Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Newport Bay Marina-2300 Newport Blvd-PA2001-210
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT October 5, 2006 Agenda Item No. 6 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department William Cunningham, Contract Planner (949) 644 -3200, dgbc @verizon.net SUBJECT: Newport Bay Marina (PA2001 -210) Use Permit No. 2001 -038, Site Plan Review No. 2001 -004, Modification Permit No. 2006 -075 & Newport Beach Tract Map No. 2004 -003 2300 Newport Boulevard (Cannery Village /McFadden Square) APPLICANT: ETCO Investments, LLC REQUEST Request for a use permit, site plan review, modification permit and vesting tentative tract map to allow the construction of a mixed -use development consisting of approximately 36,000 square feet of commercial uses and 27 dwelling units above the first floor. The project will consist of eleven three -story buildings over a subterranean parking garage, and the applicant propose the reconstruction /reconfiguration of the existing seawall and boat docks. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify the Environmental Impact Report, adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approve Use Permit No. 2001 -038, Site Plan Review No. 2001 -004, Modification Permit No. 2006 -075 and Newport Beach Tract Map No. 2004 -003 subject to findings and conditions. DISCUSSION Project Site The project site is 2.36 acres and is located along the east side of Newport Boulevard, with a portion fronting The Arcade. The project is east of Woody's Wharf and is adjacent to the Crab Cooker Restaurant, and currently consists of the former South Coast Shipyard, various retail and office uses, two boat slipways, and existing boat docks and bulkheads. Boat construction activities on the site ceased around 1964 and the site began to be converted to other uses. Currently, the site consists of e Newport Bay Marina October 5, 2006 Page 2 approximately 44,300 square feet of commercial, office and marine uses including a commercial marina with 18 docks. Project Description The applicant plans the construction of eleven three -story buildings over a subterranean parking structure (see plans). Total proposed commercial area is 35,750 square feet, and 27 condominium residential units are proposed. The parking level, partially subterranean, will consist of 153 parking spaces of which 7 are designated handicapped. The deck level will consist of 13,721 square feet of retail (9,205 sq. ft. fronting on Newport Boulevard and 4,516 sq. ft. fronting Newport Bay), 5,725 sq. ft. of office, a pedestrian plaza and walkways, the first floors of residential units located in Buildings E, F, I and J, and open and enclosed parking (parking details and analysis follows). The second level will consist of 16,304 sq. ft. of office space and 19 dwelling units. The third level will consist of 8 dwelling units, and the upper floors of the 19 units that have the main entrances and living areas located on the second level. Access to the subterranean parking level will be via a ramp directly from Newport Boulevard and a ramp from The Arcade /22nd Street. Access to parking on the deck level will be via a ramp located at the north corner of the property from Newport Boulevard and a second ramp from The Arcade /22nd Street. The following table summarizes the proposed residential units: Dwellina Unit Summa �ui(difi#g Umt type 'No Bedfooms /. Average 'T fderitlticat[on . of Baths Sfze Aria Units Eecft l3nit (sq ft) 4sq) A Townhouse 7 3/3 2,690 18,830 B Flat 4 2 /2' /z 2,150 8,600 D, G, H & K Flat 8 3 /2' /z 2,325 18,600 E, F, I &J Townhouse 8 3 /2' /z 2,800 22,400 Totals 27 68,430" '`Note: Total square footaoe does not include enclosed aamae area. Total residential area allowed as computed on plans including enclosed garages is 77,101 sq. ft. The project will replace approximately 485 lineal feet of existing deteriorated bulkhead, will fill in one of the two slipways (one slipway will be retained and widened), and the project will reconstruct and reconfigure the 18 boat slips that exist along the waterfront creating a 19 slip commercial marina consistent with California Department of Boating and Waterways standards. The project will also remediate contaminated soils on -site and in the near shore sediments that resulted from the past boat building activities. Newport Bay Marina October 5, 2006 Page 3 Architecture /Site Design The structure consists of eleven buildings constructed over a subterranean parking garage. Two buildings (A and B) fronting Newport Boulevard are separated by a plaza area approximately 80 feet in width. The architecture is Neo- classical, and building materials will consist of plaster with brick and stone veneers, and suspended metal canopies over the doorways /entryways. The buildings incorporate fenestration, third - floor balconies, wall modulation and alternating parapet heights. Colors will consist of neutral earth tones as the predominate wall color, with accent colors consisting of willow greens, tuscan reds and umbers — the color /materials boards will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting. Specific and detailed architectural or design guidelines have not been prepared for the area, and the only design guideline is a statement of "McFadden Square Theme" contained in Section 20.43.020.A.2. The provisions of that section include: "Use of materials reflecting an image of permanence, stability and strength, and quality. Materials such as ceramic tile, stone, brick and brass fit this image'; and "Use of architectural styles and details reminiscent of the turn of the century era in which the area was constructed. Structures in this style in- general have a strong architectural emphasis on both vertical and horizontal structural members, a regular rhythm of vertical windows, and a restrained use of ornament." `Staff notes that these guidelines remain somewhat vague and open to interpretation, but given the eclectic nature of the existing development in the immediate vicinity of the project site, as well as recently- approved project in the area, it is staff's opinion that the project design and proposed materials palette can be found consistent with the foregoing quoted sections of the Specific Plan. Shoreline Improvements The project will replace approximately 485 lineal feet of bulkhead with a new bulkhead, reconstruction and reconfiguration of the existing 19 boat slips, and will result in the closure of one of two existing boat slipways (one slipway will be widened and will remain open). The existing steel bulkhead is in poor to failing condition and must be replaced. The existing marina is older, deteriorating and does not meet current Code requirements for sewage holding /disposal. The issue of the construction of the new bulkhead and the closure of the one slipway were considered in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, and a biological technical assessment was prepared (see Attachment 2, EIR Volume II). The report concludes that there is a net loss of bulkhead (107 lineal feet), further resulting in a decrease in 189 sq. ft. of intertidal biota. However, the report concludes that the loss is small and can be mitigated. Even though the one slipway to be covered will result in loss of marine habitat area, the expansion and enhancement of the remaining slipway along with the re -built bulkhead and boat slips, actually results in an increase in open water area by 1,275 sq. ft. and an increase in soft bottom habitat area by 1,221 sq. ft. The closure of the one existing slipway will remove 765 sq. ft. of habitat area, which is off -set and increased by the addition of 790 sq. ft. of habitat area in the remaining slipway, resulting in a net increase in slipway are by 25 sq. ft. Newport Bay Marina October 5, 2006 Page 4 The project includes a 10 -foot wide public access easement along the property's entire bay frontage. In addition, two pedestrian accessways are proposed through the project: one from Newport Boulevard via the plaza area with walkways on each side of the slipway to be retained; and the second via a paseo from Arcade/22nd Street on the north side of Building C. Aerial Vicinity A A A � m � •. +' 40. 'r �y -e n m . '. o aE li yy a °: • q C• G n U` f M1 Current Development: Commercial retail and office buildings, marina and associated parking To the west: Restaurant ood 's Wart) To the north: Newport Bay Rhine Channel To the east: Restaurant (Crab Cooker), commercial retail and boat repair. To the south: Public parking lot and commercial retail across Newport Boulevard Newport Bay Marina October 5, 2006 Page 5 Analysis Land Use/Zoning General Plan Land Use Element The site is located within Subarea 6 (McFadden Square) of Statistical Area B5 (Central Newport) of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. (Note: under the 2006 Land Use Element, the land use designation is MU -W2, Mixed Use Water 2, which is similar to the Recreation and Marine Commercial designation and allows marine - related commercial uses with residential permitted on upper floors.) Residential uses are allowed above the first floor in all commercial areas with one dwelling unit for each 2,375 of lot area being allowed. The subject site consists of 2.36 acres (102,800 square feet) of net lot area; therefore, the site may develop up to 43 dwelling units (102,800 = 2,375 = 43). The applicant proposes to construct 27 dwelling units. In addition, the project is within the projected residential and commercial growth limits outlined for Statistical Area B5 in the Land Use Element. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Harbor and Bay Element The Harbor and Bay Element (HBE) of the Newport Beach General Plan contains a number of goals and policies that are designed to prioritize land uses on or near the harbor in a manner that is similar to and consistent with the Coastal Act. The Goals and Policies that are pertinent to the proposed project include the following: Goal HB 1 — Preservation of the diverse uses of the Harbor and the waterfront that contribute to the charm and character of Newport Bay, and that provide needed support for recreational boaters, visitors, and residents. Supportive policies include: • Policy HB 1.1 — Preserve and enhance the following uses that contribute to the diversity and charm of Newport Bay...: Water - dependent and water - related recreational activities such as boating, sailing ... ;water enhanced commercial uses such as restaurants and retail stores; coastal residential communities. • Policy HB 1.2 - Encourage the creation of waterfront public spaces... Goal HB 2 - Retention of water - dependent and water - related uses and recreational activities as primary uses of properties fronting the Harbor. Supportive policies include: • HB 2.3 - Encourage the preservation and enhancement of existing marine support uses serving the needs of existing waterfront uses and the boating community. • HB 2.6 — Ensure that new or improved public access facilities are compatible with existing, permitted land uses and consistent with the availability of supporting infrastructure, such as parking and restrooms. In evaluating the HBE Goals and Policies as they relate to land use issues, the following questions come to mind: Newport Bay Marina October 5, 2006 Page 6 1. What impact will the proposed project have upon the availability of sites for priority uses? The site is suitably located to provide a wide range of water dependent or water related activities. HBE policies call for the City to actively pursue the provision of a public launching facility in the lower harbor. Additionally, expanding the adequacy of marine sanitation and pump -out station is a goal. The City has requested and the applicant has agreed to provide a new pump -out station with the re- configured marina. Staff does not believe that a public boat launch at this site would be advisable due to vehicular access constraints and the project maintains the marina which is a water dependent use. 2. What impact will the proposed project have upon nearby water dependent uses? The project will introduce residential uses in close proximity to the South Coast Shipyard (adjacent), Balboa Shipyard (at 26th Street) & Newport Shipyard located across the channel on Lido Peninsula. Land use conflicts between residential and marine industrial uses of the boatyards might occur. Should conflicts or nuisances occur, they may have a detrimental effect upon the ability of the nearby shipyards to operate. The project includes a two -story office building at the eastern property line that will assist in buffering the shipyard to the east from the proposed residential uses. Public Access The Coastal Act and the Municipal Code requires that new development dedicate public access under most circumstances. Easements, both vertical (from public road to the water) and horizontal (Along the water), are required to be dedicated to the City. The City's goal is to create a public boardwalk connecting the various villages on the harbor. The project provides a setback from the bulkhead and provides the access easements to provide access to the waterfront. The project also includes the construction of a walkway along the bulkhead and unrestricted pedestrian access from Newport Boulevard and Arcade/22nd Street. Water Quality Enhancing water quality and the protection of the marine environment is a stated goal of the Harbor and Bay Element. The project site is located near the entrance of the Rhine Channel, which has poor water quality due to historic industrial uses that have been located on the channel and limited water circulation. The applicant has conduced extensive soils testing and has developed a strategy to remove polluted sediments within the boat ways and under portions of the marina where a new bulkhead will be placed for the reconfigured marina. The oversight of the cleanup effort is a cooperative effort between the City and the Regional Water Control Board. Implementation of the project will result in improved water quality with the cleanup and reconfiguration of the slipway. Newport Bay Marina October 5, 2006 Page 7 Visual Character The preservation and enhancement of the visual character and historic resources of the harbor is another goal of the Harbor and Bay Element. Maintaining the diversity of the waterfront image and its variety of profiles is desirable. The attached plans include an elevation of the project from the harbor for consideration and the EIR includes a visual simulation. The proposed buildings are 35 feet in height, which is allowable if specific findings can be made. The findings require increased public visual open space or public views, a more desirable architecture and the avoidance of creating abrupt scale relationships (see following analysis under Building Height). Harbor Commission Review The project was presented to the Harbor Commission in May of 2003. The Commission felt that the project would have a detrimental effect upon marine uses in the area. The reason cited was the loss of existing shipyard and the introduction of residential uses in close proximity to other shipyards. It was the Harbor Commission's finding that the residential component would prove incompatible with surrounding marine dependent boat repair facilities. The Commission recommends denial of the project as a result. At the time of the Commission review, the site was used by the South Coast Shipyard for minor boat repair and boat storage. The shipyard also operated a large crane used to lift small boats in an out of the harbor. They also operated and continue to operate a shipyard at the adjacent property to the east. Since 2003, the South Coast Shipyard has discontinued the use of the site and the boat crane has been removed. Although use of the project site as a boat maintenance and repair facility has discontinued, the abutting shipyard and the Newport Harbor Shipyard and Lido Dry Storage on Lido Peninsula across the channel may be impacted by the introduction of residential uses. Shipyards are not innocuous uses with noise, odors and hours of operation that typically negatively affect the quality of life of residents. One project feature that may assist in mitigating the proximity of the shipyard to the east is the two story office building at the eastern property line. This building will provide an effective screen of the shipyard from the residences. Coastal Land Use Plan The same language and regulations in the RMC regulations of Specific Plan #6 discussed below have been included within the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP), where the property is designated CM -C (Recreational and Marine Commercial). That land use classification permits the same uses and provides the same regulations and restrictions as the SPC #6 /RMC District, including the provision that residential uses are permitted in commercial areas on the second floor or above. In addition, Section 3.0, Public Access and Recreation, of the CLUP contains a number of policies that are pertinent to the proposed project. These policies include: Newport Bay Marina October 5, 2006 Page 8 • Policy 3.1.1 -1 — Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along the shoreline... • Policy 3.1.1- 17Require new development in waterfront commercial areas to provide public access easements to and along the waterfront. • Policy 3.1.1 -21 — Provide a continuous waterfront walkway along the Rhine Channel connecting Cannery Village and McFadden Square waterfront commercial areas with Las Arenas Beach at 19`n Street. • Consistent with the policies above, provide maximum public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the shoreline with new development... In addition to the above policies, the CLUP also provides policies to require dedication or offer to dedicate easements for lateral public access (Policy 3.1.1 -13) and for vertical access (Policy 3.1. -14) in all new development projects. The proposed project includes a 10 -foot wide public walkway along the entire bay frontage (approximately 440 lineal feet of frontage), and pedestrian access through the project connecting the waterfront' walkway with Newport Boulevard and Arcade /22 "d Street. As noted in the analysis section below pertaining to the requirements of the Specific; Plan for restriction of residential to above the first floor, it is staffs opinion that the same restriction required by the CLUP has been met in that the residential use proposed for the deck level in buildings E, F, I and J will be developed above the commercial parking located in the parking level below. In addition, the project will provide pedestrian access to and along the bay frontage that does not currently exist. Therefore, in staffs opinion, the project is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. Zoning Code The project site is designated as 'Recreational and Marine Commercial (RMC)" within Specific Plan District #6 (Cannery Village /McFadden Square) and it is subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.43. The RMC District permits general retail and office uses, and allows residential uses above the first floor when the first floor is occupied by a permitted use (commercial retail and office uses). The following table outlines the development standards for the RMC District: Code Standards Minimum Yard Setbacks: Front (ft.) 5 0 "` Side (ft.) 0 0 Rear (ft.) N.A. N.A. Bulkhead /Floor Elevation (ft. above mean low water) 9 9 Newport Bay Marina October 5, 2006 Page 9 Maximum Height* (ft.) 26 35* Maximum Floor Area (Commercial) 0.50 0.35 Maximum Floor Area (Residential) 0.75 0.75 Maximum Dwelling Units 43 27 Parking 226 226 *Height limit may be exceeded up to 35 feet— see discussion below. "See discussion below under "Building Setback." With the exception of building height and front setback, the proposed project meets or exceeds the site development standards for the RMC District. In addition to.the standards established by the Specific Plan, Section 20.60.070 of the Zoning Code; provides standards for Waterfront Developments. Those standards include provision for all bulkheads to be constructed to an elevation of 9 feet above mean low water; minimum building setback of 10 feet from the bulkhead line; public vertical and lateral access easements of a minimum of 6 feet in width; and pump -out facilities for the docks. The project as designed meets these minimum waterfront development criteria as theses features are included within the project plans. Also applicable to the proposed project are the provisions of Zoning Code Section 20.63.060, Building Bulk. Building bulk is defined as gross floor area with the following modifications: exclude outdoor dining areas, include courtyards not open on at least two sides, include covered parking, and includes twice those areas that measure 18 feet from the finished floor to average roof above. Covered parking is included on a sliding scale where subterranean parking is not counted and above grade covered parking is fully counted. The maximum building bulk ratio is the gross floor area ratio plus 0.35 for mixed use projects (1.25 + 0.35 = 1.60). In the case of this project, the calculation of bulk does not include any portion of the parking garage as it is fully subterranean with less than 2 feet of the level being above the street grade. The total bulk tabulation is 1.1 (0.35 commercial FAR + 0.75 residential FAR = 1.1 FAR). As noted above, the RMC regulations of Specific Plan #6 permit residential uses, but such use is "limited to above the first floor, where the first floor is occupied by a permitted use or a use permitted with a use permit." In preparing and reviewing the site and architectural plans for the project, it has been the applicant's and staffs interpretation of the RMC regulations and limitations on residential uses to above the first floor that the first floor in this case consists of the Parking Level, which in turn consists of commercial parking. Commercial parking is an accessory use to the main commercial uses on the site, and therefore the Parking Level can be considered the first floor that consists of a permitted use on the site. Given that interpretation of the Zoning Code, the residential located on the Deck Level within Buildings E, F, I and J would be considered to be above the first floor and would be consistent with the requirements of Newport Bay Marina October 5, 2006 Page 10 the Specific Plan. A finding to this effect has been included in the draft Resolution (Attachment No. 1). With respect to commercial uses permitted within the SP#6 /RMC District, the regulations permit a number of retail, service retail and restaurant uses either by right or with approval of a use permit. The project does not include a specific mix of uses nor specific businesses at this time. However, if approved, the eventual mix of uses, including restaurant uses, would be required to meet the parking demand as included in the Parking Regulations of the Zoning Code. The applicant proposes parking at a ratio of 1 space for every 250 sq. ft., and this ratio is appropriate for retail, office or small food uses, but not larger restaurants. In addition, the SP #6 /RMC also permits business and professional offices subject to first providing 40% of uses as "marine- related." The applicant proposes 22,029 sq. ft. of office uses, is aware of the marine - related limitation, and proposes to comply with the SP #6 /RMC provisions. Traffic A traffic analysis was prepared for the project in conjunction with the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and is included in Volume II, Technical Appendices of the EIR (included as Attachment No. 2). The report, prepared in accordance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) indicates that total new vehicle trip generation by the project will decrease by 2 during the AM peak, and will increase by 28 during PM peak. The traffic analysis concludes that for five of the six intersections analyzed would have a less than one - percent increase in peak hour volumes. The only intersection that would exceed the 1% threshold would be the Newport Boulevard/Via Lido intersection during the PM peak. Applying the ICU analysis to that intersection, however, results in the intersection remaining at a Level of Service (LOS) of "A" during the PM peak. Therefore, the project will not result in a negative impact on existing traffic levels at area intersections. The EIR prepared for the project and attached to this staff report notes that there will be short-term traffic impacts associated with demolition and construction activities. To address concerns relative to those impacts a condition has been included in the draft Resolution (Attachment No. 2) requiring that a Construction Traffic Mitigation and Control Plan be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Traffic Engineer, and that it include provisions for off -site construction traffic staging and restriction on hours of construction traffic during the summer months. Parking Parking for the proposed project is determined by the specific mix of uses, which include commercial office and retail, residential and marine slips. The parking requirements and parking provided are outlined in the following table: Newport Bay Marina October 5, 2006 Page 11 27 Residential Units 2 spaces/ d.u. +.5 guest space /d.u. 68 spaces 68 spaces 35,750 sq. ft. 1 space /250 sq. ft. gfa 143 spaces 143 spaces Commercial 19 Marine Slips 0.8 space /marine slip" 15 spaces 15 spaces Totals 226 spaces 226 spaces `The standard is for privately -owned vessels; commercial use of berthed vessels require parking provided at an increased rate; e.g., charter vessels require parking at a rate or one space per every s occupants, incluaing crew memoers, ana sport risning vessels require parking per every 2 occupants including crew members. Parking for more intensive uses, such as large restaurants or marine charters, has not been provided, and the applicant is aware that the commercial tenants will be restricted to those within the uses identified with a 1/250 sq. ft. parking requirement. More parking - intensive uses (as outlined in the Zoning Code Parking Regulations) will not be allowed, or will otherwise be required to provide additional parking off -site or to process shared parking applications (Use Permit) in the future. The residential parking will be provided by 15 regular and 24 tandem spaces located in enclosed garages, and 14 carports. All of the residential parking is located on the "Deck Level' (first floor). Residential guest parking (14 spaces) will be provided on the "Deck Level' (10 spaces) and within the subterranean parking area (4 spaces). The construction of the project will result in one existing parking space lost along The Arcade. The applicant proposes to reconfigure driveways and relocate a fire hydrant along Newport Boulevard that will result in two new parking spaces being provided and therefore, the project will result in one additional public parking space being created: Building Height The project proposes eleven three -story buildings that are 35 feet in height. Municipal Code Section 20.43.050(H) provides: "The height limit for all buildings and other structures... shall be 26 feet... This height limit may be exceeded, up to a maximum height of 35 feet, with a use permit..." That section further requires the Planning Commission to make all of six findings in order to approve the Use Permit. Each of the finding, and staff analysis, is outlined below. 1. The development will provide for both public physical and visual access to the bay within the limits that public safety is ensured and private property protected. Visual access to the bay is presently limited by buildings, boat display and parking areas. The project will improve both physical and visual access to the bay over the existing situation. There are no buildings in the vicinity that exceed two stories, so the proposed 35 -foot height limit will not block or restrict existing views of the bay from upper floor windows across Newport Boulevard. From the street level, the proposed project will provide a plaza area in the center of the project that will open the view Newport Bay Marina October 5, 2006 Page 12 corridor of the bay from Newport Boulevard, and full view of the bay from the proposed water front walkway will be provided. With respect to physical access, the site currently has private boat piers /docks along the entire frontage and has restricted public access to and along the bayfront. The proposed project includes a walkway along the entire bay frontage and two pedestrian accessways through the project from Newport Boulevard and The Arcade. The pedestrian walkways and accessways will include recorded easements for public access. The applicant's submittal includes a study with a computer analysis of the project's impact on open space, building bulking and massing, and view corridors through the project. The study addresses three aspects of the project: 1) impacts of adding the additional nine feet of building height (increase from 26 ft. to 35 ft.); 2) impacts on building volume /massing by the increase to the 35 -foot height; and 3) impacts on views through the project site. With respect to building height, the addition of the third level (the additional 9 feet of height) results in additional building volume of approximately 8,748 cu. yds. This increase in building volume, however, is off -set by open area volumes within the project itself, including the paseo area (walkway located to the north of Building C between The Arcade and the waterfront walkway), plaza (in the center of the project surrounding the slipway), and open spaces between buildings. The analysis results in an open area volume of 7,752 cu. yds. (note: this open area volume is given a weight of 50% since it is located within the interior of the project). The third aspect of the bulking analysis factors in the impacts on the view corridors through the project. Under the existing condition, it is estimated that the views of the bay, given the existing structures, and parked cars and boats located in the northerly parking area, results in a view corridor that consists of 5,104 cu. yds. The proposed project will result in view corridors through the project at the plaza and paseo of 14,180 cu. yds. - a net increase in view corridor of 9,077 cu. yds. The bulking study concludes that, in considering all three factors in overall building massing, the project results in a net positive increase in open space /view volume even with the additional nine feet in building height. 2. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than would result from compliance with the basic height limit. Particular attention shall be given to the location and orientation of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground coverage, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. Views of and through the site currently consist of older metal and wood -sided buildings and asphalt parking areas. Several trees block the view through the existing view corridor that is located above the larger of the two slipways. The proposed project will provide a central landscaped plaza that will allow views of the bay through the site from Newport Boulevard. View analyses were completed in conjunction with the preparation of the EIR and the Bulking Study discussed above, and conclusions made that the project will result in an improvement and enhancement of views of the property and through the property. In terms of floor area ratios, building intensity and lot coverage, the proposed project has maintained densities and coverage well under those permitted by the Zoning Code: commercial floor area is permitted up to 0.5 of the net lot area (51,400 sq. ft.), and the project is proposing an floor area of approximately 0.35 (35,993 Newport Bay Marina October 5, 2006 Page 13 sq. ft.). In addition, under the Code, a total of 43 dwelling units are permitted, and the project is proposing 27, although floor area ratio for the residential is proposed to be the same as permitted by Code (75 %). The alternative height limit restricting the project to 26 feet could result in more building mass below 26 feet and the possible narrowing of the plaza area, thereby resulting in less of a view through the project. 3. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area within the general theme of a marine environment. The buildings have been designed to allow one and two -story residential units that contain size and amenities that are comparable to other residential units constructed in the vicinity. The Zoning Code restricts residential to be above the first floor commercial, and the alternative 26 -foot height could limit the second floor of the townhouse units or otherwise severely restrict the design of the residential units. The building design incorporates neo- classical design elements with setbacks, balconies and parapets that exceed 26 feet in height. Designing the project to be at or below 26 feet in height would result in an alternative design that would eliminate many or all of the vertical design elements of the proposed project. A twosstory building would not improve views of the bay from Newport Boulevard, and could result in further restriction of the views by increasing ground floor area thereby decreasing open ground area and the plaza area. In addition to the foregoing, the design theme as outlined in Section 20.43.030.6.2 of the Specific Plan #6 provides for "use of materials reflecting an image of permanence, stability and strength, and quality. Materials such as ceramic tile, stone, brick and brass fit this image." The project has incorporated these materials and design features in accordance with the provisions of SP#6. In addition, the project has a strong urban presence consistent with existing development within McFadden Square. 4. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. The design and scale of the project is consistent with other developments along Newport Boulevard, especially those south of Newport Boulevard in and around McFadden Square; and, as noted above, has provided open areas, access and view corridor of the bay. The immediate developments on either side and in the vicinity are eclectic in design, and consist of a variety of building styles incorporating a wide range of building materials and colors, and buildings to the west are one and two story in height. The project design has incorporated wall massing that is broken by building fenestration, varying wall and roof elements, balconies and other design features along all building elevations, including the Newport Boulevard elevation. Restricting the project to be two- stories could result in elimination of many of the design features incorporated into the proposed building given the restriction on residential units to the second floor and above. The project does not result in an abrupt view being created Newport Bay Marina October 5, 2006 Page 14 along Newport Boulevard in that the first level includes retail shops along the street frontage that awnings and other design features that provide a more pedestrian scale, includes enhanced paving along the entire street frontage, and upper floors are setback three feet. 5. The increase in height shall not result in floor area exceeding the floor area otherwise permitted. The project proposes floor areas and densities that are less than those permitted by the Zone District regulations. The project will not exceed the maximum permitted residential floor area ratio of 75 %, and the floor area ratio for the commercial is being maintained at 35 %, while the Code permits up to 50 %. In addition, the number of dwelling units is proposed to be 27, while the Code permits up to 43 units. 