The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPA2008-040_RECIRCULATED EIR*NEW FILE* PA2008-040 Recirculated EIR IMarina Table of Contents I 0 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations................................................................. Section 1: Introduction ......................................... 1.1 - Purpose and Authority of the EIR .............. 1.2 - Scope of the REIR...................................... ion of the 1.4 - Documents Incorporated by Reference...... 1.5 - Technical Studies Prepared for the Project 1.6 - Review of the Draft REIR........................... vii Section 2: Executive Summary ........................................................................................ 2.1 2.1 -Proposed Project..........................................................................................................2-1 ' 2.2 - Areas of Controversy/Issues To Be Resolved.............................................................. 2-2 2.3 - Summary of Project Impacts........................................................................................ 2-2 2.4 - Summary of Alternatives............................................................................................... 2-2 t 2.5 - Mitigation and Monitoring Program............................................................................... 2-3 2.6 - Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................... 2-3 ' Section 3: Project Description......................................................................................... 3-1 3-1 3.1 - Project Objectives......................................................................................................... 3.2 - Project Location............................................................................................................ 3-2 3.3 - Existing Conditions...................................................................................................... 3-2 3.4 - Proposed Project.......................................................................................................... 3-6 3.5 - Project Approvals........................................................................................................ 3-20 ' Section 4: Environmental Setting.................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 - General Description of Environmental Setting............................................................. 4-1 4.2 - Related' Projects............................................................................................................ 4-1 L� P I I I Section 5: Environmental Impact Analysis.......................................................... 5.1 - Aesthetics......................................................................................................... 5.2 - Air Quality......................................................................................................... 5.3 - Biological Resources........................................................................................ 5.4 - Cultural Resources........................................................................................... 5.5 - Geology and Soils............................................................................................. 5.6 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................... 5.7 - Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................ 5.8 - Land Use and Planning..................................................................................... 5.9 - Noise................................................................................................................. 5.10 - Public Services............................................................................................... 5.11 - Transportation and Traffic............................................................................... 5.12 - Utilities and Service Systems.......................................................................... Section 6: Alternatives to the Proposed Project............................................................ 6-1 6.1 - Introduction................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 - No Project/No Development Alternative....................................................................... 6-1 6.3 - Reduced Marina Alternative.......................................................................................... 6-2 6.4 - No Marina Alternative................................................................................................... 6-3 6.5 - Environmentally Superior Alternative............................................................................ 6-3 Section 7: Other CEQA Considerations.......................................................................... 7-1 7.1 - Significant Unavoidable Impacts................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 - Growth -Inducing Impacts.............................................................................................. 7-1 7.3 - Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .............................................. 7-2 1 Sirius Environmental 1fi Marina Park RDEIR Table of Contents I Section8: Responses to Comments on Draft EIR........................................................ 8.1 8.1 - Responses.... ................................................................................................................ 8-1 Section 9: Report Authors and Consultants; persons and Organizations Consulted.......................................................... 9-1 9.1 - Lead Agency................................................................................................................. 9-1 9-1 9.2 - Lead Consultant .... ........................................................................ ................................ 9-1 9.3 - Technical Consultants .......................................... ......................................................... 9.4 Persons and Organizations Consulted 9-2 - .................................................... ...................... Section10: References ........................................... APPENDICES I I .......................................10-1 ' Appendix A: Initial Study/Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters Appendix B: Visual Simulations Appendix C: Air Quality Information Appendix D: Terrestrial and Marine Biological Resources Assessments D.1: Terrestrial Biological Resource Assessment D.2: Marine Biological Impact assessment D.3: Dredge Disposal Area Evaluations D.4: Draft Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix E: Cultural Resources Appendix F: Geotechnical Investigation Appendix G: Hazardous Materials Information G.1: Hazardous Report Data, FirstSearch Technology Corporation G.2: Hazardous Records Search G.3: Dredged Material Evaluation, June 2009, Newfields GA: Evaluation of Surface Soils from the Marina Park Mobile Home Park, May 2009, Newfields G.5: Correspondence with EPA and ACOE regarding Sampling program G.6: Site Assessment Marina Park, 1516 West Balboa Boulevard (SCE parcel), September 22, 2009, Leighton -Consulting, Inc Appendix H: Drainage and Water Quality Information H.I: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Fuscoe Engineering, October 17, 2008 H.2: Coastal Engineering Study, Everest International Consultants, Inc. October 2008 H.3: Summary of Oloids as Water Quality Enhancement Devices HA Sand Compatibility Analysis Appendix I: Noise Information Appendix J: Public Services Information Appendix K: Traffic and Parking Analysis K.1: TPO (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) Traffic Analysis, Austin -Foust, September 2009 K.2: Parking Management PlanRecommendations Study, Walker Consultants, October 2008 I I Sirius Environmental Iv C IMarina Park RDEIR Table of Contents Appendix L: Utilities Information Appendix M: Comment Letters Received on February Draft EIR ' Appendix IN: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ' LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Executive Summary Matrix................................................................................................2-4 ' Table 3-1: Phase 3 Project Components..........................................................................................3-11, Table4-1: Related Project List............................................................................................................4-2 ' Table 5.2-1: Ambient Air Quality Standards and Relevant Effects..................................................5.2-7 Table 5.2-2: Air Quality Summary, Costa Mesa and Mission Viejo Monitoring Stations................5.2-12 Table 5.2-3: Construction Significance Thresholds ... .......... .... .............. ........................ ......... Table 5.2-4: Regional Construction Emissions (Unmitigated).......................................................5.2-16 ....... 5.2-14 Table 5.2-5: Localized Significance Analysis (Construction, Unmitigated)....................................5.2-17 ' Table 5.2-6: Regional Construction Emissions (Mitigated)............................................................5.2-18 Table 5.2-7: Localized Significance Analysis (Construction, Mitigated).........................................5.2-19 Table 5.2-8: Existing Emissions.....................................................................................................5.2-20 Table 5.2-9: Phase 3 Operational Emissions (Summer, Unmitigated)..........................................5.2-21 Table 5.2-10: Phase 3 Operational Emissions (Winter, Unmitigated)............................................5.2-22 Table 5.2-11: CO Phase 3 Concentrations....................................................................................5.2-23 Table 5.2-12: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Unmitigated)........................................5.2-31 Table 5.2-13: Phase 3 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Unmitigated)............................5.2-32 Table 5.2-14: Consistency with OPR Example Mitigation Measures.............................................5.2-34 ' Table 5.2-15: Consistency with Scoping Plan Reduction Measures..............................................5.2-35 Table 5.2-16: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigated) ...... ....................................... 5.2-37 ' Table 5.2-17: Phase 3 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigated)................................5.2-38 Table 5.4-1: Previously Recorded Cultural Resources....................................................................5.4-5 Table 5.6-1: Summary of Regulatory Database Search..................................................................5.6-3 Table 5.8-1: Consistency of Marina Park Project With Applicable General Plan Goals and Policies...................................................................................................................... 5.8-12 Table 5.8-2: Consistency of Marina Park Project With Applicable Coastal Land Use Plan Goalsand Policies....................................................................................................5.8-23 Table 5.9-1: Groundborne Vibration Exposure Standards...............................................................5.9-1 ' Table 5.9-2: City of Newport Beach Noise Standards.....................................................................5.9-3 Table 5.9-3: Existing Sensitive Receptors.......................................................................................6.9-6 Table 5.9-4: On -Site Noise Modeling Results(dBA)........................................................................5.9-6 Table 5.9-5: Estimated Construction Vibration Levels...................................................................5.9-11 ' Table 5.9-6: Existing and Future Traffic Noise Levels (AM Peak Hour)........................................5.9-13 Table 5.9-7: Existing and Future Traffic Noise Levels (PM Peak Hour)........................................5.9-14 ' Sirius Environmental v Marina Park RDEIR Table of Contents Table 5.9-8: Noise Associated with Typical Construction Equipment ........................................... 5.9-15 ' Table 5.9-9: Noise Associated with Excavation and Dredging Equipment ............................... .... 5.9-16 Table 5.9-10: Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors ................................. 5.9-16 Table 5.11-1: Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization and Level of Service - Non -Peak Season..................................................................................................................... 5.114 Table 5.11-2: Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization and Level of Service - Summer Season..................................................................................................................... 5.11-5 Table 5.11-3: Proposed Project Trips (Phases 1, 2 and 3)........................................................... 5.11-7 Table 5.11-4: Summary of One Percent Analysis - Non -Peak Season ........................................ 5.11-9 Table 5.11-5: ICU Analysis and Corresponding Levels of Service .............................................. 5.11-10 Table 5.11-6: Cumulative ICU Analysis and Corresponding Levels of Service ........................... 5.11-11 Table 5.11-7: Project Parking Requirement................................................................................5.11-14 Table 5.12-1: Existing Daily Solid Waste Generation (Estimate) .................................................. 5.12-1 Table 5.12-2: Existing Daily Water Service Demands (estimate) .................................................. 5.12-2 Table 5.12-3: Existing Daily Wastewater Service Demands (estimate) ........................................ 5.12-2 Table 5.12-4: Existing Daily Natural Gas Demand (estimate)....................................................... 5.12-3 , Table 5.12-5: Existing Daily Electrical Demand (estimate)............................................................ 5.12-4 Table 5.12-6: Projected Daily Wastewater Service Demands from ProposedWarina Park (estimate).................................................................................................................. 5.12-5 ' Table 5.12-7: Projected Daily Water Service Demands from Proposed Marina Park (Estimate).. 5.12-7 Table 5.12-8: Estimated Solid Waste Generation....................................................................... 5,12-10 Table 5.12-9: Estimated Yearly Natural Gas Demands from Proposed Marina Park .................. 5.12-13 Table 5.12-10: Estimated Yearly Electricity Demand from Proposed Marina Park ..................... 5.12-13 1 LIST OF EXHIBITS I Exhibit3-1: Regional Location Map.................................................................................................... 3-3 Exhibit3-2: Local Vicinity Map............................................................................................................ 3-4 Exhibit 3-3: Onsite and surrounding Land uses.................................................................................. 3-5 Exhibit3-4: Phase 1 Site Plan........................................................................................................... 3-7 Exhibit 3-5: Phase 2 Site Plan........................................................................................................... 3-9 Exhibit3-6: Phase 3 Site Plan.........................................................................................................3-10 ' Exhibit 3-7: Sand Disposal Locations............................................................................................... 3-16 Exhibit 5.1-1: Visual Analysis Index Key ............. ................................................ ..................... ....... 5.1-7 Exhibit 5.1-2: Existing Views........................................................................................................... 5.1-8 Exhibit 5.1-3: Visual Simulations of Proposed View Corridors...................................................... 5.1-10 Exhibit 5.9-1: Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix .......... ........... .................................................... 5.9-2 Exhibit 5.11-1: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study Locations.......................................................... 5.11-3 Exhibit 8-1: Historical Aerial Photos.................................................................................................. 8-6 Exhibit 8-2: Comparison of Existing and proposed Groins................................................................ 8-7 Sirius Environmental vi Marina Park Draft REIR Acronyms and.Abbreviations ,ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS * no data or insufficient data > exceed µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter ' 30-day 30-day average AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards ' ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ADT Average Daily Traffic AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ' ARB Air Resources Board ASTM American Society for Testing Materials ' BMPs Best Management Practices CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standard CalSites State Sites Database ' Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board ' CCA California Coastal Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information Systems List CERCLIS - NFRAP CERCLIS —No Further Remedial Action Planned CESA California Endangered Species Act CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons CFG California Department of Fish and Game cf/sf/yr cubic feet per square foot per year ' CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon dioxide CLUP Coastal Land Use Plan COR Corrective Action Report Water Act CWA Federal Clean dB decibel dBA Decibel A -weighted DE1R Draft Environmental Impact Report Diesel PM Diesel Particulate Matter DPR Department of Parks and Recreation DU Dwelling Units ' E Equivalent Impact Sirius Environmental vd Acronyms and Abbreviations Marine Park Draft REIR ' EHD County Environmental Health Department EIR Environmental Impact Report EMFAC Emission Factors Model EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERNS ESA Emergency Response Notification System Environmental Site Assessments FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWARD-77-108 Federal Highway Administration Noise Prediction Model FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map G Greater adverse impact day gpd gallons per gpd/sf gallons per day per square feet gpd/unit gallons per day per unit HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons HHW household hazardous wastes ICU intersection capacity utilization 1S Initial Study ITE institute of Transportation Engineers ' IWMD County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Department kwh/sf/yr kilowatt hour per square foot per year L Lesser adverse impact Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level Leq Equivalent Sound Level Lmax maximum noise level recorded during a noise event Ln sound level exceeded over a specified time LCP Local Coastal Program LOS level of service LS Less Than Significant, No Mitigation Required ' LSM Less Than Significant with Mitigation LSTs Localized Significance Thresholds ' LQG RCRA Generator LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank max maximum ' MBA Michael Brandman Associates MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mcf/yr million cubic feet per year Mean mgd Annual Arithmetic Mean million gallons per day , mkw/sf/yr million kilowatts per square foot per year MLD Most Likely Descendant , Sirius Environmental vill IMarina Park Draft REIR Acronyms and Abbreviations 11 J I I I II MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MSD Marine Sanitation Device MU-W Mixed Use -water -related MWD Metropolitan Water District NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCP/HCP -Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan NDA Non -Discharge Area NFAPR No Further Action Planned Report NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NI No Impact NIM No Impact with Mitigation NLR no longer regulated NOP Notice of Preparation NOx Nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priorities List OCFA Orange County Fire Authority OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OPR Office of Planning and Research OS Open Space PFCs Perfluorocarbons PM10 particulate matter PM2.5 particulate matter Ppm parts per million (concentration) PVC polyvinyl chloride PF Public Facility PPV Peak Particle Velocity PR Parks and Recreation Quarter Calendar quarter RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRA — TSD Resource and Recovery Information System — Permitted Treatment and Disposal Facilities ROG Reactive Organic Gases RWQCB The California Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCE Southern California Edison Company SCGC Southern California Gas Company sf Square Feet Sirius Environmental ix ' Acronyms and Abbreviations Marina Park Draft REIR SF Square Feet , SP6 Sulfur hexafluoride SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area ' SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SIP Sox State Implementation Plans sulfur oxides SQG RCRA Generator SRA Source Receptor Area SWF/LF Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites SWL SWPPPS Solid Waste Landfill Stormwater pollution prevention plans SY Square Yards TACs Toxic Air Contaminants ' TSF Thousand Square Feet URBEMIS Urban Emissions Model USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USGS United States Geological Survey UST underground storage tank UST/AST Active Underground Storage Tank Facilities/ Aboveground Storage Tank WC volume to capacity VOC volatile organic compounds WQMP Water Quality Management Plan Lj L I 11 Sirius Environmental x 1 Marina Park Introduction I I 1-1 I H P I t 'SECTION 1 r INTROb-dcfiON 1.1 - Purpose and Authority of the EIR 1.1.1 - Purpose and Authority A previous 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 have occurred since release of the Draft EIR, the City of Newport Beach decided to prepare and recirculate a new Draft EIR. This Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (REIR) has been 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 City of Newport Beach is the lead agency for the preparation of this REIR. This document is 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. This Draft REIR is intended to serve as an informational document for the public agency decision - makers and the general public regarding the project's environmental impacts, project objectives, and components of the proposed project. This document addresses the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with the planning, construction, and operation of the project, as well as to identify appropriate and feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to significantly reduce or avoid these impacts. CEQA requires that an EIR contain, at a minimum, certain specific elements. These elements include: • Table of Contents • Introduction • Executive Summary • Project Description • Environmental Setting, Significant Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cumulative Impacts • Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • Alternatives to the Proposed Project • Growth -Inducing Impacts • Effects Found Not to be Significant • Areas of Known Controversy This Draft REIR has been prepared by Sirius Environmental, a consultant, under contract to the City of Newport Beach. Prior to public review, the REIR was reviewed and evaluated by the City of NewportBeach. This REIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Newport Beach as required by CEQA. Sirius Environmental"� Marina Park Introduction Draft REIR I The Marina Park EIR is considered a project -level EIR. The intent of this document is to analyze the environmental effects of the proposed project to the degree of specificity required by Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Hence, it is anticipated that upon certification of this REIR, no additional environmental review will be required for the implementation of the Marina Park project. This REIR also considers a series of actions and approvals that are needed to achieve the development of the project (see Section 3.5). The lead agency, as well as other responsible agencies, can approve subsequent actions without additional environmental documentation unless otherwise required by Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections-15162, 15163 and 15164. The actions involved in the implementation of the proposed project are described in Section 3, Project Description, of this REIR. Other agencies that may have discretionary approval over the project, or components thereof, are described in Section 3.5. Environmental impacts may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant; in those cases, impacts are considered significant unavoidable impacts. In accordance with Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, if a public agency approves a project that has significant impacts that are not substantially avoided or lessened (i.e., significant unavoidable impacts), the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its actions based on the Final EIR or other information in the record. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to be approved for any project with significant unavoidable impacts. The benefits to be derived from a project that outweigh any unavoidable adverse impacts of a project must be supported by substantial evidence in the record and should be included in the record of project approval. Additionally, a Statement of Overriding Considerations does not substitute for the Findingsasrequired by Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. 1.1.2 - Lead Agency Determination State CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 defines the lead agency as "... the public agency, which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project" Criteria considered in identifying the lead agency include whether the agency; 1) has the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole, 2) is an agency with general governmental powers, and 3) will act first on the project in question (refer to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15051). The lead agency for this REIR is the City of Newport Beach. As the lead agency, the City of Newport Beach has responsibility for review, adoption, and implementation of the project. It is the intent of the City to allow all public infrastructure improvements and all future development described within this document, that are within the parameters established within the framework of this REIR and have been sufficiently analyzed, to proceed without further environmental analysis. 1.2 - Scope of the REIR The scope of this REIR includes the environmental issues identified in the Initial Study (IS) and Notice of Preparation (NOP) issued by the City, comments obtained during a public scoping meeting, issues raised by agencies and the public in response to the IS/NOP, and responses to comments submitted during the circulation period of the previous Draft EIR. Based on these comments, a 1 LJ 11 I J I I 1.2 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft RE1R Introduction ' determination was made that an EIR is required to address the potentially significant environmental effects of the Marina Park project. Accordingly, the following environmental issues are addressedin this EIR: ' Aesthetics • Hydrology and Water Quality ' Air Quality • Biological Resources • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Cultural Resources • Public Services ' Geology and Soils • Transportation/Traffic • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Utilities/Service Systems The following environmental issues were determined to be not significantly affected by the proposed project based on the analysis contained within the IS/NOP (Appendix A) and, therefore, further analysis is not provided in this EIR, pursuant to Section 15063(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines (as amended): Agricultural Resources. The project site is located within an urbanized area of Newport Beach. The project site contains no land that is considered to be suitable farmland. No agricultural activities occur on or adjacent to the site. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural resources would occur from project development. Mineral Resources. The project site is developed with urban uses and is not utilized for the extraction of mineral resources. According to the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, the site is not located within a significant mineral resource zone. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources would result from project development. ' Population and Housing. The proposed project would generate employment associated with the public facilities; however, that increase would be nominal compared to the approximate 48,000- person labor force within the City of Newport Beach. Given the relatively small number of jobs generated by the proposed project, it is not anticipated that such employment would directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the project area that would require new housing or extension of roads or other infrastructure. The proposed project would also result in the removal of 57 mobile homes, 15 of which are occupied full-time and the remainder part-time. These units are a non -conforming use because the site of the mobile homes is designated for Park and Recreation. Furthermore, the Housing Element does not identify the project site as a potential candidate to provide housing. Accordingly, the mobile home units are not considered part of the City's future housing stock in the City's Housing Element and their removal would not result in a substantial effect on the City's existing or future housing supply. A Relocation Impact Study has been prepared in compliance with the State's Mobile Home Residency law. Implementation of the proposed project would result in less -than -significant impacts on population and housing. ' Sirius Environmental 1-3 Marina Park Introduction Draft REIR Recreation. The proposed project would not result in an increase in the residential population in the project area; thus, it would not create a demand for recreational services or facilities. The proposed project would include new and expanded versions of all existing recreation facilities now found within the existing site, as well as new marina and boating programs facilities, and would thus have a beneficial effect in meeting the City's identified need for additional recreational facilities. Therefore, no adverse impacts on recreational resources would occur from project development. 1.3 - Organization of the REIR The REIR is organized into the following main sections: • Section 2: Executive Summary. This section includes a summary of the Marina Park project and alternatives to be addressed in the EIR. A brief description of the areas of controversy and issues to be resolved and an overview of themitigation monitoring program, in addition to a table that summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation, are also presented. • Section 3: Project Description. This section includes a detailed description of the proposed project, including its location, site, and project characteristics. A discussion of the project objectives and a description of the alternatives to the proposed project are also provided. • Section 4:Environmental Setting. This section describes the environmental setting of the project and lists the projects in the general project area that could contribute cumulative impacts. • Section 5: Existing Conditions, Thresholds of Significance, Project Impacts, Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation. This section analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Impacts are organized into the major topic areas listed in Section 1.2. Each topic area includes a description of the environmental setting, significance criteria, project and cumulative impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation. • Section 6: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. This section compares the impacts of the proposed project with three alternatives, including the No Project/No Development Alternative, the Reduced Marina Alternative, and the No Marina Alternative. Among these three alternatives, an environmentally superior alternative is identified. • Section 7: Other CEQA Considerations. This section provides a summary of significant environmental impacts, including unavoidable, irreversible, and growth -inducing impacts. • Section 8: Comments and Responses, Draft RIR. This section presents the comments that were received during the review period for the Draft EIR and the City's draft responses to those comments. I I I I I 1 I I I I _.l I I 1-4 Sirius Environmental I I Marina Park Draft REIR I I IJ I I I I F I • Section 9: Report Authors and Consultants: Persons and Organizations Consulted. This section identifies the Lead Agency and consultants who contributed to the preparation of the EIR; it also provides a list of the organizations and persons consulted while preparing this Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report. • Section 10: References. This section provides the list of documents cited in the body of this Draft REIR. 1.4 - Documents Incorporated by Reference The Draft REIR uses information from various documents (reports, technical studies, etc.) that were not prepared specifically for the Marina Park project but that provide relevant information in describing environmental conditions and analyzing the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. As allowed by Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines, all or portions of another document may be incorporated by reference into an EIR without the requirement of reproducing the entire source document. Information taken from these documents is identified in the relevant environmental impact analysis sections of the Draft REIR. These documents are also listed in Section 10 of this document. As required by Section 15350(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, documents incorporated by reference are available for public inspection at City hall, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard. For purposes of clarification, documents identified as incorporated by reference are separate from the technical studies prepared specifically for the Marina Park project. The technical studies prepared specifically for the Marina Park project are identified in Section 1.5 below. The following documents -are hereby identified as being incorporated by reference: • The Draft Environmental. Impact Report for Marina Resort & Community Plan. • The General Plan Environmental Impact Report for the City of Newport Beach. • The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Park Project. 1.5 - Technical Studies Prepared for the Project Each of the following technical studies prepared specifically for the Marina Park Redevelopment Project are contained in the Technical Appendices of the Draft REIR. • Visual Simulations • Marine Biological Impact Assessment • Terrestrial Biological Letter • Draft Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands • Cultural Resources Assessment • Geotechnical Investigation • Coastal Engineering Report Sirius Environmental 1-5 Marina Park Introduction Draft REIR • Hazardous Materials Records Review • Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan • Traffic and Parking Study • Parking Management Recommendations Study ' 1.6 - Review of the Draft REIR ' This Draft REIR is being distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft REIR in ' accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3). The Notice of Completion of the Draft REIR is also being distributed as required by CEQA. During the 45-day public review period, the Draft REIR, including the technical appendices, is available for review at the following -locations: • City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 • City of Newport Beach Libraries • Central Library 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 , • Mariners Branch 1300 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 • Balboa Branch 100 E. Balboa Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92661 Written comments on the Draft REIR should.be addressed to: , City of Newport Beach Planning Department Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner 3300 Newport Beach Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Run n city.newport-beach.ca.us , Fax:949-644-3229 Upon completion of the 45-day public review period, written responses to all significant ' environmental issues raised will be prepared and made available for review at least 10 days prior to the public hearing before the City of Newport Beach City Council, at which the certification of the Final REIR will be considered. These environmental comments and their responses will be included as part of the environmental record for consideration by decision -makers prior to taking action on the proposed project. t 1.6 Sirius Environmental I Marina Park Draft REIR Executive Summary SECTION 2:, EXECUTIVE SUMMi4RY a—'_� 2.1 - Proposed Project 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 15°i Street, and east of 18°' Street. The project has been divided into three phases that could be individually implemented: Phase I — Removal of mobile homes (coaches) and rough grading to create an open space area ' (consisting of materials that underlie the site) in place of the mobile home park; a new temporary restroom would be installed. All other structures on the site would remain. iPhase 2 —Replacement of the open space area created in Phase I with new turf, additional pedestrian paths, and picnic facilities to enhance the public park, but no other changes from Phase I would occur. Phase 3 — Phase 3 would.include the construction of the Balboa Center which includes the Multi - Purpose Building and Sailing Program Building; and construction of the Girl Scout House, parking areas, park, beach, tennis courts and a marina basin. The project would provide a "window on the Bay" from Balboa Boulevard and surrounding areas. The public park created under Phase 3 would provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas ' would include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas would include a children's play area and basketball half courts. A public short-term visiting vessel marina is proposed to accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina. The Multi -purpose Building and the Sailing Program Building would include rooms for educational classes as well as community events. A small caf6 would be located on the second story of the Sailing Program Building. Bathrooms and laundry areas also would be provided within the Sailing Program Building: Two tennis courts are proposed on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to 15°i Street. In addition, an existing bathroom located on the public beach adjacent to 19°i Street is proposed to be reconstructed. ' A new restroom facility (designed to look like a lighthouse) would be constructed adjacent to the children's play area and a water feature. ' Primary vehicular access to the project would be via West Balboa Boulevard at 16°i Street and secondary access would be via an exit/entrance off of 15°i Street. Public access to the beach would be provided by walkways within the proposed parks as well as an access provided along the western side of the proposed marina. Furthermore, 18°i and 19°' streets would still provide access to the public ' beach. Sirius Environmental 2-1 ' Executive Summary Marina Park Orah REIR 2.2 - Areas of Controversy/Issues To Be Resolved ' There are no areas of controversy to be resolved related to the proposed project. 2.3 - Summary of Project Impacts 2.3.1 - Significant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects There are no significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects that would occur as a result of implementing the proposed project. I 2.3.2 - Summary of Significant Environmental Effects That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant The following potentially significant environmental effects can be mitigated to a less than significant level: Construction Air Quality Marine Biological Resources Archaeological resources Paleontological Resources ' Geologic Resources (earthquakes) Hazardous Materials (during demolition and construction) Water Quality Construction Noise 2.4 - Summary of Alternatives In accordance with Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, Section 6.0 of this REIR includes a comparative evaluation of the proposed project with alternatives to the project. Additionally, the alternatives are discussed in terns of achieving the project objectives. This REIR includes an following ' evaluation of the alternatives to the proposed project: • No Project/No Development Alternative ' • Reduced Marina Alternative • No Marina Alternative This section includes a discussion of the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The No Project Alternative is environmentally superior to the project. However, this alternative fails to meet any of the project objectives and CEQA requires that when the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior then the Environmentally Superior Alternative shall be identified from among the other alternatives. Based on the evaluation in Section 6, the Environmentally Superior Alternative is the No Marina Alternative. 2-2 Sirius Environmental Marina Park Draft REIR Executive Summary I I I I I I C I I I P 2.6 - Mitigation and Monitoring Program CEQA requires agencies to set up monitoring programs for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the mitigation measures adopted as conditions of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. A mitigation monitoring program, incorporating the mitigation measures set forth in this document, will be adopted at the time of certification of the REIR. 2.6 - Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures For each issue area, Section 5.0 of this REIR includes the following detailed discussion and analysis: Regulatory Setting, Existing Conditions, Thresholds of Significance, Project Impacts, Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance after Mitigation. Table 2-1, Executive Summary Matrix, summarizes the impacts of the proposed project and mitigation measures for those impacts. There are no impacts identified as "significant' after mitigation and thus the adoption of a statement of overriding considerations would not be required if the project is approved as proposed (CEQA Section 15093). Table 2-1 classifies impacts as: (1) No Impact; (2) Less than Significant; (3) Potentially Significant; (4) Significant; or (5) Beneficial. Mitigation measures are listed, as applicable, for each impact. Sirius Environmental 2-3 Executive Table 2-1: Executive Summary Matrix Marina Park Draft REIR Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation — 5.1 -Aesthetics 5.1-A: The projectwould not have a substantial adverse Project -Specific Project -Specific effect on a scenic vista. No mitigation measures are required. No impact. Project -Specific I Cumulative Cumulative No impact. No mitigation measures are required. No impact. Cumulative ' No impact. I 5.1-B: The project would not substantially damage Project -Specific i Project -Specific scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, No mitigation measures are required. No impact. rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state Cumulative Cumulative scenic highway. No mitigation measures are required. No impact. Project -Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. 5.1-C: The project would not substantially degrade the Project -Specific Project -Specific existing visual character or quality of the site and its No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. surroundings. Cumulative Cumulative Proi No mitigation measures are required. ' Less than significant. Less than signifificcant Less than significant Cumulative No impact. 5.1-1): The project would not create a new source of Project -Specific Project -Specific substantial light or glare that would adversely affect No mitigation -measures are required. Less than significant. daytime or nighttime views in the area. Cumulative Cumulative Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. Less than significant 2-4 Sirius Environmental M� m N111111M M Mll M M 0111111 M M IIWI> Mll MIM on S Marina Park Draft REIR Executive Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures 1 Level ol'Significance After Mitigation Cumulative Less than significant. 5.2 - Air Quality 5.2-A: The project could exceed the SCAQMD MM 5.2-A.t. During all phases of project construction, the City of Project -Specific significance thresholds during the construction phase of Newport Beach shall limit grading and earth moving to no more than Less than significant. the project five acres per day. Cumulative Project -Specific MM 5.2-A.2. During all phases of project construction, the City of Less than significant. Potentially significant impact. Newport Beach shall ensure that the following methods to reduce Cumulative fugitive dust emissions are undertaken: Less than significant. • Exposed soil and sand surfaces shall be watered periodically to reduce dust. • Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. MM 5.2-A.3. During Phase 3 project construction, the City of Newport Beach shall require tugboat(s) used in sand export activities to have a propulsion engine built after the year 2000 or meeting Year 2000 emission standards. 5.2-B: The project would not exceed the SCAQMD Project -Specific Project -Specific regional significance thresholds during operation. No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. Project -Specific Cumulative Cumulative Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. 5.2-C: The project would not cause or contribute to a Project -Specific Project -Specific carbon monoxide violation from project -related and No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. cumulative -traffic during operation. Cumulative Cumulative Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. Less than significant Cumulative Less than significant. Sirius Environmental 2-5 Executive Summary Marina Park Draft REIR Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.2-D: The project could conflictwith orobstruct �' Project -Specific _ Project Specific implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Implementation ofMitigation Measures MM 5.2.A-1 through MM I Less than significant. Project -Specific 5.2.A-3 is required. I Cumulative Potentially significant impact. i Cumulative Less than significant. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation -Measures MM 5.2.A-1 through MM I(I Potentially significant impact. 1 5.2.A-3 is required. 5.2-E: The project could violate -an air quality standard Project -Specific Project -Specific or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.2.A-1 through MM 1 Less than significant. quality violation. 5.2.A-3 is required. Cumulative Project -Specific Cumulative Less than sig-nificant. Potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.2.A-1 through MM Cumulative f 5.2.A-3 is required. Potentially significant impact. ! 5.2-F: The project could result in a cumulatively Project -Specific i Project -Specific considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.2.A-1 through MM Less than significant. the project region -is non -attainment under an applicable 5.2.A-3 is required. Cumulative federal or state ambient air quality standard (including Cumulative } Less than significant. releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.2.A-1 through MM t thresholds for ozone precursors). ` 5.2.A-3 is required. Project -Specific Potentially significant impact. Cumulative Potentially significant impact. 5.2-G: The project could expose sensitive receptors to j Project -Specific Project -Specific substantial pollutant concentrations. i Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.2.A-1 through MM Less than significant. Project -Specific 5.2.A-3 is required. i Cumulative Potentially significant impact. Cumulative Less than significant. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.2.A-1 through MM Potentially significant impact. 5.2.A-3 are required. t_ - Sirius Environmental M Marina Park Draft REIR Executive Summary Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After -Mitigation 5.2-H: The project would not create objectionable Project -Specific Project -Specific odors affecting a substantial number of people. No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. Project -Specific Cumulative Cumulative Less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. 5.2-1: The project would not result in an increase in Project -Specific Project -Specific greenhouse gas emissions that would significantly No mitigation measures are required. Nonetheless the project Less than significant. hinder or delay the State's ability to meet the reduction incorporates sustainable features. Cumulative targets contained in AB 32. Cumulative Less than significant. Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. 5.3 - Biological Resources 5.3-A: The project could have a substantial adverse Project -Specific Project -Specific effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, MM 5.3-A.1. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Newport Less than significant. on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or beach shalt ensure that placement of dredge material on or adjacent Cumulative special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, to ocean beaches does not occur between March 31 and June 30. or regulations or by the California Department of Fish MM 5.3-During Phase 3 construction, the City of Newport Less than significant and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Beach shall require that sound abatement techniques be used to all r Project -Specific reduce noise and vibrations from pile -driving activities. At the Potentially significant impact. initiation of each pile -driving event and after breaks of more than 15 Cumulative minutes, the pile driving shall also employ a "soft -start' in which the Potentially significant impact. 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 Sirius Environmental 2-7 Executive Summary Marina ParkDralt REIR Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures �� driving until the observed mammals move beyond this distance.�� MM 5.3-A.3. During Phase 3 construction, in the event of a iconstruction vessel collision with a marine mammal, the City of Newport Beach shall immediately contact Mr. Joe Cordero, National Marine Fisheries Service SouthwestRegional Office's Stranding Coordinator 562 9804017) and will submit report to the NMFS I Southwest Regional Office. Cumulative If Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7-A.1, MM 5.7-A2, MM 5.3-A.1, and MM 5.3-A.2 would lessen impacts. 5.3-B: The project could have a substantial adverse effect on a sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Project -Specific Less -than significant impact. Cumulative Less than significant impact. 5.3-C: The project could have a substantial adverse effect on sandy intertidal habitat through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Project -Specific Potentially significant impact. Cumulative Potentially significant impact. Project -Specific Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7-A.1,MM 5.7-A.2, MM 5.3-A.1 and MM 5.3-A.2 would lessen impacts. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7-A.I, MM5.7-A2, MM5.3-A.1 and MM 5.3-A.2 would lessen impacts. Project -Specific MM 5.3-C.1 The City of Newport Beach shall mitigate the loss of 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal habitat at an acceptable location within Newport Bay, or at another southern California embayment, or by means ofan in -lieu fee agreement. Mitigation shall be based upon a ratio determined by the City of Newport Beach. An in -lieu fee agreement option for contributing to a permitted of nearly -permitted mitigation project option will also be simultaneously pursued. A conceptual and final intertidal habitat mitigation plan shall be developed that further refines habitat losses, identifies mitigation goals, mitigation success criteria, costs, location, mitigation requirements, mitigation methods, monitoring, and mitigation success criteria. The mitigation plan will be -included in the USACE and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) permit conditions. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project -Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. Project -Specific Less than significant Cumulative Less than significant. yg Sirius Environmental M M =0 � M M M m m mt MM M� Marina Park Draft REIR Executive Summary Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures T i Level of Significance_ After Mitigation. In accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan must be developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. Cumulative Implementation of mitigation measure MM 5.3-C.1 is required. 5.3-D. The project would not interfere substantially Project -Specific Project -Specific with the movement of any native resident or migratory No mitigation measures are required. Implementation of Mitigation Less than significant fish or wildlife species or with established native Measures MM 5.7-A.1, MM 5.7-A.2, and MM 5.3-A.2 would Cumulative resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the minimize impacts. use of California halibut nursery sites. Cumulative No impact. Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant Cumulative No impact. 5.3-E: The project could conflict with policies or Project -Specific Project -Specific ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a MM.5.3-E.I. During all phases of construction, the City of Newport No impact. tree -preservation policy or ordinance. Beach shall ensure that removal of vegetation or other potential Cumulative Project -Specific migratory nesting -bird habitat will be conducted outside of the avian No impact. Potentially significant impact. nesting season (February through August). If removal of vegetation Cumulative occurs during the avian nesting season, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to this Potentially significant impact. activity. If migratory birds are found to be nesting within or near the impact area, a buffer where no construction activities would occur would need to be established by a qualified biologist. This biologist would also determine when the nest is no longer active, at which time construction could resume. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.3-E.I is required. 5.3-F: The project would not conflict with the Project -Specific Project -Specific provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, No mitigation measures are required. No impact. Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other Cumulative Cumulative approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation Sirius Environmental 2-9 Executive Summary Marina Park Draft REIR Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation plan. No mitigation measures aresequired. No impact. �� v Project -Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. 5.4 - Cultural Resources 5.4-A: The project would not cause a substantial Project -Specific Project -Specific adverse change in the significance of an historical No mitigation measures are required, No impact. resource as defined in §15064.5. Cumulative Cumulative Project -Specific j No mitigation measures are required. No impact. No impact Cumulative No impact. 5.4-B: The project is not anticipated to cause a Project -Specific Project -Specific substantial adverse change in the significance of an I MM 5.413.1. If archeological artifacts are encountered during Less than significant. archaeological resource pursuant to §I5064.5. 1 construction, the City of Newport Beach shall contact a Native ' Cumulative However, in the even of discovering unexpected American representative (as appropriate) and take measures to avoid Less than significant. resources this impact is considered potentially P P Y � the site, or shall record the site then cap or cover the site with a layer significant and mitigation is included. of soil before building over it. Alternatively, the City shall excavate Project -Specific the site under the supervision of a qualified archeologist in, to Potentially significant impact. recover the -scientifically consequential information relevant to the Cumulative resource i Potentially significant impact Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.4-B.1 is required. 5.4-C: The project could directly or indirectly destroy a Project -Specific j Project -Specific unique paleontological resource or site or unique MM 5.4-C.1. During Phase 3 construction, a qualified i Less than significant. geologic feature. paleontologist shall be retained to observe grading activities and jjj� Cumulative Project -Specific 1 conduct salvage excavation of paleontological resources as Less than significant. Potentially significant impact. necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading Cumulative conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resources 2-10 - Sirius Environmental tr r. Marina Park Draft REIR Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Potentially significant impact. surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the City, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the fossils as appropriate. If additional or unexpected paleontological features are discovered, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the City Planning Department. Ifthe paleontological resources are found to be significant, the paleontological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City, for exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.4-C.1 is required. 5.4-D: The project would not disturb any human Project -Specific Project -Specific remains, including those interred outside of formal No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. cemeteries. Cumulative Cumulative Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. Less than significant Cumulative Less than significant 5.5 - Geology and Soils 5.5-A: The project could expose people or structures to Project -Specific Project -Specific potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk MM 5.5-A.1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for Phase 3, Less than significant impact. of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related the City of Newport Beach shall prepare a building foundation Cumulative ground shaking and seismic -related liquefaction, and design to reduce the impacts of potential liquefaction and settlement. No impact. would not expose people or structures to such potential The foundation design shall conform to the recommendation of the adverse effects with respect to: geotechnical report prepared for the project, which include: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated Site Preparation — excavation of minimum of 12 inches and on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault recompaction to provide recommended subgrade density; all Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the activities to be observed by a geotechnical engineer. area or based on other substantial evidence of a Foundation -- matfoundation for restroom facilities and small known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and buildings and either a deep foundation system such as driven piles or Geology Special Publication 42.) stone columns with mat foundations for the Balboa Center. The iii) Seismic -related ground failure, -including specific foundation design for each proposed structure would require Sirius Environmental 2-11 Executive Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures liquefaction. Project -Specific Potentially significant impact. Cumulative No impact. ii) Strong seismic groundshaking. Project -Specific Less than significant Cumulative No impact. iv) Landslides. Project -Specific No impact Cumulative No impact. 5.5-B: The project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Project -Specific Less than significant. Cumulative No impact. approval by the City of Newport Beach Building Department. Marina —design specifications and construction techniques are recommended in the geotechnical report and shall be adhered to. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Marina Park Draft REIR Level of Significance After Mitigation j Project -Specific Less than significant impact. Cumulative No impact. 5.5-C: The project could be located on a geologic unit Project -Specific Project -Specific or soil that is unstable -or that would become unstable as MM 5.5-C.1 Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.5-A.1 is Less than significant impact. a result of the project and potentially result in an onsite required. Cumulative or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, Cumulative liquefaction, or collapse. No impact No mitigation measures are required. Project -Specific Potentially significant impact. 2-12 Sirius Environmental so M � � � i M � ! M i � M � M � � � M � Marina Park Draft REIR Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of -Significance After Mitigation Cumulative No impact. 5.5-D: The project would not be located on expansive Project -Specific Project -Specific soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building No mitigation measures are required. No impact. Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or Cumulative Cumulative property. Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. No impact. No impact. Cumulative No impact. 5.5-E: The project would not have soils incapable of Project -Specific Project -Specific adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or No mitigation measures are required. No impact. alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers Cumulative Cumulative are not available for the disposal of wastewater. Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. No impact. No impact. Cumulative No impact. 5.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 5.6-A: The project could create a hazard to the public Project -Specific Project -Specific or the environment through the routine transport, use, or MM 5.6-A.1. Prior to demolition activities in Phase 1, the City of Less than Significant. disposal of hazardous materials. Newport Beach shall determine, through sampling and testing by a Cumulative Project -Specific licensed laboratory, whether asbestos or lead -based paint materials, Less than Significant. Potentially significant impact. or PCBs are present within the existing onsite structures. If these Cumulative materials are present, the City of Newport Beach shall require that these materials be handled in accordance with all applicable laws Less than Significant. and regulations, and shall dispose of these materials in a landfill that accepts asbestos, PCB -containing materials, and lead -based paint. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Sirius Environmental 2-13 Executive Marina Park Draft REIR Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.6-B: The project could create a hazard to the public or ; Project -Specific I Project -Specific the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.6-A-1 is required. Less than significant. and accident conditions involving a release of the Cumulative hazardous materials into the environment. Cumulative Less than significant. Project -Specific Potentially Significant Impact. Cumulative ! Potentially Significant Impact 5.6-C: The project would not emit hazardous emissions Project -Specific Project -Specific or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an i Cumulative Cumulative existing or proposed school. No Less than significant.. mitigation measures are required. Project -Specific Less than significant. 1 Cumulative Less than significant 5.6-D: The project would not be located on a site that is Project -Specific Project -Specific included on a listof hazardous materials sites compiled No mitigation measures are required. No impact. pursuantto Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a Cumulative Cumulative result would not create a significant hazard to the public ( or the environment. No mitigation measures are required. No impact. Project -Specific No impact. Cumulative i No impact. I 2-14 Sirius Environmental jam, N= M M� �' � � A w M M M M� M s *M M� MW OW im 4U M W Marina Park Draft REIR Executive Summary Environmental ImpactT^ T Mitigation Measures 4 T Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.6-F: The project is not located within an airport land- Project -Specific Project -Specific use plan or, within two miles of a public airport or No mitigation measures are required. No impact. public -use airport; the project would not result in a Cumulative Cumulative safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No mitigation measures are required. No impact. Project -Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. 5.6-F: The project is not located within the vicinity of a Project -Specific Project -Specific private airstrip; the project would not result in a safety No mitigation measures are required. No impact. hazard for people residing or working in the project Cumulative Cumulative area. Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. No impact. No impact. Cumulative No impact. 5.6-G: The project would not impair implementation of Project -Specific Project -Specific or physically interfere with an adopted emergency No mitigation measures are required. No impact. response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Cumulative Cumulative Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. No impact. No impact. Cumulative No impact. 5.6-H: The project would not expose people or Project -Specific Project -Specific structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death No mitigation measures are required. No impact. involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are Cumulative Cumulative adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. No mitigation measures are required. No impact. Sirius Environmental 2-16 Executive Summary Marina Park Draft REIR Environmental Project -Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. 5.7 - Hydrology and Water Quality 5.7-A: The project could violate any water quality standards orwaste discharge requirements. Project -Specific Potentially significant impact Cumulative Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Project -Specific AIM 5.7-A.1. Prior to construction of each phase, the City of Newport Beach shall prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for construction activities that describes best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the release of potential pollutants into surface water. The plan shall also identify how the BMPs will be implemented. The SWPPP shall include, but not be limited to, the following BMPs: • Dust Control., Water will be sprayed periodically in newly graded areas to prevent dust from grading activities being blown on to adjacent areas (in conformance with Newport Beach Ordinance limiting water use). • Construction Staging: Specific areas will be delineated for storage of material and equipment, and for equipment maintenance, to contain potential spills. • Sediment Control: Sand bags or silt fences will be located along the perimeter ofthe site. Existing inlets and proposed area drains will be protected against intrusion of sediment. • Tracking: Tracking of sand and mud on the local street will be avoided -by tire washing and/or road stabilization. Streetcleaning (using a sweeper, no wash down activities are permitted) will be done if tracking occurs. • {Paste Disposal: Specific area and/or methods will be selected for waste disposal. Typical construction waste include concrete, concrete washout, mortar, plaster, asphalt, paint, metal, isolation material, plants, wood products and other construction material. Solid waste will be disposed of in approved trash receptacles at specific locations. Washing of concrete trucks -will be done in a contained area allowing proper cleanup. (Wash water would be Level of Significance After Mitigation Project -Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant: Sirius lM Ml MI M won M am W 'M WNW on W� M W Marina Park Draft REIR Executive Summary T Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation discharged into sanitary sewer [as permitted], Baker Tank or settling basin.) Other liquid waste will not be allowed to percolate into the ground. • Construction dewatering: Construction dewatering, if required, will necessitate approval of permits by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City. • Maintenance: Maintenance of BMPs will take place before and after rainfall events to insure proper operation. • Training: The SWPPP will include directions for staff training and checklists for scheduled inspections. • Construction Vehicles: Construction vehicles will be inspected daily to ensure there are no leaking fluids. If there are leaking fluids, the construction vehicles will be serviced outside of the project site area. • Turbidity: Activities shall not cause turbidity increases in bay waters that exceed: a) 20 percent if background turbidity is between 0 and 5 Nephelometric Turbity Units (NTUs); b)10 percent if background is between 50 and 100 NTUs; c) 10 percent if background turbidity is greater than 100 NTUs. Monitoring of turbidity in bay water adjacent to boat slip construction will be conducted daily during construction activities that may cause turbidity. If activities exceed the above criteria, construction activities associated with causing turbidity will be discontinued until the above criteria is met. • Grease: Construction activities will not cause visible oil, grease, or foam in the work area or in the bay. • Silt curtains: Silt curtains will be placed within the bay so that all effluent from dredging activities will be contained within the construction zone. • Hauling Trucks: The project construction contractors will ensure that trucks hauling soil material to and from the project site will be covered and will maintain a 2-inch differential between the maximum height of any hauled material and the top pf the haul trailer. Haul truck drivers will water the load prior to leaving the site in order to prevent soil loss during transport. • Heavy Equipment: Limit heavy equipment use on the beach, as feasible, to areas away from the high -tide line during Sirius Environmental 2-17 Executive Summary Marina Park Draft REIR Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures construction. • Hydrogen Sulfide: Provisions shall be made, as necessary, for the itreatment of hydrogen sulfide to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the dewatering process. • Dredged Material: The scow doors used to release dredged i material remain closed until the stows are towed to the disposal site. I MM 57-A.2. As part of marina construction in Phase 3, the City of Newport Beach shall include mechanical devices within the marina basin design to enhance the -movement and mixing of water within the basin. The use of mechanical devices shall meet the EPA guidelines for adequate tidal flushing (at least 70 percent exchange every 24 hours). One option could be the use of oloids (propeller - type devices) that have been modeled, but the selection of the system to be installed shall be coordinated with and approved by US EPA, the Santa Ana RNVQCB, and NOAA Fisheries. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7-A.1 and MM 5.7- f A.2 is required. 5.7-B: The projectwould not substantially deplete Project -Specific groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with No mitigation measures are required. groundwater recharge such that there would be a net Cumulative deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- No mitigation measures are required. existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted. Project -Specific Less than significant Cumulative Less than significant i i Level of Significance After Mitigation Project-Specifie Less than significant. j Cumulative Less than significant. 5.7-C: The project would not -substantially alter the 1 Project -Specific i Project -Specific existing drainage pattern of area, including through the 1 No mitigation measures are required. No impact. 2-18 Sirius Environmental �� M M M M M� M M M M� M M M M M s Marina Park Draft REIR Executive Summary Environmental Impact Mitigation -Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner Cumulative Cumulative which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- No mitigation measures are required. No impact. or off -site. Project -Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. 5.7-D: The project would not substantially alter the Project -Specific Project -Specific existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including No mitigation measures are required. Beneficial. through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, Cumulative Cumulative or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- No mitigation measures are required. Beneficial. or off site. Project -Specific Beneficial impact. Cumulative Beneficial impact. 5.7-E: The project would not create or contribute Project -Specific Project -Specific runoff water which would exceed the capacity of No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or Cumulative Cumulative provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. Less than significant Cumulative Less than significant 5.7-F: The project could degrade water quality. Project -Specific Project -Specific Project -Specific Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7-A.1 and MM 5.7- Less than significant. Potentially significant impact A.2 is required. Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Less than significant. Potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7-A.1 and MM 5.7- Sirius Environmental 2-19 Executive Summary Marina Park Draft REIR Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation _ A.2 is required. 5.7-G: The project would not place housing within a Project -Specific Project -Specific 100-year floodhazardarea as mapped on a federal No mitigation measures required. No impact Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map Cumulative Cumulative or other flood hazard delineation map. Project -Specific No mitigation measures required. No impact. No impact. { Cumulative No impact. 5.7-H: The project would not place within a I00-year t Project -Specific Project -Specific flood hazard -area structures which would impede or No mitigation measures are required. No impact redirect flood flows. 4i Cumulative Cumulative Project -Specific I No mitigation measures are required. h No impact No impact. Cumulative No impact. Ij 5.7-1: The project would not expose people or Project -Specific Project -Specific structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death No mitigation measures are required. j No impact. involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the i Cumulative Cumulative failure of a levee or dam, j No mitigation measures are required. No impact. Project -Specific i No impact. j Cumulative No impact. 5.7-J: The project could be subject to inundation by 1 l Project -Specific Project -Specific seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant Project -Specific 1` Cumulative Cumulative Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. Sirius Environmental �� M M M M M� M M M M r M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M� M M M i i M Marina Park Draft REIR Executive Summary Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Cumulative Less than significant 5.8 - Land Use and Planning 5.8-A: The project would not physically divide an Project -Specific Project -Specific established community. No mitigation measures are required. No impact. Project -Specific Cumulative Cumulative No impact. No mitigation measures are required. No impact. Cumulative No impact. 5.8-B: The project would not conflict with any Project -Specific Project -Specific applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an No mitigation measures are required. No impact. agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but Cumulative Cumulative not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the No mitigation measures are required. No impact. purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Project -Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. 5.8-C: The project would not conflict with any Project -Specific Project -Specific applicable habitat conservation plan or natural No mitigation measures arerequired. No impact. communities conservation plan. (See 5.3-F.) Cumulative Cumulative Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. No impact. No impact. Cumulative No impact. Sirius Environmental 2-21 Executive Summary Marina Park Draft RE1R Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.9 - Noise 5.9-A: The project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Project -Specific Less than significant Cumulative Less than significant 5.9-B: The projectwould not result in exposure of persons to excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels. Project -Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. j Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. I Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. 5.9-C: The project would not result in a substantial Project -Specific permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project No mitigation measures are required. vicinity above levels existing without the project. Cumulative Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Less than -significant Cumulative Less than significant Project -Specific Less than significantimpact. Cumulative Less than significant impact. Project -Specific Less than significant impact. Cumulative Less than significant impact. Project -Specific Less than significant impact. Cumulative Less than significant impact. yyy Sirius Environmental r M M M M M M M � M M M M M Marina Park Draft REIR Executive Summary Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.9-D: The project could result in a substantial Project -Specific Project -Specific temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in MM 5.9-D.1. During all phases of construction, the City of Newport Less than significant impact. the project vicinity above levels existing without the Beach shall ensure that all construction equipment on -site is properly Cumulative project. maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions and that Less than significant impact. Project -Specific construction equipment is fit with properly operating mufflers, air Potentially Significant Impact intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as Cumulative originally equipped by the manufacturer. Less than significant MM 5.9-D.2. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that noise abatement technology is used (e.g., shrouds and barriers) to minimize the sound from pile drivers; no pile driving shall take place outside the hours specified for construction activities in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. MM 5.9-D.3. During all phases of construction, the City Of Newport Beach department shall ensure that all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) are located as far from residential and recreational receptors as is feasible. MM 5.9-D.4. During all phases of construction, material delivery, soil haul trucks, equipment servicing, and construction activities shall be restricted to the hours set forth in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. 5.9-E: For a project located within an airport land use Project -Specific Project -Specific plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within No mitigation measures are required. No impact. two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the Cumulative Cumulative project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No mitigation measures are required. No impact. Project -Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. Sirius Environmental 2-23 Executive Marina Park Draft REIR Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.9-F: For a project within the vicinity of a private �j Project -Specific 4 Project -Specific airstrip, the project would not expose people residing or No mitigation measures are required. No impact. -working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Cumulative Cumulative Project -Specific � No mitigation measures are required. No impact No impact. Cumulative No impact. 5.10 - Public Services 5.10-A: The project would not result in substantial Project -Specific Project -Specific adverse physical impacts associated with the provision No mitigation measures are required. i Less than significant. of new or physically altered governmental facilities or Cumulative Cumulative the need for new or physically altered governmental No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, responsertimes, or other j performance objectives for fire protection. Project -Specific I 4 Less than significant 4 j Cumulative i Less than significant i Impact 5.10-13: The project would not result in Project -Specific IProject-Specific substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the No mitigation is required. Less than significant. provision of new or physically altered governmental Cumulative Cumulative facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental -facilities, the_construction of which could No mitigation is required. Less -than significant. cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection. Project -Specific Less than significant 2_24 Sirius Environmental M MIMI M M M i M -M � m M M r M M M M � M i M ! M � M M r � M M M M M Marina Park Draft Executive Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures i Level of Significance After Mitigation Cumulative Less than significant 5.10-C: The project would not result -in substantial Project -Specific Project -Specific adverse physical impacts associated with the provision No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. of new or physically altered governmental facilities or Cumulative Cumulative the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools. Project -Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. 5.10-D: The project would not result in substantial Project -Specific Project -Specific adverse physical impacts associated with the provision No mitigation measures are required. No impact. of new or physically altered governmental facilities or Cumulative Cumulative the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause No mitigation measures are required. No impact. significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks. Project -Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. 5.11 -Transportation and Traffic 5.11-A: The project would not cause an increase in Project -Specific Project -Specific traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. load and capacity of the street system and that exceeds, Cumulative Cumulative either individually or cumulatively, a level -of -service Sirius Environmental 2-25 Executive Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures standard for intersections established by the City. No mitigation measures are required. Project -Specific Less than significant. r Cumulative Less than significant. 5.11-B: The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. Project -Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. 5.11-C: The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Project -Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. 5.11-D: The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Project -Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative jNo mitigation measures are required. Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Marina Park Draft REIR Level of Significance After Mitigation j Less than significant. Project -Specific No impact Cumulative No impact. Project -Specific Less than significant. Cumulative iLess than significant. I Project -Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. 2-26 Sirius Environmental � M> >, M M M lM M M M M� m M M ii M f i M M' i M M M � M M M M M M Marina Park Draft REIR Environmental Impact T T ! Mitigation Measures Level -of Significance After Mitigation 5.11-E: The project would not result in inadequate Project -Specific Project -Specific parking capacity. No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. Project -Specific Cumulative Cumulative Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant.. Impact 5.11-F: The project would not conflict with Project -Specific Project -Specific adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting No mitigation measures are required. No impact. alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle Cumulative Cumulative racks). Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. No impact. No impact. Cumulative No impact. 5.12 - Utilities and Service Systems 5.12-A: The project would not exceed wastewater Project -Specific Project -Specific treatment requirements of the Orange County Sanitation No mitigation measures are required. No impact. District. Cumulative Cumulative Project -Specific: No mitigation measures are required. No impact. No impact. Cumulative No impact. 5.12-B: The project would not require or result in the Project -Specific Project -Specific construction of new water or wastewater treatment No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant, facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the Cumulative Cumulative construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. Project -Specific Less than significant. Sirius Environmental 2-27 Executive Marina Park Draft REfR Environmen atlmpact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation ---- ----- Cumulative ----- --I - --- �-- — -----i —_-p Less than significant. 5.12-C: The projectwould not require or result in the i Project -Specific Project -Specific construction of new storm water drainage facilities or No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. expansion of existing facilities, the construction of j Cumulative Cumulative which could cause significant environmental effects. No mitigation measures are required. ` Less than significant. Project -Specific t Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. 5.12-D: The project would have sufficient water Project -Specific Project -Specific supplies available to serve the project from existing No mitigation measures are required. ! Less than significant. entitlements and resources; new or expanded Cumulative Cumulative entitlements are not needed. y No mitigation measures are required. I Less than significant. Project -Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. 5.12-E: The project would result in a determination by Project -Specific j( Project -Specific the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant, serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve I Cumulative Cumulative the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. No mitigation measures are required. i Less than significant. Project -Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. 1 I 2-28 Sirius Environmental M M � M � M M M i i � M M M� i M r M t M M M M�' � M M Ml M Marina Park Draft REIR Executive Summary Environmental Impact j Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.12-F: The project would be served by a Project -Specific Project -Specific landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant, accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. Cumulative Cumulative Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. 5.12-G: The project would comply with federal, state, Project -Specific Project -Specific and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. Project -Specific Cumulative Cumulative No impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. 5.12-H: The project would not have a substantial Project -Specific Project -Specific impact on the provision of natural gas and electrical No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. services. Cumulative Cumulative Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. No impact. Cumulative Less than significant. Sirius Environmental 2-29 Marina Park Draft REIR Project Description L I I I I I I I I PROJECT DESCRIPTION'''', . _ '_i__„��-��' 3.1 -Project Objectives The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the lead agency identify the objectives and underlying purpose of the proposed project (Guidelines 15124(b)). The basic purpose of the Marina Park project is to enhance recreational and community facilities on the Balboa Peninsula. To achieve that purpose, the City of Newport Beach has established five basic objectives. • Redevelop the site with land uses that are consistent with, and permitted by, the legal restrictions on the use of tidelands. • Enhance public access and community facilities on the site. • Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the peninsula. • Provide community facilities to meet the goals of the General Plan for recreation and harbors and beaches. • Provide for additional marine -related facilities that can be used by coastal visitors for sailing and boating. The objectives for the project are based on the City's analysis of the need for modern recreational and community facilities on the Balboa Peninsula and for additional visitor -serving marina facilities, and builds on the goals set forth in the City of Newport Beach General Plan (City of Newport Beach 2006). General Plan goals call for the preservation and enhancement of water related public recreation and education areas and facilities (Harbors and Bay Element, Goal 1.1); the provision of youth programs (Recreation Element, Goal 4.3); the expansion of coastal and beach recreational opportunities, including the provision of recreational facilities (Recreation Element, Goals 6.1 and 7.1); the provision of marine recreational facilities (Recreational Element, Goals 8.2 and 8.5); and the enhancement of marine -oriented programs such as sailing programs (Recreation Element, Goal 8.7). City policy calls for five acres of park per 1,000 residents. By that standard, according to recent City data, the City has an overall deficit of some 68 acres of parkland, not including beaches. The General Plan also identifies a need for community facilities that include large meeting and multipurpose rooms, because most existing City -owned indoor spaces are small classrooms. The Balboa Peninsula in particular currently has only 6.5 acres of park, since most of its recreational area is in beaches. The area needs an additional 21.5 acres of park to meet the City's standard, and the General Plan calls for additional pedestrian access and the renovation and expansion of community facilities such as the Balboa Center and facilities for sailing and boating programs. Sirius Environmental 3-1 Project Description Marine Park Draft REIR With regard to visitor -serving marina facilities, recent estimates by the City of Newport Beach Harbor ' Resources Division have identified a market demand for approximately 17,000 berth -days of public berth occupancy per year. Visiting boaters must use moorings, which restricts their access to shore facilities and to boaters with the experience, ability, and vessel characteristics that allow them to use t moorings (for example, many aging, physically handicapped, or inexperienced boaters, boaters with children, and boaters whose vessels lack electrical and sanitation systems cannot readily use moorings for a stay of several days). As a result, potential visitors tend to favor other harbors (e.g., Dana Point, Long Beach, and Huntington) -that can provide slips or side -tie space. The proposed project would address established City policy as expressed in the General Plan Harbor and Bay Element (e.g., policies HB-2.1.1 Public Access and HB-2.1.7 Visiting Vessels) and in the Local Coastal Program (e.g., Section 3.3). Both documents• encourage expansion and improvement of waterfront access and ' facilities for visiting vessels. In addition, Section 30224 of the California Coastal Act encourages the provision of berthing space, harbors of refuge, and new protected waters dredged from dry land. ' 3.2 - Project Location ' The Project is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Newport Beach in Orange County, California (Exhibits 3-1 and 3-2) in an area known as the Balboa Peninsula. 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 15°i Street on the east and 19°' Street on the west. Major arterial access is provided along Balboa Boulevard with secondary access to the project site along 15'h Street,18°i Street, and 191" Street. Regional freeway access to the site is provided by the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR 55) and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR 73). 1 3.3 - Existing Conditions I The project site is currently occupied by the Marina Park mobile home park, a public beach, Las Arenas Park, a small community center (Balboa Community Center, 4,710 sq. ft.), a Girl Scout house (5,500 sq. It), tennis courts and a small children's playground, basketball courts, public parking lots, a vacant SCE facility (to be purchased by the City), Veteran's Park, and public restrooms (Exhibit 3- ' 3). The site supports a small dinghy sailing program on the beach at 18°i Street. The project site does not include two parcels at the corner of 15"' Street and Balboa Boulevard currently occupied by commercial and residential uses, nor the Orange County Sanitation Districts' pumping station on t Balboa. Boulevard adjacent to those two parcels. The Marina Park mobile home park, which is approximately 50 years old, has 57 mobile homes on , approximately 4 acres. Its occupants include approximately 15 full-time residents and 41 part-time tenants (plus an office). An alley south of the mobile home park has 73 parking spaces dedicated to the mobile home park. The public beach occupies all of the waterfront ofthe project site from American Legion Post 291 on the east to 19a' Street on the west, and includes public restrooms at the ' Sirius Environmental 3.2 Y2LosAngeles County LA HABRA L90 42 YORBA LINDA EULLExrory • 57 • �90 .� PLACENTIA � 91 'A HEIM • c0 E55 (55' STANTON • ORANGE GARDEN GROVE 22 • TUSTIN 261 SANTAANA 1 HUNTINGTON 55 5 BEA IT 405 COSTA MESA IRVINE . � c \\ 73 133 NEWPORT BEACH CORONA DEL MAR , 0 LAGUNA BEACH 0 2 4 6 8 10 miles Swrrm, Michael Rmndman Aaanniataa_ 200E1 P CLEVE L�ND 7____ NAT I'CSPLAL \ I FOREST • \ % LAGUNA • HILLS �� MISSIONVIEIO NIGUEL DANA POINT SAN CLEMENTE County Exhibit 3-1 Regional Location Map CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MARINA PARK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Source: Thomas Guide Digital Edition, 2003 Exhibit 3-2 Local Vicinity Map CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - MARINA PARK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT r M � M = = r M M = � M r M M M M � w c or t i 1 `5 e4 - — _ — EGEND - Project Boundary 5 Church 11 American Legion/ - 4 6 Neva B. Girl Scout House Yacht Club/Boat Storage • _ _ - 1 Manna Park Mobile Home Park 7 Community Center 12 Public Beach - — Hotel 8 Las Arenas Park 13 Electric Substation Commercial 9 Metered Parking Lot 14 Half Basketball Court _ ResidentialfDuplex 10 Public Tennis Courts 15 Veteran's Memorial Park Source: USGS Newport Beach SE 3.75' DOQQ Exhibit 3-3 Onsite and Surrounding Land Uses CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MARINA PARK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Marina Park Draft REIR ' west end. The current uses at the site generate a calculated average of approximately 370 vehicle trips per day (see Section 5.11 Transportation and Traffic), mostly from the mobile home park. The American Legion facility includes a small marina with slips and boat storage, but the American , Legion facility is not part of the project site. The majority of the project site is designated Park and recreation (PR) and zoned Planned Community ' (PC). The SCE parcel (number 13 on Exhibit 3-3) is designated Public facilities and zoned General Educational Institutional Facility (GEIF). ' The activities of the existing uses as of the date of the Notice of Preparation (May 22, 2008) constitute the CEQA Baseline against which the impacts of the proposed project and alternatives are ' compared in Sections 5 and 6. 