.4 99.2 74.5 71.5 67.6 63.6 5Z.B 48.0 3 Meter 3 March Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:18:47 60.0 64.9 82.7 81.6 45.0 302.0 102.9 75.2 70.2 64.5 60.2 56.1. 46.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:19:47 60.0 60.6 87.4 86.1 50.3 98_8 92.6 82.2 63.0 60.7 59.2 57.2 52.2 3 Motor 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 00 12:20:47 60.0 57.9 75.7 72.3 49.8 87.3 03.7 64.0 59.5 58.5 $7.8 56.5 54.0 3 Meter 3 Nozih Bitlg F 0 203an 09 12:21:47 60.0 61.8 79.5 74.0 53.0 38.1 89.7 72.0 67.3 59.6 57.9 56.6 54.9 3 Poor 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 12:22:4] 60.0 62.1 79.9 74.3 48.4 89.5 51.2 72.0 65.1 60.4 58.9 56.7 53.2 3 Meter 3 Barth Bitlg F 0 2OJan 09 12:23:4] 60.0 57.0 74.8 70.9 51.6 81.4 B9.7 62.7 59.5 58.1 57.2 55.6 53.3 3 Hater 3 Ilocth Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 12:24:47 60.0 61.1 78.9 76.6 50.5 90.6 91.2 14.2 60.1 56.7 55.6 54.3 52.2 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:25:47 60.0 50.1 75.9 76.0 45.4 90.9 91.2 63.6 57.5 56.6 55.9 54.5 49.5 3 Hater 3 Borth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:26:4] 60.0 62.5 80.3 79.6 56.9 96.7 96.5 71.2 67.0 63.3 60.8 56.9 53.0 3 Meter J North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 i2:27W7 60.0 65.3 83.1 BOA 57.6 92.0 95.5 16.2 68.7 65.7 63.3 57.4 50.4 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:28:47 60.0 75.2 B2.9 89.3 54.0 101.9 202.1 06.9 74.4 71_0 68.4 58.9 55.9 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:29:57 60.0 79.1 96.9 B].9 49.3 99.6 100.8 87.5 06.3 84.2 65.B 58.3 53.5 3 Meter 3 Borth Bitlg F 0 ?Wan 09 12:30:57 60.0 66.2 84.0 81.9 45.9 100.0 101.3 75.3 69.3 67.9 66.2 56.8 98.3 3 Perot 3 North Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 12:31:41 60.0 62.4 80.Z 72.0 56.1 6E.4 89.7 70.7 67.1 65.0 64.1 50.1 48.4 3 Meter 3 Borth Bldg F 0 Wan 09 12:32:57 60.0 57.4 75.1 65.1 45.5 80.5 97.7 65.6 63.8 60.1 56.6 50.9 47.2 3 Peter J North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:33:47 60.0 61.4 79.1 69.6 46.3 05.1 89.7 67.0 66.1 65.2 64.2 54.9 41.9 3 Meter J Borth Bitlg F o 2049. Bo 12;34:47 60.0 63.5 81.3 81.0 48.0 96.9 99.1 70.6 67,9 66.0 65.0 55.0 49.9 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:35:47 60.0 75.1 92.9 81.9 57.0 94.6 971 81.7 80.9 79.0 79.1 64.3 49.7 3 Herat 3 Borth Bldg F 0 2OJan 09 12:36:47 60.0 70.0 87.8 B3.6 58.5 N.7, 98.6 81.5 75- fill 55.3 51.7 49.5 3 Perot 3 North Bitlg F 0 23Jan 09 12:37:57 60.0 66.5 04.3 051 59.3 104.0 105.3 15.7 71.0 66.0 64.1 56.6 51.1 3 Me tat 3 North Bitlg F a ?OJan 09 12:38:47 60.0 65.4 03.2 79.5 49.6 97.9 97.9 72.7 70.5 67.0 66.1 61.9 53.3 3 No cat 3 North Bid, F 0 23Jan 09 12:39:41 60.0 57.7 75.5 69.5 48.0 63.5 87.7 66.5 63.1 59.0 56.1 52.8 49.9 3 Meter 3 Borth Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 12:40:47 60.0 68.3 86.1 73.6 55.3 90.0 92.6 78.4 76.5 63.6 58.7 53.4 48.2 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F e 20Jan 09 i2:41:47 60.0 68.6 86.4 81.2 54.9 99.2 49.7 BO.0 71.9 64.2 59.7 53.6 48.6 J Hater J North Bid, F B 20Jae 09 12:42:47 60.0 59.1 76.0 16.6 46.9 96.0 98.6 67.8 61.4 59.5 57.9 54.4 50.4 3 Meter 3 North Bldo F 0 2049. 09 12:43:47 60.0 67.9 85.7 88.7 47.6 104.6 104.7 73.5 64.9 62.4 60.0 56.2 50.8 3 Hater 3 North Bitlg F 0 ?OJan 09 12:44:47 60.0 72.8 90.6 e4.6 59.0 95.4 96.5 BZA 79.0 74.0 11.6 64.3 52.8 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 12:45:47 60.0 70.0 95.8 B5.0 48.2 103.9 104.3 84.5 83.5 82.6 911 63.4 51.9 J Hater 3 North Bitlg F 0 23Jan 09 12:46:41 60.0 64.6 82.4 78.3 49.9 86.9 91.2 74.2 69.3 66.3 63.5 59.1 52.2 3 Bator 3 North Bldg F 0 203an 09 12:47:41 60.0 63.1 80.9 77.6 45.4 87.1 91.2 72.9 60.5 64.4 61.0 54.0 4B.4 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Ban 09 12:48:47 60.0 57.0 74.8 71.8 47.0 88.1 94.8 67.1 60.5 $7.8 $6.1 52.6 48.9 3 Hater 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 12:49:97 60.0 54.8 72.5 71.7 44.9 9B.9 94.8 63.5 56.7 54.5 $3.0 50.2 47.3 3 Mater 3 Ilorth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:50:47 60.0 S ?.7 77.5 75.3 45.6 93.6 93.7 68.4 64.8 62.0 59.5 52.5 47.5 3 Meter J North Bitlg F 0 2Wao 09 12:51:47 60.0 60.5 78.3 74.1 46.6 66.6 92.6 69.8 65.3 62.6 60.1 55.2 49.5 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:52:47 60.0 63.2 81.0 76.2 47.2 91.7 95.7 73.1 69.2 65.1 60.0 54.2 50.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jaa 09 12:53:47 60.0 64.8 82.5 77.7 46.4 91.7 99.2 76.1 70.1 65.6 60.6 53.9 49.5 3 Hazer J Ilorth Bldg F 0 ?OJan 09 12:54:47 60.0 66.5 64.3 82.9 50.2 96.4 98.6 17.1 69.8 64.5 60.8 57.7 52.7 3 Hater 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 12:55:47 60.0 61.0 79.6 74.2 50.1 9 1.5 99.7 70.9 66.6 63.3 60.4 56.7 51.6 3 Mater 3 Noah Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:56:47 60.0 66.7 85.5 76.5 50.9 92.0 44.8 75.7 73.1 69.1 65.7 57.2 52.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:57:47 60.0 57.1 74.9 75.5 55.7 80.6 91.2 61.8 59.4 57.9 56.5 53.9 46.B 3 Motet 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:58:47 60.0 62.6 60.4 78.6 46.2 91.7 96.5 72.2 66.1 62.0 59.2 54.6 49.6 3 Mater 3 Borth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 12:59:47 60.0 54.9 72.6 69.7 46.1 88.7 89.7 62.9 57.9 56.0 54.6 52.0 48.5 3 Hater 3 North Bid, F 0. ?aJan 09 13:00:97 60.0 59.4 77.2 7BA 48.6 95.6 96.5 66.6 50.9 56.9 55.6 53.5 50.1 3 Meter 3 North Did, F 0. 203an 04 13:01:47 60.0 54.4 72.2 64.9 57.9 82.5 '85.2 61.2 57.3 555.5 55.4 52.8 50.4 3 Mete. 3 North Bid, F 0 23Jan 09 13:02:47 60.0 55.0 72.0 69.5 58.0 83.3 89.7 60.8 58.2 56.5 55.2 53.0 49.9 3 Hater 3 North Bid, F 0 2aJan 09 13:03:47 60.0 55.2 73.0 71.9 45.2 35.6 91.2 63.1 53.4 55.5 53.6 50.3 47.4 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 203an 09 13:05:47 60.0 61.8 79.6 69.1 96.9 89.5 91.2 68.5 67.2 65.2 62.6 58.5 50.6 2 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 203an 09 13:05;47 60.0 50.3 76.1 79.9 43.2 95.7 91.3 65.0 58.5 55.0 54.6 52.7 50.5 3 Mater 3 No¢h Bldg F 0 ?Wan 09 13:06:47 60.0 55.4 72.1 63.9 97.4 84.7 89.7 63.5 56.8 53.8 52.5 50.9 49.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:07:47 60.0 64.8 02.5 76.9 48.2 8B.0 94.8 75.8 70.3 63.7 56.9 54.0 50.5 3 Meter 3 Ilorth Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 13:00:47 60.0 60.8 78.6 79.0 47.7 91.5 95.2 69.7 64.6 61.8 58.4 52.3 40.6 3 Flater 3 110tih Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 13:09:47 60.0 63.4 91.2 73.5 48.0 83.1 91.2 71.1 68.1 65.9 64.4 60.1 53.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 13:10:47 60.0 59.5 77.3 71.5 47.5 37.3 96.5 68.9 66.0 50.8 56.7 53.4 49.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:11:47 60.0 52.9 70.7 70.2 42.8 86.8 92.6 62.5 52.7 51.5 50.7 48.8 54.5 3 Motor 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 13:12:47 60.0 54.9 72.7 76.8 41.7 96.0 99.6 66.0 53.5 49.4 47.9 46.2 42.9 3 Hater 3 Ilorth Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 13:13:47 60.0 55.5 73.2 71.7 45.9 69.6 92.6 66.9 57.5 52.8 50.6 47.8 45.6 3 Mater 3 North Bldg F 0 2Wan 09 13:14:47 60.0 53.6 71.4 71.1 45.3 90.1 93.7 62.5 53.•1 52.0 51.1 49.4 46.8 3 Hater 3 Iorth Bldg F a 20Jan 09 13:15:47 60.0 53.0 70.8 71.3 48.1 66.8 93.7 56.5 52.9 52.0 51_4 50.4 40.3 3 Meter 3 Narth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:16:47 60.0 56.6 74.3 77.2 46.3 96.1 Q6.5 64.5 54.9 53.5 52.6 51.1 48.4 3 Meter 3 Ilocth Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 13:17:47 60.0 64.2 32.0 74.5 47.3 91.8 9BA 72.8 70.1 67.0 63.8 56.0 50.4 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 13:10:47 60.0 60.1 77.9 74.2 47.1 86.7 93.7 69.9 64.9 51.2 57.4 51.7 49.0 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 70Jan 09 13:19:47 60.0 60.4 70.2 76.0 47.1 93.8 98.6 70.3 64.1 60.9 50.1 54.1 50.4 3 Motet 3 Ilorth Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 13:20:47 60.0 $5.9 73.6 74.7 45.1 93.3 96.5 65.6 56.8 52.3 49.9 47.6 45.1 3 Hater 3 North Bid, F 0 NJ.. 09 13:21:47 60.0 66.7 84.4 80.9 45.3 99.5 102.9 77.4 72.5 67.3 62.2 52.1 47.7 3 Peter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:2Z:47 60.0 52.2 70.0 62.5 45.0 69.7 89.7 59.2 56.5 54.3 52.7 49.4 46.4 3 Hater 3 Borth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:23:47 60.0 62.5 80.3 77.5 43.0 93.7 97.3 74.5 66.1 61.5 54.9 49.3 44.5 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:24:47 60.0 52.4 70.1 69.1 44.2 63.7 85.2 60.5 55.4 53.3 51.6 49.0 46.1 3 Peter 3 Ilorth Bldg F 0 2Udan 09 13:25:47 60.0 54.7 72.4 74.6 451 9 1.1 99.2 63.3 51.6 50.2 49.3 47.7 45.8 3 Peter 3 North. Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:26:47 60.0 56.0 73.8 79.0 46.8 99.3 101.7 56.7 $3.8 52.9 52.5 51.7 50.0 3 Motor 3 North Bitlg F 0 ?OJan 09 13:27:47 60.0 55.1 72.9 76.4 47.3 921 101.7 59.0 53.5 52.5 51.8 50.7 49.1 3 Herat 3 Ilorth Bitlg F 0 2UJan 69 13:28:97 60.0 60.8 78.5 81.3 48.5 101.6 105.2 71.6 50,2 55.9 53.9 52.7 50.3 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:29:47 60.0 63.5 31.3 991.1 47.5 102.3 105.2 71.6 69.6 64.3 59.9 54.2 51.2 3 Meter 3 North Blde F 0 200an 09 13:30:47 60.0 58.5 76.2 79.8 45.8 96.7 102.9 66.7 56.4 53.4 52.1 50.3 41.6 3 Perot 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 13:31:47 60.0 55.1 72.9 73.0 47.3 90.8 100.8 63.0 55.2 52.1 51.4 50.1 40.6 3 slater 3 Ilorth Bid, F 0 23Jan 03 13:32:47 60.0 58.1 75.9 77.2 47.5 04.3 101.3 67.6 50.3 56.4 55.1 52.5 49.1 3 P.ecer 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:33:47 60.0 58.5 76.3 79.4 47.8 98.5 103.3 66.7 57.5 55.1 53.3 51.2 49.3 J Herat 3 North Bitlg F 0 20495. 04 13:44:4] 60.0 53.1 60.9 Sal 55.5 EB.S 0'.0 55.6 54.0 52.9 52.0 50.4 41.4 3 Mater J North Bldg F 0 20Jan 04 13:35:47 60.0 53.4 70.2 61.9 46.1 71.8 05.2 58.2 55.2 53.0 52.8 51.2 48.9 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:36:4] 60.0 52.9 70.7 61.3 45.7 77.5 35.2 58.9 56.4 54.9 $3.8 51.4 46.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 2JJan 04 13:37:47 60.0 55.9 73.7 69.3 41.8 84.9 92.6 60.5 58.6 57.7 $7.1 5$.3 50.1 3 Mecar 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 13:38:47 60.0 57.0 74.6 77.2 45.7 95.1 95.1 63.0 57.9 55.8 54.5 52.2 48.2 3 Meter 3 Borth Bid. F 0 20Jan 99 13:39:47 60.0 66.0 83.0 77.6 47.6 90.6 97.9 74.1 73.2 64.0 63.8 55.7 51.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 13:40:47 60.0 76.2 93.9 BB.7 48.4 100.1 100.3 B5.2 83.0 BOA 70.5 59.3 51.5 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:41:47 60.0 62.6 80.6 79.1 9.9 96.4 101.3 73.9 66.4 61.9 59.0 54.5 51.4 3 Mater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:42:47 60.0 61.6 79.3 76.9 48.6 53.3 100.8 69.8 67.0 65.0 59.0 54.2 51.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 23Jan 09 13:43:47 60.0 67.3 85.1 07.5 50.1 103.1 104.9 75.6 69.7 65.8 63.7 57.5 52.0 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 23:44:47 60.0 59.7 77.5 60.7 50.6 99.7 102.5 67.7 62.1 51.9 56.6 54.9 52.6 3 Meter 3 Oertb Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:45:47 60.0 64.6 B2.4 81.8 50.1 101.6 105.0 76.3 65.2 61.6 59.7 56.6 52.0 3 Meter 3 North Bid. F 0 20Jan 09 13:46:47 60.0 60.1 77.9 B1.3 51.6 302.3 104.6 64.7 59.3 57.1 56.9 55.3 53.1 3 Mater J North Bldg F 0 2Wan 09 13:47:47 60.0 54.9 72.7 62.4 50A 75.5 B9.7 59.1 57.1 $6.1 $5.4 54.2 52.0 3 Hater 3 Borth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:48:0 60.0 61.5 79.2 69.2 59.2 34.9 85.2 69.7 67.6 66.2 61.2 541 51.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F a 20Jan 09 13:40:47 60.0 56.2 76.0 74.7 49.7 90.6 95.6 67.5 60.1 57.8 56.4 53.9 51.3 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:50:57 60.0 65.3 63.0 77.6 50.3 93.6 96.6 75.2 71.1 67.0 63.8 55.7 52.3 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:51:57 60.0 63.7 61.5 79.2 46.5 96.7 99.2 76.0 64.2 57.3 56.0 51.8 47.9 3 Meter 3 Ilorth Bitlg F a 20Jan 09 13:52:47 60.0 70.6 SBA 82.3 46.7 93.1 100.3 00.5 76.7 72.5 69.0 60.4 49.3 3 Motor 3 Notch Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 13:53:47 60.0 74.3 92.1 89.0 47.0 103.6 104.9 82.5 80.5 77.5 73.6 65.2 51.2 3 Heuer 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:54:47 60.0 63.6 81.3 72.0 48.3 90.3 01.2 70.6 68.7 61.3 65.6 58.6 52.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 2Wnn 09 13:55:47 60.0 59.2 77.0 79.3 48.3 91.3 97.9 65.9 61.6 59.2 57.6 54.7 51.2 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 13:56:47 60.0 63.4 81.2 75.0 40.7 88.2 89.7 71.8 68.3 65.9 63.0 58.8 52.2 3 Meter J Noah Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:57:47 60.0 69.4 07.2 91.7 48.3 97.2 08.6 80.3 72.6 69.1 68.1 62.2 52.9 3 Mate. 3 Norch Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 13:50:47 660.0 70.7 88.5 84.3 51.2 95.9 97.3 02.6 74.1 71.3 67.9 62.9 53.1 3 Meter 3 North Blau F 0 26Jan 09 13:59:47 60.0 75.6 93.4 85.7 48.3 97.6 99.7 .94.9 32.0 7B.0 73.2 55.7 50.5 3 Meter 3 North Bide F 0 20Jan 09 34:00:47 60.0 72.3 90.1 84.1 47.5 96.4 98.6 83.5 79.2 69.6 64.1 57.7 51.2 3 Hater 3 North Bitlg F 0 ?OJan 09 14:01:47 60.0 69.9 96.1 78.3 48.8 91.2 94.8 17.4 76.3 70.3 65.4 61.1 54.2 3 Meter 3 Nosh Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:02:47 60.0 75.5 93.2 88.4 46.5 105.3 110.9 93.6 92.5 80.6 66.7 59.0 51_1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:03:47 60.0 64.5 82.3 82.2 47.4 93.9 95.7 76.2 62.2 59.7 58.3 54.6 50.1 3 Meter 3 Mouth Bitlg F 0 26Jan 09 14:04:47 60.0 69.3 87.1 83.2 43.0 96.1 97.3 80.5 74.5 65.4 63.5 59.2 50.9 3 Meter J (North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:05:47 60.0 63.7 66.5 83.1 47.0 93.7 96.5 80.9 69.1 62.0 59.9 57.5 49.9 3 Hater 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:06:47 60.0 75.5 43.3 89.3 51.2 110.4 114.4 84.1 82.5 79.5 70.8 65.0 58.3 3 Hater 3 North Blue F B 2OJan e9 14:07:47 60.0 69.1 06.9 82.5 49.4 945 97.3 80.6 71.1 68.3 67.5 64.7 54.2 3 Peter J NortM1 91tlg F e 26Jan 09 14:68:47 60.0 62.1 79.9 77.0 50.2 gG.7 98.6 70.2 66.4 63.5 62.0 59.8 $3.0 3 Hater 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 14:09:41 60.0 73.5 91.3 88.0 49.3 106.0 105.2 92.0 78.5 76.0 74.0 67.7 54.7 3 Peter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 05 14:10:47 60.0 71.5 89.3 84.9 46.5 99.2 104.0 30.2 76.5 74.6 63.0 58.4 51.2 3 Meter 3 Noah Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:11:47 60.0 63.6 91.3 74.4 47.2 35.4 94.8 73.6 68.0 64.6 61.8 56.5 51.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 2OJan 09 14:12:47 60.0 69.0 66.7 824 45.8 95.4 09:4 81.3 69.5 63.4 61.5 56.4 49.2 3 Pacer 3 North Bid, F 0 2O3an 09 14:13:47 60.0 74.0 91.0 32.9 44.7 95.7 99.6 82.5 81.2 78.3 69.6 64.2 50.5 3 v ' ter 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 14:14:47 60.0 73.5 91.6 88.8 44.2 102.0 3025 04.5 00.1 70.0 63.4 57.5 45.3 3 Plate: 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 14:15:47 60.0 58.1 75.9 67.6 43.9 30.2 85.2 65.2 62.9 61.2 59.6 54.8 41.9 3 Borax 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:16:41 60.0 69.5 07.3 37.1 46.3 105.8 H1.1 77.5 75.2 70.7 65.8 57.5 43.9 3 Herat 3 Mouth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:17:47 60.0 15.8 93.6 84.9 44.6 97.0 100.3 83.6 81.9 30.6 79.1 61.9 49.2 3 Ps ter J North Bldg F 0 26Jan e9 14:18:47 60.0 75.4 93.2 95.4 49.'9 97.2 99.7 03.7 82.1 79.4 74.8 66.1 56.9 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:19:47 60.0 69.5 87.3 90.0 44.6 113.0 114.7 79.6 66.1 64.4 62.3 56.6 47.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F e 20Jan 09 14:20:47 60.0 76.0 93.9 91.5 44.4 1114 113.7 84.0 02.0 79.3 14.0 64.7 47.2 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 14:21:47 60.0 73.3 91.1 88.1 44.3 107.7 111.8 83.2 79.9 75.8 68.6 63.4 48.9 3 Heuer 3 Forth Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:22:47 60.0 70.9 08.5 90.1 45.3 109.7 114.3 B2.0 73.2 69.1 66.9 60.6 50.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:23:47 60.0 68.8 86.6 89.3 47.4 110.9 112.8 75.3 71.3 68.1 65.1 57.6 50.0 3 Perot 3 North Bitlg F 0 26Jan 09 14:24:47 60.0 70.5 88.3 80.5 43.0 94.0 95.7 79.9 70.5 69.5 63.5 56.6 51.0 3 Hecer 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Ja. 09 14:25:41 60.0 72.1 89.9 83.1 48.2 95.4 97.3 82.7 B1.0 65.4 61.1 57.5 52.5 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F e 20Jan 09 14:26:47 60.0 63.9 91.7 85.3 49.3 104.4 111.1 72.2 62.7 60.2 58.6 55.8 51.B 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jad 09 14:27:47 60.0 66.1 83.8 86.4 49.0 106.5 108.9 73.7 70.1 65.1 60.6 55.6 51.6 3 Mater 3 North Bid. F 0 20Jan Oo 14:28:41 60.0 70.3 B8.6 91.3 49.4 109.2 113.1 BOA 74.9 69.1 65.3 55.9 52.3 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:29:47 60.0 71.8 B9.6 92.1 50.9 113.8 115.0 83.0 63.2 58.4 56.0 54.3 52.4 3 Mater 3 Noah Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 14:30:47 60.0 65.9 03.7 91.1 49.7 108.8 112.4 64.5 60.4 50.1 56.7 54.6 51.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan Oe 14:31:47 60.0 58.5 76.3 69.3 46.9 32.9 91.2 67.8 63.7 50.9 56.9 54.3 49.6 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:32:47 60.0 70.3 88.1 92.1 49.6 113.3 115.5 77.0 74.2 70.0 68.2 62.3 53.6 3 Motor 3 Noah Bid, F 0 26Jan 09 14:33:47 60.0 67.7 85.5 88.8 50.1 101.5 101.7 75.3 70.6 67.3 64.2 59.2 53.3 3 Meter 3 Noah Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:34:47 60.0 70.2 88.0 94.4 51.0 113.9 115.5 75.7 71.3 68.1 65.4 59.3 $4.0 3 Meter 3 Noah Bldg F 0 20jad 09 14:35:47 60.0 72.9 90.6 91.6 49.9 113.9 115.8 04.8 74.0 61.9 63.6 60.2 54.9 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:36:47 60.0 72.3 90.1 09.6 51.9 111.5 113_7 01.3 75.1 73.3 70.1 65.4 58.6 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jau 09 14:37:41 60.0 70.1 67.9 96.7 50.0 107.1 109.1 91.2 73.4 68.2 65.2 59.5 53.9 3 Motor 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 14:38:47 60.0 71.0 08.8 85.0 51.8 104.9 107.3 81.2 76.6 72.5 68.7 60.9 54.7 3 Motor 3 Mouth Bldg F 0 203an 09 14:39:47 60.0 65.8 03.5 93.9 49.1 101.6 105.5 76.3 69.3 65.5 64.2 58.1 52.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:40:47 60.0 65.0 63.6 80.3 50.0 95..8 100.3 75.5 71.6 67.2 63.9 57.9 52.5 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:41:47 60.0 69.7 67.4 81.5 49.9 92.5 96.5 80.2 75.6 69.5 67.2 59.8 51.4 3 Motor 3 Mouth Bitlg F 0 ZOJan 09 1 4:42:47 60.0 62.3 80.1 74.7 48.7 93.0 93.7 71.9 66.4 64.1 60.8 54.9 50.7 3 Motet 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 14:43:47 60.0 71.6 89.3 88.9 50.7 105.0 105.9 81.7 74.9 72.7 71.1 62.4 54.6 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:44:47 60.0 64.3 02.0 78.9 47.4 92.5 97.3 72.8 69.5 65.7 64.1 59.6 50.2 3 Meter 3 Noah Bid, F 0 2e3an 09 14:45:47 60.0 64.3 82.0 79.6 47.4 94.8 99:2 73.3 69.9 66.0 62.6 57.8 51.7 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 14:46:47 60.0 61.7 79.5 76.7 48.2 97.4 98.6 71.6 66.2 G2.3 59.5 55.8 51.0 3 Mauer 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:47:47 60.0 63.7 01.4 76.1 47.0 97.3 98.9 73.5 69.7 65.1 62.2 56.8 50.9 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:48:47 60.0 64.0 01.8 75.7 46.9 92.1 94.0 73..1 69.6 66.9 63.6 57.1 51.0 3 Mater 3 North Bldg F 0 2OJan 99 14:49:47 60.0 63.0 60.7 78.4 4B.0 90.4 53.7 72.0 68.4 65.3 62.2 54.4 50.2 3 Mo.. 3 North Bitlg F 0 ZBJan 09 14:50:47 60.0 64.9 82.6 82.1 45.6 102.5 102.5 74.4 69.8 66.2 62.2 54.3 $0.2 3 Mauer 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:51:47 60.0 67.1 84.8 81.1 50.2 99.1 96.6 1B.1 11.9 67.5 63.3 55.5 52.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 26Jan 09 14:52:47 60.0 69.8 B7.6 83.3 48.7 96.8 300.3 80.5 75.0 70.1 66.1 55.9 50.6 3 Here. 3 North Bitlg F 0 ?OJan 09 14:53:47 60.0 54.9 72.6 73.5 46.4 87.1 49.1 63.0 56.0 53.0 52.0 51.0 48.3 3 Meter 3 Notch Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 14:54:47 60.0 77.8 95.5 86.1 46.7 99.0 99.7 04.7 83.7 82.8 81.4 54.4 50.2 3 Mauer 3 North Bldg F 0 lour. 09 14:55:47 60.0 62.0 60.6 80.9 49.9 103.5 103.3 73.3 66.3 61.3 57.4 53.4 50.3 3 Meter 3 North Bide F 0 20Jr. 09 14:56:47 60.0 55.1 72.9 69.6 48.4 89.1 89.7 61.7 57.2 $6.1 55.4 53.1 50.6 3 Meter 3 North Bida F 0 ?Ova. 09 14:57:47 60.0 62.3 00.0 73.7 49.1 88.6 49.7 71.5 67.9 65.0 61-1 $5.1 51.0 3 Peter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 14:59:47 60.0 61.7 79.5 76.7 49.4 89.0 94.8 69.7 65.7 63.2 61.1 57.0 52.1 3 Hater 3 Mouth Bitlg F 0 26Jan 09 14:59:47 60.0 61.3 79.1 82.0 94.5 94.8 65.6 59.6 58.3 57.5 55.5 50.7 3 Pete. 3 North Bitlg F 0 ?OJan 09 15:00:47 60.0 61.3 19.6 77.2 56.4 "95.6 97.3 10.1 63.9 61_6 60.4 56.9 57.2 3 Hater 3 Noah Bldg F 0 loved 09 15:01:47 60.0 63.8 01.6 79.2 48.7 101.6 102.5 73.7 66.7 63.7 61.8 59.6 51.4 3 Meter 3 Noah Bldg F 0 ZOJan 09 15:02:47 60.0 60.1 77.9 77.1 47.6 92_8 92.6 71.6 61.6 57.6 54.9 52.9 50.2 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 00 15:03:47 60.0 58.0 75.8 77.0 47.6 49.4 93.7 65.5 57.5 54.7 52.8 50.9 49.0 3 Perez 3 Noah Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:04:47 60.0 56.9 04.7 84.7 48.5 99.0 99.2 79.0 65.6 59.9 55.9 52.1 49.6 2 Hertz 3 North Bide F 3 20Jrn 09 15:05:47 60.0 15.4 93.2 88.2 48.4 105.4 104.9 65.6 60.9 78.0 75.9 55.2 50.2 3 Peter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:06:47 60.0 74.0 92.7 89.6 4B.0 103.1 102.9 05.2 90.8 11.0 11.6 54.4 49.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 9 20j.. 09 15:07:47 60.0 73.8 91.5 96.9 49.1 100.3 101.3 04.6 19.9 73.1 67.5 $5.1 53.2 3 No ter 3 North Bldg F 0 ?OJan 09 15:08:47 60.0 71.3 89.6 83.6 48.7 99.4 99.7 B1.8 78.2 72.9 68.1 60.3 53.1 3 Mace. 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan e9 15:09:47 60.0 73.0 90.7 83.1 50.7 94.5 100.3 32.3 79.5 74.5 72.0 66.9 57.2 3 Hazer 3 Noah Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:10:47 60.0 57.5 75.3 74.6 46.1 84.0 91.2 63.2 59.8 56.2 56.7 54.1 50.5 3 Hater 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 15:11:47 60.0 62.1 19.8 74.7 48.1 86.8 92.6 72.0 67.6 63.5 58.6 55.6 50.1 3 Meter 3 Noah Bldg F B 20Jan. 09 15:12:47 60.0 62.1 70.9 74.1 46.7 87.6 95.7 13.6 66.6 59.2 56.1 52.9 49.6 3 Here. 3 North Bitlg F 0 203an 09 15:13:47 60.0 58.4 76.2 78.7 46.6 93.4 93.7 66.3 62.4 50.2 54.B 50.9 48.3 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:14:41 60.0 71.1 68.9 83.2 47.2 97.6 93.6 91.8 19.3 63.2 60.7 55.8 50.6 3 Peter 3 Borth Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 15:15:47 60.0 65.3 93.1 82.4 43.9 93.3 95.7 76.1 67.8 64.3 61.7 56.6 51.8 3 Rotor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:16:47 0.0 72.1 69.9 B3.5 48.1 94.6 97.3 82.4 00.9 67.8 60.5 53.9 49.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jaa 09 15:17:47 60.0 74.4 92.2 86.7 47.5 97.9 99.7 05.2 02.1 68.6 60.1 54.7 49.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:19:47 60.0 65.3 81.1 83.1 40.2 96.0 97.3 78.8 61.1 55.3 53.8 52.3 49.5. 3 Motor 3 North Bid, F o 20Jan 09 15:19:47 60.0 80.3 98.1 93.4 49.4 111.4 111.6 90.0 84.5 02.5 81.2 66.6 51.5 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:20:47 60.0 75.1 92.9 B5.1 47.1 103.5 102.5 04.0 81.3 78.6 73.3 65.6 50.6. 3 Moto: 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:21:47 60.0 73.7 96.5 99.9 49.9 106.6 107.3 07.0 85.0 03.2 77.9 55.7 51.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F N 2eJan 09 15:22:47 60.0 71.4 95.2 96.7 50.2 102.3 102.5 65.5 83.6 81.8 79.5 57.1 51.7 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:23:47 60.0 76.0 94.6 01.5 48.7 98.6 101.3 86.1 83.9 00.6 68.3 52.9 49.8 3 Motor 3 Mouth Bldg F 0 20Jan no 15:24:47 60.0 72.9 90.7 04.0 46.7 96.4 99.2 62.7 81.0 12.4 60.1 53.7 4B.5 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:25:47 60.0 75.2 92.9 07.0 47.6 97.9 104.0 85.7 82.7 68.9 50.8 53.4 50.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:26:47 60.0 60.1 77.9 78.4 47.5 95.5 94.8 69.2 62.7 58.7 56.2 52.1 48.8 3 Motet 3 Mouth Bitlg F B ?OJan 09 15:27:47 60.0 60.5 78.3 90.5 43.2 97.5 97.3 70.2 61.2 57.7 56.0 53.3 49.5 3 Motor 3 North Bldg F 0 2eJan 09 15:29:47 60.0 57.0 74.9 75.2 44.0 97.5 89.7 64.0 59.5 56.7 55.0 52.2 49.1 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 2eJan 09 15:29:47 60.0 74.5 92.3 95.7 48.0 96.6 97.3 83.2 91.B 77.1 11.1 53.8 51.5 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:30:47 60.0 61.7 79.5 81.7 49.1 95.6 95.5 69.9 62.5 58.2 55.6 53.0 50.5 3 Mecor 3 North Bldg F a 2eJan 09 15:31:47 60.0 64.4 32.2 77.0 49.9 93.1 94.3 74.1 69.7 66.5 62.5 56.7 51.4 3 Merer 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 15:32:47 60.0 61.7 79.5 76.5 50.7 92.1 93.7 72.9 64.1 58.5 56..5 54.1 52.1 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jee 09 15:33:47 60.0 65.8 83.6 87.7 50.4 102.0 103.E 70.0 65.8 62.1 59.4 56.0 52.1 3 Ides 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 15:34:47 60.0 71.7 89.5 84.2 51.1 104.0 104.0 83.3 78.2 66.4 60.8 55.9 52.6 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jee 09 15:35:47 60.0 56.9 74.6 66.9 49.9 83.6 89.7 63.7 59.7 57.9 56.9 55.0 52.5 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:36:47 60.0 74.1 91.9 86.6 99.6 101.6 103.3 84.9 81.9 68.7 63.8 58.1 51.7 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:37:49 60.0 71.3 89.0 95.7 51.0 112.6 112.8 70.0 62.2 59.4 57.7 54.9 52.9 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:38:47 60.0 75.6 93.3 86.9 52.5 105.4 104.9 05.2 84.2 70.9 66.8 00.5 55.8 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jae 09 15:39:47 60.0 74.5 92.3 07.4 50.0 99.1 99.7 85.5 79.9 70.5 68.7 64.5 52.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:40:47 60.0 59.8 77.6 74.7 50.1 91.0 91.2 69.4 64.8 60.7 57.4 54.0 51.7 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:41:47 60.0 62.4 80.2 76.7 40.0 94.5 95.7 72.2 67.7 62.9 60.7 53.9 50.4 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 15:42:47 60.0 58.7 76.5 73.1 47.5 91.5 92.6 69.5 62.4 58.0 55.2 51.6 49.2 3 Meyer 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jeh 09 15:43:47 60.0 60.9 78.7 79.8 48.7 96.6 96.5 71.3 61.0 57.7 55.9 53.0 50.6 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 203ae 09 15:44:47 60.0 50.8 76.5 77.8 47.2 89.5 92.6 60.5 58.7 55.4 53.9 51.6 49.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 203ee 09 15:45:47 60.0 59.1 76.9 77.1 47.7 96.9 98.6 68.1 61.6 58.0 55.7 52.4 49.6 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jae 09 1S: 46:47 60.0 56.$ 74.3 72.6 47.6 94.0 92.6 66.2 58.2 $5.6 S4.2 51.8 49.3 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 203an 09 15:47:47 60.0 55.B 13.5 74.2 48.3 88.2 91.2 62.8 57.7 55.4 53.9 51.9 49.8 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:48:47 60.0 59.3 77.0 75.5 48.0 88.1 92.6 69.5 62.7 58. .6 56.4 52.1 49.5 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:49:47 60.0 53.9 71.7 69.2 47.6 09.0 87.7 60.5 S7.9 55.2 52.9 50.7 49.2 3 Meter 3 North Bitlg F 0 20Jan 09 15:50:47 60.0 51.9 69.7 65.0 46.7 76.0 85.2 61.1 53.2 51.3 50.7 49.6 47.6 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:51:47 60.0 50.3 68.1 55.2 47.1 70.0 95.2 53.5 52.3 51.4 50.0 50.0 48.3 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 203an 09 15:52:47 60.0 52.7 70.5 61.6 47.2 75.0 89.7 57.3 55.4 54.3 53.6 52.0 49.1 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jnn 09 15:53:47 60.0 53.0 70.a 59.B 49.6 77.4 89.7 57.3 55.0 54.2 53.6 52.4 50.7 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jee 09 15:54:47 60.0 53.1 70.9 65.8 48.5 01.5 89.7 59.7 55.3 53.7 52.7 51.5 50.0 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:55:47 60.0 51.5 69.2 59.3 48.5 82.1 89.7 54.9 53.4 52.4 51.8 50.9 49.4 3 Meter 3 North Bldg F 0 20Jan 09 15:56:47 60.0 58.0 76.6 68.7 49.3 84.1 88.8 66.4 63.4 60.7 59.3 56.1 50.5 3 Meter 3 North Bid, F 0 20Jan 09 15:57:47 55.7 59.1 76.5 75.1 48.8 97.4 99.2 67.8 62.8 60.6 58.6 55.4 49.9 Q \L DAV\6RM7L \200AF 09.b4n "vevval D.c. Tim Dn[aaon Leq SEL Lax Loin Peak BvPP. Ll 2) Ll BI L(16) L1251 L1501 L(90) 09:24:11 42.7 61.2 77.5 74.2 47.2 02.6 95.6 70.7 62.1 64.0 59.6 51.2 40.1 09:25:01 60.0 52.71 70.5 70.2 44.9 92.9 92.5 58.9 $5.5 53.0 51.6 49.7 41.1 09:26:01 60.0 54.4 72.2 73.8 45.2 95.1 94.7 61.0 55.3 53.0 51.6 48.9 46.2 09:27:01 60.0 51.E 69.6 58.2 46.6 71.6 85.2 56.6 $5.0 53.6 52.7 50.6 48.4 09:28:01 60.0 50.2 67.9 59.4 43.8 77.9 97.4 55.6 52.9 51.5 50.E 45.0 41.2 09:29:01 6D.0 53.0 70.8 63.6 45.4 77.0 87.7 59.7 56.8 50.8 47.2 09:30:01 60.0 55.7 73.5 67 7 47.4 65.4 67.7 60.6 59.5 5_ 57.2 54.0 50.3 09:31:01 60.0 55.5 73.3 68.0 46.3 92.4 93.7 62.6 58.6 56.5 55.1 53.E 51.5 09:32:01 60.0 54.8 72.6 67.0 48.1 67.2 91.2 63..9 58.5 55.6 53.7 51.3 49.2 09:33:01 60.0 589 76.0 79.1 47.5 101.9 100.3 67.0 57.9 55.6 $3.9 50.9 49.5 00:34:01 60.0 56.7 74.5 69.2 49.0 94.7 91.2 65.4 60.9 57.4 55.8 53.2 50.6 09:35:01 60.0 55.a 73.6 67.2 46.3 83.8 93.7 62.6 59.9 58.5 57.0 52.9 41.9 09:36:01 60.0 56.6 74.4 69.5 46.7 83.0 96.0 63.0 50,6 58.5 57.5 54.7 48.8 09:37:01 60.0 58.5 76.3 67.5 46.2 02.0 84.6 65.3 63.0 61.6 59.6 55.3 48.7 09:30:01 60.0 55.9 73.7 5 47.3 84.7 91.2 62.6 58.8 57.7 56.7 54.0 49.6 09:39:01 60.0 55.6 73.4 64.6 46.0 77.0 85.2 62.5 60.4 58.7 56.8 52.0 47.8 09:40:01 60.0 54.7 72.5 63.2 41.0 76.4 93.1 60.5 58.3 56.9 55.8 53.0 49.4 09:41:01 60.0 53.9 69.6 62.0 46.2 73.4 B5.2 57.1 55.5 53.6 51.9 50.3 47.7 09:42:01 60.0 55.5 73.3 67.8 46.4 BD.2 87.7 65.9 59.5 54.0 52.6 50.3 40.2 09:43:01 60.0 62.0 79.8 7610 47.9 92.9 95.6 68.9 66.4 64.5 62.8 58.D 51.2 09:44:01 60.0 65.5 83.3 62.7 47.0 103.5 103.5 76.1 69.2 64.5 62.0 56.4 49.2 09:45:01 60.0 55.3 13.1 68.1 46.6 06.5 91.2 62.2 59.6 51.6 55.5 51.6 48.3 09:46:01 60.0 54.0 71.B 62.6 46.2 02.9 89.6 54.8 57.8 56.7 55.6 51.7 48.1 09:41:01 60.0 55.3 73.6 62.5 44.5 74.4 87.7 61.8 60.1 58.8 57.9 51.7 09:48:01 60.0 51.2 66.9 65.1 42.0 B2.7 05.2 59.5 54.6 51.7 50.4 48.4 45.6 09:49:01 60.0 51.8 69.6 68.2 45.4 03.6 92.5 $5.9 52.E 51.6 50.9 49.8 48.1 09:50:01 60.0 58.3 16.1 79.0 44.7 99.9 90.5 67.7 55.3 52.6 50.9 49.0 46.4 09:51:01 60.0 56.6 74.4 79.5 45.6 91.1 96.5 63.5 55.4 53.0 51.7 49.4 46.6 09:52:01 60.0 53.0 70.6 69.6 44.4 84.4 92.5 62.8 54.6 50.8 49.2 47.3 45.7 09:53:01 60.0 53.9 71.7 69.9 46.6 84.4 87.1 61.2 54.6 53.5 52.0 51.3 48.8 09:54:01 60.0 53.8 71.6 59.5 45.7 72.6 89.6 58.9 58.1 $1.0 55.4 51.7 48.0 09:55:01 60.0 53.6 71.4 64.0 45.9 70.2 91.2 59.5 58.4 57.2 53.9 50.7 48.1 09:56:01 60.0 51.8 69.6 67.5 44.7 90.1 100.3 57.4 55.0 53.3 51.7 49.9 47.0 09:57:01 60.0 54.5 72.3 64.8 48.5 71.2 91.2 60.1. $3.4 56.9 56.0 51.9 49.8 09:58:01 60.0 54.4 72.2 61.5 43.4 74.7 97.7 60.3 53.7 56.5 55.1 52.9 49.5 09:59:01 60.0 53.1 70.8 66.3 48.4 82.8 91.2 58.7 56.9 55.5 53.1 50.8 49.2 10:00:01 60.0 51.2 68.9 69.1 47.9 82.4 85.2 53.2 50.9 50.5 50.1 49.5 48.4 10:01:01 60.0 46.9 64.7 50.0 43.1 64.3 94J 49.8 48.9 48.0 41.6 46.7 45.0 10:02:01 60.0 50.2 68.0 58.6 45.6 68.8 87.7 55.6 53.1. 51.9 50.7 40.9 47.2 10:05:01. 60.0 50.1 60.5 56.3 46.0 71.7 91.2 56.8 54.4 52..3 50.8 49.3 46.9 10:04:01 60.0 53.1 70.9 59.5 47.6 80.8 89.6 57.5 56.3 55.0 54.0 52.4 48.9 10:05:01 60.0 52.5 70.3 60.8 46.6 74.6 87.7 57.9 55.9 $4.4 53.2 51.5 47.8 10:06:01 60.0 48.2 65.9 57.1 43.8 75.6 85.2 51.9 50.2 49.5 4B.B 47.7 45.9 10:07:01 60.0 53.1 70.9 65.9 46.6 79.0 53.7 64.3 54.0 52.1 51.3 49.8 47.7 10:08:01 60.0 46.5 66.3 53.8 45.9 69.7 85.2 52.0 50.0 49.5 48.9 48.1 47.0 10:09:01 60.0 48.2 66.0 59.6 43.5 73.8 91.2 52.5 50.2 49.4 48.8 47.7 45.2 10:10:01 60.0 47.0. 64.8 51.8 42.1 62.7 91.2 50.7 49.1 46.5 48.0 46.7 43.9 10:11:01 60.0 40.2 66.0 54.4 96,0 69.2 93.6 50.7 49.5 46.9 48.7 48.0 47.1 30:32:01 60.0 50.7 68.5 55.3 46.7 71.0 87.7 54.1 53.2 52.6 52.1 49.6 47.6 10:13:01 60.0 46.5 66.3 53.3 46.8 72.2 87.7 50.4 49.6 49.0 40.8 48.4 47.3 10:14:01 60.0 4B.2 65.9 53.0 45.7 67.8 87.7 50.9 49.8 49.2 48.7 47.9 46.8 10:15:01 60.0 46.5 64.2 52.2 40.8 61.7 85.2 49.1 48.4 47.9 47.6 46.8 42.3 10:16:01 60.0 56.2 74.0 63.3 41.9 79.3 84.6 60.7 59.1 58.6 58.1 56.7 43.7 10:17:01 60.0 54.9 73.7 75.3 41.3 90.3 94.2 65.5 53.8 50.0 .8.7 46.7 44.1 10:19:01 60.0 51.7 69.5 65.8 43.5 82.2 89.6 60.9 54.8 51.4 50.0 48.3 46.1 10:19:01 60.0 52.3 70.1 66.0 44.3 84.8 93.1 59.8 55.7 53.2 51.7 49.9 47.5 10:20:01 60.0 51.2 69.0 60.5 45.E 86.3 B7.7 57.7 52.6 51.5 50.7 49.3 47.5 10:21:01 60.0 52.3 70.1 62.3 43.9 71.6 85.2 58.8 56.1 54.3 53.1 50.5 46.6 10:22:01 60.0. 50.5 69.3 62.5 43.4 71_7 93.7 57.6 54.3 51.2 49.9 48.4 46.1 10:23:01 60.0 47.4 65.2 59.4 42.7 73.9 91.2 56.1 48.7 47.4 46.7 45.7 43.7 10:24:01 60.0 .7.E 65.6 56.6 42.9 76.5 85.2 53.8 51.5 49.8 41.9 45.9 44.1 10:25:01 60.0 54.0 72.5 60.E 43.7 73.8 89.6 59.9 58.9 58.1 57.3 51.2 45.7 10:26:01 60.0 51.2 69.0 67.5 46.5 83.7 89.7 57.1 54.1 51.2 50.7 49.9 46.4 10:27:01 60.0 53.9 71.7 72.0 47.7 85.2 91.2 59.3 56.4 54.1 52.5 50.5 49.0 10:28:01 60.0 55.3 73.0 62.3 47.4 75.5 92.5 61.8 60.0 50.4 57.2 50.0 4E.5 10:29:01 60.0 56.3 74.1 67.4 47.4 82.4 85.2 61.2 59.8 59.2 58.3 54.5 46.6 10:30:01 60.0 55.5 73.5 63.9 46.7 10.6 89.6 60.9 59.2 58.2 57.2 54.6 48.2 10:31:01 60.0 54.4 72.1 63.2 46.2 75.6 91.2 61.8 55.8 57.5 53.4 50.5 47.9 10:32:01 60.0 53.2 71.0 66.2 45.0 80.4 91.7 62.0 58.4 52.4 50.9 49.0 47.3 10:33:01 60.0 63.E S1.5 72.2 48.8 85.2 94.7 71.2 69.9 67.3 65.0 55.0 51.6 10:34:01 60.0 70.E 83.6 36.0 5312 94.7 96.4 61.7 73.3 69.1 69.2 66.7 55.5 10:35:01 50.0 65.8 83.6 72.9 62.8 04.4 94.6 70.3 68.8 67.9 67.0 64.3 63.2 10:36:01 60.0 61.9 79.6 70.2 47.8 85.7 92.5 67.3 64.6 64.0 63.7 62.2 50.7 10:37:01 60.0 62.3 80.0 72.2 45.9 90.1 93.7 70.8 69.3 65.7 60.5 52.5 47.7 10:38:01 60.0 49.5 67.3 57.6 45.8 77.6 91.2 53.0 51.6 50.2 50.2 49.0 47.0 10:39:01 60.0 50.3 67.9 56.8 45.2 80.2 09.6 54.8 53.0 51.8 51.0 49.4 46.6 10:40:01 60.0 53.4 71.2 61.1 46.3 74.4 87.1 59.6 56.9 55.5 54.2 51.1 48.3 10:41:01 60.0 52.8 70.6 66.4 40.9 89.1 92.5 58.2 55.1 53.7 52.9 51.7 49.5 10:42:01 60.0 55.9 73.7 67.4 48.6 79.5 92.5 66.0 59.3 55.4 53.9 52.0 49.4 10:43:01 60.0 50.2 68.0 57.4 47.8 72.2 93.2 54.B 51.7 50.7 50.3 49.6 48.4 10:44:01 50.0 51.3 69.1 63.3 41.1 81.5 87.7 58.2 54.6 51.7 50.5 45.4 48.2 10:45:01 60.0 57.1 74.9 77.0 48.4 100.5 100.7 64.7 5B.3 56.0 54.6 52.2 49.9 10:46:01 60.0 61.6 79.4 77.3 46.9 94.4 96.4 68.7 66.8 63.7 61.0 55.9 50.4 10:47:01 60.0 54.6 72.6 73.4 46.9 96.0 97.2 62.7 56.6 54.0 52.5 50.3 40.2 10:46:01 60.0 56.5 74.3 72.2 47.6 07.5 97.2 64.1 59.4 57.1 55.6 53.3 50.3 10:49:01 60.0 53.8 71.6 65.4 46.2 01.2 92.5 60.6 56.3 54.0 53.6 52.4 50.3 10:50:01 60.0 52.8 70.6 65.6 45.8 83.2 68.7 63.2 54.7 51_7 50.9 492 47.5 10:51:01 60.0 49.2 67.0 59.2 45.1 74.9 94.7 52.0 50.8 50.1 49.7 48.9 47.2 10:52:01 50.0 47.2 64.9 51.9 44.7 65.1 95.6 49.1 40.7 48.1 47.7 46.9 45.5 10:53:01 60.0 49.6 66.4 55.6 43.4 71.7 65.2 53.8 51.2 49.5 49.8 47.8 46.2 10:54:03 601 49.2 67.0 59.3 42.3 77.5 87.7 55.8 52.5 50.2 49.2 47.0 44.7 10:55:01 601 .50.2 68.0 56.7 45.1 71.2 89.6 55.5 54.1 52.6 50.1 46.6 46.6 10:56:01 60.0 56.5 74.3 69.1 46.3 78.7 92.5 66.9 59.8 55.6 54.2 49.6 47.6 10:57:01 60.0 51.6 69.6 601 44.6 75.1 85.2 59.5 57.5 53.2 594 48.5 46.0 10:58:01 60.0 51.3 69.1 64.1 44.6 801 87.7 57.5 54.9 53.2 50.9 40.4 46.7 10:59:01 60.0 46.4 64.2 56.7 43.1 74.2 0.0 49.9 48.0 47.3 46.8 45.0 44.3 13:00:01 60.0 47.7 65.5 60.9 43.5 76.2 92.5 54.7 49.8 47.8 46.9 56.1 44.7 11:01:03 60.0 54.0 71.8 63.6 45.3 60.6 93.7 61.2 57.8 55.4 53.2 52.0 49.3 1: 02:01 60.0 51.2 68.9 62.4 45.3 77.6 07.7 59.0 53.9 51.5 50.5 49.0 47.2 11:03:01 60.0 49.5 67.3 62.2 43.7 03.7 91.2 55.0 52.3 50.6 49.6 47.9 45.7 11:04:01 60.0 50.3 68.1 61.9 44.2 82.7 85.2 55.9 53.1 51.6 5D.5 48.8 46.6 11:05:01 60.0 53.6 71., 62.4 47.4 82.9 87.7 $9.1 56.0 55.4 54.3 52.5 49.2 11:06:01 60.0 54.5 72.2 66.1 45.4 03.4 87.7 62.0 58.5 56.4 53.3 50.8 48.3 21:07:01 60.0 49.0 66.6 57.9 43.9 74.2 65.2 53.5 51.6 50.6 49.5 48.1 46.3. 11:00:01 60.0 50.5 63.3 61.6 45.0 82.0 85.2 54.6 52.6 51.7 51.2 50.1 47.7 11:09:01 60.0 54.4 72.2 67.8 45.1 88.0 87.7 63.7 59.3 55.71 52.5. 49.3 46.8 1.1:10:03 60.0 50.3 68.1 56.7 47.5 71.1 89.6 54.4 52.6 51.6 5D.E 49.6 48.3 11:11:D1 60.8 53.6 69.4 63.4 47.6 79.9 91.2 SE.S 54.4 52.0 51.0 49.7 46.3 11:12:01 60.0 50.0 67.8 55.0 47.9 70.6 85.2 52.4 50.9 50.7 50.4 49.3 49.0 11:13:03 60.0 57.2 74.9 67.4 46.8 80.1 87.7 65.9 62.6 50.6 57.2 52.0 49.0 11:34:03 60.0 57.1 ' 9 69.1 46.9 66.0 91.2 63.8 62.4 61.1 50.9 50.4 48.1 11:15:01 60.8 55.1 72.0 01.6 44.1 79.5 E9.6 62.7 61.0 59.6 55.2 47.3 45.1 11:16:01 60.0 55.8 73.5 63.9 43.7 76.0 05.2 63.5 61.8 $9.3 55.8 50.1 46.3 11:17:01 60.0 51.6 09.4 71.6 45.7 90.6 92.5 57.6 53.5 50:2 49.5 46.5 47.2 31:10:01 60.0 49.8 66.5 55.1 44.0 66.4 87.7 53.6 51.7 50.1 49.2 47.0 46.2 11:19:03 60.0 53.0 70.0 62.1 43.9 76.9 85.2 60.5 57.3 54.9 53.9 49.9 46.7 11:20:01 60.0 52.5 70.3 631 44.7 77.1 93.7 60.7 56.9 54.1 51.3 49.3 47.4 11:21:01 W.0 53,6 71.3 62.3 45.6 63.6 90.4 59.5 57.6 55.6 53.6 53.8 49.1 11:22:01 60.0 51.1 68.9 60.1 45.3 72.5 65.3 57.4 54.9 53.0 50.9 49.2 47.2 11:23:03 60.0 51.4 69.2 62.3 45.0 76.4 52.5 58.8 55.3 52.5 50.E 48.9 46.8 11:24:03 60.0 49.5 67.2 50.0 43.0 70.8 09.6 56.6 51.9 50.0 49.4 48.0 45.7 11:25:01 60.0 47.7 65.5 $6.1 41.6 76.9 92.5 53.9 51.6 49.8 48.0 45.7 43.2 11:26:01 60.0 4B.3 66.1 55.6 43.8 74.3 87.7 52.9 51.4 50.5 49.7 47.1 44.2 11:27:01 60.0 54.5 72.3 63.1 43.3 76.3 87.7 62.5 50.6 56.7 54.8 50.3 46.3 11:20:01 60.0 51.1 68.9 6210 45.2 77.6 B5.2 57.9 53.6 52.1 51.4 49.5 47.2 11.:29:01 60.0 55.9 73.7 68.2 46.7 02.5 89.6 63.9 60.1 57.9 56.3 52.6 48.3 11:30:01 60.0 53.9 71.7 66.6 444 79.8 89.6 62.0 57.5 55.0 53.6 50.9 46.4 11:31:01 60.0 52.0 70.6 66.3 43.0 05.9 09.6 62.6 57.8 52.4 50.5. 47.5 44.9 11:32:01 60.0 52.8 70.6 66.9 44.7 01.6 95.6 62.2 56.6 52.9 51.2 48.5 45.1 11:33:01 60.0 59.9 77.7 80.2 44.0 94.9 97.2 66.3 59.7 56.5 54.3 49.5 45.5 11:34:01 60.0 50.2 68.0 61.6 42.1 77.3 09.6 56.5 53.1 51.4 50.6 49.0 44.9 11:35:01 60.0 54.3 72.1 71.0 42.0 04.6 91.2 64.0 56.3 52.6 50.9 48.0 44.0 11:36:01 60.0 48.3 66.5 62.4 41.1 78.4 05.2 56.5 52.2 49.9 48.6 45.7 43.1 11:37:01 60.0 50.4 68.1 60.9 42.4 79.3 07.7 57.7 53.0 51.3 50.2 40.6 45.6 11:38:01 60.0 48.8 66.6 59.7 42.1 76.5 87.7 56.9 53.6 49.0 47.4 45.8 43.5 11:39:01 60.0 51.1 68.9 60.1 42.6 72.6 05.2 59.3 57.8 50.8 48.4 45.5 43.7 11:40:01 60.0 52.4 70.2 60.8 43.2 76.7 89.6 60.0 58.9 54.6 51.6 47.3 44.9 11:41:01 60.0 53.0 70.8 63.8 46.4 80.5 07.7 60.3 57.6 55.8 53.1 49.0 47.2 11:42:01 60.0 52.6 70.6 68.0 46.2 84.9 91.2 591 56.0 53.9 52.5 50.2 48.1 11:43:01 60.0 53.4 '71.2 66.0 44.6 02.9 89.6 61.2 57.7 55.5 53.7 49.8 46.0 11:44:01 60.0 47.4 65.2 64.2 43.5 03.0 91.2 50.5 48.0 47.6 47.1 46.3 44.8 11:45:01 60.0 47.2 64.9 55.9 43.4 71.8 65.2 51.4 49.7 48.4 47.7 46.4 45.0 31:46:01 60.0 50.8 60.5 60.0 43.0 75.2 67.7 57.6 54.3 52.7 51.4 49.3 44.E 11:47701 60.0 54.9 72.6 ?0..1 45.1 82.4 91.2 62.0 57.3 55.3 53.E 51.0 47.2 11:48:01 60.0 55.1 72.8 67.2 47.5 04.1 07.7 61.3 58.6 $5.9 55.0 53.6 50.5 11:99:01 60.0 54.2 72.0 61.9 45.6 74.0 86.5 59.7 58.2 56.6 55.3 52.7 40.8 11:50:01 60.0 53.5 73.2 60.0 43.6 75.3 85.2 59.1 57.6 55.3 53.5 52.0 49.B 11:51:01 6D.D 59.9 77.7 76.4 45.8 09.5 89.6 71.3 61.7 58.9 57.0 53.5 47.E 11:52:01 60.0 52.1 69.0 65.5 44.8 77.0 96.0 63.2 54.E 49.6 46.5 ,7.2 45.6 11:53:01 60.0 54.0 73.8 68.5 43.0 89.7 89.6 65.4 57.5 51.5 48.7 46.2 44.2 11:54:01 60.0 59.3 77.1 73.1 45.3 90.7 92.5 60.0 64.7 62.0 59.2 52.6 47.5 11:55:01 60.D 55.3 73.1 69.6 44.6 80.4 89.6 63.9 59.6 56.7 54.4 50.5 46.2 11:56:01 60.0 57.3 75.1 72.3 43.6 091 94.7 69.2 60.9 53.7 51.6 47.5 44.6 11:57:01 60.0 53.7 7!.5 72.9 44..3 93.2 94.7 60.6 57.5 54.5 51.8 47.7 45.1 11:58:01 60.0 57.2 74.0 73.0 43.1 92.4 94.7 67.6 63.6 57.3 53.1 ' 11:59:01 60.0 48.4 66.2 60.5 42.9 77.7 07.7 55.4 53.1 40.9 47.5 46.3 44.9 12:00:01 60.0 50.6 68.4 62.4 43.0 77.3 09.6 57.2 54.8 52.9 51.2 46.0 44.9 32:01:01 60.0 51.7 69.5 61.0 45.3 77.9 91.2 59.5 56.0 53.2 50.5 48.5 46.6 12:02:01 60.0 52.7 70.5 63.0 43.5 77.4 66.5 61.2 58.1 56.8 5D.8 46.7 44.5 12:03:01 60.0 50.9 60.6 60.5 43.9 75.5 89.6 59.3 55.6 53.0 51.3 47.4 44.7 12:04:01 60.0 52.E 7D.6 68.6 43.1 67.5 99.6 60.7 57.5 55.0 52.0. 47.8 44.6 32:05:03 50.0 53.6 70.4 6E.3 45.5 85.5 E9.6 61.7 55.1 52.4 50.9 48.9 46.5 12:06:03 60.0 55.3 73.1 65.0 44.3 77.3 67.7 63.6 59.5 56.6 55.4 52.5 48.4 32:07:01 60.0 49.5 66.3 59.0 44.5 73.5 85.2 54.2 52.1 50.0 48.0 46.1 45.3 12:08:01 60.0 48.0 65.8 57.5 45.0 74.4 87.7 53.7 49.1 46.6 48.1 47.3 46.1 12:09:01 60.0 49.6 67.4 60.5 44.3 78.3 85.2 56.7 $2.3 50.3 49.5 47.9 45.7 12:10:01 60.0 57.0 74.8 75.0 46.0 87.0 67.7 64.0 $7.5 55.5 51.8 45.4 46.7 12:11:01 60.0 53.3 71.1 64.4 43.0 81.3 85.2 60.9 58.6 55.8 53.0 49.5 46.8 12:12:01 60.0 48.3 66.1 53.4 43.3 73.3 87.7 56.1 51.4 49.4 'e.3 46.6 44.6 12:13:01 60.0 51.1 69.9 64.3 43.2 79.8 67.7 61.0 55.3 $0.5 4E.9 46.7 44.5 12:14:01 60.0 54.6 72.4 63.3 42.0 82.3 85.2 62.7 58.8 57.2 55.7 49.7 44.7 12:15:01 60.0 53.2 71.0 70.6 41.9 87.2 94.7 62.1 57.0 $4.4 52.0 40.2 44..1 12:16:01 60.0 52.7 70.5 67.0 40.4 04.5 89.6 62.9 57.6 54.0 50.1 44.3 42.1 12:17:01 60.0 46.7 66.5 60.4 40.9 77.7 03.7 57.4 53.5 49.3 47.8 44.5 42.2 12:18:01 60.0 53.3 71.5 67.9 39.3 04.3 87.7 62.6 59.5 56.2 52.9 45.9 .2.1 12:19:01 60.0 51.0 60.8 64.9 40.2 91.9 87.7 0.6 56.2 53.8 48.7 45.2 42.2 12:20:01 60.0 47.1 64.E 61.8 42.1 75.2 93.7 52.2 48.7 47.6 46.9 45.8 44.1 1.2:21:01 60.0 47.1 64.9 56.4 40.3 75.3 85.2 54.6 52.2 47.2 45.7 44.4 43.0 12:22:01 60.0 45.3 63.1 55.4 42.4 80.0 05.2 49.1 46.0 46.1 45.8 45.1 43.4 12:23:01 60.0 46.2 64.0 56.9 40.5 751 0.0 53.8 49.2 46.E .5.6 4.5 42.5 12:24:01 60.0 48.4 66.2 63.3 42.6 94.8 93.7 57.4 50.0 47.7 46.7 45.5 43.7 12:25:01 60.0 49.9 67.7 60.3 43.3 76.7 0.0 54.9 53.0 51.9 50.8 48.7 45.4 12:26:01 60.0 51.6 69.4 65.6 39.9 77.7 e7.7 62.0 56.1 50.5 40.3 45.3 41.7 12:27401 60.0 47.5 65.3 55.3 42.6 75.8 07.7 53.5 50.9 49.2 47.7 45.7 44.0 12:28:01 60.0 53.3 71.1 65.1 43.9 77.0 97.2 59.0 57.6 56.2 54.6 50.5 46.5 12:29:01 60.0 60.2 78.0 83.8 45.1 99.2 100.3 60.9 58.7 57.1 54.1 50.1 46.5 12:30:01 60.0 53.7 71.5 64.1 43.1 80.8 85.2 59.8 58.0 57.0 55.1 50.9 46.5 12:31:01 60.0 55.8 73.5 63.1 44.1 76.2 87.7 62.3 61.0 50.5 57.0 52.0 46.3 12:32:01 60.0 53.8 71.6 63.0 44.7 76.8 93.7 60.G 57.8 56.7 54.B 51.3 46.7 12:33:01 60.0 50.7 68.5 61.6 43.9 76.0 91.2 50.3 55.2 $3.4 50.8 47.4 45.2 12:34:01 60.0 53.2 71.0 59.6 45.0 74.0 92.5 $9.1 57.9 56.E 55.0 49.3 46.3 12:35:0! 60.0 53.1 70.9 62.0 44.1 77.5 09.6 58.3 57.4 56.5 55.2 50.1 47.0 12:36:01 60.0 57.5 75.3 73.4 45.5 84.7 05.2 68.4 56.1 54.0 52.9 51.1 48.0 12:37:01 60.0 54.6 72.4 70.9 46.2 91.7 93.7 63.7 57.6 55.2 52.8 50.0 47.5 12:38:01 60.0 50.3 60.1 64.4 45.5 79.2 67.7 57.4 53.3 50.0 49.9 4B.2 46.2 12:39:01 60.0 50.2 67.9 61.9 44.7 82.4 89.6 56.6 53.6 51_6 50.5 47.9 46.3 12:40:01 60.0 47.3 65.0 56.6 44.7 79.5 69.6 51.3 48.7 47.9 47.5 46.8 45.6 12:41:01 60.0 52.2 70.0 74.7 44.0 88.3 69.6 56.1 51.3 49.9 40.6 47.3 45.9 1Z:42:01 60.0 50.6 60.3 63.6 45.4 81.8 92.5 57.8 54.0 51.8 50.5 47.8 45.8 12:43:01 60.0 47.6 65.4 55.5 45.0 74.4 86.5 52.5 49.8 48.7 47.9 46.7 45.4 12:44:01 60.0 40.4 66.1 65.6 40.5 79.1 85.2 54.7 50.2 48.3 46.9 44.0 41.5 12:45:01 60.0 53.5 71.2 66.9 41.4 82.3 85.2 64.8 54.0 52.0 51.1 48.1 44.3 12:46:01 60.0 52.4 70.2 67.7 46.6 60.3 87.7 59.4 53.9 $2.8 52.8 50.7 49.0 12:47:0! 60.0 53.0 70.8 62.2 47.7 75.3 95.2 59.5 55.7 54.3 53.1 51.6 50.0 12:48:01 60.8 52.0 69.8 64.0 46.1 81.1 93.7 60.4 55.3 52.5 51.1 49.7 47.9 2:49:01 60.0 53.1 00.9 63.1 44.8 93.4 95.6 74.8 61.6 55.7 52.8 49.4 46.3 12:50:01 60.0 47.3 65.1 55.8 43.0 76.1 89.6 53.4 50.9 46.9 47.4 45.7 44.1 12:51:01 60.0 49.2 665 60.5 43.5 79.0 85.2 55.7 52.8 50.8 49.4 46.9 44.7 12:52:01 60.0 49.9 67.7 57.7 44.7 71.7 B7.7 $4.B 52.9 51.4 50.5 49.2 46.1 12:53:01 60.0 52.8 70.6 72.3 42.0 88.9 95.6 59.5 53.3 51.5 50.8 49.0 43.B 12:54:01 60.0 55.3 73.1 68.4 42.0 92.1 85.2 67.3 57.5 54.2 52.6 49.3 44.1 12:55:01 60.0 53.3 71.0 60.0 48.8 74.0 B9.6 57.7 55.8 54.9 54.2 52.6 50.0 12:56:01 60.0 47.9 65.7 58.0 41.0 73.9 85.2 55.4 50.9 49.1 40.2 45.0 43.4 32:57:01 60.0 45.6 63.4 54.5 40.3 60.6 07.7 51.4 48.0 47.1 46.3 44.3 42.3 12:58:01 '00.0 45.4 63.2 57.0 39.1 73.1 85.2 52.0 48.6 47.2 45.9 43.3 40.4 12:59:01 60.0 46.7 64.5 62.8 40.6 62.9 B5.2 52.1 48.0 46.9 46.3 45.1 42.2 13:00:01 60.0 49.8 67.6 59.3 44.1 73.1 B9.6 54.7 52.3 51.5 50.6 49.2 45.9 13:01:01 60.0 49.1 66.0 57.1 44.3 70.2 87.7 53.8 51.6 50.3 49.5 46.3 46.3 13:02:01 60.0 47.2 64.9 57.2 43.6 73.5 85.2 51.0 40.9 4B.0 47.6 46.5 45.0 13:03:01 60.0 49.8 67.6 63.1 43.4 76.5 97.7 56.9 53.9 51.4 49.7 46.8 45.0 13:04:01 60.0 49.8 67.5 69.1 43.2 03.9 90.4 54.0 49.0 48.2 47.6 46.4 44.7 13:05:01 60.0 62.2 80.0 70.6 46.3 82.0 09.6 70.2 68.7 66.2 61.8 54.6 50.4 13:06:01 60.0 53.2 11.0 65.3 47.9 79.6 87.7 62.8 56.3 52.8 51.5 49.8 40.2 13107:81 60.0 54.2. 72.0 66.6 4B.1 82.2 89.6 62.2 56.9 55.1 54.0 52.0 49.1 13:06:01 60.0 56.2 74.0 65.7 49.7 18.9 97.7 63.3 60.1 58.0 56.4 53.9 50.6 13:09:01 60.0 51.1 68.8 60.2 44.1 76.0 85.2 56.2 54.1 52.7 51.7 50.1 47.1 13:10:01 60.0 52.6 70.4 64.7 43.9 77.0 87.7 59.1 56.3 54.8 53.4 50.3 46.8 13:11:01 60.0 52.3 70.1 62.4 44.7 78.1 85.2 57.6 55.4 53.8 52.7 51.2 40.1 13:12:01 60.0 52.3 70.0 61.2 43.2 73.4 85.2 58.3 56.9 55.2 53.3 49.5 45.5 13:13:01 60.0 40.2 65.9 62.7 44.0 76.1 89.6 54.1 49.5 48.2 47.7 46.6 45.2 13:14:01 60.0 48.0 65.8 56.4 44.7 73.4 85.2 52.8 49.7 48.9 48.4 47.5 46.1 13:15:01 60.0 47.7 65.4 55.9 44.4 75.6 85.2 51.4 49.4 48.6 48.0 47.1 45.7 13:.16:01 60.0 47.7 65.5 55.5 43.4 74.2 09.6 51.7 48.9 48.6 48.2 47.4 45.6 13:17:01 60.0 47.6 65.4 56.0 44.3 74.5 87.7 53.1 49.3 4B.5 47.9 46.9 45.4 13:18:01 60.0 48.1 65.9 55.3 43.9 74.5 89.6 53.3 49.8 49.0 46.7 47.7 45.4 13:19:01 60.0 97.8 65.6 56.4 43.3 74.6 05.2 52.9 49.6 48.8 40.3 47.3 44.9 13:20:03 60.0 47.2 64.9 56.9 43.7 76.3 87.7 53.3 48.9 47.8 47.1 46.2 44.7 13:21:01 60.0 47.7 65.5 56.7 44.9 76.7 92.5 52.5 48.8 48.3 47.9 47.2 46.0 13:22:01 60.0 91.9 79.7 79.3 46.3 91.6 93.7 74.8 56.6 51.8 50.6 49.5 47.5 13:23:01 60.0 82.1 99.9 97.5 47.6 103.1 102.5 93.1 87.5 62.8 78.5 58.6 50.6 13:24:01 60.0 50.9 6B.7 65.7 46.4 77.7 0.0 $6.3 $2.6 51.4 50.7 49.5 46.0 13:25:01 60.0 49.9 6].] 54.5 46.0 66.1 87.7 52.0 51.7 51.0 50.6 99.7 48.1 13:26:01 60.0 50.2 68.0 60.3 46.0 76.7 91.2 52.9 51.7 51.0 50.6 49.7 48.4 13:27:61 60.0 49.9 67.7 57.9 47.0 74.0 65.2 52.5 53.5 50.9 50.6 49.7 98.2 13:28:01 60.0 49.5 67.2 60.9 46.6 77.1 89.6 52.4 50.9 50.4 49.9 49.2 47.8 13:29:01 60.0 50.6 6B.4 54.0 45.9 70.3 85.2 53.9 53.1 52.4 51.7 50.2 97.9 13:30:01 60.0 53.8 71.6 66.0 44.9 81.3 07.7 64.8 55.0 52.0 51.0 49.5 46.7 13:31:01 60.0 49.6 67.4 55.0 43.1 72.3 67.7 53.2 52.3 51.5 50.8 49.3 45.7 13:32:01 60.0 58.1 '5.5 73.4 47.8 83.7 99.6 66.3 61.6 58.9 57.1 54.4 50.3 13:33:01 60.0 50.1 67.9 60.9 47.9 76.7 91.2 54.8 5!.5 50.5 49.9 49.4 48.3 13:34:01 60.0 49.6 67.4 55.8 47.6 73.4 87.7 52.7 51.1 50.5 50.0 49.3 48.2 13:35:01 60.0 50.1 67.8 50.4 45.4 71.8 91.2 55.3 52.6 51.3 50.4 49.4 47.2 13:36:01 60.0 47.0 64.8 56.7 44.5 73.2 0.0 51.2 48.7 47.8 l 46.5 45.3 13:37:01 60.0 52.4 70.2 59.8 46.2 72.3 92.5 57.3 56.5 55.7 54.5 50.0 47.2 13:38:01 60.0 53.0 70.8 60.1 45.7 74.9 89.6 50.4 57.3 56.3 55.0 50.2 47.9 13:39:01 60.0 46.5 64.3 56.9 42.4 70.9 87.7 50.3 48.3 47.6 47.0 46.2 43.7 13:40:01 68.0 45.3 57.1 56.7 441 79.7 07.7 53.0 51.6 50.7 50.1 48.7 46.5 13:41:01 60.0 66.0 63.9 43.5 75.B 85.2 51.6 49.6 48.8 48.4 47.3 45.3 13:42:01 60.0 51.9 699.7 59.7 45.0 74.6 87.7 57.6 55.7 54.3 52.0 50.2 47.1 13:43:01 60.0 55.6 73.5 63.2 48.4 77.8 87.7 62.2 61.0 58.1 55.3 52.9 50.7 13:44:01 60.0 56.6 74.6 67.6 49.6 79.0 89.6 65.4 60.7 57.7 56.7 53.0 51.0 13:45:01 60.0 52.7 ]0.5 55.9 47.2 76.4 87.7 57.5 55.3 54.2 53.5 52.2 49.1 13:46:01 60.0 53.4 71.1 60.4 46.4 76.2 85.2 58.0 56.1 55.3 54.5 52.5 49.0 13:47:01 60.0 54.6 72.4 61.0 501 74.2 87.7 58.6 57.1 55.9 55.1 541 51.6 13:4801. 60.0 53.9 71.5 61.7 46.1 741 91.2 59.4 57.5 55.6 53.9 52.4 49.3 13:49:01 60.0 .9 72.7 62.8 45.8 75.9 85.2 61.9 61.1 69.1 51.0 48.9 47.1 13:50:01 60.0 53.1 70.9 71.2 45.6 95.2 96.0 63.0 54.9 51.6 50.5 49.0 46.9 13:51:01 '90.0 54.7 72.5 69.0 46.5 88.7 99.6 65.5 56.4 52.3 51.3 50.0 48.2 13:52:01 60.0 58.3 76.0 72.8 46.5 92.9 52.5 69.2 61.9 55.5 54.1 52.2 49.2 13:53:01 60.0 60.9 78.7 74.6 44.5 94.7 94.7 72.0 66.9 59.4 53.1 48.9 46.5 13:54:01 60.0 65.9 83.7 76.6 44.5 98.2 96.4 74.7 72.4 69.1 64.0 53.9 47.4 13:55:01 60.0 57.7 .5 67.6 45.8 81.3 87.7 64.0 62.4 60.9 59.3 54.2 49.9 13:56:01 60.0 53.4 11.1 64.8 44.8 78.2 85.2 59.5 56.4 55.5 54.4 51.9 47.9 13:57:01. 60.0 56.2 74.0 71.4 46.8 85.5 91.2 60.7 59.1 50.2 57.2 54.5 50.5 13:58:01 60.0 56.9 74.7 70.0 47.9 92.9 94.7 62.4 60.6 59.5 50.5 54.4 51.2 13:59:01 60.0 54.8 72.6 61.4 49.1 80.4 92.5 59.6 58.0 56.8 56.1 53.4 51.2 14:00:01 60.0 61.3 79.1 73.2 48.3 92.2 93.7 70.4 67.3 63.8 59.9 53.6 51.0 14:01:01 60.0 54.3 72.1 62.8 46.6 76.3 87.7 61.2 50.6 56.3 54.5 52.1 48.5 14:02:01 60.0 54.9 72.9 61.9 45.9 76.8 85.2 60.2 50.6 57.3 56.5 53.9 48.2 14:03:01 60.0 52.7 70.5 60.8 44.9 79.7 87.7 57.4 56.5 55.6 54.3 51.1 47.3 14:04:01 60.0 50.0 68.5 66.9 45.3 84.2 69.6 56.7 55.2 51.6 49.2 49.9 46.3 14:05:01 60.0 49.4 67.2 57.3 46.4 73.3 0.0 55.5 51.6 49.9 49.4 48.4 47.1 14:06:01 60.0 55.4 73.2 61.7 45.9 60.0 65.2 59.9 58.8 57.5 56.7 55.1 48.9 14:09:01 60.0 54.9 72.6 63.6 45.9 83.3 91.2 60.5 58.3. 57.0 56.3 53.6 48.2 14:08:01 60.0 54.5 72.3 64.8 43.9 83.0 85.2 63.2 59.7 57.1 53.8 50.0 46.4 14:09:01 60.0 52.1 69.9 63.7 45.3 60.3 85.2 60.8 55.7 51.6 50.6 49.5 47.7 14:10:01 60.0 62.2 60.0 73.7 44.9 93.0 94.7 70.9 68.4 65.4 61.7 53.1 47.7 14:11:01 60.0 51.66 66.4 67.1 45.4 85.5 05.2 60.0 53.9 51.5 50.4 48.6 46.9 14:12:01 60.0 51.2 69.0 62.2 47.7 81.6 89.6 57.5 53.0 52.0 51.3 50.0 48.3 14:13:01 60.0 54.3 72.6 61.9 46.3 74.1 92.5 60.9 58.8 57.6 56.4 52.5 49.0 14:14:01 60.0 55.3 73.1 62.9 44.0 80.7 89.6 60.5 $9.3 56.6 5B.0 52.0 46.2 14:15:01 60.0 51.1 63.9 66.3 43.4 79.2 05.2 50.1 55.7 53.4 43.6 46.5 44.6 14:16:01 60.0 51.0 68.8 63.9 43.0 82.5 85.2 59.6 56.7 52.0 46.2 46.4 44.4 14:17:01 60.0 55.3 73.5 70.3 42.5 91.6 92.5 67.2 59.7 52.4 49.7 47.4 44.1 14:18:01 60.0 59.5 71.3 70.8 40.9 90.8 93.7 69.0 66.2 61.7 57.2 48.0 42.0 14:19:01 60.0 61.9 79.6 76.0 42.9 100.4 100.7 70.8 67.0 63.8 61.5 56.1 50.4 14:20:01 60.0 59.4 77.1 69.5 43.2 64.6 69.6 68.1 65.4 62.1 53.8 53.0 44.1 14:21:01 60.0 57.5 75.3 69.5 43.5 69.6 89.6 66.4 63.4 59.9 56.8 50.6 44.9 14:22:01 60.0 47.5 65.3 61.9 43.3 80.3 D.0 54.6 49.6 48.0 47.2 45. 9 44.3 14:23:03 60.0 60.9 73.7 04.8 43.9 102.0 105.4 65.0 $5.7 51.5 49.5 47.4 45.3 14:24:01 60.0 55.2 73.0 74.5 46.3 69.3 88.7 $0.0 52.9 52.3 51.8 50.9 48.2 14;25:01 60.0 63.6 61.4 75.3 43.5 98.9 99.3 74.4 60.3 62.8 59.3 52.1 47.5 14:26:01 60.0 65.6 83.4 05.7 45.5 100.5 100.3 75.5 62.0 56.4 53.3 49.9 47.1 14:27:01 60.0 48.8 66.5 60.2 44.9 75.9 85.2 55.6 50.7 49.2 434 47.6 45.9 14:28:01 60.0 50.0 67.7 58.0 46.2 71.8 05.2 54.4 52.0 50.9 50.3 49.4 47.5 14:29:01 60.0 50.2 68.0 59.2 46.3 71.7 85.2 54.7 52.3 51.3 50.7 49.6 47.7 14:30:81 60.0 52.8 70.6 62.7 47.7 7D.7 91.9 5B.8 56.4 54.6 53.1 51.1 49.2 14:31:01 60.0 47.9 65.6 56.6 44.3 69.9 05.2 51.5 50.2 49.4 43.6 47:2 45.2 14:32:01 60.0 47.6 65.4 61.0 42.0 79.0 92.5 53.2 51.0 49.6 47.5 45.9 43.6 14:33:01 60.0 50.8 68.6 61.7 43.7 76.7 67.7 57.6 54.9 52.5 50.9 48.6 45.7 14:34:01 60.0 50.4 69.1 62..3 45.0 81.1 65.2 57.2 53.7 51.7 50.4 48.6 46.4 14:35:01 60.0 50.6 63.4 61.3 44.9 83.1 91.2 58.3 54.3 51.7 58.3 48.4 46.2 14:36:01 60.0 54.6 72.4 62.5 47.9 81.6 67.7 58.6 56.9 56.3 55.8 54.5 49.1 14:37:01 60.0 53.4 71.2 61.5 49.0 80.0 87.7 $1.7 56.3 55.4 54.5 52.3 50.3 14:39;01 60.0 51.9 69.6 59.3 49.4 76.9 89.6 56.6 53.9 52.8 52.1 51.3 49.7 14:39:01 60.0 53.2 71.0 61.3 49.4 79.2 09.6 50.1 54.9 54.2 53.6 52.5 51.0 14:40:01 60.0 60.4 78.2 67.2 40.1 02.9 87.7 66.7 65.8 64.2 62.0 55.E 50.6 14:41:81 60.0 52.3 70.1 57.5 41.9 76.4 69.6 55.7 54.5 53.8 53.3 52.0 49.6 14:42:01 60.0 50.3 63.1 60.3 45.1 77.5 89.6 54.9 52.7 51.9 51.3 49.7 46.3 14:43:81 60.0 50.0 67.3 61.3 44.0 01.6 07.7 57.6 54.2 51.6 49.4 47.3 45.4 14:44:01 60.0 49.1 66.9 60.5 44..4 77.1 07.7 55.5 52.3 50.6 49.5 47.4 45.A 14:45:01 60.0 60.1 77.9 67.0 47.1 01.1 89.6 66.1 65.3 63.9 62.4 55.8 49.2 14:46:01 60.0 50.5 68.3 62.1 45.1 76.7 07.7 57.2 53.6 51.8 50.9 48.7 46.6 14:47:01 60.0 53.9 71.7 73.3 45.0 91.1 94.7 61.0 56.6 53.8 52.5 49.8 46.5 14:48:01 60.0 50.5 68.3 60.5 44.G 70.7 94.7 57.4 54.5 52.5 51.0 46.1 45.9 14:49:01 60.0 53.3 71.1 65.3 44.3 80.7 85.2 62.4 58.1 54.6 52.2 49.2 45.9 14:50:01 60.0 51.1 60.0 64.0 45.3 76.1 85.2 59.4 54.5 51.7 50.5 48.6 46.2 14:51:01 60.0 50.5 68.3 62.6 41.0 79.2 89.6 57.8 55.4 53.3 50.5 46.3 42.5 14:52:01 60.0. 50.2 75.9 70.3 44.9 83.9 B9.6 67.0 62.9 59.4 57.0 54.1 48.4 14:53:01 60.0 55.5 73.2 71.4 45.7 84.6 85.2 65.3 59.2 54.7 52.4 50.0 47.7 14:54:01 60.0 50.2 67.9 58.6 47.5 76.4 85.2 53.7 51.7 50.9 50.6 49.8 40.5 14:55:01 60.0 57.7 75.4 72.6 47.3 94.7 93.7 68.4 62.2 57.3 54.7 51.1 48.1 14:56:01 60.0 51.8 69.6 59.4 48.6 77.7 89.6 55.8 54.0 53.1 52.6 51.3 49.4 14:57.01 60.0 52.6 70.4 58.0 45.8 76.4 B5.2 56.5 54.7 53.9 53.6 52.6 48.7 14:50:01 60.0 53.2 71.0 60.5 49.9 72.0 87.7 56.0 54.9 54.0 53.7 53.0 51.4 14:59:01 60.0 52.7 10.5 62.6 49.0 76.2 89.6 56.0 54.7 53.7 53.0 52.1 50.4 15:00:01 60.0 52.5 70.2 60.5 49.0 76.5 85.2 55.6 54.0 53.5 53.0 52.4 50.1 15:01:01 60.0 54.2 71.9 63.3 49.0 60.5 91.2 58.2 56.4 55.7 55.2 53.7 50.8 15:02:01 60.0 52.6 70.4 62.0 45.3 75.5 87.7 56.9 54.8 53.9 53.4 51.9 49.1 15:03;01 60.0 50.0 60.6 59.8 46.6 75.5 85.2 56.1 53.4 52.3 51.5 49.8 40.0 15:04:01 60.0 52.3 70.1 66.0 46.6 86.0 96.0 60.1 54.4 52.4 51.2 49.6 47.7 15:05:01 60.0 53.5 71.2 65.4 46.4 83.6 87.7 61.9 58.3 54.3 524 49.9 47.4 15:06:01 60.0 48.7 66.5 56.0 45.3 71.4 85.2 54.1 51.1 49.7 48.9 17.3 46.4 15:07:01 60.0 49.4 67.2 61.4 45.3 77.9 89.6 55.7 51.9 50.6 49.7 48.1 46.3 15:00:01 60.0 49.5 67.3 62.2 43.9 76.2 91.2 56.5 51.9 50.5 49.5 .' 6 46.2 15:09:01 60.0 52.1 69.9 67.6 45.4 79.2 87.7 61.8 52.3 50.6 49.9 48.8 47.1 15:10:01 60.0 52.3 70.1 61.9 47.4 75.4 87.7 57.6 54.7 53.7 52.8 51.6 48.8 15:11:01 60.0 51.9 69.7 69.1 45.4 60.2 87.7 57.9 52.7 51.6 50.9 49.4 47.0 15:12:01 60.0 504 66.2 57.4 46.3 80.4 0.0 54..7 53.1 51.9 51.0 49.7 43.0 15:13:01 60.0 53.1 70.9 61.0 47.4 79.7 85.2 56.9 56.0 54.7 53.7 52.1 49.3 15:14:01 60.0 52.6 70.4 63.4 46.0 79.1 91.2 61.3 57.4 53.0 50.9 49.3 47.3 15:15:01 60.0 54.6 72.4 60.4 :6.4 78.9 39.6 60.1 59.1 58.1 56.0 51.7 43.3 15:16:01 60.0 52.7 70.4 68.4 46.1 89.7 87.7 62.0 56.6 51.6 50.2 48.9 47.0 15:17:D1 60.0 53.2 71.0 63.3 46.5 86.0 37.7 62.0 56.2 51.8 51.0 49.6 47.9 15:13:01 60.0 48.9 66.7 61.6 42.7 81.4 85.2 53.E 51.6 50.3 49.4 47.6 45.7 15:19:01 60.0 50.5 63.2 64.1 42.5 79.6 85.2 56.5 52.7 51.8 51.3 50.0 444 15:20:01 60.0 53.6 71.4 68.3 46.8 77.8 85.2 62.2 55.0 53.2 52.0 50.5 45.2 15:21:01 60.0 51.7 69.5 59.6 46.5 82.6 07.7 56.6 54.6 53.3 52.5 51.0 49.2 15:22:01 60.0 60.8 78.5 74.1 48.5 86.5 93.7 72.6 65.0 55.4 53.6 51.E 49.5 15:23:01 60.0 51.0 68.8 57.6 46.5 68.3 B9.6 $6.3 54.4 53.0 51.9 49.6 47.6 15:24:01 60.9 51.6 69.3 58.7 46.0 71.0 91.2 57.4 55.3 53.2 52.1 50.3 47.B 15:25:01 60.0 49.1 66.6 63.1 44.1 82.0 87.7 53.7 50.9 50.0 49.4 48.0 45.7 15:26:01 60.0 50.5 68.3 65.0 43.5 83.2 87.7 56.6 53.3 51.8 50.7 46.9 47.0 15:27:01 60.0 54.3 72.1 72.5 46.1 91.5 91_2 63.0 55.4 54.0 52.7 99.3 47.4 15:28:01 60.0 $7.4 75.2 66.1 46.5 30.0 91.2 67.4 62.7 58.4 55.4 51.0 40.4 15:29:01 60.0 52.7 70.5 72.5 46.9 09.1 09.6 57.0 51.3 51.1 50.7 49.8 46.4 15:30:01 60.0 67.2 35.0 75.6 49.1 89.8 94.7 75.2 73.4 70.8 68.0 59.4 52.4 15:31:01 60.0 58.5 76.3 75.2 49.1 90.6 93.1 65.2 62.3 59.6 57.0 54.7 51.6 15:32:01 60.0 56.7 74.5 66.6 50.9 82.8 89.6 63.0 59.7 50.3 57.2 55.3 52.3 15:33:01 60.0 60.5 78.3 70.6 52.6 87.0 92.5 69.7 65.6 61.6 58.7 56.5 54.2 15:34:01 60.0 56.0 74.6 65.4 53.1 81.6 91.2 62.5 58.9 50.0 57.3 55.3 54.2 15:35:01 60.0 56.4 74.2 68.9 52.7 02.0 09.6 61.1 58.3 57.1 56.5 55.3 53.5 15:36:01 60.0 56.8 74.5 63.5 53.1 77.7 92.5 60.0 59.3 50.0 57.3 56.0 54.4 15:37:01 60.0 61.3 79.1 74.6 53.5 92.2 93.7 71.6 63.2 59.5 58.5 57.1 55.1 15:30:01 60.0 57.9 75.7 67.5 52.9 70.3 93.7 65.4 61.0 59.0 57.7 55.9 53.9 15:39:01 60.0 63.3 81.0 69.5 54.1 83.5 99.1 61.9 66.9 66.0 65.1 62.3 55.9 15:40:01 60.0 62.8 80.6 70.2 49.6 85.2 94.7 69.7 60.8 67.6 63.0 56.0 52.0 15:41:01 60.0 55.2 73.0 59.7 51.2 74.7 91.2 58.9 57.0 56.1 55.7 54.8 53.3 15:42:01 60.0 55.1 72.9 59.6 48.2 69.7 89.6 58.8 56.9 56.2 55.7 54.8 52.7 15:43:01 60.0 55.2 72.9 59.9 50.4 70.8 93.7 58.8 57.5 56.7 56.2 54.5 52.2 15:44:01 60.0 57.3 75.1 66.9 52.4 84.3 89.6 66.7 58.1 56.8 56.2 55.3 53.8 15:45:01 60.0 58.4 76.2 72.7 51.9 69.7 93.7 63.6 61.1 60.1 59.1 56.4 53.5 15:46:01 60.0 58.2 76.0 68.0 51.4 86.1 69.6 65.5 62.3 59.6 58.2 55.8 53.2 15:47:01 60.0 53.6 71.4 63.6 4 9. 2 19.0 92.5 58.0 56.3 54.9 54.1 52.7 50.6 1S:48:01 60.0 55.2 73.0. .68.4 47.5 80.5 93.7 61.2 51.5 55.9 55.2 53.8 50.3 15:49:01 60.0 55.5 73.2 69.9 50.1 84.6 94.7 59.7 57.6 56.2 55.5 54.3 52.1 15:50:01 60.0 55.2 73.0 63.0 50.9 77.0 89.6 58.8 51.3 56.4 55.0 54.7 52.6 15:S1:01 60.0 55..2 72.9 63.0 49.2 76.1 89.6 58.6 57.3 56.5 55.9 54.7 52.2 15:52:61 60.0 55.3 73.1. 63.0 50.2 79.1 91.2 58.6 56.9 56.5 56.0 55.1 52.5 15:53:61 60.0 56.0 73.8 60.1 51.6 75.1 95.6 58.9 57.8 57.3 56.8 55.7 $3.4 15:54:01 60.0 55.0 72.7 62.4 50.0 77.1 91.2 60.3 51.5 55.9 55.3 54.1 51.6 15:55:01 60.0 62.7 00.4 76.5 51.5 88.2 94.7 75.0 64.5 58.2 57.1 SS.S 54.0 15:56:01 60.0 55.2 73.0 61.2 52.0 79.1 89.6 58.4 56.9 56.3 55.0 54.8 53.3 15:57:01 60.0 55.0 72.8 62.3 49.6 75.3 89.6 58.0 56.8 56.0 55.7 54.8 52.2 15:58:01 60.0 64.1 81.9 71.2 49.0 84.2 94.7 70.7 69.7 68.1 65.4 58.5 52.9 15:59:01 60.0 54.9 72.7 62.0 50.6 75.8 87.7 60.3 57.9 56.5 55.5 53.8 51.7 16:00:01 60.0 54.0 71.8 59.6 45.6 74.6 07.7 57.9 56.5 55.6 55.0 53.7 50.1 16:01:01 60.0 52.9 70.7 57.8 46.3 71.9 87.7 56.8 55.5 54.7 54.0 52.2 49.6 16:02:01 60.0 53.8 71.5 59.5 47.2 74.1 87.7 57.7 56.2 55.4 54.1 53.3 50.2 16:03:01 60.0 53.9 71.7 59.6 49.8 72.3 87.7 57.8 56.3 55.1 54.5 53.4 51.3 16:04:01 60.0 53.3 71.1 58.7 45.6 71.2 91.2 57.4 56.1 55.1 54.2 52.7 49.2 16:05:01 60.0 54.7 72.5 73.8 46.0 93.4 97.2 61.7 54.9 53.8 53.1 51.6 49.2 16:06:01 60.0 53.2 71.0 69.7 46.7 84.4 89.6 58.8 55..5 54.2 53.2 51.3 48.9 16:07:01 4.5 55.0 61.5 62.5 45.6 66.1 87.7 61.0 59.0 57.3 56.0 53.7 49.2 C: \LARDAV\SUIWIL \2BJAN1 -1.bia !n[ecva! Data Maas Site Location Iludtev Date 7ioe Duration Le, BEL _ in Peat Dgffi L( 2) L( 8) L116) L(25) L(SO) L1901 --------------------------------- 1 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 286a. 09 07:35:52 60.0 62.0 79.3 98.3 51.3 103.1 102.6 70.9 65.7 62.7 59.5 56.0 a 53.2 0 22Jan 09 07:36:52 60.0 54.8 72.6 68.9 52.3 85.7 90.1 53.4 55.7 55.0 54.8 54.1 53.1 1 0 28Jan 09 07:37:52 60.0 55.1 72.9 65.1 53.0 75.4 07.4 $9.3 $6.7 55.8 55.1 54.5 53.5 1 0 23Jan 09 07:38:52 60.0 54.0 01.8 80.0 53.6 93.7 96.2 74.8 67.1 63.2 61.2 58.0 55.0 1 0 28Jan O9 03:39:52 60.0 58.2 75.9 71.1 52.6 85.5 87.4 67.2 60.8 58.7 57.4 55.0 54.0 1 0 26Jan 09 03:40:52 60.0 55.3 77.1 72.3 52.5 88.4 87.4 58.8 63.4 60.0 57.4 55.5 53.5 1 0 28Jan 09 07:41:52 60.0 58.4 76.1 72.3 52.3 66.2 50.9 66.5 61.9 58.8 53.2 55.5 53.5 I 0 2BJan 09 07:42:52 60.0 58.8 76.6 70.3 52.9 221.0 90.9 66.6 63.4 60.3 57.7 55.8 54.2 i 0 28Jan 05 07:43:52 60.0 59.3 77.1 31.8 52.4 96.7 89.3 67.8 63.4 50.6 58.4 55.6 53.5 I 0 2BJan 09.03:44:52 60.0 6D.2 78.0 31.6 53.6 86.0 99.3 68.1 64.5 61.3 59.4 57.2 54.9 1 0 28Jan 09 07:45:52 60.0 58.1 75.9 71.8 52.0 86.2 09.3 63.5 60.1 57.3 56.4 55.3 53.6 1 D 28Jan 05 07:46:52 60.0 61.7 79.4 73.6 53.3 83.4 96.9 69.6 66.3 64.0 61.4 57.4 54.5 1 0 28Jan 09 03:47:52 60.0 60.9 70.7 78.0 52.2 91.1 94.9 68.9 65.4 61.5 58.7 55.9 53.6 1 0 26Jan 09 07:49:52 GD.0 61.7 79.5 70.9 54.3 64.6 92.2 69.0 66.1 64.1 62.4 59.1 55.5 1 0 28Jan 09 07:49:52 60.0 63.2 80.9 72.6 53.3 86.9 92.2 69.1 66.1 64.8 63.9 62.4 56.4 1 0 28Jan 09 07:50:52 60.0 59.1 76.9 69.9 53.1 03.7 89.3 63.2 63.4 60.2 $8.3 56.3 54.4 1 0 28Jan 09 07:51:52 60.0 59.7 77.5 75.9 52.3 90.6 90.9 68.2 63.1 60.0 57.9 55.7 53.6 1 0 2BJan 09 07:52:52 60.0 61.4 79.2 72.1 53.0 88.4 90.9 69.8 66.3 63.2 60.9 $7.4 55.1 i 0 28Jan 09 03:53:52 6D.0 59.9 73.6 73.0 51.4 86.2 69.3 69.4 63.6 60.1 58.1 $5.1 53.0 1 0 2BJan 09 07:54:52 60.0 62.5 SO.3 73.0 52.1 87.0 90.9 70.9 68.0 65.3 62.1 56.9 53.5 1 0 23Jan 09 07:55:52 60.0 62.4 80.2 36.0 52.6 08.1 92.2 71.1 68.1 64.7 61.0 55.1 53.3 1 0 2BJan 09 07:56:52 60.0 59.9 77.7 34.4 51.9 86.0 90.1 70.0 63.5 60.0 57.5 54.9 53.1 1 0 2BJan 05 07:57:52 60.0 61.0 73.3 31.0 51.6 87.0 90.1 60.7 66.3 64.3 61.8 54.9 52.8 1 0 ?BJan 09 07:58:52 60.0 64.5 82.3 81.3 52.5 96.1 96.9 33.0 69.6 66.6 62.8 57.8 53.8 t 0 ?BJan 09 03:59:52 60.0 62.0 79.8 75.1 51.6 89.4 53.4 70.9 63.2 63.7 59.8 55.9 53.8 1 0 2BJan 09 08:00:52 60.0 61.1 78.9 39.9 51.5 95.8 99.8 71.7 62.6 59.1 57.3 55.3 53.3 1 0 Man 09 08:01:52 60.0 66.3 34.1 38.4 52.1 95.9 97.66 74.1 71.6 69.8 66.4 60.4 54.1 1 0 2BJan 09 08:02:52 60.0 65.4 333 76.3 50.9 90.9 92.2 74.3 31.7 69.1 63.0 55.7 52.7 1 0 28Jan 09 03:03:52 60.0 63.5 01.2 82.5 50.0 92.1 93.4 71.7 60.3 63.8 61.0 55.9 52.7 1. 0 28Jan 09 03:04:52 60.0 64.3 92.1 82.0 51.9 91.5 93.4 72.9 68.0 54.3 62.1 57.6 54.0 1 0 20Jan 09 00:05:52 60.0 63.6 81.4 76.5 52.0 89.9 92.2 71.9 69.9 66.1 63.0 57.2 53.5 1 0 Man 09 00:06:52 60.0 63.2 51.0 75.1 51.8 91.3 93.4 72.5 69.9 65.5 62.6 56.4 53.4 1. 0 2BJan 09 08:07:52 60.0 66.0 83.8 84.6 51.0 101.3 101.6 73.4 70.3 68.3 64.7 59.1 53.7 1 0 28Jan 09 08:08:52 60.0 64.9 02.6 39.1 51.9 95.0 95..3 72.5 69.8 69.1 65.5 59.5 54.4 l 0 28Jan 09 08:09:52 60.0 61.1 73.9 72.0 52.0 05.1 90.9 69.3 66.0 62.8 59.6 55.5 53.1 1 0 28Jan 09 08:10:52 60.0 64.2 81.9 36.4 51.1 88.6 92.2 71.6 69.6 67.3 65.1 58.1 53.3 1 0 26Jan 09 06:11:52 60.0 63.5 81.3 75.0 51.8 91.8 93.4 71.6 69.4 66.1 62.0 50.3 53.4 1 0 28Jan 09 08:12:52 60.0 61.2 79.0 71.5 50.5 04.4 85.3 69.5 67.1 64.0 60.7 55.5 52.0 1 0 28Jan 09 08:13:52 60.0 64.4 82.1 79.2 51.4 89.4 95.3 72.1 69.6 67.4 64.G 58.1 52.7 1 0 28Jan 09 08:14:52 60.0 62.1 79.9 73.6 51.3 06.6 89.3 70.6 67.6 65.0 61.0 55.7 53.0 1 0 28Jan 09 08:15:52 60.0 60.5 78.3 71.8 50.7 85.3 87.4 70.2 66.4 61.1 57.9 54.6 52.2 1 0 2BJan 09 08:16:52 60.0 63.1 80.9 70.8 52.5 82.9 90.9 69.7 68.3 66.1 63.4 61.1 54.2 1 0 28Jan 09 03:17:52 60.0 61.2 79.0 71.4 51.3 64.8 87.4 69.6 66.2 63.3 61.8 56.0 52.4 1 0 28Jan 09 08:18:52 60.0 60.4 78.2 70.5 51.9 83.9 89..3 68.3 65.7 63.3 60.7 55.5 53.1 1 0 28Jan 09 08:19:52 60.0 59.5 77.3 69.4 51.8 84.0 07.4 67.3 65.1 62.5 59.0 54.4 52.9 1 0 28Jan 05 03:20:52 60.0 59.4 77.2 72.8 52.4 86.8 98.2 68.4 63.0 59.8 57.6 55.5 53.3 1 0 28Jan 09 08:21:52 60.0 69.1 86.9 85.4 53.4 100.5 102.2 80.7 71.5 68.5 65.8 60.1 55.3 1 0 28Jan 09 00:22:52 60.0 60.8 70.6 74.0 51.7 87.4 89.3 69.0 65.5 62.0 60.7 55.9 53.1 1 0 ?BJan 09 00:23:52 60.0 56.9 74.7 67.4 51.0 63.5 87.4 65.6 60.6 56.8 55.8 54.0 52.1 1 0 283an 09 08:24:52 60.0 60.0 77.8 77.8 51.6 10?.9 101.8 68.8 65.1 59.0 56.0 54.5 52.5 1 0 23Jan 09 08:25:52 60.0 65.1 82.9 37.2 52.2 91.0 107.2 73.4 70.1 67.4 64.5 60.1 54.4 1 0 28Jan 09 OB:26:52 60.0 62.1 79.9 82.1 50.9 94.9 103..3 71.0 63.7 60.4 57.9 55.2 52.5 1 0 28Jan 09 00:27:52 60.0 64.3 82.0 13.4 54.1 92.8 98.2 70.1 67.8 66.2 64.4 62.0 59.4 1 0 28Jan 06 00:28:52 60.0 66.6 84.3 04.4 51.2 98.4 100.5 77.5 66.0 63.3 61.6 58.8 52.3 1 0 23Jan 09 08:29:52 60.0 63.3 81.1 80.4 50.3 92.3 54.4 74.5 65.3 61.1 57.3 54.6 52.1 1 0 28Jan 09 08:30:52 60.0 63.5 85.2 E1.0 51.B 94.4 95.3 75.2 72.4 70.2 67.3 62.7 54.3 1 0 Man 09 08:31:52 60.0 65.4 63.1 81.5 52.2 94.4 99.4 74.0 30.3 66.3 64.3 60.6 54.3 1 0 28Jan 09 08:32:52 60.0 6B.1 85.9 85.1 52.2 102.7 102.6 36.2 72.2 69.3 66.4 60.1 54.7 1 0 28Jan 09 08:33:52 60.0 59.7 77.5 70.3 52.0 83.9 83.4 67.9 64.3 61.1 59.5 56.5 53.0 1 0 283an 09 08:34:52 60.0 63.3 81.1 61.3 51.1 96.7 100.9 71.2 67.6 64.2 60.8 56.6 53.3 1 0 29Jan 09 OB:35:52 60.0 660.6 38.4 70.4 52.0 90.7 981 66.7 63.4 62.1 61.7 60.3 53.1 1 0 28Jan 09 02:36:52 60.0 66.4 64.2 03.9 59.6 101.1 103.3 751 68.2 64.6 62.5 61.5 60.4 1 0 28Jan 09 03:37:52 60.0 61.4 39.2 73.4 58.2 99.9 96.9 66.6 64.3 62.6 61.6 59.0 58.4 1 0 28Jan 09 08:38:52 60.0 58.3 76.1 67.0 49.2 79.8 87.4 64.4 60.6 59.7 59.4 58.4 51.7 1 0 28Jan 09 08:39:52 60.0 59.5 77.3 79.1 45.1 96.9 67.3 63.0 57.1 55.5 53.5 50.3 1 0 28Jan 09 03:40:52 60.0 58.4 76.1 68.4 51.0 2.3 90.9 65.5 63.5 61.2 58.3 54.7 51.9 1 0 28Jan 09 08:41:52 60.0 57.4 75.1 69.7 51.2 - .6.1 99.4 64.9 63.5 59.7 57.4 53.3 52.2 1 0 28Jan 09 08:42:52 60.0 54.3 72.1 62.5 50.4 75.6 B4.9 61.1 57.2 55.4 54.3 52.9 51.4 1 0 29Jan 09 09:43:52 60.0 52.B 70.6 64.6 50.0 79.8 34.9 53.1 54.0 $3.3 52.9 52.1 51.0 1 6 26Jan 09 03:44:52 60.0 55.6 73.4 640 50.5 76.6 87.4 62.1 59.2 57.4 55.9 53.9 52.1 1 0 28Jan 09 OB:45:52 60.0 56.5 74.2 72.4 50.6 87.3 96.2 65.5 59.0 55.7 54.7 53.5 52.0 1 0 ?8Jan 09 08:46:52 60.0 5B.3 76.1 75.5 50.4 52.1 94.4 62.2 60.3 59.5 SB.8 57A 51.9 1 0 78Jan 09 08:47:52 60.0 55.1 75.9 30.1 55.3 85.3 9D.9 60.7 55.3 58.8 5B.4 57.7 SEA 0 28Jan 09 09:48:52 60.0 55.5 73.1 72.0 50.5 83.2 50.9 59.2 57.3 56.9 56.1 53.6 51.9 1 0 28Jan 09 00:49:52 60.0 71.4 89.1 92.6 50.1 108.3 199.6 83.2 58.0 $5.3 54.4 53.0 51.3 1 0 28Jan 09 03:50:52 60.0 55.8 73.5 66.1 50.3 80.9 04.9 64.0 59.5 55.9 54.7 52.9 51.5 i D 23Jan 09 08:51:52 60.0 62.9 30.7 77.0 50.4 91.0 94.4 74.7 65.9 61.3 58.0 54.1 52.0 1 0 26Jan 09 08:52:52 60.0 50.1 75.9 70.0 50.3 62.9 08.4 60.6 62.7 55.0 54.5 52.7 51.2 1 0 73Jan 09 88:53:52 60.0 60.6 78.3 71.0 50.4 B4.9 B7.4 68.0 63.9 60.9 60.3 59.4 52.0 1 0 ?8Jan 09 00:54:52 60.0 60.1 77.6 68.2 52.0 B4.9 65.3 60.9 60.2 59.9 59.6 59.0 1 0 28Jan 09 08:55:52 60.0 60.7 79.5 71.0 50.4 62.9 09.3 66.7 63.3 61.9 61.4 60.3 52.0 1 0 2BJan 09 09:56:52 60.0 58.5 76.3 62.3 49.7 74.7 84.9 61.5 60.9 60.6 60.3 58.8 51.2 1 0 28Jan 09 00:57:52 60.0 57.3 75.1 68.2 49.7 80.9 94.4 63.0 60.6 59.9 59.6 52.8 50.8 1 0 2BJan 09 00:58:52 60.0 53.8 71.6 66.0 46.6 79.5 84.9 63.7 53.9 52.9 52.2 51.0 49.5 1 0 28Jan 09 08:59:52 60.0 $7.5 75.3 67.5 475 79.7 84.9 64.9 61.9 59.6 58.8 52.1 45.7 1 8 2BJan 09 09:00:52 60.0 60.2 78.0 57.7 57.8 19.3 '67.4 65.4 62.3 60.8 60.1 59.5 58.3 1 0 28Jan 09 09:01:52 60.0 59.6 77.4 62.6 57.9 76.0 69.3 60.9 60.6 60.1 59.9 59.5 59.0 1 0 28Jan 09 09:02:52 60.0 59.6 77.4 66.8 57.9 80.9 84.9 62.8 60.5 59.9 59.8 59.4 58.4 1 0 28Jan 09 09:03:52 60.0 55.6 77.4 63.2 57.8 81.4 87.4 62.3 60.7 60.0 59.8 59.4 58.3 ] a 28Jan 09 09:04:52 60.0 59.4 77.2 61.6 58.2 73.8 84.9 60.6 59.9 59.9 59.8 $9.5 59.0 0 28Jan 09 09:05:52 60.0 59.3 91.1 66.2 58.3 16.6 84.9 61_1 59.9 55.6 59.7 59.3 50.3 0 28Jan 00 09:06:52 60.0 60.5 78.2 68.6 SB.6 93.4 69.3 64.5 61.8 61.3 60.6 60.0 59.0 0 28Jan 09 09:07:52 60.0 59.6 11.4 72.5 50.5 85.0 69.3 62.1 61.6 61.2 60.7 57.9 55.3 0 2BJan 09 09:08:52 60.0 $6.1 73.9 73.3 41.1 69.6 90.9 65.4 59.1 54.7 53.5 51.4 49.5 0 28Jan 09 09:09:52 60.0 57.8 75.6 76.1 47.3 94.9 96.9 65.7 61.5 59.9 58.3 51.4 46.6 0 28Jan 09 09:10:52 60.0 5B.7 76.4 67.3 43.7 19.9 84.9 65.4 62.6 61.6 60.7 54.6 49.3 0 28Jan 09 09:11:52 60.0 57.2 75.0 65.1 46.2 82.4 92.2 62.1 61.0 60.0 58.7 56.3 50.3 0 28Jan 09 09:12:52 60.0 60.3 18.0 B1.1 47.2 100.5 100.0 69.2 59.9 55.4 53.8 52.4 49.3 0 28Jan 00 09:13:52 60.0 56.7 74.5 75.0 48.4 94.2 94.4 67.4 57.0 $4.4 53.4 51.9 50.0 B 28Jan 09 09:14:52 60.0 60.3 78.0 67.9 48.5 84.0 94.9 66.0 63.9 63.2 62.4 58.6 50.3 0 28Jan 09 09:15:52 60.0 61.5 79.3 68.7 50.9 .60.2 67.4 67.5 65.9 64.8 63.1 58.2 54.2 0 2BJan 09 09:16:52 60.0 56.6 76.4 73.9 41.7 86.3 90.9 67.9 61.9 56.4 56.7 54.8 50.4 0 28Jan 09 09:17:52 60.0 55.5 73.2 69.6 47.7 30.8 67.4 65.1 57.0 55.7 54.2 52.1 49.5 0 2adan 09 09:18:52 60.0 61.1 78.9 69.7 49.7 63.0 87.4 68.5 66.3 64.1 61.9 57.5 51.7 0 28Jan 00 09:19:52 60.0 61.2 78.9 14.0 50.5 66.4 90.9 70.6 65.4 62.6 60.7 56.1 52.0 0 2BJan 09 09:20:52 60.0 58.7 76.5 70.1 46.5 82.9 69.3 66.6 63.0 60.7 59.5 52.6 49.9 0 28Jan 09 09:21:52 60.0 63.1 60.9 81.4 47.5 93.9 97.6 59.7 66.5 64.3 62.5 57.8 50.9 0 28Jan 09 09:22:52 60.0 63.0 SO.B 76.1 47.3 89.6 93.4 71.0 68.5 65.6 62.5 56.3 50.3 0 28Jan 09 09:23:52 60.0 61.8 79.6 75.6 47.9 89.0 92.2 71.5 66.7 62.3 60.5 56.7 49.9 0 2BJan 89. 