HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2008-040_FINAL EIRNEW FILE*
PA2008-040 Final EIR
Table of Contents
Marina Park
Final Environmental Impact Report
'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
Chapter 1
Introduction to the Final EIR
1-1
Chapter 2
Comments on the Draft REIR
2-1
Chapter 3
Responses to Comments
3-1
Errata to the Draft REIR
3-11
Sirius Environmental
Marina Park Final REIR
Introduction
u
u
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
11
:CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section
21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.).
According to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, a FEIR shall consist of:
(a) The 'Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (Draft REIR) or a revision of the
Draft;
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft REIR either verbatim or in
summary;
(c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies comments on the Draft REIR;
(d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the
review and consultation process; and
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
This document contains responses to comments received on the Draft REIR for the Marina Park
project during the public review period, which began January 25, 2010, and closed March 10,
2010, as well as errata to the Draft REIR. This document has been prepared in accordance with
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency.
This document and the Draft REIR comprise the Final EIR, in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines, Section,15132.
1.2 PROCESS
As defined by Section 15050 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach is serving as
"Lead Agency," responsible for preparing both the Draft and Final EIR for this project.
A Draft EIR for the Marina Park project was prepared and released for public review in February
2009. After considering public and agency comments on that draft, and in view of project
modifications that occurred since release of the Draft EIR, the City of Newport Beach decided to
prepare and recirculate a new Draft EIR.
The Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (Draft REIR) was prepared in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental
impacts associated with the implementation and development of Marina Park. The Draft REIR
Sirius Environmental 1.1
1
Marina Park Final REIR Introduction
document was prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section
21000 et seq), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section
15000 et seq.), and the City of Newport Beach Implementation Procedures for CEQA. The Draft
REIR includes a revised project description (to include three project phases) and analyses revised
as appropriate to reflect the revised project.description as well as revisions included to respond to
comments received on the Draft EIR. The Draft REIR also includes, in a• separate Section (8),
detailed specific responses to all comments received on the Draft EIR.
The Draft REIR was circulated for a period of 45-days, beginning on January 25, 2010, and
ending on March 10, 2010. Comments on the Draft REIR were received during the comment
period, and those comments are set forth and are responded to in this Final EIR.
This Final EIR will be submitted to the City Council for certification. The City Council will
review the Final EIR, together with consideration of the proposed project.
1.3 CONTENTS OF THE FINAL REIR
This Final EIR has been prepared in -three parts. A description of each part is as follows:
Chapter 1 provides a brief introduction to the Final EIR and its contents.
Chapter 2 provides a list of commenting agencies, organizations and individuals as well
as copies of each comment letter received.
Chapter 3 provides responses to written comments made by both the public agencies and
interested parties. Some of the comment letters received on the Draft EIR also provide
comments on the project (not the anticipated environmental impacts). These project -
related comments require no response in the EIR process, but the opinions expressed by
the commenter will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration in the project
decision -making process. Chapter 3 also includes errata to the Draft REIR.
Consistent with state law (Public Resources Code 21092.5), responses to agency comments will
be forwarded to each commenting agency at least 10 days prior to the last public hearing.
1.4 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments, and reminds
persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of Draft EIRs should be "on
the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment
and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are
most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would
provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time,
reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is
reasonably feasible. ...CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all
research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When
Sirius Environmental 1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7
Marina Park Final REIR Introduction
tresponding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and
do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full
' disclosure is made in the EIR."
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) further advises, "Reviewers should explain the basis for
their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions
based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to
Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial
evidence." Section 15204 (d) also states, "Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus
its comments on environmental information germane to that agency's statutory responsibility."
Section 15204 (e) states, "This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to
' comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not
focused as recommended by this section."
In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written
' responses to public agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to
certifying the environmental impact report. The responses will be forwarded with copies of this
Final EIR, as permitted by CEQA, and will conform to the legal standards established for
response to comments on Draft EIRs.
1
[J
' Sirius Environmental 1-3
r
Marina Park Final REIR
Comments on the Draft REIR
CHAPTER 2: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REIR
LIST OF COMMENTING AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS
The public comment period for the Draft REIR extended from January 25, 2010 to March 10,
2010, The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the Draft REIR
during the public review period (Comment Letter l i was received March 16, 2010, six days after
the close of the comment period).
Letter
Organization
Commenter Name
Comment Date
Response
No.
Page
Number
1
Environmental Quality
February 23, 2010
3.1
Affairs Citizens Advisory
Committee
2
Madeleine Whiteman
February15,2010
3.7
3
Orange County
February 23,2010
3.7
Transportation Agency
4'
State of California,
Chris Herre, Branch Chief
February 3, 2010
3.8
Department of
Transportation, District
12
5
Southern California Gas
January 26, 2010
3.8
Company
6
State of California,
Greg Holmes, Unit Chief
March 1, 2010
3.8
Department of Toxic
Substances Control
7
State of California,
Marina R. Brand, Acting
March 3, 2010
3.8
California State Lands
Chief
Commission
8
Pier to Pier, Central
Louise Fundenberg, President
March 9, 2010
3.9
Newport Beach
Community Association
9
Tom Rossi, Resident
March9,2010
3.9
10
California Cultural
Patricia Marts, PhD, President
March 7,.2010
3.10
Resource Preservation
Alliance, Inc.
11
California Coastal
Fernie Sy, Coastal Program
March 10, 2010
310
Commission
Anal st II
Sirius Environmental 2.1
' Letter 1
1
To: Rosalinh Ung 23 February 2010
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 REIR dated January 2010
' EQAC is pleased to take this opportunity to provide comments on the referenced REIR.
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 project for the City of Newport Beach.
' 2. Executive Summary
Page 2-5, 5.2-A: The conclusion under "Cumulative" in the first column should be 1-1
"Potentially Significant." The impact is mitigated to less than significant as indicated in
the P column of that box.
3. Project Description
Does the Girl Scout building that is to be demolished have any historic significance? If 1-2
so, can it be saved, moved, etc?
Is there analysis to show that two half -court basketball courts are adequate? This is a I 1-3
very popular activity that appears to be in high demand, especially during good beach
weather.
1-4
I
Need the pathways be paved? Have alternatives, such as environmentally sound
composite decking material, been considered?
What is the anticipated timing for the beginning of Phase 3 construction after Phase 2
'
construction has been completed? hi other words, are the interim Phase 2 improvements 1-5
necessary, or can the project proceed from Phase 1 to Phase 3 and therefore not lose all
the temporary Phase 2 improvements? Moreover, to what extent can the Phase 2
improvements be used by the public during the Phase 3 construction period? The less
that the park can be used during the Phase 3 construction period, the less it makes sense
'
for the temporary Phase 2 improvements.
Operation (pg. 3-19)-The Balboa Center "...would also be available for private functions 1-6
on a rental basis." To what extent? Clearly, rental events will conflict with peak period
usage by the public, as both the rental events and public usage will be greatest on
weekends.
I
i
Short-term harbor based users will be permitted to utilize the marina berths for up to 30 1-7
days. This duration seems excessive, and can lead to a few boats tying up, the majority of
the marina (which calls for only 23 berths) during peak season.
4. Environmental Setting
Clarification regarding the OLQA Church expansion (Table 4-1, pg.4-2) - The school is
1-8
already 100% completed. However, the new church and gymnasium have yet to break
ground. Does this affect any analysis?
5.1 Aesthetics
,
In response to previous EQAC concerns, the commitment to try to relocate existing
mature trees at Veterans Park to accommodate repositioned tennis courts is positive (pg.
8-39). Also, use of low wattage lamps in the lighthouse (pp. 8-39,40) should be adequate
to insure negligible impact on the adjacent properties.
,
Following are additional general comments regarding aesthetics:
1. In general, the environmental aesthetics described inthe REIR is a major
'
improvement over the current mobile home "park". The removal of current
vegetation and replacement with new vegetation is also a monumental
improvement and will be more "green".
1-9
2. The improvements will be a better use of the environment for more people, not
just the few who reside in the mobile homes and the current visitors, as the new
park will be open to all and will also draw more visitors, both from within and
without our city: e.g, visiting vessels, an additional basketball court' and improved
tennis courts (reducing the number of tennis courts by %: should please nearby
residents with less noise and only two sets of court lights with new and improved
hoods in place of four).
3. Environmental friendly and easy cleanup will result from newrestrooms and
'
washing machines.
4. Consideration of wind velocity and direction leads to cleaner air.
5. Permeable paving on parking lots is environmentally friendly and attractive.
5.2 Air Quality
Modeled data is used to determine the significance of environmental impacts and it seems
that the observations taken for local air quality, and then used to generate all the modeled 1-10
data, might be flawed. Observations taken in locations that seem less than relevant to the
Marina Park project located on Newport Peninsula need to be justified (See Section 5.2.3 '
LI
I
I
1
FJ
LJI
I
— Existing Conditions, "Local Air Quality"). The SCAQMD's closest monitoring station
for communities in its Central Orange County Coastal region is Source Receptor Area 18.
This collection point for all current air quality data (except particulate matter pollutants,
PM2.5 and PMio) is located on Mesa Verde Drive in Costa Mesa, approximately 4 miles
inland from the proposed Marina Park. The data collection point for PM2.5 and PM10 is
located in Mission Viejo, over 14 miles away.
For a project of this importance and given the obvious efforts expended by the writers of
this REIR it would seem appropriate to obtain observations of current air quality
conditions on or much closer to the site of the project. If use of portable testing
equipment of precision needed to produce reliable on -site observations is not feasible or
if experts needed to conduct the tests are not available this should have been explained.
Or if the suitability of the data collected at these distant locations for producing data
models was justified using appropriate SCAQMD references as support, then it would
have been clear that the writers of the REIR took the initial DEIR reviewers' comments
to heart. As it stands this REIR provides no justification why local air quality data from
these distant test sites is acceptable for use as the basis for all modeled data. This is
clearly a shortcoming of this REIR and needs to be addressed.
Irrespective of the concern discussed above, the big picture for Air Quality painted by the
REIR is one of minimal potential for findings of significant Air Quality issues by the
Marina Park project. In fact, the only hard and binding guideline for determining
significant air quality issues is the Air Resources Boards preliminary guidance (see page
5.2-9, paragraph 2) and City of Newport Beach's own guideline concerning Green House
Gas emissions. This guideline considers residential (including park) projects emitting
<1,600 metric tons of CO2 per year as less than significant, therefore requiring no further
analysis. (See 5.2-1). The Marina Park project did not come even close to this threshold
during either construction or operation, even without mitigation. Federal air quality
standards, California Environmental Quality Act, Air Resource Board, and South Coast
Air Quality Management District guidelines and checklists for evaluation resultedin
almost no other concerns during the project's three construction phases or during
operation of the project, even without mitigation efforts.
In spite of this rosy outlook for the Marina Park project, there are a few questions and
concerns in response to the REIR:
1. Page 5.2-11; paragraph headed by City of Newport Beach, last sentence — Are the
words "do not" at the beginning of this sentence a typo? They seem to conflict with
the intended meaning of the sentence.
2. Page 5.2-13, paragraph headed by Analytical Methodology — Over a dozen tables in
Air Quality section of the REIR were prepared to present detailed analysis of
emissions in order to determine significance during construction phases and operation
of the Marina Park project. The data for federally identified criteria pollutants plus
pollutants identified by the State of California were developed using modeling of the
current air quality data collected for analysis. These modeling protocols include:
1-10
cont
1-11
1-12
1-13
URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2 for air quality modeling and greenhouse gas
emissions (except tugboat emission).
CALINE4 for CO hotspot and vehicular traffic cumulative volumes for worst -
case scenarios.
The production via modeling of this data is obviously a critical step needed to make
determinations of significant environmental impacts, yet at no point in the this section
of the REIR is an explanation offered why these modeling protocols were chosen,
what they do, how they do it, possible alternatives or any statement concerning the
accuracy of the modeled data. These concerns should be addressed.
