The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPA2008-040_DEIR MARINA PARK VOL. III OF III1111111111111111111111 PA2008-040 DEIR Marina Park Vol. III of III Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report Marina Park Newport Beach, Orange County, California Technical Appendices Volume III of III State Clearinghouse # 2008051096 Prepared for: CITY COPY DO NOT REMOVE FROM PREMISES City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949.644.3219 Contact: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Prepared by: Sirius Environmental January 2010 PA2008-040 for ER2008-001 1700 W. Balboa Blvd DA-rE OF PAEETING: - 5111(A010 ' Marina Park Draft REIR 1 Appendix H: Drainage and Water Quality Information Marina Park Draft REIR ' H.1 - PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 E 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Site: MARINA PARK Newport Beach, CA Prepared for: CITY Of NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Project Manager.: Trevor Dodson, P.E. Date Prepared: October 17, 2008 JN: 1001.07.01 _�I�1'I1I11) Prepared by: FUSCOE F N 6 1 N I E N I N G 16795 Von Korman Avenue, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 (949) 474-1960 www.fuscoe.com 1 PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) MARINA PARK CUP NO. TBD DESIGN REVIEW NO. TBD Located at Balboa Boulevard between 18'h Street and 16'h Street of the Balboa Peninsula in the City of Newport Beach County of Orange, California Prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 949.644.3309 Prepared by: FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 16795 Von Karman Ave, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 949.474.1960 Date Prepared: October 17, 2008 I ' PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 ' OWNER'S CERTIFICATION WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) ' City of Newport Beach Design Review No. ' This Water Quality Management Plan has been prepared for the Cify of Newport Beach by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. This WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the County of Orange, Planning and Development Services Division (PDSD), Site Development Permit/Application Number TBD, Condition Number(s) TBD, requiring the preparation of a project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan and will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date ' conditions on the site consistent with current Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the intent of the non -point source NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated cities of Orange County under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. A copy of this ' WQMP will be maintained at the project site or project office. This WQMP will be reviewed with the facility operator, facility supervisors, employees, tenants, ' maintenance and service contractors, or any other party having responsibility for implementing portions of this WQMP. At least one copy of the approved and certified copy of this WQMP shall be available on the subject property in perpetuity. Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the ' property, its successors -in -interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement and amend this WQMP. ' Signature Title ' Name Company Address Phone Date ' MARINA PARK OWNER'S CERTIFICATION PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............ ............................... .... .................................................. I.................. 1.0 DISCRETIONARY PERMIT(S) & WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS ........................................ 3 1.1 DISCRETIONARY PERMITS......................................................................................... 3 ' 1.2 RESOLUTIONS..................................................................................I.........................3 1.3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.................................................................................... 3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................4 2.1 FACILITY DESCRIPTION............................................................................................... 4 ' 2.2 PROJECT FEATURES.................................................................................................... 4 PARKINGFACILITIES.................................................................................................. 4 LANDSCAPEDAREAS.................................................................................................. 4 DRAINAGE AND RUNOFF ALTERATIONS ....................................•.• 5 ANTICIPATED AND POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS ........................... .... ................ I ...... I....... 5 OWNERSHIPOF SITE................................................................ .............................. 6 ' 2.3 SPECIFIC INDUSTRIAL / COMMERCIAL DETAILS........................................................... 7 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION.....................................................................................I................ 9 3.1 WATERSHED...............................................................................................................9 303(d) LISTED WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS .................... 9 ' TMDLs....................................................................................................I................. 9 HYDROLOGICCONCERNS ......................... ..... ............................. I ................... ...... 9 3.2 SITE LOCATION .................. ........... ............... .... .......................................... I ...... ...... 10 ' SOIL CHARACTERISTICS .................................... ......... ........................ I..................... 10 EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS........................................................................ 10 PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONDITIONS...................................................................... 10 LANDUSE AND ZONING......................................................................................... 10 ' 3.3 EXISTING WATER QUALITY ISSUES ............................ .................... I............................ 11 4.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES............................................................................... 12 4.1 SITE DESIGN BMPs.................................................................................................... 12 4.2 SOURCE CONTROL BMPs........................................................................................ 15 4.3 TREATMENT CONTROL BMPs................................................................................... 19 TREATMENT CONTROL #1: POROUS PAVEMENT .................................................... 20 TREATMENT CONTROL #2: VEGETATED SWALE('BIOSWALE")................................ 21 TREATMENT CONTROL#3: BIORETENTION ("LANDSCAPED BIOCELLS")................. 21 TREATMENT BMP SIZING CALCULATIONS............................................................... 21 5.0 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE (O&M PLAN) ....................................................... 23 ' ANNUAL CERTIFICATION OF BMP MAINTENANCE— ................................................. 23 LONG-TERM FUNDING FOR BMP MAINTENANCE .......................................... . ......... 23 ACCESS EASEMENT FOR CITY/COUNTY INSPECTION .............................................. 23 5.1 MAINTENANCE OF SOURCE CONTROLS ....................... ........ ........... ..... I................. 24 5.2 MAINTENANCE OF TREATMENT CONTROLS ............................................................. 27 TREATMENT CONTROL # 1: POROUS PAVEMENT .................................................... 28 TREATMENT CONTROL #2: VEGETATED BIOSWALE................................................ 28 ' TREATMENT CONTROL #3: LANDSCAPED BIOCELLS............................................. 28 6.0 PLOT PLAN AND BMP DETAILS................................................................................... 29 7.0 PUBLIC EDUCATION................................................................................................. 31 8.0 APPENDICES............................................................................................................32 I MARINA PARK TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY WATER QLIALITYA4ANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 APPENDICES Appendix 1 Runoff Coefficient References Appendix 2 Notice of Transfer of Responsibility Appendix 3 Public Education Materials (to be provided in Final WQMP) Appendix 4 Post -Construction BMP Fact Sheets (to be provided in Final WQMP) Appendix 5 Final Resolutions / Conditions of Approval (to be provided in Final WQMP) Appendix 6 Record of BMP Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection BMP TABLES Table 1 Site Design BMPs Table 2 Routine Non -Structural BMPs Table 3 Routine Structural BMPs Table 4 Treatment Control BMPs LOCATION MAP, SITE PLANS AND BMP DETAILS (INCLUDED IN SECTION 6.0) • Vicinity Map • Water Quality Management Plan Exhibit MARINA PARR TABLE OF CONTENTS I 1 i PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 INTRODUCTION This Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) has been prepared to provide specifications for the post -construction management of storm water runoff from the proposed project, Marina Park. Improperly managed runoff can be a significant source of water pollution causing impacts to aquatic habitat, wildlife, and water -dependent beneficial uses. The implementation of this plan ensures that such impacts are reduced to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). This PWQMP covers the post -construction operations on Marina Park in the City of Newport Beach, California (see Vicinity Map in Section 6.0). It has been developed as required under State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Municipal NPDES Storm Water Permil for the County of Orange and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, and in accordance with good engineering practices. This PWQ+1AP describes this facility and its operations, identifies potential sources of storm water pollution at the facility, and recommends appropriate Best Monagemeni Practices (BMPs) or pollution control measures to reduce the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff. ' MARINA PARK INTRODUCTION PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 ' , PROJECT CATEGORIES In accordance with the OC DAMP and Countywide Model WQMP, a project is considered o "Priority Project' if it meets any of the following criteria: , PRIORITY PROJECT CATEGORY' 1. Residential development of 10 units or more 2. Commercial and industrial development greater than 100,000 square feet Including parking area 3. Automotive repair shops (SIC codes 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, and , 7536.7539) 4. Restaurants where the land area of development is 5,000 square feet or more jl including parking area (SIC code 5812) , 5. For Son Diego Region: Hillside development greater than 5,000 square feet For Santo Ana Region: Hillside developments on 10,000 square feet or more, which are located on areas with known erosive soil conditions or where natural , slope is twenl -five percent or more 6. Impervious surface of 2,500 square feet or more located within, directly adjacent ✓ to (within 200 feet), or discharging directly to receiving waters within , Environmentally Sensitive Areas 7. Parking Lots 5,000 square feet or more, or with 15 parking spaces or more, and potentially exposed to urban storm water runoff. ' 8. For San Diego Region: Streets, roads, highways, and freeways which would create a new paved surface that is 5;000 square feet or greater 9. For Santo Ana Region: All Significant Redevelopment projects, where Significant ✓ Redevelopment is defined as the addition of 5,000 or more square feet of ' Impervious surface on an alread developed site. "Priority The proposed Morino Park Project meets Categories 6 & 9, and therefore, is considered a Project" in accordance with the OC DAMP. 1 II I� MARINA PARK 2 INTRODUCTION PRELIMINARY WATER. QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 1.0 DISCRETIONARY PERMIT(S) & WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS The proposed project, designated Project/Application Number TBD by the City of Newport Beach, located in Tract Number TBD, is a subdivision of Parcel Map Number TBD in the City of Newport Beach, State of California, Office of the County Recorder, Orange County. 1.1 DISCRETIONARY PERMITS To be determined. 1.2 RESOLUTIONS To be determined. 1.3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Pending. To be provided in the Final WQMP. MARINA PARK 3 WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOWR 17, 2008 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 FACILITY DESCRIPTION The proposed Marina Pork project site encompasses approximately 7-acres located in the City of Newport Beach, CA. The project site is bounded by Balboa Boulevard to the south, 18" Street to the west, 16'" Street to the east, and the Lower Newport Bay to the north. A Vicinity Map is provided in Section 6.0. Under existing conditions, the project site consists of a mobile home park with 57 units, a community center, Girl Scout House, four tennis courts, and a small playground. Adjacent land uses include residential developments to the west and south, American Legion Post 291 to the east, and a small commercial building and SCE substation to the southeast. The proposed project will include iho removal of the existing facilities for the construction of a recreational pork end sailing center. A new Girl Scout House will be constructed in the western portion of the site. Also proposed for the western portion of the site are open lawn and play areas, picnic areas, water play zone, beach access and a playground. Within the central portion of the site, a Community Center and Sailing Center are proposed. New boat slips and a visiting vessel marina will be constructed adjacent to the Sailing Center. Parking lots will be provided adjacent to the relocated Girl Scout House and south of the Community Center and Sailing Center buildings. Lastly, two tennis courts will be relocated adjacent to the American Legion facility that will remain under proposed conditions. 2.2 PROJECT FEATURES PARKING FACILITIES Parking will be provided throughout the project site in the form of three surface lots. The western parking lot will have 24 regular spaces with 2 handicap spaces, and will serve the Girl Scout House and adjacent park facilities. The Central parking lot will have 97 spaces with 5 handicap spaces, and the East Lot will have 26 spaces. Both the Center Lot and the East Lot will serve the Community/Sailing Center complex. When the Project is complete, a total of 154 parking spaces will be provided, Portions of the parking lots will be constructed with permeable concrete pavers, as discussed further in Section 4.3. LANDSCAPED AREAS The project site will include landscaping in the form of open turf play areas, shade trees, palm trees, parking lot islands, and adjacent to the proposed buildings. Under proposed conditions, the majority of the site acres will be landscaped. Further details on proposed landscaping will be provided in the Final WQMP. MARINA PARK 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAINAGE AND RUNOFF ALTERATIONS OCTOBER 17, 2008 Prior to construction, approximately 90% of the site is impervious and the runoff coefficient is 0.83. After completion, the entire site will be approximately 50% impervious and the runoff coefficient will be 0.53.' These statistics are summarized in the figure below. 100% 80% 0 60% a c 40% v i 20% 0% Project Site Drainage and Runoff Characteristics Dlmpervious Area _ �C-Factor It Existing I Proposed WIT1 0.80 c d 0.60 0 V 0.40 m 0 c 0.20 WE Chart 1. Changes in site drainage and the coefficient of runoff as a result of the proposed improvements. ANTICIPATED AND POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS As a result of the proposed project's alteration of existing conditions, the project site may create new pollutant sources, and Jn turn, change the makeup of pollutant constituents generated by Marina Park's operations. But because storm water runoff pollution is diffuse in nature, the composition, level, and cumulative effects of specific pollutot:ls generated by the project cannot be appropriately quantified. Based on the proposed land uses for Marina Park, however, this project PWQMP can predict the anticipated and potential pollutants generally associated with the project's post -construction operations. With this information in hand, this will allow the project WQMP to appropriately assign BMPs to effectively mitigate storm water pollution prior to the runoff discharging off -site. The table below, derived from the Countywide Model WQMP, summarizes the categories of land use or project features of concern and the general pollutant categories associated with them. The types of project features listed below that are proposed for Marina Park are: Commercial/Industrial Development, Restaurants, and Parking Lots. As a result, anticipated pollutants include: Bacteria/Virus, Fleavy Metals, Organic Compounds, Trash & Debris, Oxygen Demanding Substances, and Oil & Grease. In addition, potential pollutants include: Nutrients, Pesticides, and Sediments. Runoff coefficients derived from Table A-1 of Atlachment A of the Orange County Local WQMP (August 13, 2003). MARINA PARK 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 11 PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 11 POLLUTANTGENERAL • am y to Q UZ N m Z w w� V W Priority Project Categories °C k Z w a u =O 0 Z w p 00 o Z O Z 4 ac C7 and/or Project Features ] j N U' 00 o = u' �c in Owl 0a �_ m Z d V W ' 0 S Commercial/Industrial P,7t P pit, pnt piss PrI X rit X Development Restaurants X X X X Parking Lois p trt X Pill P ui X fm put X P t'i X Notas: X = Anticipated P - Potential (1) A potential pollutant if landscaping or open area exist on :ita. (2) A potential pollutont.f the protect includes uncovered parking areas. (3) A potential pollutant If land use involves food or ommol waste products. (4) Including petroleum hydrocarbons. (.5) Including solvents. 6 Analyses of pavement runoff routinely exhibit bacterial indicators. Source: County of Orange Flood Control District, 2003 Drainage Arco Master Plan, Table 7.1.3, July 1, 2003. OWNERSHIP OF SITE The table provided below describes the ownership of all land space within the project site once the construction of the project has been completed. SITE FEATURE Public Streets • City of Newport Beach Private Streets Not applicable. Landscaped Areas City of Newport Beach Open Space City of Newport Beach Easements City of Newport Beach Parks City of Newport Beach Buildings City of Newport Beach The City of Newport Beach will be responsible for inspecting and maintaining all BMPs prescribed for Marina Park, Further details on maintenance and responsibilities are provided in Section 5.0 of this PWQMP. MARINA PARK 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 ' 2.3 SPECIFIC INDUSTRIAL / COMMERCIAL DETAILS The Marina Park project will include 3 buildings with various uses. All of the buildings, and ' their planned uses, described in the proposed project plan will be addressed in the following table. II L I LJ Li I_' 1 11 BUILDING SUMMARY BUILDING NAME USE SIZE FEATURES Girl Scout House Girl Scout program _4,800 Classrooms, administrative rooms uses Classrooms, Community Center Classrooms for sailing programs and _11,100 fta administrative rooms, banquet room/large other city programs classroom. Storage for sailing program boats & Meeting areas, cafe, _10,200 ftz equipment, resirooms, Sailing Center and storage spaces locker room, meeting room, reception area, restaurant on 2"u level. Rubberized play surface, bridge and Playground Children's play area —8,800 ft2 pier, seating areas, shade structures, resirooms, lighthouse icon w/ viewing deck 28 slips 48' in length with full hookups, one Visiting Vessel Marina On -water storage for _72,500 ftz additional side tie, 200' various types of boats long dock, concrete floating docks Pending —to be Off -Site Restroom Restroom provided in Final Restroom facility Improvement WQMP Materials to be stored on -site include boating and other equipment for sailing programs, as well as for other city programs and uses. With the exception of boats in the marina area, all equipment will be stored indoors within the community center/sailing complex buildings. Activities that may be conducted outdoors include functions associated with sailing programs such as swim lessons and other instructional activities, in addition to recreational activities within the park and play areas. Further details on the proposed activities and materials stored will be provided in the Final WQMP. New developments and significant redevelopments generally incorporate certain site features that may potentially impact storm water runoff quality if proper site design is not considered. These features include, but are not limited to, trash enclosures, loading docks, maintenance bays, vehicle or equipment wash areas, outdoor processing areas, fueling areas, food preparation areas, and community car wash areas. The following table provides a breakdown of specific features proposed for the project site. MARINA PARK 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRELIMINAP.Y WATER QUAL(TYNAANAGFMENTPLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 SITE FEATURE SITE FEATURES SUMMARY PROPOSED? POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN Trash Enclosures Yes Trash and debris, bacteria Organic compounds, trash and Loading Docks No debris, oil and grease, hcovy metals, wash water Trash and debris, oil and grease, Maintenance Bays No hear metoIs Fueling Areas No Oil and grease, heavy metals, or anic compounds Equipment / Vehicle Wash No Trash, sediment, oil and grease, Areas washin com ounds(soap) Food Preparation Areas Yes Oil and grease, bacteria/virus Trash and debris, heavy metals, Outdoor Processing Areas No oil and grease Trash, sediment, oil and grease, Community Car Wash Racks No washing compounds(soap) Further details on the number, design and location of these features will be documented in the Final WQMP. In the event site features are added to the proposed Project that are not identified in the Final WQMP, these features will be designed in accordance with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (OC DAMP, 2003) requirements and City LIP and verified during the precise grode plan check review process. MARINA PAK 8 PROJECT DESCRIPTION I I 1 J I I PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 3.1 WATERSHED OCTOBER 77, 2008 The project site is located within the Newport Bay watershed. The Newport Bay Watershed covers 13.2 square miles along the coast of central Orange County. It includes portions of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. The East Costa Mesa, Santa Isabel, and other smaller channels drain into Newport Bay. Specifically, runoff from the project drains into the Lower Newport Bay. 303(dl LISTED WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS Based on the 2006 section 303(d) list of Water Quality Limited Segments published by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Lower Newport Bay is listed as impaired for chlordane; copper, DDT, PCBs, and sediment toxicity. TMDLs Once a water body has been listed as impaired, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for -the constituent of concern (pollutant) must be developed for that water body. A TMDL is an estimate of the daily load of pollutants that a water body may receive from point sources, non - point sources, and natural background conditions (including an appropriate margin of safety), without exceeding its water quality standard. Those facilities and activities that are discharging into the water body, collectively, must not exceed the TMDL. Several TMDLs have been developed jointly for the San Diego Creek Watershed and the Newport Bay, including nutrients, pathogens and pesticides. In addition, TMDLs for organochlorine compounds and metals are currently in development by the RWQCB. HYDROLOGIC CONCERNS ' The purpose of this section is to identify any hydrologic conditions of concern with respect to downstream flooding, erosion potential of natural channels downstream, impacts of increased flows on natural habitat, etc. Hydrologic conditions of concern are typically directed to those developments that discharge directly into receiving water bodies (natural drainage courses or partially improved channels). The site is fully developed under existing conditions, and the Project will not increase impervious surfaces as compared to existing conditions. In addition, Runoff from the project site discharges into an existing underground MS4 at Balboa Boulevard, as under existing conditions. Runoff ultimately discharges to the lower Newport Bay, which is subject to tidal action. Therefore, hydrology conditions will not change as a result of the Project, and there are no hydrologic conditions of concern. ' MARINA PARK 9 SITE DESCRIPTION PREt1MINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 3.2 SITE LOCATION SOIL CHARACTERISTICS OCTOBER 17, 2008 A geotechnical study was performed for the project site in September 2001 and was revised in December 2003. Based on the investigation, soils on the project site generally consist of send, with some silt in the top two feet. Due to the proximity to the Lower Newport Bay, groundwater was encountered of a depth of 8 feet below ground surface, and is subject to tidal fluctuation.' EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS Under existing conditions, runoff from the eastern portion of the site is conveyed via existing storm drain lines to the storm drain line at Balboa Boulevard that ultimately discharges into the Lower Newport Bay at 15" Street. Runoff from the western portion of the site is conveyed via existing storm drain lines to the storm drain line at Balboa Boulevard that ultimately discharges to the Lower Newport Bay at 18" Street. PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONDITIONS Under proposed conditions, runoff will flow in similar patterns to existing conditions, and continue to drain to the two storm drain lines at Balboa Boulevard. The existing lines within the project site will be removed. Low -flow and first -flush runoff on -site will generally sheet flow to the proposed treatment control BMPs, including porous pavement and landscaped btocells (see Section 4.3 for further details). Higher flows will continue to flow to the existing storm drain lines at Balboa Boulevard. LAND USE AND ZONING The project site is zoned as PC-51 Planned Community. ? Abstract Consulting Group. Geotechnical Investigation, North Side of Balboa Blvd. to the Boy Between 1 S" 3e i V Street, Newport Beach, Colilomio. September 5, 2001. revised and updated December 16, 2003. I '1 I I MARINA PARK 10 SITE DESCRIPTION ' PRELIMINARY WATFR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 3.3 EXISTING WATER QUALITY ISSUES The proposed project is located within the lower Newport Bay. Since the Lower Newport Bay is listed as impaired on the 303(d) list of impaired water bodies, it is designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) according to the OC DAMP. Under existing conditions, the project site is fully developed. There are no pre-existing water quality issues identified for the site, nor has there been any indication of past soil contamination since this area's development. If such problems are discovered at any stage o the project's improvements, this condition will be evaluated and mitigated. I I I I MARINA PARK SITE DESCRIPTION PREUMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 4.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The WQMP shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on -site to control predictable pollutant runoff, and shall identify, at a minimum, the measures specified in the Countywide Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association, lessee, etc.) and the locations of oil structural BMPs. Projects designated as Priority Projects are required to incorporate and implement site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs, unless not applicable due to the project characteristics. Site design BMPs help minimize the introduction or generation of potential pollutants from a facility's operations. Source control BMPs are operational practices that reduce potential pollutants of the source, and include both structural and routine non-structural practices. Treatment control BMPs remove pollutants of concern from storm water runoff and must be located and designed appropriately so as to infiltrate, filter, and/or treat the required runoff volume or flow prior to discharging into receiving waters. Selection of treatment control BMPs is based on the pollutants of concern of the project site (identified under Section 2.2) and the BMP's ability to effectively mitigate those pollutants, in consideration of site conditions and constraints. Further details on the Project's selected treatment control BMPs (Porous Pavement and Landscaped Biocells) are provided in Section 4.3. 4.1 SITE DESIGN BMPs The following table describes the site design BMPs used in this,project and the methods used to incorporate them. Careful consideration of site design is a critical first step in storm water pollution prevention from new developments and redevelopments, • • • • •• 0 • 7DESIGMIDERED: SPECIFIC BMP 7YES NO DESCRIPTION The Project will result in a reduction in impervious area. surfaces as compared to existing conditions. In addition, permeable pavers are proposed to further maximize permeable area. Conserve natural areas. ® The project site is fully developed under existing conditions, No natural areas will be preserved. Construct walkways, trails, patios, overflow parking lots, alleys, driveways, low -traffic streets, and other low -traffic areas with open•joinled ® Portions of the proposed parking lots will be paving materials or permeable surfaces, such as constructed with permeable pavers. pervious concrete, porous asphalt, unit pavers, and granularmaterials. Construct streets, sidewalks, and parking lot aisles to the minimum widths necessary, provided Drive aisles will be constructed to minimum that public safely and a pedestrian friendly widths necessary in accordance with local environment ore not compromised'. Incorporaterequirements. EZ landscaped buffer areas between sidewalks and streets. Reduce widths of street where off-street parking isStreet widths will not be reduced under the available'. project. MARINAPARK 12 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES •, PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 qM • • • 1 • • •• ' DESIGN NSIDERED: SPECIFIC YES NO DESCRIPTION !CO interception and water Maximize canopy conservation by preserving existing native trees ❑ ® Currently, the project site is developed, and there and shrubs, and planting additional native or are no natural areas to conserve. ' drought•foleront trees and large shrubs. Minimize the use of impervious surfaces, such as ® Decorative concrete will be minimized in decorative concrete, in the landscape design. landscape design. ' No natural drainage systems are proposed for ❑ ® the site. However, landscaped biocells and Use of natural drainage systems. permeable pavers ore proposed to provide treatment of storm water runoff. Where soils conditions are suitable, use No gravel filtration pits are proposed. However, perforated pipe or gravel filtration pits for low ❑ ® permeable pavers are proposed to provide flow infilirotion'. treatment of storm water runoff. ' Construct on -site ponding areas, rain gordens, or retention facilities to increase opportunities for Landscaped biocells and permeable pavers are infiltration, while being cognizant of the need to ® ❑ proposed to provide treatment of storm water prevent the development of vector breeding runoff. ' areas. Other comparable site design options that are ❑ ❑ None. equally effective. 1. Sidewalk widihs must still comply with Americans with Disabilities Act regulations and other life safety requirements. ' 2. Howover, street widths must still comply with life safety requirements for fire and emergency vehicle access. 3. Howevor, projects must still comply with hillside grading ordinances that limit or restrict infiltration of runoff. Infiltration areas may be subject to regulation as Class V injection wells and may require a report to the US EPA. ' CONCEPTSITE DESIGN•IMPERVIOUS AREAS DESIGN CONSIDERED: SPECIFIC BMP YES NO DESCRIPTION Where landscaping is proposed, drain rooftops Rooftops will drain to landscaped areas and ' into adjacent landscaping prior to discharging to ® ❑ proposed bioswales. the storm drain. Where landscaping is proposed, drain Sidewalks will drain towards adjacent landscaped ' impervious sidewalks, walkways, trails, and patios ® ❑ areas. into adjacent landscaping. One bioswales is proposed, collecting runoff in from the proposed Community/Sailing Center ' Increase the use of vegetated drainage swales lined ® ❑ complex. In addition, landscaped biocells and lieu of underground piping or imperviously permeable pavers are proposed to provide swales. treatment of storm water runoff. Existing underground storm drain piping will be removed. ' USE ONE OR • OF • • Rural Swale System: street sheet flows to vegetated swale or gravel shoulder, curbs atrn ❑ ® No streets are proposed on -site. ' street comers, culverts under driveways and street crossings. MARINA PARK 13 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ' PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2003 CONCEPTSITE DESIGN •IMPERVIOUS AREAS DESIGN CONSIDERED: SPECIFIC BMP ( YES NO DESCRIPTION Urban curb/swalo system: street slopes to curb; No streets are proposed on -site. However, a vegetated bioswales is proposed, collecting periodic Swale inlets drain to vegetated Swale/ © ❑ runoff from the new Community/Sailing Center btohiter. complex. Duafdroinage system: first flush captured in street catch basins and discharged to adjacent ❑ No streets are proposed on -site. vegetated swolo or gravel shoulder, high flows connect directly to municipal storm drain systems. Other comparable design concepts ]hat are © ❑ landscaped biocells, a vegetated bioswale, and permeable pavers are proposed to provide equally elective. Treatment of storm water runoff. USE ONE OR MORE OF • • FOR THE DESIGN OF DRIVEWAYS RESIDENTIAL PARKING AREAS: Design driveways with shored access, flared (single lone a] street) or wheel strips (paving only ❑ Not applicable — non•residenlial development. under lires); or, dram into landscaping prior to discharging to the municipal storm drain system. Uncovered temporary or guest parking on private residential lots may be: paved with a permeable surface; or, designed to drain into landscaping ❑ 0 Not applicable— non-residential development. prior to discharging to ]he municipal storm drain system. Other comparable design concepts that are ❑ Nano. equally effective. USE ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING FOR THE DESIGN OF PARKING AREAS: Where landscaping is proposed in parking areas, drainage ® ❑ landscaped biocells are proposed for portions of incorporate landscape areas into the the parking areas. design. Overflow parking (parking stalls provided in ® ❑ Portions of the parking lots will be construcled excess of the minimum parking requirements) with permeable pavers. may be constructed with permeable paving. Other comparable design concepts that ore ❑ © None. equally effective, 11 11 11 11 11 MARINA PARK 14 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 4.2 SOURCE CONTROL BMPs MARIN OCTOBER 77, 2008 The table below indicates all BMPs to be incorporated in the project. For those designated as not applicable (N/A), a brief explanation why is provided. INCORPORATED'•DESCRIPTION NON-STRUCTURAL HOMEOWNER/ TENANT ® No homes or residential units are N I EDUCATION planned for the project site. The City of Newport Beach shall develop activity restrictions that include those that have the potential to create adverse impacts on water .,.nIiiv Arfivifies include. but are no I PRFLINIINARY WATER OUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 t INCORPORATED ROUTINEDESCRIPTION NON-STRUCTURAL N9 HAZ-MAT DISCLOSURE ❑ ❑ Hazardous materials will not be COMPLIANCE stored on the project site. N10 UNIFORM FIRE CODE ❑ Not applicable. IMPLEMENTATION The City of Newport Beach shalt be required to implement trash management and litter control procedures aimed at reducing pollution of discharge. This includes N 11 COMMON AREA LITTER ® El providing an appropriate number of CONTROL trash receptacles, performing trash pickup in common areas, noting improper disposal materials by the public and reporting such violations to the City for investigation. All employees and any contractors of the owner will require training to N 12 EMPLOYEE TRAINING 0 ❑ ensure that employees are aware of maintenance activities that may result in pollutants reaching the storm drain. N13 HOUSEKEEPING OF ❑ No loading docks are proposed for LOADING DOCKS the site. All on -site catch basins, grate inlets, and drainage facilities shall be N14 CATCH BASIN ❑ ❑ inspected and cleaned when INSPECTION necessary, prior to the rainy season, no later than October 1', each year. STREET SWEEPING Private drive aisles and parking lots N15 PRIVATE STREETS AND ❑ within the project site will be swept PARKING LOTS on a quarlerl basis at a minimum, N17' RETAIL GASOLINE El No retail gasoline outlets are OUTLETS proposed for the site. 'There is no BMP with the designation N16. MARINA PARK 16 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ' ' PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 INCORPORATEDROUTINE DESCRIPTION STRUCTURAL BMP: PROPER OUTDOOR HAZARDOUS I X I No outdoor hazardous material neerFaiei cTr)PAhp nr,;i(,N storage areas are proposed. 1 1 H 1 I PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PL W OCTOBER 17, 2008 The routine structural and non-structural BMPs have been selected in the above tables to address the anticipated and potential pollutants generated by the project site's land uses. The implementation of these BMPs is designed to reduce the pollutants associated with the land uses discussed in Section 2.3 and shown in the table below. With the implementation of these routine source control BMPs, the Project area will effectively minimize its potential to generate pollutants that may potentially cause water quality impacts to the downstream receiving water body (Lower Newport Bay). SOURCE• •POLLUTANTS ACTIVITY RESTRICTIONS AND Heavy metals, oil & grease, bacteria, nutrients TENANT EDUCATION COMMON AREA LANDSCAPE Nutrients, pesticides, sediments, oxygen demanding MANAGEMENT substances COMMON AREA LITTER CONTROL Trash and debris, organics AND TRASH STORAGE AREAS EMPLOYEE TRAINING Heavy metals, trash and debris, oil and grease, oxygen demanding substances. Sediment, particulates, heavy metals, trash and CATCH BASIN INSPECTION debris STREET SWEEPING All pollutants, particularly trash and debris STORM DRAIN SIGNAGE All pollutants, particularly trash and debris EFFICIENT IRRIGATION AND Nutrients, pesticides, sediments, oxygen demanding LANDSCAPE DESIGN substances FOOD PREPARATION AREAS Trash and debris, oil and grease, bacteria 11 1' MARINA PARK 18 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 11 II 1 II II 1 1 II [1 II 1 PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 4.3 TREATMENT CONTROL BMPs OCTOBER 77, 2008 The following table describes the treatment control BMPs that will be incorporated into this project. The treatment BMPs in this table are included in the project design to mitigate any pollutants of concern that were identified in the water quality planning process. The table also ,4.,,;kPc why n BMP was not chosen for the project. If necessary, details describing the design PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY AWAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 TREATMENT CONTROL BMP SELECTION H r � z w ? V 06 N w �o V ZD ,ym = WZN Q ww QN 0 0 D Q C Q W 91M X a s y G J_ N uwi� Z OV Mm> 50 ow., Bioldlers / Vegetated Swales H/M L U L L U H/M U Detention Basins' M M U M At U M U Infiltration Basins? H/M H/M U U H/M H/M U U Wei Ponds / Wetlands H/M H/M U U H/M U U U Sand Filter/ Filtration' H/M L/M H/M H/M H/M H/M H/M U Water Quality Inlals L L L M L L M L Hydrodynamic Separalorss H/M' L L 1-10v1 L L LIM L Note;: I Includes extended/dry d?Iention basins with 36-43-h.ur circ,vdown Line L Low removal officienry 2 Includes mbitration balms, infiltration trenchos, and porous pa,ements m. ".tedivm removal efficiency 3 Includes permanent pool wet ponds and conducted wetlands H: High remwol efficiency 4 Includes med,afilter. U: Unknown removal efficiency 5 Abo known as hydrodynamic devices, baffle bores, swirl concentrators, or ' Licrturbidiif cyclone se ara:ars Source: Excerpted, with minor revision, from the Orange County Model Water Quality Management Plan. September 26 2003. TREATMENT CONTROL#1: POROUS PAVEMENT Permeable pavement, such as permeable pavers, grass pavers, porous concrete, and porous asphalt, provides a surface suitable for light -loads and parking areas in which water can drain , through pore spaces to an underlying rock reservoir (approximately 1-3 feet deep) underneath. The sub -surface base allows for physical and microbial filtering processes to take place thereby removing pollutants such as particulates, organics, hydrocarbons and total suspended , sediments, Including attached heavy metals. Porous concrete pavers are proposed for the parking stalls within the three parking lots. The , porous pavement areas will consist of layers of permeable concrete pavers, geotechnical fobdc, clean non.compocted aggregate base, and a perforated underdrain system designed to carry high flows directly to the M54. The rock reservoir underneath the porous surface allows storm water runoff to be temporarily stored before discharging into storm drain. The porous ' pavement sections proposed for the project will have an average rock reservoir depth of 8 inches; however, depths may be increased to 1 �2 feet if needed to achieve the minimum requiredtreatment design volumes for each drainage area. Typical cross sections and details ' are provided in Section 6.0. further details and final design of the porous pavement will be provided in the Final WQMP. MARINA PARK 20 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ' L' PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 TREATMENT CONTROL #2• VEGETATED SWALE ("BIOSWAL2'1 Vegetated swales (also known as bioswales) are treatment BMPs that provide filtration through a grossed or vegetated bottom and the vegetation provides a mechanism for retarding surface runoff and filtering flows to drop sediments, fines, debris, and organics. Swoles also provide treatment of runoff within the upper soil zone where biological and chemical reactions occur to absorb pollutants entering from the top soil. Due to the slow velocity of runoff through the Swale, fine particulates can settle in the bottom of the channel and the runoff will infiltrate into the soil profile where the vegetation will uptake nutrients (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorous), microbial contaminants, oil and grease, and pesticides. The bioswale will provide pretreatment and additional infiltration opportunities for storm water runoff from the proposed Community/Sailing Center complex prior to reaching the landscaped biocells for further treatment. As a result, the swale is considered a pretreatment and ' conveyance mechanism and therefore, sizing information is not included in this WQMP. Sizing of the landscaped biocells is discussed further in the following sub -section. TREATMENT CONTROL #3• BIORETENTION ("LANDSCAPED BIOCELLS" ) Landscaped biocells are features that can be utilized within the landscaping areas to capture, ' treat and infiltrate runoff. Landscaped biocells can also be placed within the landscaped islands in the parking lots and drive aisles to provide treatment of runoff from the adjacent areas. Landscaped biocells, also known as biorelention zones, are small, vegetated depressions to promote infiltration and filtration of storm water runoff. They combine shrubs, grasses, and flowering perennials in depressions that allow water to pool and filter through a minimum of 18 inches of soil where vegetation will uptake nutrients (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorous), microbial contaminants, oil and grease, and pesticides, and sediments and fine particulates can settle out.' Treated runoff is infiltrated into the sub -soils below. An underdrain provides drainage of flows under high flow conditions. Refer to Section 6.0 for locations of the proposed biocells for storm water treatment. ' TREATMENT BMP SIZING CALCULATIONS ' In accordance to the Countywide Model WQMP, the treatment BMPs will be sized to treat the maximum the volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th percentile storm event, as ' determined from the local historical rainfall record. This is termed the Stormwater Quality Design Volume. The Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SQDV), is thus determined by the following equation: ' SQDV = C * I * ATOTAL Where: C = coefficient of runoff (see Appendix 1) ' 1 = 0.7 inches AToru total area to be treated ' The calculations are provided in the table below. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix 1. LFR Inc. and Dan Cloak Environmental Consulting. Contra Costa Clean Water Program Infiltration Site Charadenmtion Cnte iq end Guidance Study, Milestone Ropad 43. April t, 2005, MARINA PARK 21 BEST MANA(3tMtN 1 rteAL I l(-CJ PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 Area Name QD % Impervious Drainage Area acres SQDV (ft') West Parking Lot 100% 0.23 519.9 Central Parking Lot 100% 0.78 1,792.3 East Parking Lot 100% 0.34 788.9 Tennis Courts 10000 0.44 1,073.2 Remainder of Site 50% 4.54 6,076.0 (1) Calculations are based on Per Orange County Drainage Area t4anooement Plan (DNAP), Table A-1, Exhibit 7.11—AtlachmentA. Based on the treatment requirements set forth in the Orange County DAMP, the treatment BMPs must be sized to treat a combined total volume of 10,250 ft' of storm water runoff. Correspondingly, the table below indicates that the treatment BMP for the proposed project is sized to treat over 22,800 ft' of runoff. SUMMARY OF TREATMENT BMP SIZING Area Name BMP Type Minimum Area Needed Estimated Area Provided' Treatment Capacity West Parking Lot Porous Pavement 2,174.9 W 1,617 ftx 433 ft' West Parking Lot Biocell 192.2 ft' 550 ft' 1,484 fe Central Parking Porous Pavement 7,498.3 ff' 14,046 W 3,764 ft' Lot East Parking Lot Porous Pavement 3,300.4 fP 3,810 W 1021 fi' Tennis Courts Biocells 394.6 ft' 677 ft2 1,821 ft' Remainder of Site Biocells 2,233.8 ft= 5,312 ft' 14,329 ft' 1 Assumes reservoir depth below porous pavement at 8' vnth 40"b porosity For biocells, refer to Appendix 1 for approximate dimensions used and detcded calculations. 2 Areas are approximate for conceptual design/Preliminary WQMP purposes. Details will be provided in Final WQMp. Please note that the areas shown on the table above and in the Exhibits in Section 6.0 are estimated to show the Project's overall BMP concept for this Preliminary WQMP. Further design details and specific sizing of the porous pavement and biocells will be provided in the Final WQMP upon final design. Maintenance requirements and frequencies for the landscaped biocells and porous pavement is discussed in Section 5.0 (BMP Inspection & Maintenance) of this report. 0 1 I 0 CI MARINA PARK 22 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ' PRELIMINARY WATER QUAI ITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 ' 5.0 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE (O&M PLAN) It has been determined that the City of Newport Beach shall assume all BMP inspection and ' maintenance responsibilities for the Marina Park Project. CI 1 1 To be provided in the Final WQMP City of Newport Beach CA 949.644.3309 Should the maintenance responsibility be transferred at any time during the operational life of Marina Park, such as when an HOA or POA is formed for a project, a formal notice of transfer shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach at the time responsibility of the property subject to this WQMP is transferred. The transfer of responsibility shall be incorporated into this WQMP as an amendment. ANNUAL CERTIFICATION OF BMP MAINTENANCE The City of Newport Beach shall verify BMP implementation and ongoing maintenance through inspection, self -certification, survey, or other equally effective measure. The certification shall verify that, at a minimum, the inspection and maintenance of all structural BMPs including inspection and performance of any required maintenance in the late summer / early fall, prior to the start of the rainy season. The form that will be used to record implementation, maintenance, and inspection of BMPs is included in Appendix 6. The City of Newport Beach may conduct verifications to assure that implementation and appropriate maintenance of structural and non-structural BMPs prescribed within this WQMP is taking place at the Project site. The City shall retain operations, inspections and maintenance records of these BMPs and they will be made available to the City or County upon request. All records must be maintained for at least five (5) years after the recorded inspection date for the lifetime of the project. LONG-TERM FUNDING FOR BMP MAINTENANCE Long-term funding for BMP maintenance shall be provided by the City of Newport Beach. ACCESS EASEMENT FOR CITY/COUNTY INSPECTION If a private entity retains or assumes responsibility for operation and maintenance of structural BMPs, the City shall be able access for inspection through a formal agreement. MARINA PARK 23 BMP INSPECTION &MAIN I MANC : 1� PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 7 7, 2003 5.1 MAINTENANCE OF SOURCE CONTROLS The post development BMP maintenance responsibility and frequency matrices provided in this section detail the specific party to perform the inspection and maintenance of each BMP for Marina Park and details the maintenance and inspection activities to be performed, and the frequency with which each shall be performed. NON-STRUCTURALMINIMUM • MAINTENANCE FREQUENCY The City of Newport Beach will prescribe activity restrictions to protect surface water quality, through lease terms or other N2 ACTIVITY City of Newport Beach equally effective measure, for the RESTRICTIONS Property Minimum Frequency: ONGOING Maintenance shall be consistent with City requirements, plus fertilizer and/or pesticide usage shall be consistent with County Management Guidelines for Use N3 COMMON AREA LANDSCAPE City of Newport Beach of Fertilizers (OC DAMP). MANAGEMENT Typical maintenance includes mowing, trimming, replanting, and debris removal. Minimum Frequency: MONTHLY Maintenance of BMPs implemented at the project site shall be performed at the frequency prescribed in this WQMP. Records of inspections N4 BMP MAINTENANCE City of Newport Beach and BMP maintenance shall be maintained by the City of Newport Beach. Minimum Frequency: ONGOING Litter patrol, violations investigation, reporting and other litter control activities shall N1 l COMMON AREA City of Newport Beach be performed in conjunction with LITTER CONTROL maintenance activities. Minimum Frequency: WEEKLY 1 1 1 1, it MARINA PARK 24 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE 11 ' PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 • • FREQUENCYMINIMUM MAINTENANCE The Owner shall educate all new employees/ managers on storm water pollution prevention, ' particularly good housekeeping practices, prior to the start of the N12 EMPLOYEE TRAINING City of Newport Beach rainy season (October 1). Refresher courses shall be conducted on an as needed basis. ' Minimum Frequency: ANNUALLY Catch basin inlets shall be ' inspected and, if necessary, rNI cleaned prior to the storm CATCH BASIN City of Newport Beach season by October 1 st each ' INSPECTIONyear, Minimum Frequency: ANNUALLY lots be at Parking must swept least quarterly (every 3 months), STREET SWEEPING including prior to the start of the ' N15 PRIVATE STREETS City of Newport Beach rainy season (October 1 st), AND PARKING LOTS Minimum Frequency: QUARTERLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY MINIMUM MAINTENANCE STRUCTURAL BMPs, FREQUENCY Storm drain stencils shall be inspected for legibility, at ' minimum, once prior to the storm season, no later than STORM DRAIN October 1st each year. Those ' STENCILING AND City of Newport Beach determined to be illegible will SIGNAGE be re -stenciled as soon as possible. ' Minimum Frequency: ANNUALLY Sweep trash area at least once ' per week and before October 1 st each year. Maintain area PROPER TRASH STORAGE City of Newport Beach clean of trash and debris at all ' DESIGN times. Minimum Frequency: 'I WEEKLY ' MARINA PARK 25 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE I PRELIMINARY VIATER QUAL17YMANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 BMPs RESPONSIBLESTRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE FREQUENCY In conjunction with routine maintenance activities, verify that landscape design continues to function properly by adjusting properly to eliminate oversproy to hardscape areas, and to verify EFFICIENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS AND City of Newport Beach that irrigation timing and cycle LANDSCAPE DESIGN lengths are adjusted in accordance with water demands, given time of year, weather, and day or night time temperatures. Minimum Frequency: MONTHLY Food preparation areas will be inspected as determined by the City of Newport Beach on a WASH WATER CONTROLS regular basis to ensure proper FOR FOOD City of Newport Beach waste disposal and water usage PREPARATIONS AREAS procedures. Minimum Frequency: ANNUALLY Any waste generated from maintenance activities will be disposed of properly. Wash water and other waste from maintenance activities is not to be discharged or disposed of into the storm drain system. Clippings from landscape maintenance (i.e. prunings) will be collected and disposed of properly off -site, and will not be washed into the streets, local area drains/conveyances, or catch basin inlets. J I II I I !I Ll MARINA PARK 26 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 5.2 MAINTENANCE OF TREATMENT CONTROLS OCTOBER 17, 2008 The post development BMP maintenance responsibility and frequency matrix provided in this section detail the specific party to perform the inspection and maintenance of each BMP for Marina Park and details the maintenance and inspection activities to be performed, and the frequency with which each sholl be performed. TREATMENT BMPs I RESPONSIBLE PARTY MINIMUM MAINTENANCE I FREQUENCY PRELMAINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2003 TREATMENT CONTROL #1: POROUS PAVEMENT Keep pavement clean and free from debris and sediment. Minor maintenance should be conducted 3 to 4 times per year and consists of vacuum cleaning surface using a commercially available sweeper at the following times — before and after the wet season, and (optionally) once during the wet season, If routine cleaning does not restore infiltration rates, then more invasive maintenance should occur as needed but no more than every 15-20 years, which may involve the following: Reconstruction of part of or entire pervious surface, lifting area and inspection of internal material, and replacement of surface materials, geotextiles, or svb- surface layers. TREATMENT CONTROL #2: VEGETATED BIOSWALE Proper maintenance for the operation of swales should include periodic mowing (with grass never cut shorter than the design flow depth), weed control, watering during drought conditions, reseeding of bare areas, and clearing of debris and blockages. Cuttings should be removed from the channel and disposed in a local composting facility. Accumulated sediment should also be removed manually to avoid concentrated flows in the swale. The application of fertilizers and pesticides should be minimal. Another aspect of a good maintenance plan 'is repairing damaged areas within a channel. For example, if the channel develops ruts or holes, it should be repaired utilizing a suitable soil that is properly tamped and seeded. The grass cover should be thick, if it is not, reseed as necessary. Any standing water removed during the maintenance operation must be disposed to a sanitary sewer at an approved discharge location. Residuals (e.g., silt, grass cuttings) must be disposed in accordance with local or State requirements. Maintenance of grassed swales mostly involves maintenance of the grass or wetland plant cover. TREATMENT CONTROL #3: LANDSCAPED BIOCELLS In the first year, biocells may require vigilant weeding. The need for weeding will decrease as plants become established. Therefore, monthly weeding shall be conducted during the first year of establishment. After the first year, weeding shall be conducted on on as needed basis but no less than 4 times per year. At least once per year in the spring, the biocell will be inspected for standing dead plant debris. Any observed plant debris will need to be removed, and replanting will occur with the approved plant palette options when necessary. The biocell shall be inspected for sediment trapped in the biocell, at least once in late summer or early fall, prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1) and cleaned out as necessary. Shrubs shall be pruned as necessary to keep a neat appearance. Additional 8MP maintenance information is provided in Section 6.0. MARINA PARK 28 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE PRELIM WARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 6.0 PLOT PLAN AND BMP DETAILS The exhibits provided in this section are to illustrate the post construction BMPs prescribed within this WQMP. Drainage flow information of the proposed project, such as general surface flow lines, concrete or other surface drainage conveyances, and storm drain faculties are also depicted. All structural source control and treatment control BM?s are shown as well. PLOT PLANS • Vicinity Map Water Quality Management Plan Exhibit BMP DETAILS • Porous Concrete Pavers • Bioretention ("Biocells") Vegetated Swale ("Bioswale") MARINA PARK 29 PLOT HAN & BMP DETAILS Vic :7 L 2.. r.. tll.. = = m m = = m m m = = m m = = m m = = TVAG in" SHOO I � 71w)3a qNw3do asm p� /-- oxn FEW aT I 11 ff�-7 7-1 - ov tg uo ---------------------------- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - — — — — — — — -------- womv HOV20- "M ItlQN13N N153 HdUN 1 W Bioretention TC-32 XU It, J it it X Description The bioretention best management practice (BMP) functions as a soil and plant -based filtration device that removes pollutants through a variety of physical, biological, and chemical treatment processes. Tlrese facilities normally consist of a grass buffer strip, sand bed, ponding area, organic layer or mulch layer, planting soil, and plants. T11e runoffs velocity is reduced by passing over or through buffer strip and subsequently distributed evenly along a ponding area. &filtration of the stored water in the Bioretention area planting soil into the underlying soils occurs over a period of days. California Experience None documented. Bioretention has been used as a stornrrvater BMP since 1992. In addition to Prince George's County, MD and Alexandria, VA, bioretention has been used successfully at urban and suburban areas in Montgomery County, MD; Baltimore County, MD; Chesterfield County, VA; Prince Williaun County, VA; Smith Mountain Lake State Park, VA; and Cary, NC. Advantages ■ Bioretention provides stormwater treatment that enhances the quality of downstream tivater bodies by temporarily storing runoff in the BMP and releasing it over a period of four days to the receiving water (EPA,1999). ■ The vegetation provides shade and ivind breaks, absorbs noise, and improves an area's landscape. Limitations ■ The Bioretention BMP is not recommended for areas with slopes greater than 2o% or where mature tree removal would Design Considerations ■ Soil for Infiltration ■ Tributary Area ■ Slope ■ Aesthetics ■ Environmental Side -effects Targeted Constituents R) Sediment ■ Nutrients [7✓ Trash ■ 0 Metals ■ 0 Bacteria ■ Q Oil and Grease ■ 171 Organics ■ Legend (Removal Effectiveness) • Low ■ High ♦ Medium r V IR7^\R 9rnatnr1 it California Stormwater 13MP Handbook 1 of 8 January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabtni)liandl)ooks.com TC-32 Bioretention be required since clogging may result, particularly if the BMP receives runoff uvitb high sediment loads (EPA,1999). • Bioretention is not a suitable BMP atlocations where the water table is ivithin G feet of the ground surface and where the surrounding soil stratum is unstable. ■ By design, bioretention BMPs have the potential to create very attractive babitats for mosquitoes and other vectors because of highly organic, often heavily vegetated areas mixed uitb shallowtivater. ■ In cold climates the soil may freeze, preventing runoff from infiltrating into the planting soil. Design and Sizing Guidelines ■ The bioretention area should be sized to capture the design storm runoff. • In areas where the native soil permeabilityis less than o.5 in/hr an underdrain should be provided. ■ Recommended minimum dimensions are 15 feet by 40 feet, although the preferred width is 25 feet. Excavated depth should be 4 feet. ■ Area should drain completely within 72 hours. ■ Approximately i tree or shrub per 5o fr- of bioretention area should be included. • Cover area lvitb about 3 inches of mulch. Consb•uction/Inspection Considerations Bioretention area should not be established until contributing watershed is stabilized. Performance Bioretention removes stormwater pollutants through physical and biological processes, including adsorption, filtration, plant uptake, microbial activity, decomposition, sedimentation and volatilization (EPA,1999). Adsorption is the process whereby particulate pollutants attach to soil (e.g., clay) or vegetation surfaces. Adequate contact time between the surface and pollutant trust be provided for in the design of the system for this removal process to occur. Thus, the infiltration rate of the soils must not exceed those specified in the design -criteria or pollutant removal may decrease. Pollutants removed by adsorption include metals, phosphorus, and hydrocarbons. Filtration occurs as runoff passes through the bioretention area media, such as the sandbed, ground cover, and planting soil. Common particulates removed from stormwater include particulate organic matter, phosphorus, and suspended solids. Biological processes that occur in wetlands result in pollutant uptake by plants and microorganisms in the soil. Plant growth is sustained by the uptake of nutrients from the soils, with woody plants locking up these nutrients through the seasons. Microbial activity within the soil also contributes to the removal of nitrogen and organic matter. Nitrogen is removed by nitrifying and denitrifyingbacteda, while aerobic bacteria are responsible for the decomposition of the organic matter. Microbial processes require oxygen and can result in depleted oxygen levels if the bioretention area is not adequately 2 of a California Stormwater fihlp Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.Cabmplla hdbooks.com 11 I 1 I I I I I I I r Bioretention TC-32 aerated. Sedimentation occurs in the swale or ponding area as the velocity slows and solids fall out of suspension. The removal effectiveness of bioretention has been studied during field and laboratory studies conducted by the University of Maryland (Davis et 11,1998). During these experiments, synthetic stormwater runoff was pumped through several laboratory and field bioretention areas to simulate typical storm events in Prince George's County, MD. Removal rates for heavy metals and nutrients are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Laboratory and Estimated Bioretention Davis et al. (1998); PGDER(1993) Pollutant Reiuoval Rate Total Phosphorus 70-83% Metals (Cu, Zn, Pb) 93-98% TRN 68-8o% Total Suspended Solids 90% Organics 90% Bacteria 90% Results for both the laboratory and field experiments were similar for each of the pollutants analyzed. Doubling or halving the influent pollutant levels had little effect on the effluent pollutants concentrations (Davis et a1,1998). ' The microbial activity and plant uptake occurring in the bioretention area ~~rill likely result in higher removal rates than those determined for infiltration BMPs. ' Siting Criteria Bioretention BMPs are generally used to treat stormwater from impervious surfaces at commercial, residential, and industrial areas (EPA,1999). Implementation of bioretention for ' stormwater management is ideal for median strips, parking lot islands, and swales. Moreover, the runoff in these areas can be designed to either divert directly into the bioretention area or convey into the bioretention area by a curb and gutter collection system. The best location for bioretention areas is upland from inlets that receive sheet flow from graded areas and at areas that will be excavated (EPA,1999). hr order to maximize treatment effectiveness, the site must be graded in such away that minimizes erosive conditions as sheet ' flow is conveyed to the treatment area. Locations where a bioretention area can be readily incorporated into the site plan without further environmental damage are preferred. Furthermore, to effectively minimize sediment loading in the treatment area, bioretention only should be used in stabilized drainage areas. Janu81y 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 8 New Development and Redevelopment ' www.cabmphandbooks.com TC-32 Bioretention Additional Design Guidelines The layout of the bioretention area is determined after site constraints such aslocation of utilities, underlying soils, existing vegetation, and drainage are considered (EPA,1999). Sites with loamy sand soils are especially appropriate for bioretention because the excavated soil can be baclTilled and used as the planting soil, thus eliminating the cost ofinnporting planting soil. Tlie use of bioretention may not be feasible givers an unstable surrounding soil stratum, soils with clay content greater than 25 percent, a site with slopes greater than 20 percent, and/or a site with marine trees that would be removed during construction of the BMP. Bioretention can be designed to be off-line or on-line of the existing drainage system (EPA 1999). The drainage areafor abioretention area should be between o.i and 0.4 hectares (0.25 and l.o acres). Larger drainage areas may require multiple bioretention areas. Furthermore, the una-imuni drainage area for a bioretention area is determined by the expected rainfall intensity and runoff rate. Stabilized areas may erode when velocities are greater than 5 feet per second (1.5 meter per second). The designer should determine the potential for erosive conditions at the site. Tlne size of the bioreteution area, which is a function of the drainage area and the runoff generated from the area is sized to capture the water quality volume. The recommended minimum dimensions of the bioretention area are 15 feet (4.6 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) long, nvliere the minimum nvidth allows enough space for a dense, randomly -distributed area of trees and shrubs to become established. Thus replicating a natural forest and creating a microcliniate, thereby enabling the bioretention area to tolerate the effects of heat stress, acid rain, runoff pollutants, and insect and disease infestations whieli landscaped areas in urban settings typically are unable to tolerate. The preferred nvidth is 25 feet (7.6 meters), tvitli a length of twice tlne widtli. Essentially, any facilities nviderthan 20 feet (6.1 meters) should be hvice as long as they areivide, which promotes the distribution of flow and decreases the chances of concentrated flow. In order to provide adequate storage and prevent water from standing for excessive periods of time the ponding depth of the bioretention area should not exceed 6 inches (15 centimeters). Water should not be left -to stand for more than 72 hours. A restriction on the type of plants that can be used maybe necessary due to some plants' water intolerance. Furthermore, if water is left standing for longer than 72 hours mosquitoes and other insects may start to breed. The appropriate planting soil should be backfilled into the excavated bioretention area. Planting soils shouldbe sandy loans, loamy sand, or loans texture with a clay content ranging from 10 to 25 percent. Generally -the soil should have infiltration rates greater than o.5 inches (1.25 centimeters) per hour, which is typical of sandy looms, loamy sands, or loans. The pH of the soil should range behveen 5.5 and 6.5, where pollutants such as organic nitrogen and phosphorus can be adsorbed by the soil and microbial activity can flourish. Additional requirements for the planting soil include a 1.5 to 3 percent organic content and a maximum Soo ppm concentration of soluble salts. 