Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEIR 157- VOLUME II...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... i ' NEWPORT DUNES ' RESORT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I VOLUME H: DEIR APPENDICES May 23, 2000 ' Prepared for: City of Newport Beach C .., 4 � �.. 1� � 1 i .. ' y / • � � a � � - i i a - � - � r L � ..�� {� • � ` � � _ �' .• � L � � � �� 1 � o � 1 .-r - ,, +.. � i ... ... .. w '. .. - K 0 NEWPORT DUNES RESORT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IDIPACT REPORT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.98061113 VOLUME H: DEH2 APPENDICES - CIRCULATED SEPTEMBER 22,1999 May 23, 2000 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California92658-8915 Contact: Mr. Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Prepared by. LSA Associates, Inc. I Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, California 92614 (949) 553-0666 LSA Project #CNB834 LSA Associates, Inc. NEWPORT DUNES RESORT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Newport Dunes Resort consists of the following five volumes: VOLUMEI. DRAFTEIR VOLUMEII. DRAFT EIR APPENDICES A. 1983 Settlement Agreement and Amendments B. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan C. Geotechnical Studies • D. Water Quality Management Plan E. Biological Impact Assessment F. Cultural Resource Reconnaissance G. Traffic Study H. Air Quality Assessment I. Noise Assessment J. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis K. - Notice of Preparation, Distribution List, and Comments Received VOLUME III. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS, ERRATA, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES OF PROJECT REVISIONS A. Responses to Comments 1. Responses to Comments on Draft EIR 2. Response to EQAC Comments on Draft RTC B. EIR Errata 5/1810HPAMB834WEIRTiinal EIR covers.wpd» ii LSA Assxlates, Inc. C. Environmental Analyses of Project Revisions 1. Bayside Drive Gate Access Study 2. Service Drive/Mobile Home Park Buffer Study 3. Environmental Evaluation of Revised Project VOLUMEIV• PLANNINGCOMMISSIONACTIONANDCONSULTANT QUALIFICATIONS A. Planning Commission Action 1. Resolution Recommending City Council Certification of the EIR 2. Planning Commission Staff Reports B. Consultant Statements of Qualification/Resumes 1. LSA Associates 2. WPA Traffic Engineering 3. Pacific Southwest Biological Services 4. Tettemer & Associates 5. Mestre Greve Associates 6. Headrick Chase & Associates VOLUME V• FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION A. City Council Resolution Certifying Final EIR B. Conditions of Approval C. City Council Staff Reports D. Notice of Determination 5/18/000AMB83AMIR1Bnal EIRcovers.wpd» iii LSA Associates, Inc. VOLUME II: DRAFT EIR APPENDICES A. 1983 Settlement Agreement and Amendments B. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan C. Geotechnical Studies D. Water Quality Management Plan E. Biological Impact Assessment F. Cultural Resource Reconnaissance G. Traffic Study H. Air Quality Assessment I. Noise Assessment J. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis K. Notice of Preparation, Distribution List, and Comments Received 5/18/00«P:\CNBI LJ LSA Associales, Inc. ' APPENDIX A 1983 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENTS 1 1 1 1 1 H ' 9@2/99«P:\CNB834\EIR\TOC-VOL-I.WPD» SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT L1- THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this '" Gay of TT.Q/_�, 1983, by and between THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation and Charter City, hereinafter referred to as "City", THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter "County", and NEWPORT DUNES, INC., a California Corporation, hereinafter "Corporation", and the ORANGE COUNTY HARBOR, BEACHES AND PARRS DISTRICT, organized pursuant to Division 8, Part II of the H & N Code, hereinafter "District", is - made with reference to the following facts, the materiality and existence of which is stipulated by and between the parties hereto: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 526 of the California State Statutes of 1919, the State of California grant- ed certain tidelands to County, which grant was subject to cer- tain conditions and restraints on the use of the property. These tidelands were regranted by the State to the County, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 415 of the Statutes of 1975, this grant 1� 1 • 1 1 again subject to certain conditions and restraints on the use of 1 the property. The tidelands referred to in these two grants, together with a small parcel. of uplands, are described as set 1 forth in Exhibit "A" to this Agreement, and are hereinafter "the 1 referred to as property"; S. County has improved the property with certain pub- 1 lic recreational facilities, including a lifeguard headquarters building and public restroom; 1 C. County has leased the property to Corporation pur- suant to two 50-year leases which run to May 30, 2008 and February 28, 2015, respectively; 1 D. Pursuant to these leases, Corporation has improved the property such that certain recreational and visitor -serving 1 facilities are now located on the property. These facilities 1 include the following: i) A beach, consisting of approximately eleven 1 acres, together with concessions to serve beachgoers, such as, fast food stands and businesses which rent beach equipment; 1 ii) A recreational' vehicle and travel trailer 1 camping area, with 64 spaces fully serviced by sewer, water and 2 electricity and 80 spaces which are partially served by such utilities; iii) A restaurant known as Anthony's Pier II locat- ed on the northwesterly edge of the swimming lagoon and consist- ing of approximately 71500 sq. ft. of public area, and a coffee shop, consisting of approximately 21000 sq. ft. of public area and located on the easterly side of the lagoon in the area of the current boat -launching facilities; iv) Boat and marina -related facilities consisting of approximately 230 slips, a boat repair business, a canvas shop, maintenance storage and a dry boat storage area with room for approximately 350 boats and a six -lane boat launching ramp; v) A structure; located near Anthony's Pier •II, consisting of approximately 1,500 sq. ft. which presently serves as the headquarters and equipment yard for Corporation.. E. Commencing in 1976, County and Corporation embarked on a process designed to redevelop the property by enlarging or improving existing facilities and constructing new facilities.' This process culminated, in 1980, with the approval, in concept, of a redevelopment plan for the property which called for the 3 construction of a motel or family inn with 350 rooms, construc" , tion of "meeting rooms" with a seating capacity of 400 persons, the construction of four additional coffee shops and snack bars, ' at least one of which would seat 150 persons, construction of 263 ` additional boat slips, the construction of a "marina village" ' consisting of approximately 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial and lretail development, the construction of approximately 20,000 sq. ' ft. of facilities described as "marina amenities", the construc- tion of approximately 12,000 sq. ft. of unspecified, commercial �. development, the upgrading and enlarging of the recreational , vehicle area, and the construction of other development to sup- ' port the primary uses; F. . In February, 1981, the City instituted litigation t in response to the approval of County of the redevelopment plan L for the property. This lawsuit is presently pending in Orange County Superior Court (Case No. 35-01-35) and seeks a declaration , of that Court that the approval of the redevelopment plan by County was in violation of provisions of the California Environ-' ' mental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant to that legislation. City, in , 4 1 , its complaint, also seeks a declaration of that Court that the property, and the proposed construction of recreational facilities, is subject to the ordinances of the City and that any construction on the property must be approved by the City; G. Subsequent to the filing of the lawsuit,'all of the interested parties have engaged in a collective discussion with the intention of resolving all of the issues and concerns raised by the redevelopment plan and the litigation instituted by City. The development authorized by this agreement, and as conditioned by this Agreement, resolves these issues and concerns in that: (i) The changes in the project, the requirement of City concurrence in any additional development, and the binding nature of this Agreement, mitigate, to an acceptable level, any adverse environmental impacts that may result from the construction of the improvements contemplated by this Agreement. (ii) The development•contemplated by this Agreement is in the nature of proprietary activity and the binding commit- ments to obtain City concurrence for additional development, are adequate to fully protect the health, welfare and safety of the citizens of Newport Beach; 5 G r (iii) The commitments contained in this Agreement will resolve, the issues relative to land use control of the property without the undue expenditure of taxpayers' funds and the uncertainty that would result from continued litigation of those issues. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: I. City, in consideration of the covenants and pro- mises of County and Corporation agrees to development of the property not exceeding that described herein and conceptually 4 illustrated on Exhibit "B", and S provided further, that L development may proceed in .phases as deemed appropriate by Corporation: A. The construction of a family inn, not to exceed 275 rooms, to be located on the west y side of the swimming lagoon subject to the following: L + 1. The family inn will be designed and constructed with features that will make 3 it attractive to families and these .aa a design and construction features shall i 2. 3. include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: (a) Kitchen facilities in approximately forty percent (40%) of the units; (b) A room containing recreational facilities and equipment for use by guests of the inn; (c) No permanent audio/visual facilities or equipment are to be integrated into the design. The area immediately adjacent to the family inn shall be designed, improved and maintained such that it is consistent with the concept of. a visitor -serving facility attractive to families. The family inn will be constructed in accordance with the Building and Zoning Ordinances of the City of Newport Beach, all as more fully discussed in paragraph III - A below. 7 B. 4." The structure which houses the family inn shall not exceed 500,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area as that term is defined by the ordinances of the City of Newport Beach; The construction of two additional restaurants, and the expansion of Anthony's Pier II, or a successor restaurant, subject to the 'following: 1. One of the restaurants is to be a quality dinner house, with a net public area (per City standards), not to exceed 5,000 sq. ft., the restaurant to be sited on the east side of the swimming lagoon; 2. The second restaurant, which will consist of a net public area, (per City standards) no greater than 7,500 sq. ft., shall be designed, maintained and operated such that it serves, principally, the patrons and guests of the family inn, and special consideration N r shall be given to families and children in the operation of that restaurant; 3. The expansion of Anthony's Pier II shall be limited such that the total net public area (per City standards) shall be no greater than 15,000 sq. ft. C. The construction of structures which will house commercial, office or retail tenants, subject to the following: 1. The size of new structures shall not exceed 10,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area; 2. One structure shall be located near the existing Marina Dunes office building, on the west side of the swimming lagoon and in proximity to the existing boat slips; 3. A second structure shall be located on the east side of the lagoon, near the pedestrian bridge; 0 4. The tenancy shall be limited to those businesses listed on Exhibit "C" to this Agreement. D. The construction of two meeting rooms with seating capacity not to exceed 100 persons each, one of which will be located on the east side of the swimming lagoon. E. The construction of a structure which will serve as the headquarters for Newport Dunes, Inc., subject to the following: 1. The size of the structure shall not exceed 12,000 sq. ft.; 2. The structure will contain approximately 6,000 sq. ft. of space devoted to office and administrative uses, with the remaining space within the structure to be devoted to parking of ..equipment, a first aid station and the storage of materials. 10 S I I 1 F. The construction of a recreational vehicle park not to exceed 444 spaces, approximately 80% of which will have full service capabilities including electricity, water and sewer, together with a recreational vehicle support center of approximately'5,000 sq. ft., the center to contain a small convenience store, equipment rental area, recreation room, restrooms and showers, a laundry facility, a storage area and swimming pool, all subject to the following: 1. At least 20 spaces in the recreational vehicle park will be reserved for use by those who have not made reservations for space in the park, provided that those 20 spaces may be located in areas without full service capability and, provided further, that the Corporation may accept reservations for those not occupied on or before 3:00 p.m.; 11 G. 2. Users of the recreational vehicle park will have preferential use of the meeting room constructed on the westerly side of the swimming lagoon. The construction of approximately 200 boat slips, a pedestrian bridge connecting the easterly and westerly portions of the property, and a pump -out station., subject to the following: 1. No boat slips will be constructed in the mouth .of the Lagoon, or in the lagoon itself, until such time as the City/County Joint Harbor Review Committee has reviewed and approved a water quality study which considers the effects of the construction of boat slips on the water quality in the swimming lagoon; 2. Boat slips constructed in the mouth of the lagoon, or within the lagoon itself, shall not accommodate boats exceeding 28 ft. in length; 12 3. Boat slips constructed in the mouth of the lagoon, or in the lagoon itself, shall be designed and constructed to ensure that there is minimal interruption of the tidal flow in and out of the lagoon; 4. Overnight occupancy of boats moored in the mouth of the lagoon, or in the lagoon itself, will be prohibited and all action necessary to ensure enforcement of that prohibition will be taken; S. The pedestrian bridge which is to be constructed across the mouth 'of , the swimming lagoon will be elevated above the water surface, built on pilings, and designed in such a manner as to minimally restrict tidal flows in and out of the lagoon; 6. A pumpout station shall be constructed at a location convenient to boaters with a 13 r " to boat r sufficient capacity service any for which slip or mooring space is . available on the property. - II. Corporation shall retain, and in certain cases upgrade and/or add to certain existing facilities and uses, as follows: - A. The existing dry boat storage capacities shall be increased to not more than 400 units, the - increase to be accomplished by the ` construction or installation of a facility r that will allow stacking of small boats, the { storage facility will be covered and will be ' administered in a manner that will 'assure - adequate security to private property stored ` therein; B. Corporation shall re —stripe the existing six — lane launch ramp to ten lanes, and retain, or upgrade, the washdown facilities located in ` proximity to the launch ramp; ' c h 14 r C. Corporation shall maintain the existing marine repair facility located in proximity to the boat launch ramp; D. County and Corporation will preserve all of the existing beach area and retain and assure the continuing operation of concessions which serve beach -goers, e.g., boat and equipment rentals, fast food stands, lifeguards, picnic areas, etc. At least 800 parking spaces will be set aside and made available for persons using the beach during the day. E. Corporation shall provide for overnight camping use and all related facilities. - Ill. Corporation, in consideration of the commitment of City to approve the contemplated development as generally described in this Agreement, stipulates and agrees as follows: A.• Corporation agrees to design and construct all new development in accordance with the. applicable Building and Zoning Ordinances of the City of Newport Beach and, specifically, NIP agree to construct new development i conformance with the following: 1. No structure shall exceed the basic 3 ft. height limit established by 2onin Ordinances of the City of Newport Beach; 2. Parking for all new development will b in conformance with the parking standard. of the City of Newport Beach as set fort] in Chapter 20.30 of the Newport Beacl Municipal Code; 3. All signs and sign structures shall con• form to the provisions of Chapter 20.00 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; •B. Corporation agrees to contribute the sum of $600,000 to City to be used to construct circulation system improvements to mitigate the traffic impacts created by development of the project, this contribution to be subject to the following: 16 1. On or before January 1, 1984, County and City shall agree on the specific traffic mitigation measures to be financed by Corporation's payment pursuant .to this paragraph and the approximate dates on which construction of the improvements is to commence; 2. The sum of $600,000 represents a contri- bution of $1,500 per room, with the re- mainder of the contribution predicated upon the additional traffic generated by the other development proposed for the property; 3. Payment of the sum of $600,000 shall be made in increments, in accordance with the following schedule: a) The sum of $150,000 to be paid upon issuance of building permits; b) The sum of $150,000 to be paid upon completion of the foundation work for the family inn; 17 it N M it c) The sum of $150000 to be paid upon final inspection of all rough construction, e.g., plumbing, electrical, framing and roofing; and property; and d) The sum of $150,000 to be paid upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 4. The sum of $600,000 represents the minimum sum that would be required for circulation system improvements to mitigate the traffic impacts identified in the traffic study, prepared by Kunzman i Associates and attached as Ezhibit *Do on behalf of Corporation in January, 1983. This contribution is in lieu of compliance by County and Corporation with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance; C. Corporation shall construct an interpretive center, to be located near the northeast t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x 1 D. corner of the property, the function of the interpretive center to be the provision of information and educational materials relative to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Educational programs offered by the interpretive center shall be coordinated with the Department of Fish and Game and the interpretive center shall be integrated into a trail system, approved by the Department of Fish and Game, that will allow interested persons access to portions of Upper Newport Bay. Corporation agrees to construct a launching area for human -powered and small sailcraft and this launch area shall be of sufficient size to accommodate, at a minimum, the current use of the area for the launching of small sail boats and human -powered craft by members of non-profit corporations such as the Girl Scouts; 19 E. Corporation shall construct a bike trail, the design, width and location subject to the approval by the County's Director of the Environmental Management Agency and the City Engineer, connecting Back Bay Drive with Bayside Drive. No admission or user charge shall be imposed upon persons for use of trail. Bicyclist's will be allowed access to the interpretive center. F. Transient occupancy taxes will be imposed upon users of the family inn in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 3.16 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Transient occupancy taxes will be collected and processed in accordance with Chapter 3.16 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and payment of all transient occupancy tax revenues shall be made to City as provided by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 20 G. Corporation, with respect to any use of the property which requires the payment of any tax or fee, for the issuance of any permit, pursuant to the provisions of Title 5 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, agrees to pay such fee or tax and/or obtain the required permit and comply with any and all conditions imposed upon the issuance of the permit; H. The following uses of the property shall not be permitted: 1. Skateboard courses; Exeep 2. Fireworks displays -,, As approved by .the Fire Department of City; 3. Small animal or reptile zoo; 4. The use of loudspeakers for paging or announcements outside of any structure provided, however, lifeguards may use such equipment for safety and beach control purposes; S. Amplified music, except in the family inn 21 or other structure, and in no event shall amplified music provided by Corporation, its lessees, licensees or operators of the property, exceed 55 dbs when measured at a point 50 ft. distant from any exterior wall. I. Grading and building permits shall be issued by the City of Newport Beach and may contain appropriate conditions. to ensure that construction activities do not adversely impact the citizens of Newport Beach. Such conditions may include, but not necessarily be limited, to the following: 1. Designation of specified haul routes; 2. Restrictions on hours of activity; 3. Installation of erosion control facilities to ensure that silt does not enter the Bay from the construction site; J. Final design of the project shall incorporate the following: 22 t t t 1. A lighting system designed and maintained to conceal the light source and minimize light spillage and glare offsite; 2. The incorporation of water -saving devices; 3. The installation of grease. traps in all restaurant facilities; 4. Conformance with energy requirements as specified in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code; 5. Access and fire suppression systems in accordance with -the requirements of the Fire Department of the City of Newport Beach; 6. A landscape plan which shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought resistant native vegetation, irrigated with a sys- tem designed to avoid surface runoff or overwatering, with the landscaping to be installed during the initial phase of 23 construction or as early as practicable once conflicts with other construction activities are resolved. IV. City agrees to provide a level of services to Newport Dunes appropriate to the uses developed on the site and consistent with that provided other properties •in the •City_, including, but not limited to, water, fire and police. V. The promises and commitments of the parties as set forth herein, are intended to bind the parties* now and in the future. The parties understand that this Agreement is similar to a'Joint Powers Agreement, and, as such, contains commitments of both City and County sufficient to bind future boards and councils, notwithstanding any change in the composition thereof. City and County hereby expressly waive and give up any right to challenge the validity of this Agreement, or any speci- fic term or condition hereof, based upon the contention that the legislative bodies of cities or counties are not empowered to bind future boards or councils, and each of the parties hereto stipulates that the consideration set forth in this Agreement is adequate to support this waiver. 24 i VI. County shall not allow, and Corporation shall not construct, any development on the property exceeding that contem- plated by this Agreement, without the concurrence of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach. Any plan for future development, not contemplated by this Agreement, must be accom- panied by adequate environmental documentation as required by law, and will be processed through the Planning Commission, and City Council of the City of Newport Beach in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.80 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. VII. The parties hereto recognize that the approval of the California Coastal Commission and the State Lands Commission, will be required for development of the property, and County and Corporation covenant that, in requesting such approval, -they will a seek no development in excess of that contemplated herein. City agrees to notify; in writing, all agencies which are required to approve the development contemplated in this Agreement of its support and City will endeavor tc appear at public hearings be- fore any Board or Commission reviewing a proposal for such development 'or any portion thereof, to express its support. To the extent that the California Coastal Commission and/or State 25 1� Lands Commission County Corporation 1 make requirements upon and - not set forth in, or at variance with, the provisions of this T' Agreement, County and City agree to accept and incorporate as amendments to this Agreement all said changes and/or variances, so long as said changes and/or variances do not expand *or increase the intensity or density e concentration, of the development of the project as contemplated by this Agreement or L change the nature of the land uses described herein. All parties S -understand that this Agreement is intended to establish the 1 limits of development and not to guarantee construction or -=l development. City understands and agrees that any of the development contemplated by this Agreement, and any of the revenues or contributions which may be required pursuant to this = Nk. 1?JKr Agreement, are contingent upon County and Corporation negotiating ' a satisfactory lease of the property. The County and Corporation -� acknowledge .that it will be necessary to re -negotiate the leases on the property, in order for Corporation to be able to develop the project described in this Agreement. County, therefore, agrees, to negotiate in good faith with Corporation to enter into e a new lease of sufficient scope and duration so as to allow- 26 _y Corporation to develop the project as envisioned in this Agreement. County and Corporation shall endeavor to notify City of any public hearing or meeting which may relate to the develop- ment contemplated by this Agreement at least ten (10) days prior to the date of such meeting or hearing. Notice shall be given as provided in this Agreement. To City: City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, California 92663 To County and District: Director., Orange County Environmental Management Agency 811 No. Broadway Santa Ana, California 92702 To Corporation: Newport Dunes, Inc. c/o Lawrence H. Buxton Courton E Associates 2061 Business Center Dr. #203 Irvine, California 92715 VIII. This Agreement is- in furtherance of a plan for redevelopment of the property. County and Corporation seek to transform underused portions of the property to their economic advantage by constructing visitor -serving facilities of greater 27 J intensity than now exist. City seeks to obtain certain offsite benefits, including, among others, circulation system improvements. All parties agree and recognize that it will not. be practical to restore this property to its previous state once any significant portion of the contemplated development is undertaken. The parties hereto have made significant and irrevocable commitments and have each given up certain rights and powers in -order to achieve this agreement. The parties agree that damages would not be an adequate remedy for the failure of one of the parties to carry out its obligations under this_Agree- ment, both because the property and this Agreement are unique, and because it would be very difficult to estimate the amount of damages •which could, or would, properly compensate the other parties in the event of such failure or breach. Thus, the parties agree that specific performance, rather than damages, is the only remedy which would adequately compensate the other parties in the event of the failure of one party to comply with its duties and obligations as set forth in this Agreement. SX. City and County shall. annually review the parties' 29 I performance of this Agreement. At its first meeting of each calendar year, the Joint Harbor Review Committee shall review the performance and implementation of this Agreement, prepare a report and provide copes of the report to the City Council and County Board of Supervisors. In connection with such review, each party shall have a reasonable opportunity to discuss matters �•u which it believes have not proceeded in accordance with this Agreement, to receive from the other party information relating C2 to its position on such matters and shall seek to resolve such matters by negotiation. rc ' ? X. The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective i successors and assigns. 1� XI. No modification, amendment or other change in this Agreement or any provision thereof shall be affected for any 1 purpose unless specifically set forth in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the parties hereto. �ce Executed the day and year first above written. - CITY By. Mayor City of Newport Beach ATTEST: �+ Zt, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO F RM: iJ ity Attor ey COUNTY OF ORANGE By The Chairman of its Board of Supervisors ; a APPROVED AS TO FORM: OK I ( l % / a; fit County Counsel DISTRICT ORANGE COMM HARBORSr BEACHES AND PARKS DISTRICT IR 1 I 1 A 6,1pte Chairman of its Board of Supervisors SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF IY. THIS DOCUMEP;T HAS BEEIJ DELIVERED TO CORPORATION ' J THE CHAIRMAN.QF THE BOARD. ,s F , NEWPORT DUNESr INC. �twc y ;,,; J_ �t+: r .. 1 A California Corporation 1y� .4.u.. AIV 1UNE ALEXANDER Clerk of thl Board of Supervisors /` County of Orange. California By:(L / `n /� —� `"� ✓ �" i SETTLEbMIT AGP£EN.ENT A.'6ENDMENT i0 � - / y THIS AGRE2ME4T AMENDUENT, entered into this day of 1984, by and between THE CITY OF NE1PORT BEACH, a Municipal Corpora- tion and Charter City, hereinafter referred to as "City", THE COU14TY OF OR;LJGD, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter "County", and NES4PORT DUMES, INC., a California Corporation, hereinafter "Corporation", and the ORANGE COUNTY HARBOR, BEACHES AND PARES DISTRICT, organized pursuant to Division 8, Part II of the H 6 N Code, hereinafter "District", is made with reference to the following facts, the materiality and existence of which is stipulated by and between the par- ties hereto: A.' County is currently leasing 72-acre Newport Dunes Aquatic Park, hereinafter referred to as "the property", to Corporation under a 50-yeas lease agreement dated February 25, 1958. Corporation has constructed various recreatignal and visitor -serving facilities located on the property pursuant to lease provisions. j B. Litigation was instituted by City in 1981 in response to County's approval of proposed general redevelopment plans for the property. Subsequent negotiations between all interested parties resulted in a Settlement Agreement, approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 17, 1983. Among the provisions t described therein, the Settlement authorized construction of two new restaurants and expansion of an existing restaurant subject to specific size restrictions. C. City, County, and Corporation now wish to amend the Settlement to allow for possible future alteration of new public area allotted to each restaurant such that no increase in total authorized development occurs. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: The permitted development for restaurant uses may be reapportioned in a manner other than that provided in subparagraphs 1 B 1-3 subject to the following conditions: I� I3 I -1 II That the -development is reapportioned on a per square foot basis such that there is no increase in permitted development; and b) That the reapportionment has been reviewed and approved by the Director of the Environmental Management Agency for the County of Orange and the Planning Director of the City of Newport Beach. Executed the day and year first above written. N ATTEST:. •� ..' �J Cit �jtlerk APPROV7 AS TO FORM:/k I CITY OF NEW,, RT BEACH GG I' BY: ez Maybr C ty ,of Newport Beach c-i ,h`� ! � city Attorney clFOR� " COUNTY OF ORANGE The Chairman of its Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FOPS: jT— County Counsel DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY IiARBORS, BEACBES 44D ARKS DISTRICT �• By: The Chairman of its Board of Supervisors SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY a � OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED ,�T..O ipBE•• C--HAI..RMAN �OFF/THE �BOARD Linda Rdberts Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California MT.:dthDR804-33 6/13/84 r , CORPORATION NEWPORT DUNES, INC. A Cali fo Co�porat�i%on�Q By: S - :.ACT • GvM - -y II SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT THIS SECOND AGREEMENT AMENDMENT, entered into this, ay of 19 , by and between THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation and Charter ' City, hereinafter referred to as "City," THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of''the State of California, hereinafter "County," and NEWPORT DUNES, INC., a California Corporation, hereinafter "Corporation," and the ORANGE COUNTY HARBORS, BEACHES AND PARKS DISTRICT, organized pursuant to Division 8, Part II of the Harbors & Navigation Code, hereinafter "District," is made with reference to the following facts, the materiality and existence of which is stipulated by and between the parties hereto: A. County is currently leasing 72-acre Newport Dunes Aquatic Park, hereinafter referred to as "the property," to Corporation under a 50-year lease agreement dated February 25, 1958. Corporation has constructed various recreational and visitor -serving facilities located on the property pursuant to lease provisions. B. Litigation was instituted by City in 1981 in response to County's approval of proposed general redevelopment plans for the property. Subsequent negotiations between all interested parties resulted in a Settlement Agreement, approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 17, 1983. Among the provisions described therein, the Settlement provides for City and County to annually review parties' performance of the agreement through the Joint Harbor Review Committee and for said Committee to prepare a report for the City Council and Board of Supervisors. C. City, County, and Corporation now wish to amend the Settlement to delete the requirement for an annual review'and'report by the Joint Harbor Review Committee, in consideration of the fact that said Committee has not been duly organized and that adequate administrative mechanisms exist to conduct such review and prepare reports as may be necessary once project implementation begins. II -1- NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree to amend Section IX to read as follows: "City and County shall periodically review the parties' performance of this Agreement. In connection with such review, each party shall have a reasonable opportunity to discuss matters which it believe have not proceeded in accordance with this Agreement, to receive from the other party information relating to its position on such matters, and shall seek to resolve such matters by negotiation." Executed the day and year first a ATTEST: City Cie A, APP� VED AS TOFORM: City Attorney APPROVED r T FORM G Qz County Counsel* SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD Linda Roberts Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California COUNTY OF ORANGE By: The Chairman of its Board of Supervisors DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY HARBORS, BEACHES AND PARKS DISTRICT By: The Chairman of its Board of Supervisors CORPORATION NEWPORT DUNES, INC. tio}� y� A CaSlorn nidPp G�L LI lJ� By: DR:bhPRF01-7 rj=9 -3- AMENDED NEWPORT DUNES SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT '%�11/r`�a/ muTc a/'_aFFMFNT PntPrP[3 into this /�7v ref •_ �'�L �' rr LiF'/A- _ 1988, by and between THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation and Charter City, hereinafter referred to as "City," THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, a Political Subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter "County," and NEWPORT DUNES PARTNERSHIP, a California Partnership, hereinafter "Company," is made with reference to the following facts, the materiality and existence of which is stipulated by and between the parties hereto: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 526 of the California State Statutes of 1919, the State of California granted certain tidelands to County. These tidelands were regranted by the State to the County, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 415 of the Statutes of 1975. The legislature imposed certain conditions and restrictions on the use of the granted property. The tidelands referred to in these two grants, together with a small parcel of uplands, are described in Exhibit "A" to this Agreement, and are hereinafter referred to as "the Property"; B. Newport Dunes, Inc., formerly a California corporation (NDI) has, in the past, constructed certain recreational and visitor -serving facilities on the property, including the following: 1 (1) A beach, consisting of approximately ten (10) acres, together with concessions to serve beachgoers, such as, fast food stands and businesses which rent beach equipment; (2) A recreational vehicle and travel trailer camping area, with 64 spaces fully serviced by sewer, water and electricity and 80 spaces which are partially served by such utilities; (3) A restaurant known as Anthony's Pier II located on the northwesterly edge of the swimming lagoon and consisting of approximately 71500 sq. ft. of public area, and a coffee shop, consisting of approximately 2,000 sq. ft. of public area and located on the easterly side of the lagoon in the area of the current boat -launching facilities; (4) Boat and marina -related facilities consisting of approximately 230 slips, a boat repair business, a canvas shop, maintenance storage and dry boat storage area with room for approximately 350 boats and a six -lane boat launching ramp; (5) A structure, located near Anthony's Pier II, consisting of approximately 1,500 sq. ft. which presently serves as the headquarters and equipment yard for company. C. Commencing in 1976, County and NDI embarked on a process designed to redevelop the property by enlarging or improving existing facilities and constructing new facilities. This process culminated in 1980, with the approval, in concept, of a redevelopment plan for the property which called for the construction of: Pq (1) A motel or family inn; (2) Meeting rooms with a seating capacity for 400 persons; (3) Additional restaurants, coffee shops and snack bars, at least one of which would seat 150 persons; (4) 263 additional boat slips; (5) A "marina village" consisting of approximately 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial and retail development with approximately 20,000 sq. ft. of facilities described as marina amenities; (6) A modern recreational vehicle park; and (7) other development to support the primary uses. D. The City instituted litigation challenging the county's approval of the redevelopment plan for the property. In 1983, the parties resolved this litigation through a settlement agreement which reduced the size and scope of certain components of the project and obligated County and NDI to comply with provisions of the Building and Zoning Codes of the City. E. NDI has assigned its rights, duties and obligations under the leases and original Settlement Agreement to Company. F. The orange County Harbor, Beaches and Parks District, which was a party to the original Settlement Agreement, has been dissolved, with County of orange designated as successor agency, therefore, District is not a necessary or appropriate party to this amended Agreement. 3 G. The parties to the original settlement agreement have determined that unanticipated delays in constructing the project, a desire to construct a revised project, and changes in the circumstances surrounding the project require execution of an amended settlement agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: I. City, in consideration of the covenants and promises made by County and Company in this agreement agrees to approve the development of the property contemplated in this agreement, (conceptually illustrated on Exhibit "B,") provided County and Company have complied with all conditions precedent to development that are specified in this agreement. The development contemplated in this agreement may proceed in phases as deemed appropriate by Company. The development of the property authorized by this agreement is as follows: A. The construction of a family inn, not to exceed 275 rooms, to be located on the west side of the swimming lagoon subject to the following: 1. The family inn will be designed and constructed with features that will make it attractive to families and these design and construction features shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: (a) Kitchen facilities in approximately forty percent (40%) of the units; (b) A room containing recreational facilities and equipment for use by the guests of the inn; 4 U1 I U It I1 U I! (c) No permanent audio/visual facilities or equipment are to be integrated into the design. 2. The area immediately adjacent to the family inn shall be designed, improved and maintained such that it is consistent with the concept of a visitor -serving facility attractive to families. 3. The family inn will be constructed in accordance with the Building and Zoning Ordinances of the City of Newport Beach, all as more fully described in paragraph III -A. 4. The structure which houses the family inn shall not exceed 500,000 sq.ft. of gross floor area (per city standards) inclusive of area used for the service, storage and preparation of food or beverage. B. The construction of a new restaurant on the site previously occupied by Anthony's Pier II, and the construction of restaurant and food serving areas within, or adjacent to, the family inn, subject to the following: 1. Restaurant area within, and adjacent to, the family inn, shall be limited to 12,500 sq.ft. of net public area (per City standards); 2. The restaurant to be constructed on the site formerly occupied by Anthony's Pier II shall be limited to 15,000 sq.ft. of net public area (per City standards). 3. Restaurant and food serving area outside of the structure which houses the family inn shall be limited to 5 It those areas which are intended to primarily serve guests of the inn, such as the pool and cabana -area; 4. A substantial portion of restaurant space within the family inn shall be located, designed, maintained and operated such that it principally serves the patrons and guests of the family inn, with special consideration given to families with children; and S. The permitted development for restaurant uses may be reapportioned in a manner other than that specified in the preceding paragraphs provided: (a) The reapportionment is on a per square foot basis such that there is no increase in permitted restaurant development; (b) The reapportionment has been reviewed and approved by the County's Director of Harbors, Beaches and Parks/EMA and the Planning Director of the City of Newport Beach; and *, (c) The reapportionment does not result in a transfer of restaurant development to the east side of the swimming lagoon. C. The construction of a structure or structures which will house commercial, office or retail tenants, subject to the following: 1. The size of new structure or structures shall not exceed a total of 5,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area (per City standards); 0 2. The tenancy shall be limited to those activities permitted by the lease and with County and Company and which are consistent with the tidelands grants businesses listed on Exhibit "C" to this Agreement. D. The construction of a structure or structures to replace the existing marine repair facility and coffee shop on the east side of the swimming lagoon subject to the following: 1. The structure shall not exceed a total of +7,500 sq. ftS of gross floor area (per City standards); and \ 2. Approximately 3,000 sq. ft. of the structure shall `"\\`�ib\\\\\e., utilized as a marine repair facility, with the remaining portion of the structure or structures to be used as a coffee shop and retail uses which support the needs of those using the boat launch or boat storage areas. E. The construction of a meeting room with a seating capacity not to exceed 100 persons to be located on the west side of the swimming lagoon. F. The construction of a structure which will serve as the headquarters for Company, subject to the following: 1. The size of the structure shall not exceed 71000 sq. ft.; 2. The structure will contain approximately 6,200 sq. ft. of space devoted to office and administrative uses, with the remaining space within the structure to be devoted to parking of equipment, a first aid station and the storage of materials. 7 G. The construction of a recreational vehicle park not to exceed 444 spaces, all of which will have full service capabilities, including electricity, water and sewer, together with a recreational vehicle support center, the center to contain a small convenience store and an equipment rental area (approximately 3,500 sq.ft. of gross floor area), an equipment rental area, recreation/meeting room and clubhouse (approximately 2,900 feet of gross floor area), restrooms, showers and a laundry facility (approximately 2,100 feet of gross floor area), a storage area and swimming pool. H. The construction of approximately 200 boat slips, a pedestrian bridge connecting the easterly and westerly portions of the property, and a pump -out station, subject to the following: 1. No boat slips shall be constructed in the mouth of the lagoon, or in the lagoon itself, until such time as designated representatives of the City and County have reviewed and approved a water quality study which considers the effects of the construction of boat slips on the water quality in the swimming lagoon; 2. Boat slips constructed in the mouth of the lagoon, or within the lagoon itself, shall not accommodate boats exceeding 28 ft. in length; 3. Boat slips constructed in the mouth of the lagoon, or in the lagoon itself, shall be designed and constructed E r r r 1 r r r to ensure that there is minimal interruption of the tidal flow in and out of the lagoon; 4. Overnight occupancy of boats moored in the mouth of the lagoon, or in the lagoon itself, is prohibited and County and/or Company shall take all action necessary to ensure enforcement of that prohibition; 5. The pedestrian bridge which is to be constructed across the mouth of the swimming lagoon will be elevated above the water surface, built on pilings, and designed to minimally restrict tidal flows in and out of the lagoon and permits the entry of dredging equipment (such as removable center section); 6. A pumpout station shall be constructed at a location convenient to boaters with a sufficient capacity to service any boat for which slip or mooring space is available on the property; and 7. Company may charter vessels for commercial purposes from a location on the west side of the swimming lagoon subject to issuance, by City, of a commercial harbor activities permit and compliance with all City ordinances. II. Company shall retain, and in certain cases upgrade and/or add to, certain existing facilities and uses, as follows: A. The existing dry boat storage capacity may be increased to no more than 400 units. During the first phase of construction, all dry boat storage shall be at surface level. If additional spaces are to be provided, the increase may be 7 accomplished by the construction or installation of a facility that will allow stacking of small boats. The storage facility will be covered and will be administered in a manner that will insure adequate security of private property; B. Company shall restripe the existing six -lane launch ramp to at least seven 15' lanes, and retain, or upgrade, the washdown facilities located in proximity to the launch ramp; C. company shall provide at least 185 boat - trailer parking spaces in proximity to the boat launch area. These spaces shall be used for vehicles and trailers using the boat launch facilities, and by patrons of the marine service building and dry boat storage facility, and to extent space is needed and available by beach users when day -use parking area is filled. D. County and Company shall preserve substantially I all of the existing beach area and retain and assure the continuing operation of concessions and facilities which serve beachgoers, including, but not limited to, boat and equipment rentals, fast food stands, lifeguards, and picnic area. At least 645 day use area parking spaces, in addition to parking spaces specified elsewhere in this Agreement, will be made available for persons using the facilities. No more than 25% of the parking spaces shall be designated for use by compact vehicles and compact spaces shall be distributed evenly throughout the parking area. E. Company shall provide for overnight camping use and all related facilities in the recreational vehicle park areas. 10 III. Company, in consideration of the commitment of City to approve the contemplated development as generally described in this Agreement, stipulates and agrees as follows: A. Company agrees to design and construct all new development in accordance with the applicable Building and Zoning ordinances of the City of Newport Beach and, specifically, agree to construct new development in conformance with the following: 1. No structure, nor any portion of the structure, shall exceed a height of 3.8.5 feet. Mechanical equipment may be permitted in excess of the basic 35 foot height limit provided the equipment does not exceed a height of 38.5 feet and is fully screened from public view. No structure shall exceed three (3) stories and the family inn shall be constructed with a pitched roof. Chimneys and vents are permitted to exceed the height limit specified in this paragraph only to the extent required to comply with state law or local ordinances; 2. Except as otherwise provided in this agreement, parking for all new development will be in conformance with the parking standards of the City of Newport Beach as set forth in Chapter 20.30 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and 3. All signs and sign structures shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. B. Company shall comply with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Fair Share Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach. Company shall have satisfied Traffic Phasing and Fair Share 11 requirements upon payment of the sums specified in this section. Amendments to the Traffic Phasing or Fair Share ordinance which would otherwise increase the fees to be paid by County or Company shall not be applicable to the development contemplated in this agreement. The appropriate method and time for the payment of these fees has been difficult to determine in that: (1) while the early phases of development will not generate substantial levels of traffic over and above those which now exist, infrastructure necessary to accommodate the family inn and other traffic intensive uses will be constructed during the initial phases of the project; and (2) the number of building and grading permits required for each phase of the project, and the potential that development within each phase will not proceed at the same time, make it extremely difficult for the parties to determine what percentage of Traffic Phasing or Fair share Fees should be paid in conjunction with any specific permit. The method of payment specified in this Agreement represents the parties best efforts to establish a fee schedule consistent with the intent of the Fair Share and Traffic Phasing ordinances. 1. Company shall pay $600,000 to comply with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This sum will be Used to reimburse the City for a portion of the $2,058,000 spent to date, and the additional $724,000 to be spent in the 1988-89 fiscal year, on circulation system improvements which were required, in part, because of traffic generated by this project. Company and County have benefitted by the City's early 12 11 L 11 11 11 construction of these improvements which were to have been funded, in part, by the $600,000 payment required by the original agreement. 2. Company shall pay Fair Share fees in the sum of $233,402. This fee is based upon "new traffic" of 3,213 average daily trips, multiplied by the current rate of $99.27 a trip and reduced by a credit of $282,902 for master plan circulation system improvements funded by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance payments required by this Agreement. 3. The Fair Share and Traffic Phasing Ordinance fees required by this Agreement shall be paid as follows: a) The sum of Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars concurrent with the execution of this Agreement; b) The sum of Seventy Five Thousand ($75,000) Dollars prior to the issuance of the first' building permit for any of the projects described in Phase 1 (RV Park, Day Use, Boat Launch, Boat Storage, Marine Repair Facility, Coffee shop and Operations Center); c) The sum of Seventy Five Thousand ($75,000) Dollars prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit for any project described in Phase 1; d) The sum of Five Hundred ($500) Dollars per slip to be paid prior to the issuance of the final building or harbor permit necessary to the construction of the slips (the Fair Share and Traffic Phasing fees totalling $835,402 13 have been calculated on the assumption that 200 new boat slips will be constructed. In the event less than 200 boat slips are constructed, the Traffic Phasing and Fair Share fees required by this Agreement shall be reduced by a sum equal to the difference between the 200 slips predicted and the actual number constructed multiplied by $500.) e) The sum of Fifty Thousand ($50,000) Dollars prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the first building permit for the construction of a restaurant on the site formerly occupied by Anthony's Pier II; f) The sum of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000) Dollars prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the family inn; g) The sum of Four Hundred Ten Thousand Four Hundred Two ($410,402) Dollars prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit for the family inn. 4. The fees required by the preceding paragraph shall be paid by Company or by Company's sublessee. 5. The County, City and Company will meet and confer on the specific circulation system improvements to be financed by Company's payment of the Fair share and Traffic Phasing fees required by this Agreement, to the extent funds remain after consideration of improvements previously made by City. The parties acknowledge that, to the extent possible, Company's payments should be used to finance improvements to those 14 t 11 components of the city's circulation system most heavily impacted by the development authorized in this Agreement. C. Company shall construct an interpretive center, - to be located near the northeast corner of the property. The function of the interpretive center shall be the provision of information and educational materials relative to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Educational programs offered by the interpretive center shall be coordinated with the Department of Fish and Game'and the interpretive center shall be integrated into a trail system, approved by the Department of Fish and Game, that will allow interested persons access to portions of Upper Newport Bay. D. Company agrees to construct a launching area for human -powered and small sail craft and this launch area shall be 'of sufficient size to accommodate, at a minimum, the current use of the area for the launching of small sail boats and human - powered craft by members of non-profit organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts or similar organizations. E. Company shall construct a bike trail, the design, width and location of which is subject to the approval by the County's Director of Harbors, Beaches and Parks/EMA and the City Engineer, connecting Back Bay Drive with Bayside Drive. No admission or user charge shall be imposed upon persons for use of trail. Bicyclists shall be allowed access to the interpretive center. Company shall install bike racks along the trail adequate in number to accommodate demand. The bike trail may be 15 1 used by the City, County and other public entities engaged in constructing, repairing or maintaining public facilities or landscaping. The bike trail shall be designed to allow convenient access for public vehicles engaged in the maintenance and repair work. F. Transient occupancy taxes will be imposed upon users of the family inn and recreational vehicle park in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 3.16 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Transient occupancy taxes will be collected, processed, and paid in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 3.16 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. GG. Company, with respect to any use of the property which requires the payment of any tax or fee, for the issuance of any permit, pursuant to the provisions of Title 5 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, agrees to pay such fee or tax and/or obtain the required permit and comply with any and all conditions imposed upon the issuance of the permit; H. The following uses of the property shall not be permitted: 1. Skateboard courses; 2. Fireworks displays except as approved by the City Council of Newport Beach; 3. Small animal or reptile zoo; 4. The use of loudspeakers for paging or announcements outside of any structure provided, however, 16 lifeguards may use such equipment for safety and beach control purposes; and 5. Amplified music, except in the family inn or other structure, and in no event shall amplified music provided by Company, its lessees, licensees or operators of the property, exceed 55 dbs when measured at a point 50 ft. distant from any exterior wall. I. Grading and building permits shall be issued by the City of Newport Beach and may contain appropriate conditions to ensure that construction activities do not adversely impact the citizens of Newport Beach. Such conditions may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: 1. Designation of specified haul routes; ' 2. Restrictions on hours of activity; and ' 3. Installation of erosion control facilities to ensure that silt does not enter the Bay from the construction site. J. Final design of the project shall incorporate the following: 1. A lighting system designed and maintained to conceal the light source and minimize light spillage and glare offsite; 2. The incorporation of water -saving devices; 3. The installation of grease traps in all ' restaurant facilities; 1 17 11 4. Conformance with energy requirements as specified in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code; 5. Access and fire suppression systems in accordance with the requirements of the Fire Department of the City of Newport Beach; and 6. A landscape plan which emphasizes the use of drought resistant native vegetation, irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff or overwatering, with the landscaping to be installed during the initial phase of construction or as early as practicable once conflicts with other construction activities are resolved. IV. City agrees to provide a level of services to Newport Dunes appropriate to the uses developed on the site and consistent with that provided other properties in the City, including, but not limited to, water, fire and police. V. The promises and commitments of the parties as set forth herein, are intended to bind the parties now and in the future. The parties understand that this Agreement is similar to a Joint Powers Agreement, and, as such, contains commitments of both City and County sufficient to bind future boards and councils, notwithstanding any change in the composition thereof. City and County hereby expressly waive and give up any right to challenge the validity of this Agreement, or any specific term or condition hereof, based upon the contention that the legislative bodies of cities or counties are not empowered to bind future boards or councils, and each of the parties hereto stipulates that 18 Cl N the consideration set forth in this Agreement is adequate to support this waiver. VI. County shall not allow, and Company shall not construct, any development on the property exceeding that contemplated by this Agreement, without the concurrence of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach. Any plan for future development, not contemplated by • this Agreement, must be accompanied by adequate environmental documentation as required by law, and will be processed through the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Newport Beach in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.80 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. VII. The parties hereto recognize that the approval of the California Coastal Commission and the State Lands Commission, will be required for development of the property, and County and Company covenant that, in requesting such approval, they will seek no development in excess of that contemplated herein. City upon request by County or Company agrees to notify, in writing, all agencies which are required to approve the development contemplated in this Agreement of its support and City will endeavor to appear at public hearings before any Board or Commission reviewing a proposal for such development or any portion thereof, to express its support for the project. To the extent that the California Coastal Commission and/or State Lands Commission impose requirements upon County and Company not set forth in, or at variance with, the provisions of this Agreement, County and City agree to accept and incorporate as amendments to this Agreement all said changes and/or variances, so long as said changes and/or variances do not expand or increase the concentration, intensity, density or type of the development as contemplated by this Agreement. All parties understand that this Agreement is intended to establish the limits of development and not to guarantee construction or development. County and Company shall endeavor to notify City of any public hearing or meeting which may relate to the development contemplated by this Agreement at least ten (10) days prior to the date of such meeting or hearing. Notice shall be given as provided in this Agreement. To City: city Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 To County: Director, Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Orange County Environmental Management Agency P.O. BOX 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 To Company: Newport Dunes Partnership c/o David Cherashore 998 West Mission Bay Drive San Diego, CA 92109 VIII. This Agreement is in furtherance of a plan for redevelopment of the property. County and Company seek to transform underused portions of the property to their economic advantage by constructing visitor -serving facilities of greater intensity than now exist. City seeks to obtain certain offsite benefits, including, among others, circulation system improvements. All parties agree and recognize that it will not be practical to restore this property to its previous state once any 20 significant portion of the contemplated development is undertaken. The parties hereto have made significant and irrevocable commitments and have each given up certain rights and powers in order to achieve this agreement. The parties agree that damages would not be an adequate remedy for the failure of one of the parties to carry out its obligations under this Agreement, both because the property and this Agreement are unique, and because it would be very difficult to estimate the amount of damages which could, or would, properly compensate the other parties in the event of such failure or breach. Thus, the parties agree that specific performance, rather than damages, is the only remedy which would adequately compensate the other parties in the event of the failure of one party to comply with its duties and obligations as set forth in this Agreement. IX. In the event Company fails to comply with its obligations pursuant to this agreement, County shall have the right to perform and shall be entitled to the rights and benefits confered thereby. X. The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns. XI. No modification, amendment or other change in this Agreement or any provision thereof shall be affected for any purpose unless specifically set forth in writing and signed by a 21 rl duly authorized representative of the parties hereto. Executed the day and year first above written. ATTEST: ,4 City clerk / CITY W 11 I Mayor City of Newport Beach r� 11 'J II II II II II COUNTY OF ORANGE By:.,'s� C�tJ The Chairman of its Board of Supervisors SIGNED AND CERT-NED THAT A COPY OF THIS DOCU°AENi HAS EEEid OLCIVERED TO APPROVED AS TO FORM: THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. County Counsel, llNDA D. ROBERTS DEC 13 198E Clerk of the Board of Supervisors COMPANY County of Orange, Cjlornia NEWPORT DUNES PARTNERSHIP A California Partnership FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED NEWPORT DUNES SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ■ This First Amendment to Amended Newport Dunes Settlement Agreement ("First Amendment") is made as of December /?, 1990 by and between THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation and Charter City, hereinafter referred to as "City", THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, a Political Subdivision of the State of California, 1 hereinafter "County", and NEWPORT DUNES PARTNERSHIP, a California ' partnership, hereinafter "Company", who agree as follows: 1. This First Amendment is executed in contemplation of the tfollowing facts and circumstances: ' (a) City, County and Company are parties to that certain Amended Newport Dunes Settlement Agreement, dated December 9, ' 1988 ("Settlement Agreement"). (b) It is the intent of City, County and Company to amend and ' modify certain of the provisions and- conditions of the ' Settlement Agreement; it is the express intention of City, County and Company that except as expressly amended or modified by the provisions and conditions of this First Amendment, the Settlement Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. (c) The capitalized terms used in this First Amendment shall have the same meaning as is otherwise ascribed thereto in the ' Settlement Agreement. 2. Paragraph I.H is modified to include with the ' improvements so described a marina club house and storage building, together with appurtenant facilities, constructed in accordance with the requirements of paragraph H.8 of the 'Settlement Agreement. I i 1' 3. Paragraph I.H of the Settlement Agreement is hereby , amended and modified by adding the following provisions and conditions thereto as paragraph 8: ' 018. A marina club house and storage building and appurtenant , facilities shall be constructed upon the Property. The gross floor area of the office and amenity uses shall not exceed 6,000 square feet and the gross floor area of the storage uses , shall not exceed 3,200 square feet. The fitness room within the marina club house shall be no larger than the size shown ' on the approved Conceptual Plans (approximately 475 square feet) and all exercise equipment shall be located within the , fitness room. The marina club house shall contain no more ' than two stories and the storage building shall be limited to one story. , The marina club house shall be constructed at or below the northerly prolongation of the sight line drawn from a point ' five feet above Pacific Coast Highway (along the section shown ' on the revised schematic site plan) to the top of the north side of the proposed Family Inn. ' The marina club house and storage building shall be available only to tenants of the marina upon the Property and their r guests and access shall be controlled by Company. In the event the City finds evidence that the marina club house and/or storage building are being used by other than tenants I of the marina and that additional vehicular traffic is being generated thereby, the City will so advise the County and the County shall as part of its lease administration -2- responsibilities correct the situation to ensure that the traffic impacts do not occur. The marina club house and storage building and appurtenant facilities shall substantially conform to approved Conceptual Plans on file with the County and City and the architectural theme of the marina club house and storage building and appurtenant facilities shall be consistent with the mediterranean style of existing Phase I improvements on the Property. The pool, courtyard and related areas appurtenant to the marina club house shall be sized, designed and landscaped in substantial conformance with the "preliminary landscape technical plan" on file with the City and County and all landscaping shall be maintained at a height of at least five feet below the highest point of the marina club house. Marina tenants and users shall be prohibited, and their leases shall so provide, from undertaking and otherwise pursuing commercial activities within the marina club house and storage building including boat charters. However, the limitation on charter activities shall not prohibit charters of up to and including six passengers. The marina club house shall include space for marina office personnel and three distinct recreational amenity areas. The amenity areas include a television room, fitness center and club lounge. The storage building shall consist of large lockers, laundry facilities, vending machines and the storage area for marina maintenance equipment." 0 -3- 3. %-:xcept as expressly amended or modified by the provisions and conditions of this First Amendment, the Settlement Agreement shall and .foes remain in full force and effect. AS TO FORM: :ey APPRIOVI TO FORM: County COL: -.sel N:\2\2529\33220\: ;STW. CITY By: Mayor P0R'ty Of Newport Be.jrh COUNT�ORAN, By' The Chairman of it:: Board of Supervisors SIGNED MD CEr,:--- ='4T A COPY OF THIS DOCUIME"IT Hi ' nggrc THECHAIR' ARDED TO UVC;; Clerk of the eaar^ ;oen�sars CQun� of Ora^£:; ifornia COMPANY NEWPORT DUNES PARTNER-c;::p, a Cali nia partner=•.;, By: �.. Anne L. Evans -4- 3 11 II BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MINUTES December 18, 1990 AMENDMENT TO AMENDED NEWPORT DUNES SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH mental Management Agency requests approval of an amendment to an agreement for development of a marina center. MOTION: On motion by Supervisor Roth, seconded by Supervisor Vasquez, the Board authorized execution of the First Amendment to the agreement with Newport Dunes Partners. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. I I LSA Associates, Inc. 1] r-, LJ h 1 APPENDIX S NEWPORT DUNES PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT PLAN ' 9/22/99«P:\CWB834\EIR\TOC-VOL-I.WPD» IJ FJ II II II I U NEWPORT DUNES PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT PLAN Part 1. Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Part 2. Design Guidelines July, 1999 II 1 NEWPORT DUNES PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT PLAN IPart 1. Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures ' Part 2. Design Guidelines 1 1 1 1 1 E July 9, 1999 11 Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 07/13/99 11:33 AM I ' Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................I ' A. Existing and Proposed Uses...................................................................................2 B. GovernmentalAgencies..........................................................................................3 C. Purpose of The Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan....................3 ' D. Project Approval Summary .....................................................................................4 1. PC District Plan..........................................................................................4 a. Scope and Purpose ' .........................................................................6 b. Process. .. 2. Conceptual Precise Plan............................................................................6 a. Scope and Purpose.........................................................................6 ' b. Process.............................................................................................6 3. Final Precise Plan.......................................................................................6 a. Scope and Purpose.........................................................................6 ' b. Process.............................................................................................7 t II. GENERAL CONDITIONS AND REGULATIONS...................................9 A. General Conditions........................................................................................... 9 1. Consistency With General Plan and Code...............................................9 ' 2. Terms..........................................................................................................9 3. Conflict With Code....................................................................................9 4. Interpretation.............................................................................................9 ' 5. Planning Unit Boundaries.......................................................................10 B. Regulations............................................................................................................10 1. Grading and Erosion Control.................................................................10 2. Screening of Mechanical Equipment.....................................................10 3. Archaeological/Paleontological...............................................................10 4. Fire Equipment Access............................................................................10 ' 5. Building Codes.........................................................................................11 6. Landscape/Grading Plans.......................................................................11 7. Special Events...........................................................................................11 t8. Public Utility Distribution........................................................................11 9. On -Site Trails...........................................................................................11 10. Title 24 Requirements..............................................................................11 ' 11. Alcoholic Beverage Consumption...........................................................12 12. Water Conservation.................................................................................12 13. Slope Stabilization....................................................................................12 ' 14. On -Site Streets..........................................................................................12 15. Noise Control............................................................................................12 ' 16. Time -Share Developments......................................................................12 Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 0 07/13/9911:33 AM Table of Contents M. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS .........................14 A. Project Purpose.....................................................................................................14 B. Process Objectives .............. .......... ................. ....................... w............... ....... .......... 14 C. Permitted Uses & Approvals Process...................................................................14 1. Permitted General Uses...........................................................................14 2. Permitted Specific Uses Per Planning Unit............................................17 Planning Unit 1, Resort Hotel andTime-Shares ..............................17 Planning Unit 2, Recreational Vehicle Resort and Village Center.18 Planning Unit 3, Day Use, Beach & Lagoon..........................0..........19 Planning Unit 4, Boat Launch and Dry Boat Storage .........4...........20 Planning Unit 5, Marina ......................... ...... ...................................... 21 IV. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.....................................................22 A. Permitted Height of Structures .....................................................I.......................22 1. Standards for Allowable Heights...............................................6............22 Planning Unit 1, Resort Hotel and Time -Share........... 6....................22 Planning Unit 2, Recreational Vehicle Resort and Village Center.22 Planning Unit 33 Day Use, Beach and Lagoon ............... I..................22 Planning Unit 4, Boat Launching and Dry Boat Storage................22 Planning Unit 5, Marina.....................................................................22 Height Measurement...........................................................................23 2. Alternative Development Standards......................................................23 B. Required Setback to Structures............................................................................24 C. Daylight Plane.......................................................................................................24 D. Off-street Parking Standards.........................................................................A......25 PlanningUnit 1.........................................................................................25 PlanningUnits 2 — 4: ................................................................................ 26 PlanningUnit 5.........................................................................................26 E. Landscaping................................................... ...:........... ................................... 1..4.26 FScreening...............................................................................................................27 G. Signs......................................................................................................................29 H. Lighting.................................................................................................................29 I. Loading..................................................................................................................29 T. Trash and Storage Areas......................................................................................29 & Coastal Access.......................................................................................................30 L. Connection to Existing Off -site Circulation Elements ............................... ........ 30 Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 1 , 07/13/9911:33 AM , I 1 I V. Table of Contents PRECISE PLAN REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES ......................31 A. Purpose and Intent................................................................................................31 B. Submittal Contents................................................................................................31 1. Conceptual Precise Plans.........................................................................32 2. Final Precise Plans...................................................................................33 3. Form and Number Requirements...........................................................34 ' C. Approval and Appeals Process.............................................................................34 1. Conceptual Precise Plan..........................................................................34 2. Final Site Development Plan...................................................................34 ' 3. Precise Plan Incorporating Alternative Development Standards .......35 4. Standard of Review..................................................................................35 5. Appeals and Calls for Review.................................................................36 6. Amendments and Compliance................................................................36 ' VI. DEFINITIONS.............................................................................................38 J I I I INewport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 2 1 07/13/99 11:33 AM I I 1 pl I Ij 1 I I 1 J 11 1 Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures section I. Introduction I. INTRODUCTION The Newport Dunes Planned Community District is comprised of the approximately 100 acre Newport Dunes Resort ("Newport Dunes Planned Community" or "Newport Dunes Planned Community District"). The Newport Dunes Planned Community shall be governed by this Newport Dunes Planned Community ("PC") District Plan set forth herein which includes Part 1: Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures and Part 2: Design Guidelines (the "PC District Plan.") Newport Dunes Resort is a long standing, visitor serving aquatic - oriented resort community located in the City of Newport Beach. The Newport Dunes Resort site ("Site") comprises approximately 100 acres along Upper Newport Bay and is serviced by Jamboree Road via Back Bay Drive and Pacific Coast Highway via Bayside Drive. The Site is leased from the County of Orange by a private resort developer and operator and is partially developed. Figure 1 Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 1 07/13/99 11:33 AM I Part1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section I. Introduction A. Existing and Proposed Uses The intent of the Newport Dunes Planned Community is to provide a visitor serving, aquatic -oriented, mixed use destination resort, with "villages" defined by use, within the Resort Site. Existing uses within the Newport Dunes Resort Site include: a 10-acre swimming beach; a mile -long pedestrian promenade around the swimming lagoon; day use facilities with parking and beach restrooms; a restaurant; a 450-slip marina; a recreational vehicle resort and village center; swimming pools; meeting space; boat storage and launching facilities; support services, and parking. Proposed uses include a resort hotel and time-share facility with associated retail and services; health club; eating and drinking establishments; as well as other associated visitor serving, aquatic - oriented, resort uses. Existing Newport Dunes Resort, 1998 Figure 2 Newport Dunes Planned Community District'Plan 2 I r I 11 I I I k C n I 07/1319911:33 AM L I 11 I I I I 1 I I u I 1 I Part1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section I. Introduction B. Governmental Agencies The Site is located within the City of Newport Beach and, therefore, is subject to the City's General Plan and Municipal Code. The Site also is within the Coastal Zone and is, therefore, subject to the California Coastal Act and the jurisdiction of the California State Coastal Commission. The City of Newport Beach is responsible for implementing the Local Coastal Program. The County of Orange serves as the landowner and responsible agency for the lease, settlement agreement and other ownership responsibilities. C. Purpose of The Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code allows a "Planned Community District" (Chapter 20.35) to address land use designations and regulations in Planned Communities. The Newport Dunes PC District Plan serves as the controlling ordinance for the Site. The PC District Plan is designed to be consistent and in conformance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and Municipal Code and is authorized and intended to implement the "Planned Community District" regulations of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. The specific purposes of the Newport Dunes PC District are found in Section 20.35.010 of the Municipal Code as follows: "A. To provide for the classification and development of parcels of land as coordinated, comprehensive projects so as to take advantage of the superior environment which can result from large-scale community planning; B. To allow diversification of land uses as they relate to each other in a physical and environmental arrangement while insuring substantial compliance with the spirit, intent and provisions of this Code; C. To include various types of land uses, consistent with the general plan, through the adoption of a development Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 3 07/13/99 11:33 AM I Part1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures , Section I. Introdudon , plan and text materials which set forth land use relationships and development standards." The Newport Dunes PC District Plan achieves the three purposes set forth above by: ' A. Providing for the classification and development of the Site in five Planning Units which provides a coordinated, ' comprehensive project and takes advantage of large scale community planning. The PC District Plan combines provisions for the orderly site planning and development, protection of sensitive and natural habitats, innovative design concepts, design guidelines for consistent treatments and a logical and timely sequence of community and ' governmental review and input; B. Allowing for diversification of land uses in the five Planning Units as they relate to -each other in the physical and environmental arrangement along the Upper Newport Bay while insuring substantial compliance with the spirit, ' intent and provisions of the Municipal Code; C. Including various types of land uses, as set forth in Figure 3 and Section III.0 consistent with the General Plan, through the adoption of this PC District Plan and the implementing Precise Plans setting forth land use relationships and development standards set forth in Section IV. D. Project Approval Summ ary , Precise Plans processed pursuant to this PC District Plan will be reviewed as set forth in Section V of this PC District Plan, as summarized below: 1. PC District Plan a. Scope and Purpose. The Newport Dunes PC District Plan covers the entire 100 acre Resort Site Planned Community and includes both existing and proposed land uses. The PC District Plan divides the Planned Community into five (5) Planning Units, Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 4 07113/9911:33 AM , IPart 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section I. Introduction based upon existing use and/or areas of geographic similarities. Subsequent Precise Plans will cover at least one Planning Unit. Planning Units are delineated as: 1. Planning Unit 1— Resort Hotel & Time -Share 2. Planning Unit 2 — Recreational Vehicle Resort and Village Center 1 3. Planning Unit 3 — Day Use/Beach/Lagoon 4. Planning Unit 4 — Boat Launch & Dry Boat Storage 5. Planning Unit 5 — Marina El t'* its „ i• `'� ,,�,j,.,Cw1 K�`�y[,� ay�4'i' Syto=�xe_,ry Planning Units ' Figure 3 Planning Unit Delineation This PC District Plan is the overall land use regulation for the entire Planned Community. It serves as the basis for all decisions and contains the statistical summary for the Newport Dunes Planned Community and each Planning Unit. Likewise, it provides a method for review and input from the community and governmental agencies on the relationship of uses on the Site. ' Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 5 1 07/13/9911:33 AM 1 Part1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section I. Introduction b. Process. The PC District Plan is approved and may be amended or updated in accordance with the procedures set forth in Municipal Code Chapter 20.35. 2. Conceptual Precise Plan a. Scope and Purpose. The Conceptual Precise Plan ' addresses one or more Planning Units and may consider both existing and proposed land uses. The Conceptual Precise Plan is designed to allow a project to be brought before the Planning Commission at a point in the conceptual design process which allows early input of policy guidance from the City staff and the community's representatives. The Conceptual Precise Plan would address the important major features of the project, the larger scale decisions and the macro level determinations. The Conceptual Precise Plan will give policy guidance to the Planning Director for her review and administrative approval of the detailed Final Precise Plans. The Conceptual Precise Plan allows the deoision-makers, staff, and ,. community an opportunity to review and make input on the merits of the project proposal at an early and logical stage in the planning process. It also allows the applicant to receive input from the decision -makers, staff, and community before finalizing the engineering drawings necessary for implementation and final 11 approval. b. Process. A Conceptual Precise Plan shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the process set forth in Chapter 20.91 and Chapter 20.95 of the Municipal Code. 3. Final Precise Plan a. Scope and Purpose. The Final Precise Plan shall include the final engineering necessary to pull building permits and other supporting implementing information set forth in Section V.13.2 of this PC District Plan. The Final Precise Plan is a more precise, detailed and engineered plan that implements the policy guidance in the Conceptual Precise Plan. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 6 ' 07/13/9911:33 AM , ' Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section I. Introduction b. Process. At the applicant's election, a Final Precise Plan may be processed (i) after approval of a Conceptual Precise Plan for one or more Planning Unit(s) or (ii) as the first submittal without having previously obtained approval of a Conceptual ' Precise Plan. If a Conceptual Precise Plan has been approved by the Planning Commission, the Planning Director shall review the engineered Final Precise Plan for substantial conformance with the approved Conceptual Precise Plan on an administrative basis. Upon a finding of substantial conformance with the Conceptual Precise Plan, the Planning Director the Final Precise Plan. shall approve If the Final Precise Plan is submitted as the first submittal, the Final Precise Plan shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the process set forth in Chapter 20.91 and Chapter 20.95 of the Municipal Code. The following table, Table 1, graphically illustrates this process. I LJ I� 1 I I I Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 7 1 07113/9911:33 AM Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures section I. Introduction Planned Community Development Plan Commission Appealable to City Council Final Precise Flan As Second Submittal As First Submittal OR with No Alternative as Second Submittal Development Standards with Alternative, Develo went Standards Appealable to Planning Commission per Ch. 20.95 Appealable to City Council Table 1 Planning Commission Appealable to City Council uer Ch. 20.95 Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 8 07/1319911:33 AM I Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section II. General conditions and Regulations H. GENERAL CONDITIONS AND REGULATIONS A. General Conditions 1. Consistency With General Plan and Code The Newport Dunes Planned Community (PC) District Plan are found to be consistent with and in compliance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and Municipal Code. All existing and future development within the Resort Site that is in compliance with the PC District Plan shall be assumed to be consistent with the General Plan and in compliance with the Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach. 2. Terms Terms used in the Newport Dunes PC District Plan shall have the same definitions as given in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code unless otherwise defined herein. 3. Conflict With Code Any details or issues not specifically covered by the Newport Dunes PC District Plan shall be subject to the regulations of the adopted City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. In all cases where conflict may occur between provisions included herein, and provisions contained in the Municipal Code, the provisions contained in this PC District Plan shall prevail. 4. Interpretation The Newport Dunes PC District Plan is adopted pursuant to the regulations contained in Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. It is specifically intended by such adoption that the PC District Plan shall regulate all development within the Newport Dunes Resort Site. In cases where sufficient direction for interpretation of these regulations is not explicit, the adopted City of Newport Beach Municipal Code shall apply. INewport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 9 07/13/9911:33 AM Part1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures section II. General CondIllons and Regulations 5. Planning Unit Boundaries a. Except as otherwise indicated, dimensions are measured from centerline of streets. b. Adjustments of the Planning Unit boundaries and boundaries not dimensioned in this Newport Dunes PC District Plan shall be refined by Final Precise Plan, tentative map or final subdivision map approvals and shall not require amendment of the Newport Dunes PC District Plan, in accordance with Municipal Code Section 20.01.065.B. A Regulations 1. Grading and Erosion Control Grading and erosion control shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and shall be subject to permits issued by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. Screening of Mechanical Equipment All mechanical appurtenances on building rooftops and in utility vaults shall be screened from view in a manner compatible with the building materials. I Archaeological/Paleontological Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the portion of the Site subject to the grading permit shall be examined to determine the existence and extent of archaeological and paleontological resources in accordance with adopted City policies. 4. Fire Equipment Access .Fire equipment and emergency access provisions shall be approved by the Newport Beach Fire Department. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 10 07/13/9911:33 AM I Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section II. General Conditions and Regulations 5. Building Codes Construction shall comply with applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code and the various other mechanical, electrical and plumbing codes related thereto as adopted by the Municipal Code. 6. Landscape/Grading Plans 1' All landscape and/or grading plans shall include provisions for temporary erosion control on all graded sites which are scheduled to remain unimproved between October 15 and May 15. 7. Special Events Temporary special community events, such as parades, trade shows, car shows, pageants, community picnics, athletic contests, swim meets, and other similar uses, are permitted in any Planning Unit in the Newport Dunes Planned Community, subject to the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 5.10. 8. Public Utility Distribution All new public utility distribution lines of 12 Kv or less shall be subsurface throughout the Newport Dunes Planned Community. 9. On -Site Trails Final design of on -site pedestrian and bicycle trails shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department. 10. Title 24 Requirements All buildings shall meet Title 24 requirements. Design of buildings shall take into account the location of building air intake to maximize ventilation efficiency, the incorporation of natural ventilation, and implementation of energy conserving heating and lighting systems. INewport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 11 ' 07/1319911:33 AM I Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section li. General Conditions and Regulations 11. Alcoholic Beverage Consumption The consumption of alcoholic beverages within the Newport Dunes Planned Community shall be in compliance with the State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control's license for the premises dated August 3,1993 unless superseded by renewals. (See Section V.A for procedures concerning compliance with Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance, Municipal Code Section 20.89.) 12. Water Conservation Water conservation design features shall be incorporated into building and landscape designs. 13. Slope Stabilization Exposed slopes, if any, shall be stabilized as soon as possible to reduce erosion. 14. On -Site Streets The Department of Public Works shall approve on -site public or private streets. 15. Noise Control Development and land uses shall comply with the community noise control standards of Chapter 10.26 of the Municipal Code. Upon evidence that community noise standards are exceeded, the Planning Director may require the applicant to establish a noise abatement program setting forth in -detail the approved terms, conditions, and requirements for achieving compliance with noise standards and policies. Said terms, conditions and requirements may include, but not be limited to, limitations, restrictions or prohibitions on operating hours, location of operations, and the types of equipment. 16. Time -Share Developments Time-share development shall comply with the City of Newport Beach Ordinance 20.84.040, including a submittal of a Sales Plan, a Management Plan and a Contingency Plan as described in the ordinance. A Sales Plan must contain the times, areas, and Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 12 07113/9911:33 AM I ' Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section II. General Conditions and Regulations methods that will be used to sell the time-share project. A Management Plan shall describe the methods that guarantee the future adequacy, stability, and continuity of a satisfactory level of management and maintenance. A Contingency Plan shall address the actions to be taken if the project is an economic failure or fails to sell fifty (50) percent within two years of the permit to occupy the first unit. These three Plans may be submitted as part of the Final Precise Plan Process and are subject to the approval of the Planning Director. r��I I I I I I 1 I i 11 INewport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 13 1 07/13/9911:33 AM Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section III. Land Use and Development Enlillements M. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS A. Project Purpose The purpose of the project is to establish and maintain a visitor serving, aquatic -oriented mixed use destination resort facility on the Site. It is the purpose of the applicant to develop this aquatic - oriented destination resort as a high quality, aesthetically pleasing facility with a range of uses available to persons of various economic means. It is also a purpose of this PC District Plan to permit a variety of compatible uses and facilities supportive of the general community and consistent with the mixed -use concept. B. Process Objectives It is an objective of the PC District Plan to provide a process and procedure for review of a project proposal. Once policy guidance has been given through the approval of the Conceptual Precise Plan, the day-to-day implementation shall be assumed by the Planning Director. C. Permitted Uses & Approvals Process This PC District Plan covers the entire Planned Community. Prior to approval of any tentative subdivision map or issuance of a building or grading permit, the applicant shall obtain approval of a Final Precise Plan. Any maps within the Planned Community shall be approved pursuant to Municipal Code Title 19. 1. Permitted General Uses For purposes of this PC District Plan, "permitted uses" are those uses set forth in this Section M.0 for each Planning Unit, and as described in a Final Precise Plan. The following General Uses are permitted in the Newport Dunes Planned Community, subject to Final Precise Plan approval: Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 14 07/1319911:33 AM I IPart1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures section III. Land Use and Development Entitlements a. Visitor accommodations, including, but not limited to, a hotel/time-share complex (not to exceed a total of 600 rooms/units), and a recreational vehicle resort and village center, b. C. Marinas and marine sales and services, Various food and beverage services including, but not limited to, cafes, restaurants, bars and cocktail lounges, food and beverage concessions, and catering service.'No more than one (1) free standing cafe/restaurant is permitted in the Newport Dunes Planned Community, d. Dry boat storage, at grade level and/or in covered multi -level structures, e. Boat launch ramps, f. Commercial recreation uses, g. Retail commercial business supportive of the destination resort uses, h. Service commercial business supportive of the destination resort uses, i. Day use beach areas, j. Accessory and ancillary structures or uses which are customarily incidental or necessary to the permitted main uses, and k. Any other similar use which is found compatible ' with the purpose and objectives this PC District Plan and which is indicated on the approved Planned Community Development Plan, and a Final Precise Plan or amendment thereof, approved in Newport Dunes PC District. accordance with this I I I I INewport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 15 1 07/13/9911:33 AM I Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section III. Land Use and Development Entitlements Table 2.' Mttzimutn Development Entitlements Planning Unit I Hotel & Time Share Hotel/Time-Share 600 roonwUnits f>/ 700,000 s.£ GFA Retail/Services 4,600 s.£ GFA t:l Function Areas 55,000 s.f. GFA Eating/Drinking Establishments 13,650 s.f. GFA Health Club/Spa 8,000 s.£ GFA Planning Unit 2 RVResort & Ydla a Center RV Resort RV Sites 444 spaces (3) Restroom Buildings (3) 3,600 s.f. GFA (total) Maintenance Building/Support 2,000 s.£ GFA Village Center Operations Center 6,000 s.£ GFA Convenience Store 3,400 s.f. GFA Clubhouse & Meeting Rooms 5,000 s f. GFA Laundry/Restroom Building 2,100 s.£ GFA Manager's Residence 2,100 s.f. GFA Planning Unit 3 Day Use/Beach Lagoon Public BeachRestmoms (2) 2,000 s.f. GFA Watetsports Rental 300 s.f. GFA Pavilions & Cabanas 22,250 s.£ GFA Planning Unit 4 Boat Launch/Dry Boat Storage Boat Launch Ramps 7lanes Marina 17 slips Dry Boat Storage 400 spaces Wash Rack 6lanes Eating/Drinking EsL & Support 7,200 s.£ GFA Planning Unit S Marina Marina 436 slips Marina Center 9,600 s.£ GFA Restroom Buildings (2) 2,400 s.f. GFA t 1J a notei room or ttme•smare unit t9 a room or suite of rooml5 destgned for occupancy as a single unit (2) s.