3. Page 5.2-21; Project Emissions, Phase 3 — In order to estimate criteria pollutants in
the operational phase of the Marina Park project the REIR assumes that 100 boats
would taxi for one hour per day. These results were then modeled using the federal
Environmental Protection Agency's NONROAD model. The REIR confirms that a
wide range of boats will be accommodated by the marina docks, berths and the City's
sailing programs. Boats up to 40 feet in length can be moored in the marina's 23 slips.
These larger boats all presumably have on -board propulsion systems. Boats ranging
in size from small unpowered dingies to large 60 foot plus power boats will tie off on
the marina's 200 feet of floating docks. The REIR does state what boats make up the
100 boats that are estimated to taxi one hour per day. It doesn't cite data that
estimates the boats likely to use the 23 berths nor what type of power plants do they
use. Larger boats tend to use diesel engines that generate a higher output of toxic air
contaminates. None of these variables are addressed which leads to concern about the
accuracy of the data generated for study.
4. Page 5.2-22; Carbon Monoxide Hotspot Analysis Phase — The REIR states that for
the purpose of studying traffic generated CO hotspots, the intersections of Newport
Blvd. @ Via Lido and Newport Blvd. @ 32"d Street were analyzed to develop
estimates of 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations. Why were these two intersections
chosen for study? The closest intersection (Newport Blvd @ 32"d Street) is — 3000
feet from the nearest corner of the Marina Park project. Wouldn't a closer signalized
intersection provide more relevant data? Please address this question.
1-13 ,
cont.
i
1-14
1-15
Pages 5.2-37 & 38, Level of Significance After Mitigation —Mitigation Measures MM
5.24.1 through MM 5.24.4 are cited on page 5.2-37. Mitigation Measures 5.2-I.6, 5.2-I.8, 1-16
5.2-I.10 and 5.2-1.11 are cited on page 5.2-38. None of these mitigation measures are
explained as are, for example, Mitigation Measures 5.2-A.1 through 5.2-A.3 on pg. 5.2-
17. Please provide a brief explanation of these mitigation measures.
Air Quality emission calculations in Appendix C assume that construction activities 1-17
would begin in 2009 and the project would be operational in 2010. Suggest that the
emission calculations be updated as construction will not start under mid-2010 and not be
completed until 2011.
Page 5.2-13, first paragraph under Analytical Methodology, about 2/3rds into the 1 1-18
paragraph. The sentence that reads "The CO2 hotspot analysis used the CALINE4 model
i
I
I
1
I
I
U
d
I
..." should be revised to say "The CO hotspot analysis used the CALINE4 model ..."
(not CO2). The RDEIR should be.checked for other occurrences of this reference error
and corrected throughout accordingly.
5.3 Biological Resources
Page 5.3-16 Text: "The placement of dredged material would have a significant impact
on grunion if it took place during the peak spawning season".
How will the construction timing be managed to reduce the potentially significant impact
on grunion?
Page 5.3-19(MM 5.3-A.2) Text: "During Phase 3 project construction, the City of
Newport Beach shall require that the use of sound abatement techniques be used to
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".
What other methods, beyond surface scan, have been considered for the biological
resources monitoring portion of the MM? Why was surface scan chosen?
Page 5.3-21 Text: "the benthic community would re -colonize the sediments".
What is the foundation for this assertion? What other sites with similar characteristics
have been successful in re -colonization of the benthic community?
Page 5.3-22 Text: "In recognition of this potential impact, Phase 3 of the project includes
the installation of circulation- enhancing devices in the marina (see Section 5.7 for a
fuller discussion of the devices). These devices would improve water quality by raising
dissolved oxygen concentrations and improving flushing times within the marina basin.
Both the small size of the basin (1.7 ac) relative to Newport Bay and the installation of
circulation enhancement devices would substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact.
In the long term, the creation of an additional 0.9 acre of shallow water (the marina
basin), would be beneficial to managed species in the Coastal Pelagics and Pacific
Groundfish FMPs by increasing the amount of EFH available to them. Accordingly,
direct impacts on managed species from operation of the marina would be less than
significant".
1-18
cont.
1-19
1-20
1-21
1-22
I
11
How will the success of the circulation- enhancing devices be measured? What will be I 1-22
done if the desired results are not achieved? cont.
These comments from the EQAC response on the original DEIR still apply:
1-23
The EIR should analyze whether the use ofnon-native landscaping would have an impact
on the marine environment.
The Project Objectives are missing a critical component, i.e. the opportunity to showcase
I 1-24
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
I 1-25
could that impact the ability of birds to nest at the site?
5.4 Cultural Resources
The REIR includes a very conscientious and thorough analysis of anyreasonable or
likely disruption to any and all cultural resources in their study for this project. This
evaluation includes their thoughtful responses to public comments of concern. Any
potential steps that might need to be taken, should the pre -construction inspection of the
site have missed a cultural resource, have been planned and implemented, if necessary.
'
1-26
This includes the hiring of experts in the field to monitor this follow up to assure
protection of the cultural resource. We see no potential need for mitigation measures for
this section.
The City's approach to the project, in having an alternative to phase the work is both
prudent and appropriate, given the economy, the city's budget shortfall and public
opinion on both. Additionally, the sequence of work in the three phases shows public
minded planning. 1 1
5.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sediment Evaluation, pg. 5.6-4: The REIR does not clarify the depth of the core I
samplings at sites B & C. It simply restates the previous data with the confusing MLLW 1-27
description of core depth. The document states that "the project would... consist of '
extensive excavation of the marina" (5.6-7). Both the terms "extensive excavation" and
the MLLW (depth of core samplings) descriptions are vague and do not describe either
the depth of the excavation or the level of contamination at that depth. I
Project Specific Analysis, pg.5.6-6, MM 5.6A states "approximately 3000 cubic yards of
dredged material with elevated levels of mercury..,.. and 300 cubic yards of PCB 1-2 g
contaminated soil .... would be transported by truck". Since transporting more than 500
lbs, 55 gallons or 200 cubic feet of contaminated material requires a Hazardous
Management Plan, will such a plan be submitted? (California Health and Safety Code,
Chap. 6.95)
I
6 1
Site Soil Investigations, pg.5.6-4 states that 300 cubic yards of soil at the project site are I 1-29
PCB contaminated, but does not state the levels (ppm) of the contamination. Please
clarify.
Accident Conditions, MM 5.613 (pg. 5.6-8 of the original DEIR): Concerns raised in
' response to the first draft of this DEIR regarding location of the project and heavy traffic 1-3 0
in that area suggested need for the development of a time table for dredging, truck
staging, barges and a traffic management plan. These have not been adequately addressed
' in this REIR.
Project Specific Analysis, Pg. 5.6-8 restates the fact that the new marina will not include I 1-31
' a maintenance -area, but does not address the concerns raised regarding vessels in the
marina disposing of accumulated waste.
I
I
I
Page 5.6 11: The original DEIR stated: "the project will not constrict access ... the onsite I
circulation system...". No onsite circulation system plan was included in the document 1-32
and therefore could not be evaluated. The new REIR does not include an onsite
circulation system plan and cannot be evaluated.
Appendix G contains hundreds of pages of reports on the core samples. What is the
process for determining the significance of all that data?
5.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Page 5.7-8 3rd Paragraph 4th sentence: The study found that there would be
adequate tidal flushing only about one quarter of the way into the basin...
This is left as a significant and unacceptable impact on water quality. What design
changes and/or mitigation measures have been considered to alleviate this problem? Are
there other marinas in the Newport Bay that allow this condition to exist?
5.8 Land Use and Planning
Land Use Regulation
The adopted planning documents regulating land use within and around the project site
are the City of Newport Beach General Plan, the City's Local Coastal Land Use Plan
(CLUP), and the Zoning Code.
' Mitigation should be addressed regarding the following:
• Section 4.4.2-3 of the CLUP, indicates that shoreline height limitations of 35 feet
be regulated by the Zoning Code.
The Lighthouse height is proposed at 73 feet, over twice the height allowed. The REIR
states that the Lighthouse is an "architectural feature" which exempts it from the City's
1-33
1-34
1-35
I
i
Zoning Code restrictions. The REIR also states that the lighthouse's purpose is to
provide a point of reference and direct the public to the site.
Has an alternative design been provided for the public to consider? Furthermore, it is of
greater concern since the REIR states that the City is planning to exempt the project from
1-35
the provisions of it's own zoning regulations.
Cont.
• The findings regarding the consistency with the General Plan are also
questionable, under LU 5.6.2 Form and Environment.
'
The REIR needs to address how it finds the 73-foot "architectural feature" compatible
with the surrounding uses, and, address the abrupt change in scale that is to be avoided,
'
per this section of the General Plan.
5.9 Noise
Why do the limits for acceptable values in the Land Use Compatibility
1-36
Matrix (Exhibit 5.9-1, pg. 5.9-2)) differ from those described as "clearly
t
compatible" in the second paragraph on pg 5.9-3? This seems to conflict with the model
results presented for year 2011 with and without the project as presented in Appendix I.
'
Table 5.9-10, pg. 5.9-16, gives the calculated construction noise (all phases of
the project) at sensitive receptors. Estimates vary from a maximum of 92
dB at the residences along the west side of 18th Avenue, west of the
project site, to a minimum of 66 dB at Newport Elementary, located
southeast of the project site (Table 5.9-10). There is a concern that
1-37
these noise levels for the duration of the construction will have a
strongly deleterious impact on the sensitive receptors noted. Are there
no mediations that can be achieved (e.g., noise attenuating barricades
around the construction site, or at particular sites -- i.e., Newport
Elementary School) that can address this serious negative impact?
Page 5.9-11 suggests pile driving will be present for a period of 2.5
months (although page 5.9-15 states 3 plus 14 weeks, or 17 weeks, i.e.,
4.25 months) within a 12 month period (Phase 3 construction). Has some
'
consideration been given to the timing of Phase 3 construction, to limit
1-38
the negative impacts to Newport Elementary School children during the academic
year? In general, what scheduling considerations have been- given for the
24 months of all phases of construction regarding the sensitive receptors
(i.e., Newport Elementary School). Considerable data exists suggesting such noise
will impact the learning and development of such receptors during the
mentioned construction periods. No specific discussion of this negative
impact is made in the report.
'1
8 1
5.11 Transportation and Traffic
1-39
' Typo on page 5.11-1, heading 5.11.2, Regional/Local,
Line 2: Remove "very" and insert "every".
' The REIR notes that parking spaces are for Marina Park and not for 1- 4 0
general public/beach goers. However, they don't present specific plans on how to control
this situation.
I
1
i
I
J
Item A10-15 (pg. 8-37) - notes 159 parking spaces total will be created for the project.
They note that "details regarding the Parking Management Plan (PMP):...would be
determined during the final design of the project". Without the PMP now, it is impossible
to determine the adequacy of the proposed 159 spaces or their utilization. At least a
preliminary PMP should be presented at this point to allow evaluation of the parking
provisions.
It is counter -intuitive that the traffic analyses show that the basic project and the
cumulative effects result in "less than significant" traffic impacts for all cases considered
(pg. 5.11-11). This is among the most congested areas in the city and one would expect
significant periodic traffic congestion during all phases of the project and serious
disruptions if the cumulative effects of overlapping Banning Ranch, Sunset Ridge and
2300 Newport Blvd. (Newport Bay Marina) projects are considered. We suggest that the
analysts re-evaluate the traffic analysis assumptions (e.g. current background levels,
current ICU and LOS for critical intersections, predicted project contributions, phasing of
cumulative projects) to be sure that this project can be accomplished without any form of
traffic mitigation.
6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed
1-41
1-42
The discussion of alternatives is too brief. At minimum, the impacts on each of the 1-43
environmental resources should be discussed and compared to the proposed project. A
matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each
alternative may be used to summarize the comparison (CEQA Guidelines 15126.6).
Conclusion
EQAC thanks you for the opportunity to comment on this significant project for the
Balboa Peninsula and the City of Newport Beach. We recognize that it will yield major
positive benefits for the residents and visitors to Newport Beach, including many boaters
who are searching for expanded docking and mooring facilities, and we trust that our
comments are helpful in accomplishing that goal.