4 of 8 Califomla Stoimwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmpliandbooks.com i7 k I I f..f I I7 Bioretention TC-32 Soil tests should be performed for every 5oo cubic yards (382 cubic inters) of planting soil, with the exception of pH and organic content tests, which are required only once per bioretention area (EPA,1999). Planting soil should be 4 inches (io.r centimeters) deeper than the bottom of the largest root ball and 4 feet (1.2 meters) altogether. This depth will provide adequate soil for the plants' root systems to become established, prevent plant damage due to severe wind, and provide adequate moisture capacity. Most sites will require excavation in order to obtain the recommended depth. Planting soil depths of greater than 4 feet (1.2 meters) may require additional construction practices such as shoring measures (EPA,1999). Planting soil should be placed in A inches or greater lifts and lightly compacted until the desired depth is reached. Since high canopy trees may be destroyed during maintenance the bioretention area should be vegetated to resemble a terrestrial forest conununity ecosystenrthat is dominated by understory trees. Three species each of both trees and shrubs are recommended to be planted at a rate of 2500 trees and shrubs per hectare (l000 per acre). For instance, a 15 foot (4.6 meter) by 40 foot (12.2 meter) bioretention area (600 square feet or 55.75 square meters) would require 14 trees and shrubs. The shrub -to -tree ratio should be 2:1 to 3:1. Trees and shrubs should be planted when conditions are favorable. Vegetation should be watered at the end of each day for fourteen days following its planting. Plant species tolerant of pollutant loads and varying wet and dry conditions should be used in the bioretention area. The designer should assess aesthetics, site layout, and maintenance requirements when selecting plant species. Adjacent non-native invasive species should be identified and the designer should take measures, such as providing a soil breach to eliminate the threat of these species invading the bioretention area. Regional landscaping manuals should be consulted to ensure that the planting of the bioretention area meets the landscaping requirements established by the local authorities. The designers should evaluate the best placement of vegetation 1�zthin the bioretention area. Plants should Ue placed at irregular intervals to replicate a natural forest. Trees should Ue placed on the perimeter of the area to provide shade and shelter from the wind. Trees and slruUs can be sheltered from clanraging flows if they are placed away fionr the path of the incoming rmloff. In cold climates, species that are more tolerant to cold winds, such as evergreens, should be placed in windier areas of the site. Following placement of the trees and shrubs, the ground cover and/or mulch should be established. Ground cover such as grasses or legumes can be planted at the beginning of the growing season. Mulch should be placed immediately after trees and shrubs are planted. Two to 3 inches (5 to 7.6 cur) of commercially -available fine shredded hardwood mulch or shredded hardwood chips should be applied to the bioretention area to protect from erosion. Maintenance The primary maintenance requirement for bioretention areas is that of inspection and repair or replacement of the treatment area's components. Generally, this involves nothing more than the routine periodic maintenance that is required of any landscaped area. Plants that are appropriate for the site, climatic, and watering conditions should be selected for use in the bioretention cell. Appropriately selected plants will aide in reducing fertilizer, pesticide, water, and overall maintenance requirements. Bioretention system components should blend over time through plant and root growth, organic decomposition, and the development of a natural California Stormwater BMP Handbook 5 of 8 January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.ca bmphand books. com I TC-32 Bioretention soil horizon. These biologic and physical processes over time will lengthen the facility's life span and reduce the need for extensive maintenance. Routine maintenance should include a biannual health evaluation of the trees and shrubs and subsequent removal of any dead or diseased vegetation (EPA,1999). Diseased vegetation should be treated as needed using preventative and low -toxic measures to the extent possible. BMPs have the potential to create very attractive habitats for mosquitoes and other vectors because of highly organic, often heavily vegetated areas mixed with shallow water. Routine inspections for areas of standing water within the BMP and corrective measures to restore proper infiltration rates are necessary to prevent creating mosquito and other vector habitat. In addition, bioretention BMPs are susceptible to invasion by aggressive plant species such as cattails, which increase the chances of water standing and subsequent vector production if not routinely maintained. In order to maintain the treatment area's appearance it may be necessary to prune and weed. Furthermore, mulch replacement is suggested when erosion is evident or when the site begins to look unattractive. Specifically, the entire area may require mulch replacement every two to three years, although spot mulching may be sufficient when there are random void areas. Mulch replacement shouldbe done prior to the start of the wet season. New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection states in their bioretention systems standards that accumulated sediment and debris removal (especially at the inflow point) will normally be the primary maintenance function. Other potential tasks include replacement of dead vegetation, soil pH regulation, erosion repair at inflow points, ruulch replenishment, unclogging the underdrain, and repairing overflow structures. There is also the possibility that the cation exchange capacity of the soils in the cell will be significantly reduced over time. Depending on pollutant loads, soils may need to be replaced within 5-io years of construction (LID, 2000). Cost Conshtuction Coat Construction cost estimates for a bioretention area are slightly greater than those for the required landscaping for a new development (EPA,1999). A general rule of tbtmrb (Coffinan, 1999) is that residential bioretention areas average about $3 to $4 per square foot, depending on soil conditions and the density and types of plants used. Commercial, industrial and institutional site costs can range between $no to $4o per square foot, based on the need for control structures, curbing, story drains and uuderdrains. Retrofitting a site typically costs mope, averaging $6,500 per bioretention area. The higher costs are attributed to the demolition of existing concrete, asphalt, and existing structures and the replacement of fill material with planting soil. The costs of retrofitting a commercial site in Maryland, Kettering Development, with 15 bioretention areas were estimated at $111,600. In any bioretention area design, the cost of plants varies substantially and can account for a significant portion of the expenditures. While these cost estimates are slightly greater than those of typical landscaping treatment (due to the increased number of plantings, additional soil excavation, backfill material, use of uuderdrains etc.), those landscaping expenses thatwould be required regardless of the bioretention installation should be subtracted when determining -the net cost. 6 of 8 Callfomla StormWater BMP Handbook ]anuary Now Development and Redevetopment www.cabmpliandbooks.com I Bioretention TC-32 Perhaps of most importance, however, the cost savings compared to the use of traditional structural stornnvater conveyance systems makes bioretention, areas quite attractive financially. For example, the use of bioretention can decrease the cost required for constructing stonnnwater conveyance systems at a site. A medical office building in Maryland was able to reduce the ' amount of storm drain pipe that was needed from 80o to 230 feet -a cost savings of $24,000 (PGDER,1993). And a new residential development spent a total of approximately $100,000 using bioretention cells on each lot instead of nearly $400,000 for the traditional stornnvater ' ponds that were originally planned (Rappahanock, ). Also, in residential areas, storinwater management controls become a part of each property owner's landscape, reducing the public burden to maintain large centralized facilities. Maintenance Cost The operation and maintenance costs for a bioretention facility will be comparable to those of typical landscaping required for a site. Costs beyond the normal landscaping fees will include the cost for testing the soils and may include costs for a sand bed and planting soil. References and Sources of Additional Information Cof nian, L.S., R. Goo and R. Frederick,1999: Low impact development: an innovative alternative approach to storunwater management. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Water Resources Planning and Management Conference ASCE, June 6-9, Tempe, Arizona. Davis, A.P., Shokouhian, M., Sharma, H. and Minarnii, C., "Laboratory Study of Biological Retention (Bioretention) for Urban Stormwater Management," ilTater Enuiron. Res., 734), 5-14 (2001). ' Davis, A.P., Shokouhian, M., Sharma, H., Minani, C., and Winogradoff, D. "Water Quality Improvement through Bioretention: Lead, Copper, and Zinc," Water Enuiron. Res,, accepted for publication, August 2002. Kim, H., Seagren, E.A., and Davis, A.P., "Engineered Bioretention for Removal of Nitrate from Stormwater Runoff," WEFTEC 2000 Conference Proceedings on CDROMRe-search Syniposium, Nitrogen Removal, Session i9, Aliaheim CA, October 2000. Hsieh, C. li. and Davis, A.P. "Engineering Bioretention for Treatment of Urban Stornnvater Runoff," ilratersheds 2002, Proceedings on CDROM Research Symposium, Session 15, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Feb. 2002. ' Prince George's County Department of Environmental Resources (PGDER),1993. Design Manual for Use of Bioretention in Storm waterManagenneriL Division of Environmental ' Management, Watershed Protection Branch. Landover, MD. U.S. EPA Office of Water,1999. Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet: Bioretention. EPA 832-F- ' 99-012. "Low Impact Development (LID) Stormwater Weinstein N. Davis A.P. and Veeramachaneiii, R. Management Approach for the Control of Diffuse Pollution from Urban Roadways," Sth International Conference Diffirse/NonpointPolhrtion and NratershedManagentent ' Proceedings, C.S. Melching and Emre Alp, Eds. 2ooi International Water Association January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 7 of 8 New Development and Redevelopment ' www.cabmphandbooks.com TC-32 Bioretention PARMNOLOrSHEETFLWY__...—_..-.. __ ._�. __. ___ . ,rY mY. v 'Y- .Y : 'JM1 '.K ,m 4K. •K •,: K-•,: 'r ,m we---STONr ArmRArLI—_ bYY YWWYY Yt VYVV WLY 4W JY YYY WY VY4YY}YVYVV YW YVYY YiYbV VVYYYVV VA VY VV YYWV lYV bW VeY YYY ORASSFILTER Y VV VY YYVYV Y,yJ VYVVYV V! LLV VVYYW VVlY VVhVY YYYJ�^• WRF Ms"u. NMI OVERFLOW - - 'CATCH BASW BERM IINDERDRAIN fALLEC710N SYSTEM DRAINOVERFLOW PLAN VIEW rr<LAnL.c Schematic of a Bioretention Facility (MDE, 2000) 8 of 8 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphatidbooks.com t 11 I 17 11 I OVERFLOW - - 'CATCH BASW BERM IINDERDRAIN fALLEC710N SYSTEM DRAINOVERFLOW PLAN VIEW rr<LAnL.c Schematic of a Bioretention Facility (MDE, 2000) 8 of 8 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphatidbooks.com t 11 I 17 11 I 4' 5' 2' 5' PCC 1.5' 2' 1.5' PCC PERMEABLE TRAN51TI N PAVEMENT 51DEWALK 4' •i,..i,,,- , :/, 4'-6'. PCC HEADER (BLOCK) 3'-4' T- �� _ I �' S 8'-12' '_ _ _ - - -4' MULCH 1—.58AND _�. 8'- 12' TOP501L IB' FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI ICON OP, EQUIV.)I O MIL HDPE LINER - OR EQUIV. GRAVEL OR CRUSHED ROCK IN FILTER FABRIC { _.- ,^•-'_ �_-•�<�(AASHT0#3, I.5-3• STONE; MIRAFI 160N OR EQUIV.) PF_R aftU E aUB-DRAIN Example Landscape Biocell Detail NOT TO SCAL K ytr UNI ECG-�S'I"VI E`N� =.' Permeable Interlocking } Concrete Pavement UNI-GROUP U.S.A. Manufacturers of UNI Paving Stones *1�„r JN1f .H _.y.✓,.r;,+'•"c �' "•,r it � w�..._ � ...-....... - �!• r , .r " ` ., t7,tl�w •.`•'•Y, ''." rj«.�' ti.4.,li��',�) .-r �• - •_. � � � '..y'.. �.>.. 7.^r: Yt"r .w... JV 1f,r,[IL ! Y. 1 C. �L.rEM1%„�� "•?t,'•^.� r '�`t':J;i+t^k D�'tyir roc•, ;1.� •-Y 'C. ,y �•. 'T.i: �Y iy _'kii7'- 4. �`4r�+w �•i i ' YH r'M ••J. '.'� r v-r •`w_ YVal�'a .. ��^. �. r Y �� .� � .r•xa'_ «.i.-.^ . = •` �Y,' «'K� �N :' .• r_.. ' �'; ti ys a. � ter^ v • � y' •' •.""vii �.. 1 4'r - " f-�'r y.+ Jr•",," a,: y]-'«,; .. }' yv,. Ja•J .Y aaKr .(' �•,', Y u �� r• �' * i .tP '" '"• i•1r.'y ,f. N~.y: Y !^,d• � Y., 'yY " ♦ e, ... a ,,, i" r~t! .a• '. J. rya r• ~^•Y r t , rY w YL „/: i r.' Y, ' a s y r . • � nr' .� ,1� ��l « ,� , A u �:�,',.i al"•,!J J r�r";'`L+} V. r. .'(' r ty .r, .wr � { .f �j .L .r« r7 rr 'r "i• y .'3, t• d' 1�' ..( .-}„ y ••��, N1'.aa� • "a vN �«, ,� lei;: •... . ,r' r "` Y ' •n ,j9 J f „j Ir .�� '; r v� � .,p•� � '� � �' • � is � �., .. -rS......-.... _i . i , ..p ••,' !. t , .d:r '4 It IN ```k.w >{yir;V4�f yrr+a • ♦Ci . �." " ':. ;e.•'::: ��:.:�Y;: �! - i � '� :.� � M1 1 0• � 1 y� • �i � 1 i '1} .:•6. .'':�r. •iy I H n u 1 1 1Z DEVELOPMENT, IMPERVIOUS COVER AND IMPACTS OF STORMWATER RUNOFF With ever-increasing levels of development, natural, open land is rapidly being replaced with impervious surfaces such as asphalt roadways, parking lots, and buildings. Asa result, the management of increased levels of stormwarer runoff and its impact on the environment has become a major issue for all levels of government throughout die country. Numerous studies indicate that sronmvater runoff is the primacy source of pollutants found in surface Nvacers and contains a toxic combination of oils, pesticides, metals, nutrients, and sediments. Additionally, research has shown that once a watetshed reaches just 10% impervious covet, water resources are negatively impacted. In the early 1990s, the United Stares Environmental Protec- tion Agency (EPA) established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) srormwater regulations to comply with, the requirements of the Clean Water Acc. Compliance with Stomnv.an, Inla Drain - Lake Ark, FL federal, state, and local stormwater programs involves the use of "best management practices" (BMPs) to manage and control stormwater runoff. Effective management of stormwater runoff offers a number of benefirs, including improved quality of surface waters, protection of wetland and aquatic ecosystems, conseration of water resources, and flood mitigation. The EPA recent - mends approaches that integrate control of stormwater and protection of natural systems. 11, 1999 and 2001, the International City/County managers Association (ICMA) and EPA released the Erame- work for "Smart Growth" policies that communities around the country could adopt to meet environmental, communi- ty, and economic goals. Simultaneously, organizations such as the Low Impact Development Center and the Center for Watershed Protection began advocating low impact develop- ment (LID) its a way to preserve and protect the nation's wamr resources. They promote comprehensive land planning and engineering design, watershed planning and restoration, and stormwater management approaches that protect water resources and attempt to maintain pre-existing hydrologic site conditions. Their goal is to achieve superior envicon- menral protection, while still allowing for development. The EPA began working with these organizations in 2006 to promote the use of LID and Smart Growth as a way to manage scormwater runoff. The goal is to protect water resources it the regional level by encouraging states I nd municipalities to implement policies that consider both growth and conservation simulraneously. These approaches are quickly gaining favor across the country and are being incorporated into local development regulations to help meet stormwater runoff requirements and provide more livable, sustainable communities for residents. One of the Private Readence-Mnugaunab R1 primary goals of LID design is to reduce runoff volume by infiltrating rainwater on site and to find beneficial uses for the water as opposed to utilizing storm drains. LID objec- tives include the reduction of impervious cover, preservation of natural landscape features, and the maximization of in- filtration opportunities. Infiltration helps recharge ground- water, reduces urban heat island effects, and reduces down- stream erosion and flooding. This allows development to occur with much less environmental impact. In addition, "green building" programs are gaining in popularity. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED�) green building assessment system, devel- oped by the U.S. Greets Building Council, has been adopted by a number of cities and states that now require municipal buildings to meet LEEDO certification standards. Also, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has released a comprehensive guide on green building that promotes mixed -use developments, cluster housing, green technologies and materials, and alternative stormwarer approaches. UNI ECO-STONEs'...THE SOLUTION TO STORMWATER RUNOFF PROBLEMS Permeable interlocking concrete r -� pavements(PICPs)arebecoming ny'".``ey "} incteasingly popular as in Ore cities and states are faced with meeting smrmwatei runoff regulations, increased impervious cover restrictions, and the adoption of LID or LEED°' practices. LINreoston,`4 Eco-Stone' is a permeable interlocking concrete pavement system that mitigates stornwater runoff through infiltration. This allows for reduction of volume and peak flows, improved hater quality, filtering of pollutants, miti- gation of downstream flooding, and recharge of ground- water. Eco-Stone" is a true interlocking paver chat offers the structural support, durability, and beauty of traditional concrete Pavel$, combined with the environmental benefit of permeability. The permeability is achieved through the drainage openings created by its notched design. ,Measure- ments of a typical UNI Eco-Stone' paver and physical characteristics are shown in Figure 1. Physical Characteristics HolghUThickness 3118" = 80mm Width 41/2" = 115mm Length 9" = 230mm Pavers per sq it = 3.55 Percentage of drainage void area per sq it = 12.18% Composition and Manufacture Minimum compressive strength - 8000psi Maximum water absorption - 546 Meals or exceeds ASTM C-936 8 and froeze-thaw testing per section 8 of ASTM C-67. Rpm / The drainage openings in an Eco-Stone', permeable pavement are created when the pavers arc installed (Figure 2). This is whir distinguishes Eco-StoncO permeable pavers From traditional interlocking concrete pavers. The dtainage openings are filled with a clean, hard crushed aggregate that is highly permeable, allowing for rapid infiltration of stormwater (Figure 3). rigum 2 rigum a ECO-STONE' PERMEABLE PAVEMENT AS AN EPA BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE The EPA encourages "system building" to allow for the use of appropriate site -specific practices that will achieve the minimum measures under Phase 11 of NPDES. Governing authorities must develop and implemcor strategies that include a combination of structural and/or non-structural BMfPs appropriate for heir communities. Structural practices include storage practices, filtration practices, and infiltration practices that capture runoff and rely oil infil- tration through a porous medium for pollutant reduction. Infiltration BMPs include detention ponds, green roofs, biosw'ales, infiltration trenches, and permeable pavements. Nan -structural practices are preventative actions that involve management and source controls. Many states and muniei- palitics have incorporated the EPA regulations into their stonmvater design and BMP manuals as they attempt to deal with scormwater runoff, increased impervious cover, and over -taxed drainage and sewer .systems. PICPs are considered structural BMPs under infiltration practices. From art engineering viewpoint, permeable pave- ments ,ire infiltration trenches with paving on top that supports pedestrian and vehicular traffic, By combining infiltration and retention, Eco-Stoncr permeable inter- locking concrete pavement offers numetous benefits over other types of structural systems, Permeable pavements also work well in conjunction with otter recommended BMP practices such as swales, bioretention areas, and rain gardens. t � Reinmmrr Anal♦ 3lodd - Alirn,rhilm CKrA lt"avalvd hurrirr, AV ECO-STOW1 PERMEABLE" PAVEMENT AND LID, LEED AND GREEN BUILDING According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, LID has emerged as an attractive approach to controlling stonmva ter pollution and protecting watersheds. With reduction of impervious surfaces a major tenant of LID, permeable and porous pavements, such as E'co-Smnc', arc listed as one of the ten most common LID prtcticcs. The use of site -scale technologies, such as PICPs that control runoff close to the source, closely mirror the natural process of rainwater falling onto undeveloped areas and infiltrating into the earth. With many areas of the country experiencing water shortages and increasing water pollution, LID and Smarc Growth approaches will not only help alleviate these problems, but also create cities that are more energy efficient, environmenrally sustainable, and cost effective, HeKlnmy Budding McKim 7X-LF.FD" Rladna,n L?nifrrd 1 I I I 1 H u I i 1 1 1 I� I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 n H 1 14 Sberiunnd h1and State Pak - Mrstporl, CT The LL'^EDD" green building assessment system has be- come increasing!)- popular with the North American design community since its inception in 1998. This voluntary building system for rating new and existing commercial, institutional, and high-rise residential buildings, evaluates environmenral performance front a"whole building" perspec- tive over the projects life cycle. New green design standards are being considered for neighborhood design and residential homes as well. The minimum number of points or credits for a project to be LFEDO certified is 26, though silver (3.3- 38 points), gold (39-51 points), and platinum (52-69 points) ratings also are available. UNI Eco-Stonco perneable pavements may qualify for up to 14 points under the Sustainable Sites (SS), Material and Resoutces (SIR), and Innovation and Design Process (ID) credits. While traditional concrete pavers also may qualify under some of the credits, PICP call earn LEED'v points via Sustainable Sites stornnvarer management credits by meeting water quality and runoff treatment criteria. For years, most home builders and developers were teary of green building practices. However, will' impervious cover restrictions and the increasing costs of energy now beginning to impact residential projects, the NAHB is encouraging the use of "greed' products in single and multi- family developments. Eco-SroneQ° permeable pavement offers an attractive solution to impervious cover restrictions. prirate Raiden,e- Longhltnd, NY ECO-STONE" AND MUNICIPAL STORM- NVATER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Municipal regulations for managing stormwater runoff vary across the country. Water quality and/or quantity may be regulated, with criteria for reducing water pollutants such as nitrogen, phosphorous, nitrates, metals, and sediment. Many municipalities now restrict the amount of impervious surfaces for virtually all types of construction, including private residences. Thousands of municipalities have created stouuwater utilities to find the increasing costs of managing stotmwater. These fees vary, but are usually based on runoff volumes and impervious cover. ^„, t i-ti :i •�. Z'~��14 Y``�L e'�'iiM��b �'ai 'tea �"'{N., e'~..'�M Lafayery Rwd Office Reek - Nortb Hampton, AW Regional authorities, counties, and municipalities use a number of design goals for managing stormwater runoff: 0 Limit impervious cover co reduce stormmacer runoff and pollutants from developments IN Capture the entire scormwater volume so there is zero discharge from the drainage area * Capture and treat scornnvacer runoff to remove a stated percentage of pollutants * Capture and treat a fixed volume of runoff, typically 0.75-1.5 in. (18-40nim), which usually contains the highest level of pollutants * Maintain lunoffvolumes generated by development at or near pre -development levels * Maintain groundwater recharge rates to sustain scream flows and ecosystems and recharge aquifers Eco-Stones' permeable interlocking concrete pavements may offer solutions for attaining all of these gads. PICP call reduce runoff volumes and flows and recharge groundwater. It also can filter pollutants with removal rates of up to 95% total suspended solids, 70% total phosphorous, 5 1 % coral nitrogen, and 99% zinc. Reduction of runofialso may offer property owners reductions in stornttvtter utility fees. I FEATURES AND BENEFITS OF THE UNI ECO-STONE PAVEMENT SYSTEM Eco-Stone' is an attractive pavement that can be used for residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational pedestrian and vehicular applications. It can be used for parking lots, driveways, overflow parking, emergency lanes, boar ramps, walkways, low -speed roadways, and storage facilities. Perusable or porous pavements should not be wed for any sire classified as a stornautater bolspot (anywhere there is a risk of stormwater contaminating groundwater). This includes fueling and maintenance stations, areas where h=irdous materials or chemicals are stored, or land uses that drain pesticides/fertilizers onto permeable pavements. UNI Eco-Stone` permeable ppvemmus are a site -scale infiltration technology that is ideal for meeting the EPNs NPDE•S regulations, LID and Smart Growth objectives, LEED° certification, municipal and regional impervious cover restrictions, and green building requirements. m Can be designed to accommodate a wide variety of stormwater management objectives 0 Runoff reductions of up to 10"h depending on project design parameters 13 Maximizes groundwater recharge and/or storage 13 Reduces nonpoint source pollutants in stormwater, thereby mitigating impact on surrounding surface waters, and may lessen or eliminate downstream flooding and strew ibank erosion U Allows better land -use planning and more efficient use of available laud for greater economic value, especially in high -density, urban areas 91 May decrease project costs by reducing or eliminat- ing drainage and retention/detention systems t May reduce cost of compliance with stormwater regulatory requirements and lower utility fees * May reduce heat island effecr and thermal loading on surrounding surface waters CiLn Brook Umn, lmdmr Carr ltdrrnhed - Wtttrf nl. (r Examples of pollutant removal And infiltration rates for Eco-Stone"' are shown in Tables I and 2. This data is from the Jordan Cove Urban Watershed.Projecr 2003 Annual Report by tire University of Connecticut, who conducted monitoring on this EPA Section 319 National Morthoring Project. It should be noted that these infiltration results were achieved using a dense -graded base. Even higher infiltration rates would be expected with open -graded bases, Test and Year Asphalt Eco•Slone" in.lhr(cm/ht) Crushed Stone -Indhr(ChOT) Single Ring Infiltromeler 0 7.7 (19.6) 7.3 (18.5) test 2002 Single Ring Inllllrometer 0 6(15.3) 5(12.7) lost 2003 Flowing Infiltration 0 8,1 (20.7) 2.4(6) lest 2003 'Idbly 1. Arrrt+a iufrlrmnorr xne fnPn &J'A11t, l:e•Stanr" and tnnl nLtn,rr (ordrrt Cott Urban Whablied l4nrert Variable Asphalt Eco•Stone Pavement Crushed Slane Runoff depth, mar 1.8 aN2b 0.04 c Total suspended solids, mg/1 47.8 a33.7 a Nitrate nitrogen, m84 0.6 a0.3 ab Ammonia nitrogen, mgA 0.18 a0.11 a Total Kloldahl nitrogen, mgA 8.0 a16 ab Total phosphorous. mgA 0.244 a0.165 b copper, ugll 18 a 6 b 16 a Lead,ugll 6 a 2 b 3 b Zinc, ugA 87 a 25 le 57 an 1 I I I I 1 Table:. Masn vrdly po/luntnt rnnernmrrion in uaann:an runoff ' jmm a �h tG, &a.5roue* ant! errabn! gone dm anus, A'urr• i4thl n e4eb r rnablG u 1 ollmeed br the+,m:e laioa& not ngu�e,mrlr di�mnr at tr .n 95 ECO-STONE"-• DESIGN AND GENERAL ' CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES UNI-GROUP U.S.A. offers design professionals a variety of tools for designing Eco-Sione's permeable pave- ments. Research on Eco-Stone'' has been conducted at major universities such as Texas A&M, University of Washington, and Guelph University, and ongoing pollution monitoring is being conducted at EPA Section 319 National Monitoring Program sites Jordan Cove Urban %atershed Project in Connecticut and Morton Arboretum in Illinois. We offer design manuals, case studies, and Lockpave � Pro structural interlocking pavement design software. with PC-SWMM PP' for hydraulic design of Eco-Srone"n permeable pave- ments. Eco-StonO is featured in the book Puraus Pavements by Bruce Ferguson, a national authority on stormwater infiltration. And, as members of the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute, we can offer additional design and reference information, such as ICPI's Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pauemenrs nnnnuah Tech Specs" and CAD files. It is recommended that a qualified civil engineer with knowledge in hydrology and hydraulics be consulted for applications using permeable interlocking concrete pavement to ensure desired results. information provided is intended for use by professional designers and is nor a substitute for engineering skill or judgement. It is not intended to replace the services of expeticnced, professional engineers. D n 51 I 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1� Design Options - Full, Partial and No Exfiltratiotr Fco-Stoney' pavements call be designed with full, partial, or no exfiltration into the soil subgrade, Optimal installa- tion is infiltration through the base aggregate, with complete exflttation into a permeable subgrade. This allows for not only runoff and pollutant reduction, but also groundwater recharge. For full exfltration under vehicular loads, the minimum soil infiltration rare is typically 0.52 in./hr (3.7 x I V m/sec). Where soil conditions limit the atnount of infiltration and only partial exfiltration can be achieved, some of the water may need to be drained by perforated pipe. Where soils have extremely low or no permeability, or con- ditions such as high water rabies, poor soil strength, or over aquifers wheic there isn't sufficient depth of the soil to filter pollutants, no exfiltration should occur. An impermeable liner is often used and perforated pipe is installed to drain all stored water Lo an outfA pipe. This design still allows for infiltration of scormwacer and some filtering of pollutants and slows peak rates and volumes, so it still can be beneficial for managing stonmvater. For extreme rainfall events, any overflows can be contolled via perimeter drainage to bio- rerention areas, grassed swales or scorn sewer inlers. Th Awm, Pork and Ride - A1myodle, Ili? Infiltration Rate Design Permeable interlocking concrete pavements are typically designed to infiltrate frequent, short duration storms, which make up 75-85% of rainstorms in Nordl America. Ir also may be possible to manage runoff volumes from larger storms through engineering design and the use of conrple- rnentuy Mips, such as bio-reteurion areas and swedes. One of the most common misconceptions when design- ing or approving PICP is the assumption that the amount or percentage of open surface area of the pavement is equal to the percentage of perviousness. For example, a designer or municipal agency might incorrectly assume that a '15% open area is only 15% pervious. Tire permeability and amount of infiltration are dependent oil the infiltration razes of the aggregates used for the joint and drainage openings, the bedding layer, and the base and subbase (if used). Com- pared to soils, the materials used in Lco-Scones' permeable pavements have very high infitnad011 rates — from 500 in./Iv (over 10'3 ru/sec) to over 2000 indhr (over 10" to 10: ni/sec). This is much more pervious than existing site soils. INIPWO I WO +nrnrr kc,idrnre-Aluuurtholrq AlAr .� Though initial infiltration rates are very high, it is important to consider lifetime design infiltration of the entire pavement cross-section, including the soil subgrAdc when designing PICPs. Based mi research conducted to dare, a conservative design rate of 3 in./hr (2.1 x 10-5 m/sec) can be used as the basis for the design surface infnlctatimr rate over a 20-year pavement life. A number of design methods may be used for sizing of the open -graded base (see references). For designers who use Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) curve num- bers in determining runofhcatculations, the curve number for PICP can be e.imated at 40, assuming a life -time design infiltration rate of indhr (75mm/lir) with an initial abstmc- rion of 0.2 (applies to NRCS group Asoils). Other design professionals may use coefficient of runoff (C) for peak runoff calculations. for the design life of permeable inter- locking concrete pavement, C can be estimated wnh the following formula: C = I — Design infiltration race, indlin -1, where I = design rainfall intensity in incites per hour. Construction Materials and General Installation It is preferable chat site soils nor be compacted if structural strength is suitable, is compaction reduces infiltra- tion cores, Low CBR soils (<4%) may require compaction and/or stabilization for vehicular traffic applications. Drains also would typically be required for low CBR soils. If soils muse be compacted, the reduced infiltration rates should be factored into the design. Permeable and porous pavements should not exceed 5% slope for maximum infiltration. Guadbjr,ifarina-Jark,annille, rL Permeable interlocking concrete pavements are typically built over open -graded aggregate bases consisting ofwashcd, hard, crushed stone, though a variety of aggregate materials, including dense -graded, may be used depending on project parameters. Typically, stone materials should have less than lob fines passing the No. 200 sieve. Current industry recommendations include a subbase of open -graded aggregate (typicallyASTM No. 2 or equivalent) at a minimum thickness of (i in. (I50ntm) for pedestrian applications and R in. (200mm) for vehicular applications. This makes it easier for contractors to install the base materi- als. A base layer of open -graded aggregate (typically ASTaII No. 57 or equivalent) is installed over the subbase. This helps meet filter criteria between the layers. The recommend- ed thickness for dais layer is 9 in. (Minin). It may be pos- sible, however, to use a single material for the base and subbase depending on project design parameters and con- tractor experience. Open -graded materials described here typically have a water storage void space betvecn the aggre- antes of between 30AM, which maximizes storage of in- filtrated stonnwater. [MATH-.F PfE.IW,t N1T�lb�!-0wM rOa Ort11MM Dl W NLC KIPA y�Cnvl Figurr a - 7ypinu t iolr-0etnml Of rut iraur✓ne- rertnm✓u • 1nm✓ns AWI 6rfiltmdon Pur the bedding layer, material equivalent to ASTM No. S stone is recommended. This same material is used to fill the drainage openings and johirs, if desired, material equivalent to No. 9, 10 or 89 stone also may be used to fall the smaller joints between the pavers, Bedding and jointing sand used in the construction of traditional interlocking concrete pavements should not be used for PICP. Me OlkV 511-1 o%0'r(+em ti""' UNI Eco-Stone can be mechanically installed and trafficked immediately after Fiord compaction, unlike other types of porous pavements. it has been used successfully for many years throughout North America and can withstand repeated freczclthaw in northern climates due to adequate space for ice to expand within the open -graded base. PICP can be snow plowed, and because water does not stand on the surface, it may reduce ice slipping hazards. Winter sanding is nor recommended on P1CPs. Permeable inter- locking concrete pavement conforms to current ADA requirements that surfaces be firth, stable, and slip resistant. If the openings in the surface are not desirable, solid pavers can be installed in areas used by disabled persons. All permeable pavements require periodic cleaning to maintain infiltration, and care must be taken to keep sedi- ment off the pavement during and after construction. Studies and field experience have shown that vacuurn-type street cleaning equipment is most efi'ective for removing sediment from the openings to regenerate infiltration. Vacuum settings may require adjustment to prevent the uptake of aggregate in the pavement openings and joints. The surface should be dry when cleaning. Replenishment of joint and opening aggregate can be done, if needed, at the time of cleaning. The frequency of cleaning is dependent on traffic levels. It is generally recommended to vacuum the pavement surface at least once or tvlce a year, though some low -use pavements may not need cleaning as often. As street cleaning is a BMP under EPA guidelines, this:dso satisfies other criteria ha a comprehensive stornnvater management program. If property constructed and maintained, PICP should provide a set -vice life of 20 to 25 years. Like our traditional interlocking concrete pavers, Eco-Stone'a maybe taken up and reinstated if underground repairs are needed. Mat the end of its design life the pavement no longer infiltrates the required amount of stonmsatcr runoff, PICP is the only type of permeable pavement Char can be taken up, the b se materials removed and replaced, and the paves reinstalled. I 'UNI ECOLOC'HEAVY-DUTY PERMEABLE INTERLOCKING CONCRETE PAVEMENT I EculocM features all the same attributes and features of our Eco-Stone' permeable paver with the added benefit of supporting industrial loads, it can be used together with our industrial traditional interlocking paver, UNI- Anchorlockv' to provide design professionals with the option of combining solid pavement areas with permeable ateas. Eeolee Virb UNI-Androdocka ' Like Eco-Stone", Ecoloc' features funnel -shaped openings that facilitate the infiltration of storinwatet runoff, Physical characteristics are described in Figure 5. 1 Physical Characteristics Heightrrhickness 3118" = Bomm Width 8 7/8" 225mm Length 8 7/8"' = 225mm Pavers per sq it = 2.41 Percentage of drainage void area per sq ft = 12.18% Compositton•and, Manufacture Minimum compressive strength - 8000psi IDS Maximum water absorption - 5% Meets or exceeds ASTM C-936 and freeze -thaw testing per section 8 of ASTM C-67. Figure 3 Ecoloc" can be mechanically installed and is ideal for larger -scale pro)ects such as parking lots, roadways, storage and depot areas, and ports, Over 173,000 sf of Ecoloc'' was used for an EPA Section 319 irrational Monitoring Permit — —y Project at Morton Arboretum in Illinois. It also is in use at a test sire located at Howland Hook "fei mint at the Port of New York/New Jersey that is subjected to heavy, conrainerizcd loads, port forklifts:md cargo carriers. Another 30,000 sf of Ecoloco was installed at the East Gwillimbury Go Commuter Train Station parking lot in Newmarket, Ontario. L;--- �'a'\.:ee....:.:..:...w...»ti Mortan rlrbaulun, - Dul'ngt County; In addition, EcolocO is undergoing ntt evaluation at Seneca College in Ontario for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to study permeable interlocking concrete pavement performance in cold climates conditions. Please check with your local UNIP manufacturer for availability of Ecolocra in your area. Please visit our website www.uni-groupusa.org for updated infitmation, design references and tesearch, a list of manufacturers, and more. REFERENCES & RESOURCES • it anaal Aport-Arilau Core Ui ben W/aterrhrrLSeclinn.il'y N+rtrnntl Monhoring 1'rgvan, holerr, uni,enuy of Conuecdcut, 2003 • UM EroSione Dn;Qn Guir(r and Rarnrsh .Stnnnme • 1,eciparaPro stnrrgt de gn sofrvase'Pith I'CS1rMDr•' Pphrd+aulir design safnanre • Parow P+vnnewc - Brucc K. Ferguson, CRC Press, 2005 • lirrn+eable Interlocking Conerrie Pawmenrr-interlo&ing Concrete Pavement Institute. 2000 A rp,Tial ibank pu to the hutdorkmg COnrn4e pavenent hutltnte for tue ofunn, pojert pbv,nr Front roger pljour. Era-S:Pue-19igu, Reudrnre Cipe Coil, MA and Eroloeo - If i+n++or,•%end Snttt project - Awland O2 UNI faFStoae and UNI Eudnea` arc rc8luaesl nralw is ofF,von lang,laaff -5.. I.,d., CAdon, Onmrio. t:nnada 02006.2007 UNI caovr us A ran„d io dw USA. UNI-GROUP U.S.A. - National Hcndquarters Oliicc 4302 Northlake Blvd. • Suite 204 • Urn Beach Gaidens. P1.33410 (561) 626.4666 • r•AX (561) (27-6403 + 1-800.872.1864 eww.uni.piupusa.org • i:<tnaili info@uni-groupusa.arg UNI-GROUP U.S.A. Permeable Interlocking Pavement Cross -Sections These cross -sections are provided as a guide for the design of permeable interlocking concrete pavements. Actual design of the pavement will vary according to local regulations and standards, climate, available construction materials, design methods, soil conditions, and traffic loads. A qualified architect, landscape architect, and/or engineer should be consulted in permeable concrete paver applications to ensure desired results. Other design options, such as draining to a deeper permeable layer, or collection and treatment of storrnwater runoff are possible. Consult an engineer experienced in hydrology and hydraulics for these types of applications. If you would like to receive cross -sections as DWG files for CAD, please request these through our web site. Contact your UNI° Manufacturer or visit our web site for more information. UNI ECO-STONE CROSS -SECTIONS FULL EXFILTRATION TYP. NO. B AGGREGATE IN OPENINGS ECOSTONE CONCRETE PAVER$ 0 IV (00 mm) THICK CURBIEDGE nESTRNNT WITH CUT-OUTS FOR OVERFLOW DRAINAGE (CURB SHOWN) BEDDING COURSE 1 112 TO 2' (40 TO 50 mail THICK (ryP. No. $AGGREGATE) 4• (1DO MM) THICK NO.5T STONE OPEN -GRADED BASE MIN. G" 1150 MIA) THICK NO, 2 STONE SUBBASE OPTIONAL GEOTEKTILE ON BOTTOM AND SIDES OF OPEN -GRADED BASE SOIL $UBORADE -ZERO SLOPE tPARTIAL EXFILTRATION ' TYP. NO. 8 AGGREGATE IN OPENINGS ECO•STONE CONCRETE PAVERS ' 3118' (80 mm) THICK CURBIEDGE RESTRAINT WITH CUT-OUTS FOR OVERFLOW DRAINAGE (CURB SHOWN) o > BEDDING COURSE 1112'TO 2-(40 TO 50 mm) THICK (TYP. NO.8 AGGREGATE) 000 000 OOoQ„ > °�0�� Oo o° 4'(100 MM) THICK NO, 57 STONE OPEN -GRADED BASE MIN. 6'(150 AIM) THICK � OO V NO.2 STONE SUBBASE Oo 000 o°'� •' OPTIONAL GEOTEXTILE ON BOTTOM AND O T •�,.. • d•a. ', p: SIDES OF OPEN -GRADED BASE —I� �I— )})oq �,., O:, •O• _ _ �• �'1� I CI I PERFORATED PIPES SPACED AND SLOPED TO DRAIN ALL STORED WATER �I I I� I �I I I=�1 a -I OUTFALL PIPE(S) SLOPED TO STORM SEWER OR STREAM SOIL SUBGRADE SLOPED TO DRAIN NO EXFILTRATION ' TYP. NO.8 AGGREGATE IN OPENINGS ECO-STONE CONCRETE PAVERS 3 118- (80 mm) THICK CURB/EDGE RESTRAINT WITH CUT-OUTS ' FOR OVERFLOW DRAINAGE (CURB SHOWN) ,1 ' '•• BEDDING COURSE 11/2- TO 2'(40 TO 50 mm) THICK (TYP. NO.8 AGGREGATE) 00 00 .p000 ,p 4." 4-(100 MM)THICKNO. 57 STONE OPEN -GRADED BASE MIN. 6' (150 MM) THICK g DO ° d NO, 2 STONE SUBBASE 'Q O 00O .O's�' 0 o O A44 IMPERMEABLE LINER ON BOTTOM AND SIDES OF OPEWGRADEO BASE 0 • PERFORATED PIPES SPACED AND SLOPED Ilall-1�1=11 _ TO ORAIN ALL STORED WATER I I� I I --I I �I I �1I I-_I1-- o • I rI I I —III =I�$EWERORSTREAM OUTFALL PIPE(S) SLOPED TO STORM ' II�IIII=II1MII1—II�II- SOIL SUBGRADE SLOPED TO DRAIN References: 1CP1 Zaphers I 1 II Vegetated Swale I] -E r 7TI7'd' 7j.. QlF A4'F R' ,,i;:�FC y1 - I r - ^'�'��6611,, ri'�,�j�y��i �'^J ' Description Vegetated swales are open, shallow channels with vegetation covering the side slopes and bottom that collect and slowly ' convey runoff flow to downstream discharge points. They are designed to treat runoff through filtering by the vegetation in the channel, filtering through a subsoil matrix, and/or infiltration into the underlying soils. Swales canoe natural or nranniade. ' They trap particulatepollutants (suspended solids and trace metals), promote infiltration, and reduce the flow velocity of stormwater runoff. Vegetated swales can serve as part of a ' stormwater drainage system and can replace curbs, gutters and storm sewer systems. ' California Experience Caltrans constructed and monitored six vegetated swales in southern California. These swales were generally effective in ' reducing the volume and inass of pollutants iniunoff. Even in tlie'areas where the annual rainfall was only about io inches/yr, the vegetation did not require additional irrigation. One factor that strongly affected performance was the presence of large ' numbers of gophers at most of the sites. The gophers created earthen mounds, destroyed vegetation, and generally reduced the effectiveness of the controls for TSS reduction. Advantages ■ Ifproperly designed, vegetated, and operated, swales can serve as an aesthetic, potentially inexpensive urban development or roadway drainage conveyance measure With significant collateral water quality benefits. ■ Area Required ■ Slope ■ Water Availability Targeted Constituents 0 Sediment 0 Nutrients • 0 Trash • 0 Metals 0 Bacteria • 0 Oil and Grease 0 Organics Legend (Removal Effectiveness) • Low ■ High ♦ Medium raLIMNI1cm%tM`.AT[A January 2003 California Stormwater BMp Handbook 1 of 13 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandl)ooks.com TC-30 Vegetated Swale r ■ Roadside ditches should be regarded as significant potential swale/buffer strip sites and should be utilized for this purpose whenever possible. Limitations ■ Can be difficult to avoid channelization. ■ May not be appropriate for industrial sites or locations where spills may occur ■ Grassed swales cannot treat a very large drainage area. Large areas may be divided and treatedushng multiple snvales. ■ A thick: vegetative cover is needed for these practices to function properly. ■ They are impractical in areas with steep topography. ■ They are not effective and may even erode when flow velocities are high, if the grass cover is not properly maintained. ■ In some places, their use is restricted bylaw: many local municipalities require curb and gutter systems in residential areas. ■ Snvales are mores susceptible to failure if not properly maintained than other treatment BMPs. Design and Sizing Guidelines ■ now rate based design determined bylocal requirements or sized so that 85% of the annual runoff volume is discharged at less than the design rainfall intensity, ■ Swale should be designed so that the water level does not exceed 2/3rds the height of the grass or 4 inches, which ever is less, at the design treatment rate. ■ Longitudinal slopes should not exceed 2.5% ■ Trapezoidal channels are normally recommended but other configurations, such as parabolic, can also provide substantial water quality improvement and maybe easier to mow than designs with sharp breaks in slope. ■ Swales constructed -in cut are preferred, or in fill areas that are far enough from an adjacent slope to minimize the potential for gopher damage. Do not use side slopes constructed of fill, which are prone to structural damage by gophers and other burrowing animals. ■ A diverse selection of low gto ving, plants that thrive under the specific site, climatic, and watering conditions should be specified. Vegetation whose growing season corresponds to the nvet season are preferred. Drought tolerant vegetation should be considered especially for swales that are not part of a regularly irrigated landscaped area. ■ The width of the swale should be determined using Manning's Equation using a value of 0.25 for Manning's n. 2 of 13 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.ca Imipliandbooks.com I 1 R 11 Vegetated Swale TC-30 Construction/Inspection Considerations ■ Include directions in'the specifications for use of appropriate fertilizer and soil amendments based on soil properties determined through testing and compared to the needs of the vegetation requirements. ■ Install swales at the time of the year when there is a reasonable chance of successful establishment without irrigation; however, it is recognized that rainfall in a given year may not be sufficient and temporary irrigation may be used. ■ If sod tiles must be used, they slrould be placed so that there are no gaps between the tiles; stagger the ends of the tiles to preventthe formation of channels along the swale or strip. ■ Use a roller on the sod to ensure that no air pockets form between the sod and the soil. ■ Where seeds are used, erosion controls will be necessary to protect seeds for at least'75 days after the first rainfall of the season. Performance The literature suggests that vegetated swales represent a practical and potentially effective technique for controlling urban runoff quality. While limited quantitative performance data exists for vegetated swales, it is known that check dams, slight slopes, permeable soils, dense grass cover, increased contact time, and small storm events all contribute to successful pollutant removal by the swale system. Factors decreasing the effectiveness of swales include compacted soils, short runoff contact time, large storm events, frozen ground, short grass heights, steep slopes, and high runoff velocities and discharge rates. Conventional vegetated swale designs have achieved mixed results in removing particulate pollutants. A study performed by the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) monitored three grass swales in the Washington, D.C., area and found no significant improvement in urban runoff quality for the pollutants analyzed. However, the weak performance of these swales was attributed to the high flow velocities in the swales, soil compaction, steep slopes, and short grass height. Another project in Durham, NC, monitored the performance of a carefully designed artificial swale that received runoff from a commercial parking lot. The project tracked 11 storms and concluded that particulate concentrations of heavy metals (Cu, Pb, Zu, and Cd) were reduced by approximately 5o percent. However, the swale proved largely ineffective for removing soluble nutrients. The effectiveness of vegetated swales can be enlrancedby adding check dams at approximately 17 meter (5o foot) increments along their length (See Figure 1). These dams maxinuze the retention tine within the swale, decrease flow velocities, and promote particulate settling. Finally, the incorporation of vegetated filter strips parallel to the top of the channel banks can help to treat sheet flows entering the srvale. Only 9 studies have been conducted on all grassed chamrels designed for water quality (Table i). The data suggest relatively high removal rates for some pollutants, but negative removals for some bacteria, and fair performance for phosphorus. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Hand New Development and Redevelop www. cabmph and boo ks, com 13 u TC-30 Vegetated Swale Table 1 Grassed swale pollutant retnoval efficiency data Removal Efficiencies (% Reinoval) Study TSS TP TN NOa Metals Bacteria Type nitrans2oo2 77 8 67 66 83-90 -33 dryswales Goldberg1993 67.8 4.5 - 31.4 42-62 -100 grassedchatmel Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology1992 60 45 - 2-16 •25 grassed channel Seattle Metro and Washiugt6h Department of Ecology, 1992 83 29 -25 46-73 -25 grassed channel Pang et al.,1981 8o 70-80 dryswale Dorman et al.,1989 98 18 - 45 37-81 - dryswale Harper,1988 87 83 84 80 88-90 - dryswale Kercher et al., 1985 99 99 99 99 99 dryswale Harper,1988. 81 17 40 52 37-69 vetswale Koon,1995 67 39 - 9 -35 to 6 wetswmle While it is difficult to distinguish between different designs based on the small amount of available data, grassed channels genernllyhaVe poorer removal rates than wet and dry swales, although some swales appear to export soluble phosphorus (Harper,1988; Koon,1995). It is not clear why swales export bacteria. One explanation is that bacteria thrive in the warm swale soils. Siting Criteria The suitability of a swale at a site will depend on land use, size of the area serviced, soil type, slope, imperviousness of the contributing watershed, and dimensions and slope of the swale system (Schueler et al.,1.992). In general, swales-can be usedto serve areas oflesstban loaacres, with slopes no greater than 5 096. Use of natural topographic lows is encouraged and natural drainage courses should be regarded as significant local resources to be kept in use (Young et al., 1996). Selection Criteria (NCTCOG, 1993) ■ Comparable performance to wet basins ■ Lunited to treating a few acres ■ Availability of water during dry periods to maintain vegetation ■ Sufficient available land area Research in fire Austin area indicates that vegetated controls are effective at removing pollutants even when dorwant. Therefore, irrigation is not required to maintain growth during dry periods, but pray be necessary only to prevent the vegetation froru dying. 4 of 13 California Stormwater B14P Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www. cabmplia ndbooks.com I i I t LI I H 1 I I I 11 Vegetated Swale TC-30 The topography of the site should permit the design of a channel with appropriate slope and cross -sectional area. Site topographymay also dictate a need for additional structural controls. Recommendations for longitudinal slopes range between 2 and 6 percent. Flatter slopes can be used, if sufficient to provide adequate conveyance. Steep slopes increase flow velocity, decrease detention time, and may require energy dissipating and grade check. Steep slopes also can be managed using a series of check dams to terrace the swale and reduce the slope to within acceptable limits. The use of check dams with srvales also promotes infiltration. Additional Design Guidelines Most of the design guidelines adopted for swale design specify a minimum.hydraulic residence time of 9 minutes. This criterion is based on the results of a single study conducted in Seattle, Washington (Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology,1992), and is not well supported. Analysis of the data collected in that study indicates that pollutant removal at a residence time of 5 minutes was not significantly different, although there is more variability in that data. Therefore, additional research in the design criteria for swales is needed. Substantial pollutant removal has also been observed for vegetated controls designed solely for conveyance (Barrett et al,1998); consequently, some flexibility in the design is warranted. Many design guidelines recommend that grass be frequently mowed to maintain dense coverage near the ground surface. Recent research (Col }well et al., 2000) has shown mowing frequency or grass height has little or no effect on pollutant removal. Summary ofDesignReeontntendations 1) The swale should have a length that provides a minimum hydraulic residence time of at least io minutes. The maximum bottom width should not exceed 10 feet unless a dividing berin is provided. The depth of flow should not exceed 2/3rds the height of the grass at the peak of the water quality design storm intensity. The channel slope should not exceed 2.5%. ' 2) A design grass height of 6 inches is recommended. 3) Regardless of the recommended detention time, the swale should be not less than ioo feet in length. Manning's Equation, at the peak 4) The width of the swale should be determined using of the design storm, using a Manninng's n of 0.25. ' 5) The swale can be sized as both a treatment facility for the design storm and as a conveyance system to pass the peak hydraulic flows of the ioo-year storm if it is ' located "on-line." The side slopes should be no steeper than 3:1(H:'V). 6) Roadside ditches shouidbe regarded as significant potential swale/buffer strip sites and shouidbe utilized for this purpose whenever possible. If flow is to beintroduced through curb cuts, place pavement slightly above the elevation of the vegetated areas. Curb cats should be at least 12 inches wide to prevent clogging. ' y) Swales must be vegetated in order to provide adequate treatment of runoff. It is important to maximize water contact with vegetation and the soil surface. For general purposes, select fine, close -growing, water-resistant grasses. If possible, ' divert runoff (other than necessary irrigation) during the period of vegetation January 2003 California Stoi mwater BMP Handbook 5 of 13 New Development and Redevelopment ' www.cabmpliandbooks.com TC-.30 Vegetated Swale establishment. Where runoff diversion is not possible, cover graded and seeded areas with suitable erosion control materials. Maintenance The useful life of a vegetated Swale system is directly proportional to its maintenance frequency. If properly designed and regularly maintained, vegetated swales can last indefinitely. The maintenance objectives for vegetated swale systems include keeping up the hydraulic and removal efficiency of the channel and maintaining a dense, healthy grass cover. Maintenance activities should include periodic mowing (with grass never cut shorter than the design flow depth), weed control, watering during drought conditions, reseeding of bare areas, and clearing of debris and blockages. Cuttings should be removed from the channel and disposed in a local composting facility. Accumulntedsediment should also be removed manually to avoid concentrated flows in the swale. The application of fertilizers and pesticides should be minimal. Another aspect of a good maintenance plan is repairing damaged areas within a charnel. For example, if the channel develops ruts or holes, it should be repaired -utilizing a suitable soil that is properly tamped and seeded. The grass cover should be thick; if it is not, reseed as necessary. Any standing water removed during the maintenance operation must be disposed to a sanitary sewer at an approved discharge location. Residuals (d.g., silt, grass cuttings) must be disposed in accordance with local or State requirements. Maintenance of grassed swales mostly involves maintenance of the grass or wetland plant cover. Typical maintenance activities are summarized below: ■ Inspect swales at least twice annually for erosion, damage to vegetation, and sediment and debris accumulation preferably at the end of the wet season to schedule summer maintenance and before major fall runoff to be sure the swale is ready for winter. However, additional inspection after periods of heavy runoff is desirable. The swale should be checked for debris and litter, and areas of sediment accumulation. ■ Grass height and mowing frequency may not have a large impact on pollutant removal. Consequently, mowing may only be necessary once or twice ayear for safety or aesthetics or to suppress weeds and woody vegetation. ■ Trash tends to acermnlate in swale areas, particularly along highways. The need for litter removal is determined through periodic inspection, but litter should always be removed prior to mowing. ■ Sediment accumulating near culverts and in channels should be removed when it builds up to 75 nun (3 in.) at any spot, or covers vegetation. ■ Regularly inspect swales for pools of standing water. Swales cur becomie a nuisance due to mosquito breeding in standing water if obstructions develop (e.g. debris accumulation, invasive vegetation) and/or if proper drainage slopes are not implemented and maintained. 6 of 13 Califomla Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com E I I I I J I 1 Vegetated Swale TC-30 1 Cost Construction Cost 1 Little data is available to estimate the difference in cost between various swale designs. One study (SWRPC,1991) estimated the construction cost of grassed channels at approximately $0.25 per ft2. This price does not include design costs oof contingencies. tingtivction ro for osthueler (1997) estimate these costs at approximately 32 percent 1 stornnvater management practices. For swales, however, these costs would probably be significantly higher since the construction costs are so low compared with other practices. A more realistic estimate would be a total cost of approximately $0.50 per ft2, which compares 1 favorably with other stolinwater management practices. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 7 of 13 New Development and Redevelopment 1 www.cabmphandbooks.com TC-30 Vegetated Swale Table 2 Swale Cost Estimate (SEWRPC, 1991) Unit Cost Total Cost Low Moderate High Low Moderate High Component Unit Extent Mob2¢aticn I Swale 1 $107 $274 $441 $107 $274 $441 Demobilization -tight Sda Preparation Clearing°............. Arse 0.5 S2,200 $3,800 $5.400 $1,100 $1,900 $Z700 Grulftgr............. Arsa 0.25 $3,800 $5.200 $6,600 $950 $1.300 $1.650 General EwavebrP.._........ yd' 372 $2.10 $3.70 $5.30 $781 $1,376 $L972 Level and Tdi'........ Yd' 1,210 $020 $0.35 $DSo $242 $424 $605 Sitas Development Salvaged Topsd Saed, and Mu:CM.. Yd' 1,210 30.40 S1.00 $1 60 $484 $1,210 Si,936 Soda. ..... _... ........ Yd' 1.210 $120 S240 $3.60 $1.452 SZ904 $4,356 Subtotal — — — — — $5,116 $9,388 $13,660 Contngaa:ios Swalo 1 25% 25% 25% $1279 $2,347 S3,415 Total $6.395 $11.735 S17.075 Souv:w, (SEWRPC, 1991) Note: 6lobilzaionldomobieationreferstothcorganiwtionand plannkgnwivodInastabHshkg avogetailvaswafo. ' Swale has a bottom width of 1.0 foot, a top -width of 10 feet with 1:3 side slopes, and a 1;000•foot length. °Area cleared = (top width + 10 feeQ x swale length. `Area grubbed = (top width x swale length). 'Volume excavated = (0.67 x top width x swale depth) x swale length (parabolic cross-section). ° Area tilled = (top width + B(swale depth') x swale length (parabolic cross-section). 3(top width) 'Area seeded = area cleared x 0.5. a Area sodded = area Geared x 0.5. 8 of 13 California Stormwater 8MP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com 1' M M M M M M Vegetated Swale TC-30 Table 3 Estimated Maintenance Costs (SEWRPC. 1991) Swale Size (Depth and Top Width) Component Unit Cost Comment 1.5 Foot Depth, One- 3-Foot Depth, 3-Foot Foot Bottom Width, Bottom Width, 21-Foot 10-Foot Top Width Top Width Lawn Mowing $0.8511,000W/Mowing $0.141linearfoot $02110nearfoot Lawn maintenance area=(top width + 10 feet) x length. Mow eight times per year General Lawn Care $9.0011,0000 year $3.18/linearfoot $028 flinearfoot Lawn maintenance area =pap width + 10 feet) xlength Swale Debris and Uttar $0.10/gnearfoot/ year $0.1011inearfoot $0.10 f linear foot — Removal Grass Reseeding with $0.30/yd' W.01 flinearfoot $0.017linear foot Area revegetated equals 1% Mulch and Fertlizer of lawn maintenance area per year Program Administration and $0.151 Mear foot/year, $0.15 flinearfoot $0.151 linear foot Inspect four times per year Swale Inspection plus $251 inspection Total -- $0.581 linear foot $ 0.751 linear toot _ January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 9 of 13 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com TC-30 Vegetated Swale ' Maintenance Cost Caltrans (2oo2) estimated the expected annual maintenance cost for a swale with a tributary area of approximately 2 ha at approximately $2,700. Since almost all maintenance consists of mowing, the cost is fundamentally a function of the mowing frequency. Unit costs developed by ' SEWRPC are shown in Table 3. hi many cases vegetated channels would be used to convey runoff and would require periodic mowing as well, so there may be little additional cost for the water quality component. Since essentially allthe activities are related to vegetation management, no special training is required.for maintenance personnel. References and Sources of additional Information ' Barrett, Michael E., Walsh, Patrick M., Malina, Joseph F., Jr., Charbeneau, Randall J,1998, "Performance of vegetative controls for treating highway runoff," ASCE Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol.124, No.11, pp. 1121-1128. Brown, W.,and T.Schueler.1997. T1ieEconontiesofStoiniwatel-BMPsiritlieMid-Atlaiitic Region. Prepared for the Chesapeake Research Consortimn, Edgewater, MD, by the Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. , Center for Watershed Protection (CWP).1996. Design of Stornituatei,Filterilig Systems. Prepared for the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Soloinons, MD, and USEPA Region V, ' Chicago, IL, by the Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Colwell, Shand R., Horner, Richard R., and Booth, Derek B., 2000. Characterization of Perforinatice Predictors mid Evaluation of Mowing Practices iti Biofiltration Swales. Report to King County Land 'And Water Resources Division and, others by Center for Urban Water Resources Management, Department of Civil and Eirvirouniental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA ' Dorman, M.E., J. Hartigan, R.F. Steg, and T. Quasebarth.1989. Retention, Detention and Overland Flow for Pollutant Removal From Highway Stornrwater Runoff. Vol. i. FHWA/RD ' 89/202. Federal HigbwayAdministration, Washington, DC. Goldberg.1993. Dayton Avenue Swale Biofiltration Study. Seattle Engineering Department, Seattle, WA. Harper, E.1988. Effects ofStornlwatev Management Systems on Groundwater Qualffid. Prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, FL, by , Environmental Research and Design, Inc., Orlando, FL. Kercher, W.G., J.C. Landon, and R. Massarelli.1983. Grassy swales.prove cost-effective for water pollution control. Public Woks,16: 53-55• ' Koon, J.1995. Evaluation of Water Qualihj Ponds and Swales in the Issaquah/EastLake Sani nanish Basins. King County Surface Water Management, Seattle, WA, and Washington , Department of Ecology, Olympia) WA. Metzger, M. E., D. F. Messer, C. L. Beitia, C. M. Myers, and V. L. Kramer, 2002. The Dark Side ' Of Stornrwater Runoff Management: Disease Vectors Associated With Structural BMPs. Stornrwater 3(2): 24-39.Oakland, P.H.1983. An evaluation of stormwater pollutant removal 10 of 13 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmpliandbooks.com ' u ' Vegetated Swale TC-30 ' through grassed Swale treatment. In Proceedings of the International Symposium of Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics and Sediment Control, Lexington, KY. pp.173-182. Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory.1983. Final Report: Metropolitan Washington Governments, ' Urban Runoff Project. Prepared for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Washington, DC, bythe Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory, Manassas, V.A. Pitt, R., audJ. McLean.1.986. Toronto Area WatersliedMartagenrentSh,ategy Study: Humber River Pilot LYaterslred Project. Ontario Ministry of Envirorinnerrt, Toronto, ON. Schueler, T.1997. Comparative Pollutant Removal Capability of Urban BMPs: A reanalysis. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(2):379-383• Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology.1992. Biofrltration Swale Performance: Control ' Recommendations and Design Considerations. Publication No. 657. Water Pollution Department, Seattle, WA. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SWRPC).1991. Costs of Urban NonpointSourceWaterPollutionControlMeasures.Technicalreportno.31. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Waukesha, WI. ' U.S. EPA, r999, Storinwater Fact Sheet: Vegetated Swales, Report # 832-F-99-o06 littp://iv%vNv.ei)a.gov/oxvin/intb/vegsivale.R Office of Water, Washington DC. ' Wang, T., D. Spyridalds, B. Mar, and R. Horner. r981. Transport, Deposition and Control of Heavy Metals in Highway Runoff. FHWA YVA-RD-39-ro. University of Washington, Department of Civil Engineering, Seattle, WA. Washington State Department of Transportation,1995, Highway RunoffManual, Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington. iWelborn, C., and J. Veenhuis.1987. Effects of Runoff Controls on the Quantity and Quality of Urban Runoff in Two Locations in Austin, TX. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report No. 87-4004. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Best Management Yousef, Y., M. Wanielista, H. Harper, D. Pearce, and R. Tolbert.1985. Practices: Removal of Highway Contaminants By Roadside Swales. University of Central ' Florida and Florida Departinent of Transportation, Orlando, FL. Yu, S., S. Barnes, and V. Gerde.1993. Testing of BestManagenrentPractices for Controlling Highway Runoff. FH1NA/VA-93-Ri6. Virginia Transportation Research Council, ' Charlottesville, VA. ' 1 formationResotu•ces Maryland Department of the Enviromnent (MDE). 2000. Maryland Stornrwater Design Manual. wcvw mde state mid us/environnneiit/wrn stornnwntermanual. Accessed May 22, ' 2001. in the Pacific Northwest. Watershed Reeves, E.1994. Performance and Condition of Biofilters Protection Techniques 1(3):117-119. ' January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 11 of 13 New Development and Redevelopment ' www.cal)mphandbooks.com TC-30 Ve ietated Swale Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology.1992. Biofil tvation Sulale Perfoivnance. Recommendations and Design. Consideration. Publication No. 657. Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. USEPA 1943. Guidance Specifijing Management Measures for Sources of Nonpointpollution in Coastal Waters. EPA-84o-B-92-oo2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC. Watershed Managenientlnstitute (IAIMI).1997, Operation, Maintenance, andMmiagenzentof Stormwater Management Systems. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC, by the Watershed Management Institute, Ingleside, MD. 12 of 13 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmph andb ooks.com ' Vegetated Swale TC-30 I I I 1 I I II rA r Pro+iJo fnruour (s•) Cru++urtimt of•++alc++ill, eM1crk dum. pnA.cumi. Not L Dy se W 5Va Zut I 1 I II I PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OCTOBER 17, 2008 7.0 PUBLIC EDUCATION The educational materials included in this WQMP are provided to inform people involved in future uses, activities, or ownership of the site about the potential pitfalls associated with careless storm water management. "The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door" provides users with information about storm water that is/ will be generated on site, what happens when water enters a storm drain, and its ultimate fate, discharging into the ocean. Also included are activities guidelines, such as "Tips for Landscape & Gardening", to educate anyone who is or will be associated with activities that have a potential to impact storm water runoff quality. These guidelines generally provide a menu of BMPs to effectively reduce the generation of storm water runoff pollutants from a variety of activities. The educational materials to be used for the proposed project will be included in Appendix 3 of the Final WQMP and are listed below. BROCHURES The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door + Tips for Landscape & Gardening • Waste Oil Collection Centers Central CC • Keeping Pest Control Products Out of Creeks, Rivers and the Ocean • Tips for Pet Care • Sewage Spill Reference Guide Help Prevent Ocean Pollution: Proper Disposal of Household Hazardous Materials • Help Prevent Ocean Pollution: A Guide for Food Service Facilities • Help Prevent Ocean Pollution: Proper Maintenance Practices for Your Business BMP FACT SHEETS • SD-10 Site Design & Landscape Planning • SD-11 Roof Runoff Controls • SD-12 Efficient Irrigation • SD-13 Storm Drain Signage • SD-20 Pervious Pavements • SD-32 Trash Storage Areas • SC-10 Non-Stormwater Discharges • SC-1 1 Spill Prevention, Control & Cleanup • SC-34 Waste Handling & Disposal • SC-41 Building & Grounds Maintenance • SC-43 Parking/Storage Area Maintenance • SC-50 Over Water Activities • SC-71 Plaza and Sidewalk Cleaning • SC-73 Landscape Maintenance • SC-74 Drainage System Maintenance MARINA PARK 31 PUBLIC EDUCATION PRELIMINARYWATFR QUAL17YMANAGEMENT PLAN 8.0 APPENDICES OCTOBER 17, 2008 Appendix 1 Runoff Coefficient References Appendix 2 Notice of Transfer of Responsibility Appendix 3 Public Education Materials (to be provided in Final b✓QMP) Appendix 4 Post -Construction BMP Fact Sheets (to be provided in Final N/QMP) Appendix 5 Anal Resolutions / Conditions of Approval (to be provided in Final WQMP) Appendix 6 Record of BMP Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection MARINA PARK 32 APPENDICES I APPENDIX 1 ' RUNOFF COEFFICIENT REFERENCES I I I I 1 1 t t I I I 1 I I I 1 I II I J II I APPENDIX 1 PROJECT REPORT Date: October 8, 2008 Project: Marina Park, Newport Beach Re: Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SQDV) for volume -based BMPs Job: 1001.01.01 Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SQDV) Calculation (Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), Exhibit 7.11 — Model Water Quality Management Plan, September 26, 2003) Calculate the stormwater quality design volume for the site (or each sub -drainage area that will discharge to a separate BMP) produced by a 24-hour, 851h percentile storm event using the following equation: SQDV = C * I * A * (unit conversion) Where: C = runoff coefficient obtained from Table A-1 I = rainfall intensity (see map on following page) A = area of the site treated by the BMP, in acres Vegetated Biocell Sizing (Source: Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Example Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan [SUSMP); Appendix A: Water Quality Volume Calculations. Website: http://www.waterboards.ca.qovZlosangeles/water issues/pro rams/stormwater/municipal/general/sa ms club/Appendix%20A.Pdf ) Calculate the volume of water treated by each biocell based on the depths and properties of the various layers of the biocell: VBC = VP + VMGS + VSO + V1 Where: VBc =volume treated by biocell in ft' (must be equal to or greater than SQDV) VP = volume ponded in biocell in ft' ' VMGs = volume stored in mulch, gravel, and topsoil in ft' V, = volume infiltrated in ft' J The volumes in the equation above can be determined by the following sequence of equations: Volume Ponded in Biocell (VP): Vp = [(AT + As) . P) / 2 Where: Ar = area of top of biocell, in square feet As = area of bottom of biocell, in square feet P = ponding depth, in feet Volume in Mulch, Topsoil and Gravel Layer (Vµas) I/mas = AT* [(M'n,,e) + (G"no) + (S" ns)) Where: AT = area of top of biocell, in square feet M = depth of mulch, in feet nM = porosity of mulch, in percent void space G = depth of gravel layer, in feet r1a = porosity of gravel layer, in percent void space S = depth of topsoil ns = porosity of top soil, in percent void space Velocity of Water in Amended Soil Layer (v,) V. = FP/ [12' nso' (1-w)] Where: Fp = infiltration capacity of the amended soil, or hydraulic conductivity (in inches per hour) nso = w = soil water content before rain event, in percent of voids assumed saturated Duration of Infiltration During 24 hr Storm Event (>7 T=24— (So /vJ Where: So = depth of amended soil layer, in feet Volume Infiltrated (V,) V, =T"Ar" [F,/(12"SF)) Where: SF = safety factor for infiltration capacity. Assumed io be 1 if overflow drain is provided. Porous Pavement Sizing For sizing of porous pavement, the treated runoff volume is stored in the void space between the stones of the reservoir course below the pavement, similar to an infiltration trench. Minimum Surface Area of Pavement Needed to treat SQDV (SQDV / Porosity) * coarse depth = surface area of pavement required Where: SQDV = volume of runoff to be treated Porosity = typically 35% to 40% for gravel Depth = typically 8 to 12 inches RUNOFF COEFFICIENT REFERENCES ' ORANGE COUNTY RESERVOIR ' (0,910Inch) ^, YORSA LINDA (0830Inch) ' 4 • BREA DAM '' ' ' (0.9001nthJ ., 1....... ORANGE-HARDACR�„.. W PARK DAM .. ... /(0.07i Yrh) r, lam h) ' BUENAPARK •. FULLERTON DAM (0.888inch) 3 i (1,000inch) ... ^ "• SANTA ANA FIRE STATION t `•. SILVERADO RANGER STATION 2'....•. ....... :` (0.810Mch) J `; (0.9781nch) ' . LOS ALAMITOS •.., ,.••` z• (0.690Inch) TUSTIN-IRVINE RANCH 3 ., TRASUCO CANYON' , (a ago lab) ; ^�. (0900 fth) NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR'••,, LAGUNA BEACH•' Rainfall Zone Rainfall. In. •�/(0 SANJUAN GUARD STATION (0.900Inch) noIn4h) 1 0.70 2 0.75 ' 3 0.85 4 0.95 ' Figure A-1 Orange County California Precipitation Stations 24-hour, 85m percentile rainfall I 1 n n n n n n I I I I I Table A-9 v_b._.. C......4 -- Imnunrin nc/PaYVIlItlR Area Ratios Storm Water Quality Design Volume Calculations - Orange County 10.08.08 SQDV = C ' I ' A' (Conversion) C = Runoff Coefficient depth = volume / area I = Rainfall Intensity I = volume / C 'A ' conversion conversion = (1112) POROUS PAVEMENT Runoff Rainfall Drainage Conversion Treatment Ratio for Porous Minimum Area # Drainage Area impervious Coefficient Intensity Area (fe) Factor Required (fe) Pavement(8") Required (ft) 1 West Parking Lot 100% 0.90 0.7 9,886 0.0833 519.9 0.22 2,174.9 2 Center Parking Lot 100% 0.90 0.7 34.083 0.0833 1,792.3 0.22 7,498.3 3 East Parking Lot 100% 0.90 0.7 15,002 0.0833 788.9 0.22 3,300.4 BIOCELL PLANTERS % Runoff Rainfall Drainage Conversion Treatment -Ratio for Biocell Minimum Area # Drainage Area impervious Coefficient Intensity Area (fe) Factor Required (ft'} Planter IT Required (ft2) in depth) 1 West Parking Lot 100 0.9 0.7 9,886 0.0833 519.0 2.7 192.2 4 Tennis Courts 100% 0.90 0.7 20,408 0.0833 1,073.2 2.7 397.5 5 Remainder of Site 50°% 0.53 0.7 197,835 0.0833 6,076.0 2.7 2,250.4 M m i m M M MIMMMMIMMMMMMMIM Biocell Water Quality Volume Calculations 10,08.08 Symbol Parameter Example Biocell Design Parameters Tennis Courts West Parkin East Parking All 135x5 I 110x5 AT Top Area (ft) 675 550 857 6312 AB Bottom_ Area (ftZ) 264 214 334 2071 P Ponding Depth (ft) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 M Mulch Depth (Ft) 0 0 0 0 rlM Mulch Porosity (%) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 G Gravel Depth (ft) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 rIG Gravel Porosity (%) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 S Planting Soil Depth (it) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 rls Planting Soil Porosity (%) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 S° Sand Filter Depth (ft) 1 1 1 1 rI$0 Sand Filter Porosity (%) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 T Total Depth Below Surface (ft) 2 2 2 2 w Soil Water Content (%) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 FP Infiltration Capacity (in/hr) 1 1 1 1 SF Safety Factor for Infiltration v, Infiltration Velocity (ft/hr) 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 T Time Infiltration Occurs (hr) 222 22.2 22.2 22.2 VP Ponding Volume (fts) 235 191 298 1,846 VMGs Volume in Gravel/Sand/Mulch (fts) 236 193 300 1,859 Vs° Volume in Sand Filter (ft) 101 83 129 ^797 V, Volume Infiltrated (ft") 1,249 1,018 1,585 9,827 VBc Total Volume Treated (ft) 1,821 1,484 2,312 14,329 Ratio Surface Area to Volume 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 F L I APPENDIX 2 ' NOTICE OF TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY I I I I I !J 0 I I 0 I I I I NOTICE OF TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Marina Park Newport Beach, CA Submission of this Notice Of Transfer of Responsibility constitutes notice to the City of Newport Beach that responsibility for the Water Quality Management Plan ("WQMP") for the subject property identified below, and implementation of that plan, is being transferred from the Previous Owner (and his/her agent) of the site (or a portion thereof) to the New Owner, as further described below. I. Previous Owner/ Previous Responsible Party Information Company/ Individual Name: Contact Person: Street Address: Title: City: State: ZIP: Phone: II. Information about Site Transferred Name of Project (if applicable): Title of WQMP Applicable to site: Street Address of Site (if applicable): Planning Area (PA) and/ Lot Numbers (if Site is a portion of a tract): or Tract Numbers for Site: Date WQMP Prepared and revised if a licable III. New Owner/ New Responsible Party Information Company/ Individual Name: Contact Person: Street Address: Title: City: State: ZIP: Phone: IV. Ownership Transfer Information New Owner: Parcel Subject to WQMP Retained by Owner (if any): Lot/ Tract Numbers of Site Transferred to New Owner: Remaining Lot/ Tract Numbers Subject to WQMP Still Held by Owner (if any): Date of Ownership Transfer: Note: When the Previous Owner is transferring a Site that is a portion of a larger project/ parcel addressed by the WQMP, as opposed to the entire project/parcel addressed by the WQMP, the General Description of the Site transferred and the remainder of the project/ parcel no transferred shall be set forth as maps attached to this notice. These maps shall show those portions of a project/ parcel addressed by the WQMP that are transferred to the New Owner (the Transferred Site), those portions retained by the Previous Owner, and those portions previously transferred by Previous Owner. Those portions retained by Previous Owner shall be labeled as "Previously Transferred". V. Purpose of Notice of Transfer The purposes of this Notice of Transfer of Responsibility are: 1) to track transfer of responsibility for implementation and amendment of the WQMP when property to which the WQMP is transferred from the Previous Owner to the New Owner, and 2) to facilitate notification to a transferee of property subject to a WQMP that such New Order is now the Responsible Party of record for the WQMP for those portions of the site that It owns. VI. Certifications A. Previous Owner I certify -under penalty of law that I am no longer the owner of the Transferred Site as described in Section II above. I have provided the New Owner with a copy of the WQMP applicable to the Transferred Site that the New Owner is acquiring from the Previous Owner. Printed Name of Previous Owner Title: Representative: Signature of Previous Owner Date: Representative: B. New Owner I certify under penalty of law that I am the owner of the Transferred Site, as described in Section II above, that I have been provided a copy of the WQMP, and that I have informed myself and understand the New Owner's responsibilities related to the WQMP, its implementation, and Best Management Practices associated with it. I understand that by signing this notice, the New Owner is accepting all ongoing responsibilities for implementation and amendment of the WQMP for the Transferred Site, which the New Owner has acquired from the Previous Owner. Printed Name of New Owner Representative: Title: Signature: Date: II I 'I APPENDIX 3 PUBLIC EDUCATION MATERIALS (Pending, to be provided in the Final WQMP) 'I LJ II APPENDIX 4 ' POST -CONSTRUCTION BMP FACT SHEETS I (Pending, to be provided in the Final WQMP) II II II 1 II 1 II u APPENDIX 5 FINAL RESOLUTIONS / CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Pending, to be provided in the Final WQMP) II I I I I 11 I APPENDIX 6 RECORD OF BMP IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, AND INSPECTION RECORD OF BMP IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, AND INSPECTION Today's Date: Name of Person Performing Activity (Printed): Signature: BMP NAME BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF IMPLEMENTATION, AS SHOWN IN O&M PLAN MAINTENANCE, AND INSPECTION ACTIVITY PERFORMED Marina Park Draft REIR I I LJ 11 i� �I 1 0 •• C. 7";iijk. fit\. ' •�1�{ ` ' �YwD y ♦. . i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MARINA PARK COASTAL ENGINEERING STUDY Final Report Prepared for: URSICASH & ASSOCIATES P.O. Box 2715 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-0715 Contact: Randy Mason Prepared by: Everest International Consultants, Inc. 444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1104 Long Beach, CA 90802 Contact: Ying-Keung Poon October2008 Clty off /Vawporl Baao%/ytarina /lark Coastal &61naaoln6,$10y TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction......................................................................................................................1 2. Wave Loading Analyses..................................................................................................4 2.1 Overview.................................................................................................................4 2.2 Wave Analysis........................................................................................................4 2.3 Wave Loading.........................................................................................................9 3. Water Quality Analyses.................................................................................................14 3.1 Overview...............................................................................................................14 3.2 Water Quality Modeling........................................................................................14 4. Sedimentation Analyses................................................................................................22 4.1 Overview............................................................................................................... 22 4.2 Sediment Deposition at Existing Marina...............................................................22 4.3 Particle Tracking Analysis....................................................................................23 5. Summary of findings......................................................................................................33 5.1 Wave Loadings.....................................................................................................33 5.2 Water Quality........................................................................................................33 5.3 Sedimentation Analyses.......................................................................................34 5.4 Proposed and Existing Groins..............................................................................36 6. References....................................................................................................................37 Everest International Consultants, Inc. i t City oblYmport Baac//ltartna /' ark COMW Enptna¢r[np$taay LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Existing and Proposed Project Site..................................................................... 2 Figure2. Proposed Marina Park Master Plan..................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Wind Data Sources Including Balboa Pier and John Wayne Airport ................... 5 Figure 4. Wind Rose for Balboa Pier: Operational Winds and Winds Greater than 15 Knots (insert).................................................................................................. 6 Figure 5. Ship Wake from a Recreational Boat................................................................... 8 Figure 6. Phase Lag in a Cross Section of Wave Passing a Docked Boat ....................... 11 Figure 7. Wave -Induced Forces and Moments on Piles...................................................12 Figure 8. Numerical Model Grid for Case 1......................................................................15 Figure 9. Numerical Model Grid for Case 2......................................................................16 Figure10. Mean Tide Conditions........................................................................................18 Figure 11. Flushing Reduction for Cases 1 and 2...............................................................19 Figure 12. Flushing Reduction with Mechanical Circulation Enhancement ........................ 21 Figure 13. Marina Neighboring Proposed Marina Park Location: American Legion Post291............................................................................................................ 23 Figure 14. Case 1: Particle Tracking for Clay Particle Release at MHHW ......................... 24 Figure 15. Case 1: Particle Tracking for Clay Particle Release at Peak Ebb ..................... 25 Figure 16. Case 1: Particle Tracking for Clay Particle Release at MLLW........................... 26 Figure 17. Case 1: Particle Tracking for Sand Particles..................................................... 28 Figure 18. Case 2: Particle Tracking for Clay Particle Release at MHHW ......................... 29 Figure 19. Case 2: Particle Tracking for Clay Particle Release at Peak Ebb ..................... 30 Figure 20. Case 2: Particle Tracking for Clay Particle Release at MLLW........................... 31 Figure 21. Case 2: Particle Tracking for Sand Particles..................................................... 32 Figure 22. Comparison of Flushing Reductions.................................................................. 35 Everest International Consultants, Inc. ii Ctcy o6/Varuport Baacb/4lartna /'dark Coasc46 6n©lnaaring'510Y LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Extreme Wind Speeds at John Wayne Airport .................................................... 7 Table 2. Extreme Wind Waves at Marina Park.................................................................. 7 Table 3. Ship Wake Input, Calculation Method, and Resulted Wave Conditions .............. 8 Table 4. Wave Forces on Docks......................................................................................10 Table 5. Wave Forces on Boats...................................................................................... 10 Table 6. Wave Forces and Moments on 16" Pile.............................................................13 Table 7. Summary of Wave Forces................................................................................. 33 Everest International Consultants, Inc. X City o6/Vawport Beac6/k4rina "% ark Coastal c`ngtneertng$[wdy I 1 1 1 1 1 1. INTRODUCTION The Marina Park Master Plan is a proposed project to improve the physical and visual access to Newport Bay by providing new and expanded park and beach facilities, recreational boating facilities, and a new Community Center. The proposed Marina Park is a nine -acre site located on the Bay side of Newport Peninsula north of Balboa Boulevard between 181h and 151h Street in Newport Beach, California. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed park in Newport Bay, as well as some pictures of the existing facilities in the vicinity of the project location. As described in the master plan, amenities of the proposed Marina Park include picnic tables, restroom, showers, play areas, tennis courts, benches, Girl Scout House, public beach and water access, parking, short-term visiting vessel marina, public dock and Sailing Center, and improved boat launch areas. Figure 2 shows an architectural rendering of the proposed Marina Park Master Plan. Everest International Consultants, Inc. (Everest) was contacted by Mr. Randy Mason of the URSICash Associates to conduct a coastal engineering study to analyze the wave loadings on the docks within the proposed marina, as well as the water quality and sedimentation issues. The Scope of Work for the coastal engineering study includes: 1. Conduct a site visit to observe existing conditions. 2. Obtain and review prior data/information related to the project. 3. Perform wind wave and ship wake analyses and corresponding wave loading calculations for the docks, boats, and piles within the proposed marina basin. 4. Perform hydrodynamic and water quality modeling to evaluate potential water quality issues within the proposed marina basin and make recommendation on ways to improve water quality. 5. Review existing sedimentation issues at the project site and potential sedimentation issues at the proposed marina basin. 6. Prepare a summary report to summarize the purpose, methods and results for this coastal engineering study. The results of the wave and wave loading analyses are presented in Section 2 of this report. Sections 3 and 4 summarize the approach and results for the water quality and sedimentation analyses, respectively. A summary of the findings of this study is provided in Section 5. Everest International Consultants, Inc. AA Upper f Newport i r a., Bay; c s s r1 Newport? Island,_ ' Channels Lido Isle Balboa Island Newport Pier Balboa Pier j 0 WWII" 0• m m m m= m= m m m = m m m w== m City of Newport Beach Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study 000000000001000 b Figure 2. Proposed Marina Park Master Plan Everest International Consultants, Inc. 3 CIIV e6/Vewpert BaacAlkartnA /74rk Cemd4i eX#nze01n5'5f0V 2. WAVE LOADING ANALYSES 2.1 OVERVIEW The purpose of the wave loading analyses is to estimate the horizontal wave induced forces and moments (where applicable) on the boats, docks, and piles of the proposed Marina Park. A wave analysis was first conducted to estimate the wind wave and ship wake conditions at the proposed marina. The wind wave analyses utilized local wind data compiled from Balboa Pier to estimate the operational wind conditions while long term wind data compiled from John Wayne Airport were used to estimate the extreme wind conditions. Ship waves were estimated based on typical boats and operating conditions at the project location. Wave loadings on boats, docks and piles due to the larger of the wind waves and ship waves were then calculated using different methods and tide elevations. 2.2 WAVE ANALYSIS Marina Park is well sheltered by land and far away from the Newport Harbor entrance so no significant ocean swell is expected to penetrate to this location. Hence, the design wave conditions for the proposed marina are governed by local wind waves or ship wakes generated by passing ships. Wind Waves Analysis of wind waves starts with understanding the local wind patterns. Wind data are available from the nearby Balboa Pier for July, 2004 through April, 2008 (MesoWest 2008) and were used to develop the operational wave conditions at the site. A longer wind record is needed for the development of the extreme wind conditions for determining the design wave loadings. Nearby John Wayne Airport has 46 years of wind data ending in May, 2008 (WeatherUnderground 2008), which were used for establishing the extreme wind conditions. Figure 3 shows the location of these two wind data sources relative to the project site. Figure 4 shows the operational wind rose developed based on the wind data from Balboa Pier. It shows that the majority of the winds come from the southwest quadrant with speeds of less than 10 knots. However, higher winds usually come from the north-northeast. As illustrated in the insert of Figure 4, for winds greater than 15 knots, approximately 45% come from the north-northeast with 5% exceeding 22 knots. Since at Marina Park, the operational winds come from land and blow offshore (to the northeast), the operational wind waves at Marina Park would be created inside the marina basin and on the order of only a few inches in height. Everest International Consultants, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study D51e use s�gswl to lcense mi 0020DGDe Ma TOPOUSA060 0 Y. "� ar" W(121•E Dole Zoom 11-2 Figure 3. Wind Data Sources Including Balboa Pier and John Wayne Airport Everest International Consultants, Inc. 5 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study alOR71Pl�60% `"/am \ NORTH j '0 I WEST l i %� EAST X _ . ' 12% 9% > 15 KT trarrtr 6% 3°k WEST EAST WIND SPEED (Knots) - a= 20 \\ 15-20 SOUTH- 10-15 0 5-10 - 2-5 Calms - a 06% Figure 4. Wind Rose for Balboa Pier: Operational Winds and Winds Greater than 15 Knots (insert) Everest International Consultants, Inc. 6 City 06/vampart Ba4ck/k40en47)4sk Coasts[ EnglneeNng stw3Y 1 Li An extremal analysis was performed based on the 46-year data record collected at John Wayne Airport. The results are summarized in Table 1 below. The return period is defined as the average time interval between successive occurrences of an event being equaled or exceeded. For example, a wind speed with a 100-year return period can be expected to be exceeded, on average, once every 100 years. Table 1. Extreme Wind Speeds at John Wayne Airport RETURN PERIOD (YR) 2-MINUTE WIND SPEED (KNOT) 2 31.7 5 42.4 10 50.5 25 61.2 50 69.3 100 77.4 A common, conservative approach to estimate the extreme wind waves is to apply the ' fastest wind over the longest fetch leading to the project site, with the necessary adjustment of the wind duration appropriate for the fetch distance. The extreme wind wave heights at ' Marina Park were estimated with this approach and the results are summarized in Table 2. In the table, Hmo is the energy based significant wave height and Tp is the peak wave period. Table 2. Extreme Wind Waves at Marina Park RETURN PERIOD (YR) HMo (FT) T, (SEC) 50 2.1 2.7 100 2.4 2.8 ' Ship Wakes Ship wakes are vessel generated waves which propagate away from the sailing line of the ' vessel. Figure 5 shows a picture of ship wakes generated by a recreational boat. The probable ship wake at Marina Park would be governed by the types and dimensions of ships likely to pass by the docks; as well as how fast they are traveling and their distance from the ' docks. Hence, a range of vessel types and sizes were used in estimating ship wakes at Marina Park. The dimensions of the vessels were estimated from aerial photographs of Everest International Consultants, Inc. Ciiy a6/Vewperi Beack/ilarina f7ark Cmsia[ �ngineeving$taJy Newport Harbor. The speed limit in Newport Harbor is 5 miles per hour (4.4 knot), but for this analysis it was assumed that, at times, some vessels may exceed the legal limit. Table 3 summarizes the vessel properties and conditions, calculation methods, and resulting wave conditions at Marina Park. The table shows the maximum wave height, Hmax, and the associated wave period, T, at Marina Park. Figure 5. Ship Wake from a Recreational Boat Table 3. Ship Wake Input, Calculation Method, and Resulted Wave Conditions SCENARIO DESCRIPTION BOAT LENGTH (FT) SPEED (KNOT) METHOD Hmm (FT) T (SEC) Sportboat-planning 20 20 Bhowmik 0.3 n/a Sportboat - subcritical 20 8 Kriebel 1.9 2.4 Superyacht - posted speed limit 120 4.4 Kriebel 0.1 1.2 Superyacht - speeding 120 8 Kriebel 1.7 2.4 Superyacht - speeding, deep water 120 8 Kriebel 0.9 2.2 Superyacht - posted speed limit 120 4.4 Gates Herbich 0.8 1.2 Superyacht - speeding 120 8 Gates Herbich 1.8 2.4 Superyacht - speeding, deep water 120 8 Gates Herbich 1.8 2.2 n/a - no wave period can be calculated for planning boats. Everest International Consultants, Inc. 8 iJ Cltq o6/Vowport-Swehlblavina ?ark Coastal 4nglnooving,510y 1 1 As shown in Table 3, even with the largest boats in Newport Harbor exceeding the posted speed limit, the resulting wave heights and periods at Marina Park are still smaller than those of the extreme wind waves shown in Table 2. Hence, wind waves are the controlling wave conditions in calculating the wave loading at the docks and piles in Marina Park. 2.3 WAVE LOADING The purpose of the wave loading analyses was to estimate the horizontal wave induced forces and moments (where applicable) on the docks, boats and piles at the proposed Marina Park basin. Each structure (boat, dock, or pile) requires a different calculation method and hence is discussed separately below. As mentioned earlier, extreme wind waves are higher than ship wakes and hence would be used in calculating the wave loadings. For rigid structures it is common to use a design wave height equal to the highest 1 % of the waves, which is calculated as 1.67 times the significant wave height. The marina basin depth was assumed to be -12 feet, MLLW (Mason 2008), and wave loadings are evaluated for two tide elevations - Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) and the Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). Docks Wave forces on the vertical side of a dock were estimated using three different methods. The wave forces estimated based on each of the three methods are of the same order but slightly different. As expected, all the three methods show that the wave forces increase with the design wave heights (i.e. wave force is higher for the 100-year condition compared to the 50-year condition). However, the methods are not consistent in the effect of tide elevations on the wave forces. One method shows that the wave force is slightly higher for MHHW tide compared with MLLW tide, while another method shows the opposite. Each of these methods has different assumptions so one method is no better than the others. Instead of simply picking the largest wave force for each return period as a recommended conservative design wave force for each tide elevation, one recommended design wave force is estimated as the combined average of the top results irrespective of tide elevation, i.e. there is only one recommended design wave force for each return period. The recommended wave force per unit length of dock for the 50 and 100-year wind wave is shown in Table 4. Everest International Consultants, Inc. W City obNawport Baack/Itartna ('dark CoaltaL fnptnaartnp$tnay �I Table 4. Wave Forces on Docks RETURN PERIOD (YR) WAVE FORCE PER UNIT LENGTH OF DOCK (LBIFT) 50 217 100 241 An example application of this force is provided. For a 40-ft long section of dock, the 100- year, maximum horizontal wave force would be 9,6401bs (40 ft x 241 Ib/ft). This force should be applied at the elevation of the dock connection to the pile for calculating the moment on the pile. Boats Horizontal wave forces on vertical sides of the boats were calculated assuming the boat draft was 6 feet with 4 feet of freeboard running the entire length of the boat. Table 5 summarizes the resulting wave forces in pounds per linear foot (lb/ft) of boat face parallel to the wave crest. Table 5. Wave Forces on Boats RETURN PERIOD WATER LEVEL WAVE FORCE PER UNIT LENGTH OF BOAT (LB/FT) 50-Year MLLW 508 MHHW 487 100-Year MLLW 608 MHHW 558 An example application of this force is provided. For a 40-ft long boat, the 100-Year, maximum horizontal wave force during a MI -LW tide would be 24,320 Ibs (40 ft x 608 lb/ft), The forces on boats are not necessarily additive to forces on docks since there is a phase difference between wave impacts on the two. This concept about the wave phase differences is illustrated in Figure 6. As the 100-year wave passes the boat and dock, while the wave is at its crest at the dock (exerting maximum horizontal force), the wave motion is down on the channel side of the boat (exerting minimum horizontal force). Everest Intemational Consultants, Inc. 1 L _I E E t 10 ' Cuy e6l%wperf B&4xA1 tartna "Park Ceaffal �ngix¢¢rtng$fadq 1 D 1 1 Figure 6. Phase Lag in a Cross Section of Wave Passing a Docked Boat Piles Nonlinear wave theory was used to calculate wave forces and moments with forces given in pounds per exposed pile above the un-scoured mud line. Figure 7 shows the wave forces and wave moments calculated for concrete piles with diameters ranging from 14 to 24 inches. Forces are the maximum possible combination of inertial and drag forces for a single vertical pile. The wave forces and moments were calculated for a range of pile diameters so that the marina engineer can choose the most appropriate results for their purposes. The marina engineer has indicated that 16-inch diameter piles may be preferred on the most exposed docks closest to the channel (Mason 2008). The wave forces and moments on 16-inch diameter piles can be easily read from Figure 7 and the results are summarized in Table 6. Everest International Consultants, Inc. 11 1 City 01/Vewperi Beachlilarenn -Park Coastal &gineeving,-jtudV 650 —+-50-Year, MLLW 600 ♦-50-Year, MHHW 550 —*--100-Year, MLLW m 500 i-100-Year, MHHW J u 450 0 LL 400 � M �+ 350 300 250 200 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Pile Diameter (IN) 9,000 8,000 7,000 LL 6,000 Y C E 5,000 C0 C 4,000 3,000 2,000 (a) Wave -Induced Force —450-Year, MLLW 11111-50-Year, MHHW —h-100-Year, MLLW —4*-100-Year, MHHW 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Pile Diameter (IN) (b) Wave -Induced Moments Figure 7. Wave -Induced Forces and Moments on Piles 26 Everest International Consultants, Inc. 12 Cuy q/%ope t TmcAlkawna "( ark Coastal �nglnaartng$[a2y I Cuy o(/voupere BaaeAlkaotna ?ark Caaatal fnp[na¢rtnp$tuay 3. WATER QUALITYANALYSES 3.1 OVERVIEW Water quality within the proposed marina basin depends on the tidal flushing capabilities or how fast "old" water in the basin is mixed with "new" water from the bay. Poor circulation and flushing can create stagnant water where pollutants could build up to undesirable levels and impact recreational or biological resources. Water quality analyses were conducted to estimate the potential impact of the proposed marina on water quality in the Immediate vicinity of the proposed marina basin and adjacent waterway. The impact of the proposed marina basin on water quality was evaluated based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for marina flushing management measures (EPA 1993). These EPA guidelines were specified to minimize nonpoint source pollution in coastal waters. Although there is no specific guideline for marina basins in Southern California, EPA guidelines for southeastern and northwestern United States suggest adequate tidal flushing to maintain water quality requires flushing reductions (the amount of a conservative substance that is flushed from the basin) ranging from 70% to 90% over a 24-hour period. In other words, the average concentration of a conservative pollutant within the marina should be reduced by 70% to 90% within 24 hours due to tidal flushing. A hydrodynamic and water quality model was used for this study to evaluate the tidal flushing capabilities of the proposed marina basin. The model was used to simulate the reduction of a hypothetical conservative pollutant within the basin due to tidal flushing. The predicted flushing reduction was compared to the EPA guidelines, 3.2 WATER QUALITY MODELING The two-dimensional (2D) hydrodynamic model RMA2 was used to simulate tidal elevations and circulation (currents) within Newport Bay. The tidal circulation results from RMA2 were then used to drive the water quality model RMA4 to simulate the dispersion of a conservative pollutant representing the flushing capability of the proposed marina basin. The flushing analysis was conducted for two cases as follows: • Case 1 —Proposed Marina Park with Existing Groin • Case 2 — Proposed Marina Park without Existing Groin The numerical model grids for Case 1 and 2 are shown in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. Both figures show the overall grid of Newport Bay as well as a close-up of the proposed I I I I L Everest International Consultants, Inc. 14 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study Figure 8. Numerical Model Grid for Case 1 Everest International Consultants, Inc. 15 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study Figure 9. Numerical Model Grid for Case 2 Everest International Consultants, Inc. 16 D City "% ark Coastal c�ngtnaertng$ta2y I project area where the grid has a higher resolution. Bathymetry data used in setting up the model grids were based on a composite of several data sources including: Upper Newport Bay survey data conducted by USACE in 2003, Lower Newport Bay survey data conducted by USACE in 2006, City of Newport Beach 1976 dredging plan for Newport Island Channels, proposed marina basin design depths, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) navigation chart for Newport Bay. Tide conditions used to determine the tidal circulation using RMA2 were based on the mean tide range for Newport Bay as shown in Figure 10. These tidal datums are from the NOAA Newport Bay Entrance (Station 9410580) bench marks for the 1983 — 2001 tidal epoch. The mean diurnal tide range represents the long-term average tidal conditions near the proposed project site. The tidal flushing simulation using RMA4 started with an initial unit concentration of a conservative pollutant tracer within the proposed marina basin. For comparison purposes between Cases 1 and 2, the initial concentration was placed between the proposed and existing groins. The initial concentration and resulting flushing reductions for Case 1 and Case 2 are shown in Figure 11. An initial unit concentration (shown in red) of a conservative pollutant was placed between the proposed and existing groins. The flushing reductions are shown as a spatial distribution of the percent reduction of the initial concentration after one tidal cycle (24-hours). For the color scale, red indicates no reduction in concentration, while dark blue indicates 100% reduction in concentration. Based on the EPA guideline (70% to 90% flushing reduction) the blue colors indicate areas with adequate flushing while red to green areas indicate poor tidal flushing. The flushing reduction for Case 1 with both the proposed and existing groins in place show that there is adequate tidal flushing at less than about one -quarter of the way into the basin while there is minimum flushing reduction (shown in red) farther into the basin. Poor tidal flushing conditions exist in the majority of the basin as well as portions on the east side of the proposed groin. Overall, the flushing reductions for Case 1 show an average reduction throughout the marina basin of 43% over 24-hours. Removal of the existing groin under Case 2 improves the tidal flushing as higher flushing reductions are seen within the basin and east of the proposed groin. However, the average flushing reduction for Case 2 is only 48% over 24-hours, which does not meet the EPA guideline. ' Flushing reductions within the proposed marina basin can be improved by using mechanical devices to enhance the movement and mixing of water within the basin. The use of t mechanical devices to improve water circulation has been evaluated in the past for different areas in Newport Bay with poor circulation. The mechanical devices that have been evaluated include the use of mechanical pumps, and propeller -type devices (e.g. In-Streem, Everest International Consultants, Inc. 17 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study Am allill 3 J 4.0 c Y4 3.0 R i C1 LL m 2.0 u m 3 N y 1.0 G ml Tidal Datums for Newport Bay Entrance MHHW: 5.41 ft (MLLW) MHW: 4X7 ft (MLLW) MLW: 0.92 ft (MLLW) MLLW: 0.00 ft (MLLW) Source: NOAA 2003 In 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 Time (hrs) Figure 10. Mean Tide Conditions 18.0 21.0 24.0 Everest International Consultants, Inc. 18 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study Flushing Reduction (%) 100 90 80 ' 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Figure 11. Flushing Reduction for Cases 1 and 2 Everest International Consultants, Inc. 19 City oif /Vempert Beach1h4otn4 764 Coasts[ �agtneertng$enJy and Oloids). Both the In-Streem and Oloid have been tested in Newport Bay and were demonstrated to be very effective in enhancing water circulation in areas with poor tidal flushing. Additional flushing analyses were conducted with the use of four Oloids placed inside the marina basin to illustrate the potential improvement in tidal flushing that can be achieved at Marina Park. The placement of the Oloids for this example and the resulting flushing reduction is shown in Figure 12. As shown in the figure, the four Oloids were positioned at the ends of the floating docks in a clockwise direction within the basin. The spatial distribution of the flushing reduction shows a dramatic improvement in tidal flushing within the basin. The average flushing reductions in 24 hours reach 80% and 89% for Case 1 and Case 2, respectively. The circulation enhancement example shows that it is feasible to mitigate poor tidal flushing of the proposed marina basin by using mechanical flow enhancement devices such that the EPA guidelines for adequate flushing can be met. The Oloids were chosen just for demonstration so other mechanical devices could be used to achieve similar improvement. Implementation of mechanical flow enhancement devices would require further evaluation for the optimal numbers and placement locations within the basin. Everest International Consultants, Inc. 20 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Coastai Engineering Study A s `+r �y Oloids and Directions T Flushing Reduction (%) 100 90 80 70 60 so 40 30 20 10 0 Figure 12. Flushing Reduction with Mechanical Circulation Enhancement Everest International Consultants, Inc. 21 City eb/Uewpm -AeaeAlkartna'Park Coastal Engtaeertng$taay 4. SEDIMENTATION ANALYSES 4.1 OVERVIEW The Marina Park marina basin has a proposed groin to keep sediment moving along the existing beach area (west of the proposed groin) from migrating into the proposed marina basin. This proposed groin is the same length as an existing groin for the American Legion Post 291 marina just east of the proposed marina basin. Since the proposed groin is expected to provide similar protection for the proposed marina as the existing groin for the American Legion marina, the sedimentation conditions at the American Legion marina were first reviewed to provide an estimate of the potential sedimentation condition for the proposed marina. In addition, the hydrodynamic model described in the last section was used to establish the potential trajectory of sediment movement. This analysis was used to determine whether suspended sediment located on the west side of the proposed groin would be transported by tidal currents into the proposed marina basin. 4.2 SEDIMENT DEPOSITION AT EXISTING MARINA The existing marina adjacent to the proposed Marina Park is called American Legion Post 291. It was originally constructed between 1958 and 1959. The marina was last dredged in 1986 and 1988 when a total of 365 cubic yards of sediment were removed from near the west and east groins (Miller, 2008). Since this last dredging there has been some shoaling throughout the marina, with a special area of concern being at the guest dock, near the existing groin. Most boats docked at the guest dock, shown in the left photo of Figure 13 currently become grounded at low tides. At other locations in the marina, deep keel sailboats also become grounded at low tides (Geensen, 2008). Based on observations during site visits and pictures of the area (Figure 13), the existing groin serves the function of stopping most sediment transport but does not completely block sediment transport into the existing marina basin. While there is insufficient data to estimate sedimentation rates, it is safe to say that there is a long-term sedimentation problem in the existing marina basin. Since the proposed groin is expected to perform similar to the existing groin, there is a potential that some sedimentation, especially immediately east and adjacent of the groin, will occur over time. Everest International Consultants, Inc. 22 CUy 06 lVempeet 3each/tlarina "% avk COaeeal cingfneering$LaDy 1 1 1 Figure 13. Marina Neighboring Proposed Marina Park Location: American Legion Post 291 4.3 PARTICLE TRACKING ANALYSIS A particle tracking analysis was conducted to evaluate if sediments from the beach area west of the proposed groin were mobilized/suspended (e.g. by boat activities), whether these suspended sediments would have the potential of impacting the proposed and existing marinas. The particle tracking analysis utilizes the RMA2 simulated tidal circulation results based on mean tide conditions (Section 3) to track the movement of the suspended sediments (clays and sands) released at six locations west of the proposed groin. Particle tracking simulations was conducted for the two marina layouts discussed earlier - Case 1 (with both proposed and existing groins in place) and Case 2 (with only the proposed groin in place). Since the movement of the particles will depend on when the sediments were mobilized (e.g. ' during high or low tide), particle tracking simulations were conducted with the sediments released at different times (release times) of the tidal cycle — MHHW, peak ebb tide, and MLLW. Particle tracking results for the clay -sized particles for Case 1 are shown in Figures ' 14 to 16 for release times at MHHW, peak ebb tide, and MLLW, respectively. In each figure, each of the six panels shows the particle trajectory released at one of the six released locations for a one -week simulation period. The settling velocity of clay particles is very small and the particles remain in suspension throughout the one week simulation. As shown in the figures, sediment transport for clay -sized particles for all three release times shows the east -to -west movement reflecting the tidal oscillation, eastward during the ebb tide and westward during the flood tide, with the net sediment transport to the east. The clay particle tracking results indicate the groins are pretty effective in preventing the suspended ' sediments from migrating into both the proposed and existing marina basins. Everest International Consultants, Inc. 23 1 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study 1�1 Figure 14. Case 1: Particle Tracking for Clay Particle Release at MHHW Everest International Consultants, Inc. 24 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study 11 Figure 15. Case 1: Particle Tracking for Clay Particle Release at Peak Ebb i Everest International Consultants, Inc. 25 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study Figure 16. Case 1: Particle Tracking for Clay Particle Release at MLLW Everest International Consultants, Inc. 26 ' Ctly o6/Varopor2 B¢ AlRasrna /'dark Coast4l �ngtnaartng$fn2y 5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS This report presents the methods and findings of a coastal engineering study conducted for the proposed Marina Park boat basin in Newport Beach. The coastal engineering study evaluates the wind and ship waves at the marina basin and the corresponding wave loading on boats, docks and piles, as well as the potential water quality and sedimentation conditions of the marina basin. 5.1 WAVE LOADINGS Operational wind winds at the basin were found to produce very small waves at the basin because most of the time, winds would be blowing across land before reaching the basin. Wind data at the nearby John Wayne Airport was analyzed to produce the extreme wind wave conditions (e.g. the 50- and 100-year return period winds) at the site. Ship waves generated by typical vessels passing the site were also analyzed and found to be smaller than the extreme wind waves. Hence, the wave loadings on the docks, boats, and piles were calculated based on the calculated extreme wind waves at the basin. Table 7 below provides a brief summary of the wave loadings at the proposed marina basin. Table 7. Summary of Wave Forces RETURN, WAVE.FORCE WAVE FORCE WAVE FORCE MOMENT ON PERIOD WATER ON DOCK ON BOAT ON 16" PILE 16" PILE (YR) LEVEL (LB/FT) (LBIFT) (LB) (LB -FT) MLLW 508 297 3,073 50 217 MHHW 487 269 4,174 MLLW 608 360 3,753 100 214 MHHW 558 330 5,239 5.2 WATER QUALITY The water quality analyses evaluated the tidal flushing capabilities of the proposed marina basin with two different layouts - Case 1 (with both the proposed and existing groins) and Case 2 (with only the proposed groin). The results indicate that tidal flushing for both cases are rather poor and the flushing capabilities are well below the EPA guidelines which suggest adequate tidal flushing to maintain water quality of marina basins requires flushing reductions (the amount of a conservative substance that is flushed from the basin) ranging from 70% to 90% over a 24-hour period. Even though removing the existing groin (Case 2) provides Everest International Consultants, Inc. 33 Ctty e(/Uvpert BeacA/ttartna /dark Ccaatal c`npenaartnp$en2y slight improvement in tidal flushing over Case 1, the improvement is not enough to,provide good water quality for the proposed marina°basin. It is recommended to use mechanical devices to improve tidal flushing of the proposed marina basin. As an example, addition water quality modeling was conducted to illustrate the improvement of tidal flushing that can be achieved with the use four Oloids. Figure 22 compares the flushing reductions with and without the use of Oloids for both Case 1 and Case 2. As illustrated in the figure, the use of four Oloids can substantially improve flushing for both cases and meet the EPA guideline for marina basin. This circulation enhancement example shows that it is feasible to mitigate poor flushing of the proposed marina basin by using mechanical flow enhancement devices. The Oloids were chosen just for demonstration and other mechanical devices can also be used to achieve similar improvements. Implementation of mechanical flow enhancement devices would require further evaluation for the optimal numbers and placement locations within the basin. 5.3 SEDIMENTATION ANALYSES Observations of existing sediment deposition conditions indicate a slow, but long-term sedimentation problem in the neighboring marina basin (American Legion Post 291). Since the proposed groin is expected to provide similar protection as the existing groin for the American Legion marina, similar long-term sedimentation is likely to happen at the proposed marina basin. The particle tracking analysis results are consistent with these observations showing there is a net sediment transport to the east along Newport Channel, bringing sediment from the beach west of the groin towards the entrance of the marina basin. In addition, the particle tracking results shows the proposed groin is effective in preventing fine sediments from migrating into the proposed marina, but the existing groin would still be important in preventing some fine sediment from migrating into the existing marina even with the proposed groin in place. Everest International Consultants, Inc. 34 Ciq e6/Vawpew "Pi¢ Alhartna -Park Commi �ngtn¢ering$ewDY The particle tracking results for sand particles are shown in Figure 17. In the figure, each ' panel shows the results for all six release locations at MHHW, peak ebb tide, and MLLW. The sand particles settled within an hour after release so the sand settled within a short distance from the release location. Particles between clay and sand would be expected to ' follow and settle somewhere along the paths for the clay particles. Particle tracking results for the clay particles for Case 2 are shown in Figures 18 to 20. The ' results show that the proposed groin would be effective in preventing the clay particles from migrating into the proposed marina basin. However, with the removal of the existing groin, ' some of the clay particles would migrate into the existing marina basin. For sand particles which settle in less than an hour, the particle tracking results as shown in Figure 21 are almost identical as the results for Case 1. The sand particles settled within a short distance ' from the release locations. 1 L 1 1 1 Everest International Consultants, Inc. 27 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study Release at MHHW Release at Peak Ebb Figure 17. Case 1: Particle Tracking for Sand Particles Release at MLLW Everest International Consultants, Inc. 28 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study Figure 18. Case 2: Particle Tracking for Clay Particle Release at MHHW Everest International Consultants, Inc. 29 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study Figure 19. Case 2: Particle Tracking for Clay Particle Release at Peak Ebb Everest International Consultants, Inc. WE City of Newport Beach Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study Figure 20. Case 2: Particle Tracking for Clay Particle Release at MLLW Everest International Consultants, Inc. 31 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study Release at MHHW Release at Peak Ebb Figure 21. Case 2: Particle Tracking for Sand Particles Release at MLLW Everest International Consultants, Inc. 32 M M M 11M M M M M M M M M City of Newport Beach Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study Flushing Reduction (%) a IDO go 80 70 60 so ao 30 2D 10 0 Figure 22. Comparison of Flushing Reductions Everest International Consultants, Inc. 35 CIq o6/Veayort-SmAlt4artna'Park Coastal cenglneesing$taati 5.4 PROPOSED AND EXISTING GROINS The Marina Park marina basin has a proposed groin to keep sediment moving along the existing beach area (west of the proposed groin) from migrating into the proposed marina basin. This proposed groin has the same length as an existing groin for the American Legion Post 291 marina just east of the proposed marina. The results of the sedimentation analysis indicate that the proposed groin would serve the purpose of preventing most of the sediment from the beach to migrate into the new marina basin. In addition, the sedimentation analysis results also indicate that the proposed groin would likely to prevent most of the sediments from migrating into the existing American Legion Post 291 marina. On the other hand, the water quality modeling results indicate that removing the existing groin could only slightly improve water circulation (hence water quality) of the proposed marina. Hence, from the standpoints of sedimentation and water quality, there is no compelling reason for either keeping or removing the existing groin. Everest International Consultants, Inc. 36 ' Cuy 06/v¢wpovE Bg"Al tarina /?ark Ce4e[46 &61nayin©'510Y I II II II I! I II 6. REFERENCES EPA. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 840-B-92-002. January 1993. Geensen, Ray. 2008. Telephone conversation June 4, 2008. Dock Master, American Legion Post 291, Newport Harbor. http://www.al291.com Mason, Randy. 2008. URSICash & Associates. E-mail May 6, 2008. Mesowest. 2008. Station H0498 Balboa Pier, University of Utah Mountain Meteorology Group. hftp•//www.met.utah.edu/ Miller, Chris. 2008. City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division. E-mail 6/13/08. NOAA. 2003. Published Bench Mark Sheet for 9410580 Newport Beach, Newport Bay Entrance. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Ocean Service. 2003. Newport Beach, Newport Bay Entrance, CA, Station ID 9410580, Bench Mark Data Sheets. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.aov/. April 21, 2003. Weather Underground. 2008. History for John Wayne Airport, Santa Ana, CA, KSNA, http://www.wunderground.com/history/airportIKSNA/ Everest International Consultants, Inc. 37 Marina Park Draft REIR L I� n U L I u 1 H.3 - SUMMARY OF OLOIDS AS WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT DEVICES I I 11 I I Summary of the Oloids As Water Quality Enhancement Devices The Oloid, named for the geometric shape paddle, uses a unique driving mechanism which rotates the paddle with the effect of two "fish tails" working together to produce a directional flow and circulation. The Oloid is available in two basic models, OLOID 200, and OLOID 400. For Marina Park, the larger model OLOID 400 will probably be used. The OLOID 400 is powered by a 230V three-phase AC motor. The systems Control Box includes an inverter which allows it to be connected directly into a standard 115V electrical source. No special connections or hook-ups are required. The OLOID 400 is powered by a single one-half horsepower motor and uses about 250 watts. The standard OLOID configuration is designed to be installed with pontoons floating on the surface of the water. Alternatively, the unit can be mounted to a fixed structure, or be fully submerged and out of sight. For the Marina Park marina basin, the Oloids would be mostly likely to be mounted below the decks near the ends of the docks. Similar concern about the interference of Oloids with marine life was raised on a pilot study at Baby Beach, Dana Point Harbor in 2005. For that study, six Oloids were installed at Baby Beach from June through September 2005 to test whether the Oloids could improve water circulation and reduce bacteria levels at the beach. For that study, each of the six Oloids was enclosed in a cage to minimize its interaction with marine life. The figure below depicts an Oloid with its protective cage used for the Baby Beach study. The regulatory agencies at that time had accepted that enclosing the Oloid with a cage was adequate to minimize interference of the Oloids with marine life and had granted permit for the installation of six Oloids at Baby Beach. For the Marina Park marina basin, similar cages can be used to enclose the Oloids to minimize interaction with marine life. Regarding maintenance for the Oloids, experience learned from the Baby Beach Pilot Study revealed that the Oloids could operate smoothly for at least four months with minimum maintenance. At the end of the pilot study, some marine growths were found on the Oloids and the cages, and some of the holes of the cages were clogged by marine debris. If the Oloids were used to improve water circulation for the Marina Park marina basin, an inspection and maintenance schedule would be established for removing marine growths and other debris. It is recommended for the first year, the Oloids should be inspected once every three months, and the frequency for inspection after the first year would be adjusted based on findings of the first year's inspections. Source: Everest International Conultants, personal communication to Randy Nelson, URS Corporation, 20 September 2009. 1 Marina Park Draft REIR I p, J u u HA - SAND COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS II i 1 11 I I I Sediment Grain Size Evaluation of Four Potential Receiver Sites for Marina Park Sands, Newport Beach, California Draft Report PREPARED FOR: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 PREPARED BY: NewFields PO Box 216 4729 View Drive Port Gamble, Washington 98364 November 2009 I NEWFIELDS I November 2009 Sand Compatibility Report ' Executive Summary The City of Newport Beach is considering the placement of sediments from the Marina Park Marina project at several nearby receiver sites. The candidate receiving locations are the nearshore areas off of the 40"' to 52"d Street groin fields, nearshore areas between Newport Pier and 10°i Street, and the beach and shallow subtidal areas at China Cove and Marina Park (on the bay side of the Balboa Peninsula). To facilitate beach replenishment in the Los Angeles area, the US Army Corps of Engineers -Los Angeles District (USACE-LA) has authorized Regional General Permit (RGP) 67 which provides guidance regarding donor material suitability. The RGP-67 uses the Sediment Compatibility and Opportunistic Use Program (SCOUP) which includes a process for assessing sediment from both the donor and receiving sites. As part of the SCOUP plan, the grain size characteristics of the donor site(s) are required to be reasonably similar to those of the receiving site. As per the requirements of the RGP-67, NewFields collected sediments from two transects at each of the receiving sites. Sediment was collected at nominal elevations of +12, +6, 0, -6, -12, -18, -24, and -30 ft mean lower low water (MLLW) and submitted for sediment grain size analysis. A composite grain size envelope was then constructed for each receiving site based on all of the individual grain size distributions along the two transects. The grain size of the donor material was compared to the composite grain size envelope for each potential receiver site to establish whether the donor material's gradation curve lies mainly within the composite envelope. The donor material from this project would include sediment from three dredged material management areas within the proposed Marina Park marina (Areas A, B, and Q. Area A includes that portion of the site currently occupied by the mobile home park. Area B includes that area currently occupied by the exposed beach above 0 ft MLLW. Area C includes that portion of the site that is below 0 ft. MLLW. Each area was divided into an upper and lower layer based on the physical nature and the geological origin of the sediment. For Areas A and B, that division was based on the transition from recent sands to ancient Bay sand deposits. That layer generally occurred between 10 and 12 ft. below ground surface. In Area C, only the lower portion is eligible for nearshore disposal and represents the native sands underlying newer, fine-grain sediment. Sediment from the upper portions of Area A (approximately 11,850 CY) and Area B (approximately 8,360 CY) were generally similar to sediments found at each of the receiver sites, falling within the grain -size envelope developed from the two transects. This donor material was generally coarser that sediment found in the deeper portions of the ocean -side sites (the 40'h to 52"d Street groin fields and between Newport Pier and 101h Street). Because this material more closely resembles sediment at the China Cove site than donor sediments from the lower portions of the Marina Park site, the upper portions of Areas A and B would the best suited material from Marina Park for the China Cove site. NewFields LLC 2 INovember 2009 Sand Compatibility Report ' Sediment from lower portion of Area B (approximately 8,360 CY) was similar to the ' grain size envelope developed for the Newport Pier to 10°i Street site and the 18'h to 19'h Street - Marina Park receiver site. Sediment from the lower portion of Area B was generally coarser than sediment in the deeper portions of the ocean -side beaches. t With the exception of the 18'h to 19'h Street — Marina Park receiver site, the donor sediment from the lower portions of Area A (approximately 11,850 CY and Area C (approximately 6,580 CY) was generally coarser in than sediment found at the receiver sites. Final determinations of suitability for placing the donor material at any of the disposal sites or placing the coarser clean sand at the Marina Park site will be made by the USACE-LA District, US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IX, and other regulatory agencies during the USACE permitting process. While a portion of the Marina Parks sediments do not fall within the grain size envelope for the receiver sites, it may be considered eligible for placement either at the receiver sites or at the Marina Park site based on a project specific/site specific factors. 11 II 1 I NewFields LLC 3 November 2009 Sand Compatibility Report 1 F Introduction The City of Newport Beach is considering the use of dredged material from the Marina Park project site for nearshore replenishment at four nearby receiver sites. The Marina Park project site is located in Lower Newport Bay, California along the bay side of the Balboa Peninsula (Figure 1). The Marina Park project includes the expansion of existing beach areas and marina facilities, including the conversion of approximately 1.13 acres of uplands to a 28-slip marina. Sediment within the proposed marina complex will be excavated to accommodate the project depth of -12 ft. MLLW plus a 2 ft. ovordredge. Of the approximately 62,000 cubic yards (CY) of soil/sediment that is proposed for removal, 15,000 CY will be used as project fill. Approximately 3,000 CY is considered to be unsuitable for nearshore or ocean disposal and is planned for upland disposal. An additional 3,000 CY of sediment is not suitable for nearshore placement based on grain size and will be placed at the LA-3 Ocean Disposal Site. The remaining 41,000 CY is available as donor material for nearshore placement. Sediments from the Marina Park project have been previously characterized following U.S, Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidelines set forth in the Inland Testing Manual (1TM; USACE/USEPA 1998) and the Ocean Testing Manual (OTM; USACE/USEPA 1991). That material proposed for nearshore placement has been shown to be free of contamination or potential biological effects (NewFields 2009) The Marina project site (Figure 1) was evaluated in three subareas within the proposed Marina Park marina (Areas A, B, and C). Area A included that portion of the site currently occupied by the mobile home ,park. Area B included that area currently occupied by the exposed beach above 0 ft MLLW. Area C included that portion of the site that is below 0 ft. MLLW. Each area was further divided into an upper and lower layer based on the physical nature and the geological origin of the sediment. For Areas A and B, that division was based on the transition from recent sands to ancient Bay sand deposits. That division generally occurred between 10 and 12 ft. below ground surface. In Area C, the division between the upper and lower was based on the transition from recently deposited fine-grained silts and clay and the clean older Bay sands. In Area C, only the lower portion is eligible for nearshore disposal and represents the native sands underlying newer, fine-grain sediment. It is important to note that the upper 5 ft. of material in Area A is not proposed for placement at any of the receiver sites. NewFields LLC 4 ' !November 2009 Sand Compatibility Report I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Figure 1. Location of Marina Park Marina Project Site and Management Areas. The approximate volumes of material available for beach replenishment or use at the Marina Park site from each of the areas are as follows: Upper Portion Lower Portion Area A 11,850 CY 11,850 CY Area B 8,360 CY 8,360 CY Area C Not eligible 6,580 CY Four potential locations are being considered for beach replenishment (Figure 2). Those locations and the potential volumes that could be accepted are as follows: Newport Pier to 10 Street all project material China Cove 5,000 cubic yards Marina Park (between 18th and 19`h Streets 1,000 cubic yards Groin Fields from 40`h Street to 52aa Streets all project material To facilitate beach replenishment in the Los Angeles area, the US Army Corps of Engineers has authorized Regional General Permit 67 which provides guidance regarding donor material suitability. The RGP-67 uses the Sediment Compatibility and 1 NewFields LLC 5 November 2009 Sand Compatibility Report Opportunistic Use Program (SCOUP) which includes a process for assessing sediment from both the donor and receiving sites. The SCOUP plan requires a comparison of the sediment grain size of the donor sediment to that of the receiver sites. Ideally, sediment from the donor sites should be reasonably similar to that of the receiving sites. According to the SCOUP plan, a sediment -grain size envelope is developed for each potential receiver site. The grain size envelope is developed by collecting samples along two transects at elevations of +12, +6, 0, -6, -12, -18, -24, and -30 ft. mean lower low water (MLLW). Each sample is sieved through progressively smaller screens and a gradation curve of sediment grain size established for each sample. A composite grain size envelope is then constructed for each site based on each individual curves from the two transects. The grain size for the donor material is then compared to the composite grain size envelope for each potential receiver beach. The following report presents the results of the sediment evaluation of the receiver sites and compares the sediment grain size profiles of the donor material to each of the receiver sites. NewFields LLC 6 A &_. V �s, �""`',�"p Sf t:i�AM. o••tya(� ;�• y�'�<.,. _ 1 ei dsoa NewportSxM th ti 0 Oala$10. NOAA. V.5 Nery.NGA.GESCO Image 9200E DigilelGlobe I 1 I.