6. The maximum height in all districts shall be measure in accordance with the definitions contained in Section 20:65.030. Code Section 20.65.030 requires that the maximum height of a structure be defined as the vertical distance between highest point of the structure and the grade directly below. Section 20.43.050(8) requires that for all new structures, the finished floor shall be 9 feet above mean low water level and the baseline for measuring height is also 9 feet. The height of the project complies; however, retail floor elevation at Newport Boulevard is 8 feet in building A and 8.2 feet in building B. The finished floor will have to be raised a few inches to comply. In addition to the foregoing, an architectural feature consisting of a cupola and spire that are approximately 7.5 feet in height (40.5 feet from grade to top of the spire) are proposed to be located on the top of the corner tower element of Building A. Code section 20.65.070A permits "Architectural features such as, but not limited to, cupolas, weathervanes, open protective railings for stairways, and other decorative roof -top features of an open nature... in excess of the height limits." Therefore, the cupola and spire are architectural features and may be permitted to exceed the 35 -foot limit. In staff's opinion, the spire adds architectural interest to the project, while not significantly increase structural mass (the spire itself at the widest portion at base will be approximately eight inches in width), and does not block or impede views from surrounding public right -of -way or from existing surrounding structures. Building Setback — Modification Permit Requested The development standards of the RMC District of Specific Plan #6 require a five -foot front yard setback along Newport Boulevard. The project proposes to extend portions of Buildings A and B to the front property line. The building design will bring those structures in line with the existing restaurant located to the south (Crab Cooker Restaurant). In accordance with Zoning Code Chapter 20.93, required building setbacks may be modified with approval of a Modification Permit. The required findings to grant the front building setback are outlined below. Newport Bay Marina October 5, 2006 Page 15 1. The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. The five -foot setback, if implemented, would result in a narrow five -foot area that would present problems to effectively landscape and maintain. In addition, the project includes commercial retail on the ground floor fronting Newport Boulevard, and there are approximately 15 doorways along that frontage and protective columns have been incorporated into the building design that provide protection against doors opening into pedestrian traffic along Newport Boulevard. While the columns do extend to the front property line, actual store fronts and actual floor area is located 2% to 4 feet behind the property line. In addition, the project site is required to provide public access along the bay frontage. To accomplish that need, the applicant proposes to provide a 10 -foot wide walkway, rather than a minimum 6 -foot wide walkway as required, in order to provide what he feels is sufficient width to accommodate pedestrian use as well as other amenities such as seating areas. Essentially, the setback is being provided along the bay side of project rather than the Newport Boulevard side. Nevertheless, a 10 -foot wide sidewalk will be maintained along the Newport Boulevard frontage. 2. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. The proposed setback will place the building in line with the adjacent building (Crab Cooker Restaurant) which also faces Newport Boulevard, and is consistent with other existing commercial buildings in the vicinity. Alignment with existing buildings at the front property line allows a more traditional urban design consistent with buildings within McFadden Square. 3. The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. The project has been designed in a "neo- classical" style, and includes balconies, wall off -sets and in -sets, and other architectural details that are in keeping with that design motif. In addition, the project includes a pedestrian plaza and shoreline access area that encompasses approximately 25% of the project frontage along Newport Boulevard. The proposed setback does not impede or restrict public views along Newport Boulevard, and (as noted in Finding No. 2 above) will result in a more optimal streetscape view in that the building will be aligned with the adjacent restaurant building. The placement of the front building wall to the setback line does not impede pedestrian use of the sidewalk in that a 10 -foot wide sidewalk will be maintained along the entire Newport Boulevard frontage, and will not result in a significant change to the existing condition on the site. In addition, the project plans propose enhanced paving along the entire Newport Boulevard frontage, and the upper floors along Newport Boulevard are Newport Bay Marina October 5, 2006 Page 16 setback approximately three feet. Both the enhanced paving and the upper floor setbacks provide visual relief along the project's street frontage. Tentative Tract Map The project includes a tract map in order to offer for sale the residential units. The map (Newport Beach Tract Map NT2004- 003Nesting Tentative Tract Map 16594) proposes a one -lot subdivision for the purpose of establishing 27 residential condominiums. Municipal Code Section 19.12.070.A (Subdivisions) requires eleven findings be made in order to approve a tentative tract map. Mandatory findings with respect of the project's consistency with the General Plan and Zoning, development standards, and the design's consistency with surrounding properties have been discussed under the analysis section of this report. Environmental impacts have been discussed in the EIR prepared for the project, and no public access easements will be eliminated (the project will provide public access to and along the bayfront that currently does not exist). The project does not include agricultural lands, and will not restrict solar access. In addition, public services and facilities, including sewer capacities, are adequate to serve the proposed project.' All of the specific findings are included in the draft Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment No. 1). Staff notes that those findings include "For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program..." As discussed in the Land Use Section under Analysis above, the project is located within the Coastal Zone, and the project is consistent with the CLUP. Environmental Review An Initial Study was conducted for the proposed project, and on February 22, 2005, a finding made in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that the project may have a significant impact on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required. Environmental factors identified in the Initial Study that have potentially significant impacts included: Geological Problems, Hydrology/Water Quality, Air Quality, Transportation /Circulation, Biological Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems, Aesthetics, and Cultural Resources. An analysis of those issues, including technical studies addressing air quality, biology, cultural resources, geotechnical, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and traffic were completed and a final draft EIR (DEIR) completed in July, 2006. The DEIR concludes, based on the technical studies and analyses contained within the document, that all issues, with the exception of historical (cultural) resources could be reduced to an acceptable level if the Mitigation Measures, as outlined in the document, are adopted and enforced both as interim and on -going measures. Those Mitigation Measures have been included in a "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program' (MMRP) and have been incorporated in the Conditions of Approval attached to the draft Resolution (Attachment 1). Both the MMRP and Conditions will be adopted as part of the Planning Commission Resolution approving the project. With respect to historical resources, the DEIR concludes that sufficient Mitigation Measure(s) cannot mitigate the Newport Bay Marina October 5, 2006 Page 17 adverse impacts, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared and is included in the draft Resolution. The DEIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse for a 45 -day public review period in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, and the document was made available for public review beginning on July 19, 2006 (State Clearinghouse No. 2003071144). The public review period ended on September 1, 2006 and to date a total of five written comments have been received on the document, and responses to each comment letter have been prepared (included in Exhibit 2). The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Volume 1), Technical Appendices (Volume II), Statement of Overriding Considerations, the MMRP and the Responses to Comments are included as Attachment 2. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the proposed mixed -use project can be found consistent with the General Plan, has no adverse environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated or for which a finding of overriding consideration cannoy be made, and is generally: consistent with the zoning code, including Specific Plan District #6. Further, staff believes that the findings to grant a Modification Permit to allow encroachment of the buildings into the front yard setback is justified and that the mandatory findings can be made, and that the Use Permit allowing the height limit to be established at 35 feet is acceptable and that the mandatory findings can be made. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify the Environmental Impact, and approve the requested applications. Prepared by: William Cunningham, Contra ct Planner Exhibits: Submitted by: atricia L. Temple, fanning Director 1. Draft Resolution No. 2006 - ; EIR Certification, Statement of Facts, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2. Draft Resolution No. 2006- _; findings and conditions of approval 3. Environmental Impact Report, Volumes I and 11 -(Previously submitted under separate cover), Comments, Responses to Comments 9>g-Q l A -J "'.. 4. Project Plans EAR 1.110 KLo' t RESOLUTION NO. 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH. NO. 2003071144) FOR NEWPORT BAY MARINA LOCATED AT 2300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THERETO, APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, California, did on the 5"' day of October, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider: (1) the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), (2) the adoption of certain findings and determinations and adopt statement of overriding considerations; and WHEREAS, the EIR has been prepared and circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, it was determined pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. Sections 15000 et seq.) that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR "); and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2005, the City of Newport Beach, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of the EIR; mailed that NOP to public agencies, organizations, and persons likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the City thereafter caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR "), which, taking into account the comments it received on the NOP, described the Project and discussed the environmental impacts resulting therefrom, and on July 19, 2006, circulated the DEIR for public and agency comments; and WHEREAS, the public comment period closed on September 2, 2006; and WHEREAS, staff of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed the comments received on the draft EIR, has prepared full and complete responses thereto, and on September 22, 2006 distributed the responses in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21092.5; and WHEREAS, a combined Final Environmental Impact Report (collectively, "FEIR ") for the Project was presented to the Planning Commission, as the decision making body of the lead agency, for certification as having been completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and A/ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information and the comments pertaining to the DEIR and FEIR at a duly noticed meeting held on the 5t' day of October, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the FEIR, including the comments and the responses to comments, and has found that the FEIR considers all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and of the State and local CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, prior to action on this Project, the Planning Commission has considered all significant impacts and Project alternatives identified in the FEIR and has found that all potentially significant impacts of the Project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA! Guidelines require, where the decision of the Planning Commission allows the occurrence of significant environmental effects which are identified in the EIR, but are not mitigated, the Planning Commission must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the FOR and /or other information in the record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the Project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations of the City of Newport Beach. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: SECTION 1. Certification. Based on its review and consideration of the FEIR, all written communications and oral testimony regarding the Project which have been submitted to and received by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission certifies that the FEIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission, having final approval authority over the Project, adopts and certifies as complete and adequate the FEIR, which reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Planning Commission further certifies that the FOR was presented to the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to approving the Project. SECTION 2. CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091, the Planning Commission has reviewed and hereby adopts the CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" entitled "CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the Planning Commission has reviewed and hereby makes the Statement of Overriding Considerations to adverse environmental impacts, attached also as Exhibit "B" entitled "Statement of Overriding Considerations," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. 2A SECTION 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15097, the Planning Commission has reviewed and hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program" which is included as Exhibit "C ", which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 5. Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. The Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92263, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). SECTION 6. Notice of Determination. The Community Development Director shall cause the filing of a notice of determination with the County Clerk of the County of Orange and with the state Office of Planning and Research within five working days of this approval. SECTION 7. Certification. Posting and Filing. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, and the Secretary to the Planning Commission shall'eertify to the vote adopting this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5"' day of October 2006 3'11 MR AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jeffrey Cole, Chairman Robert Hawkins, Secretary 413 EXHIBIT A CEQA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS Newport Bay Marina Project ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1. Introduction The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) provide that: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a Project for which an Environmental Impact Report has been completed and which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the Project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding." (CEQA Guidelines §15091) Because the EIR identified significant effects which may occur as a result of the Project, and in accordance with the provisions of the Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach, Planning Commission ( "Planning Commission ") hereby adopts these findings as part of the approval of the Project. The City of Newport Beach has prepared an EIR for the proposed Project in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines requirements. It is not considered reasonable, required or feasible for this Planning Commission to recite every single detail forming the basis for its findings herein, since the voluminous record, incorporated herein by reference and made publicly available, contains the substantial evidence explaining the facts in support. The Planning Commission considers this incorporation approach justified, especially in light of the fact that the Planning Commission has responded in writing to each oral and written comment raising environmental issues and has made this information widely available through staff reports and mailings. Where appropriate and helpful to understanding the basis of the Planning Commission's findings herein, the Commission has mentioned certain aspects of the record arising from public input. 2. Description of the Approved Project 2.4 acre project site is located at 2300 Newport Boulevard and is currently developed with commercial, office and marine uses, including a commercial marina, two boat slipways, office buildings, retail shops, and associated parking. The proposed project consists of a mixed -use development with approximately 36,000 square feet of commercial uses and 27 residential units. The project will require the demolition of all existing buildings on the site. The project proposal includes a partial subterranean garage. The construction of the garage will require excavation of earth material. ly The project includes site remediation in relation to contaminants (located in sediment near and within the boat slipways) associated with the previous ship building /repair use of the property. The remediation includes removal of sediment that has accumulated to form a shoal in front of the smaller of the two boat slipways. The sediment is contaminated with metals that are considered a hazardous waste. This material (200 square foot area) will be excavated using shore based equipment (i.e. long reach backhoe) and then disposed of at .a licensed facility. The project also includes replacement of the existing bulkhead (along approximately 485 feet of waterfront). The existing sheet pile and concrete bulkhead will be demolished and removed using shore based construction equipment. Once the new bulkhead is constructed to tie in the property lines along the subject site, the former bulkhead will be demolished. The project also proposes reconfiguration of the existing 21 -boat slip marina located on the bayward side of the project site, and closure of one existing boat slipway (one slipway will be widen and remain open) used for boat berthing. The boat slipway to remain open and improved will also include a vehicular /pedestrian bridge crossing. The reconfiguration of the boat slips will involve removal of the existing docks and associated pierheads (existing pilings) and replacement of the boat slips and pierheads in the reconfigured layout. The reconfigured layout will facilitate an improved marina use. The number of boat slips will not be increased. The length of each boat slip ranges from 56 feet to 65 feet with the exception of Slip No. 19 (the large slipway with proposed vehicular /pedestrian bridge) which is approximately 150 feet in slip length. This large slipway will accommodate a variety of boat sizes. 3. Alternatives The EIR addressed the proposed Project and several alternatives to this Project. The alternatives examined in the EIR include: (1) No Project alternative (2) Reduced Development Alternative (3) Commercial Development Alternative (4) Residential Development Alternative Three Project alternatives were presented in the EIR. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered such alternatives in light of the adverse environmental effects which may result from the Project and the reduction or elimination of such effects which might be accomplished by selection of one of the alternatives. VI IS' Each alternative is summarized below and the specific economic social or other considerations that are considered to render such alternatives infeasible are set forth. The discussions below are intended to summarize and not fully restate the evidence contained in the Draft EIR, Response to Comments, and the administrative records as a whole. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES: No Proiect Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed mixed -use project would not be constructed. This project alternative also assumes that the site would not be developed with residential and /or commercial retail uses. The no project alternative would result in less environmental impacts for several topic areas compared to the proposed project (i.e. air quality, cultural resources, noise, utilities /services etc.). For example, the No Project would not involve the development of 27 residential units and 36,000 square feet of commercial /retail uses at the subject property. The No Project Alternative would not provide for improved and enhanced view corridor to The Rhine Channel and pedestrian access along the waterfront. This alternative also would not provide for the remedial cleanup of the contaminants present within the site (i.e. boat bays — the two inlets) and improvements related to water quality (filter all surface runoff before entering bay). The alternative would not improve the aesthetic appearance of the site nor provide a development that meets current seismic standards and uniform building code (UBC) requirements. All of the environmental impacts associated with the development of the proposed project can be mitigated to a less than significant level with the exception of Cultural Resources (Historical). The No Project would result in reduced environmental impacts than the proposed project (for Historical resources by retaining the existing structures); however, this project alternative does not meet the immediate and long -term project objectives and goals providing housing opportunities to meet the current and future demand of the community and region. Therefore, this alternative has been rejected. Reduced Development Alternative This project alternative would involve development of the site with a reduced development in size from that of the proposed project. This alternative assumes development of approximately twelve (12) residential units and 18,000 square feet of commercial retail uses. Although a few environmental impacts may be lessened in comparison to the proposed project (air quality, noise, traffic, utilities and services), overall, the impacts would be roughly the same and not significant reduced from that of the project. The Reduced Development Alternative also would still require demolishing the existing structures on -site; therefore, significant impacts relative to cultural resources (historical) would not be lessened from that of the proposed project. This development alternative would not significant reduce environmental impacts and would not provide the needed housing and commercial development proposed by the project. Therefore, for these reasons, this alternative has been rejected. 3 0 Commercial Development Alternative This project alternative includes evaluating potential the developing the site with only commercial uses. The City's current development regulations would allow for up 51,400 square feet of commercial uses at the site. This alternative would not significantly lessen any environmental impacts from that of the proposed project. Many of the environmental impacts would be the same including those associated with air quality, biology, cultural resources (historical), noise, traffic/parking, utilities and services. Development of this alternative would have the same beneficial impacts as that of the project in regards to aesthetics (attractive new buildings, view corridor, provision of pedestrian access along waterfront) , hydrology/water (improved drainage and filtration of runoff before entering bay), and hazardous materials (remedial cleanup). Since the environmental impacts would not be lessened and the project does not provide needed housing (a project objective) this alternative has been rejected. . Residential Development Alternative This alternative involves development of all residential uses on the property. This alternative assumes that no commercial /retail /office uses would be constructed. The City's current development regulations would allow for the development of up to 45 residential units. However, an all residential component would not be found consistent with the City's Land Use Element (LUP) and applicable Specific Plan. As with the all commercial development alternative, none of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project would be significantly lessened with implementation of this alternative. This alternative would still require demolishing the existing structures on the site to accommodate the construction of 45 residential units. Therefore, adverse significant impacts to cultural resources (historical) would be reduced with this development alternative. Additionally, impacts associated with aesthetics, air quality, biology, traffic, utilities and services would not be lessened with this development alternative. Development of this alternative does not reduce environmental impacts nor provide an economic benefit; therefore, this alternative has been rejected. 4. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission has reviewed the final EIR prepared to evaluate the proposed Project and has considered the public record on the Project as earlier described in these findings. These findings summarize the data and conclusions contained in the Draft EIR, the various response to comments and the administrative record. The Draft EIR, the various responses to comments and the administrative record are incorporated into these findings as set forth in full. Consistent with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR for the Newport Bay Marina Project discusses environmental effects in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. To that end, the EIR recognizes that certain areas of impact from the Project are unlikely to occur, or if potentially occurring can be mitigated to a 27 level of less than significant by imposition of conditions to the Project. It is not reasonably anticipated that potential additional impacts will be discovered as a result of future studies (as identified per the mitigation measures) because of the substantial evidence in the administrative record (including the EIR presently). Therefore, these studies are incorporated into the mitigation measures to further assure protection and recognize responsible agency involvement occurring in the normal course of affairs after the lead agency acts. The Planning Commission therefore finds, based on all the data currently available, that while no significant adverse impacts are expected to be discovered as a result of any of these subsequent studies, the requirements of such studies in connection with the Project and the reservation of the power to incorporate any mitigation measures required to mitigate any previously unknown impacts to less than significant levels, is itself adequate mitigation for any impacts disclosed by such subsequent surveys and studies, however, unlikely. The EIR identifies a number of potentially significant adverse environmental effects of the Project. The EIR also identifies mitigation measures which would reduce or eliminate potential adverse effects. These effects and the mitigation measures are summarized below. All mitigation measures have been written as monitoring programs pursuant to Public Resources Code §21081.6. The drafting of these measures have been designed to ensure compliance during Project implementation as explained further in the EIR. These findings merely summarize data in the EIR administrative record for purposes of identifying the significant impacts and mitigation measures for the Project. The EIR is incorporated by reference into these findings as substantial evidence therefore as if set forth fully in the findings. 3 51 AESTHETICS Significant Effects Development of the proposed mixed -use project will be visible from locations on -site as well as surrounding areas (residences, open space and roadways). The project will also include landscaping which will further soften the aesthetic appearance of the buildings. The mixed -use project will be visible to travelers on Newport Boulevard, from areas across the Rhine Channel and the immediate surrounding area. Additionally, lighting will also be visible but is not considered significant since the project is located in a developed urbanized area. The project is not considered visually offensive to viewers. Project construction activities will also be visible to viewers. Construction activities are short-term impacts and not considered a significant impact to aesthetics. The project site is not a designated scenic vista nor located near a designated scenic vista. Additionally, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings. The project will have an impact structures which are considered significant historical resources. This topic is addressed in the Cultural Resources Section. Findings Finding 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Mitiaation Measures MM 4.1.4 -1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the project for review and approval by the Planning Director. Said landscape plan shall enhance the property and provide visual softening of the proposed three -story buildings and site lighting. The landscaping shall be installed in recognition of vehicular and pedestrian circulation (site distance considerations etc.) and safety. MM 4.1.4 -2: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a site lighting plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. Building and parking lot lighting shall be designed and installed so that all direct lighting rays are confined to the site and adjacent properties and roadways are protected from glare. Mitiaation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Included None. IM Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant None. AIR QUALITY Significant Effects The Pollutant (Nox & PM10) emissions associated with the grading and demolition activities on the project site are projected to be greater than the Significance Thresholds established by the SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Therefore, grading and demolition of the proposed project will result in a significant air quality impact. Long term emissions are below the significant threshold levels defined by the SCAQMD, and therefore, project will not have an adverse impact upon the regional emissions. Findings Finding 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measures MM 4.3.4 -1: During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short -term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project - related emissions. MM 4.3.4 -2: During demolition and excavation, daily total haul trucks shall travel no more than cumulative 2,600 miles hauling materials from the project site to the dumping site and back again. Prior to commencement of demolition and grading, the project applicant shall submit to the City calculations showing the proposed travel route for haul trucks, the distance traveled, and how many daily truck trips that can be accommodated while keeping the cumulative miles traveled to bellowed 2,600 miles each day. The daily haul truck trips shall not exceed this amount during the demolition and excavation. MM 4.3.4 -3: During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce odors from construction activities. 30 Mitigation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Included None. Effects Not Mitiaated to a Level of Less Than Significant None. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Effects Impacts of this project to the marine environment appear to result in a positive effect on the marine environment by replacement of most of the existing habitat with habitat of equal or greater value than that disturbed during the course of the project. The existing boat slipways were surveyed and found to be depauperate in species probably due to their location in a dead end channel and the contaminants that are known to reside there. The impacts to the biota from the project are expected to be short term as most of the biota of the intertidal community are species such as compound ascidians, barnacles, mussels, limpets, and oysters with swimming larval forms that will readily colonize new substrate. Intertidal and subtidal algae such as Ulva and Enteromorpha are very fast growing and will readily attach to the new substrate. Other species such as nudibranchs and fish will swim free of the construction area and recolonize the habitat once construction is complete. Disturbances to the substrate in areas outside of the construction areas will have minor effects on recolonize disturbed areas, so the loss to the in duration, and the impacts are, therefore, co Findincis polychaete worms, but they too will readily infauna will be relatively small, short term nsidered less than significant. Finding 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Mitiaation Measures MM 4.3.4 -1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a survey will be conducted for the presence of eelgrass and Caulerpa. The biological assessments conducted by C13M and MBC indicate that neither species is present in the project locations, but it is required that not more than 90 days nor less than 30 days prior to initiation of actual construction that both eelgrass and Caulerpa surveys be conducted in September or 31 October, in which case the results are relevant until the following growth period beginning in March. In no case, will an eelgrass or Caulerpa survey conducted from November to February (non -growth period) be acceptable. MM 4.3.4 -2: Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Use and Occupancy, the project applicant shall implement the recommended mitigation pertaining to the replacement and restoration Pickleweed and the mudflat area presented in the biological resources report prepared by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. Mitigation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Incorporated None. Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant None. CULTURAL RESOURCES Significant Effects As a result of the records and literature search and the field walkover surveys, no significant cultural resources were found to be present on or immediately adjacent to the project area. Therefore, no further archaeological investigations are recommended by ARMC. Paleontological resources, including fossil remains and associated scientific data, fossil sites, and fossiliferous rocks, could be adversely affected by the direct and indirect environmental impacts accompanying the grading and excavation activities needed for the development of the Newport Bay Marina Mixed -Use Project Area in Newport Beach. Direct impacts would result from the ground- disturbing activities associated with the clearing of the vegetation and soil, excavation of aggregate and increased development of the proposed processing facility. If a significant paleontological resource is identified within the boundaries of the proposed project ground disturbance could result in the loss of paleontological resources, including scientifically important fossil remains, associated geologic data, fossil sites, and fossiliferous rocks, by disturbing fossil- bearing and potentially fossiliferous rocks. Although construction would be a short-term activity, the loss of some fossil remains and the fossil- bearing rocks would be a permanent adverse environmental impact. On this particular parcel the project - related construction activities may have an affect any fossil- bearing formations. The South Coast Shipyard appears to be eligible for listing in the California Register as a historical resource at the local level of significance under Criteria 1 and 3. Under Criterion 1, the South Coast Shipyard is associated with the development of the 32 maritime economy of Newport Beach and with World War ll, as a local contributor to the war effort. Under Criterion 3, the South Coast shipyard represents an excellent example of maritime architecture in the City of Newport Beach, particularly on Balboa Peninsula. The buildings are in good condition and retain integrity of location, design, feeling, association, workmanship, materials, and setting. The South Coast Shipyard buildings exhibit a collective distinction as a historic district. All of the buildings located within the South Coast Shipyard are contributors to this district. None of the buildings appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register, as the shipyard represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. None of the buildings appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register. The South Coast Shipyard does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register under Criteria 2 or 4. Although the shipyard was connected to several prominent business people and noted residents of Newport Beach, none of these individuals were associated with any activities that were demonstrably important to the history of Newport Beach, California, or the nation (Criterion 2). The South Coast Shipyard does not appear to be able to answer questions important in history (Criterion 4). In 1974, the South Coast Shipyard was identified as a historical landmark by the Newport Beach Historical Society. In 1992, the Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee conducted a Historic Resources Inventory for the City of Newport Beach. The South Coast Shipyard was identified as a local historic site, representing historic /architectural themes of local importance. While the South Coast Shipyard was recognized as a locally significant property, the City of Newport Beach does not have a Historic Preservation ordinance, and only encourages the adaptive reuse and preservation of buildings, recognized by the City to be Landmark Buildings. The South Coasf Shipyard is not recognized by the City of Newport Beach to be a Landmark Building. Findings Finding 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Finding 2 - Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measures MM 4.4.4 -1: During construction activities, if archaeological and /or paleontological resources are encountered, the contractor shall be responsible for temporary halting construction activities in the area of the encountered resources and is responsible for the immediate notification and securing of the site area. A qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist approved by the City of Newport Beach, Planning Director shall be 10 M retained to establish, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of cultural resource finds. If major archaeological and /or paleontological resources are discovered which require long -term halting or redirecting of grading, a report shall be prepared identifying such findings to the City and to the County of Orange. Discovered cultural resources shall be offered to the County of Orange or its designee or a first- refusal basis. MM 4.4.4 -2: The historical study prepared by LSA dated October 2005 recommends the mitigation to reduce the significant impacts to historical resources through the following methods: • Documentation of the South Coast Boatyard shall be provided by the developer prior to issuance of demolition permits by the City of Newport Beach. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Planning Director shall be provided an historic narrative, photographs, and architectural drawings of all on -site buildings in accordance with Historic American Building Survey (NABS) Level 1 documentation requirements. The Planning Director shall ensure that the HABS documentation is deposited with the Newport Beach Historical Society, the City of Newport Beach Public Library, the Newport Harbor Nautical Museum, and the SCCIC located at California State University, Fullerton, prior to issuance of demolition permits. • Prior to issuance of building permits, the Planning Director shall review project building plans and permits to ensure incorporation of design features referencing and memorializing the character - defining features of the South Coast Boatyard into design of the project, including, but not limited to, incorporation of a commemorative plaque depicting the buildings and their context to the historical importance of the structures on site. Such plaque shall be oriented to a public right -of -way (i.e. facing Newport Boulevard), so as to be visible and accessible to the public from such right -of -way. • If previously undocumented cultural resources are found during construction activities within the current project area, a qualified professional archaeologist shall assess the nature and significance of the find in order to recommend appropriate mitigation measures, halting construction activity in the vicinity of the find, if necessary. Mitigation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Included None. 1.1 34 The Project will result in an unavoidable significant impact to Cultural Resources (historical). GEOLOGY AND SOILS Significant Effects The topography of the site is relatively flat. The site is not located in an area of unique geologic or physical features. There are no evident faults on the site itself. Field observation during the geotechnical investigation (Petra) did not reveal the existence of any active or ancient landslide in the vicinity of the project site. The closest slope in the area of the site is.the bluff north of the site on West Coast Highway. The closest known active or potentially active fault is the Newport- Inglewood Fault. Strong ground shaking is the principle cause of most damage sustained during an earthquake. The most severe ground shaking at the site is expected to originate from an earthquake along the Newport- Inglewood fault zone, which the site lies within (Petra). Groundwater at the project site is relatively shallow. Evaluation and analysis during the geotechnical field explorations conducted by Petra indicate fill materials and marine deposit soils located from a depth of 4 to 30 feet below the ground surface are susceptible to liquefaction. Significant total and differential settlement of the foundation may occur due to seismically induced settlement. All potential impacts associated with geology and soils are mitigated to a level of less than significant per the project design and compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.10.140) will reduce any potential impacts to an insignificant level. Findings Finding 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measures MM 4.5.4 -1: The project shall implement the recommendations presented in the geotechnical reports prepared by Petra presented in Appendix D, Volume 11 of the EIR. MM 4.5.4 -2: Prior to the commencement of construction, design criteria and project specifications that include ground improvement techniques such as stone columns, use of deep foundations which penetrate below the liquefiable zone, pressure grouting, or appropriate combinations of these measures shall be incorporated into the plans for the project. MM 4.5.4 -3: Develop design criteria and project specifications that recognize groundwater may be encountered at the proposed depth of the partially subterranean parking area. Construction of mat. foundations or structural slabs may be required. 12 IX Design of utility lines and surface drainage in the subterranean parking should also consider the presence of a shallow groundwater table. MM 4.5.4 -4: Use appropriate type of cement and concrete specification according to Table 19 -A -4 of the Uniform Building Code to mitigate contract with corrosive soils and sea water that may come in contact with footings in the area. Mitigation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Included None. Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant None. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Significant Impacts During construction activities, the potential exists for localized spills of petroleum -based products, concrete, or other chemicals. These spills could expose workers and the public to hazardous materials either directly, at the site of the spill, or indirectly, by introducing these substances into the watershed. Such impacts are potentially significant; therefore, mitigation measures are provided to reduce the likelihood of a spill and prevent surface water contamination in the event of a spill. Based on compliance with existing regulations regarding hazardous materials, no increase in risk of upset related to hazardous materials is anticipated with the proposed. project. The proposed project does involve the transport and disposal of some hazardous materials from waste located in sediment near the slipways. The geological assessments (October 11, 2002, Petra Geotechnical, Inc.) consisted of drilling and sampling four borings to assess the environmental condition of sediments which form a shoal near the slipways: The geologic and chemical data obtained during this assessment indicates that local contamination of the sediments in the shoal (near the slipways) has occurred. Concentrations above the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) for copper and lead are present in the upper three feet below the mudline in the shoal area. The detected concentrations, of copper and lead (above the STLC) require that these specific sediments be handled as a hazardous waste if they are excavated and removed. The project is not located within an airport land use plan or close vicinity of a private. airstrip (or public airport) that would result in a safety hazard for people residing or 13 ni working in the project area. The closest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport. This airport is approximately 5 miles from the project site. The project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. However, during construction activities, the project will need to be coordinated with the City (i.e. construction traffic control plan) especially during summer months when the Newport Beach area is very congested with tourist and beachgoers. To ensure that the project does not interfere with any potential emergency response vehicles, a. mitigation measure is presented in (Transportation/Traffic). The site itself does not pose any unusual significant risk of wildland fires. The project construction will be required to comply with applicable safety regulations including fire prevention and an emergency operations plan. Additionally, the project will not interfere with, any emergency plan and /or access for emergency operations. Findings Finding 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Finding 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Mitigation Measures MM 4.6.4 -1: if during grading and /or construction activities a potential contaminated area is encountered, construction shall cease in the vicinity of the contaminated area. An assessment shall be performed by a qualified hazardous materials specialist to determine the extent and type of contamination. if the site investigation reveals that contamination with pollutant concentrations in excess of Action Levels, as defined by the California Department of Health Services and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the site shall be remediate during the project construction phase in compliance with the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5) standards established the California Department of Health Services, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and the requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22 and applicable Federal regulations. MM 4.6.4 -2: The proper use and maintenance of construction equipment, along with the use of general common sense, greatly reduces the potential for contamination. All grading and building plans will include the following construction related measures and that the measures shall be followed by the construction contractor and crew. 14 57 a. The storage of hazardous materials, chemicals, fuels, and oils and fueling of construction equipment shall be a minimum of 45 meters (150 feet) from any drainage, water supply, or other water feature. b. Hazardous materials stored onsite shall be stored in a neat, orderly manner in the appropriate containers and, if possible, under a roof or other enclosure. c. Whenever possible, all of a product shall be used up before disposal of its container. d. if surplus product must be disposed of, the manufacturers or the local and state recommended methods for disposal shall be followed. e. Spills shall be contained and cleaned up immediately after discovery. Manufacturer's methods for spill cleanup of a material shall be followed as described on the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for each product. MM 4.6.4 -3: Prior to the issuance of any certificate of use and occupancy permit(s), the project applicant shalt submit written evidence from the Ca6fomia Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region that no further action is needed and all remediation is completed and construction can proceed.. Mitigation Measures Added MM 4.6.4 -4: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide evidence that a Final Work Plan (for remediation) has been approved by the RWQCB and that said plan provides for protective measures for contaminated material removal including measures such as use of silt curtains and a watertight clamshell bucket for minimizing the dispersion of containments. Said Plan shall be subject to review and approval by the RWQCB. MM 4.6.4 -5: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall submit to the Fire Chief a hazardous material disposal plan which identifies the procedures and method of removing and disposing of lead and asbestos in relation to the existing buildings on the site. Mitigation Measures Not Included None. Effects Not Mitiaated to a Level of Less Than Significant None. 15 lu HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Significant Impacts The proposed project will have a beneficial impact to water quality. The existing shipyard is proposed to be removed and remediation (contaminants in the sediments of the boat bays) of the site will be conducted in compliance with the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region. Water quality implementation of the project will include compliance with the adopted Drainage Area Management Plan and adoption of Best Management Practices for handling any runoff from the proposed housing buildings or hardscape. Therefore, impacts to water quality are not anticipated. The proposed project would not substantially increase water runoff. The site is already developed with existing buildings and is located in an urbanized area of the City. The site is largely covered with impervious surface (e.g. asphalt, concrete, etc.) at the present time. The proposed expansion will include demolition of three corrugated metal structures and the asphalt parking lot to accommodate the new buildings. Since the site is presently covered with impervious surface and will continue to be after project implementation, the project will result in an insignificant increase in runoff. The project is located in close proximity to the beach and ocean front. All on -site surface water will be conveyed to a drainage system that includes catch basin filters and that eventually flows toward the bay. The project will result in short-term and long- term impacts to water quality. Short-term impacts will occur as a result of construction and grading activities. Long -term impacts will occur as a result of increased usage of the site by vehicles and people. These impacts can be reduced by procedures that protect the quality of stormwater runoff, such as: site construction, erosion and sediment control programs, sweeping streets, managing solid waste, recycling programs, storm drain and catch basin maintenance, enforcing prohibitions on illegal discharges, controlling spills, supervising waste discharges through permitting, and enforcing the prohibition on certain discharges. Water quality implementation of the project will include compliance with the adopted Drainage Area Management Plan and adoption of Best Management Practices for handling any runoff from the proposed project. The project site is located within a 500 -year flood hazard area. Due to close proximity of the project site to the Pacific Ocean (and the Rhine Channel), the site could potentially experience impacts associated with inundation by tsunami (but unlikely a seiche or mudflow due to the location and topography). The project itself does not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving flooding, or flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The City of Newport Beach has emergency procedures in the event of a major event (i.e. flooding, earthquake, evacuation plans etc.) 16 39 Findings Finding 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Finding 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Mitigation Measures MM 4.7.4 -1: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a Stonn Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) and provide evidence that a NPDES Notice of intent (NOI) has been filed with the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall be developed to reduce the risk of the transport of sediment and pollutant from site. The SWPPP shall implement measures to minimize risks from material delivery and storage, spill prevention and control, vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance, material use, structure construction and painting, paving operations, solid waste management, sanitary waste management, and hazardous waste management. MM 4.7.4 -2: During construction and following completion of development, the recommendations presented in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by SP Consulting Group dated February 20, 2006 shall be implemented and complied with to ensure that all potential project impacts to water quality will be reduced to a less than significant level and all applicable local and state water quality requirements complied with by the project applicant (property owner). MM 4.7.4 -3: During construction activities the following. shall to be implemented: a. During construction and maintenance activities, equipment shag be in proper working condition and inspected for leaks and drips on a daily basis. The project contractor or representative thereof shall develop and implement a spill prevention and remediation plan and workers shall be instructed as to its requirements. Construction supervisors and workers and maintenance personnel shall be instructed to (1) be alert for indications of equipment - related contamination such as stains and odors, and (2) respond immediately with appropriate actions as detailed in the spill prevention and remediation plan if indications of equipment - related contamination are noted. b. During construction and maintenance activities, fuels, solvents, and lubricants shall be stored in a bermed area so that potential spills and /or leaks shall be contained. Soil contamination resulting from spills and/or leaks shall be remediated as required 17 44 by Federal and /or state law. Storage areas shall be constructed so that containers shall not be subjected to damage by construction and maintenance equipment. c. Stockpiles of bulk granular building materials shall be covered and secured. d. Any areas of exposed soil, such as dirt stockpiles, dirt berms, and temporary dirt roads, shall be stabilized with controlled amounts of sprinkled water. . e. At the close of each working day, any materials tracked onto the street or laying uncontained in the construction areas shall be swept up, and any trash accumulated in construction areas shall be disposed. f. Concrete, asphalt, and masonry wastes shall be contained and these wastes shall be disposed away from project construction sites. g. Spill kits containing absorbent materials will be kept at the construction site. h. Fuels and other hazardous materials will be stored away from project drainage. MM 4.7.4 -4: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan, which includes a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and over watering. This plan shall be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The landscaping shall be installed and maintained in conformance with the approved plan and maintenance program. Mitigation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Included None. Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant None. LAND USE AND PLANNING Significant Impacts The proposed project does not result in any significant impacts relative to land use and planning. The project is consistent with applicable regulation plans and development regulations (i.e. General Plan, Specific Plan, & LCP). 18 11l/ The project does not impact any applicable habitat conservation plan (HCP) or natural community conservation plan (NCCP). The project site is not part of a HCP or NCCP. The proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to land use and planning. Mitigation related to other topical areas such as biological resources, cultural resources etc. are presented in the appropriate EIR Sections addressing those areas. Findings Finding 1 - Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the Mitigation Measures None. Mitigation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Included None. Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant None. NOISE considerations, workers, make EIR. Significant Impacts Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. Typical noise construction levels are shown in Exhibit 4.9 -3. Construction of the project includes demolition of all existing buildings, grading and excavation associated with the construction of the parking garage and site remediation. However, the project does not propose construction outside of the hours permitted in the Noise Ordinance. The proposed residences are required to meet an outdoor noise standard of 65 CNEL and an indoor noise standard of 45 CNEL. Residences along Newport Boulevard may be exposed to noise levels in excess of 70 CNEL. A few second and third floor balcony units are planned along Newport Boulevard. 19 y� Noise barrier heights were calculated for sample outside balcony locations facing along Newport Boulevard. Balcony barriers of 5 feet high may be required. In general, noise barrier heights may be reduced considerably through site design., such as setbacks from the roadway, grade separations, and exterior living area orientation. The residential buildings facing Newport Boulevard will experience traffic noise levels of 70 CNEL or greater, and will require outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction of at least a 25 dB. In some cases standard construction will achieve this level of reduction, however, these residences will likely require upgraded windows to achieve the required outdoor to . indoor noise reduction. With typical residential construction, a minimum of 20 dB of outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction is achieved with windows closed. With windows open outdoor -to- indoor, noise reduction falls to 12 dBA. Therefore, units requiring more than 12 dB of noise reduction require adequate ventilation per the Uniform Building Code to allow windows to remain closed. Typically this is provided through mechanical ventilation. Mechanical ventilation may be required for all homes in the project. The commercial buildings must comply with an interior noise standard of 50 CNEL. The commercial buildings along Newport Boulevard could experience noise levels in excess of 70 CNEL. Findings Finding 1 - Changes or alterations had been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measures MM 4.9.4 -1: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, detailed engineering construction plans will be submitted to the City for review and approval. The engineering plans shall provide details such as roof and wall elements, room dimensions, window and door dimensions, attic configuration and building insulation. Said plans shall demonstrate and ensure that the City's noise standards are met for proposed mixed -use project (residential and commercial). Mitigation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Included None. Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant 20 y3 None. PUBLIC SERVICES Fire The proposed project may potentially increase the number of calls for service to the location; however, it is anticipated that the project will not require any new facilities /staff or affect emergency response times. all proposed structures will be required. to be fully fire sprinklered. At this time, the Newport Beach Fire Department has indicated that the project will not result in any significant impacts to facilities, staff and /or services. All fire protection project features must be designed as an integral part of the construction process with all improvements and/or modernization of equipment systems or devices identified and agreed upon by the City of Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department prior to any construction approval. Police There are no plans for additional facilities or expansion of current facilities and /or additional staff. The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) indicated that the construction of the project may have an impact on the area, especially if the construction is done in the summer months. The area becomes very busy with traffic and parking issues because of the beachgoers and tourist business that occurs between May and September. Schools The proposed project consists of a mixed -use development that includes 27 new residential units. The project will generate new students, however, the project is consistent with the land use designation of the City's General Plan and zoning and therefore included in the student generation projections for buildout of the City. Based on the current student generation rates, the project could result in the generation of approximately 7 K -12 students (27 units x 0.259 K -12 student/dwelling unit). While the development is not expected to generate significant numbers of students, the District's facilities are overcrowded. Therefore, in compliance with state law the project applicant will be required to pay applicable development impact fees adopted by school district. Parks The proposed project is not anticipated to significantly increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and recreational facilities. The project will provide additional marine recreation opportunities to the public. Existing parks in the area and beaches are available to the public. Due to the limited population expected in relation to the 27 residential units the increase will be limited in regards to the potential use of parks and recreational facilities in the area. The project applicant will be required to pay applicable park impact fees. 21 J/If Findings Finding 1 - Changes or alterations had been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Finding 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Mitigation Measures MM 4.10.4 -9: Prior to the issuance of a grading pennit, project construction plans shall be submitted to the City Fire Chief for review to verify that all fire protection is designed in compliance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department. MM 4.10.4 -2: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall pay any applicable development school impact fees as required by State law. MM 4.10.4 -3: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall pay any applicable park impact fees as required by City of Newport Beach and State law. Mitigation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Included None. Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant None. TRANSPORTATION Significant Impacts The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 682 trip -ends (net increase) per day with -2 (net) vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 28 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Six intersections were evaluated per the traffic study conducted for the project. Additionally analysis for one intersection was warranted. The ICU analysis for the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Via Lido assumes existing land configurations and a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane 22 yS with no clearances factor. The traffic study concluded that the project will have no impact on the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Via Lido during the peak hours, which will operate at LOS (Level of Service) "A ". The project has no significant impact on the study intersections. Parking for the project will be provided by a underground parking structure, an upper deck parking lot, and on- street parking. No on- street parking will be lost on Newport Boulevard along the project frontage, and two new on- street parking spaces on Newport Boulevard are�roposed by relocating an existing fire hydrant. No on- street parking will be lost on 22" Street. Five on- street parking spaces on The Arcade will be relocated on The Arcade along the project frontage. Findings Finding 1 - Changes or alterations had been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measures None. Mitigation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Included None. Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant None. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Significant Impacts Water and Sewer Services Based on water consumption factors, development of the project will result in a water consumption of 32,618 gallons of water daily (102,800 sq.ft. of residential uses and 36,000 sq.ft. of commercial uses, 235 gallons /1,000 sq.ft.). The total of 32,618 does not take into account the deduction of the consumption by the existing use to be demolished to accommodate the new development. Based on sewer flow generation 23 46 factors (5,429 gallons per day (gpd) /acre), development of the project is anticipated to generate 282,308 gallons of wastewater annually. The project will generate an estimated 6,902 gallons of sewage each day (based on OCSD use flow coefficients of 3,451 gpd /acre for medium density residential, 8 -16 du /ac); however, no significant discharges that would exceed wastewater treatment requirements will occur as a result of the development. The project does not include uses that would necessitate treatment beyond that provided by the OCSD and raw sewage generated by the project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements established by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Electrical Services The project will require extension of existing electrical facilities to serve the new school buildings and parking area. Based on consumption factors from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook it is projected that the project will have a consumption rate of 1,221,440 kWh (based on computing square footage by 8.8 KWh /sq.ft. per year). The project is not anticipated to have any significant impacts on electrical services. Natural Gas Services The project will require expansion of gas services to serve the school buildings. No significant adverse impacts associated with providing gas service to the project are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Solid Waste Services The demolition of the existing structures and surfaces on the project site will result in the generation of solid waste. The majority of the demolition waste can be diverted through a recycle process of wood, metal, concrete, and other building materials. It is estimated that the project will generate approximately 292 pounds of solid waste per day (based on IWMD generation rate of 4 Ibs /unit and 0.005 /sq.ft. for commercial /retail). The project will comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. It is not anticipated that there are any significant impacts relative to providing solid waste pick up and disposal generated by the project. Telephone Services The proposed project will require extension of existing telephone facilities to serve the new buildings. No significant adverse impacts associated with providing telephone service to the project are anticipated as a result of the project. Findinas 24 17 Finding 1 - Changes or alterations had been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Finding 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Mitigation Measures MM 4.13.4 -1: Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the project applicant shall coordinate with utility and service organizations regarding any construction activities to ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public agencies. MM 4.13.4 -1: Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the project applicant shall coordinate with utility and service organizations regarding any construction activities to ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public agencies. Mitigation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Included None. Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant None. 25 70 EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A. UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE FIR The City of Newport Beach finds that the mitigation measures discussed in Exhibit (Findings of Facts) will, when implemented, mitigate or substantially reduce most ofthe environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. Nonetheless, certain significant environmental impacts of the project are unavoidable. For such effects, the City of Newport Beach has balanced the benefits of the project against such unavoidable impacts in its approval. The unavoidable impacts associated with the Newport Bay Marina Project are in the following areas: Cultural Resources The project site buildings appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register as a historical resource at the local level of significance under Criteria 1 and 3. Under Criterion 1, the property (aka the South Coast Shipyard) is associated with the development of the maritime economy of Newport Beach and with World War II, as a local contributor to the war effort. Under Criterion 3, the South Coast shipyard represents an excellent example of maritime architecture in the City of Newport Beach, particularly on Balboa Peninsula. The buildings are in good condition and retain integrity of location, design, feeling, association, workmanship, materials, and setting. The site (aka South Coast Shipyard) buildings exhibit a collective distinction as a historic district. All of the buildings located within the subject property are contributors to this district. None of the buildings appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register, as the shipyard represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. None of the buildings appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register. To approve the project the City of Newport Beach, Planning Commission, must make a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093. This statement allows a lead agency to cite a project =s general economic, social or other benefits as a justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been avoided. The statement explains why, in the agency =s judgment, the project =s benefits outweigh the unavoidable significant effects. CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze M beneficial impacts in an EIR. Rather, EIRs are to focus on potential significant effects on the environment, defined to be adverse (Public Resources Code, Section 21068). However, these benefits can be cited, if necessary, in a statement of overriding considerations (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093). B. IDENTIFIED PUBLIC BENEFITS The City of Newport Beach, Planning Commission, in its review and consideration of the proposed Newport Bay Marina project, and in consideration of the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the project on Cultural Resources, makes the following determinations and finding regarding the Unavoidable Adverse Impacts for the overriding reasons listed below: The project will contribute housing in the City of Newport Beach by the provision of additional residential units (27 dwelling units). The provision of additional housing is a public benefit of the project. The project would provide housing opportunities that assist in meeting the objectives and policies the City=s Housing Element and SCAG =s Regional Housing Needs Assessment. 2. The project provides for the remediation of hazardous materials (contaminated sediment) located within the project boundary. The remediation will clean up the site and assure a healthy environment for future residents and businesses. Therefore, there is a public benefit of the remediation of hazardous materials that will occur as a result of the implementation of the project. 3. The project will provide an attractive and viable mixed use (residential /commercial) development that optimizes the project site's prime location adjacent to the marina. Additionally, the marina will continue to. be provided as well as an enhanced and larger boat slipway. The project will also improve water quality (post- construction) by the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and treatment of water prior to entering the bay. Currently, the site does not have a treatment system. Therefore, the project will provide an economic and public benefit of providing mixed -use of the property (residential, commercial, and marine uses) as well as improving the water quality from that which currently exists on site. 4. The project will provide for public access along the waterfront by implementing planned pedestrian walkways as well as a pedestrian/vehicular bridge crossing. The provisions of pedestrian walkways and the bridge crossing is a public benefit of the project. M& Alternatives to the Project were evaluated and considered by the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission, the alternatives included the following; No Project Alternative, Reduced Development Alternative, Commercial Development Alternative, and the Residential Development Alternative. Based on the analysis, it was determined that the Project is the alternative that best meets the City's objectives and goals in providing educational facilities and opportunities to the public in accordance with State law. The Planning Commission hereby finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR have been and will be implemented with the project, and that any significant unavoidable effects remaining are acceptable due to the above stated specific economic, social and other considerations, based upon the facts set forth above, in the Final EIR and in the public record of the consideration of this project. 57 u § k _ j § § z 0 § u ■ f ƒ § k 2 / t � V. f�L §� > 7 / k\ § « . \ /\ _ƒ ) 2 \kk()(\ƒ C) co ®k }) ƒ \) co 'a 2 % / M e co .(D 0 \) #)]3 ) {�G\qy&/ 03 -Q ~ Ij c Q ) / {\) \())\ L jz Q) ®f m) o (D co ® @ ¥ #ak) a � k : co 4t ) 10, f�L 53 )� > - +4! §\} f )k \ ~ ®� K /([ )\\ ± ; /( � \ � ) ) 6 2 -ri 10 }) { \) })) \«>e�* �al4a7 /t co Z. \ 3 G ƒ§)rk7§ #f@ §!*ems # E (; ^mL mr,z)a ^f� 7(( \L 2 5/ ■m> _ #$z\ ) \\) \\$ /\ \fa±,3 2 =&E %\ �j7) / \\ \ ®E \ s2o \2 @�\\,$ ƒ §f#Q «- �� -���_, ;),I &£ ■a �msA±s[a ID 00 �2�� �24:2�a�lk 53 _ S� (� > r)] a » 22t ±2) ` \ \ f ) ) 2 j £t®®) ® &® co 0 �ZZ3 , Z3�$�\ \/\ Cu �� \3 a) 13 ` } co °2 ` ! ���������� k�} ) \k S §(R� k Ea®f`? / § k 7JZ0)(D �a`mC !a# 2 { ®))j) \(GeQa df)\ - %Z0z co «a{ @ a -0 \)ta § /G222�;®®G� ° %)72! � ° =E aR = »t2 % -2a« o e] &tea /k �a /eE�,\ ®2a§ ■CL G s2 =a � m _ S� - 357 > . � \\ ) ' ( [ \ } �\ � ) ) 3 2 °2t&$2f®2@ta ® ®® \ E §i \mot co /.a9 [ tq> f ®QCoq)ca & @ - , \))0 >tU §@f) °D - G\ ~ /0 /A# ~ ■// EC43 z.0a|:§5 ` 3-0 C7\ƒR{ 2 ©© - ® t&\ ®a\)k { * ƒ0 ( ) \¥)f# 2 )\ /mtkee - j \)22)�f� @t a0M04=0(0 -0Q> . \ {Q f){2� / /,�Q. ZE, ;& $\»»OL 0 Saa .0 2z • .3 (2f /\§I \�Q E ~]-_z a > ® {\'2 C :0 /2�m •xel�o§S <_�z,;coE - oume%2olao a 2l�� �,E§2 ©#4 =&& 2a§ = \@»G %2m2%*Ais /2a - 357 - S §� > 2 / . /� \\ A) ae m �! \\ \ � ( l �E \ §) ƒ ) u - 0 7 [ )\ \ _ /f\�)Eaf ( \ E �u o - __ 0 cu \T® \fki �(\§- § � �\ \// \ \ \Q }\\ j /\ \ & >® %;f2, \ \m / *0 0k0 0 _ ( 0Cm f2 mk) /\0\k\\ /\a)0c0 )4)f 0 9 {k4m' ƒD & &.{- 2 �§Qeaƒaea 0 50) 0 0-6 7 C .0 = a , "Fa= 2\(Dg 0c 0 a 0k(a ) 0TSS} ;Emm0-5 (§3a) - U /m =.9 k)k /2\ - S C O R u u R L u d 60. S d O ao p .Q U c u L � a U L S a C O � O y � � o � Q o E 0 U 'o v .. . + '.Cof �.ti -m o o O cc w ui.2 c fY p cO ma m O V E C 0 s OC ) '� O m � rn v O. C> L N c m lob L w N C •N O N p C N— Z @ V w O O Q V E W d C N @ O w O. O 3@ N Q N N pN � rtep .'O U O U L C E N @ O. V O @ @ N N N .O .. LU O .0 QU i .. L U C w O O m y O Q E m m V ay ? c .N O @T ° '> C O> m o u d r C 4>1 o m� -E U c @ n J —N mU J @ d • 3 N pT Q0 O m O 'o C O N@ C N U U � C O •� L rn LVZ O m J m @ W T N.L.+ Q' V! 0) @ 3 J N m N V 2 9 C w N .6 'NO L W@ � G LO c O j m O O co V (D L A N !Q e m V O n O 4 @ O N O. NU N @ N O N O ~ a 0. @ C O O Q_ N L ~L E U a Q> N ) C ) (C ; 0,5 - U O w@ N vi (D Z � N� O _ 3 U @ L p N C T U x1m @ L• J O y a N w @@ 0 O O U m C F N N U N O 0) C 2 m & E � O J] C j 0 @@ U £ r j— m �" ..- V@ 3 O N N `• N O C N 0) U y "O E .L... N� O- N d L h O L y 2 C C O D C N l0 @ N cu C '� U a 2 OL N N N ❑ N Z Q a@ J J� a m N c N 'O u) J@� 'O d d Q L O C p� O U 8@ D Z @ Y L l0 N lC @ Q C L y) C ._ ._ w G U bb 0 v1 4o Sl (� � \ ID ff� f)j | °* \ /\ \ \� Qu SUS CL 2 � to co �! �Q� 3 -[f$ \ §)() q §;mZ §\§[Kt@ L E55) f § », §m =� o(f�2�f a c »mot\ £§(«%ec ®\( ®�3 �,ImZko / \ {e [{ !»_ {�kwk �tz@b ■ §-S: Q ! / \ /�kZZ \2ktf{) «) ®) \o « a22mk2 \ ) )�{ ) a \ ) I § ®?\§2( kƒftt \ \a ca z 0 Z3CD{ ()k§] \§§ § \( \\) \\ w mi t ® \ \ } 6! 7{ }§ 2y }{ a <ew« 2q (o ƒ ) ) ) § a e � e \ ID ff� f)j | °* \ /\ \ \� Qu SUS CL 2 � to co �! �Q� 3 -[f$ \ §)() q §;mZ §\§[Kt@ L E55) f § », §m =� o(f�2�f a c »mot\ £§(«%ec ®\( ®�3 �,ImZko / \ {e [{ !»_ {�kwk �tz@b ■ §-S: Q ! / \ /�kZZ \2ktf{) «) ®) \o « a22mk2 \ ) )�{ ) a \ ) I § ®?\§2( kƒftt \ \a ca z 0 Z3CD{ ()k§] \§§ § \( \\) \\ w mi t ® \ \ } \ ID ff� f)j | °* \ /\ \ \� Qu SUS CL 2 � to co �! �Q� 3 -[f$ \ §)() q §;mZ §\§[Kt@ L E55) f § », §m =� o(f�2�f a c »mot\ £§(«%ec ®\( ®�3 �,ImZko / \ {e [{ !»_ {�kwk �tz@b ■ §-S: Q ! / \ /�kZZ \2ktf{) «) ®) \o « a22mk2 \ ) )�{ ) a \ ) I § ®?\§2( kƒftt \ \a ca z 0 Z3CD{ ()k§] \§§ § \( \\) \\ w mi \ \ } ƒ ) ) ) § a e \ ID ff� f)j | °* \ /\ \ \� Qu SUS CL 2 � to co �! �Q� 3 -[f$ \ §)() q §;mZ §\§[Kt@ L E55) f § », §m =� o(f�2�f a c »mot\ £§(«%ec ®\( ®�3 �,ImZko / \ {e [{ !»_ {�kwk �tz@b ■ §-S: Q ! / \ /�kZZ \2ktf{) «) ®) \o « a22mk2 \ ) )�{ ) a \ ) I § ®?\§2( kƒftt \ \a ca z 0 Z3CD{ ()k§] \§§ § \( \\) \\ w mi c 0 L 'i Ca w v �G, yQ 4O�U�i o • °- o U e 0 0 � Q d � O O C S U U Z -Z a o 'ti m m c �% o o o� o o O N Y N M 2 a o ti Q� � � C �> d b y w y O � o a� .fi y tea, ° C'p is L� y tl 'Z i v> ofii es m v o h 0 .ti d w d b� fi � �'� 4� rU F fiU`o c ca Q O O fia Q ° Q au o 0, ca m m v s-t3 p a` y N d y fi s fi t s m C U N v y y o r 0 _a ° O J v b' w O ' 05 y `9 a. p '1Z a y s fi O Q v fi lb :ti o o e o a o oa o 0 0 m a c e ¢ 6:5 a 0 3-9 - M k� � . + - \\ �� ]« a �i \\ \ / !. \ §\ � ƒ ) _ g kz } }J\ \ \\ \� ®\ )f {# §: ).2 * § 3 »s \` _! ;§ \ \\ \ }<ae e j)])w, ) B;Q /� ¥4�, �§2$)\ 2 §»liar �� °`s %a ~72,� §a�� ( + \ \� ! \%; $o \ ,»° %»]®a/ ]fk)$Z'Z3 \z §i22( / {2 E)® ( \r\ §;y 4 &m# «�= /) ;«aJ <25;2cn'- 2.:!!�`� - M 6/ > \) ®\ %� \: ( /g%( }2 \% k\ § § § « < e k\ % \ \ § \ ) \ \ 2 6 2 *%a0v $st -Z �� _a2 t / §<j � \);< \ \t) §5]) \:j /�kfff 222c )7$ mG ra&, ~` ©�� ¥§k« 7 {st \a< /` 2 /'Z-3 [ aaf »f -` \ �� �k-a \ }) \-Z3 *)$\» � k }( \))( } \ -AEG |E Ck.Z )t =1 a) / \� / \\ , =� 2 \,]!ma{ 6/ ! §� � - $ + )§ 2 § \k k� \L2 . ( \ \ ) ) j a t ®® =m��,�S§ »# 'l0 7 {�13 yE� j� \!±! \±\ Z Eoc E�a \ / \) / \ } { }� ) .,ZSC) » ®° ®! 7 13 Q) « ^ � c§&omQL.m &?,a Ek) & §-t3 §�+\�a%$m f§ =`m %f a@( \£ts �® \#aCXq) \® E)r) «§]2;'a }\2455 \ \ {§ \ ~4 i ® ^ +/ ®! 0§2z ±§ )f\ o Q � 2— %-) e2�= f + \& { «Z@tz, ®Q�` -Z Eo )) §m, ..t (CS Q0 ® cqU) /§ � (D 13 .K;m�» ;� §- ( ■2 %! \;2e®& °»& �m¥2a&%a*74?:;§ taf,2` tea ®�`e C4 crcoE3 28 ! G O W � V � L Q d v L � � Q C O � O C u •� R. Os .d pp L .. F+> O u a r w U h c a o N � Y o u � 0 -� +tiy..O A •q d U A Y Y 'Gt S N tl tv h tl � tl N C y � tl o� ,CC � � � ,�, .Y i O ct _Oy w N O -y y U ? y� i Cal `ti O y tl tl •-�. � V Y N -O � 'y 4 A � y„ � CS y tl O A by Oi .0 .a y tl CN YO O ts ^ Y tl ti '� Y Y U 5 `O ti tl Cyi y b ,� # tl y tltl bo 1 '4t U O Y C3+ tl C :3 Z y : Za , m t3 . tl 13 U 7Z v ,O C ' ° O 1 w o t3 'C C. Q `U •� a o 0 tl: 4 M Y 0 $ ti ti a o r a cU � h c3 -q ci 'ii of 63 n 6f §� > - . $ § { \ \ \\ z « ƒ ) ) j ) &® 32 aar:eg �� ki \ f2})k]\§ � t / } \2(%/ / e � 'ZiL `(( b \ \�) ( \\�\) ®)& \Et °2 ^ -co k \/ } §�§3.0J -z �5; ® \§ §`* ®m\t / !m §ka ) &f&wf#m -` 22 ZND 2a3as#±f \4 2 a k ƒ\\ / m ® °`( /( \ x`(. —0 \': Sz2 e ®» ( ;J $ w w!t)� � 3 §%fa«4 \ ;7 \[ #k$#� )aa�§a\ � Z!� %r�[ x » ��2$3a,2 ■£a2�rlf_ \ 5) z2«s \5a4»: n 6f O O � u u � .O �L u 7 u 9+ a a Ly qU V U m .U• Y ° t ° o o o Q e C u q O v v d '� Qq 0 " 5 o " -• o l @ c u 4 a c p =w 0 0 s Q� o 0 0 cz 0 � U y a '"• U O C rd U U e rro CC) U o i+ U at U y' U Nt U az U U U U U o U a U a 4 4 4 C C d L J' K d 0 •j U w W N V J m IL IL a mE @ m -Z ell Q O N m q m W E N N U N o I ZR go, N m a 3 Wm mo`'�cca) �UUC'Z6 v 9 m e @@ a o � ° � � � q o � a •a?' N w � v � @ a Z a 3 y o u O y v etj •° w= -(03, N `° o'a o m o 4 a W 0. c �» 4 � i 4 Lt, o m F .. U O N w q C C O CC) �m � U u,..moaai Ec m co m m @ m° 06 m m � Q U o Q h m y m N Cl a' q �O 4 q 0 Qq 0 0 ° a ° o l @ c u 4 a c p =w 0 0 s Q� o 0 0 cz 0 � U y a '"• U O C rd U U e rro CC) U 0 U U U U U d L J' K d 0 •j U w W N V J m IL IL a mE @ m -Z ell Q O N m q m W E N N U N o I ZR go, N m a 3 Wm mo`'�cca) �UUC'Z6 v 9 m e @@ a o � ° � � � q o � a •a?' N w � v � @ a Z a 3 y o u O y v etj •° w= -(03, N `° o'a o m o 4 a W 0. c �» 4 � i 4 Lt, o m F .. U O N w q C C O CC) �m � U d' r is u,..moaai Ec m co m m @ m° 06 m m � Q U C O O m O h m y m N Cl a' U �O m CL c c m "'C.. U ° a ° o l @ c 4 a c p =w @ m r Q� O C cz � U y f9 � Lr C '"• U O C rd U U e rro CC) U d' r is EXHIBIT 2 PROJECT RESOLUTION G7 RESOLUTION NO. _ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING SITE REVIEW NO. 2001 -004, USE PERMIT NO. 2001 -038, NEWPORT TRACT MAP NO. 2004 -003 (VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP. NO. 16594), AND MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2006 -075 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD (PA2001 -210). The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by ETCO Development, Inc. with respect to property located at 2300 Newport Boulevard (PA2001 -210) and legally described as Lot 1 of Parcel Map P.M.B. 68148. The applicant seeks approval of a Site Plan Review, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Use Permit, and Modification Permit for the construction of a mixed use development consisting of 27 residential units, 36,000 square feet of commercial floor area, and the reconstruction of bulk heads and boat slips on approximately 2.36 acres in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square area. Section 2. A public hearing was held on October 5, 2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, Califomia. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meetings was given. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the meeting. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: Consistent with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the project site as Recreational and Marine Commercial which allows retail and office commercial uses and residential uses above the first floor provided that development does not exceed established floor area limits. The proposed project includes a mix of commercial and residential development that will replace the existing commercial development occupying the site. The project will provide a range of coastal - related and visitor - serving commercial uses and will provide residential uses above the first floor, as prescribed by the Land Use Element and zoning regulations that regulate development. Public access to the marina area is provided along the frontage of the project from Newport Boulevard. No significant natural landforms, including coastal bluffs and cliffs, are located on the site or in the immediate area. Public views of the marina area will be maintained through the public walk located along the frontage of the development and from Newport Boulevard via a view and access corridors through the development. The existing boat slips will be reconstructed and will continue to accommodate marine uses and a new 10 -foot wide public walkway will provide public access to the waterfront. The proposed project is designed to complement the nautical and historical maritime character of the area. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 2. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates the project site as Recreational and Marine Commercial and permits retail and commercial uses and residential uses above the first floor. Further, the CLUP outlines a number of policies that require new developments to provide lateral public access along the bayfront and access from public streets. The project proposes to establish commercial uses with residential uses above, and to provide both Resolution No. _ Page 2 of 18 vertical and lateral access to and along the waterfront. Due to these factors, the project is deemed consistent with the the Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan. Consistent with the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan The Cannery Village Specific Plan is intended to provide an active pedestrian- oriented, specialty retail area with a wide range of uses including retail, professional offices that provide service directly to the public, residential uses above the first floor, commercial and marine - related uses. The project provides commercial retail and office uses with residences above the first floor, and incorporates publicly accessible plaza and walkway along the waterfront to promote pedestrian- orientation. The proposed architecture of the project incorporates building materials that reflect an image of permanence, stability and strength, and quality, including the use of ceramic tile, stone, brick and brass consistent with the McFadden Square design theme. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan. Use Permit for Building Height The project incorporates open terraces and balconies on upper floors, undulating wall planes along the Newport Boulevard that result in visual relief, and an open corridor has been provided within the center of the project. In addition, the roof lines have been varied in order to give visual relief that results in an appearance that is in scale with the overall design of the project. These features increase open space that is visible by the public. The open aspects of the terraces and balconies and location of the portions of the buildings that exceed the basic 26 -foot height limit will provide a slightly greater view of the sky for someone on the street and result in building design that is balanced and in more in scale with the overall building bulk than could be constructed within the basic height limit. 2. The building height above 26 feet creates the ability to construct two levels of residential use above first floor commercial. The increase by 9 feet also allows more open space and less building area /bulk at the Plaza Level, thereby decreasing overall building bulk on the site and increasing the view corridor through the project form the public streets. The increase height allows greater flexibility in design, which is exhibited in the project, and is architecturally superior to that achievable within the 26 -foot height limit. 3. Consistent with the eclectic nature of McFadden Square, there is a variety of building heights in the area. Surrounding buildings are generally one and two story at or near the 26- foot height limit. Some projects include adjacent restaurants, and other projects in the vicinity that exceed the 26 -foot height limit. A variety of roof planes, vertical wall setbacks and balcony areas are incorporated into the design of the buildings as well as interior open space, plaza and pedestrian corridors within the interior of the project, which helps lessen the bulk of the buildings as perceived from Newport Boulevard and the Arcade. As a result of the presence of other buildings of comparable height in the area and the location, design and bulk of features of the project that exceed 26 feet, and the setback of upper floors on the buildings fronting Newport Boulevard, the increased height to accommodate these specific features is not an abrupt change in scale. Restricting the buildings to 26 feet in height would not improve views of the bay through the property. In addition, the project has been designed to be consistent with the design theme, building materials and design features included in the Specific Plan #6. 70 4. The commercial floor area ratio of the project FAR and the maximum residential floor ar addition, the proposed number of dwelling maximum of 43 dwelling units, therefore the area due to the additional height. Site Plan Review Resolution No. _ Page 3 of 18 is 0.35, which is below the maximum of 0.50 are ratio of 0.75 has not been exceeded. In units is 27, which is less than the permitted project does not achieve any additional floor The site is flat, developed with older buildings and paved with concrete and asphalt with limited landscaping. There are no unique natural landforms or coastal bluffs or other environmental resources. No known archaeological and paleontological resources are known to exist and are unlikely to exist due to the disturbed nature of the site. The site will be graded to maintain the top of bulkhead elevation at 9 feet above mean low water (8.67 NAVD 88). This results in a grade level that approximates the current grade level and does not constitute significant alteration of the site as the grade will be similar to abutting properties. The development of the lots provides a 10 -foot bulkhead setback, within which a 10 -foot easement will be dedicated for public access to the waterfront, which does not exist today. 2. The proposed eleven buildings are consistent with the development standards of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan with the exception of building height. Their height and bulk is comparable to other structures located in the vicinity. 3. The development proposes to increase and enhance the view from Newport Boulevard through the center of the property by providing a plaza area in front of and on either side of the slipway that is proposed to be maintained. No public parks are in the vicinity where views would be impacted. The project provides a 10 -foot public access easement within the 10 -foot bulkhead setback along the channel and access will be provided from Newport Boulevard via the Plaza area and from Arcade /22n4 Street via a Paseo. From these easements and access/view corridors, that presently do not exist, public views will be enhanced. 4. The project site is not subject to any increased potential of geologic hazard due to its location over that of other properties in the area. All applicable City and State building codes and seismic design recommendations contained within the Preliminary Geotechnical investigation will be applied through the issuance of a building permit, which will minimize possible risks of liquefaction damage during an earthquake. 5. A noise analysis was completed for the project and it indicates that noise levels will be maintained at levels consistent with the Noise Element of the General Plan and the Community Noise Ordinance through appropriate noise mitigation measures that have been included in the Environmental Impact Report and incorporated as conditions of approval, therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will be subject to excessive noise. The residential portions of the project will need to be sound insulated sufficiently to ensure compliance with interior and exterior noise standards of the Community Noise Ordinance. 6. The Planning, Public Works and Building Departments have reviewed the site plan for proper pedestrian and vehicle function, and a traffic study has been completed in conjunction with the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report. The Public Works Department is satisfied with access and circulation on Newport Boulevard and area intersections are not expected to be impacted. Public access to the water front along the Rhine Channel is provided in accordance with the Zoning Code. A 10 -foot wide horizontal easement that is parallel to the water front will be dedicated to the public and will be improved with a walkway by the applicant. The easement 7/ Resolution No. _ Page 4 of 18 and walkway will be directly accessible by the public from Newport Boulevard and Arcade /22otl Street via two access easements. The project has been conditioned to require the dedication and recordation of vertical access easements from Newport Boulevard and Arcade /22ntl Street. 7. The air conditioning units will be located on the roofs of the buildings behind roof parapets and will not be visible from the ground. Trash storage areas will be accommodated within the subterranean parking level, and will only be visible for trash - pickup. 8. There are no residences adjacent to or in close proximity to the project are few and are located within the existing mixed use district. Due to the small size of the commercial uses and the fact that that they are within a mixed use project, land use conflicts or other negative impacts to nearby residences are not anticipated. Modification Permit for Front Setback The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code in that the five -foot front yard setback would result in a narrow area that would be difficult to landscape and maintain, and, as designed, protective columns are provided that extend to the front property line that provide buffering and protection to pedestrian traffic against commercial doorways that open outwards. Further, the project has provided a 10 -foot access walkway along the bay frontage, which results in setback along that frontage where a typical rear yard setback is not required. In addition, a 10 -foot walkway is maintained along Newport Boulevard. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood in that the extension of the building fagade elements will bring those elements into alignment with adjacent existing commercial development thereby improving the streetscape views along the portion of Newport Boulevard which the project fronts, and results in a more symmetrical design for the project in terms of coordination with surrounding development. The project is also compatible with existing McFadden Square development south of Newport Boulevard. 3. The granting of the modification for front yard setback will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood in that a bulking analysis prepared for the project concludes that the overall building bulking/intensity is improved over the current development on the site due to the stepping -back of wall, inclusion of balconies on upper floors, inclusion of open space within the interior of the project, inclusion and improvement of public view corridors through the site, and provision of pubic vertical and horizontal access to the bay. In addition, the proposed setback will not restrict public views along Newport Boulevard. Tract Map 1. The subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and the Cannery Village/McFadden Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code and Subdivision Map Act and conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance. 2. The site to be subdivided is flat and developed with urban uses. No other physical constraints to construction are known. The proposed subdivision will result in a single lot subdivision for 7a- Resolution No. _ Page 5 of 18 condominium purposes in order to sell individual residential units. Applicable planning policies and codes permit mixed use development where one residential unit is permitted above a commercial space with a maximum number of dwelling units not exceeding one dwelling unit for every 2,375 square feet of net lot area. That standard results in a maximum of 43 dwelling units permitted, and the project proposes 27 dwelling units. Therefore, the site is suitable for the type and density of development proposed. 3. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project. It concludes that the environmental impacts of the project can be mitigated to a less than significant level with the exception of historical resources, in which case mitigation measures have been included and a Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. The site is developed in a highly urbanized area and no significant natural resources exist in the area of the project site except for Newport Bay. The project includes a system of filtering storm runoff on site before it is discharged into the storm water system. The project also includes improvements to the local storm water system where a fossil type filter will be installed to treat the first or low flow discharge prior to discharge to Newport Bay. In addition, the loss of marine habitat area resulting from the closure of an existing slipway will be mitigated through the expansion and enhancement of the second slipway. These features will mitigate and improve water quality thereby avoiding impacts to fish or wildlife. 4. The project consists of a mixed use commercial and residential that includes 27 condominium dwelling units permitted by local ordinances and the General Plan. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the proposed subdivision pattern would generate any serious public health problems. 5. An existing view easement through the approximate center of the project site will be maintained and enlarged. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the new project. The project will result in the creation of public access easements through the property and along the waterfront that do not currently exist. Therefore the proposed subdivision will not adversely impact public easements. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19 of the Municipal Code and Section 66411 of the Subdivision Map Act and public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.91.040 of the Municipal Code. 6. The project site does not include any lands subject to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). 7. The project is consistent with the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan and the provisions of the Recreational and Marine Commercial (RMC) District regulations of the Specific Plan. 8. The design of the proposed project provides each lot with direct southern exposure to the maximum extent feasible, therefore, solar access and passive energy conservation goals are met. 9. The proposed subdivision facilitates the creation of 27 new residential units that likely would not be developed due to current housing trends although they could be developed under existing zoning provisions without the subdivision. These 27 new units will assist the city in meeting its housing needs. Public services are available to serve the proposed development of the site and the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project indicates that the projects potential environmental impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significance with the 13 Resolution No. _ Page 6 of 18 exception of historical resources, in which case mitigation measures have been incorporated and a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been included. 10. Waste discharge into the existing sewer will be consistent with retail commercial, office and residential use due to the design and limitations of the use property established by existing zoning regulations. It is not anticipated that waste discharge into the sewer from these uses would violate any Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements or Orange County Sanitation District standards. 11. The proposed project is entirely within the coastal zone and the site is presently developed or occupied with both coastal - related and non - coastal related uses, coastal- dependent uses or water - oriented recreational uses. Although the City of Newport Beach does not have a certified Local Coastal Program, the project is consistent with the city's certified Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Coastal access, both visually and physically, is improved by the project through proposed public walkway /access easements and by an increase in the view corridor through the property. The Recreation policies of the Coastal Act require that sites suitable for water - oriented recreational activities that cannot be supplied inland must be protected. These policies prioritize water - oriented recreational activities over other land uses and encourage aquaculture and water - oriented recreational support facilities. The portion of the project site proposed to be subdivided is not suitable for water - oriented recreational activities due to its size and location, however, the existing marina is being upgraded and a slipway is being enlarged and enhanced to allow for increased boating activity. Further, the project preserves and enhances the primary marine dependent use by reconstructing the marina consistent with the California Department of Boating and Waterways standards. Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Site Plan Review No. 2001 -001, Use Permit No. 2001 -022, Newport Tract Map No. 2001 -002 (Tentative Tract Map. No. 16292), Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2001- 003 & Traffic Study No. 2001 -004, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached. Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is call for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 74 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 5" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2006. L" Jeffrey Cole, Chairman Robert Hawkins, Secretary AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Resolution No. _ Page 7. of 18 757 Resolution No. _ Page 8 of 18 Exhibit' A" Conditions of Approval 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans dated September 11, 2006, except as modified below. 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. Project approvals, with the exception of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the effective date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Reasonable extensions may be granted by the Planning Director in accordance with applicable regulations. 4. The applicant shall obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit for the project. 5. In lieu of the requirement for 10% of the proposed dwelling units to be affordable as defined by the City's Housing Element, a fee of $25,000 per unit built for a total of $675,000 shall be paid to the City to satisfy the project's affordable housing requirement. 6. The developer shall pay a parkland dedication in -lieu fee pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of the Municipal Code prior to the issuance of a building permit for each unit or recordation of the final tract map. If the project is recorded in phases, the fee attributable to each phase is due prior to the recordation of each phase. 7. Exterior decks, exterior balconies, exterior terraces, setback areas, breezeways for vehicular parking areas, open vehicular parking areas or exterior walkways shall not be covered or enclosed without the prior approval of the Building and Fire Departments and the Planning Commission. 8. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, any local amendments to the UBC, and State Disabled Access requirements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 9. All trash receptacles shall be stored within approved enclosed spaces or shall otherwise be screened from public view as determined by the Planning Director. 