I
Letter 2 1
I
From: Madelaine Whiteman [mailto:tomadelainew@gmail.com] Sent: Monday,
,
February 15, 2010 4:25 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Marina Park Plan
Dear Ms. Ung,
As a homeowner at l8th street and W. Balboa Blvd'., I am concerned about the increased
traffic flow and parking limitations both in the area now and once the Marina Park is
built.
From the recent public notice, it appears that no parking lots will be built until Phase 3 of
the project. If that is the case, I request that once the existing trailers are removed, that the
summer parking restrictions along W. Balboa Blvd. be lifted to allow on street parking on
2-1
Saturdays and Sundays. With more open space there will be more people using it.
Parking is already a problem in the area. By allowing people to park on the street 7 days
per week, it would help alleviate some of that potential problem rather than having
people compete for the limited parking.
When Phase 3 is underway and close to completion, I also see the need for an easy and
safe way enter the main parking lot whether that be a stop sign and left hand turn lane. If 2-2
a lane is built, this will also remove existing street parking spaces from the street again
reducing parking options in the area.
With much of the new activity of Phase 3 being near 18th street, Girl Scott House, Basket
Ball Court, Children's play area and the picnic area, I hope that the relocation of the lot
has more spaces then the current lot. People will tend to park in the first available and
most convenient space that is open rather than drive a bit further and have to walk further
to get to their destination as they will to get to the main parking lot.
I appreciate you taking the time to look at my concerns and hopefully take them into
consideration.
Thank you,
Madelaine Whiteman
2-3
I
I
I
I
u
I I
I
I
Letter 3
i ps
OCTA
BOARDOFDIRECTORS
Jercy Amanle
Chairman
■ Patricia Bales
Vim Chairman
Art Brown
Director
Polar Suite
Director
Bill Campbell
Director
Carolyn V. Camcche
Director
i
William J. Dalton
Director
Richard Dixon
Director
Paul G. Glaab
Director
Dan Hansen
Director
Allan Mansoor
Director
John Moodach
Director
Janet Nguyen
Director
Curl Pringle
Director
MiguelPttfidoi
Direc
Director
tor
Gregory T. Wmterbollom
Director
Cindy Quon
Gommor's
Ex-Otgcm Member
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE
Will Kemplon
Chief Executive 011icer
I
February 23, 2010
Ms. Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
City of Newport Beach
330 Newport Boulevard
Newoprt beach, CA 92658-8915
RECEWED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FEB 2.6 2010
CITY OF IEWPORT BEACH
Subject: Marina Park Recirculated Environmental Impact . report State
Celaringhouse Number 2008061096
Dear Ms. Ung:
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has reviewed the above referenced
document. The following comment is provided for your consideration:
On Page 5.11-15, it is incorrectly stated that the project frontage does not have any
existing or proposed bus stops. Please indicate that an existing OCTA bus stop is
located on westbound West Balboa Boulevard and le Street. For American
Disability Act accessibility requirements, the sidewalk should be expanded to at
least 8 feet wide and free of obstructions in the bus stop zone.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact Hal McCutchan by phone at
(714) 560-5759 or by email at hmccutchan@oota.net.
Sincerely,
Charles Larwood
Manager, Transportation Platrning
c: Mark Strickert, OCTA
3-1
3-2
I
Orange County Transportation Authority
550 South Main Street/P.O. Box 14184/Orange /California 92863-1584 / (714) 560.00TA (6282)
Letter 4
I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
District 12
3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380
Irvine, CA 92612-8894
Tel: (949)724.2267
rax: (949) 724-2592
February 3, 2010
Mr, Rosalinh Ung
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Subject: Marina Park
Dear Ms. Ung,
PLANNI U DEPARTMENT
FEB 2.4 2010
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Flexyourpmverl
Be energy effidenll
File: IGR/CEQA
SCH#: 2008051096
Log #: 2071B
SR-1, and 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 vesselmarina 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 151h 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.
Sinc r y
Chris Herre, 13ranch Chief
Local Development/Intergovernmental Review
C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research
�l
I
I
I
1
I
C']
tI
"Callrans Improves mabUay acron California'
I
Letter 5
I
U
I�
I
I
1
I
Southern
California
Gas Company
��..D
A _ Sempra Energy utility"
January26,2010
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Beach Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Attention: Rosalinh Ung
1919 S. State College Blvd.
Anahelm, CA 92806.6114
RECEIVED BY
PLANWG DEPARTMENT
JAN 29 2�--3
CffVO,F NEW.PGA7'BEACU
Subject: Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Marina Park.
Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to this E.I.R. Document. We are pleased to inform you
that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the aforementioned project is
proposed. Gas service to the project can be provided from an existing gas main located in various
locations. The service will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with
the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made.
This letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but is only provided as an
informational service. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and
regulatory agencies. As a public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the
California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal
regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under
which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions.
This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non -utility laws and regulations (such as
environmental regulations), which could affect construction of a main and/or service line extension (i.e., if
hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be
determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construction has begun.
Estimates of gas usage for residential and non-residential projects are developed on an individual basis and
arc obtained from the Commercial-Industrial/Residential Market Services Staff by calling (800) 427-2000
(Commercial/Industrial Customers) (800) 427-2200 (Residential Customers). We have developed several
programs, which are available upon request to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient
appliances or systems for a particular project If you desire further information on any of our energy
conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance.
' Sincerely
Eric Casar
Technical Services Supervisor
-Pacific Coast Region - Anaheim
I
5-1
I
Letter 6
I
Linda S Adams
Secretary for
Environmental Protection
March 1, 2010
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Maziar Movassaghi, Acting Director
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, California 90630
Ms. Rosalinh Ung
Associate Planner
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, Califdrnia 92658-8915
Runo(a)-city. newaortbeachca.aov
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT RECIRCULATED ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MARINA PARK PROJECT (SCH # 2008051096),
ORANGE COUNTY
Dear Ms. Ung:
Arnold Schwalzenegger
Governor I
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted
Revised and re -circulated draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above -
mentioned project. The following project description is stated in your document: " The
Marina Park project site is located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County,
California. Specifically, the project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula, along Balboa
Boulevard, south of a public beach and the Newport Bay, west of 15th Street, and east
of 18th Street. The project site encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and is located
between Balboa Boulevard on the south and Newport Bay on the north, and'between
151h Street on the east and 19th Street on the west. The project site is currently occupied
by the Marina Park mobile home park, Girl Scout House, community center, Las Arenas
Park, the Southern California Edison parcel, Veteran's Park, tennis courts, an alley,
sidewalks, the 19th Street restroom, beach, and the portion of the project site within
Newport Bay. The project has been divided into three phases that could be individually
implemented. The majority of the project site is designated Park and Recreation (PR)
and zoned Planned Community (PC)".
DTSC provided comments on the project Notice of Availability of the original draft EIR
on April 3, 2009; some of those comments have been addressed in the draft re-
circulated Environmental Impact Report. Please ensure that the following comments will
be addressed in the final EIR when and if any hazardous wastes are generated or
contamination is found,
1) 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,
I
I
11
I
1,
1
I
® Printed on Recycled Paper
I
Ms. Rosalinh Ung
March 1, 2010
Page 2 of 2
' 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
2) If during construction/demolition of the project, the soil and/or groundwater
contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and
appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented.
3) DTSC can provide guidance for cleanup oversight through an Environmental
Oversight Agreement (EOA) for government agencies which would not be
responsible parties under CERCLA, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) for
private parties. For additional information on the EOA or VCA, please see
www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCle2nup/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 rahmedOdtsc.ca.00v or by phone at (714) 484-5491.
Sincerely, /
59
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-$044
state.clearinghouse@opr.ca,.gov.
I
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis
1001 1 Street, 22nd Floor, M,S. 22-2
Sacramento, California 95814
ADelacr1 @dtsc.ca.gov
CEQA#2787
6-1
cont.
Letter 7
I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Govemor
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South
Sacramento, CA 96825-8202
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
March 3, 2010
MAR 0 9'2010
Rosal' OF NEWPORT BEACH
f�nli Ong, Associate Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
PAUL D. THAYER, Executive Officer
(916) 574-1800 FAX (916) 574-1810
Relay Service From TDD Phone 1-800.736-2929
from Voice Phone 1.800-736-2922
Contact Phone: (916) 574-1900
Contact FAX: (916) 574-1885
File Ref: SCH# 200805/096
Subject: Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact -Report for the Marina Park
Project
Dear Ms. Ung:
The California State Lands Commission (CSLC) staff has reviewed the Draft
Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (DREIR) for the proposed' Marina Park project.
For this project, the California State Lands Commission (Commission) is potentially both a
Trustee agency and a Responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
As general background, the State of California upon entering the Union on
September 9, 1850, acquired nearly four million acres of land underlying the State's
navigable and tidal waterways. Known as "sovereign lands," these lands include tidelands
and submerged lands adjacent to the entire coast and offshore islands of the State from the
ordinary high water mark to three nautical miles offshore. The State holds these lands for the
benefit of all the people of California for statewide Public Trust purposes, which include
waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, water -related recreation, habitat preservation,
and open space. The State's sovereign land interests are under the jurisdiction of the CSLC.
In addition, the CSLC has certain residual and review authority related to Public Trust issues
for tide and submerged lands legislatively granted in trust to local jurisdictions (Public
Resources Code (PRC) §§6301 and 6306). The CSLC also administers the Shipwreck and
Historic'Maritime Resources Program pursuant to PRC §§6309, 6313, and 6314.
The California Legislature, by statute, has granted in trust to the city of Newport Beach
(City) the State's title to -those filled -and unfilled tide and submerged lands involving portions
of the project area, pursuant to Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978, as amended with minerals
reserved to the State. Any proposed uses involving granted tidelands must be consistent
with the Public Trust and the City's granting statute(s).
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
!I
I
I
II
I
[1
I
I
I
Rosalinh Ung Page 2 March 3, 2010
The boundaries separating lands owned by the City intrust, pursuant to Chapter 74,
from lands acquired by the City from private parties has not been established -by agreement
or litigation within the Project site. CSLC staff believes that it is necessary to resolve the title
and boundary issues with the City prior to. the Project going forward. Given the current
Project plans it appears that a title settlement and exchange agreement may be necessary.
We are available to discuss the resolution of the title and boundary, issues with the City.
Please contact Grace Kato, Public Land. Management Specialist; at•(916) 574-1227 or by e-
mail at katop &sic.ca.pov 'or Jennifer Lucchesi, Staff Counsel, at (916) 574-0234 or by email
at IuccheiCc)slc.ca.gov for additional information.
Based on a review of the DREIR, the CSLC has a comment regarding Phase 3 of the
proposed Marina Park project. The following comment was made in our letter dated June 18,
2008 on the Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR, and we feel it is still necessary to address
this issue:
• An evaluation should be made of potential submerged cultural resources in the project
area. Any submerged archaeological site or submerged historic resource remaining in
state waters for more than 50 years is presumed to be significant. The title to all
abandoned shipwrecks and all archaeological sites and historic or culturab resources
J on or in the tide and submerged lands of California is vested in, the state and under the
jurisdiction of the CSLC.
• The CSLC maintains a shipwrecks database of known and potential vessels located
on the state's tide and submerged lands; however, the location of many shipwrecks
remains unknown. The recovery of objects from any submerged archaeological site or
shipwreck requires a salvage permit under PRC § 6309.' On statutorily granted tide
and submerged lands, a permit may be issued only after consultation with the local
grantee and a determination by the CSLC that the proposed salvage operation is not
inconsistent with the purposes of the legislative grant.
If you have any questions involving the Shipwreck and Historic Maritime Resources
Program please contact Staff Counsel Pam Griggs at (916)• 574-'1854 or by email at
griaasP(&slc.ca.aov. If you have questions on the environmental review, please contact
Crystal Spurr at (916) 574-0743 or by e-mail at spurrc'(aslc.ca.Qov.
Sincerely,
Marina R: Brand,.Acting Chief
Division of Environmental Planning
and Management
cc: Office of Planning and Research
Robin Clauson, City Attorney
•P. Griggs, CSLC
Jk Lucchesi, CSLC...
� Kafo,.- S
C. Spurr, CSLC
I
7-1
cont.