3.4 - Proposed Project 3.4.1 - Project Features The proposed project would redevelop the Marina Park site to provide additional public recreational ' and community activities facilities. The project has been divided into three phases that could be individually implemented. ' Phase 1 In Phase 1 (Exhibit 34) the existing mobile home park (coaches), including its surrounding walls, ' would be removed. Two of the existing mobile home structures would be retained and converted to office space for construction contractors and, subsequently, recreation and park maintenance staff. ' The site of the mobile home park would be converted to underlying material crossed by pedestrian access paths. A new temporary restroom facility and parking lot would be installed. All other major features ' existing would remain. Minor pedestrian and vehicular access improvements would be installed. Two concrete walks would , be constructed to provide pedestrian access (compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act) from the new parking lot to the existing beach. ADA-compliant pedestrian access from Balboa Boulevard would be enhanced by providing access gates in the existing fences located at the half basketball ' court and the parking lot between the Girl Scout House and the community center, and a new crosswalk would provide beach access from the vicinity of Las Arenas Park. The existing sidewalk , and stairs adjacent to the beach would remain for beach access. The existing landscaping and benches adjacent to this sidewalk would remain. The alley between the mobile home park and the beach would be restriped to provide 105 regular parking spaces and five handicapped spaces, and ' removal of an existing gate near the American Legion facility would provide continuous vehicular access from 15'" Street to 180s Street. A new restroom facility (compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act) will be provided and will utilize the existing utilities which currently serve the mobile home site. Finally, a new portable lifeguard tower would be installed on the beach to be staffed by the City Fire Department during the summer months. , Sirius Environmental 3-6 1 Lower Newport Bay Existing Beach 2009 0 60 120 240 360 ' ProjectDescrlptlon Marina Park DratRE/R Phase 2 Phase 2 (Exhibit 3-5) would replace the underlying material from Phase I with new turf with irrigation, additional pedestrian paths, and picnic facilities to enhance the public park, but no other changes from Phase 1 would occur. ' Phase 3 Phase 3 would consist of the final buildout (Exhibit 3-6; Table 3-1). Essentially all of the existing site features, including those installed in phases 1 and 2, would be removed and replaced by: JI • a Multi -Purpose Building and a Sailing Program Building, which together would comprise the Balboa Center complex; • a new Girl Scout building (to be constructed separately by the Girl Scouts; City to provide building pad and utility connections); • expanded public parking areas; • an expanded public park with basketball half -courts, a water feature, lawns, a public restroom, and a children's play area; and restroom facility (Lighthouse) • two lighted tennis courts; • a new restroom at the 19th Street end of the beach; • re -configured landscaping; and • a new marina to accommodate short-term visits by recreational vessels and sailing center docks and boats. The exception would be the small -boat beach launching facility at the foot of 18'h Street, which would remain. Balboa Center The Balboa Center complex would be located approximately at the east end of the area currently occupied by the mobile home park. Facilities would include the 10,560-sf (square foot) Multi - Purpose Building, the 11,034-sf Sailing Program Building, and adjacent paved pedestrian areas, and would support educational classes and community events. The Multi -Purpose Building would include classrooms, reception and offices, open spaces to support a variety of community activities, and restroom facilities. The Sailing Program Building would include classrooms, a flexible meeting room, reception and offices, restroom and locker room facilities, marina services facilities such as laundry and an office, indoor boat and equipment storage, and a small cafd (seating for 56) intended to serve on -site workers and visitors (e.g., staff, visiting vessel crews, participants in Balboa Center and local community programs). Both buildings would be two-story structures with large, second - story outdoor decks. The buildings would be supported on foundations of either pilings or stone columns. Building designs would incorporate sustainable elements which may include moveable sun screening, reflective roof coating, and rainwater collection devices. Sirius Environmental 3.8 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 2009 -E4 Lower Newport Bay Existing Beach 0 60 120 240 360 0 existing n building at -et 2009 Lower Newport Bay n . Cityot NewDDrt Beach Sailing Center Docks Existing Beach �+ Sailing Center Activity Beach Girl cou Hou Lawn/Open �Y Play Area Girl Scout(._ Public •.;.. Bio S,% PaAcing xfiNr � Arearea r2r� � I Marina Park Draft REIR Project Description 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 i 1 1 Table 3-1: Phase 3 Project Components Components Area/Quantity Multi -Purpose Building at the Balboa Center Complex 10,560 sf Sailing Program Building at the Balboa Center Complex 11,034 sf Visiting Vessel Marina 23 Slips + side tie Beach Area (sidewalk to mean high water level; marina to 19"' Street) 1.6 acres Girl Scout Building 5,500 sf Lighthouse Restroom and 19°i Street Restroom 970 sf Children's Play Area - Active Play Equipment Area 6,160 sf Children's Play Area - Water Play Area 2,520 sf Tennis Courts 14,750 sf Basketball Courts 2,900 sf Parking 159 spaces Total Floor Space = 27,094 sf, Floor Area Ratio = 6% Notes: sf = square feet Source: Rabben/Herman Design Office, October 2009. Architectural features would consist of a 73-ft-high representation of a lighthouse and a sail -shaped roof on the Sailing Program Building. Girl Scout Building The Girl Scout building would be a new 5,500-sf structure located at the corner of 18"' Street and Bay Avenue. The building is expected to be a one-story structure approximately 23 feet high with entrances from the north and south sides, a lobby/assembly area, an office, two large troop activity rooms, a small kitchen, storage spaces, and showers and restrooms. The facility would include approximately 1,500 sf of enclosed outdoor space. Design would incorporate sustainable elements which may include moveable sun screening, reflective roof coating, and rainwater collection devices. Park Facilities The proposed project would increase public park area from approximately two acres at present to 1 nearly five acres, or approximately one-half of the site. The beach would be approximately 1.6 acres, which would be 0.37 acres smaller than the existing beach as a result of installation of the marina 1 facility. The park would include a pedestrian entrance at 17a' Street providing a view of the bay; two half -court basketball courts; a children's play area; benches and picnic tables; a water play feature 1 (such as a spray park feature); beach access; and restroom facilities with outdoor showers, including a new restroom at the 19"' Street end of the beach that could be installed separately from the rest of the Phase 3 features. Two tennis courts would be located adjacent to 15°i Street, east of the American 1 Legion post on the site of the existing Veteran's Memorial Park. The park would consist largely of turf, with specimen trees (many salvaged from the existing site) and ' accent shrubs and groundcover selected and located so as not to obstruct bay views. Landscaping 1 Project Description Marine Palk Draft REIR would include bioswales and biocells to capture and treat storm water. Paved pathways would connect the park entrance to the Balboa Center, the children's play area, and the beach. Pedestrian access from the parking lots to the beach at the east end of the site would be via walkways between the Balboa Center buildings and along 15"i Street. The play area would have a rubberized surface, an adjacent restroom in the form of a short lighthouse (the lighthouse is not intended to serve as a visible working lighthouse), and protective canopies. The area and the play equipment would have a nautical ' theme reflecting the configuration -of Newport Harbor. The park and its facilities would include security lighting and, for the tennis courts, area lighting with glare -minimizing technology. The lighthouse structure would have a non -directional (i.e. not pointed in a particular direction) light in the beacon house at the top that would serve to emphasize the nautical theme of the park. Parking There are currently 24 publicly accessible parking spaces on -site and 102 private spaces in the mobile home park. The main project parking lot (133 spaces) would be located at the east end of the ' site, along Balboa Boulevard. The parking lot would be accessed from a driveway opposite 16°i Street and would be configured to facilitate drop-off/pick-ups at the Balboa Center. A smaller parking area (26 spaces) serving the Girl Scout Building and the children's play area would be provided along 18"' Street. Both parking lots (with a total of 159 spaces) would have permeable pavement to minimize storm runoff and improve runoff water quality. In addition, 18"' Street would be widened to provide parking on both sides, which would add four spaces, but the various pedestrian access improvements would eliminate 13 existing on -street parking spaces on Balboa Boulevard (there are currently 48 on -street spaces adjacent to the site along Balboa Boulevard and 18°i Street), for a net loss of nine on -street spaces. In total the project would result in a net increase of publicly available parking in the area of 126 spaces. t Marina The proposed visiting vessel marina facilityf adjacent to the existing property leased to the American ' Legion, would include floating docks anchored by pilings to provide 23 slips (21 for boats up to 40 fl, 2 for boats up to 57 ft), a floating dinghy storage dock, dockside utility hookups, a 200-ft-long dock ' on the bayfront that could accommodate additional vessels and boating events, and security fencing and lighting. The docks would include an Americans with Disabilities Act -compliant access ramp and non -lethal pinniped (i.e., seals and sea lions) deterrence features, to be developed in consultation with NOAA Fisheries. The marina would also include basin water circulation enhancement devices, the design of which would be developed in consultation with the appropriate regulatory and resource ' agencies. In addition, the marina would have a new concrete groin at its western end (approximately at 17"i Street) to prevent siltation in the new marina (an existing groin adjacent to the American ' Legion marina would remain). The facility would be able to accommodate small -boat sailing programs as well as visiting yachts, and would thus be connected with the Sailing Center. , 3.4.2 - Construction Construction would proceed in three phases. Sirius Environmental 3-12 I 11 Marina Park Draft REIR Project Description Phase 1 In Phase 1, construction equipment would be used to demolish the mobile home park (coaches), including porches, steps, planters, low landscaping, an existing block wall along 18°i Street, and appurtenant structures. The existing trees (mostly palms) would remain. The utilities (meters and services laterals) which serve the mobile home units would be removed and capped, but the existing main line utilities (electrical, telephone and cable television) located in the existing alley would remain. The resultant debris (estimated at approximately 50,000 cubic feet) would be hauled away for recycling and disposal. The area occupied by the mobile homes would be graded to provide a park consisting of underlying native material. New gates and walkways would be installed for the access improvements. ' Demolition and grading would require a work force of up to 15 workers and last approximately four weeks. Equipment would include mobile cranes, earthmoving equipment such as front-end loaders ' and heavy-duty dump trucks, and worker light vehicles. M Phase 2 In Phase 2, landscaping equipment would be used to install turf, irrigation systems, and decomposed granite pathways on the vacant area. Approximately four acres (170,000 sf) of sbd and the required irrigation piping and valves would be delivered to the site by flatbed trucks, and approximately 65 tons of decomposed granite (for the pathways) would be delivered by dump truck. The sod, irrigation system, and decomposed granite would be placed by front-end loaders and manual labor. Phase 2 ' construction would require approximately 15 workers and last approximately eight weeks. Phase 3 This description separates out the various construction activities, but it is likely that activities for some project elements would occur in a different order. For example, it is anticipated that the marina fill would be constructed before the Balboa Center and the park, in order to ensure that sufficient material is available for the various project features. Demolition In Phase 3, the remaining improvements on the site (i.e., the Girl Scout Building, the community center, the tennis courts, Las Arenas Park, the SCE facility, Veteran's Memorial Park, and the parking lots) would be demolished , the resultant debris would be hauled away for recycling and disposal ' (except material that could be re -used onsite as crushed base), and the site graded. Demolition would occur in phases to correspond with the construction phasing and so as to keep facilities open as and available as long as possible. Contaminated soil at the SCE site would be excavated and hauled away ' for disposal at an appropriate facility. Turf installed in Phase 2, if present, would be removed and either stockpiled for re -use on -site or, if re -use is infeasible, hauled away for disposal or re -use elsewhere in the city. The existing mature trees at Veteran's Park would be removed; the final design of the landscape plan has not been completed. The removal/relocation of trees (some of which would be relocated on -site) would be coordinated so as to avoid affecting active nesting migratorybirds, ' including pre -construction biological surveys and on -site monitors. Demolition equipment would Sirius Environmental 3.13 Project Description Marina Park Draft REIR include concrete saws, mobile cranes, a bulldozer, loaders, a water truck, dump trucks, a tree shredder, and worker light vehicles. Upland Construction Once demolition is complete the construction of the new improvements would begin. Site preparation would include the construction of new utility trenches to the locations -of the buildings. All primary utilities are in place for the project site because of the existence of the mobile home park. Existing overhead utilities such as electrical, telephone and CATV will be relocated underground. The existing sewer and water mains will remain in place and will not be impacted by the proposed building locations. New service lines from the primary utility lines to the new buildings would be provided. Once site preparation is complete, building fabrication would proceed. Construction would incorporate storm water pollution and erosion controls in accordance with a site -specific storm water pollution prevention plan, Excavators anddump trucks would be used to construct the new utility trenches as well as foundation footings; and graders, loaders, a water truck, and rollers would construct the final grades, including the park contours. Demolition, trenching, and grading would generate approximately 130,000 cf (9,810 cy) of debris, require up to 20 workers, and last approximately three months. If piling foundations are employed (as assumed in the impact assessment), an as -yet undetermined number of pilings would be driven to support the new buildings; pilings would be jetted into place to within live feet of the final depth then driven by a diesel -powered hammer (jetting uses water to erode away earth in advance of the pile). Each pile is expected to require approximately 100 hammer blows ' to install, and installation of all of the building foundation pilings would take approximately three weeks. If stone column foundations are employed, 36-inch-diameter stone columns would be ' installed to a depth of 30 feet and a structural mat foundation laid on top of the columns; pile driving would not be necessary. Flatbed trucks, asphalt trucks, and concrete trucks would deliver structural ' material to the site for the construction of the new buildings and associated structures (canopies, decks, sidewalks, parking areas, etc.). Mobile cranes, forklifts, front-end loaders, pavers, a roller, and miscellaneous equipment such as compressors, weldingsets, and generators, would unload the trucks, assemble the structures, and install the paving. The City's contractor would construct the building pad and utility connections for the Girl ScoutHouse, and the Girl Scouts' contractor would construct the building. All other construction would be accomplished by the City's contractor. Building and paving construction would require a construction force of up to 120 workers, on a peak day, and last approximately twelve months. ' Marina Construction ' Construction of the visiting vessel marina would require dredging (generally excavation below mean sea level is referred to as dredging), excavation, and pile driving. Prior to in -water construction the City would conduct an underwater survey for the presence of the invasive alga Caulerpa taxifolia, in accordance with the 2008 Caulerpa Control Protocol, and for eelgrass (Zostera marina). Preliminary excavation to approximately five feet below existing grade would define the new marina basin, then ' Sirius Environmental 3-14 1 ' Project Description Marina Park Draft RE/R approximately 1,000 linear feet of pre -stressed concrete sheet piling seawall would be installed along the three land sides of the new marina and a 70-foot-long sheet -pile groin would be installed just west ' of the new marina. On completion, the bottom of the marina would be at 10 feet below sea level. The current elevation of the land varies up to about 8 feet above sea level. Therefore the land portion of the marina excavation would occur to a depth of 20 feet below current grade. Soil can be excavated to ' a depth of about 5 feet; below 5 feet it is anticipated that soil would become very wet and would need to be dredged. Most of the dredging would be accomplished by sucking the wet sand onto a barge ' (hydraulic dredging); in deeper harder material, clam shell dredging would be used. The Marina sidewalls (seawalls) would be supported by driving the concrete sheet piles to a ' depth below the bottom of the marina. Once the groin and seawall are in place, tiebacks for the seawall would be installed (to prevent overturning) and backfill completed. Approximately 0.66 ac of the intertidal area, and 0.9 ac of upland area would be dredged and excavated to complete the boat ' basin and seawall tiebacks. Excavated material would be utilized as on -site fill. Dredged material would likely be hydraulically dredged and loaded onto barges for transport to the designated near ' shore beach nourishment site(s). Material to be disposed of on shore would need to be pumped onsite and dried before transport to the beach nourishment site(s). ' Pre -stressed concrete guide pilings ranging from 14" to 24" in diameter, depending upon their purpose (larger piles for the bayfront dock and 57-foot dock, smaller for the smaller docks and ' gangways) and the final design specifications, would be driven in the new basin. The pilings would be delivered to the marina site on a barge. Finally, the floating dock structures would be installed and ' the circulation enhancement devices would be installed. Both sheet and guide piles would be installed by a combination of jetting and driving. Piles would be jetted to within 2 feet of final depth, then driven with a diesel -powered hammer for the final two feet; _ each pile would be expected to require approximately 40 hammer blows. Up to 300 sheet piles and 60 guide piles would be installed, which would take a total of approximately three months. ' Dredging and marina excavation would produce approximately 62,000 cy of sand that would 1) be re- used on site (approximately 15,000 cy), and 2) be placed for beach replenishment at one or more of five potential locations (Exhibit 3-7) or, 3) for dredged material that is incompatible with off -site grain size (approximately 3,000 cy with insufficient sand content and up to 20,000 cy of sand that is ' potentially too coarse for near shore disposal) transported to the LA-3 offshore disposal site. The LA- 3 site is located approximately 4.5 miles south-southeast of the Newport Harbor entrance and is ' operated by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the US Environmental Protection Agency. Sediments chemically unsuitable for those disposal options would be disposed of at an upland facility licensed to receive such materials. Beach replenishment would place material either directly onto the sandy beach (dry sand) using trucks, or in the ocean just offshore of the beach (near shore disposal) by a bottom dumping disposal barge (i.e. doors in the bottom of the barge open to deposit the sand) 51dus Environmental 3.15 i ite Marina Park Sand Disposal Locations S Project Site, 17th to 18th Streets 1. Fill on beach, 18th to 191h Streets 2. Near shore disposal, 40th to 52nd Streets 3. Near shore disposal, 6th to 161h Streets 4. Marine Center to 19th Street 5. China Cove lip . mw �•1 � r � - Marina Park Draft REIR Project Description ' which would be towed along the shore by a tugboat. The specific beach replenishment sites would be selected on the basis of sand compatibility, chemical constituents in the dredge material, and site availability. Chemical tests of the material to be dredged and excavated indicate that no more than 3,000 cy of material, mostly from the channel portion of the dredging, would be unsuitable for re -use on ocean beaches, the project site, or disposal at LA-3. The potential beach disposal sites are: 1. The project site which would require approximately 15,000 cy for construction of building pads, parking lots and the park to achieve the proposed site elevations. The area between 18th ' and 19th on the Bay (approximately 70 feet wide, 400 feet long and 6 inches deep); accessible by truck for placement directly on the beach (dry sand), this site could taccommodate 500 cy. 2. The ocean beach between 40°i and 52"d streets (approximately 2,500 feet of beach); accessible by barge for nearshore disposal, this site could accommodate all of the project material. 3. The ocean beach between 6°i and 16°' streets (approximately 5,000 feet of beach); accessible by barge for nearshore disposal, this site could accommodate all of the project material. 4. The ocean beach from the Marine Center at Newport Beach Pier to 19"' Street; accessible by truck only for placement directly onto the beach (dry sand), this site could accept up to 10,000 cy. 5. China Cove near the Newport Bay entrance channel; accessible by truck for placement directly onto the beach (dry sand), this site could accept up to 5,000 cy. ' diesel barge Dredging would be accomplished by a small, diesel -powered tugboat, a -powered - mounted dredge, one or two barges and several heavy-duty trucks to haul the dredged/excavated material, and one or two small workboats. The dredges would likely be of both the clamshell and hydraulic type; the hydraulic dredge could be used to remove the soft upper layers and the clamshell ' would be used to remove the denser deep layers of sand. Dredged material would be placed at the receiving sites by bottom -dump barge (nearshore disposal) or truck (dry sand beach placement); material placed directly on the beach would be spread by a small bulldozer. Measures would be implemented to minimize water quality and biological impacts, including silt curtains at the dredging site; limiting the cycle time of the clamshell (i.e. slowing down the clam shell as it moves through the ' water and scoops up material which has the positive affect of reducing the turbidity in the water due to the clam shell dredging); restricting dredging and disposal near sensitive habitats, in accordance with the restrictions in Regional General Permit 67; and conducting water quality monitoring to ' assess turbidity levels. Land -based earthmoving equipment such as excavators, scrapers, and heavy-duty dump trucks would accomplish the upland excavation (above an elevation of+5 ft mean lower low water [MLLWj). ' Construction of the seawall and pilings, as well as placement of the floating docks, would be accomplished by a pile-driver rig (likely mounted on the barge), a diesel -powered pile driver, a small Sirius Environmental 3.17 Project Description Marina Park Draft RE/R ' mobile crane, flatbed delivery trucks and concrete delivery trucks, miscellaneous equipment such -as t compressors and generators, and worker light vehicles. Marina construction would require a work force of approximately 30 workers and last approximately eight months, likely concurrent with the other Phase 3 construction activities. , Construction Schedule Each phase of construction would have its own schedule. The most complicated construction schedule would be that of Phase 3, because the various activities would be interdependent (for example, fill for buildings and park feature would be generated by marina excavation, so that building ' construction could not start until marina construction had provided the required fill). The exact schedule for each phase would be determined by the-cohstruction contractor(s) in consultation with , the Public Works Department. Total time to complete each phase is as follows: • Phase 1: Approximately 4 weeks ' • Phase 2: Approximately 8 weeks • Phase 3: Approximately 31 months ' • Upland demolition, underground utilities and site preparation — approximately 3 months • Marina excavation, pile driving (up to 3.5 weeks of pile driving for guide piles and up to 10 weeks of pile driving for sheet piles), and building — approximately 8 months ' • Building construction — approximately 12 months (including up to 3 weeks of pile driving) • Park Construction — approximately G months 3.4.3 - Operation Phases 1 and 2 The primary operational activities of the project in Phases 1 and 2 would be the existing community facilities (community center, Girl Scout House, Las Arenas Park, and tennis and basketball'courts), the public beach, and the open space currently occupied by the mobile home park. Those activities would be expected to generate approximately 180 vehicle trips per day, approximately 100 fewer than under existing conditions because of the removal of the mobile home park. Phase 3 ' At final buildout the primary activities would be recreation in the park, on the tennis courts, and on ' the beach; community activities, sailing activities, and educational classes at the Balboa Center complex and the Girl Scout facility; and visiting vessels at the marina. Marina Park would be maintained by the City of Newport Beach General Services Department or outside contractors. The ' visiting vessel marina would be operated by the Harbor Resources Division, with maintenance assistance from General Services and, possibly, outside contractors. Maintenance would include landscape maintenance, building maintenance, periodic road and parking lot sweeping, trash collection, structural repairs, and restroom maintenance, and would use typical maintenance equipment and supplies (e.g., mowers, spreaders, skip loaders, light -duty utility vehicles, garbage ' Sirius Environmental 3-18 ' Marina Park Draft REIR Project Description trucks, motorized sweepers, paints, solvents, herbicides, fertilizers, and cleaning products). Marina ' maintenance general dock preventive maintenance including minor dredging every few years. Parking on the project site would be managed through the preparation of a Parking Management Plan ' designed to ensure that sufficient parking remains available for project uses (several strategies are available — see Appendix K.2; the City would select the most appropriate strategy after careful ' consideration of the data available). Balboa Center tThe Multipurpose Building would support a variety of City -sponsored programs for all age groups, including day camp, after -school programs, and special -interest classes for children; adult -oriented classes such as cooking, bridge, fitness, dancing, enrichment, and computers; and general -interest ' classes such as tennis and dog obedience. The building would also be available for private functions on a rental basis. Anticipated regular hours of operation would be 8 am to midnight daily. to include The Sailing Program Building would support a range of ocean -based activities, expected ' sailing, windsurfing, rowing, canoeing,'kayaking, marine science, boat safety/certification, and other events such as banquets, award ceremonies, and association meetings. programs, and non -maritime Classes and camps are expected to be offered year round. Water craft are expected to be available for rental daily during the summer months and on weekends during non -summer months. The Sailing Program Building could also be rented for private events year round. The cafe would be open for ' breakfast, lunch, and dinner all year round, and the Sailing Center would operate daily from 8 am to 10 pm. Assuming typical uses of these types of facilities (e.g. banquets, classes, etc.) uses would generate approximately 487 vehicle trips per day, corresponding to approximately 600 visitors per day. tGirl Scout Building The use of the new Girl Scout House would be the same as that of the existing facility, and would ' generate no additional vehicular traffic. During 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 1:00 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. ' Park The park is expected to be used for passive recreation such as walking, sitting, and picnicking, and small-scale activities such as children's play and pickup basketball. The park's configuration would be unsuitable for organized sports such as soccer and baseball. The tennis courts (which would be lighted during evening hours) would be open until 10 pm. Based on similar land uses, an average of ' approximately 77 vehicles per day, equivalent to about 130 people, would visit the park. Sirius Environmental 3-19 Project Description Marina Park Draft REIR ' Marina The marina would accommodate visiting recreational vessels (the term visiting vessels is used to refer ' to both visiting vessels that are defined as staying 1 to 14 days; and also short-term harbor based users that are defined as staying 15 to 30 days) for stays of up to 30 days. At present, most visiting vessels ' must use offshore moorings in Newport Harbor (only five public visiting slips are currently available), but those moorings have no access to utilities and shore services are not readily available ' to them. The marina would provide safe, sanitary facilities for visiting vessels. Mariners would have access to washing machines, showers, electricity, and sanitary facilities. In addition, the small boats The City ' of the sailing programs and other watersports programs would be based at the marina. will prepare and implement a Marina Management Plan based on the existing Clean Marina Program recently accepted by the State of California; that program has guidelines for best management practices (BMPs), including water pollution reduction measures, and sustainable boat maintenance practices(www.cleanmarinacalifornia.org). The Marina Management Plan would also include measures to manage marine mammal and recreational boat interactions in accordance with NOAA ' Fisheries and the California' Department of Fish and Game guidelines. These measures would be based upon the existing City program for deterring marine mammals. I The City estimates that visiting vessels would stay at the marina berths for an average of seven days, and short-term, harbor -based users for an average of 21 days. The City estimates that the 23 berths ' and the side -tie space would accommodate some 8,400 berth -days of occupancy (C. Miller, pers. comm. 2009), which would correspond to approximately 1,200 vessel calls per year. This level of ' vessel activity is conservatively assumed to correspond to approximately 15 hours of marine engine use per day all year around. The marina is also assumed to generate approximately 68 vehicle trips ' per day, based upon the California Department of Boating and Waterways' use factors. 3.5 - Project Approvals In order for the proposed project to be implemented, the project will need a number of approvals from local, state, and federal authorities. ' 3.5.1 - City of Newport Beach The Newport Beach Municipal Code does not include a provision to,exempt capital improvement ' projects, such as the Marina Park project. A city or county may exempt itself from the provisions of its own zoning regulations, or it may amend its Zoning Code to include a provision that the ' regulations shall not apply to capital improvement projects. Therefore, the City, in this particular case, intends to exempt itself from the provisions of its own zoning regulations. ' Marina Park is a one -of -a -kind capital improvement project to construct a unique community center/park/beach/marina facility, and there are no specific development regulations or standards in the Code that apply to this type of facility other than the building height requirement. Should the City Council decide not to exempt this project from the zoning and development regulations of the Code, a use permit per the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.65.055 and a modification permit per ' Sirius Environmental 3.20 1 I Marina Park Draft REIR Project Description I d 1 II the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.65.070 would be required to allow the lighthouse architectural feature to exceed the 35-foot base height limit. Regardless of the zoning and development issues, the City would be required to issue several permits and may need to undertake other approvals and ministerial actions as the project progresses. The required City permits are: • Harbor Permit • Demolition Permit • Building Permit The construction and operation of the Girl Scout building would require approval of a use permit. 3.5.2 - Responsible State Agencies In addition to the discretionary actions required by City of Newport Beach, there are discretionary actions that will be required by other public agencies. These other public agencies are defined as Responsible Agencies in the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15381). Responsible Agencies for Marina Park are the California Coastal Commission, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game, and the California State Lands Commission. When the project applicant requests discretionary approval of components of the project, these agencies may consider the information in this E1R along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process. Responsible state agencies for the project have discretionary authority over the following: California Coastal Commission..........................Coastal Development Permit Regional Water Quality Control Board ..............Section 401 Certification General Construction Activities Storm Water NPDES Permit California Department of Fish and Game ........... Section 1602 Agreement California State Lands Commission...................Jurisdictional Review. 3.5.3 - Responsible Federal Agencies The proposed project would need a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for dredging, filling, and structures in Waters of the United States; that permit would require that the USACE coordinate with the federal wildlife agencies concerning the project's potential effects on federally managed natural resources. US Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ................... Section 404 CWA/Section 10 RHA Permit/Regional General Permit 67, Ocean Disposal LA-3 National Marine Fisheries Service ......................Essential Fish Habitat Coordination United States Fish and Wildlife Service.............Endangered Species Act Coordination. Sirius Environmental 3.21 II Marina Park Draft REIR Environmental Setting I I F 1 I I 1 SEGTION'4i ENVIRONMENTAL SETTIf ' -,. - ,__-1-' 4.1 - General Environmental Setting The project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula, immediately adjacent to Newport Bay and north of Balboa Boulevard between 15°i Street and 18°' Street; and includes a portion of the beach located between IS"' Street and 19°i Street. Existing uses and features on the project site have been described in Section 3.3. The general vicinity of the project site is primarily residential, but commercial (hotels, shops, restaurants, and water -related enterprises) and institutional uses are scattered throughout the area, and recreational uses are prominent. The commercial center of Balboa Peninsula lies several blocks to the east of the project site. To the north, the Balboa Peninsula fronts on the portion of Newport Bay formed by the West Lido Channel, the Newport Channel, and the Rhine Channel. The south shore fronts on the ocean beach, which stretches continuously from the harbor entrance on the east to the mainland on the west. 4.2 - Related Projects Newport Beach is an intensely developed area, as is usually the case with coastal communities. Development of private, commercial, and public projects is ongoing, as existing uses are converted or intensified in order to meet the constantly increasing demand for coastal housing, tourist facilities, and water -related uses. Accordingly, for any project undertaken in the City, the City must consider its impacts in the context of the impacts of other developments in the area, whether planned, under construction, or newly in operation. Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the incremental effects of a project are cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts are defined as impacts created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the'EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. According to the CEQA Guidelines, elements considered necessary to provide an adequate discussion of the cumulative significant impact of a project include either: (1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, or (2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document or in a prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified and that describes or evaluates regional or area -wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. The City developed a list of related projects for the purposes of identifying potential cumulative impacts (see Table 4-1). Eighteen projects were identified as approved in some stage of completion and 12 projects were identified as proposed within a geographic area determined by the City to produce potential cumulative effects when combined with the proposed project. In the traffic I Sirius Environmental 4.1 analysis, trips from the unfinished portion of projects that are approved are added to the condition; cumulative projects are added as cumulative projects. Table 4-1: Related -Project List City Wide Projects Land Uses/Status i Percent Complete Approved Projects (included in Background traffic) Fashion ]stand Expansion Retail Shopping Center/192,846 sf 40 remaining enhtlemen[ Temple Bat Yahm Expansion Building not yet completed 65 CIOSA - Irvine Company Entitlements constructed with exception of 91 Hyatt expansion Newport Dunes 275 rooms remaining 0 1401 Dove Street- 26,982 sf office, riot yet constructed _ - - 0-- — - -' 1901 Westcliff Surgical 12,628sf 0 Hoag Hospital Phase Ill 130,000 outpatient facilities, not yet built 0 18,885 sf T 26,667 sf church, 5,206 sf school — 0 - Birch Medical Office St. Mark Church - _ - 77 - — - 0 - 0 Corporate Plana West Mariner's Mile Gateway -- 42,012 sf office, under construction — 56,000 sf retail, not yet built - Land Rover NB Service Center 58,145 sf automotive storage/service center 0 - - - OLQA Church Expansion - 19,254 sf school, under construction 0 2300Newport 31 residential units & 3 1,000 sf office/retail, 0 not yet built Newport Executive Court} 64,973 sf medical, notyet built - 0 Hoag Health Center- 1350,000 sf medical, under construction Transfer of development rights, not yet built ^` 0 North Newport Center 0 Santa Barbara Condo 79 units, not yet built 0 Proposed Projects (Cumulative projects In traffic analysis) Newport Beach Country Club Residential 5 DU, Hotel 27 rooms, 0 Tennis/Golf Club 51.3 TSF Mariner's Medical Arts Medical Office Addition 12.2 TSF 0 0 City Hall & Park Development City Hall 98.0 TSF, Library Expansion 17.1 TSF - - - 0 WPI-Newport,LLC --- I Office/Retai154^2TSF ^v---- Banning Ranch Residential 1,375 DU, Retail 75.0 TSF, 0 Hotel 75 rooms Sunset Ridge Park hark 13.7 Acres 0 Old Newport GPA Medical office 25.7 TSF 0 Marina Park Proposed Project 10.5 Acres 0 Pres Office Building B Office 16.7 TSF 0 4-2 Sirius Environmental Marina Park Draft REIR Environmental Setting h I 1 t P I I I City Wide Projects Land�Uses/Status Percent Complete Conexant/Koll Residential 974 DU 0 AERIE Condominium 6 DU 0 Newport Coast TAZ I —4 Single family Residential 954 DU, Condominium/Townhouse 389 DU, Multi- family Attached 175 DU 0 DU = Dwelling Unit, TSF = Thousand square feet Source: City of Newport Beach, September 2008. ' Sirius Environmental 4-3 Marina Park Draft REIR Environmental Impact Analysis I 1 I I 1 1 P I I SECTION 5; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Organization of Issue Areas This Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (Draft REIR) analyzes impacts for those environmental issues wherein either the Notice of Preparation (Appendix A) or subsequent analyses - determined that the proposed project would or could result in "potentially significant impacts." Sections 5.1 through 5.12 discuss the environmental impacts that could result from the approval and implementation of the proposed project. Issues Addressed in this EIR _ The following environmental issues are addressed in this Section: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Public Services • Transportation and Traffic • Utilities and Services Systems Each environmental issue area in Sections 5.1 through 5.12 contains a description of: 1. An introduction that identifies the information used to prepare the section 2. The laws and regulations that could affect the project 3. The existing conditions as they relate to the specific issue 4. The thresholds of significance used to evaluate the impacts 5. An evaluation of the project -specific and cumulative impacts 6. A listing of mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts 7. A determination of the level of significance after mitigation measures are implemented. I Sirius Environmental 5-1 Environmental Impact Analysis Marina Park Draft REIR Level of Significance Determining the severity of project impacts is fundamental to achieving the objectives of CEQA. ' CEQA Guidelines § 15091 requires that decision-makers.mitigate,'to the extent feasible, the significant impacts identified in the EIR. If the EIR identifies any significant unmitigated impacts, ' CEQA Guidelines § 15093 requires decision -makers, in approving a project, to adopt a statement of overriding considerations that explains why the benefits of the project outweigh its adverse ' environmental consequences. The level of significance for each impact examined in this Draft REIR was determined by considering ' the predicted magnitude of the impact, when compared with the CEQA baseline, against -the applicable threshold. Thresholds were developed using criteria from the City of Newport Beach; CEQA Guidelines and checklist; state, federal, and local regulatory schemes; local/regional plans and ordinances; accepted practice; consultation with recognized experts; and other professional opinions. ' Format Used for Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures The format adopted in this REIRto present the evaluation of impacts is described and illustrated below. Summary Heading of Impact Impact 5.1-A: An Impact summary heading appears Immediately preceding the Impact description (Summary Heading of Impact in this example). The impact abbreviation identifies the section of the report (i.e., 5.1, 5.2) and the ' sequential order of -the Impact (i.e., A, B) within that section. To the right of the impact number is the Impact statement, which Identifies the potential Impact. Project -Specific Analysis A narrative analysis follows the impact statement. Cumulative 1 A narrative analysis about the cumulative effects follows the cumulative statement. Mitigation Measures (Project Specific and Cumulative) In some cases, following the impact discussion, reference is made to state and federal , regulations, agency policies, and policies and programs from applicable local land -use plans that would lessen or eliminate the impact. Project -specific and cumulative mitigation measures beyond those contained in other documents are set off -with a summary heading and ' described using the format presented below, These are the measures that would be imposed through approval and implementation of the Marina Park Project. ' MM 5.1-A.1 Project -specific and cumulative mitigation thatwould reduce the impactto the lowest degree feasible is identified. The mitigation number links the 5-2 Sirius Environmental A ' Marina Park Draft REIR Environmental Impact Analysis particular mitigation to the impact with which it is associated (i.e., 5.1-A, t 5.1-B); the final number identifies the sequential order of that mitigation for that impact (i.e., 1, 2). Il I I I 11 I Level of Significance After Mitigation (Project Specific and Cumulative) This section identifies the resulting level of significance of the impact following mitigation. Sirius Environmental 5-3 ' Marina Park Draft REIR Aesthetics 5.1 -Aesthetics 5.1.1 - Introduction This section describes the existing aesthetics setting and'potential effects of project implementation on the aesthetic character of the area. Descriptions and analyses in this section are based on information contained in the visual simulations prepared in February 2009 by Rabben/Herman Design Visual Simulations, -site Office, included in this EIR as Appendix B, Elevations and as well as on visits by consultantstaff ' New World Aesthetics, as addressed in CEQA, refers to visual considerations. In Webster's Dictionary, aesthetics is defined as "the study or theory of beauty and the psychological responses to ' it." In CEQA analyses, however, aesthetics (or visual resources) is a wider concept than beauty; instead, the analysis assesses perceptible change in the visual environment and evaluates anticipated viewer responses to that change. This analysis of aesthetics focuses on impacts in the four basic issues addressed in the Notice of Preparation and set forth in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G: • scenic vistas • designated scenic highways • the visual character of the project area, and • light and glare. ' 5.1.2 - Regulatory Setting Federal No existing federal regulations pertain to the visual resources within the proposed project area. ' State California Coastal Act Policy 30251. According to the California Coastal Act Policy 30251, the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as resources of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas in a manner that minimizes the alteration of natural land forms, is visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, restores and ' enhances visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas, such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the ' Department of Parks and Recreation and by local governments, shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. Caltrans Scenic Highways. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) defines a scenic highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public right of way that traverses an area of ' Sirius Environmental 5.1.1 Aesthetics Marine Park Draft RWR exceptional scenic quality. Suitability for designation as a State Scenic Highway is based on vividness, intactness, and unity. Local City of Newport Beach General Plan. Visual resources are addressed in the Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan. The General Plan acknowledges the unique physical setting of ' the City, which offers spectacular views of the ocean, bay, sandy beaches, and coastal bluffs. The City has historically been sensitive to the need to protect and provide access to these scenic resources and has developed a system of public parks, piers, trails, and viewing areas. The City's development ' standards, including bulk and height limits, have helped preserve scenic views and regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the visual scale and unique character of the City. ' Several parts of the Natural Resources.Element address visual resources: • NR 20.1 Enhancement ofSignifcant Resources (page 10-36) Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points, as shown in Figure NR3 (General Plan Figure NR3, Coastal Views); , • NR 20.1 New Development Requirements (page 10-36) Require new development to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas, where feasible, and to provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public views or to restore the public's views in developed areas, where appropriate; • NR 20.4 Public View Corridor Landscaping (page 10-39) Design and site new development, , including landscaping, on the edges of public view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame, accent, and minimize impacts to public views; , • NR 20.5 Public View Corridor Amenities (page 10-39) Provide public trails, recreation areas, and viewing areas adjacent to public view corridors, where feasible. In addition, Policy R6.2 of the Recreation and Open Space Element pertaining to coastal views states that existing view opportunities should be protected and enhanced, especially views of the ocean, harbor, and upper bay, in accordance with the Local Coastal Program. City of Newport Beach Zoning Code. Existing codes that could be applicable to the project are those related to height limits. In general, building height in the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, which includes the project site, is limited to 35 feet, although the City's zoning code allows for certain architectural features to exceed that limit. Local Coastal Program. Chapter 4.4 of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal ' Land Use Plan (CLUP) includes scenic and visual resources policies, including coastal view protection, bulk and height limitations, natural landform protection, and sign and utility regulations. Where feasible, the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone are to be protected, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor, and coastal views from designated roadway segments. 5.1.2 Sinus Environmental ' ' Marina Park Drell REIR Aesthetics 5.1.3 - Existing Conditions The existing setting constitutes the baseline condition of the proposed project, and refers to conditions at the time of the Notice of Preparation (May 2008). Analytical Methodology ' Visual Resources The assessment of the impacts of the project with regard to visual resources entails the following ' steps: • Objective identification of the visual features (visual resources) of the landscape; ' • Assessment of the character and quality of those resources relative to overall regional visual character; and • Assessment of the potential significance of features in the landscape to the people who see them and their sensitivity to the proposed changes to those features. Visual resources are an important component of the quality of life of any geographic area: the ' primary sensory interaction of users with a place is visual in nature. The criteria for identifying the importance of views, or scenic vistas, are related in part to the position of the viewer relative to the resource. Generally, the closer a visual element is to the viewer, the more dominant it is and the greater its importance to the viewer. Visual sensitivity also depends on the number and type of viewers and the frequency and duration of views. Generally, visual sensitivity increases with an increase in total number of viewers, the frequency of viewing (e.g., daily or seasonally), and the duration of views (i.e., how long a scene is viewed). Also, visual sensitivity is higher for views seen ' by people who are driving for pleasure; people engaging in recreational activities, such as hiking, biking, or camping; and homeowners. Sensitivity tends to be lower for views seen by people driving to and from work or as part of their work (Federal Highway Administration 1983, U.S. Forest Service 1974, and U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1978). Finally, sensitivity is high for views associated with ' designated state or federal scenic highways. Different types of viewers have differing sensitivity to visual quality and visual quality change based ' on their familiarity with the view, their sense of ownership of that view, and their activity, which determines how much attention they can pay to the view. ' Typical viewers include people on the local roadway system, including motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. These viewers have varying sensitivity depending on their purpose of travel: if they are traveling to simply get from one place to another for business or pleasure, their sensitivity would ' normally be average, but if they are traveling for pleasure it is likely they would be more sensitive to their surroundings. Residential viewers are typically very sensitive to visual quality and to changes in the quality of their views. This is because of their familiarity with the views, their sense of investment in the area (if tthey are homeowners or long-time residents), and their sense of ownership of the views. The views ' Sirius Environmental 5.1-3 Aesthetics Marina Park Draft REIR from their residences and yards at times represent to them visual extensions of their property, and ' changes in this view are noticeable and can result in strong positive or negative reactions. Residential viewers within the viewshed of the project would be located in the residential neighborhoods to the southwest, -south, and southeast of the project site. CEQA requires a project to consider whether the project wil I generally affect the environment of the majority of persons within a project area, not if a project will affect particular individuals. Where projects are visible from a few private views within a ' project's immediate vicinity, the impact is not generally regarded as significant. Light and Glare ' There are two typical types of light intrusion. First, light emanates from the interior of structures and passes through windows. Second, light projects from exterior sources, such as street lighting, , building illumination, security lighting, and landscape lighting. Glare mainly results from sunlight reflection off flat building surfaces, with glass typically contributing the highest degree of reflectivity. Glare effects are associated with various building materials and vehicles during the daylight hours. Light introduction can be a nuisance to adjacent residential areas and diminish the view of the clear night sky. , Analysis of potential light and glare impacts uses the following concepts and terms: • Glare: Light that causes visual discomfort, disability, or loss of performance. Glare is typically the result of high luminaires or insufficient shielding of light sources. • Spill Light/Spillover: Light from an installation that falls outside of the boundaries of the , property on which the installation is sited. • Luminaire (light fixture): A complete lighting unit consisting of one or more electric lamps, ' the lamp holder, reflector, lens, diffuser, ballast, and/or other components and accessories. • Shielding: - Fully shielded - A luminaire emitting no light above the horizontal plain. - Shielded -A luminaire emitting less than 2 percent of its light above the horizontal plane. - Partly shielded - A Luminaire emitting less than 10 percent of its light above the ' horizontal plane. • Tootcandle: A measure of light intensity widely used in the lighting industry. The -unit is defined as the amount of illumination the inside surface an imaginary 1'-foot radius sphere would receive if there were a uniform point source of one candela in the exact center of the sphere. The impact assessment evaluates the degree to which project features that produce, reflect, or obscure light, especially night lighting, would change the ambient light regime at the project site and at adjacent receptors. 5.1.4 Sirius Environmental I ' Marina Park Draft REIR Aesthetics Scenic Vistas In the City of Newport Beach, a wide variety of shapes, colors, and textures, composed by topography, structures, roadways, and vegetation, form the views. The City is situated on a coastal plain and is bounded on three sides by the developed urban lands of Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and Irvine. Development in Newport Beach has been oriented to capture views of the ocean, using ' the ridgelines and hillsides as vantage points. Upper and Lower Newport Bay, draining an area of 118 square miles via the San Diego Creek and Santa Ana Delhi Channel, bisect the City and create a the physical setting unique to Newport Beach that includes estuaries, beaches, the harbor, coastal bluffs, open spaces, and meandering waterways. This physical setting provides a variety of spectacular coastal scenic vistas, including those of the ' open waters of the ocean and bay, the harbor, sandy beaches, rocky shores, wetlands, canyons, and coastal bluffs. On the Balboa Peninsula, the grid pattern of the streets and highways means that many north/south-tending streets provide views of the ocean and bay. These views would generally not be considered scenic vistas„however, because most are limited by buildings on either side of the streets. ' Streets and shorelines adjacent to the water, however, do provide scenic vistas, of the bay on the -north side and of the ocean on the south side. The project site is also part of the scenic vista as viewed from the south shore of Lido Isle and the east end of the Lido Peninsula, appearing as a beach backed ' by low residential development (the mobile home park). At the project site itself, there are no view corridors to Newport Bay from public rights of way adjoining the project site because views are obstructed by existing improvements on the site, as shown in Exhibits 5.1-1 and 5.1-2. Beach visitors and pedestrians on the sidewalk between the mobile home park and the beach have a scenic vista across Newport Bay to Lido Isle and the Lido Peninsula, with, weather permitting, coastal hills in the background. I Scenic Highways According to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Newport Beach General Plan, there are no officially designated state scenic highways within the City of Newport Beach. Visual Character Surrounding Areas The most dominant visual feature on the north side of the project site is a sidewalk and public beach in the foreground, beyond which lie Newport Harbor and numerous boats on moorings and in motion. There are various one- and two-story residential buildings across the bay and on Lido Island and Lido Peninsula. Areas surrounding the project site on the west, south, and east are dominated by various one- and two-story residential uses. To the southeast are scattered multi -story commercial uses. A hotel is located just west of the site at 181" Street and businesses are located at the corner of 15°' Street and Balboa Boulevard. There are also two churches east and southeast of the site. Other vantage points in the area consist of the American Legion Post 291 to the east and 18"' Street to the west. Sirius Environmental 5.1-5 Aesthetics Marina Park Draft REIR ' Project Site The project site is visible from Balboa Boulevard, the main arterial for the Balboa Peninsula, and from various locations in and across Newport Bay to the north. Minimal vegetation is present onsite, with the exception of some non-native, ornamental landscaping, and a row of palm trees that lines the boardwalk adjacent to the public beach. Minimal security lighting exists, and light standards for the four existing tennis courts provide lighting during nighttime periods. Site topography is flat. , Onsite views from Balboa Boulevard (Exhibits 5.1-1 and 5.1-2) illustrate the visual character of the existing project site, Existing View 1 , This viewpoint is immediately west of the Balboa Boulevard/17a' Street intersection facing north toward the project site. As shown in the existing view, this area of the project site is dominated by fencing surrounding the tennis courts at Las Arenas Park and several mature trees lining Balboa Boulevard adjacent to the park. No view to the bay is afforded presently. Existing View 2 ' This viewpoint is at the south side of Balboa Boulevard at the 161" Street intersection facing northwest toward the project site. This location includes additional views of Las,Arenas Park with ivy-covered chain -link fencing surrounding the tennis courts and -a sandy vacant area. A portion of the Marina Park mobile (tome park is also visible in the background. Electrical lines and palm trees that line the beach are visible, but Newport Bay is not. I Light and Glare , Due to the developed nature of the project site, light and glare are primarily attributed to indoor lighting from the Marina Park mobile homes, security lighting, and night lighting for the basketball and tennis courts. The existing luminaires are not modern, meaning there is some degree of spill light, ' especially from the tennis courts and community buildings, that affects offsite receptors. Vehicle headlights on Balboa Boulevard provide periodic illumination of the project site. 5.1.4 -Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions ' are analyzed and evaluated to determine whether impacts to aesthetics are significant environmental effects. Would the project: ' a.) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b.) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, ' and historic building within a state scenic highway? c.) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d.) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? 6.1.6 Sirius Environmental ' p • fir'- � • � � +, � Source: Michael Brandman Associates Exhibit 5.1-2 Existing Views CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MARINA PARK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' Marina Park Draft REIR Aesthetics 5.1.5 - Project Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary. Scenic Vista 5.1-A: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Project -Specific Analysis The proposed marina would front on Balboa Boulevard, creating a dramatic visual element on the streetscape. The City's Local Coastal Program identifies one scenic vantage point, located on 15s' Street directly adjacent to American Legion Post 291, that must be protected, but construction of the proposed project would not obstruct views of Newport Bay from that location. I I 1 i I I I I Implementation of Phases I and 2 would result in removal of the existing mobile homes (coaches) and replacement with open space. On completion of Phase 3 the project would provide enhanced views of the Bay for pedestrians and motorists traveling along Balboa Boulevard because further features that currently obstruct those views (tennis courts and associated fencing and community buildings in addition to the mobile homes removed in Phase 1) would be replaced by open space, including landscaped park. Future views from Balboa Boulevard (see Exhibit 5.1-3) at the completion of Phase 3 would include the main pedestrian entrance to Marina Park and the main vehicular entrance into the Balboa Center complex's parking lot. The first would consist of open space with landscaped trees bordering the walkways, extensive lawn areas, and Newport Bay and Lido Isle in the background. The second view would consist of a direct line of site to the proposed marina, with landscaping, parking lot, and palm trees in the foreground and the marina (in Phase 3) and Newport Bay/Lido Isle in the middle and background. The scenic vistas from Balboa Boulevard would not include clear views of the Balboa Center Complex buildings nor of the Girl Scout House because the landscaping around the associated parking lots would act as screens although, as the simulations in Appendix B show, the tops of the buildings would be visible. Because the project would place utilities underground, none of the views would include utility lines. The scenic vista from Lido Isle/Lido Peninsula that includes the project site would be altered by the change from the mobile home park to open space (park in Phase 2 and Phase 3), by the addition of the marina in Phase 3, and by the addition of architectural features such as the lighthouse and the sail - shaped roof in Phase 3. The marina would add sailboat masts to the view, but that addition would be insignificant in the context of Newport Bay, with its numerous moored and docked sailboats, especially given the presence of the adjacent American Legion marina. The architectural features proposed in Phase 3 would be prominent, as typical of civic architecture. The lighthouse is both ornamental and a functional landmark, providing a visual point of reference on the Balboa Peninsula to direct the public to a major public amenity. However, the overall impact to the scenic vista through the addition of these architectural features is mitigated because the vertical nature of the 1 Sirius Environmental 5.14 �� •d t C� r i PT �� i ■ m .. .� 1 f i �� R 1 � ■ CorridorView �"t f • Alp-_ ta' r� � ate' V r., View Corridor Source: Michael Brandman Associates Exhibit 5.1-3 Visual Simulations of Proposed View Corridors CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MARINA PARK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' Marina Park Draft REIR Aesthetics lighthouse is less obstructing to the view than the current horizontal mass of buildings, which will be replaced with open space. Based on these considerations, implementation of the proposed project would result in no adverse impacts on a scenic vista. ' Cumulative ' Development of the proposed project would not adversely affect a scenic vista. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a potential cumulative impact on a scenic vista. ' Mitigation Measures Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. ' Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation ' Project -Specific No impact. ' Cumulative No impact. Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway 5.1-13: The project would not substantially damage scenic resources, Including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway. Project -Specific Analysis Because there are no designated scenic highways in the project area, implementation of the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway. ' Cumulative Because there are no designated scenic highways in the project area, the project would not contribute ' to cumulative- impacts on scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Mitigation Measures Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project -Specific ' No impact. ' Sirius Environmental 5.1-11 Aesthetics Marina Park Draft REIR ' Cumulative No impact. Visual Character ' 5.1-C: The project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and Its surroundings. Project -Specific Analysis Construction of the proposed project would temporarily alter the visual characteristics of the project site during all three phases of construction, largely due to the presence of construction equipment and ' stockpiles of soil, which would be noticeable on the flat site. Fence screening would be provided onsite to minimize views of construction. Because these impacts would be temporary and minimized ' by screening, construction would have less -than -significant visual impacts. The proposed project would permanently change views of the existing mobile home site to views of a recreational park; in Phase 3 the view would include public tennis courts, the Balboa Center complex, the Girl Scout House, and the marina (see Appendix B). The primary views that would experience the most alteration would be those of the motorists and pedestrians traveling along Balboa Boulevard and of nearby boaters on Newport Bay. Views from'Lido Isle/Peninsula would be too remote to be markedly altered, although -residents and frequent visitors would likely notice the change. ' Approximately 930 linear feet of waterfront area would be opened up to view from Balboa Boulevard under all three phases. In Phase 3, palm trees and ornamental landscaping would line pedestrian ' walkways and gathering points. Except for two architectural features, the lighthouse and the sail -roof feature on the Balboa Center (Appendix B), the buildings proposed on the project site (exclusive of architectural features) for Phase 3 would be within the 35-foot height limit. 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 from 18 feet at its base to feet at its top, the lighthouse would be a relatively ' minor horizontal element in comparison to the expanse of waterfront view (930linear 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. Cumulative Development of the proposed project would enhance land -side views to and from Newport Bay and would lessen the intensity of development on the project site. Therefore, the project's contribution to ' cumulative visual impacts is less than considerable. Mitigation Measures Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. 5.1.12 Sirius Environmental , ' Marina Park Draft RE1R Aesthetics Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. ' Level of Significance After Mitigation Project -Specific Less than significant. ' Cumulative ' Less than significant. Light or Glare 5.1-D: The project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Project -Specific Analysis Phases 1 and 2 would result in removal of existing lighting associated with the existing mobile homes. Some low level security lighting may be introduced although it is not specifically called out ' on the plans. Lighting associated with the Phase 3 development would introduce minor new sources of light and glare, although to some extent the new lighting would simply replace the existing lighting. New sources of light would include additional safety lighting for the parking lots, lighting associated with ' the marina (security lighting along the perimeter, safety lighting on the docks), security lighting, low- level accent lighting and interior lights (visible through un-shaded windows) for the Balboa Center, ' and safety and security lighting as well as accent lighting for park features, including the rest rooms has lighting the tennis courts, security and major walkways. The existing site already associated with I 1 1 I I lighting for the community buildings, and lighting associated with residents of the mobile homes, although much of that lighting is shielded by external walls around the mobile home park. Some of the lighting would be relocated on site; for example, the tennis court lighting would be adjacent to 15°i Street rather than along Balboa Boulevard. The lighthouse feature would include a lighting fixture. The top of the tower would have a glass skin comprised of individual glass panels with varying levels of tinting and/or filtering depending on their sun orientation providing additional selective directional protection from emitted light while creating additional visual interest to this semi -translucent feature. A single, non -directional light fixture suspended in the upper portion of the tower would act as an accent light. It would not provide external illumination, but instead would function as a marker highlighting the uppermost portion of the tower. Low -intensity red or white aircraft warning lights may also be installed on masts on top of the tower. Overall, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial addition of light sources or intensity on the project site or of light emitted off the project site. The project site would appear much as it currently does in terms of the amount and intensity of light; existing inefficient Sirius Environmental 5.1-13 Aesthetics Marina Park Draft REIR lighting that spills over on to adjacent properties would be replaced with efficient, directional lighting 1 with fewer unwanted spill -over effects. Therefore, lighting impacts associated with the project would be less than significant. ' The existing site includes many older light fixtures that do not incorporate modern glare reduction designs, such as shielding and modern illumination devices. The proposed project would utilize fully shielded luminaires in accordance with City of Newport Beach standards and regulations. Utilization 1 of these luminaires, coupled with the removal of residences on the project site, would ensure thatthe proposed project would create a less than significant glare impact on the surrounding residential land 1 uses. Cumulative 1 Implementation of the proposed project would create an amount of light and glare that would not be substantially greater than the light and glare that currently exists on the site. Therefore, the project's contribution of light and glare to the project area would not be cumulatively considerable. Thus, the project's contribution to cumulative light and glare impacts would be less than significant. ' Mitigation Measures Project -Specific 1 No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative 1 No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation 1 Project -Specific Less than significant. I Cumulative Less than significant. 1 U 11 1 1 1 5.1.14 Sirius Environmental 1 Marina Park Draft REIR _ Air I I I I u I t II 1 k I II I 5.2 - Air 5.2.1 - Introduction This section describes the existing air quality setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. 5.2.2 - Regulatory Setting The regulatory setting of the proposed project includes the regulatory entities that have jurisdiction over air quality in the region of the project site, and the air quality standards, including greenhouse gas standards, that pertain to the project. In order to put those standards and the project -specific analyses into context, this section first presents a discussion of the air pollutants of concern to the region. Air Pollutants There are a number of air pollutants that are of concern in California. Six common air pollutants, called criteria air pollutants, were identified by the US Environmental Protection Agency as a result of provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1970. The six criteria pollutants are ozone, particulate matter (PMio and PM2,5), nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide (CO), lead, and sulfur dioxide; volatile organic compounds, are also of concern as ozone precursors, although they are'not, technically, criteria pollutants. The State of California identified four additional air pollutants of concern, namely visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and vinyl chloride. Through the toxic air contaminants (TAC) program the State has also identified some 200 trace contaminants that pose health risks; the most prominent of those is diesel particulate matter (DPM). Finally, the State has recently identified six greenhouse gases that are of concern because of their role in climate change. Ozone is primarily the result of photochemical reactions in the atmosphere involving a number of ozone precursor compounds, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Because photochemical reaction rates depend on the intensity of ultraviolet light and air temperature, ozone is primarily a summer air pollution problem, and because it forms in daylight and degrades at night, its concentrations can vary substantially over the course of a day. Even in pristine areas, some ambient ozone forms from natural emissions that are not controllable. This is termed background ozone. The average background ozone concentrations near sea level are in the range of 0.015 to 0.035 parts per million (ppm), with a maximum of about 0.04 ppm. Ozone is considered a regional pollutant because it can develop well downwind of the site of precursor emissions. Even at very low levels, ground -level ozone triggers a variety of health problems, including aggravated asthma, reduced lung capacity, and increased susceptibility to respiratory illnesses like pneumonia and bronchitis. Symptoms of ozone exposure include wheezing, coughing, pain when taking a deep breath, and breathing difficulties during exercise or outdoor activities. People with respiratory problems are most vulnerable, but anyone who spends time outdoors in the summer is at risk, particularly children and other people who are more active outdoors. II Sirius Environmental 5.2-1 Air Quality Marina Park Draft REIR ' Ozone also damages vegetation and ecosystems, leading to reduced agricultural and commercial forest yields, and increased susceptibility to diseases, pests, and other stresses. In the United States alone, ozone is responsible for an estimated $500 million in reduced crop ' production each year. Ozone damage to foliage affects the landscape of cities, national parks and' forests, and recreation areas. 1n addition, ozone causes:damage to buildings, rubber, and I some plastics. • Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), also known as Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), are defined as any compound of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic , acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, that participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions. Low molecular weight hydrocarbons found in vehicle ' fuels are.an example of VOCs. It should be noted that there are no state or national ambient air quality standards for VOCs because they are not classified as criteria pollutants. They are regulated, however, because VOCs undergo chemical reactions that contribute to the formulation of ozone. VOCs are also ' transformed into organic aerosols in the atmosphere, which contribute to higher PMjo levels and lower visibility. The health effects associated with ozone (as discussed above) are also indirect health levels VOC effects associated with significant of emissions. • Nitrogen oxide (NO) is produced during combustion of fossil fuels as oxygen reacts with atmospheric nitrogen and nitrogen oxides at high temperatures. NOx is a concern because, like ' VOCs, it is an ozone precursor. NOx can also be a precursor to PM io and PM2.5. Because NOx is an ozone precursor, the health effects associated with ozone (as discussed above) are also ' indirect -health effects associated with significant levels of NOx. • Suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) is a mixture of small particles consisting of dry solids, droplets of liquid, and solid cores with liquid coatings. Some particles, such as dust, dirt, soot, or smoke, are large or dark enough to be seen with the naked eye. Others are so ' small they can only be detected using an electron microscope. Particulate pollution includes "inhalable coarse particles," with diameters between 2.5 and 10 micrometers, and "fine particles," with diameters that are 2.5 micrometers and smaller (2.5 micrometers is ' approximately one -thirtieth the diameter of the average human hair). These particles can be made up of hundreds of different chemicals. Some particles, known as primary particles, are emitted directly from a source, such as construction sites, unpaved roads, ' fields, smokestacks, or fires. Others form in complicated reactions in the atmosphere from ' chemicals such as sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides that are emitted from power plants, industrial activity, and vehicle engines. These particles, known as secondary particles, make up most of the fine particle pollution in the United States. Exposure to particulate matter can lead to a variety of health effects. Numerous studies link elevated airborne particulate concentrations to increased hospital admissions and emergency ' 5.2-2 Sirlus Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Air 0 I I P I I I room visits and to increased deaths from heart or lung diseases. Both long- and short-term particle exposures have been linked to health problems. Long-term exposures are associated with problems such as reduced lung function, chronic -bronchitis, and premature death. Short- term exposures (hours or days) can aggravate lung disease, causing asthma attacks and acute bronchitis, and may increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. In people with heart disease, short-term exposures have been linked to heart attacks and arrhythmias. Healthy children and adults have not been reported to suffer serious effects from short-term exposures, although they may experience temporary minor irritation when particle levels are elevated. • Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas that is formed when the carbon in fuel is not burned completely. Motor vehicle exhaust contributes about 56 percent of all CO emissions nationwide, and non -road engines (such as construction equipment and boats) contribute about 22 percent. In cities, 85 to 95 percent of all CO emissions may come -from motor vehicle exhaust. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes, forest fires, and many residential uses. CO is a public health concern because it reduces the blood's ability to transport oxygen. Lower levels of CO "threaten those who suffer from heart -related diseases as angina, clogged arteries, or congestive heart failure. High levels of CO can affect even healthy people, inducing vision problems, reducing the ability to work or learn, and reducing manual dexterity and reasoning power. At very high levels, CO can cause death. CO is considered to have only a local influence because it dissipates quickly. High CO levels develop primarily during winter, when periods of light winds combine with the formation of ground -level temperature inversions to reduce mixing and dispersion. High CO concentrations occur in areas of limited size, sometimes referred to as hot spots, that are strongly associated with roadways with high traffic volumes and congestion, active parking lots, and tunnels. • Sulfur dioxide and sulfates (Sox) are emitted during the combustion of petroleum -derived fuels (i.e., gasoline and diesel fuel) that contain sulfur. During combustion, sulfur is oxidized to sulfur dioxide (a colorless pungent gas), which is rapidly converted to sulfate compounds in the atmosphere. In addition to being smog precursors, sufur oxides are a cause of acid rain, contribute to corrosion of structures, and can affect cardiopulmonary function. • Lead is a former a gasoline additive, which caused it to be released to the atmosphere in large quantities. Atmospheric lead concentrations in southern California urban areas have not exceeded air quality standards for at least 10 years, largely because it is no longer an additive in gasoline. Lead is not assessed in this analysis. • Visibility reducing particles consist of a variety of particle types. Visibility is the distance through the air that an object can be seen without the use of instrumental assistance. Visibility reducing particles are not assessed in this analysis; however, particulate matter is assessed. Sirius Environmental 5.2-3 , Air Quality Marina Park Durk REIR • Vinyl chloride is an ingredient in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Vinyl chloride is not assessed in this analysis because -the proposed project is not expected to generate or be exposed to vinyl chloride. , • Hydrogen sulfide is a flammable, colorless, poisonous gas, with a smell like rotten eggs, that comes from the combustion of sulfur containing fuels (oil and coal), the putrefaction of organic matter, and releases from a variety of manufacturing process. Because hydrogen sulfide would not be generated on or near the project site, it is not assessed in this analysis. • Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are defined as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air. However, their high toxicity may pose a threat to public health even at very low concentrations. In general, for those TACs that may cause cancer, there is no concentration that does not present some risk. In other words, there is no threshold level below which adverse health impacts are not expected to occur. This contrasts with the criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure are reflected in the federal ' state and government ambient air quality standards. Since the 1960s, the criteria pollutant control program has been effective at reducing TACs, since many volatile organic compounds and PM constituents are also TACs. During the 1980s, ' however, in response to increased public concern, the California legislature enacted the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act. This law charges the California Air ' Resources Board (CARB) with the responsibility for identifying substances as TACs, setting priorities for control, adopting control strategies, and promoting alternative processes. The CARB has designated almost 200 compounds as TACs, the most prominent of which is diesel ' particulate matter (see below), and has promulgated control strategies for a number of TACs. • Diesel Particulate Matter (Diesel PM) emitted from diesel -fueled engines was identified by ' the CARB as a TAC in August 1998, Diesel engine exhaust has been identified as a carcinogen, and most researchers believe that diesel exhaust particles (as opposed to gaseous ' components) contribute the majority of the cancer risk. In California, on -road diesel -fueled vehicles contribute approximately 40 percent of the ' statewide total and other mobile sources such as construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, and transport refrigeration units contribute an additional 57 percent. The remaining three percent comes from stationary sources, primarily manufacturing, heavy construction (except highway), and power generation. • Greenhouse Gases trap heat in the atmosphere, analogous to the way a greenhouse retains ' heat. The accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere regulates the earth's temperature to be suitable for life. In 2006 the State, through Assembly Bill 32, acknowledged , that human activities have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and that such increases are likely to cause worldwide climate changes ("global warming"), The dioxide (CO2), water vapor, and ozone, ' most common greenhouse gases are carbon -methane, 5. y.q Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Air Quality but a suite of other gases are known to cause greenhouse effects, including: aerosols (suspensions of particulate matter in the air); chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons (CFCs, HFCs, PFCs); nitrous oxides, and sulfur hexafluoride. These gases ' are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as High Global Warming Potential gases ("High GWP gases"). ' Each gas has a different potential, on a per weight basis, for causing greenhouse effects. For ease of calculation, any mixture of greenhouse gases is expressed as its equivalent weight of CO2 (CO2e). Given the international nature of greenhouse gases, emissions are calculated and compared in metric tons. Greenhouse gases are produced by a variety of processes, notably combustion (CO2 and aerosols); the decomposition of organic matter (CO2, nitrous oxides, and methane); and industrial productions and releases (aerosols, CO2, CFCs, HFCs, and PFCs, nitrous oxide, and sulfur hexafluoride). Regulatory Entities Air pollutants are regulated at the national, state, and air basin level, the regulatory agencies at each level having different degrees of responsibility. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates at the national level through the Clean Air Act of 1970, CARB regulates at the state level, and the SCAQMD regulates at the air basin level. US Environmental Protection Agency. TheEPA's jurisdiction includes global, international, national, and interstate air pollution issues and policies. The EPA sets national vehicle and stationary ' source emission standards, oversees approval of all State Implementation Plans (SIP), provides research and guidance in air pollution programs, and sets national Ambient Air Quality Standards ' (AAQS), also known as federal standards, for the priority pollutants. The national AAQS were set to protect the health of sensitive individuals; thus, the standards are periodically updated as new, knowledge regarding the health effects of the criteria pollutants becomes available. California Air Resources Board (CARB). The CARB has overall responsibility for statewide air ' quality maintenance and air pollution prevention, including preparing and updating the SIP for the State of California describing existing air quality conditions and the measures that will be implemented to attain and maintain national AAQS. On September 27, 2007, CARB adopted the ' State Strategy for the 2007 SIP. The CARB also administers California AAQS, the state standards for the ten air pollutants designated in the California Clean Air Act (the six federal priority pollutants plus visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and vinyl chloride). ' South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD oversees air quality in the South Coast Air -Basin. The SCAQMD is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources, maintaining air quality monitoring stations throughout the Air Basin, and developing, updating, and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Air Basin (in concert with the Southern California Association of Governments [SCAG]). The AQMP is the ' AQMD's plan for bringing the South Coast Air Basin, which is designated as a nonattainment area, Sirius Environmental 5.2-5 Air Quality Marina Park Draft RE/R ' into compliance with the requirements of the national and California ambient air quality standards L (see below). The 2007 AQMP, which is the current AQMP, was adopted by the SCAQMD on June 1, 2007 and was incorporated by the CARB into the SIP. ' The 2007 AQMP includes emissions inventories, ambient measurements, scientific data, control strategies, and air quality modeling. It outlines a detailed strategy for meeting the federal health- ' based standards for PM2 5 by 2015 and the 8-hour ozone standard by 2024 while accounting for and' accommodating future expected growth. Most of the reductions will be from mobile sources, which are responsible for about 75 percent of all smog- and particulate -forming emissions. The 2007 AQMP includes 37 control measures proposed for adoption by the SCAQMD, including measures to reduce emissions from new developments and more reductions from industrial facilities. ' To achieve the goals of the AQMP, the SCAQMD has promulgated a suite of rules governing a wide variety of activities. Of particular relevance to the Marina Park project are two rules applicable to contruction activities. SCAQMD Rule 403 —Fugitive Dust. The purpose of this Rule is to control the amount of PM entrained in the atmosphere from man-made sources of fugitive dust. The rule prohibits emissions of fugitive dust from any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area to be visible ' beyond the emission source's property line. Construction activities need to apply control measures such as site watering, wheel washing, and speed limits as necessary, and prepare and submit a dust ' control plan and dust control records. SCAQMD Rule 1403—AsbeslosEmissions from Deniolitlon/Renovation Activities. This rule limits ' emissions of asbestos, a TAC, from structural demolition/ renovation activities. The rule requires the SCAQMD to be notified of proposed demolition/ renovation activities and the project proponent to survey those structures for the presence of asbestos -containing materials (ACMs). The rule also includes emission control measures and ACM removal, handling, and disposal techniques. , Ambient Air Quality Standards The national and state AAQS (Table 5.2-1) are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. The standards have been ' developed by considering a suite of factors related to health effects, including dose, length of exposure, and toxic effects. I I 5.2.6 Sirius Environmental I ' Marina Park Draft REIR Air Quality ITable 5.2-1: Ambient Air Quality Standards and Relevant Effects H 1 j I 1 1 I I Air �� Averaging California National Most Relevant Effects Pollutant Time Standard Standard — M Ozone 1 Hour 0.09 ppm — (a) Decrease of pulmonary function, lung edema in humans and animals; (b) Alterations in 8 Hour 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (c) Increased mortality risk; (d) Altered connective tissue metabolism and pulmonary morphology and function after long-term exposures; (e) Vegetation damage; (f) Property damage. Carbon 1 Hour 20 ppm 35 ppm (a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other Monoxide coronary conditions; (b) Decreased exercise (CO) 8 Hour 9.0 ppm 9 ppm tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (c) Impairment of central nervous system functions; (d) Possible increased risk to fetuses. Nitrogen 1 Hour 0.18 ppm — (a) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory Dioxide disease and respiratory symptoms; (b) Pulmonary (NO2) Mean 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm and extra -pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes; (c) Atmospheric discoloration. Sulfur 1 Hour 0.25 ppm — Bronchoconstriction accompanied by wheezing, Dioxide shortness of breath, and chest tightness during -- (SO2) 24 Hour 0.04 ppm 0.74 ppm physical activity in persons with asthma. Mean` — 0.030 ppm Particulate 24 hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 (a) Exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients Matter Mean 20 3 — with respiratory or cardiovascular disease; (PMA µg/m (b) Inhibition of pulmonary function growth in children; (c) Increased risk of premature death 35 Particulate 24 Hour — µg/m3 from heart or lung diseases in the elderly. Mean 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 Matter (PM25) Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 — (a) Decrease in ventilatory function; (b) Aggravation of asthmatic symptoms; (c) Aggravation of cardio-pulmonary disease; (d) Vegetation damage; (e) Degradation of visibility; (f) Property damage. Lead 30-day 1.5 µg/m3 — (a) Learning disabilities; (b) Impairment of blood formation and nerve conduction. Quarter I — ppm =parts per million (concentration) µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter ppm = parts per million Mean =Annual Arithmetic Mean 30-day = 30-day average Quarter = Calendar quarter Source: California Air Resources Board,2008. ' Sirius Environmental 5.2.7 Air Quality Marina Park Draft RE1R Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Regulation California Policy One source of ongoing climate change is the emission of greenhouse gases worldwide from a wide , variety of sources, both natural and anthropogenic. Notable human -induced emissions include fuel combustion, industrial emissions, and agriculture. The State of California has taken several measures in an effort to reduce -its contribution to climate change, as discussed below. On June 1, 2005, the Governor issued Executive Order S 3-05 which set the following greenhouse gas , emission reduction targets: • By 2010, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels; ' • By 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels; • By 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. To meet these targets, the Climate Action Team prepared a report to the Governor in 2006 that contains recommendations and strategies to help ensure the targets in Executive Order 5-3-05 are met ' (2006 CAT Report). In 2006, the California State Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 defines greenhouse gases to be carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, AB 32 requires that greenhouse gases ' emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels (427 million tons of CO2 equivalent gases) by the year 2020, and charges the CARB with monitoring and regulating sources of greenhouse gases. ' Under AB 32, CARB published its Final Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California in October 2007, which include 44 early action measures that apply to the transportation, commercials forestry, agriculture, cement, oil and gas, fire suppression, fuels, education, energy efficiency, electricity, and waste sectors. The CARB estimates that the 44 recommendations will result in reductions of at least 42 million tons per year of CO2- t equivalent gases by 2020, representing approximately 25 percent of the 2020 target. The CARB Board approved a Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan in December 2008 to reduce ' overall carbon emissions in California while creating new jobs and enhancing economic growth. The measures in the Scoping Plan will be in place by 2012. 1 SB 97, passed in August 2007, requires that the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) prepare, develop, and transmit guidelines to the Resources Agency for the mitigation of the effects of ' greenhouse gas emissions. SB 97 also requires that, before January 1, 2010, the Resources Agency certify and adopt guidelines prepared and developed by the OPR. The recommended approach for GHG analysis included in the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) June 2008 Technical Advisory (TA) is to: (1) identify and quantify GHG emissions, , 5.2.8 Sirius Environmental fMarina Park Draft REIR _ Air Quality (2) assess the significance of the impact on climate change, and (3) if significant, identify alternatives and/or mitigation measures to reduce the impact below significance. ' Neither the CEQA statute nor Guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or a particular methodology for performing an impact analysis. The June 2008 Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidance provides some additional direction regarding planning documents as follows: "CEQA can be a more effective tool for greenhouse gas emissions analysis and mitigation if ' it is supported and supplemented by sound development policies and practices that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a broad planning scale and that can provide the basis for a programmatic approach to project -specific CEQA analysis and mitigation. For local government lead agencies, ' adoption of general plan policies and certification of general plan Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) that analyze broad jurisdiction -wide impacts of greenhouse gas emissions can be part of an ' effective strategy for addressing cumulative impacts and for streamlining later project -specific CEQA reviews." ARB has published draft preliminary guidance to agencies on how to establish interim significance thresholds for analyzing GHG emissions. That guidance, while still in draft form, does provide some ' assistance to the City in evaluating whether projects would impede the State's mandatory requirements under AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. ' The Guidance describes generally three classes of common projects: industrial, commercial, and residential projects. For each type of project, the ARB guidance document recommends that a two - pronged threshold be employed, one performance based and one numerical. For performance standards, the draft guidance suggests that operations and construction of the project be evaluated for its consistency with applicable performance standards contained in plans designed to reduce GHG ' emissions and/or help meet the State's emission reduction objectives in AB 32. The ARB guidance contains two numerical standards that guide the City's analysis of the impacts of this project. First, the guidance states that some small residential and commercial projects, emitting 1,600 metric tons of CO2e per year or less, would clearly not interfere with achieving the States emission reduction objectives in AB 32 (and EO S-03-05) and thus may be deemed categorically exempt from CEQA. ' The guidance does not state or imply that projects emitting more than 1,600 metric tons of CO2e per year will necessarily result in a significant impact, although at this point, the guidance has no precise numerical threshold for commercial and residential projects. For industrial projects, the guidance proposes that projects that emit less than 7,000 metric tons of CO2e per year may be considered less ' than significant, recognizing that AB 32 will continue to reduce or mitigate emissions from these sorts of projects over time. I California, State of, 2008. California Air Resources Board (ARB). Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal: ' Recommended Approachesfor Setting Interim Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases Under the California Environmental Quality Act. October 24, 2009. ' Sirius Environmental 5.2-9 Air Quality Marina Park Draft REIR Regional Policies SCAQMD. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) currently has no formal reduction plans or regulations regarding greenhouse gases that are applicable to the proposed project. SLAG. SB 375 requires that by September 30, 2010 (and updated every eight years in concert with the Regional Transportation Plan thereafter), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), working in consultation with Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) provide to the MPOs greenhouse gas ' reduction targets for automobiles and light trucks for the years 2020 and 2035. SCAG, or a combination of SCAG and its sub regions, is required to prepare a Sustainable ' Communities Strategy (SCS) to achieve these greenhouse gas reduction targets. Alternatively if an SCS cannot achieve the targets an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) must be prepared to show how the targets can be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure or additional transportation measures or policies. The City of Newport Beach is in the Orange County sub -region (Orange County Council of Governments, or OCOG). Once the SCS for the subregion and region is adopted the General Plan (if it is not already) must be made consistent with the SCS. Residential or residential mixed -use projects (where 75% of the building area is residential) that are consistent with the SCS/General plan (assuming the SCS is found to achieve the greenhouse reduction targets) and that incorporate mitigation measures required by an applicable prior ' environmental document will not be required -to address the following issues in their CEQA documents: I) growth inducing impacts; 2) global warming impacts from cars and light duty truck trips, 3) car and light duty truck trip impacts on the regional transportation network, 4) a reduced residential density alternative to address the effects of car and light duty truck trips. SB 375 provides for limited review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for transit priority projects (projects that contains at least 50% residential floor area, not less than 0.75 ' FAR, a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre and are within one half mile of a "major transit stop" or "high -quality transit corridor" included in an RTP) where impacts are sufficiently analyzed and mitigated in the applicable RTP EIR. Once the SCS (or APS) for the SCAG region is accepted by CARB, projects that are consistent with ' the General Plan would be eligible for CEQA streamlining identified in SB 375. 5.2-10 Sirius Environmental I ' Marina Park Draft REIR Air Quality City of Newport Beach Until more guidance is provided from the expert agencies (ARB and/or SCAQMD), the City of Newport Beach intends to consider projects emitting 1,600 metric tons of CO2e per year or less to be ' less than significant and no further analysis is required. For projects exceeding the screening threshold of 1,600 metric tons of CO2e per year, the City will consider projects to have significant ' impacts if they either (1) are not substantially consistent with policies and standards set out in federal, state, and local plans designed to reduce greenhouse gas emission or (2) would emit more than 6,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. Projects that do not 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. ' 5.2.3 - Existing Conditions. ' The proposed project is located in the City of Newport Beach, in the County of Orange, and within the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin). Regional and local air quality is influenced by dominant airflows, topography, atmospheric inversions, location, season, and time of day. The quality of the air tcan be assessed by measuring the concentrations of certain air pollutants over time. ' Local Air Quality _ Local air quality is best represented by examining existing ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of the project site based on measurements made by the SCAQMD. The ' City of Newport Beach is located within the central portion of Source Receptor Area (SRA) 18 (Central Orange County Coastal). The SCAQMD's Costa Mesa monitoring station is the closest ' station in SRA 18 to the proposed project site. As that station does not monitor PM1e and PM2 5, data from the Mission Viejo Station was used for these criteria pollutants. Data from these stations are summarized in Table 5.2-2. ' The data show occasional violations of the state 8-hour ozone standard and the federal and state PM10 ' standards. The CO standard has not been violated in the last three years at this station. Attainment Status ' Air basins in which ambient air quality standards are exceeded are designated as "nonattainment" areas. 1f standards are met, the area is designated as an "attainment" area. If there is inadequate or ' inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered "unclassified." The Air Basin is designated as nonattainment for State and national PMio and PM2.5 standards, the State ozone 1-hour standard, and the national 8-hour ozone standard. t I ' Sirius Environmental 5.2-11 Marina Park Draft-RE/R Table 5.2-2: Air Quality Summary, Costa Mesa and Mission Viejo Monitoring Stations Air Pollutant, Averaging Time (Units) 2006 2006 2007 Ozone Max. i Hour (ppm) 0.085 j 0.074 0.082 Days> CAAQS (0.09 ppm) 0 ( 0 0 C Max. 8 Hour (ppm) Days >NAAQS (0.08ppmt) 0.072 0 0.062 0 + 0.072 0 Days > CAAQS (0.070 ppm) 2 I 0 2 Course Particulates (PMto) Max. 24-Hour Concentration (µglm) 65 104 489 Annual Average (µg/m3) 28.1 " 38.d Days > CAAQS 24-Hour (50 µg/ m3) 17.5 NAAQS 24-Hour (150 m3)_ 0 0 I 37.3 i 6.1 —Days> µg/ J 1 Pine Particulates (PM2.5) Max. 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) — a 35.3 r 46.9 46.8 — Annual Average (µ m 3) 10.6 Days > NAAQS 24_Hour (35 µg/ in (� 0 Carbon Monoxide --^—� Max 1 Hour(ppm)2 4.51 4.3 ! 4A7 Days > CAAQS (20 ppm) 0 0 0 Days > NAAQS (35 ppm) Max 8 Hour (ppm) v 0 3.16 1 0 3.01 0 3.13 Days > CAAQS (9.0 ppm) 0 0 0 — Days >NAAQS (9.Oppm) 0 0 V ^0 `J Notes: >=exceed ppm=pans per million •=nodata orinsufficient data max =maximum CAAQS =Califomia Ambient Air Quality Standard NAAQS= National Ambient Air Quality Standard The ARB reported the days over the old 1997 8-hour standard or0.08 ppm. The standard has recently been revised to 0.075 ppm. 2 The ARB does not report I hour average CO concentrations in its database, only 8-hour CO concentrations. Therefore, the 1-hour CO concentration was derived by dividing the 8-hour concentration by 0.7 (CO Protocol). Source: California Air Resources Board, 2008b. 5.2.4 -Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G Environmental Checklist, to determine whether impacts to air quality constitute significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the project: a.) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b.) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 5.2-12 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Air Quallty c.) .Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d.) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ' e.) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Along with the above guidelines from the CEQA Checklist, pursuant to City of Newport Beach ' guidance and interim standard: • Would the project result in more than 1,600 metric tons of CO2 e, (less than significant impact) and if so would the project be substantially consistent with plans and policies designed to reduce greenhouse gases; or would the project exceed 6,000 metric tons CO2e (significant ' impact). The following analysis uses numeric thresholds of significance for construction and operation as identified by SCAQMD in their CEQA Handbook (see Table 5.2-3 below and the discussion under below). 5.2-13 5.2.5 - Project Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation ' measures where necessary. Analytical Methodology tThe air quality analysis for the proposed project is based on the methods and significance criteria set forth in the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The analysis included construction and operational air quality modeling, and greenhouse gas emissions modeling. URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2 was ' used to quantify project -related emissions, except that tugboat emission factors were obtained from the Port of Long Beach Emissions Inventory for 2007, as discussed in more detail in Appendix C. ' Per comments submitted by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) during the Notice of Preparation comment period, the air quality analysis included estimation of PM2.s emissions and use of the Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). The analysis assumed compliance with ' applicable SCAQMD rules. The CO2 hotspot analysis used the CALINE4 model, which has several inputs. One input is the traffic volumes, which was provided by the project -specific Traffic Analysis. ' The traffic volumes used in this analysis are the existing+ growth +cumulative + project peak PM hour volumes. The traffic volumes contain cumulative traffic; therefore, this analysis presents a worst -case scenario. The emission factors used in the CALINE4 model were generated using the ' EMFAC2007 model for the year 2010. ' The SCAQMD recommended the preparation of a Health Risk Assessment if the project would attract toxic air contaminant generators such as heavy-duty diesel vehicles, but because the proposed project would not do so, an HRA was not prepared. ' Sirius Environmental 5.2-13 Air Quality Marine Park Draft RE1R The air quality modeling output is provided in Appendix C, which also provides details of the methodology? Construction Impacts 5.2-A: The project could exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds during the construction phase of the project. ' SCAQMD Significance Criteria Regional significance thresholds have been establishedby SCAQMD. Projects within the South Coast Air Basin region with construction emissions in excess of any of the regional thresholds in Table 5.2-3 are considered to have t1 significant impact. The localized significance thresholds (LSTs) shown in Table 5.2-3 represent the maximum emissions from a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable state or national ambient air quality standard. The LSTs are developed based on the ambient corlcentrations.of NOx, CO, PMIo, and PM2.5 for each source receptor area, Table 5.2-3: Construction Significance Thresholds Pollutant Regional Threshold (pounds per day) I Localized Significance Threshold Nitrogen Oxides (NO,) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 100 75 197 None Particulate Matter (PMto) 150 ~� 14 Particulate Matter (PMas) _T 55 9 Oxides of Sulfur (SO.) 150 550 None 1,711 Carbon.Monoxide (CO) ppm = pans per million µglm3 = micrograms per cubic meter Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD 2006 and SCAQMD 2008b) for source receptor area 18 for 5-acre disturbed per day, for receptor distance 25 meters. Regional Impact Analysis Construction of the proposed project would result in air emissions (Table 5.2-4) from the construction equipment exhaust, worker vehicles, fugitive dust, and on -road truck travel. As shown in the table, Phases 1 and 2 are not anticipated to result in significant impacts; however, construction of the Phase 3 full buildout (prior to mitigation) would result in emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for NOx. 2 The on -road vehicular operational air quality analysis is based on the previous traffic analysis that included a greater net increase in project trips (as it assumed that existing trips from the mobile home park were less than the ITE trip generation rate because they were based on counts taken when units were potentially not fully occupied); therefore this analysis results in a more conservative evaluation of project operational impacts than are now anticipated. I I I H 1 u IJ 7 5.2.14 Sirius Environmental I ' Marina Park Draft REIR Air Quah Localized Impact Analysis For purposes of CEQA, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual (children, the elderly, and persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular ' illness) could remain for 24 hours, such as residences, hospitals, or convalescent facilities. Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition because employees do not t typically remain onsite for 24 hours. However, when assessing the impact of pollutants with I -hour or 8-hour standards (such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide), .commercial and/or industrial facilities would be considered sensitive receptors. Because the existing mobile home and community facilities would be removed prior the construction ' of the project, the closest sensitive receptors for the purposes of the localized impact analysis are residential land uses located to the south and west of the project site. There are several mobile homes and a hotel located to the west of the project site, across 18°i Street, at an approximate distance of 12 meters (40 feet) from the project boundary. There are also residences located approximately 30 meters (100 feet) south of the project boundary, across West Balboa Boulevard as well as residences about 60 meters (66 feet) from the proposed tennis courts on 15°i street. In addition, the project encompasses the public beach on the west side of the project site. The nearest church from the project site is approximately 97.5 meters (320 feet) from the southeast corner of the project boundary. The Newport Elementary is the closest school to the project site, located approximately 253 meters (830 feet) from the southeast corner of tite project boundary. Although there are other sensitive receptors at greater distances from the project, this assessment identifies the nearest sensitive receptors because they would receive the greatest impact from the ' onsite project emissions; if they would experience no significant impacts, then receptors farther away would likewise not experience significant impacts. The localized analysis only includes onsite ' emissions, such as from the off -road equipment and fugitive dust. Some of the off -road equipment, such as the tug/barge operation, would operate offsite, but to present a worst -case scenario, it is assumed that all off -road emissions would occur onsite. 