� •, Y�w. ,� w t Image 020090ipllelGlobe ''Google November 2009 Sand Compatibility Report Marina Park Methods Sediment samples were collected and analyzed following guidance provided in Attachment 2 of the RGP-67 (Final Sand Compatibility and Opportunistic Use Program Plan). Sediments from the receiver sites were collected on September 30 and October 1, 2009. Samples were collected from two shore -perpendicular transects at each of the four candidate receiver sites. Each of the receiver sites is less than one mile in length. A total of 8 stations were sampled along each transect, with samples collected at elevations of +12', +6', 0', -6', -12', -18', -24' and-30'mean lower low water (MLLW). Transects at 18`h to 19`6 Streets - Marina Park and China Cove had maximum depths of -12 ft MLLW and -24 ft MLLW, respectively. However, samples from China Cove collected at -18 ft. and -24 ft. MLLW were well outside of the potential placement areas and were therefore not included in the grain size envelope. The locations and actual elevations for each of the stations are indicated on Table 1 and Figures 2 through 5. Samples of 200 to 400 grams were collected to a depth of approximately 6 inches of sediment depth. Samples were collected with a stainless -steel scoop at locations above the waterline. Samples collected below the waterline were collected using a modified Ponar grab from a small boat. Stations within the surf zone were collected either from shore or by free diving, using a stainless steel scoop. Station locations were recorded using a handheld GPS fitted with a WAAS antenna. Observations of general sediment characteristics were recorded including approximate grain size, the presence of shell hash or debris, color, and odor. Samples were then placed in a one -quart bag and held in a cooler at 4°C prior to shipping. Samples were shipped via overnight delivery to Analytical Resources Incorporated in Tukwila, Washington for grain size analysis. To develop the grain size envelope, each sample was sieved with a series of 11 sieves targeting 12 size fractions (Table 2) and a gradation curve established for that sample. A composite grain size gradation "envelope" was then prepared from the global set of sieve data using plots of the coarsest and finest grain sizes along the transects. The grain size distribution for the donor material was then compared to each of the receiver site grain size envelope. NewFields LLC 8 ' November 2009 Sand Compatibility Report Marina Park Il 1 1 I 1 Table 1. Station Locations for Receiving Site Sediment Grain Size Investigation, a uUA Elevation ft. Transect Nom. actual Latitude Longitude Comments 40th Street to 52"d Street Groin Fields Highest elevation +9 9 9 330 37.314 1170 56.554 near beach wall. 6 5 330 37.297 1170 56.569 0 0 330 37.287 1170 56.578 50th -6 -6 330 37.256 1170 56.605 Street -12 -13 330 37.233 1170 56.623 -18 -18 330 37.224 1170 56.642 -24 -25 330 37.185 1170 56.670 -30 -30 330 37.115 1170 56.729 , Highest elevation +9 9 9 330 37.135 1170 56.307 near beach wall. 6 4 330 37.111 1170 56.337 0 -2 330 37.109 1170 56.338 42nd -6 -6 330 37.080 117* 56.378 Street -12 -12 330 37.065 1170 56.415 -18 -19 330 37.050 1170 56.455 -24 -25 330 37.017 1170 56.464 -30 -30 330 36.997 117- 56.531 New ort Pier to I,Oth'Street Highest elevation +9 9 9 330 36.399 1170 55.447 near beach wall. 6 4 330 36.357 1170 55.455 Between 0 -2 330 36.327 117* 55.457 Collected in surf zone 181h & 97th -6 -5 330 36.300 1170 55.494 Streets -12 -12 330 36.248 1170 55.430 -18 -18 330 36.231 1170 55.458 -24 -24 330 36.209 1170 55.437 -30 -30 330 36.186 1170 55.394 Highest elevation +9 9 9 330 36.251 117° 54.970 near beach wall. 6 4 330 36.241 117° 54.974 Between 0 -2 330 36.230 117' 54.980 Collected in surf zone 121h & I Ith -6 -5 330 36.211 1170 54.490 Streets -12 -11 330 36.160 1170 54.978 -18 -18 330 36.141 1170 54.998 -24 -24 330 36.131 1170 55.004 -30 1 -30 1 330 36.096 1170 55.014 NewFields LLC 9 November 2009 Elevation 9 9 Bayside 6 3 18th 0 0 Street -6 -6 -12 -12 9 9 6 3 Bayside 0 0 19th Street -6 -6 -12 -12 8 8 6 3 China 0 0 Cove 1 -6 -6 (CC1) -12 -12 -18 -17 8 8 6 2 China 0 0 Cove 2 -6 -6 (CC2) -12 -11 -18 -17 -24 -22 Latitude Marina Park 330 36,523 1170 55.494 330 36.531 1170 55.493 330 36.536 1170 55.500 330 36.543 1170 55.496 330 36.552 1170 55.488 330 36.538 1170 55.548 330 36.543 1170 55.545 330 36.551 1170 55.549 330 36.555 1170 55.543 330 36.588 1170 55.514 China Cove 330 35.792 1170 52.706 330 35.784 1170 52.719 330 35.779 117° 52,719 330 35.766 1170 52.771 330 35.758 1170 52.776 330 35.700 1170 52.856 330 35.783 1170 52,699 330 35.777 1170 52.711 330 35.776 1170 52.711 330 35.776 1170 52,731 330 35.739 1170 52.769 330 35.719 1170 52.780 330 35.672 1170 52,834 Sand Compatibility Report Marina Park Maximum elevation +9 ft. No samples collected past -12, channel depth -14'. Maximum elevation +9 ft. No samples collected past -12, Maximum elevation +8ft. MLLW No sample collected due to extensive eelgrass bed. No sample collected past -24, channel depth -24'. Maximum elevation +8ft. MLLW No sample collected past -24, channel depth -24'. NewFields LLC 10 s 4 %� 3' s ,I �"�ho `may .y f• - �` •'S . 1 • 6 l -12 rs �} , . ��• -18 -30 1' 6 . S -12 -18• -24 •.'�% -30 •. 2009 Google -12 • -180 -24 -300 05- 1� e t � 1 I Ifg I. .c , w ee/eo C 2009 Google Image ID 2009 Dlgd.IGlo Ee -b •-12 -18 .24 -30 GOOSIC If i -s. .-12 o. .. — • -s .o 11e P.1�. November 2009 Sand Compatibility Report , Marina Park Figure 6. Station Locations for the China Cove Receiver Site. NewFields LLC 14 1 ' November 2009 Sand Compatibility Report Marina Park 1 1 I� U L7 NewFields LLC 15 November 2009 Sand Compatibility Report ' Marina Park Table 2. Sand Sieve Sizes and Designations for Sand Compatibility Analyses (Unified Soils Classification) SOIL TYPE SIEVE SIZE (mm) GRAVEL (Optional) SIEVE3i811 9.5 COARSE SAND SIEVE4 4.76 SIEVES 2.38 SIEVE10 2 MEDIUM SAND SIEVE16 1.19 SIEVE30 0.59 SIEVE40 0.42 FINE SAND SIEVE50 0.3 SIEVE60 0.25 SIEVE100 0.149 SIEVE200 0.074 SILT — <0.074 a 11 it NewFields LLC 16 1 i ' November 2009 Sand Compatibility Report Marina Park Results and Discussion ' Sediment grain size results for samples from each of the receiver sites are presented in Tables 3 through 6. The grain size distributions for the Marina Park project donor ' sediment is presented in Table 7. The resulting grain size envelope, as well as the grain size distribution for the Marina Park donor sediment is presented in Figures 7 through 10. Complete analytical results for receiver site samples are presented in Appendix A. ' 40"' to 52"d Street Groin Fields Samples from the 40`h to 52"d Street Groin Fields were collected from the ends of 42nd Street and 501h Street. The highest portion of the backshore at both locations was +9 ft. MLLW near the seawall. Samples were collected no closer than one meter of the seawall. Sediment grain size distributions for these transects are presented in Table 3. ' Sediment from the beach and shallow subtidal stations was characterized as coarse sand, with finer sand fractions observed in the deeper stations. The resulting grain size envelope based on all the stations is presented in Figure 7. ' Donor sediment from Marina Park composites AU (sediment from the upper portion of Area A) and BU (sediment from the upper portion of Area B) were generally similar to ' that of the composite envelope for the 40`h to 52"d Street Groin Fields. The AU and BU composites had a slightly higher portion of the coarser sand fractions (500 µm and 1000 µm particle size) however; differences were generally :510% for these two fractions. ' Donor sediment from the lower portions of Areas A, B, and C generally fell outside the grain size envelope for this receiver site, with a higher proportion of coarse sediment (>500 µm). Sediment in the deeper portions of the transects at this receiver site were generally finer -grained sand than those of the Marina Park donor site. Newport Pier to 10'h Street Samples from the Newport Pier to 10`h Street receiver site were collected from a point halfway between the end of 11`h and 12`h Street and halfway between 17`h and 18`h Street, on the ocean side of the Balboa Peninsula. The highest portion of the backshore at both locations was +9 ft MLLW. Sediment grain size distributions for these transects are presented in Table 4. Sediment from the beach and shallow subtidal stations was characterized as coarse sand, with finer sand fractions observed in the deeper stations. ' The grain size envelope based on all transect samples is presented in Figure 8. Donor material from Marina Park composites AU, BU and CL (the lower portion of ' sediment from Area C) fell within the grain size envelope of this receiver site, with the exception of a slightly higher (10%) proportion of 500 µm particle size sediments in the CL composite. The lower portion of the composites from Areas A and C fell outside the grain size envelope for the Newport Pier to 10`h Street receiver site, with higher proportions of coarse sediment (>500 µm). However, the sediment from composites AL and CL were more similar to this site than the 40`h to 52"d Street Groin Field. Sediment in the deeper portions of each transect at this receiver site was generally finer -grained sand than those of the Marina Park donor site. NewFields LLC 17 November 2009 Sand Compatibility Report Marina Park China Cove Samples from the China Cove receiver site were collected from transects originating from two locations at +8 ft. MLLW. This is a limited •beach that is being targeted for sand replenishment ,in the upper intertidal and beach areas to protect nearby homes. Samples were collected to a depth of -24 ft. 'MLLW, however, samples collected from the -18 ft. and -24 ft, stations were well outside the area where sediment may be placed and were therefore not included in determining the grain size envelope for this site. Sediment grain size distributions for these transects are presented in Table 5, with the resulting grain size envelope presented in Figure 9. Donor sediment from the upper portions of Areas A and B fell within the grain size envelope of the China Cove site, with the exception of a small difference in the amount of 1,000 µm particle size fraction (< Vo). Sediment from the lower portions of Areas A, B, and C were generally coarser than the sediment found in the China Cove transects. Between 18"' and 19"' Streets — "Marina Park" Samples from the "Marina Park" receiver site (between 18`h and 19`h Streets on the bay side of the Balboa Peninsula were collected along transects originating at an elevation of +9 ft MLLW at 18" and 19` Streets. The maximum depth sampled was -12 ft. MLLW which is near the depth of the channel in this area (44 ft. MLLW was the maximum depth observed at this location (Table 6). Sediments at -12 ft. and beyond are characterized as being very fine grained and do not vary considerably once the channel depth is reached. In the grain -size envelope the fine-grain material in the channel appears as a nearly flat curve at the maxima (Figure 10). All of the Marina Park project sediments fell within the grain Size envelope for this site. However, it is important to note that this overlap is likely to apply to the beach face and the shallow subtidal areas to between -6 ft, and approximately -10 ft. MLLW where the fine-grained silts and clay are found. Conclusions Sediment from the upper portions of Area A and Area B were generally similar to sediments found at each of the receiver sites, falling within the grain -size envelope developed from the two transects. This donor material was generally coarser that sediment found in the deeper portions of the ocean -side sites (the 401h to 52"d Street Groin Fields and between Newport Pier and 10'h Street). Because this material more closely resembles sediment at the China Cove site than donor sediments from the lower portions of the Marina Park site, the upper portions of Areas A and B would the best suited material from Marina Park for the China Cove site. Sediment from lower portion of Area B (approximately 8,360 CY) was similar to the grain size envelope developed for the Newport Pier to 10'h Street site and the 1811' to 191h Street - Marina Park receiver site. Sediment from the lower portion of Area B was generally coarser than sediment in the deeper portions of the ocean -side beaches. I I i I I I NewFields LLC 18 LJ ' November 2009 Sand Compatibility Report Marina Park ' With the exception of the 18'h to 19'h Street — Marina Park receiver site, the donor ' sediment from the lower portions of Area A (approximately 11,850 CY and Area C (approximately 6,580 CY) was generally coarser in than sediment found at the receiver sites. Final determinations of suitability for placing the donor material at any of the disposal sites or placing the coarser clean sand at the Marina Park site will be made by the ' USACE-LA District, US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IX, and other regulatory agencies during the USACE permitting process. While a portion of the Marina Parks sediments do not fall within the grain size envelope for the receiver sites, it ' may be considered eligible for placement either at the receiver sites or at the Marina Park site based on a project specific/site specific factors. ' REFERENCES NewFields. 2009. Dredged Material Evaluation for the Marina Park Master Plan. Report Prepared for City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Prepared by NewFields LLC, Port Gamble, Washington. USEPA/USACE 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal: Testing Manual. EPA 503/8-91/001. USEPA Office of Water. February. ' 1998. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S- - Testing Manual. EPA 823-B-98-004. USEPA Office of Water. February. J NewFields LLC 19 November 2009 Sand Compatibility Report Marina Park m_1..., a n....:.. at,. n:...f.... A... Atilt. f.. C'ln.l CI✓mf /`_vnln ri"Ide Sieve 318" #4 #8 #10 916 1 #30 1 #40 #50 #60 #100 #200 Sieve Size microns 9500 4750 2360 2000 1180 600 425 300 250 150 75 Percent Finer b Weight Sample ID 9 100 100 100 100 100 99 92 59 35 3 0 6 100 100 100 100 100 95 82 41 24 8 5 d 0 100 100 100 100 100 98 83 46 27 4 1 .'`. -6 100 99 98 97 95 92 90 86 82 42 2 -12 100 100 99 99 98 95 92 85 77 47 5 -18 100 100 100 100 99 98 97 94 90 66 8 -24 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 97 94 73 13 -30 100 100 100 100 100 1 100 98 1 89 82 63 29 9 100 100 100 100 100 99 91 59 35 4 1 6 100 100 100 100 100 99 92 57 32 3 0 d 0 100 100 100 100 100 97 86 62 44 8 1 y -6 100 100 98 98 98 96 96 93 88 42 2 -12 99 99 99 98 97 91 84 76 70 41 3 v -18 100 100 99 99 98 96 94 91 87 61 5 -24 100 100 100 100 100 99 98 95 92 79 14 -30 1 100 100 100 100 99 99 98 95 94 88 34 Minimum 99 99 98 97 95 91 82 41 24 3 0 Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 97 94 88 34 11 li NewFields LLC 20 ' ' Report November 2009 Sand Compatibility Marina Park Table 4. Grain Size Distributions for the Newport Pier to 10th Street Receiver Site Sieve 3/8" #4 #8 #10 1 #16 1 #30 1 #40 #50 #60 1 #100 #200 Sieve Size microns ' 9500 4750 2360 '2000 1180 600 425 300 250 150 75 Sample ID Percent Finer by Welcqjht 6 9 00 100 100 99 99 98 92 84 61 43 9 1 6 100 99 97 97 92 81 72 52 38 12 2 V r- 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 93 84 33 1 ' Cc -6 100 99 95 94 85 71 66 59 53 23 1 12 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 93 85 45 2 m -18 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 96 91 94 62 69 3 5 ' -24 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 97 w m -30 1 100 100 1 100 1 100 100 1 100 99 93 86 53 7 9 100 100 99 99 96 84 69 38 22 5 1 ' r 6 100 100 99 99 99 95 81 34 13 1 0 10 0 100 100 100 100 100 90 78 54 37 9 1 ' y s a 6 100 100 99 99 99 99 98 95 91 56 1 -12 100 100 99 99 98 97 96 91 86 61 3 m -18 100 100 100 100 99 99 98 94 89 64 4 m -24 100 100 100 100 100 98 92 81 73 50 3 -30 100 100 100 100 100 99 98 91 85 62 8 Minimum 100 99 95 94 85 71 66 34 13 1 0 ' Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 97 94 69 8 ' NewFields LLC 21 November 2009 m-tii- a n_....i.. et..,, ntd.tt...ri..na r..r ri... rm.. f nvn Rnenivnr Rite Sand Compatibility Report Marina Park Sieve 3/8" 1 #4 #8 #10 #16 1 #30 1 #40 #50 #60 #100 #200 Sieve Size microns 9500 4750 2360 2000 1180 1 600 425 300 250 150 75 Percent Finerb Weight Sample ID 9 100 100 100 100 99 95 86 72 ¢1 20 1 6 100 99 99 98 97 85 66 36 23 6 1 �j 0 100 100 100 100 99 96 91 81 74 45 3 -12 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 98 97 84 32 v -18 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 98 96 64 7 -24 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 97 80 8 9 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 94 85 33 1 a 6 100 100 99 99 98 90 76 47 30 5 1 0 100 100 100 100 100 96 84 53 37 13 1 0 V -6 100 100 100 100 100 97 86 67 56 32 3 t -12 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 98 80 8 v -18 100 99 99 99 99 99 99 97 94 61 7 -24 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 98 84 19 Minimum 100 99 99 98 97 85 66 36 23 5 1 Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 98 84 32 4..hf.. r r7raia Rb,e ntcrrthuf(nn f..r fhe Marian Park -I Rfh to 19th Street Receiver Site Sieve 3/8" #4 #8 #10 #16 1 #30 1 #40 #50 #60 #100 #200 Sieve Size microns 9500 4750 2360 2000 1180 1 600 425 300 250 150 75 Percent Finer b Weight Sample ID 9 100 100 99 98 96 86 72 47 31 6 1 6 100 99 96 94 81 54 42 29 23 7 1 N 0 95 88 79 75 65 46 36 26 22 10 3 -6 100 99 91 88 .74 43 26 13 9 3 1 T -12 100 100 100 100 99 98 97 96 95 93 90 9 100 100 98 98 97 84 64 36 24 3 0 6 100 100 97 96 83 56 48 3B 33 14 1 w 0 99 98 94 93 86 68 60 51 46 30 4 -6 100 100 97 95 87 59 40 25 18 7 2 T -12 100 100 99 99 96 88 81 74 70 61 57 Minimum 95 88 79 75 65 43 26 13 9 3 0 Maximum 100 100 100 100 99 98 97 96 95 93 90 NewFlelds LLC November 2009 Sand Compatibility Repot Marina Park _ o,__ n:_sa,...a:.... r— n...,... Qndimnnfe rrnm Marina Park l UV1G I• Sieve 3/8" #4 #10 1 #18 1 #35 1 #60 #120 #230 Sieve Size microns 9500 4750 20,00 1000 500 250 125 75 Percent Finer by Weight' Sample ID Area A, Upper Portion (Comp AU) 100 100 98 92 76 48 16 4 Area A, Lower Portion (Comp AL) 100 98 90 70 31 5 1 1 Area B, Upper Portion (Comp BU) 100 100 98 91 72 41 15 4 Area B, Lower Portion (Comp BL) 100 99 95 82 56 26 8 1 Area C, Lower Portion (Comp CL) 100 96 87 65 30 7 2 2 NewFields LLC 23 November 2009 40th to 52nd Street Groin Field Comparison to Marina Park Samples Sand Compatibility Report Marina Park 100 minimum maximum so COMP AU COMP AL 80 COMP BU COMP BL Fie, Y 03 80 9 a so 40 IL 20 10 �L,--�eu 1 0 10000 1000 100 10 Sediment Grain Size (microns) Figure 7. Grain Size Envelope for the 40th Street to 52nd Street Groin Fields Compared to Sediments from the Marina Park Project Site. NewFields LLC 24 = = m m m m m � iii� � � m m m �_ = M = November 2009 Sand Compatibility Report Marina Park Newport Pier to 10th Street Receiver Site Comparison to Marina Park Composites —minimum —maximum 6 COMP AU —A COMPAL a COMP BU —e—COMPBL —t—COMP CL 100 30 30 70 30 1 J\ I\lk\" 20 10 0 10000 1000 100 10 Sediment Grain Size Figure 8. Grain Size Envelope for the Newport Pier to loth Street Receiver Site Compared to Sediments from the Marina Park Project Site. NewFields LLC November 2009 China Cove Comparison to Marina Park Composites Sand Compatibility Report Marina Park c�II 1 i —minimum —mabmum & COMP AU —* COMP AL -e-COMP BU COMP BL —a--COMP CL ! I i I I ' I � i � I i II I j i i i I I f { I 1 I 10000 1000 100 Sediment Grain Size (microns) Figure 9. Grain Size Envelope for the China Cove Receiver Site Compared to Sediments from the Marina Park Project Site. 100 90 80 70 a. t 60 0 3 .ii 50 m c LL 40 m m a 20 10 0 10 NewFields LLC 26 M M= M M= M M M M M M M = = = M i November 2009 Sand Compatibility Report Marina Park 10000 Marina Park - 18th to 19th Streets Comparison to Marina Park Composites Poll—minimim ma mu COMPAL CO -IF—Comp CL 1000 100 Sediment Grain Size (microns) EM r T 60 3 5o t` 40 O 20 10 it Figure 10. Grain Size Envelope for the 18Ih to 19th Street - Marina Park Receiver Site Compared to Sediments from the Marina Nark Project Site. NewFields LLC A WTS** AVy- ' Marina Park Drat EIR iI I Appendix I: Noise Information I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I ' Michael Brandman Associates H Thwl(PNJNfA064100640022(DEIR100640022 Scc 11.00 Appendix DlvldmA00 Table 1 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT FILE: NOISE-BalboaSuperiorCoastAM Year 2011 Weekday Location: Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue at Coast Highway -----------Noise Level (dB Ldn)---------- Traffic Noise --------Centerline Distance (feet) --------- ---- volume--- Reference 175 350 700 1400 2800 5600 11200 Vehicle 24-hr Equiv Level ---------- ---- (meters) ------ ----- ----- Type volume 1-hr (15 meters 53 107 213 427 853 1707 3414 EXISTING (2006/2007/2008) Autos 5381 527 63.8 55.6 51.1 46.5 42.0 37.5 33.0 28.5 Med Trucks 633 62 65.5 57.3 52.8 48.2 43.7 39.2 34.7 30.2 Hvy Trucks 317 31 67.3 59.1 54.5 50.0 45.5 41.0 36,5 32.0 TOTAL 6330 620 70.6 62.3 57.8 53.3 48.8 44.2 39.7 35.2 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE NO PROJECT (2011) Autos 5910 579 64.2 56.0 51.5 47.0 42.4 37.9 33.4 28.9 Med Trucks 695 68 65.9 57.7 53.2 48.6 44.1 39.6 35.1 30.6 Hvy Trucks 348 34 67.7 59.5 55.0 50.4 45.9 41.4 36.9 32.4 TOTAL 6953 681 71.0 62.7 58.2 53.7 49.2 44.7 40.1 35.6 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE WITH PROJECT (2011) Autos 5912 579 64.2 56.0 51.5 47.0 42.4 37.9 33.4 28.9 Med Trucks 696 68 65.9 57.7 53.2 48.6 44.1 39.6 35.1 30.6 Hvy Trucks 348 34 67.7 59.5 55.0 50.4 45.9 41.4 36.9 32.4 TOTAL 6955 681 71.0 62.7 58.2 53.7 49.2 ,44.7 40.1 35.6 Attenuation from existing walls: CHANGE FROM EXISTING Autos 531 52 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Med Trucks 63 6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Hvy Trucks 31 3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 TOTAL 625 61 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 CHANGE FROM FUTURE NO PROJECT Autos 2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Med Trucks 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hvy Trucks 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average speed: 72.4 km/hr= 45.0 mi/hr Time of day: 70.0% Day Fleet Mi 85.0% Autos 15.016 Evening 10.0t Medium Trucks 15.0% Night 5.016 Heavy Trucks 100.0% 100.0% Notes: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. Traffic data obtained from Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Table 1 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT FILE: NOISE-BalboaSuperiorCoastPM Year 2011 Weekday Location: Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue at Coast Highway -----------Noise Level (dB Ldn)---------- Traffic Noise --------Centerline Distance (feet) --------- ---- Volume--- Reference 175 350 700 1400 2800 5600 11200 Vehicle 24-hr Equiv Level ---------- ---- (meters) ------ ----- ----- Type volume 1-hr (15 meters 53 107 213 427 853 1707 3414 , EXISTING (200612007/2008) Autos 5542 543 64.0 55.7 51.2 46.7 42.2 37.6 33.1 28.6 Med Trucks 652 64 65.7 57.4 52.9 48.4 43.9 39.3 34.8 30.3 Hvy Trucks 326 32 67.5 59.2 54.7 50.2 45.6 41.1 36.6 32.1 TOTAL 6520 638 70.7 62.4 57.9 53.4 48.9 44.4 39.9 35.3 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE NO PROJECT (2011) Autos 6280 615 64.5 56.2 51.7 47.2 42.7 38.2 33.7 29.2 Med Trucks 739 72 66.2 57.9 53.4 48.9 44.4 39.9 35.4 30.8 , Hvy Trucks 369 36 68.0 59.7 55.2 50.7 46.2 41.7 37.2 32.6 TOTAL 7388 723 71.2 63.0 58.5 53.9 49.4 44.9 40.4 35.9 Attenuation from existing walls: ' FUTURE WITH PROJECT (2011) Autos 6282 615 64.5 56.2 51.7 47.2 42.7 38.2 33.7 29.2 Med Trucks 739 72 66.2 57.9 53.4 48.9 44.4 39.9 35.4 30.9 Hvy Trucks 370 36 68.0 59.7 55.2 50.7 46.2 41.7 37.2 32.6 TOTAL 7391 724 71.2 63.0 58.5 53.9 49.4 44.9 40.4 35.9 Attenuation from existing walls: ' CHANGE FROM EXISTING Autos 740 72 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Med Trucks 87 9 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 ' Hvy Trucks 44 4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 TOTAL 871 85 0.5 0.5 0.5 0,5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 CHANGE FROM FUTURE NO PROJECT Autos 3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Med Trucks 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hvy Trucks 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0 TOTAL 3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average speed: 72.4 km/hr- 45.0 mi/hr Time of day: 70.0-W Day Fleet Mi 85.0% Autos 15.0* Evening 10.0% Medium Trucks 15.0% Night 5.0% Heavy Trucks 100.0$ 100.0% Notes: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. Traffic data obtained from Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. , Ii II Table 1 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT FILE: NOISE-Newport32ndAM Year 2011 Weekday Location: Newport Boulevard at 32nd Street -----------Noise Level (dB Ldn)---------- Traffic Noise --------Centerline Distance (feet) --------- ---- Volume--- Reference 200 400 800 1600 3200 6400 12800 Vehicle 24-hr Equiv Level ---------- ----(meters)------,----- ----- Type volume 1-hr (15 meters 61 122 244 488 975 1951 3901 EXISTING (2006/2007/2008) Autos 2499 245 60.5 51.4 46.9 42.3 37.8 33.3 28.8 24.3 Med Trucks 294 29 62.2 53.1 48.6 44.0 39.5 35.0 30.5 26.0 Hvy Trucks 147 14 64.0 54.9 50.3 45.8 41.3 36.8 32.3 27.8 TOTAL 2940 288 67.2 58.1 53.6 49.1 44.6 40.0 35.5 31.0 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE NO PROJECT (2011) Autos 2515 246 60.5 51.4 46.9 42.4 37.9 33.3 28.8 24.3 Med Trucks 296 29 62.2 53.1 48.6 44.1 39.6 35.0 30.5 26.0 Hvy Trucks 148 14 64.0 54.9 50.4 45.9 41.3 36.8 32.3 27.8 TOTAL 2959 290 67.3 58.1 53.6 49.1 44.6 40.1 35.6 31.0 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE WITH PROJECT (2011) 247 60.6 51.4 46.9 42.4 37.9 33.4 28.8 24.3 Autos Med Trucks 2525 297 29 62.2 53.1 48.6 44.1 39.6 35.1 30.5 26.0 Hvy Trucks 149 15 64.0 54.9 50.4 45.9 41.4 36.8 32.3 27.8 TOTAL 2971 291 67.3 58.2 53.6 49.1 44.6 40.1 35.6 31.1 Attenuation from existing walls: CHANGE FROM EXISTING 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Autos Med Trucks 26 3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hvy Trucks 2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 31 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CHANGE FROM FUTURE NO PROJECT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Autos Med Trucks 10 1 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hvy Trucks 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 12 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0' 0.0 0.0 Average speed: 72.4 km/hr= 45.0 mi/hr Time of day: 70.0% Day Fleet Mi 85.0% Autos 15.0% Evening 10.0% Medium Trucks 15.01s Night 5.0% Heavy Trucks 100.0% 100.0% Notes: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. Traffic data obtained from Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. II 11 Table I TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT FILE: NOISE-Newport32ndPM Year 2011 Weekday Location: Newport Boulevard at 32nd Street -----------Noise Level (dB Ldn)---------- Traffic Noise --------Centerline Distance (feet) --------- ----Volume--- Reference 200 400 800 1600 3200 6400 12800 Vehicle 24-hr Equiv Level ---------- ---- (meters) ------ ----- ----- Type volume 1-hr (15 meters 61 122 244 488 975 1951 3901 EXISTING (2006/2007/2008) Autos 2984 292 61.3 52.1 47.6 43.1 38.6 34.1 29.6 25.1 Med Trucks 351 34 63.0 53.8 49.3 44,8 40,3 35.8 31.3 26.7 Hvy Trucks 176 17 64.8 55.6 51.1 46.6 42.1 37.6 33.1 28.5 TOTAL 3510 344 68.0 58.9 54.4 49.8 45.3 40.8 36.3 31.8 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE NO PROJECT (2011) Autos 3020 296 61.3 52.2 47.7 43.2 38.7 34.1 29.6 25.1 Med Trucks 355 35 63.0 53.9 49.4 44.9 40.3 35.8 31.3 26.8 Hvy Trucks 178 17 64.8 55,7 51.2 46.7 42.1 37.6 33.1 28,6 TOTAL 3553 348 68,1 58.9 54.4 49.9 45.4 40.9 36.3 31..8 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE WITH PROJECT (2011) Autos 3036 297 61.4 52.2 47.7 43.2 38,7 34.2 29.6 25.1 Med Trucks 357 35 63.0 53.9 49.4 44,9 40.4 35.9 31.3 26.8 Hvy Trucks 179 17 64.8 55.7 51.2 46.7 42.2 37.6 33.1 28.6 TOTAL 3572 350 68.1 59.0 54.4 49.9 45.4 40.9 36.4 31.9 Attenuation from existing walls: CHANGE FROM EXISTING Autos 53 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Med Trucks 6 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Hvy Trucks 3 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 TOTAL 62 6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 CHANGE FROM FUTURE NO PROJECT Autos 16 2 0.0 1010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 Med Trucks 2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hvy Trucks 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 19 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average speed: 72.4 km/hr. 45.0 Mi/hr Time of day: 70.0% Day Fleet Mi 85.0t Autos 15.0%- Evening 10.0% Medium Trucks 15.0W Night 5.0% Heavy Trucks 100.0%. 100.0% Notes: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. Traffic data obtained from Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. L� 11 Table 1 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT FILE: NOISE-NewportCoastAM Year 2011 Weekday Location: Newport Boulevard at Coast Highway--- -- --Noise Level (dB Ldn)---------- Traffic Noise ---- --Centerline Distance (feet') --------- ---- Volume--- Reference 375 750 1500 3000 6000 12000 24000 ' Vehicle 24-hr Equiv Level ---------- 229 ---- (meters) ------ ----- 457 914 1829 3658 ----- 7315 Type volume 1-hr (15 meters 114 EXISTING (2006/2007/2008) ' Autos 4539 444 63.1 49.9 45.4 40.8 36.3 31.8 27.3 22.8 Med Trucks 534 52 64.8 51.6 47.1 42.5 38.0 33.5 29.0 24.5 Hvy Trucks 267 26 66.6 53.4 48.8 44.3 39.8 35.3 30.8 26.3 TOTAL 5340 523 69.8 56.6 52.1 47.6 43.1 38.5 34.0 29.5 ' Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE NO PROJECT (2011) Autos 5019 491 63.5 50.3 45.8 47.5 41.3 43.0 36.8 38.5 32.2 33.9 27.7 29.4 23.2 24.9 Med Trucks 591 58 65.2 52.0 Hvy Trucks 295 29 67.0 53.8 49.3 44.8 40.2 35.7 31.2 26.7 TOTAL 5905 578 70.3 57.0 52.5 48.0 43.5 39.0 34.5 29.9 IAttenuation from existing walls: FUTURE WITH PROJECT (2011) 492 63.5 50.3 45.8 41.3 36.8 32.3 27.7 23.2 Autos Med Trucks 5024 591 58 65.2 52.0 47.5 43.0 38.5 33.9 29.4 24.9 Hvy Trucks 296 29 67.0 53.8 49.3 44.8 40.3 35.7 31.2 26.7 TOTAL 5910 579 70.3 57.0 52.5 48.0 43.5 39.0 34.5 29.9 ' Attenuation from existing walls: CHANGE FROM EXISTING 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 ' Autos Med Trucks 485 57 47 6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Hvy Trucks 29 3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 TOTAL 570 56 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 CHANGE FROM FUTURE NO PROJECT Autos 4 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.0 Med Trucks 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0" Hvy Trucks 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.0 TOTAL 5 0 0.0 0.0 Average speed: 72.4 km/hr= 45.0 mi/hr ' Time of day: 70.,0% Day Fleet Mi 85.0% Autos 15.0% Evening 10.0% Medium Trucks 15.0% Night 5.0% Heavy Trucks 100.0% 100.0% Notes: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. Traffic data obtained from Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. I Table 1 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT FILE: NOISE-NewportCoastPM Year 2011 Weekday Location: Newport Boulevard at Coast Highway -----------Noise Level (dB Ldn)---------- Traffic Noise --------Centerline Distance (feet) --------- ---- Volume--- Reference 375 750 1500 3000 6000 12000 24000 Vehicle 24-hr Equiv Level ---------- ---- (meters) ------ ---- ----- Type volume 1-hr (15 meters 114 229 457 914 1829 3658 7315 EXISTING (2006/2007/2008) Autos 4837 474 63.4 50.1 45.6 41,1 36.6 32.1 27.6 23.1 Med Trucks 569 56 65.1 51.8 47.3 42.8 38.3 33.8 29.3 24.7 Hvy Trucks 285 28 66.9 53.6 49.1 44.6 40.1 35.6 31.1 26.5 TOTAL 5690 557 70.1 56.9 52.4 47.8 43.3 38.8 34.3 29.8 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE NO PROJECT (2011) Autos 5484 537 63.9 50.7 46.2 41.7 37.1 32.6 28.1 23.6 Med Trucks 645 63 65.6 52.4 47.9 43.4 38.8 34.3 29.8 25.3 Hvy Trucks 323 32 67.4 54.2 49.7 45.1 40.6 36.1 31.6 27.1 TOTAL 6452 632 70.7 57.4 52.9 48.4 43.9 39.4 34.8 30.3 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE WITH PROJECT (2021) Autos 5487 537 63.9 50.7 46.2 41.7 37.1 32.6 28.1 23.6 Med Trucks 646 63 65.6 52.4 47.9 43.4 38.8 34.3 29.8 25.3 Hvy Trucks 323 32 67.4 54.2 49.7 45.2 40.6 36.1 31.6 27.1 TOTAL 6455 632 70.1 57.4 52.9 48.4 43.9 39.4 34.8 30.3 Attenuation from existing walls: CHANGE FROM EXISTING Autos 650 64 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Med Trucks 77 7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Hvy Trucks 38 4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 TOTAL 765 75 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 CHANGE FROM FUTURE NO PROJECT Autos 3 0 0.0 0.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Med Trucks 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hvy Trucks 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average speed: 72.4 km/hr= 45.0 mi/hr Time of day: 70.0% Day Fleet Mi 85.0% Autos 15.01 Evening 10.0% Medium Trucks 15.0% Night 5.0% Heavy Trucks 100.0% 100.0% Notes: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", F14WA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. Traffic data obtained from Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Table 1 ' TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT FILE: NOISE-NewportHospitalAM Year 2011 Weekday Location: Newport Boulevard at Hospital Road ----------- Noise Level (dB Ldn)---------- Traffic Noise - ---Centerline Distance (feet) --------- ---- Volume--- Reference 300 600 1200 2400 4800 9600 19200 ' Vehicle 24-hr Equiv Level ---------- 91 183 ---- (meters) ------ 366 732 ----- 1463 2926 ----- 5852 Type volume 1-hr (15 meters EXISTING (2006/2007/2008) 408 62.7 51.0 46.4 41.9 37.4 32.9 28.4 23.9 Autos Med Trucks 4164 490 48 64.4 52.6 48.1 43.6 39.1 34.6 30.1 25.6 Hvy Trucks 245 24 66.2 54.4 49.9 45.4 40.9 36.4 31.9 27.3 TOTAL 4899 480 69.5 57.7 53.2 48.6 44.1 39.6 35.1 30.6 ' Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE NO PROJECT (2011) Autos 4406 431 63.0 51.2 46.7 48.4 42.2 43.9 37.6 39.3 33.1 34.8 28.6 30.3 24.1 25.8 Med Trucks 518 51 64.7 52.9 Hvy Trucks 259 25 66.5 54.7 50.2 45.7 41.1 36.6 32.1 27.6 TOTAL 5183 508 69.7 57.9 53.4 48.9 44.4 39.9 35.3 30.8 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE WITH PROJECT (2011) 432 63.0 51.2 46.7 42.2 37.7 33.1 28.6 24.1 Autos Med Trucks 4411 519 51 64.7 52.9 48.4 43.9 39.3 34.8 30.3 25.8 Hvy Trucks 259 25 66.5 54.7 50.2 45.7 41.1 36.6 32.1 27.6 TOTAL 5189 508 69.7 57.9 53.4 48.9 44.4 39.9 35.4 30.8 Attenuation from existing walls: CHANGE FROM EXISTING 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Autos Med Trucks 247 29 24 3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Hvy Trucks 15 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 TOTAL 290 28 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 CHANGE FROM FUTURE NO PROJECT Autos 5 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Med Trucks 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hvy Trucks 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 6 1 0.0 0.0 Average speed: 72.4 km/hr= 45.0 mi/hr ' Time of day: 70.0% Day Fleet Mi 85.06 Autos 15.0% Evening 10.0% Medium Trucks 15.016 Night 5.0% Heavy Trucks ' 100.0% 100.0% Notes: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. Traffic data obtained from Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. I r Table 1 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT FILE: NOISE-NewportHospitalPM Year 2011 Weekday Location: Newport Boulevard at Hospital Road -----------Noise Level (dB Ldn)---------- Traffic Noise --------Centerline Distance (feet) --------- ---- Volume- -- Reference 300 600 1200 2400 4800 9600 19200 vehicle 24-hr Equiv Level ---------- ---- (meters) ------ ----- ----- Type volume 1-hr (15 meters 91 183 366 732 1463 2926 5852 ' EXISTING (2006/2007/2008) Autos 4099 401 62.7 50.9 46.4 41.9 37.3 32.8 28.3 23.8 Med Trucks 482 47 64.4 52.6 48.1 43.5 39.0 34.5 30.0 25.5 Hvy Trucks 241 24 66.1 54.4 49.9 45.3 40.8 36.3 31.8 27.3 TOTAL 4822 472 69.4 57.6 53.1 48.6 44.1 39.6 35.0 30.5 Attenuation from existing walls: ' FUTURE NO PROJECT (2011) Autos 4434 434 63.0 51.2 46.7 42.2 37.7 33.2 28.6 24.1 Med Trucks 522 51 64.7 52.9 48.4 43.9 39.4 34.9 30.3 25.8 Hvy Trucks 261 26 66.5 54.7 50.2 45.7 41.2 36.6 32.1 27.6 TOTAL 5216 511 69.7 58.0 53.4 48.9 44.4 39.9 35.4 30.9 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE WITH PROJECT (2011) Autos 4440 435 63.0 51.2 46.7 42.2 37.7 33.2 28.7 24.1 Med Trucks 522 51 64.7 52.9 48.4 43.9 39.4 34.9 30.3 25.8 Hvy Trucks 261 26 66.5 54.7 50.2 45.7 41.2 36.7 32.1 27.6 TOTAL 5224 512 69.7 58.0 53.4 48.9 44.4 39.9 35.4 30.9 Attenuation from existing walls: CHANGE FROM EXISTING Autos 342 33 0.3 0-.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Med Trucks 40 4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 ' Hvy Trucks 20 2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 TOTAL 402 39 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 CHANGE FROM FUTURE NO PROJECT Autos 7 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Med Trucks 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hvy Trucks 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 8 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average speed: 72.4 km/hr= 45.0 mi/hr , Time of day: 70.0% Day Fleet Mi 85.0% Autos 15.0% Evening 10.0% Medium Trucks 15.0% Night 5.0% Heavy Trucks 100.096 100.0% Notes: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. Traffic data obtained from Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 1 Table 1 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT FILE: NOISE-NewportViaLidoAM Year 2011 Weekday Location: Newport Boulevard at Via Lido --Noise Level (dB Ldn)-------- -- Traffic Noise -------- --Centerline Distance (feet) --------- ---- Volume--- Reference 75 150 300 600 1200 2400 4800 Vehicle 24-hr Equiv Level ---------- 23 46 ---- (meters) ------ ----- 91 183 366 ----- 732 1463 Type volume 1-hr (15 meters EXISTING (2006/2007/2008) Autos 3179 311 61.6 58.8 54.3 49.8 45.3 40.7 36.2 31.7 Med Trucks 374 37 63.2 60.5 56.0 51.5 47.0 42.4 37.9 33.4 Hvy Trucks 187 18 65.0 62.3 57.8 53.3 48.8 44.2 39.7 35.2 TOTAL 3740 366 68.3 65.5 61.0 56.5 52.0 47.5 43.0 38.4 ' Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE NO PROJECT (2011) Autos 3211 314 61.6 58.9. 60.5 54.3 56.0 49.8 51.5 45.3 47.0 40.8 42.5 36.3 38.0 31.8 33.5 Med Trucks 378 37 63.3 Hvy Trucks 189 18 65.1 62.3 57.8 53.3 48.8 44.3 39.8 35.2 TOTAL 3778 370 68.3 65.6 61.1 56.6 52.0 47.5 43.0 38.5 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE WITH PROJECT (2011) Autos 3221 315 61.6 58.9 54.4 49.8 45.3 40.8 36.3 31.8 Med Trucks 379 37 63.3 60.6 56.0 51.5 47.0 42.5 38.0 33.5 . Hvy Trucks 189 19 65.1 62.4 57.8 53.3 48.8 44.3 39.8 35.3 TOTAL 3789 371 68.3 65.6 61.1 56.6 52.0 47.5 43.0 38.5 Attenuation from existing walls: CHANGE FROM EXISTING Autos 42 4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Med Trucks 5 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Hvy Trucks 2 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 TOTAL 49 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 ' CHANGE FROM FUTURE NO PROJECT Autos 9 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Med Trucks 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hvy Trucks 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 11 1 0.0 Average speed: 72.4 km/hr= 45.0 mi/hr Time of day: 70.0% Day Fleet Mi 85.0% Autos 15.0% Evening 10.0% Medium Trucks 15.0% Night 5.0% Heavy Trucks 100.0% 100.Opt Notes: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. Traffic data obtained from Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. I 11 Table 1 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT FILE: NOISE-NewportViaLidoPM Year 2011 Weekday Location: Newport Boulevard at Via Lido -----------Noise Level (dB Ldn)---------- Traffic Noise --------Centerline Distance (feet) --------- ---- Volume--- Reference 75 150 300 600 1200 2400 4800 vehicle 24-hr Equiv Level ---------- ---- (meters) ------ ----- ----- Type volume 1-hr (15 meters 23 46 91 183 366 732 1463 EXISTING (2006/2007/2008) Autos 3732 365 62.3 59.5 55.0 50.5 46.0 41.4 36.9 32.4 Med Trucks 439 43 63.9 61.2 56.7 52.2 47.7 43.1 38.6 34.1 Hvy Trucks 220 21 65.7 63.0 58.5 54.0 49.4 44.9 40.4 35.9 TOTAL 4390 430 69.0 66.2 61.7 57.2 52-7 48.2 43.7 39.1 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE NO PROJECT (2011) Autos 3792 371 62.3 59.6 55.1 50.5 46.0 41.5 37.0 32.5 Med Trucks 446 44 64.0 61.3 56.8 52.2 47.7 43.2 38.7 34.2 Hvy Trucks 223 22 65.8 63.1 58.5 54.0 49.5 45.0 40.5 36.0 TOTAL 4461 437 69.0 66.3 61.8 57.3 52.8 48.2 43.7 39.2 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE WITH PROJECT (2011) Autos 3807 373 62.3 59.6 55.1 50.6 46.0 41,5 37.0 32.5 'Med Trucks 448 44 64.0 61.3 56.8 52.3 47.7 43.2 38.7 34,2 Hvy Trucks 224 22 65.8 63.1 58.6 54.0 49.5 45.0 40.5 36.0 TOTAL 4479 439 69.1 66.3 61.8 57.3 52.8 48.3 43.7 39.2 Attenuation from existing walla: CHANGE FROM EXISTING Autos 76 7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0,1 Med Trucks 9 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Hvy Trucks 4 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 TOTAL 89 9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 CHANGE FROM FUTURE NO PROJECT Autos 15 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Med Trucks 2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hvy Trucks 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 18 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average speed: 72.4 km/hr= 45.0 mi/hr Time of day: 70.0% Day Fleet Mi 85.0% Autos 15.0% Evening 10.0% Medium Trucks 15.0% Night 5.0% Heavy Trucks 100.0% 100.0% Notes: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. Traffic data obtained from Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. i1 Table 1 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT FILE: NOISE-RiversideCoastAM Year 2011 Weekday Location: Riverside Avenue at Coast Highway--- --Noise Level (dB Ldn)---------- Traffic Noise ------Centerline Distance (feet) --------- ---- Volume--- Reference 600 1200 2400 4800 9600 19200 38400 ' Vehicle 24-hr Equiv Level ---------- 183 366 ---- (meters) ------ ----- 732 1463 2926 5852 ----- 11704 Type volume 1-hr (15 meters EXISTING (2006/2007/2008) Autos 4035 395 59.5 43.2 38.7 34.2 29.7 25.2 20.7 16.1 Med Trucks 314 31 59.9 43.6 39.1 34.6 30.0 25.5 21.0 16.5 Hvy Trucks 134 13 62.0 45.7 41.2 36.7 32.2 27.7 23.1 18.6 TOTAL 4483 439 65.4 49.1 44.6 40.1 35.6 31.0 26.5 22.0 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE NO PROJECT (2011) Autos 4594 450 60.1 43.8 44.2 39.3 39.6 34.8 35.1 30.2 30.6 25.7 26.1 21.2 21.6 16.7 17.1 Med Trucks 357 35 60.4 Hvy Trucks 153 15 62.6 46.3 41.8 37.3 32.7 28.2 23.7 19.2 TOTAL 5104 500 66.0 49.7 45.1 40.6 36.1 31.6 27.1 22.6 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE WITH PROJECT (2011) Autos 4598 450 60.1 43.8 39.3 34.6 30.3 25.7 21.2 16.7 Med Trucks 358 35 60.4 44.2 39.6 35.1 30.6 26.1 21.6 17.1 Hvy Trucks 153 15 62.6 46.3 41.8 37.3 32.7 28.2 23.7 19.2 TOTAL 5109 500 66.0 49.7 45.2 40.6 36.1 31.6 27.1 22.6 Attenuation from existing walls: CHANGE FROM EXISTING Autos 563 55 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Med Trucks 44 4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Hvy Trucks 19 2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 TOTAL 626 61 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 �1 CHANGE FROM FUTURE NO PROJECT Autos 5 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Med Trucks 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ,• Hvy Trucks 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 5 0 0.0 0.0 Average speed: 56.3 km/hr= 35.0 mi/hr Time of day: 70.0% Day Fleet Mi 90.0% Autos 15.0% Evening 7.01a Medium Trucks 15.016 Night 3.016 Heavy Trucks 100.0% 100.0% Notes: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. Traffic data obtained from Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Table 1 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT FILE: NOISE-RiversideCoastPM Year 2011 Weekday Location: Riverside Avenue at Coast Highway -----------Noise Level (dE Ldn)---------- Traffic Noise --------Centerline Distance (feet) --------- ---- Volume--- Reference 600 1200 2400 4800 9600 19200 38400 Vehicle 24-hr Equiv Level ------ -- ---- (meters) ------ ----- ----- Type volume 1-hr (15 meters 183 366 732 1463 2926 5852 11704 EXISTING (2006/2007/2008) Autos 4594 450 60.1 43.8 39.3 34.8 30.2 25.7 21.2 16.7 Med Trucks 357 35 60.4 44.2 39.6 35.1 30.6 26.1 21.6 17.1 Hvy Trucks 153 15 62.6 46.3 42.8 37.3 32.7 28.2 23.7 19.2 TOTAL 5104 500 66.0 49.7 45.1 40.6 36.1 31.6 27.1 22.6 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE NO PROJECT (2011) Autos 5353 524 60.8 44.5 39.9 35.4 30.9 26.4 21.9 17.4 Med Trucks 416 41 61.1 44.8 40.3 35.8 31.3 26.8 22.2 17.7 Hvy Trucks 178 17 63.2 47.0 42.4 37.9 33.4 28.9 24.4 19.9 TOTAL 5948 582 66.6 50.3 45.8 41.3 36.8 32..3 27.7 23.2 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE WITH PROJECT (2011) Autos 5362 525 60.8 44.5 40.0 35.4 30.9 26.4 21.9 17.4 Med Trucks 417 41 61.1 44.8 40.3 35.8 31.3 26.8 22.2 17.7 Hvy Trucks 179 18 63.3 47.0 42.4 37.9 33.4 28.9 24.4 19.9 TOTAL 5958 583 66.6 50.3 45.8 41.3 36.8 32.3 27.8 23.2 Attenuation from existing walls: CHANGE FROM EXISTING Autos 769 75 0.71 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Med Trucks 60 6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Hvy Trucks 26 3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 TOTAL 854 84 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 CHANGE FROM FUTURE NO PROJECT Autos 9 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Med Trucks 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hvy Trucks 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL, 10 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average speed: 56.3 km/hr= 35.0 mi/hr Time of day: 70.0% Day Fleet Mi 90.0t Autos 15.0%; Evening 7.0 Medium Trucks 15.0%* Night 3.0% Heavy Trucks 100.0% 100.0% Notes: Eased on methods of Federal Highway Administration 'Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. Traffic data obtained from Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Table 1 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT FILE: NOISE-TustinCoastAM Year 2011 Weekday Location: Tustin Avenue at Coast Highway -----------Noise Level (dB Ldn)---------- Traffic Noise --------Centerline Distance (feet) --------- ---- Volume--- Reference 450 900 1800 3600 7200 14400 28800 Vehicle 24-hr Equiv Level ---------- ---- (meters) ------ ----- ----- Type volume 1-hr (15 meters 137 274 549 1097 2195 4389 8778 EXISTING (2006/2007/2008) Autos 3731 365 55.1 40.7 36.1 31.6 27.1 22.6 18.1 13.6 Med Trucks 77 8 50.3 35.9 31.3 26.8 22.3 17.8 13.3 8.8 Hvy Trucks 38 4 54.4 40.0 35.5 31.0 26.5 22.0 17.5 12.9 TOTAL 3846 377 58.5 44.1 39.6 35.0 30.5 26.0 21.5 17.0 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE NO PROJECT (2011) Autos 4337 425 55.7 41.3 36.8 32.3 27.8 23.3 18.7 14.2 Med Trucks 89 9 50.9 36.5 32.0 27.5 23.0 18.5 13.9 9.4 Hvy Trucks 45 4 55.1 40.7 36.2 31.7 27.1 22.6 18.1 13.6 TOTAL 4471 438 59.1 44.7 40.2 35.7 31.2 26.7 22.2 17.6 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE WITH PROJECT (2011) 4341 425 55.7 41.3 36.8 32.3 27.8 23.3 18.7 14.2 Autos Med Trucks 90 9 50.9 36.5 32.0 27.5 23.0 18.5 13.9 9.4 Hvy Trucks 45 4 55.1 40.7 36.2 31.7 27.1 22.6 18.1 13.6 TOTAL 4475 438 59.2 44.7 40.2 35.7 31.2 26.7 22.2 17.6 Attenuation from existing walls: CHANGE FROM EXISTING 60 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Autos Med Trucks 610 13 1 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Hvy Trucks 6 1 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 TOTAL 629 62 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 CHANGE FROM FUTURE NO PROJECT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Autos Med Trucks 4 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.0 Hvy Trucks 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.0 TOTAL 4 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.0 Average speed: 40.2 km/hr= 25.0 mi/hr Time of day: 70.096 Day Fleet Mi 97.0% Autos 15.01s Evening 2.0% Medium Trucks 15.0% Night 1.0% Heavy Trucks 100.09a 100.0% Notes: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. Traffic data obtained from Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Table 1 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT FILE: NOISE-TustinCoastPM Year 2011 Weekday Location: Tustin Avenue at Coast Highway -----------Noise Level (dB Ldn)---------- Traffic Noise --------Centerline Distance (feet) --------- ---- volume--- Reference 450 900 1800 3600 7200 14400 28800 Vehicle 24-hr Equiv Level ---------- ---- (meters) ------ ----- ----- Type volume 1-hr (15 meters 137 274 549 1097 2195 4389 8778 EXISTING (2006/2007/2008) Autos 4320 423 55.7 41.3 36.8 32.3 27.8 23.2 18.7 14.2 Med Trucks 89 9 50.9 36.5 32.0 27.5 23.0 18.4 13.9 9.4 Hvy Trucks 45 4 55.1 40.7 36.2 31.6 27.1 22.6 18.1 13.6 TOTAL 4454 436 59.1 44.7 40.2 35.7 31.2 26.7 22.1 17.6 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE NO PROJECT (2011) Autos 5142 503 56.5 42.1 37.5 33.0 28.5 24.0 19.5 15.0 Med Trucks 106 10 51.7 37.3 32.7 28.2 23.7 19.2 14.7 10.2 Hvy Trucks 53 5 55.8 41.4 36.9 32.4 27.9 23.4 18.8 14.3 TOTAL 5301 519 59.9 45.5 41.0 36.4 31.9 27.4 22.9 18.4 Attenuation from existing walls: FUTURE WITH PROJECT (2011) Autos 5149 504 56.5 42.1 37.5 33.0 28.5 24.0 19.5 15.0 Med Trucks 106 10 51.7 37.3 32.7 28.2 23.7 19.2 14.7 10.2 Hvy Trucks 53 5 55.8 41.4 36.9 32.4 27.9 23.4 18.9 14.3 TOTAL 5308 520 59.9 45.5 41.0 36.4 31.9 27.4 22.9 18.4 Attenuation from existing walls: CHANGE FROM EXISTING Autos 828 81 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Med Trucks 17 2 0.8 0,8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Hvy Trucks 9 1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 TOTAL 854 84 0'.8 0.8 0.8 0,8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 CHANGE FROM FUTURE NO PROJECT Autos 7 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Med Trucks 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 010 0.0 Hvy Trucks 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 7 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average speed: 40.2 km/ht= 25.0 mi/hr Time of day: 70.0% Day Fleet Mi 97.0% Autos 15.0% Evening 2.0% Medium Trucks 15.0% Night 1.0% Heavy Trucks 100.0% 100.0% Notes: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. Traffic data obtained from Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. ' Marina Park Draft EIR E F E I I I 1 1 1 J 1 I I Appendix J: Public Services Information ' Michael Brandman Associates H.Thent(PN-JN)400641006400221D[IRV10640022 Sal 1-00 Appendix Dividers dm Page 1 of 1 I 1 1 1 P Jed Brandman - Questions From: "Larson, Ron" <RLarson@NBFD.net> To: <jebrandman@brandman.com> Date: Monday, August 11, 2008 12:34 PM Subject: Questions The following is a list of responses to questions you have asked. Personnel - 123 Sworn, 18 Non sworn The City of Newport Beach Fire Department has the following number of personnel. Chief -1, Deputy Chief - 1, Division Chiefs - 2, Battalion Chiefs - 3, Captains - 31, Engineers - 30, Paramedics - 21, Firefighters - 33 Deputy Fire Marshal -1, Inspectors - 3. Response Times: We will have an engine company at the scene within 3 minutes and a paramedic unit at scene with 5 minutes of notification 90% of the time is the goal of the fire chief. If you have any other questions I can be reached at (949) 644-3113. Thank You, Ron Larson file://C:\Documents and Settings\JeBrandman\Local Settings\Ternp\XPgrpwise\48A031C... 11/18/2008 From: "Larson, Ron" <RLarson@NBFD,net> To: "Jed Brandman" <JeBrandman@brandman.com> Date: 8/11/2008 4:54 PM Subject: RE: Questions Jed, 1. Would the development of the Marina Park project increase the need for fire personnel in the Newport Beach, specifically Balboa peninsula area? NO 2. if new personnel were required due to the project development, would there be a need for new fire facilities (i.e., expansion of existing fire stations, new fire stations, etc.)? NO 3. Does the City of Newport Beach have the capability of deploying a fire boat in case of a fire on the water, or on the land adjacent to the water? Right now the Harbor Department is our Fire Boat 1 I I 1 r From: "Sailor, Evan" <ESailor@nbpd.org> ' To: "Jed Brandman" <JeBrandman@brandman.com> Date: 8/13/2008 3:20 PM Subject: RE: Marina Park Project, email from Michael Brandman Assoc.(Environmental Consulting) t Jed ' Here is the information you requested: 1. No, it will not impact our services that we currently provide to the community. 2. No, we do not anticipate any interruption or hindrance to our services. 3. There is 1 police station for the city located at 870 Santa Barbara Dr., Newport Beach. 4. We currently have 149 sworn police officers and 92 full time non -sworn personnel. 5. People per position: 1 Chief, 3 Captains, 8 Lieutenants, 21 Sergeants and 116 Officers. 6. We currently average one officer for every 566 residents in the city. That is currently in accordance with the goal ratio. 7. The station utilized for calls for service would be the same as ' above, 870 Santa Barbara Drive, Newport Beach 8. Our currently response times are the following: 6 minutes to emergency calls and 8 minutes to non -emergency calls. Our goal would be to lower our emergency call response down to 5 minutes. ' 9. We currently have a county wide protocol for mutual aid. We can request and receive aid from any agency in Orange County including the Orange County Sheriffs Department. Hope this answers your questions. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks Evan ' ---Original Message ---- From: Jed Brandman [mailto:JeBrandman@brandman.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:18 PM To: Sailor, Evan ' Subject: Marina Park Project, email from Michael Brandman Assoc.(Environmental Consulting) Hi Officer Sailor, My name is Jed Brandman and our company is working on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Marina Park project. I am sending this email in response to the message you left me this morning, thank you for responding promptly. What I need basically is a series of information I hope you can provide, and further I will need to ask you a couple questions. To complete the Public Services section in our EIR, I need ' to know: 1. Would the construction of the Marina Park project cause an impact to ' police services, such that, there will be the need for additional personnel? 2. Would the construction of the Marina Park project cause an impact to police services, such that, there will be the need to construct new police facilities (i.e., expand current stations, construct a new substation, etc.)? Also, on the informational aspect of the Newport Beach Police Department, could you provide me details to the following components: -How many police stations does Newport Beach have? -How many personnel (sworn and un-sworn) does the Newport Beach Police Department currently employ? -How many people per personnel position do you have (i.e., 1-Chief, 2-Lieutenants, 3-Captains, etc.)? -What is the goal ratio of police officers to residents within the city and the current ratio (if available)? The Marina Park project will be on Newport Bay between 19th and 15th St., what Newport Beach Police Station will provide service to that location? -What are the goal Newport Beach Police Department response times to calls (i.e., emergency call, an immediate need, non -emergency assignments, etc.)? -Does the City of Newport Beach Police Department have a mutual aid agreement with the County Sheriffs Department? That should about wrap up what I'm working on. Thank you Officer Sailor for your time and I appreciate you making yourself available. Jed Brandman Michael Brandman Associates Environmental Analyst (714) 508-4100 x1039 (714) 508-4110 (fax) U H L__J U C� �I 1 E F 1 1 1 I'' From: "Larson, Ron" <RLarson@city.newport-beach.ca.us> To: "Jed Brandman" <JeBrandman@brandman.com> Date: 8/25/2008 10:07 AM Subject: RE: Marina Park EIR Development Questions Jed, What I don't understand is what these questions have to do with the Marina project. Are you going to have workers out there on this project the 4th of July? Yes we have a specific plan for the 4th of July. The number of people on duty is the regular shift plus an extra engine, ambulance and medic unit on the pennisula. There are numerous street closures along seashore and no entrance to Balboa Blvd off Coast Hwy. Traffic could slow down some of the responding units but yes it would be sufficient personnel. The only access problem would be if no one is at the site. Knox padlocks are required on all locked entrance gates for FD Access. I am the Deputy Fire Marshal. Thanks, Ron Larson Page 1 of 1 Jed Brandman - Marina Park From: "Sailor, Evan" <ESailor@nbpd.org> To: "Jed Brandman" <JeBrandman@brandman.com> Date: Friday, August 22, 2008 1:08 PM Subject: Marina Park Attachments: 2008July 4 Flyer Front -Back modified.doc Jed The entire Police Department is required to work on July 41h. That includes all sworn (police) and non -sworn (civilian) employees are required to work. The majority of the extra coverage is provided on the Balboa Peninsula due to the high concentration of peoplelparties. 1 have attached a 41h of July flyer that we put out to the residents. It talks about the road closures and other rules and regulations for the day. A call for service at the Marina Park location during July 41h would have no impact on our deployment. It would be a benefit to.the Marina Park residentstworkers. The roads are open in that area and due to the high concentration of officers, the caller would have a higher number of officers responding and most likely a quicker response time. Hope that helps. Evan Sgt. Evan Sailor Newport -Beach Police Department Community Relations Unitftblic Information Officer 870 Santa Barbara Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-644-3662 esailor@nbpd.org file://C:\Documents and Settings\JeBrandman\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\48AEBA... 11/18/2008 Marina Park Draft EIR I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix K: Traffic and Parking Analysis 1 i ' Marina Park Draft OR ' K.1 - MARINA PARK TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 1 I 1 II 1 MARINA PARK TPO Traffic Analysis September 2009 � 4,VST/N FOUST ASS0C0TES, INC. 1 G MARINA PARK TPO L n J !I U Ilu I Ll MARINA PARK TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS This report summarizes an analysis performed for the proposed development of Marina Park in Newport Beach based on the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) methodology. In addition, this report summarizes the results of an analysis of cumulative conditions in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Marina Park project is located on the Bay side of Balboa Boulevard between 18th Street and 16th Street on the Balboa Peninsula in the City of Newport Beach. The approximately nine - acre site is currently developed with a 57-unit mobile home park, a community center, four tennis courts, a small playground, and the Girl Scout House. Adjacent to the project site between 16th Street and 15th Street is the existing American Legion Post 291, a small residential development, and a commercial building. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the proposed Marina Park project. ' Phase 1 of the proposed Marina Park consists of removing the existing mobile homes (57 DU) and replacing them with 3.83 acres of sand. Approximately 112 metered parking spaces will be provided. ' Other than temporary restroom facilities, no other facilities will be provided. The existing community center, Girl Scout House, tennis courts, and small playground will remain. Figure 2 illustrates the Iproposed Phase 1 concept plan. 711 u 1 Phase 2 of the proposed Marina Park consists of replacing the 3.83 acres of sand in Phase 1 with 3.83 acres of turf. There will be no change in the amount of metered parking provided. Other than temporary restroom facilities, no other facilities will be provided. The existing community center, Girl Scout House, tennis courts, and small playground will remain. Figure 3 illustrates the proposed Phase 2 concept plan. Phase 3 of the proposed Marina Park consists of a 10,200 square foot Community Center, an 11,200 square foot Sailing Center, recreational park uses, and a 23-berth non-commercial Visitor Marina. The Sailing Center will include a 54-seat cafe. A playground, two tennis courts, two half -court basketball courts, beach volleyball courts, and open lawn areas for picnicking and free play are proposed. New Marina Park TPO 1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpo.doc H u 1 5 F J Legend Figure I ' t♦ TPO study locations PROJECT LOCATION Marina Park TPO 2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpoPigl,dwg , 1 ENSUngUtepard7 r r_,—NexUlegrarCTWw BeacII . _EUsu%SteewatBead Aa -Remo WES Figure 2 PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN -PHASE 1 Marina Park TPO 3 Austin Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpoFig2.dwg 6ktlaBtKN+aiTiwr f—NentMapwhdiaaar Coca - 1 Fil�LL+Lstwsata"CbA ae-RGrit S1aW y � ��, Y_•'•': � I: _ � � • '. ,. �' +-#; _ i.f `t ��i�ar'iatAaaa :'}:. r;g�� _ _ �. �diiaKb�Pa�{OJOIM[7�it 1,' ••bmaaaataa0rEfnAaslaYt i - - xi ibaadAeattccaEmi - ''a's'.xl�'• ✓ �tT��a1K :r aaAq�FhA _ t� m: I if r.a.aara.a cnsanM at awbaSodrMd Figure 3 PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN - PHASE 2 Marina ParkTPO Traffic Analysis Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 029033tpoFig3.dwg docks and slips for sailing programs and expanded and improved beach access will be provided. The existing Girl Scout House will be relocated to the northwest corner of the project site. Figure 4 illustrates the proposed Phase 3 Marina Park concept plan. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Phase 1 and Phase 2 Phase 1 will expand the lightly used existing sand area on the Bay side beach between 18th Street and 16th Street by 3.83 acres for a total of 5.99 acres. Phase 2 will simply replace the 3.83 acres of sand with 3.83 acres of turf. Neither Phase I nor Phase 2 will provide amenities such as sports facilities or playground equipment. Trip rates for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project were derived from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Eighth Edition trip rates. The ITE Beach Park peak hour and daily rates per acre were applied to Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project. Credit for the trips currently being generated by the existing mobile home park were determined from ITE trip rates. Table 1 summarizes the resulting trip generation for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project. As this table shows, Phase 1 and Phase 2 result in a decrease in trips when compared with the trips generated by the existing mobile homes on the site. Since the existing mobile homes on the site generate more peak hour and daily trips than Phase I and Phase 2 of the proposed project, Phase 1 and Phase 2 will have no significant impact on the study area and no additional analysis of Phase 1 and Phase 2 is required. Phase 3 Phase 3 of the proposed project consists of a 10,200 square foot Community Center, an 11,200 ' square foot Sailing Center, recreational park uses, and a 23-berth non-commercial Visitor Marina. The proposed Community Center will include three ground -floor classrooms for use by the sailing program or other City programs, and the second floor will provide administrative functions and a large room that accommodates up to 80 people for use as a large classroom, four small classrooms, or a banquet facility. Marina Park TPO 5 Austin -Foust Associalcs, Inc. Traffic Analysis 0290331po.d6c 3= 41W 4 `� � „,4i'Id' As�• k � •- 4 Table I TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY — PHASE 1 & PHASE 2 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LAND USE UNITS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL ADT TRIP RATES Beach Park (ITE 415) Acre .28 .20 .48 .38 .92 1.30 29.81 Mobile Home Park (ITE 240) DU .09 .35 .44 .37 .22 .59 4.99 TRIP GENERATION Proposed Phase 1 & Phase 2 6 8 179 Park 5.99 Acres 2 1 3 2 Existing Use Mobile Home Park 57 DU -5 -20 -25 -21 -13 -34 -285 NET NEW TRIPS -3 -19 -22 -19 -7 -26 -106 Marina Park TPO 7 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 0290331po.doc The Sailing Center consists of a reception area, a medium sized meeting room, and a two-story gallery space. The second floor will include a 54-seat cafe and administrative offices. The Sailing Center will provide indoor space for storage and maintenance of the boats and equipment used in die sailing program. The Visitor Marina includes 21 40-foot long berths and two 50-foot long berths for use by the public for short-term visiting non-commercial vessels plus a 200 foot long dock. Full hook-ups will be provided to all berths. The marina will be fenced and controlled security access provided at the southeastern corner. A marina control building containing an office, restrooms, and washing machines will be provided adjacent to the marina entry point. Amenities in the park will include picnic tables, restrooms, showers, play areas, lialf-court basketball courts, benches, public beach and access to the water. Tennis courts are located adjacent to the American Legion. The entire site is currently developed with a 57-unit mobile home park, community center, Girl Scout House, tennis courts, and playground which are generating peak hour and daily traffic. Credit for the trips currently being generated by the existing mobile home park, community center, tennis courts and playground were determined from ITE trip rates. The Girl Scout House will be relocated from its current location to the northwest corner of the site. No changes in the trips generated by the Girl ScoubHouse are,expected. Trip generation rates for Phase 3 of the proposed project were derived from peak hour and daily trip rates contained in ITE Trip Generation, Eighth Edition. A combined rate that consists of the ITE Beach Park AM and PM peak hour rates per acre and an average of the ITE City Park and Beach Park daily rates per acre was applied to the park uses. ITE's Recreational Community Center trip rates were applied to the proposed Community Center and Sailing Center, which includes a 54-seat cafe. These rates and the resulting trips for Phase 3 of the project are summarized in Table 2. The existing trips from the mobile home park, the tennis courts, and the playground were subtracted from the proposed trip generation to produce the net new trips for the project. As the trip generation table indicates, the proposed project results in a net increase of 261 trips daily. During the AM Marina Park TPO 8 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpo.doe LAND USE Table 2 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY - PHASE 3 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR UNITS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL ADT TRIP RATES Park Acre .28 .20 .48 .38 .92 1.30 15.70 Recreational Community Center (ITE 495) TSF .99 .63 1.62 .48 1.16 1.64 22.88 Marina (ITE 420) Berth .03 .05 .08 .11 .08 .19 2.96 Mobile Home Park (ITE 240) DU .09 .35 .44 .37 .22 .59 4.99 TRIP GENERATION Proposed Project 1 2 2 4 6 77 Park Community Ctr/Sailing Ctr/Cafe 4.89 Acres 1 21.3 TSF 21 13 34 10 25 35 487 Visitor Marina 23Berths 1 1 2 3 2 5 68 Sub -Total 23 15 38 15 31 46 632 Existing Use Mobile Home Park 57 DU -5 -20 -25 -21 -13 -34 -285 Park 1.2 Acres 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -19 Community Ctr 2.9 TSF -3 -2 -5 -1 -4 -5 -67 NET NEW TRIPS 15 -7 8 -7 13 6 261 Notes: Park AM and PM trip rates from ITE Beach Park (415) rate/acre and ADT rate averaged from City (411) and Beach (415) Park ADT ratelacre. = ITE Recreational Community Center (495) trip rates applied to Community Center, Sailing Center, and Caf6. The Girl Scout House will be relocated on -site and results in no net change in project trips. Marina Park TPO 9 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpo doc 11 peak hour there is a net increase of eight trips generated by Phase 3 of the project compared with the trip generation of the existing uses on the site. During the PM peak hour Phase 3 of the proposed project generates six new trips compared with the trip generation of the existing uses on the site. Trip distribution of Phase 3 project -generated traffic onto the surrounding circulation system was determined from observed travel patterns in the vicinity of the project site as well as from locations and levels of development in relation to the subject property. A large portion of trips generated by Phase 3 of the project are estimated to originate within the City of Newport Beach. Approximately 35 percent of Phase 3 project trips are oriented toward the areas south of Coast Highway, including the Balboa Peninsula area. The remaining 65 percent of Phase 3 project traffic is distributed along Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard. The general distribution for Phase 3 of the proposed development is illustrated in Figure 5. Phase 3 project -generated trips were distributed to the circulation system according to these distribution patterns. The AM and PM peak hour trips for Phase 3 of the proposed development are illustrated in Appendix A. TPO TRAFFIC IMPACTS The City of Newport Beach identified ten intersections for analysis to determine the impact of the proposed Marina Park development. These intersections are: Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue and Coast Highway Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway Riverside Avenue and Coast Highway Tustin Avenue and Coast Highway Newport Boulevard and Via Lido Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street 23rd Street and Balboa Boulevard 21st Street and Balboa Boulevard 15th Street and Balboa Boulevard Existing peak hour intersection volumes for the study locations were provided by City Staff (existing peak hour volumes are illustrated in Appendix A) with the exceptions of 23rd Street at Balboa Boulevard, 21st Street at Balboa Boulevard, and 15th Street at Balboa Boulevard, which were counted by Marina Park TP0 10 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 0290331po.doc 11 [1 I rI 11 11 1 L I I I 1 LJ 1 I I I Traffic Data Services, Inc. in September 2009. The peak hour data provided by the City was collected during the non -peak season in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Existing intersection levels of service are based on intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values. The ICU values are a means of presenting the volume to capacity ratios, with a V/C ratio of .90 representing the upper threshold for an acceptable level of service (LOS "D") in the City of Newport Beach. The City methodology calculates the ICU value to three decimal places, and then reports the resulting ICU value rounded to two decimal places. Existing ICU values for the study intersections assuming existing lane configurations are summarized in Table 3 (actual ICU calculation sheets are included in Appendix B). As this table shows, the study intersections are currently operating at LOS "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. These ICU values represent the non -peak season conditions. Sample mid -block counts were collected to determine the seasonal increase in Summer traffic volumes for this area of Newport Beach. Counts collected on Newport Boulevard at 32nd Street and on Balboa Boulevard at 18th Street in early June 2008 (non -peak season) and late June 2008 (peak Summer season) indicate an average increase of 18 percent in the daily traffic volume during the Summer (count data is included in Appendix D). During the peak hours, the Summer increase averages 17 percent over the non peak season volume during the AM peak hour and 16 percent during the PM peak hour. Existing peak hour volumes at the study intersections were increased to Summer conditions (illustrated in Appendix A), and the resulting Summer season ICU values are summarized in Table 4. Anambientgrowth rate of 1.0 percent per year was added to the existing volumes along Newport Boulevard north of Coast Highway and along Coast Highway. Construction of Phase 3 of the project is assumed to be complete in 2010; therefore, the study year is 2011. Traffic generated by approved projects in the study area, obtained from City Staff, were added to the existing peak hour volumes to obtain year 2011 background peak hour volumes for the intersections prior to the addition of project - generated traffic (illustrated in Appendix A). Table 5 summarizes the approved projects included in this analysis. Background -plus -project Phase 3 peak hour volumes were obtained by adding the Phase 3 project - generated peak hour intersection volumes presented above to the existing -plus -regional growth -plus - approved projects peak hour volumes. Background -plus -project Phase 3 peak hour volumes are illustrated in Appendix A. Marina Park TPO 12 Aostin•Poust Associates, Inc. Traaic Analysis 0290331po.doc Table 3 EXISTING ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY -NON -PEAK SEASON INTERSECTION AM PM 1. Newport & Hospital .59 .64 2. Balboa/Superior & Coast Hyw .68 .72 3. Newport & Coast Hwy •77 .68 4. Riverside & Coast Hwy .70 .81 5. Tustin & Coast Hwy .67 .58 6. Newport & Via Lido .47 .43 7. Newport & 32nd AS .66 8. 