7-2
Letter 8
J
Central Newport Beach Community Association
POBOX894 NeWPOrtileach CA 92661.0884
March 9, 2010
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
Attn: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
3300 Newport Beach Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Rung@eity.newport-bcach.ca.us
Reference: DRAFT Marina Park Recirculated Environmental Impact Report dated January 2010
Dear Newport Beach Planning Department:
The Central Newport Beach Community Association (CNBCA), which represents over 300
member households on the Balboa Peninsula, is please to provide comments on the referenced
Draft Recirculated EIR. Our Board of Directors and Association members are delighted that the
City of Newport Beach continues to make progress on this important project.
Our comments on the document are as follows:
Subsection 2.1— Proposed Project; Subsection 3.4.1—Phase 1; and
Subsection 3.4.2 — Construction, Phase 1
There is concern that during Phase 1 and Phase 2, if existing closed gates on the alley at 10h
Street and 181h Street (see Figure 1) are removed or are opened to enable vehicle through -
traffic: (1) children playing in the existing tot lot at 161h Street will be exposed to hazardous
traffic, (2) traffic will increase in the alley west of 18th Street which faces many residential
bedrooms and garages with zero setback, (3) traffic will increase at the intersections of both
18'h and 19'h Streets and West Balboa Boulevard, both of which are difficult intersections for
merging traffic, and (4) traffic will increase and back up on WestBay between 181h and 191h
Streets. If additional vehicular access to the park is needed in Phases I and 2, removal of the
fence behind the existing girl -scout house would provide an alternate vehicle access point.
We request that either the EIR specifically stipulate the assumptions which have been
made regarding both the gate;, and if they are to be removed or permanently opened to
through -traffic in Phases 1 or 2, that an assessment and analysis of the related safety,
noise, and traffic Issues be added to this EIR. If the gates are to remain in place and
closed, then the EIR should simply so state.
l
I
I
I
I
I
lJ
I
I
J
I
I
I
lJ
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
Central Newport Beach Community Association
Box 884 Newport Beach CA 92661.0884
Figure 1 - Alley Gates At 161h And 18`h Streets If Removed Or Opened During
Phases 1 Or 2 Would Substantially Impact Surrounding Neighborhoods
Specifically, Section 2.1 states (page 2-1): "Primary vehicular access to the project would be
via West Balboa Blvd. at 10h Street and secondary access would be via and exittentrance off
15'h Street." It is presumed that this only describes Phase 3 of the project after the existing tot
lot at 10h Street has been relocated. Phase 1 or 2 of the project could be in place and do to
unforeseen events (funding, scheduling, etc.), Phase 3 could be delayed resulting in the site
functioning as a minimal park for an extended period of time. No mention was made of
vehicle access to the site during these initial phases in Section 2.1 of the EIR.
In the case of the 18`h Street gate, residents in the neighborhood to the west (up the
peninsula) of the proposed park have requested that the gate at 18th Street and Vilelle
Place (the alley) remain closed to through -traffic during Phases 1 and 2. This issue was
expressed as far back in time as release of the DEIR for the hotel project. The concern is that
the alley will become an alternate exit from the peninsula during high volume summer
afternoon traffic. Cars entering the alley at 15'h Street would end up backed up into the alley
at 191h Street not only making it difficult to enter and exit garages on the alley, but also
impacting noise levels for the many bedrooms which face the alley. The EIR should either
stipulate that the existing chain link gate will remain closed during the first two phases or
address the noise and traffic impact.
In the case of the 161h Street gate, families that use the existing playground on the site at 161h
Street have expressed concern that through -traffic during Phases 1 and 2 of park
development poses a hazard for children playing in the playground several feet from the
alley. We recommend that the EIR be modified to specifically stipulate that the existing
chain link gate at 16'h Street will remain closed during the first two phases until the tot
lot is relocated in Phase 3.
Page 2 of 4
8-1
cont.
I
Central Newport Beach Community Association
Box884 Newport Beach CA 92661.0884
If the foregoing design assumption in Phases 1 and 2 for the 16"' Street gate is not stipulated
in the EIR, then the EIR should identify the traffic hazard to children playing in the
playground and an approach to mitigate the hazard —perhaps construction of a fence.
Some specific recommended changes regarding the two gates follow:
It is recommended that Subsection 2.1- Proposed Project (page 2=1, last paragraph) include
the following underlined sentence: "Furthermore, I8t" and 19" Streets would still provide
access to the public beach.
Furthermore, it is recommended that Subsection 3.4.1- Phase 1(page 3-6, paragraph 2)
should be modified.as follows: " ... The alley between the mobile home park and the beach
would be restriped to provide 105 regular parking spaces and five handicapped spaces -,-and
The existing chain link rates on the alley at
In addition, it is recommended that the following underlined sentence should be added to
Section 3.4.2 - Construction, Phase 1 (page 3-13, first paragraph): "... low landscape, and
existing block wall along 18'h Street, and appurtenant structures. The existing chair: link
gates on the alley at both 161h and 18"' Streets shall remain. The existing trees ..."
Subsection 3.4.3 - Operation, Balboa Center (page 3-19)
The second paragraph of this subsection refers to "... a range of ocean -based activities,
expected... " Tile term "harbor -based activities" would more accurately characterize
activities of the Sailing Center since none of the activities will likely occur in the open
ocean.
Subsection 5.2.5 -Project Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures, Localized Impact
Analysis (page 5.2-I5)
Descriptions of Closest Sensitive Receptors were incorrect in the Original DEIR. Changes
were recommended, but descriptions in the RDEIR remain incorrect. Specifically, the
RDEIR characterizes sensitive receptors west of the site as a hotel and mobile homes. There
are no mobile homes across 18'h Street from the site. There is, however, a single family
residence of traditional construction and a hotel. The following underlined changes are
recommended: "... There are4everal4itobile4tomes is a single fancily residence and a hotel
located to the West..."
Page 3 of 4
8-1
cont
1w,
8-3
I
I
[1
11
I
Central Newport Beach Community Association
BOX884 Newport Beach CA 92661.0884
On behalf of our Board of Directors and hundreds of member households, I would like to thank
you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Recirculated EIR.
Louise Fundenberg. President
Central Newport Beach Community Association
Cc: Mike Henn, Newport Beach City Council Member
Dave Kiff, Newport Beach City Manager
Page 4 of 4
Letter 9
From: Tom Rossi [mailto:orco2lq@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 6:46 AM To: Ung,
Rosalinh Subject: EIR Comments --Marina Park
Rosalinh: {lease accept the attached previously sent emaiis that reference my concerns regarding Marina Park
and the related EIR. I trust you will note my comments before the March 10 deadline.
Thanks you.
Tom R. Rossi
Subject: RE: 1801 West Bay Matter
Thank you, Dave. I appreciate your taking time,from your'busy schedule to address my concerns. I trust I will
remain id good hands knowing you are in the loop here.
Thanks again.
Tom Rossi
From: Kiff, Dave[mailto:DKiff@newportbeachca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:54 AM To: Tom
Rossi; Wood, Sharon Cc: Henn, Michael Subject: RE: 1801 West Bay Matter
HI Tom -
Actually, plans are not progressing. The Girl Scout Council still has their building plans on hold until their fiscal situation
Improves -you can imagine what the economy has donetonon-profits like the Girl Scouts.
I still believe that they will work to reduce the height of their building, but they do not have the resources to do that plan
redesign at this time. Similarly, they cannot build the building nor go through basic permitting.
All I can do is respectfully ask for your patience -there still will be time for review once they get started again. However,
I'm not sure If that is 3,12, or more months from now.
Dave
From: Tom Rossi [malito:trro@roadrunner.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:33 AM To:
mereader48@sbcoiobal.net Cc: Kiff, Dave; Henn, Michael Subject: 1801 West Bay Matter
Considerable time has passed without an update to me. I have made previous inquiry with no response.. Kindly
apprise me of the headway made regarding my concerns. I presume plans are progressing, and'I was assured I
would be kept informed and allowed ample time for review and input on this very sensitive matter.
What is up?I
Thank you.
Tom Rossi, Owner
From: "Tom Rossi" drro@roadrunner.com>
Date: January 26, 2010 9:10:30 AM PST
To: "Kiff, Dave" <DKiff@newportbeachca.aov>, "Wood, Sharon" <SWood@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: "Henn, Michael" <mhenn527@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: 1801 West Bay Matter
I am in receipt of the most recent DREIR Notice. It appears the project continues to trove -along.
My last correspondence from you (below) indicated the Girl Scout Building was on HOLD and therefore no further
word existed regarding work on the related architectural plans progressing. I remain quite concerned about the
building's height, massing, placement, etc causing a severe negative impact on my property located at 1801 West
Bay Ave. Has anything changed? Is there any progress regarding my concerns?
From: Tom Rossi [mailto:trro@roadrunner.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:06 AM To: 'Kiff, Dave';
'Wood, Sharon' Cc: 'Henn, Michael' Subject: RE: 1801 West Bay Matter
I
Thank you, Dave. I appreciate your taking time from your busy schedule to address my concerns. I trust I will
remain id good hands knowing you are in the loop here.
Thanks again.
Tom Rossi
From: Kiff, Dave [mailto:DKiff@newportbeachca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:54 AM To: Tom
Rossi; Wood, Sharon Cc: Henn, Michael Subject: RE: 1801 West Bay Matter
Hi Tom -
Actually, plans are not progressing. The Girl Scout Council still has their building plans on hold until their fiscal situation
improves - you can imagine what the economy has done to non -profits like the Girl Scouts.
I still believe that they will work to reduce the height of their building, but they do not have the resources to do that plan
redesign at this time. Similarly, they cannot build the building nor go through basic permitting.
All I can do is respectfully ask for your patience -there still will be time for review once they get started again. However,
I'm not sure if that is 3,12, or more months from now.
Dave
' From: Tom Rossi [ma!Ito:trro@roadrunner.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:33 AM To:
mereader48Ca)sbcglobal.net Cc: Kiff, Dave; Henn, Michael Subject: 1801 West Bay Matter
' Considerable time has passed without an update to me. I have made previous inquiry with no response.. Kindly
apprise me of the headway made regarding my concerns. I presume plans are progressing, and I was assured I
would be kept informed and allowed ample time for review and input on this very sensitive matter.
What is up?!
Thank you.
Tom Rossi, Owner
From: "Tom Rossi" <trro@roadrunner.com>
Date: January 26, 2010 9:27:21 AM PST
To: "Kiff, Dave" <DKiff@newportbeachca.gov>, "Wood, Sharon" <SWood@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: "Henn, Michael" <mhenn527@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: 1801 West Bay Matter
Dave:
I
t
I
I
1,
Thank you for your usual timely response time and update. I will follow your advice and continue to
raise/document my concerns as you suggest. I don't want any surprises that leave my property and me with a
negative impact.
Thanks again.
Tom
From: Kiff, Dave [mailto:DKiff@newportbeachca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 9:22 AM To: Tom
Rossi; Wood, Sharon Cc: Henn, Michael Subject: RE: 1801 West Bay Matter
Hi Tom -
The recirculated DEIR envisions the same project, but addresses various things that were not included in the initial
circulation.
9-1
cont.
I
There has been no change from the Girl Scout as to changing their design - they still seem to have no resources to either
change the design or build the project. From my perspective, nothing has changed from when we last corresponded. You
may still want to raise your concerns formally within the DEIR process. I am still hopeful that the Scouts will change the
,
design —the question is when.
Dave
From: Tom Rossi [mailto:trro@roadrunner.com] Sent. Tuesday, January 26, 2010 9:11 AM To: Kiff, Dave;
Wood, Sharon Cc: Henn, Michael Subject: RE: 1801 West Bay Matter
I am in receipt of the most recent DREIR Notice. It appears the project continues to move along.
My last correspondence from you (below) indicated the Girl Scout Building was on HOLD and therefore no furth
word existed regarding work on the related architectural plans progressing. I remain quite concerned about the
building's height, massing, placement, etc causing a severe negative impact on my property located at 1801 We
t
Bay Ave. Has anything changed? is there any progress regarding my concerns?
r
From: Tom Rossi [mailto:trro@roadrunner.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:06 AM To: 'Kill, Dave'
'Wood, Sharon' Cc: 'Henn, Michael' Subject: RE: 1801 West Bay Matter
Thank you, Dave. i appreciate your taking time from your busy schedule to address my concerns. I trust I will
remain id good hands knowing you are in the loop here.