09:24:52 60.0 65.5 83.3 72.6 49.7 97.6 93.4 70.3 68.9 67.7 66.9 65.1 57.0 0 28Jan 09 00:25:52 60.0 63.5 81.2 72.8 50.9 01.1 93.4 69.7 67.6 65.8 64.6 61.4 56.6 0 2BJan 09 09:26:52 60.0 62.1 79.9 73.0 47.1 87.5 93.4 70.4 67.2 63.9 62.6 50.2 40.7 0 283an 09 09:27:52 60.0 63.3 61.1 79.8 47.7 91.9 102.2 71.4 66.7 64.6 63.2 57.9 50.4 0 Man 09 09:29:52 60.0 66.7 84.5 73.9 52.5 B8.0 90.9 11.9 70.4 69.0 61.0 65.9 50.7 0 28Jan 09 09:29:52 60.0 57.0 74.8 67.4 47.8 80.0 87.4 65.4 62.1 59.1 56.1 52.9 50.2 0 Man 09 09:30:52 60.0 61.6 79.4 74.9 47.9 86.6 89.3 70.9 66.1 62.5 60.0 55.9 51.5 0 Man 09 09:31:52 60.0 66.0 83.0 74.7 49.6 91.0 92.2 72.4 70.4 68.8 67.6 64.0 54.4 0 29Jan 09 09:32:52 60.0 64.6 52.4 78.4 50.0 91.2 95.3 71.6 68.2 66.4 64.9 61.8 53.0 0 29Jan 09 09:33:52 60.0 63.5 81.3 75.6 49.1 92.7 94.4 73.1 68.0 65.5 63.5 57.1 50.3 0 2'6Jan 09 09:34:52 60.0 65.6 63.3 70.0 48.6 94.7 97.6 74.9 71.1 66.8 63.9 59.3 51.6 0 Man 09 09:35:52 60.0 62.0 79.8 77.4 4B.6 91.5 96.2 72.3 66.8 61.9 59.3 53.5 50.3 0 Man 09 09:36:52 60.0 64.3 82.1 62.4 40.9 97.0 98.8 76.0 63.5 60.7 59.1 54.6 50.4 0 2BJan 09 09:37:52 60.0 64.5 62.3 77.8 50.2 91.9 95.3 73.2 69.2 66.9 64.9 58.7 52.1 0 28Jan 09 09:38:52 60.0 62.6 80.4 78.1 49.6 94.2 93.4 73.6 64.9 61.3 58.3 53.0 50.6 0 Man 09 09:39:52 60.0 59.3 77.0 74.2 49.1 86.4 95.3 70.1 62.2 50.0 55.3 52.0 50.6 0 Man 09 09:40:52 60.0 66.7 86.5 83.8 48.0 100.1 101.8 80.5 73.2 61.4 50.0 52.7 49.7 0 28Jan 09 09:41:52 60.0 61.3 79.0 70.1 46:6 93.4 94.4 72.5 64.1 50.2 54.3 51.0 40.8 0 28Jan 09 09:42:52 60.0 66.6 86.3 87.5 47.0 102.6 103.6 70.7 71.4 65.0 60.7 52.9 46.66 0 28Jan 09 09:43:52 60.0 53.0 71.6 64.6 44.6 83.3 84.9 63.2 58.8 53.6 51.7 49.8 46.5 0 28Jan 09 09:44:52 60.0 57.6 75.4 72.6 44.5 86.8 89.3 65.B 62.0 59.7 51.2 52.2 47.0 0 Man 09 09:45:52 60.0 65.9 83..6 89.7 46.0 105.9 105.4 65.1 60.9 56.6 56.1 51.8 48.1 0 28Jan 09 09:46:52 60.0 62.1 79.9 71.7 46.4 99.5 89.3 66.9 65.7 64.7 63.6 61.3 53.3 0 29Jan 09 09:47:52 60.0 61.9 79.6 68.6 48.9 80.5 87.4 G6.5 65.4 64.5 63.7 61.4 51.6 0 28Jan 09 09:48:52 60.0 72.4 90.1 84.8 47.1 103.6 105.4 .91.5 78.3 75.4 71..6 64.1 51.0 0 28Jan 09 09:49:52 60.0 69.0 66.7 79.4 45.4 93.4 96.2 76.3 75.1 70.2 68.0 63.5 50.9 0 Man 09 09:50:52 60.0 66.9 84.7 79.3 45.3 97.4 97.6 76.3 72.9 68.6 66.1 60.2 49.9 0 28Jan 09 09:51:52 60.0 69.5 67.3 79.4 •,5.8 93.9 96.2 77.9 76.2 72.1 67.9 63.7 51.4 0 28Jan 09 09:52:52 60..0 69.5 67.3 80.8 49.1 93.5 95.3 79.1 76.9 69.5 G5.6 62.2 57.5 0 2BJan 09 09:53:52 60.0 63.0 80.7 79.8 47.6 93.7 96.2 73.8 65.6 61.4 59.B 56.7 49.8 0 285an 09 09:54:52 60.0 66.4 64.1 79.0 46.8 94.7 96.9 76.6 71.2 66.6 64.6 60.2 50.5 0 Man 09 09:55:52 60.0 65.7 83.5 80.6 42.7 95.4 99.4 76.1 69.5 65.6 63.9 57.4 46.0 0 Man 09 09:56:52 60.0 62.0 79.8 78.5 47.3 93.3 100.0 73.6 64.6 59.2 56.4 52.1 49.3 0 2BJan 06 09:57:52 60.0 54.9 72.6 67.0 46.6 81.2 87.4 62.3 59.6 56.4 54.0 51.8 49.1 0 ZBJan 09 09:58:52 60.0 61.2 16.0 77.3 45.7 93.6 94.4 69.9 64.9 62.4 60.8 56.8 50.6 0 Man 09 09:59:52 60.0 65.3 63.1 81.66 45.4 101.3 100.9 75.7 69.0 62.7 60.9 57_9 49.9 0 28Jan 09 10:00:52 60,0 59.1 16.9 73.6 46.1 89.7 90.9 68.1 62.1 59.9 58.0 55.4 49.7 0 284an 09 10:01:52 60.0 66.1 83.0 80.7 45.1 94.7 94.4 75.2 72.2 68.4 64.4 54.4 47.9 0 28Jan 09 10:02:52 60.0 67.0 84.7 02.4 43.3 96.6 97.6 79.0 70.5 61.0 58.8 51.4 45.B 0 28Jan 09 IDc03:52 60.0 68.0 96.5 84.2 44.0 102.0 102.2 00.4 72.7 65.7 62.0 53.9 46.9 0 29Jan 09 10:04:52 60.0 66.9 84.7 70.8 44.7 96.6 99.4 76.1 73.1 70.6 66.1 53.0 49.0 0 28Jan 09 10:05:52 60.0 65.9 03.6 85.1 44.6 102.6 102.6 77.9 63.5 60.2 58.5 54.2 49.1 0 ZBJan 09 10:06:52 60.0 63.9 81.6 70.1 43.7 92.7 95.3 74.3 68.9 63.1 60.7 53.9 46.B 8 28Jan 09 10:07:52 60.0 58.8 76.6 75.0 45.6 09.7 90.9 68.2 62.2 59.9 55.5 51..3 47.9 0 2BJan 09 10:08:52 60.0 56.4 7 4.2 72.7 42.6 86.0 90.9 66.2 $8.4 55.9 54.6 51.9 47.4 0 Z5Jan 09 10:09:52 60.0 54.5 72.3 67.9 44.2 99.9 90.9 63.2 58.0 56.0 54.4 51.3 48.0 0 Man 09 10:10:52 60.0 63.3 81.1 78.1 48.4 96.0 96.2 74.1 68.8 63.3 57.4 52.7 49.3 0 28Jan 09 10:11:52 60.0 60.6 10.3 76.5 44.1 102.4 102.2 69.7 66.4 61.5 57.2 51.8 47.2 0 Man 09 10:12:52 60.0 56.2 74.0 72.2 42.7 86.3 89.3 66.0 60.0 55.4 53.5 49.2 44.9 0 28Jan 09 10:13:52 60.0 69.2 06.9 83.0 45.5 95.5 99.B 80.2 73.9 69.2 64.6 57.5 492 0 28Jan 09 10:14:52 60.0 61.7 79.5 80.6 45.8 50.9 92.2 72.1 63.9 59.6 55.7 52.3 46.7 0 2BJan 09 10:15:52 60.0 58.9 76.7 71.6 44.1 69.1 09.3 69.1 64.2 59.4 56.4 52.0 47.5 0 2BJan 09 10:16:52 60.0 65.8 83.5 80.1 .5.0 91.7 94.4 76.9 70.5 64.9 62.7 56.9 48.5 0 Man 09 10:17:52 60.0 69.2 86.9 78.6 44.5 93.1 93.4 77.5 76.0 73.7 68.0 56.9 47.4 0 Man 09 10:18:52 60.0 66.2 84.0 78.8 43.4 91.4 93.4 77.4 71.8 63.4 61.7 54.6 57.6 0 28Jan 90 10:19:52 60.0 48.3 66.1 61.9 39.6 71.1 0.0 55.5 51.5 49.9 49.0 46.3 41.5 0 28Jan 09 10:20:52 60.0 50.0 75.8 71.3 42.5 63.2 87.4 70.2 59.1 54.4 51.5 49.3 45.2 0 28Jan 09 10:21:52 60.0 68.7 86.5 766.9 43.6 69.5 92.2 15.6 74.6 73.5 70.3 61.9 46.0 0 2 a. 09 10:22:52 60.0 68.1 85.8 80.6 42.3 97.1 90.8 78.8 74.6 68.4 63.3 51.2 45.3 0 Man 09 10:23:52 60.0 63.4 B1.2 60.3 39.9 94.G 95.3 14.9 66.1 61.9 58.6 4B.2 43.2 0 28Jan 09 10:24:52 60.0 66.9 84.6 80.0 42.5 92.0 94.: 77.9 73.2 65.9 60.6 51.7 45.5 0 28Jan 09 10:25:52 60.0 66.4 84.2 79.3 40.0 -1.9 95.3 17.7 73.4 63.5 59.5 49.4 43.8 0 'Sian 09 10:26:52 60.0 62.3. 60.1 77.3 46.0 59.7 92.2 74.5 64.9 60.9 58.5 50.5 49.0 0 28Jan 09 10:27:52 60.0 65.6 83.4 7B.3 43.9 90.2 92.2 76.2 71_5 65.7 63.7 55.2 46.7 0 28Jan 09 10:28:52 60.0 69.3 B7.0 85.9 46.3 99.7 101.8 77.9 74.3 68.6 64.3 57.1 48.6 0 28Jan 09 10:29:52 60.0 67.1 04.8 79.3 46.1 93.4 93.4 76.5 73.5 69.9 64.4 57.4 49.1 0 28Jan 09 10:30:52 60.0 63.2 81.0 77.1 915 92.2 75.3 66.0 59.6 58.0 48.0 45.5 0 28Jan 09 10:31:52 60.0 56.6 74.4 69.5 :2.9 82.5 07.5 67.1 64.0 52.9 50.7 47.7 45.4 0 28Jan 09 10:32:52 60.0 57.1 74.9 73.6 44.6 85.2 90.9 60.5 56.4 52.1 51.0 49.0 46.3 0 28Jan 09 10:33:52 60.0 60.9 78.7 76.0 42.7 03.2 90.9 71.6 66.0 61.9 57.5 48.4 44.8 0 Man 09 10:34:52 640 60.7 78.5 76.5 43.1 94.7 96.2 71.7 63.9 61.4 57.4 48.6 45.3 0 28Jan 09 10:35:52 60.0 60.7 76.5 74.1 42.3 07.2 B7.4 71.7 66.5 58.5 55.9 47.5 44.4 0 28Jan 09 10:36:52 60.0 64.4 B2.2 75.9 42.0 88.4 90.9 74.6 70.9 64.1 61.0 54.1 45.5 0 28Jan 09 10:37:52 60.0 54.2 72.0 63.1 42.0 73.7 84.9 60.7 59.0 $7.7 55.6 51.0 45.3 0 28Jan 09 10:38:52 60.0 49.1 66.9 65.6 39.7 79.9 09.3 56.0 50.6 49.4 40.6 462 41.7 0 28Jan 09 10:39:52 60.0 40.4 66..1 55.4 42.4 71.5 0.0 52.8 50.8 49.9 49.2 47.8 45.4 1 0 20Jan 09 10:40:52 60.0 58.9 76.6 75.6 43.7 89.6 92.2 70.5 $9.6 54.6 52.3 49.9 46.5 1 0 28Jan 09 10:41:52 60.0 50.7 68.5 66.6 43.1 80.7 87.4 59.7 52.0 50.0 49.2 41.8 45.5 I 0 28Jan 09 10:42:52 60.0 58.9 76.7 81.4 39.1 95.4 96.9 63.2 54.8 51.6 50.2 47.5 43.2 1 0 Man 09 10:43:52 60.0 50.4 60.2 62.6 45.4 77.9 0.0 56.6 53.3 51.5 50.4 48.7 46.6 1 0 28Jan 09 10:44:52 60.0 58.6 76.4 76.1 39.0 90.9 89.3 70.9 59.0 51.3 49.4 46.8 40.9 1 0 28Jan 09 10:45:52 60.0 61.0 79.6 77.2 42.2 91.0 92.2 73.5 66.3 60.2 49.6 46.0 44.9 1 0 28Jan 09 10:46:52 60.0 62.1 79.9 75.2 42.2 67.7 89.3 72.4 67.7 63.4 60.6 47.9 43.4 1 0 28Jan 09 10:47:52 60.0 60.7 78.5 75.6 43.1 09.6 92.2 70.8 65.6 62.7 58.9 MO 45.1 1 0 28Jan 09 10:48:52 60.0 53.8 71.6 71.6 38.9 85.1 87.4 64.5 55.3 49.5 47.6 45.3 41.9 1 0 28Jan 09 10:49:52 60.0 54.4 72.1 66.0 41.1 81.9 94.4 63.2 58.3 56.7 55.3 49.6 45.4 1 0 28Jan 09 10:50:52 60.0 54.7 72.5 68.7 41.9 84.7 87.4 65.7 59.2 52.1 50.2 47.0 44.0 1 0 Man 09 10:51:52 60.0 52.6 70.4 66.6 41.9 61.2 84.9 62.7 56.2 52.5 50.7 48.0 44.4 I 0 28Jan 09 10:52:52 60.0 $2.2 10.0 68.9 41.9 79.7 84.9 60.5 52.1 50.4 49.1 47.3 43.7 I 0 28Jan 09 10:53:52 60.0 48.0 65.0 59.1 40.0 72.4 0.0 55.6 50.9 49.1 47.9 46.1 43.3 I 0 28Jan 09 30:54:52 60.0 70.1 B7.9 88.6 42.5 103.6 104.6 01.2 70.7 62.0 60.1 50.7 45.5 1 0 28Jan 09 10:55:52 60.0 62.2 00.0 76.0 43.6 09.8 90.9 73.6 66.5 60.2 57.7 53.8 46.1 1 0 28Jan 09 10:56:52 60.0 68.0 66.6 06.0 44.1 99.5 100.5 78.1 74.0 69.1 63.3 54.0 48.4 I 0 28Jan 09 10:57:52 60.0 70.0 87.7 86.3 48.3 102.6 102.6 80.7 75.0 65.8 62.1 57.2 52.2 I 0 28Jan 09 10:58:52 60.0 68.1 85.9 02.2 45.1 99.1 101.4 79.0 71.7 67.0 65.3 59.3 49.5 3 0 28Jan 09 10:59:52 60.0 68.4 86.2 79.8 43.2 94.6 96.2 78.1 74.1 69.8 66.1 50.0 47.7 1 0 28Jan 09 11:00:52 60.0 66.3 84.0 78.6 43.0 97.0 97.6 76.0 72.3 67.0 63.6 57.0 46.0 t 0 203an 09 11:01:52 60.0 67.5 85.3 81.1 41.6 94.6 95.3 77.2 74.6 68.0 62.0 55.2 45.6 1 0 28Jan 09 11:02:52 60.0 67.5 B5.3 91.6 44.2 108.8 111.1 73.5 63.3 57.8 54.4 49.0 46.2 1 0 Man 09 11:03:52 60.0 62.2 79.9 73.5 40.6 07-0 09.3 71.6 67.8 65.3 60.2 54.8 46.0 I 0 Man 09 11:04:52 60.0 $7.7 75.5 71.2 43.0 05.1 90.9 66.6 61.9 59.6 57.7 51.9 46.9 1 0 Man 09 11:05:52 60.0 66.6 84.4 76.3 42.5 94.6 93.4 73.9 71.9 70.0 68.0 50.4 46.1 1 0 2BJan 09 11:06:52 60.0 63.4 81.2 75.7 41.5 91.1 92.2 73.6 69.8 65.2 60.3 49.8 44.4 I 0 2BJan 09 12:07:52 60.0 60.9 78J 77.0 39.7 95.6 97.6 71.9 64.0 60.1 58.2 53.7 43.9 1 0 28Jan 09 11:00:52 60.0 66.0 84.5 80.2 40.5 94.3 95.3 76.0 72.7 68.4 62.6 54.0 44.4 I 0 28Jan 09 11:09:52 60.0 62.9 00.7 76.6 41.6 91.0 93.4 73.4 69.0 63.2 57.6 51.3 45.1 1 0 28Jan 09 11:10:52 60.0 67.5 85.3 82.1 41.3 95.3 96.9 18.6 72.4 68.6 62.6 51.9 44.5 1 0 28Jan 09 11:11:52 60.0 62.0 79.8 75.3 42.3 89.0 89.3 72.2 68.4 60.1 58.7 52.0 46.2 1 0 28Jan 09 11:12:52 60.0 63.3 81.1 74.6 40.6 B9.0 09.3 72.5 69.7 65.8 62.9 51.9 43.9 1 0 2BJan 09 11:13:52 60.0 62.1 79.9 77.4 46.3 90.3 92.2 71.3 66.1 62.1 60.8 57.2 49.1 1 0 28Jan 09 11:14:52 60.0 62.1 79.8 79.1 44.1 91.2 94.4 72.4 64.4 62.0 60.5 56.2 47.9 l 0 28Jan 09 11:15:52 60.0 64.0 81.0 77.3 44.0 91.9 92.2 73.7 69.5 66.1 62.0 55.3 46.7 1 0 28Jan 09 11:16:52 60.0 61.6 79.4 74.0 42.0 69.7 89.3 71.5 61.4 63.1 59.3 50.0 44.8 1 0 28Jan 09 11:17:52 60.0 62.5 80.2 72.1 45.1 85.1 87.4 70.6 69.4 65.0 62.0 57.0 49.8 1 0 Man 09 11:18:52 60.0 55.1 72.9 68.2 44.3 01.1 04.9 63.7 60.3 58.2 54.4 48.9 46.2 1 0 Man 09 11:19:52 60.0 62.7 80.4 78.9 45.1 93.3 94.4 74.3 66.7 59.6 54.9 50.8 47,1 1 0 28Jan 09 11:20:52 60.0 60.4 70.2 75.7 46.0 90.4 90.9 70.9 63.9 59.5 56.5 52.6 49.4 1 0 28Jan 09 11:21:52 60.0 58.3 76.1 77.9 45.9 96.3 95.3 61.2 60.0 50.3 56.8 54.4 49.1 1 0 28Jan 09 11:22:52 60.0 60.0 77.7 76.2 43.3 91.8 93.4 69.6 65.2 59.2 57.3 52.6 47.0 1 0 28Jan 09 11:23:52 60.0 58.3 76.1 71.1 44.4 85.3 87.4 60.6 62.9 58.4 55.0 51.4 47.6 1 0 28Jan 09 11:24:52 60.0 $6.9 74.7 69.9 44.1 04.4 87.4 60.3 60.7 56.6 52.7 49.1 45.7 1 0 Man 09 11:25:52 60.0 59.6 77.4 77.7 41.9 92.6 MA 70.7 50.1 55.0 53.1 49.7 44.7 1 0 28Jan 09 11:26:52 60.0 64.4 82.2 70.1 44.2 92.9 94.4 74.6 70.5 66.1 58.0 52.3 46.9 1 0 28Jan 09 11:27:52 60.0 56.1 73.9 74.3 44.4 91.7 92.2 65.9 59.6 55.9 53.2 49.6 46.8 1 0 28Jan 09 11:28:52 60.0 59.3 77.1 71.3 43.0 87.1 09.3 60.4 65.0 61.0 50.8 52.6 46.2 1 0 28Jan 09 11:29:52 60.0 58.9 76.7 70.3 43.4 83.2 07.4 67.0 64.4 60.9 50.0 52.6 45.2 1 0 28Jan 09 11:30:52 60.0 62.3 00.1 76.7 41.4 91.1 93.4 73.8 66.8 61.1 56,0 48.5 45.1 1 0 28Jan 09 11:31:52 60.0 50.6 68.4 67.7 41.9 79.2 83.3 55.8 51.0 49.5 48.6 47.0 44.1 1 0 28Jan 09 11:32:52 60.0 61.7 79.5 74.3 39.3 90.6 90.9 72.0 60.1 62.8 58.1 49.7 44.0 3 0 28Jan 09 31:33:52 60.0 57.2 75.0 73.7 43.4 86.9 09.3 66.5 60.6 57.1 54.9 50.0 45.0 3 0 2BJan 09 11:34:52 60.0 57.7 75.5 74.2 43.5 82.3 94.4 66.3 62.1 59.3 57.1 51.3 46.5 1 0 28Jan 09 11:35:52 60.0 62.5 60.3 01.8 42.8 97.0 90.0 73.7 62.3 59.0 54.2 40.4 45.1 1 0 28Jan 09 11:36:52 60.0 62.2 79.9 00.5 44.7 96.0 102.4 72.1 65.2 61.1 58.1 53.3 48.1 3 0 28Jan 00 11:37:52 60.0 56.5 74.3 75.2 40.7 09.7 93.4 65.0 $9.2 $6.0 54.0 50.6 45.1 3 0 28Jan 09 11:38:52 60.0 $0.0 76.6 74.5 41.2 99.7 93.4 10.6 60.0 55.9 53.9 50.0 45.5 ] 0 28Jan 09 11:39:52 60.0 59.9 77.7 73.4 44.2 87.8 90.9 69.0 64.7 61.6 50.6 52.8 47.2 1 0 2BJan 09 11:40:52 60.0 65.7 03.5 00.5 43.3 93.7 93.4 76.5 69.5 64.7 61.2 56.2 46.3 1 0 28Jan 09 11:41:52 60.0 60.1 77.9 79.4 43.5 94.8 96.2 68.9 64.0 $8.4 56.1 51.2 46.2 1 0 28Jan 09 11:42:52 60.0 66.6 84.4 02.6 40.0 99.4 100.0 78.0 71.4 67.6 60.5 $1.2 45.5 1 0 28Jan 09 11:43:52 60.0 61.3 79.1 79.4 41.6 91.8 93.4 70.6 59.7 55.1 $2.0 49.0 45.1 1 0 28Jan 09 11:44:52 60.0 67.0 04.8 07.5 41.0 102.7 103.3 75.0 61.0 59.0 56.0 49.3 43.2 1 0 Man 09 11:45:$2 60.0 71.3 09.0 92.5 41.8 108.2 108.2 76.7 64.6 50.9 56.0 52.4 45.9 1 0 Man 09 11:46:S2 60.0 63.8 81.6 81.1 42.1 93.4 94.4 77.1 60.1 56.8 53.2 50.1 45.7 1 0 28Jan 09 11:0:52 60.0 57.1 74.9 73.0 41.1 97.4 89.3 60.9 58.7 55.4 52.9 49.6 44.5 1 0 28Jan 09 11:40:52 60.0 61.1 78.9 74.3 39.6 98.3 074 71.8 67.6 60.3 54.8 49.4 43.2 1 0 28Jan 09 11:49:52 60.0 60.9 78.7 75.6 41.9 91.5 92.2 72.3 65.1 56.7 55.2 51.5 44.3 1 0 28Jan 09 11:50:52 60.0 54.9 72.6 72.5 41.4 87.7 89.3 64.4 58.1 54.4 52.3 48.2 44.2 1 0 Man 09 11:51:52 60.0 56.0 73.8 72.3 41.7 07.5 87.4 63.9 60.6 57.3 55.4 51.5 45.4 1 0 Man 09 11:52:52 60.0 55.5 73.3 73.5 41.6 85.8 87.4 64.5 58.2 54.4 51.8 49.6 44.0 1 D 28Jan 09 11:53:52 60.0 53.3 71.1 64.9 42.9 79.3 04.9 61.1 57.5 55.2 53.4 50.7 46.5 1 0 28Jan 09 11:54:52 60.0 61.9 79.7 79.0 50.1 92.2 96.2 74.0 61.4 59.2 57.4 54.5 51.5 1 0 28Jan D9 11:55:52 60.0 58.5 76.3 77.5 48.1 91.5 98.2 66.8 59.8 56.3 $4.3 52.4 50.0 1 0 28Jan 09 11:56:52 60.0 51.6 69.6 59.3 45.8 74.9 84.9 57.0 54.8 53.1 52.4 50.8 40.3 1 0 2BJan 09 11:57:52 60.0 49.7 67.5 63.3 44.1 79.7 974 52.9 51.8 51.1 $0.6 48.9 4514 1 0 28Jan 09 11:58:52 60.0 51.3 69.1 55.6 47.0 60.3 84.9 54.8 52.9 52.3 51.8 51.0 49.2 1 D 28Jan 09 11:59:52 60.0 46.9 64.7 54.6 41.9 66.8 0.0 50.9 49.9 49.2 48.1 45.9 43.2 1 0 Man 09 12:00:52 60.0 0.0 64.7 55.3 39.4 65.4 0.0 54.0 50.0 48.3 47.3 45.6 41.5 1 0 28Jan 09 12:01:52 60.0 46.6 64.3 54.3 42.3 65.0 0.0 53.1 50.9 0.6 46.0 44.0 43.1 1 0 Man 09 12:02:53 60.0 44.6 62.4 50.1 40.7 62.3 0.0 48.9 47.4 46.3 45.4 43.7 41.8 1 0 283an 09 12:03:52 60.0 45.0 62.8 52.1 40.5 63.3 0.0 50.0 47.8 46.7 45.9 44.1 41.9 I 0 28Jan 09 12:04:52 60.0 46.4 64.2 53.0 39.3 67.3 0.0 51.5 50.2 48.6 47.4 45.3 40.8 1 0 29Jan 09 12:05:52 60.0 41.2 65.0 51.3 43.8 62.0 0.0 50.6 49.6 48.8 40.1 46.7 45.1 1 0 28Jan 09 12:06:52 60.0 46.8 64.6 51.4 43.8 62.4 0.0 50.3 49.1 48.3 47.6 46.3 44.6 1 0 28Jan 09 12:07:52 60.0 41.7 65.5 52.5 43.9 64.6 0.0 51.4 49.8 49.0 48.6 47.5 45.2 1 0 Man 09 12:00:52 60.0 52.6 70.4 66.4 45.3 77.6 84.9 62.6 53.0 52.6 51.7 49.5 47.3 1 0 28Jan 09 12:09:52 60.0 47.5 65.2 51.1 45.4 62.1 0.0 49.9 49.0 48.4 47.9 47.3 46.2 1 0 Man 09 12:10:52 60.0 47.3 65.1 57.1 41.6 68.9 0.0 53.8 50.7 48.9 48.0 45.5 43.2 1 0 28Jan 09 12:11:52 60.0 44.2 62.0 51.8 39.1 67.3 0.0 48.4 47.1 46.1 45.0 43.4 40.9 1 0 28Jan 09 12:12:52 60.0 42.4 60.2 46.2 30.1 59.5 0.0 47.0 45.4 43.9 42.9 41.5 39.5 1 0 28Jan 09 12:13:52 60.0 43.4 61.2 51.4 37.6 63.5 0.0 49.9 47.0 45.4 44.3 41.5 39.9 1 0 Man 09 12:14:52 60.0 44.6 62.4 51.1 40.0 69.5 0.0 49.6 47.2 46.1 45.4 43.9 41.5 1 0 28Jan 09 12:15:52 60.0 53.3 73.1 62.8 43.4 74.2 87.4 61.4 58.7 56.7 52.7 4B.2 44.8 1 0 2BJan 09 12:16:52 60.0 44.0 61.8 48.8 39.9 60.4 0.0 46.0 •16.6 45.6 44.8 43.5 41.0 1 0 2BJan 09 12:37:52 60.0 42.5 60.3 50.3 38.3 61.9 0.0 47.4 45.1 43.B 43.1 41.8 39.5 1 0 29Jan 09 12:18:52 60.0 45.9 63.6 53.3 41_0 7-9 87.4 51.0 48.8 47.6 46.8 44.E 42.6 1 0 38Jan 09 12:19:52 60.0 46.2 63.9 51.1 41.0 64.5 0.0 50.3 48.7 47.9 47.1 45.6 43.1 0 28Jan 09 12:20:52 60.0 42.9 60.7 48.6 38.6 60.2 0.0 47A 46.2 45.3 44.4 41.3 39.6 1 0 28Jan 09 12:21:52 60.0 44.0 61.7 55.8 39.0 67.3 0.0 48.5 46.0 44.8 44.1 43.2 40.8 1 0 28Jan 09 12:22:52 60.0 45.1 62.6 51.6 39.9 7 1.3 0.0 50.1 47.1 46.0 45.9 44.2 42.0 1 0 28Jan 09 12:23:52 60.0 42.2 60.0 50.5 37.4 61.2 0.0 48.2 45.5 43.9 43.0 40.7 38.4 1 0 ?elan 09 12:24:52 60.0 45.6 63.4 63.5 39.4 79.4 07.4 50.1 47.7 46.4 45.3 43.4 41.0 1 0 28Jan 09 12:25:52 60.0 43.4 61.2 51.5 40.1 76A 0.0 47.3 45.6 44.7 43.9 42.8 41.2 1 0 2 9Jan 09 12:26:52 60.0 44.9 62.7 52.1 400 63.3 0.0 5D.1 48.0 47_1 46.0 43.4 41.2 1 0 28Jan 09 12:27:52 60.0 43.4 61.1 51.5 37.9 65.0 0.0 49.0 46.5 45.2 44.1 42.4 39.1 1 0 28Jan 09 12:29:52 60.0 52.2 70.0 61.3 2.4 68.8 84.9 59.4 57.3 54.5 52.6 49.2 45.2 1 0 26Jan 09 12:29:52 60.0 44.8 62.5 51.7 38.9 63.2 64.9 49.4 47.0 46.6 46.0 43.7 40.9 1 0 19Jan 09 12:3D:52 60.0 59.3 77.1 68.2 43.5 79.7 90.1 66.0 65.0 63.1 61.6 51.3 45.9 1 0 28Jan 09 12:33:52 60.0 45.8 63.6 56.5 41.3 61.3 0.0 52.3 49.4 47.1 45.4 43.0 42.4 1 0 ?BJan 09 12:32:52 60.0 46.7 64.5 53.0 41.7 72.3 0.0 50.9 49.7 48.5 47.6 45.6 43.9 0 28Jan 09 12:33:52 60.0 47.3 65.1 56.4 43.2 6'6.3 0.0 51.6 49.9 48.9 48.2 46.5 44.3 1 0 28Jan 09 12:34:52 60.0 49.5 67.2 65.0 42.7 77.7 87.4 55.1 52.7 $0.9 49.5 47.6 44.3 l 0 28Jan 09 12:35:52 60.0 47.8 65.6 55.0 41.7 69.6 81.4 53.1 53.4 50.3 43.9 46.4 42.7 1 0 28Jan 09 12:36:52 60.0 51.0 60.8 54.5 43.6 76.2 84.9 53.9 52.7 51.8 51.4 50.7 49.6 1 0 28Jan 09 12:37:52 600 50.7 6B.5 $6.3 48.1 69.2 0.0 53.7 52.6 51.8 51.2 50.3 49.0 1 0 28Jan 09 2:38:52 60.0 50.8 68.6 58.2 47.8 68.2 0.0 55.0 52.9 52.0 51.3 49.8 48.6 1 0 25Jan 09 12:39:52 60.0 50.4 68.2 55.7 47.7 69.3 0.0 54.4 52.0 51.6 50.9 49.8 40.4 1 0 28Jan 09 12:40:52 60.0 50.4 68.2 59.7 47.4 73.9 0.0 53.4 52.0 51.3 50.9 49.9 48.6 1 0 28Jan 09 12:41:52 60.0 50.5 63.3 52.8 48.7 65.2 0.0 52.5 51.8 51.4 51.0 50.4 49.2 0 29Jan 09 12:42:52 60.0 49.3 67.0 53.2 40.66 67.5 94.9 52.1 SO.B 50.1 49.9 49.4 45.5 I 0 28Jan 09 12:43:52 60.0 43.5 61.2 49.7 39.5 62.3 0.0 47.5 45.7 45.0 44.6 43.0 40.3 1 0 28Jan 09 12:44:52 60.0 44.8 662.6 50.1 4D.1 64.7 0.0 40.9 47.3 46.4 45.7 44.2 42.1 i 0 MO. 09 12:45:52 60.0 45.2 63.0 53.6 40.7 65.1 0.0 49.9 47.9 46.6 45.7 44.2 42.1 1 0 28Jan 09 12:46:52 60.0 $0.5 69.3 54.5 43.3 65.6 0.0 53.3 52.4 51.0 51.5 50.6 45.9 1 0 28Jan 09 12:47:52 60.0 50.3 60.1 53.3 48.5 64.6 0.0 52.4 51.6 51.0 50.7 50.1 49.1 1 0 28Jan 09 12:40:52 60.0 54.1 71.9 60.1 49.5 73.0 84.9 58.9 57.4 $6.3 54.9 52.7 50.8 1 0 28Jan 09 12:49:52 60.0 49.3 67..1 57.6 40.4 69.0 0.0 54.4 52.1 50.9 49.9 49.0 43.4 1 0 28Jan 09 12:50:52 60.0 45.6 63.4 49.9 38.9 62.1 0.0 40.9 40.3 47.5 46.8 45.3 41.2 1 0 28Jan 09 12:51:52 60.0 47.2 65.0 55.0 41.6 68.0 84.9 52.2 50.1 49.0 48.2 46.2 43.3 1 0 28Jan 09 12:52452 60.0 52.3 70.0 66.5 39.9 00.2 89..3 61.7 55.7 52.5 53.1 47.6 42.5 1 0 28Jan 09 12:53:52 60.0 48.4 66.2 61.1 40.6 77.0 84.9 56.5 52.6 50.1 48.0 45.4 42.4 1 0 28Jan 09 12:54:52 60.0 47.6 65.4 57.3 40.0 00.1 0.0 53.3 $1.0 49.7 48.7 45.4 42.6 1 0 283an 09 12:55:52 60.0 53.5 71.3 71.1 40.3 94.3 87.4 61.9 56.2 52.9 50.7 46.0 43.5 1 0 28Jan 09 12:56:52 60.0 62.5 80.2 83.4 42.8 90.1 101.8 70.0 55.6 53.0 51.2 48.1 45.0 1 0 28Jan 09 12:57:52 60.0 53.3 71.1 66.8 40.8 81.5 93.4 62.5 56.7 54.2 52.3 49.5 44.6 1 0 28Jan 09 12:58:52 60.0 57.0 74.6 72.7 41.8 85.4 90.9 68.7 SB.9 55.3 53.4 500 44.5 1 0 283an 09 12:59:52 60.0 63.5 91.2 75.9 45.0 91.3 94.4 73.9 69.6 63.1 59.7 55.1 40.1 1 0 285an 09 13:00:52 GO.0 59.4 77.2 75.0 41.5 88.8 92..2 69.1 62.9 58.8 56.7 53.1 47.3 i 0 28Jan 09 13:01:52 60.0 59.9 77.7 71.0 47.3 89.4 90.9 6G.3 64.2 62.8 61.3 57.6 50.2 3 0 Man 09 13:02:52 60.0 63.0 80.6 75.9 42.2 91.2 93.4 74.0 68.7 62.5 59.4 52.9 45.2 3 0 28Jan 09 13:03:52 60.0 60.9 78.5 75.8 39.6 92.3 92.2 72.8 63.5 58.8 55.5 49.3 43.5 1 0 283an 09 13:04:52 60.0 57.7 75.5 71.1 37.7 30.2 09.3 67.0 62.9 60.3 57.2 50.9 42.0 3 0 Man 09 13:05:52 GO.0 66.8 34.66 76.6 40.6 92.3 92.2 75.6 73.4 70.8 65.6 55.5 45.6 1 0 28Jan 09 13:06:$2 60.0 66.0 33.9 77.6 47.2 90.7 92.2 74.6 72.0 66.6 64.3 59.7 53.6 1 0 28Jan 09 13:07:52 60.0 64.1 81.9 62.3 51.8 54.4 102.9 71.9 68.1 64.3 61.6 50.0 54.0 3 0 Man 09 13:08:52 60.0 60.5 7B.3 76.1 43.7 92.7 96.2 69.3 64.E 62.4 60.E 55.7 47.1 1 0 26Jan 09 13:09:52 60.0 62.2 80.0 73.2 51.6 87.7 89.3 70.9 68.5 63.9 59.6 55.5 53.1 1 0 28Jan 09 13:10:52 60.0 62.2 80.0 76.7 44.7 93.1 94.4 72.7 67.5 60.5 59.3 54.6 49.9 I 0 28Jan 09 13:11:52 60.0 58.3 76.1 74.7 40.6 99.? 99.4 66.9 614 59.9 56.6 49.0 42.7 1 0 28Jan 09 13:12:52 60.0 64.8 82.5 78.5 43.9 90.0 92.2 75.5 69.1 65.3 61.6 55.3 47.0 1 0 28Jan 09 13:13:52 60.0 67.3 85.1 79.3 41.0 92.2 93.4 77.1 73.5 68.4 61.1 55.5 44.4 1 0 28Jan OF 13:14:52 60.0 63.4 81.2 74.1 46.5 93.0 93.4 72.7 69.6 65.7 62.4 56.0 49.5 3 0 2BJan 09 13:15:52 60.0 66.9 84.6 .30.9 45.6 93.9 96.2 77.5 72.1 67.1 63.3 54.7 47.9 1 0 281an 05 13:1.6:52 60.0 65.4 03.2 79.0 45.9 91.3 93.4 76.9 69.1 62.0 59.7 56.1 47.9 1 0 26Jan 09 13:17:52 60.0 62.1 79.9 80.3 46.4 615 96.2 72.4 64.1 61.2 59.4 52.0 47.6 1 0 28Jan 09 13:iB:52 60.0 69.2 85.9 01.3 45.3 94.3 96.2 79.9 75.4 69.0 65.4 55.7 47.8 1 0 28Jan 09 13:19:52 60.0 64.4 92.2 77.8 46.5 96.1 95.3 75.1 69.0 65.B 62.0 56.9 49.0 1 0 28Jan 09 13:20:52 60.0 60.0 77.0 73.3 39.4 E3.7 89.3 67.9 65.3 62.2 60.0 54.3 45.5 1 0 ?BJan 09 13:21:52 60.0 63.8 81.6 78.0 42.3 93.1 93.4 74.7 67.9 64.3 61.9 54.2 47.1 t 0 28Jan 09 13:22:52 60.0 56.5 74.3 69.0 41.0 82.6 94.9 67.2 61.1 56.1 54.0 49.2 44.4 1 0 28Jan 09 13:23:52 60.0 55.3 73.1 71.2 41.5 87.4 90.9 65.9 58.5 54.8 52.8 49.2 43.9 1 0 29Jan 09 13:24:52 60.0 55.2 73.0 74.3 43.7 88.1 60.9 64.0 58.6 54.2 51.9 40.2 44.3 1 0 Man 09 13:25:52 60.0 60.5 76.3 79.0 39.4 95.5 66.9 67.9 64.2 61.6 59.3 51.9 44.0 1 0 28Jan 06 13:26:52 60.0 54.0 71.0 68.9 400 82.9 87.4 64.5 58.1 53.7 51.0 49.1 43.4 0 76Jan. 09 13:27:52 60.0 54.0 71.7 70.7 42.1 52.8 93.4 63.5 56.6 53.9 52.1 40.4 45.1 1 0 28Jan 09 13:28:52 60.0 60.2 70.0 83.2 42.6 99.1 99.4 67.0 58.7 55.0 52.8 49.7 45.0 1 0 20Jan 09 13:29:52 60.0 61.5 79.3 60.2 40.4 96.0 95.3 72.6 61.5 SE.3 54.9 47.6 42.8 1 0 28Jan 09 13:30:52 60.0 61.3 79.1 75.3 39.4 92.0 90.9 71.0 67.0 663.3 57.6 51.0 43.0 1 0 28Jan 09 13:31:52 60.0 59.0 76.8 72.5 40.9 86.8 69.3 68.3 64.5 60.7 57.5 52.4 45.1 1 0 28Jan 09 13:32:52 60.0 67.1 84.9 86.3 44.2 102.1 101.4 77.4 67.9 63.7 59.9 53.4 47.2 1 0 28Jan 09 13:33:52 60.0 62.4 80.2 75.2 41.6 102.0 1D2.6 12.2 66.6 63.8 62.5 55.6 45.0 1 0 28Jan 09 13:34:52 60.0 60.1 77.9 73.6 44.0 91.0 62.2 68.7 64.7 61.9 60.3 54.3 47.1 3 0 28Jan 09 13:35:52 60.0 64.6 82.4 82.6 40.4 97.6 97.6 74.5 69.3 62.7 59.0 50.2 43.1 3 0 28Jan 09 13:36:52 60.0 61.0 70.6 79.0 40.8 96.6 96.2 69.6 65.6 62.1 58.8 52.0 44.6 1 0 28Jan 09 13:37:52 60.0 59.5 77.3 72.9 33.5 86.4 87.4 70.1 63.9 60.4 56.6 51.5 43.2 1 0 28Jan 09 13:38:52 60.0 72.0 89.8 89.5 41.0 104.8 105.7 83.1 77.4 65.7 56.9 47.1 42.6 1 0 26Jan 09 13:39:52 60.0 661.9 79.5 73.6 40.9 90.7 90.9 71.2 66.7 63.7 61.6 56.9 45.9 1 0 Man 09 13:40:52 60.0 60.0 85.B 83.0 49.9 99.0 98.2 79.3 73.3 62.5 56.0 49.6 44.4 1 0 Man 09 13:43:52 60.0 62.2 00.0 77.5 41.5 31.8 03.4 73.7 66.6 $9.9 57.7 52.3 44.1 1 0 28Jan 09 13:42:52 60.0 60.2 70.0 75.5 40.5 100.5 101.4 68.0 65.6 62.2 59.9 53.9 44.5 0 28Jan 09 13:43:52 60.0 62.5 90.3 82.4 41.5 97.5 99.4 70.5 66.6 62.0 53.1 51.8 44.6 1 0 Man 09 13:44:52 60.0 60.1 77.9 72.1 39.6 35.3 97.4 69.1 66.6 60.9 59.3 53.8 44.0 1 0 28Jan 09 13:45:52 60.0 60.9 70.6 72.4 41.5 07.7 100.5 70.4 66.3 63.5 60.4 54.0 45.9 1 0 28Jan 09 13:46:52 60.0 63.9 01.6 80.0 41.1 97.2 96.2 75.4 66.6 61.3 57.4 50.2 44.1 1 0 28Jan 09 13:47:52 60.0 63.0 80.8 01.6 42.8 94.7 95.2 70.3 66.9 62.6 58.3 52.3 44.9 1 0 28Jan 09 13:48:52 60.0 60.8 78.6 72.6 41.4 69.2 09.3 69.4 66.9 63.8 59.0 54.7 47.7 1 0 28Jan 09 13:49:52 60.0 62.2 80.0 71.0 42.8 34.4 87.4 73.0 68.9 65.0 60.1 55.4 47.1 28Jan 09.13:50:52 60.0 59.0 76.8 77.0 40.9 94.6 95.3 67.7 62.6 59.1 57.7 52.1 44.9 28Jan 09 13:51:52 60.0 60.2 78.0 76.0 1.5 93.1 92.2 71.4 64.B 57.5 53.9 49.3 45.1 Man 09 13:52:52 60.0 55.2 77.0 70.9 44.4 66.1 87,4 67.9 64,2 60.7 59.3 54.5 48.1 28Jan 09 13:53:52 60.0 55.7 73.5 60.6 40.8 83.4 04.9 66.9 59.7 56.4 53.9 48.2 43.4 28Jan 09 13:54:52 60.0 59.2 77.0 74.3 40.3 92.2 94.4 69.1 64.6 58.5 57.0 52,7 43.9 28Jan 09 13:55:52 60.0 59.9 77.7 76.9 41.4 94.5 95.3 60.3 64.9 62.4 59.9 54.1 44.5 28Jan 09 13:56:52 60.0 61.3 79.0 77.9 40.6 94.2 94.4 70.3 66.2 62.6 59.6 52.9 43.7 28Jan 09 13:57:52 60.0 60.0 77.8 71.0 41.2 85.8 09.3 68.8 65.1 62.4 60.4 $4.6 15.9 Man 09 13:59:52 60.0 58.4 76.2 71.1 40.8 05.0 86.2 67.6 63.7 59.6 57.6 53.1 45.3 Man 09 13:59:52 60.0 59.1 76.9 72.5 41.8 87.5 09.3 66.5 63.7 59.7 50.0 54.8 47.0 28Jan 09 14:00:52 60.0 61.1 78.9 76.4 43.4 90.3 95.3 69.6 65.7 63.2 61.3 56.1 47.5 28Jan 09 14:01:52 60.0 53.4 71.2 66.1 43.1 B5.7 87.4 61.1 56.8 54.2 52.5 49.7 46.0 Man 09 14:02:52 60.0 55.2 73.0 73,2 42.2 08.5 96.9 64.0 $7.1 53.3 50.5 47.6 44.3 28Jan 09 14:03:52 60.0 53.0 70.8 66.4 42.1 83.6 87.4 62.7 56.2 54.3 51.5 47.6 44.4 283an 09 14:04:52 60.0 51.7 69.5 65.3 44.3 83.6 04.9 59.2 55.2 52.9 51.2 49.2 46.8 28Jan 09 14:05:52 60.0 57.7 75.5 68.3 46.9 85.4 67.4 64.8 61.9 60.2 59.0 54.6 50.0 28Jan 09 14:06:52 60.0 56.6 74.6 70.7 44.6 89.1 90.9 65.7 60.8 50.0 56.4 53.1 47.8 28Jan 09 14:07:52 60.0 54.7 72.5 69.3 3B.9 84.2 84.9 64.6 58.2 56.0 54.4 48.4 41.9 280an 09 14:09:52 60.0 56.0 73.6 71.3 36.8 84.9 67.4 66.9 59.0 56.2 53.4 47.4 43.1 28Jan 09 14:09:52 60.0 56.7 74.5 72.2 40.9 97.7 69.3 65.9 61_9 57.7 55.5 49.0 43.0 28Jan 09 14:10:52 60.0 55.5 73.3 69.6 39.8 96.6 90.9 65.4 60.4 55.6 54.0 49.1 42.3 28Jan 09 14:11:52 60.0 62.1 79.8 74.3 42.3 86.2 69.3 72.0 69.0 63.2 58.1 52.1 44.4 28Jan 09 14:12:52 60.0 60.5 70.3 72.5 38.7 B4.2 04.9 71.4 65.1 59.6 57.0 51.9 42.0 28Jan 09 14:13:52 60.0 54.0 71.8 68.0 40.0 80.5 64.9 64.2 57.9 54.4 52.9 4B.7 43.7 28Jan 09 14:14:52 60.0 50.7 60.5 66.3 37.7 78.5 0.0 59.9 54.0 51.3 49.5 45.8 41.5 Man 09 14:15:52 60.0 60.0 77.8 73.1 39.5 06.5 90.9 70.6 66.1 59.6 55.7 50.1 43.3 Man 09 14:16:52 60.0 59.3 77.1 71.6 42.1 04.3 90.9 70.5 62.2 56.6 55.3 52.5 47.5 Man 09 14:17:52 60.0 54.1 71.9 68.0 39.3 92.5 07.4 64.3 56.6 54.6 51.0 47.5 41.8 IBJaa 09 14:18:52 60.0 69.5 86.3 78.5 37.0 90.5 110.0 74.7 72.8 71.8 71.2 63.9 42.0 Man 09 14:19:52 60.0 61.5 79.3 72.0 44.0 95.5 87.4 70.6 65.8 63.5 61.7 56.3 48.0 Man 09 14:20:52 60.0 55.3 73.1 69.9 40.2 62.6 84.9 64,6 58.7 55.8 53.0 48.9 44.4 28Jan 09 14:21:52 60.0 54.2 72.0 69.0 40.6 82.4 84.9 64.5 57.9 55.5 52.0 47.9 43.4 28Jan 09 14:22:52 60.0 57,0 74.9 72.6 39.1 67.9 87.4 65.6 62.0 59.2 56.8 49.2 41.3 Man 09 14:23:52 60,0 59.9 77.6 73.4 41.$ 05.4 89.3 70.7 64.1 59.2 56.3 52.0 45.0 Man 09 14:24:52 60.0 59.3 77.1 71.9 44.1 84.0 87.4 69.6 65.0 56.8 56.0 $1.1 46.1 28Jan 09 14:25:52 60.0 57.6 75.4 69.7 41.0 83.3 87.4 67.9 63.3 57.3 53.8 49.1 43.5 Man 09 14:26:52 60,0 59.9 77.6 71.5 39.4 64.3 87.4 69.1 66.1 60.9 57.9 54.0 42.0 Man 09 14:27:52 60.0 56.7 74.5 72.6 39.9 09.0 89.3 66.5 60.9 50.3 56.3 48.3 41.1 28Jan 09 14:28:52 60.0 64.6 82.4 76.6 41.7 90.1 90.9 75.0 70.9 65.0 60.6 54.4 45.8 28Jan 09 14:29:52 60.0 61.4 79.2 74.9 39.2 89.0 90.9 73.1 64,5 59.9 57.0 50.7 44.0 28Jan 09 14:30:52 60.0 62.6 B0.4 75.4 39.1 88.9 90.9 73.8 68.9 56.6 54.6 49.4 41.8 Man 09 14:31:52 60.0 60.2 78.0 74.9 43.0 93.5 95.3 72.4 59.9 56.8 55.4 51.6 46.4 28Jan 09 14:32:52 60.0 55.8 73.5 13.2 30.6 90.5 92.2 65.2 60.6 $6.4 53.1 47.7 43.0 Man 09 M33:52 60.0 60.5 78.3 75.4 31.9 09.3 90.9 71.9 63.9 59.6 56.5 48.6 42.6 28Jan 09 14:34:52 60.0 67.5 05.3 77.6 42.2 91.0 93.4 76.5 74.9 70.6 63.9 56.9 47.2 Man 09 14:35:52 60.0 56.7 74.5 73.5 38.5 U9.4 93.4 66.4 60.2 56.6 54.4 50.3 44.1 Man 09 14:36:52 60.0 61.4 79.1 75.2 39.6 69.1 90.9 72.4 65.6 61.5 59.2 51.1 43.6 Man 09 14:37:52 60.0 69.4 07.2 80.9 38.6 93.6 96.2 79.0 77.1 70.3 61.1 52.4 43.6 28Jan 09 14:38:52 60.0 65.7 63.5 79.5 41.6 91.4 92.2 77.0 69,5 63.2 61.1 54.4 45.1 Man 09 14:39:52 60.0 62.3 90.1 76.6 41.3 90.1 90.9 72.0 68.3 63.9 60.3 54.6 46.3 Man 09 14:40:52 60.0 67.0 84.7 00.4 43.9 94.0 98.8 77.5 74.1 65.6 62.6 53,5 46.0 28Jan 09 14:41:52 60.0 69.8 B7.6 01.5 44.4 95.0 96.9 79.9 77.2 69.6 63,9 56.4 46.9 28Jan 09 14:42:52 60.0 67.7 95.4 00.8 43.B 93.4 96.2 78.5 74.5 64.2 61.0 53.4 46.7 28Jan 09 14:43:52 60.0 68.5 86.3 79.7 43.9 92.6 94.4 79.0 77.0 62.0 58.1 50.7 45.7 Man 09 14:44:52 60.0 63.7 81.5 79.6 43.3 94.3 96.9 76.9 62.1 58.3 56.1 49.5 45.5 Man 09 14:45:52 60.0 55.0 72.8 70.0 44.9 86.3 87.4 64.5 59.4 54.5 53.0 50.4 47.1 29Jan 09 14:46:52 60.0 $6.4 74.2 75.8 44.1 91.1 92.2 65.3 59.2 55.2 $3.3 50.4 46.8 38Jan 09 14:47:52 60.0 49.2 67.0 64.9 42.9 77.1 84.9 SBA 50.0 49.0 48.2 46.7 44.1 Man 09 14:40:52 60.0 47.6 65.4 56.6 43.4 69.8 0.0 54.3 51.2 48.7 47.2 45.9 44.5 28Jan 09 14:49:52 60.0 51.4 69.2 63.9 44.6 76.0 94.9 59.6 53.9 52.0 50.9 49.2 46.3 Man 09 14:50:52 60.0 58.0 75.8 78.1 44.1 92.1 94.4 65.5 5B.7 54.7 52.3 48.7 45.5 Man 09 14:51:52 60.0 63.6 61.3 81.5 44.4 99.4 98.2 74.7 64.7 60.8 57.3 $0.3 46.4 29Jan 09 14:52:52 60.0 62.0 79.0 75.3 44.0 68.9 89.3 73.1 66.1 61.6 59.7 51.5 45.4 29Jan 09 14:53:52 60.0 60.3 7B.1 74.1 44.5 90.9 92.2 71.0 64.8 60.9 57.5 50.5 45.5 Man 09 14:54:52 60.0 64.1 01.9 76.9 43.0 92.3 93.4 75.1 68.9 62.4 60.2 51.5 46.1 29Jan 09 14:55:52 60.0 64.0 02,6 83.4 42.9 99.9 100.0 77.2 62.4 55.6 53.2 47.6 44.7 Man 09 14:56:52 60.0 63.4 01.2 74.6 44.9 89.3 90.9 73.6 69.2 64.1 60.0 57.9 47.5 28Jan 09 14:57:52 60.0 52.6 70.4 64.2 45.0 77.9 87.4 61.0 56.0 54.0 52.5 49.9 46,1 28Jan 09 14:58:52 60.0 56.3 14.1 69.5 43.8 86.2 89.3 66.4 62.0 56.1 53.4 49.6 46.2 Man 09 14:59:52 60.0 57.9 15.7 69.5 43.6 87.9 09.3 67.4 64.3 58.9 55.9 51.1 47.2 28Jan 09 15:00:52 60.0 61.1 76.9 73.9 41.9 89.1 89.3 69.5 65.5 63.3 61.6 56.5 46.1 28Jan 09 15:01:52 60,0 60,8 70.6 74.9 40.4 89.9 90.9 70.0 66.2 63.5 59.9 50.9 43.3 28Jan 09 15:02:52 60.0 61.2 78.9 78.1 42.0 95.3 96.9 70.3 65.7 60.5 57.3 50.3 44.5 28Jan 09 15:03:52 60.0 64.7 82.5 75.1 42.1 89.1 89.3 73.6 71.2 67.8 63.9 55.6 46.0 Man 09 15:04:52 60.0 56.9 74.7 69.1 39.6 86.2 87.4 66.9 63.2 57.9 54.2 47,2 41.6 28Jan 09 15:05:52 60.0 63.9 01.7 74.0 41.8 8B.4 09.3 71.9 70.4 68.3 63.2 56.1 45.0 28Jan 09 15:06:52 60.0 61,2 79.0 76.9 43.7 94.8 98.2 70.1 66.9 63.2 59.2 54.7 46.5 Man 09 15:07:52 60.0 62.5 60.3 75.0 42.0 90.5 94.4 71.9 68.7 63.4 60.7 56.2 46.2 Man 09 15:08:52 60.0 63.5 81.3 84.9 42.6 102.7 103.6 70.2 65.0 60.6 59.5 54.7 47.1 2BJan 09 15:09:52 60.0 64.3 82.0 83.0 41.4 96.9 99.4 76.5 64.1 58.2 53.7 47.6 43.9 2BJan 09 15:10:52 60.0 64.5 82.3 62.8 42.0 101.0 101.8 73.1 69.4 65.6 60.3 53.1 44.1 20Jan 09 15:11:52 60.0 61.1 78.9 73.0 42.1 87.7 09.3 71.0 67.5 62.1 58.4 54.0 46,3 28Jan 09 15:12:52 60.0 58.0 76.6 75.9 41.3 92.4 92.2 69.5 63.3 56.5 54.5 50.7 44.4 Man 09 15:13:52 60.0 50.5 69.3 60.1 43.4 79.5 0.0 56.5 54.0 52.4 51.2 49.2 45.4 28Jan 09 15:14:52 60.0 63.9 81.7 78.5 42.6 90.0 92.2 73.6 69.5 65.3 61.5 54.0 44.9 28Jan 09 15:15:52 60.0 68.9 86.7 87.B 44.5 103.9 103.3 78.0 70.3 65.9 60.2 54.3 49.5 28Jan 09 15:16:52 60.0 50.9 68.6 67.1 43.1 81.0 04.9 50.1 53.3 51.6 50.4 47.9 45.2 Man 09 15:17:52 60.0 53.9 71.7 72.4 43.1 97.8 89.3 62.0 53.8 51.3 49.8 47.6 45.0 28Jan 09 15:18:52 60.0 52.5 70.2 67.3 42.0 90.9 84.9 61.9 56.0 53.5 50.5 47.1 44.2 28Jan 09 15:19:52 60.0 53.5 71.3 67.9 42.3 80.3 87.4 61.7 58.5 54.6 52.6 49.4 45.4 20Jan 09 15:20:52 53.2 52.9 70.2 67.5 44.3 90.1 96.9 60.0 55.9 53.9 $2.9 50,9 47.4 C: \URMV\SWML \28JT113 -1. bin en[ezvdl 9a Cd Haas Sian L... aion 11 bxr Da[x 11 DOra[ion Lx0 SEL Lm ax -- 12 Peak eepk L( 2) L( 61 L116) L(251 L150) L(90) ---------------------------------------------- 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 07:43:51 ------_--_-___-_____________________---------------------- 60.0 68.9 061 85.1 40.6 104.0 102.3 81.1 70.9 - - - - -_ 62.5 59.3 54.7 50.2 2 SW 2 0 29Jan 09 07:48:51 60.0 72.6 90.4 86.9 40.2 102.2 102.7 82.1 79.0 75.1 68.4 58.3 51.1 2 5W 2 D 2BJan 09 07:49:51 60.0 73.1 90.9 84.0 48.5 103.1 102.3 82.5 79.3 75.4 70.6 66.0 56.9 2 SW 1 _ D 29Jan 09 07:50:51 60.0 69.4 07.2 82.8 40.3 57.9 93.3 79.6 7$.4 69.8 65.6 61.3 50.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 07:51:51 60.0 70.4 821 06.6 48.0 100.0 102.3 62.4 12.4 65.7 60.5 $4.3 48.9 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 00 07:52:51 60.0 66.2 84.0 79.1 47.5 91.0 65.4 76.7 72.6 64.9 59.0 55.8 50.7 2 541 2 0 28Jan 09 07:53:51 60.0 669.9 07.7 90.4 46.9 102.6 108.1 80.2 65.9 58.9 55.0 51.7 49.6 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 07:54:51 69.0 65.6 03.4 77.9 46.3 90.0 95.4 75.2 72.3 67.8 62.6 55.4 46.2 2 S41 2 0 23Jan 09 07:55:51 60.0 71.7 89.5 82.9 47.1 100.0 99.5 80.5 78.1 75.6 71.9 56.9 49,6 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 07:56:51 60.0 68.2 86.0 83.0 47.0 95.3 93.3 79.2 74,5 66.4 60.2 54.5 45.0 2 SW 2 O 28Jan 09 07:57:51 60.0 68.9 06.7 82.6 47.4 64.3 9S.3 77.1 74.4 72.3 69.7 50.6 50.6 2 5W 2 0 28Jan 09 07:58:51 60.0 64.3 02.1 70,0 48.3 90.5 93.5 75.2 69.6 63.8 60.5 55.4 49.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 07:59:51 60.0 65.2 B3.0 76.3 47.0 90.1 92.3 74.9 72.0 66.2 60.8 55.2 49.3 2 5W 2 0 28Jan 09 00:00:51 60.0 65.8 83.6 84.9 46.1 97.6 93.3 77.2 65.3 61.1 56.6 52.2 48.3 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 00:01:51 60.0 75.7 93.4 80.7 46.3 101.! 101.5 86.9 82.8 72.2 64.9 57.7 49.4 2 SW 2 0 266Jan 09 08102:51 60.0 60.0 85.0 67.3 46.0 100.6 102.7 78.7 67.7 64.4 61.5 53.8 47.1 2 5W 2 0 -Sian 06 08:03:51 69.0 70.1 87.9 B7.3 46.1 90.6 100.1 82.6 71.6 61_9 57.9 52.4 47,6 2 5W 2 0 28Jan 09 03:04:51 60.0 74.6 92,4 07.1 48.5 100.3 101.5 84.7 81.2 76.6 70.5 61.1 52.2 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 08:05:51 60.0 71.7 89.5 04.5 46.5 90.7 101.0 02.5 79.5 70.4 64.0 50.3 48.8 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 08:06:51 60.0 69.1 93.5 82.9 47.6 951 97.7 80.5 76.0 69.5 64.2 58.9 50,8 2 5W 2 0 28Jan 09 08:01:51 60.0 70.1 87.0 B4.1 47.5 95.8 69.5 80.5 77.0 68.3 61.8 55.6 49.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 08:00:51 60.0 63.0 05.0 83.0 40.4 96.0 98.9 79.4 72.6 64.3 60.2 55.0 51.3 2 SW 2 0 23j.. 09 08:09:51 60.0 65.4 93.2 BO.0 46.4 93.3 98.3 77.7 60.8 63.2 60.4 55.7 48,3 2 SW 2 0 Sian 99 08:10:51 60.0 68.3 06.1 03.4 47.9 94.5 97.0 78.7 74.3 66.4 61.1 57,0 50.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 08:11:51 60.0 67.5 85.3 80.9 47.6 96.2 99.9 78.2 73.1 67.4 63.1 501 51.4 2 541 2 0 28Jan 09 08:12:51 60.0 63.6 91_4 76.9 46.0 89.5 94.5 14.3 69.0 63.3 59.5 54,6 47.4 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 08413:51 60.0 65.8 83.6 82.5 45.6 93.1 100.1 76.6 70.8 61.7 58.5 53.3 47,6 2 5W 2 0 28Jan 09 08:14:51 60.0 64.9 82.7 77.9 46.4 90.0 65.4 75.6 71.6 63.7 58.7 53.9 48.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 08:15:51 60.0 52.6 70.4 62.9 44.6 78.6 0.0 60.1 57.6 53.8 51.0 49.9 46.6 2 5W 2 0 2BJan 09 03:16:51 60.0 64.1 91.0 75.1 48.6 88.6 94.5 72.4 $01 66.4 65.5 59.1. 50.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan O9 08:17:51 60.0 60.9 78.6 67.1 47.8 79.3 65.0 66.6 65.8 65.1 64.2 $4.4 49.8 2 SW 2 0 23Jan 09 08:10:51 60.0 56.5 74.2 60.9 47.4 00.0 69.4 63.9 61.1 58.7 56.2 52.5 49.0 2 S124 2 0 28Jan 09 08:19:51 60.0 60.3 70.1 78.6 47.8 90.0 53.5 69.4 61.9 58.9 57.0 52.4 49.1 2 SLI4 2 0 2BJan 09 08:20:51 60.0 71.0 80.8 04.5 47.4 97.5 90.9 83.0 76.9 64.4 61.6 51.0 48.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 08:21:51 60..0 69.6 97.4 04.1 47.4 102.2 103.4 81.6 74.1 64.8 62.1. 54.1 491 2 SL14 2 0 28Jan 09 08:22:51 60.0 69.0 86.8 87.0 46.6 103.3 192.7 01.6 69.8 63.0 58.7 $2.4 49.1 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 08:23:51 60.0 52.9 70.7 65.4 46.9 79.6 87.5 58.8 56.6 54.7 53.7 51.1 40.4 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 08:24:51 60.0 56.7 74.5 66.6 47.7 80.8 B5.0 61.2 59.8 50.8 57.9 56.4 50.0 2 SI.M 2 0 28Jan 09 58:25:51 60.0 70.4 B8,2 82.9 50.5 95.2 98.3 81.1 77.1 G8.e 63.9 60.0 55.3 2 SLM 2 0 293an 09 68:26:51 60.0 66.3 84.1 80.2 48.4 92.7 95.4 78,4 741 61.0 5B.8 56.2 52.5 2 SLM 2 0 280an 00 08:27:51 60.0 69.7 87.4 BOA 52.9 M.7 95.4 78.6 74.7 68.8 67.9 66.8 60.1 2 541 2 0 28Jan 09 08:28:51 60.0 69.9 B7.6 00.3 53.0 92.2 95.4 79.5 75.6 69.6 67.8 65.B 54.7 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 08:29:51 60.0 50.5 76.3 78.9 47.4 94.0 100.6 62.6 59.4 57.7 56.7 54.9 49..8 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 08:30:51 60.0 63.0 80.8 82.3 47.5 95.2 103.7 73.1 63.6 60,0 59.2 55.6 51.2 2 5W 2 0 28Jan 09 08:31:51 60.0 71.2 69.0 88.3 49.5 102.5 102.7 03.7 72.4 64.1 61.0 57.2 53.5 2 SRI 2 0 Man 09 08:32:51 60.0 71.5 89.3 89.6 47.6 106.6 107.0 83.4 70.1 62.4 60.8 57.3 51.1 2 S41 2 0 Man 09 08:33:51 60.0 76.1 93..9 92.5 46.8 105.7 106.6 06.4 82.7 73.9 64.0 57.4 52.6 2 3W 2 0 28Jan 99 08:34:51 60.0 71.4 09,2 86.1 47.5 98.3 98.9 03.5 75.3 64.3 G1.e 57.2 49.6 2 SW 2 0 283an 06 08:35:51 60.0 63.7 01.5 71.9 51.3 83.3 87.5 70.6 68.6 67,6 66.3 57.5 52.3 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 99 08:36:51 60.0 70.3 88,1 83.6 65.2 95..6 07.0 75.0 72.7 71.6 70.5 68.4 66.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 08:37:51 60.0 68.4 66.2 85.2 55.1 101.0 100.6 79.5 68.5 67.3 66.0 57.3 55.6 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 08:38:51 60.0 57.1 74,8 73.3 50,3 91.1 92.3 62.9 58.6 57.5 56.9 56.3 51.8 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 00:39:51 60.0 50.0 75,8 73.6 46.8 BE.0 100.6 66.9 61.8 58.6 56.3 54.0 49.8 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 08:40:51 60.0 69.8 87.6 07.5 45.8 95.2 100.6 01.7 73.2 63.0 59.8 55.6 51.6 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 08:41:51 60.0 70.7 98.5 4.3 46.6 96.3 99.5 81.9 77.3 67.8 60.5 551 48.5 2 SW 2 0 28Jan OS 08:42:51 60.0 67.2 85.0 81.6 47.1 99.7 97.7 79.2 70.7 64.2 60.2 53.4 49.2 2 SW 2 0 23 Jan 09 08:43:51 60.0 55.4 73.2 74.4 47.7 06.6 93.5 64.0 55.1 53.7 52.8 51.3 49.5 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 08:44:51 60.0 66.5 04.3 81.5 47.6 54.5 66.3 79.6 68.7 60.9 59.8 55.5 49.4 2 SW 2 0 38Jan 09 08:45:51 60.0 53.9 71.6 67.4 46.6 61.3 85.0 60.3 57.6 55.8 54.1 51.6 49.8 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 00:46:51 60,0 64,2 81.9 73.8 47.8 85.3 93.5 70.7 68.1 67.4 66.7 57.9 50.3 2 SLY 2 0 2BJan 09 08:47:51 60.0 66.1 03.9 60.9 64.3 81.2 99.4 60.0 67.5 67.0 66.7 65.9 65.0 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 08:40:51 60.0 62.5 80.2 68.0 48.2 00.2 89.4 68.0 67.4 66.7 66.2 55.2 51.0 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 08:49:51 60.0 60.1 77,8 79,3 47.3 93.1 97.0 70.0 59.0 55.9 54.3 51.6 49.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 06:50:51 60.0 66.1 83.9 81.5 46.6 94.1 97.7 77.9 69.8 60.8 57.2 52.7 48.8 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 08:51:51 60.0 66.9 84.6 79.1 56.9 91.7 94.5 77.7 72.9 65.9 62.2 57.7 51.5 2 SW 2 0 23Jan 09 08:52:51 60.0 66.3 84.1 03,4 46.2 94.8 67.7 79.2 65.5 56.3 56.2 52.0 48.5 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 08:53:51 60.0 65.0 82.9 61.6 47.0 63.3 06.3 77.2 63.6 59.8 58.9 56.5 50.6 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 08:54:51 60.0 62.6 80.4 76.8 55.4 88.7 95.4 73.3 64.0 61.7 60.3 56.4 56.9 2 5W 2 0 28dan 09 08:55:51 60.0 68.1 05.9 79.0 54.3 90.3 95.4 75.0 71.0 69.6 68.8 67.3 59.0 2 5W 2 0 29Jan 09 08:56:51 60.0 64.9 82.6 69.4 41.9 60.7 85.0 68.6 67.8 67.3 66.8 65.8 52.8 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 03:51:51 60.0 59.4 71.2 75,0 46.9 69.5 190.6 69.0 61.3 59.5 57.9 56.1 49,7 2 5W 2 0 29Jan 09 08:58:51 60.0 61.8 79.6 79.4 45.6 91.7 93.5 74.5 56.6 53.7 52.4 50.4 47.1 2 54: 2 0 28Jan 09 00:59:51 60.0 64.7 62.5 70.3 45.8 91.9 93.5 75.2 71.2 64.0 51.4 53.1 46.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 09:00:51 60.0 65.3 03.0 60.3 52.8 92.2 93.5 76.1 79.9 61.6 59.1 57.0 54.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 09:01:51 60.0 551 73.0 59.6 53.0 75.2 885.4 57.9 56.0 56.2 55.8 54,8 53.8 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 09:02:51 60.0 55.6 73,3 64.0 53.1 Bi.l 87.5 58.8 57.0 56.3 55.8 55.1 54.1 2 SW 2 0 2E an 09 09:03:51 60.0 56.5 74.3 67.5 514 84.7 -65.0 61.7 56.4 56.9 56.5 55.6 54.3 2 SW 2 0 Z'Jan 09 09:04:51 60.0 56.B 74.6 65.6 53.8 79.S 65.0 61.4 59.3 57.9 57.0 56.0 54.6 2 SW 2 a 3'a Jan 09 09:05:51 60.0 56.2 74.0 64.4 53.0 76.1 0.0 60.1 57.8 57.0 56.7 55.6 54.3 2 SW 2 0 'an 09 09:06:51 60.0 64.0 81,7 69.6 53.6 81.7 85.0 69.5 68.6 67.9 66,7 59.1 55,0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 06 09:07:51 60.0 67.8 85.5 70.9 64.4 81.7 87.5 70.0 69.3 68.8 68.5 67.7 66.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 09:08:51 60.0 64.4 92.1 81,3 4.6 92.2 56.3 75.4 67.8 61.3 56.5 49.0 46.0 2 5W 2 O ZBJan 09 09:09:51 60.0 57.2 74.9 61.4 46.3 81.7 65.0 64.9 62.6 61.3 57.1 51.4 47.8 2 8144 2 0 28Jan 09 09:10:51 60.0 61.0 78.8 70.9 44.5 33.5 67.5 67.9 65.4 64.0 63.2 56.5 46.5 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 09:11:51 60.0 64.0 82.8 69.6 46.1 62.6 87.5 68.9 68.0 67.4 666,7 62.3 40.5 2 5W 2 0 28Jan 06 09:12:51 60.0 57.8 75.6 73.6 44.4 69.7 99.5 67.6 60.0 57.4 55.8 53.6 49.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 09:13:51 60.0 50.4 16.2 00.9 45.6 64.4 91.7 60.6 56.7 55.2 53.6 50.9 47.0 2 S41 2 D 28Jan 09 09:14:51 60,0. 60,9 76.6 69.1 47.0 81.0 89.4 67.9 65.6 64.5 63.4 $4.2 40.9 2 SSdi 2 0 283an 09 09:15:51 60.0 67.5 85.3 72.3 46.3 83.7 92.3 71.6 70.7 69.9 69.4 67.0 53.9 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 09:16:51 60.0 56.0 76.6 74.9 44,8 89.7 97.0 60.7 63.7 58.2 55.6 50.6 46.7 2 SLY 2 0 28Jan 09 09:17:51 60.0 59.3 17.0 17.3 44.3 Be.1 93.5 71.1 $7.3 54.7 52.5 40.9 45.5 2 SLY 2 0 28Jan 09 09:18:51 60.0 68.1 65.9 79.3 44.6 91.4 94.5 71.0 74.1 71.1 67.9 58.9 47.1 2 SLY 2 0 28Jan 09 09:19:51 60.0 62.E 80.4 15.0 45.1 87.1 93.5 72.7 69.3 62.3 53.6 54.9 47.9 2 521 2 0 28Jan 09 09:20:51 60.0 65.4 83.2 76.1 45.5 88.1 93.5 74.3 71.9 69.1 63.B 54.8 47.5 2 52: 2 0 2BJan 09 09:21:51 60.0 67.0 84.0 77.3 45.9 89.2 94.5 74.6 72.7 70.7 68.5 59.4 49.9 2 521 2 0 2BJan 09 09:22:51 60.0 69.8 96.6 78.7 45.5 92.9 97.0 76.5 74.6 72.6 70.5 59.9 50.4 2 S21 2 0 2BJan 09 09:23:51 60.0 69.9 07.7 B1.5 46.2 93.4 98.3 71.9 76.1 74.0 70.6 57.9 40.9 2 514 2 0 28Jan 09 09:24:51 60.0 72.8 90.5 82.5 45.6 97.2 98.3 80.2 78.2 76.3 74.0 67.5 57.2 2 SL'4 2 0 Man 09 09:25:51 60.0 73.8 91.6 83.3 50.6 97.7 100.1 91.8 79.9 77.6 74.2 66.7 50.3 Z SLM 2 0 2BJan O9 09:26:51 60.0 71.5 89.3 85.0 45.3 99.2 103.0 82.1 77.7 71.8 66.0 62.4 47.4 2 511 2 0 29Jan 09 09:27:51 60.0 71.1 88.9 B2.7 46.2 96.6 98.9 BO.1 77.2 74.3 70.3 59.9 50.4 2 SLH 2 0 2BJan 09 09:28:51 60.0 70.9 88.7 79.9 51.0 91.9 96.3 7B.5 76.2 74.0 71.6 67.2 57.5 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 09:29:51 60.0 66.5 84.3 70.2 46.3 90.4 94.5 75.5 72.9 68.8 66.1 56.2 52.1 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 09:30:51 60.0 67.2 85.0 00.0 45.7 91.1 97.0 76.4 72.9 70.2 65.5 57.7 54.3 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 09:31:51 60.0 70.8 89.6 80.5 54.3 92.3 98.3 78.8 76.2 73.5 71.9 67.1 56.6 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 09:32:51 60.0 68.9 06.6 79.0 52.3 90.2 97.0 77.0 73.9 71.6 69.4 64.4 54.9 2 SLN 2 0 2BJan 09 09:33:51 60.0 69.2 67.0 81.8 48.3 92.1 97.0 79.5 75.9 69.5 64.2 55.7 $1.6 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 09:34:51 60.0 70.4 88.1 92.7 47.4 101.2 101.9 80.1 76.8 71.5 63.6 60.0 50.6 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 09:35:51 60.0 68.6 86.4 84.9 41.4 94.7 100.1 79.6 73.6 66.8 61.2 56.2 52.9 2 521 2 0 Man 09 09:36:51 60.0 69.4 07.2 00.7 52.5 92.1 100.1 78.7 75.9 72.3 66.4 58.6 55.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 09:37:51 60.0 69.5 87.3 84.7 51.6 95.7 100.6 79.0 75.0 71.2 67.0 60.7 54.6 2 514 2 0 23Jan 09 09:30:51 60.0 71.8 89.6 04.8 45.4 90.1 100.6 82.3 77.9 73.6 65.1 56.3 49.9 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 09:39:51 60.0 69.6 87.4 87.2 45.2 99.4 103.0 82.2 63.0 55.9 53.8 51.8 41.1 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 09:40:51 60.0 65.6 83.3 79.4 4B.9 91.6 93.5 76.5 71.6 63.3 57.2 53.9 51.2 2 SLM. 2 0 Man 09 09:41:51 60.0 60.9 78.7 15.4 46.0 87.0 91.0 72.5 61.7 57.8 55.7 52.4 49.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 09:42:51 60.0 63.4 81.1 15.0 45.4 87.5 93.5 73.6 70.5 61.5 55.7 53.2 49.6 2 SL4 2 0 2BJan 09 09:43:51 60.0 63.0 80.0 76.4 44.5 88.6 92.3 74.5 68.7 55.9 54.4 52.6 45.7 2 5LH 2 0 28Jan 09 09:44:51 60.0 65.1 82.9 77.8 44.5 89.3 91.0 76.1 71.8 62.6 55.3 52.0 45.8 2 SiH 2 0 26Jan 09 09:45:51 60.0 64.5 82.3 75.4 45.4 BB.4 92.3 73.6 70.7 66.4 61.9 54.0 50.4 2 SLH 2 0 28Jan 09 09:46:51 60.0 64.3 62.1 11.3 46.0 82.8 89.4 69.5 69.0 67.0 66.0 63.7 40.7 2 SLY 2 0 29Jan 09 09:47:51 60.0 63.5 81.2 70.0 50.2 81.4 05.0 68.6 66.8 65.9 64.8 63.0 52.9 2 SLY 2 0 28Jan 09 09:48:51 60.0 63.9 61.6 72.4 46.9 84.0 09.4 69.7 68.1 67.2 66.0 61.0 $2.2 2 SLH 2 0 28Jan 09 09:49:51 60.0 56.3 74.1 69.3 44.9 83.5 97.5 66.4 60.0 56.5 54.6 51.8 47.5 2 521 2 0 Man 09 09:50:51 60.0 69.9 67.7 03.2 45.5 96.9 97.0 80.0 76.7 71.4 62.7 53.2 47.9 2 SLH 2 0 2BJan 09 09:51:51 60.0 67.8 85.5 78.7 46.3 92.9 94.5 76.4 73.8 71.3 67.5 60.7 49.2 2 Siff 2 0 2BJan 09 09:52:51 60.0 68.0 85.0 77.1 5D.4 91.1 94.5 74.0 73.2 71.2 66.9 65.3 56.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 09:53:51 60.0 62.6 80.4 73.6 49.7 87.1 92.3 71.7 68.7 64.3 60.8 56.2 52.2 2 51 2 0 28Jan 09 09:54:51 60.0 62.9 80.6 73.9 46.6 87.1 94.5 71.3 68.8 66.3 62.7 55.0 50.2 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 09:55:51 60.0 62.0 79.8 73.7 44.4 90.1 92.3 70.4 68.4 65.9 61.3 52.7 46.1 2 SLM 2 0 20Jan 09 09:56:51 60.0 60.0 77.8 73.3 45.1 86.6 94.5 68.4 63.4 60.5 59.5 57.6 54.0 2 SLI4 2 0 29Jan 09 09:57:51 60.0 61.8 79.6 75.4 46.1 88.0 93.5 71.1 67.2 61.7 59.4 56.7 52.6 2 SLI4 2 0 2BJan 09 09:50:51 60.0 66.3 84.1 19.1 47.1. 91.8 97.7 77.2 72.8 63.1 59.9 55.7 50.4 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 09:59:51 60.0 68.2 86.0 80.2 45.2 92.5 98.3 77.0 74.6 69.2 64.4 59.4 48.1 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:00:51 60.0 66.4 84.2 76.9 44.2 88.4 95.4 75.6 71.1 69.0 66.3 62.4 50.1 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:01:51 60.0 59.5 77.3 14.9 44.8 96.8 94.5 69.5 65.3 57.8 55.2 50.6 47.2 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 10:02:51 60.0 60.1 77.8 12.8 44.2 05.6 69.4 70.7 65.7 50.6 56.4 52.6 47.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:03:51 60.0 63.6 81.4 75.9 44.7 88.5 95.4 73.5 70.8 63.3 58.8 53.2 46J 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:04:51 60.0 62.3 80.1 14.3 45.1 87.5 94.5 72.5 69.5 60.2 56.6 52.2 47.5 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 10:05:51 60.0 64.6 82.4 75.8 45.3 38.5 96.3 73.7 70.8 67.6 63.6 55.6 47.5 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 ID:06:51 60.0 64.7 82.5 76.8 44.8 99.4 94.5 74.4 70.7 67.2 60.8 56.2 47.8 2 521 2 0 2BJan 09 10:07:51 60.0 64.5 82.3 77.6 45.7 90.8 93.5 75.2 70.3 62.7 6D.3 55.6 51.0 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 10:08:51 60.0 63.1 80.9 70.1 44.7 90.5 93.5 75.0 64.6 62.7 6D.4 $5.4 52.1 2 SLH 2 0 28Jan 09 10:09:51 60.0 68.7 86.5 01.2 44.2 96.9 98.9 79.3 75.2 67.1 64.5 56.6 47.6 2 5LM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:10:51 60.0 68.3 86.1 80.0 49.9 92.6 95.4 79.2 73.1 66.3 64.5 58.3 54.6 2 S14 2 0 Man 09 10:11:51 60.0 55.7 73.5 67.7 45.4 80.9 B7.5 61.3 50.9 57.2 56.3 54.B 48.0 2 SLH 2 0 2BJan 09 10:12:51 60.0 51.3 69.1 70.1 43.5 97.6 87.5 58.3 53.7 51.1 49.7 47.7 44.9 2 SLY 2 0 2BJan 09 10:13:51 60.0 67.5 85.3 83.6 45.2 95.9 97.7 79.5 70.2 62.7 59.3 53.0 47.7 2 56 2 0 28Jan 09 10:14:51 60.0 60.7 78.5 73.6 47.5 87.E 87.5 69.5 65.6 63.0 60.3 $6.9 51.0 2 Si 2 0 28Jan 09 10:15:51 60.0 63.7 01.5 81.7 44.2 105.6 104.9 72.4 68.3 64.8 62.2 57.0 48.7 2 514 2 0 28Jan 09 10:16:51 60.0 61.3 79.1 83.1 44.6 99.5 101.5 64.3 $6.9 55.8 55.1 52.0 46.2 2 518 2 0 28Jan 09 10:17:51 60.0 55.0 72.0 64.4 45.0 79.3 85.0 61.8 59.4 53.0 56.0 51.5 47.2 2 SLH 2 0 28Jan 09 10:18:51 60.0 59.0 15.8 77.3 40.8 90.6 95.4 62.7 58.6 57.2 56.3 55.0 52.9 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:19:51 60.0 56.4 74.1 76.2 43.6 88.8 92.3 59.6 57.3 56.3 55.5 51.4 45.0 2 Sul 2 0 28Jan 09 10:20:51 60.0 60.9 78.6 78.6 43.6 93.3 96.3 69.1 63.5 59.4 57.B 55.8 46.7 2 SLM 2 0 284an 09 10:21:51 60.0 53.3 71.1 59.6 43.5 76.7 85.0 57.5 56.2 55.5 54.9 52.1 41.7 2 SLH 2 0 28Jan 09 10:22:51 60.0 57.2 75.0 74.1 43.8 86.8 93.5 65.7 61.3 57.6 56.3 52.6 46.5 2 SLH 2 0 Man 09 10:23:51 60.0 61.3 79.1 83.0 43.1 98.9 102.7 70.1 63.3 57.8 54.2 49.3 45.1 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:24:51 60.0 54.7 72.5 68.8 43.7 04.0 87.5 62.3 53.8 $6.2 54.9 51.2 46.0 2 SLH 2 0 28Jan 09 10:25:51 60.0 64.0 01.8 85.3 43.7 100.8 102.3 71.9 65.6 60.9 57.5 54.2 49.8 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:26:51 60.0 65.4 83.1 01.2 50.7 03.5 96.3 77.9 63.6 57.0 55.8 54.1 52.2 2 5 L 2 0 28Jan 09 10:27:51 60.0 56.9 74.7 74.5 43.5 96.2 94.5 65.0 58.1 55.9 54.5 51..8 46.6 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:20:51 60.0 54.8 72.6 63.8 46.0 76.7 85.0 59.7 57.8 56.4 55.4 53.5 $1.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:29:51 60.0 54.3 72.1 60.0 46.1 13.4 87.5 59.1 57.3 56.0 55.3 53.5 50.4 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:30:51 60.0 51.9 69.6 57.0 45.8 68.3 O.D 55.9 54.0 53.1 52.5 51.4 49.1 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:31:51 60.0 55.7 73.5 63.6 47.3 78.3 0.0 62.1 59.4 57.6 56.4 53.9 50.5 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:32:51 60.0 55.0 72.8 62.0 47.8 73.8 87.5 59.9 59.2 56.8 55.6 53.0 51.4 2 SLM 2 0 29Jan 09 10:33:51 60.0 52.7 70.5 61.5 48.5 73.5 91.0 57.4 54.9 53.8 53.0 51.8 50.1 2 SLM 2 0 2SJan 09 10:34:51 60.0 54.0 71.0 62.5 4B.5 74.2 85.0 50.5 $6.6 55.5 54.8 53.3 50.5 2 SLM 1 0 28Jan 09 20:35:51 60.0 54.0 71.0 61.3 42.6 74.4 0.0 59.0 57.0 55.0 54.9 53.1 49.6 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:36:51 60.0 55.0 73.6 75.3 45.2 90.1 93.5 59.5 57.5 56.3 55.2 52.9 49.2 2 SLH 2 0 28Jan 09 10:27:51 60.0 54.5 72.3 71.7 42.1 91.0 92.3 59.9 57.8 56.4 55.3 51.9 45.3 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:38:51 60.0 55.3 73.1 69.7 41.0 78.9 95.0 62.0 59.3 56.9 55.7 52.9 46.7 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 10:39:51 60.0 54.3 72.1 63.7 45.2 77.2 0.0 59.8 57.3 55.8 54.9 52.9 50.7 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:40:51 60.0 55.6 73.4 65.3 48.0 76.7 0.0 61.9 59.0 57.1 56.0 $4.1 51.2 2 S 2 0 29Jan 09 10:41:51 60.0 55.3 73.1 72.1 45.9 87.3 69.4 60.1 50.1 56.4 55.1 53.1 49.7 2 514 2 0 28Jan 09 10:42:51 60.0 57.2 74.9 73.6 42.2 83.3 07.5 68.0 60.0 52.E 50.8 47.5 43.4 2 S1.. 2 0 29Jan 09 10:43:51 60.0 52.9 70.7 60.7 46.4 76.4 0.0 56.0 54.8 54.0 53.6 52.4 50.4 2 511 2 0 28Jan 09 10:44:51 60.0 59.7 77.5 80.1 42.4 92.4 96.3 69.3 56.7 54.9 53.9 52.5 45.0 2 SLY 2 0 28Jan 00 10:45:51 60.0 55.9 73.7 70.9 44.0 92.5 65.0 66.3 55.8 54.2 53.3 52.0 50.0 2 SWI 2 0 28Jan 09 10:46:51 60.0 51.9 60,7 59.2 42.7 76.6 0.0 56.5 54.5 53.4 52.6 51.2 40.5 2 S14 2 0 28Jan 09 10:47:51 60.0 52.7 70.5 66.7 43.0 04.9 85.0 58.3 54.1 53.7 53.0 51.2 47.2 2 S 2 0 Man 09 10:48:51 60.0 49.3 67.1 60.7 42.2 74.4 0.0 55.3 $3.1 51.3 50.1 47.3 43.6 2 SM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:49:51 60.0 57.8 75.6 78.5 43.7 01.9 43.5 65.0 59.0 56.3 53.9 50.3 45.9 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 10:50:51 60.0 55.3 73.1 67.7 44.1 79.5 87.5 63.1 59.5 57.0 55.2 52.3 46.2 2 SW. 2 0 28Jan 09 10:51:51 60.0 57.6 15.4 75.7 45.7 89.9 92.3 63.5 59.0 57.3 56.1 53.6 49.0 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 10:52:51 60.0 55.5 73.3 67.5 42.4 79.7 0.0 63.2 59.1 57.3 56.1 53.1 47.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 10:53:51 60.0 56.1 73.9 70.6 41.9 041 85.0 66.4 58.8 56.0 54.5 50.9 44.8 2 SLM 2 0 185a. 09 10:54:51 60.0 56.3 74.1 70.6 42.3 04.3 87.5 67.1 59.3 55.6 53.7 50.7 45.3 2 SW 2 0. 2BJan 09 10:55:51 60.0 56.8 74.6 67.6 44.9 81.9 68.5 64.1 59.9 58.4 51.4 55.0 50.4 2 SW 2 0 29Jan 09 10:56:51 60.0 55.9 73.6 70.9 42.7 83.7 87.5 66.7 58.9 55.2 52.8 50.1 45.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 00 10:57:51 60.0 57.6 75.3 73.7 42.7 86.4 89.4 69.1 58.5 55.9 54.4 51.5 47,1 2 SW 2 0 Mian 09 10:58:51 60.0 50.0 75.8 71.2 44.9 84.8 89.4 66.5 63.1 60.2 57.6 53.2 4S.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 10:59:51 60.0 52.2 69.9 65.7 42.5 78.6 0.0 60.0 56.0 54.3 52.2 48.4 45.2 2 SW 2 0 2 =_Jan 09 11:00:51 60.0 74.0 91.7 96.7 42.6 113.8 114.6 61.7 65.0 59.1 56.5 52.0 46.6 2 SW ? 0 28Jan 00 11:01:51 60.0 56.8 74.6 70.4 43.4 83.8 65.0 67.6 61.1 56.6 54.3 49.0 46.1 2 SIH 2 0 an 09 11:02:51 60.0 56.2 74.0 71.7 42.2 83.7 86.3 65.4 60.6 57.1 54.5 50.9 45.6 2 SW 2 0 2Gj.. 09 11:03:51 60.0 55.0 72,9 64.6 43.0 67.1 91.0 62.9 59.5 56.0 54.6 51.2 46.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:04:51 60.0 58.0 75.7 74.2 42.5 91.6 93,5 67.9 G1.S 58.0 54.6 51.4 46.4 2 SW 2 0 26 ✓'an 09 11:05:51 60.0 53.0 71.5 63.5 43.9 74.6 07.5 60,B 51.6 55.9 54.8 51.9 46.6 2 SW 2 0 7elan 09 11:06:51 60.0 52.3 70.0 69.2 41.3 °2.4 85.0 59.8 55.3 53.5 52.0 40.3 43.0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:07:51 60.0 56.3 74.1 76.0 42.3 91.3 92.3 63.6 55.1 51.9 50.5 45,0 45.2 2 SL14 2 0 28Jan 09 11: as:51 60.0 57.7 75.5 73.7 41.5 87.9 89.4 60.5 61.9 57.0 53.9 49.9 45.2 2 SL4 2 0 28Jan 09 1G: 09:51 60.0 55.3 73.1 70.1 41.0 92.2 65.0 65.1 59.4 55.7 53.3 49.9 43.6 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:10:51 60.0 58.2 76.0 70.9 43.8 85.2 03.5 68.6 62.9 57.9 56.2 53.0 47.0 2 SW 2 0 26Jan 09 11:11:51 60.0 57.9 75.7 79.6 44.4 93.7 95.4 62.7 58.5 55.0 54.5 51.7 47.4 2 SW 2 0 28j.. 09 11:12:51 60.0 56.2 74.0 76.0 42.9 07.1 92.3 62.0 57.7 55.2 53.7 50.7 45,1 2 SW 2 d "an 09 11:13:51 60.0 57.5 75.3 69.4 42.9 62.2 65.0 67.1 62.5 57,8 5$.9 52.7 46.6 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:14:51 60.0 58.5 76.3 74.3 45.9 87.8 89.4 67.1 62.4 58.9 57.0 53.9 49.0 2 SW 2. 0 28Jan 09 11:15:51 60.0 55.0 72.8 66.6 42.1 81.2 85.0 61.7 58.3 56.4 55.2 52.9 47.5 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:16:51 60.0 54.6 72.4 63.7 43.0 74.9 85.0 60.4 58.5 57.2 56.0 52.8 47.B 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 11:17:51 60.0 55.3 73.1 62.0 43.6 74.1 65.0 59.9 58.7 57.8 56.9 54.4 49.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:18:51 60.0 54.7 72.4 64.8 44.0 77.3 85.0 61.5 57.9 $6.6 55.6 53,1 47.9 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:19:51 60.0 $0.5 76,3 77.9 45.9 89.9 92.3 65.4 60.6 58.0 56.4 53.0 4B,8 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:20:51 60.0 50.6 76.3 78.8 45.3 92.7 100,6 65,4 60.5 57.8 56.3 53.6 49.2 7 SW 2 0 -SJan 09 11:21:51 60.0 56.4 74.2 60.6 43.8 03.2 87.5 64.0 60.7 58.6 56.9 53.5 48.5 2 SW 2 0 2Sj . 09 1t: 22:51 60.0 58.3 76.1 74.9 42.4 07.6 92.3 67.2 62.3 $9.7 $7.8 53.5 46.0 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 11:23:51 60.0 58.1 75.9 68.0 43.4 81.6 87.5 66.7 63.4 59.9 57.5 53.9 46.7 2 SL4 2 0 2BJan 90 11:24:51 60.0 57.1 74.8 66.6 45.4 02.3 87.5 65.1 61.7 58.6 57.0 54.3 50.1 2 SL'4 2 0 29Jan 09 11:25:51 60.0 5710 75.6 69.5 43.0" 80.6 97.5 07.2 63.0 59.2 56.8 53.1 48.0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:26:51 60.0 59.7 77.4 74.4 43.3 86.4 91.0 67.6 64.5 62.0 59.7 55.0 47.1 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 11:27:51 60.0 54.0 72.6 68.6 43.8 83.1 67.5 64.9 55.3 54.9 53.2 50.0 46.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 11:28:51 60.0 64.1 61.9 62.0 42.5 07.1 97.7 74.4 68.3 62.6 59.1 55.4 48,2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 00 11; 29:51 60.0 63.1 00.8 78.0 44.4 93.0 96.3 73.9 67.1 61.7 57.6 53.3 48.8 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 11:30:51 60.0 60.4 78.2 77.4 42.4 90.3 94.5 72.4 61.9 56.9 54.0 50.3 45.0 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 11:31:51 60.0 49.9 67.7 59.1 42.4 75.6 0.0 55.6 53.7 52.2 50.9 48.2 44.5 2 SIM 2 0 28Jan 09 11:32:51 60.0 54.6 72.3 65.8 41.9 78.7 BRA 62.5 58.9 56.9 55.2 51.2 45.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 11:33:51 60.0 57.5 75.3 70.0 91.9 82.6 07.5 67.1 63.2 58.9 55.6 51.3 44.1 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 11:34:51 60.0 61,6 79.4 76.9 42.5 92.6 93.5 73.4 64.0 60.8 58.5 54,1 47.7 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 11:35:51 60.0 63.9 01.6 05.6 43.5 99.0 102.3 70.6 63.6 528 54.7 50.7 45.6 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 11:36:51 60.0 65.6 83.4 87.9 44.6 101.7 106.3 69.5 64.2 GO.6 SB.1 53.5 47.7 2 S@1 2 0 28Jan 09 11:37:51 60.0 61,6 79,4 78.8 44.3 91.1 96.3 71.0 63.7 59.4 56.5 51.8 46.0 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 11:38:51 60.0 59.B 77.6 7B.9 43.0 92.2 93.5 66.5 62.5 59.1 556.8 52.9 46.5 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:39:51 60.0 59,6 77.3 73.4 42.0 08.0 89.4 71.5 63.3 56.1 53.0 47.7 43.5 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 11:40:51 60.0 GO.1 77.9 77.7 43.0 89.3 93.5 67.2 63.1 58.7 55.0 52,7 46.8 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 11:41:51 GO.0 58.5 76.3 74.8 42.5 86.6 89.4 70.0 62.8 56.7 53.1 49.4 45.0 2 SW 2 0 20Jan 09 11:42:51 60.0 53.7 71.5 66.1 41.8 7B.1 85.0 61..1 57.3 SS.S 54.2 51.0 46.2 2 SW 2 0 20Jan 09 11:43:51 60.0 62.8 90.5 04.2 42.3 98.6 101.9 66.0 55.B 53.3 51.8 40.7 44.3 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:44:51 60.0 60.4 76.1 74.5 40.2 86.3 89.4 70.2 66.5 62.0 57.3 48.5 42.8 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:45:51 60.0 56.5 74.3 71.8 41.2 26.1 87.5 67.7 58.9 54.7 51.7 47.7 43.5 2 SW 2 0 29Jan 09 11:46:51 60.0 56.2 73.9 76.3 44.7 50.5 95.4 63.6 57.3 53.7 52.4 49.6 46.5 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 11:47:51 60.0 54.5 7Z.3 69.8 40.8 60.5 05.0 66.3 57.3 52.6 49.6 45.2 42,3 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 11:48:51 60.0 54.1 71.9 67.8 40.0 80.5 B5.0 63.5 50,5 55.2 53.1 48.9 44.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:49:51 60.0 56.2 74.0 68.9 39.9 83.3 07.5 66.7 60.8 57.3 54J 49.2 42.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:50:51 GOA 58.6 76.4 73.9 40.0 BB.8 91.0 69.9 63.0 50.3 54.2 4B.1 42.5 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:51:51 60.0 64.0 81.8 77.4 40.4 01.0 02,3 74.3 70.0 65.2 55.5 47.6 42.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:52:51 60.0 58.2 75.9 78.7 40.2 91.1 93.5 60.5 58.2 54.1 51.3 46.7 41.6 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 11:53:51 60.0 55.3 73,1 70.7 40.5 889.3 89.4 65.8 $9.5 55.7 53.1 47.3 42.5 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 1L54:51 60.0 60.3 78.1 76.0 43.7 '88.3 89.4 69.6 65.0 61.6 59.0 53.3 47.1 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 11:55:51 60.0 55.6 73.4 71.0 43.0 64.3 St.0 66.1 56.6 55.1 52.6 48.8 45.3 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 11:56:51 60.0 51.5 69.3 69.9 42.3 63.5 97.5 5B.6 53.4 $1.5 50.2 49.1 45,0 2 SW 2 0 22Jan 09 11:57:51 60.0 51.9 69.7 62.9 43.2 79.3 89.4 58.4 55.4 53.9 52.8 50.1 46.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 11:58:51 60.0 51.1 68.9 60.2 42.0 76.0 91.0 57.2 55.4 54.2 52.6 49.5 44.1 2 SW 2 0 26Jan 09 11:59:51 60.0 47.2 65.0 58.4 40.8 67.7 0.0 53.9 50.9 48.7 47.5 45.3 42.9 2 SW 2 0 -SJan 09 1 ?:00:51 60.0 46.1 63.9 53.0 39.9 64.4 0.0 51.6 49.4 4B.1 47.0 44.9 41.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 12:01:51 60.0 43.2 61.0 4 9. 5 40.2 60.2 0.0 47.5 45.9 44.7 43.9 42.4 40.7 2 SW 2 0 23Jan 09 12:02:51 60.0 45.4 63.2 54.2 39.7 64.6 0.0 51.9 49.7 47.2 46.3 43.8 40.6 2 SW 2 0 ?3Jan 09 12:03:51 GOA 45.1 62.9 58.8 40.2 71.3 0.0 53.7 47.0 45.1 44.0 42.7 41.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 12:04:51 60.0 45.8 63.6 51.0 -00.8 62.7 95.0 50.4 48.8 47.9 46.7 44.0 42.5 2 SLM 2 0 ?8Jan 09 72:05:51 60.0 47.4 65.1 $5.4 41.8 66.7 0.0 52.5 50.9 49.3 47.8 46.2 43.5 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 12:06:51 60.0 46.7 64.4 57.0 40.5 76.8 0.0 53.9 50.6 40.2 46.6 44.4 41.8 2 SL4 2 0 Man 09 12:07:51 60.0 46.4 64.2 60.0 41.3 76.8 B5.0 52.9 49.7 47.5 46.3 44.5 42.3 2 SW 2 0 ?BJan 09 12:00:51 60.0 50.6 68.3 59.4 40.7 71.2 0.0 57.1. 54,8 53,3 51.8 48.2 42.9 2 SW 2 a 28Jan 09 12:09:51 60.0 48.4 66.2 54.8 41.3 66.2 85.0 53.3 51.0 50.6 49,6 47.6 43.3 2 SW 2 0 23Jan 09 12:10:51 60.0 54.4 72.2 69.0 40.4 30.5 05.0 62.8 60.1 57.5 54.0 46.1 41.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 12:11:51 60.0 44.2 62.0 56.0 39.4 67.0 0.0 50.4 41.6 46.2 45.0 41.8 48.2 2 SW 2 0 22Jan 09 12:12:51 60.0 46.1 63.9 54.8 39.9 67.1 0.0 52.8 50.1 46.3 46.5 43.9 40.7 2 SW 2 0 ZSJan 09 12:13:51 60.0 47.0 64.8 54.7 39.8 67.4 0.0 52.3 50.6 49.5 48.4 45.6 41.3 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 12:14:51 60.0 47.0 64.8 54.8 40.3 65.7 0.0 51.0 50.0 48.8 47.9 46.1 43.0 2 SW 2 0 an 09 12:15:51 60.0 52.7 70.5 61,4 42.5 74.1 05.0 59.7 50.1 55.7 52.9 48.9 44.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 12:16:51 60.0 47.3 65.1 56.0 39.8 66.7 0.0 52.3 50.5 40.4 48.6 46.5 41.3 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 12:17:51 60.0 46.4 64.2 58.5 40.4 73.5 09.4 52.3 49.6 48.0 46.9 44.5 41.8 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 12:38:51 60.0 48.1 65.9 55.3 41.5 70.5 09.4 531. 51.5 50.1 49.1 47.1 43.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 12:19:51 60.0 47.9 65.7 55.7 41.4 66.4 0.0 52.8 51.0 49.7 48.8 47.1 43.8 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 12:20:51 60.0 43.2 61.0 55.2 39.4 69.5 0.0 47.6 45.9 44,5 43.3 41.8 40.4 2 Slit 2 0 28Jan 09 12:21:51 60.0 48.4 66.2 60.4 40.4 83.1 05.0 55.7 52.2 50.0 43.6 46.0 42.1 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 12:22:51 60.0 45.4 63.2 54.9 41.7 67.9 0.0 49.8 47.6 46.6 45.9 44.8 42.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 12:23:51 60.0 47.0 64.8 56.9 40_8 70.5 87.5 53.7 50.5 48.6 47.3 45,1 42.6 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 12:24:51 60.0 44.7 62.5 54.6 40.4 65.1 0.0 49.9 47.7 46.3 45.2 43.5 41.3 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 05 12:25:51 60.0 46.3 64,1 53.9 40.6 65.1 0.0 51.0 49.3 48.2 47.2 45.3 42.3 2 SLM 2 0 ZBJan 09 12:26:51 60.0 49.7 67.5 61.3 41.5 76.0 0.0 57.$ 53.4 $1.1 49.9 47.4 43.4 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:27:51 60.0 47.5 65.2 57.9 41.3 68.5 0.0 54.5 51.2 49.0 47.7 45.2 42.4 2 5W 2 0 2BJan 09 12:28:51 60.0 50.7 68.5 59.2 43.6 68.4 0.0 56.7 54.7 52.6 51.3 49.0 46.1 2 SL 2 0 26Jan 09 12:29:51 60.0 49.3 61.0 58.1 41.2 73.6 85.0 55.4 52.5 51.1 50.3 48.0 43.9 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:30:51 60.0 60.7 78.5 12.8 44.6 03.5 91.0 70.5 66.4 63.3 58.6 52.5 48.0 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan O9 12:31:51 60.0 50.8 68.6 59.2 41.2 73.0 0.0 57.3 55.2 53.5 52.0 46.3 44.4 ? SRI 2 0 28Jan 09 12:32:51 60.0 49.6 67.4 64.1 42.3 75.6 89.4 58.2 52.5 50.6 49.4 46.7 43.5 2 SUS 2 0 26Jan 09 12:33:51 60.0 49.1. 66.9 58.6 43.6 73.9 0.0 54.6 51.7 50.4 49.6 40.0 45.4 2 Si 2 0 28Jan 09 12:34:51 60.0 51.1 66.9 66.2 41.6 79.9 05.0 58.6 54.6 52.2 50.7 47,9 43.8 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 12:35:51 60.0 51.3 60.1 61.9 41.4 75.7 0.0 59.8 55.5 53,0 51.2 47.7 43.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:36:51 60.0 60.5 78.2 64.3 56.B 79.2 65.0 62.0 61.5 01.0 60.8 60.9 59.4 2 SLM 2 0 26Jan 09 12:37:51 60.0 60.0 78.6 68.6 56.9 7B.9 05.0 63.0 62.5 61.6 61.0 60.1 $9.3 Z SLM 2 0 26Jan 09 12:38:51 60.0 61.3 79.0 66.7 59.4 77.7 05.0 64.2 62.0 62.0 61.6 60..8 60.0 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:39:51 60.0 61.3 79.0 67.7 59.3 82.7 66.3 65.6 62.9 61.7 61.1 60.7 60.0 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:40:51 60.0 60.7 78.5 68.9 58.3 82.5 05.0 64.3 61.6 60.9 60.8 60.3 59.3 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:41:51 60.0 62.5 80.2 70.1 56.4 83.0 87.5 66.8 64.9 63.6 62.7 61.7 60.3 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:42:51 60.0 61.8 79.6 69.8 45.4 79.6 89.4 65.6 64.3 63.4 62.4 61.3 59,0 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:43:51 60.0 51.3 69.1 62.4 41.6 72.5 0.0 57.3 55.0 53.5 52.3 49.4 44.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:44:51 60.0 47.9 65.7 56,7 42.2 68.5 0.0 53.9 $1.1 49.6 48.5 46.5 43.6 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:45:51 60.0 46.6 64.4 58.5 41.8 70.1 0.0 52.7 49.5 48.1 46.9 45.0 42.7 2 SLM 2 0 26Jan 09 12:46:51 60.0 60.3 78.1 65.0 43.2 77.4 85.0 64.0 63.6 63.1 62.6 61.4 45.6 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 12:47:51 60.0 62.1 79.9 66.3 60.2 76.9 0.0 64.0 63.3 62.9 62.6 62.0 60.6 2 SLY 2 0 28Jan 09 12: 4 B: 51 60.0 62.0 19.0 70,2 60.0 85.3 87.5 66.0 63.9 62.7 62.0 61.3 60.3 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:49:51 60.0 60.6 70.6 71.1 43.8 82.3 85.0 65.8 64.0 62.5 61.8 60.8 46.6 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 12:50:51 60.0 52.5 70.3 63.1 41.2 75.2 B5.0 60.1 56.7 54.7 53.4 49.6 43.5 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 12:51:51 60.0 52.4 10.2 71.3 42.2 86.3 87.5 59.4 55.2 52.9 51,6 48.6 44.2 2 BLM 2 0 20Jan 09 12:52:51 60.0 55.5 73.3 75.5 43.3 92.1 93.5 64.9 55.9 53.0 51.0 47.6 44.4 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 12:53:51 60.0 50.2 760 69.6 42.2 82.9 09.4 67.6 63.6 60.6 57.6 50.4 45.4 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 12:54:51 60.0 52.9 70.7 64.3 42.3 79A 0.0 60.5 57.0 55.0 53.5 49.7 44.7 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:55:51 60.0 57.6 75.3 76.1 42.3 90.5 91.0 65.0 60,3 58.0 55.7 51.3 45.5 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 12:56:51 60.0 60.9 70.7 78.7 41.8 90.6 94.5 72.0 62.8 58.5 56.6 53.0 45.1 2 SRS 2 0 28Jan 09 12:57:51 60.0 53.7 71.5 67,0 41.6 79.8 07.5 62.1 57.7 55.0 53.2 50.2 44.6 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 12:50:51 60.0 55.5 73.3 71.1 43.B 85.5 07.5 64.6 58.9 57.0 55.2 51.4 46.1 2 SUS 2 0 28Jan 09 12:59:51 60.0 64.8 02.5 81.3 44.8 97.8 98.9 75.0 68.6 64,0 50.5 54.2 47.9 2 Sil9 1 0 Man 09 13:00:51 60.0 62.3 00.1 77.5 44.7 92.5 93.5 12.4 65.0 62.7 59.5 52.9 47.3 2 BLS 2 0 2BJan 09 13:01:51 60.0 64.6 82.4 80.3 4$.3 93.5 97.0 75.5 67.7 63.8 61.2 54.6 49.3 2 5L 2 0 28Jan 09 13:02:51 60.0 66.1 03.9 01.2 42.6 95.3 98.3 76.3 71.5 67.0 63.2 54.8 46.4 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 89 13:03:51 60.0 59.5 71.3 78.0 42.3 91.4 94.5 68.0 61.2 57.3 55.0 51.4 45.3 2 BUM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:04:51 60.0 56.3 74.0 68.3 41.2 82.5 85.0 64.9 62.0 50.1 55.4 50.5 44.9 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:05:51 60.0 56.6 74.3 68.3 44.3 82.5 87.5 64.6 61.4 58.8 56.4 52.9 47.0 2 5LM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:06:51 60.0 62.2 79.9 74.6 43.2 90.6 92.3 70.9 68.0 64.3 61.2 55.4 48.6 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 13:07:51 60.0 54.1 71.9 65.3 43.7 76.1 05.0 61.7 58.2 56,7 54.9 50.5 46.4 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 13:08:51 60.0 61.9 79.6 76.2 45.1 89.9 92.3 71.3 66,6 63.0 59.7 56.7 48.8 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:09:51 60.0 64.1 81.6 70.9 62.4 83.1 07.5 65.9 65.2 64.7 64.3 63.7 63.1 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:10:51 60.0 62.7 60.5 71.5 52.2 84.3 92.3 66.2 64.7 63.9 63.4 62.4 58.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:11:51 60.0 59.9 77.7 76.3 41.7 91.3 93.5 71.4 61,2 57,3 55.6 53.2 45.1 2 SLM 2 0 28JOn 09 13:12:51 60.0 64.2 01.9 79.5 44.9 93.9 95.4 75.9 67.5 60.5 57.4 53.3 48.5 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:13:51 60.0 61.7 79.5 77.6 42.0 91.8 93.5 74.2 GO.9 57.7 55.7 50.4 44.3 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:14:51 60.0 60.9 78.6 71.2 46.5 03.6 89,4 68.0 63.9 62.3 61.0 50.9 56.5 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:15:51 60.0 58.2 76.0 69.4 53.9 83.1 05.0 64.9 GO.0 50.8 57.9 56.B 54,7 2 Si 2 0 28Jan 09 13:16:51 60.0 62.4 60.1 78.7 54.9 92.1 96.3 73.1 62.2 60.4 59.4 $8.1 55.8 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 13:11:51 60.0 60.0 17.8 70.1 55.1 82.4 91.0 67.7 64.0 60.4 59.2 57.7 56.0 2 SI 2 0 Man 09 13:18:51 60.0 60.9 78.6 68.6 $6.1 83.0 37.5 66.3 63.9 62.6 61.6 59.6 $6.8 2 BUM 2 0 2BJan 09 13:19:51 60.0 60.3 78.1 69.5 55.2 81.4 96.3 67.1 63.9 61.7 60.3 50.2 56.2 2 SUM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:20:51 60.0 62.3 80.1 82.5 42.5 94.8 101.5 68.2 62.9 61.1 59.7 57.1 45.8 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:21:51 60.0 62.4 80.1 75.7 41.9 90.1 93.5 73.0 67.4 62.1 59.4 54.6 47.5 2 SLM ? 0 29Jan 09 13:22:51 60.0 56.3 74.0 68.3 43.7 61.1 85.0 65.1 60.3 57,8 56.1 52.5 46.4 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 13:23:51 60.0 53.0 71,7 63.7 42.1 77.4 85.0 62.0 50.5 56.1 54.1 50.6 45.0 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 13:24:51 60.0 57.4 75.2 14.6 43.2 88.1 91.0 68.2 59.2 55.4 53.0 49.9 46.1 2 SLM 2 0 26Jan 09 13:25:51 60.0 66.5 64.3 80.6 44.6 93.8 98.9 71.2 71.8 61.3 63.0 56.3 48.6 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 13:26:51 60.0 64.7 82.5 19.1 43.1 92.4 97.7 76.0 71.3 50.1 54.4 50.0 45.4 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:27:51 60.0 61.3 79.1 76.7 42,1 39.5 93.5 72.1 65.3 60.1 56.6 50.1 44.5 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:28:51 60.0 64.2 61.9 01.4 41.2 93.9 98.3 72.7 66.8 63.1 58.7 52.4 44.7 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13429:51 60.0 59.0 76.7 74.0 42.1 86.5 69.4 70.2 62.3 58.2 55.6 51.6 46.5 2 5R1 2 0 26Jan 09 13:30:51 60.0 60.8 78.6 79.6 41.4 92.3 95.4 68.0 62.3 59.7 57.5 53.5 46.5 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:31:51 60.0 59.7 77.5 74.1 43.5 89.9 89.4 70.2 64.2 60.6 58.4 52.5 46.9 2 Sl 2 0 28Jan 09 13:32:51 60.0 60.3 7B.1 77.9 43.9 91.8 92.3 68.5 64.2 61.4 59.3 55.7 48.