£ =square feet; GFA = Gross Floor Area (3) approximately 150 of these spaces are located in Planning Unit 1 and may be removed to allow construction of the entitlements in Planning Unit 1 (4) see definition in Permitted Uses, PlanningUnit 3 and Section VI, Definitions i 11 I 11 L LI I I 7 V F Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 16 1 07/13/9911:33 AM II I ' Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section III. Land Use and Development Entitlements I I I 11 I I II 2. Permitted Specific Uses Per Planning Unit The following Specific Uses are permitted in the Planning Units as delineated generally on Figure 4. Key 10 Resort Hotel 8 Time -Shares V,l ge Cent nal `ehicle Resort E Day Use, Beach 8 Lagoon + Boat Launch& i l , Dry Boat Storage i"vm Manna i Planning Units Figure 4 ' Planning Unit 1, Resort Hotel and Time -Shares: Planning Unit 1 comprises approximately 30 acres of the larger 100-acre Newport Dunes Planned Community visitor serving resort and recreational complex. All existing and planned land uses in Planning Unit 1 are visitor -serving uses. Permitted Primary Uses, Unit 1: The primary use for Planning Unit 1 is visitor -serving destination resort hotel and associated time-share units. Permitted are: '1 INewport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 17 07/13/9911:33 AM I I Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Sectlon Ili. Land Use and Development Entitlements a. Resort Hotel and Time -Shares: up to 600 hotel rooms, with the option to replace up to 200 hotel rooms with time-share units. Up to 100 time-share units with no more than 200 bedrooms may be allowed at the option of the applicant with a pro rata reduction in hotel rooms. If a time-share unit has more than one bedroom and the potential to be separated for the purpose of renting separately, then each bedroom shall be counted as one room. Permitted Secondary Uses, Unit 1: Secondary visitor serving support uses are also provided for, and include such land uses as: a. Parking structures and surface parking, b. Fitness center and health spa, c. Food and beverage outlets (such as cafes, restaurants, cocktail lounges, bars, food and beverage concessions, etc.), d. Retail shops, e. Community information pavilion, , f. Meeting rooms, ballrooms, pre -function areas and banquet facilities, g. Aquatic -oriented recreation activities, including beach, watersports and other recreational uses, h. Special events, parties, catering and functions, i. Accessory uses that are customarily incidental to, and supportive of, the main uses including, but not limited to: restrooms, showers, equipment rentals, security and snack stands and carts, and j. Any similar use which is found to be consistent with the aquatic -oriented destination resort concept of the Newport Dunes Planned Community and which is shown on an approved Final Precise Plan. Planning Unit 2, Recreational Vehicle Resort and Village Center: Planning Unit 2 comprises approximately 12 acres of the larger 100 acre Newport Dunes Planned Community visitor serving resort and recreation complex. All existing and planned uses in Planning Unit 2 are visitor -serving uses. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 18 07/13/9911:33 AM I ' Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures section III. Land Use and Development Entitlements Permitted Primary Uses, Unit 2: The primary use for Planning Unit 2 is a visitor serving recreational vehicle resort and village center. Permitted is: ' a. Recreational vehicle resort and village center. Permitted Secondary Uses, Unit 2: The secondary uses for Planning Unit 2 are support for the recreation vehicle resort and a I "village center" serving and supporting the Newport Dunes Resort. Permitted are: a. Administrative offices, security and first aid station, b. Retail/convenience store and equipment rental, ' C. Recreational/meeting room and clubhouse, d. Additional meeting/banquet space, e. Snack stands and carts, f. Restrooms, showers and laundry, ' g. Community information pavilion, It. Special events, parties, catering and functions, i. Accessory uses, which are customarily incidental to 1 and supportive of a recreational vehicle resort, and j. Any similar use which is found to be consistent with the aquatic -oriented destination resort concept of the Newport Dunes Planned Community and which is shown on an approved Final Precise Plan. Planning Unit 3, Day Use, Beach & Lagoon: Planning Unit 3 comprises approximately 35 acres of the larger 100 acre Newport Dunes Planned Community visitor serving resort and recreation complex. All existing and planned land uses in Planning Unit 3 are visitor -serving uses. Permitted Primary Uses, Unit 3: The primary uses for Planning Unit 3 are: a. Paved parking areas serving the beach and lagoon visitors, b. Pavilions, cabanas, picnic areas and playgrounds (permanent, open structures, with services limited to electricity and water), INewport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 19 1 07/13/9911:33 AM Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section III. Land Us@and DevelopmentEntitiements C. Commercial concessions and facilities that serve beach goers, including, but not limited to, boat and equipment rentals and fast-food stands, d. Public visitor serving beach areas, and e. A swimming and recreation lagoon. Permitted Secondary Uses, Unit 3: Permitted secondary uses in Planning Unit 3 include; a. Restrooms and showers, b. Special events, parties, catering and functions, C. Accessory uses which are customarily incidental to and supportive of the main uses, and d. Any similar use which is found to be consistent with the aquatic -oriented destination resort concept of the Newport Dunes Planned Community and which is shown on an approved Final Precise Plan. Planning Unit 4, Boat Launch and Dry Boat Storage: Planning Unit 4 comprises approximately 13 acres ofthe larger 100 acre Newport Dunes Planned Community visitor serving resort and recreation complex. All existing and planned uses in Planning Unit 4 are visitor -serving uses. Permitted Primary Uses, Unit 4. The primary uses for Planning Unit 4 are: a. Boat launching ramps, b. Dry boat storage either at grade or in a covered stacked -storage facility, C. One free-standing restaurantleafe, d. Marine repairs, and e. Transient boat slips. Permitted Secondary Uses, Unit 4: Permitted uses in Planning Unit 4 include: a. Temporary boat trailer parking while using -the launch ramp facility, b. Boat washdown racks, C. Charter vessels for commercial purposes, subject to a commercial harbor activities permit, Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 20 07/13/9911:33 AM J ' Part 1 Land.Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section III. Land Use and Development Entitlements d. Special events, parties, catering and functions, e. Accessory uses which are customarily incidental to ' and supportive of the main uses, including, but not limited to, convenience docks, commercial vessel charter operations, and an ecological interpretive center, and f. Any similar use which is found to be consistent with the aquatic -oriented destination resort concept of the Newport Dunes Planned Community and which is shown on an approved Final Precise Plan. Planning Unit 5, Marina: Planning Unit 5, including the floating docks, comprises approximately 13 acres of the larger 100 acre Newport Dunes Planned Community visitor serving resort and recreation complex. All existing and planned uses in Planning Unit 5 are visitor -serving uses. Permitted Primary Uses, Unit 5: The primary uses for Planning Unit 5 are: ' a. Boat slips and docks, b. Marine clubhouse, C. Offices, d. Storage, and e. Pedestrian bridge. Permitted Secondary Uses, Unit 5. Permitted secondary uses in Planning Unit 5 include: Restrooms/showers, a. b. Charter vessels for commercial purposes, subject to a commercial harbor activities permit, C. Special events, parties, catering and functions, d. Accessory uses which are customarily incidental to 1 and supportive to the main uses, including, but not limited to, boat pump -out stations and commercial vessel charter operations, and e. Any similar use which is found to be consistent with the aquatic -oriented destination resort concept of the Newport Dunes Planned Community and which is shown on an approved Final Precise Plan. INewport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 21 07/13/99 11:33 AM C Part1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section IV. Site Development Standetds IV. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The following site development standards shall apply to the Newport Dunes Planned Community Site. An approved Conceptual Precise Plan or Final Precise Plan as first submittal may establish Alternative Development Standards, in accordance with the process set forth in Section V. Any adopted Alternative Development Standards for height also must comply with Section IV.A.2. A. Permitted Height of Structures 1 1. Standards for Allowable Heights Allowable heights are determined by Planning Unit as follows: Planning Unit 1, Resort Hotel and Time -Share: The maximum pad elevation for Planning Unit 1 shall be twelve feet (12') above mean sea level (MSL). A maximum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the hotel/time-share building footprint may be built to a maximum height of seventy-five feet (75') as measured from twelve feet (12') above MSL. The remainder of the structures in Planning Unit 1 shall be limited to a maximum height of fifty feet (50') as measured from twelve feet (12') above MSL. Planning Unit 2, Recreational Vehicle Resort and Village Center: The maximum height of all structures in Planning Unit 2 shall be thirty-five feet (35') as measured from finished grade. Planning Unit 3, Day Use, Beach and Lagoon: The maximum height of all structures in Planning Unit 3 shall be thirty-five feet (35') as measured from finished grade. Planning Unit 4, Boat Launching and Dry Boat Storage: The maximum height of all structures in Planning Unit 4 shall be thirty- five feet (35') as measured from finished grade. Planning Unit 5, Marina: The maximum height of all structures in Planning Unit 5 shall be thirty-five feet (351) as measured from finished grade. I Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 22 , 07/13/9911:33 AM 11 r I I J I 1 I I i I I Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards i£ Procedures Section IV. Site Development Standards Height Measurement: For purposes of measuring maximum height of a structure with a sloped roof, the following shall apply: In determining the height of a sloped roof, the measurement shall be the vertical distance between the grade and the midpoint of the roof plane, as measured from the ridge of the roof to where the wall plate intersects the roof plane, provided that no part of the roof extends more than five feet (5') above the maximum permitted height. (See chapter 20.65 of the Zoning Code for additional illustrations.) Max. 5Abave MlgiaNeorSlq Height Measurements Figure 5 2. Alternative Development Standards The Planning Commission may approve Alternative Development Standards to heights of structures in connection with a Conceptual Precise Plan or Final Precise Plan as first submittal, in accordance with the process set forth in Section V.C.3, and based upon the following criteria: Unit 1: The Planning Commission may approve changes to heights of structures in connection with a Conceptual Precise Plan or Final Precise Plan as first submittal, but in no case shall the maximum height of seventy-five feet (75') for a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the main hotel structure footprint be exceeded and no other structure in Planning Unit 1 shall exceed a maximum height of fifty feet (50'). Any modification of maximum height above seventy-five feet (75') and/or fifty feet (50% as described above shall require approval of an amendment to the Newport Dunes PC District Plan. 07/1319911:33 AM Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 23 I Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards $ Procedures Section IV. Site Development Standards Units 2-5: Alternative Development Standards which establish heights in excess of the maximums shown for Planning Units 2, 3, 4 and 5 may be established by approval of the Planning Commission in connection with the approval of the Conceptual Precise Plan or Final Precise Plan as first submittal, to allow architectural detailing, but in no case shall the maximum height of forty-five feet (45') for a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the main structure be exceeded. A Required Setback to Structures 1 Setback to structures shall be measured from the property line and shall be measured perpendicular from the property line, back of sidewalk or back of curb if there is no sidewalk. Required setbacks are: From Pacific Coast Highway 50 feet minimum From Back Bay Drive 20 feet mhumum From adjacent residential uses 15 feet minimum* *Residential setbacks are a tainimutn and should be refined based upon the daylight plane or shade extent, see Standard 3, below. All other setbacks shall be as shown on the approved Conceptual or Final Precise Plan. C. Daylight Plane To protect existing residential areas immediately adjacent to the Resort Site from shade impacts of new development at the Resort Site, a refined setback applies to new structures built adjacent to existing, off -site residential uses. Based upon the extent of shade in the worst case (morning of the winter equinox) situation, the following setbacks apply: Building 35 feet high 80 feet minimum Building 50 feet high 115 feet minimum Building 75 feet high 172 feet minimum Note: Daylight Plane setbacks are not measured perpendicular from the property line as standard setbacks are measured. Daylight Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 24 07/13/9911:33 AM I I I I I I I I I I I I IJ I !_ 1 I I Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section IV. Site Development Standards Plane setbacks are measured along a line 430 from true north, which is the angle of the maximum shadow (see diagram). 1 Shadow Height=35' '� ""�7 Shadow Length=80' Proposed Structures Existing Housing =5up,Lng Height `o- "•c Shadowlengtli NORTH •r 4 S�ycY• Building Height 7217 Length SCALE Shade Diagram-WintersolstaceB:ocam Figure 6 Daylight Plane Setback Determination D. Off-street Parking Standards Off-street parking standards are specified for each Planning Unit. Joint operations of parking in which the entire Newport Dunes Resort shares in the parking demand on an as -needed basis may be proposed and approved on any Conceptual or Final Precise Plan. Planning Unit 1: Off-street parking for the hotel, time-share and adjacent marina uses is provided for by surface parking and parking structures. Parking is provided in the ratio of: Hotel* 1.18 spaces per hotel room Time-share* 1.2 spaces per time-share unit Boat Slip 57 spaces per boat slips * includes permitted secondary uses I 07/13/9911:33 AM Newport Dunes, Planned Community District Plan 25 Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section IV. Site Development Standards Planning Units 2 — 4: Current off-street parking for existing uses in Planning Units 2, 3, and 4 shall remain, as follows: Planning Unit 2: 115 spaces (including check in and registration) Planning Unit 3: 646 spaces Planning Unit 4: 206 spaces (including boat launch parking) Planning Unit 5: Off-street parking for Planning Unit 5 is provided off -site in Planning Unit 1 and is subject to the requirements outlined for Planning Unit 1. To ensure that the Resort Site will always be adequately parked, the material increase in the intensity of any of the primary uses or any material increase in intensity of any secondary uses will require compliance with Chapter 20.66 "Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations" of the Municipal Code. Material changes or additions to existing uses shall also comply with the requirements contained in Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code. E. Landscaping Landscaping, consisting of a combination of evergreen or deciduous trees, shrubs, groundcover, softscape or hardscape shall be installed and maintained subject to the following standards: a. Highway Boundary Landscape: Where practical, boundary landscaping abutting arterial highways is required to an average depth of fifteen feet (15') with a minimum depth of five feet (5'). b. Public Street Boundary Landscape: Where practical, boundary landscaping abutting public streets, other than arterial highways, is required to an average depth of ten feet with a minimum depth of five feet (51). C. Additional Site Landscape: An additional amount of landscaping area, equal to at least five percent (5%) of the net usable area of the parcel, is to be provided in addition to boundary landscape. d. Parking Lot Landscape: Parking lots shall be landscaped at a minimum of one (1) tree per five (5) parking spaces, measured linearly. In double loaded Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 26 07/1319911:33 AM I IPart 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section IV. Site Development Standards parking rows, trees are counted for every ten (10) spaces (see Part 2: Design Guidelines). Parking lot landscape is not required on parking structure decks. above grade or in the boat launch/boat trailer parking lots. e. Separation: Where practical, landscaped areas shall be separated from an adjacent vehicular area by a wall or curb at least six inches higher than the adjacent vehicular area or shall in some other manner be protected from vehicular damage. f. Watering: Permanent or temporary automatic water facilities shall be provided for all landscaped areas. g. Landscape Maintenance: A regular program of landscape maintenance shall be developed in conjunction with the mitigation requirements in the Newport Dunes Resort EIR, as well as standard practices for all landscape areas. Required landscaping shall be maintained in a neat, clean and ' healthy condition. This shall include pruning, mowing of lawns, weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, replacement of plants when necessary and the regular watering of all plantings. The applicant will be required to correct any noted problems in a timely fashion. h. Vehicular and Pedestrian Sight Distance: Notwithstanding landscape requirements, safe and adequate sight distance shall be maintained for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. ' F. Screening Screening, consisting of fences, walls, landscaping, berms or elevation changes shall be installed and maintained subject to the following standards: ' a. Abutting Residential Areas: A screen shall be installed along all site boundaries abutting residential areas. Except as otherwise provided below, the screening shall have a total height of not less than six feet (6') nor more than seven feet (T), ' Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 27 07/13/9911:33 AM I Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section IV, Site Development Standards except for landscaping, which may be higher, or b. screening required for sound walls. Streets and Intersections: A screen shall be installed along all public streets and boundaries within twenty feet (20') of the point of intersection of: i. A vehicular accessway or driveway and a street, ii. A vehicular accessway or driveway and a sidewalk. iii. Two or more vehicular accessways, driveways or streets. C. Parking Areas Abutting Ifighway: A screen shall be installed along all parking areas abutting highways. d. Mechanical Equipment or Trash Enclosures: Mechanical equipment placed on any roof such as, ' but not limited to, air conditioning, heating, ventilation ducts and exhaust ducts shall be screened from view from any abutting or public , street or highway and any abutting residential area. e. Definition: A screen as referred to above shall consist of one or a combination of the following: i. Walls Including Retaining Walls: A wall shall consist of concrete, stone, brick, tile or similar type of solid masonry materials a minimum of six inches thick. ii. Berms: A berm shall be constructed of earthen materials and shall be landscaped. ' iii. Fences, Solid: A solid fence shall be constructed of wood or other materials with a minimum thickness of two inches (2"). _ iv. Landscaping: Vegetation, consisting of evergreen or deciduous trees or shrubs. f. Changes in Elevation: Notwithstanding the requirements listed above, Where the finished elevation of the property at the boundary line, or within five feet inside the boundary line, is higher or lower than the abutting property elevation, such change in elevation may be used in lieu of, or in , combination with, additional screening to satisfy the screening requirements of this section. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 28 ' 07/1319911:33 AM I Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section IV. Site Development Standards G. Signs On -site signs shall be permitted in accordance with Chapter 20.67 "Signs" of the Municipal Code, or as shown on an approved Sign ' Program. A Sign Program, covering at least the entire Planning Unit, shall accompany all Final Precise Plans. A Sign Program shall indicate placement and copy for all required coastal public access signs and notices. H. Lighting All lighting, exterior and interior shall be designed and located to ' confine direct rays and glare to the Resort Site. A Lighting Plan shall accompany all Final Precise Plans and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. Lighting plans shall include lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric site information. Lighting Plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to ' the City with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his or her opinion, this requirement has been met. L Loading ' All loading shall be performed on Resort Site. Loading platforms and areas shall be screened from view from adjacent streets, ' highways and residential areas. J. Trash and Storage Areas ' All storage, including cartons, containers or trash, shall be shielded from view within a building or area enclosed by a wall not less than six feet (6') in height. No such area shall be located within fifty feet (50') of any residential area unless it is fully enclosed. Trash containers throughout the Resort Site should be covered or have preventative measure to protect them from being overturned or accessed by wildlife. i 1 ' Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 29 07/1319911:33 AM Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section IV. Site Development Standards ' K. Coastal Access Provisions shall be made to provide adequate coastal access to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and the California Coastal Commission. Public Coastal Access shall be provided, at a minimum, from the following locations: 1. Along and across the lagoon. 2. From public parking to the shoreline. 3. From public sidewalks to the shoreline. 4. From Back Bay and Bayside Drives. 5. To the Interpretive Overlook off Back Bay Drive. 6. To the Marina shoreline. 7. To the boat launch. (Coastal access is further discussed in the Part 2: Design Guidelines.) L. Connection to Existing Off -site Circulation Elements Provisions shall be made to provide adequate and safe connection to existing off -site circulation elements such as streets, highways, bikeways, and trail systems to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 30 ' 07/13/9911:33 AM IPart 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section V. Precise Plan Regulations and Procedures V. PRECISE PLAN REGULATIONS AND 1 PROCEDURES A. Purpose and Intent The purpose of the Conceptual and Final Precise Plan review I process is to provide for appropriate and adequate review of all development proposals and uses within the Newport Dunes Planned Community District. An approved Final Precise Plan shall satisfy the requirement for any Use Pen -nit which otherwise may be required by the Municipal Code. In cases where special or specific findings are required by the Municipal Code for granting of a Use ' Permit for a particular land use including the provisions of Chapter 20.89, the same findings shall be required for approval of a Conceptual and Final Precise Plan containing the same land use. B. Submittal Contents ' The following sections describe the requirements for the submittal packages for either a Conceptual or a Final Precise Plan (sometimes referred to collectively as "Precise Plan"). Each Precise Plan submittal or amendment thereof shall contain sufficient detail for a thorough review of the relationships between ' uses on the site and on adjacent sites, as determined by the Planning Director. ' At the discretion of the Planning Director, the requirements for submittal of a Conceptual or Final Precise Plan may be altered from those set forth below where the Director determines that the ' information submitted will be sufficient to allow a thorough review of the project by the approving authority. Each of the submittals for both Conceptual and Final Precise Plans shall include plans, which contain basic identifying elements such ' as: a. Title block (applicant's name and date drawn) b. Scale and north arrow C. Property lines and/or building sites dimensioned INewport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 31 1 07/13/99 11:33 AM I Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures ' section V. Precise Pian Regulations and Procedures , d. Off -site uses identified e. Roads, on and off site, identified f. All plans to be drawn to scale, fully dimensioned and easily readable 1. Conceptual Precise Plans , Conceptual Precise Plans shall consist of plans necessary to convey the following information as applicable to the project proposal: a. Existing Conditions, showing: i. Existing site improvements, easements and uses ii. Uses to remain iii. Uses to be redeveloped iv. Existing topography b. Improvement Site Plan(s), showing: i. Proposed location, acreage, and land use ii. Buildings: including use, location, height and square footage of structures iii. Streets: location and width iv. Easements: location and width V. Access drives, driveways, trails and pedestrian ways vi. Perimeter fencing or walls vii. Parking areas with approximate square ' footage and approximate number of stalls C. Conceptual Grading Plan, showing: i. Existing topography (screened) ii. Proposed topography iii. Any walls or retaining structures iv. Concepts for drainage V. Preliminary calculations of cut and fill d. Conceptual Landscape Plan, showing: i. Planting character, typical spacing and a potential plant palette ii. Irrigation concept, indicating type of irrigation system proposed iii. Methods of erosion control, if applicable to Smog , Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 32 07/1319911:33 AM , I Peril Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Section V. Precise Plan Regulations and Procedures e. Elevations and or Character Sketches that clearly demonstrate the architectural theme of the project, 1 including materials, colors and heights f. Any additional background and supporting information, studies or materials that the applicant 1 or Planning Director deems necessary for a clear representation of the project in concept 2. Final Precise Plans Final Precise Plans shall consist of plans necessary to convey the following information as applicable to the project proposal: ' a. Existing Conditions, per the Conceptual Precise Plan requirements b. Improvement Site Plan(s), per the Conceptual Precise Plan requirements C. Conceptual Grading Plan, per the Conceptual Plan requirements d. Floor Plans of ground floor and typical floors ' e. Elevations that clearly demonstrate the architectural theme of each face of all structures, including walls and signs, illustrating the following data: i. All exterior materials ii. All exterior colors t iii. Building heights f. Parking areas existing and proposed with all parking spaces shown to City standards, including a Parking Management Plan g. Preliminary Landscape Plan, showing: i. General location of all plant materials, by common and botanical names ii. Size of plant materials, where applicable ' iii. Irrigation concept, indicating type of irrigation system proposed h. Lighting Plan, including: locations, fixture height, lighting fixture product type and technical specifications, including photometric site information (see Section IV.H.) i. Signage Plan: containing details of the placement and copy for all required coastal public access signs and notices (see Section IV.G.) ' 33 Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 07/13/9911:33 AM Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards S Procedures Section V. Precise Plan Regulations and Procedures j. Transient Slip Management Plan k. Time -Share Plans: including the information described in Section H.B.16 1. A list of all -relevant programs, policies, and guidelines contained in the General Plan, together with a description of how they are being implemented by the Final Precise Plan proposal M. Any additional background and supporting information, studies or materials that the applicant or Planning Director deems necessary for a clear representation of the project 3. Form and Number Requirements The materials listed above shall be submitted in the form and number required by the Planning Director for distribution, staff and Commission review. The Conceptual or Final Precise Plan shall be accepted for filing when the above -described materials have been submitted in the required form and number. C. Approval and Appeals Process The following sections describe the approval and appeals process for the Conceptual Precise Plans, the Final Precise Plans and Alternative Development Standards. 1. Conceptual Precise Plan The Conceptual Precise Plan for any Planning Unit(s) shall be heard by the Planning Commission in the same manner as a Use Permit in accordance with Chapter 20.91 and Chapter 20.95. of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code ("Use Permit Code!). The Planning Commission shall hear the application and may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the Conceptual Precise Plan. 2. Final Site Development Flan The Planning Director shall review the Final Precise Plan for any Planning Unit(s) for compliance with approved Conceptual Precise Plan and shall approve the Final Precise Plan so long as it is in substantial compliance with the Conceptual Precise Plan. If there Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 34 07113/9911:33 AM IPart 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures ' Section V. Precise Plan Regulations and Procedures is substantial deviation from the Conceptual Precise Plan (at the discretion of the Planning Director); or if the applicant submits the ' Final Precise Plan as first submittal, Planning Commission shall review and approve such application, following the Conceptual Precise Plan approval steps outlined above. 3. Precise Plan Incorporating Alternative Development Standards a. When a Conceptual or Final Precise Plan proposes ' the establishment of development standards that differ from those standards set forth in Section IV, as determined by the Planning Director, the ' proposal shall be deemed to present Alternative Development Standards. b. The Planning Commission shall hear the application for Precise Plans proposing Alternative Development Standards in accordance with Chapter 20.91 and Chapter 20.95 of the Municipal Code and may approve, conditionally approve, or ' deny the Precise Plan. C. For the Planning Commission to approve Alternative Development Standards, the Planning Commission must find: (i) the Precise Plan otherwise substantially conforms with and is ' consistent with the intent of the Newport Dunes PC District Plan; (ii) the Alternative Development Standards will not be detrimental or injurious to ' property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, (iii) the Alternative Development Standards constitute minor modifications which do not cause a material change to land use, density or intensity on the Site; and (iv) the Alternative Development standards will ' improve engineering, planning or design of the Precise Plan. ' 4. Standard of Review Before any Conceptual Precise Plan or Final Precise Plan as first submittal maybe approved, the Planning Commission shall make the following findings: Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 35 07/13/9911:33 AM Peril Land Uses, Development Standards R Procedures Section'V. Precise Plan Regulations and Procedures a. General Plan: that the use or project is consistent with the General Plan. b. Local Coastal Program: that the use or project is consistent with the Local Coast Program. C. Zoning Regulations: that the use or project is consistent with this Newport Dunes PC District Plan. d. CEQA: that the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been complied with. It is intended that the Newport Dunes Resort Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 98061113) will satisfy CEQA requirements for all implementing approvals for the Newport Dunes PC District Plan. e. General Welfare: that the project will not result in conditions or circumstances contrary to the public health, safety and the general welfare. 5. Appeals and Calls for Review Action on a Precise Plan may be appealed or called for review in accordance with Chapter 20.95 "Appeals and Calls for Review" of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. Amendments and Compliance a. The Newport Dunes PC District Plan may be amended in accordance with the same procedures as it was adopted. Adoption of a Precise Plan with Alternative Development Standards shall not require amendment to the PC District Plan. b. A Precise Plan may be amended or revised by the same procedures as set forth in Section V.B and V.0 above. Minor variations to a Precise Plan, as determined by the Planning Director, shall not require an amendment to the Precise Plan or the PC District Plan. C. Review of amendments to the Newport Dunes PC District Plan shall be limited to those Planning Units that are being proposed for change. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 36 07/13/9911:33 AM Cl ' Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures section V. Precise Plan Regulations and Procedures d. The appropriate City departments shall insure that the actual development is consistent with the ' approved Precise Plan. e. It is the intent of these procedures that (i) any subsequent development proposal, (ii) any addition ' to existing development or (iii) a minor project or projects which are accessory to or an expansion of an existing use, in substantial compliance with the approved Precise Plan, as determined by the Planning Director, shall not require the processing of an amendment or revision to the Precise Plan or the PC District Plan. I 1 !J 1 11 ' Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 37 1 07/1319911:33 AM Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures VI. Definitions VI. DEFINITIONS All words and phrases used in this Newport Dunes PC District Planned Plan shall have the same meaning and definition as used in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code unless defined differently in this section. Commercial Recreation: Any use or development, either public or private, providing amusement, pleasure or sport, which is operated or carried on primarily for financial gain, including establishments where food and beverages are sold as secondary or ancillaryuse. Common area -parking: A parking plan whereby tenants of a project share use of a parking area even though lot lines may bisect the parking area. Some or all of the required parking for a given use may be located on a separate and non -abutting lot or building site. Community Information Center: A temporary or permanent structure principally used as information pavilion and/or temporary real estate office, with parking and related facilities. Conceptual Precise Plan: A plan and supporting data that describes a project proposal on a conceptual, informal basis. An initial plan with sufficient accuracy to allow the elected and appointed decision makers to provide input and policy guidance to staff and the project proponent on the major features of a project proposal. A conceptual plan prepared at an early stage in the planning process, which allows input from the public and private sector at a stage where changes may be considered without incurring undue expense. The Conceptual Precise Plan review and approval process is designated as a vehicle for decision makers to provide the policy guidance which will allow staff to review and approve the more detailed final engineered Final Precise Plan and other implementation documents. Final Precise Plan: A final engineered plan with a level of detail to allow the City to issue building permits. The Final Precise Plan implements the policy guidance of the Conceptual Precise Plan. A plan showing the details of building location, structures, parking, Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 38 07/13/9911:33 AM I IPart 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures ' VI. Definitions vehicular access, landscaping and architectural design for a project or building site. The Planning Director may approve a Precise ' Plan. Hotel: Any building or portion thereof with access provided through a common entrance, lobby or hallway to guest rooms, with or without cooking facilities, retail commercial and other ancillary ' facilities, and which rooms are designated, intended to be used or are used, rented or hired out as temporary or overnight accommodations for guests. , Hotel Room/Time-Share Unit: A hotel room or time-share unit is a room or suite of rooms designed for occupancy as a single unit. ' Joint Use of Parking: The shared use of off-street parking facilities by more than one type of land use, so that the whole ' project shows in the parking on an as -needed basis. The same parking spaces are counted to satisfy the off-street parking requirements of more than one land use, e.g. use of the same ' parking facility to satisfy the off-street parking requirements of a church and an office building. ' Pavilions and Cabanas: Permanent structures along the beach or grassy shore to serve as picnic shelters. Structures are open sides, with canopy or trellis roofs. Services are limited to electricity or ' water. No overnight accommodations are allowed in pavilions or cabanas. CI [1 I 1 Planning Unit: An area of land that is depicted on the Newport Dunes PC District Development Plan. Planning Units are numbered on Figure 3 of this PC District Plan. Precise Plan: Generic term to describe both Final and Conceptual Precise Plan Recreational Vehicle: A motor home, travel trailer, boat, truck, or van camper, or camping trailer, with or without motive power, designed for temporary human habitation for recreational or emergency purposes. Recreational Vehicle Resort: Any area of property where two or more spaces designed for temporary parking and use of Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 39 07/13/9911:33 AM Part 1 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures VI. Definitions recreational vehicles which are rented or held out for rent to users or recreational vehicles. Recreational Vehicle Storage Area: Any area or property where space for parking of two or more unoccupied recreational vehicles, when not in use, is rented or held out for rent. Sign: Any device used for visual communication or attraction, including any announcement, declaration, demonstration, display, illustration, insignia, vehicle or symbol used to advertise or promote the interests of any person, together with all parts, materials frame and background. "Sign" and "advertising device" shall not include the following for purposes of this PC: a. Official notices issued by a court or public body or officer. b. Notices posted by any public officer in performance of a public duty or by any person in giving any legal notice. C. Directional signs, warning or informational signs or structures required or authorized by Federal, State, County or City Authority. d. The flag of the State of California or the United States of America, or any official flag of any other state, country, county, city or community. Sign Program: A sign program is a comprehensive plan of signage for a development project. A Sign Program is intended to encourage incentive and latitude in order to achieve variety and appealing design. When accompanied by a Conceptual Precise Plan, a Sign Program may be approved that establishes development standards which are alternative to those contained in Chapter 20.67 "Signs" of the Municipal Code. A Sign Program shall accompany each Final Precise Plan, in accordance with Section V. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 40 07113/9911:33 AM Part2 Design Guidelines DESIGN GUIDELINES NEWPORT DUNES PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT PLAN Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 1 Table of Contents ' Part 2 Design Guidelines ' TABLE OF CONTENTS ' PART 2 DESIGN GUIDELINES ' I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................ 1 A. Intent.........................................................................................................................1 ' 1. Intent of Guidelines..................................................................................... I 2. Intent of Resort Village "Character"......................................................... 2 3. Planning Units.............................................................................................. 3 ' H. DESIGN GUIDELINES...................................................................... 4 A. Using these Guidelines............................................................................................. 4 ' M. THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT.......................................................... 6 A. Building Location & Massing Criteria.................................................................... 6 ' 1. Site Planning Principles............................................................................... 7 2. Building Envelopes........................................................ :............................. 7 Setbacks7 ............................................................................................ Building Plane Setbacks.................................................................. 9 Massing.............................................................................................10 Building Heights...............................................................................11 ' Building Step-back............................................................................11 3. Building Elements ........................................................................................12 4. Building Character & Style.........................................................................12 5. Materials.......................................................................................................13 6. Colors............................................................................................................14 B. The Landscape Environment ...........................................................................16 1. Landscape ................ 1 Overall ...............................................................................................16 Perimeter...........................................................................................17 Parking Lot Landscape...................................................................17 Beach Landscape..............................................................................18 ' Internal Landscapes........................................................................18 2. Open Spaces..................................................................................................18 3. Beach.............................................................................................................19 ' C. Circulation.................................................................................................................20 1. Streets............................................................................................................20 Entry Streets .....................................................................................20 Entry Drives.....................................................................................21 Internal Streets.................................................................................21 ' Pubic Access to Water.....................................................................21 r-� Table of ContenLa Part2 Design Guidelines , 2. Service & Emergency...................................................................................22 3. Parking..........................................................................................................23 Surface Parking...............................................................................23 , Parking Structure............................................................................24 4. Boat Launch.................................................................................................24 5. Pedestrian Circulation.................................................................................25 ' 6. Bicycle Routes...............................................................................................26 External Bicycle Routes...................................................................26 , Internal Bicycle Routes ........................................ I ........... ,...,..,,.... ...27 7. Public & Shoreline ,Access.......................................................................4...28 D. Orientation, Identity & Safety..................................................................................30 1. Gateways & Entrances................................................................................30 2. 3. View Corridors.............................................................................................31 Landmarks....................................................................................................32 ' Natural Landmarks ............ ......... ........................... I ..... ,.......... 1.4..... 32 4. Architectural Features as Landmarks .............. I .............. ,..... 4....... 32 Signage..........................................................................................................33 ' Regulatory Signage.............................................4............................33 Directional Siguage..........................................................................34 Monumental Signage.............................................................4.........35 ' Interpretive/Informational Signage.........................................4.....35 General Signage Guidelines............................................................35 S. Walls, Fences & Screens..............................................................................37 ' 6. Lighting........................................................................................................39 1 I r r I [1 r Part 2 Design Guidelines Section. I. Introduction ' I. INTRODUCTION ' A. Intent ' The following Design Guidelines expand upon the regulations set forth in Part 1, Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures of the Newport Dunes Planned Community (PC) ' District Plan. The Design Guidelines detail the intent behind design direction for the Resort Village and provide the guidelines for design decisions during the refinement and approvals process ' associated with the Conceptual and Final Precise Plans. The Design Guidelines apply to the Newport Dunes Resort Site, approximately 100 acres along Upper Newport Bay. The property, first leased and developed in 1958, has consistently provided visitor serving aquatic -oriented uses in a resort setting. The Design Guidelines will fiuther the existing quality in new development and provide compatibility with current facilities and ' surrounding land uses. ' 1. Intent of Guidelines The Design Guidelines were prepared with three specific objectives in mind: ■ To create a consistency of scale, design and character of a cohesive resort village which fits comfortably within its surroundings; ■ To ensure that the phased development of the destination resort village maintains and enhances the character of Newport Bay and the surrounding City of Newport Beach; and, ■ To develop the concepts and conditions which govern property ' development. 1 ' Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 1 I Part 2 Design Guidelines Section I. Introduction 2. Intent of Resort Village "Character" The resort's character is intended to portray the atmosphere of a cohesive Spanish Mediterranean resort village. Land uses will be massed in clusters around the lagoon, oriented to the bay and boat harbor. Uses will be grouped with similar activities, buffered from their surrounding uses and connected by paths and promenades. At a site -specific scale, individual buildings will be clustered around courtyards and will open up to Newport Bay and the swimming lagoon. Height and mass will minimize visual impacts from & "'{ surrounding properties and public ;! viewsheds. Materials and ' ' > architectural detail will be in a keeping with the Spanish Mediterranean style. Landscape design will interface between the surrounding land uses, especially the Upper Newport Beach Ecological Reserve and the surrounding community while creating a richly textured and colorful sequence of Spanish Mediterranean gardens. Within the development, the character is envisioned to capture the romance of the Mediterranean courtyards. Access and circulation will allow the guest to explore and enjoy the resort setting. Paths and routes will be hierarchical with clear signage directing the visitors and guests. Access points will be varied to separate uses and minimize impacts. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 2 I 7 t �L J I I I I 1 ' Part 2 Design Guidelines Section I. Introduction 3. Planning Units ' For purposes of these Design Guidelines, the Planning Units established in Part 1 (see Section I.D.1) are used to describe areas of applicable features, characteristics or guidelines. ' 1. Planning Unit 1— Resort Hotel & Time-share 2. Planning Unit 2 — RV Resort & Village Center 3. Planning Unit 3 — Day Use/Beach, Lagoon ' 4. Planning Unit 4 — Boat Launch/Dry Boat Storage 5. Planning Unit 5 — Marina In each Planning Unit, ancillary uses, parking and other support services are provided as fully described in Part I. Key ' 10 Resort HotelBTimeShares Recreatio ohleResort Bvillaget,. I�Dagoy Use, Beach 8 '::, - t.aon - 14 Boat DtyBLau aib'to I I7 Madia E += " . Sl. I 1 1 L Planning Units Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 3 I Pad 2 Design Guidelines ' Section II. Design Guidelines II. DESIGN GUIDELINES A. Using these Guidelines These Design Guidelines will be used in conjunction with Part 1, Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures and other applicable codes, documents and ordinances to assess the consistency of proposed projects as they are brought forward in the process. Each guideline category begins with the intent of that specific section of guidelines. The intent forms the foundation for discretionary decisions, and provides the reasons "why" a design guideline was developed. The intent describes the overall character that is envisioned and what objectives are necessary to attain the desired effect. It should be used as the basis for any future decision making, allowing the guidelines the flexibility they require for implementation over time. These Design Guidelines include the following two types of guidelines; o Rigid development controls that must be adhered to. Identified with a "check box," these firm controls can be used as a checklist to confirm that all required items are met. ➢ Recommendations that are firm in principle, but non-specific in detail; or those that are general conceptual ideas that present a possibility, rather than a requirement. These are discretionary and are presented as recommendations rather than requirements. The non-specific recommendations and conceptual ideas are no less important than fixed development controls. They are not quantifiable or established in location. They contribute substantially to the character of the village. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 4 I I I u Part 2 Design Guidelines Section H. Design Guidelines Guidelines are divided into the following categories: The Built Environment Circulation ■ Building Location & Massing ■ Streets ■ Building Elements ■ Service ■ Materials ■ Parking ■ Color and style ■ Boat Launch ■ Pedestrian Circulation The Landscaped Environment ■ Landscape ■ Open Space ■ Beach ■ Bicycle Routes ■ Public & Shoreline Access Orientation, Identity & Safety ■ Gateways & Entrances ■ View Corridors ■ Landmarks ■ Signage ■ Walls, Fences & Screens ■ Lighting Thefeatures of the built environment combine with the character of the landscape to create an identifiable Mediterranean beach resort village. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan Part2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment M. THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT A. Building Location & Massing Criteria Intent. The intent of the building massing and location criteria is to ensure that the development has an appropriate scale, is related to its use and location; and is integrated with adjoining land uses and features so as to become a cohesive development. The "location" criteria create specific pods of activities, arranged so that they create interior (courtyard) and open spaces, which reinforce the Spanish Mediterranean character of the development. Major buildings (excluding those used as storage, trash enclosures, restrooms, etc.) should follow the following guidelines: ■ Site planning principles ■ Building envelopes, including building setbacks, building height and "step -backs" ■ Open space areas • Critical Corridors (view or pedestrian/vehicular circulation) Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 6 ' Part 2 Design Guidelines ' Section III. The Built Environment 1. Site Planning Principles Intent: The site planning principles reflect the unique natural conditions of this property. Being that the area nestles within a ' "well' or natural depression, and focuses clearly on the lagoon and bay, all site organization, massing, and features should respect these natural conditions. ➢ Structures and elements should be firmly and clearly `rooted" into the ground, wider than they are tall, and anchored at their base. ➢ Site organization should respect the angles of sun and shade, and ' capture the cooling ocean breezes where feasible. 2. Building Envelopes t Intent: Building envelopes govern the placement and scale of the major buildings. The intent of the envelopes is to cluster buildings into neighborhoods with buffers of open space between. Each of ' these neighborhoods will be linked by the shoreline promenade surrounding the Iagoon. Appropriate setbacks, view corridors, building heights and "step -backs" (dimension in which fagade steps back above a determined height, see diagram under Building Step -back Guideline, page 11) define these envelopes. These ' envelopes apply to the primary buildings rather than support structures used for storage, trash, restrooms, etc.) ' Setbacks ❑ All buildings will be setback based upon their location and relationship with the waters edge or edge of adjacent properties. ❑ Building Setbacks along beach sites are minimum 100 feet from the mean high tide line in order to develop the beach resort atmosphere (excludes beach restrooms, cabanas or picnic shelters). ' o Building Setbacks along bulkheads are minimum 10 feet from the I-, top of bulkhead in order to develop a shoreline pedestrian walk. ❑ Pacific Highway Building setbacks are a minimum of 50 feet from ' the right of way. ❑ Back Bay Drive Building setbacks along are a minimum of 20 feet ' from the right of way. INewport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 7 Part Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment ❑ Building setbacks along residential property lines area minimum of JjAg or as refined based upon the Building Plane shadow setbacks following. 15' ResidenUalSetback �M N 1 „ �--- Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 8 ' Part2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment 1 1 [1 II Building Plane Setbacks In order to protect existing residential areas from shade impacts of new development, a refined setback applies to new major structures built adjacent to existing, off -site residential uses. ❑ Based upon the extent of shade in the worst case (morning of the winter equinox) situation, the following setbacks apply: Building 35 feet high 80 feet min. along 43' north* Building 50 feet high 115 feet min. along 43° north* Building 75 feet high 172 feet min. along 430 north* *Note: Daylight Plane setbacks are not measured perpendicular from the property line as standard setbacks are measured. Daylight Plane setbacks are measured along a line 431 from true north, which is the angle of the maximum shadow (see discussion in Part 1, Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures, Section IV.Q. /� �'.� \' \-;,..•, Building Height =35' Shadow Length=80' Proposed Structures Existing Housing " Building Height ShadowLengfh ;,l �--^ Shad NORTH �� 4m Is' Bullng Height 'S'�dow Length 60' 100' SCALE I �' Shade Diagram-Wintersolsta�eg:ooam Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 7 II Massing Bulldwad Edge PARALLEL MASSING for Bulkhead locations Part 2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment ➢ In beachfront, property line and roadway locations, massing is suggested to not parallel the setback line, so as to increase the feeling of a casual, resort atmosphere. ➢ On bulkhead locations, massing is encouraged to parallel the setback line, creating the Mediterranean village harbor experience, such as is found at Portofino or Nice along the Mediterranean Sea (see diagrams at left). Massing variations in either edge, setbacks or step -backs portray the casual atmosphere ofa Mediterranean resort village. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 10 , I I Part 2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment 1 ' Building Heights Building height shall be a maximum of: 75FeetLimit@ - ❑ Planning Unit 1: 50 Max.25%of ' Building Footprint feet (measured from the 50 Feetumd -_- - - - pad at 12 feet above mean sea level) for 75% • of the structure, -"- minimum; 75 feet ' Pad Elevation+l7 ; - , - - - - - , - (measured from the pad Mean sea Level (o)• at 12 feet above mean sea level) for 25% of the Planning Unit 1 structure, maximum. ❑ Planning Units 2, 3, 4, and 5: 35 feet (measured from finished grade). ' Further criteria for building heights are outlined in Part 1, Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures (Section IV.A). 1 Building Step -back ❑ Planning Unit 1: Building heights above 50 feet will step -back 25 ' feet from any setback lines to prevent tall "walls of buildings" along the shoreline or property line. ❑ Shadow studies will be prepared per the requirements for Building . Plane setbacks and step -backs outlined in Part 1, Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures (Section IV.Q. ' ➢ Step -backs can be accomplished with lower structures (50 feet in height or less) to the setback line and taller structures behind. k �sena� stepcac¢ ' I I Setbacks vs. Step -backs ' Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 11 Part Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment 3. Building Elements Intent. The intent of the building elements criteria is to define the principal character, materials and colors, roofs, fenestration and building features that will define the Spanish Mediterranean character of the development and integrate it with existing and phased development. It will develop apalette for the overall appearance of the buildings, resulting in a compatible whole. 4. Building Character & Style Intent. The intent of choosing a style is not necessarily to dictate pure historic re -interpretation, as that would be inappropriate for a coastal California location, but to evoke the essence of the graceful, old-world character often found in Mediterranean resorts of similar climate and waterside conditions. ❑ Newport Dunes Resort will be in a Spanish Mediterranean Village style. ❑ Roofs shall be treated as the fifth building elevation, and designed accordingly, screening mechanical equipment from views. ➢ Details on buildings should reflect their hierarchical importance: rich, heavily detailed fagades with multiple rooflines, towers, and articulations should be found on the most prominent or important buildings; simple but carefully crafted details shall be found on the lesser or support buildings. ➢ Trellises, arcades, roof overhangs and varied articulations are encouraged. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 12 ' 1 I ' Part2 Design Guidelines Section Ili. The Built Environment r— L 1 1 r- ��l C 5. Materials Intent: A compatible palette of building materials will provide overall unity to the various buildings within the Newport Dunes Resort Village, provide it with an identifiable image and create a harmonious village environment. The selection of materials encourages diversity and richness to contribute to the Spanish Mediterranean village character. Richer materials, with more detail and ornamentation will be used in the principal buildings and at ground level. Simpler materials may be used on secondary or support buildings or at higher levels where viewed from a distance. ❑ The principal building surface material will be painted or integral color troweled stucco for the rustic Mediterranean character. ❑ Pitched roofs will be primarily terra- cotta barrel tiles, with pitches ranging from 4:12 to 6:12 ratios. ❑ Pathways, walkways and promenades shall be primarily enhanced concrete, with decorative bands, or aggregates as appropriate. Unit pavers, such as terra-cotta tiles or stone, may be used in detailed treatment areas, depending on their hierarchical location. ❑ Site walls, when in publicly accessible or viewed areas, will be primarily stucco with painted or integral color. ❑ Vision Glass (non -mirrored) will be used on all windows. Trellises with a timbered appearance and simple capitals. Rich paving materials are used in an intimate courtyard. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 13 Part2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment D Trellises should have a "heavy timber" appearance, ➢ Pre -cast or other columns should have a simple capital. ➢ Railings should be ornamental metal, timber -like, or cast stone, depending on their hierarchical location. ➢ Pavilions and cabanas, which serve as permanent structures along the beach or grassy shore to provide shaded and sheltered picnic areas are to have full coverage or open trellised roofs and be open on all sides. These can be designed like gazebos in wood, or with block or stucco columns to match the nearby architecture. 6. Colors Intent. A compatible range of colors is developed to nestle the buildings into the landscape, respond to the environmental glare from the sun and sea, and reinforce the building hierarchies. ❑ Primary fagade colors will be light, earthy colors, tending to the creamy rose or peach palettes. ➢ Accent colors should be warm, tending to the deep earth tones, the terra-cottas and the rich wood colors. D Highlight colors can tend to the stronger -hued palette, if used sparingly and for particular emphasis, such as orientation or signage. D Concrete: integral color should be provided where hierarchy demands a richer material, and it should be derived from the warm, sandy colors. Color or sandblasting should be provided to decrease glare and reflectivity. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 14 ' 1 I 1 1 I III t Part 2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment A The Landscaped Environment Intent: The strength of the natural environment should be celebrated at Newport Dunes. Very few villages have such a sheltered, protected location that focuses on the natural resources of the lagoon, bay and surrounding Ecological Reserve. Much like the Spanish Mediterranean village bespeaks its native environment with architectural responses to the sun, views, natural light and offshore breezes, the natural environment must be integrated carefully into the built environment to create a cohesive village. This can be achieved with a landscape palette that demonstrates concern for its coastal setting; is compatible with the Back Bay environs; is richly textured and detailed; and, limits its watering demands. It is accomplished with the integration of open spaces, revegetated with native plants or left in a natural state and blended with the village with pathways or view corridors. Finally, it celebrates the beach and lagoon as its primary focus, the reason for the village's special location and unique sense of place. Key Peach L ndscapinl-andscping — erim QBeach Landscaping � — (::>Landscaping Zones .% .. a. • 1 _ • � F' �nicCq _ AW =YY D 1.L� TS 4•�. '11 _ +4 Dunes Planned Community District Plan 15 Lot Part 2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment The five Planning Units of the site development: #1-ResortHotel & Time-share; #2-RV Resort & Village Center; O-Day Use/Beacb/Lagoon; #4-Boat Launch & Dry Boat Storage and #5- Marina; also determine the landscape environment. Within the highly active Hotel area, one can expect to find a lush palette which responds to the use of the grounds while in the Marina or Boat Launch areas, the landscape becomes more functional and an interface to the surrounding open spaces. 1. Landscape Intent. The richly planted, confined vegetation of the Mediterranean village will define the character of the landscaped areas within the resort. Bright colors, contrasting textures and forms are encouraged. Landscape is envisioned to be developed in zones, and follow the hierarchical arrangement corresponding to the building types. That is, highly important or substantial buildings shall be landscaped very richly, with great detail. Secondary or support structures shall be landscaped with a more simplified palette to correspond to the building detail. The level of "manicured" appearance will increase as one transitions from the rustic perimeter to the carefully crafted courtyards. Overall ❑ The overall palette will be one that uses watering requirements responsibly and limits the use of turf to areas where people congregate. o All species will be non-invasive so as not to proliferate in the natural areas off site. ❑ Species will be selected to respond to the coastal conditions of sandy soil, wind, tog and salt air. ➢ Planting should be done in layers to promote diversity wherever possible. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 16 11 I I I I I 1 t i� ' Part 2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment ' ➢ Plant materials should increase in lushness, diversity, and variety of form as one moves into the inner areas of Newport Dunes Resort. ' ➢ Wherever possible, the minimum planting area depth should be ' four feet (4'), unless primary planting type is vines or groundcovers. Small, narrow planting strips should be ' discouraged. Perimeter ❑ Tree species selected will minimize raptor roosting sites in ' sensitive.areas and the planting plan developed in conjunction with the Newport Dunes Hotel and Time -Share EIR. ❑ Transitional landscapes will be of the native and naturalized ' palette, utilizing materials found in the surrounding natural environment and/or related species proven to be non-invasive. ❑ Perimeter landscapes abutting other uses will contribute to ' screening and separati on. ' Parking Lot Landscape ❑ Parking lot trees will be provided so that one tree is planted for 5 stalls counted in a linear dimension. In double loaded parking ' arrangements, one tree counts for both parking rows. Standards are outlined in Part 1, Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures (Section IV Site Development Standards) and further ' refined in Part 2, Design Guidelines (Section C. Circulation, 3. Parking). ❑ Trees are not required on parking structure decks above grade or in ' parking lots in boat launch or boat -trailer areas as it may interfere with the queuing and turning radius of operations. ➢ Tree species should be selected to provide maximum shade and minimize root upheaval to pavement. Parking lot trees should be broad leaf canopy trees or palms. ➢ Parking lot trees should be planted in cutouts with a minimum 16 ' square feet of opening. ➢ Parking lot trees should be protected from cars by curbs, wheel - stops or other bumper mechanisms. ➢ Pedestrian pathways from parking lots to destinations should be articulated with palms and lush vegetation. ➢ Parking lots should be screened from roadways with landscaping. ' ➢ Trees are not required on parking structures or decks. Rather, shade trellises and perimeter screening are encouraged. ' Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 17 1 Part 2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment Beach Landscape ➢ Beach landscape should be simple, singular masses of species, such as palm trees in informal clusters along the promenade or large grassy areas for picnics and recreation. Internal Landscapes ➢ The landscapes of the courtyards and building perimeters should be the most detailed, richly planted and interesting. ➢ A diversity of flowers, colors, fragrance and textures should contribute to this richness. ➢ Vines are encouraged at all fences and trellises. ➢ Fountains, pools and decorative water features are encouraged. 2. Open Spaces Intent. Natural areas within the village resort contribute to the relaxed, natural character of the area. They shall be maintained in their rustic state, allowing public access only where appropriate to protect sensitive species. ❑ The landmass, Coney Island, a promontory separating the lagoon from Upper Newport Bay, shall remain undeveloped. Planting will be coastal native species. Invasive species should be eradicated. a The interpretive lookout will be limited to a visual access to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 18 L I I I 1 I I I I I I I L 1 I n J I I I Part2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment Coney Island 3. Beach Intent: The focus of the entire resort village revolves around the beach and the lagoon. It should be the highlight of all experiences within Newport Dunes Planned Community and the predominant "landscape." ❑ Visual access from on -site shall be maintained to the lagoon and beach wherever possible. ❑ Clear pedestrian access to the lagoon and beach will be highlighted. ➢ Buildings and other features, with the exception of those in connection with beach use (such as restrooms, shade structures, pavilions and gazebos, etc.) should not infringe into this beach zone. The beach provides a focus for recreation, with play equipment and wide areas ofsandyshorefor use by all ages. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 19 I Part2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment C. Circulation 1. Streets Intent: Streets will serve as both the gateway and entry into Newport Dunes Resort and for internal circulation. The character of each will be very different. Entrylgateway streets ate intended to serve as project symbols or "wayfinding." These may have sidewalks, medians, and a formal approach. The plazas, courtyards and porte cocheres will define entries and gateways. Internal streets will be more in keeping with the alleys of the Mediterranean village. These serve as internal access points, service roads and minor connections. Therefore, they should be as narrow as physically possible, with an informal and possibly irregular character. Entry Streets a Entry streets are public streets outside or adjacent to the Resort and provide access to the site entries. Entry streets are Back Bay Drive and Bayside Drive. Key •. m Entry Streets & Entry Drives PuWJI Access de Routes) IntemalStreets IR Primary Service West Entry Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 20 1 ' Part2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment ' Entry Drives ❑ Entry drives.are internal streets within the project and will be ' ➢ designed to carry the projected traffic volume. Entry drives (off of Back Bay Drive and Bayside Drive) should have sidewalks on a minimum of one side. ' ➢ Entry drives should be planted with a consistent street tree, preferably one with a large spreading canopy to arch over the entry. ➢ Entry drives should have clear, directional signage and monument ' signage at the property entrance. Internal Streets ' ➢ Internal streets should be as narrow as possible to allow adequate circulation and emergency response. ➢ Internal streets are not encouraged to have singular street trees, but a variety of landscape species. Public Street Access to the Water ❑ Public street waterfront access from surrounding streets will occur from Back Bay Drive where adequate, nearby parking is provided I for beach and lagoon access. ❑ Pedestrian waterfront access will occur from Bayside Drive sidewalk and connect to the main promenade through the project ' along the water's edge. (see further guidelines for Public & Shoreline Access on page 28.) r, J 1 Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 21 r Part 2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment , 2. Service & Emergency Routes ' Intent. Service areas and service access within the project should occur "hidden" from the resort village wherever possible. Although recognized as a necessary part to any village ' environment, service routes should be zoned wherever possible to keep "back of the house" service separate from main activity areas. In more visible locations, narrow alleys and walks could serve as service corridors, designed to be pedestrian for the remainder of the time. ' ❑ Main service drives and loadin0ocks will be well screened from any surrounding off- or on -site non -compatible use. , a Trucks in loading bays shall be required to have a minimal idling time to reduce air and noise pollution. ❑ Emergency access routes will be provided from internal streets and around the lagoon pathway, as required to meet fire code. ➢ Pedestrian paths, designed to also carry service or emergency vehicles, should acknowledge the load differential in its sectional reinforcing. I I 1 Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 22 1 11 I ' Part 2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment I I� I _1 U 11 I 3. Parking Intent. Parking will be in concentrated areas, either structured or surface lots. The intent is to minimize the impact of parking wherever feasible. (Existing parking lots that are not significantly modified with new construction are considered "grandfathered" in terms of landscape requirements). Well planted and well lit parking lots, with clear pedestrian access, contribute to the overall quality of the resort. Surface ParkinE ❑ Planters to reduce the large expanse of asphalt will interrupt surface parking. Trees should be planted in surface parking lots at a rate of one tree per five (5)stalls. When stalls are in a double loaded run, one tree per 10 stalls is acceptable (see diagram and refer to Part 2, Section III, B.1 Landscape Guidelines, page 17). 0 C ©"ME Trees vast be tm:l Trees Location azlegV Y5a ❑ Clear pedestrian routes from parking areas to destinations such as the beach or lagoon will be delineated with special paving, markings, signage, and/or trees. 1 Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 23 I r Part 2 Design GUldelines Section III. The Built Environment Parkine Structure ❑ Structured parking can be integrated into its surrounding by planted berms, arbors -and trellises, or by locating it against the main building mass, limiting its exposure. ❑ Fapades of the parking structure shall be treated as any other building elevation, complete with detailed treatment and articulations. 4. Boat Launch Intent. The Boat launch area will serve as a functional portion of the project, yet in keeping with the design character of the resort area. Part of its charm will be the workings of a marina and launch. Vistas to the working marina should be encouraged. o Adequate, uninterrupted queuing and turning areas shall be maintained at the boat launch ❑ Dry boat storage and marine repair areas will be separated for security measures but need not be screened. r r r I r Aseven lane boat launch serves for public water access in Upper ' Newport Bay. r 1 Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 24 r I I Part 2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment I ' 5. Pedestrian Circulation Intent: Non -motorized circulation will be encouraged throughout the entire resort area. In keeping with the relaxed character of the ' village, pedestrian and bicycle circulation should meander throughout the resort, connecting courtyards and activities and providing discoveries, destinations, and places of interest along the way. ❑ Clear pedestrian routes to the waterfront will be delineated with special paving, markings, and/or trees. ❑ Sidewalks will be predominantly concrete, which narrow as small ' paseos or passageways and expand into plazas and courtyards to offer a variety of experiences. ❑ Slip resistance and disabled accessibility will be provided throughout. ➢ Concrete should be simple in its treatment, using naturally "sandy" colors and non -reflective surfaces to reduce the glare of the bright sun. ➢ Courtyards or special, enhanced walks may be unit pavers, file or terra-cotta tile. I I I L r 1 1 ➢ Recreational paths should be more informal, and may not even be a paved surface, but utilize such materials as stabilized decomposed granite or compacted gravel. These could be used for jogging or casual strolling and should be found at the perimeter of the project rather than intersecting with the courtyards. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan i Part 2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment 6. Bicycle Routes Intent: To further reinforce the non -motorized circulation and the resort character, paved bicycle trails will be provided throughout the resort. Two types of routes are provided: the external and the internal. External Bicycle Routes Intent: External bicycle routes are part of the larger bicycle circulation system within the Newport Beach and Orange County. These links connect the greater Back Bay area to the Ecological Reserve. ❑ The eastern external route is a bicycle lane (5 feet in each direction) within Back Bay Drive from the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. ❑ The external route on the property shall be a Class 1, 10-foot wide path along the southern and western property line. It serves as a by-pass to the busy intersection of Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway. ❑ The route will be continued on the western side of the property as bicycle lanes (5 feet in each direction) within the roadway of Bayside Drive to connect with the regional lanes along Pacific Coast Highway. ❑ A Class 1 bicycle trail (off -road) -along the north curb of Bayside Drive serves as an additional link for recreational cyclists. Bayside Drive,1998, without pedestrian or bicycle routes. BaysideDrive, as planned with pedestrian and bicycle routes. r r 11 1 r r r r r Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 26 1 I I I II II I Part 2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment Internal Bicycle Routes Intent: Internal bicycle routes encourage the recreational rider or the family rider to use bicycles for mobility within the project. ➢ Internal bicycle routes are designed as 10-foot wide recreational paths to serve a variety of users. ➢ These may be asphalt or concrete depending upon their locations and proximity to either roads or building areas. Bicycle routes may also serve as service corridors for light duty service carts. Key Cj� • Shared Recreational Path �� I Bike Trail (off street) ►t I Bike Lane (on street) Bicycle Routes Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 27 11 Pact 2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment 7. Public & Shoreline Access Intent: Cleat and identifiable public shoreline access contributes to the image, feel, and character of the village resort as well as fulfills the mandate of the California Coastal Act. Clear, defined access encourages visitors and the public alike to enjoy the resources of the unique Upper Newport Bay. ❑ Public access to the water's edge should be provided in a variety of experiences. The bridge over the lagoon loops the shoreline promenade from shore to shore. ❑ Public coastal access areas shall be clearly identified with signage. ❑ Public parking and beach access is provided at Back Bay Drive, at the eastern project entry. Fully accessible public parking is available for a nominal charge. ❑ Public pedestrian access is provided to the shoreline promenade from the sidewalk along Bayside Drive. ➢ Boat Launchaccessis provided from Back Bay Drive, at the eastern project entry. D Interpretive Overlook viewing access is provided off ofBack Bay Drive at the northeastern property line. ➢ Marina shoreline access is provided from the pedestrian walks along Bayside Drive to the boardwalk. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 28 M I I I 1 I r r I J I r Part 2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment ➢ Continuous shoreline access is provided around the lagoon by the paved Promenade. ➢ A boardwalk bridge unites the east and west sides of the lagoon, creating a mile long publicly accessible recreational loop. Sidewalk Boat Launch Public Waterfront Access Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 29 Part 2 Design Guidelines Section 111. The Built Environment A Orientation, Identity & Safety 1. Gateways & Entrances Intent. Gateways and entries will serve as both "welcome mats" and signage, identifying the village to the community and welcoming guests into the resort world. They are intended to be a landmark as well as a transition. ❑ Two primary gateways shall be established: 1) East Gateway along Back Bay Drive, opposite the Hyatt Newporter Resort; 2) West Gateway at the terminus of Bayside Drive, at the site entry. ❑ Gateways and entries shall be marked in a consistent theme of signage, identifying the resort village. ➢ Mature vegetation, flags, or fountains could enhance the drama of the entries, increasing their identity ➢ Views to the lagoon or natural features, such as Coney Island or the Reserve, is encouraged from entrances and/or cul-de-sacs. ➢ Pending further review, a gateway maybe considered at Pacific Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. Gateways 1C--2 I l_I I I 1 I I L7 I I I I Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 30 , I I I I I i17 u i I 1 I 'J I Part Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment 2. View Corridors Intent: The dramatic views of the lagoon, beach and environment of Upper Newport Bay set the resort in its locale and give it a unique identity apart from other coastal resort communities. Preserving, enhancing and maintaining these views, from within the project and from surrounding uses will be a primary objective. Views from outside Newport Dunes ❑ Public view corridors shall be provided through the project from Back Bay Drive to the waterfront. ❑ Views of undesirable elements, such as service bays and loading docks shall be screened from views outside the property. Views within Newport Dunes property: ❑ View corridors will parallel pedestrian paths to the water. ➢ Views should be enhanced and orchestrated, rather than axial in all locations. This allows glimpses of the destination, landmark or water as one approaches and encourages movement through the spaces. ➢ Use of arches, plantings and other foreground elements to frame views is encouraged. Key Views to rA,\Pre dominantYews s 1111Promontory Promontory Open Space Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan n 31 1 Part2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment 3. Landmarks Intent.• Landmarks should serve as the identification for the project. Two types of landmarks are identified: the natural landmarks and the architectural. features. Natural Landmarks Intent: Natural features serve as locational reminders of the special resort character Newport Dunes offers. Views to the landmarks should be enhanced and protected. o Coney Island and the Lagoon are the principle natural landmarks of the resort village and these landmarks should be maintained in their natural condition. ❑ Coney Island and Bay views from publicly accessible areas within the Resort should be enhanced and emphasized wherever possible. Architectural Features as Landmarks Intent: Architectural features serve as internal landmarks. They imply the hierarchy of the building types as well as highlight entries or special built features. ➢ Towers, architectural features and elements of buildings that identify its function, such as rotundas and arcades, are encouraged as project landmarks. However, such features should not be used to excess. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 32 1 ' Part2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment ' 4. Signage Intent: Signage will serve as the system for wayfinding, using simple means to clearly direct visitors to their destinations. Signage should be of a related character throughout the entire village and be incorporated into walls, building fagades or other ' structures rather than freestanding wherever possible. ❑ Four types of signage will be provided: regulatory, directional, monumental and interpretive/informational. Each will have specific criteria, but will be designed in a complimentary and cohesive palette of materials, typefaces and styles. 11 I 1 r Regulatory Signage ❑ Traffic and life -safety regulatory signage shall follow City and building code standards. ❑ Internal traffic regulatory signage shall provide for a low -speed atmosphere for the resort user, with special concern for children's safety. ➢ Beach rules and regulations should be provided along all publicly accessible beaches. ➢ Wherever possible, regulatory signage should be kept simple in its design and placement. Materials should be metal or wood panels mounted on wood posts, and able to withstand coastal weather. Directional and regulatory signage provides information in a clear, concise manner at entrances and beach. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan M Part2 Design Guidelines Section III, The Built Environment DIrectional Sienaie ❑ On site directional signage shall be of a consistent pattern, using freestanding or wall mounted signs, upgraded materials such as tile and/or stone could be considered in Planning Unit 1. ❑ On site directional signage shall be of a consistent pattern, using the freestanding wood post or wall mounted, with a sandblasted or painted panel sign in Planning Units 2 through S. It shall clearly delineate directions with appropriate arrows and markings. ❑ Clearly delineated coastal access signage shall be provided at all public access locations to the shoreline. Key S Regulatory (Primary) Directional/Identity WID 111 Monumental ointerpretive OCoastal Aecess G� Key Signage Concept 1 i I I i Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 34 1 F l_ I 1 I I� 1 7 L P Part Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment ➢ Building name signs should be wall mounted wherever possible, using the painted panel currently found on site. ➢ Wood panels are encouraged wherever fire codes allow the material. Monumental Signage ❑ Animated signage and/or pole signage over ten (10) feet are prohibited. ➢ Entry signage shall be of monumental scale, appropriate to the entry hierarchy. Materials such as stucco, wood, stone or similar building materials are appropriate. It should be lit, preferably from the base, and enhanced with planting and flags as appropriate. Wall signs are preferred to free standing signs at entries. Monument signs that match the architectural character announcethe resort. Interaretive/Informational Signage ➢ Interpretive signage or general informational signage is encouraged at all appropriate locations. It should follow the pattern of directional signage, either freestanding or wall mounted. Wood panels, if allowable per fire code, could be used for simple messages. More complex messages or those with interpretive photographs may require metal panel signage. In all cases, metal panels shall be incorporated into a wood or painted frame to match the character of other site signage. General Signage Guidelines ❑ No billboards or roof -mounted signage will be utilized within the project area. ❑ No neon signs or intemally illuminated can signs (unless they have individually -cut channel letters) will be utilized within the project area. Newport Dunes Planned Community District 35 11 Part2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment ➢ Indirect lighting of signs is encouraged, if needed for nighttime visibility. Care should betaken to properly shield the light source to prevent glare from spilling over into residential areasandany public right-of-way. , ➢ Signage should be integrated with a structure wherever desirable, complimenting the colors, materials, and design style of the particular situation. ' R1 S' I I I 1 I I 1 i 1 Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 36 1 I ' Part 2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment 5. Walls, Fences & Screens Intent: Walls, fences and screens are used to separate undesirable or inconsistent uses and to provide security and safety throughout ' the project. Many can also serve as sound barriers, pedestrian and vehicle control, or visual amenities. The perimeter treatment should provide security as well as screen undesirable or inconsistent views where necessary. It is intended that all walls, fences and screens are integrated into the overall design style of the project and, likewise, be treated in a hierarchical manner. ' ❑ A screen shall be installed along all site boundaries where the premises abut residential areas. Except as otherwise provided ' below, the screening shall have a total height of not less than six feet (6') nor more than seven feet (T), except for ' landscaping, which may be higher, or those screens also required for sound walls. ❑ Screening along all public streets and boundaries shall have a maximum height of 36 inches. (Notwithstanding screening ' requirements, adequate vehicular and pedestrian sight distance shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.) ❑ A screen shall be installed along all parking areas abutting highways and have a total height of not less than 36 inches or ' more than 42 inches. ❑ Where the finished elevation of the property at the boundary line, or within five feet inside the boundary line is higher or lower than the abutting property elevation, such change in elevation maybe used in lieu of, or in combination with, additional screening to satisfy the screening requirements. ➢ A screen may consist of one or a combination of the following: a. Walls (Including Retaining, Walls): concrete, stone, ' brick, file or similar type of solid masonry materials a minimum of six inches thick. b. Berms: constructed of earthen materials and landscaped. C. Solid Fences: constructed of wood or other materials with a minimum nominal thickness of one inch (1"). ' Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 37 F Part2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment d. Landscaping: Vegetation, consisting of evergreen or broad -leaf trees and/or shrubs. If deciduous plants are interspersed, they should not consist of more than 25% of the planting screen. Walls, fences and screens shall be designed in a manner consistent with the style of the adjacent architecture. ➢ Walls should be finished primarily in x stucco, if viewed from the public or T visitor domain. Painted, textured or cinder -block walls are acceptable where not in the primary viewsheds or when maintenance requirements dictate (such as 1 at service areas). ➢ Primary fences, such as those at key ti entrances, should be ornamental metals if viewed in the public or visitor domain. Secondary fences, such as those internal = to the project, may be wood, in keeping with the heavy timber Mediterranean design theme. Functional or security fences; such as at the RV Resort, along bicycle paths, at the boat storage, at parking lots or at areas of security, may be chain link. Chain link fences are suggested to be coated and/or have vines covering them wherever feasible. r LJ' r r H r L r J Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 38 1 Part 2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment ' 6. Lighting ' Intent. Lighting is desired to provide visitor ambiance, safety and security. Light fixtures should be of a character that corresponds to the function and architectural style of the Resort Village. Spacing and lumens should be adequate to provide the necessary light levels, yet should protect surrounding developed or undeveloped lands from unnecessary glare. r, L 1 1 7 J C A variety of lighting is proposed within the Resort Village. The following diagram shows, prototypically, how a layout may be accomplished to meet the design intent. A Lighting Plan, per the stipulations established in Part 1, Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures (Section IV "Site Development Standards') will be prepared to address exterior lighting in each Planning Unit in connection with the Final Precise Plan. Key Vehicular y • Pole - Single Fixture Eg _ ''=--' ■ Pole - Double Fodure I , aa c Pedestrian(V ♦ Low Pole - SingleF&ture •_ - �-�- �?' � e � }:��"�� T Bollard or Other Pedestrian Lighting • �� g �' 1'��` QExisting Lighting Note: D- - o OMN ' Lighting is iagramatic. Fixture, Type, Layout and Function to be Part of Lighting Plan Submittal. Existing L Lighting RV i Park Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 01 17 39 Lighting in Area 1 i Part2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built EnVironment ❑ For each Planning Unit during Final Precise Plan submission, the applicant must prepare a Lighting Plan, per the requirements established in Part 1, Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures (Section IV "Site Development Standards, "H.). ❑ All lighting, exterior and interior, shall be designed and located to confine direct rays and glare to the site. ❑ Light fixtures should be spaced to allow the appropriate minimum lumens to safely illuminate areas. Hot spots and dark spots shall be avoided. ❑ Glare shall be minimized and not be intrusive to offsite uses. ❑ Lighting shall be shielded and directed downward wherever necessary to prevent spillage onto surrounding land uses. ❑ Parking structure lighting, on levels above grade, %hall be designed to use minimum pole heights acceptable for spacing requirements and limit spill and glare onto surrounding uses. ❑ Parking structure lighting, internal to the structure, shall be confined to the structure and not spill outside the building, Garage lighting, when viewed from the exterior, should not be excessively bright or leak light into the surroundings. Fixtures or light sources inside parking structures should not be visible from the exterior. Lfght frxtures chosen will be shielded to reduce glare into surrounding residential uses, provide cut-offfixtures to reduce light spill and adequately light pedestrian and automobile areas forsafety. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 40 [1 I 1 1 1 it r 1 11 i 1 r 1 1 ' Part2 Design Guidelines Section III. The Built Environment �I J I 1 J 1 FJ LJ ➢ The palette of light fixtures should follow the seaside village theme and respond to the hierarchy of spaces. ➢ Taller, pole fixtures should be used for roadways and traffic areas. Fixtures should be double mounted wherever possible to reduce the number of poles necessary. ➢ Shorter pole mounted fixtures are encouraged for primary pedestrian circulation routes, such as the Promenade. ➢ Appropriate pole height should be determined by final fixture selection, but should be kept as low as possible. ➢ Light fixtures should be of a dark, non - reflective material. ➢ Bollards, rail mounted or wall mounted fixtures are encouraged for secondary pedestrian areas. Their character should match the architectural character of their planning unit. ➢ Lighting incorporated into buildings such as under arcades or over doorways is encouraged to limit the number of freestanding fixtures. ➢ Up -lights and moon -lights within trees are encouraged to increase the ambient light, but should be designed with sensitivity to glare and light spill within the property. In no case should up -lights disturb off -site developments. ➢ Decorative architectural lighting that calls attention to special function areas or features within the resort is encouraged. Decorative lighting should enhance character. Dunes Planned Community District Plan Fixtures should correspond to scale of surroundings. 41 1 r Acknowledgments Applicant Newport Dunes Partnership 1131 Back Bay Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 949/729-3863 Planned Community District Plan Wallace Roberts & Todd Environmental Planning, Urban Design, Landscape Architecture, Architecture 1133 Columbia Street, Suite 205 San Diego, CA 92101-3535 619/696-9303 Counsel Gray Cary Ware & Preidenrich, LLP 401 B Street, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101-4297 619/699-2700 June,1999 Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan 42 I LJ I I 1 LSA Associates, Inc. APPENDIX C GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES 11 r, I [1' 1 u ' 9/22/99«P:1CNB8341EIR1TOC-VOL-I.WPD» LAW Crandall ' LAWGIBB Group Member Ak DEC a ! 999� EVA. t3S : Aic_S EXECUTIVE OFFICE Decenhber4, 1998 1 ' Robert Gleason Newport Dunes Incorporated 998 West Mission Bay Drive ' San Diego. Cali Ibmia 92109 Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Proposed Newport Dunes Hotel ' Backbav Drive, North of Jamboree Road Newport Beach, California Law/Crandall Project 70131-8-0192.0002 ' ' Dear Mr. Gleason: This letter presents suitable methods that may be used to mitigate potentially liquefiable soils and ' discusses a possible nearby fault referenced in a prior geotechnical report prepared by others. We previously submitted a Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment report, dated April 14, 1998, and a Preliminary Geotechnical and Environmental report, dated May 7, 1998, discussing the disposal of dredge materials for the proposed Newport Dunes Hotel project. We are providing these services as discussed in our proposal dated October 26, 1998. You authorized a reduced scope of work on November 6, 1998. The reduced scope of services eliminated the proposed field exploration and included only a discussion of the methods to mitigate liquefiable soils and how these methods may affect the environment. After you gave us authorization for the reduced scope of work, Mr. Steve Ross of L.S.A. Associates, Inc. ' contacted us and requested we investigate a possible fault located nearby. The possible fault is referenced in a report dated May 25, 1990 prepared by Leighton & Associates. ' The professional opinions presented in this letter have been developed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the ' professional advice included in this letter. BACKGROUND ' Our Preliminary Site Assessment report dated April 14, 1998 concluded that potentially liquefiable soils could be present at the site and that these soils could extend to approximately Elevation —10 to —20. This conclusion was based on the review of the following geotechnical ' investigations: ' A Division. of Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 200 C;tade! Drive Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 323-889-5300 • Fax 323-721-6700 Newport Dunes Inc. — Liquefaction Mitigation Methods Law/Crandall Project 70131-8-0192.0002 December 4, 1998 Supplemental Information — Hardscape and Landscape Grading — Proposed Marina Center - Phase IIA; prepared for Newport Dunes, Inc., dated May 1, 1991 (Our Project Number LCA 090067.AB). Report of Foundation Investigation — Proposed Marina Center — Phase IIA; prepared for Newport Dunes Inc., dated September 21, 1990 (Our Project Number LCA 090067.AO) • Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation —Newport Dunes Project; prepared by Geowest Consultants for Newport Dunes, Inc., dated September 28, 1988. Our April 14, 1998 report suggested possible liquefaction mitigation methods that involved soil improvement techniques or structural techniques. The soil improvement techniques mentioned consisted of, but are not limited to, vibro-compaction, vibro-replacement (stone columns), and dynamic compaction. The structural techniques suggested included the use of deep foundation piles to penetrate into the underlying non -liquefiable soils. The following section presents soil improvement and structural techniques suggested in our previous report, and additional soil improvement techniques not previously presented. It should be noted that often a liquefaction mitigation measure involves a combination of techniques or concepts. The most appropriate method(s) for mitigating the liquefaction potential at this site will be dependent on the performance criteria of the buildings and the extent of liquefiable soils underlying the site. SOIL WROVEMENT METHODS Soil improvement options can generally be classified as densification and mixing/hardening. These methods may be combined and can be implemented to fully or partially mitigate the potential for soil liquefaction, depending on the tolerance of the proposed structures to the effects of soil liquefaction that include settlement, lateral spreading, and sand boils (Martin and Lew, 1998). Densification Methods Vibro-compaction (a.k.a. vibro-flotation), vibro-replacement (stone columns) and deep dynamic compaction are densification methods. Vibro-compaction and vibro-replacement techniques use similar equipment, but use different backfill material to accomplish soil densification. The appropriate method to use depends of the gradation of the soils to be densified. Vibro-compaction is generally effective for granular soils with less than about 10 percent fines. Vibro-replacement is generally effective for soils containing less than 20 percent fines and also in stratified soils. For vibro-compaction, crane -mounted probe -type vibrators are inserted into the soils to the design depths to locally densify the soils. A conical depression may occur at the ground surface as the vibrator penetrates and densifies the loose soils, This method will result in an increase in 2 ' Newport Dunes hic. — Liquefaction Uitigation Methods December 4, 1998 Lem,lCrundcdl Project 70131-8-0192.0002 ' the soil strength parameters through densification, effectively lowering the soils susceptibility to liquefaction and reducing the effects of soil liquefaction. ' For vibro-replacement, a crane mounted depth vibrator penetrates the soils to the design depth. Stone backfill is then added in lifts, each lift being compacted by the horizontal force of the vibrator to form a "stone column". The resulting stone column and the remaining in -situ soil ' form an integrated densification and reinforcement system having low compressibility and high shear strength (Hayward -Baker, Technical Publication, 1998) ' Deep -dynamic compaction is sometimes an economic site improvement technique that can be used to treat (improve) a range of porous soil types. The method consists of hoisting a heavy weight, typically between 15 to 35 tons, approximately 50 to 120 feet high with a crane and then releasing the weight for a free -fall, controlled impact that imparts,energy to the ground. The free -fall impact energy imparted to the ground is controlled by selecting the weight, drop height, number of drops and spacing. Treatment depths up to 35 feet may be achievable in,granular ' soils. The major limitations of this procedure are vibration, flying matter and noise. For these reasons, work often requires 100 to 200 feet clearance from adjacent occupied buildings or sensitive structures. ' Compaction grouting consists of injecting a low -slump (less than 3-inches), mortar -type grout under pressure to densify the soils. The injected grout remains in a bulb and densifies the surrounding soils by displacement. Compaction grouting pipes are typically installed by drilling ' or driving steel pipes with minimum inside diameter of 2 inches to the design depths. Injection of the stiff grout is typically accomplished with pressures ranging from 100 to 300 pounds per square inch (psi) and refusal pressures are typically on the order of 400 to 500 psi. It is common to use primary spacing patterns with secondary and tertiary locations, if. necessary. Typically, an on -site batch plant is required to mix the grout. Mixine and Hardening Techniques Deep soil mixing involves mixing cement with the in -situ soil and is generally effective for the ' full range of liquefiable soils. The cement is injected via conduits within hollow -stem augers. The augers are typically in groups of 1 to 5 shafts that are equipped with paddles above the auger that churn and mix the soil and cement. The soil mixing rig is typically track -mounted. Soil mixing improves the soil by creating either a soil -cement matrix for soil stabilization or by forming structural elements to support earth or building loads. This method has only been used in a few cases for liquefaction mitigation in North America and is much more common in Japan. Permeation (a.k.a. chemical) grouting involves the injection of low viscosity grout that infiltrates the void space within the soil matrix of granular soils. Permeation -type grout typically consists of sodium silicate or micro -fine cements that are designed based on the grain -size distribution of the soil to be improved. Permeation grouting is generally effective for granular soils with less than about 12 to 15 percent fines. Permeation grouting ,is primarily used is to aid in stabilizing soft ground tunneling and control groundwater intrusion, but could also be used to harden the soil and thus increase its resistance to liquefaction. 