23rd & Balboa .11 .12 9. 21 st & Balboa .23 .32 10. Balboa & 15th .46 .33 Level of service ranges:.00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91-1.00 E Above 1.00 F t Marina Park TPO ' Traffic Analysis Table 4 EXISTING ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY - SUMMER SEASON INTERSECTION AM PM I. Newport & Hospital .66 .70 2. Balboa/Superior & Coast Hyw .79 .82 3. Newport & Coast Hwy .90 .77 4. Riverside & Coast Hwy .80 .88 5. Tustin & Coast Hwy 78 .65 6. Newport&Via Lido .54 .49 7. Newport&32nd .56 .74 8. 23rd & Balboa .13 .14 9. 21st & Balboa .28 .36 10. Balboa & 15th .34 .38 Level of service ranges:.00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - ,80 C .81 - .90 D .91 -1.00 E Above 1.00 F Marino Park TPO 14 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Trallic Analysis 0290331po.doc 11 11 11 11 1 1 Table 5 APPROVED PROJECTS SUMMARY Fashion Island Expansion 40 Temple Bat Yahm Expansion 65 CIOSA — Irvine Project 91 Newport Dunes 0 1401 Dove Street 0 1901 Westcliff Surgical Center 0 Hoag Hospital Phase III 0 Birch Medical Office 0 St Mark Presbyterian Church 77 Corporate Plaza West 0 Mariner's Mile Gateway 0 Land Rover NB Service Center 0 Our Lady Queen of Angels Church Expansion 0 2300 Newport Boulevard 0 Newport Executive Court 0 Hoag Health Center 0 North Newport Center 0 Santa Barbara Condo 0 Marina Park TPO is Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpo.doc The TPO analysis consists of a one percent analysis and an ICU analysis at each study intersection. ' The one percent analysis compares the proposed Phase 3 project traffic with projected background peak hour volumes. To pass the one percent analysis, peak hour traffic from Phase 3 of the proposed project ' must be less than one percent of the projected background peak hour traffic on each leg of the intersection. If Phase 3 of the proposed project passes the one percent analysis, then the ICU analysis is ' not required and no further analysis is necessary. If Phase 3 of the proposed project does not pass the one percent analysis, then the ICU analysis must be performed for the intersection which fails to pass the one percent test. Table 6 summarizes the results of the non -peak season one percent analysis for Phase 3 of the project (the one percent analysis sheets are included in Appendix Q. As this table indicates, Phase 3 of the proposed project does not pass the one percent analysis at two study intersections during the AM and PM peak hour; therefore, an ICU analysis is required for the intersections of 23rd Street at Balboa Boulevard and 21st Street at Balboa Boulevard. The non -peak season volumes represent the worst -case one percent analysis since the Summer season volumes increase the background level against which the project trips are compared. If Phase 3 of the project passes the one percent analysis at a location under non -peak season conditions, then Phase 3 of the project will pass the one percent analysis at that location under Summer season conditions. An ICU analysis was performed for the two intersections which did not pass the one percent test. Existing lane configurations were assumed, and a capacity of 1,600 vph per lane with no clearance factor was utilized. Table 7 summarizes the existing, existing -plus -project Phase 3, background, and background -plus -project Phase 3 ICU values during the AM and PM peak hours under non -peak season and Summer season conditions (actual ICU calculation sheets are included in Appendix B). As the ICU summary table indicates, Phase 3 of the project will have no marginal impact on the intersections of 23rd Street at Balboa Boulevard and 21st Street at Balboa Boulevard which will operate at LOS "A" during the AM and PM peak hours under non -peak season and Summer season conditions. Phase 3 of the project has no significant impact on thestudyintersections, and no mitigation is required. CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS City Staff provided a list of 12 known but not approved projects for use in a cumulative conditions analysis. These cumulative projects are summarized in Table 8. Trip generation and distribution for each Marina Park TPO 16 Austin -roust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 0290331po.doc I 1 Table 6 SUMMARY OF PHASE 3 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS — NON -PEAK SEASON AM PEAK HOUR PROJECT PHASE 3 VOLUMES LESS THAN I% OF INTERSECTION NB SIB EB WB PEAK HOUR VOLUM I. Newport & Hospital 0 3 0 1 0 Yes Yes 2. Balboa/Superior & Coast Hwy 0 0 1 0 5 Yes 3. Newport & Coast Hwy 0 0 0 3 Yes 4. Riverside & Coast Hwy 0 0 I 0 0 3 Yes 5. Tustin & Coast Hwy 6. Newport & Via Lido 0 9 0 0 Yes 7. Newport & 32nd 0 0 9 0 1 3 0 0 Yes No 8. Balboa & 23rd 0 0 13 0 No 9. Balboa & 21 st 0 0 2 Yes 10. 15th & Balboa 0 PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT PHASE 3 VOLUMES LESS THAN 1% OF INTERSECTION NB SB EB WB PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1. Newport & Hospital 4 0 0 0 Yes 2. Balboa/Superior & Coast Hwy 1 0 0 0 Yes 3. Newport & Coast Hwy 0 0 0 4 0 0 Yes Yes 4. Riverside & Coast Hwy 0 0 0 3 0 Yes 5. Tustin & Coast Hwy 0 7 0 0 0 Yes 6. Newport & Via Lido 8 0 0 0 Yes 7. Newport & 32nd 0 0 0 3 No 8. Balboa & 23rd 0 0 0 11 No 9. Balboa & 21st 0 0 2 0 Yes 10. 15th & Balboa Marina Park TPO ' Traffic Analysis 17 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 029033tpo.doc Table 7 ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY - PHASE 3 EXISTING + BACKGROUND + EXISTING PROJECT PHASE 3 BACKGROUND PROJECT PHASE 3 INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Non -Peak Season 8. 23rd & Balboa .11 .12 .I t .12 .I1 .13 .11 .13 9. 21 st & Balboa .23 .32 .23 .32 .23 .33 .23 .33 Summer Season & 23rd & Balboa .13 .14 .13 .14 .13 IS .13 .15 9. 21st & Balboa 28 .36 .28 .36 .29 .37 .29 .37 Level of service ranges:.00 - .60 A .61- .70 B .71 - .80 C ,8l . 90 D .91- I.00 E Above 1.00 F MarinaPark TPO 18 Austin -roust Associates, Inc. Tmflic Analysis 0290331po.doe Table 8 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS SUMMARY Newport Beach Country Club Residential 5 DU Hotel 27 Rms Tennis/GolfClub 51.3 TSF Mariner's Medical Arts Medical Office Addition 12.2 TSF City Hall & Park Development City Hall 98.0 TSF Library Expansion 17.1 TSF WPi-Newport, LLC Office/Retail 54.2 TSF Banning Ranch Residential 1,375 DU Retail 75.0 TSF Hotel 75 Rms Sunset Ridge Park Park 13.7 Acre Old Newport GPA Medical Office 25.7 TSF Marina Park Public Marina/Park 10.5 Acre Pres Office Building B Office 16.7 TSF Conexant/Koll Residential 974 DU AERIE Condominium 6 DU Newport Coast TAZ I — 4 Single Family Detached 954 DU Condominium/Townhouse 389 DU Multi -Family Attached 175 DU DU — dwelling units Rms — Rooms TSF — thousand square feet Marina Park TPO 19 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc Traffic Analysis 0290331po.doc cumulative project was also provided by City Staff. The peak hour cumulative intersection volumes were added to the background volumes presented earlier, and then Phase 3 project -generated traffic was added (see Appendix A). The previous non -peak season one percent analysis without cumulative volumes represents the worst -case one percent analysis since the addition of cumulative traffic to the background volumes increases the chances of a project passing the one percent analysis. If an intersection passes the one percent analysis prior to the addition of cumulative traffic, then the intersection will pass the one percent analysis with the addition of cumulative traffic and no further analysis is required at that location. Therefore, an ICU analysis for the two study intersections that did not pass the non -peak season one percent analysis was prepared. The results of the cumulative ICU analysis are summarized in Table 9 (actual ICU calculation sheets are included in Appendix B). This table includes the non -peak season and Summer season ICU values. As the cumulative ICU table indicates, Phase 3 of the proposed project will have no significant impact on the study intersections which operate at LOS "A" during the AM and PM peak hours, and no mitigation is required. PARKING ANALYSIS The existing mobile home park parking lot will be restriped for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project to provide approximately 112 metered parking spaces. Access to Phase 1 and Phase 2 parking will be provided via a driveway on 18th Street, as well as a connection to 15th Street at the east end of the parking lot. Parking for Phase 3 of the proposed project will be provided in a main parking lot adjacent to the Community Center, Sailing Center, and Visitor Marina. This parking lot will provide approximately 127 spaces with two-way circulation throughout the lot. Access to the main parking lot will be provided at 16th Street and with a connection to I Sth Street. Parking for the Girl Scout House will be provided in a 26-space lot at 18th Street. One-way circulation should be provided in the 18th Street parking lot with traffic entering the south driveway and exiting the north driveway. The amount of parking required for Phase 3 of the proposed project was determined from ITE parking rates modified to suit this specific development. The parking rate applied to the Community Center is the ITE Recreational Community Center parking rate; however, the rate applied to the Sailing Center is reduced from the ITE Recreational Community Center rate since large areas of the sailing center Marina park TPO 20 Austin -roust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpo.doc Table 9 CUMULATIVE ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY - PHASE 3 BACKGROUND+ BACKGROUND+ CUMULATIVE+ EXISTING BACKGROUND CUMULATIVE PROJECT PHASE 3 INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Non -Peak Season .11 .12 .11 .13 .12 .14 .12 .14 8. 23rd & Balboa 9. 21 st & Balboa .23 .32 .23 .33 .24 .33 .24 .33 Summer Season 8. 23rd & Balboa .13 .14 .13 .15 .14 .16 .14 .16 9. 21 at & Balboa .28 .36 .29 .37 .29 .38 .29 .38 Level of service ranges:.00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F Marina Park TPO 21 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpo doc are used for storage and maintenance. The parking rate for the Visitor Marina is the 1TE Marina parking rate. These rates were developed in coordination with City staff. Table 10 summarizes the required project parking for Phase 3. As this table indicates, the worst - case parking estimate for Phase 3 of the project is 144 spaces. Approximately 127 spaces will be provided in the main project parking lot under Phase 3, with another 26 spaces provided in the 18th Street parking lot for a total of 153 spaces. The City is in the process of acquiring the existing SCE substation on Balboa Boulevard. The proposed Phase 3 site plan shows parking on the substation property. If the City is unsuccessful in obtaining the SCE property and cannot include that land in the parking lot, the parking lot will lose approximately 11 spaces resulting in an overall parking deficiency of two spaces under Phase 3 of the project. The proposed Phase 3 parking lot is intended for the project only and not to provide additional beach parking. To prevent the parking lot from being used for beach parking under Phase 3, as a result reducing the amount of parking available for the project uses, signs indicating appropriate users and time limits and warning signs indicating enforcement will be posted throughout the parking lot. Periodic monitoring and surveying of parking lot users will be performed to determine if beach parking is encroaching on the project parking lot. If the warning signs are discouraging inappropriate users, then no further actions will be required. If the warning signs are being ignored, then a parking management plan with a more rigorous enforcement program will be developed. Currently, on -street parking is allowed along Balboa Boulevard in the vicinity of the project site. Parking along the project frontage (i.e., the north side of Balboa Boulevard) is not metered; however, parking is not allowed on Monday mornings (8:30 AM — 12:30 PM) for street sweeping. Furthermore, parking is prohibited from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays and Sundays from May through September, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, and Labor Day to provide an additional travel lane. These parking restrictions are assumed to remain in place with the development of the proposed project. Metered parking spaces are provided in the center median along Balboa Boulevard, and development of the project will have no affect on the operation of these spaces. A public parking lot with 24 spaces is currently located at the comer of 18th Street and Balboa Boulevard. This parking lot will be removed and replaced with a 26-space lot in the same location with development of Phase 3 of the project. Marina Park TPO 22 Austin -roust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpo.doc Table 10 PARKING SUMMARY — PHASE 3 PARKING RATE SPACES LAND USE SIZE KAIL auurcun rcc u,,. Girl Scout House 5.5 TSF 2.36 sp/TSF 1 13 sp Community Ctr 10.2 TSF 6 sp/TSF 2 61 sp Sailing Ctr 11.1 TSF 5 sp/TSF 3 56 sp Visitor Marina 23 Berths .59 sp/Berth 4 14 sp TOTAL SPACES 144 sp Parking rate sources: I Existing 6 spaces plus 7 added for expansion of facility 2 ITE Recreational Community Center (495) —includes Cafd and Park uses 3 Modified ITE Recreational Community Center (495) 4 ITE Marina (420) Marina Park TPO 23 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpo.doe The number of on -street parking spaces along the project frontage will change with the development of Phase 3 of the proposed project. Development of the project site under Phase 3 will result in the widening of 18th Street north of Balboa Boulevard which will allow additional on -street parking (approximately eight spaces). In addition, development of Phase 3 of the project will result in the closure of driveways on Balboa Boulevard along the project frontage at die public parking lot on the corner,of 18th Street, the existing community center, Girl Scout House, and SCE substation, and the removal of the 30 minute loading zone in front of the existing community center. With the closure of these driveways under Phase 3, an additional four on -street parking spaces may be available; although, a new on -street drop-off zone may reduce this number of new on -street parking spaces. On the other hand, the need to provide adequate sight distance east of the project driveway at 16th Street will require the removal of approximately 15 existing on -street parking spaces. A left -turn pocket from eastbound Balboa Boulevard into the parking lot driveway at 16th Street should be provided to reduce entering Phase 3 project traffic from blocking through traffic on Balboa Boulevard. Although the Phase 3 hourly volume entering the parking lot driveway is not large (approximately 11 to 17 vehicles per hour), project trips are not spread out evenly throughout the hour, with the majority of vehicles entering the parking lot in the 10 to 15 minutes before classes begin. An 85- foot pocket, similar to existing left -turn pockets on Balboa Boulevard in the project vicinity, would result in the loss of approximately three existing parking spaces in the center median on Balboa Boulevard. The overall change in on -street parking as a result of Phase 3 of the proposed project is a reduction of approximately six spaces between 18th Street and 15th Street. SPECIAL ISSUES Access to the main parking lot of Phase 3 of the proposed project will be provided by a driveway opposite 16th Street. A connection to 15th Street will also be available. A traffic signal exists at the intersection of 15th Street and Balboa Boulevard, approximately 400 feet east of the proposed driveway. Installation of a traffic signal is being considered at the proposed driveway opposite 16th Street. The need for a signal at this location was examined. Satisfaction of Caltrans Peak Hour Signal Warrant (Figure F-I) requires a minimum of 100 peak hour trips on the side street approach. Phase 3 of the proposed project will generate 38 AM peak hour driveway trips, 15 of which are outbound, and 46 PM peak hour driveway trips, 31 of which are Marina Park TPO 24 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 0290331po.doc outbound. Phase 3 of the project does not generate enough peak hour traffic to satisfy the signal warrant. Besides, the majority of outbound trips from Phase 3 of the project will be oriented toward the west; therefore, they will make a right turn out of the driveway and will experience very little benefit from a traffic signal at this location. Installation of a signal at the proposed project driveway is not ' recommended due to the low peak hour volumes expected and the close proximity to the existing signal at 15th Street. Without a signal at the proposed project driveway, outbound vehicles will have to wait for gaps in ' Balboa Boulevard traffic to exit. Vehicles making a left turn from the parking lot will have the option of exiting the parking lot onto 15th Street and utilizing the existing signal at the intersection of 15th Street and Balboa Boulevard. However, relatively little Phase 3 project traffic (approximately 15 percent) is ' expected to be oriented toward the Balboa Peninsula east of the project site during the peak hours. Less than five peak hour trips would be added to the 15th Street/Balboa Boulevard intersection. The existing ' signal at 15th Street, which currently operates at LOS "A" during the AM and PM peak hours, can accommodate the addition of five peak hour trips. Without a signal at the proposed project driveway on Balboa Boulevard, vehicles will have to wait ' for gaps in traffic on Balboa Boulevard. Balboa Boulevard is classified as a primary roadway in the vicinity of the project site. Parking and landscaping will need to be restricted east of the proposed project ' driveway so that a sight distance of 450 feet is provided per City Standard STD-110-L. This restriction will remove all on -street parking along the north side of Balboa Boulevard between 16th Street and 15th ' Street (approximately 15 spaces) under Phase 3. CONCLUSIONS Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project consists of replacing the existing mobile home park on the site with 3.83 acres of sand (Phase 1) or turf (Phase 2). No amenities other than temporary restroom ' facilities will be provided. The trips generated by the proposed sand or turf park are less than the trips generated by the existing mobile homes; therefore, Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project will have no significant impact on the study intersections. Approximately 112 metered parking spaces will be ' provided under Phase I and Phase 2. ' Phase 3 of the proposed project, consisting of a 10,200 square foot community center, an 11,200 square foot sailing center, park uses, a 23-berth non-commercial visitor marina, and re -located on -site ' Marina Park TPO 25 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpo.doe Girl Scout House, will generate eight new AM peak hour trips, six new PM peak hour trips, and 261 new , daily trips. The marginal impact of Phase 3 project traffic on the street system was determined at ten intersections in the vicinity. Two of the ten intersections did not pass the City's one percent analysis; ' however, Phase 3 of the project had no marginal impact on the ICU values at these two intersections, which will continue to operate at level of service (LOS) "A" during the AM and PM peak hours under ' non -peak season and Summer season conditions. Consequently, Phase 3 of the proposed project has no significant impact on the study intersections, and no additional intersection improvements are required. The impact of traffic from known but not approved projects was included in a cumulative conditions analysis. Under cumulative non -peak season and Summer season conditions, Phase 3 of the ' project had no marginal impact during the AM or PM peak hour on the ICU values at the two intersections that did not pass the one percent analysis. Therefore, Phase 3 of the proposed project has no significant impact on the study intersections under cumulative conditions, and no intersection mitigation measures are required. ' A review of the proposed parking reveals that the 153 spaces provided on -site are adequate to satisfy Phase 3 of the project's demand. However, some monitoring of the parking lot as outlined in a parking management plan will be required to ensure that the parking there is limited to legitimate'Marina , Park Phase 3 users. J J I LI Marina Park TPO 26 AustithPoust Associates, Inc. , Traffic Analysis 029033tpo.doc APPENDIX A PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 1 I i I rl ' Marina Park TPO Ad Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpo.doc Figure A-1 PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIPS -PHASE3 Marina Park TPO A-2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpoPigA-l.dwg m m m m -m Figure A-2 EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUMES - NON -PEAK SEASON Marina Park TPO A-3 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpoFigA-2.dwg PigureA-3 EXISTING +PROJECT PHASE 3 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES - NON -PEAK SEASON Marina PmkTPO A-4 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpoFigA-3.dwg m = = m m= m m= r m= r = = m m m Figure A-4 EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + APPROVED PEAK HOUR VOLUMES - NON -PEAK SEASON Marina Park TPO A-5 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpoFigA-4.dwg Figure A-5 EXISTING +GROWTH +APPROVED +PROJECT PHASE 3 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES -NON-PEAKSEASON Marina Park TPO A-6 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpoFigA-S.dwg Figure A-6 EXISTING + GROWTH + APPROVED + CUMULATIVE E PEAK HOUR VOLUMES - NON -PEAK SEASON Marina ParkTPO A-7 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Trek Analysis 029033tpoFigA-6.dwg Figure A 7 EXISTING+GROWTH +APPROVED +CUMULATIVE +PROJECT PHASE 3 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES - NON -PEAK SEASON Marina Park TPO _ A-8 Austin Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpoFigA-7.dwg Figure A-8 EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUMES - SUMMER SEASON Marina Park TPO A-9 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpoFigA-8.dwg Figure A-9 EXISTING + PROJECT PHASE 3 PEAKHOUR VOLUMES - SUMMER SEASON Marina Park TPO A-10 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpoFigA-9.dwg 1:J Figure A-10 EXISTING+ REGIONAL GROWTH+ APPROVED PEAKHOUR VOLUMES - SUMMER SEASON Marina Park TPO A-11 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpoFigA-IO.dwg Marina Park TPO Traffic Analysis A-12 FigurcA-11 EXISTING+ GROWTH +-APPROVED +PROJECT PHASE 3 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES - SUMMER SEASON Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 029033tpoFigA-1 I.dwg m� s i m ml �= m m s m. �= r m s m s m m= m m m m m m m m m m i m m m m m Marina Park TPO A-13 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpoFigA-12.dwg Marina Park TPO A-14 TrafHe Analysis FigureA-13 EXISTING + GROWTH + APPROVED + CUMULATIVE +PROJECT PHASE 3 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES - SUMMER SEASON Austin-FoustAssociatcs, Inc. 029033tpoFigA-13.dwg i I Pi r' '1 <J APPENDIX B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Peak hour intersection volume/capacity ratios are calculated by means of intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values. ICU calculations were performed for the intersections shown in Figure B-1. For simplicity, signalization is assumed at each intersection. Precise ICU calculations of existing non - signalized intersections would require a more detailed analysis. The procedure is based on the critical movement methodology, and shows the amount of capacity utilized by each critical move. A capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour (VPH) per lane is assumed with no clearance interval. Calculations are carried out to three decimal places. A "de -facto' right -turn lane is used in the ICU calculation for cases where a curb lane is wide enough to separately serve both thru and right -turn traffic (typically with a width of 19 feet from curb to outside of thru-lane with parking prohibited during peak periods). Such lanes are treated the same as striped right -turn lanes during the ICU calculations, but they are denoted on the ICU calculation worksheets using the letter "d" in place of a numerical entry for right -turn lanes. The methodology also incorporates a check for right -turn capacity utilization. Both right -turn -on - green (RTOG) and right -turn -on -red (RTOR) capacity availability are calculated and checked against the total right -turn capacity need. If insufficient capacity is available, then an adjustment is made to the total capacity utilization value. The following example shows how this adjustment is made. Example For Northbound Right 1 Right-Tum-On-Green (RTOG) If NBT is critical move, then: RTOG = V/C (NBT) Otherwise, RTOG = V/C (NBL) + V/C (SBT) - V/C (SBL) 2 Right -Turn -On -Red (RTOR) If WBL is critical move, then: RTOR = V/C (WBL) Otherwise, RTOR = V/C (EBL) + V/C (WBT) - V/C (EBT) Marina Park TPO B-1 Austin -roust Associatcs, Inc. Traffic Analysis 0290331po.doc Legend Figure B-1 TPO study locations STUDY INTERSECTION LOCATIONS Marina Park TPO B-2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpoFigB-I.dwg LI I I 1 1 LJ L] I II 11 II 1 I r1 ,J J 3 Right -Turn Overlan Adjustment If the northbound right is assumed to overlap with the adjacent westbound left, adjustments to the RTOG and RTOR values are made as follows: RTOG = RTOG + V/C (WBL) RTOR = RTOR - V/C (WBL) 4 Total Right-Tum Capacity (RTC) Availability For NBR RTC = RTOG + factor x RTOR Where factor = RTOR saturation flow factor (75%) Right -turn adjustment is then as follows: Additional ICU = V/C (NBR) - RTC A zero or negative value indicates that adequate capacity is available and no adjustment is necessary. A positive value indicates that the available RTOR and RTOG capacity does not adequately accommodate the right -turn V/C, therefore the right -turn is essentially considered to be a critical movement. Ih such cases, the right -turn adjustment is noted on the ICU worksheet and it is included in the total capacity utilization value. When it is determined that a right -turn adjustment is required for more than one right -turn movement, the word "multi" is printed on the worksheet instead of an actual right -turn movement reference, and the right-tum adjustments are cumulatively added to the total capacity utilization value. In such cases, further operational evaluation is typically carried out to determine if under actual operational conditions, the critical right -turns would operate simultaneously, and therefore a right -turn adjustment credit should be applied. Shared Lane V/C Methodology For intersection approaches where shared usage of a lane is permitted by more than one turn movement (e.g., left/thru, thm/right, left/thru/right), the individual turn volumes are evaluated to determine whether dedication of the shared lane is warranted to any one given turn movement. The following example demonstrates how this evaluation is carried out: Example for Shared Left/Thru Lane 1 Average Lane Volume (ALV) ALV = Left -Turn Volume +Thor Volume Total Left + Thm Approach Lanes (including shared lane) Marina Park TPO B-3 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpo.doc J 2. ALV for Each Approach ALV (Left) = Left -Turn Volume Left Approach Lanes (including shared lane) ALV (Thru) = Thru Volume Thru Approach Lanes (including shared lane) 3. Lane Dedication is Warranted If ALV (Left) is greater than ALV then full dedication of the shared lane to the left -turn approach is warranted. Left -turn and thru V/C ratios for this case are calculated as follows: V/C (Left) = Left -Turn Volume Left Approach Capacity (including shared lane) V/C (Thru) = Thru Volume Thru Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane) Similarly, if ALV (Thru) is greater than ALV then full dedication to the thru approach is Warranted, and left -turn and thru V/C ratios are calculated as follows: V/C (Left) = Left -Turn Volume Left Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane) V/C (Thru) = Thru Volume Thru Approach Capacity (including shared lane) 4. Lane Dedication is not Warranted If ALV (Left) and ALV (Thru) are both less than ALV, the left/thru lane is assumed to be truly shared and each left, left/thru or thru approach lane carries an evenly distributed volume of traffic equal to ALV. A combined left/thru VIC ratio is calculated as follows: V/C (Left/Thru) = Left -Turn Volume + Thru Volume Total Left +Thru Approach Capacity (including shared lane) This V/C (Left/Thru) ratio is assigned as the V/C (Thru) ratio for the critical movement analysis and ICU summary listing. If split phasing has not been designated for this approach, the relative proportion of V/C (Thru) that is attributed to the left -turn volume is estimated as follows: If approach has more than one left -turn (including shared lane), then: V/C (Left) = WC (Thru) Marina Park TPO BA Austin -roust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 0290331po.doe I If approach has only one left -turn lane (shared lane), then: V/C (Left) = Left -Turn Volume Single Approach Lane Capacity If this left -turn movement is determined to be a critical movement, the V/C (Left) value is posted in brackets on the ICU summary printout. ' These same steps are carried out for shared thru/right lanes. If full dedication of a shared thru/right lane to the right -turn movement is warranted, the right -turn V/C value calculated in step three is ' checked against the RTOR and RTOG capacity availability if the option to include right -turns in the V/C ratio calculations is selected. If the VIC value that is determined using the shared lane methodology ' described here is reduced due to RTOR and RTOG capacity availability, the V/C value for the thru/right lanes is posted in brackets. When an approach contains more than one shared lane (e.g., left/thru and thru/right), steps one ' and two listed above are carried out for the three turn movements combined. Step four is carried out if dedication is not warranted for either of the shared lanes. If dedication of one of the shared lanes is warranted to one movement or another, step three is carried out for the two movements involved, and then steps one through four are repeated for the two movements involved in the other shared lane. I I 1 I Marina Park TPO B-5 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpo.doc 1. Newport 6 Hospital Existing AM PE HOUR PM PE HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1 1600 166 .104* 137 .086* NBT 3 4800 1565 .326 1273 .265 WBR 1 1600 86 .054 84 .053 SBL 1 1600 47 .029 47 .029 SET 3 4800 1088 .314* 1544 .374* SBR 0 0 420 252 EBL 2 3200 274 .086* 356 .111* EBT 1 1600 160 .100 132 .083 EBR 1 1600 194 .121 214 .134 WBL 1 1600 57 .036 122 .076 NET 2 3200 252 .086* 167 .071* WBR 0 0 22 61 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .590 Summer - Existing AM PE HOUR PM PE HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1 1600 190 .119* 160 .100* HBT 3 4800 1830 .381 1440 .300 NBR 1 1600 100 .063 100 .063 SBL 1 1600 60 .038 50 .031 SBT 3 4800 1270 .367* 1740 .421* SBR 0 0 490 280 EBL 2 3200 274 .086* 356 .111* EBT 1 1600 160 .100 132 .083 EBR 1 1600 194 .121 214 .134 WBL 1 1600 57 .036 122 .076 WBT 2 3200 252 .086* 167 .071* WBR 0 0 22 61 642 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .658 .703 Marina Park TPO Austin -Foust Astocialcs, Inc. Traffic Analysis B-6 0290331po-AppB.pdf 2. Balboa/Superior 6 Coast Hwy Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1.5 202 261 NBT 1.5 4800 327 .129* 209 .111* NBR 0 89 65 SBL 2.5 170 163 .051 SBT 1.5 6400 122 .046* 237 .074* SBR 2 3200 187 .058 738 .231 EBL 2 3200 988 .309 255 .080* EST 3 4800 2242 .467* 1169 .244 EBR 1 1600 238 .149 225 .141 WBL 1 1600 61 .038* 147 .092 WBT 4 6400 582 .121 2165 .359* WBR 0 0 206 .129 134 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .097* Note: Assumes N/S Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .680 .721 Sumer - Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1.5 240 300 NBT 1.5 4800 380 .150* 240 ,127* NBR 0 100 70 SBL 2.5 200 180 .056 SET 1.5 6400 140 .053* 270 .084* SBR 2 3200 220 .069 830 .259 EBL 2 3200 1160 .363 290 .091* EST 3 4800 2620 .546* 1320 .275 EBR 1 1600 280 .175 250 .156 WBL 1 1600 70 .044* 170 .106 WBT 4 6400 680 .142 2450 .406* WBR 0 0 240 .150 150 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .107* Note: Assumes N/S Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 193 .815 Marina Park TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis B-7 029033tpo-AppB pdf 3. Newport c Coast Hwy Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 384 .120* 617 .193* SET 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1600 269 .168 470 .294 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 2 3200 2075 .648* 1267 .396* EBR f 487 267 WBL 0 0 0 0 NET 3 4800 979 .204 1848 .385 WBR f 370 563 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .093* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .768 .682 Summer - Existing AN PK HOUR PN PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 0 0 0 0 NET 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 450 .141* 700 .219* SET 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1600 320 .200 530 .331 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 2 3200 2430 .759* 1430 .447* ERR f 570 300 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1140 .238 2090 .435 WBR f 430 640 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .103* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .900 .769 Marina Park TPO Austin-Podst Associate, Inc. Tra fic Analysis R-8 0290331po-AppB.pd( 4. Riverside 6 Coast Hwy Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 1 (.001)* 7 NBT 1 1600 3 .003 6 .014* NBR 0 0 1 9 SBL 0 0 82 77 ).048)* SET 1 1600 9 .057* 4 .051 SBR 1 1600 337 .211 451 .282 EBL 1 1600 274 .171 253 .158* EST 2 3200 2004 .629* 1388 .438 EBR 0 0 9 14 WIN, 1 1600 12 .008* 4 .003 WBT 3 4800 1106 .230 2312 .482* WBR 1 1600 64 .040 45 .028 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .106* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 695 .808 Summer - Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 1 ).001)* 7 NET 1 1600 3 .003 6 .014* HER 0 0 1 9 SEL 0 0 82 77 ),048)* SBT 1 1600 9 .057* 4 .051 SBR 1 1600 337 .211 451 .282 EBL 1 1600 320 .200 290 .181* EST 2 3200 2340 .734* 1570 .497 EBR 0 0 10 20 WBL 1 1600 10 .006* 10 1006 WBT 3 4800 1290 .269 2610 .544* WBR 1 1600 80 .050 50 .031 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .088* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .79B .815 Marina Park TPO Traffic Analysis Austin -roust Associates, Inc. B-9 0290331po-AppB.pdf 5. Tustin 6 Coast Hwy Existing AN PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 2 1.0011* NET 1 1600 0 .000 1 .002 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 29 53 SBT 1 1600 0 .035* 0 ,051* SBR 0 0 27 28 EBL 1 1600 37 .023 68 .043* EBT 2 3200 2016 .631* 1406 .440 EBR 0 0 2 2 WBL 0 0 0 0 NET 3 4800 1138 ,231 2326 .485* WBR 1 1600 40 .025 56 .035 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .666 Summer - Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 2 1.001)* NBT 1 1600 0 .000 1 .002 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 29 53 SET 1 1600 0 .035* 0 .051* SBR 0 0 27 28 EBL 1 1600 40 .025 80 .050* EST 2 3200 2360 .741* 1590 .500 EBR 0 0 10 10 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1330 .277 2630 .548* WBR 1 1600 50 .031 60 .038 .580 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .176 .650 Marina Park TPO Austin-Pous1 Associatcs, Inc. Traffic Analysis B-10 029033tpo-AppB.pdt 1 r6. Newport 6 Via Lido Existing Sumer -Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 3 4800 1501 .313* 1236 .258* NBT 3 4800 1760 .367* 1400 .292* NBR f 11 28 NBR f 20 30 SBL 2 3200 461 .144* 515 .161* SBL 2 3200 540 .169* 580 .181* SET 3 4800 922 .192 1811 .377 SET 3 4800 1080 .225 2050 .427 SBR 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 ' EBL 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EST 0 0 0 0 EST 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 PER 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1600 12 .008* 21 .013* Will, 1 1600 10 .006* 20 .013* WET 0 2 0 3200 0 285 0 272 NET WBR 0 2 0 3200 0 330 .103 0 310 .097 WBR .089 .085 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .465 .432 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .542 .486 �t I Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Marina Park 7P0 B-11 029033tpo•AppB.pdf , Traffic Analysis 7. Newport i 32nd Existing AM PN HOUR PM PE HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 24 .015 51 .032* NET 2 3200 1020 .323* 925 .292 NBR 0 0 13 8 SBL 1 1600 69 .043* 62 .039 SBT 2 3200 827 .289 1464 .547* SEA 0 0 98 287 EBL 1.5 302 161 EBT 0.5 3200 29 .103* 32 .060* EBR f 23 27 WBL 0 0 21 21 WET 2 3200 18 .012* 33 .017* WBR f 65 46 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .481 .656 Summer - Existing AM PE HOUR PM PE HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 30 .019 60 .038* NET 2 3200 1190 .378* 1040 .328 NBR 0 0 20 10 SUL 1 1600 80 .050* 70 .044 SBT 2 3200 910 .341 1650 .616* SBR 0 0 120 320 EBL 1.5 350 180 EBT 0.5 3200 30 .119* 40 .069* EBR f 30 30 WBL 0 0 20 20 WBT 2 3200 20 .013* 40 .019* WBR f 80 50 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .560 .142 Marine Park TPO Auslin•Pcust Associatcs, Ido. Traffic Analysis B-12 029033tpo•AppB.pdf 1 1 1 1 1 1 8. 23rd 6 Balboa Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 71 (.029(* 81 (.030(* NET 0 3200 0 .024 0 .030 HER 0.5 6 16 SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1600 6 .004 6 .004 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 2 3200 273 .085* 302 .099* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WET 2 3200 151 .047 180 .056 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .109 .124 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 71 (.029)* 81 (.030(* NET 0 3200 0 .024 0 .030 NBR 0.5 6 16 SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1600 6 .004 6 .004 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 2 3200 279 .087* 332 .109* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WET 2 3200 164 .051 197 .062 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .111 .134 Marina Park TPO Traffic Analysis B-13 Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 71 (.029(* 81 (.030(* NET 0 3200 0 .024 0 .030 NBR 0.5 6. 16 SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1600 6 .004 6 .004 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 2 3200 276 .086* 302 .099* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 2 3200 151 .047 183 .057 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .110 .124 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 71 (.029(* 81 1.0301* NET 0 3200 0 .024 0 .030 NBR 0.5 6 16 SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1600 6 .004 6 .004 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 2 3200 282 .088* 332 .109* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WET 2 3200 164 .051 200 .063 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .112 .134 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 029033tpo•AppB.pdf 8. 23rd 8 Balboa Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 71 (.0241* 81 (,0301* NBT 0 3200 0 .024 0 .030 NBR 0.5 6 16 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1600 6 .004 6 .004 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 2 3200 303 .095* 349 .109* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 2 3200 171 .053 227 .071 WBR 0 0 0 0 Existing + Growth + Approved '+ Cumulative + Project AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 71 1.0241' 81 (.0301* NET 0 3200 0 .024 0 .030 NBR 0.5 6 16 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1600 6 .004 6 .004 EBL, 0 0 0 0 EBT 2 3200 306 .096* 349 .109* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 NET 2 3200 171 .053 230 .072 HER 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .119 .139 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .120 .139 Summer - Existing AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 80 (.0281* 90 1.0341* NET 0 3200 0 .028 0 .034 NBR 0.5 10 20 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1600 10 .006 10 .006 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 2 3200 320 .100* 340 .106* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 2 3200 180 .056 200 .063 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 128 .140 Sumner - Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 80 (.0281* 90 (.0341* NBT 0 3200 0 .028 0 .034 HER 0.5 10 20 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1600 10 1006 10 1006 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 2 3200 323 .101* 340 .106* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 2 3200 180 .056 203 .063 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .129 140 Marina Park TPO Austin-poustAssociatcsl Inc. Traffic Analysis B-14 029033tpo-AppB.pdf 8. 23rd 6 Balboa Summer - Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1.5 80 1.028)* 90 1.034)* NET 0 3200 0 .028 0 .034 HER 0.5 10 20 SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 0 0 0 0 SBA 1 1600 10 .006 10 .006 EBL 0 0 0 0 EST 2 3200 326 .102* 370 .116* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 NET 2 3200 193 .060 217 .068 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .130 .150 Summer - Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1.5 80 (.0281* 90 1.0341* NET 0 3200 0 .028 0 .034 NBR 0.5 10 20 SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1600 10 .006 10 .006 EBL 0 0 0 0 EST 2 3200 350 .109* 387 .121* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WET 2 3200 200 .063 247 .077 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .137 .155 Summer - Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1.5 80 1.0281* 90 (.0341* NBT 0 3200 0 .028 0 .034 NBR 0.5 10 20 SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1600 10 .006 10 .006 EBL 0 0 0 0 EST 2 3200 329 .103* 370 .116* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WET 2 3200 193 .060 220 .069 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .131 .150 Summer - Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1.5 80 (.0281* 90 (.034)* NET 0 3200 0 .028 0 .034 NBR 0.5 10 20 SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1600 10 .006 10 .006 EBL 0 0 0 0 EST 2 3200 353 .110* 387 .121* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 2 3200 200 .063 250 .078 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .138 .155 Marina Park TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis B-15 029033tpo-AppB.pol 9. 21st 6 Balboa Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 67 127 NET 1 1600 0 .047* 2 .093* NBR 0 0 8 19 SBL 0 0 2 (.001)* 6 (.004)* SOT 1 1600 0 .004 2 .014 SBR 0 0 5 IS EBL 1 1600 1 .001* 28 .018 EBT 3 4800 664 .151 923 .210* EBR 0 0 61 87 Will, 1 1600 5 .003 14 .009* WBT 3 4800 851 .178* 684 .144 WBR 0 0 4 9 Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 67 127 NET 1 1600 0 .047* 2 .093* HER 0 0 8 19 SBL 0 0 2 1.0011* 6 (.0041* SOT 1 1600 0 .004 2 .014 SEE, 0 0 5 15 EBL 1 1600 1 .001* 28 .018 EST 3 4800 677 .154 923 .210* EBR 0 0 61 81 WBL 1 1609 5 .003 14 .009* WBT 3 4800 851 .178* 695 .147 WBR 0 0 4 9 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .227 .316 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .227 .316 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 67 127 NET 1 1600 0 .047* 2 .093* NBR 0 0 8 19 SBL 0 0 2 (.001)* 6 1.0041* SET 1 1600 0 .004 2 .014 SBR 0 0 5 15 EBL 1 1600 1 .001* 28 .018 EBT 3 4800 676 .154 980 .222* EBR 0 0 61 87 WBL 1 1600 5 .003 14 .009* WBT 3 4800 876 .183* 117 .151 WBR 0 0 4 9 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .232 .328 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 67 127 NET 1 1600 0 .047* 2 .093* NBR 0 0 8 19 SBL 0 0 2 1.0011* 6 1.0041* SET 1 1600 0 .004 2 .014 SBR 0 0 5 15 EBL 1 1600 1 .001* 28 .018 EBT 3 4800 689 .156 980 .222* EBR 0 0 61 87 WBL 1 1600 5 .003 14 .009* WET 3 4800 876 .183* 728 .154 WBR 0 0 4 9 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .232 .328 Marina Park TPO Austin -roast Associatcs, Inc. Tragic Analysis B-16 0290331po-AppB.pdf 9. 21st 6 Balboa Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 67 127 NET 1 1600 0 .047* 2 .093* HER 0 0 8 19 SBL 0 0 2 (.001[* 6 (.004]* SET 1 1600 0 .004 2 .014 SBR 0 0 5 15 EBL 1 1600 1 .001* 28 .018 EST 3 4800 712 .161 1009 .228* EBR 0 0 61 87 WBL 1 1600 5 .003 14 .009* WBT 3 4800 893 .187* 760 .160 WBR 0 0 4 9 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .236 .334 Summer - Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 80 (.050[* 140 (.081(* NBT 1 1600 0 .056 10 .106 HER 0 0 10 20 SBL 0 0 10 10 SET 1 1600 0 .013* 10 .025* SBR 0 0 10 20 EBL 1 1600 10 ,006* 30 .019 EST 3 4800 780 .177 1040 .238* EBR 0 0 70 100 WBL 1 1600 10 .006 20 .013* WBT 3 4800 1000 .210* 770 .163 WBR 0 0 10 10 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .279 .363 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 67 127 NBT 1 1600 0 .047* 2 ,093* NBR 0 0 8 19 SBL 0 0 2 [.001(* 6 {,004(* SET 1 1600 0 .004 2 .014 SBR 0 0 5 15 EBL 1 1600 1 .001* 28 .018 EST 3 4800 725 .164 1009 .228* EBR 0 0 61 87 WBL 1 1600 5 .003 14 .009* WET 3 4800 893 .187* 771 .163 WBR 0 0 4 9 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .236 .334 Summer - Existing+ Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 80 [.050[* 140 (.087[*I NBT 1 1600 0 .056 10 .106 NBR 0 0 10 20 SBL 0 0 10 10 SBT 1 1600 0 .013* 10 .025* SBR 0 0 10 20 EBL 1 1600 10 .006* 30 .019 EST 3 4800 793 .180 1040 .238* EBR 0 0 70 100 WBL 1 1600 10 .006 20 .013* WET 3 4800 1000 .210* 781 .165 WBR 0 0 10 10 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .279 .363 Marina Park TPO Austin -roust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis B-17 029033tpo-AppB.pdf i' 9. 21st i Balboa Sumner - Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AH PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 80 (.050)* 140 (.087)* NBT 1 1600 0 .056 10 .106 NBR 0 0 10 20 SBL 0 0 10 10 SBT 1 1600 0 .013* 10 .025* SBR 0 0 10 20 EBL 1 1600 10 .006* 30 .019 EST 3 4800 792 .180 1097 .249* EBR 0 0 70 100 WBL 1 1600 10 .006 20 .013* NET 3 4800 1025 .216* 803 .169 WBR 0 0 10 10 Suer - Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AN PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 80 (.050)* 140 (.087)* NBT 1 1600 0 .056 10 .106 NBR 0 0 10 20 SBL 0 0 10 10 SET 1 1600 0 .013* 10 .025* SBR 0 0 10 20 I!! EBL 1 1600 10 .006* 30 .019 EST 3 4800 805 .18Z 1097 .249* EBR 0 0 70 100 WBL 1 1600 10 .006 20 .013* NET 3 4800 1025 .216* 814 .172 WBR 0 0 10 10 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .285 .374 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .285 .374 Summer - Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 80 (.050)* 140 (.087)* NBT 1 1600 0 .056 10 .106 HER 0 0 10 20 SBL 0 0 10 10 SBT 1 1600 0 ,013* 10 .025* SBR 0 0 10 20 EBL 1 1600 10 .006* 30 .019 EST 3 4800 828 ,187 1126 .255* EBR 0 0 70 100 WBL 1 1600 10 .006 20 .013* WBT 3 4800 1042 .219* 846 .178 WBR 0 0 10 10 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .288 .380 Summer - Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AN PK HOUR PH PH HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 80 (.050)* 140 (.087)* NBT 1 1600 0 .056 10 .106 HER 0 0 10 20 SBL 0 0 10 10 SBT 1 1600 0 .013* 10 .025* SBR 0 0 10 20 EBL 1 1600 10 .006* 30 .019 EST 3 4800 841 .190 1126 .255* EBR 0 0 10 100 WBL 1 1600 10 .006 20 .013* WBT 3 4800 1042 .219* 857 .181 HER 0 0 10 10 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION ,288 .380 11 11 Marino Park TPO Austin•Popst Associates, Inc. Tragic Analysis B-18 029033tpo•AppB.pdf 11 10. 15th 6 Balboa Existing AM PE HOUR PM PH HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 74 1.0461* 20 1.0121* NET 1 1600 0 .051 4 .018 NBR 0 0 8 4 SBL 1 1600 3 .002 6 .004 SBT 1 1600 1 .088* 1 .034* SBR 0 0 139 53 EBL 1 1600 127 .079* 140 .088* EBT 2 3200 572 .189 841 .268 EBR 0 0 33 17 WBL 0 0 38 7 NET 2 3200 736 .248* 613 .196* HER 0 0 18 6 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .461 .330 0 Sumer - Existing AM PN HOUR PM PR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 90 1.0561* 20 (.0121* NET 1 1600 0 .063 10 .025 NBR 0 0 10 10 SBL 1 1600 10 .006 10 .006 SET 1 1600 10 .106* 10 .044* SBR 0 0 160 60 EBL 1 1600 150 .094* 160 .100* EBT 2 3200 670 .222 950 .303 EBR 0 0 40 20 WBL 0 0 40 10 NET 2 3200 860 .288* 690 .222* WHIR 0 0 20 10 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .544 .378 Marina Park TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis B-19 029033tpo•AppB.pdC I APPENDIX C LJ 1% ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS p H U ' Marina Park TPO C-1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpo.doc 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection: 1. Newport Blvd & Hospital Rd Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2008 ' Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' AM PEAK PERIOD ' Northbound 1817 55 96 0 196& 20 0 47 78 0 1680 17 3 ' Southbound 1555 Eastbound 628 0 30 0 658 7 0 ' Westbound 331 0 1 0 332 3 1 ' _=> Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less then 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. , Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1494 45 127 0 1666 17 4 ' Southbound 1843 55 82 0 1980 20 0 ' Eastbound 702 0 102 0 804 8 0 , Westbound 350 0 0 0 350 4 0 Project PM Tragic Is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume, ' Project PM Traffic Is estimated to be 1% or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Tragic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. PROJECT: Marina Park FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2011 , Marina Park TPO Austin -roust Assoctatcs, Inc. Tragic Analysis C-2 029033tpo-AppC.pdf t ' 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 2. Balboa Blvd/Superior Ave & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD 6 0 Northbound 618 0 13 0 631 Souhbound 479 0 30 23 532 5 0 ' Eastbound 3468 173 97 46 3784 38 1 ' Westbound 849 42 42 231 1164 12 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic Is estimated to be 1% or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. ' PM PEAK PERIOD ' Northbound 535 0 17 0 552 6 1 ' Souhbound 1138 0 137 79 1354 14 0 ' Eastbound 1649 82 102 158 1991 20 0 Westbound 2446 122 67 142 2777 28 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2011 ' PROJECT: Marina Park Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Marina Pork TPO C-3 029033tpo-AppC.pdf ' Traffic Analysis ffi 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection: 3. Newport Blvd & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects 'Projected 1%of Projected Project Approach Peek 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' AM PEAK PERIOD ' Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 740 7 0 ' Southbound 653 26 61 0 Eastbound 2562 102 16 67 2747 27 0 , Westbound 1098 44 42 231 1415 14 5 ' Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Southbound 1087 43 105 0 1235 12 0 ' Eastbound 1634 61 83 238 1916 19 0 ' Westbound 2411 96 26 142 2675 27 0 =_> Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak i Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 HourTraffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Marina Park FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2011 ' Marina Park TPO Austin -Roust Associates, Inc. Trafc Analysis C4 029033tpo-AppC.pdf ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 4. Riverside Ave & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2008 ' Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour 'Approach Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD 0 Northbound 5 0 0 0 5 0 Southbound 428 0 2 0 430 4 1 ' Eastbound 2287 69 116 67 2539 25 0 ' Westbound 1182 35 112 231 1560 16 3 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. ' PM PEAK PERIOD ' Northbound 22 0 0 0 22 0 0 Southbound 532 0 2 0 534 5 0 Eastbound 1655 50 181 238 2124 21 4 ' Westbound 2361 71 171 142 2745 27 0 Project PM Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2011 ' PROJECT: Marina Park Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 'Marina Park TPO Traffic Analysis C-5 029033tpo-AppC.pdf 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection: 5. Tustin Ave & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WintedSpdng 2008 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peek 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' AM PEAK PERIOD ' Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 1 0 ' Southbound 56 0 Eastbound 2055 62 121 67 2305 23 0 ' Westbound 1178 35 112 231 1556 16 3 ' _=> Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. t Project AM Traffic Is estimated to be 1% or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 ' Southbound 81 0 0 0 81 1 0 ' Eastbound 1476 44 184 238 1942 19 3 Westbound 2382 71 172 142 2767 28 0 ' _=> Project PM Traffic is estimated to be'less then 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. ' Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or greeter of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. II, PROJECT: Marina Park FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2011 Marina Park TPO Austin -roust Associates, Inc. Tragic Analysis C-6 029033tpo-AppC.pdf ' 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 6. Newport Blvd & Via Lido Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 ' Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour 'Approach Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD ' 0 Northbound 1518 0 28 0 1546 15 Southbound 1383 0 10 0 1393 14 9 ' Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Westbound 297 0 0 0 297 3 0 ' ==> Project AM Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic Is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. ' PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1264 0 22 0 1286 13 7 Southbound 2326 0 49 0 2375 24 0 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Westbound 293 0 0 0 293 3 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic Is estimated to be 1% or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2011 PROJECT: Marina Park -Foust Associates, inc. Marina Park TPO C-7 029033tp3tpo-AppppC.pdf 'Austin Traffic Analysis 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 7. Newport Blvd & 32nd St Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Pesk 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' AM PEAK PERIOD ' Northbound 1057 0 12 0 1069 11 0 6 0 1000 10 9 ' Southbound 994 0 Eastbound 354 0 1 0 355 4 1 Westbound 104 0 0 0 104 1 0 ' Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. ' Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 984 0 16 0 1000 10 8 ' Southbound 1813 0 27 0 1840 18 0 ' Eastbound 220 0 0 0 220 2 0 Westbound 100 0 0 0 100 1 0 ' Project PM Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. ' Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1%or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. PROJECT: Marine Park FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2011 , Marina Park TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis C-8 029033tpo-AppC.pdf , ' 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: S. 23rd St & Balboa Blvd Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2009 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour 'Approach Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD ' 1 0 Northbound 77 0 0 0 77 Souhbound 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 ' Eastbound 273 0 6 0 279 3 3 Westbound 151 0 13 0 164 2 0 ' Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic Is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. ' PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 97 0 0 0 97 1 0 ' Southbound 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 ' Eastbound 302 0 30 0 332 3 0 Westbound 180 0 17 0 197 2 3 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. ' Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. ' PROJECT: Marina Park FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2011 -Foust Associates, Inc. Marina Park TPO C-9 029033tp31poAppppC.pdf 'Austin Traffic Analysis 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection: 9, 21st St & Balboa Blvd Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Wlnler/Spring 2009 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peek 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume , AM PEAK PERIOD ' Northbound 75 0 0 0 75 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 t Southbound 7 0 Eastbound 726 0 12 0 738 7 13 Westbound 860 0 25 0 885 9 0 ' Project AM Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. ' Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required, PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 148 0 0 0 148 1 0 ' Southbound 23 0 0 0 23 0 0 , Eastbound 1038 0 57 0 1095 11 0 Westbound 707 0 33 0 740 7 11 , Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. =_> Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Marina Park FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2011 , Marina Park TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. TmffiicAnalysis C-10 0290331po-AppC.pdf ' ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 10. 15th St & Balboa Blvd Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2009 ' Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour 'Approach Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 'AM PEAK PERIOD 0 Northbound 82 0 0 0 82 1 Southbound 143 0 0 0 143 1 0 ' Eastbound 732 0 3 0 735 7 0 Westbound 792 0 1 0 793 8 2 ' _=> Project AM Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. ' PM PEAK PERIOD ' Northbound 28 0 0 0 28 0 0 ' Southbound 60 0 0 0 60 1 0 ' Eastbound 998 0 3 0 1001 10 2 ' Westbound 626 0 6 0 632 6 0 Project PM Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. M FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2011 ' PROJECT: Marina Park Austin -roust Associates, Inc, 'Marina Park TPO Traffic Analysis C-1 I 029033tpo-AppC.pdf ' APPENDIX D COUNT DATA I A 1 Ij I i Marina Park TPO D-I Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpo.doc 1 LOCATION CODE 06806.0O3 ' TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. LOCATION - NEWPORT-BTN 32NO131ST VOLUMES FOR - TUESDAY 6/24/08 ' AM PM TIME NB SO TOTAL TIME NB SB TOTAL 12:00 - 12:15 35 48 83 12:00 - 12:15 220 329 649 12:15 - 12:30 47 35 82 12:15 - 12:30 291 350 641 12:30 - 12:45 60 30 90 12:30 - 12:45 264 378 642 12:45 - 1:00 44 186 32 145 76 331 12:45 - 1:00 254 1029 354 1411 608 2440 , 1:00 - 1:15 40 26 66 1:00 - 1:15 296 322 618 1:15 - 1:30 34 20 54 1:15 - 1:30 282 290 572 1:30 - 1:45 37 22 59 1:30 - 1:45 260 294 554 ' 1:45 - 2:00 23 134 16 84 39 210 1:45 - 2:00 288 1126 294 1200 582 2326 2:00 - 2:15 13 14 27 2:00 - 2:15 271 286 557 2:15 - 2:30 11 14 25 2:15 - 2:30 253 280 533 ' 2:30 - 2:45 4 6 10 2:30 - 2:45 268 316 584 2:45 - 3:00 6 34 9 43 15 77 2:45 - 3:00 364 1096 282 1164 586 2260 3:00 - 3:15 8 8 16 3:00 - 3:15 304 242 546 ' 3:15 - 3:10 6 4 10 3:15 - 3:30 290 261 551 3:30 - 3:45 12 4 16 3:30 - 3:45 307 283 590 3:45 - 4:00 9 35 10 26 19 61 3:45 - 4:00 284 1185 296 1082 580 2267 , 4:00 - 4:15 13 5 18 4:00 - 4:15 326 312 638 4:15 -, 4.30 11 8 19 4:15 - 4:30 320 312 632 4:30 - 4:45 7 4 11 4:30 - 4:45 28B 274 562 4:45 - 5:00 17 48 28 45 45 93 4:45 - 5:00 262 1196 296 1194 558 239D , 5:00 - 5:15 23 31 54 5:00 - 5:15 288 343 631 5:15 - 5:30 22 45 67 5:15 - 5:30 238 304 542 5:30 - 5:45 45 64 109 5:30 - 5:45 286 364 650 , 5:45 - 6:00 47 137 66 206 113 343 5:45 - 6:00 290 1102 349 1360 639 2462 6:00 - 6:15 58 68 126 6:00 - 6:15 294 317 611 6:15 - 6:30 86 92 178 6:15 - 6:30 246 366 612 ' 6:30 - 6:45 98 100 198 6:30 - 6:45 268 306 574 6:45 - 7:00 118 360 124 384 242 744 6:45 - 7:00 266 1074 292 1281 558 2355 7:00 - 7:15 146 138 284 7:00 - 7:15 285 324 609 ' 7:15 - 7:30 184 138 322 7:15 - 7:30 256 288 544 7:30 - 7:45 220 160 300 7:30 - 7:45 246 252 498 7:45 - 8:00 108 739 205 641 393 1379 7:45 - 8:00 243 1030 272 1136 511 2166 ' 8:00 - 8:15 213 195 408 8:00 - 8:15 238 206 444 8:15 - 8:30 247 214 461 8:15 - 8:30 229 214 443 8:30 - 8:45 247 256 503 •8:30 - 8:45 209 186 395 8:45 - 9:00 262 969 280 915 512 1884 8:45 - 9:00 216 892 186 792 402 1684 ' 9:00 - 9:15 244 232 476 9:00 - 9:15 203 160 363 9:15 - 9:30 201 156 397 9:15 - 9:30 208 168 376 9:30 - 9:45 199 208 407 9:30 - 9:45 210 164 364 9:45 - 10:00 229 073 250 886 479 1759 9:45 - 10:00 186 807 147 629 333 1436 10:00 - 10:15 200 254 454 10:00 - 10:15 166 151 317 10:15 - 10:30 184 270 454 10:15 - 10:30 164 147 311 ' 10:30 - 10:45 204 259 462 10:30 - 10:45 145 98 243 10:45 - 11:00 212 800 270 1052 482 1852 10:45 - 11:00 133 608 95 491 228 1099 11:00 - 11:15 200 30B 508 11:00 - 11:15 116 78 194 , 11:15 - 11:30 232 295 527 11:15 - 11:30 84 66 150 11:30 - 11:45 246 345 591 11:30 - 11:45 73 62 135 11:45 - 12:00 225 903 362 1310 587 2213 11:45 - 12,00 78 351 74 280 152 631 ' TOTALS 5,217 5,737 10,954 11,496 12.020 23,516 ADT'S 16,713 17,757 34,470 ' D-2 ' LOCATION CODE 06806.004 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. ' LOCATION - BALBOA-BTN 19THIIBTH VOLUMES FOR - TUESDAY 6/24/08 AM ****,t:tt*t,�x******max*** ********,tx:tx:tt:�,t***+max PM TIME EB WB TOTAL TIME EB WB TOTAL 12:00 - 12:15 34 25 59 12:00 - 12:15 294 236 530 12:15 - 12:30 30 24 54 12:15 - 12:30 312 260 572 - 12:45 26 42 68 12:30 - 12:45 1:00 320 285 1211 208 245 949 528 530 2160 '12:30 12:45 - 1:00 22 112 32 123 54 235 12:45 - 1:00 - 1:15 23 26 49 1:00 - 1:15 246 242 488 - 1:30 14 15 29 1:15 - 1:30 234 228 462 453 '1:15 1:30 - 1:45 16 15 70 31 31 140 1:30 1:45 - 1:45 - 2:00 236 242 958 217 224 911 466 1869 1:45 - 2:00 17 70 14 - 2:15 12 9 21 2:00 - 2:15 225 234 459 '2:00 2:15 - 2:30 10 6 16 2:15 - 2:30 260 220 480 2:30 - 2:45 6 4 10 2:30 - 2:45 226 211 437 2:45 - 3:00 8 36 5 24 13 60 2:45 - 3:00 205 916 252 917 457 1833 '3:00 - 3:15 5 6 11 3:00 - 3:15 212 240 452 493 3:15 - 3:30 5 4 9 3:15 - 3:30 252 241 3:30 - 3:45 2 4 6 3:30 - 3:45 233 252 485 3:45 - 4:00 5 17 4 18 9 35 3:45 - 4:00 254 951 236 969 490 1920 4:00 - 4:15 4 11 15 4:00 - 4:15 275 304 579 4:15 - 4:30 3 10 13 4:15 - 4:30 218 262 480 - 4:45 8 8 16 4:30 4:45 - 4:45 5:00 254 224 971 253 228 1047 507 452 2018 '4:30 4:45 - 5:00 23 38 14 43 37 81 - 5:00 - 5:15 20 23 43 5:00 - 5:15 288 242 530 5:15 - 5:30 30 23 53 5:15 - 5:30 262 206 218 468 484 5:30 - 5:45 36 39 75 5:30 5:45 - 5:45 - 6:00 266 287 1103 264 930 551 2033 5:45 - 6:00 46 132 48 133 94 265 6:00 - 6:15 44 53 97 6:00 - 6:15 260 273 187 533 461 6:15 - 6:30 54 73 127 6:15 6:30 - 6:30 - 6:45 274 210 220 430 6:30 - 6:45 58 88 316 146 185 555 6:45 - 7:00 232 976 187 867 419 1843 6:45 - 7:00 83 239 102 '7:00 - 7:15 104 130 234 7:00 - 7:15 237 202 190 439 413 7:15 - 7:30 102 150 252 7:15 - 7:30 223 199 411 7:30 - 7:45 112 180 292 7:30 7:45 - 7:45 - 8:00 212 198 870 178 769 376 1639 '7:45 - 8:00 160 478 178 638 338 1116 8:00 - 8:15 154 194 348 8:00 - 8:15 148 152 300 302 8:15 - 8:30 174 227 401 8:15 - 8:30 160 142 140 270 - 8:45 204 234 438 8:30 8:45 - 8:45 9:00 130 140 578 150 584 290 1162 '8:30 8:45 - 9:00 192 724 238 893 430 1617 - 9:00 - 9:15 184 214 398 9:00 - 9:15 131 124 255 261 9:15 - 9:30 166 175 341 9:15 - 9:30 129 132 145 278 9:30 - 9:45 152 172 324 9:30 9:45 - 9:45 - 10:00 133 111 504 126 527 237 1031 9:45 - 10:00 208 710 196 757 404 1467 10:00 - 10:15 202 164 366 10:00 - 10:15 108 102 210 219 10:15 - 10:30 220 156 376 10:15 - 10:30 108 Ill 177 10:30 - 10:45 196 177 373 10:30 10:45 - 10:45 - 11:00 81 85 382 96 84 393 169 775 10:45 - 11:00 210 828 162 659 372 1487 11:00 - 11:15 233 184 417 11:00 - 11:15 56 55 111 96 11:15 - 11:30 260 189 449 11:15 - 11:30 52 44 79 11:30 - 11:45 211 212 491 11:30 11:45 - 11:45 - 12:00 38 52 198 41 42 182 94 380 11:45 - 12:00 294 1073 172 757 466 1830 TOTALS 4,457 4,431 8,888 9,618 9,045 18,663 14,075 13,476 27,551 ADT'S *,�*a***x*,tt**a,E�,r**�********,atr***•x********•x***:F,E**��*******,r**a**xa�*+*+*x**�*t�*:�t�*��•x,�:tt:F,,�,,,,,-.