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:33:51 60.0 55.9 73.7 73.2 42.0 85.0 89.4 63.6 59.0 56.9 54.6 51.0 45.1 2 SW 2 0 29Jan 09 13:34:51 60.0 56.2 74.0 60.2 44.7 81.1 89.4 64.1 60.4 $8.4 56.6 52.6 47.4 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:35:51 60.0 $7.3 75.1 74.2 41.4 87.1 89.4 66.9 61.0 57.3 54.8 50.5 45.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:36:51 60.0 60.2 78.0 77.0 43.6 89.8 96.3 6BA 62.4 59.6 57.5 54.1 48.6 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 13:37:51 60.0 53.4 71.1 66.3 42.7 79.6 87.5 61,6 57.8 55.1 53,1 49.3 45.6 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:38:51 60.0 57.5 75.3 73.2 42.7 B8.6 89.4 66.4 62.2 58.5 55.9 51.9 45.7 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 13:39:51 60.0 56.0 73.B 72.4 42.0 06.2 89.4 62.9 50.9 57.2 55.5 52.0 46.0 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 13:40:51 60.0 60.5 78.3 74.0 •12.6 87.2 92.3 71.5 66.2 59A 55.5 50.3 45.2 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:41:51 60.0 53.9 71.7 66.4 41.6 79.6 85.0 61.9 58.1 55,8 54.3 51.1 45.7 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 13:42:51 60.0 57.5 75.3 72.8 92,1 B8.7 89.4 66.5 61.6 57.9 55.8 52.3 47.5 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:43:51 60.0 59.5 77.3 76.8 42.9 90.2 97.7 67.3 62.8 60.8 58.0 54.5 47.5 2 SLM 2 0 26Jan 09 13:44:51 60.0 55.5 73.3 66.8 42.5 79.7 85.0 62.9 59.7 57.9 56.6 52.7 46.$ 2 SRI 2 0 28Jan 09 13:45:51 60.0 61.9 79.7 77.0 41.6 91.0 93.5 71.6 66.9 62.9 59.9 55.9 47.2 2 SRS 2 0 28Jan 09 13:46:51 60.0 59.8 77.6 73.5 43.1 86,0 88.5 10.0 64.3 61.4 59.0 53.2 45.5 2 BLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:47:51 60.0 63.3 81.0 75.5 42.0 89.4 92.3 73,1 69.2 64.2 60.1 55.6 41.9 2 SIN 2 0 28Jan 09 13:48:51 60.0 59.6 77.4 71.1 44.6 86.2 89.4 69.2 64.7 61.4 59.0 54.5 48.2 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 13:49:51 60.0 62.6 80.4 79.3 43.1 93.4 97.7 73.7 65.9 60,9 58.9 54.3 49.0 2 St 2 0 28Jan 09 13:50:51 60.0 62.2 79.9 02.8 44.4 95.3 97.7 71.7 61,3 59.3 56.7 51.9 47.0 2 SLM 2 0 23Jan 09 13:51:51 60.0 56.4 74.2 72.3 43.0 05.8 87.5 64.8 60.5 57.6 55.6 51.4 46.6 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:52:51 60.0 54.1 71.9 64.3 44.1 78.3 65.0 60.7 50.6 56.0 54.6 52.1 48.1 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:53:51 60.0 59.1 76.9 73.6 43.0 91.3 91.0 60.9 63.3 59.9 56.6 52.2 45.6 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 13:54:51 60.0 50.0 75.0 72.5 42.4 87.3 89.4 60.4 62.2 57.5 55.6 52.1 46.0 2 S:N 2 0 29Jan 09 13:55:51 60.0 64.0 91.8 80.3 43.0 94.0 96.3 75.3 63.9 61.4 56.6 51.3 46.4 2 5321 2 0 Man 09 13:56:51 60.0 67.3 05.1 81.6 41.8 97.5 100,6 76.5 73.5 65.9 59.8 53.1 45.0 2 S1 2 0 2BJan 09 13:57:51 60.0 64.8 82.6 78.9 43.8 95.3 97.7 74,7 71.0 65.3 60.6 57.2 48.4 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 13:50:51 60.0 60.6 78.4 75.0 41.4 51.8 94.5 71.9 66.1 59.5 55.2 49.1 43.0 2 SIN 2 0 Man 09 13:59:51 60.0 58.3 76.0 73.4 42.4 33.3 94.5 69.5 62.0 56.3 53.5 50.0 45.1 2 Si 2 0 2BJan 09 14:00:51 60.0 57.7 75.5 74.6 44.9 94.3 99,5 68.4 59.9 55.8 54.5 51.1 46.7 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 14:01:51 60.0 55.2 73,0 70.4 44.3 86.7 09.4 65.7 58.0 54.6 52.4 49.6 46.4 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 14:02:51 60.0 54.6 72.4 69.4 43.5 09.3 09,4 62.9 50,0 56.3 53.7 49.6 45.1 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 14:03:51 60.0 56.7 74.5 72.5 43.1 86.6 91.0 67.6 61.6 54.7 51.7 47.8 44.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:04:51 60.0 57,8 75.6 72.1 44.0 86.3 09.4 68.1 63.2 56.0 54.0 49.9 46.6 2 SW 2 0 29Jan 09 14:05:51 60.0 $9.0 77,6 74.8 48.0 08.4 92.3 67.0 64.7 60.9 50.7 55.9 52.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:06:51 60.0 55.7 73.5 73.5 43.5 89.3 91.0 65.3 58.0 55.5 53.5 51.1 47.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:07:51 60.0 61.0 78.0 83.3 42.4 98.3 98.9 64.8 56.7 54.9 53.3 40,4 43.9 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 14:00:51 60.0 55,4 73.2 69.6 42.0 02.5 65.0 66.4 58.0 56.0 54.0 50.Z 46.3 7 SW 2 0 20J. 09 14:09:51 60.0 59.5 77.3 76.3 42.6 90.7 93.5 10.5 63.4 56.4 53.4 49.0 44.6 2 5W 2 0 28Jan 09 14:10:51 60.0 58.6 76.3 77.5 42.6 89.0 92.3 67.7 60.6 57.2 55.2 50.8 45.9 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 14:11:51 60.0 53.9 11.6 65.1 43.5 76.4 05.0 61.2 58.9 56.B 54.0 50.2 46.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:12:51 60.0 53.6 71.4 64.4 41.5 76.6 94.5 60.6 50.4 56.3 53.8 50.4 46.0 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 14:13:51 60.0 56.2 74.0 74.3 40.9 97.4 87.5 65.3 58.9 $5.8 53.5 49.9 45.0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:14:51 60.0 53.5 71.3 67.8 40.9 82.5 05.0 61.4 56.0 $5.2 53.0 49.9 45.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:15:51 60.0 62.1 79.9 75.8 42.5 80.9 93.5 73.2 67.0 62.3 59.1 52.2 45.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:16:51 60.0 58.1 75.8 74.4 43.8 87.9 91.0 66.3 62.1 $9.3 57.1 52.8 47.0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:17:51 60.0 54.5 72,2 67.7 41.4 05.8 87.5 62.9 59.1 56.6 54.1 $0.1 45.6 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:10:51 60.0 64,4 82.2 85.5 39.5 98.1 101.0 70.1 59.8 57.0 54.6 50.0 43.2 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 14:19:51 60.0 53.6 73.4 68.5 42.2 78.6 85.0 63.3 60.7 50.0 SS.9 51.0 46.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:20:31 60.0 $7.5 75.3 70.8 44.3 83.2 B9.4 67.2 62.1 50.7 56.1 52.0 47.1 2 SW 2 0 ZBJan 09 14:21:51 60.0 $9.2 77.0 77.0 44.2 91.1 02.3 66.7 62.3 57.6 55.0 51.0 47.3 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:22:51 60.0 59.3 77.0 74.4 40.4 99.6 91.0 70.1 63.0 58.9 55.0 50.2 43.6 2 SW 2 9 28Jan 09 14:23:52 60,0 63.7 81.5 77.4 42.4 91.6 95.4 72.9 68.0 65.9 63,3 56.7 45.5 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 14:24:51 60.0 59.6 71.4 73.7 42.7 87.4 89.4 70.8 63.0 59.5 57.8 52.8 46.0 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 14:25:51 60.0 50.4 76.2 72.4 42.8 04.3 87.5 68.1 62.0 $9.9 57.1 53.2 45.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:26:51 60.0 50.9 76.6 72.5 40.8 87.2 91.0 69.0 64.4 59.6 56.2 51.2 44.4 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 14:27:51 60.0 59.7 77.5 78.7 41.8 92.2 95.4 69.8 63.4 57.6 54.1 49.4 44.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:28:51 60.0 66.1 03.0 79.2 44.4 92.7 95.4 76.6 72.6 65.5 60.7 55.3 49.2 2 SW 3 0 2BJan 09 14:29:51 60.0 64.7 82.5 78.0 41.2 92.2 96.3 75.9 70.1 64.6 61.0 53.3 47.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:30:51 60.0 57.6 75.4 72.5 41.4 85.1 09.4 67.1 61.7 50.7 56.7 $1.3 44.0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:31:51 60.0 60.5 78.3 74.8 42.8 86.8 90.2 70.9 65.1 61.2 50.1 52.0 46.5 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:32:51 60.0 59.6 76.3 72.0 40.9 84.7 89.4 69.1 63.6 59.3 55.4 50.1 44.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:33:51 60.0 61.4 79.2 77.8 40.0 92.6 97.0 72.7 66.3 59.4 55.4 49.6 42.5 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:34:51 60.0 60.9 78.7 74.3 42.3 80.2 89.4 72.3 65.2 59.6 58.0 52.1 46.0 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 14:35:51 60.0 $8.0 75.7 72.3 41.0 85.3 89.4 60.1 63.6 57.9 54.2 49.4 44.8 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 14:36:51 60.0 61.7 79.5 77.0 41.3 90.4 93.5 72.4 65.9 60.7 59.0 52,0 44.0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:37:51 60.0 58.2 76.0 75.4 43.0 89.9 91.0 66.9 61.1 56.2 56.9 52.8 46.4 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 14:38:51 60.0 58.9 76.7 74.8 42.0 87.3 91.0 69.0 62.9 59,6 $7.3 52.4 46.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:39:51 60.0 59.5 77.3 74.0 42.2 86.1 07.5 71.7 62.9 50.1 55.0 51.7 46.0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:40:51 60.0 57.2 75.0 74.4 47.3 07.6 89.4 65.4 59.5 57.5 55.9 52.4 49.0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:41:51 60.0 60.5 79.3 75.5 40.0 89.4 89.4 71,4 64.2 59.6 56.2 54.5 49.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:42:51 60.0 $6.7 74.5 70.4 47.7 04.2 99.4 65.6 61.0 $7.7 55.7 52.3 48.9 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:43:51 60.0 59.3 77,1 74.9 47.0 88.9 93.5 11.2 60.1 56.4 54.5 51.2 40.4 2 SW 2 0 2BJan 09 14:44:51 60.0 62.6 90.4 75.5 48.4 88.2 92.3 72.6 69.2 63.4 50.1 53.3 49.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:45:51 60.0 58.6 76.3 75.7 47.9 86.9 92.3 70.4 59.3 56.3 54.6 52.0 49.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:46:51 60.0 60.1 77.9 76.9 49.4 90.4 92.3 68.5 62.7 58.6 56.1 52.6 50.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:47:51 60.0 60.9 78.7 80.4 47.9 92.6 90.9 72.6 60.0 55.9 54.0 51.5 49.0 2 SW 2 0 261an 09 14:48 :51 60.0 55.5 73.3 66.8 97.4 79.4 65.0 64.1 60.6 56.B 54.5 51.5 40.6 2 5W 2 0 28Jan 09 14:49:51 40.0 59.4 77.1 76.5 47.7 93.1 94.5 69.3 63.0 59.1 55.9 52.4 49.2 2 SLM 2 0 2BJan 09 14:50:51 60.0 61.9 79.7 73.2 41.8 86.8 89.4 11.2 66.5 64.9 56.8 51.7 49.0 2 SLM 2 0 Man 09 14:51:51 60.0 62.5 80.3 74.7 47.9 87.1 89.4 13.3 69.0 63.5 $9.1 51.1 48.7 2 SLM 2 0 28Jan 09 14:52:51 60.0 65.0 82.8 76.2 41.8 88.3 89.4 73.2 70.4 69.4 67.0 54.0 49.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:53:51 60.0 61.0 76.0 73.8 47.6 87.8 89.4 12.0 65.1 59.3 56.7 52.3 49.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:54:51 60.0 $4.7 72,5 74,1 48.9 86.1 99.4 58.0 55.6 53.9 52.7 51.4 49.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:55:51 60.0 60.3 78.1 13.3 40.1 05.6 09.4 71.0 64.3 59.6 56.6 52.3 49.4 2 SW 2 0 29Jan 09 14:56:51 60,0 65.1 02.9 77.3 48.2 99.9 93.5 76.7 69.8 64.4 59.1 54.0 49.6 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:57:51 60.0 60.6 86.4 83.7 48.2 101.0 101.0 79.2 74.6 63.9 56.4 53.3 49.6 2 8W 2 0 28Jan 09 14:58:51 60.0 59.3 77.1 73.9 49.6 98.6 89.4 70.0 62.2 $7.8 55.8 52.9 49.9 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 14:59:51 60.0 57.6 75.4 75.7 47.2 88.4 91.0 66.7 59.5 56.5 54.6 51.3 49.0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:00:51 60.0 57.6 75.4 71.4 43.3 83.9 87.5 67.8 60.4 57.4 55.9 52.9 47.3 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:01:51 60.0 65.7 83.5 80.3 40.9 95.3 90.9 76.9 70.5 65.2 60.9 53.0 44.5 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:02:51 60.0 52.9 10.6 70.2 41.4 84.7 91.0 61.5 55.5 53.0 51.0 40.0 44.4 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:03:51 60.0 62.1 79.9 76.9 42.0 92.6 94.5 73.2 67.0 61.1 57.6 51.3 45.1 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 15:04:51 60.0 57.3 75.1 72.9 4Z.1 05.4 07.5 66.6 58.0 55.4 52.0 48.9 45.5 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 L5: 05:51 60.0 56.1 73.9 14.4 41.8 97.3 93.5 61.9 59.5 56.7 54.2 50.2 43.9 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:06:51 60.0 52.5 70.3 62.4 42.7 02.6 87.5 58.9 51.5 $5.4 32.0 49.8 44.6 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 15:07:51 60.0 61.4 19.2 01.3 44.2 102.1 101.9 70.8 64.0 60.0 57.4 54.2 40.7 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 15:08:51 60.0 60.7 79.5 79,6 45.1 94.1 93.5 70.2 62.7 59.3 56.9 53,5 47.9 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:09:51 60.0 56.3 74.1 14.9 41.6 87.2 92.3 67.2 $6.4 53.2 52.0 49.3 44.0 2 5W 2 0 28Jan 09 15:10:51 60.0 53.7 71.5 66.9 43.7 79.8 85.0 61.3 $8.4 $6.1 $3.8 $0.0 45.9 2 5W 2 0 29Jan 09 15:11:51 60.0 55.9 73.7 72.7 43.9 85.2 91.0 65.4 50.3 55.9 54.3 51.0 45.6 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 15:12:51 60.0 $3.7 71,5 71.2 41.6 85.2 87.5 62.0 55.7 53.0 511 48.4 44.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:13:51 60.0 56.3 14,1 71.2 44.6 85.4 99.4 66.0 60.6 56.3 53.0 50.7 47.6 2 SW 2 0 ZBJan 09 15:14:51 60.0 55.0 72.8 72.6 43.3 88.7 89.4 63.7 58.0 $4.3 52.4 49.7 46.4 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 15:15:51 60.0 61.0 70.8 73.6 45.1 66.1 89.4 70.3 67.1 63.5 56.6 $2.5 47.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:16:51 60.0 56.7 14.5 72.1 43.2 86.1 873 67.7 59.5 55.2 53.1 50.3 45.4 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 15:17:51 60.0 54.9 72.7 71.7 42.4 62.9 87.5 64_0 57.0 52.9 51.6 49.3 44.7 2 SW 2 0 29Jan 09 L5:18:51 60.0 60.6 78.4 79.L 42.6 92.7 95.4 71.7 60.3 55,7 53.5 50.0 46.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jm 09 15:19:51 60.0 61.4 19.1 82.1 42.3 95.7 97.7 10.0 61.4 56.5 54.3 49.4 45.3 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 15:20:51 60.0 49.2 67.0 62.1 42.3 76.3 85.0 55.2 51.9 50.6 49.7 47.5 44.2 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:21:51 60.0 56.6 76.4 80.2 42.2 91.5 99.5 64.8 56.6 $3.5 51.6 49.1 45.0 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 13:22:51 60.0 50.9 60.6 64.6 42.4 78.0 05.0 59.0 53.8 $2.3 51.1 48.9 45.1 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:23:51 60.0 $1.0 69.6 67.3 43.3 82.8 92.3 57.5 54.1 52.7 51.0 $0.1 46.1 2 5W 2 0 20Jan 09 15:24:51 60.0 49.4 67.1 55.8 42.3 fi .2 92.3 54.4 52.1 51.4 50.5 48.4 44.7 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:25:51 60.0 49.5 67.3 57.8 41.3 70.5 0.0 54.5 52.5 51.5 50.6 48.7 44.5 2 SW 2 0 28Jan 09 15:26:51 60.0 53.7 71.5 71.0 43.1 93.7 96.3 60.1 $6.3 54.9 53.7 50.0 47.0 2 SW 2 0 Man 09 15:27:51 49.2 $0.0 75.6 72.7 44.1 96.8 97.7 69.2 62.8 $9.3 $6.6 52.0 47.6 t'It Z'EL 6'EL "It 8 I 1 S S'26 6'68 8'89 1 I Z'I6 1 E 0'09 TE`ZO'60 60 ueCBZ 5 HIS F 0' CL S' CL E'OL L'tL 0-SL t'9L 5-COT S'Z6 9'OL 6 I 1'16 9'EL 0'09 IE :10:60 60 uePGZ 6 HIS I I'EL t'VL O'SL 6'SL VIE, L'118 9'96 9.96 t'ZL V'IS I'E6 9'SL 0'09 iC :00 :60 60 ueP8Z I H19 V I 9 C'19 9 I C -09 L'TL E 6 9'S6 Z'96 1'1t 6'83 3'IB 0'49 0'09 TE:65 °80 60 ueP8Z 6 H98 6 L'9t E'61 L'IS 0'6S O'ER L'BE S86 8'86 9 S 1'SS C63 6'99 0'09 IE ;BS ;80 60 ueP8Z t ME t 6'OS Z' CL 8'EL O -V4 4 P I'LL 9 COT 9'96 I'LI I'19 6'69 Z'ZL 0'09 TC : IS: 80 60 uenBZ t M9 t 5'65 9 I C'SL 9-GL 8'56 0'9L VIE E'68 1'S' C'9L t'E6 L'EL 0 "09 iC:95 °90 60 ueCBZ t MS t 6'65 $'FL 1'SL 8'SL F'ed t'EB L -66 1'001 L'IS 6'$3 0'E6 2'SL 0'09 iC:55:90 60 ueP8Z V MS t CEL VIE t'SL 9 R 6'54 6 L 5'86 I'Z6 Z'CL 9'09 9'Z6 9'FL 0'09 LC : IS: 80 60 BDSE I M8 t C'60 Z'6E C' it L'1L S'SL S'08 6 t 8'56 L'9t Z'CB 8'68 I'Et 0'09 IT: CS: 80 60 ueP8Z t Me t 0'81 1'V5 t'E9 6'69 Z'SL I 6 Z'L6 5'98' E'96 6'Z9 0'90 1'69 0'09 It: ZS :90 60 ueP8Z 5 III F 0'66 C'9S 8'09 9't9 I'EL $'311 1'96 V'S6 6 S I'Z9 E'S9 5'L9 0'09 SCRS :90 60 cee92 I MS I 5'66 9'ES 6'IS 0'19 8'69 I "08 1'66 0'L6 9'Lt t'E9 9'99 6'119 0'09 it OS: 00 60 ueCBZ 1, MS I Z'61 O'CS L'SS I'IS 0'19 C'18 T'901 9'SOT Z'LE 1'06 C'LB 5'69 0'09 TE: 60:80 60 ueP8Z t MB t E'19 0'89 6'69 C'OL 6'OL 6'TL Z 1 c 1 2'86 L'BE I'SB L'L9 0'09 it: 8 V: 80 60 ueP8Z V ME V L'L9 Z'69 6'69 VOL VOL L' It 9'68 0'68 0'99 6 Z I'LB C'69 0'09 IT: 0: ED 60 ue ^8Z F MS t 5'6t t'SS t'I9 9'89 6'69 6 ZL CE6 Z'Z6 E'0 VIE C'Z8 9'69 0'09 iE :9I :eO 60 ue ^9Z V ME t L'80 S' ES 8 C 9'09 I "S9 U'1t I CC S'T6 C9I 0'811 5'09 9'Z9 0'09 IT: S1: 80 60 ueP8Z I MB I E'OS I'VS Z'65 Z'i9 S'SO 9 S Z'L6 6'16 9'L1 9'611 C'19 S'E9 0'09 it: 61 :00 60 uenBZ t MS I 0'65 L'19 5'55 S'9S Z'09 L'99 5'96 0'116 I'Lt I'BE S'9L I'6S 0'09 TE °E5°80 60 ueP8Z I MB 6 6'61, Z'SS 9'Z9 0'89 6 Z 8'9L Z'L6 5'26 0'91 L'66 C'OB 9'99 0'09 EC :21 :90 60 ueP9Z 0 ME t 9'61, S'65 L'99 Ib1 6'E[ I'LL 1'96 CE6 C'LI Z'ZB 6'58 1'89 0'09 TE:T1:00 60 ueP8Z I MS V 9'ZS 6'95 9'19 VCR Z -69 6 ZL 6'Co V'Z6 8'61 8'1111 1'LB 9'E9 0'09 it: 00: 80 60 ueP8Z I MS t 0'25 S'95 9'09 EZ9 L'89 t'SL 1'501 8'96 0'60 4'Z9 0'28 0'S9 0'09 it: 6£ :EO 60 ueP9Z 1 ME F ["59 11'99 L'19 VOL C1L S'SL Z' IS S'26 5'05 B'SL 9'98 6'69 0'09 TE: BE °BO 68 ueP8Z t MB V C -99 I'OL 5'IL e'TL S'ZL 9'SL L'16 8'E6 B'99 V'6L 1'33 C-OL 0'09 IS: IE °00 60 ueCBZ V MS t 2'BE C'II I'll, I'ZL 6 I 9'14 1 E6 6'06 9'69 VIE t'68 I'll. 0'09 IS: 9C :90 60 ueP8Z V MS F S'ZS 9'LS 0'19 6'89 VOL 2'ZL 525 0'06 E'OS 8'911 C'ZB 9'19 0'09 iE:SE:80 60 uenBZ I MB t 0'05 1 -BS 8'99 6 O L'It 0'24 1'66 L'56 8'66 L'60 9'99 0'69 0'09 It: IT: 90 60 uePaZ 0 MB I Z ZS E'85 1'19 1'69 Z'It 1 '44 9'56 0'26 L'L1 S'6L 1'S8 9'119 0'09 it: cc: BO 60 e-rez I MS t 8'SS 0'19 9'99 L' It 0'tL SOt ' 66 C'001 S'9V 8'19 L'9B 0'69 0'09 IE: ZC °30 60 ueP3Z 5 MS F 0'15 9 "65 1 'Z9 6'00 0'69 0'211 9'69 0'06 E'BE L'BE S'18 L'E9 0'09 It:I C :80 60 uePuZ I MS I S'ZS Z'89 8'C9 E -99 L'OL Z'SL 6'EOT L 10 5'115 9'68 6'EB Z'99 0'09 It: OE: 90 60 ueCBZ 0 VMS V 0'05 1'IS 0'65 L'09 0'811 6 B 9'191 O'ZOI 5'9t E'98 8'99 1'69 0'09 ZE:6Z :80 60 ueP3Z 0 MS I 6'95 2'69 O'IL 0' CL 0'9L 5'66 9'56 6'Z6 t't5 6'08 E'69 S'IL 0'09 it B2: 60 00 uenBZ 0 VMS V E'IS 0'69 6 O 6 I 5'611 6 L CE6 B'E6 0'61 1'09 1'93 COL 0'09 it LE: 80 60 ue^'aZ I MS t I'SS I'65 S'Z9 Z -99 VOL Vat SE6 E'06 0' ES 6'94 O'E8 E'59 0'09 TC :92 :90 60 uenBZ V MS V C IS Z'19 Z'OL 9 Z 6 I 1'94 L'E6 Z'E6 0'91 C'6L 8'99 0'69 0'09 it SZ: 80 60 ueP8Z 0 MS 0 8'61 1 I 1'65 0'09 6'09 L IS 6 1'98 C L0 S'CL 0'91. Z'85 0'09 IS it: go 60 ueP3Z t MB t E'9V 1'CS 6'9S V'19 6'99 6'IL Z'16 1'06 0'91 Z "It 9'6L 1'19 0'09 TE: C2: 00 60 ueCBZ 5 Ills t E'0S L'65 0'69 Z'ZL Z' It 1'LL L'E6 E'V6 Z'81 V'18 1'90 L'89 0'09 TE QZ: 80 60 ueP8Z t ME F 9'09 1'95 0'59 VOL B'VL I'BL L'E6 9 E L'LI V'IS 6'58 2'89 0'09 TEmI2 :9O 60 ueP8Z 1 ME 1 I III 1'15 1. BE 0'29 L'OL 1'94 CE6 6'06 Z'LI L' at I'Z9 6'V9 0'09 IE : OR: 80 60 uu SZ t MS V 5'61 Z'65 6'99 V'69 9' It 6'EL I'E6 6'06 L-L!, 0'91. L'ES 6'59 0'09 1E :61:Be 60 ueP8Z F MS V t'OS 1'65 9'E9 6'69 9'ZL I'St L'16 0'Z6 L'LF Z'9L 0 I Z'99 0'09 LC:BI :Bo 60 ueP8Z V MB V 0'1S 8'69 B'ZL 6'EL 6'511 O'SL 6'L6 6'E6 0'LF Z'I9 Z'68 1'IL 0'09 IC:LP90 60 ueP8Z t M18 F 1'09 2'05 2'69 Z'It V'EL t'94 9'S6 6 16 6'Lt 1'6L 9'58 9'L9 0'09 TE ^91:80 60 ueP8Z F H18 t 1'81 9'CS E'09 L'S9 Z'OL 6'9L S'86 S'S6 L'9I 8'18 9 P 8'99 0'09 ICST:80 60 ueCBZ V HIS V 9 I 9'09 Z'IL C'SL C'08 L'ES 8'201 0'101 L'LI S'88 0'Z6 E'VL 0'09 IC :11:80 60 ueC8Z t M8 I 9 I 0'09 E'89 I'ZL L'SL L'48 8'COT Z'EDT 1. 41 0'99 1'68 9 I 0'09 TC :EP90 60 ueP8Z 1 MS V Z "OO E 1 8 4 CIt 1'51 6'6L 8'ZOT 9'L6 S 9 S'ES 9 L 8'69 0'09 IE :ZPBO 60 ueP8Z I WIB V 8'ZS O'E9 9'69 9'ZL 5'6L Vie C'901 L'COT L'61 L'06 Z'Z6 6 I 0'09 ICT1:80 60 ueCBZ V WIS V V'Z5 1'19 0 I Z'O6 4'84 8'28 S'90T 5'ZOT 1'81 0'LB 9'06 9 Z 0'09 TC :OT:8O 60 ueCBZ I HIB V L'IS 1'09 1'89 9'TL 6 C L'OB 9'TOT t'T01 E'BI S'E8 L' L6 6'69 0'09 LE :60 :80 60 ueP8Z 1 ME t 0' CS 6'09 C'L9 9'04 6 E Z'08 L'66 5'86 1 a L'98 6'L6 I'OL 0'09 It! 00:80 60 ueCBZ 1 HIS V C'15 1'09 0'89 Z'[6 L' It '0'03 L'66 1'06 L'86 Z'SO 1'69 C' It 0'09 IT: to :DO 60 ue08Z V MB V 6'ES L'09 9'69 t'ZL O'9L 1'03 Z'L6 VIE 0'6t S'E8 1'98 9'OL 0'09 TE: 90 :80 60 ueP8Z V Ills 1 L'09 5'65 9'49 9 Z I'SL L'9L L'66 L'96 Z 6 O'EB C'LB 5'69 0'09 IE: so: so 60 ueCBZ t HIS V VIE 6'19 S'OL 6'CL 8'9L L 6 6 L Z'96 E'81 L'IT 6'88 T'IL 0'09 LC :I0�80 60 ueP8Z I HIS V T-OG 9-LS L -19 1 99 6'69 0-SL t'96 Z'E6 6 I 1'18 Z'EB V'99 0'09 IE :EO :9O 60 ueP9Z t MS I 9'6V 6'55 V'19 9 9 1'LL 9'EL 9'TOT S'86 1 I 1'6L 1'28 V'V9 0'09 LC :20:80 60 ueP9Z t MS 1 9'05 1 I 9 Z 9 I L'It 11'811 V'96 0'96 t'05 Z'ES S'98 VOL 0'09 TG IO w00 60 ueCBZ 1 HIS 0 Z'OS 9'C9 8'45 6'09 9'69 Z'08 6'COT 6'201 V'Lt 1'98 9'99 0'119 0'09 TE: 00: 90 60 ueC8Z V MS V CIS V'65 L'S9 0'IL 8'9L 6'08 1'96 0'96 C'61 E'Z3 Z'BB I'OL 0'09 TE :69: to 60 ueP9Z 1 1MS I S'OS Z'89 5'S9 C 09 9'ZL i'6L 6'L6 0'66 8 8 O'ES 1 99 E'89 0'09 TE SS: to 60 uenBZ V 1M9 0 Z'IS 9 R PEE S'SL 9 I 9'6L Z'to L'L6 0'6V L ZB 9'68 6'iL 0'09 It LS: to 60 uenBZ 0 VHS 0 6'6V 1'99 L'69 L'S9 0 S 0'28 L 00 L'to 8'90 1'09 8'69 VOL 0'09 TC : OR: 110 60 veC6Z V MS 5 CIS 5'19 1'V( 3'116 Z'OE 6'Ze 1'66 Z'86 Z'85 0'98 8'16 T'OL 0'09 IC ° SS: 110 60 ueCBZ t M8 1 8'65 9'SS C'S9 6'IL 6'LL 7 'T9 L'66 Z'L6 L'LO E't8 6'88 I'IL 0'09 It IS 10 60 ueC8Z t MS t S -19 9'9S 0'6S 1'E9 L'OL C'00 S 8 Z'L6 C'65 1'53 C'93 5'89 0'09 IC :CS :LO 60 ueCBZ 1 MS I VCS 1'65 L'59 E'69 Z'SL 0'08 6'to O'L6 L'6t 0'18 ["L9 S'69 0'09 IE 4S =110 60 ueP8Z 0 TITS V E'05 6'SS Pis I' t9 I'ZL Z'Z9 1'66 C'66 0'61 S -10 0'68 Z'69 0'09 TE -IS: to 60 ueP8Z V M8 5 8'ZS E-09 E'OL 9'IL 9'56 0'18 L'66 L'66 I'61 6'13 9'88 6'OL 0'09 It OS: ED 60 --PS- I ME I I'S5 0'OL L'ZL 9'IL T'LL 6 "08 Z'L6 3 S S'OS J, 'ES Z'06 1'ZL 0'09 TI:66 :10 60 ueP6Z 0 M8 V L' -IS V'LS 9'Z9 Z'99 Z'ZL 9'9L S'86 5'65 E Z8 E'96 9'L9 0'09 IC:66 :118 60 ueP8Z V ME I 9'OS 6'SS L'09 6'19 6'89 9'SL 6'16 C'Z6 C'6V Z'6L E'ZB 9'19 0'09 TE:66 :L0 60 ueCBZ V ME 1 6'19 0-LS 6'19 9'59 YT11 Z 91 6'116 C'96 t'OS 0'29 1'98 CL9 0'09 TE; 91:to 60 ueP8Z F ME I C' is 9 "IS C'LS 9'65 C'I9 1'99 L'L9 L'LB 8'80 O'IL 1"91 0'65 0'09 11E ED: ED 60 uenBZ I IMS 0 I'ZS C"LS 0'Z9 Z'S9 VOL 1'94 4'IS I '6 9 6 L'SL 0'ES Z'SO 0'09 IE :IV :LO 60 ueP3Z 5 Me t 0 E E'65 2'09 6'69 B'14 2'66 L'66 Z'TOT 0'05 CE9 9'08 6'69 0'09 IC :E1 :48 60 ueP3Z I MS 0 t'TS 6'LS 1'99 VOL 6'16 E'EL L'66 9'is Z -61 9'08 C98 S'89 0'09 IT: at: 110 60 ueC8Z 0 ME V S'05 6'S9 L'09 Z' ED O'L9 S It 1'66 8'66 0'61 C'BE 9'18 6'E9 8'09 IC: II :LO 60 REM 5 MS I 0'15 6.99 S'Z9 6'19 I'OL E'1L 9'96 £'Z6 8 a Z "LL EZ8 5'09 8'09 IE +OS :LO 60 ueP8Z I MS F L'OS C ES 6'95 5'09 11'69 Sat 4'E6 SE6 5'61 Z' at L'TO 6'E9 0'09 IT: BE °LO 60 ueP8Z 0 MS 0 2'05 S'E5 9'LS L'65 6'29 L'89 CE6 9'69 Vat t'Zt 9'91. 9'95 0'09 IE � BE: to 60 ueC8Z 0 ins I C'OS 9'TS 0'65 6'SS 6'65 9'L9 1'66 5'116 1'61 1 I 6' It 1'09 0'09 TC : It: t0 60 ue ^82 0 ME t L'61 I'ES 8'SS 9'LS E'09 6'99 Z'T6 E'68 9'81 6 I Z'SL I'LS 0'09 iE:9E :LO 60 ueP8Z t MS t Z'OS 6'ZS T'9S PBS Z'Z9 SCL Z'TO Z'96 S'81 B "TB 5'08 4'Z9 8'09 IE :SC :LO 60 ueP3Z I MB I C"BE I't5 t'ES L' IS S'45 4 'T9 2'S6 C'SO i'9t Z'OL Z' It I'tS 0'09 IE: IT: to 60 ueP8Z I M9 t 1'I9 O'SS E'BE 0'09 S' is O'ZL S'ZOT 3'101 9'6t L'9L 6'eL I'T9 0'09 IE: E£: 110 60 ueP8Z I ME V 10611 10511 _______________________________________________________________________________ 1$Z11 19T11 IB I1 11 M 4a 11 dead -T-1 xeul 135 bat cOlvee00 ___________________________ .l aoe0 ____ uopeo0l o =f8 e]CO TDe:.a.j u29'PIIMPBZ \1I10k9S \APOH`.^I V] 4 SUI 4 28Jan 09 09:03:31 60.0 73.4 91.1 79.3 70.4 103.5 104.8 770 76.6 74.7 73.7 72.4 71.1 4 SLM 4 Man 09 09:04:31 60.0 73.2 90.9 B1.1 70.3 95.1 95.6 75.6 74.0 73.8 73.7 73.2 71.3 4 SU4 4 28Jan 09 09:0$:31 60.0 73.9 91.7 79.7 71.9 92.6 94.7 77.7 75.9 14.9 73.9 73.4 72.3 4 SIN 4 2BJan 09 09:06:31 60.0 73.6 91.4 84.8 12.2 101.4 102.5 75.7 74.6 73.9 73.8 73.3 72.3 4 SUM 4 2BJan On 09:07:31 60.0 75.0 92.8 79.9 69.4 101.4 102.5 77.0 76.7 76.3 75.9 75.3 71.0 4 SUM 4 28Jan 09 09:08:31 60.0 71.4 89.1 87.4 44.6 90.8 103.9 81.5 72.9 71.5 70.1 61.2 51.6 4 SUM 4 28Jan 09 09:09:31 60.0 68.8 96.5 79.3 43.2 94.1 92.5 77.5 75.9 71.2 67.0 55.6 46.8 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 09:10:31 60.0 74,2 92.0 84.2 42.9 98.3 99.1 81.7 70.9 77.6 76.5 65.4 47.5 4 SIM 4 28Jan 09 09:11:31 60.0 73.5 91.2 80.8 44.6 96.7 47.2 78.9 77.9 77.0 76.0 71.7 47.4 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 09:32:31 40.0 64.6 82.6 79.4 43.9 96.1 103.2 74.6 71.6 62.5 58.7 55.1 51.0 4 SIN 4 Man 09 09:13:31 60.0 61.8 79.6 81.9 45.4 97.7 101.2 70.7 64.0 60.5 58.4 55.0 50.3 4 SW 4 29Jan 09 09:14:31 60.0 71.9 89.7 93.7 45.4 100.7 99.7 82.2 79.1 74.6 63.0 52.5 47.5 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 09:15:31 60.0 78.3 96.1 86.4 53.3 100,1 100.3 84.3 82.1 81.1 79.9 77.0 67.3 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 09:16:31 60.0 67.7 05.5 78.6 46.7 94.4 97.9 75.0 72.3 71.4 10.5 59.8 $2.2 4 SIN 4 29Jan 09 09:17:31 60.0 50.6 76.3 75.3 43.3 89.7 89.6 68.7 62.5 58.7 55.0 50.7 46.1 4 BUM 4 28Jan 09 09:18:31 60.0 74.2 92.0 86.7 43.7 100.8 101.2 95.1 80.5 74.9 69.0 58.8 47.9 4 SIX 4 28Jan 09 09:19:31 60.0 73.8 91.6 92.9 44.0 106.3 106.5 82.9 78.6 73.0 67.5 59.5 51.8 4 S M 4 28Jan 09 09:20:31 60.0 71.9 89.7 94.5 44.5 97.3 99.1 82.2 78.1 74.4 67.2 57.7 47.8 4 SUM 4 28Jan 09 09:21:31 60.0 72.3 90.1 92.0 48.2 96.6 97.2 00.2 11.8 16.0 14.0 64.1 53.8 4 SIN 4 Man 09 09:22:31 60.0 73.0 90.8 83.8 45.0 100.1 100.3 80.8 7S.3 76.3 74.1 67.2 53.5 4 SIN 4 Man O9 09:23:31 60.0 72.2 90.0 86.0 45.6 97.9 102.1 82.0 77.2 74.5 72.2 62.2 51.1 4 S:N 4 28Jan 09 09:24:31 60.0 77.4 95.2 86.4 46.0 101.6 102.1 83.8 62.6 91.3 79.5 72.3 56.9 4 BIN 4 28Jan 09 09:25:31 60.0 16.7 965 82.1 56.5 95.6 96.5 80.9 60.0 79.2 78.3 76.2 66.4 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 09:26:31 60.0 76.3 94.1 96.0 46.2 102.4 102.7 83.7 79.8 78.5 77.1 75.1 53.5 4 SIN 4 283an 09 09:27:31 60.0 60.7 66.5 79.1 46.2 93.5 96.4 76.6 74.0 72.0 70.1 62.5 51.1 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 09:20:31 60.0 BO.0 97.0 06.0 54.7 101.9 99.7 05.7 83.7 82.6 81.7 79.5 67.9 4 SIN 4 29Jan 09 09:29:31 60.0 75.3 93.1 63.8 47.6 95.1 99.7 82.5 80.7 79.4 77.3 68.0 54.8 4 SLR 4 Man 09 09:30:31 60.0 68.5 86.3 82.5 45.2 95.7 98.5 78.5 74.1 69.3 65.2 60.3 56.1 4 SIN 4 Man 09 09:31:31 60.0 76.9 94.6 06.6 54.6 98.7 99.7 84.7 82.1 79.9 77.8 71.9 60.6 4 SIM 4 29Jan 09 09:32:31 60.0 18.3 96.0 05.6 54.7 97.7 99.7 84.0 62.8 81.5 80.3 76.1 60.2 4 SD 4 28Jan 09 09:33:31 60.0 74.2 92.0 83.2 50.3 96.6 97.9 81.8 79.5 77.8 76.3 65.8 55.8 4 SIN 4 Man 09 09:34:31 60.0 11.1 88.6 81.0 46.7 92.9 99.1 79.4 76.9 74.8 71.1 61.7 53.6 4 SIM 4 283an 09 09:35:31 60.0 68.2 86,0 79.3 45.3 92.4 95.6 76.9 74.2 11.4 60.0 59.8 $2.8 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 09:36:31 60.0 68.2 86.0 78.3 52.1 91.1 06.4 75.9 73.9 12.3 70.0 59.3 55.4 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 09:37:31 60.0 74.4 92.2 83.4 52.6 95.9 96.4 82.1 79.2 17.4 75.8 70.5 58.1 4 SLM 4 2BJan 09 09:30:31 60.0 69.4 87.2 80.7 45.3 93.3 95.6 78.9 75.7 71.8 66.6 59.6 52.9 4 SLM 4 Man 09 09:39:31 60.0 66.0 84.6 83.0 44.7 90.7 102.8 77.1 72.4 67.4 61.4 54.4 48.4 4 SIN 4 2BJan 09 09:40:31 60.0 69.0 86.8 82.2 49.6 95.0 97,9 81.1 74.8 63.7 59.3 54.7 51,3 4 SIN 4 2BJan 09 09:41:31 60.0 64.2 02.0 77.0 46.3 90.1 a3.7 75.7 67.6 61.0 58.3 54.0 50.7 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 09:42:31 60.0 69.5 67.3 63.6 43.6 98.7 100.3 78.6 75.7 72.8 66.6 56.1 49.5 4 SIN 4 Man 09 09:43:31 60.0 64.9 82.7 79.2 42.2 91.4 93.7 77.1 67.9 60.1 57.8 54.6 50.6 4 SLM 4 Man 09 09:44:31 60.0 69.2 06.9 02.5 41.5 94.0 97.2 01.1 75.2 66.1 58.9 55.2 47.4 4 BIM 4 2BJan 09 09:45:31 60.0 71.4 09.2 05.1 42,6 105.2 106.5 80.6 77.0 74.3 70.2 57.1 50.6 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 09:46:31 60.0 75.7 93.5 04.1 43.4 99.2 99.7 82.0 01.3 79.2 77.3 70.9 48.8 4 SUM 4 2BJan 09 09:47:31 60.0 77.3 95.1 03,9 49.5 102.7 102.1 02.4 80.9 79.6 70.0 77.1 53.9 4 Si 4 28Jan 09 09:48:31 60.0 77.9 95.7 63.6 49.9 99.2 98.5 82.1 01.3 80.6 80.0 77.9 60.2 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 09:49:31 60.0 68.4 86.2 63.9 44,6 96.7 96.4 76.9 72.7 69.6 67.3 62.0 52.0 4 SIX 4 28Jan 09 09:50:31 60.0 65.6 63.4 75.2 46.6 92.1 94.7 73.1 71.0 68.7 66.9 60.5 53.1 4 SIX 4 28Jan D9 09:51:31 60.0 67.4 85.2 00.0 44.7 101.3 102.5 76.3 71.6 69.7 67.8 62.8 53.8 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 09:52:31 6D.0 77.7 95.5 83.6 54.5 97.5 96.4 82.0 00.6 79.0 79.1 77.4 69.2 4 SIN 4 2BJan 09 09:53:31 60,0 67.4 05.1 82.5 50.9 98.0 98.5 75.6 72.8 69.5 66.3 61.5 54.4 4 SIX 4 28Jan 09 09:54:31 60.0 66.1 85.9 78.0 48.5 95.8 97.2 76.4 74.1 71.3 60.6 60.0 53.4 4 SUM 4 2BJan 99 09:55:31 60.0 68.9 86.7 79.1 44.9 93.0 94.7 77.2 75,2 72.6 60.4 59.8 49.1 4 SIX 4 28Jan 09 09:56 :31 60.0 64.1 01.9 76.9 40.6 90.8 92.5 74.2 66.8 64.5 63.3 60.6 47.0 4 SIM 4 2BJan 09 09:57:31 60.0 66,2 84.0 71.4 45.4 90.5 52.5 76.5 71.2 66.7 64.2 60.0 53.2 4 BIM 4 Man 09 09:50:31 60.0 65.5 83.3 00.4 46.5 95.1 95.6 16.6 69.4 65.2 62.8 57.7 51.6 4 SUM 4 28Jan 09 09:59:31 60.0 68.3 86.0 80.1 44.5 97.2 98.5 76.2 73.8 71.2 69.3 62.3 $6.0 4 SIX 4 28Jan 09 10:00:31 60.0 69.9 67.7 18.7 41.4 91.6 96.4 76.5 74.0 73.0 72.3 65.4 47.1 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 10:01:31 60.0 66.6 04.4 77.6 45.1 92.1 93.7 74.6 72.7 70.6 66.0 57.8 48.0 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 10:02:31 60.0 63.9 81.7 17.2 41.4 91.7 91.2 74.4 69.0 65.2 61.6 55.4 46.3 4 SIN 4 Man 09 10:03:31 60.0 68.3 86.1 79.1 43.0 98.3 99.7 76.9 74.5 71.9 67.8 58.0 48.3 4 SIN 4 Man 09 10:04:31 60.0 64.5 62.3 76.6 42.1 91.1 93.7 74.7 69.0 67.0 63.2 $3.3 46.3 4 BIN 4 2BJan 09 10:05:31 60.0 67.5 05.3 79.1 42.6 95.7 97.2 16.5 73.7 71.1 66.4 56.5 47.6 4 BIM 4 28Jan 09 10:06:31 60.0 67.4 85.2 79,7 41.5 92.2 96.4 76.9 73.6 70.1 65.7 58.3 48.7 4 SUM 4 28Jan 09 10:07:31 60.0 66.9 04.7 77.6 42.2 91.5 94.7 76.3 73.3 69.3 63.0 $9.4 53.0 4 SUM 4 2BJan 09 10:08:31 60.0 59.6 77.3 74.0 43.4 OB.7 91.9 70.2 61.0 $8.5 57.0 $5.3 53.1 4 SIN 4 Man 09 10:09:31 60.0 64.1 61.0 83.4 41.6 106.0 106.0 72.9 68.9 61.0 59.6 57.0 50.5 4 SUM 4 28Jan 09 10:10:31 60.0 660 81.7 74.3 51.3 07.2 87.7 73.3 70.4 66.3 59.7 56.7 54.1 4 SIN 4 Wan 09 10:11:31 60.0 63.2 80.9 73.8 43.9 91.0 95.6 73.1 69.2 65.1 59.2 55.5 40.6 4 SIM 4 20Jan 09 10:12:31 60.0 $8.2 76.0 72.8 42.9 89.4 91.2 68,4 61.7 59.3 $7.2 51.9 45.9 4 BIM 4 Man 09 10:13:31 60.0 65.2 02.9 79.6 41.9 101.4 100.3 75.4 10.6 65.3 60.9 54.6 40.3 4 SU1 4 28Jan 09 10:14:31 60.0 62.9 80.6 78.9 46.5 91.6 93.7 73.0 67.4 63.0 60.3 55.9 50.4 4 SIM 4 28Jan 09 10:15:31 60.0 57.9 75.7 69.0 44.0 83.4 95.2 65.4 63.0 60.3 $8.2 $4.7 49.5 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 10:16:31 60.0 62.3 80.1 64.7 43.3 99.7 103.2 66.7 60.6 58.2 56.5 $3.9 47.1 4 SIM 4 Man 09 10:17:31 60.0 61.9 79.7 71.0 43.3 06.0 07.7 70.8 69.1 64.2 60.3 53.6 46.0 4 S1N 4 2BJan 09 10:18:31 60.0 64.4 02.2 78.0 50.4 92.2 95.6 11.7 70.4 68.4 63.3 57.0 54.5 4 SIX 4 Man 09 10:19:31 60.0 59,2 16.9 70.3 40.0 91.9 94.7 69.0 59.5 56.8 55.7 53,7 46.0 4 SIX 4 Man 09 10:20:31 60.0 63.0 80.8 70.4 39.3 90.7 91.2 75.1 60.7 57.0 56.6 51.1 41.6 4 SIX 4 28Jan 09 10:21:31 60.0 59.6 71.4 71.0 39.5 04.6 05.2 70.1 63.0 50.8 57.7 56.0 50.2 4 SIX 4 28Jan 09 10:22:31 60.0 66.2 83.9 79.1 44.5 92.4 99.1 75.1 70.8 69.7 61.8 59.1 50.4 4 SIM 4 28Jan 09 10:23:31 60.0 64.6 82.4 04.5 40.5 100.4 106.0 75.4 67.5 62.0 $7.8 $2.4 44.4 4 S]N 4 Man 09 10:24:31 60.0 62.3 90.0 75.0 41.2 88.8 89.6 71.6 69.0 63.9 59.2 54.3 46.2 4 SUM 4 28Jan 09 10:25:31 60.0 59.4 77.2 11.4 41.0 86.6 87.7 69.4 64.2 $9.8 $7.7 54.3 48.5 4 SIN 4 Man 09 10:26:31 60,0 66.2 84.0 81.9 49.2 94.6 95.6 78.4 68A 62.8 58.7 55.2 51.9 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 10:27:31 60.0 62.6 60.4 17.7 43.9 90.7 95.6 72.7 67.5 61.4 59.5 55.1 50.2 4 SLR 4 28Jan 09 10:28:31 60.0 62.7 80.5 74.0 41.9 06.0 89.6 72.5 69.1 63.1 59.2 $5.6 49.3 4 SIN 4 Man 09 10:29:31 60.0 65.4 03.2 79.4 40.7 92.1 92.5 73.4 70.5 68.2 64.9 $7.5 51.9 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 10:30:31 60.0 57.7 75.4 10.1 45.5 82.1 05.2 68.2 60.9 57.7 55.7 514 48.9 4 SUM 4 2BJan 09 10:31:31 60.0 58.6 76.4 73.8 47.5 87.9 89.6 66.0 61.6 59.0 56.9 53.6 49.5 4 SUM 4 29Jan 09 10:32:31 60.0 60.6 78.6 71.0 40.3 03.5 85.2 70.8 65.3 60.3 59.2 55.1 51.7 4 SIN 4 283an 09 30:33:31 60.0 58.5 76.3 72.3 48.2 85.1 07.7 68.4 61.9 58.9 57.3 53.5 50.7 4 SIM 4 28Jan 09 10:34:31 60.0 58.3 76.0 70.8 47.9 B3.9 05.2 67.5 61.6 59.4 57.0 54.4 50.4 4 SUN 4 28Jan 09 10:35:31 60.0 58,7 16.5 70.4 49.1 99.9 91.2 67,6 61.7 59.5 58,1 $5.8 $2.4 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 10:36:31 60.0 62.4 80.2 72.0 40.2 05.9 97.7 12.0 68.5 63.5 60.3 56.3 49.6 4 SIN 4 Man 09 10:37:31 60.0 58.0 76.5 71.8 41.3 03.5 85.2 69.3 62.2 59.2 57.0 52.9 46.3 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:38:31 60.0 56.5 74.3 70.2 39.6 86.3 93.7 62.7 60.5 50.9 57.6 54.2 45.9 4 SW 4 28Jan 04 10:39:31 60.0 55.1 72.9 63.3 49.8 18.0 81.1 60.4 58.0 56.1 55.1 53.9 51.9 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:40:31 60.0 57.2 75.0 70.6 43.6 83.2 81.1 64.0 60.0 50.4 57.3 55.3 51.2 4 SW 4 283an 09 10:41:31 60.0 60.4 78.2 11.7 46.6 93.5 97.5 70.6 61.6 59.6 58.0 54.6 51.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:42:31 60.0 62.6 80.5 85.5 42.0 99.2 99.7 62.3 56.9 54.9 53.8 51.3 47.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:43:31 60.0 56.3 74.1 72.0 39.5 84.2 87.7 64.6 59.6 56.7 55.1 53.0 48.3 4 SW 4 283an 09 10:44:31 60.0 59.7 77.5 80.7 45.6 94.7 94.7 63.8 57.9 56.0 54.8 53.1 51.1 4 5W 4 28Jan 09 10:45:31 60.0 61.4 79.2 75.6 39.3 87.0 89.6 71.6 66.8 61.4 57.5 52.7 44.1 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 10:46:31 60.0 56.1 73.9 70.6 41.6 84.6 85.2 66.2 59.5 56.7 54.7 51.4 47.9 4 SW 4 Man 09 10:47:31 60.0 61.0 78.7 78.6 46.9 93.9 96.4 69.6 65.3 62.0 59.5 52.4 40.8 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:49:31 60.0 55.1 72.9 68.5 41.0 84.7 05.2 64.7 59.2 56.3 53.8 49.4 43.8 4 SW 4 Man 05 10:49:31 60.0 59.9 77.7 77.2 42.5 90.3 92.5 70.5 63.6 58.3 55.4 51.2 46.9 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:50:31 60.0 58.0 75.6 71.2 44.4 80.1 93.7 68.2 61.3 50.4 56.6 53.6 49.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:51:31 60.0 60.3 78.1 74.0 42.1 89.6 91.2 71.5 63.0 60.5 58.3 53.4 47.6 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:52:31 60.0 62.3 80.1 80.4 44.1 100.9 99.7 73.7 62.3 60.1 58.0 55.2 50.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:53:31 60.0 57.7 75.4 73.6 40.6 65.8 87.7 68.2 60.0 57.6 55.5 52.0 46.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:51:31 60.0 65.9 83.6 84.3 42.4 9B.6 100.3 76.7 65.4 57.7 55.6 52.3 47.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:55:31 60.0 61.0 79.6 18.0 44.5 92.2 93.7 71.1 66.5 61.3 59.6 56.6 51.7 4 SW 4 20Jan 09 10:56:31 60.0 62.2 80.0 75.9 43.8 89.1 B7.7 72.3 616 62.9 59.4 54.9 48.7 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:57:31 60.0 69.5 07.2 95.4 45.5 100.5 100.7 80.5 73.8 60.6 63.1 56.9 49.4 4 SW 4 Man 09 10:58:31 60.0 63.3 81.1 76.2 45.D 90.2 90.4 72.4 68.5 65.6 62.9 57.1 51.5 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 10:59:31 60.0 63.7 81.5 15.3 43.9 87.8 91.2 72.4 60.7 66.6 64.4 57.8 $1.5 4 5W 4 28Jan 09 11:00:31 60.0 64.7 82.5 79.4 40.8 94.8 94.7 73.4 70.4 67.3 63.9 57.8 45.4 4 5W 4 28Jan 09 11:01:31 60.0 68.0 85.8 63.5 43.2 99.0 98.5 79.0 10.6 66.5 62.5 55.6 40.3 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:02:31 60.0 64.0 81.8 78.3 41.7 95.4 96.4 14.7 68.9 63.9 61.4 56.9 49.5 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 11:03:31 60.0 64.1 61.0 86.8 42.1 104.5 I07.0 70.0 65.7 58.9 56.5 52.6 45.7 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:04:31 60.0 62.8 00.6 76.3 43.7 91.7 94.7 72.9 67.5 64.3 61.6 56.4 49.0 4 SW 4 29Jan 09 11:05:31 60.0 61.3 79.0 70.7 42.6 89.4 01.7 69.7 68.3 64.0 57.3 53.6 46.9 4 SW 4 Man 09 11:06:31 60.0 63.1 80.9 74.3 40.9 90.1 99.6 71.6 68.8 66.7 63.2 54.9 46.4 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:07:31 60.0 61.0 79.8 78.4 39.0 91.4 92.5 12.7 63.0 57.7 55.6 50.0 45.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:09:31 60.0 62.0 79.8 79.6 42.8 95.4 94.7 72.4 65.3 61.2 58.1 53.4 46.5 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:09:31 60.0 69.5 86.3 84.0 39.6 100.8 99.7 90.0 73.4 68.1 62.0 54.1 45.3 4 SW 4 Man 09 11:10:31 60.0 69.2 67.0 85.0 43.0 100.8 ID0.1 81.2 71.2 68.3 65.3 57.1 40.4 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 11:11:31 60.0 63.2 80.9 75.1 42.8 90.9 91.2 73.0 68.8 65.0 60.2 55.4 47.1 4 5W 4 Man 09 11:1201 60.0 61.9 79.6 74.6 41.7 88.8 B9.6 72.2 67.1 62.9 58.4 52.2 45.1 4 SW 4 Man 09 11:13:31 60.0 64.0 81.8 75.7 43.5 92.5 94.7 73.4 68.8 66.0 63.9 50.0 40.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:14:31 60.0 65.0 82.8 79.7 45.4 96.0 94.7 75.3 69.5 64.5 62.4 59.6 51.8 4 5W 4 28Jan 09 11:15:31 60.0 63.1 80.9 80.4 43.6 99.0 97.2 71.7 66.6 63.4 60.8 57.1 50.5 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 11:16:31 60.0 62.7 80.5 75.5 41.1 90.0 07.7 71.7 67.9 64.8 62.3 57.2 49.0 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 11:17:31 60.0 $9.9 77.7 71.0 41.9 88.0 87.7 69.6 64.9 61.7 $9.2 55.5 49.5 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:18:31 60.0 60.8 19.6 71.7 43.5 89.9 B7.7 67.0 64.8 63.3 62.0 58.5 51.5 4 SLH 4 2BJan 09 11:19:31 60.0 61.0 79.6 00.5 43.0 95.9 97.2 72.5 63.6 59.4 57.6 53.6 48.3 4 SLM 4 Man 09 11:20:31 60.0 63.1 00.8 80.1 46.1 94.9 103.9 71.6 67.3 64.4 61.8 59.2 53.0 4 SW 4 Man 09 11:21:31 60.0 50.3 16.0 14.5 45.5 90.9 91.2 65.5 62.1 59.7 58.0 $5.0 $0.2 4 sW 4 29Jan 09 11:22:31 60.0 59.7 77.5 74.1 41.1 91.0 91.2 69.2 65.2 60.6 51.6 53.4 46.6 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 11:23:31 60.0 63.5 81.3 77.5 44.8 91.2 93.7 73.3 69.1 65.2 61.2 55.0 40.5 4 SW 4 283an 09 11:24:31 60.0 63.2 81.0 73.4 44.7 67.5 91.2 71.5 68.7 66.2 63.7 57.3 51.2 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 11:25:31 60.0 60.0 77.0 70.7 43.6 96.4 87.7 69.5 65.0 61.8 59.7 56.3 50.4 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:26:31 60.0 65.5 83.3 79.4 43.5 97.6 91.2 75.0 70.0 67.9 64.9 58.1 49.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:27:31 60.0 63.9 01.7 80.7 43.0 96.3 97.9 76.1 65.7 61.0 59.4 52.5 46.1 4 SW 4 Man 09 11:28:31 60.0 61.9 79.6 75.3 42.5 90.8 09.6 72.2 66.0 62.9 60.7 55.5 47.5 4 SW 4 Man D9 11:29:31 60.D 68.6 06.4 07.0 43.5 105.6 106.3 70.7 73.1 67.8 64.2 50.0 50.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:30:31 60.0 70.2 07.9 05.7 41.4 103.7 106.5 60.9 75.6 69.9 65.2 55.0 45.9 4 5W 4 28Jan 09 11:31:31 60.0 56.7 74.5 71.5 41.4 05.0 85.2 66.4 59.6 56.1 54.6 51.3 45.8 4 SW 4 28Jan D9 11:32:31 60.0 64.3 82.1 76.0 41.3 90.0 91.2 74.1 70.6 66.1 61_5 54.9 45.7 4 5W 4 28Jan 09 11:33:31 60.0 66.9 84.6 87.4 42.2 96.7 98.5 76.0 70.7 65.7 61.9 $5.6 47.1 4 SW 4 Man 09 11:34:31 60.0 65.9 83.6 78.4 41.9 95.3 107.0 75.8 71.3 67.5 64.7 58.4 47.7 4 SW 4 28Jan D9 11:35:31 60.0 67.0 84.0 87.2 43.2 103.3 104.8 16.7 10.2 62.9 58.9 52.9 45.5 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:36:31 60.0 64.0 02.6 17.4 44.0 91.1 93.7 74.6 70.2 66.5 64.2 58.2 47.9 4 SW 4 28Jan D9 11:37:31 60.0 71.7 09.4 94.1 43.2 112.1 111.3 80.2 71.8 66.9 63.9 57.0 48.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:38:31 60.0 63.9 B1.6 80.4 43.7 94.8 95.6 71.9 67.2 62.5 59.7 $4.9 47.9 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:39:31 60.0 69.6 07.4 04.7 41.9 102.7 100.7 91.9 12.0 66.0 61.3 55.4 46.6 4 SW 4 Man 09 11:40:31 60.0 64.9 82.6 76.8 43.6 95.7 95.6 74.9 704 66.3 63.1 57.0 46.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:41:31 60.0 64.3 82.1 81.2 41.2 96.1 96.4 74.8 68.0 64.6 61.9 54.8 46.1 4 5W 4 28Jan 09 11:42:31 60.0 64.1 91.9 77.3 39.9 92.3 92.5 73.0 70.7 65.9 60.2 54.3 45.3 4 5W 4 28Jan 09 11:43:31 60.0 65.3 83.1 86.8 40.0 101.6 102.5 73.0 61.6 57.6 54.6 50.7 45.5 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11-44:31 60.0 63.3 01.1 76.0 39.6 91.7 92.5 14.0 69.5 63.7 59.4 51.4 43.2 4 SW 4 26Jan 09 11:45:31 60.0 65.1 83.5 83.6 41.7 99.3 101.2 74.8 70.7 66.0 60.5 54.0 44.0 4 SW 4 20Jan 09 11:46:31 60.0 62.5 80.3 84.3 43.1 101.3 101.6 71.4 60.9 55.4 52.9 49.6 46.3 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:47:31 60.0 50.6 76.4 76.9 40.2 91.0 97.2 69.8 614 57.2 53.5 48.7 43.7 4 5W 4 283an 09 11:48:31 60.0 60.1 77.9 14.2 40.0 87.3 B7.7 69.1 66.0 62.3 58.2 51.0 44.5 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:49:31 60.0 62.9 80.7 15.6 38.4 92.2 91.2 71.7 69.3 65.5 60.4 53.7 44.4 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:50:31 60.0 61.8 79.5 75.2 39.8 92.5 93.7 72.4 66.6 63.1 60.D 52.7 43.9 4 SW 4 29Jen 09 11:51:31 60.0 67.8 95.5 92.4 38.8 102.2 101.2 79.6 13.4 fill 55.6 47.5 41.8 4 SW 4 Man 09 11:52:31 60.0 65.7 83.5 05.1 39.1 99.6 100.7 77.3 67.2 62.7 58.6 51.1 43.4 4 SW 4 Man 09 11 :53:31 60.0 58.3 76.0 74.7 30.9 92.3 93.7 69.4 63.6 56.8 52.8 49.4 42.5 4 SW 4 Man 09 11:54:31 60.0 64.6 82.4 79.2 41.0 98.0 97.2 75.8 66.2 65.1 62.5 54.8 46.5 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:55:31 60.0 63.2 81.0 80.1 43.3 93.2 97.9 73.0 67.3 61.7 56.6 52.6 47.0 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:56:31 60.0 55.8 73.5 70.5 44.8 94.0 B7.7 65.9 54.5 55.9 53.9 50.5 46.9 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:57:31 60.0 52.5 70.3 67.2 42.1 84.2 102.1 61.3 $5.4 52.8 51.4 49.2 46.3 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 11:58:31 60.0 49.9 67.7 62.8 42.8 78.1 91.2 55.9 $3.2 51.8 $0.6 47.8 44.0 4 SW 4 2BJan D9 11:59:31 60.0 45.0 63.6 55.7 39.3 67.8 0.0 51.2 49.3 47.1 46.6 44.4 41.0 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 12:OD:31 60.0 43.7 61.5 50.7 39.1 63.2 0.0 47.6 45.9 45.3 44.1 42.8 41.0 4 SW 4 Man D9 12;01:31 60.0 41.2 59.0 47.6 36.9 59.7 0.0 46.0 44.0 42.4 41.5 40.3 30.5 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 12:02:31 60.0 41.8 59.5 45.2 38.0 59.7 0.0 44.4 43.7 43.3 42.8 41.5 39.0 4 3W 4 28Jan 09 12:03:31 60.0 43.1 60.9 55.0 38.5 69.1 0.0 50.1 45.3 44.3 43.2 41.3 39.5 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 12:04:31 60.0 41.6 59.4 45.2 38.3 60.5 0.0 44.4 43.6 42.9 42.3 41.3 39.6 4 SW 4 29Jan 09 12:05:31 60.0 45.1 62.9 53.2 40.0 61.8 0.0 49.9 47.5 46.1 45.6 44.4 41.6 4 SLH 4 20Jan 09 12:06:31 60.0 44.1 61.9 52.0 39.5 66.0 0.0 49.9 47.4 46.0 44.7 42.3 40.7 4 SW 4 283an 09 12:07:31 60.0 43.6 61.3 50.3 39.6 62.2 0.0 40.9 46.6 44.9 43.9 42.5 40.5 4 SW 4 283an 09 12:08:31 60.0 48.5 66.3 50.0 40.7 69.5 0.0 54.1 51.9 50.9 49.6 46.8 43.1 4 $W 4 29Jan 09 12:09:31 60.0 45.1 62.9 53.1 39.6 63.2 0.0 49.2 47.8 46.7 45.9 44.4 11.5 4 SW 4 Man 09 12:10:31 60.0 50.2 60.0 62.1 40.0 74.0 0.0 57.8 54.5 52.7 50.6 46.6 42.5 4 SLH 4 Man 09 12:11:31 60.0 41.3 59.1 53.5 37.3 69.2 0.0 45.7 43.9 42.7 41.8 40.3 30.6 4 SLH 4 28Jan 09 12:12:31 60.0 43.8 61.6 51.9 37.5 63.6 0.0 49.6 47.0 45.7 44.7 42.7 39.1 4 SL4 4 28Jan 09 12:13:31 60.0 45.2 62.9 55.8 37.6 71.6 0.0 51.9 49.4 41.4 45.8 42.6 39.1 4 SLM 4 26Jan 09 12:34:31 60.0 44.6 62.4 52.2 38.7 64.5 0.0 49.7 47.8 46,3 45.3 43.7 41.0 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 12:15:31 60.0 52.8 70.6 62.0 40.3 74.1 85.2 60.6 59.2 55.B 52.8 46.5 42.1 4 SLY, 4 28Jan 05 12:16:31 60.0 46.5 64.3 54.8 31.6 68.5 0.0 53.1 50.8 49.2 47.4 44.3 39.6 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 12:17:31 60.0 44.2 62.0 $2.3 38.1 65.6 0.0 49.2 46.6 45.6 45.0 43.5 40.4 4 SLM 4 2BJan 09 12:13:31 60.0 51.8 69.6 75.7 38.2 95.6 104.2 55.2 49.7 4B.D 47.0 44.9 41.2 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 12:19:31 60.0 49.7 61.5 61.3 40.0 75.8 0.0 57.4 53.1 51.6 50.3 47.4 42.9 4 SLH 4 28Jan 09 12:20:31 60.0 45.6 63.4 56.6 38.0 73.2 0.0 52.8 49.4 47.2 45.7 43.6 40.4 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 12:21:31 60.0 46.0 63.7 57.7 37.5 78.0 0.0 53.4 49.7 47.6 46.3 43.2 39.3 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 12:22:31 60.0 44.4 62.2 54.6 39.2 80.6 0.0 50.1 47.6 46.0 44.8 42.9 40.5 4 SLY 4 28Jan 09 12:23:31 60.0 45.8 63.5 56.1 30.5 77.0 0.0 52.4 49.6 47.5 46.0 43.0 40.4 4 SLY 4 28Jan 09 12:24:31 60.0 44.2 61.9 57.7 30.2 78.1 0.0 50.1. 47.1 45.3 44.3 42.7 40.5 4 SL4 4 28Jan 09 12:25:31 60.0 45.3 63.1 60.3 39.5 75,6 67.7 50.9 46.1 46.5 45.1 43.4 41.0 4 SL4 4 28Jan 09 12:26:31 60.0 47.9 65.7 57.7 30.1 74.3 0.0 55.0 52.3 50.1. 48.1. 45,3 40.5 4 SL4 4 28Jan 09 12:27:31 6D.0 47.9 65.6 63.6 30.1 79.0 0.0 57.8 50.8 48.4 46.7 43.4 40.2 4 5LM 4 Man 09 12:28:31 60.0 48.8 66.6 57.1 40.8 67.8 0.0 55.7 53.1 $0.7 •19.6 46.6 42.7 •1 SLM 4 Man 09 12:29:31 60.0 48.1 65.9 59.5 3 9. 2 75.6 0.0 54.2 51.6 4 9. 8 48.7 46.8 41.8 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 12:30:31 60.0 50.2 68,0 59.8 42.5 72.2 65.2 56.7 53.9 51.9 50.6 48.3 •14.6 •4 SL14 4 Man 09 12:31:31 60.0 57.8 75.5 69.B 40.0 01.3 91.2 68.0 62.8 61.1 50,6 48.7 43.1 4 SLM 4 Man 09 12:32:31 60.0 45.5 63.2 54.4 40.D 67.1 87.7 51.1 48.6 47,2 46.1 44.0 41.6 4 SL4 4 Man 09 12:33:31 60.0 49.5 67.3 59.9 42.0 75.6 0.0 56.2 53.6 51.0 49.6 47.6 44.6 4 SIN 4 Man 09 12:34:31 60.0 56.5 74.3 78.4 41.1 94.7 97.2 63.2 56.2 52.0 49.3 45.6 42.4 4 SL4 4 28Jan 09 12:35:31 60.0 51.0 63.8 62.6 39.7 79.5 65.2 58.7 55.1 53.1 51.5 47.9 42.1 4 SLIT 4 28Jan DB 12:36:31 60.0 60.9 73.7 66.1 40.5 84.6 07.7 63.7 62.9 62.5 62.2 61.4 44.8 4 SLM 4 2BJan D9 12:37:31 60.0 62.1 60.5 69.4 59.8 81.3 65.2 66.0 64.6 63.7 63.1 62.3 60.9 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 12:38:31 60.0 62,3 80.0 67.2 60.2 80.1 85.2 65.9 64.5 63.4 62.7 61.6 60.3 4 SL4 4 Man 09 12:39:31 60.0 61.2 79.0 66.7 59.3 05.7 85.2 64.9 62.0 61.7 61.5 60.9 60.0 4 SL 4 Man 09 12: 4D: 31 60.0 61.2 78.9 69.3 50.9 06.5 67.7 66.5 61.9 61.5 61.1 60.6 59.5 4 51-4 4 26Jan 09 12:41:31 60.0 60.9 78.6 68.1 50.9 80.1 05.2 62.0 61.8 61.6 61.4 60.0 59.6 4 SLM 4 Man 09 12:42:31 60,0 61.1 78.5 62.3 59.9 77.6 85.2 62.0 61.9 61.7 61.5 61.1 60.2 4 SLM 4 Man 09 12:43;31 60.0 53.1 71.5 62.3 40.1 00.7 102.6 61.8 61.3 54.0 48.0 45.9 43.0 4 SL4 4 2BJan 09 12:44:31 60.0 44.9 62.7 53.7 39.0 65.1 0.0 51.2 48.0 46.4 45.4 4 3. 3 41.2 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 12:45:31 60.0 44.7 6Z.5 54.8 40.3 69.2 0.0 51.2 48.1 45.9 44.6 42.9 41.4 4 51N 4 28Jan 09 12:46:31 60.0 58.7 76.5 66.5 40.3 70.2 85.2 64.7 63.6 62.9 62.4 48.9 4 4. 1 4 SLM 4 29Jan 09 12:47:31 60.0 62.1 79.9 67.3 60.3 78.3 0.0 64.6 63.4 62.8 62.6 61.9 61.0 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 12:48:31 60.0 62.2 60.0 72.2 59.7 80,6 91.2 67.1 63.8 62.5 61.5 61.4 60.3 4 SUM 4 2BJan 09 12:49:31 60.0 61.3 79.1 70.1 42.3 05.1 89.6 65.9 63.7 62.5 61.9 61.1 40.1 4 S44 4 283an 09 12:50:31 60.0 $5.8 73.6 66,4 41.6 70.5 0.0 65.0 61.6 57.3 55.1 49.8 43.7 4 SLH 4 28Jan 09 12:51:31 60.0 54.1 71.0 70.1 39.1 85.5 65.2 62.9 59.0 55.8 52.3 40.2 42.1 4 SLM 4 20 Jan 09 12:52:31 60.0 54.0 71.8 75.6 41.4 BB.S 92.5 59.0 53.8 51,5 50.0 47.4 44.0 4 51N 4 2BJan 09 12:53:31 60.0 58.2 75.9 71.4 42.4 84.8 89.6 67.6 63.3 59,7 56.9 51.2 45.6 4 SLM 4 26JDn 09 12:54:31 60.0 58.1 75.8 78.2 42.1 103.8 102.5 66.6 61.9 58.9 56.6 51.5 44.0 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 12:55:31 60.0 58.8 76.6 16.6 41.9 98,3 97.2 68.5 62.2 58.1 55.5 51.7 45.1 4 9124 4 28Jan 09 12:56:31. 60.0 63.1 80.9 86.3 43.2 103.7 106.0 60.7 58.5 56.2 54.7 52.5 46.9 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 12:57:31 60.0 53.7 71.5 65.6 40.8 80.8 65.2 62.5 58.1 55.6 53.9 49.9 43.7 4 SL4 4 26Jan 09 12:58:31 60.0 59.1 76.9 78.3 42.1 94.7 96.4 67.3 63.0 59.4 57.6 54.0 46.4 4 SLM 4 263an 09 12:59:31 60.0 64.0 81.8 82.7 45.9 97.3 98.5 73.3 57.9 64.4 60.9 56.2 50.4 4 SLM 4 26Jan 09 13:00:31 60.0 66.5 84.3 61.3 44.6 97.0 97.5 77.2 70.7 68.2 64.7 58.0 49.2 4 5LM 4 2BJan 09 13:01:31 60.0 63.2 80.9 80.6 41.6 93.2 97.2 72.7 66.2 63.0 60.2 55.5 50.4 4 SLH 4 28Jan 09 13:02:31 60.0 68.4 86.2 81.4 43.2 94.1 97.2 77.3 73.9 70.9 68,2 60.8 52.4 4 SLM 4 2BJan 09 13:03:31 60.0 64.0 81.0 70.3 41.8 92.0 93.7 74.4 69.1 65.6 61.7 55.4 46.0 4 SLH 4 263an D9 13:04:31 60,0 62.7 80.5 76.6 39.9 90.8 91.2 72.6 67.4 63.5 61.4 56.7 46.5 4 Si.. 4 28Jan 09 13:05:31 60.0 65.0 82.7 77.3 42.9 92.8 93.7 75.3 70.4 66.0 62.5 56,5 41.1 4 SLH 4 2BJan 09 13:06:31 60.0 68.7 86.4 80.1 44.5 96.2 99.1 76.4 74.1 71.2 69.7 64.1 53.8 4 SM 4 2BJan 09 13:07:31 60.0 62.2 60.0 78.3 43.6 94.3 95.6 71.5 66.3 62.9 60.5 55.6 49.1 4 S1l 4 Man 09 13:08:31 60.0 66.3 84.1 80.0 44.6 96.3 96.4 75.1 72.3 60.6 64.9 59.7 40.5 4 SIN 4 28Jan 09 13:09:31 60.0 67.6 85.4 78.6 47.7 94.2 94.7 75.6 73.4 70.1 65.1 63.0 50.4 4 SIN 4 Man 09 13:10:31 60.0 63.2 85,9 80.2 59.8 93.5 95.6 71.1 73.8 68.5 65.8 62.8 61.2 4 SEY. 4 2BJan 09 13:11:31 60.0 62.4 80.2 77.5 40.5 92.6 93.7 72.7 66.5 61.6 60.3 56.2 46.3 4 5L1 4 Man 09 13:22:31 60.0 67.6 85.4 79.5 43.3 93.7 94.7 76.6 73.4 70.2 66.5 61.1 49.5 4 51N 4 2BJan 09 13:13:31 60.0 67.3 85.1 79.0 42.7 93.1 93.7 76.7 13.2 70.3 66.0 58.4 48.5 4 5LY 4 28Jan 09 13:14:31 60.0 67.4 85.1 79.2 41.4 90.6 101.2 71.2 73.2 68.7 65.4 60.2 53.4 4 SLY 4 28Jan 09 13:15:31 60.0 67.3 85.1 78.2 55.3 93.1 92.5 76.3 73.3 6B.8 65.5 62.0 57.0 4 SS.H 4 2BJan 09 13:36:31 60.0 66.2 84.0 78.8 56,2 93.6 93.7 75.6 71.2 68.4 65.2 59.9 57.1 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 13:17:31 60.0 65.0 82.8 76.7 55.5 92.2 92.5 73.1 69.9 67.6 65.2 60.1 56.7 4 SLH 4 Man 09 13:18 :31 6D.0 67.7 85.4 79.5 $6.0 96.1 97.9 77.6 72.6 69.5 66.2 61.8 57.5 4 Sr 4 28Jan 09 13:39:31 60.0 67.9 85.7 78.7 55.2 100.3 101.2 76.4 73.7 70.1 67.4 61.5 57.8 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 13:20:31 60.0 65.0 82.8 83.1 48.7 95.2 99.1 74.7 66.2 63.5 62.0 59.7 56.5 4 SLM 4 Man 09 13:21:31 60.0 68.5 06.3 81.3 41.8 09.5 100.7 78.4 74.0 69.1 67.0 61.9 49.0 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 13:22:31 60.0 62.9 80.6 71.5 41.6 91.8 92.5 73.2 6B.0 63.3 59.5 54.3 46.1 4 SLM 4 Man 09 13:23:31 60.0 61.6 79.4 75.5 42.0 89.3 97.2 72.2 65..4 61,9 60.3 54.0 46.6 4 SLM 4 Man 09 13:24:31 60.0 58.7 76.4 77.1 42.9 91.3 94.7 68.4 61.0 58.3 56.3 52.0 46.6 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 13:25:31 60.0 68.2 86.0 82.5 42.0 90.7 104.2 78.9 74.0 68.1 64.4 56.4 47.9 4 SLM 4 28JOn 09 13:2601 60.0 69.7 07.5 84.5 41.6 102.5 105.1 80.3 75.9 70.6 62.3 54.0 46.0 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 13:27:31 60.0 62.5 80.2 78.3 42.1 104.1 104.5 72.9 66.8 63.1 58.1 53,0 45,9 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 13:28:31 60.0 65.0 82.8 02.2 42.0 95.0 99.1 74.3 66.9 62.5 59.2 52.1 45.1 4 SLH 4 28Jan 09 13:29:31 60.0 61.3 79.1 75.1 42.2 93.5 94.7 71.8 65.6 61.8 59.3 53.9 46.4 4 SLH 4 28Jan 09 13:30:31 60.0 69.5 87.3 91.0 41.1 111.2 111.1 77.9 70.9 65.4 62.1 55.9 47,2 4 541 4 28Jan 09 13:31:31 60.0 6B.4 66.2 05.6 42.2 102.8 101.6 79.2 72.4 60.1 65.1 59.3 46.5 4 SLH 4 28Jan 09 13:32:31 60.0 64.9 e2.7 80.6 43.8 95.5 95.6 74.2 70.0 66.2 62.2 57.8 47.9 4 SIN 4 2BJan 09 13:33:31 60.0 62.8 80.5 74.7 41.0 90.3 51.2 12.0 67.7 63.2 60.9 58.6 48.9 4 Si 4 28Jan 09 13:34:31 60.0 63.0 60.8 74.8 41.1 91.2 92.5 72.5 60.2 64.0 62.4 57.6 47,3 4 SLM 4 29Jan 09 13:35:31 60.0 62.2 80.0 78.1 40.7 93.8 94.2 72.9 66.5 61.7 59.0 53.2 46.1 4 SL4 4 28Jan 09 13:36:31 60.0 66.6 84,4 18.6 42.1 06.5 97.2 76.4 72,6 68.9 64.4 56.8 47.6 4 SJI 4 28Jan 09 13:37:31 60.0 64.5 62.6 77.8 40.7 92.7 96.4 73.9 70.4 66.4 62.5 58.3 46.5 4 SLM 4 26Jan 09 13:38:31 60.0 64.4 02.2 83.8 41.2 101.2 101.2 75.3 65.8 60.9 57.5 52.1 45.2 4 SL4 4 28Jan 09 13:39:31 60.0 67.9 85.6 82.2 42.0 99.3 99.1 17.7 72.4 69.1 66.6 61.5 49.0 4 SLM 4 2BJan 09 33:40:31 60.0 65.7 83.5 83.1 43.0 97.6 98.5 75.5 70.0 65.4 61.3 55.6 46.5 4 SLH 4 Man 09 33:4101 60.0 10.9 36.7 86.6 41.2 102.8 103.2 82.5 74.2 69.2 64.2 50.1 45.5 4 5111 4 28Jan 09 13:42:31 60.0 64.4 32.2 75,7 40.8 91.5 69.6 73.8 71.1 66.0 61.7 56.0 46.3 4 51st 4 26Jan 09 13:43:31 60.0 65.3 93.0 60.5 42.6 94.9 95.6 75.3 70.1 65.9 62.9 58.5 47.5 4 S1N 4 28Jan 09 13:44:31 60.0 64.6 32.3 79.2 40.7 94.5 96.4 73.9 70.5 66.3 61.7 56.8 47.1 4 SiN 4 28Jan 09 13:45:31 60.0 65.0 92.7 78.1 41.5 92.3 93.7 73.5 70.1 67.7 64.6 SB.1 48.7 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 13:46:33 60.0 66.2 84.0 19.1 40.2 95.3 97.5 76.5 72.1 67.0 62.1 55.9 47.5 4 SL4 4 2BJan 09 13:47:31 60.0 72.2 90.0 B4.2 43.7 101.7 102.3 92.5 70.5 73.2 69.1 60.5 49.0 4 SW 4 26Jan 09 13:40:31 60.0 64.6 82.4 98.3 44.1 97.5 95.6 73.7 70.6 66.4 6J.0 56.4 50.4 4 SLM 4 2BJan 09 13:49:31 60.0 66.4 66.1 83.5 43.0 99.2 103.9 77.9 73.1 70.4 66.6 60.4 50.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 13:50:31 60.0 64.9 82.6 75.2 43. 1 93.1 92.5 73.2 71.4 67.0 63.9 59.2 51.6 4 SLH 4 2BJan OR 13:51:31 60.0 66.4 84.2 82.7 44.6 101.8 101.6 76.8 70.6 64.6 61.2 54.5 47.0 4 SLH 4 28Jan 09 13:52:31 60.0 61.7 79.5 76.7 43.6 92.5 93.7 72.2 66.3 61.0 58.9 55.B 47.4 4 SW 4 28Jan 06 13:53:31 60.0 63.6 81.4 82.0 42.1 96.1 98.5 72.8 .68.6 64.6 61.0 55.7 45.8 9 SW G 28Jan Oa 13:54:31 60.0 62.6 60.4 75.6 42.0 94.2 964 72.1 60.3 63.4 60.4 55.4 46.4 4 SLH 4 28Jan 09 13:55:31 60.0 68.0 65.8 83.8 434 99.0 104.8 78.5 72.2 67.0 64.1 50.2 48.4 4 5W 4 Man 09 13:56:31 60.0 71.6 89.3 89.2 42.1 106.7 107.7 83.5 71.8 65.3 61.5 55.9 46.3 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 13:57:31 60.0 71.5 89.3 87.1 43.2 104.2 107.9 B0.4 76.8 73.3 69.3 62.7 49.8 4 SW 4 28Jan 89 13:58:31 60.0 62.B 80.6 76.1 41.1 90.6 97.9 74.0 67.1 62.7 59.5 54.6 46.3 4 SW 4 26Jan 09 13:59:31 60.0 64.6 62.3 76.6 41.5 91.3 99.1 73.8 70.5 66.2 63.5 50.9 46.9 4 SWI 4 2 9Jan 09 14:00:31 60.0 64.6 62.4 79.0 44.6 93.3 101.6 74.3 69.0 65.3 63.2 50.7 49.7 4 SW 4 Z ?Jan 09 ]4:01:31 60.0 61.4 79.2 77.3 43.5 91.8 95.6 71.5 66.3 61.3 58.3 53.8 46.9 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:02:31 60.0 58.4 76.2 75.8 43.1 92.3 93.7 66.0 61.7 53.7 56.5 52.3 46.4 4 SW 4 28Jan OR 14:03:31 60.0 59.1 76.9 73.5 2 91.0 91.2 669.9 63.8 50.2 55.5 50.2 44.4 4 SW 4 n 09 14:04:31 60.0 60.6 78.4 74.8 . 90.6 91.2 71.2 66.0 59.9 55.7 48.9 44.5 4 SL11 4 28Jan 09 14:05:31 60.0 59.3 77.1 75.8 46.7 90.2 91.2 69.5 61.4 58.4 56.6 52.9 49.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:06:31 60.0. 62.2 79.9 76.7 44.1 95.0 64.7 72.0 66.8 62.9 59.3 55.2 49.2 4 SW 4 2BJan 05 14:07:31 60.0 63.2 81.0 02.3 40.4 67.5 07.9 13.0 65.6 61.6 59.6 54.6 44.2 4 SW 4 26Jan 09 14100:31 60.0 59.2 77.0 74.6 40.5 9D.0 017 67.0 63.6 60.7 50.8 54.7 45.3 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 14:09:31 6D.0 65.2 83.0 82.3 40.7 96.2 96.4 75.5 70.7 64.4 58.9 52.6 44.3 4 SLR 4 28Jan 09 14:10:31 60.0 64.0 81.7 78.3 42.7 96.1 96.4 74.1 68.6 64.2 61.3 56.4 46.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:11:31 60.0 60.3 78.1 74.4 44.1 86.6 ?9.6 70.2 65.7 60.7 57.0 52.5 46.5 4 5W 4 Man 09 34:12:31 6D.0 66.3 84.1 75.5 41.4 89.0 92.6 75.2 73.3 68.7 64.3 57.9 46.5 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:13:31 GD.0 61.1 70.9 75.9 42.9 BB.B 07.7 71.5 65.7 60.5 58.2 52.3 46.4 4 SIN 4 28Jan 90 14:14:31 60.0 59.5 77.2 74.2 40.1 88.5 87.7 70.5 62.E 59.5 57.6 52.1 45.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:15:31 60.0 64.6 82.6 7B.3 42.0 94.0 95.2 75.4 69.6 65.8 62.6 54.8 46.5 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:16:31 60.0 65.6 83.4 77.3 41.9 92.5 95.6 75.2 72.2 67.3 62.7 58.3 47.0 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 14:17:31 60.0 60.2 77.9 74.6 40.3 69.5 91.2 70.4 64.7 61.4 58.5 51.8 44.5 4 SLH 4 28Jan 09 14:18:31 60.0 60.9 70.7 72.9 37.6 90.1 92.5 71.1 65.5 62.1 59.6 53.5 43.6 4 SLH 4 26Jan 09 14:19:31 60.0 67.2 85.0 86.6 40.8 101.7 101.6 77.2 68.3 62.3 59.3 54.1 49.0 4 5W 4 28Jan 09 14:20:31 60.0 64.1 81.8 76.6 42.3 44.6 64.7 74.a 66.5 63.4 61.0 58.0 47.9 4 SLM 4 28Jan 89 14:21:31 60.0 60.6 78.4 75.4 43.0 92.1 93.7 71.3 64.9 60.3 56.6 52.3 47.6 4 SLM 4 28Jan 06 14:22:31 60.0 61.3 79.1 74.9 39.2 86.0 ?7.7 71.9 64.9 61.6 59.6 53.0 43.4 4 SLH 4 2BJan 09 14:23:31 60.0 67.0 85.6 83.0 41.3 102.1 103.9 76.9 72.9 69.8 66.8 61.3 48.2 4 SW 4 283an 09 14:24:31 60.0 66.0 84.6 79.7 41.2 94.2 96.4 76.9 73.4 67_4 62.3 55.9 46.6 4 SLH 4 26Jan 09 14:25:31 60.0 63.1 80.9 74.7 42.4. 90.2 69.6 72.1 69.2 65.6 61.6 56.9 46.8 4 SLM 4 Man 89 54:26:31 60.0 64.2 82.0 77.3 40.4 92.0 92.5 73.9 70.1 66.5 61.1 54.1 44.0 A SLM 4 28Jan 09 14:27:31 60.0 64.4 82.2 78.9 40.6 94.2 93.7 74.4 10.3 65.1 61.7 53.8 44.5 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 14:28:31 60.0 64.1 81.9 79.9 40.8 97.0 99.7 72.5 69.7 66.2 62.3 55.2 46.6 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 14:26:31 60.0 67.1 84.9 80.7 43.7 95.8 96.4 77.5 11.7 68.5 65.7 57.9 49.0 4 SLM 4 283an 09 14:30:31 60.0 64.7 82.5 804 40.2 95.1 94.7 74.9 70.9 64..•1 593 53.3 44.2 4 SLM 4 ZBJan 09 14:31:.31 60.0 63.2 80.9 74.6 44.6 90.6 89.6 72.7 68.0 64.7 61.6 55.6 48.0 9 RIM 4 ZBJan 09 14:32:31 60.0 59.0 76.7 72.9 39.7 85.0 69.6 68.6 64.4 60.3 57.8 51.6 45.1 4 SLM 4 Man 09 14:33:31 60.0 63.7 81.5 78.2 39.2 95.1 98.5 72.5 69.1 66.3 63.6 56.4 43.9 4 .SLM 4 28Jan 09 14:34:31 60.0 65..7 83.4 79.6 38.6 96.5 96.4 74.2 71.4 68.5 65.3 57.7 43.7 ,I SL11 4 28Jan 09 14:35:31 60.0 62.9 80.7 78.6 42.1 94.7 94.7 73.0 69.2 62.7 59.3 53.3 46.1 4 SW4 4 28Jan 09 14:36:31 60.0 60.0 77.0 74.3 40.1 90.8 89.6 69.9 65.2 60.6 57.6 52.2 43.9 4 0134 4 28Jan 09 14:37:31 60.0 64..3 82.1. 77.1 40.3 91.8 91.2 72.9 70.3 67.6 63.5 55.3 46.9 •1 SW 4 26Jan 09 14:38:31 60.0 63.4 01.2 74.6 41.4 87.2 89.6 72.4 70.3 64..9 60.5 56.3 45.2 4 5414 4 28Jan 09 14:39:31 60.0 61.5 79.3 73.0 42.4 88.5 81.7 70.4 66.9 63.1 61.1 56.2 46.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:40:31 60.0 63.3 01.1 80.9 -13.6 95.5 96.4 71.1 66.0 64.2 61.8 55.6 48.7 4 SW4 4 28Jan 09 14:41:31 60.0 63.B 81.5 76.1. 47.4 89.1 91.2 73.0 68.9 66.4 63.0 56.1 49.6 4 SW 4 ZBJan 09 14:42:31 60.0 62.4 60.2 73.4 46.0 85.5 07.7 71.4 68.5 65.4 60.6 55.9 48.8 4 SL14 4 28Jan 09 14:43:31 660.0 60.3 78.1 7Z.4 47.1 68.8 55.2 69.8 67.0 61.5 57.6 52.1 48.8 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:44:31 60.0 67.3 85.1 79.4 46.6 96.7 97.2 76.7 73.3 69.5 67.1 55.9 48.9 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 34:45:31 60.0 61.1 78.9 75.2 47.2 89.2 91.2 71.5 66.6 59.6 57.2 51.9 43.1 4 SW 4 26Jan 09 14:46:31 60.0 60.3 78.1 73.6 46.6 90.8 91.2 70.0 65.8 61.5 57.1 53.0 50.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:47:31 60.0 63.1 80.9 80.6 47.1 92.7 97.9 74.0 67.1 50.9 55.9 51.1 48.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:48:31 60.0 59.5 77.3 72.7 47.2 87.7 89.6 69.9 64.5 59.7 56.9 51.0 48.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:49:31 60.0 59.2 77.0 75.4 47.1 90.1 94.7 69.9 63.5 58.8 54.B 50.6 48.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:50:31 60.0 60.6 78.4 74.1 47.4 B9.3 BRA 70.8 66.6 61.4 56.2 50.9 48.8 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 14:51:31 60.0 63.1 60.8 73.4 47.8 86.4 67.7 72.2 68.7 66.5 64.3 52.1 48.7 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:52:31 60.0 63.6 814 77.3 47.4 94.1 63.7 70.8 GB.3 66.5 65.1 57.6 48.6 4 SW 4 Man 09 14:53:31 60.0 63.5 81.2 78.3 47.6 96.0 97.9 72.3 68.9 65.4 62.4 55.6 49.2 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 14:54:31 60.0 60.5 78.3 77.6 47.4 95.0 93.7 71.2 65.2 59.5 56.0 50.9 46.4 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 14:55:31 60.0 61.4 79.2 75.2 46.6 89.0 90.4 72.2 66.1 61.7 57.6 51.6 47.9 4 SW 4 2BJan OR 14:566:3i 60.0 61.3 79.1 73.1 48.0 87.1 89.6 69.9 67.2 63.5 60.5 55.1 49.5 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 1:57:31 60.0 62.9 80.7 76.6 16.9 92.0 93.7 73.2 68.7 61.3 58.2 54.1 49.7 4 SW 4 2BJan 09 14:58:31 60.0 60.6 78.4 72.9 47.9 B8.6 69.6 70.8 66.0 61.5 57.3 52.0 49.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 1,59:31 60.0 61.6 79.4 74.6 47.6 91.6 92.5 71.9 67.3 62.3 59.0 52.2 49.1 4 SW 4 28Jan OR 15.00:31 60.0 64.3 82.1 75.6 43.3 92.3 63.7 73.2 70.1 67.4 64.3 57.1 47.8 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 15:01:31 60.0 69.2 87.0 83.7 40.3 98.3 104.5 79.5 73.7 70.5 67.6 60.2 45.4 4 5W 4 28Jan OR 15-D2: 31 60.0 56.6 74.6 73.1 45.1 92.1 91.2 67.7 59.4 56.1 53.8 49.7 44.3 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 15:03:31 60.0 63.6 81.4 75.1 41.6 91.3 94.7 73.2 68.6 66.2 634 56.8 46.D 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 15:04:31 60.0 63.7 81.5 75.1 40.3 94.2 94.7 72.5 69.1 67.1 63.? 56.7 43.9 4 SW 4 28Jan 06 15:05:31 60.0 65.4 83.2 77.3 40.4 96.2 95.6 75.7 71.6 66.8 61.7 53.4 43.8 4 541 4 2BJan 09 15:06:31 60.0 664.3 82.1 75.1 43.2 93.0 94.7 74.1 72.2 63.5 58.6 54.3 46.4 4 SW 4 2-Jan 09 15:07:31 60.0 63.0 SO.S 74.6 40.6 92.7 95.6 72.4 69.3 65.1 61.2 56.4 44.2 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 15:06:31 60.0 63.3 81.1 79.7 43.5 96.5 97.2 72.1 68.3 65.2 62.1 56.7 46.6 4 SW A 28Jan 09 15:09:31 60.0 66.0 83.8 84.2 39.7 101.7 301.2 72.6 64.9 60.0 57.1 53.1 45.4 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 15:10:31 60.0 62.8 00.6 78.G 41.2 93.1 94.7 73.4 60.7 62.6 55.9 48.2 43.2 4 SW 4 2BJan 59 15:11:31 60.0 62.4 90.2 74.3 42.2 39.1 92.5 71.5 69.3 64.9 59.6 53.0 46.0 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 15:12:31 60.0 61.1 78.9 73.8 39.4 90.1 91.2 72.2 66.6 56.1 56.3 51.7 43.2 4 SW 4 2 ?Jan 09 15:1351 60.0 55.7 73.5 71.6 41.5 87.0 85.2 65.9 59.3 55.5 52.3 48.9 45.4 4 5W 4 2Sja.n 09 15:14:31 60.0 60.2 78.0 75.6 43.6 93.0 93.7 70.7 65.1 60.5 56.3 51.0 46.7 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 15:15:31 60.0 66.9 84.5 83.6 44.1 100.5 104.2 77.4 70.1 66.9 61.7 54.4 47.0 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 15:16:31 60.0 50.3 76.1 71.9 42.4 88.3 87.7 68.7 63.5 58.9 55.2 49.5 45.1 4 SLH 4 26Jan 09 15:17:31 60.0 56.2 74.0 68.6 42.2 83.2 67.7 66.7 61.1 57.0 53.8 48.B 45.1 4 SW 4 28Jan 09 15:18:31 60.0 60.8 78.6 79.9 42.4 93.1 94.7 72.2 60.1 54.4 51.4 48.1 44.5 4 SLH 4 283an 09 15:19:31 60.0 593 77.1 73.2 42.9 95.0 93.7 68.3 63.8 61.2 58.8 54.5 46.5 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 15:20:31 60.0 61.0 79.6 S3.5 41.2 98.3 99.1 67.7 59.0 54.7 53.1 50.0 45.7 4 SLM 4 Man 09 15:21:31 60.0 59.4 77.2 78.6 42.1 91.0 99.7 68.7 60.3 $7.4 55.6 52.0 47.3 4 SLM 4 263an 09 15:22:31 60.0 52.5 70.2 65.8 41.7 64.4 85.2 59.8 56.3 54.2 52.6 49.6 45.5 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 15:23:31 60.0 50.4 68.2 65.8 41.2 84.8 91.2 58.7 52.8 51.0 49.6 47.7 44.8 4 SLM 4 283an 09 15:24:31 60.0 48.7 66.5 62.4 40.4 85.1 87.7 55.0 51.6 49.9 46.9 46.9 43.5 4 SLM 4 2BJan 09 15:25:31 60.0 49.8 67.6 68.4 40.8 88.7 89.6 55.8 52.0 50.3 49.1 47.4 44.1 4 SLM 4 28Jan 09 15:26:31 43..0 57.2 73.5 71.9 40.5 97.8 97.2 66.5 63.1 58.4 54.9 50.2 44.9 C: \tAiIOA"SIII1TIL1 E.40! I.bin In[e[Va1 Oat. Site L ... eion Oace Time L., SOL Imax Lc Peat Uu k LI 21 L1 8) L116) L(251 L150) L(90) 1 Keterl 30Jan 09 0]:01:46 70.1 67.9 83.7 61.7 101.6 102.9 78.4 75.1 72.9 70.5 63.5 62.2 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 0]:02:48 63.6 81.4 73.8 61.5 89.0 94.4 69.4 64.9 63.7 63.2 62.7 62.1 1 Fleterl 3OJan 09 07:03 ;4B 65.9 83.7 91.5 61.7 96.5 98.8 72.4 69.0 66.8 65.3 63.3 62.2 1 Matarl 30Jan 09 07:04:40 65.3 63.1 77.7 62.4 91.9 94.4 72.0 67.4 65.9 64.9 63.9 63.0 l Keto11 3OJan 09 0]:05:40 64.9 82.6 7 9. 4 62.1 95.5 96.2 71.1 65.9 64.9 64.3 63.6 62.4 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 07:06:46 63.7 81.5 71.4 62.3 89.8 90.9 67.0 45.3 64.4 63.9 63.4 62.3 1 Mecerl 30Jan 09 07:07:48 62.9 80.7 72.8 55.1 89.9 90.9 68.5 64.8 63.8 63.4 62.6 56.6 1 F1eea[1 30Jan 09 07:08:40 62.2 80.0 75.8 54.4 93.0 94.4 70.6 65.3 63.7 62.6 58.0 55.2 1 Matarl 30Jan 09 07:09:48 62.6 80.5 69.8 60.0 88.3 93.4 66.9 64.2 63.2 62.6 62.3 61.3 1 Hecerl 30Jen 09 07:10:48 70.0 87.8 86.1 60.8 104.4 107.8 79.1 75,7 67.9 64.5 62.0 61.2 1 Meca[1 303an 09 07:11:40 69.1 06.9 8G.5 61.1 130.5 110.0 78.6 73.4 67.4 64.5 62.5 61.3 303an 09 07:32:46 69.5 67.3 84.1 61.2 105.5 105.7 90.5 73.3 67.0 64.2 62.7 61_6 1 Moce❑ 30Jan 09 07:13:48 69.6 87.3 83.1 61.6 105.8 106.7 78.3 74.2 70.6 68.5 65.1 62.5 l Hetonl 303an 09 07:14:48 71.1 68.9 67.6 63.3 105.9 107.2 81.0 7-1.9 69.8 60.5 65.2 64.1 1 Matarl 30Jan 09 07:15:40 71.4 .89.1 84.8 56.3 105.5 105.4 79.6 75.5 71.6 69.4 68.6 67.3 1 Moist 39Jan 09 07:36:48 73.7 51.5 94.7 56.3 108,6 109.0 B1.2 77.1 74.3 71.5 64.2 58.4 1 Necart 30Jan 09 0]:1]:48 67.8 05.6 84.6 56.8 105.4 307.2 78.3 72.5 67.0 63.5 59.9 57.5 1 Hoeo[1 3OJan 09 07:18:40 75.4 93.1 95.2 56.6 115.5 115.1 84.0 78.9 75.9 73.6 67.3 57.1 1 Hecerl 30Jan 09 07:19:40 71.9 89.7 84.7 56.6 106.6 109.0 01.1 78.0 74.5 70.4 61.0 57.5 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 07:20:48 68.5 86.3 81.4 56.7 95.9 96.9 78.9 74.4 66.9 63.9 61.0 57.4 1 N.cerl 30Jan 09 07:21:48 70.7 86.5 84.8 56.2 105.1 107.8 01.0 76.6 71.6 68.0 59.5 57.1 1 Hocerl 30Jan 09 07:22:46 74.8 92.6 06.2 57.1 105.0 105.7 82.5 00.3 78.1 75.7 68.7 50.1 1 Hocerl 30Jen 09 07:23:46 74.1 91.8 67.3 56.3 107.4 107.6 82.5 79.7 73.1 74.3 65.3 57.6 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 07:24:48 74.6 92.4 91.4 56.4 110.8 112.0 35.1 76.6 15.3 71.7 62.6 57.4 1 H.eOri 30Jen 09 07:25:40 75.6 93.4 69.8 56.4 110.0 112.1 06.1 00.3 76.5 73.8 66.3 59.0 1 Hecerl Man 09 07:26:46 74.8 92.6 89.7 56.4 113.1 113.0 83.6 79.8 77.4 74.5 64.9 57.8 1 Hecerl 30Jan 09 0]:2]:48 70.3 08.1 88.2 56.5 109.8 106.0 81.3 74.0 60.5 63.4 58.9 57.2 1 Meca rl 30Jan 09 07:28:48 70.5 68.2 98.2 56.4 107.4 107.6 79.8 75.1 71.7 67.3 59.0 57.2 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 07:29:48 78.9 96.6 101.4 56.8 121.4 MA 87.2 81.2 76.4 73.0 62.6 57.4 i Hecerl 30Jan 09 07:30:49 77.9 95.6 92.3 56.7 115.4 113.9 08.0 03.7 80.2 75,9 62.3 58.0 1 Mecerl 30Jan 09 07:31:49 82.0 99.7 95.3 56.7 119.8 316.1 91.0 67.7 84.4 82.0 73.9 $7.9 1 Hocerl 30Jan 09 07732:48 83.1 100.0 94.8 56.1 112,1 113.4 92.9 B9.2 85.2 81.1 72.4 58.5 1 Hatarl 3OJan 09 07:33:40 65.7 83.5 B3.7 56.6 92.1 93.4 77.4 66.4 63.4 61.4 50.9 57.2 1 14.100 30Jan 09 07:34:48 78.4 96.2 94.2 57.1 110.4 112.0 09.0 82.9 77.5 72.8 63:4 SB.I 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 07:35:48 68.9 86.6 87.9 56.6 102.1 102.2 77.9 73.5 69.2 65.6 60.7 57.5 1 H.CO11 Man 09 07:36:48 71.7 89.5 90.4 $6.4 110.3 111.0 01.1 76.4 71.5 68.4 63.0 50.4 1 Hotocl 3OJan 09 0]:3]:49 64.0 81.8 00.4 57.3 98.5 98.2 12.7 67.2 64.3 62.8 59.9 58.2 1 Mn. ne l 30Jan 09 07:30:40 70.3 89.1 83.4 57.4 104.9 105.7 78.3 75.0 72.8 70.7 66.1 59.9 1 Mate[l 30Jan 09 07:39:40 76.1 93.9 96.4 56.8 109.8 111.1 86.5 78.1 74.4 71.5 66.0 58.3 1 14ete0 39Jan 09 07:40:48 69.5 87.3 06.2 57.6 102.4 101.4 79.0 71.8 69.7 68.6 65.9 60.0 1 M.l.11 30Jan 09 07:41:46 72.4 90.2 81.7 64.3 102.9 103.6 19.4 76.5 74.8 73.2. 69.6 66.6 1 Flotocl 393an 09 07:42:48 73.9 91.7 91.8 64.4 111.1 111.3 83.3 77.0 74.1 72.0 66.6 65.3 1 Hete[1 3OJan 09 07:43:48 74.8 92.6 96.2 63.9 116.4 115.9 84.8 74.0 69.6 68.0 65.9 64.4 1 Fleterl 39Jan 09 07:44:46 77.9 95.7 95.4 65.3 115.1 115.1 89.2 81.0 75.0 70,3 68.0 66.6 1 M. erl 39Jan 09 07:45:40 74.5 92.2 91.3 64.1 107.3 109.5 04.0 77.9 71.7 68.9 67.6 66.1 1 MO. rL 30Jan 09 07146:48 76.1 93.9 93.2 63.8 109.1 110.3 98.4 77.4 69.8 67.9 66.1 64.5 1 Flete❑ 30Jan 09 07:41:48 71.8 89.6 88.6 G3.0 103.5 105.4 02.6 73.5 67.1 66.4 65.5 64.3 1 H.c.rl 30Jen 09 0]:48:48 80.7 98.5 94.1 63.9 110.3 110.3 91.3 86.9 81.0 76.1 66.5 64.5 1 HOtecl 30Jan 09 07:49:48 67.0 64.8 76.7 63.4 92.0 100.0 74.0 69.8 67.9 66.8 65.3 64.1 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 07:50:46 66.4 84.2 84.7 63.6 100.6 101.8 67.9 66.3 65.7 65.4 64.7 64.1 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 07:51:46 70.6 68.3 03.6 63.8 100.5 102.2 75.9 74.1 72.0 70.4 69.8 64.7 1 H.e.rl 3OJan 09 07:52:48 69.7 87.5 80.1 67.9 97.9 90,2 73.9 70.9 70.1 69.8 69.2 68.2 1 Heterl 39Jan 09 07:53:46 70.2 88.0 86.4 63.1 105.6 105.1 77.6 71.0 69.9 69.6 60.7 64.1 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 07:54:48 66.4 84.2 76.4 63.1 93.9 95.3 71.8 60.9 67.9 66.9 65.0 64.0 1 Hecerl 30Jan 09 07:55:40 66.2 84.0 70.6 63.3 83.9 93.4 68.9 60.2 67.7 67.2 65.7 64.1 1 Hateci Man 09 07:56:48 68.2 86.0 71.4 67.4 82.3 93.4 69.7 68.9 68.8 68.7 60.3 67.4 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 07:57:46 74.0 91.6 B1.9 67.7 95.0 102.6 61,3 79.5 76.2 74.3 70.3 68.2 1 Heterl 39Jan 09 07:58:48 67.9 85.7 76.9 58.9 37.3 93.4 72.5 71.3 69.8 68.4 67.4 62.6 1 H.te[i 30Jan 09 07:59:48 68.6 86.4 77.1 62.4 08.9 96.9 74.3 71.8 70.5 69.7 67.4 64.2 1 Hecerl 30Ja. 09 06:00:48 73.2 90.9 92.0 66.2 107.6 108.0 80.1 75.7 73.9 72.7 69.5 67.2 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 08:01:48 73.2 91.0 85.9 65.7 102.3 105.4 81.1 77.4 75.0 73.2 69.9 67.3 1 H.t.il Man 09 08:02:48 69.1 86.9 82..9 63.6 101.0 99.1 75.9 71.6 69.7 68.5 67.3 65.2 1 Meterl 3OJan 09 08:03:48 65.1 82.9 75.9 61.1 94.1 96.9 72.1 67.4 65.9 65.1 63.6 61.6 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 06:04:48 68.3 96.1 80.,3 61.1 96.3 98.2 75.9 72.5 70.9 69.9 64.8 61.6 1 M.C.