1 Nouport Dumay Inc. - Liquefaction h!ldgation Methods December 4, 1998 Lau/Crandall Project 70131-8-0192.0002 Li Jet grouting is an erosion/replacement method that forms soil-crete (soil and cement) cylindrical or panel shapes to replace the soil. Soil erosion is initiated at the design depth through high - velocity injection of cutting and replacement fluids, typically air/water and grout. As the soil is cut and replaced, the uniform rotation and lifting of the drill rod can create various sizes and shapes. Typically, cylindrical columns are formed, although, other shapes are possible by varying the rotation of the nozzle. Because jet grouting is a replacement technique, significant spoil, typically on the order of 80 to 100 percent of the volume of soil to be improved, will be generated. Jet grouting is generally effective for a full range of soils, provided the soils are erodable (Hayward -Baker. Technical Publication, 1998). The jet grouting probes are typically installed using a conventional track -mounted rig. An on -site batch plant is typical for jet grouting improvements. STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS Structural solutions to mitigate potentially liquefiable soils include the use of conventional drilled/driven piles to penetrate through the liquefiable soils. A grade beam system is used to transfer building loads to the foundation piles and the floor slabs are typically structurally connected to the pile and grade beam system. Thus, soils adjacent to and underlying the pile - supported building may be subject to liquefaction induced settlement that could result in voids under building floor slabs and vertical offsets at the perimeter of the buildings. A structural solution is often more economical than the soil improvement techniques, however, the structural solution may have little or no effect on the soil itself and may not reduce the potential for liquefaction. Piles may be drilled or driven and can be used for all ranges of soil types. Because of the shallow groundwater, drilled piles may require special techniques including the use of casing or drilling mud to prevent caving of the drilled shaft. If the geotechnical investigation determines that there is a significant potential for large lateral displacements due to liquefaction induced lateral spreading, a structural pile and grade beam foundation may not be appropriate. POSSIBLE FAULT ZONE A "possible fault" has been identified on the adjacent Bayviety Landing property by Leighton & Associates (1990). We have been requested to evaluate the impact (if any) this feature could have on the site. Our evaluation included a review of available published and unpublished information regarding the location of faults in the immediate area that included the geotechnical report for the adjacent Bayview Landing property by Leighton & Associates (1990). We also contacted the City of Newport Beach Planning Department regarding the most current documents used by the City to identify faults in the City of Newport Beach area and any related planning/building restrictions. t 1 1 D J I 1 Cl 1 Newport Dimes Inc. — Ligaelucdon Mitigation Methods December 4, 1998 LtmdC'randall Prtycct 70131-8-01910002 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 F� The following is a list of the documents we reviewed: • Geotechnical Investigation and Site Plan Review of Bayview Landing, Corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree Road, City of Newport Beach, California by Leighton & Associates (1990). • Geologic -Seismic Study (Phase I) for the City of Newport Beach General Plan by Woodward -McNeill & Associates (1972) • The City of Newport Beach Seismic Safety Element (Revisions through 1997) • Fault Evaluation Reports for the Peninsular Ranges (California Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 90-13, 1990) • Recently Active Traces of the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone, Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California (California Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 88-14, 1988) • Seismic Hazard Map. City of Newport Beach, Planning Department • Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake on the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone (California Division of Mines and Geology 'Special Publication 99, 1988) Based on our review of the listed documents and our discussions with the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, there are no known faults with the potential for surface fault rupture at the site or in the vicinity of the site. Leighton & Associates (1990) identified several faults during their investigation on the adjacent Bayview Landing site. However, these faults were confined to the bedrock and are considered inactive. Leighton & Associates observed a "possible fault" that might offset colluvial soils during their investigation; however, this feature was not positively identified as a fault. In our opinion, there is a lack of evidence for the presence of an active fault on the adjacent property and a lack of evidence of an active fault at the site. This conclusion is based on published geologic maps, the Leighton & Associates report, and information available from the City of Newport Beach. Thus, it is not necessary to conduct further investigation of the potential impact this feature could have on the site. 1 Newport Dunes Inc. — Liquefaction Mitigation Methods Law/Crandall Project 70131-8-0192.0002 December 4, 1998 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please call if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, LAW/CRANDALL A Division or Law Engineering and EnY1 _ _ . kp, Inc. 'J 7. �^•ti =.y Shy Christo herLZad ^' Senior Engineer �/�%��/�/ r :, tom'-- • a Marshall Lew, Ph.D.': �• ^' + ,� Corporate ConsultantAtic r'41: ent .fir' enR¢eni98-proil00S18180518102.doe.CZ (4 copies submitted) Susan F zen Kir d Senior Engineering Geologist 0 ' LSA Associates, Inc. tAPPENDIX D WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 9/ M<<P:\CNB834\EIR\TOC-VOL-I.WPD>> - WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR NEWPORT DUNES HOTEL AND TIME-SHARE RESORT December, 1998 Prepared for: LSA Associates, Inc. One Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92714 Prepared by. Max P. Vahid, P. E., President Alan A. Swanson, P. E., Senior Vice President 1 1 I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1 II. PREVIOUS WATER QUALITY STUDIES.......................................................................I III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................2 IV. SITE DESCRIPTION..........................................................................................................3 A. Existing Onsite Drainage Conditions...................................................................... 3 B. Existing Offsite Drainage Conditions..................................................................... 3 C. Proposed Storm Water Management Plan .............................................................. 6 V. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES(BMPS).................................................................8 A. Structural BMPs...................................................................................................... 8 B. Non -Structural BMPs............................................................................................ I I VI. INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR BMPs.................................16 VII. FIGURES...........................................................................................................................18 Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 u Existing Site Drainage Map Existing Storm Drain System, South and East Portions of Newport Dunes Proposed Storm Water Management Plan Stormceptor Structure, Storm Flow Operation Stormceptor Structure, Structure Details Stormceptor Structure, Disc Insert Detail ..................................................................................................................19 019.58 ASI04M i I I. INTRODUCTION ' The purpose of this report is to present the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to be implemented as a part of the construction of the Newport Dunes Hotel and Time -Share Resort. The project site location is shown on Figure 1. The WQMP will identify the structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be utilized onsite in order to meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements to the maximum extent practical. The project site is immediately adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay State Ecological ' Preserve. The area is a marine and wildlife habitat preserve which supports several endangered species of birds. The area, including the adjacent Swimming Lagoon at Newport Dunes, is also a popular recreation area for humans as well as significant ' wildlife habitat. Maintaining the water quality of the Upper Newport Bay is essential to assure that marine habitat and the habitat of the many bird species is not adversely impacted by development within the watersheds tributary to the Bay. This report is being prepared for the Newport Dunes Hotel and Time -Share Resort Environmental Impact Report to address concerns about the project's effect on the water quality of the Upper Newport Bay. It is being prepared at this stage of the planning process to determine the project impacts and mitigation measures necessary to offset those impacts. H. PREVIOUS WATER QUALITY STUDIES A number of previous investigations have been undertaken related to the Upper Newport Bay and the Newport Dunes Swimming Lagoon. ' The studies related to the Upper Newport Bay were primarily concerned with control of erosion within the tributary watersheds in order to minimize the delivery of sediment to 1 the bay and to effectively manage its removal (References 2, 3, 4, 5, and A series of sediment removal projects were undertaken including the Early Action Plan (1983), the In -Bay Unit I Basin Dredging Project (1985), the In -Bay Unit II Basin Dredging Project (1988), and the dredging contract currently underway being administered by The Orange County Public Facilities and Resources Department. These dredging projects have been necessary to preserve the open water areas of the Upper Bay, assure continued tidal flushing of the Bay, and thereby maintain the ecological quality of the wildlife and marine habitats within the area. The quality of surface runoff tributary to the Upper Bay was addressed in an early report by Larry Seeman, Inc. in 1977 (Reference 1) which recommended new development proposals be conditioned to provide sedimentation controls and implement non-structural source controls. These conditions are now met by all new development within the County of Orange since they must comply with NPDES requirements as dictated by the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. ' OWSSASIOWr I Several water quality evaluations and studies have been prepared to assess the quality of ' the water in the Newport Dunes Swimming Lagoon (References 7 and 8). Bacteriological evaluations have shown that the lagoon water quality is acceptable except for the area near the outfall of the storm drain located on the east shore southerly of the pedestrian bridge. Water samples collected from the drain have shown chronically high levels of total and fecal coliforms (Reference 9). Newport Dunes water samples in the vicinity of the drain outlet have also shown elevated levels of total and fecal coliforms. The source of coliform bacteria monitored at the storm drain outlet is not from the Newport Dunes. Refer to Section N.B. of this report for further discussion. ' M. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Newport Dunes Hotel and Time -Share Resort site occupies approximately 30 acres adjacent to Upper Newport Bay, at the terminus of Bayside Drive, and north of Pacific Coast Highway. Primary access -to the project site is via Bayside Drive, which ; connects with Pacific Coast Highway. The Newport Dunes Hotel and Time -Share Resort project site is part of the larger Newport Dunes Resort, a 100-acre visitor -serving aquatic resort on Upper Newport Bay in the City of Newport Beach. The property is owned by the County of Orange and operated under a long-term lease to Evans Hotels. Existing improvements within the Newport Dunes Resort area include a 10-acre Swimming Lagoon and surrounding beach, a mile long pedestrian promenade around the swimming lagoon, day use facilities with parking lot, picnic tables and covers, restrooms, a restaurant, a 450-slip marina, a 406- space recreational vehicle park, swimming pools, meeting space, boat storage and launching facilities, and other related facilities. Developments and/or facilities surrounding the project site include: the De Anza Bayside , Village Trailer Park, a 250-unit senior -restricted mobile home park, which also contains 260 boat slips and dryboat storage located west of the project site; the Newport Dunes Marina Administrative and Service Buildings to the north; the Newport Dunes Recreational Vehicle Resort and Pacific Coast Highway to the south; and the Swimming Lagoon, beach, picnic area, and boat launch facilities to the east. The proposed Newport Dunes Hotel and Time -Share Resort project consists of a 400- room hotel and 100 time-share units. The plans envision a full service destination resort hotel, which will include: swimming pools; health, fitness and recreational facilities; children's facilities; dining areas; ballrooms and meeting rooms; retail space; parking garages; and landscaped garden areas. Interior facilities are expected to total approximately 700,000 square feet. Up to 1,220 parking spaces are proposed to service the facility, most,of which would be contained within a parking structure. `I I OWSI AS104MT 2 1 I 1 IV. SITE DESCRIPTION A. Existing Onsite Drainage Conditions Within the 30-acre hotel development site, storm runoff is directed to two general discharge locations. These locations are as follows: 1. Drainage of approximately 9.5 acres, including the Newport Dunes Marina Administration and Service Buildings, entrance road, and adjacent parking area is conveyed to the Upper Newport Bay. The storm runoff is collected by three existing polyethylene storm drain pipelines with catch basins and other miscellaneous inlet structures. The three systems discharge through the marina bulkhead into the Bay. Refer to Figure 2. 2. Drainage of the remainder of the 30-acre development site (approximately 17.0 acres), including a portion of the asphalt paved parking area between ' the Marina area and the dredged spoil site and the campground area, is conveyed to the Newport Dunes Swimming Lagoon. Storm runoff from the existing campground areas and access roads is conveyed to the . Swimming Lagoon by local storm drain systems. Refer to Figure 3. The dredged spoil site, with a surface area of approximately 3.7 acres, represents a containment area, and does not contribute storm runoff to the Lagoon. B. Existing Offsite Drainage Conditions The topographic conditions of the site and the adjacent surrounding areas prevent ' any significant storm runoff from entering the site. A small portion of the Hotel entrance road (Bayside Drive), approximately 0.2 acre, currently drains onto the site and is collected by the existing storm drain system draining to Newport Bay. No other offsite areas drain to the proposed site. The existing storm drain systems and outlets to the Back Bay and the Swimming Lagoon are shown on Figures 2 and 3, respectively. Offsite drainage tributary to the Swimming Lagoon includes storm runoff from the Newport Beach Country Club, the residential development area between the Club golf course and Jamboree Road, and portions of the Hyatt Newporter Hotel. The runoff is conveyed to the Lagoon through a storm drain system maintained by the City of Newport Beach and the Hyatt Newporter Hotel. This storm drain discharges on the east side of the Lagoon south of the pedestrian bridge. Primarily during non -storm periods and during fast -flush storm events, pollutants including elevated levels of total and fecal coliform bacteria have been detected in the vicinity of the storm drain outlet. Coliform bacteria is an indicator of possible ' disease producing bacteria, viruses and protozoa, also known as pathogens. Studies have shown that the incidence of illness increases as the ratio of densities 1 019.93 AS1041n of total coliforms to fecal coliforms decreases. When total coliforms exceeded 1,000 cfu (Colony Forming Units), the strongest illness producing effects were observed for a ratio 2 to 1. See Reference No.12. Human illnesses associated with bacteria include gastroenteritis, typhoid fever, various enteric fevers, bacterial dysentery, and cholem illnesses associated with protozoa and viruses include diarrhea, gastroenteritis, respiratory disease, fevers, rashes, paralysis, aseptic meningitis, and infectious hepatitis. Monitoring activities have been carried out by the County of Orange to quantify the pollutant levels in the Lagoon. Pollutant levels have been sufficiently high in the vicinity of the storm drain outlet to cause the Orange County Health Agency (OCHA) to post signs prohibiting access to the Swimming Lagoon for a distance of 300 feet along the beach at the outlet. According to OCHA staff, the Health and Safety Code concerning Ocean Water Contact Sports Standards set a Most Probable Number (MPN) level of 1,000 as the level at which body contact should not be permitted. Signs are posted when 20 percent of the samples taken at a sampling station for a 30-day period exceed 1,000 coliform organisms. The data tabulated below shows the MPN of Total Coliform in a 100 ml sample for selected sampling locations. The East, Middle, West, and North sampling locations within the Swimming Lagoon are shown on Figure 3. In addition to coliform bacteria, other pollutants such as trash, oils, greases, etc., discharge from the drain into the Swimming Lagoon and ultimately into the Back Bay. This condition is similar to many other storm drains which discharge directly to the Back Bay. N9MASioarr 4 I I I I L] 11 I In r I Maximum Probable Number of Total Coliform per 100 mI Sample for Selected Sampling Locations Sample ND ND ND ND BBD BBD BBD In -Bay In -Bay Date East Middle West North 100' N 100' S In -Pipe NSB DeAnza 7-14-97 110 130 20 20 - - - <20 80 9-16-97 500 500 3000 170 - - - 40 20 11-10-97* 16000 300 800 500 - - - 40 500 1-15-98* 3000 1300 1300 800 - - - 1300 500 3-18-98 800 500 300 300 5-11-98 700 230 230 500 7-14-98 800 300 70 800 9-14-98 230 <20 110 300 9-29-98 20 130 <20 16000 10-13-98 80 140 140 800 10-26-98 40 80 9000 300 11-16-98 80 70 3000 3000 ND = Newport Dunes Swimming Lagoon BBD = Back Bay Storm Drain NSB = North Star Beach - - - 80 20 - - - 500 70 - - - 20 80 800 500 16000 <l0 <20 800 170 17000 20 20 20 110 5000 80 <20 300 300 1300 5000 800 1700 170 3000 130 270 * Rain A review of the data tabulated shows that Total Coliform levels near the storm drain pipe outlet are effected by its discharge. Total Coliform levels within the vast majority of the Swimming Lagoon do not appear to be effected except during storms. The data also tend to indicate that the Total Coliform levels in the Swimming Lagoon generally exceed those at the In -Bay Sampling Locations. As a solution to the pollution problem, the Orange County Department of Beaches and Parks conducted an investigation in 1991 to evaluate the possibility of intercepting water and diverting it into the adjacent sewer line in Back Bay Drive for delivery to a sewage treatment facility. Discussions with the County Sanitation District of Orange County held in 1991 did not lead to an agreement permitting the nuisance water diversion to the sewer line. Recent discussions with the OCHA staff have indicated that several sanitation districts in the Southern California area have shown a willingness to accept dry weather surface flow diversions from selected areas. OCHA staff have indicated that this particular site would be one of their high priority recommendations for such a diversion. 1 0199AS104"r R I C. I Since drainage from the development site will be routed through water quality structures and discharged directly to the Back Bay, the proposed Newport Dunes Hotel and Time -Share Resort project will not exacerbate or contribute in any way to this existing storm drain water quality problem area. The routing of storm runoff, in fact, will improve the existing water quality condition of the Swimming Lagoon since existing drainage areas within the 30-acre site are being drained to the Back Bay. Consequently, no structural solutions to mitigate the impacts of the pollutants within the Swimming Lagoon are being proposed as a part of this WQMP. Newport Dunes is eager, however, to participate in discussions with the OCHA, the CSDOC, the County of Orange, and others to seek a solution to the problem. Proposed Storm WaterManagememPlan Since the project site is located adjacent to an environmentally sensitive area, i.e., the Upper Newport Bay State Ecological Preserve, special attention must be directed to management and control of pollutants normally generated from a commercial land use. Possible sources of storm water pollutants after development of the project site include: Oil, greases, and other motor vehicle fluids on paved areas including entry access roads, parking lots, parking garages, and service vehicle delivery areas; • Litter and trash left in parking areas, streets, and -other storm conveyance paths and sheet flow locations; • Sediments and fine sands blown onsite from surrounding areas; I • Vegetative matter from both onsite and offsite landscaping which may enter the storm conveyance system; and • Trash and litter around the trash bins. Four independent backbone storm drain systems have been conceptually developed to manage storm runoff from the 30-acre development site. These systems are conceptually shown on Figure 4. The proposed drainage systems will replace the existing drainage systems within the 30-acre development area. The three existing storm drain outlets, which pass through the Marina Bulkhead wall to the Upper Bay, will be utilized for three of the new drains. The fourth drain will require a new outlet. All storm runoff from onsite development areas, and a small area ofBayside Drive tributary to the site, will be drained to Upper Newport Bay. Due to topographic conditions at the site, storm runoff from the site cannot be drained on.unsiaerr 6 1 11 directly to the ocean or any other alternative drainage system. Site runoff will be specifically prevented from entering the Swimming Lagoon with the exception of the beach area east of the promenade. This beach area slopes directly to the Lagoon and does not include any impervious surfaces. Any pollutants which may have found their way into the Lagoon from the 30-acre site under the existing drainage condition will not occur with the proposed development plan. A comparison of the impervious pavement and roof surface areas within the 30- acre development site tributary to the Swimming Lagoon and to the Back Bay for pre- and post -development conditions is tabulated below. Street (I) and Roof Areas Tributary to the Swimming Lagoon and the Back Bay Pre -Development Post -Development Street Roof Street Roof Tributary to: Surface Surface fhcres acres Surface acres Surface fhcres Swimming Lagoon 5.92 -0- -0- -0- Back Bay 4.92 0.62 7.37 6.71 Total 10.84 0.62 7.37 6.71 Runoff Volume 4.1 2.8 ac-feet 0) Includes top parking surface area of parking garage (2) Runoff volume in acre-feet based on 25-year, 24-hour point precipitation data per the Orange County Hydrology Manual The tabulated data show that the street and parking surface areas, which produce the majority of oils, greases, and miscellaneous vehicular pollutants, tributary to the Lagoon and Back Bay will be reduced from 10.84 acres to 7.37 acres or by approximately 32 percent as a result of the development. Roof surface acreage, however, has increased significantly. Pollutants flushed from roofs during storms are primarily wind blown grit, leaves, etc., which will be contained or managed in Water Quality Best Management Practices as described in Section V.A. The Best Management Practices to be implemented onsite as a part of the Hotel project are described in Section V. I V. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) A. Structural BMPs Storm water pollutants from roof drains, street surfaces, parking lot and parking structure areas, and supply delivery areas will be managed through specific structural BMPs. The specific BMPs proposed for these drainage sources are described below. Refer to Figures 4 and 5. Roof Drains Wherever possible the discharge from roof drains will be directed through turfed swales or landscaped areas. At the end of these swales downdrains will be provided to inlet the storm water to the nearest storm drain system. The turfed swales encourage infiltration and tend to remove fine-grained sediments and silts washed from rooftops prior to entering the storm drain systems. In the event final design of the Hotel open space areas does not permit the use of swales, drainage systems will be installed to direct roof drainage to a water quality BMP as described in the following subsection. Streets. Parking Lots. Supply Delivery Areas It is proposed to utilize a number of storm water quality inlets or interceptor structures to collect storm water runoff from these impervious surfaces. These structures are essentially large manhole structures located entirely below grade. A conventional manhole cover would be visible on the surface. They are normally installed in streets or parking areas where grit, sediments, oils, and greases and other pollutants accumulate. The structures are designed to separate pollutants from the initial storm runoff and discharge "treated" storm water to the desired drainage outlet. A number of suppliers manufacture storm water interceptor structures which are designed to remove from 50 to 100 percent of the oils, greases, and other suspended solids found in the storm water runoff from a site such as the proposed Newport Dunes Hotel and Time -Share Resort site. For the purpose of developing a conceptual location and sizing plan, the Stormceptor System as manufactured by CSR Hydroconduit was chosen. For this particular site, the number of Stormeeptor units required was determined on the basis that the receiving water is a "Sensitive Area." Under this criteria, up to of 80 percent of the Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and the oils and greases in the storm water will be removed. Except for the most upstream drainage area tributary to the storm drain, interceptor structures are positioned o8line from the mainline storm drain to assure that only "treated" storm water is discharged to the receiving water, in this MMIAS1040T 8 I case, the Upper Newport Bay. The Stormceptor structures are designed to • separate oils, greases, sediments, and other suspended solids from the initial storm water runoff. A pollutant storage chamber is provided in the lower portion of the structure. Storm water enters the lower chamber where sediments settle out and floatables such as oil, greases, and floating debris are trapped. A special disc insert separates the chamber from the storm drain inlet and outlet conduits. This disc prevents the disturbance and flushing of sediments, floating debris, and other pollutants from the chamber during high storm flows. A total of six Stormceptor units are shown on Figure 4. A typical Stormceptor structure is shown in Figures 5, 6, and 7. These figures depict the general low flow and storm flow operation, and indicate the general configuration and dimensions of the structures and the disc insert. In addition to removal of TSS, storm water interceptor structures provide additional protection against spills which may occur on paved surfaces near delivery sites or in the vicinity of trash bins. Such spills would collect in the. Stormceptor pollutant storage chamber. Storm water interceptor structures must be periodically maintained, usually on an annual basis. Generally following the storm season, the structures would be inspected and accumulated pollutants removed using a conventional vacuum truck. The Stormceptor System has been used in a large number of applications • throughout the United States. "In the field" testing has shown that the TSS removal percentage (80%) indicated above will be achieved. These tests also have shown that more than 95 percent of the storm water borne hydrocarbons will be removed. Stormceptor structures have been or will be installed at the following southern California locations: Units Installed • City of Anaheim, Olive and South Street. An oil and fuel distribution company, two STC 900 units installed. City of Huntington Beach,14801 Able Lane A metal refinishing company, one STC 4800 unit installed. • City of Long Beach, Garfield Street at the 91 Freeway. Bus facility wash rack and service area, one STC 4800 unit installed. Units to be Installed. Spring 1999 • Cityof Laguna Beach, one STC 900 unit 11 I- GIMIAS104R" 9 I City of Fountain Valley, one STC 4800 unit Los Angeles County, one STC 600 unit • City ofMalibu, one STC 7200 unit I A similar water quality structure has been installed in the boat washing area within Newport Dunes near Back Bay Drive. This boat washing facility is located as shown on Figure 3. Parking, Structure Areas Storm runoff from the top level of the parking structure will be directed to storm water interceptor structure Nos,1 and 2 as shown on Figure 4. For the lower parking garage levels, it has been assumed that the paved surfaces will be periodically swept and only occasionally washed down. Down drains from the various structure levels will be provided and connected to the drainage conduits delivering runoff to the storm water interceptor structures. Other Structural BMPs M Other structural BMPs to be utilized within the development are the following: • Efficient Irrigation Systems Irrigation systems will be installed and programmed to apply the proper volume of water and avoid excess runoff. • Wash Water Controls for Food Preparation Areas Hotel restaurants and other food processing concessions will have either contained areas, sinks,tach with sanitary sewer connections for disposal of wash waters containing kitchen and food wastes. The installation of grease traps in all kitchen facilities is a code requirement of the City of Newport Beach. If located outside, the contained areas, sinks shall also be structurally covered to prevent entry of storm water. Trash Container (Dempster) Areas Drainage from trash container areas will be drained to Stormceptor structures. Trash container areas associated with Hotel restaurant operations will be screened, walled, and secured to prevent offsite transport of trash. 019659ASIMrr 10 • Self -Contained Areas for Washing/Steam Cleaning/Maintenance/Repair Self-contained areas will be provided for washing/steam cleaning and performing maintenance activities to Hotel service vehicles and landscape maintenance equipment. These areas shall be provided with drains to convey wash water to Stormceptor structures. If this washing and maintenance activity is performed at the existing boat wash rack facility, the requirement of this BMP will be met. • Outdoor Storage Where the Hotel development plan contemplates outdoor containers for oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, wastes, and other chemicals, these will'be protected by secondary containment structures (not double wall containers). These storage areas shall be provided with drains to deliver any storm runoff or spills to the Stormceptor structures. • Catch Basin Stenciling The phrase `NO'DUMPING — DRAINS TO BAY" or equally effective phrase shall be stenciled on catch basins in the parking lots and maintenance areas to alert the public and employees to the destination of Apollutants discharged into the storm drain system. B. Non -Structural BMPs The non-structural BMPs to be implemented within the development area are ' listed below. • Activity Restrictions No car washing, changing of oil, or other auto repairs will be permitted within the 30-acre project site. Hotel service vehicles and equipment used for maintenance shall be washed and maintained at the boat wash rack area outside the project area. • Landscape Management Landscaped areas that utilize fertilizers and pesticides will be managed, in concert with guidelines provided in the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) (Reference 10). The -guidelines for the use and management of fertilizers and pesticides is repeated here for ease of reference. 11 IN9-51AS104M it Use of Fertilizers Fertilizers are nutrients applied to soil to provide a better growing environment for plants. The fertilizers most commonly in use in Southern California today are nitrogen- and phosphorus -based. Both leach into soils easily in the presence of water and have become a water quality concern, causing algal blooms and eutrophication and, in some cases, causing levels to exceed federal drinking water standards. However, fertilizers also play the important role of promoting vegetation growth that protects soil from erosion and enhances landscape -aesthetics. Because there is a necessity for soil nutrients and because there is a potential for adverse Affects on local waterways due to the loss of these nutrients through runoff and infiltration, management guidelines are necessary as a means of reducing the loss of fertilizers into water supplies. The guidelines for the use of fertilizers are as follows: 1. Landscape management staff should periodically test soils before applying fertilizers to be certain that application is appropriate for and compatible with soil conditions. The samples should be analyzed by a qualified specialist, and workers should follow the recommendations for application. 2. Landscape management staff should choose to use organic fertilizers such as compost, peat, and mulch wherever possible to increase soil porosity and water retention. 3. Landscape workers should apply only the minimum amount of fertilizer needed and incorporate it directly into the soil around the plant where possible to mn ni nmi potential surface runoff. 4. Landscape workers should not apply fertilizers in the rain or on the same day that rain is expected. S. Landscape workers should immediately clean up any spill of fertilizers. 6. Storage facilities should be covered and have impermeable foundations so that potential spills don't have the opportunity to run off into surface water or leach into groundwater systems. 7. Fertilizers that may be carried by the wind should be stored in areas away from open loading spaces and entrances of storage warehouses. ams AMmyr 12 11 8. Fertilizers should be securely covered in the vehicle before being taken to application sites so that none can spill or fly out during transport. 9. Use slow release fertilizers such as water soluble nitrogen fertilizers, coated fertilizers, and fertilizers of limited solubility wherever possible to reduce the chances of leaching. . Use of Pesticides Pesticides are designed to kill or restrict the growth of plants and organisms, and thus, are potentially dangerous chemicals. Increasing scientific concern for their safe use and heightened public awareness of health concerns has lead to more and more regulations in the United States at both the state and federal level. Pesticide use by landscape maintenance staff presents the potential risk that the chemicals may be washed into the storm drainage system. Stormwater interceptors are designed as structural BMPs to trap suspended solids, oils, greases, and other floatable debris prior to discharge to the Bay. It is possible; however, that some storm water constituents such as nitrogen, phosphorous, and other soluable chemicals which may not have adhered to sediments, may pass through the structures. Consequently, careful management and use of pesticides is essential. The guidelines for the use of pesticides are as follows: 1. Landscape management staff should maintain a complete list of all Nchemicals and their uses. 2. Landscape management staff should thoroughly investigate and consider all alternatives to pesticide use. 3. Landscape workers shall use pesticides only according to label instructions. 4. Landscape crews should bring to the work site only the amount of chemical to be used during the application and use only the minimum amount of the chemical that is necessary. 5. Landscape workers should consider weather conditions that could affect application (for example, they shouldn't spray when winds are exceeding 5 mph, when raining or when rain is likely). I I099.5&AS104R r 13 I I 6. Landscape workers should consider area drainage patterns (for example, they shouldn't apply near wetlands, streams and lakes or ponds unless it is for an approved maintenance activity). 7. Landscape workers should consider soil conditions before applying pesticides (for example, they shouldn't apply to bare or eroded ground). 8. Landscape workers shall triple -rinse empty pesticide containers before disposal and use the leftover wash as spray. 9. Landscape workers should never clean or rinse pesticide equipment and containers in the vicinity of storm drains. 10. Pesticides should -only be stored in areas with cement floors and in areas insulated from temperature extremes. 11. Landscape workers shall secure chemicals and equipment during transportation to prevent tipping or excess jarring in a part of the vehicle completely isolated from people, food, and clothing. 12. Landscape workers or their supervisors should inspect pesticide equipment, storage containers, and transportation vehicles daily. 13. Landscape management staff should adopt a plan for dealing with potential accidents before they happen. 14. Landscape workers should immediately clean up any chemical spill according to label instructions and notify the appropriate supervisors and agencies. Additional detailed information concerning the use and management of fertilizers and pesticides is included in the County DAMP (Reference 10). BMP Maintenance The management of the Newport Dunes Hotel and Time -Share Resort will assume responsibility for implementation of each non-structural BMP and for scheduling the cleaning of all structural BMP facilities. Refer to Section V.A. of this report regarding maintenance of stormwater interceptor structures. Refer to Catch Basin Inspection and Maintenance included in this section for catch basin inspection and maintenance . requirements. O"ASI0W°' 14 I • Litter Control 1 Regular maintenance consisting of litter control and emptying of trash receptacles will be scheduled. Any trash disposal violations will be noted in order to reduce pollution of drainage water. • Employee Training Employee training, like equipment maintenance, is not so much a best management practice as it is a method by which to implement BMPs. The overall objectives and approach for assuring employee training in storm water pollution prevention are listed below. Obiectives Employee training should be based on four objectives: 1. Promote a clear identification and understanding of the problem, including activities with the potential to pollute storm water. 2. Identify solutions (BMPs). 3. Promote employee ownership of the problems and the solutions. 4. Integrate employee feedback into training and BMP implementation. Approach 1. Integrate training regarding storm water quality management with existing training programs that may be required for hotel operations by regulations such as: the Illness and Injury Prevention Program (IIPP) (SB 198) (California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 3203), the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard (29 CFR 1910.120), the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan (40 CFR 112), and the Hazardous Materials Management Plan (Business Plan) (California Health and Safety Code, Section 6.95). 2. Hotel management may use the information in Reference 11 to develop a training program to reduce the potential to pollute storm water. I 1` I01MIAS104xrr 15 Catch Basin Inspection and Cleaning Catch basins and storm water inlets will be maintained on a regular basis ■ to remove pollutants, reduce high pollutant concentrations during the first flush storms, prevent clogging of the downstream conveyance system, and restore the catch basins' sediment trapping capacity. Regular maintenance of catch basins and inlets is necessary to ensure their proper functioning. Clogged catch basins are not only useless but may act as a source of sediments and pollutants. In general, the keys to effective catch basins are: 1. At least annual inspections. Maintenance staff should inspect the basins to ensure compliance with the following: Immediate repair of any deterioration threatening structural integrity. Cleaning before the basin sump is 50 percent full. Catch basins should be cleaned as frequently as needed to meet this standard. 2. Clean catch basins in high pollutant load areas just before the.wet season (prior to October 15a') to remove sediments and debris accumulated during the summer. 3. Keep accurate logs of the number of catch basins cleaned. 4. Record the amount of waste -collected. Sweeping of Streets, Parking Lots, and Parking Structures I Roadways and parking lots will be cleaned on a regular basis to reduce the discharge of pollutants into the storm drain system from paved surfaces. Onsite roadways and parking lots should be swept prior to the storm , season, no later than October 15a' of each year. Parking structure levels below the top level should be swept periodically on a frequency to be determined by the Resort Management. VI. INSPECTIONWAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR BMPs The Newport Dunes Hotel and Time -Share Resort management team will be responsible for the inspection, implementation, and maintenance of the structural and non-structural BMPs outlined in this plan. The management team will retain all maintenance records for a period of three years. Those records will be available for review by government awl AS104Wr 16 1 I Ij agencies. An annual monitoring report documenting the volume of accumulated 1 sediments, floatable debris, and other pollutants captured by catch basins and the storm water interceptor structures will be prepared following the annual cleaning activity. This report will be provided to the City of Newport Beach, Building Division; and the County of Orange, Environmental Resources Division. Newport Dunes Representative: Property Manager: Tim Quinn...........................................................(949) 729-3863 [1 I [1 I I [1 I I n I Fj 1 W-59As100rr 17 1 VII. FIGURES i 1 ! i ! 1 � . l 1 . l ! .1 0/9.58 AS104RP[ 18 MACARTHUR BLVD. �l N O f• N SAN DIEGO -l' JOHN WAYNE o AIRPORT a SA IN GO �Q�y JOAQUIN UNIVERSITY OR. f FRESHWATER UPPER MARSH NEWPORT BAY pR• �P ECOLOGICAL MpD5 GA P PRESERVE 4 V. yp� UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE CULVER ♦� �'QST � v0 GF PROJECT ISITE ,p�eo�� E cp FASH ON qST ISLA HIfY• VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE NOTE: SEE ORANGE COUNTY THOMAS BROS. MAP GUIDE, PAGE 889, 1 NEWPORT DUNES HOTEL DATE AND TIME-SHARE RESORT -12/98 .IOtltl M.7E1TENEftnn550MR5 RIC FIGURE non+banarmen�m+carrw6;tnc VICINITY MAP sat�c • nvs+br�t • x C W 92626 3151 nw.ayn�, w� ai, Costa Mesa, CaRfaMa 92626 i Al et t;\y, ..•^; tyre.i ••-. cr /'�"�T'' r`""��-�'yb'"-^'r-v .i:��: C•Z_,P�• `'��'e - 1-• F• �Y to t'_ :y.��", e� r ' � v.�`"• i � - 4� .t :. - t �•f.. F,�S• \.. t. r t }`�ji I+� `e ,re,'y=:' r, Y �i•,-Y�>,�, +G"�.'' r` ,d,K •T t•i•�-:.�\t••,'.y` •�ilJ. . 1.1:'. 1 .: fl. f � 'v-- r. •„�': F T T 0°" -. /j. - .u1:" �i` A�jYp).'.�:,''-I�r"':-r/�.'`i�`�'1IJ:•e'=-,-.�ry:-,rj'. -\` `l• ..:I SF/1/ti.11,!(iyYS ,.ii ray-r .% 'e'' ✓�•..:^': r • !i ,'. '. _ � `' s ,'4 c' �T �� r.0 t\�.M •'�..: r' �`•L Y"�bCEO SPOIL SITE l t IF i •. r r, . :. 1 Y 41- f. g4MIAM-0 AREA '. Y` t t �(�i, t- +' P'. t •, t� J., t r t 'i 1'�r { t -.T WYcTp• af, E'r��l�"� •�ti•. �d', :�'�'� I,rq `.: t*. '_- _ '•Lfl Iy��-.,°�IteAr , r `- j�/. '' = -_ �^.Y-. t (• EXSTMG TO DRAW OUTLET TO _- _ : (SEE PIGIA7E J) , s' .. - ( iii • r,`: . , SW UNC LAGOON f�1:7r'F67rj;3] L UPPER NEWPORT BAY DRAB! OUTLET t1T71DUTARYrvTO :'. ' i�} ti_ ••, r� 51yMFAP/0 r7.. �F f G ) ::•..srr�G'srbpN STORW DRAW OUTLET • SCALE -I" • 150' ar m .m m r w m r m m On m m m m ON =$ w r ��'ti ey4 !\.• x 11<ll� NFYPMT BACX BIY 'jTt')�v '•�� _�113j�` I :`y�"! SAT ✓�}•y'.'\ F3If�,I€ L� 1 ow YES/ '0 W�Ik•.l e0.1T YAW RACE L JU I11. No NORRIS ,�'t �•l •I� EXISTINP TDRAW TO n�iN (PROTECT FUME "MT DUNES NO EL t. AND TlW-SNARE RESORT f'hf'%f'•f ••\ /, • \, :� 'i DEPELDPIEN) Sim . • •+! W 1 , x SEE FILLWE 4 :\ X.. -L \. ::•'� SWfWOAVLAGOON 1. NO NmaE NO EAST , . , ; I�it�;(,��f \ • ' ;wt I. .�`\ \�'1 *'f \R%'T��_;�f:TLIT T: 1' /' �i.i • �' J Y •\ 5!'�� riiy1•�. ••' . tit 1,1��"µiI .d'. {t4\:yi+li•' ,•ti'. s{S•; LEGEN—y,LDIRECTIO- -� _••1 't 1W o�1W T��3W EXISTING OF STOFLOI • - �_.lT - - _ , �i ' .• i i SCALE IN FEET -- EXISTING 5T00I DRAIN UP NSGN POINT • WAFER DUALITT SAWXIM1G LOCATION NO NEVOITT DUNES SWILNING LAC" NEWPORT DUNES HOTEL DATE Q� AND TIME-SHARE RESORT 12198 Iumn nrteeWnerosomrta ne EXISTING STORM DRAIN SYSTEM FIGURE r_ noranrr nertnncawNwnc SOUTH AND EAST PORTIONS nal N,,.IwmRs„n0a°I:`rr.�ul:„,u^'vy OF NEWPORT DUNES 3 N SCALE: 1 •2000' p- wulnuuulr�� L E'GEND: NMAP STORACEPTOR STRUCTURE MAINLINE S.D. MANHOLE SWIMMING LAGOON --^---- TURFED/VEGETATED DRAINAGE SWALE FOR ROOF DRAIN PROPOSED STORM DRAIN IMPERVIOUS AREA TRIBUTARY TO STOPK'EPTO9S -r S.D. FLOU DIRECTION - EXISTING STORM DRAIN OUTLET r.iu� Elf UPPER NEWPORT BAY EX671NG STORM DRAW OUTLET NEW STORM DRAY OUTLET Alt r _ - "- EXISTING STORM DRAW OUTLET = m m m � m an m W. � m ,� .tom m im am so i m PAV6fW SLRFACE MAW e• ALL FLOWS ENTER LOWER STORAGE aW f ? 4 LOW FLOW OPERA70 PAVELEM SLWACE e WA OFFER Nft BERM MW BY-PASS !NO SCOLR OR RE-SL6P0SION OF POLLUTANTS NV LOWER CHNIM BY-PASS OVER WEBS 3 COURTESY OF mm FLOW OPEMADON CSR HYDROCONDUIT NEWPORT DUNES HOTEL DATE AND TIME-SHARE RESORT 12198 FlGURE �d �MM% IMFM T�5500A M JM M or me emi r, STORMCEPTOR STRUCTURE 5n 010NMW • tWVVAZt= • � STORM FLOW OPERATION Si51 AaweynaiWe, SuatQL C�a Mesa, Cal(otNa 92626 71' 8' NOTE : +`�- - - - 1. THE USE OF FtF]OBLE CONNECTM IS RECOMMOM AT THE INLET AND OIAM *M APPL"M 2. THE COVER SHOULD BE POSl1V0 OVER THE CUM DROP PPE AND THE VENT PPE. 3. IM IS A GNMAL ARILYiOENENT DRAM CONSULT LOCAL RD)FO fITATIVE FOR SPECIAL CONOMM. .R 43 COURTESY OF CSR HYDROCONDUIT 11 r r r FIBERGLASS REINFORCED S.S. LIFTING LUG WITH GP POLYESTER RESIN. (TYP. OF 3) 71 1/8'0 TOP 71 3/4'0 BTM. 'AAOF INSERT rINLET - + - - OUTLET r14'0 i + 24'0 OUTLET B0 ' 6'0 PVC VENT COUPLING ORIFICE PLAIE PLAN VI 6'0 VENT PIPE STORMCEP70R® INSERT 72'0 r______ _ WEIR INLET ' IUNIT A (in.) 80 (in.) C (in.) 8' _ _ 9' I OUTLET �-_----- STC 900 16 6 16 p 1/21 ' STC 1200 16 6 16 19' C 18 I STC 1800 16 6 i6 '• ' STC 2400 44 8 44 1 STC 360D 44 8 44 ' STC 4800 44 10 44 80 24'0 DROP STC 600D 44 10 44 DROP INLET PIPE OUTLET PIPE STC 7200 44 tz 44 SECTION: 'A='A' THRU CHAMBER NOTE : 1. THE USE OF FLEiOBLE CONNECTIONS iS RECOMMENDED AT THE INLET PIPE AND OUT ET PPE WHERE APPLICABLE L THE COVER SHOULD BE POSITIONED OVER THE OUTLET DROP PIPE AND THE VENT PPE ' COURTESY OF CSR HYDROCONDUIT NEWPORT DUNES HOTEL DATE AND TIME-SHARE RESORT 12198 FIGURE � Rn'�50OA�'� STORM WATER INTERCEPTOR n onn ron of me �m carraur5I m 7 ' 5151 Arway Avemd m4. Costa tlesa,GOfanla 92626 DISC INSERT DETAIL r I I r I 1 I 1 I I I VIII. REFERENCES A State -of -the -Art Report Concerning Urban Stormwater Pollution and Control Strategies for Newport Bay, Larry Seeman, Inc., May 1977 2. Technical Memorandum — Newport Bay Watershed. Construction Activities Best Management Practices Plan for Sediment Control, Boyle Engineering Corporation, November 1981 3. Sediment Source Analysis and Sediment Delivery Analysis —Newport Bay Watershed, San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan, Boyle Engineering Corporation, October 1982 4. Sediment Transport, Deposition, and Scour in Upper Newport Bay — Newport Bay Watershed San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan, Ray B. Krone and Associates and Boyle Engineering Corporation, April 1982 5. Sedimentation Analysis — Newport Bay Watershed San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan, Boyle Engineering Corporation, July 1982 6. Environmental Impact Report — Upper Newport Bay Enhancement/Sediment Management Project, Culbertson, Adams and Associates, Inc., December 1985 7. Newport Dunes, Water Quality Sampling Data, Courton & Associates, Inc., January 1987 —July 1988 8. Memo from Newport Beach City Attorney Robert Burnham to Mayor and Members of the City Council regarding Newport Dunes Settlement Agreement Water Quality Study, February 16,1990 9. Memo from County of Orange Manager, EMA/Environmental Resources, to Larry Paul regarding Newport Dunes — Storm Drain Study, July 7, 1991 10. Drainage Area Management Plan, A cooperative project between the County of Orange, the Cities of Orange County, and the Orange County Flood Control District, April 1993 11. California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks, Camp Dresser & McKee, Lary Walker Associates, Uribe and Associates, Resources Planning Associates, March 1993 I069.sans104R" 19 L 1 12. A Health Effects Study of Swimmers in Santa Monica Bay (An Epidemiological Study of Possible Adverse Health Effects of Swimming in Santa Monica Bay), Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, May 1996 I J i 089-58ASICarr 20 1 I LSA Associates, Inc. APPENDIX E i 1 11 1 i r 1 1 F 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 SL Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. Post Office Box 985, National City, California 91951.0985 • (619) 477.5333 • FAX (619) 477v'gyo ' BYESgfVED . lXj1C DEC 2 11998 1 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED NEWPORT DUNES RESORT, NEWPORT BAY, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PSBS # T414 I II II II II UTM: 4,17,000mE; 37,20,000mN; 11; N. 'Prepared for: LSA, Associates, Inc. Steven D. Ross, AICP 1 Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine CA 92614 Telephone 949 553 0666 Facsimile 949 553 8076 Prepared by: Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. Post Office Box 985 National City CA 91951-0985 Telephone 619 477 5333 Facsimile 619 477 5380 Electronic mail: bio@psbs.com December 17, 1998 R. Mitchel Beauchamp. M. Sc., Preside II PSBS 9T414 2 1 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED NEWPORT DUNES RESORT, NEWPORT BAY, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA December 17, 1998 SUMMARY I The biological survey of the proposed project site indicated areas of disturbed habitat and well -maintained landscape plantings, as well as existing development. The site supports no native habitats, per se, but provides habitats for a limited variety of native and nonnative wildlife using the coastal park -like setting. Wildlife agency staff have expressed concern that plantings in the proposed project site could encourage avian predator use in the adjacent Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and Regional Park (a natural reserve). Additionally wildlife agencies have expressed concern that some cultivated plants might escape into the Reserve's native habitats. Other potentially adverse biological effects of the project are discussed. It is anticipated that none of these effects would reach a significant level if the recommended mitigation measures are made conditions of project approval and implemented. I INTRODUCTION I Project Description The proposed project is a planned community development plan for Newport Dunes Resort. The project includes the construction of a full -service destination resort hotel. The hotel will provide 400 guestrooms and 100 timeshare units. The 100 timeshare units will be designed with the capability to be split or "locked off' for a maximum of 600 rentable rooms. Approximately 20 percent of the guestrooms will be suites. Hotel amenities will include health, fitness, and recreation facilities; children's facilities; dining facilities; ballrooms and meeting rooms; retail space; a parking structure and surface parking areas; and landscaped garden areas. The hotel's inferior facilities are expected to be contained within a total of approximately 700,000 square feet. An entry court located ofthe Bayside Drive entry will lead to the central lobby and courtyard of the hotel. The lobby and interior courtyard will overlook the swimming beach and lagoon. Hotel guestrooms will be located in separate building wings that surround three separate garden courtyards. These separate building wings are attached to the central north -south "spine" of the hotel. The building configuration is intended to maximize the views of the bay and the landscaped courtyard from the guest rooms. The hotel would contain five distinct levels. The maximum height limit for 75 percent of the building footprint would be 50 feet and the remaining 25 percent of the building footprint could be built to a maximum height of 75 feet. Building heights would be measured from a maximum pad elevation of 12 feet above mean sea level. , Two swimming pools will be provided with different designs to accommodate both adult and family use. Lighting and water features will be incorporated into the design of the swimming pools. The hotel will also contain a health club featuring a workout/weight room and locker facility. 12/17/98 Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS #T414 3 A small sports -oriented retail outlet and juice bar will be provided. A game room/arcade will be included in the hotel's recreational facilities. iDining areas will be provided on the main (third) level of the hotel. The more formal Dining Room and private dining areas will overlook the pool area and landscaped courtyards will seat I approximately 75 to 100 persons. The informal restaurant will offer meals throughout the day and on weekends. The lobby lounge and bar will include areas for dancing and outdoor terrace seating and dining. ' The hotel would provide a total of 54,000 square feet of public areas, of which 41,000 square feet consist of function areas, including conference rooms, meeting room, and banquet facilities and 13,000 square feet consist of pre -function assembly and circulation areas. Most public areas would be provided on the first level. These public areas would include two 12,000 square foot ballrooms, which can be divided into several smaller spaces and an additional 9,000 square feet of pre -function areas. There will also be two smaller junior ballroom/meeting rooms of 5,000 square feet each and pre -function areas totaling 4,000 square feet. All these ballroom/meeting rooms will be accessible to and served by a central banquet kitchen. The third level would provide a 3,000 ' square foot banquet room and a total of five meeting rooms of 800 square feet each. The public areas are oriented primarily for use by in-house groups (i.e., individuals and groups staying at the hotel). Local events (use by non -hotel guests) are estimated to utilize the public areas no more than 25 percent of the time. ' A 3,400 square foot gift shop/retail space will be located in or adjacent to the main lobby area. A 1,500 square foot business center will be located on the third level. The landscaping of the hotel and courtyard gardens will include water features, walkways and plantings that relate to the surrounding bay and marina facilities. Location The project is located at the northern terminus of Bayside Drive, north of Pacific Coast Highway and west of Jamboree Road at the southern end of Newport Bay, in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The project site is south and adjacent to the combined Upper Newport Bay Regional Park and Ecological Reserve [Reserve]. General Physiography/Site Conditions The project site is part of the larger Newport Dunes Resort, which occupies approximately 100 acres. The balance of the site is currently developed with a 10-acre swimming beach and lagoon, a mile -long pedestrian promenade around the swimming lagoon, day use facilities, with parking and beach restrooms, a restaurant, a 450 slip marina, a 400+ space recreational vehicle park, swimming pools, meeting space, and boat storage and launch facilities. The surrounding areas are generally developed with residential, recreational or commercial uses on the west, south and east sides. Waterfront housing exists directly to the northwest, while undeveloped bay wetlands and shore lands are to the northeast. The public spaces in the existing resort are landscaped with a variety of mature landscape plants, including turf, shrubs, and trees, including a variety of palm trees. The site is generally flat or landscaped with low mounds of earth. The area south of the existing temporary boat dry storage ' 12/11/91 Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS #T414 4 yard contains a surcharge or pile of bay -fill material, apparently excavated from the adjacent swimming lagoon. This surcharge area contains a depression which contained ponded water in October 1998. METHODS Review of Existing Documents The site was initially visited by Principal Botanist R. Mitchel Beauchamp on 3 September 1998, to perform an initial site reconnaissance and survey the flora on the site. On 21 October 1998, Senior Biologist Michael Evans visited the site to perform a faunal survey and ascertain the relation of the site to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Mr. Evans discussed wildlife issues on several occasions with Mr. Tim Dillingham, California Department of Fish and Game manager of the Reserve. The botanical survey consisted of walking throughout the complex and recording the non - cultivated plants encountered. The zoological survey, conducted while performing a general biological reconnaissance of the site, consisted of walking the site and recording the fauna observed. Limitations and Definitions Because of the developed nature of the site, the faunal survey resulted in a list of those birds observed only on the day of the survey. The birds observed were typical of the habitats encountered on the site during the late summer in Southern California. If more extensive, year -around floral and faunal surveys were performed, additional species would have been recorded. However, given the landscaped and other nonnative habitats present on the site, it is not expected that any unusual, rare, threatened or endangered species would be recorded on the proposed project site. RESULTS BOTANICAL RESOURCES The site of the proposed expansion of the Newport Dunes Resort is completely disturbed as a result of prior development, cultivation of exotic landscaping plant materials and past dredging activities in the adjacent lagoon. The substrate of the site is beach sand which has been leached sufficiently so as to support various exotic and some native species which are adapted to the disturbed, haline conditions of the site. Prior pre -European conditions of the site most probably supported Strand and Coastal Salt Marsh vegetation; however, these habitats now only occur in undisturbed and isolated portions around Newport Bay and especially the Reserve. Flora The observed flora of the site (Appendix I) involves 31 plant taxa, of which only six (19%) are native. These natives are adapted to the disturbed conditions of the site and are not representative of any specific plant community or native floristic association as a group. The presence of the Beach Evening -Primrose (Cammissonia cheiranth fora) is indicative of the Coastal Strand and sandy substrate of the site, while the Wild Heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum) demonstrates the salty condition of the site. 12/17/98 Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS #T414 5 1 Sensitive Plant Taxa Several sensitive plants are known from coastal habitats of the region. The lack of such undisturbed habitats on the site precludes the presence of these taxa. None were observed nor expected on the site. These plants include the following: Abronia maritima Occasional on Coastal Strands which do not have high levels of pedestrian traffic Aphanisma blitoides To be expected on undisturbed coastal bluffs in the region Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii An annual in undisturbed Coastal Scrub Calandrinia maritima Known from upland coastal bluffs Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus Known from a population across the lagoon at the entrance to the California Department of Fish and Game facility. Euphorbia misera Known from coastal bluffs in southern Orange County Remizonia parryi ssp. australis Known from alkaline wetlands of generally inland sites Isocoma men:iesii var. decumbens Known from Coastal Scrub sites Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Known from Coastal Salt Marsh habitats ' Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata Occasional on Coastal Strands which do not have high levels of pedestrian traffic ' Suaeda esteroa Occasional in Coastal Salt Marsh Suaeda taxifolia Occasional in Coastal Salt Marsh FAUNAL RESOURCES The single day survey of fauna on the site recorded 29 species of birds, with 19 families represented; two of the 29 species are non-native. The survey revealed no amphibians, reptiles or mammals. The site probably supports a low diversity of reptiles (and probably no amphibians) because of the non-native habitats on site. However, it is likely that a more in-depth, year-round ' survey may reveal the following reptiles using the site: Southern California Side -Blotched Lizard (Uta stansburiana hesperis), Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis biseriatus) and Alligator Lizard (Elgaria multicarinata). These reptiles would be likely to use disturbed marginal ' areas of the site and probably would originate in the adjacent Upper Newport Bay Reserve area. Mammals typical of urban and suburban parkland areas expected to occur on the site include the following: Virginia Opossum (Didelphis virginiana), occasional bat species, Desert Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), California Ground Squirrel (Spermcphilus beecheyi), Botta's Pocket Gopher (Thomomys bottae), Norwegian Rat (Rattus norvegicus),-Black Rat (Rattus rattus), House Mouse (Mus musculus), and Stripped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis). ' Because the habitats on the project site consist primarily of landscaped, paved, and disturbed areas, no sensitive, rare, threatened or endangered animal species are expected to use the site. 1 12/17/98 Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS #T414 6 1 RESOURCES/HABITAT EVALUATION r The project site contains man-made habitats of limited use to native wildlife: landscaped and built-up areas of the project site support only the limited variety fauna typical of coastal Southern California semi -urbanized areas. The man-made, beach -lined swimming lagoon connected to Newport Bay provides limited habitat for the ten waterbird species observed during the survey. The use of this area by water birds probably depends on the amount and kinds of activities by humans using the area. During periods of low human use, primarily on weekdays during the fall and winter months, the area can be used by a variety of roosting gulls, American Coots, grebes, cormorants, and a limited number of shorebirds. These birds primarily use the shoreline, floats, and open water areas for resting. Turf and landscaped areas are used by resident songbirds, pigeons and doves for nesting and foraging. During the fall and spring months, these same habitats are also used by migratory songbirds for cover and foraging during migration. Regional/Subregional Context The project site lies at the southern end of Upper Newport Bay, which is separated from Newport Bay proper by the Pacific Coast Highway. The shoreline, man-made islands, and southern ' peninsula of Newport Bay are fully developed for aquatic, marina, residential, and commercial uses. The Newport Dunes Resort, adjacent marina, and residential uses north across the lower bay channel are the primary water front land uses on Upper Newport Bay. Residential and commercial land uses generally surround the rest of the bay, typically well above the water surface on adjacent slopes around the bay. The land uses around Upper Newport Bay were largely established within the past 20-30 years and often contain a variety of mature landscaping plants associated with these ' land uses. Upper Newport Bay is one of the larger of the coastal estuaries still surviving along the coasts of Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties. Most ofthese estuaries and lagoons presently exist in a matrix of intense, human -oriented upland land uses. The historical loss of extensive natural shoreline and associated riverine habitats has created an extremely valuable but narrow range of habitats associated with the remaining estuaries. The reduction of these associated habitats has reduced and isolated the wetlands habitats available for wildlife use. There has also been a parallel reduction in shoreline and beach -front habitats available to native wildlife because of the development of these areas for commercial, residential and beach -oriented recreational uses. Wildlife species using these reduced habitats have generally had their populations reduced or ' extirpated from their previous geographic range. The following description of Upper Newport Bay is taken from the internet web site of Orange County Department of Parks and Recreation (scientific names added): "Upper Newport Bay Regional Park and Ecological Reserve represent approximately 1,000 acres of open space. Upper Newport Bay Regional Park surrounds the Ecological Reserve. The park will house the future Interpretive Center for Upper Newport Bay. Upper Newport Bay Regional Park totals approximately 140 acres. The regional park is made up of the bluffs surrounding the Bay. Three sensitive species use the bluffs: The California Gnatcatcher, San Diego Cactus Wren, and Burrowing Owl. Two important plant communities are found on the bluffs -grasslands and coastal sage scrub. Upper Newport Ecological Reserve totals 752 acres. This coastal wetland, one of the largest in southern 12/17/98 Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. I PSBS #T414 7 ' California, is renowned as one of the finest bird watching sites in North America. During winter migration up to 35,000 birds may be using the Bay at one time. It is home to six rare or endangered species: Light-footed Clapper Rail [Rallus longirostris levipes], California Brown Pelican [Pelecanus occidentalis californicus], Belding's Savannah Sparrow [Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi], Black Rail [Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus], American Peregrine Falcon [Falco peregrinus anatum] and California Least Tern [Sterna antillarum browni]. The Bay is home to one endangered plant species -Salt Marsh Bird's - Beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus). Considered a "critical estuary" habitat - Upper Newport Bay is one of the most pristine remaining estuaries in Southern California." Although the Reserve contains some heavily modified habitats, the majority of the habitats there are in relatively natural conditions, supporting a variety of native habitats, plants and animals. POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS tThreshold for Significance Appendix G of CEQA states that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would: • substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species; ' • interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; and • substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants. In addition, CEQA (Section 15065(a)) further states that a project may have a significant effect when the project: • has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment; • may substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; • cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; • threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; and ' • may reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. To address these criteria within the context of the project, recall that the project area is generally already developed as a recreational park and does not contain native habitats. Additionally, the wildlife observed on the site is common in parkland habitats in Southern California and are not -considered sensitive by wildlife agencies. However, the project is adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and Regional Park. As stated above, this reserve does support a number of wetland -dependent sensitive, Threatened and Endangered species. Thus an additional criteria or threshold for significance would be: Would the project have the potential to substantially disrupt the habitats or critical life history activities of sensitive. Threatened or Endangered species within the Ecological Reserve? Affirmative answers to any of the questions above may be considered sufficient cause to determine that the project would result in significant impacts, therefore requiring mitigation. 12/17/98 Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS RT414 8 Summary of Project Effects r Implementation of the project will involve preparation of the site, construction of the new resort and associated buildings (see project description) and other facilities and installation of landscape hardscape and plantings. The new construction will replace the existing boat storage area and some recreational vehicle parking areas, and remove the earth storage (surcharge) area. Besides the direct effects associated with the construction activities, there will be an increase noise during the construction phase. Construction activities will likely increase the pattern and intensity of noise compared to that associated with the project site prior to the implementation of the project. If night - construction is necessary, there may be an increase in artificial lighting associated with the project site. At present, the project plans include a conceptual landscape plan and draft landscape palette of plants to be installed on the project site. After construction is finished, the daily operation of the project will result in a change in the intensity and use patterns of visitors to the site. These changes include a reduction in activities within the existing boat storage area; a reduction of activities associated with the recreational vehicle uses in the western portion of the site; cessation of pumping to the sedimentation basin; a shift in pedestrian activities to the north courtyard areas of the new resort/time-share facility. There will likely be an increase in pedestrian activities associated with the new East and West Timeshare ' units south of the existing marina. These potential effects and recommenced conditions are discussed in greater detail below. ' CONSTRUCTION RELATED EFFECTs Traffic, noise, dust and runoff/sedimentation effects There will likely be a change in the kind (and potentially increased frequency) of traffic, noise, dust and runoff/sedimentation during construction. Where project construction involves activities adjacent to water areas, waterbirds using aquatic or shoreline habitats may be temporarily forced to use less disturbed areas in the project vicinity, including the Ecological Reserve. Since the present use by waterbirds (or other sensitive, Threatened, or Endangered species) on the project site appears minimal or non-existent, this potential effect is considered less than significant, particularly if the mitigation measure recommenced below is made a condition of approval and implemented. Thus, none of the thresholds or criteria listed above would be met for a significant environmental effect on biological resources. Recommended Mitigation Measure: Standard construction controls for traffic, noise, dust , and runoff/sedimentation be applied to the project to reduce the likelihood of effects on area wildlife. Displacement/Replacement of Existing Wildlife Habitats Existing man-made habitats on the project site, such as landscaped areas and paved or unpaved parking areas, and the surcharge area will be unavailable to wildlife species during the construction period. Thus the project may temporarily displace common birds associated with these habitats, including American Kestrels, Rock Doves, Mourning Doves, European Starlings, blackbirds, House Sparrows, House Finches, as well as some migratory songbirds. Based on the areal extent and variety of proposed final landscape plan, the finished project will probably result in increased wildlife use of the site. Thus, none of the thresholds or criteria listed above would be met ' for a significant environmental effect on biological resources. These impacts are associated with any 12/17/98 Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. ' PSBS 9T414 9 ' construction activity in such habitats and are considered less than significant. No additional conditions are recommended. OPERATIONAL EFFECTS Noise and Lighting The long term use and operation of the finished project will result in an increase in noise and lighting throughout the project site, particularly near the hotel and time-share units in the northern ' and central parts of the site. This increase in noise is not expected to be significant because the northern portion of the site is already occupied by the marina, where considerable activity already takes place. At present, there are no sensitive, Threatened or Endangered species, or identified critical life -history activities of plants or wildlife which would be impacted. Increased lighting at the site will primarily occur in the northern interior and eastern courtyard areas of the site. Thus, none of the thresholds or criteria listed above would be met for a significant environmental effect on biological resources. If the general mitigation measure outline below is made a condition of the project approval, there should not be increased lighting which would substantially effect adjacent habitats in the Reserve. Recommended Mitigation Measure: The site plan, final landscape plan, and/or use permit for the project should include prohibition of wide -focus lights aimed above the horizon and lighting limited to that necessary for public safety within the project. ' Potential Increase in Uncontrolled Trash/Refuse Attracting Unwanted Wildlife Potential increases in human uses and the increase in trash on the project site, unless well controlled, could attract unwanted wildlife species to the site. Such wildlife species could include additional gulls, rodents and other small mammals (i.e., skunks and opossums). Some of these species could adversely effect wildlife species using the adjacent Reserve if the project activities enhance conditions for them. Current facilities and operations in the existing resort appear to ' sufficiently reduce the potential for these effects to occur. Existing refuse management operations should continue with the proposed project. Because none of the thresholds or criteria listed above ' are met, this effect is not considered significant. However, the recommended mitigation measure is made a condition of approval of the project. Recommended Mitigation Measure: The proposed project should incorporate existing refuse control and collection methods which limit wildlife access by using trash containers which cannot be easily overturned (or easily accessed) by gulls and rodents and prompt control of refuse ' generated by visitors using the facilities on the site. Plant invasion to the Ecological Reserve Area There is a potential that seeds and other nonnative plant propagules from the project site may reach the adjacent Reserve via flotation or wind and become established. If these species were to become established, they would increase maintenance requirements and costs necessary to remove them in the Reserve. A review of the draft plant palette listed on the Landscape Concept Plan (and included here as Appendix 3), indicates that only one of the species proposed are known to be invasive in the habitats of the Reserve. Carpobrotus, the genus of the common coastal "iceplant", grows well in 12/17/98 Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS AT414 10 sandy, slightly salty soil. This species is known to be fairly invasive and is difficult to remove from natural areas. It likely already occurs in the adjacent Reserve lands but should not be intentionally used as a landscape species within the project area. This species should not be used in future landscaping for the project site. Without mitigation, this effect has the potential to be incrementally significant because iceplant could invade the adjacent Reserve and effect sensitive or listed species inhabiting coastal strand habitats (see final significance criteria, above). If the Mitigation measure recommended below is made a condition of approval, the implementation of the project should not result in significant effects from plant invasion to the Reserve. The original vegetation on the proposed project site, prior to the existing elevations on the site, probably consisted of Coastal Strand and Salt Marsh vegetation. These same vegetation types still occur in the nearby Reserve. Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation occurs in some of the upland areas surrounding Upper NewportBay. The draft plant palette on the Landscape Concept Plan contains the following note. "The introduction of plant species native to the coastal sage plant community and indigenous to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve environs shall be incorporated along the outside edge of the resort, especially along the edges that face the reserve and lagoon areas." While it is always recommended that locally indigenous plant species be used to the maximum extent possible for the purposes of water conservation, sandy and saline soil conditions on the site will probably not support many Coastal Sage Scrub plant species except for Lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia). Because the project site does not currently contain native habitats, it would not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species (see significance threshold, above), these impacts would not be significant. Adherence to the recommended mitigation measure stated below should insure that the there will be no significant effects from the use of non-native plants on the project site. Recommended Mitigation Measure: The final landscape plant pallet should be reviewed by a knowledgeable biologist to insure that it does not contain any potentially invasive plants which could become established in the adjacent Reserve. The plan should particularly not include Carpobrotus ("iceplant"). To the maximum extent practicable, locally native plant species should be used in the in areas adjacent to the Reserve. Potential for the Project Landscaping to Support Avian Predators in the Ecological Reserve Because the resort hotel site is located adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, wildlife agency staff have expressed concern that landscaping installed within the project could provide perching or nesting sites for avian predators which could prey on sensitive wildlife in the Reserve. Of specific concern are the Threatened and Endangered avian species, including Black Rails (presently extirpated), Light-footed Clapper Rails, Western Snowy Plovers, California Least Terns and Belding's Savannah Sparrows. Of these species, the primary concern are bare -ground nesting species such as the California Least Tern and Snowy Plover. Although these species presently do not nest in close proximity to the project site, wildlife agency staff have indicated that they intend to enhance the nearby Shell Maker Island to encourage these species to nest there. At various southern California Least Tern nesting sites, there are numerous instances where colonies 12/17/98 Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS #T414 11 ' have been decimated by owls, hawks, falcons or ravens, often using nearby trees as perches or nesting sites. ' The existing resort already contains a large number of well maintained, mature palm trees in the landscaping near the marina buildings and south of the boat launch facility. The project applicant has indicated that palms are an integral element of the proposed landscape plan and that it is in the project's best interest to provide the best landscape maintenance feasible. ' Staff from the Department of Fish and Game have specifically addressed the potential for palm trees on the project site to serve as potential predator roosts. In an effort to address this issue, an assessment is made below of various palm species which are available in the commercial market and which would fit the landscaping ambiance of the resort hotel. These palms are assessed relative to their mature height (i.e., the potential to provide line -of -sight perches for potential predators) and the ability to accumulate thatch (i.e., accumulated dead leaves associated with the palm crown), which could provide nesting sites for predatory birds. The Landscape Concept Plan and draft plant palette in the project plans indicate that palms are to be used for project landscaping. u 1 L I I I The list of palm trees included below classifies palms into tall and short species with low or high thatch maintenance requirements (i.e., no thatch accumulation of tight petiole adpression [leave stems held closely]) on the tree trunk. Short stature, low maintenance thatch taxa are unlikely to support avian predators which would be likely to prey on bird species in the adjacent Reserve lands. Tall stature, low maintenance thatch species of palms should not normally be able to provide perching or nest sites for predatory birds. However, there is the potential for palms which naturally accumulate thatch to provide nesting sites for Common Bam Owls, American kestrels, and Common Ravens. These predators are known to create problems at other California Least Tern nesting sites in southern California. Of particular concern are species of the genera Phoenix and Washingtonia. The genus Phoenix includes the date palms and are commonly used as fruiting and landscape species in southern California. However, even well manicured specimens may provide roosting or nesting sites for species such as American Kestrels because of the interstices created by the cut-off leaf stems. It is recommended that palms of this genus not be used in landscaping for the project unless trunks are skinned to remove such potential nesting platforms. The genus Washingtonia (California and Mexican Fan Palms), already used on the project site, tend to create potential avian perching or nesting sites unless the dead leaf stems are quickly and completely removed. This species is still a viable candidate for use at the site as long regular maintenance is assured through ongoing conditions in the permit. If trees with a high potential to support avian predators, or if trees and structures are not properly maintained, the project has the potential to may reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal (see significance threshold, above), and thus result in a significant environmental effect. If the recommended mitigation measure is applied, the use of the palm species listed below (except for the genus Phoenix) is not considered to create a significant effect on biological'resources within the site or the adjacent Ecological Reserve. Low Maintenance Thatch Taxa Short Stature Palms - to 15', with no thatch or tight petiole adpression on the tree trunk Acoelorraphae wrightii II 12/17/98 Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS 4T414 12 Butia (Syagra) capitata - PindQ Palm Chamaedorea cataractarum Chamaedorea elegans Chamaedorea selfiriz!! Chamaerops humills - Mediterranean Fan Palm Howea foresteriana - Lord Howe Island Palm Phoenix roebelenii - Pygmy Date Palm Trachycarpns fortune! - Windmill Palm Tall Stature Palms - to 30', with no thatch or tight petiole adpression on the tree trunk Archontophoenix alexandrae - Alexander Palm Archontophoenix cunninghamiana - King Palm Arecastrum (Syagrus) romanzoffianum - Queen Palm Arenga engleri Brahea armata - Mexican Blue Palm Brahea edulis - Guadalupe Island Palm Brahea brandegeei - San Jose Hesper Palm Caryota urens - Fish -tail Palm Chrysalidocarpus lutescens Hedyscepe canterburyana Neodypsis decary! - Triangle Palm Rhopalosrylis baueri Rhopalosrylis sapida - Nikau Palm Roystonea oleracea - Royal Palm Trithrinax acanthoconia - Spiny Fiber Palm Species with thatch Removal Requirements Jubea chilensis - Chilean Wine Palm Livlstonia spp. Phoenix conariensis Canary Island Date Palm Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm Phoenix reclinata Senegal Date Palm Phoenix rupicola Ravenae rivularis Sabal spp. Washingtonia spp. Mexican Fan Palm Recommended Mitigation Measure(s): (A) The palm species listed above may be used for landscaping within the project site, except for palms of the genus Phoenix, which are not recommended for use because of their propensity to provide avian roosting and nesting areas, even when well maintained.. The use permit for the project should include a requirement to regularly maintain and remove any buildup of palm thatch or dead leaves. If the palms of the genus Phoenix are permitted, specific maintenance requirements should be made conditions of project approval that insure prompt removal of potential perching or nesting site for any predatory birds. (B) To preclude landing or roosting on the hotel structures, the owl or raptor decoys (or 12/17/98 Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS #T414 13 other structures) should be placed in strategic locations on buildings to discourage perching by hawks or gulls. This measure will also reduce the potential roosting by pigeons or starlings which otherwise foul buildings and pavement areas. (C) If potential avian predators use trees planted in the proposed project boundaries, these predators cannot be removed without appropriate state and/or federal government wildlife permits. An optional mitigation measure to be considered is that an endowment fund be established to pay ' for "as needed" predator control problems in the adjacent Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, arising from predators resulting from operation of the project. The project proponent should only be required to pay a reasonable "fair share" proportion of the funds necessary to mitigate identified ' project -induced predator problems. I LI I1 I I I 1 12/17/98 Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS #T414 14 LITERATURE CITED ' Anonymous, 1993. Common Birds of Upper Newport Bay; Naturalist Checklist --August, 1993. Field Checklist, prepared by Upper Newport Bay Naturalists. City of Newport Beach. 1998. Notice of Preparation for Newport Dunes Resort. Unpublished notice. DeRuff, R. 1990 The Plants of Upper Newport Bay, 1982-89. In P. J. Bryant and J. Remington 1 (eds.), Natural History Foundation of Orange County, Mem. 3: Endangered Wildlife and Habitats in Southern California: p. 10-19. , Johnson, J. W. 1990. The Flora and Fauna of Upper Newport Bay, 1940-55. In P. J. Bryant and J. Remington (eds.), Natural History Foundation of Orange County, Mem. 3: Endangered 1 Wildlife and Habitats in Southern California: p. 1.9. 1 i 1 1 [I i i 1 1 12/17/98 Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc.' 1 r u C APPENDIX 1 FLORAL CHECKLIST OF SPECIES OBSERVED ' AT THE NEWPORT DUNES RESORT EXPANSION SITE I r-, 1 I APPENDIX 1. FLORAL CHECKLIST OF SPECIES OBSERVED AT THE NEWPORT ' DUNES RESORT EXPANSION SITE GYMNOSPERMS Cupressaceae - Cypress Family " Cupressocyparis leylandii (Jacks & Dallim.)Dallim. & Jacks. Leyland Cypress Pinaceae - Pine Family t Pinus halapensis Mill. Aleppo Pine DICOTYLEDONS ' Aizoaceae - Carpet -weed Family " Aptenia cordifolia (L.f.) Schwant. Shrubby Dewplant " Carpobrotus edulis (Molina) N.E. Brit. Hottentot -fig Amaranthaceae - Amaranth Family " Amaranthus blitoides S. Wats. Prostrate Amaranth Apocynaceae - Dogbane Family " Nerium oleander L. Oleander ' " Vinca major L. Greater Periwinkle Asteraceae - Sunflower Family ' Baccharis emoryi Gray Emory's Baccharis " Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. Horseweed " Gazania rigens (L.)Gaertn. Treasure Flower ' Heterotheca grandii fora Nutt. Telegraph Weed Isocoma menziesii (Hook. & Arn) Nesom var. r Sonchus oleraceus L. Common Sow Thistle vernonioides (Nutt.) Nesom Coastal Goldenbush Brassicaceae - Mustard Family Heliotropium curvassavicum L. Salt Heliotrope Chenopodiaceae - Goosefoot Family Atriplex lentiformis (Torr.) Wats. lentiformis Quail Saltbush " Atriplex semibaccata R. Br. Australian Saltbush ' " Bassia hyssopifolia (Pall.) Kuntze Five -hook Bassia Euphorbiaceae - Spurge Family ' " Ricinus communis L. Castor -bean Fabaceae - Legume Family ' " Melilotus alba Desr. White Sweetclover F Tipuana tipu (Benth.)Kuntze Tipu Tree II Malvaceae - Mallow Family " Malva parviflora L. Cheeseweed Moraceae - Mulberry Family 'f Ficus rubiginosa Desf. ex Venten. Port Jackson Fig Onagraceae - Evening -Primrose Family Camissonia cheirantbifolia (Sprengel) Raim. ssp. suffruticosa (Wats.) Raven Beach Evening Primrose '1 Sapindaceae Soapberry Family * Cupaniopsis anacardiopsis (A.Rich)Radik. Carrotwood Tree Zygophyllaceae - Caltrop Family * 7ribulus terrestris L. Puncture Vine MONOCOTYLEDONS Liliaceae - Lily Family * Furcmea foetida (L.)Haw. Green Aloe Poaceae - Grass Family * Avena barbata Link Slender wild Oat * Bromus diandrus Roth Ripgut Grass * Bromus hordaceus "Blando" L. 'Soft chess * Cortaderia jubata (Lem.) Stapf Pampas Grass * Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Bermuda Grass * - Denotes non-native plant taea I ' APPENDIX 2 ANIMALS OBSERVED OR DETECTED AT THE NEWPORT ' DUNES RESORT EXPANSION SITE 1 1 1 1 I A-2-1 I 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX 2. ANIMALS OBSERVED OR DETECTED AT THE NEWPORT DUNES RESORT EXPANSION SITE COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAmF- Birds Podicipedidae (Grebes) Pied -billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis Pelecanidae (Pelicans) California Brown Pelican Phalacrocoracidae (Cormorants) Double -crested Cormorant Pelecanus occidentalis californicus Phalacrocorax auritus Anatidae (Swans, Geese, and Ducks) Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Cathartidae (American Vultures) Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Accipitridae (Hawks, Old World Vultures, and Harriers) Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Rallidae (Rails, Gallinules, and Coots) American Coot Fulica americana Laridae (Gulls and Terns) ' Ring -billed Gull Larus delawarensis Western Gull Larus occidentalis Caspian Tern Sterna caspia Columbidae (Pigeons and Doves) Rock Dove Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Alcedinidae (Kingfishers) Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Tyrannidae (Tyrant Flycatchers) Black Phoebe Cassin's Kingbird Hirundinidae (Swallows) Northern Rough -winged Swallow Columba Livia Sayornis nigricans Tyrannus vociferans Stelgidopteryx serripennis A-2-2 ' Corvidae (jays, Magpies, and Crows) , Common Raven Corvus corax American Crow Corvus bracbyrhynchos ' Aegithalidae (Bushtit) Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus ' Mimidae (Mockingbirds and Thrashers) Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Sturnidae (Starlings) European Starling Sturnus vulgaris , Emberizidae (Warblers, Sparrows, Blackbirds and Relatives) Orange -crowned '%Ylarbler Vermivora celata Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata California Towhee Pipilo crissalis ' White -crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Fringillidae (Finches) House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus Passeridae (Weaver Finches) , House Sparrow Passer domestims 1 ' PSBS #T414 A-2-3 rl APPENDIX 3 1 [1 1 1 PSBS #T414 PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE FROM LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN, DATED MAY 21, 1998 Trees ' Botanical Name Common Name Possible Location Callistemon viminalis Weeping Bottlebrush Village 1 Erythrina spp. Coral Tree Village, Entry Eucalyptus spp. Gum Throughout ' Ficus spp. Fig Tree Edge Melaleuca quinquenervia Cajeput Village ' Metrosideros excelsus New Zealand Xmas Tree Throughout Palm spp. N/A Throughout ' Pinus pinea Italian Stone Pine Throughout Strelitzia nicholai Giant Bird of Paradise Village ' Tupidanthus Village Tupidanthus calyptratus ' Shrubs: Botanical Name Common Name ' Agave, Aloe and other succulents Succulents Carissa grandiora Natal Plum ' Lantana camara var. Lantana Melaleuca spp. Paperbark ' Nandina domestica Heavenly Bamboo Philodendron selloum Philodendron ' Prunus lyonii** Catalina Cherry Rhus integrifolia* Lemonade Berry ' Raphiolepis Indian Hawthorne var. ' Strelltzia reginae Bird of Paradise Xylosma congesta Xylosma t 11 Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS #T414 Ground Covers and Vines: Botanical Name Common Name Agapanthus africanus Lily of the Nile Bougainvillea var. Bougainvillea Carpobrotus and other Iceplants Iceplant Clytostoma callistegioides Lavender Trumpet Vine Distictis spp. Trumpet Vine Hedera spp. Ivy Lonicera hildebrandania Giant Burmese Honeysuckle Rosmarinus ofcinalis Prostrata' Rosemary * = Native to local area **=Native to Southern California (not local area) A-2-5 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. ' 1 LSAAssociates, Inc. 1 APPENDIX F CULTURAL RESOURCE RECONNAISSANCE 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 . 1 i 1 1 1 9/="((P.\CNB834\EIR\TOC-VOL-I.WPD» 1 ' OR1702 "' AUTHOR: Timothy A. Goddard q,L PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Ronald M. Bissell 10) C Q )\S.. � DATE: 2May 1998 TITLE: Cultural Resource Reconnaissance for The Newport Dunes Hotel in Newport Beach, California SUBMITTED BY: RMW Paleo Associates, Incorporated 23392 Madero, Suite L Mission Viejo, California 92691 (949) 770-8042 FAX (949) 458-9058 SUBMITTED TO: Douglas Woods & Associates 1461 Higuera St., Suite A San Luis Obispo, California 93401 CONTRACT NUMBER: RMW Project Number 98-1215 -,i2 MAP: Newport Beach, Calif., 7.5 Minute 1965 Photorevised 1981 ACREAGE: . 26 f Acres KEYWORDS: Newport Beach, Upper Newport Bay, Orange County, Township 5 South, Range 10 West 11 I MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ' PURPOSE: Douglas Woods & Associates contracted with RMW Paleo Associates, Inc. to complete a cultural resources study designed to assess the effects of the Newport Dunes Hotel ' project on any important or potentially important cultural resources located within the project boundaries. DATES OF INVESTIGATION: A literature review was conducted on 21 April 1998. The review revealed that the area had been included in one previous study. The prior study revealed no cultural resources were present. A field examination of the property was accomplished on 28 ' April 1998. No sites were observed in the field examination. CONSTRAINTS: Portions of the study area are under pavement and could not be examined. Based on the information available at the time of this report, the potential for any cultural resources under the pavement is extremely low. ' FINDINGS: A 1935 USGS 7.5' map of the area shows the entire project area as a marsh. The area appears to have been built up in the late 1950s by using the dredgings from Upper Newport Bay. Based on this information and the findings of this project, no further cultural resources study is recommended. If, however, archaeological material is encountered during construction, an archaeologist should be retained. A copy of this report will be filed with the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles and RMW Paleo Associates, Incorporated. Field Notes are on file at RMW Paleo Associates. II I ii ' TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ................................................. ii INTRODUCTION..........................................................1 SETTING...............:.................................................I NATURAL..........................................................1 CULTURAL..........................................................2 LITERATURE REVIEW: ....................................................7 TABLEI............................................................7 METHODS................................................................ FINDINGS.................................................................. 9 DISCUSSION............................................................. 9 RECOMMENDATION................................... :.................. 10 REFERENCES............................................................ 11 APPENDIX A: Personnel Qualifications APPENDIX B: Bibliography of Cultural Resources Studies Within One Mile of the Project APPENDIX C: Project Maps iii I INTRODUCTION ' Douglas Woods & Associates retained RMW Paleo Associates to complete a cultural resources study designed to assess the impacts of the proposed project on any important or potentially important cultural resources located within the project boundaries. The study was undertaken under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , which requires background research, on -site evaluation, and report preparation to determine if any cultural resources will be impacted by'the proposed project. The project area is located in the City of Newport Beach, and is part of the Newport Dunes Resort. Currently, the project area consists of the Newport Dunes R.V. Park and the Newport Dunes Marine Center. The main entrance to the R.V. Park is off Jamboree Road. Access to the Marine center is via Pacific Coast Highway. Maps showing the project area can be found in Appendix C of this report. rDevelopment plans call for grading the project area for the construction of the Newport Dunes Hotel. This will include removing current parking lots and buildings from the R.V. Park and ' Marine Center. A large pile of recent dredgings from Upper Newport Bay will also be removed. The project was completed under the supervision of Ronald M. Bissell, SOPA Certified Field Archaeologist. Field work and research was were completed by Timothy A. Goddard. Resumes for all personnel involved may be found in Appendix A of this report. SETTING NATURAL The surface of the project area consists of sediments including alluvium/colluvium, topsoil, artificial fill and material dredged from Upper Newport Bay. Old Alluvium/Non Marine sediments (10,000-70,000 years) overlay marine terraces consisting of the Palos Verde Formation (70,000-150,000 years). These formations in turn overlay the Capistrano Formation (4-8 million years). Vegetation within the project area consists primarily of introduced grasses. However, the Coastal Sage Scrub Community of plants was probably the dominant plant association within the project area during the prehistoric era. Remnants of these plants are still growing along the slope of the bluff. The plants and the small animals that the plants harbored would have been used by the ' prehistoric inhabitants. The primary vegetation of the Coastal Sage Scrub Community is various species of sage, buckwheat, some flowering plants, and grasses. Seeds were the primary resource of the plants, but edible stems, stalks, shoots, roots, bulbs, and some berries can also be found. I 11 CULTURAL Ethnography: The people who occupied the study area prehistorically is unknown. The area had probably been occupied at various times by one of two Native American groups that are now known as the Juaneno and Gabrielino (Bean and Smith 1978, Kroeber 1925). The name "Juaneno" denotes those people who were administered by the Spanish from Mission San Juan Capistrano. Therefore, the name does not identify a specific ethnic or tribal group. The names the Native Americans used to identify themselves have, for the most part, been lost. Contemporary Juaneno identify themselves as the indigenous people known as the Acagchemem Nation (Belardes 1992). The name Gabrielino denotes the people controlled by the Spanish from Mission San Gabriel. The Juaneno and Gabrielino language, as well as that of the Luiseno to the south, was derived from the Takic family, part of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock. By contrast, the Chumash language, from north of the Gabrielino, is derived from Hokan stock of the Yuman language family, representing an origin quite different from that of the Juaneno and Gabrielino. The Chumash share this trait with groups located south of the Luiseno in San Diego County. The Yuman family of languages is derived from the American southwest while the Takfc family can be traced to the Great Basin area (Driver 1969). Linguistic analysis has established that the Hokan speakers of Ventura and San Diego Counties were separated sometime after 500 Before Common Era (The terms Before Common Era and Common Era denote years from year zero in the current calendar). The implication is that the entire southern California coastal region was once filled with Hokan speakers who were gradually separated and displaced by Takic speaking migrants from the Great Basin area. The timing, extent and impact on local societies with regard to the migration is not well understood and any data related to it represents an important contribution to the understanding of local prehistory, Precontact population estimates are very difficult to make, because many of the Indians did not come under Spanish control. The Gabrielino may have numbered as many as 5,000 people during their peak in the precontact period. The Juaneno population during the precontact period is not known. It is known that approximately 1,300 Juaneno resided at Mission San Juan Capistrano in the year 1800 (Engelhart 1922). The mission death register shows as many as 4,000 Native American burials in the mission cemetery. Father Boscana, a priest at Mission San Juan Capistrano, recorded his observations of the Indians during the late 1700s and left a most valuable work (Chinigchinich). Kroeber (1925) describes Boscana's "Chinigchinich" as, "the most intensive and best written account of the customs and religion of any group of California Indians in the mission days." Kroeber, drawing on Boscana and other sources, describes the Juaneno as having well developed religious, ritualistic and social customs. 