Thanks again.
Tom Rossi
From: Kiff, Dave[mailto:DKlff@newportbeachca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:54 AM To: Tom
Rossi; Wood, Sharon Cc: Henn, Michael Subject: RE: 1801 West Bay Matter 9-1
HI Tam— coast .1
Actually, plans are not progressing. The Girl Scout Council still has their building plans on hold until their fiscal situation '
improves —you can imagine what the economy has done to non -profits like the Girl Scouts.
I still believe that they will work to reduce the height of their building, but they do not have the resources to do that plan
redesign at this time. Similarly, they cannot build the building nor go through.baslc permitting,
All I can do is respectfully ask for your patience =there still will be time for review once they -get started again. However,
I'm not sure if that is 3,12, or more months from now. ;
Dave
From: Tom Rossi [mailto:trro@roadrunner.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:33 AM To: ;
mereader48(a)sbcglobal.net Cc: Kiff, Dave; Henn, Michael Subject: 1801 West Bay Matter
Considerable time has passed without an update to me. I have made previous inquiry with no response.. Kindly
apprise me of the headway made regarding my concerns. I presume plans are progressing, and I was assured I
would be kept informed and allowed ample time for review and input on this very sensitive matter.
What is up?I
Thank you.
Tom Rossi, Owner
I
I
I
From: Tom Rossi [mailto:orco2lq@gmail.coml Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 6:53 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject:
Marina Park -Additional EIR Comments
Rosalinh: Please accept this email, its attachments, and the companion email I sent to you immediately prior this
morning as my comments/concerns related to the Marina Park EIR.
1, Thank you for your anticipated and appreciated courtesy regarding my concerns.
Tom R. Rossi
I
LI
I
I
I
I
I
I
F
LI
I
9-1
cont.
I
LI
April 7, 2009 '
111
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Attn: Rosalinh Ung
Associate Planner
Planning Department
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Re: Marina Park EIR Comments/Concerns
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I own the single family residence located at the corner of 18th 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
9
has been given my Balboa Blvd neighbors.
cont..
I have on several previous occasions 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
I
I
I
I
U
I
t
I
LI
I
I
I
I
I
I
1,
assured that my 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,
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 parking/traffic
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.
In light of the foregoing, please accept this letter as my objection to the
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,
Thomas R. Rossi
CC: Mayor Edward D. Selich
Councilman Michael F. Henn
9-1
cont.
I
VF
TxoMAs R. Rossi
April 7, 2009
Rosalinh Ung
Associate Planner
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Marina Park EIR Comments/Concerns
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I own the single family residence located at the corner of 18th Street & West
Bay Avenue (1801 West Bay). 1 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
concerns would indeed be given appropriate and sensitive consideration as
the Project's plans progressed.
3419 Via Lido, Suite 641
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Ofc.949-675-5500 Fax 949-675-1400
www.RossiProperties.com
9-1
cont.
I
I
I
J
I
1•
F1
I_J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TxoMAs R. Rossi
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 parking/traffic
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.
In light of the foregoing, please accept this letter as my objection to the
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,
Thomas R. Rossi
CC: Mayor Edward D. Selich
Councilman Michael F. Henn
3419 Via Lido, Suite 641
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Ofc.949-675-5500 Fax 949-675-1400
www.RossiProperties.com
9-1
cont.
J
I
TxoMAs R. Rossi
June 2, 2009
Mr. Dave Kiff
Assistant City Manager
City of•Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Re: Marina Park EIR Comments/Concerns
Dear Mr. Kiff:
I recently met with Mr. Timothy D. Bundy, Architect and Mr. Mark Reader, P.E.
& Project Manager Public Works Department regarding the above -referenced
matter. Mr. Reader instructed -me to lodge my written concerns with you.
You may recall that I own the single family residence located at the corner of
18t" Street & West Bay Avenue (1801 West Bay), and that I have grave
concerns regarding the Girl Scout Building's ("Building") Impact on my
property.
To restate my concerns we discussed in your office prior to my meeting with
Mr. Bundy and Mr. Reader, and that I embodied in my written EIR comments
as you directed me to do, 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.
3419 Via Lido, Suite 641
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Ofc.949-675-5500 Fax 949-675-1400
www.RossiProperties.com
cont.
1
1
I
i
11
n
1
F
i
I
I
THomAS R. Rossi
My property above all others is very likely the most impacted by the
'
proposed Building, 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.
I have on several previous occasions 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 concerns would indeed be
given appropriate and sensitive consideration as the Project's plans
progressed.
Much to my surprise, I have now determined that apparently the Building has
a proposed roof height of twenty nine feet, with extensive horizontal massing
'
as well. This will eliminate or substantially reduce the view my property
currently enjoys by approximately eighty percent. This condition will cause
extreme negative impact on my property value and is very unfair.
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
t
parties or other non -Girl Scout -related activities remain unresolved.
Obviously, any use that would place or generate additional parking/traffic
burden (especially at early or late hours) close to my property would have
additional substantialnegative impact on it. I was assured by the Marina
'
Park Planning Committee that non -Girl Scout -related activities would not be
3419 Via Lido, Suite 641
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Ofc. 949-675-5500 Fax 949-675-1400
www.RossiProperties.com
9-1
cont.
THOiVIAS R. Rossi
permitted, 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.
I certainly hope my concerns will be timely addressed and remedied. Please
let me know what the next step will be for us to resolve this matter in an
equitable and fair manner.
Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and attention to my concerns. I look
forward to your written response.
Yours truly,
Thomas R. Rossi
CC: Mayor Edward D. Selich
Councilman Michael F. Henn
3419 Via Lido, Suite 641
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Ofc.949-675-5500 Fax 949-675-1400
www.RossiProperties.com
Letter 10
� Y�1
CCWA California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Me.
' P.O. Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for
Irvine, CA 92619-4132 the preservation of archaeological sitesRgfto""ral resources.
' March 7, 2010
' MAR 11 2010
Ms. Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
City of Newport Beach
' 3300 Newport Boulevard CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
' Regarding: Marina Park Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number
2008051096)
' Dear Ms. Ung:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Marina Park Recirculated Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse Number 2008051096) dated January, 2010.
' We previously commented on the Draft Environmental Impact Report in a letter dated March 21, 2009.
' Although we continue to agree that no known cultural resources will be impacted by the proposed project
we reiterate here that buried and undiscovered, and therefore unknown cultural resources may be present
on the project sight and directly impacted by ground disturbing construction activity.
We are disappointed that MM 5.4-B.1 does not include professional archaeological and Native American
monitoring, and relies on the project proponent and their assignees (e.g. construction personnel) to report
discoveries of "archaeological artifacts". The mitigation measure is not adequate to ensure that buried
' cultural resources, if present and unearthed by construction activity, are discovered and protected from
further disturbance.
' Furthermore, we take this opportunity to emphasize that cultural resources are more complex than
"archaeological artifacts" alone, and may be prehistoric or historical (i.e. Spanish period or later).
Additionally, given the very recent age (in geologic terms) of sediments on the peninsula, archaeological
' deposits of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, and associated with non -Native -American
people, are more likely than prehistoric Native American archaeological deposits. Given this, we strongly
encourage monitoring by a professional archaeologist with demonstrated expertise in historical
tarchaeology as well as prehistoric archaeology.
We note a great inconsistency in the analysis in that, although buried archaeological resources are much
' more likely than buried paleontological resources, MM 5.4-C.1 requires grading observation by a
qualified paleontologist, but MM 5.4-B.1 does not require grading observation by a qualified
archaeologist. If paleontological monitoring is warranted, then archaeological monitoring is clearly also
warranted.
10-1
D
CCRPA California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, inc.
P.O. Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for
Irvine, CA92619.4132 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources.
It is with great concern that we find no mitigation measure regarding the discovery of human remains.
However unlikely, and despite the existence of laws which protect human remains, a mitigation measure
regarding the discovery, reporting, and protection of human remains is absolutely necessary,
In the interest of cultural resources preservation, we sincerely hope that our comments will be considered
and that adequate mitigation measures pertaining to cultural resources will be included in a revision of the
Environmental Impact Report. If the California Cultural Resources Alliance may be of assistance and if
you have questions regarding our comments, please call me at (949) 559-6490, or email
pmartz@calstatela.edu.
With concern for the preservation of cultural resources,
i
Patricia Martz, Ph.D.
President
10-1
cont.
I
I
1
I
r
1
I
Letter 11
' STATE OF CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
Soulh.CoastArea Office '
' 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000
Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 RECEIVED BY
(562) 590-5071 PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 10, 2010
'. Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner MAR 16 2010
City of Newport Beach
' Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Re: Marina Park Project
Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2008051096)
Dear'Ms. Ung,
tThank you for the opportunity to review the Recirculated Environmental Impact Report
.for theMarina Park Project. According to the Recirculated Environmental Impact
' Report, the proposed project will consist of construction of a the Balboa Center
-Complex consisting of a Multi -Purpose Building and Sailing Program Building, a Girl
Scout -House, parking areas, a park with tennis and basketball courts, beach and 23-slip
marina basin on an existing public beach fronting (along Newport Bay) parcel that
currently supports 57 mobile homes, the Neva B. 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 19th Street
public restroom, a beach, and a portion of Newport Bay. 11-1
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:
' Coastal Commission staff commented on,the previously circulated Environmental
Impact Report in a letter dated April 13, 2009. Coastal Commission staff has the same
concerns with this- Recirculated Environmental Impact Report as those concerns
identified in the April 13, 2009 letter. Thus, please address the comments in that April
13, 2009 letter (a copy of this letter has been included with this letter). The comments
address the issue of the proposed project's consistency with the Chapter 3 policies of
the California Coastal Act of 1976. The comments are preliminary and those of Coastal
Commission staff only and should not be construed as representing the opinion of the
Coastal Commission itself. 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).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Recirculated Environmental Impact
Report for the Marina Park Project, Coastal Commission staff requests notification of
any future activity assddiated with this project or related projects. Please note, the
' comments providedherein are preliminary in nature. Additional and more specific
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Marina Park Project
Page 2of2'
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 dontact
-me at 562-590-5071 with any questions.
Ferdie Sy )
Coastal ProbmRl II
Attachments: Letter dated April 13, 2009
Cc: - State Clearinghouse
• r
STATE OF CALIFORNIA- NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Offlca -w
201 Oceangate, Sulte 1000
Long Beach, CA 90602-4302
(562) 590.5071
April 13, 2009
' Rosalinh Ling, Associate Planner
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department FILE COPY.'
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
' Re: Marina Park Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2008051096)
Dear Ms. Ung,'
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 B. 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 Bay.
' 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 consistency with the
Chapter 3 policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976. The comments contained herein are 11-i
-preliminary and those of Coastal Commission staff only and should not be construed as cont.
' 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).
' Below are the comments by Commission staff on the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
WETLANDS
Dredging and Fill
' Based on 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 (8) 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 loss of 0.66 acres of sandy habitat
Draft Environmental Impart 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 offsjte shallow water
,
habitat.
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 coastal waters. The EIR should include a, mitigation plan, which
'
specifically ldentifies'how the mitigation wlll 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 mitigationi be done at a 4:1 ratio. In addition, the applicant must be fully
responslble for undertaking the mitigation. In this way, the Commission is assured that4he
cont
mitigation will occur and it is clear who 1s 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 Compatibility, Repo
As stated previously, the project includes dredging and the deposition of sand upon eight (8)
potential sand disposal locations. These sand disposal•locatidns were not Identified, nor was
the final disposal location identified. Staff assumes that a potential location would be the-putillc
'
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 waltand 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
'
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Marina Park Project
Page 3 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 that the proposed marina will be enclosed by a cement groin and include
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 N
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
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
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
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
11-1
cont.
I'
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Marina Park Project
Page 4 of 7
type of development can have an adverse impact on shoreline processes, could cause erosion,
and could have adverse impacts on coastal access and recreation.
,
The materials submitted with your application do not substantlate'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
11-1
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
cont .
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
'
Pushing 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, long4erm•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.