[1 Man 09 00:05:48 69.6 87.4 77.7 61,7 91.4 96.9 76.6 74.7 73.2 70.9 65.1 62.5 1 M.cail 3OJan 09 08:06:48 70.8 88.6 81.7 60,7 91.3 98.2 79.2 76.0 73.4 70.8 65.7 61.8 1 M.Ca[1 3OJan 09 08:07:48 71.7 89.5 80.2 61.1 92.6 100.0 77.7 76.1 74.9 73.8 67.7 62.1 1 Meterl 30Ja. 09 06:08:48 69.2 66.9 76.4 61.9 90.3 98.8 73.7 72.1 71.1 70.4 68.5 64.1 1 Mecerl 30Jin 09 08:09:48 60.7 06.5 77.9 63.5 07.1 94.4 74.3 71.9 70.6 69.4 67.2 65.2 1 Mat.il 3OJan 09 06:10:48 66.4 84.2 73.4 61.9 06.6 96.9 70.7 69.4 66.5 67.6 65.6 62.8 1 Fle [a[1 3OJan 09 06:11:48 65.1 82.9 74.1 60.7 90.3 92.2 70.7 67.9 66.7 66.0 63.7 61.4 1 Mecerl 30Jan 09 08:12:48 65.5 83.3 60.9 63.2 85.0 93.4 67.7 66.9 66.5 66.0 65.3 64.2 1 Mecerl 30Jan 09 08:13:48 69.4 07.1 70.1 64.6 89.4 94.4 73.6 71.6 70.9 70.3 60.9 65.7 1 Hecerl 3OJan 09 06:14:46 70.6 08.4 78.1 61,3 91.5 102.6 75.9 75.3 74.3 71.8 67.7 63.4 1 Motcr3 39Jan 09 08:15:46 68.1 85.8 76.7 61,2 95.6 98.2 76.6 71.2 70.0 68.9 64.7 61.9 1 Heterl 39Jan 09 06:16:48 66.7 04.5 74.2 60.1 86.5 96.2 72.5 70.1 68.6 67.6 65.3 62.2 3 Meterl 30Jan 09 08:17:48 64.B 82.6 73.2 59.8 06.9 91.6 69.7 68.2 67.2 66.3 62.7 60.4 l ketc[! 30Jan 09 08:16:46 71.3 89.3 78.4 62.9 93.9 100.5 75.5 74.6 73.9 73.1 70.2 65.8 1 Fleterl 30Jan 09 08:19:48 66.4 84.2 75,6 62.9 89.3 98.8 70.7 69.8 68.2 66.5 65.2 63,9 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 08:20:43 65.2 82.9 74.7 62.8 91.8 93.4 71.3 66.1 65.4 64.9 64.4 63.3 1 Kecer] 30Jan 09 00:21:48 70.7 88.5 77.7 62.8 97.3 96.9 75.6 74.5 73.8 73.1 69.5 64.0 3 Heterl 30Jan 09 08:22:40 70.4 66.2 73.8 68.2 86.6 94.4 73.0 73.2 72.2 70.6 60,7 68.7 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 08:23:48 67.7 85.5 30,5 60.6 91.5 96.9 73.9 72.1 69.8 63.2 65.3 61.6 1 Heterl 30jan 09 06:24:40 67.2 05.0 75,1 63.4 88.6 96.9 71.1 69.7 60.4 67.7 66.5 64.7 1 t4eteil 30Jan 09 00:25:48 70.6 668.4 76.2 65.8 89.4 100.0 74.7 73.6 72.9 72.2 69.5 67.0 1 Meter! 30Ja. 09 06:26:46 73.1 90.9 78.4 68.7 92.0 102.6 76.1 74.9 74.2 73.8 73.0 70.6 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 08:27:46 73.3 91.3 88.7 67.3 108.1 108.4 78.9 75.8 74.0 73.1 73.6 69.0 1 Heterl 39Jan 09 08:28:48 72.0 84.8 79.1 67.2 91.9 100.5 75.8 74.4 73.6 72.9 71.4 69.0 1 Flotorl 3OJan 09 08:29:48 73.0 90.8 80.0 65.9 93.8 103,6 77.5 75.7 74.0 74.0 72.4 69.0 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 06:30:48 74.1 91.9 82.3 69.0 98.6 102.2 80.1 77.9 76.4 75.0 72.1 69.6 I Hetezl 30Jan 09 08:31:48 71.2 '98.9 78.9 67.1 91.3 97.2 75.3 13.2 72.5 71.8 70.6 69.6 1 Neterl 30Jan 09 09:32:48 74.0 91.8 86.1 65.9 100.8 105.7 82.4 19.0 75.3 73.2 69.6 67.1 1 Ha[cr] 30Jan 09 09:33:48 16.5 94.3 85.5 64.3 98.5 104.6 82.6 80.3 78.8 17.7 74.9 69.6 1 lle:ezl 30Jan 09 08:34:40 77.1 94.8 85.3 64.1 100.0 104.3 83.9 81.9 80.4 78.6 73.2 66.5 1 M.e[erl 30Jan 09 98:35:48 77.7 95.5 85.2 64.3 102.1 106.7 03.4 81.8 60.7 79.8 76.2 66.5 1 K.zerl 300an 09 83:36:48 78.2 56.0 85.6 66.4 102.3 107.2 84.0 82.6 81.2 80.1 76.3 68.2 1 Hetezl 30Jan 09 08:37:48 76.9 94.7 84.4 60.2 103.3 106.0 83.6 02.0 79.8 77.8 73.7 69.7 1 Ffetezl 303an 09 08:38:40 76.3 94.1 88.4 66.9 109.1 105.9 82.5 80.0 78.4 77.3 74.2 69.8 l Meter] 30Jan 09 08:39:48 72.4 90.1 81.8 63.9 102.1 103.6 78.9 16.6 74.5 72.7 70.2 66.6 1 Here❑ 30Jan 09 08:40:48 74.9 92.7 85.8 61.5 104.8 105.4 82.0 80.2 78.7 76.0 69.4 64.0 1 xacezl 38Jan 09 08:41:48 80.4 90.2 92.6 66.2 104.8 108.0 90.6 82.6 81.5 00.6 77.8 71.5 1 Ftpw cl 38Jan 09 08:42:48 72.3 90.1 80.9 66.0 94.4 103.6 77.0 75.6 74.3 73.1 71.0 68.7 1 Mp,.rl 30Jan 09 08:43:48 71.5 89.3 82.1 64.8 94.6 105.7 79.2 76.6 74.2 70.7 67.5 66.1 1 Netecl 30Jan 09 98:44:48 64.8 82.6 72.7 62.8 89.3 93.4 69.1 65.8 65.2 64.9 64.5 63.4 1 voce zl JOJaa 09 08:45:48 66.0 83.7 75.7 63.0 88.4 96.2 12.5 69.4 65.9 65.1 64.4 63.3 1 Metocl 30Jaa 09 08:46:48 67.2 85.0 72.4 63.6 85.0 97.6 70.9 69.7 69.0 68.4 66.5 64.2 1 14.c.n 38Jan 09 08:47:48 66.5 84.3 73.7 62.7 95.1 102.9 73.4 71.6 67.5 65.6 63.9 63.1 1 Metarl 30Jan 09 08:46:48 64.7 82.5 69.1 62.9 81.0 92..2 66.4 65.8 65.5 65.2 64.6 63.6 1 MO" 11 38Jan 09 00:49:48 65.6 83.9 81.3 62.7 93.3 94.4 68.0 65.4 64.9 64.7 64.2 63.2 1 MOt.Cl 38Jan 09 08:50:40 64.0 81.8 67.8 62.7 82.0 89.3 65.6 64.9 64.7 64.5 63.9 63.2 1 Meterl 30Ja. 09 06:51:48 64.0 81.8 70.2 62.7 85.3 89.3 66.3 64.9 64.7 64.4 63.8 63.1 1 Hecezt 30Jan 09 08:52:48 64.2 81.9 67.9 62.7 82.3 50.9 66.0 65.3 64.8 64.6 63.9 63.2 1 Hetezl 30Jan 09 08:53:48 64.7 82.4 12.2 62.9 68.0 89.3 66.5 65.9 65.0 64:8 64.2 63.2 1 Neee0 30Jan 09 08:54:49 65.9 03.6 76.4 62.9 92.9 93.4 69.9 60.7 67.8 66.5 64.5 63.3 1 xate[1 30Jan 09 08:55:48 64.4 82.2 69.6 63.1 34.0 90.9 68.5 65.3 64.8 64.6 64.1 63.2 1 Hetecl 30Jan 09 06:56:43 69.1 36.9 75.2 63.7 68.0 100.5 74.7 73.4 70.9 69.5 67.7 64.6 1 Necpzl 38Jan 09 08:57:48 68.5 66.3 72.6 65.3 85.3 100.0 70.3 69.9 69.6 69.1 68.3 66.6 1 !30 rod 30Jan 09 08:58:40 73.3 91.1 02.7 64.2 94.0 lOZ.9 81.8 79.3 76.5 70.8 68.2 66.2 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 08:59:43 76.3 54.1 63.1 66.8 93.4 104.9 02.0 00.6 79.0 78.0 74.5 68.0 1 Meterl 3UJan 09 09:00:48 74.0 91.9 80.7 64.1 93.4 101.4 79.1 71.8 76.9 75.9 72.6 66.1 1 Hecarl 30Jan 09 09:01:48 74.6 92.4 90.2 63.7 103.3 106.9 81.2 77.0 16.2 74.4 71.0 66.0 1 H0tar3 38Jan 09 09:02:48 70.6 86.4 78.2 63.7 94.3 98.8 75.6 73.0 12.1 71.8 69.7 65.8 1 Hececl 38Jan 09 09:03:40 70.9 BB.] 79.0 66.3 96.1 99.4 76.0 73.6 72.5 71.7 70.0 67.3 1 M.t.rl 38Jan 09 09:04:46 69.4 87.2 77.4 64.9 91.8 100.0 74.6 72.2 71.0 70.2 68.4 65.8 I Hececl 38Jan 09 09:05:48 69.7 87.5 77.6 64.8 93.5 100.5 75.9 73.6 71.6 70.3 67.8 65.1 1 19ete❑ 30Jan 09 09:06:49 69.7 87.5 77.7 64.0 90.0 97.6 75.5 73.1 71.8 70.6 67.9 65.6 1 Mace❑ 30Jan 09 09:07:48 71.6 89.5 79.6 65.1 94.4 99.4 76.9 75.4 74.1 72.9 70.6 66.7 1 Meterl 3Wan 09 09:08:40 76.3 94.1 84.6 65.2 94.1 103.3 82.7 79.7 77.7 76.8 75.3 60.8 1 M.t0[1 30Jan 09 09:09:46 81.1 96.9 89.7 74.1 104.6 107.2 89.3 86.5 82.9 81.4 77.6 74.8 1 R.CO0 JOJaa 09 09:10:48 79.7 96.5 84.2 74.2 96.1 102.9 82.9 81.4 00.6 79.9 781 75.1 1 Fle Cerl 30Jan 09 09:11:46 79.2 96.9 84.6 74.1 98.8 105.1 84.0 83.0 81.3 60.0 77.9 75.0 1 Mececl 30Jan 09 09:12:48 78.2 96.0 84.6 74.2 99.5 106.0 83.3 81.5 80.5 79.1 76.6 74.8 1 Npce rl 30Jan 09 09:13:48 73.0 90.8 81.7 64.3 100.6 100.5 79.1 77.5 16.5 74.2 70.5 65.5 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 99:14:48 71.7 89.5 80.6 65.2 96.1 100.9 78.7 76.7 74.2 71.7 58.5 66.3 1 Meterl JOJan 09 09:15:48 84.7 102.5 98.7 63.8 109.1 114.7 96.2 BB.4 82.6 79.0 74.B 66.4 1 NpCO[1 30Jan 09 09:16:48 74.4 92.2 85.7 64.8 104.0 103.9 82.0 79.9 77.1 74.1 69.5 66.1 1 Metpri 30Jan 09 09:17:48 71.3 B9.1 81.6 64.9 94.6 102.2 79.1 75.5 72.7 71.1 6B.5 66.4 1 Metocl 30Jan 09 09418:49 69.4 87.2 74.5 64.3 87.9 96.9 73.5 72.4 11.7 71.2 68.1 65.3 1 Metal 30Jan 09 09:19:48 65.3 83.1 71.3 63.6 85.1 90.9 68.1 66.5 65.9 65.6 64.9 64.1 1 Mecpcl 30Jan 09 09:20:48 72.4 90.2 02.3 64.5 104.1 102.9 77.4 75.7 74.7 73.7 71.1 67.1 1 McCer1 30Jan 09 09:21:46 71.9 89.7 81.0 63.2 93.4 100.5 79.1 76.3 74.9 72.5 69.9 64.4 1 M.c.zl 30Jan 09 09:22:48 66.8 84.6 60.6 62.5 95.5 102.9 74.0 67.9 67.0 66.6 65.6 63.5 1 Netecl 30Jan 09 09:23:48 69.7 87.5 17.5 64.8 90.4 98.2 76.5 74.7 72.4 69.8 66.6 65.3 1 H ... rl 38Jan 09 09:24:48 75.2 93.0 01.7 64.6 95.9 100.0 00.9 79.1 77.6 76.5 74.2 67.3 1 MOta[1 38Jan 09 09:25:48 72.7 90.5 B4.5 64.8 103.4 104.3 78.9 76.1 75.2 13.0 70.6 65.8 1 NaCezl 30Jan 09 09:26:48 70.0 67.0 01.2 64.3 97.3 100.9 76.6 13.3 11.7 70.5 68.1 65.1 1 Neterl 30Jan 09 09:27:48 72.1 09.9 00.7 66.2 99.2 104.6 77.0 75.0 73.7 12.7 71.3 67.9 1 Neterl 30Jan 09 09:20:48 71.9 09.6 B0.9 66.7 95.5 103.9 77.3 74.9 73.2 72.4 70.9 68.1 1 MOte[I 38Jan 09 09:29:49 72.1 69.9 85.2 66.0 102.5 106.9 76.5 14.1 73.2 72.4 71.0 67.8 1 Hp:9z1 30Jan 09 09:30:48 75.5 93.2 89.6 63.9 109.2 110.4 84.6 79.4 76.7 74.7 71.1 65.8 1 MeccII 38Jan 09 09:31:40 73.9 91.6 87.0 64.0 106.0 107.2 80.9 77.5 75.5 14.4 71.6 67.2 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 09:32:48 71.5 89.3 79.2 64.5 94.2 99.4 76.9 15.2 73.9 72.6 70.0 66.1 1 H.t.11 38Jan 09 09:33:48 76.9 94.6 84.4 61.2 103.3 103.3 03.0 81.3 79.7 78.5 75.1 63.8 1 Hp[pc1 38Jan 09 09:34:49 77.2 95.0 86.9 62.5 104.2 109.0 82.8 00.8 79.5 78.4 76.2 60.7 1 H.0t..l 38Jan 09 09:35:48 74.9 92.6 00.0 61.2 105.0 109.0 82.8 79.0 77.7 76.2 68.3 62.5 1 Metarl 30Jan 09 09:36:40 75.8 93.6 04.1 62.6 104.9 104.8 81.6 79.1 78.4 77.4 74.9 66.0 1 Meterl Mon 09 09:31:49 76.2 93.9 84.9 61.5 99.4 105.7 62.4 60.3 78.8 77.6 7$.1 63.4 1 Mptatl 30Jan 09 09:39:48 76.5 94.2 03.9 61.5 96.4 101.3 32.0 81.5 80.2 70.7 71.5 62.3 1 Hececl 38Jan 09 09:39:48 75.2 93.0 84.9 61.6 94.6 102.9 02.2 79.2 77.7 76.7 74.1 63.6 1 Fletezl 30Jan 09 09:40:48 75.7 93.5 83.9 62.0 92.8 101.4 62.2 60.6 78.5 77.0 73.6 63.7 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 09:43:40 64.4 82.2 70.5 61.3 95.3 94.9 60.6 67.1 66.1 65.2 63.3 62.1 1 M0tac1 30Jan 09 09:42:49 63.9 01.6 73.5 61.4 88.3 90.9 69.6 66.1 64.7 63.7 62.7 61.8 I zl.tacl 30Jan 09 09:43:48 69.7 87.5 79.6 61.9 88.0 96.9 75.7 73.5 72.1 71.5 67.1 62.4 1. t4eterl 38Jan 09 09:44:48 71.3 89.1 90.1 66.9 104.3 107.4 73.9 72.0 70.4 69.8 69.1 67.8 1 149 tecl 30Jan 09 09:45:49 67.6 85.4 71.0 66.3 85.0 92.2 69.6 66.7 68.2 67.9 67.5 66.8 1 t4eterl 30Jan 09 09:46:48 67.2 85.0 70.6 66.0 85.9 90.9 66.4 67.9 67.8 67.7 67.3 66.4 1 H.tocl 38Jan 09 09:41:48 10.0 07.7 77.5 66.4 90.6 98.8 76.2 72.3 71.0 70.4 66.8 61.3 1 Metarl 30Jan 09 09:49:48 61.6 85.4 72.6 66.3 85.6 92.2 70.9 69.1 66.0 67.8 67.4 66.3 1 Matecl 38Jan 09 09:49:48 68.3 86.1 74.5 66.2 88.6 96.9 72.0 71.1 69.4 68.3 67.5 66.4 1 IBe coca 30Jan 09 09:50:48 68.4 06.2 77.2 66.2 94.1 95.3 73.5 70.6 69.1 68.1 67.6 66.6 1 Hc[ect 30Jan 04 09:51:46 61.6 85.3 18.0 66.0 91.2 93.4 72.3 66.0 61.6 67.7 67.2 66.2 1 M0:0a1 38Jan 09 09:52:48 67.9 85.7 74.7 66.2 BB.5 92.9 72.4 70.0 68.1 67.8 67.4 66.4 1 Netecl 30Jan 09 09:53:48 67.8 65.6 74.4 65.9 86.5 93.4 72.0 69.4 66.2 67.8 67.4 66.3 1 Hetezl 38Jan 09 09:54:49 67.2 85.0 68.8 66.2 81.6 90.9 63.0 67.9 67.8 67.7 67.3 66.4 1 Xetazl 38Jan 09 09:55:49 67.1 04.9 69.1 66.3 B3.1 50.5 63.0 67.9 67.7 67.6 67.1 66.2 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 09:56:48 67.8 65.6 70.7 66.3 84.1 90.9 69.9 69.2 68.7 68.4 67.6 66.4 1 Netecl 30Jan 09 09:57:48 72.4 90.2 77.1 67.3 89.5 96.9 75.9 75.0 74.5 74.1 72.4 68.0 1 Hececl 30Jan 09 09:50:49 73.5 91.2 81.3 70.9 95.4 99.2 79.5 74.9 74.5 74.0 72.6 71.4 2 Haterl 30Jan 09 09:59:48 72.6 90.4 75.4 60.1 67.6 95.3 74.9 74.6 74.1 73.6 72.0 70.5 1 Hececl 30Jan 09 10:00:45 73.2 90.9 81.6 65.6 89.6 160.5 79.1 76.0 75.0 74.2 71.6 68.1 1 Hetezl 30Jan 09 10:01:49 72.8 90.6 02.2 64.2 91.0 101.4 79.0 76.5 75.4 74.5 10.9 65.9 1 Meterl JUJan 09 10:02:48 65.5 83.3 72.9 63.2 67.1 92.2 69.9 66.9 66.1 65.9 65.1 64.0 1 Hetezl 38Jan 09 10:03:49 72.6 90.4 7B.9 63.9 09.9 101.8 76.7 75.5 74.8 74.2 71.9 66.7 1 M.t.cl 30Jan 09 30:04:48 71.9 89.6 77.0 67.2 90.1 98.8 75.6 74.1 73.3 72.7 71.5 68.6 1 Hecarl 30Jan 09 10:05:48 70.6 98.3 76.6 64.8 91.2 99.8 75.6 74.0 72.7 71.7 69.2 65.6 1 fleceYl 30Jan 09 10:06:48 69.4 87.2 94.2 64.7 87.6 55.3 72.8 71.8 71.0 7D.4 69.1 66.0 3 lle ce[1 3DJan 09 10:07:48 70.6 88.4 75.2 65.2 93.8 9B.8 74.1 73.3 72.6 71.9 69.9 67.0 i Heterl 30Jan 09 10:08:48 70.0 87.8 75.5 64.2 93,6 95.3 74.5 72.9 72.0 13.3 69.3 64.9 t Neterl 3DJan 09 30:09:48 74.7 92.4 84.0 60.7 103.0 304,1 81.8 79.7 77.9 75.4 70.9 65.9 1 Hete[3 3DJan 09 10:10:4B 79.6 96.4 90.1 66.6 100.9 106.6 86.6 82.7 80.7 78.1 75.6 68.6 3 xeterl 3DJan 09 30:31:40 77.4 05.2 81.4 65.0 304.4 104.6 83.0 90.0 79.5 78.4 76.1 68.9 1 Hetarl 3DJan 09 10:32:48 76.8 94.6 87.1 63.4 106.9 107.4 82.2 79.6 78.6 77.9 75.9 67.7 1 Pleterl 30Jan 09 10:13:48 65.6 83.4 78.6 59.6 93.3 100.0 70.9 69.4 67.6 65.7 63.1 60.6 1 Metorl 3DJan 09 20:14:43 73.7 91.5 79.0 64.5 90.6 101.4 77.4 76.2 75.5 74.8 73.2 69.6 1 Motorl 3DJan 09 10:15:48 66.0 83.8 76.4 62.0 93.8 94.4 71.3 67.6 66.8 66.3 65.1 63.5 1 lle[acl 3DJan 09 10:16:48 69.5 86.3 76.9 62.5 99.1 98.8 75.7 74.0 70.4 67.7 65.0 63.2 1 xeterl 3DJan 09 10:37:48 74.6 92.4 87.3 12.0 106.6 107.4 81.3 76.2 74.2 73.8 73.4 72.3 1 Meter] 305an 09 10:18:48 74.1 91.9 B9.9 12.4 103.1 106.0 75.0 74.6 74.2 73.9 73.6 73.0 3 Heterl 3DJan 09 10:19:48 72.0 89.8 83.8 62.2 105.1 106.2 78.9 74.9 74.3 73.6 70.1 64.3 1 Metorl 3DJan 09 30:20:48 70.6 86.4 84.0 62.9 101.A 103.6 79.4 75.5 73.5 67.5 65.7 64.2 1 Fla tell 3DJan 09 10:21:48 75.7 93.5 03.9 62.9 302.6 103.9 80.8 79.A 70.4 77.5 75.1 66.8 1 Macecl 3DJan 09 10:22:48 77.1 94.0 08.3 64.4 99.3 302.9 81.9 00.5 79.5 78.5 75.5 67.6 1 Materl 30Jan 09 10:23:48 75.5 93.2 84.9 63.9 93.4 103,9 81.4 79.0 77.9 76.9 74.2 65.9 1 Meve[1 30Jan 09 10:24:48 70.7 88.5 78.0 63.0 81.5 96.2 75.6 73.9 72.9 71.9 70.0 64.6 1 Matocl 3DJan 09 10[25:48 70.7 88.4 17,8 63.8 93.8 98.2 75.6 74.3 73.1 71.5 69.5 66.3 t Materl 3DJan 09 10[26:40 67.8 85.5 76.1 61.8 97.9 98.8 72.6 73.2 70.4 69.4 66.3 62.9 3 Meeart 30Jan 09 10:27:46 67.2 85,0 74.8 61.6 09.5 95.3 73.7 71.0 70.2 67.9 64.0 62.8 ! Metecl 3DJan 09 10:28:48 63.4 81.2 67.3 61.6 79.8 89.3 65.0 64.4 63.9 63.0 63.4 62.4 1 Hocorl 30Jan 09 10:29:46 63.5 81.3 67.1 61.9 84.7 89.3 65.0 64.6 64.1 63.9 63,5 62.4 1 Motorl 30Jan 09 10:30:46 68.5 86.3 07.3 61.8 107.3 109.0 78.7 69.6 65.0 64.2 63.5 62.4 1 Heta[1 3DJan 09 10:33:48 63.3 80.9 66.0 61.3 00.9 90.9 64.8 64.0 63.8 63.6 63.1 62.1 3 No[orl 30Jan 09 10:32:48 68.9 86.7 76.5 62.0 87.8 104.3 75.2 72.7 71.4 70.0 67.0 63.3 1 H.[erl 30Jan 09 10:33:48 64.9 82.7 71.9 61.5 65.5 96.9 69.1 67.6 66.6 65.7 63.9 62.3 1 Heterl 3DJan 09 10:34:48 64.5 62.3 70.8 61.7 94.9 90.9 68.8 67.4 66.2 65.3 63.5 62.2 1 Hororl 3DJan 09 10:35:48 73.2 91.0 88.2 66.5 110.3 109.0 81.5 74.9 73.6 72.6 70.9 67.6 3 Hete❑ 3DJan 09 10:36:48 67.5 85.3 73.4 62.6 87.3 100.9 72.3 73.2 70.0 68.7 65.7 63.3 3 Hacecl 30Jan 09 10:37:48 65.5 83.3 71.6 62.4 61.9 94.4 70,5 69.2 67.2 65.6 63.9 63.1 S MecoII 30Jan 09 10:38:48 64.4 82.2 68.3 62.6 94.3 90.9 66.7 65.7 65.1 64.8 64.3 63.3 1 Notart 3DJan 09 10:39:48 71.8 89.6 72.9 63.3 05.8 93.4 72.9 72.9 72,7 72.5 72.0 71.1 1 !9e[o[1 30Jan 09 10:40:48 68.8 86.6 73.7 62.6 85.2 93.4 72.9 72.7 72.3 71.8 64.8 63.3 l Fle[ec] 3DJan 09 10:43:48 65.8 83.6 71.2 62.9 05.6 93.4 70.6 69.3 67.5 66.2 64.4 63.2 1 Flotorl 3DJan 09 10:42:48 64.9 82.6 69.1 62.9 00.4 94.9 68.6 67.7 65.5 64.8 64.2 63.2 1 14otorl 30Jon 09 10:43:46 68.2 86.0 73.4 62.6 85.2 93.4 73.0 72.4 69.1 68.6 67.6 63.3 1 IAatArl 30Jan 09 10:44:48 71,0 89.0 73.1 62.6 85.5 93.4 72.9 72.8 72.6 72.4 73.7 63.5 1 Mc[ecl 30Jan 09 10:45:48 66.6 84.4 74.4 61.6 06.6 96.9 73.6 70.7 60.9 66.1 64.0 62.7 1 Mec9[1 3DJan 09 10:46:48 65.7 93.5 69.6 61.6 83.5 96.8 68.9 68.2 67.5 66.8 65.1 63.2 I Motcrl 3DJan 09 10:47:48 64.9 32.6 67.6 61.6 79.2 90.9 66.9 66.2 65.8 65.5 64.3 63.3 1 Flecacl 30Jan 09 10:48:48 69.0 85.0 75.8 62.5 84.5 96.9 73.9 71.5 70.3 69.5 65.4 63.3 3 Nbtecl 30Jan 09 ]0:49:48 71.9 89.1 78.3 62.5 66.7 96.9 76.9 74.7 73.0 73.0 71.1 67.3 1 Meter] 39Jan 09 10:50:48 69.1 86.9 76.5 61.2 86,5 97.6 74.7 72.9 71.7 70.6 66.8 62.5 1 Metorl 3DJan 09 10:51:48 67.0 84.8 78.3 60.6 93.2 97.6 73.5 71.5 70.0 68.1 63.1 61.2 1 Me[acl 3DJan 09 10:52:48 62.2 79.9 75.1 60.7 91.2 97.6 G3.9 62.8 624 62.0 61.7 61.1 1 Flc[ecl 3DJan 09 10:53:48 63.3 80.9 73.5 60.0 87.0 93.4 69.3 64.0 62.9 62.7 62.1 61.2 1 McCO[1 3DJan 09 10:54:48 68.1 85.9 75.6 61.1 92.1 95.3 72.2 73.6 71.1 70.5 67.1 61.5 1 H.tecl 3DJan 09 10:55:48 72.0 89.6 83.6 61.2 104.2 105.1 75.0 74.4 73.9 73.7 73.0 62.2 1 Lletecl 3DJan 09 10:56 :48 63.7 33.5 69.2 60.6 85.9 92.2 67.9 66,7 64.9 63,8 62.6 61.4 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 10:57:48 65.5 83.3 79.0 61.1 103.5 102.9 70.7 69.2 67.1 65.8 63.0 61.3 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 10:58:48 63.9 81.6 78.4 61.1 98.4 97.6 69.8 64.4 63.3 62.6 62.1 61.2 1 Hececl 3DJan 09 10:59:48 61.4 79.1 69.0 59.0 86.5 69.3 64.8 62.9 624 61.9 61.1 59.4 1 Hetarl 30Jan 09 11:00:48 63.2 01.0 72.5 60.0 90.6 93.4 66.6 64.9 64.5 64.3 62.6 60.5 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 11:01:48 71.2 99.0 77,9 64.0 101.0 100.5 74.1 72.9 72.0 72.6 72.0 65.3 1 He[e[1 3DJan 09 11:02:48 68.2 86.6 73.1 64.8 86.4 101.4 72.7 71.3 7D.1 69.6 68.5 65.9 1 KOCac! 3DJan 09 31:03:48 69.6 87.3 83.1 63.6 92.1 102.2 78.7 74.4 69.1 66.6 65.5 64.2 1 Heterl 3DJan 09 11:04:40 74.8 92.6 81.1 65.5 92.7 100.0 79.0 79.4 77.0 75.6 73.4 72.0 L Hecec3 3DJan 09 11:05:40 77.6 95.4 85.1 63.5 99,0 102.9 84.0 80.6 79.4 78.6 76.8 70.1 1 Hate[3 3DJan 09 11:06:48 75.3 93.0 83.3 63.4 96.8 102.6 90.4 79.2 76.3 77.3 74.0 64.3 1 Hetarl 3DJan 09 33:07:48 68.7 86.5 78.0 61.3 94.3 98.8 75.0 73.6 71.3 GB.8 65.6 62.9 1 Hatetl 303an 09 31:08:48 70.9 68.7 79.6 63.5 91.5 98.2 77.7 74.2 72.7 71.8 69.7 64.9 1 H.e[etl 3DJan 09 11:09:48 67.6 85.4 75.0 61.6 90.9 94.4 72.6 71.4 70.4 69.5 65.0 62.4 1 Hetarl 30Jan 09 11:10:40 62.9 80.7 72.9 61.4 90.3 92.2 65.0 63.0 63.5 63.0 62.6 62.0 1 Metorl 30Jan 09 11:11:48 64.0 81.8 70.6 61.4 85.1 91.6 60.3 66.2 65.3 64.6 63.3 62.2 1. Macon 30Jan 09 11:32:49 63.3 81.1 71.5 63.3 91.5 94.4 68.1 64.9 53.8 63.2 62,6 61.7 1 Materl 303an 09 11:33:48 68.2 86.0 84.2 61.6 105.9 106.4 79.1 70,9 64.0 63.6 62.0 GZ.1 1 Maco[1 303an 09 11:34:40 66.9 84.7 05.9 61.4 107.1 100.4 76.4 64.5 63.7 63.2 62.6 61.8 1 146 tcrl Man 09 11:35:48 62.6 80.4 65.9 61.2 84.5 90.9 65.0 63.9 63.4 63.0 62,5 61.4 1 hla [e[1 30J.n 09 11:16:48 63.1 80.9 76.2 63.2 93.6 96.9 65.0 63.6 63.1 62.9 62.5 61.0 ] Mete[] 30Jan 09 11:17:40 66.3 84.0 74.2 61.7 88.3 96.2 13.3 70.5 68.4 65.9 63.5 62.3 1 M0ter1 3DJan 09 11:39:48 65.3 63.1 71.7 61.4 84.9 98.2 69.8 67.6 66.5 65.8 64.7 62.5 1 Materl 3DJan 09 11:19:48 62.2 79.9 66.0 61.2 78.9 87.4 63.9 62.9 62.8 62.6 52.0 61.2 1 Metorl Man 09 11:2D:40 62.0 79.8 64.2 60.9 76.1 91.4 63.1 62.9 62.7 62.4 61.0 61.2 1 M.t..1 3DJan 09 11:21:40 62.2 80.0 65.7 60.6 79.0 90.9 64.6 63.0 62.8 62.5 61.9 61.2 1 Me[erl 30Jan 09 11:22:48 62.8 60.6 77.5 61.0 94.5 95.3 64.6 63.2 62.9 62.7 62.2 61.3 1 hte 5651 Man 09 11:23:46 63.2 80.9 64.3 62.1 76.8 09.3 64.0 63.9 63.8 63.6 63.2 62.3 1 Mececl Man 09 11:24:48 63.3 91.0 66.7 62.2 79.8 99.3 64.7 63.9 63.6 63.7 63.3 62.3 1 Motorl 3DJan 09 11:25:48 63.0 80.8 66.3 61,9 81.4 09.3 64.5 63.9 63.7 63.5 62.9 62.2 3 Metorl 3DJan 09 11:26:48 63.0 80.7 65.5 61,7 90.5 89.3 64.6 63.9 63.7 63.4 62.8 62.1 1 Metetl 30Jan 09 11:27:46 64.0 81.6 68.7 60.7 83.7 92.2 67.5 66.5 65.5 64.6 63.4 61.6 1 Meter! 3DJan 09 11:20:48 67.6 85.4 74.2 60.9 85.0 93.4 72.3 71.2 69.8 68.8 66.3 62.4 1 Motorl 30Jan 09 11:29:46 67.6 65.4 74.4 61.7 84.3 96.5 72.0 7D.9 70.0 69.1 66.5 62.8 1 L :ocerl 3DJan 09 11:30:46 60.4 86.2 75.1 63.1 87.2 95.3 73.5 72.3 70.9 69.6 66.7 64.1 1 Heterl 30Jan 09 13:31:48 75.2 93.0 80.0 64.6 93.5 99.4 79.0 78.2 77.4 76.6 75.0 68.0 3 .: .l 30Jan 09 33:32:48 73.6 91.4 82.7 61.1 93.4 102.2 80.2 78.4 76.2 74.8 71.1 62.3 1 He[e[S 30Jan 09 11:33:48 64.9 82.7 72.6 60.5 85.0 101.4 71.7 69.9 66.4 64.3 662.4 61.1 S Heterl 30Jan 09 13:34:43 71.3 89.1 94.2 61.3 100.8 104.6 80.3 76.1 73.1 69.2 69.2 62.7 1 l:atec3 30Jan 09 11:35:48 68.4 86.1 75.2 67.0 95.1 97.6 70.6 69.6 69.0 66.B 65.1 67.2 3 Hate[1 30Jan 09 11:36:49 67.1 84.9 70.7 66.3 861 92.2 68.0 67.9 61.7 67.5 67.0 66.3 1 Ptetorl 30Jan 09 11:37:48 67.4 85.2 73.1 66.6 90.1 93.4 68.6 67.9 67.8 67.7 67.4 66.7 1 Meverl 300an 09 11:38:43 68.1 85.9 76.8 66.3 100.3 100.0 73.6 69.5 67.9 67.9 67.4 66.5 1 !]aced 3DJan 09 11:39:48 67.7 85.5 71.3 66.0 83.7 90.2 70.1 68.8 68.1 67.9 67.5 66.6 1 Heterl 3DJan 09 11:40:49 67.5 95.3 78.0 57.2 101,3 1D1.8 70.9 68.7 67.9 67.8 67.4 60.6 I Net.❑ 39Jan 09 11:41:46 59.3 17.0 66.0 58.0 78.4 69.3 60.9 60.0 59.8 59.6 59.1 58.2 1 Mecerl 30Jan 00 11:42:48 61.4 e5.2 72.5 56.0 94.1 96.2 72.1 11.7 71.4 70.9 60.1 58.3 1 Meted 30Jan 09 11:43:48 60.2 78.0 66.2 56.0 81.7 89.3 64.0 62.3 61.1 60.5 59.6 53.4 1 Mecerl 39Jan 09 11:44:48 63.5 81.3 71.4 58,0 63.2 93.4 70.7 69.5 65.4 61.5 59.7 53.4 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 11:45:48 61.5 79.3 11.2 58.9 90.7 92.2 65.9 63.9 63.0 61.8 60.6 59.3 1 N.eter! 39Jan 09 11:46:48 66.3 04.0 15.0 59.4 86.6 96.2 73.9 10.7 69.1 66.2 62.9 59.9 1 Hecerl 30Jan 09 11:47:40 64.3 '62.0 70.2 58.1 03.1 96.2 60.0 67.5 66.6 65.6 63.3 59.1 1 Hecerl 30Jan 04 11;48:48 59.1 76.9 65.2 57.4 80.1 67.4 61.1 60.0 59.7 59.3 59,7 50.1 1 Neterl 30Jan 09 11:49:48 60.4 78.2 67.0 58.0 03.2 89.3 63.5 62.1 61.5 60.9 59.9 50.5 1 Nets] 30Jan 09 11:50:48 63.5 81.3 72.7 59.4 86.2 90.9 70.6 66.4 64.6 63.4 62.0 60.3 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 11:51:48 64.9 82.6 73.7 58.7 95.0 100.0 70.9 69.6 67.8 66.4 51.7 59.5 1 Mec.rl 30J.n 09 11:52:40 62.2 00.0 67.0 58.2 01.7 89.3 66.0 64.7 63.8 63.2 61.6 59.4 1 Macerl 39Jan 09 11:53:40 63.6 81.3 72.7 61.4 95.8 100.0 69.3 65.7 64.0 63.4 62.7 61.8 1 Neeorl 39Jan 09 11:54:48 62.1 79.0 67.2 60.7 82J 89.3 64.0 62.9 62.7 62.5 61.9 61.1 1 Mecorl 30Jan 09 11:55:48 62.1 79.9 72.3 59.3 90.8 90.9 67.1 63.6 62.7 62.1 61.5 60.2 1. Mecerl 30J.n 09 11:56:48 64.4 82.1 69.8 59.3 63.6 93.4 69.4 68.1 66.4 64.0 63.3 60.4 1 Mecorl 30J.n 09 11:57:46 51.4 79.1 73.5 58.6 93.6 93.4 65.7 63.8 63.1 63.1 60.0 59.1 1 Meterl 39Jan 09 11:50:48 62.1 79.9 72.9 50.7 85.0 89.3 69.8 65.1 62.1 61.1 60.3 59.2 1 Mecorl 30Jan 09 11:59;48 61.7 79.5 70.6 59.0 05.6 89.3 66.4 63.9 62.9 62.2 60.8 59.4 1 M.c.r1 39Jan 09 12:00:48 61.6 79.4 69.4 59.3 90.7 92.2 65.9 64.1 62.5 61.7 60,8 59.3 1 Hecerl 39Jan 09 12:01:48 61.5 79.2 60.3 59.5 Be.5 93.4 64.3 63.1 62.3 61.9 61.2 60.2 1 M.t.rl 30Jan 09 12:02:48 64.4 82.2 69.1 60,3 85.3 90.9 61.0 66.0 65.6 65.3 44,5 61.7 1 Mecerl 3UJan 09 12:03:48 64.5 82.3 73.7 59.4 92.7 94.4 67.0 66.0 65.8 65.5 64.8 60.3 1 Need 39Jan 09 12:04:48 63.7 B1.5 81.3 59.3 103.0 103.3 73.0 63.3 61.4 60.9 60.5 59.4 1 H.C.rl 39Jan 09 12:05:48 61.5 79.3 72.0 $9.4 92.3 95.3 64.5 62.9 62.3 61.9 61.0 60.1 1 Neterl 39Jan 09 12:06:48 665.9 03,6 71.0 60.1 83.0 98.8 71.0 69.7 60.1 66.7 64.0 61.5 1 M.c.rl 39Jan 09 12:07;48 64.1 82.4 73.9 59.9 92.5 96.2 71.3 68.1 66.4 65.4 62.6 60.7 1 Hecerl 39Jan 09 12:00:48 64.9 82.7 04.0 59.9 102.2 101.4 72.6 64.0 62.7 62.0 61.4 60.3 1 Met.rt 39Jan 09 12:09:48 63.5 61.2 83.5 59.8 101.4 100.9 66.6 62.9 62.1 61.3 61.1 60.2 1 M.c.rl 39Jan 09 12:10:40 61.7 79.5 65.5 59.8 85.6 90.9 64.2 63.2 62.7 624 61.5 60.3 1 M.Cerl 39Jan 09 12:11:48 66.1 63.9 74.0 60.1 91.5 103.3 72.7 70.6 68.3 67.2 63.3 60.9 1 Mecerl 39Jan 09 12:12:48 64.0 81.9 74.3 59.5 93.1 96.2 70.1 67.9 65.1 63.6 62.1 60.5 1 Motod 30Jan 09 12:13:48 70.0 08.5 75.2 67.4 89.2 100.9 74.8 13.9 72,9 71.6 69.6 68.1 I Meter! 30Jan 09 12:14:46 67,8 05.5 70.3 66.9 83.2 93.4 69.1 63,6 60.0 67.9 67.6 67.1 1 M.Cerl 30Jan 09 12:15:48 67.5 85.3 68.9 66.1 83.7 92.2 68.0 68.3 67.9 67.0 61.5 66.9 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 12:16:48 68.9 86.6 05.8 66.0 102.6 102.9 71.1 60.9 68.6 68.3 67.7 67.1 1 Me. 1 30Jan 09 12:17:48 67.9 85.7 71.8 66.9 91.9 97.6 69.5 68.5 68.0 67.9 67.6 67.1 1 M.terl 30J.n 09 12:18:48 67.8 85.5 70.8 66.8 B6.6 93.4 68.9 68.7 68.3 68.0 67.6 67.1 1 N.ted 30J.n 09 12:19:48 69.3 97.0 06.0 67.5 101.7 102.6 70.0 60.9 69.8 68.7 6B.4 67.5 1 M.c.d 30Jan 09 12:20:48 68.7 86.5 76.5 67.3 90,7 97.6 70.0 69.6 69.1 68.9 68.6 68.0 I Noterl 30Jan 09 12:21:48 68.0 85.8 79.2 56.0 94.0 97.6 74.5 72.0 69.3 68.7 67.1 59.7 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 12:22:48 63.6 01.4 71.4 58.2 91.5 97.6 69.1 67.5 66.1 64.7 61.0 59.3 1 M.t.d 39Jan 09 12:23:48 59.7 77.5 69.7 57.4 06,7 09.3 64.1 60.9 60.0 59.7 59.0 50.1 1 M.c.d 30J.n 09 12:24:46 62.1 80.9 73.2 55.3 83.7 09.3 69.5 66.9 69.5 64.1 61.2 57.2 1 Mot.rl 30J.n 09 12:25:46 64.4 82.1 76.4 57.7 99..2 97.6 69.6 67.5 64.1 65.1 62.9 59.7 1 Mef.cl 30Jan 09 12:26:48 62.3 80.1 75.6 52.9 93.9 95.3 69.0 66.4 64.6 62.5 59.9 55.8 1 Motorl 30J.n 09 12:27:46 63.8 81.6 80.3 57.3 103.5 103.9 74.9 63.7 62.2 61.3 50,0 58.3 1 M.t.rl 39Jan 09 12:20:40 62.8 60.5 71.4 57.7 91.0 100.0 68.5 67.1 65.3 63.4 60.4 50.7 1 Mecerl 30Jan 09 12:29:40 60.5 78.3 73.3 56.9 90.6 92.2 64.5 62.5 61.5 60.8 59.6 58.2 1 N.terl 30Jan 09 12:30:46 61.1 78.9 71.9 57.0 91.3 92.2 65.9 62.9 61.9 61.4 60.4 59.0 1 Hetorl 39Jan 09 12:31:48 61.2 79.0 72.2 56.4 89.5 92.2 66.7 63.2 61.8 61.2 60.1 59.1 t H.t.rl 30Jan 09 12:32:48 60.6 78.4 66.8 57.9 62.6 89.3 64.0 62.6 61.7 61.1 60.2 59.0 1 Mororl 30Jan 09 12:33:48 60.6 78.4 70.7 51.9 86.9 90.9 63.2 61.9 61.5 61.1 60.3 58.6 I Hetorl 30Jan 09 12:34:46 61.3 79.1 76,2 50.2 88.9 92.2 65.5 63.3 61.5 60.6 59.8 50.6 I Meterl 30Jan 09 12:35:40 60.2 70.0 71.8 57.6 89.0 90.0 66.2 61.3 60.3 59.8 59.2 58.2 1 N.t.rl 30Jan 09 12:36:46 56.9 74.7 68.2 52.1 88.6 90.9 62.6 $9.6 58.5 57.3 55.2 53.2 I Hecerl 30Jan 09 12:31:48 59.0 75.0 68.0 52.4 84.1 87.4 64.3 61.2 59.1 58.0 56.6 54.6 1 Hec.rl 39Jan 09 12:38:48 59.5 77.3 73.1 53.3 90,1 90.9 64.5 62.3 61.1 60.2 58.4 54.9 1 Motorl 30Jan 09 12:39:46 59.4 77.2 11.0 52.4 90.4 92.2 67.0 63.8 59.9 58.9 56.6 54.2 1 Mec.rl 30Jan 09 12:40:48 62.3 80.1 70.3 55.8 91.3 92.2 68.0 66.7 64.3 63.2 60.0 58.2 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 12:41:46 61.3 79.0 75.9 57.8 99.9 99.4 67.0 62.9 61.3 60.6 59.6 58.4 1 M.cerl 30Jan 09 12:42:48 66.8 84.5 77.2 46.4 90.0 96.8 74.9 72.8 70.6 66.6 59.1 4.,5 16leterl 30Jan 09 12:43:48 52,8 70.6 67.1 44.8 90.8 90.9 60.2 57.2 54.2 51.9 49.2 46.6 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 12:44:48 51.8 69.6 65.6 44.1 68.5 89.3 $0.0 55,3 53.1 51.8 49.1 46.3 1 Hoterl 30Jan 09 12:45:48 51.3 69.1 62.2 45.1 76.4 B4.9 56.4 54.4 53.0 52.1 50.0 47.5 3 Meterl 30Jan 09 12:46:48 54.0 71.0 66.8 46.7 84.4 89.3 60.1 56.4 55.5 54.8 52.3 46.8 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 12:47:48 62.0 79.9 10.9 49.2 87.5 90.9 70.3 69.0 64.8 59.4 53.7 50.6 1 Moterl 30Jan 06 12:48:48 54.2 72.0 67.3 45.5 84.6 89.3 62.0 57.0 54.8 53.5 51.7 49.1 1 M.terl 30Jan 09 12:49:48 51.2 68.9 69.2 43.5 87.6 89.3 61.1 53.9 50.2 48.5 46.5 44.0 1 M.t.d 30Jan 09 12:50:48 74..7 92.5 99.4 43.4 116.5 117.0 75.7 55.7 51.4 49.6 47.5 45.4 1 M.t.rl 39Jan 09 12:51:48 51..4 69.1 65.3 44,9 83.5 84.9 59.8 54.1 51.9 50.7 48.9 46.2 1 Met.rl 30Jan 09 12:52:48 55.0 72.8 71.9 45.1 91.4 94.4 62.5 57.0 55.4 53.6 50.0 47.2 1 Mecerl 39Jan 09 12:53:4B 52.1 69.8 67.2 43.2 86.3 87.4 61.1 55.0 52.9 50.9 47.9 44.5 1 M.terl 39Jan 09 12:54:48 57.1 74.9 79.4 42.5 95.4 97.6 64.3 55.1 52.5 50.5 47.3 44.6 1 M.c.r1 39Jan 09 12:55:48 49.5 67.2 67.1 43.4 81.9 84.9 54.5 50.9 49.7 49.8 47.3 44.0 1 Meterl 305an 09 12:56:48 57.2 75.0 71.0 44.1 87.3 B9.3 65.6 61.0 59.0 56.8 50.8 45.6 1 Mece[1 39Jan 09 12:57:48 54.5 72.3 65.7 45.6 83.3 84.9 63.4 50,2 55,6 54.1 51.6 48.0 1 M.cerl 30Jan 09 12:50:49 62.7 80.5 86.2 42.4 101.3 102.6 65.4 55.8 53.2 51.9 49.0 44.8 1 Macerl 39Jan 09 12:59:40 51.4 69.1 65.6 42.8 87.5 87.4 59.2 54.7 52.6 51.2 48.6 44.5 1 Neeorl 30Jan 09 13:00:48 53.6 71.4 $6.7 42.6 90.1 89.3 63.6 56.9 54.5 52.5 49.4 45.5 1 Hecerl 39Jan 09 13:01:40 53.3 71.3 64.6 42.8 83.9 87.4 60,2 57.7 55.0 54.2 50.7 44.9 1 Meter! 30Jan 09 13:02:49 51.6 65.4 62.0 43.2 03.5 94.9 58.7 55.8 53.B 51.1 43.7 45.9 1 Meter! 39Jan 09 13:03:40 52.4 70.2 67.7 44.1 92.6 90.9 60.3 55.1 53.1 51.6 49.6 46.3 1 Mecerl 30Jan 09 13:04:46 58.0 16.6 76.1 45.8 96.5 97.6 69.3 63.3 55.0 53.2 50.0 47.4 1 Hetorl 39Jan 09 13:05:48 53.4 71.2 65.3 44.7 06.6 87.4 60.3 58.3 55.7 53.3 50.4 46.8 1 Neterl 30Jan 09 13:06:48 52.5 70.3 64.3 46.7 88.4 89.3 57.7 54.7 53.7 53.1 51.5 46.9 1 Meter! 39Jan 09 13:07:48 52.1 69.9 64.8 45.7 04.5 84.9 59.9 54.7 53.1 52.0 50.2 47.4 1 M.C.rl 30Jan 09 13:08:46 50.7 63.4 59.8 43.7 81.5 84.9 56.1 53.8 52.7 51.8 49.3 45.8 1 Het.rl 39Jan 09 13:09:48 50.4 66.2 61.8 42.6 73.3 84.9 59.2 53.9 51.5 50.2 47.9 44.5 1 Meterl 30Jan 09 13:10:48 54.0 71.7 68.1 42.B 86.8 87.4 62.9 58.4 54.9 52.5 49.5 45.6 1 Mec.r! 30Jan 09 13:11:46 50.9 63.6 60.3 41.3 74.4 0.0 57.2 53.7 52.6 51,7 49.9 44.6 1 Hats1 30jan 09 13:12:48 49.66 61.6 61.1 43.3 78.6 84.9 57.2 53.4 50.8 49.6 47.6 45.0 1 Mecerl 30Jan 09 13:13:48 51.4 69.7 71.3 41.6 93.5 94.4 59.6 53.6 51.6 50.2 43.1 44.2 1 Neterl 39Jan 09 13:14:40 53.9 71.6 71.0 40.4 90.4 90.9 66.0 55.4 49.9 46.2 45.6 42.0 1 Mecerl 39Jan 09 13:15:48 62.6 18.1 82.2 42.6 97.6 99.4 72.0 65.4 61.0 57.7 52.7 44.4 C: \LRftDhv \SLHUTl6 \hERBI 2.5;n Interval Data Site Location Date Time Leq SEL Lraax Lmin Peat War W 2) L( 8) LI161 L(25) 41501 L190) _______________________________________________________________________ 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 03:15:19 69.5 77.9 70.0 60.9 _______________________________ 81.3 91.0 70.0 69.9 69.8 69.7 69.5 69.1 2 M.eter2 30Jan 09 03:15:46 73.5 91.3 81.7 72.6 90.1 301.9 76.9 74.0 73.6 73.7 73.4 12.6 2 Marra 30Jan 09 07:16:47 69.2 07.0 80.7 61.0 97.4 97.0 33.6 35.1 72.4 66.9. 62.8 61.5 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:17:47 62.9 80.6 67.1 61.4 63.5 91.D 64.3 63.8 63.5 63.1 62.3 62.1 2 Y.etet2 30Jan 09 03:16:47 63.6 51.3 31.9 61.6 90.5 91.0 65.9 64.6 64.0 63.8 63.3 62.3 2 Hete:2 30Jan 09 07:19:47 66.0 83.8 34.3 61.8 89.8 98.3 72.3 69.8 68.2 66.5 63.7 62.2 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:20:47 64.1 01.9 75.3 61.5 97.1 97.0 69.7 66.0 64.8 63.4 63.0 62.1 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:21:47 63.0 BO.8 68.2 61.7 91.1 94.5 64.3 63.9 63.7 63.4 62.8 62.1 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:22:47 64.3 82.0 70.5 61.8 91.3 93.5 67.5 66.4 65.6 64.8 63.6 62.3 2 Hetea2 30Jan 09 07:23:47 64.3 02.1 71.6 52.0 86.4 06.3 70.3 66.9 64.5 63.9 63.3 62.3 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:24:47 63.3 81.1 69.8 61.3 See.7 92.3 66.6 64.8 63.9 63.5 62.8 62.1 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:25:47 65.2 83.0 74.2 62.0 89- 95.4 69.4 57.8 67.3 66.6 63.6 62.3 2 Metev2 30Jan 09 07:26:43 64.5 82.3 72.1 61.2 89.4 94.5 69.0 66.9 66.3 65.3 63.3 62.2 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:27:47 63.4 81.1 70.3 61.8 92.2 92.3 66.3 64.5 63.0 63.7 63.1 62.2 2 M.etei2 30Jan 09 07:28:47 63.1 60.8 65.2 61.8 80.0 89.4 64.0 63.9 63.7 63.5 63.0 62.2 2 Y.etet2 30Jan 09 07:29:47 63.5 81_2 72.7 61.8 97.0 91.0 65.6 64.0 63.8 63.7 63.2 62.2 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:30:47 63.4 81.1 67.7 62.0 79.4 09.4 65.9 64.6 63.9 63.7 63.2 62.2 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:31:47 64.6 82.4 32.3 62.0 86.4 91.0 68.3 61.1 65.9 65.1 63.3 62.3 2 Hetet2 38Jan 09 07:32:43 64.3 82.5 75.5 62.1 93.3 55.4 69.6 67.3 65.8 64.7 63.6 62.3 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 07:33:47 63.1 80.9 70.2 61.6 91.5 91.0 66.2 63.9 63.7 63.5 62.9 62.1 2 Metev2 30Jan 09 07:34:43 63.3 81.5 69.6 62.1 82.4 01.0 67.6 64.8 63.9 63.8 63.3 62.3 2 HDtet2 30Jan 09 07:35:47 63.2 81.0 69.6 61.88 04.5 91.0 65.3 64.0 63.7 63.5 62.9 62.2 2 Metev2 30Jan 09 07:36:47 63.1 80.8 67.6 61.8 00.0 91.33 64.0 63.9 63.6 63.4 62.8 62.2 2 Hetet2 38Jan 09 07:37:47 63.1 80.9 63.8 62.1 80.5 91.0 64.3 63.9 63.8 63.6 63.1 62.2 2 Hete12 30Jaa 09 07:30:47 64.6 82.4 76.3 61.8 100.2 100.1 70.8 66.8 64.7 63.9 63.2 62.2 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:39:47 67.5 85.3 83.8 62.2 107.2 106.3 76.6 69.0 66.4 65.1 63.8 62.6 2 Hetet2 385an 09 07:40:47 63.9 61.7 71.7 62.3 79.8 91.0 67.0 65.1 64.4 63.9 63.5 62.5 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 07:41:47 70.5 88.2 61.7 64.1 102.2 103.0 77.9 73.3 72.2 71_0 68.3 65.1 2 Hete12 30Jan 09 07:42:47 76.3 92.0 07.6 71.5 103.2 104.4 79.3 75.5 74.7 74.1 73.3 72.2 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:43:47 73.0 90.7 00.1 71.1 91.5 97.0 76.9 73.8 73.2 72..9 72.6 71.9 2 Metet2 3DJan 09 03:44:47 73.6 91.4 75.4 72.4 88.5 95.4 74.9 74.5 74.0 73.9 73.5 72.6 2 Hetet2 3DJan 09 07:45:47 73.4 91.2 74.7 72.4 99.8 94.5 74.7 74.0 73.9 73.7 73.4 72.5 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 07:46:47 72.5 90.2 74.0 71.2 86.0 94.5 73.8 73.2 72.9 72.8 72.4 71.4 2 11etet2 38Jan 09 07:47:47 72.4 90.2 74.0 70.9 87.9 94.5 73.6 73.0 72.9 72.7 72.4 71.4 2 Metet2 Man 09 07:48:47 72.4 90.1 73.7 71.1 86.4 94.5 73.7 73.0 72.8 72.7 72.3 71.4 2 Metev2 38Jan 09 07:49:47 72.2 90.0 73.3 71.2 91.4 96.3 73.5 72.9 72.0 12.6 72.2 71.3 2 M.. z2 38Jan 09 03:50:47 72.4 90.1 74.0 71.1 06.0 94.5 73.6 73.0 72.0 72.7 32.4 71.4 2 Metet2 Man 09 07:51:47 78.8 96.6 86.2 71.4 97.0 103.4 85.8 85.3 70.6 77.4 76.2 72.1 2 Metet2 38Jan 09 07;52:47 76.2 94.0 78.4 75.2 90.8 100.1 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.6 76.1 75.2 2 Metet2 30Jaa 09 07:53:47 76.0 93.8 78.4 69.5 91.0 99.8 78.4 77.8 77.5 77.1 76.2 71.1 2 Metet2 38Jan 09 07:54:47 72.7 90.4 88.2 69.7 99.0 100.1 75.9 72.5 71.9 71.7 71.1 70.2 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 07:55:47 71.3 89.0 74.7 69.1 86.4 97.7 73.9 73.5 72.8 71.5 70.6 69.7 2 Metet2 30Jan o9 07:56;47 74.3 92.0 75.9 73.6 88.2 99.5 75.6 75.0 74.0 74.7 74.3 73.6 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 07;57:47 75.8 93.6 82.3 73.2 94.1 101.5 81.2 79.4 77.2 75.0 74.4 73.3 2 Motev2 30Jan 09 07:58:47 72.2 90.0 74.9 66.7 89.0 97.7 74.6 73.9 73.8 73.6 73.1 68.2 2 McCet2 3DJan 09 07:59:47 69.7 87.5 73.1 67.2 87.7 97.0 72.8 72.0 71.4 70.7 69.1 67.3 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 08:00:47 70.2 88.0 72.5 60.5 84.9 95.4 71.8 71.0 70.8 70.6 70.1 69.2 2 Metet2 303an 09 08:01:47 70.1 87.9 72.7 68.9 63.0 97.0 71.8 71.0 70.8 70.6 70.1 69.2 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 OB:02:47 70.4 99.2 87.0 67.9 96.3 100.6 71.6 70.8 70.5 70.2 69.7 66.9 2 Metet2 303an 09 OB:03:47 68.6 86.3 71.5 67.6 82.7 94.5 70.5 69.5 69.0 60.9 6B.6 66.1 2 Hetet2 383an 09 09:04:47 68.9. 86.7 71.4 63.7 83.7 95..4 70.9 70.2 69.7 69.4 68.0 68.1 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 08:05:43 69.9 87.7 85.6 67.7 35.8 100.1 72.3 70.0 70.0 69.3 69.2 60.2 2 Metet2 3DJan 09 00:06:47 68.8 86.6 71.5 67.7 83.6 94.5 70.7 69.9 69.6 69.3 68.7 66.1 2 Mete12 30Jan 09 80307:47 70.4 60.2 87.1 i7.7 96.1 101.3 72.3 70.9 70.3 69.8 6B.9 66.2 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 09:00:47 69.9 87.7 73.4 67.5 89.6 96.3 71.9 71.4 70.9 70.6 69.9 68.9 2 Y.e CeG 38Jan D9 08:09:47 70.2 90.0 72.9 69.0 93.2 98.0 71:0 71.3 70.9 70.7 30.2 69.3 2 Hetet2 38Jan 09 88:10:47 70.0 87.7 85.4 67.7 95.4 100.6 72.1 73.0 70.4 69.9 69.0 66.2 2 HCCet2 30Jan 09 00:11:47 69.7 07.5 73.1 67.7 85.4 9E.3 72.6 11.5 70.8 70.2 69.5 68.3 2 Ma tet2 30Jan 09 08:12:43 69.9 87.7 71.7 69.7 98.6 97.0 71.3 70.9 70.7 10.4 69.9 69.1 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 08:13:47 73.3 91_0 77.4 60.4 39.3 101.0 77.0 76.7 76.4 76.0 70.7 69.3 2 Het=_t2 38Jan 09 00:14:47 77.8 95.6 65.7 68.4 97.6 103.9 65.E 84.4 82.3 76.8 30.1 69.0 2 Hetet2 38Jan 09 00:15:47 69.5 87.3 75.3 60.4 86.6 94.5 72.0 70.6 70.0 69.8 69.4 66.4 2 Hetet2 3DJan 09 08:16:47 73.0 90.7 60.0 66.1 93.7 100.1 78.9 77.6 35.5 33.7 30.2 68.5 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 09:17:43 71.2 85.9 80.4 66.9 69.3 95.4 74.3 12.7 71.9 11.7 70.9 69.4 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 09:10:47 72.1 09.9 79.0 69.0 90.4 93.3 78.4 75.9 73.6 71.7 30.4 69.3 Metet2 30Jan 09 00:19:47 74.7 92.5 83.5 30.5 98.2 103.4 79.3 76.2 36.0 74.9 73.8 71.8 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 08:20:43 73.6 91.4 80.9 32.2 92.9 97.7 74.9 74.5 74.0 73.9 73.5 72.6. 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 88:21:47 76.6 96.4 85.0 72.3 97.2 101.9 93.4 92.7 82.3 81.5 74.0 73.0 2 Mrtrr2 303an 09 00:22:47 76.9 96.7 82.4 77.5 94.9 100.1 81.9 90.0 79.3 79.9 79.6 70.1 2 Hetet2 3DJan 09 08:23:47 76.5 94.2 81.9 Me 9 4 100.1 01.9 31.5 91.1 78.4 72.4 71.2 2 Me[a:2 38Jan 09 06:24:47 13.7 91.5 76.6 71.3 e9.1 97.0 76.6 75.1 74.9 74.5 73.4 72.1 2 Metet2 38Jan 09 00:25:47 77.9 95.6 91.3 71.5 98., 104.0 85.0 8D.5 79.6 77.9 36.2 32.3 2 Hetet2 3DJan 09 09:26:47 73.2 69.0 78.5 69.6 94.6 95.3 75.0 72.3 71.6 71.5 30.9 30.1 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 09:27:47 77.4 95.1 100.1 30.1 115.1 119.2 77.9 74.$ 73.4 32.9 72.2 71.0 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 09:26:47 76.1 93.9 89.6 72.0 103.3 105.8 79.1 77.6 76.9 16.3 75.3 74.0 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 09:29:47 80.0 98.6 84.4 73.3 96.1 102.3 84.0 83.5 82.9 92.7 8Z.0 74.0 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 08:30:47 01.4 99,2 83.1 79.5 94.7 101.0 92.9 82.6 82.3 81.9 81.3 80.2 2 Hetet2 3DJan D9 08:31:47 63.0 98.7 85.6 80.0 96.6 100.6 B2.0 91.8 81.6 91.5 80.9 SD.2 2 Metat2 38Jan 89 06:32:47 80.8 98.5 B4.3 79.0 94.9 101.0 32.0 81.8 81.6 01.4 90.8 79.8 2 MDtat2 3DJan 09 06:33:47 76.4 96.2 81.4 11.7 92.8 100.1 80.7 80.0 79.8 79.7 19.3 72.4 2 Mrrrr2 30Jan 09 08:34:47 78.2 96.0 86.3 72.1 96.2 300.1 79.9 79.6 79.1 78.9 78.4 73.6 2 Hetet2 30jan 09 06:35:47 75.7 93.5 79.3 71.8 P1.2 98.3 70.9 78.6 78.1 77.1 73.7 72.4 2 Metot2 30Jan 09 08:36:47 13.5 91.3 76.0 72.1 92.7 98.9 75.8 75.2 74.0 73.8 73.3 72.3 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 08:37:47 74.6 92.4 76.6 73.5 99.1 97.7 75.9 75.5 75.0 74.9 74.6 74.2 2 Metet2 3DJan 09 08:38:47 75.0 92.7 78.8 71.9 90.7 100.1 79.7 78.0 77.4 14.9 73.9 72.8 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 88:39:47' 70.7 96.5 06.1 71.9 101.1 iO3.4 85.4 63.8 02.4 79.0 74.8 72.6 2 Matot2 30Jan 09 00:40:47 75.2 92.9 77.8 73.3 90.2 98.9 77.1 16.8 76.4 76.1 74.7 74.1 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 08;41:47 75.1 92.9 60.5 73.6 09.7 98.9 78.2 15.9 75.7 75.4 74.8 74.1 2 Motet2 30Jan 09 08:42:47 75.5 93.3 77.9 74.1 89.1 99.5 77.4 76.6 76.1 75.9 75.5 74.8 2 14etet2 38Jan 09 08:43:47 76.4 94.2 B0.3 74.4 92.1 101.0 78.6 77.8 17.5 77.1 15.9 75.2 2 Hate[? 30Jan 09 08:44:47 15.7 93.5 70,6 24.5 91.2 101.0 76.9 76.6 76.2 75.9 25.6 75.1 2 Hete[Z 30Jan 09 08:45:47 75.4 93.2 77.8 73.3 91.3 101.0 27.8 77.4 76.0 75.6 75.4 13.7 2 Hecec2 38Jan 09 08:46:47 77.5 95.3 08.3 72.0 101.9 105.5 86.9 81.9 77.0 75.5 73,B 72.4 Z Metac2 30Jan 09 08:47:47 73.0 90.8 76.3 22.0 82.7 100.6 74.5 73.9 73.6 73.3 72.8 72.1 2 M,etaQ 30Jan 09 08:48:47 71.5 91.2 76.3 22.1 88.2 97.0 74.2 74.0 73.9 73.6 73.4 12.6 2 Y.ecec2 39Jan 00 08:49:47 74.0 91.8 77.0 22.1 90.1 97.7 75.9 75.0 74.7 74.4 73.0 73.1 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 08:50:47 73.4 91.2 75.3 72.5 08.0 96.3 74.5 73.9 73.9 73.8 73.5 73.0 2 M6[a[2 30Jan 09 08:51:47 73.6 91.4 76.9 72.6 89.0 97.0 75.6 74.6 24.0 73.9 73.6 73d 2 Mate[2 30Jan 09 08:52:47 73.3 91.1 74.9 72.4 87.2 97.0 74.4 73.9 73.8 73.7 73.4 72.6 2 Hete12 30Jan 09 08:53:47 73.4 91.2 7$.6 72.5 89.1 07.0 74.8 74.0 73.9 73.8 73.5 13.0 2 14e[ec2 38Jan 09 08:54:47 73.7 91.5 76.4 72.6 89.0 97.0 75.4 74.0 74.4 74.0 73.6 73.1 2 IMct .2 38Jan 09 09:55:47 73.3 91.1 75.0 72.5 87.1 96.3 74.3 73.9 73.8 73.7 73.4 72.9 2 Moto12 303an 09 03:56:47 73.4 91.2 75.0 22.7 87.6 93.3 74.8 74.1 73,9 73.0 73.5 73.0 2 Mota[2 30Jan 09 08:57:47 74.1 91.9 76.6 72.3 88.6 98.9 76.3 75.5 7.1.9 74.5 73.8 73.1 2 Metec2 38Jan 09 08:59:47 73.6 91.4 83.6 71.7 93.1 98.3 75.5 74.6 74.0 73.8 73.3 72.3 2 M49 2 38Jan 09 06:59:47 73.1 90.9 01.3 71.7 90,0 99.5 74.8 73.9 13.7 73.4 72.8 72.1 2 Meto[2 38Jan 09 09:00:47 '82,9 100.7 92.4 72.1 105.8 109.9 89.3 88.5 96.3 84,1 76.9 72.4 2 Mate[2 38Jan 09 09:01:47 00.8 90.6 06.8 78.7 101.1 104.0 64.0 82.0 01.6 81.1 80.5 79.4 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 09:02:47 79.9 97.7 32.3 70.4 97.7 104.0 61.6 80.9 80.7 80.5 79.8 79.1 2 Metec2 38Jan 09 09:03:47 80.4 90.2 83.3 78.7 93.6 104.4 82.6 81.6 91.0 80.8 80.3 79.3 2 Motoc2 30Jan 09 09:04:47 BO.0 97.B 93.3 77.8 99.2 103.7 61.5 80.9 80,8 80.6 80.1 78.6 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 09:05:47 80.5 98.2 87.0 20.8 101,8 105.2 81.3 80.9 80.0 00,7 60.5 80.0 2 Merot2 30Jan 09 09:06:42 79.0 96.9 B1.0 77.9 98.3 104.9 80.0 29.8 79.7 79.5 79.0 78.2 2 Hatec2 30Jan 09 09:02:47 00.0 97.7 01.3 70.5 93.9 102.7 81.0 80.0 60.6 BOA 79.9 79.1 2 Me[et2 38Jan 09 09:00:47 00.6 90.4 05.7 78.9 101.7 104.4 82.9 82.4 81.7 01.0 80.2 79.2 2 Metec2 38Jan 09 09:09:47 01_4 99.2 92.0 79.7 106.4 108.7 85.3 82.1 81.7 61.4 80.0 60.1 2 Mote[2 38Jan 09 09:10:47 82.8 100.6 06.6 76.0 99.7 105.8 66.0 85.4 84.6 03.7 82.1 80.5 2 Hatec2 30Jan 09 09:11:47 01.9 99.7 86.0 77.4 99.4 103.4 86.6 85.2 84.2 83.0 81.3 7B.2 2 Hotac2 38Jan 09 09:12:47 79.6 97.4 07.7 77.4 102.0 105.2 82.4 el.7 81.3 00.2 78.0 70.1 2 Hete[2 30Jan 09 09:13:47 17.9 95.1 96.1 23.6 101.4 102.7 82.0 81.6 81.0 19.2 75.4 74.2 2 Hetec2 38Jan 09 09:14:47 78.9 96.7 63.3 74.1 93.4 102.3 82.3 81_6 81.0 80.6 78.5 74.5 2 Meta[Z 30Jan 09 09:15:42 76.7 94.5 86.6 73.3 94.8 101.0 01.4 80.5 29.7 76.9 74.7 73.8 2 Ha[ac2 30Jan 09 09:16:47 74.6 92.4 76.6 73.6 88.7 100.1 75.6 75.3 74.9 74,6 74,5 74.1 2 Metec2 38Jan 09 09:17:47 77.6 95.3 88.2 74.1 101.2 104.0 86.2 78.0 26.0 76.0 75.4 74.3 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 09:18:47 77.8 95.6 00.3 22.9 101.2 104.0 67.6 80.5 25.8 74.9 74.2 73.2 2 Meta[2 30Jan 09 09:19:47 74.0 91_9 78.0 23.2 99.0 100.8 75.0 74.8 24.6 74.4 73.3 23.2 2 Motac2 38Jan 09 09:20:42 74.0 91.0 78.9 72.2 91.4 98.9 75.0 24.9 74.7 74.5 74.0 73.1 2 Idete[2 30Jan 09 09:21:47 73.5 91_3 04.1 71.6 93.9 100.6 75.0 74.0 73.0 73.6 73.0 72.2 2 Hece12 JOJan 09 09:22:47 73.8 91.6 01.8 72.2 91.5 98.3 75.7 24.7 74.3 74.0 73.5 72.6 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 09:23:47 73.8 91..6 75.0 72.7 07.6 97.0 74.9 74.7 74.4 74.0 73.7 73.1 2 Metac2 30Jan 09 09:24:47 73.9 51.7 75.5 72.8 88.3 97.7 75.0 74.0 74.6 74.4 73,8 73.1 2 Mecc[2 30Jan 09 09:25:47 73.9 91.7 75.5 72.3 91.4 97.0 75.0 74.8 74.6 74.3 73.8 73.1 2 Motet2 JOJan 09 09:26:47 72.7 90.5 79.3 71.5 93.3 97.0 74.0 73.6 73.0 72.9 72.5 72.0 2 Mete[2 30Jan 09 09:27:47 74.8 92.5 78.8 71.5 90.9 99.5 78.8 78.0 77.2 74.7 73.7 72.4 2 Mete12 30JZn O9 09:28:47 74.5 92.2 76.6 73.1 89.6 98.9 25.9 75.5 75.0 74.8 74.4 73.3 2 MOtec'2 39Jan 09 09:29:47 80.1 97.9 66.6 72.7 100.1 102.3 86.5 8.1.6 83.3 91_8 75.8 73.4 2 Metac2 38Jan 09 09:30:47 81.0 96.8 96.5 22.6 99.1 104.9 65.8 04.4 83.7 83.2 79.4 73.5 2 Matec2 38Jan 09 09:31:47 7.1.0 91.7 75.2 72.0 88.5 97.0 75.0 74.8 7.1.7 74.4 73.9 73.1 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 09:32:47 74.0 91.8 01.9 72.4 93..8 97.0 75.0 74.0 74.6 74.4 73.8 13.1 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 09:33:47 73.7 91.5 76.9 72.1 91.6 97.0 75.4 74.9 74.6 74.4 73.5 72.3 2 Motoc2 30Jon 09 09:34:47 73.2 91_0 74.4 724 87.3 96.3 74.0 73.9 71.7 23.6 73.2 22.4 2 Metac2 30Jan 09 09:35:47 73.2 91.0 77.1 72.1 83.9 97.0 75.3 73.9 73.7 73.5 73.0 72.2 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 09:36:47 14.3 92.0 76.9 22.2 88.9 56.3 76.0 75.0 25.5 25.2 73.6 72.6 2 Hetec2 30Jan 09 09:32:42 76.6 94.5 05.9 72.1 97.4 103.4 85.3 81.4 76.2 74.9 74.2 72.8 2 Metoc2 38Jan 09 09:38:47 72.5 90.3 78.7 70.8 93.5 96.3 74.7 73.7 73.2 22.5 22.4 71.3 2 Hatec2 38Jan 09 09:39:47 72.9 90.6 784 71.1 92.3 96.3 74,5 73.0 73.6 73.2 72.7 72.1 2 14ete[2 38Jan 09 89:40:47 71.9 89.6 74.5 70.0 87.0 96.3 23.7 22.9 72.7 72.5 71.8 70.8 2 M9[OC2 30Jan 09 09:41:47 75.B 93.5 99.2 20.4 122.0 128.9 74.9 73.0 72.8 72.7 72.2 71.1 2 Hete[Z 30Jan 09 09:42:47 11.8 89.6 78.7 70.1 92.4 94.5 23.1 72.0 72.6 72.4 71.8 70.6 2 Y,ocac2 30Jan 09 09:43:47 71.6 09.4 73.5 70.1 07.3 95.4 73.5 12.6 72.5 72.1 71,6 70.6 2 Matac2 38Jan 09 09:44:47 74.7 92.4 82,6 71.1 91.3 90.3 79.8 77.0 76.4 75.7 73.4 73.0 2 Hatec2 JOJan 09 09:45:47 75.2 93.0 90.3 72.3 104.9 107.7 78.0 75.0 75.5 75.1 14.4 73.0 2 Motoc2 30Jan 09 09:46:47 73.3 91.3 76.9 72.0 09.7 97.0 75.1 74.4 73.9 73.8 73.3 72.3 2 Ho[oc2 38Jan 09 09:47:47 74.2 92.0 79.0 72.1 89.8 98.9 76.9 16.4 75.7 74.0 73.7 72.5 2 Metac2 38Jan 09 09:40:47 73.2 91.0 74.9 21.8 87.3 96.3 74.6 73.9 73.8 73.7 73.3 72.3 2 Metac2 JOJan 09 09:49:47 74.0 91.8 76.3 73.0 90.9 98.3 25.1 14.9 74.1 74.5 74.0 73.2 2 Mete[2 JOJan 09 09:50:47 74.4 92.2 79.6 73.1 92.9 97.7 75.9 75.4 74.9 74.8 74.4 73.4 2 Motoc2 38Jan 09 09:51:47 73.6 91.4 75.6 72.1 90.3 98.3 75.2 74.6 74.5 74.1 73.5 72.4 2 Mate[2 30Jan 09 09:52:47 73.5 91.2 76.9 23.1 81.4 97.7 74.9 74.5 74.0 73.8 23.4 72.5 2 Me[e[2 30Jan 09 09:53:47 73.0 90.8 74.3 72.2 87.2 97.0 74.0 73.9 73.7 73.5 73.0 72.2 2 Mete C2 30Jan 09 09:54:47 73.6 91.3 75.3 72.2 60.1 98.3 74.9 74.5 74.0 73.9 23.5 72.6 2 Metoc2 30Jan 09 09:55:47 24.2 91.9 77.7 73.3 92.2 97.7 75.6 74.9 74.0 74.6 74.1 73.3 2 Metec2 3Wan 09 09:56:47 73.4 91.1 80.0 71.9 93.2 97.7 75.0 14.6 74.1 73.8 73,2 72.2 2 MOt9c2 38Jan 09 09:57:47 76.6 94.4 00,5 72.2 92.4 102.3 60.2 79.7 79.4 78.9 73.9 72.5 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 09:58:47 77.4 95.1 84.8 75.0 94.1 101.5 79.9 19.6 79.1 78.0 76.7 75.4 2 Mete[2 30Jan 09 09:59:47 76.5 94.2 79.5 72.B 91.4 101.5 79.5 78.9 18.5 78.0 75.6 73.5 2 Mete[2 38Jan 09 10:00:47 24.6 92.3 76.2 72.9 89.5 100.1 76.0 75.8 75.5 75.2 7.4.5 73.3 2 Mete[2 38Jan 09 10:01:47 26.3 94.0 81.6 71.4 94.1 90.9 79.9 19.1 78.7 78.3 74.5 72.8 2 Motoc2 38Jan 09 10:02:47 73.7 91.5 75.4 7Z.2 88.2 96.3 75.0 7.4.7 74.4 74.0 23.6 73.0 2 Mete[2 30Jan 09 10:03:47 74,2 92.0 02.2 71.6 97.8 99.5 76,0 75.3 74.9 74.7 74.2 72.5 2 Metec2 38Jan 09 10:04:47 7$.5 43.3 78.6 71.2 93.2 100.1 18.3 77.5 76.8 76.5 75.4 72.6 2 Metec2 38Jan 09 10:05:47 91.0 98.8 90.4 70.2 106.0 106.3 67.9 86.5 04.0 82.3 75.9 71.1 2 Matoc2 30Jan 09 10:06:47 72.7 90.4 75.4 71.3 87.5 97.0 75.4 74.0 73.4 72.9 22.5 71.4 2 Mete[2 30Jan 09 10:07:47 72.6 90.4 77.1 70.8 90.2 99.5 76.4 73.9 73.2 72.9 72.3 71.3 2 Hete[2 30Jan 09 10:08:47 72.2 90.0 74.2 70.9 87.2 96.3 73.7 73.0 72.8 72.6 72.2 71.2 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 10:09:47 72.5 90.3 75,2 71.3 88.6 97.0 73.9 73.3 72.9 72,8 72.5 71.6 2 Metoc2 30Jan 09 10:10:47 73.4 91.2 86,1 71.7 103.0 102.3 77.7 74,1 73.6 73.2 72.7 72.1 2 Matec2 30Jan 09 10:11:47 76.9 94.7 89.2 71.3 105.5 107.0 84.7 79.7 71.0 77.3 24.1 71.5 2 Metet2 30Jan 09 10:12:47 93.6 101.4 95.1 70.4 108.5 120.5 94.4 09.5 81.9 76.2 72.8 71.0 2 Metac2 38Jan 09 10:13:47 73.5 91.2 60.0 65.6 92.6 98.3 79.4 77.6 75.8 73.1 71.8 67.4 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 10:14:47 72.6 90.4 74.1 71.6 87.1 97,0 73.9 13.3 72.9 72.0 72.5 72.1 2 Mete[2 38Jan 09 10:15:47 75.5 93.3 84.0 73.0 97.9 101.0 29.4 76.5 75.5 75.7 75.1 74.1 2 Hatec2 30Jan 09 10:16:47 74.0 91.8 75.3 72.6 83.2 97.7 7$.0 74.9 74.7 74.5 74.0 73.0 2 Hatec2 38Jan 09 10:17:47 82.1 99.9 95.0 73.6 98.5 102,3 B3.4 62.9 02.7 82.5 82.0 01.2 2 Matec2 38Jan 09 10:10:47 92.6 110.4 97.5 00.8 110.6 11.4 97.4 96.6 96.0 95.2 91.4 81.4 2 Heter2 3DJan 09 10:19:47 84.0 101.0 93.1 68.6 305.6 107.9 92.2 91.4 65.5 82.4 71.4 69.7 2 xecer2 3DJan 09 .10:20:47 20.6 68.3 73.4 69.4 86.4 98.9 21.9 71.5 71.0 70.8 70.5 69.8 2 Hecer2 30Jan 09 10:21:47 21.3 09.1 76.1 69.4 82.5 100.1 24.7 73.0 72.0 71.6 70.8 70.0 2 Hetec2 3DJan O9 10:22:47 70.7 68.5 75.3 69.2 86.5 96.3 72.5 71.0 21.4 21.0 70.6 69.6 2 Hetec2 3DJan 09 10:23:47 70.9 68.6 23.0 69.6 06.1 97.0 72.5 21.8 71.5 71.1 70.7 70.1 2 Meter2 305an 09 10:24:47 71.1 08.9 81.1 6B.0 56.8 100.1 72.6 21.5 70.9 70.7 70.1 68.6 2 llaw[2 30Jan 09 10:25:47 75.6 93.4 82.7 69.7 93.9 101.0 82.0 01.4 76.7 74.9 71.7 70.5 2 llecec2 30Jan 09 10:26:47 71.1 88.0 72.5 70.2 85.2 95.4 72.0 21.9 71.7 71.5 71.1 70.2 2 M2cer2 3DJan 09 10:22:42 21.0 88.8 72.6 70.2 84.0 95.4 22.0 21.9 71.7 71.6. 73.1 70.2 2 Mece[? 3DJan 09 10:28:47 71.0 00.2 21_7 70.1 85.2 95.4 71.7 21.2 71.7 71.5 71.0 70.2 2 Hetec2 30Jan 09 10:29:47 71.0 88.8 72.1 20.1 84.2 94.5 72.0 71.9 71.7 71.5 71.1 70.2 2 1.1ac9t2 3DJan 09 10:30:42 71.1 88.8 22.5 20.1 B4.4 96.3 72.0 21.9 21.7 21.6 71.1 70.2 2 Meter2 3DJan 09 10:31:47 20.9 88.7 71.9 69.9 84.9 97.0 71.9 71.0 71.6 71.4 70.9 70.2 2 Metac2 30Jan 09 10:32:47 71J 69.5 75.6 69.9 88.3 92.0 75.3 73.1 72.4 71.9 71.5 70.4 2 Mac9c2 30Jan 09 10:33:47 72.2 90.0 76.9 70.6 90.0 98.9 74.8 74.0 73.2 22.7 71.8 71.1 2 Mece12 30Jan 09 10:34:47 21.3 89.1 72.9 70.3 86.8 97.0 22.4 71.9 21.8 71.7 71.4 70.8 2 Mocar2 3DJan 09 10:35:47 71.8 89.6 73.9 70.8 07.4 97.2 73.1 72.8 22.5 72.2 71.7 71.1 2 Mecar2 3DJan 09 10:36:47 76.7 94.5 80.8 71.4 106.5 108.0 02.4 79.5 78.3 77.2 75.5 73.1 2 Meter2 3DJan 09 10:37:47 15.7 93.5 83.6 72.3 94.6 101.0 62.2 8O.D 77.6 25.0 73.8 72.5 2 Hetec2 3DJan 09 10:38:47 75.0 92.8 85.1 72.1 98.1 101.0 81.8 78.7 75.1 74.2 73.4 72.3 2 Hetec2 3DJan 09 10:39:47 83.7 101.5 85.5 72.4 97.6 104.0 85.5 85.0 84.9 84.7 84.4 73.6 2 llocor2 30Jan 09 10:40:47 81.9 99.7 85.4 22.4 92.3 104.4 65.4 85.0 64.8 84.5 80.3 22.7 2 H9c6r2 30Jan 09 30:41:47 23.4 91.2 79.6 72.3 94.4 98.3 75.1 74.6 24.0 23.8 73.4 22.4 2 Hetor2 3DJan 09 10:42:42 73.6 91.6 85.5 72.3 99.9 101.9 70.0 74.6 73.9 73.7 73.1 72.2 2 Hetec2 30Jan 09 10:43:47 75.3 93.1 85.4 71.9 92.3 102.8 84.4 25.3 74.9 74.7 74.1 72.4 2 Meter2 30Jan 09 10:44:47 83.9 101.7 85.3 21.9 97.3 104.4 85.1 84.9 84.8 84.7 94.4 25.5 2 Hecec$ 30Jan 09 10:45:47 22.0 89.8 80.0 70.0 94.4 97.7 28.9 72.9 22.3 71.9 71.1 20.2 2 Howr2 3DJan 09 10:46:42 72.? 89.9 74.3 70.0 86.6 100.1 73.9 23.4 22.9 72.7 72.2 70.7 2 Heter2 3DJan 09 10:47:47 72.1 09.9 73.7 70.5 06.5 98.9 23.7 73.2 72.8 72.6 72.0 71.2 2 Hvter2 3DJan 09 10:48:47 71.7 89.5 73.7 20.8 95.3 92.2 22.9 72.6 72.2 71.9 71.6 71.1 2 llete12 3DJan 09 10:49:47 71.6 69.4 84.5 69.2 93.6 98.9 73.0 72.4 71.5 71.7 71.0 70.2 2 Heter2 30Jan 09 30:50:47 71.6 89.4 73.2 69.2 88.3 100.6 73.7 73.2 72.e 72.4 71.4 70.2 2 lloter2 3DJan 09 10:51:42 70.8 88.6 71.6 70.0 86.2 95.4 71.8 21.2 71.3 71.0 70.6 701 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 10:52:47 71.0 88.8 71.8 70.2 85.3 94.5 71.B 71.8 71.6 71.5 70.9 70.2 2 Hecer? 3DJan 09 10:53:47 70.8 88.6 22.2 69.8 04.2 96.3 71.9 71.8 71.6 71.3 20.0 70.1 2 Hecer? 3DJan 09 30:54:42 20.2 88.5 73.3 69.7 04.9 96.3 71.9 71.7 21.3 71.0 20.6 70.1 2 Hecec2 3DJan 09 10:55:42 71.2 99.0 72.5 69.8 84.3 96.3 72.0 21.9 71.8 71.7 71.4 70.5 2 Motoc2 30Jan 09 10:56:42 71.5 89.3 73.3 70.4 84.5 96.3 73.0 22.5 22.0 71.9 71.5 70.9 2 Hetor2 30Jan 09 10:57:47 71.3 89.0 73.7 694 86.5 96.3 73.6 72.6 72.4 71.9 71.1 69.7 2 14etvc2 30Jan 09 10:58:47 70.4 88.2 73..2 69.4 91.5 94.5 71.8 71.0 70.9 70.8 70.5 69.8 2 Heter2 30Jan 09 10:5D:47 70.2 08.0 71.8 68.9 84.4 95.4 71.7 71.0 70.8 70.6 20.0 69.2 2 Haw [2 30Jan 09 11:00:47 21.1 89.9 94.2 68.7 94.9 98.3 74.8 23.2 20.9 10.6 G9.9 69.1 2 Hetor2 30Jan 09 11:01:47 82.9 100.6 85.2 72.9 98.1 103.7 85.0 84.9 84.8 84.6 04.2 73.3 2 Mecor2 30Jan 09 11:02:47 75.6 93.4 79.8 72.3 92.2 100.6 79.6 28.8 28.3 17.4 73.8 12.7 2 Matoc2 30Jan 09 11:03:47 71.9 89.G 75.6 70.2 8.1.5 98.9 75.2 73.2 72.5 71.9 71.9 70.6 2 Mecor2 30Jon 09 11:04:47 75.6 93.4 79.9 70.2 91.3 99..5 78.7 77.9 77.7 97.5 74.0 71.3 2 Metot2 3DJan 09 11:05:42 26.5 94.3 78.4 22.2 90.9 100.1 78.0 77.9 72.0 17.6 77.2 73.1 2 llecec2 3DJan 09 11:06:47 78.2 96.5 86.4 69.9 98.1 102.3 85.7 84.7 82.5 79.1 73.1 21.1 2 Matoc2 30Jan 09 11:07:42 25.2 93.5 80.3 71.3 92.2 9B.3 7B.9 78.6 70.2 77.5 74.0 73.0 2 Hecec2 30Jan 09 11:08:47 73.9 91.7 76.5 72.8 89.1 98.3 76.9 75.3 74.5 73.9 73.6 73.1 2 Metac2 3DJan 09 11:09:47 74.1 93.9 76.5 72.2 88.6 97.0 76.5 75.4 74.7 74.1 73.7 73.1 2 llatec2 3DJan 09 11:10:47 74.2 91.9 76.5 72.3 88.3 97.0 76.5 75.4 74.B 74.4 73.8 73.1 2 Hecer2 3DJan 09 11:11:47 23.9 91.2 76.5 22.7 92.1 97.0 76.0 75.3 74.4 73.9 23.6 73.1 2 Heter2 3DJan 09 11:12:47 24.1 91.9 76.5 73.1 89.3 92.0 26.2 75.3 74.8 74.4 73.8 73.1 2 14eter2 30Jan 09 11:13:47 74.4 92.1 76.7 73.3 88.3 92.0 264 75.8 74.9 74.7 74.2 73.3 2 Hecet2 30Jan 09 11:14:41 73.8 91.6 77.0 71.5 89.2 97.0 76.7 15.8 74.8 74.6 73.8 72.0 2 Heco[I 30Jan 09 11:15:42 72.4 90.2 24.1 21.1 91.3 94.5 73.8 73.3 22.9 22.8 22.4 71.4 2 Hetec2 3DJan 09 11:16:47 75.6 93.4 9L2 10.8 104.8 105.8 28.8 72.1 76.7 76.3 72.4 71.2 2 Hecec2 3DJan 09 11:17:47 76.1 93.9 77.2 74.7 09.8 99.5 27.0 76.9 76.7 76.6 76.2 75.2 2 Hecer2 3DJan 09 11:18:47 75.6 93.4 79.8 70.1 93.4 101.5 78.9 77.7 76.9 76.6 75.7 70.9 2 Hvtoc2 3DJan 09 11:19:47 70.6 88.4 21.9 69.7 84.9 95.4 71.8 71.4 21_0 70.9 20.6 20.1 2 Heter2 3DJan 09 11:20:47 70.2 87.9 71.2 69.1 03.2 93.5 71.0 70.9 70.7 70.6 70.1 69.2 2 M.otor2 3DJan 09 11:21:42 69.9 B7.7 71.1 69.0 03.0 93.5 70.9 70.7 70.5 20.2 69.2 69.1 2 Hetor2 3DJan 09 11:22:47 70.1 82.8 21.2 69.1 B3.3 94.5 71.0 70.8 70.7 20.5 70.1 69.2 2 Hvter2 3DJan 09 11:23:47 72.4 90.2 73.6 70.0 86.1 56.3 73.5 72.9 72.9 72.7 72.4 71.6 2 Me[er2 30Jan 09 11:24:47 22.4 90.2 73.4 21.6 85.9 96.3 73.0 72.9 72.8 22.7 72.5 72.0 2 Hecec2 3DJan 09 11:25:47 72.4 90.1 74.0 71.2 69.6 97.0 73.3 72.9 72.8 72.7 72.4 71.5 2 Mocvr2 30Jan 09 11:26:47 22.3 90.1 23.4 21.5 86.5 96.3 73.0 72.9 72.8 22.7 22.4 71.5 2 Metac2 3DJan 09 11:27:47 72.3 90.0 00.5 69.7 94.8 98.9 24.0 23.2 22.9 72.7 72.1 70.9 2 Mecor2 30Jan 09 11:20:47 20.8 80.6 03.9 69.0 93.8 97.7 72.6 71.7 21.1 70.8 70.1 69.2 2 Hvcor2 30Jan 09 11:29:47 21.5 89.3 04.0 69.5 94.0 99.5 73.2 72.2 71.0 21.6 71.1 70.1 2 MOtor2 3DJan 09 11:30:47 70.9 88.2 22.6 69.4 85.6 96.3 72.5 71.9 71.7 71.5 20.9 20.1 2 Meter2 3DJan 09 11:31:47 71.8 89.6 74.6 69.6 09.0 96.3 74.1 73.2 72.8 72.4 71.7 70.5 2 Meter2 30Jan 09 11:32:47 71.3 09.1 01.6 69.5 92.6 98.3 73.0 72.6 72.1 71.8 71.1 70.0 2 Matoc2 3DJan 09 11:33:47 71.5 09.3 78.1 69.2 90.6 100.6 77.4 73.8 72.5 71.5 70.6 69.5 2 Meter2 30Jan 09 11:34:47 73.2 91.0 75.4 69.4 88.8 98.3 75.0 74.9 74.6 74.4 73.4 70.6 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 11:35:47 76.3 94.0 62.4 72.9 95.3 101.0 80.6 79.6 78.7 77.5 74.7 73.3 2 Hvter2 30Jan 09 11:36:47 74.4 92.2 29.0 73.1 9D.2 99.5 77.2 75.7 75.0 74.8 24.2 73.2 2 Hetet2 3DJan 09 11:32:42 74.0 91.0 74.9 73.3 89.1 98.3 24.9 74.9 74.7 74.5 74.1 73.3 2 Meter2 3DJan 09 11:30:47 74.0 91.7 74.9 73.1 89.1 98.9 74.9 24.9 74.7 74.5 74.0 73.2 2 Motot2 30Jan 09 11:39:47 73.9 91.7 78.4 73.0 93.0 99.5 75.0 74.8 74.5 74.3 73.8 73.1 2 Hetec2 3DJan 09 11:40:42 74..4 92.1 75.3 70.5 88.6 99.9 75.3 74.9 74.8 24.2 74.4 23.9 2 Meter2 30Jan 09 !!:41:47 69.9 67.7 71.6 68.6 BB.2 96.3 21.0 20.8 20.6 70.4 69.9 69.2 2 Hecvr2 3DJan 09 11:42:47 69.9 87.7 72.0 68.1 99.1 96.3 71.3 70.9 70.7 70.5 69.9 69.0 2 Hetet2 30Jan 99 1!:43:47 68.7 87.5 72.8 60.3 93.5 97.0 71.7 70.9 70.6 70.2 69.6 68.7 2 Meter2 30Jan 09 11:44:47 70.7 65.5 26.6 69.1 90.5 97.3 73.7 21.0 71.3 20.9 20.5 64.6 2 Meter2 30Jan 09 11:45:47 73.2 69.0 76.9 69.5 94.2 98.3 74.7 23.4 71.9 71.4 70.2 70.1 2 Hecvr2 30Jan 09 11:46:47 71.2 80.9 78.6 60.0 91.9 97.7 74.0 72.8 72.2 71.7 70.8 69.4 2 Heter2 30Jan 09 11:47:47 21.1 BB.9 75.4 68.3 90.6 93.3 74.7 73.6 72.9 72.3 70.4 69.0 2 Heter2 3DJan 09 11:48:47 70.2 80.0 21.5 69.3 84.0 95.4 71.1 70.9 70.6 70.7 70.3 69.3 2 Y.etet2 39Jan 09 11:49:47 20.3 699.0 22.8 60.9 88.2 96.3 71.7 21.0 70.0 70.7 20.3 69.3 2 Hetet2 30Jan 09 11:50:47 71.9 B9.7 77.7 69.9 90.2 97.0 75.9 74.4 22.8 71.9 71.3 70.2 2 Hvter2 30Jan 09 11:51:47 70.6 86.4 77.5 60.6 89.6 98.3 76.4 71_6 70.8 70.5 69.9 69.2 2 Hvter2 30Jan 09 11:52:47 70.5 89.3 75.5 68.3 90.6 92.0 22.9 72.4 71.9 71.5 69.9 60.7 2 Meter2 3DJan 09 11:53:47 71.6 89.4 23.3 70.4 86.4 97.0 12.8 72.1 71.9 71.8 71.5 21.1 2 Heta12 30Jan 09 11:54:47 71.5 89.3 72.1 10.5 86.5 96.6 12.1 12.2 71.9 11.8 71.5 70.9 2 Meter2 36Jan 09 11:55:47 7; .0 68.8 72.3 69.3 84.9 96.3 72.0 71.9 71.1 71.6 71.1 70.0 2 H.o car2 36Jan 09 11:56:47 71.1 86.9 76.4 69.4 92.1 97.0 13.6 72.5 71.9 71.5 70.0 70.0 2 Meter2 30Jaa 09 11:57:47 70.1 87.9 71.5 68.3 87.6 95.4 71.5 70.9 70.0 70.6 70.0 69.1 2 Mecer2 30Jan 00 11:53:47 70.8 88.6 73.9 69.7 36.1 95.4 72.6 71.8 71.5 71.1 10.7 70.1 2 Meter2 36Jan 09 11:59:47 70.9 88.7 80.2 69.9 101.3 100.6 72.0 71_7 71.4 71.1 70.7 70.1 2 14oter2 3UJan 09 12:00:47 70.9 88.6 72.5 69.3 90.3 95.4 72.0 71.8 71.6 71.3 70.6 70.1 2 14ecor2 30Jan 09 12:01:47 70.3 80.1 73.4 69.0 86.1 96.3 71.5 70.9 70.8 70.7 70.4 69.4 2 Mecer2 30Jan 09 12:02:47 71.1 88.8 76.2 69.4 93.8 96.3 72.9 72.0 71.8 71.6 71.1 70.1 2 Mecer2 36Jan 09 12:03:47 72.1 89.9 73.2 70.2 86.0 95.4 73.0 72.9 72.0 72.6 72.2 71.1 2 Motex2 36Jan 09 12:04:41 70.9 88.7 72.1 69.9 85.5 95.4 71.9 71_0 71.6 71.3 70.8 70.1 2 Motor2 36Jan 09 12:05:47 71.0 08.0 72.3 69.6 84.5 96.3 72.0 71_9 71.7 71.5 71.1 70.2 2 Mecex2 36Jan 09 12:06:47 70.1 67.9 71.4 69.1 04.6 96.3 71.0 70.9 70.7 70.6 70.2 69.2 2 Mecex2 303an 09 12:07:47 71.0 68.8 74.2 68.9 87.5 97.7 73.9 73.2 72.4 71.5 70.5 69.3 2 Motex2 303an 09 12:08:47 70.9 88.6 72.4 69.1 05.5 96.3 71.9 11.8 71.6 71.3 70.0 70.1 2 Meter2 36Jan 09 12:09:47 71.0 08.7 73.4 70.0 67.4 55.4 72.0 71.8 71.6 71.4 70.6 70.2 2 Motex2 30Jan 09 12:10:47 71.1 08.9 73.1 69.9 85.4 96.3 72.4 71.9 71.8 71.6 71.1 70.2 2 Mocor2 30Jan 09 12:11:47 71.0 88.8 76.1 69.1 87.9 97.7 75.3 72.5 71.7 71.1 70.5 69.5 2 Mecer2 30Jan 09 12:12:47 71.2 89.0 1B.9 69.4 91.5 99.5 73.9 72.3 71.8 71.5 70.9 70.1 2 M0c0r2 36Jan 09 12:13:47 86.1 103.9 97.0 73.6 108.9 111.1 96.0 92.7 06.0 82.4 77.5 74.7 2 Hoter2 30Jan 09 12:14:47 73.3 91.0 77.1 72.5 91.8 97.0 74.9 74.2 73.9 73.7 73.2 72.5 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 12:15:47 72.9 90.6 73.6 72.3 66.0 96.3 73.6 73.6 73.2 72.9 72.6 72.3 2 Meter2 300an 09 12:16:47 73.2 91.0 74.3 72.6 36.4 96.3 74.0 13.9 73.8 73.7 73.4 72.9 2 Hocer2 36Jan 09 12:17:41 73.5 91.3 81.3 72.9 97.7 102.3 74.9 73.9 73.9 73.8 73.5 73.1 2 Meter2 30Jan 09 12:10:47 73.6 91.4 74.5 72.8 66.5 98.3 14.5 74.5 74.3 74.0 73.6 73.1 2 Hocer2 36Jan 09 12:19:47 14.2 92.0 75.3 73.3 87.4 97.7 15.1 74.9 74.8 74.7 74.3 73.3 2 lWte6 36Jan 09 12:20:47 74.8 02.5 84.3 73.6 97.8 103.7 15.7 75.0 74.9 74.0 74.5 74.1 2 Ho1e12 36Jan 69 12:21:41 71.e 89.6 03.7 63.2 96.9 104.4 75.0 74.8 74.6 74.4 69.0 64.0 2 Mocor2 30Jan 09 12:22:41 67.3 65.0 72.4 64.2 83.2 95.4 71.2 69.9 69.0 66.3 66.0 64.6 2 Hoter2 36Jan 09 12:23:47 64.7 02.5 66.2 63.2 79.5 93.5 65.0 65.4 65.0 64.3 64.5 64.1 2 Meter2 36Jan 09 12:24:47 64.6 102.6 95.5 59.8 99.5 102.7 03.8 90.9 81.3 84.5 76.1 62.9 2 Mocor2 36Jan 09 12:25:47 66.1 103.9 99.2 61.5 103.5 305.5 94.8 91.5 Be.6 85.8 79.9 67.7 2 Meter2 30Jan 09 12:26:47 69.7 67.4 77.2 65.2 89.2 99.5 75.1 73.3 11.9 70.2 67.8 66.1 2 Mecer2 30Jan 09 12:27:47 73.9 91.7 70.9 68.6 92.7 97.7 78.6 77.3 74.4 73.6 72.8 72.1 2 Ho mx2 30Jan 09 12:20:47 73.0 90.7 76.9 71.9 00.9 100.6 75.7 73.7 73.2 72.9 72.6 72.1 2 Mocor2 30Jan 09 12:29:47 72.0 90.5 78.1 11.7 94.8 96.3 74.0 73.6 73.0 72.9 72.6 72.1 2 HOtor2 36Jan 00 12:30:47 72.4 90.1 74.9 71.0 86.8 95.4 73.7 73.0 72.8 72.7 12.3 71.3 2 Hem 2 30Jan 09 12:31.47 72.1 89.8 74.2 70.9 86.4 94.5 73.5 72.9 72.7 72.5 71.9 71.2 2 Mecer2 30Jan 09 12:32:47 72.1 89.9 74.0 71.1 86.6 95.4 73.6 72.9 72.7 72.5 71..9 71.2 2 HeceR 30Jan 09 12:33:47 72.0 09.7 74.3 70.6 85.6 95.4 73.3 72.9 72.7 72.5 72.0 71.2 2 Meeoi2 30Jan 09 12:34:47 72.0 89.8 74.0 71.0 89.6 94.5 73.0 72.9 72.7 72.5 72.0 71.2 2 Meeoi2 30Jan 09 12:35:47 71.5 89.3 72.9 69.7 85.1 93.5 72.9 72.6 72.3 71.9 71.5 70.5 2 Motex2 36Jan 09 12:36:47 70.1 87.8 81.1 63.2 94.3 100.1 72.5 71.7 71.3 70.9 69.9 65.9 2 Motex2 30J.n 09 12:37:47 71.9 89.7 79.5 69.7 98.1 100.1 77.3 73.7 72.2 71.8 71.3 70.3 2 Mete x2 36Jan 09 12:30:47 72.0 89.8 73.5 70.5 05.8 95.4 73.0 72.9 72.7 72.6 72.1 71.2 2 Mecer2 30Jan 09 12:39:47 72.3 90.1 80.1 70.B 94.6 104.9 73.7 72.9 72.0 72.7 72.3 71.3 2 MOtoc2 36Jan 09 12:40:47 13.7 91.5 63.1 63.0 94.9 103.7 82.1 70.7 73.9 73.1 72.3 63.8 2 Meter2 39Jan 09 12:41:47 65.1 82.9 72.9 0.1 94.6 96.3 68.0 66.4 65.8 65.6 64.9 63.7 2 M0tor2 30Jan 09 12:42:47 66.9 84.7 79.4 47.4 90.8 101.0 76.4 71.3 69.6 67.1 61.3 52.3 2 Mecer2 30Jan 09 12:43:41 49.7 67.4 61.0 43.6 80.4 05.0 $6.5 52.9 51_2 49.8 47.7 45.3 2 MOta0 36Jan 09 12:44:47 52.4 70.2 69.6 43.4 90.6 92.3 60.8 54.8 51.9 50.4 40.1 45.3 2 Mocor2 30Jan 00 12:45:47 54.6 72.3 62.4 42.4 72.3 09.4 59.7 50.0 56.0 55.9 53.6 46.2 2 Motex2 30Jan 09 12:46:47 58.3 76.1 74.5 49.0 86.6 95.4 61.3 60.0 59.$ 59.0 57.2 52.6 2 Metec2 36Jan 09 12:41:47 62.0 79.7 71.6 51.2 85.6 91.0 69.8 66.1 66.3 59.7 55.7 52.6 2 Mocor2 36Jan 09 12:40:47 55.6 73.4 63.6 46.3 76.6 09.4 60.7 50.4 57.4 56.6 55.2 50.6 2 Hetoc2 30Jan 09 12:49:47 48.2 66.0 56.5 44.3 69.1 85.0 54.7 51.5 49.0 40.1 46.8 45.2 2 Metoz2 30Jan 09 12:50:47 50.4 68.1 70.3 43.4 64.2 67.5 55.2 50.0 48.9 48.3 47.0 44.9 2 Hocer2 30Jan 09 12:51:47 48.0 66.5 51.1 42.8 75.9 B5.0 53.6 52.1 51.1 49.9 47.5 44.1 2 Hetoc2 36Jan 09 12:52:47 52.3 70.0 66.5 43.1 85.3 07.5 60.3 56.7 54.1 51.9 48.3 45.2 2 Mecer2 36Jan 09 12:53:41 45.9 63.7 55.9 41.5 71.0 0.0 51.2 49.0 47.0 46.5 44.5 42.6 2 Hoter2 36Jan 09 12:54:47 45.0 62.0 52.6 40.B 69.1 0.0 49.9 47.3 46.1 45.4 44.1 42.0 2 MOto[2 30Jan 09 12:55:47 45.6 63.3 50.9 42.5 71.8 0.0 4B.6 47.6 46.9 46.5 45.1 43.4 2 Meter2 36Jan 09 12:56:41 46.1 64.5 61.5 42.0 80.5 85.0 52.9 49.0 47.1 45.9 44.0 42.8 2 Motor2 30Jan 09 12:57:41 48.7 66.5 55.3 43.4 69.0 85.0 53.6 51.7 50.5 49.5 47.7 45.7 2 Meter2 30Jan 09 12:50:47 47.9 65.7 61.0 42.4 76.2 05.0 53.0 50.5 49.1 48.4 46.7 44.0 2 Metoz2 30Jan 09 12:59:47 46.1 63.9 54.9 41.5 73.7 0.0 52.8 49.1 47.0 46.0 44.6 43.1 2 Motex2 30Jon 09 13:00:47 49.0 66.8 50.6 43.0 74.2 05.0 55.8 53.1 50.6 49.3 46.8 44.5 2 Meter2 39Jan 09 13:01:47 57.2 74.9 80.6 42.0 100.5 101.9 63.4 55.5 $2.9 50.6 47.1 44.0 2 Hecor2 30Jan 09 13:02:47 46.5 64.3 62.2 41.4 80.2 85.0 49.5 48.2 47.4 46.7 45.5 43.6 2 Metoz2 30Jan 09 13:03:47 50.1 67.8 65.4 42.9 B4.1 94.5 57.9 52.6 50.4 49.3 47.7 44.6 2 Motex2 30Jan 09 13:04:41 52.0 69.6 61.5 46.8 76.1 85.0 57.6 54.9 53.0 52.9 50.7 48..1 2 14ecec2 30Jan 09 13:05:47 52.8 70.6 65.4 44.5 88.1 87.5 50.7 55.6 54.6 53.8 51.1 47.3 2 Motex2 30Jon 09 13:06:47 51.9 69.7 59.2 47.0 80.0 0.0 56.8 54.9 53.4 52.7 50.9 40.5 2 Mocor2 30Jan 09 13:07:47 48.9 66.7 58.4 44.3 75.3 09.4 54.6 51.5 50.6 49.6 47.6 45.6 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 13:08:47 49.9 67.6 64.7 42.7 81.7 92.3 56.5 52.7 51.0 50.3 47.6 45.2 2 Motex2 30Jan 09 13:09:47 47.3 65.1 66.0 42.2 80.5 37.5 50.7 49.0 47.6 46.8 45.6 43.5 2 Hetoc2 36Jan 09 13:10:47 46.4 64.2 51.2 42.5 66.6 0.0 49.9 48.8 48.0 47.4 45.8 43.7 2 Meter2 30Jan 09 13:11:47 49.5 67.3 56.4 41.7 70.8 65.0 55.4 52.7 51.7 50.7 48.7 43.1 2 Hetox2 36Jan 09 13:12:47 52.0 69.8 67.5 44.0 85.5 91.0 59.6 55.6 53.1 51.5 49.1 45.9 2 Metec2 30Jan 09 13:13:47 65.9 70.6 04.2 43.3 102.5 103.0 77.0 63.9 59.4 55.3 48.8 44.3 C : N L RDTV \SUMW-L \d RO1-3. bin Interval Data Site Location Date Ti. Leo SEL Lran Dnin Peak Dept L1 2) L4 81 L(16) L(251 L(50) L190) 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 07:31:35 65.3 103.1 95.7 58.4 112.2 112.3 93.7 91.2 68.5 85.6 79.1 60.2 3 Mater 3 30Jan 09 07:32:35 76.6 96.3 93.4 58.7 113.5 112.9 66.1 63.5 50.2 78.0 72.3 60.1 3 Meter 3 30Jaa 09 07:33:35 72.2 90.0 91.7 58.6 114.7 i15.1 82.2 76.1 71.0 66.9 61.4 59.4 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 07:34:35 72.5 90.3 86.4 59.2 101.9 105.8 61.1 77.6 74.7 72.1 67.5 61.1 J Meter 3 30oan 09 07:35:35 66.9 64.7 79.7 51.9 96.0 97.9 75.1 71.7 69.2 67.4 62.0 58.6 3 Meter 3 3GJan 09 07:36:35 68.3 86.1 50.9 59.1 94.5 95.7 75.3 72.5 70.5 69.2 65.6 60.6 3 Meter 3 30Ja. 09 01.37:35 66.1 83.9 80.4 59.6 92.3 98.6 74.9 70.2 67.4 65.2 62.3 60.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 67:36:35 70.6 89.3 83.7 59.9 100.0 104.9 79.5 75.0 72.4 70.2 66.2 60.4 3 Meter 3 Sion. 09 07:39:35 76.7 94.4 91.6 59.2 110.3 110.0 06.3 81.4 77.6 74.8 68.6. 60.6 3 Here. 3 30Jan 09 07:40:35 69.1 86.9 85.0 59.7 101.8 102.5 76.5 72.7 69.9 67.0 64.3 60.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 07:41:35 73.5 91.3 66.8 62.1 104.9 107.3 829 70.2 75.4 72.8 67.2 63.7 3 Mater 3 30Jan 09 01:42:35 74.1 91.9 BG.3 63.3 103.6 107.7 81.0 77.0 75.3 73.9 72.1 66.5 3 Peter 3 30Jan 09 07:43:35 70.0 87.8 80.9 62.9 97.9 102.1 77.8 74.8 72.1 69.9 66.4 63.6 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 07.44:35 74.7 92.4 90.2 65.2 100.5 103.6 84.0 79.0 75.4 72.8 SPA 66.6 3 Peter 3. 3GJan 09 07:45:35 72.7 90.4 B9.6 66.3 9B.0 99.7 ED.6 76.4 73.9 71.5 67.9 67.0 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 07:46:35 70.4 08.1 79.2 62.6 62.6 56.5 77.2 75.1 13.9 71.9 65.8 63.4 3 Peter 3 3DJan 09 07:47:35 70.4 86.2 04.0 63.1 97.5 98.6 70.3 75.5 72.3 68.3 65.1 63.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 07:48:35 71.6 09.4 85.0 63.0 98.9 99.2 00.0 76.8 73.6 71.2 66.4 63.6 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 07:49:35 67.2 B4.9 81.2 63.0 100.5 100.E 75.6 69.6 66.8 65.6 64.5 63.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 07:50:35 66.5 04.3 80.0 63.0 97.5 99.2 73.9 69.1 66.8 66.0 64.9 63.5 3 Peter 3 3DJan 09 07:51:35 60.1 85.9 79.9 63.1 94.8 95.7 72.9 70.7 69.7 68.B 668.1 63.6 3 Meter 3 30oan 09 07 :52:35 66.7 BG.5 74.2 67.6 91.3 92.6 70.6 69.6 69.0 6B.9 68.5 68.1 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 07:53:35 6B.6 86.3 77.0 64.6 89.3 93.7 71.8 69.9 69.2 68.9 68.3 66.9 3 Here. 3 30Jan 09 07:54:35 69.2 B6.6 83.5 64.3 99.8 102.9 76.2 72.2 70.1 68.7 66.6 65.1 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 07:55:35 66.7 84.5 75.0 64.0 01.6 92.6 70.7 68.8 68.1 67.0 65.8 64.5 3 Here. 3 3DJan 09 07:56:35 69.2 87.0 70.2 67.7 86.8 92.6 73.7 69.9 69.5 69.1 68.7 68.1 3 Peter 3 3DJan 09 07:57:35 70.1 B7.8 75.6 67.6 87.3 94.8 74.7 72.5 71.1 70.4 69.1 68.1 3 Meier 3 3DJan 09 07:58:35 69.1 B5.9 79.7 59.0 93.4 95.7 73.3 70.2 68.9 68.6 67.9 63.0 3 Meter 3 363an 09 07:59:35 68.1 85.9 74.6 63.0 65.2 92.6 72.7 71.4 69.9 69.1 67.0 64.3 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 08:00:35 71..9 B9.6 82.6 65.5 95.9 99.2 80.5 75.5 72.5 71.0 69.1 67.2 3 Hater 3 3DJan 09 08:01:35 71.0 86.8 80.4 65.3 94.1 97.9 77.3 14.6 72.9 71.5 69.1 66.7 3 Motor 3 3DJan 09 08:02:35 69.3 97.0 80.3 64.0 95.4 98.6 76.4 71.7 69.8 60.8 67.6 66.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 Ofl:03:35 66.7 84.4 75.5 61.3 09.1 94.8 71_7 69.6 60.5 67.5 65.7 62.4 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 08:04:35 71.2 09.0 86.7 61.8 103.1 104.3 79.9 75.8 73.0 70.4 64.9 62.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:05:35 69.3 87.0 81.5 62.7 95.7 97.3 75.2 72.8 71.0 69.8 67.0 64.2 3 Meter 3 303an 09 08:06:35 71.6 89.4 83.3 61.6 93.4 99.2 78.8 75.6 74.0 72.6 66.4 62.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:07:35 75.5 93.2 85.2 62.8 98.1 102.9 81.9 79.5 70.0 77.1 73.1 65.9 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 08:08:35 74.6 92.4 87.0 62.6 96.7 102.5 81.7 78.3 76.8 75.6 71.0 65.7 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 08:09:35 76.2 94.0 68.8 65.8 95.4 102.5 83.0 79.9 76.7 77.G 73.3 67.8 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 00:10:35 69.7 67.5 80.6 64.0 93.2 97.3 75.7 72.8 71.3 70.2 68.4 65.2 3 Meter 3 3GJan 09 00:11:35 68.0 85.8 78.8 61.2 92.4 95.7 14.4 71.0 70.5 69.2 65.1 62.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:12:35 71.1 88.9 82.1 65.6 90.1 98.9 74.9 73.6 72.6 71.8 70.4 67.7 3 Meter 3 3GJan 09 08:13:35 74.4 92.2 64.1 67.6 93.2 100.3 79.4 77.7 76.3 75.0 73.1 70.4 3 Meter 3 303an 09 08:14:35 74.7 92.4 85.2 62.1 101.3 101.7 80.0 78..3 77.0 16.1 73.3 67.4 3 Me.r 3 3DJan 09 08:15:35 73.9 91.7 01.0 61.7 92.1 99.2 79.6 78.3 76.9 75.4 72.0 63.7 3 Meter 3 3OJan 09 08:16:35 74.4 92.2 89.5 61.8 101.1 101.7 83.0 77.7 75.8 74.8 70.3 63.6 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 00:17:35 75.8 93.6 87.2 60.8 105.2 lOB.5 85.3 82.5 77.9 12.2 66.0 61.5 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 00:18:35 69.5 67.3 83.3 63.2 95.6 101.3 77.8 73.5 69.6 67.9 66.4 64.6 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 08:19:35 66.1 65.9 84.2 61.7 101.6 101.7 16.0 70.3 67,9 66.8 64.7 63.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:20:35 61.4 05.1 66.8 62.6 102.9 303.6 72.8 69.1 67.0 65.7 64.5 63.3 3 Meter 3 3GJan 09 OB:21:35 76.6 94.4 93.5 63.0 113.7 114.0 87.2 80.5 74.8 71.7 69.5 64.0 3 Meter 3 30Ja. 09 OB:22:35 68.8 86.6 79.2 65.2 93.1 93.7 75.0 71.9 69.7 68.6 67.3 66.1 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 08:23:35 70.7 06.5 64.5 61.7 95.6 102.1 79.7 14.6 71.0 69.8 67.7 62.9 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 08:24:35 73.1 90.9 85.6 67.6 100.2 103.6 30.5 75.5 74.1 73.0 71.4 69.D 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 00:25:35 74.9 93.7 85.7 70.0 97.9 103.3 61.8 70.2 76.1 74.8 72.9 71.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:26:35 78.0 95.9 B7.6 71.2 203.5 109.5 04.7 82.4 80.3 70.4 75.5 72.5 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 03:27:35 81.7 99.5 90.8 69.3 104.1 110.0 89.0 87.3 84.5 81A 77.0 72.6 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 D8:28:35 81.3 99.2 93.1 67.1 104.6 1' 6 874 64.7 83.4 82.4 794 70.9 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 06:29:35 80.7 98.5 88.8 66.7 203.9 112.1 _ 86.0 84.6 63.6 82.7 79.6 70.1 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 08:30:35 77.6 95.4 08.2 67.4 102.1 1D5.8 85.2 91.7 79.7 78.2 75.2 69.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 06 08:31:35 70.0 87.8 76.4 66.7 91.4 96.5 73.0 71.7 70.9 70.6 69.6 68.1 3 He ter 3 30Jan 09 09:32:35 69.7 07.4 90.2 65.0 90.3 93.7 76.0 72.2 70.7 69.9 68.2 66.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:33:35 75.1 92.9 84.3 65.0 97.1 101.7 81.6 79.7 77.9 75.9 72.7 67.