2 ' The center of the Juaneno and Gabrielino religion was Chinigchinich, the last of a series of heroic mythological figures. The heroes were originally from the stars and the sagas told of them formed the Juaneno religious beliefs. The most obvious expression of the religion was the Wankech, a brush enclosed area where religious observances were performed. The Wankech apparently contained an inner enclosure housing a representation of Chinigchinich, a coyote skin stuffed with feathers, claws, beaks and arrows. Both boys and girls were involved in rites of initiation around the age of puberty. The rites for males included use of datura (a hallucinogen) in the search for a spirit helper. Trials of endurance may also have been part of the ritual. Females were placed in a branch lined pit containing heated stones. The girl being initiated fasted in the pit for several days. Females also were introduced to tattooing during the initiation period. The Juaneno practiced cremation of the dead. The cremation was managed by specific individuals who received pay for their services. The death of at least those of higher rank was commemorated on the first anniversary. The Juaneno had medicine men (shamans), but very little is known regarding how they acquired their knowledge or their practices. A very accurate calendar was possessed by the Juaneno. Unfortunately, knowledge of its exact working has been lost. It is known that it combined both lunar and solar elements in a fashion similar to certain Southwestern practices. The Gabrielino also traced their descent through -the male line with status being determined by both wealth and heredity. Each lineage had a leader (chief), whose authority rested in possession of a sacred bundle. The chief had several assistants to help with the many duties, including the collection of taxes (gifts from the people, primarily for consumption by -guests), concluding treaties and seeing to community welfare. Subject to approval of the people, the position of chief was hereditary within the male line, though females could serve if no male heir was available. Shamans were also people of power, whose primary responsibilities were the overseeing of the various rituals. The,mainland Gabrielino practiced cremation of the dead, cremation usually occurring about three days after death. Most possessions of the deceased were also burned, though some were kept to be burned at the annual mourning ceremony, an eight day event in the fall. ' Archaeological Information: The archaeological heritage of California is quite rich, probably more so than any other North American region north of Mexico. However, the archeology of California is not well known. The California Native Americans were generally quite peaceful and did not often offer warlike resistance to European settlement. Consequently, they did not gain any great notoriety during the settlement period. Also, the original Californians were first under the control of the Spanish and Mexican governments and only later, after most of their culture had been destroyed by disease and displacement, did they come under the control of the United States. There was only a minor Native American presence remaining in California when it became a Lei r in United States possession and development began. Consequently, very little interest the natives and their prehistory was generated. It was many years later before the size, complexity and extent of archeological deposits in the state became apparent. The latest chronology to appear that has gained local acceptance in Orange County is that of Koerper and Drover (1983). The Koerper and Drover chronology is based on extensive work at CA-ORA 119-A, a large multi -component site near the University of California, Irvine campus. CA ORA-119-A contained evidence from the Milling Stone to the Late Prehistoric Periods. The following is a summary of the Koerper and Drover chronology. CHRONOLOGY, BASED ON KOERPER AND DROVER (1983) PERIOD TEMPORAL SPAN MAJOR DIAONOSTIC TRAITS Early Man or ? to 7500 B.C. 1. Lack of grinding implements. Paleo-Indian +/. ? 2. Large, well made projectile points. Characteristics and adaptations: ' 1. Subsistence through hunting of large Pleistocene game animals. 2. Temporary camps at large ]tills. 3. Group no larger than extended family. 4. Widespread. Covered most of North American continent, but no sites known locally. 5. Very small total population. PERIOD" TEMPORAL SPAN MAJOR DIAGNOSTIC TRAITS Milling Stone 7500 B.C. +/-? 1. Predominance of manos and or Encinitas to1000B.C. metates. +/- 250 2. Ornaments made of stone. 3. Large and often crude projectile points, 4. Cogstones and discoidnis. 5. Chatmstones. 6. Some mortars and pestles near end of period. Characteristics and adaptations: 1. Heavy reliance on hunting in early part of period. Deer, rabbits and other small game associated with chaparral. 2. In middle to late part of period reliance was on hard seeds associated with chaparral. ' 3. Coastal groups utilized shellfish and near shore resources. 4. Seasonal round based on ripening vegetable resources rather than animal migrations. This caused increased isolation leading to noticeable differences in culture in much smaller geographic areas. 5. Probably about 50 people in average group. 6. Very little noticeable change in last two thirds of period. 7. Colonization of Channel Islands near end of period. 4 I I CHRONOLOGY, BASED ON KOERPER AND DROVER (1983)continued PERIOD' TEMPORAL SPAN MAJOR DIAGNOSTIC TRAITS Intermediate 1000 B.C. +/- I. Bone ornaments. or Campbell 250 to A.D. 750 2. Wide use of mortars and +/- 250 pestles along with manos and metates. 3. Use of steatite begins. 4. Many discoidals. 5. Large projectile points trending to smaller in the last part of the period. ' Characteristics and adaptations: 1. Heavy reliance on atoms as food resource. Hard seeds, small animals and coastal resources continue to be used. 2. Many more deep water ocean resources utilized. 3. First permanently occupied villages. 4. Large increases in local population. 5. Allatl (spear thrower) in use. Bow and arrow probably introduced near end of period. 6. Some evidence of trade. PERIOD' TEMPORAL.SPAN MAJOR DIAGNOSTIC TRAITS Late A.D. 750 +/- L Shell ornaments. Prehistoric to Spanish 2. Mortar, pestle, mano and or Shoshonean contact metate use continues. 3. Small, finely worked projectile points. 4. Wide use of steatite. 5. Some pottery vessels appear near the end of the period. Characteristics and adaptations: 1. Increased exploitation of all resources. 2. Large populations, some villages had as many as 1,500 people. 3. Great increase in art objects. 4. Much evidence of trade.. Historic Overview: The first Europeans to see what would become Orange County were members of the 1542 expedition of Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo. Cabrillo sailed along the coast and did not explore inland. Europeans did not return to the Orange County area until 1769 when Gaspar de Portola led an overland expedition from San Diego to Monterey (Cramer 1988:19). In the company of this expedition was Jose Antonio Yorba who later became a landowner with Pablo Peralta through the Spanish land grant of Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana (McPherson 1988:25). I .5 I The first permanent settlement in Orange County came when San Juan Capistrano was selected as the site for a mission in the spring of 1775. The mission did not become operational until November 1776. Mission San Gabriel, located in Los Angeles County, was established in 1771. Newport Bay was called Bolsa de Gengara after an Indian village located on Newport Mesa. named Genga or Geng Na Many residents from this village were baptized at Mission San Juan Capistrano in the late 1770s and early 1780s (Lee 1973:4). The first historic use of NewportBay was in 1810, when Jose Antonio Yorba and Juan Pablo Peralta received the Newport Mesa and western mainland shoreline of Newport Bay as a result of the Spanish land grant of Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana. Upper Newport Bay and most of the mainland shore of the lower bay were granted to Jose Andres Sepulvada through the Mexican land grant of Rancho San Joaquin. This land grant was actually the result of two separate grants: Rancho Cienega de las Ranas on 13 April 1837 and Bolsa de San Joaquin on 13 May 1842 (Frils 1965, Cleland 1962). The land surrounding Newport Bay was acquired by partners James Irvine, Benjamin Flint and Llewellyn Bixby in the 1860s. In 1864, the partners purchased Rancho San Joaquin from Sepulveda. In 1868, they acquired the portion of Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana bordering Newport Bay. In 1876 Irvine bought out his partners, becoming the sole owner of the lands around Newport Bay (Cleland 1962). The first attempt by the United States Coast Survey to examine Newport Bay was in September 1860 when the U.S. Coast Survey Schooner, Humbolt, anchored off the Newport -Balboa peninsula (Lee 1973:12). The first merchant vessel to enter Newport Bay was the Vaquero. This occurred either in 1865 or 1870, the latter being the accepted date. The Captain, S.S. Dunnels, entered the bay and put in at the beach later to be named Newport Landing. The beach had been used earlier by Mexican fishermen for manufacturing oil from locally caught sharks (Lee 1973). Flint, Bixby, Irvine and Company applied for a wharf franchise at the shark fishermen's beach in 1870. On 14 October of the same year, they also filed maps for two proposed town sites in the area: "Newport" was located in today's Baycrest subdivision. "Wallula," never developed, was situated on the Castaways Bluff, "just above the location Dunnells had chosen for his landing," (Lee 1973:26). In 1872, a small dock was built on the beach and a warehouse on the bluff. This dock and warehouse were purchased by James and Robert McFadden in 1873. With the arrival of their newly purchased steamer "Newport" in 1875, the McFaddens became involved in shipping lumber to Newport Landing from San Francisco. Many agricultural products produced in the vicinity were then loaded aboard for the return trip. The warehouse was located on the bluff and a chute extended from the warehouse to the bay to facilitate the loading of the "Newport". Cargo was unloaded from wagons on the bluff and sent down the chute directly into the hold of the ship (Lee 1973). I I 1, I I 1 .1 i I IJ I Ll F� i I L I I I r H I Newport Landing was in operation until the McFaddens moved to their newly constructed ocean front facility in 1889. Several of the houses and other buildings were floated across the bay to the new "outside landing' (Lee 1973:44). What became of the facilities at the old landing is uncertain. In 1914 the clubhouse of the Orange County Country Club was formally opened on the bluff directly above the site of Newport Landing (Newport News; 22 August, 1914). It was claimed that "There is no county club anywhere in the west that will compare with the one on Newport Bay," (Newport News; 8 August 1914). As grand as the country club was, it was relocated shortly after it was built, due to the need for a larger golf course (Newport News; November 19, 1956). After the country club moved, the building was leased for various enterprises. By 1941 a bar and restaurant in the building was known locally as "Cliff House." It was said that the bar often remained open after the legal 2 a.m. closing time and that gambling or other illegal activities took place on the second floor of the establishment (Roemer 1982). The building, last known as the "Castaways Club," burned to the ground the night of 17 November 1956 (Newport Harbor News). Literature Review: A review of the records housed at the South Central Coastal Information Center at the University of California, Los Angeles was completed by RMW Paleo Associates Archaeologist Tim Goddard on 21 March 1998. The record search area included the project location and a one mile radius from the project area. The project area had been previously surveyed in 1979 and no cultural materials were found (Westec Services, 1979). There were 27 sites found in the one mile radius surrounding the project area. Those'sites are listed in Table one. The 24 cultural resource management reports for areas within the one mile radius are referenced in Appendix B. r • s.. .. •. ; . .s ;, s., rry�aa ♦ s s �ir;ss�.;r -4 .J�r z z�. r%rsW 0 use . , .. •.•'; .., is ,s. %•.vnsssr'rhs• `r.. „ ,, z s•. ;...... .; rl'.!! ,s: y"'tsr£ss•, r % r •• xs•;£..r .. :ss. • .�.... .. 3s ... ./.... 3/, 9?£7n5.�nk ,ii..7.r✓r%i....:.....r < w �sr .,., ;.; ...rss.x • .,. ; .. % •.z s :•^g • •r s . �.x^.^{s y^, x •ems • r-;-s. ;rr•£cs: •..x£rssis•�tis.'•.r•'s•' : -im r—'£%zssx:« ;. , s.: .s i s.". s;[s �r srr r • rJµs i, s:s.'.: rr ,,'•• �s yy�=yy��yyyy;y�� ,,�,�s^r:src7:es.. y:%�� :aJJ4+t7i..R1.0 .F1V.1sM ,,:'tt• ..r a'i�i.i.l[,i.y.L'L� CA-ORA-46 Dense shell mound Briggs(1949) CA-ORA-47 Shell mound Briggs(1949) CA-ORA-48 Shell mound Briggs(1949) Update Examine disturbed area Becker(1991) CA-ORA-49 Shell mound Briggs(1949) Update Erosion destroyed most of site Becker(1991) CA-ORA-50 Shell mound Briggs(1949) 7 11 . .r. � ,, i.i r, .fr .. •,., i ..;j • ..IiS.Y SS� 'rJ , � • , ;iy •• _.�'..TL'siJ:V Sr.'1^ ;J:::.';: �'; 5 ;Y•••:[E:SJtr}IN'Y.. 1Y.aay ....L ,'., , , S ... . S 5: . :... CA-ORA-51 Shell mound Briggs(1949) CA-ORA-52 Shell mound Briggs(1949) CA-ORA-53 Shell mound Briggs(1949) Update Revisit McKinney(1964) CA-ORA-62 Camp site traces Nelson(1912) CA-ORA-64 Camp site traces Nelson(1912) Update Stone tools and shell refuse Chase(1965) Update Large scale habitation site with early Drover(1976) ceramics and possibly earliest large scale site, Site could be transition between Lithic Horizon and Archaic Horizon CA-ORA-65 Camp site traces Nelson(1912) Update Historic house or dump over prehistoric Douglas(1980) Update site Breech/Harrison(1985) Historic trash not a dump or house CA ORA-66 Camp site traces Nelson(1912) Update Shellfish Breech/Hartison(1985) CA-ORA-67 Camp site traces Nelson(1912) CA-ORA-68 Camp site traces Nelson(1912) Update Shell midden Chase(1966) CA-ORA-69 Camp site trace Nelson(1912) CA-ORA-86 Shell midden Dixon/Eberhart(1964) CA-ORA-98 remnants of shell midden Chase(1965) CA-ORA-99 Shell refuse Chase(1965) Update Shell, scraper and flakes found Brown(1991) CA-ORA 100 Shell refuse Chase(1965) CA-ORA-136 Shell midden, portion of site to be Chase(1965) destroyed by golf course. (Excavation by Pacific Coast Archaeological Society-1964) Update Shell, manos, milling stones, debitage Douglas(1980) Update Shell and lithic artifacts Brown(1991) CA-ORA-141 Shell midden Chase(1965) -1 1 r I I i� I 1 I I I I I I I I „, ,x,z,t•.:.x"s s„ ��+ rs,''£s £ rds£ir£P£: £?£s£•^>irly; ^x.i £; £££"£sS£as• %.; xi'S1£i;i?t.;;::,55�£xy ,iq£s:3, ;s^s's t�ssK£ '•,'S S ir',£tsst„ �tt„x. ftsb,,,., t.,, SH',0., b S S,S,,S.': ,,, t" F'tl: tt't££Y,,•'S,'„ 'Sitµ„ "£S 5^ •h£££v�£%a1,s£x""r„•,6gxjirL si%if ;.,,;:, •,>srts •x„ ,<, „' w, r'ist•,., „ ^� t,,,55:..'.;• ?a „�sx, ,•„ :to•,�e 't„, ,,„., ,, zt'�5:. :7'.,,, "T'.ABL1y'15•' ,j„;; y.�tt:!.•x;,tr,;,r s„,„r£s a:£eys,p%:;s,r,tsx£j£ , ,, ,,,.,,�Sii; ,s s £ 5„„ t ,. • , , ,t r „xs„, „, , ,, , ,, , ,s , „„ ,,, , , „, ,s „s„ s• i r „,, ,..s aes xs µ CA-ORA-157 Light shell midden Chase(1966) CA-ORA-158 Light shell midden Chase(1966) CA-ORA-159 Light shell midden, quartz refuse material Chase(1966) CA-ORA-518 Small shell midden Cottrell(1976) CA-ORA-1098 Dense shell midden Breech/Hamson(1985) CA-ORA-1451 Shell midden, lithics during monitoring Becker/Maxon(1995) METHODS The project area consists of a five areas: a R.V. park, a boat storage area, a recent dredge pile, a beach, and a marine center. The current R.V. park consists of dirt spaces and paved roads. The fenced in boat storage area is situated on top of pavement from an earlier R.V. park. The recent dredge pile is approximately 340 ft.in width, 400 ft. in length, and 10-15 ft. high. The Beach extends along the east edge of the property. The marine center consisted of a vacant lot, parking lot, buildings, and docks. Each of the five areas was surveyed separately by walking north -south transects at 15 meter intervals. Transects were oriented using a compass, and positioning was determined using a USGS 7.5' map and a large project area map provided by the client. FINDINGS The literature review and surface examination revealed that the entire project area was either under pavement or had been disturbed. The 1935 USGS map shows the entire area as a marsh. No record of construction could be found prior to 1958-59, when the original RV park was constructed. No prehistoric or historic resources were found within the current project boundaries. Modern resources within the project boundary include: a large, shell -filled, dredge pile; areas paved in 1959, areas paved in 1991, and the marine center building constructed 1991(Tim Quinn, Park Manager, personal communication 1998). DISCUSSION The literature review revealed 27 archaeological sites within a one mile radius of the project area. Several of these were large sites, significant for the understanding of California prehistory and history. Neither previous work, or this project found any sites in the project area per se. This lack of sites can be attributed to the landform. Most of the 27 sites in the one mile radius were situated on bluffs overlooking Upper Newport Bay. The project area, however, is located on an enhanced landform. The previous marsh that occupied this location was filled in by soil from dredging operations in the bay to create a surface suitable for construction. I RECOMMENDATIONS Despite the project being located in an archaeological sensitive area, the project area contains no significant resources by virtue of its recent enhancement. Thus, no additional cultural resource investigation is required. If the boundaries of the project are changed, or if archaeological materials are encountered during construction, an archaeologist should be retained to determine if the material is important. Timothy A. Goddard Field Director 10 �712 Ronald M. Bissell' Principal Investigator I I REFERENCES Bean, John L. and Charles R. Smith 1978 Gabrielino. In Handbook of North American Indians: California, Robert F. Heizer editor, Vol. 8, pp 538-549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Becker, Kenneth 1991 Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-49). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Becker. Kenneth, Patrick Maxon 1995 Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-1451). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Belardes, David 1992 Personal Communication. In 1992 Mr. Belardes was the Tribal Spokesman for the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians. Breech and Harrison ' 1985a Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-65). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Breech, W.H. and L.A. Harrison 1985b Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-66). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Breech, W.H. and L.A. Harrison 1 1985c Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-1098). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Briggs, J. 1949a Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA46). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center; University of California, Los Angeles. 1949b Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA47). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1949c Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-48). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1949d Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-49). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Briggs, J. 1949e Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-50). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1949f Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-51). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1949g Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-52). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1949h Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-53). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Brown, Joan C. 1991a Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-98). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1991b Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-136). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Chase, P.G. 1965a Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-64). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1965b Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-68). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at the University of California, Los Angeles. 1965c Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-98). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1965d Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-99). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center; University of California, Los Angeles. 1965e Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-100). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1965f Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA 136). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1965g Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-141). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 12 Chase, P.G. 1966a Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-157). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1966b Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-158). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1966c Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-159). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 11 1 I '0 I Cleland, Robert Glass 1962 The Irvine Ranch. The Huntington Library, San Marino, California. Cottrell, Marie 1976 Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-518). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Cramer, Esther Ridgeway 1988 European Discovery. In A Hundred Years of Yesterdays, Esther R Cramer, Keith A. Dixon, Dianne Marsh, Phil Brigandi and Clarice A. Blamer, editors pp. 19-21. Orange County Centennal, Inc., Santa Ana, California. Dixon and Eberhart 1964 Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-64). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles Driver, Harold E. 1969 The bidians of North America, Second Edition, Revised. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Drover, Christopher E. 1976 Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-64). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Centel•, University of California, Los Angeles. Drover, Christopher E., Henry C. Koerper and Paul Langenwalter 1983 Early Holocene Adaption on the Southern California Coast: A Summary Report of Investigations at the Irvine Site CA-ORA-64, Newport Bay, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 35-64. Douglas, Ronald 1980a Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-65). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1, 13 Cl I Douglas, Ronald I 1980b Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-136). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Englehardt, Zephyrin 1922 The San Juan Capistrano Mission. Zephyrin Englehardt, Los Angeles. Friis, Leo J. 1965 Orange County Through Four Centuries> Pioneer Press, Santa Ana, California. Koerper, Henry C. and Christopher Drover 1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County, the Case from CA-ORA-119-A Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 1-34. Kroeber, Alfred J. ■ 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications, Inc. New'York. Lee, Ellen K. 1973 Newport BayA Pioneer History. Newport Beach Historical Society, Sultana Press: Fullerton, McKinney, A. 1964 Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-53). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles McPherson, William 1988 Land Grant Policies and the Ranchos. In A Hundred Years of Yesterdays, Esther R. Cramer, Keith A. Dixon, Dianne Marsh, Phil Brigandi and Clarice A. Blamer, editors pp. 24-30. Orange County Centennal, Inc., Santa Ana, California. Nelson, N.C. 1949a Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-62). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center; University of California, Los Angeles. 1949b Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-64). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1949c Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-65). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1949d Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-66). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 14 I Nelson, N.C. 1949e Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-67). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1949f Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-68). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1949g Archaeological Site Record (CA-ORA-69). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Roemer, Clinton H. 1982 "The Rendezvous Ballroom, A Reminiscence." Unpublished report on file at the Sherman Library, Corona Del Mar, California. Stadum, Carol J. 1996 Paleontological Monitoring and Salvage Report, Castaways Project Newport Beach, Orange County, California. Report on file at RMW Paleo Associates Incorporated, Mission Viejo California. IJ 11 I 1_1 11 I 11 I 11 I C I APPENDIX A Personnel Qualifications `� u 1 I I CJ u I 1 I� I I I Ronald M. Bissell RMW Paleo Associates, Inc. Principal/Certified Archeologist ' Professional Experience 1986 - Present. Principal Archaeologist, RMW Paleontological Associates, Incorporated 1983 - 1986. Independent Consultant Archaeologist 1976 - 1983. Information Specialist and Administrative Services Officer, Leighton and Associates 1956 - 1976. United States Army. Rant: at retirement was Major of Field Artillery Publications , 1 1983 Archaeological Site CA-ORA-572, a Two Component Site in Fullerton, California. Master's Thesis onfile at the Library, California State University, Fullerton, California 1983 A Previously Unrecognized Grinding Technology from CA-ORA-572. Paper presented to the Southwestern Anthropological Association, April 1983. Expanded version published in the Quarterly of the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, Volume 19, Number 3, July 1983 I 1989 Orange County's First Fairgrounds, 1$90-1900. Proceedings of the Conference of Orange County History 1993 Archaeological Site CA-VEN-630: A Solstice Observatory in Simi Valley, Proceedings of die Society for California Archaeology, Volume 7, Ventura County, California 1994 Archaeological Site CA-ORA-1058: Six Cairns in Orange County, California. Degrees 1983 Anthropology, M.A., Archaeological Emphasis. California State University, Fullerton, California 1977 Library Science, M.S. California State University, Fullerton, California 1972 Bachelor of Arts, Geology and History, San Diego State University, San Diego, California 1989 Introduction to Federal Projects and Historic Preservation Low. Sponsored by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the General Services Administration Training Center Credentials Certified by the Society of Professional Archaeologist as a Field Archaeologist. Certified as an Archaeologist by the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. Also certified by the Counties of Ventura, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Kern, Kings, Fresno, Tulare, Madera and San Diego Certified as Open Water Scuba Diver by the Professional Association of Diving Instructors. Memberships Society of Professional Archaeologists , Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Society for California Archaeology Southwestern Anthropological Association California Mission Studies Association American Library Association California Library Association South Coast Geological Society 11 I I I I I TIMOTHY A GODDARD EDUCATION: University of Arizona, B.A., Anthropology, May 1995 Geography -Minor Northern Arizona University, Anthropology major, 1989- 1991 University High School, Tucson, Arizona, June 1989 ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPERIENCE: 1998- Present, RMW Paleo Associates Archaeologist -excavation, laboratory analysis, monitoring, report production paleo salvage. 1997-March 1998, Western Cultural Resource Managem Crew Member, Crew Chief- Survey, recording, and tes of Historic and Prehistoric sites in Nevada. 1996-August 1996, University of Nevada - Reno Assistant Director - Field school; Taught instrument survey techniques and supervised excavation crew at Pony Express station. 1996-June 1996, Desert Archaeology Crew Member - Multiple contract testing and excavation Drolects. June 1995-October 1995, Lassen National Forest CREW CHIEF - Supervised survey crew and was responsible for producing site reports. Assisted in production of project reports. st 1995, University of Nevada - Reno Assistant Director - Field school (One week exploratory session); Taught instrument survey techniques and supervised excavation crew at Pony Express station. 1994-Aug. 1994, Western Cultural Resource Management - der, CO. - Survey and excavation of historic mining settlements in Victor, Colorado. 1993-Aug. 1993, University of Nevada - Reno CREW CHIEF Archaeology field school - White Pine STAFF SPECIALIST - Virginia City field school, Crew member and Mapping specialist. 1992-Aug. 1992, Western Cultural Resource Management - CREW MEMBER - Survey and site recordation. Detailed recording of historic mining town. 1992-May 1992, Desert Archaeology -Tucson CREW MEMBER - Multiple contract surveys and excavations. 1991-December 1991, Office of University of New Mexico. Lab Crew Member - Processing and preliminary analysis of wide variety of artifacts; Coordination of ceramic processing. Designated Crew Chief -on several occasions. Crew Member -emergency excavation field team. New World Consultants, Inc., Albucuergue, New Mexico surveys. 1989-1991, Elden Pueblo, Northern Arizona University Crew Supervisor - For two years, I worked as a volunteer on this cooperative excavation project run by Northern Arizona University and USFS. 1989-1991, Bilby Lab - Northern Arizona University Lab Worker - Extensive volunteer hours working with Elden Pueblo material. 1989-1990, INFOTEC Research Inc. Draftsman - Dratted maps and illustrated artifacts. 1989-1991, Volunteer Projects University of Nevada -Reno, Shermantown Field School. Instructed students in use of transit and alidade, two seasons. Arizona State Museum, Marana Mound Project - Excavations. I I OTHER EMPLOYMENT: ' September 1995 - PRESENT, Independent Contractor Computer Consultant - produce maps from survey data, remote sensing data. Build and upgrade computers. GIS applications. Museum Consultant - Worked as conservator and - collaborated in applying anthropology theory to museum practice of historic furniture pieces. EDUCATION EMPLOYMENT: DECEMBER 1992-MAY 1995 UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA Testing Accommodation Center 94-95: Student Coordinator As student coordinator, I functioned as a general office manager. This included supervision of 35- 40 part time employees, calculated payroll, created work and testing schedules, compiled testing center statistics, prepared testing center reports, and initiated and implemented computer database system for scheduling and tracking students: 93-94: Supervising Procto This position involver d training and overseeing the training of proctors, as well as the general operation of the center. 92-93: Proctor Proctors administer tests and maintain files. ISKILLS: I I * Mechanical and architectural drafting and illustration. * Transit, alidade, * Cartography, GIS GPS * Computer use in: drafting. * Photography. * Medic First Aid w/ CPR Achievements: and total station surveying. training, Remote Sensing experience, Word processing, database, and President of Undergraduate Archaeology Club University of Arizona I I I T 1 APPENDIX B Bibliography of Cultural Resource Studies Within One Mile of the Project 11 I I I LJ I I 11 Becker, Kenneth M. 1989 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of The Proposed Castaways Marina Newport Beach, Orange County, California. RMW Paleo Associates. Report-OR984 Cottrell, Marie 1983 St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Property. Archaeological Resource Management Corp. Report-OR689 Douglas, Ronald D 1981 Historic Property Survey Pacific Coast Highway Widening Project Newport Beach California. Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. Report-OR666 ' Douglas, Ronald D. 1980 Report On Archaeological Field Survey and Subsurface Testing, Pacific Mutual Plaza Development Site, Newport Beach California. Archaeological Planning Collaborative. Report-OR569 Warren, Claude N. 1976 Sea Island Apartments Site. Archaelogical Research Inc. Report-OR677 U: I I I OR 1702 .""Y•to- ;i. :F• ):• o b:�„ ,,f .• oo `rAi $''?rl iw C j:.}�„s, `'r . l ;•; rt Park ,„^ �i 1' • •t '.�1��' :•\' IarkM iS. ,.'�.• .� ve .�i Ala � ti » ~�..s' rflln SJ� 1ranss - j IIA_¢ � � L •awl �� t i = xs"� _ � " IIti /' t �V - � • Via/ - • IC! V�\•u � Mti,n o, b _ �= _ � I I> e._ 1 \ �l �a.4^�. I si •�-)sn o ¢ b vlo+ _ I �� q� / ♦ a ' mil; / = �--�� ,: � "%� J. i]mex— 9, 'M1• �;i"rt''JA;, ,1 ,; I..�Ot.:>• �1)� \, I ' � ih A++e°",��-'�L. - ,• ' =ss�_ t i .'y�/ ' t�\ �t✓/•'f ,y `�" `-tn' � 'p v;omw,<b _--^.1 ="_o_I =_�.,� •\�`. % `� IPV:N �\ IC ,,;= �coyaT dti ' — _ '( \kit♦ lnas J1v- l(< 34 s v�cb`wn¢4- a '`, Ia^mk• / Q < o 1 ael¢nl ,\ y, \ / •\ -PIA—.Y�\+ ___ 5 _"t\+\ I •+ BE9GH r_ w�8 Ba \ a .. � la r1�. � L.._I`(r l.se� e ... •! •?' � •', � �,P�'a� ' rslkii� I + ; t '�-�-•�eyan�t ..^, `-.Pad'- t'�/ � '' !` ,1, , ' RMW Paleo Associates Figure 2: Index Map ArelmeolBpy + Paleontology History N Portion ofUSGS Newport Beach, Calif. 1965 •lam•• 23392 Madero, Suite Photorevised 1981. San Bernardino Base and •� • • • •sa,: " Mission Viejo, CA 92691 (949)770.8042 Meridian FAX (949) 458.9058 The Kelly Barn, Documented by RMW Paleo, 1994 Scale 1:24,000 0 -(003 1 Screencheck EIR Sub. Draft EIR (Accepted Proposed Final EIR Final EIR (Certi£ie DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEWPORT DUNES REDEVELOPMENT I I I /716J! S ) Suit -IiLA Ig✓T nw+ I0� �v_r• :•�� n �� .P% I _ Prepared by: WESTEC Services, Incorporated 180 East Main Street, Suite 150 Tustin, California 92680 Ge tset Persefto 'EST G C T t o �s8ftare 1, conic ;14, 8U-44" Prepared for: Environmental Services Division Orange County Environmental Management Agency 811 North Broadway Santa Ana, California ' ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FOR USE BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA LEAD DIVISION/DEPARTMENT: ERA, REGULATION m m m r m m m m m m m m s r. = m m m m Ixlst inn ('. ndit ions CULTURAL RESOURCES No archaeological resources have been found to exist on the site. Sedimentary bedrock exposed at Coney Island has produced fish scales, foraminifers micro. fossils, and scattered whalebone fragments. This bedrock 1s of the Monterey Formation, which has yielded significant vertebrate fossils in Orange Comity and has good potential for producing important fossils. AIR.QUALITY ALITY Environmental Impacts Previously unexposed fossila may be uncovered and, if mitigation measures are not taken, may be damaged during grading. Mitigation Measures Grading on Coney Island should be monitored closely by a qualified paleontologist with the power to flag off and salvage significant fossil finds. The remainder of the property should be monitored on a spot-check basis. Like the rest of the Orange County Air Basin, the A short-term localized impact on air quality Short-term air quality impacts due to construc- Dunes are subject to some degree of air pollution. will occur in the form of duet and heavy equip- tion can be reduced by watering of unpaved sur- Pollutant emissions associated with operation of ment emissions during construction. The com- faces and use of sheepsfoot tampers. the Duties include motor vehicle emissions from Dunes pleted project will result in increased pollution „ traffic, emissions due to consumption of energy, and due to motor vehicle traffic, boat engines, and boat engine emissions. energy consumption. NOISE The Nunes site Is located within the 60 CNEL contour for noise from air traffic at the Orange County Air- port, a Noise Referral Zone in which individual projects must be reviewed by the County to ensure that interior noise standards are met. Motor vehicle traffic constitutes the other major source of noise lit the project area. AESTHETICS The sandy beach and small bay comprising the project Hite are visible from the Newporter Inn, Jamboree Road, Pacific Coast llighway, Promontory Point, and Never Shores. A short-term increase in noise will occur during construction and dredging. Increased traffic will lead to noise increases of approximately 5 dB(A) along Bayside Drive and less than 1 dB(A) on Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. Noise related to operation of the boat launching ramp may affect residents of the adjacent mobile home park. ' Construction will be limited to normal day- light working hours and construction equipment will be equipped with noise muffling devices. Operation of the boat launching ramp should be limited to daytime hours. The family inn and restaurant will alter the All visual standards of the County of Orange, appearance of the site and may block views of the City of Newport Beach, and the State Coastal ties bay from the Newporter Inn and Backbay Drive. Commission will be met. It is recommended that Where one presently views open water, the piers the amended leasehold agreement stipulate design and boat slips of the expanded marina will be review by the County for any development on the visible. site. I dredge and routing of dredge tailwaters through settling basins will reduce the potential for sedimentation as a result of project implementation. Water quality mitigation measures are discussed in more detail in Section 2.2.3. While the placement of riprap and bulkheads will r provide a substrate for rocky intertidal species, impacts on tidal mudflats could be reduced and species diversity enhanced if the amount of bulkheading were reduced. Elimination of the landmark planned for the top of Coney Island will help reduce impacts on sage scrub vegetation in that area. Incorporation of wildlife exhibits and displays into the proposed project could complement facilities planned for the nearby wildlife refuge. Such displays could be placed outdoors or in the proposed RV meeting room, restaurants, or lobby of the family inn. Visitors would be educated the about resources of the Upper Bay and their appreciation of the resources would be enhanced before venturing into the more sensitive areas of the wildlife refuge. Disturbance of habitat and illicit collection could potentially be reduced. 2.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES , 2.4.1 Archaeology 2.4.1.1 Existing Conditions An on -foot survey of the Newport Dunes project property was conducted on January 2, 1978 by WESTEC Services, Inc. The site reconnaissance revealed no new or previously recorded archaeological resources, although archaeological resources have ' been recovered in the region. 2.4.1.2 Environmental Impacts The lack of archaeological resources on the project , site precludes any adverse impacts on such cultural resources. 2.4.1.3 Mitigation Measures No measures are suggested for mitigation due to the absence of cultural resources within the project boundaries. ' [l 34 I ' 2.4.2 Paleontology The following section is based on a paleontological study of the project site by Dr. John Cooper which may be found in ' Appendix I. 2.4.2.1 Existing Conditions A literature and records search revealed no previously ' recorded paleontologic occurrences on the subject property. A paleontological field survey was conducted on the subject property on April 25, 1979. Field examination of sedimentary bedrock exposed in the small hill known as Coney Island in the northeast part of the property produced abundant fish scales, some foraminifera micro - fossils, and a few scattered whale bone fragments. The thinly bedded sedimentary rocks exposed in this hill include shale, chert, diatomaceous mudstone, and porcellanite representing the lower part of the Monterey Formation of Middle Miocene age. While the fossil material observed is not highly significant in or of itself, these occurrences do serve as signboards to the possible existence of significant fossils on the site. The Monterey Formation in coastal Orange County has yielded many significant vertebrate ' fossils and any individual outcrop or subcrop has good potential for producing important fossils. The rest of the property (much of which is presently paved) is underlain by alluvial and colluvial materials which on the subject property are shell -bearing and contain a diverse molluscan fauna of very Late Pleistocene to Holocene age (deposits generally less than about ten thousand years old). A small area mapped as Capistrano Formation (Morton and Miller, 1973) is present -near the western boundary of the property within the trailer park. Pleistocene age shell and bone material as well as vertebrate and invertebrate fossils from the Miocene to Pliocene age may be present in the Capistrano Formation. ' 2.4.2.2 Environmental Impacts It is possible that previously unexposed fossils may be uncovered during grading. I£ appropriate mitigation measures are not taken, such resources may be damaged. 2.4.2.3 Mitigation Measures ' The small hill composed of Monterey Formation should be monitored closely by a qualified paleontologist during future grading. The remainder of the property should be ' monitored on at least a spot-check basis. The paleontologist should have the authority to flag off significant fossil occurrences and make arrangements for appropriate salvage. Any fossils recovered should ' 35 r r be donated to an appropriate educational and/or research institu- tion such as the Natural History Foundation of Orange County, the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, or Department of Earth Science, California State University, Fullerton. r 2.5 AIR QUALITY 2.5.1 Existing Conditions Ambient air quality determinations have been extremely limited in the project area and long-term records and trends must be based on the Air Quality Maintenance District data from the Costa Mesa station on the grounds of Fairview State Hospital. Although this measurement site is several miles from Newport ' Center, the significant features of pollutant distributions at the two locations would be expected to exhibit similar trends. - The degree of compliance of the Costa Mesa/Newport'Beach area to the applicable standards is shown in Table 2-3. It should be noted that Costa Mesa's closer proximity to the Los Angeles urban complex and its distance from the coast would be expected to result in a slightly greater degradation in air quality in Costa Mesa than at the project site, but the data in Table 2-3 implies that the standard for oxidant is surely exceeded in the project , area and primary vehicular -related pollutant (CO. NOx) standards are threatened, if not exceeded, in the general area. TABLE 2-3 SUMMARY OF COSTA MESA AIR QUALITY DATA 1976-1977 Days Over Days Over Pollutant (California Standard Standard State Standard) 1976) (1977 Oxidant (1 hour > 0.10 ppm) 10 31 Carbon Monoxide (12 hours > 10 ppm) 29 5 Nitrogen Dioxide (1 hour > 0.25 ppm) 8 Q Sulfur Dioxide (1 hour > 0.50 ppm) 0 0 TOTAL Suspended Particulates (24 hours > 100 ym/g3) 28%' 13V , 'Percent of all observations > daily standard. r 36 r C LJ 1 J I 11 I II 16737 Francis Drive April 26, 1979 Chino, California .91710 Sandra L. Genis WESTEC Services, Inc. 180 East Main Street Tustin, California 92680 Dear Sandy: This letter presents the results of a paleontologic survey conducted Thurs- day, April 26, 1979, on the Newport Dunes property, Newport Beach, Orange county, California. Literature and records search revealed no previously recorded paleon- tologic occurrences on the subject property. Field examination of sedimentary bedrock exposed in a small hill in the northeast part of the property (locality 1, Figure 1) produced abundant fish scales, some foraminifera microfossils, and a few scattered whale bone fragments. The thinly bedded sedimentary rocks exposed in this hill include shale, chert, diatomaceous mudstone, and porcellanite represent- ing the lower part of the Monterey Formation of Middle Miocene age. The fossil material observed is not significant enough to merit pre -grading salvage or other forms of preservation; however, these occurrences do serve as signboards to the possible discovery of significant fossils during grading. The rest of the property (much of which is presently paved) is underlain by alluvial and colluvial material mapped (!Morton and Miller, 1973) as Qac, which on the subject property are shell -bearing and contain a diverse molluscan fauna of very Late Pleistocene to Holocene age (deposits generally less than about ten thousand years old). A small area mapped as Capistrano Formation (Morton and Miller, 1973) is present near the western boundary of the property (off the property, within the trailer park). The small hill composed of Monterey Formation should be monitored closely by a qualified paleontologist during future grading. The Monterey Formation in coastal Orange County has yielded many significant vertebrate fossils and any individual outcrop or subcrop has good potential for producing important fossils. The remainder of the property should be monitored on at least a spot-check basis by a qualified paleontologist. The possibility of Pleistocene age shell and bone material as well as vertebrate and invertebrate fossils from the Miocene to Pliocene age Capistrano Formation warrant some attention during surface modification activities. Any fossils recovered should be donated to an appropriate (depending on level of significance) educational and /or research institution such as the natural history foundation of Orange County, the Natural History Museum of Losa Angeles County, or Department of Earth Science, California State University, Fullerton. I hope this report meets with your approval and I look forward to the opportunity to work with you again. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely yoprs, I_e ;•John D. Cooper Paleontological Consultant I-1 Reference Morton, P. K., and Miller, R. V., 1973, Geologic Map of Orange County, California, in, Geoenvironmental Maps of Orange County, California: Calif. Div. Mines and Geology, Preliminary Report 115. 1 %; ll•,�-= p rod tvF b owr. d anq f -��%. _- �' t _ " ,!!r j �-• ` . ja 'i ��- 'mot-.�T•.t •. 1• >..r ^' r' • •`-•�.. � IL V. • �� '\ ♦ r f '�•l,. •r�;.� A OCCOOY-EP`'f si' i ~.+� .� _ •/" �'7'Z.� .. ..�\+•>y�. �� of SAY n `. ! %.•/•.ry •- ••; y/ 1 40Q' ? sties" ! c1i ��c• K• Source: Lee/rages and Associates Existing Site I.- A//Kviarn 193 7c_ Ca rstr.no Am. FIGURE L-03 i 1 �J II II II II II II II II ADDENDUM TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #230 NEWPORT DUNES REDEVELOPMENT Contact Person: �-• • ,•,ers+rorrT4T� Prepared by: PRC TOUPS 2223 Avenida de la Playa, Suite 267 La Jolla, CA 92037 Prepared for: Environmental Services Division Orange County Environmental Management Agency 811 North Broadway Santa Ana, CA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FOR USE BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA LEAD DIVISION/DEPARTMENT: EMA, REGULATION II 11 1 II I 1 II I' II II The marine intertidal habitat will also be affected by Dunes redevelopment. Should the county and/or the applicant institute a dredging program, benthic invertebrate populations would be removed, but recolonization is expected to be rapid. The most significant impact to intertidal invertebrates anticipated as a result of the original site plan was the loss of tidal, mudflats where approximately 1,400 linear feet of bulkheads were to be constructed. That potential impact has been eliminated under the new site plan and the LCP; no additional bulkhead is proposed. This precludes loss of tidal mudflat invertebrates and would retain the area as a feeding site for aquatic birds. Any impacts to water quality could degrade the habitat value of the lagoon and adjacent areas. As reviewed above, the reduced number of slips, the elimination of new bulkheading, the reduction in the amount of dredging, and the incorporation of strict marina management guidelines and dredging policies into the LCP and proposed DFG dredging plans reduces the potential for significant adverse water quality impacts. 4. Cultural and Historical Resources Archaeological and paleontological records searches and field surveys of the Newport Dunes site were conducted in conjunction with preparation of EIR #230. One archaeologic site was previously recorded on Coney Island but it was not located during the field survey. The survey did not locate any additional historic or archaeologic resources. No impacts to cultural resources would be likely to occur upon implementation of either site plan. The sediments comprising Coney Island are fossWferous and a potential exists for occurrence of significant fossils in that area. Because the revised site plan proposes no construction in that area, potential for paleontological impact is quite low. If grading is required for creation of the footpath, a paleontologist should monitor the grading operation. Procedures for such monitoring and subsequent actions are outlined in detail in the LCP. 5. Air Quality EIR #230 concluded that implementation of the original site plan would result in an incremental degradation of air quality. Emissions would result from construction -23- SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN N E W P O-R T DUNES _ 47=-.7 D�i)Ml1AK I II r L LJ [1 C:BW]p 0 1? r DU1%�7ES 1131 BACK BAY • NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 . (714) 644.0510 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY OFF JAMBOREE ROAD May 31, 1989 Mr. Gerardo Salas Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch 300 N. Los Angeles St., Room 3062 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Mr. Salas: I am writing in response to the records search and recommendations dated May 17, 1989 received from Mr. Brian Glenn of the UCLA Archaeological Information Center in connection with our permit application (#235-GS) for the Newport Dunes marina expansion. The area referenced in the Archaeological Site Survey Record of November 29, 1965 is known as "Coney Island". This particular area was thoroughly. studied as part of the original Environmental Impact Report and the Addendum thereto in connection with earlier approvals for this project. For your information, I have enclosed copies of the pertinent sections of each document. As a result of the initial surveys, Coney Island was designated as a dedicated "open space" in all subsequent plans. As such, it will remain totally undeveloped and the current plans include no improvements on the Coney Island portion of ,the Newport Dunes site. I have also enclosed a copy of our site plan highlighting the Coney Island Open Space and showing its relation to the balance of the project. Since no improvements are planned for the only area where cultural resources were originally discovered, I believe that the Phase I archaeological survey ' recommended by Mr. Glenn is unnecessary. Unless I hear from you to the contrary, I will assume that you concur. If, however, you would like to proceed r JI I ' TRAILER PARK • BOAT SLIPS . LAUNCHING RAMP . MARINE SERVICE • PICNIC AREAS • SWIMMING Mr. Gerardo Salas May 31, 1989 Page Two in another manner or if I can answer any additional questions, please feel free to contact me at 619-488-0551. S',rrc7e ly / / p.�(�[ Ro ert Glea on Property De ment Officer RHG:ma Eno. cc: David L. Cherashore Brian Glenn, UCLA Archaeological Information Center : RECEED Y LSA.IVINC. 1 NOV 2 41998• ._ ....... -S7(fi II II II II II II Pf ;l S'f� c„r►s scc�Poe�yar ` .; , ' "... •�� ; ,�t��.� �`ia'e �PF See /r`s ---- i+r' a , I', t10 K'ep0/47 wags Reptoo f' t: .�.n �•.'Itr ....{.. .; • :.l ISO . .�-'�..°+ti.� � •i r � �� 4� �`. III n, _.. is " ' ,:� .. 1� •� i,-.� 1 TLI111Iif}3r `� ~'= k• ' ' +b /� C Yin; . A,b�//%' ='r q(�i��" #e;� •. :.ee" �i` , .T i ° . +w• ' J"�, /G� 6 V�1 ,i�rr ,• i ``� _ .K' r , k'^ "'". •.r ^ ✓f•m} .hn.. �., p • ♦ •\ y ,�{pygq-�i . { y }' • •h, y i• • {.:�. v+ �YPor= 4�'.P �"�•��';�•-'�Y.d'` ?� `4\ � •��".��'-icl: \7 Y •.�;..' , �� T.-� ` �� .mot '''L.ii�'•/� ' ♦(' • ,• r :6 .y ISA Associates, Inc. ' APPENDIX G 1 I [] FI 1 1 1 r" L L� ' 9/22199<<P:\CNB834\EIR\TOC•VOL•I.WPD» 1 NE"OR T DUNES HOTEL ' CITY OF NE"OR T BEACH 1 1 1 FEBRUARY1999 Prepared by: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS I ' L PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................. 1 II. EXISTING COUNT DATA .............................. 2 ' III. TRIP GENERATION RATES ............................ 2 IT : TRIP GENERATION ................................... 7 V. TRIP DISTRIBUTION ................................. 11 VI. TRAFFICIMPACTANALYSES ......................... 11 VIL FUTURE CONDITIONS -LONG RANGE GENERAL PLAN. 17 Vlll. PROJECTACCESS & ON -SITE CIRCULATION .......... 20 IX BUSSING ........................................... 22 X. PARKING ........................................... .23 ' XI. SUMMARY .......................................... 32 ' XII. PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENTS ................. 36 1 1 APPENDIX APPENDIX A B - 24-HOUR COUNTDATA -MEETING SPACE SUMMARYBYNUMBER OF GUESTS APPENDIX C -ONE PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS ' APPENDIX D -INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONANALYSES APPENDIX E - LETTER ONBUSSING CJ ' NEWPORT DUNES HOTEL 1 ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION The hotel site is part of the larger Newport Dunes Resort area that comprises approximately 100 acres. on Upper Newport Bay. Current amenities within the Newport Dunes Resort area include a 10-acre swimming beach, a mile long pedestrian promenade around the swimming lagoon, day use ' facilities with parking andbeachrestrooms, arestaurant, a430 slip marina, a 400+ space recreational vehicle park, swimming pools, meeting space and boat storage and launching facilities. 1 ' The proposed project will include construction of a full -service destination resort hotel. The hotel will provide 400 guestrooms and 100 time-share units. The 100 time-share units will be designed ' with the capability to be split or "locked off' for a maximum total of 600 rentable rooms. The time- share units would be located directly north of the proposed resort hotel. The proposed hotel would provide a total of 54,000 square feet of public areas, of which, 41,000 square feet consist of function areas, including conference rooms, meeting room, and banquet facilities and 13,000 square feet consist ofpre-function assembly and circulation areas. Most public areas would be provided on.the first level. These public areas would include two 12,000 square foot ' ballrooms, which can be divided into several smaller spaces, and an additional 9,000 square feet of pre -function areas. There will also be two smaller junior ballroom/meeting rooms of 5,000 square feet each and pre -function areas totaling 4,000 square feet. All these ballroom/meeting rooms will be accessible to and served by a central banquet kitchen. The third level would provide a 3,000 ' square foot banquet room and a total of five meeting rooms of 800 square feet each. Hotel amenities ' will include swimming pools; health, fitness and recreational facilities; children's facilities; dining NPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel Job #971200 City of Newport Beach facilities; ballrooms and meeting rooms; retail space; a parking structure and surface parking areas; and landscaped garden areas. With the addition of theproposed project, a total of 150 recreational vehicle spaces will be displaced. A total of approximately 256 recreational vehicle spaces will be retained within the existing recreational vehicle park after development of the proposed project. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the site in relationship to the surrounding street system and Figure 2 shows the site plan for the proposed project. It is estimated that the proposed project -will be completed by the Year 2002. EXISTING COUNT DATA For informational purposes, 24-hour directional counts were conducted at five location on two summer weekends. This data can be found in Appendix A. The data indicates that the peak weekend day in the vicinity of the project is a Saturday, generally around 11:00 in the morning and between 2:00 and 4:00 in the afternoon. Other weekday traffic data were provided by the City of Newport Beach as a part of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) procedure. TRIP GENERATION RATES A trip generation rate comparison was conducted between the "Hotel" land use and the "Resort Hotel" land use. Both land uses were referenced from Trin Generation' and are based upon the number of guest rooms occupied. As shown in Table 11 the "Hotel" land use has higher trip generation rates which provides for a "worst case" scenario. These higher trip generation rates were utilized in this study. Trip generation estimates for hotel uses are generally based upon the number of guest rooms occupied and includes consideration of restaurant, retail and meeting/ballroom facilities within the hotel. Lrio Generation. 6th Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers CITE); 1998, WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel Job #971200 City of Newport Beach I r' rNo Scale 1 r II II II II II I� HOSPITAL PROJI RD / SITE BAY SHORE DR PROJECT LOCATIOP „"_00 M TO ENGINEERING, INC, S4N -3— TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION - COMPARISON HOTEL VS. HOTEL/TIME SHARE COMBINATION Newport Dunes Hotel TRIP GENERATION AMPEASHOUR PMPEASHOUR DESCRIPTOR/ LAND USE SIZE DAILY IN OUT IN OUT ate.-0) Hotel Per Room 8.92 0.39 0.28 0.35 0.36 Resort Hotel Per Room N/A 0.27 0.10 0.21 0.28 Recreational Homes(2) Per Dwelling Unit 3.16 0.11 0.05 0.11 0.15 Trip Ends: Peak Hour 600 Rooms 5,400 235 170 210 215 Hotel Trip Ends: Peak Hour Hotel 400 Rooms 3,600 155 110 140 145 Time Share Unit 100 DU 300 10 5 10 15 TOTAL 3,900 165 115 150 160 (1) Trip Generation, 6th Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE); 1997. (2) A "Recreational Home" as defined in the Trip Generation reference is usually located in a resort containing local services and complete recreational facilities. These dwelling units are often second homes used by the owner periodically or rented on a seasonal basis. N/A - Not Available Note: The Hotel rates were utilized in this study due to the fact that these rates were higher than those shown for "Resort Hotel". -1 It was also noted that the resort hotel data are based upon a single study of a hotel in Hawaii in 1972 and probably is not representative of the subject location. ' Additional analyses were requested by the City of Newport Beach regarding the amount of meeting ' area within the proposed hotel. A comparison was made with 12 similar existing/proposed hotels ' to determine whether the amount of meeting area for the proposed hotel exceeds what is found in similar hotels. This data was collected from studies, dated from 1985 to 1998, completed by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. and other consultants. Table 2 presents the comparison. As shown in Table 2, the proposed project falls below the average or has less meeting space per hotel room than most of the comparable hotels. I A further analyses was completed regarding the "Hotel' trip generation rates. The "Hotel' trip ' generation rate utilized in this study was compared to trip generation rates for hotels found in other, sources. Table 3 shows this comparison, which indicates that the trip generationrates utilized in this ' study were comparable or higher than the rates found in other sources. ' Also located in Table 3, for informational purposes, are weekend trip generation rates for the hotel , land use, which are higher than the weekday peak hour trip rates. This higher rate maybe accounted forby a study which was completed regarding hotel functions on weekends. (Within those analyses, , specific attention was paid towards the summer months.) Data was gathered from information compiled by Evans Hotel representatives (applicant) ofa similar ' facility to the proposed project, the Catamaran Resort Hotel in San Diego which is also operated by the applicant. This data can be found in Appendix B. The data was presented in three categories; ' Group, In -House and Catering. The "Group" category is comprised almost solely of people who are staying at the hotel, there may be a very small percentage which may come ' from outside the hotel. WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel ' Job #971200 City of Newport Beach -5- ' TABLE 2 HOTEL COMPARISON MEETING SPACE SQUARE FOOTAGE PER ROOM Newport Dunes Hotel TOTAL (SF) OF MEETINGSPACE HOTEL LOCATION TOTAL NUMBER BALLROOMS/ (SF) PER ' HOTEL ROOMS MEETINGROOMS HOTELROOM 'Proposed Project: Newport Dunes Resort Newport Beach 600 Rooms 41,000 SF 68.33 Hotels: 'Comparable Waterfront Ocean Grand Huntington Beach 530 Rooms 50,000 SF 94.34 'Resortt'> La Costa Hotel«) San Diego 479 Rooms 50,000 SF 104.38 ' Hotel del Coronado(') San Diego 691 Rooms 65,000 SF 94.07 Loews(Z) Santa Monica 350 Rooms 18,000 SF 51.43 ' Fess Parker's(l) Santa Barbara 360 Rooms 33,000 SF 91.67 Hyatt Grand Champions() Palm Springs 336 Rooms 30,000 SF 89.29 La Quinta(2) Palm Springs 640 Rooms 66,000 SF 103.13 Rancho Malibu Hotel(3) Malibu 250 Rooms 14,616 SF 58A6 ' Four Seasons Hotel(`) Newport Beach 425 Rooms 27,800 SF 65AI Hyatt Newportert') Newport Beach 419 Rooms 23,613 SF 56.36 Sheraton Hotel(') Newport Beach 468 Rooms 15,284 SF 32.66 Catamaran Resort Hotel(7) San Diego 313 Rooms 17,500 SF 55.91 ' Average: 74.76 11 I t (1) "Waterfront Ocean Grand Resort" Transportation and Circulation Analysis; prepared by LSA; July 2, 1998. (2) A letter dated July 28, 1998 to Mr. Patrick Alford at the City of Newport Beach for an independent assessment of the Newport Dunes Hotel Resort prepared by, Goodwin Associates. (3) "Rancho Malibu Hotel (Addendum)"; WPA TraJjtc Engineering, Inc:; July 21, 1997. (4) Information obtained from WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. project file: "Four Seasons Hotel Expansion" and "Four Seasons Hotel - General Plan Amendment", (specifically, the City of Newport Beach "Report to the Planning Commission ", dated June 4, 1998). (5) Information obtained from Weston Pringle & Associates project file: "NewporterExpansion"; (specifically, the City of Newport Beach "Planning Commission Meeting Report ", dated August 8, 1985). (6) Information obtained from Weston Pringle & Associates project file: "Sheraton Hotel Revision (specifically, the City of Newport Beach "Planning Commission Meeting Report ", dated April 4, 1985). (7) Information obtained from representatives from Evans Hotels (Applicant). TABLE 3 HOTEL TRIP RATE COMPARISON Newport Dunes Hotel TRIP RATES WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNRAY DAILY AMPEAKHOUR PMPEAKHOUR DAILY PEAKHOUR DAILY PEAKHOUR LAND USE DES- CRIPTOR IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT Proposed Proieet: HotelM Per 8.92 0.39 0.28 0.35 0.36 Occupied Room OtkerSources: San Diego Hilton:) Per Occupied Room 11.2 0.67 0.94 11.0 0.84 (3:30 - 4:30 PM) 16.1 1.52 (12:15 -1:15 PM) Hyatt Islandia(=) Per Occupied Room 9.8 OA6 0.41 0.32 10.1 0.86 (6:00 - 7:00 PM) 8.8 0.74 (12:30 -1.30 PM) Vacation Villaget2) Per Occupied Room 7.8 0.20 0.13 0.21 0.32 9.5 0.23 1 0.26 7.8 0.40 1 0.09 (3:15 - 4:15 PM) (7:45 - 8:45 PM) Del Coronado, La Costa, Per 6.0 0.20 0.10 0.19 0.26 - - _ _ Newport Marriott, Occupied Room Hilton HeadW Resort Hotel0-4) Per - 0.27 0.10 0.21 0.28 13.43 1.23 10.09 - _ Occupied Room (1) Trip Generation. 61 Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE); 1997. (2) "Traffic Generators",- San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG); July, 1998. (3) 'Resort Hotel Traffic Study", Austin Foust Associates (4) Land Use: 300 - Resort Hotel. Caution use of data due to small sample. This is based upon a 1972 study in Honolulu by the State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch. -7- 1 ► The "In -House" category is comprised solely for employees who are on - site. Employees meetings, seminars, etc. ► "Catered" functions are comprised mostly of people from off -site. It ' should be noted that some on -site groups may have been counted in the catering category, which may provide for an over estimate. Catering functions include weddings, anniversary parties, birthday parties, and other ' similar functions. Catered events are usually heaviest around the holidays and summer months. The peak days for the catered events are on Saturday. ' Catered events tend to be in the evening on the weekdays and the afternoon and evening on the weekends. Note: The arrival patterns of the guests staying at the hotel were reviewed with hotel representatives, and it was found that there are very few arrivals/departures on Saturdays. ' Table 4 summarizes the data for "Catered" events by summer months, day, time of day and number of attendees. The higher number of attendees shown in Table 4 on the weekends for catered events seem to coincide with the trip generation rates identified for weekends shown on Table 3. ' In order to deduct for the trips generated by the 150 recreational vehicle spaces that will be deleted ' with this project, the campground/recreational vehicle park land use was also referenced from Dip Generation. ' TRIP GENERATION A trip generation comparison was completed between analyzing a 600 room hotel vs. a 400 room hotel with 100 time share units, to determine the highest trip generator. Table I displays this trip ' generation comparison. As shown in Table I, the 600 room hotel generates more traffic during the ' daily, AM and PM peak hours than the 400 room hotel with 100 time share units; therefore, in order to provide a "worst case" analysis the 600 room hotel was utilized as the proposed project. 1 WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel Job #971200 City of Newport Beach TABLE 4 HOTEL CATEREDO) EVENTS Newport Dunes Hotel SUMMARYOFHIGHESTATTENDED SUMMER CATERED EVENTS MONTH DAY TIME OF DAY PEASNUMBER OFATTENDEES PER SUMMER MONTH June Friday Evening 780 Saturday Afternoon 952 July Friday Evening 460 Saturday Evening 1,200 August Friday Evening 962 Saturday Evening 1,644 September Monday Afternoon 280 Saturday Evening 1,055 (1) A "Catered Event' is 95 percent comprised of people from off -site. These catered events include not only weddings, but also anniversary parties, birthday parties, and other similar functions. Source: Data received from Evans Hotel - Catamaran Resort Hotel (17,500 SF Ballroom/Meeting Rooms Area) meeting space usage by day of week and time of day. - (See Appendix B) 11 —9— Table 5 summarizes the information for trip generation rates and trips generated for the proposed project. As shown in Table 5 the proposed project, less the 150 recreational vehicle spaces which will be displaced with this development, is estimated to generate 4,800 daily trip ends of which 365 (215 In, 150 Out) would occur during the AM peak hour and 365 (180 In, 185 Out) would occur during the PM peak hour. Currently there is a Settlement Agreement for the Newport Dunes site dated December 9, 1988, which provides specific uses for the site that can be developed without City approval. The City of Newport Beach was contacted to discuss previously approved trip allocations for uses within the 1988 Settlement Agreement which are no longer being proposed. Based upon discussions with City Staff, it was determined that previously approved trip allocations could be taken for a 275 room 1 hotel; 5,000 SF of Marina Commercial, which is comprised of both retail and office uses; and a 15,000 SF restaurant. The trip ends associated with each of these uses were referenced from rdocumentation received from the City of Newport Traffic Engineering Department. These values ' have been and are included as Committed Project traffic in the TPO analyses. Table 5 lists the information from the 1988 Settlement Agreement. A total of 3,989 daily previously approved trip allocations could be taken of which 215 (145 In, 70 Out) are in the AM peak hour and 308 (180 In, 128 Out) are in the PM peak hour. The estimated trips generated by the proposed project were reduced by the previously approved trip allocations listed above. As shown in Table 5, the proposed project would add 800 daily trip ends ' to road system of which 150 (70 In, 80 Out) would occur during the AM peak hour and 55 (0In, 55 ' Out) would occur during the PM peak hour. I ' WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel Job #971200 City of Newport Beach TABLE 5 —1� TRIP GENERATION (600 Room Hotel is shown for a "Worst Case" Scenario) Newport Dunes Hotel TRIP GENERATION DESCRIPTOR/ "PEASHOUR PMPEASHOUR LAND USE SIZE DAILY Qr OVT IN OUT Rates:t�� Hotel Per Room * Peak Hour 8.92 0.39 0.28 0.35 0.36 * 2.5 Hour 0,78 0.56 0.70 0.72 Campground/ Recreational Vehicle Park Per Occupied Space * Peak Hour - 0.14 0.13 0.19 0.20 * 2.5 Hour - 0.27 0.27 0.40 0.40 Trip Ends: Peak Hour Hotel - Proposed Project 600 Rooms 5,400 235 170 210 215- (Less RV Parking Spaces) (150 Spaces) 60yn> u 20 (30) 30 Subtotal 4,800 215 150 180 185 (Hotel)(2) (275 Rooms) (2,392) (126) (66) (99) (82) (Marina Commercial)( ) Retail (2,500 SF) (102) (1) (1) (6) (6) Office (2,500 SF) (61) (6) (1) (1) (6) (Restaurant)(2) (15,000 SF) 1434 12 (2) 74 34 Subtotal (3,989) (145) (70) (180) (128) TOTAL 800 70 80 0 55 Trip Ends: 2.5 Hour Hotel - Proposed Project 600 Rooms 5,400 470 340 420 430 (Less RV Parking Spaces) (150 Spaces) 600 a) (40) ,(40) L1 (60) Subtotal 4,800 430 300 360 370 (Hotel)(2) (275 Rooms) (2,392) (252) (132) (198) (164) (Marina Commercial)(2) Retail (2,500 SF) (102) (2) (2) (12) (12) Office (2,500 SF) (61) (12) (2) (2) (12) (Restaurant)(2) (15,000 SF) 1434 u M 148) (68) Subtotal (3,989) (290) (140) (360) (256) TOTAL 800 140 160 0 115 (1) Trip Generation, 6th Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE); 1997, (2) 1983 Settlement Agreement for the Newport Dunes project; Table 5; provided by City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Department. (3) Daily volumes were estimated. 11 II L� I —11— 1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION Project distribution percentages were developed based upon previously completed distributions in the area, the location of the trip attractors, type of land use, proximity of freeways, and the surrounding street system. Figure 3 illustrates the resulting distribution percentages which have been previously approved by the City of Newport Beach Engineering Department. The project generated trip ends were then assigned to the road system based on these distribution percentages and the proposed project accesses. TRA FFIC IMPA CT A NA L YSES With the passage of the gas tax increase (Proposition 111), in June 1990, came a requirement that each urbanized area in the State with a population of 50,000 or more, adopt a Congestion Management Program (CMP). A program was developed for Orange County. Cities were also given an option of having their individual impact analyses guidelines approved to satisfy the CMP requirements. The City of Newport Beach has had the Transportation Phasing Ordinance (TPO) approved, so that the analyses completed under the TPO satisfy CMP requirements. The City of Newport Beach was contacted to determine the intersections that were to be included these analyses. There are a total of 15 intersections which were included in this study and they. are listed in Table 6. The "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" which is part of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and provided to us by the City of Newport Beach was utilized for each of the study intersections. If project generated traffic is greater than one percent of the combined total of existing, regional growth and committed project traffic on any approach to any of the selected intersections, then additional analyses are required which consists of Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analyses. Projects may be approved when the ICU value for an intersection will not exceed 0.90 or the ICU value does not change when the project is added. ' WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel Job #971200 City of Newport Beach I 25% No Scale / 50% m / F /50% '•o � RD PROJECT SITE o i HOSPITAL SSRNTA B+�B 50% J 401rlc50`. vu uoo SAY SHORE DR Yg�D 2O: DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION �5% J20% /N@DD M'PR N MIME, E, K. FIGURE 3 -12— TABLE 6 STUDY INTERSECTIONS Newport Dunes Hotel STUDY i. COAST HIGHWAY & BALBOA-SUPERIOR 2. COAST HIGHWAY & RIVERSIDE 3. COAST HIGHWAY & TUSTIN 4. COAST HIGHWAY & BAYSHORE-DOVER 5. COAST HIGHWAY & BAYSIDE 6. COAST HIGHWAY & JAMBOREE 7. COAST HIGHWAY & MAC ARTHUR 8. COAST HIGHWAY & MARGUERITE 9. NEWPORT & VIA LIDO 10. NEWPORT & HOSPITAL 11. JAMBOREE & SANTA BARBARA 12. JAMBOREE & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS 13. JAMBOREE & FORD 14. JAMBOREE & BISON 15. JAMBOREE & UNIVERSITY -1� The basis for the comparison includes existing traffic, regional growth and approved/committed project traffic. A list of the committed projects is provided in Table 7 Since the project is scheduled for completion in the Year 2002, the analyses were completed for the Year 2003 as required by the Ordinance. The proposed project peak 2.5 hour volumes (which are double the peak hour volumes) for the AM and PM were distributed onto the street system, and these trips were added to the "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis ". Appendix C contains the data for the individual intersections and the results are summarized in Table 8. The criteria established by the City of Newport Beach indicated that any intersection where the project traffic during the 2.5 hour peak exceeds one percent of existing plus regional growth plus approved project traffic must be analyzed in detail. Review of Table 8 indicates that eight (8) of the study intersections exceed the maximum one percent on at least one approach and must be considered critical. The eight (8) study intersections listed below were fiuther analyzed to determine potential impacts. Coast Hwy. & Riverside Coast Hwy. & Bayside Dr. Coast Hwy. & Jamboree Rd. Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Jamboree Rd &.San Joaquin Hills Jamboree Rd, & Ford Rd. ' Jamboree Rd. & University Jamboree Rd, & Bison Utilizing the "Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) procedure, ICU values were determined including traffic increases due to regional in growth and previously approved projects. The individual analysis sheets are contained Appendix D and summarized in Table 9. Review of Table 9 indicates that all of the study intersection would operate at acceptable Levels of Service (an ICU level of 0.90 or less) during both the AM and PM peak hours except the study intersection of Jamboree/Ford. This study intersection would operate at an unacceptable Level of WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel Job #971200 City of Newport Beach -14- r TABLE 7 COMMITTED PROJECT LIST Newport Dunes Hotel II PROJECT COMMITTED NUMBER . I - PROJECT NAME II 121 NEWPORT VILLAGE 124 CIVIC PLAZA 125 CORPORATE PLAZA & WEST 129 HOAG HOSPITAL EXTENSION 134 INTERPRETIVE CENTER 142 HOAG HOSPITAL EXPANSION 147 BALBOA BAY CLUB EXPANSION 148 FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION 154 TEMPLE BAT YAHM EXPANSION 156 CORONA DEL MAR PLAZA 157 FORD REDEVELOPMENT 158 TLA DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT 159 FOUR SEASONS EXPANSION 160 BISTANGO RESTAURANT 161 BURGER KING 163 1401 DOVE STREET 555 CIOSA - IRVINE PROJECT 910 NEWPORT DUNES 930 CITY OF IRVINE DEVELOPMENT TABLE 8 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION Newport Dunes Hotel STUDYMTERSECTION PEAK15 HOUR PERCENTAGES NB SB EB WB AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Coast Highway & Balboa -Superior 0 0 0 0 0.13 0.00 0.63 0.19 Newport & Hospital 0.34 0.27 0.34 0 0 0 0 0 Newport & Via Lido 0.23 0 0.29 0.12 0 0 0 0 Coast Highway & Riverside 0 0 0 0 0.62 0 1.16 0.38 Coast Highway & Tustin 0 0 0 0 0.66 0 0.95 0.45 Coast Highway & Bayshore-Dover 0 0 0.25 0 0.60 0 0.86 0.34 Coast Highway & Bayside 0 0 61.18 34.52 0.58 0 2.07 0 Coast Highway & Jamboree 0 0 2.61 0 1.59 0.99 0.85 0 Coast Highway & Mac Arthur 0 0 0.81 0 0.73 0.37 0.13 0 Coast Highway & Marguerite 0 0 0 0 0.29 0.08 0.14 0 Jamboree & Santa Barbara 1.80 1.64 1.88 0 0 0 0 0 Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 1.81 1.24 1.24 0 0 0 0 0 Jamboree & Ford 1.42 0.86 1.68 0 0 0 0 0 Jamboree & University 1 1.73 1.14 1.73 0 0 0 0 0 Jamboree & Bison 1 1.55 1.06 1.73 0 0 0 0 0 M M M M M MM: M M Mao Mao M M`Mao TABLE 9 INTERSECTION ANALYSES SUMMARY Newport Dunes Hotel STUDYINTERSECTION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU VALVES) EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING + GROWTH + COMMITTED PROJECTS EXISTING+ GROWTH +COMMITTED PROJECTS +PROJECT CONDITIONS EXISTING + GROWTH +COMMITTED PROJECTS + PROJECT CONDITIONS WIMITIGATION MEASURES AMPK HR PMPK HR AMPKHR PMPKHR AMPKHR PMPKHR AMPKHR PMPKHR & Riverside 0.75 0.75 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.82& Bayside 0.68 0.68 0.76 0.79 0.80 0.82 & Jamboree 0.70 0.75 0.77 0.86 0.78 0.87 - Santa Barbara E 0.50 0.63 0.68 0.78 0.69 0.78 - San Joaquin 0.57 0.71 0.66 0.85 0.67 0.85 - Ford 0.63 0.78 0.79 0.94 0.79 0.94 - (1,2) Jamboree & University 0.62 0.62 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.69 - - Jamboree & Bison 0.55 0.60 0.66 0.71 0.67 0.71 - - 11) No significant project impact. There was no increase to V/C'ratio due to the proposed project. 2) An eastbound free right turn will be constructed within the next five years, which will reduce the ICU values. -1� Service, ICU levels of 0.94, during the PM peak hour. This unacceptable level would be obtained under conditions without the project and maintained (unchanged) when the proposed project is , added. A note should be made that at the study intersection of Jamboree/Ford an eastbound free right turn will be constructed within the next five years, which will reduce the ICU value. The ICU levels at the study intersection of Jamboree/Ford remain unchanged when the project is added, which indicates that the proposed project has an insignificant impact upon the study intersection; and therefore, no improvements would be needed with addition of the proposedproject. FUTURE CONDITIONS -LONG RANGE GENERAL PLAN Based upon information from the City of Newport Beach, a model run of the area utilizing the NBTAM was conducted by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., providing traffic daily forecast data on road segments andpeakhourdata at the study intersections underLongRange General Plan Baseline conditions both with and without the project. , Lone Ranee Baseline Conditions Without the Project A model run was performed under baseline conditions without the project. Figu?e 4 illustrates the ' daily volumes on the road system within the vicinity of the proposed project under Long Range General Plan conditions without the project. Baseline intersections analyses under the Long Range General Plan conditions without the project were also conducted at each of the study intersections. The ICU worksheets can be found in Appendix D and summarized in Table 10. As shown in Table 10, under Long Range baseline conditions without the project, all of the study intersections would operate at an acceptable Level of Service during both the AM and PM peak hours except for the study intersections of Coast Highway/Balboa-Superior (1.16/F-PM), Coast WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel Job #971200 City of Newport Beach 2-01+ y� jj ocl wut 15 IW w HACKBAY is Sti b e� TES 6 10 1 12NII l% 'rs I w ?0 22 ` g 10 8 12 24 t 5fN o 13 m O -4s 53 ' ri 46 4 j M 6 6? 40 loam Z9 3a 101! 'ra BA t 7 U 1'k ? �+ �n 'S 6 Is 20 , �yta �• -13 N ORT MY a PACIFIC 40 39 ° OCEAN LONG RANGE ADT VOLUMES - WITHOUT PROJECT LEGEND - (000 S) GENERAL PLAN BASELINE CONDITIONS WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. FIGURE 4 TABLE 10 INTERSECTION ANALYSES SUMMARY - LONG RANGE CONDITIONS Newport Dunes Hotel STUDYINTERSECTION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU VALUES) LONGRANGEBASELINE CONDITIONS WITHOUTPROJECT LONGRANGEBASELINE CONDITIONS WITHPROJECT CHANGEIN ICULEVEL (DIFFERENCE) LONGRANGEBASELINE CONDITIONS WITHPROJECT 97THIMPROVEMENTS AMPSHR PMP%HR AMP%HR PMP%HR AMPSHR PMP%HR AMPSHR PMPSHR Coast Highway & Balboa -Superior 0.85 1.16 0.86 1.14 0.01 -0.02 n/a n/a Newport & Hospital 0.77 0.79 0.75 0.80 -0.02 0.01 n/a n/a Newport & Via Lido 0.77 0.70 0.77 0.70 0.00 0.00 n/a n/a Coast Highway & Riverside 0.83 1.11 0.82 1.08 -0.01 -0.03 n/a n/a Coast Highway & Tustin 0.78 0.72 0.77 0.72 -0.01 0.00 n/a n/a Coast Highway & Bayshore-Dover 0.68 0.83 0.68 0.83 0.00 0.00 n/a n/a Coast Highway & Bayside 0.74 0.94 0.79 1.04 0.05 0.10 0.72 0.91 Coast Highway & Jamboree 0.75 0.83 0.76 0.82 0.01 -0.01 n/a n/a Coast Highway & Mac Arthur 0.57 0.73 0.57 0.74 0.00 0.01 n/a n/a Coast Highway & Marguerite 0.89 0.80 0.92 0.84 0.03 0.04 (1) (1) Jamboree & Santa Barbara 0.56 0.91 0.55 0.90 -0.01 -0.0I n/a n/a Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 0.70 0.71 0.70 0.71 0.00 0.00 n/a n/a Jamboree & Eastbluff-Ford 1.01 0.98 1.02 0.99 0.01 0.01 0.84(2t 0.87at Jamboree&University 0.64 0.88 0.65 0.88 0.01 0.00 n/a n/a Jamboree & Bison 0.57 0.85 0.59 0.85 0,02 0.00 n/a n/a r On No (mown improvements have been identified. Based upon information from the City of Newport Beach Engineering Department, an eastbound free right turn lane improvement is planned to be in place within the next five years. ,r I= M No so I= M a* I I —19— I Highway/Riverside (1.11/F-PM), Coast HighwayBayside (0.94/E-PM), Jamboree/Santa Barbara (0.91/E-PM) and Jamboree/Eastbluff-Ford (1.01/F-AM, 0.98/E-PM) Lone Rance Baseline Conditions With the froiect Currently within the model there is data which reflects uses on the proposed project site which are no longer valid. These uses were deducted from the appropriate zones and changes were made to the data within the model to reflect what is currently being presented for the proposed project. Figure S illustrates the daily volumes under Long Range General Plan conditions with the project. The volumes indicate that there is a slight increase in the surrounding streets of Pacific Coast Highway, Jamboree, MacArthur and Newport Coast which is considered reasonable due to the type of land use proposed and the fact that these roads lead to freeways. A more detailed analyses of the project impacts upon the surrounding street system was completed with the analyses of the study intersection operations. The study intersections were analyzed under Long Range General Plan conditions with the project. Table 10, which was presented earlier, shows that the study intersections of Coast Highway/Balboa- Superior (1.14/F-PM), Coast Highway/Riverside (1.08/F-PM), Coast HighwayBayside (1.04/E- PM), Coast Highway/Marguerite (0.92/E-AM) and Jamboree/Eastbluff--Ford (1.02/F-AM, 0.99/E- PM) all operating at unacceptable Levels of Service. Also presented on Table 10 are the change in the ICU levels which show an increase or decrease due to the addition of the proposed project. There may be a decline in the ICU values due to the change in land use from what was previously assumed in the model for this site and what is now being proposed. As shown in Table 10, with the proposed project, the critical study intersections of Coast Highway/Balboa-Superior and Coast Highway/Riverside would have ICU values that decrease when WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel Job #971200 City of Newport Beach cn w iG N v m 201 ~SmC CcLum HAL7C m �� 0 �h GCS M DAY 1 � * 10 5 Jom f 22 6 �� 11 12 R �d Y4 ism 13 >> a b N p > > 54 48 11 ♦ U 1 sr fi ut 9 i 69 * 40 wanr�Y 30 35 ' '• ,1 A� S e4 19 73 lawporcr 6 41 A9 \_ � 22 39 { PACIFIC OCEAN LONG RANGE ADT VOLUMES - WITHNEWPORT DUNES PROJECT LEGEND - (000W) GENERAL PLAN BASELINE CONDITIONS WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. FIGURE S N• am am fm do' ,ow go m iM lllll� m I= so r o an AW ` NNE I -20- the project is added and therefore no improvements would be required. In addition, the study intersection of Jamboree/Eastbluff--Ford is proposed to have a City planned improvement of an eastbound free right turn lane implemented within the next five years which would improve the intersection operations to an acceptable level. The City of Newport Beach was contacted to discuss improvements at the study intersection of Coast Highway/Marguerite. Currently, there are no improvements which could be provided at this study, intersection which would be feasible. The study intersection of Coast Highway/Bayside, which is the project main access, would require the following improvements in order to mitigate at least the project's impact. ❑ Restripe the southbound through/right lane to a left/through combination lane. ❑ Add a separate southbound right turn lane. ❑ Maintain separate phasing in the north/south direction. With these improvements in place, the study intersection of Coast Highway/Bayside would operate at an acceptable Level of Service during the AM (0.72/C) peak hour but would continue to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during the PM peak hour (0.91 /E). Under Long Range Baseline conditions without the project the model indicates that the study intersection of Coast Highway/Bayside would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during the PM peak hour with an ICU value of 0.94. Table 10 indicates that these improvements would mitigate all the project impacts and the study intersection would operate at slightly better ICU level (0.91). PROJECT ACCESS AND ON -SITE CIRCULATION As stated earlier in this study, access to the project site is obtained via Bayside Drive. Currently Bayside Drive, from Coast Highway to the marina entrance, is two lanes undivided with on -street parking. WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hote Job #971200 City of Newport Beach -2� The current right-of-way along Bayside Drive is 80 feet. It is recommended that Bayside Drive provide a 12 foot travel lane and a five foot on street bike facility for each direction with an eight foot parking bay on the south side ofBayside Drive, east of the trailer park entrance. Left turnlanes shall be provided at the entrance to the Bayside Village Trailer Park. Advance pedestrian crossing warning signs along with pavement marking should be provided before the entrance to the Bayside Village Trailer Park for both the northbound and southbound direction. A Class I Bikeway 12 feet in width shall be provided on the west side of Bayside Drive and a six foot sidewalk shall also be , provided along Bayside Drive. The intersection of Bayside Drive and the internal street to the site, which is a "T"-intersection, should have a traffic control of STOP signs on all legs. The internal street should provide one lane in each direction with a width acceptable to the City. At the eastern end of the internal street there should be a gate or some type of barrier that restricts non -service vehicles from going between the Newport Dunes Resort trailer park and the proposed project. Deliveries to the hotel complex would access the site via Bayside Drive and then proceed northerly within the site. The service access for deliveries is located on the northerly side of the entry and parking garage. This on -site route is separated from the existing mobile home park by a parking area, as well as landscaping. I Main access to the parking garage is on the third level; however, a secondary access to the parking I garage is on the ground level. It is recommended that the vehicles exiting the parking garage at this secondary access be controlled by a STOP sign. There is a traffic circle that provides access to the hotel entry and ground level parking for the time share units and marina which should be signed "Keep Right" for all approaches. r WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel Job #971200 City of Newport Beach -22- Currently, the final site plan is not available for the parking structure design. The following suggestions should be kept in mind when designing the circulation within the parking structure: 1) Adequate space should be allowed for vehicles to pass one another without encroaching upon the opposing lanes; 2) The parking isles should provide adequate circulation with no "dead ends" where vehicles may not be able to turn around; 3) Parking level three or the entry level should provide exclusive parking spaces for checking in and out of the hotel and valet parking only to prevent parking within the hotel porte-cochere area. When a site plan becomes available with the final parking structure design, it should be reviewed by a qualified traffic engineer. BUSSING The developer of the site was contacted to obtain data on the amount of bussing which may be expected at this site. Based upon a letter to one of our staff members, which can be found in Appendix E, there is very little information available on bussing within the hotel industry. The following is a synopsis of what may be expected. The design of this hotel as a destination resort is expected to keep busing to a minimum; however, there may be some occasions where buses may be made available to spouses attending conferences to join other spouses on conference -sponsored activities to local shopping areas or other attractions. It is projected that these group -oriented activities will take place mainly during the week and at off- peak times. It is policy of the hotel that no more than one-half of the rooms may be retained to any one group. Therefore, for a 600 room hotel 300 rooms would be the maximum size of any group staying at the Newport Dunes Hotel. The maximum number of bus occupants during the daytime would be 300 or spouses only. The maximum number of bus occupants during the evening would be 600 or the attendees of the conference and their spouses. If a bus can hold 50 people, a "worst case" scenario WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel Job #971200 City of Newport Beach would mean 6 busses for the afternoon and 12 busses in the evening. It should be noted that these numbers are based upon a "worst case" scenario and based upon the experience of the developer, it is more likely that 1/4 to %: as many busses may be more realistic once or twice during the week. Arrival and departures of these busses would not be at once but rather staggered. It should be noted that it is the policy ofthe hotel that no idling of vehicles is allowed once on site and there is adequate room on -site for buses to queue. The site plan was reviewed regarding on -site circulation of buses and found to be adequate. PARKING The parking analyses have been directed toward the evaluation of the parking supply to accommodate existing and future parking demands. All parking for the proposed project will take access via Bayside Drive; however, there is availability for overflow parking on the east side of the lagoon via Backbay Drive. If parking is needed on the east side of the lagoon, trams will be available to provide transportation tothehotel. Field data for the entire parking areafor the Newport Dunes resort was colle4ed. A total ofthree (3) parking scenarios are shown for the proposedproject. The first scenario contains * 600 room hotel with the associated amenities and includes the existing marina. Scenario 2 includes a 400 room hotel with the associated amenities along with 100 time share units and the existing marina. A third scenario was completed in an evaluation ofparking under amaximum use scenario. The most recent site plan indicates that on the west side of the lagoon, the proposed project will provide both surface parking and aparking structure for atotal of 1,220 parking spaces. The parking lot located on the east side of the lagoon provides a total of 815 parking spaces. WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel , Job #971200 City of Newport Beach -24- Existing Conditions Currently there are two parking areas that serve the Newport Dunes Resort area. Parking-ispro�d via Bayside Drive which serves solely the marina; and -parking via -Back Bay Drive which serves the Back Bay Caf —BoatL-attnch-area,-visitor parking for the trailer park and activities for the swimming lagoon (i.e. picnic area, playground, water sport rentals, etc.), The only connection provided between the two parking areas is a pedestrian bridge located on the north side of the swimming lagoon. The parking area located via Bayside Drive currently has a total of 505 parking spaces and 815 parkig-spaces are located in the parking area via B_ack-Bay-Drixe, for a total of 1,320 parking spaces. Field Studies Parking counts were conducted of the existing Newport Dunes Resort to establish a peak parking rate for the marina facility. As stated earlier all of the parking for Newport Dunes Resort was counted. The parking lot, via Back Bay Drive, was counted for infdrmational purposes. Both parking facilities were counted on Saturday, April 18,1998 and Sunday, April 19,1998 between the hours of 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM. A previous parking study of this area surveyed from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM, with the peak occurring at 2:00 PM2. The current study was conducted to verify these prior results for the marina use. It should be noted that the weekend which was selected to complete the counts was one of the first sunny weekends in months. In addition, Sunday (4/19/98) was "Earth Day at the Bay", which may provide conservative results. Table 11 presents the results of the existing parking demand counts at the Newport Dunes Resort. As shown in Table 11 the peak parking period for the entire Newport Dunes Resort was on Sunday 2 "Phases 11 and III of the Newport Dunes Redevelopment Plan Parking Study"; Weston Pringle & Associates; September 5, 1989. WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel Job #971200 City of Newport Beach TABLE 11 PARKING SURVEY SUMMARY - EXISTING COUNT DATA NEWPORT DUNES RESORT Newport Dunes Hotel DAYTIME NUMBER OF PARKED CARS PARKING LOT VIA BAYSIDEDR, (505 Spaces) PARSING LOT BACSBAYDR. (815 Spaces) TOTAL (1,320 Spaces) Saturday. 4118198 -- - " 10:00 AM ill 141 252 10430 AM 119 158 277 11:00 AM 126 171 297 11:30 AM 138 222 360 Noon 159 235 394 12:30 PM 163 258 421 1:00 PM 166 272 438 1:30 PM 178 293 471 2:00 PM 185 307 492 Sunday: 4119198 10:00 AM 110 249 259 10:30 AM 122 297 419 11:00 AM 131 315 446 11:30 AM 146 354 500 Noon 163 397 560 12:30 PM 172 419 591 1:00 PM 184 431 615 1:30 PM 193 423 616 2:00 PM 196 408 604 I 11 I 11 I —26- L I. I I -1 1 1 II I] I It (4/19/98) at 1:30 PM with 616 parked vehicles. The peak parking period for the marking lot via Bayside Drive was Sunday at 2:00 PM with 196 pazke ehicl�s. Parking Demand - Based upon City Code The City of Newport Beach parking codes were referenced to obtain parking requirements for the proposed project. Table 12 lists the City Parking Code requirements utilized in this study. As shown in Table 12, based upon city code under Scenario 1, the 600 room hotel which includes banquet/meeting rooms, personal services, retail and a restaurant would require 1,470 parking spaces. Parking needs for the existing boat slips would be an additional 344 parking spaces for a total of 1,814 parking spaces. Utilizing City parking codes for Scenario 2, which includes a 400 room hotel and associated amenities which were listed above and 100 time share units would require 1,450 parking spaces. The existing boat slips would require a total of 344 parking spaces for a total parking demand under Scenario 2 of 1,794 parking spaces. As stated earlier the proposed project will provide a total of 1,220 parking spaces which results in a parking shortage under Scenarios 1 and 2 utilizing the City's parking code requirements. Parking Demand - Based upon Current Parking Counts Marina The existing marina, which has a total of 430 boat slips, (t Mips in front of the Back Bay Caf6, 90 slips adjacent to the pedestrian bridge and 325 slips west of the pedestrian bridge) will remain within the area of the proposed project. In order to determine the number of parking spaces required for the marina use, a peak parking rate was established. Associates at the Newport Dunes Resort were contacted to ascertain what percentage of the manna use, which are associated with the boat slips, utilize the parking lot via Bayside Drive. Based upon WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel Job #971200 City of Newport Beach TABLE 12 PARKING DEMAND Newport Dunes Hotel PARSING DEMAND BASED UPON CITYZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS Hotel 1 Space /2 Guest Rooms Time Share Units 1.2 Spaces / I Time Share Unit Banquet/MeetingArea I Space/SO Square Feet Personal Services I Space 1250 Square Feet Restaurants I Space 140 Square Feet Marina 0.8 Spaces /Per Berth Retail I Space / 250 Square Feet Scenario 1: 600 Room Hotel Scenario 2: 400 Room Hotel/100 Time Share Units Hotel 400 Rms 200 Hotel 600 Rms 300 Time Share Units 100 Units 120 Banquet/Meeting 41,000 SF 820 Banquet/Meeting 41,000 SF 820 Personal Services 6,250 SF 25 Personal Services 6,750 SF 27 Retail 3,000 SF 12 Retail 2,000 SF 8 Restauran$l1 12,500 SF 313 Restauran$'> 11,000 SF 275 Marina 430 Slips 344 Marina 430 Slips 344 ffT-0—Tx—L---S7A CES REQULIREZ) 1514 TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED t::G::j. (1) The narkine rate for restaurant excluded souare footage for the pool bar and toilet/support uses. These uses were assumed in the "hotel" rate. PARMNG DEMAND BASED UPON PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE SITE AND CURRENTPARSING COUNTS Scenario 1: 600 Room Hotel Scenario 2: 400 Room Hotel/.100 Time Share Units Hotel 600 Rms 708(2) Hotel Time Share Units 400 Rms 100 Units 472(2) 120 Restaurant (Assumed 50% Internal) 12,500 SF 157 Restaurant (Assumed 50% Internal) 11,000 SF 138 Marina(3) 430 Slips 245 Marina(3) 430 Slips 245 TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED 1,110 TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED 975 (2) Parking rate utilized for the Hotel land use (1.18 spaces/room) includes uses such as Banquet/Meeting rooms, Personal Services and Retail. (3) A parking rate for the boat slips of 0.57 was obtained and verified through previous studies at the site and recent count data. I I -28- I I I fl II 1 1 II I discussions with Newport Dunes staff, it was determinedshat a roximat y_80 percent of marking for the marina boat slips park in the parking lot via Baysi n've. Currently there area total of430 boat slips which would indicate that parking for 344 slips are located in the parking lot via Bayside Drive. The existing counts show a peakarking demann of 196 parked.vehicles in the B-ay_sid Drive parking lot. This peak represents a ratio of 0.57 parked vehicles per slip. A previous study' of this site had completed field studies of the marina which indicated a peak parking demand for the marina of 0.57 parked vehicles per slip. This previous study verifies the findings presented earlier. Although it was determined that approximately 80 percent of the parking for the marina boat slips park in the Bayside Drive parking area, for a "worst case" analysis it was assumed that there would be a parkin_gjneedJbr-a1U30 slur 2 sparking spaces in the Bayside Drive parking area. Hotel Data were collected from previously prepared studies on hotel parking ratios. A parking study' which was previously prepared for the Newport Dunes Resort was referenced to obtain hotel parking rates which had be utilized and approved in the past for this site. Within the previous Newport Dunes parking report, a total of six parking rates were shown for six different hotels. As stated in the previous Newport Dunes parking report, the Del Coronado, La Costa and Newporter hotels were found to best represent the planned facility. An average parking ratio of 1.17 was established for these three hotels and was utilized in the previous study for a proposed hotel. Ibid. 4 lbid. WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hote1 Job #971200 City of Newport Beach a Another hotel parking stud? has been completed by WPA Traffic Engineering which included count data of the existing Four Seasons Hotel with functions taking placein the ballroom facilities. Based upon the count data and the number of rooms in the hotel a parking rate of 1.18 was established. It should be noted that both of the hotel rates, 1.17 and 1.18, include such amenities as banquettmeeting rooms, personal services, retail and restaurants. I In order to provide a conservative analysis, the 1.18 parking rate was utilized for the hotel land use I in this study. As shown in Table 12, under Scenario 1, the 600 room hotel would require 708 parking spaces. Under Scenario 2, the 400 room hotel would require 472 parking spaces and the 100 r time share units would require 120 parking spaces. Currently, there is.no parking data available on time share units; therefore the number of spaces required for the time share units were based upon City code requirements. I Restaurant I As mentioned above, the hotel rate does include restaurants that may be located within the hotel; however, there were some concerns noted that there may be some restaurant use from outside the r resort facility. A traffic study that was prepared for "The Disneyland Resort" 6 was referenced to obtain data on the percentage of trips that may be from adjacent hotels or other nearby areas. The study indicates that approximately 40 percent of the trips to the hotel restaurant were from outside the hotel. u In order to provide a "worst case" analysis it was assumed that 50 percent of the restaurant trips would be from outside the proposed project. The City parking code was applied to the proposed restaurant square footage in both parking scenarios and a 50 percent reduction was taken forintemal hotel use. "Four Seasons Hotel Expansion"; WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc.; April 9, 1998. "The Disneyland Resort Traffic Study"; Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.; November 6, 1992. WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel Job #971200 City of Newport Beach -30- M As shown in Table 12, under Scenario 1, a total of 157 parking spaces would be required for the external restaurant trips and 138 parking spaces would be required under Scenario 2. Ana!yAes Table 12 summarizes the parking needs based upon previous studies and current parking count data. As stated earlier in this report, under Scenario 1 the marina land use would require 245 parking spaces, the hotel land use would require 708 parking spaces and the external trips to the restaurant land use would require 157 parking spaces for a total of 1,110 parking spaces. Scenario 2, which ' includes both hotel and timeshare land uses would require 472 and 120 parking spaces, respectively, 245 parking spaces for the manna, and 13 8 parking spaces for the external trips to the restaurant land use for a total of 975 parking spaces. Scenario 1 of the proposed project would require a total of 1,110 parking spaces and the proposed project is providing a total of 1,220 parking spaces for a parking surplus o 11 lapa d spaces. Under Scenario 2 there is a need for 975 parking spaces with a parking supply of 1,220 parking spaces for a parking surplus of 245 parking spaces. ' A note should be made that a conservative parking analysis has been presented with the higher parking rate utilized for the hotel parking (1.18 vs. 1.17), a higher percentage of external trips associated with the restaurant located inside the hotel (50% vs. 40%) and it was assumed that all of ' the marina parking for the boat slips would utilize the parking lot via Bayside Drive. The maximum use scenario entailed all of the hotel rooms occupied, the marina use and restaurant use would be fully parked', and the meeting/ballrooms within the proposed hotel would be occupied by non -guests. Table 13 provides a parking summary under these conditions. In order to obtain the conditions where the meeting/ballrooms would be occupied by non -guests, the data presented in Table 4 was utilized. As shown in Table 4, the peak summer month for Catered WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel Job #971200 City of Newport Beach TABLE 13 PARKING DEMAND CONDITIONS UNDER A MAXIMUM USE SCENARIO Newport Dunes Hotel NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES LAND USE REQUIRED AT FULL CAPACITY 'Hotel 708 Meeting Area Used by Non -Guests 386 Restaurant 157 (Assumed 50% Internal) Marina 245 TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED (1,496) TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED: 2,035 1 - West Side of Lagoon Via Bayside Dr. (1,220 Spaces) - East Side of Lagoon Via Backbay Dr. �W Spamj ' EXISTING PEAK PARKING DEMAND: 431 East Side of Lagoon Via Backbay Drive PARKING SURPLUS 108 I _J I functions was in August with 1,644 guests over a one month period. When this data was gathered there were five Saturdays in the month of August, which means that as an average there were 329 guests utilizing the meeting/ballroom facilities during the peak summer month of August on a weekend day. A rate of 18.8 per 1,000 SF was established based upon the number of guests and the total square footage of meeting/ballroom space (329/17.5). Utilizing this rate, the proposed project is forecasted to expect 771 people on a summer weekend day. A conservative assumption was made that there would be at least two people per vehicle for a total of 386 parked vehicles for the proposed meeting/ballroom facilities. As shown in Table 13, there would be a parking demand of 1,496 parking spaces. As mentioned earlier in this study there are a total of 1,220 parking spaces provided on the west side of the lagoon via Bayside Drive. Under this scenario, there would be a need for overflow parking to be provided on the parking lot located on the east side of the lagoon via Backbay Drive. I Existing 1 I i l� 1 11 II indicate. that there is currently a peak parking demai parked vehicles on the�azking tot located on the east side of the lagoon (Sew a Tae ble 11) The excess -- -- parking needs from the hotel uses would require 276 parking spaces in that same parking lot for a total demand of 707 parking spaces on the east side of the lagoon. After all the parking needs met, there would be a parking.surplus between the two parking areas locate d on the east and side of the lagoon bf 1'08 parkin Representatives from the proposed project have indicated that shuttle services would be provided for guests parking on the east side of the lagoon to the hotel. SUMMARY This study has examined the traffic factors related to the proposed Newport Dunes Hotel project located within the City of Newport Beach. Estimates have been made of traffic to be generated by the proposed project and the ability of the road system to accommodate the added traffic. These —32— WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel Job #971200 City of Newport Beach analyses were completed to conform to the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. General Plan Long Range conditions were also examined utilizing data from the City's model. Access, on -site circulation and parking were also reviewed. The following are the principal findings of the study. 