10. The commercial spaces within the project shall not be converted or used for residential purposes. Residential spaces shall be used for residential purposes and shall not be converted or used for exclusive commercial purposes. Commercial activity within the residential portions of all buildings shall comply with Section 20.60.100 (Home Occupations in Residential Districts). 11. The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or licensed architect for on -site and adjacent off -site planting areas. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials 76 Resolution No. _ Page 9 of 18 selected. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 12. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 13. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall dedicate a 10 -foot wide public access easement along the entire water frontage of the property to the City of Newport Beach. The access easement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Newport Beach City Attorney and Coastal Commission prior to recordation. The easement shall be improved with a hard paved surface and railings as approved by the Public Works Department. In addition, minimum, 6 -foot wide lateral easements shall be provided within the plaza area from Newport Boulevard and the paseo area from the Arcade to connect to the 10 -foot waterfront easement. The easements shall be directly accessible by the public from Newport Boulevard and not be gated, enclosed or otherwise blocked by present or future property owners or occupants of the property. Present or future property owners or occupants shall not place or store any objects including but not limited to boats, tables, chairs, umbrellas and shade canopies within the easement area. All of the foregoing easements shall be delineated on the final parcel map prior to recordation of said map and on the building plans prior to issuance of building permits. If the applicant proposes to pull building permits prior to the recordation of the easements, a separated instrument shall be prepared and recorded to the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney prior to issuance of the building permits. 14. The project must comply with the interior and exterior noise standards for residential uses of the Noise Ordinance. The interior noise standard is 45dBA between the hours of 7:OOAM and 10:OOPM and 40dBA between the hours of 10:OOPM and 7:OOAM. The exterior noise level standard is 55dBA between the hours of 7:OOAM and 10:OOPM and 50dBA between the hours of 10:OOPM and 7:OOAM. An acoustic study shall be performed by a qualified professional that demonstrates compliance with these standards of the Noise Ordinance. This acoustic study shall be performed and submitted to the City Planning Department prior to occupancy of the project. If the exterior noise levels exceed applicable standards, additional mitigation shall be required which may include the installation of additional sound attenuation devices as recommended by the acoustic study and subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 15. Each residential unit and each commercial building shall be separately served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Building Department. 16. All improvements within the public right of way shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 17. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with 77 Resolution No. _ Page 10 of 18 state and local requirements. Large construction vehicles shall not be permitted to travel narrow streets and alleys as determined by the Public Works Department. 18. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 19. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements and public improvements prior to recording of the tract map. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 20. The applicant shall provide wheel stops or other approved protective barrier methods as necessary within the parking areas. The parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic markers subject to the approval of the Public Works Department or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. 21. Fair Share traffic mitigation fees shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit for new construction on the project site. 22. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this permit, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 23. Overhead utilities serving the site to be subdivided shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is physically infeasible. 24. The final tract map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to recordation of the final map, the surveyorlengineer preparing the map shall submit to the County Surveyor and to the City of Newport Beach a digital - graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. That prior to recordation of the final map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The map to be submitted to the City shall comply with the City's CADD Standards — scanned images will not be accepted. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 25. Easements for public emergency and security ingress /egress, weekly refuse service, and public utility purposes shall be dedicated to the City and shall be made part of the tract map. 26. Construction surety in a form acceptable to the City, guaranteeing the completion of the various required public improvements, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the City approval of the Final Tract Map. 7g Resolution No. _ Page 11 of 18 27. The existing curb drain located under the Newport Boulevard sidewalk near the northerly property line that discharges onto Newport Boulevard shall be removed and reconstructed with a minimum 5 -foot section of the existing concrete curb and gutter at said location. 28. The entire length of the existing Newport Boulevard concrete sidewalk fronting the development shall be reconstructed. The existing curb access ramp that serves the existing Newport Boulevard crosswalk shall be reconstructed to comply with current ADA requirements. Provide full width cold mill and reconstruct the top 2 -inch of the existing Arcade roadway pavement fronting the development. 29. The applicant shall reimburse the Public Works Department for the cost of curb repainting /stencil along Newport Boulevard in the vicinity of the project. 30. The applicant shall adjust the existing and /or install new water valve boxes and sanitary sewer manhole frames and covers within the existing Newport Boulevard sidewalk fronting the development. 31. The applicant shall replace all existing street light pull boxes within the Newport Boulevard sidewalk fronting the development with Eisel Enterprises No. 3-1/2F pull boxes and covers per City Standard Plan No. STD- 204-L. Any damage done to the existing electrical wiring will require full length wiring replacement between pull boxes. No splices between pull: boxes shall be allowed. 32. Construction of waterway improvements shall be to the approval of the Public Works Department, including the requirement for installation of water agitator(s) if deemed necessary by the Department. Construction of the bulkhead and gangways shall be performed only during periods of low tide. Plastic sheeting shall be placed below the work location to collect the fallen construction debris. The collected debris shall be removed and disposed of at the end of each workday. 33. Where deemed applicable by the Public Works Department, ADA compliant curb access ramps shall be constructed along the length of the on -site pedestrian path. 34. All storm drain and sanitary sewer mains shall be installed with MacWrap to minimize the potential of seawater contamination from potential main leakage. 35. Garages and carports shall have a minimum clear interior width of 9 ft. -3 inches and depth of 18 ft. -6 inches, and all garage doors shall be a minimum of 8 feet wide. 36. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 37. All work within the public right of way must be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 38. Street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown of standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer. All non - standard improvements shall be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer and the City Council. 79 Resolution No. Page 12 of 18 39. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, street trees shall be required and shall be subject to the review and approval of the General Services and Public Works Departments. 40. An encroachment agreement is required for all non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way. Prior to the issuance of an encroachment permit for the construction of non- standard improvements, an association or maintenance assessment district shall be formed that will be responsible for the maintenance of the non - standard improvements. This association or assessment district must be formed and approved by the City prior to recordation of the tract map or issuance of any Grading or Building Permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 41. A site plan shall be provided prior to recordation of any tract map or issuance of a building permit for new construction showing the location of all proposed street lights, fire hydrants, trees, landscape, vents and other obstructions. 42. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all applicable City plan check and inspection fees. 43. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create' a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut - off fixtures. 44. All access drives into the parking area shall be designed with ramp widths and gradients to the requirements and approval of the City Fire Department, shall be capable of supporting fire apparatus with a total weight of 72,000 pounds, and shall be marked as fire lanes. 45. Fire hydrants shall be spaced at a maximum of 300 apart to the approval of the Fire Department. 46. All elevators shall be gurney accommodating in accordance with Chapter 30 of the California Building Code, 2001 Edition or as otherwise approved by the Fire Department. 47. Automatic fire sprinkler system (NFPA13) shall be required for all buildings including the underground parking area. 48. Class I Standpipes shall be provided in the underground parking area, on the fire access road on the deck, and in stairwells of Buildings B and C. 49. A fire alarm system shall be provided to the approval of the Fire Department, including provisions for occupant alerting in the retail and office suites. Residential units shall be provided with smoke detectors located in accordance with the California Building Code and powered through the fire alarm control panel. The residential system shall be two phases: first smoke detector activated shall alarm in the unit only; second smoke detector or activation of waterflow, switch shall put all buildings into alarm. 50. The docks shall be provided with a Class III Standpipe System in accordance with City of Newport Beach guideline "Fire Protection for Marinas, Wharves and Piers." M Resolution No. _ Page 13 of 18 51. Prior to the issuance of a Public Works Encroachment Permit or the first grading permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall prepare to the approval of the City Engineer a Construction Traffic Management and Control Plan that shall include phasing details, construction timing /hours, all construction- related traffic including timing, haul routes, signage, detours, and location(s) that debris will be trucked to for disposal. The plan shall include provisions for a traffic staging area to be located off -site and in a location outside of Balboa Peninsula; shall provide that all construction related vehicles including the vehicles used by workers to commute to the site, be parked either on site or in an off -site staging area; and shall include provisions for construction - related activities and traffic during summer months (beginning the Friday preceding Memorial day and ending on Labor Day) be restricted in a manner so as not to impact normal vehicle and pedestrian traffic along Newport Boulevard, Seashore Drive and Balboa Boulevard between 32nd Street and "A" Street. 52. All noise generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours of between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction activities are prohibited on Sundays and Federal holidays. The provisions of Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity — Noise, shall be met at all times. 51 Mitigation Measures — Aesthetics: a. aPrior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the project for review and approval by the Planning Director. Said landscape plan shall enhance the property and provide visual softening of the proposed three -story buildings and site lighting. The landscaping shall be installed in recognition of vehicular and pedestrian circulation (sight distance considerations, etc.) and safety. b. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a site lighting plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. Building and parking lot lighting shall be designed and installed so that all direct lighting rays are confined to the site and adjacent properties and roadways are protected from glare. 54. Mitigation Measures — Air Quality: a. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing the scheduling construction activities to minimize project- related emissions. b. During demolition and excavation, daily total haul trucks shall travel no more than a cumulative 2,600 miles hauling materials from the project site to the dumping site and back again. Prior to commencement of demolition and grading, the project applicant shall submit to the City calculations showing the proposed travel route for haul trucks, the distance traveled, and how many daily truck trips that can be accommodated while keeping the cumulative miles traveled to below 2,400 miles each day. The daily truck trips shall not exceed this amount during demolition and excavation. O/ Resolution No. _ Page 14 of 18 c. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce odors from construction activities. 55. Mitigation Measures — Biological Resources: a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a survey will be conducted for the presence of eelgrass and Caulerpa. The biological assessments conducted by CRM and MBC indicate that neither species is present in the project locations, but it is required that nor more than 90 days nor less than 30 days prior to initiation of actual construction that both eelgrass and Caulerpa surveys be conducted in September or October, in which case the results are relevant until the following growth period beginning in March. In no case, will an eelgrass or Caulerpa survey be conducted from November to February (non - growth period) be acceptable. b. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Use and Occupancy, the project applicant shall implement the recommended mitigation pertaining to the replacement and restoration Pickleweed and the mudflat area presented in the mudflat area presented in the biological resources report prepared by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 56. Mitigation Measures — Cultural Resources: a. During construction activities, if archaeological and /or paleontological resources are encountered, the contractor shall be responsible for immediate notification and securing of the site area immediately. A qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning Director shall be retained to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of cultural resource finds. If major archaeological and /or paleontological resources are discovered which require long -term halting or redirecting of grading, a report shall be prepared identifying such findings to the City and to the County of Orange. Discovered cultural resources shall be offered to the County of Orange or its designee on a first refusal basis. b. The historical study prepared by LSA dated October 2005 recommends the mitigation to reduce the significant impacts to historical resources through the following methods: Documentation of the South Coast Boatyard shall be provided by the developer prior to issuance of demolition permits by the City of Newport Beach. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Planning Director shall be provided an historic narrative, photographs, and architectural drawings of all on -site buildings in accordance with Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level 1 documentation requirements. The Planning Director shall ensure that the HABS documentation is deposited with the Newport Beach Historical Society, the City of Newport Beach Public Library, the Newport Harbor Nautical Museum, and the SCCIC located at California State University, Fullerton, prior to the issuance of demolition permits. ii. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Planning Director shall review project building plans and permits to ensure incorporation of design features referencing and memorializing the character - defining features of the South Coast Boatyard into design of the project, including, but not limited to, incorporation of a commemorative plaque depicting the buildings and their context to the historical importance of the pa Resolution No. _ Page 15 of 18 structures on site. Such plaque shall be oriented to a public right -of -way, so as to be visible and accessible to the public form such right -of -way. iii. If previously undocumented cultural resources are found during construction activities within the current project area, a qualified professional archaeologist shall assess the nature and significance of the find in order to recommend appropriate mitigation measures, halting construction activity in the vicinity of the find, if necessary. 57. Mitigation Measures— Geology and Soils: a. The project shall implement the recommendations presented in the geotechnical reports prepared by Petra presented in Appendix D, Volume II of the EIR. b. Prior to the commencement of construction, design criteria and project specifications that include ground improvement techniques such as stone columns, use of deep foundations which penetrate below the liquefiable zone, pressure grouting, or appropriate combinations of these measures shall be incorporated into the plans for the project. c. Develop design criteria and project specifications that recognize groundwater may be encountered at the proposed depth of the partially subterranean parking area. Construction of mat foundations or structural slabs may be required. Design of utility lines and surface drainage in the subterranean parking should also consider the presence of a shallow groundwater table. d. Use appropriate type of cement and concrete specification according to Table 19 -A-4 of the Uniform Building Code to mitigate contact with contusive soils and sea water that may come in contact with footings in the area. 59. Mitigation Measures— Hazards and Hazardous Materials: a. If during grading and/or construction activities a potential contaminated area is encountered, construction shall cease in the vicinity of the contaminated area. An assessment shall be performed by a qualified hazardous materials specialist to determine the extent and type of contamination. If the site investigation reveals that contamination with pollutant concentrations in excess of Action Levels, as defined by the California Department of Health Services and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the site shall be remediated during the project construction phase in compliance with the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5) standards established the California Department of Health Services, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and the requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22 and applicable Federal regulations. b. The proper use and maintenance of construction equipment, along with the use of general common sense, greatly reduces the potential for contamination. All grading and building plans will include the following construction related measures and that the measure shall be followed by the construction contractor and crew: The storage of hazardous materials, chemicals, fuels, and oils and fueling of construction equipment shall be a minimum of 45 meters (150 feet) from any drainage, water supply, or other water feature. �3 Resolution No. _ Page 17 of 18 contamination resulting from spills and/or leaks shall be remediated as required by Federal and /or state law. Storage areas shall be constructed so that containers shall not be subjected to damage by construction and maintenance equipment. iii. Stockpiles of bulk granular building materials shall be covered and secured. iv. Any areas of exposed soil, such as dirt stockpiles, dirt berms, and temporary dirt roads, shall be stabilized with controlled amounts of sprinkled water. v. At the close of each working day, any materials tracked onto the street or laying uncontained in the construction areas shall be swept up, and any trash accumulated in construction areas shall be disposed. vi. Concrete, asphalt, and masonry wastes shall be contained and these wastes shall be disposed away from project construction sites. vii. Spill kits containing absorbent materials will be kept as the construction site. viii. Fuels and other hazardous materials will be stored away from project drainage d. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan, which includes a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and over watering. This plan shall be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The landscaping shall be installed and maintained in conformance with the approved plan and maintenance program. 61. Mitigation Measure — Noise: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, detailed engineering construction plans will be submitted to the City for review and approval. The engineering plans shall provide details such as roof and wall elements, room dimensions, window and door dimensions, attic configuration and building insulation. Said plans shall demonstrate and ensure that the City's noise standards are met for proposed missed -use project (residential and commercial). 62. Mitigation Measures — Public Services: a. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, project construction plans shall be submitted to the City Fire Chief for review to verify that all fire protection is designed in compliance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department. b. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall pay any applicable development school impact fees as required by State law. c. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall pay any applicable park impact fees as required by City of Newport Beach and State law. 63. Mitigation Measures — Public Utilities and Service Systems: a. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the project applicant shall coordinate with utility and service organizations regarding any construction activities to ensure existing if Resolution No. _ Page 18 of 18 facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public agencies. b. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the project applicant shall coordinate with utility and service organizations regarding any construction activities to ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public agencies. RN.— EXHIBIT 3 EIR VOLUMES I & It RESPONSES TO COMMENTS I, A EIR Volumes I & II previously distributed under separate cover. Both documents are available in the Planning Department. `" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Newport Bay Marina Project September 22, 2006 `l' TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pane No. Introduction.............................................................................................. ............................... 1 Response to Comments State of California, Department of Fish & Game — August 9, 2006 ...........w ................ 3 State of California, Department of Transportation, District 12 — August 14, 2006....... 4 Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee — August 21, 2006 ......... 5 Central Newport Beach Community Association — August 31, 2006 ......................... 16 Orange County Sanitation District — September 1, 2006 ............ ............................... 17 California Coastal Commission — August 31, 2006 (Received on 9/7106) ...................18 Appendices A Comment Letters Introduction This document has been prepared to respond to public comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Newport Bay Marina Project. The DEIR was subject to a 45-day public review period from July 18, 2006 to September 1, 2006. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15105(a) identifies that when a Draft EIR is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies, the public review period shall not be less than 45 -days, unless a shorter period (not less than 30 -days) is approved by the State Clearinghouse. The Draft EIR (both volumes) was made available for public review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department and the Public Library in Newport Beach. The City of Newport Beach ( "City") received 5 comment letters on the Draft EIR during the 45 -day public review period. Pursuant to CEQA, the District is under no obligation to respond to comments submitted after the conclusion of the Draft EIR public review. At the time of preparation of this document, 1 written public comment letter was received by the City following conclusion of the review period on September 1, 2006. Pursuant to Section 15132(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the District has provided responses to "significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process." CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 provides that in reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effect of the project might be avoided or mitigated. The CEQA Guidelines (15204(a)) also note that reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commentors. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requests by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR. CEQA Section 15204(c) further advises, "Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence." Section 15204 (d) also states, "Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency's statutory responsibility." Section 15204 (e) states, "this section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section." rM Each comment letter received during and after the public review period is included in its entirety in the Appendix of this document. In order to organize responses and avoid verbatim reiteration of each comment, a number has been given to each comment and is shown in the right margin of the comment letter. Comments and Responses are identified in accordance with this numbering system. For example, the response to Letter Number 1's second comment is labeled as "1 -2 ". 9ak Comment Letter No.1 State of California, Dept. of Fish & Game August 9, 2006 Response to Comment. 1 -1 The comment does not require a reply since it primarily describes the project as identified in the DEIR and defines the role of the Department of Fish & Game in relation to the proposed project. 1 -2 The project applicant will be required to obtain approval of all applicable permits including a remediation plan from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWCCB). The applicant as well as the City of Newport Beach has been closely coordinating with the RWQCB in regards to the project's remediation. The remediation will include protective measures such as the use of silt curtains etc. The removal and disposal of the containments will be subject to compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. The Draft EIR, Volume 11, Appendix F presented a Work Plan (for site remediation) that has been prepared for the project by Anchor Environmental CA L.P. dated July 7, 2006. The document addresses the work plan for implementing a water quality monitoring program to ensure field construction activities at the project site do not result in the redistribution of contaminated sediments known to be present in the adjacent waters of the Rhine Channel. This draft Work Plan was submitted to the RWQCB. A final Work Plan in conjunction with a planned application for a 401 Water Quality Certification under the Clean Water Act. The Work Plan presented in Volume 11 of the Draft EIR is detailed in addressing contaminated sediment dredging and monitoring. The activities will be closely monitored, for example, water column turbidity will be monitored on an hourly basis at several locations for the first four hours of construction and then once per day thereafter within 10 feet of the outside of the silt curtain. The recommendation by CDFG regarding the use of the watertight clamshell bucket for minimizing the dispersion of containments will be considered and evaluated as part of the Final Work Plan. The Work Plan is subject to review and approval by the RWQCB and must meet their requirements. The following mitigation measure will be included in the Final EIR (Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials) to ensure implementation and compliance of a Work Plan for site remediation. 93 MM 4.6.4 -3: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide evidence that a Final Work Plan (for remediation) has been approved by the RWQCB and that said plan provides for protective measures for contaminated material removal including measures such as use of silt curtains and a watertight clamshell bucket for minimizing the dispersion of containments. Said Plan shall be subject to review and approval by the RWQCB. 1 -3 The project description (Section 3) of the Final EIR will be revised to include the approximate amount (i.e. 200 square feet of area) of contaminated sediment to be removed. A work plan (remediation plan) has been prepared and was presented in Appendix F of the Draft EIR. The work plan addressed measures that would be implemented during the contamination clean up, including methods to minimize the dispersion of contaminated sediment and on -site monitoring. Additionally, the final work plan is subject to review and approval by the RWQCB who is charged with the authority over this aspect of the project. 1-4 This comment does not require a response since it acknowledges that the project would not have an adverse effect on existing marine resources and habitats within the area when considered with the Department's comments in this letter, and that previous agency comments have been adequate addressed in this EIR. 4 9f Comment Letter No. 2 State of California, Dept. of Transportation — District 12 August 18, 2006 Response to Comment: 2 -1 The comment does not require a response since it does not raise any CEQA related concerns and/or issues. i* Comment Letter No. 3 City of Newport Beach — Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Committee August 21, 2006 Response to Comment: 3 -1 The FEIR will be revised to identify the existing number of boat slips as the "existing 21- boat slip marina," and the proposed, reconfigured marina as the "proposed 19- boat slip marina." Upon implementation of the project, the marina will have two less slips than currently exist. 3 -2 Section 15381 of CEQA defines a "Responsible Agency" as a public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which lead agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or negative declaration. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "Responsible Agency" includes all public agencies other than the Lead agency which have discretionary approval power of the project. There are only two A06asible agencies that have been identified for the project: the California Costal Commission and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SCA(NMDKdoes not have a "responsible agenc)" role but rather a consulting (or reviewinainterest in the project since an EIR was required and air quality was evaluated as part of the EIR scope of analysis. 3 -3 Detailed project building plans showing components such as stairwells and elevators are on file with the Planning Department. The Final EIR will include a corrected Exhibit 3-7 that removes references to the City of Corona and that defines RCP, CCP, CP and V. 3-4 In regards to the project construction schedule, Appendix A is the Air Quality Study which includes a projected construction schedule for the purposes of evaluating potential air quality impacts that could occur as a result of project construction activities including site preparation (remediation etc.) and building construction. The schedule presented in Section 3.2, page 3 -24 of the Draft EIR describes the construction timing the applicant is anticipating could occur. The construction of the project will occur in phases since the site contains existing structures and also requires remediation. The first phase will include demolition of existing structures on site, remediation of contaminated material, and construction of the new seawall. The second phase of the project will involve construction of the proposed structu�s. To provide further clarification each phase could take up to 24 months. 94 3-5 The reconfiguration the marina (and construction of new sea wall) is part of the overall project. This aspect of the project is included in the construction phasing estimates and will be included in Phase 1. The project's conditions of approval (COA) include a requirement for a detailed construction traffic management and control plan that will include phasing details (i.e., dates and times), traffic control measures and so forth. 3-6 Section 3.5 listing of project alternatives will include identification of the alternative presented in Section 8.0. The Final EIR Table of Contents and Section 3 will be revised in response to the comment relative to listing the project alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR 3 -7 The existing 21 -boat slip marina will be reconfigured. The existing marina as well as the future reconfigured marina has the right to operate per that allowed by the Specific Plan. Allowable uses include commercial uses such as charter boats. The project itself does not propose any marine use different than that which is already allowed at the site. The project is required to comply with all City applicable regulations pertaining to parking, noise and traffic. This includes all uses (i.e. commercial/retail, residential, and charter boats etc.). 