1 d F L ISinus Environmental 5.2.15 Air Quality Marina Park Draft REIR I Table 5.2-4: Regional Construction Emissions (Unmitigated) Emissions (pounds per day) i Phase VOC No. CO SOx PMto PM2.5 Phase 1 2 Demolition 2 12 8 0 1 Mass grading 5.7 50.4 - 25.8 - <0.1 52.3 12.6 Phase 2- '---I- ! - - -- -- --- 12.6 Massgrading' - - 5.7 -- 50.4 25.8 <0.1 ' 52.3 Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Phases 1 and 2 Significant No� No No No No NO Impact? - --- -- --- -- Phase 3 Sand/soil export by truck 0.4 5.1 2:0 <0.1 0.2 0.2 Sand export by tugboat/barge 3.7 54.9 12.9 0.5 2.2 2.0 Subtotal 10 110 41 1 55 IS 23 - —12 - 0 1 1 5T Trenching ---- — 3 - Building and fine grading ! 8 45 39 <1' —<l - 13 -- - Building - --------,I---4--- -19 25 I 1 Building, coating, and asphalt 66 37 38 <1 3 3 paving - 66 , - --- --- 15 �_— --I--- Maximum Daily Emissions -- 110 _ — - - 41 1 55 75 150 150 SS Significance Threshold 100 550 Phase 3 Significant Impact? No yes No No No No VOC = volatile organic compounds NOx = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide SO =sulfur oxides PMtoand PMzs=particulatematter The maximum daily emissions refer to the maximum emissions thatwould occur in one day. Note that mass grading and export of sand is assumed to occur at the same time. Mass grading for Phase I ,would be worst case emissions for Phase 2 which would involve similar to less grading and laying of sod. Source: Michael Brandman Associates 2008. Sirius Environmental 2009 I r I I h I i The results of the localized analysis (Table 5.2-5) indicate that PMta and PM2.5 emitted during grading, both the initial grading to be undertaken during Phase 1 and the fine grading to be ' undertaken during Phase 2 could exceed the LSTs at the nearest sensitive receptors. The calculated concentrations would be greatest near the boundary of the project site, immediately adjacent to the area being graded, and would disperse rapidly. I I i! 5.2.16 Sirius Environmental I I Marina Park Draft REIR Air Quality I H I 1 J 1 J I Table 5.2-5: Localized Significance Analysis (Construction, Unmitigated) Activity Onsite.Emissions (pounds per day) N% CO' PMio' PM2.6 Phase 1 Demolition 10 G 2 1 Mass grading 50 24 52 13 Phase 2 Mass grading 50 24 52 13 Localized Significance Threshold 197 1,711 14 9 Phases I and 2 Significant Impact? No No Yes Yes Phase 3 Trenching 24 11 1 1 Building and fine grading 44 25 12 4 Building 17 12 1 1 Building, coating, and asphalt paving 34 21 3 3 Maximum Daily Emissions during Phase 3 44 25 12 4 Localized Significance Threshold 197 1,711 14 9 Phase 3 Significant Impact? No No No No Note: Each of the above activities does not occur at the same time; therefore, the maximum daily emissions are assumed to be the maximum emissions value of the activities that would occur in one day. Mass grading for Phase I would likely be worst case; emissions for Phase 2 would involve similar to less grading and laying of sod. Source of LST: SCAQMD mass rate localized significance thresholds for SRA 18, 25 meter distance. Mitigation Measures The City of Newport Beach shall apply the following mitigation measures to construction activities: MM 5.2-A.1 During all phases of project construction, the City of Newport Beach shall limit grading and earth moving to no more than five acres per day. MM 5.2-A.2 During all phases of project construction the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that the following methods to reduce fugitive dust emissions are undertaken: • Exposed soil and sand surfaces shall be watered periodically to reduce dust. • Construction equipment speed on unpaved areas shall be limited to less than 15 miles per hour. MM 5.2-A.3 During Phase 3 project construction, the City of Newport Beach shall require tugboat(s) used in sand export activities to have a propulsion engine built after the year 2000 or meeting Year 2000 emissions standards. ' Sirius Environmental 5.2.17 Air Quality Marina Park Draft REIR ' Level of Significance After Mitigation As shown in Table 5.2-6 MM 5.2-A.3 would reduce emissions ofNOx to below the regional significance threshold because newer tugboat engines emit IessNOx per horsepower hour than older engines. Emissions of CO would also be reduced by MM 5.2-A.3, and all three mitigation measures would reduce emissions of PM. Table 5.2.6: Regional Construction Emissions (Mitigated) Emissions (pounds per day) Phase VOC NO, CO SOx PMto PMzs Phases l � � - _ .._-_ . _I . • -_ _ Demolition -- ---�-- 2`j l2 8 0 �--_2 -- --- 1--- Mass grading 5.7 ' 50.4 I 25.8 <0.1 1 52.3 12.6 Phase 2 I Mass grading' -- -- 5.7 75 50.4 100 _ 25.8 - 550 <0.I 52.3 150 12.6 55 Significance Threshold 150 Significant impact Phases I No No No No No No and 2? - -- - --j- - -- ---� -- - - --<0.1 i --- -' -0.2- Phase 3- Sand export by truck — �- 0.4- 5:1- 2.0 0.2 Sand export by tugboat 3.0 31.5 8.7 0.5 I 1.6 1.4 Subtotal I 9 87 37 1 54 14 Trenching 3 23 12 0 1 1 Building and fine grading 8 45 39 J <1 13 5 Building - 4 19 -- - - 37 25 <I 1 1 Building, coating, and asphalt --� - 66 -- 38 <t 3 3 paving Maximum Daily Emissions i 66 I 75 87 100 39 550 1 150 I 54 150 14 `55 Significance Threshold _ -i Significant impact Phase 3? I No No No - - No No No VOC = volatile organic compounds NOx = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide S%=sulfur oxides PM10and PMZ5= particulate matter The maximum daily emissions refer to the maximum emissions that would occur in one day. Note that mass grading and export of sand is assumed to occur at the same time. Mass grading for Phase I would be worst case emissions for Phase 2 which would involve similar to less grading and laying of sod. Source: Michael Brandman Associates 2008. I I CI u 0 0 As shown in Table 5.2-7, short-term localized emissions after implementation of the above mitigation measures would not exceed any of the LSTs. Mitigation Measures MM 5.2-A.1 and MM 5.2-A.2 would limit the amount of grading and fugitive dust, thus reducing PM emissions from project construction enough to avoid a potential exceedance of a localized threshold. ' 5.2-18 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Air Quality I I t u I I Table 5.2-7: Localized Significance Analysis (Construction, Mitigated) Activity Onsite,Emissions (pounds per day) _.- - -- -'--• h --- I NOX CO PM�o PMzs Phases 1 Demolition 10 6 2 1 Mass grading 40 20 10 4 Phase 2 Mass grading' 40 20 10 4 Localized Significance Threshold 197 1,711 14 9 Significant Impact Phases 1 and 2? No A No No Phase 3 Trenching 24 11 1 1 Building and fine grading 44 25 5 3 Building 17 12 1 1 Building, coating, and asphalt paving 34 21 3 3 Maximum Daily Emissions 44 25 10 4 Localized Significance Threshold 197 1,711 14 9 Significant Impact Phase 3? No No No No Note: Each of the above activities does not occur at the same time; therefore, the maximum daily emissions. represent the maximum emissions that would occur in one day. Mass grading for Phase 1 would be worst case emissions for Phase 2 which would involve similar to less grading and laying of sod. Source: Michael Brandman Associates 2008. Sirius Environmental 2009 Operational Emissions 5.2•B: The project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds during operation. ' Projects within the South Coast Air Basin region with operational -phase emissions in excess of any of ' the thresholds established by the SCAQMD are considered to have a significant impact on air quality. Those thresholds are: ' • NOx, VOC,'and PM2.s 55 pounds per day; • PMto and SOX 150 pounds per day; and • CO 550 pounds per day. I ' Sirius Environmental 5.2.19 Marina Park Draft REIR F Impact Analysis Existing Emissions Emissions from the 57-unit mobile home park (Table 5.2-8) were estimated using the estimated trips provided in the project traffic study (Appendix K).s Table 5.2-8: Existing Emissions Source Emissions (pounds per day) CO SO VOC NO, -- _ s, i PMta PMZ6 ' i _ I Summer: Operational 2A 2.7 25.0 0.0 3A 0.7 Summer: Area * 3.9 1.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Summer: Existing Total 6.3 3,7 29.8 0.0 3.4 0.7 Winter: Operational 2.4 3.2 _ 24.2 0.0 3.4 0.7 Winter: Area* 3.3 1.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 Winter: Existing Total - - 5.7 4.6 24.8 0.0 3.4 0.7 Notes: VOC = volatile organic compounds NOx = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide SOx=sulfur oxides PMtoand pM2s=particulate matter * Area sources include natural gas, landscape, consumer products, and painting. Source: URBEMIS Output, Appendix C. Michael Brandman Associates 2008 Project Emissions Operational, or long-term, emissions occur over the life of the project. Operational emissions include mobile and area source emissions. Area source emissions are from consumer products, heaters that consume natural gas, gasoline -powered landscape equipment, and architectural coatings (painting). Mobile emissions from motor vehicles are the largest single long-term source of airpollutants from the project.Estimates of vehicle trips were based on the trip generation rates from the project - specific traffic impact analysis. The Girl Scout House emissions were not calculated as the facility would be built up to its,original intensity and the net emissions would be zero. Operational emissions from vehicles and area sources were estimated using the URBEMIS2007 model. Phases 1 and 2 Phases 1 and 2 of the project would result in fewer trips (as well as less on -site consumption of electricity and natural gas as a result of elimination of the mobile homes) and therefore would result in fewer air emissions -than existing uses. 3 As noted earlier the on road vehicular operational emissions analysis is based on the previous traffic study that used existing trips from trip counts that could have resulted in undercounting of existing trips. The air quality analysis is therefore based on a slightly greater net increase in trips than is currently identified in the traffic study and therefore represents a conservative analysis of air quality impacts. I I I E I 5.2.20 Sirius Environmental F IMarina Park Draft REIR Air Quality Phase 3 The visiting vessel marina includes 23 slips ,40-feet in length. One additional side tie and a 200-foot ' long dock are provided. The water -side facilities include an accessible ramp (with a locking gate) and a floating dock structure that will provide on -water storage for sabots (dinghies), CFJ's (small sailboats), 420's and other dingy -type craft that might be used by the sailing program. Space is provided for 30 sabot (on deck) and 45 small sailboats. Sailboats can use onboard engines to taxi in and out of docking areas. Emissions were estimated assuming 100 boats would taxi for one hour per ' day. Emission factors were generated by the U.S. EPA model, NONROAD. Operational emissions are shown in Table 5.2-9 for the summer season and Table 5.2-10 for the winter season. As shown in the tables, project emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD's regional thresholds and are considered less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. ' Table 5.2-9: Phase 3 Operational Emissions (Summer, Unmitigated) !I I n Source -- VOC NOx Emissions (pounds per day) - i CO SO. �' - PMio--PM2.e _ Project Vehicles 4.8 6.7 58.6 0.1 10.0 1.9 Project Area * 0.7N55 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Project Marina Boats 2.4 8.4 2.2 1.8 1.6 Project Subtotal 7.9 71.9 2.3 11.8 3.5 Existing -6.3 -29.8 0.0 -3.4 -0.7 Net New Emissions 1.6 42.1 2.3 8.4 2.8 Significance Threshold 55 550 150 150 55 Significant impact? No No No No No No Notes: VOC = volatile organic compounds NOx = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide SOx = sulfur oxides PMIO and PM2 s = particulate matter * Area sources include natural gas, landscape, consumer products, and painting. Source: URBEMIS Output, Appendix C. Michael Brandman Associates 2008 ' Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. LJ 1 I tSirius Environmental 5.2-21 Air Quality Marina Park Draft REIR IJ Table-5.2-10: Phase 3 Operational Emissions (Winter, Unmitigated) t -Source Emissions (pounds per day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Project Operational 5.3 8.0 56.5 0.1 9.9 1.9 Project Area * 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Project Marina Boats 2.4 13.9 8A 2.2 1.8 1.6 �3.5 65.2 `F-0.0 2.3 11.7 Project Subtotal - _ - 8.0 22.2 -0.7 Existing _ -5.7 -4.6 -24.8 3.4 Net New Emissions 2.3 17.6 40.4 2.3 8.3 2.8 Significance ThresholdA� 55 a55SSO I50 150 55 NoNo No Significant Impact? No No Natesf VOC=volatile organic compounds SOx=sulfur oxides NOx- nitrogen oxides PM,oarid PM25=particulate matter CO = carbon monoxide * Areasourecs include natural gas, landscape, consumer products, and painting. Source: URBEMIS Output, Appendix C. Michael Bmndmdn Associates 2008 Carbon Monoxide Hotspot Analysis 5.2-C: The project would not cause or contribute to a carbon monoxide violation from project -related and cumulative traffic during operation. Project and Cumulative Analysis Phases 1 and 2 Project traffic under Phases I and 2 is anticipated'.to be less than existing, therefore Phases 1 and 2 would not result in an increase in CO emissions at local intersections as compared to today. Phase 3 The intersections of Newport Blvd. and Via Lido and Newport Blvd. and 32"d Street were analyzed, as these intersections experienced the greatest increase in project trips.° ° As noted earlier this analysis is based on the previous traffic study tlmt included a greater increase in net project trips (net increase of 352 trips compared to the 261 trips now identified; peak hour increase of 18 trips at Newport and Via Lido and 19 peak hour trips atNevport and 32nd compared to current peak hour increase of 7 and respectively). The current analysis includes fewer project trips distributed in the same manner, thus this analysis presents a conservative analysis of project impacts. The revised traffic analysis includes a greater number of cumulative emissions but that does not affect the project impact. 1 LI 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 11 5.2.22 Sirius Environmental i Marina Park Draft REIR Air Quality r Table 5.2-11: CO Phase 3 Concentrations 1 Hour Estimated 8 Hour Estimated Significant Intersection CO Concentration CO Concentration Impact?""' (pPm) (PPm)" Newport Blvd and Via Lido 6.2 4.3 No Newport Blvd and 32"d Street 6.4 4.5 No Source: Michael Brandman Associates 2008. As shown in Table 5.2-11 the estimated ]-hour and 8-hour average CO concentrations at build -out of Phase 3 in 2010 in combination with background concentrations are below the state and national ambient air quality standards. While it is now unlikely that Phase 3 will build out in 2010, 2010 represents a conservative case as project and background emissions are projected to decrease considerably as the years progress as a result of ongoing emission controls. No CO hotspots are anticipated because of traffic -generated emissions by the proposed project or in combination with ' other anticipated development in the area. Therefore, the mobile emissions of CO from the project are not anticipated to contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation of CO. I I t I i I Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Air Quality Plan 5.2-D: The project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Thresholds of Significance The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The assessment is conducted using the following criteria to determine project consistency with the current Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Project Impact Analysis Project's Contribution to Air Quality Violations According to the SCAQMD (1993), a project is consistent with the AQMP if it will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP (SCAQMD 1993, Page 12-3). As shown in Impact 5.2-E, with mitigation the project would comply with applicable air quality standards. Therefore, the project would comply with this criterion and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation. I Sirius Environmental 5.2-23 Air Quality Marina Park Draft REIR ' Control Measures The next criterion is compliance with the control measures in the 2003 AQMP and the 2007 AQMP. The 2007 AQMP has been adopted by the SCAQMD and ARB, but has not been adopted by the U.S. ' EPA. Therefore, the two plans are discussed herein. The 2003 AQMP contains a number of land use and transportation control measures including the following: the District's Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures; State Control Measures proposed by ARB; and Transportation Control Measures provided by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) (AQMP 2003, Page 4-3). ARB's strategy for reducing mobile ' source emissions include the following approaches: new engine standards; reduced emissions from in -use fleet, require clean fuels, support alternative fuels and reduce petroleum dependency, work ' with EPA to reduce emissions from national and state sources, and pursue long-term advanced technology measures (AQMP 2003, Page 4-25). Transportation control measures provided by SCAG include those contained in the Regional Transportation Plans (RTP), the most current version being ' the 2004 RTP (SCAG 2004). The RTP has control measures to reduce emissions from on -road sources by incorporating strategies such as high occupancy vehicle interventions, transit, and information -based technology interventions (AQMP 2003, Page 4-19). The measures implemented by ARB and SCAG affect the project indirectly by regulating the vehicles that the residents may use and regulating public transportation. The project indirectly will comply with the control measures set by ARB and SCAG. The 2007 AQMP aims to attain the federal PM2.5 and 9-hour ozone standards by 2015 and 2024, respectively. This is done by building upon improvements from the previous plans and incorporating all feasible control measures while balancing costs and socioeconomic impacts. The 2007 AQMP indicates that PM2.5 is formed primarily secondarily. Therefore, instead of reducing fugitive dust, the strategy for reducing PM2.5 focuses on reducing precursor emissions of SOx, directly -emitted t PM2.5, NOx, and VOC. The Final 2007 AQMP control measures consist of four components: 1) the SCAQMD's Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures; 2) ARB's Proposed State Strategy; 3) SCAQMD Staff's Proposed Policy Options to Supplement ARB's Control Strategy; and 4) Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures provided by SCAG. The project (all three phases) would comply with all of the SCAQMD's applicable rules and regulations. Therefore, the project , would comply with this criterion. Compliance with the City General Plan The City of Newport Beach General Plan designates the project site as PR (Parks and Recreation) and PF (Public Facility). The project would be consistent with the General Plan, and would not increase ' emissions above what was designated for the site. Mitigation Measures Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.2.A-1 and MM 5.2.A-2 are required. 5.2.24 Sirius Environmental J Marina Park Draft REIR I i U J f I F I Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Air Quality Violations Impact 5.2-E: The project could violate an air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Impact Analysis The South Coast Air Basin, the geographical area in which the project is located, is in nonattainment for PMio, PM2.5, and ozone. Levels of ozone and PMio are locally high enough that contributions from new sources could add to the concentrations of those pollutants and contribute to a projected air quality violation. Two criteria are used to assess the significance of this impact: 1) the localized construction analysis (see Impact 5.2-A); and 2) the CO hotspot analysis (see Impact 5.2-C). The localized construction analysis uses thresholds that represent the maximum emissions for a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable national or state ambient air quality standard. These LSTs are specific to each source receptor area. If the project results in emissions that do not exceed those thresholds, it follows that it would not cause or contribute to a local exceedance of the standard. The localized construction analysis demonstrated that with mitigation (Phases 1 and 2; no mitigation is needed for Phase 3) , the project would not exceed localized thresholds at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, according to this criterion, the air pollutant emissions during construction would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. A CO hotspot analysis is the appropriate tool to determine if project emissions of CO during operation could exceed ambient air quality standards. The main source of air pollutant emissions during operation are from offsite motor vehicles traveling on the roads surrounding the project site. The CO hotspot analysis demonstrated that project emissions of CO during operation would not result in an exceedance of the most stringent ambient air quality standards for CO (Phases 1 and 2 would be less than existing conditions; Phase 3 would be less than significant). Therefore, according to this criterion, air pollutant emissions during operation would result in a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.2-A.1 through MM 5.2-A.3 are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Cumulative Impacts 5.2-F: The project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). 1 Sirius Environmental 5.2.25 AlrQuality Marina Park Draft REIR Threshold of Significance The following tiered approach is used to assess cumulative air quality impacts. 1. Consistency with the regional thresholds for nonattainment pollutants; 2. Project consistency with existing air quality plans and determination of cumulatively ' considerable contribution; 3. Assessment of the cumulative health effects of the pollutants. Impact Analysis Regional.Analysis If an area is in nonattainment for a criteria pollutant, then the background concentration of that pollutant has historically been over the ambient air quality standard. it follows that if a project exceeds the regional threshold for that nonattainment pollutant, then it would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of that pollutant and result in a significant -cumulative impact. ' The South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for PMIo, PM2 5, and ozone. Therefore, if a project exceeds the regional thresholds for PMIo, or PM2.5, then it contributes to a cumulatively considerable ' impact forthose pollutants. Additionally, if the project exceeds the regional threshold for NOx or VOC, then it follows that a project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact for ozone. The regional significance analysis of construction emissions demonstrated that emissions of VOC, PMIo, and PM2.5 would not be over SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. Therefore, the ; project does not contribute to a cumulatively significant regional impact to the budget of the pollutants PMIo and PM2.5. The regional analysis demonstrated that emissions ofNOx (during removal of sand and soil by truck and barge) would not be,over the,regional significance threshold ' with the implementation of mitigation. Therefore, with•mitigation the project would not significantly contribute to the ozone budget in the South Coast Air Basin. Other criteria pollutants would not contribute to a cumulative effect because the background levels are not high enough for project concentrations to make a substantial difference in the overall , cumulative concentration. Plan Approach The geographic scope for cumulative air quality impacts is the South Coast Air Basin because that is the area in which the air pollutants generated by the sources within the Basin circulate and are often ' trapped. SCAQMD is required to prepare and maintain an AQMP and a State Implementation Plan to document the strategies and measures to be undertaken to reach attainment of ambient air quality standards. While the SCAQMD does not have direct authority over land use decisions, it was recognized that changes in land use and circulation planning were necessary to maintain clean air. The SCAQMD evaluated the entire Basin when it developed the AQMP. According to the analysis ' 5.2.26 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Air Quality ' contained in Impact 5.2-D, with mitigation the project would be consistent with the most -recent AQMP. ' Cumulative Health Impacts The Basin is in nonattainment for ozone, PM,o, and PM2.5, which means that the background levels of those pollutants are at times higher than the ambient air quality standards. The air quality standards were set to protect public health, including the health of sensitive individuals (i.e„ elderly, children, and the sick). Therefore, when the concentration of those pollutants exceeds the standard, it is likely ' that some sensitive individuals in the population experience health effects. However, the health effects are a factor of the dose -response curve. Concentration of the pollutant in the air (dose), the length of time exposed, and the response of the individual are factors involved in severity and nature of health impacts. If a significant health impact results from project emissions, it does not mean that 100 percent of the population would experience health effects. 11 u I I 1 F I I The regional analysis of construction and operational emissions indicates that without mitigation the project would exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for NOx (ozone precursor) during removal of sand and soil by barge and truck. Because ozone is a secondary pollutant (it is not emitted directly but formed by chemical reactions in the air), it can be formed miles downwind of the project site. Without mitigation, project emissions of NOx would contribute to the background concentration of ozone and cumulatively cause health effects. Health effects of ozone could include the following: (a) Decrease of pulmonary function and localized lung edema in humans and animals; (b) Risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (c) Increased mortality risk; and/or (d) Risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans. With mitigation (measures MM 5.2- A.I through MM 5.2-A.3) this would be a less than significant cumulative health impact. During grading in both Phases 1 and 2, as was shown in the localized analysis, without mitigation the project could result in a significant cumulative contribution to PMZ 5 and PMIo at nearby sensitive receptors during Phase 1 and 2 grading activities. Sensitive individuals may experience health impacts when concentrations of those pollutants exceed the ambient air quality standards. Health impacts may include the following: (a) exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients with respiratory or cardiovascular disease; (b) declines in pulmonary function growth in children; and/or (c) increased risk of premature death from heart or lung diseases in the elderly. This would be a less than significant cumulative health impact with mitigation (measures MM 5.2-A.1 through MM 5.2- A.3). Mitigation Measures Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.2-A.I through MM 5.2-A.3 are required. I Sirius Environmental 5.2-27 Air Quality Marina Park Draft REIR ' Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Therefore, there would not be significant cumulative health effects from implementation of the project. , Sensitive Receptors 5.2-G:The project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impact Analysis ' Construction The localized construction analysis uses thresholds that represent the maximum emissions for a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area. The thresholds ate also based on the location of the sensitive receptors. if the project results in emissions under those thresholds, it follows that the project would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the standard. If the standards are not exceeded at the , sensitive receptor locations, it follows that the receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. ' The localized construction analysis demonstrated that without mitigation, the project would not exceed the localized thresholds for CO or nitrogen dioxide. However, without mitigation the , localized thresholds for PMIo and PM2 5 would be exceeded during Phase I and 2 grading activities. Therefore, during grading activities associated with Phases 1 and 2, without mitigation the project could -expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of PM10 and PM2.s• However, with mitigation this would be a less than significant impact with mitigation. The construction equipment -would emit diesel particulate matter, which is a carcinogen. However, ' the diesel particulate matter emissions are short term in nature. Determination of risk from diesel particulate matter is considered over a 70-year exposure time. Therefore, considering the dispersion of the emissions and the short time frame, exposure to diesel particulate matter is Anticipated to -be less than significant. Operation A CO hotspot analysis is the appropriate tool to determine if project emissions of CO during ' operation would exceed ambient air quality standards. The main source of air pollutant emissions during operation are from offske motor vehicles traveling on the roads surrounding the project. The CO hotspot analysis (Impact 5.2-C) demonstrated that emissions of CO during operation would not , result in an exceedance of the most stringent ambient air quality standards for CO. Therefore, according to this criterion, air pollutant emissions during operation would result in a less than significant impact (emissions would be less than existing during Phases 1 and 2; less than significant during Phase 3). Additionally, the other criteria pollutants would not exceed the regional significance 5.2.28 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Air Q thresholds; therefore, it is anticipated that the project would not expose sensitive receptors during operation. ' The ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook contains recommendations that will "help keep California's children and other vulnerable populations out of harm's way with respect to nearby sources of air pollution," including recommendations for distances between sensitive receptors and certain land uses. Some of the land uses includes freeways, urban roads, distribution centers, fueling stations, and dry cleaners. The proposed project is not located within a distance of concern. Therefore, air pollution from the land uses assessed in the ARB Handbook would not significantly impact the project. ' Indoor air pollutants that may be associated with operation of Phase 3 of the project include VOCs from new carpets and paints, mold spores, radon, cigarette smoke, and combustion sources. The air ' pollutants that are controlled by the construction of the project include VOCs from carpets and paints and radon. VOCs from new carpets and new paint are temporary impacts that can be reduced by ' proper ventilation after installation. The health impact from these sources is anticipated to be less than significant. Radon is a naturally occurring colorless, odorless, and tasteless radioactive gas originating from the ' radioactive decay of uranium in rock, soil, and groundwater. Radon gets inside a building primarily from soil under homes. It is a known human lung carcinogen and is the largest source of radiation exposure to the general public. Most is rapidly exhaled; however, the inhaled decay products can deposit into the lung where they irradiate sensitive airway cells increasing the risk of lung cancer. According to the EPA map of radon zones, the project is within zone 2, which has a moderate potential for radon exposure. It is anticipated that current building codes that require adequate ventilation would mitigate the potential of radon exposure to less than significant levels. ' Operation of Phases 1 and 2 would result in fewer emissions than existing conditions. During operation of Phase 3-of the project, the only known sources of toxic pollutants would be benzene ' and/or diesel particulate matter from the exhaust of vehicles and boat engines that would access the project site and from the vehicles on the surrounding roadway network. The project would result in ' similar levels of vehicular (including boat) activity as compared to existing uses in the area; the project would not result in a significant increase in criteria pollutant emissions and similarly would not be expected to result in a significant increase in benzene or diesel particulate matter. Levels of ' toxic pollutants therefore are not expected to be high enough to evoke a negative health consequence. The impact from toxic pollutants is less than significant. ' Mitigation Measures Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.2-A.1 MM through MM 5.2-A.3 are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. ' Sirius Environmental 5.2-29 Air Quality Marina Perk Draft REIR 1 Objectionable Odors 5.2-H: The project would not, create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Impact Analysis Land uses typically considered to be associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste -disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. The project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. During all Phases of the project, diesel exhaust will be emitted during construction (from the heavy duty equipment) and operation (from the boat diesel engines). VOCs will also be emitted during construction of the project from painting and asphalt paving. These odors are objectionable to some; however, the odors would be short term and would disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore should not be at a level to induce a negative response. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 5.2-I: The project could result in an increase In greenhouse gas emissions that could significantly hinder or delay the State's ability to meet the reduction targets contained In AS 32. As indicated above the City of Newport Beach currently considers projects emitting 1,600 metric tons of CO2e per year or Jess to be less than Significant with no further analysis required. For projects exceeding the screening threshold of 1,600 metric tons of CO2e per year, the City considers projects to have significant impacts if they either (1) are not substantially consistent with policies and standards set out in federal, state, and local plans designed to reduce greenhouse gas emission or (2) would emit more than 6,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. ImpactAnalysis Construction Emissions from the combustion of fuel from construction equipment and associated worker vehicles were estimated using URBEMIS2007. The emissions of carbon dioxide from project construction equipment and worker vehicles are shown in Table 5.2-12. Emissions of nitrous oxide and methane are anticipated to be negligible. As shown in Table 5.2-12, onshe emissions total 567 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCOze) from all phases of construction. r I I n I r I I fJ I I 1 5.2.30 Sirius Environmental I IMarina Park Draft REIR Air I I I I I I I I i I I I I LJ I Table 5.2-12: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Unmitigated) Phase 1 ,Carbon Dioxide Emissions Emissions (MTCO2e) (tons) Phase 1 Demolition 6 5 Mass grading 110 100 Phase 2 Mass grading[ 110 100 Phase 3 Export of sand via tugboat 42 38 Trenching 13 12 Building 301 273 Fine grading 26 24 Asphalt paving 15 14 Architectural Coating 1 1 Total 624 567 MTCOxe = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, converted from tons by multiplying by 0.9072 'Mass grading for Phase I would be worst case emissions for Phase 2 which would involve similar to less grading and laying of sod. Source: Michael Brandman Associates 2008, Appendix C. Sirius Environmental 2009 Operation Operational emissions are emissions that would occur over the life of the project. Operational emissions include emissions from landscaping equipment, indirect emissions from transporting water to the project, indirect electricity emissions, natural gas combustion, refrigerants (air conditioning and refrigerators), and motor vehicles. Only the main sources of emissions were estimated; minor sources such as landscaping emissions are not shown. Emissions from the existing 57-unit mobile home park were accounted for and are shown in Table 5.2-135 The Girl Scout House emissions were not calculated as the facility will be built up to its original intensity and the net emissions would be zero. However, indirect electricity and natural gas emissions from the Girl Scout House would be reduced as a result of compliance with updated Title 24 energy efficiency regulations. Since Phases 1 and 2 would result in fewer trips and less consumption of electricity and natural gas, greenhouse gas emissions under Phases 1 and 2 of the project would be less than existing. The operational emissions from full buildout of the project under Phase 3 are shown in Table 5.2-13. As shown in the table, there would be a post -project increase of 667 MTCO2e per year. 5 The on -road vehicular operational air quality analysis is based on the previous traffic analysis that included a greater net increase in project trips (as it assumed that existing trips from the mobile home park were less than the iTE trip generation rate because they were based on counts taken when units were potentially not fully occupied); therefore this analysis results in a more conservative evaluation of project operational impacts than are now anticipated. I Sirius Environmental 5.2.3t Air Quality Marina Park Draft 'REIR Table 5.2-13, Phase 3 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Unmitigated) Emissions - Metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents per year (MTCOse/year) source Existing Phase 3 Project Difference in (57 moblie homes) Emissions Water transp on for bu I I d I ng uses -20 ' 10 -10 and landscaping indirect electricity -117 -197 106 1 ( 65 1 -11 -132 Natural gas - ----- ------ ----- - -- --- -- -- - - --- - -- - -- -- —---- --- Refrigerants -370 2----76 I -94 Boats 0 257 Total — - - -1,047 _ 1,714 Source: Michael Bmndmnn Associates 2008, Appendix C. Sirius Environmental 2009 Several greenhouse gases were not estimated for the following reasons. The project would not contribute substantially to water vapor. Ozone is a greenhouse gas; however, unlike the other greenhouse gases, ozone in the troposphere is relatively short-lived and therefore is not,global in nature. Aerosols can contribute to global warming and cooling; however, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not have global warming potentials for aerosols due to the low level of scientific certainty (IPCC 2007). Additionally, ozone and aerosols are not included in the ARB inventory of greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the project's contribution of aerosols and ozone is not estimated. There is a ban on chlorofluorocarbons; therefore, the project would not generate emissions of these greenhouse gases and they are not considered any further in this analysis. Perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are typically used in industrial applications, none of which would be used by the Onsite Greenhouse Gas Reduction Options Although not required by statute or regulation, or by City policy, there are voluntary greenhouse gas reduction strategies available for projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element includes policies that potentially reduce energy use and vehicle miles traveled. The California Attorney General has provided suggestions on ways to reduce overall impacts. The ARB approved a Scoping Plan in December 2008, which includes a few measures that would be applicable to the project. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research has.also suggested mitigation measures. These policies and measures are assessed below to determine the applicability and feasibility of such reduction measures to the proposed project. 5.2.32 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Air Quality General Plan The City of Newport Beach General Plan does not contain specific greenhouse gas or climate change policies or goals. However, the Natural Resources Element includes policies that have the potential to reduce indirect greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle miles traveled and energy use. Therefore, compliance with the applicable policies would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Project consistency with applicable policies is shown in Table 5.8-1 in the Land Use section of this document. As shown in the table, with mitigation, the project would be consistent with the applicable policies except for NR 6.8, which recommends supporting the development of alternative fuel infrastructure; the project does not address this policy. Attorney General The Office of the California Attorney General has distributed voluntary mitigation measures and resources (AG 2008). Feasible applicable mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are included as mitigation measures below (see measuresMM-5.2-1.5 to MM-5.2-1.11). CAPCOA ' On January 8, 2008, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) released a paper to provide a common platform of information and tools for public agencies. The disclaimer states that it is not a guidance document but a resource to enable local decision makers to make the ' best decisions they can in the face of incomplete information during a period of change. The paper indicates that it is an interim resource and does not endorse any particular approach. It discusses ' three groups of potential thresholds, including a no significance threshold, a threshold of zero, and a non -zero threshold (CAPCOA 2008). The non -zero quantitative thresholds as identified in the paper range from 900 to 50,000 metric tons per year. The paper also contains sample mitigation measures. ' The feasible measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are included as mitigation measures (see measures MM-5.2-1.5 to MM-5.2-I.11). ' OPR The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published Draft CEQA Guidelines to address ' Greenhouse Gases (April 13, 2009), which provide general regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in CEQA documents. Previously OPR published a Technical Advisory, which provided informal guidance regarding the steps lead agencies should take to address climate change in their CEQA documents. The Advisory contains examples of mitigation measures used by some public agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions provided for illustrative purposes only. Table 5.2-14 analyzes project consistency with the example measures. The feasible measures are included as mitigation measures in this analysis. As shown in the table, many of the example ' measures are not applicable to the project; some of the measures are feasible and are applied as mitigation measures. ' Sirius Environmental 5.2.33 Air Quality Marina Park Draft REIR I Table 5.244: Consistency with OPR Example Mitigation Measures Example Measure Project Applicability or Feasibillty Laid Use and Transportation Implement land use strategies to encouragejobs/housing Consistent. Although the project does proximity, promote transit -oriented development, and encourage not included a residential component it high density development along transit corridors. Encourage is locating the recreational facility near compact, mixed -use projects, forming urban villages designed to residential development, which will maximize affordable housing and encourage walking, bicycling provides the opportunity to walk to and the use of public transit systems, recreation and reduce vehicle miles traveled. Encourage infill, redevelopment, and higher density development, Consistent with the nature of the whether in incorporated or unincorporated settings. project as infill development. _ Encourage new developments to integrate housing, civic and Consistent. The project provides retail amenities (jobs, schools, parks, shopping opportunities) to recreational opportunities near existing help reduce VMT resulting from discretionary automobile trips. residential and employment centers. Incorporate features into project design that would accommodate Consistent. The project is located near the supply of frequent, reliable and convenient public transit, existing public transit. Implement street improvements that are designed to relieve Consistent. The City implements street pressure on a region's most congested roadways and improvements as necessary. intersections. Urban Forestry Plant trees and vegetationnear structures to shade buildings and Consistent with implementation of reduce energy requirements for heating/cooling. Mitigation Measure 5.2.1.6. Preserve or replace onsite trees (that are removed due to Consistent. The project -design includes orage development) as a means of providing carbon st_ — trees. Green Buildings Encourage public and private construction of LEED (Leadership Consistent with implementation of in Energy and Environmental Design) certified (or equivalent) Mitigation Measures MM 5.2-1.5,-MM buildings. 5.2-1.6, and MM 5.2-1.7 which require LEED similar credits. Energy Conservation Policies and Actions _ Recognize and promote energy saving measures beyond Title 24 Consistent with implementation of requirements for residential and commercial projects. Mitigation Measure MM 5.2-1.6. Where feasible, include in new buildings facilities to support the use of low/zero carbon fueled vehicles, such.as the charging of electric vehicles from green electricity sources. Programs to Reduce Solid Waste Implement a Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Ordinance to reduce the solid waste created by new development. Does not address. Consistent with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 55.2-1.5. Source for Measure: Office of Plonoing and Resenrch (OPR 2008) Source for Project Consistency Anglysis: Michael Brandman Associates; Sirius Environmental 2009 I II I I r I I I 11 5.2-34 Sirius Environmental I I Marina Park Draft REIR _ Air Quality I I n I I I I i I I i I I I ARB Scoping Plan The ARB Board approved a Scoping Plan in December 2008. The Scoping Plan outlines reduction measures which will be in place prior to the year 2012. Project consistency or applicability with those measures is assessed below. As shown in Table 5.2-15, the project is consistent with the applicable measures with mitigation. Table 5.2-15: Consistency with Scoping Plan Reduction Measures ARB Scoping. Plan Reduction Measure Project Consistency or Applicability, 3 Energy Efficiency Consistent with implementation of Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, Mitigation Measure MM 5.2-1.6. and pursue additional efficiency efforts. 13 Green Building Strategy Consistent with implementation of Expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon Mitigation Measure MM 5.2-I.6. footprint of California's new and existing inventory of buildings. 16 Sustainable Forests Not applicable. However, the project Preserve forest sequestration and encourage the use of forest will integrate trees into the site design. biomass for sustainable energy generation. 17 Water Consistent with implementation of Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to Mitigation Measures MM 5.2-1.10 and move water. MM 5.24.11. 15 Recycling and Waste Consistent with implementation of Increase waste diversion, composting, and commercial recycling, Mitigation Measure MM 5.2-1.5. and move toward zero -waste. Source of ARB Scoping Plan Reduction Measure: ARB 2008. Source of Project Consistency or Applicability: Michael Brandman Associates 2008 Summary of Project Level Impacts Even withoutmitigation, the construction and operation of the project would result in emissions well below the City of Newport Beach screening threshold for a potentially significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions of 1,600 metric tons of CO2e. Therefore the project would not hinder or delay California's ability to meet the reduction targets by 2020. Cumulative Effects Project greenhouse gas emissions are below the screening level that the City of Newport Beach has identified as having a potentially cumulatively considerable contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, therefore no further analysis is required. Even a very large individual project does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions to measurably influence global climate change. It is a project's incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases that together cause climate change 1 impacts. However, the theory that an increase of one molecule of an air pollutant constitutes significant increase (one -molecule theory) should not be the basis of a de -facto significance threshold, as discussed in the decision for Community for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency ' (103 Cal. App. 4th 98 (2002): "this does not mean, however, that any additional effect in a Sirius Environmental 5.2.35 Air Quality Marina Park Draft RE1R ' nonattainment area for that effect necessarily creates a significant cumulative impact; the `one [additional] molecule rule' is not the law." While climate change is a global issue and, each.contribution of greenhouse gases may have a , cumulative effect, there is no established methodology available to determine either the magnitude or the significance of the effect of an individual project on this global issue. As a result, the conclusions reached by any attempt to do so would be speculative. According to CEQA Guidelines 15145, "if, after thorough investigation, a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate the discussion of the impact." The assessment of cumulative climate change impacts, which are project impacts plus all the other "cumulative" projects, is speculative for the following reasons: • The list of cumulative projects for climate change is unknown, in that it could conceivably include all projects around the globe. Guidelines for establishing the radius for climate change have not yet been adopted. Without such guidelines, it is impossible to know how big the impact study area is supposed to be. For example, does the list of projects include those only , within a one -mile radius of the project, or does it include projects within the entire air basin, or the state of California? For this reason, the "project list" approach for conducting a CEQA ' cumulative impacts analysis is not feasible. • Large-scaleassessinents and emission reduction strategies must be formulated to evenly address greenhouse gas emissions on a regional level that includes land use patterns, energy ' generation and consumption, transportation, water transport, waste disposal, and the other major sources of greenhouse gas emissions. A region -specific plan would create the basis of a cumulative threshold and provide a platform for cumulative analysis.on the project level. There is no approved plan that covers the jurisdiction of the project that discusses global climate change or greenhouse gases; therefore, the plan approach is not viable at this time. State and local agencies are currently developing strategies to reduce greenhouse gases in their jurisdictions; however, these strategies are not complete at this time. ' • There are no adopted legal, regulatory, or advisory thresholds for measuring project or cumulative impacts of greenhouse gases. • Available climate change models are not sensitive enough to be able to predict the effect of a single project on global temperatures and the resultant effect on climate; therefore, they cannot ' be used to evaluate the significance of a project's impact. Thus, insufficient information and predictive tools exist to assess whether a single project would result in asignifiicant impact on ' global climate. For these reasons, determining the significance of the project's impact on global climate would involve undue speculation. I 5.2.36 Sirius Environmental 1 ' Marina Park Draft REIR Air l I I Mitigation Measures As the project would result in a net increase in emissions well below the City of Newport Beach screening threshold for a potentially significant impact on greenhouse gases, no mitigation is necessary. Nonetheless, the project would include sustainable features. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Construction Mitigation measures that improve the efficiency of construction would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide during construction from worker trips and construction equipment. It is anticipated that the reductions from Mitigation Measures MM 5.2-I.1 through MM 5.2-1.4 would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from construction equipment and vehicles by at least five percent. The mitigation measures would not reduce emissions from the export of sand via tugboat. Unmitigated emissions equal approximately 567 MTCO2e. Total reductions would result in a 4 percent reduction overall, lowering emissions to 541 MTCO2e, as shown in Table 5.2-16. Feasible mitigation measures reduce the project's contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the emissions during construction would be less than significant. Table 6.2-16: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigated) Phase Carbon Dioxide Emissions (tons) i Emissions (MTCO2e) Phase 1 Demolition 6 5 Mass grading 110 100 Phase 2 Mass grading] 110 100 Phase 3 Export of sand via tugboat 42 38 Trenching 13 12 Building 301 273 Fine grading 26 24 Asphalt paving 15 14 Architectural Coating 1 1 Subtotal Unmitigated 624 567 Mitigation Reduction (from Air Quality Mitigation) -29 - 26 Total Mitigated Emissions 595 541 ' It is assumed that grading and sod laying for Phase 2 would be similar to mass grading for Phase I Source: Michael Brandman Associates 2008. Sirius Environmental 2009 Sirius Environmental 5.247 Air Quality Marina Park Draft REIR Operation The proposed project incorporates a number of features and mitigation measures that would minimize greenhouse gas emissions to the maximum extent practicable. These features and mitigation , measures are consistent with all applicable strategies identified by the ARB. Project design features/location, and the mitigation measures listed previously would reduce greenhouse gases. Reductions to electricity and natural gas sources are estimated at21 percent each, pursuant -to Mitigation Measure RIM 5.2-1.6. The reduction of water use through Mitigation Measures MM 5.2- ' 1.10 and MM 5.2-I.11 could reduce water use by at least 10 percent. Mitigation Measure MM 5.2-I.8 combined with the project's location as infill development near existing transit corridors could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles by 5%. As shown in Table 5.2-17, after mitigation, operation of the proposed project would result in new emissions of approximately 580 MTCO2e per year, which is a 13 percent reduction from mitigation. Table 6.2.17: Phase 3 operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigated) Metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents per year I , Source Unmitigated Reduction (%) Mitigated Water transport for building.uses 10 10 9 and landscaping lndirectelectricity 106 21 84 Natural gas - - - - - - - - - 65 - - 21 - 51 ' Refrigerants 276 0 276 Motor vehicles 1,000 5 950 Boats 257 0 257 Subtotal Project Emissions 1,714 - 11,627 Existing Land Use Emissions 1,047 0 1,047 ' Net New Emissions 667 13 580 Source: MBA 2008. Sirius Environmental, 2009 The proposed project incorporates a number of features and mitigation measures that would minimize greenhouse gas emissions to the maximum extent practicable. These features and mitigation measures are consistent with all applicable strategies identified, by the ARB. Moreover, given the project site's previous support of urban development and its proximity to surrounding development, the development of the project would be consistent with greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategies that emphasize reuse and redevelopment of developed or previously developed land uses. Additionally, the project would be providing recreational uses for the surrounding residents, which could reduce vehicle miles traveled for the residents. In addition, even before mitigation, the construction and operation of the project would result in emissions well below the City of Newport Beach screening threshold for a potentially significant effect on greenhouse -gas emissions of 1,600 metric tons of CO2e. Therefore the project would not (tinder or delay California's ability to meet the reduction targets by 2020, 5.2.38 Sirius Environmental IMarina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources 5.3 - Biological Resources 5.3.1 -Introduction This section describes the existing biological resources setting at the project site and the potential effects from project implementation on biological resources in the area. Descriptions and analysis in ' this section are based on information contained in two biological assessments prepared by Coastal Associates, Resources Management, the Wetlands Delineation prepared by Michael Brandman and the Terrestrial Biological Resource Assessment prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, all included in this REIR as Appendix D. 5.3.2 - Regulatory Setting A number of federal and state laws and regulations govern the construction and operational activities of the proposed project. for the Clean Water Act. This Act (33 United States Code [U.S.C.] Section 1344) provides restoration and maintenance of the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. Activities that have the potential to discharge dredge or fill materials into Waters of the U.S. are regulated under Section 404 of the Act, as administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Section 401 of the Act requires that a water quality certification or waiver be obtained from the governing regional water quality control board (RWQCB) before issuance of Section 404 permits. Section 402 of the Act establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ' (NPDES) that is the authority for the permit system administered by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state water quality regulatory agencies. Permits for discharges are officially ' called NPDES permits. California Porter -Cologne Act. This Act (State Water Code Sections 13000 et seq.) is the basic water quality control law for California and works in concert with the federal Clean Water Act. The state act is implemented by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its ' nine regional boards, which implement the permit provisions of Section 402 of the federal act. Anyone who is discharging waste or proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of state waters must file a "report of waste discharge" with the governing RWQCB. The Clean Water Act ' and the Porter -Cologne Act together form the authority for the SWRCB and RWQCB to issue storm water permits for construction and operation of facilities. One provision of those permits is the ' preparation of StormwaterPollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) and post -construction Water Quality Management Plans, which reduce the potential for impacts associated with runoff from project sites. ' Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act. This Act regulates construction in navigable waters of the U.S., including dredging, filling, and structures. Section 10 of the Act requires permits from the USACE for all structures, such as docks, jetties, and breakwalls, and activities, such as dredging, that could affect navigation. ' Sirius Environmental 5.3.9 Marina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources Federal Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C.1531- 1543), as amended, provides for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems they inhabit. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) share responsibilities for administering the ESA. Section 9 of the Act , prohibits taking of species federally listed as threatened or endangered. (A take is broadly defined to include harassment, killing, and collecting individuals and modifying or degrading habitat in ways detrimental to the species. Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act as amended (FR 62,244, December 19, 1997) directs the NMFS, regional fishery management councils, and federal action agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous (migrating) fish habitat, with the goal of maintaining sustainable fisheries. Fisheries management councils, with assistance from NMFS, are required to delineate essential fish habitat (EFH) for all managed species. Coastal embayments such as Newport Bay, especially those that support eelgrass, are EFH for a number of managed species. An assessment of EFH for the Marina Park project is necessary for conformance with the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Management , and Conservation Act. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). This Act (16 USC 703-712; 50 CFR 10), as amended, prohibits the taking of migratory birds unless specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Interior (e.g., designated seasonal hunting). The Act also applies to removal of nests occupied by migratory ' birds during the breeding season. This regulation affects construction and maintenance activities that have the potential to affect nesting birds, whether through vegetation removal, land clearing, or other construction --related disturbance. I Marine Mammal Protection Act. The MMPA of 1972 sets up a management regime to reduce marine mammal mortalities and injuries in their interactions with fisheries (e.g., gear entanglement) , and regulates scientific research in the wild. NMFS and the USFWS administer the MMPA. NMFS is responsible for the management and conservation of whales and dolphins (cetaceans) and pinnipeds ' other than the walrus. All of the marine mammal species found in and near Newport Bay are under the jurisdiction of NMFS. I California Endangered Species Act. This Act (California Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq.) provides for the protection of rare, threatened, and endangered plants and animals, as recognized by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). State lead agencies must consult with CDFG during the CEQA process if state -listed threatened or endangered species are present and could be affected by the Project. California Coastal Act (CCA). This act (Public Resources Code Division 20) governs development and management of the coastal zone, and is California's implementing act for the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The CCA provides the basis for protection of land and marine resources within the California coastal zone, including wetlands, fisheries, and beaches. CCA sections relevant I Sirius Environmental 5.3.2 1 ' Marina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources to the protection of natural resources include 30231 (maintenance of biological productivity and water quality), 30230 (protection of marine resources), and 30240 (protection of environmentally sensitive areas). Executive Order 13112 Invasive Species. This Executive Order (EO), signed in 1999, requires ' federal agencies to identify actions that may affect the status of invasive species and, to the extent feasible, prevent the introduction of such species. The agencies are also required to control and monitor populations of invasive species, among other requirements. The EO established an Invasive ' Species Council to prepare a National Invasive Species Management Plan, which is one of the tools for the management of such invasive species as Caulerpa taxifolla. 5.3.3 - Existing Conditions This description of existing biological conditions addresses habitat types, plants, animals, and sensitive species at both the Marina Park project site (Sand Disposal Site 1) and at the other sand disposal sites: Site 2 (between 40d' and 52"d streets), Site 3 (between 6"i and 16°' streets), Site 4 (the ' beach at Newport Pier), Site 5 (the beach at China Cove), and the LA-3 ocean disposal site (see based the technical reports contained Section 3.4). The descriptions below summarize and are upon in Appendix D. Habitat Types Project Site The project site (Exhibit 5.3-1) is largely developed and contains no natural habitat types other than sandy beach, intertidal, and subtidal areas, which comprise less than three acres. The sandy beach is ' cleaned and groomed regularly by the City, and thus does not constitute wildlife habitat other than a resting area for shorebirds. The strand of beach is approximately 60 feet wide and runs along the northern portion of the property for approximately 1,400 feet. Intertidal habitat consists of the portion of the beach located between the lowest observed water level (LOWL, measured over the past 19 years) to the high tide line (HTL, typically +7 feet mean sea level [MSL]). Intertidal habitat in the project area consists of fine sand, mud, and detritus deposited by tidal currents. Sediments in this habitat are submerged and exposed twice a day by the tides. ' Subtidal habitat is located immediately seaward of Intertidal Habitat in the immediate area of the proposed marina, and is constantly submerged with shallow water. The subtidal habitat in the project ' area consists of sandy and muddy areas with relatively little vegetative cover. Subtidal water depths in the project area range from -2.0 ft to approximately -12 ft Mean Lower Low Water (MLL W). ' The rest of the site consists of ornamental landscaping, turf, and disturbed/developed areas (buildings, tennis courts, and paved areas). These areas provide little or no suitable habitat for native wildlife I species. The project site does not provide wildlife movement corridors or connectivity between large areas of open space on a local or regional scale. A recent survey of the project site (Hamilton ' Biological 2009; Appendix D.2) did not note any suitable nesting habitat on the site for species of ' Sirius Environmental 5.3-3 Marina Park Oran RE/R Biological Resources ' concern (e.g., herons). No habitat protected under the Orange County Coastal -Central NCCP/HCP is present on the site. Sand Disposal Sites The four sand disposal sites at beaches outside the project site include sandy beach, intertidal beach, subtidal shallow water, and, in the case of Site 2 and China Cove, rocky habitat in the form of groins ' (Site 2) and rock outcrops (Site 5, China Cove). No habitat protected under the Orange County Coastal -Central NCCP/HCP is present on any of the sites. Sandy beaches at the Newport Pier site (Site 4) and Site 3 are groomed by the City and heavily used much of the year, and thus do not constitute wildlife habitat other than resting areas for shorebirds. The sandy beach at China Cove site is not regularly groomed but is closely surrounded by residential development. The beach at Site 2 is lightly used and requires less frequent grooming than Site 3 and the Newport Pier site. The middle and low intertidal zones provide more consistent tidal inundation and support a variety of wildlife, principally burrowing species of invertebrates that shorebirds utilize as their food source. Two of the sand disposal sites, 2 and 3, are subtidal sites just offshore of oceanfront beaches. , Subtidal beach habitats are high-energy locations generally characterized by turbid waters and active sand movement as a result of ocean waves and currents. The LA-3 ocean disposal site, which may be used to dispose of some of the project -generated sand, is located in open coastal waters approximately 4.5 miles off the coast of Newport Beach. It includes habitat 1,600 feet deep bottom habitat. ' water column approximately and soft sandy silt (benthic) On -Site Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands is The project site,lies within Newport Harbor, a traditionally navigable water that considered jurisdictional by regulatory agencies. Based on the 2009 Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands for the proposed project site (Appendix DA), the shallow marine habitat within Newport ' Harbor that overlaps with the project site boundary falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE pursuant to Section10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, RWQC13 pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, and the City of Newport Beach CLUP pursuant to the CCA. The delineation concluded that none of the project area could be considered jurisdictional wetlands for federal (USACE) purposes because the required wetlands characteristics are not present. Specifically, although the area is subject to periodic inundation, neither hydric soils,nor characteristic wetlands vegetation are present on the site. Wetlands in California's Coastal Zone are regulated under the California Coastal Act (CCA) of 1976, t which is administered by the CCC. Section 30121 of the CCA defines "wetlands" as "lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently Will shallow water and inchide saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mud,Jlats, and fens." Subsequently, the term wetland was further and more explicitly defined in Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 13577(b): Sirius Environmental 5.3-4 , Marina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources ... land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils at- to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result offrequent and drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water,/low, turbidity or high concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate. Such wetlands can be recognized by the presence of surface water or saturated soil at some time during each year and their location within, or adjacent to, vegetated wetland or deepwater habitats.' On the basis of the above definitions, the CCC considers a wetland to be any area that is sufficiently wet for a long enough period of time to promote the formation of hydric soils or a predominance of ' hydrophytic vegetation. The Coastal Commission requires wetland identification and delineation to be based on the definition within its regulation. A one parameter approach must be followed to identify and delineate the geographic extent of wetland boundaries. The parameter -used can be either (1) conditions that promote the formation of hydric soils, which are generally demonstrated by field indicators of hydric soils, or (2) the presence of a predominance of hydrophytes. Based on CCC regulations and guidance, wetlands are not present on the project site because neither hydric soils nor hydrophytic vegetation are present, suggesting that the period of inundation is insufficient to form ' indicia of wetland conditions. Sensitive Habitats in the Project Vicinity Newport Bay is considered sensitive marine habitat and afforded protection to conserve and protect their resources. Upper Newport Bay is also a State of California Marine Protected Area and is designated as a State Marine Park. Newport Bay is an estuary and supports extensive eelgrass beds, both of which are considered habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species (see below). The project site is not otherwise designated as sensitive habitat, ' nor is any nearby portion of Newport Bay. China Cove and the Balboa Peninsula are not located within the boundaries of City, State, or Federal marine protected areas (MPAs), nor are they identified in any of the three current proposals to update the limits of MPAs in the South Coast Study Region. The City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Newport Beach, 2009) identifies giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) beds along the westjetty in the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel as Environmental Study Area Number 13, because 1) kelp forests afford protection and cover for many marine invertebrates and fishes, 2) they are a persistent feature within the Entrance Channel, and 3) there is a potential for ' kelp to be affected by future dredging activity (unrelated to the Marina Park project) in the Entrance Channel. ' The Newport Submarine Canyon is a unique coastal feature, believed to have been formed by the ancestral Santa Ana River, that begins immediately seaward of the Newport Pier, and which thus could be affected by sand disposal activities. Depths in the canyon increase rapidly moving offshore, to 100 meters (300 ft) at a distance of 1,300 meters (3,900 ft) from shore, This geological feature is I ' Guidance: "CCC Wetland Delineation Rationale— Method" at section 2.1 f Sirius Environmental 5.2.5 Marina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources the exit pathway for southward -moving sands transported through littoral drift currents; the groin field on the West Newport beaches (including sand disposal Site A) represents the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' effort to stop the sand loss, which has been partially successful. Biologically, the submarine canyon is unique because it acts as a pathway for cold, nutrient -rich waters that upwell from deeper offshore waters to the shallower nearshore shelf. Additionally, the Canyon acts as a pathway along which deeper water species offish, squid, shark, and jellyfish sometimes move close to shore. Although it is not a protected habitat, the canyon is an important fishing zone for the Newport Dory Fleet. Vegetation Project Site Vegetation on the project site consists entirely of turf and ornamental landscaping between structures, in parkways, and around public use areas, and occasional weeds. Several specimens of white bottlebrush (Callistenrtm salignus), weeping fig (Ficus benjamina), Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle), and ornamental pahn trees are scattered throughout the property. A hedge of ornamental shrubs separates the public beach from the mobile home park, and ornamental palm trees line the sidewalk that borders the public beach. These trees and ornamental vegetation do not include any native vegetation and provide only limited habitat value, primarily as cover and perching areas for birds and common terrestrial wildlife that are normally associated with developed areas (Appendix 11.1). A ' long strip of turf extends between the sidewalk and the tennis courts along West Balboa Boulevard, and several patches of turf are scattered among the mobile homes. The sandy beach supports no vegetation because of the heavy use, frequent grooming, and absence of a dune zone, where most beach vegetation normally is found. The shallow subtidal zone fronting the sand beach shoreline in the project site is occasionally vegetated by green algae (Enteromorpha sp). At deeper depths, red and brown algae are more common. No eelgrass (Zostera marina) was observed in the waters fronting the project site, although eelgrass is widespread in Newport Harbor. ' Sand Disposal Sites According to the City's biological study of the sand disposal sites (Appendix D.3), the sandy beaches at the project site and the Newport Pier and China Cove sand.disposal sites do not support any vegetation. The beaches at sites 2 and 3 support some dune vegetation, but as the proposed project would only affect the subtidal area, that vegetation is outside the project's area of potential influence. ' The intertidal and subtidal areas of sites 2 and 3, where sand disposal could occur, have too much wave action and sand motion to permit aquatic vegetation to occur, except on rocky surfaces such as groins. The LA-3 site is too deep to support vegetation other than microscopic floating algae (phytopiankton; USACE & USEPA 2004). At Site 2 and China Cove, some aquatic vegetation exists on the surfaces of groins and rock outcrops. Rock groins at Site 2 provide habitat for some intertidal and subtidal, species of algae, but sand a movement scours these rocks, creating stressful conditions that result in highly variable abundances Sirius Environmental 5.3.5 1 IMarina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources over the course of a season and between years. The China Cove sand disposal site includes hard substrate in the form of rocky outcrops and concrete bulkheads. These areas support a similar array of plants as the groins at Site 2, but a lesser degree of sand scouring allows more species to flourish, including the brown alga Sargassum muticum. In addition, the subtidal area off China Cove, in the Newport Bay entrance channel, supports a rich bed of eelgrass. tWildlife Project Site No terrestrial amphibian or reptile species were observed during the field survey (Appendix D.1), and few would be expected to occur due to lack of suitable habitat. The site is, however, likely to support lizards, which are common throughout southern California. No mammals were observed during the field survey, but rodents, feral cats, and opossums can be expected to occur on the site. Birds observed on the site include house sparrow (Passer domesticus), house finch (Cmpodacus mexicanus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), all considered urban -adapted species, as well as the marine -related species snowy egret (Egretta thula), California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), and gull -billed tern (Sterna nilotica). The sandy beach would also be expected to be used as a resting area by a number of shorebirds and seabirds, notably gulls and sandpipers. The intertidal portion of the beach likely serves as foraging habitat for gulls, sandpipers (including willets and godwits), stilts, and herons, while the adjacent waters of the channel are used by waterfowl (ducks and grebes), terns, gulls, and pelicans. The waters of the project site support a variety of invertebrates and fish. Over 300 species of benthic ' (organisms that live in and on the sediments) invertebrates have been identified from Newport Bay sediments. The dominant types are annelid worms (polychaetes and oligochaetes), crustaceans ' (shrimp, crabs, amphipods, isopods), and mollusks (snails and clams). None is endemic (restricted) to Newport Bay; rather, they are widely distributed, occurring naturally in many California coastal bays and estuaries. Historically, the benthic infaunal community in the general vicinity of the proposed ' project has been shown to have low numbers of species present in high abundances (SWRCB, et al. 1994), typical of communities in stressed environmental conditions. Invertebrates observed on the project site beach (in the intertidal zone) during the site reconnaissance (Appendix D.2) include sand fleas (insects in the family Ceratopogonidae), beached moon jellies (Aurelio aurita), and sand crabs (Emerita talpoida). Several species of epifauna (benthic invertebrates that live on the sediment surface) were observed at the project site, including hydroids, tube anemones, tube -dwelling polychaete annelid worms, tube -dwelling amphipods, and the predatory sea slug (Chelidonera ' [NavanaxJ inermis). Over 75 species of fish are known to inhabit Newport Bay (Coastal Resources Management 2009a; see Appendix D.2), although only a few of those species would be expected at the project site due to the lack of habitat variety and restricted water circulation. Sampling in the open waters of the channel along the peninsula between 9'1' Street and 13"i Street recorded approximately 19 species, the ' most common of which are white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus), shiner surf perch (Cyniatogaster Sirius Environmental 5.3.7 Marina Park Draft REiR Biological Resources aggregata), white surf perch (Phanerodon fu catus), slough anchovy (Anchoa delicatissima), deepbody anchovy (Anchoa conrpressa), black surf perch (Embiotoca jacksord), queen fish (Serfphus politus), bat ray (Myliobatis californica), and mullet (Mugil cephalus). Other common species recorded from Newport Harbor include arrow goby (Clevelandia ies), California halibut(Paralichthys califarnicus), , topsmelt (Atherinops afinis), and walleye surfperch (Hyperprosopon argenteum). Several of those species are likely to be present at the site, but were not observed during site surveys. No marine reptiles (sea turtles) would be expected at the project site (Appendix D.2; sea turtles are considered further in the Sensitive Species section below). The only marine mammals that would be expected at the project site are sea lions-(Zalophus californicus) and the occasional harbor seal (Phoca vitulina); marine mammals are considered further in the Sensitive Species section, below. Sand Disposal Sites The oceanfront beaches and the China Cove beach would support many of the same invertebrates as the project site plus some additional amphipod and polychaete worm species (Coastal Resources Management 2009b; see Appendix D.3). Sediments in the subtidal areas at the nearshore disposal ' sites (Sites 2 and 3) support a variety of invertebrates such as sea pansies (Renilla kolkerii), sea pens (Srylalula elongata), polychaete worms, crustaceans (amphipods, isopods, cumaceans and ostracods), snails, ophiuroid brittle stars (Amphiodia sp.), sand dollars (Dendrasler excentricus), sea stars (Pisaster brevispinus), and sand stars (Asiropecten aruratus). The LA-3 EIS (USAGE & USEPA 2004) concluded that the invertebrate community at the LA-3 site is characteristic of a site continually disturbed by disposal activities. Site studies found 179 species of benthic invertebrates, dominated by ' small polychaetes and crustaceans but including such epibenthic organisms as anemones, sea stars, and shrimp. No commercial fisheries use the immediate vicinity of the LA-3 site. The groins at Site 2 and the rock putcrops•and seawalls at China Cove support a variety of mussels, , barnacles, sponges, starfish, anemones, limpets, and other types of invertebrates (Appendix D.3). The rock outcrops at China Cove, being subjected•to less sand scouring, support a denser and more diverse assemblage of organisms than do the groins at Site 2. , The only fish that could be characteristic of any of the sandy beaches (Newport Pier and China Cove) is the grunion (Letwesthes lenuis), which is considered in the Sensitive Species section, below. Common fishes of the nearshore zone (i.e., sand disposal Sites 2 and 3) include topsmelt, several species of surfperches, white croaker, California halibut, barred sand bass (Paralabrax nebulifer), bat ' ray, round sting ray (Urolophus halleri), sand dabs (Citharichthys stigmaeus), hornyhead turbot (Pleuronichthys verticalis), staghorn sculpin (Leptocotius armatus), and lizard fish (Synodus lucioceps). Fishes at the LA-3 site constitute two basic groups: pelagic species (fish inhabiting the ' water column) and demetsal species (fish closely associated with the bottom) (USACE & USEPA 2004). The pelagic fish were dominated by bristlemouths, hatchetfish, and lanternfish, all of which are widely distributed in the mid -depths of deep waters. The most abundant demersai fish found at the site were deep-sea species rarely taken close to shore, including dogface witch -eels, California rattails, and two species of thornyheads. Sirius Environmental 5.3.8 IMarina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources The sandy beaches and intertidal zone would support a number of shorebirds, including gulls (Larus spp.), California brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis), royal terns (Thalasseus maximus), elegant terns (Thalasseus elegans), willets (Catopirophorus semipalmatus), marbled godwits (Limosa fedoa), and sanderlings (Calidris alba). Near -shore waters in the vicinity of Sites A and B provide potential foraging habitat for such common birds as the surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata), western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis), and double -crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). Gulls and pelicans may also be seen resting on the waters just offshore of the surf break, The rock groins and rocky outcrops at the sand disposal sites, however, provide foraging and roosting habitat for birds of the rocky shore, including black oystercatchers (Haematopus bachmani), black turnstones (Arenaria melanocephala), and surfbirds (Aphriza virgata), and perching sites for seabirds such as pelicans, cormorants, and gulls. The LA-3 ocean disposal site is a foraging habitat for seabirds such as gulls, pelicans, cormorants, elegant terns, sooty shearwaters (Puffinus griseus), storm -petrels (Oceanodron:a spp.), and red -necked phalaropes (Phalaropus lobatus) (USACE & USEPA 2004). A number of sea turtles and marine mammals may visit sand disposal Sites 2 and 3 and the LA-3 ocean disposal site. In particular, sea lions and harbor seals often come into the nearshore zone, and common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), Pacific -white -sided dolphins (Lagenorlynchus obliguldens), and gray whales (Eshrichtius robustus) occasionally visit the nearshore zone. These species are considered further in the Sensitive Species section below. The LA-3 site would be visited by those species as well as a number of porpoise species, and, rarely, several other species of porpoises and whales (USACE & USEPA 2004). Sensitive and Special -Interest Species Terrestrial Species On Site and at Sand Disposal Sites None of the six federal and/or state listed terrestrial plant species that are reported to occur in the Newport Beach area is present on the project site or sand disposal sites, nor is suitable habitat for any of these species present on those sites (Appendix D.1, Appendix D.3). No sensitive terrestrial animal species are present on or near the project site, nor is suitable habitat for such species present on site. Managed Fisheries On Site and at Sand Disposal Sites Under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Act, a number of groups of commercially important fish species are managed by the federal government through fishery management plans. One element of the FMPs is the designation of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH is defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" (50 CFR 600.910(a)). Adverse effects of a proposed action on EFH may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of or injury to prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components. Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) are described in the regulations as subsets of EFH, and are defined as being rare, particularly susceptible to human -induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection, but federally Sirius Environmental 5.3.9 Marina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources ' permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to-HAPC are more carefully scrutinized during -the consultation process. The proposed project is located within an area (Newport Bay) designated as EFH and HAPC for , species included in the Coastal Pelagics Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) and the Pacific Groundfish FMP; rocky reefs in the ocean south of the harbor entrance are also considered HAPC for those two managed fisheries, but the LA-3 site is notHAPC for any managed fishery. Four coastal ' pelagic species, the northern -anchovy, Pacific sardine, jack mackerel, and Pacific mackerel, potentially occur in the waters offshore of Newport Beach and may occur inside the bay. Six , groundfish species also potentially occur within the general project area, including California scorpionfish (Scapaena gtdtala), vermillion rockfish (Sebastes miniatus), calico rockfish (Sebastes dallit), California skate (Raja inornala), spiny dogfish shark (Squalls acanthias), and leopard shark (Triakis sernifasciata). Of these species, only the northern anchovy is very abundant, although less so 'within Newport Bay. Northern anchovy supports a commercial -bait fishing operation based in'the Newport Harbor entrance channel and is an important food item for many fish and seabirds. Although the other Coastal Pelagic and Pacific Groundfish FMP species are known from the project site and sand disposal sites, available data indicate that their presence is likely sporadic and their numbers in the project region would be extremely low (Appendices D.2 and D.3). Endangered, Threatened, and Special Status Species; On -Site and at Sand Disposal Sites A number of sensitive species of marine plants and animals were evaluated for their potential to occur in the project area. Of the plants, giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) would have no potential to occur near the project site (it is not found in shallow bays) nor at the sand disposal sites (the nearshore sites are too shallow and turbid, LA-3 is too deep). Of the animals, black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii), light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longisrostris levipes), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californicus californicus), and tidewatengoby (Eucyclogobius newberryt) were determined to have no potential to occur at either the project site or the sand,disposal sites (Appendices D.2 and D.3). The ' remaining sensitive species are discussed below. Eelgrass (Zoslera•marina). Eelgrass is a marine angiosperm that forms meadows in mud -and -sand substrates of protected shallow -water bays and channels. Although it is not listed as threatened, rare, or endangered, it is considered sensitive by resource agencies because its value as a nursery habitat and protective cover make it an important biological habitat for invertebrates and fish. ft MLLW) In Newport Bay, eelgrass grows in lower intertidal and shallow (generally up to -8 subtidal soft -bottom areas. The extent of the beds varies from year to year with varying environmental conditions. Recent surveys in Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay (summarized in Appendix , D.2, and Weston Solutions et al. 2009) indicate extensive beds of eelgrass in the eastern and central portions of Newport Bay. There are no natural eelgrass beds along the shoreline between 15°i Street and 19°i Street (the project site), but eelgrass does occur in the intertidal and subtidal habitats of China Cove, between 0.0 and -12 feet MLLW. 1t lies approximately 100 ftfrom the edge of the proposed sand disposal site. The channel adjacent to the project site was considered to have potential as eelgrass Sirlus Environmental 5.3.10 Marina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources habitat until an unsuccessful transplantation project in late summer 2004 as part of a USACE Lower Newport Harbor Eelgrass Restoration Project undertaken in coordination with the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach. Surfgrass (Phyllospadix torreyi). Surfgrass is a sensitive marine resource that occurs in rocky shoreline and rocky subtidal habitats from 0 ft MLLW to approximately -20 feet MLLW. Its sensitivity is related to its use by invertebrates and fishes as nursery habitat and its susceptibility to long-term damage because it is a very slow -growing species. Surfgrass is an HAPC for the Pacific Groundfish FMP, primarily because of its use by juvenile olive rockfish (Sebastes serranoides) as nursery habitat. Some surfgrass may be present on the individual groins in sand disposal Site 2, but the species was not observed within the perimeter of proposed near -shore sand disposal activities (Appendix D.3). Pismo clam (Tivela stultorum). This species is a thick, heavy -shelled clam that is sought after for its ' flavor by recreational clam diggers. It usually lives in the intertidal zone on flat beaches of the open coast, but they have been found out to depths of 80 feet and are sometimes encountered in the entrance channels to sloughs, bays and estuaries. It has been periodically abundant in Orange County between Seal Beach and Newport Beach, and although no recent surveys have been conducted in Orange County, recent data and reports indicate that the clam population is relatively stable and that significant numbers of Pismo clams continue to be harvested from some of the beaches in southern California. Based upon this information, it can be assumed that Pismo clams may be present in the intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat at the project's sand disposal sites, but their abundance within the area is not known. California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis). The grunion is a member of the silversides family, Atherinidae, along with the jacksmelt and topsmelt. This species does not have a state or federal listing, but it is a sensitive species due to its use of southern California beaches, including the ocean beaches of Newport Beach, for spawning. They normally occur from Point Conception, California, to Point Abreojos, Baja California, inhabiting the nearshore waters from the surf to a depth of 60 feet. Grunion are not expected to occur on the project site because they favor more exposed beaches with significant wave action, but would be expected to occur on the ocean beaches that could be used as sand disposal sites. California halibut (Paralichthys californicus). Although the California halibut does not have formal special -species status, it is considered a sensitive species by resource agencies because of its commercial value, combined with a continued region -wide reduction of its nursery habitat in bays and wetlands. California halibut spawn at sea, but the larvae migrate into shallow coastal waters, including Newport Bay, which serve as nursery grounds. After nine months in their nursery areas, juveniles move out into the coastal ocean. California halibut are distributed throughout the waters of Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay, primarily as juveniles, although larger individuals are caught near the ocean entrance and in offshore waters. This species has a high potential to occur in ' Sirius Environmental 5.3-11 Marina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources, the shallow waters of the project site because of the nature of the sand shoreline and the relatively wide shelf of sandy silt sediments. Garibaldi (Kypsypops rubicundus), Garibaldi, the largest of the damselfish family (Pomacentridae), , are found associated with hard substrata (rocks, structures) in shallow waters off the Southern California coast and Mexico. In 1995 the California Legislature designated the garibaldi as the Official State Marine Fish and banned any further commercial or recreational take. Garibaldi populations have rebounded from the local effects of commercial take and are in good condition throughout their range in southern California. Garibaldi occur in the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel and nearshore reefs. They may utilize the rock groins in the project area, but their potential to be present in the project area is low. Marine reptiles. Marine reptiles are represented in California by sea turtles. Sea turtles do not utilize the local marine waters as a permanentLbreeding or foraging habitat. However, the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill turtle (Ereimochelys imbricala) occasionally visit the nearshore environment of Orange County. Green sea turtles have been reported in the San Gabriel River, attracted to the warm discharge waters of the nearby power -generating facilities (Vivian Cook, Marine Bureau; Allen'Powder, Long Beach Lifeguards pers. comm. with R, Ware, CRM, 27 July 2007). Their occurrence within Newport Bay, located 20 miles east-southeast of Long Beach, is expected to be rare, although green sea turtles may utilize the eelgrass beds in Newport Bay as one source of nutrition. ' California least tern (Sterna antillarum browm). The state- and federally listed California least tern is a spring -and -summer resident in southern California during the breeding and nesting season. The California least tern does,not breed or nest near the project site, but birds from nesting colonies in the region do forage in Newport Bay and nearshore coastal waters during the March through September breeding season. The nearest California least tern nesting sites are located approximately 2.5 miles ' west (upcoast) at the mouth of the Santa Ana River and 4.2 miles northeast in Upper Newport Bay near the Jamboree Bridge. There is a moderate potential for individuals to forage in the West , Newport Channel adjacent to the project site during the nesting season. Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidenialis). The state- and federally listed endangered brown pelican is found in Newport Bay year round but does not breed locally. Currently, the brown pelican is proposed for delisting due to a population resurgence along the Southern California coastline. Brown pelicans utilize Newport Harbor waters for foraging on baitfish and use the shoreline as resting habitat, but nesting occurs exclusively on offshore islands. Western snowy plover (Charadrius alezandrinus nivosus). This state- and federally listed endangered small shorebird nests on coastal beaches from southern Washington to southern Baja California and winters along the coast of California and Baja California (Port of Long Beach 2009). ' Critical habitat designated for this species by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (2005) in Orange County includes the Bolsa Chica reserve and adjacent beaches, and the mouth of the Santa Ana River Sirius Environmental 5.3.12 IMarina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources (Coastal Resources Management, Inc. and Chambers Group, 2003); the beaches in Newport Beach are not critical snowy plover habitat. Until recently, no nesting by the species has been observed on beaches in the area, which are likely too heavily used to be attractive to the birds, but in 2009 one nest on the beach near the eastern end of the Balboa Peninsula produced three young (Appendix D.2). Snowy plover have consistently roosted on that same beach during the winter, but they are considered to have a low potential for occurring on the project site or at the sand disposal locations (Appendix D.2). Black skimmer (Rhynchops niger). This California Species of Special Concern is widespread along the Pacific Coast, nesting on coastal beaches and sand flats along the coast of California. A large �i colony nests in the Bolsa Chica Reserve, and individuals can be expected to forage in the calm, protected waters of Newport Bay, including adjacent to the project site. Marine Mammals. A number of marine mammals have been observed in nearshore Southern California waters, including the gray whale (Eshrichtius robustus), which migrates from the Bering Sea to Mexico and back each year, two species of dolphin (Pacific white -sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus obliquidens, and common dolphin, Delphinus delphis), and the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). The waters of Newport Bay are too shallow for whales to enter and are likely too shallow to attract dolphins. Sea lions are common in Newport Bay (see below) but harbor seals, although common offshore, are only occasional visitors to the bay. The presence of dolphins, whales, or other S, cetaceans would be extremely rare in the western section of Newport Harbor, but dolphins, sea lions, and harbor seals would be expected to occur in the vicinity of the ocean beaches used for sand disposal. As mentioned above, several species of whales that frequent deep, offshore waters, including blue whale, fin whale, sperm whale, and smaller whales such as pilot and minke whales, are likely to pass through the LA-3 site occasionally. ' California sea lions (Zalophus californicus). California sea lions belong to the group of marine mammals known as pinnipeds, which includes seals, sea lions, and walruses. In recent years, California sea lions have taken up seasonal residence in the harbor. While initially concentrated in the southeast section of the harbor between the Pavilion and the entrance channel, they have extended their seasonal distribution to the northwest (West Newport) waters and Mooring Areas I and H, seaward of the Marina Park site. Their abundance in the bay is the result of abundant food resources, and they are able to utilize the low stern platforms of boats in the harbor as haulouts, which has damaged and even sunk vessels. Their distribution in the West Newport waters may also be related to observed increases in the population of mullet that have been particularly abundant in this section of the harbor in 2008. Countermeasures (ordinances and public education brochures regarding the direct and indirect feeding of sea lions) have been implemented by the City to reduce the tendency to use boats as haulouts. California sea lions have a high potential to occur both in the project site, given the presence of the American Legion marina and nearby moored boats, and at the sand disposal sites. ISirius Environmental 5.3.13 Biological Resources ' Marina Park Draft REIR Invasive Species On Site and at Sand Disposal Sites Although a number of non-native species, ranging from algae to fish, have been documented in Southern California marine waters, most appear to be fairly innocuous in terms of their effects on local ecosystems (e.g., MEC 2002). One species, however, is considered by the resource agencies to be of particular concern: the invasive green alga Caulerpa taxifolia, which is the focus of an interagency eradication and control effort. Another species of concern, Undaria pimlalifida, has also been reported from southern California, but not from Newport Bay or the coast of Newport Beach. Caulerpa taxifolia was found in shallow, enclosed areas of Huntington Harbor and Agua Hedionda Lagoon in 2001. This tropical marine alga, which was introduced to natural systems through the aquarium trade, can be extremely harmful to marine ecosystems because it invades, out -competes, and eliminates native algae, seagrasses, kelp forests, and reef systems by forming a dense blanket of growth on mud, sand, or rock surfaces. It can grow in shallow coastal lagoons as well as in deeper waters and has a wide range of environmental tolerance. ' Although regional efforts are believed to have eradicated this species over the last two years, the resource agencies remain vigilant and have instituted a number of procedures for minimizing the chances that Caulerpa will re-establish itself. Cauletpa has not been found within Newport Bay despite intensive underwater searches, and Newport Bay has been designated as a Caulerpa-free system (National Marine Fisheries Service 2001 revised 2003). This species was not observed at the ' project site in October 2003, March 2004, October 2007, or August 2008 (Appendix D.2) and would not be expected at any of the sand disposal sites due to the lack of suitable habitat. 5.3.4 -Thresholds of Significance The thresholds of significance for evaluating the impacts of the proposed project on biological resources are taken from the CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G Environmental Checklist and amended for project -specific conditions. Would the project: a.) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b.) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural, community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c.) Have a substantial adverse effect on intertidal habitats through direct removal, filling, ' hydrological interruption, or other means? d.) interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? Sirius Environmental 5.3.14 Marina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources ' e.) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree - preservation policy or ordinance? f.) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? F I I f 11 I II 5.3.5 - Project Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary. Listed Species 5.3-A: The project could have adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in policies or regulations. Project -Specific Analysis (Project Site and Sand Disposal Sites) Terrestrial Species. No federally or state -listed terrestrial species are present on the site, and no suitable habitat for any federally or state -listed terrestrial species is present on the site. Therefore, no impacts are expected to occur to any sensitive terrestrial species under any of the three phases of construction or operation. Marine Species. As described in Section 5.3.3, a number of species protected by federal or state regulations are present in either or both of the project site and the sand disposal sites. Construction and operation of Phases t and 2 would have no impact on any of the protected species described in Section 5.3.3, but construction of Phase 3 could affect protected species. No eelgrass (Zostera marina) is present in the vicinity of the project site or at any of the sand disposal sites except China Cove. Sand disposal at China Cove would take place on the upland sandy beach, not in the subtidal and intertidal areas of China Cove. Accordingly, project construction would have no.impact on eelgrass. Project operation would have no effect on existing stands of eelgrass. If a future eelgrass transplantation project should occur in the channel adjacent to the proposed marina, however, degraded water quality could affect its success. This potential impact would be less than significant because the water quality improvement measures to be installed as part of the Marina Park project (see Section 547),would prevent significant degradation of local water quality. Sand placement and disposal would have no impact on surfgrass (Phyllospadix torreyi) because placement would not affect the rocky substrata on which surfgrass lives. Placement of dredged material in the nearshore zone at Sites A and B could adversely affect any Pismo clams (Tivela stuliorum) that might be present in the placement area by burying individuals and increasing turbidity in the water column. The impact is considered to be less than significant because of the limited extent and duration of the placement activity. Sirius Environmental 5.3-15 Marina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources , Placement of dredged material on or immediately offshore of ocean beaches (sites 2 and 3, could interfere with grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) spawning, which typically is at its peak April through June in southern California. Beach placement would also destroy benthic organisms in the surf.zone that serve as food for grunion, although the effect on the food resource would be small because of the limited extent of material placement and the impact would be less than significant. The placement of dredged material would have a significant impact on grunion if it took place during the peak ' spawning season. Construction of the marina in Phase 3 could affect California halibut (Paralichthvs californicus) by causing turbidity in nursery habitat adjacent to the project site and at the nearshore sand placement sites. The pollution control measures described under Managed Species, above, would reduce the impacts to less than significant. Garibaldi ($ypsypops rubicundus) nearthe China Cove sitewould not be affected by turbidity associated with sand placement because placement would be restricted to the upland sandy beach. On -site construction and operation activities of the proposed project would have no impact on marine reptiles (sea turtles) due to their infrequent occurrence in Newport Harbor. Disposal vessel traffic could encounter turtles on the way to the nearshore disposal sites and LA-3. However, because very few vessel trips would be involved (likely no more than 20 round trips) and turtles are infrequent visitors to the area, it is unlikely that any take of turtles would occur. The LA-3 EIS (USACE & USEPA 2004) did not identify an impact on turtles as a result of disposal activities at LA-3. Accordingly, impacts of project construction on marine reptiles would be less than significant. Brown pelicans (Pelecantis occidentalis), California least terns (Sterna antillarum browns), and black skimmers (Rhynchops niger) may occasionally forage in Newport Harbor waters in the general vicinity of the project site and, for pelicans and terns, at the nearshore disposal sites. Turbidity plumes from the dredging and sand placement operations could potentially affect their foraging behavior by limiting their ability to see their prey, and the construction activity itself could cause avoidance of the area, both of which could result in locally significant impacts to those endangered species. Noise and equipment operation could cause birds to avoid using the beach as aresting area. No direct mortality of any of these species would be expected, however. The project would employ a variety of BMPs to reduce and contain turbidity (see above), and the area of construction would be small enough to limit the extent of any turbidity plume that did develop. Avoidance of the construction area by terns and pelicans would only deny them access to a relatively small potential foraging area adjacent to the existing'beach and a small, area off the ocean beaches. Furthermore, brown pelicans are habituated to human activities, as their abundance in crowded harbor ' areas attests, and thus are not likely to be hindered by the presence of construction. Construction at the project site and the disposal of sand at the ocean beach sites would not affect snowy plovers (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) because that species does not nest or roost at any of the sites. None of the endangered bird species uses the LA-3 site. Project operation under all three phases Sirius Environmental 5.3.16 ' Marina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources ' would have no effect on protected bird species. Accordingly, construction and operation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on listed bird species. ' California sea lions (Zalophus callfornicus) have a potential to be present during the construction period. Sea lions could be affected by the noise of the dredging operation, by pile driving, and by ' contact with the dredging and disposal equipment during construction. Dredging would not affect animals that may haul out on boats moored in the Lido Channel because those boats would be at least 250 feet from the dredging operation, too far away to be affected by noise or to have contact with ' equipment. Breeding would not be affected because sea lions &not breed in the Newport Harbor. Other marine mammals are not expected to come close enough to the marina construction site to be taffected. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service (see response to Comment A641 in Section 8), the measured sound exposure levels of a clamshell dredge may range between 75-88 dBA (re 20 /- IPa; this terminology refers to a technical measure of underwater sound) at 50 feet. Animals have been observed flushing from haul out sites at a sound exposure level of less than 100dBA, and it is ' possible that marine mammals may modify their behavior as a result of the noise produced by the dredging operation. The duration of such noise would be short, less than two months; furthermore, ' most of the dredging operation would take place within the confines of the marina basin, which would limit the noise levels in open water and the likelihood that sea lions would be near the operation. The ' dredging necessary to deepen the marina approach, however, would take place in the open channel where sea lions could be present. Based on Port of Los Angeles responses to comments on the Port of Los Angeles Channel Deepening Project EIR/EIS, underwater noise from the clamshell dredging ' in Los Angeles .Harbor would be 150-162 dB (rel µPa), which is below the designated level A harassment threshold of 190 dBrms (re 1 µPa) for pinnipeds (see Appendix D.2 of this EIR). Accordingly, clamshell dredging effects on sea lions (and other marine mammals near the project ' site) would be less than significant. ' Pile driving could affect the hearing of seal lions swimming nearby, if it is too loud, and would likely cause them temporarily to move farther away from those activities, such as to other areas of the bay. The effects of pile driving on California sea lions has been evaluated in detail by NMFS (2003) and ' Port of Los Angeles (POLA 2009), and the issue is assessed in more detail in Appendix D.2. According to POLA (2009), pile driving produces noise levels of 177 to 220 dB (re 1 µPa [a measure of underwater sound pressure]) at a distance of 33 ft from the source, depending on the material and size of the piles (Hastings and Popper 2005). The NMFS (2003) cites an underwater sound level of 180 dB (re 1 µPa) as the level A, harassment level, i.e., the level that could produce a potential effect on nearby marine mammals. Observations during pile driving for the San Francisco -Oakland Bay Bridge East Span seismic safety project showed that sea lions swam rapidly out of the area, avoiding areas where sound pressure waves could affect them. The noise levels cited in POLA (2009) are likely higher than would be produced by the Marina Park pile driving because the piles and equipment to be used in the project are much smaller than the ' Sirius Environmental 6.3.17 Marina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources ' material used in the Los Angeles project. Accordingly, it is considered unlikely that noise levels ' would exceed the Level A harassment threshold. Furthermore, much of the pile driving would not take place in open water, so that produced sound levels would be lower due to being muffled by sediments. The animals would likely adapt to the noise after some time, and remain in the general ' area of marina construction. Nevertheless, one possible source of impact would be the startle effect when pile driving starts up. If sea lions are too close to the operation they could be injured by the sudden loud noise. This effect is considered unlikely due to the few sea lions likely to be in the project area and the short duration of pile driving. In addition, pile driving activities would be a minimum of 250 feet (76 meters) from the nearest vessels (in Mooring Area H anchorage) that sea ' lions might haul out on. Nevertheless, although the impacts of pile driving on marine mammals are considered to be less than significant, a mitigation measure (MM 5.3-A.2) has been developed that ' would further minimize the likelihood of an impact. To date, there are no records of marine mammals being harmed by the Upper Newport Bay dredging ' operation or•the transport of dredge material by barges and tugs through Newport Harbor to disposal sites. In all likelihood, individuals would avoid the dredging operation, and although individuals may ' be curious, there is a low potential for harm to an individual or the population within the vicinity of Newport Bay, including the sand disposal sites. Accordingly, contact with dredging and disposal equipment is expected to have less -titan -significant impacts on individuals that may be in the vicinity of those operations. Nevertheless, the City has developed a mitigation measure requiring contractors to report any collisions between project vessels and marine mammals. , Although sea lions may occasionally swim into the marina, they are not expected to haul out if measures are taken to deter their presence. The City has committed to work with NMFS to ensure that the project would include design features for low-lying docks on the water that would non - lethally deter pinnipeds, specifically sea lions, from hauling out. In addition, the City has an ' ordinance and an in -place program for all commercial and private vessels designed to deter marine mammals from hauling out on vessels. Accordingly, operational impacts on marine mammals are expected to be less than significant. ' Cumulative ' Construction of the proposed project could affect natural resources that are important to managed and sensitive species in Newport Bay. These potential effects could result from turbidity impacts and could contribute to significant cumulative impacts to sensitive species. The mitigation measures I developed to minimize impacts on water quality (Section 5.7) would lessen the project's cumulative effects on sensitive fish species. Construction noise would be limited and short term, and would not ' represent a cumulative impact. Mitigation Measures Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7-A.l and MM 5.7-A.2 would minimize the water quality effects that could adversely affect sensitive species. In addition, the following mitigation Sirius Environmental 5.3-18 1 Marina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources ' measures would reduce the potential impact on grunion spawning and minimize the effects of marina construction on marine mammals. ' Project Specific: MM 5.3-A.1 During Phase 3 construction, the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that placement tof dredge material on or adjacent to ocean beaches does not occur between March 31 and June 30. ' This measure would ensure that the effects of dredge material placement would have an less than significant effect on grunion spawning by avoiding the peak spawning season, such that only a few ' individual fish, if any, would be affected. MM 5.3-A.2 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, t 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. ' The operation of the hammer at 40 to 60 percent energy level during the soft start of pile driving is expected to result in similar levels of noise reduction (40 to 60 percent) underwater. Sea lions would ' probably swim away from the area once pile driving has started, so that when full energy levels were employed the animals would be far enough away to avoid sustaining damage. The soft -start approach ' to pile driving would prevent any "take" of marine mammals. MM 5.3-A.3 During Phase 3 construction, in the event of a construction vessel collision with a marine mammal, the City of Newport Beach shall immediately contact Mr. Joe Cordero, National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Regional Office's Stranding Coordinator 562 980-4017) and will submit a report to the NMFS Southwest t Regional Office. ' Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7-A.1, MM 5.7-A.2, MM 5.3-A.1, MM 5.3-A.2, and MM 5.3-A.3 would minimize identified impacts. ' Sirius Environmental 5.3.19 Marina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources I Level of Significance After Mitigation , Project -specific Less than significant. ' Cumulative Less than significant ' Sensitive Natural Communities 5.3-B; The project could adversely affect sensitive natural communities Identified In local or regional plans,.policies, and regulations. Project -Specific Analysis (Project Site and Sand Disposal Sites) ' The proposed project would not affect local resources or areas identified as sensitive habitat areas or natural communities, including the City -designated Environmental Study Area 13, near the Newport , Harbor entrance and the Newport Submarine Canyon. The former is omthe other side of the entrance channel from the China Cove sand disposal site, which would be too far for the upland disposal activity to have any adverse effect on kelp. The latter is just.offshore of the nearshore sand disposal ' sites (Sites A and B), and could receive sand that moves offshore instead of remaining in the nearshore placement area. As the volume of sand (no more than 40,000 cubic yards) would be ' insignificant in relation to the amount of sand that naturally moves along the coast and down the canyon, the impact would be less than significant. Managed Fisheries. Species in the Pacific Groundfish and Coastal Pelagics (specifically, northern anchovy) fisheries adjacent to the project site could potentially be affected by project construction ' and operation both directly and by adverse effects on their habitat. Construction activities in all three phases could potentially cause erosion/runoff of exposed soils by water and wind that could enter the waters of Newport Bay. Other pollutants generated during demolition and marina, construction could ' include heavy metals, toxic chemicals, wastes and debris, fuel, lubricants, and other toxins related to construction equipment and its maintenance. These pollutants could degrade water quality and have t adverse impacts on marine life, including reduced viability, tissue contamination, and chronic and acute toxicity. Soil runoff could -result in turbidity and siltation in the bay, which could adversely affect the planktonic and benthic organisms in the bay that provide food for managed fish species, as ' well as eelgrass that constitutes EFH. Releases of other pollutants could degrade water quality and cause toxicity to managed fish species and their prey. Dredging during Phase 3 in the intertidal and ' subtidal sediments would destroy benthic invertebrates and bottom -dwelling fish such as gobies that serve as prey for managed species, and could create turbidity that would adversely affect managed species and EFH. ' These effects would be limited, however. The amounts of sediment and dust that would escape from the construction site and from the dredging operation would be limited by the best management practices (BMPs) imposed by the construction permit that the City would be required to obtain (see Section 5.7 for details). There would be no long-term, significant impacts because the effect would ' Sirius Environmental 5.3.20 , ' Marina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources be small in comparison to the normal siltation in the bay and relative to the size of the bay as a whole. Similarly, spills and other releases of potentially toxic substances would be controlled by the construction BMPs, which would include provisions for emergency response and cleanup. In ' addition, the limited scale of the construction project would limit the scale of the potential impact. Losses of individuals due to dredging would be a short-term impact, as other individuals would migrate into the dredged area; based on experience from other areas of Newport Bay (see Appendix D.2), colonization of the newly exposed sediments would be accomplished within one year. The dredging and other in -water construction activities would employ BMPs that would include the use of ' silt curtains, curtailing dredge operations as necessary, limiting overflow of dredged material from the disposal stows, and continuous site monitoring. Furthermore, no eelgrass is present near the project U I P I u site, and mitigation measures developed to minimize impacts on water quality (Section 5.7) would further lessen the project's effects on managed species. Finally, the number of organisms that would be affected would be small: none of the Pacific Groundfish species would occur near the project site except as stray individuals, and the only member of the Coastal Pelagics likely to be present in substantial numbers is northern anchovy, a widespread and abundant species. The effects of erosion, dredging -related turbidity, and spills on managed fish species and EFH at the project site would, therefore, be less than significant. Pile driving in Phase 3 construction would create noise and turbidity, but the effects would be localized and of relatively short duration. Most of the pile driving, i.e., that involving the sheet piling, would be done before the basin was open to the Bay; only the 60 guide piles would be installed when the basin was full of water, which would take no more than one month. Fish have been shown to be adversely affected by the high noise levels that pile driving can produce, and at very high sound levels can be injured or killed (e.g., Green n.d.; NMFS 2003). However, fish would be expected to, avoid the area during pile driving, and the newly -created basin would not be expected to attract fish until construction was completed. Although the impacts would be less than significant, for the reasons presented above, mitigation measures related to water quality, beach impacts, and pile driving noise (MM 5.3-A.], 5.3-A.2, 5.7-A.1 and 5.7-A.2) would be employed to reduce impacts further. Accordingly, impacts of pile driving on managed fish species would be less than significant. Of the 1.81 acres of on -site intertidal habitat, the loss of 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal area would represent a loss of EFH, but that loss would be offset by the net gain of 0.9 acres of shallow -water habitat in the form of the marina basin. The added water area would support benthic invertebrates and forage fish that would serve as a food resource for managed species, particularly the Pacific Groundfish species. In addition, construction of the proposed marina would result in the depth modification of shallow -water subtidal habitat in the channel adjacent to the project site in order to provide adequate approach and berth depths. This impact to shallow -water habitat is considered less than significant because the depth change would be small (less than six feet) and the benthic community would recolonize the sediments. Finally, the proposed marina would be enclosed by a bulkhead of cement sheet piling and would include up to 60 guide pilings, which together would create a substantial amount of hard -surface habitat that would support marine algae and invertebrates 1 Sirius Environmental 5.3-21 Marina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources ' that would provide an additional food resource for managed fish species. Accordingly, the impacts of construction on EFH would be less than significant. Operation of Phases 1 and 2 would have no impacts on managed species or EFH. Long-term water quality within the proposed marina would suffer from poor flushing rates, which would be below EPA guidelines (Appendix H.2). Inadequate tidal flushing in the marina basin would result in lowered dissolved oxygen levels, higher water temperatures, lower water transparency, higher plant ' nutrient concentrations, and increased sedimentation. These conditions could limit the colonization of marina habitats by plants, invertebrates, and fish, and limit long-term productivity of the marina's ' biota. The potential influence of degraded water quality in the marina on adjacent harbor water quality could have an indirect impact on managed fish species living in Newport Bay outside the marina, especially in view of already degraded water quality in the adjacent Lido Channel (Appendix H.2). As the marina would be part of the Newport Bay system,that is designated EFH for Pacific Groundfish and Coastal Pelagics, there would be an adverse effect on EFH. In recognitioaof 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. ' Invasive Species. EFH could be affected by the release and spread of the invasive alga Caulerpa taxifolia that, if it were to become established, couldadversely affect the native benthic communities ' on which many managed species rely. Although Caulerpa has not been detected in Newport Harbor it is, as described in Section 5.3.3, present in other southern California embayments. The interagency Southern California Caulerpa Action Team has developed protocols for in -water construction projects that project proponents are required to implement as conditions of their USACE permits. The City would conductthe required underwater surveys for the presence of Caulerpa prior to the ' commencement of dredging; if Caulerpa were detected, dredging would be prohibited until eradication efforts had been completed. These procedures would minimize the chance that project ' dredging would facilitate the spread of Caulerpa. Given these procedures and the fact that Caulerpa is not known from Newport Harbor, the project's impact on the potential spread of Caulerpa is less ' considered than significant. Cumulative The proposed project woul&not contribute to cumulative impacts on designated sensitive natural communities. Construction of the marina portion of the proposed project in Phase 3 would contribute ' to the cumulative loss of sandy intertidal habitat. This contribution to the cumulative impact on sandy Sirius Environmental 6.3.22, IMarina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources intertidal habitat is considered less than significant, however, as it is very small in relation to the total in NewportBeach amount of such habitat available in the immediate vicinity of the project site and as a whole. Construction of Phase 3 of the proposed project could affect natural resources that are important to managed species and their habitats in Newport Bay. These potential effects could result from turbidity, releases of pollutants, noise, and habitat destruction. Mitigation measures developed to minimize impacts on water quality (Section 5.7) and biological resources (see threshold 5.3-A) would ' be employed in order to lessen project construction's cumulative effects on the EFH of managed species. ' Operation of the proposed marina could contribute to cumulative water quality impacts in the project area, given the identified water quality and sediment issues in the nearby Rhine Channel and the channel adjacent to the project site. Degradation of water quality would represent an adverse impact on EFH. The project's water quality improvement measures and mitigation measures related to water ' quality (see Section 5.7) would minimize those effects, and result in less than cumulatively considerable impacts. Mitigation Measures ' Project Specific No mitigation is required. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7-AJ, MM 5.7-A.2, MM 5.3-A.I and MM 5.3-A.2 would lessen impacts. Cumulative No mitigation is required. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7-A.1, MM 5.7-A.2, MM 5.7-A.1 and MM 5.3-A.2 would lessen impacts. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. ' Cumulative ' Less than significant. Intertidal and Shallow Water Habitat 5.3-C: The project could have an adverse effect on Intertidal habitat through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Project -Specific Analysis No jurisdictional wetlands, as defined by the USACE or CCC guidance are present on the site (see above and Appendix DA). Accordingly, the proposed project would have no impact on protected wetlands. However, there are 1.81 acres of sandy intertidal habitat present on the site. The ' construction of the proposed marina in Phase 3 would remove 0.66 acre of intertidal habitat. ' Sirius Environmental 5.3.23 Marina Park Draft REIR Blologkal Resources , However, the new marina bulkheads, groin walls, dock pilings, and dock floats would provide new intertidal and subtidal hard substrate that would be colonized by marine algae as well as invertebrates (mussels, crabs, and worms). The increased food -base provided by algae and invertebrates living on the hard substrate would attract perch and other species of fish. The increase in surface -area of both , open water habitat and soft -bottom benthic habitat created by the marina project would provide additional habitat for water -column fish (i.e., topsmelt and perch), bottom -associated fishes (i.e., flatfish and gables), and soft- bottom invertebrate (worms and clams). (Also, as noted above the project would create 0.4 acres of open water/soft-bottom habitat.) The loss of 0.66 acres of intertidal habitat and associated benthic food resources for foraging fish and shorebirds would constitute a potentially significant, but.mitigable, impact. That loss would be mitigated as determined by the City of Newport Beach during the project permitting phase (mitigation measure MM 5.3-C.1). , Deepening of the existing subtidal area would affect 0.1 ac of on -site shallow water and 0.72 acre of offsite shallow water. That area would remain shallow -water habitat, therefore, no loss of shallow - habitat the impact habitat would be less than significant. water would occur, and on marine Cumulative The proposed project would contribute to the loss or degradation of sandy intertidal habitat. That loss , could represent a cumulatively considerable impact. ' Mitigation Measures Project Specific The following mitigation measure would reduce the project's impact on sandy intertidal habitat to less than significant. MM 5.3-C.1 The City of Newport Beach shall mitigate the loss of 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal habitat at an acceptable location within Newport Bay, or at another southern California embayment, or by means of an in -lieu fee agreement. Mitigation shall be based upon a ratio determined by the City of Newport Beach. An in -lieu fee agreement option for contributing to a permitted or nearly -permitted mitigation project option will also be simultaneously pursued. A conceptual and final intertidal habitat mitigation plan will be developed that further refines habitat losses, identifies mitigation goals, mitigation success criteria, costs, location, mitigation requirements, mitigation methods, monitoring, and mitigation , success criteria. The mitigation plan will be included in the USACE and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) permit conditions. In accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan must be developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. 1 Sirius Environmenial 5.3.24 1 I Marina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources I t LJ I J 1 I I J I Cumulative Implementation of mitigation measure MM5.3-C.I is required in order to reduce the project's contribution to cumulative impacts. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project -Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. Wildlife Migration Corridors and Nursery Sites 5.3-1): The project would not Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or Impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. Project -Specific Analysis (Project Site and Sand Disposal Sites) No designated migration corridors are on or near the project site. No native terrestrial wildlife species are known to use the site, nor would any be expected to in view of its highly developed nature. Some marine wildlife species are likely to move through the waters adjacent to the project site and use those waters as nursery habitat, and some species may move through the nearshore areas at sand disposal sites 2 and 3. Turbidity from dredging and dredged material disposal could interfere with wildlife movements. These effects would be temporary, however, and would have a less than significant impact on wildlife movements. The LA-3 ocean disposal site may experience migrations by a number of fish and mammal species, including gray whales. The site designation EIS, however, concluded that the impacts of disposal operations on wildlife migration movements would be less than significant (USACE and EPA 2004). The site is likely to serve as nursery for the California halibut, considered by the regional wildlife agencies as a sensitive fish species. The project is not known to support a large population of California halibut, although some may be present. The potential impacts of the proposed project, in particular marina construction, on halibut are considered under 5.3-A. That analysis concluded that the project would have less than significant impacts on halibut and their habitat, but imposed a mitigation measure in order to lessen the noise impacts that were identified and invoked the water quality mitigation measures imposed in Section 5.7. Cumulative The proposed project would not contribute to potential cumulative impacts to the California halibut nursery sites. L� Sirius Environmental 5.3-25 Marina Park Draft REIR Bfologfcal Resources ' Mitigation Measures Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7-A.1, MM 5.7- A.2, and MM 5.3-A.2 would minimize impacts, Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significant after Mitigation ' Project Specific Less than significant Cumulative No impact. , Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources 5.3-E: The project could conflict with policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree -preservation policy or ordinance. Project -Specific Analysis (Project Site and Sand Disposal Sites) There are no local policies or ordinances that would protect any of the biological resources on the project site or at the sand disposal sites. Some common bird species have the potential to nest on the project site, although a site survey suggested that no suitable nesting habitat exists on the site (see Appendix D.1). Any nests that did occur would be protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (see Section 5.3.2). Project construction activities in Phase 1 have the potential to affect those nests adversely because all of the trees on the site would be removed entirely or relocated elsewhere on site. The number of nests affected, if any, would be small and the species affected are abundant and nest throughout the area. Nevertheless, the destruction of active nests would be a significant impact because it would violate an established regulation aimed at preserving biological resources. Cumulative Analysis Since the proposed project has the potential to impact nests on the project site, the project could contribute to potentially significant cumulative impacts on nesting birds. Mitigation Measures Project -Specific MM 5.3-E.1 During all phases of construction, the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that removal of vegetation or other potential migratory nesting -bird habitat will be conducted outside of the avian nesting season (February through August). If removal of vegetation occurs during the avian nesting season, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to this activity. If migratory birds are found to be nesting within or near the impact area, a•buffer where no I I I I I Sfrfus Environmental 5.3.2E 1 ' Marina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources construction activities would occur would need to be established by a qualified is longer biologist. This biologist would also determine when the nest no active, at which time construction could resume. ' Implementation of MM 5.3-E.1 would eliminate the possibility of the project violating the Migratory ' Bird Treaty Act restrictions. Cumulative tImplementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.3 E.1 is required. Level of Significance After Mitigation ' Project -Specific No impact ' Cumulative No impact. ' Conservation Plans 5.3-F: The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Project -Specific Analysis (Project Site and Sand Disposal Sites) The project site and the sand disposal sites are not located in any Habitat Conservation Plan or any other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan. No further action is required pursuant to the NCCP/HCP because there are no species or habitats protected by the Orange County Coastal - Central NCCP/HCP on the site. Implementation of the proposed project would not have significant impacts on any special -status or sensitive plant communities, plants, or terrestrial animal species. Therefore, the project would have no impacts on any habitat conservation plan ' Cumulative The project site and sand disposal sites are not located in any Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, ' the proposed project would not contribute to potential cumulative impacts to any Habitat Conservation Plan. Mitigation Measures Project Specific ' No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. ' Sirius Environmental 5.3-27 Marina Park Draft REIR Biological Resources ' Level of Significance after mitigation ' Project Specific No impact. Cumulative , No impact. L' Id 0 I I I Sirius Environmental 5.3.28 1 ' Marina Park Draft REIR Cultural Resources 5.4 - Cultural Resources ' 5.4.1 - Introduction This section describes the existing cultural resources setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information contained in the Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment, Significance in October Evaluations and Paleontological Records Review for the Marina Park project prepared 2008 by Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) and included in this EIR as Appendix E, Cultural Resources Assessment. 5.4.2 - Regulatory Setting The regulatory setting for cultural resources includes laws and regulations covering historic and architectural resources, ethnographic resources, and paleontological resources. This section ' summarizes the laws and regulations that could apply to the Marina Park project. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).The NHPA establishes national policy for protecting significant cultural resources that are defined as "historic properties" under 36 CFR 60.4. NHPA Section 106 (36 CFR §800) requires that federal agencies (in the case of the Marina Park project, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) consider and evaluate the effect that federal projects may have on historic properties under their jurisdiction. Only historic properties are potentially subject to adverse effects under a federal action; archaeological sites and architectural structures that are not historic properties are categorically considered not significant. The criteria for designating an archaeological site or an architectural structure as historic is defined in the NHPA implementing regulations (36 CFR §60.4). These criteria state that generally a resource must be at least 50 years old, and meet a number of other criteria (properties less than 50 years of age may be eligible for listing if found to be exceptionally important). If a particular resource meets one of these "historic for National Register offlistoric Places criteria, it is considered as an eligible property" the (NRHP) listing. USC'§§ 1996-1996a) American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA). AIRFA (42 requires that locations identified as central to Native American religious practice be protected. ' Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) (25 USC §§ 3001- 3013). NAGPRA requires that prehistoric human remains and burial -related artifacts of individuals ' recovered during ground disturbances be provided to those contemporary Native Americans who are recognized as descendants. ' California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a.3) and PRC Section 21084.1 defines "historic resources," as "[ajny object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant' with the clarification that, "[g]enerally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical ' Sirius Environmental 5.4-9 Cultural Resources Marina Park Draft REIR ' Resources. " CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) defines a significant impact on historic resources as actions that may demolish or substantially alter the resource or its immediate surroundings to the extent that the features that make it historically significant are materially impaired. CEQA also provides guidance on the consideration of archeologicalresources (CEQA Guidelines Sections ' 1-5064.5 and 15126.4). California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) and Public Resources Code (Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98) govern the disposition of Native American burials, which is within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Public Resources Code. Section 5097.5 prohibits excavation or removal of any "vertebrate paleontological site or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands." Section 30244 requires reasonable mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources from development on public land. 5.4.3 - Existing Conditions The project site and surrounding areas are generally flat, with elevations of between 5 to 10 feet above mean sea level. The northern portion of the project site consists of a public sand beach known as Mother's Beach. The remainder of the project site includes areas paved with asphalt and ' consisting of mobile homes, community buildings, commercial properties, and tennis courts; and areas of lawns and ornamental vegetation within park space. The original ground surface and soils are not observable within the project area. Previous geologic mapping indicates that the site lies on top of deposits of young Quaternary -era alluvium derived as ' either fluvial deposits associated with Newport Bay or as beach sands from Newport Beach. These deposits may overlie older Quaternary terrace deposits at an unknown depth. Prehistoric Archaeology The pre -history of southern California is divided by anthropologists into four major periods: Early, Millingstone, Intermediate, and Late Prehistoric. All but the end of the Late Prehistoric are known only from artifacts and archeological sites. Early Period (before 6000 D.C.). Artifacts and cultural evidence from the first human presence in California, near the end of the last glaciation, appear to represent a big -game hunting tradition. Very few sites from this Early Period exist, especially in inland areas. Most sites that have been excavated ' and -dated suggest short-term occupation, and are generally found in caves and around' lakes that existed then. Millingstones and dart points are not part of the Early Period tool assemblage. ' Millingstone Period (6000 to 3000 B.C.).The onset of the Millingstone Period.appears to correspond with an interval of warm and dry weather (Wallace 1978). Artifact assemblages begin to reflect an emphasis on plant foods and foraging subsistence systems, and sites are occupied for a greater duration than Early Period sites. 5.4.2 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Cultural Resources Although numerous Millingstone sites have been identified in Orange County, few are actually dated. ' The best understood of these is CA-ORA-64, located near Newport Bay, which has been radiometrically dated to about 6000 B.C. (Breece et al. 1988). This site is located outside the I -mile search radius of the -project area, but is the nearest to the project site. Research at this site suggests a settlement -subsistence system reflecting a semi -sedentary lifestyle. Generally, the Millingstone ' assemblage in the Los Angeles basin is typified by large and heavy deep -basin metates, wedge- shaped manos, and large choppers and scrapers. Flaked lithic tools are slightly larger and cruder than in later periods, and cogstones begin to appear. ' Intermediate Period (3000 B.C. to A.D. 500). This period is interpreted as one of slow technological transition, presumably related to the slowly drying and warming climate. Site artifact ' assemblages retain many attributes of the Millingstone Period, and are difficult to distinguish from earlier sites in the absence of radiometric dates. The reduced number of large projectile points ' combined with the presence of mortars and pestles suggest that the indigenous populations may have preferred harvesting, processing, and consuming acorns and other seeds over hunting. Due to a general lack of data, neither the settlement and subsistence systems nor the cultural evolution of this ' period are well understood. It has been proposed by some researchers that group sedentarism increased with the exploitation of storable, high -yield plant food resources such as acorns. The duration and intensity of occupation at base camps increased during this period, especially in the later part of the period. Generally, the Intermediate Period artifact assemblage in the Los Angeles basin is vague, including elements of both the Late Prehistoric and the Millingstone periods Late Prehistoric Period (A.D. 500 to A.D. 1769). Extending to Spanish contact, the Late Prehistoric ' Period reflects increased sophistication and diversity in technology. Village sites are common and artifact assemblages characteristically contain small projectile or dart points, which imply the use of ' the bow and arrow. In addition, assemblages include steatite bowls, asphaltum artifacts, grave goods, and elaborate shell ornaments. Use of bedrock milling stations is purported to have been widespread during this period, as it was in the previous period. Increased hunting efficiency and widespread ' exploitation of acorns provided reliable and storable food resources. Pottery, previously traded into the area, is made locally during the latest stage of this Period and is of simple construction. Cameron (1999) names several village sites in inland Orange County that are located within Gabrielino territory. Native American History History, that is, a written record, began in the project area with the arrival of Spanish explorers and ' the establishment of missions and outposts during the eighteenth century. The project area is situated within an area that has been ethnographically mapped as the Gabrielino traditional -use area. The Gabrielino tribal territory extended north from Aliso Creek to just beyond Topanga Canyon along the Pacific Coast, and inland to the City of San Bernardino (Bean and Smith 1978). Their territory would have included portions of the Santa Ana River and several islands, such as Catalina. It is likely that these tribal boundaries were fluid and allowed for contact, trade, and the diffusion of ideas between ' Sirius Environmental 5.4-3 Cultural Resources Marine Park Draft REIR r neighboring groups. The Gabrielifio spoke a language that belongs to a subfamily of the Uto-Aztecan language family. The total Gabrielifio population in about 1770 AD was roughly 5,000 persons, based on an estimate of 100 small villages with approximately 50 to 200 people per village. The early ethnographers viewed the Gabrielifio as a chief -oriented society of semi -sedentary hunter - gatherers. Influenced by coastal and interior environmental settings, their material culture was quite elaborate and consisted of well -made wood, bone, stone, and shell items. At the time of Spanish ' contact, traditional Gabrielifio society began to fragment as a result of foreign diseases and the mass removal of local Indian groups to Mission San Gabriel and Mission San Juan Capistrano. By 1800, most traditional Gabrielifios had either been killed or subjugated by the Spanish. Recent History The City of Newport Beach is located on land that was originally occupied by Native Americans and then by Spanish settlers, Mexican ranchers, and American entrepreneurs. By 1850, California had become a state, and Americans began to change the character of California with ranches, orchards, and new cities. In the mid-1800s the state of California sold several of the small islands and peninsula areas for $1 an acre, leading to Harbor, Balboa, and Lido Islands forming the foundation for ' the eventual development of the City of Newport Beach. In 1870, the river steamer Vaquero entered the upper Newport Bay, bringing attention to the bay area. In 1888, James and Robert McFadden and their business associate, James Irvine, moved their shipping business from the inner shores of ' Newport Bay to the deeper waters of the oceanfront area and to construct a large pier on the sand spit that would become the Balboa Peninsula. The McFadden wharf soon became the largest business in the region, shipping agricultural products and manufactured goods out from the beach areas. The growth of the area was heightened by the Arrival in 1905 of the Pacific Electric Railway Company, which attracted new residents, commuters, and tourists. Small hotels and cottages along the beaches ' developed, and villages such as WestNewport, East Newport, Bay Island, and Balboa Island began to dot the beaches and peninsula areas. 1 In 1906, the City of Newport Beach was incorporated by joining these small communities, -and in 1924 Corona Del Mar was annexed officially. In 1926, the Pacific Coast Highway was built, and in ' 1936 the North Harbor was dedicated. During the 1940s, the Newport Beach area became a vital hub for warships and defense industries. In the 1950s, the Santa Ana Freeway, Interstate 5, was built, dramatically increasing the growth of the area. By the 1970s, rapid urbanization with new businesses, residential growth, and tourism had changed the area to its current character. ' Historical and Cultural Resources Records Search A historical resource records search was conducted at -the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), which is located at California State University, Fullerton, to determine the existence of previously documented cultural resources in the City of Newport Beach and County of Orange. The primary purpose of the search was to determine what historical resources have been recorded in the vicinity of or within the project area, and whether such resources will be or could be impacted by , 5.44 Sirius Environmental I I Marina Park Draft REIR Cultural Resources I I I I I I development. This records search included reviews of archival maps and examinations of current inventories of the relevant national, state, and local historical organizations and agencies. The details of the search are described in Appendix E. Review of early 201" Century topographic maps revealed neither structures nor any other development within the project area boundaries. The maps do depict the intersection of two Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) branch lines to the west-northwest of the project area, one of which continues southerly to Newport Beach proper, within 0.25 miles of the project area. These maps also depict numerous structures near the SPRR branches, all of which appear to have been located south of Balboa Boulevard. A total of 15 previous studies have been conducted within a 1-mile radius of the project site, although few near it; the majority of those studies were completed along Pacific Coast Highway and State Route 55, landward of the Balboa Peninsula. There are no known cultural resources located within the project site boundaries, but nine cultural resources are known within the 1-mile search radius, including four prehistoric -age and five historic -age resources (Table 5.4-1). Two of the resources are California Historical Landmarks, one is an NRHP-listed property, and one resource is considered a historical landmark by the Newport Beach Historical Society but is not recognized by the City of Newport Beach as a landmark building. Field Survey The project site and immediate surroundings were surveyed by MBA on July 11, 2008. In this survey, the paved and park portions of the project area were walked from east to west, a technique indicated by the negligible amount of original ground surface visible. No prehistoric -age archaeological resources were detected, but several historic -age structures and structure complexes were observed. Those resources, which were recorded on DPR 523 Forms and evaluated for significance (see Appendix E), were: the American Legion Post 291, the Marina Park Mobile Home Park, the 19"' Street restroom, Las Arenas Park, the Southern California Edison Property, and the Bayshores Peninsula Hotel. None of the resources was found to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Resources. Table 5.4-1: Previously Recorded Cultural Resources -0:5- 0.25- Site Name Type radius-1-milemile mile Site? radius radius CA-Ora-59 Prehistoric age - the traces of a "camp site" • — — No recorded in 1912 as a mound of shell. CA-Ora-60 Prehistoric age - the traces of a "camp site" • — — No recorded in 1912 as a scatter of clam, oyster, and univalve shell. Sirius Environmental 5.4.5 Cultural Resources Marina Park Draft REIR t -1-mile -0.5- 0.25- On Site Name Type radius mile le Site? { radius radius .' CA-Om-61 Prehistoric age — the traces of a "camp site" • — i — No recorded in 1912 as -a scatter of shell. The presence of a small, wood -frame house was noted at the site, and the prehistoric age of the shell i scatter was considered potentially suspect by the original recorder as a result. CA-Ora-62 Prehistoric age —the traces of a "camp site" • — j - I No recorded in 1912.Oral'traditi6n (1912) noted the 1 presence of numerous skeletons, mortars, pestles, and other artifacts detected at this location. 30.176654 Historic age — the Our Lady Mount Carmel — — • No church built in 1951. The recorders note that the structure does not appear to be eligible for inclusion in theNRHP. (NR-6Y) Historic age — the South Coast Shipyard, three — 30-179867 — • No groups of buildings built at various dates. The } recorder/ evaluator notes that none of the individual buildings appears to be eligible for listing in the CR. However, the grouping of buildings are referenced as a historic district and are considered eligible for listing at the local level. The South Coast Shipyard is recognized as I a historical landmark by the Newport Beach Historical Society but is not recognized by the City of Newport Beach as a landmark building. 30-162261/ Historic age — the Old Landing site, where the • — — No CHL 198 area was named Newport by James Irvine, I Benjamin Flint, James McFadden, and Robert McFadden in 1870. This is also the site of a shipping service run by the McFaddens in the 1870s and 1880s. (NR-7L) — 30-162258/ 1 Historic age— The site of the McFadden Wharf, — — • No CHL 794 originally constructed in 1888 by the McFadden brothers. (NR-ICL) 30-1585851 Historic age —the Lovell Beach House, built in — — • No NR74000545 1926. (NR-IS) _ Source: Michael Bmndman Associates 2008. Paleontological Resources A paleontological records check was conducted in 2008 through the Vertebrate Paleontology Section at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles (see Appendix B for details) in order to determine the potential for significant paleontological resources to be encountered in the project area. The paleontological review showed that the entire project area is situated upon surface deposits of young Quaternary -era alluvium derived as either fluvial deposits associated with Newport Bay or as beach sands from nearby Newport Beach. There are no known fossil vertebrate localities nearby from such deposits, and it is unlikely that such deposits would contain significant vertebrate fossils. However, I I I 1 I I I I I I 5.4.6 Sirius Environmental I Marina Park Draft REIR Cultural Resources these deposits may overlie older Quaternary terrace deposits at an unknown depth. These older Quaternary terrace deposits have been known to yield fossil resources within the region; for example, locality LACM 6370 produced a fossil specimen of the extinct horse Eguus from older Quaternary ' terrace deposits. ' 5.4.4 - Thresholds of Significance following According to the CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the questions are analyzed and evaluated to determine whether impacts to cultural resources are significant environmental effects. Would the project: a.) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in ' §15064.5? b.) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c.) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or a unique geologic feature? d.) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ' 5.4.5 - Project Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary. ' Historic Resource 5.4-A: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5. ' ' Project -Specific Analysis field The records search revealed five historic -age resources near the site (Table 5.4-1) and the survey found an additional seven potentially historic resources on or adjacent to the site. None of the five resources located outside the project site would be affected by project implementation. The seven potentially historic resources on and adjacent to the site did not meet the criteria for historical ' significance. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed project would result in no impacts on historical resources. ' Cumulative Since the proposed project would not impact historic resources, the proposed project would not contribute to potential cumulative historic impacts. ' Sirius -Environmental 5.4-7 Cultural Resources Marina Park Draft REIR I Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. , Cumulative No mitigation measures are.required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. Archaeological and Cultural Resources 5.4•B: The project could cause a substantial adverse change In the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.6. ' Project -Specific Analysis in The records search found four previously recorded archaeological resources the general area ("camp sites," discovered in 1912) but the field survey found no archaeological resources on or adjacent to the site. None of the four resources are located on the project site, and therefore none would be affected by project implementation. Based upon the high levelW urbanization present within the project area and the resultant ground , disturbance, in conjunction with the environmental setting (i.e., the project area has been subject to historic -era disturbance from 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 recommended. In general the California coast is culturally sensitive, however the Balboa Peninsula is a relatively new feature and the project area has-been substantially disturbed by previous activities. Therefore the ' site is not considered particularly sensitive; project construction activities are not anticipated to result in cultural resource impacts to Native American groups; mitigation measure MM 5.4-B.1 would ensure that impacts remain less than significant. ' Cumulative in As described above, construction activities associated with the project are not anticipated to result potential significant impacts to resources of concern to Native American groups and to archeological resources; mitigation measure MM 5.4-B.1 would ensure that impacts would remain less than significant. Therefore, the project would not result in significant cumulative impacts. 5.4•8 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures Project Specific MM-5.4-B.1 If archeological 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 then 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. ICumulative ' Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.4-B.1 is required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. Paleontological Resource or Geologic Feature 5.4-C: The project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. ' Project -Specific Analysis The project area is situated upon geological deposits with low fossil -bearing potential, but these sediments may overlie more sensitive deposits that lie at an unknown depth. Based on the potential for finds within the older deposits, construction of the proposed project has a moderate potential to encounter paleontological resources in the subsurface of the project site. Therefore, potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources could result from construction activities. Cumulative The proposed project could contribute to potential significant cumulative impacts to paleontological resources. Mitigation Measures Project Specific ' MM 5.4-C.1 During Phase 3 construction, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage excavation of paleontological resources as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resources surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the City, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils as appropriate. If ' Sirius Environmental 5.4-9 Cultural Resources Marina Park Draft REIR I additional or unexpected paleontological features are discovered, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the City Planning Department. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, the paleontological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City, for exploration and/or salvage. , These actions, as well as final disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.4-C.1 is required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. Human Remains 5.4•1): The project would not disturb any human remains, Including those Interred outside of formal cemeteries. I Project -Specific Analysis No human remains are known to be present on site, and because the project site has been previously graded it is very unlikely that any would be encountered. There is always the unlikely event that ground -disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown buried human remains. Should this occur, Federal laws and standards apply, including the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and its regulations found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CFR 10. In addition, California State Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition. Given that the discovery of unknown buried human remains would result in the need to comply with existing laws and regulations, the construction of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to human remains. Cumulative ' As described above, no remains are known to be present onsite and existing laws and regulations exist if unknown buried human remains are discovered. Therefore, the proposed project's potential contribution to cumulative impacts to human remains is considered less than cumulatively considerable. I 5.4.10 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. ' Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. ' Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific ' Less than significant. ' Cumulative Less than significant. I IF i ' Sirius Environmental 5.4-9t ' Marina Park Draft REIR Geology and Soils 5.5 - Geology and Soils 5.5.1 - Introduction This section describes the existing geology and soil setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and the surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are ' based on information contained in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Terra Costa Consulting Group, Inc., included in this EIR as Appendix F. ' 5.5.2 - Regulatory Setting Federal ' The Clean Water Act including the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is discussed in Section 5.7 Hydrology. State California Building Code (2007). The latest version of the California Building Code (CBC) is the 2007 edition. The California Building Code contains general building design and construction requirements relating to fire and safety, structural safety, and access compliance. CBC provisions provide minimum standards to safeguard life and limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of building materials, use, occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures, as well as certain essential equipment. jAlquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (1972). The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was enacted in 1975 and amended in 1993. Its intent was to provide policies and criteria to assist cities, counties, and state agencies with the responsibility of prohibiting the location of developments and structures for human- occupancy across the trace of active faults. Furthermore, the Act is meant to provide the citizens of the state with increased safety and to minimize the loss of life during and immediately following earthquakes. Seismic Hazard Mapping Act (1990). The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act) of 1990 (Public Resources Code, Chapter 7.8, Section 2690-2699.6) directs the Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey to identify and map areas prone to liquefaction, earthquake -induced landslides and amplified ground shaking. The purpose of the SHMA is to minimize loss of life and property through the identification, evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazards. The SHMA was passed by the legislature following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. California Health and Safety Code. The California Health and Safety Code address all aspects of health and safety including construction standards. Local Title 15, City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Title 15 of the City Municipal Code addresses buildings and construction including electrical, plumbing, abatement of substandard buildings, i ' Sirius Environmental 5.5.1 Geology and Soils Marina Park Draft REIR methane, flood damage prevention, etc. It incorporates California Codes (the California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, etc.). City of Newport Beach General Plan, Safety Element. The Safety Element addresses coastal hazards, geologic hazards, seismic hazards, flood hazards, wildland and urban fire hazards, hazardous materials, aviation hazards, and disaster planning. 5.5.3 - Existing Conditions Geologic Setting The City of Newport Beach is located along the southwestern edge of the Los Angeles basin, adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. Newport Beach is located in the southern California geological region, which contains several active faults, including the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone, the Norwalk fault, the Raymond Fault Zone, the San Andreas Fault Zone, the San Fernando Fault Zone, -and the San Jacinto Fault Zone. The project site is located within approximately two kilometers of the Newport - Inglewood Fault Zone, the only active fault zone within or immediately adjacent to the City of Newport Beach (Safety Element, 2006). No additional active faults or fault zones are located on or near the project site. The project site is designated as a category 3 seismic hazard area in the City of Newport Beach Public Safety Element seismic hazards areas exhibit, which means that it poses ' moderate seismic risk to structures and citizens. This seismic risk is similar to many sites in Southern California. The project site is situated on the landward side of a naturally formed coastal bar (or "barrier") of the type formed by a transgressive sea and littoral currents at the seaward edge of a stream delta or lagoon. The Newport Bay coastal estuary was originally formed as the lower reach of the Santa Ana River. However, in 1915, due to severe silting resulting from flooding of the Santa Ana River (and also the construction -of a man-made channel), the Santa Ana River was realigned. The bay is currently fed only by San Diego Creek, which drains a comparatively small area of Orange County. Site Topography and Bathymetry Elevations across the site range from approximately +7.8 feet (NAVD 88; 0 ft NAVD is roughly equal to sea level) along West Balboa Boulevard to almost+10 feet near the central backbone of the ' site, then back down to about+5 feet at the U.S. bulkhead line that runs generally along the existing shoreline. From the U.S. bulkhead line, the nearshore bay floor slope descends at an inclination of approximately 10:1 down to an approximate elevation of -10 to -12 NAVD feet along the channel limit line. Seismicity Faults and A fault is a fracture in the crust of the earth along which rocks on one side have moved relative to those on the other side. Most faults are the result of repeated displacements over a long period. An active fault is one that has ruptured in the last 11,000 years. No faults, fissures, or shear zones were observed on the project site, and no previously identified faults were found to traverse the site. The 5.5.2 Sirius Environmental Marina Park Draft REIR Geology and Soils Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone lies approximately two kilometers from the project site, but the site does not lie within its Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. ' Earthquakes are classified according to their moment (measure of the amount of energy released), their magnitude (measure of maximum ground motion), and their intensity (a qualitative assessment of the effects at a given location). An earthquake has a single moment and usually one magnitude, but it can produce several intensities, since effects generally decrease with distance. An earthquake with a moment magnitude 6.0 releases 32 times the energy of a magnitude 5.0, and a magnitude 7.0 earthquake releases about 1,000 (32 x 32) times more energy than a magnitude 5.0 earthquake. There are -several methods of calculating the magnitude of ground motion. Intensities are most commonly measured in accordance with the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale, which defines 12 levels of depends the damage. The strength of seismic ground shaking at a certain location primarily on magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the source, the pathways the seismic waves travel through the earth, the response characteristics of the rock or soils underlying the site, and topography, particularly if a site lies in a valley or atop a hill. The level of damage depends on the size, shape, age, and engineering characteristics of the affected buildings and structures. Geological Hazards Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act is to "prohibit the location of most structures for human occupancy across traces of active faults and to mitigate thereby the hazard of ' fault rupture." The State Geologist is required to delineate potentially active faults that have a relatively high potential for ground rupture. No faults have been mapped across the site, and the project site is not located within a mapped fault -rupture hazard zone. Ground Shaking Seismic shaking is the geological hazard that has the greatest potential to severely impact the project site, given that the City of Newport Beach is located near several significant faults that have the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes. Some of the faults caused moderate -sized earthquakes in the last century. The nearest fault to the project site is the Newport-Inglewood/Rose Canyon Fault. According to the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), the maximum credible earthquake for the nearest segment of I the Newport-Inglewood/Rose Canyon Fault is considered to be magnitude 7.2. Recent probabilistic seismic hazard evaluations show the peak ground acceleration on the site for a 10 percent probability ' of exceedance in 50 years to be 0.37 to 0.41 g. Slope Stability Strong ground motions can also worsen existing unstable slope conditions, particularly if coupled with saturated ground conditions. Seismically induced landslides can overrun structures, people, or 1 property; sever utility lines; and block roads, thereby hindering emergency operations. No previous landslides have been mapped on the project site, which is located in aflat portion of the City. Sirius Environmental 5.5-3 Geology and Soils Marina Park Draft REIR I Soils and Subsurface Conditions The subsurface soil investigation (Appendix F) revealed that the site is underlain by hydraulic fill, bay deposits, and, extending beyond the deepest testing (50 feet), older alluvial deposits. • Hydraulic Fill Soils. The project site is generally underlain by five to six feet of loose to medium -dense, gray -brown, damp to wet, hydraulically placed sands and ' silty sands with occasional shell fragments. It is likely that granular soils were placed as the result of dredging during the development of Newport Harbor. t • Bay Deposits. The hydraulic fill sands are typically underlain by a 2- to 2%-foot thick, soft to firm, compressible sandy silt to silty clay bay mud, which is in turn underlain by relatively clean, medium -dense, gray sands with shells and shell fragments characteristic of Holocene -age bay deposits down to an elevation of approximately -20 to -26 feet NVAD. • Older Alluvial Deposits. Dense to very dense, red -brown to gray, coarse "clean" sands generally characteristic of older fluvial/alluvial deposits underlie the project site area below the bay deposits. Groundwater I Due to the coastal location of the project site, groundwater levels at the site can be expected to vary in response to tidal fluctuations. Maximum groundwater levels would likely approach tidal highs in the bay, and groundwater low levels may drop slightly below mean sea level. Soil Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction, a geologic process that causes ground failure, typically occurs in loose, saturated sediments primarily of sandy composition. Areas of Newport Beach susceptible to liquefaction and related ground failure (i.e., seismically induced settlement) include areas along the coastline that include the portions of the City in and around the Newport Bay. The loose to medium -dense, near - surface hydraulic fills and the bay deposits exhibit relatively low densities and consist of clean soils, making these materials susceptible to seismic -induced liquefaction and lateral spreading. The dense to very dense older alluvial deposits are not susceptible to liquefaction. However, potential liquefaction above these elevations could occur with a seismic acceleration of 0.20 g or greater. Seismic Settlement One of the most common phenomena during seismic shaking accompanying any earthquake is the induced settlement of loose, unconsolidated soils. Ground settlement due to seismic activity results from a densification of soils due to ground vibration as well as from reconsolidation of liquefied soils. For the project site, the majority of the potential for seismic ground settlement would be associated with potential liquefaction of the upper 201 feet of the hydraulic fills and bay deposits. The geotechnical study estimates that if soils were to liquefy, the total amount of induced settlement would be on the order of 1 to 4 inches. 5.5.4 Sirius Environmental IMarina Park Draft REIR Geology and Solis Expansive Soils Expansive soils are soils that can give up water (shrink) or take on water (swell). In the absence of proper remediation measures, these soils can cause problems for building foundations, roadways, and other paved areas. Onsite soils tests did not encounter expansive soils. 5.5.4 - Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated to determine whether impacts to geology and soils are significant environmental effects. Would the project: a.) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b.) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ic.) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in an onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d.) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e.) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative ' wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 5.5.5 - Project Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures mitigation This section discusses potential impacts associated with the proposed project and provides measures where necessary. Earthquakes 6.5-A: The project could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including ' the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground shaking and seismic -related liquefaction, and would not expose people or structures to such potential adverse effects with respect to: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alqulst- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) ii) Strong seismic groundshaking. Sirius Environmental 5.5.5 Geology and Solis Marina Park Draft REIR III) Selsmlc•related ground failure, Including liquefaction. Iv) Landslides. Project -Specific Analysis Faulting The project site is not located within a Fault -Rupture Hazard Zone, although the project is near the Newport-Inglewood/Rose Canyon Fault, located 1.86 miles east of the project site. No evidence of faulting has been mapped on the project site or has been inferred to cross the site. Accordingly, the likelihood of fault rupture occurring on the project site is considered low to negligible, and impacts associated with fault rupture would be less than significant. Seismic Ground Shaking The primary seismic hazard is ground shaking due to a large earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. According to the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix F), a maximum probable seismic event along the active regional fault zones could potentially produce a peak horizontal acceleration of approximately 0.41 gat the project site. Accordingly, as with most locations within Southern California, there is the potential for project structures to experience strong ground shaking within the lifetime of the proposed project, as a result of seismic activity originating from regional faults. California State law requires structures to incorporate earthquake -resistant design standards in accordance with the latest CBC and appropriate seismic design criteria; the adherence to this regulatory requirement would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Seismic -Related Ground Failure As discussed above, the proposed project would most likely experience strong ground shaking as a result of seismic activity originating from regional faults, including the nearby Newport- ' Inglewood/Rose Canyon Fault. The potential for seismic -related ground failure is addressed in the following discussion with respect to seismic -induced liquefaction and settlement. Seismic -Induced Liquefaction The near -surface soils beneath the project site, which consistof loose to medium -dense hydraulic fills and bay deposits, would be subject to liquefaction during seismic events. It is expected that liquefaction could be triggered on the project site with a seismic acceleration of 0.20 g. As indicated above, the project site could experience a peak horizontal acceleration of approximately 0.41 g at the project site, which would probably lead to liquefaction of onsite soils. Therefore, impacts associated with seismic -induced liquefaction would be potentially significant. I Seismic -Induced Settlement Ground settlement due to seismic activity results from a densification of soils due to ground vibration, , as well as from reconsolidation of liquefied soils. For the facilities under consideration, it is anticipated that the majority of the seismic ground settlement would be associated with the potential liquefaction of the upper 20 feet or so of the hydraulic fills and bay deposits. It is estimated that if these soils were to liquefy, the total induced settlement could be omthe order of I to 4 inches. This is considered a potentially significant impact. 5.5.6 Sirius Environmental IMarina Park Draft REIR Geology and Solis Landslides The project site and the areas adjacent to the site are relatively flat. No landslides have been.mapped on the project site. Therefore, no impacts associated with landslides would occur. Cumulative ' Soils and geologic influences are site -specific, and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of the proposed project and development within the greater cumulative project area. For instance, development at the project site would not result in altering geologic events or soil features/characteristics, such as ground shaking or seismic intensity; therefore, development at the project site would not affect the level of intensity at which a seismic event an adjacent site experiences. Accordingly, the proposed project would have no cumulative geology and soils impacts. Mitigation Measures Project Specific MM 5.5-A.1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for Phase 3, the City of Newport Beach shall prepare a building foundation design to reduce the impacts of potential liquefaction and settlement. The foundation design shall conform to the recommendation of the geotechnical report prepared for the project, which include: Site Preparation — excavation of minimum of 12 inches and recompaction to provide recommended subgrade density; all activities to be observed by a geotechnical engineer. Foundation -- mat foundation for restroom facilities and small buildings and either a deep foundation system such as driven piles or stone columns with mat foundations for the Balboa Center. The specific foundation design for each proposed structure would require approval by the City of Newport Beach Building Department. Marina — design specifications and construction techniques are recommended in the geotechnical report and shall be adhered to. Cumulative ' P No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific Less than significant impact. Cumulative No impact. Soil Erosion or Topsoil Loss 5.5-B: The project would not result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. I ISirius Environmental 5.5.7 Geology and Soils Marina Park•Draft REIR Project -Specific Analysis The project site is located on relatively flat terrain and consists primarily of sandy soil. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in the mass grading of the entire site (during all three phases), which would leave the soil exposed. Construction activities would utilize best management practices in accordance with City requirements to reduce the potential for soil ' erosion by wind or water to a less -than -significant impact. During Phase 3, any soils that are temporarily stockpiled as a result of the dredging for the proposed marina would comply with standard City requirements to prevent erosion from wind or water. The long-term operation of Phase 3 would include the construction of impervious surfaces, landscaping, and a drainage system that conveys storm water from the surfaces to the bioswales and biocells. These project components would reduce the potential for long-term erosion and loss of topsoil to a less -than -significant impact. Cumulative Soils and geologic influences are site -specific, and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of the proposed project and development within the greater cumulative project area. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts associated with soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific Less than significant impact. Cumulative No impact. Unstable Geologic Location 5.5-C: The project would-be located on a geologic unit or soil that Is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and,potentially result In an onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. 5.5.8 Sirius Environmental tMarina Park Draft REIR Geology and Soils Project -Specific Analysis The proposed facilities on the project site may be exposed to unstable soils. Lateral spreading is slope instability that can occur in response to liquefaction. Lateral spreading typically develops on ground underlain by liquefiable soils or where free -face conditions can develop in a liquefiable soil, ' such as along Newport Bay or its drainage tributaries. The beach area of the project site along Newport Bay is likely to be vulnerable to lateral spreading, which could result in a significant impact on the proposed buildings. Cumulative Soil and geologic influences are site specific, and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of the project site and build -out of related projects in the area. Therefore, there would not be cumulative impacts associated with unstable geologic conditions. Mitigation Measures Project Specific Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.5-A.1 is required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific ' Less than significant impact. Cumulative No impact. Expansive Soil ' 5.5-D: The project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. Project -Specific Analysis ' The onsite soils do not have expansion capabilities; therefore, the structures proposed in Phase 3 would not be affected by expansive soils. Cumulative �- Soil and geologic influences are site specific, and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of the project site and build -out of related projects in the area. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts associated with expansive soils. I ' Sirius Environmental 5.5.9 Geology and Soils Marina Park Draft REIR Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. ' Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. Wastewater Disposal Systems 5.5-E: The project would not have soils Incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. Project -Specific Analysis Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are not proposed in any of the project phases. The project would include lateral connections to the City of Newport Beach sewer mainlines. Therefore, no impacts would occur with project development. Cumulative ' Soil and geologic influences are site specific, and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of the project site and build out of related projects in the area. Therefore, there would be no cumulative geologic impacts associated with wastewater disposal systems. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. 5.5.10 Sirius Environmental I 1 Marina Park Draft REIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials 5.6 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials 5.6.1 - Introduction This section describes existing hazardous materials and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information contained in the Environmental FirstSearch Report, the Hazardous Records Search, the Evaluation Surface Dredged Material Evaluation and supporting regulatory correspondence, the of Soils from the Mobile Home Park, and the Site Assessment Report, Marina Park, prepared by Leighton Consulting, Inc. These documents are included in this EIR as Appendix G. The State of California defines hazardous materials as substances that are toxic, ignitable or flammable, reactive, water -reactive, and/or corrosive; show high acute or chronic toxicity; are carcinogenic (cause cancer); have bioaccumulative properties (accumulate in the body's tissues); or are persistent in the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) definition is based on similar characteristics. The primary concern associated with a hazardous materials release is the short- and long-term effects on the public and the environment from exposure to the hazardous material. The best way to reduce the possibility for a hazardous material release is through regulation governing the storage, use, manufacturing, and handling of hazardous materials. These regulations are typically issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but various local agencies are charged with the responsibility of monitoring those facilities that use, store, transport, and dispose of hazardous materials to insure compliance with the federal guidelines or, if applicable, with more stringent state guidelines. As an example, the City of Newport Beach's General Plan Safety Element describes the City's responsibilities for hazardous material management. 5.6.2 - Regulatory Setting Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are subject to numerous federal, State, and local laws and regulations. The information in this section outlines some of the more common of those that might affect the proposed project. 6901-6987). The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. Section goal of RCRA, a federal statute passed in 1976, is the protection of human health and the environment, the reduction of waste, the conservation of energy and natural resources, and the elimination of the generation of hazardous waste as expeditiously as possible. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 significantly expanded the scope of RCRA by adding new corrective action requirements, land disposal restrictions, and technical requirements. The corresponding regulations in 40 CFR 260-299 provide the general framework for managing hazardous waste, including requirements for entities that generate, store, transport, treat, and dispose of hazardous waste. Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.5). This statute is the basic hazardous waste law for California. The Hazardous Waste Control Law implements the federal RCRA cradle -to -grave waste management system in California. California hazardous waste regulations can be found in Title 22, Division 4.5, Environmental Health Standards for the tSirius Environmental 5.6-1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Marina Park Draft REIR I Management of Hazardous Wastes. The program is administered by the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Emergency Planning and Community Right -To -Know Act (42 U.S.C.11001 et seq.). Also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), the Emergency Planning and Community Right -To -Know Act (EPCRA) was enacted by Congress as the national legislation on community safety. This law was designated to help local communities protect public health, safety, and the environment from chemical hazards. To implement EPCRA, Congress required each state to appoint a State Emergency Response Commission (SERC). The SERCs were required to divide their states into Emergency Planning Districts and to name a Local Emergency Planning Committee for each district. EPCRA provides requirements for emergency release notification, , chemical inventory reporting, and toxic release inventories for facilities that handle chemicals. Hazardous Material Release Response Plans and Inventory Law (California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95). This state right -to -know law requires businesses to develop a Hazardous .Material Management Plan or -a business plan for hazardous materials emergencies if they handle more than 500 pounds, 55 gallons, or 200 cubic feet of hazardous materials, In addition, the business plan includes an inventory of all hazardous materials stored or handled at the facility above these thresholds, This law is designed to reduce the occurrence and severity of hazardous materials releases. The State has integrated the federal EPCRA reporting requirements into this law; once a facility is in compliance with the local administering agency requirements, submittals to other agencies are not required. Asbestos and Lead -Based Paint. The EPA has classified, asbestos -containing materials (ACMs) as a hazardous air pollutant, in accordance with Section 112 of the CAA. Surveys for ACMs are required by 40 CFR 61.145 prior to demolition of structures, and the SCAQMD regulates the actual handling of ACMs during construction and demolition through Rule 1403. Asbestos wastes must be contained and disposed of at a licensed landfill. Lead -based paint is regulated in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 8 Section 1532.1 and Title 17 Sections 35022 and 35038, pertaining to construction sites and in the work place. In addition, 15 USC Section 2601, of the Federal Toxics Control Act, would apply to analysis of lead - based paint in on -site structures. Included in these regulations are requirements for facility surveys, notification of intent to disturb lead -based paint, control measures, removal measures, and handling ' and disposal techniques. Any proposed building demolition activities that include the removal and/or handling of lead -based paint would need to comply with these regulations. PCBs. Any electrical equipment, including but not limited to transformers, that contains PCBs at concentrations greater than or equal to 50 ppm is considered PCB -contaminated electrical equipment. Any transformer that contains PCB concentrations greater than or equal to 500 ppm is considered a PCB transformer. Discovery of PCB -contaminated electrical equipment or PCB transformers 5.&2 Sirius Environmental I Marina Park Draft REIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials I ,- I I I i I I i I requires EPA notification, removal of such transformers, and sampling and characterization of adjacent soils. 5.6.3 - Existing Conditions The majority of the existing site contains a variety of land uses (residential, recreational, public access, community service) that are not typical generators of hazardous wastes or materials. A small portion of the site (5,360 sq. ft) was used as a substation by Southern California Edison (from 1929 to 2008); hazardous materials associated with an electrical substation include PCB -containing oil and other hazardous substances associated with maintaining heavy equipment. Site Assessment CEQA requires that the Lead Agency consult the lists of hazardous waste sites compiled by various state agencies, pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Public Resources Code Section 21092.6). Available Standard Environmental Record Sources from federal and state regulatory agency databases were reviewed to identify use, generation, storage, treatment, and/or disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals or release incidents of such materials that may have impacted the project site (Environmental FirstSearch Report, Appendices G.1 and G.2). The Standard Environmental Record Sources that were included in this review follow the ASTM standard E1527- 05 guidelines. Table 5.6-1 summarizes the findings of the regulatory database search. Because the property covers approximately three city blocks, the minimum search distance for each Standard Environmental Record Source listed above was increased by at least 0.25 mile. Table 5.6-1: Summary of Regulatory Database Search Database Min. Search I Map Finding Distance Summary — (miles)-- -- —--- ------ ------.._..--�--� _ National Priorities List (NPL) 1.25 0 Delisted NPL 0.75 0 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information Systems List (CERCLIS) 0.75 1 CERCLIS—No Further Remedial Action Planned(CERCLIS— NFRAP) 0.75 2 Resource and Recovery Information System —Permitted Treatment and Disposal Facilities (RCRA — TSD) 0.75 0 Corrective Action Report (RCRA COR) 1.25 0 RCRA Generators (LQG, SQG) 0.50 6 RCRA-NLR 0.50 1 Federal, State, Tribal IC/EC 0.50 0 Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) 0.50 0 Tribal Lands 1.25 0 State Sites Database (CalSites) 1.25 4 State/Tribal VCP 0.75 0 LJ Sirius Environmental 5.6-3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Marina Park Draft REIR Min. Search I Map Finding Database Distance summary (miles) State/Tribal Brownfields C 0.75 0 Spills-1990 0.50 3 Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites (SWL) 0.50 1 Other ! 0.50 3 Permits ------ --- - -- - — --- - - --- - - - ----- — � 0.50 --- -- 9-- - Active Underground Storage Tank Facilities/ Aboveground Storage Tank 0.50 1 (UST/AST) Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)_ y R 0.75 11 Source: Environmental FirstSearch Report, west Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663. July 7, 2008. The only LUST site less than 0.4 miles from the project site is a Mobil station located at 1500 Balboa Boulevard' in Newport Beach. This facility reported a gasoline release in June 1986 that affected groundwater, but the case was closed in October 2000. None of the other facilities identified in the records search is closer than 0.15 mile (700 feet) from the project site, and all recorded spills were more than 0.25 mile from the site. Sediment Evaluation NewFields, LLC., prepared a Dredged Material Evaluation (Appendix G.3) that reports the results of a chemical characterization of soils and sediments at the project site that would be dredged and potentially placed on ocean beaches. The project site was divided into Areas A, B, and C. Area A included the existing mobile home park, Area B included the beach above 0 feet mean lower low water (MLLW), and Area C included the channel area below 0 feet MLLW. Soils were tested for their consistency to be deposited onsite, used for beach replenishment, or disposed off -shore at EPA's LA-3 disposal site. All three test areas showed no detectable signs of pesticides, PCBs, tributyltin, TRPH, oil and grease, phthalates, or PAH9. Mercury was detected in the upper and lower Area C test cores, and further testing would be needed to characterize this material for disposal. Bioaccumulation tests of the upper and lower Area C test cores found no mercury in the tissues of the biological organisms exposed to the lower layer of Area C, but did detect mercury at 0.01 to 0.013 mg/kg in the tissues of biological organisms exposed to the upper layer of Area C. Those ' concentrations are well below the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's limit of 1.0 mg/kg and the EPA risk -based guidance value of 0.3 mg/kg, indicating no potential restriction on the use in upland areas of materials excavated from Area C. 'I Site Soil Investigations Soil borings in the vicinity of the SCE substation (Appendix G.6) revealed some soil contamination within the facility footprint. Approximately 300 cubic yards of soil is contaminated by PCBs that would need to be excavated and disposed of by SCE at do approved facility. 5.6.4 Sirius Environmental I IMarina Park Draft REIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials Testing of soils at the existing mobile home park (Appendix GA) found no evidence of elevated ` chemical constituents, and concluded that the upper five feet of soils (the area most likely to have been contaminated if contamination was present) would not qualify as hazardous waste under California law. Demolition Debris Several phases of this project entail the removal of existing structures, some of which are several decades old. The mobile home park was first constructed in the late 1950s/early 1960s; the Girl Scout house was constructed around the same time, and thus materials now banned from use in construction may be present in some of the structures (lead based paint was used in buildings built before the 1960s; asbestos production was stopped in the early 1970s but used in construction into the early 1980s). During demolition, such materials as lead based paint, asbestos, and PCB -containing lighting ballasts may be encountered that would need to be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. No testing of individual structures has been conducted, but testing would be required prior to issuance of construction permits. 1 6.6.4 - Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated to determine whether hazards and hazardous materials impacts are significant environmental effects. Would the project: a.) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b.) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving release of the hazardous materials into the environment? c.) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d.) Be located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e.) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Three other CEQA Guidelines questions related to hazardous materials are not considered further in this EIR because they are not relevant to the proposed project or alternatives. Specifically, the project site is not located in or within two miles of an airport land -use plan area or an airport, it is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip, and there are no wildlands in the vicinity of the project site (see Appendix A, CEQA Checklist VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials questions e. f, and h.). Sirius Environmental 5.6-5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Marina Park Draft REIR 6.6.6 - Project Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential hazards and hazardous -materials impacts associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary. Routine Use 5.6-A: The projectwould notcreate a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Project-Specffic Analysis Based on the Dredged Material Evaluation, some of the sediments that would be dredged for the marina basin contain detectable concentrations of mercury, but the concentrations are below the USFDA and EPA regulation limits. Nevertheless, approximately 3,000 cubic yards of dredged material with elevated mercury levels would be disposed of at an approved facility rather than being disposed of on beaches or on the project site. The material would be transported by truck, but as it would not constitute acutely or extremely hazardous waste, as those terms are defined by the California Department ofToxics Substances Control, its transport and disposal would not result in significant hazardous materials impacts. Approximately 300 cubic yards of PCB -contaminated soil at the SCE substation site would be excavated and shipped (by SCE) to a facility approved for such material. The soil would be transported in covered haul trucks by a licensed contractor. Accordingly, the transport and disposal of PCB -contaminated soil from the SCE site would result in less than significant hazardous materials impacts. Any hazardous materials such as lead -based paint, asbestos, lighting ballasts, etc. that are encountered during the demolition of other existing structures on the project site could expose workers, the public, L and the environment to toxic materials. In the case of asbestos, lead -based paint, and PCBs from building demolition, based on the expected volume of debris and the types of materials typically contaminated with lead -based paints, asbestos, and PCB, the amount of contaminated debris is expected to be relatively small (one to two truckloads). Nevertheless, without appropriate controls the transport and disposal of hazardous wastes from building demolition could result in a potentially significant impact related to,hazardous materials. During operation, the proposed project would use various hazardous materials such as solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and paints. None of these materials would be used or disposed of in reportable quantities, and their use and disposal would be subject to all applicable regulations. No impacts related to hazardous materials would occur as a result of project operation. Cumulative Construction activities could result in a significant hazardous materials impact related to the discovery, removal, and disposal of hazardous demolition debris, but the long-term activities of the 5.6.6 Sirius Environmental I 11 Marina Park Draft REIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials proposed project would not utilize or dispose of any hazardous materials of reportable quantities in its typical operations. Therefore, impacts related to construction activities would be cumulatively significant, but impacts from the operational use of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Project Specific MM 5.6-A.1 Prior to demolition activities in Phase 1, the City of Newport Beach shall determine, through sampling and testing by a licensed laboratory, whether asbestos or lead - based paint materials, or PCBs' are present within the existing onsite structures. if these materials are present, the City of Newport Beach shall require that these materials be handled in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, and shall dispose of these materials in a landfill that accepts asbestos, PCB -containing materials, and lead -based paint. This measure would ensure that hazardous materials in existing structures would be identified and removed by an approved contractor, and shipped to a facility approved for such material. The materials would be handled by licensed hazardous wastes haulers. With this mitigation measure, the transport and disposal of hazardous wastes from building demolition would result in less than significant hazardous materials impacts. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. Accident Conditions 5.6-B: The project may create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving a release of the hazardous materials into the environment. Project -Specific Analysis There is a potential for the existing onsite structures (i.e., Girl Scout house, community center, and mobile home structures) to contain asbestos and lead -based paint due to their age. Therefore, demolition activities have a potential to produce small amounts of hazardous wastes, which is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 5.6-A.1 requires that these wastes be removed and handled appropriately and transported and disposed of by licensed contractors at Sirius Environmental 5.6-7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Marina Park Draft REIR licensed facilities. Accordingly, the potential impact of releases of hazardous materials due to demolition would be less than significant. Project construction would also consist of extensive excavation of the marina. Work on the remaining areas would involve limited grading and trenching. These activities would involve typical construction methods and equipment onsite for a• relatively limited time. Construction equipment would include diesel- and gasoline -powered engines. There would be a small risk of gasoline or diesel tank rupture in the event of an accident, but the risk of other spills would be negligible because the contractors would not be permitted to fuel or service vehicles on site. Furthermore, the limited duration of construction (less than one year) would reduce the risk of spills and upsets. Compliance with construction site safety regulations and use of best management practices would limit the risk of upsetto less -than -significant levels. Operation of the various Marina Park facilities would not typically use hazardous materials in ways that would involve the risk of upset and accident. City of Newport Beach Harbor regulations do not allow boat owners to use solvents or cleaners on the Newport Bay or at marinas. In addition, the proposed marina would not include maintenance areas, vehicle/boat wash areas, or fueling facilities. Therefore, the potential for the proposed project to experience a significant hazardous materials upset or accident condition is limited and the potential impact would be less than significant. Cumulative With mitigation, the impacts associated with project demolition activities would not result in significant hazardous materials impacts related to asbestos and lead -based paint. Therefore, the hazardous impacts proposed project would not contribute to significant cumulative materials related to asbestos and lead -based paint. incident long-term Impacts related to the accidental release or a hazardous materials during activities are site specific and would not contribute to a greater cumulative impact associated with a release or incident. Therefore, the project's long-term contribution to potential cumulative hazardous materials impacts would be less than cumulatively significant. Mitigation Measures Project Specific Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.6-A.1 is required. ' Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.6-A.l is required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific Less than significant. 5.5-18 Sirius Envirodmental I �1 Marina Park Draft REIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials Cumulative Less than significant. Schools 5.6-C: The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Project -Specific Analysis The proposed project is located approximately one -quarter mile from Newport Elementary School. However, implementation of the proposed project would not result in emission of hazardous materials or wastes that would pose a serious health risk to students or school employees. There are no significant or extraordinary conditions associated with the project that would result in the release of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Compliance with applicable state and federal regulations with regard to the use of hazardous materials would ensure that any remote impact potential would be less than significant. i� Cumulative No other sources of hazardous wastes or emissions are known in the vicinity of the Newport Elementary School. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in emission of hazardous materials or wastes that would pose a serious health risk to students or school employees. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in no cumulative impact on schools due to releases of hazardous emissions. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific Less than significant. [' Cumulative No impact. Hazardous Materials Site Listing 5.6-D: The project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 11 ISirius Environmental 5.6-9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Marina Park Draft REIR Project -Specific Analysts Federal and state regulatory agency databases were reviewed to identify use, generation, storage, treatment, and/or disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals, or release incidents of such materials that may have adversely affected the project site. The database information indicated no evidence of listed hazardous materials site(s) within the project site; therefore, no impacts from listed hazardous material sites would occur. In addition, construction activities would include dredging and excavation of soils that have detectable mercury and PCB concentrations. Those concentrations are below regulatory action limits, and the soils would be disposed of in licensed landfills. Therefore, the removal of those soils would constitute a less -then -significant impact. Cumulative The proposed project is not on a regulatory list on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. Therefore, the projecbimplementation would not _ contribute to potential cumulative impacts related to listed hazardous material sites within the City. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required, ' Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation �. Project Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. Emergency Plans 5.6•E: The project would not Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Project -Specific Analysis The Safety Element of the City's General Plan recognizes and responds to public health and safety risks that could cause exposure to the residents ofNewport Beach. The Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) participates in county -wide mutual -aid response systems and maintains the City's Emergency Management Plan, which involves city, county, state, and federal agencies and offices. Implementation of city, county, and state emergency response and mutual aid plans enable r 5.6.10 Sirius Environmental i 1 Marina Park Draft REIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1 the community to avert or minimize impacts to a practical and feasible extent and allow restoration of the City's crucial services in a timely manner after an event. 1 Access to the Balboa Peninsula where the project site is located is primarily viaNewport and Balboa Boulevards. The project site is relatively large; construction staging would occur on -site and would not constrict access or result in modifications to Balboa or Newport Boulevards except possibly 1 during occasional situations where short-term construction work may be needed immediately adjacent to Balboa Boulevard. The proposed project would not alter emergency access to surrounding uses, 1 and onsite emergency access would be provided via the onsite circulation system. The onsite circulation system has been designed to accommodate emergency vehicles (e.g., turning radii, etc), 1 and implementation of the proposed project would improve emergency access to the site itself. evacuation would Therefore, no impacts to the adopted emergency response plan or emergency plan occur. Cumulative As stated above, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the City's existing 1 emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, no cumulative adverse impacts related to this issue would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project. 1 Mitigation Measures Project Specific 1 No mitigation measures are required. 1 Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. 1 Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific No impact. 1 Cumulative 1 No impact. i 1 1 1 1 Sirius Environmental 5.6-11 IMarina Park Draft REIR Hydrology and Water Quality - Hydrology and Water Quality '5.7 1 5.7.1 -Introduction ' This section describes the existing hydrology and water quality setting, and the potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surroundings. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information contained in the preliminary Water Quality Management Plan prepared by by Everest International Fuscoe Engineering, the Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study prepared Consultants, Inc., a summary of water enhancement devices (oloids) prepared by Everest ' International Consultants, Inc., an analysis of sand compatibility prepared by Newfields, Inc., and the Marina Resort & Community Plan Final EIR prepared by Michael Brandman Associates. The first ' four studies are included in this REIR in Appendix H, Drainage and Water Quality Information. for the City Newport The Marina Resort & Community Plan Final EIR is available review at of Beach Planning Department. 6.7.2 - Regulatory Setting ' A number of regulations and permits control activities may affect water quality. Among these are: Clean Water Act (CWA). This federal law provides for the restoration and maintenance of the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. Discharges (including those related to dredge and fill activities) to waters of the United States must be authorized through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The CWA is administered at the national level by the EPA, but major provisions of the law are delegated to the states. In California, the State Water Resources Board (SWRCB) and its regional water quality control boards implement ' sections of the Act through the Water Quality Control Plan, Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs), and permits for discharges. Under Section 303(d), the State is required to list water segments that do not meet water quality standards and to develop action plans, called TMDLs, to improve water quality. Activities that have the potential to discharge dredge or fill materials,into the waters of the U.S. are regulated under Section 404 of the Act, as administered by the U.S. Army ' Corps of Engineers (USACE). A Section 401 certification or waiver from the governing RWQCB is necessary for issuance of Section 404 permits. ' A component of the Section 404/401 Clean Water Act permit program addresses beach nourishment activities. The USACE/State of California Sand Compatibility and Opportunistic Use Program ' (SCOUP; http://www.dbw.ca.gov/csmw/PDF/Final SCOUP Master Plan.odf).was developed to streamline regulatory approval of small (less than 150,000 cubic yards) beach nourishment projects using opportunistic materials. In the Los Angeles area, the USACE has authorized Regional General Permit (RGP) 67, which provides guidance regarding material suitability for beach nourishment projects. RGP-67 incorporates the SCOUP, including its process for assessing sand at both the donor and receiving sites. RGP-67 requires that the grain size characteristics of the donor site(s) be reasonably similar to those of the receiving site(s). ' Sirius Environmental 5.7-1 Hydrology and Water Quality Marina Park Draft RE1R ' California Porter -Cologne Act, This Act (State Water Code Sections 13000 eE seq.) is the basic ' water quality control law for California that implements the federal CWA. The Porter -Cologne Act is implemented by the SWRCB and its nine regional boards, which manage the permit provisions of Section 402 and of certain planning provisions of Sections 205, 208, and 303 of the federal Act. This ' means that the state issues one discharge permit for purposes of both federal and state law. Permits for discharge of pollutants are officially called NPDES permits. Anyone who is discharging waste or ' proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of state waters must file a "report of waste discharge" with the governing RWQCB. The NPDES permit program includes permits for stormwater controls related to construction projects, industrial facilities, and municipalities (see ' below). Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Region (Basin Plan, Adopted 1994). The SWRCB's ' Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and to protect beneficial uses of regional waters (inland surface waters, groundwater, and coastal waters such as bays and estuaries). The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of surface water and groundwater, such as contact recreation or municipal drinking water supply; establishes water quality objectives that describe the , pollution thresholds beyond which the beneficial uses will be impaired; and describes implementation programs. Beneficial uses and water quality objectives combine to form water quality standards (WQS) tinder the Clean Water Act. ' NPDES Stormwater Permits. The SWRCB has developed a statewide General Construction ' Activities Stormwater Permit and a General Industrial Activity Stormwater Permit for projects that do not require an individual permits. The General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit applies to most stormwater discharges associated with construction activity, such as the proposed project; under t this permit, all construction activities that disturb one acre or more must: • Prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (BWPPP) that specifies best management practices (BMPs) to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater. The intent of the SWPPP and BMPs is to keep�all products of erosion from moving offsite into receiving waters; • Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters ofthe United States; and ' • Perform sampling and analytical monitoring to determine the effectiveness of BMPs in: (a) preventing further impairment by sediment in stormwaters discharged directly into waters ' listed as impaired for sediment or silt; and (b) reducing or preventing pollutants in stormwater discharges from causing or contributing to exceedances of water quality objectives. ' The General Industrial Activities Stormwater Permit program is not applicable to the proposed project, which would be covered under the City of Newport Beach's municipal storm water permit. ' That program is part of the Orange County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, which is currently undergoing revisions to strengthen it. ' 5.7.2 Sirius Environmental ' ' Marina Park Draft RE/R Hydrology and Water Quality California Toxics Rule of 2000 (40 CFR Part 131). This rule establishes numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants in inland waters as well as enclosed bays and estuaries to protect ambient aquatic life (23 priority toxics) and human health (57 priority toxics). The toxics rule also includes ' provisions for compliance schedules to be issued for new or revised NPDES permit limits when certain conditions are met. The numeric criteria are the same as those recommended by the ' Environmental Protection Agency in its CWA Section 304(a) guidance. 5.7.3 - Existing Conditions ' Hydrology/Drainage The project site is located within the Newport Bay watershed that covers 13.2 square miles along the coast of central Orange County. The watershed includes portions of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. The project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula between Balboa Boulevard and the portion of Newport Bay where the West Lido, Rhine, and Newport Channels meet. The peninsula is crossed by a system of streets with nearly flat grades (less than a few tenths of one percent). No longitudinal slopes occur along Balboa Boulevard other than those at storm drain inlets. The site is currently fully Mdeveloped, and approximately 83 percent of the site consists of impervious surfaces. The existing topography was reviewed to assess storm and flooding impacts to existing buildings. ' Local streets and storm drains on the western portion of the Balboa Peninsula together provide conveyance capacity sufficient for the 100-year storm event. The existing storm drain system can be surcharged during a 100-year storm event and most likely becomes inefficient. Much of the storm ' runoff would drain to Balboa Boulevard and ponds until reaching a relief elevation that would allow flow into Newport Bay. Runoff from the eastern portion ofthe project site is conveyed via existing storm drain lines to the main storm drain along Balboa Boulevard that discharges into Newport Bay at 15°i Street. Runoff from the western portion of the site (east of 18°i Street) is conveyed via existing storm drain lines to the main storm drain along Balboa Boulevard that discharges into Newport Bay at 18" Street. The ' storm water on the portion of the project site west of 18°i Street is conveyed to the existing storm drain along 19°i Street prior to discharging into Newport Bay. Groundwater Groundwater levels at the site vary in response to tidal fluctuations. Two borings conducted by Terra Costa encountered groundwater at 6.5 feet and 10 feet below the ground surface. Ground water at and near the site is heavily influenced by seawater, and is unsuitable for use as a municipal water ' supply. There are no municipal wells in the general vicinity of the project site. Water Quality Surface Water Quality All surface water on or near the site consists of storm water and routine dry -weather runoff (e.g., from ' irrigation); there are no streams or standing water bodies on the site. No substantial water quality issues have been identified for the project site. There is no indication of soil contamination that ' Sirius Environmental 5.7.3 Hydrology and Water Quality Marina Park Draft RE1R ' would cause surface water quality issues (see section, 5.8). Typical urban runoff contaminants ' associated with the existing mobile home park, parking areas, beach, and the public facilities on the project site include bacteria, heavy metals, nutrients, pesticides, organic compounds, sediments, trash and debris, oxygen demanding substances, oil and greases. These contaminants•are carried into•the ' bay by storm events and routine water runoff through the storm drain system or, in the case of very large storms, sheet flow. Lower Newport Bay Water Quality Water quality in Newport Bay is influenced by a number of factors, including tidal flushing, ' discharges into the bay, and sediment contamination. This last factor is a key component in regulatory designations of water quality. Based on the 2006 Section 303(d) list of Water Quality ' Limited Segments published by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Lower Newport Bay is listed as impaired for chlordane, copper, DDT, PCBs, and sediment toxicity. Once a water body has been listed as impaired, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TDML) for the constituent of ' concern (pollutant) must be developed for the water body. A TDML is an estimate of the daily load of pollutants that a water body may receive from point sources, non -point sources, and natural , background conditions (including an appropriate margin of safety), without exceeding its water quality standard. Those facilities and activities that are discharging into the water body, collectively, must not exceed the TDML. ' Several TDMLs have been developed jointly for the San Diego Creek Watershed and the Newport Bay, including nutrients, pathogens and pesticides. In addition, TDMLs for organochlotine compounds and metals currently exist or are in development by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and other agencies. These include: • Siltation (sediments) and nutrient TMDLs for Lower Newport Bay, Upper Newport Bay, San ' Diego Creek Reach 1, and San Diego Creek Reach 2 • A fecal coliferm (pathogen) TMDL has been adopted for Lower Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay. A diazinon/chlorpyrifos pesticide TMDL has been adopted for Upper Newport ' Bay and San Diego Creek, Reach 1. • TMDLs are anticipated for selenium and metals (Lower and Upper Newport Bay), selenium and fecal coliforms (San Diego Creek Reach 1), and certain metals (San Diego Creek Reach 2). • TMDLs for organochlorine compounds (particularly DDT, chlordane, and PCBs) are anticipated for both Newport Bay segments, both San Diego Creek reaches, and NewportBay's Rhine Channel; toxaphene is also targeted in San Diego Creek Reaches I and 2. In 1994, the State Water Resources Control Board, in conjunction with other federal and State ' agencies, studied sediment chemistry and toxicity throughout Newport Bay. Sediments in various areas of Newport Bay contained elevated concentrations of mercury, copper, DDT, polychlorinated biphenyl's, td-butyl tin, lead, DDE, and total chlordane. In addition, a Southern California Coastal Water Research Project investigation of sediments in the Rhine Channel, northwest of the project site, , , 5.7-4 Sldus Environmental ' Marina Park Draft RE/R Hydrology and Water Quality found similar concentrations of contaminants. These results contributed to the 303(d) impaired water body listing described above. ' Newport Bay sediments in the general area of the project site are contaminated by a variety of pollutants known to be toxic to marine organisms (Appendix D.2). Rhine Channel sediments contain concentrations of lead, mercury, copper, zinc, and Total PCBs that exceed TMDL targets, and elevated concentrations of p,p; DDD and tri-butyl tin (TBT). Sediments around Lido Peninsula and Lido Isle contained elevated concentrations of either lead, p'p, DDE, or total chlordane, or a ' combination of these compounds. Testing of sediments adjacent to the project site (Appendix G.3) did not detect semi -volatile organic compounds, organo-chloride pesticides, or polychlorinated biphenyls. Heavy metals were not detected at elevated concentrations (i.e., above the Effects Range Low (ERLj) except in the case of I i I C C C I I mercury. Mercury was present in channel sediments at the site of the proposed marina in concentrations that exceeded the ERL criteria. Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected, but not at levels deemed to represent an environmental concern. Water quality in Newport Bay is also influenced by tidal flushing. A condition that affects water quality and contamination in the sediments is the amount of time required for water at a given location within Newport Bay to be exchanged with new water from the ocean'(flushing activity) by tidal action. The less frequent the exchange of water results in a lower quality of water. This exchange rate is known as residence time. The residence time of ocean water in the vicinity of the project site is in the range of 25 to 30 days (Appendix H.2). By comparison, residence time of ocean water near the entrance to Lower Newport Bay is approximately one day. Longer periods between complete tidal flushing cycles reduces water quality by increasing water temperatures, lowering dissolved oxygen, and increasing the length of time that suspended sediments prevent light from illuminating the seafloor. Although there are no local or state standards, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has established guidelines that suggest that adequate tidal flushing to maintain water quality of marina basins requires flushing reductions (the amount of conservative substance that is flushed from the basin) ranging from 70 to 90 percent per day. By that guideline, flushing, and by extension water quality, near the project site is inadequate. 5.7.4 - Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions are analyzed to determine whether hydrology and water quality impacts are significant. Would the project: a.) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge,requirements? b.) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a 1 Sirius Environmental 5.7.5 Hydrology and Wafer Quality Marina Park Draft REIR. I level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c.) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d.) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e.) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f.) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g.) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h.) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i.) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j.) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 5.7.5 - Project Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary. Water Quality Standards and Requirements 5.7-A: The project would not Vlolate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Project -Specific Analysis Construction Impacts Construction of the proposed project would involve activities (demolition of existing site features, grading, excavation and hauling, removal and transport of contaminated soils and construction debris, dredging and dredged material transport, pile driving, welding, and concrete pouring) that could discharge pollutants to the waters of Newport Bay. Construction activities could generate pollutants such as silt and other particulate matter (i.e., suspended solids), fuels and lubricating oils, debris, and dissolved chemicals. Construction activities would be governed by aaite-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared in compliance with the SWRCB's General Construction Activities Permit and approved by the City of Newport Beach. Note that the SWRCB's permit is 11 1 C I I i 7 [l I I I I 5.7.6 Sirius Environmental Marina Park Draft REIR Hydrology and Water Qualify currently under revision; the project's SWPPP would be revised as necessary to comply with the new permit. ' Demolition and grading activities in Phase 1, further grading in Phase 2, and demolition, excavation, building construction, and grading in Phase 3 could cause short-term increases inturbidity in the adjacent channel and site storm drains from site runoff and dust related to erosion of exposed soils. Site runoff would be minimized by construction BMPs such as erosion barriers, temporary swales, soil stabilization, and phasing of excavation and grading. With these controls, the impact of upland ' construction activities on water quality would be less than significant. Construction of the proposed marina in Phase 3 could cause localized increases in turbidity in the channel adjacent to the site as a result of approach channel dredging, propeller wash from tugboats hauling barges, and pile driving. The extent and orientation of the dredge plume (suspended solids) would depend on the prevailing tidal cycle and the effectiveness of construction best management practices. Some construction -related turbidity is allowed by the WDRs issued for dredging projects, but turbidity that extends outside the allowable mixing zone would violate the permit. BMPs for dredging would include silt curtains deployed around dredging and pile driving as necessary to control turbidity, reducing dredge cycle time, and ensuring that barge dewatering is ' complete before barges depart from the project site. Turbidity would not result from the bulk of marina excavation and dredging, which would take place in a basin enclosed by sheet piling; only when the basin was opened to the channel could construction -generated turbidity escape to open waters. The WDRs issued for the project by the Santa Ana RWQCB would specify discharge limits ' and water quality standards that the project would have to comply with in order to protect water quality, and would impose a water quality monitoring program, to be implemented by the City, to evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs and detect exceedances of water quality standards. Despite implementation of BMPs and compliance with the WDRs, construction activities could result in increased pollutants to surface water that would violate water quality standards. Accordingly, marina t construction could result in short-term degradation of surface water quality below applicable standards. Although the impact would be short-term, lasting only during dredging activities open to the channel, it is considered significant. Impacts to water quality could also occur during placement of dredged sediments (sand) on Newport Beach beaches. Whether sediments are placed by bottom -dump barges immediately offshore of the beach or directly on the beach via hydraulic piping (unlikely) or truck placement, the finer -grained component of the material could be resuspended into ocean or bay waters. Because the material that ' would be placed is predominantly (>90%) sand (Appendix HA), this effect would likely produce only a very localized turbidity plume. The likely BMP to reduce turbidity would be to control the rate ' of sand placement. Accordingly, sand placement on area beaches would have less than significant impacts on water quality standards. Sirius Environmental 5•7-7 Hydrology and Water Quality Marina Park Draft REIR Long-term operation of the proposed project would not generate water pollution from site runoff under normal conditions, as the site is designed not to discharge runoff to the bay, but could generate water pollution from boats in the marina and marina maintenance dredging. Pollutants could include bacteria, heavy metals, pesticides, organic compounds, sediments, trash and debris, oxygen demanding substances, and oil and grease. Site runoff is expected to be minimal because of the BMPs that would be implemented, especially in Phase 3 (see the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix H.1). Structural features would include reducing the site's percentage of impervious surfaces from 83 percent to 53 percent via increased turf and porous concrete pavers in the parking lots, an efficient irrigation system to avoid runoff, a vegetative bioswale, and landscaped biocells; operational BMPs would include common -area litter control, common -area landscape management, and street sweeping of parking lots. The project would increase infiltration and could The marina would be operated in accordance with the State's Clean Marinas Program, which prohibits sanitary discharges from boats in marinas (pump out stations would be provided), as well as activities that could introduce pollutants into marina waters (e.g., below -water maintenance other than scraping, engine work, painting, fiberglass repair). These measures would reduce pollutant loading to the bay due to the combination of reduction of pollutant generation, percolation of stormwater into the ground, and the filtering action of the The full range of BMPs that would control pollutant runoff during project operations, including thelocation and configuration of biocells and bioswales, is described in the project's Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix H.1). The Plan was prepared to comply with the County of Orange's current MS4 permit, and would be revised if pending revisions to the MS4 permit include new requirements relevant to project operation. These BMPs would reduce potential operational -phase water quality impacts to less than significant. Operation of the proposed marina could create a condition where inadequate tidal flushing within the marina would threaten water quality. The hydrodynamic modeling study (Appendix H.2) evaluated water quality in the proposed marina based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for marina flushing management measures. Those guidelines (developed for the southeastern and northwestern United States) suggest that adequate tidal flushing to maintain water quality should range from 70 percent to 90 percent exchange per day. The study found that there would be adequate tidal flushing only about one -quarter of the way into the basin, and minimum flushing father into the basin. The flushing reduction would be an average of 43 percent throughout the marina basin, which would not meet the EPA guidelines. Accordingly, operation of the marina would represent a -potentially significant water quality impact. Long-term marina maintenance could include periodic minor dredging to remove accumulations of sediment in slips and the basin. On the -basis of the experience of the American Legion marina immediately adjacent to the site, however, and the results of the modeling study of coastal processes (Appendix H.2), siltation in the marina would occur very slowly. Since its construction in 1959 the American Legion marina has been dredged only twice, in the mid 1980s, and a total of less than 400 5.7.8 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Hydrology and Water Quality cubic yards of sediment was removed; the groin on the west side of the marina is judged to be instrumental in keeping sand out of the basin. Maintenance dredging, therefore, is expected to be very infrequent (perhaps once every fifteen years). If needed, the dredging would be conducted in accordance with the City's permit (Regional General Permit 54), which specifies measures to protect water quality and biological resources. Accordingly, maintenance dredging would have a less than significant impact on water quality. Cumulative Implementation of the proposed project could result in short-term water quality impacts during construction activities, and these activities could contribute to cumulative impacts on water quality, specifically related to turbidity within Newport Bay. In the long-term, operation of the proposed project could cause poor water quality in the Newport and ' West Lido channels due to poor water quality in the proposed marina. The proposed project would include various BMPs to reduce pollutants and protect the quality of the water entering Newport Bay. In addition, the small size of the marina relative to Newport Bay would minimize the impact, and the ' project's cumulative impact on water quality standards would not be considerable. ' Mitigation Measures Project Specific MM 5.7-A.1 Prior to construction of each phase, the City of Newport Beach shall prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan (S WPPP) for construction activities that describes 1) best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the release of potential ' pollutants into surface water and 2) how those BMPs will be implemented. The SWPPP shall include, but not be limited to, the following BMPs: • Dust Control: Water will be sprayed periodically on newly graded areas to prevent dust from grading activities being blown on to adjacent areas (in conformance with Newport Beach Ordinance limiting water use). ' • Construction Staging: Specific areas will be delineated for storage of material and equipment, and for equipment maintenance, to contain potential ' spills; no fueling if large vehicles and equipment on site will be permitted. • Sediment Control: Sand bags and/or silt fences will be located along the perimeter of the site. Existing inlets and proposed area drains will be protected against intrusion of sediment. • Tracking: Tracking of sand and mud on the local street will be avoided by tire ' washing and/or road stabilization. Street cleaning (using a sweeper, no wash down activities are permitted) will be performed if tracking occurs at -the ' discretion of the City's Engineer. • Waste Disposal: Specific areas and/or methods will be selected for construction waste disposal. Solid waste will be disposed of in approved trash ' receptacles at specific locations. Washing of concrete trucks will be done in a ' Sirius Environmental 5.7-9 Hydrology and Water Quality Marina Park Draft RE1R ' contained area allowing proper cleanup. (Wash Water would be discharged into sanitary sewer [as permitted], Baker Tank or settling basin.) Other liquid waste will not be allowed to percolate into the ground. • Construction Dewatering: Construction dewatering, if required, will ' necessitate approval of permits by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City. • Maintenance: Maintenance BMPs will be employed as necessary before and after rainfall events to insure proper operation. • Training: The SWPPP will include directions for staff training and checklists for scheduled inspections related to BMP implementation. • Construction Vehicles: Construction vehicles will be inspected daily to ensure there are no leaking fluids. Leaking construction vehicles will be serviced outside of the project site at facilities approved by the City's Engineer. • Turbidity: Activities shall not cause turbidity increases in bay waters that exceed: a) 20 percent if background turbidity is between 0 and 50 Nephelometric Turbity Units (NTUs); b) 10 NTU if background is between 50 and 100 NTUs; c)10 percent if background turbidity is greater than 100 NTUs. Monitoring of turbidity in bay water adjacent to boat slip construction ' will be conducted daily during construction activities that may cause turbidity. If activities exceed the above criteria, construction activities associated with causing turbidity will be discontinued until the above criteria is met. • Grease: Construction activities will not cause visible oil, grease, or foam in the work area or in the bay. • Silt curtains: Silt curtains will be placed within the bay so that ail effluent from dredging activities will be contained within the construction zone. • Hauling Trucks: The project construction contractors will ensure that trucks hauling soil material to and from the project site will be covered and will maintain a 2-inch differential between the maximum height of any hauled ' material and the top of the haul trailer. Haul truck drivers will water the load (using reclaimed water where feasible) prior to leaving the site in order to ' prevent soil loss during transport. • Heavy Equipment: Limit heavy equipment use on the beach, as feasible, to areas away from the high -tide line during construction. • Hydrogen Sulfide: Provisions shall be made, as necessary, for the treatment of hydrogen sulfide to comply with water quality standards and to control ' odors from the dewatering process. • Dredged Material: Project operations will require that the scow doors used to release dredged material remain closed until the stows are towed to the disposal site. 5.7.10 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Hydrology and Water Quality MM 5.7-A.2 As part ofmarina construction in Phase 3, the City of Newport Beach shall include mechanical devices within the marina basin design to enhance the movement and mixing of water within the basin. The use of mechanical devices shall meet the EPA guidelines for adequate tidal flushing (at least 70 percent exchange every 24 hours). One option could be the use of oloids (propeller -type devices) that have been modeled (Appendix H.3), but the selection of the system to be installed shall be ' coordinated with and approved by US EPA, the Santa Ana RWQCB, and NOAA Fisheries. ' Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.7-A.1 and MM 5.7-A.2 is required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. ' Groundwater Supplies and Recharge 5.7-B: The project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit In -aquifer volume or a lowering of the ' local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted. Project -Specific Analysis Construction activities in Phases 1 and 2 would not affect groundwater because the construction activities would be confined to the upper few feet of the site currently occupied by the mobile home park. Phase 3 construction would include drilling or excavating building foundations and driving piles, excavating a portion of the project site to create the marina basin, and driving sheet and column piles for the marina. The creation of the basin and some of the building foundation activities would ' extend to the groundwater; however, these activities would not deplete groundwater supplies because the project area is not used for domestic water supply. Therefore, the construction of the proposed ' project would result in no impact on groundwater supplies. In the operational phase, the site's drainage features would direct stormwater flows to bioswales and ' biocelis on the site. Since stormwater on the project site is currently conveyed to the Bay, the diversion of stormwater to bioswales and biocells would contribute to recharge of the existing groundwater table. Therefore, the proposed project could result in a beneficial impact on groundwater recharge. ' Sirius Environmental 5.7.11 Hydrology and WaterQuallly Marina Park Draft RE1R ' Cumulative The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies and would beneficially impact groundwater recharge. As a result, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative impacts on groundwater supplies and recharge would be inconsiderable. ' Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. , Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific No impact. ' Cumulative ' No impact. Drainage. Pattern: Erosion or Siltation ' 5.7-C: The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area, Including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, In a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on. or off -site. Project -Specific Analysis All phases of project construction would have the potential to produce erosion and siltation on the project site. Implementation of the construction SWPPP (see Impact 5.7-A), however, would reduce the potential to less than significant. Implementation of Phase 3 of the proposed project would include reducing impervious surfaces from the current 83 percent to 53 percent. In addition to increase the amount of stormwater captured on the project site, the project includes bioswales and biocells to allow for stormwater to percolate into the groundwater. These changes represent a beneficial impact on drainage patterns, as they would ' alleviate street flooding and storm drain overcapacity during storm events. The proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or a river because there are no streams or rivers on or ' immediately adjacent to the project site. Accordingly, there would be no erosion or siltation occurring from alteration of a stream or river. ' The proposed project includes a new groin just west of the marina entrance that could alter existing coastal dynamics along the Marina Park beach. In general, a shore -perpendicular structure such as the proposed groin may interrupt longshore movement of sand along the coastline, resulting in the trapping of sand on the upcoast side of the groin and erosion on the downcoast side; in fact, the American Legion groin shows some accumulation of sand on the west (upcoast) side. The severity of 5.7.12 Sirius Environmental , Marina Park Draft REIR Hydrology and Water Quality ' the effect depends on the physical environment (wind, wave, current and littoral processes) and the dimensions (mainly the length) of the groin. The new groin is needed to prevent the movement of sand, carried by littoral processes, into the new marina; the same function is being carried out for the American Legion marina by the existing groin. Based on the physical environment of the proposed project location and the length of the proposed groin, it is expected that the proposed groin would have minimum, if any, impact to the neighboring shoreline. The proposed project is.located along a shoreline with benign wave and current conditions and limited littoral transport; for example, hydrodynamic modeling (Appendix H.2) showed that the tidal current along the channel at Marina Park is normally below 0.1 ft/sec. In addition, a review of ' historical photographs shows that the beach configuration has remained stable for at least the past 15 years. The proposed groin would be located adjacent to, and have the same length as, the existing American Legion groin; that groin has not affected beach dynamics in the decades it has been in 1 I 11 I place, as evidenced by the long-term stability of the beach. The proposed project would not alter the existing wave climate, which is very small, and thus would not change the effects of wave action on the beach. The new marina would include vertical bulkhead wallsalong the interior of the basin and along the long dock bordering the channel. These walls have the potential to reflect waves within the basin, but should have little to no effect on adjacent areas and properties, and would not trap sand, thus closing off the supply of sand from upcoast beaches. However, waves in the marina basin would be confined to the basin and would not contribute to beach erosion, and waves in the channel are too small to have any effect on nearby shorelines: hydrodynamic modeling (Appendix H.2) showed that even under extreme wind condition with a 50-year return period, the waves at the project site would still be less than two feet. Both upland storm water dynamics and shoreline beach dynamics would not be substantially altered by the proposed project. Accordingly, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts on erosion and siltation. Cumulative Since the proposed project would not alter a stream or river, adversely change drainage patterns, or substantially alter shoreline dynamics, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on drainage patterns or erosion. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Sirius Environmental 5.7-13 Hydrotogy and Water Quality Marina Park Draft REIR I Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific Less than significant. Cumulative No impact. Drainage Pattern: Flooding 5.7-13: The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result In flooding on- or off -site. Project -Specific Analysis The reduction of impervious surfaces,and the implementation of a stormwater management plan in all phases, and the addition of bioswales and biocelIs in Phase 3 (see Impact 5.7-A), would reduce the amount of stormwater runoff from the project site compared to existing runoff. As a result, the project would result in a beneficial impact related to stormwater flows. Cumulative Since implementation of the proposed project would reduce stormwater flows'leaving the project site under all phases, the proposed project would not contribute to drainage problems or flooding adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would have a beneficial impact on cumulative offsite flooding. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific Beneficial. Cumulative Beneficial. Runoff Water and Drainage Systems 5.7-E: The projectwould not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. L LJ [1 I I I I 1 11 I 5.7-14 Sirlus Envircamentaf I Marina Park Draft REIR Hydrology and Water Quality Project -Specific Analysis Implementation of all phases of the proposed project would allow more stormwater to be captured on the project site, thus reducing the amount of stormwater runoff from the project site compared to existing conditions (see 5.7-A). As a result, the project would result in a beneficial impact on the existing stormwater drainage systems. The proposed project would not result in additional sources of polluted runoff in any phase. In addition to the change in land uses from residential to open space, the proposed project would include structural features and best management practices (BMPs), none of which are in place on the existing site, that would require stormwater containment and would reduce the pollutant load in site runoff (see 5.7-A and the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix H.1). As the proposed ' BMPs would eliminate the potential for additional sources of polluted runoff compared to existing conditions, there would be no impact related to polluted runoff. Cumulative ' The proposed project would reduce the amount of stormwater runoff from the project site compared to existing runoff. As a result, the project would result in a beneficial impact on the existing stormwater drainage systems that convey stormwater to the Bay. Thus, the project would contribute a beneficial cumulative impact on existing drainage systems. In addition, since the proposed project includes various BMPs to reduce potential impacts on surface water quality, which in turn affects the quality of the water from offsite storm drainage systems entering Newport Bay, the proposed project would contribute less than cumulatively considerable to ' surface water quality impacts. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. ' Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. ' Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific No impact. ' Cumulative No impact. Water Quality 5.7-F: The project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Sirius Environmental 5.7-15 Hydrology and Water Quality Marina Park Draft REIR i Project -Specific Analysts No potential sources of water quality degradation are associated with the proposed project which have not been addressed above in 5.7-A through 5.7-E. Those discussions have addressed the potential ' water quality impacts of demolition and construction in all phases, including grading, excavation, dredging, dredged material transport, and the placement of dredged material on area beaches, and of ' the operation of the proposed project, including park use and maintenance, marina operations, maintenance dredging, and water circulation. Accordingly, the proposed project would otherwise not ' substantially degrade water quality and there would be no impact. Cumulative No other potential sources of water quality degradation have been identified that could have a cumulative impact Mitigation Measures Project Specific I No impact Cumulative ' No impact. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. Housing Placement: Flood Hazard Area 6.7-G: The project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal , Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. Project Analysis -Specific Implementation of the proposed project would not involve the development of housing. As delineated by the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designated by the Federal Emergency ' Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain, nor is it located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). No impacts associated with flood and water , related hazards would result with project implementation Cumulative I Since the project site is not located within a 100-yearfloodplain and the project does not include housing, the proposed project will not contributeto a cumulative impact of locating housing within a 100-year floodplain. 5.7-16 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Hydrology and Water Quality ' Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures required. Cumulative ' No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific No impact. ' Cumulative No impact. Structures: Flood Hazard Area 5.7-H: The project would not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or ' redirect flood flows. Project -Specific Analysis According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map prepared by FEMA, the project site is not located within a I00-year flood hazard area and would not be inundated by a I00-year flood. In addition, the project ' site would have fewer structures that could impede the flow of water than under existing conditions, especially during Phase I and 2. Therefore, the structures proposed on the project site would result in ' no impacts on flood flows. Cumulative Since the project would not impact flood flows, the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts on flood flows. ' Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required, Cumulative ' No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation ' Project Specific No impact. ' Cumulative No impact. ' Sirius Environmental 5.7-17 t Hydrology and Water Quality Marina Park Draft REIR Flooding 5.7-I: The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, Injury or death Involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Project -Specific Analysis The proposed project is not located in an area of flooding or in the vicinity of a levee or dam, According to city staff, the proposed project floor elevations of the structures at+'10 feet above MLLW would reduce potential significant effects from storm surges and flooding. In addition, the ' project site would have fewer structures that could impede the flow of water than under existing conditions, especially during Phase 1 and 2. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significantrisk of death involving flooding. Cumulative dam. Therefore, be The proposed project is not located within,the vicinity of a levee or there will no cumulative impact resulting from the failure of a levee or dam. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. ' Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow 5.7-J: The project could be subject to Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. I Project -Specific Analysis As the site lies on the coast, the risks that are associated with tsunamis are moderate to high; there are no hillsides close enough to the project site to pose a risk of mudslides. Studies performed by Legg, Borrero, and Synolakis (2004) suggest that this area of the coastline may be affected by both earthquake -generated and submarine landslide -generated tsunamis with wave heights of two meters (seven feet) or more and wave run -ups of four meters (13 feet) or more, Accordingly, the site could be affected by tsunamis under certain conditions, although the probability of such an event is considered low. Legg, Borrero, and Synolakis (2004) estimate a return interval of at least several 5.7-18 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Hydrology and Water Quality i hundred years for a seismic event large enough to generate a catastrophic tsunami in southern California. Seiches are waves that surge back and forth in an enclosed basin, and are usually seismically induced. The larger the basin the larger the wave can be, and it is generally necessary for the basin to have ' nearly vertical walls, as would be the case with the proposed marina, for a seiche to develop. The project would reduce the risk to people of a tsunami by removing residential uses. The City of Newport Beach has a tsunami contingency plan and evacuation routes in place, which would reduce the likelihood of injury and death. The potential for a damaging seiche to occur in the marina is very small, given the small size of the marina. Accordingly, the potential impact of tsunamis and seiches would be less than significant. Cumulative implementation the The proposed project has the potential to be inundated by a tsunami. However, of City's tsunami contingency plan and evacuation routes would reduce this cumulative impact to less ' than significant. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. ' Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific Less than significant Cumulative Less than significant. LJ I I ' Sirius Environmental 5.7.19 Marina Park Draft REIR Land Use and Planning 5.8 - Land Use and Planning ' 5.8.1 - Introduction from This section describes the existing land use and planning setting and the potential effects project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are ' based on information contained in the California Coastal Act, Newport Beach General Plan, Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP), City of Newport Beach Municipal ' Code, and City of Newport Beach, City Council Policy H-1, Harbor Permit Policy. 5.8.2 - Regulatory Setting ' Several local and regional plans, programs, and ordinances apply to or relate to the project site and are more fully described in this section. There are no federal laws or regulations that directly control land uses and land use planning in the City of Newport Beach, although the federal Coastal Zone Act is implemented through California laws and regulations. ' State Policies and Regulations. Tidelands Trust and Leases. Tidelands and submerged lands are subject to a public trust that, among other things, limits their use to navigation, fishing, commerce, public access, water -oriented recreation, open space and environmental protection. Residential is not a permitted use. Tidelands and submerged lands within the corporate limits of Newport Beach are, with very limited exceptions, owned by the State. The vast majority of tidelands and submerged lands in Newport Beach have been granted to the City or the County of Orange to administer in a manner consistent with the public trust ' limitations relative to use of the property and revenue derived from that use. The tideland boundary in by Newport Harbor has been, for virtually all of the properties, established courtjudgments stemming from a series of lawsuits filed in the 1920's and 1930's. Chapter 494 of the Statutes of 1919 granted to the City of Newport Beach all tidelands and submerged lands that were within its corporate limits at thattime. Additional tidelands were granted by Chapter 70 of the Statutes of 1927. These tidelands and submerged lands consist primarily of the land bayward of the bulkhead and portions of bay beaches in the Lower Bay. The Beacon Bay Bill (Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978) regranted to the City of Newport Beach all tidelands and submerged lands that were within its corporate limits on July 25, 1919. The Beacon Bay Bill established limitations on the use of tidelands and submerged lands to those in which there is a general statewide purpose, including the establishment, improvement and conduct of a public harbor, recreational facilities open to the public, and the preservation and enhancement of the lands in their natural state. A portion of the site is considered historic tidelands that were filled when the Newport Beach Harbor I was created; that boundary between tidelands and uplands has not been established by the State Lands Commission. The State Lands Commission is a responsible agency for the project and would undertake Jurisdictional Review. Sirius Environmental 5.8.1 Land Use and Planning Marina Park Draft REIR California Coastal Act (Coastal Act or CCA). The project site is located in the coastal zone, and the CCA is the state's regulatory authority governing land use in the coastal zone. This act (California State Public Resources Code, Division 20, Sections 30000 et seq.), passed in 1976 in order to implement the federal Coastal Zone Act, established the California Coastal Commission (CCC) as the coastal management and regulatory agency over the coastal zone (Public Resources ' Code 30103). The CCC is responsible for assisting in the preparation, review and certification of Local Coastal Programs (LCPs). The LCPs, which include a Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP), are developed by local governments and governmental agencies for that portion of their jurisdictions that ' fall within the coastal zone. Following certification of the LCP and CLOP, regulatory responsibility is then delegated to the local jurisdiction, although the CCC retains jurisdiction over the immediate ' shoreline. Chapter 3 of the CCA identifies the six coastal resources planning and management policies that are used to evaluate,a proposed project's consistency with the CCA: • Providing for maximum public access to California's coast; , • Protecting water -oriented recreational activities; • Maintaining, enhancing, and restoring California's marine environment; • Protecting sensitive habitats and agricultural uses; • Minimizing environmental and aesthetic impacts of new development; and • Locating coastal -dependent industrial facilities within existing sites whenever possible. I The policies of the Coastal Act constitute the statutory standards applied to planning and regulatory decisions made by the CCC and by local governments, pursuant to the Coastal Act. In the case of the City of Newport Beach, the CCC has not certified the implementatiom plan of the City's CLUP; accordingly, the CCC retains jurisdiction in the City's tidelands and is the responsible permitting agency, issuing Coastal Development Permits for public and private developments. Additional information regarding Newport Beach's CLUP and its implementation of the CCA is provided below. Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Passed as Assembly Bill 32, this act established the state's goal of achieving 1990 levels of greenhouse gas (GFIG) emissions by the year 2020. In response to AB 32, municipalities, regional governmental authorities, and lead agencies throughout the state are re -Focusing transportation planning,' travel demand modeling, sustainable communities strategies, environmental review (including CEQA), and development planning efforts to encourage compact , land use forms that minimize energy consumption, vehicle miles travelled, and waste, with the objective of reducing GHG emissions. (See Section 5.2 Air Quality for further discussion of Greenhouse Gas emissions.) I 5.8.2 Sirius -Environmental I Marina Park Draft REIR Land Use and Planning Local Land Use Regulation The City of Newport Beach has preeminent authority over deciding land use of the site. 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. City of Newport Beach General Plan. State law requires cities and counties, as political subdivisions of the State, to adopt general plans that provide a comprehensive set of policies and guidelines that are the basis for land -use decisions. General plans are required to contain the following elements: Land Use, Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety, and Housing. (The City ofNewportBeach adopted aNatural Resources Element that addresses Conservation and Open Space.) The City of Newport Beach has also adopted the following optional elements to its General Plan: Historical Resources, Arts and Cultural, Harbor and Bay, and Recreation. Based on a review of the project location, components of the proposed project, technical studies prepared for the project, and the applicable policies of the General Plan, the following General Plan elements are relevant to the proposed project: Land Use, Recreation, Harbor and Bay, Natural Resources, Noise, Housing, Circulation, and Safety. Discussions of the applicable goals and policies of each element to the proposed project and the consistency of the project with the applicable goals and policies are provided in Section 5.8.4. Land Use Element. The Land Use Element provides guidance regarding the ultimate pattern of ' development of Newport Beach. It is based on, and correlates policies from, all General Plan elements into a set of coherent development policies, which serve as the central organizing element of the City'&General Plan as a whole. Cumulatively, the Land Use Element's policies directly affect the establishment and maintenance of the neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and open spaces that distinguish and contribute to Newport Beach's livability, vitality, and image. Policies related to urban form are also contained in the Land Use Element. The Land Use Element includes two designations relevant to the project site: Park and Recreation ' (PR) and Public Facilities (PF). The PR designation (Figure LU5 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan) applies to land used or proposed for active public or private recreational use. Permitted uses include parks (both active and passive), golf courses, marina support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. The PF designation, which applies to a small portion of the project site, is intended to provide public facilities, including public schools, ' cultural institutions, government facilities, libraries, community centers, public hospitals, and public utilities. Recreation Element. The Recreation Element focuses on the City's parks, bicycle, and pedestrian trails, recreational facilities, and coastal resources such as beaches. These amenities play an important role in the physical, mental, social, and environmental health of Newport Beach residents. Sirius Environmental 5.8-3 Land Use and Planning Marina Park Draft RE/R They are important land -use components in an urban environment, providing both visual relief from the built environment and contributing to residents' quality of life through recreation and aesthetic value. The primary purpose of the Recreation Element is to ensure that the balance between -the provision of sufficient parks and recreation facilities is appropriate for the residential and business populations of Newport Beach. Specific subjects in the Recreation Element include parks and recreation facilities, recreation programs, shared facilities, coastal recreation and support facilities, marine recreation, and public access. The City has been divided into service areas for the purposes of park planning and to equitably administer parkland dedications and fees provided by residential development. The project site is located in Service Area No. 2 -Balboa Peninsula. Most of the Peninsula's recreation area is in beaches. This area has little vacant land for development, and the population is expected to remain stable. Although there is currently a surplus in park acreage (due to the inclusion of beach areas), any future park needs can be satisfied via the renovation and upgrading of facilities, such as those at Las Arenas Park and Peninsula Park. Additional active park facilities are desirable, along with support facilities such as restrooms, showers, and drinking fountains. There is also a need for additional boat launching and mooring facilities, as well as pedestrian pathways to and along the'Bay. Harbor and Boy Element. The goals and policies pertaining to harbor issues are intended to guide M the content of regulations related to development of, and the activities conducted on, the water. Additional goals and policies recognize the important component of land use decisions related to waterfront property around Newport Harbor. The aim of the Harbor and Bay Element is to preserve the diversity, charm, and character of existing uses that provide support for recreational boaters, ' visitors, and residents. Goals and policies within the Harbor and Bay Element have been organized to address water- and land -related issues, provision of public access, provision of waterfront public spaces, and provision of vessel berthing and storage opportunities. Natural Resources Element. The primary objective of the Natural Resources Element is to provide ' direction regarding the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources. It identifies Newport Beach's natural resources and articulates policies for their preservation, development, and wise use. This element addresses water supply (as a resource) and water.quality (bay and ocean quality as well as potable drinking water), air quality, terrestrial and marine biological resources, open space, archaeological and paleontological resources, mineral resources, visual resources, and energy conservation. Noise Element The Noise Element of the General Plan is a tool for including noise control in the planning process in order to maintain land uses compatible with environmental noise levels. The Noise Element identifies noise -sensitive land uses and noise sources such as boating and recreational activities and defines areas of noise impact for the purpose of developing policies to insure that Newport Beach residents will be protected from excessive noise intrusion. 5.84 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Land Use and Planning The Noise Element follows the revised State Guidelines in Section 46050.1 of the Health and Safety Code. The element quantifies the community noise environment in terms of noise exposure contours for both near and long-term levels of growth and traffic activity. The information contained in this document provides the framework to achieve compatible land uses and provide baseline levels and noise -source identification for local noise -ordinance enforcement. Housing Element. The Housing Element of the General Plan has been updated to ensure consistency ' with the updated Land Use Element, and includes more recent demographic and housing data. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation cycle of Housing Element covers the next gods-2013. ' death, Safety Element. The primary goal of the Safety Element is to reduce the potential risk of injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from natural and human - induced hazards. The Safety Element addresses a variety of potential hazards, including coastal, seismic, and flooding hazards, and hazardous materials. The goals of the Safety Element are focused on protecting people and property from those hazards, and to achieve those goals a number of policies have been developed. Local Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Land Use Plan The California Coastal Act directs each local government lying wholly or partly within the Coastal ' Zone, as defined by the Coastal Act, to prepare a Local Coastal Program for its portion of the Coastal Zone. Local Coastal Programs are used by local governments to carry out the policies and requirements of the Coastal Act, Local Coastal Programs must be reviewed and certified by the California Coastal Commission before being implemented by a local government. The Local Coastal Program is divided into two components: a Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) and an Implementation Program. The CLUP provides policies related to land use, public access and coastal resource protection for areas within the Coastal Zone, and the Implementation Program provides the ' mechanism for implementing the policies. More than 63 percent of the City of Newport Beach, including the project site, is located in the Coastal Zone. The Coastal Commission certified the City's CLUP Amendment on July 14, 2009. The CLUP organizes the coastal resources planning and management policies under chapters 2, Land Use and Development, 3, Public Access and Recreation, and 4, Coastal Resource Protection. Chapter 2, Land Use and Development. Chapter 2 of the CLUP is based on the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan and is intended to identify the distribution of land uses in the coastal zone. It provides the Land Use Map, coastal development review process, and specific policies by development category. I ISirius Environmental 5.8.5 Land Use and Planning Marina Park Draft REIR ' The Coastal Land Use Plan Map designates the project site as Parks and Recreation (PR) category, which applies to land used or proposed for active public or private recreational use, and Public Facilities (PF) category, which applies to land used or proposed for public facilities. Permitted uses in -the PR category include parks (both active and passive), golf courses, marina support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. Permitted uses in ' the PF category include schools, cultural institutions, government facilities, libraries, community centers, public hospitals, and public utilities. Clippter 3, Public Access mid Recreatiarr. Chapter 3 of the CLUP addresses policies for shoreline and coastal access, and provides information and policies related to recreation programs and events. The ocean beaches and the beaches in the harbor, including Las Arenas Beach (the project site), are identified as coastal facilities that require public access. Policies call for the City to protect and, where possible, expand and -enhance public access to beaches, and to ensure that developmentdoes not obstruct coastal access or views. Policies related to recreation call for the City to "protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance recreational opportunities in the coastal zone" (Policy 3.2.1: 1), "continue to protect public coastal access recreational opportunities through the provision of adequate support facilities and services" (Policy 3.2.2-1), and "develop parking management programs for coastal zone areas to minimize parking use conflicts between commercial uses, residential uses, and coastal zone visitors during peak summer months (Policy 3.2.2, 4). Las Arenas Park is specifically identified in the Recreation Element of the General Plan as one of the parks offering support services for coastal recreational activities. Finally, the CLUP contains policies related to provision of facilities for visiting vessels; specifically, Policy 3.3.2.7 states that the City's policy is to "protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance facilities and services for visiting vessels, including public mooring and docking facilities, dinghy docks, guest docks, club guest docks, pump -out stations and other features, through City, County, and ' private means." Chapter 4, Coarstal ResourceProtectimi. Chapter 4 of the CLUP addresses biological resources, wetlands and deepwater areas, water quality, scenic and visual resources, and, paleontological and cultural resources. Section 30230 of the Coastal Act requires that marine resources "be maintained, enhanced, and, where feasible, restored... Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes." Chapter 4 identifies sensitive marine resources in Newport Harbor and the adjacent ocean, as well as invasive species, and articulates policies that commit the I City to fulfilling the CCA policies regarding marine resource protection. Policies address such issues as habitat protection, erosion and pollution control, invasive species control, and water quality improvement. I 5.8.6 Sirius Environmental I Marina Park Draft REIR Land Use and Planning ' Section 4.3 addresses water quality, establishing policies that commit the City to implementing the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) NPDES permit, including comprehensive requirements for runoff reduction and retention in,new developments, best management practices (BMP) implementation, and source control. Section 4.3 also contains policies related to Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development and implementation, including development planning, construction management, and watershed restoration ' Section 4.4-of the CLUP contains scenic and visual resources policies, including coastal view protection, bulk and height limitations, natural landform protection, and sign and utility regulations. Where feasible, the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor, are to be protected. Coastal views from designated roadway segments are to be protected pursuant to Policy 4.4.1-6. Height limitations and massing are also addressed in Section 4.4. Concern over the intensity of development around Lower Newport Bay led to the adoption of a series of ordinances in the early 1970s that established more restrictive height development standards around the bay. The intent was to regulate the height of structures consistent with the character and visual scale of Newport Beach. As shown in the CLUP (Map 4-3, Coastal Views), the Marina Park site is located within the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, where new development is limited to a height of 35 feet. Private developments proposing architectural elements that would extend above 35 feet would require the ' filing and approval of a Modification Permit, per Municipal Code Section 20.65.070, but, as described below, the City can exempt itself from the provisions of this code restriction. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code - Zoning Code The majority of the project site is zoned Planned Community (PC). The PC zone is intended to "[p]rovide for the classification and development of parcels of land as coordinated, comprehensive projects so as to take advantage of the superior environment which can result from large-scale ' community planning;" and "[a]llow diversification of land uses as they relate to each other in a physical and environmental arrangement while insuring substantial compliance with the spirit, intent and provisions of this Code;" and "[i]nclude various types of land uses, consistent with the General Plan, through the adoption of a development plan and text materials which set forth land use relationships and development standards. The SCE parcel is zoned General Educational Institutional ' Facility (GEIF). The proposed Marina Park project would be a unique facility in that it would combine community ' center, park, beach, and recreational and visitor -serving boating facility elements in one project. There are no specific development regulations or standards in the City of Newport Municipal Code that apply to this type of facility. A city or county may exempt itself from the provisions of its own zoning regulations, or it may amend its Zoning Code to include a provision that the regulations shall not apply to capital improvement projects. The Newport Beach Municipal Code does not currently include a provision to exempt capital improvement projects, such as the Marina Park project. The Sirius Environmental 5.8.7 Land Use and Planning Marina Park Draft REIR City, in this particular case, proposes to exempt itself from the provisions of its own zoning regulations. Should the City Council decide not to exempt this project from the zoning and development , regulations of the Code, a use permit per the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.65.055 and a modification permit per the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.65.070 would be required to allow the lighthouse architectural feature to exceed the 35-foot base height limit. Regardless of the zoning and development issues, the City would be required to issue several permits and may need to undertake other approvals and ministerial actions as the project progresses. The required City permits are: • Harbor Permit • Demolition Permit • Building Permit The construction and operation of the Girl Scout building would require approval of a use permit. 6.8.3 - Existing Conditions Onsite Land Uses The project site encompasses 10.45 acres and is developed with residential (i.e., mobile homes), Girl Scout house, park and recreation facilities (e.g., community center, tot lot, basketball courts, public tennis courts,'beach access, etc.), and surface parking lot uses. The site is bordered on the east by an asphalt parking lot, the American Legion Post 291, residential and commercial uses, and 15ei Street; to the south by West Balboa Boulevard and residential uses; and to the west by 18'h Street, a hotel and , residential uses, and 19"' Street along the public beach.. The Marina Park mobile home park is an approximately 50-year-old facility with approximately 57 mobile homes with 15 full-time residents and 41 part-time tenants (plus an office). The public beach is located between the American Legion Post 291 and 19ei Street. Las Arenas Park consists of four , public tennis courts and a children's play area. The City of Newport Beach Balboa Community Center and the NevaB. Thomas Girl Scout -House are located along Balboa Boulevard. A metered public parking lot with 21 stalls is located adjacent to 18ei Street. Veteran's Park includes a turf area with picnic tables located adjacent to the American Legion Post 291 and its marina. Finally, the existing public restroom on the public beach at 19th street is also part of the project site. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan designates the project site as Park and Recreation (PR) and Public Facilities (PF). The existing Marina Park mobile home park is not a permitted use on the project site under the PR land use designation. The existing public beach, Las Arenas Park, the community center, Girl Scout house, parking, Veteran's Park, and public restrooms are permitted•uses on the project site. The portion of the project site that includes a PF designation is currently vacant and historically was used as a Southern CaliforniaEdison substation. 5.8.8 Sirius Environmental I ' Marina Park Draft REIR Land Use and Planning There are several recreational uses that occur on the project site. The site is used by residents of the City for recreational dance and exercise classes, meetings, training sessions, and general public use. The project site contains Las Arenas Park, which is classified as a Neighborhood Park, a public beach, and the Balboa Community Center. The project site currently provides limited support for recreational boaters, consistent with the Harbor and Bay element of the General 'Plan, by providing a launch ramp at the end of 18"i Street as well as the provision of a public beach for visitors and residents. Currently, shoreline and coastal (i.e., beach) access is provided at 15°i Street, 18°' Street, and 19°i Street. Surrounding Land Uses Generally, the northern boundary of the project site is a portion of the public beach and Newport Bay. Immediately east of the project site are commercial, institutional (the American Legion Post 291), recreational (the American Legion marina), and residential uses. The area south of the project site is bordered by West Balboa Boulevard and residential uses. The area west of the project site is occupied by commercial (including a hotel) and residential uses. 5.8.4 -Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated to determine whether land -use and planning impacts are significant environmental effects. Would the project: a.) Physically divide an established community? b.) Conflict with any applicable land -use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c.) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation ' plan? 5.8.5 - Project Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the proposed project. tDivide Established Community 5.8-A: The project would not physically divide an established community. Project -Specific Analysis The proposed project would not physically divide an established community nor result in any barriers that would preclude travel throughout the project area. The proposed project would actually enhance ' public access to and along the beach by removing existing barriers such as the mobile home park and ' Sirius Environmental 5.8.9 Land Use and Planning Marina Park Draft REIR associated fences. Therefore, no impact related to this issue would result from implementation of the N proposed project. , Cumulative Because the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, it would not contribute to any other projects or conditions that might hinder movement or access. Therefore, the , proposed project would not contribute to potential cumulative effects related'to dividing an established community. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations 5.5-B: The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Project -Specific Analysis , The City of Newport Beach General Plan and the City's Local Coastal Program sets forth policies that serve to guide land use planning efforts in the City of Newport Beach. As described in Table 5.8-1, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the City's General Plan. As described in Table 5.8-2 the proposed project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) and therefore with the California Coastal Act (on ' which the CLUP is based). Mitigation Measures ' Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required, 5.8.10 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Land Use and Planning Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. Conflict with Conservation Plans 5.8-C: The project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan. See Section 5.3-F. I .1 i 1, I I I 11 ISirius Environmental 5.8.11 Land Use and Planning Marina Park Draft REIR Table 5.8-1: Consistency of Marina Park Project With Applicable General Plan Goals and Policies Harbor and av Element HB I Preservation of the diverse uses of the harbor and the waterfront that The proposed project would expand the existing Community Center facilities and public contribute to the charm and character of NewportBay and that provide needed park, maintain the public beach, and preserve the site's current public service and recreation support for recreational boaters, visitors, and residents. designation. The project would contribute to theuniquecharacter of Newport Bay through the provision of the proposed marina and community buildings and the provision of greater access to the bay. The project would also provide recreational opportunities and support facilities for the community and for visitors. Accordingly, the project would be considered _ consistent with this policy, HB Ll Preservation and Enhancement of Water -Dependent and Related Uses. The project would enhance water dependent and water related activities through the Preserve and enhance thefollowinguses that contribute to the diversity and provision of expanded facilities for sailing and water sports programs, a recreational and charm of Newport Bay, and the balance among them: visitor -serving boating facility, and a beach -adjacent public park. Existing water sports • Water -dependent and water -related recreational activities such as boating, facilities would be preserved, and access to, and views of, -Newport Bay would be enhanced. sailing, wind surfing, fishing, kayaking, rowing, paddle boarding, and Accordingly, the project would be consistent with this policy. swimming. • Water dependent and water -related commercial activities such as passenger/sightseeing boats, passenger -fishing boats, boat rentals and sales, entertainment boats, boat/ship repair and maintenance, and harbor maintenance facilities. • 1Vater-enhanced commercial uses such as restaurants and retail stores. • Water -related public recreation and education areas and facilities such as beaches, piers, view parks and nautical museums and related public areas providing access to, and views of, Newport Harbor. • Coastal residential communities. HB 1.2 Waterfront Public Spaces. Encourage the creation of waterfront public The project proposes a public beach and waterfront public spaces, including a recreational spaces and beaches, with adjacent water access and docking facilities that and visitor -serving boating facility that would provide docking facilities and water access. serves as the identity and activity "centers" of Newport Harbor for special With the provision of these spaces, the project would be consistent with this policy. events of communi /re ional interest HB 2 Retention of water -dependent and water -related uses and recreational The proposed project would avoid impacts to existing and potential uses in adjacent areas, activities as primary uses of properties fronting on the Harbor. and does not involve changes in land uses except to remove a non -conforming, non -water - dependent use and replace it with water -dependent and water -related uses. Accordingly, the proposed project is considered consistent with the Goals HB2 and associated policies. HB 2.1 Design of New Development. Site and design new development to avoid impacts to existing and potential water -dependent and water -related uses. HB 2.2 Land Use Changes. Consider the impact on water -dependent and water - related land uses when reviewing proposals for land use changes, considering both the subject property and adjacentproperties. HB 2.6 Public Access Facilities. Ensure that new or improved public access facilities The proposed project would provide public access facilities (park, public restrooms, are compatible with existing, permitted land uses and consistent with the community facilities, off-street parking) that would be consistent with -the existing land -use availability of supporting infrastructure, such as parking and restrooms. designation PR . 5.8-12 Sirius Environmental PM� �m mor i � mom i on Marina Park Draft REIR Land Use and Table 5.8-1: Consistency of Marina Park Project With Applicable General Plan Goals and Policies HB 5.1 Marina and DryBoat Storage Facilities. Protect and, where feasible The proposed project includes a recreational and visitor -serving boating facility that would through the use of new designs and technology, enhance and expand marinas accommodate visiting vessels up to 30 days. The project would increase the City's inventory and dry boat storage facilities. of visiting vessel berths by 23 slips (plus one side tie). The addition of the _proposed recreational and visitor -serving boating facility would expand the opportunities for vessel berthing in Newport Bay. Therefore, the proposed project is considered consistent with the HB 5.2 Berthing and Moorings. Provide a variety of berthing and mooring opportunities throughout Newport Harbor, reflectingstate and regional goals of HB 5. demand for,sli ,size and affordability, HB 6.1 Provision of Public Coastal Access. Provide adequate public access to the Public access to the beach would be provided by walkways within the proposed park as well shoreline, beach, coastal parks, trails, and bay, and acquire additional public as an access provided along the western side of the proposed recreational and visitor -serving access points to these areas and provide parking, where possible. boating facility. Furthermore, 18th and 19th Streets will continue to provide access to the public beach Removal of the existing mobile home park would enhance public access to the bay. Accordingly, the project is considered consistent with the public access policies of HB 6. HB 6.3 Provision of Visitor Facilities in Newport Harbor. Encourage the provision As described in Section 3 Project Description, the project would enhance guest and public of guest slips, moorings, waste pump -out stations, and anchorages in Newport facilities, which would include, but are not limited to, a waste pump -out station; a Harbor. Coordinate work with the Orange County Harbor, Beaches, and Parks recreational and visitor -serving boating facility; utility hook-ups for the boating facility; and Department to provide such facilities where appropriate and feasible. the Balboa Center Complex, including a cafe. Existing public boat launch facilities would be preserved. Accordingly, the project would be consistent with the visitor- and guest -serving HB 6.4 Enhancement of Guest and Public Facilities. Protect and, where feasible, expand, and enhance: elements of HB 6. • Waste pump -out stations • Vessel launching facilities • Low-cost public launching • Marinas and dry boat storage facilities • Guest docks at public facilities, yacht clubs and at privately owned marinas, restaurants and other appropriate locations • Facilities and services for visiting vessels • Facilities necessary to support vessels berthed or moored in the harbor, such as boat haul out facilities • Existing harbor support uses serving the needs of the existing waterfront. HB 8.2 Water Pollution Prevention. Promote pollution prevention and elimination The proposed project includes various water quality best management practices (see Section methods that minimize the introduction of pollutants into natural water bodies. 5.7), including construction BMPS and, in the long term, an increase in pervious surfaces, bioswales and biocells, and marina and park management practices. The project would HB 8.4 Storm Drain Sewer System Permit. Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm sewer system permit include implementation of a water quality management plan (WQMP) for operation of under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. project components. Given the project's design for retaining all water on the project site under normal conditions, no offshe storm water runoff is expected. Therefore, the proposed HB 8.5 Natural Water Bodies. Require that development not result in the degradation of natural water bodies. project is considered consistent with the policies of element HB 8. HB 8.9 Water Quality Management Plan. Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction andpost-construction. HB 8.10 Best Management Practices. Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. HB 8.11 Site Design and Source Control. Include site design and source control Sirius Environmental 5.8-13 Land Use and Marina Park Draft REIR Table 5.8-1: Consistency of Marina Park Project With Ap licable General Plan Goals and Policies BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Elimination System, structural treatment BMPs will be implemented -along with site desi n and source control measures. HB 8.16 Siting of New Development. Require that development be located on the most suitable portion of the site and designed to ensure the protection and preservation of natural and sensitive site resources that provide important water quality benefits. HB S.17 Parking Lots and Rights -of -Nays. Require that parking lots and public and private rights -of -way be maintained and cleaned frequently to remove debris and contaminated residue. HB 8.19 Natural Drainage Systems. Require incorporation of natural drainage systems and stonnwater detention facilities into new developments, where appropriate and feasible, to retain stormwater in order to increase groundwater recharge. HB 8.20 Impervious Surfaces. Require new development andpublic improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to -increase area of pervious surfaces, where feasible. HB 9.1 Design of New or Renovated Bulkheads. Balance private property rights, The proposed project includes sheet piling along a portion of the site's waterfront (in what is natural harbor tidal and current forces and other coastal processes (such as now dry land) and a groin to protect the new recreational and visitor -serving -boating facility erosion and accretion) and harbor aesthetics with other policies when from siltation. These featureswould not alter -natural harbor tidal currents, coastal erosion, or considering desi nsforneworrenovatedbulkhead permits. sand transport (see Section 5.7), and would therefore not have an adverse impact on the profile of the beach at Marina Park. Accordingly, the proposed project is considered HB 9.2 Protection of Beach Profile. Permit and design bulkheads and groins to protect the chamcterof the existing beach profiles and to restore eroded beach consistent with the coastal processes policies of HB 9. profiles found around the Harbor and island perimeters, and the safe navigation and berthing of vessels. HB 9.3 Structures Impacting Visual Resources. Limit structures bayward of the The portion -of the proposed recreational and visitor -serving boating facility that is located bulkhead line to piers, floats, groins, appurtenances related to marine bayward of the bulkhead line includes structural pilings (piers), a groin, and floats. The activities, and public walkways. vrovision of these facilities is consistent with this policy. HB 12.3 Tideland Leases and Permits. Review the administration of tidelands leases The proposed project does not involve tidelands leases, as it consists entirely of publicly - and permits, and consider accepted Best Management Practices to assist in operated facilities. The project would terminate the existing lease to the mobile home park redevelopment, maintenance, and financing of waterfront developments, and which, as a non -conforming use, may not be consistent with tidelands leasing policy. to reflect market value in the lease rates. Accordingly, the projectwould be consistent with policy HB 12. HB 13.1 Sediment Management within Newport Bay. As described in section 3.4.2, Phase 3, Marina Construction, 62,000 cy of sand would be Develop a comprehensive sediment management program that provides for disposed of on the project site and at one or more of four alternate beach replenishment safe navigation and improved wtmterquality. disposal sites (3,000 cy would have insufficient sand content fit also has elevated levels of mercury] and about 20,000 cy would have sand that is too coarse to dispose of off -site; sand not used onsite would go to offshore disposal site LA-3. Such disposal would not affect navigation or water quality and would be consistent with past City practice and with the goals of the recently -adopted Harbor Area Management Plan. Accordingly, the project _ would be considered consistent with HB 13. Land Use Element 5.8-14 ) . OW M i M M, �' � � wiiii O no) � ! � WE � W 1i Marina Park Draft REIR Land Use and Table 5.8-1: Consistency of Marina Park Project With Applicable General Plan Goals and Policies LU 1.1 Unique Environment. Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique As described in Section 5.1, the proposed park would enhance views of Newport Bay from character of the different neighborhoods, business districts, and harbor that Balboa Boulevard, improving the visual character of the western Balboa Peninsula together identify Newport Beach. Locate and design development to reflect neighborhood. The Balboa Center would add diversity to area architecture. The project Newport Beach's topography, architectural diversity, and view sheds. would be consistent with this policy LU 1.3 Natural Resources. Protect the natural setting that contributes to the character The project's land -use designation of PR accommodates a broad range of recreation facilities and identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its intended to appeal to local residents as well as visitors of Newport Beach. The proposed residents and visitors. Preserve open -space resources, beaches, harbor, parks, park would increase open space in the area and contribute to the character of Newport Beach bluffs, preserves, and estuaries as -visual, recreational, and habitat resources. by enhancing views to the Bay (see Section 5.1, Aesthetics). The project would mitigate the loss of 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal habitat (beach). The project would be consistent with this policy. LU 1.6 Public Views. Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and Although the project site does not include significant visual resources, the proposed park visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, would enhance views of Newport Bay from Balboa Boulevard, thereby improving the visual and harbor from ublic vantage points. character of the site see Section 5.1). The project would be consistent with this policy. LU 2 A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and The proposed project would help to define the Balboa Peninsula as a recreational focal point enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that in the community through the provision of new park facilities and the expansion of existing make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses thatsupportthe community facilities. Accordingly, the project would be consistent with the overall goals of needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job LU-2. opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life. LU 2.5 Harbor and Waterfront Uses. Preserve the uses of the Harbor and the The project would supply needed support for recreational boaters, visitors, and residents by waterfront that contribute to the charm and character of Newport Beach and providing sailing programs and a recreational and visitor -serving boating facility to provide needed support for recreational and commercial boaters, visitors, and accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Therefore, the project would be consistent residents, with appropriate regulations necessary to protect the interests of all with this policy. users as well as adjoining residents. LU 2.6 Visitor -Serving Uses. Provide uses that serve visitors to Newport Beach's The primary purpose of the project is to serve residents and visitors to Newport Beach by ocean, harbor, open spaces, and other recreational assets, while integrating offering a variety of recreational opportunities including a public park and beach, and a them to protect neighborhoods and residents. recreational and visitor -serving boating facility. The project would be consistent with this policy. LU 3.1 Neighborhoods, Districts, Corridors, and Open Spaces. Maintain Newport The project is located in a residential neighborhood. Because the project would enhance the Beach's pattern of residential neighborhoods, business and employment Balboa Peninsula with a community park accessible to residents, business people, and districts, commercial centers, corridors, and harbor and ocean districts. visitors, it would be consistent with this policy. LU 3.2 Growth and Change. Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and The proposed project would enhance the existing neighborhood by providing needed corridors, allowing for reuse and infill with uses that are complementary in recreational uses on Balboa Peninsula. The proposed uses could increase traffic in the area, type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity but the level of service would remain acceptable, as described in Section 5.11, should be considered only in those areas that are economically Transportation and Traffic. Existing public services to the site would be adequate to serve underperforming, if they are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's the proposed project. The project would be consistent with this policy. share of projected regional population growth, if they improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or if they enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acce table traffic level of service. LU 3.3 Opp ortunities for Chan e. Provide opportunities for improved development ' The proposed prcject would provide marine uses along the Bay front, such as slips for Sirius Environmental 5.8-15 Land Use and Marina Park Draft REIR Table 5.8-1: Consistency of Marina Park Project With -A pplicalcife General Plan Goals and Policies and enhanced environments for residents in the following districts and visiting boaters, and sailing programs Therefore, the project would be consistent with this corridors, as specified in Policies 6.3.1 through 6.22.7. For the Balboa policy. Peninsula: more efficient patterns of use that consolidate the Peninsula's visitor -serving and mixed uses within the core commercial districts; encourage marine -related uses especially along the bay front; integrate residential with retail and visitor -serving uses in Lido Village, McFadden Square, Balboa Village, and along portions of the Harbor frontage; re -use interior parcels in Cannery Village for residential and limited mixed -use and livelwork buildings; and redevelop underperforming properties outside of the core commercial districts along the Balboa Boulevard condor for residential. Infill development shall be designed and sited to preserve the historical and architectural fabric of these districts. LU 3.6 Waterfront Access. Use public beaches for public recreational uses and The project includes an enhancement of the existing waterfront park and beach for prohibit uses that interfere with public access and enjoyment of coastal recreational use. The project would increase access to the beach and would increase resources. Encourage the expansion and improvement of access to the recreational amenities by providing areas for sailing classes and community events. In waterfront and water uses that -provide important links to waterfront uses such addition, a public recreational and visitor -serving boating facility would encourage water - as beaches, launching facilities, public docks, and other similar public -water- dependent uses. The project would be consistent With this policy. area uses. LU 5.6.1 Compatible Development. Require that buildings and properties be designed The proposed project would include Buildings with a diversity of architecture thatwould to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between neighborhoods, enhance existing development in the area. The project would be consistent with the character districts, and corridors. of the area, and would result in a substantial enhancement of views from Balboa Boulevard to Newport Bay (see Section 5.1, Aesthetics). The project proposes no changes in land uses other than the removal of a non -conforming use, and thus would be compatible with the adjacent land uses. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this policy. LU 5.6.2 Form and Environment. Require thatnew, and renovated buildings be The proposed project would include buildings and structures with a marine motif as designed to avoid-theuse of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact described in Section 3A, Proposed Project. Although one architectural feature would exceed the -design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in the City's height limit, the proposed architectural feature would be compatible with the scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that surrounding uses as described in Section 5.1, Aesthetics. The project buildings including the raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining lighthouse feature would be set well back from other buildings such that there would not e properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. an abrupt transition in height. Building design incorporates sustainability elements, and thus would not result in temperature and glare impacts -(see Mitigation Measures 52-L1 to .5.2- 1.11). The projectwould beconsWentwith-this policy. LU 5.6.3 Ambient Lighting. Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to The project would introduce additional lighting on the site, but this additional lighting would prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall be low level safety lighting as well as a marker light feature on top of the proposed ambient illumination of their location. lighthouse tower that would not provide external illumination or result in excessive glare. Therefore, the proposed projectwould be consistent with this policy, LU 5.6.4 Conformance with the Natural Environmental Setting. Require thatsites The proposed project would preserve environmentally sensitive coastal areas along Newport be planned and buildings designed in consideration of the property's Bay by mitigating impacts to sandy intertidal habitat' increasing the amount of subtidal topography, landforms, drainage patterns, natural vegetation, and relationship habitat, and minimizing the amount of fill (see Section 5.3, Biological Resources). The to the bay and coastline, maintaining the environmental character that proposed project would maintain the environmental character of Newport Beach by distinguishes Newport Beach. providing marine -related uses compatible with the existing marine environment. Therefore, the projectwould be consistent with this policy. LU 6.1 A diversity of governmental service, institutional, educational, cultural, social, The project would offer a variety of facilities to enhance the quality of life for residents and - religious, and medical=facilities that are available for and enhance the quality visitors to the City through the provision of educational classes within the multipurpose 5.8-16 Sirius M I= ml r � � M Marina Park Draft REIR Table 5.8-1: Consistency of Marina Park Project With Applicable General Plan Goals and Policies of life for residents and are located and designed to complement Newport building, sailing programs in the sailing program building, and a park that provides public Beach's neighborhoods. views to Newport Bay. The project would be consistent with this policy. LU 6.1.2 Siting of New Development. Allow for the development of new public and The project would provide a public park, a beach, and facilities for educational classes and institutional facilities within the City provided that the use and development community events. Project uses would be consistent with adjoining land uses, including the facilities are compatible with adjoining land uses, are environmentally American Legion Post 291 marina, residential uses and park. As discussed in Sections 5.10 suitable, and can be supported by transportation and utility infrastructure. and 5.12 city services and utilities would not be significantly impacted by the project. As discussed in section 5.11 the project would not significantly impact traffic in the area. The project would therefore be consistent with this policy. LU 6.8 A series of commercial, visitor -serving, marine -related, civic, and residential The project would create within Newport Bay a series of visitor -serving and marine -related neighborhoods that are vibrant throughout the year, differentiated by their services, including a visiting -vessel marina and educational and community facilities. historic and functional characteristics and architectural style, yet integrated by Accordingly, the project would foster this goal. streetsca a amenities. Housin Element H 2.1 Encourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing affordable to The existing mobile home park is located on parks and recreation designated land owned by very low, low- and moderate income households. the City. Due to the non -conforming use of the mobile homes (because they are located on Historic Tidelands), the City does not account for the mobile homes as affordable housing H 4.1 Preservation and increased affordability of the City's housing stock for very low—, low-, and moderate -income households. within the City's Housing Element. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed project. In 2007 the City approved a relocation impact report and complied with state mobile home closure laws; the City will relocate residents or provide benefits. Natural Resources NR 1.1 Water Conservation in New Development. Enforce water conservation The project includes the use of low flow fixtures, water efficient equipment, and drought measures that limit water usage, prohibit activities that waste water or cause tolerant landscaping, and would incorporate best management practices for storm water and runoff, require the use of water -efficient landscaping and irrigation in other runoff. Accordingly, the project would be consistent with this policy. conjunction with new projects. . NR 1.2 Use of Water Conserving Devices. Establish and actively promote use of water conserving devices and practices in both new construction and major alterations and additions to existing buildings. This can include the use of rainwater capture. storage, and reuse facilities. NR 3 Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, The proposed project would include a recreational and visitor -serving boating facility that including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands. could have long-term impacts on water quality. However, Mitigation Measure MM 5.7-A.2 (see Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality) would reduce this potential impact to less than significant. The project would mitigate the loss of 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal habitat and would remove 3,000 cy of silt from the Bay. Therefore, after mitigation, the project would be consistent with this goal. NR 3.2 Water Pollution Prevention. Promote pollution prevention and elimination The project includes a Water Quality Management Plan and would incorporate a number of methods that minimize the introduction of pollutants into natural water bodies. best -management practices for water pollution control (see Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality), and Appendix HA for a copy of the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. NR 3.4 Storm Drain Sewer System Permit. Comply with the regulations under the city's municipal separate storm drain system permit under the National With these controls, the project's impact on water quality would be less than significant, and Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. the project would be consistent with the goals of NR 3. NR 3.5 Natural Water Bodies. Require that development does not degrade natural water bodies. NR 3.9 Water Quality Mana ement Plan. Require new development applications to Land Use and Planning Marina Park Draft REIR Table 5.8-1: Consistency of Marina Park Project With Ap licable General Plan Goals and Policies include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction andpost-construction. NR 3.10 Best Management Practices. Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects. and City operations. NR 3.16 Siting of New Development. Require that development be located on the most suitable portion of the site and designed to ensure the protection and preservation of natural and sensitive site resources that provide important water quality benefits. NR 3.17 Parking Lots and Rights -of -Way. Require that parking lots and public and See discussion of policy 14B 8. private rights -of -way be maintained and cleaned frequently to remove debris and contaminated.residue. NR 6.1 Walkable Neighborhoods. Provide for walkable neighborhoods to reduce The proposed project would provide additional walking paths andopenspace that would vehicle trips by siting amenities such as services, parks, and schools in close connect to the existing community, and would site a community center and enhanced proximity to residential areas. recreational opportunities near existing housing and employment. Accordingly, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy NR7_1 Fuel EfficientEquipment. Support the use of fuel efficient heating Without mitigation the proposed project would exceed particulate matter and NOx equipment and other appliances. significance criteria during construction: the City has developed mitigation measures (MM 5.2-A.1 through MM 5.2-A.3) to reduce those emission to below significance. The proposed NR 7.3 Incentives for Air Pollution Reduction. Provide incentives to promote siting or to use clean air technologies and project would not exceed air pollution -significance criteria during operation. building materials (e.g., fuel cell technologies, renewable energy sources, UV coatings, hydrogen fuel). NR8.1 Management of Construction Activities to Reduce Air Pollution. Require developers to use and operate construction equipment, use building materials and paints, and control dust created by construction activities to minimize air pollutants. NR 11 Protection of environmental resources in Newport Harbor while preserving The proposed project development of the project would not result in any long-term impacts and enhancing public recreational boating activities. to environmental resources after implementation of the recommended mitigation for an identified water quality impact (see Mitigation Measure MM 5.7-A.2 in Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy, NR 14.5 New Structure Design. Require that all structures permitted to encroach into The proposed project includes a recreational and visitor -serving boating facility that would open coastal waters, wetlands, and estuaries be sited and designed to be encroach into Newport Bay, but the design of the marina structures would be consistent with consistent with the natural appearance of the surrounding area. other waterfront structures in Newport Bay. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. NR 15.1 Dredging Projects. Monitor dredging projectswithin the region to identify See discussion under Local Coastal Program elements 4.2.4-2 through 4.2.4-4. above. The opportunitiesto reduce disposal costs and utilize dredge spoils for beach proposed project would be consistent with this policy. nourishment. NR 17.1 Open Space -Protection. Protect, conserve, and maintain designated open See the discussions of LCP policies in Section 3.1, above. The proposed project would be space areas that define the City's urban forth, serve as habitat for many consistent with this policy. species, and provide recreational opportunities. NR 17.3 New Open Space Areas. Consider opportunities to expand designated open space areas within the City. 5.8.18 Sirius Environmental r M M W M r W W W W � W W MW M i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i M i i i Marina Park Draft REIR Land Use and Table 5.8-1: Consistency of Marina Park Project With Applicable General Plan Goals and Policies NR 18.1 New Development. Require new development to protect and preserve See discussion of LCP policy 4.5.1-1, above. The proposed project would be consistent with paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and this policy. minimize impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CE A. NR 20.1 Enhancement of Significant Resources. Protect and, where feasible, enhance Veterans Park, east of the project site, is the only nearby public vantage point identified to be significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, protected. As the proposed project would not adversely affect views from that site; it could canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points. even enhance views from particular locations in Veteran's Park), it would be consistent with this policy, NR 20.2 New Development Requirements. Require new development to restore and Implementation of the proposed project would improve views to Newport Bay as well as enhance the visual quality in visually degraded areas, where feasible, and reduce the intensity of structures on the project site (see Section 5.1, Aesthetics). Therefore, provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public views or to the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. restore ublie views in developed areas, where appropriate NR 22 Maintain the intensity of development around Newport Bay to be consistent The proposed project would reduce the intensity of development on the project site, improve with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. views, and include architectural features consistent with the character and visual scale of development in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. NR 24.2 Energy -Efficient Design Features. Promote energy -efficient design features. As indicated in the Project Description Section 3.4, the proposed project would include sustainable and energy efficient features in the project design. Therefore, the proposed ro'ecl would be consistent with this olic Recreation Element RI Provision of Facilities. Provision of adequate park and recreation facilities that Implementation of the proposed project would replace existing recreational facilities with meet the recreational needs of existing and new residents of the community. expanded and modernized facilities that would include a multi -purpose building and sailing program building, a public beach and park with a children's play area, basketball courts, and, tennis courts and a marina. This replacement of deteriorated existing recreational facilities with new facilities is determined to be consistent with the intent of Goal RI. _ R 1.9 Priority for Facility Provision. Provide additional park -and recreation As identified in the General Plan, and consistent with input from the community and staff, facilities that meet the needs as identified by direct feedback from residents, the project would redevelop the Marina Park site with marine -related recreational facilities through analysis of future Vends, and through observations by Recreation and for both visitors and residents of Newport Beach in accordance with the needs identified in Senior Services staff. recent City studies. Accordingly. the project is consistent with the intent of Goal R 1.9. R 2.3 Preservation of Public Beaches. Preserve all public beaches for public -only The proposed (public) project would retain the existing beach except for a small portion that purposes. would be removed to build the recreational and visitor -serving boating facility; overall, the project would be consistent with this policy. R 4.2 Compatible Recreation Activities. Provide a variety of compatible The project would provide a variety of marine -related recreational activities compatible with recreational activities within a given location. the site, including sailing classes and a beach. These uses would be -similar to those that are currently on the project site, but would represent a substantial increase in recreational facilities. Accordingly, the project would be consistent with this policy. R 6 Provision of Coastal Recreational Opportunities. Protection and The proposed project includes a variety of marine -related activities -that would enhance the enhancement of a wide -range of recreational opportunities along the coast and coastal area and beaches of Newport Beach. In addition the project would provide a beaches. community park and recreational. opportunities that would expand and enhance recreational opportunities in the area. The marina would allow visitors and residents to recreate and visit R 6.1 Protection of Recreational Opportunities. Protect recreational opportunities Sirius Environmental 5.8-19 Land Use and Planning Marina Park Draft RE/R Table 5.8-1: Consistency of Marina Park Project With Ap licable General Plan Goals and Policies along the coast and beaches from nonrecreational uses. Where feasible, the City by boat. Accordingly, the project would be consistent with these goals and policies. expand and enhance recreational opportunities along the coast and beaches R 7 Provision ofAdequate Support Facilities. The proposed recreational and visitor -serving boating facility would support recreational Adequate support facilities serving recreational opportunities within the boating, specifically that component represented by visiting vessels. Existing restroom coastal zone. facilities would be reconstructed and new ones added, and existing recreational support facilities (playground, tennis and basketball courts) would be replaced with modern facilities. The marina would include boat pumpout facilities. Accordingly, the project would be consistent with this goal. R8.2 Provision of New Facilities. Provide additional marine recreational, The proposed project would expand existing marine recreational and community -serving educational and support facilities and opportunities as feasible. facilities, including a publicTecreational and visitor -serving boating- facility, and the Balboa Center Complex. These facilities would provide recreational opportunities, including marina R 8.3 Interagency Coordination to Provide New Facilities. Encourage the provision of guest slips, moorings, waste pump -outstations, and anchorages in rental. The project would enhance guest and public facilities, including a waste pump -out Newport Harbor. Coordinate work with the Orange County Harbor, Beaches, station; utility hook-ups for the marina; and the Balboa Center Complex, including a cafe. and Parks Department to provide such facilities where appropriate and The proposed sailing center would support a variety of sailing classes to enhance the City's feasible. sailing program. Accordingly, the project would be -consistent with the policies and goals of element R S. R 8.5 Support Facilities. Protect and, where feasible, expand, and enhance: • Waste pump -out stations • Vessel launching facilities, including nonmotorized sail boat launch facilities in LowerNewportBay • Low-cost public launching facilities • Marinas and dry boat storage facilities • Guest docks at public facilities, yacht clubs and at privately owned - marinas, restaurants andother appropriate locations • Facilities and services for visiting vessels • Facilities necessary to support vessels berthed or moored in the harbor, such as boat haul out facilities Existing harbor support uses serving the needs of existing waterfront uses, recreational boaters, the boating community, and visiting vessels. R 8.7 Marine Recreational Programs. Protect and enhance specific programs that utilize the harbor, bay, and ocean such as the City's sailing program and junior lifeguard proprain. R 9 Provision of Public Access. Provision and maintenance of public access for _ See the discussion of LCP sections 3.1.1-1 through 3.1.1-9, above. The project would be recreational purposes to the City's coastal resources. consistent with Goal R 9 and associated policies. R 9.1 Provision of Public Coastal Access. Provide adequate public access to the shoreline, beach, coastal parks, trails, and bay, acquire additional public access points to'these areas and provide parking, where possible. R 9.4 Bay/Harbor Encroachments. Protect public access to coastal resources from bay/harbor encroachments such as piers, floats, and bulkheads. Arts and Cultural Element CA 1.1 Public Projects -Encourage the incorporation of public -art into major public The project would include architectural features (lighthouse and sail atop the sailing center) projects that enhance the City's community character as well as its built designed to enhance the community character. The project would include a water feature and environment, through public art donations, and workingwith local artists, would provide opportunities for public arL Accordingly, the project would be consistent students, and community rou sto create public art projects. with this Policy. 5.8-2e. Sirius Environmental ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !, ! ! ! ! ! !' M s M M M M M i M M M M M M M M M M M Marina Park Draft REIR Land Use and Planning Table 5.8-1: Consistency of Marina Park Project With Applicable General Plan Goals and Policies Safe Element S 2.1 Maintain beach width, critical protection against tsunami run-up for structures The proposed project has planned dredging- efforts that would export sediment offsite to be along the oceanfront, through such projects as the Surfside-SunsetAVest utilized to replenish sand beaches on the oceanfront. The Coastal Engineering Study Newport Beach Replenishment Program. (Appendix H.2) indicates no potential hazards to the project from wave loading. The project would not be exposed to unusual tsunami danger. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. S 3.5 Protection of Coastal -Dependent Uses. Permit revetments, breakwaters, See discussion of LCP Policies 2.8.6-5 though 2.8.6-8, above. The proposed project would groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls and other structures be consistent with this policies. altering natural shoreline processes or retaining walls when required to serve coastal -dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. S 3.6 Siting of Shoreline Protective Devices. Design and site protective devices to minimize impacts to coastal resources, minimize alteration of natural shoreline processes, provide for coastal access, minimize visual impacts, and eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. S 3.8 Shoreline Protective Device Use. Limit the use of protective devices to the minimum required to protect existing development and prohibit their use to enlarge or expand areas for new development or for new development. "Existing developmenf' for purposes of this policy shall consist only of a principle structure, e.g. residential dwelling, required garage, or second residential unit, and shall not include accessory or ancillary structures such as decks, patios, pools, tennis courts, cabanas, stairs, landscaping etc. S 3.9 Shoreline Protection for New Development. Require property owners to record a waiver of future shoreline protection for new development during the economic life of the structure (75 years) as a condition of approval of a coastal development permit for new development on a beach or shoreline that is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff. Shoreline protection may be permitted to protect existing structures that were legally constructed prior to the certification of the LCP, unless a waiver of future shoreline protection was required by a previous coastal development permit. S 5.1 New Development Design within 100-year F000dplains. Require that all The project is in an area identified as: "Areas of 500-year flood; areas of 100-year flood with new development -within 100-year floodplains incorporate sufficient measures average depths of less than I foot or with drainage areas less than I square mile; and areas to mitigate flood hazards including the design of onsite drainage systems that protected by levees from 100-year flood.". The project would include a new on -site drainage are connected with the City's storm drainage system, gradation of the site such system connected to the City's storm drains, and would incorporate modern runoff reduction that runoff does not impact adjacent properties, and buildings are elevated. features, including grading and impervious surfaces. The site would not experience a greater risk of flooding than at present, nor would it exacerbate flooding issues for adjacent, areas see Section 5.7). Accordingly. the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Circulation Element CE 2.1.1 Level of Service Standards. Plan the arterial roadway system to Implementation of the proposed project would not cause roadways or intersections to fall accommodate projected traffic at the following level of service standards: below LOS D, meaning that there would be no significant impacts on traffic and circulation. A. Level of Service (LOS) "D" throw houtthe City, unless otherwise noted Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Sirius Environmental Land Use and Planning _ Marina Park Draft RE/R Table 5.8-1: Consistency of Marina Park Project With Applicable General Plan Goals and Policies CE 7.1.1 Required Parking. Require that new development provide adequate, See the discussion of LCP Section 2.9, above. The proposed project would be consistent convenient parkine for residenm guests. business patrons. and visitors. with these policies. Develop parking management programs for areas with inadequate parkin . CE 7.2.1 Noise Element N 1.1 Noise Compatibility of New Development. Require that all proposed As shown in Section 5.9 Noise, noise levels in the vicinity of the project site would remain projects are compatible with the noise and enforce the interior and exterior well below the 70 dB CNEL established in the City's code, and the project would be noise standards. consistent with this policy. N 1.8 Significant Noise impacts. Require the employment of noise mitigation As discussed in Section 5.9, the proposed project would not result in significant noise measures for existing sensitive uses when asignificant noise impact is impacts or increases in CNEL in the operational phase. Therefore, the proposed project identified. would be consistent with this policy N 2.5 Enforce compliance of all boating activities with the noise standards defined The proposed project includes a recreational and visitor -serving boating facility that would in the Municipal Code. accommodate visiting vessels; these vessels would be subject to the Municipal Code noise standards. The harbor patrol regulates- activities of boats and vessels as well as noise levels. The proposed project is considered to be consistent with this policy. N 4.1 Stationary Noise Sources. Enforce interior and exterior noise standards Although construction would cause a temporary increase in noise levels, operationofthe outlined in Table N3, and in the City's Municipal Code to ensure that proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in noise levels in the sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive noise levels from area because no new uses would-be introduced onto the site, other than a small marina in stationary noise sources, such as heating; ventilation, and air conditioning Phase 3, nor would existing uses be significantly intensified. Accordingly, exterior and equipment. interior noise levels in the area would remain compatible with the uses present (see Section 5.9, Noise). Accordingly, the projectwould be consistent with this policy, N 4.4 Limit hours when recreational activities in parks and the harbor can take The proposed project would provide residents and visitors with recreational uses such as the place, proposed park. The park and community facilities would normally close at 10:00 P.M. daily, although other uses on site may close earlier. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. N 4.6 Enforce the Noise Ordinance noise limits on hours of maintenance or Construction activities for the proposed project would adhere to the City Municipal Code construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, ineludingnoise that and no operations would take place outside of the designated hours of construction. The City results from in -home hobby or work related activities. has developed mitigation measures (MM 59-D.1 through 5.9-D.4) to minimize construction noise from pile -driving activities. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. N 5.1 Limiting Hours of Activity. Enforce the limits on hours of construction The Citywould monitor hours of construction to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance activity, and consistency with this policy. 5.8.22 Sirius Environmental � M M i M M M M M i M M i M M M i M M Marina Park Draft REIR Land Use and Table 5.8-2: Consistency of Marina Park Project With Applicable Local Coastal Program Goals and Policies Goat/Policy Policy Consistency Analysis No. Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP adopted July 14, 2009) 1.3 General Policies. The following policies shall be applied to achieve the goals The project is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) and the California Coastal and objectives of the Coastal Act in applying the policies of this Coastal Land Act. The project would enhance coastal access and coastal Tecreational opportunities. Local Use Plan: sand supply would not be impacted and with the City has committed to mitigate the loss of 1. The policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act (PRC Sections 30200 - 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal habitat. The project would be consistent with this policy. 30265.5) shall be the guiding policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan. 2.1.1-1 The land use categories in Table 2.1.1-1 establish the type, density, and The Coastal Land Use Plan Map designates the project site as Parks and Recreation —PR— intensity of land uses within the coastal zone. If there is a conflict between the and Public Facilities --PF. The PR category applies to land used or proposed for active development limits of the Land Use Element and the Coastal Land Use Plan, public or private recreational use. Permitted uses include parks (both active and passive), golf the provision that is most protective of coastal resources shall take courses, marina support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, precedence. However, in no case, shall the policies of the Coastal Land Use and similar facilities. The proposed facilities within the Marina Park project would meet the Plan be interpreted to allow a development to exceed a development limit recreation and open space needs of the community. Therefore,the proposed project is established by the General Plan or its implementing ordinances. considered consistent with these policies. 2.2.1-1 Continue to allow redevelopment and infill development within and adjacent The proposed project is a redevelopment of uses on existing public lands. The existing mobile to the existing developed areas in the coastal zone subject to the density and home park is a non -conforming land use located within Parks and Recreation (PR) -designated intensity limits and resource protection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan. area. Existing recreational facilities such as tennis courts, children's play area, community center, Girl Scout House, and half basketball court would be replaced with improved facilities 2.2.1-2 Require new development be located in areas with adequate public services or in areas that are capable of having public services extended or expanded as part of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is considered consistent with without significant adverse effects on coastal resources. these policies. 2.2.24 Implement building design and siting regulations to protect coastal resources The proposed project would remove the existing tennis courts, community building, Girl and public access through height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, building Scout House and mobile home park that currently impede views from Balboa Boulevard to bulk, and other property development standards of the Zoning Code intended Newport Bay. The implementation of the proposed project would open up approximately 930 to control placement, height, and bulk. linear feet of waterfront area to view from Balboa Boulevard. Elements of the proposed project (i.e., Balboa Complex, Girl Scout House, and Lighthouse Restroom) would impede some views of Newport Harbor, and some features exceed Zoning Code height limitations; however, overall, the proposed project would enhance long-range visual access to Newport Bay. Therefore, the proposed project is considered consistent with this policy. 2.4.1-1 Give priority to coastal -dependent uses over other uses on or near the The proposed project includes the removal of a mobile home park, a non -conforming use shoreline. that is not coastal dependent, and includes the construction and operation of a recreational and visitor -serving boating facility as well as the Balboa Center which includes the Sailing 2.4.1-3 Discourage re -use of properties that result in the reduction of coastal dependent commercial uses. Allow the re -use of properties that assure coastal- Program Building for public recreation and educational classes. The recreational and visitor - dependent uses remain, especially in those areas with adequate infrastructure serving boating facility and the Sailing Program Building are coastal dependent uses. The and arcels suitable for redevelopment as an integrated project. proposed project would not have adverse impacts on any existing coastal -dependent uses. Therefore, the proposed project is considered consistent with these policies. 2.4.14 Design and site new development to avoid impacts to existing coastal dependent and coastal -related developments. When reviewing proposals for land use changes, give full consideration to the impact on coastal -dependent " and coastal -related land uses including not only the proposed change on the subject property, but also the potential to limit existing coastal -dependent and coastal -related land uses on adjacent properties. Sirius Environmental 5.8-23 Land Use and Marina Park Draft RE1R Table 5.8-2: Consistency of Marina Park Project With Applicable Local Coastal Program Goals and Policies Goal/Policy Policy Consistency Analysis No. 2A.2-1 Continue to designate lands for coastal-dependent/related educational and recreational uses. 2.8.1-2 Design and site new development to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks The project is located on the bay side of the Balboa peninsula. A Coastal Engineering study to life and property from coastal and other hazards. undertaken to evaluate the coastal processes, including tsunamis, seiches, waves, and storm surges, in the vicinity of the sitd (see Appendix H.2) did not identify potential flooding, 2.8.3-1 Require all coastal development permit applications for new development or on a coastal bluff property subject to wave action to assess the potential for erosion, or storm -related issues. Therefore, the proposed project is considered consistent flooding or damage from waves, storm surge, or seiches, through a wave up with these policies. rush and impact reports prepared by a licensed civil engineer with expertise in coastal processes. 2.8.6-5 Permit revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff The proposed groin and sheet piles would serve the coastal -dependent use of a new retaining walls and other structures altering natural shoreline processes or recreational and visitor -serving boating facility. Modeling has shown that the new facilities retaining walls when required to serve coastal -dependent uses or to protect would not have adverse impacts on local shoreline dynamics as there is no long shore current existing principal structures or public beaches in danger from erosion and to be affected given the location of the marina and water fluctuations within the protected when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline waters if Newport Bay.. The new facilities would enhance coastal access and views of the sand supply, unless a waiver of future shoreline protection was required by a bay,. The proposed groin and sheet piling are the minimum size needed to protect the previous coastal development permit. proposed recreational and visitor -serving boating facility and adjacent shoreline. Therefore, the proposed project is considered consistent with the policies -in Section 2.8.6. 2.8.6-6 Design and site protective devices to minimize impacts to coastal resources, minimize alteration of natural shoreline processes, provide for coastal access, minimize visual impacts, and eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. 2.8.6-7 Discourage shoreline protective devices on public land to protect private property/development. Site and design any such protective devices as far landward as possible. Such protective devices may be considered only after hazard avoidance, restoration of the sand supply, beach nourishment and fanned retreat are exhausted as possible alternatives. 2.8.6-8 Limit the use of protective devices to the minimum required to protect existing development and prohibit their use to enlarge or expand areas for new development or for new development _ 2.9.3-2 Continue to require new development to provide off-street parking sufficient As part of project implementation the City would develop a Parking Management Plan to to serve the approved use in order to minimize impacts to public on -street and provide and regulate parking on site, and increase overall availability to park visitors off-street parking available for coastal access. generate revenue to offset the costs of operating parking facilities, and ensure that sufficient parking is available for project uses. Project parking demand is for 145 spaces. The project 2.9.3-14 Develop parking management programs for coastal zone areas that achieve the following: would provide 159 spaces. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the relevant • Provides adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business policies in Section 2.9. patrons, and visitors of the coastal zone; • Optimizes use of existing parking spaces; • Provides for existing and future land uses; • Reduces traffic congestion; • Limits adverse parking impacts on usergroups; • Provides improved parking information andsignage; - Generates reasonable revenues to cover City costs; 5.8-24 Sfrlus Environmental M M i M M 1=1 M ! M M M M � i M M M M M Marina Park Draft REIR Land Use and Table 5.8-2: Consistency of Marina Park Project With Applicable Local Coastal Program Goals and Policies Goal/Policy Policy Consistency Analysis No. Accommodates public transit and alternative modes of transportation. 3.1.1-1 Protect; and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along Currently, minimal coastal views are provided along existing streets that are perpendicular to the shoreline and to beaches, coastal waters, tidelands, coastal parks, and the bay. Implementation of the proposed project would open up views of the bay from trails. Balboa Boulevard along approximately 930 linear feet (see Section 5.1, Aesthetics). The proposed project would also increase access to the shoreline and beach by removing existing impediments such as the mobile home park and associated fences, walls, and restrictions to vehicular access, and would provide additional paths along the beach. Therefore, the proposed project is considered consistent with this olic - 3.1.1-9 Protect, expand, and enhance a system of public coastal access that achieves As identified in Section 3, Proposed Project, the proposed project would add two access the following: points from Nest Balboa Boulevard and preserve the existing access at 18" and 10 streets. • Maximizes public access to and along the shoreline; Public access to the beach would be provided by walkways within the proposed park as well • Includes pedestrian, hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails; as access along the western side of the proposed recreational and visitor -serving boating • Provides connections to beaches, parks, and recreational facilities; facility. The project site is not near existing regional trail systems or environmentally • Provides connections with trail systems of adjacent jurisdictions; sensitive habitat areas. The proposed project would involve minimal landform alterations • Provides access to coastal view corridors; (minor contouring of the park area and creation of a marina basin) and would not violate • Facilitates alternative modes of transportation; private property rights. Accordingly, the project is considered to be consistent with the • Minimizes alterations to natural landforms; public access policies. • Protects environmentally sensitive habitat areas; Does not violate private property rights. 3.2.1-1 Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance recreational opportunities in The proposed project includes the replacement of existing oceanfront public recreational the coastal zone facilities as well as providing a new public marina and an oceanfront park for active and passive uses (see discussion of General Plan Recreation Element Policies above). Therefore, 3.2.1-2 Continue to provide opportunities for a wide range of recreational activities at City arks and beaches. the proposed project is considered consistent with this policy. 3.2.2-4 Develop parking management programs for coastal zone areas to minimize As discussed in the Section 3, Project Description, and Section 5.11, the proposed project parking use conflicts between commercial uses, residential uses, and coastal would include a Parking Management Program to ensure that sufficient parking remains zone visitors during peak summer months available for project uses. Various parking -management alternatives were explored, including a fee for parking, meters, and/or other systems to ensure parking is available to visitors of Marina Park and existing adjacent residential and commercial uses are not adversely affected. Therefore, the implementation of the Parking Management Program with the proposed projectis considered consistent with this policy. 3.3.2-1 Provide a variety of berthing opportunities reflecting State and regional The proposed project would add 21 slips for visiting vessels to the five City of Newport demand for slip size and affordability throughout Newport Harbor. Beach slips currently available to visiting vessels, thus increasing the availability of slips to accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. These slips would have access to utilities and 3.3.2-2 Protect, and where feasible, enhance and expand marinas and dry boat storage facilities. shore service. The proposed slips would help meet the current demand for slips for visiting vessels. The proposed marina would not adversely affect existing marinas, including the 3.3.2-6 Protect, and where feasible, enhance and expand guest docks at public facilities, yacht clubs, and at privately owned marinas, restaurants and other nearby American Legion Post 291 marina. The proposed project includes a variety of marine - appropriate locations. related activities that would enhance the coastal area and beaches of Newport Beach. In addition the project would provide a community park and recreational opportunities that would expand and enhance recreational opportunities in the area. Therefore, the proposed project is considered consistent with these policies. 3.3.2-7 Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance facilities and services for visiting vessels, including public mooring and docking facilities, dinghy 5.8-25 Land Use and Planning Marina Park Oran REIR Table 5.8-2: Consistency of Marina Park Project With Applicable Local Coastal Program Goals and Policies Gonl/Policy Policy Consistency Analysis No. docks, guest docks, club guest docks, pump -out stations and other features, through City, County. and private means. 4.2.3-1 Permit the diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, This CLUP Policy mirrors Coastal Act Section 30233(a), except that the Coastal Act does estuaries, and lakes in accordance with other applicable provisions of the LCP, not specifically indicate "marine facilities" that are cited in Subsection A of this policy. The where there is no feasibly less environmentally damaging alternative, and proposed project would result in dredging open coastal waters and sandy intertidal habitat where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse forthe construction of a new marina in order to provide enhanced public access to the coast environmental effects and limited to the following: and enhanced coastal -related recreational -opportunities. The project includes mitigation for A. Construction or expansion ofport/marine facilities. the loss of 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal habitat and BMPs to address water quality. A Draft C. In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including estuaries and Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands (Appendix DA) indicates there are no streams, new or expanded boating facilities, including slips, access wetlands on the project site. ramps, piers, marinas, recreational boating, launching ramps, and pleasure ferries, and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities. 4.2.3-2 Continue to permit recreational docks and piers as an allowable use within The docks, slips, and structural pilings that are proposed to be located within the intertidal intertidal areas in.NewponHarbor. area of NewportlTarbor are considered consistent with this policy. 4.2.3-15 Require netvdevelopment on the waterfront to design and site docking The proposed recreational and visitor -serving boating facility would be of modest size (23 facilities in relationship to the water's depth and accessibili slips) and would not accommodate craft larger than can easily maneuver in the adjacent channel (up to 50 feet in length). The recreational and visitor -serving boating facility would 423-16 Design and site all structures permitted to encroach into open coastal waters, wetlands, and estuaries to harmonize with the natural appearance of the require only a small amount of dredging to provide an access channel. The pilings, groin, surrounding area. and buildings would be similar to existing facilities of the same type in the project area, and thus would be in harmony with the surrounding area (see Section 5.1 of this Draft REIR). Accordingly, the proposed project would be consistent with these policlies. 4.2A-2 Monitor dredging projects within the region to identify opportunities to reduce As discussed in the Dredged -Material Evaluation Report (Appendix G of the REIR), most disposal costs and utilize dredge spoils for beach nourishment. of the dredged and excavated material is suitable for beach replenishment (as discussed in the Sand Compatibility Analysis in Appendix HA about 20,000 cy would only be suitable 4.2.4-3 Dredged materials suitable for beneficial reuse shall be transported for such purposes to appropriate areas and placed in a manner that minimizes adverse for replacement on -site or disposal at LA-3). As discussed in Section 3.4.2, several candidate effects on the environment, sites have been identified as potential sand disposal locations; those sites are further analyzed in Section 53 of this REIR. There is a small portion (up -to 3;000 cubic yards) that 4.2.34 Require dredging and dredged material disposal to be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water would require disposal in an offsite landfill facility. As described in Section 5.3, the circulation. proposed project includes construction measures to minimize potential impacts to wildlife and water quality. Accordingly, the proposed project would be considered consistent with these policies. 4.3.2-7 Incorporate site design and source control BMPs in the design and operation The proposed project includes various water quality best management practices (see Section of all developments. When the combination of site design and source control 5.7), including constriction BMPs and, in the long term, an increase in pervious surfaces, BMPs are not sufficient to protectwater quality as required by the LCP or bioswales and biocells, and marina management practices. Therefore, the proposed project is Coastal Act, structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site considered consistent with these policies. desi n and source control measures. 4.3.2-5 To the maximum extent practicable, runoff should be retained on private property to prevent the tmnsportof bacteria, pesticides, fertilizers, pet waste, oil. engine coolant. gasoline. hydrocarbons, brake dust, tire residue, and other Sirius Environmental M. ' M M � M M M M' M M MI' M M M m m A M i M M M M i M M M M s M Ml M M M i Marina Park REIR Land Use and Table 5.8-2: Consistency of Marina Park Project With Applicable Local Coastal Program Goals and Policies Goal/Policy Policy Consistency Analysis No. pollutants into recreational waters. 4.3.2-11 Require new development to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of ervious surfaces, where feasible. 4.3.2-19 Require parking lots and vehicle traffic areas to incorporate BMPs designed to The proposed project includes pervious areas surrounding the parking lots to allow storm prevent or minimize runoff of oils and grease, car battery acid, coolant, water runoff to infiltrate into the ground. Therefore, the proposed project is considered gasoline, sediments, trash, and other pollutants to receiving waters. consistent with this policy. 4.4.1-11 Restrict development on sandy beach areas to those structures directly Beach structures in the proposed project include some of the children's play area, the supportive of visitor -serving and recreational uses, such as lifeguard towers, lighthouse restroom, walkways bordering the sandy beach, and decking thatwould be part of recreational equipment, restrooms, and showers. Design and site such the Balboa Center Complex. Approximately 0.37 acres of sandy beach would be lost. These structures to minimize impacts to public coastal views. structures are directly supportive of visitor -serving and recreational uses. Therefore, the proposed project is considered consistent with this policy. 4.4.2-1 Maintain the 35-foot height limitation in the Shoreline Height Limitation The main buildings proposed on the project site would be less than 35 feet in height as Zone, as graphically depicted on Map 4-3. 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. 4.4.2-2 Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with The proposed project would permanently change existing views of the mobile home park to the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. views of a recreational park; in Phase 3 the view would include the architectural features of the Balboa Center complex. The lighthousefeature'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 from 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. 4.4.2-3 Implement the regulation of the building envelope to preserve public views See discussion of Policy 4.4.2-1 above. through the height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, and building bulk regulation of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005 that limit the building role and maximize public view opportunities. 4.5.1-1 Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and There are no known cultural resources on the project site (see Section 5.4 Cultural archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to Resources). Mitigation Measures MM 5.4-B.I and MM 5.4-C.1, have been developed to such resources. If avoidance of the resource is not feasible, require an in situ ensure that potential impacts to unknown cultural resources are mitigated to a less than or site -capping preservation plan or a recovery plan for mitigating the effect of significant level. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project the development. would be consistent with this policy. 5.8-27 Marina Park Dreg REIR Noise This section describes the existing noise setting and the proposed project's potential impacts on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on the Acoustical Analysis Technical Report included in this EIR as Appendix I. 5.9.2 - Regulatory Setting State Agencies The former California Office of Noise Control has set land use compatibility noise standards and has encouraged local jurisdictions to adopt them. Noise/land use compatibility standards for various land uses are generally expressed in the Noise Element of the local jurisdiction's General Plan to insure that noise is considered in development decisions. Construction vibration is regulated in accordance with standards (Table 5.9-1) set forth in the Transportation and Construction -Induced Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans 2004). Table 5.9-1 illustrates the maximum peak particle velocity allowed, above which an impact could occur. Transier sources, such as blasting, create a single, isolated vibration event. Continuous/frequent sources, such as pile driving, and vibratory compaction equipment, create vibration other than in single events. Table 5.9-1: Groundborne Vibration Exposure Standards Structure ,Condition and Perception Maximum Peak Particle Velocity (inches/second) — Transient Continuous/Frequent Sources Intermittent Sources Extremely fragile historic building, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Older residential structures with plaster walls/ceilings 0.50 0.30 New residential structures with gypsum board walls/ceilings 1.00 0.50 Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.00 0.50 Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10 Source: California Department of Transportation, 2004. Local Agencies City of Newport Beach General Plan City of Newport Beach noise standards are established in the City ofNewportBeach General Plan Noise Element (2006), Table N2. The standards are contained in the Land Use Compatibility Matrix. (Exhibit 5.9-1), which is based on the State of California Office of Noise Control model element Ruidelines. The standards include the acceptable range of ambient noise levels for open space (park) Sirius Environmental 5.9.1 Table N2 Land Use Noise CompatibilityMatrix Land Use Categories Com unity Noise Equivalent Level CNEL Cafe ories Uses Residential Single Family, Two Family, Multiple Family A A B C C ID, D Residential Mixed Use A A A C C C D Residential Mobile Home A A B C C D D Commercial Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging A A B B C C D Regional,_ District _ Commercial Regional, Village Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant, Movie Theatre A A A A B B C District, Special_ Office Building, Research and Development, I q A A B B C Commercial industrial D Institutional I Professional Offices, City Office Building t Commercial Recreational Amphitheatre, Concert Hall Auditorium, Meeting Hall B B C C D D D Institutional Civic Center Commercial Children's Amusement Park, Miniature Golf Course, A A A B B D D Recreation _ Go-cart Track, Equestrian Center, Sports Club Automobile Service Station, Auto Dealership, A A A A B B Commercial T General, SpecialInstitutional B industrial, Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale, Utilities Institutional Hospital, Church, Library, Schools' Classroom A_ A B C C D D Open Space Parks A A i A B C D I D Open Space Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers Wildlife q A A A B C C Reserves, Wildlife Habitat Agriculture ^ Agriculture A A A A A A A SOURCE: Newport Beach,2006 Zone A: Clearly Compatible—Spedried land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Zone B: Normally Compatible"—NowconsWction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Zone C: Normally Incompatible —New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Zone D: Clearly Incompatible —New construction or development should generally not be undertaken, Source: Newport Beach General Plan h, 11 I 1 t LJ I Exhibit 5.9-1 ' Land Use Compatibility Matrix CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MARINA PARK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I Park Draft REIR _ Noise I Il I I developments, transient lodging (that would apply to the boat slips) and institutional (that could apply to the Girl Scout House), as well as the existing residential uses that are located in close proximity to the site within the City of Newport Beach. In Newport Beach, open space (park) uses are considered clearly compatible with noise levels up to 65 dBA and normally (on further study) compatible up to 70 dBA. Transient lodging is considered clearly compatible up to 60 dBA and normally compatible up to 70 dBA. Institutional uses are considered normally compatible up to 60 dBA. Surrounding residential uses are considered clearly compatible up to 60 dBA and normally compatible up to 65 dBA. As shown in Table 5.9-4 below existing noise levels along Balboa Boulevard (the Girl Scout House and tennis courts) are 63 dBA CNEL and interior to the site (Las Arenas park) 59 dBA CNEL. City of Newport Beach land use compatibility standards generally apply to discretionary actions such as development approval. They are designed to protect various land uses from sources of noise pre- empted from local control such as cars, aircraft, ships, trains, etc. Sources of noise within the jurisdiction of local government are typically regulated by the noise ordinance as part of the municipal code. Newport Beach Municipal Code The City of NewportBeach Municipal Code contains the City's Noise Ordinance, which establishes the City's noise standards (Table 5.9-2). The Noise Ordinance identifies Designated Noise Zones for various land uses with specific numerical noise exposure standards for the different uses (Section 10.26.025 Exterior Noise Standards; Section 10.26.030 Interior Noise Standards). Table 5.9-2: City of Newport Beach Noise Standards Exterior Noise Standards interior Noise Standard Designated Noise Zone 7:00 a.m. i 10:00 p.m: 7:00 a.m: 10:00 p.m: 16:00 p.m. I 7:00 a.m. 10:00 P.M. 7:00 a.m. (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) Noise Zone l: All single, two- and 55 50 45 40 multiple -family residential properties Noise Zone 2: All commercial properties 65 60 — — Noise Zone 3: Residential portions of 60 50 45 40 mixed -use properties Noise Zone 4: Industrial or manufacturing 70 70 — — Source: City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, 2008. Noise ordinance standards apply to on -site noise generation from mechanical equipment, site maintenance, social functions, etc. These standards ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard of the adjacent zones shall apply. ' Sirius Environmental 5.9-3 Noise Marina Park Draft REIR ' Section 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code exempts construction activity from noise standards provided they are conducted between 7:00 a,m, and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p,m. on Saturdays. , 6.9.3 - Existing Conditions Acoustical Terminology Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters, but the "sound pressure level" has become the most common descriptor used to characterize loudness. The ' unit of sound pressure level is called a decibel (dB). The decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound. The zero ' point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of more than 3 dB, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, noise levels at maximum human sensitivity are ' factored more heavily into sound descriptions in a process called "A weighting," written as dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. All decibel values in this analysis written as dB refer to A -weighted values. Because sound or noise can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing, dB are expressed on a logarithmic scale similar to the Richter scale used for earthquake magnitude; this approach keeps sound intensity numbers convenient and manageable. An increase of , 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10-dB increase is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. As examples of sound attenuation as measured in decibels, a 3-dB increase or decrease in the average , traffic noise level is realized by a doubling or halving of the traffic volume, or by about a 7-mile-per- hour increase or decrease in average speed. Each doubling of distance from a point noise source reduces the sound level by 6 dB. Accordingly, if a person is 100 feet from a machine and moves 200 feet from that source, the sound level wilt drop by approximately 6 dB, and moving 400 feet away will reduce sound levels approximately another 6 dB. For each doubling of distance from a line ' source, such as a roadway, noise levels are reduced 3 to 5 decibels, depending on conditions. ' Several other terms and descriptors are usedinnoise analysis. Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed in terms of steady-state energy level equal to the energy contentofthe time - varying period (called L�q) or as a statistical description of the sound pressure level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. For example, the noise levels exceeded on 10 percent of readings is called Lia, the median (50th percentile) reading is called L50, etc. Another commonly used method is the day/night average level or Ld�. The Ld,, which is based on the L�q, is a measure of the 24-hour average noise level at a given location. It was adopted by the U.S. , 5.9.4 Sirius Environmental I L Marina Park Draft REIR Noise Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for developing criteria for the evaluation of community noise exposure. The Ld„ is calculated by averaging the L,, for each hour of the day at a given location after penalizing the sleeping hours (defined as I0:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) by 10 dBA to account for the ' increased sensitivity of people to noises that occur at night. Finally, because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet -time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent ' Level (CNEL). CNEL is obtained by adding an additional 5 dBA to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dBA to sound levels in the night before 7:00 AM and after 10:00 PM. Because CNEL accounts for human sensitivity to sound, the Ld„ and CNEL 24-hour figures are always higher than the actual 24-hour average. Existing Noise The noise environment within the project area is dominated primarily by vehicle traffic and community activity. There are no airports or railroads in the project vicinity. Within the project area, there are noise -sensitive residential land uses to the south, west and east. Traffic along West Balboa Boulevard generates the majority of the ambient noise in the project area. Occasional aircraft ' overflight and motorcycle drive-bys generate relatively high noise levels, but are not the major noise events in the project area. Of primary concern is the level of noise experienced by sensitive receptors.. Sensitive Receptors Sensitive receptors are land uses that are sensitive to increases in ambient noise levels. For purposes of CEQA, the General Plan Noise Element considers a sensitive receptor to be residential uses, public and private educational facilities, hospitals, convalescent homes, day cares, and other (undefined) ' facilities that are considered noise sensitive. ' Sensitive receptors for the proposed project (Table 5.9-3) were identified by radiating out from the project site to locate the closest ones. Identifying the nearest sensitive receptors generally represents the worst -case scenario related to noise, as more remote receptors would experience less impact. Existing on -site residential uses are not considered sensitive receptors because they would be removed at the start of the construction of the proposed project. The closest offsite sensitive receptors are residential land uses located to the south, west, and east of the project site. Several homes located approximately 40 feet to the west of the project site, across 18th Street, residences are located along the east side of 15th Street, approximately 75 feet east of the project site, and residences are located approximately 100 feet south of the project boundary across West Balboa Boulevard. In addition, there are residences across the Bay to the north on Lido Isle, approximately 700 feet from the public beach. The nearest church to the project site is approximately 320 feet from the southeast corner of the project boundary. The closest school to the project site is ' Newport Elementary, located approximately 830 feet from the southeast corner of the project ' Sirius Environmental 5.9-5 Noise Marina Park Draft REIR boundary. Although there are other sensitive receptors at greater distances from the project site, this assessment concentrates on the nearest sensitive receptors because they would receive the greatest impact from project noise; if noise at these receptors does not exceed the standards, then receptors farther away need not be analyzed quantitatively. Table 5.9-3: Existing Sensitive Receptors Roe eptor Relationship to Project Site Residence on the west side of I Sth Street 40 feet to the west Residences along the east side of 15th Street 475 feet to the east Residences along the south side of West Balboa Boulevard 100 feet to the south Our1ady of Mount Carmel Catholic Churchfon West Balboa 320 feet to the southeast Boulevard Residences across the Bay to the north on Lido Isle 700 feet to the north Newport Elementary on West Balboa Boulevard 1830 feet to the southeast I Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2008. 1 Existing Noise Levels Existing noise levels in the project's vicinity (Table 5.9-4), measured in 2004 for a previous project on the site of the proposed project, are.due almost exclusively to vehicular traffic on the streets in the area. The 24-hour CNEL values at both monitoring locations are compatible with the City of Newport Beach's Land Use Community Noise Matrix (Exhibit 5.9-1). Table 5.9.4: On -Site Noise Modeling Results (dBA) Property Line Parameter Play Area Las Arenas I Girl Scout Office/ Park Tennis Courts 24-Hour CNEL Maximum 1-Hour LEQ When (7) -V T-^-_ -- - 20-14ighest Hourly LEQ 59 63 - 3:00 p.m, to 4:00 p.m. 60 63 65 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m 63 When (?) 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Minimum 1-Hour LEQ 44 45 When (4) 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.- 1-Second Maximum 89 91 1-Second Minimum 40 30 Source: Giroux, 2004, in Appendix I,Y -- ^- — --- -- -' - - ---- Other noise sources in the project area include recreational activities, especially water craft. Newport Beach has the largest concentration of small boats in southern California. Thousands of boats operate near the noise -sensitive residential uses that border much of Newport Bay. Charter boats generate 5.9.6 Sirius Environmental C! 1 H I I L -J LJ ' Marina Park Draft REIR Noise engine noise and noise from passengers, loudspeakers, and live entertainment. Land -based recreational activities, including league and youth sports, generate noise as a result of people shouting and blowing whistles and horns blowing, as well as using loudspeakers. ' 5.9.4 - Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G Environmental Checklist, to determine whether noise impacts are significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the project result,in: ' in the a.) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b.) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? in levels c.) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels the project vicinity above existing without the project? d.) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Two other noise -related CEQA checklist questions (Appendix A, Initial Study Checklist, XI Noise, questions e and f) are not analyzed in this EIR. Both questions relate to projects on or very near airports or private airstrips, but as the project site does not lie within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip, those questions do not apply to this project. Thresholds for Substantial Noise Increase The CEQA Guidelines provides no definition of what constitutes a substantial noise increase. The City of Newport Beach General Plan (Noise Policy 1.8) indicates that a significant noise impact ' occurs when there is an increase in the ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting existing sensitive uses as follows: 1 I i CNEL dBA Increase 55 3 60 2 65 1 70 1 Over 75 An increase is significant The project site experiences noise levels of 59 dBA (along Las Arenas park) to 63 dBA CNEL (along Balboa Boulevard) and therefore the applicable threshold of significance would be 1 dBA along Balboa Boulevard and 2 dBA interior to the site. i Sirius Environmental 5.9.7 Marina Park Draft REIR ' Groundborne Vibration Thresholds Groundborne vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions of the ground that have an average motion of zero. Groundborne vibration usually affects only people, but extreme vibration can damage buildings. Although groundborne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically an annoyance only indoors, where it is exacerbated by the shaking of the building. Groundborne noise due to groundborne vibration typically only exists indoors, consisting of the rattling of windows, dishes, etc. 1 Peak particle velocity (PPV) relates to the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal and is often used in measuring the magnitude of vibration. Scientific studies have shown that human t responses to vibration vary by the source of vibration: continuous or transient. Continuous sources of vibration include construction, while transient sources include passing trucks. Generally, the thresholds of perception and annoyance are higher for transient sources than continuous sources. Based on the thresholds established in the Caltrans manual, the proposed project would create a significant vibration impact if it generated groundborne vibration levels on sensitive receptors in excess of 0.5 PPV during construction and 1.0 PPV during operations. ' 5.9.5 - Project Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation ' measures where necessary. Noise Levels in Excess of Standards I 5.9•A: The project would not result In exposure of persons to or generation of. noise levels in excess of standards established In the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. t Project -Specific Analysis , Noise levels in the project area would be influenced by construction activity in the short term and by operational activities (traffic, watercraft, and recreation) in the long-term. This impact discussion analyzes the potential for project construction noise and operational noise to cause noise levels in excess of established City of Newport Beach noise standards. The potential for substantial long-term increases in noise are analyzed under Impact 5.9-C, Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels. I Construction Noise Construction noise causes a short-term increase in ambient noise levels. Noise impacts from ' construction activities associated with the proposed project would be due to the amount of noise generated by construction equipment, the location of the equipment, the sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. Section 10.28.040 of the City of ' Newport Beach Municipal Code exempts construction activity from noise standards provided it is conducted between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m, and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Although there are no standards for construction noise, all construction activity is required to be conducted in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5.9.8 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft RE/R Noise Accordingly, construction noise would not generate noise levels in excess of standards and therefore would not expose people to noise levels that exceed standards. Construction noise would have no impact related to noise standards. ' Operational Noise As discussed above, the land -use compatibility guidelines in Exhibit 5.9-1 establish the acceptable ' range of ambient noise levels for on -site and adjacent uses within the City of Newport Beach. Traffic noise modeling using the data in the traffic report for the project (Appendix K) was conducted for existing and future (Year 2011) noise levels for full project (Phase 3) buildout; since full buildout resulted in a maximum increase in noise of 0.1 dBA, Phases 1 and 2 were not separately modeled. As shown in Tables 5.9-6 and 5.9-7 (see Impact 5.9-C), future traffic noise levels would result in an increase in noise levels in the project vicinity of 0.1 dBA. This would be less than the l dBa threshold and therefore would result in a less than significant impact. The proposed park use is indicated as clearly compatible with a noise environment up to 65 dBA and would therefore be compatible with the existing and anticipated future noise environment. Transient lodging is considered clearly compatible up to 60 dBA and normally compatible up to 70 dBA; the proposed boating slips (transient lodging) are located well away from Balboa Boulevard, therefore would experience a noise level of less than 60 dBA, and would therefore be compatible with the existing and future noise environment. The existing Girl Scout House is located along Balboa Boulevard and experiences noise levels of 63 dBA CNEL, which is in the normally compatible range for institutional use. The new Girl Scout House would be set back from Balboa Boulevard and would be expected to experience noise levels of less than 60 dBA, putting it in the clearly acceptable range for that use. On implementation of Phase 3, noise from vessels would occur when the vessels run their engines. ' Since these vessels would be located within the marina, noise levels would be governed by the City's Municipal Code, which has specific allowed noise levels and durations. Vessels would be required to comply with the noise regulations in the City's Municipal Code, which would be enforced by the Harbor Patrol. Noise from recreational activities in the park would come primarily from children playing and, possibly, group events inside and adjacent to the community buildings. The children's play area would be remote from sensitive receptors, being located in the middle of the proposed park, and could not generate enough noise to exceed the noise standards. Group events, which could generate music and voices, would be infrequent and subject to City of Newport Beach noise ordinances. Accordingly, the operational activities of the proposed project would result in less than significant noise impacts on adjacent residents. ' Cumulative Short-term construction activities on the project site would result in less than significant impacts related to noise standards. The short-term noise levels of the project would contribute to cumulative noise levels; however, the project's contribution to cumulative noise impacts would not cause exceedances of noise standards and would therefore be less than cumulatively considerable. ' Sirius Environmental 5.9.9 Noise Marina ParkDraRRE1R ' Long-term operational impacts would result in less than significant noise levels, as onsite uses would be required to comply with existing noise regulations in the City's Municipal Code. The proposed project would contribute to long-term cumulative noise levels; however, this,contribution would not cause exceedances of noise standards and is considered less than cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measures ' Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project -Specific Less than significant impact. Cumulative , Less than significant impact. Excessive Groundborne Vibration ' 5.9-B: The project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. , Project -Specific Analysis This impact discussion analyzes the potential for short-term construction and long-term operational , activities to cause excessive levels of groundborne vibration. Construction The primary sources of groundbome vibration during construction would be from pile driving, bulldozers, backhoes, crawler tractors, and scrapers. Phase 1 and 2 would only involve demolition activities (Phase 1) and rough.grading (Phases 1 and 2); use of construction equipment would be of short duration (approximately 4 weeks for Phase 1) and 8 ' weeks for Phase 2, and would not include pile driving activities. During Phase 3, the major source of vibration would be the impact pile driver, which would be ' expected to produce groundborne vibration on the order o£0.644 PPV at 25 feet. While the majority of pile driving would occur relatively far from sensitive receptors (in the marina), some pile driving ' maybe undertaken to construct the proposed buildings. The proposed marina and Balboa Center are about 200 feet from the closest sensitive receptor. A vibratory roller that would be used to level the project site would come closer to sensitive receptors than the pile driving activities and would produce 0.210 PPV at 25 feet. Vibration falls off quickly with distance. Nonetheless, these construction -related vibrations may be felt by adjacent uses and sensitive receptors (Table 5.9-5). ' 5.9.10 Sirius Environmental IMarina Park Noise I I I F I I Construction activities would include both single vibratory events and periods in which multiple or continuous vibration would occur, such as pile driving. Therefore, construction impacts were assessed using the continuous/frequent intermittent structural damage vibration threshold of 0.5 PPV for construction. Table 5.9-5 below provides the estimated construction vibration levels at the residences and other sensitive receptors. Table 5.9-5: Estimated Construction Vibration Levels Nearest Sensitive Receptor Predicted Maximum Peak Particle Velocity (inches/second) i Structural i Damage Threshold Residences along west side of 18th Avenue 0.26 0.5 Residences along the east side of 15"' Street 0.14 0.5 Residences along south side of West Balboa Boulevard 0.105 0.5 Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic Church on West Balboa Boulevard 0.033 0.5 Residences across the Bay to the north on'Lido Isle 0.015 0.5 Newport Elementary on West Balboa Boulevard 0.013 0.5 Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2008, Sirius Environmental 2009 Construction -related vibration would be an annoyance to nearby residents, particularly during periods of pile driving and vibratory compaction. The construction -related impact would be temporary, lasting for about 4 weeks for Phase 1, 8 weeks for Phase 2 and up to twelve months for Phase 3. ' During the Phase 3 construction period neither pile driving nor compaction would be continuous. For example, piles for building foundations would take less than a month to drive, the sheet piles for the ' marina bulkheads would take approximately 2 to 2.5 months to drive, and the guide piles for the docks and floats would take no more than one month to drive. In between those activities, normal I L] I construction -related vibration would occur that would produce low-level vibration at nearby receptors. The maximum vibration that the nearest residential receptor would be expected to experience is 0.26 PPV, which is below the 0.5 PPV significance level for potential structural damage. Therefore, construction -related vibration impacts from the proposed project on existing sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Operation The park, community activities, and marina activities would not be expected to result in increased vibration during operation. Occasional delivery trucks may operate in the area, but would not generate vibration in excess of current conditions. Accordingly, project operation would have no impact related, to groundborne vibrations. ' Sirius Environmental 5.9-11 Noise Marina Park Draft REIR ' Cumulative The proposed Project would result in construction vibration, but would not exceed significance thresholds at the nearest existing residential receptors, and therefore, would not be cumulatively considerable. ' Mitigation Measures Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project -Specific Less than significant impact. Cumulative Less than significant impact. Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels ' 5.9-C: The project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels In the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Project -Specific Analysis This impact discussion analyzes the potential for 1) a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise , levels in the project vicinity associated with operation of the proposed project, 2) impacts of offsite vehicular noise on the project, and 3) exposure of neighboring land uses to stationary noise generated by the project. Potential noise impacts associated with the operations of the proposed project would be the result of project -generated vehicular traffic on project -vicinity roadways, along with onsite recreational noises. The operation of the proposed project could, in turn, be affected by ambient noise ' from outside the project area, including traffic on nearby streets and roads. Project buildout would not introduce new sensitive receptors to the project site. , Future peak hour traffic noise levels were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108); details of the model, model inputs, and model results for existing conditions and year 2011 with and without the project are presented in Appendix 1. The model calculates noise levels for varying traffic volumes and speeds. I 1 The modeling of traffic noise is based on the traffic analysis conducted for the first Draft $IR that assumed slightly greater increases in traffic as a result of the project, and thus the model represents a conservative analysis of potential noise impacts. Phases i and 2 were not modeled because Phase 3 does not result in a significant impact. 5.9.12 Sirius Environmental i Marina Park Draft REIR Noise L9 r I I I L' I Stationary Noise Sources The Newport Beach Zoning Code requires that noise from HVAC equipment (Girl Scout House and Balboa Center) not exceed 50 dBA (or 55 dBA if installed with a timing device that deactivates the equipment between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am) and also requires that roof -mounted equipment be screened. Compliance with the Zoning Code would ensure that HVAC equipment does not result in a significant impact on noise in the area. Recreational Noise Sources of stationary noise from the project site may include typical recreational noise such as vessels (Phase 3 only), children playing, and pets (no organized sports would take place in the new park). Those noises would be intermittent, would not be expected to exceed 65 dB, and would thus not represent a substantial contribution to ambient noise experienced by sensitive receptors. Noise from recreational activities would not expose future receptors at the project site to substantial increases in noise levels (i.e., an increase of 3 dBA or more); therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Vehicular Noise Incremental long-term noise impacts would result from vehicular traffic associated with the project. Tables 5.9-6 and 5.9-7 present existing noise and future modeled noise from project -related traffic, show that future noise levels with the project for 2011 would not produce a perceptible change in noise levels compared to future conditions without the project (the greatest impact was calculated at 0.1 dBA). As previously discussed, a 1 dBA to 2 dBA threshold would be applicable to the project site; implementation of the project would result in a less than significant permanent noise increase impact. Table 5.9-6: Existing and Future Traffic Noise Levels (AM Peak Hour) Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) Roadway Intersection Condition Project- Potentially (Distance to Centerline In feet) Existing (2011)__ ,Related Significant ConditionkFuture ithout With Increase Impact? .---_ Project Project Newport Boulevard at Hospital Road (300) 57.7 57.9 57.9 0 N Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue at Coast 62.3 62.7 62.7 0 N Highway (175) Newport Boulevard at Coast Highway (375) 56.6 57.0 57.0 0 N Riverside Avenue at Coast Highway (600) 49.1 49.7 49.7 0 N Tustin Avenue at Coast Highway (450) 44.1 44.7 44.7 0 N Newport Boulevard at Via Lido (75) 65.5 65.6 65.6 0 N Newport Boulevard at 32" d Street (200) 58.1 58.1 58.2 0.1 N Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2008. Sirius Environmental 5.9-13 , Noise Marina Park Draft REIR Table 5.9.7: Existing and Future Traffic Noise Levels (PM Peak Hour) - — - Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) Roadway Intersection Existing Future Condition project- Potentially (soil) (Distance to Centerline In feet) Condition Related ,Significant Without ! With Increase Impact? Project ! Project 1-- C T --f - _j Newport Boulevard at Hospital Road (300) 57.6 58.0 58.0 0 j N Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue at Coast 62.4 63.0 63.0 0 ' N Highway (175) f Newport Boulevard at Coast Highway (375) 56.9 51.4 57.4 0 N Riverside Avenue at Coast Highway (600) 49.7 50.3 50.3 0 N _ Tustin Avenue at Coast Highway (450) 44.7 _ 45.5 45,5 0 — N Newport Boulevard at Via Lido (75) 66.2 66.3 66.3 0 N — Newport Boulevard at 32"s Street (200) — 58.9 58.9 5%0 Source: Michael Bmndman Associates, 2008. Cumulative Since the proposed project would increase vehicular traffic noise imperceptibly, the project's ' contribution to the cumulative noise increase is considered less than cumulatively considerable; therefore, less than significant. Mitigation Measures Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project -Specific Less than significant impact. ' Cumulative Less than significant impact. ' Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels 5.9-D: The project could result in a substantial temporary or periodic Increase in ambient noise levels In , the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. 5.9.14 Sirius Environmental I I Marina Park Draft I I I I 1 I 1 I I I Project -Specific Analysis Construction noise represents a short-term increase in ambient noise levels. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, the sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. Construction noise would occur primarily from the noise generated onsite during demolition, excavation and grading, dredging, and construction activities. As discussed under 5.9-13, construction noise associated with Phases 1 and 2 would be relatively limited. Phase l would include demolition and very rough grading (4 weeks); Phase 2 would include additional grading and placement of sod and associated irrigation equipment. Table 5.9-8 lists typical construction equipment noise levels for equipment that would be used during construction of the proposed project. Some non -typical equipment, including pile drivers, excavators, and dredging equipment, would be used for excavation and dredging of material from the marina during Phase 3 (Table 5.9-9). During Phase 3, excavation and pile driving for the buildings would take approximately two months (including up to 3 weeks of pile driving). Excavation and dredging for the marina would take approximately two months to complete, and construction of the sea wall and sheet piling would take approximately six months (including up to 14 weeks of pile driving). Excavation and construction of the buildings on the upland portion of the site could happen simultaneously with excavation and pile driving of the marina. The sheet piling and sea wall would be constructed using jetting and vibrating for the majority of construction and driving for the last two feet of depth. Construction activities would be carried out in discrete steps, each of which would have a particular mix of equipment and, consequently, noise characteristics. These sequential phases would change the character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Table 5.9-8: Noise Associated with Typical Construction Equipment Construction Phases Maximum Noise.Levels Measured (dBA at 50'feet) Grading 89 Backhoe 90 Pneumatic tools SS Air compressor 86 Crane 83 Plate compactor 89 Concrete vibrator 85 Trucks 87 Source: Federal Transit Agency, 1995. Sirius Environmental 5.9-15 Noise Marina park Draft REIR , Table 5.9.9: Noise Associated with Excavation and Dredging Equipment Equipment Typical Noise Levels Measured (dBA at 50 feet) Excavator 85 Diesel -powered barges �� 85 Dump Trucks 84 Small clamshell dredge 80 Pile driver 95 -101 Crane 82 Source: Thalheimer 1996. On the basis of their proximity to the project site, the residential land uses to the west, east and south of the project site are the sensitive receptors of most concern to project construction noise. Calculated maximum construction noise (all phases of the project), not including pile driving, at sensitive receptors would 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). Note that construction noise often varies significantly on a day-to-day basis; the noise levels shown in the table represent the maximum case. Simultaneous construction activities at the upland building sites and the marina would not be expected to increase noise levels above those shown in Table 5.9-10. Table 5.9-10: Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors Receptor — Distance and Direction Maximum Noise Levels From Project Site (feet) (Lm,,, dB) i Residences along the west side of 18th Avenue, l40 feet to the west 92 west of the project site Residences along the east side of 151' Street, east 175 feet to the cast of the project site 87 Residences,along the south side of West Balboa ( 100 feet to the.south i 84 Boulevard, south of the project site Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic Church` — --^ ! 320 feet to the southeast 75 locates( southeast of the project site ---- `Residences across the Bay to the north on Lido 100 feet to the north— 67 Isle. Newport Elementary, located southeast of the 830 feet to the southeast 66 project site Notes: Noise levels based on construction noise at 90 dB measured at 50 feet from project site; assumes a 6-dB reduction for each doubling of distance. Noise levels in this table depict peak levels and do not predict the 24-hour weighted average (CNEL). This table does not include pile driving associated with building and marine construction. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2008, I I I I LJ I I I 1, I I 5.9.16 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Noise Pile driving (Phase 3 only) would increase the noise levels above those expressed in Table 5.9-8. Pile driving by equipment of the size anticipated for this project would produce between 95 and 101 dB at 50 feet (Table 5.9-9). Assuming a decrease of 6 dB per doubling of distance, receptors 100 feet from the pile driver would experience a noise level of approximately 89-95 dB from the pile driver alone. As most of the pile driving would occur at the site of the proposed marina, near the eastern end of the site, the closest sensitive receptors would be the residences along 15°i Street (400 feet from the marina site) and across West Balboa Boulevard (200 feet from the marina site). Those receptors could experience noise from pile driving of approximately 77-83 dB and 83-89 dB, respectively. Noise abatement technology is available that could reduce those noise levels by up to 20 dB (see MM-5.9-D.2). With noise abatement technology the intermittent, sudden nature of pile driving sounds would still be annoying to sensitive receptors, and the impact would still be considered potentially significant. Construction activities would be performed in accordance with the•City's Municipal Code noise regulations that set the times during the day when construction activities are allowed. Adherences to the Code would reduce the project's potential temporary noise impact. Nevertheless, because of the proximity of sensitive receptors to construction noise and the duration of construction activities (including up to 14 weeks of pile driving for the marina and up to 3 weeks of pile driving for buildings), especially pile drivers, increases in temporary ambient noises due to construction are considered potentially significant. ' Cumulative Construction noise would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels. There are no ' proposed large construction projects that could result in overlapping construction noise with construction noise from the project; therefore, there would not be a cumulative impact to which the project would contribute. Mitigation Measures Project -Specific MM-5.9-D.1 During all phases of construction, the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that all construction equipment on -site is properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions and that construction equipment is fit with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. MM-5.9-D.2 During Phase 3 construction, the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that noise abatement technology is used (e.g., shrouds and barriers) to minimize the sound from pile drivers; no pile driving shall take place outside the hours specified for construction activities in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. ISirius Environmental 5.9-17 Noise Marina Park Draft REIR I MM-5.9-D.3 During all phases of construction, the City of Newport Beach shal I ensure that all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) are located as far from residential and recreational receptors as is feasible. ' MM-5.9-D.4 During all phases of construction, material delivery, soil haul trucks, equipment servicing, and construction activities shall be restricted to the hours set forth in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project -Specific Significant impact. Cumulative Less than significant impact. I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 5.9.18 Sirius Environmental I IMarina Park Draft REIR Public Services 5.10 - Public Services 5.10.1 -Introduction ' This section describes the existing public services setting and potential effects of project implementation on those services. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information ' contained in the Public Services Correspondence (see Appendix I, Public Services Correspondence). 5.10.2 - Regulatory Setting Public services are largely subject to local policies and ordinances. The only relevant regulation that would affect the proposed project is the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 9 Fire Code, which specify a wide range of building and site design and material requirements with the goal of is heavily based the reducing the risks posed by fire and other emergencies. The municipal code on national Uniform Fire Code. 5.10.3 - Existing Setting ' Fire Services The Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) is responsible for reducing loss of life and property from fire, medical, and environmental emergencies. In addition to fire suppression, NBFD also provides fire prevention and hazard reduction services. The Fire Prevention Division works in conjunction with the City's Planning, Public Works, and Building Departments to ensure that all new construction and remodels are built in compliance with local and State building and fire codes, �. including the provision of adequate emergency access and on -site fire protection measures. There are eight fire stations strategically located throughout the City to provide prompt assistance to area residents. The NBFD currently employs 146 full-time and 170 seasonal employees to provide 24-hour protection and response to the City's residents and visitors. NBFD is divided into four divisions: operations, fire prevention, training, and administrative. The NBFD divides its fire suppression staff into three shifts per month, with 39 personnel working each shift. Of the NBFD employees located at the eight NBFD stations, seven paramedics serve per shift. Two are always on duty at Stations 2, 3, and 5 with paramedic ambulances. In addition, Station 8 is a Paramedic Assessment Unit (PAU) with one paramedic crew member. The nearest fire station to the project site is Station No. 2 , located at 475 32nd Street, off Newport ' Boulevard south of Pacific Coast Highway, which is approximately 1/2 mile from the site. The second -nearest fire station is Station No. 1, located at 110 East Balboa Boulevard, at the corner of East Balboa Boulevard and Island Avenue, nearly one mile from the project site. Either station might respond to the project site, depending on availability. Police Services The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) provides police service to the proposed project site. The police department is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive and provides services in crime Sirius Environmental 5.10-1 Public Services Marina Park Draft REIR prevention and investigation, community awareness programs, and other services such as traffic control. The NBPD employs a total of 285 personnel, including 1 chief, 3 captains, 8 lieutenants, 22 sergeants, 115 sworn officers, 92 civilian personnel, and 44 Seasonal and part-time personnel. The NBPD is divided into three divisions, including support services, patrol/traffic, and detectives. NBPD currently has authorization for 149 sworn officers. With a population of approximately 87,400 , residents, the ratio of officers is currently 13 officers per 1,000 residents. On average, 3,300 emergency calls are received per month, with an average response time of 4 minutes, 41 seconds in 2008. An average of 74,000 police responses per year are dispatched. In 2008, the average police response time for nonemergency calls was 16 minutes, 21 seconds. It is noted that the response time for nonemergency calls includes a variety of nonemergency calls, including parking violations and animal control calls. There are no current plans to increase staffing levels or to expand the NBPD. Schools The Newport -Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD), with a service area of 58.83 square miles, provides educational services to the City of Newport Beach, City of Costa Mesa, and other unincorporated areas of Orange County. The Airport Area is served by the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD). A small portion of the City located in the eastern part of the City is served by the Laguna Beach Unified School District (LBUSD). NMUSD serves the majority of the City and has 32 public schools including 22 elementary schools, 2 junior high schools, 5 high schools, 2 alternative education centers, and 1 adult school, Of these, 2 high schools, 1 middle school, and 8 elementary schools are located within City limits, Parks Currently, the City of Newport Beach owns and maintains an approximately 348 acres of parkland. The Balboa Peninsula current has a total of 6.5 acres of parkland. The project site currently has , approximately two acres of parkland. 5.10.4 -Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following question is evaluated to determine whether environmental effects to public services are significant. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered ' governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance t objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection, Police protection, Schools, Parks? 6.10.6 - Project Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures , This section discusses potential impacts associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary. 5.10-2 Sirius Environmental IMarina Park Draft REIR Public Services Fire Protection 5.10-A: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection. Project -Specific Analysis According to the NBFD, the current facilities, equipment, and personnel are adequate to serve the project site (all three phases), including on the peak Fourth of July holiday. As required by the ' Uniform Fire Code and the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 9, the proposed project would include specific design features such as appropriate emergency access, approved building materials, etc. Conformance with these codes reduces the risks associated with fire hazards. In 11 I I I t I addition, the proposed project would reduce building and population density on the site Implementation of the proposed project should not have a significant impact on fire services provided for the area, nor would the proposed project require new fire protection facilities. Therefore, the project's impact on fire services is considered less than significant. Cumulative Implementation of the proposed project (all three phases) in addition to all other related projects in the vicinity of the project site could add to the cumulative need for fire services. The NBFD regularly evaluates fire protection services throughout the City. The impacts associated with surrounding projects are not considered cumulatively significant and would not require additional fire personnel staffing, equipment or facilities to maintain adequate levels of fire protection throughout the City of Newport Beach and, in particular, in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considered less than significant because the fire services currently provided to the project area would not be substantially affected. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. Sirius Environmental 5.10-3 Public Services Marina Park Draft REIR Police Protection 5.10-8: The project would not result In substantial adverse physical Impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically ' altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection. Project -Specific Analysis According to the NBPD, the current level of personnel and facilities is sufficient to provide police , services to the project site (all three phases), including on the peak Fourth of July holiday. Development of the proposed project would allow for more access to the site than the previous use of mobile homes, and would thus improve response time to the site. Accordingly, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on police services. Cumulative Implementation of the proposed project in addition to all other projects in the vicinity of the project site could add to the cumulative impact on police. services. The NBPD regularly evaluates police protection services throughout the City. The cumulative impacts of project development, along with the development of the related projects could require additional police staffing, equipment or facilities �to maintain adequate levels of -police protection through out the City of Newport Beach. However, the project's contribution to the city-wide impact on police protection is considered Tess than significant because the existing police services provided to the project area would not be substantially �. affected with project implementation. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation is required. Cumulative No mitigation is required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. ' Schools 5.10-C: The project would not in substantial adverse physical Impacts associated with the provision of ' new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental Impacts, In order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for ' schools. 5.10.4 Sirius Environmental _ Marina Park Draft REIR Public Services Project -Specific Analysis The proposed project would not result in additional residences to the city and therefore would not create the need for new school facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on school services. Cumulative in the Implementation of the proposed project in addition to all other projects the vicinity of project site could add to the cumulative impact on school personnel and facilities throughout the City of Newport Beach. However, the project's contribution to the city-wide impact on schools is considered less than significant because the project site would not be adding students to the district. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific No impact. Cumulative Less than significant. Parks 5.10-1): The project would not result insubstantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks. Project -Specific Analysis Implementation of the proposed project would result in approximately ten acres of park, increasing the amount of parkland on the project site by nearly eight acres. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a beneficial impact on parkland within the City as well as on Balboa Peninsula. Cumulative Implementation of the proposed project would increase the amount of park acreage within the City. Therefore, the proposed,project would not contribute to cumulative adverse impacts. 1 Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. i Sirius Environmental 5.10.5 Services Marina Park Draft REIR i Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific Beneficial impact. Cumulative Beneficial impact. F I U I 0 I I I 5.10.6 Sirius Environmental I tMarina Park Draft REIR Transportation and Traffic 5.11 - Transportation and Traffic 5.11.1 -Introduction This section describes the existing transportation and traffic setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are ' based on information contained in the Marina Park TPO Traffic Analysis prepared in September 2009 — that updates the analysis prepared in November 2008 by Austin -Foust Associates Inc, and in the Parking Management Recommendations Letter Report prepared in October 2008 by Walker Parking Consultants. Both reports are included in Appendix K of this Draft REIR ' 5.11.2 - Regulatory Setting Federal No existing federal regulations pertain to transportation and traffic within the proposed project area (except as the federal government regulates the regional transportation process through the state and ' regional government in the RTP). State ' No existing state regulations pertain to transportation and traffic within the proposed project area (except as the state grants authority through the RTP process — see below). Regional/Local Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTP, prepared by the Southern California Association of ' Governments (SCAG) is a long-range program, prepared very four years, that addresses the growth projections and transportation needs for the six -county SCAG Region through 2035. It includes both ' specific projects and strategies that address transportation goals and policies and potential growth patterns. Projects analyzed in the 2008 RTP PEIR include highway improvements, transit improvements, various rail upgrades, high speed regional transport (HSRT), and goods movement strategies. Although the 2008 RTP has a long-term time horizon under which projects are planned and proposed to be implemented, federal and state mandates ensure that the RTP is both flexible and ' responsive in the near term. Congestion Management Program (CMP). The CMP is the program by which agencies in Orange ' County (County) have agreed to monitor and report on the status of regional roadways. In the County of Orange, the CMP uses ICU intersection analysis methodology to analyze its operations. The CMP ' Highway System is a backbone arterial system of regionally significant roadways carrying the highest volume of traffic. The ICU analysis methodology describes the operation of a signalized intersection ' using a range of LOS from LOS A (free -flow conditions) to LOS F (severely congested conditions). Sirius Environmental 5.11-1 Transportation and Traffic Marina Park Draft REIR City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance requires that the traffic impacts of each project be analyzed to determine whether the project would contribute 1% or ' more to future background conditions at local intersections within the city of Newport Beach. ' 5.11.3 -Existing Conditions The project site is bounded by 19d' Street to the west, 15"' Street to the east, and Balboa Boulevard to ' the south. The City of Newport Beach identified ten intersections as the study area for the proposed project (see Exhibit 5.11-1). These intersections include: ' • Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road • Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue and Coast Highway • Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway ' • Riverside Avenue and Coast Highway • Tustin Avenue and Coast Highway t • Newport Boulevard and Via Lido • Newport Boulevard and 32" d Street • 23`d Street and Balboa Boulevard ' • 215' Street and Balboa Boulevard • 15°i Street and Balboa Boulevard ' Existing peak hour intersection volumes for the first seven intersections listed above were provided ' by City staff (existing peak -hour volumes are provided in Appendix K of this Recirculated Draft EIR) and collected during the non -peak season.in 2006, 2007, and 2008; counts for the last three ' intersections were undertaken by the traffic consultant in September 2009. Existing intersection levels of service are based on intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values. The ' ICU values are a means of presenting the volume to capacity (V/C) ratios, with a V/C ratio of.900 representing the upper threshold for an acceptable level of service (LOS "D") in the City of Newport Beach, Existing ICU values and corresponding LOS for the study intersections are based on existing lane configurations and are summarized in Table 5.11-1 (actual ICU calculation sheets are included in Appendix K of this Draft REIR). As shown in Table 5.11-1 the study intersections are currently ' operating at LOS "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. These ICU values represent the non -peak season conditions. ' n 5.11.2 Sirius Environmental ' Q Z 1 A O o_ Not to scale. /sry ' z lsry P�G� 6 a HOSPITAL 1 �O� a � 2 _o j 3 4 2 5 COAST HWY 6 9CQ 9 C �O �9 % NF 100 otir A a q%� 8 `y y� 10 PROJECT,• ' SnE L W SALBOA source: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2008 Exhibit 5.11-1 Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study Locations ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - MARINA PARK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Transportation and Traffic Marina Park Draft REIR Table 6.11-1: Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization and Level of Service - Non -Peak Season Intersection Existing AM PM I. Newport & Hospital 0.59/LOS A 0.64/LOS B 2. Balboa/Superior & Coast Highway 0.68/LOS B 0.72/LOS C 3. Newport & Coast Highway _ 0.77/LOS C JI 0.68/LOS B 0.70/LOS B 0.81/LOS D 4 Riverside & Coast Highway' 0.67/LOS B T� 0.58/LOS A 5. Tustin & Coast Highway 6. Newport & Via Lido A 0.43/LOS A 7. _ Newport & 32nd ^0.47/LOS 0.48/LOS A 0.66/LOS B 8. 23rd & Balboa T J 0.1 I/LOS A 0.12/LOS A 9. 21" & Balboa 0.23/LOS A 0.32/LOS A 10. Balboa & 15t1t 0.46/LOS A 0.33/LOS A Level of service ranges:.000 -.600 A; .601 -.700 B; .701 -.800 C; .801 -.900 b; .901 - 1.000 E; Above 1.001 F Sourcc: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., September 2009. Sample mid -block counts were collected to determine the seasonal (peak season) increase in summer traffic volumes for the project vicinity. Counts collected on Newport Boulevard at 32nd Street and on Balboa Boulevard at 18th Street in early June 2008 (non -peak season) and late June 2008 (peak summer season) indicate an average increase of 18 percent in the daily traffic volume during the summer. During the peak hours, the summer increase averages 17 percent over the non -peak season volume during the AM peak hour and 16 percent during the PM peak hour. Existing peak hour volumes at the study -area intersections were increased to summer conditions, and the resulting summer peak season ICU and corresponding LOS are provided in Table 5.11-2. As shown in Table 5.11-2, the study intersections are currently operating at LOS "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hour summer peak season. In accordance with the TPO, ambient growth and currently approved projects that have not been constructed are added to the existing traffic volumes. The study year is 2011 because construction of the proposed project is expected to be completed by 2011. An ambient growth rate of 1.0 percent per year was added to the existing volumes along Newport Boulevard, north Coast Highway, and Coast Highway. Traffic generated by approved projects in the study area was obtained from City staff and was added to the existing peak -hour volumes to obtain year 2011 background peak -hour volumes for study -area intersections. The list of approved projects is provided in Table 4-1 (and Appendix K) of this Draft REIR, t 11 I 5.11-4 Sirius Environmental I I Marina Park Draft RElR Transportation and Traffic i I 0 I Table 5.11-2: Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization and Level of Service - Summer Season Intersection Existing,�� AM - PM - -- 1. Newport & Hospital 0.66/LOS B 0.70/LOS B 2. Balboa/Superior & Coast Highway 0.79/LOS C 0.82/LOS D 3. Newport & Coast Highway 0.901 LOS D 0.77/LOS C 4. Riverside & Coast Highway 0.80/LOS C 0.88/LOS D 5. Tustin & Coast Highway 0.78/LOS C 0.65/LOS B 6. Newport & Via Lido 0.54/LOS A 0.49/LOS A 7. Newport & 32nd Street 0.56/LOS A 0.74/LOS C 8. 