-„******:�:r,E***�:E:t:r*** D-3 `/ •�f TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC, LOCATION CODE 06806.001 �e*++nt*+trt�,t�+�*t***�*****et��**,t+,*++„r**+��+�,�+,t,F+i.�,�,�,F*�x+*��***��+,t*�a��*.*�.,�xt+,4�+,tt:tx�*�,�,t+t�► LOCATION - NEWPORT-BTN 32ND/31ST AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR - TUESDAY 6/3/08 TO WEDNESDAY 6/4/08 ***************** ***Fx* * AM ** N t+*rrkr**+ *�* * x *t **�* * ��x**** PM ***** TIME NB SB TOTAL TIME NB SB TOTAL ****rt**********,M,1*****k,r+i*****+'k*.**********,hF*****,Yk****,Fk********k***i�*******.r*********ir,,*************�4** 12:00 - 12:15 44 46 90 12:00 - 12:15 210 276 486 12:15 - 12:30 54 35 89 12:15 - 12:36 202 286 498 12:30 - 12:45 39 38 77 12:30 - 12:45 222 272 494 12:45 - 1:00 37 174 25 144 62 318 12:45 - 1:00 240 874 290 1124 530 1998 1:00 - 1:15 40 22 62 1:00 - 1:15 212 238 450 1:15 - 1:30 30 15 45 1:15 - 1:30 266 242 508 1:30 - 1:45 33 23 56 1:30 - 1:45 202 240 442 1:45 - 2:00 22 125 16 76 38 201 1:45 - 2:00 224 904 256 976 480 1880 2:00 - 2:15 24 18 42 2:00 - 2:15 208 232 440 2:15 - 2:30 12 11 23 2:15 - 2:30 226 255 481 2:30 - 2:45 0 4 4 2:30 - 2:45 226 216 442 2:45 - 3:00 11 47 9 42 20 89 2:45 - 3.00 240 . 900 255 958 495 1058 3:00 - 3:15 11 5 16 3:00 - 3:15 227 237 464 3:15 - 3:30 8 6 14 3:15 - 3:30 196 245 441 3:30 - 3:45 6 3 9 3:30 - 3:45 232 270 502 3:45 - 4:00 5 30 5 19 10 49 3:45 - 4:00 236 891 244 996 480 1887 4:00 - 4:15 6 4 10 4:00 - 4:15 241 238 479 4:15 - 4:30 8 2 10 4:15 - 4:30 229 256 485 4:30 - 4:45 9 12 21 4:30 - 4:45 216 264 480 4:45 - 5:00 14 37 11 29 25 66 4:45 - 5:00 212 898 290 1048 502 1946 5:00 - 5:15 24 14 38 5:00 - 5:15 228 300 528 5:15 - 5:30 24 28 52 5:15 - 5.30 244 306 560 5:30- 5:45 29 36 65 5:30 - 5:46 236 329 565 5:45 - 6:00 40 117 ' 44 122 84 239 5:45 - 6:00 191 899 342 1277 533 2176 6:00 - 6:15 77 62 139 6:00 - 6:15 215 341 556 6:15 - 6:30 88 82 170 6:15 - 6:30 200 344 544 6:30 - 6:45 109 98 207 6:30 - 6:45 236 320 556 6:45 - 7:00 148 422 118 360 266 782 6:45 - 7:00 214 865 312 1317 526 2182 7:00 - 7:15 182 ISO 332 7:00 - 7:15 221 306 527 7:15 - 7:30 171 144 315 7:15 - 7:30 224 234 458 7:30 - 7:45 247 156 403 7:30 - 7:45 208 249 457 7:45 - 8:00 240 840 203 653 443 1493 7:45 - 8:00 200 853 192 981 392 1834 8:00 - 8:15 235 186 421 8:00 - 8:15 212 192 404 8:15 - 8:30 232 174 406 8:15 - 8:30 180 198 378 8:30 - 8:45 223 179 402 8:30 - 8:45 202 195 397 8:45 - 9:00 197 887 190 729 387 1616 8:45 - 9:00 204 798, 170 755, 374 1553 9:00 - 9:15 185 179 364 9:00 - 9:15 188 144 332 9:15 - 9:30 174 202 376 9:15 - 9:30 220 156 376 9:30 - 9:45 185 212 . 397 9:30 - 9:45 136 119 255 9:45 - 10:00 196 740 220 813 416 1553 9:45 - 10:00 133 677 116 535 249 1212 10:00 - 10:15 200 214 414 10:00 - 10:15 150 112 262 10:15 - 10:30 197 183 380 10:15 - 10:30 114 114 228 10:30 - 10:45 190 174 364 10:30 - 10:45 100 04 192 10:45 - 11:00 208 795 254 825 462 1620 10:45 - 11:00 82 454 90 400 172 854 11:00 - 11:15 183 215 398 11:00 - 11:15 82 70 152 11:15 - 11:30 194 202 396 11:16 - 11:30 81 57 138 11:30 - 11:45 228 234 462 11:30 - 11:45 75 54 129 11:45 - 12:00 197 802 268 919 465 1721 11:45 - 12:00 56 294 42 223 98 517 TOTALS 5.016 4,731 9,747 9,307 10;590 19,897 ADT'S 14.323 15.321 29,644 LOCATION CODE 06806.002 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. ',rrx*+**- �*�xe�x*�a*********+*19TH/18TH,�,t+�:��*+��x�x,r�-x,�x*�***�-x*:tx�,�x,E********�****,�,t**+*:r�:,t**�+***,�,F�x****�*****,H:,rk*** TUESDAY 6/3/08 TO WEDNESDAY 6/4/08 LOCATION BALBOA-BTN AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR - AM *,t****,trt**xxx:rt�.-x*,r***x,t�-x*kt,F***,H„ri, pM TOTAL TIME EB WB *AAA* TOTAL TIME EB WB 63 12:00 - 12:15 194 175 369 12:00 - 12:00 12:15 37 26 26 54 12:15 - 12:30 180 15B 338 - 12:30 28 22 54 12:30 - 12:45 174 152 326 '12:15 12:30 - 12:45 - 12:45 1:00 32 23 120 19 93 42 213 12:45 - 1:00 242 790 196 681 438 1471 1:00 - 1:15 18 19 37 1:00 - 1:15 1:30 151 190 138 216 289 406 1:15 - 1:30 19 16 16 35 37 1:15 - 1:30 - 1:45 188 156 344 1:30 - 1:45 - 1:45 2:00 21 13 71 9 60 22 131 1:45 - 2:00 198 727 172 682 370 1409 2:00 - 2:15 12 10 22 2:00 - 2:15 2:30 164 189 163 182 347 371 2:15 - 2:30 12 14 26 10 2:15 - 2:30 - 2:45 223 192 415 2:30 - 2:45 5 38 5 5 34 14 72 2:45 - 3:00 199 795 206 743 405 1538 - 3:00 9 '2:45 3:00 - 3:15 3 5 8 3:00 - 3:15 193 163 165 356 349 3:15 - 3:30 8 7 15 7 3:15 - 3:30 - 3:30 3:45 184 206 214 420 '3:30 - 3:45 2 5 5 22 8 38 3:45 - 4:00 181 764 210 752 391 1516 3:45 - 4:00 3 16 4:00 - 4:15 3 5 8 4:00 - 4:15 - 4:15 4:30 218 198 185 198 403 396 4:15 - 4:30 3 5 9 8 13 4:30 - 4:45 208 182 390 4:30 - 4:45 4 10 29 15 44 4:45 - 5:00 211 835 166 731 377 1566 4:45 - 5:00 5 15 5:00 - 5:15 9 21 30 5:00 - 5:15 - 5:15 5:30 220 216 172 220 392 436 5:15 - 5:30 18 26 30 44 52 5:30 - 5:45 256 1B9 445 5:30 - 5:45 22 Ill 67 193 5:45 - 6:00 286 978 148 729 434 1707 5:45 - 6:00 33 82 34 '6:00 - 6:15 41 77 118 6:00 - 6:15 268 178 179 446 433 6:15 - 6:30 43 70 113 6:15 - 6:30 - 6:30 6:45 254 292 162 454 6:30 - 6:45 58 83 132 362 141 213 585 6:45 - 7:00 226 1040 168 687 394 1727 6:45 - 7:00 81 223 7:00 - 7:15 106 166 262 7:00 - 7:15 236 159 177 395 385 7:11 - 7:31 122 162 284 7:15 - 7:30 - 7:30 7:45 208 1 80 148 311 ' 7:30 - 7:45 108 207 257 782 315 481 1342 7:45 - 8:00 163 7B7 148 632 31419 7:45 - 8:00 224 560 8:00 - 8:15 179 254 433 8:00 9:15 - 8:15 - 8:30 146 140 148 144 294 284 '8:15 - 8:30 114 200 314 343 8:30 - 8:45 142 134 276 8:30 - 8:45 117 226 846 306 1396 8:45 - 9:00 130 55B 137 563 267 1121 8:45 - 9:00 140 550 166 - 9:15 138 154 292 9:00 - 9:15 118 116 169 234 304 '9:00 9:15 - 9:30 13B 170 308 9:15 9:30 - 9:30 - 9:45 135 92 78 170 9:30 - 9:45 153 590 159 171 654 312 111 1244 9:45 - 10:00 81 426 74 437 155 863 - 11:01 161 '9:45 10:00 - 10:15 160 148 308 10:00 - 10:15 92 100 66 192 159 10:15 - 10:30 132 154 286 10:15 10:30 - 10:30 - 10:45 93 62 6B 130 '10:30 - 10:45 - 10:45 11:00 132 158 582 162 196 660 294 354 1242 10:45 - 11:00 61 308 52 286 113 594 11:00 - 11:15 182 158 340 11:00 11:15 - 11:15 - 11:30 55 56 58 54 113 110 '11:30 11:15 - - 11:30 11:45 164 160 150 210 314 378 11:30 - 11:45 33 40 184 44 28 184 77 68 368 12:00 178 692 165 683 343 1375 11:45 - 12:00 11:45 - TOTALS 3,539 4,336 7,875 8,192 7,107 15,299 ' 11,731 11.443 23,174 ADT'S I 1 APPENDIX E DEFINITIONS Certain terms used throughout this report are defined below to clarify their intended meaning: ADT Average Daily Traffic. Generally used to measure the total two -directional traffic volumes passing a given point on a roadway. DU Dwelling Unit. Used in quantifying residential land use. ' ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization. A measure of the volume to capacity ratio for an intersection. Typically used to determine the peak hour level of service for a given set of intersection volumes. LOS Level of Service. A scale used to evaluate circulation system performance based on intersection ICU values or volume/capacity ratios of arterial segments. Peak Hour This refers to the hour during the AM peak period (typically 7 AM - 9 AM) or the PM peak period (typically 3 PM - 6 PM) in which the greatest number of vehicle trips are generated by a given land use or are traveling on a given roadway. TSF Thousand Square Feet. Used in quantifying non-residential land uses, and refers to building floor area. '- V/C Volume to Capacity Ratio. This is typically used to describe the percentage of capacity utilized by existing or projected traffic on a segment of an arterial or ' intersection. VPH Vehicles Per Hour. Used for roadway volumes (counts or forecasts) and trip generation estimates. Measures the number of vehicles in a one hour period, ' typically the AM or PM peak hour. I 1 Marina Park TPO E-I Austin -Foust Associatcs, Inc. Traffic Analysis 0290331po.doc I APPENDIX F PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT 1 I 11 Marina Park TPO ' Tmflic Analysis 700 MESA 600 M N IN d o 500 >c MONEEMMEMEMEME a_ as 400 w -qqqmh% LdMEOW MOMMEM 300 MEN zj z :MEMO : = 200 r, i v 100 ME I I I I 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1-500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET VPH (TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES) A NOTE: THESE CURVES ARE RECOMMENDED FOR USE IN AREAS OF URBAN CLASSIFICATION (i.e- POSTED SPEED LIMIT ON THE MAJOR STREET IS 64 km/hr or 35 MPH OR LESS). # NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES, AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH ONE LANE. Source MUTCD — Fiw'. 4C-3 FigureF-1 PEAKHOURSIGNAL WARRANT Marina PazkTPO F-2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029033tpoFigF-l.dwg IMarina Park II 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 11 I I 1 1 1- u 1 K.2 - PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 I 1 1 1 1 A# WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS October 24, 2008 Anthony Brine, P.E., Principal Civil Engineer City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Walker Parking Consultants 2550 Hollywood Way, Suite 303 Burbank, CA 91505 Voice: 618.953.9130 Fax: 818.953.9331 www.wa I kerpo rki ng.com Re: Parking Management Recommendations — Marina Park Project (revised) Newport Beach, California Dear Mr. Brine, Walker Parking Consultants is pleased to present this letter report covering the parking management alternatives for the Marina Park project on Balboa Peninsula. SUMMARY ' In discussing parking management issues with other community centers and sailing facilities in Southern California we have determined that parking management issues at similar facilities present unique and distinct challenges. We also determined that parking capacity issues at Marina Park are likely to occur ' during peak summer weekends, indicating that a permanent, year-round solution may not be the most efficient solution for this area. Rather, flexible solutions that can be modified and managed rapidly may be the best way to ensure efficient and available parking. From discussions with City staff, we ' understand that enforcement beyond 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM may be difficult to attain. Nonetheless, our recommendations sometimes include extending the hours of enforcement, when appropriate, for efficient ' operation. With this in mind, we recommend that the City develop the following initiatives to help manage parking at Marina Park: 1. Charge a fee for parking to help turn over the spaces and ensure the lot is available for beach 1 goers and Marina Park patrons. 2. Parking fees should be enforced 24 hours per day to help manage overnight parking by residents ' that may otherwise interfere with access to the Marina Park community center. 3. Install multi -space meters at the lot to enable automatic payment for all spaces in all lots to efficiently manage the payment system. ' 4. Install flip signs to quickly, inexpensively and efficiently reserve spaces during events at the community center, Girl Scout House, marina, and sailing center. ' In general, parking in Balboa Peninsula is impacted during the summer weekends from June to September. The peak demand period begins in the early afternoon and does not subside until nearly sunset. If events at Marina Park do not coincide with these peak demand periods, parking can be ' managed with simple economic cues. During peak summer periods, events should be scheduled either early in the morning (e.g. beginning at 8:OOAM) or later in the evening to avoid the impact from the beach visitors. WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION Tony Brine Marina Park New Community Center 24 October 2008 Page 2 of 7 The City of Newport Beach is creating a new plan for Marina Park that includes a community center, sailing center, and marina. The site is located between 1 S' Street and 18' Street along the bay side of the Newport Peninsula and currently includes various recreational uses and approximately 60 mobile homes. The proposed plan for the site consists of a10,200 square foot community center, an 11,200 square foot sailing center and cafe, a recreational park, and a 28-berth visitor marina. The Girl Scout House will also be relocated from its current location to the northwest corner of the project site. The recreational amenities at the park will include a playground, tennis courts, basketball courts, beach volleyball courts, and open park areas. In addition, docks and slips For sailing programs and improved beach access will be provided. Figure 1 outlines the proposed location of the Marina Park development. Figure 1: Project Study Area Source: Google Earth Pro, Accessed September 24, 2008. Figure 2 shows the proposed project site plan and related parking areas. 2: Project Site Plan Source: City of Newport Beach, September 2008. I 1 [1 I WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS PROJECT BACKGROUND Tony Brine Marina Park New Community Center 24 October 2008 Page 3 of 7 Access to Marina Park will be critical to the success of the development. A parking study examining the myriad uses was conducted by Austin -Foust in July 2008. Our understanding is that the City is satisfied with the projections from the Austin -Foust report; therefore, we have not studied the parking generation for this project. Our understanding is that parking at the Marina Park project is being developed to ensure that patrons and visitors using the facilities at Marina Park have appropriate parking and access to those facilities. During the summer months, parking will likely be problematic because as the Newport Peninsula beach lots and nearby on -street parking becomes unavailable many beach goers will likely park in any nearby space. With over 150 spaces in the main lot and the nearby "Girl Scout" lot, the Marina Park complex (Marina Pork) will likely be used by beach visitors or other excursionists on the central part of the Peninsula. If the price for parking at Marina Park is attractive, beach goers and nearby residents will immediately fill the lot, leaving the Marina Park users unable to park anywhere near their intended destination. If beach goers and residents have a greater willingness to pay than Marina Park patrons then the Marina Park parking lot will be unavailable to Marina Park patrons throughout much of the summer, and particularly during the weekends. Our belief is that demand for parking on Newport Peninsula is nearly unlimited during the busy summer season. If supply is continually developed and subsidized, effectively removing economic considerations, parking will continue to be a problem throughout Newport Beach and near the Marina Park area specifically. PARKING MANAGEMENT In our earlier discussion and analyses we referred to many of the elements of parking management. Parking Management includes myriad strategies aimed at making better use of the available parking supply in any defined area. Proper parking management incorporates a number of goals, but a core principle is that parking spaces should be used efficiently. Parking spaces that sit unoccupied are inefficient as they represent significant financial and land resources, as well as the opportunity costs of the funds and real estate, that is not devoted to productive uses. This is especially true in a desirable place such as Newport Beach. It is also true where competition for impacted parking spaces exists a short distance away. The time and frustration that results from the search for a convenient space in these impacted areas represents inefficiencies. ' Parking management practices attempt to address inefficiencies through restrictions and parking pricing. We aim to allocate parking spaces for which there is high demand with user restrictions and/or prices to park. For spaces for which there is low demand, we relax parking restrictions and lower prices in order t to maximize their utilization. In high demand area we recommend increased prices, strict enforcement, and greater turnover of the parking spaces. ' If spaces in high demand are free and/or spaces in low demand are priced, inefficiencies are created. We note that parking spaces are a finite resource and represent a real cost. We wish to allocate that resource as efficiently as possible. Finally, although not always politically popular, pricing is virtually ' always the most effective way to manage parking spaces. 1 Tony Brine A# WALKER Marina Park New Community Center PARKING CONSULTANTS 24 October 2008 Page 4 of 7 ALTERNATIVES This report is focused on managing the future parking at the Morino Park development. In an effort to conform to the likely requirements of the California Coastal Commission, our recommendations try to support equal access to all visitors and patrons of Marina Park as well as the beach going public. This is particularly important during the summer months from June to September. As we have observed from other parking studies conducted in the area, parking during weekend days throughout the summer will be nearly impossible to manage due to the significant demand and presumed willingness of infrequent beach goers to pay for parking during their excursion to the Newport beaches. To mitigate demand and help manage the parking, we have come up with several alternatives for the City to consider. The following is a list outlining the possible parking management strategies to help prioritize parking at Marina Park. Install automated multi -space meters. In an area that has virtually unlimited demand for parking and a commensurate shortage of land, one of the few solutions to help manage parking is to allocate the spaces to those who are most willing to pay. That is, we recommend installing parking meters. This may seem inherently unfair, or regressive; however, it helps alleviate parking in the less expensive, less desirable areas by removing vehicles that are willing to pay a premium for a space from the on -street spaces they would otherwise occupy. Given the size and circulation of the parking lots at Marina Park, we believe that multi -space pay -and -display meters will be the best solution, used in conjunction with any other combination of parking management that we outline in this report. To ensure optimal efficiency, pricing in the lot should be marginally higher than nearby on -street parking meter fees. 2. Charge for overnight parking. To help ensure that residents or businesses do not over utilize the Marina Park parking lot, we recommend that a paid parking system be in operation at all times. This will ensure that there are no cars occupying the lot that are not there for a specific event or purpose. This will help ensure the lot does not become a long-term storage area for vehicles. If the lot is open, and free to residents overnight, having the lot available for morning classes or sailing lessons will be difficult to achieve. 3. Do not accept master park permits. Another measure that should be included in the plan is that the Marina Park lot should not accept Newport Beach master park permits, blue pole permits or any other exempt parking permit that is accepted in other areas of the City. Again, this will help ensure that the Marina Park lot is available for Marina Park patrons, visitors and guests. These first three recommendations will help ensure that the lot is primarily utilized by day visitors to Marina Park and not by long-term excursionists to other destinations or by residents seeking inexpensive and convenient parking. The alternatives below may help supplements these solutions by segmenting parking at Marina Park. It should be noted that these alternatives are more nuanced than the first three recommendations and have additional limitations that should be considered by the City. I 1 1 1 11 C 1 A# WALKER Tony Brine PARKING CONSULTANTS Marina Park New Community Center 24 October 2008 Page 5 of 7 BEST OPTIONS —THOUGH NOT LIKELY TO BE APPROVED BY COASTAL COMMISSION 4. Marina Park Only Parking. The most obvious solution to achieve the City's goal of ensuring the Marina Park lot is only used by its intended patrons is to restrict Marina Park parking to only the patrons, visitors and guests of the Marina, Sailing Center, Girl Scout Center, Community Center or Park. Of course this would be extremely difficult to enforce because it would not be readily apparent which vehicles were using the Marina Park facilities and which vehicles where using the beach or other nearby land uses. Permits could be used for community center visitors, or other registered users, but issuing permits for park users would be difficult to identify and control. In addition, we do not feel that this solution would be agreeable with the Coastal Commission's stated goal of ensuring equal access to ALL beach visitors. 5. Validation. If there is a pricing mechanism for the Marina Park lot, all patrons, visitors, users, and guests could receive a validation sticker to off -set or eliminate their cost to park in the lot. If pricing at the Marina Park lots is significantly higher than the surrounding spaces, it is likely to discourage all but the most price -insensitive patrons to park elsewhere. Of course, this again means that the lot will be underutilized except when there is an event at Marina Park. From our experience it is unlikely that the Coastal Commission will agree to this sort of validation system since it creates a preferential parking system that limits or restricts public access to the nearby beaches. 6. Reverse Validation. If the price to park at the Marina Park lot was twice as high as nearby on - street or surface lot users of Marina Park facilities could be offered a rebate on their parking fees for whichever activity they are pursuing at Marina Park (reverse validation). Rather than validate parking (offsetting the price of parking) the user could pay the same price for parking as other users (beach visitors, residents and others seeking parking) but bring their parking receipt into the Marina Park offices to receive a discount on their sailing lesson, community center activity, or moorage fee. This system could be a bit confusing to infrequent users and may not be readily accepted by many Marina Park patrons, visitors, or guests. While technically everyone would pay the some fee for parking, the Coastal Commission may not approve such a minor technicality. As a result of these uncertainties, this may not be the most desirable solution. OTHER OPTIONS - NOT RECOMMENDED 7. Pricing. If the Marina Park lot is priced significantly higher than nearby beach lots and on -street spaces it is likely that the lot will fill up only after all other areas spaces fill. This strategy may help ensure that Marina Park has as much availability as possible for as much time as possible. One drawback to this strategy is that during peak demand periods this lot will eventually fill up and Marina Park patrons will not have access. Another problem is that the lot will be significantly underutilized throughout the remainder of the year, as neither beach visitors, residents, nor Marina Park patrons will want to park in the most expensive spaces except during high demand days or during busy events. A market -rate pricing scheme that adjusts prices based on demand (occupancy) is recommended. C WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Tony Brine Marina Park New Community Center 24 October 2008 Page 6 of 7 8. Create priority areas for the Marina Park users. Another option is to create a parking system that sets aside (either with nesting gates or chains) a certain number of spaces for visitors that have Marina Park reservations for daily activities. As classes, events, or other reservations are made for the Marina Park users, parking could be paid in advance, along with their other fees, this helps ensure the Marina Park user that they will have a parking space when they come to Marina Park. This option would be fairly labor intensive because it would likely require that spaces be set aside in advance of any classes or events at the center and would essentially reduce the total number of available parking spaces for much of the day. A parking attendant would be recommended to ensure that parking is appropriately assigned. This sort of inefficiency is not desirable from a parking management perspective and would not likely be approved by the Coastal Commission. RECOMMENDED OPTIONS 0 Install flip signs. Rather than create "Marina Park Parking Only" areas, a sign that changes dependant upon the expected amount ofFRNG LOT daily visitors can be installed. We often call these "flip signs" sinceENthey can flipopen to display a message or flip closed to display a,,..,,,. different message (or no message). Flip signs can be installed in some or all of the spaces (including near the Girl Scout Center) at PARKING Marina Park. When the facility has an event during the peak ..T . season, the signs can display a "Reserved For Marina Park Visitors ""r Only" (or "Reserved for Girl Scout House") sign. When there is no Source: emedco.com event, the sign can be flipped closed; opening the space to all visitors or guests to the area Event reservations can be used to help determine the appropriate number of spaces to reserve. 10.Increase bicycle/pedestrian facilities. Demand for parking can be reduced by providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities and amenities that make it easier and more pleasant to bicycle or walk to nearby destinations. This strategy could prove to be particularly valuable for a community center in an area like Balboa Peninsula. Some cities have also begun experimenting with bike stations or full -service bike lockers near destinations that provide lockers, changing rooms and showers for bicycle commuters. Bikestation services include secure, indoor bicycle parking available to members with a membership pass. In the Seattle Bikestation there is free attended bicycle parking during operating hours. Bicycle repair services and commuter retail items are also available at this facility, as well as public transportation schedules, bike maps, and a personalized service matching new bicycle commuters with experienced cyclists who can help them plan a commute route, provide tips on bicycle commuting, and generally serve as mentors.' Bikestotions are currently in use in several California cities including Long Beach, Palo Alto, and San Francisco. ' Metro King County Government, http://transit.metrokc.goy/tops/bike/bikestation.html, accessed September 29, 2008. WALKER Tony Brine 40 CONSULTANTS Park New Community Center PARKING CONSULTA ' 24 October 2008 Page 7 of 7 ' RECOMMENDATIONS The goal of this report is to provide the City with parking management solutions that will likely help provide the appropriate amount of access to Marina Park without restricting beach goers from parking at the area lots. We believe that a combination of solutions will be the most effective approach to achieving this goal. Namely, we believe that paid parking will be essential to help manage this facility. ' A multi -space, pay -and -display system that operates 24-hours per day will likely be the most efficient solution to help manage the parking. In addition, a fee that is slightly higher than the nearby on -street ' spaces will likely ensure that the Marina Park lots are the last to be occupied during busy summer peak demand periods. Flip signs that alternate between "Reserved For Marina Park Visitors Only" and "Parking Available" should be installed to help manage parking during events at Marina Park. To accomplish this, the Marina Park lots can estimate the number of users for any event, and flip open the "Reserved Parking" side of the sign to help ensure that Marina Park patrons have access to the facility. At all other times, the signs can be flipped closed, or display a "Parking Available" message to enable ' all vehicles on the Peninsula to use the parking facility. Finally, while not necessarily a parking management technique, demand for parking in general could be reduced at Marina Park by providing ample bicycle and pedestrian access and facilities. ' If you have any questions regarding our report, please do not hesitate to contact us. ' Sincerely, Mark Linsenmayer WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS cc: Steffen Turoff ' Rosalinh Ung 11 Marina Park E 1 H I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I Appendix L: Utilities Information I From: "McNelly, Patrick" <PMCNELLY@OCSD.COM> To: 'Justin Conley' <JConley@brandman.com> Date: 11/12/2008 7:33 AM Subject: RE: Follow up (Newport Beach) We are looking at the situation closely. We might require the most recent flow study results as part of the project. I'll let you know. What's your deadline? -----Original Message ----- From: Justin Conley [mailto:JConley@brandman.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 11:40 AM To: McNelly, Patrick Subject: Follow up (Newport Beach) Hi Patrick, My name is Justin and we spoke last week on a proposed project that is located on Balboa Peninsula in Newport Beach. I wanted to follow up to make sure if the existing 8 inch sewage line is adequate enough to support the proposed sewage generation rates. The specific information was in the previous email I sent you. If you can email me back with the information at your earliest convenience it would be much appreciated. Thank you, Justin P. Conley Environmental Analyst Michael Brandman Associates 714.508.4100, Ext. 1070 Fax 714.508.4110 http://www.brandman.com/ From: "McNally, Patrick" <PMCNELLY@OCSD,COM> To: 'Justin Conley' <JConley@brandman.com> Date: 11/12/20081:45 PM Subject: RE: Newport Beach Project Generation rate Justin, After a closer look at the area, the 8" sewer you may be referring to is owned by the City of Newport Beach. OCSD's sewer on the peninsula is a 21" line, and yes we have capacity in that sewer for this additional flow. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Patrick McNally Principal Staff Analyst Orange County Sanitation District (714-593-7163) pmcnelly@ocsd.com P Do you really need to print this e-mail? --Original Message ---- From: Justin Conley [mailto:JConley@brandman.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 20081:25 PM To: McNally, Patrick Subject: Newport Beach Project Generation rate Hi Patrick, Per our conversation on the phone, I would appreciate it if you can answer the following questions about the proposed project. 1. Would the existing 8 inch sewer line on the project site be adequate to serve an increase of from 7,093 gpd (existing) to 14,032 gpd (proposed) of wastewater. Previously, there was project proposed on this site that was never approved that would've generated 22,553 gpd, and Adam Nazaroff said in 2004 that the 8 inch line would be adequate, so I assumed 14,032 would be ok. I attached the project site exhibit to this email so you can get a better understanding about.the land uses. Please email me back at your earliest convenience with this information. Thank you, Justin P. Conley Environmental Analyst Michael Brandman Associates 714.508A100, Ext. 1070 Fax 714.508.4110 hUp://www.brandman.com/ I n O I �I 11 t ' From: "McNelly, Patrick" <PMCNELLY@OCSD.COM> To: 'Justin Conley' <JConley@brandman.com> ' Date: 11/12/2008 3:02 PM Subject: RE: Newport Beach Project Generation rate ' Influent flow at Plant No. 2 is averaging approximately 126 MGD as of September 2008,.and the capacity is 144 MGD as of September 2008. We have enough capacity at Plant No 2 for the wastewater generated in this project. C I -----Original Message ----- From: Justin Conley [mailto:JConley@brandman.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:15 PM To: McNelly, Patrick Subject: RE: Newport Beach Project Generation rate Thank you very much Patrick, Also, I spoke with Angie Anderson about the remaining capacity/daily capacity numbers regarding Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington, but she never came around to emailing me back. If you could provide me with these statistics I think that should cover everything that I need. Thank you in advance for your time. Justin P. Conley Environmental Analyst Michael Brandman Associates 714.508.4100, Ext. 1070 Fax 714.508.4110 http://www.brandman.com/ >>> "McNelly, Patrick" <PMCNELLY@OCSD.COM> 11/12/20081:22 PM >>> Justin, After a closer look at the area, the 8" sewer you may be referring to is owned by the City of Newport Beach. OCSD's sewer on the peninsula is a 21" line, and yes we have capacity in that sewer for this additional flow. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Patrick McNelly Principal Staff Analyst Orange County Sanitation District (714-593-7163) pmcnelly@ocsd.com P Do you really need to print this e-mail? ---Original Message ----- From: Justin Conley [mailto:JConley@brandman.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 1:25 PM To: McNelly, Patrick ' Subject: Newport Beach Project Generation rate Hi Patrick, Per our conversation on the phone, I would appreciate it if you can answer the following questions about the•proposed project. 1. Would the existing 8 inch sewer line on the project site be adequate to serve an increase of from 7,093 , gpd (existing) to 14,032 gpd (proposed) of wastewater. Previously, there was project proposed on this site that was never approved that would've generated ' 22,553 gpd, and Adam Nazaroff said in 2004 that the 8 inch line would be adequate, so I assumed 14,032 would be ok, ' I attached the project site exhibit to this email so you can get a better understanding about the land uses. Please email me back at your earliest convenience with this information. Thank you, J Justin P. Conley Environmental Analyst , Michael Brandman Associates 714.508.4100, Ext. 1070 Fax 714.508.4110 , http://www.brandman.com/ t ' From: "McNelly, Patrick" <PMCNELLY@OCSD.COM> To: 'Justin Conley' <JConley@brandman.com> Date: 11/12/2008 3:19 PM Subject: RE: Newport Beach Project Generation rate ' I just got some new numbers for Plant No. 2: Existing Primary Treatment Capacity is 169 MGD Existing Secondary Treatment Capacity is 90 MGD ' Total Planned Secondary Treatment Capacity is 150 MGD 2007-2008 actual flows averaged 129 MGD at Plant No. 2 ' These numbers are based on our Strategic Plan for planned capacity by 2020. ' Original Message ----- From: Justin Conley [mailto:JConley@brandman.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 3:05 PM To: McNelly, Patrick ' Subject: RE: Newport Beach Project Generation rate Thank you again for your time, Justin P. Conley ' Environmental Analyst Michael Brandman Associates 714.508.4100, Ext. 1070 ' Fax 714.508.4110 http://www.brandman.com/ ' >>> "McNelly, Patrick" <PMCNELLY@OCSD.COM> 11/12/2008 3:01 PM >>> Influent flow at Plant No. 2 is averaging approximately 126 MGD as of September 2008,.and the capacity ' is 144 MGD as of September 2008. We have enough capacity at Plant No 2 for the wastewater generated in this project. --Original Message----- ' From: Justin Conley [mailto:JConley@brandman.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:15 PM To: McNelly, Patrick Subject: RE: Newport Beach Project Generation rate ' Thank you very much Patrick, ' Also, I spoke with Angie Anderson about the remaining capacity/daily capacity numbers regarding Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington, but she never came around to emailing me back. If you could provide me with•these statistics I think that should cover everything that I need. Thank you in advance for your time. ' Justin P. Conley r Environmental Analyst Michael Brandman Associates 714.508.4100, Ext. 1070 Fax 714.508.4110 r hitp://www.brandmen.com/ r >>> "McNally, Patrick" <PMCNELLY@OCSD=M> 11112/20081:22 PM >>> Justin, r After a closer look at the area, the 8" sewer you may be referring to is owned by the City of Newport Beach. OCSD's sewer on the peninsula is a 21" line, and yes We have capacity in that sewer for this additional flow. ' Let me know if I can be of further assistance. ' Patrick McNally Principal Staff Analyst Orange County Sanitation District (714-593-7163) pmcnelly@ocsd.com P Do you really need to print this a -mail? r ----Original Message---- From: Justin Conley [mailto:JConley@brandman.com] , Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 20081:25 PM To: McNally, Patrick Subject: Newport Beach Project Generation rate ' Hi Patrick, Per our conversation on the phone, I would appreciate it if you can answer the following questions about the proposed project. r 1. Would,the existing 8 inch sewer line on the project site be adequate to serve an increase of from 7,093 gpd (existing) to 14,032 gpd (proposed) of wastewater. Previously, there was project proposed on this site that was never approved that would've generated 22,553 gpd, and Adam Nazaroff said in , 2004 that the 8 inch line would be adequate, so I assumed 14,032 would be ok. I attached the projectpite exhibit to this email so you can get a better understanding about the land uses. Please email me back at your earliest convenience with this information. Thank you, r i Justin P. Conley Environmental Analyst Michael Brandman Associates 714.508.4100, Ext, 1070 Fax 714.508.4110 r i http://www.brandman.com/ D u 17 LI n 1 1 From: "Tieu, David [OCWR]" <DavId.TIeu@iwmd.ocgov.com> To: <jconley@brandman.com> Date: 10/14/200811:57 AM Subject: Bowerman Capacity Mr. Conley, The permitted capacity of the Frank R. Bowerman landfill is 266 mcy. Through June 2008, 62.62 mcy of fill material has been landfilled. The remaining capacity is approximately 203.38 mcy (as of June 2008). Landfill is scheduled to close In 2053. Let me know if you need anything else. David Tleu, PE OC Waste &'Recycling 11 11 11 11 Marina Park I LJ j 1 Appendix M: Public Comments Received Draft EIR 1 I I 1 Ll 1 I I 1 ' Sirius Environmental APR-16-2009 M 44 An Gov=a STATE CLEARINGHOUSE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Al Page 1 of 2 Governor's- Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse Facsimile Transmittal Date: Fax Number: 7/y- s-vg-y//o • To: /t f 6d fdS" �4 From: Instructions: State• Clearinghouse Fax: 916-323-3018 Number of Pages Including cover sheet SA00 TOM8=13T P.O.aOX 8044 3AORAMMM, CAMORNIA 9881M044 TM (916) 440.06I8 V (01.0) 82"018 •wvM,01*40-V v P.001 or MN Cy�thiaEtyrmt Director APR-16-2009 17:44 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE P.002 Al Page 2 of 2 STATE OF CALIFOFSIA GOVMORr3 OFMCE of PLANNING AND PMERCH STATE CLV2MGHOusE AND PLANNING UNIT ' AMOLDSCAWAMMOOEa G0MNOR April 14,200 ' RosalinhUng City ofNewportBeach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: Marina Park SCHM 2008051096 CymWABRVM DIRECTOR Dear Rosalinh Ung: ' The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies forreview. On ' the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the. Clearinghouse bas listed the state sgencics that reviewed your document. The review period closed on April 13, 2009, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Picasc refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future ' correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: ' 'A responsible or outer public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which ate within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. 'Those comments shall be supported by ' spccific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarffcation of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. ' Sincerely, Te�y�ts ' Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency ' 1400 loth Street P.O. Box3044 5acramento,CaGfornia 95812-3044 (916) 443c0613 FAX (916) 323.3018 vM-0pr,ca.90v Ip`jt3d APR-16-2009 17;44 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE P.003 uocument uetatls Report State Clearinghouse Data Base Al Attachment 1 ' SCH# 2008051096 Project 77110 • Marina Park Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of ' Type EIR OraftEIR Description The public park will provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas will included a children's play area and basketball courtst The public short-term visiting vessel marina is proposed to accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina. Bathrooms and laundry areas are proposed adjacent to the marina. The Balboa Center Complex will include rooms for educational classes as well as community events. The Balboa Center Complex will have a restaurant situated on ' the second story and will include areas for marina rentals as well as room for sailing Gasses. There are two tennis courts proposed on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to 15th Street In addition, an existing bathroom on the public beach adjacent on to 19th Street IS proposed to be renovated or reconstructed but the size of the bathroom facility will remain the same. -Lead Agency Contact Name Rosaltnh Ung Agency City of Newport Beach Phono (949) 554-3200 Fax email Address 3300 Newport Boulevard City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92658 Project Location County Orange City Newport Beach ' Region Lat/Long 330 36' 28" N 11170 55' 23" W Cross Stroots W. Balboa Boulevard and 17th Street Parcel No. ' Township 6S Rango 10W Section 33 Base NS Proximity to: Highways Hwy 1 Airports Railways Waterways Newport Bay Schools Newport Elementary Land Use Parks, Community Facilities and Mobile Homes/Parks and Recreation, Public Facilities Project Issues Aesthetic/Vtsual; Air Quality; Archoeologic-Historic; Biological Resources; Cumulative Effects; Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding; GeologiGSelsmic; Landuse; Noise; Public Services'. Recreation/Parks: Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous: ' TrafficICirculation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Growth Inducing Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Boating and Waterways; California Coastal Commission; Agoncles Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; CalKomia Highway Patrol; Calbans, District 12; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 5; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission ' Data Received 02/27/2009 Start ofRev/ew OW2712009 End ofRoview 04/1312009 ' Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. ' APR-1(i-2009 M44 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE P.004 Apr-10-uv a4:1UPM rrom-OaLltornla Coastal t5625906094 T-691 P.002/011 F-634 ' STATEOFCALIW K11A NATURALRES2URCE$AGENCY ARNIxASCMNAttZHNEGGERGowmor CALIFORNIAWASTAL. COMMISSION soutn owslkw offm ' 200 ocunpate, Sulla 1000 Long Reach, CA 90802d902 (562) SSD-sor April 13, 20Q9 Al Attachment 2 I LJ I I Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach planning Department CJ� 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92668-8915 Re. Marina Park Project Draft Environmental tntpact'Report (SCH# 2008061095) Dear Ms. Ung, RECEIVED APR IJ 2009 STATE CLEARING HOUSE Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Park Project. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the proposed project will consist of construction of the Balboa Center Complex consisting,of a Multi -purpose Building and Sailing Program Building, a Girl Scout House, a marine services bullding, parking areas,'a park. beach and marina basin on an existing public beach fronting (along Newport Bay) parcel that currently supports 57 mobile homes, the Neva R. Thomas Girl Scout House; the City of NeWport Beach Community Center, a 21-stall metered parking lot, Las Arenas Park, a Southern California Edison parcel, Veteran's Park, an alley, a sidewalk, the 19u' Street public restroom, a beach, and a portion of Newport Say. The proposed project is located within the coastal zone in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed development will require a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission. The following comments address the issue of the proposed project's consisteney'with the Chapter 3 policies of the California Coastal Act of 1676. The comments contained herein are preliminary and those of Coastal Commission staff only and should not be construed as representing the opinion of the Coastal -Commission itself. As describedbelow, the proposed ' project raises issues related to dredge and fill of open coastal waterstwetlands, water quality, hazards. biology, public access, visual impacts and consistency with the City of Newport Seach Land Use Plan (LUP). ' Below are the comments by Commission staff on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. WETLANDS Dred�ino and Fi11 ' Based an the Draft EIR, the project site includes approximately 1.20 acres of intertidal coastal wetland and approximately 0,10 acres of subtidal coastal wetland. Also, the project Includes approximately 62,000 cubic yards of dredging and states that a total of eight (a) preliminary ' candidates have been identified as potential sand disposal locations•(The Draft EIR fails to indicate the final chosen site), In addition, the project will result in the onsite loss of 0.9 acres of supra tidal (terrestrial) non -marine habitat and 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal habitat for the onsite creation of 1.56 acres of shallow water habitat. The toss of 0.66 acres of sandy habitat i APR-16-2009 17:44 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE P.006 ' •r.. .. �....�u, „vm vu nu,ul" w414a 1000VDH94 14111 P.003/011 E-634 Draft 6rntmnmsntal Impact rtaPart ' Medna Park Project Page 2 of 7 would become shallow water habitat. Also, the proposed project will result In the depth , modification of 0.1 aces of onshe shallow water habitat and 0.72 acre of offsite shallow water habitat The proposed project would result imbe dredging and fill of open coastal waterstwetlands. ' Section 30108.2 of the Coastal Act defines "Fill" as the placement of earth or any other substance or material placed in a submerged area. Section 30233 of the Coastal Act limits the dredging and fill of wetlands and open coastal waters to seven uses and it appears that the ' proposed project does result in both "Dredging" and "Fill" of open coastal waters. Projects that propose the dredging and fill of wetlands and/or coastal waters, must demonstrate that the proposed mitigation, ct would be 1preferaable ly under the The The shouldstal Act. if linclude n ble thea alysiisct must then ' documenting how the proposed dredging and fill would qualify as allowable under the Coastal Act, Also, clarification should be made on whether or not the delineation of wetlands and coastal waters was based on Coastal Act standards or another agency's 0,8. Army Corps of Engineers) standard. If the habitat delineation and calculation offili was not determined by Coastal Act definitions, then a revised biological analysis regarding the proposal fill should be conduoted using the Coastal Act definitions. The City's Coastal, Land Use Plan contains more ' description about wetland delineation procedures for Coastal Act purposes. Should the proposed fill qualify as an allowable use, mitigation would be required for the loss of ' any wetlands and open coastal waters. The EIR should Include a mitigation plan, which specifically identifies how -the mitigation will he accomplished, and the alternatives evaluated in developing the mitigation plan. Typically, the Commission prefers on -site mitigation to off -site mitigation. The Commission ' typically requires that mitigation be done at a 4:1 ratio. In addition, the applicant must be fully responsible for undertaking the mitigation. In this way, the Commission is assured that the , mitigaton will occur and it is clear who is responsible for undertaking and managing the mitigation. The EIR should discuss the mitigation that would be proposal. However, every effort should be made to choose an altematve that would be the least environtmontally damaging, preferably avoiding coastal watertwetland impacts. Sand Compatibility Report As stated previously, the project includes dredging and the deposition of sand upon eight (8) , potential sand disposal locations. These sand disposal locations were not identified, nor was the final disposal location identified. Staff assumes that a potential location would be the public beach found on the project site. Thus, please first identify this location and then provide a sand compatibility report for this location. Please also hays the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review the beach sampling to characterize the existing grain for compatibility with the borrow source material. MARINA The proposed marina will require construction of a new groin wall and bulkhead walls. This ' raises concerns regarding tilt of open coastal waters/wetlands, effect on sand supply and coastal erosion. is a new marine necessary at this location? in the Draft I:IR, one of the ' Identified project alternatives is "The No Marina Alternative." The document states that implementstion of this alternative would eliminate the potential significant impacts on sandy I 1 I i I I I I I I 11 APR-i6-2009 17:44 STATEP.006�CLEARINGHOUSE *,ncnaa,atln i•68l P.0041011 F-634 Draft Environmental impact Report Marina Park Protect Page s of 7 intertidal habitat; as well as, the long-term water quality impacts associated with flushing of the proposed marina (to be discussed later). However, this alternative was not chosen. Please justify this decision and why the proposed project is considered the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative. While staff has serious concerns with the proposed marina, further information regarding the proposed marina is still necessary if you wish to proceed with the project as submitted: Groin Wall The Draft EIR states•tharthe proposed marina will be enclosed by a cement groin and include eighteen (18) pilings that will create hand bottom habitat. Section 30235 of the Coastal Act mandates that groin walls must be permitted in certain specified conditions. The Commission is concerned that this type of development can have an adverse impact on shoreline processes, could cause erosion, and could have adverse impacts an coastal access and recreation. Additionally, Section 30233 of the Coastal Act limits the filling of coastal waters to seven allowable uses and requires that the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative is chosen and that feasible mitigation measures be provided to minimize adverse environmental effects. Sections 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act mandate that the quality of coastal waters and biological productivity be maintained. Projects that propose the.flll of wetlands and/or coastal waters. must demonstrate that the proposed Impact would be allowable under the Coastal Act 9 allowable the project must then provide adequate mitigation, preferably on -site. The EIR should include an analysis documenting how the proposed fill for the groin wall would qualify as allowable under the Coastal Act Should the proposed fill qualify as an allowable use, mitigation would be required for the loss of any wetlands and open coastal waters. The EiR should include a mitigation plan, which specifically identifies how the mitigation will be accomplished, and the alternatives evaluated in developing the mitigation plan. The document does not provide any studies that substantiate the need for the groin wall nor does it provide information on how it may impact coastal shoreline processes. Due to this, an engineering analysis prepared by a qualified engineering professional with expertise in coastal processes is required. Specifically, staff will need an evaluation of the proposed projeccro impact on sand supply, erosion rates, and adjoining property and determination. Also, an evaluation of whether the proposed project will require monitoring to assure that shoreline processes are not adversely impacted iS required. In addition, an alternatives analysis should be prepared documenting alternatives to the proposed project and why the proposed project is considered the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and potential mitigation measure to minimize -adverse environmental effects. A possible alternative would be eliminating the construction of the marina, thus not requiring the,groin wall, Another possible alternative could be construction of the marina without the groin wall. Isulkhead ' The Draft EIR states that the proposed marina will include new bulkheads. Section 30235 of the Coastal Act mandates that new bulkheads may only be constructed, under specific circumstances, such as to protect existing structures. The Commission is concerned that this I APR-16-2009 17:45 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE P.007 w• -- •+•... e0ee>UM4 T-061 P.005/011 P-634 Draft En*onmenfal Impact Repoli Msona Park Pmled Pegs a of 7 type of development can have an adverse impact an shoreline processes, could cause erosion, and could have adverse impacts on coastal access and recreation. The materials submitted with your application do not substantiate the need to construct new bulkheads. Thus, please provide a study prepared by an appropriately licensed professional (i.e. engineer with expertise in coastal processes), which substantiates the need to construct new bulkheads. At minimum, the study most answer the following questions; Why must the proposed bulkheads be constructed?; How will the proposed bulkheads mitigate the circumstances, which requires the bulkheads to be constructed?; How will the proposed bulkheads affect coastal processes, including Impacts upon shoreline sand supply?; Will the proposed bulkheads be connected to any existing bulkheads located adjacent to the project site? in addition, an altematives analysis should be prepared documenting aRematives to the proposed project and why the proposed project is considered the least environmentally damaging leaelble alternative and potential mitigation measure to minimize adverse environmental effects. A possible alternative would be eliminating the construction of the marina, thus not requiring the bulkheads, Please reference the attached memorandum titled Applkants for Shorefront Development: Water QuallIX The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has identified Lower Newport Bay as an impaired water body. As stated in the Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed marina would create a condition where there would be inadequate tidal flushing Within the proposed Magna and thus contribute to the impaired water body since long-term water quality within the proposed marina will be governed by its flushing capacity. Also stated in the Draft ER, a water quality analyses was conducted that indicated that tidal flushing rates would be poor and that flushing capacities are well below the EPA guideline. It states that inadequate tidal flushing in the marina basin would result In lowered dissolved oxygen levels. higher water temperatures, poor water transparency, potential eutrophication, and increased sedimentation. In addition, poor tidal flushing would also exacerbate water quality issues in this region of the bay slncb the tidal flushing rate in this part of the harbor Is already poor outside,the.proposed marina in front of the swimming beach and the American Legion Post 291 Marina. Poor tidal flushing within the marine would result in a signs icant,.long-term impact on Newport harborwater quality and would severely limit the colonization of marina habitats by plants, Invertebrates, and fish. in order to deal with the adverse long-term water quality Impacts due to poor tidal conditions, a mitigation measure consisting of installing mechanical devices within the marina basin design to enhanoe the movament and mixing ofwaterwithin the basin has been proposed. One of the identified project alternatives in the Draft SIR is "The No Marina Alternative." The Draft EIR states that implementation of this aiternative would eliminate the long-term water quality impacts associated With flushing of the project marina. However, this akemative was not chosen. Please justify this decision and why the proposed project is considered the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative. sJiP_s, The vessel marina is proposed to include 23 slips with full hook-ups for short-term overnight use (up to 30 days). 21 slips, 40-feet In length; and 2 slips, 57-feet in length. In addition, a 200-foot long dock will be provided along the outside edge of the marina. Also, a floating dock structure to support additional dinghy types of craft is proposed. What are the provisions for boats under I 11 J J I 1 J APR-16-2009 17:46 STATE CLEARINGHOIISE P.008 vni �onivnua wy�1G� +562590606d T-001 P.006/011 F-894 Draft environmental Impad Report Marina Park Protect Page 5 of 7 40 feet to dock In this marina? in addition; how many spaces are available for boats under 30- feet? Additionally, the Draft EIR states that .59 spaces per berth will be used to park the marina. How was this parking standard determined? HAZARDS The proposed project includes development on a sandy beach adjacent to open coastal waters/wetlands. This type of development can be subject to wave hazards, flooding and erosion. When new development Is not appropriately sited and designed, property owners often seek some type of shoreline protective device to protect the property from such hazards, While shoreline protective devices afford some protection to the structures behind them, these protective devices can also cause erosion hazards elsewhere and often have adverse visual impacts, Section 30253 of the Coastal Act requires that new development minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard and assure stabiiityand 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. Accordingly. the Coastal Act requires that new development minimize exposure to hazards from erosion, wave attack, wave run-up, flooding, and other coastal hazards. In order to evaluate whether the project minimizes exposure to such hazards, the Commission will need a hazards analysis of site, prepared by an appropriately licensed, professional•(normally a licensed civil or geotechnical engineer with expertise in coastal processes). The analysis should cover whether the site and the proposed development could be subject to erosion, wave attack or wave run-up, the frequency of occurrence, consequences and options for siting or designing the project to avoid or minimize impacts over the life of the structure. Structural fife is normally taken to be 75 to 100 years. This hazards analysis should consider initially future shoreline changes due to erosion, sea level rise, up and down coast structures, changes in nourishment projects, and any other factors that currently influence shoreline conditions at your projectsite. This analysis would be developed from'historic records, examination of aerial photographs, beach surveys, published studies of shoreline change, anecdotal information, site visits and other information -and knowledge that the professional can bring to the project. The most landward shoreline position should be used to determine hazard from wave attack, wave runup and flooding. The design wave conditions for this part of the analysis can be based on historic or wave modeling, including future increases In water level due to sea level rise. For much of the coast, the 1982/83 or 1988 storms were the 100-year event, and these too can be used for design conditions, with adjustments forfuture changes in sea level. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether future storms may erode the site. or flood or damage the proposed project. If so, the analysis should provide some information on the probability or frequency of erosion, flooding and damage. Aiternative siting or design options should also be •considered that would avoid, minimize or mitigate potential adverse effects. Please be sure the analysis Includes site specific details (e.g. maps) showing the seasonal location of the mean high tide line and with both winter and summer profiles with respect to the proposed development and the anticipated inland reach of erosion, wave runup, and flooding over the life of the structure. In addition, the analysis must make a definitive determination as to whether there is any anticipated need for a shoreline protective device aver the life of the 11 APR 0-2009 17:45 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE P.009 i ..-•.,vinY .IVIH Y�IIIVIINY 4udbtdl rceteMQUA 1-611 0.007/611 P-534 Draft Ewronmemal Impact RePW Madne Parts ProJect Page a of 7 proposed development The analysis must also provide recommendations for the avoidance or mIrtitritzation of hazards, if any, at the site. BIOLOGY The Draft EiR states that the project site contains several ornamental trees and shrubs.that provide marginally suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds. The document also states that the Callfomia Least Tom does not breed or nest near the project site (the nearest California Least Tern nesting site is 2.6 miles west of the site) and that the Brown Pelican does not breed locally, While it appears that these two birds do not breed at the project site, what about other avian species? To determine this, please provide a history of nesting on the site by birds for the last 5-years, PUBLIC ACCESS The Draft EiR states that public access to the project she will be via West Balboa Boulevard at 16" Street, and secondary access will be via 16" Street Public access to the beach will be provided by walkways within the proposed park as well as an access provided along the western side of the proposed marina. Furthermore, le and 19" Street will continue to provide access to the public beach ensile. Adjacen# to the project site and imbedded within the prgjectsite is the public tktelands teased to the American Legion. Pubfic access along the waterfront through the area leased by the American Legion Is not currently avallabie. Iq order to provide continuous access t0 and along the bay, as currently proposed elsewhere in the protect site, there should be accessto and along the bay through the American Legion site. This would result in a continuous access to the bay along the bay from the western edge of the project site at 19" Street to eastern edge of the project site at 16" Street The Draft EIR states that due to the site's close proximity to the beach, it is Important that the proposed onsite parking spacesprovide adequate parking for the users of the proposed Marina Park facilities, Furthermore, It states that the proposed on -site parking lots are intended for the project only and are not intended to provide additional beach parking. Please clarify this statement as a public bay -front beach is adjacent and,part of the proposed project Public access is an essential part of the Coastal Act and any advarse Impact to access to the beach raises concerns. VISUAL IMPACTS The project she is located within the Shoreline Height Limitation zone, which establishes a maximum height limit of 35-feet. The main buildings proposed on the project site are within the 35-foot height limit, However, the sail feature on the Balboa Center Complex will exceed the shoreline height limitation with a height of 35-feet, 6•inches and the Lighthouse will exceed it with a height of 73-feet The City's Zoning Gode provides for exceptions to this height limit, including vertical architectural features, such as towers, spires, cupolas and steeples. However, the proposed height of the Lighthouse seems to be excesslVe as it will exceed the height limit by r i� F 1 I I I 1 I I CI' F ' APR-16-2009 17:45 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE P.010 �04-1Q-Vo uu:,nnm prom-Uutornia 4o87tai +5625906084 T-021 P,006/011 F-694 ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Marina Park Proiett Page 7 of 7 ' 38-feet, more than double the allowable height The height of such a structure would Impact coastal views. The Draft EiR justifies the height of the structure since the width of the lighthouse ranges from 1&feet at the Sailing Center roof (the width of the lighthouse at the base ' was not stated) to 8-feet at the top of the lighthouse and since 930-linear feet of waterfront area will be opened up with the project. Nevertheless, the height of such a structure would adversely impact public views as no other structure in the area would be close to this proposed height It ' may also set an adverse precedent Thus, please provide alternatives to the proposed Lighthouse that would not have such an adverse impact on public views, such as staying within the allowable height limit, and justify your choice of the altemative that would be the least environmentally damaging alternative. LAND USE ' The Sailing Program Building is planned to include a cafe, serving breakfast, lunch, and dinner daily. Seating will be provided for 56 customers (32 Inside and 24 outside). Will this restaurant be an ancillary use to the facilities proposed on site or will it serve as a destination restaurant? ' Is adequate parking included for this component? OTHER AGENCY APPROVAL ' U. Ftsh and Wildlife Se 'ce USFWSi and/or the Cal'rforn rtnrant f Fish and U2 (CDF&G) and State Lands Commission (StC1. 1 The Commission's regulations require that you submit evidence of review and approval of the proposed project from all looal and state agencies for which a review and approval Is required. If impacts to biological resources are occurring, a review and approval Is ' typically required from the USFWS and/or the CDF&G. Evidence of these agencies review and approval (or verifications that no review is necessary) will need to be submitted with your application for a 00i staff permit. IL] 1 1 1 Please also provide review of the project -by the SLC. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental impact Report for the Marina Park Project, Commission staff request notification of any future activity associated with this project or related projects. Please note, the comments provided herein are preliminary in nature. Additional and more specific comments may be appropriate as the project develops into final form and when an application is submitted far a coastal development permit. Please feel free to contact me at 662-590-5071 with any questions. It 1I Attachments: Applicants for Shorefront Development Cc: State Clearinghouse 1 P.O11 ' APR-16-2009 17:46 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Toocoauauaa 1-691 mo9/011 F•634 irrm ivm Wan,unua was Lal • a PATE OF GIManNUt—T!Q 4[3Ol7 0% AGDNC7 KR WLLSey, Gwwlr ' CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 'AN MANIC= CA 941GS-2210 0= ANa =0 Hls 1M.M Al Attachment 3 December 17, 2993 TOt Applicants for shorafroat development ' f'har Coaali,smion staff sv=dr1 Information needed before your application can be fled To ensure that applicants have the 1e941 Abilitx to qo forward with prodsetr 1 on or is close praxisity to saversiga (i.s., state tide and aubmatged) lands or navigabls water@ (i,e„ appear to he within the area encompassed by the Commissions 'rod line•' saps). the Ceutal Ca mimaion moat have a writton determination from the state Lands Commiesica whether it asserts that a ' a dmvelopoeat either encroaches onto laAd@ seaward of the Heat UP TWO Line (MM) or Onto lands whsrs the public eassmant iA navigable water say exist. If GUCh eaerdaChmante do•oceur, evidence moat also be prptided that the State ' tandm Commission b&a,approvmd such encroaobmeatm. • The Coastal Canisaiae has also became iacrsa■ingly concerned •boat the afYact on batches of seawalls and other shore and bluffj'rrotsetive dsvioas, saa&ume protsctive devices may Cause erosion, sad may cover beach areas, public use and acesss aloaq the shoreline tan be adversely affected. pravmating at mitigating ouch lose of access and raerestional opportunities is a principal ' ssspansibility a! the Coastal Calmismion. The Caamiemicn is also concerned about shoreline issued such am i>npaet of prQ34i oa ad'J&cent properties, visual impacts of protective works, and alloriaq protective davicet only it advisee ►!facts arm mlisinatad or sufficiently mitigated. Tulle, the ' Coeslimaion regaisem detailed technical infoa'sation regarding the prapaaed praloct,4 likely impact an the beaches and tidelands. To "mint the Commimoion.etals in filing and processing an application for a ' daveiopmant which is an or in close proximity to tidelands or navigable watarsr please provide the follOwinq in#armatian% 1, yXitlend arm nation from the 3tat s Lands Commiasion 12LC1 .for a project that tails within the arse delineatad in the Commiaaion•e ' ,redlins mapar, an application Cannot be filed until thin ILC dataYminms whether it &starts that the davmlop Wit @narrachee onto @Ovsrsigh 1&nde. A determination will also be required from. the SLC whether it &sport■ that the davelepnant intrudes into an area covered by the public eaxftbent in navigable waters. It is the applicimt,a burden to establish ' that %here is no sncroachmmrit. The l,LC ehargee A fee for making this "The "red lines" corresponds to the "retained turis"etion" Tina on poet certification maps and an draft *post tort" maps availablm in the cammisstOn'a P.012 ' APR-i6-2009 17:46 ....... STATE �CLEARINOROUSE „va�,v��c, r•or: r.u:vun r-044 .2f datsminatLon, not to rimmed its actual cost, Applicants Should montat the State Lande Oftuission'a CaaatAl Deaelopsent project Ooordirator, 1807 13th Straat, SAerawsnto, CA 93214, (916) 323-2694, for infomatiou an nrocaduree and costs for obtaining boundary datexxLnations. a �SSSi'^�3�'R• plans for ahoreliue projects must be prepared or cartiftod by a registered profsseicnal sngineer with expertise in mhoreiine processes. Normally, this Oman$ a ciIfii angigear at engineering geologist. OR occasion, this can be a structural anginesr at Soils engineer if WOO has experience in coActal engiseerisl. The Oubalittad plans for 411 projects should ehpw the project foatprLat is relation to the applioantse property boundaries.. The plane should also ahW the looatiens of all XM# idamified through survays and the location of any, boundaries in the imediste project vieWty to wkieh the state Lands eceoiesion has agread. H n 1 if the project extends onto an adjoining property, the applieent VIU*% show a legal right to use the 4430ini" property, and the adjeiniag , wrist must be invited to apply " a co -Applicant. 