3 -8 Section 3 (Project Description) of the Final EIR will identify the square footages of the residential units (parking is calculated and shown as part of the parking structure). The 27 residential units total 77,101 square feet. Parking for the residential portion of the project is provided on the upper deck of the parking stricture. On -site parking is provided for approximately 58 vehicles in combination of garages, carports, and open parking spaces. The upper parking deck and underground parking lot provide a total of 226 spaces which complies with the City Code requirement of 226 spaces. The project statistical (data) summary is also provided in Appendix A (Notice of Preparation) in Volume 1 of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR (page 3 -5) identified that full size project plans are available at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The full size plans included detailed legends that show all square footage of uses and parking data 3 -9 The comment raises the concern regarding potential aesthetic impacts specifically those on a "scenic vista" as a result of the implementation of the project. From the bayward view, the vista not only includes the water but also the site itself. The site currently is developed with existing uses and is not considered a "scenic" resource. Therefore, the view from across the bay would continue to experience a view of the water but with project implementation would also have a view of the project site which is proposed to be developed with new structures compared to that which exists on site today (i.e., buildings, boat slipways, outdoor areas containing parking/boats and other storage). Although the view will change from that which currently exists, the view will be aesthetically pleasing. In regards to the view from Newport Boulevard, the view currently is limited. The view from Newport Boulevard consists of site buildings, parking lot, boats and some view of the bay depending on vehiclesiboats parked in the parking area. Exhibit 4.1 -1 through Exhibit 4.1 -3 clearly 97 show that from Newport Boulevard the existing view is limited and defining it as "scenic" and a substantial loss does not correspond with what's experienced at the location. The EIR concluded that the project does impact the visual character of the area but also determined that this impact is not considered substantial and adverse. The landscaping plan presented in the EIR is a conceptual plan. A detailed landscape plan (including plant species, sizes, locations, irrigation etc.) will be required to be reviewed and approved by the City as part of the project conditions of approval. 3 -10 All project construction (including demolition and site contaminant removal) will comply with applicable Federal, State and local regulations. Due to the age of the existing structures on -site there is the potential that the buildings will require removal of lead and asbestos materials during demolition activities. The Draft EIR, Volume 11 (Appendices) contained a Work Plan which identified measures that would be implemented in relation to the removal and disposal of contaminated soils. Also see response 1 -2 (page 3 of this document) which addresses the Work Plan for remediation of contaminated soils. The following mitigation measure will be included in the Final EIR (Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials) to ensure implementation and compliance with the demolition of existing structures on site and compliance with applicable regulations pertaining to the proper removal and disposal of containments (i.e. lead, asbestos etc.). MM 4.6.4 -4: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall submit to the Fire Chief a hazardous material disposal plan which identifies the procedures and method of removing and disposing of lead and asbestos in relation to the existing buildings on the site. 3 -11 Mestre Greve Associates, Inc. confirmed that several sources were utilized for computing emission factors. These sources include the EMFAC 2002 model (SCAQMD), CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD) as well as the URBEMIS 2002 model (SCAQMD). The URBEMIS model was used for computing heavy construction equipment and it was also used for on -site (post construction) emissions. The tables presented in the appendix of the Air Quality Study also list the source utilized to model air quality calculations. 3 -12 The mitigation measures presented on page 4 -25 will be correctly reflected in the Executive Summary Table 1 (page 2-4). 3 -13 A detailed construction traffic management and control plan will be required per the project's conditions of approval. This plan will include phasing details, staging areas, construction timing/hours, construction traffic controls including; construction timing, haul routes, signage, detours, and location(s) that debris etc. will be trucked to for disposal. The plan will include special attention to the timing (season such as summer months) of construction traffic conditions. Prior to any commencement of Ti construction activities the plan will be subject to review and approval by the City of Newport Beach. 3 -14 Marine biological resources were evaluated by a qualified marine biologist. The biologist assessed the site on land as well as in the water (under water). In addition to the 2004 survey, MBC Applied Environmental Sciences conducted surveys on February 9, 2006 and June 27, 2006. The biology report addresses the potential impacts of the project taking into consideration the site location (i.e. low or high tide). MBC Applied Environmental Sciences have confirmed that the site surveys conducted did take into account change in tides (i.e. low and high tide). Since fish are water dependent, high tide would have the most fish present. Fish would move (swim) to other areas during work activities (i.e. during high tide). 3 -15 The Final EIR, pages 4 -37 and 4-40 will be revised in response to the comment. 3-16 The Final EIR pages 4-44 and 4-63 will be revised in response to the comment. 3-17 The Draft EIR correctly discloses the information that corresponds to that presented in the Paelontolgoical Assessment (page 7) prepared by ARMC. Therefore, no revisions are necessitated per the comment. 3-18 The Final EIR will include the recommended revisions to page 4-65, 4-66 and 4-68 (mitigation measures will be revised as suggested by the comment) in response to the comment. 3-19 The Final EIR page 4 -69, 4 -72 and Exhibit 4.5 -3 will be revised in response to the comment. 3 -20 The site lies within the Newport - Inglewood fault zone and the Final EIR will clarify the discrepancy identified by the comment. Page 4 -74, 4"' paragraph will be corrected in the Final EIR to replace the word "top" with "to". 3 -21 Given the location of the site, the property is susceptible to a tsunami which is common to low elevation coastal areas. The Final EIR page 4-76 will be revised in response to the comment. 3 -22 The Phase 1 (December 3, 2003) identified potential PCBs present in fluorescent light ballasts (based on the age of these transformers) in the existing buildings. The light fixtures will be removed and disposed of in compliance with applicable hazardous materials regulations. The Phase II (January 6, 2004) identified PCBs concentrations in the soil (350 cy) but are below the threshold requiring disposal. 3 -23 The project applicant and City of Newport staff have been coordinating with the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). All site assessments and a work plan have been submitted and reviewed by the RWQCB. A proposed final remediation plan (work plan) will be subject to the review and / approval the RWQCB. The project will be required to comply with all requirements of the RWQCB. 3-24. See response 3 -15 above. The remediation plan (work plan) will include stringent safeguards for the removal of the contaminants as required by the RWQCB. The contaminated soils will be removed from the site. Also see response to comment 1 -2 (page 3 of this document) which addresses the Work Plan which will be implemented during remediation of the site. In addition to the Work Plan, a conceptual Water Quality Management Plan was prepared by SP Consulting Group dated February 20, 2006. The Draft EIR (page 4 -96 through 4 -101) identifies BMP's and mitigation in regards to water quality that will be required by the City and the RWQCB. Currently, the site does not provide for treatment of water that enters the bay. During construction and post - construction, the project will implement BMP's that will improve the water quality from that which exists now. 3 -25 The Final EIR page 4 -103 2"d Paragraph, 2"d sentence will be revised to add an "a" before 102,800 sq foot lot. 3 -26 The project (including the residential units) will be required to comply with the City's noise requirements for indoor and outdoor noise levels (regardless of the season). 3-27 The noise assessment was conducted by an acoustical engineer who determined the appropriate locations for noise measurement monitoring. These locations were based on the potential for the greatest amount of noise levels for a 24 -hour average time period. The locations also have to take into consideration the greatest amount of noise (i.e., the greatest source is associated with vehicular traffic) and the location of proposed uses such as residential. 3 -28 The purpose of this exhibit is to show typical construction equipment noise levels. The construction equipment that will be used on site is comparable to that identified per Exhibit 4.9-3. With the advancement in technology and upgrades to construction equipment over the years, there is the likelihood that that these noise levels represents a "worst case" scenario. 3 -29 The development is required to comply with all applicable fire safety regulations. The DER identifies as an example the various aspects of fire safety that will be evaluated by the City's Fire Department. The Fire Department determines what will be implemented and required per fire safety regulations. The Draft EIR (page 4- 130) has identified that all proposed structures will be fully fire sprinklered. Additionally, the Newport Beach Fire Department has reviewed the proposed project design plans and has determined that the project will not result in any significant impacts to facilities, staff and /or services. 3 -30 See response to comment 3 -5 which states that a detailed construction traffic management and control plan is required per project conditions of approval. This plan will address construction timing and hours (including those during summer 10 M, months). No project construction activities can commence until all potential construction details are approved by the City of Newport Beach in consultation with the Fire Department and Police Department. 3-31 Mitigation measures are stated directly above Draft EIR Section 4.10.5 in Section 4.10.4. The mitigation measures are numbered MM 4.10 -4 -2 and MM 4.10 -4. -3. 3-32 See response to comment 3-5 and 3-22. 3-33 The traffic analysis was prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. retained and under direction by the City of Newport Beach. The scope of analysis (including timing of counts, location, intersection analysis etc) was determined based on the recommendations of the Public Works Department and consulting traffic engineer. In regards to parking, the project is designed to meet the City parking code requirements. 3 -34 The project includes demolition of all existing structures on -site (44,000 square feet). Therefore, the project involves construction of 27 residential units (trip generation is based on type of units not square footage) and 36,000 square feet of retail uses. 3 -35 The project alternatives were evaluated in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. 3-36 See response to comment 3-26. The project is eliminating 44,000 square feet and providing 27 residential units and 36,000 square feet of retail (not 94,000 sq.ft.). The traffic study takes into account the vehicular traffic currently being generated by the existing use. The comment also raises the point that page 4 -135 of the Draft EIR assumes that all residential traffic will leave the area. The comment raises the question that people who live at the site will be traveling locally to the grocery store, dinner, hardware store etc. The traffic study analysis identified that all residential traffic will leave the area as a worst case scenario (from a traffic impact calculation) during peak hour distribution only. This assumption actually provides a conservative analysis of the traffic conditions. Since many uses (i.e. restaurants, grocery stores etc.) are within walking distance of the site, the traffic study does not take this into account for peak hour distribution but rather utilizes a calculation based on all residential traffic leaving the area (i.e. this would result in a higher peak hour trip generation). The traffic study evaluated primary intersections. The numbered intersections (22nd, 23rd, and 2e etc.) are operating at acceptable levels of service. 3 -37 The project parking meets the City parking code requirement. All uses (commercial, retail and residential uses) will be parked per code on -site. The parking analysis meets the requirements of CEQA. I /0/ 3 -38 The traffic report includes the dates November and December 2005 since that is when the study was printed and made available for use in the Draft EIR. It is not uncommon that analysis and report preparation for any technical study (including traffic) be conducted prior to the date that the report is printed. Additionally, the traffic study was revised following the initial draft so that the traffic numbers would be updated to reflect the most current City traffic modeling. The contents of the report are clear to disclose when surveys were conducted and so forth. 3 -39 The traffic study refers to a u -tum (since from a traffic engineering perspective this is how it's defined). However, this turn primarily allows vehicles headed south on Newport Boulevard to turn left and then drive in a southerly direction on Newport Boulevard. This turning movement (or u -tum) currently exists within the project vicinity and near the site. 340 See response to comment 3 -25 and 3 -29. The parking is required to meet City code. Initially when the trafficiparking study was prepared on- street parking along Newport Boulevard was calculated for the project's parking total. However, the Draft EIR clarified that all parking for the project will meet code and be provided on- site. The total parking provided is 226 spaces which meet the City Code requirement of 226 spaces. 3-41 The parking structure ramp (down) off Newport Boulevard has a grade of 12.4% and the ramp up is 4.6% (up in the direction of the residential). The ramp grade down is 10.6% from the Arcade Street entrance and a 7.2% grade going up (towards the residential). Additionally, a truck delivery area is provided for the project on the deck of the parking structure. 3 -42 See response to comment 3 -25 and 3 -29. The parking is required to meet City code. Additionally, commercial spaces are required to comply with City standards (STD - 805 -L -A and STD - 805 -L -B). 3-43 See response to comment 3 -25. Additionally, the traffic analysis evaluates the project's impacts as well as cumulative traffic impacts per the City's traffic model. Therefore, regardless of the "season" when the traffic counts are done a "worst case" scenario is evaluated on a cumulative analysis basis. Additionally, the TPO analysis conducted studies typical weekdays. In regards to construction traffic please see response to comment 3 -5 and 3-22. 3-44 A complete traffic analysis has been conducted by an experienced and qualified traffic engineer and in consultation with the City's traffic engineer. Exhibit 3-3 (Aerial Photo) in Section 3 (Project Description) portion of the Draft EIR is for the purpose to acquaint the EIR reader with the location of the subject project site in relation to the surrounding developed land uses and nearby roadways. 3 -45 The Final EIR will reflect "4.12 Utilities and Service Systems" instead for 4.13. The project is required to comply with the RWQCB regulations including ground water. 12 �40A All public service and utility agencies (i.e. phone, electrical water, sewer, solid waste, trash pick up, etc.) were consulted during the Notice of Preparation (dated February 23, 2005), during he preparation of the EIR and also notified of the Draft EIR. No concerns were raised by any of these entities in regards to the proposed project. Additionally, a mitigation measure is presented requiring consultations with utility and service organizations. 3-46 The Draft EIR (page 3-5) identified that full size project plans are available at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The full size plans included detailed legends that show all square footage of uses and parking data. The EIR for the proposed project evaluated the project based on the project design plans and site uses that have been proposed by the project applicant. The applicant will be required to submit for review and approval detailed building plans addressing final location of stairwells, elevations, trash enclosures. In regards to parking, the project meets City code. 3-47 The mitigation measure is included in the Draft EIR to require the applicant to consult with and plan for existing and project relative utilities and services relative to the project. Some of these entities are separate from the City of Newport Beach. For example, solid waste service, telephone%able service, sewer etc. Therefore, the purpose of this mitigation measure is to involve these outside entities and develop the property minimizing any impacts relative to these facilities and services. Also see response to comment 3-46. Public service and utility agencies were consulted with in relation to the preparation of the Draft EIR. None of these agencies raised any concerns relative to the project. 3-48 Page 5 -1 of the Final EIR will be revised in response to the comment. The reference to a school a will be deleted and the EIR analysis provided in this section does relate directly to the proposed mixed -use project. 3-49 See response to comment 3-5. 3 -50 The Final EIR (page 6-2 and pg 4 -141) will be revised in response to the comment for clarification purposes. 3 -51 The Draft EIR analysis in each topical section takes into consideration the cumulative impact of the project. For example, the air quality, noise and transportation analyses include an evaluation • of existing conditions, project completion, and build -out of the City (includes all approved/planned projects). The proposed mixed -use project is replacing existing site uses (& structures) with 27 residential units and 36,000 square feet of commercial uses. Although this project involves different components that may not seem typical (i.e. site remediation, demolition of structures etc.) the actual proposed use (27 units and 36,000 sq. ft. of commercial/retail) of the site is limited in size. It should also be recognized that regardless of the proposed project, the site is currently contributing to environmental 13 /63 factors such as traffic, air quality, noise, and water quality impacts. The Draft EIR concluded that no adverse cumulative impacts were identified. The only impact that can not be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant are those in relation to historical resources. 3 -52 The project alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR comply with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines identifies that an EIR need not consider every feasible alternative to the project but rather a reasonable range of alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. Additionally, the alternatives are evaluated not only as a comparison of potential environmental impacts but also in light of the project objectives of the proposed project. Section 8.1.2 (page 8 -2) of the Draft EIR concludes that the environmental impacts of the reduced development alternative would roughly be the same and not significantly reduced from that of the project. Additionally, this alternative reduces the housing that would be provided and does not strive to meet the goals and objectives of the City's housing element. The EIR provides the reasonable array of alternatives and evaluates the project alternatives in compliance with the CEQA Guidelines and for consideration by the decision makers and the public. 14 /of Comment Letter No. 4 Central Newport Beach Community Association August 31, 2006 Response to Comment: 4 -1 See response to comment 3 -3 (Comment Letter No. 3). 4 -2 The project design including architecture complies with the Specific Plan (page 3). The site is technically within the McFadden Square area as the border between the areas is 2e Street as specified in the City's General Plan. Page 4 -110 identifies the area theme including architectural styles and elements. 4 -3 The project as designed provides for a view corridor between the buildings (this also breaks up the massing of the structures) and maximizes public access by providing a pedestrian/vehicular bridge and walkways along the waterfront. The comment suggesting elimination of Building K has been considered and it has been determined that little would be gained by removing this building from the project design. The existing view in this area primarily consists of a parking area associated with the existing building on the site. This parking area is currently used by vehicles, boats and other storage (marine related) that further limits and minimized the aesthetic quality experienced by motorists and pedestrians passing by the properly. With the provision of the view corridor and improved public access to the waterfront, impacts relative to the limited existing view associated with development of the project are not considered substantial or adverse. 4-4 See response to 3-15 and 3 -16 (Comment Letter No. 3). Additionally, Section 4.6 (Hazards & Hazardous Materials) of the Draft EIR addresses this topic. 4 -5 The mitigation measure meets the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines as Weil as complies with City environmental procedures. The project design and building plans are subject to City of Newport Beach staff review and approval. The Specific Plan also provides additional architectural guidelines to ensure that the project is compatible given the location and surrounding land uses. The project as architecturally designed is consistent with the applicable Specific Plan. In regards to the existing structures on site, the historical resources study prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. noted that the South Coast Shipyard was identified as a local historical site, representing historiclarchitectural themes of local importance. The LSA study also identified that the City of Newport Beach does not have a Historic Preservation ordinance and only encourages the adaptive reuse and preservation of buildings that are recognized by the City to be Landmark Buildings. The shipyard is not recognized by the City to be a Landmark Building. 15 /os' 4-6 See response to 3 -15 and 3 -16 (Comment Letter No. 3) and Comment Letter 5. The WQMP is subject to review and approval by the RWQCB and is the governing authority relative to the WQMP. 4 -7 See response to comment 3 -5 (Comment Letter No. 3) which addresses construction related impacts and mitigation. 4-8 See response to comment 3 -25 and 3 -31 (Comment Letter No. 3) which addresses traffic and parking. 4 -9 The project is required to comply with all City codes including parking. The marina uses are allowed per the Specific Plan. 4 -10 The project alternatives presented in the Draft EIR included a No Project Alternative. This alternative assumes that the proposed development would not take place and that the site would remain as currently used. Additionally, it should be noted that although the project site will not be used as a shipyard, the site will continue to retain marine uses by the provision of the 19 -boat slips (a coastal depend use), preservation and enhancement of the larger boat slipway, and by providing pedestrian access by means of the bridge and walkway along the waterfront. 4-11 The Draft EIR included an analysis of potential noise impacts. The noise study conducted by an acoustical engineer identified that the most significant noise source would be that from vehicular traffic (i.e. Newport Blvd.). The study also recommended mitigation specifically for residential units to reduce the noise levels to acceptable levels and in compliance with the City s noise regulations. Additionally, in regards to potential noise associated with nearby commercial/retail and restaurant uses, as with all new development projects, the buyers of residential units will be presented with disclosure statements in compliance with applicable state law. 16 /dam Comment Letter No. 5 Orange County Sanitation District Letter dated September 1, 2006 Response to Comment: 5 -1 Comment noted. The project will be required to comply with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements and City of Newport Beach. 17 /07 Comment Letter No. 6 State of California — California Coastal Commission Letter dated August 31, 2006 (Letter received by City on September 7, 2006) Response to Comment: 6-1 The comment letter dated August 21, 2003 previously submitted by the Coastal Commission commented on a project design quite different than that proposed by the current property owner (ETCO Development). The previous development proposed filling both boat slipways. In response to the concern$ raised by the Coastal Commission in 2003, the current owner completely redesigned the project to retain and enhance the larger of the two boat slipways. Not only will this slipway be retained as an open water area on -site but will also be enlarged and existing containments removed. The proposed project also provides for a pedestriardvehicle bridge, a view corridor between the buildings, and pedestrian access to the waterfront by providing walkways within the site in addition to along the waterfront. 6-2 The project has been designed so that there is a mixed -use of commerciaVretail and residential uses within the property. Commercial parking areas are provided on the ground floor of the parking structure located on the bayward side that faces the waterfront in conjunction with commercial /retail uses. At this time there is not a predetermined list of the tenants but its anticipated that the type of tenants will comply with applicable requirements of the LUP and the Speck Plan which governs the development of the site. 18 State of California - The Resources Agen !NDEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME &R it 0 htto: / /www.dfa.ca.aov Iva Marine Region *20 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 100 POWER Monterey, CA 93940 HELP CAUFORMA CCISERVEENEROY . August 9, 2006 James Campbell Senior Planner Cily.of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell: 1" ll y CIJ 0'% i s .. +ii ;Y . `r' N AUG 14 2006 COMMENT # The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the City of Newport Beach's Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Newport Bay Marina Project, located at 2300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, Cal'rfomia (SCH No. 2003071144). The proposed project involves the redevelopment of a 2.4 acre site along the Rhine Channel that currently accommodates 44,300 square feet of office and commercial space on a 102,800 square foot lot. The proposed project would involve a mixed -use development with 27 residential units and 36,000 square feet of commercial uses. All existing buildings would be demolished and new buildings would be constructed in their place. A parfial subterranean garage would be built. The existing 485 -foot long bulkhead would be replaced with a portion of the bulkhead being moved inland. The 21 -boat marina would be reconfigured and the overall coverage of bay habitat would be reduced from 9,818 square feet to 8,543 square feet. An existing boat slipway (slipway 1) that extends 10 meters in from the bulkhead (currently covered by wood planks) would be closed and filled. A second boat slipway (slipway 2) that extends 20 meters in from the bulkhead would be widened to 35 feet. The project also involves removal of contaminated sediments near and within the boat slipways. The contaminated material will be dredged with land based equipment and disposed of at a licensed facility. Biological surveys of the area did not reveal any eelgrass habitat within the project vicinity. The Department is a Trustee Agency and a Responsible Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Sections 15386 and 15381, respectively. Pursuant to Section 1802 of the Fish and Game Code, the Department has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. As a Trustee Agency, the Department must be consulted by the Lead Agency during the preparation and public review for project-specific CEQA documents if there are potential impacts to biological resources. The Department is a Responsible Agency for a project affecting biological resources where the Department will exercise its discretion after the lead agency, to approve or carry out a proposed project or some facet thereof (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381). Under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), it is the Department's charge to conserve, protect frestore, and enhance any endangered species or any threatened species and its habitat (Section 2052 of the Fish and Game Code). We provide the following comments on your project. Conserving California's RVAfe Since 1870 1 -1 /16 Mr. James Campbell August 8, 2006 Page 2 COMMENT i Filling in slipway 1 will result in the permanent loss of 765 square feet of intertidal habitat. However, slipway 2 will be reconfigured and widened resulting in a net increase of 790 square feet of intertidal habitat and 136 square feet of subtidai habitat. Additionally, a portion of the existing seawall will be moved inland creating an additional 412 square feet of new bay bottom habitat and the entire seawall will be moved inland by 1.5 feet resulting in a gain of 658 square feet of new bay bottom habitat. Mitigation measure 4.3.4 -2 will restore the picldeweed currently present in slipway 2 and will add additional pickleweed. Overall, the project design will result in an increase of intertidal mudflat, benthic bay bottom, and open water habitat. Page 4-36 of the DEIR states 200 square feet of contaminated material will be dredged as part of the proposed project. Disturbing contaminated sediments has the potential to result in the resuspension and redistribution of sediments and increased exposure of chemical contaminants to marine and estuarine resources, as well as a temporary decrease in dissolved oxygen. Accordingly, we recommend the use of sift curtains to 1 -2 contain the fine sediments, and 9 feasible, a watertight clamshell bucket for minimizing the dispersion of contaminants. Additionally, removal and disposal of contaminated materials should be done in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations. The Department understands that the removal of hazardous waste will have a beneficial effect to water quality and the marine environment in general. The project description (section 3) does not include the amount of contaminated sediment or other sediment to be removed, the resultant depth of water after dredging, 1 -3 and best management practices to avoid spread of contamination during removal activities. The final EIR should discuss these issues in greater detail. The Department reviewed this project in 2003. At that time we were concerned about the loss of intertidal and subtidal habitat, the fate of contaminated sediments, and bay coverage. However the project's redesign and the current project description have alleviated these concerns. Accordingly, the'Department believes that the proposed project, as currently described, would not have a significant adverse effect on existing marine resources and habitats within the area, provided our above comments are taken into consideration. As always, Department personnel are available to discuss our comments, concerns, and recommendations in greater detail. To arrange for a discussion please contact Ms. Marilyn Fiuharty, Environmental Scientist, California Department of Fish and Game, 4949 Viewridge Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123, telephone (858) 467 -4231. Sincerely, Gary B. acey Regional Manager Marine Region cc: Seepage 3 1 -4 /I/ Mr. James Campbell August 8, 2006 Page 3 cc: State Clearinghouse (original sent to Lead Agency) 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Marilyn Fluharty CDFG- San Diego Robert Hoffman NOAA Fisheries 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 Long Beach, CA 90802 -4213 / DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Disbid t2 3337bfdkVbMDtiV4CgSoite380. siEC .,•� �;Y Tak Fa(949) aKi(%9)M4- 2592:.::..: _ CITY _ i d L„�H AUG 18 zoos Auk' 14, =6 , Mr. James Campbell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658 Subjects: Newport Bay Marina Dear W. Campbell, File: IGFVCEQA SCFI#:2003071144 Log #: 1281 -B SR #: PCH *! it Fyn p~l &m-v~ COMMENT # Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Newport Bay Marina Project. The proposed project consists of demofitkm of all casting buildings on site and a mixed -use development of 36,000 square feet of commercial uses and 27 residential units. The site is located at 2300 Newport Boulevard. The DemW State Route to the project site is Pacific Coast highway. Caltmas District 12 states is a reviewing agency on this project and has no comment at this time However, in the event of any activity in Cabe& right -of -way, an encroachment permit wiff he required. Applicants are required to plan for sufficient permit processing time, which may include engineering studies and environmental documentation. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could potentially impact the transportation Wilma. ff you have any quesbous or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Mole" at (949) 724 -2267. ARA: C: Terry Roberts, Offioe of PI and Research Terri Pencovic, Caacam HQ IGRKAmmuFaty Planning Gale McIntyre, Deputy District Director Raouf Mousse, Traffic Operations South 2 -1 J13 To: Patricia Temple, Planning Director, City of Newport Beach From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee City of Newport Beach Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Newport Bay Marina Project Date: August 21, 2006 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the subject project. We offer the following comments in hopes of improving the final Environmental Impact Report on this important project for the city of Newport Beach and the Balboa Peninsula 1.0 Introduction COMMENT t Page 1 -1 (please note that the page numbering is wrong) discusses reconfiguration of "the existing 19 -boat slip marina ". However, elsewhere in the DEIR (pg. 3 -5 for example) the discussion refers to "reconfiguration of the existing 21 -boat slip marina" and existing slipways. To avoid confusion, the DEIR should use consistent numbers and terminology 3 -1 regarding the number of boats that can be accommodated in the completed project configuration. Will the completed project be able to accommodate more, less or the same number of boats as the current configuration? Section 1.7 (bottom of page 1 -3) states that "Responsible agencies in respect to this project m" include..." It seems that the authors should be clear on which agencies are responsible versus those that have a less rigorous consultation role. Are responsible 3 -2 agencies those that must give specific approval for the project to proceed? Does SCAQMD have a responsible or consulting role in this project? 