23 d & Balboa 0.13/LOS A 0.14/LOS A 9. 21" & Balboa 0.28/LOS A 0.36/LOS A 10. Balboa & 15th 0.54/LOS A 0.38/LOS A Notes: Level of service ranges:.000 - .600 A; .601 - .700 B; .701 - .800 C; .801 - .900 D; .901 - 1.000 E; Above 1.001 F Source: Austin -roust Associates, Inc, September 2009. Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated to determine whether transportation and traffic impacts are significant environmental effects. Would the project: a.) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system and that exceeds, either individually or cumulatively, a level-of- service standard for intersections established by the City. b.) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? c.) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d.) Result in inadequate emergency access? e.) Result in inadequate parking capacity? f.) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 6.11.4 - Project Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary. Sirius Environmental 5.11.5 Transportation and Traffic Marina Park Draft REIR Traffic Increase/LeVel of Service ' 5.11-A: The project would not cause an Increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system and that exceeds, either Individually or cumulatively, , a level-ofservice standard for intersections established by the City. Project -Specific Analysis , Trip -generation rates for the proposed project were derived from peak hour and daily trip rates contained in Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Eighth Edition. The ITE ' Beach Park peak hour and daily rates per acre were applied to Phase I and Phase 2 of the proposed project. A combined rate that consists of the ITE Beach Park AM and PM peak hour rates per acre daily Phase 3 , and an average of the ITE City Park and Beach Park rates per acre was applied to the park uses. ITE's Recreational Community Center trip rates were applied to the proposed Multi -Purpose Building and Sailing Program Building at the Balboa Center Complex, which includes a 30-seat cafe. ITE's Marina rates were applied to the proposed marina use. , Credit for the trips currently being generated by the existing mobile home park were determined from ITE trip rates. These rates and the resulting trips for existing conditions, Phases 1, 2 and 3-(and the net difference for Phases I and 2 and separately Phase 3 compared to existing) are summarized in Table 5.11-3. Phases 1 and 2 As can be seen in Table 5.11-3, Phases 1 and 2 of the project would result in a net decrease in trips (106 trips) and would therefore improve traffic conditions in the area compared to existing conditions. Phase 3 1 As indicated in table 5.11-3, Phase 3 of the proposed project would result in a net increase of 261 trips daily. During the AM peak hour there would be a net increase of 8 trips, and during the PM ' peak hour the proposed project would generate a net increase of 6 trips. Trip distribution of project -generated traffic onto the surrounding circulation system was determined , from observed travel patterns in the vicinity of the project site as well as from location and levels of development in relation to subject property. A large portion of trips generated by the project is estimated to originate within the City of Newport Beach. Approximately 35 percent of project trips are oriented toward the areas south of Coast Highway, including the Balboa Peninsula area. The remaining 65 percent of project traffic is distributed along Coast highway and Newport Boulevard. 5.11.6 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Transportation and Traffic I ,1 I 1 1 i'I I I I Table 5.11-3: Proposed Project Trips (Phases 1, 2 and 3) - Trip Generation Rates _ T _AM - -- -� --I Peak.Hour_.__.PM---. Peak Hour. Land Use Units --- - ---- --- --- -- ---� ADT In Out Total. In Out - Trip Rates (ITE) _ Eeach Park, Phases Acre .28 .20 .48 _ .38 .92 1.30 29.81 1 and 2 (ITE 415) Park' Acre .28 .20 A8 .38 .92 1.30 15.70 Recreational TSF .99 .63 1.62 .48 1.16 1.64 22.88 Community Center (ITE 495)2 Marina (ITE 420) Berth .03 .05 .08 .11 .08 .19 2.96 Mobile Home Park I=.- 09 .35 A4 .37 .22 .59 4.99 (ITE 240) Trip Generation Proposed Project Phases 1 and 2 _ Park -F; .99 2I 3 2 6 8 179 Proposed Project Phase 3 Park' 4.89 acres 1 1 2 2 4 6 77 Multi -Purpose/ 21.3 TSF 21 13 34 10 25 35 487 Sailing Program Building/Cafe Visitor Marina 23 Berths 1 1 2 3 2 5 68 Subtotal Phase 3 23 15 38 1'S 31 46 632 Existing Use (Non -Summer) Mobile Home Park 57 DU -5 -20 -25 -21 -13 -34 -285 Park 1.2 acres 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -19 Community Center 2.9 TSF -3 -2 -5 -1 -4 -5 -67 NET NEW TRIPS _ 3 -19 -22 -19 -7 26 -106 Phases 1 and 2 NET NEW TRIPS - 15 -7 8 -7 13 6 261 Phase 3 Notes: The ITE Beach Park (415) peak hour and daily rates per acre were applied to Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project. A combined rate that consists of the ITE Beach Park (415) AM and PM peak hour rates per acre and an average of the ITE City Park (411) and Beach Park daily rates per acre was applied to the Phase 3 park uses. 2 ITE Recreational Community Center (495) trip rates applied to Multi -Purpose Building, Sailing Program Building, and CafB. The Girl Scout Buillding would be relocated on -site and results in no net change in project trips. Source: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., September 2009. Sirius Environmental 5.11.7 Transportation and Traffic Marina Park Draft REIR Based on the above distribution of project trips, a peak hour intersection analysis at the seven study - area intersections was conducted in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The TPO analysis consists of a one -percent analysis and an ICU analysis at each study -area intersection during the non -peak season. The one -percent analysis compares the proposed project traffic with projected background (existing plus growth plus approved projects) plus project , peak hour volumes, If project peak (tour traffic volumes are less than one percent of the projected background peak hour traffic on each leg of the intersection, no ICU analysis is required. If project peak hour traffic volumes are one percent or greater than the projected background peak hour traffic on each leg of the intersection, an ICU analysis is required. Table 5.11-4 identifies the peak hour project volumes at the study -area intersections and shows whether the proposed project would contribute less than one percent of the total peak hour traffic volumes at each leg of the intersection. As shown in 5.11-4 the proposed project would contribute one percent or more of the total background (existing plus growth plus approved projects) volumes at two intersections (23`d and Balboa and 21't and Balboa) during the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, an ICU analysis was prepared for these intersections. The non -peak season volumes ' represent the worst -case one -percent analysis, since the summer season volumes increase the background level against which the project trips are compared. Since the project traffic represents less than one percent of the background -plus -project peak hour volumes under non -peak season conditions, then the project traffic represents less than one percent of the background -plus -project peak hour volumes under the summer peak season. Nonetheless, the summer peak season and the non -peak season were both analyzed; the results for both analyses are presented in Appendix K, Traffic and Parking Analysis, L.J I 1 1 1 5.11.8 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Transportation and Traffic r I 1 I I L I I I Table 5.11-4: Summary of One Percent Analysis - Non -Peak Season Intersection AM -Peak Hour Project Volumes Less.than1% of. - - — - -' `--- Peak Hour Volumes, NB SB I ER I- WB Newport & Hospital 0 3 0 1 Yes Balboa/Superior & Coast Hwy 0 0 1 0 Yes Newport & Coast Hwy 0 0 0 5 Yes Riverside & Coast Hwy 0 1 0 3 Yes Tustin & Coast Hwy 0 0 0 3 Yes Newport & Via Lido 0 9 0 0 Yes Newport & 32"d 0 9 1 0 Yes Balboa & 23rd 0 0 3 0 No Balboa &21st 0 0 13 0 No Balboa & 15th Intersection I 0 0 0 2 PM Peak Hour Project Volumes � Yes ,Less than 1% ofy Peak Hour Volumes NB SB EB WB Newport & Hospital 4 0 0 0 Yes Balboa/Superior & Coast Hwy 1 0 0 0 Yes Newport & Coast Hwy 0 0 0 0 Yes Riverside & Coast Hwy 0 0 4 0 Yes Tustin & Coast Hwy 0 0 3 0 Yes Newport& Via Lido 7 0 0 0 Yes Newport & 32"d 8 0 0 0 Yes Balboa & 23rd 0 0 0 3 No Balboa & 21st 0 0 0 11 No Balboa & 15th 0 0 2 0 Yes Source: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., September 2009. An ICU analysis was performed for the two intersections that did not contribute less than one percent of peak hour volumes. Existing lane configurations were assumed, and a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) per lane was utilized. Table 5.11-5 summarizes the existing, background (existing plus growth plus approved projects), and background -plus -project ICU values during the AM and PM peak hours under non -peak season and summer season conditions. Sirius Environmental 5,11-9 ' Transportatton and TraftiC Marina Park Draft REIR Table 5.11-5: ICU Analysis and Corresponding Levels of Service { Intersection Existing (((( Existing + Phase 3 - protect Background + Background phase 3 Project AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Non -Peak Season Balboa & 23rd 0.11/ 0.12/ 0.11/ j 0.13/ — 0.11/ 0.13/ ' LOS A i LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A Balboa & 21st 0.23/ 0.32�/ I 0.32/ 0.23/ 0.33/ 0.23/ 0.33/ ' LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A Summer Season , Balboa & 23rd I 0.13/ 0.14/T0.13/ I 0.15/ 0.13/ ; 0.15/ LOS A+ LOS A LOS A I A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A Balboa & 21st 0.28/ 0.36/ 0.28/ 0.36/ 0,29/ 1 0.37/ 0.29/ 0.37/ LOS A I LOS A LOS A LOS A^ t 1 LOS A I LOS A I LOS A LOS A T-- — Notes: Level of service ranges 000 - .600 A; .601 - .700 B; .701 C; .801-900 D; .90Y`1.000 B; Above 1.001 F --800 Source: Austin -roust Associates, Inc., September 2009. ' As shown in Table 5.11-6, the project would have no marginal impact on the intersections of Balboa ' and 23`d and Balboa and 2181. Both of these intersections will operate at LOS A during theAM and PM peak (tours under non -peak season and summer peak season. Therefore, Phase 3 project impacts , on the study intersections are less than significant. Cumulative City staff provided a list of 12 cumulative projects (including the proposed project) with the potential to have impacts that overlap and could contribute to cumulative impacts. These projects are listed in Table 4-1 in Section 4 of this Draft REIR. Trip generation and distribution for each cumulative ' project was provided by City staff. The peak hour cumulative intersection volumes were added to the background volumes presented earlier, and then project -generated traffic was added. The previous ' non -peak season one -percent analysis without cumulative volumes represents the worst -case one - percent analysis, since the addition of cumulative traffic to the background volumes increases the chances of a project providing less than one percent of background -plus -project peak hour volumes. , Therefore, an ICU analysis for the two study intersections that did not pass the one percent analysis was prepared. Table 5.11-6 shows the one -percent analysis under cumulative conditions. As shown, ' both of these intersections would operate at LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours under background -plus -cumulative -plus -project non -peak season and summer peak season and no mitigation is required. Therefore, cumulative traffic impacts at these two study intersections would ' be less than significant. I 5.11-10 Sidds Environmental Marina Park Draft REIR Transportation and Traffic I I I I I 1 I 1 Table 5.11-6: Cumulative ICU Analysis and Corresponding Levels of Service s Background+ Background + Existing ; Background Cumulative+ Cumulative Intersection _'-I � Phase 3 Project AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM PM Non -Peak Season Balboa &23rd 0.11/ 0.12/ 0.11/ 0.13/ 0.12/ 0.14/ 0.12/ 0.141 LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A Balboa & 21 st 0.23/ 0.32/ 0.23/ 0.33/ 0.24/ 0.33/ 0.24/ 0.33/ LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS A LOS A Summer Season Balboa & 23rd 0.13/ 0.14/ 0.13/ 0.151 0.14/ 0.161 0.14/ 0.16/ LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A Balboa & 21st 0.28/ 0.36/ 0.29/ 0.37/ 0.29/ 0.38/ 0.29/ 0.38/ LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS C LOS A LOS A Notes: Level of service ranges: .000 - .600 A; .601 - .700 B; .701 -.800 C; .801 -.900 D; .901 - 1.000 E; Above 1.001 F Source: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., September 2009. Mitigation Measures Project-Specirlc No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project -Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. Air Traffic Patterns 5.11-B: The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, Including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. Project -Specific Analysis The nearest airport to the project site is John Wayne International Airport, located approximately 4.7 miles to the northeast. Due to this distance and the low -profile nature of the proposed structures, the project would not change air traffic patterns. Sirius Environmental 5.11-11 LJ rransponation and rrattic Marina Park DraftRE1R Cumulative Since the proposed project would result in no impact on air traffic patterns, the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts on air traffic patterns. Mitigation Measures Project -Specific ' No mitigation measures are required, Cumulative ' No mitigation measures are required. Significance After Mitigation , Level of Project -Specific No impact. ' Cumulative No impact. ' Hazards ' 5.11-C: The project would not substantially Increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Project -Specific Analysis Primary access to the project site would be via West Balboa Boulevard at 16"i street. Controlled secondary access would be provided via 15"' Street. 1 St" Street adjacent to the site would be widened to provide parking on both sides. The project would not result in the alteration of the existing offshe , circulation system. Therefore, it will not create dangerous intersections or sharp curves that may increase hazards. In addition, all driveway and internal parking access aisles will be designed in conformance with city sight distance, queuing, and other applicable traffic safety requirements. ' Therefore, impacts with respect to hazards would be less than significant. Cumulative Since the proposed project would not result in an increase in traffic hazards, the project's contribution to potential cumulative traffic hazard impacts within the city is less than cumulatively considerable. , Mitigation Measures Project -Specific , No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative , No mitigation measures are required. 5.11-12 Strius Environmental 1 Marina Park Draft REIR Transportation and Traffic ' Level of Significance After Mitigation Project -Specific Less than significant. Cumulative ' Less than significant. Emergency Access ' 5.11-D: The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. I L I CI Project -Specific Analysis The proposed project includes three entrances/exits: one at 16°i Street, one at 18°' Street, and one along the east side of the project site on 15°i Street via alleyway. These two entrances/exits provide adequate emergency access for the project site in accordance with City of Newport Beach emergency access requirements. Implementation of the proposed project would not impact public safety due to emergency access. Cumulative Since the proposed project would not impact public safety due to emergency access, the proposed project would not contribute to potential cumulative impacts on public safety due to emergency access within the City of Newport Beach. Mitigation Measures Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project -Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. Parking Capacity 5.11-E: The project would not result in inadequate parking capacity. Sirius Environmental 5.11-13 Transportation and Traffic Marina Park Draft REIR Project -Specific Analysis I Implementation of the proposed project would result in the removal of a 24-space parking lot that is located on the project site at the corner of Balboa Boulevard and 18a' Street. This parking lot provides parking for the existingonsite uses. The proposed project would be provided in two parking lots: one adjacent to the proposed Balboa Center Complex and the second adjacent to the proposed Girl Scout House. The parking lot adjacent to the Balboa Center Complex will provide approximately 133 spaces. Access to this parking lot ' would be provided by Balboa Boulevardat161" Street and by a second connection at 151" Street via an alley. The parking lot adjacent to the Girl Scout House would provide approximately 26 spaces that would be accessed via 18a' Street. In addition,18"' Street would be widened to provide parking on both sides, which would add four spaces, but the various pedestrian access improvements would eliminate 13 existing on -street parking spaces, for a net loss of nine on -street spaces.. The amount of parking required for the proposed project was determined from a combination of City Code and ITE parking rates modified to suit this specific development. Table 5.11-7 provides the , specific parking rates used for each component of the project and identifies the total spaces required for the project. ' Table 6.11-7: Project Parking Requirement Land Use Size Parking Rate Spaces Required — Multi -Purpose Building 10,560SF' 6spacesfrSF 63— Sailing Programs Building— 11,034 SF 5 spaces/TSF 55 Girl Scout House 5,500 SF' 2.36 spaces/TSF 13 Visitor Marina 23 Berths" 0.59 spaces/Berth 14 ' Total 145 Notes: -- - -- ------ - -- - --- - ----- - — - ' ITE Recreational Community Center (495) I Modified ITE Recreational Community Center (495) a City of NesvpottBeach Public Works Department ITE Marina (4 ' Source: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., November 2008, revised February 2009. — --___ -- -- --` --" -- —�— Based on the 159 parking spaces that would be provided on the project site and the requirement , depicted in Table 5.11-7, the proposed project would provide adequate parking, even accounting for the net loss of 9 on -street spaces. , Due to the project site's close proximity to the ocean beach, it is important that the proposed onsite parking spaces provide adequate parking for the users of the proposed Marina Park facilities. The proposed parking lots are intended for the project only and, are not intended to provide additional ocean beach parking. To prevent the parking lots from being used by ocean beach users, various parking -management alternatives were explored by Walker Parking Consultants (see Appendix J). ' 5.11-14 Sirius Environmental Marina Park Draft REIR Transportation and Traffic ' These alternatives include a fee for parking, meters, and/or other systems to ensure parking is available to visitors of Marina Park. In addition, activities at Marina Park include events. Due to the ' parking capacity at the project site, it is recommended that these events, which would occur during the peak summer period from June to September, be scheduled in the morning (i.e., beginning at 8 AM) or later in the evening to avoid the impact from beach visitors. Parking management is proposed as part of the project and would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. ' Cumulative Since the proposed project would result in no impacts on parking facilities, the proposed project would not contribute to potential cumulative impacts on parking facilities within the City. Mitigation Measures Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project -Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. Conflict with Alternative Transportation I 5.11-F: The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). Project -Specific Analysis The City of Newport Beach Bikeway Master Plan does not identify any bike lanes withinihe project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no short-term or long-term operational impacts on policies related to bikeways. In addition, the project frontage along Balboa Boulevard currently does not have an existing bus stop, and no bus stop is proposed. Therefore, there would be no change, and the proposed project would not conflict with any policies supporting alternative transportation. Cumulative Since the proposed project would result in no impacts on policies supporting alternative transportation, the proposed project would not contribute to potential cumulative impacts on these policies. Sirius Environmental 5.11.15 Transportation and Traffic Marina Park Draft RE/R Mitigation Measures Project -Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project -Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. I 5.11.16 Sirius Environmental Marina Park Draft REIR Utilities and Service Systems I p I i I 5.12 - Utilities and Service Systems 5.12.1 -Introduction This section describes the existing utilities and service systems setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information contained in Appendix -L, Utilities Information. 5.12.2 - Regulatory Setting There are no federal, state, or local laws or regulations related to utilities and service systems that would materially affect the proposed project. 5.12.3 - Existing Conditions Solid Waste Solid waste collection in the project area is provided by the City of Newport Beach for residential uses, and by various private waste haulers for commercial uses. The sanitary landfill serving the project area is the County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD)'s Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, located at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road, Irvine. This landfill had a remaining capacity of 203.38 million cubic yards as of June 2008. The maximum daily permitted tonnage is 8,500 tons per day, with a daily average of 7,000 tons. Waste currently generated at the project site is typical for residential use, but varies in quantity by season because most of the mobile homes are not occupied full time. Table 5.12-1 shows an estimate of the amount of solid waste generated by existing land uses. Table 5.12-1: Existing Daily Solid Waste Generation (Estimate) Land Use Units/Area Generation Factor Total Demand (lbs/day) Community Center 2,800 sf 6lbs/1000 sf/day 16.8 Girl Scout Building 3,985 sf 61bs/1000 sf/day 23.91 Mobile Home Park 56 units 8.6lbs/day 481.6 Total — — 522.31 sf= square feet. lb/sf/day = pounds per square feet per day. Source: California Integrated Waste Management Board website, downloaded April 2004. City of Newport Beach, 2009 Water Service The Water Division of the City of Newport Beach Utilities Department currently provides domestic water to the project site. Water storage for City supplies is contained within the Big Canyon Reservoir located at 3300 Pacific View Drive in Newport Beach and has a total storage capacity of 200 million gallons. Sources of water include imported water from the Metropolitan Water District and from pumping groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The City produces up to 75 percent of its demand from groundwater, with the remaining 25 percent purchased from MWD. I Sirius Environmental 5.12-1 Utilities and Service Systems Marina Park Draft REIR LJ Water to the project site is currently provided by a 16-inch, cast-iron main located below grade between 18th and 15th Streets. Existing on -site uses are estimated to use approximately 7,000 gallons of water per day, mostly by the mobile homes (Table 5.12-2). Table 5.12-2: Existing Daily Water Service Demands (estimate) Land Use UnitslArea Generation Factor Total Demand (gpd) Community Center 2,800 sf I 220 gpd/I000 sf �J 616 Girl Scout Building 3,985 sf 220 gpol/1000 sf 877 Mobile Home Park 56 units ]00 gpd/unit 5,600 190' Street Restroom 800 sf 150 gpd/1,000 sf —� —�-- 120 Total - — - -- - — 7,213 gpd/unit =gallons per day per unit. gpd/sf= gallons per day per square feet. Source: City ofNewport Beach, 2009. Wastewater Service Orange County'Sanitation District (OCSD) provides sewer and wastewater treatment for a 470- square-mile area of central and northwest Orange County that includes the project site. The City of Newport Beach Utilities Department provides local connections to the OCSD sewer system via an 8- inch, vitrified clay pipe local sewer line located under the project site. The local line runs between 15a' Street and 18a' Street, and connects to the OCSD 24-inch Balboa trunk sewer line, located under Balboa Boulevard, at 17a' Street. The OCSD Balboa trunk sewer is boosted,by a pumping station located on Balboa Boulevard between 15a' and 16a' Streets, on the southeast corner of the project site. The trunk sewer flows to Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach. That facility processes an average of 129 million gallons per day (mgd) and has a total design capacity of 168 mgd (an excess capacity of 39 mgd). The existing daily demand on wastewater services by the on -sits uses is approximately 7,200 gallons per day, most of it by the mobile homes (Table 5.12-3). Table 5.12-3: Existing Daily Wastewater Service Demands (estimate) — Land Use Units/Area i � Generation Factor Total Demand (gpd) �616 Community Center^ 2,800 sf gpd/1000'sf Girl Scout Building 3,985 sf —� —22-0 220 gpd//1000 sf 877 Mobile Home Park y 56 units 100 gpd/unit 5,600 19a' Street Restroom 800 sf 150 gpd/1,000 sf 150 ----- ---------- Total — ------ - - 7,213 gpd/sf= gallon per day per square feet.. gpd/unit= gallons per day per unit. Source: City of Newport Beach,2009 1 I I IL i I I [1 I 11 I 5.12-2 Sirius Environmental I Marina Park Draft REIR Utilities and Service Systems I I I 1 I I 11 I I 1F' u 1 I Natural Gas Natural gas is the second major type of energy consumed in the City of Newport Beach, after electricity. Current estimates indicate that natural gas is consumed primarily by residential land uses for heating and cooking purposes. The primary natural gas provider in the City of Newport Beach is the Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). SCGC operates a local distribution network that is supplied by a high-pressure regional transmission system. SCGC maintains information on existing pipelines and forecasts future needs based on General Plan land use development and build -out, and projected growth. The current natural gas system capacity for the project site is approximately 2.75 million cubic feet per year (mcf/yr). There are no planned or proposed enhancements to the system at this time, although future growth in the area could prompt future enhancements. The estimated existing demand for natural gas (Table 5.12-4) is approximately equal to the site system's capacity, although those estimates are based on the assumption of all appliances operating at the peak demand and thus overestimate actual use. Table 5.12-4: Existing Daily Natural Gas Demand (estimate) Land Use Units/Area 2,800 sf Generation Factor 24.0 cf/sf/yr Total Demand,(mcf/yr) 0.067 Community Center Girl Scout Building 3,985 sf 24.0 cf/sf/yr 0.095 Mobile Home Park 56 units 79,980 cf/unit/yr 2.758 Total — — 2.920 mcf/yr= million cubic feet per year cf/sf/yr= cubic feet per square foot per year Source: Appendix 9, SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, adopted 1997. Demand factors are based on SCGC average usage rates. City of Newport Beach, 2009 Electricity Electricity is the major type of energy consumed in the City of Newport Beach. Electrical power is provided by the Southern California Edison Company (SCE), which provides electricity to most of the Los Angeles/Orange County/Inland Empire region. (Electricity is provided by SCE; street lights on and surrounding the project site are owned and maintained by the City.) SCE's electricity is generated from a combination of oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, nuclear, and renewable sources such as wind and solar energy. Most of Newport Beach's energy is consumed by residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation uses. Current estimates of overall energy consumption indicate that the commercial sector is the largest energy consumer in Newport Beach. On -site uses are estimated to consume approximately 663,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year (Table 5.12-5), although that estimate does not include park and street lighting consumption. Sirius Environmental 5.12.3 Utilities and Service Systems Marina Park Draft REIR Table 5.12-5: Existing Daily Electrical Demand (estimate) Land Use Units/Area Generation Factor Total Demand (thousand kwhlyr) Community Center 2,800 sf 47.3 kwh/sf/yr 132 Girl Scout Building u3,985 sf 47.3 kwh/sf/yr I 188 Mobile Home Park 56 units 6,081 kwh/unitlyr j _ 340 19"' Street Restroom 800 sf , 3.4 kwh/sf/yr 3 Total _ — -i- --- -- _-- -I-- - 663 — sf= square feet, y kwh/sf/yr= kilowatt hour per square foot per year. kwh/sf/yr= kilowatt hours per year. Source: Appendix 9, SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, adopted'1997. Demand factors are based on SCGC average usage rates. City of Ncwpon Beach, 2009 5.12.4 -Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G Environmental Checklist, to determine whether impacts to utilities and service systems are significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the project: a.) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ofthe Orange County Sanitation District? b.) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c.) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d.) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e.) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f.) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g.) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? An additional threshold that is analyzed and evaluated is the following. Would the project: h.) Have a substantial impact on the provision of natural gas and electrical services? 5.12-4 Sirius Environmental Marina Park Draft RE/R Utilities and Service Systems ' 6.12.6 - Project Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary. Wastewater Treatment 5.12-A: The project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Orange County Sanitation District. I I 1i i I Project -Specific Analysis Implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of wastewater. In Phases 1 and 2, wastewater generation would resemble the existing condition (Table 5.12-3) less the contribution of the mobile homes, or approximately 1,610 gpd. Projected wastewater generation for the fully built out project (Phase 3), based on the square footage of buildings and structures ('gable 5.12-6), would be 774 gpd more than the existing condition. Table 5.12-6: Projected Daily Wastewater Service Demands from Proposed Marina Park (estimate) Land,Use !�— Units/Area I Generation Factor Total'Demand.(gpd) Balboa Center Complex 21,594 sf 200 gat/1,000 sf 4,320 gpd Marina 24 Slips 100 gal/Slip 2,400 gpd Girl Scout Building 5,500 sf 220 gpd/1000 sf 1,210 gpd 19a' Street Restroom 460 sf 150 gpd/1,000 sf 70 gpd Lighthouse Restroom 510 sf 150 gpd/1,000 sf 80 gpd Total — 7,080 gpd gpd/sf= gallons per day per square feet Source: City of Newport Beach, 2009 According to OCSD (pers. comm. Patrick McNel ly, 2008), the existing 21-inch Balboa trunk sewer line would be adequate to serve the proposed development with a net increase of 774 gpd. The 8-inch local sewer line would not be located under any of the proposed project structures and would not need to be relocated. Furthermore, adequate access to the project's lateral sewer lines would be provided through two manholes on site. Since the existing sewer facilities have adequate capacity, the project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of OCSD. Accordingly, no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements would occur due to project implementation. Cumulative Development of future projects that are in accordance with the existing City General Plan throughout the area served by OCSD would require extensions of and connections to the existing wastewater collection treatment facilities. The existing and planned facilities owned and operated by OCSD would adequately serve planned growth in the City of Newport Beach. As previously stated, Treatment Plant No. 2 currently has an excess design capacity of 39 mgd. The project's contribution would be 133 gpd less than under current conditions. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Sirius Environmental 5.12-5 ' Willies and Service Systems Marina Park Draft REIR project, together with cumulative development and growth within the OCSD service area, would result in no impacts on wastewater treatment requirements. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific No impact. Cumulative No impact. Water or Wastewater Treatment Facilities 5.12•13: The project may require or result In the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant ' environmental effects. Project -Specific Analysis As previously stated, Treatment Plant No. 2 and the existing 21-inch OCSD Balboa trunk sewer line have adequate capacity to serve the wastewater generation from the proposed project at full build out. The OCSD expressed concernthatthe fully -built project would hinder access to the 15th Street Pumping Station, but the city has agreed with OCSD to provide access from the proposed parking lot to provide access to the Pumping Station. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on existing wastewater facilities. , implementation of all phase of the proposed project would increase the demand for water. The projected demand of Phase 3, the full build out (Table 5.12-7), was estimated from the square footages of the future buildings, and may represent overestimates. For example, the new Girl Scout House is not expected to support more activity than the existing facility, but because it would be bigger it is to demand ' assumed more water. On the basis of building square footage, development of the Phase 3 project is estimated to result in an increase in domestic waterconsumption from 7,213 gpd under current conditions to an estimated �. 50,104 gpd. According to the City's Utilities Department, adequate domestic water supplies currently exist to serve the increased demand. Phases 1 would not include any turf or irrigation and would be a decrease in required water supply , compared to the existing condition. Phase 2 encompasses 3.83 acres of which 90% would be 5.12.6 Sirius Environmental I I Marina Park Draft REIR Utilities and Service Systems r I I I Ll I I U 11 landscaping and would consume (3.83 acres x 0.9 x 0.32 gpd/sf) 48,000 gpd, an increase in domestic water consumption when compared to the existing condition of 7,213 gpd. According to the City's Utilities Department, adequate domestic water supplies currently exist to serve the increased demand. Table 6.12-7: Projected Daily Water Service Demands from Proposed Marina Park (Estimate) Land Use Balboa Center Complex Units/Area Generation Factor �250 Total Memand,(gpd) 5,400 gpd 21,594 sf gal/1,000 sf Marina 24 Slips 100 gal/Slip 2,400 gpd Girl Scout Building 5,500 sf 220 gpd/1,000 sf 1210 gpd 10' Street Restroom 460sf 200 gpd/1,000 sf 92gpd Lighthouse Restroom 510 sf 200 gpd/1,000 sf 102 gpd Landscaping/Water play area. Approx. 3 acres' 0.32 gpd/sf 40,900 gpd Total — 50,045 gpd 'Assumes that landscaping area encompasses approximately 60 percent of the park area. SOURCE: City of Newport Beach, 2009 Construction could affect the existing water distribution infrastructure. The existing water main on the project site is over 70 years old and at a shallow depth. Accordingly, it is possible that heavy construction vehicles could rupture the water line as they traverse the site. In such a case, the water line would be replaced with a new line. Because the site would be under construction and have no residential or commercial uses, the impact of a short-term service interruption (while the pipe was being replaced, would be less than significant. Cumulative The proposed project will contribute to an increased demand for water. The site is located in an area that currently receives water service. Because the proposed project could be served by the existing 16" water line, the project would not contribute to a potential significant cumulative impact on the capacity of the existing water line. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Sirius Environmental 5.12-7 Utilities and Service Systems Marina Park Draft REIR Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. Stormwater Drainage Facilities 5.12-C: The would not require or result In the construction of new storm water drainage facilities project or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Project -Specific Analysis Implementation of the proposed project would utilize existing storm drainage facilities as well as incorporate other drainage features on the project site. The construction of bioswales and biocelis (Phase 3) on the project site would allow for quick percolation of storm water intolhe soil while filtering urban runoff contaminants. The proposed project would not require construction or expansion of storm water drainage facilities and, therefore, will result in less than significant impacts. Cumulative The project would not require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. Water Supplies 5.12-D: The project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from.existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 1 5.12.8 Sirius Environmental IMarina Park Draft RE/R Utilities and Service Systems Project -Specific Analysis The Phase 3 project buildout water demand is estimated at 50,104 gpd. According to the City's ' Utilities Department, the project's estimated water demand will be adequately served by the existing water supply. Given that the proposed project's water demand is consistent with the City's projections for water demand within their service area, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on the City's water supply. Cumulative The proposed project will contribute to an increased demand for water. The site is located in an area that currently receives water service. Existing infrastructure consists of a 16 inch transmission main ' which can adequately serve the proposed development. The City's Utilities Department has indicated that the project's incremental demand for water can be met. Cumulative impacts on water service anticipated to result from this development are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. ' Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. Wastewater Treatment Capacity ' I 5.12-E: The project would result Ina determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves demand in or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected addition to the provider's existing commitments. Project -Specific Analysis At full build out (Phase 3) the proposed project is projected to reduce the generation of wastewater by approximately 133 gpd. As described in Section 5.12.3, the existing facilities have adequate capacity. Accordingly, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on the existing I treatment plant capacity. Cumulative Implementation of the proposed project and cumulative projects would increase the generation of wastewater discharged to Treatment Plant No. 2. This increased demand would not result in the need for expanded wastewater facilities because Treatment Plant No. 2 has adequate additional capacity. Sinus Environmental 5.12-9 UtlUttes and Service Systems Marina Park Draft REIR Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project and cumulative projects would result in a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. Landfill Capacity 5.12-F: The project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. Project -Specific Analysis Implementation of the proposed project would result imthe generation of solid waste on the project site. Based on the generation estimates shown in Table 5.12-8, on completion of Phase 3 the proposed project would result in the generation of approximately 389 Ibs per day or approximately 68 tons per year. (Phases I and 2 would result in negligible solid waste, a reduction compared to existing conditions.) Table 5.12.6: Estimated Solid'Waste Generation Land Use Units or Square Feet Generation Rate' Total Generation Marina �� P� 24 Slips 8.6 Ibs/slip 206 Ibs/day h Balboa Center Complex 21,594 sf 6 Ibs/1000 sf/day 130 Ibs/day Girl Scout Building 5,500 sf 6lbs/1000 sf/day 33 Ibs/day 10lbs/day 19a'-Street Restroom 460sf 20 Ibs/1,000 sf/day 10lbs/day Lighthouse Restroom 510sf 20 Ibs/1,000 sf/day Total Solid Waste: 389 Ibs/day Notes: ° California Integrated Waste Management'Board, 2006, City ofNewport Beach, 2009 According to the City's Solid Waste Division, refuse from the project site would be deposited at the Prank R. Bowerman landfill located in Irvine. Based on growth projections, 203,380;000 cubic yards 5.12.10 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Utilities and Service Systems of capacity is available at the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, and it is anticipated to have capacity for approximately 45 more years. Based on the remaining capacity and the anticipated life of the landfill, the average amount of solid waste deposited at the landfill is approximately 4,519,555 cubic yards per ' year or 12,382 cubic yards a day. The solid waste generated by the proposed project is not expected to increase the amount of refuse deposited at the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill compared to the existing site. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the existing impact on the remaining capacity of the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on the existing landfill capacity. Cumulative Implementation of the proposed project together with anticipated growth in the project vicinity would ' increase the amount of municipal solid waste generated. There is sufficient capacity in the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill to accommodate disposal needs resulting from the proposed project and future anticipated growth. Cumulative impacts on solid waste service from project development are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative LNo mitigation measures are required. ' Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. 1 Statutes Compliance with Solid Waste Regulations and 5.12-G: The project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid ' waste. Project -Specific Analysis The proposed project includes uses that will generate solid waste that is expected to be transported to the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill. The City ensures that the transportation of the refuse would comply with the applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Typically, recreational activities do not generate, store, or dispose of significant quantities of hazardous materials. The proposed project would include uses such as onsite herbicide and pest control. Additionally, general site maintenance and repair such as painting and janitorial services that utilize cleaners, lubricants, and paints would occur. All hazardous material would be required to be ' Sirius Environmental 5.12-11 Utilities and Service Systems Marina Park Draft REIR stored, handled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal state and local laws and regulations as required by the City of Newport Beach. Hazardous materials are required to,be separated from the solid waste generated at the site. Solid waste generated on the project site will comply with a•host of comprehensive and applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and therefore, the project will result in less than significant impacts insofar as all regulations related to solid waste would be adhered to. Cumulative Development of the proposed project and cumulative development within the City would increase the I generation of solid waste. Transportation of the refuse would be provided by the City or City - contractor and will be requiredto comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 41 Implementation of the proposed project and cumulative project would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, less than significant cumulative impacts on solid waste will occur with the future development of the proposed project and cumulative projects. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific I Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. Natural Gas and Electricity I 5.12-H: The project would not have a substantial Impact on the provision of natural gas and electrical services. Project -Specific Analysis Implementation of Phase 3 of the proposed project would result in the demand for natural gas and electrical services (Phases I and 2 would result in minimal to no demand for natural gas). As shown in Table 5.12-9, on completion of Phase 3 the proposed project would result in the demand for 5.12-12 Sirius Environmental I iMarina Park Draft REIR Utilities and Service Systems rapproximately 0.65 million cubic feet of natural gas per year (mcf/yr). This would result in a i decrease in the use of natural gas of over 2,919 million cubic fet of natural gas compared to the existing uses on the project site. The proposed project would continue the demand for natural gas, but the project's impact on existing services would be less than significant. As shown in Table 5.12-10, on completion of Phase 3, the proposed project would result in the demand for approximately 1.6 million kilowatt hours per year (KWH/yr). This would result in an increase in the use of electricity of 910 thousand KWH/yr compared to the existing uses on the project site (Phases 1 and 2 would result in minimal to no demand for electricity). Although the proposed project would result in an increased demand for electricity, the demand is expected to be adequately served by the existing electrical facilities on the project site. As part of the project (Phase 3), the aboveground electrical facility would be placed below ground. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on existing electrical services and facilities. ITable 5.12-9: Estimated Yearly Natural Gas Demands from Proposed Marina Park 11 I I_J Land Use Units/Area Generation Factor Tot( (mcflyr) cf/yrd Balboa Center Complex 21,594 sf 24 cf/sf/yr 0.518 Marina 24 Slips N/A N/A Girl Scout Building 5,500 sf 24 of/sf/yr 0.132 19"' Street Restroom 460 sf N/A N/A Lighthouse Restroom 510sf N/A N/A Total 0.65 cf/sf/yr= cubic feet per square foot per year Source: City of Newport Beach, 2009 ITable 5.12-10: Estimated Yearly Electricity Demand from Proposed Marina Park I '- I L I Land Use Units/Area Y Generation Factor Total Demand (thousand kwhlyrp Balboa Center Complex 21,594 sf 47.3 kwh/sf/yr 1,021 Marina 24 Slips 12,000 kwh/slip/yr 288 Girl Scout Building 5,500 sf 47.3 kwh/sf/yr 260 19'h Street Restroom 460 sf 3.4 kwh/sf/yr 2 Lighthouse Restroom 510 sf 3.4 kwh/sf/yr 2 Total kwh/sf/yr = kilowatt hours per square feet per year Source: City of Newport Beach, 2009. ' Sirius Environmental 5.12-13 Utilities and Service Systems Marina Park Draft REIR 11 Cumulative Since -implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on existing natural gas and electrical services, the proposed project's contribution to potential cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measures Project Specific No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Specific Less than significant. Cumulative Less than significant. I LJ I tl it 11 5.12-14 Sirius Environmental 11 fMarina Park Draft REIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project mSECTION ?6: ALTERNATIVE'S 6.1 - Introduction Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines mandates that an EIR: (i) describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project which would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project, and (ii) evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives to the project. This section describes alternatives to the Proposed Project that could avoid or substantially lessen significant adverse impacts associated with the Proposed Project, including alternatives that would not attain all project objectives or could be more costly. The alternatives may result in impacts that would not result from the Proposed Project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(3) states that impacts of the alternatives may be discussed "in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed." Three alternatives have been identified that could lessen or avoid some of the impacts of the proposed project. CEQA Section 15126.6(e) requires the consideration of not implementing any project at all, the No Project Alternative. In addition, the City of Newport Beach has identified two alternatives that could lessen or avoid the both some of the construction impacts and the long-term operational impacts associated with the proposed visiting vessel marina: a Reduced Marina Alternative and a No Marina Alternative. 6.2 - No Project In this alternative the City would take no action at the Project site. Existing site features would remain and existing activities would continue (Section 3.2). The existing mobile home park is a'non- conforming land use located within .Parks and Recreation (PR) -designated area. The use conflicts with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan as well as the California Coastal Act since it is not a coastal dependent use. The project would terminate the existing lease to the mobile home park which is not a permitted activity in tidelands leasing policy. Under this alternative the non -permitted activity (mobile homes) would remain. The No,Project Alternative would avoid all of the construction impacts associated with the proposed project, 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 of sandy intertidal habitat), water quality (construction runoff and dredging turbidity), and noise (pile -driving and heavy construction equipment). 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 the Coastal Act that encourage the maintenance and expansion of marine boating facilities and enhanced coastal access and coastal recreational opportunities. i Sirius Environmental 6-1 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Marina Park Draft REIR The No Project Alternative would not provide the benefits that have been identified for the proposed project, including increased public park space; realization of a number of General Plan goals related to marine -related educational programs and recreational facilities, improved public coastal access, and improved emergency services access. Coastal access would still be hampered by the presence of the mobile home park, the awkward vehicular and pedestrian facilities, and the lack of community facilities. In addition, the No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the goals of the Marina Park Project. 6.3 - Reduced Marina This alternative includes the development of the Marina Park Project with a visiting vessel marina approximately one-half the size of the proposed project marina. The proposed marina under this L alternative would include approximately 12 slips and encompass approximately 0.5 acre of surface water area, compared to the 23 slips and approximately one acre of surface water area under the proposed project. The marina would include floating and landside storage for small boats and sailing dinghies, to support at least some of the educational sailing programs envisioned in•the proposed project. This alternative would include all of the other features of the proposed project (the Balboa Center Complex, Girl Scout Building, beach area, children's play area, public park facilities, and parking), as well as an additional 0.5 acre of park in the area not converted to marina. I Construction of this alternative would be the same as for the proposed project (Section 3.3.2) except that there would be approximately half as much dredging and excavation, and fewer pilings and floating docks would be installed. Construction would require the same equipment and activities as in the proposed project, but the marina construction component would not take as long and would not involve as much pile driving, excavation and dredging, and truck and barge trips. Operation of this alternative would result in approximately 40 fewer vehicle trips per day and half as many vessel trips, but would otherwise be similar to the proposed project. The Reduced Marina Alternative would reduce the magnitude of all of the construction and operational impacts identified for the proposed project except the geological impacts related to seismic risks, 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 marinathat would be built under either alternative. In 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, but of a lesser magnitude. The Reduced Marina Alternative would provide most of benefits that have been identified for the proposed project, including increased public park space, realization of a number of General Plan goals related to community and recreational facilities, improved public coastal access, and improved emergency services access. It would not provide the benefit of meeting General Plan goals related to 6.2 Sirius Environmental I IMarina Park Draft REIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project marine educational programs since it would not provide the facilities needed to support the City's sailing programs, and would only partially achieve the goal of the Marina Park Project to provide additional facilities to meet the identified demand for visiting boat slips. 6.4 - No Marina In this alternative the visiting vessels marina would not be built, but all other features of the proposed project (Section 3.3) would be built. The area that would have been occupied by the marina would, instead, remain beach (the northern portion) or be converted to park (the southern portion). Construction of this alternative would be the same as for the proposed project except that there would be no dredging, excavation, or pile driving associated with marina development. Up to approximately ' 1,500 round-trip truck trips would be required to deliver the 15,000 cubic yards of fill that could be needed for the upland construction portion of this alternative. Operation of this alternative would result in approximately 80 fewer vehicle trips per day and no vessel trips, but would otherwise be similar to the proposed project. This alternative would avoid the degraded water quality that could occur in the marina. It would also reduce impacts associated with marina construction, including noise from pile driving (although there would still be piles driven for the buildings, the duration of pile driving would be much less and the from dredging dredged activity would be farther from sensitive receptors); water quality impacts and 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 on biological resources (noise impacts on marine mammals, interference with grunion spawning, loss of sandy intertidal habitat). The No Marina Alternative would provide most of the benefits identified for the proposed project, including increased public park space; improved public coastal access; and improved emergency services access. It would not achieve General Plan goals related to marine -related educational programs and recreational facilities, since it would not provide the facilities needed to support the City's sailing programs, nor would it achieve the project objective of providing facilities to meet the identified demand for visiting boat slips. 6.5 - Alternative Considered But Rejected No alternatives to the park were considered and rejected. There are very few sites in the Lower bay that could accommodate a new marina. The City considered constructing a visiting vessel marina facility at another location. A potential site exists at a pocket beach that runs along W. Bay Avenue between 9°i and 10°' streets on the Balboa Peninsula. In this alternative, a small marina would replace the existing public swimming beach. The marina would be capable of accommodating up to 12 visiting boats (up to 40 feet in length) in slips and one or two larger vessels in side -tie-up at a long dock. The marina would include floating and landside storage for small boats and sailing dinghies, to i support at least some of the educational sailing programs envisioned in the proposed project. The Sirius Environmental 6-3 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Marina Park Draft REIR marina would-be configured similar to that of the proposed project, but would be approximately half the size. Construction of this alternative would involve approximately half as much dredging and excavation as the proposed project and the installation of approximately half as many pilings and docks. A small marina services building with laundry, showers, and restrooms would need to be constructed. Construction would require the same equipment as in the proposed project. Operation of this project would generate approximately 40 vehicle trips per day. This project would have all of the construction and operational impacts of the proposed project, although since the marina would be smaller the water quality and traffic impacts related to the marina would be less. This alternative would partially achieve one of the objectives of the project (Section 3.1), to meet a portion of the demand for slips for visiting boats. It was rejected, however, because it would not accomplish most of the objectives of the proposed project, which are associated with redevelopment of the Marina Park site. 6.6 - Environmentally Superior Alternative Based on the above analysis, the No Project would have the least impacts; in accordance with CEQA the environmentally Superior Alternative may not be the No Project Alternative; the No Marina Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project and to the Reduced Marina Alternative, and would therefore be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. 11 ,1 I g.; Sirius Environmental I a Marina Park Draft REIR Other CEQA Considerations SECTI6N.7:0THER.CEQA:CONSIDERATIONS_,., 7.1 - Significant Unavoidable Impacts According to the State CEQA Guidelines - Section 15126, an E1R must disclose the significant unavoidable impacts that will result from a project. Moreover, these guidelines state that an EIR should explain the implications of such impacts and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding such impacts. Implementation of the project would result in the alteration of the physical environment. Mitigation measures are recommended that would either reduce or eliminate potentially significant impacts to less than significant. It has been determined that, with implementation of the proposed project, and recommended mitigation measures, each of the project -related impacts identified in Section 5 of this document would be reduced to less than significant. 7.2 - Growth -Inducing Impacts This section evaluates the potential for the proposed project to affect "economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2[d]). There are two types of growth -inducing impacts that a project may have: direct and indirect. To assess the potential for growth -inducing impacts, the characteristics of the project that may encourage and facilitate activities that individually or cumulatively may affect the environment must be evaluated. Direct growth -inducing impacts occur when the development of a project imposes new burdens on a community by directly inducing population growth or by leading to the construction of additional developments in the same area. Also included in this category are projects that remove physical obstacles to population growth, such as a new road into an undeveloped area or a wastewater treatment plant with excess capacity that could allow additional development in the service area. Construction of these types of infrastructure projects cannot be considered isolated from the development they facilitate and serve. Projects that physically remove obstacles to growth or projects that indirectly induce growth are those that may provide a catalyst for future unrelated development in an area, such as a new residential community, that requires additional commercial uses to support residents. As discussed in Section 3 of this document, the proposed project replaces existing development in a fully developed area of the City. There are no vacant, undeveloped parcels adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the project site that would be developed as a result of the proposed project. In addition, no permanent housing is proposed so no indirect growth could be induced. Implementation of the project does not require the construction of substantial new infrastructure or facilities. Sirius Environmental 7.9 Marina Park Draft RE/R Other CEQA Considerations Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in growth -inducing impacts, either directly or indirectly. 7.3 - Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources The environmental effects of the project are discussed in Section S of this document Implementation of the project would require the long-term commitment of natural resources, as described below. Approval and implementation of the actions related to the implementation of the project would result in an irretrievable commitment of non-renewable resources, such as energy supplies. The energy resource demands will be used for construction, heating and cooling of buildings, transportation of people and goods, lighting, and otherenergy-associated needs. Non-renewable resources would be committed primarily in the form of -fossil fuels and will include fuel, oil, natural gas, and gasoline used by vehicles and equipment associated with the construction of the project. Those resources include, but are not limited toi lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, photochemical construction materials, steel, copper, lead, and water. Since alternative energy sources such as solar and wind energy are not currently in widespread use, it is unlikely that any real savings in non-renewable energy supplies (i.e., oil and gas) will be realized in the immediate future. More specifically, the primary effect of the development under the proposed project would be the conversion of a mobile -home park to a non-residential use. The financial and material investments that would be required of the City would result in further commitments of land resources, making it likely that the same or similar uses would continue in the future. Implementation of the proposed project represents a long-term commitment to a visitor -related land use. Environmental changes associated with the implementation of the proposed project result in alterations of the physical environment. If the proposed project is approved and subsequently implemented, new structures would be built. The commitment of resources and the levels of consumption associated with the proposed project are consistent with anticipated changes within the City and the region. Therefore, there is no particular justification for avoiding or delaying the continued commitment of these resources. 1. I 7.2 Sirius Environmental I IMarina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft EIR SECTION 8: RESPONSES__TO COMME_ NTS_ON_DRAFT EIR m 8.1 - Comments Appendix M includes copies of all comments received on the previous Draft EIR circulated in February 2009. The following responses first summarize and then respond to those comments 8.2 Responses to Comments on Previous Draft EIR State Clearinghouse Response to Comment Al-1 This comment states that the Draft EIR is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The comment does not express any concern with the content of the Draft EIR; no further response is required. California Coastal Commission Response to Comment A2-1 This comment states that the DraftElRfailed to indicate the final chosen site for the sand disposal location. As identified on in Section 3, Project Description of this REIR there are five candidate sites that have been identified as potential sand disposal locations. During the permitting process associated with the Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act, the volumes and sand disposal sites will be finalized. This comment also expresses concern that the proposed marina that requires dredging and filling is not one of the seven allowed uses within wetlands and coastal waters. On July 14, 2009, the Coastal Commission adopted the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan. The Plan identifies the uses where diking, filling, or dredging -of open coastal waters and wetlands are allowed. Policy 4.2.3-1 states: "Permit the diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes in accordance with other applicable provisions of the LCP, where there is no feasibly less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been environmental effects and limited to the following: provided to minimize adverse A. Construction or expansion of port/marine facilities. Sirius Environmental 8.1 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Marina Park Draft REIR I C. In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including estuaries and streams, new or expanded boating facilities, including slips, access ramps, piers, marinas, recreational boating, launching ramps, and pleasure ferries, and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities. This portion of the City's policy modified the wording that is within Section 30233 of the Coastal Actto reflect the conditions for the City of Newport Beach. This modification added the term ' marine facilities as an approved use because the City does not have port facilities and port facilities are not contemplated within the City of Newport Beach. A marina is considered a marine facility, and therefore, diking, filling, or dredging of coastal waters for a marina is considered an allowed use under the City's Policy 4.2.34A. 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 this REIR is based on both the Army Corps of Engineers definition and the California Coastal Commission criteria.. This comment further states that should the proposed fill qualify as an allowable use, mitigation would be required for the loss of any wetlands and open coastal waters. Mitigation Measure MM 5.3-C.1 has been developed to mitigate the project's impact on sandy intertidal habitat. The City understands that the Section 10 permit process will need to be well underway and at least a preliminary determination of approval' by the resource agencies prior to obtaining a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission. Response to Comment A2-2 As This comment refers to the California Coastal Commission preference for onsite mitigation. indicated in 5.3-C in the REIR, excavation and dredging activities for the proposed marina would result in the loss of 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal habitat as part of the creation of 1.56 acres of , shallow -water habitat. The loss of 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal habitat would represent a loss of intertidal seabird and shorebird roosting and foraging habitat and EFH. In the case of EFH, that loss would be offset by the net gain of nearly an acre of shallow -water habitat, which would support benthic invertebrates and forage fish that would serve as a food resource for managed species, particularly the Pacific Groundfish species. In the case of shorebirds, the loss of 0.66 , acre of sandy intertidal habitat is small in the context both of the amount of local beachfront (approximately 25% of the beach would be lost) and of the amount of such habitat available nearby (i.e., the ocean beaches). The loss of sandy intertidal habitat would be mitigated in accordance with Mitigation Measure MM 5.3-C.I. Accordingly, the loss of intertidal habitat is considered less than significant. 8.2 Sirius Environmental IMarina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft EIR IResponse to Comment A2-3 This comment requests that a sand disposal location be selected and a sand compatibility report �- for the location be prepared. As identified in Section 3.4.2 of the REIR, there are five preliminary candidate sites for the disposal of sand (including the project site). One or more of these sites would be used for sand disposal and the final site(s) would be determined during the preparation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 10 Permit. As indicated in Section 3.4.2 of the REIR, the Dredge Material Evaluation (Appendix G.3) found that approximately 62,000 cubic yards of sand would be dredged. Of that amount, approximately 15,000 cubic yards of fill would be used for the project. The remainder of the sand/soil (47,000 cubic yards) would be exported offsite. The primary offsite disposal options under consideration for the dredged materials are]) beach nourishment under Regional General Permit Number 67 or an individual permit for unconfined aquatic disposal, as governed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)/Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidelines set forth in the Inland Testing Manual (ITM; USACE/USEPA 1998); 2) ocean disposal at disposal site LA-3 based on guidance provided by the Ocean Testing Manual (OTM; USACE/USEPA 1991); and 3) �- upland disposal, or disposal in a confined aquatic location (subject to further study prior to dredging of contaminated material) of approximately 3,000 cubic yards of mercury contaminated material. A sand compatibility analysis of the candidate receiving beaches was conducted according to the USACE Sand Compatibility and Opportunistic Use Program (SCOUP) and is contained in Appendix H.4; it concludes that approximately half of the material proposed to be exported offsite is compatible with the ocean beaches and that the other half could be eligible for those sites under a special permit. Response to Comment A2-4 This comment expresses concern regarding the new groin wall and bulkhead walls for the proposed marina. This comment also desires clarification on why the No Marina Alternative was not chosen. The REIR identifies the No Marina Alternative as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Nevertheless, the No Marina Alternative does not meet the objectives for the project based on the City's analysis of the need for modern recreational and community facilities on the Balboa Peninsula and the objective of providing for additional marine -related facilities. In faddition, although the No Marina Alternative would eliminate potential significant impacts on sandy intertidal habitat and long-term water quality impacts, mitigation measures (i.e., MM 5.3- C.1 for sandy intertidal habitat and MM 5.7-A.2 for long-term water quality) have been included to reduce potential impacts of the Proposed Project to less than significant. j Sirius Environmental 8.3 Responses to Comments on Draft OR Marina Park Draft REIR Response to Comment A2-5 This comment expresses concern regarding adverse impacts on shoreline processes that may result from constructing a cement groin. As stated in Section 5.7, the Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study (Appendix H.2 of the REIR). The study included an analysis of the existing and proposed groin walls, wave loading calculations for the docks, boats, and piles within the proposed marina basin, as well as analyses of the water quality and sedimentation issues. The groin wall shown on the Concept Drawings is required to -maintain water depth to support the public sailing docks and transient boat basin, shown on the Drawings. Without this wall, the basin would fill with sediment over time and require premature dredging and high maintenance costs. The existing site already has a groin wall that protects the American Legion facility from a similar sediment transport condition. This groin wall has been in -place for nearly 50 years and has not.resulted in negative impacts either up- or downstream of this wall. See also Response A2-7 below. Response to Comment A2-6 This comment states that projects that propose the filling of wetlands and/or coastal waters must demonstrate that the proposed impact would be allowable under the Coastal Act. See response A2-1. Response to Continent A2-7 This comment expresses concern for the impact of the proposed groin wall on erosion and adjoining properties. In addition, this comment also asks for justification on the need of the proposed groin wall. in general, a shore -perpendicular structure such as the proposed groin wall may interrupt longshore movement of sand along the coastline, resulting in the trapping of sand on the upcoast side of the groin and erosion on the downcoast side. The severity of the downcoast erosion depends on the physical environment (wind, wave, current and littoral processes) and the dimensions (mainly the length) of the groin. Based on the physical environment of the proposed project location and the length of the proposed groin wall, we determine that the proposed groin would have minimum, if any, impact to the neighboring shoreline because of. 1) the proposed project is located along a shoreline with benign wave and current conditions and limited littoral transport; and 2) the proposed groin would be located adjacent to and with the same length as an existing groin for the American Legion Post 291 marina (hereafter as American Legion). The Marina Park project site is located on the Bay side of the Newport Peninsula north of Balboa Boulevard between 18"i and 15°' Streets in Newport Beach, California. The proposed project site a.q Sirius Environmental I Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft OR I I J I I I iJ I r I I I is over two miles from the Newport Harbor entrance; hence waves entering the harbor through the tidal inlet would be substantially attenuated before reaching the project site. The project location is also well protected from wind; hence wind -generated waves at the site are very small. An earlier study by Everest International Consultants (Appendix H.2)) showed that even under extreme wind conditions with a 50-year return period, the waves at the project site would still be less than 2 ft. Based on a two-dimensional hydrodynamic model developed for the Newport Bay and Harbor (Appendix H.2), tidal current along the channel adjacent to Marina Park is normally less than 0.1 ft/sec. Because of these benign wave and current conditions, littoral transport along the shoreline of the proposed project site is minimal. Review of historical aerial photos for the site confirmed that the shoreline where the project site is located has been very stable for decades. Figure 8-1 shows aerial photographs for the project shoreline taken in 1995, 2002, 2005 and 2007. As shown in the photos, the existing American Legion groin has maintained a stable beach west of the groin. The shoreline east of the existing groin is mainly lined with bulkheads and docks. The aerial photos show that there is no discernable difference along the shoreline from Year 1995 to Year 2007. Review of earlier photographs on a commercial web site revealed that the shoreline has been stable since at least 1996. Figure 8-2 shows a comparison of the proposed groin and its location relative to the existing groin. Since the proposed groin would have the same length as the existing groin and is located only about 350 ft west (upcoast) of the existing groin, it is expected that the proposed groin would have similar sand retaining characteristics, i.e., capable of maintaining a stable beach west of the proposed groin, and would have a similar (negligible) effect on the downcoast shoreline. The only direct impact of the proposed project would be the loss of the beach between the proposed and the existing groins; however, the existing beach would be widened to recapture a portion of the lost acreage. In addition, beach access would be improved with the proposed Marina Park, thereby providing improved coastal recreational opportunities for the community. The proposed groin wall is needed to prevent the beach sand west of Marina Park from migrating into the marina basin. The proposed groin would have the same length as the existing groin, hence is expected to perform similarly as the existing groin. A particle tracking numerical model study (Appendix H.2) has shown that the proposed groin would provide similar protection to the proposed Marina Park marina basin as the existing groin provides to the American Legion marina. As discussed earlier, the existing groin has been shown to be effective in maintaining a Shfus Environmental 8-5 I r � - b .,,I• T. � ,-f. F - All 14 so Proposed Existing Ex Groin Groin . OZ.. Marina Basin Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Marina Park Draft REIR I stable beach west of the American Legion. Since its construction between 1958 and 1959, the American Legion marina had been dredged only twice, in 1986 and 1988, for a total of 365 cubic yards. There has been some shoaling throughout the marina since the last dredging. In summary, based on the experience of the American Legion marina and the numerical model study, the proposed groin for the Marina Park is needed to provide similar protection for the Marina Park marina as the existing groin to the American Legion marina. The new groin wall would also protect both the proposed marina as well as the American Legion marina. Please see Response to Comment A2-5 regarding the evaluation of shoreline processes that is in the REIR. Response to Comment A2-8 This comment expresses concern regarding adverse impacts associated with the new bulkheads. As stated in Section 5.7, the Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study (Appendix H.2 of the REIR) included an analysis of the existing and proposed groin (bulkhead) walls, wave -loading calculations for the docks, boats, and piles within the proposed marina basin, and analyses of the water quality and sedimentation issues. The proposed bulkheads are allowed under Section 30235 of the Coastal Act because the bulkheads are required to support a coastal -dependent use (i.e., the proposed marina). In general, bulkheads may impact the shoreline in three ways. First, waves reflecting off the bulkhead surface may scour away beach sediments in front of the bulkhead. Second, bulkheads could close off the supply of sand from upper banks that replenishes fine sediment to the beach areas. Third, construction of the bulkheads could cause direct loss of shoreline vegetation and marine habitats. However, the proposed bulkheads would not pose any of these potential impacts. The proposed bulkheads are mainly confined within the marina basin to provide protection for the perimeters of the marina basin. Waves reflecting off these bulkheads within the marina basin would be confined to within the marina basin and would not affect the shoreline of Marina Park. A portion of the proposed bulkhead would be aligned with the shoreline east of the proposed groin wall where waves are very small and hence there would not be much wave reflecting off the bulkhead. The proposed bulkheads would be in an urbanized area that currently does not have any natural runoff of sediments onto the shoreline; hence they would not block any sand supply to the shoreline. Finally, the proposed bulkheads would not cause any loss of shoreline or vegetation because they would be mainly inside the proposed marina basin, which would be created from land that does not currently have either natural vegetation or shoreline. In addition, the comment states that an alternatives analysis should be prepared identifying that the proposed project is the least environmentally damaging alternative. Section 6 of the REIR provides a discussion of alternatives to the proposed project. One of the primary objectives of the 8-8 Sirius Environmental I I I H I 1 I I I I I I I I I ' Marina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft EIR tMarina Park project is to provide a marina that can be used by coastal visitors for sailing and boating. The removal of the marina from the project description would result in an alternative that does not meet a primary purpose of the proposed project. Based on discussions with the City of Newport Beach Harbors Department, the Marina Park site is the only City -owned coastal land that can accommodate the elements proposed within the park. There is no other City -owned land that could accommodate a marina without the same impacts to intertidal habitat and water quality as have been identified for the proposed project. Therefore, there are no alternative sites that can ' accommodate the proposed public marina, community center, sailing center, and park facilities, and provide required parking for these elements. ' Response to Comment A2-9 ' This comment expresses concern regarding the need for information to substantiates why the new bulkheads need to be constructed. ' The need for the proposed bulkheads is discussed in Responses to Comments A2-7 and A2-8. Other sloping land/water interface options were studied (i.e., rock revetments and beach), but t they would result in either a reduced and non-functional waterspace, or, if the amount of waterspace is maintained, a substantially reduced public park area. Bulkheads were chosen over other forms of perimeter protection such as ripraps because they would take up less land or water space compared to rock revetments and beach. This means that more land can be used for the park for recreational use, or that less dredging (and dredge material disposal) in the marina basin ' would be required to provide the same docking facilities. The new shoreline bulkhead would Legion connect to the existing bulkhead paralleling the bayfront at the American site (see Appendix H.2). be This comment also requested that potential project impacts to the existing coastal processes evaluated. See ResponsetoComment A2-5 regarding the proposed project's potential effects on ' existing coastal processes. In addition, the comment states that an alternatives analysis should be prepared identifying that ' the proposed project is the least environmentally damaging alternative. See Response to Comment A2-8. ' Response to Comment A2-10 This comment expresses concern regarding tidal flushing within the marina and its impact on water quality, and requests clarification concerning why the No Marina Alternative was not chosen. Section 5.7 of the REIR states that the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements with the implementation of Mitigation ' Sirius Environmental 8'9 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Martna Park Draft REIR ' Measures MM 5.7-A.1 and MM 5.7-A.2. With regard to the selection of alternatives, see Response to Comment A2-8. Response to Comment A2-11 ' This comment asks aboutthe docking provisions of the proposed marina for boats under 40-feet. Since the basin is small and rectangular, a typical slip length of 40 ft was chosen for the majority of slips. Boats that are less than 40 feet can use the 40-foot slips. The slips are intended for ' visiting vessels for short-term, overnight use, and up to a period of 30 days (see Project Description Section 3.4.3). These slips would be on a first come, first serve basis, and would serve any boat length from 15 ft to 44 ft. They could also be used to place two small boats ' (example: two 18-ft boats, head -to -tail), if needed. This comment also asks how the 0.59 parking spaces per slip factor was determined. The parking rate is based,on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Manual for marinas, Response to Comment A2-12 This comment expressed concern regarding hazards, flooding and erosionthat may take place at ' the proposed project site, and states that an analysis of hazards by a licensed professional will be required by the California Coastal Commission. The project site is located in an area with benign wind, wave and tidal current conditions (see Response to CommentA2-7, above), hence not at risk of any severe wave attack and wave runup. A wave analysis conducted for the site (Appendix H.2) showed that the 100-year return period wave height for the site is 2.4 ft. Docks and piles for the marina basin would be designed to withstand wave loadings based on this design wave condition. Regarding potential erosion for the site, as discussed earlier, review of historical shoreline pictures has indicated that the shoreline where the project site is located has been stable for decades (See response to Comment ' A2-7), hence the project site is unlikely•to subject to future erosion. The coastal engineering study on which these conclusions are based (Appendix H.2) was conducted by a licensed ' professional engineer. Response to Comment A2-13 This comment expresses concern regarding migratory and nesting habitats for other avian species. As indicated in Section 5.3.3 of the RB1Ri several ornamental trees and shrubs on site provide ' marginal nesting habitat for migratory birds. Those plants do not provide habitat for federally or state -listed species; therefore, providing a history of nesting on the site by birds is not warranted. Measure 5.3-E.1 further impacts bird habitat. Mitigation would reduce potential on nesting 8.10 Sirlus Environmental tMarina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft EIR ' Response to Comment A2-14 ' This comment expresses a desire for continuous access to the bay through the public tidelands that are leased by the American Legion. Since the area occupied by the American Legion Post 291 is not part of the project site, the request is outside the scope of the REIR. Response to Comment A2-15 ' This comment expresses concern regarding parking needs that would be generated by the proposed project and the existing parking demands. This comment also requests clarification ' regarding the proposed on -site parking that would be provided for public access. Proposed parking on the project site would be available for bay front beach users, however, it is not intended for ocean beach parking. On completion of construction of Phase 3 there would be a net gain of 4 parking spaces along 18°i Street due to the widening of 18°' Street to allow for parking on both sides of the street. There would be a loss of 1.3 parking spaces along Balboa Boulevard for a net loss of nine on -street parking spaces overall. This loss would be a result of the ' installation of the drop-off, pedestrian access at 17°i Street and vehicular access at 16°' Street. As indicated in Section 5.11 of the REIR, once the proposed Marina Park is constructed, the 159 parking spaces provided on site would accommodate the parking demand created by those attending the facilities at the park (145 spaces), with a surplus of 14 spaces. The last phase of the ' buildout of the project would be construction of the park amenities. Therefore, the parking on 18°i Street and Balboa Boulevard, along with the existing community building and Girl Scout t building would remain until the last construction phase of the project requires demolition of these facilities. Response to Comment A2-16 This comment expresses concern regarding the heights of the sail feature on the Balboa Center ' Complex and the lighthouse and their potential impact on public views. The discussion under 5.1- C and 5.8-B in the REIR discusses that the lighthouse architectural feature would exceed the City's Shoreline Height Limitation policy (35 feet) in the Coastal Zone. However, the analysis concludes, that because the proposed facility is a public use and the architectural feature would provide a semi -transparent focal point in the area, and because the project would remove 900 ' linear feet of mobile homes that currently block views of Newport Bay from the Balboa Boulevard based on the height and bulk of the proposed features as well as the other features of ' Marina Park, that the potential visual impact would be less than significant. Response to Comment A2-17 ' This comment requests clarification regarding the use of the proposed caf€ that would be located in the Sailing Program Building. The caf6 would serve as an ancillary use for persons using the ' Sirius Environmental 8-11 1 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Marina Park Draft REIR ' but be proposed facilities, including persons staying for short -terms in the marina, it would open to residents in the surrounding neighborhood as well. The City expects many area residents to walk to the cafd, and some area residents to arrive by boat there, given the visitor -serving, short- ' term slips proposed. The parking demand associated with the caf6 is included in the determination of facility parking spaces at the project site. Response to Comment A2-18 ' This comment is informing the City that the permits and approvals required by the regulatory agencies such as'U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game, and State Lands Commission will need to be obtained and submitted with the application for the coastal development permit. In regards to the comment requesting, "review by the State Lands Commission," it should be noted that the State Lands Commission is listed as a Reviewing Agency per the State Clearinghouse Data Base and no comments were received from the State Lands Commission. The City will coordinate with the State Lands Commission for a written determination in obtaining a Coastal Development Permit. ' Department of Transportation ' Response to Comment A34 This letter does not provide any comments on the Draft EIR; no further response is required. ' Department of Toxic Substances Control I 1 Response to Comment A4-1 This comment asks for a discussion of current or historic uses at the project site that may have , resulted in the release of hazardous wastes or substances. A description of the current land uses ' on the project site as well as surrounding the site is provided in Section 5.6.3 of this REIR. As described, the uses that currently are located on the project site and surrounding the site are not uses typically associated with release of hazardous wastes/substances, with the exception of the ' SCE substation. A regulatory database review, summarized in Section 5.6.3 of the REIR, determined that there were no potential hazardous waste sites that would impact the project site. The dredged material evaluation (Appendix G.3), indicates that, "sediment from the offshore portion of the Area C upper composite represented by Stations 11, 13,14, and 15 would not meet the requirements for beach replenishment or open -ocean disposal due to mercury concentrations 8.12 Sirius Environmental 1 IMarina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft OR in the sediments. Alternative disposal options including upland disposal or placement in a confined aquatic disposal facility will need to be evaluated prior to dredging this material." The upland surface sediment report (Appendix GA) indicates that, with respect to upland soils, ' "All of the metals were either undetected or detected very near the detection limits. Pesticides, PCBs, PAHs, tributyltin, TRPH, oil and grease, and phthalates were not detected in the analytical composite. Chemical concentrations in the test composite were below the screening threshold for ' Title 22 leachate testing under Title 22 Section 4.5. The upland soils collected from the top five feet in the Marina Park Mobile Home Park would not qualify as hazardous waste under California ' State Code and should be acceptable as fill material." The site assessment report (Appendix G.6) indicates that, "two of the samples contained TPH-cc over 100mg/kg ... The TPH impacted soil is not expected to be a threat to groundwater or human ' health... it is recommended that the site be remediated to the more conservative residential standards. Leighton Consulting recommends that areas where soil contamination has been tdetected above the residential Regional Screening Level (RSL-R) be remediated by excavation and disposal to an appropriate facility." ' Response to Comment A4-2 This comment states that the Draft EIR should identify the government agency that will provide the appropriate regulatory oversight for the proposed project. The proposed project would be required to obtain a Rivers and Harbor Act Section 10 Permit. This permit is issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, who would have oversight during dredging operations. In addition, based on the Dredged -Material Evaluation provided in Appendix G.3, a portion of the dredge material would need to be disposed of at a land disposal location due to mercury concentration. During the dredged material investigation, the USEPA Region IX and USACE-LA Regulatory Division determined that those sediments with mercury concentrations exceeding I mg/kg would not be permitted for placement in the open ocean disposal site or the nearshore beach replenishment sites. The sediment with elevated mercury concentrations would be disposed of at a land disposal location; however, disposal alternatives for the surface sedimentwill be evaluated in the Section 404/Section 10 permit application. Furthermore, as stated in 5.6-13 in the REIR, the proposed structures on the project site may have asbestos or lead -based paint materials. The appropriate regulatory agency to oversee the removal ' of these materials is the City. If it is determined the building structures contain asbestos or lead - based paint materials, SCAQMD would oversee removals In regards to the vacated SCE substation site, approximately 300 cubic yards of soil is contaminated by PCBs that would need to be excavated and disposed of at an approved facility. _ ' Sirius Environmental a"13 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Marina Park Draft REIR I Response to Comment A4-3 This comment states that any investigations, sampling, or remediation for the site should be conducted under an approved work plan and overseen by a regulatory agency. As stated previously, the project site may have asbestos and lead -based paint material. The agency responsible for these materials is the City. Please see Response to Comment A4-2 regarding the regulatory authorities for the dredging operations. Upland soils to a depth of 5 feet below ground surface were evaluated following USACE Upland Testing Manual guidance as well as California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22. As indicated in Section 5.6 of the REIR, soil borings in the vicinity of the vacated SCE substation (Appendix G.6) revealed some soil contamination within the facility footprint. Approximately 300 cubic yards of soil is contaminated by PCBs that would need to be excavated and disposed of at an approved facility. Testing of soils at the existing mobile home park (Appendix GA) found no evidence of elevated chemical constituents, and the report concluded that the upper five feet of soils would not qualify as hazardous waste under California law. Response to Comment A4-4 This comment states that all closure, certification, or remediation approval reports should be included in the Draft EIR. Soils and sediments were evaluated following USEPA, USACE, and California Code of Regulations guidance; the documentation is provided in Appendix G. The specific approval related to the removal of mercury -contaminated marine sediments would likely be part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404/10 permit process, although if further testing determines that the sediments are toxic hazardous waste, the City may need to obtain Waste ID numbers (see Response to Comment A4-8, below). The potential actions associated with possible asbestos and lead -based paint material in onsite structures would be determined prior to approval of onsite demolition activities, and a Notification of Demolition or Asbestos removal would be filed with the SCAQMD as appropriate. Response to CommentA4-5 This comment states that an investigation should be conducted to analyze the release of hazardous materials during the demolition of any buildings, structures, asphalt or concrete -paved surfaces. Mitigation Measure MM5.6-A.I indicates that prior to demolition activities, the project proponent shall determine whether asbestos or lead -based paint materials are present within the existing onsite structures and a Notification of Demolition or Asbestos removal would be filed with the SCAQMD as appropriate. If these materials are present, the project proponent shall properly dispose of these materials in a landfill that.accepts asbestos and lead -based paint. 8-14 Sirius EnVironmental I 0 u I_ I I I u LJ F L I I Marina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft EIR I 1 I LI I I tl I Response to Comment A4-6 This comment expresses a concern about excavating contaminated soil. Please see Response to Comment A4-2 regarding the dredging of the marine sediments that contain mercury. Upland soils to a depth of 5 feet below ground surface were evaluated following USACE Upland Testing Manual guidance as well as guidance under California Title 22 (see Appendix GA for the upland soils report). No hazardous substances were found in the upland soils from the proposed marina project area. If additional fill material is required for construction, soils excavated from below 5 feet below ground surface would be used. This material has been demonstrated as being free from chemical contamination as described in Appendix G.3 of the REIR. As discussed in the Leighton report (Appendix G.6), soil contamination at the vacated SCE substation site (about 300 cubic yards of PCB contaminated material) would be remediated by excavation and disposal to an appropriate facility. Response to Comment A4-7 This comment expresses concern regarding sensitive receptors during construction and demolition activities. Compliance with applicable state and federal regulations while implementing Mitigation Measure MM 5.6-A.1 would reduce potential human health impacts during demolition of the existing onsite structures. Response to Comment A4-8 This comment provides guidance and states that if hazardous wastes will be generated by the proposed project, a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number (U.S. EPA 1D Number) should be obtained. A U.S. EPA ID Number (and a Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC] ID Number) identifies each handler of hazardous waste on hazardous waste manifests and other paperwork. The ID Number enables regulators to track the waste from its origin to final disposal ("cradle to grave"). Most hazardous waste generators must have an ID Number before a registered hazardous waste transporter will accept the waste for shipment, and all hazardous waste transporters and permitted treatment, storage and disposal facilities must have ID numbers. Section 5.6 of the REIR indicates that, with one possible exception, the proposed project would not utilize or dispose of any hazardous materials of reportable quantities, therefore, a United States Environmental Protection Agency DTSC Identification Number or other approvals would not be required. Some of the sediments that would be dredged contain mercury concentrations that may exceed regulatory limits. While the material is not acutely or extremely hazardous, it is Sirius Environmental a-15 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Marina Park Draft REIR I "toxic The City , on the borderline of the screening threshold for being a hazardous waste". of Newport Beach will coordinate with the DTSC to provide a leaching test (WET or STLC) of the material. if the sediment is determined to be hazardous, then the City would apply for an U.S. ' EPA ID number. This testing would be completed before dredging occurs and materials are scheduled for transport. In regards to the vacant SCE parcel which is currently owned by SCE and on which levels of PCBs above residential standards were discovered, SCE would apply for the proper regulatory reporting for removals of contaminated soils. The Orange County Environmental Health Agency (designated by the State Secretary for Environmental Protection on January 1, 1997, as the CUPA for the County of Orange) informed the City's consultant (Leighton and Associates) that the concentrations of PCBs at the site did not warrant reporting to the agency. Newport Beach ' Upon the completion of the removal of soils at the SCE site, the City of may solicit a regulatory agency -closure letter. In that case, the site remediation report would be submitted to the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) and an agreement for the ' voluntary oversight program would be requested. If oversight is requested, the OCHCA would require an approved Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and a workpian prior to site remediation. Response to Comment A4-9 This comment states that if the soil or groundwater is found to be contaminated during the construction or demolition component of the proposed project, the project should be temporarily halted until the appropriate health and safety procedures were implemented. Mitigation Measure ' 5.6-A.1 includes an assessment of asbestos and lead -based paint materials prior to demolition activities. Furthermore, if unforeseen hazardous materials are present, construction activities. would (in accordance with existing regulations)'be required to cease to follow appropriate existing health and safety procedures. ' Response to Comment A4-10 This comment expresses concern regarding prior agricultural, livestock, or related uses of the L proposed project site, As stated in Section 5 of the REIR, the proposed, project site is located within an urbanized area of Newport Beach. The project site contains no land that isconsidered, to be suitable for farmland, and no agricultural activities are known have occurred on or adjacent to the site. ' Response to Comment A4-11 This comment states that the DISC could provide guidance for cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight Agreement for government agencies that would not be responsible 8.16 Sirius Environmental Marina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft OR [1 LJ H 0 I I parties under CERCLA or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement. Since the proposed project would not require brownfields cleanup activities, DTSC oversight would not be needed. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Response to Comment A54 This comment expresses concern regarding the method of initial dredging or maintenance dredging. The comment also requests clarification regarding the use of a silt curtain within the Bay. Dredging would use either a clam shell or a hydraulic dredge. As stated in Mitigation Measure 5.7-A.1, silt curtains would be one of the best management practices to control suspended sediments during construction activities. The specific location of the silt curtains would be determined during the processing of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification. It is anticipated that the silt curtains would be installed completely around waterside construction activities, and would connect to adjacent landside termination points along the property, to fully enclose any given waterside construction. Curtains would be required for sheetpile installation for bulkheads and groin walls, dredging, and guidepile installation for the docks. These curtains would surround the equipment barge, as well as the disposal/transport barge. During dredging operations when operations are complete and suspended silt has had a chance to redeposit on the bay floor, the curtains would be temporarily removed to allow the barge and tug boat to depart from the area and return to the site, when the curtains would be re -deployed. The deployment of these curtains would be in strict conformance with the conditions imposed by the permits from the Army Corp of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission. Response to Comment A5-2 This comment expresses concern regarding the Basin Plan natural turbidity maximum increases. Mitigation Measure 5.7-A.1 has been revised accordingly. Response to Comment A5-3 This comment expresses a desire for more information regarding the disposal location for the dredged soil and any monitoring programs associated with the disposal sites. The Project Description of the REIR identifies five potential sand disposal locations. The specific locations and monitoring would be required as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act permit. It is anticipated that approximately 3,000 cubic yards of dredge material are not acceptable for ocean disposal and would be required to be dried on -site prior to transport to an approved inland disposal site. Runoff water from this site would be captured and treated, before returning to the bay for disposal. All handling of dredge spoils and runoff water would be strict conformance to State and Federal requirements. Sirius Environmental 8-17 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Marina Park Draft REIR ' Response to Comment AS-4 ' This comment states that the Regional Water Quality Control Board among one of the permitting ' agencies. The REIR includes the Santa Ana Regional Board as one of the agencies involved in permitting the proposed project (see p. 3-21). This comment also states that an assessment of wetland impacts should be conducted. A Draft Wetland Delineation has been prepared (see Appendix DA) and is summarized in Section 5.3. , Response to Comment AS-S ' This comment states that the project as proposed would not provide no net loss of wetlands. See response A54. The project would involve the loss of 0.66 ac of sandy intertidal habitat that would be mitigated. There are no wetlands on -site and therefore the project would not result in a loss of wetlands (see Response A2-1). Response to Comment AS-6 ' This comment recommends that Total Maximum Daily Loads be discussed as part of the EIR. A chemical analysis onthe soils and sediments proposed for dredging in4he footprint of the proposed marina has been conducted and the results are provided in the Dredged -Material Evaluation provided in Appendix G.3 of the Draft EIR. Selenium was undetected in the project site soils and sediments (DL: 0.2 mg/kg). DDT and its analogs (DL: 2.0 µg/kg), chlordane (DL: 0.98 µg/kg), and PCBs (DL: 20 µg/kg) were undetected in the project site soils and sediments. ' Within the upland and beach areas from the proposed marina site, priority pollutants were either Undetected or detected slightly above the detection limits. In the subtidal portion of the site, surface sediments have mercury concentrations above 1 mg/kg. The underlying sediments have mercury concentrations at or below the detection limits. The sediment face that would remain following dredging is represented by that underlying sediment, which is free of mercury contamination. ' Underwater sediments containing mercury would be removed from the site and disposed of at an offshe land disposal location. BMPs would be,incorporated as a part of the SWPPP to address for disposal. sediment resuspension during dredging, drying of sediment transport, and sediment It is not anticipated that the proposed uses of this facility would contribute additional pollutant t load to the levels already present in the harbor waters near this site. The City of Newport Beach would incorporate the "Clean Marina Program" and associated BMPs for the operation of the marina. This program has been accepted by the State of California and requires an initial , 8.18 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft EIR ' certification and monitoring program to assure the State that the program is being followed (the program can be downloaded at www.cleanmarinacalifornia.org). The proposed project would implement treatment control BMPs as well as low -impact design ' (LID) concepts to treat the projects pollutants of concern, including those with associated TMDLs in the Lower Newport Bay. Permeable pavers are proposed to treat runoff from the proposed parking areas. The sub -surface base of the pavers allows for physical and microbial filtering I processes to take place thereby removing pollutants such as particulates, organics, hydrocarbons and total suspended sediments, including attached heavy metals (Pratt et al. 1999). When allowed for infiltration into the subsoil and sized accordingly, pervious pavements are highly effective at treating the majority of pollutants in storm water runoff. In addition, vegetated bioswales and bioretention/biocells are proposed to treat runoff from the project site. Landscaped biocells, also known as bioretention zones, are small, vegetated depressions that combine shrubs, grasses, and flowering perennials in depressions and allow water to pool and filter through a minimum of 18 inches of soil where vegetation would uptake nutrients (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorous), microbial contaminants, oil and grease, and pesticides, and sediments and fine particulates can settle out (LFR and Cloak 2005). Based on these proposed features, impacts from storm water pollutants of concern for the proposed project would be less than significant. In order to reduce the amount of sediment discharged off -site due to construction activities, the Project would implement an effective combination of erosion and sediment control BMPs in conformance with the Statewide General Construction Permit (SWRCB Order No. 99-08-DWQ or subsequent update). During the post -development condition, any sediment and TSS generated from the project would be collected in the proposed vegetated bioswales, bioretention areas, and permeable pavement areas, of which are considered effective for targeting pollutants typically associated with the project. As a result, sediment impacts to water quality are considered less than significant. A preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project is presented' in Appendix H.I. Response to Comment A5-7 This comment states that•the proposed project must obtain a general permit for the waste discharge management program. There is no intent or need to install a dewatering system for the construction of the boat basin. Dewatering would be necessary to dry dredge spoil material, prior to transport to an approved disposal facility. Any dewatering required for the dredge material would be in strict compliance with State and Federal requirements. Response to Comment A5-8 This comment states that the Orange County MS4 permit is currently undergoing revisions. The City of Newport Beach understands that the project construction activities, similar to any Sirius Environmental 9-19 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Marine Park Draft REIR I construction activities within the County, would be required to comply with any approved revisions to the Orange County MS4 permit. Response to Comment A5-9 This comment states that the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity is currently under revision. The comment does not express any concern With the content of the REIR; no further response is required. Response to Continent A5-10 This comment expresses a desire for clarification regarding the location of the landscape biocells and the proposed bioswale. Exhibit C1.01 in Appendix H of the REIR illustrates the location of the landscape biocells and the proposed bioswale. Response to Conntnent A5-11 This comment is concerned with the potential for trash and litter from the project site and conveyed to the coastal beaches and inland waters. The City of Newport Beach intends to implement the practices identified in the California Clean Marina Guidebook. The specifics regarding these practices would be provided as part of the project's Final WQMP document during the 401 Certification process. Response to Comment A5-12 This comment requests information regarding how the proposed marina facilities would be designed and operated to prevent the discharge of non -point source pollutants from the vessels visiting the proposed marina. See Response to A5-6, above, which states it is not anticipated that the proposed uses of this facility would contribute additional pollutant loads to those levels already present in the harbor waters near this site. NOAA Response to Comment A64 This comment identifies the National Marine Fisheries Service's role.in the Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No specific comment on the contents of the Draft EIR is provided; therefore, no further response is required. Response to CommentA6-2 This comment describes the proposed project. No specific comment on the contents of the Draft EIR is provided; therefore, no further response is required. 8.20 Sirius Environmental I I I I I 1 U I I ' Marina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft EIR ' Response to CommentA6-3 ' This comment states that designated habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and ' Management Act (MSA); however, federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process. As identified in Section 5.3 in the REIR, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on a ' Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC); mitigation measures related to water quality and noise would ensure the impact remains below a level of significance. ' Response to Comment A64 This comment identified that the proposed dredging, pile installation, and long-term operation of the marina constitute activities that would adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). This comment is correct and the evaluation is provided in Section 5.3 in the REIR and Appendix D (Marine Resources Assessment). Mitigation Measures 5.3-A.I and 5.3-A.2 are recommended to reduce the potential impact to EFH to less than significant. ' Response to CommentA6-5 This comment expresses concern regarding the spread of invasive alga Caulerpa,taxifolia through ' the use of dredging. As indicated in Section 5.3.3 of the REIR and Appendix D.3, this invasive species has not been, found within Newport Bay despite intensive underwater searches. ' The City will conform to•the 2008 Caulerpa Control Protocol, which requires survey results to be submitted to NOAA and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) within 15 days of completion. This protocol also requires that NOAA and CDFG be notified within 24 hours if Caulerpa is identified at a permitted project site. ' Response to Comment A6-6 ' This comment states that additional information regarding the beach disposal site will be detailed information required. The City understands that during the dredge permit process, more will be provided. The portion of the dredged material that is considered "contaminated" as ' described in Section 5.7 of the REIR would be transported to an offsite land disposal site. The City has collected additional information on the presence of sensitive species and EFH within potential disposal areas (Appendix D.3). The Newport Beach shoreline is known California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) spawning habitat (pers. com with Karen Martin, Pepperdine University grunion researcher; 5/18/09 pers. com with R Ware). This species does not have a state or federal listing, but is a known sensitive species due to its use of southern California sandy beaches as spawning habitat that are periodically nourished through onshore and Sirius Environmental 8-21 1 Responses to Comments on Draft OR Marina Park Draft REIR ' offshore methods of sand replenishment. In addition, the western snowy plover, a federally- , threatened species, and California Species of Special Concern (CSC) inhabits beaches on marine and estuarine shores. This species does not nest along the Newport Beach -Peninsula, but is t known to nest on Huntington State Beach (Coastal Resources Management, Inc. and Chambers Group, 2003). This species may use the sandy beach shoreline of the Peninsula (pers. com with ' Kathy Keane, Keane Biological Consultants, May 18"`, 2009). Response to Comment A6-7 I This comment identifies that the proposed pile driving activities have the potential to adversely impact Essential Fish Habitat. Impacts of construction activities on marine resources are ' discussed in Section 5.3.4 of the REIR. This comment also states that the specific design of the structural piling was not provided in the ' Draft EIR. Pile installation is involved in several areas: a. Buildingpiles: 12 inch square standard building piles. The pile would be jetted to within five feet of tip elevations and then driven with a diesel hammer of 50,000 ft/lb rating, for the final five feet. It is anticipated that the piles would require approximately 20 blows per foot of driving ' length, in this case for five feet. b. Sheetpilesfor Bulkhead and Groin Wall: 10 to 12 inch in thickness, 3 to 8 feet in width, interlocking pre -stressed concrete elements. A maximum of 285 sheet piles (3 ft wide) would be needed to define the basin bulkhead and groin wall. Embedment of these walls below the design dredge depths would be approximately 18 feet to a pile tip elevation of approximately -30.0 ft MLLW. Sheets would•be jetted to within two feet of tip elevation and then driven with'a diesel hammer of 50,000 ft/lb rating, for the final two feet. It is anticipated that the piles would require approximately 20 blows per foot of driving length, in this case for two feet, ' c. Guldepiles for the Docks: 14 to 24-inch pre -stressed concrete round or octagonal piles. The inner boat basin would likely use 14 and 16-inch piles. The outer long dock and 56 ft finger may ' utilize 18 to 24 inch piles. The geotechnical consultant has analyzed all sizes between 14 and 24 inch, and once designed, the Engineer would select the appropriate sized piles for the given , loading condition. A maximum of 50 guidepiles would be needed to support the basin dock systems. Embedment of these piles below the design dredge depths would be approximately 20 feet to a pile tip elevation of approximately -34.0 ft MLLW. Piles would be jetted to within two ' feet of tip elevation and then driven with a diesel hammer of 50,000 ft/lb rating, for the final two feet. It is anticipated'that the piles would require approximately 20 blows per foot of driving length, in this case for two feet. 1 8.22 Sirius Environmental Marina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft OR d. Gangway Platform Piles: Up to two platforms maybe required for the ADA-compliant gangways. Each platform could require up to 4 piles. It is anticipated that 16 inch or 18 inch ' piles would be required for these platforms. A maximum of 8 piles, 18 inch octagonal, may be required for these platforms. Embedment of these piles below the design -dredge depths would be approximately 20 feet to a pile tip elevation of approximately -34.0 ft MLLW. Piles would be jetted to within two feet of tip elevation and then driven with a diesel hammer o£'50,000 ft/lb rating, for the final two feet. It is anticipated that the piles would require approximately 20 blows ' per foot of driving length, in this case for two feet. One of these two platforms may be eliminated in the final dock layout, depending on cost and layout considerations. It is envisioned that the following sequencing of events would occur to build the boat basin: • Initial excavation (approx 5 ft) of the basin with traditional earth -moving equipment. • Installation of building piles • Installation of bulkhead and groin sheets • Installation of tieback anchors and backfill • Dredging of basin and stockpiling of dredge spoils on -site for drying and transport. • Build -out of buildings and park ' Installation of floating dock and guidepile installation) Response to CommentA6-8 This comment raises concerns regarding poor tidal flushing of the proposed marina basin, however, the reviewer also supports the use of mechanic devices to improve water circulation for ' the marine basin. The comment also asks for additional information on the operation and maintenance of the Oloids and raises concerns about potential interaction of the Oloids with ' marine life. The marina is located within a very low depositional environment. Analysis has indicated that the need for project maintenance dredging would be minimal throughout the life of the marina; see Response to Comment A2-7 and Section 5.3 of the REIR for discussions of maintenance dredging. The Oloid, named for the geometric shape of its paddle, uses a unique driving mechanism that I rotates the paddle with the effect of two "fish tails" working together to produce a directional flow and circulation. The Oloid is available in two basic models, OLOID 200, and OLOID 400. ' Sirius Environmental 8-23 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Marina Park Draft REIR ' For Marina Park, the larger model OLOID 400 would probably be used. The OLOID 400 is powered by a 230V three-phase AC motor. The systems Control Box includes an inverter that allows it to be connected directly into a standard 115V electrical source. No special connections , or hook-ups are required. The OLOID 400 is powered by a single one-half horsepower motor and uses about 250 watts. The standard OLOID configuration is designed to be installed with ' pontoons floating on the surface of the water. Alternatively, the unit can be mounted to a fixed structure, or be fully submerged and out of sight. For the Marina Park marina basin, the Oloids would be mostly likely to be mounted below the decks near the ends of the docks. Similar concern about the interference of Oloids with marine life was raised on a pilot study at installed Baby Beach ' Baby Beach, Dana Point Harbor in 2005. For that study, six Oloids were at from June through September 2005 to test whether the Oloids could improve water circulation and reduce bacteria levels at the beach. Each of the six Oloids was enclosed in a cage to minimize its interaction with marine life. Appendix H.3 provides a summary of Oloids as water quality enhancement devices and shows a picture of an Oloid with its protective cage used for the Baby Beach study. The regulatory agencies at that time had accepted that enclosing the Oloid with a cage was adequate to minimize interference of the Oloids with marine lifeandhad granted permit for the installation of six Oloids at Baby Beach. For the Marina Park marina basin, similar ' cages can be used to enclose the Oloids to minimize interaction with marine life. Regarding maintenance for the Oloids, experience learned from the Baby Beach Pilot Study , revealed that the Oloids could operate smoothly for at least four months with minimum maintenance. At the end of the pilot study, some marine growths were found on the Oloids and ' the cages, and some of the holes of the cages were clogged by marine debris. If the Oloids were used to improve water circulation for the Marina Park marina basin, an inspection and It is ' maintenance schedule would be established for removing marine growths and other debris. recommended for the first year, the Oloids should be inspected once every three months, and the frequency for inspection after the first year would be adjusted based on findings of the first year's inspections. Response to Comment A6-9 This comment expresses concern regarding the periodic discharge of various pollutants, including oils, greases, and other wastes, which negatively impact marine life. As indicated in Section 3.4.3 of the REIR, a Marina Management Plan would be implemented to ensure that the water quality and marine resources are protected. This comment also states that antifouling paints used on boats release large amounts of copper, which affects marine organisms. The City agrees with NMFS, and would include the use of non- toxic alternatives to copper -based antifouling hull paints in the Marina Management Plan. 8-24 Sirius Environmental I ' Marina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Response to Comment A6-10 ' This comment is concern regarding the potential effects of construction activities on marine mammals. The discussion under 5.3-A indicates that demolition and construction activities could potentially affect Newport Harbor marine resources, including marine mammals; mitigation measures are proposed to reduce impacts, but the City understands that based on the demolition and construction activities, a permit may be necessary under the MMPA from NMFS. ' Response to Comment A6-11 This comment recommends that additional information regarding underwater noise during construction activities and its affect on marine mammals in the project vicinity be provided. ' The REIR (Section 5.3) contains additional information, summarized from the material presented in Appendix D.2 and set forth in full below, regarding the effects of noise on marine mammals and fish. Dredging and pile driving activities would be a minimum of 250 feet (76 meters) from ' the nearest vessels in Mooring Area H anchorage. Infrequently, sea lions (and/or harbor seals) may swim to this section of the harbor, and may, on occasion, haul out on improperly -maintained vessels. ' Pile Driving. Pile driving in the air and water could cause seal lions to temporarily move farther away from these activities, such as to other areas of the bay, although the sea lions are anticipated to adapt to noise and continue to be present in the general area of marina construction. It is ' expected that pile driving and dredging activity would occur during a relatively short -period (two months), which limits the potential for adverse effects, if any to occur. Breeding would not be affected because sea lions do not breed in the Harbor. Sound pressure waves in the water caused lions) if by pile driving could temporarily affect the hearing of marine mammals (primarily sea swimming near the proposed marina construction site. ' The following information is extracted the Port of Los Angeles, Pacific L.A. Marine Terminal LLC Crude Oil Terminal Final SETS/SEIR 3.3-23 and 3.3 24 in regards to the NMFS comments ' on the effects of noise in pinnipeds relative to pile driving in L.A. Harbor. ' "Pinnipeds appear to have greater tolerance to noise levels than cetaceans. Kastelein (2006) demonstrated that captive seals avoid zones where the et al. sound pressure levels were louder than 107 dBrms (re 1 µPa), but noted that it is ' possible that in the wild, seals may tolerate higher levels, in order to get food, escape or stay with a pup. Finneran et al. (2003) found no measurable predators, Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) at sound pressure levels up to 178 to 183 dB (re 1 µPa) for California sea lions. a sea lion, harbor seal, and northern elephant Increasing the I seal at sound pressure levels over periods of25 to 50 minutes. exposure duration from 25 to 50 minutes had a greater effect on threshold shifts than increasing the exposure level from 80 dB original sound source level (SL) ' Sirius Environmental 8.25 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Marina Park Draft REIR I (137 to 159 dBrms re 1 µPa) to 95 dB SL (152 to 174 dBrms re 1 µPa); SELs , resulting in TTS onset ranged from about 183 to 206 dB (re 1 µPa2 a). Kastak and Schusterman (1996) reported TTS in California sea lions exposed to airborne noise from nearby construction. Pile driving produces noise levels of 175 to 205 dBrms 177 to 220 dB (re I µPa) at 33 ft (10 m) depending on the material and size of the piles (Caltrans 2007, Hastings and Popper 2005). Caltrans (2007) data indicate the sound level for the proposed steel piles could be as high as 195 dBrms at 33 It (I Om). In comparison, ' an underwater sound level of 180 190 dBrms (re 1 µPa) has been designated as the 12 level A harassment level for pinnipeds (Federal Register 2005), 'representing a 13.potential effect level for marine mammals occurring close to construction noise 14 sources in the Outer Harbor. , Observations during pile driving for the San Francisco -Oakland Bay Bridge East Span seismic safety project showed minimal response in harbor seals while sea lions swam rapidly out of the area (Caltrans 2001). In water, sound transmission loss is between 3 and 6 dB per doubling of distance, with approximately 4.5 dB per doubling of distance in nearshore waters (Vagle 2003). However, at distances of less than about 330 feet (100 m), the transmission loss (rate of attenuation) can be less (Caltrans 2007). For this project, marine mammals such as pinnipeds could experience sound levels approaching Level A harassment levels at around 100 m (330 feet) from the pile driving. This estimate accounts for the size of the largest steel piles, the power of the hammer that would be required to drive them, the lower rate of attenuation close to the pile, and uncertainty in the sound propagation rate that depends on site -specific characteristics (Caltrans 2007)." Few, if any, individual sea lions or marine mammals would be expected the Marina Park construction site. As discussed in the EIR, any sea lions or other marine mammals present would ' not be harmed, because they would likely either move out of range of sound produced by pile driving, or they would adapt to expected sound intensities. The effect would be of short duration ' for each pile, that would occur infrequently over a two -month period during marina dredging and construction. In addition, the time to drive the piles (2 months) in Newport Harbor is expected to reduce the potential for pinnipeds to be present in the project area. The size of the piles to be , driven for the Marina Park project (16 and 24 inch piles are smaller in diameter than those typically used for commercial port shipping operations (see above analysis), and therefore, the , sound intensity produced for the Marina Park Project is likely to be less than that observed in the Port of Los Angeles. ' Based on observations at the Marina Park project site, sea lions tend to be present in'the spring and summer, and not during the late autumn or winter. Therefore, it would be advisable for the City to drive piles and (conduct dredging operations) during the late -autumn to winter period to lessen the potential for pinnipeds to be affected by pile driving (and dredging) operations. To minimize impacts to marine mammals, the City has added a mitigation measure to the Marina Park project (MM 5.3-A.2 in the REIR) that requires slowly ramping up pile -driving activities ' 8.26 Sirius Environmental IMarina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft EIR (referred to as a "soft start") at the start of pile -driving activities (at the beginning of the day and at restarting of construction after lunch breaks or other pile driving interruptions of longer than 15 minutes). The operation of the hammer at 40 to 60 percent energy level during the soft start of pile driving ' is expected to result in similar levels of noise reduction (40 to 60 percent) underwater. Likely sea lions would swim away from the area, after pile driving has occurred. While impacts from pile ' driving on marine mammals were found to be less than significant in the Marina Park EIR, this mitigation measure would further reduce the potential impact. The soft -start approach to pile driving would also prevent "take" of marine mammals, and therefore, the City believes that an MMPA be Incidental Harassment Authorization under would not required. Response to Comment A6-12 This.comment recommends that additional information on why dredging would not have an impact on transiting pinnipeds and what types of deterrence measures would be implemented to prevent animals from hauling out in the marina. Both hydraulic and clamshell dredging would be used for the Marina Park project. Hydraulic dredging would be used to remove the upper layer of fine material and clamshell dredging would be used to remove the deeper, denser portions of the material. The measured sound exposure levels of a clamshell dredge may range between 75-88 dBA (re 20 ' /-IPa) at 50 feet. Animals have been observed flushing from haul out sites at a soun&exposure level of less than 100dBA, and it is possible that marine mammals may modify their behavior as a result of the noise produced by the pile driving and dredging operations. (Source: NMFS comment). ' The duration of such noise would be short, 30 days and the work at each site would be in different locations and at different times. Based on Port of Los Angeles responses to comments on the Port of Los Angeles Channel Deepening Project EIR/EIS, NMFS Comment NMFS 08, page 14-08, April 2009) underwater noise from the clamshell dredging would be 150-162 dB (rel µPa) in LA Harbor, which is below the designated level A harassment threshold of 190 dBrms (re 1 µPa) for ' pinnipeds. This would imply that clamshell dredging effects on pinnipeds, or any other marine mammals near the Marina Park Project site, would be less than significant. Hydraulic dredging activity at the Marina Park project site would result in less sound production than clam shell dredging, and therefore, would not result in significant sound effects on sealions or other marine mammals. Sirius Environmental 8-27 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Marina Park Draft REIR 1 Response to Comment A6-13 This comment expresses concern regarding marine mammals animals being flushed from haul out , sites due to increased sound exposure levels during pile driving. See response A6-12 above. Response to CommentA6-1A This comment expresses concern regarding the deleterious effects on marine mammals through National Marine the exposure to loud sounds, such as pile driving. This comment states that the Fisheries Service is currently developing safety criteria for marine species exposed to underwater sound. However, NMFS has determined through past studies that a noise level of 180 dB re 1 ' µPaRMs (190 dB are i µPaRMs for pinnipeds) as the impulse sound pressure level that can be received by marine mammals without injury. See response A6-12 above. Response to Comment A6-15 biological This comment offers assistance to the City related to the development of the marine mitigation plan and recommends that the applicant consider including design features for low- lying•docks on the water to deter sea lions from hauling out. The City will work with NMFS to ensure that project design features of the Marina Park Project will include design features to low-lying docks on the water, to non -lethally deter pinnipeds, specifically sea lions, from hauling out. In addition, the City has a City -ordinance, and an in - place program for all commercial and private vessels designed to deter marine mammals from , hauling out on vessels. These are described on the City's website. Based on the expected levels of impacts to marine mammals for the project, mitigation measures identified for reducing_ ,pile -driving effects on marine mammals, sound noise levels below that expected to be below that identified as harassment during dredging operations, and current City , of Newport Beach measures to ensure sea lions would not haul out in the project area, the City believes that an application to the NMFS for an Incidental Harassment Authorization, under Section 101 the Marine Mammal Project Act is not necessary. ' of Response to Comment A6-16 ' This comment states that in the event of a construction vessel collision with a marine mammal, Mr. Joseph Cordaro, the National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Regional Office's ' Stranding Coordinator must be contacted immediately. The comment does not express any concern with the content of the Draft EIR; no further response is required. In the event of a construction vessel collision with a marine mammal, the City would contact Mr. Cordaro, NMFS as noted and would submit a report to the NMFS Southwest Regional Office. 8.28 Strius Environmental I Marina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft EIR I I I 1 i NOAA Response to Comment A7-1 This comment request clarification of the reference to 0.13 acre on page 41 of the Marine Biological Impact Assessment in Appendix D of the Draft EIR. The reference is on page 42, and the information is incorrect. The Marine Biological Impact Assessment has been revised (see Appendix D.2 of the REIR). Response to Comment A7-2 This comment asks if the size of the concrete piling can be provided. See Response to Comment A6-7. Additional design details will be provided during the Section 10 and Section 404 permit processing. Response to Comment A7-3 This comment asks if the potential for maintenance dredging still exists with the implementation of the mechanical devices to improve water quality. The presence of the mechanical devices is expected to reduce the need for maintenance dredging; however, maintenance dredging is still expected to be needed in the future. As maintenance dredging is needed in the future, the City would obtain the necessary dredging permits through the regulatory agencies. Response to Comment A7-4 This comment asks what type of long-term monitoring and maintenance would be required for the proposed mechanical devices. See Response A6-8. Response to Comment A7-5 This comment asks for the location of Mitigation Measure MM 5.6-A.2 in the Draft EIR. The reference to Mitigation Measure MM 5.6-A.2 was incorrect: there is no such mitigation measure, and the reference has been corrected in the REIR. OCSD —James Herberg Response to Comment A8-1 ' This comment requests that the Draft EIR address increased traffic to 15s' Street through the alley parallel to Balboa Boulevard. The alley is a secondary access to the approximately 133 parking spaces adjacent to the Balboa Center Complex. As shown on Table 5.11-3, the proposed uses would result in a maximum of 46 peak hour trips to the site (i.e., via the 16th Street entrance). Although the proposed parking lot includes an adequate number of spaces to accommodate the Sirius Environmental 8-29 Responses to Comments on Draft E/R Marine Park Draft RElR proposed uses, it is anticipated that there would be increases in traffic along the alley that parallel Balboa Boulevard. The existing alley has adequate capacity to accommodate potential increases in traffic. In regards as to how this increased traffic would impact access to the OCSD pumping station refer to Response to Comment A8-3, below. Response to Comment A8-2 This comment states that the Orange County Sanitation District is in agreement that the proposed project would not adversely impact the OCSD sewer system. The comment does not express any concern with the content of the Draft EIR; no further response is required. Response to Comment A8-3 This comment expresses concern regarding potential access restrictions to the existing parking in the alley to access the pumping station. The City has notified OCSD at various stages of planning the Marina Park project to keep OCSD informed of the project design. The city received an exhibit prepared by OCSD dated March 5th 2009 that outlined the request for enhanced access to the OCSD pump station (see below). - RESERVE STALL #118 AND — #119 FOR OCSD ACCESS �J 8' CMU WALL REINFORCED HOLLOW UNIT MASONRY STRAIGHTEN OCSD = PROPERTY LINE. -- GATE FOR OCSD ACCESS til ' O 0 0 1 8.30 Sinus Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Currently, access to the pump station ,for maintenance activities occurs through the alley from 15°i street. A maintenance truck currently parks in the alley to service the pump station. This does not create a traffic issue as the alley dead ends near the existing pump station. Flow -through traffic in the alley is currently blocked by an existing sliding chain link gate that provides privacy for the Marina Park Mobile Home residents and fire department access. The construction of the full buildout of the Marina Park project would allow traffic to flow through the alley as the sliding chain link gate would be removed. A maintenance truck parked in the alley would block ' flow through traffic. On April 15"i, Dave Webb assistant Public Works Director met with Chuck Windsor of OCSD to discuss the Marina Park project. The city is agreeable to assist with ' resolving the access issue by considering access through the future parking lot or by other means. A final design of exactly how this access would occur will be included on the final project plans. ' For example, the access point could be moved closer to the alley. These are design issues and in terms of resolving OCSD access to the pump station the city is in agreement with OCSD that a solution can be attained. 1 At the time this comment was written, Phases I and II of the project were not proposed by the City. The City of Newport Beach is currently in negotiations to purchase the vacant parcel of land owned by Southern California Edison. By the time Phase I and 11 are constructed the city could provide temporary parking for OCSD on this vacant parcel. The vacant parcel currently has a -gate that is accessed from the alley and is adjacent to the OCSD pump station's access gate. Response to Comment A8-4 ' This comment requests that the City dedicate parking stalls 118 and 119 for joint -use parking for the City and OCSD staff. Please see Response to Comment A8-3 regarding the provision of parking for OCSD staff. ' Response to Comment A8-5 This comment is concerned about homeland security associated with general access to the pumping station and requests -a block wall between the parking lot and the OCSD Pumping Station. The proposed project includes an 8-foot block wall between the pump station and the proposed parking (the wall will be shown on the engineering plans). The comment also states that an access gate needs to be provided. Currently, the access gate is along the alley. If OCSD would like to relocate the existing access gate, then the City will work with OCSD. ' Response to Comment A8-6 This comment requests that a small portion of the current SCE parcel be available to OCSD for parking and odor facilities. The city is in conceptual agreement with OCSD's future plans to install an Odor Control Station adjacent to the Marina Park project, and will work with OCSD Sirius Environmental 8.31 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Marina Park Draft REIR 1 staff. This future OCSD project would require a separate CEQA analysis from the Marina Park t project. Response to Comment A8-7 This comment identifies the potential need for odor facilities at the OCSD Pumping Station. ' Please see Response to Comment A8-6 regarding odor facilities. Response to Comment A8-8 ' This comment states that page 5.12-2 of the Draft EIR does not mention the existing OCSD 15'h ' Street pump station. The REIR has been revised to reflect the presence of the pump station. Response to Comment A8-9 I This comment states that page 5.12-2 of the Draft EIR needs to be amended to reflect the current design capacity for Plant No. 2. Please see Response to Comment A8-8 for the revisions to the design capacity. Response to Comment A8-10 to 11 i This comment states that the Draft EIR needs to be amended to reflect the current design capacity for Plant No. 2. The REIR reflects the current design capacity of 168 mgd. Response to Comment A8-11 ' This comment states that the Draft EIR needs to be amended to reflect the current design capacity for PlantNo. 2. The REIR has been revised to reflect the current design capacity of Plant No. 2. ' Response to Comment A8-12 This comment asks that the contact for the Orange County Sanitation District should be updated to show Mr. Patrick McNelly, Principal Staff Analyst. This comment is noted. OCSD — Patrick McNelly Response to Comment A9-1 ' This comment asks that the information regarding the OCSD treatment capacity and actual flow at Treatment Plan No. 2 in Huntington Beach be revised to reflect the accurate capacity levels. Please see Response to Comment A8-8 regarding the revisions. 8.32 Sirius Environmental L Marina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft EIR ICity of Irvine — Sherman Jones Response to Comment A10-1 This comment suggests that the Executive Summary include a description of the existing land ' uses. A discussion of the existing land uses may be found in Section 3.3 — Existing Conditions and Section 4.1 — General Description of Environmental Setting of the REIR. Response to Comment A10-2 This comment suggests that site plans depicting the existing conditions should be included in the Executive Summary. This comment also suggests that Exhibit 3-2 be revised to depict the end of Balboa Peninsula. Exhibit 3-2 provides sufficient context for the reader to understand the location and context of the site. Exhibit 3-3 provides an aerial photograph of the project site as it exists now and depicts the current land uses on the site as well as immediately adjacent to the site. Response to Comment A10-3 This comment expresses concern regarding the accuracy of the Traffic Analysis associated with ' the relocation of the mobile homes. The mobile homes would be demolished and would not be relocated. There are no plans for relocating the existing mobile homes, therefore, there is no need for a revised Traffic Analysis. Response to Comment A10-4 This comment expresses concern regarding the first paragraph on Page 3-2 of the Draft EIR and the potential for increased traffic from the removal of the boat launch located at 18°i and Bay Avenue. The proposed project would not remove the boat launch. Response to Comment A10-5 This comment expresses concern regarding circulation problems associated with the two dead end parking aisles in the parking lot adjacent to the proposed marina. The referenced parking aisles belong to the American Legion and are not part of the proposed project. Accordingly, no further ' response is required. Response to Comment A10-6 ' This comment expresses concern regarding pedestrian access between the community building and the tennis courts, and the sailing building and the marina. The pedestrian access between the ' community building and the proposed tennis courts would be along 15°i street via Balboa Boulevard. The sailing building and the marina would be located adjacent to each other. The pedestrian access between the two would be provided by walkways. Strius Environmental 8-33 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Marina Park Draft REIR 1 Response to Comment A10-7 This comment expresses concern regarding the need for an amendment to the Zoning Code for ' the proposed architectural features that extend higher than 35 feet. A Zoning Code amendment is not required because the City has exempted itself from the provisions of its own zoning ordinance, This comment also suggests that additional text should be added to discuss the other permits that would be required. A list of the responsible required permits and responsible agencies is provided in Section 3.5 Project Approvals. Response to Comment Al 0-8 This comment requests clarification regarding any opposition that may have been expressed by the American Legion Post 291. To date, there has not been any opposition by the American Legion Post 291, and they did not provide any comments on the previous Draft EIR. Veteran's Park, located adjacent to the American Legion Post 291, is a public park. Activities that -have occurred at Veteran's'Park in the past could be held at Marina Park, I This comment also asks if there has been any opposition by the mobile home owners. To date, no residents of the mobile homes have presented any opposition to the proposed project, and they ' have not provided any comments on the Draft EIR. Note that actually there are no mobile home owners at the Marina Park site; the mobile home residents currently lease the mobile homes and land space, both of which are owned by the City of Newport Beach. Response to Comment A10-9 ' This comment expresses concern regarding the methods that were used to assess the traffic volumes associated with the cumulative projects and the trip distribution. The list of related ' projects (including approved and proposed projects) is provided in Table 4-1 in the REIR. The uncompleted portion of approved projects is added to background traffic in the traffic report, while proposed projects are analyzed as "cumulative" projects. The City's traffic model was used to distribute the traffic volumes; the model is available for review at the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. Response to Comment A10-10 ' This comment expresses concern regarding the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis at Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway. The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis is applied to "primary intersections" in the City of Newport Beach. The "intersection" of Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway is grade separated, with the only conflicting movements being the southbound left, southbound right, eastbound through, and westbound through movements that are controlled by a signal. Therefore, the City has applied the TPO analysis to that portion of the 8.34 Sirius Environmental 1 ! Marina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Newport Boulevard/Coast Highway "intersection". All other movements between the two highways are free movements that are not considered part of the signalized intersection. be This comment also states that Newport Boulevard at West Balboa Boulevard should evaluated. The City's TPO analysis applies to primary intersections within the City. That intersection is not a primary intersection, regardless of the configuration of the intersection. Therefore, the intersection was not identified as a study intersection, and the TPO one percent and ICU analysis were not performed at that location. Response to Comment A10-11 intersection This comment expresses concern that the traffic volume data presented for the of Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway appears to be under -represented on Table 5.11-4 of the Draft EIR. The TPO analysis at the grade -separated Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway "intersection" applies to the movements controlled by the signal, which consists of the southbound left, southbound right, eastbound through, and westbound through movements. The eastbound right -turn and westbound right -turn volumes are shown as part of the signalized intersection, they are free movements that are not actually controlled by the signal. Trips from the proposed project that travel on Newport Boulevard at Coast Highway are added to the northbound free through movement, the northbound free right -turn movement, the southbound free through movement, and the westbound free right -turn movement. • The northbound through movement on Newport Boulevard is a grade -separated movement; therefore, the project trips northbound on Newport Boulevard do not travel through the signalized intersection analyzed in the City's TPO analysis. ' • The southbound through movement on Newport Boulevard is a grade -separated movement; therefore, the project trips southbound on Newport Boulevard do not travel ' through the signalized intersection. • The TPO One Percent Analysis compares peak hour project trips to the approach volume (total of left -turn, through, and right -turn). As shown in the calculation sheet in Appendix C of the Traffic Study (Appendix K of the REIR), the total westbound approach volume is 1,098 during the AM peak hour, one percent of which is 11. The AM number of project trips added to this approach is five during the AM peak hour, less than ' one percent of the volume on the westbound approach. Similarly, the westbound approach volume during the PM peak hour is 2,411, one percent of which is 24. The project would add 0 trips to this approach during the PM peak hour, less than one percent of the peak hour volume ("Yes" in the right column of Table 5.11-4 in the REIR). Accordingly, no ICU analysis at this location is required. Sirius Environmental 5-35 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Marina Park Draft 'REIR � • As shown on Figure A-1(Peak Hour Project Trips) of the Traffic Study in Appendix K, the project trips oriented toward the west on Coast Highway travel along Balboa Boulevard rather than Newport Boulevard. Therefore, the two AM peak hour project trips from the west are included as an eastbound right -turn at the Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue and Coast Highway intersections, and do not travel through the Newport Boulevard/Coast Highway intersection. The number zero shown in Table 5.11-4 for the AM peak hour eastbound approach at Newport Boulevard/Coast Highway, is correct. Even if some or all of these trips from the west on Coast Highway were to t travel along Newport Boulevard instead of Balboa Boulevard, the AM peak hour eastbound approach volume at Newport Boulevard/Coast Highway is 2,562, one percent of which is 25. The project trips would be well below one percent of the eastbound approach and no ICU analysis would be required. Response to -Comment A10-12 This comment expresses concern regarding the slight differences between the existing, background, backgroundplus cumulative, and background plus cumulative plus project scenario for the Newport Boulevard and Via Lido intersection and theNewport Boulevard and 32"d Street intersection. There would be a very small increase in the peak hour volumes at these two intersections as a result of approved, cumulative, and the proposed projects, and this increase is mainly to the north/south through movements on Newport Boulevard, which has two or three lanes in each direction. The addition of a low volume of traffic (35 trips or less) to the critical movements that have two or three lanes results in a correspondingly small increase in the ICU , value (i.e., 0.01 or less). Under the latest TPO analysis, the project passes the one percent test at these two intersections and no ICU analysis was required. ' Response to Comment A10-13 This comment expresses concern regarding an increase in traffic from trips generated by the ' proposed project through the rental of sailboats, canoes, kayaks, and other watercraft. This comment also suggests that additional text 'should be included to discuss the amount of traffic that would be generated by the proposed project. Section 3.4.3 indicates that watercraft would be available for rental. Appendix K—Traffic Analysis of the REIR incorporates all of the programs and activities anticipated to be associated with the proposed project. Response to Comment A10-14 ' This comment expresses concern regarding the use of tickets or fines for the metered self -parking and the potential for a queue to take place within the parking lot. As explained in 5.11-E, 145 parking spaces would be required for the proposed project and 159 parking spaces would be provided. The provision of 14 surplus parking spaces would help reduce the potential for a queue 8.36 Sirius Environmental J ' Marina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Ito form at the proposed project site. Furthermore, the provision of a drop off area on Balboa Boulevard would further reduce the need for a queue to take place. Appendix K.1 includes various parking -management alternatives and recommends the incorporation of a Parking Management Plan (which is part of the project, as described in Section 3.4.3). Details regarding the Parking Management Plan would be determined during the final design of the project. Response to Comment A10-IS This comment expresses concern regarding the lack of discussion regarding the installation of gates at the parking lot. This comment also suggests that attendants be used to monitor the ' number of parking spaces that are occupied. The proposed project provides 159 parking spaces and does not propose the installation of gates. Appendix K.1 includes various parking - management alternatives; as described in Section 3.4.3, a Parking Management Plan that would incorporate one or more of those alternatives is included as part of the project. Details regarding the Parking Management Plan, including the possible use of gates and attendants, would be t determined during the final design of the project. ' Response to Comment A10-16 This comment expresses concern regarding the increase in traffic due to the removal of the boat ' launch on 18°i Street. The proposed project does not include the removal of the boat launch, as described in Response to Comment Al0-4. ' Response to Comment A10-17 This comment expresses concern regarding the lack of information regarding climate change and suggests that the Draft EIR address the requirements established by AB 32. Climate change and greenhouse gases are evaluated in issue area 5.2-1 of the REIR. ' Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) tResponse to Comment A11-1 This comment asks if the project -specific determination in 5.2-I should be potentially significant. ' The project would result in less than '1,600 metric tons of CO2e annually, which is below the City's threshold of significance, and therefore the impact would be less than significant. ' Response to Comment Ail-2 ' This comment asks if the significance determination after mitigation for 5.4-A should be no impacts. The REIR reflects impact. This comment is correct for project specific and cumulative this change. ' Sirius Environmental 8-37 i Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Marina Park Draft REIR 1 Response to Comment A11-3 1 This comment asks how 5.5-D could be potentially significant prior to mitigation and no impact after mitigation when there are no mitigation measures proposed. The REIR has rectified this inconsistency. Response to Comment A11-4 This comment expresses concern that construction activities may cause an impact to the ' implementation of the City's adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Construction activities omthe project site would be phased; demolition of mobile homes (coaches) would occur during Phase 1. The demolition material would be hauled to an Orange County Landfill (i.e., Frank R. Bowerman Landfill). In Phase 3, the remaining structures would be demolished (and material hauled to the landfill) and the proposed marina would be constructed. Most of the excavated and dredged material would be placed on the project site or on a barge for sand replenishment of the City's beaches. There are approximately 3,000 cubic ' yards (approximately 150 truck trips) that would need to be exported offsite to a landfill. After excavation, dredging, and grading of the project site, additional construction equipment ' would be transported to the project site for construction activities. The construction equipment is expected to be staged on site so that the equipment would not need to be transported offshe on a ' periodic basis. Given that Balboa Boulevard is currently a four -lane roadway with two lanes in each direction, the construction vehicles that would access and depart to/from the project site are expected to periodically utilize up to one lane in each direction. Although many trucks departing ' the project site could be initially slow -moving, the trucks would still have the ability to leave the area once on the roadway system. Those trucks that remained on the project site would not need to depart the site in -an emergency and'would not adversely affect emergency response. Response to Comment A11-5 ' This comment asks how 5.8-13 could be less than significant prior to mitigation and no impact after mitigation when there are no mitigation measures proposed. The REIR rectifies this ' inconsistency. Response to Comment All-6 ' This comment asks how 5.10-D could be a beneficial impact prior to mitigation and no impact ' after mitigation when there are no mitigation measures proposed. The REIR rectifies this inconsistency. 8.38 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft E1R IResponse to Comment A11-7 ' This comment asks if the existing mature trees at the Veteran's Park can be saved. The existing mature trees at the existing Veteran's Park would need to be removed. However, but the final design of the landscape plan has not been completed, and the cost to potentially relocate these ' trees is not known at this time. It may prove to be possible to relocate the trees onsite. ' Response to Comment A11-8 This comment states that the proposed tennis courts would be closer to existing residences than the existing tennis courts. The proposed tennis courts would be closer to the existing residences east of 15°i Street than to the existing residences south of Balboa Boulevard and across from the existing tennis courts. As shown on Exhibit 3-6 of the REIR, the three trees that are located ' along the existing 151" Street sidewalk would remain and would provide some, but not complete, screening of night lighting at the tennis courts. Exhibit 3-6 also shows new trees located on the ' east side of the tennis courts to further reduce the light and glare that could be generated from the tennis courts. The tennis courts lighting would be on until 10 pm. Light would be contained ' within 12-foot-tall vinyl tennis court fencing and would be directed on to the courts to minimize spillover lighting to the maximum extent possible. ' An additional comment concerned the potential noise, light, and glare impacts from the proposed tennis courts on the guests at the American Legion Hall. Currently, Veteran's Park is a public ' park that does not have lighting and can be used by the residents of Newport Beach as well as visitors. Given that Veteran's Park does not have active recreational amenities, it is considered a passive park. The conversion of the public park to an active recreation would result in an incremental increase in noise; as indicated in 5.9-C,recreational noise sources are intermittent and would not be expected to substantially contribute (i.e. an increase of 3 dBA or more) to ambient ' noise levels in the area. The comment expresses concern regarding the additional light from the proposed tennis courts adjacent to the American Legion Hall. The tennis court fencing would be at least 12 feet high and would provide privacy and blockage of wind and light. With the ' combination of fence screen and lighting designed to reduce spillover, the tennis court lighting would not directly affect the one-story American Legion building. Section 5.1 of the REIR finds ' the impacts of light and glare to be less than significant, since the existing project site already has lighting. ' Response to Comment A11-9 This comment expresses concern regarding the height and new light source from the proposed ' lighthouse. As discussed in 5.1A through 5.1-D of the REIR, the impacts of the proposed lighthouse on the existing visual character would be less than significant. The lighting proposed ' for the lighthouse would be of a low wattage light source, of less intensity than the existing street Sirius -Environmental 8-39 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Marina Park Draft REIR ' lights in the area, with the intent to provide a glow and not a light source beaming out. The final design may include a dimmer switch such that the lighting could be controlled after the building is occupied. , Response to Comment All-10 ' This comment expresses concern that the background air quality data does not represent actual Newport Beach air quality. The South Coast Air Quality Management District has various air ' quality monitoring stations throughout Orange County. The nearest stations -monitoring air quality data are identified in Section 5.2.3 of the REIR. These nearest stations provide the best available air quality data for the project area. ' The comment was also concerned about Source Receptor Area 18 not accounting for projected , cumulative construction and operational impacts. The discussion in 5.2-P of the REIR addresses potential cumulative impacts; the cumulative analysis incorporates a summary of projections consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15130(b). , Response to Comment At 1-11 This comment expressed a concern that all feasible measures are incorporated to minimize or ' eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts. As discussed in Section 5.2, without mitigation ' the project could result in significant air quality impacts. Mitigation measures are identified to reduce each of these impacts to less than significant. The comment also asks how the mitigation measures for construction (5.2-A) and operation (5.2- , B) of the project would reduce contaminants. Tables 5.2-6 and 5.2-7 identify the construction emissions that would occur with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. , As shown in these tables, the implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce regional construction emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) below the threshold and would reduce the localized particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) construction emissions less than the established thresholds. The details of the reductions are provided in Appendix C of the REIR. The operational impacts discussed in 5.2-B were determined to be less than significant, as shown in Tables 5.2-9 and 5.2-10. Since the potential operational impacts on air quality would be less than significant, no additional mitigation measures are necessary. ' Response to Comment All-12 This comment recommends analyzing impacts of non-native landscaping on the marine environment. The City has developed a preliminary landscape palette that includes no invasive non-native species. Given the project's goal of maintaining a green landscape, there would be , 8-40 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft EIR some non-native species, but they would not be invasive, and therefore, would not result in a significant impact on the marine environment. Response to Comment A11-13 This comment states that a project objective should include showcasing the bay setting and its habitat and make it part of the visitor experience. Section 3.1 of the REIR identifies the tobjectives of the project. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment A I 1- 14 ' This comment asks what impact park lighting would have on the night sky and if there could be impacts on birds. As discussed in 5.1-D, the proposed lighting on the project site would, to a ' large extent, simply replace the lighting that is currently provided at the existing facilities, although with newer, more efficient fixtures. The analysis concludes that the lighting impacts ' associated with the project would be less than significant. The lighting proposed at the park would consist of bollards that would provide lighting of just enough lumens to provide safety to park visitors at night. Tile park lighting would not impact the night sky as the light source would ' be louvered downward and be specified as night sky compliant. t Response to Comment A11-15 This comment requested a description of Areas A, B, and C from which the core samples were ' taken. Figure 3 in the Dredge -Material Evaluation (Appendix G.3 of the REIR) includes the locations of Areas A, B, and C. This comment also asks for the definition of 0 feet MLLW. MLLW stands for Mean Lower Low Water; o feet MLLW is 2.76 feet below mean sea level and represents the water line at a zero foot tide. The regulatory agencies commonly use MLLW as the basic unit of measurement of elevation in coastal waters. ' The comment also questioned if the core samples extended deep enough to characterize the soil at the further extend of excavation. The core samples extended to -12 feet MLLW plus an additional -2 feet MLLW for overdredge material, which is an allowance that takes into account the variability in the actual dredge depth. The references regarding above and below 0 feet ' MLLW represent the elevations of the top of the core samples. The Dredge -Material Evaluation by USACE USEPA, of which raised sampling depth as a report has been reviewed and neither concern. ' Response to Comment Al 1-16 This comment expressed a concern that construction activities would occur during heavy traffic conditions on the peninsula. Approximately 3,000 cubic yards of dredge material would need to be disposed of at an offsite land disposal site due to elevated concentrations of mercury. This Sirius Environmental 8.41 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Marine Park Draft REIR 1 amount represents approximately I k truck trips to dispose of the material; these truck trips would be spread over several days if not weeks. Truck activity from the project would not result in traffic conditions worse than would occur under full occupancy of the project. For major ' construction activities on the Balboa Peninsula, the City would require a construction management plan which includes traffic control to alleviate potential traffic related impacts to the ' immediate area. Additionally, construction activities within the "beach" areas (all areas south of Coast Highway) would not be allowed on federal holidays. This comment also requests that a detailed timetable for dredging, truck staging, barges (if ' needed), and traffic management be prepared prior to the work beginning. The proposed project includes various phases of construction activities (i.e., demolition, excavation, dredging, exporting material, grading, building). The construction phases would be scheduled so that a specific timetable for construction activities is established in advance. I Response to Comment A11-17 This comment expresses concern regarding the operation of the marina for visiting vessels and about solid waste disposal facilities. The reference in the REIR to maintenance areas refers to mechanics working on the boats. The reference to vehicle boat wash areas refers to areas that ' allow boats hauled out of the water to be washed down. The proposed project does not include a fueling facility but does include a sewage pumpout station to allow boats to dispose of accumulated waste. Response to Comment A11-18 t This comment expresses concern regarding the removal of asbestos and lead paint before general demolition. Mitigation Measure MM 5.6-A.1 states that prior to demolition activities, the project , proponent shall determine whether asbestos or lead -based paint materials are present within the existing onsite structures. if these materials and present, the project proponent shall properly dispose of these materials in a landfill that accepts asbestos and lead -based paint. The implementation of this measure would be required to be performed by a specialist. This measure is consistent with SCAQMD requirements to identify asbestos and, if found, to remove it using a ' specialized contractor approved by the SCAQMD. The City of Newport Beach is familiar with this process and has complied with the SCAQMD requirements on various City projects that included demolition. Response to Comment A11-19 This comment expresses concern regarding off --site circulation impacts from implementing the proposed project. Exhibit 3-6 of the REIR illustrates the location of the proposed parking lots 8-42 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft EIR and the location of the alley that connects the main parking lot at 16°i Streetto 151" Street. See the Response to Comment A2-15. tResponse to Comment A11-20 ' This comment requests additional analysis of stormwater runoff and drainage and expresses concern regarding pollutants that are not easily seen. See Response to Comment A5-6, above. Response to Comment A11-21 This comment recommends the use of California native and California friendly plants for landscape management in the proposed vegetative bioswales and landscape biocells. The current plant palette for the project site includes drought -tolerant plants and non-invasive species. Response to Comment A 11-22 ' This comment asks if the parking analysis includes the proposed restaurant. The proposed project includes a cafe that would serve persons using the Marina Park facilities, including persons from ' visiting vessels in -the marina, but it would be open to neighborhood residents as well. The City expects many area residents to walk there, and some area residents to boat there given the visitor - serving short-term slip(s) proposed. The cafe was included in the determination of facility iparking spaces and has been accounted for in the traffic analyses. Response to Comment A 11-23 This comment asks if the streets and parking lots should be cleaned once a week and not the planned once per quarter as stated in the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. Quarterly sweeping of streets and parking lots is the minimum frequency required. The areas may be swept at a greater frequency (i.e., weekly or monthly) if the City determines that would be advisable. ' The hoist facility for the boating program would have a wash -down component so that salt water can be washed -off small boats before they go to storage. For any wash -down facility made part of ' the project, requirements of the RWQCB MS4 permit would be incorporated, including a localized concrete pavement sloping to a sand/water clarifier. Response to Comment A11-24 This comment asks if the project includes a wash down facility for small and large sailing boats ' within the marina. See Response Al 1-23 above. ' Sirius Environmental 8.43 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Marina Park Draft REIR ' Response to Comment A11-25 1 This comment asks if the pollutant removal rate data in Table 1 of Appendix H.1 is the most , recent available data. This data is the most available data and was obtained from the 2003 California Stonmvater BMP Handbook. Response to Comment A11-26 ' This comment states that if a Use Permit and a Modification Permit is required for the lighthouse tower and the roof of the Balboa Complex, then the project would conflict with the applicable zoning ordinance. The project would not conflict with the Zoning Ordinance because the ' ordinance allows architectural features of structures to exceed the base height -limit of35 feet. The proposed lighthouse tower and the sail features of the Balboa Complex roof are architectural features that to exceed the base height limit of 35 feet. are allowed Response to Comment A11-27 ' This comment asks if there was evidence that the two tennis courts that would be lost with the implementation of the proposed project are not needed or underutilized. According to the City's ' Recreation and Senior Services Department, over the one year period of May 1, 2008 through April 29, 2009 more than two courts were in use 4 percent of the time. This data is obtained through the City of Newport Beach Park Patrol program that monitors the tennis courts on a daily ' basis and tracks usage. Based on the above data, the removal of two of the four existing courts would not significantly affect the existing recreational use of the tennis courts. ' Response to Comment A11-28 This comment states that there would be a negative effect on the community if the existing tennis courts and tot lot are removed prior to the construction of the proposed tennis courts and tot lot. The project schedule proposes to build the tennis courts and tot lot prior to removal of the ' existing tennis courts and tot lot facilities. This comment also asks if the project would increase the need for lifeguard services, especially with a tot lot located close to the beach. Based on recommendations by the City Lifeguard Department a new lifeguard tower would be installed in Phase I due to the anticipated increased beach use; the lifeguard tower would remain in place for Phase I1 and would be constructed for the ultimate buildout Phase III of the project. The new lifeguard tower would be located at the ' midpoint between the existing tower at 18ei street and the lease line of the American Legion. I B-44 Sirius Environmental Marina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft EIR tResponse to Comment A11-29 ' This comment states that Exhibit 5.11-1 incorrectly identified the project site. Exhibit 5.11-1 has been revised. ' Response to Comment A11-30 This comment asks why the net trips were different on Table 5.11-3 and at the top of page 5.11-8 ' of the Draft EIR. This error has been corrected in the REIR. ' Response to Comment A 11-31 This comment states that the primary access of 17°i Street referred to on page 5.11-12 of the Draft ' EIR is not correct and asks what the primary access is to the project. The primary access to the project site would be 16°i Street; the first sentence under 5.11-C has been corrected in the REIR. ' Response to Comment A11-32 This comment asks if the term "approximately" in reference to the number of parking spaces on ' the project site can be removed. The final parking count cannot be determined until the final stages of design. The exact parking count may differ by a few spaces. See Response to ' Comment A2-15. Response to Comment A 11-33 ' This comment asks if the current 21 parking spaces located along Bay Street between 18°i Street and 19°i Street would remain during construction. These parking spaces, which are currently public parking, are proposed to remain during construction activities. See response A2-15 for an analysis of the proposed project's effects on long-term parking on and near the site. ' Response to Comment A11-34 This comment asks what provisions would be implemented to ensure that ocean.beach users would not use parking spaces meant for Marina Park users. As indicated in Section 3.4.3 of the REIR, a Parking Management Plan would be included in the project to ensure onsite parking is ' available for Marina Park patrons. The specific control approach would be determined as specific designs for the park are finalized. tResponse to Comment A11-35 This comment states that during the construction phase of the project, the residents, businesses, and visitors to the Peninsula would face a lot of congestion. For major construction activities on the Balboa Peninsula, the City would require a construction management plan which includes ' Sirius Environmental 845 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Marina Park Draft REIR t traffic control to alleviate potential traffic related impacts to the immediate area. Additionally, construction activities within the "beach" areas (all areas south of Coast Highway) would not be allowed on federal holidays. The comment also asks if the project would include provisions for a public launch ramp for small ' boats. The existing launch ramp at 18°i Street would remain and the proposed project would not provide any additional launch ramp. Small boats such as kayaks would be able to be brought by trailer from the sailing center building to the beach area for ocean launch. Provisions for access ' will be detailed in the final design plans. The Parks and Recreation Department would have kayaks availablefor programming of classes. People bringing kayaks into the parking lot would , be able to use atrailer to gain beach access between the sailing center and community center. Response to Comment A11-36 ' This comment states that significant data is missing regarding cumulative impacts due to the missing of three large current and probable projects. The three projects that are referenced in the ' comment include the following (these projects are included in the project cumulative analysis — see Table 4-1 Cumulative Project List): ' Banning Ranch —This project is located at 4520 West Coast Highway and is located approximately 1.5 miles west of the site. Banning Ranch is proposed'to include 1,375 dwelling ' units, 75,000 gross square feet of commercial retail, 75-room accommodations, parks, and open space. Aerie —This project is located at 201 Carnation Avenue and is located approximately 2.5 miles east of the project site. Aerie is a 6-unit condominium project with subterranean parking. I Sunset Ridge —This project is located at 4850 West Coast Highway and is located approximately 1.3 miles west of the project site. SunsetRidge Park is proposed as a 13.67-acre active park. ' Due to the characteristics of the project and the project site as well as the distance of the three projects listed above from the project site, the proposed project has the potential to contribute to cumulative air quality, public services (fire and police), and transportation and traffic impacts associated with the three projects listed above. The remaining environmental issues that were addressed for the Marina Park project would either not contribute to a cumulative impact or would contribute nominally to a cumulative impact and, therefore, would be considered less than cumulatively considerable. ' The cumulative.air quality impacts associated with the project are discussed under 5.2-F of the , RE1R. These impacts are associated with the project's cumulative contribution of ozone (NOx), PMIO and PM2.5 emissions during construction activities. Since the impact associated with a 8.46 Sirius Environmental Marina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft EIR project's contribution is based on the level of emissions associated with a particular project, the inclusion of the three cumulative projects listed above are not critical for the evaluation. The ' implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.2-A.3 would reduce ozone emissions to a less than significant level. Since, after mitigation, the project would not exceed the regional threshold for NOx, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact for ozone (NOx). In ' addition, the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.2-AA and 5.2-A.2 would reduce the project's contribution to less than the localized significance thresholds for PMI0 and PM2.5. ' Since, after mitigation, the project would not exceed the localized significance thresholds'for PM10 and PM2.5, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact for PM10 and PM2.5. Cumulative air quality impacts (i.e., greenhouse gases) associated with the project are also ' discussed under 5.2-I in the Draft EIR. The project would have a less than significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions using the City of Newport Beach threshold. Cumulative public services impacts associated with the proposed project are discussed under 5.10-A and 5.10-B. Both the fire department and the police department regularly evaluate their services throughout the City. The Sunset Ridge and Aerie projects are expected to require nominal police and fire services. The Banning Ranch project has the greatest potential to require additional fire personnel staffing as well as equipment and facilities. The proposed Marina Park's ' contribution to the need for additional staffing, equipment, or facilities is considered less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the proposed Marina Park would result in a less than ' significant cumulative impact on fire and police services. Cumulative traffic impacts are discussed under 5.11-A in the Draft EIR, and as discussed in Table ' 5.11-4, the proposed Marina Park project would contribute more than one percent to the traffic volume at two intersections. As shown in Table 5.11-6, the addition of the Marina Park project to background traffic levels results in the same intersection utilization capacity as the levels shown ' prior to adding the Marina Park project. Therefore, if additional projects that have not yet been approved, such as the three listed above, were added to the intersection prior to adding project ' traffic, the intersection utilization capacity would still be the same before and after the addition of project traffic. Therefore, traffic impacts associated with the Marina Park project would be less than cumulatively considerable. Response to Comment A11-37 This comment asks for additional data related to project alternatives, specifically the Reduced Marina Alternative. The purpose of the project alternatives is to identify alternatives that would reduce potential significant environmental impacts. The description of the Reduced Marina Alternative is provided in Section 6.3.1 of the REIR. The impact analysis is provided in Section ' Sirius Environmental 8.47 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Marina Park Draft REIR ' 6.3.2 and states that the Reduced Marina Alternative would reduce potential significant short- term construction impacts, thus requiring less mitigation. It is important to note that the implementation of the proposed Marina Park project would not result in significant environmental ' impacts after the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, although the Reduced Marina Alternative would reduce potential significant impacts, both the proposed ' project and the Reduced Marina Alternative would result in no significant environmental impacts after mitigation. ' California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. Response to Comment Al2-1 ' This comment suggests that buried archaeological resources could be present onsite and could be impacted by project construction. As discussed in Section 5.4 of the REIR, a record search, a pedestrian survey, and a review of the historic -era ground disturbance were conducted. Based on those evaluations, the probability of significant, intact subsurface deposits was determined to be ' low, and therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on archaeological resources. , Response to Comment Al2-2 This comment recommends that an archaeologist be present to monitor excavation and dredging. ' Although not required as a mitigation measure, the City would have the opportunity to include an archaeological monitor, if desired. , Gaberlino-Tongva Tribe ' Response to Comment A13-1 This comment requests that the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe be hired as the Native American monitor for the proposed excavation and grading activities. Because the Balboa Peninsula is a relatively new feature the potential for finding resources is not considered to be very high. ' However if archaeological artifacts are found during construction aNative American representative will be contacted (as appropriate); see Mitigation measure MM 5.4-B.I. Central Newport Beach Community Association Response to Comment A14-1 ' This comment expressed supportfor the project and would like the project to minimize impacts on residents and visitors to the beach. The comment does not express any concern with the content of the Draft EIR; no further response is required. 8-48 Sirius Environmental I Marina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft EIR IResponse to Comment A14-2 This comment states that the comments made by the Central Newport Beach Community Association dated June 19, 2008 on the NOP for Marina Park were not included in the Draft EIR. The Central Newport Beach Community Association NOP comments dated June 19, 2008 have been added to Appendix A of the Draft EIR. ' Response to Comment A 14-3 This comment asks if the proposed Marina Park parking lots would be discouraged for summer ocean beach parking demands. The two parking lots on the project site are intended for the uses ' within Marina Park. See Response A2-15 for a discussion of long-term parking issues. i This comment also suggests that the proposed community building (i.e., Multi -Purpose Building) should not include any activities on Saturdays and Sundays from Memorial Day to Labor Day ' thus allowing park and beach users to utilize the onsite parking. This comment provides an concern with the contents in the Draft EIR. opinion and not a ' Response to Comment A14-4 This comment expresses concern with the reliability and energy efficiency of the mechanical ' device that would be selected to enhance the movement and mixing of water within the proposed basin. During the detailed design phase of the proposed marina, the selection of the specific mechanical devices that would be used at the marina would be based on various factors including identified in Mitigation operation and maintenance costs, effectiveness, and other factors. As Measure MM 5.7-A.2, the average flushing reductions in 24 hours would be required to reach 70 ' percent to meet the Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines. Response to Comment A14-5 This comment expresses concern regarding public safety issues associated with the proximity of ' the tot lot to Newport Bay. Please see Response to Comment A] I-28 regarding the provision of an additional lifeguard station. Response to Comment A14-6 This comment expresses concern that parking at the existing apartments and commercial building ' adjacent to the alley requires backing into the alley. The comment suggests that 15°t Street be limited to only emergency and maintenance access needs with a gate at the east end. Similar to the current parking situation, motorists who park at the existing apartment and commercial ' building adjacent to the alley would need to back into the alley. Due to the narrowness and shortness of the alley, vehicle speeds are low, which allows motorists to back up into the alley ' Sirius Environmental 8-49 I Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Marina Park Draft REIR , safely. Since the proposed parking lot would be for Marina Park uses, the highest peak traffic t volumes (46 vehicles per peak hour) anticipated to use the proposed parking lot would be during the evening,peak hour. It is anticipated that a portion of the peak traffic volume could utilize the alley between the parking lot and 15°i Street. However, due to the relatively low volume of traffic, vehicles needing to back into the alley from the existing parking spaces at the apartment I and commercial buildingwould not experience significant safety issues. Response to Comment A14.7 , This comment asks if the residence along 18"' Street at Bay Avenue could be added to the list of existing sensitive receptors on Table 5.9-2 of the REIR. This residence is located the nearest to the project site (i.e., 40 feet) and is reflected in the first receptor in Table 5.9-2. The reference to the residence as a mobile home is incorrect, and has been changed. Response to Comment A14-8 This comment expresses a concern that if the City does not discourage ocean beach usage of ' Marina Park parking lots, a local traffic pattern would develop between 15"i Street and 20"' Street. As identified in Section 3.4.3, a Parking Management Plan would be required to ensure that ' onsite parking is available for Marina Park patrons. The parking management alternatives that have been explored include fee for parking, meters, and/or other systems. The Parking ' Management Plan is part of the project (as indicated in Section 3.4.3); the various alternatives do not need to be included as mitigation measures. The plan would reduce potential parking impacts, thus reducing circulation and congestion impacts in the vicinity of Marina Park. Response to Comment A14-9 This comment asks thatthe alternatives spetion include a reduction in the size of the community center as well as a phased scenario with the Community Center being the last improvement. The , purpose of the alternatives is to reduce potential significant impacts of the proposed project with a feasible,alternative. The issues of concern that are raised in the comment include parking, traffic, and visual impacts. Because each of these impacts was determined to be less than significant in ' the REIR, alternatives to reduce these impacts would not meet the intent of the alternative analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act. ' Thomas R. Rossi, Resident Response to Comment P1-1 This comment expresses a concern about the potential visual impacts on the views from the residence at the corner of 18°i Street and West Bay Avenue from the development of the proposed Girl Scout Building. The views of the commenter are noted. The CEQA analysis addresses ' 8.80 Sirius Environmental Marina Park Draft REIR Responses to Comments on Draft EIR ' public view impacts. City staff will continue to meet with Mr. Rossi to address his concerns to the extent feasible. ' Response to Comment P1-2 ' This comment asks about the hours of operation of the Girl Scout Building. As stated in the Project Description, the Girl Scout Building would be used in the same manner as the existing Girl Scout Building. The hours of operation would remain the same and the specific hours of operation of the Girl Scout Building and other project facilities are provided in Section 3.3.3 of this REIR. The hours of operation, operating characteristics and construction of the new Girl ' Scout facility will be addressed through the Use Permit application process ' Response to Comment P1-2 This comment states that the commenter objects to the project and that the concerns raised in the ' letter were not addressed. Please see Response to Comments P]-1 and PI-2 regarding the visual issues and operation of the Girl Scout Building. �J I I ' Sirius Environmental a-51 Marina Park Draft REIR Report Authors and Consultants, Persons and Organizations Consulted, SECTION-9: LTANTS�:»PERSONS AND„ ] ORGAN ZAT ONS CONSULOTED ' 9.1 - Lead Agency 10.1.1 - City of Newport Beach ' PlanningDepartment..............................................................................................................David Lepo Patrick Alford ' James Campbell Rosalinh Ung Jaime Murillo ' Katie Bowden CityManagement Office..........................................................................................................Dave Kiff Sharon Wood PublicWorks Department.................................................................................................... David'Webb Tony Brine ' Mark Reader Harbor Resources Department Chris Miller ' .............................................................................................. HarborCommission........................................................................... John Corroullh Parks Beaches and Recreation Department ................................................ Laura Detweiller ' Sean Levin PoliceDepartment..................................................................................................................Evan Sailor FireDepartment......................................................................................................................Ron Larson Jim Turner Utilities and Services Department..............................................................................Katherine Ceballos Code Enforcement and Water Quality ............................................................................... John Kappeler - Lead Consultant I9.2 9.1.1 — Sirius Environmental ' Project Manager..........................................................................................................Wendy Lockwood tTechnical Analyst..................................................................................................Thomas Johnson, PhD 9.3 - Technical Consultants t9.3.1 Analyses — Draft EIR Consultant, Technical Michael Brandman Associates..................................................................... Michael E. Houlihan, AICP ' 9.3.2 - Project Architects/Visual Simulations ' Rabben/Herman....................................................................................................................Danl-Hrman ' Sidus'Environmental g't' ReportAuthors and Consultants; Persons and Organizations Consulted Marina Park Draft OR Thomas Jewel t Bundy Finkle Architects........................................................................ Tim Bundy 9.3.3 — Marina Engineer ' URS/Cash and Associates.................................................................................................. Randy Mason MarineSoils Analysis..........................................................................................................Bill Gardiner , 9'.3.4 — Coastal Processes CoastalResources Management, Inc.......................................................................................Rick Ware Everest Consulting........................................................................... Ying-Keung Poon ' 9.3.6 - Geotechnical Investigation TerraCosta..................................................................................................................... David B. Nevius Braven R. Smiliie , Walter F. Crampton Leighton Consulting......................................................................... Meredith Church ' 9.3.6 - Hydrology and Water Quality Assessment Fuscoe Engineering 9.3.7 - Traffic Analysis Austin -Foust Associates ............ ........................... ..................................... I.., ............ ........ ....... .Joe Foust Cathy Lawrence ' ' 9.4 — PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED 9.4.1 - State of California , California Coastal Commission...........................................................................................Teresa Henry Karl Schwing LilianaRoman J'onna Engel 9.4.2 — County of Orange ' County of Orange Waste and Recycling.............................................................................••.. David Tieu Orange County Sanitation District..................................................................................Patrick McNelly ' I 9.2 Sirius Environmental I IMarina Park Drell REIR Report Authors and Consultants, Persons and Organizations Consulted 1 9.4.2 — Other Organizations Girl Scout Council of Orange County ....................................................... Tom Olivas 1 Southern California Edison.................................................................. Richard Fujikawa 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 11 1 �l i 1 1 1 Sirius Environmental 9.3 Marina Park Draft REIR References SECTION 10: REFERENCES -- -__ _ _.. _ _�. ___ _ ---_----------_-•--- -:_ ___._-_.- __�.E ' Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2008. Marina Park TPO Traffic Analysis. July. Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2008 (revised February 2009). Marina Park TPO Traffic Analysis. November. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. January 2008. CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. www.capcoa.org/. Accessed April 8, 2008. California Air Resources Board. June 26, 2008. Ambient Air Quality Standards. www.arb.ca.gov/research/sags/aags2.pdf. Accessed July 24, 2008. California Air Resources Board. September 20, 2007. Regulation to Reduce Emissions from In -Use Off -Road Diesel Vehicles. www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/documents/0fRdDieselOverviewFS.pdf Accessed in May, 2008 ' California Air Resources Board. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel -Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. www.arb.ca.gov/regact/idling/idling.htm. Accessed in May 2008. California Air Resources Board. 2006. Area Designation Maps / State and National. 2004 State ' Area Designations. Website updated September 29 California Air Resources Board. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a framework for change. October 2008. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm. Accessed January 21, 2009. California Air Resources Board. October 2007. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccea/meetings/ea—final_report.pdf. Accessed April 8, 2008. ' California Air Resources Board. Historical Air Quality, Top 4 Summary. www.arb.ca.gov/adam/ cgi-bin/db2www/adamtop4b.d2w/start. Accessed in May, 2008. ' California Department of Public Health. California Indoor Radon Levels, Sorted by Zip Code. July 1, 2008. www.cdpli.ea.gov/liealthinfo/environhealth/Documents/Radon/ Cal iforni aRadonDatabase.pdf. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2006. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway and Reconstruction Projects, and Retrofit Barrier Projects. August 14. I'1 i California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2004. Transportation and Construction -Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. June. California Energy Commission. January 23, 2007. Memorandum Regarding Revisions to the 1990 to 2004 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report, Published in December 2006. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publ ications/CEC-600-2006-013/2007-01- 23 GHG INVENTORY REVISIONS.PDF. Accessed April 8, 2008. 1 Sirius Environmental 10-1 References Marina Park Draft REIR ' California Energy Commission. December 2006. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004. Staff Final Report. CEC-600-2006-013-SF. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publ ications/CEC-600-2006-013/CEC-600-2006-0 t3- SF.PDF. Accessed April 8, 2008. California Energy Commission. Climate Change and Water Supply Reliability. March 2005. CEC- 500-2005-053 www.energy.co.gov/pier/fitial_project_reports/CEC-500-2005-053.html. Accessed April 8, 2008. California Environmental Protection Agency. California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. www.arb.ca.gov/clVlanduse.htm. Accessed in May 2008. California Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust. www.oeillia.ca.gov/public_info/facts/dieselfacts.html. Accessed in May 2008. California Senate Bill 97. Passed August 21, 2007. littp://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/ sb_0051-0100/sb_97 bi11_20070821 enrolled.pdE Accessed April 8, 2008. City of Newport Beach. 2008. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. , City of Newport Beach. 2006. City of Newport Beach General Plan ' City of Newport Beach .2009. City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental. Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, , http://www.ipce.cli/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wgl/ar4-wgl-spm.pdf Accessed April 8, 2008. Coastal Resources Management, Inc. October 15, 2008 Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. and Chambers Group. 2003. Consolidated Giroux Environment Inc., 2004. Noise Impact Analysis Marina Park Resort (Newport Beach Hotel) City of Newport Beach ' Corrough, C. personal communication to C. Miller (via e-mail), September 30, 2009. EIP Associates. 2006. City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update. Everest International Consultants, Inc. 2008. City of Newport Beach Marina Park Coastal ' Engineering Study Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1979. FH WA Highway Noise Prediction Model. Report No. FHWA-RD-77-108. Fuscoe Engineering. 2008. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan 10.2 Sirius Environmental I ' Marina Park Draft REIR References Green, M.L. n.d. Intense Ocean Noise: Effects on Fish. Ocean Mammal Institute website. www.occaiimammalinst.ora/index.liti-nI Governor's Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory. CEQA AND CLIMATE CHANGE: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. June 19, 2008. www.opr.ca.gov/index.php?a=cega/index.html Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel .on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der ' Linden, X. Dal, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881pp. www.grida.no/CLIMATE/lPCC_TAR/WG1/index.htm. Accessed April 8, 2008. IJ I I I I 1 I Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 200, the Climate Convention. December 2004. brochure.pdf. Accessed April 8, 2008. . 16 Years of Scientific Assessment in Support of www.ipcc.ch/pdf/I Oth-anniversary/anniversary- Kessler, F.M. and P.D. Schomer. 1980. Pile Driver Noise Control. Inter -Noise 80: 321-324. Martin, K. 2006. Introduction to grunion September 29, 2009. On-line publication by Grunion.org. [roductionTOGrunionBioloev.ndf. Accessed Melville C. Branch and R. Dale Beland. 1970.Outdoor Noise in the Metropolitan Environment, 1970. MetroPointe Engineers, Inc. 2004. Drainage Technical Study: Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations Water Quality Management Plan. January. Michael Brandman Associates. 2009. Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands, Marina Park Project. Draft Report, August 17. Michael Brandman Associates. 2008. Terrestrial Biological Resource Assessment, Marina Park Project. November 18. Michael Brandman Associates. 2008. Supporting Air Quality Information, Marina Park. Michael Brandman Associates. 2008. Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for Marina Park. May 21. Michael Brandman Associates. 2004. Marina Park Resort & Community Plan EIR. Michael Brandman Associates. 2004. Section 5.12 — Utilities and Service Systems. Miller, Chris, City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Department. Personal communication. 14 September 2009. Sirius Environmental 10-3 References Marina Park Draft REIR t NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2003. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Construction of the East Span of the San Francisco -Oakland Bay Bridge. Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization, 68 Federal Register 64595-64609. Office of the California Attorney General. The California Environmental Quality Act, Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. Updated May 21, 2008. http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarmingtpdf/GW—mitigation—measures.pdf (Also included as Appendix B.) Personal Communications. Ron Larson. Newport Beach Fire Department. August 2008. Personal Communications. Patrick McNelly. Orange County Sanitation District. November 2008. Personal Communication. Evan Sailor. Newport Beach Police Department. August 13, 2008. 2008. I Personal Communication. David Tiev. Orange County Waste & Recycling. October 14, Port of Long Beach. 2009. Middle Harbor Redevelopment Project. Final EIS/EIR and ASR. Prepared by SAIC. April 2009. Report on Carcinogens, Eleventh Edition; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. January 31, 2005. Benzene. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/8019benz.pdf. Accessed in May 2008. Report on Carcinogens, Eleventh Edition; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. January 31, 2005. Diesel Exhaust Particles. http://ntp.niehs.nih.govintp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s069dies.pdfAccessed in May, 2008 , South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993. CEQA Handbook. Available at SCAQMD, 21865 Copley Dr, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. ' South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. June. Website www.agmd.gov/CEQA/liandbook/LST/LST.htmi. Accessed in May 2008. ' South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003. Air Quality Management Plan. http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/AQMD03AQMP.htm. Accessed in May 2008. , South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2006. Final - Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2,5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds. October. Website www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/liandbook/PM2-5/PM2-5.html. Accessed in May 2008. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2007. Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook. Website www.agmd.gov/cega/hdbk.html. Accessed in May 2008. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2007. Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. www.agmd.gov/aqmp/07agmp/index.html. Accessed in May 2008. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Historical Data by Year. 2005, 2006, and 2007. Air Quality. www.agmd.gov/sniog/historicaldata.htm. Accessed in June 2008. 104 Sirius Environmental ' Marina Park Draft REIR References South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Revised July 2008. Website www.agmd.gov/cega/handbook/signthres.pdf. State of California. ,August 31, 2006. Assembly Bill No. 32. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/does/ab32text.pdf. Accessed April 8, 2008. ' State of California, Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team. March 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/index.html. Accessed April 8, 2008. Ung, R. personal communication to W. Lockwood (via e-mail), October 6, 2009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Six Common Air Pollutants. Health and Environmental Impacts ofNOx. www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/nox/lilth.html. Accessed in May 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ozone and your Health. 1999. EPA-452/F-99-003. www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/pdfs/health.pdf Accessed in May, 2008 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and Radiation. Nitrogen Oxides: Impact on Public Health and the Environment. 1997. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/tl/reports/ noxrept.pdf. Accessed in May 2008. 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Indoor Air Quality. Sources of Indoor Air Pollution. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8-90/057F. May 2002. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. Accessed in May 2008. ' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health.and Environmental Impacts of CO. www.epa.govJair/urbanair/co/hlthl,html. Accessed in May 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Radon Risk Assessment Fact Sheet. www.epa.gov/radon/risk_assessment_factsheet.html. Accessed in May 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Website www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/. Accessed in May, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. EPA Map of Radon Zones. ' www.epa.gov/radon/zonemap/california.htm. Accessed in February 2009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. EPA Map of Radon Zones. www.epa.gov/radon/zonemap/california.htm. Accessed in May 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. High Global Warming Potential Gases. Science. http://www.epa.gov/bighgwp/scientific.html. Accessed April 8, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. CO: What is it? Where does it come from? Website www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/co/whatl.htm]. Accessed in May 2008. ' Sirius Environmental 10.5 References Marina Park Draft REIR U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Transfer Network, Air Toxics Website. Last updated November 6, 2007. Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants. www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hltlief/hapindex.litml. Accessed in May 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofNoise Abatement and Control. 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs. April 2006. The U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: Fast Facts. http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloadsO6/06FastFacts.pdf. Accessed April8, 2008. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover; Final Rule. Federal Register 70 (188): 56969- 57018. September 29, 2005. United States Green Building Council. April 3, 2008. Newly Released Studies Confirm Energy Savings Significant in LEED, ENERGY STAR Buildings Certified buildings outperform peers in sale, rental and occupancy rates. News Release. www.usgbc.org/Docs/News/NBI%20and%2OCoStar%2OGroup%2ORelease%20040108.pdf United States Green Building Council. LEED Project Certification. littp:/hvww.usgbc.org/DisolayPage.aspx?CMSP4ge]D=64. Accessed April 8, 2008. University of California, Davis. Prepared for California Department of Transportation. 1997. Transportation Project Weston Solutions, Inc., Everest International Consultants, Inc., Coastal Resources Management, Inc., Newfields LLC, Thomas Johnson Ph.D. 2009. Harbor Area Management Plan. Prepared for Harbor Resources Division, City of Newport Beach. Final Report, June2009. World Bank. 2006, Carbon Finance for Sustainable Development. http://carbonfinance.org/does/CFU_AR_2006,pdf. Accessed April 8, 2008. 10.6 Sirius Environmental