1. A trip generation rate comparison was completed between the "Hotel" land use and "Resort Hotel" landuse. The "Hotel" land use has higher trip generation rates which were utilized in this study. 2. A comparison was also completed regarding the amount of meeting space per hotel room. The comparison revealed that the proposed project'samount ofineetingspace per hotel room falls below the average. 3. Data was also provided for "catered" events in the ballroom/meeting room facilities during the weekend summer months. The data provided coincides with the weekend rates for "Hotel" land uses. 4. The proposed proj ect is estimated to generate 4,8 00 daily trip ends ofwhich 3 65 (215 In, 150 Out) would occur during the AM peak hour and 365 (180In, 185 Out) would occur during the PM peak hour. It should be noted that of the 4,800 daily trip ends estimated for the proposed project, 4,000 are currently in theNewport Beach General Plan, as defined by the 1988 Settlement Agreement. Afterthe400 trips in the 1988 Settlement Agreement for the site are subtracted from the proposed project trips, the estimated net new trips were 800 daily trip ends of which 150 (70 In, 80 Out) occurred during the AM peak hour and 55 (0In, 55 Out) occurred during the PM peak hour. WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel ' Job #971200 City ojNewport Beach 1J -34- I I I 1 d I 5. A total of 15 study intersections were examined. Eight of the study intersections exceeded the maximum one percent on at least one approach. 6. ICU analyses were completed for the eight study intersections. All of the study intersections would operate at acceptable ICU levels during both the AM and PM peak hours. The remaining two study intersections of Coast Hwy/Dover-Bayshore and Jamboree/Ford would operate at an unacceptable ICU level during the PM peak hour. However, there were no project impacts at these two study intersections and improvements by the project were not warranted under project opening day conditions. 7. Under Long Range General Plan conditions without the project all of the study intersections would operate at acceptable Levels of Service during both the AM and PM peakhours except forthe study intersections of Coast Highway/Balboa-Superior, Coast Highway/Riverside, Coast HighwayBayside, Jamboree/Santa Barbara and Jamboree/Eastbluff-Ford. 8. When the proposed project is added to the Long Range General Plan conditions, the study intersections of Coast Highway/Balboa-Superior, Coast Highway/Riverside, Coast HighwayBayside, Coast Highway/Marguerite and Jamboree/Eastbluff--Ford would operate at unacceptable Levels of Service. 9. The two study intersections of Coast Highway/Balboa-Superior and Coast Highway/Riverside would have ICU values that decrease when the project is added. 10. There is a City planned improvement at the study intersection ofJamboreeBastbluff- Ford which would provide acceptable operations under General Plan long range conditions with the project. WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel Job #971200 City of Newport Beach -31 11. Currently, there are no mitigation measures available which would be feasible for the study intersection of Coast Highway/Marguerite. ' 12. Access and on -site circulation was reviewed and recommendations made. M "worst 13. Based upon data provided by the developer on bussing activity, a case" scenario could mean 6 busses in the afternoon and 12 busses in the evening once or twice a week; however it is more likely that 1/4 to Y2 as many busses would be more realistic. 14. Design suggestions were made for the parking structure that is still being finalized. i " 15. All parking for the proposed project will take access via Bayside Drive;, however, l there is availabilityfor overflow parking on the east side of the la oon via Backba p 8 8 Y Drive. 16. The most recent site plan indicates that the proposed project will provide a total of both lot 1,220 parking spaces on a surface parking and within a parking structure via BaysideDrive and 815 parking spaces located on theparking lot located viaBackbay Drive. 1 17. Based upon previous parking studies and existing on -site field studies a parking / demand study was completed under two scenarios: 1) 600 Room Hotel and 2) 400 Room Hotel and 100 Time Share Units. Under Scenario l there would be_a parking ' surplus of 110 parking spaces and under Scenario 2 there would be a parking surplus of 245 parking spaces. WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel ' Job #971200 City of Newport Beach I -36- 18. Under the maximum use scenario, overflow parking would be required in the parking lot located via Backbay Drive. After all parking needs were met there would be a parking surplus of 108 parking spaces. ' PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENTS 1. The study intersection of Coast Highway/Bayside requires the following improvements under Long Range Baseline conditions with the project: ❑ Restripe the southbound through/right lane to a left/through combination lane. ❑ Add a separate southbound right turn lane. ❑ Maintain separate phasing in the north/south direction. 2. The following recommendation are for along Bayside Drive: ❑ Bayside Drive shall provide a 12 foot travel and a five foot on street bike facility for each direction with an eight foot parking bay on the south side of Bayside Drive east of the trailer park entrance. Left turn lanes shall be provided at the entrance to the Bayside Village Trailer Park. ❑ A Class I Bike path, 12 feet in width shall be provided on the west side of Bayside Drive, and a six foot sidewalk shall also be provided on Bayside Drive. ❑ Advance pedestrian crossing warning signs along with pavement markings should be provided before the entrance to the Bayside Village Trailer Park for both the northbound and southbound directions. The intersection of Bayside Drive and the internal street to the site, should have a STOP sign on all legs. 4. The internal street should provide one lane in each direction with lane widths that are acceptable to the City of Newport Beach. �` WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel Job #971200 City of Newport Beach 5. There should be a gate or barrier provided at the eastern end of the internal roadway to restrict non -service vehicles from going between theNewport Dunes Resort trailer park and the proposed project. 6. A STOP sign should be provided for vehicles exiting the parking garage on the ground level. 7. A "Keep Right" sign should be placed on all approaches to the traffic circle. 8. When a final parking structure site plan becomes available, it should be reviewed by a qualified traffic engineer. WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Newport Dunes Hotel Job #971200 City of Newport Beach WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. ■ TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ' June 4, 1999 1 Ms. Janet Divan Traffic Engineering Division City of Newport Beach ' P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 I ' SUBJECT: NEWPORTDUNESPARKING-ADDENDUM Dear Ms. Divan: This letter summarizes our review of existing parking space counts at the Newport Dunes Resort ' located in Newport Beach. OnFriday June 4,'l 999, a representative from the Newport Dunes Resort and a representative from WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. counted the entire parking area within the ' Newport Dunes Resort, except for the boat storage area located on the east side of the Lagoon. Table I lists the use and number of parking spaces associated with each use. UPDATED PARKING SPACE COUNT DATA The parking analyses Iocated within the traffic study which was prepared for the Newport Dunes Hotel, dated February 5, 1999 by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. was re-examined to determine if there were any changes to the parking spaces within the report and if so, to update the findings. The parking analysis begins on page 23 of the traffic study. 23421 South Pointe Drive • Suite 190 • Laguna Hills, CA 92653 • (949) 460-0110 • FAX: (949) 460-0113 TABLE 1 NEWPORT DUNES RESORT - EXISTING PARKING EAST PARKING Day Use Boat launch parking (40' spaces may be doubled and counted as two spaces) Cafe Parking spaces Wash rack parking Staff only parking at Caf6 T-Dock parking spaces at launch ramp Interpretive Center RV RESORT AND VILLAGE CENTER RV Registration and Check -In Administration Building Grocery Store Clubhouse area RV Resort (Car Parking Only) WEST SIDE PARKING Marina area total R MI. 138 (276) r . 40 7 8 8 5 12 5 5 6 87 M. Job #971200.add City ofNewport Beach I -3- As stated in the traffic study, on pages 23 and 24, the parking areas which were included in the analyses were the day use and the boat launch parking on the East side and the marina parking on the West side. As shown in the traffic study on pages 23 and 24, a total of 641 parking spaces were assumed in the day use area and 174 parking spaces in the boat launch parking area, which also included the Cafe parking for a total of 815 existingparki�spapes. A total of 505 parking spaces ' were assumedintheprevious ip ous traffic study for the marina use on the west side of the lagoon, for a total of 1,320 parking spaces. ' Based upon the updated counts shown in Table 1, there would be a total of 646 parking spaces available in the day use area and 138 parking spaces in the boat launchparking area for a total of784 ' parking spaces. In addition, the new marina parking counts established 488 existing parking spaces on the west side of the lagoon, for a total of 1,272 parking spaces. ' It should be noted that the remaining parking uses within the Newport Dunes Resort area would not be utilized by the new Hotel facilities and therefore were not included in the original traffic study; however, the existing parking space count was included for informational purposes. CHANGES TO PARKING ANALYSES As stated in the previous traffic report, the site plan for the proposed hotel indicates that proposed ' project will provide both surface parking and a parking structure for a total parking supply of 1,220 parking spaces which will be located on the west side ofthe lagoon. Based on the new parking space ' counts, 784 parking spaces will be available on the east side of the lagoon for the proposed project, for a total of 2,004 parking spaces. The following data can be found in Table 12 (page 27) and on pages 30-32 of the previous traffic study. Based upon Scenario 1, there would be a parking need for 1,110 parking spaces. As stated ' earlier there are a total of 1,220 parking spaces being provided on the west side of the lagoon which WPA Tragic Engineering, Inc. Newport Dunes Hotel Traffic Study Addendum ,' Job #971200.add City of Newport Beach -41 would provide for a parking surplus of 110 parking spaces. Scenario 2 established a parking need of 975 parking spaces, and based upon a parking supply of 1,220 parking spaces there would be a parking surplus of 245 parking spaces. Based upon a maximum use scenario, which is shown on Table 13 (page 31) of the traffic study, a total of 1,496 parking spaces are needed. Based upon the parking provided on the east side of the lagoon,1,220 parking spaces, and the existing parking located in the day use area and boat launch area, 784 parking spaces, a total of 2,004 parking spaces could serve the project. T-aking.into account the existing peak parking supply of 431 parking spaces on the east side ofthe lagoon, there wottjd beaparking_surplus -of parking spaces. I bre would be an adequate parking supply with a surplus of parking indicated under all scenarios. We trust that this additional information will be of assistance to you. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully submitted, WPA TRAFFICENGINEERING, INC. 0 ! - Weston S. Pnngle, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 WSP:HN #971200.add WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. Newport Dunes Hotel Traffic Study Addendum Job #971200.add City of Newport Beach r 11 r u 11 11 r J r r 11 Mpp r r 11, L P P E R N E W P O A T H A Y a � D 0 C I-Mi�� A r, P ««voor G M ! A CENTER �!1 s.rsrot otr+t / Rrnn.r_., gfBpEGy /fr.+.y_s.ts / IrMI(ldACt ilGtrfi l-0OtAS PttIR0.Yq awwmf uwwsso�ar aw+as rrw�.v ba,new x,eweu�nrss . ncworet rnfwuraoart�e ecrwx+e o«rAvgN.vmw rmtact«nA nusrenasr�trn «tsnoas zrwraeuxra�s ,Oew.ats r/tbs Located off Pacific a Coast Highway on North Bayside Drive, just minutes from Newport Beach's many attractions. J cw, is L ItM1W« ►teGf S:. f � e +�N E W P 0 R T 0 N N E S L A 0 0 0 N NOWT DUNS T eS0RI aO ARt NA 101 North Bayside Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 729-1100 APPENDIX A 24-Hour Count Summary F.1220Mu7rr1 24-HOUR DIRECTIONAL EXISTING COUNT DATA non c+yn.n.mn nmm�r_tmc+ LOCATION Bayside N/O PCF Bayside S/O PCH PCH W/O Bayside I APPENDIX A (Cant.) 24-HOUR DIRECTIONAL EXISTING COUNT DATA FOR SUMMER WEEKENDS LOCATION DATE DIRECTION DAILY "PEAK (Time - Vehicles) PMPEAK (Time- Vehicles) PCH E/O Bayside 8/15/98 (Saturday) EB 371368 11:15 - 2602 14:00 - 2944 WB 32,191 11:15 - 2295 13:15 - 2422 8/16/98 (Sunday) EB 32,902 11:15 - 2667 14:45 - 2814 WB 28,852 11:15 -1983 16:15 - 2377 8/22/98 (Saturday) EB 29,544 11:00 - 2125 15:45 - 2187 WB 33,455 11:15 - 2245 17:00 - 2429 8/23/98 (Sunday) EB 24,873 11:15 - 2031 14:45 - 2079 WB 29,434 11:15 -1993 105 - 2354 JamboreeN/O Backbay 8/15/98 (Saturday) NB 16,170 11:00 -1120 16:00 -1224 SB 19,437 11:15 -1582 13:30 -1621 8/16/98 (Sunday) NB 14,283 11:00 - 927 16,45 -1256 SB 16,270 11:15 -1480 12:00.1602 8/22/98 (Saturday) NB 160679 11:00 -1063 16:15 -1296 SB 1%310 11:00 -1531 12.15 -1579 8/23/98 (Sunday) NB 14,523 11:00 -1031 15:15 -1213 SB 16,266 11:15 -1464 12:00 -1476 I 1 J f� i� 11 11 I 11 1 11 1 II 1 1 F- L J t 1 Ll 1 24 HOUR ADT SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: BAYSIDE DRIVE NORTH OF COAST HIGHWAY DATE: SATURDAY -AUGUST 15,1998 FILE NO: 1A DIRECTIOW • SIB TIME 00-15 1$40 3045, HOUR TOTALS 00,00 9 5 8 131 35 01:00 2 9 1 31 15 02:00 4 1 1 21 8 03:00 31 7 5 21 17 04:00 01 1 5 51 11 05:00 71 0 1 31 11 06:00 7 5 17 141 43 07*00 9 19 14 121 54 05:00 16 36 37 19 108 09:00 40 29 20 34 123 10:00 40 27 39 42 148 11`.O0 43 40 35 27 145 12:00 421 46 33 56 177 01.00 411 301 27 47 145 14:00 391 711 38 581 206 15:00' 301 291 32 36 127 16:00 46 55 44 56 201 17:00' 48 46 47 35 176 18:00 38 48 58 37 181 19100 33 68 26 36 163 20:00 23 26 28 18 95 21:00. 9 17 10 171 53' 22:00 7 11 21 71 46 23.00 5 12 6 71 30 ' TOTAL 2318 AM PEAK HOUR 10:30-11:30 VOLUME 164 PM PEAK -HOUR 14:0D-15:00 VOLUME 206 DIRECTION: NS TIM 00-15 1530 -30.45 ••45-SD }TOUR 'TOTALS 00:001 7 2 1 0 10 01:00 1 0 2 1 4 02:00 7 0 0 2 9 03:00, 3 2 1 1 7 04:00: 0 21 2 0 4 05:00 5 2 2 3 12 06:00 7 6 3 ol 16 07.00 8 1 20 11 40 08:00 9 4 7 11 31 09:00 91 15' 17 16 57 10:00 19 28 20 24 91 11:001 20 271 22 32 101 12:00 25 271 23 19 94 13:00 21 331 32 36 122 14.00 35 221 32 32 121 15:00 20 261 15 19 80 16:00' 30 . 101 26 7 73 17:00 10 22 20 24 76 18.00 24 35 4 13 76 19:00 5 0 71 6 18 20:00 13 11 8 3 35 21:00 7 11 9 9 36 22:001 121 13 9 12 46 23-001 51 4 10 7 26 TOTAL 1185 AM PEAK HOUR ' 11:15-12:15 VOLUME 106 PM PEAK HOUR 13:15-14:15 VOLUME 136 TOTAL BI-DIRECTIONAL VOLUME 3503 II III , WILTEC (626) 564-1944 24 HOUR ADT SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. NEWPORT BEACH SAYSIDE DRIVE NORTH OF COAST HIGHWAY SUNDAY-AUGUST le, logo 18 DIRECTION: so TIM 00-15 15-30 30-0 45-M HOUR TOTAL'S 00:00 9 1 3 13 26 01:00 6 0 2 0 8 09,00 3 1 1 0 5 03:00 0 1 0 1 2 04.00 01 1 1 0 2 05.00 21 1 0 6 9 06:00 31 6 5 11 25 07:00 01 9 6 12 27 08:00 161 14 16 26 71 09:00 241 22 25 24 95 10:00 25 36 30 251 118 i 1:00 32 25 33 37 127 12,00 28 22 28 42 120 13:00 24 30 44 31 133 14:00 37 40 37 32 146 1500 24 491 44 42 159 18:00 311 37 59 44 171 11,00 321 27 291 341 122 14:00 39 30 35 28 132 19A0 42 29 26 18 115 20:00 18 16 20 27 81 21:00 a 14 8 4 32 22:00 7 7 5 4 23 0= 5 1 1 0 7 ITOTALI 1764 AM PEAK HOUR 11:00-12:00 VOLUME 127 PM PEAK HOUR 16:15-17:15 VOLUME 172 DIRECTION: I NO TIME 00-15 15-30 30-45 45-60 HOUR TOTAL$ 00,W 10 5 3 10 28 01:00 5 1 4 6 16 02:00 0 3 1 0 4 0100 01 1 2 0 3 04.00 1 1 2 7 11 05:00 2 0 2 7 11 06:00 1 $1 7 21 18 07:00 2 5 9 8 22 08:00 2 4 9 14 29 09:00 14 26 22 19 a5 10,130 26 18 28 26 9a 11:00 18 31 36 35 118 12:00 30 30 47 38 145 1*00 481 24 38 431 151 14:00 40 42 30 351 147 15:00 22 34 30 26 112 18-00 28 25 20 24 97 1'7:00 20 27 24 35 100 18:00 26 34 17 18 97 19.00 141 13 25 8 80 20;00 14 18 51 21.00 6 7 38 22.00 M74 4 a 20 23.1V 4 0 15 TOTAL 1482 AM PZAK HOUR 11:15-12:15 VOLUME 132 PM PEAK HOUR 13:30.14:30 VOLUME 163 TOTAL 91-DIRECTIONAL VOLUME (626) 564-1944 1 11 24 HOUR ADT SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: BAYSIDE DRIVE SOUTH OF COAST HIGHWAY DATE: SATURDAY-AUGUST 16,1996 FILE NO: 2A DIRECTION:.. NB TIME WAS .'1540. 3045 4"0 HOUR TOTALS 00:00 30 21 11 6 68 01,001 12 7 7 9 35 02:00 11 5 0 8 24 4)3.00 1 3 5 6 15 04,00 0 4 7 12 23 05.00 9 15 28 28 80 06:00 38 36 42 114 230 0700 139 152 153 196 640 08�0 168 200 162 169 699 09.W 2071 163 169 151 690 101,00• 1471 129 167 171 614 11:00 1711 169 161 145 646 12:00 2161 253 240 2081 917 13:00 2691 283 246 221 1019 14:00 2071 186 251 221 865 1500 2001 229 197 197 823 18:00 253 229 216 207 905 17:00 237 2131 235 251 936 18:00 2361 2401 200 171 846 10.00 158 162 1411 1561 615 20-00 142 120 124 1081 494 21:00 119 77 102 771 375 22.00 100 56 53 32 241 23.00 60 29 31 32 152 TOTAL 11952 AM PEAK HOUR 08:15-09:15 VOLUME 738 PM PEAK HOUR 13:00-14:00 VOLUME 1019 ;DIRECTION: SIB i� TIM -00-15 1=v 30 3"S :45-66 HOUR TOTALS' 1 00.001 61 431 35 29 168 i 01:00 j 37 21_1 31 36 125 02:00, 21 2 3 33 [ 03:00 71 _7 6 39 ! 04:00':. 8 201 411 38 107 05:00 j 40 33 51 107 231 i 06-m! 119 121 _ 102 141 483 i 07:00.• 161 199 201 239 800 08,001 233 229 278 264 1004 •: 09*001 198 215 231 264 908 i 10 001 233 221 229 2671 950 11:001 2451 226 233 221 924 r 12-:00-, 1991 202 224 206 831 11OD+' 229 216 207 169 821 14:00 199 239 214 208 860 i 15:002791 221 220 207 927 i 16:00 269 -2291 228 200 926 17:00 213 201 187 207 808 € 18:00 167 199 167 162 695 ? 19:00 121 142 129 169 661 { 20:00 107 90 112 97 406 120 80 107 99 406 �21:0�0 22:D01 701 561 7111 250 23 69F 691 70 691 277 TOTALI 13540 `AM PEAK HOUR 08:00-09:00 'VOLUME 1004 PM PEAK HOUR 14:15-15:15 .VOLUME 940 TOTAL BI-DIRECTIONAL VOLUME 25492 WILTEC (626) 564-1944 24 HOUR ADT SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC, PROJECT: NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: BAYSIDE DRIVE SOUTH OF COAST HIGHWAY DATE: SUNDAY-AUGUST 16,1998 FILE NO: 28 DIRECTION: NB TIME 0045 15-30 30-45 45.60 BOOR ra _ALS. DD:00 20 6 18 121 56 01:00 18 6 2 11 27 02:00 11 1 6 4 22 03:00 11 0 7 12 30 04.00 al 8 5 8 27 05:00 121 18 36 29 95 06:00 291 43 89 71 219 07:00 1291 116 188 126 556 0:00 1601 123 165 169 617 00.00 2001 156 123 132 1 811 10,00 1"1 132 167 172 815 14.00. 1451 132 143 122- 642 12:00 209 248 226 234 979 13.00 300 235 243 233 i011 14:00 250 200 199 200 855 15:00 196 229 244 290 959 18;00. 231 245 232 2091 1007 11,40d 299 321 287 2991 1186 16:00 2791 251 260 280 1059 19:00 109 183 229 200 781 20:00 178 162 112 150 Goa 21400 162 145 100 123 531 22:00 136 1291 133 107 505 23:00 80 87 73 84 264 ITOTALI 13164 AM PEAK HOUR 08:30-09:30 VOLUME 890 PM PEAK HOUR 16:45-17:45 VOLUME 1188 WILTEC DIRECTION: SB 00-15 15-30' 30.45 4S-W HOUR TOTALS 00:00 33 35 36 44 148 01:00 i 23 29 22 18 90 02:001 11 12 20 11 54 03:00:' 11 8 8 16 43 04:00' 12 181 18 211 85 D5:001 8 11 18 22 57 08:001 15 30 24 61 130 07:001 85 65 79 158 305 08:00' 100 133 128 183 544 09:001 161 187 200 202 750 10:001 173 200 1781 185 718 11:001 200 2001 215 207 022 12:001 202 192 214 210 828 13:DO1 220 218 197 195 $28 14:001 139 177 183 189 on 15:001 181 207 21 216 825 18:001 183 178 190 1711 722 17:001 185 178 144 1651 650 16:001 143 180 131 130 564 19:001 141 136 124 103 504 20:001 75 72 62 100 309 21:00 67 48 43 38 In 22:001 28 29 21 21 99 23:00 201 191 7 7 53 TOTAL 9844 AM PEAK HOUR 11,15-12:15 VOLUME 824 PM PEAK HOUR 12:30-13:30 VOLUME 888 4 TOTAL 01-DIRECTIONAL VOLUME 23008 r r (626) 564-1944 r I t II 24 HOUR ADT SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: COAST HIGHWAY WEST OF BAYSIDE DRIVEWAY DATE: SATURDAY - AUGUST 15, 1998 FILE NO: 3A DIRECTION: EB fIM 0015 15 30 30-45 . 45-60 HOUR TOTALS 00:00 50 501 34 431 177 O1:OD 30 291 22 21 102 02:00• 19 11 11 14 55 03:00 121 11 7 11 41 04:00 151 III_ 2133 80 051w 361 621 92 125 315 06:00 81 1021 139 215 537 07:00 200 2291 282 300 1091 08-00 338 333 383 509 1663 09:00 459 539 526 546 2070 '10.00 625 571 599 661 2356 11:00 635 651 664 706 2656 12:00 6691 719 642 654 2684 43,06 7051 680 667 669 2721 .14:00 7361 7421 689 682 2849 15:00 6361 7471 695 695 2773 18;00 678 6861 643 665 2671 17:00 672 6151 699 604 2590 13.00 611 642 605 597 2455 19 OD 529 560 485 500 2074 20,00 470 427 394 4141 1705 21:00 363 362 348 359 1432 22:00 345 338 336 336 1355 23:00 268 208 203 197 876 TOTAL 37148 AM PEAK HOUR 11:16-12:16 VOLUME'. 2690 PM PEAK HOUR 14:00-16:00 VOLUME 2849 WILTEC DIRECTION:.' TIME! 00-15 ' 15-1Q _WB 30-45 _ ' 46-60. • HOUR TOTALS 00:00 1 68 711 69 46 254 01:001 28 31 29 21 109 i 02:001 23 20 14 15 72 1 03:001 13 11 10 15 49 04:00 1 18 19 31 39 107 05:00, 43 102 120 128 393 06:001 61 83 120 143 407 07,00 143 164 190 233 730 1 08:001 2a8l 3271 325 380 1320 09:001 4001 4071 427 505 1739 24 HOUR ADT SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: COAST HIGHWAY WEST OF BAYSIDE DRIVEWAY DATE: SUNDAY-AUGUST IS, 1goo FILE NO: 38 DIRECTION: I ES 'TIME 00-15 1 15.30. 30.45 1 46-60 HOUR, TOTALS 00:00 174 140 101 120 535 01.100 108 93 117 95 413 02:00 64 53 51 30 198 03:00 25 12 22 19 78 D4:00 31 30 28 41 130 05:00 271 201 46 57 159 06100 51 72 77 127 327 07:00 117 136 184 245 662 08:00 198 250 363 331 1142 09:00 328 353 411 521 1813 10:00 509 470 530 556 2071 11.00 539 625 773 643 2580 12:00 SMI 706 $48 056 25M 13:00 8931 680 610 883 2652 14:00 7011 692 035 648 2676 15:00 706 6521 683 642 2663 16,00 609 5991 592 (1071 2407 17'.00 653 502 013 6261 2264 1E:00 517 459 438 517 1929 t9:06 429 403 423 409 1724 20:00' 372 343 342 293 1350 21:00' 315 243 249 262 1069 22:00 244 105 151 121 881 23:00 115 -iisl 73 398 JTOTALI 32307 AM -PEAK HOUR 11:15-12:15 VOLUME 2627 PM PEAK HOUR 12:15-13:15 VOLUME 2703 DIRECTION: WB TIME, 00-15 15-30 30.45 4W _ HOUR TOTALS 00:00; 243 164 186 151 764 01:00 134 122 108 126 490 02:00' 98 66 45 41 248 03:D0: 27 19 20 19 85 04:00 ! 211 20 17 10 66 05:00', 20 23 29 33 105 08:00; 37 621 58 99 254 07:00: 91 125 125 189 530 08:00; 203 268 228 280 959 09:001 284 309 316 383 1292 10:00� 458 407 405 439 1707 11:00; 472 497 493 581 2023 12:001 551 677 523 562 2203 13,001 503 5251 544 570 2142 14:00 536 542 $44 534 2158 15:001 576 582 547 662 2260 16:00'. 538 615 $32 595 2380 17:00; $28 589 593 5701 2380 1800T 042 827 574 496 2339 11100; 508 400 483 438 . 1876 20.001 423 404 399 347' 1573 21 00: 339 324 281 313 1237 22: !0 291 27 2252 181 094 23:00! 165' 146 134 9M 643 TOTAL 30614 AM PEAK HOUR 11:15-12:15 VOLUME 2102 PM PEAK HOUR 16:15-17:15 El VOWME 2470 TOTAL BI-DIRECTIONAL VOLUME 82921 WILTEC (626) 564-1944 1 j 24 HOUR ADT SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: COAST HIGHWAY EAST OF BAYSIDE DRIVE DATE: SATURDAY -AUGUST 15, 1998 FILE NO: 5A DIRECTION: I EB TIME 00.15. 15-30 3045. 45.6Q HOUR TOTALS: 00.00 51 461 30 37 164 01:00' 29 271 22 18 96 02:00 21 61 14 8 49 03:OQ 9 10 4 10 33 04:00 24 16 22 36 98 05,00 39 69 88 141 337 06:00 07-00. 119 1611 168 184 123 2221 169 2521 579 809 04:00• 2131 264 323 4451 1245 ' 00:00 4151 440 462 4671 1774 10,00. -4841 497 588 649 2216 ` 11:00 6001 660 669 618 2547 , 12.'00 6551 693 632 674 2654 ,13:60 7181 667 663 673 2721 "14:00 7321 777 676 759 290 15:00 6031 757 716 739 2814 :l6:00 6691 760 648 7191 2786 ;17:00 694 630 739 621 2684 :16:00 6931 666 632 628 2519 :19:00 563 587 493 552 2195 20:00 513 498 441 466 1908 '21:00 436 416 399 414 1665 22:00 372 401 432 332 1537 23:00 322 236 1 2271 2071 992 ITOTALl 37368 AM PEAK HOUR 11:15-12:15 VOLUME 2602 PM PEAK HOUR ' 14:00-15:00 VOLUME • 2944 DIRECTION: WB TIME :• ....:•..... 00-15 _ 15-30 3(M5 _ 45.60 • . HOUR ' TOTALS 130:00 64 70 67 361 237 0i:Q0, 34 14 32 18 98 ..02:00 25 14 10 16 65 0300 6 12 6 8 32 04:00 12 12 12 26 62 05:00 26 39 51 99 216 06:00 07;00 106 1301 122 138 109 1451 108 211 445 624 08:00 2181 282 280 343 1123 09:00 322 336 375 4351 1468 10:00 404 480 459 473 1816 11:00 508 574 534 587 2201 12:00 600 591 583 503 2277 -13:00 550 566 655 579 2350 14.001 622 552 528 550 2250 16' 00 548 1 547 543 645 2183 'ItW 573 660 601 6841 2318 .17--00 622 597 566 636 2321 - . 18:00 580 572 567 564 2283 19:00 470 549 474 491 1984 20:00 466 427 415 359 1667 • 21.00 341 369 409 405 1624 -22:00 3871 417 365 337 1506 23:00 3271 2871 2781 2501 1142 :ITOTALI 32191 AM PEAK HOUR; •' 11:15-12:15 VOLUME' 2295 PM PEAK HOUR 13:15-14:15 VOLUME 2422 TOTAL BI-DIRECTIONAL VOLUME 69559 •WILTEC (626) 564-1944 24 HOUR ADT SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION! COAST HIGHWAY EAST OF SAYSIDE DRIVE DATE: SUNDAY -AUGUST 18,1998 FILE NO: 56 DIRECTION: I ES TIME 00-15, 15.30 , 30.45 4"D 1 HOUR TOTALS 00.00 2111 1551 119 1261 610 01:00 1311 1021 143 105 481 02:00 70 561 45 22 193 03:00 201 11 29 12 72 04:00 231 25 25 29 102 000 251 30 43 61 159 00:60 471 89 71 116 303 07:00 931 111 181 1961561 4100 1971 231 302 289 1019 00,00 2701 2891 354 506 1419 10:00 499 449 535 569 2052 11:00 532 037 773 651 2593 12;00 6W 715 639 668 2628 1100 094 116 028 574 2712 14:00 737 896 $70 882 2785 15:60 744 707 681 647 2779 14:00 870 573 819 881 2529 '17:09 570 $76 659 $38 234S 180 5601 445 405 547 2017 19:00 4631 487 4591 400 1787 2Q;00 410 30 355 319 1450 21:oD. 334 299 266 255 1154 22:00 2"1 192 154 135 727 23.�00 123 120 103 81 427 TOTAL 32902 AM PEAK HOUR 11:16-12:15 VOLUME 2867 PM PEAK HOUR . 14:45-15:45 VOLUME 2514 WILTEC DIRECTION: WB TA* 00.15 15-30. 30-45 4$40: HOUR TOTALS 00:00 230 158 196 133 717 01:00 131 114 115. 130 490 02:00 96 53 46 36 231 03:00' 30 12 21 22 65 04400 20 20 24 171 81 0510 22 24 41 27 114 00.00 29 53 86 da 236 0720 94 122 135 175 526 06.0t 172 154 212 238 806 00,00 231 241 298 330 1098 10:00 432 3581 359 428 1577 11:Ob 449 432 508 5271 1916 12:00 516 561 500 6131 2099 13:00 501 532 543 510 2092 14:00 559 516 520 539 2140 1SK 581 533 631 $13 2158 16:00 550 605 583 $95 2339 17:00 594 566 551 660 2271 18:00 6101 532 523 455 2120 19:00 $15 434 381 4101 1748 200 304 384 383 292 1433 21;00 310 278 273 289 1150 22:00 280 278 206 176 $40 23:00 149 1461 108 84 487 TOTAL 2052 AM PEAK HOUR 11 *16-12:16 VOLUME 1983 PM PEAK HOUR 16:15.17:15 VOLUME 2377 TOTAL BWIRECTIONAL VOLUME 61754 (626) 564-190 ' 24 HOUR ADT SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: NEWPORT BEACH ' LOCATION: JAMBOREE ROAD NORTH OF BACKBAY DRIVE DATE: SATURDAY -AUGUST 15, 1998 FILE NO: 4A DIRECTION: NB DIRECTION: EB TIME .'60=15..15-30 30-45. 45-60 ' HOUR TIME 00-16 15=30 .30-45 4"..0- HOUR' ' TOTALS TOTALS 00:00 241 241 22 151 85 00:00 43 151 16 19 93 01:00 12 81 10 61 36 fl1:00 12 9 8 7 36 ' 02:00 14 41 5 51 28 02:00 9 8 7 8 32 03t00 8 31 3 6 20 03:00 5 7 7 11 30 ' 04.00 6 121 12 21 51 04:00 11 8 6 15 40 050 29 35 64 43 171 05-00 14 19 28 44 105 06:00 31 32 51 91 205 O6:D0 531 611 83 126 323 07:00. 87 94 109 126 416 OTOD 82 136 122 169 509 D800 151 143 1561 180 630 O&QO 161 176 216 270 823 00,00' 197 217 226 216 856 09:00 271 259 283 342 1155 ,• .10:00 220 221 229 239 909 10:00 351 377 355 396 1479 1•11:00 283 296 264 277 1120 11:00 357 416 389 4161 1577 ;12AD 241 249 261 253 1004 12:66 362 431 382 371 1546 13:00 259 226 292 261 1038 13:00 3791 358 462 406 1605 14!00 227 303 296 2671 1093 •14:01) 384 369 337 355 1445 15:00 292 297 319 278 1186 15:00 328 350 323 321 1322 ' 16:00 315 267 335 3071 1224 16:00 343 -322 349 324 1338 '• 17:00 3141 249 319 299 1181 17.00 324 356 297 324 1303, 18:00 276 254 278 249 1057 18:0,0 326 310 309 3161 1261 ' 19:00' 230 259 177 232 898 19:00 228 248 293 2171 986 20:00 237 211 233 201 882 20:00 2121 213 178 1611 764 21:00 196 204 205 222 827 2-I.-OD 1841 164 167 1431 655 22:00 206 195 194 176 771 22:00.1661 161 134 106 567 23:001 136 1391 1021 1051 482 23-00 13,61 110 111 831 0 ITOTALl 16170 TOTALI 19437 AM PEAK HOUR 11.00-12:00 AM LEAK HOUIR 11:15-12:15 VOLUME ':' 1120 VOLUME,.- . ": 1582 ' PM PEAK HOUR 16:00-17:00 PM PEAK HOUR 13:30-14:30 VOLUME .' 1224 VOLUME _'• ' 1621 TOTAL BI-DIRECTIONAL VOLUME 35607 *ILTEC (626) 564-1944 24 HOUR ADT SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC, PROJECT: NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: JAMBOREE ROAD NORTH OF BACKBAY DRIVE DATE: SUNDAY - AUGUST 10, 1908 FILE NO: 4B DIRECTION: NS TIME 00-15 15-30 3045 45401 HOUR 'TOTALS 00:00 105 63 63 66 297 01s00 56 47 61 48 214 02:00• 34 19 17 13 83 03:00 10 81 7 8 31 04:00 7 5 9 8 29 05:00 9 9 17 21 56 06:00 19 24 30 58 131 07:00 43 55 57 74 229 DOW. 100 134 142 138 $14 09:00• 120 138 151 210 819 10;00 1771 196 225 230 628 1i:00 2381 220 228 243 927 12:00 212 264 220 2241 920 13:00 215 211 225 210 $81 14:00 258 270 269 2471 1050 15.'00 258 285 270 273 1086 18:00 350 286 207 320 1223 17:00 342 287 307 279 1215 18:00. 2491 262 220 240 977 10,00 2511 222 224 245 942 20:00 227 1810 218 175 800 21:00 207100 137 864 22.00 13879 72 391 23:00 70431 31 2D8 TOTAL 14283 AM PEAK HOUR 11:00-12:00 VOLUME • 927 PM PEAK HOUR 18:45-17:45 VOLUME 1258 WILTEC DIRECTION: EB TIME 00-16 1630. 30.45 45-M HOUR YOTALS 00:00 69 77 70 56 272 01.00 48 49 41 49 187 02:00 31 23 28 17 97 03:0D' 14 6 7 5 32 04:00 17 121 12 131 54 06-00 10 19 18 24 71 06.00 24 34 43 62 163 07-00 59 81 111 133 384 06:00 116 121 180 178 575 09:00 194 158 250 237 839 10:00 352 244 250 295 1141 1i:00 380 3931 355 3451 1473 12:00 357 3911 424 400 1602 13400 369 3281 344 318 1359 320 315 284 331 1256 293 311 230 235 1000 114-.W 271 289 313 280 1153 243 306 277 262 1068 355 245 230 208 1041 228 217 200 130 $23 20:00 109 150 173 128 026 21%00 105 93 107 106 410 22:00 103 111 89 70 373 23:00 49 55 38 42 182 TOTAL 16270 AM PEAK HOUR 11:15-12:15 VOLUME 1450 PM PEAK HOUR 12:00-13:00 VOLUME 1602 TOTAL 81-DIRECTIONAL VOLUME 30563 11 11 r (626) 564-1944 , 24 HOUR ADT SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: BAYSIDE DRIVE NORTH OF COAST HIGHWAY DATE: SATURDAY - AUGUST 22,1998 FILE NO: 1A DIRECTION: ' NB TIME 00-15 15-30' 30-45 _ •45-60 ' HOUR TOTALS 00:00 0 21 2 2 6 0.1:00 0 31 3 6 12 02;00 2 1 1 0 4 03:00 1 4 0 1 6 04:00 1 2 0 1 4 05:00 21 1 2 0 5 06:60 101 10 13 41 37 07:00 91 8 14 131 44 0800 281 11 25 19 83 00:00 201 251 26 31 102 10:00 441 251 33 53 155 11:00 .451 42 29 36 152 12;00 321 36 32 45 145 13.00 391 35 44 34 162 14:00 311 35 351 461 147 15:00 471 37 40 37 161 18:00 381 58 39 38 173 17:00 421 39 31 41 163 18:00 371 33 24 36 130 19:06 32 36 21 18 107 20:00 27 16 14 17 74 21:00 13 10 12 Ill 46 22:00 9 8 18 41 39 23:00' 0 7 7 6 20 • .' TOTAL 1957 AM PEAK HOUR ' 10:30-11:30 VOLUME 173 PM PEAK HOUR 16:15-17:15 VOLUME.. ' ., 177 DIRECTION: SB TIME 00-15 -15-30 30-46 _ • 46-60 HOUR, TOTALS 00:00 1 6 1 2 10 01:00 2 4 2 8 16 02100 5 1 3 1 10 03:00 2 4 2 2 10 ' 94.00 2 2 2 1 7 06:00 7 2 31 8 20 06:00 Ill 4 11 61 32 07.00 5 8 13 181 44 08:00. 20 13 27 26 86 fl9:00 16 31 22 40 109 10:00 36 39 38 54 167 11.00 43 37 39 43 162 12:00 401 48 42 37 167 13:0b 45 48 46 39 178 14:00 29 39 34 34 136 15:00 33 35 40 36 144 16:00 41 41 32 38 152 17= 30 22 25 28 105 1$:00 271 29 32 21 109 19:00 23 20 16 20 79 20:00 14 9 20 131 56 21.00 12 19, 27 11 69 22:00 12 13 18 4 47 23:00 8 11 8 5 32 TOTAL 1947 Am PEAK HOUR' 10:16-11:15 VOLUME 174 PM PEAK HOUR . • 13:00-14:00 VOLUME" :..:, 178 TOTAL BI-DIRECTIONAL VOLUME 3904 '' WILTEC (626) 564-1944 24 HOUR ADT SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: SAYSIbE DRIVE NORTH OF COAST HIGHWAY DATE: SUNDAY -AUGUST23, 1098 FILE NO: 1 B DIRECTION: I NS TIME 00-15 15.30 30.46 4540 TOTALHOURS 00.00 31 7 3 1 14 61:00 1 0 1 0 2 02:00 2 0 0 1 3 0100 0 01 0 2 2 04.00 2 2 01 2 a 05:00 3 2 1 0 6 06:00 1 1 5 15 22 07:00 el 7 10 18 39 08:00 231 12 26 9 70 09:00 ill 18 29 27 85 10:00° 351 26 441 181 128 100 461 28 30 40 144 12.00 22 35 40 38 135 13460 27 34 28 27 114 14:00 23 30 32 31 121 15:00 36 45 35 52 1a8 16:00 38 42 54 48 182 17:00 47 29 30 48 164 18.00 421 50 38 33 TO-3 1a:00 27 33 25 1a 101 20:00 37 15 18 7 77 2100 8 a 13 B 31 22:00 3 a 4 4 19 23:00 3 21 al 1 14 ITOTALl 1798 AM PEAK HOUR 11:00.12:00 VOLUME 144 PM PEAK HOUR 18:15.17:15 VOLUME 191 DIRECTION: SB 00-15 _ 15-30 30.45 45.80 _ 1 HOUR TOTALS 00.00 5 5 1 1 12 01:00 1 4 1 1 7 02:00 8 2 2 1 11 D3.00 0 1 1 4 6 04-001 5 2 21 2 11 05:00 4 2 0 2 a Da:00 3 3 a 171 29 07:00 6 5 3 91 23 Da:00 17 12 25 161 72 00:00 24 18 30 20 92 10.00" 30 26 2a 36 120 11-.001 32 40 37 50 159 lZ001 351 44 40 50 169 13:00, 411 30 49 41 1a1 14:06 36 38 30 31 135 1s 50 35 27 45 157 18000 25 461 35 25 130 17.00 33 241 29 33 119 16.00 31 37 20 25 113 19.w 20 15 15 10 60 20:00 14 5 12 8 38 21:00 16 a a 21 34 22:00 4 a 6 sl 23 23:00 4 3 1 1 9 ' 70TAL 1898 AM PEAK HOUR 11:15-12:15 VOLUME 162 PM PEAK HOUR 12:15-13:15 VOLUME 175 TOTAL BI-DIRECTIONAL VOLUME 3490 I 11 II 11 [l WILTEC (626) 564-1944' 24 HOUR ADT SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT. NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: BAYSIDE DRIVE SOUTH OF COAST HIGHWAY DATE: SATURDAY - AUGUST 22, 1998 FILE NO: 2A DIRECTION: I NB _ TIME *15 ' 1640 30, 45 •;45-60' HOUR. TOTALS • 00.00 28 18 17 151 78 01100 15 15 15 121 57 02:00 17 8 8 8 41 03:00 3 6 3 5 17 04:00 9 2 2 5 18 051-00 7 8 5 9 29 06:00 141 21 21 26 82 07.00 361 341 38 54 162 08:60 651 741 82 981 309 090 1141 80 107 122 423 10:00 1041 115 129 114 462 11,00 1211 137 128 121 507 120 1301 109 120 136 495 131,00 1221 116 134 122 494 14:00 1201 120 102 124 466 16:00 1121 123 1141 1091 458 16:00 1211 127 129 1321 509 17:00 1381 140 96 891 463 1$:00 1221 98 124 1061 450 19,00 841 97 89J57 30:00 79 78 5721:00 57 49 4522:01 44 71 4723:01 g1271 41 46 32 AM PEAK HOUR 11:16-12:15 VOLUME 616 PM PEAK HOUR 16:30-17:30 VOLUME ' : 539 DIRECTION: SB TiM ,00-i5 ;15-30 30.45 ' 45=60 :'TOTALS. :;•••HOUR• 00.00 28 26 18 131 85 01:00 11 16 13 141 54 02.00 8 9 8 2 27 03.00 5 4 4 4 17 04:00 2 1 4 5 12 05:00 9 8 6 7 30 06.00 61 14 23 19 62 07:OQ 251 33 291 43 130 08:00 561 69 88 103 316 49:0Q 100 97 125 1221 444 ' '10:00 129 137 143 107 516 11:0Q, 133 113 131 109 486 12:00 117 131 131 124 503 : 13:00 119 138 108 113 478 14:00 111 104 118 130, 463 15:00 113 121 121 133 488 16:00 106 -124 1271 116 473 17:00 90 144 126 103 463 18.00 134 118 104 139 495 .19:00 107 68 106 89 370 20°00 103 102 102 68 376 21i00 119 102 90 70 381' 22:00 79 491 70 80 278 23:00 631 571 651 451 220 TOT ALI 7165 AM PEAK HOUR 09:45-10:46 VOLUME .... ' :...... 531 PM PEAK HOUR. ' . 12:30-13:30 VOLUME• • " 512 TOTAL 51-DIRECTIONAL VOLUME 13W WILTEC (626) 564-1944 24 HOUR ADT SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT. WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: BAYSIDE DRIVE SOUTH OF COAST HIGHWAY DATE: SUNDAY-AUGUST23,1998 FILE NO: 2B DIRECTION: I NO TIME 00-15• 15-30 3045 45o60 I HOUR TOTALS 00:60 is 22 16 22 78 01:00 17 8 17 8 50 02:00 12 7 5 7 31 03:00, 6 6 3 6 21 04:00 5 2 3 6 16 05:00 3 1 41 11 8 24 060, 101 16 21 221 69 07:00 211 18 49 53 141 Dom 581 44 70 74 246 00:00 a9l 79 85 69 322 i000 101 83 100 103 357 11:00 126 117 125 127 405 12:00 139 141 130 142 558 13:00 112 1381 116 1001 472 14,00 133 104 105 102 444 15:00 95 96 104 92 387 160 117 137 115 117 486 17:06 92 106 94 86 378 16:60 79 101 92 93 365 19:00, 84 90 77 81 338 20:00 781 001 65 721 273 2i:00. 521 49 40 50 191 22:00 441 381 15 29 126 23:00 221 211 16 11 70 tOTAL 5968 AM PEAK HOUR 11:15-12:15 VOLUME 505 PM PEAK HOUR 12:00-13:00 VOLUME 558 DIRECTION: I SB TIME 00-15 15-30 3"5 4$40 ' HOUR TOTALS 00.00 18 36 40 36 132 01A0 8 13 9 7 37 02:00 9 8 4 4 25 03.00 5 5 4 2 16 04'.001 7 1 21 0 10 S:00 2 8 6 4 20 �06:00 8 22 10 20 60 07:00 23 15 31 34 103 08:00 49 65 84 51 229 09:00 78 88 82 109 357 1g2 88 110 106 107 411 11.0,01 1091 103 1091 103 424 12:00 98 91 121 125 430 1310 100 109 99 103 411 14.00 101 98 104 97 400 15:00 98 100 131 114 443 18:00 97 127 117 1271 468 17.00 115 1131 122 Sol 436 i6:00 113 100 120 87 429 12..00 76 86 96 108 386 20:00 95 98 55 93 374 21:00 71 73 65 51 200 2210 59 38 56 42 197 23:00 301 19 21 20 90 jTOTALl 8130 AM PEAK HOUR 10:15-11:15 VOLUME 432 PM PEAK HOUR 16:15-17:15 VOLUME • 486 TOTAL BI-DIRECIIONAL VOLUME 12104 WILTEC (626) 664-19*1 II 24 HOUR ADT SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: COAST HIGHWAY WEST OF BAYSIDE,DRNEWAY DATE: SATURDAY - AUGUST 22,1998 FILE NO: 3A DIRECTION: EB _ TIME 00-15 •15-30. 3045 ' 45-60 HOUR TOTALS, 00:00 1441 1231 110 991 476 01A0 911 93 79 891 352 02,00 811 43 41 261 191 •03:00 331 19 17 351 104 04.00 161 13 17 301 76 05:00 491 37 53 791 218 06:00 821 88 148 2121 530 07:00 1831 173 288 3661 1010 `08:00 2971 347 426 4611 1521 09;00 4161 486 590 5991 2091 •10:00 5451 663 673 708 2589 'i,ll40 7631 716 715 782 2975 ,.A2400 668 686 779 700 2833 1•1100 611 737 765 676 2789 14:00. 739 661 711 752 2863 00 657 701 721 750 2869 <18;Op 717 716 7801 752 2965 ,`47:-66 697 704 617 656 2674 18:00 629 600 642 574 2445 49:00 604 549 478 486 2117 20,0 431 408 423 365 1627 21,00 334 347 356 339 1375 22:00 376 371 330 3431 1420 23:00' 262 2701 15 1661 913 ITOTALI 39013 AM PEAK HOUR' 11:00-12:00 VOLUME: 2975 PM PEAK HOUR : 16:00-17:00 VOLUME' 2965 DIRECTION:' . WB TIME 00-15 13-30 3045,.45-60 _ HOUR TOTALS .00:00 200 177 134 _• 138 649 01:06 123 97 126' 81 427 02:60 52 55 27 24 158 0100 231 20 17 15 75 000 12 21 24 18 75 05:00 21 15 42 43 121 06:00 55 111 114 1381 418 07:00 142 163 202 233 740 08:00 259 321 338 431 1340 09:00 388 440 467 509 1804 10:00 5321 613 562 558 2165 11:00 570 583 562 644 2259 12;00 583 685 612 535 2315 13:00 616 560 566 6381 2280 14.00 558 561 689 5651 2273 15:00 657 617 553 593 2420 .16:00 567 599 596 550 2302 17,:00 676 594 587 606 2463 18:00 613 562 559 526 2260 19:00 489 540 451 494 1974 20:00 457 4301 380 406 1673 21:00 392 370 396 374 1532 22:00 346 371 403 366 1486 2300 303 276, 240 248 1067 TOTAL 34285 AM PEAK HOUR .. 10:30-11:30 VOLUME. 'i• "• 2273 PM PEAK -HOUR 17:00-18:00 VOLUME":""" "" � 2463 TOTAL BI-DIRECTIONAL VOLUME 73298 WILTEC (626) 564-1944 24 HOUR ADT SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: COAST HIGHWAY WEST OF BAYSIDE DRIVEWAY DATE: SUNDAY - AUGUST 23, 1998 FILE NO: 39 DIRECTION: ES TIME 00-16 16-30 30 45. 45 BO HOUR TOTALS 00:00 195 140 121 1201 555 01:00 101 101 81 82 366 02:00 69 37 36 28 170 03:00 30 31 29 21 111 04:00 18 17 23 25 83 05:00 30 30 32 68 160 06:00 531 87 98 140 378 67:00 961 1641 163 2201 632 08.00 2081 254 317 374 1163 09:00 3191 370 354 559 1802 10:00 4781 487 528 $31 2124 11.00 5901 600 733 780 2083 12:00 6451 729 566 665 2694 13:00 6781 013 626 684 2679 14:06 7071 0141 598 6431 2582 15:00 6391 608 687 6181 2552 18:00 6261 619 603 544 2391 17;OD 5521 589 524 625 2220 111:00 5171 622 531 502 2072 10:00 482 434 373 389 1678 20:00' 372 343 345 259 1319 211i00 255 268 1 229 211 963 ,22:00 231 1991 146 153 728 23:00 107 91 62 59 1 319 TOTAL 32123 AM PEAK HOUR 11:16-12:15 VOLUME 2735 PM PEAK HOUR 12:15-13:16 VOLUME 2726 DIRECTION: WB TIM 00-15 16-W 30-45 4W HOUR TOTALS. 00:00. 196 192 197 127 712 01;00 139 109 124 90 462 02:00 81 46 37 35 199 03:00 201 29 15 26 90 04:00 12 14 16 25 67 05:00 20 18 22 46 106 06:00 57 53 91 102 303 07:00; 99 114 143 199 556 08:00 235 240 250 269 994 09% 286 3001 369 486 1427 10:00 442 470 438 443 1793 117:00 480 511 499 513 2003 12:00 487 523 547 641 2098 13:00 557 550 524 522 2153 14:00 521 527 528 $59 2135 15:00 558 571 540 537 2212 10,00 571 603 578 580 2312 17.00 607 557 492 $47 2203 18:00. 587 570 509 502 2168 19:001 495 435 450 429 1809 201)0 447 372 368 320 1507 21:00, 2884 322 300 289 1199 22:00 2751 2331 2111 181 900 23:00 1491 1351 1041 1001 488 IToTALl 29895 AM•PEAKHOUR 11:15-12:15 VOLUME 2010 PM PEAK HOUR 10:15.17:15 VOLUME 2348 TOTAL SWIRECTIONAL VOLUME 62018 WILTEC (626) 564-1944' 24 HOUR ADT SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY ' CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: LOCATION: NEWPORT BEACH COAST HIGHWAY EAST OF BAYSIDE DRIVE DATE: SATURDAY - AUGUST 22,1998 FILE NO: 5A DIRECTION: WB DIRECTION: EB TIME 00-151 15-30 30-45. 45-60 HOUR • TIME 00-15 15-30 30-45 4'&W HOUR ' TOTALS• TOTALS 00:00 148 107 105 671 427 00.00 2001 179 151 141 671 01:00 78 73 72 63 286 01:06 132 101 131 73 437 t 02:00 62 40 32 20 154 02:00 65 52 34 22 173 03:00 30 12 15 14 711 03:00 22 16 14 20 72 04:00 9 14 11 26 601 04.0011 171 31 18 77 05A0 38 33 37 67 175 105:00 20 12 45 44 121 06:00 691 69 1121 159 399 -06:00 55 91 108 116 370 ' 07:00 124 148 229 266 767 .07:00 129 163 178 194 664 0840 203 253 289 347 1092 08:00. 219 262 296 406 1183 09:00 306 357 417 405 1485 09:00 346 390 372 4451 1553 L10:00 405 460 469 518 1852 16.00 457 477 528 523 1985 11:00, 499 613 530 583 2125 11:00 541 554 557 563 2215 -12:00 4841 6001 596 533 2113 12h001 571 548 616 565 2300 ' '13:00 466 584 631 517 2088 "1300 569 593 538 622 2222 .14:00 551 515 642 533 2141 14:00 577 540 576 574 2267 1.5:00, 614 544 549 530 2137 15.00 644 620 500 595 2359 :18 OD 535 643 579 5301 2187 16:00 584 566 609 557 2316 1700 516 520 481 4851 2002 47:00 677 577 573 602 2429 18:00 491 455 471 458 1875 • 18:00 646 5571 582 531 2316 19..W 4311 406 383 410 1630 19:00 505 616 478 491 1990 20:00 346 349 336 307 1338 20:00 454 419 399 398 1670 21:00 2W 300 302 283 1171 29:00 352 364 418 3641 1488 ' .22:00 306 3071 298 271 1182 22:00 372 377 3781 3741 1501 23:00 225 2191 183 160 787 :23:00 304 265 2401 2671 1076 ITOTALl 29544 ITOTALl 33455 AM PEAK HOUR 11:00-12:00 AM PEAK'HOUR ' 11:15-12:15 VOLUME " 2125 VOLUME. 2246 PM PEAK HOUR • 15:45-16.45 PM PEAKHOUR:'• 17:00-18:00 VOLUME 2187 VOLi#ME:"' ',. 2429 1 TOTAL BI-DIRECTIONAL VOLUME 62999 WILTEC (626) 564-1944 24 HOUR ADT SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: COAST HIGHWAY EAST OF BAYSIDE DRIVE DATE: SUNDAY - AUGUST 23, 1098 FILE NO: 5B DIRECTION: I EB TIME 00-15 15-30 U 45 4S-60J HOUR TOTALS 00:00 1651 128 108 112 513 01•:Q0 asi 82 74 61 305 02:00 531 34 22 23 132 03:00, 251 25 23 13 86 04.00 181 14 22 221 78 05:00 ial 23 32 57 130 06:90 331 60 81 98 272 07:00 751 88 126 157 440 08:00 1591 200 212 254 025 09:W 2061 248 285 401 1140 10:00 375 357 432 460 1624 11'.00 426 454 552 541 1973 12:00 454 524 498 500 2006 13:00 477 471 506 488 1942 14:00 557 474 491 528 2050 15100 496 515 640 492 2043 100 4591 497 481 440 1877 17:00 4521 453 410 410 1725 18:00' 3731 437 417 3831 1810 10-00' 3791 332 313 3151 1339 20:00 301 276 252 235 1063 2 -06 200 224 20D 174 798 22.00 197 1881 137 120 622 237-00• 89 79 82 46 276 TOTAL 24873 AM PEAK HOUR 11:16-12:16 VOLUME 2031 PM PEAK HOUR 14:45-15:45 VOLUME 2079 DIRECTION: WB 11ME 00-15 15.30 30.45 4S40 HOUR tOTALS 00.00 198 192 189 130 709 01:00 141 129 120 97 487 02:00 90 58 36 33 215 03:00 231 31 15 21 90 04:00 17 18 18 19 70 05:00 22 15 24 42 103 08100 61 50 84 1031 298 01.100 84 101 124 1841 493 04-.W 198 205 ' 216 2331 856 091% 222 248 316 415 1199 100 382 432 401 421 1636 11:00 446 610 485 499 1940 42:00 499 501 643 577 2120 13:00 670 588 517 523 2198 14;0D 516 636 524 587 2143 15:00 591 583 640 5591 2273 16:00 560 617 $71 674 2322 M00 592 544 483 555 2204 18:00 590 558 535 539 2222 19:00 501 444 415 445 .1805 20.W 4411 344 3,56 331 1472 21:00 2761 320 293 208 1196 22= 268 218 219 1981 899 23:00 1601 1211 96 1051 485 TOTAL 29434 AM PEAK HOUR 11:15-12:15 VOLUME 1993 PMPEAKHOUR_ 1015-17:15 VOLUME 2354 TOTAL 81-DIRECTI0NAL VOLUME 54307 11 11 WILTEC (626) 564-1944 !J H I I I I I iI I I I I L I 11 24 HOUR ADT SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: JAMBOREE ROAD NORTH OF BACKBAY DRIVE DATE: SATURDAY - AUGUST 22,1998 FILE NO: 4A DIRECTION: I NS TIME DO-15 15-30' 30-4614"01. HOUR TOTALS 00:00 771 58 55 331 223 01:00 521 45 53 301 180 02:00 261 28 21 18 93 03:00 71 4 7 10 28 D4:00 6 8 5 7 26 057-00 13 19 24 25 81 06:00 35 311 58 92 216 07:00 Be 861 120 141 435 06:00 143 1911 165 1841 683 09:00 190 207 216 2341 847 10:00 2351 256 221 2511 963 11:00 2761 267 269 2521 1063 12.% 257 233 260 2751 1025 13= 229 250 279 235 993 14:00 255 272 294 279 1100 15,00 291 285 339 322 1237 16 00 317 300 341 333 1291 17,,00• 322 284 273 289 1168 100 2801 275 244 255 1054 19*00 245 205 225 227 902 20:00 244 223 236 237 940 21"00 224 1971 206 210 837 22:00 220 230 185 172 807 • 23.00. 147 1201 132 88 487 TOTALI 16679 AM PEAK HOUR 11:0D-12:00 VOLUME . 1063 PM PEAK HOUR .: ' 16:15-17:16 VOLUME 1296 I WILTEC DIRECTION: EB TIME, 00=15 15a0 30-45 . • 4"0 • .' • HOUR ,TOTALS 00:00 79 58 481 381 223 ..01'00 36 28 481 241 136 .•M-nn 90 A 4d I A I AQ 24 HOUR ADT SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC, PROJECT: NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: JAMBOREE ROAD NORTH OF BACKBAY DRIVE DATE: SUNDAY - AUGUST 23, 1998 FILE NO: 4B DIRECTION: NS TIME 00-15 _ 15-30 30.45 4540 HOUR TOTALS 00,06 92 a9I 57 541 292 01:00 45 511 44 35 175 62,00 25 11 9 7 52 63:00 181 14 7 10 49 04:00 61 4 8 11 29 05:00 111 16 20 19 88 06:00 211 27 42 51 141 01:00 481 47 67 $21 242 DO-W 117 153 135 148 554 00:00' 1181 157 156 220 6a0 10:00 2151 237 211 236 899 11:00 2831 246 251 271 1031 12:00 232 244 242 281 999 13:00 234 210 217 250 911 14:00 290 2161 233 2471 986 15400 254 291 204 3081 1147 1a:OD 320 287 269 318 1194 17400' 308 280 275 248 1111 160 278 263 247 245 1031 1M 209 219 243 224 895 20:00 228 214 218 216 $74 2100 1 1871 171 149 13a 843 22'.001 1071 1121 84 671 370 23:001 561 43 32 311 172 TOTALLLj46#3 AM PEAK HOUR 11:00-12:00 VOLUME 1031 PM PEAK HOUR 15:15-18:15 VOLUME 1213 DIRECTION: EB TIM 00-15 %-30 30.45 46-40 HOUR TOTALS 00.00 82 55 60 50 247 01,00 50 38 50 27 163 02:00 26 9 17 11 63 03.001 131 12 a 9 42 04.00 3 8 101 18 35 05:00 18 la 241 31 91 0600 28 39 49 88 202 07:00 62 90 124 150 426 08:00 139 138 164 193 834 09:00 101 210 273 265 939 10:00 288 1 302 324 3051 1217 11:00 351 393 1 347 3591 1450 120 305 382 357 372 1476 1300 340 326 315 308 1297 14100 350 298 272 320 1248 16" 307 281 287 201 ilea 18:00 289 292 209 278 1128 17:00 307 202 259 252 1080 18:00 312 201 207 241 1021 99:00 231 200 176 184 795 20E00 195 133 138 121 585 21:00 123 126 123 94 480 22:00 85 83 88 58 314 23:00 60 49 27 47 183 TOTAL 18M AM PEAK HOUR 11:15.12:15 VOLUME 1464 PM PEAK HOUR 12:00-13:00 VOLUME 1476 TOTAL 01-DIRECTIONAL VOLUME 30789 �I 11 WILTEC (626) 564-1944 1 I II I II I APPENDIX B P Catamaran Resort Hotel 1 Meeting Space Summary j by Number of Guests I I II I1 If II CATAMARAN RESORT MOTU- MONTHLY SUMMARY (JULY 91-JUNE 96) TOTAL NUMBER OF PERSONS VULUMNG WE MEETINGICATEIUNG SPACE BY DAY OF WEEK AND TIME OF DAY MONDAY TUESDAY I MONESDAY I THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY GRANOTOTALS Gmu GbAO In410u1F Total Gmu GIeM In-HOYfa Tout I Gmu C.I.ling ftmlfitln.l Tout Gm. Gletln I. -Ho... I Tout GmU GIe00 In H0Ya1 TNT Gmu Catiftiog fmMWZIII Tanl GloftFICStedna lit.Mousal Tout GiNp I Cluin01n•HouSe Total Ju 7.am 86 0 15 101 361 5 IN 4661 258 5 0 263 375 40 15 430 75 15 15 405 145 0 0 O6 0 0 0 0 1MI 65 145 1.011 ARemaOn 14 150 75 239 0 N 15 29 0 0 130 130 305 0 170 475 1W 0 45 NS 0 685 0 6B5 0 0 0 0 419 w9 435 IaGT EWN 45 0 IN 10 a 0 0 0 45 91 0 in 217 0 0 2)) w 4W 0 490 IN 1230 0 1.300 0 175 0 175 497 1.906 IN Zlin Total 145 ISO 190 485 -1 19 115 495 303 BB ISO 529 • 85T 40 105 1.182 5 475 @ I Ob ' 246 LM 0 2.131 0 1]5 0 175 - 2.517 Zw0 NO s.@] Au 9T-am 72 0 0 72 215 B0 SO 375 279 2T 0 Safi 290 MIS 0 495 281 0 40 kt ISO IN 0 Sw MISS 40 0 205 L500 SIB In 2138 Anemo9n 0 07 75 1@ is 0 0 10 0 0 BU 80 w 0 145 I75 0 to 49 59 0 1505 30 1,665 0 245 0 245 40 1.@) 379 2296 Evenin 24 0 0 24 SO 0 0 50 40 50 0 w 0 35 12 47 W 062 125 1.137 130 L64 200 19T4 0 1.05 0 L005 2w 3.696 33] 432] Tout. BB .e> ]5 2Y 2)5 : .m0 ' 80 435 818 ]T - NO 4I6 3N 240 15) T17 SIT W2 - 214 1S1] @B 3w5 2S0 3903 165 1,290 0 1455 1.6N 8091 WE B781 3e l9]•am 351 70 15 t39 1.w5 1S0 1C0 1,2I5 761 1}5 @ 951 114 0 15 129 814 12 25 at 1.030 3CV 15 L3{5 510 0 0 51. /6]1 84] ZJ2 5,EC0 ARemoon 215 2W W '. 555 35 0 62 W 145 0 in 270 0 40 110 1W 12 10 SO - Jl 0 1W 0 1W 2M 1E0 0 374 @1 640 407 Lam, EvaNn 1]5 0 0 178 5 0 0 5 EW a 0 NO 2W 75 0 2@ 0 Tm 2W --'p0 0 Mass 0 LOSS 0 ]0 0 30 988 1.3)0 wo zwo Total T45 ]50 .')5 1.170 I'm -130 1@ I= Laos : 135 -- tit 1.@t @f - 115 125 561 @6 232 275 1533 .-1.030 M IS Z550 T24 190 0 ' 914 624D Z657 @9 BT26 OCUT•am 875 52 15 w2 1= 34 IM 1.137 1.169 1@ 35 1.416 1R60 In So tA23 1411 15 in 1.648 1052 6 0 1 ]60 25 0 l85 Ism 449 am a"7 ARemoon 0 W W IN 33 0 15 45 90 0 149 239 0 0 IN ISO 0 23T 99, S6 0 25 0 2b 0 0 15 15 1M 3f2 469 8'10 Evenin 0 30 0 - 30 0 120 0 ,420 615 SO 60 715 506 SO 0 556 an IN JOT 514 0 Too 0 .820 ON 95 0 • 495 1T5m lass 257 Saw Tout :.w5 % f'172 76:.Li= ..10b -' IN': Ito ^.1.302 -1 +`242: _234 .23]0 1714,•` Il5 160 2.109 1.w0 .-. •w2 12fi %2Ai8 TO@ 851 - 0 toW 1.1IS0 1N - 15 laBSD433 2.056 1.028 1251> Nov9T-am 034 52 0 +' e00 53e W w •' w0 701 52 0 785 f 261 0 0 Iasi Loss 8.5 45 1.2N 15w 0 0 1.50] 965 /20 O 1SB5 8m98 @9 125 T.6E0 ARemoon 0 80 75 = 155 34 0 0 34 5w 0 1W IN 170 0 1w 90 Z1@ 12 0 Z114 110 am 0 505 20 Iasi0 --170 200 @) 355 39N EVenen 40 0 0 e. .40 318 80 0 ' 398 0 IN 0 IN us 0 0 w5 30 650 0 + NO a 12T0 0 1aT0 332 0 0 332 lam 2.130 0 Sam TOMI '. - :BT4 ":' A32' '•; b 0:1.081 C-890 = ilM0 e.ed ,. f.OW 1a01 "� 1@ - 18O 1.663 CANS L,') `0 .. , IN Z076 San ". AT 45 ,-4.Ot4 •1.61T 1.665 0 32@ 1.31] wo - a- 1S7 .11.097 . MW 460 Kom D.C9)•am 445 O 0 .%•MS SO] 12 IN 421 an 12 0 ' 334 sw 0 35 09 575 0 55 . 630 4W 0 0 _:4@ 421 40 0 - 4W 3M9 w 1N6 3319 Alornoon 35 SS 75 _%_205 139 , 0 w 2w a O IN In 29 0 1W In 295 360 2T 602 IN 475 - 0 @6 0 240 0 ' 240 598 Ilia 455 2ZN Evenin 0 450 50-."600 0 125 0 .14 70 355 0 425 40 40 0 505 0 1.932 0 1.9@ 0 ZON 0 Z020 W tw 0 1W 1W S,MT 50 BEST 'Tout I%AEO',:•645 %f25 "_LI+Af N2 ='f3)„-v110- No -392 ,36T' ^leg •w0%`, 513- 465 -135 TAB 8)0 t'22@ @ =44 II Z495 0 3wB 4Ti 383 0 85].'.3.filT' .6,E81 -: 'lw 11.199 Jan 59•amf of a 2611',657 no 0 SO -•350 201 12 -0 2W IN IN 2T 3w 651 0 IN >61 91O 90 0 . 9w 2% 0 0 •'290 3.126 W. 233 3•619 Anamoon 60 60 59 ' .d)9 0 0 0 0 125 12 its 252 137 as 125 SBT IDS 0 110 t.295 20 Ila 0 413 0 0 0 '0 IN 457 459 Tara EVenln 0 0 14 C •.1 0 210 0 .: 210 100 0 0 100 0 31p 0 no 1N 1W 0 .,w0 88 5@ - 0 569 10 210 0 s no 388 IRII A 1.613 TOhI 691 .__ „69 B3 . 650 TIO .- '210 )"BO [ EFA 'bW .. 24 '115 w5 - 324 WS 2@ 1.131 1,028 •15O ., T10 .1.3M :LIMB • l30 0 1BOB am no 0 -- SIB 4j02 L9B9 -Tll6 0997 Feu98•am 734 70 a:,-.'Dw 3V 20 W 418 90 Ito IS 665 878 5 0 YA 3E0 0 65 ":425 4W 2L0 20 ]10 811 0 0 all 4.141 435 IN 4.T38 AR4moon 478 Ito To- 658 335 35 0 - 3TO 205 0 86 291 205 a 65 270 Ito 17 D -' In 290 0 9t Set 206 0 0 . 2Cfi 1.529 1@ 312 Z300 Ev<Nn 55 O a _..55 111 40 0 .'151 3)0 5] 0 •42] 0 65 0 65 525 AS 0 '_'6)0 0 !85 0 465 t5D 0 0 150 tall ]92 0 20W Tent ^'12@ : f' 180 .` TO : lbl] 2w `- = % '•60 -. e]9 1f05' • [ 197 -1w 1.40] .I061 .4 TO 65 1218 995 '. 1@ r 65 12@ : l60 ' - 665 11I lo76 Ll@ O O 1.16) 7.1e1 IS09 q2 ew2 MattA99 •am 960 TO 0 ,1.0]0 820 O 110 036 wb 3fi0 70 978 1,5@ 0 25 1581 ]95 75 55 925 495 In 0 @t 465 10 SO 565 STS) 600 290 GJW ARemOen IQ 155 65 30 0 0 35 35 0 0 135 1. ..1 W 155 432 @6 244 '.N .700 230 -a 0 231 1I0 92 a- 2W 1.325 419 MO Z1w EVenhi 65 0 0 ."' 65 10 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 435 126 0 Sail 395 Ro 0 ,•545 35 tom 0 1.115 115 225 a - SIG 1.075 1.5@ 0 2,658 Total ' 119I ` � 225 "85 1SW e70 ' .0 115 BBI we , TEO - T0.5 1.111 22M :IN 180 Z6@ LTIe - 369 85 _ZOO T6 - 1 5 0 tA68 .]60 385 >0 1.165 6.160 Z602 ' )90 11.1@ e1199-am 47] 2@ 14 774 212 55 SO 347 207 0 37 2" @1 0 6 @] TW 0 w2 ,I.i@ EW 0 0 EIS) 2N 0 0 - = 3,0w 338 479 3001 I1Remo0n 10 145 75 •- no 40 55 26 In - W 0 81 181 315 20 154 459 405 0 15 _ 4L1 35 420 0 455 95 35 0 133 B30 675 3W 2@8 E.ron 0 0 0 0 215 0 0 275 20s SO 0 no 425 0 0 425 20 24 0 N IN NO 0 N O 120 O 0 00 1.14s 654 0 Z002 Tout 48T 428 . 89 1004 62] 110 lw ' 745 505 . - 30 - In SW 1,361 : " A IN 1,541 _ 1.185 34 a@ 1566 '702 fan 0 1.922 435 35 0 470 5M2 1.0@ w2 7,911 Ma 91 •am - 170 a 0 170 XA 25 165 6M 428 0 In ma we 0 30 958 744 = 1M 1.1)] 4W 140 0 600 Im DO W 285 3219 555 516 4a80 Aft... 200 DO 55 345 MO 14 15 259 365 40 IN 595 1W 0 too 290 410 aft 30 490 In 451 0 578 40 440 0 480 IATO toss 480 30M Evenin 0 O 0 ' 0 0 10 0 10 IN 0 0 tm a 670 0 @0 IN @fi 0 sts IN 1.am 0 TIM 1W 115 0 255 680 Z456 0 3I36 Total • Will90 55 615 584 _ 49 1@ 013 ' B@ • 40 318 1.341 1.028 aT0 ZN 1.918 1.3N - Ws 1@ 2483 )35 1.626 O Z361 325 w5 fi0 1.030 6569 4,0% 896 t0A61 Jun199•am 465 103 0 6@ @0 3 100 6YJ OS 0 0 4]5 /31 8 10 4N 553 O 38 -59f 1@ SO 0 222 106 0 15 121 2,282 144 193 3w9 ARemoon 0 I50 ]5 T2b w 30 0 w TO SO ]5 1)5 50 50 lw 10) 3W 0 12i 3" B3 852 0 1.035 3W 30 0 330 fill f.242 Sol 2M3 Evenin 0 2W 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 No 0 22 215 ]60 15 1.010 400 735 0 TO 0 w 0 30 776 2W5 15 Z836 TOM] 4E5 /53 75 1.013 Sw W 1. TfI 645 30 75 mo w2 ass I. 1.141 1.Ofs >80 180 1.a. @5 I I.lti O Z. 4% EO 15 481 4,355 3131 692 Bo78 TOTAL II,)12 ZBT2 .ftmN 1116121 ..I I.IZTI 1.3951 10.101 9.90al 1.5,01 1.9321 135201 12.503 Z916 Istal 1).355 I.M. TWIT 2.1@ 24.369 8SN 1.. 356 28.W3 )a@ /,OW 1N 11AII 6949> 39.105 8,892 11]Aw NO)E:>NEVALUESSHOMUNDE MWDAYOFMi AREASUMMRMEEM)REMONM. APPENDIX C One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis 1% TRAFFIC VOLUMEANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COASTHWY&BALBOA-SUPERIOR' (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1996 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PEAK2.5HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME 1%OFPROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 3182 0 17 - 3199 32 0 0.00 Southbound 1151 0 16 1167 12 0 0.00 Emtbound 9699 1 700 187 10586 1 106 114 0.13 Westbound 2276 1 164 81 252] 25 1 16 0.63 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 %of Projected Peak 2.5 Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2.5 Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)Analysis is required. I I1 % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS i I-1 I INTERSECTION: COASTHWY & BALBOA-SUPERIOR (Exlating Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1996 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PEAK2.5HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME - VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME I%OFPROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME . PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 3234 0 27 .3261 33 0 0.00 Southbouna 2499 0 10 2509 25 0 0.00 Eastbound 5544 400 107 1- 6051 1 61 0 0.00 Westbound 5589 403 244 1 6236 62 12 0.19 ,r G� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2.5 Hour Traffic Volumes. prcject Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peal*41AVour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT. NEBPORTDUNESHOTEL I I 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT & HOSPITAL (Existing Trafc Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK2.514OUR VOLUME PEAK2.5HOUR. APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK 25HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME I%OFPROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 4363 268 79 4710 47 16 0.34 Southbound 3599 221 274 4094 41 t4 0.34 Eastbound 1140 1 0 39 1 1179 12 1 0 0.00 Westbound 759 1 0 16 1 775 8 1 0 0.00 0 Project Traffic Is es*T*ed to be less than 1% of Projected Pak 2.5 Hour Traffib Volumes. 0 Project Traffic Is eslhneled to be greater than I% of Projected Peak 2.5 Hour Traffic Vdrrrnes. Intersection Capacity tNlizaticn (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT&HOSPITAL (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WlntedSpring 1997 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK2.5HOUR. VOLUME PEAK 25 HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONALakowrHI PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME I VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME 1%OF PROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK 25HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 4078 251 147 4476 45 12 027 Southbound 7371 453 153 7977 80 0 0.00 F"bound 1 2974 1 0 113 2997 30 0 0.00 Westbound 1 898 1 0 0 898 9 0 0.00 0 Project Traffic is estimated lobe less than 1%d Prcjected Peek 2.5 HourTn ffic Vdtanes. r_= Projeot Traffic ises*nated to be greater than 1%d Projected Paek 2.5 Hour rWk Volumes. Intersection Cspwky Utilization (ICU) Analysis IS required. PROJECT. NEWPORT DUNES HOTEL 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. NEWPORT & VIA LIDO (Existing TraJfc Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1994AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK 25 HOUR VOLUME PEAK2.5HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME I%OFPROJECTED PEAK 25 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK 25 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 3075 0 5 3080 31 7 0.23 Southbound 2707 0 5 2712 27 8 0.29 Eastbound 1 45 1 0 0 1 45 0 1 0 0.00 Westbound 1 907 1 0 0 1 907 9 1 0 0.00 1� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2.5 Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2.5 Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I 1 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS It �I II INTERSECTION. NEWPORT & VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1994 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PEAK25HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME I%OFPROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME ' . PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 3270 0 3 3273 33 0 0.00 Southbound 4975 0 3 4978 50 6 0.12 Eastbound 1 25 1 0 0 25 1 0 0 1 0.00 Westbound 1 823 1 0 0 823 1 8 0 1 0.00 YProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 25 Hour Traffic Vdumes. u project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2.5 Hour Traffic Vdumes, Intersectim Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT., I/ERPORT DUNES HOTEL I I 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COASTHWY. &c RIVERSIDE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAR 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PEAK23HOUR APPROVEDPROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME I%OFPROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK 23 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 7 0 0 7 0 0 0.00 Southbound 703 0 25 728 7 0 0.00 Eastbound 5069 1 312 1 232 1 5613 56 33 0.62 Westbound 2935 1 181 1 243 1 3359 34 39 1.16 Project Traffic Is esthnated to be Ieas then l% of Projected Peak 25 Hour Traf<ic Vdtmaa. Project Twit is estimated to be greeter than 1% or Projected Pedr25 Maur TrafOc VoWr =. Intersection Capacity Utillxatim (ICU) Anelyals Is required. 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COASTHWY.&aRIVERSMEAVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK23HOUR VOLUME PEAK23HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONALGROWTH PEAK 2.5HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK23HOUR VOLUME 1%OFPROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK23HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 77 0 0 77 1 0 0.00 Southbound 1302 0 14 1316 13 0 0.00 Eastbound 1 5223 321 316 1 5860 1 59 1 0 0.00 Westbound 1 6896 424 32E 7648 1 76 1 29 038 Project Traffic is estimated to be lees ttwrl% of Pmjeded Peak 25 Hour TrsfOc Voumes. Project Traffic is estkmted to be greater than 1% of Pra*W Peett 25 Hour TrWft Vdumee. Intersection Capacity Utllix dort (ICU) AnNysk is required. PROJECT: NEWPORTDUNES HOTEL iI I I I 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUMEANALYSIS INTERSECTION. COAST HWY. &TUSTiN (Existing Trajfic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring I996 AM) EXISTING PEAK 2.5 HOUR APPROVED PROJECT APPROACH DIRECTION PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME 1%OFPROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 2 0 0 2 0 0 0.00 Southbound 117 0 14 131 1 0 0.00 Fwbound 4620 333 326 5279 53 35 0.66 Westbound 1 3590 259 262 4111 41 39 0.95 1 1� Prcoct Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Prgeced Peek 2.5 Hour Traffic Vdumes. I I H 11 I C� Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2.5 Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUMEANALYSIS INTERSECTION. COASTHWY.&TUSTIN (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1996 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PEAK2.5HOUR APPROVED PROJFCFS REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME I%OFPROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE NpdibWnd 7 0 0 7 0 0 0.00 Southbound 208 0 8 216 20.0.00 Fesbound 1 4463 322 339 1 5124 1 51 1 0 0.00 Westbound 5654 408 1 369 1 6431 1 64 1 29 0.45 L-J Projed Traffic is estimated to be lass than 1%of Projected Peak 2.5 Hour TrafficVolumes. C� Project Trsdfio Is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2.5 Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: NEWPORT DUNES HOTEL TRAFFIC VOLUMEANALYSIS INTERSECTION. COASTHWY. &BAYSHORE ROVER (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpring 1997AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PEAKMHOUR APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONALGROWTH PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME J%OFPROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 352 0 0 352 4 0 0.00 Southbound 2609 0 179 2788 28 7 025 E4Wbound 5077 312 1 403 1 5792 58 35 0.60 Westbound 4825 297 1 352 1 5474 55 47 0.86 G� project Traffic is estkneted to be Ms than l% ofProjected Peek 25 Hour Tmffio Vdu., projed TmfOc is es&ndW to be greater than 1% or Projected Peek 2.5 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersecton Cape* U61irallon (ICU) Anoysb is required. 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUMEANALYSIS INTERSECTION. COASTHWY. & BAYSHORE-DOVER (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinteNSpring 1997PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PEAK2.5HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONALGROWTH PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME J%OFPROJECTED PEAK2.SHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Nortbbound 234 0 0 234 2 0 0.00 Sorthbound 2813 0 168 2981 30 0 0.00 Eastbound 4638 1 295 433 5356 1 54 1 0 1 0.00 WestbMd 9100 1 360 1 635 10295 1 103 1 35 034 —� Project Trent is estimeled to be iess thm 1% or Projected Peak 25 HourTMf6c Vdurrm. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater then 1%or PrcOcted Peek 2.5 Hour Tralfle Volumes. Irterseclion Capacity U61iz Wm (ICU) Malysh it required. PROJECT. NEWPORTDUNESHOTEL I I I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS INTERSECTION. COAST HWY. & BAYSIDE (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1996 AM) EXISTING PEAK 2.5 HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS PROJECTED 1%OFPROJECTED PROJECT APPROACH PEAK 2.5 HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK 2.5 HOUR PEAK 2.5 HOUR PEAK 2.5 HOUR PEAK 2.5 HOUR PROJECT DIRECTION VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME PERCENTAGE Northbound 873 0 24 897 9 0 0.00 Southbound 111 0 122 255 3 156 61.18 Eastbound 1 6440 1 465 1 299 7204 1 72 1 42 1 0.58 Westbound 1 4275 1 308 1 158 4741 1 47 1 98 2.07 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % or Projected Peak 2.5 Hour Traffic Volumes. �J Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2.5 Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I ' 1% TRAFFIC VOLUMEANALYSIS r I 11 II INTERSECTION. COASTHWY.&BAYSIDE (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1996 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK 25 HOUR VOLUME PEAK23HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME 1%OFPROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 1258 0 43 1301 13 0 0.00 Southbound 137 0 199 336 3 116 34.52 Fastbound 1 6651 480 318 1 7449 74 0 0.00 Westbound 1 6732 486 1 389 1 7607 76 0 0.00 O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2.5 Hour Traffic Vdumes. r](----1 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater then 1% of Projected Peak 2.5 Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT.• NEWPORTDUNESHOTEL 11 1% TRAFFIC VOLUMEANALYSIS INTERSECTION. COASTHWY.&WaOREE (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1999AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PEAK2.5HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK 2.5HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME 1%OFPROIECTED PEAK 2S HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 1490 92 36 1618 16 0 0.00 Southbound 2105 129 451 2685 27 10 2.61 Ewbound 5864 361 624 1 6849 68 109 1.59 Westbound 2972 183 141 32% 33 28 0.95 r--777 Project Treffio is esometed to be less Um 1% of Projected Pack 2.5 HourTrOU Vdtattes. C� Project Traffic Is estbrteted to be greater flan 1% of Projected Peck 2.5 Heur TmMo Vdtanes. Intersection Cape* Uf81zWm (ICU) Ansfysis Is wMred. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUMEANALYSIS INTERSECTION: (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spriog 1999PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PEAK2.5HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONALGROWTH PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME I%OFPROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 1682 103 67 1852 19 0 0.00 Southbound 3709 228 469 4404 44 0 0.00 Eastbound 7093 436 659 8187 82 81 0.99 Westbound 4974 1 300 567 5741 57 0 012 C� Ptajeot Trelfic is esti netsd to be less than l% of Projected Pw* ZS Hour Traffic Vdtanes. Praject TMTjc Is es&n&sd to be WeNa #w I% d ProjecW Pak 2.5 Hour Troffic Vdumes. Intersection Capacky UBlir"(ICU) M*Ais is rsqukW. PROJECT: NEWPORTDUNESHOTEL II A I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. COAST HWY.&MACARTHUR (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997AM) EXISTING PEAK 2.5 HOUR APPROVED PROTECT I I I I! I II �J APPROACH DIRECTION PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME I VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME I%OFPROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME - PROJECT PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Southbound 1525 94 102 1721 17 14 0.81 Eutbound 3034 187 75 3296 33 24 0.73 Westbound 1 4981 306 304 5591 56 7 0.13 L^� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak 2.5 Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2.5 Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUMEANALYSIS INTERSECTION. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PEAK2.5HOUR APPROVEDPROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME 10/*OFPROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME . PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Southbound 2721 167 299 3187 32 0 0.00 Eastbound 4497 1 277 145 4919 49 18 0.37 Westbound 4083 1 251 148 4482 45 0 0.00 1=J Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of F ProjectTraffcisestimatedtobegreaterthan 1%r Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is I `PROJECT: NEWPORT DUNES HOTEL 1% TRAFFIC VOLUMEANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COASTHWY.&MARGUERITE (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average W1nterlSpring 1997AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK23HOUR VOLUME PEAK2.SHOUIit APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONALGROWTH PEAK23HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK2.514OUR VOLUME I%OFPROJECTED PEAK23HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK23HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 624 0 3 627 6 0 0.00 Sorthbound 530 0 13 S43 5 0 0.00 Eastbound 1 2517 1 155 55 2727 27 6 s 1 0.29 Wembound 1 4339 1 267 273 4879 49 1 7 1 0.14 Project Traffic is es*r*W to be less than 1% of Projected Pak 25 Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic Is estimated to be greeter than l% of Projected Peek 25 Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilizefion (ICU) Andyais Is required. 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COASTHWY.&MARGUERITE (Existing Traffic Volumes Based op Average Wlnter/Spring 1997PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PEAK23HOUR APPROVEDPROJECT REGIONALGROWTH PEAK23HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME I%OFPROJECTED PEAK23HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 1025 0 2 1027 10 0 0.00 Southbound 733 0 6 739 7 0 0.00 Eastbound 6995 1 424 251 1 7570 1 76 1 6 0.01 Westbound 3259 200 103 3562 36 0 0.00 Project Tuft is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Past: 25 Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is atinated to be grater than 1% of Projected Peak 2.5 Hour Tuft Volumes. Irdersectim CaparJty Uft tton (ICU) Mslysis Is required. PROJECT: NEWPORT DUNES MOTEL I 1 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS tINTERSECTION: JAMBOREE & SANTA BARBARA (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997AM) 11 I I APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PEAK2.5HOUR APPROVEDPROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK 25 HOUR VOLUME 1%OFPROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 3746 230 346 4322 43 78 1.80 Southbound 2892 178 645 3715 37 70 1.88 Eutbound 1 103 1 0 1 144 1 247 2 1 0 1 0.00 Wetbou d 366 0 165 531 5 0 0.00 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 25 HourTraff c Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 25 Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)Anabsis is required. II % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS I I I II I 11 It INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE & SANTA BARBARA (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK 25 HOUR VOLUME PEAK 2.5 HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME I%OF PROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK 25 HOUR VOLUME . PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 2935 181 413 3529 35 58 1.64 'Southbound 4339 267 701 5307 53 0 0.00 Eutbotrnd 158 1 0 64 1 222 1 2 0 1 0.00 Watbound 1896 1 0 325 2221 22 0 1 0.00 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 25 HourTraffc Volumes. © Project Traffic is estmiated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2.5 Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Ubl'aation (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: NEWPORTDUNES HOTEL li I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinteriSpring 1907AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PEAK2.5HOUR APPROVEDPROJECT REGIONALOROWTH PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME 1%OFPROjECTED PEAK23HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK 2-5HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 3534 217 564 4315 43 78 1.81 S6uthbound 4459 274 711 5444 54 70 1.29 Eastbound 1 719 1 0 0 719 7 0 0.00 Westbound 1 345 1 0 104 449 4 0 0.00 r� Project Traffic Is estimated to be less then 1% or Prgeded Pak 2.5 Hour TmfSc Vdustes, 0 Project Traffic is est"ed to beg.*" then 1% of Pmjm:tW Peak25 Hour Twk Vdumes. Irkersedton Cgmcky UWw" (ICU) Analysis is mgWred. I % TRAFFIC VOL UMEANAL YSIS INTERSECTION. JAMBOREE & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PEAK2.5HOUR APPROVEDPROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK2.5 HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME 1%OFPROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT FEAK2.5 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 3787 233 676 4696 47 58 1.24 Southbound 9395 578 940 10813 109 0 0.00 E"bauW S18 0 29 547 9 S F 0 0.00 Westbound 1197 0 186 1383 1 14 1 0 0.00 O Projed Traffic is es*rom W to be feu titan l%or Projedal Pack 25 Hour Trwc Vduntes. u PrajedTraffioleee*ndedtobegiederthanl%dPr4se dPeak25NcurTmftVdwm. Inlmuclim Cwacky UtiBration (ICU) A h-* is required. PROJECT: NEWPORTDUNESHOTEL 1% TRAFFIC VOLUMEANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE & FORD (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PEAK2.5HOUR APPROVED PROJECT5 REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR. VOLUME 1%OFPROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR, VOLUME PROJECT PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 4485 276 740 5501 55 78 IA2 Southbound 3298 203 671 4172 42 70 1.68 Eutbound 1 1015 0 127 1 1142 1 11 1 0 0.00 Westbound 1 785 1 0 240 1 1025 1 10 1 0 0.00 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 25 Hour Traffic Volumes. L^—J Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 25 Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUMEANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE & FORD (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PEAK2.5HOUR APPROVED PROJEE�FS REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK25HOUR VOLUME 1%OFPROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 5306 326 1119 6751 68 58 0.86 Southbound 4697 289 901 5887 59 0 0.00 Eastbound 1 986 0 45 1 1031 1 10 1 0 0.00 Westbound 482 0 203 685 7 0 0.00 C� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2.5 Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Prcected Peak 25 Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: NEWPORT DUNES HOTEL 11 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUMEANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE&UNIVERSITY (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997 AM) a. EXISTING PEAK2.SHOUR APPROVED PROJECT PROJECTED J%OFPROJECTED PROJECT APPROACH PEAK 2.5 HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK 2.5 HOUR PEAK2.5HOUR PEAK 2.5 HOUR PEAK 2.5 HOUR PROJECT DIRECTION VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME PERCENTAGE Northbound 4029 249 229 4505 45 78 1.73 Southbound 3516 216 324 4056 41 70 1.73 Etnbound 1138 1 0 61 1 1199 12 0 0.00 Westbound 1351 1 0 64 1 1415 14 0 0.00 0 Project Tmfio is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Perk 25 Harr Traffic Vduna. 0 Pr*ctTmfficisestimatedtobegreeterthan1%ofProjectedPak2.5HanTrafficVaIumn. hrlw ion Cepwity UtNiution (ICU) Atlsysis is required. 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUMEANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE & UNIVERSITY (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpring 1997 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PEAK2.5HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONALOROWTH PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME 1%OPPROJEC1ED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 4419 272 419 5110 51 58 1.14 Southbound 5671 349 461 6481 65 0 0.00 Eutbound 1 765 1 0 6 1 771 1 8 0 0.00 Westbound 1 132E 1 0 1 42 1370 1 14 0 0.00 Project Traffic is athnted to be less 0M 1% of Pr*cted Peaty 2.5 Hour Taft Wuniss. 0 Pojed Traffic is estimated to be greater Oran 1 % of Projected Po* ZS HourTmft Vdtanes. IrdasecSon CgwAy (1WreOort (ICU) An*SU R required. PROJECT: NEHrPORTDUNESHOTEL 11 L1 I I I I I I II I! It U 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUMEANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE&BISON (Exisdng Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME PEAK2.5HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUME 1%OF PROJECTED PEAK 25 HOUR , VOLUME PROJECT PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 4195 258 581 5034 50 78 1.55 Nothbound 3304 203 550 4057 41 70 1.73 Eutbound 1 264 0 40 304 3 0 0.00 Westbound 1 407 0 194 601 6 0 0.00 r--� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 25 Hour Traffic Volumes. l=J Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than I% of Projected Peak 25 Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUMEANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE & BISON (Exlsling Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK25HOUR VOLUME PEAK 25 HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONALGROWTH PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PFAK2.5HOUR VOLUME 1%OF PROJECTED PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK2.5HOUR VOLUME ' PROJECT PERCENTAGE Northbound 4562 281 648 5491 55 58 1.06 Nothbound 4497 277 863 5637 56 0 0.00 Eastbound 243 0 24 261 3 0 0.00 Westbound 605 0 I39 744 7 0 0.00 r Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%or Projected Peak 2.5 Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2.5 Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: NEWPORT DUNES HOTEL Ul 1. I I I APPENDIX D 1 Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis I 11 I I 1 I 11 I 1 r r r r a a tr aIml a M a noon no *M■. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONANALYSIS PROJECT. NEWPORT DUNES HOTEL INTERSECTION. COAST HIGHWAY & RIVERSIDE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic) Winter/Spring 1997 A WA DIIAV UntM ........... .......... MOVEMENI EXISTING LANES CAPACITY PROPOSED LANES CAPACITY EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME EXISTING V/C RATIO REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME COMMITTED PROJECT VOLUME PROJECTED V/C RATIO W/O PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT V/C RATIO NL 4 0 0 NT 1600 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 NR 2 0 _ 0 SL 1051 1 6 0 ST 1600 01 9 0.07 0 0.07 0 0.07 SR 1600 188 0.12 6 0.12 0 0.12 EL- 1600 224 0.14 2 0.14 0 0.14 ET 3200 2132 A� 0.67 130 114 0.74 20 0.75 ER 10 0 0 WL 16001 19 0.01 0 a` 0.01 01 0.01 WT 48001 1238 0.26 75 120 0.30 20 0.30 WR 1600 52 0.03 2 0.03 0 0.03 EXISTING ICU 0.75 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ICU 0.82 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT ICU 0.83 X PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU W/ SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN ICU WITHOUT PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONANALYSTS PROJECT, NER"RTDUNESHOTEL INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & RIVERSIDE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic) Winter/Spring 1997 PM PPAiC T-MITI? MOVEMENI EXISTING LANES CAPACITY PROPOSED LANES CAPACITY EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME EXISTING V/C RATIO REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME COMMITTED PROJECT VOLUME PROJECTED V/C RATIO W/O PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT V/C RATIO NL 22 0 0 NT 1600 6 0.02 0 0.02 0 _ 0.02 NR 6 0 0 SL 84 3 0 ST 1600 4 #- 0.06 0 0.06 0 K 0.06 SR 1600 405 0.25 4 0.26 0 0.26 EL 1600 294 0.18 6 0.18 _ 0 k 0.18 ET 3200 I578 0.50 95 152 0.58 0 0.58 ER 25 0 0 WI, 1600 351 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.02 WT 4800 2429 4 OM150 182 * 0.58 15 0.58 WR 1600 67 0.04 3 0.04 01 0.04 EXISTING ICU 0.75 EXISTING+ REG. GROWTH+ COMMITTED W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ICU 1 0.82 EXISTING+ REG. GROWTH+ COMMITTED+ PROJECT ICU 1 0.82 0 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 Q PROJECTED+ PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU W/ SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN ICU WITHOUT PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS: M M r r M r M M M i M M r MAN 'M i on r, INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONANALYSIS PROJECT.• NEWPORT DUNES HOTEL INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & BAYSIDE (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic) Winter/Spring 1996 AM PEAK HOUR MOVEMEN EXISTING LANES CAPACITY PROPOSED LANES CAPACITY EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME EXISTING V/C RATIO REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME COMMITTED PROJECT VOLUME PROJECTED V/C RATIO W/O PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT V/C RATIO NL 308 2 0 NT 4800 5 0.07 0 4G 0.08 0 ile 0.08 NR 41 10 0 SL 1600 10 0.01 441 0.03 55 v, 0.07 ST 1600 2 V 0.02 0 y 0.03 0 0.05 SR 35 18 25 EL 1600 28 0.02 35 0.04 20 0.05 ET 4800 2772 -kc 0.58 200 113 i( 0.64 0 0.64 ER 1600 348 0.22 2 0.22 0 0.22 WL 1600 20 0.01 2 0.01 0 0.01 WT 6400 1794 0.28 130 77 0.31 01 0.32 WR 1 101 11 50 EXISTING ICU 1 0.68 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ICU 0.76 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT ICU 0.8 X PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU W/ SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 O PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN ICU WITHOUT PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONANALYSIS PROJECT: NEWPORTDUNESHOTEL INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & BAYSIDE (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic) Winter/Spring 1996 PM PRAK HAI IR MOVEMENT EXISTING LANES CAPACITY PROPOSED LANES CAPACITY EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME EXISTING V/C RATIO REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME COMMITTED PROJECT VOLUME PROJECTED VIC RATIO W/O PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT VIC RATIO NI, 472 8 0 NT 4800 10 0.11 0 0.12 0 +E 0.12 NR 62 14 0 SL 1600 13 0.01 71 0.05 40 0.08 ST 1600 9 k 0.03 01 0.05 0 0.06 SR 39 29 IS EL 16M 73 0.05 26 0.06 0 w 0.06 ET 4800 2160 0.45 155 I2I 0.51 0 0.51 ER 1600 468 0.29 12 0.30 0 0.30 WL 1600 57 0.04 14 0.04 0 0.04 WT 6400 3112 Ir— 0.491 225 181 x 0.56 01 4j. 0.56 WR 341 1 0 0 EXISTING ICU 1 0.68 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH+ COMMITTED W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ICU 0.79 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT ICU 0.82 X PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU W/ SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 PROJECTED+PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WITHPROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WILLBE LESS THAN ICU WITHOUT PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS: i i i i i i i! a i N go nil o=a 'i 'i M M I" I= rl no in no Im = = = 10 M M � =k M1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONANALYSIS PROJECT. NEWPORT DUNES HOTEL INTERSECTION.• COAST HIGHWAY & JAMBOREE (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic) Winter/Spring 1997 AM PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING EXISTING REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C RATIO PROJECT MOVEMENI LANES LANES PEAK HOUR V/C GROWTH PROJECT W/O PROJECT PROJECT V/C CAPACITY CAPACITY VOLUME RATIO VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME RATIO NL 1600 31 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.02 NT 3200 5 V 0.21 351 15 v. 0.22 0 It 0.22 NR 110 1 31 0 SL 1600 112 k- 0.07 1 241 u. 0.091 0 1r 0.09 ST 3200 220 0.07 151 91 0.08 0 0.08 SR N.S. 584 1931 35 EL 4800 1133 1# 0.24 129 w 0.26 40 0.27 ET 6400 1613 0.25 100 176 0.30 15 0.30 ER 17 8 0 WL L001 0.02 1 0.02 0 0.02 WT 6400 t�4139 0.18 70 70 tie 0.20 15 a 0.20 WR N.S. 4 0 EXISTING ICU 0.7 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH +COMMITTED W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ICU T 0.77 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT ICU 0.78 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 I PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 I PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU W/ SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 I PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN ICU WITHOUT PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONANALYSIS PROJECT. NEWPORTDUNESHOTEL INTERSECTION. COAST HIGHWAY & JAMBOREE (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic) Winter/Spring 1997 DAA DR AY unl TO MOVEMEN7 EXISTING LANES CAPACITY PROPOSED LANES CAPACITY EXISTING PEAKHO VOLUME EXISTING V/C RATIO REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME COMMITTED PROJECT VOLUME PROJECTED V/C RATIO W/O PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT V/C RATIO NI, 1600 55 0.03 8 0.04 0 0.04 NT 3200 528 It 0.20 30 16 .► 0.22 0 * 0.22 NR 119 9 0 SL 1600 147 U. 0.09 17 y 0.10 0 * 0.10 ST 3200 517 0.16 30 38 0.18 0 0.18 SR N.S. 1111 180 0 EL 4800 942 V. 0.20 176 t 0.23 30 4 024 ET 6400 1709 0.27 105 153 0.31 10 0.31 ER 19 0 0 WL L2001 173 0.05 26 0.06 0 0.06 WT M00 1680 0.26 105 216 0.31 1 0 * 0.31 WR IN.S. 164 41 d EXISTING ICU I 0.75 EXISTING+REG. GROWTH+ COMMITTED W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ICU 0.86 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT ICU 0.87 0 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE LESS THAN OR -EQUAL TO 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU W/ SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 0 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN ICU WITHOUT PROJECT OF SYSTEM s tM M a i m M m r m m m s ARM M M OR M INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONANALYSIS PROJECT.• NEWPORTMAESHOTEL INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE & SANTA BARBARA (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic) Winter/Spring 1997 AM PRAK T4011R MOVEMENT EXISTING LANES CAPACITY PROPOSED LANES CAPACITY EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME EXISTING V/C RATIO REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME COMMITTED PROJECT VOLUME PROJECTED V/C RATIO W/O PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT V/C RATIO NL 1600 17 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.01 NT 4800 1445 i' 0.30 90 136 41 0.35 40 0.36 NR 1600 2871 0.18 37 0.20 0 0.20 SL 3200 376 k. 0.121 120 } 0.16 0 0.16 ST 4800 833 0.17 50 194 0.22 35 0.23 SR 1600 22 0.01 8 0.02 0 0.2 EL 1600 28 + 0.02 72 t 0.06 0 k 0.06 ET 1600 3 0.01 0 0.01 '0 0.01 ER 8 0 0 WL 47 14 0 WT 32001 9 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.02 WR 1600 99 �r 0.06 69 4. 0.11 0 0.11 EXISTING ICU 1 0.5 EXISTING+ REG. GROWTH+ COMMITTED W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ICU 1 0.68 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT ICU 0.69 0 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU W/ SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS'THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 PROJECTED+ PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN ICU WITHOUT PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTHUZATIO)VANALYSIS PROJECT. NEWPORT DUNES HOTEL INTERSECTION. JAMBOREE & SANTA BARBARA (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic) Winter/Spring 1997 MR nV AY "^ In OVEMEN EXISTING LANES CAPACITY PROPOSED LANES CAPACITY EXISTING PEAKHO VOLUME EXISTING V/C RATIO REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME COMMITTED PROJECT VOLUME PROJECTED V/C RATIO W/O PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT V/C RATIO NL 1600 12 0.01 0 V. 0.01 0 0.01 NT 4800 1148 0.24 70 187 0.29 30 0.30 NR I600 109 0.07 19 0.08 0 0.08 SL 3200 278 0.09 110 0.12 0 0.12 ST 4800 1811 kr 0.38 110 176 )+ 0.44 0 0.44 SR 1600 25 0.02 64 0.06 0 0.06 EL 1600 21 w 0.01 24 -ku 0.03 0 x 0.03 ET 1600 10 0.01 8 0.02 0 0.02 ER 13 0 0 WL 390 40 0 WT 32001 1 1 0.12 91 0.14 01 0.14 WR 16001 365 ar 0.23 1 1151 V 0.30 01 4. 0.30 EXISTING ICU 0.63 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ICU 1 0.78 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED+ PROJECT ICU 77 0.78 0 PROJECTED+ PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 0 PROJECTED+ PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 PROJECTED+ PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU W/ SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 0 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN ICU WITHOUT PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS: ! n= 10 M M M M M= 'lw a go aft i im on 'ice m m m r m s m r m m m m M `■ m 4mm r m INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONANALYSIS PROJECT. NE"ORT DUNES HOTEL INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE & SAN JOAQIN HILLS RD. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic) Winter/Spring 1997 AM PEAK HOI IR MOVEMENI EXISTING LANES CAPACITY PROPOSED LANES CAPACITY EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME EXISTING V/C RATIO REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME COMMITTED PROJECT VOLUME PROJECTED V/C RATIO W/O PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT V/C RATIO NL 1600 26 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.02 NT 4800 1451 k 0.30 90 273 0.38 40 0.39 NR 1600 167 0.10 9 0.11 0 0.11 SL 3200 606 0.191 42 0.20 0 1v 0.20 ST 4800 1155 0.24 70 314 0.32 35 0.33 SR 1600 38 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.02 EL 254 0 0 ET 4800 38 K 0.06 0 4 0.06 0 0.06 ER N.S. 42 0 0 W L 89 11 0 WT 4800 14 x 0.02 0 y 0.02 0 0.02 WR N.S. 1 1 121 1 141 0 EXISTING ICU 1 0.57 EXISTING+ REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ICU 0.66 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT ICU 1 0.67 X PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU W/ SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 PROJECTED+ PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN ICU WITHOUT PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS: INTERSECTION CAPACITY VTILIZATIONAIVALYSIS PROJECT. NEWPORTDUNESHOTEL INTERSECTION. JAMBOREE & SAN JOAQIN HILLS RD. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic) W inter/Spring 1997 DIA DII AV I7f%T M MOVEMENI EXISTING LANES CAPACITY PROPOSED LANES CAPACITY EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME EXISTING V/C RATIO REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME COMMITTED PROJECT VOLUME PROJECTED V/C RATIO W/O PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT V/C RATIO NL 1600 53 0.03 8 0.04 0 0.04 NT 4800 I271 0.26 80 312 A. 0.35 30 A. 0.35 NR 1600 73 0.05 18 0.06 01 0.06 SL 3200 H 17 0.35 88 r 0.38 0 W0.391 ST 4800 2669 0.56 165 332 0.66 0 0.66 SR 1600 143 0.09 0 0.09 0 0.09 EL 77 8 0 ET 4800 36 0.02 6 » 0.03 0 N. 0.03 ER N.S. 65 0 0 WL 1 322 18 0 WT 48001 82 0.081 01 0.09 0 l+ 0.09 WR IN.S. 1 23 1 741 10 EXISTING ICU 0.71 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS -ICU 1 0.85 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH +COMMITTED + PROJECT ICU 0.35 0 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 PROJECTED +PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 0 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU W/ SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 11 PROJECTED + PROJECTTRAFFIC ICU WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN ICU WITHOUT PROJECT OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS: 'M MI go 'M go M i M� M M M so as 00 w M! '40 M 1M = M = M s � M =1 M ]M1 M = 1=11 = INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONANALYSIS PROJECT: NEWPORT DUNES HOTEL INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE & FORD (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic) Winter/Spring 1997 AM PEAK HOUR MOVEMEN EXISTING LANES CAPACITY PROPOSED LANES CAPACITY EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME EXISTING V/C RATIO REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME COMMITTED PROJECT VOLUME PROJECTED V/C RATIO W/O PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT V/C RATIO NL 3200 393 1E 0.12 11 y 0.13 0 y 0.13 NT 4800 1734 0.37 105 378 0.48 40 0.49 NR 52 21 0 SL 1600 16 0.01 4 0.01 01 0.01 ST 4800 1303 u 0.27 80 332 U. 0.36 35 0.36 SR 1600 15 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.01 EL 1600 142 0.09 0 0.09 0 0.09 ET 1600 225 0.14 8 0.15 0 0.15 ER 1600 241 0.15 56 Vt 0.19 0 0.19 WL 104 56 0 WT 48001 1 3451 jF 0.091 8 K 0.11 0 0.11 WR 16001 1 481 0.031 1 56 0.071 0 0.07 EXISTING ICU 1 0.63 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ICU 1 0.79 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT ICU 1 0.79 OX PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 I PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 I PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU W/ SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 I PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN ICU WITHOUT PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS: NOTE: AN EASTBOUND FREE RIGHT TURN WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE NEXT 5 YEARS, WHICH WILL REDUCE THE ICU VALUES. CAPACITY UTUMTIONANALYSIS PROJECT. NEWPORTDUNESHOTEL INTERSECTION. JAMBOREE & FORD (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic) UILA DIIAY LTr%T 7D Winter/Spring 1997 MOVEMENI EXISTING LANES CAPACITY PROPOSED LANES CAPACITY EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME EXISTING V/C RATIO REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME COMMITTED PROJECT VOLUME PROJECTED V/C RATIO W/O PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT V/C RATIO NL 3200 291 0.09 52 4. 0.11 0 * 0.11 NT 4800 1666 0.37 100 394 OAS 30 0.49 NR 93 74 0 SL 1600 51 0.03 40 0.06 0 0.06 ST 4800 2239 lr 0.47 135 411 0.58 0 0.58 SR 1600 19 0.01 0 0.01 0 0,01 EL 1600 32 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.02 ET 1600 109 0.07 0 0.07 0 0.07 ER 1600 284 w 0.18 31 k 0.20 0 > 0.20 WL 104 61 0 WT 4800 83 0.04 01 0.05 WR 16001 18 0,01 321 0.03 EXISTING ICU 0.78 EXISTING + REG, GROWTH + COMMITTED W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ICU 0.94 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED+ PROJECT ICU E9-4 0 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 (NO INCREASE IN V/C RATIO DUE TO PROJECT) I PROJECTED +PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU W/ SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 PROJECTED+PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WITHPROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN ICU WITHOUT PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEMIMPROVEMENTS: NOTE: AN EASTBOUND FREE RIGHT TURN WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE NEXT S YEARS, WHICH WILL REDUCE THE ICU VALUES m inm� i�]=! MIMIM m e .ft ew no aff M M M =1 IM M 1=1 I` = M = = = = Ir = M = M r INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONANALYSIS PROJECT.• NE"ORT DUNES HOTEL INTERSECTION.• JAMBOREE & UNIVERSITY (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic) Winter/Spring 1997 AM PEAK 14nTIR MOVEMENI EXISTING LANES CAPACITY PROPOSED LANES CAPACITY_ EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME EXISTING V/C _ RATIO REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME COMMITTED PROJECT VOLUME PROJECTED V/C RATIO W/O PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT V/C RATIO NL _ 1600 3 0.00 2 0.00 0 0.00 NT 4800 1540 4i- 0.32 95 105 :c 0.36 40 0.37 NR 1600 334 0.21 7 0.21 0 0.21 SL 3200 138 0.04 0 0.04 01 0.04 ST 4800 1061 0.22 65 154 0.27 35 0.27 SR 1600 240 0.15 8 0.16 0 0.16 EL 467 24 0 ET 3200 76 U. 0.17 0 y. 0.18 0 %40.18 ER N.S. 9 6 0 WL 3231 321 0 WT 48001 1021 0.091 1 01 0.101 0 y 0.10 WR IN.S. 1 1 229 01 10 EXISTING ICU 1 0.62 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ICU 1 0.68 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT ICU 0.69 �X PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE GREATER THAN'0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU W/ SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 0 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN ICU WITHOUT PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS: INTERSECTION CAPACITY VTILMTIONANALYSIS PROJECT. NE"ORT DUNES HOTEL INTERSECTION. JAMBOREE & UNIVERSITY (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic) Winter/Spring 1997 DAN DV AY Ufl"D OVEM EXISTING LANES CAPACITY PROPOSED LANES CAPACITY EXISTING PEAK HO VOLUME EXISTING V/C RATIO REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME COMMITTED PROJECT VOLUME PROJECTED V/C RATIO W/O PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT V/C RATIO NL 1600 15 X. 0.01 15 0.02 0 1 0.02 NT 4800 1444 0.30 95 157 0.35 30 0.36 NR 1600 349 0.22 38 0.24 0 0.24 SL 3200 250 0.08 1 84 0.10 0 0.10 ST 4900 1988 a! 0.41 65 147 j4 0.46 0 1t. 0.46 SR 1600 487 0.30 0 0.30 0 0.30 EL 230 0 0 ET 3200 60 0.09 0 0.09 0 y 0.09 ER N.S. 7 3 0 WL 384 21 0 WT 48001 153 0 V- 012 0 L 0.12 WR N.S. 128 3 0 EXISTING ICU 1 0.62 EXISTING+ REG. GROWTH+ COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ICU 0.69 EX[STING+REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT ICU 0.69 C X PROJECTED +PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 Q PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU W/ SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 0 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN ICU WITHOUT PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS: INTERSECTION CAPACITY VTILIZATIONANALYSIS PROJECT: NEWPORTDUNESHOTEL INTERSECTION. JAMBOREE & BISON (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic) Winter/Spring 1997 A RA DC AY u/lr rD -------------- MOVEMENI EXISTING LANES CAPACITY PROPOSED LANES CAPACITY EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME EXISTING V/C RATIO REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME COMMITTED PROJECT VOLUME PROJECTED V/C RATIO W/O PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT V/C RATIO NL 1600 11 0.01 4 0.01 0 0.01 NT 4800 1848 0.43 115 271 y 0.51 40 0.52 NR 192 15 0 SL 3200 511 0.02 1 34 y 0.03 Oil 0.03 ST 4800 1323 0.28 801 241 0.34 35 0.35 SR 1600 27 0.02 1 0 0.02 0 0.02 EL 39 0 0 ET 1600 60 +b 0.06 1_ 0.06 0 a 0.06 ER N.S. 10 19 0 WL 1600 69 0.04 27 y 0.06 0 0.06 WT 1600 59 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.04 WR 3200 64 0.02 70 0.04 0 0.04 EXISTING ICU 1 0.55 EXISTING+ REG. GROWTH+ COMMITTED WI -PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ICU 0.66 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT ICU 0.67 X PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU W/ SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN ICU WITHOUT PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILLUTIONANALYSIS PROJECT: AW"ORT DUNES HOTEL INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE & BISON (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic) Winter/Spring 1997 DAA DRAV Ur%TM MOVEMENI EXISTING LANES CAPACITY PROPOSED LANES CAPACITY EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME EXISTING V/C RATIO REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME COMMITTED PROJECT VOLUME PROJECTED V/C RATIO W/O PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT VOLUME PROJECT VIC RATIO NI, 1600 27 0.02 13 Tr 0.03 0 h 0.03 NT 4800 1661 0.38 100 278 0.46 30 0.47 NR 149 32 0 SL 3200 132 0.04 102 0.07 0 0.07 ST 4800 2055 0.43 125 330 0.52 0 4. 0.52 SR 1600 61 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.44 EL 20 0 0 ET 1600 46 * 0.04 2 Y 0.04 0 s 0.04 ER N.S. 18 10 0 WL 1600 169 U 0.11 26 0.12 0 J. 0.12 WT 1600 86 --bkl 0 0.051 01 0.05 WR 32001 24 0,011 44 0.02 Q 0.02 EXISTING ICU 0.6 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ICU 1 0.71 EXISTING + REG. GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT ICU 0.71 X PROJECTED+ PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 t-J PROJECTED+ PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WILLBE GREATERTHAN 0.90 �. PROJECTED+ PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU W/ SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 PROJECTED + PROJECT TRAFFIC ICU WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LESS THAN ICU WITHOUT PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS. I 1 1 1 I I 1 I 11 u 1 I MAY-07-1998 14:51 FROM A ISTIN-FOLIST ASSOC. 2. agw!Grodibm a PM LOOg bap 4T Paseline AM P1 "I PM pi MR Llll$S CAPACITY 40L vJC u 9JC UL 1.5 400 560 POP 18! 