'
i os
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 '
F7
I
I
Draft Envitonmental•Impact Report
Marina Park Project
Page 5 of 7
40-feet to dock in this marina? In addition, how many spaces are available for boats undbr 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 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 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 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
11-1
cont
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Marina Park Project
Page 6 of 7
proposed development, The analysis must also provide recommendations for the avoidance or
minimization 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 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 16h' Street, and secondary access will be via 15th Street. Public access to
the beach will be provided by walkways within the proposed park as wellasan access
provided along the western side of the proposed marina. Furthermore, I e and 19th
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 leased 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
11-1
along the bay through the American Legion site. This would result in a continuous
cont.
access to the bay along the bay from the western edge of the project site at 19rh Street
to eastern edge of the project site at I Street.
Parkino
'
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
,
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
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 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
'
I
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Marina park Project
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 18-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 9304inear 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 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
'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
r 1 c Pich an,i Mlil.ilifa Rarvlca ft ISPws) and/or the California Denartment of Fish and Game
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 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 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 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 for a coastal development permit. Please feel
'free to contact me at 562-590-5071 with any questions.
I
Attachments: Applicants for Shorefront Development
Cc: State Clearinghouse
11-1
Cont.
Marina Park Final REIR Responses and Errata
DRAFT REIR
,CHAPTER 3: RESPONSES ANb ERRATA TO THE
Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency (City of Newport Beach) to evaluate
'
comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the
Draft REIR and prepare written responses. This chapter provides written responses from the City of
Newport Beach to all comments received on the Draft REIR.
'
In Chapter 2 comment letters and specific comments are given specific numbers for reference purposes.
This chapter presents responses, numbered to correspond to each specific comment number identified in
Chapter 2. Included at the end of Chapter 3 are errata to the Draft REIR. Where text of the Draft REIR is
'
excerpted in this document, the text is indented and/or shown in italics. Changes to the Draft REIR text
are shown in underflned text for additions and sn-ike6u for deletions.
Responses
1. Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee; February 23,2010
'
1-1 Page 2-5, first column, Impact 5.2-A, the conclusion under Cumulative is corrected to read:
,
;man Potentially sisniftcant.
1-2 The Girl Scout building that is proposed to be demolished as part of the project does not have
'
historic significance; it is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places, California
Register of Historic Places, nor is it recognized by the City of Newport Beach Ad Hoc Historic
Preservation Advisory Committee's Historic Resource Inventory list.
'
1-3 The demand for basketball courts would not increase as a result of the project nor would the
project create new demand, therefore the project would not have an impactunder CEQA. For the
commenter's information: Las Arenas Park, currently located on the project site, contains one
'
half -basketball court. The addition of another half court would double the opportunity for
recreational basketball play compared to current conditions.
'
1-4 The use of paving on pathways has not been decided. The final design -of the project will requite
the best materials suited for the volume of visitors expected to visit the park and community
center. Because the project may seek to achieve a silver LEED certification (or equivalent), the
'
design process would emphasize the use of environmentally sound products.
1-5 The exact construction timing for each phasing of the project has not been determined at this ,
time. The phasing of the project is outlined in the Draft REIR so as to provide the City with the
most flexibility and to allow the project to be implemented from Phase 1 through Phase 3 without
any further environmental analysis. Should all regulatory agency permits be in place for Phase 3
construction, it could begin as soon as Phase i construction is completed. It is also possible that
Phase 2 could begin immediately after Phase 1 construction is completed. During Phase 3
construction, Phase I or Phase 2 site would not be available to the public as it would be used as '
construction staging area for dredging of the marina and placement of needed fill dirt. The
existing improvements/structures along Balboa Blvd. would be remaining open and available to
the general public as long as possible.
1-6 Comment noted. The City will determine the availability for private rentals with consideration
given to public demand and usage in general.
Sirius Eavironmontal 3.1
Marina Park Final REIR Responses and Errata
' 1-7 The 30-day length of stay is a maximum. The operational policies of the marina will be finalized
' in the next design phases of the project.
1-8 In the traffic analysis, trips from the unfinished portion of the OLQA Church Expansion are
' already accounted for and added to the background traffic condition of that area and therefore,
will not require further analysis.
I-9 The commenter summarizes the aesthetic benefits anticipated from the proposed project. These
comments are noted.
' 1-10 As the commenter notes, the closest SCAQMD air quality monitoring station is located
approximately 4 miles inland from the site and the closest station with particulate matter data is
located in Mission Viejo (14 miles from the site). The SCAQMD (the agency with expertise and
jurisdiction over air quality issues in the Southern California Air Basin) considers data from these
' monitoring stations to be sufficiently representative of the project area. Given that air quality at
these stations is well below State standards for all pollutants and given that the project is not
anticipated to generate significant quantities of air pollutants, site -specific monitoring is not
' warranted.
1-1 I In general the project would generate a net increase of relatively few trips and proposed buildings
are relatively small, therefore project emissions are relatively small and below the SCAQMD
thresholds of significance. The paragraph cited in this comment addresses greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. Since the California Air Resources Board and SCAQMD have not identified
' thresholds of significance for GHG, the City of Newport Beach has studied the issue and
identified a standard threshold (as discussed on p. 5.2-13 of the Draft REIR -- 1,600 metric tons
of CO2e per year) for use in the environmental documents in the City. As noted in the comment,
' project emissions would be below this threshold.
1-12 Page 5.2-11,first paragraph, last sentence, is revised as follows:
' Projects that de net exceed these thresholds would be considered to have significant
impacts, and thus could be expected to impede the State's mandatory requirement under
AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
' 1-13 The air quality models used to model project emissions are the standard models used in most if
not all environmental documents in Southern California. The models used are recommended by
the SCAQMD (the agency responsible for air quality in the region) for use in environmental
documents.
' 1-14 The comment implies that the emissions calculations ignored larger watercraft. However, the City
evaluates the analysis' use of 100 boats (diesel pleasure craft, a mix of inboard and sterndrive
engines generally between 25 and 40 horsepower but with some use of larger craft up to 2,000
' horsepower) taxiing an average of one hour per day to be a very conservative approach to
estimating emissions. The City's analysis is based on standard emission factors, vessel mix data,
and City of Newport Beach Harbor Department experience and expertise. The City of Newport
Beach considers the analysis to be conservative in its assumption of vehicle mix and hours of use.
1-15 The intersections selected for study were the ones that experienced the greatest traffic impact
when viewed in the context of existing plus future traffic. Project emissions and background air
' pollutant concentrations are so low that a CO hot spot would not occur at any of the intersections
Sirius Environmental 3-2
11
Marina Park Final REIR Responses and Errata
close to the project, either now or in the future. In addition, since the vehicle fleet is getting '
cleaner due to emission controls, CO levels in the region (including in the vicinity of the project
site) are anticipated to decrease with time despite the anticipated increase in vehicle numbers. '
1-16 References to mitigation treasures 5.24.1 through 5.2-1.14 on pages 5.2-37 and 5.2-38 and
throughout the document are deleted. These measures were included in the original Draft EIR
but were deleted in the Draft REIR'because the project does not result in emissions that exceed
the City of Newport Beach GHG threshold (that was established since publication of the original
Draft EIR, see discussions on pp. 5.2-13 and 5.2-30 of the Draft REIR and Tables 5.2-12, 5.2-13 '
and 5.2-16). Thus mitigation for GHG emissions is not necessary.
1-17 As noted above, vehicle emissions (including of construction equipment) become cleaner over
time. Therefore, calculations assuming a project start in 2009 rather than 2010 are slightly more ,
conservative (i.e. worst case) and therefore the calculations do not need to be redone.
1-18 Page 5.2-13, first paragraph under the subheading Analytical Methodology, the sixth sentence is
revised as follows:
The CO2 hotspot analysis used the CALINE4 model, which has several inputs.
'
1-19
The impact analysis acknowledges a potentially significant impact before mitigation.
Accordingly, the Draft REIR imposes a mitigation measure, MM 5.3-A.1 (p. 5.3-19 of the Draft
REIR), which addresses the potential impact by specifying the temporal window, March 31 to
'
June 30 (during the time grunion spawn), during which beach placement activities could not
occur.
'
1-20
Underwater diver surveys have been used on other projects when absolutely necessary, for
example when the project is located in deep water. For the proposed project, however, underwater
surveys are unnecessary because the shallow depth of the channel adjacent to the project site
'
means that marine mammals would be easily spotted by surface scan. For that reason alternate
monitoring methods were not considered.
1-21
As stated in the first paragraph on p. 5.3-21, the basis for the quoted statement is experience from
other areas of Newport Bay; that experience is described in the biological study included as
Appendix D.2.
,
1-22
There is no provision for monitoring the biological consequences of installing the circulation -
enhancing devices. The Draft REIR did not find the potential impact of impaired circulation to be
significant; the circulation -enhancing devices were referenced, as being likely to alleviate a less -
,
than -significant impact, not imposed as mitigation for a significant impact. Accordingly, no
monitoring is required.
'
1-23
Lower Newport Bay is, and has been for many decades, entirely surrounded by ornamental
landscaping consisting largely of non-native plants. No adverse effects of that condition have
been documented, and there is thus no reason to believe that the minor increment of non-native
'
terrestrial vegetation represented by the Marina Park project would have any adverse effects on
the marine environment.
1-24
The commenter's views on additional objectives of the project are noted.
,
Sirius Environmental 3.3
Marina Park Final REIR Responses and Errata
1-25 No birds are currently known to nest in the vegetation on the site, and, in any case, the only
terrestrial bird species observed on the site are common, urban -adapted birds such as sparrows,
house finches, crows, and mourning doves (Appendix D.1 of the RDEIR) for which the project
site would not represent critical nesting habitat. The proposed project would not affect nesting
opportunities since proposed landscaping would provide similar opportunities. No sensitive
' species use the site and there would be no suitable nesting habitat for such species with project
implementation. The proposed project would not result in a significant increase in light or glare
(p. 5.1-13 of the RDEIR). Accordingly, the nighttime light environment of the proposed project
' would not adversely affect nesting either by the urban bird species common to the area or by
sensitive species.
1-26 The commenter's agreement with the approach taken to addressing cultural resource impacts in
the Draft REIR is noted.
1-27 The Draft REIR summarizes the results of Newfield's Dredged Material Evaluation and
references Appendix G.3. Please refer to the appendix for further explanation. The Marina will be
excavated to a depth of -12 ft MLLW with another 2 feet of overdredge and another 6 inches to
account for a factor of safety in the depth of the dredging process. The sediment sampling
performed by Newfields analyzed sediments to a depth of -14.5 ft. MLLW. The Newfields report
states that mercury were detected above EPA limits for disposal at the offshore disposal site
designated as LA-3. These mercury concentrations were detected in the upper portion of area C
' (Areas A, B and C are defined in Figure 3 of Newfields report). The upper 2-3 ft. of the cores
taken in area C consist of fine silts, and it is in those fine silts that mercury concentrations exceed
EPA allowable limits for disposal to LA-3. This information is paraphrased from page 44 of
' Newfields report.
1-28 In Orange County, disclosure of information relating to the transportation of hazardous materials
' is required (Orange County Code, Title 4. Division 3, Article 4) for transporting more than 500
pounds or 55 gallons of contaminated material. In addition, under AB 2185 (California Health
and Safety Code, Section 25500 et. sea.), any business that handles hazardous materials is
required to submit a business emergency plan, which will be approved and maintained by the
' Orange County Fire Authority. City activities are undertaken in full compliance with all
applicable laws, and the City will comply with this law as with all other applicable laws and
regulations.
1-29 The Draft REIR summarizes the results of the Site Assessment of the SCE Parcel, which can be
found in Appendix G.6. Page 6 of that report discusses the concentrations of PCBs found at
' various boring locations. Figure 3 of the report denotes those boring locations and maps the area
within the SCE site that is recommended for soil excavation and removals.
' 1-30 This comment has been addressed in Section 3.4.2 — Construction, of the Draft REIR and Section
8 - Response to Comments on Draft EIR, in Response to Comment Al 1-16 of the Draft REIR.