3.0 Project Description Although the project description is generally informative, the colored Exhibits would be much more useful is they had better annotation. For example, "Exhibit 3-6 has red arrows which denote public walkway access and a clear note to that effect would be useful. Exhibits 3 -10 to 18 show plans for various project levels, but do not clearly 3 -3 identify elevators and stairways and their terminations/destination. RCP, CCP, CP and V should be defined on the Exhibits. Exhibit 3 -7 has note 7 referring coordination with the city of Corona. Is this correct? What does Corona have to do with these easements? Section 3.2, page 3 -24, states that "project (structures) will be constructed in phases and is estimated to have an 18 -24 month construction schedule per phase". This could be interpreted to mean that construction would least from 36 months to 48 months (2 phases) 3 -4 or longer. This statement seems to be in conflict with the schedule discussed in Volume II, Appendix A, pp 11 -12, where demolition, grading, excavation and construction are said to be completed in 3 years (January 2008 - December 2010). The most correct estimate of the project schedule would be helpful in the Project Description Section. -----� Furthermore, neither reference to the schedule includes specific reference to the t reconfiguration of the marina. Is this considered to be part of the construction phase? ! 3 -5 //f -2- COMMENT # Section 3.5, page 3 -26 mentions 3 project alternatives (i.e., No Project, Reduced Development, Commercial Development), but this is inconsistent with Section 8.0, pp 8- 3 -6 1 to 4, where 4 project alternatives including residential only, are evaluated. This fourth alternative should be recognized in Section 3.5 The project description should be clarified with regard marina. If these uses are to include charter or party boats, impacts of those uses should be analyzed. to the commercial uses of the I the noise, traffic and parking 3 -7 The project description should also clarify the square footage of the residential units, and 3 -8 whether the square footage includes any parking space. 4.1 Aesthetics Sections 4.1.2, pages 4 -3, identifies an aesthetic significant impact if "the project would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista ". The report goes on to explain the architectural features of over 260 ft. of building on Newport Blvd., which is at least 35 ft. high (and nearly twice that frontage on the bay side). Even with careful attention to keeping the architecture compatible with other structures in the McFadden Wharf area, it is impossible to avoid an "adverse effect on scenic vistas" from Newport Blvd., the bays and residences across the bay. Because of this, the conclusion on pg. 4 -10 that "project impacts relative to scenic vistas have been determined to less than significant" is exceedingly optimistic. Refer to Exhibit 4.1 -1 (the Newport Blvd. View) and Exhibit 4.14 (the bay view). They leave no doubt that the scenic vistas are adversely affected. Since the project is expected to meet all of the zoning and planning department requirements, the only mitigation available is landscaping and foliage. Since the referenced exhibits show sparse plantings, which are barely visible against the buildings and do little to soften the building features, it is important to put heavy emphasis on MM 4.1.4 -1 (pg. 4 -12). It would be helpful in the DEIR to show better examples of how this mitigation measure would be effective in providing "visual softening of the proposed three -story buildings" from both Newport Blvd. and bay viewing locations. 4.2 Air Quality 3 -9 Volume II, Appendix A deals with various air pollution issues relating to proposed project. One contaminant, lead. (Pb), is described as a potential problem, but never analyzed or discussed again. Since this project involves demolition of old structures, which probably contain lead products, and excavation of soils that may contain lead 3 -10 contaminants from old shipyard activities, what provisions are planned to protect the work crews and other persons in the vicinity from danger of exposure to lead products in fugitive dust and/or demolition debris? Appendix A contains several tables of air- pollutant emissions for various phases of the proposed project and draws conclusions from these tables. SCAQMD recommends that Urban Emissions ( URBEMIS) Model 2002 be used for the computations needed here, but 3 -11 it is not mentioned as the source for the data presented. Was URBEMIS 2002 used to compute the project data? CADomnnents and Satings\cheryN_ocal Se tinp\Temporary Internet Files \Content.tE5\QNA73W5F\Newport Bay Marina EIR ttf8- 16-06 REVISEDAm Ps -3- COMMENT # Air quality mitigation measures for this project are listed on page 4 -25 of the DEIR (MM 4.2.4 -1, 2 and 3) and seem reasonable in the context of the analyses of Appendix A. 3 -12 However, Executive Summary Table 1 (pg. 2-4) does not make correct reference to these mitigation measures. This should be corrected to eliminate potential confusion regarding the intentions of the proponent. Section 4.23 Impacts Short -Term Air Quality Impacts J Page 4 -19, last paragraph states the following: "The project information indicates that approximately 44,300 sq. ft. of the existing building will be demolished. Based on these square footages, it is estimated that a total of 166,125 cubic feet of structures or 922 cubic yards of demolition debris will be hauled off site. If the project removed material at a rate of 100 trucks per day, the demolition would be removed in one day." They also indicate there will be 10 worker vehicles traveling to and from the site each day- Page 4 -20, next paragraph discusses dirt removal and states the following: "Approximately 30,000 cubic yards of dirt will be excavated from the site for the subterranean parking structure. Where the material will be hauled will not be known until after the grading permit is issued and just before the excavation begins....... If the project removed material at a rate of 100 trucks per day, the excavated material would be removed in 22 days". The DEIR neglects to inform the reader that to get 100 trucks off and on to the site in one day is virtually impossible. The DEIR fails to tell the reader of a plan to accomplish this. There is no mitigation measure which describes what impact 100 trucks in a day will have on the Peninsula since there is only one way in and one way out It further does not tell the reader how they will be staged, how they will get on and off the property, and where the employees will park. Section 4.3 Biological Resources Page 4 -31 Mudflats - During the December 2004 field observations, the tide was low and muddy. Should consideration be given during times of high tides with the possibility of other creatures present? Could they be present during high tide? Pages 4 -36 to 4-37 - If they are concerned with the dredging impact and the turbidity impact, are they taking into consideration: 1. Which tide has the most fish present 2. Flow of the water in the harbor with the mov*, tides? For example; if they are working during high tide, what would the impact be when the tide pulls the water out of the harbor during low tide. 3 -13 3 -14 CADw=ems mW SeltingskhwylTocal SeurogslTemporwy Intemet FileslConteat1E5 1QNA73W5F4Newpmt Bay Marina EIR r0- 16-06REVISEDAoc NO -4- COMMENT # Page 4 -37 Contaminants - 2"d sentence - The past dredge survey dates should be included in that section. Page 4-40 Indentation needs to be more consistent. 3 -15 Page 4-40 Last Paragraph - Perhaps instead of using the word "depauperate," a more �: layman term might be more appropriate. Section 4.4 Cultural Resources Page 4-44, last paragraph. Add the words "architectural resources" to the end of the last sentence. 3 -16 Page 4-63, Last paragraph, last sentence. Add the words "one of" after the phrase "if the resource meets." Page 4-64, Section 4.4.3 Impacts, Section (b) Paleontology Resources. The entire section needs to be revised because it indicates the project may have an impact on Paleontology Resources. This conflicts with Page 4-43, which states the project site possesses no 3-17 valuable paleontological resources because it is underlain with artificial fill (see Page 4- 43, Section 4.4.1 Environmental Setting, Section b) Page 4-65, the bottom of the page includes three separately headed paragraphs that discuss artificial soil. Consider consolidating all three paragraphs into a single paragraph. Page 4-66, Section C, Historical Resources, lst Sentence. Change "National Register" to "California Register" in accordance with the significance criteria discussed on Page 4-62. Page 4 -68, 1"` complete bullet point, I" sentence. Add the word "former" and "the" to the end of the first sentence so it reads "... historical importance of the former structures on the site." Page 4-68, 151 complete bullet point, last sentence. Clarify that the public right -of -way where the plaque will be placed will be oriented to Newport Boulevard and not the other public right -of -way on Arcade Street where the plaque would be more difficult for the public to observe. Page 4 -68, 2nd complete bullet point. If undocumented archaeological resources are discovered, the current mitigation measure halts construction activity once the archaeologist is brought to the site and assesses the nature of the find. By this time, any valuable resources would likely be destroyed. Revise the mitigation measure so that construction activity halts as soon as cultural resources are found. For example: If previously undocumented cultural resources are found during construction activities within the project area, construction activity shall halt in the vicinity of the find until a qualified professional archaeologist assesses the nature and significance of the find and recommends appropriate mitigation measures. 3 -18 C:\Docmnents and SettuW\chay1\Loca1 SdtingATanpmary Internet Fi1s \ContentrE5\QNA73 W5F\Newport Bay Marina EIR rtl& 16-06 REVISED.doc 117 -5- COMMENT i Section 4.5 Geology and Soils Page 4 -69, 3rd paragraph, Yd sentence. Remove the word "as" between the words "consist of and "asphalt covered ". Page 4-72, 3`d paragraph, 3rd sentence. The sentence appears to be missing a word, such as "sand" at the end of the sentence. Page 4 -72, 3'd paragraph, 5th sentence. To be consistent with the Petra study in Appendix D, add the word "clay" to the sentence, as in "one inch thick clay layer.. ". Page 4 -72, 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence. Define the word "en- echelon ". Exhibit 4.5 -3 Correct the spelling of "Southern" California. Page 4-74, 15t and 3rd paragraphs. There appears to be a conflict between these two paragraphs. The I" paragraph states that the site is not located within the Newport- Inglewood fault zone, and the 3rd paragraph states that the site is located within the Newport- Inglewood fault zone. This apparent conflict is also stated in the Petra report, Appendix D, page 10. Page 4-74,4h paragraph, last sentence. Replace the word "top" with "to" Page 4 -76, In paragraph. The last sentence states that secondary effects of seismic activity, such as ground failure, liquefaction is unlikely at the site. This conclusion conflicts with the findings in the Petra report, Appendix D, Page 11. Page 4 -76, 4' ' paragraph. The report states that the site elevation of 5 -6 feet above sea level makes the site moderately susceptible to a tsunami. This elevation seems too low for a moderate susceptibility. For context purposes, identify the sea level elevations that would categorize a site as high and low tsunami susceptibility. Section 4.6 — Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3 -19 3 -24 3 -21 4.6.1 refers to one area with PCB's above the EPA preliminary remediation goal. Five bullet points later the study notes the PCB's are below the threshold requiring disposal as 3_22 hazardous waste. This conclusion may be correct or may be an error, noting that there is no need to dispose of the PCB soil as a hazard in the same bullet point would clear up any confusion. 4.6.3 has a discussion that the upper three feet of shoal in the mudline is contaminated with copper and lead, and that a conceptual plan for removal of these soils has been submitted to SARWQCB. No affirmation of removal has been made. 3 -23 Because that plan is only conceptual, a affirmative statement that the soils will not be abandoned in place should be included, otherwise, should the plan change to that, the DEIR will not have addressed the issue. 0\Dmuments and SelU pkheayM. W SettingATemporary lntmn t Fi1ealContent [E51QNA73 WSFWewport Bay Marina EiR rtl8- 16- 06REVISED.doo /le lQ 4.7 Hydrology & Water Quality COMMENT # Essentially, no comment on what is addressed in the section itself - all identified impacts are mitigated or less than existing. Several areas were not addressed in 4.7: Dewatering Operations/Water Quality. There is significant contamination present on the site from its former use as a shipyard. A large dewatering operation is contemplated, per the verbal presentation by the project developer. No mention is made of the potential for the dewatering operation to spread contaminates from the soil, nor how this might be controlled. Local large scale dewatering operations have had contamination issues and fines (see Balboa Bay Club Construction). There is little comment about the control of underwater contamination during removal other than the plan is being submitted to SARWQCB and an unsupported statement that the dredging is expected to have little or no impact. This statement needs to be substantiated with further analysis. Given the potential for dangerous contamination, the EIR should examine the adequacy of the safeguards for removal of the contaminants. Section 4.8 Land Use and Planning 3 -24 Page 4 -103 Environmental Setting - 2nd Paragraph, 2' Sentence - please add an before 102,800 sq foot lot. 3 -25 Section 4.9 Noise Page 4 -119 Existing Site Monitoring Procedure - Thursday February 23, 2006 is when the noise measurements were made. Perhaps they should have done the noise measurements during the height of the Peninsula activity, perhaps during the summer 3 -26 months in addition to the slowest activity times. This would at least provide possible residents a range of sound possibilities. Exhibit 4.9 -2 - The location of #2 should have been closer to the Crab Cooker to pick up 3_27 the highest activity location. Or perhaps in line with location 41, which is at least in the center of the project. Exhibit 4.9 -3 - All of the A- Weighted Sound Level dBA measurements were done3 -28 1979. With all the technological advances, perhaps some sound level dBA measurements ! should at least be done in the most recent decade. Section 4.10 Public Services 4.10.3 Impacts- Fire: The DEIR states that the proposed project may potentially increase the number of calls 3 -29 for service to the location; ...... current emergency equipment and facilities.at the project site must be evaluated to ensure that the current facilities are adequate and serviceable. CADocunwats and Sett W\cherylU o al Settings \Temporary Inane[ Aks \Content. [E51QNA73 W5Mewport Bay Mama EIR rM- 16- 06 MVISED.doc 119 -7- COMMENT # Items that will be evaluated as part of the construction project plans include, but are not limited to, the following: firefighter communication equipment, fire pump and on -site water supply. Please note the DEIR states that these will be evaluated, not implemented The DEIR goes on to state "all fire protection project features must be designed as an integral part of the construction process with all improvements and /or modernization of equipment systems or devices identified and agreed upon by the City of Newport Beach Fire and Marine departments prior to any construction approval." Again, the document does not give the reader any information as to what will be implemented to provide fire safety besides sprinklers, which are required by law. Police: The DEIR says the following: "There are no plans for additional facilities... or staff. The NBPD indicated that the construction of the project may have an impact on the area, especially if the construction is done in the summer months". The DEIR states no mitigation measures for how to handle the "very busy traffic and parking issues because of the beachgoers and tourist business that occurs between May and September. 4.10.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation "With implementation of recommended mitigation measures, all potential anticipated to be a level of less than significant." What mitigation measures? Section 4.11 Transportation 3 -29 3 -30 impacts 3 -31 The report is unclear as to the length of time the project will take to complete. In one location (traffic report) it indicates it will be completed in 2006 and in other locations it indicates construction times of 18 to 24 months. Considering the length of time to build the project, if in fact it is the 24 -month figure, does the developer have any suggestions for Saturday and Sunday and agreeing to no summer work on Saturdays and Sunday because of the traffic problems that would be created in this area. 3 -32 Are there any proposals for traffic corrections during the construction phase that specifically relate to the summer months in this area on the peninsula? Because of the location of this site and the roadways adjacent to it, traffic counts should be made in the summer on at least Saturdays so the decision- makers would have some knowledge of the problems that might be created by this project if Saturday work was allowed. The impact of construction traffic during peak construction periods, such as demolition, soil removal and foundation pours, should be analyzed in the EIR It appears that the traffic counts that are being utilized for this project are "shoulder counts" which does not do traffic analysis during the summer. However, because of the length of this project taking at least 18 to 24 months according to some portions of the 3 -33 report this could involve construction during two summers and the City must be realistic about a construction project this large if they're going to be blocking lanes and large trucks are going to be coming and trying to unload. Aren't they going to be blocking lanes and other activities that would create tremendous traffic problems for this specific site? This should be further detailed in a subsequent EIR or traffic analysis? CSDocuments and SeMW ChaylU ocal Smop \Temporary Internet Files\ContmLIE5\QNA73W5FWewport Bay Marina EIR rtt8- 16-06REVISED-doe /� No COMMENT # The DEIR does not include any plans on how to contain traffic and vehicles on the construction site during the lengthy construction period. Considering the roadways in the area and the congestion that can be in the area, especially during summer months, the project proponents should be required to set forth in the EIR how they intend to handle construction vehicles and workers vehicles, i.e. are they all going to be parked on -site or are they going to be parked in available public parking which is near the site? The EIR doesn't deal with parking permitted during construction. We're talking here about the construction workers and wouldn't it be appropriate for the DEIR to indicate, in view of the very lengthy construction phase, whether those workers will be able to park on -site or will they have to park in available public parking off the site? Because the DEIR doesn't discuss parking issues during construction, the City might want to consider conditions on the project with regard to workers off -site parking during the construction phase because of the difficulties with parking in this area especially during the summer months. What does the owner propose to advise prospective buyers of the residential units with regards to parking available on site for their vehicles? The report discusses the residences, the size, total number of parking spaces, and then designates a certain amount of parking spaces for residential but doesn't indicate how they arrived at that particular number of parking spots for residential. The DEIR does not discuss the number of parking spaces that should be made available for this size of residential and what the project proponent suggests for vehicles in excess of that number as to where they should locate or park if there are more vehicles for people who live on the site than there are parking spaces designated for those residents. What on -site parking is exactly proposed? What is the exact size of the parking spaces "between the lines" that are proposed? This is an issue that should be addressed in the DEIR because increasingly people have large vehicles and unless parking spaces are expanded in size then these large vehicles will overlap into adjacent spaces and therefore make the parking spaces available not truly the amount that is indicated in the DEIR. This is such a significant issue in today's parking lots that this is something that this particular DEIR should specifically address and the decision - makers should require that it be addressed specifically. --- 3 -33 The DEIR indicates the only increase in traffic from this new development will be 600 car trips per day. The EIR should explain certainly in more detail than has been explained in this DEIR and all the studies done in this DEIR how you can go from a project which currently has 44,000 square feet of development and about 577 car trips a day associated with that development and then you add 94,000 square feet and you only increase traffic by 600 car trips a day. That is so difficult to understand it should be 3 -34 detailed much more than it is in this particular report. It is unclear in the DEIR whether the additional square footage proposed by this project includes the underground parking and the ground level parking or does it only include construction of the buildings that will house businesses or residents. This should be detailed so that the decision - makers will in fact know what the real size of the project will CADocumerns and Settingskherylll.ocal Safinp TernWrary Intcmet FiJms Contem.IE51QNA73 W5F1Newport Bay Marina EIR ra- 16-06 REVISED.doc /at COMMENT 0 be from a square footage standpoint considering the substantially increased size of this development over what exists and that the total size of the lot area is 102,800 square feet and the proposal is to build 138,800 square feet. 3 -34 The DEIR does not indicate the nature of the portion of the project that is going to be occupied by commercial or retail. The type of retail and commercial should be indicated because it makes it different for parking needs and car trips generated depending on the type of retail that is to be proposed. On page 3 -26 there is a reduced development alternative. This should be considered by the decision - makers because the project alternative would obviously involve development of a site with substantially reduced residential units and commercial that would then take a much shorter time to build than the projected time of 24 months in some portions of this report. This reduced alternative has viability especially when one considers the location of this particular project located on a place where two major roads on the peninsula come together and unfortunately create "choke points" that would have effects upon traffic up and down the peninsula. The decision - makers must decide if they can force the peninsula to put up with two or more years of construction at this site with all the traffic problems we know that such developments can cause. This alternative as well as other alternatives should be carefully evaluated in view of the recent court decision in PAC vs. San Jose (2006) DJ DAR 10233. Transportation, page 4-133 indicates the existing site generates 577 ADT and that t e- new project will only add 682 ADT and then when you vary that between the peak hours you have a minus 2 vehicles in the peak hour in the morning and plus 28 in the P.M. This should be explained in more detail than is in this DEIR because we know that we had a marina and a boat yard and various business activities on this property that generated 577 ADT with only 60 to 70 peak hours and now we're going to have both residential and retail with a project that shall increase in size by about 94,000 square feet and it's only going to increase by 26 car trips in both A.M. and P.M. the peak hour traffic. I do think it important for the decision - makers that they make the traffic engineer explain it more detail how he came up with these calculations going from a project of 44,000 square feet of commercial to a project of 138,000 square feet and adds only a total of 26 car trips per day during the peak hours. The traffic study at page 4 -135 indicates that it's assumed in the traffic study that all residential traffic will leave the area. It should be explained what this assumption is based upon. Aren't the people who live there going to go to dinner, the grocery store, the hardware store and the drug store, which are all located in the local area? (Also see Appendix H - page 2.) The traffic report indicates that the staff suggested they study six intersections for traffic impacts. None of these, intersections were any of the numbered streets (22nd, 23rd, 28th, etc.). This project is located only a few feet from the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard at McFadden Square and no road in that area was studied. The nearest intersection was Newport Boulevard at Via Lido and that was the only intersection that was studied that didn't pass the one percent test. The other areas that were studied were the intersection of Tustin Avenue at PCH and Riverside Avenue at 3 -35 3 -3B C:Wmuments and Settingslcheryllrncal Seainps Temporary Intwid Fiks\CoatenL[E51QNA73 W5F NCwport Bay Marina EIR rtl8- 16-06 REVISED.doc /�/" -10- COMMENT # PCH and then Superior Avenue at PCH. This is an insufficient traffic study for the area, especially one that should be conducted during the summertime with construction going 3_36 on because otherwise the decision - makers are being given a Use impression of the character of traffic and the problems that will be created for traffic by the building of this site for at least a 24 -month period of time. The EIR must study the intersections that would be affected by the project and it does not appear that that was done. The decision - makers should require that this additional study be done for the benefit of the people who live and use the peninsula especially during the summer hours. On page 4 -141 the on -site parking recommended for residential is 58 spaces. This is only a couple of more spaces than two per unit and these units are going to be 3,000 to 4,000 square feet according to the calculations. The EIR should contain studies of these size units and the number of cars that are generally utilized by units of this size. It is submitted that units of this size would certainly have at least two cars per unit but then we also have live -in maids and nannies and high school and college students who have cars. With a total of 226 parking spaces provided why does this DEIR indicate they only proposing 58 of those for residential. More details on this should be supplied in the EIR so the decision-makers can determine whether this is sufficient parking for the residential that's being proposed. There is concern by this committee following reading this report that there may be some restrictions on residents to parking in some of the 226 parking spaces that are being provided. Maybe the decision- makers should put a condition on the project, if granted as requested, to provide residential parking stickers to all vehicles owned by residents and that anyone with a residential sticker be allowed to park anywhere on the property. What the members of this committee are concerned about is that after the residences are sold, the developer of the project may still own the retail and commercial and will want to keep those people happy by designating certain parking areas reserved for those retail and commercial uses and restrict the use by residents. It is this committee's recommendation that the project should be conditioned so that the developer is not allowed to do this, i.e. designate certain spaces as being reserved for his commercial and retail business. The concern by the committee is that if this is done then the residents will be forced onto the available public parking in the area to park their vehicles. This site is of sufficient size to handle all of the residents parking if it is made available to them and that should be the first concern of the decision- makers in this case. The DEIR does not indicate anything with regard to the anticipated parking that is required for the marina users. Let us assume that one of the marina users has a party and a trip to Catalina with a weekend planned and eight people are going to be going and they all arrive in separate cars. Has this been taken into account? Considering the size of the residential units it is submitted that the DEIR should detail how this project can provide two or three parking spaces per residential unit and still supply adequate parking for all the other retail. The types of retail is not indicated but if it's restaurants or night clubs sometimes those people would be parking there in the evening in a lot of spaces that might be utilized by residents. Because of parking problems on the site that might be generated by nighttime use of the retail, maybe conditioning the project not to have any sit down food service or no on site alcohol sale would resolve the problem of nighttime parking. 3 -3T C: %1)0 meets Wd Seft0W'Wheryf\I.Wd SehingslTempaary Internet Files %Contem.iE51QNA73W5FINewpon Bay Mwim EIR rtB- 16-06 REWSEDAm 013 -11- COMMENT # The traffic report is dated in November and December 2005. I submit the report had to be prepared a substantial length of time before that and therefore is dated incorrectly. If you look at Table 2 on page 9 of the traffic report you will see a number of projects that they indicate are incomplete but that are on line to be completed. Two of the items which 3_38 "jump off the page" are the Cannery Lofts and the Newport Technology Center. Both of those have been completed for at least two years and report wasn't prepared in November/December of 2005. The currency of the traffic study needs to be reviewed because it refers to two projects that are 24 years old as future projects. There is not a traffic signal at 22nd Street. The document should explain how people 3_39 approaching the project can make U- turns and change lanes with no signal on a street that carries 40,000 ADT. Details with regard to the existing parking in the street and the number of spaces and also the parking in something called the arcade should be given in more detail. It is unclear from the DEIR what parking does exist and what is going to happen to that parking during the construction phase. On page 16 the project wants to utilize the on street parking for part of its required parking. This should be carefully analyzed by the decision- makers as to whether that's providing adequate parking on the proposed project. The decision - makers might want to decrease the size of the project so that adequate parking can be provided on site and not have this project utilizing the public streets. On page 16 of Appendix H, the problem with large vehicles and parking areas is discussed with not enough detail given as to how these vehicles are going to be able to function on this particular site. It should be explained by the traffic engineers in detail how these businesses and residents are going to get deliveries from large trucks. How are they going to do it? The project probably should be conditioned with a prohibition of any delivery parking on Newport Boulevard because if it's not prohibited than this arterial road would have lanes blocked and access blocked when large delivery vehicles are trying to deliver to the site after its built and occupied. Let's solve the problem now before the project is built rather than having the problem come up after it's built and we have these delivery vehicles causing problems. On page 16 it indicates the radius of the ramps connecting the portions to the underground parking lot as 80 feet, which the report says "is adequate ". The question not answered in the report is its adequate for what size vehicle? Further detail on this should be given on the report especially in view of comments about difficulties with delivery 3 -40 vehicles on site and also some problems with available parking spaces. 3 -41 What are the grades on the ramps? What size vehicles will be able to use the underground parking? It appears the decision - makers would certainly want it to be able to handle at least large SUV's and pickup trucks and vans for a project of this type consisting of retail and residential and yet this is not set forth in the report as to what restrictions will be on the size of vehicles that would be using the available underground parking. — C:1Docmnents and SeltinpW eryU ocal Seltmp\Temporary Internet Files \Content.IE51QNA73W5F\Newport Bay Marina EIR rtt8- / 16-06REV6SED.doc 121 SIOM COMMENT # Someone should analyze the parking on this site that is being proposed with the actual plans with the existing walls and pillars to see if this project really does have the required parking. If certain parking, spaces are inaccessible if other adjacent spaces are occupied, then it's critical to know this at this time and whether the parking spaces that are claimed are in fact going to be usable. I can't think of any way to determine this other than having 3 -42 staff or the traffic engineers make further studies by laying out such a parking lot and indicating wails and pillars to see if the parking spaces truly are usable and by what size vehicles they would be usable. Then the decision - makers would indeed know how many real parking spaces there are available. Traffic studies on the weekends in the summer should be done. The reasonable thing to propose for this project is some traffic studies that are done both in the winter and summer because if they're going to have a construction schedule that takes two or more years then it is appropriate for some additional accommodation to be required from the 3 -43 developer or the project to ease the traffic concerns of residents and users of the peninsula that will be substantially interfered with because of the length of the construction of this project. This site has a very unique roadway situation immediately adjacent to it. The traffic problems with this site can probably be seen by a layman by looking at the aerial photo 3 -44 which is Exhibit 3 -3. The diagram will also show the concern about the unique traffic problems for this particular site that are not adequately being addressed in this DEIR 4.13 (aka 4.12 ) Utilities and Service Systems There are no statements regarding the undergrounding of all utilities and what type of mitigation measures need to be implemented since they found water 4 feet under ground. 