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 00:34:35 75.6 93.3 03.1 61.9 96.9 102.9 61.5 79.7 79.1 77.0 74.0 65.3 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 06:35:35 74.6 92.4 92.0 63.0 93.6 99.7 80.7 79.2 77.7 76.3 72.1 64.6 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 00:36:35 76.8 94.6 84.3 65.6 94.9 103.6 93.2 81.2 80.0 78.6 73.9 667.6 3 Peter 3 30Jan 09 98:37:35 73.1 90.9 61.6 66.7 95.2 99.7 79.0 7B.2 75.5 73.3 69.9 67.9 3 Peter 2 30Jan 09 08:39:35 75.4 93.2 64.1 65.0 96.2 101.7 81.7 79.7 78.3 71.1 71.9 67.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:39:35 69.1 06.9 90.2 63.0 93.9 96.5 76.4 72.2 70.6 69.4 67.2 64.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 98:40:35 75.4 93.2 85.6 61.5 100.4 103.3 83.7 80.9 79.5 74.9 67.4 61.2 3 Hater 3 3DJan 09 08:41:35 75.4 93.2 69.5 63.3 101.1 102.5 96.2 76.6 75.4 74.2 72.0 67.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 OB:92:35 69.8 61.5 81.7 63.6 95.2 109.9 76.8 73.0 71.5 69.8 67.1 64.8 3 Peter 3 30Jan 09 03:93:25 74.5 92.3 89.1 62.5 97.7 203.3 B3.1 78.9 77.2 75.8 69.0 64.1 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 99:44:35 63.8 B1.6 71.5 62.3 84.3 93.1 66.1 64.9 64.3 63.9 63.5 62.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:45:35 70.5 96.2 83:7 62.6 94.4 100.3 79.9 75.5 69.7 67.3 64.7 63.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 06 08:46:35 71.8 89.5 85.2 62.6 96.6 99.2 80.5 77.2 74.3 70.3 64.6 63.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:47:35 64.5 B2.3 70.1 62.3 82.4 95.7 67.9 66.6 65.6 64.9 63.8 63.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:48:35 64.2 62.0 76.7 62.5 86.7 93.7 66.0 64.9 64.6 64.3 63.7 63.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:49:35 64.2 01.9 75.2 62.3 85.6 69.7 67.2 64.8 64.3 63.9 63.6 63.1 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 03:50:35 64.4 02.2 73.1 62.1 65.7 89.7 69.2 65.6 64.8 64.4 63.7 63.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 08:51:35 64.2 01.9 70.2 62.6 64.9 89.7 66.7 65.2 64.7 64.4 63.7 62.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:52:35 64.2 82.0 67.6 62.6 80.4 89.7 66.4 65.5 64.9 64.6 63.9 63.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 OB:53:35 64.7 62.5 78.2 62.6 92.3 94.8 68.2 65.7 64.9 64.7 64.0 63.2 3 Meter 3 3GJan 09 08:54:35 65.3 83.0 70.2 62.5 61.8 91.2 66.9 67.9 66.7 65.7 64.4 63.2 3 Peter 3 30Jan 09 08:55:35 64.4 82.1 69..6 62.8 80.8 92.6 67.6 65.5 64.6 64.6 64.0 63.2 3 Meta[ 3 30jan 09 08:56:25 65.7 83.5 70.3 62.6 82.8 93.7 69.0 68.0 67.5 66.6 64.9 63.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 00:57:35 66.9 84.7 71.7 63.1 83.9 95.7 69.9 69.2 68.6 68.0 66.2 64.6 3 Meter 3 30Jan 39 08:58:35 704 88.1 84.7 64.0 95.6 96,7 77.4 72.7 70.7 69.3 67.8 66.1 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 OB:59:35 79.6 97.3 87.7 65.3 103.9 103.6 85.5 B3.7 92.3 81.0 78.0 68.2 3 Rater 3 3DJan 09 09:00:35 74.0 91.9 05.7 64.6 100.6 104.7 80.1 77.9 76.5 75.3 71.1 66.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:01:35 15.6 93.4 88.0 63.1 105.7 107.4 03.0 70.9 71.0 75.7 72.7 66.7 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 09:02:35 77.6 95.3 09,5 64.8 106.2 107.3 84.0 B1.9 79.9 70.4 75.2 68.9 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 09:03:35 77.2 95.0 05.0 70.0 101.3 102.5 8!.7 80.4 79.4 70.5 76.1 71.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:04:35 77.1 94.8 05.7 68.3 98.9 106.8 02.9 00.4 79.1 70.2 76.1 70.6 3 Meter 3 30Jaa 09 04:05:35 75.5 93.3 87.0 68.0 103.7 107.1 53.3 79.9 77.6 76.0 71.8 69.0 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 09:06:35 79.0 46.8 09.2 66.7 102.6 111.9 07.9 84.4 81.5 78.2 73.2 60.6 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:07:35 84.2 102.0 93.5 65.2 101.7 111.2 90.8 09.1 81.6 86.0 80.7 67.8 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 09:08:35 02.6 100.3 93.1 65.1 103.2 111.1 53.7 86.8 84.3 83.0 79.0 68.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:09:35 70.1 95.9 67.2 73.5 99.4 104.3 04.1 82.0 00.5 79.3 75.0 72.5 3 Meter 3 30Jon 09 09:10:35 76.4 94.2 03.0 7!.8 92.6 100.3 50.3 70.9 17.9 )).3 75.9 73.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:11:35 77.4 95.2 B4.1 71.0 99.2 104.0 82.3 81.1 79.8 70.7 75.9 12.3 3 Perot 3 30Jan 09 09:12:35 75.3 93A 56.0 71.0 101.8 102.- 80.9 70.8 77.6 76.4 72.9 71.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:13:35 69.7 87.4 77.7 62.3 92.3 95.7 73.5 12.8 72.5 72.1 66.9 63.6 3 Perot 3 30Jan 09 09:14:15 60.0 85.8 79.5 63.5 93.8 98.6 75.8 71.5 67.0 66.9 65.7 64.3 3 Meter 3 30Ja. 09 09:15:35 79.0 96.8 92.0 65.0 102.6 108.5 80.6 B2.6 )7.8 75.6 72.2 67.6 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:16:35 74.7 92.4 85.6 66.2 102.9 104.6 01.8 79.4 76.9 75.6 721 60.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:17:35 74.3 92.0 87.0 66.2 100.1 102.1 00.1 73.2 76.5 74.9 71.8 68.7 3 Hater 3 39Jan 09 09:10:35 72.0 89.7 90.2 66.0 92.3 90.6 77.7 76.1 74.1 72.0 70.1 67.9 3 Perot 3 30Jan 09 09:19:35 65.8 83.5 72.3 62.8 67.4 93.7 70.2 669.2 667.0 66.3 64.9 63.4 3 Meta:. 3 30Jan 09 09:20:35 74.3 92.1 83.5 62.5 96.9 102.1 81.1 78.8 77.2 76.1 70.5 64.2 3 Mew. 3 30i.n 09 09:21:35 74.3 9Z.! 84.8 62.9 99.9 103.3 60.1 78.3 77.1 76.1 71.7 65.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:22:35 69.1 06.9 89.0 61.0 105.6 106.8 77.9 68.7 61.2 66.5 64.7 62.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:23:35 71.6 89.4 83.1 64.6 101.7 106.3 80.5 71.0 71.3 69.5 67.8 65.6 3 Meter 3 30Ja... 09 00:24:35 79.3 97.0 06.7 66.3 97.9 104.0 85.6 03.5 81.6 80.3 77.9 68.8 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:25:35 76.2 93.9 86.5 66.4 102.4 104.9 92.6 90.1 78.4 76.9 74.5 68.5 3 Motor 3 39Jan 09 09:26:35 77.1 94.8 90.4 66.8 109.4 110.0 64.5 B3.7 79.4 76.0 73.4 68.6 3 Motor 3 30Je. 09 09:27:35 77.1 94.9 87.3 69.7 106.'6 100.9 82.2 60.4 79.1 78.1 75.8 71.7 3 Meter 3 30Je. 09 09:20:35 76.9 94.7 09.0 .66.1 104.2 106.7 83.2 60.6 79.0 78.1 75.3 67.9 3 Meter 3 39Jan 04 09:29:35 76.5 94.3 64.0 66.2 98.8 104.9 81.4 79.4 70.4 17.6 75.8 70.9 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 09:30:35 79.2 97.0 91.1 63.3 101.9 108.3 B7.7 04.0 82.1 79.7 73.9 65.2 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 09:31:35 02.0 99.7 93.0 63.0 105.2 109.5 89.0 07.3 85.8 83.4 75.6 66.2 3 Peter 3 30Jan 09 09:32:35 63.7 101.4 95.1 65.1 105.0 112.0 85.6 07.0 06.6 65.4 02.1 67.2 3 Perot 3 30Jan 09 09:33:35 00.6 98.4 93.5 61.9 110.9 112.1 88.5 05.1 83.1 01.2 76.9 66.7 3 Perot 3 39Jan 09 09:34:35 00.1 97.9 94.1 63.1 110.9 112.2 00.9 84.3 82.1 80.0 ]5.0 70.2 3 Motor 3 30Jan 99 09:35:35 78.0 95.0 92.3 61.0 100.8 111.1 89.7 82.6 79.8 77.6 70.8 62.9 3 Motor 3 39Jan 99 09:36:35 75.5 93.3 87.2 62.6 107.6 112.1 83.4 79.7 77.5 76.2 73.5 64.8 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:37:35 78.4 96.2 90.6 62.2 111.4 133.4 86.1 83.0 80.0 79.1 75.2 64.2 3 Motor 3 39Jan 09 09:38:35 74.4 92.2 84.3 62.0 97.7 300.5 B1.4 79.3 76.9 75.2 72.1 63.3 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 09:39:35 76.5 94.2 86.6 62.1 97.6 101.7 83.0 01.1 79.6 78.1 73.7 62.0 3 Meter 3 39Jan 00 09:40:35 79.6 97.4 90.6 62.3 105.2 106.1 84.9 03.4 82.2 81.2 78.4 67.7 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 09:41:35 72.3 90.1 84.9 62.0 100.3 101.7 80.8 ]6.9 74.6 72.4 66.8 62.4 3 Meter 3 303an 09 09:42:35 72.1 09.6 08.3 62.1 105.7 104.6 81.3 75.0 73.0 69.7 63.9 62.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:43:35 68.3 86.1 07.1 62.0 102.6 102.3 76.2 68.6 67.7 66.4 63.6 GZ.3 2 Meter 3 39Jan 09 09:44:35 76.4 94.2 89.7 64.5 105.2 104.9 86.8 82.3 75.6 71..1 66.9 65.1. 3 146Cer 3 30Jeo 09 09:45:35 70.6 eBA 89.8 65.1 103.3 104.0 76.B 72.5 70.4 68.6 66.6 65.3 J Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:46:35 66.0 03.0 70.0 64.7 81.9 89.7 67.5 66.9 66.7 66.4 65.0 65.2 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 09:47435 60.5 86.3 83.8 65.1 101.9 102.1 76.7 68.8 67.7 6].1 66.5 65.4 3 Mete. 3 30Jan 09 09:48:35 72.8 90.5 88.0 64.8 102_9 102.5 83.0 7].3 ]2.4 68.2 G5.9 65.2 3 Meter 3 393an 09 09:49:35 70.3 88.1 06.0 64.7 105.4 i07.5 79.7 73.8 69.0 G6.7 65.6 65.1 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 09:50:35 74.5 92.3 90.E 65.1 108.6 108.9 84.0 79.5 74.5 70.1 66.8 65.3 3 Mete. 3 39Jan 09 09:51:35 66.2 84.0 69.7 64.9 82.1 93.7 67:9 66.9 66.8 66.6 66.0 65.2 3 Mete. 3 30Jan 09 09:52:35 73.7 91.5 90.1 64.5 105.7 107.9 84.1 78.2 71.7 67.3 G6.0 65.2 3 Meter 3 303eo 09 09:53:35 74.3 92.1 99.5 64.6 103.9 104.9 84.6 79.4 74.0 70.1 66.3 65.2 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 09:54:35 66.9 84.7 75.6 65.0 94.1 91.9 72.3 68.6 67.0 66.7 66.1 65.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 00:55:35 66.1 83.9 70.4 64.7 04.9 51.2 6B.0 66.9 66.7 66.5 65.9 65.2 3 Meter 3 3GJan 09 09:56:35 67.0 84.8 73.2 64.6 84.3 91.2 71.1 69.4 68.0 67.0 66.1 65.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:57:35 70.8 $8.6 74.3 61.0 06.4 93.7 73.9 73.4 72.9 72.4 69.6 68.1 3 Meter 3 30Jeo 09 09:50:35 74.0 91.8 82.2 70.5 93.1 96.5 79.5 77.1 75.5 74.4 72.5 71.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 09:59:35 74.7 92.4 82.4 69.0 93.3 99.2 80.0 70.2 76.7 75.3 73.2 70.4 3 Morer 3 30Jen 09 10:00:35 75.0 92.8 63.5 66.9 92.6 303.3 80.7 78.9 77.6 76.3 73.2 68.7 3 Mete. 3 39Jan 09 10:01:35 75.3 93.0 84.6 65.1 95.6 102.5 80.6 79.7 77.7 766.9 74.1 66.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:02:35 67.4 85.1 70.5 64.5 92.8 95.7 70.7 69.1 60.3 67.7 66.7 65.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:03:35 72.4 90.2 79.4 65.2 92.8 98.6 77.4 75.8 74.6 73.4 71.5 66.7 3 motor 3 30Jan 09 10:04:35 76.3 94.1 86.9 60.9 97.9 100.8 81.8 79.8 70.1 77.1 74.9 71.3 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 10:05:35 75.1 92.9 80.6 66.5 92.3 100.3 79.5 78.4 77.4 76.5 74.6 69.0 3 Mete: 3 30Jan 09 10:06:35 76.2 94.0 61.4 60.1 92.4 100.3 80.6 79,0 77.9 77.2 75.6 70.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:07:35 79.6 97.4 68.4 69.7 100.7 105.8 96.6 64.2 8!.4 79.9 77.2 73.7 3 Meter 3 30jan 09 10:08:35 80.9 98.7 07.9 63.7 98.3 105.5 96.9 85.4 93.7 82.5 79.5 65.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:09:35 80.0 97.8 07.4 63.9 97.3 192.3 85.9 04.4 03.0 81.5 77.9 69.0 3 Meter 3 3GJan 09 30:10:35 76.9 94.7 87.B 64.4 08.8 102.9 54.2 91.5 79.4 17.7 73.0 66.3 3 !!ecet 3 39Jan 09 10:11:35 77.1 94.9 85.9 64.E 99.E 302.5 82.5 80.8 79.4 76.2 75.9 70.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:12:35 76.7 94.4 89.7 63.4 !01.7 106.1 64.2 79.4 78.2 17.0 74.6 65.9 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:13:35 69.1 66.6 82.7 59.4 92.8 101.7 76.6 75.2 68.9 65.3 62.0 60.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:14:35 66.4 84.7 73.4 62.3 89.4 95.1 69.7 68.7 68.1 67.6 66.6 64.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:15:35 64.8 62.6 75.9 61.0 09.6 94,8 71.5 66.7 65.7 64.6 63.5 62.2 3 Meter 3 30Jae 09 10:16:35 69.1 E7.5 85.6 61.9 104.4 105.2 79.9 72.8 69.4 65.7 64.1 62.7 3 Peter 3 30Jaa 09 10:1]:35 74.3 92.3 89.0 64.5 105.1 101.3 03.5 73.4 74.0 71.B 70.0 69.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:18:35 69.6 87.4 77.0 60.1 89.2 96.5 73.2 70.3 69.9 69.8 69.5 68.6 3 Mete. 3 30Jan 09 10-19:35 68.3 8G.1 73.6 62.2 85.8 93.7 71.9 71.0 70.4 69.8 67.5 63.9 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 10:20:35 66.1 6J.B 76.4 62.5 06.7 95.7 73.9 66.9 66.0 65.6 64.7 663.4 3 Mete. 3 30Jan 09 20:21:35 73.0 90.8 79.9 65.0 93.9 90.6 78.0 76.3 75.1 74.2 72.1 67.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan. 09 10:22:35 79.7 97.5 96.4 63.1 106.3 110.6 85.6 82.7 80.8 79.6 77.0 67.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:23:35 76.7 94.5 83.9 66.5 93.4 101.3 82.0 80.8 79.2 77.8 75.3 69.8 3 Meter 3 30Jee 09 10:24:35 74.9 92.7 82.6 65.1 90.7 101.3 80.1 70.3 17.0 76.2 73.8 68.6 3 Perot 3 3GJan 09 10:25:35 75.3 93.1 811 64.5 91.8 104.3 79.9 78.5 77.5 76.5 74.4 70.0 3 Metec 3 39Jan 09 10:26:35 73.7 91.5 02.1 62.1 90.7 99.7 79.3 77.6 76.3 75.3 72.7 63.1 3 Mete. 3 30Jan 09 20:27:35 75.1 92.8 83.5 62.2 96.7 200.8 81.0 79.7 70.6 77.3 71.4 63.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:20:35 64.0 81.8 75.2 63.3 93.1 96.5 66.3 64.9 64.6 64.2 63.6 62.8 3 Her.. 3 30Jan 09 10:29:35 64.2 62.0 71.6 62.2 92.2 93.7 67.3 665.5 64.6 64.5 63.0 63.0 3 Mete. 3 30Jan 09 10:30:35 64.7 52.5 766.8 62.4 93.7 55.6 70.1 65.7 64.8 64.4 63.7 63.1 3 Mater 3 3GJan 00 10:31:35 63.2 81.0 68.7 61.2 81.6 89.7 66.0 64.6 63.9 63.6 62.9 61.9 3 Meter 3 30Jeo 09 10:32:35 64.0 81.8 60.7 62.2 79.4 97.9 67.7 66.2 65.3 64.6 63.3 62.0 3 Mate. 3 30Jan 09 10:33:25 64.0 81.0 74.3 60.9 88.7 93.1 70.2 65.0 64.3 63.8 62.9 61.6 3 Mete. 3 30Jan 09 10:34:35 64.8 82.6 74.6 61.0 92.2 92.6 71.7 6B.4 65.8 64.2 62.7 61.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:35:35 66.8 84.6 78.2 61.9 57.6 59.2 72.8 70.1 57.7 66.7 65.5 63.2 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 10:36:35 65.3 83.0 75.1 61.4 89.6 97.3 69.6 69.1 66.3 65.7 64.5 62.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:37:35 63.4 91.2 72.4 61.4 80.6 92.6 65.6 64.8 64.2 63.8 63.1 62.1 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 10:38:35 64.6 82.3 76.0 61.1 90.3 93.7 67.9 66.5 65.6 64.9 63.8 62.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:39:35 61.2 34.9 11.1 61.9 85.5 90.5 69.6 68.7 60.3 67.5 67.4 62.9 3 Heuer 3 30Jan 09 10:40:35 66.2 84.0 73.2 61.4 87.6 94.8 60.9 60.0 67.8 67.6 66.6 62.4 3 meter 3 30Jan 09 10:41:35 65.6 83.4 71.6 62.0 86.7 93.7 71.0 69.4 67.2 65.7 63.9 62.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:42:35 63.9 91.6 73.1 61.9 88.8 91.2 66.6 65.0 64.5 64.0 63.5 62.4 3 Moto, 3 30Jan 09 10:43:35 60.0 85.8 74.9 62.0 90.6 94.3 73.6 72.6 71.5 68.3 65.3 63.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:44:35 68.2 86.0 73.9 62.1 86.5 91.2 72.0 69.9 60.9 60.7 69.1 66.0 3 Meter 3 303an 09 10:45:35 63.9 81.7 71.2 61,0 85.5 91.2 6B.2 66.0 65.0 64.4 63.3 62.0 3 Mater 3 30Jan 09 10:46:35 64.1 81.8 70.5 60.9 82.5 92.6 66.0 65.7 65.0 64.6 63.7 62.4 3 Meter 3 303an 09 10:47:35 66.4 84.1 69.5 62.4 82.2 91.2 69.1 68.5 67.8 67.1 66.1 64.0 3 Meter 3 303an 09 10:48:35 71.1 89.9 79.2 62.7 91.8 97.9 77.6 76.1 75.3 73.8 65.7 64.1 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 10:49:35 75.7 93.4 85.9 64.5 103.1 104.3 81.5 79.1 77.2 76.2 74.6 71.1 3 Meter 3 303an 09 10:50:35 77.3 95.1 94.0 62.1 116.3 116.0 85.9 00.4 78.4 77.1 71.7 64.0 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 10:51:35 70.6 88..4 79.7 61.2 94.3 96.5 77.6 76.0 74.6 72.9 63.5 61.9 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:52:35 64.3 82.1 82.9 61.4 101.8 103.6 67.9 64.9 63.9 63.5 62.0 62.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:53:35 63.1 80.9 68.6 61.5 84.2 89.7 65.7 64.4 63.8 63.6 62.9 62.1 3 Motor 3 3DJan 09 10:54:35 63.2 81.0 72.2 61.2 88.3 91.2 65.7 64.5 63.9 63.7 63.1 62.2 3 Mater 3 3DJan 09 10:55:35 64.2 82.0 70.7 61.6 84,1 69.7 66.8 65.7 65.0 64.7 64.1 62.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:56:35 64.2 82.0 72.7 60.9 87.6 92.6 60.4 67.3 66.0 64.4 63.1 62.2 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 10:57:35 64.7 82.5 69.7 6I 6 86.2 92.6 68.8 67.9 66.7 65.0 63.6 62.3 3 Heuer 3 30Jan 09 10:50:35 65.8 83.5 81.9 61.2 104.3 104.9 75.4 65,4 63.4 62.9 62.5 61.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 10:59:35 62.2 79.9 70.6 57.9 63.7 09.7 66.0 64.2 63.2 62.8 62.2 58.8 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:00:35 62.1 79.8 71.4 59.0 63.3 91.2 65.8 64.0 63.6 63.2 60.9 59.7 3 Hauer 3 39Jan 09 11:01:35 67.9 85.7 74.0 63.2 89.2 92.6 71.1 69.9 69.6 69.3 60.4 64.1 3 Y.e ter 3 30Jan 09 11:02:35 66.3 84.1 72.1 64.0 81.8 94.8 68.9 67.8 67.0 66.8 66.2 65.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:03:35 66.1 93.9 79.2 62.6 67.5 97.9 73.4 66.9 66.0 65.E 64.7 63.5 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 11:04:35 74.2 92.0 81.5 64.6 91.2 101.3 80.3 78.4 77.1 75.9 71.3 69.0 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 11:05:35 74.8 92.5 83.2 65.2 95.2 100.8 80.0 70.5 77.3 76.2 73,1 69.1 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 11:06:35 78.1 95,8 90.3 62.9 100.5 102.9 85.7 01.7 00.6 79.7 75.3 65.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:01:35 70.4 83.2 00.8 62.3 91.1 101.3 79.2 73.9 71.7 70.4 67.7 64.0 3 Heuer 3 30Jan 09 11:00:35 74.9 92.7 84.5 64.5 97.6 100.3 90.6 70.6 77.4 76.2 73.9 67.3 3 More, 3 30Jan 09 11:09:35 75.1 92.9 84.5 61.0 95.2 101.3 80.9 19.1 77.8 76.5 73.3 64.0 3 Motor 3 3DJan 09 11:10:35 62.9 80.7 74.5 61.3 90.7 93.7 65.1 63.7 63.0 62.0 62.5 62.0 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 11:11:35 62.6 30.4 61.3 61,4 63.3 89.7 64.2 63.6 63.0 62.9 6 ?.5 62.0 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 11:12:35 62.5 80.3 73.7 61.1 89.2 91.2 65.0 63.4 62.9 62.8 62.3 61.3 3 14ate, 3 30Jan 09 11:13:35 68.3 86.1 83.3 61.4 90.2 100.8 78.4 72.9 68.2 63.5 62.6 61.8 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:14:15 66.2 34.0 94.9 61.3 99.9 101.3 76.0 64.1 63.0 62.9 62.5 61.7 3 Mote, 3 30Jan 09 11:15:35 63.9 81.7 72.9 61.4 90.7 93.7 69.3 66.4 64.9 63.9 62.8 62.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:16:35 63.2 B1.0 77.0 61.6 92.2 94.8 65.6 63.9 63.5 63.1 62.7 62.1 3 Motor 3 30Jnn 09 11:17:35 63.7 81.4 71.1 61.6 86.0 93.7 66.1 65.4 64.6 64.0 63.2 62.2 3 Mater 3 390an 09 11:10:35 63.9 81.7 68.6 61.0 83.0 94.8 66.7 USA 64.9 64.4 63.7 62.6 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 11:19:35 63.5 81.3 77.0 61.3 88.0 91.2 69.6 63.9 63.2 62.9 62.5 61.8 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 11:20:35 62.7 80.4 71.1 61.1 87.3 69.7 65.3 63.8 63,2 62,9 62.5 61.4 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 11 :21:35 62.7 30.4 66.6 61.6 86.8 87.7 64.0 63.7 63.2 62.9 62.6 62.1 3 Mo., J 39Jan 09 11:22:35 62.9 80.7 60.9 60.9 84.3 87.7 64.7 63.9 63.6 63.3 62.7 62.1. 3 Mo. r 3 30Jan 09 11:23:35 63.2 81.0 70.2 61.5 83.2 89.7 65.2 64.0 63.8 63.6 63.2 62.2 3 Motor 3 300an 09 11:24:35 63.2 81.0 67,3 62.1 79.8 87.7 64.6 63.9 63,8 63.1 63.3 62.3 3 Motor 3 39Jan 09 11:25:35 63.1 00.9 65.8 62.0 76.7 87.7 64.4 63.9 63.8 63.6 63.1 62.2 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 11:26:35 63.2 81.0 64.5 62.0 78.1 07.7 64.5 64.0 63.8 63.7 633 62.3 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 11:27:35 64.7 82.4 76.6 61.0 93.5 94.3 69.6 67.2 65.7 64.7 63.4 62.2 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 11:28:35 77.3 95.1 89.0 61.4 90.0 104.3 86.2 02.3 79.6 77.7 72.4 64.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:29:35 72.0 89.8 80.6 60.9 89.1 98.9 79.4 76.4 75.4 73.6 66.6 62.6 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 11:30:35 70.9 88.7 80.4 62.0 95.2 97.9 79,2 753 73.6 72.3 67.5 63.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:31:35 75.7 93.5 83.5 62.9 93.2 102.9 01.7 79.8 78.5 77.4 74.0 67.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:32:35 71.5 89.2 78.0 61.4 80.1 97.3 77.3 75.7 74.3 13.1 70.3 62.6 3 Here, 3 30Jan 09 11:33:35 65.6 83.4 75.7 60.6 86.2 94.3 73.6 67.8 66.3 65.2 63.4 61.6 3 Motor 3 39Jan 09 11:34:35 69.4 37.2 79.3 60.9 90.3 90.6 77.1 74.6 70.9 68.9 67.2 61.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:35:35 68.6 86.4 79.6 61.2 92.7 97.3 70.9 69.5 69.0 68.8 68.3 67.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:36:35 61.6 05.3 11.6 66.6 38.0 89.7 63.,9 60,4 68.0 67.8 67,5 61.1 3 Motor 3 3DJan 90 11:37:35 67.2 35.0 71.3 66.0 96,6 89.7 68.3 67.9 67.8 67.6 67.3 66.3 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 11:38:35 61.5 85.2 72.9 65.8 90.6 94.8 69.5 66.4 67.9 67.8 67.4 66.5 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 11:39:35 67.5 B5.3 71.4 66.4 93.8 92.6 68.9 66.3 67.9 67.8 67.5 67.0 3 Heuer 3 39Jan 09 11:40:35 68.2 06.0 75.9 66.6 56.2 97.9 71.6 69,0 68.7 60.4 67,0 67.1 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 11:41:35 60.4 78.2 67.6 $8.3 92.5 87.7 65.4 62.6 60.9 60.4 59.7 59.0 3 Motor 3 3DJan 09 11:42:35 64.7 82.5 77.0 59.9 96.1 97.9 73.4 60.9 65.6 63.4 61.2 59.3 3 Mauer 3 30Jan 09 11:43:35 61.2 79.0 15.1 58.8 91.5 93.1 66.6 62.5 61.5 60.9 60.1 59.2 3 Heuer 3 30Jan 09 11:44:35 61.0 79,6 74.9 59.0 84.7 91.2 67.8 63.0 62.4 61,6 60.6 59.4 3 Motor 3 39Jan 09 11:45:35 65.1 02.9 73.0 59.3 06.1 95.7 72.8 70.0 67.5 63.9 61.3 60.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:46:35 62.4 00.1 70.2 59.4 09.5 94.8 66.9 65.2 63.8 63.1 61.0 60.0 3 Motor 3 39Jan 09 11:47:35 61.9 79.7 68.1 59.3 81.5 91.2 65.1 63,7 63.2 62.7 61.6 60.0 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 11:48:35 59.7 77.5 65.0 57.8 02.1 87.7 62.0 60.9 60.5 60.0 59.6 58.5 3 Meter 3 39Jan 99 11:49:35 61.2 79.0 71.9 58.9 84.2 09.7 65.7 62.7 61.8 61.3 60.6 59.4 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 11:50:35 61.3 79.1 65.7 59.2 83.1 89.7 64.3 62.9 62.0 61.7 60.9 60.1 3 Mete, 3 30Jan 09 11:51:35 61.3 79.1 65.0 $9.0 02.9 93.7 64.7 63.5 62.7 62.2 60.7 $9.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:52:35 62.4 80.1 67.7 58.7 83.9 97.3 65.7 64.0 64.3 63.6 61.0 59.4 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 11:53:35 65.1 82.9 18.9 61.0 99.1 99.2 73.2 68.7 64.8 63.0 62.5 61,4 3 Mater 3 30Jan 09 11:54:35 65.0 82.7 00.2 60.8 99.5 101.3 73.0 66.9 62.9 62.7 62.2 61.2 3 Motor 3 39Jan 09 11:55:35 62.1 79.9 71.9 60.3 90.1 89.7 64.9 62.9 62.5 62.0 61.7 61.1 3 Motor 3 30Jan O9 11:56:35 64.3 82.1 71.4 60.7 82.1 93.7 70.1 68.4 66.3 64.0 62.4 61.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:57:35 61.5 79.3 64.3 60.2 64.5 87.7 62.9 62.6 62.1 61.9 61.5 60.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:58:35 61.5 70,3 65.0 60.2 76.4 97.7 63.7 62.5 62.0 61.8 61.4 60.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 11:59:35 61.6 79.4 69.9 60.0 84.1 57.7 63.0 62.4 61.9 61.8 61.5 60.6 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:00:35 62.4 80.2 74.4 60.7 91.1 92.6 66.1 614 $2.8 62.4 61.8 61.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:01:35 62.4 80.2 71.8 61.0 91.1 92.6 65.5 63.3 62.8 62.6 62.1 61.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:02:35 62.9 30.7 69.2 61.0 93.5 99.7 65.8 63.9 63.6 63.2 62.6 61.8 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 12:03:35 62.7 80.5 70.0 61.0 96.4 92.6 64.8 63.6 63.0 62.9 62.5 62.0 3 Neter 3 30Jae 09 12:04:35 63.1 60.9 75.9 60.4 93.7 94.9 669.7 64.4 62.0 62.4 61.7 61.1 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 12:05:35 62.5 00.3 68.4 60.5 79.5 99.7 64.6 63.8 63.3 62.9 62.3 61.2 3 Mete, 3 39Jan 09 12:06:35 64.8 82.6 72.5 61.2 B9.2 94.8 71.3 69.3 65.3 64.1 63.0 62.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:07:35 6B.0 35.8 79.0 60.2 93.0 95.7 73.6 72.2 11.5 70.6 63.6 61.4 3 Motor 3 39Jan 09 12:08:35 61.9 70.7 70.3 60.4 01.4 90.5 64.9 62.9 62.6 62.2 61.6 60.7 3 Meter 3 3DJan De 12:09:35 63.7 81.4 81.6 60.3 96.7 90,6. 66.9 63.8 62.9 62.7 62.1 61.1 3 Meter 3 3DJan 09 12:10:35 63.7 01.4 73.0 61.0 05.0 89.7 70.6 65.0 63.8 63.4 62.6 61.4 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 12:11:35 66.4 84.2 14.8 60.9 86.2 96.5 73.2 31_6 61.7 65.7 63.0 62.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:12:35 66.8 84.6 81.7 60.9 99.6 100.3 77.9 66.6 64.B 64.3 63.1 61.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:13:35 69.3 87.1 76.8 63.9 95.4 95.7 71.9 71.1 70.6 70.2 69.B 61.4 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 12:14:35 60.5 86.2 72.5 66.9 81.1 93.7 71.1 70.4 69.2 69.6 68.0 67.2 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 12:15:35 68.1 85.9 73.6 66.9 89.4 91.2 69.6 68.9 68.B 68.6 68.1 67.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:16:35 60.4 86.1 77.1 66.6 97.2 100.8 73.1 69.9 68.B 68.3 67.7 67.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:11:35 69.2 86.9 79.8 66.8 99.9 102.1 76.0 71.5 68.9 68.5 67.8 67.1 3 xet9r 3 30Jan 09 12:18:35 60.3 86.0 74.1 66.6 86.6 92.6 70.9 69.2 68.8 68.6 68.0 67.2 3 Meter 3 38Jan 09 12:19:35 69.2 87.0 84.1 67.6 97.1 100.8 71.6 69.B 69.$ 69.098.6 69.0 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 12:20:35 69.1 86.9 79.3 67.0 94.0 96.5 10.8 69.9 69.7 65.5 6B.9 68.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 32:21:35 67.5 85.3 83.4 59.5 97.2 98.6 71.1 69.7 69.0 68.7 61.2 60.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:22:35 63.5 81.3 81.1 59.2 94.7 °.7.5 67.5 65.2 64.2 63.4 62.0 60.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:23:35 62.0 79.1 76.6 58.0 94.5 95.7 67.0 63.2 62.0 61.4 "00.6 59.4 3 meter 3 30Jan 09 12:24:35 64.4 82.2 18.3 55.7 90.1 93.7 10.6 68.0 66.6 65.1 62.0 58.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:25:35 64.3 82.1 16.7 55.7 94.9 99.7 11.3 63.9 66.1 64.9 62.2 57.6 3 Mater 3 30Jan 09 12:26:35 60.6 78.4 00.1 53.1 96.0 94.7 66.1 61.9 60.8 59.9 58.2 54.9 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:27:35 63.9 81.7 78.8 53.6 96.7 96.5 73.9 61.9 62.1 60.6 58.8 56.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:28:35 61.4 79.1 10.1 56.1 86.7 92.6 66.6 64.3 63.1 62.2 60.0 50.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:29:35 60.1 71.9 67.1 55.6 81.3 B5.2 64.5 62.5 61.4 60.8 59.6 57.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:30:35 64.3 82.1 85.6 55.4 103.0 103.6 66.7 63.9 63.0 62.3 61.2 57.9 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:31:35 61.5 79.3 70.6 56.9 89.0 87.7 67.1 63.5 62.6 62.0 60.6 58.5 3 Meter 3 3UJan 09 12:32:35 61.E 79.4 73.6 56.7 89.1 89.7 64.9 63.6 62.8 62.3 61.1 59.2 3 Mater 3 30Jan 09 12:33:35 61.3 70.1 68.7 57.2 82.0 89.7 64.5 63.4 62.7 62.1 60.8 59.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:34:35 61.0 18.0 73.6 57.1 86.9 91.2 63.8 62.3 61.7 61.2 60.4 5B.6 3 Peter 3 30Jan 09 12:35:35 59.7 77.4 67.3 56.3 84.9 85.2 63.1 61.6 60.8 60.2 59.2 51.6 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:36:35 59.2 77.0 78.2 51.4 99.6 101.7 67.4 61.3 $9.0 58.5 54.7 52.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:37:35 56.1 75.9 69.4 51.8 84.8 07.7 65.8 61.9 59.2 57.8 55.6 53.4 3 Heuer 3 30Jan 09 12:30:35 61.3 79.3 81.6 53.6 100.0 100.3 69.6 62.8 59.8 58.6 56.8 54.6 3 Meter 3 39Jan 09 12:39:35 57.4 15.1 66.2 51.9 63.8 87.7 61.9 60.4 59.4 58.3 56.2 54.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:40:35 64.2 91.9 73.9 54.4 00.1 92.6 70.9 69.1 66.8 64.0 61.5 56.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:41:35 57.9 75.7 69.3 54.6 B3.o 86.5 61.3 59.6 50.8 56.4 57.4 55.6 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:42:35 61.7 81.5 75.1 49.0 88.0 94.8 72.5 68.5 67.1 64.2 56.5 51.3 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 12:43:35 52.8 70.6 66.5 47.1 83.9 85.2 58.8 56.1 54.3 53.0 51.0 48.0 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 12:44:35 52.3 70.1 66.1 44.7 84.5 87.7 58.5 54.B 53.2 52.4 50.8 48.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:45:35 52.9 70.7 66.3 44.1 79.5 87.7 58.5 55.7 54.0 53.3 51.0 47.9 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:46:35 58.1 75.9 75.6 48.8 93.0 94.8 65.5 59.0 58.2 57.2 54.4 51.5 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 12:47:35 63.5 01.3 80.1 51.0 94.1 97.3 71.4 69.2 66.7 61.9 56.2 $2.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:48:35 57.B 15.6 74.2 48.6 91.5 92.6 66.7 59.7 50.0 56.5 54.1 50.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:49:35 55.1 72.9 69.6 45.7 92.1 94.8 63.9 59.1 55.5 53.9 51.5 40.3 3 Me"r 3 30Jan 09 12:50:35 61.3 79.1 83.7 47.3 96.1 97.3 65.0 56.8 54.3 53.2 51.6 49.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:51:35 53.9 71.6 65.1 47.3 B6.3 89.7 60.5 56.9 55.1 53.9 52.2 49.8 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:52:35 53.8 11.6 70.8 47.6 06.1 87.7 62.3 54.6 52.6 51.6 50.2 48.6 3 Motor 3 303an 09 12:53:35 $1.9 69.7 64.4 47.0 83.8 85.2 50.0 55.0 53.3 52.1 49.9 48.1 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:54:35 56.7 14.4 79.3 46.6 98.6 98.6 63.6 55.9 53.0 51.6 49.6 47.6 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:55:35 59.1 76.9 73.0 47.1 82.7 87.7 68.6 64.0 61.1 56.0 50.3 48.2 3 Motar 3 30Jan 09 12:56:35 56.3 74.1 71.3 47.2 04.2 87.7 65.4 60.5 57.0 54.8 51.8 49.1. 3 Meter 3 30Jae 09 12:57:35 55.6 73.5 66.7 48.8 02.4 85.2 63.9 60.1 56.5 54.6 52.6 50.4 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:58:35 55.8 73.5 73.5 47.9 06.0 91.2 62.5 5B.7 56.2 54.5 51.9 49.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 12:59:35 53.7 71.5 72.4 45.0 90.5 92.6 61.1 55.4 53.3 51.9 49.6 46.6 3 Mater 3 30Jan 09 13:00:35 59.5 77.3 77.7 44.7 97.7 98.6 60.8 64.3 60.4 57.2 51.9 47.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 .13:01:35 61.0 70.0 72.7 44.0 92.3 93.7 68.9 65.9 63.7 61.7 57_1 49.2 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 13:02:35 61.6 79.4 75.9 43.7 97.2 91.6 71.3 67.1 63.6 60.0 53.2 47.6 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 13:03:35 60.4 78.1 80.4 45.2 96.9 96.5 69.2 60.0 56.9 55.1 52.2 46.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 13:04:35 55.6 73.4 70.0 47.2 92.3 51.2 63.9 59.0 56.8 55.2 52.5 49.5 3 Hater 3 3oJan 09 13:05:35 58.2 76.0 75.0 45.5 93.6 96.5 69.1 59.1 56.5 55.1 52.4 48.5 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 13:06:35 53.5 11.3 65.0 40.4 00.9 87.7 50.7 55.7 54.5 53.8 52.7 50.7 3 M.etor 3 30Jan 09 13:07:35 53.1 70.9 68.6 47.4 83.4 05.2 59.1 55.3 53.9 53.2 51.3 48.7 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 13:08:35 51.0 69.7 61.9 45.4 78.4 05.2 56.2 53.6 52.4 51.7 50.2 41.2 3 Motor 3 30Jan 09 13:09:35 54.8 72.5 15.3 45.3 89.9 92.6 59.0 54.9 53.6 52.6 50.0 47.2 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 13:10:35 55.7 73.4 70.4 44.0 67.8 B5.7 65.9 59.0 56.0 53.2 49.5 45.9 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 13:11:35 52.5 70.3 64.5 43.3 76.4 0.0 60.3 56.4 $4.3 52.9 50.1 46.2 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 13:12:35 50.6 69.6 63.4 45.1 37.9 0.0 $6.7 53.7 52.1 51.2 49.5 47.0 3 Hetar 3 3UJan 09 13:13:35 50.1 67.9 67.4 43.9 80.6 05.2 57.2 52.6 50.2 40.9 47.3 45.4 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 13:14:35 51.9 69.7 67.0 42.2 86.6 97.7 63.6 52.9 48.6 47.4 45.5 43.5 3 Mater 3 30Jan 09 13:15:35 49.7 67.5 63.8 42.1 04.4 0.0 58.0 52.6 51.0 49.4 46.8 43.5 3 Hater 3 30Jan 09 13:16:35 52.5 70.3 68.5 42.0 84.2 85.2 62.6 55.6 51.6 49.1 47.1 44.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 13:17:35 52.2 70.0 72.0 43.9 84.6 94.8 60.0 54.1 51.6 49.8 47.6 45.2 3 Mater 3 30Jan 09 13:10:35 49.9 67.7 64.3 44.0 76.6 0.0 55.4 52.0 51.3 50.2 48.5 46.3 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 13:19:35 53.7 71.5 67.3 43.0 70.8 85.2 59.7 56.0 55.5 54.5 52.5 47.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 13:20:35 57.4 75.2 66.9 45.2 86.3 B7.7 65.2 62.5 59.8 58.1 53.9 46.9 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 13:21:35 56.1 73.9 65.5 46.7 84.2 87.7 62.9 60.6 58.0 57.2 53.2 40.9 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 13:22:35 56.9 74.7 70.5 47.4 86.1 87.7 64.3 60.9 59.3 57.7 53.4 49.0 3 Meter 3 30Jan 09 13:23:35 62.5 77.9 82.5 51.7 106.0 106.8 70.6 64.4 61.7 59.7 57.3 54.4 C: \LAROAv \SLHUTIL \AERO! 4.bin Interval Data Site Wcacion Dec. Time Leq SEL Lman Lmin Peat uwk L( 21 Lt 81 L p61 L125) L150) 1,1901 4 30dan 09 0]:06:23 83.5 101.3 92.9 78.2 108.8 107.4 90.4 88.2 86.2 84.2 99.0 78.5 4 30Jan 09 07:07:23 79.2 97.0 89.8 77.6 104.0 107.4 85.2 79.5 79.0 78.9 78.6 78.1 4 30Jan 09 07:09:23 72.3 90.0 73.9 69.3 91.0 97:2 70.8 7B.2 70.9 70.0 70.4 64,5 4 30Jan 09 07:09:23 77.9 95.7 82.2 70.0 92.2 98.5 79.0 70.9 78.9 18.7 78.3 75.2 4 30Jan 00 07:10:23 70.0 95.8 70.7 77.4 92.1 97.2 78.7 78.7 78.] 78.5 78.0 77.4 4 30Jan 09 07:11:23 78.1 95.8 78.7 77.4 01.5 97.9 78.7 78.7 78.7 78.6 78.2 77.4 4 3OJan 09 07:12:23 78.0 95.8 76.8 77.4 02.2 47.9 76.6 78.8 78.7 78.5 79.0 77.4 4 38Jan 09 07:13:23 78.0 95.7 79.4 77.3 93.7 103.5 79.0 76.8 78.6 78.4 77.9 77.3 4 30Jan 09 07:14:23 60.3 96.1 81.5 77.5 95.0 100.7 31.5 80.9 80.9 80.6 60.5 80.0 4 30Jan 09 07:15:23 82.4 100.2 63.7 80.0 95.8 102.1 93.7 83.6 03.3 93.0 02.5 33.4 4 30Jan 04 07:16:23 78.1 95.9 B3.2 70.9 95.3 101.6 93.0 92.7 02.4 02.0 72.5 71.3 4 30Jan 04 07:17:23 72.7 90.5 73.7 71.8 87.3 94.7 73.7 73.5 73.1 72.4 72.6 72.1 4 30Jan 09 07:18:23 73.1 90.0 73.9 72.3 87.2 94.7 73.9 73.9 73.7 73.5 73.1 72.3 4 30Jan 09 07:19:23 73.2 91.0 74.0 72.4 E7.6 9-7 74.0 73.9 73.0 73.7 73.4 72.6 4 38Jan 09 07:20:23 73.4 91.1 76.9 72.5 92.0 57.9 74.1 73.9 73.8 73.7 73.4 72.7 4 30Jan 09 07:21:23 73.5 91.3 74.5 72.8 80.2 55.6 74.5 74.0 73.9 73.8 73.5 73.1 4 38Jan 09 07:22:23 73.9 91.7 75.3 72.9 60.8 94.7 75.0 74.6 74.5 74.3 73.7 73.1 4 30Jan 09 07:23:23 73.7 91.5 78.2 72.3 04.4 37.9 74.9 74.3 73.9 73.8 73.6 73.3 4 30Jan 04 07:24:23 73.6 91.4 74.7 72.7 87.6 96.4 74.7 74.1 73.9 73.8 73.5 73.1 4 38Jan 09 07:25:23 74.0 91.7 70.5 72.9 90.2 96.6 77.3 74.6 74.2 73.9 73.6 73.1 4 38Jan 09 07:26:23 76.2 94.0 79.4 72.3 91.1 99.7 78.0 79.3 77.9 77.7 77.0 73.2 4 38Jan 09 07:27:23 73.7 91_5 74.7 72.0 87.7 95.6 74.7 74.3 73.9 73.8 73.5 73.1 4 30Jan 09 07:28:23 73.7 91.5 74.4 72.7 87.2 95.2 74.4 74.3 73.9 73.0 73.6 73.1 4 38Jan 09 07:29:23 73.8 91.6 75.3 72.9 08.5 95.6 74.9 74.7 74.4 74.1 73.7 73.1 4 30Jaa 04 07:30:23 73.3 91.5 75.1 72.9 88.9 55.6 74.9 74.6 74.1 73.9 73.6 73.1 4 303an 09 07:31:23 74.0 01.0 77.4 73.0 92.0 95.6 75.0 74.8 74.7 74.5 73.9 73.2 4 38Jan 09 07:32:23 73.0 91_6 15.2 72.9 87.5 95.6 74.9 74.7 74.4 74.0 73.7 73.1 3UJan 04 07:33:23 73.0 91.5 75.2 72.8 B7.9 56.4 74.9 74.6 74.2 73.9 73.6 73.1 4 38Jan 09 07:34:23 73.9 91.7 75.2 73.0 67.9 95.6 74.9 74.8 74.5 74.3 73.8 73.1 4 30Jan 09 07:35:23 74.0 91.8 78.2 72.8 93.0 97.9 75.0 74.0 74.7 74.5 73.9 73.2 4 38Jan 09 07:36;23 73.8 91.6 74.7 73.1 80.4 94.7 14.7 74.6 74.3 74.0 73.6 73.1 4 30Jan 09 07:37:23 73.8 91.6 74.7 72.8 07.5 94.7 74.7 74.7 74.5 74.2 73.7 73.1 4 38Jan 09 07:38:23 73.7 91.5 74.7 72.9 08.0 94.7 14.7 74.5 74.0 73.9 73.6 73.1 4 303an 09 07:39:23 74.0 91.8 79.4 72.9 98.9 98.5 75.6 74.9 74.6 74.4 73.0 73.2 4 30Jan 09 07:40:23 73.9 91.6 75.0 73.0 08.6 94.7 74.4 74.7 74.5 74.2 73.7 73.1 4 30Jan 09 07:41:23 73.9 91.6 75.8 73.1 92.6 95.6 74.9 74.7 74.4 74.1 73.7 73.1 A 38Jan 09 07:42:23 74.0 91.8 78.6 73.3 92.2 97.9 75.0 74.9 74.7 74.5 14.0 73.3 4 380an 09 07:43;23 74.0 91.0 75.2 73.2 87.7 95.6 75.0 74.8 74.7 74.5 74.0 73.2 4 38Jan 09 07:44:23 78.9 96.7 01.2 73.3 93.1 101.? 80.9 80.7 80.3 79.9 79.0 7.4.5 4 30Jan 09 07:45:23 00.4 98.2 81.2 79.6 93.9 101.2 81.0 80.9 80.0 60..0 00.5 80.1 4 380an 09 07:46:23 76.6 94.6 81.1 71.8 93.2 100.3 80.9 60.7 80.3 70.7 13.6 72.3 4 303an. 09 07 .17:23 73.5 91.3 74.5 72.6 87.1 96.4 74..5 74.1 73.9 73.8 73.5 73.0 303an 09 07:46:23 73.8 91.5 74.9 72.9 80.1 96.4 74.9 74.6 74.1 73.9 73.6 73.1 4 301aa 09 07:49:23 73.8 91..5 74.6 72.9 87.4 95.6 74.B 74.5 74.1 73.9 73.6 73.1 4 30Jan 09 07:50:23 73.9 91.7 766.1 73.1 68.4 95.6 75.0 74.8 74.5 74.2 73.7 73.1 4 38Jan. 04 07:51:23 76.1 93.9 00.6 72.0 93.1 100.7 80.0 79.5 79.0 78.1 74.0 73.2 4 38Jan 09 07:52;23 78.6 96.3 80.4 77.6 92.7 100.7 75:8 79..0 78.9 78.0 78.5 78.1 4 38Jan 09 07:53:23 78.5 96.3 79.2 77.9 92.4 99.7 79.0 78.9 76.B 76.7 70.5 78.1 4 38Jan 89 07:54:23 79.4 97.2 67.3 77.8 102.9 105.1 81.1 80.5 79.9 79.8 79.2 78.3 4 30Jan 09 07:55:23 79.2 97.0 '81.1 78.1 93.4 99.3 60.5 79.9 79.9 79.7 79.3 78.3 4 30Jan 09 07:56:23 82.6 100.2 83.6 76.4 97.7 102.1 03.6 63.6 03.5 83.2 82.6 79.6 4 30Jan 09 07:57:23 02.6 100.4 83.3 82.1 96.0 102.5 83.0 02.9 82.8 82.6 82.5 82.1 4 30Jan 09 07:58:23 92.0 99.0 03.4 70.1 95.9 302.5 63.4 33 -.3 32.9 92.8 82.5 74.6 4 30Jan 09 07:59:23 74.2 91_9 76.2 71.7 68.6 97.2 75.9 75.6 75.1 74.0 74.1 72.4 30jan 09 08:00:23 75.0 92.9 76.9 73.3 09.7 98.5 76.3 75.9 75.7 75.5 74.9 74.1 4 30Jan 09 08:01:23 75.3 93.1 76.8 73.3 90.1 98.5 76.6 75.9 75.8 75.7 75.3 74.3 4 30Jan 09 08:02:23 75.4 93.2 77.2 73.9 91.3 90.7 76.9 76.2 75.0 75.8 75.4 74.4 4 38Jan 09 08:03:23 75.3 93.1 79.0 73.7 93.1 59.1 76.9 76.0 75.8 75.7 75.4 74.4 4 38Jan 09 08:04:23 75.3 93.1 76.3 74.2 50.0 97.2 76.0 75.9 75.8 75.7 75.4 75.0 4 30Jan 09 06:05:23 75.6 93.4 77.2 74.0 89.8 98.5 76.4 76.5 76.0 75.9 75.5 75.0 4 38Jan 09 03:06:23 76.1 93.9 86.0 75.1 107.1 107.9 78.2 76.9 76.5 76.1 75.7 75.1 4 30jan 04 08;07:23 75.9 93.6 78.3 74.7 91.9 98.5 77.0 76.7 76.4 76.0 75.7 75.1 4 30jan 09 08:08:23 76.0 93.0 78.5 74.8 91.9 99.7 77.0 76.0 76.6 76.3 75.0 75.2 4 30Jan 09 08:09:23 76.0 93.0 77.7 74.7 90.3 9S.5 77- 76.9 76.7 76.4 75.8 75.2 4 38Jan 09 08:10:23 75.8 53.6 70.0 74.5 65.3 90.0 77.2 76.7 76.3 76.0 75.6 75.1 4 !Dian 09 08:11:23 75.9 93.7 80.1 74.9 94.9 100.7 77.6 76.7 76.2 75.9 75.6 75.1 4 30Jan 09 08:12:23 75.9 93.7 81.0 74.7 98.4 100.3 77.8 76.8 76.5 76.2 75.7 75.1 4 30Jan 09 06:13:23 76.1 93.9 83.0 74.3 102.0 103.5 78.2 76.9 96.7 76.4 75.8 75.1 4 30jan 09 08:14:23 76.1 93.9 77.5 75.2 40.3 90.9 77.0 76.0 76.7 76.5 76.1 75.2 4 30Jan 09 08:15:23 75.0 93.6 76.6 75.1 90.0 97.2 76.6 76.4 76.0 75.9 75.6 75.1 4 38Jan 09 OB:16:23 75.9 93.7 76.7 75.2 39.5 97.2 76.7 76.7 76.3 76.0 75.7 75.2 4 38Jan 09 08:17:23 76.0 93.0 77.3 75.2 90.1 97.2 77.0 76.6 766.6 76.3 75.8 75.2 4 38Jan 09 08:18:23 76.1 93.9 77.9 75.4 90.3 97.2 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.6 76.2 75.4 4 38Jan 09 08:19:23 76.3 94.1 76.6 75.6 P1.6 100.3 77.3 76.9 76.8 76.7 76.4 75.6 4 38Jan. OB 08:20:23 76.1 93.9 77.6 75.4 90.5 97.9 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.5 76.0 75.4 4 38Jan. 09 06:21:23 76.1 93.9 79.1 75.2 92.6 98.5 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.5 76.0 75.2 4 38Jan 09 00:22:23 76.3 94.1 78.2 75.6 93.0 97.9 77.2 76.9 76.0 76.7 76.4 75.6 4 30Jan 09 OB:23:23 76.4 94.2 79.9 75.4 93.9 59.1 77.9 76.9 76.3 76.7 76.4 75.6 4 38Jan 09 08:24:23 77.1 94.9 93.0 74.7 300.3 101.2 79.2 78.5 77.9 77.6 76.9 75.6 4 38Jan 09 09:25:23 76.4 94.2 70.1 75.0 90.5 100.0 77.8 77.3 76.9 76.8 76.3 75.3 4 38Jan 09 08:26:23 76.1 93.9 70.0 74.9 90.2 96.5 77.5 76.9 76.7 76.5 76.0 75.2 4 30Jan 09 00:27:23 76.0 93.0 78.0 74.6 90.2 100.3 77.4 76.9 76.7 76.4 75.8 75.1 4 30Jan 09 08:28:23 76.3 94.1 69.0 74.5 108.7 109.0 77.9 76.9 76.7 76.5 75.9 75.1 4 38Jan 09 08:29:23 76.3 94.0 78.4 74.8 90.0 99.3 77.9 77.2 76.9 76.7 76.3 75.3 4 30Jan 09 08:30:23 76.5 94.3 79.6 75.1 90.3 100.7 70.0 77.6 77.0 76.9 76.5 75.8 4 30Jan 09 08:31:23 76.3 94.1 78.9 75.1 91.5 99.7 70.0 71.2 76.9 76.0 76.4 75.4 4 38Jan 09 08:32:23 76.3 94.0 81.7 74.6 93.4 99.7 77.9 77.0 76.0 76.7 76.4 75.3 4 38Jan 09 08:33:23 76.3 94.1 80.9 75.0 91.5 99.1 77.3 76.9 76.0 76.7 76.4 75.7 4 30Jan 09 08:34:23 76.3 94.1 77.5 75.3 91.2 100.3 77.4 76.9 76.0 76.7 76.4 75.6 4 30Jan 09 00:35:23 76.1 93.9 82.1 74.8 9B.3 99.7 77.8 76.9 76.0 76.6 76.1 75.2 4 3DJan 09 08:36:23 76.4 94.2 79.8 74.6 95.8 100.3 70.2 77.4 76.9 76.9 76.4 75.4 4 3DJan 09 08:37:23 76.2 94.0 78.0 14.9 92.0 300.7 11.7 77.0 76.0 76.7 76.3 75.3 JOJan 09 06:38:23 76.2 93.9 78.8 74.6 92.7 99.7 77.6 76.9 76.8 76.6 76.2 75.2 4 39Jan 99 08:39:23 76.0 93.8 81.2 74..4 91.5 99.1 77.2 76.9 76.7 16.5 75.9 75.1 4 30Jan 09 08:40:23 76.2 94.0 80.4 74.3 95.2 99.1 77.4 76.9 76.9 76.6 76.1 75.2 4 39Jan 09 08:4 1:23 76.2 93.9 79.6 75.1 91.9 100.1 76.8 77.0 76.8 76.6 76.0 75.2 4 30Jan 09 08:42:23 76.0 93.8 76.8 75.0 69.9 100.3 76.8 76.8 76.7 76.5 76.1 75.2 4 30Jan 09 08:43:23 76.1 93.9 79.5 75.0 94.5 99.1 77.2 76.9 76.0 76.6 76.2 75.3 4 30Jan 09 08:44:23 76.1 93.9 77.5 75.4 03.0 99.1 77.0 76.9 76.0 76.6 76.2 75.4 4 39Jan 09 08:45:23 76.1 93.9 77.0 75.4 90.0 100.7 77.0 76.9 76.0 76.6 76.3 75.4 4 3DJan 09 08:46:23 76.1 93.9 77.0 75.4 00.5 99.7 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.6 76.2 75.4 4 30Jan 09 08:47:23 76.1 93.9 77.0 75.5 89.9 99.1 ii.0 76.9 76.8 76.6 76.2 75.5 4 3Wan 09 08:48:23 76.2 93.9 77.2 75.3 B9.9 99.1 77.0 76.9 76.8 76,7 76.3 75.4 4 30Jan 09 08:49:23 76.1 93.9 77.0 75.4 90.4 99.1 77.0 76.0 76.8 76.6 76.3 75.4 4 3Wan 09 08:50:23 76.1 93.9 77.3 75.2 91.5 97.9 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.6 76.2 75.2 4 30Jan 09 08:51:23 76.1 93.9 78.5 75.3 9 98.5 77.0 76.9 76.8 76.6 76.2 75.3 4 3DJan 09 06:52:23 76.2 93.9 79.0 75.2 91.9 98.5 77.0 76.9 76.8 76.6 76.3 75.3 4 30Jan 09 08:53:23 76.1 93.9 10.0 75.9 92.1 98.5 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.6 76.1 75.4 4 30Jan 09 08:54:23 76.0 93.8 77_3 75.2 91.4 97.0 77.0 76.8 76.7 76.5 76.0 75.2 4 30Jan 09 08:55:23 76.1 93.9 77.4 75.4 89.8 08.5 77.0 76.9 76.8 76.6 76.2 75., 4 30Jan 09 08:56:23 76.0 93.6 76.6 75.3 89.9 97.9 76.8 76.8 76.6 76.4 75.9 75.3 4 30Jan OR 08:57:23 76.2 93.9 77.3 74.8 91.7 99.7 71.0 76.9 76.9 76.6 76.3 75.3 4 30Jan 09 00:58:23 76.3 94.0 79.9 74.8 91.2 99.1 77.8 77.0 76.8 76.7 76.3 75.3 4 30Jan 09 08:59:23 76.1 93.9 78.7 74.7 90.7 100.3 77.0 76.9 76.8 76.6 76.2 751. 4 Man 09 05:00:23 76.1 93.9 70.1 74.5 90.4 100.3 77.5 76.9 76.8 76.6 76.1 75.2 4 30Jan 09 09:01:23 76.2 94.0 79.2 74.4 91.4 100'.7 77.5 76.9 76.8 76.6 76.2 75.2 4 30dan 09 09:02:23 76.3 94.1 B1.3 74.7 93.9 100.7 77.7 76,9 76.8 76.7 76.4 75.4 4 38Jan 09 09:03:23 76.3 94.1 77.5 75.0 41.1 100.3 77.3 76.9 76.9 76.7 76.4 75.6 4 30Jan 09 89:04:23 76.3 94.1 79.2 75.0 90.66 102.1 77.5 76.9 76.B 76.7 76.4 75.5 4 30Jan 09 09:05:23 76.1 93.8 79.2 74.7 95.4 101.2 77.5 76.9 76.7 76.5 75.9 75.2 4 --Wan 09 09:06:23 76.1 93.9 70.4 74.8 94.3 100.3 77.2 76.9 76.7 76.5 76.0 75.2 4 39Jan 09 09:07:23 76.1 93.9 77.9 74.9 91.1 100.5 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.5 76.0 75.2 4 30Jan 09 09:08:23 76.0 93.6 77.6 74.6 91.0 99.7 77.4 16.9 76.7 76.5 75.9 75.2 4 30Jaa 09 09:09:23 761 94.1 77.4 74.9 90.2 99.1 77.0 76.9 76.9 76.7 76.4 75.5 4 30Jan 09 09:10:23 76.8 94.5 70.3 75.6 93.1 101.2 1719 77.7 77.4 77.1 76.7 76.1 4 30Jan 09 09:11:23 76.9 94.7 70.4 75.4 90.7 100.3 78.0 77.8 77.6 77.4 76.9 76.1 4 30Jan 09 09:12:23 76.5 94.3 79.5 75.0 94.6 99.7 77.3 76.9 76.0 76.7 76.5 76.0 4 30Jan 09 09:13:23 76.2 94.0 79.3 75.4 96.1 99.7 77.0 76.9 76.0 76.7 76.3 75.4 4 30Jan 09 09:14:23 76.1 93.9 70.8 74.9 91.0 100.7 77.0 76.9 76.9 76.6 76.2 75.3 4 30JOO 09 09:15:23 76.3 94.0 80.1 75..0 91.1 100.7 78.7 76.9 76.0 76.6 76.2 75.3 4 30Jan OR 09:16:23 76.3 94.1 80.0 75.0 94.5 99.7 78.7 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.3 75.3 4 30Jan 09 09:17:23 76.3 94.1 77.7 75.0 91.2 99.7 77.7 77.0 76.9 16.7 76.3 75.3 4 3DJan 09 09:18:23 7G.2 93.9 80.0 75.1 91.2 99.1 77.1 76.9 76.8 16.6 76.2 75.3 4 30Jan 09 09:19:23 75.8 93.6 76.6 75.1 90.5 98.5 76.6 76.3 75.9 75.8 75.6 75.1 4 30Jan 09 09:20:23 76.0 93.8 77.5 74.B 90.5 99.1 77.0 76.8 76.7 76.4 75.9 75.2 4 3Wan 09 09:21:23 76.3 94.1 77.6 75.0 90.2 99.1 77.3 76.9 76.8 76.7 76.3 75.4 4 303an 09 09:22:23 74.7 92.5 79.5 70.1 93.6 99.1 78.5 77.6 76.9 75.9 73.7 70.0 4 30Jan 09 09:23:23 78.0 95.B 79.3 76.5 92.2 100.3 79.3 78.9 79.7 70.4 77.6 77.1 4 30Jan 09 09:24:23 77.9 95.7 79.2 76.B 91.4 99.7 79.0 76.6 70.6 78.3 77.8 77.1. 4 5OJan 09 09:25:23 78.2 95.9 79.5 76.7 91.9 100.7 79.5 78.9 78.7 78.5 76.0 77.2 4 39Jan 09 09:26:23 78.0 95.8 79.4 76.7 91.6 100.3 79.1 78.8 70.6 78.4 77.B 77.1 4 30Jan 09 09:27:23 77.9 95.7 79.5 76.1 92.1 100.1 79.5 78.9 78.6 78.3 77.7 77.0 4 3Wan 09 09:28:23 77,8 95.6 79.5 75.9 91.1 100,3 79.4 78.6 78.6 76.3 71.7 76.7 4 3Wan 09 09:29:23 77.9 95.6 79.9 76.5 92.0 102.1 79.6 78.9 78.6 78,3 77.7 76.9 4 30Jan 09 09:30:23 77.8 95.6 79.6 76.5 52.6 99.7 79.3 78.0 78.5 78.1 77.6 77.0 4 30Jan 09 09:31:23 78.0 95.8 79.5 76.5 91.2 100.3 79.3 7819 78.7 78.5 70.0 77.2 4 3DJan 09 09:32:23 76.0 95.7 BO.7 76.5 96.0 100.7 79.6 78.0 78.7 78.5 77.9 77.1 4 39Jan 09 09:33:23 76.7 94.4 79.1 75.6 91.0 99.1 78.6 78.0 77.4 76.9 76.6 76.0 4 39Jan 09 09:34:23 77.2 95.0 79.2 75.7 91.3 99.7 78.9 78.6 70.3 77.9 77.1 76.2 4 39Jan 09 09:35:23 76.7 94.5 79.0 75.8 90.4 99.7 78.5 78.3 77.0 76.9 76.6 76.1 4 39Jan 09 09:36:23 76.7 94.4 82.0 75.9 98.1 98.5 17.9 77.5 77.0 76.9 76.6 76.1 4 3DJan 09 09:37:23 76.9 94.7 77.9 76.0 91.0 99.4 77.9 77.0 77.6 77.4 76.8 76,2 4 30Jan 09 09:38:23 76.6 94.3 77.4 75.9 90.0 9B.5 77.4 77.0 76.9 76.6 76.5 76.1 4 30Jan 09 09:39:23 76.6 94.4 77.9 75.9 91.1 97.9 77.8 77.2 76.9 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 39Jan 09 09:40:23 76.8 94.6 77.6 76.1 91.5 97.9 77.6 77.6 77.4 77.0 76.7 76.1 4 30ian 09 09:41:23 76.8 94.6 79.4 76.1 93.9 97.9 77.9 77.6 77.1 76.9 76.6 76.1 4 3OJan 09 09:42:23 76.8 94.5 77.6 76.1 91,1 97.2 17.6 77.5 77.0 76.9 76,6 76.1 4 30Jan 09 09:43:23 76.7 94.5 77.4 76.2 91- 97.9 77.4 77.4 77.0 76.5 76.6 76.2 4 39Jan 09 09:44:23 76.9 94.6 77.5 76.2 92.8 97.9 77.5 77.5 77.5 77.2 76.7 76.2 4 30Jan 09 09:45:23 76.9 94.7 85.9 76.2 99.5 102:8 77.9 77.6 77.2 76.9 76.6 76.2 4 30Jan 09 09:46:23 76.0 94.6 71.5 76.0 914 98.5 77.5 77.5 77.2 76.9 76.6 76.1 4 30jan 09 09:47:23 76.8 94.5 77.4 76.0 90.8 98.5 77.4 77.4 77.2 76.9 76.6 761 4 39Jan 09 09:46:23 76.9 94.6 79.4 76.3 95.0 98.5 77.9 77.7 77.4 77.0 76.7 76.3 4 30Jan 09 09:49:23 76.7 94.5 77.5 75.9 91.7 90.5 77.5 77.3 76.9 16.6 76.6 76.1 4 30Jan 09 09:50:23 76.9 94.7 77.0 76.2 91.5 98.5 77.2 77.7 77.5 77.2 76.7 76.2 4 3Wan 09 09:51:23 77.1 94.8 7 8.2 76.3 93.7 100.3 78.0 77.9 77.7 77,6 77.1 76.3 4 39Jan 09 09:52:23 76.9 94.7 77.5 76.3 91.0 99.7 77.5 77.5 77.5 77.2 76.7 76.3 4 30Jan 89 09:53:23 76.9 94.7 70.4 76.2 91.9 99.7 77.9 77.8 77.5 77.2 16.7 76.2 4 39Jan 09 09:54:23 76.9 94.6 78.9 75.9 93.5 99.7 77.9 77.7 77.3 77.0 76.7 76.1 4 39Jan 09 09:55:23 76.8 94.6 78.6 75.9 93.0 99.1 77.9 77.6 77.3 76.9 76.6 76.1 4 39Jan 09 09:56:23 76.9 94.7 79,6 76,3 93.: 99.1 78_0 77.8 77.5 77.2 76.7 76.3 4 30Jan 09 09:57:23 78.3 96.1 79.8 77.1 94.2 103.0 79.9 79.2 78.9 78.7 78.3 77.3 4 30Jan 09 09:59:23 7B.3 96.1 81.6 76.6 92.6 191.6 79.8 79.0 70.8 78.7 78.3 77.2 4 39Jan 09 09:59:23 77.1 94.9 78.9 76.2 93.4 100.3 78.0 77.9 77.7 77.6 77.1 76.2 4 30Jan 09 10:00:23 78.1 95.9 79.8 76.3 02.6 1D3.2 79.8 79.1 78.6 78.6 78.0 77.1 4 30Jan 09 10:01:23 70.2 96.0 79.7 76.2 94.7 100.7 79,1 79.0 78,8 78.6 78.1 77.2 4 30Jaa 09 10:02:23 7B.1 95.9 79.5 76.6 94.3 99.7 79.5 70.9 78.0 79.5 78.0 77.2 4 30Jan 09 10:03:23 78.1 95.9 80.2 76.7 94.0 100.3 79.4 19.9 78.7 78.5 78.0 77.1 4 39Jan 09 10:04:23 79.1 95.9 75.4 76.0 91.7 101.6 79.0 78.9 78.7 78.5 78.0 77.2 4 3Wan 09 10:05:23 78.1 95.9 79.7 76.8 91.3 100.3 79.7 79.0 78.8 78.6 79.0 77.2 4 39Jan 09 10:06:23 77.9 95.7 80.6 76.7 92.9 99.7 19.0 70.0 78.6 78.3 77.8 77.1 4 30Jan 09 10:07:23 77.0 95.6 701 76.5 91.9 100.3 18.9 70.0 78.5 70.2 77.7 77.1 4 303an 09 10:08:23 77.0 95.6 79.0 76.5 91.5 99.7 78.9 7B.7 70.4 70.1 77.7 77.1 4 303an 09 10:09:23 77.8 95.5 79.2 76.5 91.2 99.1 78.9 78.7 79.3 70.0 77.6 71,1 4 39Jan 09 10:10:23 77.8 95.5 82.0 76.4 96.2 101.2 79.0 70.7 70.3 71.9 77.6 77.0 4 30Jan 09 10:11:23 77.9 95.7 84.9 76.0 101.5 102.0 79.9 70.9 76.6 78.2 77.6 76.5 4 30jan 09 10:12:23 77.2 94.9 83.0 76.1 96.3 100.3 79.5 77.9 77.7 77.4 76.8 76.2 4 38Jan 06 10:13:23 75.2 93.0 79.2 72.4 94.0 95.7 78.3 71.2 76.8 76.5 73.9 73.0 4 30Jan 09 10:14:23 73.7 91.4 70.0 72.6 95.8 901 74.9 74.4 74.0 73.8 73.6 73.! 4 30Jan 09 10:15:23 73.9 91.7 76.0 73.0 68.7 96.5 75.0 74.8 74.6 74.4 73.9 73.2 4 39Jan 09 10:16:23 73.9 91.7 78.8 73.0 9L5 99.1 75.D 74.3 74.5 74.2 73.7 73.1 4 30Jan 09 10:17:23 74.9 92.7 86.8 73.1 104.4 103.2 76.8 75.66 75.1 74.9 74.5 73.8 4 39Jan 09 10:18:23 76.6 94.3 81.1 74.1 96.0 100.3 00.8 80.1 78.3 76.3 75.1 74.2 4 30Jan 09 10:19:23 75.1 92.9 79.9 73.3 98.2 99.1 76.0 76.4 75.9 75.7 75.0 74.1 4 39Jan 09 10:20:23 76.3 94.1 77.6 75.0 90.5 100:3 77.6 77.0 76.9 76.0 76.4 75.7 4 39Jan 09 10:21:23 76.1 93.9 77.6 74.8 90.1 99.7 77.4 76.9 76.8 76.7 76.3 75.3 4 30Jan 09 10:22:23 76.1 93,9 79.4 74.5 90.1 99.7 77.0 76.9 76.8 76.6 76.2 75.3. 30Jan 09 10:23:23 76.0 93.7 77.5 74.4 90.4 99.1 77.0 76.9 76.7 765 76,0 75.1 30Jan 09 10:24:23 76.0 93.8 79.3 74.7 90.4 99.7 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.6 76.1 75.2 4 30Jan 09 10:25:23 76.0 93.7 77.3 74.3 91.2 99.7 77.0 76.8 76.7 76.5 75.9 75.2 4 30jan 04 10:26:23 75.0 93.6 79.9 74.9 96.1 99.1 77.0 76.7 76.4 76.0 75.7 75.1 4 30Jan 09 10:27:23 75.9 93.6 76.7 75.0 90.1 985 76.7 76.5 76.1 75.9 75.6 75.1 4 30Jan 05 10:28:23 75.8 93.6 82.0 75.0 100.0 102.5 76.9 76.6 76.2 75.9 75.5 75,1 4 30Jan 09 10:29:23 75.9 93.7 78.5 74.9 92.6 63.3 77.0 76.8 76.5 76.3 75.8 75.2 4 30Jan 09 10:30:23 75.0 93.6 76.5 75.0 90.8 93.1 76.5 76.5 76.4 76.1 75.7 75.1 4 30Jan 09 10:31:23 75.5 93.3 76,8 73.1 90.5 98.5 76.6 76.8 76.6 76.4 75.7 73.5 4 30Jan 09 10:32:23 73.8 91.5 74.9 72.9 90.8 99.5 74.9 74.6 74.2 73.9 73.6 73.1 4 30Jan 09 1D:33:23 73.8 91.6 74.9 73.1 Bi.8 97.9 74.9 74.7 74.4 74.0 73.7 73.1 4 30Jan 09 10:34:23 73.9 91.6 70.4 72.7 92.3 97.2 74.9 74.7 74.4 74.0 73.7 73.1 4 303an 09 10:35:23 73.9 91.5 74.0 72.8 86.0 97.9 74.9 74.6 74.1 73.9 73.6 73.1 4 30Jan. 09 10:36:23 74.1 91.9 B1.2 73.1 97.4 101.6 75.0 74.9 74.7 74.5 74.0 73.2 4 30Jan 09 10:37:23 74.0 91.6 75.7 73.0 86.3 97.6 75.0 74.9 74.7 74.5 74.0 73.2 4 30Jan 09 10:38:23 74.2 91_9 75.4 73.2 08.0 99.1 75.0 74.9 74.8 74.6 74.2 73.3 4 30Jan 09 10:39:23 74.7 92.4 76.8 73.1 90.3 90.4 76.0 75.8 75.6 75.3 74.6 73.3 4 30Jan 09 10:40:23 74.9 92.7 78.6 72.8 95.2 99.1 76.0 75.8 75.6 75.4 74.0 74.0 4 30Jan 09 10:41:23 74.3 52.0 77,3 73.1 93.9 09.1 75.9 75.4 74.9 74.7 74.1 73.2 4 30Jan 09 10:42:23 74.0 91.7 76.5 72.2 95.0 57.9 75.7 74.9 74.7 74.5 73.9 72.7 4 3DJan 09 10:43:23 74.1 91.9 77.0 72.6 92.5 100.3 75.0 74.9 74.7 74.6 74.1 73.2 4 30Jan 09 10:44:23 75.1 92.9 77.8 73.3 93.6 100.3 76.0 75.9 75.8 75.6 75.3 73.9 4 30Jan 09 10:45:23 74.3 92.0 76.3 73.2 89.0 98.5 75.9 75.5 75.0 74.7 73.9 73.2 4 39Jan 09 10:46:23 74.0 91.8 76.8 72.5 93.2 98.5 76.1 74.9 74.6 74.2 73.7 73.1 4 30Jan. 09 10:47:23 76.1 93.9 78..5 74.8 92.4 100.3 77.7 16.9 76.8 76,6 76.1 75.2 4 3DJan 00 10:48:23 76.1 93.9 78.3 74.7 92.6 100.7 77.8 77.0 76.8 76.5 75.9 75.2 4 30Jan 09 10:49:23 76.0 93.7 79.5 14.7 94.0 100.3 77.4 76.8 76.6 76.4 75.6 75.1 4 394an 09 10:50:23 75.9 93.6 77.4 74.3 93.4 100.3 76.9 76.8 76.6 766.4 75.0 75.1 30Jan 09 10:51:23 75.9 93.7 76.9 74.7 92.9 99.1 76.9 76.8 76.5 76.2 75.7 75.1 4 30Jan 09 10:52:23 75.7 93.5 76.6 74.7 90.3 97.9 76.6 76.3 75.9 75.8 75.6 75.1 •I 39Jan 09 10:53:23 75.9 93.7 78.5 75.1 95.6 99.7 77.0 76.8 76.5 76.2 75.9 75.1. 4 39Jan 09 10:54:23 76,0 93.7 77.2 75.1 99.2 98.5 77.0 7G.8 76.6 76.4 75.9 75.2 4 30Jan 09 10:55:23 75.9 93.6 77.8 75.1 92.9 97.9 76.9 76..8 76.6 74.3 75.6 75.2 4 30Jan 09 10:56:23 75.9 93.7 78.4 73.4 94.8 90,1 77.0 76.9 76.7 76.6 76.1 75.2 4 30Jan 09 10:57:23 76.1 93.9 79.3 7.5.2 93.4 99.1 77.1 76.9 76.0 76.6 76.3 75.3 4 3DJan 09 10:58:23 75.9 93.6 79.1 75.2 96.3 99.7 77.0 76.0 76.5 76.2 75.7 75.2 4 39Jan 09 10:59:23 75.1 92.9 70.3 69.8 93.4 99.1 76.0 76.6 76.1 75.0 75.5 70.5 4 30Jan 09 11:00:23 71.7 89.5 77.5 69..6 90.2 96.5 77.3 75.0 71.6 71.0 70.6 70.1 4 30Jan 69 11:01:23 77.7 95.5 79.5 76.1 91.8 101.2 79.5 78.9 7B.6 76.2 77.6 76.6 4 30Jan 09 11:02:23 77.8 95.5 79.3 76.4 91.8 100.7 79.9 78.8 78.6 79.3 77.7 77.0 4 39Jan 09 11:03:23 77.9 95.7 79.6 76.1 91.3 59.7 79.6 78.9 78.0 79.3 77.7 77.0 4 39Jan 99 11:0•1:23 70.1 95.9 79.7 16.4 94.1 99.1 79.7 79.2 78.8 76.6 77.9 77.1 4 30Jan 09 11:05:23 77.9 95.7 80.0 76.3 92.5 99.7 79:6 79.1 78.7 70.4 77.7 77.0 39Jan 09 11:06:23 77.7 95.4 79.3 76.2 92.1 100.7 79.0 78.8 78.5 70.2 77.6 76.5 4 39Jan 09 11:07:23 77.5 95.3 20.5 75.8 92.7 99.7 79.0 78.7 76.4 70.0 77.5 76.4 4 3DJan 09 11:06:23 76.5 94.3 79.7 75.3 94.6 101.2 75,1 77.6 77.0 76.9 76.5 76.0 4 39Jan 09 11:09:23 76.3 94.0 78.4 75.5 94.0 97.9 77.0 76.9 76.9 76.7 76.5 76.0 4 39Jan 09 11:10:23 76.3 94.3 76.9 75.4 89.6 99.1 76.9 76.9 76.6 76.7 76.5 76.0 4 30Jan 09 11:11:23 76.4 94.2 79.5 75.0 94.7 97.9 77.0 76..9 76,9 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 39Jan 09 11:12:23 76.4 94.2 81.0 75.8 97.6 100.7 77.3 76.4 76.9 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 30Jan 09 11:13:23 76.4 94.2 78.4 75.7 93.5 97.9 77.0 76.9 16.0 76.7 76.5 76.1 4 30jan 09 11:14:23 76.5 94.2 77.2 75.9 90.7 97.9 77.0 76.9 76.6 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 30Jan 09 11:15:23 76.5 94.3 80.7 75.B 96.7 97.9 77.7 77.0 76.9 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 30Jan 09 11:16:23 76.5 94.3 78.7 75.9 93.5 90.5 7i.i 77.0 76.9 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 30Jan 09 11:17:23 76.5 94.2 77,6 75.6 90.1 97.2 77.0 76.9 76.8 76.8 76,5 76.1 4 30Jan 09 11:19:23 76.5 94.3 79.6 75.0 93.1 99.1 77.3 76.9 76.9 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 30Jan 09 11:19:23 76.5 94.3 77.3 75.9 90.7 97.9 77.0 76.9 76.8 76.6 76.5 76.1. 4 30Jan 09 11:20:23 76.5 94.3 77.2 75.8 90.2 96.4 77.0 76.9 76,0 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 30Jan 09 11:21:23 76.5 94.3 77.2 75.9 90.4 97,2 77.0 76.9 76.8 76,7 76.5 76.1 4 30jan 00 11:22:23 76.5 94.3 77.3 75.0 90.7 97.2 77,2 76.9 76.9 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 30Jan 09 11:23:23 76.6 94.4 77.4 75.9 9D.5 925 77.4 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.5 76.1 4 30Jan 09 11:24:23 76.7 94.4 79.6 76.1 94.1 97.0 77.7 77.0 76.9 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 3DJan 09 11:2$:23 76.6 94.4 77.3 76.0 91.4 97.9 77.0 76.9 76.9 76.8 76.5 76.1 4 30jan 09 11:26:23 76.4 94.2 77.3 75.3 90.1 97,2 77,0 76.9 76.6 76.7 16.4 75.9 4 39Jan 09 11:27:23 76.6 94.4 76.1 75.0 90.6 97.0 77.9 77.5 77.0 76.4 76.6 76.1 4 3Wan 09 11:28:23 77.1 94.8 80.2 75.7 91.1 99.7 78.8 73.0 77.8 77.5 76.9 76,1 30Jan 09 11:29:23 76.8 94.6 80.0 75.7 92.0 99.7 75.9 78.0 77.6 77.3 76.7 76.1 4 30Jan 09 11:30:23 77.6 95.4 79.6 76.1 91.1 100.3 79.1 78.8 78.5 70.1 77.5 76.4 4 30Jan 09 11:31:23 77.9 95.7 80.5 76.2 94.3 100.3 79.7 78.9 73.6 70.4 77.7 76,9 4 30Jan 00 11:32:23 77.3 95.1 79.6 75.5 51.4 100.3 '9.3 7B.7 79.1 77.8 77.1 76.0 4 3DJan 09 11:33:23 76.7 94.5 79.7 75.4 90.9 99.7 76.6 77.9 77.5 77.1 76.6 75.9 4 303an 09 11:34:23 79.7 97.5 63.7 72.1 96.5 102.8 33.7 83.7 33.3 82.5 76.9 73.9 4 39Jan 09 11:35:23 02.7 100.5 03.3 81.8 96.9 102.8 33.3 83.1 32,9 93.8 62.5 32.1 4 30Jan 09 11:36:23 92.4 100.2 03.3 81.7 96.9 102.5 83.0 02.9 82.8 82.7 62.5 82.1 4 30Jan 06 11:37:23 82.1 99.9 83.1 81.5 97.3 10? 5 a3.0 62.9 B2.7 82.5 62.1 81.5 4 39Jan 09 11:36:23 92.2 300.0 03.0 81.6 97.0 101.6 93.0 82.9 62.8 02.7 82.4 B1,6 4 3Wan 09 11:39:23 82.5 300.2 90.0 01,7 107.5 107.0 B3.0 92.9 02.8 02.7 82.5 82.0 4 30Jan 09 11:40:23 83.1 100.9 34.5 82.2 96.3 102.5 84.0 33.0 93.7 93.6 93.2 82.3 4 30Jan 09 11:41:23 79.9 96.6 83.7 73.7 95.6 101.6 83.7 82.9 62.5 61.0 75.6 74.3 4 30Jan 09 11:42:23 75.5 93.3 79.1 74.2 95.4 98.5 76.3 76.0 75.9 755 75.5 75.0 4 30Jan 09 11:43:23 75.7 93.4 82.1 74.7 102.9 102.1 76.8 76.0 75.9 75.0 75.5 75.1 4 30Jan 09 11:44:23 75.0 93.6 79.3 75.0 98.3 99.1 76.9 76.5 76.0 75.9 75.6 75.1 4 30Jan 09 11:45:23 76.0 93.0 77.3 75.0 89.8 99.1 77.0 76.8 76.6 76.3 75.8 75.2 3DJan 09 11:46:23 76.4 94.2 19.6 3DJan 09 11:47:23 74.0 91.8 75.7 3DJan 09 11:48:23 73.8 51.6 74.7 3DJan 09 13:49:23 74.1 91.8 78.8 3DJan 09 11:50:23 74.0 51,8 76.0 30Jan 09 11:51:23 74.0 91,8 74.7 3DJan 09 11:52:23 74.7 92.4 78.5 30Jan 09 13:53:23 76,6 94.4 00.3 3DJan 09 11:54:23 76.2 94.0 76.8 30Jan 09 11:55:23 76.2 93.9 76.7 30Jan 09 11:56:23 76.3 94.1 83.6 3DJan 09 11:57:23 76.1 93.9 17.2 3DJan 09 11:58:23 76.0 93.8 76.6 30Jan 09 11:59:23 76.1 93.8 76.7 30Jan D9 12:00:23 76.1 93.9 79.7 303an 09 12:01:23 76.4 94.2 80.0 30J9n 09 12:02:23 76.5 94.3 00.7 3DJan 09 12:03:23 76.4 94.2 79.5 30Jan 09 12:04:23 76.1 93.9 77.5 30Jan 09 12:05:23 76.2 94.0 78.0 3DJan 09 12:06:23 76.1 93.9 76.7 3DJan 09 12:07:23 76.1 93.9 76.8 30J9n 09 12:08:23 76.1 93.9 76.7 3DJan 09 12:09:23 76.2 93.9 77.0 30Jan 09 12:10:23 76.3 94.1 79.5 3DJan 09 12:11:23 77.2 95.0 78.2 30Jan 09 12:12:23 71.2 94.9 79.6 30Jan 09 12:13:23 82.7 100.5 87.0 30Jan 09 12:14:23 82.6 100.3 83.6 30Jan 09 12:15:23 82.3 100.1 84.2 3DJan 09 12:16:23 62.3 100.1 03.4 30J9n 09 12:17:23 82.1 99.9 83.4 3DJan 09 12:18:23 81.3 99.6 B3.2 Man 09 12:19:23 03.1 100.9 83.9 30Jan 09 12:20:23 83.4 101.1 92.4 30Jan 09 12:21:23 82.0 99.6 88.9 30Jan 09 12:22:23 73.9 91.6 74.6 30Jan 09 12:23:23 73.9 91.7 74.6 30Jan 09 12:24:23 73.1 90.9 79.8 30Jan 09 12:25:23 69.3 07.0 70.7 3DJan 09 12:26:23 71.0 94.8 08.1 30Jan 09 12:27:23 60.8 06.5 09.8 303an 09 12:28:23 64.2 82.0 70.0 3DJan 09 12:29:23 65.7 83.5 77.4 30Jan 09 12:30:23 67. 9 85.6 03.1 30Jan 09 12:31:23 66.9 94.6 74.9 303an 09 12:32:23 68.2 85.9 81.7 3DJan 09 12:33:23 68.8 86.5 74.4 3DJan 09 12:34:23 65.2 B3.0 71.2 Man 09 12:35:23 64.7 82.5 66.9 30Jan 09 12:36:23 62.3 80.0 67.3 Man 09 12:37!23 63.4 81.2 77.2 30Jan 09 12:36:23 $0.4 76.2 74.2 30Jan 09 12:39:23 58.6 ]6,3 68.3 Man 09 12:40:23 63.5 81.2 73.7 30Jan 09 12:41:23 60.5 78.2 67.1 30Jan 09 12:42:23 62.2 80.0 71.0 30Jan 09 12:43:23 51.2 69.0 64.5 30Jan 09 12:44:23 50.7 68.4 60.0 Man 09 12:45:23 51.5 69.3 60.9 Man 09 12:46:23 57.0 74.8 70.6 3DJan 09 12:47:23 50.3 76.1 66.9 30Jan 09 12:48:23 62.5 80.3 70.6 30Jan 09 12:49:23 52.4 70.2 64.5 Man 09 12:50:23 51.6 69.4 71.3 30Jan 09 12:51:23 51.5 69.2 59.4 3DJan 09 12:52:23 49.9 67.7 59.6 3DJan 09 12:53:23 53.8 71.6 74.9 303an 09 12:54:23 53.3 71.1 77.4 Man 09 12:55:23 52.1 69.9 67.3 303an 09 12:56:23 49.2 67.0 66.9 303an 09 12:57:23 52.4 70.1 68.1 30Jan 09 12:58:23 51.6 69.4 64.2 3DJan 09 12:59:23 47.B 65.5 52.8 30Jan 09 13:00:23 50.9 68.7 59.5 30Jan 09 13:01:23 49.7 67.4 58.2 Man 09 13:02:23 47.9 65.7 55.7 3DJan 09 13:03:23 4617 66.5 57.5 3DJan 09 13:04:23 49.8 67.6 55.1 30Jan 09 13:05423 50.7 68.5 59.2 30Jan 09 13:06:23 52.1 69.9 55.0 30Jan 09 13:07:23 51.0 68.6 56.4 30Jan D9 13:08:23 50.3 68.1 58.5 30Jan 09 13:09:23 48.1 65.9 56.9 30Jan 09 13:10:23 47.6 65.3 56.9 3DJan 09 13:11:23 47.9 65.6 55.5 3DJan 09 13:12:23 52.3 70.1 63.0 3DJan 09 13:13:23 48.6 65.4 61.6 30Jan 09 13:14:23 45.6 63,3 54.6 30Jan 09 13:15:23 48.9 66.7 61.0 3DJan 09 13:16:23 47.2 64.9 57.5 3DJan 09 13:17:23 52.2 70.0 67.5 30Jan 09 13:18:23 57.8 15.6 77.7 30].n 09 13:19:23 62.0 77.4 02.7 74.7 92.4 100.3 70.9 13.1 8B.0 97.2 75.5 73.1 87.5 97,2 74.7 73.0 93.8 98.5 75.0 73.2 93.9 97.9 74.0 73.2 87.6 97.2 74.7 73.1 90.3 98.5 77.6 75.5 96.9 101.6 78.5 75.5 90.5 98.5 76.8 75.5 90.9 97.9 76.7 75.1 102.4 102.8 77.9 75.3 90.6 97.2 77.0 75.2 90.9 97.2 76.6 75.5 89.9 97.9 76A 75.5 97.5 100.3 77.0 75.7 97.4 99.7 71.1 75.6 96.4 98.5 77.9 75.6 94.1 98.5 77.3 75.3 90.6 97.9 77.0 75.4 90.4 97.9 77.4 75.4 90.3 97.9 76.7 75.3 90.8 97.2 76.8 75.3 89.9 97.2 76.7 75.3 91.1 97,9 77.0 75.4 94.5 99.1 77.0 75.6 91.4 99.1 78.0 75.0 94.0 97.9 70.7 77.5 99.9 107.2 84.8 81.8 96.0 103.2 83.6 61.7 100.1 103.9 83.0 81.0 96.9 103.2 83.0 81.6 96.2 102.5 83.0 00.2 95.6 104.8 B3.0 02.2 96.9 102.8 83.9 02.6 109.1 110.4 B4.0 72.3 104.5 106.5 84.0 72.9 87.1 98.5 74.6 73.1 87.1 97.9 74.6 64.8 91.7 101.2 70.4 57.9 87.6 97.9 75.4 54.7 92.9 97.9 86.5 54.0 98.9 100.3 66.7 62.9 85.7 94.7 67.5 63.2 96.6 96.4 72.4 62.9 102.9 103.2 74.1 63.0 91.1 100.3 68.0 63.0 97.0 98.5 73.7 64.5 90.5 95.6 72.9 63.9 87.5 92.5 66.8 63.3 80.8 92.5 65.9 $4.4 81.6 97.2 65.2 $3.1 97.2 96.4 74.0 53.0 80.2 89.6 62.3 53.9 76.8 93.7 62.9 57.2 B9.3 94.7 69.8 57.4 92.1 94.7 64.0 53.2 83.2 97.2 69.5 45.4 84.5 85.2 56.0 45.3 ]B.l 85.2 56.0 44.0 79.2 93.7 56.1 $1.3 05.5 91.2 60.2 52.6 82.1 91.2 65.2 46.6 85.6 91.2 69.9 45.0 76.1 65.2 58.5 44.6 84.6 85.2 57.7 47,0 80.3 0.0 55.9 43.9 B4.B 85.2 54.7 44.8 93.8 95.6 62.7 45.8 98.1 97.2 55.9 45.4 93.4 93.7 60.7 44.9 86.4 87.7 52.9 44.8 86.7 07.7 59.7 45.8 86.4 87.7 56.5 45.3 79.3 85.2 50.6 44.9 73.9 0.0 57.0 44.7 83.2 0.0 56.1 44.4 73.6 89.6 51.3 45.0 72.7 85.2 $3.1 46.4 70.8 87.7 53.4 44.1 00.6 85.2 54.6 46.6 69.1 0.0 54.8 47.4 71.2 55.2 54.5 44.4 76.4 85.2 55.2 44.2 70.5 85.2 53.0 44.1 72.4 85.2 52.0 43.0 72.2 0.0 53.2 45.0 80.3 05.2 59,5 44.6 73.2 0.0 53.8 42.6 70.4 53.6 49.7 43.7 77.9 0.0 54.6 44.0 78.2 O.D 50.9 44.5 83.3 91.2 63.5 45.6 100.9 100.7 67.0 45.1 103.3 102.8 60.5 ]0.3 74.9 74.6 74.8 74.9 74.] 76.B 77.7 76.8 76.7 ]7.0 76.9 76.6 76.7 76.9 76.9 77.4 76.9 76.9 76.9 ]6.7 76.8 76.7 76.9 76.9 71.9 78.0 89.0 83.2 82.9 62.9 82.9 82.9 03.9 83.9 83.0 74.6 74.6 74.9 73.2 83.4 64.8 65.0 67.4 60.0 68.0 70.8 71.2 65.9 65.6 64.9 67.6 60.1 60.5 66.9 61.9 66.4 54.0 53.8 54.6 59.0 60.9 69.0 56.4 52.6 54.4 52.5 55.6 52.0 55.7 50.5 54.4 54.7 49.7 55.3 53.8 49.9 50.2 51.7 $3.7 54.4 $3.3 53.6 51.7 50.0 51.9 56.1 50.5 47.5 52.8 40.0 52.8 $0.0 59.8 77.3 76.6 75.9 75.1 74.6 74.4 73.8 73.2 74.3 74.0 73.6 73.1 74.7 74.4 73.9 73.2 74.5 74.3 73.8 73.2 74.6 74,4 73.6 73.2 76.0 74.8 74.0 73.2 77.0 76.9 76.5 75.7 76.8 76.7 76.4 75.6 76.7 76.6 76.3 75.5 76.9 76.7 76.2 75.3 76.8 76.6 76.2 75.3 76.6 76.4 75.8 75.2 76.7 76.5 76.1 75.5 76.8 76.6 76.2 75.5 76.6 76.8 76.5 76.1 76.9 76.8 76.5 75.9 76.8 76.7 76.5 76.0 76.7 76.6 76.2 75.3 16.6 76.7 76.3 75.4 76.7 76.6 76.2 75.4 ]6.6 76.6 76.2 75.3 76.7 76.6 76.3 75.3 76.8 76.7 76.3 75.4 76.8 76.7 76.4 76.0 77.8 77.6 77,3 76.3 77.8 77.6 77,0 76.2 83.8 83.7 83.3 79.0 82.9 82.8 82.5 82.1 82.8 82.7 62.5 82.1 82.6 82.7 82.5 82.0 62.8 82.6 62.3 81.6 02.7 82.5 81.9 80.5 83.6 B3.6 83.2 82.3 83.8 83.7 83.4 82.6 83.5 83.3 82.6 73.5 74.4 74.1 73.7 73.1 74.6 74.3 73.0 73.2 74.4 73.9 73.2 67.9 71.6 70.4 67.4 63.3 80.0 75.2 66.0 57.0 64.4 64.0 63.3 56.2 64.7 64.4 63.6 63.2 65.9 65.3 64.3 63.3 68.0 61.6 66.2 64.3 67.8 67.5 66.9 64.5 69.5 66.0 66.7 64.6 70.2 69.6 68.3 66.2 65.0 65.6 65.2 54.3 65.1 64.9 64.6 64.1 64.7 64.4 61.9 55.6 62.7 59.9 57.4 54.6 59.5 59.0 57.7 54.9 59.7 59.1 57.9 55.7 65.8 64.3 61.0 58.7 61.2 60.0 60.1 59.0 63.8 62.0 60.1 56.3 52.5 51.6 49.9 47.0 52.3 51.1 49.5 47.1 53.6 52.0 50.7 46.1 58.4 51.7 56.4 53.1 60.1 59.6 57.4 53.3 65.6 61.4 57.4 50.6 55.3 53.3 49.4 46.7 50.8 49.7 40.3 46.2 53.3 52.3 50.5 48.3 51.4 50.6 49.1 46.6 52.5 50.9 49.0 46.9 50.7 49.9 48,4 46.4 52.2 50.9 49.1 47.1 49.4 48.7 47.5 46.1 52.7 51.9 50.3 47.5 53.6 52.7 50.1 47.2 49.0 48.5 47.5 46.1 53.4 51.7 48.5 46.3 51.0 49.6 47.9 96.1 49.2 48.7 47.6 45.E 49.5 49.0 48.3 46.E 50.9 50.4 49.5 47,6 52.5 51.4 49.6 47.7 53.9 53.5 51.9 48.4 52.6 52.1 50.4 48.4 52.8 52.1 48.2 46.1 50.1 48.2 46.5 45.2 48.7 47.6 46.6 4$.1 50.3 48.0 45.9 44.0 54.6 53.0 49,4 46.8 49.1 48.3 46.9 45.5 46.6 45.9 44.7 43.3 50.4 49.4 £7.2 44.1 48.1 47.5 46.5 45.1 49.6 48.5 47.3 45.5 54.4 52.0 49.0 46.8 56.7 54.1 50.6 46.4 Construction Noise -Aerie Residential Development - 3rd and 4th Floor Stud Framing and Form Work Pro[ect description Project title: Construction Noise - Aerie Residential Development Engineer: Tin Cheung Customer: City of Newport Beach Description: Run description Calculation type: Single Point Sound Title: 3rd and 4th Floor Stud Framing and Form Work Run file: Construction. runx Result number: 3007 Calculation start: 2/11/2009 11:59:25 AM Calculation end: 2/11/2009 11:59:28 AM Calculation time: 00:00:647 [m:s:ms] No. of points: 1 No. of calculated points: 1 Kernel version: 1/15/2009 Run parameters Angle increment: 1.00 deg Reflection depth: 1 Number of reflections: 1 Maximal search radius 5000 Weighting: dB(A) Calculation with side screening Source side reflection precalculation enabled Standards: Industry: ISO 9613-2: 1996 Air absorption: ISO 9613 Limitation of screening loss: single /multiple 20 dB /25 dB Environment: Air pressure 1013.25 mbar rel. Humidity 70% Temperature 10 9C Mateo. Corr. C0(7- 19h)[dB] =0.0; CO(19- 23h)[dB] =0.0; CO(23- 7h)[dB] =0.0; VDI- Parameters for diffraction C1 =3 C2 =20 Dissection parameters: Distance to diameter factor 2 Minimal Distance [m] 1 m Max. Difference GND +Diffraction 1 dB The Planning Center 1580 Metro Dr Costa Mesa, CA 92626 USA Page 1 SoundPLAN 6.5 Construction Noise - Aerie Residential Development - 3rd and 4th Floor Stud Framing and Form Work Assessment: Leq 06- 22122 - 06100 -24 Reflection of "own" facade is suppressed Geometry data RDGM1003.dgm 217/2009 11:45:16 PM Metal & formwork 3rd and 4th floors.sit 2/11 /2009 11:51:16 AM - contains: 3rd floor metal stud work.geo 2/11/2009 9:35:30 AM 4th Floor Formwork.geo 2/11/2009 9:36:48 AM 50 feet discrete receptor.geo 2/11/2009 11:47:24 AM Additional Elevation Lines.geo 2/10/2009 8:10:32 PM Bldgs without existing.geo 2/9/2009 3:05:46 PM Combined Topo Modified for excavation.geo 2/7/2009 12:56:36 PM DXF_A- STRUC- FOOTPRINT(1).geo 2/10/2009 8:57:56 PM Excavation to 40 ft.geo 2/7/2009 11:42:32 PM Ground Reflection.geo 2/7/2009 12:54:30 PM The Planning Center 1580 Metro Dr Costa Mesa, CA 92626 USA Page 2 SoundPLAN 6.5 Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).Version 1.1 Report date: 3/3/2009 Case Description: SoundPlan Calibration - -- Receptor #1 -- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Calibration Residential 35 35 35 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage( %) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Backhoe No 40 77.6 50 Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 50 Concrete Pump Truck No 20 81.4 50 Excavator No 40 80.7 50 Front End Loader No 40 79.1 50 Excavator No 40 80.7 50 C Jackhammer Yes 20 88.9 50 Drill Rig Truck No 20 79.1 50 Hydra Break Ram Yes 10 90 50 Pneumatic. Tools No 50 85.2 50 [ Tractor No 40 84 50 Welder /Torch No 40 74 50 Vibratory Concrete Mixer No 20 80 50 C Flat Bed Truck No 40 74.3 50 Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 50 Auger Drill Rig No 20 84.4 50 C Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) Yes 20 90.3 50 C Dozer No 40 81.7 50 Vibratory Concrete Mixer No 20 80 50 C Crane No 16 80.6 50 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment "Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Backhoe 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A NIA Concrete Mixer Truck 78.8 74.8 N/A N/A NIA NIA Concrete Pump Truck 81.4 74.4 N/A N/A N/A NIA Excavator 80.7 76.7 N/A N/A N/A NIA Front End Loader 79.1 75.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 80.7 76.7 N/A N/A NIA NIA Jackhammer 88.9 81.9 N/A N/A N/A NIA Drill Rig Truck 79.1 72.2 NIA N/A N/A N/A Hydra Break Ram 90 80 N/A NIA N/A NIA Pneumatic Tools 85.2 82.2 NIA N/A N/A N/A Tractor 84 80 N/A N/A N/A NIA Welder /Torch 74 70 N/A N/A N/A N/A Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80 73 N/A N/A N/A N/A Flat Bed Truck 74.3 70.3 N/A NIA NIA N/A Compressor (air) 77.7 73.7 NIA N/A N/A N/A Auger Drill Rig 84.4 77.4 N/A N/A NIA N/A Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 90.3 83.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 81.7 77.7 NIA N/A N/A NIA Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80 73 NIA N/A NIA NIA Crane 80.6 72.6 NIA NIA NIA NIA Total 90.3 90.7 NIA N/A NIA N/A 'Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Appendices Appendix B. Construction Management Plan �� Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration Study City of Newport Beach 10010194] Refer to Draft EIR Appendix B for Construction Management Plan WETLIAND DATA FORM —Arid West Region 'DETERMINATION n P-oiect/SCe. FnIP $IiL�1 GtpCamt). QfaAAy- Sampling Dare: IO a8 yy1(o'IPC,I .AppficanJOwne^. n 14 ?f r o h1s Sate: (—A_ Sampling Point: Livestigatc(s): y 7zBe�on, Township. Range: T-1" S i��/ y Lantllam (hillsiope. tenece. elcJ: c � _ � � � � � �le "� Local nsON(concase, a nanek _.2(@�LLI� Sc9e (96): S0 �iiivllQ 1 Subregion (lRR): �Q/A tmlvex, Let �? :�'�rSy•0�ong: !!7:'Si�45,6V ✓Datum Wf-5`54 Scil Map Unit Name: NWI dassHlcatlon: lvp"E Are cl mahc I nydrdogic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _;L No_ (ff no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ Soll _, or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? 0 Are'Nonnal Circumstances' present? Yes -7— No_ Are Vegetation _ Soil __, or Hydrology_ naturally problematic? NO (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hyd-cphytic VcvetatIM Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Shc Present? Yes— No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes NO Percent of Dominant Spades Remarks: I VEGETATION Torel Cover US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11- 1.2066 Absdu!e Dim irant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tre Sratum (Use sclwtlric nam ) a1s ° iSDedeeS' Ste" Number of OoninaM Spades 1. SAr1- nJM �l ,tlw M __kl_ TAj4 That Am OBL, FACW. or FAC (A) 2 tAi'v( -; JM SP, �Q,].f._"'Ii- Total Numberof Dominsnt 3. Spades Across M Strata: (B) 4' Percent of Dominant Spades Torel Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (MB) Saollno/St:rub SLatum 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: Td at %Cover of MuaicNbv 2 3. OBL species x1- FACW species x2= FAC species X3= FACU species x 4 = 4. S Total Corer Herb St =m I Q� T1 UPL species x5= JS �wJolU!l1 A.