1.5 4800 84D .3D* 600 .30 RBR 0 3m 260 Sffi, 1.5 220 1.071* 520 SiR 1.5 4800 I30 .07 500 .21* S)31t 2 3200 90 .03 80 .03 m 2 3200 520 .I6 330 .10 a? 3 4800 212D .44* 1910 • .30 ffi 1 2600 340 .21 40D .25 MML 1 1600 70 .04* 430 .27* IDT 4 6400 3240 .23 2530 .40 m 0 0 240 50 I= CIPaClaa D31LIUM 3. Mil or" i Iowtal LOOg &A" 6P m alilm RT, )a 2 32DD M64 3 4800 >mR 0 0 am 1 16M r>ZM' 3 4SW m 1 Iwo UL 2 3200 m 1 1600 m 1 1600 MIL 1 3600 w 2 3200- AU 0 0 Rw I= Aajwt=t .85 2.16 AM K M M PM PC HOOK u m m vac 220 .07 ISO .05* I54O .34* 1510 .34 IN 220 20 .01* 50 .03 1270 .26 1710 .36* 650 .41 360 .24 4D0 .13* SW .16 180 .11 230 .14* 260 .16 190 .12 110 .07 390 .24* '270 .16* 290 .10 230 40 m as* TO 194946MI13 P.14 Let -imp Y/M Wpmt ma Project AM PL M00R PM PK we LiM83 CAPKM vm vJC PoL v/C MHL 1.5 40D 560 (.30)* MST I.5 4800 840 ,30* 600 .30 MR 0 220 260 Sk 1.5 220 {.061* 490 W 1.5 4800 140 .08 52D .21* SSR 2 3200 90 .03 80 .03 m 2 3200 510 .16 330 .10 ST 3 4WD 2105 .44* 1725 .37* Im 1 16W 350 .22 430 .27 MSL 1 1600 60 .04* 420 .26* w 4 640D 1250 .23 1515 .40 ku 0 0 250 50 .J. '.4L #all 0 fit Log-ImP VlAwport Wn PLOjwt ]M K ROOK IN P9 MR L3MS5 CAPACITY 90L v/C Im Y/C im 2 3200 200 .06 140 .04* MMT 3 4800 1570 .35* 1515 .34 in 0 0 100 120 SIL i 160D 20 .01* 50 .03 M 3 4800 1305 .27 1775 .37* SER 1 16OD 670 .42 360 .23' UL 2 3200 390 .12* 510 .16 P9T 1 1600 140 .11 230 .14* ffi 1 I600 26D .16 380 .0 t03L I 16W 310 .07 400 .25* w 2 32M 270 .15* 300 .0 Mlili 0 0 22D 40 JW I= 0jusbeent sly .32* -. !. Y •r 4 1 L. J . .. MAY-07-1998 14:52 FROM ALIST1N-FOLST ASSOC- S TO 19494680113 P.15 . & FW% i Tin 96 L90g.MP QP DRRIiet u P4t mm PA m DOOR LMS GPICITI wx Y/C Im Y/C in 0 0 0 0 ROT 3 48W 100 .35* I390 .29* DDe 1 20 10 sm 2 3200 NO .25* 6W .19* SeT 3 48W 1270 .27 14W J5 1 Sat 0 0 10 40 Alb 0 0 0 0 EDT 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 20 0 UL 1 1600 20 .M* 10 .01* DDT 0 0 0 0 DDR 2 3200 540 .17 710 .22 Riot I= adjttetMt. IN .10 1RR .21* 2m ClPI= RliLItRlDtf .77 .70 7. K"tside i PC[ s>weaR9. OP 1Rmum IN x DOOR PR PR DOat LIM CIP=U n Y/C vm f/C 0 0 20 so ffi 1 1f00 20 .M* 200 .W DeR o 0 10 10 SOL 1 1500 40 A" b0 403* w 1 1f00 20 .01 10 A m 1 1f00 280 .19 a .39 a 2 3200 530 .17* 360 .u* w 3 4800 2M .16 2640 .S6 see 0 0 f0 50 8D6 1 16M 10 .01 20 .01 ur 3 48M 2240 .+47* 2670 .56* m 1 low 40 .03 60 .04 Right tdm ld*b mt SM .U* M .35* to"" vpwut DM Ytsimt IN PR xu Pot PR DOOR um CAP=ff W6 Y/C vm Y/C m 0 0 0 0 m 3 4800 1690 .35* 1380 .29* MR 1 10 ]0 M& 2 3200 400 .W 600 .19* w 3 4800 I= .3 1640 .35 SDR 0 0 SO 40 zm 0 0 0 0 DA! 0 0 0 0 I26t 0 0 ZO 0 WL 1 16M 20 .O1* 10 .01* Re! 0 0. 0 0 n 2 3200 640 .17 710 .22 Might Turn ,W)w Iftt 8RR .1f* w .21* vm C1Pi= DlIIna= .77 .70 m m DODR PR PR llODt UL 0 0 20 so Ref' 1 1W0 20 .M 10 .06* Dee 0 0 10 10 Set. 1 • 3600 80 .m* 30 .O3* w 1 I6M 10 .01 20 M. sm ] 1600 290 .19 690 .37 W 2 32W 540 .17* 330 .10* In 3 M2155 .44 2630 .56 m 0 0 5o 40 w 1 1600 10 .01 10 .01 w 3 QW Q225 .46* %4S .56* Rat 1 low 30 .02 00 .04 Right hm id*tant SM Al* W .33* I 11 1 1 "M ClflICllt OXILT,UIMX .0 l.0 mm CSPLQISI OAIuuum .12 1.01 ' ' 11 1 .1 1 1 MAY-07-19% 14:53 FROM AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOC. e. Tatio & PCB: La bop GP Bee lm aK it M Rt PK Pd 800R Lmo WICM vm V/C VOL V/C 1®L 0 0 80 10 (.01)* jw 1 1600 100 .14* 20 .03 OR 0 0 50 10 a 0 0 220 (.14)* I20 SBT 1 1600 2D .29 10 .13* 8BR 0 O 80 70 xm 1 16M 30 .02* 50 .03 W 3 48M 2400 .50 2770 .58* m 0 0 10 0 M 0 0 0 0 w 3 4800 2300 .48* 2550 .53 m 1 16W no .W 400 .25 Umm 42PAM umxam .78 .72 V. DoteC/Bw1mm i PC! Laog lop 1.4 Builim mPKMR ' PIPXMUR Lkw CAPMM VOL V/C VOL V/C Im 1 1600 20 .01 40 .03 Jff 2 3200 120 .06* 60 .04* 18R 0 0 60 120 .09 8BL 3 am 440 lip 2500 .31* 88T 1 1600 120 .07 160 .10 Sm 1 Iwo 4i0 .04 I10 .07 IL 2 32M 90 .03 240 .OP W 4 6400 2260 .36* 2090 .35 MR 0 0 20 120 (8UL 1 16M Do .08* 150 .09 m 4 64M 2970 .35 2300 .36* MR i 1560 1730 Right Turn adjustreat IBR At* TO 19494600113 P.16 Long-mp r/mVpwt ftm Project mPRI00R PNitBm Lam C1iP11 M WL VJC TM V/C Im- 0 0 90 10 {.01)* IIBP 1 1600 90 .141 10 .02 last 0 0 50 10 SBL 0 0 220 {.141* I20 SBT 1 1600 20 .20 10 .Lo sm 0 0 80 70 EBL 1 Iwo 30 .02* 40 .03 MT 3 4800 2yo5 .50 T-M .58* UR 0 0 10 10 RBL 0 0 0 0 w 3 4800 1275 .47'* 255s .53 UR 1 1600 100 .06 390 .24 I= CdP1= vialli'JSOr .77 .72 W"op VA"Port Dimes Project AK PI IDOR PK'PA Rn um CaPAM u VJC POF. P/C RL 1 16M 20 .M 30 .02 IN 2 32M 220 .06* 50 ' .03* MR 0 0 60 120 .0% SOL 3 48M 87D AP 1510 .31* SBT 1 2600 120 .08 150 .09 Stet 1 1600 60 .04 IN .08- EM 2 3200 90 .03 240 .08* RBT 4 6400 =5 .36* 2090 .35 OR 0 0 20 120 ABL 1 1600 390 .08* IN .09 08T 4 6400 7215 .35 229S .36* va ! 1590 1960 Right 'I= ldjnstrtnt RBR TA 1 r Y I •1y 117 At7 I! .r MAY-19-19W 09:26 FROM AUSTIN-FOUST ASSCX. TO 19494600113 P.04 ' 28. Upide i PM L=rau p Sp lwolime IN PK Mat Pl It MM LAIM CIPLCPTT VOL P/C VOL 9/C 18L 2.5 4" {.11}* 590 {.14}* 1BT 0.5 4800 20 .0 20 .14 15e 0 30 60 SOL 1 ism 20 .01 60 .04 SBT 1 1600 19 .04* m .a* See 0 0 60 ISO W 1 1600 100 .06 140 ,09 18T 3 4600 2700 .58* 3110 AP 3Be 1 16M 410 .26 730 .47 118E 1 16M 19 .M* 50 .034 w 4 64M 3060 .41 3410 .55 m 0 0 40 140 Iam ClPl m 0lILIi T= 34. JmkM 6 NUIll3: I</Mdy Long•1n96 gP Nwit6 17,77 ML 1 1600 18f { 6400 I= 1 26M ML 2 37A0 S* 4 64M so l 1600 IDL 1.5 w 0.5 3200 m f ML 1.6 ws 1.5 4600 m f tight "M Adj+stwat .74 .94 m x 3091 Pl P9 m i0L M u W 20 .01 10 • .01 2300 .36* 1990 .31* 340 ,21 620 .39 I70 .04* 640 .22* 1270 .X 209 .39 ISO .31 520 .33 400 310 90 .15* 70 .12* 10 20 280 .0" 470 .13* 40 .03 90 .06 650 510 tit .04* 90l1L C4PICIS! DfIIdSm .64 .88 Laq.mp r/rw wt Dun Projw* Amrnpid. r. 11Pt11301 xJ%m um CA xm VOL Y/C 70L VIC p IM 2.5 ` 430 w 0.5 ` 4800 60 .110.,111-50 .15 m 0 v 40 50 AO-011 '110 SSG 1 /.3"1600'j 3u 25 .07 OST 1 O. r lfm J 20 .084.01 50 .1d* an 0 0 As ox, m ad! w 1 160o IS6 .loc"I leo im M 3 ` 4800 2$10 .59 ast3200 ,670 tDe 1 INC 490 .250.26690 .43 0•'y m 1 •a 1600 IQ .010.61 " .W L kB! 4 6400 3M .W*o.OM .57 0,6 tB8 0 . 0 126 210 SpfAL C1Pb= urnaum .79 0, 72 1.04 �g 41v *ap r/*IPOCt I m6a Pa*t ' 3M P11CLi! Pl Pe 1001 um W&CM 110E TIC Ya6 V/C ' XSL 1 1600 10 .Ol 10 .01 18f lee 4 1 m 1600 2yoo 350 .3M .22 Ms 630 .31* .39 ' SSIS 2 37A0 in .04o 700 .22* SBT 4 64M 120 .20 MS .31 m 1 16M 290 .12 520 .33 In 1.5 400 290 MIT 0.5 32M BO .15* 60 .U* ' III! f 10 10 OL 1.5 270 .0" NO AP iw 2.5 4400 40 .03 to 106 BBB f 650 530 Right Soto k*wt7At ttt .08* ' 90m 4xP1= CBL>3t114)1 .R A 11 11 MAY-07-1998 14:54 FROM AUSTIN-FOUST PSSOC. TO 194946MI13 P.18 II 35. JmbXft i S15011 UK-fto OF Bmli1t va Plc v06 Pic M L 1 1600 10 .01 10 .01 >mf 4 6400 2070 .36* 1810 .32* III 0 0 260 210 SSL 2 32M 20 .M* 750 .23* SM 3 48W 1480 .31 2310 .46 $a 1 16W 60 .04 SD .05 Am 0 0 60 30 !m! 1 1600 50 .07* 40 .04* m d ism 30 .02 20 .01 1mL 1 1600 210 .13* 420 .26* vw 1 1600 70 .04 I= .00 ImR 2 3200 280 .09 300 .09 36. Jlllboo:'eB I Ii uaff SIM um CRACM I84 2 3200 IK 3 4804 m 0 0 SIL 1 . low M 3 48M a 1 1600 IIL 1 1600 IIT 1 1600 A1R 1 low � 1.5 IK 1.5 48M 41R 1 1600 light T= AdjW MUt .37 .85 a PK MM PM PI AM VOL We va P/C 460 .14* 310 .SO* Z150 .49 2330 .61 220 W 50 .03 70 .04 IM .3" 2840 .59* 20 .M 30 .02 140 .09 10 .01 190 AP 70 .04* 460 .V 200 .26 no {.191* 430 .13* 380 .19 90 .96 20 .M 10 .M >3lI; .17x M AP MM nPA= af) ium 3.01 .9E LOWIMP YJIl7Port DOM PMJad 7N FK 1n PII PK ME Ulm c =ff Vm P/C Vm vie M 1 IWO 10 .01 10 .01 in 4 6400 21f0 .37* 1115 .32* Me 0 0 260 210 SP.L 2 3200 40 .OS* 700 .22* m $ OW I4b0 .30 2355 .19 S81 1 26M 60 .04 80 .05 IBL 0 0 70 30 EM I 16W 40 .07* 40 .04* UR d 1600 40 .03 20 .01 RM 1 1600 230 .10 430 .27* 984 1 1600 .70 .04 • 120 .08 OR 2 32W 330 .10 310 .10 I,mr rage F#erpwt DmOa Project AO eov� Pi W M PI MM pM YK MM ]YAP, L= C3 AMW YM Vic vm vJc �- !®L 2 Y 32M 470 .15* 0,15 300 .09; 6. oc, m 3 " 4800 2170 .70 04o"Zg5 962 0,62 ive 0 " 0 210 630 am 1 low 90 .03 0,03 80 .05 0,0£ S84 3 MI880 .3"Qpw2S85 .60t 0.(o( sm 1 ISM 20 .01 O.ol 30 A2 o, of Em , 1 1600 230 .09 0.09 10 .01 0,01 in 1 - 16M 180 .II* o 11* 80 .05* 0,05 in 1 FI600 460 .29 270 .17 1mL 1.5- 520 (.1914.1420 .IP 0,13 lm! 1.5 � 4800 380 .19 0./9100 .06 0.04e 4d4t 1 � 1600 20 .01001 10 .01 0.01 RW 7= 1Q)UtN t OR .1P N/AM .12* MIA Im ctrrM otlEtsIM 2.02 O.s¢ .99 0. g, MAY-19-19M 09:26 FROM AL STIN-FOUST ASSOC. TO 19494600113 P.05 ' 40. J4Etmm i 5JN Id Long -A * OP HMelfle um CAPIC1Tf vm v/0 vm v/0 N9L 1 1600 20 .01 70 .04 1®T 3 4600 1740 .36* M70 AP NP4t 1 I600 10 .01 1I0 .07 A 2 32M 650 .20* 640 .22* Sol 3 4600 2120 .44 2630 .39 MR f 60 20 Am 1.5 3e0 .M 90 .03* EBT 1.5 4600 20 .01 30 .02 NS4 f 20 40 ML 1.5 50 50 AST 1.5 4e00 30 .W* 30 .02* at f 400 950 to~ I/riepott Owe ftojtet M fK IN10N PN u mn LM CAPLCITT 90L M u v/C N!G i 1600 10 .01 70 .04 m 3 ON 1730 .M* V75 .06 m I lwo 10 .01 100 .06 A 2 3200 $70 .21* 690 .22* SST 3 40M 20% .44 ISS .60 S8t f 4d 210 RL 1.5 310 .W 100 .03* in 1.5 4400 20 .01 20 .01 m f 20 30 vz 1.5 50 .02 40 AST 1.5 4a00 20 .01* 30 .01* "R f 510 950 TOTAL OIYwm YnLrul10f .70 .71 TOTAL mum OTMUTI01 .70 ."71 1 a. a6r>,oree s gnu hA1lAeta* LoarAmpe CP lbalfae IAM CA Mff )m 1 1600 IN 3 am na 1 14n0 SRL 2 3200 so 3 4A00 SO 1 2600 a I 1600 aT 1 1600 OR 0 0 ML 1.5 MI 0.5 $200 DR 1 low light T= Adjaatses! JAI PN IRON m PR I930R VOL o/C M. v/r. 0 .00 0 .00 1210 .25* 1260 .?A 3" .23 230 .06 460 .14* 440 .15 1460 .30 2040 .43* 220 .14 310 .19 230 .066 270 .17* 30 .02 40 .03 0 0 AO 430 10 .03* 90 .10 150 .09 490 .31 Alk .04� AIR .lt* Loaq-Ifaapa Y/Awvatt ma a itch AK 9 MW PS Pt IA30R Tames CAPXT" var. T/C v01. •/C w 3 4w 1240 .X* 1215 .27 m I I4wo 3441 .24 •130 lot SIN. 2 3200 Aso .14* 500 .15 SST 3 ON JYIQ .31 U?S .44* Sol 1 lwo 140 .10 240 .14 ju 1 1600 110 .07* 220 .14* I8S 1 1600 30 .02 30 .02 >ZBR 0 0 0 0 A54 1.5 90 4S0 #IR 0.5 3200 10 .03* 70 .16* m 1 1600 I90 .09 510 .32 3dg6t Ta7 Ad*taat m .054 w IP TOTAL C4lm MILE M .96 .01 TOTAL 41Pl= UflLifiYI4{9 AS .90 ' * ThM ttodel hat uvmd that a portim of lard so for the Neaport Dmat area 1aa direct awm to teat Istaaection. Im"W, doe to peftiotl oeaatrliatt and boom it not Po W06 Ttedlic 9obm to" the ntt lot of thin fatanootim aboald oalr rdloot the 17A DWI= desaity rxidaatial wits dnlpaatad is so* ff. , TOT$. P.05 MRY-07-1996 14:56 FROM ALISTIN-FOUST ASSOC. TO 194946MI13 P.20 42, JaDom A PM Laog-Bap OP eaWitM 3M PX HOOK PM PX HOOK lam CIYACIlf VOL 9/C 90b 9/C a 1 1600 40 .03 60 .04 w 2 32DD 560 .21* 420 .16* XIR 0 . 0 120 80 JBL 1 1600 70 .04* DO .11* w 2 3200 300 .09 600 .19 lAMt f I= 1910 UL 3 4800 LIM .24* 1310 .27* D3f 4 6400 2120 .33 2490 .40 m 0 0 10 70 MBL 2 3200 70 .02 150 .05 on 4 64M IaO .26* I= .29* MBA f 130 150 "M WACITf,4flLzfA= .75 .83 "0 YACArum h PM 1447f w CP Dwoliao m PX mm PM PX mm um CAPACIV YOL V/C VOL V/C I1L 0 O 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 MAR 0 0 0 0 MIL 2 32M 90 .031 760 .241 m 0 0 0 0 sib f 610 440 M 2 3200 $10 .25* 800 .25* w 3 4800 1470 .31 1550 .32 Uk 0 0 0 0 MML 0 0 0 0 1161' 3 4a00 I390 .29* U30 .24* sm f 710 290 Im rIp M/Nwpkt DMN Pzo:lad AN Pt mm PA PX MDOR LIMLS CIPmM VOL V/C ft V/C IOIi. 1 I600 40 .03 50 .03 X" 2 3290 570 .22* 420 .IP MBR 0 0 120 70 SBL 1 1600 50 .03* 170 .U* ml 2 32DO 290 .09 600 .19 SP8 f Ino 095 UL 3 4800 1170 .21* 1305 •2? w 4 6400 2125 .33 2595 .41 MR 0 0 10 70 OL 2 32DO SD .03 140 .04 AB1' 4 $400 1.71-5 .27* Im .24* MBR f uo 240 uxj7 t p V/Mwlort Dues Aeoj"t AN PX MR 1YA PX HOOK law CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C 1BL 0 0 0 0 MBT 0 0 0 0 MBR 0 0 0 0 58L 2 3200 80 .OS* a40 .25* w 0 0 0 0 sm f 595 435 IM 2 32DD 780 .24* 775 .24* OT 3 4800 14M0 .31 1600 .33 XI@ 0 0 0 0 1% 0 0 0 0 im 3 4809 1430 .30* U40 .24* li1Mt f 76D 290 OCT-23-199e 13625 FROM RUSTIN-FOUST RSSOC T 460010 P.02 53. SUVOWlts ! PM L9or*Age 42 DMIin 11E P!< DOOR P!I PK DOOR um CAPACITY va V/C ' vx V/C MIS 1 160D 140 .09* i80 .n* 10 1 1600 100 .10 50 .14 EER 0 0 60 170 SEL 1 16N 50 .03 120 A MY 1 1600 60 i6* 100 .16* MR 0 0 160 160 YEI. i 1600 60 .06* 100 .06 0 2 32M 370 .12 1540 .48* t8R 1 1690 70 .04 210 .13 UL 1 1600 60 .04 80 .05* MDT 2 3200 1820 .59* 1070 .34 MDR 0 0 80 10 Loorimp M/ "Ort DWu P"Joct AN PR MR LM WACM V06 V/C EL I ISO 140 .0" NAP 1 1000 100 .10 DER 0 0 60 SAL 1 1600 50 .03 SET 1 1600 !0 lip SBR 0 0 160 LEL 1 ISO 90 .00 in 2 3200 370 .12 0 1 1600 70 .04 MDL 1 I600 60 .04 VOT 2 32DO 1860 AP 0* 0 0 EO TMAL C1tPitm O'l1LIiR1'i0E .92 0 A .16* .0E .51* .13 .64 P.02 [1 1 11 1 n 1 1 APPENDIX E 1 1 Letter from Evans Hotels Representative 1 i 1 1 F1 1 1 1 Regarding Bussing 1 I. I L J P Ri RU H S November 10, 1998 Heather Nix WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. 23421 South Pointe Drive, Suite 190 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Dear Heather. ' This letteris inresponseto the City ofNewport Beach's inquiry regardingbus access totheproposed Newport Dunes Hotel and Timeshare Resort. You have asked for an estimate of the expected amount of bussing in the project and the role of such bussing. Naturally, any such estimate will involve a certain amount of conjecture. This is especially true because we have not maintained a record of bus -related activity at our other properties, nor have I been able to locate empirical data either through discussion with other local hotel operators or reference to industry standards or manuals. However, I have discussed the matter with sales and catering personnel at our properties and similar properties as well as destination management companies and can offer some general guidance. As a preliminary comment, a majority of our guests will arrive by private vehicle, taxi, or airport shuttle. We generally do not, nor do we expect in the future to, participate in the Tour segment of the hotel market where all guests arrive by bus or coach. Therefore, all bus traffic will be generated principally by the Group segment of business (i.e., conferences, seminars, etc.) and be related to group events. There are a few varieties of group bussing. First, spouses attending conferences are often offered the option of joining other spouses on conference -sponsored activities, such as tours of interesting local attractions or shopping, Second, the entire group will sometimes be bussed to some location for a particular event (such as a reception) or activity (such as golf). We expect the impact of this type of bussing to be minimal for several reasons. First, Newport Dunes is designed as a destination resort in and of itself Therefore, the main attraction of the property is the facility itself and its many amenities and activities. These factors would be a major reason for choosing Newport Dunes as a conference site in the first place. As an example, we currently host many corporate beach parties for groups staying at other local hotels. Bussing will obviously be unnecessary for similar parties for groups resident at our hotel. Second, since this bussing is generally group -oriented, it will take place mainly during the week and primarily during 1131 Back Bay Drive • Newport Beach, CaGfomia 92660 9 Q14) 729•DUNE November 10,1998 Heather Prix Page 2 non -peak hours. Third, many of the points of local interest are local, thus making a shuttle system utilizing vans a more efficient, economical, and service -oriented means of accomplishing the transportation needs of the group. However, for the sake of worst -case scenario analysis, we have prepared the following operational projections. Assuming a 600-room hotel (the greatest impact), we would anticipate selling no more than three-quarters of the hotel (450 rooms) to groups. As a matter of policy and prudence, we always maintain the remaining inventory for leisure guests, individual business travelers, and our contracted foreign and package business. Forbusinessreasonshavingtodowithrevenueprotection, we generally do not sell more than half the hotel to any one group. Therefore, 300 roomswould be the maximum size of any group staying at the Newport Dunes Hotel. Maximum bussing would consist either of 100'/9 of spouses during the day or 100% of all attendees and spouses at night. Malting the most conservative estimates of 100% participation and 100yo spouse attendance, that translates into 300 daytime bus occupants and 600 evening bus occupants. At 50 people per bus, that means 6 or 12 busses, respectively. Based on our experience, we do riot expect traffic even approaching this magnitude more than once a week. Much more likely is traffic of lesser magnitude (in the range of one -quarter to one-half as many busses) that could occur once or twice a week. Moreover, even in amass bussing scenario, not all busses would arrive and/or wait at once. Mather, bus departures are generally somewhat staggered to allow forbetter group flowboth at the resort site and the destination. As for operational concerns, busses will access the project from Pacific Coast Highway via Bayside Drive. Once on site, they can access the hotel from any ofthree separate locations: up the main drive either to the mainporte cochcre or the conference center Porte cochere (the top deck of the packing structure in this area will be reinforced for fire truck access, thus allowing bus traffic) or along the main drive to the tiunesharelmarina Porte cochere. This will allow maximum flexibility in the unlikely event that all busses am present on -site at once. in keeping with current operating policy, no idling of vehicles is allowed once on site. To conclude, there are a couple of caveats. Fitst, it is important to keep in mind that a bus with 50 people on board will replace trafficfromat least 25 automobiles, assuming an unusually high 100% two -passenger occupancy. Therefore, a single bus will take the place of between 25 and 50 individual automobiles for the purposes of traffic, air quality, and noise analysis. Second, it is also important to keep in mind that bus activity is a part of the operation of virtually any hotel ormsort development. Therefore, studies ofsimilar projects have inevitably includedthis traffic -generating element. We do not expect to have any more or less bus traffic than any other resort project of a similar size and operational characteristics. November 10, 1998 ' • Heather Nix Page 3 1 apologize for the fact that this letter addresses the bus issue in generalities, but there is simply no ' hard data available for analysis. We have done the best we can in an effort to quantify this aspect of our proposed hotel. Should you have any questions on this analysis or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to call meat (619) 539-7610. 1 1 1 1 SincerelQ&AA-�� Robert Chief Financial Officer c: Rich Edmonston, City of Newport Beach Traffic Janet Divan, City of Newport Beach Traffic Patrick. Alford, City ofNewpox' ^' LSA Associates, Inc. APPENDIX H AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT 1 I 1 1 L 11 ' 9/2 IL Air Quality Assessment for the Newport Dunes Hotel City of Newport Beach Prepared for: LSA Associates, Inc. One Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92614 Prepared by: Fred Greve, P.E. Tanya Moon MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES 280 Newport Center Drive Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 760-0891 Report # 98-2133 October 26, 1998 (Revised January 15, 1999) ' Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 1 Air Quality Analysis for Newport Dunes Hotel City of Newport Beach 1.0 EXISTING AIR QUALITY The proposed Newport Dunes Hotel comprises approximately 700,000 square feet of interior ' facilities. The hotel is a full service destination resort which involves 600 units. The proposed project includes: swimming pools, health, fitness and recreation facilities, children's facilities, dining areas, ballrooms and meeting rooms, retail space, parking garages and landscaped garden areas. As an alternative to the 600-room hotel, 400-room hotel and 100 timeshare units are considered for this resort. This air quality report will assess emissions for the 600-room hotel as the "worst case" impact. The proposed project also involves the displacement of the existing trailer and recreational vehicle storage area. However, approximately 256 recreational vehicle spaces will be retained ' after the development of the project. The proposed project site is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and thus is subject to a review with respect to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The SCAB comprises all of Orange County and the non - desert portions of Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino Counties. 1.1 Climate ' The climate in and around the project area, as with all of Southern California, is controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. ' It maintains moderate temperatures and comfortable humidities, and limits precipitation to a few storms during the winter "wet" season. Temperatures are normally mild, excepting the summer months, which commonly bring substantially higher temperatures during the summer months. In all portions of the basin, temperatures well above 100 degrees F. have been recorded in recent years. The annual average temperature in the basin is approximately 62 degrees F. ' Winds in the project area are usually driven by the dominant land/sea breeze circulation system. Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime onshore sea breezes. At night the wind generally slows and reverses direction traveling towards the sea. Wind direction will be altered ' by local canyons, with wind tending to flow parallel to the canyons. During the transition period from one wind pattern to the other, the dominant wind direction rotates into the south and causes a minor wind direction maximum from the south. The frequency of calm winds (less than 2 miles ' per hour) is less than 10 percent. Therefore, there is little stagnation in the project vicinity, especially during busy daytime traffic hours. Mestre Greve Associates , Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel ' Page 2 Southern California frequently has temperature inversions which inhibit the dispersion of pollutants. Inversions may be either ground based or elevated. Ground based inversions, sometimes referred to as radiation inversions, are most severe during clear, cold, early winter mornings. Under conditions of a ground based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occurs, and high concentrations of primary pollutants may occur local to major roadways. Elevated '. inversions can be generated by a variety of meteorological phenomena. Elevated inversions act as a lid or upper boundary and restrict vertical mixing. Below the elevated inversion dispersion is not restricted. Mixing heights for elevated inversions are lower in the summer and more persistent. This low summer inversion puts a lid over the SCAB and is responsible for the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in the air basin. ' 1.2 Air Quality Management I The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and, jurisdictionally, is the responsibility of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and to a lesser extent, the California Air Resources Board (CARE). The SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin and develops and implements Transportation Control Measures. The CARB is charged with controlling motor vehicle emissions. CARB ' establishes legal emission rates for new vehicles and is responsible for the vehicle inspection program. Other important agencies in the air quality management for the basin include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The EPA implements the provisions of the federal Clean Air Act. This act establishes ambient air quality standards that are applicable nationwide. In areas that are not achieving the standards the Clean Air Act requires that plans be developed and implemented to meet the standards. The EPA oversees the efforts in this air basin and insures that appropriate plans are being developed and implemented. The primary agencies responsible for writing the plan are SCAG and the SCAQMD, and the plan is called the Air Quality Management Plan , (AQMP). SCAQMD and SCAG, in coordination with local governments and the private sector, have ' developed the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the air basin. The AQMP is the most important air management document for the basin because it provides the blueprint for meeting state and federal ambient air quality standards. The 1997 AQMP was adopted locally on November 8, 1996, by the governing board of the SCAQMD. CARB has amended the 1997 AQMP and has submitted it to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the California State Implementation Plan. The document needs to be reviewed and approved by the ' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). State law mandates the revision of the AQMP at least every three years, and federal law specifies dates certain for developing attainment plans for criteria pollutants. The 1997 AQMP supersedes the 1994 AQMP revision that was adopted ' locally by the SCAQMD in November 1996. The 1997 revision to the AQMP was adopted in response to the requirements set forth in the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) and the 1990 amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The 1997 AQMP has been submitted to the ' EPA in 1997, but is yet to be adopted by the EPA. The 1997 PM10 attainment demonstration SIP has also been submitted to the EPA. , Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel ' Page 3 The SCAB has been designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a non - attainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide, and suspended particulates. Nitrogen dioxide.in the SCAB has met the federal standards for the third year in a row, and therefore, is qualified for ' redesignation to attainment. A maintenance plan for nitrogen dioxide is included in the 1997 AQMP. The CCAA mandates the implementation of the program that will achieve the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and the CAA mandates the implementation of new air quality performance standards. Attainments of all federal PM10 health standards are to be achieved. by December 31, 2006, and ozone standards are to be achieved by November 15, 2010. For CO, the deadline is December. 31, 2000. The overall control strategy for the AQMP is to meet applicable state and federal requirements and to demonstrate attainment with ambient air quality standards. The 1997 AQMP uses two tiers of emission reduction measures; (1) short- and intermediate -term measures, and (2) long- term, measures. Short- and intermediate -term measures propose the application of available technologies and management practices between 1994 and the year 2005. These measures rely on known technologies and proposed actions to be taken by several agencies that currently have statutory authority to implement such measures. Short- and intermediate -term measures in the 1997 AQMP include 35 stationary source, 7 on -road, 6 off -road, 1 transportation control and indirect source, 5 advanced transportation technology, and 1 further study measures. All of these measures are proposed to be implemented between 1995 and 2005. These measures rely on both traditional command and control and on alternative approaches to implement technological solutions and control measures. To ultimately achieve ambient air quality standards, additional emission reductions will be necessary beyond the implementation of short- and intermediate -term in Long-term measures rely on the advancement of technologies and control methods that can reasonably be ' expected to occur between 1997 and 2010. These long-term measures rely of further development and refinement of known low- and zero -emission control technologies for both mobile and stationary sources, along with technological breakthroughs. 1.3 Monitored Air Quality 1 Air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Estimates for the SCAB have been made for existing emissions ("1997 Air Quality Management Plan", October 1996). The data indicate that mobile sources are the major source of regional emissions. Motor vehicles (i.e., on -road mobile sources) account for approximately 51 percent of volatile organic compounds (VOC), 63 percent of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, and approximately 78 percent of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. Mesta Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 4 The project site is closest to the SCAQMD Source Receptor Area 18 (North Coast Orange County). The data collected at this station are considered to be representative of the air quality experienced in the vicinity of the project area. The monitored air quality at Receptor Area 18 is available for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The next representative source receptor is the Central Orange County station. PM10 data are available at this station. The monitored air quality data, from 1995 to 1997, for these pollutants are shown in Tables I and 2. Table 1 Air Quality Levels Measured at North Coast Orange County Ambient Air Monitoring Station California National Maximum Days State Pollutant Standard Standard Year Level Std. Exceeded Ozone 0.09 ppm 0,12 ppm 1997 0.13 9 for 1 hr. for 1 hr. 1996 0.10 1 1995 0.11 3 CO 20 ppm 35 ppm 1997 12 0 for 1 hour for 1 hour 1996 9 0 1995 8 0 CO 9.0 ppm 9 ppm 1997 6.0 0 for 8 hour for 8 hour 1996 7.3 0 1995 6.6 0 NO2 0.25 PPM 0.053 PPM 1997 .15 0 for 1 hour AAM 1996 .14 0 1995 .18 0 S02 .05 ppm .14 ppm 1997 -- -- for 24 hours for 24 hours 1996 .01* 0* 1995 .02 0 * Less than 12 full months of data. May not be representative. -- Data not available. 1 Mestre Greve Associates ' Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 5 Table 2 Air Quality Levels Measured at Central Orange County Ambient Air Monitoring Station 1 Number (%) California National Maximum Samples State Pollutant Standard Standard Year Level Std. Exceeded Particulates 50 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 1997 91 11(18%) PM10** for 24 hr. for 24 hr. 1996 101 6(10%) 1995 172 14(23%) ** PM10 samples were collected every 6 day. The percentages refer to the percent of samples exceeding the standard and not the number of days per year that the standard was exceeded. According to monitoring data presented in Table 1, ozone is the air pollutant of primary concern in the project area. The state ozone standard was exceeded 9 days in 1997, 1 day in 1996, and 3 days in 1995. This shows that ozone levels had consistently exceeded the state standards. Ozone is a secondary pollutant; it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of chemical reactions between other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and NO2, which occur only in the presence of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in the area. Many areas of the SCAQMD contribute to the ozone levels experienced at the monitoring station, with the more significant areas being those directly upwind. Carbon monoxide (CO) is another important pollutant that is due mainly to motor vehicles. The data indicate that CO levels currently comply with the state and federal 1-hour and 8-hour standards. In general, high levels of CO commonly occur near major roadways and freeways. CO may potentially be a continual problem in the future for areas next to freeways and other majorroadways. The air quality in Table 2 shows that the state standards for PM10 have consistently exceeded. ' The state standards were exceeded for approximately 18 percent of the samples measured in 1997, approximately 10 percent of the samples measured in 1996, and approximately 23 percent of the samples measured in 1995. The trend shows that PM10 levels of exceedances have slightly decreased, in the last three years. PM10 levels in the area are normally due to natural sources, grading operations and motor vehicles. According to the EPA, some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing fine particles (PM10). People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worsening illness and premature death due to breathing these fine ' particles. People with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms from breathing in fine I Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 6 particles. Children may experience decline in lung function due to breathing in PM10. Other groups considered sensitive are smokers and people who cannot breathe well through their noses. Exercising athletes are also considered sensitive, because many breathe through their mouths. As can be seen in Tables 1 and 2, other than ozone andPM10 exceedances as mentioned above, t no state or federal standards were exceeded for the remaining criteria pollutants. 1.4 Local Air Quality 1.4.1 Introduction and Criteria ' Local air quality is a major concern along roadways. Carbon monoxide is a primary pollutant. Unlike ozone, carbon monoxide is directly emitted from a variety of sources. The most notable source of carbon monoxide is motor vehicles. For this reason, carbon monoxide concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used to assess its impacts on the local air quality. Comparisons of levels with state and federal carbon monoxide standards indicate the severity of the existing concentrations for receptors in the project area. The Federal and State standards for carbon monoxide are presented in Table 3. 1 Table 3 Federal and State Carbon Monoxide Standards Averaging Time Standard 11 Federal 1 hour 35 ppm 8 hours 9 ppm State I hour 20 ppm 8 hours 9 ppm Carbon monoxide levels in the project vicinity due to nearby roadways were assessed with the CALINE4 computer model. CALINE4 is a fourth generation line source air quality model developed by the California Department of Transportation ("CALINE4," Report No. FHWA/CA/TL-84/15, June 1989). The precise methodology used in modeling existing air quality with the CALINE4 computer model is discussed in more detail in Section 2.2 (Local Air Quality Impacts.) The remainder of this section discusses the resulting existing carbon monoxide levels in comparison to the State and Federal carbon monoxide standards. The results of the CALINE4 CO computer modeling for the existing conditions are shown in Table 4. The CALINE4 modeling was conducted for 3 representative receptor locations in the I I i I I 11 I Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 7 project area. Receptor site 1 is located on the south corner of the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH)/MacArthur Boulevard intersection. Receptor site 2 is located on -site, on the northwest corner of the PCH/Jamboree Road intersection. Receptor site 3 is located on the northeast comer 1 of the Ford Road/Jamboree Road intersection. These receptors are located approximately 25 feet from the intersections. The receptor locations are shown in Exhibit 1. The existing background CO concentrations used in the analysis were obtained from the April 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook. (The April 1993• CEQA Air Quality Handbook is the latest available source.) The Costa Mesa station is the nearest air quality monitoring station to the project site, and therefore, the existing 1998 background CO concentrations are taken from this station. The existing background CO concentrations are 8.9 ppm for 1 hour, and 7.1 ppm for 8 hour, and will be added to the CO modeling levels. The existing traffic data were provided in the traffic study prepared by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., November 12, 1998. The results of the existing CO levels are presented in Table 4. ' Table 4 Existing Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) 11 Roadway !, I I I RECEPTOR LOCATIONS Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Opm) I Hour 8 Hour 1 S PCH/MacArthur Boulevard -commercial 13.3 10.2 2 N.W. PCH/Jamboree Road (on -site) 11.2 8.7 3 N.E. Ford Rd./Jamboree Rd. -residential 16.5 12.4 Summary of No. of Sites No. of Sites Carbon Monoxide exceeding exceeding State Standard 20 ppm 9 nom Exceedances 0 2 NOTE: The CO concentrations include the ambient concentrations of 8.9 ppm for 1-hour levels, and 7.1 ppm for 8-hour levels. The underlined data indicate exceedances of the standard. Table 4 presents the existing CO modeling results for the three receptor locations. The existing CO levels are estimated to range between 11.2 and 16.5 ppm for 1-hour, and between 8.7 and 12.4 ppm for 8-hour. The data indicate that the existing CO levels comply with the 1-hour state and federal standards at the three receptor sites. However, the existing CO levels exceed the 8- Receptor Locations Exhibit I MESrREGREVEASSOCIATES I CALINE4 Modeling Receptor Locations Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 8 hour standard at two of the three receptor sites. The high CO levels are due to the high background CO concentration levels. 2.0 POTENTIAL AIR QUALITY IMPACTS DUE TO THE PROJECT ' Air quality impacts are usually divided into short term and long term. Short term impacts are usually the result of construction or grading operations. Long term impacts are associated with the built -out condition of the proposed project. 2.1 Short Term Impacts The Newport Dunes Hotel project site comprises approximately 30 acres. The grading of the site is anticipated to take six weeks, with an additional 12 to 15 months for the project construction. The analysis will be based on the worst case assumption which is a 15 month construction phase. Temporary impacts will result from project construction activities. Air pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment and fugitive dust will be generated during grading and site preparation. Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (according to the 1993 CEQA Handbook, emission factor for disturbed soil is 26.4 pounds of PM10 per day per acre). If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. Applying the above factors of 30 acres, a 6 week grading cycle, and a maximum 15 month build - out construction phase, the total PM10 emission is estimated to be approximately 7.13 tons per year. The above estimate represents a worst case annualized estimate of the PM10 emissions generated. However, the grading of the project will occur in one phase. Therefore, during the six week grading phase, the project is projected to generate a peak PM10 emission of 391 pounds per day. ' The peak emission of 391 pounds per day of PM10 generated by the grading of the project is minor when compared with the total average annual of 416 tons per day of particulate matter currently released in the whole South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). According to the SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook, PM10 emissions greater than 150 pounds per day should be considered significant. PM10 emission due to the construction activities is projected to be greater than this threshold, and therefore, is considered to be significant. ' It should be noted that the impact due to grading is very localized. Additionally, this material is inert silicates, rather than the complex organic particulate matter released from combustion sources which are more harmful to health. In some cases grading may be near existing development. Care should be taken to minimize the generation of dust. Common practice for minimizing dust generation is watering before and during grading. Without watering, PM10 emission generation would be double the amount mentioned previously (2 x 7 tons/year = 14 tons/year). Additional mitigation measures are proposed in Section 3.0. r Meshy Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 9 Heavy-duty equipment emissions are difficult to quantify because of day to day variability in construction activities and equipment used. Typical emission rates for construction equipment were obtained from the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook. For a project of this size, 12 pieces of heavy equipment may be expected to operate at one time. The number of pieces of equipment assumed included 2 scrapers, 2 tractors, 2 graders, 2 dozers, 1 water truck, and 3 miscellaneous trucks. If all of the equipment operated for 8 hours per day the following emissions would result: approximately 58 pounds per day of carbon monoxide, 9 pounds per day of ROG, 157 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides, 20 pounds per day of PM10, and 21 pounds per day of sulfur oxides. There will also be some emissions generated by construction workers travel to and from the job site. However, information is not available to project these emissions, and they are usually small in comparison to the other construction emissions. Note that some of the pollutant emissions are greater than the Significance Emission Thresholds established by the SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, and therefore, the project construction emissions, specifically PM10 emissions are -considered to be significant. Therefore, mitigation measures are recommended for the construction activities of the project to minimize fugitive dust emissions. The mitigation measures are provided in Section S.O. The construction emission data are summarized in Table 5. The data used to calculate the construction emissions are provided in the appendix. Table 5 Worst Case Peak Construction Emissions -------------- Peak Emissions (Pounds/Day)--- ----------- Employee Grading Activities Equipment Total SCAQMD Pollutant Travel (PM10only) Emissions Emissions Thresholds Carbon Monoxide 11.72 - - 58.14 70 550 ' ROG 1,20 - - 8.74 10 75 Nitrogen Oxides 1.16 - - 156.62 1,58 100 PM10 0.16 391 19.73 411 150 Sulfur Oxides 0.08 -- 21.29 21 150 NOTE: The underlined data indicate exceedances of the significant threshold. ' I I 1 I Mestre Greve Associates Air Quall'ity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel ' Page 10 2.2 Long Term Impacts - Local Air Quality Because the project will introduce changes in traffic on the roadways serving the project, a detailed analysis of carbon monoxide concentrations at sensitive areas in the project vicinity was conducted. ' 2.2.1.Methodology Carbon monoxide (CO) is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of carbon monoxide is motor vehicles. For this reason carbon monoxide concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network, and ' are used as an indicator of its impacts on local air quality. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future carbon monoxide levels with State and Federal carbon monoxide standards moreover by comparing future CO concentrations with and without the project. The Federal and State standards for carbon monoxide were presented earlier in Table 3. Future carbon monoxide concentrations with the project were forecasted using the CALINE4 computer model. CALINE4 is a fourth generation line source air quality model developed by the California Department of Transportation ("CALINE4," Report No. FHWA/CA/TL-84/15, June 1989). The purpose of the modeling is to forecast air quality impacts near transportation facilities in what is known as the microscale region. The microscale region encompasses the region of a few thousand feet around the pollutant source. Given source strength, meteorology, site geometry, and site characteristics, the model can reliably predict pollutant concentrations. Worst case meteorology was assessed. Specifically, a late afternoon winter period with a ground based inversion'was considered. For worst case meteorological conditions, a wind speed of 0.5 meter per second (1 mph) and a stability class G was utilized for a 1 hour averaging time. Stability class G is the worst case scenario for the most turbulent atmospheric conditions. A worst case wind direction for each site was determined by the CALINE4 Model. A sigma theta of 10 degrees was also used and represents the fluctuation of wind direction. A high sigma theta number would represent a very changeable wind direction. The temperature used for worst case was 50 degrees Fahrenheit. The temperature affects the dispersion pattern and emission rates of the motor vehicles. The temperature represents the January mean minimum temperature as reported by Caltrans. The wind speed, stability class, sigma theta, and temperature data used for the modeling are those recommended in the "Development of Worst Case Meteorology Criteria," (California Department of Transportation, June 1989). A mixing height of 1,000 meters was used as recommended in the CALINE4 Manual. A surface roughness of the ground in the area, 100 centimeters, was utilized and is'based on the CALINE4 Manual. It should be noted that the Iresults are also dependent on the speeds of the vehicles utilized in the model. Emission factors for the arterials used in the CALINE4 computer model were obtained from the Air Resources Board (ARB). The most updated emission factors, version MVEI7G, were used in the CALINE4 computer modeling. Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 11 The traffic data were provided by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., November 12, 1998. The primary data used in the CALINE4 computer modeling are the peak hour volumes. The p.m. peak hour traffic was utilized for the CALINE4 computer modeling as the worst case scenario, since the p.m. peak hour traffic is generally higher than the a.m, peak hour. The level -of -service data at the intersections were also used. The level -of -service data are important in the CALM4 computer modeling in that they determine the speeds used. The speeds used in turn determine the emission factors. The lower the speeds, the higher the emission factors, hence, the higher the CO results. The projected eight hour carbon monoxide levels were based on the Caltrans methodology described in their "Air Quality Technical Analysis Notes." The method essentially uses a persistence factor which is multiplied times the 1 hour emission projections. The projected 8 hour ambient concentration is then added to the product. The persistence factor can be estimated using the highest ratio of 8-hour to 1-hour second annual maximum carbon monoxide concentrations from the most recent three years that data is available. Forthe proposed project, a persistence factor of 0.7 was used. Generally, the 1-hour CO level is considered the peak maximum CO level since it is the highest CO measured for an hour. According to the Caltrans Air Quality Technical Analysis Notes, changes in meteorology and traffic over time disperse the CO concentration levels and cause it to be less severe. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the 1-hour CO levels would persist for a full eight hours. As a result, a 1-hour CO level is generally considered to be the peak level and is usually higher than an 8-hour CO level. The CALINE4 computer modeling for the buildout year (2002) of the project are shown in Table 6. The CALINE4 modeling was conducted for three receptor locations: Receptor site 1 is located on the south corner of the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH)/McArthur Boulevard intersection. Receptor site 2 is located on -site, on the northwest corner of the PCH/Jamboree Road intersection. Receptor site 3 is located on the northeast corner of the Ford Road/Jamboree Road intersection. These receptors are located approximately 25 feet from the intersections. The receptor locations used for the future CO modeling are essentially the same receptor locations as the existing CO modeling in Section 1.4. The future ambient (background) CO concentration levels were based on the 1993 CEQA Handbook. The future projected ambient CO levels, however, are available up to year 2000. It is assumed that the background CO levels for year 2000 are the same as year 2002. This can be considered to be the worst case scenario, since the background CO levels are projected to decrease steadily in the future year. This means that the 2002 background CO levels will be slightly less than the 2000 background CO levels. The future background levels used in the analysis are from the Costa Mesa monitoring station, and they are 7.3 ppm for CO 1-hour level, and 5.8 ppm for 8-hour CO level. (The CALINE4 modeling results are provided in the appendix. However, the CALINE4 CO emissions do not include the ambient CO levels). r r I r r 1 I r r I r I It I r r ' Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel ' Page 12 2.2.2 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Modeling Results The results of the CALINE4 CO modeling for the future year 2002 are summarized in Table 6. The CO modeling results are shown for the 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentration levels. The pollutant levels are expressed in parts per million (ppm) for each receptor. The carbon monoxide levels reported in Table 6 are the composites of the background levels of carbon monoxide coming into the area plus those generated by the local roadways. Table 6 Worst Case Projections of Carbon Monoxide Concentrations -Year 2002 Future Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (Rpm) Receptor No Project With Project Location 1 Hour 8 Hour 1 Hour 8 Hour RECEPTOR LOCATIONS 1 S.PCHUcArthurBoulevard-commercial 10.6 8.1 10.7 8.2 2 N.W.PCH/JamboreeRoad-(on-site) 9.9 7.6 10.0 7,7 1 3 N.E. Fond Rd./Jamboree Rd. -residential 15.4 11.5 15.4 11.5 Summary of No. of Sites No. of Sites No. of Sites No. of Sites Carbon Monoxide exceeding exceeding exceeding exceeding State Standard 20 imm 9 npm 20 ppm 9 onm ' Exceedances 0 1 0 1 NOTE: The CO concentrations include the ambient concentrations of 7.3 ppm for 1-hour 1 levels, and 5.8 ppm for 8-hour levels. The future CO results in Table 6 are shown for the future no project and future with the project ' scenarios. The future no project CO levels are projected to be between 9.9 and 15.4 ppm for 1- hour, and between 7.6 and 11.5 ppm for 8-hour. The future with project CO levels are projected to be between 10.0 and 15.4 ppm for 1-hour, and between 7.7 and 11.5 ppm for 8-hour. It should be noted that the CO levels for the future no project and future with project scenarios include improvements at the Ford Road/Jamboree Road intersection. The roadway improvement is a City planned improvement of an eastbound free right turn lane which is to be implemented in the next four years. ' The future CO levels for both future scenarios are projected to comply with the 1-hour CO State and federal standards at all three receptor locations. However, the 8-hour CO levels are ' projected to be exceeded at Receptor location 3. This is due to the high congestion level at Ford I Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 13 Road/Jamboree Road. Without the roadway improvement, this intersection would experience a "level -of -service" E. With the improvement, the congestion level would be improved to a "level -of -service" D. The CO concentration levels for the future with project are compared with the future no project CO levels. The future CO levels with the project are projected to be slightly higher with respect to no project. The CO levels are projected to be increased by an average of 0.1 ppm for 1-hour and 8-hour due to the proposed project. According to the CEQA Handbook, a measurable increase is defined as 1 ppm for the 1-hour standard, and 0.45 ppm for the 8 hour standard (which is consistent with District Regulation XZ definition of a significant impact). For areas with background concentrations already exceed the state 1-hour and 8-hour CO standards, any increase above the measurable increase is considered "likely to increase the frequency or severity of an existing CO violation". However, since the CO increases due to the project is below the measurable increase (CO increase levels of 1 ppm for 1-hour and 0.45 ppm for 8-hour), the proposed project is not considered to create a significant air quality impact. The future CO modeling results in Table 6 can also be compared with the existing CO levels (Table 4). That is, the future with project CO concentration levels will essentially be lower than the existing CO levels. In fact, the future CO concentration levels will be reduced by an average of 1.6 ppm for 1-hour, and by an average of 1.3 ppm for 8-hour at the three receptor sites. This , is mainly due to the roadway improvement, and the decrease in the future background CO concentration levels as well as the anticipated decrease in the future emission factors (version MVEI70). In general, the background CO concentration and the emission factors are projected to decrease steadily in the future years. The future contribution of the local traffic actually increase due to increase in traffic, but is more than offset by the decrease bf background levels and emission factors. I �l 1 n I I I Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 14 2.3 Long Term Regional Air Quality The main source of regional emissions generated by the proposed project will be from motor vehicles. Other emissions will be generated from the combustion of natural gas for space heating and the generation of electricity. Emissions will also be generated by the use of natural gas and oil for the generation of electricity off -site. 2.3.1 Total Project Emissions The total daily emissions will be assessed for the proposed project. The total daily emissions at the project build out will be primarily due to vehicular emissions, and emissions due to on -site ' combustion of natural gas for space heating and water heating. Also, the generation of electrical energy by the combustion of fossil fuels results in additional emissions off -site. ' Vehicular emissions will be the main sources of the project's daily emissions. Estimates were made of the vehicular emissions that would be generated by the proposed project. The future traffic data for the Newport Dunes Hotel project were provided by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., November 12, 1998. The project is anticipated to generate 5,400 average daily trips (ADT), of which 600 trips are from the existing RV spaces on -site. Therefore, the project will actually generate a net ADT of 4,800. Based on the trip credits contained in the 1998 Settlement Agreement for the Newport Dunes site, the proposed project will generate an additional 800 ADT that exceed what the site is entitled for. ' The average trip length for the proposed project is not known. According to the CEQA Handbook, Table A9-5-D, the average trip length between the work and non -work trips in Orange County (year 2010) is approximately 9 miles. Therefore, the 9 mile average trip length will be used for the proposed project. The result shows that the product of 4,800 daily trips and a 9 mile trip length, translate to total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of 43,200. The most updated emission factors, version MVEI7G, were used in the vehicular emission calculation. The MVE17G emission factors were obtained from the Air Resources Board (ARB). The emission factors, at an average speed of 25 miles per hour, were used in the estimates. Other emission sources that will be generated by the proposed project are on -site combustion of natural gas for space heating and water heating, and off -site electrical usage. The data used to estimate the on -site combustion of natural gas, and off -site electrical usage are based on the proposed land uses in terms of dwelling units and square footages, and emission factors taken from the 1993 CEQA Handbook. These data are also provided as technical data in the appendix. The total emissions due to the project are presented in Table 7. I 1 Mestre Greve Associates ■ Air Quallity Assessment forNewport Dunes Hotel Page 15 Table 7 TOTAL PROJECT DAILY EMISSIONS - NET EMISSIONS ------------- SOURCE------------- On-Site Off -Site Emis. from Vehicular Natural Gas Emis. from Electrical Total Daily Total Daily Pollutant Emissions Combustion Generation Emissions Emissions (pounds/day) (pounds✓day) (pounds/day) (pounds/day) (tons/dq) CO 628.68 2.20 2.61 634 0.32 TOG/ROG 111.43 0.58 0.13 112 0.06 NOx 151.96 13.22 15.00 180 0.09 PM10 4.76 0.02 0.52 5 0.00 sox 7.41 0.00 2.80 9 0.00 NOTE: Project emissions were based on the net ADT of 4,800. , 2.3.2 Diesel Truck Emissions Based on the faxed letter on November 11, 1998, it is projected that between 15 and 20 vehicles associated with the loading docks will access the project site daily, with only approximately 10% are large trucks. This is equivalent to a maximum of two large trucks, or four trick trips per day. The delivery trucks associated with the loading docks would involve stopping and starting the engine, and will retrain on the site for brief periods of time. During the loading and unloading activities, the truck engines will be turned off, and therefore, no idling will occur on the project site. The diesel truck fume, mainly CO emission, is of concern at the nearest residents, located just south of the project site. It is difficult to quantify the amount of emissions from the four heavy truck operations that are expected per day. However, it is projected that the truck emissions will ■ not be enough to be significant. For example, Jamboree Road is a major roadway Which has much more auto and truck traffic, however, Table 6 shows that CO emissions along this roadway are still under the state and federal standards. As a result, the emissions produce from the heavy trucks on the project site are considered to be negligible. 2.3.3 Total Regional Emissions I The main source of emissions generated by the proposed project will be from motor vehicles. , Other sources of emissions will be natural gas combustion for space heating, electrical generation and various activities that are yet to be defined and quantified. Emissions for the I Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 16 proposed project were calculated using methodology and emission factors contained in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The Orange County emission data are available for year 2010 and are from the 1991 revisions to the AQMP, and will be used to compare with the project's total emissions. (Because the 1997 AQMP does not have a break down in the emission data per individual county, the 1991 AQMP county wide emissions are the best available data to use for comparison purposes.) The total net emissions generated by the project are presented in the first line of Table 8, and are in pounds per day. In addition, emissions due to the additional 800 project trips are shown in the second line for comparison purposes. ' Table 8 Comparison of Emissions Contaminant CO ROG NOx PM10 sox Total Emissions Per Day Project Net Emissions(Pounds/Day) 634 112 180 5 9 Emissions based on 800 add. Trips (Lb./Dy) 110 19 54 1 3 Orange County (Tons/Day) 622 227 173 268 15 rSCAQAID Thresholds ofSignificance (Pounds/Day) 550 55 55 ISO 150 Project Emissions as a Percent of Regional Emissions Percent of County Emissions (Project) 0.051% 0.025% 0.052% 0.001% 0.030% ' NOTE: The underlined data indicate exceedance of the thresholds. As can be seen in Table 8, on the regional basis, the proposed project will contribute approximately 0.06 percent or less, when compared with the County emissions. The primary source of the proposed project emissions will be from motor vehicles. The results indicate that the project daily net emissions will exceed the SCAQMD's significance thresholds for CO, ROG, and NOx. The project daily net emissions include the 800.additional trips that were not a part of the settlement agreement. The results indicate that these additional project trips would bring the project emissions over the significance thresholds for CO. Since the project daily emissions will exceed the above emission significant thresholds, according to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, the project is considered to be significant. Significant long- term adverse impact upon the regional' air quality is projected due to the proposed project. ' Therefore, mitigation measures are recommended for long-term impacts. I Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 17 The SCAB has been classified as a non -attainment air basin for compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act. The project's long-term impacts will be significant, and will contribute incrementally to a cumulatively significant adverse impact. 2.3.4 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts The local air quality emissions were analyzed in Section 2.2.2 for the future with project scenario and included cumulative air quality impacts. These cumulative CO emissions include existing traffic, regional growth, and approved/committed projects including the proposed project. The regional emissions for the proposed project were analyzed in Section 2.3.3, and were based on the project trip generations. However, the cumulative trip generations in the area were not provided in the traffic study, and therefore, cumulative impacts on a regional basis were not analyzed. 2.4 Compliance with Air Quality Planning The following sections deal with the major air planning requirements for this project. Specifically, consistency of the project with the AQMP is addressed. As discussed below, consistency with the AQMP is a requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2.4.1 Consistency with AQ11xI' An EIR must discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans (California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines (Section 15125)). Regional plans that apply to the proposed project include the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). In this regard, this section will discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project with the AQMP. The purpose of the consistency discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the project would interfere with the region's ability to comply with federal and state air quality standards. If the decision -maker determine that the project is inconsistent the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency. The SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended General Plan Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQW" Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the plan if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 18 (1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP (except as provided for CO in Section 9.4 for relocating rCO hot spots). (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2010 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections. ' Criterion 1- Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this report, it is expected that there will ' be short-term construction impacts for the proposed project. It is unlikely that short-term construction activities will increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations due to required compliance with SCAQMD Rules and Regulations, but emissions will be generated in excess of SCAQMD's threshold criteria (refer to Section 2.1). The proposed project, by itself, will increase regional emissions, and will increase regional emissions by an amount greater than the SCAQMD thresholds (Refer to Section 2.3.3). The proposed project will contribute incrementally to the local air quality when compared to no project, however, the amount is not considered to be significant. The future CO concentration levels with the project are projected to comply with the 1-hour State and Federal standards. However, the future 8-hour CO levels are projected to exceed the standards whether the proposed project will take place or not. ". However, since the CO increases due to the project is ' below the measurable CO increase levels of 1 ppm for 1-hour and 0.45 ppm for 8-hour, the proposed project is not considered to create a significant air quality impact. Therefore, the project is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion. I Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQW? Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the project with the assumptions in the AQMP. Thus, the emphasis of this criterion is to insure that the ' analyses conducted for the project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCP&G) consists of three sections: Core Chapters, Ancillary Chapters, and Bridge Chapters. The Growth Management, Regional Mobility, Air Quality, Water ' Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management chapters constitute the Core Chapters of the document. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. Since the SCAG forecasts are not detailed, the test for consistency of this project is not specific. The traffic modeling upon which much of the air quality assessment is based on is the Trip Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 19 Generation, 6a' Edition, from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The traffic modeling is also in conformance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The traffic modeling has growth projections at year 2002, at which is the project's buildout year. The future traffic growth projections include approved projects to be constructed around year 2002. It appears that the growth forecasts for the project, at the project's buildout year, are consistent with the SCAG growth forecasts. The forecasts made for the project EIR seem to be based on the same demographics as the AQMP, and therefore, the second criterion is met for consistency with the AQMP. Inclusion of AQMP Measures The 1997 AQMP lists strategies designed to improve air quality throughout the region. These measures examine solutions to regional air quality concerns. A two tiered approach is -used in the 1997 AQMP. The first is, short- and medium -term measures that will utilize existing technology. The second tier is long-term measures that will rely on new technology. Each tier then contains several control measures intended to reduce emissions from specific sources or activities including stationary sources, transportation related and land use related sources, area sources, mobile sources, and off -road mobile sources. The project emissions will be greater than the thresholds of significance. Therefore, to be consistent with the AQMP, long term mitigation measures are recommended to reduce emissions, and these mitigation measures are described in Section 3.2. ' Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 20 3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation measures are required for the project to reduce emissions for short-term and long- term impacts. Short-term impacts are associated with construction emissions, while long-term impacts are associated with local and regional emissions. The mitigation measures provided in the following sections are recommended by the SCAQMD. These mitigation measures were obtained from the AQMP (Chapter 4 and Chapter 7), the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Chapter 11), and the Rule and Regulations prepared by the SCAQMD. Also, the City of Newport Beach's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, Chapter 20.64, is incorporated. 3.1 Construction Impacts - Short Term 3.1.1 Recommended Mitigation ' The following SCAQMD mitigation measures are required to reduce pollutant emissions from construction activities. These measures shall be implemented by the construction operators. Note that none of these recommended mitigation measures are strictly required but SCAOMD wants to see all relevant measures applied. Some of the required measures for general development projects are also mentioned below. The measures are presented below with a quantification of the measure, if such a quantification is possible. I I I 1 I r I 11 Miti¢ation 1: Use low emission -mobile construction eauioment. where feasible. This.measure is recommended, although quantification of the measure's benefits is not really possible. Emission rates are necessary to determine the emissions of any vehicle. At present, the most reliable rates that are available for construction equipment are those provided by the SCAQMD in the April 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Emissions from construction equipment can only be quantified by use of these emission rates. Because no emission rates for "low emission" mobile construction vehicles are available, the air quality benefit of the use of such equipment can not be quantified. Mitigation 2: Water site and clean equipment morning and eveningto o comply with the AOMP Futaitive Dust Measures BCM-03 and BCM-06. As these are not optional mitigation measures, but a SCAQMD requirement, this reduction should be, and is, already included in the particulate emission projections in this report. As part of the conditions of grading permit approval, the project shall water the construction site and unpaved haul roads (with use of reclaimed water or chemical soil binder, where feasible) twice daily. BCM-01. This measure is already required by the SCAQMD. This measure returns to the issue of SCAQMD Rule 403 which requires the "removal of particulate matter from equipment prior to movement on paved streets" to control particulate emissions. As part of the conditions of grading permit approval, the project will wheel wash construction equipment and cover dirt in trucks during on -road hauling. This measure is already included in the particulate emission projections in the report. Haul trucks leaving the site also are required to have a minimum freeboard distance of 12", or to cover payloads. Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 21 Mitigation 4: Spread soil binders on site. unpaved roads and parking areas. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that "every reasonable precaution (is taken) to minimize fugitive dust emissions" from grading operations to control particulate emissions. The emissions reduction afforded by this measure is already included in the particulate emission projections in this report. Chemical soi wind erosion. Revegetating graded areas immediately after of grading permit approval. to 85% reduction in particulate emissions from prevents rather than reducing emissions. The amount of reduction is unquantifiable. F I This measure I Data to estimate emissions from vehicles traveling upon unpaved roads are unavailable, so there is no way to specifically quantify the amount of emissions reductions from this measure. A reduction in travel speeds to 15 miles per hour on unpaved road surfaces normally reduces particulate emissions from this activity by approximately 40% to 70%. Mitigation 9: Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts. This measure would, of course, almost entirely eliminate emissions from the heavy equipment used in grading activities. 25 miles rpe hour. The suppression of grading activities during periods of high winds is included in the project as part of the conditions of grading permit approval. Mitigation 11: Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned. Its purpose is to ensure that the air quality impacts that are generated by construction activities associated with the project are consistent with the impacts that are projected in the air quality report. The emissions data in the air quality report are based upon emission rates for equipment that has been properly maintained. If the actual equipment used during the project's construction is not properly maintained, the emissions produced by that equipment would exceed the projected emissions. This measure, when it is complied with, merely helps to ensure that emissions during the projects construction will not exceed the projected emissions. Mitigation 12: Use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. This is already required by SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2. Unfortunately, no means of calculating the benefits of such a measure currently exist. The use of low sulfur fuel would reduce emissions of pollutants (particularly sulfur oxides) in the vicinity of the project, but by an unquantifiable amount. L Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 22 ' Mitigation 13: Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators. In order to quantify these measures, specific information is required, including, but not limited to, how much power would be needed, how it would be supplied in the absence of this measure, and how it would be supplied with the implementation of this measure. Without such information, quantification of the air quality benefits of these measures is not possible. Mitigation 14• Provide on -site power sources during the early stages of the project. This measure is recommended although its benefits are not quantifiable without specific information as to how it would be implemented. The intent of this measure is to minimize or eliminate the use of portable generators. ' Mitigation 15: Use low emission on -site stationary equipment (e.g._ clean fuels). As stated above, this measure overlaps with the previous measure. Information that is required to quantify ' the air quality benefit of this measure is not available. _ ^ 'existing trees at the construction site. The idea that such a measure would have significant air quality benefits is of dubious origin. Quantification of this suggested mitigation regarding air quality impacts is clearly impossible. It is, of course, not feasible to determine the air quality ' benefit of any trees that might exist in a particular location. The quantification of the -,air quality impacts of the removal of trees is similarly infeasible. Determining the air quality, benefit of planting "replacement" trees is, as one would expect, infeasible also. The project plans contain a significant amount of tree planting, more than trees that might be removed, and therefore, would meet this measure. 1 3.1.2 Rejected Mitigation The following measures are recommended for consideration by the SCAQMD, but have been rejected because of inapplicability to this project or because they will have an improbable or negative impact upon construction emissions. The measures are underlined in the following paragraphs and the reasons for rejection follow each measure. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. This measure is recommended ' as it appears to have been borne out of good common sense. If completely effective, this practice would entirely avoid the disruption of traffic flow. The measure seems to have been designed to avoid creating an impact rather than mitigating an impact and is, therefore, unquantifiable. Minimize obstruction of through -traffic lanes. As with the above measure, the measure seems to have been designed to avoid creating an impact rather than mitigating an impact. It is ' recommended to follow such a guideline, where feasible, but the quantification of the air quality benefits is not possible. Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment forNewport Dunes Hotel Page 23 Provide a flagperson to properly guide traffic and ensure safety at construction sites. This measure is recommended, but is related to air quality in only a very indirect way. Its air quality benefits are indeterminable. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours, where feasible. The air quality benefits are unquantifiable for the reason that quantification would require a determination of emissions increases from traffic congestion that might occur in the absence of such a measure over conditions where there is no traffic congestion (i.e., the successful implementation of this measure). There is no method by which this task can be accomplished. creation of an impact in the 4 are, of course, unquantifiable. L This is another measure aimed at avoiding the therefore, recommended. The air quality benefits r r Schedule goods movements for off-peak hours. As with a number of the previous measures, this , measure is recommended, but the air quality benefits are unquantiflable because it seeks to avoid the -creation of an impact, rather than mitigate an impact. Develop a trip reduction plan to comply with SCAQMD Rule 2202. SCAQMD Rule 2202 has revamped the requirements for carpooling. In general, mandatory carpooling is no longer required. Compliance with Rule 2202 will be mandatory. activily during off-peak hours. If this measure is implemented, the timetable for the projeefs construction period would be lengthened. This would probably reduce the amount of emissions per day generated by the construction activities, but by an unquantifiable (and probably minimal) amount. The total emissions generated by the construction of the project, however, would not be reduced (and could, in fact, be increased). There is no ultimate benefit to the implementation of this measure. This measure could, in fact, have a detrimental impact upon regional air quality because lengthening construction periods will increase the likelihood that a greater number of construction projects will occur simultaneously in the basin. If this is the case, emissions per day from construction projects could be greater than under conditions where this measure is not implemented. This measure in terms of the grading emissions is similar to the next measure. Require a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize emissions This measure would, presumably, extend the construction period which would, in turn, lessen the average daily emissions from grading activities. It is impossible to determine the air quality benefit of such a plan without specific details. Note that it is very possible that this measure could have no air quality benefit or even a negative impact on air quality. A longer construction period could cause a graded area to be left exposed to the effects of wind erosion for a longer period of time. As a result, particulate emissions generatedby the project could increase overall. Also, additional fossil fuel combustion emissions would probably occur from the implementation of this measure r ' Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 24 ' as construction personnel would have to make more trips to the site and watering trucks would have to operate on the site for a lengthened period. ' Provide rideshare and transit incentives for construction personnel. The existence of incentives does not guarantee any degree of acceptance of rideshare or transit programs. There is no way to determine how successful such programs would be and it is, therefore, impossible to determine ' the air quality benefits of such incentives. This measure is already covered under SCAQMD Rule 2202. I LJ I I 1 1 1 LJ II 3.1.3 Construction Emissions after Mitigation Measures In conclusion, the short-term construction emissions due to the proposed project with mitigation measures will be reduced to an extent, however, the emissions would still be significant. 3.2 Regional Air Quality - Long Term 3.2.1 Recommended Mitigation The most significant reductions in regional and local air pollutant emissions are attainable through programs which reduce the vehicular travel associated with the project. Support and compliance with the AQMP for the basin is the most important measure to achieve this goal. The AQMP includes improvement of mass transit facilities and implementation of vehicular usage reduction programs. Additionally, energy conservation measures are _included. None of these recommended mitigation measures are strictly required by SCAQMD. However, SCAQMD wants to see all relevant measures applied. TDM Measures Mitigation 17• Schedule truck deliveries and pickups during off-peak hour. This will alleviate traffic congestion, therefore, emissions during the peak -hour. Peak -hour normally occurs between 7 and 9 a.m. and between 4 and 6 p.m. Truck deliveries should be schedule outside these hours, if feasible. This measure is consistent with City Code Section 20.64.040.A. minimize vehicle idling at curbsides. Presumably, this measure would improve traffic flow into and out of the parking lot. The air quality benefits are incalculable because more specific data are required. This measure is included in the project plan design. at heavily congested roadways. Again, the areas where this measure would be applicable are the intersections in and near the project area, such as North Bayside Drive. Presumably, these measures would improve traffic flow. Emissions would drop as a result of the higher traffic speeds, but to an unknown extent. This measure is included in the project plan design. II Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 25 Mitigation 20: Provide on -site services. Provide incentives such as on -site ATMs and other similar measures that address lifestyle needs. These measures reduce the VMT, but the air quality benefit can not be quantified because more specific data are required. This measure is included in the project plan design. Miti¢ation 21: Provide local shuttle and transit shelters. and ridematching services. This measure is recommended, but no information is available regarding its effectiveness in improving air quality. Such a program might reduce the VMT associated with the project. No evidence is available that VMT will be reduced by any significant amount, however. This measure is consistent with City Code Section 20.64.070.G, Mitigation 22: Provide bicycle lanes, c-storage areas, and amenities. and ensure efficient parking management. This measure includes implementing the formation of bike clubs and providing additional bike racks, lockers, showers, bike repair areas, and loaner bikes. Also, provide lockers, showers, safe walk path maps, walk clubs and free walking shoes. These measures are consistent with City Code Sections 20.64.0703 and C. Theses measure are necessary, but no data are available regarding the effectiveness of this package of measures. Quantification of air quality benefits is not possible because of this fact. Mitigation 23: Provide preferential parking to high occupancy vehicles and shuttle services Also, designate additional car pool or vanpool parking. The air quality benefit can not be quantified. This measure is consistent with City Code Section 20.64.070.E. measures. These measures allow employees to wort work hours, or work out of their homes. The air measure is consistent with City Code Sections 20:64 compress workweeks, flex -time, sta luality benefit can not be quantifies )40.B and C, as well as 20.64.070.D. Mitigation 25: Synchronize traffic signals. The areas where this measure would be applicable are roadway intersections within the project area. This measure would be more effective if the roadways beyond the project limits are synchronized as well. The air quality benefits are incalculable because more specific data are required. Energy Efficient Measures Mitigation 26: Improve thermal integer of the buildings and reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. Reducing the need to heat or cool structures by I mproving thermal integrity will result in a reduced expenditure of energy and a reduction in pollutant emissions. The air quality benefit depends upon the extent of the reduction of energy expenditure which is unknown in this case. The air quality benefit is also unknown, therefore. This measure is applicable to the restaurant and the hotel building in the project. Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 26 ' comply with the AOMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure. Light color roofing was already specified in the project design, and therefore, would meet this measure. The trees to be planted in the project would be more than the number of trees removed, and therefore, would ' meet the„MSC-01 measure. This measure reduces the need for cooling energy in the summer. ' Mitigation 29: Comply with the AOMP Nfiscellaneous Sources PRC-03 to reduce emissions of restaurant operations. Introduce efficient heating and other appliances, such as water heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces and boiler units. Also, incorporate appropriate passive solar design, and solar heaters. This measure is intended to reduce VOC and PM10 emissions. ' 3.2.2 Rejected Local and Regional Air Quality Mitigation ' The following non -construction measures are recommended for consideration by the SCAQMD, but have been rejected because of inapplicability to this project or because they will have an improbable or negative impact upon non -construction emissions. The measures are underlined in the following paragraphs and the reason or reasons for rejection follow each measure. Landscape with native drought -resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. The connection between reducing water consumption and improving air quality is non-existent in the context of this analysis. A measure designed to reduce water consumption has no place in an air quality mitigation package. The assertion that such vegetation would provide "passive solar benefits" is false because drought resistant vegetation lacks both the height and the fullness to shade the building structures. No air quality benefit will occur as a result of the implementation of this measure. ' Provide incentives for solid waste recycling. The connection between solid waste recycling and air quality is a tenuous one at best. There will be no air quality benefit resulting from the ' encouragement or coercion to recycle solid waste Install energy efficient street lighting, Implementation of this measure is not feasible because of ' varying definitions of the phrase "energy efficient." Provide dedicated narking snaces_with _electricahutl_ets-for electrical vehicles. This measure ' would accommodate electric car charging if any electric cars are driven by employees or customers. The air quality benefit depends upon the number of employees driving electric cars which is unknown in this case. The air quality benefit is also unknown. ( Develop a trip reduction plan to comply with SCAOMD Rule 2202, SCAQMD Rule 2202 has revamped the requirements for carpooling. In general, mandatory carpooling is no longer ' required. Compliance with Rule 2202 will be mandatory. Employers should provide ridematching_guaranteed ride home. or car pool or vanpool to employees as a part of the TDM program and to comply with the AOMP Transportation Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 27 Improvements TCM-01 measure. These services reduce the VMT, however, the air quality benefit can not be quantified because more specific data are required. This measure is consistent with City Code Section 20.64.070.A. ers should provide compensation. ptjzes or awards to ridesharers. These measures subsidizing costs or provide compensation to employees who carpool and vanpool. technology r< the project at required, buildings with features Code. this measure is slow in progress, and may not be prac The air quality benefits are incalculable because more I P ,all insulation. and efficient ventilation methods. The construction of ' minimize energy use is already required by the Uniform Building Implement energy conservation measures beyond state and local requirements. This treasure is simply too vague to be implemented. Use devices that minimize the combustion of fossil fuels. This is another measure that is lacking specifics, such as a definition for the terms "devices" and "minimize." 3.2.3 Local Air Quality Impacts The future CO emissions are projected to be in compliance with the 1-hour state standard. However, the future 8-hour CO levels are projected to exceed the state standard. The future CO emissions with the project will slightly increased with respect to no project. However, the amount of increased CO emissions are not known. 3.2,4 Long-term Regional Impacts After Mitigation Measures The construction emissions would be greater than the SCAQMD's significance thresholds, however, the construction emissions would be short-term impacts. The project's long-term air quality emissions with the mitigation measures, specifically CO, ROG and NOx, would be reduced to an extent, but would still be significant, and would contribute incrementally to a cumulatively significant adverse air quality impact ' Mestre Greve Associates t Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 28 1 11 I APPENDIX PROJECT EMISSIONS 1 DATA SHEETS 1 11 FJ 1 1 1 I I I CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Includes 1993 CEQA AQ Handbook Data (This spreadsheet references'* Air Emissions Database') 1 Project: Newport Dunes Hotel Enter Number of Employees on Construction Site: 15 Enter Average Trip Length for Employee Travel to Site: 20 Enter Area: 1 (1 for Orange County, 2 for L.A. County, 3 for Riverside Co., or 4 for San Bernardino) 30 1.5 10% 1.25 0.40 50% 8.91 17,820 7.13 14,256 0.02 39 0.20 391 Emissions from Grading Equipment Enter number of pieces for each type of equipment: Scrapers: 2 CO ROG NOx PM10 sox Daily Emissions (IbsJday) 20.00 4.32 61.44 7.36 6.56 Loaders: 0 Daily Emissions (IbsJday) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tracklaying Tractors: 2 Daily Emissions (IbsJday) 6.12 1.92 20.16 1.79 2.24 Motor Grader: 2 Daily Emissions (IbsJday) 2A2 0.62 0.86 0.98 1.38 Wheeled Dozers: 2 Daily Emissions (IbsJday) 2.64 5.60 Water Trucks: 1 Deily Emissions (IbsJday) 14AO 1.52 33.36 3.60 2.08 Miscellaneous: 3 Daily Emissions (IbsJday) 16.20 0.36 40.80 3.36 3.43 CO ROG NOx PM10 Sox lGradinq Equipment Emissions IbsJda 58.14 8.74 156.62 19.73 21.29 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS cc 9A Total Emissions (Ibsldav) 69.E «,« • AW EAMBIR N --- 1iavk4on 7M (kbka)r M3 CECA Ak QuWky HwWbookUpdafo) PmIedt 10*" Dur4a HOW otwrb Om#"MW Study Yon 2000 (Enlor 1 lwOnnp6 Crmy.2lr La AnpW%County, Ano1 1 0lar FtvrakN C", r 41orSan S4mmN10 CvJ*) Spood (mph). 26 WwjwW hip. 4,400 Av6impa Tdp Letgdr 9.0 V*Ncw M944Tr vw& 42 POMOIrM CO ROG NOR PM10 60R Frdr (prwno) A" 0." 1.47 AK 0.07 Emk. (U✓0y) S06.19 46.71 140.00 4.78 0.67 Emit, 027 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.00 Padw(D"P) A74 A2/ 1.12 too 0.07 Emk (Lb O)) 92.49 65,71 11,96 0.00 0,74 Emit. (rrAm 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Tom V&himw EMOOM (L") 625M 111A0 151.95 4.74 7.41 ToW Vahkular Emi44iom(TNDrt Oat 006 0.06 0.00 0.00 ,««««rm NLL4IRfYL1l4 r11Yr TA W'IIMa11 n m rY1rOr)aTYfM C,--A. 4e PMA U. Y..A U Gm Un Wd TWO Ft3V.VW DUwFW Fl SMgit Fam. 6666 0 0 Wk. Fin. o-4 4105 0 0 MuM. Fam, a S 0918 0 0 FMA21Mo. 0 Swald [orA"den1w d0a 2 0 0 PAWI 29 a 0 "M Mot44 4A 70A000 110,164 FM CudonwAlo. cmwmw46Ao. 110,164 SubloiW kw PW 9CemmmW kNhwkw 21106.0 0 0 0 Sub dd lorlydWrW ToW 700000 1f0164 TOW POMumM CO AM NON PM10 Sox FAdw(W10`660) 20 5.3 0.7 02 0 Emit (Ll4'0y) 220 0.68 1022 0.02 0.00 Emit. T 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 .r..,.wrreerre e44rOYura IYllnG'.TOMII ne4leITNY e....... R.�,eee nen•u..J u..JL..L SCE LADWP Nwibwol El 1' Uao UnkT KWNAJrAYr KWHUn(VYr LkibwFl2 Rublaw Mel 072 0 0 KWWFWr. KWWFt2/Yr. Clio 8.9 17.1 0 0 H4Naurant 47.9 479 0 0 A" 11.8 16.0 0 0 Food Sloe $1.4 662 0 0 WNO*M 0.4 6.0 0 0 Elemwtwy Sdiml 613 6A 0 0 .. 00" 11.6 11.5 0 0 "NOW 179 25.6 0 0 Hmokww 6.6 10.1 700,000 10,041 kumINM000 SA 122 0 0 TOW IF121 700000 10041 TOW C4ntwrkwd CO R0G NOi Me sox Fadw (WAMRI) 02 0.01 1.15 0.04 0.12 EmiL IL Dy) 2.61 0.17 MOO 0A2 1.56 Emit. T 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 '-TOM EWA9A7M8 """"" Contwrk nt CO FAX NOR PMtO EmA. (Lb(Dy) 600.40 112.14 190.10 Sal 697 EMIL(Trmy) 0.32 0.06 0.01 OA0 OAO 20tO Orarpo Co.(TrVDy) 621.94 22691 170.40 29A01 149 P4rwr4 R49(rul 0.051% OA2S% A062% 0A01% OA701L pop I ......"• AIR EMISSIONS ...... 6... Revision 7195 (includes 1993 CECA AirOualily Handbook Update) Project: Newport Dunes Hotel Study Year: 2000 Area 1 ... VCYIPIII AO CYMCNIJC (enter 9r Ralks only) (Enter 1 for Orange County, 2 for Los Angeles County. 3 for Rwerslde County, or for San Bernardino County) c.,;..u,.. cam,.,,. c.,,....• uucnr.Mn11cnPW7r Speed (mph). 25 Number of Trips. 800 Average Trip Length. 9.0 Vehicle Miles Traveled. 7,200 Pollutant CO ROG NOx PM10 sox Factor(gMmi) 5.63 0.48 1.47 0.05 0.07 Emis.(Lb/Dy) 69.37 7.62 23.33 0.79 1.11 Emis. TN 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Factor(gmArip) 3.74 6M 1.13 0.00 0.07 Emis. (LbIDy) 15.41 10.95 199 0.00 0.12 Emis (TN01) 001 001 000 000 0.00 Total Vehicular Emissions(LNUy) 104.78 18.57 25.:r4 u✓a 1za Total Vehicular Emiss'ons(TrVDy) 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 ...�. C.......... .M, ...0 ncne UeM YaMMnk Gas Use Unit Type F13/DU/Mo. DU or Ft2' Ft3/Dd Single Fam. 6665 0 0 Mule. Fain. <.4 4105 0 0 Mult. Fam. a.5 3918 0 0 Ft3/F17JMo. 0 Subtotal for Residential 011iice 2 0 0 Retail 2.9 0 0 Hotelfttel 4.8 700,000 110,164 F13/0ustomer/Mo. Custumersmo. 110,164 Subtotallor Retai0Commercsd Industrial 2936.6 0 0 0 Subtotal for Industrial Total Ft2 700000 110184 Total Pollutant CO ROG NO< PM10 SOs Factor (lbs/10A683) 20 63 0.7 02 0 Emis. (Lb(Dy) 220 0.68 13.22 0.02 0.00 Emis. TN 0.00 000 001 0.00 0.00 �... /neuteATIN1 Cn„ - a,,.l Ioa1 nFn4 W.M Wa k WE LAMP Numberof Electrical Use Und Type KWWUnigYr KWHA)nrVYr Unds or Fd! KWWD Residential 6081 5172 0 0 KWWF12/Yr. KWWFt2lyr. Office 8.8 17.1 0 0 Restaurant 47.3 47.6 0 0 Retail 11.8 15.3 0 0 Food Store 51.4 552 0 0 Warehouse 3.4 5.3 0 0 Elementary School 6.3 5.5 0 0 College 11.6 11.6 0 0 Hospdal 17.9 25.5 0 0 Hotal/wIel 6.8 13.1 700,000 13,041 AMscellarnous 8.8 122 0 0 Total (Ft2l 700000 13041 Total Contaminant CO ROG NOx PM10 sox Factor(lbs/MWH) 02 0.01 1.15 0.04 0.12 Emis. (Lb/Dy) 2.61 0.13 15.00 0.52 1.58 Emis. (TWDyI 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 '^^TOTAL EMISSIONS "--- Contaminant GO ROG NOx PM10 SOz Emis.(LblOy) 109.59 1929 53.54 1.34 2.80 Emie.(TNDy) 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 2010 Orange Co.(TNDy) 621.94 226.91 173.43 268.01 14.9 Percent Regional 0.009% 0.004% 0.015% 0.000% 0.009% Region] Emie7G4000 All Pollutant Emissions Rates for Cakulating Project Emissions A. Data *am UVEUG Progrrn orrfg. County 2„1(enter 1 for Los Angeles County; 2 for Orange County; 3 for RWM169 County. 4 for San Bernardino County) TABLE I: SLIMMERTIMEFA## 4GNM E)OW16T EMISSION FACTORS AT 75DEG F YEAR: 2000 SPA 25MPH LINTS: ORAMSPERMLE MILE LIGFITDUTYALITOS LI(HTIXITYTRl1C1(S MD.DUTYTRUCKS LKWHEAWTRUCKS MEDILIMHEAWTFUCKS FHTRUCKS URFMIBW MCY POLLUTANT MCAT CAT DIESEL MCAT CAT DIESEL. MCAT CAT NCAT CAT DIESB.. MCAT CAT .OIESB. DIESE DIESEL ALL IF03 6.57 0.25 0.42 3.01 0.33 0.40 5.95 0.45 2.67 0.35 0.58 4.22 0.89 1.28 1.62 1.92 2.23 w 50.2r 4.79 1.51 45.57 5.20 1.48 52.44 4.15 43.92 5.48 5.54 72.72 10.80 8.38 10.06 1.77 10.39 NOX 1.85 0.51 1.35 1.69 0.81 1.27 2.36 1.08 5.74 2.50 4.19 8.94 5.16 6.93 9.71 15.13 0.79 PM10 0.03 0.00 0.31 0.03 0.00 0.39 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.33 0.05 0.05 0.45 0.67 0.14 0.04 TABLE2:YARIA13LESTARTEMISSION RATESINGRAMS PER TRIP AT 20 MPH F1Xi 4.65 0.78 0.19 3.58 0.92 0.34 4.59 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.15 CO 23.90 8.44 3.77 22.95 9.93 4.14 25.69 1021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.68 NOX 0:87 1.04 0.12 0.84 1.61 0.73 1.13 2.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 TABLE 4: HOTSOAK EMISSION RATES IN GRAMS PER TRIP TOG 6.87 0.59 0.00 5.46 0.62 0.00 5.67 0.35 1.20 0.61 0.00 1.79 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 TABLE5:DRN*V .EaSSIONRATESINGRAMSPERHOUR _ TOG 5.65 0.66 0.00 4.61 0.67 0.00 4.59 0.42 2.14 0.73 0.00 3.68 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 TABLE6: FESTTNGLOSSESINGRAMS PERHOLIR FOR75 _ FM 0.09 0.13 0.00 0.39 0.12 0.00 0.39 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LIGFfT DUTYAUTOS L)GWDLITYTRUCKS MD.DUTYTf#ICKS LTHEAWTRLICKS MEILIMHEAWTIiMS NLTRUCK URBAIIBUS MCY NCAT CAT DIESEL MCAT CAT DIESEL NCAT CAT NCAT CAT DIESEL MCAT CAT DIESEL THESE. DIESEL ALL %VMT 1.53% 98.13% 0.34% 0.23% 99.40% 0.37% 0.21% 99.79% 10.12% 89.88% 100.00% 22.38% 77.62% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% %TRIP 2.37% 97.07% 0.56% 0.50% 98.79% 0.71% 0.55% 99.45% 10.12% 89.88% 100.00% 22.38% 77.62% 100.00% 1DO.00% 100.00% 100.00% %VE1 0.30% 96.40% 0.59% 0.56% 98.70% 0.74% 0.62% 99.38% 22.57% 77,43% 100.00% 44.36% 55.64% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% TABLES: EVAPORATIVE Rl1NNNG LOSSESINGRAMS PER MILE F25MPH iOG 0.62 OA2 0.00 0.41 0.09 0.00 0.43 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 1 Reglora Em1e7G-2000 G. Vahlcle Distribution USHTDUTYAUTOS LIGHTDUrYTRUCKS MD.DUTYTRUCKS LMHTHEAVYTRUCKS MEDIUM HEAVY TRUCKS HHTRt1CKS URSANBU5 MCY POLLUTANT NCAT CAT DIESEL NCAT CAT DIESEL NCAT CAT NCAT CAT DIESEL NCAT CAT DIESEL DIESEL DIESEL ALL Percent VMT 0.88% 66.52% 0.20% 0.05% 23.82% 0.09% 0.01 % 3.82 % 0.22% 1.93 % 0.65% 0.07 % 0.25 % 0.87% 1.71% 3.57 % 0.10 % Source: Defaults in BURDEMG for Oren 0 County 2000 some%VMTs are taken from BURDEN7F D. At Rest Assum tlona J Co Land Use Assumed: mmercial Retell (enter. 1 for ofAcaindustdal; 2 for residential, 3 for commercial retail; Time Vehicle is Perked: 2 hours 5 for school, • 5 for chumWday care. For other uses see CEOA Table A9-5-M) (hours will otwile for different land uses) Source: SCAOMD Handbook Table A9-S-M Vehicle Emissions per mile (gmlmi) Running (exhauste + vaporalive)'VMT fraction TOO 0.11 0.36 0.00 0.01 0.41 0.00 0.01 0.51 0.26 0.31 0.58 0.94 0.69 1.28 1.62 DO 50.27 4.70 1.61 48.57 5.20 1.48 52.44 4.15 43.92 5.48 5.54 72.72 10.80 8.38 10.06 NOX 1.85 0.51 1.35 1.69 0.81 1.27 2.36 1.08 5.74 2.50 4.19 8.94 5.16 6.93 9.71 PM10 0.05 0.02 0.33 0.05 0.02 0.41 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.35 0.07 0.07 0.47 0.72 Emissions per trip (gm/trip) (Slad'Irip T(action)+ (hot soak'trip fradion)+ (diurnal'time parked hours vehicle fraction) + (resting losses'lime parked hours'vehicle fraction) TOO 0.34 3.87 0.00 0.15 4.17 0.00 0.17 3.09 2.05 2.81 0.00 6.93 2.11 0.00 0.00 OD 0.73 8.77 0.02 0.14 10.42 0.03 0.17 10.60 0.12 0.55 0.00 0.40 0.48 0.00 0.00 NDX 0.02 1.01 0.00 0.00 1.59 0.01 0.01 2.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 E. Composite Emission Rates Orange County Emissions per mile (gm/ml) 2000 T0E7i0G 0.40 Commercial Retail 00 5.63 NO)( 1.47 PM10 0.05 Emissions par trip (gm/trip) TOGROO 3.77 00 8.74 NOX 1.13 1.92 2.23 1.77 10.39 15.13 0.79 0.18 0.05 0.00 5.32 0.00 11.21 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 Page 2 i r I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 Mestre Greve Associates Air Quallity Assessment for Newport Dunes Hotel Page 29 CALINE4 Data Utilized for Modeling MVE17G(CALa1E4)-" 10/21/98 CO Workshaet to Generate Emission Rates for CAL/NE41 (enter: 1 for Los Angeles County; 2 for Orange County; 3 for Riverside County; 4 for San Bernardino County) A. Data from AIVEI7G Program TABLE 1: WMERTME RUNNING W E*W1Sf EMISSION FACTORS AT 75 DEG Vw: loss PCCLUTANT NAME: CARSONMONOXIDE UNITS GRAMSPERMIE SPA LIGHTDUTYAUTOS LIGHTDIITYTRUCK9 MEDILMOUfYTRU(V(S LIGHT HEAWTRUCKS MEDIUM FEAWTRUCKS HHTRUCKS UFRANBUS MY MPH MCAT CAT DIESEL NCAT CAT DIESEL NCAT CAT NCAT CAT DIESEL NCAT CAT DIESEL DESSEL DIESEL ALL 5 253.07 21.22 4.88 232.34 23.83 4.79 276.43 16.47 157.65 19.20 18.89 285.06 35.51 28.33 34.56 8.06 52.42 10 154.11 11.98 3.37 141.49 13.03 3.30 168.33 9.22 104.89 12.77 13.03 189.65 23.63 19.54 23.83 5.07 25.20 15 99.35 8.23 2.43 91.22 8.97 2.38 108.08 6.39 73.73 8.98 9.40 133.31 16.61 14.10 IZ20 3.39 f6.55 16 91.62 Z76 2.29 84.12 8.48 2.24 100.08 6.04 69.16 8.42 8.85 125.06 15.58 13.28 16.20 3.15 15.56 20 67.81 6.40 1.83 62.25 7.09 1.80 74.07 5.04 54.76 6.67 7.10 99.01 12.33 10.65 12.99 2.40 12.69 25 48.99 5.34 1.45 44.98 6.02 1.42 53.51 4.27 42.96 6.23 5.61 77.69 9.68 8.42 10.27 1.81 10.39 30 37.47 4.63 1.20 34.41 5.26 1.18 40.93 2.73 35.62 4.34 4.64 64.40 8.02 6.96 8.49 1.45 8.72 35 30.35 4.10 1.04 27.86 4.65 1.02 33.15 3.31 31.20 3.80 4.02 56.41 7.03 6.03 Z35 1.23 7.47 40 26.01 3.73 0.94 23.88 4.16 0.92 28.42 3.00 28.87 3.52 3.64 52.21 6.60 5.46 6.66 1.11 6.59 45 23.61 3.56 0.89 21.68 3.90 0.87 25.79 2.84 28.23 3.44 3.45 51.04 6.36 5.18 6.31 1.06 6.08 50 22.68 3.71 0.88 20.83 4.02 0.87 24.78 2.96 29.16 3.55 3.42 52.73 6.57 5.14 6.27 1.08 5.84 55 23.07 4.49 0.92 21.18 4.93 0.90 25.20 3.62 31.83 3.88 3.56 57.55 7.17 5.33 6.51 1.17 5.65 60 24.84 6.84 1.00 22.81 7.93 0.98 27. 14 • 5.72 36.70 4.47 3.86 66.37 8.27 5.80 7.07 1.34 5.07 65 28.02 14.73 1.14 26.00 19.43 1.11 30.94 13.29 44.72 5.45 4.40 80.86 10.07 6.59 8.04 1.63 3.65 TABLE VARIABLE STARTEMISSION RATES W GRAMS PERTRIP 20 MPH CO 23.14 9.88 3.68 23.36 11.68 3.98 25.36 11.64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.68 B. Runnln + Start Em(sstons by Vehicle Type mlml Source: CEOA Handlwodk Pg. Ag-13; assumed a trip length of 3.69 mg rlp SPEED LIGHTDLRYAUTOS LIGHTDUfYTRUCKS MEDL1MDUFYTRUCKS WKIFHEAWTRUCKS MEDIUMFEAWTRUCKS HHTRUCKS URBANBUS 6K7/ MPH NCAT CAT DIESEL MCAT CAT DIESEL NCAT CAT NCAT CAT DIESEL NCAT CAT DIESEL DESEL DIESEL ALL 5 259.52 23.97 5.88 238.85 27.08 5.89 283.49 19.71 167.65 19.20 18.89 285.06 35.61 28.33 34.56 8.06 55.39 10 160.56 14.73 4.37 148.00 16.28 4.40 175.39 12.46 104.89 12.77 13.03 189.65 23.63 19.54 23.83 5.07 28.17 15 106.80 10.98 3.43 97.73 12.22 3.48 115.14 9.63 73.73 8.98 9.40 133.31 16.61 14.10 17.20 3.39 19.52 16 98.07 10.51 3.29 90.63 11.73 3.34 107.14 9.28 69.16 8.42 8.85 125.06 15.58 13.28 16.20 3.15 18.53 20 74.26 9.15 2.83 68.76 10.34 2.90 81.13 8.28 64.76 6.67 7.10 99.01 12.33 10.65 12.99 2.40 15.66 25 55.44 8.09 2.45 51.49 9.27 2.52 60.57 7.51 42.96 5.23 5.61 77.69 9.68 8.42 10.27 1.81 13.36 30 43.92 7.38 2.20 40.92 8.51 2.28 47.99 6.97 35.62 4.34 4.64 64.40 8.02 6.96 8.49 1.45 11.69 35 36.80 6.85 2.04 34.37 7.90 2.12 40.21 6.55 31.20 3.80 4.02 56.41 7.03 6.03 7.35 1.23 10.44 40 32.46 6.48 1.94 30.39 7.41 2.02 35.48 6.24 28.87 3.52 3.64 52.21 6.50 5.46 6.66 1.11 9.56 45 30.06 6.31 1.89 28.19 7.16 1.97 32.85 6.08 28.23 3.44 3.45 51.04 6.36 5.18 6.31 1.06 9.05 50 29.13 6.46 1.08 27.34 7.27 1.97 31.84 6.20 29.16 3.65 3.42 52.73 6.57 5.14 6.27 1.08 8.81 55 29.52 7.24 1.92 27.69 8.18 2.00 32.26 6.86 31.83 3.88 3.56 57.55 7.17 5.33 6.61 1.17 8.62 60 31.29 9.59 2.00 29.32 11.18 2.08 34.20 8.96 36.70 4.47 3.86 66.37 8.27 5.80 7.07 1.34 8.04 65 34.77 17.48 2.14 32.51 22.68 2.21 38.00 16.53 44.72 6.45 4.40 80.86 10.07 6.59 8.04 1.63 6.62 Page 1 MVEI7G(CALINE4)48 10/21/98 U. sasncw uraumwuo m) %VMT WIN be different for each County LIG 1TDUTYAUTCB LIGNTDUIYTAUCKS MEDIUMDt11YTNU IG LOITHEAW7RUCKS MEDIUMHEAw7RUCKS MTRUCKS LWMBUs MLY NCAT CAT DESEL MCAT CAT DESEL MCAT CAT NCAT CAT DIESEL. NCAT CAT DE --EL CESEL bESEL ALL Percent VMT 1.43% 64,71% 0.34% 0.23% 23.45% 0.13% 0.33% 5.34% 0.38% 1.01% 0.60% 0.11% 0.23% 2.57% 2.57% 0.10% 0.41% Soi DefurBs[a BURDEN713br dugs Cmay 1998 SOoroa: CEOA HNMNAodr Pg. A9413; anu and a trip Nrpnt of 3.56 nMdp Soma %VMTsan taken from SURDEN7F. D. Composite CO Emission Rots (prim) SF'fffl ►fil EMOSON LUTE f m#* Cwny 11111141 5 31.44 10 19.45 l5 14,19 l6 13.51 20 11.47 25 9.97 30 8.61 35 8.06 40 7.55 45 7.29 50 7.41 55 3.21 60 10.65 65 19.03 (assumed MCAT, Light Duty Autos, and spsad of 25 mph) Page 2 MVE17G(CALNIE4)•2000 10/21/98 CO Worksheet to Generate Emission Rates for CAUNE4 (enter. 1 for Los Angeles County; 2 for Orange County; 3 for Riverside County; 4 for San Bernardino County) A. Data from MVEI7G Program orange caunly TABLE I: WNTERTME RUNNING VM EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS AT 75 DEG YEAR: 2000 POLLUTANT NAME: CARBONMONOXIDE UNITS: GRAMSPERMLE SPEED LIGHTDUTYAUTOS LIGHTLXfIYTRUCKS MEORIMDUTYTRUCKS LIGHT HEAVYTRuCKS MEDILMtEAVYTRUCKS HHTRUCKS URBMIBUS MLY MPH NCAT CAT DESEL NCAT CAT DIESEL NCAT CAT NCAT CAT DIESEL NCAT CAT DIESEL DEISEL DIESEL ALL 5 259.66 18.64 6.09 250.88 20.50 4.99 270.89 15.98 161.16 20.10 18.66 266.82 39.62 28.22 33.86 7.89 52.42 10 158.12 10.60 3.51 152.78 11.30 3.44 164.96 9.04 107.21 13.37 12.87 177.52 26.36 19.46 23.35 4.96 25.20 15 101.94 Z28 2.53 98.49 Z78 2.48 106.35 6.26 76.36 9.40 9.26 124.78 18.53 14.04 16.85 3.32 16.55 16 94.01 6.87 2.38 90.83 Z36 2.34 98.08 5.92 70.70 8.82 8.75 117.06 17.38 13.23 15.87 3.08 15.56 20 69.67 5.65 1.90 67.22 6.14 1.88 72.58 4.92 56.97 6.98 7.01 92.67 13.76 10.60 12.72 2.35 12.69 25 50.27 4.70 1.61 48.57 5.20 1.48 52.44 4.15 43.92 5.48 5.54 72.72 10.80 8.38 10.06 1.77 10.39 30 38.45 4.07 1.25 37.15 4.54 1.23 40.11 3.62 36.41 4.54 4.58 60.28 8.95 6.93 8.32 1.42 8.72 35 31.14 3.61 1.08 30.08 4.02 1.06 32.48 3.22 31.89 3.98 3.97 52.80 7.84 6.00 Z20 1.21 Z47 40 26.69 3.29 0.98 25.79 3.61 0.96 27.85 2.92 29.61 2.68 3.60 48.87 7.26 5.44 6.52 1.09 6.59 45 24.22 3.15 0.93 23.41 3.39 0.91 25.27 2.78 28.86 3.60 2.41 47.78 7.09 5.16 6.19 1.04 6.08 50 23.28 3.30 0.92 22.49 3.51 0.98 24.28 2.91 29.81 3.72 3.38 49.36 7.33 5.12 6.14 1.06 5.84 55 23.67 3.98 0.96 22.87 4.29 0.94 24.70 3.54 32.53 4.06 3.61 53.87 8.00 5.31 6.37 1.14 5.65 60 26.49 6.98 1.04 24.53 6.83 1.02 26.59 5.50 SZ52 4.68 3.82 62.12 9.22 5.77 0.93 1.31 5.07 65 29.06 12.59 1.18 28.08 16.32 1.16 30.32 12.28 45.71 5.70 4.34 75.68 11.24 6.57 7.88 1.60 3.65 TABLE VARNBLE STARTEMSSICN RATESIN GRAMSPERTRIP 20 MPH 23.9 8.44 3.77 22.95 9.93 4.14 26.69 10.