The proposed project includes various phases of construction activities. The construction phases
' would be scheduled so that a specific timetable for construction activities is established in
advance once the project phasing has been identified. The City is aware of summer traffic
patterns on the peninsula and will schedule the construction activities to take into account the
summer traffic season.
1-31 The new marina would include pump -out stations for the disposal of sanitary wastes in to local
sewer lines. As noted on p. 5.7-8 of the Draft REIR, vehicle maintenance facilities would not be
' Sidus Environmental 3.4
1,
Marina Park Final REIR Responses and Errata
'
provided in the Marina; maintenance activities would occur where proper facilities are provided
and not on the project site. Wastes are not anticipated to accumulate.
1-32 Comment noted. The Phase 3 Site Plan shown as Exhibit 3-6 illustrates the overall building
,
location, parking lot design and vehicular circulation for the entire site. The parking spaces and
drive aisles including their turning radii have been designed to meet the City's standards. The
onsite vehicular circulation is, therefore, adequate to accommodate the proposed project. The
,
implementation of the parking management plan would ensure the entire parking lot operates
properly and safety.
'
1-33 The process for evaluating core sample data is thoroughly described in the text of the Newfields
report (Appendix G.3). Core samples are analyzed both through chemical analyses and bioassays
using test organisms in accordance with published regulatory agency guidance (e.g., the Inland
,
Testing Manual and the Ocean Testing Manual). The project -specific sampling and analysis plan
will be submitted to the Corps of Engineers, the US EPA, and the Regional Water Quality
Control Board for approval.
1-34 Mitigation Measure 5.7-A.2 (page 5.7-11) requires the City to include "mechanical devices
within the marina basin to enhance the movement and ,mixing of water within the basin," These
devices are required to meet EPA guidelines for adequate tidal flushing. One option is the use of
,
oloids (a propeller -like device that is shown in appendix H.3). With this mitigation measure, tidal
flushing impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. The status of other marinas in
Newport Bay with respect to tidal circulation is beyond the scope of this document.
t
1-35 The 73-foot lighthouse element is a slim architectural feature that would not block views but that '
would provide a point of identification along the coastline so that visitors could visually locate
and identify the park. The City believes that such a feature is an appropriate form for a public
facility, and is not proposing an alternative design. See also discussion on page 5.1-12 of the '
Draft REIR (excerpted below):
The architectural lighthouse feature would extend vertically to approximately 73 feet. Its
height would contrast with the remainder of the site and surrounding structures, as its '
purpose is to provide a visual point of reference in the area and direct the public to a
major public amenity. Because the width of the lighthouse would taper front 18 feet at its
base to 8 feet atits top, the lighthouse would be a relatively minor horizontal element in '
comparison to the expanse of waterfront view (930 linear feet) opened by the proposed
project. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the visual
character of the site and its surroundings. '
See also the discussion of Coastal Land Use Plan Policies 4A.2-1, 4.4.2-2 and 4.4.2-3 on p. 5.8-
27 of the Draft REIR (excerpted in part below):
The lighthouse feature's height, approximately 73 feet, would contrast with the
remainder of the site and surrounding structures, as its purpose is to provide a visual
point of reference in the area and direct the public to a major public amenity. The
lighthouse would be a relatively minor horizontal element in comparison to the expanse
of waterfront view (930 linear feet) opened by the proposed project and would be less
obstructing to the view than the current horizontal mass of buildings. The project
includes large setbacks fron other uses thus avoiding any abrupt changes in scale. The
extra height of the lighthouse would add to the unique character of the area by providing
a focal point. Accordingly, the project would be consistent with this policy. '
Sirius Environmental 3.5
' Marina Park Final REIR Responses and Errata
The main buildings proposed on the project site would be less than 35 feet in height as
measured using the methodology specified in the Municipal Code. However, the
proposed lighthouse feature would exceed the shoreline height limitation with a height of
73 feet. Policy 4.4.2-3 indicates that building envelopes should be regulated thorough
' the Zoning Code. The City's Zoning Code allows exceptions to the height limits for
architectural features such as the proposed lighthouse tower. Therefore, the project is
considered consistent with the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone and consistent with this
' policy.
The City Council and Council/Citizen's Committee on Marina Park Design, at various public
meetings, have considered the design, size and height of the Balboa Complex, which includes the
' Multi -Purpose Building, the Sailing Program Building and the lighthouse feature. The consensus
recommendation from both hearing bodies has been to maintain the height of both buildings
within the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone of 35 feet and to allow architectural features (i.e. the
lighthouse element) to exceed the 35-foot limit.
1-36 The second paragraph on p. 5.9-3 is consistent with Exhibit 5.9-1. Existing modeled noise levels
' are shown in Table 5.9-4 p. 5.9-6. The 24-hour CNEL (63 dBA at the Girl Scout House) is
"clearly compatible" with the guidelines for institutional use (up to 65 dBA) and open space (up
to 70 dBA). Noise modeling results are summarized in Table 5.9-6 and show that future noise
1 levels with the project would increase at one location by 0.1 dBA at Newport Boulevard and 32"d
Street, where noise levels would increase to 58.2 dBA (a level clearly compatible with even
single-family residential use). While some of the modeled noise levels in the area do exceed the
' clearly compatible level for the most sensitive single-family residential uses that may be located
in proximity to some of the modeled roadways, that is an existing condition that would not be
appreciably worsened by the project.
' 1-37 Mitigation measures 5.9-D.1 though 5.9-D.4 require extensive mitigation to reduce construction
noise, including properly maintained equipment and mufflers, noise shrouds and barriers for pile
driving, location of stationary sources away from sensitive receptors, and restricting construction -
related activities to hours indicated in the Municipal Code.
1-38 As noted on p. 3-18 of the Project Description, pile driving for the marina would require about
3.5 weeks of pile driving for guide piles and up to 10 weeks for sheet piles (for a total of 13.5
weeks, rounded to 14 weeks in the noise discussion on p. 3.9-15); building construction would
require up to 3 weeks of pile driving for a total of up to 16.5 weeks (rounded to 17 weeks). The
Newport elementary School is located 830 feet from the project site. As noted in Table 5.9-10
general construction noise levels would be approximately 66 dBA at the school. Noise from pile
driving could increase noise levels to as much as 77 dBA without mitigation. Mitigation measure
' 5.9-D.2 requires the use of noise abatement technology (e.g. shrouds and barriers) to reduce noise
from pile driving. Shrouds and barriers can be expected to reduce noise levels by 10 to 20 dBA,
which would reduce pile driving noise at the school to 57 dBA to 67 dBA. Exterior to interior
' reduction in noise levels for typical construction is about 24 dBA. 1 Thus, interior noise levels at
the school would be expected to be no more than 43 dBA, a level generally accepted as suitable
for quiet activities such as reading and studying (as well as sleeping in residences).
1-39 Page 5.11-1, under the heading Regional/Local, second line, the word very is -replaced with every
' I SAE AIR 1081- 1971 House Reduction Measurements (Reaffirmed April 1991, November 2007)
Sirius Environmental 3.6
Marina Park Final REIR Responses and Errata
,
1-40 Options for how to control parking are discussed in the Pa)*ing Management Plan by Walker
Consultants presented in Appendix J of the REIR.
1-41 The parking management plan is used to control and manage, for optimum efficiency, the parking
spaces provided for the proposed project. The amount of parking provided for the proposed
project is based on a combination factor/ratio of City's and ITE's (Institute of Transportation)
'
parking standards that has been approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Table 5.11-7 of the Draft
REIR provides the specific parking rates used for each component of the project and identifies the
total spaces required for the
project.
1-42 The purpose of an EIR is to identify impacts that could result from the project when added to
existing conditions. Pre-existing impacted situations are not addressed except insofar as a project
'
might make a condition significantly worse. Traffic impacts are analyzed for peak hours since
that is when conditions are worst and when impacts would be most apparent. The Marina Park
project, unlike an office building or residential project, would not generate most of its traffic
during peak hours, rather trips would -be spread across the day. The cumulative project list
included in the analysis of this project is shown in Table 4-1 pp, 4-2 to 4-3. Banning Ranch and
Sunset Ridge are both included as proposed projects; 2300 Newport is included as approved but
0% complete. The traffic analysis was performed by Austin -Foust and approved by the City
,
Traffic Engineer. No additional analysis is necessary. The Draft REIR concludes that traffic
impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is needed.
1-43 CEQA requires that the alternatives discussion focuses on reducing identified significant adverse
impacts of the project. The Draft REIR identified only one (potentially) significant impact on
construction noise. Alternatives 1 (No Project) and 3 (No Marina) would avoid this impact.
,
Alternative 2 would still have a potentially significant impact on construction noise (although less
than the project). The Draft REIR adequately addresses and compares impacts of alternatives.
,
2. Madelaine Whiteman; February 15, 2010
2-1 The existing private mobile home parking lot will be re -striped for Phase i and Phase 2 of the '
proposed project to provide approximately 11'2 new public metered parking spaces. This will
provide for a sufficient number of spaces for the initial phases without having to change the
summer parking restrictions on Balboa Blvd. '
2-2 The traffic study for the project recommends that a left -turn pocket from eastbound Balboa Blvd.
into the parking lot driveway at 16"' Street be provided. A STOP sign is not proposed or
recommended at this intersection.
2-3 The existing public parking lot located at the northeast corner of Balboa Blvd, and 18" Street has '
22 spaces. The existing lot next to the Girl Scout House has 6 spaces. The new parking lot near
18"' Street, to be built as part of Phase 3, will have 26 parking spaces. In addition, 18"' Street
north of Balboa Boulevard will be widened to allow for an additional 8 on -street parking spaces '
adjacent to the new Girl Scout house.
3. OCTA; February 23, 2010
3-1 Page 5.11-5, Section 5.11-F in the paragraph discussing the Project Specific Analysis, the third
sentence is replaced with the following:
Sirius Environmental 3-7 ,
Marina Park Final REIR
and Errata
There is an OCTA bus stop on westbound West Balboa Boulevard and 16' Street that
would not be impacted by the project.
i3-2 The sidewalk width will meet ADA requirements.
' 4. State of California, Department of Transportation, District 12, Chris Herre, Branch Chief;
February 3,2010
' 4-1 The requirement for an encroachment permit within any right-of-way under the jurisdiction of
Caltrans is noted.
S. Southern California Gas Company; January 26, 2010
5-1 The availability of natural gas to the project site is noted.
6. State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Greg Holmes, Unit Chief;
March 1, 2010
6-1 As noted on pp. 5.6-6 to 5.6-7, project demolition and construction activities are anticipated to
require the disposal of 300 cubic yards of PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) contaminated soil and
approximately 3,000 cubic yards of mercury contaminated dredge materials. Mitigation Measure
5.6-A.1 requires that on -site buildings to be demolished be tested to determine the presence of
any lead -based paints, PCB's or asbestos. If found, any such contaminants would be properly
disposed of at a landfill that accepts such waste. As noted on p. 5.6-6, operation of the project is
' anticipated to involve routine amounts of solvents, pesticides, and paints. All hazardous wastes
would be handled in accordance with applicable regulations. Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) oversight is not anticipated to be necessary, but should excavation activities
encounter any unanticipated contaminants, the City of Newport Beach would consult with DTSC
as appropriate.
7. State of California, California State Lands Commission, Marina R. Brand, Acting Chief,
' Division of Environmental Planning and Management; March 3, 2010
7-1 The role of the State Lands Commission as a Responsible Agency in providing jurisdictional
' review of the project is identified on pp. 3-21 and 5.8-1 of the Draft REIR. The background of
tidelands trusts and leases in the City of Newport Beach is discussed on p. 5.8-1. The City of
Newport Beach will address as appropriate the boundaries between City -owned land and land
held in trust, in consultation with the California State Lands Commission (CSLC). The City of
Newport Beach believes that the proposed park and marina are consistent with the Public trust
and the City's granting statute(s).