3. iefacgAtion neadm for eroteet±za rawka .' %a the came of shoreline protective works, a„permaneat sus+yed benchmark should be shown oe the puce and ewtAblimbed On the site for tat%" project maintenance and monitorial. This benchmark should be LA , ralatian to the standard, of NOVA (national Geodetic Verpioal Datum). A map ahowing beach contours at 1 loot Latarvals ahead also be pravidad, Construction access Mbeuld be idantULed Mith any $paoial Cammidarationa , noted, A gamtschoical report suet be prepared by a registered profameLonal engineer or engineering geologist for All ehotalina protective i.arka. ' Par wall projecta (fpr osaeQia, adding some $00 Cu. Ads. of rook to an existing rip -my well above the toe and the beach) A short letter report say be Acceptable. Sf a prior thorough investigation has been done, ' 04T an update way be sacammary, nor meet shoreline p:Cojaeas, however, a full report that is prapased according to the standards sat by the Division of Mines and O"logy, (see Note 044, guidelines for Ytsparing anglnsering Geology Reports; copy availabls upon request) wi11 be ' 4mquirad. a haw information needed for protective works include Oa foltowbog: ' • D^sign wave haight and design eonfaraiat$e and methodology used for such calculations ' P:019 APR-16-2009 17:46 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE fp MUM4 T'•691 P•011/011 F-634 -3. • Xaxim = exractod rave height Prequoncy of cvertopping and verification that the structure 40 darigned to withstand storms comparable to the w.in"r atorme of 1902-03 • Normal and xaximum tidal rarngss • erosion rate with/without protection device • ;fleet of structure an adjoining prapM*tY • Potential for, and affect of, ecourinq at bona • Dosign 14te of structure and ma,intopance requira+gente + Quantification of Soso of sand to the beach because of the amount of the armorinq of a bluff face • Altarnstivee to the project and to the thosela design. Project alternative* include, but are not limited to, no projeet, raiocatic,a of the threatened structure, beach ncurishmont. etc. , • affect of structure upon Public access to and along adjacent public tideland* + ?,cation of.aay ragcirod staging areY and the technique of conetractSAn • in some cases, provision of a monitoring program for 04 life of the Project will bs required, such a program #Muld evaluate the offsctivsneee of the etructuse, and the expected impacts of the structure on nearby beach gross (i.*., change 4n beach profile), and propoaeo mathoda for dsglinq with those lmpaets. Applicants should also be aware that due to the impacts of ► protection devioa on beaches, the ftMiasion WAY require soma type of mitigation if adverse smp4ets are sayaeted. One tYPieal typo of mitigation condition 4s raquiromont for an offer to dedicate a lateral pnbtic access a so"At for that Portion of the beach aosward of the approved protective device, act there may be other mitigatioo regairoment■ such as contribnt.Loti. to progr'Kae that provide for nourishasnt of ba►ehos. t if ycu hava any q"Ntions about the content of this information&) memo, or the Commisaion procedure* in gsnoral. pleas* don't hesitate to contact Your nearest Coastal camarisaioa office. 'I t S0�8A/vam II , ' Apr-13-08 04:05pm From -California Coastal +5825905084 T-688 P.001/008 F-831 sO HF grAQ1 IRCES errFlJrry ARNOI ❑SGt�rAR7FNFfC±FR twnvamnr CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office A2 ' 2000ceang21e, Suite 1000 Page 1 of 8 Long Beach, CA 90802.4302 Phone: (502)590.5071 Fax: (662) SW5084 To: haSP• Li t-1 M vm& From: i-i:p--S-f Fart: [aA➢aj b q t4 —3 Z5 0 Pages: ' Phone: rr_ 1late: e Ro: S4-k41' zooBCSloa CC: ' U Urgent 13 For Review ❑ Please Comment 17 Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle ' The information contained in this facsimile is cordidential and is property of the State of California. if you have received this Information in error, please notify the sander and return the hardeopy to the address listed above. ' e Commentst 1 t II ' GnTern;Ao -MSWord%Ledsrs & Faaos',Fox Cevofshcmdoc Apr-13.09 04:16pm From -California Coastal +6626905084 T-690 P.002/011 F-633 ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. GOV0MDr CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION AQ South Coast Area Ot11ce 200 Ocean9ate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 908024302 (502) 590.5071 April 13, 2009 Rosalinh Ling, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Marina Park Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2008051096) A2 Page 2 of 8 ' P 0 Dear Ms. Ung, ' r Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Park Project. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the proposed project will , consist of construction of the Balboa Center Complex consisting of a Multi -Purpose Building and Sailing Program Building, a Girl Scout House, a marine services building, parking areas, a park, beach and marina basin on an existing public beach fronting (along Newport Bay) parcel that currently supports 57 mobile homes, the Neva 13. Thomas Girl Scout House, the City of Newport ' Beach Community Center, a 21-stall metered parking lot, Las Arenas Park, a Southern California Edison parcel, Veteran's Park, an alley, a sidewalk, the 191h Street public restroom, a beach, and a portion of Newport Bay. , The proposed project is located within the coastal zone in the City of Newport Beach. The A2-1 proposed development will require a coastal development permit from the California Coastal ' Commission. The following comments, address the issue of the proposed project's consistency with the Chapter 3 policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976. The comments contained herein are ' preliminary and those of Coastal Commission staff only and should not be construed as .representing the opinion of the Coastal Commission itself. As described below, the proposed project raises issues related to dredge and fill of open coastal waters/wetlands, water quality, ' hazards, biology, public access, visual Impacts and consistency with the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP). Impact Report. ' Below are the comments by Commission staff on the Draft Environmental WETLANDS ' Dredging and Fill Based on the Draft EIR, the project site includes approximately 1.20 acres of intertidal coastal ' watiand and approximately 0.10 acres of subtidal coastal wetland. Also, the project includes approximately 62,000 cubic yards of dredging and states that a total of eight (8) preliminary candidates have been identified as potential sand disposal locations (The Draft EIR falls -to ' Indicate the final chosen site). In addition, the project will result in the onsite loss of 0.9 acres of supra -tidal (terrestrial) non -marine habitat and 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal habitat for the onsite creation of 1.56 acres of shallow water habitat. The loss of 0.66 acres of sandy habitat , lJ 04:05pm From -California Coastal +5625005084 T-688 P.003/008 F-631 ' Apr-13-09 'U F 1 I Draft Environmental Impact Report Marina Park Project Page 2 of 7 would become shallow water habitat. Also, the proposed project will result in the depth modification of 0.1 aces of onsite shallow water habitat and 0.72 acre of offsite shallow water habitat. A2 Page 3 of S The proposed project would result in the dredging and fill of open coastal waters/wetlands. Section 30108.2 of the Coastal Act defines "Fill" as the placement of earth or any other substance or material placed in a submerged area, Section 30233 of the Coastal Act limits the dredging and fill of wetlands and open coastal waters to seven uses and it appears that the proposed project does result in both "Dredging" and "Fill" of open coastal waters. Projects that propose the dredging and fill of wetlands and/or coastal waters, must demonstrate that the proposed Impact would be allowable under the Coastal Act. if allowable the project must then provide adequate mitigation, preferably on -site. The EIR should Include an analysis documenting how the proposed dredging and fill would qualify as allowable under the Coastal Act. Also, clarification should be made on whether or not the delineation of wetlands and coastal waters was based on Coastal Act standards or another agency's (i.e, Army Corps of Engineers) standard. If the habitat delineation and calculation of fill was not determined by Coastal Act definitions, then a revised biological analysis regarding the proposed fill should be conducted using the Coastal Act definitions. The City's Coastal Land Use Plan contains more description about wetland delineation procedures for Coastal Act purposes. Should the proposed fill qualify as an allowable use, mitigation would be required for the loss of any wetlands and open coastaiwaters. The EIR should include a mitigation plan, which specifically identifies how the mitigation will be accomplished, and the alternatives evaluated in developing the mitigation plan. Typically, the Commission prefers on -site mitigation to off -site mitigation. The Commission typically requires that mitigation be done at a 4:1 ratio. In addition, the applicant must be fully responsible for undertaking the mitigation. In this way, the Commission is assured that the mitigation will occur and It is clear who is responsible for undertaking and managing the mitigation. The EIR should discuss the mitigation that would be proposed. However, every effort should be made to choose an alternative that would be the least environmentally damaging, preferably avoiding coastal water/wetland impacts. Sand Compatibili Report As stated previously, the project includes dredging and the deposition of sand upon eight (8) potential sand disposal locations. These sand disposal locations were not identified, nor was the final disposal location identified. Staff assumes that a potential location would be the public beach found on the project site. Thus, please first identify this location and then provide a sand compatibility report for this location. Please also have the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review the beach sampling to characterize the existing grain for compatibility with the borrow source material. MARINA The proposed marina will require construction of a new groin wall and bulkhead walls. This raises concerns regarding fill of open coastal waters/wetlands, effect on sand supply and coastal erosion. Is a new marina necessary at this location? In the Draft EIR, one of the identified project alternatives is "The No Marina Alternative." The document states that Implementation of this alternative would eliminate the potential significant impacts on sandy A2-1 CONT A2-2 A2-3 A2-4 Apr-13-09 04:05pm From -California Coastal +5626006064 7-688 P.004/008 F-631 Draft environmental Impact Report Marine Park ProJect Page 3 of 7 A2 Page 4 of 8 Intertidal habitat; as well as, the long-term water quality impacts associated with flushing of the proposed marina (to be discussed later), However, this alternative was not chosen. Please A24 justify this decision and why the proposed project is considered the least environmentally CONT damaging feasible alternative. While staff has serious concerns with the proposed marina, further information regarding the proposed marina is still necessary if you wish to proceed with the project as submitted: Groin Wall The Draft EIR states that the propose6 marina will be enclosed by a cement groin and Include A2 5 eighteen (18) pilings that will create hard bottom habitat. Section 30235 of the Coastal Act mandates that groin walls must be permitted in certain specified conditions. The Commission is concerned that this type of development can have an adverse impact on shoreline processes, could cause erosion, and could have adverse impacts on coastal access and recreation. Additionally, Section 30233 of the Coastal Act limits the filling of coastal waters to seven allowable uses and requires that the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative Is chosen and that feasible mitigation measures be provided to minimize adverse environmental effects. Sections 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act mandate that the quality of coastal A2-6 waters and biological productivity be maintained. Projects that -propose the fill of wetlands and/or coastal waters, must demonstrate that the proposed Impact would be allowable under the Coastal Act. If allowable the project must then provide adequate mitigation, preferably on -site. The EIR should Include an analysis documenting how the proposed fill for the groin wall would qualify as allowable under the Coastal Act. Should the proposed fill qualify as an allowable use, mitigation would be required for the loss of any Wetlands and open coastal waters. The EIR should include a mitigation plan, which specifically Identifies how the mitigation will be accomplished, and the alternatives evaluated in developing the mitigation plan. The document does not provide any studies that substantiate the need for the groin wall nor does it provide information on how It may impact coastal shoreline processes. Due to this, an engineering analysis prepared by a qualified engineering professional with expertise in coastal processes Is required. Specifically, staff will need an evaluation of A2-7 the proposed project's impact on sand supply, erosion rates, and adjoining property and determination. Also, an evaluation of whether the proposed project will require monitoring to assure that shoreline processes are not adversely impacted is required. In addition, an alternatives analysis should be prepared documenting alternatives to the proposed project and why the proposed project Is considered the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and potential mitigation measure to minimize adverse environmental effects. A possible alternative would be eliminating the construction of the marina, thus not requiring the groin wall. Another possible alternative could be construction of the marina without the groin wall. Bulkhead The Draft EIR states that the proposed marina will include new bulkheads. Section 30235 of the e Coastal Act mandates that new bulkheads may only be constructed under specific circumstances, such as to protect existing structures. The Commission is concerned that this 04:06pm From -California Coastal +5626905084 T-688 P.005/008 ' APH3-09 5 u II lu I I Draft Environmental Impact Report Marina Park Protect Page 4 of 7 F-831 A2 Page 5 of 8 type of development can have an adverse impact on shoreline processes, could cause erosion, I A2-8 and could have adverse impacts on coastal access and recreation. 1 CONT The materials submitted with your application do not substantiate the need to construct new bulkheads. Thus, please provide a study prepared by an appropriately licensed professional (i.e. engineer with expertise in coastal processes), which substantiates the need to construct new bulkheads. At minimum, the study must answer the following questions: Why must the proposed bulkheads be constructed?; How will the proposed bulkheads mitigate the circumstances, which requires the bulkheads to be constructed?; How will the proposed bulkheads affect coastal processes, including Impacts upon shoreline sand supply?; Will the proposed bulkheads be connected to any existing bulkheads located adjacent to the project site? In addition, an alternatives analysis should be prepared documenting alternatives to the proposed project and why the proposed project is considered the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and potential mitigation measure to minimize adverse environmental effects. A possible alternative would be eliminating the construction of the marina, thus not requiring the bulkheads. Please reference the attached memorandum titled Applicants for Shorefront Development. Water Quality The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has identified Lower Newport Bay as an Impaired water body. As stated in the Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed marina would create a condition where there would be inadequate tidal flushing within the proposed marina and thus contribute to the impaired water body since long-term water quality within the proposed marina will be governed by its flushing capacity. Also stated in the Draft ER, a water quality analyses was conducted that indicated that tidal flushing rates would be poor and that flushing capacities are well below the EPA guideline. It states that inadequate tidal flushing in the marina basin would result in lowered dissolved oxygen levels, higher water temperatures, poor water transparency, potential eutrophication, and increased sedimentation. In addition, poor tidal flushing would also exacerbate water quality issues in this region of the bay since the tidal flushing rate in this part of the harbor is already poor outside the proposed marina in front of the swimming beach and the American Legion Post 291 Marina. Poor tidal flushing within the marina would result in a significant, long-term impact on Newport harbor water quality and would severely limit the colonization of marina habitats by plants, invertebrates, and fish. In order to deal with the adverse long-term water quality impacts due to poor tidal conditions, a mitigation measure consisting of installing mechanical devices within the marina basin design to enhance the movement and mixing of water within the basin has been proposed. One of the identified project alternatives in the Draft EIR Is "The No Marina Alternative." The Draft EIR states that implementation of this alternative would eliminate the long-term water quality impacts associated with flushing of the project marina. However, this alternative was not chosen. Please justify this decision and why the proposed project is considered the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative. rvzol A2-10 Siam The vessel marina is proposed to include 23 slips with full hook-ups for short-term overnight use (up to 30 days): 21 slips, 40 feet in length; and 2 slips, 57-feet in length. In addition, a 200-foot A2-11 long dock will be provided along the outside edge of the marina. Also, a floating dock structure to support additional dinghy types of craft is proposed. What are the provisions for boats under Apr-13-08 04:06pa From-Californla Coastal +5626905084 T-688 P.006/008 F-831 A2 Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 6 of 8 Marina Park Project ' Page 8 of 7 40-feet to dock in this marina? in addition, how many spaces are available for boats under 30- t A2-11 feet? Additionally, the Draft SIR states that .59 spaces per berth will be used to park the CONT ' marina. How was this parking standard determined? HAZARDS The proposed project includes development on a sandy beach adjacent to open coastal waters/wetlands, This type of development can be subject to wave hazards, flooding and erosion. When new development is not appropriately sited and designed, property owners often seek some type of shoreline protective device to, protect the property from such hazards. While shoreline protective devices afford some protection to the structures behind them, these protective devices can also cause erosion hazards elsewhere and often have adverse visual Impacts. Section 30253 of the Coastal Act requires that new development minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard and 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. Accordingly, the Coastal Act requires that new development minimize exposure to hazards from erosion, wave attack, wave fun-up,,fiooding, and other coastal hazards. In orderto evaluate whether the project minimizes exposure to such hazards, the Commission will need a hazards analysis of site, prepared by an appropriately licensed professional (normally a licensed civil or geotechnical engineer with expertise In coastal processes), The analysis should cover whether the site and -the proposed development could be subject to erosion, wave attack or wave run-up, the frequency of occurrence, consequences and options for siting or designing the project to avoid or minimize impacts over the life of the structure. Structural,life is normally taken to be 75 to 100 years. This hazards analysis should consider initially future shoreline changes due to erosion, sea level rise, up and down coast structures, changes in nourishment projects, and any other factors that currently influence shoreline conditions at your project site. This analysis would be developed from historic records, examination of aerial photographs, beach surveys, published studies of shoreline change, anecdotal information, site visits and other information and knowledge that the professional can bring to the project. The most landward shoreline position should be used to determine hazard from wave attack, wave run-up and flooding, The design wave conditions for this part of the analysis can be based on historic or wave modeling, including future increases In water level due to sea level rise. For much of the coast, the 1982/83 or 1988 storms were the 100-year event', and these too can be used for design conditions, with adjustments for future changes In sea level. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether future storms may erode the site or flood or damage the proposed project. If so, the analysis should provide some information on the probability or frequency of erosion, flooding and damage, Alternative siting or design options should also be considered that would avoid, minimize or mitigate potential adverse effects. Please be sure the analysis includes site specific details (e.g. maps) showing the seasonal location of the mean high tide line and with both winter and summer profiles with respect to the proposed development and the anticipated inland reach of erosion, wave run-up, and flooding over the life of the structure. In addition, the analysis must make a definitive determination as to whether there is any anticipated need for a shoreline protective device over the life of the 1 1 A2-12 I U U 1 d u ' Apr-13-09 04:06pm From -California Coastal +6626005084 T-888 P.007/008 F-631 A2 Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 7 of S ' Marina Park ProJert Page 6 of 7 proposed development. The analysis must also provide recommendations for the avoidance orl CONT A2-12 'minimization of hazards. if any, at the site. IL ' BIOLOGY The Draft EIR states that the project site contains several ornamental trees and shrubs that ' provide marginally suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds. The document also states that the California Least Tern does not breed or nest near the project site (the nearest California Least Tern nesting site is 2.5 miles west of the site) and that the Brown Pelican does not breed locally. While it appears that these two birds do not breed at the project site, what about other avian species? To determine this, please provide a history of nesting on the site by birds for the last 5-years. ' PUBLIC ACCESS American Legion ' The Draft EIR states that public access to the project site will be via West Balboa Boulevard at 160' Street, and secondary access will be via 15'1' Street. Public access to ' the beach will be provided by walkways within the proposed park as well as an access provided along the western side of the proposed marina. Furthermore, 18'h and 19'h Street will continue to provide access to the public beach onsite. Adjacent to the project ' site and imbedded within the project site is the public tidelands leased to the American Legion. Public access along the waterfront through the area (eased by the American Legion is not currently available. In order to provide continuous access to and along the bay, as currently proposed elsewhere in the project site, there should be access to and ' along the bay through the American Legion site. This would result in a continuous access to the bay along the bay from the western edge of the project site at 191' Street to eastern edge of the project site at 15'h Street. 1 A2-13 A2-14 Parkin The Draft EIR states that due to the site's close proximity to the beach, it is important that the proposed onsite parking spaces provide adequate parking for the users of the proposed Marina A2-15 Park facilities. Furthermore, It states that the proposed on -site parking lots are intended for the project only and are not intended to provide additional beach parking. Please clarify this statement as a public bay front beach is adjacent and part of the proposed project. Public access is an essential part of the Coastal Act and any adverse impact to access to the beach raises concerns. VISUAL IMPACTS The project site is located within the Shoreline Height Limitation zone, which establishes a maximum height limit of 35 feet. The main buildings proposed on the project site are within the A2-16 35-foot height limit. However, the sail feature on the Balboa Center Complex will exceed the shoreline height limitation with a height of 35-feet, 6-inches and the Lighthouse will exceed it with a height of 73-feet. The Clty's Zoning Code provides for exceptions to this height limit, including vertical architectural features, such as towers, spires, cupolas and steeples. However, the proposed height of the Lighthouse seems to be excessive as it will exceed the height limit by Apr-13-09 04.06pm From-Californla Coactal 45826905084 7-608 P.008/008 Draft Environmental Impact Report Marina Park Prolect Page 7 of 7 F- A2 , Page 8 of 8 38-feet, more than double the allowable height. The height of such a structure would impact coastal views. The Draft EIR justifies the height of the structure since the width of the lighthouse ranges from 18-feet at the Sailing Center roof (the width of the lighthouse at the base A2-16 was not stated) to 8-feet at the top of the lighthouse and since 930-linear feet of waterfront area CONT will be opened up With the project, Nevertheless, the height of such a structure would adversely impact public views as no other structure in the area would be close to this proposed'height. It may also set an adverse precedent. Thus, please provide alternatives to the proposed Lighthouse that would not have such an adverse impact on public views, such as staying within the allowable height limit', and justify your choice of the alternative that would be the least environmentally damaging alternative. LAND USE The Sailing Program Building is planned to include a cafe, serving breakfast, lunch, and dinner A2-17 daily. Seating will be provided for 56 customers (32 inside and 24 outside). Will this restaurant be an ancillary use to the facilities proposed on site or will it serve as a destination restaurant? Is adequate parking included for this component? OTHER AGENCY APPROVAL The Commission's regulations require that you submit evidence of review and approval of the proposed project from all local and state agencies for which a review and approval Is required. if impacts to biological resources are occurring, a review and approval is typically required from the USF WS and/or the CDF&G. Evidence of these agencies review and approval (or verifications that no review is necessary) will need to be submitted with your application for a coastal permit. Please also provide review of the project by the SLC. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Park Project. Commission staff request notification of anyfuture activity associated with this project or related projects. Please note, the comments provided herein are preliminary in nature. Additional and more specific comments may be appropriate as the project develops into final form and when an application is submitted for a coastal development permit. Please feel free to contact me at 562-590-5071 with any questions. Coastal Proiram Analyst II Attachments: Applicants for Shorefront Development Cc: State Clearinghouse 1 I 1 A2-18 , �J i I 1 I L FJ STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSK. SS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER G0V=0 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A3 Page 1 of 1 r District 12 i;j:'',::'f" _ BY p 3337Michelson Drive, Suite 380lA�l�! Irvine, CA 92612-8894 Tel: (949) 724.2267 Flex your power! Fac: (949) 724-2592 MAR , 2i e. X.V> Be energy efficient! March, 19, 2009 Mr. Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Subject: Marina Park Dear Ms. Ung, File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2008051096 Log #: 2071A PCH, SR-55 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Park Project. The public park will provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas will include a children's play area and basketball courts. The public short-term visiting vessel marina is proposed to accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. The Balboa Center Complex (BCC) will include rooms for educational classes as well as community events. The BCC will have.a restaurant situated on the second story and will include areas for marina rentals as well as room for sailing classes. There are two tennis, courts proposed on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to 15th Street. In addition, an existing bathroom on the public beach adjacent to 19th Street is proposed to be renovated or reconstructed but the size of the bathroom facility will remain the same. The nearest State route to the project site is Pacific Coast Highway and SR 55. ' The California Department of Transportation (Department), District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and has no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity within the Department's right-of-way, an encroachment permit will be required.' Please continue to keep us informed of this project and• any. future developments, which could potentially, impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Damon Davis at (949) 440-3487. Sincerer Chris Herre, Branch Chief Local Development/Intergovernmental Review C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research A3-1 "Caltrmts improves mobility across California" Linda S. Adams Secretary for Environmental Protection ' April 3, 2009 LJ 1 1. 1J Department of Toxic Substances Control . Maziar Movessaghi, Acting Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 rung @city.newport-beach.ca.us A4 Page 1 of 4 Arnold Schwarzenegger RECEMID BY Governor PLAwl(\o DEPARTMENT APR 06 2003 �p OF NE4PONT BEACF NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR MARINA PARK PROJECT (SCH # 2008051096), CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY Dear Ms. Ung: The Department -of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the above -mentioned project. The following project description is stated in your document: "The Marina Park project (Marina Park) site is located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. Specifically, the project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula, alongq Balboa Boulevard, south of a public beach and the Newport Bay, west of 15' Street and east of 18th Street. The proposed project includes the Multi -Purpose Building at the Balboa Center Complex, Sailing Program Building at the Balboa Center Complex, the Girl Scout House, marina services building, parking areas, park, beach, and a marina basin. Predominant land uses in the vicinity of the site are residential, recreational, and commercial. The existing site encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and is built up in nature with residential, community service center, public tennis courts, beach access, and surface parking lot uses." DTSC has the following comments: 1) The EIR should identify the current or historic uses at the project site that may have resulted in a release of hazardous wastes/substances, and any known or potentially contaminated sites within the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the EIR should evaluate whether conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Following are the database of some of the pertinent regulatory agencies: • National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). A4-1 Printed on Recycled Paper A4 ,Page 2 of 4 Ms. Rosalinh Ung April 3, 2009 Page 2 of 4 • Envirostor: A Database primarily used bj the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, at Envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov. • Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA. • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that is maintained by U.S.EPA. • Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided bythe California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations. • 'Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) / Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups (SLIC): A list that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards. • Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks. • The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, Used Defense Sites (FUDS). 1 L1 1 A4-1 CON Wilshire Boulevard, I , maintains a list of Formerly 2) The EIR should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If necessary, DTSC can enter an oversight agreement In order to review such documents. Please see comment No. 11 below for more information. 3) All environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation for the site should be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of any investigations, Including any Phase I or II Environmental Site Assessment Investigations should be summarized in the document. All sampling results in which hazardous substances were found should be clearly summarized in a table. A4.2 A4-3, 4) Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by the respective regulatory agencies, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to the A44 new development or any construction. All closure, certification or remediation approval reports by these agencies should -be included in the EIR. I. d C', A4 Page 3 of 4 Ms. Rosalinh Ung April 3, 2009 Page 3 of 4 5) If buildings or other structures, asphalt or concrete -paved surface areas are being planned to be demolished, an investigation should be conducted for the A4-5 presence of other related hazardous chemicals, lead -based paints or products mercury, and asbestos containing materials (AGMs). If other hazardous chemicals, lead -based paints or products, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities. Additionally,• the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. 6) Project construction may require soil excavation or filling in certain areas. Sampling may be required. if soil is contaminated, it must be properly disposed and not simply placed -in another location onsite. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to such soils. Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. 7) Human health and -the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during the construction or demolition activities: If it is found necessary, a study of the site and a health risk assessment overseen and approved by the appropriate government agency and a qualified health risk assessor should be conducted to determine if there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. 8) if it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). If it is determined that hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should also obtain a• United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting (800) 618-6942. Certain hazardous waste treatment processes or hazardous materials, handling, storage or uses may require authorization from the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA. Ra. FIX sJ A4-8 9) If during construction/demolition of the project, the soil and/or groundwater Aa-s contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. 10)lf the site was used for agricultural, livestock or related activities, onsite soils and groundwater might contain pesticides, agricultural chemical, organic waste A4-10 or other related residue. Proper investigation, and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted under the oversight of and approved by a government agency at the site prior to construction of the project. A4 Page 4 of 4 ' Ms. Rosalinh Ung April 3, 2009 Page 4 of 4 I 11)DTSC can provide guidance for cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight Agreement (EOA) for government agencies which would not be A4-1 1 responsible parties under CERCLA, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA , -for private parties. For additional information on the EOA or VCA, please see www.dtse.ca.ggv/SiteC]eanup/Brownfields, or contact Ms. Maryam Tasnif- Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484-5489. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Rafiq Ahmed, ' Project Manager, at rahmedCa dtsc.ca.gov or by phone at (714) 484-5491. Sincerely, ' Greg Holmes Unit Chief , Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program - Cypress Office cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research , State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 ' state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov. CEQA Tracking Center ' Department of Toxic Substances Control Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis 1001'i Street, 22nd Floor, M.S. 22-2 Sacramento, California 95814 nritter@dtsc.ca.gov CEQA#2514 11 A5 Page 1 of 4 LI I'I LJ t L u I v Linda S. Adams Secretaryfor vlronmental Protection California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region 0 April 17, 2009 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, California 92501-3348 Arnold Schwarzenegger Phone (951) 7824130 • FAX (951) 781-6288 • TDD (951) 782-3221 Governor www.waterboards.cagov/santaana f1ECEIVF0 BN' RAN` i n err Rosalinh Ung' APR 2 0 2009 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Cl' VF~119`&:9t1�• Newport Beach, CA 92658 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MARINA PARK, BALBOA PENINSULA, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, SCH# 2008051096 Dear Ms. Ung: Staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (Regional Board) have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Marina Park (Project), to be located in the City of Newport Beach City) between Balboa Boulevard and Lower Newport Bay (Bay), and between 15 h and 181h Streets. Regional Board staff commented (June 15, 2004 letter) when this recreational facility project was proposed as "Marinapark Resort" and included subterranean parking and a hotel. The 10.45-acre Project (p.2-1, DEIR Exhibit 3-3) includes a 1.67-acre marina basin dredged into the existing 1-acre beach' to accommodate 23 slips and utility hook-ups for visiting vessels (up to 30-day terms). An existing mobile home park will be remove( and replaced. Several recreational buildings (or revisions to existing ones) will be constructed, as will food service sites, a play area for children, restrooms, and outdoor sports courts/open space. We believe that the DEIR (including Appendix H, the Water Quality Management Plan or WQMP) shodld incorporate the following comments in order for the project to best protect water quality standards (water quality objectives and beneficial uses) contained in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Region 8 Basin Plan): Marina Dredging and 401 Certification There is no discussion on p. 3-10 of the method of initial dredging or maintenance dredging or, with the exception of sediment, of controlling water quality pollutants that may arise from these dredging activities. P. 5.7-7 states that a silt curtain will be placed within the Bay to contain suspended sediment, but there is no specific description or diagram indicating the curtain's intended position. For example, it has been our experience that silt curtains have been successfully deployed around an entire work site, and also when closely surrounding the dredge. Located immediately west of the existing American Legion Post 291 Marina, which is not part of the Project (Exhibit 3-3). California E�r�onmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper A5-1 MA. Rosilinh Ung -2- April 17, 2009 ' 2. Two errors on p. 5.7-7, regarding Basin Plan natural turbidity maximum increases, A5-2 would be corrected by insertion of the objective itself: for 0-50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU), 20 percent; for 50-100 NTU, 10 NTU (not a percentage); and for greater than 100 NTU, 10 percent. 3. The dredged spoils disposal site(s) are not indicated as anticipated on Exhibit 3-4 nor otherwise specified. The EIR should reflect that disposal locations and any A5-a monitoring program, have been selected and will be cleared with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the California Coastal Commission. 4. The DEIR states that approximately 62,000 cubic yards will be dredged from 1.3 acres of combined subtidal/intertidal coastal wetland (plus a portion of beach) and that a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Standards Certification (Certification) will be required as a prerequisite to a Section 404 permit issued by the USACE. Mitigation measures for impacts to the water quality standards of these dredged areas should be proposed in EIR Table 2-1, MM 5.3-B.1., on p. 2-9 of the Executive Summary. Since this mitigation will be necessary to obtain Certification for the Project from the Regional Board, this office should be cited among the permitting agencies that must approve mitigation. Certification will require a baseline functional assessment of the wetlands impacted, conducted according to the California Rapid Assessment Manual or other appropriate protocol. Certifications will also require subsequent functional assessments of wetland mitigation areas and standardized reporting of assessment findings. Baseline assessments should be cited and summarized in the EIR and included as an appendix, and the need for subsequent assessments of the mitigation site(s) should be recognized. Because of this, early Certification consultation with our office is strongly encouraged. A5-4 5. DEIR p.2-9 and 5.3-19 indicate that a loss of 0.66 acre of sandy intertidal habitat and 0.9 acre of terrestrial non -marine habitat would be offset by ultimate construction of the 1.67-acre marina, which would provide "an overall net gain of 0.9 acre" (0.11 acre?) of additional "wetland habitat (shallow water habitat)." P.5.3-19 A5-5 recognizes "as significant" the conversion of this specified acreage of intertidal wetland to marina -bottom. Given the Clean Water Acfs directive that no net loss of wetlands occur, we do not consider that the Project, as proposed, provides a net gain of wetlands or will replace the ecological functionality (cyclical aeration and saturation) of the lost intertidal/beach area and its waterquality standards (beneficial uses)2. Total Maximum Daily Loads 6. The DEIR recognizes (p.5.7-2) that San Diego Creek and Upper/Lower Newport Bay have been listed, pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 303(d), as impaired by various A5-6 pollutants and have had various Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) adopted. The following group of adopted and anticipated TMDLs should be incorporated into the EIR: Applicable beneficial uses for Lower Newport Bay: Marine Habitat, Wildlife Habitat, or Water Contact Recreation, or Non -Contact Water Recreation. California Ln�onmental Protection Agency lterycfed Paper 1 1 F' If J E I I I 1 rI I I Ms. Rosilinh Ung IBM April 17, 2009 Siltation (sediments) and nutrient TMDLs for Lower Newport Bay, Upper Newport Bay, San Diego Creek Reach 1, and San Diego Creek Reach 2 (see http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/tmdlfiindex.Shtml ) A fecal coliform (pathogen) TMDL has been adopted for Lower Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay. A diazinon/chlorpyrifos pesticide TMDL has been adopted for Upper Newport Bay and San Diego Creek, Reach 1. TMDLs for toxic pollutants, including selenium, were promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in June 2002. Future TMDLs are 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). TMDLs for organochlorine compounds (particularly DDT, chlordane, and PCBs) are anticipated for all four of these water bodies (as well as Newport Bay's Rhine Channel), with toxaphene also targeted in San Diego Creek Reaches 1 and 2. BMPs proposed by the Project that will contribute to compliance with TMDLs specific to Lower Newport Bay should be identified in the projects WQMP and remaining EIR. Dewatering Permitting 7. To augment basic DEIR references to the Regional Board's dewatering permit (p.3- 17, where groundwater dewatering is necessary for projects that discharge into storm drains and natural drainages of the San Diego Creek watershed (including Lower Newport Bay), these discharges require coverage under Order No. R8-2004- 0021 (amended by R8-2006-0065), NPDES No. CAG998002, "General Waste Discharge Requirements for Short -Term Groundwater -Related Discharges and De Minimus Wastewater Discharges to Surface Waters Within the San Diego Creek/Newport Bay Watershed." This general permit establishes a waste discharge management program applicable to the project area, for the purpose of reducing selenium, sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants. This permit is available at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/board decisions/adopted orders Contact this office's Permitting Section staff at (951) 782-4130 for additional information. Stormwater Permitting 8. The following comments pertain to the DEIR's discussion of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), the Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study, stormwater discharge.permitting, and the implementation of the WQMP required by Waste Discharge Requirements for Orange County (NPDES Permit No. CAS618030, Order No. R8-2002-0010, Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Permit for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region," also known as the Orange County municipal separate storm sewer system, or "Orange County MS4," permit: A5-6 CONT A5-7 A5.8 California Enar �on>:nental Protection Agency Recycled Paper Ms. Rosilinh Ung -4- April 17, 2009 The Orange County MS4 permit is currently undergoing revision, and adoption of a revised permit is expected this calendar year. The EIR should reflect that A5-s construction and operation of the project may be affected by new requirements CONT included in the revised MS4 permit. Information concerning revision of the Orange County M54 permit is on this office's web site. The State Water Resources Control Board's Water Quality Order No. 99-OS-DWQ, "General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity" A5-9 is currently under revision. Information regarding the draft general permit maybe found at http //www waterboards cagov/water issues/programs/stormwater The DEIR prescribes three primary Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater capture and treatment within the Project: pervious pavement, A5-10 landscaped biocells, and one bioswaie. Locations of the latter two BMPs should be shown on Exhibit 3-3. Hydrodynamic separator units are mentioned among potential treatment control BMPs considered but are not chosen for the Project. Since trash and litter originating in inland waters and found on coastal beaches is becoming increasingly A5-11 problematic, treatment controls that capture litter in storm water runoff originating on or passing through the site should be considered for the project, incorporated into the project's WQMP as appropriate, and reported in the EIR. The EIR must include discussions regarding how the proposed marina facilities will A5-12 be designed and operated to prevent the discharge of non -point source pollutants from moored vessels into Newport Bay. If you have any questions, please contact Glenn Robertson at (951) 782-3259, grobertsonCaD-waterboards.ca.gov, or me at (951) 782-3234, or madelson(cDwaterboards.ca.gov Sincerely, Mark G. Adelson, Chief Regional Planning Programs Section Cc: State Clearinghouse U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles — Stephanie Hall California Coastal, Commission - Fernie Sy California Department of Fish and Game, Los Alamitos office - Ednn Wilson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad — William Miller XtGroberts on Magnolia/Data/CEQA/CEQA Responses/ DEIR-City of Newport Beach- Marina Park-ReVised2009.doc L r L.J '�_l I I I I I I I California Erb ouniental Protection Agency Recycled Paper 1 A6 w' Page 1 of 6 ~ f44F,FNT OF�Q�1P UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 1'f�s'"nT OF TJ`p Southwest Region 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 1 Long Beach, California 90802.4213 �. APR 13 2009 RECEIVED BY Rosalinh Ung Planning Department APR 18 N'TO City of Newport Beach ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Cliff' r i0 ip�tp ~}} ` � C Newport Beach, California 92658 ' DearMs.'Ung: NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the City of Newport Beach Planning Department's Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Manna Park Project to redevelop approximately 10.45 acres into a public park area for various uses; including a new public short-term visiting vessel marina, in the southwestern ' portion of the City of Newport Beach on the Balboa Peninsula in Orange County, California, NMFS offers'the following comments pursuant to the essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ' Q4SA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).ASA Given that the proposed activity will likely require a federal permit from the U.S. •Arm'y 1 Corps of Engineers (Corps) pursuant to Sectioti10 of the River and Harbor.Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, NMFS is providing comments on the DEIR in anticipation of the EFH consultation process this permit -would require. NMFS also intends to submit comments to the Corps pursuant to our -responsibilities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA). We believe that coordination.between NMFS and the City of Newport Beach at this stage of project planning would facilitate a more effective and streamlined EFH and FWCA consultation process between the Corps and NMFS. NMFS is also providing comments on the DEIR given the proximity of this • project to marine mammals in the area pursuant to our'resaensibilities under.' he MMPA. Proposed Project ' The proposed project would involve the construction of a public short-term visiting vessel marina 6n the far northeast boundary of the• site. The visiting vessel marina is ' proposed to include 23 slips with full utility hook-ups for shore power and water and A6-2 accommodate visiting vessefs for up to 30 days. Concrete floating docks will be used tIvoughout the marina, and a 26046t4ong dock will -'be included along the outer edge. ' Construction of the marina will require landside:excavatioii;'accomplished by dozers, skip loaders, trucks and other small equipment; a groin wall will also be built around the marina.. Dredging of approximate]y'62;009 cubic yard's 6f bayfloor sediments by either blam shell or hydraulic dredge to a depth bf -12 :MLLW'vtill'also be required. Finally, 18 concrete pilings will be driven into the sediments to secure the docks. The beach A6-2 compatible material would be disposed of at one of eight potential sand disposal locations CONT near the project site. Action Area The proposed project occurs in EFH for various federally managed fish species within the Pacific Groundfish and Coastal Pelagics Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). In addition, the project occurs within estuarine habitat, and in the vicinity of seagrass habitats, which are considered habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species within the Pacific Groundfish and Coastal Pelagic Species FMP. 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 MSA; however, federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process. EF1I Comments Based on information provided in the DEIR and the Marine Biological Impact Assessment prepared by Coastal Resources Management, Inc., NMFS believes that the proposed action would adversely affect EFH for various federally managesspecies within the Pacific Groundfish and Coastal Pelagics FMPs. Dredging, pile installation, and long- term operation of the marina constitute the main activities that would adversely affect EFH. The adverse effects of dredging on EFH may include: 1) direct removal/burial of organisms; 2) tutbidity/siltation effects, including light attenuation from turbidity; 3) contaminant release and uptake, including nutrients, metals, and organics; 4) release of oxygen consuming substances; 5) entrainment; 6) noise disturbances; and 7) alteration to hydrodynamic regimes and physical habitat. The dredging would impact approximately 0.66 acres in Newport Harbor, Another potential project concern is the spread of the invasive alga Caulerpa taxifolia from project activities. As you may be aware, this alga has been introduced to our coastline. Evidence of harm that can ensue as a result of an uncontrolled spread of the alga has already been seen in the Mediterranean Sea where it has destroyed local ecosystems, impacted commercial fishing areas, and affected coastal navigation and recreational opportunities. Although it is not known to be present within Newport Harbor, it has been detected it two other locations in Southern California. If the invasive alga is present within the project area, the dredging activities would adversely affect EFH by promoting its spread and increasing its negative ecosystem impacts. A6-3 A6-4 A6-5 The disposal of dredge material in estuarine and/or nearshore habitats can cause adverse I A6-6 effects to EFH, including direct burial of marine organisms, turbidity, or alteration of ' hydrodynamic regimes and physical habitat. Moreover, although the "Marine Biological ' Impact Assessment" concludes that the dredge material is suitable for beach disposal with regard to particle size and contaminant concentrations, it also refers to the well - documented presence of elevated levels of contaminants throughout Newport Bay, ' including nearby Rhine Channel. Therefore, in order to accurately assess any potential impacts from the disposal of this material, NMFS will require more detailed information regarding the disposal site. Specifically, the timing, location and depth of disposal, any sensitive habitats'nearby, and any measures for dealing with contaminated sediments should be described. Pile driving activities have the potential to adversely impact EFH through modification of the substrate, disturbance of benthic communities, slight increases in turbidity, and sound attenuation. The DEIR and associated Marine Biological Impact Assessment refer to the installation of concrete pilings, but there is no information provided regarding the diameter of these pilings or the installation method (aside from the statement "18 cement piles will be driven into the sediments to secure the docks"). Given the small project area and the lack of sensitive habitat, any adverse impacts to EFH associated with this activity are expected to be no more than minimal. However, the additional information listed above will be required to make this determination. Long-term operation of the marina would adversely affect EFH as a result of poor tidal flushing and the discharge of various pollutants associated with vessel and marina operation and maintenance. Insufficient tidal flushing would be detrimental to marine organisms by causing &decrease in dissolved oxygen levels and water transparency, and an increase in water temperature and sedimentation. It can also lead to eutrophication, a process in which excessive amounts of nutrients introduced into a system induce abundant growth of algae and other organisms, the decay of which depletes oxygen ' levels. The Marine Biological Impact Assessment states that maintenance dredging may also be required as a result of poor flushing; however, it is unclear how dredging would address this issue. Moreover, if implemented, any dredging would bring about the adverse effects discussed previously. Because the project site is already known to have poor tidal flushing (an approximate tidal flushing cycle of 30 days) and degraded water quality, any additional impacts would only exacerbate these issues. To address this concern, the proposed'project irtcludcs a mitigatioh nieasuFe iri wlv�}i mechanicu'.deY iccs will be installed within the marina basin to enhance the movement and mixing of water to 'meet the EPA guidelines of adequate tidal flushing. One option includes the use of four ' propeller -type devices, or oloids, that have been. shown to meet the EPA guidelines through modeling. Although NMFS is generally supportive of this mitigation measure, we would encourage the inclusion of additional information regarding the operation and ' maintenance of these devices. For instance, any potential for impingement and/or entrainment of marine organisms, eggs, and larvae associated with the oloids should be described. Also, methods to avoid interactions with other marine life (e.g., enclosures or ' screens for the devices) should also be included. Finally, any information on maintenance of the devices and long-term water quality monitoring to ensure they continue to be effective would be useful and should be considered for inclusion in the Marina Management Plan. A6-6 CONT A6-7 A6-8 4 Marinas are often associated with periodic discharges of various pollutants, including oils, greases, and other wastes, which negatively impact local marine life. Moreover, antifouling paints used on boat hulls release large amounts of copper, which affects growth, development, and reproduction of various marine organisms. If the additional As-s ' boats moored at the newly constructed marina use copper -based antifouling paints, it will lead to an increase in copper concentrations, (already at elevated levels in Newport Bay) at the project site. NMFS believes the use of non -toxic alternatives to copper -based anti- , fouling hull paints should be included as an important component of the long-term operating plans for the marina (e.g., as a requirement in the Marina Management Plan). Information on non -toxic antifouling strategies can be found on the following University of California Sea Grant Extension Program website: httl3://seagrant.ucdavis.edu/nontoxicdemo.htm Marine Mammal Protection Act Comments ' Marine mammals likely to be in the immediate project area are the California sea lion harbor (Zalophus californianus) and in rare cases, the Pacific seal (Phoca vitulina richardir). Sections in 3.5.2.2 of Appendix D and page 5.3.1.4 in the Biological Resources portion of the DEIR discuss the fact that sea lions will likely avoid activities , and there is little chance for them to be harmed. Page 5.3-16 states that demolition and construction tasks for the project have aspects that could potentially affect Newport Harbor marine resources, including marine mammals. Specific comments are found below. A6-10 Seals and sea lions are protected under the MMPA. See 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq. Under the MMPA, it is generally illegal to "take" a marine mammal without prior authorization from NMFS. "Take" is defined as harassing, hunting, capturing, or killing, or attempting to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. Except with respect to military ' readiness activities and certain scientific research conducted by, or on behalf of, the Federal Government, "harassment" is defined as any act of pursuit, torment, or in A), or ■ annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal the wild (Level has the potential to disturb a marine mammal in the wild by causing disruption of behaviorai•patterns, includiflg, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding feeding, or sheltering (Level B). Should the proposed activities cause take of a marine mammal, it may be necessary to obtain a permit under the MMPA from NMFS. The DEIR indicates that 18 cement piles will be driven into the sediments to secure the docks, but few details were given. The noise generated from pile -driving or other construction could affect marine mammals located within the vicinity of the project site, however, the DEIR did not provide information on underwater sound pressure levels A6-11 associated with construction and operation, the timing, or the duration of the activity. NMFS recommends including detailed information on possible impacts to marine mammals from underwater sound in the final EIR including a detailed description of the proposed pile driving, including the type of pile driver, noise levels associated with the pile driving, and proximity to marine mammals in the area. I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I .1 f I I !I 1 1 1 I� u 1 Dredging will involve the removal of bayfloor sediments by either, a clam shell dredge or by hydraulic dredge for the purpose of providing necessary depths to accommodate vessels to depths of -12 ft MLLW. In addition, page 5.3-17, under the Marine Mammals section, discusses how California sea lions have a potential to be present during the dredging period, but dredging is expected to have a "less -than -significant impact" on individuals that may be in the general dredging vicinity. Further, the DEIR indicates that it is likely that individuals would avoid the dredging operation, and although individuals may be curious, there is a low potential for harm to an individual or the population within Newport Bay, as there are no records of sea lions being harmed by the Upper Newport Bay dredging operation or the transport•of dredge material by barges and tugs through Newport Harbor. Sea lions may occasionally swim into the marina, but according to the DEIR, they are not expected to haul out if measures are taken to deter their presence. NMFS recommends including detailed information on why it is expected that dredging will not have an impact on transiting pinnipeds and also provide information on what types of deterrence measures are expected to be taken to prevent animals from hauling out in the marina in the final EIR. Harassment of marine mammals may occur if hauled animals flush the haul out site and/or move out of the immediate aquatic area to increase their distance from pile driving or dredging -related activities, such as noise associated with the dredging, pile driving, presence of workers, or unfamiliar activity in proximity to a haul out site. Percussive piles, such as an impact hammer or drop hammer, generally result in the greatest noise production when compared to other methods of pile installation. Although percussive pile driving does not produce a continuous noise, the high amplitude and repeated blows of the hammer every few seconds can affect ambient noise levels in the surrounding acoustic environment. The force used to drive a pile, or power setting of the hammer, pile type and diameter, and hardness of the substrate the pile is driven, are important factors in determining the amount of energy released into the surrounding waters. Because of the high, amplitude and wide frequency spectrum of pile driving noise, many species can potentially be affected. The measured sound exposure levels of a clamshell dredge may range between 75-88 dBA (re 20 µPa) at 50 feet. Animals have been observed flushing from haul out sites at a sound exposure level of less than 100dBA, and it is possible that -marine mammals may modify their behavior as a result of the noise produced by the pile driving and dredging operations. Sounds introduced into the sea by man-made devices could have a deleterious effect on marine mamrnals by causing stress or injury, interfering with communication and predator/prey detection, and changing behavior. Acoustic exposure to loud sounds, such as those produced by pile -driving activities, may result in a temporary or permanent loss of hearing (termed a temporary (TTS) or permanent (PTS) threshold shift) depending upon the location of the marine mammal in relation to the source of the sound. NMFS is currently in the process of determining safety criteria (i.e., guidelines) for marine species exposed to underwater sound. However, pending adoption of these guidelines wehave preliminarily determined, based on past projects, consultations with experts, and published studies, that 180 dB re 1 µpaRms (l90 dB re 1 µParms for pinnipeds) is the A6-12 A6-13 A6-14 r, 0 impulse sound pressure level that can be received by marine mammals without injury. Marine mammals have shown behavioral changes when exposed to impulse sound pressure levels of 160 dB re 1 µPaRms. Studies have also shown that when exposed to A6-14 the 90 dBA sound pressure level (the presumed cause) harbor seals flushed from the CONT beach on San Nicholas Island, CA, but many returned to land within several hours (see 68 FR 52132 September 2, 2003). Mitigation measure, MM 5.3-A,1, includes a construction and post -construction marine biological mitigation monitoring plan that will include pre -construction, construction, and post -construction monitoring of the health of marine life at the project site and a final determination of areas impacted by the project. NMFS offers its expertise and assistance to the applicant in development of this mitigation plan. In addition, NMFS recommends that the applicant consider including a design feature, A6-15 particularly to the low-lying docks on the water, tonon-lethally deter pinnipeds, specifically California sea lions, from hauling out. NMFS offers their expertise and assistance, should the applicant want to explore design modifications. Based on the information provided, NMFS is not able to make a determination, at this time, as to whether it may be necessary for the applicant to apply for an Incidental Harassment Authorization, under section 101 of the MMPA. Once the information is received, NMFS will be able to re-evaluate the potential take of marine mammals. Please note, that in the event of a construction vessel collision with a marine mammal, Mr. Joseph Cordaro, the NMFS Southwest Regional office's Stranding Coordinator must A6-16 '. be immediately contacted at 562-980-4017 and a report must be sent to the NMFS Southwest Regional Office. Thank you for consideration of our•comments. If you have any questions, please contact Eric Chavez at (562) 9804064 or Eric.ChavezQnoaa.aov. Sincerely, AlAllIi Robert S. Hoffman Assistant Regional Administrator for Habitat Conservation Division t rl L I 1 I I 1 A7 Page 1 of 1 ' Ung, Rosalinh From: Eric.Chavez [Eric.Chavez@noaa.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 3:45 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Marina Park DEIR Attachments: Eric_Chavez.vcf ' Hi Rosalinh, As we discussed over the phone, my questions regarding the DEIR are included below: '9. Can you clarify the acreages discussed on p. 41 of Appendix D? In I particular, how was the"net loss in HAPC is 0.13 acre" determined? j 2. Can you provide the size of the concrete pilings that will be used T and any details on how they will be installed? 1 t3. App. D (p. 42) acknowledges the potential for maintenance dredging required for long-term operation of the marina due to poor flushing. Is this still the case with the mechanical devices (propellers) installed? '4. What sort of long-term monitoring/maintenance is anticipated to T ensure the propellers continue to function properly? 