�YVS 7�V 'n Colunn Totals: Prevalencelndex =8)A= 3, 4. Hy�rophyttc Vegetation Indicators: 1�Q[ Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ Morphological Adeptatims'(PrwWe supporting data In Remarks oron a separate sheet) 5 6 ? S. Prmlematic Hydrophyfic Vegetation' (Explain) Corer. — Woo M Vine Stratum l 1. 'Indicators of hydic soli and wetland hydrology must be present. 2. Tdtel Ower. Hydrophytic ' Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Sttmtum %LCorer of 81otic Crust Present? Yes X- No Remarks: � f ii -kjwc �O 6c � P , Iy ` 7'yC Gri,A(Av� J iii ItV WT F 1 lan„dsta�lw + nvlSAA& L w� US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11- 1.2066 SOIL Sampling Point: 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Dept Matrix Redo%Features Primery Indicators lery one lncicalor is sufficient) Mches) Color % Color (moist) % Tvae; Loa Texture Remelt 111 nN €— Lem CMU)S t/&V, �h Water Marks (B1)(Wverine) _ Surface Water (Al) 1,e. V9 t3 — - -- Svi V — D" Deposits (B3) (Rlverine) _ SaturalJon(A3) _ AGuedc Invertebrates (1213) _ Dahage Patterns (BID) Water Marks (31) (Nonrivertne) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (CI) _ Dry - Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) ( Nonriverne) _ Oxld @ed Rhtaospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Thln Muck Surface (C7) _ DrM Deposits (83) (Nonrivertne) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Bunows (CB) _ Surface Soft Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction In Plowed Solis (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Vlsble on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (E)Vain In Remarks) _ '7 : C--Concentration, D= Deoledon. RM=Reduced Matrix. 'Location: PL-P= Unin . RC --Root Channel, M--Matrix. Hydnc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRS, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis': _ Hlslosol (At) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 1 cm Muck (AD) (LRR C) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) _ Black Hlstie (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Reduced Vertic (Fla) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Red Parent Materiel (i r2) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 1 c-n Muck (A3) (LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) includes cali frintall _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F6) Remarks: _ Sandy Murky Mineral (Si) _ Vernal Pods (F9) 'Indicators orhydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) watiand hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer (If present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydnc Soll Resent? Yes_ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Primery Indicators lery one lncicalor is sufficient) _ Water Marks (B1)(Wverine) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Salt Crust (1311) _ Sediment Deposits (82) (Riverins) High Water Table (A2) _ Biietic Crust (B12) _ D" Deposits (B3) (Rlverine) _ SaturalJon(A3) _ AGuedc Invertebrates (1213) _ Dahage Patterns (BID) Water Marks (31) (Nonrivertne) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (CI) _ Dry - Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) ( Nonriverne) _ Oxld @ed Rhtaospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Thln Muck Surface (C7) _ DrM Deposits (83) (Nonrivertne) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Bunows (CB) _ Surface Soft Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction In Plowed Solis (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Vlsble on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (E)Vain In Remarks) _ Shallow Aqultard (03) 1 _ Water - Stained Leaves (139) _ FAC- Neutral Test (05) Field Observations•. Surface Water Present? Yes _ No Depth (Inches): Water Table Present? Yes— NO Depth (inches): Sau)atlon Present? Yes_ No _IVL_ Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_ Nok includes cali frintall Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), N available: Remarks: US Amy Corps of Engineers Arid West –Version 11.1 -2006 3. Regulatory Setting for Noise and Vibration To limit population exposure to physically and /or psychologically damaging and intrusive noise levels, the State of California, various county governments and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. The following describes the relevant noise standards applicable to the proposed project. 3.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Interior Noise Standards The State of California's noise insulation standards are codified in Title 24 California Code of Regulations, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are for new construction in California for the purposes of interior compatibility with exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise - sensitive structures, such as residential, schools, or hospitals, are near major transportation noises, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL. 3.2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Land Use Compatibility +++�''' 1 The City's Noise Element identifies four zone categories: Zone A, "Clearly Compatible;" Zone B, "Normally M. Compatible;" Zone C, "Normally Incompatible;" and Zone D, "Clearly Incompatible." These standards, 10 identified in Table 5, are for the assessment of long -term vehicular traffic noise impacts. For residential uses that include single - family, two- family, and multiple - family dwelling units, the City considers exterior noise levels up to 65 dBA CNEL as Clearly Compatible and Normally Compatible; noise levels over 65 dBA CNEL are characterized as Normally Incompatible and Clearly Incompatible. Under the Normally Compatible category, new construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Interior noise levels up to 50 dBA CNEL are considered normally acceptable for office uses. Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach • Page 19 7007078/9 3. Regulatory Setting for Noise and Vibration Table 5 Land Use Com atibilit for Exterior Community Noise Source: Newport Beach General Plan 2006. Zone A: Clearly Compatible— Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Zone B: Normally Compatible"—New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional constructor, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Zone C: Normally Incompatible —New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Zone D: Clearly Incompatible —New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Page 20 • The Planning Center March 2009 Community Noise Equivalent Land Use Categories Level (CNEL) Categories Uses <55 55-60 60 -65 65 -70 70 -75 75-80 >80 Residential Single Family, Two Family, Multiple A A B C C D D Family Residential Mixed Use A A A C C C D Residential Mobile Home A A B C C D D Commercial Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging Regional, A A B B C C D District Commercial Commercial Retail, Bank, Regional, Restaurant, Movie Theatre A A A A B B C Village District, Special Commercial Office Building, Research and Industrial Development, Professional Offices, A A A B B C D Institutional City Office Building Commercial Amphitheatre, Concert Hall Recreational Auditorium, Meeting Hall B B C C D D D Institutional Civic Center Commercial Children's Amusement Park, Recreation Miniature Golf Course, Go -cart A A A B 8 D D Track, Equestrian Center, Sports Club Commercial Automobile Service Station, Auto General, Dealership, Manufacturing, Special Warehousing, Wholesale, Utilities A A A A B B B Industrial, Institutional Institutional Hospital, Church, Library, Schools' A A B C C D D Classroom Open Space Parks A A A B C D D Open Space Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife A A A A B C C Habitat Agriculture Agriculture A A A A A A A Source: Newport Beach General Plan 2006. Zone A: Clearly Compatible— Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Zone B: Normally Compatible"—New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional constructor, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Zone C: Normally Incompatible —New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Zone D: Clearly Incompatible —New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Page 20 • The Planning Center March 2009 3. Regulatory Setting for Noise and Vibration Stationary ( Nontransportation) Noise The City applies the Noise Control Ordinance standards (Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.26.025), summarized in Table 6, to nontransportation, stationary noise sources. These standards do not gauge the compatibility of developments in the noise environment, but provide restrictions on the amount and duration of noise generated at a property, as measured at the property line of the noise receptor. These noise standards do not apply to noise generated by vehicle traffic, because the state, counties, and cities are preempted from controlling vehicle noise under federal law. The City's noise ordinance is designed to protect people from objectionable nontransportation noise sources such as music, machinery, pumps, and air conditioners. Table 6 City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Standards (LJ Noise Zone Time Interval Maximum Daytime Noise Levels dBA L25 LMOX Zone I - Single -, two -, or multiple- family residential 7 AM to 10 PM 55 75 10 PM to 7 AM 50 70 Zone II - Commercial 7 AM to 10 PM 65 85 10 PM to 7 AM 60 80 Zane III - Residential portions of mixed use properties 7 AM to 10 PM 60 80 10 PM to 7 AM 50 70 Zone IV- Industrial or manufacturing 7 AM to 10 PM 70 90 10 PM to 7 AM 70 90 Source: City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Section 10.26.025, Exterior Noise Standards. Notes: • These noise standards do not apply to heating ventilation and air conditioning systems or construction pursuantto Section 10.26.035 of the Municipal Code. • In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. • The Noise Zone III standard shall apply to that portion of residential property falling within 100 feet of a commercial property, if the intruding noise originates from that commercial property. • If the measurement location is on boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. Equipment sound ratings of new heating ventilation and air condition (HVAC) equipment installed within the City of Newport Beach are reviewed during plan check and tested in the field after installation. According to Section 10.26.045 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, new permits for HVAC equipment in or adjacent to residential areas shall be issued only where the sound rating of the proposed equipment does not exceed 55 dBA and is installed with a timing device that will deactivate the equipment during the hours of 10 PM to 7 AM. Construction Noise Hours and Limits The City realizes that the control of construction noise is difficult and therefore provides an exemption forthis type of noise. According to the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.26.035, Exemptions, noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, or grading of any real property are exempt from the noise level limits shown in the Table 6 above. Such activities shall instead be subject to the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity - Noise Regulations. According to this chapter, construction is permitted on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach a Page 21 raororsr.s 3. Regulatory Setting for Noise and Vibration and 6:30 PM and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Construction is not permitted on Sundays or any federal holiday. Exceptions to these construction hours can be made when the maintenance, repair or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours, as outlined in Section 10.28.040 of the City's Municipal Code. 3.3 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION Vibration The City of Newport Beach General Plan does not set specific limits or thresholds for vibration. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides groundborne vibration criteria for various types of special buildings that are sensitive to vibration for both vibration annoyance and cosmetic damage. Cosmetic damage includes, but is not limited to, damage to fences, property lines fences and walls, flatwork (e.g., paved areas.) The human reaction to various levels of vibration is highly subjective and variable. As noted in the FTA manual, "although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential of building damage, it is not suitable for evaluating human response" (FTA 2006). This is because it takes time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Table 7 lists the FTA human annoyance criteria for groundborne vibration based on the relative perception of a vibration event for various types of vibration- sensitive land uses. Table 7 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria - Human Annovance Land Use Category Max L, (VdB)' I Description Workshop 90 Distinctly felt vibration. Appropriate to workshops and non sensitive areas Office 84 Fe it vibration. Appropriate to offices and non sensitive areas. Residential - Daytime 78 Barely felt vibration. Adequate for computer equipment. Residential - Nighttime 72 vibration not felt, but groundborne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms. Source: FTA 2006. ' As measured in 1 /3- octave bands of frequency over the frequency ranges of 8 to 80 Hz. The level at which groundborne vibration is strong enough to cause cosmetic damage has not been determined conclusively. The most conservative estimates are reflected in the FTA criteria, shown in Table 8. Wood -frame buildings, such as typical residential structures, are more easily excited by ground vibration than heavier buildings. Table 8 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria - Cosmetic Damage Building Category PPV in /sec) VdB I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Nonengineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 N. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 Source: FrA, 2006. Notes: RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of one microinch /second. Page 22 a The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts 4.1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS 4.1.1 Methodology The degree to which noise - sensitive receptors are affected by construction activities depends heavily on their proximity. Construction activities are carried out in steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. As noted in Table 1, certain phases of project construction would occur simultaneously. Typically, the estimated construction noise levels are governed primarily by the piece of equipment that produces the highest noise levels. The character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site will change as work progresses, depending on the noise levels of the loudest piece of construction equipment in use. A combination of construction vehicles and handheld power tools would be used depending on the construction phase. Construction noise levels are based on those reported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) using the FHWA's Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM version 1.1, 2008). Table 9lists noise levels for construction equipment from the RCNM. A noise monitoring program was initiated to collect noise data from the metal stud framing and concrete formwork. This monitoring data, which primarily involves hand tools, was necessary to supplement the noise data for construction vehicles from the RCNM. Table 9 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Type of Equipment Average Sound Levels (dBA LQ at 50 feet) Backhoe 73.6 Concrete Mixer Truck 74.8 Concrete Pump Truck 74.4 Excavator 76.7 Front End Loader 75.1 Excavator 76.7 Jackhammer 81.9 Drill Rig Truck 72.2 Hydra Break Ram 80 Tractor 80 Vibratory Concrete Mixer 73 Flat Bed Truck 70.3 Auger Drill Rig 77.4 Mounted Impact Hammer hoe ram 83.3 Dozer 77.7 FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (version 1.1) Monitored Construction Noise Levels In general, noise levels from hand tools are not available using the FHWA's RCNM. Construction phases that consist primarily of noise from hand -held equipment were monitored to estimate noise levels from activities, including formwork construction and metal stud framing activities. To characterize noise from concrete formwork, a noise monitoring program was conducted January 20, 2009 at Seven Atelier Lane, in the City of Laguna Beach during development of the concrete forms for the 2nd floor of a four story single family residential structure. Noise measurements were also taken at 3341 Rowena Avenue on January 28, 2009 during the construction of the metal stud work, in the City of Los Angeles, to characterize noise from metal Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach •Page 23 7MM7913 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts stud framing. These two types of activities characterize the majority of the proposed construction duration (1.5 years). The metal stud framing and concrete formwork that was monitored for noise are the same type of activities that would occurfor the construction of the proposed Aerie project. Because the number of workers that were present at the monitored sites are different than those that would occur with the Aerie project, the monitored noise levels were logarithmically scaled to be consistent with the projected number of workers for the Aerie project Noise measurements were taken using Larson Davis 820 Type 1 sound level meters (SLM). The SLMs were calibrated before and after monitoring at each site. Both the calibrator and the SLM were sent to a certified acoustic laboratory for annual calibration. The SLMs were set on tripods at a microphone height of five feet. Voice recorders were also placed with each SLM to provide an audio record of the noise being monitored. Pictures and videos were also taken to document the monitoring program. Monitoring of Formwork Construction Noise monitoring at Seven Altelier Avenue in Laguna Beach consisted of construction activities associated with installation of interior walls with cast in place concrete. Because the top of the formwork had reached an elevation that was at the same grade as the northern portion of the sloped site, there was a direct line -of- sight between two of the SLMs and formwork activities. During noise monitoring, construction workers were erecting the formwork of the structure prior to the pouring of concrete. Formwork activities involved installation of the form panels and rebar for the interior walls. Tools used during the formwork included hammers and power tools, including electric drills and a rebar cutter. There were 15 men working on the site during the noise monitoring. Other sources of noise that contributed to the noise levels recorded by the SLMs included bird song, material delivery trucks going to other sites, an integrated tool carrier, skid steer loader, and power tools used at a construction site two lots down. Because of the contributions from these other noise sources, noise levels recorded at the site are considered conservative. No construction vehicles would be involved during the formwork phase for the proposed project. Sound level meters were placed at the following locations: • SLM 1 was 43 feet west of the building footprint (ridge of excavated area). Noise propagation from work occurring within the below -grade excavated area was attenuated by an intervening ridgeline created by the excavation. Hourly noise levels ranged from 52 to 58 dBA L,,. • SLM 2 was to the west edge of the building footprint (ridge of excavated area) overlooking the work site. Hourly noise levels ranged from 62 to 68 dBA L,,. • SLM 3 was to the north edge of the building footprint (ridge of excavated area) overlooking the work site. Hourly noise levels ranged from 64 to 73 dBA L,,. • SLM 4 was 52 feet south of the building footprint. This location is substantially below the elevation found at the northern portion of the project site. The site was also partially shielded from noise occurring in the interior of the residence. Hourly noise levels generally ranged from 53 to 57 dBA, with one hourly reading of 65 dBA L,,. Average noise levels at these monitoring sites are also shown in Figure 6, Noise Monitoring of Formwork Construction. Charts showing the minimum, average, and maximum noise levels and a graphic depicting the location of the noise meters Seven Atelier Avenue in Laguna Beach are included in Appendix B. Page 24 a The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Noise Monitoring of Formwork Construction 60.0 75.0 70.0 67.9 65.0 83.8 Cr m Q 60.0 m v 55.0 50.0 - 45.0 t 71.1 62.2 + West SLM @43 feel —a— SLM West at Excavation A SLM at North Excavation —*-- Southern SLM 40.0 .:. ° —_ _..._.., .._u...._. __._._. 9.29 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12.00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM Aerie Residential Development Contraction Noise and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 6 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left b lank. Page 26 a The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Monitoring of Metal Stud Framing Noise monitoring at 3341 Rowena Avenue in the City of Los Angeles consisted of metal study framing associated with two adjacent single - family residences. Work consisted of constructing the metal framing on the second and third stories and the installation of plywood ceilings. At the time of monitoring, eight workers were involved in metal stud framing. Noise from metal stud framing was generated by circular saws for cutting plywood, electric drills for screwing in the metal studs, a nibbler, hammers, dropping of tools and materials, and talking. Noise generated by testing of a compressor for a plasma torch was also measured. Secondary sources of noise at the project site included distant traffic, birds, and a neighbor using power tools (sander and paint gun). • SLM 1 was 25 feet to the north of the northernmost structure being worked on. Hourly noise levels ranged from 61 to 64 dBA Leq • SLM 2 to 18 feet to the south of the southernmost structure being worked on. Hourly noise levels ranged from 61 to 68 dBA Leq • SLM 3 was approximately 12 feet south of the two structures. Hourly noise levels ranged from 63 to 73 dBA Leq Average noise levels at these monitoring sites are also shown in Figure 7, Noise Monitoring of Metal Stud Framing. A graphic depicting the locations of the noise meters at 3341 Rowena Avenue in the City of Los Angeles is included in Appendix B. SoundPlan Modeling �� Noise modeling forthe construction of the proposed projectwas completed using the SoundPlan computer model developed by Braunstein and Berndt, GmbH, using noise levels from construction equipment in the RCNM and noise levels from formwork construction, concrete, and metal stud framing. The SoundPlan model represents the latest science in the assessment of environmental noise. This model allows noise assessments be done in a three - dimensional environment that takes into account noise attenuation from ground absorption, intervening building structures, terrain, and frequency of noise sources. SoundPlan was selected for use for this project due to its ability to model the complex hilly terrain and noise attenuation from construction activity occurring within the excavated area and numerous residential structures that would act as barriers to the propagation of noise. The model is able to generate noise contours, graphically, of the different construction phases associated with the project. The noise contours show the decibel levels from project- related construction activities at noise - sensitive land uses. The graphics created using the SoundPlan model depict the noise gradient generated from construction activities at noise - sensitive uses at six feet above ground level. The colors chosen for the noise gradient are based on the City's Land Use Compatibility for Exterior and Community Noise (see Table 5). While these noise levels are not applicable for construction noise, they provide some guidance on what is acceptable in terms of exterior noise levels. The yellow, orange, and red gradients signifies noise levels that the City of Newport Beach considers incompatible with noise - sensitive uses. The green noise gradient signifies land uses within the clearly compatible or normally compatible criteria for noise sensitive residential uses. These noise level contours represent an average for each construction phase and would change in location as the equipment moves. Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach *Page 27 700707914 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts 4.1.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would result in N -1 Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. N -2 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. These thresholds were selected because of their applicability to project related construction noise and vibration. Other Appendix G significance thresholds pertaining to noise are addressed in the DEIR. 4.1.3 Construction Noise Impacts Based on the Construction Management Plan, construction activities will be restricted to non - holiday weekdays from 7 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., per City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040. During construction Phases III and IV, when work will largely occur indoors, construction activities will be allowed Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and Saturday from 8:00 to 6:00 p.m., as allowed by City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040. Short-term noise impacts are impacts associated with demolition, grading /excavation, and building construction of the proposed land use. Two types of short-term noise impacts would occur during construction. First, the transport of workers and movement of materials to and from the site with truck could result in transient increases noise levels along local access roads. Trucks accessing the project site would generate noise levels on the order of 72.5 dBA at a distance of 50 feet'. A truck traveling at 20 mph would cover a distance of 500 feet in 17 seconds. Thereby increasing noise levels briefly as the truck passes. Project related trucks would travel to the site and be required to shut down unnecessary idling while it is being unloaded. After the truck is unloaded, it would take approximately 30 seconds to startup and then depart. Due to the size constraints of the project site, it is anticipated that generally only one truck would be delivering or hauling material to the site at any one time. This first type of transient noise sources would be clearly audible and would affect noise sensitive uses along the routes of travel but would be brief in duration. The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated at the project site during demolition, site preparation, grading, and /or physical construction. This type of noise impact would occur during the hours of construction activity and lead to noise exposure proximate to the project site. Noise generated from average conditions occurring during each of these construction phases are discussed below. Phase 1 — Demolition and Excavation Phase 1 consists of project- related demolition and excavation activities. Phase 1 would last approximately six months and would involve varying quantities of construction vehicles. The most noise intensive activities would occur when construction vehicles are working at -grade with the surface streets because no noise attenuation would be provided by the walls of excavated pits as would occur during the excavation phases. ' Based on the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model for dump trucks. Page 28 • The Planning Center March 2009 75.0 - 70.0 M-1XII Cr N 4 60.0 M v 55.0 .r r Emil 4. Construction Noire and Vibration Impacts Noise Monitoring of Metal Stud Framing OP 58.2 40.0 — --- - --- - - -- — — , . _ 7:35 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM t Northern SLM @ 25 ft f Southern SLM @ 18 ft —A Western SLM @ 22 ft Ov Aerie Residential Development Construction Noire and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 7 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 30 a The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Demolition Demolition activities would occur for approximately six days. This initial construction phase includes asbestos and lead based paint removal followed by demolition of the apartments and single - family residence. The existing buildings are primarily wood -framed structures with some brick and concrete block materials. Most of the demolition would be done by a backhoe loader and some hand tools (wrecking bars, sledgehammers, axes, shovels, etc.). Demolition of the existing building would begin on the interior with the finishes being stripped and removed. Next, the roof finish material, plywood sheathing, and roof rafters would be removed. From there, demolition will be done in a top down method with the supporting structural elements being removed after they have been relieved of all of the structural load above. These columns, beams, floor joists, stud walls, etc. will be dismantled by a combination of the hand tools listed above and the backhoe when necessary. In addition, a backhoe, excavator, and loader would be used occasionally to break apart the concrete foundation and to pick up debris and dump it into trucks to be hauled away to a dump site. The backhoe and excavator would not run simultaneously. It is anticipated that 10 truck trips would occur daily for a total of six days of demolition time. The trucks would drive up to the loading area, turn off the engine, and wait until the truck is loaded with debris before departing the site. It is anticipated that eight workman would be present on the site during demolition. Noise generated by trucks hauling demolition debris was not modeled because trucks would be turned off once they arrived at the site. See Table 10. Table 10 Demolition Equipment Used Concurrently Equipment Number of equipment per day Hours of operation per day Backhoe 1 4 Excavator 1 7 Loader 1 5 Source: Mon Jeannette Arch@ecture, February 10, 2009 Figure 8, Demolition Noise Contours, illustrates that noise from demolition equipment would result in noise levels of 75-80 dBA L q at the adjacent residence to the north of the site and 70-75 dBA L,q at the residences in the immediate vicinity of the project site, before diminishing with distance, for the six -day demolition. As shown in the Figure 8, remnants of the existing buildings would provide some noise attenuation for the residences to the northwest of the projects in until they were demolished. Caisson Installation Use of a Caisson Drill would occur for approximately 13 to 21 days Caisson placement would occur after the buildings are demolished and the pad is graded level. The caissons are necessary to provide sufficient foundation strength necessary for the proposed structure based on the local geology. Three to four caissons would be drilled per day. This includes drilling, steel placement, and filling with concrete. Two drill rigs would be at the site and would start drilling at opposite corners of the site. For structural integrity and avoidance of cave -ins, the drill rig would bore every other hole and work its way around the perimeter of the project site. A backhoe would be operated sporadically during the day to remove the dirt as it comes up from the drilling. Prefabricated steel casings for the caissons are delivered to the site and would be dropped in the hole by a crane. Crane usage was not included in the modeling because it is anticipated to be used 15% of the time and do not represent average conditions. An air compressor and mobile welding machine would be used when needed to splice the steel casings together. It is anticipated that 10 concrete truck loads would be necessary on a daily basis and that an average of 12 workmen would be present on the site. �� Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach • Page 31 700707914 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts The concrete trucks would be sequenced so that a single truck would be unloading at a time. See Table 11. Table 11 Equipment Used Concurrently for Caisson Drilling Equipment Number of equipment per day Hours of operation per day Drill Rig 2 7 Backhoe Loader 1 3 Concrete Pump Truck 1 4 Concrete Trucks 10 .5 Source: Brion Jeannette Architecture, February 10, 2009 Figure 9, Caisson Drilling Noise Contours, illustrates that noise from caisson drilling would result in noise levels of 80 to 85 dBA L,q within the immediate vicinity of the project site before diminishing with increasing distance during the 13 to 21 day duration of this activity. Noise levels during this phase would be substantial due to the multiple concurrent construction vehicles operating at grade. Excavation Excavation to an Elevation of 50 Feet Approximately 13,000 cubic yards of soil would need to be removed in order to excavate to an elevation of 50 feet NAVD 88 (see Site Profile, Figure 5) .2 Excavation to this depth would take approximately 41 days and require installation of a wood lagging system to retain the sides of the excavated area. To maintain structural integrity, excavation activities would be conducted in three phases so that the installation of lagging could occur to maintain slope stability. The first phase of excavation would occur after 38 caissons are installed. Typically, excavation equipment includes a dozer, an excavator, and a loader; however, the dozer and loader would not be operated simultaneously. Dump trucks will arrive at the site with no greater frequency than the discharge rate by the contractor so that no more than one truck is on site at one time and that trucks will not need to queue on Carnation Avenue. There would be about 27 truck trips to the site per day during this excavation phase and no more than one truck will be on site at one time. A crane would be used occasionally to drop in wood planks for lagging as the excavation proceeds. The single truck present on the site at any one time will not be permitted to idle as it is being loaded. Neither the truck nor the crane were modeled using SounclPlan because of their brief time of use. Crane usage is anticipated to be 15% of the time and do not represent average conditions. Approximately 16 workmen would be present on -site, installing the lagging. Construction vehicle quantities are shown in Table 12. Table 12 Excavation Equipment Equipment Number of operating equipment per day Hours of operation per day Dozer 1 7 Excavator 1 7 Loader 1 4 Source: Brion Jeannette Architecture, February 10, 2009 Y North American Vertical Datum of 1988 ( "NAVD 88 ") is the protocol used by the City of Newport Beach in order to establish a fixed reference point for purposes of measuring elevation. This protocol is more accurate than average mean sea level (amsl), which has been superseded as the City's recognized elevation protocol. All references to elevation in this report shall refer to NAVD 88. Page 32 • The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Demolition Noise Contours Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85< 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - - - Site Boundary Source: Google Earth 2008 Aerie Residential Development Construction Noire and Vibration Study o so Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 8 N 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 34 • The Planning Center- March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Caisson Drilling Noise Contours Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85< w 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< y < =50 < =45 - - -- Site Boundary Source: Google Earth 2008 10 Scale (Feet) Aerie Residential Development Construction Noire and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 9 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 36 • The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts As illustrated in Figure 10, Noise Contours From Excavation to an Elevation of 50 Feet NAVD 88, noise levels from excavation equipment would be attenuated due to being partially below grade where the ridgeline of the excavated area acts as a sound barrier. Noise levels of 80 to 85 dBA L,q are expected to occur at the nearest residence to the project site, (215 Carnation Avenue). Noise levels at the other residential uses near to the project site would experience attenuated noise levels in the 55-65 dB range, due to the construction vehicles operating within the excavated area. Excavation to an Elevation of 40 Feet To reach an elevation of 40 feet NAVD 88, an additional 7,000 cubic yards would need to be excavated. Excavation to an elevation of 40 feet NAVD 88 would take approximately 21 days. Additional wood lagging would need to be installed to support the walls of the excavated area. Activities associated with excavation to an elevation of 40 feet NAVD 88 are similar to the excavation to an elevation of 50 feet, with the exception of the use of a ram hoe. The ram hoe would be required for approximately 10 percent of the grading operation at the northeast corner of the site near to 215 Carnation Avenue. The ram hoe is necessary to fracture and remove rock occurring at this depth. At this time, construction activities are occurring in an excavated pit roughly 30 feet below Carnation Avenue and the perimeter of the building pad is enclosed on all sides. It is anticipated that there would be 28 truck trips to remove excavated material on a daily basis. An average of 16 workmen would be on -site. Construction vehicle quantities are shown in Table 13. Table 13 Equipment Used Concurrently for Excavation to an Elevation of 40 Feet Equipment Number of equipment per day Hours of operation per day Dozer 1 7 Excavator 1 7 Loader 4 Ram Hoe 1 Source: Brion Jeannette Architecture, February 10, 2009 As shown in Figure 11, Noise Contour From Excavation to an Elevation of 40 Feet NAVD 88, noise levels are generally confined within the excavation area during this excavation phase. The nearest residential use adjacent to the project site to the north would experience noise levels in excess of 85 dBA L,q because this residence overlooks the excavated area and would not benefit from the noise attenuation from excavated walls. The other surrounding residential uses would benefit from equipment working within an excavated area and would experience noise levels of between 55 and 60 dBA L,q. Excavation to an Elevation of 28 Feet Excavation to an elevation of 28 feet NAVD 88 would require and additional 5,240 cubic yards of soil haul, bringing the total soil haul to approximately 25,240 cubic yards. Excavation to an elevation of 28 feet would take approximately 15 days. Additional wood lagging would need to be installed to retain the walls of the excavated area. The final portion of the excavation work would conclude with the subbasement level at an elevation of 28 feet. This phase is also similar to the previous excavation phases. At this point, construction activities would occur in an excavated pit roughly 40 feet below Carnation Avenue and below the natural grade on four sides. The ram hoe would be required for approximately 10 percent of the grading operation and at the northeast corner of the site adjacent to 215 Carnation Ave. It is anticipated that there would be 29 truck trips to remove excavated material on a daily basis. An average of 16 workmen would be on -site. Construction vehicle quantfties are shown in Table 14. Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach • Page 37 70070781.] 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Table 14 Equipment Used Concurrently for Excavation to an Elevation of 28 Feet Equipment Number of equipment per day Hours of operation per day Dozer 1 7 Excavator 1 7 Loader 1 4 Ram Hoe 1 1 Source: Brion Jeannette Architecture, February 10, 2009 As shown in Figure 12, Noise Contours From Excavation to an Elevation of 28 Feet NAVD 88, noise levels are generally confined within the excavation area. The nearest residential use adjacent to the project site to the north would experience noise levels in excess of 85 dBA Leq because this residence overlooks the excavated area and would not benefit from the noise attenuation from excavated walls. The other surrounding residential uses would benefit from equipment working within an excavated area and would experience noise levels of between 55 and 60 dBA Lqq. Phase 2 and 3 - Concrete Pouring, Concrete Formwork, and Metal Stud Framing Construction Phase 2 involves shotcrete shoring, concrete placement for the foundation slab, structural decks and construction of retaining walls following excavation activities. Phase 3 would consist mainly of metal stud framing and installation of mechanical electrical and plumbing equipment. Portions of Phases 2 and 3 would occur concurrently and, together, they would last approximately one and half years. Data from noise monitoring of concrete formwork and metal stud framing, as discussed in Section 4.1.1, were used as the basis for the SounclPlan modeling. Concrete Pouring Concrete pouring during the construction phases would occur for approximately three to five days for each occurrence. Once the formwork for the foundation has been inspected by City of Newport Beach Inspector, the contractor would arrange for concrete pouring to take place on approximately eight different days [There would be about 20 -25 cement trucks coming to the site per day, with no more than one truck at a time on Carnation Avenue. A concrete pumper truck would be used to pump the concrete into the forms. Handheld mechanical vibrators would be used to consolidate the wet concrete while it is being poured. Both the cement truck and pumper truck would be stationed on the street at the center of the site on Carnation Avenue. This activity would occur to construct the exterior walls and floors. An average of 20 cement truck trips would occur on a daily basis. An average of 16 workmen would be on -site. Construction vehicle quantities are shown in Table 15. Table 15 Equipment Used Concurrently for Concrete Pouring Equipment Number of equipment per day Hours of operation per day Pum erTruck 1 7 Concrete Vibrator 1 6 Concrete Mixer 20 5 Source: Brion Jeannette Architecture, February 10, 2009 Page 38 . The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Noise Contours from Excavation to an Elevation of 50 Feet amsl Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85<. 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - -- Site Boundary Source: Google Earth 2008 Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise and Vibration Study 0 190 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 10 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 40 a The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Noise Contours from Excavation to an Elevation of 40 Feet amsl Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85< 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - — — Site Boundary Source: Google Earth 2008 0 190 Scale (Feet) Aerie Residential Development Construction Noire and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 11 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 42 ® The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noire and Vibration Impacts Noise Contours from Excavation to an Elevation of 28 Feet amsl Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) - - - - Site Boundary Source: Google Earth 2008 Aerie Residential Development Construction Noire and Vibration Study 0 190 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 12 MON 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 ® < =45 - - - - Site Boundary Source: Google Earth 2008 Aerie Residential Development Construction Noire and Vibration Study 0 190 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 12 MON 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 44 a The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts The concrete pour work could occur concurrently with the metal stud work. Noise generated from metal stud work was included with the noise generated with equipment associated with the concrete pouring. As shown within Figure 13, From Concrete Pouring Noise Contours, Noise would occur primarily from the concrete truck and the concrete pumpertruck along Carnation Avenue. Noise levels at the closest residences to these two trucks would be exposed to noise levels of 75 to 80 dBA L,q during each day of concrete pouring. Concrete Formwork and Metal Stud Framing Building construction would commence after the excavation /grading phase. The construction of the building for each floor is initiated by developing the form and then pouring the concrete floor first. After the concrete floor has cured, the exterior walls would be formed and also cast in place with concrete. At the time the forms for the exterior walls are being erected, metal stud framing for the interior walls would be constructed concurrently on the floor below where the forms are being constructed. Noise generated by the metal stud framing would be attenuated by the concrete exterior walls. The concrete formwork and metal stud framing would occur for approximately a year and a half. Integration of the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and interior walls would start from the lowest level and continue on to the upper levels. SoundPlan modeling graphics were prepared showing interior wall construction occurring concurrently with preparation of the forms prior to pouring concrete. Figure 14, First Floor Metal Stud Framing and Second Floor Concrete Formwork, shows interior wall construction and form work below grade while Figure 15, Second Floor Metal Stud Framing and Third Floor Concrete Formwork, shows the same type of work occurring above grade so that noise levels could be depicted with and without the noise attenuation provided by the excavated walls. Concrete Formwork (Second Floor) and Metal Stud Framing (First Floor) f%n� Noise from the construction of the building would consist of development of the formwork in preparation a,�y of the concrete pouring as well as metal stud framing for the construction of the interior walls. Noise VV modeling was conducted for two scenarios - one below grade and one above grade - to depict noise with and without the noise attenuation provided by excavated earthen walls. The modeling of construction activity occurring at the first and second floor represents noise occurring below grade whereas construction activities occurring at the third and fourth floors represents noise occurring above grade. Concrete formwork for the second floor and metal stud framing for the first floor would occur for approximately 40 days. In this stage, when the second floor perimeter concrete walls and first floor deck (at street level) reach the required strength, the formwork would be stripped and metal stud framing for interior walls would occur followed by the integration of the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. Noise generated by construction activities on the first floor would be attenuated by the exterior concrete perimeter walls and the second floor. Light -gauge steel studs are precut to length off -site precluding the need for most of the cutting to occur on -site. Attaching metal runner channels to a concrete floor would require the use of powder- driven fasteners and the steel members arejoined with self - drilling /self- tapping screws. Assembling the light -gauge steel members would require hand -held electric or pneumatic screwdrivers. Structural steel framing would be cut off -site then craned to the site and assembled by welders. The crane was not modeled using SoundPlan because of the brief time of use. Crane usage is anticipated to be 10% of the time and do not represent average conditions. At the same time, formwork for the second floor concrete walls would be erected by hand. Approximately 90 percent of the time for this is spent on constructing the formwork by hand before the concrete pouring. The area would be restricted from construction vehicles at this time. Most of the work would require a rebar layout. Small hand tools such as hand saws and a portable electrical /hydraulic rebar bender and cutter would be used to cut, form, and fit the rebar and ties. Formwork materials would be delivered to the site Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach *Page 45 7MM791.3 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts approximately once per week. An average of 42 workmen (25 crew members on concrete work and 17 crew members on metal stud framing) would be on -site. Hand held tool quantities shown in Table 16. Table 16 Equipment Used Concurrently for Formwork and Interior Metal Framing First Floor Equipment Number of a uipment er day Hours of operation per day Compressors 2 5 Hand Tools 15 6 Plasma Cutter 3 3 Roto Hammers 3 .4 Shot Pin applicators 2 1.25 Small stationary power tools 5 4 Source: Brion Jeannette Architecture, February 10, 2009 As shown in Figure 14, First Floor Metal Stud Framing and Second Floor Concrete Formwork, noise levels associated with the concrete formwork and metal stud framing for the first and second floors, respectively would result in noise levels of 55 -60 dBA L,q at the nearest residences to the south of the projects site and 70 -75 dBA L,q at the nearest residence to the north of the site. The highest noise levels experienced at residential uses further away would be 60 -65 dBA L,q or less. Concrete Formwork (Fourth Floor) and Metal Stud Framing (Third Floor) Concrete formwork for the fourth floor and metal stud framing for the third floor would occur for approximately 30 days. Construction activities for this stage are similar to the above for the formwork and interior metal framing for the first floor with the exception that the activities would occur roughly 10 feet above Carnation Avenue and the building footprint is smaller. It is estimated that the same number of workers and tools, and hours of operation would occur for this activity as shown in Table 16. See Figure 15. Noise levels associated with the concrete formwork and metal stud framing for the fourth and third floors would result in noise levels of 75 to 80 dBA L,q at the nearest residences to the north and 60 to 65 dBA L,q south of the projects site. The highest noise levels experienced at residential uses further away would be 60- 65 dBA L,q or less. Phase 4— Finishing Activities Phase 4 would include the application of the interior and exterior finishes in window and door installation occurring for a period of seven months. Cabinetry built off -site, countertops, and finish materials would be delivered and installed in all units. Exterior finishes such as stone veneer, roof materials, photovoltaic array panels, and exterior plaster would begin. Landscaping and final fire suppression systems as well as passenger elevator installations would complete the structure. Noise levels for this phase were assumed to be comparable to noise generated during the metal stud framing phase. Noise generated during this phase would generally occur in the interior of the structure with interior and exterior walls providing noise attenuation from the activities. Noise would generally consist of use of electric screwdrivers, compressors and infrequent use of circular saws. Exterior work will involve tile cutting which would occur indoors and brought to the exterior for installation as well as the use of a plaster sprayer for a period of a week. Page 46 . The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Concrete Pouring Noise Contours Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85< 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - - - Site Boundary Source. Google Earth 2008 0 190 Scale (Feet) Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 13 Ov 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 48 a The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts First Floor Metal Stud Framing and Second Floor Concrete Formwork Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85< -i 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50 <'. < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - - - Site Boundary Source: Google Earth 2008 0 190 Scale (Feet) r Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 14 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 50 e The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Third Floor Metal Stud Framing and Fourth Floor Concrete Formwork Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85< 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - — — Site Boundary 0 190 Source: Google Earth 2008 Scale (Feet) Aerie Residential Daelopment Construction Noire and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 15 �� 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 52 . The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Concurrent Dock and Building Construction Noise The proposed project involves the construction of the proposed Aerie residential building as well as the replacement of the existing docks. The noise and vibration generated by the construction of the docks was evaluated in a separate noise study conducted by Wieland Acoustics Incorporated. Construction of the docks is scheduled from May 2012 to July 2021 and is estimated to have a duration of 40 days. Dock construction is anticipated to occur concurrently with the construction of the 4'" floor interior walls and roof. The highest noise level associated with dock work is associated with the drilling phase which results in 88 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The nearest noise sensitive uses to the docks are 101 Bayside Place and 2495 Ocean Boulevard. Table 17 shows the noise levels associated with each activity as well as the combined noise levels from both activities. The combined noise levels are logarithmically summed. As shown in this Table, noise levels would increase by 1.5 dB at 101 Bayside Place and 0.5 dB at 2495 Ocean Boulevard, Table 17 Combined Dock and Bull din Construction Noise (dBA) Location Dock Drilling Noise Building I Construction Noise Combined Dock and Building Noise 101 Bayside Place 71 67 72.5 2495 Ocean Boulevard 68 1 59 68.5 Qn .7. The ol—;— 7.7— KA-7 9 9nn0 rin 4.1.4 Summary of Construction Noise Impacts />• As shown by the noise contours of the construction activities, noise levels vary substantially depending on the number and types of construction vehicles, type of construction activity, and the location of occurrence. Noise levels for each of the construction phases were evaluated at a reference distance of 100 feet from the eastern edge of the project site on Carnation Avenue to produce a chart of noise levels over the entire construction period, as shown in Figure 16, Construction Noise Levels Occurring Over the Construction Period. Noise levels are expected to increase when receptors are closer than 100 feet and diminish beyond 100 feet. Figure 16 is provided at this distance to illustrate the differences in noise levels over time based on the type of construction activity being performed. Noise levels are highest during the demolition, caisson drilling, and the concrete pouring when construction vehicles are at grade with Carnation Avenue. Noise levels subside substantially when construction equipment is working within the various depths of the excavated area due to the noise attenuation provided by the excavated walls. These excavated walls have no effect when residences are overlooking the site and have direct view of the construction equipment. After excavation, construction of the formwork and interior metal framed walls would occur with hand tools. Noise levels from these hand tools are substantially lower than the levels generated by construction vehicles, based on noise monitoring and noise level data provided by the RCNM. Construction vehicles would not be used during these phases, with the exception of concrete pouring when short periods of substantial noise exposure would occur.. In addition, noise generated by metal framing would occur within the interior of the newly constructed floor and be attenuated by the presence of exterior concrete walls and a concrete ceiling. After all the exterior and interior walls are constructed, the finish work would commence. The finish work would also be done with hand tools. As explained above, noise levels associated with the finish work were conservatively assumed to be comparable to those of metal stud framing. However, interior finish work would occur within the interior of the building and be substantially attenuated by both the interior and exterior walls of the residential structure. Exterior finish work would also be done with hand tools. Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach *Page 53 700707914 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts The ambient average daytime (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) noise levels (dBA L,Q) in the vicinity of the project site range from 50.5 dBA to 59.9 dBA. Construction noise from the phases that involve construction vehicles results in noise levels of 42.6 dBA to 82.1 dBA at 100 feet. For the worst case noise generating phase, this level of noise would be approximately 22 -31 dBA Leq above ambient background noise and would last approximately three to four months during the demolition, caisson drilling, and excavation phases before the noise from construction vehicles would be attenuated by excavated walls. Second story residences adjacent to the project site with a clear line of sight to the construction vehicles would experience these noise levels for a period of seven months during the demolition, caisson drilling, and excavation phases because the excavated walls provide less attenuation. For approximately one and a half years, noise levels would be, on average, between 42.6 dBA to 61.9 dBA Leq at 100 feet from the construction of the interior and exterior walls. Noise levels would be approximately 2 -11.5 dBA above the ambient background noise. As explained above, interior finish work was assumed to be equivalent to noise from interior metal stud work and would generate noise levels of 52.8 dBA at 100 feet. Exterior hardscape and landscape would last approximately four months. Noise levels would be approximately 0 -2 dBA above the ambient background noise. Due to the length of construction activities (approximately 32 months) and level of noise from the period of construction vehicle use, noise exposure from project- related construction activities at the nearby residential receivers would result in a short-term significant impact from project related construction activities. 4.2 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS 4.2.1 Construction Vibration Annoyance Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration - sensitive uses. The effect of vibration on buildings near a construction site varies depending on the magnitude of vibration, geology, and receptor building construction. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures, but can achieve perceptible ranges in buildings close to a construction site. Page 54 • The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts 90 , Construction Noise over Time Cr 50 J m V 40 30 20 WIN F—i O m 3 O 0 E w N O O xcavate to 28' cavate o 40' * Concrete Pour Caisson Drilling 80 70 dr=xcavate a� 60 UU to 50' Cr 50 J m V 40 30 20 WIN F—i O m 3 O 0 E w N O O xcavate to 28' cavate o 40' * Concrete Pour 0 1 1 11 1i 1 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 12 Work Week �� Aerie Residential Development Construction Noire and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 16 a� UU UU U CA �a m ° O.rl Finishing D c a O n n O O � 0 6; Z� K ° 3 3 0 O G UDD a Tl 0 w O 21 O' N . . N i7 ° 2. m O S_- o'<n °mom n� 33 ° Q CD, T w o p C to 0 3� wm� �� '3 0s 0 �w BOO m 3 lo. rt 0 3 CD m 'cm 3 ..-. O CD V o� ^0 '� o 3 0 0 0 m w -- -n y 1p 3 O w N 0 1 1 11 1i 1 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 12 Work Week �� Aerie Residential Development Construction Noire and Vibration Study The Planning Center • Figure 16 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 56 e The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts The analysis of potential short-term vibration impacts assumed the vibrations would emanate from the center of the project site at an average distance of 80 feet from the project site boundary. The impact on the nearest vibration sensitive use (215 Carnation Avenue) was conservatively assumed to occur at the 215 Carnation property line. As a result, this analysis provides the maximum levels of vibration occurring at the outdoor living space located on the 215 Carnation Avenue property line. However, because construction activities are typically distributed throughout the project site, construction vibration was also assessed at the center of the project site (80 feet from the 215 Carnation Avenue property boundary) to obtain the average vibration levels that would be experienced by sensitive receptors the majority of the time. Table 18 lists the maximum and average vibration source levels for construction equipment anticipated to be used at the project site for the off -site residential receptors and at the closest residential uses. As shown in this table, vibration levels generated by the construction vehicles during the demolition, caisson drilling and excavation phases were found to exceed the FTA's perceptibility criteria for residential uses. Those phases that do not involve heavy construction equipment use were not modeled because hand tools do not generate perceptible levels of ground vibration. The residential uses being affected include only those residences immediately to the northeast and south of the project site. Project related construction activities were assessed for the potential to result in annoyance at the nearest vibration sensitive uses. The assessment of annoyance from vibration from construction activities is based on several criteria including perceptibility, frequency of occurrence, time of occurrence and duration. In terms of perceptibility, using the FTA criteria (Table 7 above) vibration which is "barely felt" is not deemed significant because it does not constitute "exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels" as per Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines. The word "excessive" is defined by the Merriam - Webster Dictionary as "exceeding what is usual, proper, necessary, or normal." If something is ��`'�,,,,' "barely felt," it cannot reasonably be considered "excessive." Therefore, for the evaluation of human V� annoyance caused by vibration from construction activities, the criteria for establishing potentially significant vibration induced annoyance impacts is average daytime (there will be no nighttime construction) vibration measurements that are "felt." The FTA has established 84 VdB as the level that is "felt" or readily perceived. In addition to the perceptibility criterion, the frequency of occurrence of vibration generating activities must be considered in determining what constitutes "exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels" pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines. Loaded trucks have the potential to generate vibration as they vehicles travel down the street. However, project related truck trips will only result in transient (1 -2 second) exposures of perceptible vibration as they pass in front of residences. Based on this fleeting exposure, loaded trucks would not result in significant vibration impacts for annoyance. Athird criterion for vibration induced annoyance is the duration of vibration intensive construction activities. Construction activities that involve perceptible vibration or high frequency in a day may nevertheless be considered to have less than significant vibration generated annoyance impacts if the duration of construction is short. The project's demolition, caisson drilling and excavation phases have the most potential for generating vibration at vibration sensitive residential uses. Based on the Construction Schedule attached to the Construction Management Plan, it is anticipated that there are approximately 109 total work days associated with these activities. However, vibration intensive construction activities would not exceed the "felt" vibration level of 84 VdB when construction equipment is operated 35 feet or more feet away from sensitive uses. The following represents the time period for during which demolition, caisson drilling and excavation would occur within 35 feet of vibration sensitive uses. Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach *Page 57 70OM791-3 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Demolition -1.3 days Caisson Drilling - 6.5 days Excavation -16.8 days The total days for which vibration from project related construction activities would exceed the "felt" level is therefore approximately 25 work days. The last criterion considered in assessing vibration impacts is the time of occurrence. Residential uses are much more sensitive to vibrations occurring at night as compared to the day time. Construction activities that would generate perceptible levels of vibration are time- restricted by Municipal Code Section 10.28.040. Under Section 10.28.040, construction is permitted on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM, Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, and is prohibited on Sundays and any federal holidays. The assessment of the potential for project related construction vibration to cause annoyance includes the four criteria previously described above: perceptibility, frequency of occurrence, time of occurrence and duration. Although the maximum vibration levels associated with certain construction activities would, in some instances, be "felt" under FTA criteria and could occur frequently in the days they do occur, because construction activity would be limited to the least vibration- sensitive times of the day, the duration of perceptible vibration would be relatively brief and intermittent, potential vibration impacts will not result in a significant vibration annoyance impact. Page 58 • The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Table 18 97 Average Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment at Nearest Residences — 68 Vibration Annoyance No Pumper 47 1 Exceeds FTA's No Loaded trucks Perceptibility Maximum Average Criteria? Vibration Vibration Levels ("Felt" per Table Construction Activity Levels (VdB)Z (VdB) 13 7: 84(VdB)2' Caisson Drill 97 72 Yes Back Hoe Loader (Small bulldozer) 68 43 No Pumper 47 1 43 1 No Loaded trucks 90 1 71 1 Yes Excavation to 50 ft past Large bulldozer 97 72 Yes Excavator (Small bulldozer)' 68 43 No Loader (Small bulldozer)' 68 1 43 No Loaded trucks 901 1 71 Yes Excavation to 40 ft mill Large bulldozer 97 72 Yes Ram Hoe 97 72 Yes Loader Small bulldozer ' 68 43 No Excavator Small bulldozer)' 68 43 No Loaded trucks 90 71 Yes ' Vibration levels from the listed off -road construction equipment are equivalent to vibration levels generated by a small bulldozer. ' At the closest distance from where any large or small off -road construction equipment is in operation to the nearest structure. ' At an average distance (center of site to nearest structure) from where any large or small off -mad construction equipment is in operation to the nearest structure. �� Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCily of Newport Beach • Page 59 7OM7913 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts 4.2.2 Cosmetic Damage from Construction Vibration The FTA criteria for vibration - induced cosmetic damage to wood -framed structures is 0.2 inch per second. The potential for cosmetic damage generally refers to the potential for cosmetic damage (superficial cracks) to fences, walls, and flatwork, not damage that compromises the integrity of the structure. Table 19 lists the maximum vibration source levels for construction equipment anticipated to be used at the project site at off -site receptors. As noted above, a Construction Management Plan has been prepared for the proposed project, the components of which are considered to be included as a part of the project. The CMP requires, among other things, that the Applicant agree to indemnify the property owners in the immediately contiguous lots against any cosmetic damage to their homes resulting from vibration caused by construction activities necessary to complete the project as a condition to the issuance of demolition permits for the existing structure. This indemnify obligation is subject to those contiguous owners providing Applicant, if requested, with access to their structures to allow a pre - demolition inspection of the current condition of all structures on those properties. The CMP also requires that vibration probes will be placed at 215 Carnation Avenue to monitor construction activities. A vibration monitoring program will identify any construction activity which exceeds the criteria for cosmetic damage. If excessive vibration is found to occur, other construction methods will be employed, if possible, to eliminate any occurrence of cosmetic damage. Such alternative construction methods include, but are not limited to, use of different drill bits for the caisson drilling, use of less vibration - intensive construction vehicles, use of drilling and insertion of expansive grout to fracture rock, and /or use of lubricants for the caisson drilling. Because the CMP is part of the Project Description, the evaluation of potential cosmetic damage from vibration considers activities required by the CMP to be incorporated within the project itself. Implementation of the measures cited in the CMP will ensure that vibration - induced cosmetic damage impacts from caisson drilling, use of a ram hoe, and /or use of a large tracked dozer are avoided. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required and significant unavoidable vibration - induced cosmetic damage impacts will not occur as a result of project implementation. Page 60 • The Planning Center March 2009 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Table 19 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment at Nearest Structure — Maximum RMS Off -Site FTA Criteria (in /sec) I Exceeds FTA Criteria? No Caisson Drill 0.542 0.2 Yes Back Hoe Loader Small bulldozer) 0.008 0.2 No Pumper 0.012 1 0.2 1 No Loaded trucks 0.076 1 0.2 1 No Excavation to 50 It msl Large bulldozer 0.285 0.2 Yes Excavator (Small bulldozer)' 0.010 0.2 No Loader (Small bulldozer)' 0.003 1 0.2 No Loaded trucks 0.076 1 0.2 1 No Excavation to 40 ft msl Large bulldozer 0.542 0.2 Yes Ram Hoe 0.542 0.2 Yes Loader Small bulldozer ' 0.018 0.2 No Excavator Small bulldozer) 0.018 0.2 No Loaded trucks 0.076 0.2 No Excavation to 28 it msl Large bulldozer 0.008 0.2 No Ram Hoe 0.008 0.2 No Loader Small bulldozer ' 0.008 0.2 No Excavator Small bulldozer) 0.008 0.2 No Loaded trucks 0.076 0.2 No source: easea on memoaaiogy nom r i A zuua. Notes: RMS velocity calculated from vibration level using the reference of one microincWsecond. NA: Not Applicable ' At a distance of 10 feet from construction area to nearest residences to the east. 3 Vibration levels from the listed off -road construction equipment are equivalent to vibration levels generated by a small bulldozer. 0� Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach • Page 61 700MM -3 4. Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 62 • The Planning Center March 2009 5. Construction Noise and Vibration Mitigation Measures 5.1 MITIGATION MEASURES Construction Noise CN -1 The construction contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. CN -2 The construction contractor shall fit all equipment with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. CN -3 The construction contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from residential receptor locations as is feasible. CN -4 The construction contractor shall post a contact name and telephone number of the owner's authorized representative on -site. CN -5 The construction contractor shall install temporary sound blankets or plywood panels with a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of 32 or higher and a density of 1.5 pounds per square foot or greater (e.g., SoundSeal BBC -13 -2 or equivalent) along the entire outer perimeter of the construction area. The temporary sound blankets or plywood panels shall have a minimum height of six feet. If plywood panels are selected, they must have a minimum density four square foot have between the l�r� of pounds per and no perforations or gaps panels. C CN -6 The construction contractor shall select quieter tools or construction methods whenever feasible. Examples of this include the use of plasma cutters, which produce less noise than power saws with abrasive blades and ordering precut materials to specifications to avoid on -site cutting. CN -7 The construction contractor shall maximize the use of enclosures as feasible. This includes four - sided or full enclosures with a top for compressors and other stationary machinery. This also includes locating activities, such as metal stud and rebar cutting, within constructed walled structures to minimize noise propagation. Construction Vibration Vibration impacts were found to be less than significant for both vibration induced annoyance as well as cosmetic damage. Consequently, no mitigation measures are warranted. 5.2 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Construction Noise Implementation of the construction noise reduction measures would attenuate noise to the extent feasible. Temporary sound blankets would reduce noise levels noise levels by 5 dBA from construction activities whose line of sight is blocked by these sound blankets. (FTA 2006). Enclosures have the potential to reduce noise levels by a point of 8 dB. Working within a walled structure provides 5 dB of attenuation. With the implementation of the noise mitigation measures, noise from construction activities would be reduced. Construction activities would still result in substantial increases above the ambient noise environment. The Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach •Page 63 700]0191.3 5. Construction Noise and Vibration Mitigation Measures project would need to be in compliance with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.26.035, which limits noise levels to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM and Saturdays between the hours of 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Compliance with the Municipal Code would limit noise from construction activities to the least sensitive portions of the day. However, because of the magnitude of noise generated during the phases which involve construction vehicle use, the proximity of the noise sensitive of uses, as well as the duration of the construction period, project - related construction noise would result in an unavoidable short-term significant impact. Construction Vibration Annoyance from vibration generated by project - related construction activities were found to result in less than significant impacts. In terms of the potential for vibration induced cosmetic damage, with the implementation of the CMP, activities that would approach the potential for cosmetic damage would be avoided or minimized and any incidental cosmetic damage that might occur would be remediated at the Applicant's expense. Consequently, no significant impacts related to vibration would be significant after mitigation. Page 64 • The Planning Center March 2009 Appendix F Construction Noise and Vibration Study CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION STUDY FOR: AERIE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT prepared for.• THE CITY OF NEWPORTBEACH Contact: James Campbell Senior Planner prepared b THE PLANNING CENTER Contact: Tin Cheung Senior Environmental Scientist MARCH 2009 CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION STUDY FOR: AERIE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT �� prepared far: THE CITY OF NEWPORTBEACH City of Newport Beach Contact. 3300 Newport Blvd. James Campbell Newport Beach, CA 92663 Senior Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER 1580 Metro Drive Contact: Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tin Cheung Tel. 714.966.9220 • Fax: 714.966.9221 Senior Environmental E -mail., costamesa @planningcenter.com Scientist Website: www.planningcenter.com MANA -03.0E MARCH 2009 Table of Contents Section Page INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... ..............................1 1.1 Project Description ............................................................................... ............................... t 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................ .............................13 2.1 Noise Setting ........................................................................................ .............................13 2.2 Vibration Setting ................................................................................... .............................16 2.3 Physical Setting and Existing Land Uses ............................................ .............................17 3. REGULATORY SETTING FOR NOISE AND VIBRATION ............................. .............................19 3.1 State of California ................................................................................. .............................19 3.2 City of Newport Beach ......................................................................... .............................19 3.3 Federal Transit Administration ............................................................. .............................22 4. CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACTS ................................ .............................23 4.1 Construction Noise Levels ................................................................... .............................23 4.2 Construction Vibration Levels .............................................................. .............................54 5. CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION MITIGATION MEASURES ...... .............................63 5.1 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. .............................63 5.2 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................... .............................63 6. REFERENCES ............................................................................................... .............................65 COO F-11 »=1ZI911434: A Noise and Vibration Data B Construction Management Plan Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach • Page i 7OM79ra Table of Contents List of Figures Figure Page Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................. ..............................3 Figure2 Local Vicinity ......................................................................................... ..............................5 Figure 3 Aerial Photograph with Building Footprint ............................................ ..............................7 Figure4 Project Footprint .................................................................................. ............................... 9 Figure5 Project Profile ....................................................................................... .............................11 Figure 6 Noise Monitoring of Formwork Construction ........................................ .............................25 21 Figure 7 Noise Monitoring of Metal Stud Framing ............................................. .............................29 ........................22 Figure 8 Demolition Noise Contours .................................................................. .............................33 22 Figure 9 Caisson Drilling Noise Contours .......................................................... .............................35 Figure 10 Noise Contours From Excavation to an Elevation of 50 Feet NAVD 88 ............................ 39 Figure 11 Noise Contours From Excavation to an Elevation of 40 Feet NAVD 88 ............................ 41 Figure 12 Noise Contours From Excavation to an Elevation of 28 Feet NAVD 88 ...........................43 Figure 13 Concrete Pouring Noise Contours ....................................................... .............................47 .......................37 Figure 14 First Floor Metal Stud Framing and Second Floor Concrete Formwork ..........................49 .......................38 Figure 15 Third Floor Metal Stud Framing and Fourth Floor Concrete Formwork ...........................51 Figure 16 Construction Noise Levels Occurring Over the Construction Period .. .............................55 List of Tables Table Paae Table 1 Proposed Construction Phasing ........................................................... ..............................2 Table 2 Change in Sound Pressure Level, dB .................................................. .............................14 Table 3 Typical Noise Levels from Noise Sources ........................................... .............................15 Table 4 Ambient Noise Levels' ......................................................................... .............................17 Table 5 Land Use Compatibility for Exterior Community Noise ....................... .............................20 Table 6 City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Standards .............................. ............................... 21 Table 7 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria - Human Annoyance ........................22 Table 8 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria - Cosmetic Damage ......................... 22 Table 9 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels .................................... .............................23 Table 10 Demolition Equipment Used Concurrently .......................................... .............................31 Table 11 Equipment Used Concurrently for Caisson Drilling ............................. .............................32 Table 12 Excavation Equipment ......................................................................... .............................32 Table 13 Equipment Used Concurrently for Excavation to an Elevation of 40 Feet .......................37 Table 14 Equipment Used Concurrently for Excavation to an Elevation of 28 Feet .......................38 Table 15 Equipment Used Concurrently for Concrete Pouring .......................... .............................38 Table 16 Equipment Used Concurrently for Formwork and Interior Metal Framing FirstFloor ............................................................................................. .............................46 Table 17 Combined Dock and Building Construction Noise (dBA) ................... .............................53 Table 18 Average Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment at Nearest Residences- Vibration Annoyance .................................................... .............................59 Page ii • The Planning Center March 2009 1. Introduction 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., is proposing to develop a 1.4 -acre site in the Corona del Mar neighborhood of the City of Newport Beach with an eight -unit condominium development. The Aerie Residential Development (proposed project) site consists of Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 052- 013 -12, APN 052 - 013013, and a small portion of APN 052 - 013 -21 (584 square feet). The regional location of the project is shown in Figure 1, Regional Location, and the local vicinity of the project site is shown in Figure 2, Local Vicinity. Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, depicts the project site and surrounding land uses. The project site is currently occupied by a 14 -unit, four -story apartment building and a single - family residence. These properties are at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place. The project involves demolition of these structures. The property is surrounded by single- and multiple - family residences on Carnation Avenue, Bayside Place, and Ocean Boulevard. Figure 4, Site Plan, depicts the proposed condominium uses at the project site. A profile of the project is shown in Figure 5, Site Profile. The project would consist of a total of six floors: four of which would be partially or completely above grade and would house the condominium units and some parking spaces. The basement floor and a sub basement floors would house of the common recreation areas, mechanical and electrical areas, storage areas, and the majority of the parking spaces. In addition to the residential structure, the project applicant is proposing replacement of the existing landing /dock facility. Three residential levels would be visible from Carnation Avenue above the existing street grade. Four residential levels would be visible when viewed from Newport Bay. In total, the project would encompass C 61,709 square feet and include living areas, storage areas, parking, and circulation and mechanical areas. Construction Management Plan A Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been prepared forthe proposed project. The CMP addresses all aspects of construction (phasing, schedule, construction equipment, and the construction process). In addition, the CMP addresses parking management (off -site and short-term parking, staging, etc.), traffic control (haul routes and delivery requirements), safety and security (pedestrian protection, fencing, and safety and security), air quality control and noise suppression measures (dust control, noise control, and vibration monitoring); and environmental compliance /protection (erosion and sediment control and beach protection, water quality control, and environmental protection measures). The CMP is included as Appendix A. Project Phasing The applicant is proposing to construct the project in four phases over a period of approximately 32 months based on the schedule summarized in Table 1. This schedule is preliminary and may change based on weather conditions or other unanticipated circumstances. Aerie Residential Development Construction Noise And Vibration StudyCity of Newport Beach • Page 1 700707914 1. Introduction Table 1 Proposed Construction asin Phase Construction Activities Duration' This phase would consist of asbestos and lead -based paint removal, demolition, caisson placement and grading. 1 Grading is comprised of three segments of earth removal, 6 Months and lagging. Approximately 25,240 cubic yards of earth would be excavated and removed from the site. This phase would consist of concrete placement consisting of shotcrete shoring, placement of structural slabs and 2 walls, waterproofing, and sub -slab drainage systems. 18 Months Integration of the site drainage, plumbing underground and electrical underground s stems. Metal stud wall framing would begin on lower levels and work up. This phase would involve integration of rough plumbing, mechanical, and electrical systems following steel stud wall placement. Both vehicular elevators would 32 be installed and operational at this time. Installation of 13 Months windows and doors would occur. In addition, planting of large plant materials at the site's bayward side would occur during this phase. This phase would also consist of construction of the docks, which would occur last This phase consists of site finishing activities. Exterior finishes such as exterior plaster, roofing systems, stone veneer, guard rails, exterior lighting and solar panels would 4 be installed, as would the balance of the landscaping and 7 Months hardscape /paving, artificial rock finishes, softscape, landscape lighting and drainage systems. Interior finishes would also be installed, including drywall, painting, cabinetry, stone, and file at counters, walls, and floors. Source: Bdon Jeannette Architecture (December 23. 2008) ' Total duration of construction is estimated to be 32 months. ' Phase 3 would start before Phase 2 is completed so that the majority of Phase 2 and Phase 3 would occur simultaneously. Page 2 • The Planning Center March 2009 Appendix G Understanding Perspective Compositing: Understanding Perspective There are various ways of understanding perspective in compositional imagery. Below is a statement about the basics of drawing or rendering in depth and matching a panoramic scene. Although, there are plenty of variables which make the following examples difficult to see in a real photo, I will spend some time instructing these factors in a flawless perspective, and later explain the variables. The first thing which must be understood about a true perspective is its horizon line, or simply put, the horizon. In a typical photo, this line would be drawn at the center if the cameraman was facing straight forward. Also called eve_ level, this is the most basic type of shot. Some examples of seeing this horizon in photos include the line where far away mountains seem to rest on, or where the sky meets the ocean. In a city scene, we would best see this line in a situation where there was a long stretch of road that seemingly meets in the center of where the sky starts. The next two images (below) show a high -angle and low -angle shot. High- angle would be any time the camera man is below the object of focus pointing up, or pointing high. Low -angle is any time the camera man is above the object of focus pointing down, or pointing low. Another way of imagining this is comparing a high -angle as if a child took the photo, whereas a low -angle as if someone took it from a ladder or an airplane. High - angle. Lowered cameraman pointing high. This is an important factor, and should begin the explanation to a client about a project. Are we looking into the scene in the eyes of a child, or looking up at the focus to make it seem larger than us (high - angle)? Are we focusing straight on for simplicity and scale (eye - level)? Or are we comparing it to its surroundings in such a way as to make it seem smaller, or establishing it with surrounding reference (low- angle)? Eye -level and High -angle are often shot on foot or in a boat. Low -angle shots are often done from high places, with a crane or helicopter, or taken by satellite, and can be considerably more costly. Once this has been decided we can move forward. A majority of the examples below are shot as if the cameraman was average height, or between 5'6" and 6'. The next thing to consider in a photo real composite is where to place the vanishing point. The vanishing point - using the city example from above - is the point where the road, and buildings, and trees, and anything else seem to meet together seemingly microscopically. Put simply, it is where everything "vanishes" into the horizon. In the tutorials I am showing, these points will always be placed on the horizon line. There are circumstances in dramatic photos where a third point would be used away from the horizon line, but this type of imagery is not recommended for architectural visualization purpose due to the feeling of discomfort or superiority it naturally portrays. As seen below, I have placed a man in the scene at eye level looking straight on. I have marked the vanishing point as a red dot, and drawn blue lines referencing the man's highest and lowest points on the green landscape. The example below represents a one -point perspective. The blue lines above now give us a good idea as to the location he is on the landscape, and more importantly, how tall he would be from farther away. Below, we can see the same 6' foot man, as well as his height when he is closer or farther away from the camera. Note his entire scale is changing the closer he is to the vanishing point. To further explain this idea, I have placed some palm trees, which are naturally taller than the man. In a perfect perspective, everything no matter the height scales smaller and smaller until it becomes close to the same height then disappears. Note the red lines drawn across to mark the distance of the trees and men. Also note the palm tree and man closest to the vanishing point are close to the same height. I have drawn a couple of figures to represent an object in its simplest state, a box. Everything taken objectively can be represented as a series of spheres, cylinders, or boxes, whether it be a basketball, a person's arm or leg, or a building. Looking objectively in this manner makes the perspective process much easier to see in a photo -real perspective. Figure 1.1 shows the horizon line in blue, vanishing point in red, and lines drawn from the vanishing point in c; . The black lines represent the walls or edges of the boxes. In a one -point perspective, any lines representing the height of something at its boundaries, or the bottom and top of the edges facing the camera directly are drawn at 00 or 901. In other words, any line going up and down, or left and right remain the same. Any lines representing the sides of the object in reference to the camera are drawn toward the vanishing point. These particular boxes are see - through, so we can visualize how the top, bottom, and back faces of the boxes would be represented. The lines are the bridges from the vanishing (perspective) lines which show how the edges of the object are connected to complete the 3- Dimensional shape. Note the difference between the higher box placed in the middle of the horizon, essentially eye level to the camera, and the box below the camera is looking down on. As viewers, we can see more of the top side of the lower box. Imagine if the boxes were not see - through. We would only see the front and the right side of the higher box, whereas we would see the front, right, and top side of the lower box. figure 1.1 Here are a few more examples of one -point perspective. IP:.r Left: Low -angle shot of a dock. Note the high horizon line where the bottom of the land meets the sea and the smaller size occurring on the railing. Middle: Sketch of homes in perspective at eye level. Note the horizon at center, and the vanishing point far off to the right. This is an ideal shot for a street view of homes. Our focus is toward the front doors of each home and suggest depth without showing too much street. Bottom: Sketch of farm road meeting at one central vanishing point. Note that the buildings to the far left are flat above the horizon. Because these elements are directly facing the camera and blocking the perspective elements behind them, they appear flat and act to breakup the sky. The closer the camera gets to them, the more we would see the one -point perspective effect. This represents one of the variables I will explain later. And finally some examples from the Aerie Project with horizon in WO-Se and reference "perspective" lines in . Note the horizons and vanishing point meet roughly in the center of each image. Vol s _. VIY)lK1AK NVII V09 Let's move onto a concept a little tougher, two -point perspective. Of the two types of perspective I'm showing in this tutorial, this is the more commonly used. It is used more often because of its photo accuracy while holding on to a linear designed feel. One -point perspective tends to look too Science Fiction. Vertical lines are still related as 900 and all other lines meet at one of the two vanishing lines placed on the horizon line at either side of the object focus. The easiest way to think of this type of perspective is imagining the camera is placed facing the corner of an object. In the case with a building, the camera would typically face the front and left side wall's edge. The distance between the two vanishing points depends highly on the size of the camera's lens and the aspect ratio of the final photo image. Knowing the distance from the object assists, but in the end, the decision of these points requires educated assessment. Below is an example of a two -point perspective box. It has been made solid with basic shading in this case because two -point perspective lines can create confusion even among experts in the field. Establishing lines at the highest and lowest points is ideal in the beginning of this type of design. The blue lines are perspective lines, the black are the vertical or 900 lines, and the red are the two vanishing points. Though it seems like the lighter gray side is smaller, this is not necessarily true. Depending on the angle of the camera, this side can get wider if we turn more toward it, but not at the expense of making the darker grey side thinner. This factor is called fore- shortening. As an example, if one was to place their palm directly facing them, the palm would look wide, while they couldn't see the side of their hand at all. But, upon turning the hand towards the side, they will witness two things happening. One, the palm will get thinner - looking to the point of not seeing it at all; and Two, the side of the hand will get wider. Below I have added more architectural detail to the building. I've added a fagade and doors to further illustrate two -point perspective. What we are looking at is actually pretty close to the camera. Because the two points are so close together compared to the height of the building, there is a lot of "skewing" or "fore- shortening ". Professional cinematographers call this a "pushed perspective ", in the way of saying we are "pushing" the believability of the scene. Figures 1.2 and 1.3 further represent two -point perspective. Again, blue lines represent horizon, red dots are vanishing points, lines represent perspective lines, black lines represent 900, and lines represent the connections between verticals f,, to create the 3- Dimensional objects. Note in figure 1.2 the lower box's top side can be seen, while the higher box on the horizon can only seethe sides. Note in figure 1.3, the skewing mentioned above and its relation to the height of the building and the distance between the two points. The building on the right is more believable because of these factors. Below are some examples of two -point perspective. figure 1.3 Left: sketch of commercial buildings with curb as the foreground. Note the horizon is on center at eye level. Note also the ways the buildings on either side seem to get small and eventually vanish. e: simplified geometry senting a group of ngs on a street. : 3D rendering of a Note the vanishing > are at such a distance, an't be seen, unless beyond the boundaries of cage based on the angle of in-vertical lines. V02 V14 Now that we are more familiar with the rules of one- and two -point perspective, I would like to take a bit of time explaining variables which make true perspective invalid in a compositing scene. Not to say the images would never be visually accurate, but more on a point of explaining the impossibility of absolute accuracy. 1. Camera distance versus camera lens. A majority of the time, images are taken from a frame of reference not controlled by the compositor. Factors such as height of cameraman, distance from the focus point, zoom percentage, and lens size can vary widely from camera to camera, and from cameraman to cameraman. In this case reference heights, distance, zoom factor, camera, and lens have been included for each shot on shot spec sheet document provided. 2. Angle of the shot, and relation in elevation to the focus. In particular settings, this variable can be drastic to the accuracy of a shot. If the cameraman is on an elevation even 2' higher or lower than he /she is shooting, that person would likely angle the camera up or down for a better framed shot. The question becomes what angle did they take the shot at? This changes the horizon line; and in turn changes the angle, position, and orientation of the object in focus. Reference angles have also been included on shot spec sheet document provided. 3. Far -away vanishing points. Because the farther away the vanishing points in a two -point perspective image are, the more accurate; it becomes a typical variable to have limiting reference for vanishing points. A professional compositor is aware of this limitation, and is experienced in accurately working with it. 4. Creating non - existent terrain and /or street elements or details. As is common for a type of composite where existing elements are erased or "matted" out, often new elements are added in a way dependant on existing angles at separate reference points. For example, adding a driveway or landscaping the existing image did not have. Or, in some cases, cutting out of hill, cliff, or mountain terrain to place focus object. 5. Panoramic image sets. As seen in figure 1.4, when a camera is set on a tri -pod (best) or a person stands with advanced motion reduction lens alone (not recommended), and shot at a slightly different angle to encompass the focus and /or a large area around it, there can be image skewing. 1.4a shows what is necessary for the camera in blue to achieve a panoramic shot. A 3600 would require a complete clockwise turn to meet back at the original point. lines reference the angle at which 5 images were taken. 1.4b shows the object in focus. 1.4c shows how the images are collected absolutely. 1.4d shows what t `Wzi, Figure 1.4 L. occurs with the image once combined into a single shot. Though normally subtle, professional compositors have the tools, accuracy, and experience to resolve the natural stretching which takes place at this point. In summary, perspective shows depth in an image or photo based on the human eye and in this case taken by a camera. The distance, height, and angle of the camera can change the orientation of whatever object is in focus. One -point perspective is often seen in long corridors or streets and is usually taken with one side of the object to focus on at eye level. It can establish great distances, and in many ways it can allow the viewer to see the world in an open and free way. All objects in a one -point perspective seem to converge in the center, unless a building or object blocks the way such as a turn in a street or a large cliff or mountain. Two -point perspective is a much more realistic and common way to view photos or renderings due to the accurate 3- Dimensional angles, while holding onto vertical lines for design accuracy. The camera is often placed looking on a corner of the focus object to better show at least two sides of the object. This is the preferred viewing angle for people without the intimidating factor of Three -point perspective. Three -point perspective, while not explained in this tutorial, places the viewer seemingly either extremely high looking down, or extremely short looking up, and is naturally intimidating and /or superior - feeling in nature. It has caused vertigo among people sensitive to such things, and therefore is not recommended for architectural visualizations. This being true, none of the renderings have used this type of perspective. A natural thing which occurs in any perspective is the concept of fore - shortening. Refer back to the tutorial about holding a person's palm in front of their face, noting the width of the palm and the lack of sight of the side of the hand. Then turn the hand and witness the palm getting thinner while the side of the hand widens, until the palm can't be seen. Note objects turned at certain angles won't necessarily show their proper scale unless viewed directly. This packet contains helpful compositing solutions, and includes a basic lesson in perspective, including variables and solutions such as placement, scale, and orientation. Each shot was designed specifically to exclude as many of the above variables as possible, and has ensured the most optimal conditions for the highest level of accuracy in each view simulation. ffm Profile Description: (Describe to the depth treaded to document the Indicator ar confirm the absence Deplh Matrix Redox Factures (lnchrs7 S `si to Colo (moist) Yp_ Two, I=, Texture _ Hisiosol {All ) Histic Epipedon (A2) Back Histic (A3) _ Hydrogen, Sultda (A4) Suatl;mdLayers (AS) (LRR C) I cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depialed BetO.v Dark Surface (At 1) Thick Dark Surrace (Al2) _ Sandy Ma^_ley Min era] "St) Sandy Gieyed Matrix (S4) Type; Dep(a (inches): MR z ,* Wetland HYdra)i Sandy Red= (SS) Stripped MarJ1x (SS) T Loamy Mucky MineriulPl) Loamy Greyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Redox Dark Surface (Fs) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redcx Depressions (F8) Vernal Pods (`r9) Samp4ng point: 4VI 1— -- yo, c. 1 cm Muck (A8) (1-RR C) 2 cm Muck (AIM (LRR 8) Reduced Ve tIC (Fla) _! Red Parent Material (TF2) _.. Men (aolavn En Remarks) 111dcatcrs of S ydr crlhytic vegetation and wetland hYdrolocymust be nresent. Hydric Sall Present? Yes_ No-2"- f rrrns ndcat (AY Oe lnRcaor s sfient _ Water Mark a tB1)(Rtvarme) _ Surfi cs9 -Weyer (Ai) Salt Cru c (all) _ Sediment Deposits 122);Rlvsrma) _ High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (812) _ DdR Deposits (B3) (Rlvedne) _ Saturation r,A3) _. Arnuirtic triverteerates (B13) _ Drehtage pat3ems (a' 01 Water Marks (31) (Nondverina) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (CI) _ Dry - Season Water Table (C2) _— Sediment Deposits t02) (NOndwrine) ry, Oxidized RhIzospheres along L€ ng Roots (C3) _Thin Muck Surrace (Cr) { _ DrM Deposits (B3) (Nonrtvarine) Presence of Firduced Iron (C4) _,,_ Crayfish Bunows (C2) _ ar!acc So' Cr=acks {38) Recent trap Reduction in Plowed Soils (CB) _ SaLrBdon Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cq _ Inuadalton Visible on Aerial Imagery 07) _ Mar (Explain in Remarks) _ Shsltav ARuitard (D3) WaterStidned Laaves(Ba) FAC- Neubaf Test (08) Field Observations: ) Surace Water Resent? Yes _NO Depth (inches), Water Table Prasant? Yes _ No� Depth (Imidies): Saturation Present? yes e No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes, , No US..", Oo:ps of Eng€neers Arid West – Version 11.1 °2008 Appendix I Eelgrass Survey MARINE BIOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR A DOCK RENOVATIONPROJECT LOCATED INCARNATION COVE, CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 Prepared for: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. 23792 Rockfield Blvd. Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Contact: Robb Cerrud (949) 595 -5900 Prepared by: Coastal Resources Management, Inc. PMB 327, 3334 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Contact: Rick Ware, Principal (949) 412 -9446 T p1 RES P O F" May 12', 2008 Revised March 4 "', 2009 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mai, CA Marinerlioiogical Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway project TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................... ......... ....... ............................... I 1.1 Project. Background and Purpose ....... ............................... ......... 1 1.2 Importance of Eelgrass ....................................... ............................... ......... 5 2.0 SURVEY METHODS ... ............................... .........._ ..,..............:..... ............................... 6 3.0 RESULTS...... .......... ...::................ ............................... 6 3.1 Eelgrass Areal Cover and Turion Density ......... ............................... ......... ........ 6 3.2 Other Marine Life Observed in the Project Area .....,,.. 9 3.3 Protected Species and Habitats ......... ......... ............. 10 4.0 FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN SPECIES_ .....::........................................... ............................... 16 5.0 INVASIVE SPECI ES ...................................................................................... ............................... 17 6.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT . ......................... ............................... ......... .................... 19 6,1 Proposed Construction Methods ........................... ......... - 19 6.2 Impacts on Water Quality and Marine Resources ................ ............................... ......... 19 6.3 Impacts to Sensitive Species ...................................................... ......... 22 6.4 Impacts to Fisheries Management Plan Species.:, ......... ..................... 23 7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES S....... ........ ......... - 23 7.1 WaterQuality............................................................................................................... 23 7.2 Marine Resources Protection Plan ................................................ ............................... 24 7.3 Mitigation for Potential Habitat Losses ......... 24 8.0 MONITORING SURVEYS ..................................................................... ............................... 25 8.,1 Pre - Construction Survey ......... ......... .......... ............................... 25 8`.2 Post- Construction Survey ................... ......... 25 8.3 Post - Construction Shading Effects Surveys..,::.: ......................... ......... ............ 25 9.0 REPO RTING ............................................................................................. ............................... 26 10.0 LITERATURE CITED ......::.........:...........................................::............ ............................... 27 LIST OF TABLES 1 Special Status Species ...... ........ .....::... ............................... ......... .., :...... .......... 11 i Carnation Cove, Corona, del Mal, CA.: Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment; Proposed Dock and Gangway Project LIST OF FIGURES 1 Carnation Cove Project Location ......................................................................... ............................... 2 2 Carnation Cove Dock Layout .......... ......... .......... ............................... ............ 4 3 Location of Eelgrass in the Project Area, March, 2005 .. ......... ..............................7 4 Location of Eelgrass in the Project Area, March, 2007.. ........ .,..........,. 8 5 Location of Eelgrass Relative to Proposed Dock Layout ......... .... ........ ............................... 20 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS 1 Carnation Cove Project Area ............. ......................... , ........... ............................... 2 2 Carnation Cove Sand Flats ......... ......... ........ ............................ ............................... 3 3 Rocky Habitat, Dock and Pier Located Seaward of Cove ............................... .............. 3 4 Eelgrass, Zostera marina... ......................... ............ ............................... 5 5 Invasive Algae, Caulerpa taxifolia ................... ......... .......... ............................... 18 ii Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 1.1.1 Project History Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (CRM) conducted a marine biological survey in Carnation Cove, Newport Bay, CA on 29 March, 2005 for P &D Technologies, Inc. The purpose of the investigation was to determine the distribution and abundance of eelgrass and other marine life within areas where a dock renovation project is being proposed. The project location is shown in Figures 1 and Photographs 1 through 3. At the time of the submittal, there were no design plans for proposed docks. In March, 2007, CRM conducted additional surveys at the project site as part of the City's bay wide eelgrass mapping project (CRM., in progress). This survey provides the latest -to- date eelgrass habitat survey for the project site. Studies conducted since March 2007 in the vicinity of Bayside Drive in Corona del Mar indicate that no substantial changes to eelgrass habitat have occurred since the March 2005 survey and that the March 2007 eelgrass survey represents an up -to -date representation of eelgrass bed resources at the Carnation Cove project site. Dock design plans for the project were provided to CRM from URS Cash & Associates. These were revised at the suggestion of CRM that initial dock designs be revised to avoid as much impact to eelgrass bed resources as possible (R. Ware pers. coup with Randy Mason, URS Corporation, 1/9/2007). 1.1.2 Project Location The project site is located along the southeast shoreline of Lower Newport Bay (Newport Harbor) in Corona del Mar, California. The site coordinates at the project site boat dock located are 33° 35.905' N, 1170 52.802' W (Figure 1). A small cove located in front of the residence consists of an intertidal sand flat and rocky intertidal shoreline (Photograph 2). Seaward of the cove, a two -slip boat dock is located at the north end of tine property (Photograph 3). Carnation Cove, Carona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project. SAN PEDR9 CHANNEL Chad 18746 1 (&58 El9ohonle L9teas) Depth Unds FATHCM9 ✓f � f -f1h_ �11i1"1 I 1 T r * ' 5 r g v f vt�tntim (me 1 Intca hire k Ta rz Nduf¢al M.- Figure 1. Carnation Cove Project Area aoo c.as csc 0 7 �f Y>" �t t �4 Photograph 1. Carnation Cove Project Area. 2 .. ` t Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project P] Is Photograph 3. Rocky habitat, dock and pier located seaward of cove. A en Source: URS7CASH NEYM0119: RQr Moam art awFb MY�uv vsvY1 v' MRYID MI M:V{ro C�K M P`P.,16 swn n PcNr W PP./C 0aru wNm W MMBLm Ma air as mx oric ig M ?OIIV GM1A nnlr OM MTQ F"4MM}tl M mrn exn wo rArmAr ro r eaYAn [y ".a6SO w�N.Nam m m mN� man nn LEGEND: i rNNme .em rams r.r APTJ rA. RAM RERACLLFIlTTE101AGE AREA wanNOTLVUVCEAREA REPLACE ELEVATED WALKWAY AREA EIMrING ELEVATED.ALNWAY AREA 7100F. 1MIR, 570 BF, 6M6.F. (R)G4NGIYAYPLATFORMPREC .4PILES0100 (E) GANGWAY PLAVMM PILE COUNT: 4 RUO01" REPLACEMENT OANSWAY: 6 N M' EXISTINGGNNGWAY: CF70 mPDem DDMAREA - 314NSF. FASTMDDDIXM 4M S.F. NET INCREASE 1.P66B.F, PROPOSED OOL1t ME GWNT: WPILES 411610 0 PUS 41 94V ERIErNAD PCGCGUNT 6VILES 014M DDC560VrR EH GRA4±• 06F. Figure 2. 201 -207 Camation "AERIE DOCKS" � w J p m =. Q: 0 o 0 0 0 06 < n =9 3 � �a D = 3 n � D 0 O F p w oR F p v n d w_ A n 0 C 2 n n Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project 1.2 IMPORTANCE OF EELGRASS Eelgrass (Photograph 4) is a marine flowering plant that grows in soft sediments in coastal bays and estuaries, and occasionally offshore to depths of 50 ft. Eelgrass canopy (consisting of shoots and leaves approximately two to three feet long) attracts many marine invertebrates and fishes and the added vegetation and the vertical relief it provides enhances the abundance and the diversity of the marine life compared to areas where the sediments are barren. The vegetation also serves a nursery function for many juvenile fishes, including species of commercial and/or sports fish value (California halibut and barred sand bass). A diverse community of bottom - dwelling invertebrates (i.e., clams, crabs, and worms) live within the soft sediments that cover the root and rhizome mass system. Eelgrass meadows are critical foraging centers for seabirds (such as the endangered California least tem) that seek out baitfish (i.e., juvenile topsmelt) attracted to the eelgrass cover. Lastly, eelgrass is an important contributor to the detrital (decaying organic) food web of bays as the decaying plant material is consumed by many benthic invertebrates (such as polychaete worms) and reduced to primary nutrients by bacteria. Photograph 4. Eelgrass, Zostera marina (Source; CRM, Inc) Because of the high ecological value of eelgrass meadows, it is important to document the location and amount of eelgrass in areas of proposed waterside developments in Newport Bay and to mitigate any losses by avoiding, reducing, or compensating for adverse effects on eelgrass habitats and communities. 9 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources. Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, . Proposed Dock and Gangway Project 2.0 SURVEY METHODS An eelgrass habitat survey was conducted by CRM biologists Rick Ware and Stephen Whitaker on 30 March, 2007. The survey was conducted using Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) GPS (Global Positioning System) technology and a Thales Mobile Mapper GPS /GIS Unit to map eelgrass areas. A biologist in a kayak equipped with the GPS followed a SCUBA- diving biologist who towed a surface buoy to mark the perimeter of the eelgrass vegetation. To assist in the mapping process, Ocean Technology Systems (OTS) a surface -to -diver communications system was used by the team. The estimated GPS error of the Thales Mobile Mapper unit with post- processing correction was less than 1 meter. GPS data were initially entered into the Mobile Mapper Software . and then transferred into GPS TRACKER and ARCVIEW GIS software. The amount of eelgrass habitat in the project area was calculated using ARCVIEW and Mobile Mapper Software. Turions are functional eelgrass units consisting of the above - ground live, green "shoot" and associated eelgrass leaves [blades] that sprout from the shoots. Replicate 0.07 square meter eelgrass turion density counts were taken throughout the shallow, mid, and deep portions of the eelgrass bed during the March 2005 survey. The counts were then converted to per - square -meter units. These data are considered to be representative of conditions that occurred during the 2007 survey. Field survey depth data were standardized to Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) based upon data for the Newport Bay NOAA tide station. 3.0 RESULTS During the March 301h, 2007 survey, the study area consisted of a rocky intertidal shoreline surrounding a small beach cove with an intertidal sand flat habitat at depths between +3 ft Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) and 0.0 ft MLLW; a rocky intertidal and rocky subtidal reef seaward of the cove that extends to a depth of -2 ft MLLW; and subtidal sand to sandy silt bay bottom habitat at depths between -2 and -14 ft MLLW. Water depths outside the pierhead line extend to 20 ft MLLW. Water temperature was 56 degrees Fahrenheit. Water visibility (horizontal) was moderate and ranged from 3 to 10 feet. 3.1 EELGRASS AREAL COVER AND TURION DENSITY 3.1.1 Eelgrass Distribution and Aerial Cover Eelgrass habitat maps for the 2005 and 2007 are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. In 2005, a total of 10,155.4 square feet (0.233 acre) of eelgrass was mapped in the project vicinity. Of this total, 0.231 acre (99 %) was mapped south of the existing boat dock. One small patch occurred outside the project boundary, 42 ft north of the project area dock. The remaining eelgrass bed began 62 ft south of the dock, and extended past the project area boundaries to the docks located at the Channel Reef apartment complex. The epifaunal snail ro Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project Figure 3. Location of Eelgrass in the Project Area, March, 2005 � w O o o n 0 0 as < � ry G n 3 � b 3 w w a D `= 3 n a D 0 v 0 m a d 0 x w a a C] w v 0 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project Alia carinata, was present in low -to- moderate densities living on the eelgrass blades. Eelgrass distribution in 2007 generally mimicked the distribution in 2005 with some slight boundary differences. The total amount of eelgrass in 2007 (10,062 sq ft; 0.231 acre) slightly declined compared to 2005 (Figure 3 and 4). A total of 9,888.12 square feet (0.227 acre) was mapped south of the project area dock, and another 0.04 acre was present north of the project area dock during the 2007 survey. The decline in eelgrass cover (0.02 acre), while small, was associated with bay -wide eelgrass habitat area reductions observed between 2005 and 2007 (CRM, in preparation). 3.1.2 Eelgrass Turion Density Eelgrass turion density was not determined during the 2007 survey. In 2005, eelgrass turion density in Carnation Cove density averaged 115 +/32 shoots per square meter (n =22 replicates) at depths between 0.0 and -14.9 ft MLLW. By comparison, eelgrass shoot density in China Cove (located just south of Carnation Cove) during March 2004 averaged 115 +/ 69 turions per square meter (n =30 replicates). By July 2004, average turion shoot density in China Cove increased to 173 +/17 turions per square meter (n =60) at depths between -2 and -14 ft MLLW (Coastal Resources Management, 2005). North of the project site along Bayside Drive in Corona del Mar turion density was 143 turions per square meter in 2004 and 132 turions per square meter in 2007 (Coastal Resources Management, 2007, 2005). Based on this comparative analysis, eelgrass turion density in this region of Newport Harbor is relatively stable. Consequently, turion density estimates for July 2004 and March 2005 are likely representative of conditions at the Carnation Cove project site in March 2007. 3.2 OTHER MARINE LIFE OBSERVED IN THE PROJECT AREA Carnation Cove supports an extremely diverse assemblage of plant and animal life due to its location near the Harbor Entrance Channel, and the combination of rocky outcrops and fine sands -to -silt substrates. This region of Newport Harbor shares many characteristics common to nearshore subtidal reef and sand bottom marine habitats and communities located off Corona del Mar. Carnation Cove is an important marine habitat that no longer exists in other areas of Newport Bay (R. Ware, pers. observations; MacGinitie and MacGinitie, 1968). Carnation Cove Marine Life. Low -to- moderate densities of sand dollars (Dendraster excentricus) were found on the sand flats within the protected cove in numbers that varied between approximately 10 and 100 per square meter in 2005, and between 115 to 325 per square meter in 2007. The channel nassa snail Nassarius fossatus and the purple olive snail Olivella biplicata, typical of shallow sand bottom communities, were also found within the cove's sandy sediments and bottom habitat directly offshore of the cove. Sand Dollar Populations. While the occurrence of sand dollars is not unusual for nearshore southern California sandy habitats at depths between -10 and -25 ft MLLW, the occurrence 0 Cannationi Cove,.Conona del Mar. CA Coastal'Resoinces Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment,Froposed Dock and Gangway Project of intertidal populations of sand dollar beds within Newport Bay is unique and rare; the population survives because wave motion/wave energy is moderate, sediments are sandy to silty sand, and tidal exchange is excellent. The population represents a condition that was once common on Newport Bay tidal sand flats. MacGimtre and MaCGinit e (1968) who studied Newport Bay marine life in the early -to -mid 1900s at the Kerckhoff Marine Laboratory in China Cove, noted that up to 438 specimens per square yard (557 per square meter) of Dendraster could be found in Corona del Mar represented a maximum population (Page 239). Rock Substrate. The marine biological community living on the low - intertidal rocky substrate, surrounding Carnation Cove was dominated by high cover of the scaly worm snail (Serpulorbis sguamigerus), and secondary, lower biological coven of barnacles (Balanzts spp.), mussels (Mytilusgalloprovincialis), green algae (EnterornorphalUlva complex), and brown algae (Sargassum niuticum, and Codiuni fragile). Invertebrates observed on the shallow subtidal rock outside the cove included Kellet's whelk (Kelletia kelletii), ochre sea star (Pisaster ochraceus), warty sea cucumber (Parastichopus parvcmenrsis), and lobster (Pandurus interruptus). Sand Bottom Marine Life (deeper than -10 It MLLW). At depths seaward of the eelgrass beds, the sandy -silt bayfloox in the Harbor Entrance Channel was colonized by sea pens (SoVatula elongata), sheep crab (Loxorhynchus graruhs), Kellet's whelk, and the tube- dwelling polychaete Diopatra ornata. Fishes. Nine species of fish were observed during 2005 and 2007 dive surveys. These included mullet (Mugil cephalus), topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), senorita (Ralichores senucintus), California garibaldi (Hypsypops rubicundus), black perch (Ernbiotoca jacksont), Delp bass (Paralabrax clathratus), barred sand bass (P. nebulifer), unidentified turbot (Pleuronichthys sp.), and round sting ray (Urolophus halleri). 3.3 PROTECTED SPECIES AND HABITATS Table 1 lists potential federal and/or state endangered, rare, or non -listed sensitive species and that could be present within or nearby the project area during construction. Species of particular concern and relevance to this project are discussed in detail below. 3.3.1 Sensitive habitats Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay shorelines and waters are defined as wetland habitats under both the California Coastal Act and the National Enviromnental Policy Act. Consequently this water body is considered sensitive habitat and is afforded protection to conserve and protect the resource. 3.3.2 Plants - Eelgrass Habitat The project area occurs within the vicinity of estuarine and eelgrass habitats, which are considered habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish 10 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project TABLE 1 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES Scientific Name Common Name USFWS Status CDFG Status Habitat Potential to Occur or WITS Status Plants Phyllospadix torreyi surfgrass Habitat Area of Particular — Nearshore rocky intertidal /rocky Low potential Concern (HAPC) ) for subtidal Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) Species under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Zostera marina eelgrass Habitat Area of Particular — Bays, harbors, shallow nearshore High potential; observed on site Concern (HAPC) for water sediments Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) Species under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Invertebrates Haliotis cracherodii black abalone FE - Nearshore rocky intertidal /rocky Extremely low potential to occur on subtidal rocky areas in front of the cove; very rare in southern CA. Fishes Eucycloga ins newberryi. Tidewater goby FE — Shallow marine waters, lower reaches No potential, extirpated from of streams Orange County Leuresthes tennis California grunion — — Spawns on local open coastal beaches Very low potential on site; may spawn on Big Corona Beach and the open coastal beaches of Newport Beach between March and August 11 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar. CA Coastal Resoorccs. Management, Inc. Marine biological Impact Assessnsnl, Proposal Dock and Gangway Project Scientific Name Common Name USFN'S Status CDFG Status Habitat Potential to Occur or NM. FS Status klypsypops iubicuudus California gal ibaldi Protected under California, State Subtidal rocky reef habitat; resident Two individuals observed commercial and Marine Fish , and territorial species in shallow associated With rocky rcef habitat in sport fish Assembly Bill subtidal rocky Habitats front of cove in vicinity of proposed regolations. AB77, 1995 doCli slruct IN. Most common within entrance channel north to Coast Guard facility on Baysidc. Drive compared other areas of hafbol' Pat alichthys californicus California halibut — — Shallow coastal waters, open ocean High potential Reptiles Chelonia mydas Green turtle FB. — Nearshore and open ocean waters Rare visitor Greunochelyr imbricala Flawksbill sca turtle FB. — Nearshore and open ocean waters Rare visitor Birds Pelecamis occidenmlis Brown pelican F6; proposed for CE; proposed foi Bays, estuaries, nea shore waters .Forages and rests in project area Misting delisting; fully protected species Nests on sparsely vegetated Flat Nesting habitat occurs in Upper Sterna mdillarwo broitud California least fern FB GB substrates, foiages in nearby waters .Newport Bay and the Santa Ana River mooch; least terns will forragc Oil juvenile baitfsh in the nearshore waters, Ncwport Harbor and Upper .Bay channels, usually within 5 mi of nesting sites . 12 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project 13 Scientific Name Common Name USFWS Status CDFG Status Habitat Potential to Occur or NMFS Status Charadrius alexandrinus No nesting habitat present onsite, nivostts Western snowy plover FT SSC Nests on sandy beaches and shores or for individuals to occur on site Mammals Zolophus calijornianus California sea lion MMA Nearshore and open ocean waters Not abundant, but individuals are present in Newport Harbor Turstops truncatus Bottlenose dolphin MMA Nearshore and open ocean waters Rare visitor to Newport Harbor Eschrichtius robustus California gray whale MMA Nearshore and open ocean waters Rare visitor to Newport Harbor FE — Federal Endangered; FT— Federal Threatened; MMA — Protected under Marine Mammal Act California Department of Fish and Game CE— Califomia Endangered SSC — Species of Special Concern HAPC are subsets of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) which are rare, particularly susceptible to human induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA); however, federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process (NMFS 2008a) 13 Carnation Cove,: Corona del. Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Martine Biological Impact.Assessment, Proposed Dock and DangWay Project species within the Pacific Groundfrsh FMP, (i.e., rockfishes). HAPC- are described in the regulations as subsets of EFH which are rare, particularly susceptible to human induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1997). However, federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized, during the consultation process (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007). 3.3.3 Invertebrates. In 1998, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) added black abalone (Hahotis cracherodti) to the candidate species; list for possible listing raider the federal ESA, and on January 14t1i, 2009, NMFS listed black abalone as an endangered species (Federal Register / Vol. 74; No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14 "i, 2009 /Rules and Regulations). Black abalones usually inhabit surf - battered rocks and crevices from the intertidal zone to shallow subtidal zone down to 20 ft (6 in). It is a long -lived species, attaining an age of 25 years or more. Now a rare species, the black abalone was abundant in California until the mid- 1980's. It once occurred in such high concentrations that individuals were observed stacked on top of one another. This species was not observed during the CRM surveys, and is unlikely to be in the project area rocky habitat at the mouth of Newport Harbor. While other species of abalone are also federally endangered, this species would be the only one that would have any potential to occur within the project area (very 'low potenti'al). Sand dollar populations in the cove are unique intertidal populations as described in Section 3.2. However, sand dollars do not have any special species status locally;_ within the State of California, or on a federal level. 3.3.4 Fishes California Grunion (Lcuresthes tenuis)._The California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) is a fish that uses the high intertidal sandy beach habitat of many southern California beaches as spawning habitat (Walker, 1952), including Newport Beach (CRM and Chambers Group, 2002). The grunion is a member of the silversides family, Atherinidae, ;along with the jacksmelt and topsmelt. They normally occur from Point Conception, California, to Point Abrecjos, Baja California. Occasionally, they are found farther north to Monterey Bay, California and "south to San Juanico .Bay, Baja California. They inhabit the nearshore waters from the -surf to a depth of 60 feet;_ Grunion are not expected to be located in the local project area within Carnation Cove. California halibut (Paralichthys californicus). Although the California halibut does not have a formal special species status, it is considered a sensitive species by resource agencies because of its commercial value and a continued region -wide reduction of its nursery habitat, in bays and wetlands. California. halibut spawn at sea and the larval stages are planktonic. After several months, the larval fish settle to the bottom, and migrate into shallow coastal waters, including Newport Bay. Halibut are distributed 14 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Consul ReSopl'ee$ Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway ['reject throughout the waters of Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay, primarily as juveniles, although larger individuals are caught near the ocean entrance and in offshore waters. Young -Of- -The -Year (YOTY) prefer shallow waters between about —0.45 meter (1.5 ft) and —1.0 meter (3,5 ft) Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), whereas juveniles prefer deeper channel bottoms to a maximum depth of approximately 4.5 meters (15 ft) MLLW. After spending nearly nine months in Newport Bay, juveniles will move out into the open coastal environment. This species has a low to moderate potential to occur in the shallow waters of the project area because of the nature of the sand shoreline and the relatively wide shelf of sandy silt sediments. Garibaldi (H)psypops rubicundus). The garibaldi is the largest of the damselfish family (Pornacentridae); adults, orange in color,, typically reach, 14 inches in length. It is found in shallow waters off the Southern California coast and Mexico (California, Department, of Fish and Game, 2001. Males build the nests, the female enters several of them and then makes her decision. The garibaldi is one of the few fish to use the same nesting site every year. In 1995 the California Legislature .designated the Garibaldi as the Official State Marine Fish and banned any further commercial take. Garibaldi populations have rebounded from the local effects of commercial take and are in good condition throughout their range in southern California. Sports fishing take of this species is also prohibited. (http: / /www.dfg.ca.gov/ marine /pdfs /oceanfish2008.pdf). 