7-2 Given the shallow depth of water in the area of the proposed marina (up to 12 feet), the relatively
shallow depth of excavation (up to 5 feet below the depth of the current grade), and the disturbed
' nature of the project area, submerged cultural resources are not anticipated and none are known to
be located on the site. With respect to potential beach nourishment sites, the dynamic, high-
energy nature of the sites (i.e., ocean beach) makes the likelihood of intact marine archeological
artifacts very remote. Furthermore, the placement of dredged material would not disturb any
' artifacts that might be present, given that those artifacts would be buried. No resources have been
found in the vicinity of the project site or sand disposal locations. The Draft REIR notes on p.
5.4- 8 that, "[b]ased upon the high level of urbanization present within the project area and the
' resultant ground disturbance, in conjunction with the environmental setting (i.e., the project area
Sirius Environmental 3.8
1
Marina Park Final REIR Responses and Errata '
has been subject to historic -era disturbance froin the movement of nearby ocean waters), there is
a very low probability that significant, intact subsurface deposits would be uncovered during
project construction. For this reason, archaeological monitoring during project construction is
not reconuniended." Mitigation Measure 5.4-13.1 is revised to require that a qualified
archaeological monitor be available to supervise excavation activities in previously undisturbed
soils (see response 10-1 below). The requirement for a salvage permit, should such artifacts be ,
encountered, is noted.
8. Pier to Pier, Central Newport Beach Community Association, Louise Fuddenberg,
President, March 9, 2010
8-1
It is likely that the gates will be removed during construction, but a final decision has not been
made. The design of the Phase 1 and 2 projects will incorporate pedestrian safety features, such
,
as speed bumps, signage and/or fencing to address the traffic in the alley as appropriate and
necessary. The addition of metered public parking between 15"' and 18" Streets for the bay beach
area is anticipated to reduce the circulation and volume of traffic on West Bay Avenue between
18" and 19'" Streets. A vehicle exiting the new public parking aisle onto 18"' Street would be able
to turn left to access Balboa Boulevard. This would be a shorter and more direct route to Balboa
Boulevard than through the Vilelle Place alley west of 18"' Street. If necessary, traffic signs
would be installed at 18"' Street and Vilelle Place to restrict traffic from driving westbound into
'
the Vilelle Place alley (residents excepted).
As indicated in Table 5.11-3, Proposed Project Trips, Phases I and 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 Phases 1 and 2.
Section 2.1 is the Executive Summary of the EIR. A more detailed description of Phases 1 and 2
is included in the Project Description (p. 3-6 of the Draft REIR). Also as noted in the
Transportation and Traffic section of the Draft REIR (p. 5.11-6) the traffic conditions for Phases
i and 2 would result in a net decrease in traffic as compared to the existing mobile home park.
8-2
Page 3-19, under the subheading "Balboa Center," the first sentence of the second paragraph is
revised as follows:
The Sailing Programs Building would support a range of eeean harbor -based activities...
'
8-3
Page 5.2-15, second paragraph, second sentence is revised as follows:
There are several -mobile hen; e is a single-family residence and a hotel located to the
west of the project site across 18"' Street...
9.
Tom Rossi, Resident, March 9, 2010
9-1
The commenters concerns are noted. Socioeconomic and property value impacts are not
addressed by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA addresses impacts to
public views, particularly scenic highways and vistas. Impacts to public views are discussed on p.
,
5.1-9. Future views from Balboa Boulevard are shown in Exhibit 5.1-3. The Draft REIR finds
that the proposed project would not have a significant impact on a scenic vista. The City of
Newport Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Plan include a number of policies that seek to
protect public views (see LU 1.6 discussed on p. 5.8-15, of the Draft REIR and Coastal Land Use
Plan Policies 4.4.1-11,-and 4.4.2-3 discussed on p.5.8-27 of the Draft REIR).
'
Sirius Environmental 3.9
11
I
Marina Park Final REIR Responses and Errata
I
I
i
1
d
11 LJ
10.
As indicated on p 3-19, the Girl Scout House would operate in much the same way as the current
Girl Scout House, "[djuring the school year (mid -September through early June) the Girl Scout
House would be used Monday through Thursday for troop meetings and adult leadership
meetings from approximately I:00 PM until 9:00 PM. Girl Scout troops would visit the facility
for overnight stays from Friday afternoon through Sunday afternoon. The current facility is
normally booked every weekend from September through June, a pattern which would be
expected to continue in the new facility. During the summer season (mid -June through early
September), the facility would be utilized 7 days per week for troop stays spanning 3 to 5 days."
As with the current facility, use of the building would be confined to Girl Scout —related activities.
California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc., Patricia Martz. PhD, President,
March 7, 2010
JO-1 As discussed in response 7-2, above, given the disturbed nature of the project area, it is not
anticipated that any resources are located on the site. However, to address the unlikely possibility
that resources are present Mitigation Measure 5.4-B.1 is revised as follows:
MM-5.4-B.l During Phase 3 a qualified archaeological monitor.shall be available to
supervise excavation activities in previously undisturbed soils. If archeological, historic
or prehistoric, artifacts are encountered during construction, the City of Newport Beach
shall contact a Native American representative (as appropriate) and take measures to
avoid the site, or shall record the site theta cap or cover the site 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. In accordance with the Public Resources Code 55097.94. if
human remains are found the Orange County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours
of the discovery_If the Coroner determines that the remains are not recent. the Coroner
then determine in consultation with the City, the disposition of the human remains.
1.1. State of California, California Coastal Commission, Fernie Sy, Coastal Program Analyst II,
March 10, 2010.
11-1 The commenter attaches his April 13, 2009 comment letter originally submitted as a comment on
the Draft EIR. Detailed response to Coastal Commission staff comments contained in the April
13, 2009 comment letter are presented in Section 8, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR in the
Draft REIR (see specifically Response to Comment A2 pp. 8-1 to 8-12). In particular, the project
includes mitigation for the loss of 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal habitat and BMPs to address
water quality. A Draft Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands (see Appendix DA)
indicates there are no wetlands on the project site. The determination of the wetland habitat used
in the Draft REIR is based on both the Army Corps of Engineers definition and the California
Coastal Commission criteria. Mitigation Measure MM 5.3-C.1 has been developed to mitigate the
project's impact on sandy intertidal habitat. As discussed in the responses to Coastal
Commission staff comments starting on p. 8-1 of the Draft REIR and in the discussion of
consistency with applicable Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Goals and policies (Table 8-
2, pp. 5.8-23 to 5.8-27 of the Draft REIR) the project is consistent with the Newport Beach Local
Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan and the California Coastal Act. All comments raised by
the commenter are addressed in the Draft REIR. As no new concerns are raised in this letter, no
further response is necessary.
Sirius Environmental 3.10
1
Marina Park Final REIR Responses and Errata
Errata to the Draft REIR '
Page 2-18.Impact 5.7-B. First and third columns, Project -Specific and Cumulative impacts should be "No impact" '
rather than "Less than significant impact" in all four locations.
Page 2-19. Impact 5.7-E. First and third columns, Project-Spccific and Cumulative impacts shouldbe "No impact"
rather than "Less than significant impact" in all four locations.
Page 2-19. Impact 5.7-F. In the first column, the level of significance for both Project -Specific and Cumulative
should be, "No impact" rather than, "Potentially significant impact." In the second column under both Project- '
Specific and Cumulative, "No mitigation required" should replace "Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM
5.7-A.1 and MM 5.7-A,2 is required." In the third column, for both Project -Specific and Cumulative, "No impact"
should replace, "Less than significant bupact." '
Page 2-23. Impact 5.9-D. Third column. Project-Specifie'level of significance after Mitigation should be,
"Significant impact" rather than "Less than significant impact."
Page 2-25. Impact 5.10-C. In the first column, the level of significance for both Project -Specific and Cumulative '
should be identified as, "No impact" rather than, "Less that; significant impact."
Page 5.6-6. The paragraph starting at the bottom of the page is revised as follows: '
Proiect .specific construction activities could result in a significant hazardous materials impact related to
the discovery, removal, and disposal ofhazardous demolition debris, but the long -terns activities of -the
proposed project would not utilize or dispose of any hazardous materials of reporlable quantities in its
typical operations. Since hazardous materials impacts are localized a cumulative impact is not anticipated.
Therefer& Impacts related to construction activities would be cumulatively less than significant, but amend
impactsfi•oin the operallonal use ofhazardousmaterials also would be less than significant.
Page 5.7-16, delete the last sentence of the first paragraph:
. Under the subheading "Mitigation Measures," '
for both Project -Specific and Cumulative, replace "No Impact" with, `Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM
5.7-A.1 and MM 5.7-A.2 is required." Under the subheading "Level of Significance After Mitigation" for both
Project Specific and Cumulative, replace, "No impact" with, "Less than significant impact:' '
Page.5.9-18. The following is added as a new last paragraph to the Noise section:
AirnorilAirstrio Noise
The initial Sndy detennined that the p2rgiect would have no impact with relation to airport or airstrip noise
as no such facilities are located in the vicbnity of the site Therefore nn additiotial anal sY is is provided itt the ,
Draft REIR.
Page 5.10-5, Impact 5.10-C (schools), second paragraph on the page, under the analysis subheading level of
"Cumulative," revise the paragraph as follows; ,
Implementation of the proposed project in addition to all other projects in the vicinity of the project site
eetdd-add-to the would not add a contribution to a cumulative impact on school personnel and facilities ,
throughout the City of Newport Beach. However-th upoet en
dtsttaet
Page 5.10-5, under the subheading "Level of Significance After Mitigation" for Cumulative, replace, "Less than i
significant" with "No impact."
Sirius Environmental 3.11 ,
I
IMarina Park Final REIR Responses and Errata
' Page 6-1, second paragraph under heading 6.2 No Project is revised as follows:
The No Project Alternative would avoid all of the construction impacts associated with the proposed project,
including the Potentially significant construction noise impacts as well as other less than significant impacts
including air quality (exceedances of criteria pollutant standards and LSTs, health impact), biological
resources (noise impacts on marine mammals, interference with grunion spawning and migratory bird
' nesting; loss ofsandy intertidal habitat), and water quality (construction runoff and dredging turbidity).;
It would also avoid all of the operational -phase
impacts, including air quality (cumulative ozone and health impacts), geology (seismic risks), and water
quality (poor circulation in the marina). The No Project Alternative would not achieve the provisions of thre
Coastal Act that encourage the maintenance and expansion of marine boatingfacilitles and enhanced
coastal access and coastal recreational opportunities.
Page 6-2, third paragraph under heading 6.3 Reduced Marina is revised as follows:
The Reduced Marina Alternative would reduce the magnitude of all of the construction and operational
impacts identified far the proposed project. Nonetheless construction noise impacts of this alternative
would remain potentially significant. (exeept the Geological impacts related to seismic risks would not be
reduced as those would be applicable primarily to the landside components of the project, and the impacts
to sandy intertidal habitat, as those would occur in the part of the marina that would be built under either
' alternative.) lit particular, this alternative would reduce potential water quality impacts during operation:
because the marina basin would be smaller and there would be fewer boats, and it would reduce traffic
because there would be fewer trips generated by visiting mariners. Although the impacts would be
reduced, they would not be avoided: the Reduced Marina Alternative would have all of the impacts of the
proposed project (includingpotenhtially significant construction noise), but of a lesser duration magnitude.
Page 6-3, the second paragraph under the subheading 6.4 — No Marina is revised as follows:
This alternative would eliminate the potentialA significant construction noise impacts of the proiect
(although there would still be piles driven for the buildings the duration of pile driving would be much less
' and the activity would be farther from sensitive receptors). This alternative would avoid the degraded
water quality that could occur in the marina. It would also reduce other impacts associated with marina
construction, including
water quality impacts from dredging and dredged material disposal; air quality impacts from construction
equipment (although construction of the remainder of the project would still generate emissions,
particularly in view of the need to import fill); and impacts art biological resources (noise impacts on
' marine manunals, interference with grunion spawning, loss of sandy intertidal habitat).
Page 7-1, the second paragraph is revised as follows:
' It has been determined that, with: implementation of the proposed project, and recommended mitigation
measures, each of the project -related impacts identified lit Section 5 of this document would be reduced to
less than significant with the exception ofconsiruction noise Construction noise would remain at least
' potentially significant (and is therefore identified as significant) after mitigation as a result ofup to 17
weeks ofptle driving.
I
ISirius Environmental 3-12
I