1 5. Finally, can you point me to MM 5.3-A.2, mentioned under Biological T Resources after MM 5.3-A.1? I can't'seem to find it. 1 Thanks in advance, ' Eric r I I I 1 A7-1 A7-2 A7-3 A7-4 A7-5 I I ' ' ' A8 Page 1 of 2 RECEIVED BY April 10, 2009 K04*-%i iG. DEPARTMENT Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach �\f �i,�y�;S p L� Planning Department CRY O� ��iiuf"O ��M�rl 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: OCSD Comments to DRAFT Environmental Impact Report, Marina Park The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) is pleased to take the opportunity to comment on the City of Newport Beach Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Marina Park project. OCSD owns and operates the le Street Pumping Station (Pumping Station) A8-1 adjacent to the proposed Marina Park project, located at 1514 West Balboa Blvd. This Pumping Station serves the City wastewater needs of the peninsula south of the Marina Park project. OCSD requires 24-hour access to this station for planned and unplanned maintenance activities, and emergencies. The DEIR should address increased traffic through the 15t' Street and the alley parallel to Balboa Blvd. that could impact OCSD's primary access point for this critical piece of infrastructure. General DEIR Comments OCSD is in agreement that the project will notadversely impact the OCSD sewer T A8-2 Jl system. However, OCSD believes that the project could potentially restrict access to the current locations that OCSD has been using in the alley to access the A8-3 parking Pumping Station wet well, drywell and electrical switchgear. Consequently, OCSD would like additional access to the pumping station and parking from the west side of the pumping station. I OCSD is requesting that the City dedicate parking stalls 118 and 119 (as identified on the Proposed Development Plan Parcel Map) forjoint-use parking for the City and OCSD. It is anticipated that the City will be dedicating a number of parking spots for A84 its employees with City vehicles working at this new public facility. 'Dedicating these two spaces would allow OCSD guaranteed access to parking for operations, maintenance and emergencies, on an as -needed basis at the Pumping Station, and would also accommodate the City's needs to provide additional dedicated parking for its employees with City vehicles. OCSD is also concerned about Homeland Security requirements in addition to for the Pumping Station. The planning for the Marina Project general access needs A8-5 area should ultimately accommodate an 8-foot block wall between the future Marina Park parking lot (now the SCE property) and the Pumping Station to replace the ' existing chain link fencing between the Pumping Station and the new Marina. This new wall should have an access gate from the parking lot to the Pumping Station. ' 1 I A8 Page 2 of 2 Ideally a small portion of the SCE, property adjacent to the Pumping Station would be A8-6 available to OCSD in the future for parking and odor control facilities. This would reduce the impact of OCSD maintenance vehicles on street or alleyway traffic during routine operation and maintenance activities. Increased public access and pedestrian traffic is expected near the Pumping Station ' once the Marina Park facility is built. Both the City and the public could benefit from a A8-7 state -of -the art odor control facility being installed adjacent to the Pumping Station to mitigate odors generated in the City sewer system and pump stations serving the ' peninsula. OCSD staff is interested in continuing to discuss this issue in more detail: From recent OCSD staff communications with City Public Works staff, it is our understanding that SCE and the City are currently negotiating the sale of the SCE , property adjacent to the Pumping Station. Specific DER Comments ' On page 5.12-2 of the Marina Park DER, under the section called Wastewater q8-8 Service, no mention is made of the existing OCSD I Street Pump Station just to the south and east of the proposed Marina Park development site. ' On page 5.12-2 of the Marina Park DER, under the section called Wastewater Service, information regarding OCSD treatment capacity at Treatment Plant No. 2 in AB 9 Huntington Beach needs to be amended to accurately reflect the current design , capacity of Plant No. 2 which is 168 MGD, not 172 MGD. The actual Influent flow numbers for FY 07108 were 129 MGD at Plant No. 2 — not 51 MGD as stated in the DEIR. ; On page 5.12-9 of the Marina Park DER, under the section called Wastewater Treatment Capacity, this information also needs to be amended.to accurately reflect A8-10 the current design capacity of Plant No. 2 which is 168 MGD, not 172 MGD. The actual influent flow numbers for FY 07108 were 129 MGD at Plant No. 2 — not 51 MGD as stated in the DEIR. On page 5.12.5 of the DER under the section called Wastewater Treatment, current A8-11 excess design capacity (unused capacity based on average daily flows) at Treatment , Plant No. 2 is listed as being 144 MGD. The actual number is 39 MGD. Please update your records to ensure that all future CEQA documentation and TA6.12 comments sent to the Orange County Sanitation District are sent to the attention of Mr. Patrick McNally, Principal Staff Analyst. Please contact Patrick at (714) 593- 7163 if you have any questions. j ' James D. Herberg, P.E., BCEE Director of Engineering JDH:PMc:sa . 2 ' H A9 Page 1 of 1 Ung, Rosalinh From: McNelly, Patrick [PMCNELLY@OCSD.COMI Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:26 AM MTo: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Marina Park DER Correction for OCSD Flow Numbers Attachments: OCSD Fact Sheet.pdf ' Rosalinh, Please review the attached information regarding OCSD Treatment Capacity at Treatment Plant No. Ag_1 2 in Huntington Beach so that the information in the referenced EIR (PA2008-040) accurately reflects the real capacity of Plant No. 2. Which is 168 MGD, not 172 MGD. The actual flow numbers for FY t07/08 were 129 MGD at Plant No. 2 — not 51 MGD. IPlease contact me if you have any questions. Patrick McNelly M Principal Staff Analyst Orange County Sanitation District (714-593-7163) pmcnelly@ocsd.com I I II I I I ' Miscellaneous Statistics ' General Information Year of Formation................................................1948 Miles of Sewers .................................................. 568 miles ' Form of Government............ Authority :........... County Sanitation District Section 4700 et. seq. On -Plant Pump Station............................................1 Off -Plant Pump Stations..............................................16 ......................... Health & Safety Code Operating Authority ............... RWQCB/NPDES Permit No. ...................................California Service Area ...........................................471 sq. miles ........ .................................................... CA0110604 ' Service Population ............... 2007.08 Assessed Value ........................$292.7 Approximately 2.5 million billion ..........................Statewide WDR Order No. 2006-0003 Authorized Staff (Full -Time Equivalent) .................. 641.00 Treatment Information t C 400 300 200 toe Daily Influent Flow to Total Primary Capacity Comparison (in mgd) Plants Plant Total 02007-08 Est. Influent OCapaciy• Primary Treatment 2006-07 Influent BOD Plant No. 1 .........................290 milligrams per liter Plant No. 2.........................230 milligrams per liter 2006.07 Influent Suspended Solids: Plant No. 1 .........................273 milligrams per liter Plant No. 2........................270 milligrams per liter 2006-07 Effluent BOD.......................48 milligrams per liter 2006.07 Effluent Suspended Solids.. 33 milligrams per liter 2006.07 Biosolids Beneficially Used .......231,480 wet tons ' Primary Treatment Capacity (Includes standby): PlantNo. 1........................................204 mgd PlantNo. 2.......................................168 mod 2007-08 Estimated Average Daily Influent: Plant No. 1................................................. 92 mgd Plant No. 2...............................................129 mgd ' ' TOTAL...............................37? mad Secondary Treatment Capacity: Plant No. 1........................................110 mgd Plant No. 2........................................ 90 mad TOTAL...............................209-mgd TOTAL......................................22?� 2007-08 estimated Electricity Generated: Plant No. 1....................................36,624,000 Plant No. 2 ................................... TOTAL...........................9 kwh 57 888,000 kwh 4 51299Q.kwh Legend: mgd —million gallons per day kwh— kilowatts per hour Financial Information 2006-07 2007.08 2008-09 2009.10 ' Actual Projected Proposed Proposed ' Fees and Charges' One -Time 3-Bedroom Residence Connection Average Annual Single -Family Residence Fee Districrs Avg. Share of Ad Valorem Property Tax Cost to Collect, Treat. & Dispose of 1 Million Gallons $4,360.00 $4.517.00 $4,671.00 $165.80 $182.00 $201.00 1.80% 1.80% 1.80% $1,268.38 $ 1.516.06 $ 1,654.98 $4,834.00 $221.00 1.80% $ 1,738.13 ' ' SummaryofCOP Issues. September 1993 Refunding $26,900,000 August2000 Refunding /New Money 196,600.000 August 2003 New Money 191,500,000 March 2006 New Money 196,600,000 May2007ARefunding December2007B New Money May 2008A Refunding Total Outstanding COP Balance 7/1/08 $ 93,655,000 300,000,000 77,165,000 1,082,420.000 Section 10 - Page 19 A10 ' Page 1 of 5 www.ci.irvine.ca.us ' City of Irvine, One Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 19575, Irvine, California 92623-9575 (949) 724-6000 ' MAR 3 0 2009 March 24 2009 Ms. Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner ' City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Beach Boulevard ' Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Review of Marina Park Draft EIR ' Dear Ms. Ung: ' The City of Irvine .staff has received and reviewed the information_ on the above referenced project and offers the following comments: I I I COMMENT1 Section.2., Executive Summary, Page 2-1: Provide a description of the existing land uses. T A10-1 Direct the reader's attention to Section 3, Project Description or add additional 1 explanatory text. COMMENT 2 Section 2: Executive Summary: There does not seem to be "before" schematics or site plans in the EIR except for on page 2 of the Walker Parking Consultants Parking Management Plan that is included in Appendix J. The graphic provides important details, such as a view of the existing beach, marina, mobile homes, and orientation and location of the existing tennis courts that are essential for context. Also, it would be useful if Exhibit 3-2, Local Vicinity Map or another graphic was revised to depict the end of Balboa peninsula so that the dead-end was more prominent. ' COMMENT 3 Section 2: Executive Summary.- The study does not state the location to where the existing 57 mobile homes will be taken. Are these_ homes going to be relocated within ' Newport Beach, and increase the number of dwelling units and/or density of another mobile home site, or are they going to be relocated out of the city, or demolished? If they were relocated within Newport Beach, the trip generation in the Traffic Analysis ' would need to be revised to reflect the continued use of those residential units in another location. A10-2 A10-3 ' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER A10 Page 2 of 5 ' Ms. Rosalinh Ung March 24, 2009 Page 2 COMMENT 4 Section 3 Project Description, Page 3-2, Section 3-2, first paragraph: An existing boat launch located at 18t" and Bay Avenue is mentioned in the third sentence, and the last sentence states that "None of the existing facilities are suitable for reuse in the new park development." Exhibit 3-3 seems to show new sidewalk at the end of 18'" street. Neither the study nor the exhibit state that the boat launch is being removed or whether it is being relocated. Some text addressing this issue would be helpful. The removal of a boat launch could reduce a significant number of vehicle trips around the study area, after the motorists know that it is gone, and are informed where the nearest one is located. It is likely that for a period of time, there will still be motorists with boats on •trailers driving through the site searching for the boat launch. H A10.4 ' COMMENT 5 Section 3 Project Description, Exhibit 3-3, Site Plan: There appear to be two dead end parking' aisles in the parking lot nearest the new marinas. Address whether better A10-5 circulation alternatives can be provided to avoid cars backing out of these angled parking drive aisles. COMMENT 6 Section 3 Project Description, Exhibit 3-3, Site Plan, Pedestrian Issues: There does not appear to be a walkway connecting the new marina for the sailing program boats and the sailing building, as the visiting vessel marina is between them. Address whether children will be walking from the Sailing Program building through the parking lot to the marina, or whether instructors will be bringing the sailboats, used in class over to the bay closer to the Sailing Program building. Address whether children will be involved in summer programs at the community center building and then walking over to the tennis courts. The pedestrian route from the community center building to the tennis courts appears to be missing or it traverses within the parking lottdrive aisle at the 15" Street access, or is somewhat circuitous out to West Balboa Boulevard and then along 150' -Street. . COMMENT? Section 3 Project Description, Section 3.4.2, Page 3-17: Last sentence in the first paragraph: "The City has exempted itself from the provisions of its own zoning regulations." This section states that the Zoning Code is not going to be amended to add text to state that it does not apply to CIP projects. It states that the Code does not contain specific development regulations for this type of facility, and that some features of the Marina Park will exceed 35 feet, which if raised as an issue by the City Council, would require a use permit. Additional text could be added to discuss the many other permits that this project will need to obtain from various agencies such as the US Fish and Wildlife, California Fish and Game, and the US Coastal Commission for the dredging efforts. Al0.6 A10-7 A10 Page 3 of 5 u 1 1 1 1 1 1 LJ I Ms. Rosalinh Ung March 24, 2009 Page'3 COMMENT 8 Section 3 Project Description, Section 3.4.2, Page 3-17, 2"d paragraph: This section of the report states that there have been public forums held on the project. Please provide information whether there was opposition from the American'Legion at the removal Of' A10-8 the existing Veteran's Park, and the relocation of the public tennis courts onto Veteran's Park. Were there activities held outside in Veteran's Park that will no longer be able to be conducted, or will they use the new Marina Park for those activities? Additional text would be helpful to discuss the benefits of the proposed park amenities compared to the existing features and whether there was opposition from the mobile home dwellers, and whether relocation assistance will be provided. COMMENT9 Section 5-11 and Appendix K: How was the traffic associated with the cumulative A10-9 approved projects added? How was the trip distribution determined? Was a model used to distribute these volumes? If so, provide model data to the City of Irvine for review. COMMENT10 Section 5-11 and Appendix K Some of the intersections are non-standard intersections. A) The ICU for Newport Boulevard at Coast Highway was taken at the southbound Newport ramps at Coast Highway because this intersection is grade separated. However, the volumes on Newport crossing Coast Highway do not seem to have been considered in the 1 percent evaluation as discussed in the following comment. B) One of the main intersections near the project site is Newport Boulevard at West Balboa Boulevard which was not evaluated, even though it is closer to the project than any other intersection in the study area. Is this because it has a non-standard configuration that can not be evaluated with an ICU? Explain whether there is another analysis methodology that can be used to evaluate the projects impact, such as Highway Capacity Methodology for stop controlled intersections. COMMENT.11 Section 5-11 and'Appendix K, Table 5.11-4: The traffic volume data presented for the intersedtion of Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway (Intersection #3) appears to be under -represented on Table 5.114 and should be further analyzed. Figure 3 of Appendix K identifies the project trip distribution (30 percent to and from the east, 25 percent to and from the north, and 10 percent to and from the west), which results in 65 percent of project trips on the northbound approach. Based on this information, the PM northbound Newport approach volume shown on Table 5.11-4 as 0 (zero) should be changed to 12. The ICU at this location does not evaluate the northbound approach, because it is taken at the ramps below and west'of the grade separation, consequently, the 1 percent test can not be conducted with the volumes on this ICU. The northbound volume should be provided from some other source, and the 1 percent test should be conducted. The AM southbound • Newport volume shown on Table 5.11-4 as 0 (zero) should be revised to 4 based on the trip distribution presented. Similar to the northbound A10-10 A10-11 i A10 'Page 4 of 5 Ms, Rosalinh Ung March 24, 2009 Page 4 analysis, the southbound volume should be provided from some other source and the 1 percent test conducted. The AM westbound Coast Highway volume on the free ramp in the non -peak is 370. Dividing 5 by 370 is 1 percent, and this meets the 1 percent test. The word "Yes" in the right column on Table 5.11-4 should be changed to "No", and an ICU analysis (existing plus growth plus project and plus cumulative approved projects) should be performed for this intersection. The AM eastbound Coast Highway volume shown on Table 5.11-4 as 0 (zero) should be revised to 2 based on the trip distribution presented. COMMENT 12' Appendix K, Table 8, Cumulative ICU Analysis Summary of two intersections. There is a very smallchange between the existing, background, background plus cumulative, and background plus cumulative plus project scenarios for the two intersections of NewporVVia Lido and 'Newport/32"d. Explain why the differences in ICU results for these two intersections are so small when comparing the various scenarios analyzed. COMMENT 13 Section 5-11 and Appendix K: It is understood that more residential development within the City could create a greater interest in attending classes and activities at Marina Park. The development of more commercial areas within the City could also create an increase in traffic from adjacent residential areas around the project site and through the study area intersections. An increase in traffic due to the Marina Park project is most dependent upon the number and frequency of the scheduled activities, (proposed activities are listed on pages 3-10 for the Community Center and on pages 3-13 for the Sailing Program Building). Ultimately, the amount of traffic is limited by the availability of parking and the ease of circulation (for parents dropping off children). Another factor that could affect the volume of traffic at the Marina Park site is the availability of public transportation and shuttles (Exhibit 3-3, Site Plan appears to show a bus turnout at W. Balboa Blvd and 17fh St). The sailing program is said to potentially have rentals of sailboats, canoes; kayaks, and other watercraft- (page 3-13) in addition to its classes and camps, which could generate increased traffic or be accommodated by shuttles to offsite parking locations. Additional text to discuss this should be incorporated. COMMENT14 Pages 5.11-13 through 5.11-15 Parking Study portion of the Traffic Study and Appendix J Parking Management Recommendations. A parking attendant would need to monitor the metered self -parking areas to ensure that patrons have paid, and have not parked longer than the number of hours for which they have paid. The study does not get into discussion whether fines/tickets or towing would result from vehicles exceeding their parking time. If not gated or attended, there could be a queue of vehicles within the parking'lot driving around or waiting for available spaces, or waiting to pick up children from classes. These vehicles could block parking spaces for those who wish to leave. Additional text could be incorporated to explain these constraints. A10-11 ' CONT A10 Page 5 of 5 Ms. Rosalinh Ung ' March 24, 2009 Page'5 ' COMMENT 15 Pages 5.11-13 through 5.11-15 Parking Study portion of the Traffic Study and Appendix J Parking Management Recommendations:. No mention was made of installing gates with an attendant at the accesses of the parking areas, as is common at some marina A10-15 ' and beach locations. If gates were situated such that they did not create a backup of traffic onto the public streets, and they did not remove parking spaces, they could be an option. Attendants could monitor the number of spaces occupied, and verify that those ' entering were Marina Park patrons by showing proof of registration in a sailing class or community center activity, and limit the general beach parking to those, remaining spaces. An attendant, could also direct motorists to the appropriate boat launch areas and-spedfic featmes•ofthe-park, to. alleviate, -,driver -confusion -and fadilitat ,way -finding. COMMENT 16 ' Section 6, Alternatives to the Proposed Project: Staff understands that the traffic generation of the various alternatives would be much the same as for the "with project". A10-16 If the project consists of the removal of the existing I eh Street boat launch, and another ' boat launch is not located within or near the project site, the project and all of the alternatives except the "No Project" have the potential to reduce traffic and reduce the need to- provide extra long stalls for cars pulling trailers. COMMENT 17 The Marina Park Draft EIR does not appear to address Climate Change. AB 32, the ' California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, signed by Governor Arnold A10-17 Schwarzenegger in September 2006. AB 32 is now codified as Health & Safety Code Sections 38500-38599. Provide an explanation of how the project will address AB 32. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed document. Staff would appreciate the opportunity to review any further information regarding this project as the planning process proceeds. If you have any questions,. please contact me at by ph9ne•at,(949) 724-6559 or by email at s'ones(Mcityofirvine:�rp: Sincerely, t SHERMAN JONES, AICP Associate Planner cc: Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner Sun -Sun Murillo, Supervising Transportation Analyst 1 1 A11 Page 1 of 8 To: Rosalinh Ung 20 April 2009 Associate Planner ' City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 ' From Environment Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) Subject: Comments on Marina Park DEIR dated February 26, 2009 ' EQAC is pleased to take this opportunity to provide comments on the referenced DEIR. Our comments are generally listed in their order of appearance in the documents with page and paragraph references as needed. We hope that they are constructive and assist ' the proponent in producing the best possible result for the City of Newport Beach 2. Executive Summary ' Refer to Table 2-1, Executive Summary Matrix (pp. 2-2 to 29). The logic in this Table is confusing or wrong. ' Environmental Impacts under Project Specific or Cumulative (left side of Table) should lead to Mitigation Measures (center of Table) and result in improvements as noted in ' Level of Significance after Mitigation (right side of Table). For example, Air Quality Impact 5.2-A (pg. 2-4) is shown as potentially significant, leading to 3 mitigation measures, resulting in less than significant after mitigation. However, Air Quality Impact 5.2-1 (pg. 2-5, 6, 7, 8) is shown as less than significant, leading to 1 I mitigation measures resulting in less than significant after mitigation. Shouldn't the original impact have been shown as potentially significant? J. ' Cultural Resources Impact 5.4-A (pg. 2-11) is shown as no impact leading no mitigation resulting in less than significant after mitigation. Did no mitigation result in ' deterioration? Cultural Resources Impact 5.4-D (pg. 2-12) is shown as less than significant but cites a mitigation measure which could stop or delay the project for a significant period of time. Doesn't that make the Impact potentially significant? ' Geology and Soils Impact 5.5-D (pg. 2-14) goes from potentially significant to no impact T with no mitigation measures. How is this possible? 1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 5.6-G (pg. 2-16) asserts -no project impact related to implementation of an "adopted emergency response plan or emergency ' evacuation plan". However, Balboa Blvd. is the main peninsula emergency response and evacuation route, and it will be occupied by trucks and construction equipment during significant portions of the development phase. This slow -moving traffic is a potentially ' significant impact and should be addressed with a specific mitigation measure assuring that there is always space on -site for all such project related equipment in the event that Balboa Blvd is needed for emergencies and/or Peninsula evacuations. A11-1 Al 1-2 Al 1-3 A114 A11 'Page 2 of 8 Land Use and Planning Impact 5.8-13 (pg. 2-22) relates to project conflict "with any T applicable land use plan..." and asserts a less than significant impact. How does this 1 become no impact with no proposed mitigation? Public Services Impact 5.10-1) (pg. 2-25) is shown as Beneficial, but results in no impact after no mitigation. Shouldn't the final result be Beneficial? 5. Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 Aesthetics In general, the impact on environmental aesthetics is a major improvement for the proposed project area. The removal of current vegetation and replacement with new vegetation is also a monumental improvement and will be more "green" and visually appealing. However, the developer should consider the following comments in planning and mitigation for the project. Open space It is planned to replace the open green space (American Legion Park) next to the American Legion with two (2) public tennis courts. Included will be the elimination of 6 to 10 mature trees. Is there a way to save these mature trees? Viewers Viewers affected by the proposed changes will include those attending events within the American Legion facility and residential viewers on 15a' Street. American Legion Park will be replaced by two tennis courts, including fencing, tennis netting and lights, in a location that is closer to residences than the existing courts. Court lights and glare will replace the current darkness. The EIR should analyze how residents will be affected by the additional light and noise and social occasions at the American Legion Hall will be disrupted by the additional noise and glare from the adjacent tennis courts. Al 1-5 Sailing Center and Lighthouse The Balboa Center, at 35 feet, 6 inches, is over the 35-foot standard of height. The Lighthouse, at 73 feet, is double the Shoreline Height Requirement, adopted over 30 All-9 years ago, and will have a light at the top. The EIR should analyze the visual impacts of the building height and new light source to area residents. 5.2 Air Quality ' Please provide an analysis and assessment of the local, immediately proximate impacts to ' Newport Beach residents. Any and all air quality impact analyses and assessments for Marina Park in Newport Beach appear to be inaccurate to the extent they factor in, or are based on, Local A11-10 Air Quality Measurements taken at the Source Receptor Area (SRA) 18. For measurements on ' ozone and carbon monoxide, the closest SCAQMD air quality monitoring station for SRA 18 is in Costa Mesa at Mesa Verde Drive. Measurements of particulate matter pollutants (PMto and H All Page 3 of 8 ' PM2.5) are drawn from a station in Mission Viejo. See 5.2-1 and 5.2-2, pages 5.2-10 through 5.2-11. These data do not represent actual Newport Beach air quality, or air quality on the Peninsula. ' As the DEIR acknowledges, the South Coast Air Basin is designated as "non -attainment" because the ambient air quality for the area already exceeds the State and National standard for ' the particulate matter pollutants (PMio and PM2.5), the State standards for ozone (1 hour), and the National standards for ozone (8 hour). See Page 5.2-11. ' To address the proposed project's impact on the existing noncompliance levels, the DEIR states that the ambient concentrations of pollutants are measured at the SRA station, and based upon these concentrations, a Localized Significance Threshold ("LST") is developed, which in turn ' represents the "maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable state or national ambient air quality standard." See, e.g., Pages 5.2-25 through 5.2-29. ' However, as addressed above, the SRA (and therefore LST figures) do not account for the projected cumulative construction and operational impacts of projects missing from Table 4.1 (pg, 4.5)-Aerie, Sunset Ridge, Banning Ranch. Thus, it appears that the DEIR's conclusions that ' the maximum emissions from the impacts are less than significant (either before or after mitigation) cannot be not based on accurate data because the LSTs are not based on accurate data (See Section 7 of this report). The DEIR is missing any analysis that incorporates the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) "all feasible measures" recommendation. It appears the EIR should be ' amended to include such discussions. In the beginning of the discussion on Air Quality, the EIR expressly states that the SCAQMD submitted a comment letter in response to the NOP on Marina Park. ' One of the strong recommendations made by SCAQMD was that the Marina Park air quality analyses include: "Implementation of all feasible measures beyond what is required by law to minimize or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts". The DEIR states affirmatively that it "incorporated" that suggestion (See "5.2.1 Introduction" at page 5.2-1) However, none of the analyses concerning air quality even mention any measures "beyond what is required by law," and the regional air quality measurements. Instead of also looking at how an impact can be reduced by "measures beyond what is required by law," most of the analyses conclude that the impact at issue amounts to "no impact" or is "less than significant" (and thus requires no mitigation of any sort) because it is consistent with a general plan "policy" or a guideline. This approach appears backwards and circumvents the spirit of the SCAQMD recommendation. The concerns are underscored by the fact that the "legal" standards by which the EIR analyses determine compliance are in the context of the local air quality's violations of both State and All-10 CONT All-11 All Page 4 of 8 National air quality standards. The EIR needs to identify what measures have been incorporated All-11 ' beyond those required•by law. CONT Although the DEIR refers totwo mitigation measures to be employed for the air quality impacts, ' it does not explain how these measures actually reduce the contaminants on the short-term (construction) or permanent (operational) bases. More information appears necessary. 1 , 5.3 Biological Resources The EIR should analyze whether the use of non-native landscaping would have an impact T All-12 t on the marine environment. The Project Objectives are missing a critical component, i.e. the opportunity to showcase I All-13 the bay setting and its habitat, and make it part of the visitor experience. What is impact of park lighting on•night sky? Will it be more or less than current? How T All-14 could that impact the ability of birds to nest at the site? 1 5.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ' 5.6.2 (pp5.6-5 to 5.6-6), Sediment Evaluation , This section describes core sampling done to test for hazardous materials. It describes Areas A,B & C as sites of core samples but fails to plot these locations on a map. Also, it , describes the corings taking place above and below "the 0 feet MLLW". It fails to define this description. (Calls to the city failed to•provide a definition.) This is troubling for two A14-15 reasons. , 1. Pg. 5.6-6 states "soils were tested based on their consistency to be deposited....." at various sites, but , 2. 5.6-A (Pg 5.6-7) states that "during construction activities, the proposed marina area will be dredged to -12 MLLW". This would seem to indicate that they will be digging much deeper than the core samples (0 feet MLLW) and dredging samples noted on pg 5.6-6. It seems that deep core samples should be done considering the close proximity of the contaminated Rhine Channel , and shipyard areas. Core samples should be obtained to identify potential hazardous materials at -12 feet MLLW (whatever that means) , Impact 5.6-B (pg 5.6-8) Accident Conditions - Project -Specific Analysis Refers to "extensive excavation of the marina ..... for a relatively limited time." This is All-16 vague and overly broad. The hazardous materials removed from the excavation will have , to be removed from the site. Given the location of the project, heavy traffic will be an issue. Also, if a spill or truck accident occurs on W, Balboa Blvd. it could cause an extreme impact. The project site is quite a distance from the branching (alternative route) ' at W. Superior. The section further states that "because of the limited duration of these activities.... the potential for hazard impact during these activities would be less than ' A11 Page 5 of 8 C' I 1 1J I significant". A detailed time table for dredging, truck staging, barges (if needed) and traffic management should be prepared and submitted before work begins. 1 Referring to the operational marina (pg 5.6-8) the DEIR states that "In addition, operation of limited -stay...... vessels to stay in the marina for up to 30 days. ...the marina would not include maintenance areas, vehicle boat wash areas, or fueling". How, then will these boats dispose of the waste accumulated over the course of their stay? This is indeed a hazardous consequence of the construction of this project Cumulative (pg 5.6-8)-The DEIR states that "Impacts associated with project demolition.... project could contribute to significant cumulative hazard...... related to asbestos and lead -based paint". Will they not be required to hire specialists to remove asbestos and lead paint before general demolition as is the case in all other construction projects? Impact 5.6-G (pg 5.6-13) states that "the project will not constrict access ... the onsite circulation system..." No onsite circulation system is included in the document and therefore, cannot be evaluated. Considering the location of the project, it is difficult to imagine that it will not seriously impact off -site circulation as well, especially traffic trying to leave the area. All-16 CONT A11-17 A11-18 I1slau 5.7 Hydrology and Water Quality A11-20 Please provide stormwater runoff and drainage project analyses. Grease — Mitigation Measures (pg 5.7-7) How will pollutants not easily seen, like oil or grease, be handled? Page 5.7.11 Project -Specific Analysis (pg 5.7-11, bottom of the second paragraph) T A11-21 Use California native and California friendly plants for landscape management in the ll proposed vegetative bioswales and landscape biocells. APPENDIX H: DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY INFORMATION Page 7: Specific Industrials/Commercial Details A11-22 Third box down and to the right- Does the parking analysis include a restaurant? Of what size? ' Page 16: Source Controls BMPs N15 Second box from bottom on the right- Shouldn't the streets and parking lots be cleaned A11-23 once a week and not quarterly as planned? ' Page 26 Will there be a wash down facility for small and large sailing boats? How will A11-24 ' contaminated wastewater from this operation be controlled? TC-32 Bioretention Table one T A11-25 All Page 6 of 8 This data is based on work done 10-15 years ago. Is more recent data available? 5.8 Land Use and Planning In the Executive Summary, Impact 5.8-E and in Section 5.8.4 the DEIR states that "the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the General Plan, Specific Plan, Local Coastal Program or Zoning Ordinance)..." However, the DEIR states that the project is located within the 35 foot Shoreline Height Limitation Zone addressed under Chapter 4 of the CLUP, a component of the Local Coastal Program. In addition, the DEIR states that the project may require a Use Permit to allow the Community and Sailing buildings to exceed the base height limit of 35 feet and a Modification Permit to allow structures located on the site to exceed the 35 foot height limit per the zoning code. All-25 1 CONT The language should be revised in the Executive Summary and Section 5.8.4 to reflect these possible measures that could be required, and remove the language stating that "the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation...". 5.10 Public Services Impact 5.10-D (pg. 5.10-6) deals with beneficial aspects of the proposed project with respect to overall increase in parkland. However, the DEIR does not deal with the negative consequences of elimination of 2 public tennis courts in an area where other public tennis courts are miles away. Elimination of these 2 courts is in direct contradiction to the assertion made on page 1-14 that the "proposed project will include new and expanded versions of all existing recreation facilities now found within the existing site." Is there any evidence to show that these courts are not needed or underutilized? In addition, the project plan requires demolition of the existing tennis courts and an adjacent Tot Lot, both of which are actively utilized and unique to the adjacent community. Since their loss during the project development phase would negatively affect the community and visiting users, it would be helpful to have a mitigation measure showing that the tennis courts and Tot Lot would be replaced and available prior to demolition of the existing facilities. Would the project increase the need for lifeguard services, especially with the Tot Lot located close to the beach? 5.11 Transportation and Traffic A11-26 All-27 All-28 Page 5.11-1. Section 5.11.2 — First sentence calls for 19a' Street, but the map on Exhibit T All-29 , 5.11-1 is showing 181" Street. Which is correct? 11 All Page 7 of 8 C� I I u Page 5.11-7. Table 5.11-3: Net new trip number shows 352; however, on.page 5.11.8 (at I A11-30 the top) it shows a net increase number of 477. Please explain the difference. Pue 5.11-12. Project — Specific Analysis Section: Primary access to project can't be via T All-31 17" Street by looking at the map on Exhibit 3-3 Site Plan. What is the intended primary fl access to the project? Page 5.11-14. (third and fifth lines from the top)- Take out approximately 127 and All-32 approximately 26, but keep the hard 127 and 26 figures to agree with the total 153 parking places listed elsewhere in the DEIR. Do the current 21 parking spaces remain during the construction and when the project is T All-33 completed? These spaces are located at the curb and the sand facing the bay, between 18`h & 19`h Streets. Who is expected to use these spaces? What provisions will be implemented to assure that ocean beach users will not consume T All-34 parking spaces meant for Marina Park users? 1 It is likely that, during the construction phase of the project, the residents, businesses and visitors to the Peninsula will face a lot of congestion. A rigorous traffic management plan with A11-35 strict enforcement should be implemented to assure that the traffic analysis is upheld and that construction will be limited to weekdays only during summer and holiday periods. Will the project include provisions for a public launch ramp for small shallow boats? Will the existing facilities at 15"' and 18a' Streets remain? 7.Other CEQA Considerations Significant data concerning cumulative impacts are missing, and thus revisions/amendments to the DEIR are required. The DEIR states that "Cumulative impacts are defined as impacts created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." (See 4.2 Related Projects on page 4-1) Pursuant to CEQA guidelines, the DEIR included a list of related projects obtained from the City of Newport Beach, dated September 2008 (See Table 4-1, page 4-5). A11-36 All Page 8 of 8 ' The Table of related projects fails to include three large current and probable projects: Sunset All-36 , Ridge, Aerie, and Banning Ranch. All such projects are in the immediate area. In fact, they are CONT closer to the proposed Marina Park development than are several of the projects in the City's list. Thus, the cumulative impact analyses in this EIR lack crucial data. The analyses are dangerously inaccurate without such data. The EIR should be amended to include accurate analyses that consider these missing related projects. This should be a concern for the accuracy of all impacts of the Marina Park project. Lastly, more data/information is needed concerning the environmental impacts of the project alternatives. Though CEQA guidelines do not require a DEIR's discussion -of project alternatives All-37 to be as extensive as the analyses for the proposed project, the sparse discussion of the "Reduced Marina Alternative" provides no meaningful data for comparison and consideration. (See 6.3 , "Reduced Marina Alternative," page 6-3). I 11 I CCRPA P.O. Box 54132 rrvine, CA 92619-4132 ' March 21, 2009 Al2 Page 1 of 1 California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, inc. An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources. 'Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner, Planning Department City of Newport Beach '3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 i 1 I J Dear Ms. Ung: Ri .0 IVeJ BY PlAWNOlt-) l'i-T4C4" MAR 2 5 2009 Ow or,1\ �t�rT iRTI RUCH Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report Marina Park. We agree that the proposed project will not affect a historic resource and that significant impacts to archaeological Al2-1 resources are unlikely. However, the project area was not inspected for the presence of archaeological remains when it was developed therefore, it is possible that buried archaeological resources are present and could be impacted by dredging and excavation activities. While providing the opportunity for a Native American representative to monitor excavation and dredging activities places the city in compliance with SB 18, Traditional Tribal Cultural Places, a qualified Al 2-2 archaeologist is still needed to identify archaeological materials and evaluate them using the California Register of Historic Properties criteria. Therefore, we strongly recommend that an archaeologist also be present to monitor excavation and dredging. If you have any questions, please call me at (949) 559-6490, or email pmartz@calstatela.edu. Sincerely, Patricia Martz, Ph.D. President P A-13 Page 1 of 1 Ung, Rosalinh From: Felicia Sheerman [sheerman@roadrunner.comj Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 6:38 PM 'To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Marina Park Project Dear Rosalinh, The Environmental Impact Report for the above subject project states the project could have impacts to archaeological 'resources, paleontological resources and burial sites. Due to the fact that the proposed project is in a culturally sensitive area it is our concern that the City of Newport Beach appoints Native American Monitors from the largest faction of the Tribe to represent this project. ' We are the largest faction of the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe, with over 85% of descendants of the historic Gabrielino Tribe. We have approximately 1,600 members, and the next largest faction has less than 150 members. We strongly recommend the City of Newport Beach hire Native American monitors approved by our faction. ' Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate contacting myself or our office. Sincerely, Hon. Felicia Sheerman, Tribal Councilwoman Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Office: (310) 587-2203 Cell: (310) 428-7720 Email: fsheermanl GabrielinoTribe.ora Website: www.Qabrielinotribe.ors A-13-1 A14 Page 1 of 3 �I I C I t II u u u 1. it IJ April 13, 2009 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Draft EIR — Marina Park Dear Ms Ung: RECEIVED BY p1ANNINO DEPARTMENT APR 1 i tUU CITY OF NEWPORi OWH Following are comments from the Central Newport Beach Community Association regarding the DEIR for Marina Park. CNBCA represents over 300 families who live in or own property between the two piers, including the area in which Marina Park is located. I. We are very appreciative about the long awaited implementation of Marina Park and are grateful to the City Council for its actions to move the project forward. We do, however, want the project to be the best it can be and minimize impacts on residents and visitors to the beach. 2. Comments made by CNBCA dated June 19, 2008 on the NOP for Marina Park were not included in the DEIR as were comments made by others. Some of those comments will be reiterated below. 3. Parking analysis should include all potential users. Page 5.11-14 states that parking lots are intended for the project only and are not intended to provide additional beach parking. From this we infer that use of Marina Park lots for summer ocean beach parking demands will be discouraged. Even with this constraint, section 5.11 addresses parking for only the buildings at Marina Park. There is no allocation of parking for visitors to the grassy portions of the park, tot lot, public dock, hand launch or, more importantly the Newport Bay beach. There is very little bay beach available to the Public in Newport Beach; Marina Park will help to address this deficiency and as such should prove to be very popular. While the existing bay beach is accessible to the public, it is not readily visible to the public and therefore is lightly used. A proposed mitigation measure is to not program the Community building for use on Saturdays and Sundays from Memorial Day to Labor Day thus making that parking allocation available for only park and bay beach users. A14-1 A1'4-2 A14-3 A14 Page 2 of 3 , 4. The discussion of water circulation in the marina basin is disturbing. The bay beaches both upstream and downstream from the proposed marina are popular and involve human contact. Anecdotal input from users of the Marina Park A14-4 beach indicate problems from using the bay for swimming and playing that may result from proximity to the Rhine Channel already. We do not need additional problems from the creation of a new marina. A proposed mitigation measure is prohibiting the washing or working on boats within this short term berthing marina. Additionally, MM 5.7-A.2 proposes the use of mechanical devices to aid flushing and mentions the option of use of four oloids. While the oloids move water well, we suggest that staff contact the County of Orange Dana Point Harbor Department for recent, local experience ' With oloids. There is indication of limited mechanical life in the marine environment and substantial utility costs. Any mechanical device chosen should be reliable and energy efficient and proven as such. 5. Public Safety needs to address the proximity of the tot lot to Newport Bay. It A14-5 is akin to placing an unfenced tot lot next to an unfenced swimming pool. Lifeguard services should also be analyzed. limited from , 6. Access is proposed to be primarily from 16ih Street with access Fifteenth Street. The 15"' Street access is from a 20 foot wide alley that is A14-5 used for access to the American Legion Parking lot and for an apartment ' structure and a commercial building. Both the apartment and commercial buildings have parking that requires backing into the alley. A mitigation measure should require that access from 151b Street be limited to only emergency and maintenance access needs with a gate at the east end of the Visiting Marina lot. ' 7. Add the residence on 181" Street at Bay Ave. to the list of Sensitive Receptors A14-7 (5-9.5) throughout the analysis. This is the private property most impacted by proximity to the project 1 8. Traffic studies did not address traffic congestion that will undoubtedly occur in the general vicinity of Marina Park. All traffic analyses were conducted ' west of the intersection of Newport Blvd. and Balboa Blvd. Residents of and visitors to the peninsula will be most impacted by congestion between 15h A14-8 Street, and 2Y' Street on West Balboa Blvd, an area nearly one mile south of the nearest intersection studied (Newport Blvd. And 32w Street). West Balboa Blvd. Is the only arterial serving the entire length of the peninsula. Both the Marina Park lots will be visible from Balboa Blvd. And will be aggressively , targeted by both ocean beach visitors as well as Marina Park visitors. For years there has been a summer traffic pattern between 18'h Street and 20`h Street that is generated by the parking lot on the bay between 18" and 19"' Streets (see diagram, existing pattern). Cars hunting for a space, often after unloading family and cargo, will circle until a space becomes available on ' A14 Page 3 of 3 Balboa Blvd. Or in the parking lot. Our concern is that, if mitigation methods are not employed to discourage ocean beach usage of the Marina Park lots with signage, limited meter time or other methods, a local traffic pattern will develop that will severely impact residents and visitors destined east of Marina Park as well as visitors to the park. Mitigation measures to address the potential local traffic circulation and congestion should be addressed in the analysis. An analysis of the West Balboa and 15" Street intersection for summer AM peak weekend recreational period would be bebeficial to understanding and controlling the inevitable congestion that will ensue around the park site. Existing Local TraDic Potential Local Traft Panem During Sunmer Panem During Summer FdSun 10:302:00PM FdSun 10:302:DUPM Newport Bay �W. Existing Lot A 0 I Propo od Ma"na Park Lot Bay Ave. 11 I 1 _ -- .v ----- I---- ---- -> r N T West Oceanfront (Alley) Pacific ocean 9. The Project Alternatives section considers only the no or reduced marina alternatives. A similar analysis should be applied to the Community Center building with a reduced size alternative with its reduced parking, traffic and visual impacts. A phased scenario with the Community Center being the last improvement as an alternative should also be considered. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Very truly yours, A-C1L Louise Fundenti =dem Central Newport Beach Community Association A14-8 CONT A14-9 P1 Page 1 of 2 TxoMAs R. Rossi I April 7, 2009 Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd I 1 1 I n f� 1 II I G Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Marina Park EIR Comments/Concerns Ladies and Gentlemen: . RECENED BY PIMNING DErPAWMENT APR 0-9 =0 CIIYOE NEWPORT BEACH I own the single family residence located at the corner of 18t' Street & West Bay Avenue (1801 West Bay). I have observed and appreciate that great care has been given to ensuring the protection of view corridors, etc for the properties located on Balboa Blvd across the street from the Marina Park Project ("Project"). I believe that in some cases those views have even been substantially enhanced. I believe it is a fair statement that my property above all others is very likely the most impacted by the proposed Project, and I believe that I am entitled to the same level of concern for my property by the City of Newport Beach and those involved with the design and implementation of the Project as has been given my Balboa Blvd neighbors. On several previous occasions I made inquiry at Project Committee meetings, and expressed my grave concerns to the Project architects, my councilmen (more than one over the years) and others regarding my view, quiet enjoyment and property value being negatively impacted by any structure or other use situated near my property or in conflict with my panoramic view which currently includes harbor lights, the hills at and around Newport Center/Spyglass Hill, etc. Each time I inquired, I was informed that the Girl Scout Building would be a "low profile" single -level structure for "Girl Scout only" events but that there was not yet any design that definitively described the actual height, size, type and exact placement of the subject building. I was further assured that my 3419 Via Lido, Suite 641 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ofc. 949-675-5500 Fax 949-675-1400 www.RossiProperties.com P1-1 Ij P1 Page 2 of 2 ' r concerns would indeed' be given appropriate and sensitive consideration as the Project's plans progressed. As late as last Friday when I met personally with Mr. David Kiff at City Hall, I was informed that no such definition regarding my concerns exists. I believe this situation is Inappropriate and should no longer be ignored. In my opinion, this matter should have been addressed long before now, and my patience has gone unrewarded. In addition•to view obstruction, my concerns- regarding hours of operation,, any rental or other use of the Girl Scout Building for private events such as parties or other non -Girl Scout -related activities remain unresolved. Obviously, any use that would place or generate additional parkingltrafflc burden (especially at early or late hours) close to my property would have a substantial negative impact on it. I was assured by the Committee that non - Girl Scout -related activities would not be allowed, but I have no concrete evidence of such restrictions. If such use restrictions exist, I would appreciate written confirmation of same at your earliest convenience. J. P1-1 CONT P1-2 In light of the foregoing, please accept this letter•as my objection to the T P1-3 Project(EIR due to these Issues being left unaddressed in a fair and equitable manner. I respectfully request your timely written response. Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and attention to my concerns. Yours truly, omas . Rossi CC: Mayor Edward D. Selich Councilman Michael F. Henn n I� Marina Park Draft REIR I I ' Appendix N: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 1 1 II II II II II II II Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 17 L7 I I i I I I APPENDIX N MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN Method of Timing Responsible Verification Party Air Quality MM 5.2-A.1. During all phases of project construction, the City Field inspections. During all construction. Public Works Dept., Director of Newport Beach shall limit grading and earth moving to no or designee. more than five acres per day. MM 5.2-A.2. During all phases of project construction, the City Field inspections. During all construction. Public Works Dept., Director or of Newport Beach shall ensure that the following methods to designee. reduce fugitive dust emissions are undertaken: • Exposed soil and sand surfaces shall be watered periodically to reduce dust. • Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. During Phase 3 Public Works MM 5.2-A.3. During Phase 3 project construction, the City of Field inspections. Dept., Director or Newport Beach shall require tugboat(s) used in sand export construction. designee. activities to have a propulsion engine built after the year 2000 or meeting Year 2000 emission standards. MM 5.3-A.1. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Newport Field During Phase 3 Public Works Dept., Director or Beach shall ensure that placement of dredge material on or inspections. construction. designee. adjacent to ocean beaches does not occur between March 31 and June 30. MM 5.3-A.2. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Newport Field During Phase 3 Public Works Dept., Director or Beach shall require that sound abatement techniques be used to inspections. construction. designee. reduce noise and vibrations from pile -driving activities. At the initiation of each pile -driving event and after breaks of more than 15 minutes, the pile driving shall also employ a "soft -start" in which the hammer is operated at less than full capacity (i.e., approximately 40 to 60 percent energy levels) with no less than a 1-minute interval between each strike for a 5-minute period. A biological monitor shall be on -site to monitor effects on marine mammals, including flushing responses and symptoms of stress or damage. The biological monitor shall also note (surface scan only) whether marine mammals are present within 100 meters (333 ft) of the pile driving and, if any are observed, temporarily halt pile driving until the observed mammals move beyond this distance. MM 5.3-A.3. During Phase 3 construction, in the event of a Field During Phase 3 Public Works Dept., Director or construction vessel collision with a marine mammal, the City of inspections. construction. designee. Newport Beach shall immediately contact Mr. Joe Corriere, National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Regional Office's Stranding Coordinator 562 980-4017) and will submit a report to the NMFS Southwest Regional Office. MM 5.3-C.1. The City of Newport Beach shall mitigate the loss Plan check. Prior to Phase 3 Public Works Dept., Director or of 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal habitat at an acceptable location construction. designee, and/or within Newport Bay, or at another southern California Planning embayment, or by means of an in -lieu fee agreement. Mitigation Department, will be based upon a ratio determined by the City of Newport Director or Beach. An in -lieu fee agreement option for contributing to a designee.. permitted or nearly -permitted mitigation project option shall also be simultaneously pursued. A conceptual and final intertidal habitat mitigation plan shall be Sirius Environmental Marina Park Draft REIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 Method of Timing Responsible Verification Part developed that further refines habitat losses, identifies mitigation goals, mitigation success criteria, costs, location, mitigation requirements, mitigation methods, monitoring, and mitigation success criteria. The mitigation plan will be included in the USACE and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) permit conditions. In accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan must be developed to monitor ilia success of the habitat replacement. MM 5.3-E.1. During all phases of construction, the City of Field During all Public Works Ncwportbeach shall ensure that removal of vegetation or other inspections, construction. Dept., Director potential migratory nesting -bird habitat will be conducted outside or designee. of the avian nesting season (February through -August). if removal of vegetation occurs during the avian nesting season, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to this activity. if migratory birds arc found to be nesting within or near the impact area, a buffer where no construction activities would occur would need to be established by a qualified biologist. This biologist would also determine when the nest is no longer active, at which time construction could resume. Cultural Resources MM 5.4-13.1. If archeological artifacts are encountered during Field During all Public Works construction, the City of Newport Beach shall contact a Native inspections construction. Dept. and American representative (as appropriate) and take measures to Planning Dept. avoid the site, or shall record the site then cap or cover the site Director or designee. with a layer of soil before building -over it. Alternatively, the City shall excavate the site under the supervision of a qualified archeologist in order to recover the scientifically consequential information relevant to the resource. MM 5.4-C.1. During Phase 3 construction, a qualified Field During Phase 3 Public Works paleontologist shall be retained to observe grading activities and inspections construction. Dept., Director conduct salvage excavation of paleontological resources as or designee. necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resources surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the City, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the fossils as appropriate. Ifaddillohal or unexpected paleontological features are discovered, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the City Planning Department. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, the paleontological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City, for exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Geology and Solis AIM 5.5-A.1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for Phase Plan check for Prior to issuance of Public Works 3, the City of Newport beach shall prepare a building foundation Phase 3, grading permits. Dept./Building design to reduce the impacts of potential liquefaction and Dept., Director settlement. The foundation design shall conform to the or designee. recommendation of the gcotechnical report prepared for the project, which include: Site Preparation — excavation of minimum of 12 inches and recompaction to provide recommended subgrade density; all activities to be observed by a geotechnical engineer. Sirius Environmental MM-2 I I I 1 I I I I U 11 I I I I C_1 IMarina Park Draft REIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program I I I I I I� I Method of Vining Responsible Verification Part Foundation -- mat foundation for restroom facilities and small buildings and either a deep foundation system such as driven piles or stone columns with mat foundations for the Balboa Center. The specific foundation design for each proposed structure would require approval by the City of Newport Beach Building Department. Marina —design specifications and construction techniques are recommended in the geotechnical report and shall be adhered to. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Field Prior to demolition Public Works MM 5.6-A.1. Prior to demolition activities in Phase 1, the City inspections and activities in each Dept., Director of Newport Beach shall determine, through sampling and testing testing. Phase. or designee. by a licensed laboratory, whether asbestos or lead -based paint materials, or PCBs are present within the existing onsite structures. if these materials are present, the City of Newport Beach shall require that these materials be handled in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, and shall dispose of these materials in a landfill that accepts asbestos, PCB -containing materials, and lead -based paint. Hydrology MM 5.7-A.1. Prior to construction of each phase, the City of Field inspections. Prior to construction activities in each Public Works Dept., Director Newport Beach shall prepare a stormwater pollution prevention Phase. or designee. plan (S WPPP) for construction activities that describes best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the release of potential pollutants into surface water. The plan shall also identify how the BMPs will be implemented. The SWPPP shall include, but not be limited to, the following BMPs: • Dust Control. Water will be sprayed periodically in newly graded areas to prevent dust from grading activities being blown on to adjacent areas (in conformance with Newport Beach Ordinance limiting water use). • Construction Staging: Specific areas will be delineated for storage of material and equipment, and for equipment maintenance, to contain potential spills. • Sediment Control: Sand bags or silt fences will be located along the perimeter of the site. Existing inlets and proposed area drains will be protected against intrusion of sediment. • Tracking: Tracking of sand and mud on the local street will be avoided by lire washing and/or road stabilization. Street cleaning (using a sweeper, no wash down activities are permitted) will be done if tracking occurs. • Waste Disposal: Specific area and/or methods will be selected for waste disposal. Typical construction waste include concrete, concrete washout, mortar, plaster, asphalt, paint, metal, isolation material, plants, wood products and other construction material. Solid waste will be disposed of in approved trash receptacles at specific locations. Washing of concrete trucks will be done in a contained area allowing proper cleanup. (Wash water would be discharged into sanitary sewer [as permitted], Baker Tank or settling basin.) Other liquid waste will not be allowed to percolate into the ground. • Construction dewatering: Construction dewatering, if required, will necessitate approval of permits by the California Regional'Water Quality Control Board and the City. • Maintenance: Maintenance of BMPs will take place before and after rainfall events to insure proper operation. • Training., The SW PPP will include directions for staff training MM-3 Sirius Environmental 11, Marina Park Draft REIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 Method of Timing Responsible VeriReation Party and checklists forscheduled inspections. • Construction Vehicles: Construction vehicles will be inspcotcd daily to ensure there are no leaking fluids. If there are leaking fluids, the construction vehicles will be serviced outside of the project site area. • Turbidity: Activities shall not cause turbidity increases in bay waters that exceed; a) 20 percent if background turbidity is between 0 and 5 Nepltclometric Turbity Units (NTUs); b)10 percent if background is between 50 and 100 NTUs; c) 10 percent if background turbidity is greater than 100 NTUs. Monitoring of turbidity in bay water adjacent to boat slip construction will be conducted daily during construction activities that may cause turbidity. If activities exceed the above criteria, construction activities associated with causing turbidity will be discontinued until the above criteria is met. • Grease: Construction activities will not cause visible oil, grouse, or foam in the work area or in the bay. • Silt curtains: Silt curtains will be placed within the bay so that all effluent from dredging activities will be contained within the construction zone. • Hauling Trucks: The project construction contractors will ensure that trucks hauling soil material to and from the project site will be covered and will maintain a 2-inch differential between the maximum height of any hauled material and the lop pf the haul trailer. Ilaui truck drivers will water the load prior to leaving the site in order to prevent soil loss during transport. • Heavy Equipment: Limit heavy equipment use on the beach, as feasible, to areas away from the high -tide line during construction. • Hydrogen Sulfide: Provisions shall be made, as necessary, for the treatment orhydrogen sulfide to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the dewatcring process. • Dredged Material: The scow doors used to release dredged material remain closed until the scows arc towed to the dis osal site. 5.7-A,2. As part of marina construction in Phase 3, the City of Plan check for Prior to issuance of Public Works Newport Beach shall include mechanical devices within the Phase 3. permits for Phase 3 Dept., Director marnn basin design to enhance the movement and mixing of marina, or designee. water within the basin. The use or mechanical devices shall meet the EPA guidelines for adequate tidal flushing (at least 70 percent exchange every 24 hours). One option could be the use of oloids (propeller -type devices) thathave been modeled, but the selection of the system to,be installed shall be coordinated with and approved by US EPA, the Santa Ana RWQCB, and NOAA Fisheries. Noise 5.9-D.1. During all phases of construction, the City of Newport Field During all Public Works Beach shall ensure that all construction equipment on -site is inspections construction. Dept., Director properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions and or designee. that construction equipment is 6t with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. 5.9-13.2. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Newport Beach Field During Phase 3 pile Public Works shall ensure that noise abatement technology is used (e.g., inspections. driving. Dept., Director shrouds and barriers) to minimize the sound from pile drivers; no or designee. pile driving shall take place outside the hours s ccificd for Sirius Environmental MM-4 Ll 1 ,1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I-1 H I 1 I ' Marina Park Draft REIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program I r I I I i I 1 I I I Method of Timing Responsible Verification Part construction activities in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. 5.9-D.3. During all phases of construction, the City of Newport Field inspections. During all construction. Public Works Dept., Director Beach shall ensure that all stationary noise sources (e.g., or designee. generators, compressors, staging areas) are located as far from residential and recreational receptors as is feasible. 5.9-D.4. During all phases of construction, material delivery, Field inspections. During all construction. Public Works Dept., Director soil haul trucks, equipment servicing, and construction activities or designee. shall be restricted to the hours set fot th in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. ' Sirius Environmental MM-5