3.3.5 Marine Birds California least tern (Sterna antillartan brown/). The .State and Federally - listed Californa least tern is a spring- and - summer resident in southern California during the breeding and nesting, season. The least tern does not breed or nest near the project site but will forage in Newport Bay and nearshore coastal waters during their March through September breeding season. The nearest least tern nesting sites are located approximately 2.5 miles west (upcoast) at the mouth of the Santa Ana River' and 4.2 mi northeast in Upper Newport Bay near the Jamboree Bridge. California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis). The California brown pelican is a federally endangered species, but is proposed for delisting by both the federal government and the State of California due to its population resurgence along the California coastline. On 5 February, 2009, the California Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously to remove the Califonua brown pelican from the state endangered species list. The Commission's decision to delist the brown pelican will now be reviewed by the Office of Administrative Law before the large seabird can be officially removed from the Endangered Species list. This species is found in Newport Bay year-around but does not breed locally. The brown ,pelican utilizes Newport Harbor waters for foraging on baitfrsh, and the shoreline as resting habitat. The California brown pelican is designated as a Fully Protected Species under the Fish, and Game Code, and that will not change as a result of the delisting. It is still illegal to kill or hann a brown pelican in California. 15 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mm; CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project. 3.3.6 Marine Reptiles Marine reptiles do rot utilize the local marine waters as a permanent breeding or foraging babitat. However; the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys unbricata),; will occasionally occur in the nearshore environment offshore Orange County. Green sea turtles have been reported in the San Gabriel River where they encounter the warmer, discharged waters of the power generating facilities located farther up the River and Alamitos Bay. (Vivian Cook, Marine Bureau; Allen Powder, Long Beach Lifeguards pers. comm. with R. Ware, CRM, 27 July 2007). Their occurrence within Newport Bay, located. 20 miles east of Long Beach is expected to he rare although because Newport Bay has a, productive eelgrass system, green sea turtles may utilize the seagrass beds within the bay as one source of their nutritional requirements.\ 3.3.7 Marine Mammals Three species of marine mammals have a potential to occur within the project site; the California sea lion (Zalophus ealifornica), the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates) and the California gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). The California sea lion (Zalophus californicus) and bottlenose dolphin are occasional visitors in Newport Harbor. Individuals are found primarily between the Pavilion and the harbor entrance channel,, but may occasionally wander farther into Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay. In June 1994, the California gray whale eastern pacific population was removed from the Federal Endangered Species List due to recovery of population numbers to near the estimated sustainable population size. The gray whale migrates tbrough the SCB twice each year, traveling between its feeding grounds in Alaska and its breeding grounds in Baja California. The southern migration through the SCB occurs from December through February, with pregnant females moving through the area first. The northward migration begins in February and lasts through May, pealing in March (Dailey et. al. 1993). Solitary animals generally lead the northbound migration with cow -calf pairs following 1 to 2 months later (Foster and Schiel 1985). Gray whales migrate within 125 miles (20,0 lum) of the shoreline and many are sighted within 9 miles (15 krn) of shore (Dailey et al. 1993). On the northbound migration, cow -calf pairs are believed to more closely follow the shoreline rather than the offshore route (Dailey et al. 1993). On rare occasions, they have been known to enter Newport Bay. 4.0 FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN SPECIES This assessment of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for the Carnation Cove Project is being provided in conformance with the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Management. and Conservation Act. (FR 62, 244, December 19, 1997). The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson Stevens Act set forth a number of new mandates for the National Marine Fisheries Service, eight regional fishery management councils, and other 16 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project federal agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat. The councils, with the assistance from NMFS are required to delineate EFH for all managed species. Federal action agencies which fund, permit, or carry out activities that may adversely impact EFH are required to consult with NMFS regarding the potential effects of their actions on EFH, and respond in writing to the NMFS recommendations. EFH is defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity ". An adverse effect is "any impact which reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH ". Adverse effects may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to benthic organisms, prey species, and their habitat, and other ecosystem components. Adverse effects may be sites specific or habitat -wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions [50 CFR 600.910(a)]. hnpacts to Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) are described in the regulations as subsets of EFH which are rare, particularly susceptible to human induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area, including eelgrass. Eelgrass habitat is discussed in Section 2.2. The proposed project is located within an area designated as EFH for the Coastal Pelagics Management and the Groundfish Management Plan designated species.. Four coastal pelagic species, the northern anchovy, pacific sardine, jack mackerel, and Pacific mackerel potentially occur in the waters offshore of Newport Beach. Six groundfish species also potentially occur within the local project area, including California scorpion fish, vermillion rockfish, calico rockfish, California skate, spiny dogfish shark, and leopard shark. Of these species, only the northern anchovy comprises a significant portion of fish that occur, and contribute moderate -to -heavy abundances to the nearshore fish, but much less so within Newport Bay. Northern anchovy comprise a portion of the commercial bait fishery in San Pedro Bay and a commercial bait fishing operation operates in the Newport Harbor entrance channel that provides northern anchovy to sports fishermen. This species is a planktivore, and is preyed upon by larger fish and seabirds. Larvae of northern anchovy are also part of the Newport Bay ichthyofauna and icthyoplankton community. Although several other coastal pelagic and groundfish FMP species are known from the project area, temporal data indicate that their presence in the project area is likely sporadic and their numbers in the project region would be extremely low (Coastal Resources Management, 2008). 5.0 INVASIVE SPECIES Caulerpa taxifolia Caulerpa (Figure 7) has a potential to cause ecosystem -level impacts on California's bays and nearshore systems due to its extreme ability to out - compete other algae and seagrasses. Caulerpa taxifolia grows as a dense smothering blanket, covering and killing all native aquatic vegetation in its path when introduced in a non- native marine habitat. Fish, invertebrates, marine mammals, and sea birds that are dependent on native marine 17 Carnation Cove; Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project vegetation are displaced or die off from the areas where they once thrived. It is a tropical - subtropical species that is used in aquariums. It was introduced into southern California in 2000 (Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Huntington Harbour) by way of individuals likely dumping their aquaria waters into storm drains; or directly into the lagoons. While outbreaks have been contained, the Water Resources Board, through the National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game require that projects that have potential to spread this species through dredging, and bottom- disturbing activities conduct pre - construction surveys to determine if this species Figure 7. The invasive algae, Caulerpa taxifolia. Source: NOAH /NMFS is present using standard agency- approved protocols and by National Marine Fisheries Service /California Department of Fish and Game Certified Field Surveyors. Biologists did not observe any invasive algae, Caulerpa taxifolia in the general vicinity of the project site during either 2005 or 2007 surveys. The total APE was 47,418 sq ft (1.08 acres), of which 15,525 sq ft (42.9 %) in the main channel was covered, and 11,193 sq ft (0.26 acre), 100 %, was covered in Carnation Cove. 18 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal ReSOUreeS Management, Inc.. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project 6.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 6.1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION METHODS The existing two -slip dock will be removed and replaced with a six -slip wooden dock with and outside 155 ft -long wave attenuating concrete dock (Figure 2). A new elevated walkway and 44 ft -long gangway will connect to the new dock. Old components will be detached and floated away, then loaded onto a truck or trailer and trucked offsite for demolition. The new dock components will be built offsite, floated into place, and attached on site. The new gangway platform at the end of the pier- supported elevated walkway will have (4) 14 -inch diameter piles. The wood dock will have (10) 16 -inch diameter piles, and the concrete wave attenuator will have (9) 24 -inch diameter piles. All will be steel piles drilled into the near - surface rock layer. Embedment is anticipated at 15 feet (per City guidelines) for the 16 -inch diameter piles and 20 feet for the 24 -inch diameter piles. 6.2 IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY AND MARINE RESOURCES The location of eelgrass habitat relative to the proposed dock layout is shown in Figure 5. 6.2.1 Construction Activities Potential Water Quality Impacts on Eelgrass Habitat. During the pile removal and emplacement process, water turbidity will increase when the new piles are driven into the sediments. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. To prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be implemented such as the installation of a silt curtain around the dock and pile sleeves. Implemented BMPs that will eliminate any disposal of trash and debris at the project site will assist in preventing water quality and eelgrass habitat degradation. Construction debris on the bay floor should be removed completely and transported offsite. See Section 5 for mitigation measures and BMPs. Potential Vessel - Related Impacts on Eelgrass Habitat. The sand flats and shallow bay floor in the immediate vicinity and adjacent properties are vegetated with eelgrass (CRM 2005a, CRM 2005b, 2007; Figures 3 and 4, this document). Consequently barges and work vessels working in the project area nearby or over existing eelgrass beds have a potential to adversely affect eelgrass through (1) deployment of anchors and anchor chain within eelgrass habitat (2) grounding over eelgrass habitat and (3) propeller scarring and prop wash of either the barge or support vessels for the barge. These activities would create furrows 19 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment. Proposed Dock and Gangway Project 20 mN a l q F ®s e = r f.: � as g y=I. W o ±� CD N W p Q h y r 21 g gg i €€ aQ€ c EEE7BE ESE -' ® ®1• 0 20 mN l q ®s e� o r f.: 'in CCOO �U g y=I. W o ±� CD N W p Q N s g gg i c gs 20 mN l q ®s e� o r f.: 'in CCOO �U g y=I. W o ±� CD N W p Q 20 mN q ®s m U o r 'in CCOO �U g y=I. W o ±� CD N W p Q N s g gg i c �. .lw, .rc C am-, d ti r C am-, d Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project and scars within the eelgrass vegetation and would result in adverse losses of eelgrass habitat that would require an eelgrass mitigation program. Implementing mitigation measures identified in Section 5 are intended to minimize disturbances related to vessel operations and vessel anchor positioning. Barge operations will have minimal shading effects on eelgrass since the position of the barge will shift each day, preventing continuous shading of any one part of the eelgrass bed. 6.2.2 Direct, Eelgrass Habitat Losses Related to Construction Pile Emplacement. Pre - stressed concrete piles will be set into boreholes pre - drilled to the required embedment depth with the annular space backfilled with grout to develop proper contact with sides of the borehole, thereby eliminating the need for pile driving (Leighton Associates, Inc. 2008). The bedrock material is expected to be drillable using equipment similar in horsepower and energy rating as a typical EZ -Bore bucket auger drilling rig that is used for hillside geologic explorations in similar bedrock formations. Nineteen (19) piles will be embedded in the bay floor. These piles will have a cumulative surface area of 39.1 sq ft. None of the piles will be directly embedded within eelgrass habitat. However, two piles on the wave- attenuating dock and two piles at the end of the wood dock are within several feet of where eelgrass occurs. There is potential that placement of these four piles could disturb eelgrass through burial or sediment disturbances around the perimeter of the area to be affected during the drilling process for pile emplacement. Implementing turbidity and sediment control measures during pile emplacement such as installing silt curtains and sleeves around pilings will mitigate potential eelgrass habitat losses due to pile emplacement activities. 6.2.3 Indirect, Long -term Impacts Related to Shading Impacts The total surface area of the dock structures will be 3,448 square feet. A small portion of the existing eelgrass bed (approximately 30 sq ft) will potentially be affected by shading effects from vessels docked within the slips and the wave - attenuating concrete dock structure (Figure 5). The area of eelgrass habitat that is actually affected by long -term shading will be determined during post - construction monitoring surveys per National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended). Mitigation for the reduction in eelgrass habitat as a consequence of shading is discussed in Section 5. 6.2.4 Impacts Related to Sand Transport. The project area lies within an area of active sand transport near the harbor entrance channel that is subjected to periodic sand movement through mechanisms related to wave exposure and tidal energy transport. Sediments are transported from the entrance channel to the Grange County Sheriff Harbor Patrol Beach along Bayside Drive (Chia Chi Lu, Noble Consultants, Inc. pers. com. with R. Ware, Coastal Resources Management, 8 May 2008). Piles, revetment, jetties, and other structures have a potential to interrupt and/or disrupt sand transport that could result in either an increase in sand deposition or sand erosion. Biologically, changes in sediment patterns and 21 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project changes in sediment grain size can alter biological communities including the distribution and abundance of eelgrass. Based upon a review of sand transport at the project site, Noble Consultants, Inc. (2008) concluded that sand transport would not be substantially altered due the to placement and configuration of piles in a single row that is in the parallel, and not perpendicular to the direction of sand transport. Therefore, the placement of dock piles will not result in the disruption or loss of eelgrass habitat, or other biological communities as a result of any alternation in local sand transport mechanisms. 6.3 IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RESOURCES 6.3.1 Invertebrates -Sand Dollar Beds and Sand Flat Habitat in Carnation Cove The sand flats within the Carnation Cove should be avoided by construction personnel and equipment. Disturbances to the sandy cove intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat, eelgrass, and sand dollar bed within the cove would be considered a significant adverse impact to on- site marine resources. In addition, residents should be made aware of the sensitivity of the cove as a unique marine biological habitat within Newport Bay. Mitigation to prevent a significant impact to this resource is presented in Section 5. 6.3.2 Fishes The proposed project will not have any significant impacts on marine fishes, including Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) species. California garibaldi that are present in the rocky habitats inshore of the proposed dock will be subjected to short-term effects of drilling related to pile emplacement, including increased noise turbidity impacts, but the project will not result in any mortality. Schooling fishes such as topsmelt will avoid the construction zone during construction and will return to the area following the completion of construction activities. 6.3.3 Marine Reptiles No impacts to sea turtles will occur. Sea turtles are not expected to be within the local project area. 6.3.4 Marine Mammals The proposed project will not result in adverse impacts to marine mammals. The occurrence of gray whales and bottlenose dolphins in the area around the docks would be expected to be an extremely rare event. Drilling activity and pile emplacement construction activity will not adversely affect California sea lions. These animals have adapted to harbor conditions including vessels, ambient noises, and other disturbances. 6.3.5 Marine Birds Between early spring to late summer and California least tems will forage in the waters of Newport Bay, including the waters of the Corona del Mar Reach and Entrance Channel near 22 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project the project area. California brown pelicans will forage in the harbor. year - around. The presence of temporary, stationary vessels and drilling activity required for pile emplacement will not adversely affect seabirds that forage in the open waters of Newport Harbor. These birds will forage in the presence of boating activity and will avoid activity that is potentially harmful. The proposed project is not expected to adversely affect rare, endangered, or sensitive species of birds that are in the general project area. 6.4 IMPACTS TO FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN SPECIES The proposed project will not have any significant impacts on FMP species, A discussion of impacts to Habitat Areas of Special Concern (eelgrass) is discussed in Section 6.2.1 through 6.2.4. 7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 7.1 WATER QUALITY During construction, the following mit>gation measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) are recommended to prevent water quality degradation in Newport Bay and to reduce potential adverse impacts on marine resources. All debris and trash shall be disposed in suitable trash containers on land or on the work barge at the end of each construction day; discharge of any hazardous materials into Newport Bay will be prohibited; a silt curtain will be placed around all water -side construction activity during the construction of the dock system to limit the spread of turbidity. I£ prolonged turbidity is observed outside the silt curtain then the silt curtain shall be re- deployed and re- positioned in a manner to correct the problem. Removal and emplacement of the piles will be conducted using Best Available Technology (BAT) that limits the re- suspension of sediments and the creation of turbidity plumes; and debris bins will be placed at the project site. Material collected will be removed on a daily basis. The amount, type, and location of any -large debris (piles; dock parts, concrete, etc) that is deposited on the seafloor will be documented and removed prior to the completion of the project. The project marine biologist shall also inspect the seafloor following the completion of construction to ensure that all debris has been removed. 23 Camation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal. Resources Management, Inc. Maine Biolog +cat. Impact Assessment; Proposed Dock' and Gangway ['reject 7.2 MARINE RESOURCES PROTECTION PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS The following mitigation measures will be implemented during construction to avoid adverse impacts to eelgrass and other marine resources. The project marine biologist shall mark the positions of eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the dock and gangway construction area with buoys prior to the initiation of any construction activities; the project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew prior to construction to orient them to specific areas where eelgrass occurs; • support vessels and barges should maneuver and work over eelgrass beds only during tides of +2 feet MLLW or higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass from propellers, and to limit water turbidity; anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upon eelgrass habitat, • construction activities associated with the elevated walkway leading to the gangway; and construction personnel should avoid impacts to rocky intertidal habitat; eelgrass beds, and to sand dollar habitat within the Carnation Cove; • post signage at key at access points in front of beach and on the elevated walkway that state that access is limited to the elevated walkway during construction. Mark area off from access with yellow tape to prevent access. Construction crews will not access the water or rocky shorelines within the cove, the project marine biologist will perfonii weekly on-site inspections to ensure that BMPs and mitigation measures are being implemented during construction; and post- construction marine biological surveys (per pen-nit conditions) will be performed to map eelgrass cover in the project area using the same methodology as the pre - construction survey and also to document the condition and density of the sand dollar beds within the cove. 7.3 MITIGATION FOR POTENTIAL HABITAT LOSSES 7.3.1 Direct, Construction- Related Eelgrass Habitat Losses No direct losses of eelgrass are anticipated as a result of the Carnation Cove dock construction project. Post - construction surveys will be conducted to verify that no eelgrass losses have occurred. In the event that losses are identified during the post - construction survey, then an eelgrass mitigation program will be implemented to offset any losses. 24 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project 7.3.2 Indirect, Long -term Eelgrass Habitat Losses and Potential Measures to Reduce Eelgrass Habitat Losses Approximately 30 sq ft of eelgrass vegetation could be affected by long -term dock shading effects (Figure 5). The reduction of eelgrass habitat as a consequence of shading will be mitigated by conducting an eelgrass transplant program, should impacts occur, in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended) following loss determination at the end of a two -year monitoring program (see Section 5.4.3). The location and the amount to be transplanted shall be determined following the results of the two annual monitoring efforts (NMFS 1991 as amended). 7.3.3 Direct, Long -term Use of Carnation Cove and Reduction of Habitat Quality Residents of the Carnation Cove residential development should be made aware of the special biological significance of the Cove, avoid trampling intertidal eelgrass, and taking biological resources (i.e., sand dollars) out of the sand flat habitat. 8.0 8.1 PRE - CONSTRUCTION SURVEY An updated, pre - construction eelgrass and invasive algae survey will be completed within 30 days of the initiation of proposed dock and gangway construction. The results of this survey will be used to update the results of the March 2007 eelgrass survey and to identify, if any, potential project- related eelgrass losses and the presence or absence of the invasive algae, Caulerpa taxifolia per NMFS requirements. 8.2 POST - CONSTRUCTION SURVEY A post- construction project eelgrass survey will be completed within 30 days of the completion of project construction in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). The report will be presented to the resource agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission within 30 days after the completion of the survey. If any eelgrass has been impacted in excess of that determined in the pre - construction survey, then any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at ratio of 1.2:1 (mitigation to impact). 8.3 POST- CONSTRUCTION SHADING EFFECT SURVEYS A determination regarding the amount of eelgrass to be mitigated will be made based upon two annual monitoring surveys which document the changes in the bed (areal extent and density) in the vicinity of the footprint of the boat dock, moored vessel(s), and/or related structures during the active- growth period for eelgrass, typically March through October. Any impacts determined by these monitoring surveys shall be mitigated per requirements 25 Carnation Covc, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources: Management, Inc. Marine. Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Picject of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). A statement from the applicant indicating their understanding of the potential losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan will be submitted to the a 1pp icant and resources agencies for review and acceptance. 9.0 Pre - construction and post - construction eelgrass survey results will be submitted to the resource agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission in report f ninatwithin30 days following each survey. The "reports will present eelgrass area and density data, an assessment of the potential amount of eelgrass habitat affected (pre con survey), the actual amount of eelgrass habitat affected (post -con survey), the functional biological quality of the area a qualitative assessment of invertebrate and fish use of the area,, and an eelgrass mitigation plan, (post- con) if it is deemed necessary. Each of the two -year shading effects surveys will present eelgrass area and density data, an assessment of the eelgrass habitat affected, the functional biological quality of the area, a qualitative assessment of invertebrate and fish use of the area, and an eelgrass mitigation plan (2nd year shading study) if habitat impacts are identified. 26 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar, CA Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangway Project 10.0 LITERATURE CITED Chia Chi Lu, Noble Consultants, Inc. pers. com. with R. Ware, Coastal Resources Management, 8 May 2008 regarding the results of sand transport analysis for the Carnation Cove dock project. Coastal Resources Management. 2005a. Final Report. Distribution and abundance of eelgrass (Zostera marina) in Newport Bay. 2003 -2004 eelgrass habitat mapping project. Bulkhead to pierhead line surveys. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division. April 2005. 30 pp. Coastal Resources Management. 2005b. Marine biological survey results for 201/205/207 Carnation Ave, Corona del Mar, Ca. Prepared for P &D Technologies, April 12t1i, 2005. 14 pp. Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2007. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) field survey results, impact assessment, and conceptual mitigation plan for a dock renovation project located at 105/107 Bayside Place, Corona del Mar, CA. February 2007 survey. Prepared for Swift Slips Dock and Pier Builders. March 2007. 18 pp. Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2008. Marine biological impact assessment for the East Beach Sand Nourishment Project, Seal Beach, California. Prepared for Bon Terra Consulting and the City of Seal Beach, Ca. February 26`I', 2008. 48 pp. Coastal Resources Management and Chambers Group, Inc. 2002. Biological Appendix. City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Plamung Department. August, 2003. Leighton & Associates, Inc. 2008. Evaluation of subsurface profile for acoustic /vibration study, proposed dock replacement at Carnation Cove, 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach, California. Prepared for Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., May 6, 2008. 3 pp. MacGinitie, G. E. and N. MacGinitie. 1968. Natural History of Marine Animals. Second Edition. McGraw -Hill Book Company, New York. Noble Consultant, Inc. 2008. Letter report. Coastal engineering assessment for the "Aerie" Dock Project, 201 to 207 Carnation Avenue, Newport Beach for Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc, 17 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1991. Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, Long Beach, CA. l ltl' Revision. 27 Carnation Cove, Corona del Mar; CA Coastal Resources Management .Inc, Mai ne Biological Impact Assessment, Proposed Dock and Gangtvay Project National Marine Fisheries Service '(NMFS). 2008. Essential Fish .Habitat (EFH) evaluation for the Balboa Marina Project,, Newport Beach, Ca. February, 2008. Prepared by Robert Hoffman, NMFS, Long Beach, CA. 4 pp. Walker, Boyd W. 1952. A guide to the grunion. Calif Fish Game 38 (3):410-420. 28 Photograph 1. View of discharge pipe with African umbrella sedge mixed with other ornamentals. Photograph taken on 12 -10 -2008. Photograph 2. This photograph depicts irrigation lines visible immediately above the area vegetated with African umbrella sedge. Photograph taken on 12 -10 -2008. U) w Q U O CIO Q cn O J z z W J r1 u M H m x w WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Arid West Region ProjecSe: A en I e /LP l F LA s t k aryicourl Sampling Date: /0 n A .Appi1LS'riyQwner n r~ it / 1' .Stara: C-A_ Sarnp}Ing Pont: Investgato(s): an, ToamshlP• Range: T < In(� Yy , SGL L Landferm (hillsiope, terrace, etc.); �Un�/}Q Local relief (concave, con ex, none): i✓L Slope ( %):t�s�7 Subregion (LRR): Let, % 9 -' 1 l ry •V �oreg: i 1 7. �'i , U (- 4✓ Datum: L5:( -1 `54 Sol] Map Unit Name: ,� j A,%A NWI classification: NDIVE Are cilmab, I hydrologic conditions ar the site typical for this time of year? Yes 4L No_ (N no, explain in Remarks.) , /' Are Vegetatiod _, Sol or Hydrology_ significamy disturbed? t4 AM'Nomal Circumstances' present? Yes !3- No_ Are Vegetation Soil_ pr Hydrology_ naturally prob! emetic? No (3f needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. HydrephAe Vegetation Present? Yes— No Is the Sampled Area f Hydric Shc Present? Yes w No ryhin a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: I VEGETATION L'S Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11- 1.2006 Absolute Dominant Indicator 1 Dominance Test worksheet: Tr Statum (Use scientific main } — — q� %Cover Soedes? Status Nuriber of Dominant Sped es 1 IT11"`t—t�S pdIJM �) LL�(„�}yM _�_j��_ UrtY. T!�at Are 09!, FACW, or FAC (A) 2. LA II � J M S Q t; �.�'i_ S%AI< ._ _ Taal Number of Dominant j 3. I Species Across All Strata: 7 (B7 4. Percent of Dominant Species /t/t Taal Cover. - That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: � (AB) SaolincBnnrb Stratum t. Prevalence Index worksheet: Tot ad %Cover of hrua'eLV by 2 3. OSL species x1= FACW species x2= FAC species x3= FACU species x4= 4, S Total Cover. Herb & -ranum �Q---- UPL species x 5 = 1. �`- �.y1�j'11111 A.`I'VS Cal emn Tetais: (A) (B) 7iA1n..fi ,Lfgc1LJ. 2 Prevalence Index =B.A= 3, q Hy¢rophytic Vegetation Indicators: ' Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is 53.01 „_ Morphological Adaplatlons' (Provide supporling data in Remarks Cron a separate sheet) 3 6. 7. 8 i Pacbiernatic Hydropiyfic Vegetation' (Explain) Woody V1ne Stratum Taal Cover. — 1, 'Incticators of hydric sell and w[tiand hydrology nest 1 be present. 2 Taal Cover Hydrophytic ' Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Note Crust presets? Yes x— No _ Reme.ss Pry nc 6u + ry If P -k d by vv tt-,� �Fvc GJj�+co�T Lan, -A s f i CJ + rm S av U- L'S Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11- 1.2006 ffm Profile Desarlpticn: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator ar confirm the absence Depi`r Matrix Redox Fastures (lnchrs7 S `si 56 Cola tmoistl Yp_ titre' Loc, Texture _ Hisfosul {Ai ) Hishc 6pipedon (A2) Back Histic (A3) _ Hydrogen Su tda (A4) Suah,mc Layers (A5) (LRR C) 7 c:m Muck (48) (LRR D) Depleted Selav Dark Surface (At 1) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Sandy Macky Min era] (Si) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Type; Dep(a (inches)- • -e s Sandy Red= (SS) Stripped MarJ1x (SS) T Loamy Mucky Minera)(F1) Loamy Greyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Redox Dark Surface (Fa) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redcx Depressions (F8) Varnal Pods (Fa) Samp4ng Point: 4VI w -- yo, c- 1 cm Muck (A8) (I-RR C) 2 cm Muck (AIM (t.RR 8) Reduced Vertk (P18) _! Red Parent Matarfal (TF2) _.. Outer (aplairt at remarks) °indcatcrs ofd ydr cphytic vegetation and wetland hvdrolocvmust be oresent. Hydric Sall Present? Yes__--__, No PT,maLi Ind7cators (any one indicator is guufffctent) _ Water Marks (S1) (Rfvmmo) Surface Lb'ates(Ai) — Salt Crust (all) _ Sediment Deposits (B2)(Rivsrme). _ High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (812) _ Drift Deposits (S5) (Riverine) Saturation (tit) V. Aquatic invertebrates (613) _ Drainage parent a (Bi p) Water Marks (31) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (C7) Dry- Season Water Table ('•~2) — Sediment Deposit& (62) (Nonriverine) � Oxidized Rlizospheras along IMn¢ Rods (C3) — Thin Muck Surface (C7' _ cliff. Rap o Ts (.^^13) (Ncnriyarine) Presence of Reducexi Iran (C4) — Crayfish Burrows (C0) Surface Soil Cracks {8e) Reran¢ kdn Redaction in Ptowed Soils (06) _ Satcration Visible on Aerial IM66ery (CS) _ Inundattco Ulsibte on „ oriel fmgerytS7) _ Other (Explain in Rema*5) ShalloxActuitard (W) 'Nater- Stained Leaves (B9 ) FAC- Neutrat Test (D5) Field Observations:. -face Water Prager, a Yes _No Depth (Inches): �. Jwatar Tab €e Present? Yes No, h €inches): sa.umacri Present? Yes _ No Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydral ogy Present? Yas No USA- yCarps o € Engineers Arid West – Version 11 -1 -2006 Appendix J Wetlands Determination GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES Regulatory Services December 12, 2008 Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP 695 Town Center Drive Floor 14 Costa Mesa, California 92626 SUBJECT: Jurisdictional Determination for Area of African Umbrella Sedge adjacent to Aerie Project Site Located in Newport Beach, Orange County, California. Dear Mr. Paone: This letter report summarizes our preliminary findings regarding whether wetlands are present on the above - referenced property. The subject site contains no blue -line drainages (as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USES) topographic map Newport Beach, California [dated 1965 and (photorevised in 1981)] [Exhibit 1]. On December 10, 2008, regulatory specialists of Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. (GLA) examined the project site to determine the presence of areas potentially subject to the jurisdiction of 1) the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 2) the California Department of Fish and Game pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, and 3) as well as wetlands defined in accordance with the California Coastal Act. Enclosed is a 40 -scale aerial photograph [Exhibit 2] that depicts the area evaluated for wetlands with data point location. Photographs to document the characteristics of the site are provided as Exhibit 3. Wetland data sheets are attached as Appendix A. SUMMARY OF RESULTS A limited area of African Umbrella sedge (Cyperus involucratus, FACW), covering approximately 10 feet by 19 feet (0.004 acre), occurs on the slope adjacent to the proposed building site. The African umbrella sedge begins approximately two feel below the point where a 30 -inch drainage pipe discharges on the slope. Summaries of the findings relative to the jurisdictional status of the subject area relative to the requirements of the Corps, CDFG and CCC are as follows with more detailed information provided below in the body of this report. 29 Orchard 0 Lake Forest California 92630 -8300 Telephone: (949) 837 -0404 Facsimile: (949) 837 -5834 Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12, 2008 Page 2 Corps Jurisdiction While the area of African umbrella sedge exhibits a predominance of wetland indicator species, the area does not exhibit hydric soils nor does it exhibit wetland hydrology. Therefore, the area occupied by the African umbrella sedge is not a wetland pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the area is not subject to Corps jurisdiction. CDFG Jurisdiction The area of African umbrella sedge is not associated with a stream of lake and is therefore not subject to jurisdiction under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. CCC Jurisdiction While the area of African umbrella sedge exhibits a predominance of wetland indicator plants (consisting only of the African umbrella sedge), the area is not covered periodically or permanently with shallow water. Therefore, the area is not a wetland under the Coastal Act, as the plants are not growing as hydrophytes. As detailed below in Sections III and IV, the subject plants are supported by artificial irrigation on the slope immediately above the African umbrella sedge as well as local runoff (i.e., nuisance water) that is discharged from the 30 -inch pipe. This conclusion is further confirmed by the strong upland characteristics of the well - drained soils that support the subject sedge. I. METHODOLOGY Prior to beginning the field delineation, a site reconnaissance visit was conducted to determine whether portions of the site support plant species that are potentially indicators of wetland conditions. Based on the initial reconnaissance, a 10 foot by 19 foot area supporting African umbrella sedge was detected and was field checked for the presence of a predominance of vegetation with a wetland indicator status of facultative (FAC) or wetter, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. The potential wetland area was evaluated using the methodology set forth in the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual' (Wetland Manual) and the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West ' Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y -87 -1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Tim Paone Manatt; Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12, 2008 Page 3 Region (Version 2.0) (Arid West Supplement):. While in the field the location where data was collected was recorded using a Trimble GeoXT GPS Unit, with sub -meter accuracy. Field data were recorded onto wetland data sheets. As noted, the area evaluated for wetlands extends approximately 19 feet, begimung about two feet below the pipe. The area averages about ten feet in width as depicted on Exhibit 2. A. Vegetation During the December 10, 2008, site visit, GLA biologists documented vegetation, soils and hydrology within the area occupied by the African "Umbrella Sedge. Vegetation predominance data was analyzed using the,methodology described in the Corps' Arid West Regional Supplement (see attached wetland data sheet included as Appendix A). Because the area is small, (i.e., 10 by 19 feet); the entire area was characterized relative to the vegetation. The presence of hydrophytic wetland indicator plant species was determined based on The National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands3 and as needed The National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. 1996 National Summary (1996 National List).° B. Soils The Soil Conservation Service (SCS)5 has mapped the following soil types as occurring in the general vicinity of the project site: Beaches and Myford Sandy Loam, 2 to 9 percent slope Neither of these, soil types is entirely consistent with the soils observed on the site, which consisted of a dark brown 10YR 2/1 loamy sand. While in the field, the soils were checked for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. September 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps.: of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Supplement Version 2.0. Ed. J.S. Wakcley, R.W. Lichevar, and C.V. Noble.. ERDC /EL TR- 08 -28.. Vicksburg, . MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Reedy F.B., Jr. 1988. National List ofPlant Species that Occur in Wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(26.10). a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. The National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Svnninny (1996National. List). Published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands inventory', St. Peteisberg; Floiida. This list was used where particular species, (e.g., Penisetion clandestinuin) was not included in the 1 988 list but was updated with an indicator status of FACU the 1997 list. 5 SCS is now known as the National Resource Conservation Service or NRCS. Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12, 2008 Page 4 color using a Munsell Color Chart. The soils were also checked for reducing conditions using alpha alpha dipyridyl. C. Hydrology During the December 10, 2008 site visits observations of hydrology were recorded and are included on the data sheet attached as Appendix A. II. JURISDICTION A. Army Corps of Engineers Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The term "waters of the United States" is defined in Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 328.3(a) as: (1) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; (3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudfats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect foreign commerce including any such waters: (i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or (ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or (iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce... (4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; (5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) (1) -(4) of this section; (6) The territorial seas; (7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) (1) -(6) of this section. Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12,'2008 Page 5 The term "wetlands" (a subset of "waters of the United States") is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(b) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support ... a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." In 1987 the Corps published a manual to guide its field personnel in determining jurisdictional wetland boundaries. The methodology set forth in the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the Arid West Supplement Version 2.0 generally require that, in order to be considered a wetland, the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of an area exhibit at least minimal hydric characteristics. While the manual and Supplement provide great detail in methodology and allow for varying special conditions, awetland should normally meet each of the following 'three criteria: O more than 50 percent of the dominant plant species at the site must be typical of wetlands (i.e., rated as facultative or wetter in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands); 0 soils must:exhibit physical and /or chemical characteristics. indicative of permanent or periodic saturation (e.g,, agleyed color, or mottles with a matrix of low cluonia indicating a relatively consistent fluctuation between aerobic and anaerobic conditions); and 0 Whereas the 1987 Manual requires that hydrologic characteristics indicate . that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for at least five percent of the growing season during a normal rainfall year, the Arid West Supplement does not include a quantitative criteria with the exception for areas with "problematic hydrophytic vegetation ", which require a ininimum of 14 days of ponding to be considered a wetland. B. California Department of Fish and Game Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600 -1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFG regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river; stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife. CDFG defines a "stream" (including creeks and rivers) as "a body of water that ,flows at least periodically or intermittently through abed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface of subsurface flow that supports or has G Reed, P,B, Jr. 1988, National List of Plant: Species that Occur in' Wetlands. .U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 8:8(26.10). Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps &.Phillips LLP December 12, 2008 Page 6 supported riparian vegetation." CDFG's definition of "lake" includes "natural lakes or man-made reservoirs." CDFG jurisdiction within altered or artificial waterways is based upon the value of those waterways to fish and wildlife. CDFG Legal Advisor has prepared the following opinions Natural waterways that have been subsequently modified and which have the potential to contain fish, aquatic insects and riparian vegetation will be treated like natural waterways.... O Artificial waterways that have acquired the physical attributes of natural stream courses . and which have been viewed by the community as natural stream courses, should be treated by [CDFG) as natural waterways.... Artificial waterways without the attributes of natural waterways should generally notbe subject to Fish and Game Code provisions.... Thus, CDFG jurisdictional limits closely mirror those of the Corps. Exceptions. are CDFG's exclusion of isolated wetlands (those not associated with a.river, stream, or lake), the addition of artificial stock ponds and irrigation ditches constructed on uplands',_ and the addition of riparian habitat supported by a river, stream, or lake regardless of the riparian area's federal wetland status. C. CCC Jurisdiction Pursuant to the California Coastal Act (California Public Resources Code Section 30233), the CCC regulates the diking; filling; or dredging of wetlands within the coastal zone. The Coastal Act Section 30121 defines "wetlands" as land "which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water.." The 1981 CCC Statewide Interpretive Guidelines state that hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation; " -are useful indicators of wetland conditions, but the presence or absence of hydric soils andlor hydrophytes alone are not necessarily determinative when the Commission identifies wetlands under the Coastal Act, In thepast, the Commission has considered all relevant information in making such determinations and relied upon the advice and judgment of experts before reaching its 'own independent conclusion as to whether a particular area will be considered wetland under the Coastal Act. " See Section IV below for a detailed discussion regarding application of these definitions to wetland delineation within the Coastal Zone. Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12,,2008 Page 7 111. RESULTS A. Description of Feature The area that supports the subject African umbrella sedge [see Exhibit 3, Photograph 1] occurs on a steep (approximately 1 :1) slope directly above a small cove. As noted, a 30 -inch drain pipe that collects water from a stortn drain inlet at the coiner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard discharges storm water and nuisance flow onto the slope. B. Vegetation The area that supports African umbrella sedge (Cyperus involucratus, FACW) covers 10 by 19 feet and is completely surrounded by ornamental vegetation including Victorian box (Pittosporum undulatum), tobira (Pittospormn tobira), two species ofprivit (Ligirsh,um spp ), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicero japonica), which also dominates the irrigated slope immediately above the umbrella sedge. Within the area occupied by the umbrella sedge; it was estimated to account for 80 percent of the total cover: with Victorian box and Privit; accounting ,for about 10-percent each. Using the 50720: rifle, only the African umbrella sedge is considered dominant.7 However-, as discussed below, in this instance; the presence of a species with an indicator status of FACW is not sufficient to make a positive determination for the presence of wetlands and discussed in more detail in the soils and hydrology discussion immediately below. The 50/-20. Rule, is a method set forth in Arid West Supplement for determining which plant speices'should be considered dominant and is implemented as follows: 1. Estimate the absolute percent cover of each species in the first stratum.. Since the same data may be used liter to calculate the prevalence index, the data should be recorded as absolute cover and not converted to relative cover. 2 Rank all species in the stratum from most to least abundant, 3. Calculate the total coverage of all "species in the stratum (i.e., sum their individual percent cover values). Absolute cover estimates do not necessarily sum to 100 percent. 4. Select plant species from the ranked list, in decreasing order of coverage; until the cumulative coverage of selected species exceeds 50 percent of the total coverage for the stratum. If two or more species are equal in coverage (i.e., they are tied in rank), they should all be selected. The selected plant species are all considered to be dominants. All dominants must be identified to species. 5. In addition, select any other species that, by itself, is at least 20 percent of the total . percent cover in the stratum. Any such species is also considered to be a dominant and must be accurately identified. 6. Repeat steps 1 -5 for any other stratum present. Combine the lists of dominant species across all strata. Note that a: species may be dominant in more than one snahnn (e.g., a woody species may be dominant in both the tree and sapling/shrub strata). Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12, 2008 Page 8 C. Soils Soils on the slope are thin, overlaying bedrock. Soil in the area that supports the African umbrella sedge are upland soils, dark brown loamy sand, l OYR 2/1 and very uniform to 15 inches (in some areas the bedrock is very close to the surface). Because of the 1:1 slope and the sandy character of the soils, the soils drain quickly and do not have the ability to become saturated. No evidence of hydric soil development was detected and it is not expected due to the steepness of the slope and ability of the sandy soils to drain quickly. D. Hydrology In addressing the presence of wetland hydrology, two factors were considered. First, the hydrological indicators set forth in the Arid West Supplement and second, the definition in the Coastal Act which includes areas "which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water." It is important to note that the steep slope and well- drained character of the sandy soils indicate that there is no potential for this area to be "covered" periodically or permanently with shallow water. Storm flows would drain quickly through the sandy soils precluding saturation for sufficient duration to be consistent with the presence of "wetland hydrology" (i.e., saturation for periods sufficient to promote anaerobic conditions in the upper 12 inches). 1. Precipitation Annual precipitation for this area averages approximately I 1 inches per year. Because of the steep slope and porous character of the soils, precipitation would not be sufficient to promote saturation for periods sufficient to promote anaerobic conditions in the upper 12 inches. 2. Runoff Storm water discharge from the 30 -inch pipe would be substantial during storm events; however, because of the steep slope and porous soils, the area would not be covered with shallow water for sufficient duration to promote anaerobic conditions in the upper 12 inches. 3. Irrigation Given the lack of wetland hydrology, as confirmed by the strong upland characteristics of the soils, it appears that the African umbrella sedge is supported by regular irrigation water. During the December 10, 2008, site visit, we observed the neighbor washing off her deck and steps, with the water running into the adjacent honeysuckle. She was also directly watering the honeysuckle Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12, 2008 Page 9 with some over spray directly reaching the umbrella sedge Also,, approximately halfway into our field visit, we observed a very small "trickle" of water discharging from the 30 -inch pipe that lasted forjust a few minutes. Upon investigating the source of water, we found a different neighbor, washing an automobile with the runoff eventually reaching the area. Such runoff would not be sufficient to make a positive finding for the presence of wetland hydrology; however, combined with the irrigation of the adjacent landscaped slope it explains the presence of the umbrella sedge, especially given the strong upland character of the soils. It is also important to note in this regard that the African umbrella sedge is designated as PACW; meaning that up to one -third of occurrences of this species is in upland areas. Confirmation that African umbrella sedge is a corrurion landscape plant that is highly adaptable is provided in the Sunset Western Garden Book: Grows in or out of water. Effective near pools; in pots or planters, or in dry stream beds or rock gardens. Self sows. Can become weedy....'s [Emphasis added.] Given this adaptability, in the absence of other wetland indicators such as the confirmed presence of wetland hydrology or hydric soils, the presence of this plant is not a reliable indicator= of wetland conditions and the nearby` irrigation would explain the presence of this highly adaptable species. IV. DISCUSSI ®N As noted, the 10 by 19-foot area that supports African umbrella sedge is able to support the umbrella sedge due to a combination of landscape irrigation and nuisance water that reaches the site through the 30 -inch pipe. None of the hydrological inputs are sufficient to snake a positive finding for the presence of wetland Hydrology. A. Corns Jurisdiction The African umbrella sedge area lacks indicators for the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology and as such would not be considered a wetland under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. s Sunset Western Garden Book, by the Editors of Sunset Magazine. 1990.: p 3 12. Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12, 2008 Page 10 B. CDFG Jurisdiction The African umbrella sedge area is not associated with a stream of lake and is therefore not subject to jurisdiction under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. C. CCC Jurisdiction Although the African umbrella sedge area exhibits a predominance of wetland indicator species (the African umbrella sedge being the sole such species), it lacks evidence for the presence of hydric soils or wetland hydrology and would not be considered a wetland under the Coastal Act because the 10 by 19 -foot patch of African umbrella sedge is not covered permanently or periodically with shallow water. The area is supported primarily by intermittent artificial water sources, including landscape irrigation from the adjacent slope. While that fact alone does not preclude the area from being a wetland, this specific area is not a wetland under the Coastal Act because it does not meet the Coastal Act definition of a wetland for the following reasons: First, the Coastal Act Definition of Wetlands as set forth in the Public Resources Code Section 30121 is as follows: Wetlands' means lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens. Thus, irrespective of any "parameter" test, the area under consideration as a wetland must be "covered periodically or permanently with shallow water." As noted, the subject area occurs on a steep slope that precludes the area from being covered by shallow water except during very brief periods of intense rainfall. The clear lack of hydric soils as confirmed in the field, indicates that water does not cover or saturate the soil for sufficient duration necessary to promote development of hydric soils nor the growth of hydrophytes, which are present due to the artificial irrigation that is applied to the adjacent vegetation. Second, in accordance with the Commission Regulations, specifically Section 13577 (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 5.5), the Commission has interpreted the regulation consistent with what is often referred to as the "One- Parameter Definition" based on the following definition: (b) Wetlands. Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12, 2008 Page 11 (1) .... Wetland shall be defined as land where the water table is at, near, or above land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes.... [T]he upland limit of a wetland shall be defined as: (A) the boundary between land with predominantly hydrophytic cover and land with predominantly mesophytic or xerophytic cover.... Although Commission staff and even Commissioners themselves often refer to the Commission's standard for identifying wetlands as a "One- Parameter Test," this is a misleading description of how the Commission's delineation process described in Reg. § 13577 actually works. In reality, the Commission's "one parameter" test only establishes a rebuttable presumption that the other indicator(s) also are present. While the Commission takes the position that the presence of a single wetland indicator establishes a presumption that a wetland is present, that presumption can be "rebutted by strong, independent evidence of upland condition." (This is a quote from Staff Ecologist Dr. John Dixon at a Coastal Commission hearing on November 5, 2003.) Dr. Dixon also wrote in an opinion referenced in a staff report prior to that 2003 hearing that In recognition of the fact that a proportion of wetland indicator plants occur in uplands, the wetland presumption maybe falsified where there is strong, positive evidence of upland conditions." Therefore, once the Commission establishes the presumption, the burden shifts to the applicant who must then prove that one or both of the other indicators does not exist. This is a critical distinction because it allows, as in this case, for an in -depth biological analysis to determine if the area, in fact, is NOT a wetland, despite the presence of a single wetland indicator. Given clear and demonstrable lack of wetland hydrology and hydric soils, combined with the characteristics of the African umbrella sedge, a highly adaptable common landscape plant that occurs in upland areas for one -third of occurrences, the subject 10 by 19 foot area is not a wetland under the Coastal Act. D. Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan Policies While the area of African umbrella sedge is not a wetland as defined under the Coastal Act, it is appropriate to address the area under the Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan Policies (CLUP) for purposes of completeness. Policy 4.2.2 -3 of the City's CLUP specifies that all wetland ESHA shall have "a minimum buffer width of 100 feet wherever possible'; however, it is important to consider the entire policy set forth in 4.2.2 -3: Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12, 2008 Page 12 Require buffer areas around wetlands of a sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland that they are designed to protect. Wetlands shall have a minimum buff width of 100 feet wherever possible. Smaller buffer widths may be allowed only where it can be demonstrated that I) a 100 foot buffer is not passible due to site constraints, and 2) the proposed narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity of the wetland given the site - specific characteristics of the resource, and of the type and intensity of disturbance. [Emphasis not in Original] Should a finding be made that the area of African umbrella sedge is a wetland, it is important to note that this area is exactly the sort of resource that does not require a 100 -foot buffer for the following reasons: • First, the area already lacks a 100 -foot buffer along the eastern and southern edges due to the presence of existing residential structures, including the neighboring structure, which is within approximately 17 feet of the umbrella sedge as depicted on Exhibit 3 (this distance was measured with a tape measured using GIS). • Second, as depicted on Exhibit 3, the area of sedge is almost entirely surrounded by or occurs as understory to non - native species and the African umbrella sedge is a non- native species that is considered to be highly invasive and would be subject to eradication from local wetland restoration sites or managed wetlands. • Third, when considered in accordance with the ESHA definition in the Coastal Act, the area does not meet any of the criteria typically associated with ESHA. Specifically, the African umbrella sedge cannot in any way be considered rare as it is a widespread invasive species. The approximately 0.004 acre area does not support or exhibit potential to support any rare or otherwise special status species and does not exhibit importance in the ecosystem given its position on the landscape and composition. Finally, the area is already highly degraded due to the presence of the invasive and/or non- native species noted above. Given these factors, including the proximity of established neighboring development no change in buffer requirements compared with the current conditions are warranted. If you have any questions regarding this letter report, please contact Tony Bomkainp at (949) 837 -0404, extension 41. Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP December 12, 2008 Page 13 Sincerely, GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES, INC. Tony Bomkamp Regulatory Specialist 0731 -7 JD Aerie.doe y, � • -rya r -. S! hl 1 4. it }T C F i � a v al• 4 V o � O �1 11 1ti 1. [r• - J z 0 a O O J r . W W O C a Adapted from USGS Newport Beach OES, CA quadrangle NORTH s c� V) r w Z Q4 x ,i W ra: O Cn 0 J z ,Wn V 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 FEET i Legend Two ti O Data Point for African Umbrella Sedge+ Approximate location of African Umbrella Sedge V k ! _ N A 0 20 40 Feet s� 0 1-,- f y' F r' • ` +� A GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES Exhibit 2 53 2- ].GIS \WetlendGISZ32- ]8edge.mX Photograph 1. View of discharge pipe with African umbrella sedge mixed with other ornamentals. Photograph taken on 12 -10 -2008. Photograph 2. This photograph depicts irrigation lines visible immediately above the area vegetated with African umbrella sedge. Photograph taken on 12 -10 -2008. U) w Q U O CIO Q cn O J z z W J r1 u M H m x w WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Arid West Region ProjecSe: A en I e /LP l F LA s t k aryicourl Sampling Date: /0 n A .Appi1LS'riyQwner n r~ it / 1' .Stara: C-A_ Sarnp}Ing Pont: Investgato(s): an, ToamshlP• Range: T < In(� Yy , SGL L Landferm (hillsiope, terrace, etc.); �Un�/}Q Local relief (concave, con ex, none): i✓L Slope ( %):t�s�7 Subregion (LRR): Let, % 9 -' 1 l ry •V �oreg: i 1 7. �'i , U (- 4✓ Datum: L5:( -1 `54 Sol] Map Unit Name: ,� j A,%A NWI classification: NDIVE Are cilmab, I hydrologic conditions ar the site typical for this time of year? Yes 4L No_ (N no, explain in Remarks.) , /' Are Vegetatiod _, Sol or Hydrology_ significamy disturbed? t4 AM'Nomal Circumstances' present? Yes !3- No_ Are Vegetation Soil_ pr Hydrology_ naturally prob! emetic? No (3f needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. HydrephAe Vegetation Present? Yes— No Is the Sampled Area f Hydric Shc Present? Yes w No ryhin a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: I VEGETATION L'S Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11- 1.2006 Absolute Dominant Indicator 1 Dominance Test worksheet: Tr Statum (Use scientific main } — — q� %Cover Soedes? Status Nuriber of Dominant Sped es 1 IT11"`t—t�S pdIJM �) LL�(„�}yM _�_j��_ UrtY. T!�at Are 09!, FACW, or FAC (A) 2. LA II � J M S Q t; �.�'i_ S%AI< ._ _ Taal Number of Dominant j 3. I Species Across All Strata: 7 (B7 4. Percent of Dominant Species /t/t Taal Cover. - That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: � (AB) SaolincBnnrb Stratum t. Prevalence Index worksheet: Tot ad %Cover of hrua'eLV by 2 3. OSL species x1= FACW species x2= FAC species x3= FACU species x4= 4, S Total Cover. Herb & -ranum �Q---- UPL species x 5 = 1. �`- �.y1�j'11111 A.`I'VS Cal emn Tetais: (A) (B) 7iA1n..fi ,Lfgc1LJ. 2 Prevalence Index =B.A= 3, q Hy¢rophytic Vegetation Indicators: ' Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is 53.01 „_ Morphological Adaplatlons' (Provide supporling data in Remarks Cron a separate sheet) 3 6. 7. 8 i Pacbiernatic Hydropiyfic Vegetation' (Explain) Woody V1ne Stratum Taal Cover. — 1, 'Incticators of hydric sell and w[tiand hydrology nest 1 be present. 2 Taal Cover Hydrophytic ' Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Note Crust presets? Yes x— No _ Reme.ss Pry nc 6u + ry If P -k d by vv tt-,� �Fvc GJj�+co�T Lan, -A s f i CJ + rm S av U- L'S Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11- 1.2006 ffm Profile Desarlpticn: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator ar confirm the absence Depi`r Matrix Redox Fastures (lnchrs7 S `si 56 Cola tmoistl Yp_ titre' Loc, Texture _ Hisfosul {Ai ) Hishc 6pipedon (A2) Back Histic (A3) _ Hydrogen Su tda (A4) Suah,mc Layers (A5) (LRR C) 7 c:m Muck (48) (LRR D) Depleted Selav Dark Surface (At 1) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Sandy Macky Min era] (Si) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Type; Dep(a (inches)- • -e s Sandy Red= (SS) Stripped MarJ1x (SS) T Loamy Mucky Minera)(F1) Loamy Greyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Redox Dark Surface (Fa) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redcx Depressions (F8) Varnal Pods (Fa) Samp4ng Point: 4VI w -- yo, c- 1 cm Muck (A8) (I-RR C) 2 cm Muck (AIM (t.RR 8) Reduced Vertk (P18) _! Red Parent Matarfal (TF2) _.. Outer (aplairt at remarks) °indcatcrs ofd ydr cphytic vegetation and wetland hvdrolocvmust be oresent. Hydric Sall Present? Yes__--__, No PT,maLi Ind7cators (any one indicator is guufffctent) _ Water Marks (S1) (Rfvmmo) Surface Lb'ates(Ai) — Salt Crust (all) _ Sediment Deposits (B2)(Rivsrme). _ High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (812) _ Drift Deposits (S5) (Riverine) Saturation (tit) V. Aquatic invertebrates (613) _ Drainage parent a (Bi p) Water Marks (31) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (C7) Dry- Season Water Table ('•~2) — Sediment Deposit& (62) (Nonriverine) � Oxidized Rlizospheras along IMn¢ Rods (C3) — Thin Muck Surface (C7' _ cliff. Rap o Ts (.^^13) (Ncnriyarine) Presence of Reducexi Iran (C4) — Crayfish Burrows (C0) Surface Soil Cracks {8e) Reran¢ kdn Redaction in Ptowed Soils (06) _ Satcration Visible on Aerial IM66ery (CS) _ Inundattco Ulsibte on „ oriel fmgerytS7) _ Other (Explain in Rema*5) ShalloxActuitard (W) 'Nater- Stained Leaves (B9 ) FAC- Neutrat Test (D5) Field Observations:. -face Water Prager, a Yes _No Depth (Inches): �. Jwatar Tab €e Present? Yes No, h €inches): sa.umacri Present? Yes _ No Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydral ogy Present? Yas No USA- yCarps o € Engineers Arid West – Version 11 -1 -2006