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O f0.68 3. Running Start Emissions by Vehicle Type (gmlmi) SEED LIGHTDUTYAUTOS LIGHTIXITYTRUCKS MEDIUMDUTYTRIICK3 LIGHT HEAVYTRUCKS MEDIUM tEAVYTRUCKS HHTRUICKS URBIV4BUS MY MPH NCAT CAT DIESEL NCAT CAT DIESEL NCAT CAT NCAT CAT DIESEL NCAT CAT DIESEL DESEL DIESEL ALL 5 262.01 19.69 11.48 253.65 21.65 12.15 273.73 15.98 161.15 20.10 18,66 266.82' 39.62 28.22 33.86 7.89 55.39 10 160.47 11.65 9.90 165.55 12.45 10.60 167.80 9.04 107.21 13.37 12.87 177.62 26.36 19.46 23.35 4.96 28.17 15 104.29 8.33 8.92 101.26 8.93 9.64 109.19 6.26 75.36 9.40 9.26 124.78 18.53 14.04 16.85 3.32 19.52 16 96.36 7.92 8.77 93.60 8.51 9.50 100.92 5.92 70.70 8.82 8.75 117.06 17.38 13.23 15.87 3.08 18.53 20 71.92 6.70 8.29 69.99 7.29 9.04 75.42 4.92 55.97 6.98 7.01 92.67 13.76 10.60 12.72 2.35 15.66 25 52.62 6.75 7.90 51.34 6.35 8.64 55.28 4.15 43.92 6.48 5,64 72.72 10.80 8.38 10.06 1.77 13.36 30 40.80 5.12 7.64 39.92 5.69 8.39 42.95 3.62 36.41 4.64 4.58 60.28 8.95 6.93 8.32 1.42 11.69 35 33.49 4.66 7.47 32.86 5.17 8.22 35.32 3.22 31.89 3.98 3.97 52.80 7.84 6.00 7.20 1.21 10.44 40 29.04 4.34 7.37 28.56 4.76 8.12 30.69 2.92 29.51 3.68 3.60 48.87 7.26 5.44 6.52 1.09 9.56 45 26.57 4.20 _ 7.32 26.18 4.54 8.07 28.11 2.78 28.86 3.60 3.41 47.78 7.09 5.16 6.19 1.04 9.05 50 25.63 4.35 7.31 25.26 4.66 8.14 27.12 2.91 29.81 3.72 3.38 49.36 7.33 5.12 6.14 1.06 8.81 55 26.02 5.03 7.35 25.64 5.44 8.10 27.54 3.54 32.53 4.06 3.51 53.87 8.00 5.31 6.37 1.14 8.62 60 27.84 7.03 7.43 27.40 7.98 8.18 29.43 5.50 37.52 4.68 3.82 62.12 9.22 5.77 6.93 1.31 8.04 65 31.41 13.64 7.67 30.85 17.47 8.32 33.16 12.28 45.71 5.70 4.34 75.68 11.24 6.57 7.88 1.60 6.62 Page-1 MVE17G(CALINE4)•2000 10/21/08 U%ffDUrYAUTDS UGKrDUTYTRUCKS MENUMDUMMICKS L3KHFAVYTR000 MEDNMTEAVYTRUCKS MTALM UFOMMS WY MCAT CAT DESEL NCAT CAT DIESEL NCAT CAT MCAT CAT DIEM MCAT CAT DESEL DEl5EL DESEI ALL VMT 0.88% 66.52% 0.20% 0.0596 2182% 0.09% O.Ol% 0.82% 0.22% 1.93% 0.65% 0.07% 0.25% 0.87% 1.71% 3.57% 0.10% DolsWls4h BUADEN7GbrO wW County 2000 Source: CECA NwAboodk Pg. A9.13; ueunrd a ulp Nngth of 3.59 rrMitp Sams %VMTS we taken from BURDEN7F. D. Compsslts CO E Melon pats (grWm) S1T3fl AFH EMG6DN RATE O/any►County 2000 5 23.66 10 14.13 15 10.00 16 9.47 20 7.89 25 6.65 30 5.83 35 5.25 40 4.84 45 4.65 50 4.78 55 5.48 60 7.59 65 14.50 (aswmd MCAT. Ltghl Duty Aubs, and speed o125 mph) Page 2 REPORT FOR FILE : c: Existing 1. Site Variables 11 1 1 [1 1 �l I U= 0.5 M/S BRG= 0.0 DEGREES CLASS= G STABILITY MIXH= 1000.0 M SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES ZO= 100.0 CM VD= 0.0 CM/S VS= 0.0 CM/S AMB= 0.0 PPM TEMP= 10.0 DEGREE (C) 2. Link Description LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) --------------- *----------------------------- ►------------------------------ A. PCH/MeCarthur 3255 305 4450 2365 AG 2600 11.5 0.0 32.0 B. PCH/MeCarthur 3255 305 3536 -549 AG 4300 11.5 0.0 32.0 C. PCH/McCarthur 3255 305 2316 1097 AG 4300 11.5 0.0 32.0 D. PCH/Jamboree N 1670 1231 3182 3328 AG 1411 11.5 0.0 32.0 E. PCH/Jamboree S 1670 1231 1670 110 AG 3409, 11.5 0.0 32.0 F. PCH/Jamboree E 1670 1231 2316 1097 AG 5516 11.5 0.0 32.0 G. PCH/Jamboree W 1670 1231 1244 1311 AG 2302 11.5 0.0 32.0 H. PCH/Jamboree W 1244 1311 817 1585 AG 2302 11.5 0.0 32.0 I. Ford/Jamboree 3182 3328 3780 4755 AG 4677 11.5 0.0 32.0 J. Ford/Jamboree 3182 3328 1670 1231 AG 4025 11.5 0.0 32.0 K. Ford/Jamboree 3182 3328 3414 3158 AG 818 11.5 0.0 25.0 L. Ford/Jamboree 3414 3158 3840 3024 AG 818 11.5 0.0 25.0 M. Ford/Jamboree 3182 3328 305 3475 AG 458 11.5 0.0 25.0 N. Ford/Jamboree 305 3475 2963 4036 AG 458 11.5 0.0 25.0 3. Receptor Coordinantes RECEPTOR 1 3231 281 1.52 RECEPTOR 2 1285 1352 1.5 RECEPTOR 3 3214 3357 1.5 REPORT FOR FILE : 1: Future no Project U= 0.5 M/S BRG= 0.0 DEGREES CLASS= G STABILITY MIXH= 1000.0 M SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES ZO= 100.0 CM VD= 0.0 CM/S VS= 0.0 CM/S AMB= 0.0 PPM TEMP= 10.0 DEGREE (C) 2. Link Description LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 _ Y2-, A. PCH/McArthur 3255 305 4450 2365 a. PCH/McArthur S 3255 305 3536 -549 C. PCH/McArthur E 3255 305 2316 1097 D. PCH/McArthur W 1670 1231 3182 3328 E. PCH/Jamboree S 1670 1231 1670 110 F. PCH/Jamboree E 1670 1231 2316 1097 G. PCH/Jamlwree W 1670 1231 1244 1311 1585 H. PCH/Jamboree W 7244 1311 817 475S I. Ford/Jamboree 3182 3328 3780 4755 J. Ford/Jamboree 3182 3328 1670 1231 K. Ford/Jamboree 3182 3328 3414 3158 L. Ford/Jamboree 3414 3158 3840 3024 N. Ford/Jamboree 3305 3475 2963 4036 3. Receptor Coordinantes RECEPTOR 1 3231 281 1.5Z RECEPTOR 2 1285 1352 1.5 RECEPTOR 3 3214 3357 1.5 * EF H W * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ------------------------------ 3100 7.9 0.0 32.0 AG AG 4300 7.9 0.0 32.0 AG 4300 7.9 0.0 32.0 AG AG 1380 4560 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 32.0 32.0 AG AG 7700 4900 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 32.0 32.0 AG 490D 6780 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 32.0 32.0 AG AG 5290 10.0 0.0 32.0 AG 760 10.0 0.0 25.0 AG AG 760 1290 10.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 29D 10.0 25.0 II REPORT FOR FILE 1. Future with Project U= 0.5 H/S BAG= 0.0 DEGREES CLASS- G STABILITY MIXH= 1000.0 M SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES 20= 100.0 CH VDU 0.0 CM/$ VS. 0.0 CMS AMB= 0.0 PPM TEMP- 10.0 DEGREE (C) 2. Link Description LINK * LINK COORDINATES (9) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) M. !. ...Cart.. .. 3255.... 305... 4450...23 5 ..... 200--- .9...0.0-.-..C.. A. PCH/MeCerthur 3255 305 3536 -549 AG 4400 7.9 0.0 32.0 B. PCH/NeCerthur 3255 305 3536 -549 AG 4400 7.9 0.0 32.0 C. PCH/NeCerthur 3255 305 2316 1097 AS "GO 7.9 0.0 32.0 D. PCH/Jamboree N 1670 1231 3182 3328 AG 1340 10.0 0.0 32.0 F. PCH/Jamboree E 1670 1231 2316 1097 AD 7840 10.0 0.0 32.0 G. PCH/Jamboree W 1670 1231 1244 1311 AG 4950 10.0 0.0 32.0 1. Ford/JaambooreeW 31U 3328 37780 4755 AS 6550 10.0 0.0 32.0 J. Ford/Jamboree 3182 3328 1670 1231 AG 5360 10.0 0.0 32.0 L. Ford/Jamboree ord/Je b ree 3414 3158 3840 3024 AG 7790 10.0 . 0.0 2S.0 M. Ford/Jamboree 3182 3328 305 3475 AG 1320 10.0 0.0 25.0 N. Ford/Jsmboree 305 3475 2963 4036 AS 900 10.0 0.0 25.0 3. Receptor Coordinantes x Y z RECEPTOR 1 3231 281 L5 RECEPTOR 2 1265 1352 1.5 RECEPTOR 3 3214 3357 1.5 MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE Existing * PRED *WIND * COCNAINK * CONC * BRG * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)* A B C D E F G H __._.___...*.......*..--- *------------------------------------------------ RECPT 1 * 4.4 * 32 * 2.8 0.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 * 2.3 * 110 * 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.0 RECPT 3 * 7.6 * 218 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 * PRED *WIND * COCNAINK * CONC * BRG * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)* I J K L M N ----------- *------- *..... *____________________________________ RECPT 1 * 4.4 * 32 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 * 2.3 * 110 * 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 3 t 7.6 * 218 * 1.7 3.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 (700EL RESULTS FOR Future no Project * PRED *WIND * COCNAINK * CONC * BRG * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)* A B C D E F G H ........... *....... *..... *_______________________________________________ RECPT 1 * 3.3 * 32 * 2.3 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 * 2.6 * 111 * 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 1.3 0.0 RECPT 3 * 8.1 * 218 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 * PRED *WIND * COCR LINK * CONC * BRG * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)* I J K L M N ----------- *....... *----- *____________________________________ RECPT 1 * 3.3 * 32 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.0 0.0 RECPT 2 * 2.6 * 111 * A.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 3 * 8.1 * 218 * 2.1 4.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE Future With Project *WIND COCNAINK * CCONC * RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)* A B C D E F G H RECPT 1 * 3.4 * 32 * 2.3 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 * 2.7 * 111 * 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 1.3 0.0 RECPT 3 * 8.1 * 218 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 * PRED *WIND * COCNAINK * CONC * BRG * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)* I J K L M N ........... *....... *---- _*____________________________________ RECPT 1 * 3.4 * 32 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 * 2.7 * 111 * 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 3 * 8.1 * 218 * 2.1 4.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 r LSA Associates, Inc. APPENDIX I ' NOISE ASSESSMENT I I 1 1 9MM(<P:\CNB834\EIR\YOC-VOLI.WPD)) NOISE ASSESSMENT FOR THE NEWPORT DUNES HOTEL PROJECT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Report # 98-229.c February 4, 1999 Prepared for: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 Park Plaza Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92614 Prepared by: Fred Greve, P.E. Martin Beal MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES 280 Newport Center Drive Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660-7528 (714) 760-0891 Noise Assessment for the Newport Dunes Project Mestre Greve Associates ' . Page 1 r NOISE ASSESSMENT FOR THE NEWPORT DUNES HOTEL PROJECT City of Newport Beach 1.0 EXISTING NOISE 1.1 Introduction ' The purpose of this report is to determine the potential noise impact of the proposed Newport Dunes Hotel project upon surrounding land uses. The project site is shown in Exhibit 1. The proposed project involves a total of approximately 30 acres located on Upper Newport Bay, east and south of Bayside Drive and north of Pacific Coast Highway. The Newport Dunes Hotel project site is part of the larger Newport Dunes Resort or Redevelopment Area that comprises approximately 100 acres on Upper Newport Bay. ' The proposed Newport Dunes Hotel involves a 600 unit, full service destination resort hotel which will include: swimming pools; health, fitness and recreation facilities; children's facilities; dining areas; ballrooms and meeting rooms; retail space; parking garages and landscaped garden areas. This document will determine the potential noise impacts of the proposed project and, if necessary, will recommend mitigation to eliminate potentially significant impacts. 1.2 Reference Information on Noise and Noise Metrics ' Community noise is generally not steady state and varies with time. Under these conditions of non -steady state noise, some type of statistical metric is necessary in order to quantify human ' response to noise. Several rating scales have been developed for the analysis of adverse effects of community noise on people. They are designed to account for the above known effects of noise on people. Based on these effects, the observation has been made that the potential for a noise to impact people is dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise. Upon this premise, a number of noise scales have been developed. These scales include the Equivalent Norse Level (LEQ) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Both of these scales, or metrics, are based upon the A -weighted decibel, which is abbreviated as dBA. The A -weighted decibel compensates specific frequencies to match the way in which the human ear perceives them. Most simply stated, dBA is a description of how people judge loudness. LEQ is the sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time -varying signal over a given sample period. LEQ is the "energy" average noise level. CNEL is similar to LEQ, but is measured over a period of 24 hours. The CNEL metric applies a weighting factor which places greater significance on noise events occurring during the evening and night hours (when sleep disturbance is a concern). Thus, CNEL is a 24-hour, 11 I Exhibit 1 Project Vicinity Mestre Greve Associates Noise Assessment for the Newport Dunes Project t Mestre Greve Associates Page 2 time -weighted annual average noise level. Time -weighted refers to the fact that noise which occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noises by 5 dB, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized by 10 dB. The Noise Element for the City of Newport Beach specifies outdoor and indoor noise limits for various land -uses. The exterior noise limit for residential areas is 65 CNEL. The interior noise limit for residential areas is 45 CNEL. 1.3 Assessment Criteria 1.3.1 City of Newport Beach Noise Standards ' The Noise Standards primarily apply to traffic generated by the proposed project. The project will generate additional traffic on roadways in the project vicinity. This additional traffic will, in turn, generate additional noise that may adversely impacts existing sensitive land uses. In order for the Newport Dunes Hotel project to have a significant adverse noise level impact on adjacent land uses, three conditions must be met. The first condition is that the proposed project must generate a noise level increase that is considered "significant." A significant noise increase is defined as an increase of at least one to three decibels, depending upon the situation (more information on this subject is contained in subsequent sections). The second condition is that the noise increase must occur in a noise sensitive area. The definition of a "noise sensitive area" can be somewhat complicated. Residential areas, parks, hospitals, schools, and churches are typically considered "noise sensitive." A city's noise standards are most commonly used to ensure that these types of land use are protected from excessive noise. The third condition that must be met for the project to be considered a significant adverse impact is that noise levels in the sensitive receptor areas in the project vicinity exceed any of the City of Newport Beach noise standards (or generally acknowledged standards) as a result of the project's implementation. These three conditions must be met before the project can be declared as a significant adverse impact. The City of Newport Beach exterior noise standard for residential land use is 65 CNEL, and the interior noise standard for residential land use is 45 CNEL. Note that the City of Newport Beach does not necessarily specify an exterior noise limit for mobile home parks. The City's noise element specifies that exterior noise levels in mobile home parks should be limited to a level such that the interior levels (due to exterior sources) should not exceed 45 CNEL. The mobile homes in the park are assumed to have an exterior to interior t noise attenuation of only about 15 dBA. Therefore, the exterior noise limit in the trailer park would be effectively reduced to 60 CNEL. This exterior limit is not necessarily designed to protect exterior areas; the intent of the standard is to insure that interior noise levels are less than 45 CNEL. In addition to the noise standards for residential areas, the City has a interior noise standard of 50 CNEL for commercial office space (for the purposes of this study, the 50 CNEL interior ' standard for commercial office space will.also be applied to the proposed interior retail space within the project site). These are the relevant standards for the proposed project. 1.3.2 City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance The project must also comply with the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. While the I Noise Assessment for the Newport Dunes Project Mestre Greve Associates Page 3 CNEL noise limits apply to traffic generated by the project, the Noise Ordinance applies to noise generated on the project site itself. The Noise Ordinance for the City of Newport Beach establishes exterior noise standards for residential areas. The ordinance is designed to protect residential areas from noise sources such as parking lots, loading docks, etc., on adjacent private properties. Table 1 presents the City of #' Newport Beach's Noise Ordinance. The noise ordinance is designed to control noise from stationary (non -transportation) sources at the residential property line. The noise ordinance requirements can not be applied to mobile noise sources such as heavy trucks when traveling on public roadways (control of the mobile noise sources on public roads is preempted by federal and State laws). They can, however, be applied to heavy trucks when they are traveling on private property, such as they do when they approach loading docks. Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A -weighted decibel," abbreviated dBA. The City of Newport Beach Noise Control Regulations establish exterior A -weighted noise criteria for non -transportation related noise which impacts adjacent properties. This criteria is given in terms of Leq noise levels at the property boundary (measured for a 15-minute time period). Greater noise levels are permitted during the day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) as compared to the nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). Table 1 City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Ordinance • Residential Areas Municipal Code Section 10.26.025 Noise Level Allowable Exterior a) 7 a.m, to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 am. Criterion (daytime) (nighttime) 15 Minute Leq 60 dBA 50 dBA Maximum Noise Level 80 dBA 70 dBA Note that the Newport Beach daytime limit for Leq and maximum levels is ordinarily 55 dBA and 75 dBA, respectively. The ordinance contains a provision for residential property that is located within 100 feet of commercial property. This provision raises the allowable noise limits by 5 dBA in the daytime hours (but not in the nighttime hours). This provision applies to the residential areas directly adjacent to the project. IA Measured Noise Levels Noise measurements were conducted as part of this analysis on November 13th, 1998. Two sites were selected on the basis of proximity to the project site. The two measurement locations are the nearest noise sensitive receptors to the project and, thus, will experience the largest impacts attributable to the project and can be considered worst case examples of the project's noise impacts. The two sites that were selected would potentially experience changes in ambient noise as a result of the project's implementation. Noise sensitivity of the land use was also considered when the sites were selected. Exhibit 2 shows the location of each site. F. L I Noise Assessment for the Newport Dunes Project Mestre Greve Associates Page 4 �. The noise measurements were conducted between the hours of 12 p.m. and 2 p.m.. The measurement sites were selected on the basis of proximity to the project and of the noise sensitivity of the land use. The measurement survey utilized the BrUel & Kimr 2260 automated digital noise data acquisition system for short-term (15 min.) LEQ readings. This instrument automatically calculates both the Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ) and Percent Noise Level (L%) for any specific time period. The noise monitor was equipped with a BrUel & Kjmr 1/2-inch electret microphone and was calibrated with a BrUel & Kjmr calibrator with calibrations traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. Calibration for the calibrators are certified through the duration of the measurements. This measurement system satisfies the ANSI (American National Standards Institute) Standards 1.4 for Type 1 precision noise measurement instrumentation. The results of the ambient short-term noise measurements at each site are depicted in Table 2. These figures also depict the date and time of the measurement and the primary noise source affecting the noise environment. The quantities measured were the Equivalent Noise Level (Leq), the maximum noise level (Lmax) and the Percent Noise Levels (L%). Table 2 - Noise Measurement Results Site Leq Lmax Lmin L1.7 L8.3 L25 L50 L90 1 58.4 69.5 43.5 67.8 64.0 56.2 50.0 47.0 2 62.6 74.9 47.8 72.8 66.0 60.4 58.8 53.2 During the measurements, the dominant source of noise was automobile traffic from local and distant sources. Other noise sources included aircraft overflights from John Wayne Airport and noise generated by people inside the existing Newport Dunes resort. 2.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS 2.1 Construction Noise Construction noise represents an impact on ambient noise levels surrounding the project area. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators canreach high levels. Excavation and grading activities typically represent the highest potentials for noise impacts. The degree of impacts will be dictated by the amount of construction equipment used, the density of heavy equipment, the proximity to the residential area, and the duration of the grading process. General grading and consnuction activity noise levels for various pieces of equipment are shown in Exhibit 3. The nearest existing residence to the Newport Dunes Hotel project is approximately 10 feet away. The loudest piece of equipment that could be expected to operate would be equipment used during the grading process (tractors and scrapers). These types of equipment typically generate peak noise levels of approximately 96 dBA at 50 feet, The nearest residence is I 1 A -Weighted Sound Level,(dBA) at SO feet I Source: "Handbook of Noise Connd," by Cyril Harris,1979. I Exhibit 3 Construction NoiLLevels@ 50 Feet Mestre Greve Associates Compact (rollers) Front loaders Backhoes Tractors Scrapers, graders Pavers Trucks Concrete mixers Concrete pumps Cranes (movable) Cranes (derrick) Pumps Generators Compressors Pneumatic wrenches Jackhammers and drills Pile drivers (peak levels) Vibrators Saws ' Noise Assessment for the Newport Dunes Project Mestre Greve Associates Page 5 approximately 10 feet from the project site, and thus, would be approximately 14 dBA louder than the noise levels shown in Exhibit 3. Therefore, the loudest piece of equipment could generate noise levels that would be approximately 110 dBA. Note that this noise exposure would be very short-term as the equipment would stay in the same place for a short period of time. Nevertheless, this noise level is very high and mitigation should be incorporated in the construction of the project in order to minimize construction noise impacts. The most effective method to control construction noise is through the institution of local control over construction hours. Construction activities are prohibited by Section 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code outside the hours of 7 a.m. through 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 am. through 6 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction should occur on Sundays or Federal holidays. 2.2 Off -Site Traffic Noise The future traffic data contained in this section was supplied by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. This section details the change in traffic noise levels generated by the project. Note that the following comparison of noise levels is based upon the difference between future conditions with the project and future conditions without the project. Table 3 shows the difference in noise levels along the roadways in the immediate project vicinity. The table shows a noise level increase or decrease attributable to the project based upon the PM peak hour traffic volumes supplied by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. The table shows various roadway links in the project area and specifies a noise level difference for the specific links. Table 2 Noise Level Changes Generated by the Newport Dunes Hotel Project Traffic Volume for Future Conditions Noise Level (in thousands of vehicles per day) Difference Link WithoutProject With Project (dBA) PCH N of Dover 63.0 64.0 0.1 Dover to Bayside 81.0 82.0 0.1 Bayside to Jamboree 67.0 69.0 0.1 S of Jamboree 46.0 47.0 0.1 Dover North of PCH 36.0 36.0 0.0 Bayside North of PCH (hotel entrance) 3.9 9.3 3.8 South of PCH 15.0 16.0 0.3 Jamboree North of PCH 47.0 46.0 -0.1 The greatest noise level difference generated by the project occurs on Bayside Drive north of 'mil Noise Assessment for the Newport Dunes Project Mestre Greve Associates Page 6 Pacific Coast Highway. This roadway is the entrance to the proposed project. Traffic noise levels will increase 3.8 dBA as a result of the project's implementation. This is a potentially significant noise level increase. In community noise assessment, changes in noise levels greater than 3 dB are often identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dB will not be discernible to local residents. In the range of 1 to 3 dB, residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. Note that there is no scientific evidence available to support the use of 3 dB as the significance threshold. In laboratory testing situations, humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than 1 dB. In a community noise situation, however, noise exposures are over a long time period, and changes in noise levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels become discernible is likely to be some value greater than 1 dB, and 3 dB appears to.be appropriate for most people. Despite the 3.8 dBA increase on Bayside north of Pacific Coast Highway, the project will not actually generate a significant impact in noise levels on existing land uses. Under future conditions with the implementation of the project, Bayside Drive (north of PCH) will experience traffic volumes of only 9,300 vehicles per day. As stated in Section 1.3.1, the City of Newport Beach exterior noise standard states that noise levels in the exterior areas of the mobile home park must be such that the noise levels within the homes is less than 45 CNEL. Therefore, the noise levels in the exterior areas within the park must be limited to 60 CNEL because the mobile homes in the park will only reduce noise generated by exterior sources by approximately 15 dB. Table 3 shows the traffic noise contours for future conditions with and without the project. Table 3 Traffic Noise Contours With and Without the Project Contour Distances Contour Distances Without Project With Project (in feet) (in feet) Link 70 65 60 70 65 60 Pacific Coast Highway N of Dover 106 229 494 107 232 499 Dover to Bayside 126 271 584 127 273 589 Bayside to Jamboree 111 239 514 113 243 525 S of Jamboree 86 186 400 87 188 406 I Dover Drive North of PCH 73 158 340 73 158 340 Bayside Drive North of PCH 11 24 51 20 42 91 South of PCH 41 88 190 43 92 198 Jamboree Road North of PCH 87 188 406 86 186 400 The table above shows contour distances for future conditions both with and without the project. The contours represent the distance from the centerline of the roadway to a location where noise generated by the roadway reaches a specific level. For instance, for conditions without the project, a person standing near Bayside Drive (north of PCH) would experience a I I Traffic Noise Contours for Future Conditions with the Project �;, a ;;/Ir r�: ,� r' if m • i Under future conditions with the proposed project, noise generated by traffic on Bayside Drive will potentially be high enough to cause interior noise levels to exceed City Standards. ` -. • , / —/ ram• •.`, ."'.a.+. _y.0 ` _ ^� "U /J •i/� t� 1 1/ Y f S JfR'� MCMIUKI DUNES Exhibit 4 Noise Contours for Bayside Drive Mestre Greve Associates INoise Assessment for the Newport Dunes Project Mestre Greve Associates Page 7 noise level of 60 CNEL if they were standing 51 feet from the centerline of the roadway. For future conditions with the project a person standing 91 feet from the same roadway would experience a noise level of 60 CNEL. Exhibit 4 shows traffic noise contours for future conditions with the project along Bayside Drive. The contour distances shown in Table 3 indicate that the increase noise levels generated by implementation of the project will cause exterior noise levels to exceed 60 CNEL which will, in turn, cause interior noise levels within the trailer park to exceed 45 CNEL. Therefore, interior noise levels may be as high as 49 to 50 CNEL. Mitigation should be designed for Bayside Drive that will reduce traffic noise within the trailer park: 2.2 Off -Site Operational Impacts This section examines the potential for the operations of the Newport Dunes Hotel project to impact existing land uses near the project site. The existing residential area most likely to be impacted by the proposed project is the Bayside Village Trailer Park. This trailer park is located directly adjacent to the proposed project. This section will examine noise levels generated by the project itself and will determine whether these operational noise levels will adversely impact existing residential land uses. 2.2.1 Delivery Trucks Delivery trucks will travel most commonly on the project site on the access road between the main entrance and the loading dock. Noise measurements were conducted previously at the Knott's Berry Farm loading dock. Truck noise was measured for approximately 40 trucks as they entered and left the site, and a maximum noise level noted for each arrival and departure. Noise measurements were also made of the loading and unloading operations and the fork lifts. These measurements confirmed that the truck arrival and departures were in fact the noise source of most concern. That is, the noise levels associated with truck acceleration or deceleration or truck braking during arrival rind departure are the loudest. The measurement data indicated that the majority of truck pass-bys have a maximum sound level in the range of 65 to 75 dBA (at 70 feet). The loudest truck measured was approximately 82 dBA at 70 feet. The average of the data was 69 dBA at 70 feet with a standard deviation of 5.3. The California Motor Vehicle Code establishes maximum sound levels for trucks operating at speeds less than 35 miles per hour (Section 23130), The maximum sound level established by the code is 86 dBA at 50 feet, or 83 dBA at 70 feet. None of the trucks measured exceeded this level. However, the loudest truck measured was very close to this limit. If a statistical normal distribution curve is fitted to the data obtained, the frequency that trucks will exceed, certain noise limits can be predicted. For example, based on the data collected 1 out of every 125 trucks that would use the facility would be expected to exceed the motor vehicle code standard. For worst case analysis, an Lrnax of 82 dBA at 70 feet was used to project the noise exposures at adjacent residential areas due to delivery truck/loading dock activities. The Federal Highway Administration has published data that indicates that the smaller vehicles that may deliver goods to the hotel are approximately 18 dBA quieter ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model," FHWA-RD-11-108). These vehicles are essentially just vans and are considered automobiles. The maximum noise level generated by these vehicles is 62 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Noise Assessment for the Newport Dunes Project Mestre Greve Associates Page 8 Residential areas currently exist directly adjacent to the proposed project site. The area most likely to be impacted by activities associated with the delivery trucks are these residences. Truck deliveries are expected to occur only in daytime hours. The critical short term Lmax noise levels associated with delivery truck operations are typically due to truck accelerating and decelerating, or truck brake squeal. There ate other noise sources associated with delivery trucks. There is the backup beeper, door slams, and general cargo loading and unloading at the loading dock. The truck pass -by noise, however, will be the worst case noise scenario at the adjacent residential areas. The adjacent residential areas are at grade with the project. An observer at the worst case location is approximately 30 feet away from the nearest point of the truck travel area in front of the loading dock and will be exposed to an unmitigated Lmax noise levels of 89 dBA. These noise levels would be generated by a large truck and not by a small delivery van. The distances and the truck operation noise of the loading dock at the nearest residential areas are shown in Table 4. Table 4 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS AT ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS Single Event Truck Pass -by Receptor Distance (ft) Lmax (dBA) Worst Case 30 89.4 Daytime Exterior Noise Ordinance Limits: 80 dBA As can be seen in the, noise data in the table above, the unmitigated noise levels due to the delivery operations exceed the daytime exterior noise ordinance limit of 80 dBA. No deliveries are expected to occur in the nighttime hours, therefore, only the daytime ordinance value will be applied. Mitigation will be required to reduce truck noise to levels considered acceptable by the City of Newport Beach. 2.2.2 Air -Conditioner Noise Impacts Air conditioning unit noise can be quite loud and is a potential source of noise ordinance violations. At this time, very little information is available regarding the size, type and location of any air-conditioning equipment. Therefore, it is not possible to accurately predict the impact of any equipment on the project site. Mitigating noise impacts from air-conditioning equipment is not difficult to do, however. Walls can be built around the equipment or the equipment could potentially be located on the roofs of the project structures. An analysis of air-conditioning related noise issues should be included in the final noise 1� Li I Noise Assessment for the Newport Dunes Project Mestre Greve Associates Page 9 analysis for the project. 2.2.3 Parking Lot Noise Measurements were made 50 feet from a parking structure at South Coast Plaza. The measurements for door slamming and car start-up ranged from below 55 dBA up to 70 dBA. The upper range for door slams was from a car in the nearest parking space to the noise monitor and was a very vigorous door slam. The lower end of the range was for cars that were farther from the measurement location. The louder car start-ups were generated by vehicles with poor muffler systems. Car horns and alarms ranged from 74 dBA to 82 dBA. The proposed main parking lot for the Newport Dunes project will be approximately 75 feet from receptors in the existing trailer park. Table 5 shows the noise levels extrapolated to a distance of 75 feet so as to reflect the noise levels that will be experienced by the residents adjacent to the proposed project. A range is given to reflect the variability of noise generated by various automobile types and driving styles. The noise levels presented in the table indicate that the City of Newport Beach peak noise limit could be exceeded by car homs and alarms. Table 5 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by the Parking Lot At the Nearest Residence (dBA of 75 feet) Event Maximum Noise Level (dBA) Door Slam 46 to 61 Engine Start-up 46 to 61 Car Horns and Alarms 72 to 79 The table indicates that the project parking lot noise will potentially exceed the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance in the nighttime hours. Mitigation that will eliminate this potential will be included in the Mitigation Section. 2.2.4 Amplified Music Amplified music will potentially be played in some of the outdoor areas that are planned for the r project. Amplified music, however, will be confined to the courtyard areas of the project. These courtyard areas do not face the existing residences and music from the courtyards (assuming that it is limited to a reasonable volume) should not be audible in the trailer park. The nearest potential receptor that could be impacted by amplified music is the Hyatt Newporter Resort. This location is approximately 1,500 feet from the courtyard area. Noise levels experienced at the Hyatt Newporter will be at least 22 dBA less than at a point located 50 feet from the source on the music. Therefore, amplified music should be limited to an Leq level of 75 dBA measured at a point 50 feet from the source of the music. If the music is allowed to exceed an Leq of 75 dBA, noise ordinance exceedances may occur at the Hyatt Newporter. I I Noise Assessment for the Newport Dunes Project Mestre Greve Associates Page 10 3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 3.1 Construction Noise The most effective method to control construction noise is through the institution of local control over construction hours. Construction activities are prohibited by Section 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code outside of the hours of lam. through 6:30 p.m , Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. through 6 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction should occur on Sundays or Federal holidays. 3.2 Off -Site Traffic Impacts Additional traffic generated by the project may generate noise levels in excess of 45 CNEL inside the trailers. A sound wall should be constructed along Bayside Drive that will reduce the traffic generated noise levels in the trailer park. Calculations indicate that a 6-foot wall along this roadway will reduce traffic noise within the park to approximately 58 CNEL. If the exterior to interior attenuation of the trailers is 15 dBA, the interior noise level will be approximately 44 CNEL. This level complies with the City of Newport Beach noise standard for mobile home parks. Exhibit 5 shows the location of the recommended sound wall. The noise barriers are required to have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and have no openings or cracks. They may be a solid wall, an earthen berm, or a combination of the two. They may be constructed of wood studs with stucco exterior, 1/4 inch plate glass, 5/8 inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. Wood and other materials may be acceptable if properly designed as a noise barrier. 3.3 Off -Site Operational Impacts There are two potentials for noise ordinance violations: delivery truck noise and air conditioning noise. 3.3.1 Delivery Truck Noise Section 2.2.1 indicates that noise levels from delivery truck operations could reach as high as 89 dBA. This noise level exceeds the City of Newport Beach maximum noise ordinance of 80 dBA. The most effective method of reducing delivery truck noise levels is to construct a noise wall along the delivery route. Calculations indicate that a 9-foot high wall would reduce noise levels by approximately 13 dBA. Such a wall would reduce noise levels from delivery Huck opera ions to a in of approximately 75 dBA. This noise level complies with the City of Newport Beach daye noise ordinance, but still exceed the nighttime ordinance. Therefore, deliveries should be tricted to the hours between 7 a m. and 10 p.m. (i.e., no deliveries should be allowed prior to 7 a.m, or later than 10 p.m.). Exhibit 6 shows the required location of the noise wall. 3.3.2 Air Conditioner Noise There is insufficient data to accurately assess air-conditioning noise at this tinx. Air- conditioning related noise can, however, be mitigated through proper location of the equipment and through enclosing the equipment with sound attenuating structures. It is expected that air- conditioning noise can easily be mitigated to levels that comply with the City of Newport Beach noise ordinance. m 71 11 i i/Ell ��JJ / i99 ill Tz y. .�..� ,ram- .� ;i'• , Y` �._ NEWPORT DUNES �- All Sound Walls along Bayside should be 6 feet high. 9 MUNIb VI CYG HDJVuvm1 Noise Assessment for the Newport Dunes Project Mestre Curve Associates Page 11 3.3.3 Parking Lot Noise The analysis of parking lot noise indicated that the maximum noise level generated by parking lot noise would be 79 dBA. This noise level would exceed the City of Newport Beach nighttime ordinance. In order to eliminate the potential for this noise ordinance exceedance, some sort of mitigation should be designed into the project. Exhibit 6 shows the noise wall that will reduce noise levels from truck deliveries. This wall will also reduce parking lot noise to levels below the ordinance limit. This wall will reduce maximum noise levels from the parking lot to approximately 62 to 69 dBA. 3.3A Amplified Music Amplified music in the courtyard areas should be limited to an Leq noise level of 75 dBA when measured 50 feet from the source of the sound. Furthermore, outdoor amplified music should not be allowed after 10 p.m. or before 7 a.m. LSA Associates, Inc. APPENDIX J PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS 9/22W((P:\CNB834\EIR\TOC-VOL-I.WPD)> Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis for: Newport Dunes Hotel Newport Beach, California Prepared For: Evans Hotels 998 West Mission Bay Drive San Diego, California 92109 Prepared By: Adams Streeter Civil Engineers, Inc. 15 Corporate Park Irvine, California 92606 (949)474-2330 May 13, 1998 05/13/98 97-1172 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Location Map II. Introduction III. Hydrology Study Description IV. Hydraulic Analysis Descriptions V. Mitigating Measures VI. Summary VII. Soil Type Map VIII. Hydrology Calculations IX. Hydraulic Calculations X. Site Exhibit (See Plan included with Report) ST W V ► ► t t E3Q i tW►Otr S T .�(V if' { A f CIT '" ry O Jw .�'� ,�' c ar ►' N E W 6i a,� ry`�r S E A H Jya`? c el f @AT O � N PROJECT SITE rj Rp V'PACIFI vlt% Mt t111� f lS 4 05/13/98 97-1172 Newport Dunes Hotel Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis May 12, 1998 I11VTKUDUI HUN This project is located in the City of Newport Beach, along the Back Bay Area, at the northerly end of Bayside Drive. The main portion of the site is currently being used as a Recreational Beach Resort with Recreational Vehicle (RV) facilities. The site contains large swimming lagoon and beach facilities. The southwesterly area is currently servicing the existing marina along the Back Bay and providing parking and boat storage areas for it's patrons. The site is accessible from two locations. The main entrance to the marina area and the future hotel site is from Bayside Drive, which connects to Pacific Coast Highway. The second access, which is mainly used for the RV facilities, is located off of Back Bay JDrive.near the intersection with Jamboree Road. The proposed development area is along the southerly side of the swimming lagoon, between the marina and the Motor Home facilities. The main areas effected by this development will be the parking areas, boat storage area, and a portion of the RV facilities. Dredge material from the Back Bay activities are also currently being stored on the portion of the site. This material will be removed prior to the start of construction on the site. HYDROLOGYSTUDY The hydrology calculations have analyzed the site for a 25-year storm frequency. The 25-year storm frequency analysis is used for areas with sump conditions and is consistent with the standard method required by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. This analysis is based upon guidelines described in the Orange County Public Facilities and Resources Standard Hydrology Manual. These calculations are based upon the Modified Rational Method using the Advanced Engineering Software (AES) "RATSC" program. The land use for this site has been designated as "Commercial" use with a Soil Type "C" to define the percentages of impervious areas and the rain runoff characteristics. For the purposes of the hydrology and hydraulic calculations, 100 feet has been added to the proposed elevations to eliminate the conflicts that the programs have with negative elevations representing depths below sea level. 1. 11 05/13/98 97-1172 1 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS The hydraulic analysis has been calculated in this report utilizing the WSPG program, which is also a standard method accepted by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. This program analyzes the system's flow and calculates any backwater effects to determine the systems ability to carry the runoff flows. The City of Newport Beach Public Works Department has provided the hydraulic control for the storm drain lines. This control is elevation 6.0, which relates to the mean high tide elevation in the bay. Because of the hotel's close proximity to the bay, this analysis provides the hydraulic information needed to set the final elevation of the hotel. This information is important to make sure that the hotel will remain free of any flooding conditions for the storms that have been analyzed. This preliminary analysis only studies the main lines shown on the Hydrology Map. Laterals and extensions of this system will be reviewed in the final analysis. MITIGATING MEASURES STORM DRAIN ALIGNMENTS The storm drain alignments shown on the Hydrology Map included with this report utilize three of the existing headwall connections. The existing headwall connection for line "A" along the southerly side of the hotel will need to be enlarged to allow a larger pipe connection. This adjustment will allow the storm drain line to pick up more flows along the southerly and easterly sides of the hotel. A new connection will need to be added to the headwall to support storm drain line "C" which will pick up most of the drainage along the lagoon side of the hotel. The two other existing connections to the storm drain will be used to pick up runoff from the marina and adjacent areas. The installation of the four storm drain lines will enable more of the flows from the site to be outlet into the bay. I STORM DRAIN PIPES I The current storm drain system has been constructed using High -Density Polyethylene pipe (HDPE). This type of pipe is often desirable in open areas because of the ease in handling and installation. The HDPE pipe is also resistant to many of the effects of salt water. However, HDPE pipe will deflect a small amount if any adjacent excavations or ground movements effect the earth supporting the side of the pipe. This may cause the surface above the pipe to settle. For this reason many Public Agencies are cautious about the use of it in construction of storm drain systems. I 05/13/98 97-1172 This analysis assumes that the proposed storm drain alignments shown on the Hydrology Map will utilize Reinforced Concrete Pipe with Type 5 cement to avoid any of these problems. ISUMMARY This report shows that this preliminary storm drain design can satisfy the drainage requirements of the City of Newport Beach for the development of this hotel site. The preliminary storm drain design also shows that the installation of this storm drain will help direct more of the storm runoff from this site to the existing and proposed bay outlets. This will help to preserve the water quality within the swimming lagoon area. The final design of the storm drain system may effect some of the results of this preliminary design. However, this analysis provides a basis for the design development of the hotel and those facilities necessary for the final designs and construction. I Adams Streeter Civil Engineers, Inc. QAOFESSlp �Q��56RIRN Nq! N0.54755 * Exp. 12 31 7�a�mesBes, ��e CIVIL 13 9 TFOF cALtFOQ I I I SOIL TYPE �. .-Alt .•*.S! �r:bli. 'S�\[�'-1h cQi ry w.. 1St�.•IM,i , i,.it,•�$Af'1�1 /= _. I�Y..4`�f.+�'... .�I �.r �4f•.C.i�". Q'" '�'".it.i• +7L PROJECTSITE <.:. . L`%{',"t' '• �;� � Fes' .��.�a >, ,� L, . � ik�Y � ;fix y � �?��.i + �+ � ., r•,1yy �i�".�y�y ..A .• :,t. �t�•.ty� vA,t. �S KEY` I� I I i r a I LI I I hf I I 1 174 I 11 1 HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS I I I II I! u �J I I RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 OCEMA HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-96 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 6.1 Release Date: 01/01/96 License ID 1204 Analysis prepared by: ADAMS & STREETER CIVIL ENGINEERS INC. 15 CORPORATE PARK IRVINE, CA. 92714 (714) 474-2330 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** DUNES HOTEL 25 YEAR STORM FREQUENCY STUDY AREA A,B,C FILE NAME: K:\971172\DUNES.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 18:34 5/12/1998 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL* -- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 25.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC II) ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER -DEFINED STREET -SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER -GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR 10. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 .018/ .018/ .020 .67 2.00 .03125 .1670 .01500 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = .00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 2.1 •--------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME -OF -CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 240.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 12.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 11.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.416 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.863 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL C .99 .25 .10 69 7.42 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 3.42 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .99 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.42 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 4.1 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (NEW ELEMENT) ««< aaaaaxvx�vse-----=vsxxxxa=sxssssysxaasxs ---sxaazaas�xxxxaz=axaxaxxsxxx: ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 106.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 105.15 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 180.00 MANNING'S N = .013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.5 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) - 4.19 GIVEN PIPE DZAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) - 3.42 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .72 Tc(MIN.) = 8.13 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 8.1 »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< axvxvasaaz=-aaasasxaazazxseas..nza==avaaasassxaszxzasaxxaamxazaysaa:xxzaasa MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 8.13 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) - 3.686 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL C 1.27 .25 .10 69 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap - .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.27 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 4.18 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) 2.26 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.26 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.45 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 13.00 IS CODE - 4.1 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (NEW ELEMENT) ««< eaavaammsysaaaxxsaaaaasnraavaoavmvrrvavrmvvavmmxmvmmaasaaaxnamvmvmvxsys:east ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 105,15 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 103.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) - 230.00 MANNING'S N - .013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 11.9 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) r 6.02 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) - 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 7.45 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .64 Tc(MIN.) 8.77 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.00 TO NODE 13.00 IS CODE = 8.1 »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< =vva=aa=aaaaaaaasaaaasasaamaaxaavzmaseam.vav=aaaxamazasssasaaaxvaysaaazzvaoz MAINLINE Tc(MIN) 8.77 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.541 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN I I I li I COMMERCIAL C 1.79 .25 .10 69 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.79 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.66 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 4.05 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .02 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.05 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 12.82 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.00 TO NODE 14.00 IS CODE = 4.1 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (NEW ELEMENT) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 103.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 99.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 440.00 MANNING'S N = .013 ASSUME FULL -FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.25 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 12.82 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.01 Tc(MIN.) = 9.78 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 14.00 IS CODE = 8.1 »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 9.78 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.310 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL C 2.97 .25 .10 69 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.97 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.78 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 7.02 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .02 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.02 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 20.76 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 15.00 IS CODE = 4.1 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (NEW ELEMENT) ««< ea=a=eeeeeeeeeeccceceeeec=e=oocoo==e==eeeveceeeecceccoc0000==ovoeeeeee=eceee ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 99.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 97.10 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 300.00 MANNING'S N = .013 ASSUME FULL -FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.61 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 20.76 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .76 Tc(MIN.) = 10.54 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 15.00 TO NODE 15.00 IS CODE = 8.1 »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 10.54 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.176 MI SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL C 1.54 .25 .10 69 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.54 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.37 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 8,56 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .02 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 AREA -AVERAGED Ap - .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.56 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 24.28 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 15.00 TO NODE 16.00 IS CODE ¢ 4.1 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (NEW ELEMENT) ««< ¢CII¢zzaxmzxm¢axa¢xxxxaam¢¢¢sasaxmamaa¢xxxx¢II¢¢x¢xaaaII=z==zaaaa¢arzzim_zsii ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 97.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 96.70 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 MANNING'S N = .013 ASSUME FULL -FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) - 7.73 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) a 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) - 24.28 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .22 Tc(MIN.) = 10.75 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 16.00 TO NODE 16.00 IS CODE = 8.1 »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< x=xi¢sisaxixxmisaz®axxaaizax:xfev=azzizz....s=zzzataazaxxazxaz MAINLINE Tc(MIN) - 10.75 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) 3.143 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL C .65 .25 .10 69 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap - .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = .65 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1,02 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 9.21 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.21 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 25.84 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 16.00 TO NODE 16.00 IS CODE = 8.1 »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< a S S¢C S S xII ¢II¢SSSSSSixiIIiO S S SaiS Sxi¢LiSaiS MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 10.75 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.143 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL C .84 .25 .10 69 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = .84 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 2.36 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 10.05 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .02 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .25 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.05 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 28.20 1 11 11 11 11 I I j I I I I (_J I! I L 1 IJ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 16.00 TO NODE 17.00 IS CODE = 4.1 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (NEW ELEMENT) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 96.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 95.40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 130.00 MANNING'S N = .013 ASSUME FULL -FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.98 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 28.20 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .24 Tc(MIN.) = 10.99 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 17.00 TO NODE 17.00 IS CODE = 8.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 10.99 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.105 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL C .89 .25 .10 69 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .89 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.47 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 10.94 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .02 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.94 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 30.33 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 17.00 TO NODE 18.00 IS CODE = 4.1 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (NEW ELEMENT) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 95.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 95.10 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 30.00 MANNING'S N = .013 ASSUME FULL -FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.65 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 30.33 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .05 Tc(MIN.) = 11.05 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 18.00 TO NODE 18.00 IS CODE = 8.1 »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 11.05 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL•INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.097 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL C .63 .25 .10 69 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .63 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.74 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 11.57 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .02 I AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 AREA -AVERAGED Ap - .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.57 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) m 31.99 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 18.00 TO NODE 19.00 IS CODE = 4.1 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (NEW ELEMENT) ««< .nn�axamxxxamscam==cmmama=mmxaansnmmva=aaaammmmm=aasoaamamxm�bsansxxamaamaa ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 95.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 94.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 110.00 MANNING'S N = .013 ASSUME FULL -FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.18 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 31.99 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .18 Tc(MIN.) - 11.23 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 21.00 IS CODE - 2.1 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSTS««< >>USE TIME -OF -CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< aaa--�-----aaraamssaaaasaamasassxaassasaaaxmscmamaamxxamsaaaaaamsamanasxamxam INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 200.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) - 111.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 110.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) - 6.493 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) b 4.229 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL C 1.57 .25 .10 69 6.49 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.94 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.57 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 5.94 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 21.00 TO NODE 22.00 IS CODE = 4.1 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (NEW ELEMENT) ««< -_xaax-=x=-xx:xmx==xxz_asam=azzmz==xxx=xaxxmmxzzaxxxxsxxsxxmxmamamamxxxxxz ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 105,00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 95.30 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 270.00 MANNING'S N = .013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.9 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.47 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) - 5.94 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .48 Tc(MIN.) m 6.97 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 22.00 TO NODE 22,00 IS CODE - 8.1 »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< vaaaaaamaaaaaaaxaaaamamxaaaaxaaaaaaaaaanaaaaabaamnamaaCmm=maxmam====oaxxiaaa MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 6.97 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) a 4.041 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS I LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL C 1.89 .25 .10 69 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.89 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.83 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.46 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 1 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.46 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 12.50 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 22.00 TO NODE 23.00 IS CODE = 4.1 ------------- ---------- ------- ----- ----- ----------------------- - ------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (NEW ELEMENT) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 95.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 94.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 130.00 MANNING'S N = .013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.2 INCHES ' PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.09 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 12.50 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .31 Tc(MIN.) = 7.27 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.10 TO NODE 30.00 IS CODE = 2.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME -OF -CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ---------------------------------------- INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 200.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 111.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 111.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.772 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.540 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN -(MIN.) COMMERCIAL C .50 .25 .10 69 8.77 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 ' SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.58 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .50 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.58 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 31.00 IS CODE = 4.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (NEW ELEMENT) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 105.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 105.10 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 MANNING'S N = .013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.6 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.68 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.58 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .62 Tc(MIN.) = 9.39 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 31.00 TO NODE 31.00 IS CODE = 8.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< ,xxxxxxxxsxxxxxmnxxsvvamsxxaxaxmaoxxxxavxxxaxxxanamaavasvxxac=xxxxaaxmx:as MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 9.39 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.398 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL C .41 .25 .10 69 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .41 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 1.24 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) _ .91 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .91 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.76 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 31.00 TO NODE 32.00 IS CODE = 4.1 .--------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< M »»>USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (NEW ELEMENT) ««< xccacnnasxxasamaaysaammmvsmmassnxssxxaxvaaaaxxm=maaaacaxaxcaaxxxaacsaaxassam ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 105.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 102.70 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 405.00 MANNING'S N = .013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.5 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.99 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) a 2.76 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - 1.69 Tc(MIN.) = 11.09 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 32.00 TO NODE 32.00 IS CODE = 8.1 •--------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< sass=aaasvaammnammammaamaam=maamaxdaaxaasammmaxaaaavaammmmaoaxaxasaaxaxaaaaa MAINLINE Tc(MIN) - 11.09 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3,090 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT -TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL C 3.21 .25 .10 69 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.21 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.86 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 4.12 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 AREA -AVERAGED Ap - .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.12 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.37 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 32.00 TO NODE 83.00 IS CODE = 4.1 ------------- ---------- ------- ----- ----- ------ »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (NEW ELEMENT) ««< Yxxxxxaaaaxaanaxxaaaamavvnm=axcaxxaxxa_vcama.Gvsvaavammomaavvaxaa=asavaaxava ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM (FEET) = 102.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 100.20 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 360.00 MANNING'S N = .013 ASSUME FULL -FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) - 6.43 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 11.37 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .93 Tc(MIN.) - 12.02 1 I I FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 33.00 TO NODE 33.00 IS CODE = 8.1 »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< aeaec=ecceeeceece=oo_===eeeececeee==ee=eeeeeeev==cvoee o==oeecveeecee=e= MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 12.02 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.945 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL C 3.90 .25 .10 69 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.90 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.25 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 8.02 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)' _ .02 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.02 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 21.07 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 33.00 TO NODE 34.00 IS CODE = 4.1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (NEW ELEMENT) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 100.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 97.80 ' FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 360.00 MANNING'S N = .013 ASSUME FULL -FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.71 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 ' PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 21.07 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .89 Tc(MIN.) = 12.92 I -FLOW-PROCESS FROM NODE 34.00 TO NODE 34.00 IS CODE -------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 12.92 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.824 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL C 1.92 .25 .10 69 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.92 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.84 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 9.94 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .02 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.94 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 25.04 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 34.00 TO NODE 35.00 IS CODE = 4.1 »>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (NEW ELEMENT) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 97.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 96.30 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 140.00 MANNING'S N = .013 ASSUME FULL -FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.97 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 25.04 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .29 Tc(MIN.) - 13.21 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 35.00 TO NODE 35.00 IS CODE = 8.1 »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< canxnx�Ssmaaenkeaazxnx�nxaanzxaazazmaaazzamzmzzaannzzaaaznazx5'zdcmzzzmaxanaazz MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 13.21 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.791 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL C .73 .25 .10 69 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .73 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 1.82 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 10.67 AREA -AVERAGED FM(INCH/HR) _ .02 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.67 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 26.56 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 35.00 TO NODE 36.00 IS CODE = 4.1 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (NEW ELEMENT) ««< enIIaaecascmasxaaxsxeIIa.==mzxaasamamaamamaaamzamaxsxaaasasaaxczacsazxasbaama: ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 96.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 95.30 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 MANNING'S N = .013 ASSUME FULL -FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.45 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) - 26.56 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .20 Tc(MIN.) = 13.41 r++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ww++++++++++w*++++++++++++++w++++*++* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 36.00 TO NODE 36.00 IS CODE - 8.1 »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< o�xxrvxcaaxa:aamaxxaxss:aaxxaaaxaamaaxavxx:xmasxaaaasammaxsxaxxmmaaxxmammm MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 13.41 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.769 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL C 1.26 .25 .10 69 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap - .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 1.26 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 3.11 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) b 11.93 AREA -AVERAGED FM(INCH/HR) _ .02 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 25 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.93 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 29.46 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 36.00 TO NODE 37.00 IS CODE = 4.1 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (NEW ELEMENT) ««< CmIISnSSIISSSIIIISSSSSmSSSSSSSSSSCSmmaSSmbS$aSCOI=S=CSS=SSamxxabS=CmxbIInxS=SSSxma ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 95.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 94.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 125.00 MANNING'S N = .013 I I 1] I I I I ASSUME FULL -FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.38 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 29.46 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .22 Tc(MIN.) = 13.63 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 41.00 IS CODE = 2.1 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME -OF -CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 300.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 109.,00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 100.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.002 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.423 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL C .63 .25 .10 69 6.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.49 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .63 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.49 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .63 TC(MIN.) = 6.00 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) _ .63 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .25 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.49 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS JOB NO. 97 //72- iLL. CABY p • ✓ o CHECK. BY 1 DATE ADAMS • STREETER COMPUTATION SHEET SHEET _/--OF_ 'CIVIL ENGINEERS INC. //N& 'A.4i 1 � l�,Gw�s �o TEL gF; xoo i Q ; 9s/ 91 1 �a . o O s 1 N �•_ 1 C3 ,%y 4,1 t 'STORM DRAIN ANALYSIS PLUS Original version by Los Angeles County Public Works 'Portions Copyrighted by CIVILSOFT, 1986, 1987, 1989 Version 1.20 Serial Number 07010186 'May 13, 1998 9:12:55 Input file : DUNE-A2.DAT Output file: DUNE-A2.OUT ' INPUT FILE LISTING 11 11 11 11 'T1 DUNES HOTEL T2 25 YEAR STORM FREQUENCY HYDRAULICS T3 LINE "A" �so R 105.00 � 94.00 95.10 1 1 106.0 .013 JX 109.00 95.20 1 3 .013 1.7 95.30 45.0 R 135.00 95.50 1 .013 JX 139.00 R 260.00 95.60 96.70 1 1 3 .013 2.1 .013 95.70 45.0 JX 264.00 R 360.00 96.80 97,10 1 1 3 3 .013 2.0 1.9 .013 96.90 96.90 45.0 45.0 JX 364.00 97.20 1 3 3 .013 3.0 0.1 97.30 45.0 46.0 R 420.00 JX 424.00 97.50 97.60 1 1 .011 3 .013 0.4 97.70 45.0 R 660.00 99.50 1 .013 JX 664.00 99.60 1 3 3 .013 4.6 0.2 99.70 99.70 45.0 45.0 R 685.00 99.80 1 .013 JX 619.00 'R 1095.00 99.90 103.00 2 2 3 3 .013 3.0 0.2 .013 99.90 99.90 45.0 45.0 ' JX 1099.00 R 1325.00 103.10•' 105.15 2 2 3 .013 5.3 103.20 .013 45.0 - JX 1329.00 IR 1645.00 SH 1645.00 105.25 107.50 307.50 3 3 3 3 .013 4.1 105.30 .013 .013 45.0 SP PAGE 1 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING �CARD SECT (9) Y(10) CHN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 RASE EL 2R INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) X(4) Y(S) Y(6) Y(7) YrB) ' CODE NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP CD 1 CD 2 4 4 3.00 .0 CD 3 9 1 .50 PAGE NO 1 HEADING LINE NO 1 IS - WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING " DUNES HOTEL HEADING LIRE NO 2 IS - 0 25 YEAR STORM FREQUENCY HYDRAULICS HEADING LINE NO 3 IS - LINE "A" , PAGE NO 2 0 ELEMENT NO 1 IS A WATER SURFACE PROFILE SYSTEM OUTLET + + - ELEMENT CARD LISTING 0 ELEMENT NO 2 IS A U/S DATA STATION INVERT REACH •00 94.00+ SECT 1 + W S ELEV 106.00 - G PT MAN H U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE F. .0 0 105.00 95.10 1 .013 .00 .00 0 ELEMENT 110 HI 4 3 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT-1 LAT-2 N Q3 04 INVERT-3 INVERT-4 PHI 3 .00 109.00 95.20 1 3 0 .013 1.7 .0 95.30 .00 '45.00 0 ELEMENT NO N FG PT MAN H 4 IS A REACH + + U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE .00 0 135.00 95.50 1 .013 .00 .00 0 ELEMENT NO 5 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT-1 LAT-2 N 03 04 INVERT-3 INVERT-4 PHI 3 LHI 4 139.00 95.60 1 3 0 .013 00 M ELEMENT NO 6 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N ANG PT MAN H 260.00 96.70 1 .013 DO 0 ELEMENT NO 7 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT-1 LAT-2 N pHI 4 264.00 96.80 1 3 3 .013 ' 45.00 'D ELEMENT NO 8 IS A REACH * * * U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N ANG PT MAN H 360.00 97.10 1 .013 00 0 '0 ELEMENT NO 9 IS A JUNCTION _ U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT-1 LAT-2 N PHI 4 364.00 97.20 1 3 3 .013 45.00 1 PAGE NO 3 0 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING ' 0 ELEMENT NO 10 IS A REACH x x x U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N ANG PT MAN H 420.00 97.50 1 .013 ' E 0 LELEMENT NO 11 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT iAT-1 LAT-2 N I 4 924.00 97.60 1 3 0 .013 0 PT MAN H 0 ELEMENT NO 12 IS A REACH AN0G U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N ' 660.00 99.50 1 .013 ' 00 0 0 ELEMENT NO 13 IS A JUNCTION x x x U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT-1 LAT-2 N PHI 4 664.00 99.60 1 3 3 .013 ' 0 ELEMENT NO 19 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N ANG PT MAN H 685.00 99.80 1 .013 00 0 �0 ELEMENT NO 15 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT-1 LAT-2 N PHI 4 1.0 689.00 99.90 2 3 3 .013 95.00 ELEMENT NO 16 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N ANG PT MAN H 1095.00 103.00 2 .013 'tl0 0 0 ELEMENT NO 17 IS A JUNCTION x x x x U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT-1 LAT-2 N PHI 4 1099.00 103.10 2 3 0 .013 00 0 ELEMENT NO 18 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N ANG PT MAN H 1325.00 105.15 2 .013 00 0 �0 ELEMENT NO 19 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT-1 LAT-2 N PHI 9 1329.00 105.25 3 3 0 .013 ' .00 PAGE NO 4 ' 0 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING �0 ELEMENT NO 20 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N ANG PT MAN H 1645.00 107.50 3 .013 00 0 2.1 Q3 2.0 03 3.0 .0 95.70 .00 45.00 RADIUS ANGLE .00 .00 Q4 INVERT-3INVERT-4PHI 3* 1.9 96.90 96.90 45.00 04 03 * Q4 .4 RADIUS ANGLE .00 .00 INVERT-3*INVERT-4 PHI 3 1 97.30 .00 45.00 RADIUS ANGLE .00 .00 INVERT-3*INVERT-4 PHI 3x 0 97.70 .00 45.00 Q3 * Q4 4.6 .2 RADIUS ANGLE .00 .00 INVERT-3*INVERT-4 PHI 3* 99.70 99.70 45.00 RADIUS ANGLE .00 .00 x x x Q3 Q4 INVERT-3 INVERT-4 PHI 3 3.0 .2 99.90 99.90 95.00 Q3 * Q4 5.3 .0 03 * Q4 4.1 .0 RADIUS ANGLE .00 .00 INVERT-3 xINVERT-4 PHI 3* 103.20 .00 45.00 RADIUS ANGLE .00 .00 * * INVERT-3 INVERT-4 PHI 3 105.30 .00 45.00 RADIUS ANGLE .00 .00 ELEMENT NO 21 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORHS U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 1645.00 NO EDIT ERRORS ENCOUNTERED -COMPUTATION IS 107.50 3 NOW BEGINNING .00 ** WARNING NO. 2 ** - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKOS, W.S.ELEV INV + DC IAGE 1 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING DUNES HOTEL 25 YEAR STORM FREQUENCY LINE "A" HYDRAULICS STATION INVERT DEPTH W.S. Q VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ , L NO AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH 0IA ID NO. IER L/ELEM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH rR#:*xwfxr»!l+trlrtrrt*ftr*rr*rx#+xf+#tx+xt*rrr!*r*fxf+xr**f*+*f*+##*ft#rrw+♦**xwrrt*xfrxxf+rtr#r+++***wr!*xr*rx*+#ft+x l xxxwxffltr .00 94.00 12.00 106.00 32.0 4.53 .32 106.32 .00 1.84 3.00 .00 � 00 0 .00 105.00 .01098 .00230 .24 1.44 DO 0 105.00 t00 0 JUNCT STR 95.10 OO .02500 11.14 106.24 32.0 4,.53 .32 .00218 106.56 .01 .00 1.84 3.00 .00 OO 0 109.00 95.20 11.11 106.31 30.3 4.29 .29 106.60 .00 1.78 3.00 .00 00 26.00 100 .00 .01159 .00206 .05 1.36 135.00 95.50 10.86 306.36 30.3 9.29 .29 106.65 .00 1.78 3.00 .00 .00 0 .00 bJUNCT STR .02500 .00193 .01 �00 139.00 95.60 10.84 106.49 28.2 3.99 .25 106.69 .00 1.72 3.00 .00 .00 0 .00 0 121.00 .00909 .00179 .22 1.40' 00 260.00 96.70 9.96 106.66 28.2 3.99 .25 306.90 .00 1.72 3.00 .00 , .00 0 DO OJUNCT STR .02500 .00156 .01 DD 264.00 96.80 9.98 106.7E 24.3 3.99 .18 106.96 .00 1.59 3.00 .00 100 0 .00 96.00 .00313 .00133 .13 1.76 .00 0 360.00 0 97.10 DO 9.81 106.91 24.3 3.44 .18 107.09 .00 1.59 3.00 .00 ' t00 JUNCT STR .02500 .00117 .00 00 0 364.00 97.20 9.78 106.98 21.2 3.00 .14 107.12 .00 1.48 3.00 .00 00 0 56.00 .00 .00536 .00101 .06 1.38 00 � 0 420.00 97.50 9.59 107.04 21.2 3.00 .19 107.18 .00 1.48 3.00 .00 00 O 00 OJUNCT STR 00 .02500 .00099 .00 ' 0 424.00 97.60 9.45 107.05 20.8 2.94 .13 107.19 .00 1.47 3.00 .00 .00 0 .00 0 236.00 00 .D0805 .00097 .23 1.22 1 2 PAGE 2 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING DUNES HOTEL 25 YEAR STORM FREQUENCY HYDRAULICS LINE "A" 0 STATION INVERT DEPTH W.S. Q VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL MGT/ BASE/ ZL 110 AVBPR PIER ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID NO. 0 L/ELEM SO SF AVE HF 110R14 DEPTH ZR rwfwiaf*rfr+*#wwYf*wew*wwf}}rw #r wl ww•wsw• 0 660.00 wrff 99.50 7.78 if rx rff}f!#wwwf r*+}iwar*w}*w!w#wrw}f}fwxffw*w*fw}www#rwr!!#f!}iwrf 107.28 20.8 wif+kx ix*i**ww#*!}R* 2.94 .13 107.42 .00 1.47 3.00 ' I .00 .00 0 .00 OJUNCT STR .02500 .00077 .00 00 669.00 99.60 7.76 107.36 16.0 2.26 .08 107.49 .00 1.28 3.00 .00 ,,0 11,00 0 .00 0 21.00 .00952 .00058 .01 1685.00 99.80 7.57 107.37 16.0 2.26 .08 107.45 .00 1.28 ' 0 .00 OJUNCT STR .02500 .00189 .01 00 40 68999.90 7.36 107.26 12.8 4.07 .26 107.52 .00 1.29 ' �.00 00 00 00 406.00 .00769.00320 1.30 0 1095.00 103.00 5.56 108.56 12.8 4.07 .26 108.82 .00 1.29 F000 0 00 JUNCT STR .02500 .00215 .01 0 0 1099.00 103.10 5.69 108.79 7.5 2.39 .09 108.88 .00 .97 00 0 .00 226.00 .00907 .00110 .25 �do 0 1325.00 105.15 3.89 109.04 7.5 2.39 .09 109.13 .00 .97 00 0 .00 JUNCT STR .02500 .00107 .00 :do 0 1329.00 105.25 3.86 109.11 3.9 1.92 .06 109.16 .00 .70 .00 0 .00 0 316.00 .00712 .00105 .33 1100 0 1645.00 107.50 1.94 109.44 3.4 1.92 .06 109.49 .00 .70 ,00 0 .00 1 1� I� 1.01 3.00 .00 2.00 .00 1.17 2.00 .00 2.00 .00 .81 2.00 .00 1.50 .00 .64 1.50 .00 COMPUTATION SHEET YIUAMJ . J 1 Ktt 1 tK CIVIL ENGINEERS INC. �• �� r JOB NO. 4 %,, 7L, , CALL. BY Q . CHEM BY DATE sxw mop _4 r 1 [l ' STORM DR;AN ANALYSIS PLUS Original version by Los Angeles County Public Works t ' Portions Copyrighted by CIVILSOFT, 1986, 1987, 1989 Version 1.20 Serial Number 07010186 May 13, 1998 6:43:35 Input file : DUNES-B.DAT Output file: DUNES-B.OUT ' INPUT FILE LISTING Tl DUNES HOTEL T2 25 YEAR STORM FREQUENCY HYDRAULICS T3 LINE B SO 000.00 94.00 1 106.00 R 125.00 95.30 1 .013 JK 129.00 95.50 2 2 2 .013 3.3 3.3 95.60 95.60 45.0 45.0 R 390.00 105.00 2 .013 SH 390.00 105.00 2 ' 1PAGE 1 SP WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING 0 CARD SECT CNN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE ZL ZR INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) 1 'Y(Y(10) CODE NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP CD 1 4 2.00 CD 2 4 1.50 I PAGE NO 1 0 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING i OHEADING LINE NO 1 IS - 0 DUNES HOTEL 'OHUDING LINE NO 2 IS - 0 25 YEAR STORM FREQUENCY HYDRAULICS OHEADING LINE•NO 3 IS - 0 LINE B 1 PAGE NO 2 0 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING 0 ELEMENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV .00 94.00 1 106.00 '0 ELEMENT NO 2 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 125.00 95.30 1 .013 .00 .00 00 0 0 ELEMENT NO 3 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT-1 LAT-2 N 03 Q4 INVERT-3 INVERT-4 PHI 3 PHI 4 129.00 95.50 2 2 2 .013 3.3 3.3 95.60 95.60 45.00 5.00 �0 ELEMENT NO 4 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 390.00 105.00 2 .013 .00 .00 11.00 0 0 ELEMENT NO 5 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 390.00 105.00 2 .00 NO EDIT ERRORS ENCOUNTERED -COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING ** WARNING NO. 2 ** - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV INV + ' DC 1 PAGE 1 ' DUNES HOTEL WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING ' 25 YEAR STORM FREQUENCY HYDRAULICS LINE B ' 0 STATION INVERT DEPTH W.S. Q VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID N0. PIER 110 L/ELEM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH tZR rf#fff}fhffh#f}#ff#}fYf}f#ffY#f##**#*}f#1ff if ff #fff##}##f .00 94.00 12.00 106.00 12.5 3.98 .25 106.25 .00 1.27 00 0 .00 125.00 .01040 .00305 .38 .00 0 125.00 95.30 11.08 106.38 12.5 3.98 .25 106.63 .00 1.27 0 .00 100 JONCT STR .05000 .00310 .01 00 0 129.00 95.50 11.14 106.,64 5.9 3.34 .17 106.81 .00 .94 00 0 .00 �00 261.00 .03640 .00315 .82 390.00 105.00 2.96 107.96 5.9 3.39 .17 107.64 .00 .99 .00 0 .00 r r r N i t t t 1.05 56 2.00 .00 ' 2.00 .00 1 1.50 .00 1.50 .00 ' 1 r 1 r r r r 1 . ADAMS • STREETER 1 CIVIL ENGINEERS INC. 1 1 1 COMPUTATION SHEET Wi ff �G D vivEs Hv rg� JOB NO. 9 7// 7 Z CALL. BY -yo CHECK. BY DATE SHEET --3_OF_ NORM DRAIN ANALYSIS PLUS riginal version by Los Angeles County PobliC Works ortions Copyrighted by CIVILSOFT, 1986, 1987, 1989 ersion 1.20 Serial Number 07010186 Fay 23, 1998 9: 7:17 Input file : DONE-C2.DAT Output file: DUNE-C2.OUT ' INPUT FILE LISTING 11 11 11 11 1 DUNES HOTEL ' 2 25 YEAR STORM FREQUENCY HYDRAULICS T3 LINE "C" �50 94'.0 1 106.0 220.7tX 120.00 95.30 1 .013 124.00 95.40 1 3 .013 2.9 95.50 45.0 R 225.00 96.30 1 .013 ix .00 9.0 1 3 .013 1.6 96.50 95.0 365 365.00 97.80 1 .013 369.00 97.90 1 3 3 .013 2.0 2.0 98.00 98.00 45.0 45.0 , 715.00 100.20 1 .013 JX 719.00 100.30 2 3 .013 9.7 100.40 45.0 R 1075.00 202.70 2 .013 1079.00 202.80 3 3 .013 8.6 102.90 45.0 ' 1470.00 105.10 3 .013 JX 1475.00 105.20 3 3 .013 1.2 105.30 45.0 A 1565.00 105.50 3 .013 H 1565.00 105.50 3 SP (AGE ' WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING 1 0 CARD SECT CHN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 EASE EL 2R INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(10) �(CODE NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP ' CO 1 4 3.00 CD 2 4 2.00 LCD 3 4 1.50 ' GE NO 1 0 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING EADING LINE NO 1 IS - DUNES HOTEL ' FADING LINE NO 2 IS - 25 YEAR STORM FREQUENCY HYDRAULICS OHEADING LINE NO 3 IS - LINE "Co GE NO 2 HATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING 0 ELEMENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV .00 94.00 1 106.00 , ELEMENT NO 2 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 120.00 95.30 1 �00 0 .013 .00 .00 ELEMENT NO 3 IS A JUNCTION + + * + * * + U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT-1 LAT-2 N Q3 Q4 INVERT-3 INVERT-4 PHI 3 HI 4 129.00 95.90 1 3 0 .013 2.9 .0 95.50 .00 45.00 00 ELEMENT NO 4 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT 11 RADIUS ANGLE PT MAN H 96.30 1 rooG .013 .00 .00 ' 0225.00 00 0 0 ELEMENT NO 5 IS A JUNCTION + + • * > U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT-1 LAT-2 17 03 04 INVERT-3 INVERT-4 PHI 3 I 4 229.00 46.40 1 3 0 t0 .013 1.6 .0 96.50 .00 45.00 ' 0 ELEMENT NO 6 IS A REACH + + PT MAN H U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ' rG I365.00 97.60 1 .013 .00 .00 . QO 0 O,ELEMENT NO 7 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA * STATION * INVERT * * SECT LAT-1 LAT-2 N * Q3 x Q4 INVERT-3 INVERT-4 x PHI 3 ' IHI 4 369.00 97.90 1 3 3 .013 2.0 2.0 98.00 98.00 95.00 45.00 ELEMENT NO 8 IS A REACH ' U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE NG PT MAN H 715.00 100.20 1 .013 .00 .00 .00 0 ELEMENT NO 9 IS A JUNCTION ' U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT-1 LAT-2 N 03 Q4 INVERT-3 INVERT-4 PHI 3 AX 9 719.00 100.30 2 3 0 .013 9.7 .0 100.90 .00 45.00 00 [AGE NO 3 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING 0 ELEMENT NO 10 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N. RADIUS ANGLE PT MAN H �NG 1075.00 102.70 2 .013 .00 .00 00 0 O ELEMENT NO 11 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT-1 LAT-2 N Q3 Q4 INVERT-3 INVERT-4 PHI 3 HI 4 l00 1079.00 102.80 3 3 0 .013 8.6 .0 102.90 .00 45.00 0 ELEMENT NO 12 IS A REACH * ' DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE tU/S ING PT MAN H 1470.00 105.10 3 .013 .00 .00 00 0 0 ELEMENT NO 13 IS A JUNCTION ' U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT-1 LAT-2 N 03 Q4 INVERT-3 INVERT-4 PHI 3 IHI 4 1975.00 105.20 3 3 0 .013 1.2 .0 105.30 .00 95.00 s00 0 ELEMENT NO 14 IS A REACH * ' ' U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE iG PT MAN H- 1565.00 105.50 3 .013 .00 .00 00 0 ELEMENT NO 15 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS * ' V/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 1565.00 105.50 3 .00 NO EDIT ERRORS ENCOUNTERED -COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING WARNING NO. 2 ** - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS. W.S.ELEV = INV + '[** C PAGE 1 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING DUNES HOTEL ' 25 YEAR STORM FREQUENCY HYDRAULICS LINE "C" 0 STATION INVERT DEPTH W.S. Q VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL MGT/ BASE/ L NO AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD. EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID N0. IER L/ELEM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH �xRr+xxxxxxxxxxx+xx++ax+++axxaaxxxx+++axxxxaaxa+xxxxxxxxr+axxaxxxxx++ax++axxxx+rarax+xxxaaxxxax++xxxxa++xxx+xraxaa+xaxxxx ' *xx .00 xax .00 99.00 12.00 106.00 29.6 4.19 .27 106.27 .00 1.76 3.00 .00 00 0 .00 .0 120.00 .01083 .00197 .29 1.37 ' 00 120.00 95.30 10.94 106.29 29.6 9.19 .27 106.51 .00 1.76 3.00 .00 .00 0 .00 OJUNCT STR .02500 .00179 .01 ' 00 124.00 95.90 10.93 106.33 26.7 3.76 .22 106.55 .00 1.67 3.00 .00 00 0 .00 101.00 .00891 .00160 .16 1.36 00 96.30 10.19 106.99 26.7 3.78 .22 106.71 .00 1.67 3.00 .00 �225.00 00 0 .00 JUNCT STR .02500 .00151 .01 100 0 229.00 96.90 10.15 106. 55 25.1 3.55 .20 106.79 .00 1,12 3.00 .00 00 0 .00 t136.00 ' .01029 .00142 .19 1.26 .00 0 365.00 0 97.80 .00 0.94 106.74 25.1 3.55 .20 106.93 .00 1.62 3.00 .00 JUNCT STR U0U .02500 .00121 .00 0 0 369.00 97.90 8.94 106.84 21.1 2.99 .14 106.98 .00 1.48 3.00 .00 00 346.00 t00 .00 .00665 .00100 .35 1.30 , 0 715.00 100.20 6.99 107.19 21.1 2.99 .14 107.33 .00 1.48 3.00 .00 00 0 .00 JUNCT STA .02500 .00177 ,01 �00 ' 719.00 100.30 6.83 107.13 11.9 3.63 .20 107.39 .00 1.21 2.00 .00 .00 0 .00 0 356.00 .00674 .00254 .90 1.13 00 t1075.00 102.70 5.33 108.03 11.9 3.63 .20 108.29 .00 1.21 2.00 .00 ' 00 0 .00 OJUNCT SIR .02500 .00162 .01 00 t1079.00 00 0 102.80 .00 5.41 108.21 2.8 1.58 .04 108.25 .00 .63 1.50 .00 ��000��000 391.00 .00588 .00071 .28 .61 .00 1 AGE 2 , WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING DUNES HOTEL 25 YEAR STORM FREQUENCY HYDRAULICS LINE "C" STATION INVERT DEPTH W.S. Q VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL MGT/ BASE/ ' L 110 AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID NO. PIER }L/ELEM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH *f if 4lf}if}}}t lk1ff11f#}}R4}i##ft*ft}####4}t}t#}}4444f*i*♦kf#4}*fffRf#}***f*tiff}Yf}#}*}ii##****1f #####f#R*##f##*k*#tk* R}iRf#R}R#4 0 1470.00 DQ 0 105.10 .00 3.38 108.48 2.8 1.58 .04 106.52 .00 .63 1.50 .00 JUNCT STR .02000 .00047 .00 .00 0 1475.00 105.20 3.33 108.53 1.6 .91 .01 108.54 .00 .47 1.50 .00 00 0 0 90,00 .00 .00333 .00023 .02 .53 00 0 1565.00 105,50 3.05 108.55 1.6 .91 .01 108.56 .00 .47 1.50 .00 .00 0 00 �1 ' I 1 ' i I /ADAMS • STREETER CIVIL ENGINEERS INC. II COMPUTATION SHEET .` 1 I JOB No. 17 / / 7 Z CALL. BY I/f� CHECK. BY DATE SHEET --4--OF_ ' STORM DRAIN ANALYSIS PLUS ' Original version by Los Angeles County Public Works ' Portions Copyrighted by CIVILSOFT, 1986, 1987, 1989 ' Version 1.20 Serial Number 07010186 May 13, 1998 10: 2:14 , Input file : DUNES-D.DAT Output file: DUNES-D.OUT I))PUT FILE LISTING , ' T1 DUNES HOTEL ' T2 25 YEAR STORM FREQUENCY HYDRAULICS T3 LINE D SO 000.00 94.00 1 106.00 R 400.00 104.00 1 .D13 SH 400.00 104.00 1 1 SP WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING AGE 1 CARD SECT CNN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 EASE ZL ZR INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) (9) Y(10) CODE NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP CD 1 4 1.50 CD 2 4 1.50 PAGE NO 1 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING HEADING LINE NO 1 IS - DUNES HOTEL OEAADING LINE NO 2 IS - 0 25 YEAR STORM FREQUENCY HYDRAULICS HEADING LINE NO 3 IS - LINE D PAGE NO 2 0 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING ELEMENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET * * + U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT 00 94.00 1 0 ELEMENT NO 2 IS A REACH * * + U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N ro0 0 PT MAN H 400.00 104.00 1 .013 .00 0 ELEMENT NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS + U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT 400.00 104.00 1 NO EDIT ERRORS ENCOUNTERED -COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING f W S ELEV 106.00 RADIUS ANGLE .00 AD ' W S E.00 .00 ' " WARNING No. 2 " - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV : INV 1 PAGE 1 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING DUNES HOTEL 25 YEAR STORM FREQUENCY HYDRAULICS LINE D STATION INVERT DEPTH W.S. Q VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL MGT/ BASE/ ZL 14O AVBPR PIER ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID NO. , 0 L/ELEM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH ZR rrf>+}>f efx}r xxx»xffxxxxxxx:}>Yf+wxff+>x rrrx++:xr}>}>}+xr xf}+x+f}f+}r>xxxx}xx+ff>}»x++>rf>af}+}>+ri}}>r}ffxr>i}++}+>r> f »f>»x»+ 0 .00 94.00 12.00 106.00 2.5 1.41 ,03 106.03 .00 .60 1.50 .00 .06 0 .00 0 400.00 .02500 .00057 .23 .40 .00 '0 400.00 104.00 2.23 106.23 2.5 1.41 .03 106.26 .00 .60 1.50 .OD ' .DO 0 .00 1 II 1 r LSA Associates, Inc. APPENDIX K r NOTICE OF PREPARATION, DISTRIBUTION LIST, AND COMMENTS RECEIVED II r 1 r9/ M((P.XCNB834\EIR%TOC-VOL-I.WPD)) r I City of Newport Beach ' NOTICE OF PREPARATION PROJECT: ' Newport Dunes Resort LEAD AGENCY: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 SUBJECT: ' The City of Newport Beach will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your ' agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statuary responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. Private individuals and groups are also encouraged to express their views as to the scope and content of the environmental information, which should be included in the environmental impact report. ' Due to time limits mandated by State law, your response should be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is a planned community development plan for Newport Dunes Resort. The t project includes the construction of a full -service destination resort hotel. The hotel will provide 400 guestrooms and 100 time-share units. The 100 time-share units will be designed with the capability to be split or "locked off' for a maximum total of 600 ' rentable rooms. Approximately 20 percent of the guestrooms will be suites. Hotel amenities will include swimming pools; health, fitness, and recreation facilities; children's facilities; dining facilities; ballrooms and meeting rooms; retail space; a ' parking structure and surface parking areas; and landscaped garden areas. The hotel site is part of the larger Newport Dunes Resort area that comprises ' approximately 100 acres on Upper Newport Bay. The planned community development includes the existing improvements in the Newport Dunes Resort. Current improvements within the Newport Dunes Resort area include a 10-acre swimming 1 �J beach, a mile -long pedestrian promenade around a swimming lagoon, day use facilities ' with parking and beach restrooms, a restaurant, a 450 slip marina, a 400+ space recreational vehicle park, swimming pools, meeting space, and boat storage and launching facilities. Since these land uses are approved and constructed, they will not generate any additional environmental impacts. The existing land uses on the 100-acre Newport Dunes Resort property were originally r approved by the City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange in 1980. This approval was part of the Newport Dunes Redevelopment Plan and subsequent 1983 Settlement Agreement. The redevelopment plan and _settlement_ agreement also ap,proved the development of a 275-room "family_inn" with up to 5Q0,OOQ square feet of -door area, 27,500 square feet of floor area for restaurants, and 5,000 square feet of floor area for commercial retail on the .proposed hotel site. Copies of these documents ' are available for public review. The hotel's interior facilities are expected to be contained within a total of approximately 700,000 square feet. An entry court located off of the Bayside Drive entry will lead to the central lobby and courtyard of the hotel. The lobby and interior courtyard will overlook the swimming beach and lagoon. Hotel guestrooms will be located in separate building wings that surround three separate garden courtyards. These separate building wings are attached to the central north -south "spine" of the hotel. The building ' configuration is intended to maximize the views of the bay and the landscaped courtyards from the guestrooms. The hotel would contain five distinct levels. The maximum height limit for 75 percent of the building footprint would be 50 feet and the remaining 25 percent of the building footprint could be built to a maximum height of 75 feet. Building heights would be measured from a maximum pad elevation of 12 feet above mean sea level. Two swimming pools will be provided with different designs to accommodate both adult and family use. Lighting and water features will be incorporated into the design of the swimming pools. The hotel will also contain a health club featuring a workout/weight room and locker facility. Two tennis courts with a small sports -oriented retail outlet and juice bar will be provided. A game room/arcade will be included in the hotel's recreational facilities. Dining areas will be provided on the main (third) level of the hotel. The more formal Dining Room and private dining areas will overlook the pool area and landscaped courtyard and will seat approximately 75 to 100 persons. The informal restaurant will offer meals throughout the day and on weekends. The lobby lounge and bar will include areas for dancing and outdoor terrace seating and dining. The hotel would provide a total of 54,000 square feet of public areas, of which, 41,000 square feet consist of function areas, including conference rooms, meeting room, and banquet facilities and 13,000 square feet consist of pre -function assembly and ' circulation areas. Most public areas would be provided on the first level. These public areas would include two 12,000 square foot ballrooms, which can be divided into I 1 r ' several smaller spaces, and an additional 9,000 square feet of pre -function areas. There will also be two smaller junior ballroom/meeting rooms of 5,000 square feet each and pre -function areas totaling 4,000 square feet. All these ballroom/meeting rooms will be accessible to and served by a central banquet kitchen. The third level would provide a 3,000 square foot banquet room and a total of five meeting rooms of 800 rsquare feet each. The public areas are oriented primarily for use by in-house groups (i.e., individuals and groups staying at the hotel). Local events (use by non -hotel guests) are estimated to utilize the public areas no more than 25 percent of the time. A 3,400 square foot gift shop/retail space will be located in or adjacent to the main lobby area. A 1,500 square foot business center will be located on the third level. The landscaping of the hotel and courtyard gardens will include water features, walkways and plantings that relate to the surrounding bay and marina facilities. Vehicular access to the hotel site would be provided by Bayside Drive. Emergency and service access would be provided by a service road connecting to Back Bay Drive through the recreational vehicle park. Public coastal access would be provided -to connect Bayside Drive to the existing public walkways along the marina bayfront and ' adjacent to the swimming lagoon. Hotel and marina parking will be accommodated by ground level parking and in a parking garage integrated into the hotel. Off-street parking will consist of a parking structure containing a minimum of 1,050 parking spaces and a surface parking lot containing 170 spaces. The hotel will meet all emergency, fire access, and ADA ' requirements. The proposed project will result in the displacement of approximately 150 spaces of the existing Newport Dunes Recreational Vehicle Resort. A total of approximately 256 recreational vehicle spaces will be retained within the existing recreational vehicle park after development of the proposed project. LOCATION': r 101 N. Bayside Drive/1131 Back Bay Drive. APN: 440-132-42 to 47 ' Section: 26 Township: 7S Range: 10W Baseline: San Bernardino SETTING: ' The Newport Dunes Resort consists of approximately 100 acres located on Upper Newport Bay, northwest of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. This parcel is on long-term lease from the County of Orange within the City of Newport Beach. The Newport Dunes Resort is currently developed a 10-acre swimming beach, a mile -long pedestrian promenade around a swimming lagoon, day use facilities r 3 I with 645 parking spaces and beach restrooms, a restaurant, a 450 slip marina, a 400+ space recreational vehicle park, swimming pools, meeting space, and boat storage and launching facilities. The 30 acre hotel site consists of an interim boat, trailer, and recreational vehicle storage area; approximately 150 spaces of the recreational vehicle park; and a parking lot for the Newport Dunes Marina and the -restaurant. A portion of the hotel site contains about 85,000 cubic yards of dredge materials that were placed to ' a height of about 15 feet within a bermed area. This material was temporarily placed at the site by a contractor for the County of Orange as part of maintenance dredging operations in the adjacent Newport Dunes Marina. REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS: The proposed project requires the following discretionary project approvals from the City of Newport Beach as Lead Agency. The environmental impact report is intended to cover the approvals listed below as well as any other related non -discretionary approvals. Although several of these required approvals apply to the entire 100-acre Newport Dunes Resort site, the environmental impact report analyzes the impacts of the proposed Newport Dunes Hotel. The land uses within the remainder of the Newport Dunes Resort site have been approved and constructed. These existing land uses will, therefore, not generate any additional environmental impacts. 1. General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 97-3 (F); ' 2. Amendment to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LCP No. 51); 3. Amendment to the Newport Beach Zoning Code (Chapter 20.65 - Height a Limits) to permit the proposed structural height limits contained in the proposed planned community development plan (Amendment No. 878); 4. Approval of the Newport Dunes Resort Planned Community Development Plan (Planned Community Development Plan No. 48); 5. Adoption of a conceptual site development plan for the entire Newport Dunes site to: a) include the proposed hotel as a portion of the overall Newport Dunes Redevelopment project and b) indicate the existing approved entitlements, oh the remainder of the Newport Dunes Redevelopment site. 6. Approval of the Project Traffic Analysis and TPO Analysis (Traffic Study No. ' 115); and y 7. Approval of a development agreement (Development Agreement No. 12); , 8. Certification of the environmental impact report (EIR No. 157) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 4 I ' The Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan amendment would not become effective until it is approved by the California Coastal Commission. In addition, the California Coastal Commission retains permit jurisdiction. Therefore, a coastal development permit would have to be approved by the California Coastal Commission. I I I I I u !