3 -45 Whether the water is tidal in nature or not, there is still water with no mention in the DEIR of what mitigation measures need to be implemented. The water is not a question of "if', but how it is to be handled. Exhibit 3 -10 shows the parking plan of the project showing only one (1) trash enclosure located by 22nd & the Arcade. What is the one trash enclosure supposed to service, both the 27 residential units and the 36,000 sq. ft_ of commercial? The DEIR neglects to 3 -46 inform the reader how the trash service will be implemented Also, the Parking Plan (exhibit noted above) does not clearly designate for the reader the location of the stairs, elevators, bathrooms or showers. Mitigation Measures (page 4 -149): MM 4.13.4 -1: "Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the project applicant shall coordinate with utility and service organizations regarding any 3_47 construction activities to ensure existing facilities are protected and necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public agencies ". This does not really say anything specific enough to be evaluated. CADowments and Se-umgsWwrA l"W ScuingsU mptxa y Internet FdesTmAenLIE51QNA73W5F1Newport Bay Marina EIR rtf8 16-06 REVISED-doe ,�S -13- COMMENT# 5.0 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The second paragraph on pg. 5 -1 refers to "proposed elementary school and middle 3 -48 school project ". Is this a result of inserting some boilerplate? How does it relate to this proposed mixed -use project? This section asserts that, for the proposed project, "all impacts can be reduced to less than significant level, except for Cultural Resources ". Considering that the proposed project will be conducted over at least 3 years and at least 3 intense summer visitor periods, and that it is being conducted in the intensely impacted McFadden Square area, it is apparent 3 -49 that there could be significant, unavoidable impacts in some environmental areas during the summer vacation periods. other projects (e.g. Balboa village Revitalization) have imposed a summer hiatus and/or construction restrictions to minimize potentially serious impacts on traffic, air quality, parking, noise, public services and aesthetics (to name a few). Has this project considered this form of mitigation? 6.0 Effects Not Found to be Significant This first paragraph on pg. 6 -2 refers to the "proposed middle school and elementary school" again. Please clarify. The DEIR further states that "mitigation measures are provided for Geology and 3 -50 Soils,..... Transportation /Traffic...." However, Section 4.12.4, pg. 1 -141 states that no mitigation is required for traffic, circulation and parking. Please clarify this discrepancy. 7.0 Long Term Implications of the Proposed Project Section 7.2, pg. 7 -2, asserts that "the project will not have a cumulative adverse impact currently or in year 2025 ". This is not intuitively obvious. Please provide supporting 3 -51 analyses showing the cumulative effects of this and all other projects planned for the Balboa Peninsula in this time frame. 8.0 Alternatives As previously noted, the 4 alternatives identified on pp. 8 -2 to 4, should be listed in the Project Description. The discussion on alternatives is superficial and generally self- serving for the proposed project. It is a given that it is desirable to improve the existing, under- performing property to a configuration with better revenue production for the city. In this context, revenue to the city from the project should be addressed in detail. If revenue is not a driver, then Item 8.1.2., Reduced Development Alternative, would seem to be the most favorable from an environmental point of view (i.e., less time to accomplish, less traffic, less air pollution, less noise etc.). Please explain and analyze why this is not the preferred alternative. 3 -52 C Om meets and SettingsWmyyUWA SWktp \Temporary Internet Files \Con=t1E5\QNA73W5FWewp0tt By Marina EIR rtig- 16-06 REVISED.doc NO Central .Newport 'Beach &-fil Community association P.O. Box 884 • Newport Beach, Califomia 92661 AUG 11 zoos Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner aJ' PM City of Newport Beach ip,yj itj ilS,6 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report — Newport Bay Marina - Comments Dear Mr. Campbell: COMMENT e Subject DEIR has been reviewed by members of the Board of Directors of the Central Newport Beach Association. This project is adjacent to the CNBCA boundaries and has the potential to substantially impact the residents of our area, especially due to the limited access to Balboa Peninsula. This project sits directly in the path of ingress and egress to the Peninsula. Following are comments on subject DEIR: 3.1.2 F�dsting Site Characteristics — this section mentions the view from the northerly side of the property is of a marina with the bay and mainland beyond (actually 4 -1 Lido Peninsula). Throughout the balance of the document (e.g. 3.1.3), however, this view, which actually approbmates 25% of the frontage of the property, is barely mentioned. This view will be lost should the project be constructed and appropriately detailed mitigation measures should be addressed in the EIR. 4.1.3 Aesthetic Impacts — Budding elevations are proposed to "project a level of formality.' This style of architecture and colors (we are not in Tuscany) proposed do not reflect the local maritime aesthetic and are reminiscent of an urban 4 -2 downtown style of architecture currently in use around Southern California. The project should be required to redesign the facades so that they are compatible with the Peninsula and its history as a coastal waterfront community. 4.1 A Aesthetics - Mitigation Measures — We recommend a mitigation measure will reduce the frontage of or eliminate Building K in order to preserve the existing view and to provide a buffer for the adjacent restaurant use. The project proposed "enhancing" of existing public view and access easements that have 4 -3 been allowed to degrade is inadequate mitigation for the proposed loss of an existing view from Newport Boulevard that includes approximately 25% oithte Property. The proposed view corridor appears to be offset from Newport Boulevard, thus reducing its value. Also, the view appears to be blocked or Ia7 2 COMMENT i minimized by the proposed bridge. These points, a" with the fad there is an 4 -3 existing public view easement render the proposed mitigation to little worth. 4.3.4 Construction — Mitigation Measures — A mitigation measure should be added to address dredging, bulkhead constructionlrenwval and piling constructionfremoval as they impact the suspension of contaminated sediments. Mitigation should ensure that there is no drift of contamination from the site. The dredging should 4 -4 include removal of contamination from the Rhine Channel immediately adjacent to the property's tidelands leasehold that resulted from the historic boatyard activities and the marina. 4.4.4 Cultural Resources — Mitigation Measures — The mitigation measure requiring Planning Director review should be expanded. We recommend that the proposed architectural design be forwarded to the City Arts arid Cultural Commission which is charged with historic review. The architecture should be required m reflect the maritime vernacular of the buildings it replaces. The existing buildings are not protected due to the weak support of existing City .4-5 ordinances and the inadequacy of the City's historic inventory. The existing buildings refled an important component of the City's History and their open interiors, sail -like roof lines and the art-deco style of the boat sales building would be treasured in many communities. The least the new development must do to mitigate their toss is to reflect the style of the heritage architecture. 4.7.4 Water Quality - Mitigation Measures - Water from the subterranean garage is proposed to be filtered and discharged to the bay. Because of the hydrocarbons and particulates in a garage, this discharge should be made to the sewer system. There should be a minimal amount of water accumulating from the garage and its impact on the sewer system should be little. An enforcement mechanism to ensure appropriate maintenance and replacement of drain filters in perpetuity should be in place. While there is a boilerplate check -list of uses that can impact 4 -6 water quality in the DER, there is nothing that addresses the boats in the marina. There should be a requirement that prohibits washing boats in this narrow, pokded channel and a pump -out station far fire marina should be required. A program to maintain water circulation and trash removal in the long slipway /channel 19 should be required to prevent the pollution and stagnation that now exists. 4.10.4 Public Services — Mitigation Measures — Thee are no mitigation measures to address the concerns expressed by Police regarding congestion around the site, especially during construction, and the delivery of emergency services. CNBCA is very concerned with intensification of congestion at this vital intersection during the summer. The fire minute response time is not realistic during some periods 4 -7 tm of the summer. Currently, traffic backs up on summer weekend aflemoons and evenings to 101h Street and beyond. This is also a peak time for the need for paramedic services, as well as for lifeguard and police emergencies. Often fire trucks with paramedics and ambulances have to use the lanes of opposing traffic /2q COMMENT tf to bypass traffic. Mitigation should include prohibition of construction after 3 P.M. on weekdays during the summer and no construction on weekends. There should be strategy sessions held with the developer and public emergency 4 -7 service personnel to ensure maximum emergency access to and from the Peninsula or the project should be reduced in scope. Currently there is very little traffic generated by the uses on the site during these peak times. Under the subject of Parks there is a statement that the project will provide additional marine recreation opportunities to the public. Please clarify what these opportunities are so that their impact can be assessed. 4.11 A Transportation — Mitigation Measures — Existing traffic generation was calculated using a substantial industrial component that equates to almost one half of the traffic credits. In reality there is little industrial use on the site (38.4 TSF is stated in the Austin -Foust report Table 1). Thus the net new trips from the proposed project are unfalriy represented and reduced. A realistic assessrrnent should be petformed. Table 2 should be updated. The intersections of 21't Street, 23'" Street, 2e Skeet and 3e Street should be included in the analysis. Thee are the intersections at which back -ups occur during the summer. During these times LOS is worse than F and it can over one haff hour to traverse the Peninsula. There Is an additional lane by the time traffic reaches Via Lido, the intersection chosen for analysis. The project is 'right in, right our except for the left turn possibility at the Arcade. Currently there is little use for a left turn at the Arcade for the public because 4 -8 there is little parking although visitors, seeing the Crab Cooker Restaurant sometimes try. This project will greatly increase demand for a left turn at this intersection because there will be someplace to go. Resulting congestion must be mitigated. There is mention of a u-tum possibility at 215h Street. Currently no u4ums are allowed and for good reason inasmuch as the °mbanaster" intersection has been studied extensively . Motorists choosing to access the proposed new structures by turning left will overcrowd The Arcade (which is actually a narrow alley) between the Spaghetti Factory exit and a d rd. The resulting increased traffic will unfavorably impact the homes facng 21 Street Because of the confusing access to ramps, visitors unfamiliar with the project will hesitate to enter thus adding to motion. There is no area for deliveries to businesses in the project. The retail and office space must have delivery areas in order to sustain their businesses and to avoid interference with pubic access. Traffic was analyzed during winter/spring. One third of the year the lives of Peninsula residents are impacted by tourists. A more realistic analysis mould be undertaken. This project will peak with activity during the summer. Condominium residents will be home and will have guests, the retail establishments will experience their peak business and the boats will be used to their mwdmwn. This impact must be analyzed and mitigated. The parking proposed is the minimum using normal planning standards and does not accommodate this peak. There will be spillover into spaces used by the public 14 J COMMENT # destined for the beach, Newport Pier and McFadden Square. Currently over 100 parking spaces on the site are available for a fee to the public evenings and 4 -8 weekends. This loss of public parking will be exacerbated by the inadequate parking proposed for the project There are only 14 parking spaces allotted for the boat slips. The boat slip are all 50' or over. Boats of this size often have a crew, have maintenance personnel who visit frequently, accommodate many guests arid, in general, generate a need for parking in excess of the slightly less than .75:1 ratio proposed. There are no controls proposed on the type of vessels using the saps. Therefore a mitigation measure must be included to prohibit use of the boat slips by charters, open-party boats, sport- fishing vessels or any We of commercial use. Traffic associated with the boats also needs to be included in the traffic analysis. Use of on- street parking is discussed. This must be eliminated from consideration and the project made parking self - sufficient based on summer usage. Parking controls must be discussed and used in mitigation. There will be an increase in pedestrian activity and that impact on traffic should be addressed. Pedestrian safety must be addressed by including an off -site mitigation measure of the installation of blinking lights in the pavement at crosswalks accessing the project. 4 -9 8.0 Alternatives — This section does not include the possibility of using the site again for a boatyard or for another coastal dependent use. It also fails to address 4 -10 adaptive reuse of the historic buildings. 1. Other. There must be an agreement executed by the developer, each purchaser and his/her successors acknowledging the presence of adjacent busy restaurants, which are visitor serving, and of the adjacent and active boatyard. To a new resident these may become unfavorable uses and they may press for removal or limitations on them. In fact, these are coastal dependent uses of long standing and popularity and should have priority over occupants of the new project who buy 'with their eyes open." Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Louise Funderiberg, each nity Association Cvntr&J Newport 4 -11 /so A011'D a� -o �� Phase: (7141 SM -2411 faoc 1714) 98217358 .Nraaeodeam OWN" oftses: P.o. 8=8127 ramt:" Vaaey. CA s272e -9127 10844 EMS Avarxe ro mon Valley. CA 92708 -7019 M.. I • CMOs Anamm Brea Bus m Pork QVress Fcraaa6n +Or Fufe n to Mehra to Alamo Los Mwntas Placentia Santa Ana Sear Beach Tustin Yrge Par* Yorha Linda cooaty of oreopo askery Caste A4aso Water alo o"s kvine Rench ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION OISTRICT September 1, 2006 James Campbell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Newport Bay Marina COMMENT # This letter is in response to the above referenced Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Newport Bay Marina (Project). The Project area is located at 2300 Newport Boulevard, and is on the Balboa Peninsula. The Project area is currently developed with commercial, office, and marine uses. The proposed Project consists of a mixed use development with approximately 36,000 square feet of commercial uses and 27 residential units. The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) is primarily concerned with long term de- watering systems that may be planned to serve the underground structures. OCSD will only accept these flows into its sanitary sewer system via special permit. However, OCSD does not intend to issue a permit because water can be discharged to a public waterway via a NPDES permit from the Southern California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City of Newport Beach plan check personnel should be made aware of this requirement when reviewing plans for all future projects. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please contact Adam Nazaroff at (714) 593 -7854, if you have any questions. ;Rohn D. Linder, P.E. Engineering Manager JDL:AN:sa N:ldepnerO740 P1anningZRSi2W012008056 City of Newport 8eade_Newport Bay Marina_DEIR.doc cc: Adam Nazaroff EIR File To marnt»rn world-class leadrrshrp in wasty eater .rod water msa"n a Management- 5-1 131 MTE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY AWW WMARZENEf3GER, QMSM CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SMO Coast Area Office 200 Off. stile 1000 Lore Beach, CA 90=4302 .. (502) 590.5071 SEP 7. M August 31, 2006 Mr. James W. Campbell, AICP, Senior Planner. fi(3;': ' ig City of Newport Beach :. Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Newport Bay Mbced -Use Project Draft Environmental impact Report (SCHN 2003071144) Dear Mr. Campbell, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Newport Bay Marina Mixed -Use Project.. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the proposed project is a mkod -use development of residential and commercial uses on the former South Coast Shipyard and Design Center property. The proposed project is located within the coastal zone in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed development will require a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission. The following comments address the issue of the proposed project's oonsisterxy with the Chapter 3 policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976. The comments contained herein are preliminary and those of Coastal Commission staff only and should not be construed as representing the opinion of the Coastal Commission itseff. As described below, the proposed project raises issues Heated to fill of open coastal waters and consistency with the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP). COMMENT # Below are the comments by Commission staff on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. 1. Fill of Ooen Coastal - Waters One component of the proposed project consists of the closure and fill of one (1) of the existing boat slipways. In a letter by Commission staff dated August 21, 2003 (a copy of this letter has been attached to this letter) issues regarding the proposed fill were raised. 6 -1 Currently, Commission staff still has the same concerns regarding this project component. Please review Commission staff concerns in the attached fetter dated August 21, 2003. 2. Land Use Plan ILUP) The City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP) designates the site as Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM -C). This designation intends to encourage a continuation of marine - oriented uses, maintain the marine theme and character of the area, and encourage public physical and visual access to the bay. Professional and business offices are permitted only in conjunctan with a marine- related theme. In addition, residential uses are permitted on the second floor or above where the ground floor is occupied by commercial uses. Four (4) of the buildings (buildings J. I , E and E) located on the bayward side of the 6 -2 f3?— Draft Em ironmental Impact Report for the Newport Bay Marina Mixed -Use Projed 2 of 2 COMMENT # Page property have been designated entirely for residential. This is inconsistent with LUP S_2 designation as stated previously. Thus, the project should be revised to be consistent with . the.,LUP.•..::.... Thank you for the opportuniti to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the' Newport Say Marina Mixed -Use Project. Commission staff request notification of any future activity associated with this project or related projects. Please note, the comments provided herein are preliminary in nature. Additional and more specific comments may be appropriate as the project develops into Final forth and when an application is submitted for a coastal development permit. Please feel free to contact me at 562 -590 -5071 with any questions. alyst It Attachment Letter dated August 21, 2003 Cc: State Clearinghouse. H1sy1EIIrsW;omment LeteersWewportSay Mixed -Use Project (WO 200W1144)NB /33 CALIFORNIA • ASTAL COMMISSION fir.• ,rl OcanqaW Suft 1000 LOW 9"Ck CA I 1/ 11 1 August2l,20W Mr. James W.I "Campbei, Senior Planner ' City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300: Newport Boulevard Newport Beal CA 92663. Re: South Coast Shipyard and Design Center Initial MltIgsW Negative Daclaradon (SCH# 2003071140 Dear Mr. Campbell, Pq 1 :.• : i YY .. • i 1 • 1 - i. -•. 1 1 It 1 I It w 1 t 44 • l i i : ! 1. i' i 4 _ 1 _ • -Y I 1_ � • t ♦ i t: Y ] : •' Below are the comments by Commission staff on the initial Mitigated Negative Declaration. • 1. Wetlands. One component of. the proposed project consists of the fill of two (2) current boat haul inlets. On page 43 of the initial Mitigated Negative Declaradwr, it states these two boat haul outlets are not considered true `open waters" of the harbor because they are not subject to adequate water circulation and flushing and thus do not result In the "Fdr of open coastal waters. The Initial Mitigated Negative Declaration fuller states that the area of fill has no environmental value-and no mitigation of arty potential loss of sensitive habitat is required. Section 30108.2 of the Coastal Act defines "Fill" as the placement of earth or any other substance or material placed in a submerged area. Section 30233 of the Coastal Act firsts the fill of wetlands and open coastal waters to eight uses and It appears that the proposed project does result in `Rr of open coastal waters and Is not one of the eight uses where "Fill' is allowed. Projects, wf*M propose the fill of wetlands and/or coastal waters, must demonstrate that the proposed Impact would be allowable under the Coastal Act If allowable the project must then provide adequate mitigation, preferabty on -site. Commission staff requests that you re- evaluate the proposed •Filr of the two (2) boat haul inlets In reference to Section 30233 of the Coastal Act. A biological study should also be prepared that addresses the presence of wetlands and open coastal waters using the /3f r,sug8W c tegebm 4eduadon for the South Coast Sh pyard and Design Center project Page 2 of 3 n • =ttEMT 2 99mItal Aegm and. Rectest ion : - Sectimt 302n of the .Coastal Ac : places a pdotity on visiNx- serving, commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation over general commercial development. The project site currently consists of 44,300 square feet of commercial, office and marine industrial uses, including a shipyard, two (2) boat slipways, office buildings, retail shops and associated parking. The proposed project would consW of a mixed -use development with 30,000 square feet of commercial uses and 28 residential units. The city's certified Land Use Plan (LUP) designates the area as Recreational and Marine Commercial. It appears that the proposed mixed -use development would not adequately provide the types of uses on the project site as required by the LUP. Recreational and Marine Commercial uses such as the shipyard and boat slipways are being replaced with residential uses. Commission staff requests additional discussion regarding tine proposed project's conformance with the LUP use designation of "Recreational and Marine Commerdal." � 3�F A i � l' l \ 1 : 1 • . :. • .: 1 _ � :. r : t r r � : r - c . r !.• 1 I • - ! nrl• IACI 'i IC 1 '•: J 1 .lam • r =+ 1• • • ti 1: - 1! rl. '1 • -r 1 1 • _ 1 I • - _ • : 1-I • FYI •• • 11 1• • •• I • •1 After site design and source control BMPs have been designed, treatment control BMPs (typically in a treatment train approach for an extensive development like the one proposed) should be designed for the development Treatment control BMPs should be designed to treat the specific pollutants generated on each portion of the slits. In addition, the proposed measures must be sized and designed to mitigate wafer quality impacts generated by the development. As a goal, the Commission has required post- construdien.strudurat BMPs (or suites of BMPs) should be designed to treat, Infiltrate or fitter the amount of stonnwater runoff produced ,by all storms up to and including the 85th percentile. 244our storm event for volume- based'BMPs• and/or the 85th percendle, "1 -hour storm event, with an appropriate safety factor p.e., 2 or greater), for flow -based BMPs. Based on Seim 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act• ft Coastal Commission must ensure that a development minimizes to the maximum extent feastile polluted runoff and its Impact to coastal waters. Even where there is existing development on a site, a redevelopment project needs to demonstrate that it is minimizing to the maximum extent, l3b lnftW Mitigated Negative Declaration for the south coast Sh yard and Oeslgn CwW project Page 3 of 3 feasible the impact to coastal water quality. Therefore, the development should incorporate, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration should discuss, the site design, source control, and treatment controlaest Managemant Pmdk*s. (BMPs) That will be used lir with the diift site. 'P"hg tots. WfdscbW'a doft*, flry'w66V%r tows, and trash and debris are common coned mts in commercial and residential areas, and BMPs should be designed to address these constituents. Finally. Commission staff suggest use of catch basin inserts throughout the development, use of filtration systems near area with especially high risk of pollutant generation (loading/unloading docks. parking lots, etc.). and the use of blof hadon. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Mitigated Negative Dedaration for the South Coast Shipyard and Design Center project. Commission staff request notification of any _ future activity associated with this project or related projects. Please note, the comments provided herein are preliminary to nature. Additional and more specific comments may be appropriate as the project develops into final fonn and when an appllcawn is submitted for a coastal development permit. Please feel free to contact me at 582- 590 -5071 with any questions. rY.t Fe Analyst Cc: State Clearinghouse California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service H:VayTJR's%Comment le#ws%Seuth Coast ShWard and Design center Project (SCHtf 2003071144)NB /36 `a UAMOF CA w.n THE REs0 FZ=AGENCY GRAY DAYS Gmaawr CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION soulb cow NM omm z000ff. smca i0W Beack � 7CA.9W(Q- 2 _.. August 21, 2003 Mr. James W.'Compbell, Senior Planner ` City of Newport Beach Planning Department 33MNewport Boulevard Newport Beach,. CA 92663 - Re: South Coast Shipyard and Design Center Initial Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCHO 2003071144) Dear W. Campbell. 1 7 17 877-7 .. .. - .. Below are the comments by Commission staff on the Initial Mitgated Negative DeclarAin. 1. W- Inds. One component of the proposed project consists of the fill of two (2) current boat haul inlets. On page 43 of the Initial Mitigated Negative Declaration, it states these two boat haul outlets. are not considered true 'open waters' of the harbor because they aye not subject to adequate water circulation and flushing and thus do not result in the Tdr of open coastal waters. The Initial Mitigated Negative Declaration further states that the anew of fill has no environmental value" and no mitigation of any potential Ices of sensitive habitat is required. Section 30106.2 of the Coastal Act defines `Rlr as the placement of earth or any other substance or maternal placed in a submerged area. section 30233 of the Coastal Act limits the fill of wetlands and open coastal waters to eight uses and It appears Ihat the proposed project does result in `FIN' of open coastal waters and Is not one of the eight uses where * FIN' is allowed. Projects, which propose the fit of wetlands andlor coastal watem must demonstrate that the proposed impact would be allowable under the Cpl Act. If allowable the project must then provide adequate mitigation. preferably or"lle. Commission staff requests that you re-evaluate the proposed 'FIN' of the two (2) boat haul inlets in reference to section 30233 of the Coastal Act A biological study should also be prepared that addresses the presence of wetlands and open coastal waters using the 131 InM Wilgated Negative oederaftwl for the South Coast shipyard and Design Carder pr*ct Page 2 of 3 0.� YC =.= • �! 1 0 CHI i 1 /1• 0 1 •! Y_, ' C • ti t -. Y 1•] •' • IC 1 it • •• - _t• _♦ ]• " cc r� 1• c I .: .. r.: }hl -•: 1 X 1 '1 X I After site design and source control BMPs have been designed, treatment: control 8Ws (typically in a treatment trait approach for an extensive development like to one proposed) should be designed for the development. Treatment control BMPs should be designed to treat the specific pollutants generated on each portion of the site. In addition, the proposed measures must be sized and designed to mitigate water quality Impacts generated by the development• As a goal, the Commission has required post - construction. structural BMPs (or suites of BMPs) should be designed to treat; infiltrate or filter the amount of � runoff produced _by all storms up to and including the 85th percentile, 244iour storm event for volume -based BMPs. and/or the 85th percentile/ 9-hour storm event• with an appropriate safety factor (i.e., 2 or greater), for flow -based BMPs. Based on Section 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act, the Coastal Ca mission rust ensure that a development minimizes to the maximum extent feasible poles nutaff and its impact to coastal waters. Even where there is existing development on a site, a redevelopment project needs to demonstrate that it is minimizing to the maximum extent. 1319 Inft LOgtated Nepative Dedanation for the south Owd sthipyard and Design Osaler project Pape 3 of 3 feasible the impact to coastal water quality. Therefore, the development shades hoorporate, and the M'djgated Negative Declaration should discuss, the site design, source Control, and - treatrneht eontrolaesf Management Practiced (BMPs) that will -be u ed! M o" with ttie ertflt� site. 'P2�idfig kits: IarWscaped area, �aafing'arrdUTtki�ltrrg e:`�ryr flows, and trash and debris are cornrrion constltueti(s in commercial and residentlal•areas, and BMPs should be designed to address tltese constituents. Fjrm!!Y� Commission staff suggest use of catch basin Inserts tmighout the use of filtration sy� near mew with especially high risk of pollutant generation . lots. etc.). and to use of blaftatim. Declaration for Thaink you for the opportunity to ommnt on the Initial Wgated 1 or South Coast Shipyard and D_- Negative ,r d future activity associated . « • _ - specific development appropriate as the prolect develops Into W fbrm and when an applieffilon Is subrifted for a via coastal is «. 562-590-5071 with arr/ ._w F .. rogram Analyst Cc'. State Clearinghouse CaNfomia Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service H--4S B rsiCommerd UMws4Swffi Coast Shipyard and Design Cerder Pmjed (SCHO 2tYWI144)NB 181 ' M I yV � 1 V la l4i t J 1,� Y �s. ®r,=,'�'9 Sri rr (g" �� % Illil.Sn�r �4�3��1 ZYY'1 F I T9i ' � /�2h•4 Ag S-6o,,g�a2 Jnuz �ubr$f vl �/ _ jl3 u/ Y M/ it u, w s.7' W I yV � 1 V la l4i t J 1,� Y �s. ®r,=,'�'9 Sri rr (g" �� % Illil.Sn�r �4�3��1 ZYY'1 F I T9i ' � /�2h•4 Ag S-6o,,g�a2 Jnuz �ubr$f vl �/ _ jl3 u/ Y M/ it u, w s.7' Z� a; J ?W W .J^ V Z Yi d i o al d •. ++ M. l ° C zm.Ey cif` 3 a C �E9 CC z W Z �o Im z d z. all 08 & ■ ■ \ |§ \ } \ � � � \\ . 9M ■ e �o >, -9. Alm Cam' f:3 0i Aga ONE z ZVI .. ........ . �l a! 3i z o: m� o� x Z O wj F. z o, ml0 zl S ir-I Oi 6 I h ,> % x -- 21 c3:-N- MID,; i a -n pie s Rc W Z C C to g� rig 5 _2� ..� �\ \� I 2 !tee ( $ FIF \ (! k. / $' \i kl 0 \ _ . l��. 1 Lu $ � gym ( .� % c� w | � E (� § § . wa,__ ..� �\ \� I 2 !tee ( $ FIF \ (! k. / $' \i kl 0 \ k. \ ml \ _ . l��. 1 Lu $ � gym ( .� % c� w \ k. \ ml ■ : t o §| & ■ \ _ . l��. 1 Lu $ � gym ( % c� w ( 2 � E (� § § . ■ : t o §| & ■ }� ( � \( |� |§ . ( ! � 2i \I � }� ( � \( |� |§ § % § �)) � \k� \ \ ( |! | |! �eeaH§|t| HHHSHHHHHHHHH } $ §$| § $ § § / S' d' j; 2: \ r.1 R \ \ §i $�. � ! » .� LAA M, \ I % 7 / §( oil #~ z � | |� �\ i[ | |� | |� e e g I I I O B I I �A 1 IM .e a'I T~ 1 Ia• T I �e rll 11 I I I I I i I I I i I ! !I I I I I 11 �I zi oI a I I I i I I I I I i i I I I I i I I I I J i k � g i i i i i i i i i i �--- i I i i i I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I f I; a. �I o! zI a =1 ml j a M „� O 1 �I LY �S Oyu S S Z c Z �i �B a O Hill 4�od z C m a K ?I 6 !a � © © ®oo � 00 ®m000momo ®ao ® ® ® ®o 513 00 0 e e g I I I O B I I �A 1 IM .e a'I T~ 1 Ia• T I �e rll 11 I I I I I i I I I i I ! !I I I I I 11 �I zi oI a I I I i I I I I I i i I I I I i I I I I J i k � g i i i i i i i i i i �--- i I i i i I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I f I; a. �I o! zI a =1 ml j a M „� O 1 �I LY �S Oyu S S Z c Z �i a O 4�od odI. C m a K ?I 6 513 v°1 W F z E 5 J J j C c ' ;i 4 Eli tl O 4' ofz i i I I I dlxl I I �i Hill OO 00700000 ©� ' z w suali'n rc � g I Iz grlii w i l l 1 . ¢ 5i5 a 77I °�I �� j3 j1j @ pIp � i eI1 yg� g(g pI ° 7�7 1tl @tlg�gggi5 I¢�Sf898SH8�����89�55 �>ie ((qlq tlBtl ele dBd (1(66 tl� 7 3$x9r55 ++ig' AA! e yi O O O ;i 4 Eli tl O 4' ofz i i I I I dlxl I I I it C, O �I i; I' z �i �j I O� a r x of Z! 0 o� vp U Q 211i W i OC z t•- 0 i W Z E $R 3 a s m t5 � suali'n �%ii! I it C, O �I i; I' z �i �j I O� a r x of Z! 0 o� vp U Q 211i W i OC z t•- 0 i W Z E $R 3 a s m t5 � 11y L'a Z,z Q�O 1L LL o. iz ~Z) Z >ZU C<) � O3 W z ZQO L) W z Q €g as 9fi 5� �4P 5 a A � �4 �s xBE gg �$3Ee p 0Y{ e PS �Y pa9 P�a i. 114,011 i ysI9E 3G(BP 425 A x8 4 fit 11 g: �A A e Q ci t � a V� . B i ;; A lit 1111; g lli; •., P - el Jill f Jig$ 111 a€ �P. �a a� 4 ga =x �pA Y} �x e� O :Ps rn LO (oCo L'a Z,z Q�O 1L LL o. iz ~Z) Z >ZU C<) � O3 W z ZQO L) W z Q €g as 9fi 5� �4P 5 a A � �4 �s xBE gg �$3Ee p 0Y{ e PS �Y pa9 P�a i. 114,011 i ysI9E 3G(BP 425 A x8 4 fit 11 g: �A A e Q ci t � a V� . B i ;; A lit 1111; g lli; •., P - el Jill f Jig$ 111 , � I e� a, o a y 3 3 W 3 2 g I 5L Ill '� i - M!W 91NYID 1Y11LB.'IfgJ 7898{ �flY/'1OVtl1 3ALL30am IY Y p lH0�OW8 ' 4% r # si31 5 6te�e a` a- . J 0 Q s b6S91 ON 13Val 3AL[VLN3L tlNltltlW Atl9 iHOdM3N `c e � u Ga Em tid � \ - e� a I ,u H n / n //, i n pp F `m ZLI thill U y B CNR �3mg Y� Y f iK m �.I a U a A' 0 WZ U' :i Sri IN 4n 9p e o N 3� / ggs KQ , v /,/V Q / t }p ®R: @.'9G