�I II I I I I I I PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Based on an initial study and a previously proposed mitigated negative declaration (SCH #9806113) prepared for the project and comments for agencies and the public, it appears that the project may result in significant environmental impacts in the following areas: Im act Category Possible Environmental Impacts Land Use and Planning The project's conformity with City of Newport Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan olicies. Geotechnical/Soils The project could be affected by seismic activity, unstable soils, and liquefaction. Water Quality The project could affect absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Runoff from the project site could affect the water quality in the adjacent Upper Newport Bay. Air Quality The project could generate pollutants due to increased automobile traffic as well as from the combustion of natural gas and the generation of electricity. The operation of construction vehicles could also temporarily affect air quality Transportation/Circulation The project could generate increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion. The traffic and parking analysis will address both the use of the hotel/time-share and the hotel's function areas. The EIR will analyze the peak hour traffic impact caused by the maximum reasonably foreseeable use of the function areas by non -hotel guests. Biological Resources The project could affect endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, particularly those associated with the adjacent Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Energy and Mineral Resources The project could use non-renewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Hazards The removal of dredge materials from the project site could represent a potential health hazard to adjacent residential areas. Noise The project could result in increases in existing noise levels due to increased traffic levels on Bayside Drive. The EIR will analyze the noise impacts associated with additional trips, especially during late night and early morning hours. There is also the potential for short-term noise impacts associated with construction vehicles and equipment. Public Services The project could result in a need for additional police and fire services. Utilities and Service Systems The project could generate increased demand fo'r water and generate wastewater and solid wastes. Aesthetics The project could impact public viewsheds and result in light and glare impacts. Cultural Resources Project construction could disturb buried archaeological and paleontological resources. I 5 I Recreation The project will result in the displacement of approximately 150 spaces in the Newport Dunes Recreational Vehicle Resort. The project could also generate demand upon other recreational facilities, including other public beaches. The project could also impact public access to recreational facilities in the Newport Dunes, including the provision of lower -cost In addition to these topics, CEQA requires mandatory conclusions regarding impacts in three specific areas. These are listed below: Required Impact Conclusion Possible Environmental Effects Growth -Inducing Impacts The project is not expected to induce substantial growth in the area. Cumulative Impacts Project impacts could be coincident with impacts of other projects in the vicinity, Significant Unavoidable Environmental The project could cause significant unavoidable environmental Effects effects. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES: According to the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is obligated to present alternatives to the proposed project or alternative locations for the project which are capable of eliminating significant environmental impacts. A reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that could feasibly attain the basic project objectives will be provided. Significant environmental effects of the alternatives will be discussed and compared with impacts associated With the proposed project. This analysis of project alternatives will also identify the environmental superior project altemative(s). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Location Map. 2. Surrounding Land Uses Map. 3. HotelMme-Share Plan. 4. Hotel Elevations and Sections. 5. Hotel and Time-share Elevations. CONTACT: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner (949) 644-3235 (Voice) (949) 644-3229 (Fax) palford@city.newport-beach.ca.us (E-mail) I I I 0 I I 10 II I I M 'uq KO M.5 1 4 m Ubw Newport Center �Ro LOA THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION MAP UPORT BUM RISORT NEWPORT PEACH, CALIFORNIA Z,,GE gp.YSIDEx VIL VV R ARK n :i: ••::: ...::::.. :. i:•s• :}i:'it:iS: S:�i:ti�i}. e>• ait;..v.. �;ti,... x:::..j :.;.'?}y .:•: :•:::iiri �?t';:::v.•:t': e:{y..•• -- ;tii{}it'r:i:i:: iiiFiki:+":iiEiii�{z':j::'i?::?l:"v+4Q • .... ::, f•:: • ' ? ?,r,;....... :i::.r;:1 ACK BAY .:�;:r ' i?'r: y}y}j,; ':i;:ti ..;:?•ri .: �{:� r.:.}...; •. •.. '::}$; ;? i:a t %>, : i;::p.. ;:, :•Y..•: :ilit;:.;i:::.::�ii{.{: ..:::::. .:.: ;:;'ri6:A":i' CAF ...t .•n;. ,.:. }};; i.tt;:.r.;i:::i= ''i::'e:y}fib BOAT :.:: •:...: •• ;..:.:::ti :;<. •. r; ,t:...:. NEWPOR EP ES{::GOLFA COURS .t ::;:?fek:•.ui:i+ej:+j;ii+ii{�i{iii, :.:t ::....::;r six;; �::.:.:...:�• ;•:�..':s;: a'i4if:K;t,lil: Y!}}:: i!•..«'•''.1:::?::?� y::,:''?:: �HYATT ;,::..;•:.:::::x a is r::.:•:,:.::.:: NEWPORTJ SOR �tl'is'{iJ.4'::�u:�l'w:':::i.t;.irt:. ii::...... ;i%ii.......... {•iii?[:fir} •':' PROPOSED:!•.. ib::;::=.... U NEWPORT DUNES '. NEWPORT DUNES RESORT % AQUATIC PARK c 0�0�1j. pAC O� �l`�' ROA1p�•o Q4 r 1rc�way THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SURROUNDING LAND USES MAP ORPORT OUHS CRT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA I I I I I I 11 EXISTING TRAILER PARK EXISTING TRAILER PARK 0 200 . 600 FEET EXISTING MARINA SWIMMING LAGOON HOTEL / TIMESHARE PLAN ►� yrkIp)�II:-yaApk"/p1�1 -l��r f�■t r I• r - I COURTYARMOTEL F UATmA HOTEL & TIMESHARE ELEVATIONS HOURT offs EMT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA BIG LSA Associates, Inc. NOP DISTRIBUTION LIST I ' i I 1 . 1 1 8/I3/99((P:\CNB834W OPDISTFRM. W PD)> IU.S. Army Corps Of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Los Angeles District Agency 911 Wilshire Blvd Region 9 Office P.O. Box 532711 75 Hawthorne Street Los Angeles, CA 90053 San Francisco, Calif., 94105 U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service District 11 2370 Loker Avenue West Coast Guard Island Carlsbad, CA 92008 Alameda, CA 94501 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Department of Fish & Game Control Board South Coastal Region and Inland Region 8 Desert Region 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Riverside, CA 92501-3339 Long Beach, CA 90802 California Department of Transportation Department of Boating & Waterways District 12 1629 S Street 2501 Pullman Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Native American Heritage Resources Agency Commission 1020 Ninth Street, Third Floor 915 Capital Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 Housing Department of and California State Lands Commission Community Development 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South 1800 3rd Street Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 Sacramento, CA 95814 City of Costa Mesa City of Irvine Attn: Perry Valantine Atli: Peggy Schneble 77 Fair Drive 1 Civic Center Plaza Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Irvine, CA 92714 Department of Health Department of Real Estate 601 N. 7th Street 107 So. Broadway, Room 8107 PO Box 942732 Los Angeles. CA 90012 Sacramento, CA 94234-7320 Caltrans - Planning P.O. Box 942874 Department of Water Resources 1020 Ninth Street, Third Floor Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Sacramento, CA 95814 State Water Resources Control Board California Integrated Waste Management Board Division of Water Quality 1501 E. Orangethorpe Avenue, Ste. P.O. Box 944213 150 Sacramento, CA 94244-2130 Fullerton, CA 92831 Bureau of Indian Affairs Sacramento Area Office 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, California 95825 California Coastal Commission South Coast Office 200 Oceangate 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 South Coast AQMD 21865 E. Copley Dr. Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 California State Conservancy 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100 Oakland, CA 94612 California Highway Patrol Office of Special Projects Planning and Analysis Divisions 2555 1"Avenue Sacramento, CA 95818 City of Huntington Beach Attn: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Air Resources Board 2020 L Street Sacramento, CA 95815 Caltrans - Division of Aeronautics P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 State Water Resources Control Board Division of Clean Water Programs P.O. Box 944212 Sacramento, CA 94244-2120 California Waste Management Board 8800 Cal Center Drive Sacramento, CA 95826 J Department of Parks and Recreation P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 Orange County Environmental Planning P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 927024048 California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street, MS-15 Sacramento, CA 95814 Department of Conservation 801 K Street, MS-24-02 Sacramento, CA 95814 I I I it I Date Party 9/2/98 9/4/98 9/8/98 9/10/98 9/11/98 9/14/98 9/14/98 9/16/98 9/18/98 9/24/98 9/28/98 9/30/98 9/30/98 9/30/98 10/8/98 Newport Dunes Hotel and Time -Share Resort Environmental Impact Report Responses to NOP Mr. Bob Schneider Dover Shores Community Association State Department of Fish and Game State Department of Transportation California Regional Water Quality Control Board California Coastal Commission Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) California State Lands Commission County of Orange Planning & Development Service Department State Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Program Environmental Quality Affairs Advisory Committee (EQAC) South Coast Air Quality Management District City of Irvine A I I I U PLANNINGEDEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM SEP 0 4 1998 PM 71819110�� 1�1ti�I�2�3�gi5ifi ISept. 2, 1998 I I n I I I I I! Ii I I L_i I Patrick J. Alford City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. -P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA. 92658-8915 Re. Newport Dunes Resort -NOTICE OF PREPARATION Dear Mr. Alford, Thank you for the opportunity to review the NOTICE OF PREPARATION for the Dunes project. I am grateful as an individual to be allowed to express my views as to the scope and content of the environmental information which should be included in the environmental impact report. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES: In presenting alternatives to the proposed project or alternative locations, two other items should be considered. First,include considering alternative primary access routes to the hotel. Second, alternative size such as remaining at the approved size of a 275 room Family Inn. Both are capable of eliminating significant environmental impacts on the residential community of Bayside Village. Please include these two items in the scope of the E.I.R. Sincerely Bob schneider 300 E. Coast Hwy Sp #73 Newport Beach Ca. 92660 Tel. 949-723-9024 11 I ROVER SHORES September 4, 1998 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION RECE ?BAN FING EIDVEPARTMENTDBy 0 NEWPORT BEACH SEP 0 8 1998 AM 71819130111112111213141g16 Sent via fax: (9•+}9')644-3229 Mr. Patrick J. Alford Project Manager Newport Dunes Resort Newport Beach Department of Public Works Planning Department P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 RE: Newport Dunes Resort Environmental Documents Dear Mr. Alford, On behalf of the Dover Shores Community Association, I hereby request notice of all documents and meetings in the environmental review process for the Newport Dunes resort. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely yours, Esther Fine, Secretary Dover Shores Community Association of association manager, villageway management, Inc., post office box 4708, Irvine, callfornia 92616 (714) 553-1876 I I I I 11 I I I I 11 I I I Ii State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME http://www. df9. ca. gov South Coast Region 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, California 90802 (562)590-5113 September 8, 1998 Mr. Patrick J. Alford City of Newport Beach - Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92668-8915 Dear Mr. Alford: PETE WILSON, Governor RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM SEP 11 1998 PM 71819110111112111213141818 Notice of Preparation of'Draft Environmental Impact Report Newport Dunes Resort Hotel SCH 98061113, Orange County The Department of Fish and Game (Department) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the above -referenced project, relative to impacts to biological resources. To enable Department staff to adequately review and comment on the proposed project, we recommend the following information be included in the draft Environmental Impact Report: A complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project.area, with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, and locally unique species and sensitive habitats. a. A thorough assessment of rare plants and rare natural communities, following the Departments May 1984 Guidelines for Assessing Impacts to Rare Plants and Rare Natural Communities (Attachment 1). b. A complete assessment of sensitive fish, wildlife, reptile, and amphibian species. Seasonal variations in use of the project area should also be addressed. Focused species -specific surveys, conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are required. Acceptable species -specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. C. Rare, threatened, and endangered species to be addressed should include all those which meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definition (see CEQA Guidelines, § 16380). 0,044 ,,t,,� e 441�4'4 WX4C s� 1970- Mr. Patrick J. Alford September 8, 1998 Page Two d. The Department's California Natural Diversity Data Base in Sacramento should be contacted at (916) 327-5960 to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitat, including Significant Natural Areas identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code. 2. A thorough discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts. a. CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a), direct that knowledge of the regional setting Is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts and that special emphasis should be placed on resources that are rare or unique to the region. b. Project impacts should be analyzed relative to their effects on off -site habitats. Specifically, this should include nearby public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, and riparian ecosystems. Impacts to and maintenance of wildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitat in adjacent areas, should be fully evaluated and provided. C. The zoning of areas for development projects or other uses that are nearby or adjacent to natural areas may inadvertently contribute to wildlife -human interactions. A discussion of possible conflicts and mitigation measures to reduce these conflicts should be included in the environmental document. d. A cumulative effects analysis should be developed as described under CEQA Guidelines, § 15130. General and specific plans, as well as past, present, and anticipated future projects, shouid� be analyzed relative to their impacts on similar plant communities and wildlife habitats. e. The document should include an analysis of the effect that the project may have on completion and implementation of regional and/or subregional conservation programs. Under § 2800-§ 2840 of the Fish and Game Code, the Department, through the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program, is coordinating with local jurisdictions, landowners, and the Federal Government to preserve local and regional biological diversity. Coastal sage scrub Is the first natural community to be planned for under the NCCP program. The Department recommends that the lead agency ensure that the development of this and other proposed projects do not preclude long-term preserve planning options and that projects conform with other requirements of the NCCP program. Jurisdictions participating in the NCCP program should assess specific projects for consistency with the NCCP Conservation Guidelines. Additionally, the jurisdictions should quantity and qualify: 1) the amount of coastal sage scrub within their boundaries; 2) the acreage of coastal sage scrub habitat removed by individual projects; and 3) any acreage set aside for mitigation. This information should be kept in an updated ledger system. I I I IJ I I L _J I Il I I I, Mr. Patrick J. Alford September 8, 1998 Page Three 3. A range of alternatives should be analyzed to ensure that alternatives to the proposed project are fully considered and evaluated. A range of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources should be included. Specific alternative locations should also be evaluated in areas with lower resource sensitivity where appropriate. a. Mitigation measures for project impacts to sensitive plants, animals, and habitats should emphasize evaluation and selection of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize project impacts. Off -site compensation for unavoidable impacts through acquisition and protection of high -quality habitat elsewhere should be addressed. b. The Department considers Rare Natural Communities as threatened habitats having both regional and local significance. Thus, these communities should be fully avoided and otherwise protected from project -related impacts (Attachment 2). C. The Department generally does not support the use of relocation, salvage, and/or transplantation as mitigation for impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered species. Department studies have shown that these efforts are experimental in nature and largely unsuccessful. 4. A California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit must be obtained, if the project has the potential to result in "take" of species of plants or animals listed under CESA, either during construction or over the life of the project. CESA Permits are issued to conserve, protect, enhance, and restore State -listed threatened or endangered species and their habitats. Early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the proposed project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA Permit. Revisions to the Fish and Game Code, effective January, 1998, require that the Department issue a separate CEQA document for the issuance of a CESA permit unless the project CEQA document addresses all project impacts to listed species and specifies a mitigation monitoring and reporting program that will meet the requirements of a CESA permit. For these reasons, the following information is requested: a. Biological mitigation monitoring and reporting proposals should be of sufficient detail and resolution to satisfy the requirements for a CESA Permit. b. A Department -approved Mitigation Agreement and Mitigation Plan are required for plants listed as rare under the Native Plant Protection Act. 5. The Department opposes the elimination of watercourses and/or their channelization or conversion to subsurface drains. All wetlands and watercourses, whether intermittent or perennial, must be retained and provided with substantial setbacks which preserve the riparian and aquatic values and maintain their value to on -site and off -site wildlife populations. 11 Mr. Patrick J. Alford September 8, 1998 Page Four a. The Department has direct authority under Fish and Game Code §1600 et. seq. in regard to any proposed activity which would divert, obstruct, or affect the natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. Early consultation is recommended, since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. b. A discussion of potential adverse impacts from any increased runoff, sedimentation, soil erosion, and/or urban pollutants on streams and watercourses on or near the project site, with mitigation measures proposed to alleviate such impacts must be included. The Department holds regularly scheduled pre -project planning/early consultation meetings. To make an appointment, please call our regional office at (562) 590-5137. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Questions regarding this letter and further coordination on these issues should be directed to Mr. Scott Harris, Wildlife Biologist, at (562) 590-5100. Sincerely, z4 � Ronald D. Rempel Regional Manager Attachments cc: See attached list I I Mr. Patrick J. Alford September 8, 1998 Page Five cc: Mr. Scott Harris Department of Fish and Game Long Beach, California Mr. Ray Ally Department of Fish and Game Long Beach, California Mr. Jim Dice Department of Fish and Game Borrego Springs, California Mr. William Tippets Department of Fish and Game San Diego, California Ms. Terri Dickerson Department of Fish and Game Laguna Niguel, California U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad, California U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles, California State Clearinghouse Sacramento, California 11 N I ATTACHMENT1 State of California THE RESOURCES AGENCY Department of Fish and Game May 4,1984 GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS ON RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANTS AND PLANT COMMUNITIES The following recommendations are intended to help those who prepare and review environmental documents determine Md= a botanical survey is needed, who should be considered qualified to conduct such surveys, how field surveys should be conducted and what information should be contained in the survey report I1. 1� I I :3 2. 3. 4. Botanical surveys that are conducted to determine the environmental effects of a proposed development should be directed to all rare and endangered plants and plant communities. Rare and endangered plants are not necessarily limited to those species which have been "listed" by state and federal agencies but should include any species that, based on all available data, can be shown to be rare and/or endangered under the following definitions. A species, subspecies or variety of plant is "endangered" when the prospects of its survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy form one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over -exploitation, predation, competition or disease. A plant is "rare" when, although not presently threatened with extinction, the species, subspecies or variety is found in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens. Rare plant communities are those communities that are of highly limited distribution. These communities may or may not contain rare or endangered species. The most current version of the California Natural Diversity Data Base's Outline of Terrestrial Communities in California may be used as a guide to the names of communities. It is appropriate to conduct a botanical field survey to determine if, or the extent that, rare plants will be affected by a proposed project when: a. Based on an initial biological assessment, it appears that the project may damage potential rare plant habitat,* b. Rare plants have historically been identified on the project site, but adequate information of impact assessment is lacking; or C. No initial biological assessment has been conducted and it is unknown whether or not rare plants or their habitat exist on the site. Botanical consultants should be selected on the basis of possession of the following qualifications (n order of importance): a. Experience as a botanical field investigatorwith experience in field sampling design and field methods; b. Taxonomic experience and a knowledge of plant ecology; C. Familiarity with the plants of the area, including rare species; and d. Familiarity with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to rare plants and plant collecting. Field surveys should be conducted in a manner that will locate any rare or endangered species that may be present. 'Specifically, rare or endangered plant surveys should be: a. Conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both "evident" and identifiable. Field surveys should be scheduled (1) to coincide with known flowering periods, and/or (2) during periods of u ATTACHMENT2 SENSITIVITY OF TOP PRIORITY RARE NATURAL COMMUNITIES IN SOUTHERN CAUFORNV,* Sensitivity rankings are determined by the Department of Fish and Game, California Natural Diversity Data Base and based on eAher number of known occurrences Vocations) and/or amountof habitat remaining (acreage). The three rankings used forthese top priority rare natural communities are as follows: S1. - Less than B known locations and/or on less than 2,000 acres of habitat remaining. S2. - Occurs in 6-20 known locations andlor2,000-10,000 acres of habitat remaining. S3. - Occurs in 21-100 known locations and/or 10,000.50,000 acres of habitat remaining. The number to the right of the decimal point after the ranking refers to the degree of threat posed to the natural community regardless of the ranking. For example: S1.1 =yerythreatened 52.2 = threatened 83.2 = no current threats known BOMB 51.1 Mojave Riparian Forest Sonoran Cottonwood Willow Riparian Mesquite Bosque Elephant Tree Woodland Crucifixion Thom Woodland AMom Woodland Arizonan Woodland Southern Cagomia Walnut Forest Mainland Cherry Forest Southern Bishop Pine Forest Torrey pine Forest Desert Mountain White Fir Forest 51.2 Southern Foredunes Mono Pumice Flat Southern Interior Basalt F1. Vernal Pool S2.1 Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Riversidian Upland Coastal Sage Scrub Riversidlan Desert Sage Scrub Sagebrush Steppe Desert Sink Scrub Mallo Southern Moved Chaparral San Diego Mesa Hardpan Vernal P. San Diego Mesa Claypan Vernal P. Alkali Meadow Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Coastal Brackish Marsh Transmontane Alkali Marsh Sensitivity Rankings (February 1992) Southern Dune Scrub Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub Maritime Succulent Scrub Rivers)dean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Southern Maritime Chaparral Valley Needlegrass Grassland Great Basin Grassland Mojave Desert Grassland Pebble Plains Southern Sedge Bog Cismontane AlkaliMarsh Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh S. Arroyo Willow Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub Modoc-G. Sea. Cottonwood Willow Rip. Modoo-Grest Basin Riparian Scrub Mojave Desert Wash Scrub Engelmann Oak Woodland Open Engelmann Oak Woodland Closed Engelmann Oak Woodland Island Ironwood Forest Island Cherry Forest S. Interior Cypress Forest Silicone Spruce -Canyon Oak Forest 82.2 Active Coastal Dunes Whke Mountains Fetifield Active Desert Dunes Stab. and Part Stab. Desert Dunes Stab. and Part. Stab. Desert Sandfield Mojave Mixed Steppe Transmontane Freshwater Marsh S2.3 StiatleconePine Forest Coulter Pine Forest Umber Pine Forest S. Cafdomta Felfield NODS rare communities R-5 Feb.1992 Pagel Top Priority Rare Natural Communities From Region Five Code Number Location Few Records Name S1.1 Rank 21330 - Cis Southern Dune Scrub 31200 Cis Southern Coastal Scrub 32400 Cis Maritime Succulent Scrub 32720 Cis Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub 37030 Cis Y Southern Maritime Chaparral 42110 Cis Valley Needlegrass Grassland 43000 Des Y Great Basin Grassland 43777 Des Y Mojave Desert Grassland 47000 Cis Pebble Plains 51177 Cis Y Southern Sedge Bog 62310 Cis Cismontane AIkari Marsh 61700 Des Mojave Riparian Forest 61810 Des Sonoran Cottonwood Willow Riparian . 61820 Des Mesquite Bosque 75100 Des Y Elephant Tree Woodland 75200 Des Y Crucifixion Thom Woodland 75300 Des Y Allthom Woodland. 75400 Des Y Arizonan Woodland 81600 Cis Southern California Walnut Forest 81820 Cis Y Mainland Cherry Forest 83122 Cis Y Southern Bishop Pine Forest 83140 Cis Torrey Pine Forest 85330 Des Y Desert Mountain White Fr Forest S1.2 Rank ' 21230 35410 Cis Des Southern Foredunes Mono Pumice Flat 44310 Cis 'Southern Interior Basalt FI. Vernal Pool S2.1 Rank: 32300 Cis Y Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub 32500 Cis Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 32710 Cis Y Riversidian Upland Coastal Sage Scr. 32730 Cis Y Riversidian Desert Sage Scrub 35300 Des Y Sagebrush Steppe 35120 Des Y DesertSink Scrub 37122 Cis Y Mafic Southern Mixed Chaparral 44321 Cis San Diego Mesa Hardpan Vernal P. 44322 Cis San Diego Mesa Claypan Vernal P. 45310 Des Alkali Meadow 1 52120 Cis Southern Coastal Salt Marsh 52320 Cis Coastal Brackish Marsh 52410 Des Transmontane AlkariMarsh Coded as either cis (for cismontane) or des (for desert) 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY FETE WnSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGEiVED BY DISTRICT12 PLANNING DEPARTME 2501 PULLMANSTREET CITY OP NEWPORT BEA SANTAANA,CA 92705 September 10, 1998 Patrick Alford City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA. 92658-8915 Subject: Newport Dunes Resort Notice of Preparation. Dear Mr. Alford: AM SEP 2 2 1998 PM 718, 9110111,12,112, 3141616 Ik File: IGR/CEQA SCH# none Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation for the Newport Dunes Resort. The proposed project is for the construction of a full -service destination resort hotel. The hotel will provide 400 guestrooms and 100 time-share units. The proposed project is located on 100 acres on Upper Newport Bay, northwest of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. Caltrans District 12 is a reviewing agency and had the following comments for your consideration. A traffic study should be prepared which would include existing and future average daily traffic volumes, traffic generation (including peak hour), traffic distribution, and intersection analysis using the Highway Capacity Manual method. In addition, no additional off -site surface runoff will be allowed to discharge to Pacific Coast Highway. Final hydrology and hydraulic plans need to be submitted to Caltrans for review. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions or need to contact us please call Aileen Kennedy on (949) 724-2239. US' cerely, Robert J e C ' Advance PI g Branch C: Tom Loftus, OPR Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning Massoud Tajik, Traffic Operations Judy Heyer, Transportation Planning Roger Kao, Hydraulics Judy Jackson, Right of Way Praveen Gupta, Environmental Planning j 'a Peter M. Rooney Secretaryfor Environmental Protection I I I I I _f California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region September 11, 1998 Internet Address: http://wwwswrcb.ca.,-ov 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, California 92501-3339 Phone (909) 782-4130 • FAX (909) 781-6288 Mr. Patrick Alford City of Newport Beach - Planning Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 0 Pete Wilson Governor RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM SFp 1.1 1998 PM 71819110111112111u 131� IG IG NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE NEWPORT DUNES RESORT HOTEL, SCH# 98061113 Dear Mr. Alford: We have reviewed the NOP for this project. In response to the statutory concerns of this office, the Draft EIR should address the following: I. Water Quality and Beneficial Uses A. Potential impacts of the proposed project on surface and groundwater quality: - Any impacts that could cause impairment of narrative or numerical water quality objectives contained in the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin need to be addressed - Construction activities (including grading) that could result in water quality impacts. - Soil characteristics related to water quality (potential for erosion and subsequent siltation, increase or decrease in percolation). - Impacts of toxic substances handling and/or disposal (if appropriate). B. Potential impacts of the proposed project on surface and groundwater beneficial uses. - If the project impacts any riparian or wetland habitats, a complete description of the impacts, acreage of the impacts, and any proposed mitigation should be provided C. Mitigation of Adverse Impacts. California Environmental Protection Agency ' �� Recycled Paper I Patrick Alford - 2- II. Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste Service A. Water - Availability of Water for the proposed project. September 11, 1998 - Existing infrastructure: location of water supply lines, tie-ins. - Applications or permits required for water acquisition. - Impact or calculated project demand on water supply. B. Waste Disposal/Treatment - Types and amounts of waste materials generated by project. - Proposed waste treatment and disposal methods. Existing infrastructure: * treatment facilities: location, current capacity, treatment standards, master treatment facilities expansion plan (if appropriate) * treatment plant collection system: location of major trunk lines and tie-ins, current capacity * disposal facilities: location, capacity - Applications or permits required to Implement waste disposal. - Impact of calculated project waste volume on capacity of existing and proposed treatment and disposal facilities. III Permits - if no new point discharges are created from the proposed project the stormwater runoff will be regulated by an areawide stormwater discharge permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). - A notice of intent (NO1) with the appropriate fees for coverage of the project under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit must be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board at least 30-days prior to initiation of construction activity at the site. This is required for any construction activity over five acres in area. I [7 California Environmental Protection Agency ed Recyered paper I IPatrick Alford - 3- September 11, 1998 I IT E - If a Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers is required for this project, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification is also required from the Regional Board. This certification verifies that the federal 404 permit complies with the state's water quality standards. Please note that the time frame for the issuance of a permit can be as long as 180:days from the time the permit application is accepted as complete. - A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for any discharge of wastes to surface waters or a Waste Discharge Requirements for any discharge of wastes to land is required by the Regional Board. If reclaimed water is to be used in the proposed project, Water Reclamation Requirements will have to issued by the Regional Board. We look forward to reviewing the Draft EIR when it becomes available. If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 782-4241. Sincerely, Scott A. Dawson Environmental Specialist Planning Section cc: Chris Belsky - State Clearinghouse California Environmental Protection Agency CRecycled Paper STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 1 (562) 590-5071 September 14, 1998 I I I! I I I I r I/ 11 I 1 Patrick J. Alford Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: Newport Dunes Hotel — Notice of Preparation Dear Mr. Alford: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF: NEWPORT BEACH AM sFp 17 1998 PM 71819110111112111213141516 Thank you for the opportunity to review the "Notice of Preparation" on an environmental report for the Newport Dunes Resort. The concerns raised by the proposed Newport Dunes Resort with the Coastal Act where identified in our letter of August 3, 1998 when we commented on the "Notice of Completion". Our principal concerns expressed in that letter were: 1) that the project will require Coastal Commission approval; 2) that the project, as currently described, is inconsistent with the public access provisions of the Coastal Act, specifically the policies encouraging the use of the site for'lower cost visitor recreational facilities and coastal dependent uses; and 3) that the project is inconsistent with prior Commission actions for the site promoting use of the site for lower cost overnight facilities (R.V. spaces), and the displacement of parking and dry boat storage. The environmental impact report should address the concerns identified in this prior letter, since they are still applicable. A copy of the August 3, 1998 letter is attached. Based on additional information contained in the "Notice of Preparation", we have three further concerns that the environmental impact report (EIR) should evaluate based on the Coastal Act. First, the "Notice of Preparation" notes that the project could affect endangered, threatened, or rare species since the site is adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Section 30240 of the Coastal Act states that: (al Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to i prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas. Consequently, the EIR should undertake an inventory and impact analysis of the plant and animal species present that could be adversely impacted by the proposed project. Since Section 30240 protects environmentally sensitive habitat areas, project alternatives that avoid adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat areas should be developed for the EIR. Second, the Notice of Preparation" notes that the removal of dredge material from the project site could present a potential health hazard to adjacent residents. According to the "Notice of Preparation" a portion of the hotel site contains about 85,000 cubic yards of dredge materials. Sections 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act state: Section 30230. Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes. Section 30231. The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, prevent/ng depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams. The removal of the dredge material raises two concerns with the Coastal Act policies cited above. First, the "Notice of Preparation" notes that the dredging operation could present a health hazard to adjacent residents. However, the nature of the health hazard was not stated. The EIR should evaluate how the removal of the dredged materials could affect human health. Second the removal of the dredged material; if it is disposed in coastal waters could affect water quality and biological productivity. The "Notice of Preparation" did not identify how the dredged material would be disposed of. Consequently, the EIR should evaluate if any of the dredge material would be suitable for beach nourishment and it should specify the disposal site for dredged material not suitable for beach nourishment. If disposal occurs in coastal waters the EIR should then evaluate the impact of the disposal operation on both water quality and biological productivity. Page: 2 Third, the "Notice of Preparation" notes that the project could disturb buried archeological and paleontological resources. The "Notice of Preparation" however, did not specify if any known archeological or paleontological sites where at risk. Consequently, the EIR should contain an archeological and paleontological survey to determine if the proposed project would adversely impact archeological or paleontological sites. Section 30244 of the Coastal Act requires that where development would adversely impact archeological or paleontological resources identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, that reasonable mitigation measures will be required. Potential measures to assure the proper execution of archeological surveys that will be used to for determining project impacts on cultural resources include, but are not limited to: 1) peer review in conformance with the Commission's archeological guidelines, 2) consultation with appropriate Native American organizations, and 3) Native American review of grading operations and the handling of any archeological resources uncovered. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project at this stage of the planning process. We look forward to working with the City of Newport Beach and the applicant on the LCP amendment; Development Agreement and coastal development permit applications. Please feel free to contact me at 562-590-5071 with any questions. Sin rely, Stephen Rynas, AICP Orange County Area Supe CmIford L STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor . ' CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office _ 200 Oceangate,.l0th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 (562) 590-5071 IAugust 3, 1998 Patrick J. Alford City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 no. Newport Dunes Hotel - notice of Completion SCH# 98061113 Dear Mr. Alford, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Newport Dunes Hotel project in the City of Newport Beach. The following comments are those of the Commission staff based upon the applicable policies ' of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act and the Coastal Commission's past actions on the subject site and surrounding Newport Dunes. The entire project site lies within the coastal zone and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is to construct a 700,000 sq. ft., 600 unit, full service hotel or a 400 unit hotel and 100 timeshare units. The destination resort will also include swimming pools; health, fitness and recreation facilities; children's facility; dining areas; ballrooms and meeting rooms; retail space; parking garages and landscaped garden areas on 30 acres of the 100 acre Newport Dunes site. The project site is located in the City of Newport Beach, on Upper Newport Bay, north of Pacific Coast Highway and east and south of Sayside Drive. The site is state tidelands that were granted to the County and is under long-term lease. COASTAL COMMISSION REQUIRED APPROVALS The CEQA document states that an amendment to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan may be necessary and that Development Agreement approval meat also be obtained under Required Permits and Approvals (page II-). Required coastal development permits are not listed. Additionally, this section does not indicate the approval authority for the necessary actions. Under Project Timing (page II-) Coastal Commission approval is acknowledged but the specific type of permit or approval is not specified. Only the Land Use: Plan (LUP) of the City of Newport Local Coastal Program has ' been certified by the Commission. After the Commission certifies a local government's Implementation Program to carry out the LUP the Local Coastal Program is fully certified and coastal development permit authority is turned over to the local government. 1 Newport Dunes Hotel Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2 , However, for tidelands, submerged lands and public trust lands the Commission retains permit jurisdiction even after LCP certification. For these areas the LCP serves as guidance. The Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act is the standard of review in the coastal development permit process for the areas of retained Commission jurisdiction. The land use designation of the project site contained in the certified Land Use Plan is "Recreational and Environmental Open Space". Permitted uses include active and passive parks, golf courses, yacht clubs, marina support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis courts, private recreation facilities and similar used, The proposed destination resort project including 700,000 sq. ft. of development is not an allowable use under the current land use designation. Therefore an amendment to the certified Land Use Plan must be obtained from the Coastal Commission. Additionally, building permits may not be issued by the local government for the project site until a coastal development permit is approved by the Coastal Commission. A coastal development permit application would be acted on by the Commission subsequent to a Land Use Plan amendment. Finally, a Development Agreement is not effective within the coastal zone unless it is also approved by the Coastal Commission. COASTAL COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY UNDER CEOA The City of Newport Beach has determined that the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate action under CEQA for the proposed project. This document is intended to provide information on the proposed project's environmental impacts for purposes of obtaining an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, approval of a Development Agreement and coastal development permits, among other permits and approvals. Pursuant to Section 21080.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the Commission's local coastal program (LCP) review and approval procedures have been found by the Resources Agency to be functionally equivalent to environmental review process required of local governments. Instead, the CEQA responsibilities are assigned to the Coastal Commission. However, under Section 21080.5 of CEQA, the Commission is relievBd of the responsibility to prepare an environmental impact report for each LCP or LCP amendment. Nevertheless, the Commission is required, in approving a LCP or LCP amendment, to find that the LCP conforms with the provisions of CEQA. The Commission is also required to make this finding in approving coastal development permit applications. For the reasons detailed below, Commission staff does not agree that the proposed project has no significant adverse environmental effects which have not been eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificance with the imposition of the proposed mitigation measures. Pursuant to the Coastal Commission's CEQA equivalency status in the review of LCP amendment submittals, additional environmental analysis will be requested when the local government submits the LCP amendment for Commission action. COASTAL ACT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The proposed project as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration will have significant adverse environmental effects which will not be eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificant with the imposition of the proposed I I I I Newport Dunes Hotel Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3 mitigation measures. The proposed project is inconsistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act and with past Commission actions on the coastal development permits and permit amendments for the Newport Dunes area. _ Specifically, the proposed project is inconsistent with the public access and public recreation policies of the Coastal Act. Public Access and Public Recreation M The proposed project is inconsistent with Sections 30210, 30211, 30213, 30220, 30222, 30223, and 30224 of the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code, Division 20). These sections of the Public Resources Code require that new development: provide and conspicuously post maximum public access and recreational opportunities; not interfere with existing public access to the sea; protect, encourage, and where feasible provide lower cost visitor and recreational facilities; protect water -oriented recreational activities; protect the recreational use and development of waterfront land suitable for such use; protect coastal recreational uses by reserving upland areas for necessary support services and facilities; and encourage increased recreational boating use by providing dry storage areas and public launching facilities and limiting non -water dependent land uses that preclude boating. support facilities. The Mitigated Negative Declaration indicates that the project site is currently developed with a portion of the existing 400+ space Recreational Vehicle Park. Recreational vehicle parks are considered lower cost visitor and recreational facilities. Additionally, they are lower cost overnight accommodations. Therefore the existing RV spaces are protected under Section 30213 of the Coastal Act. ` Section 30213 of the Coastal Act states, in part: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, A encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing recreational opportunities are preferred. The proposed Newport Dunes Hotel project does not include RV facilities. However, one hundred fifty of the existing RV spaces will be eliminated. There are no proposed mitigation measures to off -set the loss of these lower cost visitor and recreational overnight facilities. The coastal zone of Orange County has an abundance of hotel rooms. Unfortunately, full service RV facilities are not as abundant in the coastal zone of Orange County. The Mitigated Negative Declaration does not indicate the room rates of the proposed hotel. Therefore it can not be determined if the lower cost RV facilities are being replaced by comparable lower cost hotel rooms. For the reasons stated above, the proposed Newport Dunes Hotel project is inconsistent with Section 30213 of the Coastal Act and therefore will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. ' The Mitigated Negative Declaration further states that the proposed project site also contains parking spaces for the existing marina and the existing restaurant as well as "interim" boat, trailer and recreational vehicle storage area. The number of parking spaces and amount of storage area was not specified. Although the proposed project will provide marina parking, it is unclear whether the displaced marina parking spaces.will be.replaced on a one to one basis. The location of the proposed marina parking spaces in relationship to the marina was also not specified. There is no mention of the 4; newporc uunos nocei Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 4 replacement of the boat, trailer and RV storage areas also being displaced. Coastal Act Sections 30210, 30211, 30220, 30221, 30223 and 30224 protect existing public access to the water and recreational boating use and state, in part: Section 30210 of the coastal Act states: In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. Section 30211 of the Coastal Act states: Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization# including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation. Section 30220 of the Coastal Act states: Coastal areas suited for water -oriented recreational activities that cannot readily be provided at inland water areas shall be protected for such uses. Section 30221 of the Coastal Act states: oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area. Section 30223 of the Coastal Act states: Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational used shall be reserved for such uses, where feasible. Section 30224 of the Coastal Act states: Increased recreational boating use of coastal waters shall be encouraged, in accordance with this division, by developing dry storage areas, increasing public launching facilities, providing additional berthing space in existing harbors, limiting non -water -dependent land uses that congest access corridors and preclude boating support facilities, providing harbors of refuge, and by providing for new boating facilities in natural harbors, new protected water areas, and in areas dredged from dry land. The project area contains an existing 430-450 slip marina, and a multiple lane boat launch ramp and 400 spaces for dry boat storage, according to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Boating is a water dependent activity that is protected under Coastal Act Sections 30220 and 30224. Section 30224 requires ' Newport Dunes Hotel Mitigated Negative Declaration ' Page 5 • that recreational boating be increased in the coastal zone. One way to protect and increase recreational boating is to retain existing and provide additional dry boat storage areas. Non -water dependent land uses -that preclude boating_,support.._-facilities�nus -be ismited. The proposed hotel ' project, on -water dependent land use will displace both marina parking and dry boat storage area. Some of the marina parking will reportedly be replaced in an unspecified location. This displacement of dry boat storage area and parking for boat users is clearly inconsistent with Sections 30220 and 30224 �• of the Coastal Act. 'Therefore the proposed project will have significant adverse impacts on the environment. One of the major policies of the Coastal Act is the protection and provision of maximum public access to the sea. The existing swimming lagoon on the Newport Dunes Resort site is also part of the sea via Upper Newport Bay. The ' site contains many activities that provide lower cost recreation and access to the sea and shoreline and enhances coastal recreation opportunities. There is an existing sandy beach and public parking, a.mile-long pedestrian promenade and bridge around the lagoon, restrooms and showers, beach equipment and bicycle rental facilities, food, drink and groceries, playground, transient and guest dock facilities, and public boat launch facilities in addition to the marina. If existing parking is not maintained and enhanced public access ' will be adversely impacted, inconsistent with Sections 30210 and 30211 of the Coastal Act. The Newport Dunes Resort site also contains existing restaurant facilities. The project site contains parking for Anthony's restaurant. The proposed development will also include additional restaurant uses. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is unclear as to whether the proposed restaurant parking is to support the proposed restaurant uses or whether replacement parking for the existing restaurant, which is being displaced, will also be provided. Under the Coastal recreational boating is to be increased. The proposed project does not increase recreational boating use. Further, the proposed project is inconsistent with sections 30220 and 30224 of the Coastal Act if all displaced parking facilities, including dry boat storage areas, are not replaced on a one to one basis and in a location that protects recreational boating use. Additionally, Section 30252 of the Coastal Act requires that new development provide adequate parking facilities in order to maintain and enhance existing public access and recreation opportunities. The proposed project includes either a 600 room hotel or a'400 room hotel and 100 timeshare units. However ' the number of parking spaces being provided is the same under either scenario. The intensive resort is to be a full service facility with additional ancillary uses that appear to be available to non -hotel guests. The project must assure that the parking demand for the destination resort will be accommodated without adversely impacting the existing water -dependent, water related and lower cost overnight uses of the project site and the larger 100 Newport Dunes site. COMMISSION ACTION ON PREVIOUS PERMITS FOR THE PROJECT SITE The Coastal Commission has taken several actions on permit applications for the Newport Dunes aquatic park site. Application 5-83-334(Alexander's Back Bay Club) approved an addition to the existing restaurant which is located adjacent to the proposed hotel site. In ipproving that project the Commission required the applicant to set the addition back from the shoreline to allow a public walkway between the restaurant and the lagoon. Newport Dunes Hotel Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6 I V in 1984 the Commission approved permit application 5-83-962 for redevelopment of 72 acres of the 100 acre site. The project included a pedestrian bridge across the mouth of the lagoon, a 35 foot high, 275 room family inn adjacent to Anthony's restaurant, the addition of 200 slips to the existing 230 slip marina, the addition of water, sewer and electricity to the existing 310 unit recreational vehicle park, 300 unit dry boat storage, a 10-lane public launch ramp and a 5,000 sq. ft. marina business building. The applicant was the County of Orange and Newport Dunes, Inc. The Commission required three special conditions: that the development provide an eight foot wide public walkway adjacent to the lagoon, connecting with the required walkway in front of Anthony's restaurant; required that pedestrians and bicyclists be allowed free admission to the day use facilities; that they attempt to get the local transit authority to locate a bus stop on the project site; to submit drainage plans that protect the lagoon water quality; and to submit building plans for the proposed new structures. The application noted that 1900 parking spaces would be provided although the parking requirement based on the individual uses was 1821 spaces. Eight hundred parking spaces were provided for beach day use. The application was subsequently extended several times and transferred to Anne L. Evans. There were also three permit amendments. The first amendment increased the R.V. park by 134 spaces (for a total of 444 spaces), deleted the marina building, relocated and enlarged Anthony's restaurant to 15,000 sq. ft., eF located the existing Quality Restaurant t sid q the laIoon to theiTest side --to be -incorporated- into_the family_inn_dev9,JgRT nnt, and re aoed-NtScked dry boat storage with at grade storage, among other improvements. - — - — — The Commission required that the applicant submit signage plans that clearly indicated to the day use public the location and type of public amenities provided on -site, that parking spaces be located within a reasonable distance to the facilities they are intended to serve, and allowed the applicant to seek the placement of a public access sign at the bus stop at Jamboree and Back Bay Drive in lieu of providing a bus stop on site. The total number of parking spaces to be provided was 2045 spaces. Of the total 1011 spaces were for beach, day use (including boat trailer parking), 327 for the marina, 160 spaces for Anthony's on -site (with the remainder of the 283 spaces to be provided off -site), 20 spaces for the boat launch, and 266 spaces for the family inn development. The 2045 parking spaces did not include the RV spaces or the boat storage areas. The second amendment allowed the addition of an entry gate and gate house, the dredging of the marina, the placement of suitable material on the beach and the replacement of two restrooms. Mitigation for the loss 13,000 sq. ft. of marine habitat was the creation of 26,700 sq. ft. of intertidal habitat at ' Ahellmaker Island. The final amendment in 1990 was for the demolition of 2 existing office buildings originally approved for renovation and construction of 2 replacement buildings totaling 9,600 sq. ft. to include marina office and boat -user support facilities. A review of the Commission's permit history for the Newport Dunes site indicates that the retention of lower cost recreational uses (beach, continuous pedestrian walkway and bridge, full service R.V. park, and other day use facilities) and water -dependent and boater support uses have been the M 11 ,* Newport Dunes Hotel Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 7 principal concern for the use of the public tidelands and adjacent area. It was noted in the original 1983 permit that the fee for a R.V. space ranged from $12 to $28 per night depending on the size and location of the space and whether it had full service. The day use beach fee was $2.00 per adult and 1 half that for children, dry boat storage was $60.00 per month and the weekend boat launch fee was $7.00. L I II L� I II The Commission approved a 275 unit overnight lodging facility that was clearly intended to provide lower cost overnight accommodations. The Commission required that even the restaurant be geared to families with children and that 40% of the motel or family inn room contain kitchen facilities in order to make the facility more affordable for families. The provision of adequate parking and its location in reference to the uses it serves was also of concern to the Commission. The project proposed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration is inconsistent with the Commission's past actions for the area in that existing lower cost overnight facilities (R.V. spaces) are being significantly reduced, boating support marina parking and dry boat storage is also being displaced. Parking for the existing restaurant is also being displaced. The document indicates that 2220 parking spaces will be provided and indicates that a parking surplus will result based on a parking demand study. Commission staff did not review the parking study. However, it is unclear whether the displaced restaurant parking will be replaced and the number of marina parking spaces that will b provided. Therefore the parking surplus may not be as stated. In addition to the loss of the Coastal Act preferred facilities the 275 unit lower cost motel or family inn is being replaced by a substantially larger destination resort facility with 400 to 600 rooms, including timeshare units. The destination resort does not appear to be planned as a lower cost overnight facility that will cater to families. This development will result in a significant change to the character of site. For the reasons detailed above Commission staff believes that the proposed Newport Dunes Hotel project, with the mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, is inconsistent with the applicable Coastal Act policies as well as past Commission actions for the project and surrounding site. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project at this stage of the planning process. We look forward to working with the City of Newport Beach and the applicant on the LCP amendment, Development Agreement and coastal development permit applications. Please feel free to contact me at (562) 590-5071 with any questions. Sincerely, Teresa Henry District Manager 0934G II I J I I I I I 11 P.O. BOX 102 BALBOA ISLAND, CALIFORNIA 92662 REGEiVED BY September 14 1998 PLANNING DEPARTMENT p CITY 0;= NEWPnRT BEACH City of Newport Beach c8P 18 1998 Planning Department AM PM 3300 Newport Boulevard 71819110111112111213141516 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Attention: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner 159 �f .722F SUBJECT: Comments on Notice of Preparation for Planned Community Development Plan for Newport Dunes Resort Dear Mr. Alford: These comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed Newport Dunes Resort (Hotel and Conference Center) project are submitted by Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON). ' The following points represent the general concerns that SPON has about this project and those which should be thoroughly analyzed in the EIR. THE MASS AND SCALE OF THE PROJECT AND ITS VISUAL IMPACT ON ADJACENT ' NEIGHBORHOODS AND PUBLIC PARKS. BEACHES AND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE AREAS. Graphics should be prepared to show the height, mass and scale impacts from all II I perspectives, particularly from the low-lying bay areas where the character of the area has been low intensity, low-rise, and a relatively peaceful interface with the bay and ecological reserve area. THE OPERATIONAL AND ACTIVITY ASPECTS (NUMBER OF VISITORS, CARS, SERVICE VEHICLES, EMPLOYEES INCLUDING ADDITIONS FOR MAJOR EVENTS) OF THE MAJOR COMPONENTS. Complete traffic data should be prepared showing the significant impacts on traffic, including the cumulative impact of unacceptable traffic levels of service (in excess of LOS D) at Pacific Coast Highway/Balboa-Superior, Coast Highway/Riverside Drive, Coast Highway/Bayside Drive, Coast Highway/Jamboree, Coast Highway/Marguerite and Jamboree/Eastbluff-Ford Road. II SPON/Newport Dunes NOP/9/14/98 Page 2 The EIR should study the significant traffic and pedestrian safety impacts along Bayside Drive leading to the project site during major events. The EIR should analyze the significant adverse impacts on the public trail along the property line fence abutting the mobile home park. Impacts include noise and air pollution from adjacent proposed service road and visual and aesthetic impacts associated with the nearby parking garage and hotel structures which create a visual wall near the trail and mobile homes, potentially blocking sunlight and significantly altering views. The potentially significant air quality impacts as a result of the parking garage and circulation system operations during major events where cars are idling or backed up while waiting to enter or leave the site should be analyzed. The EIR should completely account for and analyze the impacts of the alteration in existing landform and land use. Apparently 85,000 cubic yards of dredged materials placed on the site will be removed. This could also result In significant truck trips during the construction period. The Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) did not disclose whether the dredge material contains toxic constituents which could also have significant health -related impacts. All noise issues should be accounted for and analyzed for impact on adjacent residential areas and ecological reserve. The hotel, conference rooms and potential use for outdoor parties and music festivals can have a severe and uncontrollable noise impact which is amplified even more when carried across the water. The information which should be analyzed related to use of the facilities must include: number of events in the conference and meeting facilities, in the gardens and other buildings; the maximum potential size of the events and activities; the number of people attending the events and activities and staffing needs; the number of car trips generated by events and the likely hours of those trips; the number of parking spaces needed for events, in addition to the hotel and restaurant uses; the service activities, such as timing of deliveries and frequency of deliveries and service area uses; the construction activities and trips generated, including, but not limited to, the truck trips associated with the removal of dredge material. All potential lighting for the hotel, conference center, parking areas, garden areas and related facilities needs to be carefully analyzed as this project is being proposed in an area that is currently very quiet and dark at night. DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND SURFACE RUNOFF NEEDS TO BE ANALYZED FOR ITS POTENTIAL NEGATIVE EFFECT ON UPPER NEWPORT BAY Given the level of effort being put forth by all public agencies to clean up the bay and make it meet the standards for health, including body contact sports and shell fish collection, the project should meet performance standards which would require runoff volumes and quality to be equal to or superior to existing runoff. ',_J SPON/Newport Dunes NOP/9/14/98 Page 3 The MND indicated that mitigation would occur by directing runoff to the larger Upper Newport Bay in order to protect the Dunes lagoon. This is not acceptable without a complete analysis of its affect on the larger bay's ecology and water quality. THE EFFECT OF THIS PROJECT ON SENSITIVE SPECIES AND MIGRATORY BIRDS USING UPPER NEWPORT BAY. Some of the species utilizing the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve utilize the Dunes on a marginal basis as well. Additional construction and human activity will further degrade the value of the marginal habitat provided. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope of this proposed Environmental Impact Report. Susan Seifert, Co -Presiding ' S1 A1'E OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON. Governor I CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS CON 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 RECE:i' ED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROBERT C. HIGHT, Executive Officer (916) 574-1800 FAX (916) 574-1810 California Relay Service From TDD Phone 1-800-735-2922 from Voice Phone 1-800-735-2929 AM SP 21 1998 PM September 16, 1998 71819110111112111213 141516 k' Patrick J. Alford City of Newport Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Mr. Alford: Contact Phone: (916) 574-1892 Contact FAX (916) 574-1925 E-Mail Address: smithj@slc.ca.gov File Ref: G 09-00 SCH 98061113 ' SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Newport Dunes Resort Hotel ' Staff of the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) has reviewed the subject NOP. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City is the Lead Agency and the CSLC is a Responsible and/or Trustee Agency for any and all projects which could directly or indirectly affect sovereign lands, their accompanying Public Trust resources or uses, and the public easement in navigable waters. The CSLC has jurisdiction and authority over all ungranted tidelands, submerged lands, and the beds of navigable rivers, sloughs, lakes, etc. The CSLC has certain residual and review authority for tide and submerged lands legislatively granted in trust to local jurisdictions (Public Resources Code Sections 6301 and 6306). All tide and submerged lands, granted or ungranted, as well as navigable rivers, sloughs, etc. are ' impressed with the Common Law Public Trust. The Public Trust is a sovereign public property right held by the State or its delegated trustee for the benefit of all the people. This right limits the uses of these lands to waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, open space, recreation, or other recognized Public Trust purposes. A lease from the Commission is required for any portion of a project extending onto State-owned lands which are under its exclusive jurisdiction. i 1 Patrick J. Alford September 16, 1998 ' Page Two The proposed Newport Dunes Resort Hotel will be located on lands which were legislatively transferred to the County of Orange pursuant to Chapter 526, Statutes of ' 1919, as amended, with minerals reserved by the State. As such, the County has management responsibility for these lands and, as trustee, has an obligation to ensure that the proposed use of sovereign lands is consistent with the Public Trust and the granting statute under which the lands are held. We appreciate the opportunity to comment and look forward to reviewing the draft EIR. If you have any questions concerning the CSLC's jurisdiction, please contact Jane E. Smith, Public Land Management Specialist, at (916) 574-1892. ' Siinn%cc/erely, MARY G1GGS Assistant Chief Division of Environmental Planning and Management ' cc: Dwight E. Sanders OPR Jane E. Smith I I r r I County of Orange°ems B. NfATHEWS DIRECTOR ' O 300 N. FLOWER ST. �LlFOt04�� Planning & Development Services Department THIRD FLOOR SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA SEP 1 81998 NCL 98-71 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 927024048 BB'vL-IVal7. B`( PLlaN �( N�WFORRTMACH FC714)AX # 3�77I Mr. Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner C)N O' City of Newport Beach FM 3300 Newport Boulevard Apn Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 SUBJECT: NOP for the Newport Dunes Resort• Dear Mr. Alford: The above referenced item is a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project is a planned community development plan that includes the construction of a full -service destination resort hotel. The hotel,will provide 400 guestrooms and 100 time-share units. The 100 time-share units will be designed with the capability to be split or "locked off" for a maximum total of 600 rentable rooms. Approximately 20 percent of the guestrooms will be suites. Hotel amenities include swimming pools; health, fitness and recreation facilities; children's facilities; dining facilities; ballrooms and meeting ' rooms; retail space; a parking structure and surface parking areas; and landscaped garden areas. The 100-acre project site is at 101 North Bayside Drive. The County of Orange has reviewed the NOP and offers the followig comments: WATER QUALITY 1. Runoff from the project, if completed as proposed, would enter the sensitive waters of Newport Bay. Both Upper and Lower Newport Bays have been officially recognized as "impaired" water bodies by ,the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the State and Federal EPA. The exact means by which urban runoff results'in ' a loss of impairment of Beneficial Uses in the Bay is still being studied and, as a result, any environmental analysis for this project may need to perform original topical research. Although the Federal and State resource ' agencies would be best placed to identify the specific level of research they feel will be necessary to fully identify potential impacts to resources for which they have management responsibility, a check of past envrionmental documents for major prpoposed projects on Newport Bay shows the following ' types of project -specific research having been conducted: A) Potential changes in water column characteristics, such as temperature, ' turbidity, the content of dissolved oxygen, salinity, biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved and suspended metals, nutrients, pesticide residues, and pathogens; Mr. Patrick J. Alford Page 2 B) Potential changes in water surface characteristics, such as temperature, salinity, algal growth, floating trash, debris and/or oil sheens; C) Potential changes in sediment characteristics, such as salinity, sand/silt/clay balance, content of dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved and precipitated metals, nutrients, pesticide residues, pathogens, embedded trash and debris, and the potential for resuspension of any element(s) of the sediment back into the waters; D) Potential hydrologic changes, such as changes in water depths to sediment at any given point in the Bay (which has enormous impact on the nature of marine vegetation); E) Potential changes in the existing benthic invertebrate community; and/or F) Potential basal habitat changes which could indirectly affect fish, bird, shellfish, and/or insect populations. After the conduct of appropriate research, reasonable and feasible mitigation measures might be developed to address potential project impacts. 2. Page five lists water quality as possible environmental impact as a result of development. Upper Newport Bay could be effected. Since it is an impaired water body, it is particularly important that a discussion of compliance with the County's non -point source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) program be included. The city is a co-permittee with the County. Wording similar to the County's standard WQ1 (attached) condition will suffice. 3. The project should also comply with the State's non -point source program by obtaining a General Construction Permit, BIKEWAYS 4. An existing Class 1, paved off -road bikeway is immediately adjacent to the site. Development of this project should not preclude the use of this popular facility. .5. The Project should link and possibly extend this existing public bikeway (see OCTA's Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan and the recently published map of existing Orange County Bikeways). 6. The project should encourage alternative transportation for visitors and employees to the site including but not limited to bikeways and other modes of public transportation. CULTURAL/HISTORICAL 7. The table of probable environmental impacts notes the potential for subsurface resources, however, there may be cultural resources in that area not "buried" that may be disturbed also. In adition to the archaeological and paleontological resources, do historical resources exist within the project area also? Mr. Patrick J. Alford Page 3 I ' WASTE MANAGEMENT S. The California Integrated Waste Management Board requires that all counties have an approved Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). To be approved, the CIWMP must demonstrate sufficient solid waste disposal capacity outside of the County's jurisdiction. Orange County's CIWMP, approved in 1996, contains future solid waste disposal demand based on the County population projections previously adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The County's database shows that the Orange County landfill system has capacity in excess of thirty (30) years. This is well above the ' fifteen -year threshold established by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. ' The County of Orange owns and operates three active landfills. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill is the closest facility to the project, and will likely be the solid waste facility receiving the waste. Notwithstanding, the City of Newport Beach is under contract to the County's Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD) to commit all of its waste to the County landfill system (not to a particular facility) until the year 2007. At the same time, the landfill system is accepting additional waste from outside Orange County. Under these circumstances, it has been agreed that should the cumulative effect of development cause the daily tonnage ceiling of a particular facility to be exceeded, the waste being imported to that facility will be reduced by a corresponding amount. Consequently, it may be assumed that adequate capacity for the subject project is available for the foreseeable future. 9. Notwithstanding the availability of capacity in the County system, the State of California requires that by the year 2000, each city and county reduce by at least 509,; the amount of waste going into landfills that each city or county had landfill -disposed in the year 1990. Waste haulers are expected to fulfill that mandate by recycling residential and commercial waste collected. Project developers are also expected'to reduce the amount ' of construction -generated waste by the same amount. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the NOP. Please send one complete copy of the DEIR to me at the above address. if you have any questions, please contact me or feel free to call Charlotte Harryman directly. Charlotte may be reached at (714) 834-2522. II II CH:8091109584572 Attachment Ve �Knaq;r ur o Environmental and Project Planning Services Division I1 � ac hwe(n open for inspection by any government agency upon request., Used oil filters should be stored in a closed rainproof container of containing any that is capable used oil and should be managed as specified in Title 22, Chapter 30, Division 4, Section 66828 of the California Code of Regulations. RC3 VEHICLES AWAITING REPAIR APITTM/TPM Approvals: Do not apply. UP/SDP Approvals: «RC3>> ER ER NA VEH AWAITING REPAIR No exterior portion of an automotive repair facility may be utilized for automobile storage other than temporary parking (less than 24 hours). Any automobile that will be stored on the premises for 24 hours or more must be stored inside the facility. No vehicle with any fluid leaks may be stored outdoors unless it has been completely drained of fluids. WQ1 POLLUTANT RUNOFF AP/UP/SDP/TTM/TPM n^^royals• «WQ1» ER SG GB POLLUTANT RUNOFF Prior to issuance of precise grading or building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from Manager, Subdivision and Grading, of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically. identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on -site to control predictable pollutant runoff. This WQMp shall identify, at a minimum, the routine, structural and non-structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) Appendix which details implementation of BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association, lessee, etc.); an(L shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs. - W02 POLLUTANT RUNOFF AP/UP/SDP/TTM/TPM a2PjMVals: «WQ2» To all discretionary projects (except u*e existing building): of existing flood space in an ER SG RGB POLLUTANT RUNOFF Prior to the recordation of a subdivision map, or issuance of precise grading permits or building permits,. whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the Manager, Subdivision and Grading, of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on -site TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY "bEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JERONAUTICS PROGRAM M.S. #40 120 N STREET - Room 3300 .0. BOX 942874 REuCIVEL7 By SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 PLANNING DEPARTMENT S916) 664-4959 CITY CF NEWPCRT 9EACH AX (916) 653-9531 Ah9 SEP 2 9 T998 PM September 24,1998 Mr. Patrick Alford 718191101412111213141316 City of Newport Beach ' Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 ' Dear Mr. Alford: Re: City of Newport Beach, Notice of Preparation for the Newport Dunes Resort The California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Program, has reviewed the above -referenced document with respect to CEQA. The following comments are offered for your consideration. ' The proposal is for a "full -service destination resort hotel" in the vicinity of the Newport Dunes Aquatic Park. The project site is located approximately three miles southwest of John Wayne Airport, just outside the 60 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) airport noise contour. As reflected in the Orange County Airport Land Use Plan noise contours, aircraft departing John Wayne Airport will overfly the project site. The Draft EIR should address ' airport -related noise and safety impacts associated with these overflights. The proposal should be submitted for review to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and to John Wayne Airport for consideration. ' Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. We look forward to reviewing the Draft EIR. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please call me at 916/654-5314. ' Sincerely, SANDYIMSNARD ' Environmental Planner ' c: Orange County ALUC, John Wayne Airport L City ofNewport Beach Memorandum To: Patrick Alford SatrFiana From: Sharon Wood XA� Assistant City Manager/Community& Economic Development Date: 09/28/98 Re: Newport Dunes NOP Attached is the report of the Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee subcommittee in response to the Dunes NOP that was approved by the full EQAC on September 21 1998. 'i8 06:23 0000000080 000QQl+LA7QQQAL ai26l98 04:21 FAX 714 839 4697 WARE DISPOSAL EIR REPORT OF SUB COMMITTEE MEETING REVIEW POINTS IMPACTCATEGORY • LAND USE AND PLANNINQ • DENSITY OF THE PROJECT • GEOTECHMCALISOILS • COMPACTIONREPORT -SOIL STUDY • TRANSPORTATIOMCIRCULATION • ENTRANCE AND ALTERNATIVE ENTRANCES TO BE STUDIED • TRAFFIC FROM ALL SERVICE VEHICLES, REGULAR AND SPECIAL TRUCKS • TRAFFIC FLOW, NOISE CREATED • PEAK AND NON PEAK TIMES FOR TRAFFIC STUDY • FOR HOTEL, NON HOTEL, TIME SHARE, AND SPECIAL FUNCTION QUESTS, CLARIFY TEE MEANING OF EACH TYPE OF GUEST • FOR HAY SIDE VILLAGE STUDY AUTO LIGHT POLLUTION • HAZARDS • POTENTIAL TOXICS • REMOVAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL PLAN FOR REMOVAL OF MATERIALS ON BEACH AND PROPERTY • NOISE • HOURS FOR FACILITY, CLEANING (EXTERIOR) • OPERATTONALHOURS AND STANDARDS F'AUt ul uOl d0 06:23 0000000000 d9/28i96 04:21 PA3 714 836 4827 00000000000AL WARE DISPOSAL PAGE 03 iu 02 • MAINTENANCE HOURS AND PLANS FOR TRAFFIC FROM MAINTENANCE VMCLES, LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE HOURS • TRAM A MOVAL-GARBAGE CANS, PLASTIC AND BOTTLES FROM BEACHES • MAINTENANCE OF FACU IIMS, CLEANING TRUCKS, LINEN TRUCKS AND BEACH DEBRIS CLEAN UP TRUCKS • MARINANOISE PROM `ACROSS THE WATER" RESIDENTS • PUBLIC SERVICES • CLARIPY E%MGENCY ROUTES -PEAK AND NON PEAK TRAFFIC • HARBORPATROL- DISCUSS INCREASE IN USAGE OF SERVICES FOR HARBOR PATROL AND BOAT TRAFFIC • POLICE DEPARTMIDC, FIRE DEPARTMENT, MARINE SAFETY, AND ENMGENCYM MICAL SERVICES • AESTHMCS • HEIGHT OF PROJECT, MASS OF PROJECT • HOW HIQH• VIEW BLOCKAGE- VIEW OBSTRUCTION • WHAT HEIGHT AND SIZE AFFECT SEA AND BLUFF VIEW • EXMUOR LIGIMG, REFLECITONS FAOMBUI WING • PUBLIC USAGE OF BEACHES (COASTAL COMMISSION REQLTRES) • LOW COST BEACH USE BY PUBLIC USERS TO BE REPLACED BY ANOTHER LOCATION (STUDY ISSUE) • LOSS OF ACCESS OF PARKING RFYLACENlENT OF 150 RV SPACES FOR RECREATIONAL USE (TO BE STUDIED) • HOURS OF OPERATION • OTHER ISSUES AS 06:23 6000000000 OQQQQQQQQQQAL PAGE 02 o Di26/QS 04:21 FAX 714 838 4807 WARE DISPOSAL Was • BOAT LAUNCH, POTENTLAkL OVERCROWDING • ADDITION OF BOAT DOCKS 6 OR MORE FOR HOTEL TO BE CONSIDERED ' • LI&IMCYAROUM;IOTnAMRJ.LOTSAMAFFWTSON MOEII E HOME OWNERS ' PARKING FOR HOTEL GUESTS WITH BOATS AND TRAILMS (SIZE, AND NUMBER OF SPACES TO BE ' REVIEWED FOR ADDED INCREASES IF NEEDED) • ALTERNATIVE USES FOR THE PROPERTY 11 [1 I I 1 I 1 1 South Coast Air Quality Management District i 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 (909) 396-2000 • http://www.agmd.gov September 30, 1998 Patrick J. Alford Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 FAXED: SEPTEMBER 30,1998 AEI,rivF-D BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OP Nlr— VPORTi PEAC}-1 AM OCT 0 51998 PM 7181911�Illll�li1213141518 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Newport Dunes Resort: City of Newport Beach Dear Mr. Alford: The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above -mentioned document. The AQMD's comments are recommendations regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the proposed project that should be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Air Ouality Analysis . ' The AQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. The AQMD recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies.,of.the Handbook are available from the AQMD Subscription Services Department by calling (909) 396-3720. ' The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction and operations should be considered. Construction -related ' air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to, emissions from the use of heavy- duty equipment for grading, earth loadinglunloading, paving, architectural coatings, off -road mobile sources (e.g., heavy-duty construction equipment), and on -road mobile sources (e.g., ' construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips). Operation -related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off -road tailpipe t emissions, and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, that is, sources that generate or attract "vehicular trips should be included in the evaluation. An analysis of all II Patrick Alford -2- September 30,1998 toxic air contaminant impacts due to the decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. Mitigation Measures In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts. To assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible mitigation measures for this project, please refer to Chapter 11 of the AQMD CEQA Handbook for sample air quality mitigation measures. Additionally, AQMD's Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust, and the Rule 403 Implementation Handbook contain numerous measures for controlling construction -related emissions that should be considered for use as CEQA mitigation if not otherwise required. Data Sources AQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the AQMD Public Information Center at (909) 396-3600. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available via the AQMD's World Wide Web Homepage (http://www.agmd.gov). The AQMD is willing to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that project -related emissions are accurately identified, categorized and evaluated. Please call Charles Blankson of my staff at (909) 396-3304 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Lupe . Valdez DEO, Public Affairs and ransportation Programs LCV:KH:CB ORC980901.05 Control No. ICJ 1 Community Development Department City of Irvine, One Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 19575, Irvine, California 92623.9575 (714) 724.6000 September 30, 1998 Mr. Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-6915 RGL'r1VED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY 0° NIPWIDORT REACH AM OCT 0 5 1998 PM 7t 819110111112111213141516 ' SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN EIR FOR A HOTEL AT THE DUNES RESORT; i� II �u Dear Mr. Alford: The City of Irvine has received and reviewed the information on the"above referenced project. The Community Development Department has forwarded the information to the Public Works Department for possible comments on transportation issues. Transportation Services staff has determined that, based on the current project description, the City of Irvine has no comments. We would appreciate information on any change in the project description. Thank you for the opportunity to review the project. ' c: II -1y yours, 1 F M. WINN, AICP Planner, Advance Planning Timor Rafiq, Principal Planner PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Memorandum 1 September 30,1998 ' TO: Patrick Alford, Senior Planner ' FROM: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: EQAC Response to Newport Dunes Resort NOP ' In reviewing my notes of the EQAC meeting of September 21, 1998, I discovered one additional comment from the Committee that was not incorporated into the subcommittee report I ' transmitted to you last week. That comment is that the noise analysis should include the cumulative impact of all the project and all existing noise sources (e.g., Pacific Coast Highway, John Wayne Airport) on Bayside Village. In addition, I suggest that the consultant review the minutes of the EQAC meeting for any additional issues and discussion on the Committee's comments. (Approved 10119198) , Sharon Wood noted the deadline for the article for the newsletter to be in is October 1, 1998. Kelly Sylvester handed out the article she had written for EQAC. A few minor , changes will be made and turned in to Ms. Wood. 4. Subcommittee Report on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for Newport Dunes Hotel on site ' located on Upper Newport Bay, east and south of Bayside Drive and north of Pacific Coast Highway. Patrick Bartolic stated the challenge the subcommittee had was to take the Mitigated Negative , Declaration for Newport Dunes Hotel and come up with items that were missing or should be addressed in the environmental impact report, Judith Ware gave a summary of key issues that need clarification. Ms. Ware distributed the subcommittee's list of bullet point items for review. ' Chairman Bigi asked if there was anything on the list that was considered more important or critical, Mr. Bartolic stated the Increase in height was a concern, and there is no plan for anyone to use the docks. He stated there is no public docking or access from the water. Ms, Ware stated they discussed Coastal Commission with staff planner. She stated they are trying to put together what is Important for the City and felt this a good opportunity to mitigate. Judith Ware stated there was not clear detail as to what was approved, Ms. Wood asked if she was referring to the County approval. She stated the environmental impact has to analyze from ground, what we have today, not from what has been approved previously. Tom Hyans asked what happens to the money collected by TOT. Ms, Ware stated that the Issues the subcommittee should be talking about are the effect on the quality of life. Virginia Herberts was concerned of the effect ' project might have on the cliffs from the ocean level, She felt that the 87-foot height would Impact all the homes, Ms. Wood stated that the height and bulk of the building that Is proposed would be analyzed in the environmental Impact report. ' Barry Eaton stated he thought that the NOP was minimal compared to the Banning Ranch document that was much more comprehensive. He stated this NOP states that there will be impacts but does not state how they are going to look at the impacts or what they are and does ' not list any alternatives, Mr. Eaton stated that one of the best advantages of the Banning Ranch NOP was that they did list the proposed alternative, and if EQAC disagreed with them they could state so, Mr. Eaton stated that the NOP does not state that the project would deal with the ' existing situation, which was a key issue raised by SPON, Mr. Eaton also noted that in the Mitigated Negative Declaration there were proposed mitigation measures that were going to be deferred until later in the process and this was another Issue raised by SPON, , Mr. Bartolic stated the subcommittee's goal was to make sure that the EIR addressed all the issues they had concerns about. He stated that at this point, those Issues were not addressed. Mr. Bartolic stated he felt that once the EIR was completed, the subcommittee could discuss ' what it means to them with the EQAC committee and together they could make recommendations to the City Council about the way they feel the City should go. Ms. Wood stated they would be asking the subcommittee to review and comment on the draft ' environmental Impact report also, to be sure that it satisfactorily addresses all the issues that EQAC would be most Interested in, Ms. Wood stated the staff is recommending LSA to the City Council to prepare the environmental Impact report. , Ms. Watt suggested that under Land Use and planning, "operational characteristics" could be added. She stated that operational characteristics should Include all the functions, including outdoors, and their cumulative effect. Ms. Watt stated the effects would be the extra service t people, the area they would use for traffic, the times they would be there for trucks for parking, the noise which travels across the waiter, the hours. Ms. Watt stated for aesthetics, mass and scale could be added. She stated that although it is Included, they could be more specific , because if it is bigger or higher than anything in the whole area, then that is the issue. t Page 2 F.\...TQAC1MInutes\09/21/98 (Approved 10119/98) Mr. McDaniel noted on the review points page that the bullets might mean something to some ' people but not to others. He asked if it would be going more in depth. Chairman Big! noted to Ms. Ware that some of the things she was saying regarding the report could be more fully verbalized in full sentences. Ms. Ware stated that the City gave the subcommittee a list that they ' went through. She stated that the handout of review points were a summary of the subcommittee meeting, Mr. Bartolic stated that the intent was to discuss the bullet points at the meeting and bring the report back to another meeting. Ms, Wood stated that 'there was no more time because the Notice of Preparation review period is up. Ms. Ware stated that the ' committee needed to comment on the bullet points and fax it to them. Mr. McDaniel stated his concern is that the committee's concerns about noise and trash pick-up, ingress/egress and traffic are correctly understood. Chairman Bigi asked the committee if there was anything on the list they would take exception to or if there is anything they would add to it. Marge Pantzar stated noise, and specifically referred to trash removal if it is done at night or in the morning it could be heard for miles. Ms. ' Pantzar suggested the commercial maintenance hours be changed to different times of day Instead of at night or early morning. ' Carol Hoffman stated that what the committee is asking for is that the staff directs the consultant to include a very significant level of detail in the analysis. Ms. Hoffman stated also that specific mitigation measures that deal with their issues be stated. She suggested the committee direct the staff to ensure the environmental consultant and the applicant know that the decision to make the environmental impact report is not a light one, the committee really wants the environmental impact report in detail and that the committee wants to review the detail of the impacts as well as a high level of detail in the mitigation measures. ' Ms. Hoffman also noted that in regard to view impacts, there is a technique that developers are using and making available to the environmental impact consultants, and it is called view ' simulations. Ms. Hoffman stated that visual simulations are created where they digitize the actual elevations, Ms. Hoffman stated the digital analysis will create what the project will look like when it is done and can show the viewpoints of significant concern to the community. Ms. ' Hoffman stated that the tools, if requested, available to the environmental impact consultants could 'be very helpful. Sharon Wood indicated this was done. for the Mitigated Negative Declaration and additional views will be included in the environmental impact report. Chairman Big! stated that Ms. Wood needs final input by the end of the week. Chairman Bigi directed the subcommittee not to add anything that is not on the list since the full committee has already reviewed it. ' Mr. Eaton stated he wanted to include an effective cumulative impact of noise, especially in Bayside Village, both from the proposed project and the existing noise from highways, John t Wayne Airport and other areas. Mr. Eaton stated that the Notice of Preparation does not include that the comparisons will be with the existing environment and not the prior approved project. Mr. Eaton stated the specific alternatives should be given exposure prior to their being finalized. He stated the alternatives should be given public exposure prior to final selection. ' Sandra Glaser asked who comes up with the alternatives. Ms. Wood stated it was the environmental impact consultant and the staff. One of the committee members asked if EQAC could review alternatives, and Ms, Wood agreed to bring them to the committee. ' Ms. Herberts asked if the impact on the ecology in the Bay is addressed adequately. Ms. Wood stated it is in the Water Quality section. Ms. Ware stated it was already addressed. Ms. Glaser stated when the committee reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the impact on the water was addressed. Ms. Glaser stated Ms. Herberts was referring to the upper ecological preserve and how it impacts the Bay and are they addressing that. Ms. Ware stated that the upper bay is included in the report. I1 Page 3 F.\... \EQAC\Minutes\09/21/98 21 (Approved 10119/98) Ms. O'Neil stated that residents of Dover Shores (which is right across the proposed project) are concerned with the size of the project and that it would attract outdoor activities that would create a great deal of noise, especially in the evenings, Ms, Ware stated that Issue would be covered under operation hours. Chairman Bigl suggested it anyone else had any points to fax them to Judith Ware or Patrick Bartolic. He stated they needed to be turned in to Ms. Wood by Friday. Status Report on General Plan Update/Quality of Ufe Discussion Chairman Bigl stated that Ms. Wood would have a summary of the Quality of Ufe discussion on the next agenda. He stated the quality of life Issues should be related to what goes Into the General Plan. Ms. Wood stated the City Council did not authorize spending money on a General Plan update, but directed that staff come back to them with a plan of attack, She stated staff is getting Ideas from this committee and others to recommend to Council the Issues that are most Important to be addressed in the General Plan update. Ms. Ware suggested that a member of the City staff such as Patricia Temple, the Planning Director, make a presentation to the committee on the background and the existing General Plan. S. Workshop on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Ms Wood provided the committee with a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process flow chart that illustrates the EIR process, and a lead agency decision to prepare an EIR chart (attached). Ms. Wood also provided the committee with the City Council policy regarding CEQA. She gave a brief summary of the purpose of CEQA, which is to provide information on the possible environmental impacts of a project to the public and to decision -making bodies. Ms, Wood informed the committee that CEQA does not require anyone to deny a project. If the decision -making body wants to approve a project with environmental impacts they must let the public know what the reasons are for approving the project. Ms. Wood described the process through which it is determined if the action proposed Is or Is not a project and how it is determined if an environmental Impact report is required. CEQA defines a `project" as an action that has the potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment. Projects Include improvements such as street widening, but not maintenance activities such as street repair. Projects include both public projects and development projects undertaken by the private sector. She noted the first question is if a project is deemed exempt from environmental review. There are two types of exemptions, statutory and categorical. Statutory exemptions are defined in the law, and include things like setting fees, planning studies, emergency projects and projects that are denied, Categorical exemptions are defined by a list of types of projects thatwiii not have a significant Impact on the environment. Some examples are minor changes to existing facilities, small structures such as single family houses (up to three) and minor subdivisions and variances. In Newport Beach, these minor projects are reviewed by the Modifications Committee, comprised of City staff, rather than at a Planning Commission public hearing. A Notice of Exemption should be filed, and the public has thirty days to challenge it. If the project is not exempt, an initial study is prepared, and on the basis of the Information , contained in the initial study, the lead agency determines whether a Negative Declaration or an EIR should be prepared. A Negative Declaration may be used when there will be Impacts, as ' long as mitigation measures are Included that will reduce the Impacts to a level of non - significance. This determination is made at the staff level, and the state law requires that it be made within thirty days of receiving a complete application. There is a public review period of twenty to thirty days, depending on whether the project needs a permit from a state agency. ' Ms. Wood stated that after the Negative Declaration and the project are approved by the decision -making body, the City should file a Notice of Determination with the County. There are thirty days for the decision to be challenged. The time period for challenging a Negative ' Page 4 P1...\EQACsMIaules\09K1l98 ' r 1 October 8, 1998 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue Phone (949) 252-5170 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Fax (949) 252-5290 I& Patrick Alford City of Newport Beach Planning Department ' 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 ' Subject: Notice of Preparation for the Newport Dunes Resort Dear W. Alford: ' The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County was recently copied on a letter ' to you from the Caltrans Aeronautics Program. However, it is unclear to us whether the resort proposal is a project separate from the Four Seasons Hotel, on which we previously provided comments regarding the protection of the navigable airspace surrounding John Wayne Airport. As in the case of the Hotel, the Commission would be concerned with the project sponsor's compliance with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Notification Requirements, under ' Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77.13. Enclosed for your reference is a copy of FAA Form 7460-1, which is required by FAR Part 77 as the notification/ determination document. ' Similarly, a separate issue incumbent upon the City to examine in the EIR is the question of whether or not the project will trespass upon the Avigation Easement area, held by the County of Orange, surrounding John Wayne Airport. ' Please clarify to this office whether or not the subject project is separate from the hotel project on which we previously commented. To this end, please do not hesitate to contact me at the number listed above. 1 14 I I1 II Sincerely, cz:� Eric R. Freed Executive Officer Enclosure cc: Sandy Hesnard, Caltrans/Aeronautics Program PLANNING DEPART NINMENT CITY n;: NFUIonPT REACH AM OCT 12 1998 7181911011111Phi 21112131415 g VI